58|"Yields of Irrigated Crops (Component)"|"cocropyld"|"irryield_r"|"Float"||2|"These are the estimated average yields per acre that can be expected of selected irrigated crops under a high level of management. In any given year, yields may be higher or lower than those indicated because of variations in rainfall and other climatic factors. It is assumed that the irrigation system is adapted to the soils and to the crops grown, that good-quality irrigation water is uniformly applied as needed, and that tillage is kept to a minimum.

In the database, some states maintain crop yield data by individual map unit component and others maintain the data at the map unit level. Attributes are included in this application for both, although only one or the other is likely to have data for any given geographic area. This attribute uses data maintained at the map unit component level.

The yields are actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value for the component. For these yields, only the representative value is used.

The yields are based mainly on the experience and records of farmers, conservationists, and extension agents. Available yield data from nearby areas and results of field trials and demonstrations also are considered.

The management needed to obtain the indicated yields of the various crops depends on the kind of soil and the crop. Management can include drainage, erosion control, and protection from flooding; the proper planting and seeding rates; suitable high-yielding crop varieties; appropriate and timely tillage; control of weeds, plant diseases, and harmful insects; favorable soil reaction and optimum levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and trace elements for each crop; effective use of crop residue, barnyard manure, and green manure crops; and harvesting that ensures the smallest possible loss.

The estimated yields reflect the productive capacity of each soil for the selected crop. Yields are likely to increase as new production technology is developed. The productivity of a given soil compared with that of other soils, however, is not likely to change."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||1|"IrrYldCo"||"cropname"|"Choice"|"Crop"|"yldunits"|"Choice"|"Yield Units"|0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|04/26/2007 07:13:43|"Weighted Average"||1|"Float"
77|"Forest Productivity (Cubic Feet per Acre per Year)"|"coforprod"|"fprod_r"|"Float"||2|"This forest productivity measurement is the maximum wood volume annual growth rate for unmanaged, even-aged stands.  Units are cubic feet per acre per year. This is called the ""culmination of mean annual increment"" (CMAI).

Mean annual increment (MAI) is the average yearly wood volume growth per acre of a stand. This is computed by dividing the total wood volume by the stand age. As the stand increases in age, the MAI also increases until tree-to-tree competition and physiological maturity reduce the rate of increase. The point when a stand reaches its maximum MAI is called the ""culmination of mean annual increment"" (CMAI).

This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this attribute, only the representative value is used.

This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this attribute, only the representative value is used."|"cubic feet per acre per year"||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||1|"ForestProd"||"plantcomname"|"String"|"Tree"|"siteindexbase"|"Choice"|"Site Index Base"|0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|06/02/2022 21:59:12|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
81|"Range Production (Normal Year)"|"component"|"rsprod_r"|"Integer"|||"Total range production is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow annually in a well managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody plants. It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation. In a normal year, growing conditions are about average. Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-dry moisture content.

In areas that have similar climate and topography, differences in the kind and amount of vegetation produced on rangeland are closely related to the kind of soil. Effective management is based on the relationship between the soils and vegetation and water."|"pounds per acre per year"|"lbs/acre/yr"|"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||1|"RngProdNY"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:55:04|"Weighted Average"||1|"Integer"
89|"Range Production (Unfavorable Year)"|"component"|"rsprod_l"|"Integer"|||"Total range production is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow annually in a well managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody plants. It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation. In an unfavorable year, growing conditions are well below average, generally because of low available soil moisture. Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-dry moisture content.

In areas that have similar climate and topography, differences in the kind and amount of vegetation produced on rangeland are closely related to the kind of soil. Effective management is based on the relationship between the soils and vegetation and water."|"pounds per acre per year"|"lbs/acre/yr"|"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||1|"RngProdUY"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:55:54|"Weighted Average"||1|"Integer"
99|"Yields of Irrigated Crops (Map Unit)"|"mucropyld"|"irryield_r"|"Float"||2|"These are the estimated average yields per acre that can be expected of selected irrigated crops under a high level of management. In any given year, yields may be higher or lower than those indicated because of variations in rainfall and other climatic factors. It is assumed that the irrigation system is adapted to the soils and to the crops grown, that good-quality irrigation water is uniformly applied as needed, and that tillage is kept to a minimum.

In the database, some states maintain crop yield data by individual map unit component and others maintain the data at the map unit level. Attributes are included in this application for both, although only one or the other is likely to contain data for any given geographic area. This attribute uses data maintained at the map unit level.

The yields are actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value for the component. For these yields, only the representative value is used.

The yields are based mainly on the experience and records of farmers, conservationists, and extension agents. Available yield data from nearby areas and results of field trials and demonstrations also are considered.

The management needed to obtain the indicated yields of the various crops depends on the kind of soil and the crop. Management can include drainage, erosion control, and protection from flooding; the proper planting and seeding rates; suitable high-yielding crop varieties; appropriate and timely tillage; control of weeds, plant diseases, and harmful insects; favorable soil reaction and optimum levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and trace elements for each crop; effective use of crop residue, barnyard manure, and green manure crops; and harvesting that ensures the smallest possible loss.

The estimated yields reflect the productive capacity of each soil for the selected crop. Yields are likely to increase as new production technology is developed. The productivity of a given soil compared with that of other soils, however, is not likely to change."|||"Property"||||1|0|0|0||1|||1|"IrrYldMU"||"cropname"|"Choice"|"Crop"|"yldunits"|"Choice"|"Yield Units"|0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|04/26/2007 07:17:37|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Float"
100|"Yields of Non-Irrigated Crops (Map Unit)"|"mucropyld"|"nonirryield_r"|"Float"||2|"These are the estimated average yields per acre that can be expected of selected nonirrigated crops under a high level of management. In any given year, yields may be higher or lower than those indicated because of variations in rainfall and other climatic factors.

In the database, some states maintain crop yield data by individual map unit component and others maintain the data at the map unit level. Attributes are included in this application for both, although only one or the other is likely to contain data for any given geographic area. This attribute uses data maintained at the map unit level. 

The yields are actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value for the component. For these yields, only the representative value is used.

The yields are based mainly on the experience and records of farmers, conservationists, and extension agents. Available yield data from nearby areas and results of field trials and demonstrations also are considered.

The management needed to obtain the indicated yields of the various crops depends on the kind of soil and the crop. Management can include drainage, erosion control, and protection from flooding; the proper planting and seeding rates; suitable high-yielding crop varieties; appropriate and timely tillage; control of weeds, plant diseases, and harmful insects; favorable soil reaction and optimum levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and trace elements for each crop; effective use of crop residue, barnyard manure, and green manure crops; and harvesting that ensures the smallest possible loss.

The estimated yields reflect the productive capacity of each soil for the selected crop. Yields are likely to increase as new production technology is developed. The productivity of a given soil compared with that of other soils, however, is not likely to change."|||"Property"||||1|0|0|0||1|||1|"NirrYldMU"||"cropname"|"Choice"|"Crop"|"yldunits"|"Choice"|"Yield Units"|0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|04/26/2007 07:18:47|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Float"
190|"Crop Productivity Index"|"component"|"cropprodindex"|"Integer"|||"Crop productivity index ratings provide a relative ranking of soils based on their potential for intensive crop production. An index can be used to rate the potential yield of one soil against that of another over a period of time. Ratings range from 0 to 100. The higher numbers indicate higher production potential. The rating is not crop specific.  Minnesota inquiries must use the 'Map Unit Cropland Productivity Report (MN)' soils report from the Soil Reports tab under 'Vegetative Productivity'.  

When the soils are rated, the following assumptions are made: a) adequate management, b) natural weather conditions (no irrigation), c) artificial drainage where required, d) no frequent flooding on the lower lying soils, and e) no land leveling or terracing. Even though predicted average yields will change with time, the productivity indices are expected to remain relatively constant in relation to one another over time.
"|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||1|"CropProdIn"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|08/11/2017 15:58:54|"Weighted Average"||1|"Integer"
14|"Range Production (Favorable Year)"|"component"|"rsprod_h"|"Integer"|||"Total range production is the amount of vegetation that can be expected to grow annually in a well managed area that is supporting the potential natural plant community. It includes all vegetation, whether or not it is palatable to grazing animals. It includes the current year's growth of leaves, twigs, and fruits of woody plants. It does not include the increase in stem diameter of trees and shrubs. It is expressed in pounds per acre of air-dry vegetation. In a favorable year, the amount and distribution of precipitation and the temperatures make growing conditions substantially better than average. Yields are adjusted to a common percent of air-dry moisture content.

In areas that have similar climate and topography, differences in the kind and amount of vegetation produced on rangeland are closely related to the kind of soil. Effective management is based on the relationship between the soils and vegetation and water."|"pounds per acre per year"|"lbs/acre/yr"|"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||1|"RngProdFY"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:53:53|"Weighted Average"||1|"Integer"
25|"Yields of Non-Irrigated Crops (Component)"|"cocropyld"|"nonirryield_r"|"Float"||2|"These are the estimated average yields per acre that can be expected of selected nonirrigated crops under a high level of management. In any given year, yields may be higher or lower than those indicated because of variations in rainfall and other climatic factors.

In the database, some states maintain crop yield data by individual map unit component and others maintain the data at the map unit level. Attributes are included in this application for both, although only one or the other is likely to contain data for any given geographic area. This attribute uses data maintained at the map unit component level.

The yields are actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value for the component. For these yields, only the representative value is used.

The yields are based mainly on the experience and records of farmers, conservationists, and extension agents. Available yield data from nearby areas and results of field trials and demonstrations also are considered.

The management needed to obtain the indicated yields of the various crops depends on the kind of soil and the crop. Management can include drainage, erosion control, and protection from flooding; the proper planting and seeding rates; suitable high-yielding crop varieties; appropriate and timely tillage; control of weeds, plant diseases, and harmful insects; favorable soil reaction and optimum levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and trace elements for each crop; effective use of crop residue, barnyard manure, and green manure crops; and harvesting that ensures the smallest possible loss.

The estimated yields reflect the productive capacity of each soil for the selected crop. Yields are likely to increase as new production technology is developed. The productivity of a given soil compared with that of other soils, however, is not likely to change."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||1|"NirrYldCo"||"cropname"|"Choice"|"Crop"|"yldunits"|"Choice"|"Yield Units"|0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|04/26/2007 07:15:43|"Weighted Average"||1|"Float"
49|"Forest Productivity (Tree Site Index)"|"coforprod"|"siteindex_r"|"Integer"|||"The ""site index"" is the average height, in feet, that dominant and codominant trees of a given species attain in a specified number of years. The site index applies to fully stocked, even-aged, unmanaged stands. 

This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this attribute, only the representative value is used."|"feet"|"ft"|"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||1|"SiteIndex"||"plantcomname"|"String"|"Tree"|"siteindexbase"|"Choice"|"Site Index Base"|0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|04/03/2009 08:09:27|"Dominant Component"||1|"Integer"
189|"Iowa Corn Suitability Rating CSR2 (IA)"|"mapunit"|"iacornsr"|"Integer"|||"This attribute is only applicable to soils in the state of Iowa.  Corn suitability ratings (CSR2) provide a relative ranking of all soils mapped in the State of Iowa according to their potential for the intensive production of row crops. The CSR2 is an index that can be used to rate the potential yield of one soil against that of another over a period of time. Considered in the ratings are average weather conditions and frequency of use of the soil for row crops. Ratings range from 100 for soils that have no physical limitations, occur on minimal slopes, and can be continuously row cropped to as low as 5 for soils that are severely limited for the production of row crops. 

When the soils are rated, the following assumptions are made: a) adequate management, b) natural weather conditions (no irrigation), c) artificial drainage where required, d) no frequent flooding on the lower lying soils, and e) no land leveling or terracing. The weighted CSR2 for a given field can be modified by the occurrence of sandy spots, local deposits, rock and gravel outcrops, field boundaries, and noncrossable drainageways. Even though predicted average yields will change with time, the CSR2 values are expected to remain relatively constant in relation to one another over time."|||"Property"||||1|0|0|0||1|||1|"IaCornSR"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|07/22/2015 09:22:17|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Integer"
2660|"Minnesota Crop Productivity Index"|"mutext"|"text"|"Narrative Text"|||"The Minnesota Crop Productivity Index (CPI) ratings provide a relative ranking of soils based on their potential for intensive row crop production.  An index can be used to rate the potential yield of one soil against that of another over a period of time.  Ratings range from 0 to 100.  The higher numbers indicate higher production potential.

The CPI ratings do not take into account climatic factors, such as the differences in precipitation or growing degree days across Minnesota.  The ratings are based on physical and chemical properties of the soils and on such hazards and flooding and ponding.  Available water capacity, reaction (pH), slopes, soil moisture status, cation-exchange capacity (CEC), organic matter content, salinity, and surface fragments are the major properties evaluated when CPI ratings are generated.  The soil properties selected are those that are important for the production of corn.

All map units in Minnesota were initially evaluated using the Cropland Productivity rule in the National Soil Information System (NASIS).  They were assigned a value using an overall CPI based on the combined properties and characteristics of the map unit as a whole, and the values were adjusted based on tacit knowledge of local experts.  An individual map unit (for example, Canisteo clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes) will have the same CPI value wherever that map unit occurs throughout the state.

When the soils are rated, the following assumptions are made:  a) adequate management, b) no irrigation, c) artificial drainage where required, d) no land leveling or terracing, and e) no climatic factors considered. 

The map unit CPI was used to update the map unit crop yields for corn and soybeans.  Even through predicted average yields will change with time, the productivity indices are expected to remain relatively constant in relation to one another over time."|||"Property"||||0|0|0|0||0|||-1|"MNCPI"|"textcat='CropProd'"|||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|4||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""4"">
  <ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random"">
    <Values min=""50"" max=""99"" />
    <Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" />
    <Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|05/04/2019 18:01:38|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Narrative Text"
46|"Corrosion of Steel"|"component"|"corsteel"|"Choice"|254||"""Risk of corrosion"" pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens uncoated steel. The rate of corrosion of uncoated steel is related to such factors as soil moisture, particle-size distribution, acidity, and electrical conductivity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The steel in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the steel in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer.

The risk of corrosion is expressed as ""low,"" ""moderate,"" or ""high."""|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0|"corrosion_uncoated_steel"|1|||1|"CorSteel"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|2||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""2""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""High"" label=""High"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Low"" label=""Low"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|02/28/2007 14:17:09|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
40|"Lawns, Landscaping, and Golf Fairways"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation rates soils for their use in establishing and maintaining turf for lawns and golf fairways and ornamental trees and shrubs for residential or commercial landscaping. Lawns and landscaping require soils on which turf and ornamental trees and shrubs can be established and maintained. Golf fairways are subject to heavy foot traffic and some light vehicular traffic. Cutting or filling may be required. 

The ratings are based on the use of soil material at the site, which may have been altered by some land smoothing. Irrigation may or may not be needed and is not a criterion in rating. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth and trafficability after vegetation is established. The properties that affect plant growth are reaction; depth to a water table; ponding; depth to bedrock or a cemented pan; the available water capacity in the upper 40 inches; the content of salts, sodium, or calcium carbonate; and sulfidic materials. The properties that affect trafficability are flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, stoniness, and the amount of sand, clay, or organic matter in the surface layer. The suitability of the soil for traps, tees, roughs, and greens is not considered in the ratings.

Not considered in the ratings, but important in evaluating a site, are the location and accessibility of the area, the size and shape of the area and its scenic quality, vegetation, access to water, potential water impoundment sites, and access to public sewer lines. Soils that are subject to flooding are limited by the duration and intensity of flooding and the season when flooding occurs. In planning for lawns, landscaping, or golf fairways, onsite assessment of the height, duration, intensity, and frequency of flooding is essential.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Lawn, Landscape, Golf Fairway"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"LawnLSGolf"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|07/23/2009 06:26:53|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
5|"Small Commercial Buildings"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Small commercial buildings are structures that are less than three stories high and do not have basements. The foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility (which is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil). The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include flooding, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Small Commercial Buildings"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SmCommBldg"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:14:46|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
95|"Corrosion of Concrete"|"component"|"corcon"|"Choice"|254||"""Risk of corrosion"" pertains to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that corrodes or weakens concrete. The rate of corrosion of concrete is based mainly on the sulfate and sodium content, texture, moisture content, and acidity of the soil. Special site examination and design may be needed if the combination of factors results in a severe hazard of corrosion. The concrete in installations that intersect soil boundaries or soil layers is more susceptible to corrosion than the concrete in installations that are entirely within one kind of soil or within one soil layer.

The risk of corrosion is expressed as ""low,"" ""moderate,"" or ""high."""|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0|"corrosion_concrete"|1|||1|"CorConcret"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|2||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""2""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""High"" label=""High"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Low"" label=""Low"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|02/28/2007 14:16:12|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
80|"Dwellings With Basements"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings with basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of about 7 feet.

The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. 

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Dwellings With Basements"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"DwellWB"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:55:29|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
55|"Shallow Excavations"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Shallow excavations are trenches or holes dug to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet for graves, utility lines, open ditches, or other purposes. The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging and the resistance to sloughing. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, the amount of large stones, and dense layers influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table, flooding, and ponding may restrict the period when excavations can be made. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture, depth to the water table, and linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential) influence the resistance to sloughing.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Shallow Excavations"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"ShallExcv"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:14:09|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
69|"Dwellings Without Basements"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Dwellings are single-family houses of three stories or less. For dwellings without basements, the foundation is assumed to consist of spread footings of reinforced concrete built on undisturbed soil at a depth of 2 feet or at the depth of maximum frost penetration, whichever is deeper.

The ratings for dwellings are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to support a load without movement and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the load-supporting capacity include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), and compressibility. Compressibility is inferred from the Unified classification of the soil. The properties that affect the ease and amount of excavation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the amount and size of rock fragments.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Dwellings W/O Basements"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"DwellWOB"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:35:11|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
93|"Local Roads and Streets"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Local roads and streets have an all-weather surface and carry automobile and light truck traffic all year. They have a subgrade of cut or fill soil material; a base of gravel, crushed rock, or soil material stabilized by lime or cement; and a surface of flexible material (asphalt), rigid material (concrete), or gravel with a binder. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading and the traffic-supporting capacity. The properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, the amount of large stones, and slope. The properties that affect the traffic-supporting capacity are soil strength (as inferred from the AASHTO group index number), subsidence, linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential), the potential for frost action, depth to a water table, and ponding.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Local Roads and Streets"|1||0|1|0|0||0|||1|"RoadStreet"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|06/06/2014 08:04:25|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
621|"Unpaved Local Roads and Streets"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Unpaved local roads and streets are those roads and streets that carry traffic year round but have a graded surface of local soil material or aggregate. 
Description:

Unpaved local roads and streets are those roads and streets that carry traffic year round but have a graded surface of local soil material or aggregate. 
The roads and streets consist of
(1) the underlying local soil material, either cut or fill, which is called ""the sub-grade"";
(2) the surface, which may be the same as the subgrade or may have aggrate such as crushed limestone added.

They are graded to shed water, and conventional drainage measures are provided.  These roads and streets are built mainly from the soil at the site. Soil interpretations for local roads and streets are used as a tool in evaluating soil suitability and identifying soil limitations for the practice.  The rating is for soils in their present condition and does not consider present land use. Soil properties and qualities that affect local roads and streets are those that influence the ease of excavation and grading and the traffic-supporting capacity.  The properties and qualities that affect the ease of excavation and grading are hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to a water table, flooding, the amount of large stones, and slope.  The properties that affect traffic-supporting capacity are soil strength as inferred from the AASHTO group index and the Unified classification, subsidence, shrink-swell behavior, potential frost action, and depth to the seasonal high water table.  The dust generating tendacy of the soil is also considered."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Unpaved Local Roads and Streets"|1||0|1|0|0||0|||1|"Unpaved"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|06/06/2014 08:06:11|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2738|"Ground-based Solar Arrays, Soil-penetrating Anchor Systems"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Ground-based Solar Arrays, Soil-penetrating Anchor Systems

Ground-based solar arrays are sets of photovoltaic panels that are not situated on a building or pole.  These installations consist of a racking system that holds the panel in the desired orientation and the foundation structures that hold the racking system to the ground.  Two basic methods are used to hold the systems to the ground, based on site conditions and cost.  One method employs driven piles, screw augers, or concrete piers that penetrate into the soil to provide a stable foundation. The ease of installation and general site suitability of soil-penetrating anchoring systems depends on soil characteristics such as rock fragment content, soil depth, soil strength, soil corrosivity, shrink-swell tendencies, and drainage.  The other basic anchoring system utilizes precast ballasted footings or ballasted trays on the soil surface to make the arrays too heavy to move.  The site considerations that impact both basic systems are slope, slope aspect, wind speed, land surface shape, flooding, and ponding.  Other factors that will contribute to the function of a solar power array include daily hours of sunlight and shading from hills, trees or buildings.


Soil-penetrating anchoring systems can be used where the soil conditions are not limited.  Installation of these systems requires some power equipment for hauling components and either driving piles, turning helices, or boring holes to install the anchoring apparatus.  


Soils can be a non-member, partial member or complete members of the set of soils that are limited for ""Ground-based Solar Panel Arrays"".  If a soil's property within 150 cm (60 inches) of the soil surface has a membership indices greater than zero, then that soil property is limiting and the soil restrictive feature is identified.  The overall interpretive rating assigned is the maximum membership indices of each soil interpretive property that comprise the ""Ground-based Solar Panel Array"" interpretive rule.  Minor restrictive soil features are identified but not considered as part of the overall rating process.  These restrictive features could be important factors where the major restrictive features are overcome through design application.

Soils are placed into interpretive rating classes per their rating indices.  These are not limited (rating index = 0), somewhat limited (rating index greater than 0 and less than 1.0), or very limited (rating index = 1.0).

Numerical ratings indicate the degree of limitation. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil has the least similarity to a good site (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is very much like known good sites (0).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

References:


Canada, S. 2012. Corrosion impacts on steel piles.  Solarpro. Solarprofessional.com.

Romanoff, Melvin. 1962. Corrosion of Steel Pilings in Soils.  Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards. (Volume 66C, No. 3). July/September, 1962.
"|||"Interpretation"|"Ground-based Solar Arrays, Soil-penetrating Anchor Systems"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SolarInSoi"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|23491|01/03/2018 20:12:29|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2739|"Ground-based Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Ground-based Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems

Ground-based solar arrays are sets of photovoltaic panels that are not situated on a building or pole.  These installations consist of a racking system that holds the panel in the desired orientation and the foundation structures that hold the racking system to the ground.  Two basic methods are used to hold the systems to the ground, based on site conditions and cost.  One method employs driven piles, screw augers, or concrete piers that penetrate into the soil to provide a stable foundation. The ease of installation and general site suitability of soil-penetrating anchoring systems depends on soil characteristics such as rock fragment content, soil depth, soil strength, soil corrosivity, shrink-swell tendencies, and drainage.  The other basic anchoring system utilizes precast ballasted footings or ballasted trays on the soil surface to make the arrays too heavy to move.  The site considerations that impact both basic systems are slope, slope aspect, wind speed, land surface shape, flooding, and ponding.  Other factors that will contribute to the function of a solar power array include daily hours of sunlight and shading from hills, trees, or buildings.

Ballast anchor systems can be used in some places where soil-penetrating systems cannot, such as in shallow or stony soil.  Also, since they do not penetrate the soil, ballast systems can be used where the soil is contaminated and disturbance is to be avoided.  The soil in the area must have sufficient strength to be able to support the vehicles that haul the ballast and the machinery to install it.

Soils can be a non-member, partial member or complete members of the set of soils that are limited for ""Ground-based Solar Panel Arrays"".  If a soil's property within 150 cm (60 inches) of the soil surface has a membership indices greater than zero, then that soil property is limiting and the soil restrictive feature is identified.  The overall interpretive rating assigned is the maximum membership indices of each soil interpretive property that comprise the ""Ground-based Solar Panel Arrays"" interpretive rule.  Minor restrictive soil features are identified but not considered as part of the overall rating process.  These restrictive features could be important factors where the major restrictive features are overcome through design application.

Soils are placed into interpretive rating classes per their rating indices.  These are not limited (rating index = 0), somewhat limited (rating index greater than 0 and less than 1.0), or very limited (rating index = 1.0).


Numerical ratings indicate the degree of limitation. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil has the least similarity to a good site (1.0) and the point at which the soil feature is very much like known good sites (0).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

References:


Canada, S. 2012. Corrosion impacts on steel piles.  Solarpro. Solarprofessional.com.

Romanoff, Melvin. 1962. Corrosion of Steel Pilings in Soils.  Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards. (Volume 66C, No. 3). July/September, 1962.
"|||"Interpretation"|"Ground-based Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SolBallast"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|23491|01/03/2018 20:15:34|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2830|"Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Ground-based Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems

Ground-based solar arrays are sets of photovoltaic panels that are not situated on a building or pole.  These installations consist of a racking system that holds the panel in the desired orientation and the foundation structures that hold the racking system to the ground.  Two basic methods are used to hold the systems to the ground, based on site conditions and cost.  One method employs driven piles, screw augers, or concrete piers that penetrate into the soil to provide a stable foundation. The ease of installation and general site suitability of soil-penetrating anchoring systems depends on soil characteristics such as rock fragment content, soil depth, soil strength, soil corrosivity, shrink-swell tendencies, and drainage.  The other basic anchoring system utilizes precast ballasted footings or ballasted trays on the soil surface to make the arrays too heavy to move.  The site considerations that impact both basic systems are slope, slope aspect, wind speed, land surface shape, flooding, and ponding.  Other factors that will contribute to the function of a solar power array include daily hours of sunlight and shading from hills, trees, or buildings.

Ballast anchor systems can be used in some places where soil-penetrating systems cannot, such as in shallow or stony soil.  Also, since they do not penetrate the soil, ballast systems can be used where the soil is contaminated and disturbance is to be avoided.  The soil in the area must have sufficient strength to be able to support the vehicles that haul the ballast and the machinery to install it.

Soils can be a non-member, partial member or complete members of the set of soils that are limited for ""Ground-based Solar Panel Arrays"".  If a soil's property within 150 cm (60 inches) of the soil surface has a membership indices greater than zero, then that soil property is limiting and the soil restrictive feature is identified.  The overall interpretive rating assigned is the maximum membership indices of each soil interpretive property that comprise the ""Ground-based Solar Panel Arrays"" interpretive rule.  Minor restrictive soil features are identified but not considered as part of the overall rating process.  These restrictive features could be important factors where the major restrictive features are overcome through design application.

Soils are placed into interpretive rating classes per their rating indices.  These are not limited (rating index = 0), somewhat limited (rating index greater than 0 and less than 1.0), or very limited (rating index = 1.0).


Numerical ratings indicate the degree of limitation. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil has the least similarity to a good site (1.0) and the point at which the soil feature is very much like known good sites (0).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

References:


Canada, S. 2012. Corrosion impacts on steel piles.  Solarpro. Solarprofessional.com.

Romanoff, Melvin. 1962. Corrosion of Steel Pilings in Soils.  Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards. (Volume 66C, No. 3). July/September, 1962.
"|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Ground-based Solar Arrays, Ballast Anchor Systems"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SolArrBall"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|07/30/2021 16:05:04|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2831|"Solar Arrays, Soil-based Anchor Systems"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Ground-based Solar Arrays, Soil-penetrating Anchor Systems

Ground-based solar arrays are sets of photovoltaic panels that are not situated on a building or pole.  These installations consist of a racking system that holds the panel in the desired orientation and the foundation structures that hold the racking system to the ground.  Two basic methods are used to hold the systems to the ground, based on site conditions and cost.  One method employs driven piles, screw augers, or concrete piers that penetrate into the soil to provide a stable foundation. The ease of installation and general site suitability of soil-penetrating anchoring systems depends on soil characteristics such as rock fragment content, soil depth, soil strength, soil corrosivity, shrink-swell tendencies, and drainage.  The other basic anchoring system utilizes precast ballasted footings or ballasted trays on the soil surface to make the arrays too heavy to move.  The site considerations that impact both basic systems are slope, slope aspect, wind speed, land surface shape, flooding, and ponding.  Other factors that will contribute to the function of a solar power array include daily hours of sunlight and shading from hills, trees or buildings.


Soil-penetrating anchoring systems can be used where the soil conditions are not limited.  Installation of these systems requires some power equipment for hauling components and either driving piles, turning helices, or boring holes to install the anchoring apparatus.  


Soils can be a non-member, partial member or complete members of the set of soils that are limited for ""Ground-based Solar Panel Arrays"".  If a soil's property within 150 cm (60 inches) of the soil surface has a membership indices greater than zero, then that soil property is limiting and the soil restrictive feature is identified.  The overall interpretive rating assigned is the maximum membership indices of each soil interpretive property that comprise the ""Ground-based Solar Panel Array"" interpretive rule.  Minor restrictive soil features are identified but not considered as part of the overall rating process.  These restrictive features could be important factors where the major restrictive features are overcome through design application.

Soils are placed into interpretive rating classes per their rating indices.  These are not limited (rating index = 0), somewhat limited (rating index greater than 0 and less than 1.0), or very limited (rating index = 1.0).

Numerical ratings indicate the degree of limitation. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil has the least similarity to a good site (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is very much like known good sites (0).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

References:


Canada, S. 2012. Corrosion impacts on steel piles.  Solarpro. Solarprofessional.com.

Romanoff, Melvin. 1962. Corrosion of Steel Pilings in Soils.  Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards. (Volume 66C, No. 3). July/September, 1962.
"|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Ground-based Solar Arrays, Soil-based Anchor Systems"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SolArrSoil"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|07/30/2021 16:08:04|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
79|"Sand Source"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Sand is a natural aggregate (0.05 millimeter to 2 millimeters in diameter) suitable for commercial use with a minimum of processing. It is used in many kinds of construction. Specifications for each use vary widely. Only the probability of finding material in suitable quantity is evaluated. The suitability of the material for specific purposes is not evaluated, nor are factors that affect excavation of the material.

The properties used to evaluate the soil as a source of sand are gradation of grain sizes (as indicated by the Unified classification of the soil), the thickness of suitable material, and the content of rock fragments. If the bottom layer of the soil contains sand, the soil is considered a likely source regardless of thickness. The assumption is that the sand layer below the depth of observation exceeds the minimum thickness. The ratings are for the whole soil, from the surface to a depth of about 6 feet.

The soils are rated ""good,"" ""fair,"" or ""poor"" as potential sources of sand. A rating of ""good"" or ""fair"" means that sand is likely to be in or below the soil. The bottom layer and the thickest layer of the soil are assigned numerical ratings. These ratings indicate the likelihood that the layer is a source of sand. The number 0.00 indicates that the layer is a ""poor source."" The number 1.00 indicates that the layer is a ""good source."" A number between 0.00 and 1.00 indicates the degree to which the layer is a likely source.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Construction Materials; Sand Source"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"SandSrc"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:16:32|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
43|"Topsoil Source"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Topsoil is used to cover an area so that vegetation can be established and maintained. The surface layer of most soils is generally preferred for topsoil because of its content of organic matter. Organic matter greatly increases the absorption and retention of moisture and nutrients for plant growth.

The upper 40 inches of a soil is evaluated for use as topsoil. Also evaluated is the reclamation potential of the borrow area. Normal compaction, minor processing, and other standard construction practices are assumed.

The soils are rated ""good,"" ""fair,"" or ""poor"" as potential sources of topsoil. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect plant growth; the ease of excavating, loading, and spreading the material; and reclamation of the borrow area. Toxic substances, soil reaction, and the properties that are inferred from soil texture, such as available water capacity and fertility, affect plant growth. The ease of excavating, loading, and spreading is affected by rock fragments, slope, depth to a water table, soil texture, and thickness of suitable material. Reclamation of the borrow area is affected by slope, depth to a water table, rock fragments, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and toxic material.

Numerical ratings between 0.00 and 0.99 are given after the specified features. These numbers indicate the degree to which the features limit the soils as sources of topsoil. The lower the number, the greater the limitation.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Construction Materials; Topsoil"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"TopsoilSrc"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:19:17|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
20|"Source of Reclamation Material"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Reclamation material is used in areas that have been drastically disturbed by surface mining or similar activities. When these areas are reclaimed, layers of soil material or unconsolidated geological material, or both, are replaced in a vertical sequence. The reconstructed soil favors plant growth. The ratings do not apply to quarries or other mined areas that require an offsite source of reconstruction material. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect erosion and stability of the surface and the productive potential of the reclaimed soil. These properties include the content of sodium, salts, and calcium carbonate; reaction; available water capacity; erodibility; texture; content of rock fragments; and content of organic matter and other features that affect fertility.

The soils are rated ""good,"" ""fair,"" or ""poor"" as potential sources of reclamation material. The ratings are based on the amount of suitable material and on soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and the performance of the material after it is in place. The thickness of the suitable material is a major consideration. The ease of excavation is affected by large stones, depth to a water table, and slope. How well the soil performs in place after it has been compacted and drained is determined by its strength (as inferred from the AASHTO classification of the soil) and linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential). Normal compaction, minor processing, and other standard construction practices are assumed.

When the material is properly used in reclamation, a rating of ""good"" means that establishing and maintaining vegetation are relatively easy, that the surface is stable and resists erosion, and that the reclaimed soil has good potential productivity. A rating of ""fair"" means that vegetation can be established and maintained and the soil can be stabilized through modification of one or more properties. For satisfactory performance, it may be necessary to topdress with better suited material or add soil amendments. A rating of ""poor"" means that revegetation and stabilization are very difficult and costly. To establish and maintain vegetation, it is necessary to topdress with better suited material.

Numerical ratings between 0.00 and 0.99 are given after the specified features. These numbers indicate the degree to which the features limit the soils as sources of reclamation material. The lower the number, the greater the limitation.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Construction Materials; Reclamation"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"ReclamMSrc"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:13:46|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
21|"Roadfill Source"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Roadfill is soil material that is excavated in one place and used in road embankments in another place. The soils are rated as a source of roadfill for low embankments, generally less than 6 feet high and less exacting in design than higher embankments. The ratings are for the whole soil, from the surface to a depth of about 5 feet. It is assumed that soil layers will be mixed when the soil material is excavated and spread.

The soils are rated ""good,"" ""fair,"" or ""poor"" as potential sources of roadfill. The ratings are based on the amount of suitable material and on soil properties that affect the ease of excavation and the performance of the material after it is in place. The thickness of the suitable material is a major consideration. The ease of excavation is affected by large stones, depth to a water table, and slope. How well the soil performs in place after it has been compacted and drained is determined by its strength (as inferred from the AASHTO classification of the soil) and linear extensibility (shrink-swell potential). Normal compaction, minor processing, and other standard construction practices are assumed.

Numerical ratings between 0.00 and 0.99 are given after the specified features. These numbers indicate the degree to which the features limit the soils as sources of roadfill. The lower the number, the greater the limitation.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Construction Materials; Roadfill"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"RoadFilSrc"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:14:51|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
22|"Gravel Source"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Gravel consists of natural aggregates (2 to 75 millimeters in diameter) suitable for commercial use with a minimum of processing. It is used in many kinds of construction. Specifications for each use vary widely. Only the probability of finding material in suitable quantity is evaluated. The suitability of the material for specific purposes is not evaluated, nor are factors that affect excavation of the material.

The properties used to evaluate the soil as a source of gravel are gradation of grain sizes (as indicated by the Unified classification of the soil), the thickness of suitable material, and the content of rock fragments. If the bottom layer of the soil contains gravel, the soil is considered a likely source regardless of thickness. The assumption is that the gravel layer below the depth of observation exceeds the minimum thickness. The ratings are for the whole soil, from the surface to a depth of about 6 feet. Coarse fragments of soft bedrock, such as shale and siltstone, are not considered to be gravel.

The soils are rated ""good,"" ""fair,"" or ""poor"" as potential sources of gravel. A rating of ""good"" or ""fair"" means that the source material is likely to be in or below the soil. The bottom layer and the thickest layer of the soils are assigned numerical ratings. These ratings indicate the likelihood that the layer is a source of gravel. The number 0.00 indicates that the layer is a poor source. The number 1.00 indicates that the layer is a good source. A number between 0.00 and 1.00 indicates the degree to which the layer is a likely source.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Construction Materials; Gravel Source"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"GravelSrc"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:12:47|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
27|"Picnic Areas"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Picnic areas are natural or landscaped tracts used primarily for preparing meals and eating outdoors. These areas are subject to heavy foot traffic. Most vehicular traffic is confined to access roads and parking areas.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the ease of developing picnic areas and that influence trafficability and the growth of vegetation after development. Slope and stoniness are the main concerns affecting the development of picnic areas. For good trafficability, the surface of picnic areas should absorb rainfall readily, remain firm under heavy foot traffic, and not be dusty when dry. The soil properties that influence trafficability are texture of the surface layer, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), and large stones. The soil properties that affect the growth of plants are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), and toxic substances in the soil.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"URB/REC - Picnic Areas"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"PicnicArea"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:30:07|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
38|"Playgrounds"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Playgrounds are areas used intensively for games, such as baseball and football, and similar activities. Playgrounds require soils that are nearly level, are free of stones, and can withstand intensive foot traffic.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the ease of developing playgrounds and that influence trafficability and the growth of vegetation after development. Slope and stoniness are the main concerns affecting the development of playgrounds. For good trafficability, the surface of the playgrounds should absorb rainfall readily, remain firm under heavy foot traffic, and not be dusty when dry. The soil properties that influence trafficability are texture of the surface layer, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), and large stones. The soil properties that affect the growth of plants are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), and toxic substances in the soil.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"URB/REC - Playgrounds"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"Playground"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:30:53|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
48|"Off-Road Motorcycle Trails"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Off-road motorcycle trails are intended primarily for recreational use. They require little or no site preparation. They are not covered with surfacing material or vegetation. Considerable compaction of the soil material is likely.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that influence erodibility, trafficability, dustiness, and the ease of revegetation. These properties are stoniness, slope, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, and texture of the surface layer.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"URB/REC - Off-Road Motorcycle Trails"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"OffRoadMT"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:28:35|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
3|"Camp Areas"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Camp areas are tracts of land used intensively as sites for tents, trailers, campers, and the accompanying activities of outdoor living. Camp areas require site preparation, such as shaping and leveling the tent and parking areas, stabilizing roads and intensively used areas, and installing sanitary facilities and utility lines. Camp areas are subject to heavy foot traffic and some vehicular traffic.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the ease of developing camp areas and the performance of the areas after development. Slope, stoniness, and depth to bedrock or a cemented pan are the main concerns affecting the development of camp areas. The soil properties that affect the performance of the areas after development are those that influence trafficability and promote the growth of vegetation, especially in heavily used areas. For good trafficability, the surface of camp areas should absorb rainfall readily, remain firm under heavy foot traffic, and not be dusty when dry. The soil properties that influence trafficability are texture of the surface layer, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), and large stones. The soil properties that affect the growth of plants are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), and toxic substances in the soil.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect development. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"URB/REC - Camp Areas"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"CampArea"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:27:57|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
1|"Paths and Trails"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Paths and trails for hiking and horseback riding should require little or no slope modification through cutting and filling.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect trafficability and erodibility. These properties are stoniness, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, and texture of the surface layer.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"URB/REC - Paths and Trails"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"PathTrail"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:29:17|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
103|"Daily Cover for Landfill"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Daily cover for landfill is the soil material that is used to cover compacted solid waste in a sanitary landfill. The soil material is obtained offsite, transported to the landfill, and spread over the waste. The ratings also apply to the final cover for a landfill. They are based on the soil properties that affect workability, the ease of digging, and the ease of moving and spreading the material over the refuse daily during wet and dry periods. These properties include soil texture, depth to a water table, ponding, rock fragments, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, reaction, and content of salts, sodium, or lime.

Loamy or silty soils that are free of large stones and excess gravel are the best cover for a landfill. Clayey soils may be sticky and difficult to spread; sandy soils are subject to wind erosion.

Slope affects the ease of excavation and of moving the cover material. Also, it can influence runoff, erosion, and reclamation of the borrow area. 

The soil material used as the final cover for a landfill should be suitable for plants. It should not have excess sodium, salts, or lime and should not be too acid. After soil material has been removed, the soil material remaining in the borrow area must be thick enough over bedrock, a cemented pan, or the water table to permit revegetation. Some damage to the borrow area is expected, however, and plant growth may not be optimum.

This information is intended for land use planning, for evaluating land use alternatives, and for planning site investigations prior to design and construction. The information, however, has limitations. For example, estimates and other data generally apply only to that part of the soil between the surface and a depth of 5 to 7 feet. Because of the map scale, small areas of different soils may be included within the mapped areas of a specific soil.

The information is not site specific and does not eliminate the need for onsite investigation of the soils or for testing and analysis by personnel experienced in the design and construction of engineering works.

Government ordinances and regulations that restrict certain land uses or impose specific design criteria were not considered in preparing the ratings. Local ordinances and regulations should be considered in planning, in site selection, and in design.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings in the table indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Daily Cover for Landfill"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"DlyCovLFil"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:20:08|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
90|"Sanitary Landfill (Trench)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"A ""trench sanitary landfill"" is an area where solid waste is placed in successive layers in an excavated trench. The waste is spread, compacted, and covered daily with a thin layer of soil excavated at the site. When the trench is full, a final cover of soil material at least 2 feet thick is placed over the landfill. A landfill must be able to bear heavy vehicular traffic. It can result in the pollution of ground water. Ease of excavation and revegetation should be considered.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the risk of pollution, the ease of excavation, trafficability, and revegetation. These properties include saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to a water table, ponding, slope, flooding, texture, stones and boulders, highly organic layers, soil reaction, and content of salts and sodium. Unless otherwise stated, the ratings apply only to that part of the soil within a depth of about 6 feet. For deeper trenches, onsite investigation may be needed.

Hard, nonrippable bedrock, creviced bedrock, or highly permeable strata at or directly below the proposed trench bottom can affect the ease of excavation and the hazard of ground-water pollution. Slope affects construction of the trenches and the movement of surface water around the landfill. It also affects the construction and performance of roads in areas of the landfill.

Soil texture and consistence affect the ease with which the trench is dug and the ease with which the soil can be used as daily or final cover. They determine the workability of the soil when dry and when wet. Soils that are plastic and sticky when wet are difficult to excavate, grade, or compact and are difficult to place as a uniformly thick cover over a layer of refuse.

The soil material used as the final cover for a trench landfill should be suitable for plants. It should not have excess sodium or salts and should not be too acid. The surface layer generally has the best workability, the highest content of organic matter, and the best potential for plants. Material from the surface layer should be stockpiled for use as the final cover.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Sanitary Landfill (Trench)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SLFilTrnch"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:05:32|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
84|"Sewage Lagoons"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Sewage lagoons are shallow ponds constructed to hold sewage while aerobic bacteria decompose the solid and liquid wastes. Lagoons should have a nearly level floor surrounded by cut slopes or embankments of compacted soil. Nearly impervious soil material for the lagoon floor and sides is required to minimize seepage and contamination of ground water. Considered in the ratings are slope, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, large stones, and content of organic matter.

Ksat is a critical property affecting the suitability for sewage lagoons. Most porous soils eventually become sealed when they are used as sites for sewage lagoons. Until sealing occurs, however, the hazard of pollution is severe. Soils that have a Ksat rate of more than 14 micrometers per second are too porous for the proper functioning of sewage lagoons. In these soils, seepage of the effluent can result in contamination of the ground water. Ground-water contamination is also a hazard if fractured bedrock is within a depth of 40 inches, if the water table is high enough to raise the level of sewage in the lagoon, or if floodwater overtops the lagoon.

A high content of organic matter is detrimental to proper functioning of the lagoon because it inhibits aerobic activity. Slope, bedrock, and cemented pans can cause construction problems, and large stones can hinder compaction of the lagoon floor. If the lagoon is to be uniformly deep throughout, the slope must be gentle enough and the soil material must be thick enough over bedrock or a cemented pan to make land smoothing practical.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Sewage Lagoons"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SewLagoon"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:13:27|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
62|"Sanitary Landfill (Area)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"In an ""area sanitary landfill,"" solid waste is placed in successive layers on the surface of the soil. The waste is spread, compacted, and covered daily with a thin layer of soil from a source away from the site. A final cover of soil material at least 2 feet thick is placed over the completed landfill. A landfill must be able to bear heavy vehicular traffic. It can result in the pollution of ground water. Ease of excavation and revegetation should be considered.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect trafficability and the risk of pollution. These properties include flooding, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, slope, and depth to bedrock or a cemented pan. Flooding is a serious problem because it can result in pollution in areas downstream from the landfill. If Ksat is too rapid or if fractured bedrock, a fractured cemented pan, or the water table is close to the surface, the leachate can contaminate the water supply. Slope is a consideration because of the extra grading required to maintain roads in the steeper areas of the landfill. Also, leachate may flow along the surface of the soils in the steeper areas and cause difficult seepage problems.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Sanitary Landfill (Area)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SLFilArea"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:04:25|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
18|"Septic Tank Absorption Fields"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Septic tank absorption fields are areas in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 and 60 inches is evaluated. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption of the effluent, construction and maintenance of the system, and public health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect absorption of the effluent. Stones and boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence interferes with installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the effluent in downslope areas.

Some soils are underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth of less than 4 feet below the distribution lines. In these soils the absorption field may not adequately filter the effluent, particularly when the system is new. As a result, the ground water may become contaminated.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Septic Tank Absorption Fields"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SepTankAF"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:12:49|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
526|"Soil-Based Residential Wastewater Disposal Ratings (VT)"|"mapunit"|"vtsepticsyscl"|"Choice"|254||"This interpretation indicates the suitability of the soils for soil-based residential wastewater disposal systems. The ratings are based on the 2007 Vermont Environmental Protection Rules (Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, Agency of Natural Resources). This rating system replaces the system in the publication ""Ancillary Soil Interpretation Ratings for On-site Sewage Disposal in Vermont,"" published in January 1997 by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Included in soil-based wastewater disposal systems are absorption fields, also known as leach fields, or trenches in which effluent from a septic tank is distributed into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. There must be unsaturated soil material beneath the absorption field to filter the effluent effectively. Unsatisfactory performance, including excessively slow absorption of effluent, surfacing of effluent, and hillside seepage, can affect public health.

The ratings are represented by symbols for five interpretive groups and their subgroups. These groups and subgroups are described in the following paragraphs.

Group I soils are well suited to soil-based wastewater disposal systems. Good performance and low maintenance can be expected. The soils in this group are sandy and gravelly soils that formed in outwash and that have rapid permeability in the substratum and well drained soils that formed in till and that have a friable substratum with moderate permeability. Slopes generally are less than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup Ia have rapid permeability and slopes of less than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup Ib have rapid permeability and slopes that range to more than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup Ic have moderate permeability and slopes of less than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup Id have moderate permeability and slopes that range to more than 20 percent.

Group II soils are moderately suited to soil-based wastewater disposal systems. This group includes soils with moderately slow to very slow permeability; complexes in which one or more of the soils have bedrock at a moderate depth (20 to 40 inches); soils that would qualify for inclusion in group I but have slopes of more than 20 percent; and soils that have a seasonal high water table at a depth of 18 inches or more.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIa have moderately slow to very slow permeability and slopes of less than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIb have moderately slow to very slow permeability and have slopes that range to more than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIc have bedrock at a moderate depth (20 to 40 inches) in some areas and have slopes of less than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup IId have bedrock at a moderate depth (20 to 40 inches) and have slopes that range to more than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIe have rapid permeability and have slopes of more than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIf have moderate permeability and slopes of more than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIh have a seasonal high water table at a depth of 18 inches or more and have slopes of less than 20 percent.

Group III map units are marginally suited to soil-based wastewater disposal systems. Intensive onsite investigation may be needed to locate suitable areas, or special design, extra maintenance, or costly alteration may be needed to overcome the soil-related limitations. In areas where the water table is at a shallow depth, seasonal onsite monitoring of the water table may be needed to determine whether the site is suitable. Some areas of any of the map units in group III may not be suitable for soil-based wastewater disposal systems.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIIa have bedrock at a depth of less than 10 inches in some areas. Some map units are limited by slopes that range to more than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIIb are subject to flooding and have a seasonal high water table at a moderate depth.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIIc have a seasonal high water table at a depth of 1 foot or less and have slopes of 8 percent or less.
     •   	Map units in subgroup IIId have a seasonal high water table at a depth of 1 foot or less and have slopes of 8 to 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIIe generally have a seasonal high water table within a depth of 2 feet and have slopes that range to more than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIIf have a seasonal high water table and limited depth to bedrock. Some map units have slopes that range to more than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup IIIg have a flooding hazard.

Group IV map units are generally not suited to soil-based wastewater disposal systems because of such limitations as wetness, depth to bedrock, restricted permeability, and slope.
     •	Map units in subgroup IVa are subject to excessive wetness.
     •	Map units in subgroup IVb are limited by the depth to bedrock and by slopes of more than 20 percent.
     •	Map units in subgroup IVc are generally not suited because of a very limited depth to bedrock and the slope.
     •	Map units in subgroup IVd have moderately slow to very slow permeability and have slopes of more than 20 percent. Some map units have a seasonal high water table.

Group V map units are not rated for soil-based wastewater disposal systems. This group includes miscellaneous areas that have been filled, excavated, regraded, or otherwise disturbed by human activities; areas that are mapped above the series level, such as Udorthents; and areas of water. The miscellaneous areas and the areas mapped above the series level have a wide range of soil properties. Onsite investigation is needed to determine the suitability of these areas for soil-based wastewater disposal.

These ratings are based on the installation of a new septic system for a new single-family home on a lot subdivided on or after June 14, 2002, in a municipality that has planning and zoning bylaws. The ratings do not necessarily apply to the siting of a replacement system for an existing residence. The ratings for lots subdivided before June 14, 2002, are based on a slope limitation of 30 percent, whereas the ratings in this interpretation are based on a slope limitation of 20 percent. The ratings in this interpretation do not take into consideration some site factors that can affect the placement of septic systems, such as wellhead and source protection areas, isolation distances, and the size of the parcel.
This interpretation is intended for general planning purposes only and is not intended to replace or supersede the need for an onsite soil investigation. These ratings apply only to land within the State of Vermont."|||"Property"||||1|0|0|0||0|||-1|"SBRWDR"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|2||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""2""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Ia"" label=""Ia"" order=""1""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Ib"" label=""Ib"" order=""2""><Color red=""44"" green=""188"" blue=""20"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Ic"" label=""Ic"" order=""3""><Color red=""27"" green=""118"" blue=""12"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Id"" label=""Id"" order=""4""><Color red=""187"" green=""239"" blue=""196"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIa"" label=""IIa"" order=""5""><Color red=""158"" green=""145"" blue=""50"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIb"" label=""IIb"" order=""6""><Color red=""239"" green=""250"" blue=""176"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIc"" label=""IIc"" order=""7""><Color red=""239"" green=""250"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IId"" label=""IId"" order=""8""><Color red=""166"" green=""197"" blue=""11"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIe"" label=""IIe"" order=""9""><Color red=""108"" green=""99"" blue=""34"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIf"" label=""IIf"" order=""10""><Color red=""214"" green=""194"" blue=""158"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIg"" label=""IIg"" order=""11""><Color red=""178"" green=""142"" blue=""76"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIh"" label=""IIh"" order=""12""><Color red=""175"" green=""113"" blue=""51"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIIa"" label=""IIIa"" order=""13""><Color red=""245"" green=""153"" blue=""77"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIIb"" label=""IIIb"" order=""14""><Color red=""232"" green=""113"" blue=""14"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIIc"" label=""IIIc"" order=""15""><Color red=""189"" green=""92"" blue=""11"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIId"" label=""IIId"" order=""16""><Color red=""249"" green=""208"" blue=""153"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIIe"" label=""IIIe"" order=""17""><Color red=""246"" green=""99"" blue=""8"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIIf"" label=""IIIf"" order=""18""><Color red=""251"" green=""180"" blue=""137"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IIIg"" label=""IIIg"" order=""19""><Color red=""207"" green=""136"" blue=""117"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IVa"" label=""IVa"" order=""20""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IVb"" label=""IVb"" order=""21""><Color red=""243"" green=""150"" blue=""141"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IVc"" label=""IVc"" order=""22""><Color red=""190"" green=""93"" blue=""62"" /></Labels><Labels value=""IVd"" label=""IVd"" order=""23""><Color red=""226"" green=""96"" blue=""96"" /></Labels><Labels value=""V"" label=""V"" order=""24""><Color red=""220"" green=""48"" blue=""220"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|12/29/2011 07:52:58|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Choice"
453|"Rangeland Drill"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation provides a rating of each for its suitability for using a rangeland drill in a rangeland seeding operation.  Rangeland drill seeding is commonly practiced, often in combination with vegetation control techniques to revegetate depleted rangeland.  The rangeland drill was designed for treating rangeland by the USDA Forest Service Equipment Development Center at San Dimas, California.  It is a very heavy-duty, side-wheel drill featuring large wheels, a high-clearance reinforced frame, and single-disk openers that are independently suspended on trailing arms.  The trailing arms have skid plates underneath to prevent breakage.

The rangeland drill suitability ratings represent the relative physical limitations of soil factors upon use of a rangeland drill.  This rating should be used in conjunction with the rangeland seeding rating to ensure that the potential treatment areas would respond favorably to seeding.  It is important to obtain the maximum benefit/cost ratio for expensive restoration/revegetation treatments.

Rock fragments and rock outcrop potentially damage the rangeland drill.  Steep slopes limit the ability to safely operate a rangeland drill along the contour.  High clay content reduces the effectiveness of the rangeland drill and ability to operate equipment during wet soil conditions.  Too sandy surface textures reduce the effectiveness of the rangeland drill.  Ponding, flooding, and high water table affect the timing of rangeland drill seeding by limiting access to the treatment area.  On-sight investigation is recommended before implementing any rangeland drill seeding projects.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are made suitable by all of the soil features that affect the suitability of soil material for the use.  ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for this use. Good performance can be expected. ""Moderately suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for this use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance can be expected. ""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for this use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance can be expected.

The overall rating class for each soil is assigned based on the product of the numerical ratings of the individual soil properties considered in the interpretation, some of which may not be displayed.

Numerical ratings indicate the level of suitability of the soil for use of the rangeland drill.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest positive impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature has the greatest negative impact (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Rangeland Drill"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"RgDrill"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|07/17/2009 08:28:06|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
456|"Rangeland Tillage"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation rates each soil for its suitability for use of tillage equipment suitable for tilling rangeland ecological sites.  Tillage is the use of mechanized equipment to disturb and to mix the soil usually to a depth of 3 to 12 inches from the surface.  Rangeland tillage is commonly practiced in combination with seeding for rangeland restoration or revegetation.  Plowing or discing is used to reduce the competition of sagebrush, and to a lesser extent, rabbitbrush, greasewood, and annual or perennial herbaceous plants that are considered undesirable.  This treatment also helps remove compacted layers, improve soil tilth, and prepare a firm, friable seedbed for subsequent seeding operations.

Rangeland tillage is usually performed with a brushland plow; wheatland (one-way disc) plow; extra heavy-duty, offset disc; or chisel plow.  The brushland plow's rugged construction and independently spring-loaded discs allow it to be used on rough, moderately stony or rocky sites without undue breakage.  The wheatland plow is best suited to gentle slopes that are relatively free of stones and rock outcrop.  The extra heavy-duty, offset disc is well adapted to use on compact, heavy textured soils.  Chisel plows are used to control weeds, break up compacted soils, and increase water infiltration while leaving plant residue on the soil surface to reduce erosion.  A wide variety of chisel points, sweeps, and shovels are available to accomplish desired tillage.

This rating should be used in conjunction with the rangeland seeding rating to ensure that the potential treatment areas would respond favorably to seeding.  It is important to obtain the maximum benefit/cost ratio for expensive restoration/revegetation treatments.

Steep slopes limit the ability to safely operate these implements along the contour.  Plowing up and down slope accelerates water erosion whereas plowing along the contour reduces water erosion.  Sandy soils on gentle slopes susceptible to wind erosion should be plowed perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction.  Depth to bedrock or cemented pan restricts the capability to do deep plowing.  Stones and rock outcrop potentially damage and hinder the operation of the equipment.  Ponding, flooding, and high water table affect the timing of tillage by limiting access to the site.  High clay content reduces effectiveness of the tillage implements.  On-sight investigation is recommended before implementing any rangeland tillage projects.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are made suitable by all of the soil features that affect the suitability of soil material for the use.  ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for this use. Good performance can be expected. ""Moderately suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for this use. Fair performance can be expected. ""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for this use. Poor performance can be expected.

The overall rating class for each soil is assigned based on the product of the numerical ratings of the individual soil properties considered in the interpretation, some of which may not be displayed.

Numerical ratings indicate the level of suitability of the soil for tillage operations.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest positive impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature has the greatest negative impact (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Rangeland Tillage"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"RgTillage"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|09/28/2017 22:34:09|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
457|"Site Degradation Susceptibility"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation rates each soil for its susceptibility for soil degradation to occur during disturbance, which is a function of resistance to degradation.  Resistance to degradation of a rangeland or woodland site is a measure of its ability to function without change throughout a disturbance.  The magnitude of decline in the capacity to function determines the degree of resistance to change.  Resistance to degradation thus could be described as an area's buffering capacity.  This depends upon soil type, vegetation, climate, land use, disturbance regime, temporal and spatial scales.  The disturbance regime determines the type of stresses placed upon the soil, vegetation, and wildlife components of the site.  Thus, soil factors of vulnerability will vary based upon the disturbance regime for a particular site.

The ratings represent the relative risk of water and wind erosion, salinization, sodification, organic matter and nutrient depletion and/or redistribution, and loss of adequate rooting depth to maintain desired plant communities.  Dynamic soil properties which vary with time, e.g. microbial biomass/diversity and carbon/nitrogen ratio, are not used since they are not contained within the soil database.

Steep slopes increase the potential for water erosion.  Shallow rooting depth, and excess salt or sodium can reduce plant diversity, resistance to stress, and seedling survival.

This rating should be used with the objective to protect vulnerable sites from the type of degradation that would result in accelerated erosion, reduction in water and air quality, invasion by annual grasses or noxious weeds, and other large scale potential natural plant community conversions.  When degradation of soil and natural plant community characteristics goes beyond the threshold for the ecological site, the ecological site characteristics cannot be restored without artificial restoration efforts.

There may be unique circumstances where accelerated soil processes that are normally considered contributing to site degradation are actually beneficial to some attribute of the site, such as Indian ricegrass (Achnatherum hymenoides) being more competitive in shifting sands than most species.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the potential for degradation. ""Highly susceptible"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are very favorable for degradation. ""Moderately susceptible"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for damage to occur. ""Slightly susceptible"" indicates that the soil has features that generally make it unfavorable for degradation to occur. 

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Site Degradation Susceptibility"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SiteDegSus"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Highly susceptible"" label=""Highly susceptible"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately susceptible"" label=""Moderately susceptible"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Slightly susceptible"" label=""Slightly susceptible"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/13/2009 06:30:24|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
458|"Soil Compaction Resistance"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation rates each soil for its resistance to compaction.  Compaction tends to reduce water infiltration which affects plant production and composition, increases runoff which generally increased erosion rates, and affects organisms living within the soil.

Compaction is predominantly influenced by moisture content, depth to saturation, percent of sand, silt, and clay, soil structure, organic matter content, and content of coarse fragments.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are made suitable by all of the soil features that affect the suitability of soil material for chaining.  ""High resistance"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable to resisting compaction. ""Moderate resistance"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable to resisting compaction. ""Low resistance"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that favor the formation of a compacted layer. 

The overall rating class for each soil is assigned based on the product of the numerical ratings of the individual soil properties considered in the interpretation, some of which may not be displayed.

Numerical ratings indicate the level of the soil's resistance to compaction.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest positive impact on resistance to compaction (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature has the greatest negative impact (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Soil Compaction Resistance"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"SoiCompRes"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Low resistance"" label=""Low resistance"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate resistance"" label=""Moderate resistance"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""High resistance"" label=""High resistance"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|07/17/2009 08:29:35|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
459|"Soil Restoration Potential"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation rates each soil for its inherent ability to recover from degradation, which is often referred to as soil resilience.  The ability to recover from degradation means the ability to restore functional and structural integrity after a disturbance.  Both the rate and degree of recovery need to be considered.  Soil functions that are important include sustaining biological activity, diversity and productivity; capture, storage and release of water; storing and cycling nutrients and other elements; filtering, buffering, degrading, immobilizing and detoxifying contaminants; providing support for plant and animal life; and protection for archeological sites.  Restoration goals may include re-establishment of a preferred natural plant assemblage of the ecological site that existed prior to decline to a degraded state.

Soil resilience is dependent upon adequate stores of organic matter, good soil structure, low salt and sodium levels, adequate nutrient levels, microbial biomass and diversity, adequate precipitation for recovery, and other soil properties.  Dynamic soil properties, such as microbial biomass and diversity or carbon nitrogen ratio, are not used for this rating since they are not contained within the soil database.

This rating should be used to help prioritize areas for restoration projects, such as prescribed burning, chaining, or herbicide application, that depend upon natural vegetation recovery.  On-site investigation is recommended before undertaking any restoration project.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are made suitable by all of the soil features that affect the soil's ability to recover.  ""High potential"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for recovery. Good performance can be expected. ""Moderate potential"" indicates that the soil has features that are generally favorable for recovery. Fair performance can be expected. ""Low potential"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for recovery. Poor performance can be expected.

The overall rating class for each soil is assigned based on the product of the numerical ratings of the individual soil properties considered in the interpretation, some of which may not be displayed.

Numerical ratings indicate the level of for the soil to recover from degradation.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest positive impact on recovery (1.00), and the point at which the soil feature has the greatest negative impact (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Soil Restoration Potential"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"SoiRestPot"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Low potential"" label=""Low potential"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate potential"" label=""Moderate potential"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""High potential"" label=""High potential"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|07/17/2009 08:30:23|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
452|"Pygmy Rabbit Habitat Potential"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation is general in nature.  It provides suitability ratings and identifies the soil and dominant plant composition characteristics that influence the potential of the site for providing habitat for pygmy rabbits.  This information allows the user to plan and develop restoration efforts for pygmy rabbits.

Pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) are found in SE Washington, E Oregon, S Idaho, SW Montana, SW Wyoming, NE California, N Nevada, and W Utah.  Though the historical population and range of the pygmy rabbit is unclear, evidence suggests it was significantly larger than at present.  Habitat loss and fragmentation, agricultural land conversion, sagebrush burning, and hunting are the primary causes of this decline.  The pygmy rabbit is a candidate species for listing by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as a threatened or endangered species.  The Columbia Basin pygmy rabbit is currently on the Federal endangered species list.

Pygmy rabbits spend the majority of their lives within 30 meters of their burrows.  They depend upon sagebrush for about 98% of their winter diet, and a high portion of their spring and summer diet.  Their habitat is closely associated with dense, tall sagebrush stands.  Unlike other rabbits, pygmy rabbits dig their own burrows so they require deep, loose soils with low rock content. Other soil features that affect habitat potential include depth to saturation, flooding, ponding, and slope.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are made suitable by all of the soil features that affect the suitability for pygmy rabbit habitat.  Soils and the associated vegetation that are rated ""high potential"" have no restrictions and provide favorable potential habitat for pygmy rabbits.  A ""moderate potential"" rating implies that the site provides moderately favorable potential habitat for pygmy rabbits.  There are some restrictive soil or plant composition features that limit the suitability of the site.  ""Low potential"" indicates that the site characteristics are such that they do not provide potential habitat for pygmy rabbits without considerable effort to artificially create sagebrush habitat outside its natural range of occurrence.  Existing plant composition should be used in combination with the ratings to help determine current habitat conditions and restoration needs based on the requirements of the wildlife species for food and cover.

The overall rating class for each soil is assigned based on the average numerical rating of the individual soil properties considered in the interpretation, some of which may not displayed.

Numerical ratings indicate the level of suitability of the soil for pygmy rabbit habitat.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest positive impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature has the greatest negative impact (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Pygmy Rabbit Habitat Potential"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"PygRabHab"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Low potential"" label=""Low potential"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate potential"" label=""Moderate potential"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""High potential"" label=""High potential"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|07/17/2009 09:22:42|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
450|"Mechanical Treatment, Shredder"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation rates each soil for its suitability for a shredder mechanical treatment which is commonly practiced, sometimes in combination with seeding, for rangeland restoration.  The shredder mechanical treatment ratings represent the relative physical limitations of soil factors upon use of shredder implements suitable for treatment of rangeland sites.  This rating should be used in conjunction with the rangeland seeding ratings or the soil restoration potential rating depending upon whether seeding or natural regeneration will be utilized on the site.

The shredder mechanical treatment is often implemented in sagebrush, mountain shrub, and pinyon-juniper vegetation types to reduce the size and composition of dense brush and trees up to 15-18 inches diameter, depending upon the equipment used.  The treatment objectives can include reducing hazardous fuel loads, increasing forage for livestock and wildlife, increased infiltration, and reduced runoff and erosion.  The equipment may also help bury seed broadcast prior to or during treatment.

There are several types of shredder equipment used for these treatments.  One of the most commonly used is a large, articulated tractor with a front-mounted, 6-8 foot wide, hydraulically controlled mower/mulcher head.  The machine has rubber, flotation-type tires which are designed for minimal ground disturbance.  The mower/mulcher head is lifted above the tree or shrub top and lowered quickly, usually completely chopping the plant in less than 15 seconds.  The rubber tired machine can also be equipped with flail shredders which use blades attached to a long, rotating horizontal shaft.  The rotating drum can be 3 to 6 feet wide by 2 feet in diameter and is often mounted on the end of a boom.  The most common type of rubber-tired shredder can safely operate on slopes up to about 20%.  Tracked vehicles are also used which can be crawler tractors or excavators equipped with a flail type or mower/shredder type attachment to shred the shrubs or trees.  Excavators have the shredder attachment mounted on a boom that can extend in any direction.  The tracked shredders can operate on slopes up to 30-35%.  Large pieces of debris can be thrown 200-300 feet during shredder operation, so safety to bystanders is an issue.

Steep slopes increase the power requirements for the equipment and limit the ability to safely perform the shredder operation.  Stones and rock outcrop make equipment operation more difficult.  High water table affects the timing of tillage by limiting access to the site.  On-site investigation is recommended before implementing any shredder mechanical treatment projects.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are made suitable by all of the soil features that affect the suitability of soil material for the use.  'Well suited' indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for this use. Good performance can be expected. 'Moderately suited' indicates that the soil has features that are generally favorable for this use. Fair performance can be expected. 'Poorly suited' indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for this use. Poor performance can be expected.

The overall rating class for each soil is assigned based on the product of the numerical ratings of the individual soil properties considered in the interpretation, some of which may not be displayed.

Numerical ratings indicate the level of suitability of the soil for shredder mechanical treatment.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest positive impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature has the greatest negative impact (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Mechanical treatment, Shredder"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"MTShredder"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|08/14/2017 15:28:59|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
451|"Medusahead Invasion Susceptibility"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The interpretation provides invasion susceptibility ratings and identifies the dominant soil and site characteristics that influence the susceptibility of the site to medusahead invasion.  Medusahead or medusahead wild rye (Taeniatherum caput-medusae (L.) Nevski) is an introduced, cool-season annual grass that is a major concern to range ecologists, wildlife biologists, and the livestock industry in the western United States.  It is an aggressive invader of disturbed or poor condition sagebrush ecological sites that can suppress desirable, native vegetation.  Medusahead is unpalatable to livestock and most wildlife species, the seeds are not digestible by upland game birds and other bird species. The long barbed awns can cause injury to the eyes, noses, and mouths of grazing animals. Medusahead can increase wildfire incidence in some dwarf sagebrush communities.  It is listed as a noxious weed in California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah.

The medusahead invasion vulnerability rating is general in nature.  It is designed to be used in the planning process to identify areas with a low resistance to invasion by medusahead.  This allows the user to plan and develop management practices that will reduce the probability of medusahead invasion.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are vulnerable to medusahead invasion due to all of the soil features that influence invasion. ""Highly susceptible"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are very favorable for invasion to occur. ""Moderately susceptible"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for invasion. ""Slightly susceptible"" indicates that the soil has features that generally make it unfavorable for invasion to occur. 

The overall rating class for each soil is assigned based on the product of the numerical ratings of the individual soil properties considered in the interpretation, some of which may not be displayed.

Numerical ratings indicate the degree of an individual soil feature's influence on invasion. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest influence on promoting medusahead invasion (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature does not promote invasion (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Medusahead Invasion Susceptibility"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"MedusaInv"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Highly susceptible"" label=""Highly susceptible"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately susceptible"" label=""Moderately susceptible"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Slightly susceptible"" label=""Slightly susceptible"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|07/17/2009 08:25:44|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
8|"Soil Rutting Hazard"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings in this interpretation indicate the hazard of surface rut formation through the operation of forestland equipment. Soil displacement and puddling (soil deformation and compaction) may occur simultaneously with rutting.

Ratings are based on depth to a water table, rock fragments on or below the surface, the Unified classification of the soil, depth to a restrictive layer, and slope. The hazard is described as slight, moderate, or severe. A rating of ""slight"" indicates that the soil is subject to little or no rutting. ""Moderate"" indicates that rutting is likely. ""Severe"" indicates that ruts form readily.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Soil Rutting Hazard"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SoilRutHzd"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Severe"" label=""Severe"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Slight"" label=""Slight"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:25:05|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
10|"Potential for Damage by Fire"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings in this interpretation indicate the potential for damage to nutrient, physical, and biotic soil characteristics by fire. The ratings involve an evaluation of the potential impact of prescribed fires or wildfires that are intense enough to remove the duff layer and consume organic matter in the surface layer.

The ratings are based on texture of the surface layer, content of rock fragments and organic matter in the surface layer, thickness of the surface layer, and slope. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. The soils are described as having a ""low,"" ""moderate,"" or ""high"" potential for this kind of damage. ""Low"" indicates that fire damage is unlikely. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. ""Moderate"" indicates that fire damage can occur because one or more soil properties are less than desirable. Fair performance can be expected, and some maintenance is needed. ""High"" indicates that fire damage can occur because of one or more soil properties and that overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration.

Numerical ratings indicate gradations between the point at which the potential for fire damage is highest (1.00) and the point at which the potential is lowest (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Potential Fire Damage Hazard"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"FireDamage"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""High"" label=""High"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Low"" label=""Low"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:22:17|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
45|"Mechanical Site Preparation (Deep)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings in this interpretation indicate the suitability for the use of deep soil tillage equipment during site preparation in forested areas. The ratings are based on slope, depth to a restrictive layer, rock fragments on or below the surface, depth to a water table, and ponding. The part of the soil from the surface to a depth of about 3 feet is considered in the ratings.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the degree to which the soils are suited to this aspect of forestland management. The soils are described as ""well suited,"" ""poorly suited,"" or ""unsuited"" to this management activity. ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified kind of site preparation and has no limitations. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. ""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more properties that are unfavorable for the specified kind of site preparation. Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. ""Unsuited"" indicates that the expected performance of the soil is unacceptable for the specified kind of site preparation or that extreme measures are needed to overcome the undesirable soil properties.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Mechanical Site Preparation (Deep)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SitePrepD"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Unsuited"" label=""Unsuited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/08/2021 13:53:16|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
39|"Harvest Equipment Operability"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Ratings for this interpretation indicate the suitability for use of forestland harvesting equipment. The ratings are based on slope, rock fragments on the surface, plasticity index, content of sand, the Unified classification of the soil, depth to a water table, and ponding. Standard rubber-tire skidders and bulldozers are assumed to be used for ground-based harvesting and transport.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the degree to which the soils are suited to this aspect of forestland management. ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified management aspect and has no limitations. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. ""Moderately suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified management aspect. One or more soil properties are less than desirable, and fair performance can be expected. Some maintenance is needed. ""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more properties that are unfavorable for the specified management aspect. Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. 

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Harvest Equipment Operability"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"HEquipOp"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:17:21|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
26|"Construction Limitations for Haul Roads and Log Landings"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"For limitations affecting the construction of haul roads and log landings, the ratings are based on slope, flooding, permafrost, plasticity index, the hazard of soil slippage, content of sand, the Unified classification of the soil, rock fragments on or below the surface, depth to a restrictive layer that is indurated, depth to a water table, and ponding. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the degree to which the soils are suited to this aspect of forestland management. The limitations are described as slight, moderate, or severe. A rating of ""slight"" indicates that no significant limitations affect construction activities. ""Moderate"" indicates that one or more limitations can cause some difficulty in construction. ""Severe"" indicates that one or more limitations can make construction very difficult or very costly.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Construction Limitations for Haul Roads/Log Landings"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"CLRoadLndg"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Severe"" label=""Severe"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Slight"" label=""Slight"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:15:39|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
34|"Suitability for Roads (Natural Surface)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings in this interpretation indicate the suitability for using the natural surface of the soil for roads. The ratings are based on slope, rock fragments on the surface, plasticity index, content of sand, the Unified classification of the soil, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, and the hazard of soil slippage.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. The soils are described as ""well suited,"" ""moderately suited,"" or ""poorly suited"" to this use. ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified kind of roads and has no limitations. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. ""Moderately suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified kind of roads. One or more soil properties are less than desirable, and fair performance can be expected. Some maintenance is needed. ""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more properties that are unfavorable for the specified kind of roads. Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Road Suitability (Natural Surface)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"RoadSuitNS"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:23:51|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
35|"Suitability for Hand Planting"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Ratings for this interpretation indicate the expected difficulty of hand planting of forestland plants. The ratings are based on slope, depth to a restrictive layer, content of sand, plasticity index, rock fragments on or below the surface, depth to a water table, and ponding. It is assumed that necessary site preparation is completed before seedlings are planted.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the degree to which the soils are suited to this aspect of forestland management. ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified management aspect and has no limitations. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. ""Moderately suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified management aspect. One or more soil properties are less than desirable, and fair performance can be expected. Some maintenance is needed. ""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more properties that are unfavorable for the specified management aspect. Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. ""Unsuited"" indicates that the expected performance of the soil is unacceptable for the specified management aspect or that extreme measures are needed to overcome the undesirable soil properties.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Hand Planting Suitability"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"HandPlant"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Unsuited"" label=""Unsuited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:16:39|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
36|"Mechanical Site Preparation (Surface)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings in this interpretation indicate the suitability for use of surface-altering soil tillage equipment during site preparation in forested areas. The ratings are based on slope, depth to a restrictive layer, plasticity index, rock fragments on or below the surface, depth to a water table, and ponding. The part of the soil from the surface to a depth of about 1 foot is considered in the ratings.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the degree to which the soils are suited to this aspect of forestland management. The soils are described as ""well suited,"" ""poorly suited,"" or ""unsuited"" to this management activity. ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified kind of site preparation and has no limitations. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. ""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more properties that are unfavorable for the specified kind of site preparation. Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. ""Unsuited"" indicates that the expected performance of the soil is unacceptable for the specified kind of site preparation or that extreme measures are needed to overcome the undesirable soil properties.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Mechanical Site Preparation (Surface)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SitePrepS"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Unsuited"" label=""Unsuited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/08/2021 13:54:18|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
63|"Suitability for Log Landings"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation shows the suitability of soils for use as log landings in forested areas. Ratings are based on slope, rock fragments on the surface, plasticity index, content of sand, the Unified classification of the soil, depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, and the hazard of soil slippage.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the degree to which the soils are suited to this aspect of forestland management. The soils are described as ""well suited,"" ""moderately suited,"" or ""poorly suited"" to use as log landings. ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for log landings and has no limitations. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. ""Moderately suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for log landings. One or more soil properties are less than desirable, and fair performance can be expected. Some maintenance is needed. ""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more properties that are unfavorable for log landings. Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. 

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Log Landing Suitability"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"LogLndg"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:18:08|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
56|"Potential for Seedling Mortality"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings in this interpretation indicate the likelihood of death of naturally or artificially propagated tree seedlings, as influenced by soil characteristics, physiographic features, and climatic conditions. Considered in the ratings are flooding, ponding, depth to a water table, content of lime, reaction, available water capacity, soil moisture regime, soil temperature regime, aspect, and slope. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. The soils are described as having a ""low,"" ""moderate,"" or ""high"" potential for seedling mortality. ""Low"" indicates that seedling mortality is unlikely. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. ""Moderate"" indicates that seedling mortality can occur because one or more soil properties are less than desirable. Fair performance can be expected, and some maintenance is needed. ""High"" indicates that seedling mortality can occur because of one or more soil properties and that overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration.

Numerical ratings indicate gradations between the point at which the potential for seedling mortality is highest (1.00) and the point at which the potential is lowest (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Potential Seedling Mortality"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SeedMortal"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""High"" label=""High"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Low"" label=""Low"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:23:13|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
85|"Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"As of 9/30/2022, this rating is not working as intended. All components appear as not rated. This rating will be fixed on 10/01/2023.

The ratings in this interpretation indicate the hazard of soil loss from off-road and off-trail areas after disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. The ratings are based on slope, soil erosion factor K, and an index of rainfall erosivity (R). The soil loss is caused by sheet or rill erosion in off-road or off-trail areas where 50 to 75 percent of the surface has been exposed by logging, grazing, mining, or other kinds of disturbance.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. The hazard is described as ""slight,"" ""moderate,"" ""severe,"" or ""very severe."" A rating of ""slight"" indicates that erosion is unlikely under ordinary climatic conditions; ""moderate"" indicates that some erosion is likely and that erosion-control measures may be needed; ""severe"" indicates that erosion is very likely and that erosion-control measures, including revegetation of bare areas, are advised; and ""very severe"" indicates that significant erosion is expected, loss of soil productivity and off-site damage are likely, and erosion-control measures are costly and generally impractical.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Potential Erosion Hazard (Off-Road/Off-Trail)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"EroHzdORT"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very severe"" label=""Very severe"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Very Severe"" label=""Very severe"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Severe"" label=""Severe"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""127"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Slight"" label=""Slight"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""127"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|11/08/2022 18:24:42|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
87|"Suitability for Mechanical Planting"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings in this interpretation indicate the expected difficulty of planting trees or shrubs using a mechanical planter. The ratings are based on slope, depth to a restrictive layer, content of sand, plasticity index, rock fragments on or below the surface, depth to a water table, and ponding. It is assumed that necessary site preparation is completed before seedlings are planted.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the degree to which the soils are suited to this aspect of forestland management. The soils are described as ""well suited,"" ""moderately suited,"" ""poorly suited,"" or ""unsuited"" to this method of planting. ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for the specified management aspect and has no limitations. Good performance can be expected, and little or no maintenance is needed. ""Moderately suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified management aspect. One or more soil properties are less than desirable, and fair performance can be expected. Some maintenance is needed. ""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more properties that are unfavorable for the specified management aspect. Overcoming the unfavorable properties requires special design, extra maintenance, and costly alteration. ""Unsuited"" indicates that the expected performance of the soil is unacceptable for the specified management aspect or that extreme measures are needed to overcome the undesirable soil properties.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Mechanical Planting Suitability"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"MechPlant"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Unsuited"" label=""Unsuited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:19:03|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
92|"Erosion Hazard (Road, Trail)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings in this interpretation indicate the hazard of soil loss from unsurfaced roads and trails. The ratings are based on soil erosion factor K, slope, and content of rock fragments.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. The hazard is described as ""slight,"" ""moderate,"" or ""severe."" A rating of ""slight"" indicates that little or no erosion is likely; ""moderate"" indicates that some erosion is likely, that the roads or trails may require occasional maintenance, and that simple erosion-control measures are needed; and ""severe"" indicates that significant erosion is expected, that the roads or trails require frequent maintenance, and that costly erosion-control measures are needed.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified aspect of forestland management (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Potential Erosion Hazard (Road/Trail)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"EroHzdRT"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very severe"" label=""Very severe"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Very Severe"" label=""Very severe"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Severe"" label=""Severe"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Slight"" label=""Slight"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:21:31|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
445|"Chaining Suitability"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Chaining is commonly practiced, sometimes in combination with seeding, during rangeland restoration.  Chaining is implemented to reduce the composition of pinyon and juniper trees, mesquite, or sagebrush.  Chaining also helps bury seed broadcast prior to chaining or between two chaining operations.

Chaining is often performed with an ""Ely"" chain or other similarly modified heavy chain dragged in a loose U-shaped or J-shaped pattern between two crawler tractors.

The chaining suitability ratings represent the relative physical limitations of soil factors upon use of implements suitable for chaining rangeland sites.  This rating should be used in conjunction with the rangeland seeding rating or the restoration opportunity rating depending upon whether seeding or natural regeneration will be utilized on the site.

Steep slopes limit the ability to safely perform the chaining operation along the contour.  Stones and rock outcrop potentially hinder the operation of the equipment.  High water table affects the timing of tillage by limiting access to the site.  On-site investigation is recommended before implementing any chaining projects.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are made suitable by all of the soil features that affect the suitability of soil material for chaining.  ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for this use. Good performance can be expected. ""Suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for this use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance can be expected. ""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for this use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance can be expected.

The overall rating class for each soil is assigned based on the product of the numerical ratings of the individual soil properties considered in the interpretation, some of which may not be displayed.

Numerical ratings indicate the level of suitability of the soil for chaining.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest positive impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature has the greatest negative impact (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Chaining Suitability"|2|"Not Rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"ChainSuit"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|07/17/2009 08:22:00|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
446|"Fencing"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Livestock fencing is the construction and maintenance of barriers for the management of livestock.  Fences are constructed using metal or wooden posts that are either treated or untreated to prevent rotting.  The posts are buried at least two feet into the soil with strands of barbed or smooth wire or mesh wire suspended between the posts.  It is desirable for livestock fence design to provide for wildlife movement.
 
This guide is used to rate the ease of setting posts, maintaining the wire tension, and estimating the replacement and maintenance cost.  Excavations for wooden posts are made by power auger or hand dug; metal posts are driven into the soil.
 
Bedrock, cemented pan, and content of coarse fragments influence the excavation of post holes and the driving of posts.  Flooding and depth to a seasonal high water table may restrict the season of construction.  Flooding also affects maintenance and replacement cost.  High water tables raise the maintenance cost and require deeper post settings.  High shrink-swell soils require deep post settings or rock jacks to maintain vertical post alignment.  Setting posts in permanently frozen soil may cause loss of the insulation qualities of the soil and result in thermokarst topography.  Post alignment and maintaining the desired wire tension are often difficult on sandy soils due to their low strength.  Soil blowing causes maintenance problems.  Frost action results in frost-heaving of the posts.  Steep slopes affect the use of power augers and the delivery of supplies.  During wet seasons, surface creep on steep slopes increases maintenance.  Soil reaction and salinity affect the type of post selected and maintenance costs.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are made suitable by all of the soil features that affect the suitability of soil material for fences.  ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for this use. Good performance and low maintenance can be expected. ""Moderately suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for this use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for this use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

The overall rating class for each soil is assigned based on the average numerical rating of the individual soil properties considered in the interpretation, some of which may not displayed.

Numerical ratings indicate the level of suitability of the soil for fences.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest positive impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature has the greatest negative impact (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Fencing"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"Fencing"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|07/17/2009 09:22:05|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
447|"Fire Damage Susceptibility"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Wildfire is a naturally occurring event that has helped maintain ecosystem function in wildlands.  Wildfire can be caused by natural ignition such as lightning strike, or by man-caused ignition.  Buildup of excess fuel loads can result in high severity fires that damage the soils in the burn area.  Prescribed burning is a restoration practice that is primarily designed to help return the natural fire cycle to the landscape.  Properly carried out on suitable sites, burning can be a very effective and cost efficient treatment method to help restore the desired composition of plant species in an ecological site, improve livestock access on heavy brush or slash sites, rejuvenate sprouting browse species and stagnant grass plants, release nutrients into the soil, improve palatability and nutrient content of forage, reduce fuel loading, and prepare an ash seedbed for artificial or natural seeding.  Burning may be combined with mechanical or chemical rangeland treatments.

Fuel ignition for prescribed burning can be natural or artificial using hand-held drip torches, aerial ignition, and other methods.  Fire lines can be established using natural fuel breaks, wet lines, or the removal of fuel by hand or machinery.

The susceptibility to fire damage ratings represent the relative risk of creating a water repellant layer, volatilization of essential soil nutrients, destruction of soil biological activity, and vulnerability to water and wind erosion prior to reestablishing adequate watershed cover on the burned site.  The ratings are directly related to burn severity (e.g. a low-moderate severity burn will not result in water repellant layer formation).  This rating should be used in conjunction with the rangeland seeding ratings or the soil restoration potential rating depending upon whether seeding or natural regeneration will be utilized on the site.

Sandy soils are more susceptible to formation of a water repellant layer.  High rock fragment content increases the rate of heat transfer into the soil.  Steep slopes increase the vulnerability to water erosion.  Susceptibility to formation of hydrophobic or water repellant layers varies by vegetation type.  As an example, pinyon-juniper, Arizona chaparral, and California chaparral vegetation types are more susceptible to hydrophobicity than other shrubland or grassland vegetation types.

The impacts of wildfire to soils of the burn area need to be assessed to prioritize burned area emergency rehabilitation and revegetation efforts.

Prescribed burning should be carefully planned and executed.  It should be carried out following a well designed prescription and burn plan under the supervision of a qualified prescribed burning team.  Burning objectives should be clearly defined and should be evaluated during post-burn assessments.  Minimizing risks to human health, safety, and property damage and containment of the burn are of paramount importance.

Hot, dry south-facing slopes are more susceptible to fire damage than cooler, north-facing slopes.  Fire mortality of desirable plants needs to be taken into consideration during wildfire restoration and prescribed burning planning.  On-site investigation is recommended before implementing any wildfire restoration or prescribed burning projects.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect soil damage by fire. ""Highly susceptible"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are very favorable for soil damage by fire. ""Moderately susceptible"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for damage to occur. ""Slightly susceptible"" indicates that the soil has features that generally make it unfavorable for damage to occur. 

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest impact favoring soil damage by fire (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not favorable to damage occurring (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Fire Damage Susceptibility"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"FireDamSus"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Highly susceptible"" label=""Highly susceptible"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderately susceptible"" label=""Moderately susceptible"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Slightly susceptible"" label=""Slightly susceptible"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/13/2009 06:01:50|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
448|"Fugitive Dust Resistance"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation rates the vulnerability of a soil for eroded soil particles to go into suspension during a windstorm.  Fugitive dust can create extreme visibility reductions during severe windstorms creating traffic hazards and closing airports.  Power outages, expensive cleanup costs, damage to computers and communications equipment from dust, transport of potentially harmful chemicals adhering to the soil particles, and loss of soil nutrients are some of the potential effects of fugitive dust.  A positive impact is that nutrient enrichment can occur where fugitive dust is deposited.

Fugitive dust is a source of PM10 which is one of the seven air pollutants the Environmental Protection Agency regulates under the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).  To a lesser extent, fugitive dust is a source of PM2.5 which has proposed regulations pending under NAAQS.  PM10 and PM2.5 are defined as particulate matter with a mean diameter less than 10 microns and 2.5 microns respectively.  These soil particles are very small, can remain suspended in the air for long periods of time, and are easily inhaled into the deep lungs.  Increased risks of death and disease have been linked to periods of high outdoor PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations.  These fine particles can potentially be lifted thousands of feet into the atmosphere and transported across continents and oceans creating global health, ecological, and climate change impacts.

The soil properties and qualities that affect fugitive dust are size of surface soil particles, rock fragment content, organic matter content, calcium carbonate equivalent, aggregate stability and presence of a stable soil crust.  Clay particles have a strong propensity to form relatively large, durable soil aggregates and not contribute appreciably to fugitive dust unless these aggregates are broken down by intensive surface disturbance.  Soil moisture and the presence of frozen soil also influence fugitive dust.  Activities which break down soil aggregates and crusts increase wind erosion and production of fugitive dust.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Rating class terms indicate the extent to which all of the soil features affect the formation of dust.  ""Low resistance"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the formation of dust. ""Moderate resistance"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for dust formation. ""High resistance"" indicates that the soil has features that are unfavorable for dust formation. 

Numerical ratings indicate the level of vulnerability of the soil for dust formation.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature resists dust formation (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is favorable to the formation of dust (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Fugitive Dust Resistance"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"FugDustRes"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Low resistance to dust propagation"" label=""Low resistance to dust propagation"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderate resistance to dust propagation"" label=""Moderate resistance to dust propagation"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""High resistance to dust propagation"" label=""High resistance to dust propagation"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/30/2016 16:24:34|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
449|"Mechanical Treatment, Rolling Drum"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation rates each soil for its suitability for a rolling drum mechanical treatment which is commonly practiced, sometimes in combination with seeding, for rangeland restoration.  It is implemented to reduce the size and composition of brush and young, smaller-sized trees, increase infiltration, and reduce runoff and erosion.  The equipment may also help bury seed broadcast prior to or during treatment.  The drums are often filled with water, or slurry made up of a mixture of water and soil, to increase drum weight and improve treatment effectiveness.

A rolling drum mechanical treatment is usually performed with a roller chopper, spiral-blade chopper, or land imprinter.  Roller choppers utilize a cylindrical drum, equipped with several full-length cutting blades, that is towed behind a crawler-type tractor.  Spiral-blade choppers use small blades welded to heavy drums in a staggered, spiral pattern around the drum.  Land imprinters use a heavy drum with wedges to imprint small depressions into the soil and are mainly used for seedbed preparation.

The rolling drum mechanical treatment ratings represent the relative physical limitations of soil factors upon use of rolling drum implements suitable for treatment of rangeland sites.  This rating should be used in conjunction with the rangeland seeding rating or the opportunity for restoration rating depending upon whether seeding or natural regeneration will be utilized on the site.

Steep slopes increase the power requirements for the equipment and limit the ability to safely perform the roller chopping operation.  Stones and rock outcrop damage the blades of the roller chopper and make towing more difficult.  High clay content reduces effectiveness of the treatment.  High water table affects the timing of tillage by limiting access to the site.  On-site investigation is recommended before implementing any rolling drum mechanical treatment projects.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are made suitable by all of the soil features that affect the suitability of soil material for the use.  'Well suited' indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for this use. Good performance can be expected. 'Moderately suited' indicates that the soil has features that are generally favorable for this use. Fair performance can be expected. 'Poorly suited' indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for this use. Poor performance can be expected.

The overall rating class for each soil is assigned based on the product of the numerical ratings of the individual soil properties considered in the interpretation, some of which may not be displayed.

Numerical ratings indicate the level of suitability of the soil for rolling drum mechanical treatment.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest positive impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature has the greatest negative impact (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM - Mechanical Treatment, Rolling Drum"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"MTRollDrum"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|08/14/2017 15:22:47|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
599|"Nitrate Leaching Potential, Nonirrigated (MT)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This rule is adapted from AGR - Nitrate Leaching Potential, Nonirrigated (WA) from the Portland MO for use in Montana. Climate elements have been stripped.

This interpretation is designed to evaluate the potential for nitrate-nitrogen to be transmitted through the soil profile below the root zone by percolating water under nonirrigated conditions. The ratings are based on inherent soil properties, and do not account for management practices such as nitrogen fertilizer application rates and timing, or crop rotation."|||"Interpretation"|"AGR - Nitrate Leaching Potential, Nonirrigated (MT)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"NleachPot"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very High"" label=""Very High"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""High"" label=""High"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Medium"" label=""Medium"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Low"" label=""Low"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|134|05/19/2017 20:38:59|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
628|"Pesticide Leaching Potential"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings for Pesticide Loss Potential-Leaching are used for evaluating and determining the potential of the soil to transmit pesticides through the profile and the likelihood of the contamination of ground-water supplies. Evaluations consider movement of water through the soil and underlying fractured bedrock. Ratings are for soils in their natural condition and do not consider present land use. The properties that affect the pesticide loss potential include the soil's hydrologic group, depth to water table, saturated hydraulic conductivity at different depths, and the possibility of water movement in fractured bedrock.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that have low leaching potential. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately rated for leaching potential. Some leaching can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable and leaching potential is high.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as that listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given so that the user will realize the percentage of each map unit that has the specified rating.  
A map unit may have other components with different ratings.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"AGR - Pesticide Loss Potential-Leaching"|1||0|1|0|0||0|||1|"plpLeach"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|02/28/2019 18:32:58|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
629|"Pesticide Runoff Potential"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings for Pesticide Loss Potential-Soil Surface Runoff are used for evaluating and determining the potential of the soil to transmit pesticides through surface runoff and the likelihood of the contamination of surface waters.  Ratings are for soils in their natural condition and do not consider present land use. The properties that affect the pesticide loss potential include the occurrence of permafrost, surface ponding, flooding, and slope.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that have low runoff potential. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately rated for runoff potential. Some runoff can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable and surface runoff is high.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as that listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given so that the user will realize the percentage of each map unit that has the specified rating.  
A map unit may have other components with different ratings.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"AGR - Pesticide Loss Potential-Soil Surface Runoff"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"plpRunoff"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|06/06/2014 07:12:55|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
632|"Ground Penetrating Radar Penetration"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings for Ground Penetrating Radar Penetration are based on the soil properties that affect the penetration of GPR signals into the soil. Soil properties affecting the penetration are considered. In many soils, high amounts of signal attenuation severely restrict radar penetration depths and limit the suitability of GPR for a large number of applications. The ratings are for soils in their natural condition and do not consider present land use. The properties that affect signal penetration include clay content, water saturation, organic matter content, carbonate content, sulfate content, salinity, and sodicity. 
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Very high penentration"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance can be expected. ""High penetration"" grading to ""Very low penetration"" indicates that the soil has features that are less favorable for the radar penetration. ""Unsuited"" indicates that the soil has features that will not let radar penetrate. 
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as that listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given so that the user will realize the percentage of each map unit that has the specified rating.  
A map unit may have other components with different ratings.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"Ground Penetrating Radar Penetration"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"gpr"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Unsuited"" label=""Unsuited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Very low penetration"" label=""Very low penetration"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""85"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Low penetration"" label=""Low penetration"" order=""3""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate penetration"" label=""Moderate penetration"" order=""4""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""High penetration"" label=""High penetration"" order=""5""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Very high penetration"" label=""Very high penetration"" order=""6""><Color red=""84"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Very high penetration"" label=""Very high penetration"" order=""7""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|06/06/2014 07:22:45|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
630|"Fencing, Post Depth 24 Inches or Less"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Fencing is the construction and maintenance of barriers for the management of animals and people. Metal or wooden posts are used when the fences are built. This interpretation is applicable where the posts are set to a depth of 24 inches or less in the soil and strands of wire are suspended between the posts.

Ratings are based on the ease of setting posts in the soil, the ease of maintaining the wire tension, and the estimated replacement and maintenance costs. Excavations for wooden posts are made by power augers or are hand dug. Metal posts are driven into the soil.
 
Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan and the content of large and small stones influence the excavation of postholes and the driving of posts. Flooding and the depth to a seasonal high water table may restrict the season of construction. Flooding also increases maintenance and replacement costs. High water tables increase maintenance costs and require deeper post settings. In areas of soils that have a high shrink-swell potential, deep post settings or rock jacks are needed to maintain vertical post alignment. Setting the posts in permanently frozen soil may result in loss of the insulation qualities of the soil and in thermokarst topography. In areas of sandy soils, aligning the posts and maintaining the desired wire tension commonly are difficult because of low soil strength. Soil blowing causes maintenance problems. Frost action results in frost heaving of the posts. Steep slopes restrict the use of power augers and the delivery of supplies. On steep slopes, surface creep during wet periods increases maintenance costs. Soil reaction and salinity affect the type of post selected and increase maintenance costs.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"GRL - Fencing, Post Depth =<24 inches"|1||0|1|0|0||0|||1|"fence24"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Limited"" label=""Limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|06/06/2014 10:17:15|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
631|"Fencing, Post Depth 36 Inches or Less"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Fencing is the construction and maintenance of barriers for the management of animals and people. Metal or wooden posts are used when the fences are built. This interpretation is applicable where the posts are set to a depth of 24 inches or less in the soil and strands of wire are suspended between the posts.

Ratings are based on the ease of setting posts in the soil, the ease of maintaining the wire tension, and the estimated replacement and maintenance costs. Excavations for wooden posts are made by power augers or are hand dug. Metal posts are driven into the soil.
 
Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan and the content of large and small stones influence the excavation of postholes and the driving of posts. Flooding and the depth to a seasonal high water table may restrict the season of construction. Flooding also increases maintenance and replacement costs. High water tables increase maintenance costs and require deeper post settings. In areas of soils that have a high shrink-swell potential, deep post settings or rock jacks are needed to maintain vertical post alignment. Setting the posts in permanently frozen soil may result in loss of the insulation qualities of the soil and in thermokarst topography. In areas of sandy soils, aligning the posts and maintaining the desired wire tension commonly are difficult because of low soil strength. Soil blowing causes maintenance problems. Frost action results in frost heaving of the posts. Steep slopes restrict the use of power augers and the delivery of supplies. On steep slopes, surface creep during wet periods increases maintenance costs. Soil reaction and salinity affect the type of post selected and increase maintenance costs.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"GRL - Fencing, Post Depth =<36 inches"|1||0|1|0|0||0|||1|"fence36"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Limited"" label=""Limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|06/06/2014 10:18:24|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2683|"Juniper Encroachment Potential (NM)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The purpose of this interpretation is to evaluate the potential for juniper trees (Juniperus spp.) to encroach into plant communities where they did not historically exist or to increase beyond their historic composition within the plant community.  

The intent of this interpretation is to identify areas that are susceptible to encroachment by juniper trees, and not to identify areas where juniper currently does or does not exist. In addition, it is important to recognize the difference between the rate of encroachment and the potential for encroachment. Some soil map unit components may be susceptible to encroachment, but the rate of encroachment may be very slow. This interpretation focuses only on the factors that influence juniper seedling establishment, not on the factors that influence the rate at which they establish (rate of expansion).

The ratings for juniper encroachment potential are based on the following properties:

1.	Taxonomic temperature regime
2.	Ecological site
3.	Mean annual precipitation
4.	Drainage class and water table depth during the growing season
5.	Depth to root-restricting layers
6.	Content of rock fragments greater than 3 inches in diameter
7.	Electrical conductivity and sodium adsorption ratio in the upper 20 inches

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.00 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a feature results in the greatest risk of juniper encroachment (1.00) and the point at which the feature does not contribute to a risk of juniper encroachment (0.00).

The components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. Only the components that have the same rating class as that given for the map unit are listed. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given to help the user better understand the composition of each map unit that is rated.

Components with different ratings may also be present in a map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the aggregated rating of the unit, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
"|||"Interpretation"|"GRL - Juniper Encroachment Potential (NM)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"JuEnPt"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very high"" label=""Very high"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""High"" label=""High"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""102"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""204"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Low"" label=""Low"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""203"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Very low"" label=""Very low"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""101"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""None"" label=""None"" order=""6"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|134|08/18/2017 17:18:04|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2745|"Reclamation Suitability (MT)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation is designed to evaluate the suitability of soil map unit components for reclamation following disturbance such as by surface mining.   It is the process of restoring land to a natural or economically usable state.

Factors considered in this interpretation include:
 - Available water capacity for the 0 to 100 centimeter soil depth range
- Salinity of the surface layer, as determined by electrical conductivity
- Sodicity of the surface layer, as determined by the sodium adsorption ratio
- Mean annual precipitation
- Depth to root-restricting material
- Water erosion hazard, as determined by multiplying the erodibility ""Kw"" factor of the surface layer by the representative slope gradient (percent)
- Wind erosion hazard, as determined by the Wind Erodibility Index

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the soil reclamation suitability.  A ""Poorly suited"" rating indicates that the soil, site, and/or climate have features that are unfavorable for reclamation.  A ""Moderately suited"" rating indicates that the soil has features that are generally favorable for reclamation, but there are some soil, site, or climate features that are moderately limiting. A ""Well suited"" rating indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for reclamation.

Numerical ratings indicate the reclamation suitability of the soil. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.00 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which the combination of soil, site, and climate features has the greatest positive impact on restoration potential (0.00) and the point at which the features are very unfavorable (1.00). 

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"BLM-Reclamation Suitability (MT)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"ReclPotl"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|134|04/09/2018 16:06:16|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2748|"USFS - Road Construction and Maintenance (Natural Surface)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation is designed to assess the suitability of soils for Forest Service single lane system roads built to specification with a natural surface. Standard specifications include a grade between 2 and 8 percent, with segments up to 12 percent; a width of about 10 to 14 feet (FSH 7709.56); and drainage structures (Copstead, Johansen, and Moll; 1998).  Roads would be designed to cross the slope, and would be constructed with a cut and fill design in order to maintain grade.  A full bench design would be used on slopes greater than 55 percent (FSH 7709.56).  

This interpretation does not consider geomorphology or geologic information relating to mass stability or landslide risk.  Identifying risk factors for mass instability would be a separate process at a local or regional scale.

Soil properties used in the interpretation criteria include slope gradient, rock fragment content, flooding and ponding frequency, depth to water table, depth to lithic bedrock, AASHTO Group Index as an indicator of soil strength, linear extensibility percent as an indicator of shrink-swell potential, and depth to permafrost.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. A ""Very well suited"" rating indicates that the soil and site have features that are very favorable for road construction and maintenance.  A ""Well suited"" rating indicates that the soil has features that are generally favorable for road construction and maintenance, with some minor limiting factors.   A ""Moderately suited"" rating indicates that the soil has features that are generally favorable for road construction and maintenance but there are some limiting factors.   A ""Poorly suited"" rating indicates that the soil has features that create significant limiting factors for road construction and maintenance.   

Soils are placed into suitability classes based on the following numerical ratings:

0.91 - 1.00:   Very well suited
0.51 - 0.90:   Well suited
0.01 - 0.50:   Moderately suited
0.00:              Poorly suited  

This interpretation can be used for:

- assessing suitability for new single lane road construction in mountainous or flat terrain, 

- assessing suitability for new Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) trails (50 inches or wider) in mountainous or flat terrain,

- describing soil suitability-related maintenance issues on existing road or OHV trail (50 inches or wider) networks.

References:

Copstead, Ronald L.; Johansen, David Kim; Moll, Jeffry. 1998. Water/Road Interaction: Introduction to surface cross drains. Report 9877 1806--SDTDC. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program. 15 p.

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Forestry Manual, September, 1998.

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Soil Survey Handbook Part 620- Soil Interpretation Guides, 1993 (For historic use only).

USDA, Forest Service.  FSH7709.56- Road Preconstruction Handbook Chapter 40-Design.  Effective August 19, 2011.
"|||"Interpretation"|"FOR (USFS) - Road Construction/Maintenance (Natural Surface)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"RoadCoMa"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Poorly suited"" label=""Poorly suited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately suited"" label=""Moderately suited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Well suited"" label=""Well suited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Very well suited"" label=""Very well suited"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|06/26/2018 17:06:18|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2770|"Windthrow Hazard"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Windfirmness is the ability of a tree to resist overturning. It is a function of the balance between the anchorage or strength of the root/soil mass and the wind drag and gravitational forces applied on the tree crown.  Windthrow is one type of wind damage. It is the uprooting of a tree by pivoting on the outer edge of a mass of soil, rock, and roots. Windthrow occurs when the horizontal forces on a tree (wind drag) are transmitted down the trunk and create a torque that exceeds the resistance to turning of the root and soil system (Stathers et al., 1994).  The process varies depending on silvicultural practices, wind, tree species, site, and soil type. For example, individual tree characteristics contribute to windthrow. Trees with large, dense canopies are more susceptible to windthrow than those with open canopies. The strength and elasticity of the bole, branches, and leaves also contribute. The characteristics of the stand can influence the susceptibility to windthrow as well. Stand height and stand density are major factors; shorter and denser stands are more resistant to windthrow than tall, open stands. The rooting habits of the tree species impact the risk of windthrow; deeper-rooted trees are more resistant to the effects of wind than shallow-rooted species (Stathers et al., 1994). 
 
Soil and site factors are also important. According to most windthrow studies, the soil factors that control rooting depth contribute most significantly to the risk of windthrow. Rooting depth in soil can be restricted by a variety of features. Indurated, strongly cemented, and cemented layers, such as unweathered bedrock and duripans, are more or less root impenetrable. Some noncemented layers, such as fragipans, can also curtail root penetration. Persistent anoxic layers, such as a stagnant shallow water table, can act like an impervious layer. Wetness also has a deleterious effect on the shear strength of the soil, decreasing windfirmness. The weight of the soil over the roots adds a stabilizing anchoring influence. The shape of the land surface is also a factor in windthrow. While the effects are complex, the trees on certain exposed portions of the landscape are more subject to high windspeeds under most circumstances. Windspeed increases as wind streamlines are compressed by flowing through narrowing valleys, over hills and ridges, or around shoulder slopes. Wind direction is also a factor. In general, ridgetops, shoulder slopes, and backslopes tend to increase windspeed. This interpretation is intended to indicate those soil components on which the trees would be prone to windthrow.

The soil and site criteria that are considered in this soil interpretation are those that have the greatest effect on windthrow.  They include the depth to a root-limiting layer, the position of the tree on the landscape, the shape of the landscape, and the cohesiveness of the soil in which the tree is rooted.
 
Each soil and site criterion is assigned a numerical rating between 0 and 1. For this interpretation, a rating of 1 represents the least favorable soil and site characteristics and 0 represents the most favorable soil and site characteristics. Windthrow hazard is an indicator of the relative susceptibility of trees growing on a soil component to being blown over by wind. Soil and site factors, while important, are not the only factors that need to be considered in the process of windthrow. Silvicultural practices, tree species, and climatic variables are also involved.

Rating classes are defined as follows:

Severe (numerical rating of 1):  Soils and sites where windthrow is likely to occur under conditions of high winds and decreased shear strength. 

Moderate (numerical rating of 0.01 to 0.99):  Soils and sites where windthrow may occur only under conditions of extreme windspeeds and decreased shear strength. 
 
Slight (numerical rating of 0):  Soils and sites where windthrow may occur only under conditions of very extreme windspeeds and decreased shear strength.

Not Rated:  Miscellaneous areas.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

Reference:

Stathers, R.J., T.P. Rollerson, and S.J. Mitchell. 1994. Windthrow Handbook for British Columbia Forests. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria. Working Paper 9401.
"|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Windthrow Hazard"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"windthrhaz"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Severe"" label=""Severe"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Slight"" label=""Slight"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|10/25/2019 16:32:52|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2776|"Soil Compactibility Risk"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation is designed to predict the potential for soil compaction from operation of ground-based equipment for forest harvesting and site preparation activities when soils are moist. Soils are rated based on their susceptibility to compaction from the operation of ground-based equipment for planting, harvesting, and site preparation activities. Soil compaction is the process in which soil particles are pressed together more closely than in the original state. Typically, the soil must be moist to be compacted because the mineral grains must slide together. Compaction reduces the abundance mostly of large pores in the soil by damaging the structure of the soil. This produces several effects that are unwanted in forest soils since large pores are most effective at transmitting water and air through the soil. Compaction also increases the soil strength, which can limit root penetration and growth. The ability of soil to hold water is adversely affected by compaction since the large pores hold water. The degree of compaction of a soil is measured by its bulk density, which is the mass per unit volume, generally expressed in grams per cubic centimeter.

Compacted soils are less favorable for good plant growth because of high soil bulk density and hardness, reduced pore space, and poor aeration and drainage. Root penetration and growth is decreased in compacted soils because the hardness or strength of these soils prevents the expansion of roots. Supplies of air, water, and nutrients that roots need are also reduced when compaction decreases soil porosity and drainage.

Interpretative ratings are based on soil properties in the upper 12 inches of the profile. Factors considered are soil texture, soil organic matter content, soil structure, rock fragment content, and the existing bulk density. Each of these properties contributes to a soil’s ability to resist compaction. Organic matter in the soil provides resistance to compaction and the resilience to overcome the effects with time. Soil structure adds strength through discrete aggregates; it is the aggregates that are deformed or destroyed by the forces of compaction, thus strong soil structure lowers the susceptibility to compaction. Similarly, rock fragments in the soil can bridge and provide a framework to resist compaction. Finally, if a soil is already dense, further compaction is more difficult.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the soil compaction potential. 

Definitions of the ratings:

Low - The potential for compaction is insignificant. The soil is able to support standard equipment with minimal compaction. The soil is moisture insensitive, exhibiting only small changes in density with changing moisture content.

Medium - The potential for compaction is significant. The growth rate of seedlings may be reduced following compaction. After the initial compaction (i.e., the first equipment pass), the soil is able to support standard equipment with only minimal increases in soil density. The soil is intermediate between moisture insensitive and moisture sensitive.

High - The potential for compaction is very significant. The growth rate of seedlings will be reduced following compaction. After initial compaction, the soil is still able to support standard equipment but will continue to compact with each subsequent pass of the equipment. The soil is moisture sensitive, exhibiting large changes in density with changing moisture content.

Numerical ratings indicate the soil compaction potential. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.00. They indicate gradations between the point where compaction potential is highest (1.00) and the point at which compaction potential is lowest (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. 

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

References:

Adams, P.W. 1981. Compaction of forest soils. Oregon State University Extension Publication PNW 217.

Adams, P.W. 1998. Soil compaction on woodland properties. Oregon State University Extension Publication EC 1109.

Boyer, D. 1997. Guidelines for soil resource protection and restoration for timber harvest and post-harvest activities. U.S Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Watershed Management.

Froehlich, H.A., and D.H. McNab. 1983. Minimizing soil compaction in Pacific Northwest forests. Proceedings of Sixth North American Forest Soils Conference, University of Tennessee.

Geist, J.M., J.W. Hazard, and K.W. Seidel. 1989. Assessing physical conditions of some Pacific Northwest volcanic ash soils after forest harvest. Soil Science Society of America Journal 53:946-950.

Page-Dumrose, D.S. 1993. Susceptibility of volcanic ash influenced soils in northern Idaho to mechanical compaction. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. Research Note INT-409.
"|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Soil Compactibility Risk"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SoilCompac"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""High"" label=""High"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Medium"" label=""Medium"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Low"" label=""Low"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|23491|11/18/2019 22:11:26|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2834|"Drought Vulnerable Soils"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Drought Vulnerable Soils

Even in a year, having normal precipitation or slightly less than normal, some soils are prone to having drought stress occur in the plants growing on them.  Several conditions can allow this to happen.  Most influential may be a relative lack of effective precipitation, as is estimated by subtracting the mean annual precipitation from an estimate of the annual evapotranspiration. Soils west of the 100th meridian frequently fall into this situation, especially at low elevations.  Also, a soil may have an inherently low ability to store water.  This is typical of sandy or shallow soils or soils having a high content of rock fragments.  In this case, even though there may be significant rainfall, the soil matrix does not retain sufficient water for crop growth.

Topographic and climatic characteristics can be present to mitigate a soil's droughty tendacies.  Some soils exist on water-gathering portions of the landscape and can thus support more plant growth than their similar neighbors because of run on. Some soils have a water table present within the rooting zone during the growing season to supply plant water needs.  Finally, some soils exist in a climate where precipitation is much higher than evapotranspiration and the soil is nearly always moist.  This can occur in cool climates at high elevations.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are vulnerable to drought. Numerical ratings indicate the degree of vulnerability associated with each soil or site feature. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature imparts the greatest degree of vulnerability (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature helps to mitigate drought vulnerability (0.00).

Verbal ratings are defined as follows: 

Severely drought vulnerable (rating index equals 1.0). — The soil and site properties present are such that the plants growing on the soil must be very drought tolerant even in years with normal amounts of rainfall.  The soil may have very low water storage capacity (below 5 cm) or may be in an area of low annual precipitation or high annual temperature or both. 

Drought vulnerable (rating index is greater than 0.67 but less than 1.0). — The soil and site properties are such that drought conditions generally occur every year.  The soil may have low water storage capacity (5 to 15 cm) and the site may have low annual precipitation or high annual temperature or both. 

Moderately drought vulnerable (rating index is greater than 0.33 but less than 0.67). — The soil and site proerties are such that in an average year, some water stress may occur, but in a good year, plant available water is generally adequate. Water storage is in the range of 15 to 25 cm.  Rainfall and estimated potential evapotranspiration are nearly equal. 

Somewhat drought vulnerable (rating index is greater than 0 but less than 0.33). — These soils have greater than 25 cm of water storage and annual precipitation is generally adequate for plant growth.  In dry years some water stress may occur. 

Slightly drought vulnerable (rating index equals 0). — These soils are either in lowlying parts of the landscape where plant roots may exploit near-surface ground water or are in areas where precipitation is much higher than potential evapotranspitration.  In an extremely dry year plants may be water stressed on these soils. 

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is provided to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.
 
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.


"|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Drought Vulnerable Soils"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"DrouVulSoi"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Severely drought vulnerable"" label=""Severely drought vulnerable"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Drought vulnerable"" label=""Drought vulnerable"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""127"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately drought vulnerable"" label=""Moderately drought vulnerable"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat drought vulnerable"" label=""Somewhat drought vulnerable"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""127"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Slightly drought vulnerable"" label=""Slightly drought vulnerable"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|08/04/2021 19:53:59|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2836|"Soil Suitability for Industrial Hemp"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Soil Suitability for Industrial Hemp for Fiber and Seed

Industrial hemp produced for fiber and seed is seeing a resurgence in interest from farmers in many states.  Although commonly cultivated in the United States prior to the 1940s, it fell out of vogue with the advent of other materials for producing rope and textiles.  Industrial hemp is a non-drug variety of Cannabis sativa which has very low levels (less than 0.3%) of the psychoactive compound, tetrahydracannabinal (THC).  It is a highly productive plant which can grow in a variety of climate and soil conditions.  Any machinery that is easily adjustable, such as row widths, and performs well is suitable for sowing industrial hemp. Standard grain drills and modified alfalfa seeders are examples of suitable machinery. Ease of converting farm equipment to sow seeds makes this an appealing alternative. Ideally, industrial hemp should be incorporated into a four-year crop rotation. Industrial hemp does require an adequate amount of nutrients. Major nutrients include but, not limited to: (1) nitrogen, (2) potassium, and (3) phosphorus. Industrial hemp's dense canopy  makes for effective weed suppression. 

Industrial hemp requires certain soil and site characteristics for optimum growth.  Slope, soil drainage, depth to a restrictive layer, frost-free days, ponding, flooding, rock fragment cover, and rock fragment content are important characteristics that are not easily altered.  If any one of these attributes is unsuited for growing a crop, then the site is not suited.  Other soil characteristics, such as available water storage, organic matter content, pH, electrical conductivity, cation exchange capacity, and hydraulic conductivity, while important, will generally not render a soil unsuited if one or two of these characteristics is sub-optimal.  Also, these characteristics can be made more suitable when the soil is managed for optimal soil health. 

Two things need to be remembered about the ""Industrial Hemp for Fiber and Seed Production"" model.  First, it is important to consider that this interpretation describes the suitability of a soil and site for industrial hemp production and does not necessarily imply a predicted yield, although better suited soils may be more productive.  Second, the model assumes that if the crop needs to be irrigated due to insufficient precipitation, then water at appropriate levels will be applied.  European studies show that industrial hemp requires 500 to 700 mm of moisture for optimum yield.  Thus, annual precipitation will need to be higher than that range, depending on the soil and evapotranspiration.  Research in the Midwest suggests 600 to 800mm of annual precipitation is needed.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are suited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. Numerical ratings indicate the degree of suitability of each soil or site feature. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest degree of suitability for the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not suited for the use (0.00).

Verbal ratings are defined as follows: 

Well suited (rating index equals 1.0). —The soil and site properties present are optimal for the growth of hemp for seed and fiber.  

Suited (rating index is greater than 0.75 but less than 1.0). —The soil and site properties are generally suited, but not optimal.  The site may be sloping, have seasonal saturation, or have soil chemical or physical properties that may slightly limit the growth of hemp. 

Moderately suited (rating index is greater than 0.25 but less than 0.75). —The soil and site properties are generally suited, but not well suited.  The site may be sloping, have seasonal saturation, or have soil chemical or physical properties that may limit the growth of hemp. The crop will grow and produce on these sites, but harvest may be more difficult if the soil is sloping.

Poorly suited (rating index is greater than 0 but less than 0.25). —The suitability of the site is marginal for the management and production of the crop.  While hemp will grow and produce a crop, it may not be of an economic quantity.  

Not suited (rating index equals 0). —The soil is rendered unsuitable for hemp production due to very unfavorable conditions, such as excessive slope, severe wetness, or poor physical and chemical soil properties.  

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is provided to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.
 
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.



References and Resources


Amaducci, S., D Scordia, FH Liu, Q Zhang, H Guo, G Testa, SL Cosentino. 2015. Key cultivation techniques for hemp in Europe and China.  Industrial Crops and Products 68, 2-16.

Bocsa, I. and Karus, M., 1998. The cultivation of hemp: botany, varieties, cultivation and harvesting. Hemptech.

Cherney, J.H.; Small, E. Industrial Hemp in North America: Production, Politics and Potential. Agronomy 2016, 6, 58.
 
Cosentino, S. L., Testa, G., Scordia, D., & Copani, V, 2011. Sowing time and prediction of flowering of different hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) genotypes in southern Europe. Industrial Crops and Products, Volume 37, Issue 1.

Dewey, Lyster H. The Cultivation of Hemp in the United States. USDA Bur. of Plant Industry Circular No. 57. (May 23, 1910).

Feasibility of industrial hemp production in the United States Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Extension Service Station Bulletin 681, May 1998.

Fike, J. (2016) Industrial Hemp: Renewed Opportunities for an Ancient Crop, Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 35:5-6, 406-424, DOI: 10.1080/07352689.2016.1257842.

Industrial Hemp Production, Manitoba, CA.  https://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/crops/production/hemp-production.html#field.

Jones, VD Jeliazkov, RJ Roseberg, SD Angima. 2019. Basics of Fall Cover Cropping for Hemp in Oregon, Oregon State University Extension Service.  https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/catalog/files/project/pdf/em9255.pdf

Kaiser, C., Cassady, C., and M Ernst. 2015. Industrial Hemp Production. Center for Crop Diversification, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky.

Kraenzel, D. G., Petry, T., Nelson, B., Anderson, M. J., Mathern, D., & Tod, R. (1998, July 23). https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/23264. Retrieved February 28, 2020, from
Moebius-Clune, B.N., D.J. Moebius-Clune, B.K. Gugino, O.J. Idowu, R.R. Schindelbeck, A.J. Ristow, H.M. van Es, J.E. Thies, H.A. Shayler, M.B. McBride, K.S.M Kurtz, D.W. Wolfe, and G.S. Abawi, 2016. Comprehensive Assessment of Soil Health  The Cornell Framework, Edition 3.2, Cornell University, Geneva, NY. http://www.css.cornell.edu/extension/soil-health/manual.pdf.

Nelson, R.A., 1999. Hemp Husbandry. Rex Research Archives.

Purdue University, Hemp Project, Hemp Production.  https://purduehemp.org/hemp-production/Fertility.

Valtcho D Jeliazkov, Jay Noller, Sam Angima, Silvia I Rondon, Richard J Roseberg, Sunny Summers, Gordon Jones, Vladimir Sikora. 2019. What is Industrial Hemp?.  Oregon State University Extension Service. https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/sites/catalog/files/project/pdf/em9240.pdf"|||"Interpretation"|"AGR - Industrial Hemp for Fiber and Seed Production"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SuitHemp"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Not suited"" label=""Not suited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Poorly Suited"" label=""Poorly Suited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""127"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately Suited"" label=""Moderately Suited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Suited"" label=""Suited"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""127"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Well Suited"" label=""Well Suited"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|08/30/2021 18:41:20|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
78|"Disposal of Wastewater by Irrigation"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Wastewater includes municipal and food-processing wastewater and effluent from lagoons or storage ponds. Municipal wastewater is the waste stream from a municipality. It contains domestic waste and may contain industrial waste. It may have received primary or secondary treatment. It is rarely untreated sewage. Food-processing wastewater results from the preparation of fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese, and meats for public consumption. In places it is high in content of sodium and chloride. The effluent in lagoons and storage ponds is from facilities used to treat or store food-processing wastewater or domestic or animal waste. Domestic and food-processing wastewater is very dilute, and the effluent from the facilities that treat or store it commonly is very low in content of carbonaceous and nitrogenous material; the content of nitrogen commonly ranges from 10 to 30 milligrams per liter. The wastewater from animal waste treatment lagoons or storage ponds, however, has much higher concentrations of these materials, mainly because the manure has not been diluted as much as the domestic waste. The content of nitrogen in this wastewater generally ranges from 50 to 2,000 milligrams per liter. When wastewater is applied, checks should be made to ensure that nitrogen, heavy metals, and salts are not added in excessive amounts.

Disposal of wastewater by irrigation not only disposes of municipal wastewater and wastewater from food-processing plants, lagoons, and storage ponds but also can improve crop production by increasing the amount of water available to crops. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the design, construction, management, and performance of the irrigation system. The properties that affect design and management include the sodium adsorption ratio, depth to a water table, ponding, available water capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), slope, and flooding. The properties that affect construction include stones, cobbles, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, depth to a water table, and ponding. The properties that affect performance include depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, bulk density, the sodium adsorption ratio, salinity, reaction, and the cation-exchange capacity, which is used to estimate the capacity of a soil to adsorb heavy metals. Permanently frozen soils are not suitable for disposal of wastewater by irrigation.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect agricultural waste management. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"AWM - Irrigation Disposal of Wastewater"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"DispWWIrr"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 05:52:54|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
57|"Disposal of Wastewater by Rapid Infiltration"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Rapid infiltration of wastewater is a process in which wastewater applied in a level basin at a rate of 4 to 120 inches per week percolates through the soil. The wastewater may eventually reach the ground water. The application rate commonly exceeds the rate needed for irrigation of cropland. Vegetation is not a necessary part of the treatment; thus, the basins may or may not be vegetated. The thickness of the soil material needed for proper treatment of the wastewater is more than 72 inches. As a result, geologic and hydrologic investigation is needed to ensure proper design and performance and to determine the risk of ground-water pollution.

Soil properties are important considerations in areas where soils are used as sites for the treatment and disposal of organic waste and wastewater. Selection of soils with properties that favor waste management can help to prevent environmental damage.

Municipal wastewater is the waste stream from a municipality. It contains domestic waste and may contain industrial waste. It may have received primary or secondary treatment. It is rarely untreated sewage. Food-processing wastewater results from the preparation of fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese, and meats for public consumption. In places it is high in content of sodium and chloride. The effluent in lagoons and storage ponds is from facilities used to treat or store food-processing wastewater or domestic or animal waste. Domestic and food-processing wastewater is very dilute, and the effluent from the facilities that treat or store it commonly is very low in content of carbonaceous and nitrogenous material; the content of nitrogen commonly ranges from 10 to 30 milligrams per liter. The wastewater from animal waste treatment lagoons or storage ponds, however, has much higher concentrations of these materials, mainly because the manure has not been diluted as much as the domestic waste. The content of nitrogen in this wastewater generally ranges from 50 to 2,000 milligrams per liter. When wastewater is applied, checks should be made to ensure that nitrogen, heavy metals, and salts are not added in excessive amounts.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect the risk of pollution and the design, construction, and performance of the system. Depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, and depth to bedrock or a cemented pan affect the risk of pollution and the design and construction of the system. Slope, stones, and cobbles also affect design and construction. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) and reaction affect performance. Permanently frozen soils are unsuitable for waste treatment.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect agricultural waste management. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"AWM - Rapid Infiltration Disposal of Wastewater"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"RIDispWW"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 05:56:36|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
64|"Overland Flow Treatment of Wastewater"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"In this process wastewater is applied to the upper reaches of sloped land and allowed to flow across vegetated surfaces, sometimes called terraces, to runoff-collection ditches. The length of the run generally is 150 to 300 feet. The application rate ranges from 2.5 to 16.0 inches per week. It commonly exceeds the rate needed for irrigation of cropland. The wastewater leaves solids and nutrients on the vegetated surfaces as it flows downslope in a thin film. Most of the water reaches the collection ditch, some is lost through evapotranspiration, and a small amount may percolate to the ground water.

Wastewater includes municipal and food-processing wastewater and effluent from lagoons or storage ponds. Municipal wastewater is the waste stream from a municipality. It contains domestic waste and may contain industrial waste. It may have received primary or secondary treatment. It is rarely untreated sewage. Food-processing wastewater results from the preparation of fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese, and meats for public consumption. In places it is high in content of sodium and chloride. The effluent in lagoons and storage ponds is from facilities used to treat or store food-processing wastewater or domestic or animal waste. Domestic and food-processing wastewater is very dilute, and the effluent from the facilities that treat or store it commonly is very low in content of carbonaceous and nitrogenous material; the content of nitrogen commonly ranges from 10 to 30 milligrams per liter. The wastewater from animal waste treatment lagoons or storage ponds, however, has much higher concentrations of these materials, mainly because the manure has not been diluted as much as the domestic waste. The content of nitrogen in this wastewater generally ranges from 50 to 2,000 milligrams per liter. When wastewater is applied, checks should be made to ensure that nitrogen, heavy metals, and salts are not added in excessive amounts.

The ratings are for waste management systems that not only dispose of and treat wastewater but also are beneficial to crops. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect agricultural waste management. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"AWM - Overland Flow Process Treatment of Wastewater"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"OFPTreatWW"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 05:55:41|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
29|"Manure and Food-Processing Waste"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The application of manure and food-processing waste not only disposes of waste material but also can improve crop production by increasing the supply of nutrients in the soils where the material is applied. Manure is the excrement of livestock and poultry, and food-processing waste is damaged fruit and vegetables and the peelings, stems, leaves, pits, and soil particles removed in food preparation. The manure and food-processing waste are solid, slurry, or liquid. Their nitrogen content varies. A high content of nitrogen limits the application rate. Toxic or otherwise dangerous wastes, such as those mixed with the lye used in food processing, are not considered in the ratings.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption, plant growth, microbial activity, erodibility, the rate at which the waste is applied, and the method by which the waste is applied. The properties that affect absorption include saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, the sodium adsorption ratio, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and available water capacity. The properties that affect plant growth and microbial activity include reaction, the sodium adsorption ratio, salinity, and bulk density. The wind erodibility group, soil erosion factor K, and slope are considered in estimating the likelihood that wind erosion or water erosion will transport the waste material from the application site. Stones, cobbles, a water table, ponding, and flooding can hinder the application of waste. Permanently frozen soils are unsuitable for waste treatment.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect agricultural waste management. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"AWM - Manure and Food Processing Waste"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"MFPWaste"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 05:54:47|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
24|"Slow Rate Treatment of Wastewater"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Slow rate treatment of wastewater is a process in which wastewater is applied to land at a rate normally between 0.5 inch and 4.0 inches per week. The application rate commonly exceeds the rate needed for irrigation of cropland. The applied wastewater is treated as it moves through the soil. Much of the treated water may percolate to the ground water, and some enters the atmosphere through evapotranspiration. The applied water generally is not allowed to run off the surface. Waterlogging is prevented either through control of the application rate or through the use of tile drains, or both.

Soil properties are important considerations in areas where soils are used as sites for the treatment and disposal of organic waste and wastewater. Selection of soils with properties that favor waste management can help to prevent environmental damage.

Municipal wastewater is the waste stream from a municipality. It contains domestic waste and may contain industrial waste. It may have received primary or secondary treatment. It is rarely untreated sewage. Food-processing wastewater results from the preparation of fruits, vegetables, milk, cheese, and meats for public consumption. In places it is high in content of sodium and chloride. The effluent in lagoons and storage ponds is from facilities used to treat or store food-processing wastewater or domestic or animal waste. Domestic and food-processing wastewater is very dilute, and the effluent from the facilities that treat or store it commonly is very low in content of carbonaceous and nitrogenous material; the content of nitrogen commonly ranges from 10 to 30 milligrams per liter. The wastewater from animal waste treatment lagoons or storage ponds, however, has much higher concentrations of these materials, mainly because the manure has not been diluted as much as the domestic waste. The content of nitrogen in this wastewater generally ranges from 50 to 2,000 milligrams per liter. When wastewater is applied, checks should be made to ensure that nitrogen, heavy metals, and salts are not added in excessive amounts.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption, plant growth, microbial activity, erodibility, and the application of waste. The properties that affect absorption include the sodium adsorption ratio, depth to a water table, ponding, available water capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, reaction, the cation-exchange capacity, and slope. Reaction, the sodium adsorption ratio, salinity, and bulk density affect plant growth and microbial activity. The wind erodibility group, soil erosion factor K, and slope are considered in estimating the likelihood of wind erosion or water erosion. Stones, cobbles, a water table, ponding, and flooding can hinder the application of waste. Permanently frozen soils are unsuitable for waste treatment.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect agricultural waste management. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"AWM - Slow Rate Process Treatment of Wastewater"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SRPTreatWW"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 05:57:44|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
17|"Land Application of Municipal Sewage Sludge"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Application of sewage sludge not only disposes of waste material but also can improve crop production by increasing the supply of nutrients in the soils where the material is applied. Sewage sludge is the residual product of the treatment of municipal sewage. The solid component consists mainly of cell mass, primarily bacteria cells that developed during secondary treatment and have incorporated soluble organics into their own bodies. The sludge has small amounts of sand, silt, and other solid debris. The content of nitrogen varies. Some sludge has constituents that are toxic to plants or hazardous to the food chain, such as heavy metals and exotic organic compounds, and should be analyzed chemically prior to use.

The content of water in the sludge ranges from about 98 percent to less than 40 percent. The sludge is considered liquid if it is more than about 90 percent water, slurry if it is about 50 to 90 percent water, and solid if it is less than about 50 percent water.

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect absorption, plant growth, microbial activity, erodibility, the rate at which the sludge is applied, and the method by which the sludge is applied. The properties that affect absorption, plant growth, and microbial activity include saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, the sodium adsorption ratio, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, available water capacity, reaction, salinity, and bulk density. The wind erodibility group, soil erosion factor K, and slope are considered in estimating the likelihood that wind erosion or water erosion will transport the waste material from the application site. Stones, cobbles, a water table, ponding, and flooding can hinder the application of sludge. Permanently frozen soils are unsuitable for waste treatment.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect agricultural waste management. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"AWM - Land Application of Municipal Sewage Sludge"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"LAMSSludge"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 05:54:00|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
33|"Pond Reservoir Areas"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Pond reservoir areas hold water behind a dam or embankment. Soils best suited to this use have low seepage potential in the upper 60 inches. The seepage potential is determined by the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of the soil and the depth to fractured bedrock or other permeable material. Excessive slope can affect the storage capacity of the reservoir area.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Pond Reservoir Area"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"PndResArea"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 09:09:53|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
30|"Embankments, Dikes, and Levees"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Embankments, dikes, and levees are raised structures of soil material, generally less than 20 feet high, constructed to impound water or to protect land against overflow. Embankments that have zoned construction (core and shell) are not considered. The soils are rated as a source of material for embankment fill. The ratings apply to the soil material below the surface layer to a depth of about 5 feet. It is assumed that soil layers will be uniformly mixed and compacted during construction.

The ratings do not indicate the suitability of the undisturbed soil for supporting the embankment. Soil properties to a depth even greater than the height of the embankment can affect performance and safety of the embankment. Generally, deeper onsite investigation is needed to determine these properties.

Soil material in embankments must be resistant to seepage, piping, and erosion and have favorable compaction characteristics. Unfavorable features include less than 5 feet of suitable material and a high content of stones or boulders, organic matter, or salts or sodium. A high water table affects the amount of usable material. It also affects trafficability.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Embankments, Dikes, and Levees"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"EmbDikLev"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 09:02:56|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
72|"Excavated Ponds (Aquifer-Fed)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Excavated ponds (aquifer-fed) are pits or dugouts that extend to a ground-water aquifer or to a depth below a permanent water table. Excluded are ponds that are fed only by surface runoff and embankment ponds that impound water 3 feet or more above the original surface. Excavated ponds are affected by depth to a permanent water table, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) of the aquifer, and quality of the water as inferred from the salinity of the soil. Depth to bedrock and the content of large stones affect the ease of excavation.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Excavated Ponds (Aquifer-fed)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"ExPndAqFed"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Unlimited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 09:04:00|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
386|"Irrigation, General"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation evaluates a soil's limitation(s) for installation and use of irrigation systems.  This interpretation is for non-specific irrigation methods and is intended to provide initial planning information.  If the type of irrigation system has been determined, additional interpretations provide more specific information.  This interpretation does not apply if the crop planned for irrigation is rice or other crops (such as cranberries) with unique plant physiological characteristics.  The ratings are for soils in their natural condition and do not consider present land use.

Irrigation systems are used to provide supplemental water to crops, orchards, vineyards, and vegetables in areas where natural precipitation will not support desired production of crops being grown.

The soil properties and qualities important in design and management of irrigation systems are sodium adsorption ratio, depth to high water table, available water holding capacity, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), slope, calcium carbonate content, ponding, and flooding.  Soil properties and qualities that influence installation are stones, depth to bedrock or cemented pan, and depth to a high water table.  The properties and qualities that affect performance of the irrigation system are depth to bedrock or to a cemented pan, the sodium adsorption ratio, salinity, and soil reaction.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the interpretation. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by the soil features that affect the soil interpretation.  Verbal soil rating classes are based on the highest numerical rating for the most limiting soil feature(s) considered in the rating process.  ""Not limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 0.00) indicates that the soil has no limiting features for the specified use.  ""Somewhat limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature =.01 to .99) indicates that the soil has limiting features for the specified use that can be overcome with proper planning, design, installation, and management.  The effort required to overcome a soil limitation increases as the numerical rating increases.  ""Very limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 1.00) indicates that the soil has one or more very limiting features that can only be overcome with special planning, major soil modification, special design, or significant management practices.

Lesser soil restrictive features have a lower numerical value than the maximum used to rate the soil, and they are identified to provide the user with additional information about soil limitations for the specific use.  Lesser soil restrictive features also need to be considered in planning, design, installation, and management.

The results of this interpretation are not designed or intended to be used in a regulatory manner.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Irrigation, General"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"IrrGen"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 09:04:57|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
387|"Irrigation, Micro (Above Ground)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation evaluates a soil's limitation(s) for irrigation systems that apply frequent applications of small quantities of water on the soil surface as drops, tiny streams or miniature spray through emitters or applicators placed along a water delivery line.  Generally, these irrigation systems are very efficient in terms of both water and energy use and are suitable for use in vineyards, orchards, windbreaks, nurseries, and on truck crops and some row crops.  The ratings are for soils in their natural condition and do not consider present land use.

The soil properties and qualities important in the design and management of drip micro-irrigation systems are depth, wetness or ponding, percolation, and flooding.  The soil properties and qualities that influence installation are depth, flooding, and ponding. The features that affect performance of the system and plant growth are the content of salts, calcium carbonate, or sodium.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the interpretation. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by the soil features that affect the soil interpretation.  Verbal soil rating classes are based on the highest numerical rating for the most limiting soil feature(s) considered in the rating process.  ""Not limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 0.00) indicates that the soil has no limiting features for the specified use.  ""Somewhat limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature =.01 to .99) indicates that the soil has limiting features for the specified use that can be overcome with proper planning, design, installation, and management.  The effort required to overcome a soil limitation increases as the numerical rating increases.  ""Very limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 1.00) indicates that the soil has one or more very limiting features that can only be overcome with special planning, major soil modification, special design, or significant management practices.

Lesser soil restrictive features have a lower numerical value than the maximum used to rate the soil, and they are identified to provide the user with additional information about soil limitations for the specific use.  Lesser soil restrictive features also need to be considered in planning, design, installation, and management.

The results of this interpretation are not designed or intended to be used in a regulatory manner.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Irrigation, Micro (above ground)"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"IrrMAG"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 09:05:36|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
388|"Irrigation, Micro (Subsurface Drip)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation evaluates a soil's limitation(s) for irrigation systems that apply low volumes of water below the soil surface as drops, tiny streams, or miniature spray through emitters or applicators placed along a water delivery line.  Subsurface micro-irrigation systems are buried and apply water directly and very slowly to the root zone.  Generally, these systems are very efficient in terms of both water and energy use and are suitable for use in windbreaks, vegetables, berries, landscape plantings, vineyards, orchards, and some row crops.  The ratings are for soils in their natural condition and do not consider present land use.

The soil properties and qualities important in the design and management of subsurface micro-irrigation systems are soil depth, available water capacity, wetness or ponding, saturated hydraulic conductivity, pH (soil reaction), erosion potential, and flooding.  The soil properties and qualities that influence installation are soil depth, stoniness, flooding, and ponding.  The features that affect performance of the system and plant growth are available water capacity, shrink-swell potential, pH (soil reaction), and the content (or amount) of salts, calcium carbonate, and sodium.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the interpretation. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by the soil features that affect the soil interpretation.  Verbal soil rating classes are based on the highest numerical rating for the most limiting soil feature(s) considered in the rating process.  ""Not limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 0.00) indicates that the soil has no limiting features for the specified use.  ""Somewhat limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature =.01 to .99) indicates that the soil has limiting features for the specified use that can be overcome with proper planning, design, installation, and management.  The effort required to overcome a soil limitation increases as the numerical rating increases.  ""Very limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 1.00) indicates that the soil has one or more very limiting features that can only be overcome with special planning, major soil modification, special design, or significant management practices.

Lesser soil restrictive features have a lower numerical value than the maximum used to rate the soil, and they are identified to provide the user with additional information about soil limitations for the specific use.  Lesser soil restrictive features also need to be considered in planning, design, installation, and management.

The results of this interpretation are not designed or intended to be used in a regulatory manner.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Irrigation, Micro (subsurface drip)"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"IrrMSD"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 09:06:16|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
389|"Irrigation, Sprinkler (Close Spaced Drops)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation evaluates a soil's limitation(s) for installation and use of sprinkler irrigation systems equipped with low pressure spray nozzles mounted on closely spaced drops that apply water close to the ground surface.  The ratings are for soils in their natural condition and do not consider present land use.

These systems are generally found on linear move or center pivot systems, and they have separate slope criteria from other sprinkler systems because of their higher application rates, which increase risk of runoff and irrigation-induced erosion on steeper slopes.  Examples of these types of systems include Low Pressure in Canopy (LPIC), Low Energy Precision Application (LEPA), Low Elevation Spray Application (LESA), and Mid-Elevation Spray Application (MESA) systems. These types of irrigation systems are generally suitable for small grains, row crops, and vegetables.  

The soil properties and qualities important in the design and management of sprinkler irrigation systems utilizing close spaced spray nozzles on drops are depth, available water holding capacity, sodium adsorption ratio, surface coarse fragments, saturated hydraulic conductivity, salinity, slope, wetness, and flooding. The features that affect performance of the system and plant growth are surface texture, surface rocks, salinity, sodium adsorption ratio, wetness, erosion potential, and available water holding capacity.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the interpretation. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by the soil features that affect the soil interpretation.  Verbal soil rating classes are based on the highest numerical rating for the most limiting soil feature(s) considered in the rating process.  ""Not limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 0.00) indicates that the soil has no limiting features for the specified use.  ""Somewhat limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature =.01 to .99) indicates that the soil has limiting features for the specified use that can be overcome with proper planning, design, installation, and management.  The effort required to overcome a soil limitation increases as the numerical rating increases.  ""Very limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 1.00) indicates that the soil has one or more very limiting features that can only be overcome with special planning, major soil modification, special design, or significant management practices.

Lesser soil restrictive features have a lower numerical value than the maximum used to rate the soil, and they are identified to provide the user with additional information about soil limitations for the specific use.  Lesser soil restrictive features also need to be considered in planning, design, installation, and management.

The results of this interpretation are not designed or intended to be used in a regulatory manner.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Irrigation, Sprinkler (close spaced outlet drops)"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"IrrSprCS"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 09:07:07|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
390|"Irrigation, Sprinkler (General)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation evaluates a soil's limitation(s) for installation and use of sprinkler irrigation systems, excluding those equipped with closely spaced outlets on drops, which are covered by a different interpretation.  The ratings are for soils in their natural condition and do not consider present land use.

Sprinkler irrigation systems apply irrigation water to a field through a series of pipes and nozzles and can be either solid set or mobile.  Generally, this type of irrigation system is suitable for small grains, row crops, vegetables, and orchards. 

The soil properties and qualities important in the design and management of sprinkler irrigation systems are depth, available water holding capacity, sodium adsorption ratio, surface coarse fragments, saturated hydraulic conductivity, salinity, slope, wetness, and flooding. The features that affect performance of the system and plant growth are surface rocks, salinity, sodium adsorption ratio, wetness, and available water holding capacity.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the interpretation. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by the soil features that affect the soil interpretation.  Verbal soil rating classes are based on the highest numerical rating for the most limiting soil feature(s) considered in the rating process.  ""Not limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 0.00) indicates that the soil has no limiting features for the specified use.  ""Somewhat limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature =.01 to .99) indicates that the soil has limiting features for the specified use that can be overcome with proper planning, design, installation, and management.  The effort required to overcome a soil limitation increases as the numerical rating increases.  ""Very limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 1.00) indicates that the soil has one or more very limiting features that can only be overcome with special planning, major soil modification, special design, or significant management practices.

Lesser soil restrictive features have a lower numerical value than the maximum used to rate the soil, and they are identified to provide the user with additional information about soil limitations for the specific use.  Lesser soil restrictive features also need to be considered in planning, design, installation, and management.

The results of this interpretation are not designed or intended to be used in a regulatory manner.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Irrigation, Sprinkler (general)"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"IrrSpr"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 09:07:49|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
391|"Irrigation, Surface (Graded)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation evaluates a soil's limitation(s) for graded border and graded furrow surface irrigation systems.  Graded border irrigation systems allow irrigation water to flow across the soil surface while being confined by borders.  Graded furrow irrigation systems are systems that allow irrigation water to flow down furrow valleys while the crop being irrigated is planted on the furrow ridge.  Generally, graded border systems are suitable for small grains while graded furrow systems are suitable for row crops. The ratings are for soils in their natural condition and do not consider present land use.

The soil properties and qualities important in the design and management of graded surface irrigation systems are depth, available water holding capacity, sodium adsorption ratio, surface rocks, saturated hydraulic conductivity, salinity, slope, wetness, and flooding. Features that affect system performance and plant growth are salinity, sodium adsorption ratio, wetness, calcium carbonate content, and available water holding capacity.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the interpretation. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by the soil features that affect the soil interpretation.  Verbal soil rating classes are based on the highest numerical rating for the most limiting soil feature(s) considered in the rating process.  ""Not limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 0.00) indicates that the soil has no limiting features for the specified use.  ""Somewhat limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature =.01 to .99) indicates that the soil has limiting features for the specified use that can be overcome with proper planning, design, installation, and management.  The effort required to overcome a soil limitation increases as the numerical rating increases.  ""Very limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 1.00) indicates that the soil has one or more very limiting features that can only be overcome with special planning, major soil modification, special design, or significant management practices.

Lesser soil restrictive features have a lower numerical value than the maximum used to rate the soil, and they are identified to provide the user with additional information about soil limitations for the specific use.  Lesser soil restrictive features also need to be considered in planning, design, installation, and management.

The results of this interpretation are not designed or intended to be used in a regulatory manner.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Irrigation, Surface (graded)"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"IrrSurGr"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 09:08:32|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
392|"Irrigation, Surface (Level)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation evaluates a soil's limitation(s) for basin, paddy, level furrow, or level border irrigation systems.  The ratings are for soils in their natural condition and do not consider present land use.

Level surface irrigation systems use flood irrigation techniques to spread irrigation water at a specified depth across the application area.  Basin, paddy, and borders generally use external ridges or borders to confine the water, while level furrow systems use furrow valleys and end blocks or border ridges to confine the water during irrigation.  With furrow irrigation the crop is usually planted on the furrow ridge.  Generally, basin, paddy and level border irrigation systems are suitable for rice, small grain, pasture, and forage production.  Level furrow systems are generally suited for row crops. 

The soil properties and qualities important in the design and management of level surface irrigation systems are depth, available water holding capacity, sodium adsorption ratio, saturated hydraulic conductivity, salinity, slope, and flooding.  The soil properties and qualities that influence installation are depth, flooding, and ponding.  The features that affect performance of the system and plant growth are salinity, sodium adsorption ratio, and available water holding capacity.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the interpretation. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by the soil features that affect the soil interpretation.  Verbal soil rating classes are based on the highest numerical rating for the most limiting soil feature(s) considered in the rating process.  ""Not limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 0.00) indicates that the soil has no limiting features for the specified use.  ""Somewhat limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature =.01 to .99) indicates that the soil has limiting features for the specified use that can be overcome with proper planning, design, installation, and management.  The effort required to overcome a soil limitation increases as the numerical rating increases.  ""Very limited"" (numerical value for the most restrictive feature = 1.00) indicates that the soil has one or more very limiting features that can only be overcome with special planning, major soil modification, special design, or significant management practices.

Lesser soil restrictive features have a lower numerical value than the maximum used to rate the soil, and they are identified to provide the user with additional information about soil limitations for the specific use.  Lesser soil restrictive features also need to be considered in planning, design, installation, and management.

The results of this interpretation are not designed or intended to be used in a regulatory manner.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Irrigation, Surface (level)"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"IrrSurLev"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 09:09:16|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
633|"Subsurface Water Management, Outflow Quality"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings for Subsurface Water Management, Outflow Quality are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to convey surface and subsurface water and on the properties that affect water quality. The properties that affect the conveyance and water quality include salinity, sodicity, soil reaction, soil taxonomic great group placement, gypsum content, shrink-swell potential, soil saturation, and surface erosion.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor water quality can be expected. 

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as that listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given so that the user will realize the percentage of each map unit that has the specified rating.  

A map unit may have other components with different ratings.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Subsurface Water Management, Outflow Quality"|1||0|1|0|0||0|||1|"swmOutflow"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|06/06/2014 10:01:03|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
634|"Subsurface Water Management, System Installation"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings for Subsurface Water Management, System Installation are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to be drained and on the properties that affect excavation and construction costs. The properties that affect the subsurface system installation include depth to a water table, ponding, flooding, slope, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, slope, clay content, excavation stability, and the amount and size of rock fragments.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. 
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).
The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as that listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given so that the user will realize the percentage of each map unit that has the specified rating.  

A map unit may have other components with different ratings.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Subsurface Water Management, System Installation"|1||0|1|0|0||0|||1|"swmInstall"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|06/06/2014 10:01:26|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
636|"Subsurface Water Management, System Performance"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings for Subsurface Water Management, System Performance are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to be drained. The properties that affect the subsurface system performance include depth to a water table, salinity, flooding, sodicity, sand content, soil reaction, hydraulic conductivity, soil density, gypsum content, and subsidence.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance can be expected. 

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as that listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given so that the user will realize the percentage of each map unit that has the specified rating.  

A map unit may have other components with different ratings.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Subsurface Water Management, System Performance"|1||0|1|0|0||0|||1|"swmPerform"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|06/06/2014 10:01:49|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
635|"Surface Water Management, System"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"The ratings for Surface Water Management, System are based on the soil properties that affect the capacity of the soil to convey surface water across the landscape. Factors affecting the system installation and performance are considered. Water conveyances include graded ditches, grassed waterways, terraces, and diversions. The ratings are for soils in their natural condition and do not consider present land use. The properties that affect the surface system performance include depth to bedrock, saturated hydraulic conductivity, depth to cemented pan, slope, flooding, ponding, large stone content, sodicity, surface water erosion, and gypsum content.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified use. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. 

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as that listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is given so that the user will realize the percentage of each map unit that has the specified rating.  

A map unit may have other components with different ratings.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"WMS - Surface Water Management, System"|1||0|1|0|0||0|||1|"swmSystem"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|06/06/2014 10:43:17|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2825|"Infiltration Systems, Deep"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Deep infiltration systems are stormwater management practices that are placed 3 to 5 feet in the ground, depending on the application. These systems include rain gardens, bioretention basins, and infiltration basins. They slow the movement of stormwater to surface waters and also filter a significant portion of pollutants from the stormwater.  The fundamental function of these systems is to hold the runoff generated from the first 1 inch of rainfall during a 24-hour storm preceded by 48 hours of no measurable precipitation. There should be little or no ponding at the surface. The water should infiltrate into the surrounding soil in 24 to 48 hours. Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 and 80 inches is evaluated. 

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect infiltration of the stormwater, construction and maintenance of the system, and public safety and health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect the transmission of rainwater. Stones and boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence interferes with installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the water in downslope areas. Some slopes may become unstable and move upon addition of water.  

Some soils are underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth of less than 4 feet below the bottom of the system. In these soils the deep infiltration system may not adequately filter the stormwater, particularly if the adsorptive capacity of the soil below the system is low. As a result, the ground water may become contaminated. In areas underlain by limestone, solution channels and subsequent subsidence may damage adjacent infrastructure.  Also, areas underlain by limestone may be subject to ground-water contamination.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified infiltration system. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified system. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified system.  
The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified system. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified system (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer lists the map unit components. These components are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as the one indicated for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is shown to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating indicated. Other components with different ratings may occur in each map unit. The complete ratings list for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Deep Infiltration Systems"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"InfilDp"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Severely limited"" label=""Severely limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|07/30/2021 15:08:11|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2826|"Infiltration Systems, Shallow"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Shallow infiltration systems are stormwater management practices that are placed 1 to 3 feet in the ground, depending on the application. These systems include pervious pavement, buffer strips, filter strips, and vegetated swales. They slow the movement of stormwater to surface waters and also filter a significant portion of pollutants from the stormwater. The fundamental function of these systems is to hold the runoff generated by an area, such as a parking lot, from the first 1 inch of rainfall during a 24-hour storm preceded by 48 hours of no measurable precipitation. There should be little or no ponding at the surface. The water should infiltrate into the surrounding soil in 24 to 48 hours. Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 and 80 inches is evaluated. 

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect infiltration of the stormwater, construction and maintenance of the system, and public safety and health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect the transmission of rainwater. Stones and boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence interferes with installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the water in downslope areas. Some slopes may become unstable and move upon addition of water.

 Soils underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth of less than 4 feet below the bottom of the system may adversely affect water quality and public health. In these soils the shallow infiltration system may not adequately filter the stormwater, particularly if the adsorptive capacity of the soil below the system is low. As a result, the ground water may become contaminated. In areas underlain by limestone, solution channels and subsequent subsidence may damage adjacent infrastructure. Also, areas underlain by limestone may be subject to ground-water contamination. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified infiltration system. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified system. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified system. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified system. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified system (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer lists the map unit components. These components are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as the one listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is shown to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating indicated. Other components with different ratings may occur  in each map unit. 

The complete ratings list for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
"|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Shallow Infiltration Systems"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"InfilShal"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Severely limited"" label=""Severely limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|07/30/2021 15:17:42|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2828|"Retention Systems, Lined"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Lined retention systems are stormwater management practices that are placed 3 to 5 feet in the ground, depending on the application. An impervious liner, made of rubber or clay, is used to retain water and thus to maintain hydrophytic vegetation. These systems are meant to be used where the hydrology will not allow other systems, but the slope and bedrock depth are favorable. These systems include retention basins and intermittent wetlands. They slow the movement of stormwater to surface waters and also filter a significant portion of pollutants from the stormwater. The fundamental function of these systems is to hold the runoff generated by an area, such as a parking lot, from the first 1 inch of rainfall during a 24-hour storm preceded by 48 hours of no measurable precipitation. Water should not be at the surface continuously, but a water table within the depth of the system is needed to allow the growth of hydrophytic vegetation. Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 and 80 inches is evaluated. 

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect infiltration of the stormwater, construction and maintenance of the system, and public safety and health. Some land shaping may be needed to allow stormwater runoff to accumulate in the system. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect the transmission of rainwater. Stones and boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence interferes with installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the water in downslope areas. Some slopes may become unstable and move upon addition of water

Soils that are underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth of less than 4 feet below the bottom of the system may adversely affect water quality and public health. In these soils the lined retention system may not adequately filter the stormwater, particularly if the adsorptive capacity of the soil below the system is low. As a result, the ground water may become contaminated. In areas underlain by limestone, solution channels and subsequent subsidence may damage adjacent infrastructure. Also, areas underlain by limestone may be subject to ground-water contamination.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified system. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified system. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified system. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified system. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified system (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer lists the map unit components. These components are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as the one listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is shown to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating indicated. Other components with different ratings may occur in each map unit. 

The complete ratings list for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
"|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Lined Retention Systems"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"RetSysLin"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Severely limited"" label=""Severely limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|07/30/2021 15:37:16|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2829|"Retention Systems, Unlined"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Unlined retention systems are stormwater management practices that are placed 3 to 5 feet in the ground, depending on the application. These systems include retention basins and intermittent wetlands. They slow the movement of stormwater to surface waters and also filter a significant portion of pollutants from the stormwater. The fundamental function of these systems is to hold the runoff generated by an area, such as a parking lot, from the first 1 inch of rainfall during a 24-hour storm preceded by 48 hours of no measurable precipitation. Water should not be at the surface continuously, but a water table within the depth of the system is needed to allow the growth of hydrophytic vegetation. . Only that part of the soil between depths of 24 and 80 inches is evaluated. 

The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect infiltration of the stormwater, construction and maintenance of the system, and public safety and health. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), depth to a water table, ponding, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, and flooding affect the transmission of rainwater. Stones and boulders, ice, and bedrock or a cemented pan interfere with installation. Subsidence interferes with installation and maintenance. Excessive slope may cause lateral seepage and surfacing of the water in downslope areas. Some slopes may become unstable and move upon addition of water. 

Soils underlain by loose sand and gravel or fractured bedrock at a depth of less than 4 feet below the bottom of the system may adversely affect water quality and public health.  In these soils the unlined retention system may not adequately filter the stormwater, particularly if the adsorptive capacity of the soil below the system is low. As a result, the ground water may become contaminated. In areas underlain by limestone, solution channels and subsequent subsidence may damage adjacent infrastructure. . Also, areas underlain by limestone may be subject to ground-water contamination.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect the specified system. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified system. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified system. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified system. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the specified system (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer lists the map unit components. These components are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as the one listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is shown to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating indicated. Other components with different ratings may occur in each map unit. 

The complete ratings list for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
"|||"Interpretation"|"ENG - Unlined Retention Systems"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"RetSysUnl"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Severely limited"" label=""Severely limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|07/30/2021 15:46:22|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
471|"Soil Taxonomy Classification"|"component"|"taxclname"|"String"|120||"This rating presents the taxonomic classification based on Soil Taxonomy.

The system of soil classification used by the National Cooperative Soil Survey has six categories (Soil Survey Staff, 1999 and 2003). Beginning with the broadest, these categories are the order, suborder, great group, subgroup, family, and series. Classification is based on soil properties observed in the field or inferred from those observations or from laboratory measurements. This table shows the classification of the soils in the survey area. The categories are defined in the following paragraphs.

ORDER. Twelve soil orders are recognized. The differences among orders reflect the dominant soil-forming processes and the degree of soil formation. Each order is identified by a word ending in sol. An example is Alfisols.

SUBORDER. Each order is divided into suborders primarily on the basis of properties that influence soil genesis and are important to plant growth or properties that reflect the most important variables within the orders. The last syllable in the name of a suborder indicates the order. An example is Udalfs (Ud, meaning humid, plus alfs, from Alfisols).

GREAT GROUP. Each suborder is divided into great groups on the basis of close similarities in kind, arrangement, and degree of development of pedogenic horizons; soil moisture and temperature regimes; type of saturation; and base status. Each great group is identified by the name of a suborder and by a prefix that indicates a property of the soil. An example is Hapludalfs (Hapl, meaning minimal horizonation, plus udalfs, the suborder of the Alfisols that has a udic moisture regime).

SUBGROUP. Each great group has a typic subgroup. Other subgroups are intergrades or extragrades. The typic subgroup is the central concept of the great group; it is not necessarily the most extensive. Intergrades are transitions to other orders, suborders, or great groups. Extragrades have some properties that are not representative of the great group but do not indicate transitions to any other taxonomic class. Each subgroup is identified by one or more adjectives preceding the name of the great group. The adjective Typic identifies the subgroup that typifies the great group. An example is Typic Hapludalfs.

FAMILY. Families are established within a subgroup on the basis of physical and chemical properties and other characteristics that affect management. Generally, the properties are those of horizons below plow depth where there is much biological activity. Among the properties and characteristics considered are particle-size class, mineralogy class, cation-exchange activity class, soil temperature regime, soil depth, and reaction class. A family name consists of the name of a subgroup preceded by terms that indicate soil properties. An example is fine-loamy, mixed, active, mesic Typic Hapludalfs.

SERIES. The series consists of soils within a family that have horizons similar in color, texture, structure, reaction, consistence, mineral and chemical composition, and arrangement in the profile.

References:
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.

Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (The soils in a given survey area may have been classified according to earlier editions of this publication.)"|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"TaxClName"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|4||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""4""><ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random""><Values min=""50"" max=""99"" /><Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" /><Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|02/06/2009 08:14:13|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
74|"Nonirrigated Capability Class"|"component"|"nirrcapcl"|"Choice"|254||"Land capability classification shows, in a general way, the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops. Crops that require special management are excluded. The soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if they are used for crops, and the way they respond to management. The criteria used in grouping the soils do not include major and generally expensive landforming that would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils, nor do they include possible but unlikely major reclamation projects. Capability classification is not a substitute for interpretations that show suitability and limitations of groups of soils for rangeland, for woodland, or for engineering purposes.

In the capability system, soils are generally grouped at three levels-capability class, subclass, and unit. Only class and subclass are included in this data set.

Capability classes, the broadest groups, are designated by the numbers 1 through 8. The numbers indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use. The classes are defined as follows:

Class 1 soils have few limitations that restrict their use.

Class 2 soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices.

Class 3 soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both.

Class 4 soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.

Class 5 soils are subject to little or no erosion but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat.

Class 6 soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat.

Class 7 soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife habitat.

Class 8 soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude commercial plant production and that restrict their use to recreational purposes, wildlife habitat, watershed, or esthetic purposes."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0|"capability_class"|1|||1|"NirrCpCls"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""1"" label=""Capability Class - I"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""2"" label=""Capability Class - II"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""3"" label=""Capability Class - III"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""4"" label=""Capability Class - IV"" order=""4"" /><Labels value=""5"" label=""Capability Class - V"" order=""5"" /><Labels value=""6"" label=""Capability Class - VI"" order=""6"" /><Labels value=""7"" label=""Capability Class - VII"" order=""7"" /><Labels value=""8"" label=""Capability Class - VIII"" order=""8"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:37:51|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
83|"Nonirrigated Capability Subclass"|"component"|"nirrcapscl"|"Choice"|254||"Land capability classification shows, in a general way, the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops. Crops that require special management are excluded. The soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if they are used for crops, and the way they respond to management. The criteria used in grouping the soils do not include major and generally expensive landforming that would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils, nor do they include possible but unlikely major reclamation projects. Capability classification is not a substitute for interpretations that show suitability and limitations of groups of soils for rangeland, for woodland, or for engineering purposes.

In the capability system, soils are generally grouped at three levels-capability class, subclass, and unit. Only class and subclass are included in this data set.

Capability subclasses are soil groups within one capability class. They are designated by adding a small letter, ""e,"" ""w,"" ""s,"" or ""c,"" to the class numeral, for example, 2e. The letter ""e"" shows that the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained; ""w"" shows that water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage); ""s"" shows that the soil is limited mainly because it is shallow, droughty, or stony; and ""c,"" used in only some parts of the United States, shows that the chief limitation is climate that is very cold or very dry.

In class 1 there are no subclasses because the soils of this class have few limitations. Class 5 contains only the subclasses indicated by ""w,"" ""s,"" or ""c"" because the soils in class 5 are subject to little or no erosion. They have other limitations that restrict their use to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"NirrCpScls"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|8||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""8""><ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random""><Values min=""50"" max=""99"" /><Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" /><Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""e"" label=""Erosion"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""s"" label=""Soil limitation within the rooting zone"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""w"" label=""Excess water"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""c"" label=""Climate condition"" order=""4"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:38:55|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
88|"Irrigated Capability Class"|"component"|"irrcapcl"|"Choice"|254||"Land capability classification shows, in a general way, the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops. Crops that require special management are excluded. The soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if they are used for crops, and the way they respond to management. The criteria used in grouping the soils do not include major and generally expensive landforming that would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils, nor do they include possible but unlikely major reclamation projects. Capability classification is not a substitute for interpretations that show suitability and limitations of groups of soils for rangeland, for woodland, or for engineering purposes.

In the capability system, soils are generally grouped at three levels-capability class, subclass, and unit. Only class and subclass are included in this data set.

Capability classes, the broadest groups, are designated by the numbers 1 through 8. The numbers indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use. The classes are defined as follows:

Class 1 soils have few limitations that restrict their use.

Class 2 soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices.

Class 3 soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special conservation practices, or both.

Class 4 soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require very careful management, or both.

Class 5 soils are subject to little or no erosion but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat.

Class 6 soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat.

Class 7 soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation and that restrict their use mainly to grazing, forestland, or wildlife habitat.

Class 8 soils and miscellaneous areas have limitations that preclude commercial plant production and that restrict their use to recreational purposes, wildlife habitat, watershed, or esthetic purposes."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0|"capability_class"|1|||1|"IrrCpCls"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""1"" label=""Capability Class - I"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""2"" label=""Capability Class - II"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""3"" label=""Capability Class - III"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""4"" label=""Capability Class - IV"" order=""4"" /><Labels value=""5"" label=""Capability Class - V"" order=""5"" /><Labels value=""6"" label=""Capability Class - VI"" order=""6"" /><Labels value=""7"" label=""Capability Class - VII"" order=""7"" /><Labels value=""8"" label=""Capability Class - VIII"" order=""8"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:27:51|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
32|"Irrigated Capability Subclass"|"component"|"irrcapscl"|"Choice"|254||"Land capability classification shows, in a general way, the suitability of soils for most kinds of field crops. Crops that require special management are excluded. The soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if they are used for crops, and the way they respond to management. The criteria used in grouping the soils do not include major and generally expensive landforming that would change slope, depth, or other characteristics of the soils, nor do they include possible but unlikely major reclamation projects. Capability classification is not a substitute for interpretations that show suitability and limitations of groups of soils for rangeland, for woodland, or for engineering purposes.

In the capability system, soils are generally grouped at three levels-capability class, subclass, and unit. Only class and subclass are included in this data set.

Capability subclasses are soil groups within one capability class. They are designated by adding a small letter, ""e,"" ""w,"" ""s,"" or ""c,"" to the class numeral, for example, 2e. The letter ""e"" shows that the main hazard is the risk of erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained; ""w"" shows that water in or on the soil interferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected by artificial drainage); ""s"" shows that the soil is limited mainly because it is shallow, droughty, or stony; and ""c,"" used in only some parts of the United States, shows that the chief limitation is climate that is very cold or very dry.

In class 1 there are no subclasses because the soils of this class have few limitations. Class 5 contains only the subclasses indicated by ""w,"" ""s,"" or ""c"" because the soils in class 5 are subject to little or no erosion. They have other limitations that restrict their use to pasture, rangeland, forestland, or wildlife habitat."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"IrrCpScls"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|8||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""8""><ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random""><Values min=""50"" max=""99"" /><Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" /><Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""e"" label=""Erosion"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""s"" label=""Soil limitation within the rooting zone"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""w"" label=""Excess water"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""c"" label=""Climate condition"" order=""4"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|05/30/2008 12:50:33|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
191|"Conservation Tree and Shrub Group"|"component"|"constreeshrubgrp"|"Choice"|254||"Each tree and shrub species has certain climatic and physiographic limits. Within these parameters, trees and shrubs may be well suited or poorly suited to a given environment because of climate or site or soil characteristics. On the basis of the performance of individual species to specific conditions of soil, climate, physiography, and management, Conservation Tree and Shrub Groups (CTSGs) have been developed. Individual soils have been grouped with similar soils into one of the 10 main CTSGs. Most of these main groups are further divided into subgroups.

This interpretation provides guidance in selecting the species best suited to each of the groups of soils within each vegetative zone. It also can be used for predicting survival, height, growth, species attributes, and effectiveness and for selecting species for windbreaks, riparian plantings, recreation and wildlife plantings, and ornamental or environmental plantings.

Tree and shrub species associated with each CTSG are broken down by vegetative zones (rainfall zones). These lists are available in the local office of the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or on the Web in the electronic Field Office Technical Guide. Because vegetative zones are rather large, climatic differences within a zone should be considered when species are recommended for planting. For example, some species adapted to the eastern end of a zone may be inadequately adapted to the western end. Care must be taken to ensure that conditions on individual sites are considered when species suitability and performance are determined. A case-by-case decision may be necessary to determine which CTSG is most appropriate when an individual site has characteristics that differ from those of the CTSG in which it occurs. These differences occur because of inclusions of other soils, site modifications (such as leveling and drainage manipulation), soil pH (calcareous sites), irrigation, soil amendments, or other factors."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"ConsTSG"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""1"" label=""1"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels value=""1a"" label=""1a"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels value=""1h"" label=""1h"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels value=""1k"" label=""1k"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels value=""1kk"" label=""1kk"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels value=""1s"" label=""1s"" order=""6"" />
    <Labels value=""1sa"" label=""1sa"" order=""7"" />
    <Labels value=""1sk"" label=""1sk"" order=""8"" />
    <Labels value=""1skk"" label=""1skk"" order=""9"" />
    <Labels value=""1ss"" label=""1ss"" order=""10"" />
    <Labels value=""1ssa"" label=""1ssa"" order=""11"" />
    <Labels value=""2"" label=""2"" order=""12"" />
    <Labels value=""2a"" label=""2a"" order=""13"" />
    <Labels value=""2h"" label=""2h"" order=""14"" />
    <Labels value=""2k"" label=""2k"" order=""15"" />
    <Labels value=""2kk"" label=""2kk"" order=""16"" />
    <Labels value=""3"" label=""3"" order=""17"" />
    <Labels value=""3a"" label=""3a"" order=""18"" />
    <Labels value=""4"" label=""4"" order=""19"" />
    <Labels value=""4a"" label=""4a"" order=""20"" />
    <Labels value=""4c"" label=""4c"" order=""21"" />
    <Labels value=""4ca"" label=""4ca"" order=""22"" />
    <Labels value=""4cc"" label=""4cc"" order=""23"" />
    <Labels value=""4ck"" label=""4ck"" order=""24"" />
    <Labels value=""4k"" label=""4k"" order=""25"" />
    <Labels value=""4sa"" label=""4sa"" order=""26"" />
    <Labels value=""5"" label=""5"" order=""27"" />
    <Labels value=""5a"" label=""5a"" order=""28"" />
    <Labels value=""5k"" label=""5k"" order=""29"" />
    <Labels value=""5kk"" label=""5kk"" order=""30"" />
    <Labels value=""6"" label=""6"" order=""31"" />
    <Labels value=""6a"" label=""6a"" order=""32"" />
    <Labels value=""6d"" label=""6d"" order=""33"" />
    <Labels value=""6da"" label=""6da"" order=""34"" />
    <Labels value=""6dk"" label=""6dk"" order=""35"" />
    <Labels value=""6g"" label=""6g"" order=""36"" />
    <Labels value=""6ga"" label=""6ga"" order=""37"" />
    <Labels value=""6gk"" label=""6gk"" order=""38"" />
    <Labels value=""6gkk"" label=""6gkk"" order=""39"" />
    <Labels value=""6k"" label=""6k"" order=""40"" />
    <Labels value=""6kk"" label=""6kk"" order=""41"" />
    <Labels value=""7"" label=""7"" order=""42"" />
    <Labels value=""7a"" label=""7a"" order=""43"" />
    <Labels value=""7k"" label=""7k"" order=""44"" />
    <Labels value=""7s"" label=""7s"" order=""45"" />
    <Labels value=""7sa"" label=""7sa"" order=""46"" />
    <Labels value=""7sk"" label=""7sk"" order=""47"" />
    <Labels value=""8"" label=""8"" order=""48"" />
    <Labels value=""8k"" label=""8k"" order=""49"" />
    <Labels value=""9"" label=""9"" order=""50"" />
    <Labels value=""9c"" label=""9c"" order=""51"" />
    <Labels value=""9l"" label=""9l"" order=""52"" />
    <Labels value=""9n"" label=""9n"" order=""53"" />
    <Labels value=""9nw"" label=""9nw"" order=""54"" />
    <Labels value=""9w"" label=""9w"" order=""55"" />
    <Labels value=""10"" label=""10"" order=""56"" />
    <Labels value=""Not applicable"" label=""Not applicable"" order=""57"" />
    <Labels value=""Not rated"" label=""Not rated"" order=""58"" />
    <Labels value=""1f"" label=""1f"" order=""59"" />
    <Labels value=""1af"" label=""1af"" order=""60"" />
    <Labels value=""1hf"" label=""1hf"" order=""61"" />
    <Labels value=""1kf"" label=""1kf"" order=""62"" />
    <Labels value=""1sf"" label=""1sf"" order=""63"" />
    <Labels value=""1saf"" label=""1saf"" order=""64"" />
    <Labels value=""1skf"" label=""1skf"" order=""65"" />
    <Labels value=""1ssf"" label=""1ssf"" order=""66"" />
    <Labels value=""1ssaf"" label=""1ssaf"" order=""67"" />
    <Labels value=""2f"" label=""2f"" order=""68"" />
    <Labels value=""2af"" label=""2af"" order=""69"" />
    <Labels value=""2hf"" label=""2hf"" order=""70"" />
    <Labels value=""2kf"" label=""2kf"" order=""71"" />
    <Labels value=""3f"" label=""3f"" order=""72"" />
    <Labels value=""3af"" label=""3af"" order=""73"" />
    <Labels value=""4f"" label=""4f"" order=""74"" />
    <Labels value=""4cf"" label=""4cf"" order=""75"" />
    <Labels value=""4caf"" label=""4caf"" order=""76"" />
    <Labels value=""4ckf"" label=""4ckf"" order=""77"" />
    <Labels value=""4kf"" label=""4kf"" order=""78"" />
    <Labels value=""4saf"" label=""4saf"" order=""79"" />
    <Labels value=""5f"" label=""5f"" order=""80"" />
    <Labels value=""5af"" label=""5af"" order=""81"" />
    <Labels value=""5kf"" label=""5kf"" order=""82"" />
    <Labels value=""6f"" label=""6f"" order=""83"" />
    <Labels value=""6af"" label=""6af"" order=""84"" />
    <Labels value=""6df"" label=""6df"" order=""85"" />
    <Labels value=""6daf"" label=""6daf"" order=""86"" />
    <Labels value=""6dkf"" label=""6dkf"" order=""87"" />
    <Labels value=""6kf"" label=""6kf"" order=""88"" />
    <Labels value=""7f"" label=""7f"" order=""89"" />
    <Labels value=""7af"" label=""7af"" order=""90"" />
    <Labels value=""7kf"" label=""7kf"" order=""91"" />
    <Labels value=""7sf"" label=""7sf"" order=""92"" />
    <Labels value=""7saf"" label=""7saf"" order=""93"" />
    <Labels value=""7skf"" label=""7skf"" order=""94"" />
    <Labels value=""8f"" label=""8f"" order=""95"" />
    <Labels value=""9f"" label=""9f"" order=""96"" />
    <Labels value=""9wf"" label=""9wf"" order=""97"" />
    <Labels value=""4af"" label=""4af"" order=""98"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|12/14/2016 19:48:47|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
288|"Farmland Classification"|"mapunit"|"farmlndcl"|"Choice"|254||"Farmland classification identifies map units as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, farmland of local importance, or unique farmland. It identifies the location and extent of the soils that are best suited to food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. NRCS policy and procedures on prime and unique farmlands are published in the ""Federal Register,"" Vol. 43, No. 21, January 31, 1978."|||"Property"||||1|0|0|0||0|||-1|"FrmlndCls"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|2||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""2"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Not prime farmland"" label=""Not prime farmland"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""All areas are prime farmland"" label=""All areas are prime farmland"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""50"" green=""204"" blue=""50"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Prime farmland if drained"" label=""Prime farmland if drained"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""250"" blue=""154"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" label=""Prime farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""127"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Prime farmland if irrigated"" label=""Prime farmland if irrigated"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" label=""Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" order=""6"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""215"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Prime farmland if irrigated and drained"" label=""Prime farmland if irrigated and drained"" order=""7"">
      <Color red=""165"" green=""42"" blue=""42"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" label=""Prime farmland if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" order=""8"">
      <Color red=""183"" green=""180"" blue=""113"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer"" label=""Prime farmland if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer"" order=""9"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""218"" blue=""185"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60"" label=""Prime farmland if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60"" order=""10"">
      <Color red=""32"" green=""178"" blue=""170"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium"" label=""Prime farmland if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium"" order=""11"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""139"" blue=""139"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance"" order=""12"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if drained"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if drained"" order=""13"">
      <Color red=""51"" green=""102"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" order=""14"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated"" order=""15"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""153"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" order=""16"">
      <Color red=""172"" green=""255"" blue=""5"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and drained"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and drained"" order=""17"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""128"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" order=""18"">
      <Color red=""128"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if subsoiled, completely removing the root inhibiting soil layer"" order=""19"">
      <Color red=""204"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and the product of I (soil erodibility) x C (climate factor) does not exceed 60"" order=""20"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""153"" blue=""204"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if irrigated and reclaimed of excess salts and sodium"" order=""21"">
      <Color red=""102"" green=""102"" blue=""153"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" order=""22"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""119"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough, and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough, and either drained or either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season"" order=""23"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""135"" blue=""119"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if warm enough"" order=""24"">
      <Color red=""153"" green=""102"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of statewide importance, if thawed"" label=""Farmland of statewide importance, if thawed"" order=""25"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""119"" blue=""119"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of local importance"" label=""Farmland of local importance"" order=""26"">
      <Color red=""70"" green=""130"" blue=""180"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of local importance, if irrigated"" label=""Farmland of local importance, if irrigated"" order=""27"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""102"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Farmland of unique importance"" label=""Farmland of unique importance"" order=""28"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""191"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|04/01/2019 18:06:28|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Choice"
523|"NH Forest Soil Group"|"mapunit"|"nhiforsoigrp"|"Choice"|254||"NH Forest Soil Groups (NHFSGs) consist of map units that are similar in their potential for commercial forest products, their suitability for native tree growth, and their use and management. Considered in grouping the map units are depth to bedrock, texture, saturated hydraulic conductivity, available water capacity, drainage class, and slope. The grouping applies only to soils in the State of New Hampshire.

The NHFSGs have been developed to help land users and managers in New Hampshire evaluate the relative productivity of soils and to better understand patterns of plant succession and how soil and site interactions influence management decisions. The soils are assigned to one of five groups (IA, IB, IC, IIA, and IIB). Several map units in New Hampshire either vary so greatly or have such a limited potential for commercial forest products that they have not been assigned to an NHFSG (NC). Examples of NC map units are very poorly drained soils and soils at high elevations. The kinds of tree species generally growing in climax stands in each of the five NHFSGs vary from county to county. This information is available through local NRCS field offices. 


IA--This group consists of very deep, loamy, moderately well drained or well drained soils. Generally, these soils are more fertile than other soils and have the most favorable soil moisture relationships. 

IB--The soils in this group are generally sandy or loamy over sandy material and are slightly less fertile than group IA soils.  Group IB soils are moderately well drained or well drained. Their soil moisture is adequate for good tree growth, but it may not be quite as abundant as that in group IA soils. 

IC--The soils in this group are in areas of outwash sand and gravel. They are moderately well to excessively drained. Their soil moisture is adequate for good softwood growth but is limited for hardwoods. 

IIA--This diverse group includes many of the same soils as those in groups IA and IB. The soils are separated into a unique group, however, because they have physical limitations that make forest management more difficult and costly, i.e., steep slopes, bedrock outcrops, erosive textures, surface boulders, and extreme rockiness. 

IIB--The soils in this group are poorly drained. The seasonal high water table is generally within 12 inches of the surface. Productivity is generally less than that of soils in the other groups. 

NC--The map units in this category either vary so greatly or have such a limited potential for commercial forest products that they have not been assigned to an NHFSG. Commonly, onsite visit would be required to evaluate the situation."|||"Property"||||1|0|0|0||0|||-1|"NHFsg"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|2||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""2""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Group IA"" label=""Group IA"" order=""1""><Color red=""0"" green=""176"" blue=""80"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Group IB"" label=""Group IB"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Group IC"" label=""Group IC"" order=""3""><Color red=""255"" green=""102"" blue=""51"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Group IIA"" label=""Group IIA"" order=""4""><Color red=""153"" green=""102"" blue=""51"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Group IIB"" label=""Group IIB"" order=""5""><Color red=""255"" green=""204"" blue=""102"" /></Labels><Labels value=""NC"" label=""NC"" order=""6""><Color red=""255"" green=""175"" blue=""234"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|11/03/2011 10:24:20|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Choice"
16|"Hydric Rating by Map Unit"|"component"|"hydricrating"|"Choice"|254||"This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. 

The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components.

In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'.  In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed.

Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. 

The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in ""Soil Taxonomy"" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and ""Keys to Soil Taxonomy"" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the ""Soil Survey Manual"" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). 

If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in ""Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States"" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). 

References: 

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. 
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. 
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. 
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"HydrcRatng"|"hydricrating='Yes'"|||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|1||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""1""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels lower_value=""100"" upper_value=""101"" label=""Hydric (100%)"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels lower_value=""66"" upper_value=""99"" label=""Hydric (66 to 99%)"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""150"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels lower_value=""33"" upper_value=""65"" label=""Hydric (33 to 65%)"" order=""3""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels lower_value=""1"" upper_value=""32"" label=""Hydric (1 to 32%)"" order=""4""><Color red=""150"" green=""255"" blue=""150"" /></Labels><Labels lower_value=""0"" upper_value=""0.5"" label=""Not Hydric (0%)"" order=""5""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/20/2015 09:32:42|"Percent Present"||1|"Integer"
2685|"National Commodity Crop Productivity Index"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254|3|"National Commodity Crop Productivity Index is a method of arraying the soils of the United States for non-irrigated commodity crop production based on their inherent soil properties.  This version features a separate index for soybeans.  In the past, soybeans and corn were considered together.  The rating a soil is assigned is the highest one of four basic crop group indices, which are based on the climate where the crop is typically grown.  Cooler climates are represented by winter wheat, moderate climates are represented by corn and soybeans, and warmer climates are represented by cotton.  (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_050734.pdf)

The interpretation is applicable to both heavily populated and sparsely populated areas. Ratings are for soils in their present condition. The present land use is not considered in the ratings. 

Ratings are based on properties and qualities to the depth normally observed during soil mapping (approximately 6 feet).  Soil, site, and climate properties that influence the growth of crops are major considerations. Soil productivity is influenced by many soil properties.  An ideal soil will store adequate amounts of water to nurture the crop between rains.  This soil will have a near-neutral pH, will store nutrients, and lack toxic materials.  The soil will have no barriers, either physical or chemical, to root growth.  Water and gas transmission through the soil will be sufficient to maintain both water and oxygen at sufficient levels in the root zone.   The soil will not be saturated with water during the growing season to the point that root growth is inhibited.  The soil will not be subject to excessive flooding or ponding during the growing season.  Slope is an important consideration because it affects erosion by water, runoff, and the operation of equipment.  The climate must provide adequate water and heat to allow the desired crop to mature.  A soil that differs from the ideal in any of these features will have lower inherent productivity for a particular crop.  The further a soil differs from ideality in any one or all of the factors that determine inherent productivity, the lower its inherent productivity will be. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the estimated productivity which is determined by all of the soil, site, and climatic features that affect crop productivity. ""High inherent productivity"" indicates that the soil, site, and climate have features that are very favorable for crop production. High yields and low risk of crop failure can be expected if a high level of management is employed. ""Moderately high inherent productivity"" indicates that the soil has features that are generally quite favorable for crop production.  Good yields and moderately low risk of crop failure can be expected. ""Moderate inherent productivity"" indicates that the soil has features that are generally favorable for crop production.  Good yields and moderate risk of crop failure can be expected.  ""Moderately low inherent productivity"" indicates that the soil has features that are generally not favorable for crop production.  Low yields and moderately high risk of crop failure can be expected.   ""Low inherent productivity"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for crop production.  Low yields and high risk of crop failure can be expected.  

Numerical ratings indicate the overall productivity of the soil. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01. They indicate gradations between the point at which the combination of soil, site, and climate features has the greatest positive impact on inherent productivity (1.00) and the point at which the soil features are very unfavorable (0.01). 

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"NCCPI - National Commodity Crop Productivity Index (Ver 3.0)"|2||0|1|0|0||0|||1|"NCCPI"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|6||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""6"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels lower_value=""0.000"" upper_value=""0.200"" label=""Low inherent productivity"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""0.200"" upper_value=""0.400"" label=""Moderately low inherent productivity"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""0.400"" upper_value=""0.600"" label=""Moderate inherent productivity"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""0.600"" upper_value=""0.800"" label=""Moderately high inherent productivity"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""0.800"" upper_value=""1.000"" label=""High inherent productivity"" order=""5"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|03/08/2018 18:21:52|"Weighted Average"||1|"Float"
2729|"Order of Soil Survey"|"mapunit"|"invesintens"|"Choice"|254||"The Order of a soil survey indicates the level of detail and relative intensity of field observation under which the map unit was developed.  The order of a survey is commonly reflected in the scale of mapping, but not determined by it. Rather, the order of a survey is determined by the field procedures used to identify soil components and place map unit boundaries, the minimum permissible size of map unit delineation, and the kind of map unit to which soil components are aggregated.

Order 1 - Very intensive.  The soils in each delineation are identified by transecting or traversing or even grid mapping. Soil boundaries are observed throughout their length. Remotely sensed data are used as an aid in boundary delineation.  Order 1 surveys are made if very detailed information about soils, generally in small areas, is needed for very intensive land uses.

Order 2 - Intensive.  The soils in each delineation are identified by field observations and by remotely sensed data. Boundaries are verified at closely spaced intervals.  Order 2 surveys are made if detailed information about soil resources is needed to make predictions of soil suitability and treatment needs for intensive land uses. The information can be used in planning for general agriculture, construction, urban development, and similar uses that require precise knowledge of the soils and their variability.

Order 3 - Extensive.  Soil boundaries are plotted by observation and interpretation of remotely sensed data. They are verified by traversing representative areas and by some transects.  Order 3 surveys are made where land uses do not require precise knowledge of small areas or detailed soil information. The survey areas are commonly dominated by a single land use and have few subordinate uses. The soil information can be used in planning for range, forest, and recreational areas and in community planning.

Order 4 - Extensive. Soil boundaries are plotted by interpretation of remotely sensed data. They are verified by traversing representative areas and by some transects.  Order 4 surveys are made if general soil information is needed about the potential and general management of land for extensive uses. The information can be used in locating, comparing, and selecting suitable areas for major kinds of land use, in regional land use planning, and in selecting areas for more intensive study and investigation.

Order 5 - Very extensive.  The soil patterns and composition of map units are determined by mapping representative ideas and like areas by interpretation of remotely sensed data. Soils are verified by some onsite investigation or by traversing. Order 5 surveys are made to collect soil information in very large areas at a level of detail suitable for planning regional land use and interpreting information at a high level of generalization. The primary use of this information is selection of areas for more intensive study.

Some soil survey areas have two or more orders of mapping because they have distinct parts with different needs.  For example, one part may be mapped to make predictions related to irrigation and the other may be mapped to make predictions related to range management. For the irrigated part, areas are mapped at the intensity required for an order 2 soil survey. For the rangeland part, areas are mapped as an order 3 survey. 

Reference:

Soil Science Division Staff. 2017. Soil survey manual. Chapter 4. C. Ditzler, K. Scheffe, and H.C. Monger (eds.). USDA Handbook 18. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
"|||"Property"||||1|0|0|0||0|||1|"OrderSsa"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Order 1"" label=""Order 1"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels value=""Order 2"" label=""Order 2"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels value=""Order 3"" label=""Order 3"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels value=""Order 4"" label=""Order 4"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels value=""Order 5"" label=""Order 5"" order=""5"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|12/04/2017 22:14:16|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Choice"
2789|"Soil Temperature Regime"|"component"|"taxtempregime"|"Choice"|254||"The soil temperature regime is based on the mean annual soil temperature at a depth of 50 cm, mean summer soil temperature, and the difference between mean summer and mean winter soil temperature.   

Complete definitions and criteria for soil temperature regimes are available in the references below.

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.

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy. 12th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (The soils in a given survey area may have been classified according to earlier editions of this publication.) "|||"Property"||||1|1|0|0||0|||-1|"TempRegime"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|8||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""8"">
  <ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random"">
    <Values min=""50"" max=""99"" />
    <Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" />
    <Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""cryic"" label=""cryic"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels value=""Cryic (PDP code)"" label=""Cryic (PDP code)"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels value=""frigid"" label=""frigid"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels value=""gelic"" label=""gelic"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels value=""hyperthermic"" label=""hyperthermic"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels value=""isofrigid"" label=""isofrigid"" order=""6"" />
    <Labels value=""isohyperthermic"" label=""isohyperthermic"" order=""7"" />
    <Labels value=""isomesic"" label=""isomesic"" order=""8"" />
    <Labels value=""isothermic"" label=""isothermic"" order=""9"" />
    <Labels value=""mesic"" label=""mesic"" order=""10"" />
    <Labels value=""pergelic"" label=""pergelic"" order=""11"" />
    <Labels value=""Pergelic (PDP code)"" label=""Pergelic (PDP code)"" order=""12"" />
    <Labels value=""thermic"" label=""thermic"" order=""13"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|05/26/2020 22:13:31|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
2790|"Soil Moisture Class"|"cotaxmoistcl"|"taxmoistcl"|"Choice"|254||"The soil moisture class is the taxonomic moisture regime.  The soil moisture regimes are defined in terms of the level of ground water and in terms of the seasonal presence or absence of water held at a tension of less than 1500 kPa in the moisture control section.

Complete definitions and criteria for soil moisture regimes are available in the references below.

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.

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy. 12th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (The soils in a given survey area may have been classified according to earlier editions of this publication.) "|||"Property"||||1|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MoistRegim"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|8||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""8"">
  <ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random"">
    <Values min=""50"" max=""99"" />
    <Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" />
    <Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Aquic"" label=""Aquic"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels value=""Aridic (torric)"" label=""Aridic (torric)"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels value=""Peraquic"" label=""Peraquic"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels value=""Perudic"" label=""Perudic"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels value=""Udic"" label=""Udic"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels value=""Ustic"" label=""Ustic"" order=""6"" />
    <Labels value=""Xeric"" label=""Xeric"" order=""7"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|05/27/2020 15:18:02|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
2791|"Soil Moisture Subclass"|"component"|"taxmoistscl"|"Choice"|254||"Soil moisture subclasses are taxonomic subgroup criteria, whether included or not in the name of the subgroup.  The definition of each moisture subclass is dependent upon the specific taxonomic great group to which it is attached.

A taxonomic moisture subclass that is not ""typic"" reflects a taxonomic intergrade or extragrade.  Some soils having a particular moisture regime are transitional to another regime (intergrades) or are grading away from the regime to which they are assigned (extragrades).  An example of an intergrade is an Aquic Haplustalf.  The taxonomic moisture subclass is ""aquic"".  An example of an extragrade is an Aeric Albaqualf.  The taxonomic moisture subclass is ""aeric"".

References:

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.

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to soil taxonomy. 12th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. (The soils in a given survey area may have been classified according to earlier editions of this publication.)"|||"Property"||||1|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MoistSubcl"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|8||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""8"">
  <ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random"">
    <Values min=""50"" max=""99"" />
    <Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" />
    <Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Aeric"" label=""Aeric"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels value=""Anthraquic"" label=""Anthraquic"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels value=""Aquic"" label=""Aquic"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels value=""Aridic (torric)"" label=""Aridic (torric)"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels value=""Oxyaquic"" label=""Oxyaquic"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels value=""Typic"" label=""Typic"" order=""6"" />
    <Labels value=""Udic"" label=""Udic"" order=""7"" />
    <Labels value=""Ustic"" label=""Ustic"" order=""8"" />
    <Labels value=""Xeric"" label=""Xeric"" order=""9"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|05/27/2020 15:40:37|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
31|"Ecological Classification Name"|"coecoclass"|"ecoclassname"|"VText"|||"Ecological classifications consist of a series of vegetative classification systems developed by various partners in the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The classifications include, but are not limited to, systematic vegetative groupings. Examples include NRCS ecological sites, United States Forest Service plant associations, and forage suitability groups. The classifications systems are identified by the Ecological Classification Type Name field, which is in the Component Ecological Classification table."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"EcoClassNm"||"ecoclasstypename"|"String"|"Class"||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|4||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""4"">
  <ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random"">
    <Values min=""50"" max=""99"" />
    <Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" />
    <Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|04/05/2022 18:22:21|"Dominant Condition"||1|"VText"
60|"Ecological Classification ID"|"coecoclass"|"ecoclassid"|"String"|30||"Ecological classifications consist of a series of vegetative classification systems developed by various partners in the National Cooperative Soil Survey. The classifications include, but are not limited to, systematic vegetative groupings. Examples include NRCS ecological sites, United States Forest Service plant associations, and forage suitability groups. The classifications systems are identified by the Ecological Classification Type Name field, which is in the Component Ecological Classification table."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"EcoClassID"||"ecoclasstypename"|"String"|"Class"||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|4||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""4"">
  <ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random"">
    <Values min=""50"" max=""99"" />
    <Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" />
    <Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|04/05/2022 18:22:01|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2810|"NRCS Ecological Site ID"|"coecoclass"|"ecoclassid"|"String"|30||"An ""ecological site ID"" is the symbol assigned to a specific ecological site. An ""ecological site"" is the product of all the environmental factors responsible for its development. It has characteristic soils that have developed over time; a characteristic hydrology, particularly infiltration and runoff, that has developed over time; and a characteristic plant community (kind and amount of vegetation). The vegetation, soils, and hydrology are all interrelated. Each is influenced by the others and influences the development of the others. For example, the hydrology of the site is influenced by development of the soil and plant community. The plant community on an ecological site is typified by an association of species that differs from that of other ecological sites in the kind and/or proportion of species or in total production. Descriptions of ecological sites are provided in the Field Office Technical Guide, which is available in local offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"EcoSiteID"|"(coecoclass.ecoclasstypename = 'NRCS Rangeland Site' or coecoclass.ecoclasstypename = 'NRCS Forestland Site')"|||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|4||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""4"">
  <ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random"">
    <Values min=""50"" max=""99"" />
    <Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" />
    <Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|04/05/2022 18:22:34|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2811|"NRCS Ecological Site Name"|"coecoclass"|"ecoclassname"|"Narrative Text"|||"An ""ecological site ID"" is the symbol assigned to a specific ecological site. An ""ecological site"" is the product of all the environmental factors responsible for its development. It has characteristic soils that have developed over time; a characteristic hydrology, particularly infiltration and runoff, that has developed over time; and a characteristic plant community (kind and amount of vegetation). The vegetation, soils, and hydrology are all interrelated. Each is influenced by the others and influences the development of the others. For example, the hydrology of the site is influenced by development of the soil and plant community. The plant community on an ecological site is typified by an association of species that differs from that of other ecological sites in the kind and/or proportion of species or in total production. Descriptions of ecological sites are provided in the Field Office Technical Guide, which is available in local offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service."|||"Property"||||1|1|0|0||0|||-1|"EcoSiteNm"|"(coecoclass.ecoclasstypename = 'NRCS Rangeland Site' or coecoclass.ecoclasstypename = 'NRCS Forestland Site')"|||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|4||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""4"">
  <ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random"">
    <Values min=""50"" max=""99"" />
    <Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" />
    <Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|04/05/2022 18:22:48|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Narrative Text"
2847|"Conservation Tree and Shrub Groups (MT)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Each tree and shrub species has certain climatic and physiographic limits. Within these parameters, trees and shrubs may be well suited or poorly suited to a given environment because of climate or site or soil characteristics. On the basis of the performance of individual species to specific conditions of soil, climate, physiography, and management, Conservation Tree and Shrub Groups (CTSGs) have been developed. Individual soils have been grouped with similar soils into one of the 10 main CTSGs. Most of these main groups are further divided into subgroups.

This interpretation provides guidance in selecting the species best suited to each of the groups of soils within each vegetative zone. It also can be used for predicting survival, height, growth, species attributes, and effectiveness and for selecting species for windbreaks, riparian plantings, recreation and wildlife plantings, and ornamental or environmental plantings.

Tree and shrub species associated with each CTSG are broken down by vegetative zones (rainfall zones). These lists are available in the local office of the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, or on the Web in the electronic Field Office Technical Guide. Because vegetative zones are rather large, climatic differences within a zone should be considered when species are recommended for planting. For example, some species adapted to the eastern end of a zone may be inadequately adapted to the western end. Care must be taken to ensure that conditions on individual sites are considered when species suitability and performance are determined. A case-by-case decision may be necessary to determine which CTSG is most appropriate when an individual site has characteristics that differ from those of the CTSG in which it occurs. These differences occur because of inclusions of other soils, site modifications (such as leveling and drainage manipulation), soil pH (calcareous sites), irrigation, soil amendments, or other factors."|||"Interpretation"|"FOR - Conservation Tree/Shrub Groups (MT)"|3|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"CTSG"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|2||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""2"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""CTSG 1"" label=""CTSG 1"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""102"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 10"" label=""CTSG 10"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""51"" green=""204"" blue=""204"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 10"" label=""CTSG 10"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 1A"" label=""CTSG 1A"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 1H"" label=""CTSG 1H"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 1K"" label=""CTSG 1K"" order=""6"">
      <Color red=""128"" green=""128"" blue=""128"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 1KK"" label=""CTSG 1KK"" order=""7"">
      <Color red=""153"" green=""204"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 1S"" label=""CTSG 1S"" order=""8"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""128"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 1SK"" label=""CTSG 1SK"" order=""9"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 1SKK"" label=""CTSG 1SKK"" order=""10"">
      <Color red=""153"" green=""204"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 2"" label=""CTSG 2"" order=""11"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""153"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 2A"" label=""CTSG 2A"" order=""12"">
      <Color red=""153"" green=""153"" blue=""153"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 2H"" label=""CTSG 2H"" order=""13"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""153"" blue=""204"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 2K"" label=""CTSG 2K"" order=""14"">
      <Color red=""204"" green=""255"" blue=""204"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 2KK"" label=""CTSG 2KK"" order=""15"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""204"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 3"" label=""CTSG 3"" order=""16"">
      <Color red=""51"" green=""102"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 3A"" label=""CTSG 3A"" order=""17"">
      <Color red=""128"" green=""128"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 4"" label=""CTSG 4"" order=""18"">
      <Color red=""102"" green=""102"" blue=""153"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 4A"" label=""CTSG 4A"" order=""19"">
      <Color red=""153"" green=""51"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 4C"" label=""CTSG 4C"" order=""20"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 4CA"" label=""CTSG 4CA"" order=""21"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""204"" blue=""153"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 4CC"" label=""CTSG 4CC"" order=""22"">
      <Color red=""192"" green=""192"" blue=""192"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 4CK"" label=""CTSG 4CK"" order=""23"">
      <Color red=""153"" green=""204"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 4K"" label=""CTSG 4K"" order=""24"">
      <Color red=""204"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 5"" label=""CTSG 5"" order=""25"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""60"" blue=""153"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 5A"" label=""CTSG 5A"" order=""26"">
      <Color red=""41"" green=""40"" blue=""25"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 5K"" label=""CTSG 5K"" order=""27"">
      <Color red=""25"" green=""80"" blue=""20"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 5KK"" label=""CTSG 5KK"" order=""28"">
      <Color red=""80"" green=""75"" blue=""20"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 6"" label=""CTSG 6"" order=""29"">
      <Color red=""12"" green=""79"" blue=""62"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 6A"" label=""CTSG 6A"" order=""30"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""123"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 6D"" label=""CTSG 6D"" order=""31"">
      <Color red=""157"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 6DA"" label=""CTSG 6DA"" order=""32"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""140"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 6DK"" label=""CTSG 6DK"" order=""33"">
      <Color red=""179"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 6G"" label=""CTSG 6G"" order=""34"">
      <Color red=""174"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 6GA"" label=""CTSG 6GA"" order=""35"">
      <Color red=""64"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 6GK"" label=""CTSG 6GK"" order=""36"">
      <Color red=""93"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 6GKK"" label=""CTSG 6GKK"" order=""37"">
      <Color red=""217"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 6K"" label=""CTSG 6K"" order=""38"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""247"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 6KK"" label=""CTSG 6KK"" order=""39"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""51"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 7"" label=""CTSG 7"" order=""40"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""208"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 7A"" label=""CTSG 7A"" order=""41"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""196"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 8"" label=""CTSG 8"" order=""42"">
      <Color red=""157"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 8K"" label=""CTSG 8K"" order=""43"">
      <Color red=""183"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 9C"" label=""CTSG 9C"" order=""44"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""55"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 9L"" label=""CTSG 9L"" order=""45"">
      <Color red=""89"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 9N"" label=""CTSG 9N"" order=""46"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""204"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 9NW"" label=""CTSG 9NW"" order=""47"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""98"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""CTSG 9W"" label=""CTSG 9W"" order=""48"">
      <Color red=""251"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|134|01/24/2022 17:18:28|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
4|"Wind Erodibility Index"|"component"|"wei"|"Choice"|254||"The wind erodibility index is a numerical value indicating the susceptibility of soil to wind erosion, or the tons per acre per year that can be expected to be lost to wind erosion. There is a close correlation between wind erosion and the texture of the surface layer, the size and durability of surface clods, rock fragments, organic matter, and a calcareous reaction. Soil moisture and frozen soil layers also influence wind erosion."|"tons per acre per year"|"tons/acre/yr"|"Property"||||0|1|0|0|"wind_erodibility_index"|1|||1|"WEI"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""0"" label=""0"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""38"" label=""38"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""48"" label=""48"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""56"" label=""56"" order=""4"" /><Labels value=""86"" label=""86"" order=""5"" /><Labels value=""134"" label=""134"" order=""6"" /><Labels value=""160"" label=""160"" order=""7"" /><Labels value=""180"" label=""180"" order=""8"" /><Labels value=""220"" label=""220"" order=""9"" /><Labels value=""250"" label=""250"" order=""10"" /><Labels value=""310"" label=""310"" order=""11"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 09:06:40|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
19|"K Factor, Rock Free"|"chorizon"|"kffact"|"Choice"|254||"Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water.

""Erosion factor Kf (rock free)"" indicates the erodibility of the fine-earth fraction, or the material less than 2 millimeters in size.

Factor K does not apply to organic horizons and is not reported for those layers."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|1||0|||1|"KfactRF"||||||||1|"Surface Layer"||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value="".02"" label="".02"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels value="".05"" label="".05"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels value="".10"" label="".10"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels value="".15"" label="".15"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels value="".17"" label="".17"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels value="".20"" label="".20"" order=""6"" />
    <Labels value="".24"" label="".24"" order=""7"" />
    <Labels value="".28"" label="".28"" order=""8"" />
    <Labels value="".32"" label="".32"" order=""9"" />
    <Labels value="".37"" label="".37"" order=""10"" />
    <Labels value="".43"" label="".43"" order=""11"" />
    <Labels value="".49"" label="".49"" order=""12"" />
    <Labels value="".55"" label="".55"" order=""13"" />
    <Labels value="".64"" label="".64"" order=""14"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|01/28/2021 04:52:23|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
51|"K Factor, Whole Soil"|"chorizon"|"kwfact"|"Choice"|254||"Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. Factor K is one of six factors used in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) to predict the average annual rate of soil loss by sheet and rill erosion in tons per acre per year. The estimates are based primarily on percentage of silt, sand, and organic matter and on soil structure and saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat). Values of K range from 0.02 to 0.69. Other factors being equal, the higher the value, the more susceptible the soil is to sheet and rill erosion by water.

""Erosion factor Kw (whole soil)"" indicates the erodibility of the whole soil. The estimates are modified by the presence of rock fragments.

Factor K does not apply to organic horizons and is not reported for those layers."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|1||0|||1|"KfactWS"||||||||1|"Surface Layer"||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value="".02"" label="".02"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels value="".05"" label="".05"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels value="".10"" label="".10"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels value="".15"" label="".15"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels value="".17"" label="".17"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels value="".20"" label="".20"" order=""6"" />
    <Labels value="".24"" label="".24"" order=""7"" />
    <Labels value="".28"" label="".28"" order=""8"" />
    <Labels value="".32"" label="".32"" order=""9"" />
    <Labels value="".37"" label="".37"" order=""10"" />
    <Labels value="".43"" label="".43"" order=""11"" />
    <Labels value="".49"" label="".49"" order=""12"" />
    <Labels value="".55"" label="".55"" order=""13"" />
    <Labels value="".64"" label="".64"" order=""14"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|01/28/2021 04:50:51|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
71|"Wind Erodibility Group"|"component"|"weg"|"Choice"|254||"A wind erodibility group (WEG) consists of soils that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in cultivated areas. The soils assigned to group 1 are the most susceptible to wind erosion, and those assigned to group 8 are the least susceptible."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"WEG"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""1"" label=""1"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""2"" label=""2"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""3"" label=""3"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""4"" label=""4"" order=""4"" /><Labels value=""4L"" label=""4L"" order=""5"" /><Labels value=""5"" label=""5"" order=""6"" /><Labels value=""6"" label=""6"" order=""7"" /><Labels value=""7"" label=""7"" order=""8"" /><Labels value=""8"" label=""8"" order=""9"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 09:05:09|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
75|"T Factor"|"component"|"tfact"|"Integer"|||"The T factor is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind and/or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period. The rate is in tons per acre per year."|"tons per acre per year"|"tons/acre/yr"|"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||-1|"Tfactor"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|2||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""2""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""1"" label=""1"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""2"" label=""2"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""127"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""3"" label=""3"" order=""3""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""4"" label=""4"" order=""4""><Color red=""127"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""5"" label=""5"" order=""5""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 09:03:38|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Integer"
61|"Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat), Standard Classes"|"chorizon"|"ksat_r"|"Float"||4|"Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. The estimates are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields. 

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.

The numeric Ksat values have been grouped according to standard Ksat class limits. The classes are:

Very low: 0.00 to 0.01
Low: 0.01 to 0.1
Moderately low: 0.1 to 1.0
Moderately high: 1 to 10
High: 10 to 100
Very high: 100 to 705"|"micrometers per second"|"um/s"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|"Slowest"|"Fastest"|1|"KsatClass"||||||||1|"Depth Range"||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|6||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""6"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels lower_value=""0.000"" upper_value=""0.010"" label=""Very Low (0.0 - 0.01)"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""0.010"" upper_value=""0.100"" label=""Low (0.01 - 0.1)"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""1.000"" upper_value=""10.000"" label=""Moderately High (1 - 10)"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""10.000"" upper_value=""100.000"" label=""High (10 - 100)"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""100.000"" upper_value=""705.000"" label=""Very High (100 - 705)"" order=""6"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""0.100"" upper_value=""1.000"" label=""Moderately Low (0.1 - 1)"" order=""3"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|11/17/2020 17:57:29|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
65|"Bulk Density, One-Third Bar"|"chorizon"|"dbthirdbar_r"|"Float"||2|"Bulk density, one-third bar, is the ovendry weight of the soil material less than 2 millimeters in size per unit volume of soil at water tension of 1/3 bar, expressed in grams per cubic centimeter. Bulk density data are used to compute linear extensibility, shrink-swell potential, available water capacity, total pore space, and other soil properties. The moist bulk density of a soil indicates the pore space available for water and roots. Depending on soil texture, a bulk density of more than 1.4 can restrict water storage and root penetration. Moist bulk density is influenced by texture, kind of clay, content of organic matter, and soil structure.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"grams per cubic centimeter"|"g/cm3"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"Db3rdbar"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|04/27/2007 10:09:33|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
66|"Available Water Supply, 0 to 100 cm"|"muaggatt"|"aws0100wta"|"Float"||2|"Available water supply (AWS) is the total volume of water (in centimeters) that should be available to plants when the soil, inclusive of rock fragments, is at field capacity. It is commonly estimated as the amount of water held between field capacity and the wilting point, with corrections for salinity, rock fragments, and rooting depth. AWS is reported as a single value (in centimeters) of water for the specified depth of the soil. AWS is calculated as the available water capacity times the thickness of each soil horizon to a specified depth.

For each soil layer, available water capacity, used in the computation of AWS, is recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For the derivation of AWS, only the representative value for available water capacity is used.

The available water supply for each map unit component is computed as described above and then aggregated to a single value for the map unit by the process described below.

A map unit typically consists of one or more ""components."" A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the attribute being aggregated (e.g., available water supply), the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the process is to derive a single value that represents the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for the map units can be generated. Aggregation is needed because map units rather than components are delineated on the soil maps.

The composition of each component in a map unit is recorded as a percentage. A composition of 60 indicates that the component typically makes up approximately 60 percent of the map unit.

For the available water supply, when a weighted average of all component values is computed, percent composition is the weighting factor."|"centimeters"|"cm"|"Property"||||1|0|0|0||1|||1|"AWS100"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|02/28/2007 13:32:20|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Float"
308|"Surface Texture"|"chtexturegrp"|"texdesc"|"VText"|||"This displays the representative texture class and modifier of the surface horizon.

Texture is given in the standard terms used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These terms are defined according to percentages of sand, silt, and clay in the fraction of the soil that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. ""Loam,"" for example, is soil that is 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and less than 52 percent sand. If the content of particles coarser than sand is 15 percent or more, an appropriate modifier is added, for example, ""gravelly."""|||"Property"||||0|1|0|1||0|||-1|"SurfText"|"chtexturegrp.rvindicator = 'yes'"|||||||0|"Surface Layer"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|4||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""4""><ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random""><Values min=""50"" max=""99"" /><Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" /><Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|08/17/2006 07:16:42|"Dominant Condition"||1|"VText"
378|"Liquid Limit"|"chorizon"|"ll_r"|"Float"||1|"Liquid limit (LL) is one of the standard Atterberg limits used to indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. It is the water content, on a percent by weight basis, of the soil (passing #40 sieve) at which the soil changes from a plastic to a liquid state.  Generally, the amount of clay- and silt-size particles, the organic matter content, and the type of minerals determine the liquid limit. Soils that have a high liquid limit have the capacity to hold a lot of water while maintaining a plastic or semisolid state.

Liquid limit is used in classifying soils in the Unified and AASHTO classification systems.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"LiqLim"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|07/17/2007 07:37:35|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
97|"Available Water Supply, 0 to 25 cm"|"muaggatt"|"aws025wta"|"Float"||2|"Available water supply (AWS) is the total volume of water (in centimeters) that should be available to plants when the soil, inclusive of rock fragments, is at field capacity. It is commonly estimated as the amount of water held between field capacity and the wilting point, with corrections for salinity, rock fragments, and rooting depth. AWS is reported as a single value (in centimeters) of water for the specified depth of the soil. AWS is calculated as the available water capacity times the thickness of each soil horizon to a specified depth.

For each soil layer, available water capacity, used in the computation of AWS, is recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For the derivation of AWS, only the representative value for available water capacity is used.

The available water supply for each map unit component is computed as described above and then aggregated to a single value for the map unit by the process described below.

A map unit typically consists of one or more ""components."" A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the attribute being aggregated (e.g., available water supply), the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the process is to derive a single value that represents the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for the map units can be generated. Aggregation is needed because map units rather than components are delineated on the soil maps.

The composition of each component in a map unit is recorded as a percentage. A composition of 60 indicates that the component typically makes up approximately 60 percent of the map unit.

For the available water supply, when a weighted average of all component values is computed, percent composition is the weighting factor."|"centimeters"|"cm"|"Property"||||1|0|0|0||1|||1|"AWS025"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|02/28/2007 13:34:55|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Float"
379|"Plasticity Index"|"chorizon"|"pi_r"|"Float"||1|"Plasticity index (PI) is one of the standard Atterberg limits used to indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil. It is defined as the numerical difference between the liquid limit and plastic limit of the soil.  It is the range of water content in which a soil exhibits the characteristics of a plastic solid. 

The plastic limit is the water content that corresponds to an arbitrary limit between the plastic and semisolid states of a soil.  The liquid limit is the water content, on a percent by weight basis, of the soil (passing #40 sieve) at which the soil changes from a plastic to a liquid state.   

Soils that have a high plasticity index have a wide range of moisture content in which the soil performs as a plastic material. Highly and moderately plastic clays have large PI values.  Plasticity index is used in classifying soils in the Unified and AASHTO classification systems.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"PlasLimit"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|07/17/2007 07:36:58|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
311|"Percent Sand"|"chorizon"|"sandtotal_r"|"Float"||1|"Sand as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.05 millimeter to 2 millimeters in diameter. In the database, the estimated sand content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter.  The content of sand, silt, and clay affects the physical behavior of a soil. Particle size is important for engineering and agronomic interpretations, for determination of soil hydrologic qualities, and for soil classification.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"Sand"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:44:20|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
312|"Percent Silt"|"chorizon"|"silttotal_r"|"Float"||1|"Silt as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are 0.002 to 0.05 millimeter in diameter. In the database, the estimated silt content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter.

The content of sand, silt, and clay affects the physical behavior of a soil. Particle size is important for engineering and agronomic interpretations, for determination of soil hydrologic qualities, and for soil classification

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"Silt"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:45:05|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
41|"Available Water Capacity"|"chorizon"|"awc_r"|"Float"||2|"Available water capacity (AWC) refers to the quantity of water that the soil is capable of storing for use by plants. The capacity for water storage is given in centimeters of water per centimeter of soil for each soil layer. The capacity varies, depending on soil properties that affect retention of water. The most important properties are the content of organic matter, soil texture, bulk density, and soil structure, with corrections for salinity and rock fragments. Available water capacity is an important factor in the choice of plants or crops to be grown and in the design and management of irrigation systems. It is not an estimate of the quantity of water actually available to plants at any given time.

Available water supply (AWS) is computed as AWC times the thickness of the soil. For example, if AWC is 0.15 cm/cm, the available water supply for 25 centimeters of soil would be 0.15 x 25, or 3.75 centimeters of water.

For each soil layer, AWC is recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"centimeters per centimeter"|"cm/cm"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"AWC"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|02/28/2007 13:30:23|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
42|"Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat)"|"chorizon"|"ksat_r"|"Float"||4|"Saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) refers to the ease with which pores in a saturated soil transmit water. The estimates are expressed in terms of micrometers per second. They are based on soil characteristics observed in the field, particularly structure, porosity, and texture. Saturated hydraulic conductivity is considered in the design of soil drainage systems and septic tank absorption fields. 

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.

The numeric Ksat values have been grouped according to standard Ksat class limits."|"micrometers per second"|"um/s"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|"Slowest"|"Fastest"|1|"Ksat"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:58:59|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
37|"Organic Matter"|"chorizon"|"om_r"|"Float"||2|"Organic matter is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of decomposition. The estimated content of organic matter is expressed as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter.

The content of organic matter in a soil can be maintained by returning crop residue to the soil. Organic matter has a positive effect on available water capacity, water infiltration, soil organism activity, and tilth. It is a source of nitrogen and other nutrients for crops and soil organisms. An irregular distribution of organic carbon with depth may indicate different episodes of soil deposition or soil formation. Soils that are very high in organic matter have poor engineering properties and subside upon drying.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"OrgMatter"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:40:00|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
9|"Available Water Supply, 0 to 50 cm"|"muaggatt"|"aws050wta"|"Float"||2|"Available water supply (AWS) is the total volume of water (in centimeters) that should be available to plants when the soil, inclusive of rock fragments, is at field capacity. It is commonly estimated as the amount of water held between field capacity and the wilting point, with corrections for salinity, rock fragments, and rooting depth. AWS is reported as a single value (in centimeters) of water for the specified depth of the soil. AWS is calculated as the available water capacity times the thickness of each soil horizon to a specified depth.

For each soil layer, available water capacity, used in the computation of AWS, is recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For the derivation of AWS, only the representative value for available water capacity is used.

The available water supply for each map unit component is computed as described above and then aggregated to a single value for the map unit by the process described below.

A map unit typically consists of one or more ""components."" A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the attribute being aggregated (e.g., available water supply), the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the process is to derive a single value that represents the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for the map units can be generated. Aggregation is needed because map units rather than components are delineated on the soil maps.

The composition of each component in a map unit is recorded as a percentage. A composition of 60 indicates that the component typically makes up approximately 60 percent of the map unit.

For the available water supply, when a weighted average of all component values is computed, percent composition is the weighting factor."|"centimeters"|"cm"|"Property"||||1|0|0|0||1|||1|"AWS050"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|02/28/2007 13:36:54|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Float"
15|"Linear Extensibility"|"chorizon"|"lep_r"|"Float"||1|"Linear extensibility refers to the change in length of an unconfined clod as moisture content is decreased from a moist to a dry state. It is an expression of the volume change between the water content of the clod at 1/3- or 1/10-bar tension (33kPa or 10kPa tension) and oven dryness. The volume change is reported as percent change for the whole soil. The amount and type of clay minerals in the soil influence volume change.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"LEP"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|6||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""6""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels lower_value=""0"" upper_value=""3"" label=""Low (0 - 3)"" order=""1"" /><Labels lower_value=""3"" upper_value=""6"" label=""Moderate (3 - 6)"" order=""2"" /><Labels lower_value=""6"" upper_value=""9"" label=""High (6 - 9)"" order=""3"" /><Labels lower_value=""9"" upper_value=""30"" label=""Very High (9 - 30)"" order=""4"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:33:21|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
6|"Percent Clay"|"chorizon"|"claytotal_r"|"Float"||1|"Clay as a soil separate consists of mineral soil particles that are less than 0.002 millimeter in diameter. The estimated clay content of each soil layer is given as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 millimeters in diameter. The amount and kind of clay affect the fertility and physical condition of the soil and the ability of the soil to adsorb cations and to retain moisture. They influence shrink-swell potential, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), plasticity, the ease of soil dispersion, and other soil properties. The amount and kind of clay in a soil also affect tillage and earth-moving operations.

Most of the material is in one of three groups of clay minerals or a mixture of these clay minerals. The groups are kaolinite, smectite, and hydrous mica, the best known member of which is illite.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"Clay"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:41:05|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
7|"Available Water Supply, 0 to 150 cm"|"muaggatt"|"aws0150wta"|"Float"||2|"Available water supply (AWS) is the total volume of water (in centimeters) that should be available to plants when the soil, inclusive of rock fragments, is at field capacity. It is commonly estimated as the amount of water held between field capacity and the wilting point, with corrections for salinity, rock fragments, and rooting depth. AWS is reported as a single value (in centimeters) of water for the specified depth of the soil. AWS is calculated as the available water capacity times the thickness of each soil horizon to a specified depth.

For each soil layer, available water capacity, used in the computation of AWS, is recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For the derivation of AWS, only the representative value for available water capacity is used.

The available water supply for each map unit component is computed as described above and then aggregated to a single value for the map unit by the process described below.

A map unit typically consists of one or more ""components."" A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the attribute being aggregated (e.g., available water supply), the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the process is to derive a single value that represents the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for the map units can be generated. Aggregation is needed because map units rather than components are delineated on the soil maps.

The composition of each component in a map unit is recorded as a percentage. A composition of 60 indicates that the component typically makes up approximately 60 percent of the map unit.

For the available water supply, when a weighted average of all component values is computed, percent composition is the weighting factor."|"centimeters"|"cm"|"Property"||||1|0|0|0||1|||1|"AWS150"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|02/28/2007 13:33:24|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"Float"
365|"Water Content, One-Third Bar"|"chorizon"|"wthirdbar_r"|"Float"||1|"Water content, one-third bar, is the amount of soil water retained at a tension of 1/3 bar, expressed as a volumetric percentage of the whole soil. Water retained at 1/3 bar is significant in the determination of soil water-retention difference, which is used as the initial estimation of available water capacity for some soils.   Water retained at 1/3 bar is the value commonly used to estimate the content of water at field capacity for most soils.

Water content varies between soil types, depending on soil properties that affect retention of water. The most important properties are the content of organic matter, soil texture, bulk density, and soil structure.

For each soil layer, water content is recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"WC3rdbar"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/30/2009 07:45:25|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
366|"Water Content, 15 Bar"|"chorizon"|"wfifteenbar_r"|"Float"||1|"Water content, 15 bar, is the amount of soil water retained at a tension of 15 bars, expressed as a volumetric percentage of the whole soil material. Water retained at 15 bars is significant in the determination of soil water-retention difference, which is used as the initial estimation of available water capacity for some soils. Water retained at 15 bars is an estimation of the wilting point. 

Water content varies between soil types, depending on soil properties that affect retention of water. The most important properties are the content of organic matter, soil texture, bulk density, and soil structure.

For each soil layer, water content is recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"WC15Bar"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/30/2009 07:44:31|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
101|"Available Water Storage"|"chorizon"|"awc_r"|"Float"||2|"Available water storage (AWS) is the total volume of water (in centimeters) that should be available to plants when the soil, inclusive of rock fragments, is at field capacity. It is commonly estimated as the amount of water held between field capacity and the wilting point, with corrections for salinity, rock fragments, and rooting depth. AWS is reported as a single value (in centimeters) of water for the specified depth of the soil. AWS is calculated as the available water capacity times the thickness of each soil horizon to a specified depth.

For each soil layer, available water capacity, used in the computation of AWS, is recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For the derivation of AWS, only the representative value for available water capacity is used.

The available water storage for each map unit component is computed as described above and then aggregated to a single value for the map unit by the process described below.

A map unit typically consists of one or more ""components."" A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the attribute being aggregated (e.g., available water storage), the first step of the aggregation process is to derive one attribute value for each of a map unit's components. From this set of component attributes, the next step of the process is to derive a single value that represents the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map unit is derived, a thematic map for the map units can be generated. Aggregation is needed because map units rather than components are delineated on the soil maps.

The composition of each component in a map unit is recorded as a percentage. A composition of 60 indicates that the component typically makes up approximately 60 percent of the map unit.

For the available water storage, when a weighted average of all component values is computed, percent composition is the weighting factor. "|"centimeters"|"cm"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"AWS"||||||||1|"Depth Range"||||0|||"Weighted Sum"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|11/29/2016 19:39:01|"Weighted Average"||1|"Float"
59|"Electrical Conductivity (EC)"|"chorizon"|"ec_r"|"Float"||1|"Electrical conductivity (EC) is the electrolytic conductivity of an extract from saturated soil paste, expressed as decisiemens per meter at 25 degrees C. Electrical conductivity is a measure of the concentration of water-soluble salts in soils. It is used to indicate saline soils. High concentrations of neutral salts, such as sodium chloride and sodium sulfate, may interfere with the absorption of water by plants because the osmotic pressure in the soil solution is nearly as high as or higher than that in the plant cells.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"decisiemens per meter"|"dS/m"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"EC"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2013 08:38:00|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
11|"pH (1 to 1 Water)"|"chorizon"|"ph1to1h2o_r"|"Float"||1|"Soil reaction is a measure of acidity or alkalinity. It is important in selecting crops and other plants, in evaluating soil amendments for fertility and stabilization, and in determining the risk of corrosion. In general, soils that are either highly alkaline or highly acid are likely to be very corrosive to steel. The most common soil laboratory measurement of pH is the 1:1 water method. A crushed soil sample is mixed with an equal amount of water, and a measurement is made of the suspension.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"pHwater"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|6||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""6""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels lower_value=""1.8"" upper_value=""3.4"" label=""Ultra acid (ph &lt; 3.5)"" order=""1"" /><Labels lower_value=""3.4"" upper_value=""4.4"" label=""Extremely acid (pH 3.5 - 4.4)"" order=""2"" /><Labels lower_value=""4.4"" upper_value=""5"" label=""Very strongly acid (pH 4.5 - 5.0)"" order=""3"" /><Labels lower_value=""5"" upper_value=""5.5"" label=""Strongly acid (pH 5.1 - 5.5)"" order=""4"" /><Labels lower_value=""5.5"" upper_value=""6"" label=""Moderately acid (pH 5.6 - 6.0)"" order=""5"" /><Labels lower_value=""6"" upper_value=""6.5"" label=""Slightly acid (pH 6.1 - 6.5)"" order=""6"" /><Labels lower_value=""6.5"" upper_value=""7.3"" label=""Neutral (pH 6.6 - 7.3)"" order=""7"" /><Labels lower_value=""7.3"" upper_value=""7.8"" label=""Slightly alkaline (pH 7.4 - 7.8)"" order=""8"" /><Labels lower_value=""7.8"" upper_value=""8.4"" label=""Moderately alkaline (pH 7.9 - 8.4)"" order=""9"" /><Labels lower_value=""8.4"" upper_value=""9"" label=""Strongly alkaline (pH 8.5 - 9.0)"" order=""10"" /><Labels lower_value=""9"" upper_value=""11"" label=""Very strongly alkaline (pH &gt; 9.0)"" order=""11"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|05/03/2007 12:33:55|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
28|"Cation-Exchange Capacity (CEC-7)"|"chorizon"|"cec7_r"|"Float"||1|"Cation-exchange capacity (CEC-7) is the total amount of extractable cations that can be held by the soil, expressed in terms of milliequivalents per 100 grams of soil at neutrality (pH 7.0) or at some other stated pH value. Soils having a low cation-exchange capacity hold fewer cations and may require more frequent applications of fertilizer than soils having a high cation-exchange capacity. The ability to retain cations reduces the hazard of ground-water pollution.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"milliequivalents per 100 grams"|"meq/100g"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"CEC7"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|07/28/2008 05:16:25|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
47|"Gypsum"|"chorizon"|"gypsum_r"|"Integer"|||"The content of gypsum is the percent, by weight, of hydrated calcium sulfates in the fraction of the soil less than 20 millimeters in size. Gypsum is partially soluble in water. Soils high in content of gypsum, such as those with more than 10 percent gypsum, may collapse if the gypsum is removed by percolating water. Gypsum is corrosive to concrete.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"Gypsum"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:18:09|"Dominant Component"||1|"Integer"
2|"Effective Cation-Exchange Capacity (ECEC)"|"chorizon"|"ecec_r"|"Float"||1|"Effective cation-exchange capacity refers to the sum of extractable cations plus aluminum expressed in terms of milliequivalents per 100 grams of soil. It is determined for soils that have pH of less than 5.5. Soils having a low cation-exchange capacity (CEC) hold fewer cations and may require more frequent applications of fertilizer than soils having a high cation-exchange capacity. The ability to retain cations reduces the hazard of ground-water pollution. Effective CEC is a measure of CEC that is particularly useful in areas where the ion-exchange capacity of the soil is largely a result of variable charge components, such as allophane, kaolinite, hydrous iron and aluminum oxides, and organic matter, which result in a CEC that is not a fixed number but a function of pH.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"milliequivalents per 100 grams"|"meq/100g"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"ECEC"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|07/28/2008 05:17:48|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
98|"Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3)"|"chorizon"|"caco3_r"|"Integer"|||"Calcium carbonate equivalent is the percent of carbonates, by weight, in the fraction of the soil less than 2 millimeters in size. The availability of plant nutrients is influenced by the amount of carbonates in the soil. 

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"CaC03"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|07/28/2008 05:20:34|"Dominant Component"||1|"Integer"
68|"Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)"|"chorizon"|"sar_r"|"Float"||1|"Sodium adsorption ratio is a measure of the amount of sodium (Na) relative to calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) in the water extract from saturated soil paste. It is the ratio of the Na concentration divided by the square root of one-half of the Ca + Mg concentration. Soils that have SAR values of 13 or more may be characterized by an increased dispersion of organic matter and clay particles, reduced saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) and aeration, and a general degradation of soil structure.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"SAR"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||0|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 09:02:46|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
94|"Map Unit Name"|"mapunit"|"muname"|"String"|175||"A soil map unit is a collection of soil areas or nonsoil areas (miscellaneous areas) delineated in a soil survey. Each map unit is given a name that uniquely identifies the unit in a particular soil survey area."|||"Property"||||1|0|0|0||0|||-1|"MUName"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|4||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""4""><ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random""><Values min=""50"" max=""99"" /><Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" /><Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:36:54|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1|"String"
86|"Frost-Free Days"|"component"|"ffd_r"|"Integer"|||"The term ""frost-free days"" refers to the expected number of days between the last freezing temperature (0 degrees Celsius) in spring (January-July) and the first freezing temperature in fall (August-December). The number of days is based on the probability that the values for the standard ""normal"" period of 1961 to 1990 will be exceeded in 5 years out of 10.

This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this attribute, only the representative value is used."|"days"|"days"|"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||1|"FrostFDays"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|6||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""6""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels lower_value=""0"" upper_value=""35"" label=""0 - 35"" order=""1"" /><Labels lower_value=""35"" upper_value=""75"" label=""35 - 75"" order=""2"" /><Labels lower_value=""75"" upper_value=""125"" label=""75 - 125"" order=""3"" /><Labels lower_value=""125"" upper_value=""135"" label=""125 - 135"" order=""4"" /><Labels lower_value=""135"" upper_value=""145"" label=""135 - 145"" order=""5"" /><Labels lower_value=""145"" upper_value=""165"" label=""145 - 165"" order=""6"" /><Labels lower_value=""165"" upper_value=""180"" label=""165 - 180"" order=""7"" /><Labels lower_value=""180"" upper_value=""365"" label=""180 - 365"" order=""8"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|04/25/2007 14:26:30|"Dominant Component"||1|"Integer"
384|"Parent Material Name"|"copmgrp"|"pmgroupname"|"String"|252||"Parent material name is a term for the general physical, chemical, and mineralogical composition of the unconsolidated material, mineral or organic, in which the soil forms. Mode of deposition and/or weathering may be implied by the name. 

The soil surveyor uses parent material to develop a model used for soil mapping. Soil scientists and specialists in other disciplines use parent material to help interpret soil boundaries and project performance of the material below the soil. Many soil properties relate to parent material. Among these properties are proportions of sand, silt, and clay; chemical content; bulk density; structure; and the kinds and amounts of rock fragments. These properties affect interpretations and may be criteria used to separate soil series. Soil properties and landscape information may imply the kind of parent material.

For each soil in the database, one or more parent materials may be identified. One is marked as the representative or most commonly occurring.  The representative parent material name is presented here."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"ParMatNm"|"copmgrp.rvindicator = 'yes'"|||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|4||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""4""><ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random""><Values min=""50"" max=""99"" /><Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" /><Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" /></Map_Legend>"|1|07/17/2007 07:24:34|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
380|"AASHTO Group Classification (Surface)"|"chaashto"|"aashtocl"|"Choice"|254||"AASHTO group classification is a system that classifies soils specifically for geotechnical engineering purposes that are related to highway and airfield construction. It is based on particle-size distribution and Atterberg limits, such as liquid limit and plasticity index. This classification system is covered in AASHTO Standard No. M 145-82. The classification is based on that portion of the soil that is smaller than 3 inches in diameter.  

The AASHTO classification system has two general classifications: (i) granular materials having 35 percent or less, by weight, particles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter and (ii) silt-clay materials having more than 35 percent, by weight, particles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter. These two divisions are further subdivided into seven main group classifications, plus eight subgroups, for a total of fifteen for mineral soils. Another class for organic soils is used.

For each soil horizon in the database one or more AASHTO Group Classifications may be listed.  One is marked as the representative or most commonly occurring.  The representative classification is shown here for the surface layer of the soil."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|1||0|||-1|"AASHTO"|"chaashto.rvindicator = 'yes'"|||||||0|"Surface Layer"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|8||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""8""><ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random""><Values min=""50"" max=""99"" /><Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" /><Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""A-1"" label=""A-1"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""A-1-a"" label=""A-1-a"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""A-1-b"" label=""A-1-b"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""A-2"" label=""A-2"" order=""4"" /><Labels value=""A-2-4"" label=""A-2-4"" order=""5"" /><Labels value=""A-2-5"" label=""A-2-5"" order=""6"" /><Labels value=""A-2-6"" label=""A-2-6"" order=""7"" /><Labels value=""A-2-7"" label=""A-2-7"" order=""8"" /><Labels value=""A-3"" label=""A-3"" order=""9"" /><Labels value=""A-4"" label=""A-4"" order=""10"" /><Labels value=""A-5"" label=""A-5"" order=""11"" /><Labels value=""A-6"" label=""A-6"" order=""12"" /><Labels value=""A-7"" label=""A-7"" order=""13"" /><Labels value=""A-7-5"" label=""A-7-5"" order=""14"" /><Labels value=""A-7-6"" label=""A-7-6"" order=""15"" /><Labels value=""A-8"" label=""A-8"" order=""16"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|08/10/2007 09:21:08|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
52|"Frost Action"|"component"|"frostact"|"Choice"|254||"Potential for frost action is the likelihood of upward or lateral expansion of the soil caused by the formation of segregated ice lenses (frost heave) and the subsequent collapse of the soil and loss of strength on thawing. Frost action occurs when moisture moves into the freezing zone of the soil. Temperature, texture, density, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), content of organic matter, and depth to the water table are the most important factors considered in evaluating the potential for frost action. It is assumed that the soil is not insulated by vegetation or snow and is not artificially drained. Silty and highly structured, clayey soils that have a high water table in winter are the most susceptible to frost action. Well drained, very gravelly, or very sandy soils are the least susceptible. Frost heave and low soil strength during thawing cause damage to pavements and other rigid structures."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0|"potential_frost_action"|1|||1|"FrostAct"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|2||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""2""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""High"" label=""High"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Low"" label=""Low"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""None"" label=""None"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:15:59|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
50|"Depth to a Selected Soil Restrictive Layer"|"corestrictions"|"resdept_r"|"Integer"|||"A ""restrictive layer"" is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical, chemical, or thermal properties that significantly impede the movement of water and air through the soil or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable root environment. Examples are bedrock, cemented layers, dense layers, and frozen layers.

This theme presents the depth to the user selected type of restrictive layer as described in for each map unit.  If no restrictive layer is described in a map unit, it is represented by the ""greater than 200"" depth class.

This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"centimeters"|"cm"|"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||-1|"Dep2SelRes"||"reskind"|"Choice"|"Restriction Kind"||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0|"201"|1|6||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""6"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels lower_value=""0.000"" upper_value=""25.000"" label=""0 - 25"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""25.000"" upper_value=""50.000"" label=""25 - 50"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""50.000"" upper_value=""100.000"" label=""50 - 100"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""100.000"" upper_value=""150.000"" label=""100 - 150"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""150.000"" upper_value=""200.000"" label=""150 - 200"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""200.000"" upper_value=""9999.000"" label=""&gt; 200"" order=""6"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2021 18:24:44|"Dominant Component"||1|"Integer"
381|"Unified Soil Classification (Surface)"|"chunified"|"unifiedcl"|"Choice"|254||"The Unified soil classification system classifies mineral and organic mineral soils for engineering purposes on the basis of particle-size characteristics, liquid limit, and plasticity index.  It identifies three major soil divisions: (i) coarse-grained soils having less than 50 percent, by weight, particles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter; (ii) fine-grained soils having 50 percent or more, by weight, particles smaller than 0.074 mm in diameter; and (iii) highly organic soils that demonstrate certain organic characteristics. These divisions are further subdivided into a total of 15 basic soil groups. The major soil divisions and basic soil groups are determined on the basis of estimated or measured values for grain-size distribution and Atterberg limits. ASTM D 2487 shows the criteria chart used for classifying soil in the Unified system and the 15 basic soil groups of the system and the plasticity chart for the Unified system.

The various groupings of this classification correlate in a general way with the engineering behavior of soils. This correlation provides a useful first step in any field or laboratory investigation for engineering purposes. It can serve to make some general interpretations relating to probable performance of the soil for engineering uses.

For each soil horizon in the database one or more Unified soil classifications may be listed.  One is marked as the representative or most commonly occurring.  The representative classification is shown here for the surface layer of the soil."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|1||0|||-1|"UnifSoiCl"|"chunified.rvindicator = 'yes'"|||||||0|"Surface Layer"|||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|8||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""8""><ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random""><Values min=""50"" max=""99"" /><Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" /><Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""CH"" label=""CH"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""CL"" label=""CL"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""CL-A (proposed)"" label=""CL-A (proposed)"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""CL-K (proposed)"" label=""CL-K (proposed)"" order=""4"" /><Labels value=""CL-ML"" label=""CL-ML"" order=""5"" /><Labels value=""CL-O (proposed)"" label=""CL-O (proposed)"" order=""6"" /><Labels value=""CL-T (proposed)"" label=""CL-T (proposed)"" order=""7"" /><Labels value=""GC"" label=""GC"" order=""8"" /><Labels value=""GC-GM"" label=""GC-GM"" order=""9"" /><Labels value=""GM"" label=""GM"" order=""10"" /><Labels value=""GP"" label=""GP"" order=""11"" /><Labels value=""GP-GC"" label=""GP-GC"" order=""12"" /><Labels value=""GP-GM"" label=""GP-GM"" order=""13"" /><Labels value=""GW"" label=""GW"" order=""14"" /><Labels value=""GW-GC"" label=""GW-GC"" order=""15"" /><Labels value=""GW-GM"" label=""GW-GM"" order=""16"" /><Labels value=""MH"" label=""MH"" order=""17"" /><Labels value=""MH-A (proposed)"" label=""MH-A (proposed)"" order=""18"" /><Labels value=""MH-K (proposed)"" label=""MH-K (proposed)"" order=""19"" /><Labels value=""MH-O (proposed)"" label=""MH-O (proposed)"" order=""20"" /><Labels value=""MH-T (proposed)"" label=""MH-T (proposed)"" order=""21"" /><Labels value=""ML"" label=""ML"" order=""22"" /><Labels value=""ML-A (proposed)"" label=""ML-A (proposed)"" order=""23"" /><Labels value=""ML-K (proposed)"" label=""ML-K (proposed)"" order=""24"" /><Labels value=""ML-O (proposed)"" label=""ML-O (proposed)"" order=""25"" /><Labels value=""ML-T (proposed)"" label=""ML-T (proposed)"" order=""26"" /><Labels value=""OH"" label=""OH"" order=""27"" /><Labels value=""OH-T (proposed)"" label=""OH-T (proposed)"" order=""28"" /><Labels value=""OL"" label=""OL"" order=""29"" /><Labels value=""PT"" label=""PT"" order=""30"" /><Labels value=""SC"" label=""SC"" order=""31"" /><Labels value=""SC-SM"" label=""SC-SM"" order=""32"" /><Labels value=""SM"" label=""SM"" order=""33"" /><Labels value=""SP"" label=""SP"" order=""34"" /><Labels value=""SP-SC"" label=""SP-SC"" order=""35"" /><Labels value=""SP-SM"" label=""SP-SM"" order=""36"" /><Labels value=""SW"" label=""SW"" order=""37"" /><Labels value=""SW-SC"" label=""SW-SC"" order=""38"" /><Labels value=""SW-SM"" label=""SW-SM"" order=""39"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|07/17/2007 07:31:11|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
309|"Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer"|"corestrictions"|"resdept_r"|"Integer"|||"A ""restrictive layer"" is a nearly continuous layer that has one or more physical, chemical, or thermal properties that significantly impede the movement of water and air through the soil or that restrict roots or otherwise provide an unfavorable root environment. Examples are bedrock, cemented layers, dense layers, and frozen layers.

This theme presents the depth to any type of restrictive layer that is described for each map unit.  If more than one type of restrictive layer is described for an individual soil type, the depth to the shallowest one is presented. If no restrictive layer is described in a map unit, it is represented by the ""greater than 200"" depth class.

This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"centimeters"|"cm"|"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||-1|"Dep2AnyRes"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0|"201"|1|6||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""6"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels lower_value=""0.000"" upper_value=""25.000"" label=""0 - 25"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""25.000"" upper_value=""50.000"" label=""25 - 50"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""50.000"" upper_value=""100.000"" label=""50 - 100"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""100.000"" upper_value=""150.000"" label=""100 - 150"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""150.000"" upper_value=""200.000"" label=""150 - 200"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""200.000"" upper_value=""9999.000"" label=""&gt; 200"" order=""6"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2021 18:24:52|"Dominant Component"||1|"Integer"
44|"Drainage Class"|"component"|"drainagecl"|"Choice"|254||"""Drainage class (natural)"" refers to the frequency and duration of wet periods under conditions similar to those under which the soil formed. Alterations of the water regime by human activities, either through drainage or irrigation, are not a consideration unless they have significantly changed the morphology of the soil. Seven classes of natural soil drainage are recognized-excessively drained, somewhat excessively drained, well drained, moderately well drained, somewhat poorly drained, poorly drained, and very poorly drained. These classes are defined in the ""Soil Survey Manual."""|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0|"drainage_class"|1|||1|"DrainClass"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Excessively drained"" label=""Excessively drained"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""Somewhat excessively drained"" label=""Somewhat excessively drained"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""Well drained"" label=""Well drained"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""Moderately well drained"" label=""Moderately well drained"" order=""4"" /><Labels value=""Somewhat poorly drained"" label=""Somewhat poorly drained"" order=""5"" /><Labels value=""Poorly drained"" label=""Poorly drained"" order=""6"" /><Labels value=""Very poorly drained"" label=""Very poorly drained"" order=""7"" /><Labels value=""Subaqueous"" label=""Subaqueous"" order=""8"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|04/20/2011 14:55:38|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
73|"Hydrologic Soil Group"|"component"|"hydgrp"|"Choice"|254||"Hydrologic soil groups are based on estimates of runoff potential. Soils are assigned to one of four groups according to the rate of water infiltration when the soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and receive precipitation from long-duration storms.

The soils in the United States are assigned to four groups (A, B, C, and D) and three dual classes (A/D, B/D, and C/D). The groups are defined as follows:

Group A. Soils having a high infiltration rate (low runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist mainly of deep, well drained to excessively drained sands or gravelly sands. These soils have a high rate of water transmission.

Group B. Soils having a moderate infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of moderately deep or deep, moderately well drained or well drained soils that have moderately fine texture to moderately coarse texture. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission.

Group C. Soils having a slow infiltration rate when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of soils having a layer that impedes the downward movement of water or soils of moderately fine texture or fine texture. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission.

Group D. Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table, soils that have a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.

If a soil is assigned to a dual hydrologic group (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for undrained areas. Only the soils that in their natural condition are in group D are assigned to dual classes."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||1|"HydrolGrp"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|8||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""8""><ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random""><Values min=""50"" max=""99"" /><Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" /><Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""A"" label=""A"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""A/D"" label=""A/D"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""B"" label=""B"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""B/D"" label=""B/D"" order=""4"" /><Labels value=""C"" label=""C"" order=""5"" /><Labels value=""C/D"" label=""C/D"" order=""6"" /><Labels value=""D"" label=""D"" order=""7"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|05/19/2011 11:28:22|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
96|"Representative Slope"|"component"|"slope_r"|"Float"||1|"Slope gradient is the difference in elevation between two points, expressed as a percentage of the distance between those points.

The slope gradient is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||1|"Slope"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|1||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""1"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels lower_value=""60.000"" upper_value=""100.000"" label=""60 - 100"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels lower_value=""45.000"" upper_value=""60.000"" label=""45 - 60"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""102"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels lower_value=""15.000"" upper_value=""45.000"" label=""15 - 45"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels lower_value=""5.000"" upper_value=""15.000"" label=""5 - 15"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""153"" green=""204"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels lower_value=""0.000"" upper_value=""5.000"" label=""0 - 5"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""128"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|12/08/2016 15:46:24|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
2744|"Soil Slippage Potential"|"component"|"soilslippot"|"Choice"|254||"Soil slippage potential is the hazard that a mass of soil will slip when vegetation is removed, soil water is at or near saturation, and other normal practices are applied. Conditions that increase the hazard of slippage but are not considered in this rating are undercutting lower portions or loading the upper parts of a slope or altering the drainage or offsite water contribution to the site, such as through irrigation.  

Slippage is an important consideration for engineering practices, such as constructing roads and buildings, and for forestry practices.

Soil slippage potential classes are estimated by observing slope; lithology, including contrasting lithologies; strike and dip; surface drainage patterns; and occurrences of such features as slip scars and slumps.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.





"|||"Property"||||1|1|0|0||0|||1|"SoilSlipPo"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|2||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""2"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Low"" label=""Low"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""204"" blue=""255"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately low"" label=""Moderately low"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""153"" green=""204"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Medium"" label=""Medium"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""High"" label=""High"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately high"" label=""Moderately high"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|02/15/2018 16:04:22|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
2746|"AASHTO Group Index"|"chorizon"|"aashind_r"|"Integer"|||"The AASHTO Group Index is a refinement to the seven major groups of the AASHTO soil classification system.  According to
this system, soil is classified into seven major groups: A -l through A-7. Soils classified into groups A-1, A-2. and A-3 are granular materials of which 35% or less of the particles pass through the No. 200 sieve. Soils of which more than 35% pass through the No. 200 sieve are classified into groups A-4, A-5, A-6, and A-7. These soils are mostly silt and clay-type materials.  

The classifications system is based on the following criteria:
1. Grain size
a. Gravel ; fraction passing the 75-mm( 3-in.) sieve and retained on the No. 10 (2-mm) U.S. sieve
b. sand: fraction passing the No. 10 (2-mm) U.S. sieve and retained on the No.200 (0.075-mm) U.S. sieve
c. Silt and clay: fraction passing the No. 200 U.S. sieve

2. Plasticity The term silty is applied when the fine fractions of the soil have a plasticity index of 10 or less. The term clayey is applied when the fine fractions have a plasticity index of 11 or more.
3. If cobbles and boulders (size larger than 75 mm) are encountered, they are excluded from the portion of the soil sample from which classification is made.

To evaluate the quality of a soil as a highway subgrade material, one must also incorporate a number called the group index (GI) with the groups and subgroups of the soil. This index is written in parentheses after the group or subgroup designation.
The group index is given by the equation:

GI = (F200-35)[0.2+ 0.005(LL- 40)] + 0.01(.F200-15)(PI- 10) 

where:
F200 = percentage passing through the No. 200 sieve
LL -- liquid limit
PI : plasticity index

The group index is used typically to refine an AASHTO class but in the soil survey database is often used as a standalone soil attribute.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|||"Property"||||1|1|0|1||0|||1|"aashto_gin"||||||||0|"All Layers"||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|3|10|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""10"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|03/18/2019 19:21:37|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Integer"
2814|"Subsidence, Initial"|"component"|"initsub_r"|"Integer"|||"Subsidence is the decrease in surface elevation as a result of the drainage of wet soils that have organic layers or semifluid, mineral layers. Initial subsidence is the decrease of surface elevation that occurs within the first 3 years of the drainage of these wet soils.

The susceptibility of soils to subsidence is an important consideration for organic soils that are drained. If these soils are drained for community development, special foundations are needed for buildings. Utility lines, sidewalks, and roads that lack special foundations may settle at different rates, thus causing breakage, high maintenance costs, and inconvenience."|"centimeters"|"cm"|"Property"||||1|1|0|0||1|||1|"SubsidIn"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|01/11/2021 16:15:30|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Integer"
2815|"Subsidence, Total"|"component"|"totalsub_r"|"Integer"|||"Subsidence is the decrease in surface elevation as a result of the drainage of wet soils that have organic layers or semifluid, mineral layers. Total subsidence is the potential decrease of surface elevation as a result of the drainage of these wet soils.

The susceptibility of soils to subsidence is an important consideration for organic soils that are drained. If these soils are drained for community development, special foundations are needed for buildings. Utility lines, sidewalks, and roads that lack special foundations may settle at different rates, thus causing breakage, high maintenance costs, and inconvenience.
"|"centimeters"|"cm"|"Property"||||1|1|0|0||1|||1|"SubsidTot"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|01/11/2021 16:14:37|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Integer"
2851|"Depth to Bedrock"|"corestrictions"|"resdept_r"|"Integer"|||"The term bedrock in soil survey refers to a continuous root and water restrictive layer of rock that occurs within the soil profile.    

There are many types of restrictions that can occur within the soil profile but this theme only includes the three restrictions that use the term bedrock.  These are:

1)	Lithic Bedrock
2)	Paralithic Bedrock
3)	Densic Bedrock

Lithic bedrock and paralithic bedrock are comprised of igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks, which are coherent and consolidated into rock through pressure, heat, cementation, or fusion. Lithic bedrock represents the hardest type of bedrock, with a hardness of strongly coherent to indurated. Paralithic bedrock has a hardness of extremely weakly coherent to moderately coherent. It can occur as a thin layer of weathered bedrock above harder lithic bedrock. Paralithic bedrock can also be much thicker, extending well below the soil profile. 

Densic bedrock represents a unique kind of bedrock recognized within the soil survey. It is non-coherent and consolidated, dense root restrictive material, formed by pressure, heat, and dewatering of earth materials or sediments. Densic bedrock differs from densic materials, which formed under the compaction of glaciers, mudflows, and or human-caused compaction.

If more than one type of bedrock is described for an individual soil type, the depth to the shallowest one is given. If no bedrock is described in a map unit, it is represented by the ""greater than 200"" depth class.

Depth to bedrock is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.


"|"centimeters"|"cm"|"Property"||||1|1|0|0||1|||-1|"Dep2BedRS"|"corestrictions.reskind IN ('Densic bedrock', 'Paralithic bedrock', 'Lithic bedrock')"|||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0|"201"|1|6||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""6"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels lower_value=""0.000"" upper_value=""25.000"" label=""0 - 25"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""25.000"" upper_value=""50.000"" label=""25 - 50"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""50.000"" upper_value=""100.000"" label=""50 - 100"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""100.000"" upper_value=""150.000"" label=""100 - 150"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""150.000"" upper_value=""200.000"" label=""150 - 200"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""200.000"" upper_value=""9999.000"" label=""&gt; 200"" order=""6"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|04/14/2022 13:01:06|"Dominant Component"||1|"Integer"
12|"Flooding Frequency Class"|"comonth"|"flodfreqcl"|"Choice"|254||"Flooding is the temporary inundation of an area caused by overflowing streams, by runoff from adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmelt is not considered flooding, and water standing in swamps and marshes is considered ponding rather than flooding.

Frequency is expressed as none, very rare, rare, occasional, frequent, and very frequent. 

""None"" means that flooding is not probable. The chance of flooding is nearly 0 percent in any year. Flooding occurs less than once in 500 years.

""Very rare"" means that flooding is very unlikely but possible under extremely unusual weather conditions. The chance of flooding is less than 1 percent in any year.

""Rare"" means that flooding is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions. The chance of flooding is 1 to 5 percent in any year.

 ""Occasional"" means that flooding occurs infrequently under normal weather conditions. The chance of flooding is 5 to 50 percent in any year.

""Frequent"" means that flooding is likely to occur often under normal weather conditions. The chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in any year but is less than 50 percent in all months in any year.

""Very frequent"" means that flooding is likely to occur very often under normal weather conditions. The chance of flooding is more than 50 percent in all months of any year."|||"Property"||||0|1|1|0|"flooding_frequency_class"|1|"Less Frequent"|"More Frequent"|1|"FloodFCls"||||||||0|||||1|"January"|"December"|"Weighted Average"|0|0|"None"|1|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""None"" label=""None"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels value=""Very rare"" label=""Very Rare"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels value=""Rare"" label=""Rare"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels value=""Occasional"" label=""Occasional"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels value=""Common"" label=""Common"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels value=""Frequent"" label=""Frequent"" order=""6"" />
    <Labels value=""Very Frequent"" label=""Very Frequent"" order=""7"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|06/07/2022 22:15:03|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
13|"Ponding Frequency Class"|"comonth"|"pondfreqcl"|"Choice"|254||"Ponding is standing water in a closed depression. The water is removed only by deep percolation, transpiration, or evaporation or by a combination of these processes. Ponding frequency classes are based on the number of times that ponding occurs over a given period. Frequency is expressed as none, rare, occasional, and frequent. 

""None"" means that ponding is not probable. The chance of ponding is nearly 0 percent in any year.

""Rare"" means that ponding is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions. The chance of ponding is nearly 0 percent to 5 percent in any year.

""Occasional"" means that ponding occurs, on the average, once or less in 2 years. The chance of ponding is 5 to 50 percent in any year.

""Frequent"" means that ponding occurs, on the average, more than once in 2 years. The chance of ponding is more than 50 percent in any year."|||"Property"||||0|1|1|0|"ponding_frequency_class"|1|"Less Frequent"|"More Frequent"|1|"PondFCls"||||||||0|||||1|"January"|"December"|"Weighted Average"|0|0|"None"|1|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""None"" label=""None"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""Rare"" label=""Rare"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""Occasional"" label=""Occasional"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""Common"" label=""Frequent"" order=""4"" /><Labels value=""Frequent"" label=""Frequent"" order=""4"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:46:33|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
82|"Depth to Water Table"|"cosoilmoist"|"soimoistdept_r"|"Integer"|||"""Water table"" refers to a saturated zone in the soil. It occurs during specified months. Estimates of the upper limit are based mainly on observations of the water table at selected sites and on evidence of a saturated zone, namely grayish colors (redoximorphic features) in the soil. A saturated zone that lasts for less than a month is not considered a water table.

This attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"centimeters"|"cm"|"Property"||||0|1|1|0||1|||-1|"Dep2WatTbl"|"soimoiststat='wet'"|||||||0|||||1|"January"|"December"|"Weighted Average"|0|0|"201"|1|6||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""6""><ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3""><LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /><UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" /><UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" /></ColorRampType><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels lower_value=""0"" upper_value=""25"" label=""0 - 25"" order=""1"" /><Labels lower_value=""25"" upper_value=""50"" label=""25 - 50"" order=""2"" /><Labels lower_value=""50"" upper_value=""100"" label=""50 - 100"" order=""3"" /><Labels lower_value=""100"" upper_value=""150"" label=""100 - 150"" order=""4"" /><Labels lower_value=""150"" upper_value=""200"" label=""150 - 200"" order=""5"" /><Labels lower_value=""200"" upper_value=""9999"" label=""&gt; 200"" order=""6"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|02/28/2007 14:22:28|"Dominant Component"||1|"Integer"
2866|"Ponding Frequency Class TEST"|"comonth"|"pondfreqcl"|"Choice"|254||"Ponding is standing water in a closed depression. The water is removed only by deep percolation, transpiration, or evaporation or by a combination of these processes. Ponding frequency classes are based on the number of times that ponding occurs over a given period. Frequency is expressed as none, rare, occasional, and frequent. 

""None"" means that ponding is not probable. The chance of ponding is nearly 0 percent in any year.

""Rare"" means that ponding is unlikely but possible under unusual weather conditions. The chance of ponding is nearly 0 percent to 5 percent in any year.

""Occasional"" means that ponding occurs, on the average, once or less in 2 years. The chance of ponding is 5 to 50 percent in any year.

""Frequent"" means that ponding occurs, on the average, more than once in 2 years. The chance of ponding is more than 50 percent in any year."|||"Property"||||0|1|1|0||1|"Less Frequent"|"More Frequent"|1|"PondFCls"||||||||0|||||1|"January"|"December"|"Weighted Average"|0|0|"None"|1|7||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""7"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""None"" label=""None"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels value=""Rare"" label=""Rare"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels value=""Occasional"" label=""Occasional"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels value=""Common"" label=""Common"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels value=""Frequent"" label=""Frequent"" order=""5"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|12/15/2022 15:41:14|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Choice"
113|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 1, Dry Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 1 vehicles are lightweight and have low contact pressure (less than 2.0 pounds per square inch). For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during dry periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for a minimum number of vehicle passes (one) or a maximum of 50 vehicles in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 1 dry season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV1DS"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:54:49|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
114|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 2, 1 Pass, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 2 vehicles are engineer and high-speed tractors with comparatively wide tracks and low contact pressures. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for one vehicle pass. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 2 1-pass wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV2WS1"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:56:05|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
115|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 2, 50 Passes, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 2 vehicles are engineer and high-speed tractors with comparatively wide tracks and low contact pressures. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for a maximum of 50 vehicle passes in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 2 50-passes wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV2WS50"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:59:01|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
116|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 2, Dry Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 2 vehicles are engineer and high-speed tractors with comparatively wide tracks and low contact pressures. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during dry periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for a minimum number of vehicle passes (one) or a maximum of 50 vehicles in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 2 dry season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV2DS"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:00:03|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
117|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 3, 1 Pass, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 3 vehicles are tractors with average contact pressures, tanks with comparatively low contact pressures, and some trailed vehicles with very low contact pressures. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use

Trafficability performance was estimated for one vehicle pass. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 3 1-pass wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV3WS1"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:00:55|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
118|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 3, 50 Passes, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 3 vehicles are tractors with average contact pressures, tanks with comparatively low contact pressures, and some trailed vehicles with very low contact pressures. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for 50 vehicle passes in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 3 50-passes wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV3WS50"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:02:56|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
119|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 3, Dry Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 3 vehicles are tractors with average contact pressures, tanks with comparatively low contact pressures, and some trailed vehicles with very low contact pressures. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during dry periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.


Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use

Trafficability performance was estimated for a minimum number of vehicle passes (one) or a maximum of 50 vehicles in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00)."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 3 dry season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV3DS"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:04:03|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
120|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 4, 1 Pass, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 4 vehicles are most medium tanks, tractors with high contact pressures, and all-wheel-drive trucks and trailed vehicles with low contact pressures. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for one vehicle pass. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 4 1-pass wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV4WS1"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:05:50|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
121|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 4, 50 Passes, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 4 vehicles are most medium tanks, tractors with high contact pressures, and all-wheel-drive trucks and trailed vehicles with low contact pressures. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for 50 vehicle passes in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 4 50-passes wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV4WS50"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:06:42|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
122|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 4, Dry Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 4 vehicles are most medium tanks, tractors with high contact pressures, and all-wheel-drive trucks and trailed vehicles with low contact pressures. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during dry periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for a minimum number of vehicle passes (one) or a maximum of 50 vehicles in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 4 dry season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV4DS"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:08:03|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
123|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 5, 1 Pass, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 5 vehicles are most all-wheel-drive trucks, a great number of trailed vehicles, and heavy tanks. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for one vehicle pass. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 5 1-pass wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV5WS1"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:14:02|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
124|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 5, 50 Passes, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 5 vehicles are most all-wheel-drive trucks, a great number of trailed vehicles, and heavy tanks. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for 50 vehicle passes in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 5 50-passes wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV5WS50"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:14:57|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
125|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 5, Dry Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 5 vehicles are most all-wheel-drive trucks, a great number of trailed vehicles, and heavy tanks. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during dry periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for a minimum number of vehicle passes (one) or a maximum of 50 vehicles in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 5 dry season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV5DS"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:15:54|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
126|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 6, 1 Pass, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 6 vehicles are a great number of all-wheel-drive and rear-wheel-drive trucks and trailed vehicles intended primarily for highway use. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for one vehicle pass. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 6 1-pass wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV6WS1"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:20:30|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
127|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 6, 50 Passes, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 6 vehicles are a great number of all-wheel-drive and rear-wheel-drive trucks and trailed vehicles intended primarily for highway use. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for 50 vehicle passes in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 6 50-passes wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV6WS50"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:21:23|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
128|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 6, Dry Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 6 vehicles are a great number of all-wheel-drive and rear-wheel-drive trucks and trailed vehicles intended primarily for highway use. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during dry periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for a minimum number of vehicle passes (one) or a maximum of 50 vehicles in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 6 dry season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV6DS"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:22:17|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
129|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 7, 1 Pass, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 7 vehicles are rear-wheel-drive and other vehicles that generally are not expected to operate off road, especially on wet soils. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for one vehicle pass. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 7 1-pass wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV7WS1"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:23:11|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
130|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 7, 50 Passes, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 7 vehicles are rear-wheel-drive and other vehicles that generally are not expected to operate off road, especially on wet soils. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for 50 vehicle passes in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 7 50-passes wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV7WS50"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:24:02|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
131|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 7, Dry Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 7 vehicles are rear-wheel-drive and other vehicles that generally are not expected to operate off road, especially on wet soils. For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during dry periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for a minimum number of vehicle passes (one) or a maximum of 50 vehicles in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 7 dry season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV7DS"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 08:24:54|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
110|"Helicopter Landing Zones"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Helicopter landing zones are areas that are developed for landing helicopters that transport troops and supplies.

Ratings are based on the soil properties that influence construction, maintenance, and readiness of the landing zones. A dusty surface layer, slope, and the content of large stones influence the development and functionality of the landing zone. Flooding or ponding may restrict the period when the landing zone can be used.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect helicopter landing zones. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Helicopter Landing Zones (DOD)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"MilHeloLZ"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:51:16|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
111|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 1, 1 Pass, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 1 vehicles are lightweight and have low contact pressure (less than 2.0 pounds per square inch). For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for one vehicle pass. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 1 1-pass wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV1WS1"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:52:43|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
112|"Vehicle Trafficability, Type 1, 50 Passes, Wet Season"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Military category type 1 vehicles are lightweight and have low contact pressure (less than 2.0 pounds per square inch). For this interpretation, trafficability is the capacity of the soil to support these vehicles during wet periods. Trafficability estimates can be made from terrain data, such as topography data, and from data about soil and weather conditions. Military trafficability interpretations are based on procedures and criteria described in the Army Field Manual 5-430-00-1, chapter 7, and are conservative estimates for use in operations planning. Commanders and engineers must be cautious because the interpreted results can vary greatly.

Assessing the trafficability of fine grained soils (silts and clays) and sands that contain enough fine grained material to behave like fine grained soils when wet is more difficult than assessing the trafficability of coarse grained soils (clean sands). Soil-vehicle interactions involving soil strength, slipperiness, stickiness, large stones on the surface, and slope are the basis for trafficability interpretations.

The information presented in this interpretation is limited to problems associated with soils. It does not include problems associated with natural or manmade obstacles (such as forests or ditches) or with vehicle characteristics (such as the maximum tilt or side angle at which a vehicle can climb without power stall or overturning). The interpretation is developed for temperate and tropical climates and for soils that have been subject to freeze-thaw cycles if they are not frozen at the time of vehicle use.

Trafficability performance was estimated for a maximum of 50 vehicle passes in the same ruts. Slope, stoniness, depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, flooding, ponding, and the Unified soil classification are the main soil properties used in determining vehicular trafficability. For good trafficability, the surface of the soil should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under repeated traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence soil strength, slickness, and stickiness are the Unified soil classification and its relationship to soil moisture conditions and surface ponding, flooding, and stoniness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating classes of ""excellent,"" ""good,"" ""fair,"" and ""poor"" indicate the extent to which the soils are suitable for military vehicle traffic. ""Excellent"" indicates that the soil has no characteristics that limit trafficability and that very low maintenance can be expected. ""Good"" indicates that the soil may have characteristics that limit trafficability but are favorable for use. Good operational performance and low maintenance can be expected. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that limit trafficability and are moderately favorable for use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or management. Fair performance, moderate maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected. ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that severely limit trafficability and one or more features that are unfavorable for use. Generally, the limitations cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or special management. Poor performance, high maintenance, and soil degradation can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (0.01) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (1.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Trafficability Veh. Type 1 50-passes wet season (DOD)"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"MilTV1WS50"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Excellent"" label=""Excellent"" order=""4""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:53:59|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
106|"Bivouac Areas"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"Bivouac areas are used intensively as field operation centers for military activity. They commonly require site preparation, such as shaping and leveling in areas used for tents and in parking areas, stabilizing roads and intensively used areas, and installing sanitary facilities and utility lines. Bivouac areas are subject to heavy foot traffic and some vehicular traffic.

This interpretation identifies those soil properties that influence the ease of developing bivouac areas and the performance of the areas after development. Soil properties that influence trafficability and promote the growth of vegetation after heavy use also are important. The limitations are less restrictive on sites for tents or remote camps.

Slope, stoniness, and depth to bedrock or a cemented pan are the main concerns in developing bivouac areas. For good trafficability, the surface of the bivouac area should absorb rainfall readily, should remain firm under heavy foot traffic, and should not be dusty when dry. Soil properties that influence trafficability are texture of the surface layer, wetness, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), and large stones. The limitations of low Ksat and a clayey surface layer are not so severe in dry regions of the country as in other regions; however, silty soils may be more of a problem in the dry regions because they are dusty. Soil properties that influence the growth of plants are depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), and the presence of toxic materials. Soils that are subject to flooding are particularly hazardous as bivouac areas because of the danger to life and property.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect bivouac areas. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Bivouac Areas (DOD)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"MilBivArea"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:41:46|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
107|"Excavations for Crew-Served Weapon Fighting Positions"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"These excavations are trenches or holes dug in the soil to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet. They are used for troop and weapon protection and support bases. The excavations are most commonly made by trenching machines or backhoes.

Ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging, the resistance to sloughing, and weapon readiness. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the content of large stones influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table and flooding may restrict the period when excavations can be made and can affect weapon readiness. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture and depth to the water table influence the resistance to sloughing.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these excavations. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Excavations Crew-Served Weapon Fighting Position (DOD)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"MilCSWFPos"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:42:47|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
108|"Excavations for Individual Fighting Positions"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"These excavations are trenches or holes dug in the soil to a maximum depth of 2 or 3 feet. They are used for troop protection. The excavations are most commonly made by trenching tools and shovels.

Ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging, the resistance to sloughing, and position readiness. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the content of large stones influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table and flooding may restrict the period when excavations can be made and can affect position readiness.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these excavations. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Excavations for Individual Fighting Position (DOD)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"MilIFPos"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:43:47|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
109|"Excavations for Vehicle Fighting Positions"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"string"|254||"These excavations are trenches or holes dug in the soil to a maximum depth of 5 or 6 feet. They are used for troop, vehicle, and weapon protection and support bases. The excavations are most commonly made by trenching machines or backhoes.

Ratings are based on the soil properties that influence the ease of digging, the resistance to sloughing, and weapon readiness. Depth to bedrock or a cemented pan, hardness of bedrock or a cemented pan, and the content of large stones influence the ease of digging, filling, and compacting. Depth to the seasonal high water table and flooding may restrict the period when excavations can be made and can affect weapon readiness. Slope influences the ease of using machinery. Soil texture and depth to the water table influence the resistance to sloughing.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these excavations. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. The ratings are shown as decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"MIL - Excavations for Vehicle Fighting Position (DOD)"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"MilVFPos"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 07:46:03|"Dominant Condition"||1|"string"
232|"Catastrophic Mortality, Large Animal Disposal, Pit"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"""Catastrophic mortality, large animal disposal, pit,"" is a method of disposing of animals that died from disease by placing the carcasses in successive layers in an excavated trench. The carcasses are spread, compacted, and covered daily with a thin layer of soil that is excavated from the pit. When the pit is full, a final cover of soil material at least 2 feet thick is placed over the filled pit area.  This interpretation is meant for instances where environmental isolation of pathogens is a primary concern.  The criteria are specifically developed to prevent groundwater contamination.

The interpretation is applicable to both heavily populated and sparsely populated areas. While some general observations may be made, onsite evaluation is required before the final site is selected. Improper site selection, design, or installation may cause contamination of ground water, seepage, and contamination of stream systems from surface drainage or floodwater. The risk of contamination can be reduced or eliminated by installing systems designed to eliminate or reduce the adverse effects of limiting soil properties. Ratings are for soils in their present condition. The present land use is not considered in the ratings.

Ratings are based on properties and qualities to the depth normally observed during soil mapping (approximately 6 or 7 feet). However, because pits may be as deep as 15 feet or more, geologic investigations are needed to determine the potential for pollution of ground water and to determine the design needed. These investigations, which are generally arranged by the pit developer, include examination of stratification, rock formations, and geologic conditions that might lead to the conducting of leachates to aquifers, wells, watercourses, and other water sources. The presence of hard, nonrippable bedrock, bedrock crevices, or highly permeable strata at or directly below the proposed pit bottom is undesirable because of the difficulty in excavation and the potential pollution of underground water.

Properties that influence the risk of pollution, ease of excavation, trafficability, and revegetation are major considerations. Soils that are flooded or have a water table within the depth of excavation present a potential pollution hazard and are difficult to excavate. Slope is an important consideration because it affects the work involved in road construction, the performance of the roads, and the control of surface water around the pit. It may also cause difficulty in constructing pits in which the pit bottom must be kept level and oriented to follow the contour of the land.

The ease with which the pit is dug and with which a soil can be used as daily and final cover is based largely on soil texture and consistence, which determine workability when the soil is dry and when it is wet. Soils that are plastic and sticky when wet are difficult to excavate, grade, or compact and difficult to place as a uniformly thick cover over a layer of carcasses. The uppermost part of the final cover should be soil material that favors the growth of plants. It should not contain excess sodium or salts and should not be too acid. In comparison with other horizons, the surface layer in most soils has the best workability and the highest content of organic matter. Thus, it may be desirable to stockpile the surface layer for use in the final blanketing of the filled pit area.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected of a properly designed and installed system. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of the individual limitations. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"DHS - Catastrophic Mortality, Large Animal Disposal, Pit"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"AnDspPit"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/12/2018 15:48:01|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
233|"Catastrophic Mortality, Large Animal Disposal, Trench"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"""Catastrophic mortality, large animal disposal, trench,"" is a method of disposing of animals that died from disease by placing the carcasses in successive layers in an excavated trench. The carcasses are spread, compacted, and covered daily with a thin layer of soil that is excavated from the trench. When the trench is full, a final cover of soil material at least 2 feet thick is placed over the filled trench area.  This interpretation is meant for instances where environmental isolation of pathogens is a primary concern.  The criteria are specifically developed to prevent groundwater contamination.

The interpretation is applicable to both heavily populated and sparsely populated areas. While some general observations may be made, onsite evaluation is required before the final site is selected. Improper site selection, design, or installation may cause contamination of ground water, seepage, and contamination of stream systems from surface drainage or floodwater. The risk of contamination can be reduced or eliminated by installing systems designed to eliminate or reduce the adverse effects of limiting soil properties. Ratings are for soils in their present condition. The present land use is not considered in the ratings.

Ratings are based on properties and qualities to the depth normally observed during soil mapping (approximately 6 or 7 feet). Because trenches may be as deep as 15 feet or more, however, geologic investigations are needed to determine the potential for pollution of ground water and to determine the design needed. These investigations, which are generally arranged by the trench developer, include examination of stratification, rock formations, and geologic conditions that might lead to the conducting of leachates to aquifers, wells, watercourses, and other water sources. The presence of hard, nonrippable bedrock, bedrock crevices, or highly permeable strata at or directly below the proposed trench bottom is undesirable because of the difficulty in excavation and the potential pollution of underground water.

Properties that influence the risk of pollution, ease of excavation, trafficability, and revegetation are major considerations. Soils that are flooded or have a water table within the depth of excavation present a potential pollution hazard and are difficult to excavate. Slope is an important consideration because it affects the work involved in road construction, the performance of the roads, and the control of surface water around the trench. It may also cause difficulty in constructing trenches in which the trench bottom must be kept level and oriented to follow the contour of the land.

The ease with which the trench is dug and with which a soil can be used as daily and final cover is based largely on soil texture and consistence, which determine workability when the soil is dry and when it is wet. Soils that are plastic and sticky when wet are difficult to excavate, grade, or compact and difficult to place as a uniformly thick cover over a layer of carcasses. The uppermost part of the final cover should be soil material that favors the growth of plants. It should not contain excess sodium or salts and should not be too acid. In comparison with other horizons, the surface layer in most soils has the best workability and the highest content of organic matter. Thus, it may be desirable to stockpile the surface layer for use in the final blanketing of the fill.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected of a properly designed and installed system. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Numerical ratings indicate the severity of the individual limitations. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"DHS - Catastrophic Mortality, Large Animal Disposal, Trench"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"AnDspTrnch"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/12/2018 15:46:00|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
275|"Rubble and Debris Disposal, Large-Scale Event"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Burial of rubble and debris in an expeditiously constructed landfill is a method of disposing of material that has been rendered unsafe and unusable by the effects of a large-scale disaster, either natural or man-made, often affecting tens of counties or parishes.  Many homes and business structures are rendered unfit for occupancy, either by destruction or contamination.  Such a landfill involves excavating a large pit or trench, placing the rubble and debris in the trench, and covering each layer with a blanket of soil material.  A final blanket of cover material is placed over the whole facility when completed.

This interpretation shows the degree and kind of limitations that affect a soil's use for such a landfill. The soil is evaluated from the surface to 79 inches.  An on-site investigation to greater depth will be needed for final site acceptance.  The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect attenuation of suspended, soil solution, and gaseous decomposition products and microorganisms; construction and maintenance of the site; and public health.  Improper site selection, design, or installation may cause contamination of ground water, seepage, and contamination of stream systems from surface drainage or floodwater.  

Properties that influence the risk of pollution, ease of excavation, trafficability, and revegetation are major considerations.  Soils that flood or have a water table within the depth of excavation present a potential pollution hazard and are difficult to excavate.  Soils that have high saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) or are shallow to bedrock, ice, a cemented pan, or stones and boulders are limited because these features interfere with the installation, performance, and maintenance of the system.  Slope is an important consideration because it affects the work involved in road construction, the performance of the roads, and the control of surface water around the excavation.  It may also cause difficulty in constructing trenches for which the trench or pit bottom must be kept level and oriented to follow the ground contour.

The ease with which the trench or pit is dug and with which a soil can be used as daily and final covers is based largely on texture and consistence of the soil which affect the workability of the soil both when dry and when wet.  Soils that are plastic and sticky when wet are difficult to excavate, grade, or compact and difficult to place as a uniformly thick cover over a layer of rubble or debris.  The uppermost part of the final cover should be soil material that is favorable for the growth of plants.  It should not contain excess sodium or salt and should not be too acid.  In comparison with other horizons, the A horizon in most soils has the best workability and the highest content of organic matter.  Thus, for a rubble and debris disposal operation it may be desirable to stockpile the surface layer for use in the final blanketing of the filled area. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Numerical ratings indicate the severity of the individual limitations.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses.  ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use.  Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected of a properly designed and installed system on these soils.  ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use.  The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation.  Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected.  ""Severely limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use.  The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures.  Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"DHS - Rubble and Debris Disposal, Large-Scale Event"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"RuDeDispLS"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Severely limited"" label=""Severely limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:03:35|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
276|"Composting Facility - Subsurface"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Composting is a method of using natural processes to change vegetative debris into a useful product. This interpretation shows the degree and kind of limitations that affect the siting of a subsurface composting facility to stabilize vegetative debris produced as a result of a major disaster.  

The soil is evaluated from the surface to a depth of 79 inches.  The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect attenuation of suspended, soil solution, and gaseous decomposition products and microorganisms, construction and maintenance of the site, and public health.  Improper site selection, design, or installation may cause contamination of ground water, seepage, and contamination of stream systems from surface drainage or floodwater.  

Properties that influence the risk of pollution, ease of excavation, trafficability, and revegetation are major considerations.  Soils that flood or have a water table within the depth of excavation present a potential pollution hazard and are difficult to excavate.  Soils that have high saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) are shallow to bedrock, ice, or a cemented pan, or have a high content of stones and boulders are limited because these features interfere with the installation, performance, and maintenance of the system.  Slope is an important consideration because it affects the work involved in road construction, the performance of the roads, and the control of surface water around the excavation.  It may also cause difficulty in constructing trenches which must be kept level and oriented to follow the ground contour.

Climatic factors influence the ease with which a composting facility can be maintained.  Adequate precipitation to keep the mass moist, and sufficient heat to sustain biological activity are essential.  

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Numerical ratings indicate the severity of the individual limitations.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses.  ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use.  Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected of a properly designed and installed system on these soils.  ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use.  The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation.  Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected.  ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use.  The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures.  Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"DHS - Site for Composting Facility - Subsurface"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"CompFacSub"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:04:24|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
277|"Composting Facility - Surface"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Composting is a method of using natural processes to change vegetative debris into a useful product.  This interpretation evaluates the degree and kind of limitation(s) that affect the siting of a surface composting facility to stabilize vegetative debris produced as a result of a major disaster.  

The soil is evaluated from the surface to a depth of 79 inches.  The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect trafficability; attenuation of suspended, soil solution, and gaseous decomposition products and microorganisms; construction and maintenance of the site; and public health.  Improper site selection, design, or installation may cause contamination of ground water, seepage, and contamination of stream systems from surface drainage or floodwater.  

Properties that influence the risk of pollution, ease of excavation, trafficability, and revegetation are major considerations.  Soils that flood or have a water table within the depth of excavation present a potential pollution hazard and are difficult to excavate.  Soils that have high saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), that are shallow to bedrock, ice, or a cemented pan, or that have a high content of stones and boulders are limited because these features interfere with the installation, performance, and maintenance of the system.  Slope is an important consideration because it affects the work involved in road construction, the performance of the roads, and the control of surface water around the facility.

Climatic factors influence the ease with which a composting facility can be maintained.  Adequate precipitation to keep the mass moist, and sufficient heat to sustain biological activity are essential.  

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Numerical ratings indicate the severity of the individual limitations.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest limitation on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).  

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses.  ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use.  Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected of a properly designed and installed system on these soils.  ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use.  The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation.  Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected.  ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use.  The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures.  Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"DHS - Site for Composting Facility - Surface"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"CompFacSur"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:05:12|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
278|"Clay Liner Material Source"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Using natural clayey soil material to line the bottom of a landfill pit is a method of assist in the sealing the pit that may have excessively high water transmission capabilities in the soil layer below the excavation.  This interpretation shows the degree and kinds of properties that make soil material suitable for use as a clay liner.  

The soil is evaluated from the surface to 79 inches.  The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect ease of excavation, compactability of the material, the thickness of the soil layer, reclamation of the area, and erosion from the site.  

Soils that flood or have a water table within the depth of excavation present a potential pollution hazard and are difficult to excavate.  Soils that are shallow to bedrock, ice, a cemented pan, or stones and boulders are limited because these features interfere with the excavation of the site or the suitability of the material.  Slope is an important consideration because it affects the work involved in road construction, the performance of the roads, and the control of surface water around the borrow area.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Numerical ratings in the table indicate the level of suitability of the soil as a clay liner source.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest positive impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature has the greatest negative impact (0.00).

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are made suitable by all of the soil features that affect the suitability of soil material for this use.  ""Good"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that are favorable for the specified use.  The liner will have good performance and the material will not need any amendments to enhance its performance.  ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use.  The suitability as a liner may be enhanced by making a thicker layer, or adding bentonite to the soil material used for the liner.  The soil may be difficult to work or contain rock fragments.  ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use.  While any material could be used as a clay liner, a poorly suited material will require large amounts of bentonite or other sealing material in order to achieve the expected level of performance.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.


References:

USDA. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Agricultural Waste management Field Handbook. Chapter 10. 31 pages. 

US Army Corps of Engineers. August 2004.  Unified Facilities Guide Specifications No. 023377. 17 pages.   http://www.ccb.org/docs/ufgshome/pdf/02377.pdf"|||"Interpretation"|"DHS - Suitability for Clay Liner Material"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"ClLiMatSrc"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:06:26|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
279|"Composting Medium and Final Cover"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Using natural soil material to assist in the biological degradation of organic material and as a capping for the mass of compost is common practice.  This interpretation shows the degree and kinds of properties that make soil material suitable for use as composting medium and final cover material.  Each soil is rated as a potential source of such material.

The soil is evaluated from the surface to 79 inches.  The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect ease of excavation, workability of the material, the thickness of the soil layer, reclamation of the area, and erosion from the site.  

Soils that flood or have a water table within the depth of excavation present a potential pollution hazard and are difficult to excavate.  Soils that are shallow to bedrock, ice, a cemented pan, or stones and boulders are limited because these features interfere with the excavation of the site or the suitability of the material.  Slope is an important consideration because it affects the work involved in road construction, the performance of the roads, and the control of surface water around the borrow area.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical.  Numerical ratings in indicate the level of suitability of the soil as a composting medium and final cover material source.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 1.00 to 0.01.  They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest positive impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature has the greatest negative impact (0.00).

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are made suitable by all of the soil features that affect the suitability of soil material for this use.  ""Good"" indicates that the soil has characteristics that are favorable for the specified use.  The compost medium or final cover material will have good performance.  ""Fair"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use.  The soil may be somewhat difficult to work or contain rock fragments.  ""Poor"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use.  While any material could be used as a composting medium and final cover material, a poorly suited material will require large amounts of amendments or screening in order to achieve the expected level of performance.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen.  An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit.  The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.  

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit.  The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site."|||"Interpretation"|"DHS - Suitability for Composting Medium and Final Cover"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"CompMFCov"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5""><ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" /><Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon""><Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" /><Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /><Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Legend_Symbols><Legend_Elements transparency=""0""><Labels value=""Poor"" label=""Poor"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair"" label=""Fair"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good"" label=""Good"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|01/14/2009 06:07:15|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2760|"Catastrophic Event, Large Animal Mortality, Incinerate"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"""Catastrophic Event, Large Animal Disposal, Incinerate"", is a method of disposing dead animals by placing the carcasses in a shallow excavated pit 91 cm (about 36 inches) deep or less. The carcasses are spread, compacted, and burned using established industry incineration techniques. Once carcasses have been sufficiently incinerated, a final cover of soil material at least 2 feet thick is placed over the burial pit.

Soils are rated based on their limitation for burial of large animals following a catastrophic event. Catastrophic events include, but are not limited to, hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, and tornados. Limitations for burial of large animals during a catastrophic event are based primarily on contamination of groundwater, trafficability of excavation equipment, site selection, and site reclamation. 

While some general observations may be made, onsite evaluation is required before the final site is selected.  Improper site selection, design, or installation may cause contamination of ground water, seepage, and contamination of stream systems from surface drainage or floodwater.  Potential contamination may be reduced or eliminated by installing systems designed to overcome or reduce the effects of the limiting soil property.  The rating is for soils in their present condition and does not consider present land use.

Ratings are based on properties and qualities to the depth normally observed during soil mapping (approximately 6 or 7 feet).  However, geologic investigations are needed to determine the potential for pollution of ground water as well as to determine the design needed.  These investigations, which are generally arranged by the pit developer, include the examination of stratification, rock formations, and geologic conditions that might lead to the conducting of leachates to aquifers, wells, watercourses, and other water sources.  The presence of hard, nonrippable bedrock, bedrock crevices, or highly permeable strata in or immediately underlying the proposed pit bottom is undesirable because of the difficulty in excavation and the potential contamination of underground water.

Properties that influence the risk of contamination of groundwater, ease of excavation, trafficability, and revegetation are major considerations.  Soils that flood or have a water table within the depth of excavation present a potential contamination hazard and are difficult to excavate.  Slope is an important consideration because it affects the work involved in road construction, the performance of the roads, and the control of surface water around the pit.  It may also cause difficulty in constructing pits for which the pit bottom must be kept level and oriented to follow the contour.

The ease with which the pit is dug and with which a soil can be used as daily and final covers is based largely on texture and consistence of the soil.  The texture and consistence of a soil determine the degree of workability of the soil both when dry and when wet.  Soils that are plastic and sticky when wet are difficult to excavate, grade, or compact and difficult to place as a uniformly thick cover over a layer of carcasses.  The uppermost part of the final cover should be soil material that is favorable for the growth of plants.  It should not contain excess sodium or salt and should not be too acid.  In comparison with other horizons, the A horizon in most soils has the best workability and the highest content of organic matter.  Thus, for a Large Animal Disposal, Burial operation it may be desirable to stockpile the surface layer for use in the final blanketing of the filled pit area.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of the individual limitations. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Definitions of the ratings:
Not limited (rating index = 0) - The limitation for large animal incineration during a catastrophic event is insignificant.  This soil is able to support standard excavation equipment, the soil has minimal contamination of groundwater, and soil reclamation using conventional processes is possible. Not limited soils have features that are very favorable for the specified use. Very good performance and very low maintenance can be expected of a properly designed and installed system.

Slightly limited (rating index greater than 0 and less than 0.30) - The limitation for large animal incineration during a catastrophic event is slightly limited. There are one or more soil properties that pose a slight limitation for contamination of groundwater, site reclamation, or excavation equipment.  Slightly limited indicates the soil has features that are favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Good performance and low maintenance can be expected.

Somewhat limited (greater than 0.30 and less than 0.80) - The limitation for large animal incineration during a catastrophic event is somewhat limited. There are more than one soil properties that pose a limitation for contamination of groundwater, site reclamation, or excavation equipment. Any corrective measures taken to overcome these limitations are considered economical however, special care must be taken to overcome limitations.  Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected.

Severely limited (greater than 0.80 and less than 0.99) - The limitation for large animal incineration during a catastrophic event is severely limited. There are many soil properties that pose a limitation for contamination of groundwater, site reclamation, or excavation equipment. Additionally, corrective measures will be needed to overcome these limitations. Corrective measures taken may be costly to overcome limitations that pose a severely limited rating. Severely limited indicates that the soil has features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation however, it is costly to do so. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Very severely limited (rating index equals 1.0) - The limitation for large animal incineration during a catastrophic event is severely limited. There are one or more soil properties that pose a very severe limitation for contamination of groundwater, site reclamation, or excavation equipment. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Very poor performance and very high maintenance can be expected.
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. 

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. 
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
"|||"Interpretation"|"DHS - Catastrophic Event, Large Animal Mortality, Incinerate"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"LgAnIncin"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very severely limited"" label=""Very severely limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Severely limited"" label=""Severely limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""127"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Slightly limited"" label=""Slightly limited"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""127"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/25/2018 19:16:17|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2761|"Catastrophic Event, Large Animal Mortality, Burial"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"""Catastrophic Event, Large Animal Mortality, Burial"", is a method of disposing of deceased animals as a result of a large scale natural disaster such as a hurricane.  The animals are disposed of by placing the carcasses in successive layers in an excavated and sloped pit.  The carcasses are spread, compacted, and covered daily with a thin layer of soil that is excavated from the pit.  When the pit is full, a final cover of soil material at least 2 feet thick is placed over the burial pit.

Soils are rated based on their limitation for burial of large animals following a catastrophic event. Catastrophic events include, but are not limited to, hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, and tornados. Limitations for burial of large animals during a catastrophic event are based primarily on contamination of groundwater, trafficability of excavation equipment, site selection, and site reclamation. 

While some general observations may be made, onsite evaluation is required before the final site is selected.  Improper site selection, design, or installation may cause contamination of ground water, seepage, and contamination of stream systems from surface drainage or floodwater.  Potential contamination may be reduced or eliminated by installing systems designed to overcome or reduce the effects of the limiting soil property.  The rating is for soils in their present condition and does not consider present land use.

Ratings are based on properties and qualities to the depth normally observed during soil mapping (approximately 6 or 7 feet).  However, because pits may be as deep as 15 feet or more, geologic investigations are needed to determine the potential for pollution of ground water as well as to determine the design needed.  These investigations, which are generally arranged by the pit developer, include the examination of stratification, rock formations, and geologic conditions that might lead to the conducting of leachates to aquifers, wells, watercourses, and other water sources.  The presence of hard, nonrippable bedrock, bedrock crevices, or highly permeable strata in or immediately underlying the proposed pit bottom is undesirable because of the difficulty in excavation and the potential contamination of underground water.

Properties that influence the risk of contamination of groundwater, ease of excavation, trafficability, and revegetation are major considerations.  Soils that flood or have a water table within the depth of excavation present a potential contamination hazard and are difficult to excavate.  Slope is an important consideration because it affects the work involved in road construction, the performance of the roads, and the control of surface water around the pit.  It may also cause difficulty in constructing pits for which the pit bottom must be kept level and oriented to follow the contour.

The ease with which the pit is dug and with which a soil can be used as daily and final covers is based largely on texture and consistence of the soil.  The texture and consistence of a soil determine the degree of workability of the soil both when dry and when wet.  Soils that are plastic and sticky when wet are difficult to excavate, grade, or compact and difficult to place as a uniformly thick cover over a layer of carcasses.  The uppermost part of the final cover should be soil material that is favorable for the growth of plants.  It should not contain excess sodium or salt and should not be too acid.  In comparison with other horizons, the A horizon in most soils has the best workability and the highest content of organic matter.  Thus, for a Large Animal Disposal, Burial operation it may be desirable to stockpile the surface layer for use in the final blanketing of the filled pit area.
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of the individual limitations. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).


The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. 

Not limited (rating index equals 0) - The limitation for large animal disposal during a catastrophic event is insignificant.  This soil is able to support standard excavation equipment, the soil has minimal contamination of groundwater, and soil reclamation using conventional processes is possible. Not limited soils have features that are very favorable for the specified use. Very good performance and very low maintenance can be expected of a properly designed and installed system.

Slightly limited (rating index greater than 0 but less than 0.30) - The limitation for large animal disposal during a catastrophic event is slightly limited. There are one or more soil properties that pose a slight limitation for contamination of groundwater, site reclamation, or excavation equipment.  Slightly limited indicates the soil have features that are favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Good performance and low maintenance can be expected.

Somewhat limited (greater than 0.30 but less than 0.80) - The limitation for large animal disposal during a catastrophic event is somewhat limited. There are more than one soil properties that pose a limitation for contamination of groundwater, site reclamation, or excavation equipment. Any corrective measures taken to overcome these limitations are considered economical however, special care must be taken to overcome limitations.  Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected.
Severely limited (greater than 0.80 but less than 0.99) - The limitation for large animal disposal during a catastrophic event is severely limited. There are many soil properties that pose a limitation for contamination of groundwater, site reclamation, or excavation equipment. Additionally, corrective measures will be needed to overcome these limitations. Corrective measures taken may be costly to overcome limitations that pose a severely limited rating. Severely limited indicates that the soil has features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation however, it is costly to do so. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Very severely limited (rating index equals 1.0) - The limitation for large animal disposal during a catastrophic event is severely limited. There are one or more soil properties that pose a very severe limitation for contamination of groundwater, site reclamation, or excavation equipment. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Very poor performance and very high maintenance can be expected.


The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. 
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
"|||"Interpretation"|"DHS - Catastrophic Event, Large Animal Mortality, Burial"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"CatEvBur"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very severely limited"" label=""Very severely limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Severely limited"" label=""Severely limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""127"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Slightly limited"" label=""Slightly limited"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""127"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/25/2018 19:04:40|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2797|"Emergency Disposal by Shallow Burial"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"""Emergency Animal Mortality Disposal by Shallow Burial"" is a method of disposing of depopulated animals as a result of a large-scale natural disaster. Catastrophic events include, but are not limited to, hurricanes, wildfires, flooding, supply chain disruptions, and tornados. This disposal method employs a shallow trench, about 2 feet deep and wide enough to accommodate the mortalities. The trench is first lined with 6 to 12 inches of carbonaceous material, such as corn stalks or wood chips. The animals are then placed in a single layer in the excavation. When the trench is full, a final cover of soil material at least 2 feet thick, extending above grade, is placed over the burial pit and vegetation is established. Soils are rated based on their limitation for burial of large animals following a catastrophic event. Limitations for burial of large animals after or during a catastrophic event are based primarily on contamination of ground water, trafficability of excavation equipment, site selection, and site reclamation. 

While some general observations may be made, onsite evaluation is required before the final site is selected. Improper site selection, design, or installation may cause contamination of ground water, seepage, and contamination of stream systems from surface drainage or floodwater. Potential contamination may be reduced or eliminated by installing systems designed to overcome or reduce the effects of the limiting soil property. The rating is for soils in their present condition and does not consider present land use.

Since this is a new interpretation, users are encouraged to give feedback as to the usefulness of the interpretation or the appropriateness of the criteria. Comments may be sent through the Soils Hotline (SoilsHotline@lin.usda.gov).

Ratings are based on the soil properties and qualities normally observed (to a depth of approximately 6 or 7 feet) during soil mapping. These investigations, which are generally arranged by the pit developer, include the examination of stratification, rock formations, and geologic conditions that may allow leachates to enter aquifers, wells, watercourses, and other water sources. Hard, nonrippable bedrock, bedrock crevices, or highly permeable strata in or immediately underlying the proposed pit bottom are undesirable because of the difficulty in excavation and the potential contamination of ground water.

Properties that influence the risk of contamination of ground water, ease of excavation, trafficability, and revegetation are major considerations. Soils that flood or have a water table within the depth of excavation present a potential contamination hazard and are difficult to excavate. Slope is an important consideration because it affects the work involved in road construction, the performance of the roads, and the control of surface water around the site. It may also make pit construction difficult because the pit bottom must be kept level and oriented to follow the contour.

The ease with which the pit is dug and with which a soil can be used as daily and final covers is based largely on texture and consistence of the soil. Soil texture and consistence determine the degree of workability of the soil both when dry and when wet. Soils that are plastic and sticky when wet are difficult to excavate, grade, or compact and difficult to place as a uniformly thick cover over a layer of carcasses. The uppermost part of the final cover should be soil material that is favorable for the growth of plants. It should not contain excess sodium or salt and should not be too acid. In comparison with other horizons, the A horizon in most soils has the best workability and the highest content of organic matter. Thus, for a ""Large Animal Disposal, Burial"" operation it may be desirable to stockpile the surface layer for use in the final blanketing of the filled pit area.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of the individual limitations. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Verbal ratings are defined as follows: 

Not limited (rating index equals 0).—The limitation for large animal disposal during a catastrophic event is insignificant. The soil is able to support standard excavation equipment, the risk of ground-water contamination is minimal, and soil reclamation using conventional processes is possible. The soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Very good performance and very low maintenance can be expected if the system is properly designed and installed.

Slightly limited (rating index is greater than 0 but less than 0.30).—The limitation for large animal disposal during a catastrophic event is slightly limited. There are one or more soil properties that pose a slight limitation for contamination of ground water, site reclamation, or excavation equipment. The soil has features that are favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Good performance and low maintenance can be expected.

Somewhat limited (rating index is greater than 0.30 but less than 0.80).—The limitation for large animal disposal during a catastrophic event is somewhat limited. The soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use; there are more than one soil properties that pose a limitation for contamination of ground water, site reclamation, or excavation equipment. Corrective measures needed to overcome these limitations are considered economical; however, special care must be taken. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected.

Severely limited (rating index is greater than 0.80 but less than 0.99).—The limitation for large animal disposal during a catastrophic event is severely limited. The soil has features that are unfavorable for the specified use; there are many soil properties that pose a limitation for contamination of ground water, site reclamation, or excavation equipment. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation; however, correction measures are costly. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

Very severely limited (rating index equals 1.0).—The limitation for large animal disposal during a catastrophic event is severely limited. There are one or more soil properties that pose a very severe limitation for contamination of ground water, site reclamation, or excavation equipment. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Very poor performance and very high maintenance can be expected.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is provided to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.
 
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

Reference:

Flory, G.A., R.W. Peer, R.A Clark, M.N. Baccar, T.T. Le, A.B. Mbarek, and S. Farsi. 2017. Aboveground burial for managing catastrophic losses of livestock. International Journal of One Health 3:50-56.
"|||"Interpretation"|"DHS - Emergency Animal Mortality Disposal by Shallow Burial"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"EmDispShal"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately limited"" label=""Moderately limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""127"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Slightly limited"" label=""Slightly limited"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""127"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/09/2020 16:23:35|"Dominant Component"||1|"String"
2840|"Emergency Land Application of Milk"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Emergency Land Application of Milk

Disruptions in the supply chain and other problems can necessitate the emergency land disposal of milk.  Land application is a viable method of disposal as the constituents of milk can be beneficial as soil amendments. The characteristics of the soil are important in the application since favorable soil properties are required to prevent environmental damage.

Soils can be a non-member, partial member, or complete members of the set of soils that are limited for ""Emergency Land Application of Milk"".  If a soil property within 150 cm (60 inches) of the soil surface has a membership index greater than zero, then that soil property is limiting, and the soil restrictive feature is identified.  The overall interpretive rating assigned is the maximum membership indices of each soil interpretive property that comprise the ""Emergency Land Application of Milk"" interpretive rule.  Minor restrictive soil features are identified but not considered as part of the overall rating process.  These restrictive features could be important factors where the major restrictive features are overcome through design application.

Soil properties and qualities considered are those that affect liquid movement into and through the soil, the ability of the soil to attenuate material, the slope of the land surface, the presence of rock fragments, and the volume of soil available for absorbing the milk solids. Soil properties that affect absorption are permeability, the depth to a seasonal high water table, and the depth to bedrock or a cemented pan.   Stones and the depth to a seasonal high water table can interfere with the application of milk. 
 
Numerical ratings indicate the severity of the individual limitations. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest negative impact on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00).

Definitions of the ratings:

Not limited (rating index equals 0) - The limitation for land disposal of milk during a catastrophic event is insignificant.  This soil is able to support standard application equipment, the soil has minimal risk of allowing groundwater contamination, and surface water contamination risk is low.

Slightly limited (rating index greater than 0 but less than 0.33) - The limitation for land disposal of milk during a catastrophic event is slightly limited. There are one or more soil properties that pose a slight limitation for contamination of groundwater, surface runoff, or application equipment.

Somewhat limited (greater than 0.33 but less than 0.67) - The limitation for land disposal of milk during a catastrophic event is somewhat limited. There are more than one soil properties that pose a limitation for contamination of groundwater, surface runoff, or application equipment. Any corrective measures taken to overcome these limitations are considered economical however, special care must be taken to overcome limitations.  Somewhat limited indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. 

Moderately limited (greater than 0.80 but less than 0.99) - The limitation for land disposal of milk during a catastrophic event is moderately limited. There are some soil properties that pose a limitation for contamination of groundwater, surface runoff, or application equipment limitations. Additionally, corrective measures will be needed to overcome these limitations. Corrective measures taken may be costly to overcome limitations that pose a severely limited rating. Moderately limited indicates that the soil has features that are unfavorable for the specified use. 

Very limited (rating index equals 1.0) - The limitation for land disposal of milk during a catastrophic event is severe. There are one or more soil properties that pose a very severe limitation for contamination of groundwater, surface runoff, or application equipment limitations. The limitations generally cannot be overcome. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all the soil features that affect these uses. 

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. 

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
"|||"Interpretation"|"DHS - Emergency Land Disposal of Milk"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"LandApMilk"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately limited"" label=""Moderately limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""127"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Slightly limited"" label=""Slightly limited"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""127"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|10/07/2021 19:49:32|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2647|"Soil Health - Organic Matter"|"chorizon"|"om_r"|"Float"||2|"Organic matter percent is the weight of decomposed plant, animal, and microbial residues exclusive of non-decomposed plant and animal residues. It is expressed as a percentage, by weight, of the soil material that is less than 2 mm in diameter.

Significance:
Soil organic matter (SOM) influences the physical, chemical, and biological properties of soils far more than suggested by its relatively small proportion in most soils. The organic fraction influences plant growth through its influence on these soil properties. It encourages soil aggregation, especially macroaggregation, increases porosity, and lowers bulk density. Because the soil structure is improved, water infiltration rates increase. SOM has a high capacity to adsorb and exchange cations and is important to pesticide binding. It furnishes energy to microorganisms in the soil. As SOM is decomposed by soil microbes, it releases nitrogen, phosphorous, sulfur, and many micronutrients, which become available for plant growth. SOM is a heterogeneous, dynamic substance that varies in particle size, carbon content, decomposition rate, and turnover time. In general, the content of SOM is highest at the surface—where plant, animal, and microbial residue inputs are greatest—and decreases with depth. 

Total organic carbon (TOC) is the carbon (C) stored in SOM. Total organic carbon is also referred to as soil organic carbon (SOC) in the scientific literature. Organic carbon enters the soil through the decomposition of plant and animal residues, root exudates, and living and dead microorganisms. Inorganic carbon is common in calcareous soils in the form of calcium and magnesium carbonates. In calcareous soils, the content of inorganic carbon can exceed TOC.

Factors Affecting Content of SOM and SOC:

Inherent factors - Soil texture, parent material, drainage, climate, and time affect accumulation of SOM. Soils that are rich in clay have greater capacity to protect SOM from decomposition by stabilizing substances that bind to clay surfaces. The formation of soil aggregates—enabled by the presence of clay, aluminum and iron oxides, fungal hyphae, bacterial exudates (carbohydrates), and fine roots—protects SOM from microbial decomposition. Extractable aluminum and allophanes, which are present in volcanic soils, can react with SOM to form compounds that are stable and resist microbial decomposition. Warm temperatures increase decomposition rates of SOM. High mean annual precipitation increases accumulation rates of SOM by stimulating the production of plant biomass. 

Loss of SOM through erosion results in SOM variations along slope gradients. Areas of level topography tend to have much more SOM than areas with other slope classes. Both elevation and topographic gradients affect local climate, vegetation distribution, and soil properties. They also affect associated biogeochemical processes, including SOM dynamics. Analysis of factors affecting C in the conterminous United States indicates that the effects of land use, topography (elevation and slope), and mean annual precipitation on SOM are more obvious than the effects of mean annual temperature. However, when other variables are highly restricted, SOM content clearly declines with increasing temperature.

Dynamic factors - Dynamic gains and losses in SOM are due primarily to management decisions in combination with climate and microbial influences. Accumulation of SOM is controlled by the rate of C mineralization, the amount and stage of decomposition of plant residues, and the addition of organic amendments to soil.

Soil organic carbon comprises approximately 52 to 58% of the SOM and is the main source of energy for soil microorganisms. The C within plant residues, particulate organic matter, and soil microbial biomass is generally considered to be within the active pool of SOM. The emergent view of SOM focuses on microbial access to SOM and includes an emphasis on the need to manage C flows rather than discrete C pools. During decomposition of SOM, energy and nutrients are released and utilized by plant roots and soil biota. Recognizing that SOM is a continuum of decomposition products is a first step in designing management strategies for renewing SOM sources throughout the year.

Soil aggregates of various sizes and stabilities can act as sites at which SOM is physically protected from decomposition and C mineralization. Soil disturbance and aggregate destruction increase biodegradation of SOM. Aggregates are readily broken apart by tillage operations.

Crop residues incorporated into or left on the soil surface reduce erosion and the losses of SOM associated with sediment. In acidic soils, applications of lime increase plant productivity, microbial activity, organic matter decomposition, and CO2 release.

The diversity of the soil microbial population affects SOM. For example, while soil bacteria and some fungi participate in SOM loss by mineralizing C compounds, other fungi, such as mycorrhizae, facilitate stabilization and physical protection by aggregating SOM with clay and minerals. SOM is better protected from degradation within aggregates than in free-form. 

Relationship to Soil Function:
SOM is one of the most important soil constituents. It affects plant growth by improving aggregate stability, soil structure, water availability, and nutrient cycling. SOM fractions in the active pool, described above, are the main source of energy and nutrients for soil microorganisms, which mediate nutrient cycling in the soil. Biochemically stable SOM participates in aggregate stability and in holding capacity for nutrients and water.

Microaggregates are formed by mineral interactions with iron and aluminum oxides and are generally considered an inherent soil characteristic. They are, however, impacted by current and past management. Fine roots, fungal hyphae, and organic carbon compounds, such as complex sugars (carbohydrates) and proteins (also referred to as glues), bind mineral particles and microaggregates together to form macroaggregates that are still porous enough to allow air, water, and plant roots to move through the soil.

An increase in SOM leads to greater biological diversity and activity in the soil, thus increasing biological control of plant diseases and pests.

Problems Associated with Low Organic Matter Levels:
Low levels of SOM result in energy-source shortages and thereby lowered levels of microbial biomass, activity, and nutrient mineralization. In noncalcareous soils, aggregate stability, infiltration, drainage, and airflow are also reduced. Scarcity of SOM results in less diversity in soil biota and a risk of disruption to the food chain equilibrium. This disruption can cause disturbance in the soil environment (e.g., increased plant pests and diseases and accumulation of toxic substances).

Improving SOM Levels:
An estimated 4.4x10 to the 9th power tons of C have been lost from soils of the United States due to traditional farming practices. Most of this carbon was SOC. Nearly half of the SOM has been lost from many agricultural soils. Other farming practices, such as no-till and cover cropping (especially when used together), can stop losses of SOM and even lead to increases. Continuous application of manure and compost can increase SOM. Burning, harvesting, or otherwise removing plant residues decreases SOM.

Measurement:
SOM is measured in the laboratory by determining total carbon (TC) content using either dry or wet-dry combustion. Current analytical methods do not distinguish between decomposed and nondecomposed residues, so soil is first sieved to 2 mm to remove as much of the recognizable plant material as possible. If no carbonates are present, TC is considered to be the same as TOC (or SOC). For calcareous soils, soil inorganic carbon in the form carbonates must also be measured and then subtracted from the TC to determine TOC content. Results are given as the percent TOC in dry soil. To convert percent TOC to percent SOM, multiply the TOC percentage by 1.724. To convert percent SOM to percent TOC, divide the SOM percentage by 1.724. Note that this value continues to be debated by researchers with possible values ranging from 1.4 to 2.5 (Pribyl, 2010). A conversion factor of 2 has been suggested for this database but has not yet been adopted. Detailed procedures for measurement of SOM are outlined in 'Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual, Version 5.0,' (Soil Survey Staff, 2014).

Many soil testing laboratories use a 'loss on ignition' method to estimate soil organic matter. The estimate produced by this method must be correlated to analytical TOC measurements for each area to improve accuracy. The loss on ignition method can provide a good indication of the trend in SOM content within a field. It is important to note that temperature and timing used for the loss on ignition approach vary across labs and can influence results. Thus, comparisons should be made using only results from within a given lab.

Currently, no standard method exists to measure TOC in the field. Attempts have been made to develop charts that match color to TOC content, but the correlation is better within soil landscapes and only for limited soils. Near-infrared spectroscopy has been tested for measuring C directly in the field, but it is expensive and sensitive to moisture content.

Estimates:
Color and feel are soil characteristics that can be used to estimate SOM content. Color comparisons in areas of similar parent materials and textures can be correlated with laboratory data and thereby enable a soil scientist to make field estimates. In general, darker colors or black indicate the presence of higher amounts of organic matter. The contrast of color between the A horizon and subsurface horizons is also a good indicator. Sandy soils tend to look darker with a lower content of SOM. In general, lower numbers for hue, value, and chroma (in the Munsell soil color system) tend to be associated with darker soil colors that are attributed to higher content of SOM, soil moisture, or both.

For each soil layer, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values in the database. A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the soil component. A 'representative' value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the component. For this soil property, only the representative value is used.

References:
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. (http://soils.usda.gov) 

Edwards, J.H., C.W. Wood, D.L. Thurlow, and M.E. Ruf. 1999. Tillage and crop rotation effects on fertility status of a Hapludalf soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 56:1577–1582.

Pribyl, D.W. 2010. A critical review of the conventional SOC to SOM conversion factor. Geoderma 156:75–83.
Sikora, L.J., and D.E. Stott. 1996. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen. In: J.W. Doran and A.J. Jones, editors, Methods for assessing soil quality. Madison, WI. p. 157–167. 

Schulze, D.G., J.L. Nagel, G.E. Van Scoyoc, T.L. Henderson, M.F. Baumgardner, and D.E. Stott. 1993. Significance of organic matter in determining soil colors. In: J.M. Bigham and E.J. Ciolkosz, editors, Soil color. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. p. 71–90.

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory methods manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 5.0. R. Burt and Soil Survey Staff (ed.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
"|"percent"|"percent"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||0|||1|"omr"||||||||1|"Surface Layer"||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|08/23/2017 17:56:58|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
2755|"Soil Health - Available Water Capacity"|"chorizon"|"awc_r"|"Float"||2|"Available water capacity (AWC) refers to the quantity of water that the soil is capable of storing for use by plants. It is expressed in centimeters of water per centimeter of soil for each soil layer.

Significance:
Available water capacity is an indicator of a soil’s ability to retain water and make it sufficiently available for plant use. In areas where daily rainfall is insufficient to meet plant needs, the capacity of soil to store water is very important (USDA-NRCS, 2008). Water held in the soil is needed to sustain plants between rainfall or irrigation events and provide a buffer against periods of water deficit. The capacity varies, depending on soil properties that affect retention of water. The most important properties are the content of organic matter, soil texture, bulk density, and soil structure, with corrections for salinity and rock fragments. Available water capacity determinations are used to develop water budgets, predict droughtiness, design and operate irrigation systems, design drainage systems, protect water resources, and predict yields (Lowery et al., 1996). They also are an important factor in the choice of plants or crops to be grown. The available water capacity can be increased by applying soil management that maximizes the soil’s inherent capacity to store water. Improving soil structure and ameliorating compacted zones can improve both the storage capacity of the soil itself and increase the depth to which plant roots can penetrate.

Factors Affecting Available Water Capacity:

Inherent factors.—Available water capacity is affected by soil texture, amount of rock fragments, and a soil’s depth and layers. It is primarily controlled by soil texture and structure. Soils with higher silt contents generally have higher available water capacities, while sandy soils have the lowest available water capacities.  Rock fragments reduce a soil’s available water capacity proportionate to their volume, unless the rocks are porous. Soil depth and root-restricting layers affect the total available water capacity since they can limit the volume of soil available for root growth. 

Dynamic factors.—Available water capacity is affected by soil organic matter, compaction, and salt concentrations. Organic matter can increase a soil’s capacity to store water, on average, equivalent to its weight in available water (Libohova et al., 2018). Indirectly, organic matter improves soil structure and aggregate stability, resulting in increased pore size and volume. These soil improvements result in increased infiltration and movement of water through the soil. Greater amounts of water entering the soil can then be used by plant roots. Compaction reduces the available water capacity by reducing the total pore volume. Soils with high salt concentrations have a reduced available water capacity. Solutes in soil water attract water (osmotic potential), making it difficult for plant roots to extract or uptake the water.

Measurement:
Available water capacity is determined in the lab by measuring the water content at field capacity (33 kPa) and wilting point (1500 kPa) and calculating the difference (Soil Survey Staff, 2014). Pressure plates or membranes are used to bring the soil sample to a desired matric potential (33 kPa or 1500 kPa). When at equilibrium, the soil sample is removed and dried to determine its water content.

References:

Libohova, Z., C. Seybold, D. Wysocki, S. Wills, P. Schoeneberger, C. Williams, D. Lindbo, D. Stott, and P.R. Owens. 2018. Reevaluating the effects of soil organic matter and other properties on available water-holding capacity using the National Cooperative Soil Survey Characterization Database. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 73(4):411-421. 

Lowery, B., M.A. Arshad, R. Lal, and W.J. Hickey. 1996. Soil water parameters and soil quality. In: J.W. Doran and A.J. Jones (eds.) Methods for assessing soil quality. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 49:143-157. 

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory methods manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 5.0. R. Burt and Soil Survey Staff (eds.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. Soil quality indicators—Available water capacity. 
"|"centimeters per centimeter"|"cm/cm"|"Property"||||1|1|0|1||1|||1|"awcSurf"||||||||1|"Surface Layer"||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/18/2018 21:50:55|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
2756|"Soil Health - Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)"|"chorizon"|"sar_r"|"Float"||1|"The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) is a measure of the amount of sodium (Na) relative to calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg) in the water extract from a saturated soil paste. It is the ratio of the Na concentration divided by the square root of one-half of the Ca + Mg concentration. It is a diagnostic parameter for the sodicity hazard of a soil. 

Significance: 
When SAR is greater than 13, the soil is considered a sodic soil. Sodic soils have excessive levels of sodium (Na) adsorbed on the cation-exchange sites of clays. In other words, they have a high exchangeable sodium percentage. In addition, these soils are low in total salts. The sodium causes the soil particles to repel each other and, as a result, the soil disperses. This process prevents the formation of soil aggregates and degrades soil structure. The dispersed physical condition results in poor water infiltration, the formation of surface crusts, and the restriction of water and air movement through soil, and it restricts seedling emergence and root growth. Also, there is increased dispersion of organic matter. Soil management on sodic soils should aim to preserve or increase soil organic matter in the surface soil, which increases infiltration and water movement through the soil (Diaz and Presley, 2017). Maintaining good drainage and low ground-water levels is important. In the reclamation process of sodic soils, the excessive sodium is replaced by calcium supplements before the leaching process begins (NDSU, 2018).

Factors Affecting Sodium Adsorption Ratio:

Inherent factors.—Sodium or salts in the soils may originate from various natural sources, such as in-situ weathering of minerals and rocks (both terrestrial and marine origin), contributions from groundwater, deposition of materials containing sodium, and deposition or intrusion of sea water (Zia-ur-Rehaman et al., 2017). Atmospheric sources involve aeolian transport of salts, incorporation of marine salts into water vapor, and then inland precipitation (Chartres, 1993). Following this, the sodium either accumulates in the soil or is removed from the soil, depending on environmental conditions. If rainfall is insufficient to leach naturally occurring salts, they will accumulate in the soil.

Dynamic factors.—Soils may become sodic or the sodic condition may worsen as a result of land use, including the use of irrigation water with elevated levels of sodium. Use of surface or ground water containing dissolved salts for irrigation adds salts to the soils. Irrigating from salt-impacted wells or saline industrial water may lead to the formation of saline soils (Sonon et al., 2015).

Measurement:
The saturated paste method (Soil Survey Staff, 2014) is used to measure SAR. It provides the best representative measurement of total soluble salts in the soil solution under field conditions. The saturated soil paste is prepared in the lab, an aqueous extract is obtained from the paste, and the salt cations are determined from the extract.

References:

Chartres, C.J. 1993. Sodic soils: An introduction to their formation and distribution in Australia. Australian Journal of Soil Research 31:751-760.

Diaz, D.R., and D. Presley. 2017. Management of saline and sodic soils. MF1022. Kansas State University Research and Extension. https://www.bookstore.ksre.ksu.edu/pubs/MF1022.pdf
North Dakota State University (NDSU) Extension Service. 2018. Saline and sodic soils. https://www.ndsu.edu/soilhealth/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Saline-and-Sodic-Soils-2-2.pdf

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory methods manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 5.0. R. Burt and Soil Survey Staff (eds.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Sonon, L.S., U. Saha, and D.E. Kissel. 2015. Soil salinity: Testing, data interpretation and recommendations. Circular 1019. University of Georgia. https://secure.caes.uga.edu/extension/publications/files/pdf/C%201019_3.PDF

Zia-ur-Rehaman, M., G. Murtaza, M.F. Qayyum, M. Saqib, and J. Akhtar. 2017. Salt-affected soils: sources, genesis and management. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320583309_Salt-affected_Soils_Sources_Genesis_and_Management"|||"Property"||||1|1|0|1||1|||1|"sarSurf"||||||||1|"Surface Layer"||||0|||"Weighted Average"|1|1||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|10/01/2019 23:16:27|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
2757|"Soil Health - Soil Reaction (pH)"|"chorizon"|"ph1to1h2o_r"|"Float"||1|"Soil reaction (pH) is a measure of acidity or alkalinity. Chemically, it is a measurement of the hydrogen ion activity [H+] in the soil solution. The pH scale ranges from 0 to 14; a pH of 7 is considered neutral. If pH values are greater than 7, the solution is considered basic or alkaline; if they are below 7, the solution is acidic. 

Significance:
The acidity or alkalinity of a soil affects the availability of plant nutrients, the activity of microorganisms, and the solubility of soil minerals (Brady, 1990). In general, pH values between 6 and 7.5 are optimum for general crop growth. Site-specific interpretations for soil health will depend on specific land uses and crop tolerances. In acid soils, calcium and magnesium, nitrate-nitrogen, phosphorus, boron, and molybdenum are deficient but aluminum and manganese are abundant, in some cases at levels toxic to some plants (USDA-NRCS, 2008). Phosphorus, iron, copper, zinc, and boron are frequently deficient in very alkaline soils. Bacterial populations and activity decline at low pH levels, whereas fungi adapt to a large range of pH (acidic and alkaline). Nitrification and nitrogen fixation are also inhibited by low pH (USDA-NRCS, 2008). To increase pH, liming, adding organic residues rich in basic cations, and rotating crops to interrupt the acidifying effect of leguminous crops are effective. Applying ammonium-based fertilizers, urea, sulfur, or ferrous sulfate; irrigating with acidifying fertilizers; or using acidifying residues (acid moss, pine needles, sawdust) decrease soil pH (USDA-NRCS, 2008). 

Factors Affecting Soil Reaction:

Inherent factors.—The natural soil pH reflects the combined effects of climate, vegetation, topography, parent material, and time. Temperature and rainfall are two major factors that control the intensity of leaching and soil mineral weathering. Acidity is generally associated with leached soils, and alkalinity is generally associated with soils in drier regions. In arid climates, soil weathering and leaching are less intense, cations accumulate, and the soil becomes neutral or alkaline. In soils where the pH is less than 5, aluminum becomes soluble and reacts with water to produce hydrogen ions. Sandy soils may acidify more easily compared to clay soils because they have a low buffering capacity and tend to leach more readily. Vegetation has an effect on soil pH through the type of organic matter that is added; certain types of vegetation are soil acidifying (USDA-NRCS, 2008). 

Dynamic factors.—The conversion of uncultivated land into cropland can result in drastic pH changes after a few years. These changes are caused by the removal of cations by crops, the acceleration of leaching, the effect of fertilizers and amendments, and the variations in organic matter content and soil buffering capacity (USDA-NRCS, 2008). Inorganic amendments (lime and gypsum) and organic amendments rich in cations increase soil pH. Ammonium from organic matter mineralization (nitrification), ammonium-based fertilizers, and sulfur compounds lower the pH. High rates of water percolation and infiltration can increase the leaching of cations and accelerate soil acidification.

Measurement:
The pH reported here is measured using the 1:1 soil to water ratio method (Soil Survey Staff, 2014). A crushed soil sample is mixed with an equal amount of water, and the pH of the suspension is measured.

References:

Brady, N.C. 1990. The nature and properties of soils. 10th ed. Macmillan Publishers, NY.

Smith, J.L., and J.W. Doran. 1996. Measurement and use of pH and electrical conductivity for soil quality analysis. In: J.W. Doran and A.J. Jones (eds.) Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 49:169-185.  

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory methods manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 5.0. R. Burt and Soil Survey Staff (eds.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. Soil quality indicators—Soil pH.
"|||"Property"||||1|1|0|1||1|||1|"pHSurf"||||||||1|"Surface Layer"||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|6||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""6"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels lower_value=""1.800"" upper_value=""3.400"" label=""Ultra acid (pH &lt; 3.5)"" order=""1"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""3.400"" upper_value=""4.400"" label=""Extremely acid (pH 3.5 - 4.4)"" order=""2"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""4.400"" upper_value=""5.000"" label=""Very strongly acid (pH 4.5 - 5.0)"" order=""3"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""5.000"" upper_value=""5.500"" label=""Strongly acid (pH 5.1 - 5.5)"" order=""4"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""5.500"" upper_value=""6.000"" label=""Moderately acid (pH 5.6 - 6.0)"" order=""5"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""6.000"" upper_value=""6.500"" label=""Slightly acid (pH 6.1 - 6.5)"" order=""6"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""6.500"" upper_value=""7.300"" label=""Neutral (pH 6.6 - 7.3)"" order=""7"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""7.300"" upper_value=""7.800"" label=""Slightly alkaline (pH 7.4 - 7.8)"" order=""8"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""7.800"" upper_value=""8.400"" label=""Moderately alkaline (pH 7.9 - 8.4)"" order=""9"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""8.400"" upper_value=""9.000"" label=""Strongly alkaline (pH 8.5 - 9.0)"" order=""10"" />
    <Labels lower_value=""9.000"" upper_value=""11.000"" label=""Very strongly alkaline (pH &gt; 9.0)"" order=""11"" />
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/19/2018 15:18:08|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
2758|"Soil Health - Surface Texture"|"chtexturegrp"|"texdesc"|"Narrative Text"|||"Soil texture, or how the soil looks and feels, is determined by the size and proportion of the particles (clay, silt, and sand) that make up the mineral fraction. There are 12 USDA textural classes (e.g., sandy loam, silty clay). 

Significance:
The textural class of a soil is its most fundamental inherent characteristic that changes little over time (van Es et al., 2016). Its role in soil health studies is to inform the interpretation of most of the soil health indicators. Numerous soil properties are influenced by texture, including drainage, water-holding capacity, water movement through soil, infiltration, susceptibility to erosion, organic matter content, cation-exchange capacity, pH buffering capacity, and aeration. Soil texture also influences soil fertility, root growth, and plant vigor.

Factors Affecting Soil Surface Texture:

Inherent factors.—The nature and composition of the soil parent material greatly influences the particle-size distribution, or texture. Weathering of rocks and soil materials also affect the soil texture. Clays typically form over long periods of time through gradual chemical weathering. Freeze-thaw action can break apart rocks and gradually reduce the particle size of soil materials over time. Translocation of soil particles (e.g., clay) within the profile and between layers can alter the soil texture. Additions of particles by wind or water also affect the soil texture.

Dynamic factors.—Soil texture is altered little by management practices if the soil remains in place. Accelerated erosion by wind or water can remove the topsoil, exposing a subsoil with a different texture. Deposition of eroded materials can alter the texture of the surface soil. Deposition can be natural or anthropogenic (due to human activity). Land leveling and alteration (e.g., terracing) can change the soil texture.

Measurement:
The feel method is a crude method by which one can broadly judge the classes of soil texture. The lab methods involve removal of organic matter from a soil sample, the dispersion of the soil sample into single particles, and then the separation of sand through sieving. Clay is determined through sedimentation based on Stoke’s law. The full procedure is described in the Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual (Soil Survey Staff, 2014).

References:

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory methods manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 5.0. R. Burt and Soil Survey Staff (eds.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

van Es, H., R. Schindelbeck, A. Ristow, K. Kurtz, and L. Fennell. 2016. Soil texture. Soil Health Manual Series. Fact Sheet No. 16-04. School of Integrative Plant Sciences, Cornell University, NY.

"|||"Property"||||1|1|0|1||0|||-1|"TexSurf"|"chtexturegrp.rvindicator = 'yes'"|||||||0|"Surface Layer"||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|4||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""4"">
  <ColorRampType type=""0"" name=""Random"">
    <Values min=""50"" max=""99"" />
    <Saturation min=""33"" max=""66"" />
    <Hue start=""0"" end=""360"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/19/2018 15:49:32|"Dominant Condition"||1|"Narrative Text"
2759|"Soil Health - Bulk Density, One-Third Bar"|"chorizon"|"dbthirdbar_r"|"Float"||2|"Bulk density, one-third bar is the oven-dry weight of the soil material less than 2 millimeters in size per unit volume of soil at a water tension of 1/3 bar (33 kPa). It indicates the density of the soil and is expressed in grams per cubic centimeter (g/cc) of soil material. 

Significance:
Bulk density is one of several soil properties frequently used as a measure of soil health (Volchko et al., 2014) and as an indicator of soil compaction and root restriction. It reflects the soil’s capacity to provide structural support, water and solute movement, and soil aeration (Arshad et al., 1996). Even though bulk density varies with soil texture, it is a dynamic soil property that also varies depending on the structural condition of the soil. It can be altered by cultivation, trampling by animals, compaction by agricultural machinery, and raindrop impact (Arshad et al., 1996). Any soil management that alters the soil cover, the amount of organic matter, soil structure, or porosity will affect soil bulk density (USDA-NRCS, 2008). A dense soil will restrict root growth and seedling emergence, reduce the available water capacity, restrict water and air movement, and ultimately reduce productivity. Management that improves soil bulk density includes reducing soil disturbance when the soil is wet, applying conservation practices that increase or maintain soil organic matter contents, and maintaining soil surface protection (such as a cover crop, especially a multi-species cover that can provide a wide range of root penetration).

Measurement of bulk density is essential for weight to volume or area conversions of other properties, such as soil carbon stocks and nutrient pools. It is also used in the calculation of pore space.

Factors Affecting Bulk Density:

Inherent factors.—Bulk density is dependent on soil texture and the densities of soil mineral particles (sand, silt, and clay) and organic matter particles, as well as their packing arrangement. Generally, loose, porous soils and those rich in organic matter have lower bulk densities. Sandy soils have relatively high bulk densities since total pore space in sands is less than that of silty or clayey soils. Finer-textured soils that have good structure, such as silt loams and clay loams, have higher pore space and lower bulk density compared to sandy soils.

There is a general relationship of soil bulk density to root growth based on soil texture. Bulk densities ideal for root growth are less than 1.60 g/cc for sandy textures, less than 1.40 g/cc for loamy textures, and less than 1.10 g/cc for clayey textures. Bulk densities that restrict root growth are greater than 1.80 g/cc for sandy textures, 1.65 g/cc for loamy textures, and 1.47 g/cc for clayey textures.

Dynamic factors.—Bulk density is changed by crop and land management practices that affect soil cover, organic matter, soil structure, and/or porosity. Cultivation can result in compacted soil layers with increased bulk density. Livestock as well as the use of agricultural and construction equipment can compact the soil and reduce porosity, especially on wet soils. Freeze-thaw action in the soil can lead to lowered bulk density.

Measurement:
In general, there are two broad groupings of bulk density methods. One group is for soil materials that are cohesive enough that a field sample can be removed, and the other group is for soils that are too fragile for field sampling and require an excavation operation. In methods for the former group, a clod sample is coated with a plastic film and the volume determined by submergence. There are also various core methods for the former group in which a cylinder of known volume is used to obtain a sample. The detailed procedures are outlined in the Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory Methods Manual (Soil Survey Staff, 2014).

References:

Arshad, M.A., B. Lowery, and R. Grossman. 1996. Physical tests for monitoring soil quality. In: J.W. Doran and A.J. Jones (eds.) Methods for Assessing Soil Quality. Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 49:123-142.

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory methods manual. Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 42, Version 5.0. R. Burt and Soil Survey Staff (eds.). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. Soil quality indicators—Bulk density. 

Volchko, Y., J. Norrman, L. Rosèn, and T. Norberg. 2014. A minimum data set for evaluating the ecological soil functions in remediation projects. Journal of Soils and Sediments 14:1850-1860.
"|"grams per cubic centimeter"|"g/cm3"|"Property"||||1|1|0|1||1|||1|"BdSurf"||||||||1|"Surface Layer"||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|3|5|"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""3"">
  <ColorRampType type=""1"" name=""Progressive"" count=""3"">
    <LowerColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""0"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <LowerColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    <UpperColor part=""1"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <LowerColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""255"" />
    <UpperColor part=""2"" algorithm=""1"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""255"" />
  </ColorRampType>
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"" classes=""5"" />
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/19/2018 16:20:22|"Dominant Component"||1|"Float"
2682|"Fragile Soil Index"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Soils can be rated based on their susceptibility to degradation in the ""Fragile Soil Index"" interpretation.  Fragile soils are those that are most vulnerable to degradation. In other words, they can be easily degraded—they have a low resistance to degradation processes. They tend to be highly susceptible to erosion and can have a low capacity to recover after degradation has occurred (low resilience). Fragile soils are generally characterized by a low content of organic matter, low aggregate stability, and weak soil structure. They are generally located on sloping ground, have sparse plant cover, and tend to be in arid or semiarid regions. The index can be used for conservation and watershed planning to assist in identifying soils and areas highly vulnerable to degradation.

Depending on inherent soil characteristics and the climate, soils can vary from highly resistant, or stable, to vulnerable and extremely sensitive to degradation. Under stress, fragile soils can degrade to a new altered state, which may be less favorable or unfavorable for plant growth and less capable of performing soil functions. To assess the fragility of the soil, indicators of vulnerability to degradation processes are used. They include organic matter, soil structure, rooting depth, vegetative cover, slope, and aridity. 

The organic matter content indicates the capacity of the soil to resist and/or recover from degradation processes. Organic matter improves the soil pore structure, increases water infiltration, and reduces soil compaction and soil erosion. Soil structure indicates the capacity of the soil to resist degradation from accelerated water erosion (by increasing the amount of infiltration). Pore structure is the most important aspect of soil structure as pores provide habitat for organism. Shallow soils are more vulnerable to degradation processes because they have limited rooting depth and have a reduced amount of material from which to form new soil. As erosion removes the upper soil profile, productivity will decline if the subsoil is limiting for crop growth. Vegetative cover is very important as uncovered soil is most vulnerable to the processes of soil erosion, both by wind and water. Slope (a measure of the steepness or the degree of inclination) indicates the degree of vulnerability to erosion and mass movement. Aridity is defined by the shortage of moisture. Lack of water is a main factor limiting biological processes and the ability of the soil to resist and/or recover from degradation.

Soils are placed into interpretive classes based on their index rating, which ranges from 0 to 1. An index rating of 1 is the most fragile, while a rating of zero is the least fragile. Interpretative classes are as follows:

Not Fragile (index rating less than or equal to 0.009) – These soils have a very high potential to resist degradation and be highly resilient. They are highly structured with an organic matter content greater than 5.7%, are nearly level, are deep or very deep, have greater than 85% vegetative cover, and are in a climate that is wet or very wet.

Slightly Fragile (index rating less than 0.009 and less than or equal to 0.209) – These soils have a high potential to resist degradation and be resilient. They are:
-- Poorly structured to weakly structured soils that have an extremely low to moderate content of organic matter, are very deep, have high vegetative cover, occur on nearly level ground, and are in wet or very wet climates;
-- Highly structured soils that have a very high content of organic matter, are very shallow to moderately deep, have high vegetative cover, occur on nearly level ground, and are in wet or very wet climates;
-- Highly structured soils that have a very high content of organic matter, are very deep, have low to moderately high vegetative cover, occur on nearly level ground, and are in wet or very wet climates;
-- Highly structured soils that have a very high content of organic matter, are very deep, have high vegetative cover; are on slopes greater than 3%, and are in wet or very wet climates; or
-- Highly structured soils that have a very high content of organic matter, are very deep, have high vegetative cover; occur on nearly level ground, and in semi-dry to mildly wet climates; 

Moderately Fragile (index rating greater than 0.209 and less than or equal to 0.409) – These soils have a moderate potential to resist degradation and be moderately resilient. They are:
-- Highly structured soils that have a very high content of organic matter, are very shallow, have high vegetative cover, occur in nearly level to moderately sloping areas, and are in semi-dry climates; 
-- Poorly structured soils that have an extremely low content of organic matter, are deep, have low vegetative cover, occur in nearly level areas, and are in wet or very wet climates; 
-- Poorly structured soils that have an extremely low content of organic matter, occur on gentle to very steep slopes, have high vegetative cover, and are in wet or very wet climates; 
-- Weakly structured soils that have a very low content of organic matter, are deep, occur in nearly level to gently sloping areas, have high vegetative cover, and are in semi-dry climates; or 
-- Weakly structured soils that have a very low content of organic matter, are very shallow to very deep, occur in nearly level to strongly sloping areas, have high vegetative cover, and are in mildly wet climates.

Fragile (index rating greater than 0.409 and less than or equal to 0.609) – These soils have a low potential to resist degradation and low resilience. They are:
-- Well structured soils that have a low content of organic matter, are shallow to very deep, have moderate to moderately high vegetative cover, occur on steep slopes, and are in dry climates; 
-- Well structured soils that have a low content of organic matter, are shallow to very deep, have a low vegetative cover, occur in nearly level to gently sloping areas, and are in dry climates; 
-- Well structured soils that have a low content of organic matter, are deep, have low vegetative cover, occur on nearly level to very steep slopes, and are in a semi-dry climate; 
-- Moderately structured soils that have a very low content of organic matter, are deep, have moderately high vegetative cover, occur on moderately steep to very steep slopes, and are in semi-dry climates; or 
-- Weakly structured soils that have a low content of organic matter, occur on moderately steep to very steep slopes, have low vegetative cover, and are in wet or very wet climates.

Very Fragile (index rating greater than 0.609 and less than or equal to 0.809) – These soils have a very low potential to resist degradation and very low resilience. They are:
-- Weakly structured soils that have an extremely low content of organic matter, are deep, have low vegetative cover, occur on nearly level to very steep slopes, and are in dry climates; 
-- Weakly structured soils that have an extremely low content of organic matter, are shallow to very deep, have low vegetative cover, occur on nearly level to very steep slopes, and are in very dry climates; or 
-- Poorly structured soils that have an extremely low content of organic matter, are very shallow, have no vegetative cover, occur on steep slopes, and are in mildly wet to wet climates.

Extremely Fragile (index rating greater than 0.809 and less than or equal to 1.0) – These soils can have no potential to resist degradation and no resilience. They are:
-- Poorly structured soils that have an extremely low content of organic matter, are very shallow, have low vegetative cover, occur on very steep slopes, and are in dry or very dry climates; 
-- Weakly structured soils that have a very low content of organic matter, are nearly level to very deep, have low vegetative cover, occur on very steep slopes, and are in dry climates; or
-- Very shallow soils on steep slopes.

The interpretive rating is based on soils that occur in the dominant land use for the map unit component and may not represent soils that occur in site-specific land uses."|||"Interpretation"|"Fragile Soil Index"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"FragIndex"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Extremely fragile"" label=""Extremely fragile"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Highly fragile"" label=""Highly fragile"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""102"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Fragile"" label=""Fragile"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""204"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderately fragile"" label=""Moderately fragile"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""203"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Slightly fragile"" label=""Slightly fragile"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""101"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not fragile"" label=""Not fragile"" order=""6"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|10/10/2017 15:26:28|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2712|"Farm and Garden Composting Facility - Surface"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Composting is a method of using natural processes to change vegetative debris into a useful product. This interpretation evaluates the degree and kind of limitation(s) that affect the siting of a surface composting facility to stabilize vegetative debris produced as a result of typical farming and horticultural practices. 

The soil is evaluated from the surface to a depth of 79 inches. The ratings are based on the soil properties that affect trafficability; attenuation of suspended, soil solution, and gaseous decomposition products and microorganisms; construction and maintenance of the site; and public health. Improper site selection, design, or installation may cause contamination of ground water, seepage, and contamination of stream systems from surface drainage or floodwater. 

Properties that influence the risk of pollution, ease of excavation, trafficability, and revegetation are major considerations. Soils that flood or have a water table within the depth of excavation present a potential pollution hazard and are difficult to excavate. Soils that have high saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat), that are shallow to bedrock, ice, or a cemented pan, or that have a high content of stones and boulders are limited because these features interfere with the installation, performance, and maintenance of the system. Slope is an important consideration because it affects the work involved in road construction, the performance of the roads, and the control of surface water around the facility.

Climatic factors influence the ease with which a composting facility can be maintained. Adequate precipitation to keep the mass moist, and sufficient heat to sustain biological activity are essential. 

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Numerical ratings indicate the severity of the individual limitations. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest limitation on the use (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is not a limitation (0.00). 

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are limited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. ""Not limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the specified use. Good performance and very low maintenance can be expected of a properly designed and installed system on these soils. ""Somewhat limited"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for the specified use. The limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high maintenance can be expected.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. 

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.
"|||"Interpretation"|"Farm and Garden Composting Facility - Surface"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"FarmComSur"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|10/10/2017 17:39:08|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2752|"Organic Matter Depletion"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Soil Organic Matter Depletion

Soil health is primarily influenced by human management, which is not captured in soil survey data at this time. These interpretations provide information on inherent soil properties that influence our ability to build healthy soils through management. 

A fertile and healthy soil is the basis for healthy plants, animals, and humans. Soil organic matter is the very foundation for healthy and productive soils. Understanding the role of organic matter in maintaining a healthy soil is essential for developing ecologically sound agricultural practices. Perhaps just as important is identifying areas at greater risk of organic matter depletion. For organic matter to accumulate in soil, the processes that synthesize organic matter generally need to be greater than the processes that destroy organic matter. These processes occur at continental and local scales. Continental-scale factors include the mean annual temperature, which ultimately governs the rates of biological processes, including both the synthesizing and destroying of organic matter. Another continental-scale factor is the amount of water generally available for use by plants and soil microbes. The amount of available water is governed by the amount of rainfall or snowmelt that an area receives in relation to evapotranspiration.  This interpretation does not take into account the application of irrigation water.

The continental-scale factors are modified by local factors. Oxygen is needed for both the accumulation and destruction of organic matter. It can be excluded from the soil by seasonal saturation, which generally favors the accumulation processes. The antecedent organic matter content is used as an indicator of the level of a soil’s vulnerability to loss of organic matter. In general, well aerated soils tend to have higher oxidation rates but may still accumulate organic matter, depending on other factors, such as ground cover, length of time that living roots are present in the soil, and management practices. Clay-sized particles in the soil help protect organic compounds and so tend to favor organic matter accumulation. The shape of the land surface also influences the organic matter content. Water and sediment tend to accumulate in concave areas while material tends to disperse in convex areas.  The degree of limitation caused by each of these properties is rated for a soil and the sum of the ratings is the overall rating.
 
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Numerical ratings indicate the propensity of the individual soil properties to influence organic matter degradation.  The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest ability to enable organic carbon depletion (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature becomes least likely to allow organic matter depletion (0.00). 

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils enable the depletion of organic matter. ""Organic matter depletion high""  indicates that the soil and site have features that are very conducive to the depletion of organic matter.  Very careful management will be needed to prevent serious organic matter loss when these soils are farmed.  ""Organic matter depletion moderately high"", ""Organic matter depletion moderate"", and ""Organic matter depletion moderately low"" are a gradient of the level of management needed to avoid organic matter depletion.  ""Organic matter depletion low"" indicates soils that have features that are favorable for organic matter accumulation. These soils allow more management options while still maintaining favorable organic matter levels.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. 

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.


This interpretation is being provided for review and comment by the user community.  Please forward any feedback to the Soils Hotline soilshotline@lin.usda.gov.

References

Owens, P., E. Winzeler, Z. Libohova, S. Waltman, D. Miller, and B. Waltman. Evaluating U.S. Soil Taxonomy soil climate regimes: Application across scales. 
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_053084.pdf (accessed 1 March 2018).

Page-Dumrose, D.S. 1993. Susceptibility of volcanic ash-influenced soils in northern Idaho to mechanical compaction. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. Research Note INT-409.

Pimentel, D. 2006. Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environment, Development and Sustainability 8:119-137.

Schmitt, A., and B. Glaser. 2011. Organic matter dynamics in a temperate forest as influenced by soil frost. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 174(5):754–764. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201100009.

Schmidt, M.W.I., M.S. Torn, S. Abiven, T. Dittmar, G. Guggenberger, I.A. Janssens, and S.E. Trumbore. 2011. Persistence of soil organic matter as an ecosystem property. Nature 478:49-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10386.

Soil Survey Staff. 2014. Keys to Soil Taxonomy, 12th edition. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/class/taxonomy/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 1997. Predicting soil erosion by water: A guide to conservation planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agriculture Handbook 703. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/64080530/rusle/ah_703.pdf.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Soil Survey Handbook, Title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242 (accessed 1 March 2018).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land capability classification. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf (accessed 1 March 2018).

Zhanyu, Z., L. Sheng, J. Yang, X.-A. Chen, L. Kong, and B. Wagan. 2015. Effects of land use and slope gradient on soil erosion in a red soil hilly watershed of southern China. Sustainability 7(10):14309-14325; doi:10.3390/su71014309.
"|||"Interpretation"|"SOH - Organic Matter Depletion"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"OrgMatDepl"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""OM depletion high"" label=""OM depletion high"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""OM depletion moderately high"" label=""OM depletion moderately high"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""127"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""OM depletion moderate"" label=""OM depletion moderate"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""OM depletion moderately low"" label=""OM depletion moderately low"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""127"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""OM depletion low"" label=""OM depletion low"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/12/2018 15:51:58|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2753|"Agricultural Organic Soil Subsidence"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Agricultural Organic Soil Subsidence

Soil health is primarily influenced by human management, which is not captured in soil survey data at this time. These interpretations provide information on inherent soil properties that influence our ability to build healthy soils through management.
 
Organic soils used in agricultural production are subject to a loss of volume and depth of organic material due to oxidation caused by above normal microbial activity resulting from excessive water drainage, soil disturbance, or extended drought. Microbial mediated oxidation is the primary driver of volume reduction once excess water is removed.   Soil shrinkage and compaction due to dewatering is considered to be secondary. Any drawdown resulting in water levels below soil surface can result in increased subsidence rates.  The subsidence rate can also be influenced by agricultural practices. The type of tillage operation, such as plowing, disc harrowing and switch plowing, moldboard plowing increase the oxidation rate.  The use of no-till practice is recommended to slow the subsidence. Any aggressive tillage measure increases microbiological activity and decreases carbon sequestration.  Drainage water management can be implemented to control water tables to help slow the subsidence rate.

Several soil and site properties influence the rate of organic matter oxidation and subsidence.  Organic soils are generally found in cooler climates, thus, farmed organic soils in warmer climates are vulnerable.  Periodic saturation of the organic soil with water tends to decrease the rate of oxidation since anaerobic decomposition is slower than aerobic decomposition.  The pre-existing degree of decomposition is also a factor in the subsidence rate since as organic matter is decomposed, the remaining material becomes more resistant to decay.  Acidity in soils tends to slow microbial growth so acid soils are less prone to subsidence.  The degree to which each of the soil properties considered promotes oxidation is rated.  The average degree of accelerating microbial oxidation of organic matter is taken as the overall rating.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Numerical ratings indicate the suitability of the individual soil properties. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the most severe propensity for subsidence (1.00) and the point at which the soil has no propensity for subsidence, such as a mineral soil (0.00). 

Rating class terms indicate the rate at which the soils are likely to subside considering all the soil features that are examined for this rating. ""Severe subsidence"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the aerobic soil organisms that cause subsidence.  Very careful management will be needed to slow the subsidence rate.  ""Moderate subsidence"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for aerobic soil organisms. The soil can be made more sustainable by careful management.  ""Low subsidence"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for aerobic soil organisms.  With careful management the soil can be used for crop production and be nearly sustainable.  Soils that are not organic are rated ""Mineral soil"".  These soils do not subside due to organic matter oxidation.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. 

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

This interpretation is being provided for review and comment by the user community.  Please forward any feedback to the Soils Hotline soilshotline@lin.usda.gov.

"|||"Interpretation"|"SOH - Agricultural Organic Soil Subsidence"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"OrgSoilSub"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Severe subsidence"" label=""Severe subsidence"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderate subsidence"" label=""Moderate subsidence"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""170"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Low subsidence"" label=""Low subsidence"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""169"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Mineral soil"" label=""Mineral soil"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/12/2018 15:50:03|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2754|"Surface Salt Concentration"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Concentration of Salts- Soil Surface
 
Soil health is primarily influenced by human management, which is not captured in soil survey data at this time. These interpretations provide information on inherent soil properties that influence our ability to build healthy soils through management. 

Salts of sodium, calcium, potassium, and magnesium are produced by the weathering of minerals in soils.  Some salts can be added to the surface due to aeolian deposition.  Excess salts can be concentrated in soils when precipitation is sufficient to move salts within the soil but of insufficient quantity to move the salts out of the soil.  Salts move downward with percolating precipitation from the generally convex recharge areas of the landscape to the generally concave discharge areas.  Net water movement can be upward in these areas due to evapotranspiration or water movement may be more or less horizontal due to restrictive layers or differences in water transmission rates.  Excessive salt concentration in the surface of soil is detrimental to the germination and growth of crops due to the osmotic effects of the ions.  Several soil and site properties influence the movement and distribution of salts on the landscape.  Excess salts must exist in the soil in order to have movement and surface concentration.  The concentration of excess salts in soils is estimated by measuring the electrical conductivity of the soil.  The soil must exist in a non-leaching environment.  In areas where salt accumulates in the soil, precipitation does not exceed evapotranspiration, thus excess salts do not move vertically or laterally through the soil profile and then into ground or surface waters.  The soil surface and subsurface must generally concentrate water flow.  Research has shown that in regions where rainfall is limited the concave parts of the landscape also concentrate subsurface water flow as well as surface flow.  Salts move through soil when water flows.  Most water movement happens when the soil is saturated, thus, the depth to saturation and its temporal persistence influence whether or not salts will remain deep in the profile or be carried to the surface.  If the water table remains deep the salts will accumulate deeper in the profile.  If the water table is close enough to the surface that capillary rise and evapotranspiration can bring water to the soil surface, salts will accumulate at the surface.  The degree to which each of the soil properties considered promotes accumulation of surface salts is rated.  The rating of the attribute that contributes the least to surface salinization is taken as the overall rating.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Numerical ratings indicate the contributions of the individual soil properties. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil has the most severe propensity for surface salinization (1.00) and the point at which the soil has no propensity for surface salinization (0.00). 

Rating class terms indicate the rate at which the soils are likely to subside considering all the soil features that are examined for this rating. ""High surface salinization risk or already saline"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for the accumulation of salts at the surface or are already saline.  These soils are already limited by excess surface salts.  ""Surface salinization risk"" indicates that the soil has features that are somewhat favorable for surface salinization.  Careful management will be needed to avoid damage from salinity.  ""Low surface salinization risk"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for salinization.  These soils exist in climates where salinization does not occur or on landscape positions where salts are unlikely to accumulate.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. 

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

This interpretation is being provided for review and comment by the user community.  Please forward any feedback to the Soils Hotline soilshotline@lin.usda.gov.

"|||"Interpretation"|"SOH - Concentration of Salts- Soil Surface"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SurfSal"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""High surface salinization risk or already saline"" label=""High surface salinization risk or already saline"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Surface salinization risk"" label=""Surface salinization risk"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Low surface salinization risk"" label=""Low surface salinization risk"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|09/12/2018 18:49:00|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2763|"Soil Surface Sealing"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Soil health is primarily influenced by human management, which is not captured in soil survey data at this time. This interpretation provides information on inherent soil properties that influence our ability to build healthy soils through management.

Surface sealing is the orientation and packing of dispersed soil particles that result from the physical breakup of soil aggregates due to raindrop impact. Rapid soil wetting (in dry soils) and high exchangeable sodium percent can also cause aggregates to disperse. Sealing results when clay and silt particles get detached and/or dispersed and become suspended in the infiltrating water, which is moving downward through surface-connected pores. The pores become clogged with the fine particles, which become closely packed and create a surface seal.

Surface sealing is the initial process in the formation of a mineral crust, which is a broader term for a surface feature that is dense, hard, or restricts infiltration. A seal is a more specific term and refers to a surface layer that inhibits infiltration (Heil, 1993).

Significance:

The presence of a soil surface seal indicates poor soil health. Surface seals affect crop production by inhibiting seedling emergence, decreasing the infiltration rate, reducing the amount of available water to plants, and increasing runoff and erosion. They also diminish the natural recharge of aquifers (Assouline, 2011) and reduce aeration, and so affect several metabolic processes of micro and macro flora and fauna in the soil (Igwe and Udegbunam, 2008). Surface sealing has also been shown to be the primary cause of post-fire runoff and erosion (Larsen et al., 2007).

Factors Affecting Surface Sealing:

The intensity and energy of rainfall is an important factor affecting the susceptibility of a soil to form a seal (Moncada et al., 2014). Under most conditions and given enough time, most non-swelling bare soils will become impermeable to water because of clogging of surface pores (Heil, 1993). In swelling soils, the formation of surface seals occurs in the zone between the cracks (until the cracks close), thus limiting infiltration to the vicinity of the crack (Wells et al., 2003). 

Inherent factors.—The tendency of a soil to form a seal depends on the stability of aggregates. Soils that are highly susceptible to surface sealing have low organic matter contents, are high in silt relative to clay and organic matter, and/or have weak aggregation where a high percentage of the clay disperses easily in water. Dispersion can also result from a high content of exchangeable sodium. Organic matter or Fe and Al oxides are important agents in the formation of stable aggregates. When the number of these agents is low, soils are more susceptible to aggregate breakup and surface sealing.

Dynamic factors.—Management that protects the soil from raindrop impact and minimizes soil disturbance helps prevent surface sealing. Plant and mulch cover can shield the soil from raindrop impact and so reduce sealing in otherwise susceptible soils. Soil management practices that increase organic matter combined with the use of plant or residue cover for protection help prevent the formation of surface seals in most soils. Because tillage disrupts soil structure and aggregates, it accelerates the formation of seals. Management that minimizes soil disturbances and protects the soil from raindrop impact greatly increases infiltration and reduces runoff.

Interpretation Summary:

This interpretation is applicable to conditions or times when the soil surface, or any portion of it, is exposed to the impact of raindrops and there is significant rain or sprinkler irrigation. Soil surfaces that are void of vegetative, canopy, residue, litter, or duff cover are the most vulnerable to surface sealing.

Soils are rated based on the collective susceptibility of their properties to surface sealing. Ratings are on a scale from 0.0 to 1.0. If a soil's property within the surface layer has an index value greater than 0.0, then that soil property is limiting and contributes to the soil’s susceptibility to surface sealing. The overall interpretive rating assigned is the maximum index value for one or more of the soil interpretive properties that comprise the Soil Surface Sealing interpretation. These properties include exchangeable sodium, a silt/crusting index, water dispersible clay, and organic matter. Soils are placed into interpretive rating classes per their rating indices. These classes are low susceptibility (rating index = 0), moderate susceptibility (rating index greater than 0 and less than 1), and high susceptibility (rating index = 1).

This interpretation is being provided for review and comment by the user community. Please forward any feedback to the Soils Hotline (soilshotline@lin.usda.gov).

References:

Assouline, S. 2011. Soil surface sealing and crusting. In: J. Glinski, J. Horabik, and J. Lipiec (eds.) Encyclopedia of agrophysics: Encyclopedia of earth sciences series. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp. 786-791.

Heil, J.W. 1993. Soil properties influencing hydraulic sealing of the surface on Alfisols in the Sahel. Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University. College Station, Texas.

Igwe, C.A., and O.N. Udegbunam. 2008. Soil properties influencing water-dispersible clay and silt in an Ultisol in southern Nigeria. International Agrophysics 22:319-325.

Larsen, I.J., L.H. MacDonald, E. Brown, D. Rough, M.J. Welsh, J.H. Pietraszek, Z. Libohova, J. de Dios Benavides-Sororio, and K. Schaffrath. 2007. Causes of post-fire runoff and erosion: Water repellency, cover, or soil sealing? Soil Science Society of America Journal 73:1393-1407. 

Moncada, M.P., D. Gabriels, D. Lobo, K. De Beuf, R. Figueroa, and W.M. Cornelis. 2014. A comparison of methods to assess susceptibility to soil sealing. Geoderma 226-227:397-404.

Wells, R.R., D.A. DiCarlo, T.S. Steenhuis, J.-Y. Parlange, M.J.M. Romkens, and S.N. Prasad. 2003. Infiltration and surface geometry features of a swelling soil following successive simulated rainstorms. Soil Science Society of America Journal 67:1344-1351."|||"Interpretation"|"SOH - Soil Surface Sealing"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SurfSeal"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""High"" label=""High"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Moderate"" label=""Moderate"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Low"" label=""Low"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|10/04/2018 22:09:27|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2764|"Soil Susceptibility to Compaction"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Soils are rated based on their susceptibility to compaction from the operation of ground-based equipment for planting, harvesting, and site preparation activities when soils are moist.  Soil compaction is the process in which soil particles are pressed together more closely that in the original state.  Typically, the soil must be moist to be compacted because the mineral grains must slide together.  Compaction reduces the abundance mostly of large pores in the soil by damaging the structure of the soil.  This produces several effects that are unwanted in agricultural soils since large pores are most effective at transmitting water and air through the soil.  Compaction also increases the soil strength which can limit root penetration and growth.  The ability of soil to hold water is adversely affected by compaction since the large pores hold water.  The degree of compaction of a soil is measured by its bulk density, which is the mass per unit volume, generally expressed in grams per cubic centimeter.

Compacted soils are less favorable for good plant growth because of high soil bulk density and hardness, reduced pore space, and poor aeration and drainage. Root penetration and growth is decreased in compacted soils because the hardness or strength of these soils prevents the expansion of roots. Supplies of air, water, and nutrients that roots need are also less favorable when compaction decreases soil porosity and drainage.

Interpretation ratings are based on soil properties in the upper 12 inches of the profile.  Factors considered are soil texture, soil organic matter content, soil structure, rock fragment content, and the existing bulk density.  Each of these is thought to contribute to resisting the susceptibility of a soil to compaction when present.  Organic matter in the soil provides resistance to compaction and the resilience to ameliorate the effects with time.  Soil structure adds strength as discrete aggregates and it is the aggregates that are deformed or destroyed by compactive forces, thus strong soil structure lowers the susceptibility to compaction.  Similarly, rock fragments in the soil can bridge and provide a framework to resist compaction.  Finally, if a soil is already fairly dense causing further compaction is more difficult. 

Definitions of the ratings:

Low - The potential for compaction is insignificant.  This soil is able to support standard equipment with minimal compaction. The soil is moisture insensitive, exhibiting only small changes in density with changing moisture content.

Medium - The potential for compaction is significant.  The growth rate of seedlings may be reduced following compaction.  After the initial compaction (i.e., the first equipment pass), this soil is able to support standard equipment with only minimal increases in soil density.  The soil is intermediate between moisture insensitive and moisture sensitive.

High - The potential for compaction is significant.  The growth rate of seedlings will be reduced following compaction.  After initial compaction, this soil is still able to support standard equipment, but will continue to compact with each subsequent pass.  The soil is moisture sensitive, exhibiting large changes in density with changing moisture content.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. 

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

References:

Adams, P.W.  1998. Soil Compaction on Woodland Properties.  Oregon State University Extension Publication EC 1109.

Adams, P.W.  1981. Compaction of Forest Soils.  Oregon State University Extension Publication PNW 217.

Boyer, Don. 1997. Guidelines for Soil Resource Protection and Restoration for Timber Harvest and Post-Harvest Activities.  U.S Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Watershed Management.

Geist, J.M.; Hazard, J.W.; Seidel, K.W. 1989. Assessing Physical Conditions of Some Pacific Northwest Volcanic Ash Soils After Forest Harvest.  Soil Science Society of America Journal 53:946-950.

Froehlich, Henry A and David H. McNab. 1983. Minimizing Soil Compaction in Pacific Northwest Forests.  Proceedings of Sixth North American Forest Soils Conference, University of Tennessee.

Page-Dumrose, Deborah S.  1993. Susceptibility of Volcanic Ash Influenced Soils in Northern Idaho to Mechanical Compaction. U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station.  Research Note INT-409.
"|||"Interpretation"|"SOH - Soil Susceptibility to Compaction"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SoilSuscCo"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""High"" label=""High"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Medium"" label=""Medium"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Low"" label=""Low"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|11/21/2018 17:50:15|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2835|"Dynamic Soil Properties Response to Biochar"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Dynamic Soil Properties Response to Biochar Application

Biochar is the solid byproduct of the decomposition of organic materials in oxygen-limited environments at high temperatures, a process known as known as pyrolysis. The extremely carbon-rich material has an average half-life of 1,400 years, due to its recalcitrant benzene-ring structure, allowing it to sequester carbon in soils over long periods of time, with the potential to provide substantial increases to soil organic matter when applied to soils. Although it has only recently begun to receive attention as a soil health amendment, biochar has been used to increase the fertility, productivity, and health of soils around the world by indigenous communities for thousands of years, most notably in the Amazon rainforest.
 
The feedstock used to produce biochar has a significant impact on its properties. Many waste products can be pyrolized to produce biochar.  These include forestry wastes, grass clippings, manure, food wastes, and many other waste products.  This interpretation assumes a corn stover and manure waste feedstock, producing a mid-range particle size, ideally sourced locally. In recent years, the number of large-scale biochar producers has increased, lowering the cost of using the material.  This interpretation assumes a minimal incorporation with tillage, rather spreading the biochar with a manure surface spreader.   Application methods vary.  The biochar can be mixed with manure and spread as a part of a slurry.

Soil and site properties can be dynamic (changeable on a human timescale) or more or less use invariant.  Dynamic soil properties associated with soil health include pH, cation exchange capacity, water holding capacity, bulk density, hydraulic conductivity, and organic matter content.  These properties affect aggregate stability, fungal growth, and microbial activity, which in turn affect plant growth.  Conceptually, these properties may be improved by the application of biochar.  The degree of improvement of a property is dependent upon how poor the current soil health condition is. Less healthy soils are more likely to be improved than healthy soils.  Thus, soils that are already healthy will not be substantively improved with biochar application. Some conditions of the site, such as slope, ponding, flooding, karst, and rock fragment content, while affecting the application and use of biochar, cannot be changed by biochar application.

The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are suited by all of the soil features that affect these uses. Numerical ratings indicate the degree of suitability of each soil or site feature. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest theoretical positive response of dynamic soil properties to biochar application (1.00) and the point at which the soil and site features indicate that biochar application will not improve dynamic soil properties (0.00).

Verbal ratings are defined as follows: 

Excellent response (rating index equals 1.0) — One or more dynamic soil properties present are suboptimal for the growth of crops and may be substantially improved with biochar application.  

Good response (rating index is greater than 0.75 but less than 1.0) — One or more dynamic soil properties present are suboptimal for the growth of crops and may be substantially improved with biochar application.  One or more use invariant properties may limit the effectiveness of biochar.

Fair response (rating index is greater than 0.25 but less than 0.75) — One or more dynamic soil properties present may already be nearly optimal for the growth of crops and may not be substantially improved with biochar application.  One or more use invariant properties may limit the effectiveness of biochar.

Low response (rating index is greater than 0 but less than 0.25). — One or more dynamic soil properties present may already be nearly optimal for the growth of crops and may not be substantially improved with biochar application.  One or more use invariant properties may limit the effectiveness of biochar, but not preclude its use.

Unsuited (rating index equals 0). — The soil is rendered unsuitable for biochar application because the use invariant soil and site properties are limiting to crop production and cannot be overcome. The site may be too steeply sloping, too wet, flooded, or ponded.

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is provided to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented.
 
Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.



References and Resources

Arif, M., Ilyas, M., Riaz, M., Ali, K., Shah, K., Ul Haq, I., Fahad, S. 2017. Biochar improves phosphorus use efficiency of organic-inorganic fertilizers, maize-wheat productivity and soil quality in a low fertility alkaline soil. Field crops research. 214, 25-37. 

Bruun, S. and El-Zehery, T. 2012. Biochar effect on the mineralization of soil organic matter. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. Vol 47 (5). 

Bu, X. Xue, J. Wu, Y., Ma, W. 2020. Effect of biochar on seed germination and seedling growth of Robinia pseudoacacia L. in karst calcareous soils. Comm. In Soil Science and Plant Analysis. Vol. 51 (3), 352-363. 

Burrell, L.D., F. Zehetner, N. Rampazzo, B. Wimmer, and G. Soja. 2016. Long-term effects of biochar on soil physical properties. Geoderma 282:96-102.

CCE of Suffolk County. 2020. Biochar Basics: https://vod.video.cornell.edu/media/1_0zozgaa6

Cheng, C.H., J. Lehmann, and M.H. Engelhard. 2008. Natural oxidation of black carbon in soils: Changes in molecular form and surface charge along a climosequence. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 72:1598–1610.

Dokoohaki, H., Miguez, F.E., Laird, D., Dumortier, J. 2019. Where should we apply biochar? Environ. Res. Lett. 14 044005. 

Fidel, R.B., Laird, D.A., Thompson, M.L., Lawrinenko, M. 2016. Characterization and quantification of biochar alkalinity. Chemosphere. 167, 367-373. 

Gunes, A., Inal, A., Taskin, M.B., Sahin, O., Kaya, E.C., Atakol, A.R.D.A. 2014. Effect of phosphorus-enriched biochar and poultry manure on growth and mineral composition of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. cv.) grown in alkaline soil. 

Ibrahim, H.M., Al-Wabel, M.I., Usman, A.R.A., Al-Omran, A. 2013. Effect of Conocarpus biochar application on the hydraulic properties of a sandy loam soil. Soil Science. 178 (4), 165-173. 

Kishimoto S. and Sugiura, G. 1985. Charcoal as a soil conditioner. Symposium on Forest Products	Research International Achievements for the Future 5, 12–23.

Li, G.Z., Zhang C.R., Ibrahim, M., Zhang, G., Wang, L., Zhang, R., Chen, F. and Liu, Y. 2017. The beneficial effect induced by biochar on soil erosion and nutrient loss of sloping land under natural rainfall conditions in central China. Agric. Water Manage. 185:145–150. 43.

Liu, Z., Dugan, B., Masiello, C.A., Gonnermann, H.M. 2017. Biochar particle size, shape, and porosity act together to influence soil water properties. PLoS ONE 12(6): e0179079. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179079. 

Major, J., Rondon, M., Molina, D., Riha, S.J., Lehmann, J. 2010. Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application to a Colombian savanna oxisol. Plant Soil, 333, pp. 117-128

Mukherjee, A., A.R. Zimmerman, and W. Harris. 2011. Surface chemistry variations among a series of laboratory-produced biochars. Geoderma 163:247-255.

Novak, J.M., W.J. Busscher, D.L. Laird, M. Ahmedna, D.W. Watts, and M.A.S. Niandou. 2009. Impact of Biochar Amendment on Fertility of a Southeastern Coastal Plain Soil. Soil Science 174:105-112.

Pituello, C.; Ferro, N. dal; Francisco, O.; Simonetti, G.; Berti, A.; Piccoli, I.; Pisi, A.; Morari, F.  Effects of biochar on the dynamics of aggregate stability in clay and sandy clay loam soils. European Journal of Soil Science. 69 (5) Oxford; Wiley, 2019, pp. 827-842.

Silva, F.C., C. Borrego, J.J. Keizer, J.H. Amorim, and F.G.A. Verheijen. 2015. Effects of moisture content on wind erosion thresholds of biochar. Atmospheric Environment 123:121-128.

Vaccari, F.P., Baronti, S., Lugato, E., Genesio, L., Castaldi, S., Fornasier, F. Miglietta, F. 2011. Biochar as a strategy to sequester carbon and increase yield in durum wheat. Eur. J. Agron., 34, pp. 231-238

Zhang, M., Riaz, M., Zhang, L, El-desouki, Z., Jiang, C. 2019. Biochar induces changes to basic soil properties and bacterial communities of different soils to varying degrees at 25 mm rainfall: more effective on acidic soils. Front. Microbiol. 10:1321. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01321



"|||"Interpretation"|"SOH - Dynamic Soil Properties Response to Biochar"|2|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"SoHealBioc"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||1|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Unsuited"" label=""Unsuited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Low response"" label=""Low response"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""127"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Fair response"" label=""Fair response"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Good response"" label=""Good response"" order=""4"">
      <Color red=""127"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Excellent response"" label=""Excellent response"" order=""5"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|04/28/2022 16:27:03|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
2842|"Limitations for Aerobic Soil Organisms"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Inherent Limitation for Aerobic Soil Organisms

Soil health is primarily influenced by human management, which is not captured in soil survey data at this time. These interpretations provide information on inherent soil properties that influence our ability to build healthy soils through management.
 
Soil is the habitat for a wide variety of organisms, ranging from microscopic viruses, bacteria, archaea, fungi, and protozoa to micro- and meso-fauna including nematodes, mites, and springtails to macrofauna such as earthworms, centipedes and beetles to name just a few.  A healthy soil is a living system that supports an abundant and diverse biological community that aids crop production by providing key services and functions. These include: 1) the decomposition of organic materials and conversion into soil organic matter; 2) enhanced nutrient cycling; 3) improved soil structure and stability that positively influences water flow, storage and availability; 4) plant protection against disease, pests, and environmental stress; and, 5) detoxification of pollutants. Soil microbes are generally most abundant in the surface layer around plant roots (termed the rhizosphere).  Soils vary in their inherent ability to foster plant growth and thus also in their ability to support microbial populations.  Although bacteria and archaea possess alternative metabolic strategies to survive under low or no oxygen content (i.e., anaerobic conditions), all other soil organisms require oxygen and the majority of soil bacteria in agricultural soils function more efficiently in aerobic conditions. therefore, only aerobic organisms are considered. 

Several site and soil properties contribute to major attributes in the suitability for aerobic organisms. Those chosen for this table include: 
•	Soil temperature, since most biological processes increase, often double, with a 10C increase in temperature; 
•	water, inferred through the average total yearly precipitation since plant productivity is linked to precipitation and soil microbes thrive in the rhizosphere; 
•	soil organic matter content as organic carbon is required by many soil organisms as an energy and carbon source;  
•	soil pore space influences water and gas movement as well as physical space for organisms to occupy and the tortuosity of paths through which they may move;  
•	soil water content is important as when too much water is present anaerobic processes begin and shifts the population to anaerobic bacteria and when too little is present organisms may die or go dormant; and,  
•	osmotic conditions are also important, as are the presence of toxic materials or the absence of required elements.  .  The degree of favorability of each of these properties is rated for a soil and the degree of limitation of the least favorable attribute determines the overall rating.
 
The ratings are both verbal and numerical. Numerical ratings indicate the suitability of the individual soil properties. The ratings are shown in decimal fractions ranging from 0.01 to 1.00. They indicate gradations between the point at which a soil feature has the greatest favorability for organisms (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature becomes not favorable (0.00). 

Rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are favorable considering all the soil features that are examined for this land use. ""Very favorable"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for aerobic soil organisms.  Healthy and thriving populations can be expected on properly managed agricultural systems on these soils. ""Somewhat favorable"" indicates that the soil has features that are moderately favorable for aerobic soil organisms. The soil can be made more favorable by careful management.  Fair performance and moderate maintenance can be expected. ""Very limited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for aerobic soil organisms.  

The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in Web Soil Survey or the Aggregation Report in Soil Data Viewer are determined by the aggregation method chosen. An aggregated rating class is shown for each map unit. The components listed for each map unit are only those that have the same rating class as listed for the map unit. The percent composition of each component in a particular map unit is presented to help the user better understand the percentage of each map unit that has the rating presented. 

Other components with different ratings may be present in each map unit. The ratings for all components, regardless of the map unit aggregated rating, can be viewed by generating the equivalent report from the Soil Reports tab in Web Soil Survey or from the Soil Data Mart site. Onsite investigation may be needed to validate these interpretations and to confirm the identity of the soil on a given site.

This interpretation is being provided for review and comment by the user community.  Please forward any feedback to the Soils Hotline soilshotline@lin.usda.gov.

References
Blanco-Canqui, H., M.M. Mikha, D.R. Presley, and M.M. Claassen. 2011. Addition of cover crops enhances no-till potential for improving soil physical properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75:1471–1482. doi:10.2136/ sssaj2010.0430.
 
Carr, B. 2015. Winter Cover Crop Species Adapted to North-Central West Texas and Southwestern Oklahoma. USDA-NRCS James E. Bud Smith Plant Material Center. Knox City, TX. June 2015. 8p. ID# 12635.
 
Duiker, 2014. Effects of Soil Compaction. Penn State Extension. 

Fernandez-Calvino, D., E. Baath. 2010.  Growth response of the bacterial community to pH in soils differing in pH. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 73 (2010) 149–156.

Fierer, N., and R.B. Jackson. 2006. The diversity and biogeography of soil bacterial communities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103:626-631. 

Hooper D. U., Bignell D. E., Brown V. K., Brussaard, L. 2000. Interactions between aboveground and belowground biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems: Patterns, mechanisms, and feedbacks. Bioscience 50 (12):1049-1061. 

Kemper W. D., and E.J. Koch. 1966. Aggregate stability of soils from western United States and Canada. Technical Bulletin No. 1355. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service. U S Government Printing Office Washington, DC. pp 52. 

Kieft, T.L., Soroker, ED., and M. Firestone. Microbial Biomass response to rapid increase in water potential when dry soil is wetted. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, Soil &of. Biochem. Vol. 19. No. 2, pp. I 19-I 26, 1987.
 
Lauber, C.L., M. Hamady, R. Knight, and N. Fierer. 2009. Pyrosequencing-based assessment of soil pH as a predictor of soil bacterial community structure at the continental scale. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 75:5111-5120. 

Olson, Kenneth, Ebelhar S. E., and James M. Lang. 2014. Long-Term Effects of Cover Crops on Crop Yields, Soil Organic Carbon Stocks and Sequestration. Open Journal of Soil Science Vol.04No.08:9. doi: 10.4236/ojss.2014.48030.
 
Owojori, O. J., A. J. Reinecke, P. Voua-Otomo, and S. A. Reinecke. 2009. Comparative study of the effects of salinity on life-cycle parameters of four soil-dwelling species (Folsomia candida, Enchytraeus doerjesi, Eisenia fetida and Aporrectodea caliginosa). Pedobiologia 52 (6):351-360. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2008.12.002. 

Porazinska D. L., Bardgett R.D., Blaauw M.B., Hunt W.H., Parsons A.N., Seastedt T.R., and Wall, D.H. 2003. Relationships at the Aboveground-belowground interface: Plants, Soil Biota, and Soil Processes. Ecological Monographs 73 (3):377-395. doi: 10.1890/0012-9615(2003)073[0377:RATAIP]2.0.CO;2. 

Schenk, H.R., R.B. Jackson. Rooting depths, lateral root spreads and below-ground/above-ground allometries of plants in water-limited ecosystems. Journal of Ecology. Volume 90, Issue 3. June 2002. Pages 480–494.
 
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. Soil Quality Indicators. USDA-NRCS Publication. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2014. Soil Quality Kit - Guide for Educators. Bulk Density, Moisture, Aeration. USDA-NRCS Publication.
"|||"Interpretation"|"SOH - Limitations for Aerobic Soil Organisms"|1|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"AeriOrgL"||||||||0|||||0|||"Weighted Average"|0|0||0|5||"<Map_Legend maplegendkey=""5"">
  <ColorRampType type=""2"" name=""Defined"" />
  <Legend_Symbols shapeType=""polygon"">
    <Styles fillStyle=""esriSFSSolid"" />
    <Font type=""Times New Roman"" size=""8"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    <Line type=""outline"" width=""0.4"" red=""0"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
  </Legend_Symbols>
  <Legend_Elements transparency=""0"">
    <Labels value=""Very limited"" label=""Very limited"" order=""1"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Somewhat limited"" label=""Somewhat limited"" order=""2"">
      <Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
    <Labels value=""Not limited"" label=""Not limited"" order=""3"">
      <Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" />
    </Labels>
  </Legend_Elements>
</Map_Legend>"|1|10/08/2021 17:43:55|"Dominant Condition"||1|"String"
