Suitability for Haul Roads (MI) Macomb, and Oakland () MAP LEGEND Area of Interest () Soils Soil Ratings Area of Interest () Soil Map Units Poorly suited Moderately suited Well suited Political Features not rated or not available Cities Water Features Transportation PLSS Township and Range PLSS Section Oceans Streams and Canals Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads MAP INFORMATION Map Scale: 1:13,300 if printed on A size (8.5" 11") sheet. The soil surveys that comprise your were mapped at scales ranging from 1:15,840 to 1:20,000. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for accurate map measurements. Source of Map: URL: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Coordinate System: UTM Zone 17N NAD83 This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Macomb Survey Area Data: Version 5, Dec 14, 2006 Soil Survey Area: Oakland Survey Area Data: Version 7, Dec 14, 2009 Your area of interest () includes more than one soil survey area. These survey areas may have been mapped at different scales, with a different land use in mind, at different times, or at different levels of detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil properties, and interpretations that do not completely agree across soil survey area boundaries. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: 7/30/2005 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Page 2 of 6
Suitability for Haul Roads (MI) Macomb, and Oakland Suitability for Haul Roads (MI) Map unit symbol BrA BrB BsA BsB BsC BsE Cf Cm Suitability for Haul Roads (MI) Summary by Map Unit Macomb Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Boyer loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Boyer loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Boyer sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Boyer sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Boyer sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Boyer sandy loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes Ceresco fine sandy loam Cohoctah fine sandy loam Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in Percent of Well suited Boyer (93%) 15.2 3.7% Well suited Boyer (93%) 14.8 3.6% Well suited Boyer (93%) 1.0 0.2% Well suited Boyer (93%) 0.2 0.1% Well suited Boyer (93%) 0.7 0.2% Moderately suited Boyer (93%) Slope (0.50) 0.3 0.1% Poorly suited Ceresco (93%) 5.0 1.2% Wetness (0.50) Cohoctah (7%) Wetness (1.00) Poorly suited Cohoctah (93%) Wetness (1.00) 216.1 52.1% Ceresco (7%) Wetness (0.50) Gd Gilford sandy loam Poorly suited Gilford (90%) Wetness (1.00) 2.5 0.6% Md Made land Moderately suited Made land (100%) 0.5 0.1% Pb Pits, borrow Not Rated Pits, borrow (100%) 13.0 3.1% Pg Pits, gravel Not Rated Pits, gravel (100%) 51.0 12.3% Sa Sanitary land fill Not Rated Sanitary land fill (100%) 3.7 0.9% Ta Tawas muck Poorly suited Tawas (93%) Wetness (1.00) 33.4 8.0% Lupton (7%) Wetness (1.00) Page 3 of 6
Suitability for Haul Roads (MI) Macomb, and Oakland Map unit symbol Suitability for Haul Roads (MI) Summary by Map Unit Macomb Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in Percent of Ur Urban land Not Rated Urban land (100%) 23.1 5.6% W Water Not Rated Water (100%) 19.8 4.8% WtA Wasepi sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Moderately suited Wasepi (90%) Wetness (0.50) 13.7 3.3% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 413.8 99.8% Totals for Area of Interest 414.7 100.0% Map unit symbol 17A Suitability for Haul Roads (MI) Summary by Map Unit Oakland Map unit name Rating Component name (percent) Wasepi sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 27 Houghton and Adrian mucks Rating reasons (numeric values) Acres in Percent of Moderately suited Wasepi (94%) Wetness (0.50) 0.3 0.1% Matherton (2%) Wetness (0.50) Poorly suited Houghton (55%) Wetness (1.00) 0.4 0.1% Adrian (35%) Wetness (1.00) Granby (5%) Wetness (1.00) Brookston (5%) Wetness (1.00) Low strength (0.50) 42 Pits Not Rated Pits (100%) 0.0 0.0% 49 Cohoctah fine sandy loam 68 Cohoctah-Fox association Poorly suited Cohoctah (100%) Wetness (1.00) 0.1 0.0% Poorly suited Cohoctah (58%) Wetness (1.00) 0.0 0.0% Subtotals for Soil Survey Area 0.9 0.2% Totals for Area of Interest 414.7 100.0% Suitability for Haul Roads (MI) Summary by Rating Value Rating Acres in Percent of Poorly suited 257.4 62.1% Not Rated 110.6 26.7% Well suited 31.9 7.7% Moderately suited 14.8 3.6% Null or Not Rated 110.6 26.7% Totals for Area of Interest 414.7 100.0% Page 4 of 6
Suitability for Haul Roads (MI) Macomb, and Oakland Description This interpretation evaluates soil properties and qualities that affect earth-moving activities, excavating, or removal and shaping of native soil materials for the development of haul roads for forest harvesting and other management activities. Also considered are cutting and filling less than 3 meters in depth; the use of bladed crawler tractors, excavators, graders, and other construction equipment; a yearround water table; and year-round ponding. It is assumed that construction activities occur during customary periods of such work for the local area and that roads are up to 1.6km in length and have a running surface up to 6 meters wide. The ratings do not consider frozen or snow-covered soil. The primary soil characteristics that affect the suitability of the map unit for construction of haul roads are slope, surface rock fragments, soil stickiness, sandiness, strength, depth to a restrictive feature, frequency of ponding and flooding, and depth to a water table. The ratings are both verbal and numerical. A rating of "well suited" (rating index = 0) indicates that few or no restrictions affect construction activities. A rating of "moderately suited" (rating index > 0 and < 1.0) indicates that one or more restrictions may cause some difficulty in construction of haul roads. A rating of "poorly suited" (rating index = 1.0) indicates that one or more limitations make the construction of haul roads very difficult or costly. The map unit components listed for each map unit in the accompanying Summary by Map Unit table in 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 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. The Michigan version of this interpretation differs from the national version in that strength limitations also are considered. Also, frozen or snow-covered soils are not considered in the ratings. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Dominant Condition Page 5 of 6
Suitability for Haul Roads (MI) Macomb, and Oakland Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is reduced to a single value that represents 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. 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 rendered. Aggregation must be done because, on any soil map, map units are delineated but components are not. For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is recorded. A percent 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. The aggregation method "Dominant Condition" first groups like attribute values for the components in a map unit. For each group, percent composition is set to the sum of the percent composition of all components participating in that group. These groups now represent "conditions" rather than components. The attribute value associated with the group with the highest cumulative percent composition is returned. If more than one group shares the highest cumulative percent composition, the corresponding "tie-break" rule determines which value should be returned. The "tie-break" rule indicates whether the lower or higher group value should be returned in the case of a percent composition tie. The result returned by this aggregation method represents the dominant condition throughout the map unit only when no tie has occurred. Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Components whose percent composition is below the cutoff value will not be considered. If no cutoff value is specified, all components in the database will be considered. The data for some contrasting soils of minor extent may not be in the database, and therefore are not considered. Tie-break Rule: Higher 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 percent composition tie. Page 6 of 6