DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA § 657.5

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA § 657.5 Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA § 657.5 § 657.2 Policy. unique farmlands. Copies are to be fur- It is NRCS policy to make and keep nished to NRCS Field Offices and to current an inventory of the prime National Soil Survey Center. (see 7 farmland and unique farmland of the CFR 600.2(c), 600.6) (4) Coordinate soil mapping units Nation. This inventory is to be carried that qualify as prime farmlands with out in cooperation with other inter- adjacent States, including Major Land ested agencies at the National, State, Resource Area Offices (see 7 CFR 600.4, and local levels of government. The ob- 600.7) responsible for the soil series. jective of the inventory is to identify Since farmlands of statewide impor- the extent and location of important tance and unique farmlands are des- rural lands needed to produce food, ignated by others at the State level, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. the soil mapping units and areas iden- § 657.3 Applicability. tified need not be coordinated among States. Inventories made under this memo- (5) Instruct NRCS District Conserva- randum do not constitute a designation tionists to arrange local review of of any land area to a specific land use. lands identified as prime, unique, and Such designations are the responsi- additional farmlands of statewide im- bility of appropriate local and State of- portance by Conservation Districts and ficials. representatives of local agencies. This § 657.4 NRCS responsibilities. review is to determine if additional farmland should be identified to meet (a) State Conservationist. Each NRCS local decisionmaking needs. State Conservationist is to: (6) Make and publish each important (1) Provide leadership for inventories farmland inventory on a base map of of important farmlands for the State, national map accuracy at an inter- county, or other subdivision of the mediate scale of 1:50,000 or 1:100,000. State. Each is to work with appro- State Conservationists who need base priate agencies of State government maps of other scales are to submit and others to establish priorities for their requests with justification to the making these inventories. Chief for consideration. (2) Identify the soil mapping units (b) National Soil Survey Center. The within the State that qualify as prime. National Soil Survey Center is to pro- In doing this, State Conservationists, vide requested technical assistance to in consultation with the cooperators of State Conservationists and Major Land the National Cooperative Soil Survey, Resource Area Offices in inventorying have the flexibility to make local devi- prime and unique farmlands (see 7 CFR ation from the permeability criterion or to be more restrictive for other spe- 600.2(c)(1), 600.4, 600.7). This includes re- cific criteria in order to assure the viewing statewide lists of soil mapping most accurate identification of prime units that meet the criteria for prime farmlands for a State. Each is to invite farmlands and resolving coordination representatives of the Governor’s of- problems that may occur among States fice, agencies of the State government, for specific soil series or soil mapping and others to identify farmlands of units. statewide importance and unique farm- (c) National Office. The Deputy Chief lands that are to be inventoried within for Soil Survey and Resource Assess- the framework of this memorandum. ment (see 7 CFR 600.2(b)(3)) is to pro- (3) Prepare a statewide list of: vide national leadership in preparing (i) Soil mapping units that meet the guidelines for inventorying prime criteria for prime farmland; farmlands and for national statistics (ii) Soil mapping units that are farm- and reports of prime farmlands. lands of statewide importance if the [43 FR 4031, Jan. 31, 1978, as amended at 65 criteria used were based on soil infor- FR 57538, Sept. 25, 2000] mation; and (iii) Specific high-value food and § 657.5 Identification of important fiber crops that are grown and, when farmlands. combined with other favorable factors, (a) Prime farmlands—(1) General. qualify lands to meet the criteria for Prime farmland is land that has the 581 VerDate Nov<24>2008 10:23 Feb 17, 2010 Jkt 220017 PO 00000 Frm 00591 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\220017.XXX 220017 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with CFR § 657.5 7 CFR Ch. VI (1–1–10 Edition) best combination of physical and (B) Xeric or ustic moisture regimes chemical characteristics for producing in which the available water capacity food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed is limited, but the area has a developed crops, and is also available for these irrigation water supply that is depend- uses (the land could be cropland, able (a dependable water supply is one pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or in which enough water is available for other land, but not urban built-up land irrigation in 8 out of 10 years for the or water). It has the soil quality, grow- crops commonly grown) and of ade- ing season, and moisture supply needed quate quality; or, to economically produce sustained (C) Aridic or torric moisture regimes high yields of crops when treated and and the area has a developed irrigation managed, including water manage- water supply that is dependable and of ment, according to acceptable farming adequate quality; and, methods. In general, prime farmlands (ii) The soils have a temperature re- have an adequate and dependable water gime that is frigid, mesic, thermic, or supply from precipitation or irrigation, hyperthermic (pergelic and cryic re- a favorable temperature and growing gimes are excluded). These are soils season, acceptable acidity or alka- that, at a depth of 20 inches (50 cm), linity, acceptable salt and sodium con- have a mean annual temperature high- tent, and few or no rocks. They are per- er than 32 °F (0 °C). In addition, the meable to water and air. Prime farm- mean summer temperature at this lands are not excessively erodible or depth in soils with an O horizon is saturated with water for a long period higher than 47 °F (8 °C); in soils that of time, and they either do not flood have no O horizon, the mean summer frequently or are protected from flood- temperature is higher than 59 °F (15 ing. Examples of soils that qualify as °C); and, prime farmland are Palouse silt loam, 0 (iii) The soils have a pH between 4.5 to 7 percent slopes; Brookston silty and 8.4 in all horizons within a depth of clay loam, drained; and Tama silty 40 inches (1 meter) or in the root zone clay loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes. if the root zone is less than 40 inches (2) Specific criteria. Prime farmlands deep; and, meet all the following criteria: Terms (iv) The soils either have no water used in this section are defined in table or have a water table that is USDA publications: ‘‘Soil Taxonomy, maintained at a sufficient depth during Agriculture Handbook 436’’; ‘‘Soil Sur- the cropping season to allow cultivated vey Manual, Agriculture Handbook 18’’; crops common to the area to be grown; ‘‘Rainfall-erosion Losses From Crop- and, land, Agriculture Handbook 282’’; (v) The soils can be managed so that, ‘‘Wind Erosion Forces in the United in all horizons within a depth of 40 States and Their Use in Predicting Soil inches (1 meter) or in the root zone if Loss, Agriculture Handbook 346’’; and the root zone is less than 40 inches ‘‘Saline and Alkali Soils, Agriculture deep, during part of each year the con- Handbook 60.’’ ductivity of the saturation extract is (i) The soils have: less than 4 mmhos/cm and the ex- (A) Aquic, udic, ustic, or xeric mois- changeable sodium percentage (ESP) is ture regimes and sufficient available less than 15; and, water capacity within a depth of 40 (vi) The soils are not flooded fre- inches (1 meter), or in the root zone quently during the growing season (less (root zone is the part of the soil that is often than once in 2 years); and, penetrated or can be penetrated by (vii) The product of K (erodibility plant roots) if the root zone is less than factor) × percent slope is less than 2.0, 40 inches deep, to produce the com- and the product of I (soils erodibility) × monly grown cultivated crops (cul- C (climatic factor) does not exceed 60; tivated crops include, but are not lim- and ited to, grain, forage, fiber, oilseed, (viii) The soils have a permeability sugar beets, sugarcane, vegetables, to- rate of at least 0.06 inch (0.15 cm) per bacco, orchard, vineyard, and bush hour in the upper 20 inches (50 cm) and fruit crops) adapted to the region in 7 the mean annual soil temperature at a or more years out of 10; or depth of 20 inches (50 cm) is less than 59 582 VerDate Nov<24>2008 10:23 Feb 17, 2010 Jkt 220017 PO 00000 Frm 00592 Fmt 8010 Sfmt 8010 Y:\SGML\220017.XXX 220017 erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with CFR Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA § 658.1 °F (15 °C); the permeability rate is not for the production of food, feed, fiber, a limiting factor if the mean annual forage, and oilseed crops, even though soil temperature is 59 °F (15 °C) or high- these lands are not identified as having er; and, national or statewide importance. (ix) Less than 10 percent of the sur- Where appropriate, these lands are to face layer (upper 6 inches) in these be identified by the local agency or soils consists of rock fragments coarser agencies concerned. In places, addi- than 3 inches (7.6 cm).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Please Scroll Down for Article
    This article was downloaded by: [American Planning Association] On: 16 June 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 787832967] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of the American Planning Association Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t782043358 Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization: Lessons from Oregon Arthur C. Nelson Online Publication Date: 31 December 1992 To cite this Article Nelson, Arthur C.(1992)'Preserving Prime Farmland in the Face of Urbanization: Lessons from Oregon',Journal of the American Planning Association,58:4,467 — 488 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01944369208975830 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975830 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • TABLE of CONTENTS Page 4.18 FARMLAND
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 4.18 FARMLAND ................................................................................................................................... 4.18-1 4.18.1 Affected Environment................................................................................................. 4.18-1 4.18.2 Environmental Consequences .................................................................................... 4.18-3 4.18.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................ 4.18-3 4.18.2.2 Freeway Alternative............................................................................................. 4.18-3 4.18.2.3 Tollway Alternative ............................................................................................. 4.18-3 4.18.2.4 Regional Arterial Alternative.............................................................................. 4.18-3 4.18.2.5 Combined Alternative (Recommended Alternative) ..................................... 4.18-3 4.18.3 Suggested Mitigation .................................................................................................... 4.18-4 4.18.4 Summary of Impacts .................................................................................................... 4.18-4 Table of Contents i LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 4.18-1 Farmland within the Study Area................................................................................................ 4.18-2 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.18-1 Gross Acres of Farmland
    [Show full text]
  • USDA-NRCS's ROLE for SOILS INFORMATION in the SURFACE MINING CONTROL and RECLAMATION ACT of 1977 (PUBLIC LAW 95-87) ___
    Proceedings America Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2004 USDA-NRCS's ROLE FOR SOILS INFORMATION IN THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 (PUBLIC LAW 95-87)1 H. Raymond Sinclair, Jr.2 Abstract. The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-87) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to implement a regulatory program to control the environmental impacts of mining operations. The Secretary of Interior administers this program through the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) with assistance from state and other federal agencies as specified in the law. All functions and responsibilities assigned to USDA by Public Law 95-87 were delegated by the Secretary of Agriculture to the Chief of USDA-NRCS (formerly the SCS), except those that relate to the National Forest Service System Lands and to the USDA-Agriculture Research Service. This paper briefly presents the role USDA-NRCS had in the development of the rules, regulations, and guidelines to comply with Public Law 95-87 that pertained to soils before, during, and after surface mining for coal. Additional Key Words: Historically used as cropland, Soil Conservation Service, State Regulatory Authority, Prime Farmland, Code of Federal Regulations, High Capability Land, policy and procedures3, and Proof of Restoration. _____________________ 1 Paper was presented at the 2004 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation and The 25th West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force , April 18-24, 2004. Published by ASMR, 3134 Montavesta Rd., Lexington, KY 40502. 2 H. Raymond Sinclair, Jr. is a Soil Scientist at the National Soil Survey Center, United States Department of Agriculture-National Resources Conservation Service, Federal Building, Lincoln, NE 68508-3866 3 The history presented in this paper happened when the agency’s name was the Soil Conservation Service (SCS).
    [Show full text]
  • Pub. 324 Agricultural Resources Evaluation Handbook
    THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS Agricultural Resources Evaluation Handbook Publication No. 324 March 2016 PUB 324 (3-16) THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. i TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................................................. iii APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF ACRONYMS ...................................................................................................................v AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION HANDBOOK PREFACE .......................... vii SECTION I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 SECTION II. OVERVIEW OF PROTECTED RESOURCES AND GOVERNING LEGISLATION ...............................................................................................................................3 A. Protected Agricultural Resources .....................................................................................3 1. FPPA Farmland ........................................................................................................3 a. Prime farmland ................................................................................................3 b. Unique farmland ..............................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • HARP Solar Project
    Exceptions Element HARP Solar Project OneEnergy Renewables, founded in 2009, is a privately held company actively developing a significant pipeline of utility scale solar projects nationwide. Pioneers of the offsite solar project model, we specialize in pre-construction development of ground mounted solar PV projects. AS A CERTIFIED B-CORP, ONEENERGY ENTHUSIASTICALLY EMBRACES AND MEETS RIGOROUS STANDARDS OF BUSINESS, SOCIAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND TRANSPARENCY. IT’S HOW WE DO BUSINESS, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Our experienced team of renewable energy professionals pair de-risked projects with advanced energy procurement and financial solutions to deliver construction-ready and operational solar assets. oneenergyrenewables.com @oneenergyinc ACTIVE MARKETS + PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS WYE MILLS SOLAR CAMBRIDGE SOLAR LOCATION LOCATION QUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY, MD DORCHETER COUNTY, MD SIZE SIZE 13.6 MW 4.3 MW OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL FALL 2016 SPRING 2015 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER JOHNS HOPKINS MEDICINE NATIONAL AQUARIUM OWNER OWNER SOLAR CITY CONSTELLATION BLUE BASIN POWER STEEL BRIDGE SOLAR LOCATION LOCATION KLAMATH COUNTY, OR POLK COUNTY, OR SIZE SIZE 4 MW 3 MW OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL FALL 2016 SPRING 2016 CUSTOMER CUSTOMER PACIFIC POWER PORTLAND GEN. ELECTRIC OWNER OWNER SOLAR CITY NRG oneenergyrenewables.com @oneenergyinc PROJECT HARP SOLAR OE SOLAR 1, LLC N LANDOWNER: 01N25E00003404 HUGHES, RANDY MAP TAXLOT NUBMER: 20' SIDE LOT SETBACK YARDS (MCZO 3.010(M)) RIGHT OF WAY PROJECT FENCELINE BASELINE ROAD ADDRESS LEXINGTON, OR 97839 ALTERNATE
    [Show full text]
  • Agriculture, 8
    ChapterChapter 8. Agriculture, 8. Agriculture Forestry, and Food Element Security Element A. OVERVIEW Agriculture and forestry are critical components of both the landscape and the economy of Oconee County. Based on Oconee County tax data, 51% of the County’s land area is currently in use for agriculture or forestry. However, of County land that is not included in the Sumter National Forest, nearly two-thirds is in agriculture or forestry use. According to the Oconee Economic Alliance, Oconee County has nearly 900 farms encompassing more than 67,000 acres of land.Together, these farms have a market value in products worth more than 121 million dollars. In addition to the economic benefits of agriculture and forestry, both land uses can contribute social, environmental, and health benefits. These benefits are explored in more detail throughout this element. Figure 8-1. Oconee County Land in Farms by Land Use, 2012 and 2017 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 34.7% Woodland 30.0% 22.7% Cropland 30.0% 36.6% Pastureland 34.0% 6.0% Other Uses 6.0% 2012 2017 Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture Forestlands are important to the economy, character, environment, and overall health of Oconee County. Agricultural and forested lands are home to many of the area’s critical natural resources and provide valuable wildlife habitat, windbreaks, enhanced water quality, decreased ambient temperatures, groundwater recharge areas, mitigation of stormwater run-off and erosion, and open space. This link to natural resource protection should be respected and enhanced when possible through the use of easements, education, and value-added land use policies such as proper regulation, prevention and mitigation of incompatible land uses, and the appropriate location of public lands and infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Land, Urban Growth, and the Need for a Federally Organized Comprehensive Land Use Planning Model Jess M
    Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy Volume 16 Article 2 Issue 1 Fall 2006 A Modern Disaster: Agricultural Land, Urban Growth, and the Need for a Federally Organized Comprehensive Land Use Planning Model Jess M. Krannich Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Krannich, Jess M. (2006) "A Modern Disaster: Agricultural Land, Urban Growth, and the Need for a Federally Organized Comprehensive Land Use Planning Model," Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 16: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cjlpp/vol16/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A MODERN DISASTER: AGRICULTURAL LAND, URBAN GROWTH, AND THE NEED FOR A FEDERALLY ORGANIZED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING MODEL Jess M. Krannich* INTRODUCTION ............................................. 57 I. THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SUBURBAN SPRAWL .................... 60 II. A MODEL OF INEFFECTIVENESS: FEDERAL AND STATE LAND USE PLANNING SCHEMES ........... 66 A. FEDERAL PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND ..... 66 B. STATE AND LOCAL PROTECTION FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND ................................................. 72 1. Land Use Planning "Tools" for State and Local Governm ents ................................... 73 2. Oregon: An (Almost) Effective Statewide Land Use Planning Model ........................... 81 III. LAND USE REGULATIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL "TAKINGS" CHALLENGES ........................... 85 IV. SUGGESTIONS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLANNING MODEL ............................
    [Show full text]
  • Minimizing Development Impacts to Prime Farmland
    Designing Solar Land Use Laws that Protect Productive Farmland June 17, 2019 Samantha Levy, NYS Policy Manager, American Farmland Trust Samantha Levy is New York Policy Manager for American Farmland Trust. Samantha advises state and local lawmakers, planners, and other leaders on policies and programs that save the land that sustains us by keeping land in farming, keeping farmers on the land, and helping farmers adopt sound farming practices. George R. Frantz, AICP, ASLA , Cornell University George Frantz, has worked as a land use and environmental planner in small town and rural communities in Upstate for 30 years, in both the public and private sector. His primary areas of expertise are in land-use planning and zoning, with particular emphasis on addressing the needs of agriculture and the protection of environmentally sensitive lands. Since 2017 he has been an associate professor of the practice in the Department of City & Regional Planning at Cornell. Matilda Larson, Planner II, St. Lawrence County Matilda manages the County’s annual and eight-year reviews for its Agricultural District program, and was the lead on the preparation of the County’s 2016 Agricultural Development Plan. Matilda assists with project reviews for the County Planning Board, and assists local governments with the preparation and revision of local land use regulations including, most recently, with the preparation of solar regulations with a focus on the preservation of prime farmland. What is Smart Solar Siting? Designing Solar Laws to Protect Farmland and Promote
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Soil Disturbance on Farmland
    Assessment of Soil Disturbance on Farmland Presented to New Jersey State Agriculture Development Committee by Dr. Daniel Gimenez Daniel Kluchinski Dr. Stephanie Murphy Loren S. Muldowny April, 2010 Authors Dr. Daniel Gimenez Associate Professor, Soil Science/Soil Physics Department of Environmental Science Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey Ph.D. Soil Science/Soil Physics, University of Minnesota M.S. Agrohydrology), Agricultural University of Wageningen (The Netherlands) B. S. Agronomy, National University of Tucumán (Argentina) Daniel Kluchinski County Agent I (Professor) and Chair Department of Agricultural and Resource Management Agents Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey Assistant Director Rutgers Cooperative Extension, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station M.S. Weed Science, Purdue University B.S. Plant Science/Agronomy, Rutgers University Dr. Stephanie Murphy Director, Soil Testing Laboratory Rutgers Cooperative Extension, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station Instructor, Physical Properties of Soils, Soils and Water Department of Environmental Science Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey Ph.D. Soil Biophysics. Michigan State University M.S. Soil Erosion and Conservation, Purdue University B.S. Agriculture, The Ohio State University Loren S. Muldowny Lab Technician, Soil Testing Laboratory Rutgers – The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station M.S. Environmental Science, Rutgers‐The State University of New Jersey B.S. Biochemistry, Rutgers‐The State University of New Jersey Page 1 of 19 Assessment of Soil Disturbance on Farmland Purpose of the Summary This summary was produced to assist in decision‐making by the State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) about the impact that selected farm activities have on soil characteristics, how negative impacts on soil properties may be remediated, and whether these activities should be encouraged or discouraged on New Jersey preserved farmland.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Lands (Prime Farmland and Timberland)
    TIER 1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 7.3 Agricultural Lands (Prime Farmland and Timberland) 7. Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies 7.3 AGRICULTURAL LANDS (PRIME FARMLAND AND TIMBERLAND) 7.3.1 Introduction Agricultural lands include the nation’s farmlands and timberlands, which are unique natural resources that provide food, fiber, wood, and water. Conversion of agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses, such as a transportation use, results in the loss of these lands for agricultural purposes. This section describes agricultural lands in the NEC FUTURE Study Area (Study Area) and identifies potential impacts on agricultural lands associated with each of the Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Tier 1 Draft EIS) Action Alternatives. Also included within this section is a qualitative evaluation of the effects on agricultural lands associated with the No Action Alternative. Appendix E, Section E.03, provides the methodology for evaluating agricultural lands and the data supporting the analysis presented. 7.3.1.1 Definition of Resources Agricultural lands include prime farmland soils and prime timberlands as defined below: 4 Prime farmland is considered land underlain by soil identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) as having the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food and other agricultural crops. 4 Prime timberland is land designated by the USDA NRCS as having the capability of growing a significant volume of timber when left in natural conditions. This designation also applies to lands that are not currently in forest but realistically could be vegetated with timber. Appendix E, Section E.03, provides more detailed definitions of prime farmland and prime timberland.
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Yakama Forest Products to Dekker Service Line
    Appendix L USDA Soils Information Drop 4 Hydropower Project July 13, 2012 Environmental Assessment United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource Department of Cooperative Soil Survey, Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for States Department of Agriculture and other Yakama Nation Irrigated Federal agencies, State Natural agencies including the Area, Washington, Part of Resources Agricultural Experiment Conservation Stations, and local Yakima County Service participants WIP Drop 4 Vicinity June 4, 2012 Preface Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand, protect, or enhance the environment. Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions. The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations. Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/) and certain conservation and engineering applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Model 2015 Edition
    COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Virginia ConservationVision: Agricultural Model 2015 Edition Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage Natural Heritage Technical Report 15-13 August 28, 2015 Virginia ConservationVision: Agricultural Model 2015 Edition Prepared by: Kirsten R. Hazler and Tracy Tien Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation Division of Natural Heritage 600 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 August 28, 2015 This report should be cited as follows: Hazler, K.R. and T.Tien. 2015. Virginia ConservationVision: Agricultural Model, 2015 Edition. Natural Heritage Technical Report 15-13. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Division of Natural Heritage, Richmond, Virginia. 43 pp. -ii- Abstract The Virginia Agricultural Model was developed to quantify the relative suitability of lands for agricultural activity across the state. It is presented as a raster data set and associated maps, in which the relative agricultural value of lands ranges from 0 (unsuitable) to 100 (optimal). This provides some of the information needed for prioritizing lands that may be placed under conservation easements in the interest of sustaining agricultural values and uses. In this model, agricultural value is assessed primarily based on inherent soil suitability, but also accounts for current land cover as well as travel time between agricultural producers and consumers. Among others, staff at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) were consulted to ensure a robust model. The Virginia Agricultural Model is one of several in a suite of conservation planning and prioritization models developed by the Virginia Natural Heritage Program and partners, known collectively as Virginia ConservationVision.
    [Show full text]