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|||0|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
77|"Forest Productivity (Cubic Feet per Acre per Year)"|"coforprod"|"fprod_r"|"Float"||2|"Forest productivity is the volume of wood fiber that is the yield likely to be produced by the most important tree species. This number, expressed as cubic feet per acre per year and calculated at the age of culmination of the mean annual increment (CMAI), indicates the amount of fiber produced in a fully stocked, even-aged, unmanaged stand.

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."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||1|||1|"ForestProd"||"plantcomname"|"String"|"Tree"|"siteindexbase"|"Choice"|"Site Index Base"|0|||||0|||0|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 08:10:40|"Dominant Component"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
189|"Iowa Corn Suitability Rating"|"mapunit"|"iacornsr"|"Integer"|||"This attribute is only applicable to soils in the state of Iowa.  Corn suitability ratings (CSRs) 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 CSR 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 CSR 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 CSRs are expected to remain relatively constant in relation to one another over time."|||"Property"||||1|0|0|0||1|||1|"IaCornSR"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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|03/04/2007 08:24:50|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1
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.

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||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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|02/28/2007 14:18:15|"Weighted Average"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|"Not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"RoadStreet"||||||||0|||||0|||0|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 06:57:00|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
137|"Sand Source (OR)"|"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, which is displayed on the report.  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 Selected Soil Interpretations report with this interpretation included 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 (OR)"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"SandSrc"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 source"" label=""Poor source"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair source"" label=""Fair source"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good source"" label=""Good source"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|149|02/04/2009 06:12:54|"Dominant Condition"||1
140|"Gravel Source (OR)"|"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, which is displayed on the report.  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 Selected Soil Interpretations report with this interpretation included 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 (OR)"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"GravelSrc"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 source"" label=""Poor source"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair source"" label=""Fair source"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good source"" label=""Good source"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|149|02/04/2009 06:12:22|"Dominant Condition"||1
143|"Topsoil Source (OR)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Topsoil is used to cover an area so that vegetation can be established and maintained. The upper 40 inches of a soil is evaluated for use as topsoil. Also evaluated is the reclamation potential of the borrow area. The soils are rated ""good,"" ""fair,"" or ""poor"" as potential sources of topsoil. Normal compaction, minor processing, and other standard construction practices are assumed.

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 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 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, which is displayed on the report.  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 Selected Soil Interpretations report with this interpretation included 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 (OR)"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"TopsoilSrc"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 source"" label=""Poor source"" order=""1""><Color red=""255"" green=""0"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Fair source"" label=""Fair source"" order=""2""><Color red=""255"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Good source"" label=""Good source"" order=""3""><Color red=""0"" green=""255"" blue=""0"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|149|02/04/2009 06:13:24|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
455|"Rangeland Seeding, Great Basin Ecoregion"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation rates each soil for its suitability for rangeland seeding and establishing a successful seeding.  Rangeland seeding is commonly practiced in combination with vegetation control techniques to revegetate depleted rangeland.  Rangeland seeding may be accomplished using a rangeland drill, or broadcast seeding using aerial or ground equipment.  Criteria used in this interpretation are applicable to the Great Basin Ecoregion of the Western U.S.

Low precipitation, shallow rooting depth, excess salt, and excess sodium reduce the probability of establishing a successful seeding.

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 rangeland seeding.  ""Well suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are very favorable for this use and that a successful seeding can be expected in 8 or more years out of 10.  A wide variety of grass, forb, and shrub species are well adapted to seeding on that site and a high potential forage production level can be anticipated.  The benefit/cost ratios are favorable and these sites should be given primary consideration for rangeland restoration seeding.

""Moderately Suited"" indicates that the soil has features that are favorable for this use and that a successful seeding can be anticipated in 6 or 7 years out of 10.  A limited number of plant species are adapted to seeding on the site and a moderate potential forage production level can be achieved.  Benefit/cost ratios are somewhat reduced, but may still be favorable.  These soils should be given secondary consideration for rangeland restoration seeding.

""Poorly suited"" indicates that the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for this use and that a successful seeding can be expected in 4 or 5 years out of 10.  Only a few plant species are adapted to seeding on these soils and a fairly low potential forage production level can be anticipated.  Benefit/cost ratios will be poor.  These sites have a low seeding potential, and it's recommended that they only be considered for restoration seeding if they occur in a mapping unit complex with more favorable soils.  Emergency seeding after fire for erosion control may be justified though.

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 - Rangeland Seeding, Great Basin Ecoregion"|2|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"RgSeedGB"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 08:27:18|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
460|"Yellow Star-thistle Invasion Susceptibility"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"This interpretation rates each soil for it susceptibility for an invasion of yellow star-thistle to occur.  The ratings are general in nature, and are designed to be used in the planning process to identify areas with a high vulnerability to invasion by yellow star-thistle.  This allows the user to plan and develop management practices that will reduce the probability of yellow star-thistle invasion.

Yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis L) is an introduced, winter annual forb that is a major concern to range ecologists, wildlife biologists, recreationists, and the livestock industry.  It is an aggressive invader of disturbed or poor condition rangeland sites that can suppress desirable, native vegetation.  Yellow star-thistle has low palatability and nutritional value for livestock and most wildlife species, is toxic to horses, and it can increase wildfire incidence in some dwarf sagebrush communities.  The seed is eaten by several species of birds.  The plant it is considered an important honey source plant in California and other western states.  Yellow star-thistle is listed as a noxious weed in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington.

The interpretations provide invasion vulnerability ratings and identify the dominant soil and site characteristics that influence the susceptibility of the site to yellow star-thistle invasion.  

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 invasion by yellow star-thistle. A rating of ""highly susceptible"" indicates the soils have a high susceptibility to yellow star-thistle invasion.  A ""moderately susceptible"" rating indicates that the site is moderately susceptible to yellow star-thistle invasion.  A ""slightly susceptible"" rating indicates that the soil characteristics may limit establishment of yellow star-thistle invasions.  Other factors, such as proximity to a seed source, also need to be considered in determining susceptibility to yellow star-thistle invasion.

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 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 invasion by yellow star-thistle (1.00) and the point at which the soil feature is unfavorable to an 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 - Yellow Star-thistle Invasion Susceptibility"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"YelStarInv"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 09:23:24|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 08:24:56|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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=""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 07:19:36|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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=""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 07:20:16|"Dominant Condition"||1
146|"Suitability for Log Landings (OR)"|"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, which is displayed on the report.  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 Selected Soil Interpretations report with this interpretation included 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 (OR)"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"LogLndg"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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>"|149|02/04/2009 06:14:00|"Dominant Condition"||1
149|"Suitability for Roads (Natural Surface) (OR)"|"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, which is displayed on the report.  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 Selected Soil Interpretations report with this interpretation included 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) (OR)"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"RoadSuitNS"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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>"|149|02/04/2009 06:14:36|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
85|"Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"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 and soil erosion factor K. 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|||0|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 07:20:53|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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|07/15/2009 07:25:08|"Dominant Condition"||1
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||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 08:24:17|"Dominant Condition"||1
513|"Land Application of Municipal Biosolids, summer (OR)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Municipal biosolids are one class of organic byproduct that can successfully be recycled via land application.  Biosolids are the nutrient-rich organic byproduct obtained from municipal wastewater treatment.   Biosolids can be solid, liquid, or semisolid.  Animal manures, food processing byproducts, and other organic materials are not considered biosolids, and are not addressed here.

To be called biosolids, raw solids must be processed to meet U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards.  Raw solids are processed by digestion, composting, or other technologies at the wastewater treatment facility.  Trace element concentrations in biosolids must be lower than EPA standards for arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc.    Biosolids must also meet EPA standards for human pathogen reduction and organic matter stabilization. 

This interpretation evaluates each soils limitations as a location for land application of such biosolids.  The soil properties used for evaluating the soil in spring months are as follows. The interpretation evaluates flooding, ponding and depth to saturated zone data for the months of June through September.
    
From map unit data (no seasonal adjustment) the following properties are considered:
    - Cobble content
    - Salinity
    - Depth to bedrock
    - Depth to cemented pan
    - Shallow to densic materials
    - Slope
    - Sodium content
    - Large stones on surface
    - Depth to Permafrost
    - Shallow to contrasting materials (discontinuity)
    - Poor filtering capacity (coarse materials)
    - Slow percolation/permeability

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 Biosolids, summer (OR)"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"BioSum"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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>"|149|02/09/2010 12:45:22|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
511|"Land Application of Municipal Biosolids, spring (OR)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Municipal biosolids are one class of organic byproduct that can successfully be recycled via land application.  Biosolids are the nutrient-rich organic byproduct obtained from municipal wastewater treatment.   Biosolids can be solid, liquid, or semisolid.  Animal manures, food processing byproducts, and other organic materials are not considered biosolids, and are not addressed here.

To be called biosolids, raw solids must be processed to meet U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards.  Raw solids are processed by digestion, composting, or other technologies at the wastewater treatment facility.  Trace element concentrations in biosolids must be lower than EPA standards for arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc.    Biosolids must also meet EPA standards for human pathogen reduction and organic matter stabilization. 

This interpretation evaluates each soils limitations as a location for land application of such biosolids.  The soil properties used for evaluating the soil in spring months are as follows. The interpretation evaluates flooding, ponding and depth to saturated zone data for the month of May.
    
From map unit data (no seasonal adjustment) the following properties are considered:
    - Cobble content
    - Salinity
    - Depth to bedrock
    - Depth to cemented pan
    - Shallow to densic materials
    - Slope
    - Sodium content
    - Large stones on surface
    - Depth to Permafrost
    - Shallow to contrasting materials (discontinuity)
    - Poor filtering capacity (coarse materials)
    - Slow percolation/permeability

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 Biosolids, spring (OR)"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"BioSpr"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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>"|149|02/09/2010 12:43:44|"Dominant Condition"||1
512|"Land Application of Municipal Biosolids, winter, (OR)"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"Municipal biosolids are one class of organic byproduct that can successfully be recycled via land application.  Biosolids are the nutrient-rich organic byproduct obtained from municipal wastewater treatment.   Biosolids can be solid, liquid, or semisolid.  Animal manures, food processing byproducts, and other organic materials are not considered biosolids, and are not addressed here.

To be called biosolids, raw solids must be processed to meet U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards.  Raw solids are processed by digestion, composting, or other technologies at the wastewater treatment facility.  Trace element concentrations in biosolids must be lower than EPA standards for arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, and zinc.    Biosolids must also meet EPA standards for human pathogen reduction and organic matter stabilization. 

This interpretation evaluates each soils limitations as a location for land application of such biosolids.  The soil properties used for evaluating the soil in winter months are as follows. The interpretation evaluates flooding, ponding and depth to saturated zone data for the months of October through April.
    
From map unit data (no seasonal adjustment) the following properties are considered:
    - Cobble content
    - Salinity
    - Depth to bedrock
    - Depth to cemented pan
    - Shallow to densic materials
    - Slope
    - Sodium content
    - Large stones on surface
    - Depth to Permafrost
    - Shallow to contrasting materials (discontinuity)
    - Poor filtering capacity (coarse materials)
    - Slow percolation/permeability

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 Biosolids, winter (OR)"|1|"not rated"|0|1|0|0||0|||1|"BioWin"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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>"|149|02/09/2010 12:46:52|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
60|"Ecological Site ID"|"coecoclass"|"ecoclassid"|"String"|30||"An ""ecological site ID"" is the symbol assigned to a particular 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"||"ecoclasstypename"|"String"|"Class"||||0|||||0|||0|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 07:56:02|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
31|"Ecological Site Name"|"coecoclass"|"ecoclassname"|"Vtext"|||"An ecological site name provides a general description of a particular ecological site. For example, ""Loamy Upland"" is the name of a rangeland 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.  Descriptions of those displayed in this map and summary table may also be accessed through the Ecological Site Assessment tab in Web Soil Survey.

Ecological sites and their respective unique set of characteristics are uniquely identified by the Ecological Site ID.  The same Ecological Site Name may be assigned to multiple Ecological Site IDs.  If you wish to display a map of unique ecological sites, it is recommended that you select the Ecological Site ID attribute from the choice list."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"EcoSiteNm"||"ecoclasstypename"|"String"|"Class"||||0|||||0|||0|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 07:59:46|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
16|"Hydric Rating by Map Unit"|"component"|"hydricrating"|"Choice"|254||"This rating indicates the proportion 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 designated as ""all hydric,"" ""partially hydric,"" ""not hydric,"" or ""unknown hydric,"" depending on the rating of its respective components.

""All hydric"" means that all components listed for a given map unit are rated as being hydric, while ""not hydric"" means that all components are rated as not hydric.  ""Partially hydric"" means that at least one component of the map unit is rated as hydric, and at least one component is rated as not hydric.  ""Unknown hydric"" indicates that at least one component is not rated so a definitive rating for the map unit cannot be made.

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"||||||||0|||||0|||1|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=""All Hydric"" label=""All Hydric"" order=""1"" /><Labels value=""Partially Hydric"" label=""Partially Hydric"" order=""2"" /><Labels value=""Not Hydric"" label=""Not Hydric"" order=""3"" /><Labels value=""Unknown Hydric"" label=""Unknown Hydric"" order=""4"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|06/30/2009 14:08:43|"Absence/Presence"||1
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||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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=""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=""1SK"" label=""1SK"" order=""7"" /><Labels value=""1SKK"" label=""1SKK"" order=""8"" /><Labels value=""2"" label=""2"" order=""9"" /><Labels value=""2A"" label=""2A"" order=""10"" /><Labels value=""2H"" label=""2H"" order=""11"" /><Labels value=""2K"" label=""2K"" order=""12"" /><Labels value=""2KK"" label=""2KK"" order=""13"" /><Labels value=""3"" label=""3"" order=""14"" /><Labels value=""3A"" label=""3A"" order=""15"" /><Labels value=""4"" label=""4"" order=""16"" /><Labels value=""4A"" label=""4A"" order=""17"" /><Labels value=""4C"" label=""4C"" order=""18"" /><Labels value=""4CA"" label=""4CA"" order=""19"" /><Labels value=""4CC"" label=""4CC"" order=""20"" /><Labels value=""4CK"" label=""4CK"" order=""21"" /><Labels value=""4K"" label=""4K"" order=""22"" /><Labels value=""5"" label=""5"" order=""23"" /><Labels value=""5A"" label=""5A"" order=""24"" /><Labels value=""5K"" label=""5K"" order=""25"" /><Labels value=""5KK"" label=""5KK"" order=""26"" /><Labels value=""6"" label=""6"" order=""27"" /><Labels value=""6A"" label=""6A"" order=""28"" /><Labels value=""6D"" label=""6D"" order=""29"" /><Labels value=""6DA"" label=""6DA"" order=""30"" /><Labels value=""6DK"" label=""6DK"" order=""31"" /><Labels value=""6G"" label=""6G"" order=""32"" /><Labels value=""6GA"" label=""6GA"" order=""33"" /><Labels value=""6GK"" label=""6GK"" order=""34"" /><Labels value=""6GKK"" label=""6GKK"" order=""35"" /><Labels value=""6K"" label=""6K"" order=""36"" /><Labels value=""6KK"" label=""6KK"" order=""37"" /><Labels value=""7"" label=""7"" order=""38"" /><Labels value=""7A"" label=""7A"" order=""39"" /><Labels value=""8"" label=""8"" order=""40"" /><Labels value=""8K"" label=""8K"" order=""41"" /><Labels value=""9C"" label=""9C"" order=""42"" /><Labels value=""9L"" label=""9L"" order=""43"" /><Labels value=""9N"" label=""9N"" order=""44"" /><Labels value=""9NW"" label=""9NW"" order=""45"" /><Labels value=""9W"" label=""9W"" order=""46"" /><Labels value=""10"" label=""10"" order=""47"" /><Labels value=""Not applicable"" label=""Not applicable"" order=""48"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|02/28/2007 14:15:09|"Dominant Condition"||1
180|"Forage Suitability Group ID (Component Table)"|"component"|"foragesuitgrpid"|"String"|11||"Forage suitability groups (FSGs) consist of one or more individual soil map unit components having similar potentials and limitations for forage production. Soils within a forage suitability group are sufficiently uniform to support the same adapted forage plants under the same management conditions, require similar conservation treatment and management to produce the quality and quantity of forage plants desired, and have comparable potential productivity.

FSGs are numbered in the same manner as ecological sites. The number consists of five parts. The first part is a G, which indicates a forage suitability group. The second part is a 3-digit number coupled with one letter to identify the MLRA. The third part is an additional letter identifying the LRU where applicable. The fourth part is a 3-digit FSG number. The last part is a 2-digit state postal code.

The forage suitability group is stored in the Component table in the database. This information is stored in the Ecological Site table for some areas. To access such data, see choices for ecological sites in the Land Classification folder."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|0||0|||-1|"ForSuitID"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 08:08:19|"Dominant Condition"||1
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||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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=""189"" 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 local importance"" label=""Farmland of local importance"" order=""13""><Color red=""70"" green=""130"" blue=""180"" /></Labels><Labels value=""Farmland of unique importance"" label=""Farmland of unique importance"" order=""14""><Color red=""0"" green=""191"" blue=""255"" /></Labels></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:05:37|"No Aggregation Necessary"||1
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|||0|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
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."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|1|"soil_erodibility_factor"|0|||1|"KfactRF"||||||||1|"Surface Layer"|||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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|04/26/2007 06:13:05|"Dominant Condition"||1
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."|||"Property"||||0|1|0|1|"soil_erodibility_factor"|0|||1|"KfactWS"||||||||1|"Surface Layer"|||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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|04/26/2007 06:13:35|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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"|||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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=""0.01"" label=""Very Low (0.0 - 0.01)"" order=""1"" /><Labels lower_value=""0.01"" upper_value=""0.1"" label=""Low (0.01 - 0.1)"" order=""2"" /><Labels lower_value=""0.1"" upper_value=""1"" label=""Moderately Low (0.1 - 1)"" order=""3"" /><Labels lower_value=""1"" upper_value=""10"" label=""Moderately High (1 - 10)"" order=""4"" /><Labels lower_value=""10"" upper_value=""100"" label=""High (10 - 100)"" order=""5"" /><Labels lower_value=""100"" upper_value=""705"" label=""Very High (100 - 705)"" order=""6"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 09:00:22|"Dominant Component"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
67|"Bulk Density, 15 Bar"|"chorizon"|"dbfifteenbar_r"|"Float"||2|"Bulk density, 15 bar, is the ovendry weight of the soil material less than 2 millimeters in size per unit volume of soil at water tension of 15 bars, expressed in grams per cubic centimeter. Bulk density, 15 bar, is necessary for resource assessment models, such as soil hydrology, water budgets, leaching,¬ and nutrient-pesticide loading.

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.

For each soil horizon or layer in the underlying database, this attribute is actually recorded as three separate values.  A low value and a high value indicate the range of this attribute for the corresponding component.  A ""representative"" value indicates the expected value of this attribute for the corresponding component.  For this soil property, only the representative value is used."|"grams per cubic centimeter"|"g/cm3"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"Db15bar"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 10:08:47|"Dominant Component"||1
91|"Bulk Density, One-Tenth Bar"|"chorizon"|"dbtenthbar_r"|"Float"||2|"Bulk density, one-tenth bar, is the ovendry weight of the soil material less than 2 millimeters in size per unit volume of soil at water tension of 1/10 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|"Db10thbar"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 10:08:13|"Dominant Component"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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 millimhos per centimeter 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."|"millimhos per centimeter"|"mmhos/cm"|"Property"||||0|1|0|1||1|||1|"EC"||||||||1|"Depth Range"|||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 08:04:23|"Dominant Component"||1
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|||0|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|03/14/2007 12:32:29|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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=""5"" label=""0 - 5"" order=""1"" /><Labels lower_value=""5"" upper_value=""15"" label=""5 - 15"" order=""2"" /><Labels lower_value=""15"" upper_value=""30"" label=""15 - 30"" order=""3"" /><Labels lower_value=""30"" upper_value=""45"" label=""30 - 45"" order=""4"" /><Labels lower_value=""45"" upper_value=""60"" label=""45 - 60"" order=""5"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:57:12|"Dominant Component"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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 ""> 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|"Dep2ResLyr"||"reskind"|"Choice"|"Restriction Kind"||||0|||||0|||0|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 14:21:10|"Dominant Component"||1
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|||0|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"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|02/28/2007 14:25:09|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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 ""> 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|"Dep2ResLyr"||||||||0||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 14:23:50|"Dominant Component"||1
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"|0|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=""Frequent"" order=""5"" /><Labels value=""Frequent"" label=""Frequent"" order=""5"" /><Labels value=""Very Frequent"" label=""Very Frequent"" order=""6"" /></Legend_Elements></Map_Legend>"|1|03/04/2007 08:07:05|"Dominant Condition"||1
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"|0|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
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"|0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
232|"Catastrophic Mortality, Large Animal Disposal, Pit"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"""Catastrophic mortality, large animal disposal, pit,"" is a method of disposing of dead animals by placing the carcasses in successive layers in an excavated 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.

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||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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|05/04/2009 10:03:06|"Dominant Condition"||1
233|"Catastrophic Mortality, Large Animal Disposal, Trench"|"cointerp"|"interphrc"|"String"|254||"""Catastrophic mortality, large animal disposal, trench,"" is a method of disposing of dead animals 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.

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||||"Centimeters"|0|||0|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 06:00:59|"Dominant Condition"||1
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
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|||0|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
