K Factor, Whole Soil

Similar documents
Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat), Standard Classes

Surface Texture. Layer Option: Surface Layer Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Tie-break Rule: Lower

Percent Silt. Ontario County, New York Survey Area Version and Date: 13-09/24/2016

Depth to a Selected Soil Restrictive Layer

Linear Extensibility

Drainage Class. Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Tie-break Rule: Higher. Ontario County, New York Survey Area Version and Date: 13-09/24/2016

Depth to Any Soil Restrictive Layer

Cation-Exchange Capacity (CEC-7)

Liquid Limit. Ontario County, New York Survey Area Version and Date: 13-09/24/2016

Range Production (Unfavorable Year)

Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

Farmland Classification

Percent Clay. Ontario County, New York Survey Area Version and Date: 13-09/24/2016

Electrical Conductivity (EC)

Effective Cation-Exchange Capacity (ECEC)

Hydrologic Soil Group

Erosion Hazard (Off-Road, Off-Trail)

Potential for Seedling Mortality

Soil Taxonomy Classification

Oneida County Soil Survey ID Number Name Slope/Descriptor 55A Adams Loamy Sand 0-3% slopes 55B Adams Loamy Sand 3-8% slopes 55C Adams Loamy Sand

Any County, New York. Custom Soil Resource Report for. Homer Vegetable Research Farm. United States Department of Agriculture

Custom Soil Resource Report for Tompkins County, New York

RaC. RaD GlG. GlF. RaD GlE. CeA. RaE. RcD. GoF. GoF SkC. SkD. CfA. AdA. GoF. GoF. GoF. RcD. GgD. GoF. RaE GlE. RaE DbF. GoF. DbE. RaC.

SOIL DATA: Avondale. in Allen, TX. This information was taken from NRCS web soil survey of Collin County, Texas.

This section describes the geologic, soil, and topographic conditions of the Nation s four properties and immediately surrounding area.

Custom Soil Resource Report for Ulster County, New York


Area 3 Envirothon Soils Questions Key

Custom Soil Resource Report for State of Connecticut

Custom Soil Resource Report for State of Connecticut

Custom Soil Resource Report for Columbia County, New York

Custom Soil Resource Report for Orange County, New York, and Sussex County, New Jersey

2011 Wisconsin Envirothon Soils and Land Use Exam

2016 Area 3 Envirothon Muskingum County Soils Test ANSWER KEY

NRCS Soils Report. Grand River Gathering LLC K28E Compressor Station. OA Project No

Soil types of lake county

Custom Soil Resource Report for Orange County, Virginia

Section 1. Judging the soil pit (questions 1-4)

NRCS Soils Report. Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. C19 Injection Well. OA Project No

Custom Soil Resource Report for Craighead County, Arkansas

APPENDIX A SOIL RESOURCES REPORTS

September 20, 2016 Soils Investigation for Agricultural Designation Windemere Place, Missoula County, Montana

Soil Interpretations Erosion and Sedimentation Control Planning and Design Workshop

Soils and their Relationship with Agriculture

APPENDIX B SOIL SURVEY INFORMATION

DO YOU KNOW YOUR SOILS? (Rev. 10/11)

Custom Soil Resource Report Soil Map

ASCE - Philadelphia. Soils & Stormwater Management. Matthew C. Hostrander, CPSS, SEO Soil Scientist. Gilmore & Associates, Inc.

Custom Soil Resource Report for Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin

Geology, Soils, and Topography October 13, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, MITIGATION. 3.1 Geology, Soils, and Topography

Soils and Land Use Test

Aerial Map. map center: 38 0' 55.53, ' S-4E Franklin County Illinois

Custom Soil Resource Report for Yamhill Area, Oregon

BENNING ROAD & BRIDGES TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS NRCS SOIL RESOURCE REPORT DRAFT MAY 2016

ATLANTIC TESTING LABORATORIES

Custom Soil Resource Report for Kane County, Illinois

Submittal Document II.I. USDA NRCS Soil Resources Report

Lane County Land Management Division

Horner-McLaughlin Woods: Soil Types

Farmland Classification Centre County, Pennsylvania (Student Farm Site) Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey

Soil characteristics that influence nitrogen and water management

Custom Soil Resource Report for Pope County, Illinois

Custom Soil Resource Report for Southampton County, Virginia

Soil Texture = %Sand, Silt & Clay in a soil.

Custom Soil Resource Report for Hancock County Area, Maine

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF MISSOURI ASSESSOR MANUAL

TP73 4PTP101 TP45 TP9 TP74 TP46 TP47 TP115 TP48 TP32 TP5 TP31 TP22 TP49 V58 TP57 4F TP50 TP51 3PD 3PD TP80 TP28 TP55

Custom Soil Resource Report for Pope County, Illinois

Custom Soil Resource Report for Gallia County, Ohio

Custom Soil Resource Report for Hinds County, Mississippi

EXAMPLE Point A: Sandy Loam: 65% Sand _ 20% Silt _ 15% Clay. Point B: %Sand % Silt % Clay. Point C: %Sand % Silt % Clay. Point D: %Sand % Silt % Clay

Custom Soil Resource Report for Cibola Area, New Mexico, Parts of Cibola, McKinley, and Valencia Counties

Custom Soil Resource Report for Polk County, Oregon

Survey of Texas Vineyard Soils

Topoclimate Southland Soil Technical Data Sheet No Waiau

Custom Soil Resource Report for Centre County, Pennsylvania

SOIL SEPARATES. Soil Evaluator Day 2, Presentation 3-3/27/2018. Soil Texture, Page 1 TITLE 5 SOIL EVALUATOR CERTIFICATION TRAINING SOIL TEXTURE

Custom Soil Resource Report for Lane County Area, Oregon

SOIL SCIENTIST REPORT FOR THE CONNECTICUT PORTION OF THE CONNECTICUT EXPANSION PROJECT. Prepared for:

Custom Soil Resource Report for Franklin County, Washington

Soil testing Page 1. Contrary to what is widely believed, the colour of the soil reveals very little about its fertility.

SOILS IN URBAN / SUBURBAN LANDSCAPES. Lisa Krall Soil Scientist CT USDA NRCS Tolland, CT

Erosion and Deposition & Land Use. Erosion & Deposition 2/18/2016. Soil Conservation Safeguarding soil from depletion and/or deterioration

Custom Soil Resource Report for Alsea Area, Oregon, and Lincoln County Area, Oregon

Custom Soil Resource Report for Daviess County, Missouri

~ NRCS. Custom Soil Resource Report for Rifle Area, Colorado, Parts of Garfield and Mesa Counties. USDA United States ~ Department of Agriculture

URBAN SOILS & SEATTLE EXAMPLES

Wisconsin Contractors Institute Continuing Education

AGRONOMY NOTES. Vol. 29, No. 5, 1996

Soil Properties That Distinguish Ecological Sites

Soils of Randolph County, Arkansas B.Dixon, T.H. Udouj, H.D. Scott, R.L. Johnson, and J.M. McKimmey

Custom Soil Resource Report for Choctaw County, Oklahoma, and McCurtain County, Oklahoma

VALLEY LATERAL PROJECT. DRAFT RESOURCE REPORT 7 Soils. FERC Docket No. PF

Custom Soil Resource Report for Clark County, Missouri

Sustainable Sites. hblanarc.ca. RDN Workshop June 25, David Reid, FCSLA, Landscape Architect, Environmental Designer

173 ACRES - RILEY COUNTY, KS

Team number Page 1 of Canon Envirothon Soils Station Test. Soils and Climate Change

Soil Survey of Nelson County, Virginia

STATEMENT OF PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSIFICATION WITTON PARK, COUNTY DURHAM PROPOSED QUARRY EXTENSION DECEMBER 1992

280 ACRES - HOWELL COUNTY, MO

Transcription:

name 1A Fluvaquents-Udifluvents complex, 0 to 3.10 45, frequently flooded 2A Geneseo silty clay loam, 0 to 3.49 90 3A Hemlock silty clay loam, 0 to 3.43 90 4A Naples Creek silty clay loam, 0 to 3.43 90 5A Wayland soils complex, 0 to 3,.49 60 frequently flooded 12D Rockrift channery silt loam, 15 to 25.20 85 13F Rock outcrop-arnot complex, 25 to 70 55 14D Cadosia channery silt loam, 15 to 25.20 85 15A Guyanoga channery silt loam, fan, 0 to 3.20 90 15B Guyanoga channery silt loam, fan, 3 to 8.20 90 16A Almond channery silt loam, 0 to 3.43 80 16B Almond channery silt loam, 3 to 8.43 80 16C Almond channery silt loam, 8 to 15.43 80 18A Homer fine sandy loam, 0 to 3.28 90 19A Fine-loamy, mixed, active, mesic, Typic Argiaquolls,.28 80 0 to 3 20A Atherton and Fine-loamy, mixed, active, mesic, Typic.37 40 Argiaquolls, 0 to 3 24A Howard gravelly loam, 0 to 3.15 80 24B Howard gravelly loam, 3 to 8.15 80 24C Howard gravelly loam, 8 to 15.15 80 24D Howard soils, 15 to 25.15 65 25A Chenango gravelly loam, 0 to 3.15 90 25B Chenango gravelly loam, 3 to 8.15 90 25C Chenango gravelly loam, 8 to 15.15 90 25D Chenango gravelly loam, 15 to 25.15 90 25E Chenango gravelly loam, 25 to 35.15 90 26B Chenango channery loam, fan, 3 to 8.10 85 27B Castile gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8.17 85 31A Collamer silt loam, 0 to 3.49 85 31B Collamer silt loam, 3 to 8.49 85 31C Collamer silt loam, 8 to 15.49 85 31D Collamer silt loam, 15 to 25.49 90 32A Dunkirk fine sandy loam, 0 to 3.49 90 32B Dunkirk fine sandy loam, 3 to 8.49 90 33A Dunkirk silt loam, 0 to 3.49 90 33B Dunkirk silt loam, 3 to 8.49 90 33C Dunkirk silt loam, 8 to 15.49 90 33D Dunkirk silt loam, 15 to 25.49 90 33E Dunkirk silt loam, 25 to 35.49 90 34A Lakemont silty clay loam, 0 to 3.49 85 35A Odessa silt loam, 0 to 3.49 85 35B Odessa silty clay loam, 3 to 8.49 85 36A Schoharie silty clay loam, 0 to 3.49 90 Page 1 of 6

name 36B Schoharie silty clay loam, 3 to 8.49 90 36C Schoharie silty clay loam, 8 to 15.49 90 36D Schoharie silty clay loam, 15 to 25.49 90 36E Schoharie silty clay loam, 25 to 45.49 90 37A Schoharie silt loam, 0 to 3.49 90 37B Schoharie silt loam, 3 to 8.49 90 38A Niagara silt loam, 0 to 3.49 85 38B Niagara silt loam, 3 to 8.49 85 39A Rhinebeck silty clay loam, 0 to 3.49 90 41A Aeric Epiaquepts, 0 to 3.37 50 43A Canandaigua silt loam, 0 to 3.49 90 44A Canandaigua mucky silt loam, 0 to 3.49 90 45A Fonda mucky silt loam, 0 to 3.49 95 46A Galen fine sandy loam, 0 to 3.49 90 46B Galen fine sandy loam, 3 to 8.49 90 48A Arkport fine sandy loam, 0 to 3.37 95 48B Arkport fine sandy loam, 3 to 8.37 95 48C Arkport fine sandy loam, 8 to 15.37 95 48D Arkport fine sandy loam, 15 to 25.37 90 49B Arkport loamy fine sand, 3 to 8.37 95 49D Arkport loamy fine sand, 15 to 25.64 95 49E Arkport loamy fine sand, 25 to 35.64 90 49F Arkport loamy fine sand, 35 to 55.64 90 50B Dunkirk-Arkport complex, 3 to 8.49 50 50C Dunkirk-Arkport complex, 8 to 15.49 60 50D Dunkirk-Arkport complex, 15 to 25.49 60 53A Lamson fine sandy loam, 0 to 3.64 90 54A Lamson mucky fine sandy loam, 0 to 3.55 90 56A Elnora loamy fine sand, 0 to 3.15 90 58B Colonie loamy fine sand, 3 to 8.32 95 58C Colonie loamy fine sand, 8 to 15.32 95 62B Mardin channery silt loam, 3 to 8.43 85 62C Mardin channery silt loam, 8 to 15.43 88 62D Mardin channery silt loam, 15 to 25.43 85 62E Mardin channery silt loam, 25 to 35.43 80 63B Langford channery silt loam, 3 to 8.24 90 63C Langford channery silt loam, 8 to 15 pecent.24 90 63D Langford channery silt loam, 15 to 25.24 90 64B Langford-Erie channery silt loams, 3 to 8.24 55 66A Lyons soils, 0 to 3.43 75 68A Volusia channery silt loam, 0 to 3.32 90 68B Volusia channery silt loam, 3 to 8.32 90 68C Volusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15.32 90 68D Volusia channery silt loam, 15 to 25.32 90 69A Erie channery silt loam, 0 to 3.32 95 Page 2 of 6

name 69B Erie channery silt loam, 3 to 8.32 95 69C Erie channery silt loam, 8 to 15.32 95 71A Darien silt loam, 0 to 3.28 95 71B Darien silt loam, 3 to 8.28 95 71C Darien silt loam, 8 to 15.28 95 72A Darien-Ilion silt loams, 0 to 3.28 68 72B Darien-Ilion silt loams, 3 to 8.28 68 73B Gretor silt loam, 3 to 8.49 95 73C Gretor silt loam, 8 to 15.49 95 73D Gretor channery silt loam, 15 to 25.49 90 76B Orpark silt loam, 3 to 8.43 95 76C Orpark silt loam, 8 to 15.43 95 76D Orpark channery silt loam, 15 to 25.43 90 77A Chippewa silt loam, 0 to 3.37 85 77B Chippewa silt loam, 3 to 8.37 85 82B Manlius channery silt loam, 3 to 8.24 95 82C Manlius channery silt loam, 8 to 15.24 95 82D Manlius channery silt loam, 15 to 25.24 95 91A Palms muck, 0 to 3.32 55 92A Carlisle muck, 0 to 3 45 93A Edwards muck, 0 to 3.49 50 94A Martisco muck, 0 to 3.43 55 95A Saprists, 0 to 3, inundated 85 101A Honeoye loam, 0 to 3.43 85 101B Honeoye loam, 3 to 8.43 85 101C Honeoye loam, 8 to 15.43 85 101D Honeoye loam, 15 to 25.43 85 101E Honeoye loam, 25 to 35.43 85 104A Honeoye loam, 0 to 3, lower clay.43 85 surface 104B Honeoye loam, 3 to 8, lower clay.43 85 surface 104C Honeoye loam, 8 to 15, lower clay.43 85 surface 106B Danley-Lansing complex, 3 to 8.43 50 107B Conesus-Lansing complex, 3 to 8.32 50 108C Lansing loam, 8 to 15.32 85 108D Lansing loam, 15 to 25.32 85 108E Lansing loam, 25 to 35.32 85 112B Ontario fine sandy loam, 3 to 8.43 90 112C Ontario fine sandy loam, 8 to 15.43 95 112D Ontario fine sandy loam, 15 to 25.43 95 112E Ontario fine sandy loam, 25 to 35.43 93 114B Ontario gravelly loam, 3 to 8.43 98 114C Ontario gravelly loam, 8 to 15.43 95 114D Ontario gravelly loam, 15 to 25.43 95 116B Ontario loam, 3 to 8.43 90 Page 3 of 6

name 116C Ontario loam, 8 to 15.43 95 116D Ontario loam, 15 to 25.43 95 118F Ontario, Honeoye, and Lansing soils, 35 to 55.43 40 120E Palmyra and Howard soils, 25 to 45.17 55 122A Palmyra cobbly loam, 0 to 3.17 95 122B Palmyra cobbly loam, 3 to 8.17 95 124A Palmyra fine sandy loam, 0 to 3.24 90 124B Palmyra fine sandy loam, 3 to 8.24 90 126A Palmyra gravelly loam, 0 to 3.17 95 126B Palmyra gravelly loam, 3 to 8.17 95 126C Palmyra gravelly loam, 8 to 15.17 90 126D Palmyra gravelly loam, 15 to 25.17 90 128A Palmyra gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 3.15 90 128B Palmyra gravelly sandy loam, 3 to 8.15 90 128C Palmyra gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15.15 90 130A Farmington loam, 0 to 3.37 90 130B Farmington loam, 3 to 8.37 90 132A Galoo loam, 0 to 3, rocky.37 95 132B Galoo loam, 3 to 8, rocky.37 95 134A Camillus silt loam, 0 to 3.43 95 134B Camillus silt loam, 3 to 8.43 95 151C Willdin-Norchip complex, 3 to 15.32 60 152B Valois gravelly loam, 3 to 8.20 85 152C Valois gravelly loam, 8 to 15.20 85 152D Valois gravelly loam, 15 to 25.20 85 152E Valois gravelly loam, 25 to 35.20 85 153B Valois gravelly loam, cool, 3 to 8.49 85 153C Valois gravelly loam, cool, 8 to 15.49 85 153D Valois gravelly loam, cool, 15 to 25.49 85 153E Valois gravelly loam, cool, 25 to 35.49 85 162B Willdin channery silt loam, 3 to 8.32 85 162C Willdin channery silt loam, 8 to 15.32 85 162D Willdin channery silt loam, 15 to 25.32 80 168A Ontusia channery silt loam, 0 to 3.32 88 168B Ontusia channery silt loam, 3 to 8.32 90 168C Ontusia channery silt loam, 8 to 15.32 90 168D Ontusia channery silt loam, 15 to 25.32 90 171C Lordstown-Manlius-Towerville complex, 8 to 15.17 40 171D Lordstown-Manlius-Towerville complex, 15 to 25.17 40, very stony 171E Lordstown-Manlius-Towerville complex, 25 to 35.17 40, extremely stony 171F Lordstown-Manlius-Towerville complex, 35 to 80.17 40, extremely stony 177A Norchip silt loam, 0 to 3.37 85 177B Norchip silt loam, 3 to 8.37 85 Page 4 of 6

name 181B Mongaup-Ischua complex, 3 to 8.28 45 181C Mongaup-Ischua complex, 8 to 15.28 45 181D Mongaup-Ischua complex, 15 to 25,.28 45 very stony 181E Mongaup-Ischua complex, 25 to 35,.28 45 extremely stony 182B Mongaup channery loam, 3 to 8.17 75 182C Mongaup channery loam, 8 to 15.17 75 201A Lima loam, 0 to 3.37 85 201B Lima loam, 3 to 8.37 85 201C Lima loam, 8 to 15.37 85 204A Lima loam, 0 to 3, lower clay surface.37 85 204B Lima loam, 3 to 8, lower clay surface.37 85 210A Phelps gravelly silt loam, 0 to 3.24 85 210B Phelps gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8.24 85 212A Nuhi silt loam, 0 to 3.37 85 240B Aurora-Angola silt loams, 3 to 8.32 60 240C Aurora-Angola silt loams, 8 to 15.32 60 240D Aurora-Angola silt loams, 15 to 25.32 60 241B Aurora silt loam, 3 to 8.32 85 241C Aurora silt loam, 8 to 15.32 85 241D Aurora silt loam, 15 to 25.32 85 255B Cazenovia silt loam, 3 to 8.37 85 255C Cazenovia silt loam, 8 to 15.37 85 255D Cazenovia silt loam, 15 to 25.37 85 260B Cayuga silt loam, 3 to 8.49 85 260C Cayuga silt loam, 8 to 15.49 85 260D Cayuga silt loam, 15 to 25.49 85 304A Kendaia loam, 0 to 3.43 85 304B Kendaia loam, 3 to 8.43 85 342A Angola silt loam, 0 to 3.43 90 356A Ovid silt loam, 0 to 3.37 85 356B Ovid silt loam, 3 to 8.37 85 357B Ovid silty clay loam, 3 to 8.49 85 357C Ovid silty clay loam, 8 to 15.49 85 400A Udorthents, loamy, 0 to 3.10 80 401D Udorthents, refuse substratum. 0 to 25 90 PG Pits, gravel and sand 75 PQ Pits, quarry 80 W Water Page 5 of 6

Options Attribute Name: 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 age 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. Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced to a single value to represent the map unit as a whole. A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. The components in the map unit name represent the major soils within a map unit delineation. Minor components make up the balance of the map unit. Great differences in soil properties can occur between map unit components and within short distances. Minor components may be very different from the major components. Such differences could significantly affect use and management of the map unit. Minor components may or may not be documented in the database. The results of aggregation do not reflect the presence or absence of limitations of the components which are not listed in the database. An on-site investigation is required to identify the location of individual map unit components. For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding composition is recorded. A composition of 60 indicates that the corresponding component typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent composition is a critical factor in some, but not all, aggregation methods. For the attribute being aggregated, 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 aggregation process derives 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 soil map units can be generated. Aggregation must be done because, on any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not. The aggregation method "Dominant Component" returns the attribute value associated with the component with the highest composition in the map unit. If more than one component shares the highest composition, the corresponding "tie-break" rule determines which value should be returned. The "tie-break" rule indicates whether the lower or higher attribute value should be returned in the case of a composition tie. The result returned by this aggregation method may or may not represent the dominant condition throughout the map unit. The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple candidate values, or which value should be selected in the event of a composition tie. Page 6 of 6