AN ANAWSiS OF LITERATURE ENTERPRETNG' SOtLS FOR NGNAQRICULTURAL USES Thasis fa? flu Degrw a? M. S. MECHIGAN STATE UNNERSWY Donald Eugenia Van Meimr Wfifi A; LIBRgl RY Michigan State Universny THESIS THE a pfiirr. u‘J‘ ice a of so and a urban trial c Consm many; Le offices had Dre From th and 6115 main er of 8011 : In t ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF LITERATURE INTERPRETING SOILS FOR NONAGRICULTURAL USES by Donald Eugene Van Meter This study analyzed literature prepared by the Soil Conservation Serv- ice and State Agricultural Experiment Stations involving the interpretation of soils information for nonagricultural uses. The population shift in the United States today is toward urban areas and away from the farm. With this shift, the growth of population around urban areas greatly increases and new housing developments and indus- trial complexes are built on soils never before used for urban development. Construction often occurs on soils not suited for nonagricultural uses and many problems arise. Letters were sent to each of the fifty state Soil Conservation Service offices and State Agricultural Experiment Stations requesting literature they had prepared for interpreting soils information for nonagricultural uses. From the responses of these two organizations , forty articles were received and analyzed for this thesis. The literature was then grouped into three main areas, (1) soil survey reports, (2) technical information, and (3) uses of soil survey information. In the East Lansing field analysis, eighteen home sites and eleven industrial sites were selected and the soils analyzed. Certain soil properties WE ve. the pOF obta deve is on devel Pernn. andth tance dlSpOs Ularly j be uSed Velopme gUlde 3L Donald Eugene Van Meter were recognized to influence the use of the sites for nonagricultural de- velopment more than others. These soil properties were then compared to the soil properties discussed in the literature that were assumed to be im- portant for selecting sites for nonagricultural uses. The following conclusions were formulated on the basis of the evidence obtained from the literature and field study. 1. Much of the literature relating soils information for nonagricultural development was prepared for areas East of the Mississippi River. 2. Soil Conservation Service soils information for nonagricultural uses is oriented toward creating technical information to aid their personnel in developing terminology for guiding urban land use. The Agricultural Ex- periment Station soils information is prepared mainly for the homeowner. 3. Soils information prepared by both the Soil Conservation Service and the State Agricultural Experiment stations strongly stressed the impor— tance and relation of soil physical properties as they effect septic tank disposal systems. 4. The literature indicated that there are five soil properties partic- ularly important in selecting sites for nonagricultural uses — soil texture, percolation rate, drainage, soil depth, and slope. These properties should be used to develop a set of criteria to analyze soils for nonagricultural de— velopment in cities and counties that do not have adequate information to guide such uses. 5. From the literature analyzed, four major uses of soil survey in- formation are made for nonagricultural development — finding soils suitable for aid pror‘ tura {ESP new COHC: methc tial u ment. is ava Public urban ( Donald Eugene Van Meter for waste disposal by septic tanks, analyzing soil engineering properties, aiding planning commissions, and guiding real estate brokers to select proper sites for various land uses. 6. No new soil classification is needed to rate soils for nonagricul- tural uses. Even though the question was not asked, 35 percent of the responses from the Soil Conservation Service indicated they thought no new soil classification system was needed for urban development. The concensus of opinion was that present agricultural soil classification methods could be adapted to interpret soils for nonagricultural uses. There is a need for public education so people will realize the poten- tial use and benefit of soil survey information in nonagricultural develop- ment. The East Lansing study illustrated that even soils information that is available to the public is often not used in selecting home sites. The public must be informed that soils information is available to help guide urban development. AN ANALYSIS OF LITERATURE INTERPRETING SOILS FOR NONAGRICULTURAL USES BY Donald Eugene Van Meter A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1965 ACKNOWLE DGME NTS Many people have provided encouragement and assistance in the de- velopment and completion of this study. To all these people I extend my deepest gratitude. Special acknowledgment is extended to Dr. George P. Graff, thesis advisor and committee chairman, for his guidance in this study. Appreciation is also extended to Drs. Raleigh Barlowe, Milton H. Steinmueller, William I. Kimball, and Louis A. Wolfanger, members of the study committee. Lastly, I would like to especially thank my wife, Lorna, for her con- tinuous encouragement and understanding. Donald Eugene Van Meter ii AC] LIS LIS‘ LIS'. Cha III IV BIBLI APPE] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................ ii LIST OF TABLES ........................... iv LIST OF FIGURES .......................... v LIST OF APPENDICES ........................ vi Chapter I. THE NEED FOR USING SOILS INFORMATION IN URBANDEVELOPMENT............. ..... 1 Introduction Purpose and Objectives II. SELECTING LITERATURE TO ANALYZE ........... 6 Methodology Disseminating Soils Information for Nonagricultural Uses III. ANALYZING THE LITERATURE ................ 13 Soil Survey Reports Technical Soils Information Uses of Soil Survey Information IV. EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN, FIELD ANALYSIS ....... 39 V. SUMMARIZING THE STUDY ................ 46 Summary Conclusions and Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................ 52 APPENDICES ............................. 54 iii T. 10. ll. 12. 13, 14. 15, Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. LIST OF TABLE S Number of Articles Received Related to the Type of Subject Matter and the Organization Preparing the Information . ..................... Distribution of Articles Related to Their Geographical Location and to the Organization Preparing the Information .......... . ............. Engineering Data for Washtenaw Silt Loam ......... Interpreting Soils for Alternative Uses ........... Generalized Tree, Shrub, and Vine Guide .......... Brief Description of Soils and Their Physical Properties . . The Suitability of the Soil for Some Engineering Uses and Soil Characteristics that Affect Earth Construction . . . . Use Ratings of Soil Resource Areas . . . . . . ....... Hypothetical Cost Comparisons of Septic Tank Disposal Units Related to Soil Permeability ..... . . . ..... Soil Percolation Rates and Classes ............. Soil Drainage Class Correlated With Water Table Depth and Duration .................... Bearing Strength of Soils as Related to Soil Texture Partial Listing of Engineering Properties of Soils and Their Soil Characteristic Determinants, Ela Township, Lake County, Illinois ...................... Slope, Texture, Drainage, and Erosion on Home Sites Around East Lansing, Michigan .............. Slope, Texture, Drainage, and Erosion on Industrial Sites Around East Lansing, Michigan ........... iv 10 15 16 17 19 20 26 27 29 30 30 31 41 42 Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Soil Properties Used by Soil Surveys to Evaluate Soils for Nonagricultural Uses .............. Appendix A. LIST OF APPENDICES Sample of Letter Sent to State Soil Conservation Service Offices and State Agricultural Experiment Stations ........................ vi C HAPTE R I THE NEED FOR USING SOILS INFORMATION IN URBAN DEVELOPMENT Introduction During the past ten years throughout the United States there has been a tendency for people to live and conduct their businesses near the out- skirts of towns and cities. The landscape in the United States is rapidly changing. This is illustrated by A. A. Klingebiel in the Yearbook of Agri- culture 1963. The sequence is familiar all over the country. The cover of trees or other vegetation is ripped from the land. Founda- tions are dug in soils not before used for buildings. Houses go up. Wells are dug, for there is no city water supply. Septic tanks are installed. Road and curbs are placed. Parks and other public facilities are laid out. Acres of farmland or woodland are transformed in a short time into a new, treeless development. 1 Many problems arise when building construction occurs on these "ur- ban-fringe" soils. When foundations settle and crack, when new road pavements buckle and break, when septic tanks fail, or when floods drive people from their homes , the loss to the individual, the community, and the nation normally is the result of not knowing the characteristics and properties of the soils on the landscape. 1A. A. Klingebiel, "Land Classification for Use in Planning, " Year- book of Agriculture 1963: A Place to Live (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 399. 21bid. "The urban-fringe area can be described in a broad way as comprising . . 3 a series of belts of territory surrounding an urban center. " Today urban centers are located at the junction of highways which extend outward from the major cities in much the same way as spokes of a wheel radiate from the hub. The continuing shift from the once predominantly rural land occupancy to the increasing urban concentration among the 190 million people in the United States involves the conver- sion of about 1 million acres a year of agriculture land to suburban housing, industrial developments, highways and airfields , recreational areas, and other nonagricultural uses. Many times in the uncontrolled growth of towns — referred to as urban sprawl -— the best agricultural land is the first to be covered with concrete. Valuable sand and gravel deposits needed for future construction also are often lost to use. The lesson taught by the Biblical story of the foolish man whose house built on the sand fell when the rains and floods came, and the wise man whose house built on rock did not fall has practical 20th century applica- tion. Homeowners and planners have learned there is no valid reason for such "foolish” home building in this modern age when scientific informa- tion is available to tell them beforehand if the soil is suitable for sound footings for houses. According to John Quay, vice—chairman of the Lake County Regional Planning Commission in Barrington, Illinois, modern soil 3 L. A. Salter, Ir. , "Land Classification Along the Rural-Urban Fringe, First National Conference on Land Classification (Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 421), 1940. 4R. M. Marshall, "Soil Surveys Are Guides For Many Urban-Area De- velopments, " Soil Conservation, Vol. 29, No. 4 (November 1963), p. 75. survey reports tell planners, landowners, and developers whether the soil properties , water-table level, slope, and other factors are best suited for home building, industrial development, or recreational areas. Land use changes in the United States are increasing faster every year. Trends and expectations indicate that continued urban expansion is inevit— able. "Over the next two decades, urban and built-up areas are expected to increase by almost 40 percent, and the less intensive nonagricultural uses by about 30 percent. "6 D. A. Williams of the Soil Conservation Service testified before a committee on agriculture appropriations for 1964 and stated that the Department of Agriculture is committed to a policy of strengthening rural America, and their goal is to help communities develop and use their available resources to provide increasing economic benefits to landowners and to businesses. 7 A budget of $132, 000 was proposed for planning and scheduling soil surveys needed in the areas of rapid urban expansion. This was the first time a special budget was proposed to fi— nance soil surveys in urban areas. 8 The Soil Conservation Service proposes to work with representatives of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the Public Health Service, the Bureau of Public Roads, and with local community 5John Quay, "Lake County Uses Soils Surveys in Planning Its Urban Areas," Soil Conservation, Vol. 29, No. 5 (December 1963), p. 99. 6Mark M. Regan and H. H. Wooten, "Land Use Trends and Urbaniza- tion, " Yearbook of Agriculture 1963: A Place to Live (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 63. 7U. S. , Congress, Senate, Agriculture Apmpriations for 1964, 88th Cong. , lst Sess. , 1963, H.R. 6754, p. 185. 8Ibid. V. 80 leC “(it the nee: urba 4 leaders in developing a coordinated interagency plan for soil surveys in certain communities. These communities will be selected where the suc- cess of large investments in new homes , new highway systems, and new industrial locations may depend upon the use of soils information to insure economical development. Purposes and Objectives Originally the purpose of this thesis was to design a new soil clas— sification system for nonagricultural development. Although the question was not asked in the letters sent to state Soil Conservation Service offices, 35 percent of the responses indicated that no new classification system was needed. After reading these responses the researcher decided not to design a new soil classification scheme, but rather to take inventory of the literature already prepared interpreting soils for urban development. The major purpose of this thesis is to analyze literature interpretating soil survey information for nonagricultural uses. There are two main ob- jectives of this thesis. They are (1) to determine the nature and extent of soils information available to aid in developing lands for nonagricultural uses, and (2) to discover agencies and organizations preparing and dis- seminating information relative to this subject. This thesis does not deal with the use of the literature by the general public, but rather who prepares the information and the extent of the literature. Additional research is needed over the acceptance and adequacy of the information for contractors , urban planners , and others who might use such literature. It is hypothesized that there is information about using soils for non- agricultural uses. Much of this information, however, is written in a tech— nical language that only trained professional soil scientists can interpret. The urban planner and the homeowner are limited in the amount of soils in- formation they can readily obtain and easily understand. Chapter II of this thesis explains how the literature obtained from the state Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural Experiment Station offices was divided into groups to analyze.) Chapter II also includes the introduc- tion of an East Lansing, Michigan study about the characteristics of the various soils upon which housing developments and industrial buildings were constructed. The results of this field analysis were compared with information found in the literature review. This was discussed in Chapter IV. The major portion of the thesis involves the discussion of the informa— tion found in the literature review. The type and extent of sOils informa— tion published by both the Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural Ex- periment Stations are discussed in Chapter III. Near the end of the thesis a section is devoted to the conclusions reached by the author from the re- search, and a discussion of the future needs for soils information to guide nonagricultural development. CHAPTER II SELECTING LITERATURE TO ANALYZE Methodology To obtain a cross-section of the various types of literature interpreting soils information for nonagricultural uses, one letter was sent to the State Agricultural Experiment Stations, and one letter to each of the state Soil Conservation Service offices (see Appendix A). These two organizations publish most of the information concerning soils and rural-urban develop- ment. A limited number of publications concerning the use of soils infor- mation for nonagricultural uses are published by state departments of health and professional magazines, but these articles are usually written by Soil Conservation Service or Agricultural Experiment Station workers. The Soil Conservation Service distributes soils information made available by the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Agricultural Experiment Stations distribute soils information made available through Land Grant Colleges and other state organizations. Forty state Soil Conservation Service offices replied and thirty-nine State Agricultural Experiment Stations answered. From these seventy—nine responses, a collection of forty different articles concerning the interpre- tation of soils for nonagricultural uses were evaluated. The literature was grouped into two major categories, (1) information received from the Soil Conservation Service, and (2) information received 6 from the State Agricultural Experiment Stations. The Soil Conservation Service personnel work with people at a county level. They provide tech- nical assistance for both agricultural and nonagricultural soil problems and also aid rural and urban landowners to use conservation practices on the land. The State Agricultural Experiment Station personnel work with the state agriculture college and conduct basic research in various agri- cultural fields. They publish information available to landowners about agriculture, including the use of soils for both agricultural and nonagri— cultural development. The two major groupings were each further divided into three subgroups, (1) soils surveys, (2) technical soils information, and (3) uses of soils information. The soil surveys received had special sections dealing with inter— preting soils for nonagricultural uses. The soils reports also had parts devoted entirely to soils and urban development. "These sections were designed to aid planning officials, realtors, and others interested in resi- dential use of rural areas near growing cities. "1 The technical soils information was concerned with physical properties of the soil and how they affect the use of the soil for septic tank filter fields, housing foundations, and other nonagricultural uses. The Soil Conservation Service has developed criteria and established guides to help interpret soils best suited for urban-suburban development. The fol- lowing statement was written by Charles Kellogg, assistant administrator 1Chester and Delaware Counties Soil Survey Report: Pennsylvania (Washington, D. C. , May 1963), p. 54. for soil survey in the Soil Conservation Service, at the beginning of an advisory notice to state conservationists concerning the interpretation of soils for nonagricultural uses, ". . . it was suggested that our staff prepare a brief guide for soil survey interpretations in urban-fringe areas. . . " Many of the articles about soils information for nonagricultural devel- opment were devoted to discussing the many uses of soil survey reports. The articles explained how the soil survey reports could be used to aid nonagricultural development, and who could benefit from using these re- ports. "Soil surveys help planners and developers of urban areas choose the best soils for each use and thereby avoid many problems. "3 In the East Lansing study, home sites and industrial sites were ana- lyzed in relation to the soils on which they were located. Such soil prop- erties as texture, drainage, erosion, and slope were recorded and the re- sults compared to information found in the literature review. These com- parisons are discussed in Chapter IV. Disseminating Soils Information for Nonagricultural Uses As mentioned before, all fifty states were contacted and requested to send any information they had on interpreting soils data for nonagricultural uses. Table 1 shows the number of articles received and relates the three types of subject matter with the major organization responsible for pub- lishing the information. 2Charles E. Kellogg, Advisory Notice W-66 (Washington, D. C. , August 15, 1962), p. l. 3Gerald W. Olson, Using Soil Surveys for Problems of Expanding Pop- ulation in New York State, Cornell Extension Bulletin 1123 (New York State College of Agriculture, 1964), p. 5. 9 Table 1. Number of Articles Received Related to the Type of Subject Matter and the Organization Preparing the Information w Soil Conservation Agricultural Subject Matter Service Experiment Station Soil Surveys 11 a Technical Information 12 2 Uses of Soil Surveys _9 6 TOTAL 32 8 a All soil surveys were credited to the Soil Conservation Service. As shown in Table 1, Soil Conservation Service personnel prepared four times as much soils information for nonagricultural uses as did Agri- cultural Experiment Stations. The Agricultural Experiment Stations prepared about the same amount of information concerned with uses of soil surveys as the Soil Conservation Service, but the Soil Conservation Service empha— sized interpreting the physical soil properties for nonagricultural uses. From the literature review it was evident that soil surveys were an important source of soils information for urban and suburban development. The Soil Conservation Service and Agricultural Experiment Stations cooperated in making the soil surveys. The urban and suburban sections in these re— ports , however, were often written in cooperation with local or regional planning commissions and sanitation departments. The sections in soils survey reports involving engineering uses of soils were usually ". . .pre- pared with the assistance of state conservation engineers, Soil Conserva- tion Serv1ce. " The 8011 Conservation Serv1ce is influential in preparing 4Montgomery County, Maryland Soil Survey (Washington: U. S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, 1961), p. 89. ~ 10 the urban—suburban sections in soil survey reports. These sections are not the same in every soil survey report, but rather adapted to each indi- vidual situation. Different types of soil require different kinds of inter- pretations. Table 2. Distribution of Articles Related to Their Geographical Location and to the Organization Preparing the Information Organization Geographic Soil Agricultural Location Conservation Service Experiment Station Covers all U. S. 20 1 East of Mississippi River Pennsylvania 4 0 Maryland 2 0 Connecticut 1 1 Georgia 1 0 Illinois 1 0 Indiana 1 0 South Carolina 1 0 New York 0 2 Virginia 0 3 West of Mississippi River __1_ _1_ TOTAL 32 8 As indicated in Table 2, most articles of regional importance came from East of the Mississippi River. Since much of the population of the United States is East of the Mississippi River, it is not surprising that this area is particularly concerned about accurate soil interpretation for nonagricultural uses. Much of the information about soils for urban-suburban development prepared by the Soil Conservation Service could be used throughout the 11 United States. State Soil Conservation Service offices‘prepared informa- tion relating physical (soil properties to their influence on nonagricultural soil uses. This type of information could be adapted and applied to most soils. The Agricultural Experiment Station literature was written mainly for individual states. Since the Experiment Stations are primarily responsible to the states , it is understandable that their information would be oriented toward their state. New York and Pennsylvania accounted for over 30 percent of the arti— cles received for this project that were prepared for individual states. This would indicate that areas of increasing population pressure realize the need for additional soils information to guide urban—suburban growth. The New York State Agricultural Experiment Station has prepared a bulletin '. . . showing some of the ways soil surveys can be used for urban devel— opment in New York, and encourage, people to make greater use of them. "5 "Many counties and metropolitan areas doubled their population in the past ten years , and the forecasts are that the population of the United States will double in the next thirty-five years. "6 The pattern of popula- tion is shifting with more and more people living in the suburbsor rural fringe areas around cities. 5Olson, Using Soil Surveys for Problems of the Expanding Population in New York State, p. 5. 6A. A. Klingebiel, ”Bases for Urban Development: Air, Soil Water, " Planning (The American Society of Planning Officials, 1963) , Vol. 17 , p. 40. 12 In Chapter III the findings will substantiate the fact that physical properties of the soil must be evaluated in detail in order to predict the success or failure of urban and suburban development. Planning for a good community must take into account the potentials and limitations of the soils. Planners need to know the location and extent of soils free from overflow; the soils that have high bearing capacity; the soils that are dry most of the time; the permeable soils suit- able as septic tank filter fields; the deep soils that do not present problems if excavated for basements, pipelines, or highways. 7 7Ibid. CHAPTER III ANALYZING THE LITERATURE Soil Survey Reports From the eleven soil survey reports that were reviewed for this thesis, eight were county soil survey reports and three were soil reports of smaller areas such as a city or township. The Soil Conservation Service and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations cooperated with local organizations in the preparation of these local soil reports. Although the county soil survey reports reviewed were published by the U. S. Government Printing Office, the local soil reports were printed by the local chamber of commerce (Munster, Indiana Soil Survey Report, and Soil Handbook for Soil Survey, Metropolitan Area, San Antonio, Texas) and by the local Soil Conservation District (Soil Resources for an Exganding Population, James Island, South Carolina). The major difference between the county soil survey reports and the local soil reports was the extent of agricultural information contained in the reports. The county soil survey reports were mainly concerned with using soils for agricultural development, while the local soils reports were concerned with nonagricultural uses of soils for urban and suburban devel— opment. The purpose of local soil reports is illustrated in the Munster‘ Indiana Soil Survey Report: "This report is written as a non-technical urban report to provide soils information for the incorporated areas . . . l3 14 Engineering data from these soils has been interpreted for urban land use. "1 Although the eight county soil survey reports had sections concerning urban development and engineering, the major portion of the reports was devoted to agricultural uses of soils. Only 25 percent of the material con- tained in the eight county soils survey reports reviewed were primarily concerned with nonagricultural development. In contrast, the local soil reports were nearly 100 percent devoted to nonagricultural uses of the soils. Except for the amount of soils information for nonagricultural uses, the county soil survey reports and the local soils reports were very similar. Both types of report included a listing of the soils found in the area, the location of these soils within the area, and the potential uses of these soils for development. The methods of presenting the soils information that influence urban—suburban development were approximately the same in both kinds of report. This is not surprising since the Soil Conservation Service and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations cooperated in their preparation. Local Soil Reports All three of the local soil reports reviewed listed and gave detailed descriptions of the soils found in the area included in the report. The name of the soil type and the map number (which appears on the actual soil map) were noted and explained. A description of the soil profile fol— lowed with special emphasis on the texture of each horizon, drainage of 1Munster, Indiana Soil Survey Report (Munster, Indiana: Chamber of Commerce, 1964), p. 1. 15 the soil profile, the depth of the soil to a limiting layer that water can't penetrate, and the slope of the land. An example of a soil profile descrip- tion is given below. Austin Silty Clay - Map number 2X-26Cl The Austin soil is a dark, granular, strongly calcareous, Grumusol that has developed under a grass cover from chalk or chalky marls. The soil is moderately drained internally. These soils are located on gently sloping to undulating upland slopes. The Ap horizon is a grayish brown silty clay with a few very hard CaCO3 concretions. The A11 horizon and the A12 horizon are silty clay texture and strongly calcarious. These two horizons have blocky structure. The AC horizon is a pale brown silty clay and is very hard when dry. The C horizon is soft chalky marl and is extremely hard when dry. This horizon occurs at a depth of 44 to 72 inches. 2 In addition to the soil profile descriptions , selected engineering data is given for each soil type. An example of such information is given be- low for a Washtenaw silt loam soil found in Lake County, Indiana. Table 3. Engineering Data for Washtenaw Silt Loam1 Percolation rate, minutes per inch . . . . . . 60-90 Bearing strength, tons per square foot . . . . 1/2 - 1-1/2 Shrink-swell ratio . . . ........... Medium to High Corrosion potential (Concrete) ........ Low Susceptibility to frost action . . . ..... . Medium to Very High Water table depth. . . . . . . ........ Rises to surface seasonally 1 Munster, Indiana Soil Survey Report, p. 10. This kind of information is found in all of the local soil reports. Each of the major soil types in the area being surveyed are tested to determine the various engineering properties. This information is used by engineers, 2Soil Handbook for Soil Survey (San Antonio, Texas: Chamber of Com- merce, 1964), p. 135. l6 soil scientists, and some building contractors. To the average homeowner, however, this type of information has little meaning unless interpretations are made for them. In addition to the engineering data, the three local soil reports also had tables interpreting the soils for various uses. This information can be presented in different ways, but Table 4 illustrates one presentation commonly used. Table 4. Interpreting Soils for Alternative Usesl Map Soil Light Symbol Type Residence Recreation Industry Transportation Ba Bayboro loam unsuited unsuited unsuited unsuited Bf Bladen fine unsuited unsuited unsuited poor sandy loam Ch Charleston very good very good very good good sandy loam Ed Edista fine poor poor poor fair sandy loam Sk Seabrook very good good good good loamy sand 131113 Eustis loamy very good fair very good good sand Ma Made land ....... On-site investigation necessary ........ 1Adapted from Soil Resources for an Expandigg Population (Charleston County, South Carolina: Soil Conservation District, 1963), p. 12. The information given in Table 4 can be used by people not trained in soil science. They need only to find the type of soil on their land from a soil map, and then consult a table to interpret the alternative uses of the soil. This method of presenting soils information to urban-suburban homeowners 17 is very popular in local soil reports. Some county soil survey reports also report data in this form for interpretation. This will be discussed later in the chapter on page 21. In two of the local soil reports , the suitability of soils for specific plants were given. The purpose of these guides was to assist the home- owner in landscaping with plant materials that would grow in the existing soils around the home. Table 5. Generalized Tree, Shrub, and Vine Planting Guidel Ever- Growth Soil Plant green Deciduous Shade Foundation Height Spread Symbol Species Trees Trees Trees Planting (feet) 7289, Poplar X X 50 15 6329 , 12 39 , 6128 , 808 , Hazel 108 Adler X 20 20 Dwarf Purple Osier X X 3 3 Dogwood X 8 6 5282, Spruces X 40 25 7272 Poplar X X 50 15 Red Maple X X 60 35 Barberry X 4 4 Juniper X X 1—10 6—10 1Adapted from Munster, Indiana Soil Survey Report, p. 28. Table 5 illustrates how soils were interpreted and the information pre- sented to the homeowner in a form easily understandable. This kind of l8 presentation is also used for soils suitable for various recreational uses. The soil types are listed on one axis and the recreational use on the other axis. The suitability of the soil for a recreational use is then rated good, fair, or poor. County Soil Survey Reports Each of the eight county soil survey reports was published since 1961. They all contained similar types of material and their format was generally the same. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, these county soil survey reports were mainly interested in the agricultural uses of soils. The county reports , however, did have information beneficial to urban planners and to aid community development. All eight county soil survey reports received for this thesis had sec- tions describing soils and their engineering properties. Depth to bed rock, texture, shrink—swell potential, permeability, and other physical charac— teristics of the soil that influence soil engineering properties were given for the major soil types in the county. There were also sections in the re- ports describing the suitability of each soil type for engineering construc- tion, such as for ponds and building sites. Tables 6 and 7 give examples of these two sections found in the county soil survey reports. This information can be used by engineers and urban planners. Some information helpful to engineers can be obtained from the detailed soil map included with every county soil survey report. As Tables 3Soil Resources for an ExpandingLPopulation, p. 23. l9 .mw d AGE 6on0 9.5.5.5 EmEEo>oO .m .D ”coumcEmmzc tommm Noism 20m UCEEBZJECDOO copmcEmmg So: “Swamp/«H maofim “.chqu To 30H v .mnv . A m .oIN .o vn< 1:2 @3335 H Emoa “2m 5332 22 totem 3996.0. . odofim E memo mum SE m Sic .m N 5.2.. Sta .5 a; a émolflo agouemomm mmmm pmpem 38.83608 6qu “cmouod warm «392008 m Kim .m o .018 . 0L4 1H0 unv m Emofi Him 32.330 NOEQ maofim Smoked mum .Emofi Sod m .mnm .v o .Nno .o vu< 20 033.23 N >2m>mum cmcmnosm «Sm odofim ”:50qu mno 32 m g; .o o .mic .0 Ta 3% 838:? a 582 388 8.33 meg Hmficmboa A33 2:0: OEmdd UoEED 3mm: fiomb @802 3955 Swarm cofiomom Ema monocs cofimouflmmflo xogpon 298. .533 now Q22 nxcflcm KSSEMmEuom actmofimcm 3 Shea c9: 20mmom op ~3ng (I ll Hmmfltooem amoflmxfim pmumfifimm :93. new mdom .5 COEQCOmoD wmflm .m 2an 20 .moflwO 0:355 0.2085960 .m .D .Nm .0 .302 "coumcEmmzc NoPSm 20m 30309500 {3:200 puotmm Sod poudmpd‘ H uoom 39m 80m Boom Boom ham €03 .> 30303 0000 30A Loom uoom Boom @000 «mm awozumm poom 59m Loom doom Boom uoom .403 39.0.55 Boom €3me Boom 0000 :mm @000 mmH imm. 330m; Loom 59m Boom Boom Boom uoom 4.03 09533 0000 83002 :mm :mm Hoom :mm Dom imam cobxmm 0000 304 0000 @000 :mm Boom Ohm .mwm 323005 00050.5 cofioé @5090 .2353 :3 pmom 7.50.5 we 000m 20m 009 H0956 motmm 20m “moi .20“ 3:333m pom mofluflafimfism 20m 002 2030:5200 atom “032 0.05. 833888050 20m pcm mam: ocnmafiaam msom 8% :om 9: do 33%an may .5 838 I. tfiIlU 21 6 and 7 illustrate, much valuable information about the soil for nonagri- cultural uses is given in a modern county soil survey report. In addition to this basic soils data, some states include sections in the reports con- cerning other aspects of community development. In the Pennsylvania soil survey reports, soils are grouped together that have similar characteristics that effect building sites. 4 These building site groups list the soils of the county that are well suited for construction sites and those that are unsuited for construction sites. Four characteristics of the soil are used to place them into the various building groups. These soil properties are soil depth, drainage, permeability, and slope. Each group has certain characteristics that make it suitable or unsuitable for residential and commercial developments. The Maryland soil survey reports have soil groups for sewage disposal. 5 All soils in the county are placed into soil groups that are similar in suit- ability for septic tank filter fields. As with the building site soil groups', the four soil properties of soil depth, drainage, permeability, and slope were used to place the soils in the various sewage disposal groups. Once the soil type of a proposed septic tank filter field location is known, it is located under one of the sewage disposal groups which describe how suit- able the soil is for a filter field. 4 York County, Pennsylvania Soil Survey (Washington: U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1963), p. 41. E'MontgomerLCountyJ Maryland Soil Survey (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961), p. 89. 22 In all eleven of the soil reports studied, certain soil properties were consistently used to determine how soils could be utilized for nonagricul— tural development. Figure 1 lists these soil properties and the frequency they were used to evaluate soils for nonagricultural uses in both the county soil survey reports and the local soil reports. Soil drainage, texture, and percolation were used by all the soil survey reports. These three soil characteristics are very important, as evidenced by the frequency of their appearance in each soil survey report, in evaluating soils for nonagricul- tural uses, particularly when using the soil for building sites. Corrosion potential, water table depth, shrink-swell potential, and bed rock depth were used in over 80 percent of the soil survey reports for evaluating soils for nonagricultural uses. These properties are also very important in se- lecting sites for buildings , roads , and recreational areas as indicated by their repeated use in the literature. The remaining four soil properties, bearing strength, frost heave action, erosion, and soil structure were used by only 18 percent of the soil survey reports. This does not necessarily mean that these properties are unimpor- tant when considering soils for nonagricultural uses , but rather they are influenced by the other soil properties that are most often listed by soil survey reports. If a soil has a good texture for building sites (coarse tex— ture) the bearing strength of the soil will naturally be suited for building foundations. The reason is because the soil texture directly influences the bearing strength of the soils. 6 6Linda J. Bartelli, “Use of Soils Information in Urban-Fringe Areas , " Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 17 , No. 3 (June 1962) , p. 101. 23 000.3 Hmnsfisotmmcoz now 020m 0umgm>m ou m>0>§m 20m >0 000:. 003.0005 20m .H 0.53m 5.0005 20m nomm mmfiwb m>0>usm 20m “0 E00n0m om: mm om mm o P P _ \\\\\\\\\V\\\\\\\\\\\N\\NN\\\ 00050.5 _\\\\\\\\\\\\\N\\\\\\\\\\\N\\\ 0.3689 _\\\\\\\\\\\K\\\\\\\\\\K\\\\\ 0033088 _\\\N\\\\\\\\\\\\N\\\N\\\\K Hmflcgom coflmotoO _\\\\R\\\\\\\\\\\K\N\.\\\\N\\ 5009 0309 0ng m\\\\\\\\\\\\\N\\\\\K\K\\\u :aamianam _\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\N\\ fiamo V696me _\\\\\\\\\\\ 003m 1\ \\ \\\ 050.03% ~\\\.\ \\ 0030.5 —\\ \\ \ 0>m0m “mom N\\.\\ 590.5% octmmm $00.05 20m 24 Technical Soils Information The literature received for this thesis that was placed into the tech- nical soils information group related soil properties such as drainage, slope, texture, and other properties to how they influence engineering construction and urban development. Some of this information was written with little concern about the ease the data could be interpreted by people not trained in soil science. Only two of the fourteen pieces of literature received concerning tech- nical soils information for nonagricultural uses were from State Agricultural Experiment Stations. It is very possible, however, that much of the basic research that produced soils information used by the Soil Conservation Service originally came from the research of the State Agricultural Experi- ment Station. The Soil Conservation Service used this basic research and applied it to practical nonagricultural soil uses and problems. State Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Soil Information The State Agricultural Experiment Stations often prepare information about soils (for nonagricultural uses) that are found in a certain locality or area, such as a county or township. The soils of these areas are grouped into soil resource areas, and the suitability of each region for various uses is determined. "A soil resource area is an area of soils closely related in profile characteristics , in underlying material, and in topographic features. "7 7Richard Rust, Soil Resource Areas for Better Land-Use Plannirg (St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961), p. 3. 25 The soils are also similar in natural drainage and have similar percolation rates . An example of the major uses of soil resource areas can be used for is given below. 1. Agricultural Land-Use — This use involves the production of crops , either of a general or special kind. Water man— agement of the soils for this use is a very important con— sideration. The slope of the land and amount of erosion that has taken place are also important considerations. Residential Land-Use — The construction of homes or small lots and the construction of estate type homes on larger than one acre lots require different types of soils informa- tion. For homes on small lots , level topography, good permeability, and well-drained soils are important con- siderations in selecting the homesite. In the larger home- sites, the emphasis is mainly on aesthetic values, space, rolling topography, and the presence of trees. As with the smaller homesites, soil conditions affecting septic tank disposal systems and soil permeability are to be considered in rating the larger homesites. Industrial Land-Use -— The development of natural resources _ and the establishment of business enterprises , wholesale trading facilities, and other enterprises are included in this land-use. Major soil considerations are given to topography, drainage, bearing strength, and shrink-swell potential of the soils. Also, nearby sources of sand and gravel are desirable. 2’ Recreational Land-Use -'— This use involves soils that are suitable for park development, golf courses, wildlife sanc- tuaries, etc. Some wet sites are important to develop wild- life sanctuaries. Transportation — Soil properties of major consideration for this land-use are topography, stability of soil and substrata, and drainage. Good sources of gravel and topsoil are also important. 8Ibid. 26 These uses are rated for each soil resource area of the region under study. The soil resource areas are outlined on a map of the region, and the use ratings of each area are determined on the basis of the considera— tions above. This information is then presented in table form. In Table 8 the soil resource areas are rated in suitability from well adapted to unadapted. When possible, the combined judgment of soil scientists and soil engineers are used to make the evaluations and ratings. Table 8. Use Ratings of Soil Resource Areas1 _- —’ — 4“ F.— Source of Resource Residence Recrea- Trans— Sand and Area Agriculture Small Large Industry tion portation Gravel O O O O U none A A none none none none none OQDCDVOUU‘IAOONI—I QQQwawww OOOUOWOWP wobwwowwo OwOUOwOID'iV ww>>wwww0> owwoowwbb p..- 1Richard Rust, p. 6. A - Well adapted. B - Moderately well adapted. Limitations can be corrected. C - Poorly adapted. Limitations serious. D - Unadapted. Limitations serious to make usage unsound. This type of presentation is not hard to interpret. The researcher found that technical information published by the State Agricultural Experiment 27 Stations was presented in a form that was easily interpreted by people not trained in soil science. The vocabulary describing soil properties was simple and clear. Pictures and diagrams also helped express the ways soils information could aid nonagricultural development. A large portion of the soils information published by Agricultural Ex- periment Stations was closely related to septic tank disposal systems. "One of the major uses of soil survey information for areas of urban devel— opment is to locate areas of soil that are likely to have good, questionable, or poor potential for waste disposal by septic tank seepage fields and pits. "9 The Agricultural Experiment Station literature provided data concerning costs of installations, maintenance, and renewal of sewage disposal systems in different soils. The Soil Conservation Service literature, however, did not stress this type of information. Table 9. Hypothetical Cost Comparisons of Septic Tank Disposal Units Related to Soil Permeabilityl Seepage Field Total Disposal Soil Time (years) Cost (S) Unit Cost (9 Slowly permeable 12.5 1,430 1,981 Moderately permeable 17. 5 508 1,059 Permeable 27 . 5 212 762 1Olson, p. 39. 9Gerald W. Olson, Application of Soil Survey to Problems of Health, SanitationLand Engineering (Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell Uni- versity, Memoir 387, 1964), p. 18. 28 As indicated by Table 9 , soil permeability is an important factor when installing septic tank disposal systems. Not only will this type of pres- entation of soils information give homeowners an estimate of how much a septic tank disposal system will cost, it also points out the importance of knowing about soil properties before constructing disposal systems. Engineering uses of soils information and other uses of soils in urban development were mentioned in the literature reviewed, but they were not discussed in great detail. The technical soils information provided by the literature received from the State Agricultural Experiment Stations consisted primarily of the application of soils information to problems of septic tank performance and waste disposal. Soil Conservation Service Technical Soils Information The technical soils information received from the Soil Conservation Service can be placed into two groups: (1) in-service use material used by Soil Conservation Service personnel, and (2) bulletins and articles dis- tributed to the public. The first group consists of technical soils information prepared by the Soil Conservation Service and distributed to their personnel for use as guides to advise people when urban development soil problems arise. This information is for in-service use only and it is not freely available to the public. It is quite possible that much of the information would be of little value to homeowners without additional interpretation for them. The soils information in this first group was concerned about the 29 terminology of the soil characteristics involved in soil interpretations for nonagricultural uses. This information attempted to standardize terminology used to describe the value of soils for urban development. Table 18. Soil Percolation Rates and Classes1 Percolation Class Rate of Water Movement Very slow Less than . 2 inches per hour Slow . 2-. 63 inches per hour Moderate . 63-2. 0 inches per hour Rapid 2. 0—6. 3 inches per hour Very rapid More than 6. 3 inches per hour 1Soil Interpretations for Non-Agicultural Uses (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1962), p. 1. Information of this type does not indicate the optimum rate of water movement in soils for septic tank filter fields, but it does set up a stand- ard terminology that can be used for interpreting soils for septic tank filter fields and other nonagricultural uses. If the Soil Conservation Service interprets a soil in Indiana as having a rapid percolation rate, Soil Con- servation Service personnel in Ohio that are working with the same soil will know that its percolation rate is 2. 0-6. 3 inches per hour. The ex- change of soils information for nonagricultural development from one state to another is promoted by this type of standard terminology. Also in this group of soils information prepared by the Soil Conserva- tion Service, are correlations of soil properties to engineering character- istics of the soil that are important for building sites. Characteristics of .I=a".'_1— ,«w 30 the soil such as water table depth and bearing strength are important con- siderations when planning for urban development. Table 11. Soil Drainage Class Correlated With Water Table Depth and Duration (approximates)1 Drainage Class Water Table Depth and Duration Well Below 72 inches for more than 10 months per year Moderately well Below 30 inches for more than 9 months per year Somewhat poorly Below 15 inches for more than 8 months per year Poorly Below 15 inches for less than 6 months per year Very poorly Below 15 inches for less than 1 month per year 1Water Table (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Mississippi Supplement A, 1963), p. l. Since the drainage class of the soil is readily available, a building contractor can interpret water table depth by such a correlation as shown in Table 11. Water table depths are important when considering sites for homes, roads, industry, and sewage disposal systems. Table 12. Bearing Strength of Soils as Related to Soil Texture1 Bearing Strength Dry Site Wet Site Soil Texture (1,000 lbs. per sq. ft.) Sandy loam 6-Ba 6-8a Loam and silt loam 6—9 4-6 Silty clay loam 4—8a 3-6a Silty clay 10—12 1-3 1Lindo I. Bartelli, "Use of Soils Information in Urban-Fringe Areas, " Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 17, No. 3 (May 1962), p. 101. a Test values. 31 When soil texture is determined, an estimate of the bearing strength can be obtained. This estimate could prevent construction on a soil that was unsuited for any type of a building. Table 13 is a partial listing of engineering properties of soils. These properties can be deduced from the respective soil characteristics that are most important in determining a specific engineering property. Table 13. Partial List of Engineering Properties of Soils and Their Soil Characteristic Determinants, Ela Township, Lake County, Illinois1 Soil Characteristics Engineering Properties and Properties Undisturbed Soil Metal conduit corrosion potential. . . . .Texture, pH, drainage Suitability for road subgrades. . . . . . .Drainage, texture, clay type, organic matter content Suitability for building foundations . . . . Drainage, texture, clay type, organic matter content Susceptibility to frost action . . . . . . .Drainage, texture Shrink-swell potential . . . . . . . . . .Texture, clay type, organic matter content Percolation rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . .Texture, and structure ofBand C horizons Trafficability (non-vehicular) . . . . . . .Surface texture, drainage, and permeability Disturbed Soil Suitability as fill material . . . . . . . .Texture, clay type, organic matter content Suitability as topsoil. . . . . . . . . . .Texture, organic matter content Suitability as lining material for water storage units . . . . . . . . . . .Texture, organic matter content 1Bartelli, p. 101. 32 The second group of technical soils information consists of bulletins and articles prepared by the Soil Conservation Service to aid homeowners with soil problems. Most of this information is distributed to the public through agriculture information bulletins. Some articles prepared by Soil Conservation Service personnel also appear in magazines (such as the Mirnal of Soil and Water Conservation, Soil Conservation, and The Farm Quarterly). Although the information included in these bulletins describe how soil properties influence the use of the land for nonagricultural development, like the State Agricultural Experiment Station information it is written in a form the average homeowner can understand. Soils suitable for septic tank filter fields were discussed in over 50 percent of the Soil Conservation Service bulletins and articles, reviewed for this thesis, that were prepared for the public. The technical soils in- formation from the State Agricultural Experiment Stations and the Soil Con- servation Service discussed the application of soils to sewage disposal systems (see page 27). This use of soils information, as indicated by the number of articles written on soils suitable for sewage disposal, is very important and is recognized by the Experiment Stations and Soil Conserva— tion Service as being an important nonagricultural soils use problem. The different types of septic tank installations were diagramed and explained in terms the average homeowner could understand. Diagrams and pictures were used extensively to show how soil properties affect sewage disposal 33 systems. 10 The literature explained how each soil property influenced the use of the soil for nonagricultural development, and that one soil feature could cause the land to be unsuited for certain kinds of development. This literature also explained how the homeowner could examine his soil to get an idea of its potential use for various kinds of development. In addition to the literature mainly concerned about soils suitable for septic tank filter fields , the Soil Conservation Service published informa- tion about conserving soil in suburban areas. Suburban dwellers must cope with unnatural amounts of runoff water because of extensive areas covered with buildings , roads , and other construction that inhibits water infiltra- tion into the soil. 11 The literature about conserving soil in suburban areas described dam- ages that could occur if soils were not correctly managed in these urban areas. Different planning measures were discussed that suburban home- owners could incorporate into their own home situations. The importance of selecting proper soils for building sites was always stressed in this type of literature. In summarizing the technical soils information received for this thesis, it is evident that both the Soil Conservation Service, and the State Agri- cultural Experiment Stations prepare and publish soils information to guide 10William Bender, Soils Suitable for Septic Tank Filter Fields (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Agriculture Informa- tion Bulletin 243, 1961), p. 3. 11Soil Conservation at Home (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin 244, 1962), p. 3. 34 homeowners in selecting sites for nonagricultural developments. In addi- tion to this type of information, the Soil Conservation Service prepares soils information to guide their personnel in interpreting soils for nonagri— cultural development. This information, however, is of little value for the average homeowner and is intended to be used by trained soil scientists to aid others in selecting specific soil sites for certain uses. Uses of Soil Survey Information The literature reviewed that discussed the various uses of soil survey information for nonagricultural development from the Soil Conservation Serv— ice and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations were very similar. Be- cause the literature prepared by the two organizations provided the same type of information, they will be discussed together. The literature that discussed the uses of soil survey information al— ways brought out the importance of such information for agricultural appli- cation. However, most of the bulletins and papers were mainly concerned about how soil survey information could aid urban development. New uses for basic soils information and new applications involving soil engineering, soil mechanics, forest soils , and land planning for urban uses, are being brought into focus through the standard soil survey. Planning for a good community must take into account the many poten- tials and limitations of the soil. Basic facts about soil surveys are prepared 12Frank G. Loughry, "Soil Science Serves All of Pennsylvania, " Pro- ceedings of the Pennsylvania Academy of Science, Vol. 37 (1963), p. 19. 35 by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the local, State Agricultural Experiment Station of the particular area concerned in the report. These soil survey reports are de— veloped to provide four major purposes. (1) A recording of basic soil facts - including a map drawn on an aerial photograph showing the location of each kind of soil, and a report describing precisely the characteristics of each. (2) An explanation of the basic facts and their application to such things as agriculture, engineering, and program planning. (3) Specific answers to such questions as soils best suited for growing crops or trees, how large a disposal field is needed for septic tanks, desirability for building sites , and value for roadbed material. (4) To act as an aid in future orderly development of agriculture and industry. It guides the utilization of the land intelligently and strengthens the ability to support an ever growing popula— tion. From the literature reviewed it was found that there are many uses for soil survey information. In Virginia, the soil survey was of assistance in locating: radio towers; radar stations; airports; roads; power lines, telephone cables, gas lines; quarries; community dwellings; hospitals; schools; shopping centers; fields for special crops; septic tank seepage fields; tile drains; open ditches; ponds; planting sites for ornamentals; road building material, fill material, sand, and gravel; spring developments; cemeteries; land for prospective buyers; archeological excavations; and even soil for growing mushrooms. 14 13The Spotlight Is On Michigan Soils (East Lansing, Michigan: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, and Michigan Agri- cultural Experiment Station), p. 2. 14Gerald W. Olson, Application of Soil Survey to Problems of Health, Sanitation, and Engineering (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Agri- cultural Experiment Station Memoir 387, March 1964), p. 13. 36 The materials reviewed for this thesis stressed four main uses of soil survey information to aid nonagricultural development. These four uses are: (1) finding soils suitable for waste disposal by septic tanks, (2) an- alyzing soil engineering properties, (3) aiding planning commissions, and (4) guiding real estate brokers to select proper sites for various land uses. This literature gave no technical advice as how to select soils for certain uses, but rather gave examples of how soil survey information can aid or has aided urban development in the past. Two of these examples are given below. A school board purchased 25 acres as a site for a new high school at the cost of $20, 000, designed the building, and let the contract for about 1. 3 million dollars. The builder en- countered poor footing conditions and renegotiated the con- tract for stabilizing the foundation. The cost was more than $230, 000 above normal cost— enough money to pay for 3 soil surveys of the entire county, to hire a county soil scientist for 23 years at $10, 000 per year, to build a much-needed eight- room elementary school, or to reduce the tax rate for the entire county by 10¢ per $100 assessment. A study of the soils on the site later showed that the building could have been con- structed on solid ground a few hundred feet away. 15 In Stanford, Connecticut, a suggestion arose to convert a 30- acre swamp to a city dump. But property values nearby would be lowered. A study of a soils map showed the tract to be well suited for a recreational area. Some drainage was installed, and several ponds for wildlife were built. The people of the community now use this area for fishing, hiking, skating, and observing the wildlife attracted by the ponds. 16 15Verlin W. Smith, "A Realtor's Views About Soil Surveys , " Soil Con— servation, Vol. 26, No. 5 (December 1960), p. 108. 16A. A. Klingebiel, "Land Classification for Use in Planning, " p. 400. 37 The literature also attempts ". . . to educate the public as to the problems and limitations of land use. "17 The major purpose of the litera— ture is to explain how these "problems and limitations of land use" can be corrected or prevented by using available soil survey information. This is accomplished by describing how soil surveys are made and what soil properties and layers are analyzed to interpret the use of soils for nonag- ricultural development. Certain soil properties greatly influence the util- ization of the soil for a specific use. Soil percolation rates are necessary to determine if a soil is suitable for a septic tank filter field. The litera- ture brings out these facts and then illustrates how soil survey information can predict soil percolation rates. Many people can use soil survey information in their daily work. Health department officials , engineers , urban planners , and real estate brokers are only a few of the people who use soil surveys to guide nonag- ricultural development. The literature reviewed for this thesis indicated that these people utilize available soils data in their work more than others who work in nonagricultural jobs. 18 The way they use this information is different for each individual depending upon what use they want to make of the soil. The basic soils information, according to the literature re- viewed, that is found in soil survey reports can be interpreted to aid nearly all phases of nonagricultural development. 19 17Virginia Health Bulletin (Richmond, Virginia: State Department of Health, 1964), Vol. 16, Series 2, No. 9, p. 12. 188. S. Ob‘enshain and others , Soil Survey for Urban Planninland Other Uses (Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 538, 1962), p. 5. 19Olson, Using Soil Surveys for Problems of the Expanding Population in New York State, p. 20. 38 The literature received concerning the uses of the soil survey informa- tion for nonagricultural development was mainly concerned in educating the public. The objective of this material was to introduce to the public available soils information that will help guide urban development. CHAPTER IV EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN, FIELD ANALYSIS During the summer of 1964 this study was undertaken in the East Lansing area. The objectives of the study were to analyze home and in- dustrial sites and determine what soil physical features are prominant on these sites. From this information the researcher found what soil prop- erties were considered, or should have been considered, in the selection of the sites. This information was in turn related to the type of soil information available to people who select the sites for various uses, and to determine if the soil properties discussed in the literature were the same soil prop- erties that influenced the best utilization of the particular site. East Lansing is expanding around its outer areas as new homes are built. During the time period April 1, 1950 through April 1, 1960, East Lansing increased in population from 20, 325 to 30,198 (48. 6 percent). 1 A large number of people who created this population increase were housed in‘new homes. Most of these homes were constructed around the outer areas of the city. There were 3, 883 occupied housing units in 1950 and 6,967 occupied housing units in 1960. 2 This indicates an increase of lMichigan Statistical Abstract, Bureau of Business and Economic Re— search, and Graduate School of Business Administration (4th ed.; East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1962), p. 22. 2Ibid. , p. 217. 39 40 3, 084 (44 percent) homes during the past ten years. It is very probable that during the next ten years there will be more than 3, 084 homes con— structed. Many of these homes will be built on soils that are unsuited for construction unless the people building the homes are made aware of existing soils literature to help guide them in selecting their home sites. The sites used for this study were selected randomly and were within a radius of two miles from East Lansing, Michigan. Four soil character- istics were analyzed at each site — slope, texture, drainage, and erosion. Slope was determined with an abney hand level. Texture was determined by the field method (rubbing soil between fingers) and placed into five gen— eral texture groupings: (l) Coarse-textured soils ....... Sands, Loamy sands (2) Moderately coarse-textured soils . Sandy loam, Fine sandy loam (3) Medium-textured soils ....... Loam, Silt loam, Silt (4) Moderately fine—textured soils . . Clay loam, Sandy clay loam, Silty clay loam (5) Fine-textured soils . . . . . . . . Sandy clay, Silty clay, Clay Soil drainage was placed into three classes determined by mottling in the soil profile: 4 (1) Well drained ............ Little to no mottling above 18 inches. (2) Imperfectly drained ........ Mottling occurring above 18 inches into surface soil. (3) Poorly drained ........... Gray colored background throughout soil profile with mottlings occurring. 3Soil Survey Manual (U. S. Department of Agriculture, Handbook No. 18, August 1951), p. 213. 4Ibid., p. 171. 41 Erosion was also placed into three classes depending upon the amount of topsoil remaining: (1) Slight ............... All or nearly all of the original surface soil is present. (2) Moderate .............. Mixture of original surface soil and subsoil. (3) Severe . . . ............ Mainly subsoil, gullies may be present. The following two tables contain the data obtained from examining eighteen home sites and eleven industrial sites. From the four basic soil features examined, many characteristics of the soil can be determined that are useful for nonagricultural development. Bearing strength, frost-heave action, shrink-swell potential, corrosion potential, shearing resistance, and water table depth can be estimated from the four soil features examined. Table 14. Slope, Texture, Drainage, and Erosion on Home Sites Around East Lansing, Michigan Site Slope N0. (%) Texture Drainage Erosion 1 4 Mod. Fine Imperfect Slight 2 1 Fine Poor Slight 4 4 Mod. Fine Imperfect Slight 5 2 Mod. Fine Poorly Slight 7 2 Mod. Coarse Imperfect Slight 10 2 Mod. Fine Imperfect Slight ll 1 Fine Poor Slight 5mm!” p. 269. 6Field Manual of Soil Engineering (Lansing: Michigan State Highway Department, Iuly 1960), pp. 72-97. Table 14—-Continued 42 W Site Slope No. (%) Texture Drainage Erosion 13 6 Mod. Fine Well Slight 14 2 Med. Well Slight 20 8 Coarse Well Slight 25 1 Mod. Coarse Imperfect Slight 26 5 Med. Well Mod. 27 7 Med. Well Slight 28 4 Mod. Fine Well Mod. 29 2 Med. Imperfect Slight 33 5 Mod. Fine Imperfect Slight 34 2 Mod. Fine Well Slight 36 2 Mod. Fine Imperfect Slight Table 15. Slope, Texture, Drainage, and Erosion on Industrial Sites Around East Lansing, Michigan Site Slope No (%) Texture Drainage Erosion 3 1 Coarse Well Slight 6 2 Mod. Coarse Well Mod. 8 1 Organic Poor 9 2 Mod. Coarse Well Severe 12 2 Mod. Coarse Well Slight 15 1 Mod. Coarse Well Slight 16 1 Mod. Pine Imperfect Slight 19 2 Fine Imperfect Slight 31 2 Med. Well Slight 32 1 Mod. Coarse Well Slight 35 1 Mod. Pine Well Slight 43 Home sites were all located on soils with slopes of less than 8 per- cent. The level home sites require less grading, and thus less expense in home construction. The slope on industrial sites was even less, 2 per- cent being the maximum. From the above data, it is observed that slope is not a major problem for selecting home and industrial sites in the East Lansing area. Figure 1 (page 23) indicated that less than 40 percent of the soil surveys listed slope as a critical criteria when selecting soils for nonagricultural development. Those people selecting locations for such uses evidently realize the importance of considering slope as a criteria when selecting home and industrial sites. Textures were quite varied on the home sites studied. Home sites occurring on fine or moderately fine soils often have high corrosion poten- tial, high shrink-swell capacity, and low bearing strength. On these clayey soils it is more likely for foundations to settle and crack than on the coarse textured soils. Industrial sites tended to have coarser textured soils than the home sites. The heavy weight of industrial buildings require soils that will not settle or shrink and swell. On page 23 of this thesis (Figure l) , it is shown that 100 percent of the soil survey reports reviewed listed soil texture as an important consideration when determining a 5011's use for nonagricultural development. Table 14 illustrates that quite a few homes are built on soils that are not best suited for this type of use, and Figure 1 illustrates that information is available to the homeowner to in- form him about what soil textures are best suited for home sites. 44 Less than one—half of the home sites were located on well drained soils. As Figure 1 points out, information is available to show the home- owner the importance of well drained soils for building sites. One reason so many home sites were built on poorer drained soils was because sewer lines were used for sewage disposal, and septic tank filter fields were not necessary. The industrial sites were nearly all located on well drained soils , probably because available soils information was used to select the potential sites. Erosion was not a problem on the home or industrial sites. The sites selected would probably not be subjected to gullies and would support veg- etation for landscaping. Figure 1 shows that erosion was listed by less than 20 percent of the reports. This indicates that in many soil survey reports erosion was not considered extremely important for nonagricultural development, or that it was assumed that most people who acquire home sites and industrial sites select areas with no great erosion hazard. From the sites examined around East Lansing, it is evident that soil texture and drainage are the main soil properties that should be carefully analyzed when selecting a site for urban development. The topography in this area is not so steep as to present special problems for construction. Excessive erosion also is absent from this area and generally would not be a major factor in selecting construction sites. Much of the area around East Lansing has sandy soils. Usually a coarse textured soil is well suited for urban development. Only when the 45 texture of the soil is clayey or high in silts does texture become a major limitation for urban development in this area. Bright colored surface and subsoils are indications of well drained soils around the East Lansing area. When the surface or subsoil becomes grey in color or has grey mottles , the soil has limitations for urban devel- opment. Basements may fill with water and septic tank filter fields are slow to work in imperfectly drained soils with grey colored subsoils. Some organic soils (muck, peat) occur in localized areas around East Lansing. These soils should be avoided for any type of construction un- less special measures are taken which may be very costly. CHAPTER V SUMMARIZING THE STUDY Summary The objectives of this thesis were to determine the nature and extent of soils information available to aid in developing lands for nonagricultural uses and to discover agencies and organizations preparing and dissemi— nating information relative to this subject. These objectives were accom- plished by analyzing literature interpreting soils information for nonagri- cultural uses obtained from state Soil Conservation Service offices and State Agricultural Experiment Stations. The reviewed literature from the Soil Conservation Service and State Agricultural Experiment Stations indicated that 95 percent of the soils in- formation about nonagricultural development originated from the region East of the Mississippi River in heavily populated areas. Much of the in— formation prepared by the Soil Conservation Service, however, could be used in all parts of the United States. The Agricultural Experiment Station literature was oriented more toward local areas such as states , counties , and townships. Three main groups of subject matter obtained from the literature was analyzed— soil survey reports, technical soils information, and uses of soil survey information. Both county soil survey reports and local soil reports contained information applying to urban soil problems. The county 46 47 soil survey reports, however, contained 76 percent of information pertaining to agricultural uses of the soil. The local soil reports were nearly 100 per— cent devoted to nonagricultural uses of soils. Most of the soils informa- tion in these reports was presented in a form that the average person could understand. The soil engineering information, however, would require a trained engineer or soil scientist to interpret the data. The technical soils information— relating soil properties to how they influence construction (engineering) and urban development — prepared by the State Agricultural Experiment Stations consisted mainly of the influence of various soil properties to septic tank filter field performance and waste disposal systems. In addition to explaining how soil properties influence waste disposal systems for the public, the Soil Conservation Service pre- pared soils information to guide their personnel in interpreting soils for nonagricultural development. This information is of little value to the homeowner, but it does standardize the terminology used by soil scientists when interpreting soils for urban development. Literature prepared by the Soil Conservation Service and State Agricul- tural Experiment Stations that described the many uses of soil survey in- formation was mainly concerned about how soil survey information could aid urban development. Four major uses of soil survey information were stressed: (l) finding soils suitable for waste disposal by septic tanks, (2) analyzing soil engineering properties, (3) aiding planning commissions, and (4) guiding real estate brokers to select proper sites for various land 48 uses. Educating the public to realize how soil survey information can help guide orderly urban development was an important objective of this information. The same soil properties examined in the East Lansing Field Analysis, influencing septic tank filter field operation and urban development, were also listed and discussed in the literature interpreting soils for nonagri- cultural uses. These soil properties were texture and drainage. The soil properties not as important in selecting sites for homes or industries, such as slope and erosion, were not extensively discussed. The researcher found that soil properties included in the literature were also the important soil characteristics to analyze around East Lansing when selecting sites for nonagricultural uses. This indicates that litera- ture interpreting soils for urban development is prepared, but it must be made available in a form the public can use before it is used effectively. Conclusions and Recommendations The two articles examined for this thesis prepared by Gerald Olson of Cornell University, Application of Soil Survey to Problems of Health, San- itation, and Engineering and Using Soil Surveys For Problems of the Ex- pandirpq Pomlation in New York State, are good examples of the types of soils literature being published to guide urban development. These bul- letins have two main purposes , (l) to illustrate how soil survey informa- tion can be used for urban development, and (2) to examine physical soil properties and how they influence engineering properties (such as percola— tion rates). 49 The bulletin Using_Soil Surveys For Problems of the Expanding Popu- lation in New York State explains what soil surveys are and how they are made. It also provides many ideas and examples of how soil survey in- formation has aided various cities or counties. This information is written in terms easily understood by people not trained in soil science and illus— trates to them how soils information can aid nonagricultural as well as ag- ricultural uses of soils. Many pictures and diagrams are used to make the material understandable and pleasant to read. Simple methods to determine soil percolation rates (an important engineering property for urban devel- opment) are diagrammed and shown how to be constructed from material easily obtainable. Also included in this bulletin is an explanation of where additional soil survey information can be secured, and what profes- sional people can aid in nonagricultural soils problems. Application of Soil Survey to Problems of Health, Sanitation, and En- gineering illustrates the second purpose of soil literature for nonagricul— tural development—that is , examining soil properties and how they influ- ence engineering construction and problems of sanitation. This bulletin explains what soil properties are mostimportant when selecting sites for urban uses. The various ways soil properties influence the operation of septic tanks and other waste disposal systems are also discussed. The problem of waste disposal occurs in nearly every community, and this bul- letin gives special attention to the problems of sanitation. Information that is recorded on soil maps and accompanying reports is interpreted and 50 explained in this bulletin. The importance of coordinating soils informa- tion with other data (such as population growth, employment, land use, and water sources) is considered with regards to developing area and re- gional plans. From the literature reviewed and the response from 35 percent of the state Soil Conservation Service offices, the researcher concludes that no new soil classification system is needed to rate soils for nonagricultural uses. The system now in use to rate soils for agricultural uses can be adapted and soils interpreted from it for nonagricultural development. It is also concluded from the literature reviewed that there are certain soil properties that are of particular importance when selecting areas for nonagricultural development. These soil properties are (l) texture, (2) percolation rate, (3) drainage, (4) soil depth, and (5) slope. Although other physical soil properties are important, these are among the most critical for selecting sites for nonagricultural uses. From these soil prop- erties, such engineering properties as bearing strength, water table depth, shrink—swell potential, and corrosion potential can be determined. The soils information found in new soil surveys provide guidance for urban development. County soil survey reports can be used by the average person in selecting sites for homes. Local soil reports provide the same type of information and are excellent guides for urban development in the areas for which they were prepared. Many areas , however, do not have modern soil surveys completed. A set of criteria to analyze a 3011's use for various nonagricultural developments is needed. 51 This set of criteria would have to analyze soil properties (such as texture, drainage, percolation rate, and soil depth) that determine how well suited the soil is for nonagricultural uses. The criteria must be simple to interpret and easy to understand by people not trained in soil science. This informa- tion would then need to be widely distributed and made available to any- one interested in selecting a site for nonagricultural development. Much literature is prepared for the public explaining how soil survey information can aid urban development. There are many people, however, that still do not realize what a soil survey is or how this type of informa- tion can benefit a community. The East Lansing Field Analysis illustrated this by showing how many home sites were built on soils that had limita- tions for urban construction. More literature is needed prepared in a simple form and published in popular reading media discussing the uses of soil survey information for urban development. It is necessary to educate the public that there is a need and a use for soil survey information in urban areas. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ahlriche, J. L. and Others. Soil Judging in Indiana. Cooperative Exten- sion Circular 526, Purdue University, 1962. An Introduction to the Forest Soils of the Douglas Fir Region of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle, Washington: Soils Committee of the Douglas Fir Region, University of Washington, August 1957. Bryan, Robert, William J. Kimball, and Others. Findingthe Facts on Land and People in Michigan Townships. Urban—Suburban Conservation Committee, Michigan Chapter, Soil Conservation Society of America, 1963. Engineering Soil Classification for Residential Developments. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, Federal Housing Administration Bul- letin 373, November 1961. EngineeririTest Data and Interpretation for Major Soils of Wisconsin. Madison, Wisconsin: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva- tion Service, January 1964. Field Manual of Soil Engineering. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State Highway Department, July 1960. Hill, R. G. and I. F. Schneider. Land Judging in Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin E-326, March 1964. Huddleston, J. H. and G. W. Olson. Urban Soil Survey of the Village of Whitney Pointy New York. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Ag- ronomy Department, July 1963. Kellogg, Charles E. Advisory Notice W—626. Washington: U. S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, August 15, 1962. Matelski, R. P. Percolation Rates in Soils. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station, October 30, 1962. Michigan Statistical Abstract. 4th ed. East Lansing: Michigan State Uni- versity Bureau of Business and Economic Research, and Graduate School of Business Administration, 1962. 52 53 Minimum Propefiy Standards for One and Two Story Living Units. Wash- ington: U. S. Government Printing Office, Federal Housing Adminis- tration Bulletin No. 300, 1963. Regan, Mark M. and H. H. Wooten. "Land Use Trends and Urbanization, " Yearbook of Agriculture, 1963: A Place to Live. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963. Salter, L. A. Jr. "Land Classification Along the Rural—Urban Fringe, " First National Conference on Land Classification, Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 421, 1940. Soil Survey Manual. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, Ag- riculture Handbook No. 18, August 1951. The Spotlight is on Michigan Soils. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, East Lansing, Michigan. Tipps, C. W. and C. P. Murphy. "Cooperative Soils Data on Aerial Photos Aid Engineers, " Pipeline Industry (Magazine), October 1963. United States Congress, Senate. Agriculture Appropriations for 1964. 88th Congress, lst Session, H.R. 6754, 1963. APPENDICES 54 APPENDIX A SAMPLE OF LETTER SENT TO STATE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE OFFICES AND STATE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIONS MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing 48823 Department of Resource Development August 17 , 1964 Mr. Olin C. Medlock Soil Conservation Building Alabama Polytechnic Institute Campus P. O. Box 311 Auburn, Alabama 36830 Dear Mr. Medlock: The Department of Resource Development here at Michigan State is involved in a project which will attempt to develop a soil classification system for urban and nonagricultural land use. I have been assigned to this project. A number of soil scientists in different parts of the United States have done research in this area. I hope it will be possible for you to send me any information your organization has published either in bulletin or mimeo— graphed form. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely yours , Donald E. Van Meter Graduate Research Assistant DEV:dm 55 APPENDIX B LISTING OF LITERATURE USED FOR ANALYSIS Soil Survg/ Report 5 Chester and Delaware Countieg, Pennsylvania Soil Survey Report. Wash— ington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963. Hart County, Georgia Soil Survey Report. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963. Hartford CountyLConnecticut Soil Survey Report. Washington: U. S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, 1962. Lake CounthSoils, Illinois. Privately printed, 1964. Lehigh County, Pennsylvania L_Soil Survey Report. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963. Montgomery County, Maryland Soil Suryey Report. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1961. Munster, Indiana Soil Survey Report. Munster, Indiana: Chamber of Com- merce, 1964. Soil Handbook for Soil Survey. San Antonio, Texas: Chamber of Commerce, 1964. SoiLResources for an Expanding Population. James Island, Charleston County, South Carolina: Charleston Soil Conservation District, 1963. Washipgton Countpraryland Soil SurveLReport. Washington: U. S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, 1962. York County, Pennsylvania Soil Survgy R_eport. Washington: U. S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, 1963. Technical Soils Information A General Guide for Preparing EngineerirELTables in Soil Survey Reports. Urbana, Illinois: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, 1964. (Mimeographed) Unpublished. 56 S7 Bartelli, Linda J. "Use of Soils Information in Urban-Fringe Areas," our- nal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 17, No. 3 (June 1962). Bender, William. Soils Suitable for Septic Tank Filter Fields. Washing- ton: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Ag- riculture Information Bulletin No. 243, 1961. General Guide to Soil Survey Interpretations in Urban and Urban-Fringg Areas. Washington: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conserva- tion Service, 1962. (Mimeographed) Unpublished. Loughry, F. Glade. "Matching Up Septic Systems to Soil Types, " Penn- sylvania Farmer, July 11, 1964, pp. 12-13. Mallonen, Edward and Robert Bryan. "Using Soils Data in Park Planning, " Parks and Recreation, June 1963. Morris, John G. and Others. "For Septic Tank Design, Soil Maps Can Substitute for Percolation Tests , " Public Works Magazine, February 1962. Olson, Gerald W. Application of Soil Survey to Problems of Health, San- itation, and Engineering. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Ag- ricultural Experiment Station Memoir 387, March 19 64. Rust, Richard. Soil Resources Areas for Better Land-Use Planning. St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, Jan- uary 1961. Soil Conservation at Home. Washington: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Agriculture Information Bulletin 244, 1962. Soil Corrosivity. Washington: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Con— servation Service, July 1964. (Mimeographed) Unpublished. Soil Interpretations for Nonagricultural Uses. Concord, New Hampshire: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, July 1962. (Mimeographed) Unpublished. Wildlife Section, Teton County, Idaho Soil Survey Report. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1965. Uses of Soil Survey Information Clayton, J. W. and Others. Use of Soil Survey in Designing Septic Sewagg Disposal Systems. Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Agricultural Experi- ment Station Bulletin 509, August 1959. 58 Dale, Torn. "Under All is the Land," Soil Conservation, October 1957, pp. 51-56. Hill, David E. and Arthur E. Shearin. Soils and Urban Development in Hartford County. New Haven, Connecticut: Agricultural Experiment Station Circular 209, February 1960. Jones, Herbert I. "Soil Surveys Save Money for City of the Alamo, " Soil Conservation, Vol. 20, No. 4 (November 1962), pp. 77-79. Klingbiel, A. A. "Bases for Urban Development: Air, Soil, Water, " Planning (The American Society of Planning Officials), 1963, pp. 40-47. Klingbiel, A. A. "Land Classification for Use in Planning, " Yearbook of Agriculture, 1963: A Place to Live. Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1963. Loughry, P. Glade. "Soil Science Serves All of Pennsylvania, " Proceedings of the Penngrlvania Academy of Science, Vol. 37 (1963). Marshall, R. M. "Soil Surveys are Guides for Many Urban-Area Develop- ments," Soil Conservation, Vol. 29, No. 4 (November 1963). Nation Cooperative Soil Survey. University Park, New Mexico: Agricul- tural Extension Service, Circular 315, December 1960. Obenshain, S. S. and Others. Soil Survey for Urban Planning and Other Uses. Blacksburg, Virginia: Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 538, October 1962. Olson, Gerald W. Using Soil Surveys for Problems of the Expanding Pop- ulation in New York State. Ithaca, New York: Cornell Extension Bul- letin1123, March 1964. Quay, John. "Lake County Uses Soil Survey in Planning Its Urban Areas , " Soil Conservation, Vol. 29, N0. 5 (December 1963), pp. 99-102. Robinson, Glenn H. and Others. "The Use of Soil Survey Information in an Area of Rapid Urban Development, " Soil Science Society of America Proceedings, Vol. 19, No. 4 (October 1955), pp. 502-504. Smith, Verlin W. "A Realtor's Views About Soil Surveys, " Soil Conservation, Vol. 26, No. 5 (December 1960), pp. 106-108. Virginia Health Bulletin. Richmond, Virginia: State Department of Health, Vol. 16, Nos. 9 and 10 (January 1964).