vwas”. ‘ LIBRARY Michigan State Univmty This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Computer-Assisted Approach For Preparing Rat1ngs of Soil Potential For Urban Land Use Management presented by Marc Jay Rogoff has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Resource Development W Major professor Date April 30, 1979 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to book drop-to remove this checkout from your record. A COMPUTER-ASSISTED APPROACH FOR PREPARING RATINGS 0F SOIL POTENTIAL FOR URBAN LAND USE MANAGEMENT By Marc Jay Rogoff A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Resource Development 1979 ABSTRACT A COMPUTER-ASSISTED APPROACH FOR PREPARING RATINGS OF SOIL POTENTIAL FOR URBAN LAND USE MANAGEMENT By Marc Jay Rogoff For more than 15 years soil interpretations have followed a general procedure of rating soils by limitations. Yet, these ratings do not necessarily indicate suitability since some limiting soil properties may not absolutely restrict certain land uses. It has been very common for a community to survey its soils only to find that almost all soils have severe limitations for different land uses. Rather than pointing out problems, emphasis in soil interpretations should be shifted to a more rewarding discussion of feasible alternatives and their costs for best achieving develop- ment potential. Soils within a given area could then be arranged according to their potential for a particular use, with statements as to what designs are needed to overcome the limitations, and the continuing problems after treatment. This study was concerned with developing a set of techniques which would help prepare soil potential ratings for urban land uses and communicate these interpretations to soil survey users. The Marc Jay Rogoff techniques developed were illustrated by a test conducted in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan. A systematic procedure was employed to numerically rate a soil's potential for the following land uses: (l) septic tank filter fields for on-site waste disposal; (2) residential roads and streets; (3) residential dwellings with basements; (4) residential dwellings without base- ments; and (5) excavations for residential waterlines. A thorough investigation of the literature was undertaken to identify construction designs and development costs needed to overcome soil limitations for these five land uses. Construction trade organizations, individual contractors, and state, and local governmental agencies were contacted to obtain this information. Estimates were made of continuing limitations remaining after devices have been installed to correct soil hazards. A three- class system, employing the terms, "slight," "moderate," and "severe," was used to indicate the severity of these continuing limitations. The rating of a given soil in such a system signified the degree to which soil hazards have been corrected or overcome by special designs or treatments, and a prediction of the cost and level of maintenance required for their upkeep. Data collected were entered into an existing natural resource inventory for Windsor Township which contained a soils and land use data bank assembled using a lO-acre dot grid. A computer software system, RAP (Resource Analysis Package), was used to assist in the retrieval, manipulation, and analysis of this spatially-encoded data. Marc Jay Rogoff Soil potential ratings for the land uses were generated with the aid of a multi-dimensional scaling program. Soil potential for a specific land use was defined as a function of the costs of construction practices required to overcome soil limitations and the continuing limitations remaining after treatment. The resulting soil potential index values (ranging from 0 to l00) were used to assign each soil to one of four qualitative classes of soil potential employing the terms, "excellent," "good," "fair," and I'poor." A computer grouping program was used to select statistically optimal class intervals for grouping the soils into the rating classes. A computer mapping program available in RAP helped draw interpretive maps illustrating soil potentials and limitations for each of the land uses. Results indicated that by applying different corrective measures to soils with severe limitations, the amount of suitable land for these uses may potentially be increased in Windsor Township. Land which may have been unsuitable for urban development may now be available, provided that certain corrective measures are applied to overcome soil hazards. Thus, urban growth can take place in large areas for which development has not previously been planned. The introduction of new innovative technologies to overcome these soil hazards invites serious questions regarding the impact on a region's land use regulations. To my father and the memory of my mother. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people have provided encouragement and assistance in Um development and completion of this study. To all these people Iextend my deepest gratitude. The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to his najor professor and dissertation director, Dr. Eckhart Dersch, Professor of Resource Development, for his friendship, guidance, and direction during the entire term of this author's doctoral program. Special thanks are expressed to the members of the author's guidance and dissertation committee: Dr. Delbert Mokma, Assistant Professor of Soil Science, Dr. Ronald Shelton, Associate Professor of Resource Development, Dr. Lawrence Sommers, Professor of Geography, and Dr. Eugene Whiteside, Emeritus Professor of Soil Science, for providing review and criticisms of the dissertation. Appreciation is extended to the many construction trade organizations and local contractors in the Lansing area who offered critical help and assistance during the study. The author would like to thank the personnel of the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, especially Dr. Donald McCormack and Dr. David Slusher, for their encouragement and suggestions during the research and writing of this document. ‘r.‘.-’I p our , ‘vod I I. r, '01' \, 'Vdvi 1 Ar! I .‘[_ l Sincere appreciation is extended to Mrs. Kathy Bailey for typing and to Mr. J. Paul Schneider for his help in the design and preparation of the graphics in this report. The author is also indebted to the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (through AES Project l098) and the Department of Resource Development for providing financial assistance in the form of research assistantships and the opportunity given for further study. Lastly, the author sincerely appreciates the understanding and moral support of his father who gave the author great encourage- ment throughout his entire graduate program without which this work would surely not have been completed. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES . LIST OF APPENDICES . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem . Problem Statement . Objectives of the Study . Description of the Study Area Physiography . Topography and Drainage Soils . Land Use Population . . . Overview of the Study . II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The Soil Potential Concept . . Quantitative Movement to Derive the Ratings . Soil Potential Task Force . . . Guidelines for Preparing the Ratings Computerized Soil Maps . . Grid- based Encoding of Soil Maps. Experimentation with Computer Display Devices Modifications to Grid- Based Encoding Summary . . . . . . . III. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES Preparation of Soil Potential Ratings Land Use and Soil Properties . Data Collection . . Page viii xiii XV —l £003th 13 29 31 31 34 34 39 47 50 59 61 65 67 72 74 74 75 85 Chapter Recording Data for Computer Input Generating Soil Potential Indices Assignment of Qualitative Ratings Development of Computer Masterfile . Data Analysis Process . . . Data Retrieval from the Masterfile . Development of the Analysis Strategy . Production of Computer Maps and Statistics Summary . . . . . . . . IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION On-Site Waste Disposal . . Corrective Measures and Continuing Limitations . Cost of Corrective Measures . . . Computer Output Residential Roads and Streets . . Corrective Measures and Continuing Limitations . Cost of Corrective Measures . . . Computer Output Residential Dwellings with Sanitary Sewers and Basements . Corrective Measures and Continuing Limitations . Cost of Corrective Measures . . . Computer Output Residential Dwellings with Sanitary Sewers and. without Basements . Corrective Measures and Continuing Limitations . Cost of Cerrective Measures . . . . Computer Output . Residential Waterlines . Corrective Measures and Continuing Limitations . Cost of Corrective Measures . . . Computer Output Time/Cost Parameters for Preparation and Display of Soil Potential Ratings . Summary . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . Summary of the Problem Summary of the Methods Summary of the Findings Uses and Limitations of this Study . . Assistance in State, Regional and Urban Growth Policies . . . . . . . vi Page 90 93 96 99 110 110 115 117 119 120 120 125 138 145 159 163 170 176 185 185 197 203 213 213 222 228 237 241 246 251 260 262 263 263 265 268 275 276 Chapter Page Private/Corporate Land Use Decisions . . . . . 277 Cooperative Extension Service . . . . . . . 278 Implications for Further Research . . . . . . . 280 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38l vii TABLE 1-1. 1-2. 1-3. 1-4. 2-1. 2-2. 2-3. 2-4. 3-1. 3-2. 3-3. 3-4. 3-5. 3-6. LIST OF TABLES Soil Management Groups of Soils in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . Acreage Distribution of Land Use/Cover Categories in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan Windsor Township Population Trends . Windsor Township Dwelling Unit Trends . Ratings of Soil Potential for Urbanization for Several Soils in St. Croix, Virgin Islands Soil Potential for Septic Tanks Filter Fields of Selected Soils in Tennessee . . Worksheet for Preparing Soil Potential Ratings . Example of Completed Worksheet for Preparing Soil Potential Ratings . . . . . . Rating Criteria for Soil Potential of Septic Tank Filter Fields for On-Site Waste Disposal Rating Criteria for Soil Potential of Residential Roads and Streets . . . Rating Criteria for Soil Potential of Residential Dwellings with Sanitary Sewers and Basements . Rating Criteria for Soil Potential of Residential Dwellings with Sanitary Sewers and without Basements Rating Criteria for Soil Potential of Excavations for Residential Waterlines Soil Limitations and Corrective Measures Used for Land Uses in Eaton County, Michigan viii Page 20 30 32 32 36 51 56 58 78 79 81 83 84 88 Table 3-8. 3-13. 4-1. 4-2. 4-3. 4-4. 4-5. 4-6. Guide for Preparing Ratings of Continuing Limitations Assignment of Soil Potential Classes by Ranges in the Soil Potential Index for Selected Land Uses in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . . . Numeric Coding Scheme for Soils Mapped in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . Numeric Coding Scheme for the Continuing Limitations Classification . . . . . . . . . . Numeric Coding Scheme for the Soil Potential Classification . . . . . . . Data Types and Data Sources Included in the Windsor Township File . . . . . . . . . Phases of RAP and Their Function Soil Potential Index and Rating of Soil Mapping Units for On-Site Waste Disposal in Eaton County, Michigan Minimum Absorption Area for Conventional Septic Systems in Square Feet per Bedroom as Indicated by Percolation Rates in Eaton County, Michigan Soil Limitations and Estimated Cost of Applying Different Corrective Measures for On-Site Waste Disposal in Eaton County, Michigan . Proportionate Extent and Approximate Acreage of Soils Classified by Soil Limitations and Potentials for On-Site Waste Disposal in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . . Soil Potential Index and Ratings of Soil Mapping Units for Residential Roads and Streets in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . Typical Thickness of Full-Depth Asphalt Pavements by Subgrade Class for Residential Roads and Streets in Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Limitations and Estimated Cost of Applying Different Corrective Measures for Residential Roads and Streets in Eaton County, Michigan . ix Page 9l 100 102 104 104 105 116 121 131 141 151 160 166 171 ’1 in! Table 4-9. 4-14. B1. 82. Proportionate Extent and Approximate Acreage of Soils Classified by Soil Limitations and Potentials for Residential Roads and Streets in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan . . . . Soil Potential Index and Ratings of Soil Mapping Units for Residential Dwellings with Sanitary Sewers and Basements in Eaton County, Michigan . Soil Limitations and Estimated Costs of Applying Different Corrective Measures for Residential Dwellings with Basements in Eaton County, Michigan . Pr0portionate Extent and Approximate Acreage of Soils Classified by Soil Limitations and Potentials for Residential Dwellings with Basements in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan . Soil Potential Index and Ratings of Soil Mapping Units for Residential Dwellings Without Basements in Eaton County, Michigan . Soil Limitations and Estimated Costs of Applying Different Corrective Measures for Residential Dwellings without Basements in Eaton County, Michigan Proportionate Extent and Approximate Acreage of Soils Classified by Soil Limitations and Potentials for Residential Dwellings without basements in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan . Soil Potential Index and Ratings of Soil Mapping Units for Residential Waterlines in Eaton County, Michigan Soil Limitations and Estimated Costs of Applying Different Corrective Measures for Residential Waterlines in Eaton County, Michigan Proportionate Extent and Approximate Acreage of Soils Classified by Soil Limitations and Potentials for Residential Waterlines without Basements in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan Average Unit Prices of Materials and Labor Used in Corrective Measures for On-Site Waste Disposal in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . Average Unit Prices of Materials and Labor Used in Corrective Measures for Residential Roads and Streets in Eaton County, Michigan X Page 180 186 198 208 214 223 232 244 247 256 302 303 2. h u 0 HIV D Table B3. B4. 85. C1. C2. C3. C4. C5. D1. 02. 03. E1. F1. F2. Average Unit Prices of Materials and Labor Used in Corrective Measures for Residential Dwellings with Basements in Eaton County, Michigan Average Unit Prices of Materials and Labor Used in Corrective Measures for Residential Dwellings without Basements in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . Average Unit Prices of Materials and Labor Used in Corrective Measures for Residential Waterlines in Eaton County, Michigan Corrective Measures and Their Costs for On-Site Waste Disposal in Eaton County, Michigan Corrective Measures and Their Costs for Residential Roads and Streets in Eaton County, Michigan Corrective Measures and Their Costs for Residential Dwellings with Basements in Eaton County, Michigan . Corrective Measures and Their Costs for Residential Dwellings without Basements in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . Corrective Measures and Their Costs for Residential Waterlines in Eaton County, Michigan Numeric Coding Scheme for Soil Drainage and Slope in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . Numeric Coding Scheme for Soil Management Groups in Windsor Township . . . . . . Numeric Coding Scheme for Land Cover/Use in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . . . . . . Windsor Township Master File Structure Soil Potential Ratings, Recommended Designs to Overcome Soil Limitations, and Continuing Limitations of Soils for On-Site Waste Disposal in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil Potential Ratings, Recommended Designs to Overcome Soil Limitations, and Continuing Limitations of Soils for Residential Roads and Streets in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . . xi Page 304 306 307 309 310 311 312 313 315 316 317 319 322 333 Table Page F3. Soil Potential Ratings, Recommended Designs to Overcome Soil Limitations, and Continuing Limitations of Soils for Residential Dwellings with Basements in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . 344 F4. Soil Potential Ratings, Recommended Designs to Overcome Soil Limitations, and Continuing Limitations of Soils for Residential Dwellings without Basements in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . 357 F5. Soil Potential Ratings, Recommended Designs to Overcome Soil Limitations, and Continuing Limitations of Soils for Residential Waterlines in Eaton County, Michigan 369 xii 1-2. I QIlV ‘(J A/L 1111' I ‘9' .11! 1 9-4 1.5 Figure 1—1. 3-2. 3-3. 3-4. 3-5. 4-1. 4-3. 4-4. 4-5. LIST OF FIGURES Location of Windsor Township in Eaton County and Michigan . . . . Topography of Windsor Township Rivers, Drains, and Floodplains in Windsor Township Topography, Soils, and Underlying Material in Marlette-Capac-Parkhill Toposequence General Soils Map of Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . . . Worksheet for Recording Data for Preparing Ratings of Soil Potential . . . . . . . . . Geocoding Procedure Using Encoding of a Soil Map as an Example . . . . . . . . Grid Numbering System for Windsor Township File at a lO-Acre Cell Size . . . . . . . . Basic Flow Chart of Data Analysis Process Schematic Diagram of the RAP System Conventional Septic System for On-Site Waste Disposal Conventional Septic System on Sloping Site A Septic Tank-Mound System A Holding Tank System Computer-Drawn Interpretive Map Illustrating Soil Limitations for Dn-Site Waste Disposal in Windsor Township . xiii Page 10 14 16 23 26 92 107 109 111 113 127 132 135 139 146 .re '1 Q- 1 I 1 1-6. EL”! 1 1'. flh.‘ '.§ :19; ‘ v Figure Page 4-6. Computer-Drawn Interpretive Map Illustrating Soil Potential for On-Site Waste Disposal in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l54 4-7. Computer-Drawn Interpretive Map Illustrating Land Use/Cover in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . l57 4-8. Typical Full- -Depth Asphalt Pavement Cross- Section for Residential Roads and Streets . . . . . . l64 4-9. Computer-Drawn Interpretive Map Illustrating Soil Limitations for Residential Roads and Streets in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . . . . . I77 4-l0. Computer-Drawn Interpretive Map Illustrating Soil Potential for Residential Roads and Streets in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . . . . . l83 4-ll. Drained Basement Design System . . . . . . . . 192 4-12. Undrained Basement Design System . . . . . . . l93 4-l3. Computer-Drawn Interpretive Map Illustrating Soil Limitations for Residential Dwellings with Basements in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . . . . 204 4-l4. Computer-Drawn Interpretive Map Illustrating Soil Potential for Residential Dwellings with Basements in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . . . . le 4-l5. Cross-Section of Type I and II Slabs-On-Grade . . . 218 4-l6. Computer-Drawn Interpretive Map Illustrating Soil Limitations for Residential Dwellings without Basements in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . 229 4-l7. Computer-Drawn Interpretive Map Illustrating Soil Potential for Residential Dwellings without Basements in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . . . . 235 4-l8. Placement of Waterline in Trench . . . . . . . 243 4-19. Computer-drawn Interpretive Map Illustrating Soil Limitations for Residential Waterlines in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 4-20. Computer-Drawn Interpretive Map Illustrating Soil Potential for Residential Waterlines in Windsor Township . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 xiv LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Descriptions of Soil Series in Eaton County, Michigan . 283 8. Average Unit Prices of Materials and Labor Used in Corrective Measures for Selected Land Uses in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . 30l C. Corrective Measures and Their Costs for Selected Land Uses in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . . 308 D. Numeric Codes for Soils and Natural Resource Data in Windsor Township File . . . . . . . . . . . 314 E. Windsor Township Master File Structure . . . . . . 3l8 F. Soil Potential Ratings, Recommended Designs to Overcome Limitations of Soils for Selected Land Uses in Eaton County, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . 32l XV CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Introduction to the Problem Historically, land in the United States was considered a free good and open to all those willing to devote their labor and skills to clear and work it. Government land policies encouraged disposal of a bulk of the public domain, especially favoring fee— simple ownership of this free or cheap land. Nearly everywhere settlers believed they were faced with virtually limitless areas of rich grasslands and took the soils on which they based their life dreams for granted. More often than not, luck played a large part in whether they found good soil or poor soil. By the l890's many farms in the west which were located on poor or marginal soils had failed miserably after only a few short years of prosperity. These mistakes made by the early settlers stimulated a greater awareness of the need to look at soil resources themselves. In l894 a Division of Agricultural Soils was initially organized within the United States Weather Bureau because of a great demand for information regarding the relation of soils to meterological conditions (USDA, l895, p. 26). The division was separated from the Weather Bureau in l895 and became an independent agency within tflie United States Department of Agriculture. Leadership for this 1611 31:1 331.2". Ca titre) ' 5671 511‘ 176151111 1":‘f 'I .1... E! new public agency was given to a young, energetic professor from South Carolina, Milton Whitney. According to Cline (1977) it was Whitney who was principally responsible for establishment of the Soil Survey in the United States and is his “lasting monument." Traveling through the northwest United States during August 1897, Whitney and Thomas Means, an assistant in the division, constructed a "detailed, large-scale alkali map" of an area near Billings, Montana (Whitney and Means, 1898). This was the nation's first soil survey. The practical applications of this early map so favorably impressed Whitney that he requested establishment of field parties to map on-site soil characteristics. The request was granted by Congress and the organized soil survey had its beginning in 1899 with the completion of three county surveys in widely scattered locations published at scales of one inch to the mile (Whitney, 1900). The objectives of the Soil Survey have changed significantly throughout the years. The purpose of the early field operations was to provide maps for soil selection with emphasis on the adaption of soils to various cr0ps. However, the predictive statements con- tained in these early county reports were quite general and contained very little specific information for users about management of soils. Kellogg (1961) indicates that most were little more than "descriptive statements based on field observations made during the course of field mapping." As the survey progressed, the trend has been towards including in the reports more precise statements about soils, predicting yields of adapted crops, grasses, or trees, and tiieir probable responses under defined sets of management practices. vale pr- "117129 13m: 156 in 11715; tnat *1 in: “”1194; Pihl 1". 1:11.111. '5": IV' 1., 0"?“ ‘ 'JVJ . I " O‘ 1. 3011 SJ O\“ 4.7013 'PA ”(“56 v: ,‘Cr‘ " h R“ an M m: Although the original purpose of soil surveys was to help make predictions chiefly in the agricultural field, people soon realized that soil maps were immensely valuable for uses other than agriculture. Early efforts in the United States centered on their use in guiding civilian highway construction and in defense planning (Kellogg, 1966). After World War II, it was increasingly apparent that the data contained in soil surveys not only could be used for providing information about agronomic purposes, but also to predict behavior of soils for various urban land uses. The Soil Survey of Fairfax County, Virginia (Porter, gt_al;, 1963) is one of the earliest and most notable examples in which soil survey information was utilized for making urban soil interpre- tations. Although rather commonplace today, inclusion of multi- purpose soil interpretations in a county report for both agricultural and urban land uses was a marked departure from previous surveys. Commenting on this report, Cain (1967) concluded that: . the success of the use of soil survey in this county gave impetus to the use of soil survey in land use planning and application in urbanizing areas and it has served as a model for many other areas. The numbers and volume of nonagricultural applications of soil survey data have increased dramatically over the last two decades. In 1965 a special program on this subject was organized for the Annual Meetings of the American Society of Agronomy and the Soil Science Society of America, and co-sponsored by the American Society of Planning Officials. The 19 papers presented at the meeting were later edited and published by the American 81:11:) 0 11. 1’ .1 U Hymn; l ‘ exerts 11 for Ma :efEr re; {31’0132' 31:11-41.- SH 5111“ 11?;ij 11131.15 ' :rE.. 1 w" ~3- ““‘E. ‘1‘] .Tc’iflat Society of Agronomy in the popular book, Soil Surveys and Land Use Planning (Bartelli, et 91;, 1966). Continued interest in nonagri- cultural applications of soil survey data prompted the editors of the international soil science publication, Geoderma, to devote a special issue to this topic. Fifteen papers by leading international experts were assembled to illustrate various uses of soils information for urban planning and engineering. These papers were edited and later reprinted in Non Agricultural Application of Soil Surveys (Simonson, 1974). Together these two books represent the most comprehensive collection of papers illustrating applications of soil survey information to current problems in the planning of nonagricultural land uses. More importantly, however, they describe methods by which nonagricultural soil interpretations are currently prepared and presented to users of soil survey information for immediate use and application. Problem Statement As soil surveys have become more familiar to both professionals and layman alike, there has been an increased demand upon soil scientists to provide detailed and more quantitative predictions of soil behavior. Miller (1978) has observed that it has become increasingly apparent that simply providing individually colored factor-maps from interpretive tables in survey reports will no longer be sufficient to fulfill the needs of sophisticated user groups. The numbers of these people with completed soil surveys vvill continue to grow as many states embark upon accelerated soil 1" efi‘rf‘ .pl 11‘ U mapping programs.1 Past methods of presenting soil interpretations will need to be changed if soil scientists are to meet the increasing needs of this enlarged audience provided with soil surveys. For more than 15 years soil survey interpretations for non- agricultural land uses have followed a general procedure of rating soils by limitations. As described in the National Soils Handbook (SCS, USDA, 1978) a three-class system is commonly used, employing the terms "slight," "moderate," or "severe" to indicate a sequence of increasing limitations or problems that require solution before the soils can be used for the purpose indicated. "Slight" limitations are those which present no more than minor problems for a special use and can be overcome easily. "Moderate" limitations can be overcome by careful planning, special design, or maintenance for satisfactory performance. "Severe" limitations are difficult and costly to overcome requiring major soil reclamation, special design, or intensive maintenance. Ratings for proposed uses are usually given in terms of limitations and major restrictive features. Information provided by soil limitation ratings is useful to sketch in broad perspective the magnitude of soil problems that users can expect. These ratings, however, do not necessarily indicate suitability since some limiting soil properties may not absolutely restrict certain land uses although they may limit soil Performance. Some of these can be corrected feasibly, while others ¥ 1For example, in Michigan a new state law, the State Soil Starvey Act (Public Act 268 of 1977), mandates that a minimum of 3, 000,000 acres be mapped over the next ten years above SCS mapping. cannot. A rating of severe then does not imply that a soil could not be used for the purpose indicated, but the cost of removing, replacing, or modifying the limitation or risk is extremely high. The guidelines for this system of interpretations gives recognition to the fact that most soil features can be modified or construction plans can be adjusted to compensate for most degrees of soil limitations (SCS, USDA, 1978). Soil survey users have encountered increasing difficulties using interpretation ratings developed through current nationwide criteria (Slusher, Cockerham, and Mattews, 1974). It has been all too common for a community to survey its soils only to find that almost all soil areas have severe limitations for a variety of important urban land uses. Additionally, the soil ratings provided lack adequate information about the performance and cost of potential practices for overcoming these limitations in specific kinds of soils. In a very real sense, as McCormack (1974) has incisively written, professionals and laymen alike have been frustrated by this rather incomplete approach to soil survey education. Planning officials and resource developers require increasingly detailed information from soil scientists concerning soil limitations and ways to alleviate them with site modifications or maintenance practices. For example, when told that a soil has severe limitations for residential dwellings because of a seasonally high water table, a building contractor will be immediately concerned with whether or nc>t this hazard can be overcome, and at what cost in dollars and ceents per dwelling. He will turn to the soil scientist to provide this kind of interpretative assistance. Unfortunately, most have been ill-equipped until recently to handle these requests adequately. The concept of soil potentials is now being considered by the Soil Conservation Service as a new approach to help prepare these kinds of soil interpretations for survey users. It is an attempt to overcome the apparent deficiencies of the soil limitations concept by recognizing that certain soil hazards can be feasibly corrected through the use of innovative modern technologies. This approach could have far reaching consequences in the way soils information is presented to people. Rather than only pointing out problems, emphasis could be shifted to a more rewarding discussion of feasible alternatives and their costs for best achieving development potential in the physical environment of an area. The basic problem to which this study addresses itself is to develop a set of tech- niques which will help generate these ratings of soil potential for non-farm land uses, and also help to communicate these interpre- tations to soil survey users. The problem this study examines is important for a number of reasons. First, the study adds to the sparse literature on soil survey interpretations and computer-generated interpretive soil maps. Second, it is one of the first studies to contribute towards development of procedures for preparing soil potential ratings. Finally, the study provides new insights and recommendations on future needs and actions on the concept of soil potential. ‘er O U ‘LCCJI Objectives of the Study The general objective of this study is to develop a set of procedures by which ratings of soil potential can be generated, stored, and displayed in computerized-interpretive soil maps. This general objective has been further defined in terms of several more specific research objectives. These objectives are: 1. Survey the relevant literature to locate existing methods and techniques used to generate soil potential ratings and computerized-interpretive soil maps. 2. Describe and identify the kinds of practices or alterna- tives that may be used to overcome soil limitations, their costs, and continuing limitations that remain after corrective measures have been applied. 3. Develop a set of computer-assisted procedures to help prepare soil potential ratings for several major non- farm land uses. 4. Demonstrate the use of a computer software system to assist in the retrieval, manipulation, and display of stored soil potential ratings. 5. Make recommendations concerning future needs and actions on the concept of soil potential. Description of the Study Area The area selected for study in this research project was Windsor Township, Eaton County, located in the south-central part of the lower peninsula of the State of Michigan. The township was chosen because soils-related data were easily obtainable for this area. A detailed soil survey report had recently been published (Feenstra, et_al;, 1978). The Remote Sensing Project at Michigan State University had also developed a computer-based natural resource ir1formation system for the township (Tilmann, §t_gl;, 1977). This 1.41 3541‘. . ’3'5' ‘ b. | p. :r’.« “1'4. I". ”at, in.‘ Ar? system had been successfully utilized both to assist the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in regional water quality studies and general land use planning (Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, 1976) and the Eaton County Equalization Department in developing farmland assessment values. In addition, the location of the study area in relation to the Michigan State University campus and the City of Lansing made feasible interdisciplinary review of soil potential ratings by technical experts in appropriate state and county agencies, several university departments, and numerous professional organizations. Figure 1-1 locates Windsor Township in relationship to Eaton County and the remainder of Michigan. The township is located in the central part of the state on the southwestern edge of the Lansing Tri-County metropolitan area of Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham counties. Windsor Township is bounded on the east by Delhi Township (Ingham County), and on the north, south, and west by Delta, Eaton Rapids, and Benton Townships (all in Eaton County), respectively. The City of Lansing, the state capital and major trade and industrial center of the region, penetrates the northeast portion of the township. Physiography Major surface features of the Tri-County and Windsor Township landscape are a direct result of continental glaciation which occurred between 10,000 and 2,000,000 years ago during the Pleistocene Epoch ([)orr and Eschman, 1970). Four times massive glaciers with thicknesses 10 .cmmwzuwz wen zpczou cops“ cw amzmczoe Lomvcwz co comumooJ--.P1F mczmwd 12 of more than several thousand feet slowly moved from the Canadian Highlands across the several Great Lakes basins, carrying southward all loose rock materials plucked and pryed from the landscapes over which they were moving. Each time the melting ice receded northward it left behind more glacial debris than before to be entirely reworked by the next major glacial advance. The physical landscape features of the study area are primarily a result of glaciation during the most recent or Wisconsin Age which left Michigan about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. The present flat or gently undulating surface of Windsor Township was fbrmed during this period when stagnant or constantly receding ice slowly melted leaving behind glacial debris covering the landscape with a thick mantle of glacial drift. This drift or ground moraine represents the predominant glacial deposit encountered throughout the study area. Glacial meltwater channels formed at times when the ice melted rapidly are today occupied by broad swampy valleys in the area. Soon after the glaciers retreated from the area, depressions in these meltwater channels were covered by water. The highly favorable environment in and adjacent to such areas encouraged the growth of many plants, such as cattails. sedges, reeds, grasses, shrubs, and trees. These plants through countless generations grew, died, and sank down to be covered by the water in which they grew or to enrich surfaces of mineral soils. The depressions were eventually filled with these organic materials and became areas of peat and muck. The township is liberally 13 dotted with these organic accumulations among the naturally better drained and more abundant mineral soils. Topography and Drainage The surface of Windsor Township is flat or gently undulating and slopes from west to east (Figure 1-2). The highest point in the township is located on top of Cunningham Hill in section 18, with an approximate elevation of 990 feet above sea level. The lowest point in the area is approximately 835 feet above sea level where the Grand River flows out of the township in section 2. The township lies almost entirely within the Grand River drainage basin. The Grand River flows towards the northwest about 3 miles until it reaches the Village of Diamondale where it changes direction and flows northward. Most of the streams and drains within Windsor Township flow directly into the Grand River. The Thornapple River drains small portions, along several drains, in the western part of the township. The drainage pattern for the township is shown in Figure 1-3. This map also indicates those floodplain areas which may be subjected to periodic innundation by flood waters near the Grand River. Soils Soil includes the horizons near the land surface that differ from the underlying parent materials as a result of the combined interactions, through time, of topography, climate, living organisms 51nd parent materials (SCS, USDA, 1975). The characteristics of a 14 .momp .mawccmpa cod eczocmxumm .cowmmweeou mcmcempa pmcowmmm zuczouuwch “mugsom .awgmczoh comucwz co Agamcmoaohuu.mufi mcamwd 15 3...: z. 33» . 0 ll 23.3.2 5:58 283 2.3232 882; >1mmm1-.mup mczmwd 17 3mm 11111 n “.1 m. , 1 1 w m m u i: G M .3 m M. .1... aria cast...“ m :r 1... i am m J 1, zo O a . 3 ....... m 1.. \/ ., . .\.\ t ‘- dv” Mo 1.3.9.... .Yi‘ 6’ Jr...) one a! IPWOVN (hlflvflfiwoavddvl ’00 v; ‘4’ 1 1:1..1 10! W :1. .. o .1". l .9 3‘. CL «3‘ N $9: 2. 33m A.._. . o 4......v Fillmllllll 221580: e mmeOQSMHd‘B Una wzménu mama/E .‘I a... a. a 4.99 23:10.: >hzaoo 20:3 4 25238 $82; .. «a mzZZooofi ozq — £25 2:; 211-1 18 soil at any particular point in a landscape is determined by a unique combination of these five groups of soil-forming factors. The soils in Windsor Township, not unlike those elsewhere in Michigan, vary dramatically in the kinds and vertical sequences of profile horizons. Each horizon differs in texture, structure, color, chemical composition, thickness, and other properties to make up the soil profile. For the purposes of mapping and classification, soil scientists have grouped soils with profiles which are almost alike into a single soil series. Except for textural differences in the surface layer (epipedon), all the soils in each series are described in terms of a single pedon that approximates the central concept of thickness, arrangement, and other important characteristics of the major horizons, plus the range in characteristics from that central con- cept, Each soil series is given a proper name, usually taken from the name of the town or the geographic feature near the place where the soil was first described or mapped, such as Marlette, Hillsdale, and Capac. In this manner, the soil series name identifies all soils in Michigan, or elsewhere in the United States, having characteristics which are essentially alike. Soil management groups are groupings of the more than 400 5011 series found within Michigan according to their dominant profile texture, natural drainage, and other special soil character- 15111125. The system places together soil series with similar profile Characteristics, management requirements, and responses to management. 19 The soil management group concept was developed by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, the Cooperative Extension Service, and the Soil Conservation Service working with the National Project in Agricultural Corrmunications in Odessa Township of Ionia County in 1955 (Tilmann and Mokma, 1976). This statewide system in Michigan has been used to facilitate making crop and fertilizer recommendations and to help in nonagricultural land use decisions. The interrelationship of the management groups of all the soil series described and mapped in Eaton County, including Windsor Township, are given in Table l-l. The group numbers listed in the left hand column indicate the relative coarseness of the dominant mineral materials in the soil profile. The finer-textured clay loam and silty clay soils, for example, are listed at the top, accompanied by the number "1.5" (Lenawee series). Coarser-textured loamy sands are listed near the bottom identified with the number "4" (Boyer and other series). A fraction is used to indicate soils with contrasting textures in the profile (two-storied materials). The texture of the upper layer is represented by the numerator, and the texture of the lower materials is represented by the denominator. For example, 3/5 indicates soils which have 20 to 40 inches of sandy loam over sands and gravels (Bixby and other series). Lowland 0" B'Iluvial soils (physiographic subdivision), which are stratified and Subject to flooding, are indicated by the letter "L" preceding the profile texture (Shoals and other series). The capital "M" 1r‘dlcates peat or muck soils (organic composition). The symbol, M/m, indicates 16 to 51 inches of muck or peat over marl (Edwards 20 N\¢ .5mop zapu xupwm op Eco, mmpmz cm>o .=oeuo~ team AEmog m\m .Pm>mcm new team azmamm gourmeuaz sgxwm Lm>o ..oe-o~ .5mop aucmm m mepma mqump_w: .Emop steam Nxm .Emop o» Eco, copcmao: mLoEmpmz ammozo ampu cm>o Emo— zucmm noozpou wannwx N. opoumzb m.~ .Emo— upwm pwcxcma umamu wupmpgmz can Eco; m.F .Emop mmzmcma xdpu aupwm Lo swap ampo u u . a m cowuwmoaeou co .acawcmowmxga xomgu x6wnp =Fm-o_ emcwmco umcwmco umcwmca _Fm3 .mczaxmh m—vmoca pcmcweoa =_m Lm>o apcooa zgm> Apcooa mpmumcmcoz can a—cooa umgzmeom can pr3 uocwmco zpcooa acm> mmmmcwmco Pmcsumz new mmcapxm» sz m_eom Axuzzv oceamao Seventeen to mPFom _aamecz 111111111111111111111111 mmmpu wmmcwmco Fmgsumz n III IIIIII“ III] I “I‘ll I971! IIIII l‘hIIII’JI ‘1‘in IIIIIVI ".“I‘ u I‘ll-”Ll“ 1“ 1‘ II“ II- i'IIIAuuflfliI I! III, I.-- .cmmwsowz .xuczou :oumm cw mpmom co wazocm ucoemmmcme pmom .—u_ m_¢mh 21 .mmwcmm pwom wammmz co pcmwcm> xuocumm m .m- .mppwm new mcemm we?» zgm> sue: uwwewumcumm .m=o~wcog u on» cw use m cmzop on“ cw mopugoe sew: umcvmcu Pym: zpmamcmnozp mucmwcm> m\¢ .xoocumn cm>o Enema: .oe-o~ .ueam zsmop op ucmm xmwgmmccwz m\m .xuocnon Lm>o :OGION «EGO; mucmzcm E\z .Pcme Lm>o mumma co mxuaz cmuuocou 4 .xsmop cmopm mpmocm .mmmgm ecu—3o; mxcwam osmunmo wammmz camcocm e :mwcc< ecoepwu acmcm cmaom .ccmm xEmoA u u a m cowuwmoneoo co .zzgmcmo_maga xerzp gown“ =quop umcwmco umcwmco umcpmco prz .mcspxme appease pcmcweoo =_m cm>o apcooa zgm> apcooa apmpmcmuoz ecu zpcooa umczmeom we. Pea: vmcwmco a—cooa xcm> sz mpwom Axuzzv upcmmco mommewmca chzamz can mmcszmh acmcmmewo mo mpwom chmcwz <11 mmm—u mmmcwmco pmcsumz I n 1115 1111“.) 11.1.111‘ III!!! I III-Ill III-I'll": I'I'III 1".) u I 1 III. I! III. IIIUI .um==_u=oo ._-_ m_aah senes‘, bedrock 5111. 11 .1 119131.11 22 series). Soils having 20 to 40 inches of loamy soil material over bedrock (R) are represented by a symbol similar to a two-storied soil. For example, 2/R, indicates loam, 20 to 40 inches, over bedrock (Winneshiek series). The lower case letters shown in the column headings across the top of the table indicate the natural drainage under which the soil profiles developed. Well and moderately-well drained soils are represented by the letter "a" (e.g., Marlette to Winneshiek series, Table 1-1). Somewhat poorly drained soils are represented by the letter "b" (Capac to Shoals series). Poorly and very poorly drained soils are represented by the letter "c" (Lenawee to Cohoctah series). Soils formed from similar parent materials and differing only in natural drainage and topography are defined as a toposequence of soils. Several of these are shown on separate lines in Table 1-1. For example, the Marlette- Capac- Parkhill sequence is listed on the same line in the 2.5 soil management groups. Similarly, the Tuscol a, Kibbie, and Colwood series on the next line are developed in Stratified very fine sands and silts in the soil management groups with similar drainage; 2.5 a-s, 2.5 b-s, and 2.5 c-s, respectively. Figure 1-4 is a vertical cross-section illustrating the topographic association of these soils of these toposequences 1'" Eaton County. The well-drained and moderately-well drained 4 ”Aflette soils occupy gently sloping to steeply sloping positions 1'1 the landscape which receive little runoff from adjacent lands. The somewhat poorly drained Capac soils occupy the nearly level to 23 .m .a .mnmp .cwmwnuwz .chzou coucm co xu>c3m Pwom mumm.mw .mcumcmmd ”mocsom .mocmacmmoaou __w;xcma-omamu-muuw—cmz cw mecwume mew>Fmecz can .mpwom .xzamcmonohuu.¢up mczmwu 24 25 gently undulating positions in the landscape which commonly receive runoff from areas of Marlette soils at slightly higher elevations. The poorly drained and very poorly drained Parkhill soils (or Colwood in stratified materials) occupy the nearly level positions in the landscape in narrow drainageways and depressional areas which receive runoff from surrounding Capac soils. With these facts about the soils in a locality and the way they occur on the landscape, it is possible to make a general map that shows several main patterns of soils, defined as soil associations (Figure 1-5). Each association is a landscape not unlike the one illustrated in Figure 1-4. Soils within any one association may differ greatly among themselves in several characteristics such as slope, natural drainage, or solum depth. Thus, a general soils map does not show the kind of soil at any one place, but groups of associated soils each part of which has in it several kinds of soil. Soil associations, as a rule, are named for the major soil series in them, but soils of other series may also be present. The legend on the soil association map for Windsor Township (Figure 1-5) shows the names of the major soils in each soil association area. Those areas are described below. Descriptions of the indi- vidual soils series noted in this discussion are briefly summarized in Appendix A. l. Houghton-Gilford-Adrian Association Nearly level, very poorly drained, mucky and loamy soils in glacial drainaqeways. 26 .mmmp .cmmflguPz «xuczau copmm co zm>czm p_om .4Hm pm .mcpmcmmd ”moczom .cmopzuwz .zucsou copmm .awcmczo» comccwz mo ace mpwom _mcmcmo11.m-_ mczmwm 27 ®\ 1.1 ./ mufl! 2. ”440m . O E 38312:". .. “:35: DU 0:: - 35:3: 8 25223128512233: B 9.2.3.9034 4.9m 23. :2: 5,58 :23 2.3238 2.8%; m.__om ou~3=m emswo .wcmacoew>:m co womasp msw mo wean mm umemwwmcou mew A.upm .Pwom mpnwumcz .cowuumwoea coopwv mpmou wucwcmwcwme ccw Ammwmw> .mwaopmv mwzpw> ovumgpmmo mo “moo P mwmewuoz muwemuoz muwemuoz wwwemuoz wpwemuoz :ow wuwemvoz meonmcwwwew coca :04 wumemuoz saw: :ow now: :04 memnpmmmwz acoewm :04 now: :ow :ow wpmewwoz mpwewooz wwwpwsm< mewcmuom wocmcmwcemz m=Pw> mcwmso: muwom mmwuwpwp: pcmsaopm>mo pee: Fwom uwumgpm< was; mmwwwmcwm acmanFm>mo mo pmou .mucmpmH :Fme_> .xwoeu .pm cw mpwom pmem>mm eow cowpm~wcmae= eow pmmucmpoa _wom mo mmzpumm ._-m w—awh 37 to signify degrees of benefits. The overall rating of soil "potential" or suitability for these soils is reflected as "strong," "good," "medium," and "low." Bartelli fails to indicate how these last ratings were developed, so presumably one can conclude that they were based on "good judgement" rather than any quantitative rating system. A different method of soil interpretations for urban develop- ment from that in St. Croix has been described by Slusher, Cockerham and Mattews (1974) in their soil survey of the metropolitan area around New Orleans, Louisiana. This survey area covered nearly 50,000 acres (20,250 ha) of portions of four parishes where the Regional Planning Commission expected new urban growth to develop during the period from 1968 to 1988. These planners were interested in obtaining useful soils information which could help them propose rational development of this area. The survey party faced many uncertainties in carrying out this study for few detailed soil surveys had ever been made in swampy and marshy areas, even in the southeastern United States, and the kinds of soil differences and their implications for urban uses were not well understood at that time. The team developed an interesting set of mapping and sampling techniques for this rather difficult assignment, and the reader is referred to Slusher, Cockerham, and Mattews (1974) for a 'fascinating account of these innovative methods and procedures. More germane to this discussion is a description of the system these researchers used to prepare engineering and other land use interpretations. Engineering interpretations of the 19 mapping 38 units in the survey were first prepared according to the national guidelines published in the Guide for Ingeepreting Engineering Uses of Soils (SCS, USDA, 1967). The degree and kinds of soil limitations for several uses were listed in tabular form. In addition to providing these rather common types of soil interpretations, the soils were then arrayed by groups and within major groups in order of their increasing limitations for most urban uses after drainage and protection from flooding. The following set of soil properties were considered in arraying the soils into six major groups: (i) consistence of mineral layers, (ii) contents of mineral and organic matter, (iii) thickness of organic layers, and (iv) presence of buried logs and stumps. The soils placed in the first group were considered to be most desirable for urban development even though their limitations ranged from moderate to severe. The soils in each succeeding group were assumed to have limitations which were more difficult or costly to overcome. These researchers did not use elaborate or complex weighting schemes to group soils for land use interpretations as did others in some later studies. They relied on their knowledge of the behavior of these soils to help them place the soils into each group. The soils were not rated according to their estimated costs 'for development or probable continuing limitations. This should l10t, however, totally negate the usefulness of the research. It is noteworthy for being one of the first studies to provide soil survey users in an urban region with additional interpretations 39 setting forth important differences between soils with severe limita- tions for urban development. The study is somewhat similar to the one undertaken in St. Croix because presumably "good judgement" rather than any quantitative rating scheme was used to prepare the ratings of soil suitability and potential. Quantitative Movement to Derive the Ratings Kloosterman and Lavkulich (1972) present a method for quantitatively preparing soil interpretations for agricultural and engineering land use. They reviewed available literature to develop a concept or model of the ideal soil and its properties for cash cropping and roadbed construction. An actual soil in nature will rarely fit these models precisely and inputs will be necessary to modify it to resemble the model soil. The researchers assigned arbitrary treatment costs to soil properties, which were deemed important for each land use, to calculate an estimate of the input costs required for each soil. Factor analysis was used to reduce the set of variables into a subset of underlying influences. Regression equations were derived from the variable factor loadings to give factor loadings for each individual soil. Each soil can therefore be represented as a point in n - dimensional space. The Euclidean distance between each soil and the model was calculated to determine a similarity index by which soils were rated for suitability in cash cropping and roadbed construction. This study differs from those previously discussed by its highly quantitative approach and innovative use of various statistical 40 techniques. The methods developed by Kloosterman and Lavkulich are quite fascinating and obviously, in this author's opinion, had great impact on other researchers at the time the paper was first published. It is one of the first of many studies in the early 1970's to utilize a quantitative approach to derive ratings of soil potential. Although the study suffers from its reliance on purely hypothetical and arbitrary assignment of costs for treating soil hazards, it vividly illustrates how quantitative methods and statistical techniques can be brought to bear on the problem of preparing ratings of soil potential. Studies which soon followed emphasized this quantitative approach. Increased interest within the National Cooperative Soil Survey for a suitability classification system of organic soils for various land uses led to the formation of the National Task Force on Organic Soils in June 1972. They were charged with preparing a set of interpretation guides on the following: (1) management suitability groupings and ratings for specific crops; (ii) develop- ment difficulty ratings; (iii) forestry; (iv) planning purposes; and (v) commercial uses of peat. In a report to the 1973 National Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, the Task Force proposed that these guides take the form of a numerical rating system with penalty points assigned for adverse conditions. The penalty points were to be tallied to give a single numerical rating. According to this system organic soils with the highest numbers presented poorer soil conditions for a given land 41 use. An alternative format was proposed which placed the highest numerical ratings on the most suitable organic soils. After further work and additional testing, the interpretation guides were again considered by the Organic Soils Committee (Committee 3) of the Cooperative Soil Survey and published in the 1975 report of the National Technical Work Planning Conference (SCS, USDA, 1975a). The interpretation guides were generally well received at that time, but further regional testing was deemed necessary before the guides were again evaluated. Although the original purpose of the guides was to help rate organic soils for potential in agricultural and urban land uses, soil scientists in the National Cooperative Soil Survey soon realized that its penalty point approach would also be extremely useful to help prepare similar ratings of mineral soils. As an example, ratings of soils in Spartanburg County, South Carolina (Camp, 1968) were used to illustrate the penalty point approach (Bartelli and Ikawa, 1975). The objective in that study was to develop a "potential index" to rate soils, using urbanization and wood production as examples. The rating procedure was similar to that pr0posed by the Organic Soils Task Force (SCS, USDA, 1972). Numerical ratings were assigned to different soil factors which influence potential forest production and urban land development. Soil characteristics with the least limitations for the selected use were rated 1 and those with very severe limitations were rated 10. The sum of the component indices was obtained through use of the following equation: 42 n SPI = iil W1 Ii where SPI = Soil potential index W1 = Index weight for factor i I. = Value of index for factor i 1 The ratings of each soil factor were therefore added together to give a numerical index value ranging between 1 and 100 for each soil map unit. This final rating is the soil potential for the specified land use of each soil mapping unit. Soils with the least limitations had the smaller numbers; those with more limita- tions had higher numbers. These soils were then grouped according to a three-class qualitative system, employing the terms "well- suited," "suited," and "poorly suited." The criteria used to weight the overall importance of each factor for any use in question was essentially good judgement supplemented by basic research data. As Bartelli and Ikawa (1975) wrote: The W factor allows for judgement input. The soil scientists who is rating a soil for a particular use has the opportunity to reflect the experience and knowledge of the land users in the survey area . . . and the experience of the land manager. This study provides one of the first mathematical models for determining soil potential for any use in question. The general n equation, SP1 2 W1 Ii’ gave soils a quantitative rating which was i=1 43 used to array them in order of their "best fit” for specified uses. The values for W and I can represent the everyday experiences of soil survey users within an area, rather than national guide- lines. This was a clear extension of soil interpretations beyond the identification of the kind or degree of soil limitations. Although this mathematical approach provided a simple listing of soil potential, many soil scientists soon recognized that this information would no longer continue to satisfy a major segment of soil survey users. Bouma (1974) proposed that emphasis be shifted away from only describing soil limitations and potentials in an area towards defining the means and alternatives for realizing it. He argued for including with the ratings of soil potentials descriptions of "alternative construction and management packages" for overcoming soil limitations. Similar to Bouma's comments, McCormack (1974) wrote: . it is essential that the practices that might be used to overcome the soil limitation be identified, as well as their cost, and an estimate of any continuing limitation after they are installed. These recommendations and suggestions were incorporated into draft guidelines of the Soil Conservation Service for developing soil potential ratings. Provisional standards were presented by Bartelli (1975) at the 1975 National Work Planning Conference of the Cooperative Soil Survey and outlined in National Soils Handbook, Notice 3 circulated among soil scientists later that year.2 These were the following: 2National Soils Handbook, Section 404, “Guide For Overcoming Soil Limitations and Developing Soil Potentials," May 5, 1975. 44 1. Soil potential ratings are developed within the context of the soil mapping unit. They do not consider location, market trends or socio-political forces. 2. The rating for a soil will not be standardized, country wide. The same soil may have a different rating within two separate soil survey areas. Its position in order of degree of suitability is determined by the ratings of other soils in the area. 3. Supporting text is required to further define and explain the procedures used and to present the basic data upon which the evaluation is founded. Improvements for over- coming soil limitations are considered where feasible. This points out the need for collecting qualitative data on overcoming soil limitations and maintenance of improvements. Local information about "what works" in overcoming soil limitations must be recorded by kinds of soil. 4. Define clearly the land use classes. 5. Identify the practices that might be used to overcome soil limitations. Also, include a general idea of their cost and an estimate of any continuing limitations after they are installed. While the draft guidelines were being circulated among soil scientists, efforts were well underway in Florida, Texas, Washington, D.C., and several other areas to develop local approaches for interpreting soils in terms of their potential for a particular use. The general aim of these studies was to get around the notion resulting from the soil limitations concept that soils having severe limitations could not be used. Alternative numerical and qualitative rating systems were used in these studies to arrive at the predictions of soil potentials. Procedures varied from those outlined in the draft nationwide guidelines. For example, criteria used for rating soils did not always include consideration of 45 alternative treatment for overcoming soil limitations, their costs and expected performance, and continuing limitations. Johnson, 25.21;; (1975) rated soils which were mapped and described in Seminole County, Florida according to their potential for 14 specific land uses. Soils were grouped into one of five categories ranging from very high to very low potential based on their numerical ranking. This was determined by assigning positive points to soil properties which affect a particular use, multiplying each point by a weighting factor, and then tallying the total product. Soil properties considered most favorable were assigned a point value of 5, while those less favorable were assigned values of 4, 3, 2, l, or 0. Those properties considered most unfavorable were assigned the latter value. According to these researchers, the weighting factor was used to "maneuver or weight the properties so that a soil with all favorable properties will have a numberical ranking of 100." The highest numerical point totals were therefore assigned to those soil properties that the researchers considered to have the most effect on the particular use. The supplement to the published survey (Johnson, etuele, 1975) included information about each soil as to its limitations, potentials, and the necessary practices to obtain its potential for the selected land uses. These were listed respectively in adjacent columns. Estimated costs for overcoming soil limitations and predictions of continuing limitations in use were not provided fbr each soil. 46 Soils in Harris County, Texas were also numerically rated according to their potential for selected land uses (Wheeler, et_gl;3 1976). They were later arrayed in one of five categories ranging from very high to very low potential. These interpretations were included in the soil survey report rather than a soil survey supplement like that of Seminole County, Florida. Soil potential ratings were prepared by use of an additive system of negative points assigned to unfavorable soil properties. Soils were individually rated for the following urban land uses: dwellings without a basement but with a public sewer system, streets, shallow excavations in which to place utilities, and uncoated steel pipe. These numerical ratings were summed to deter- mine an overall soil potential for "urbanization." The system does not appear to note or rate continuing limitations. In addition, no information was provided about practices or treatments to over- come soil limitations, their costs, and potential performance. A non-numerical approach for rating soil potential was used in the Soil Survey of the District of Columbia (Smith, 1976). Soil associations, and not the individual soil mapping units of the survey, were rated according to their potential for major land -uses. These were rather broad classes such as landscaping, vegetable gardens, urban uses, intensive recreation, and extensive recreation areas. The system used to assign the qualitative ratings was not discussed in the report. Placement of each soil association 47 into one of the three categories (good, fair, or poor) of soil potential was probably based upon "good judgement" rather than any specific criteria. There was no mention of suggested treatments fOr overcoming soil limitations, as well as continuing limitations remaining after these treatments or measures are adopted. The ratings appear to be related exclusively to soil limitations rather than based upon treatments, costs, expected performance, and continuing limitations. Soil Potential Task Force In late 1976, a Washington office task force committee in the SCS was appointed, chaired by Lindo Bartelli, to develop a policy statement and revised guidelines for implementing the soil potential concept.3 The impetus for this committee resulted from a concern by many in the Soil Survey that national coordination was desirable given the results of uncoordinated and unguided efforts at that time in Florida, Texas, and other states. The Task Force was charged with developing model guides and procedures for preparing soil potential ratings which would be included in documents published with SCS participation such as soil survey manuscripts or technical guides. The committee thoroughly reviewed the experiences of soil scientists in several states actively engaged with the soil potential 3Personal communication with Lindo J. Bartelli, Director of Soil Survey Interpretations Division, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. on December 10, 1976. 48 concept at that time (SCS, USDA, 1976). They weighed the relative advantages and disadvantages of the many alternative rating systems utilized in these projects. They also reconsidered the broad guidelines first issued in 1975 in the National Soils Handbook (Notice 31) for preparing ratings of soil potential. The committee tentatively agreed that the final guidelines for the soil potential rating system would incorporate the following criteria: 1. Soil potentials should be listed in conjunction with limitations; 2. Ratings should be for the mapping unit regardless of map scale or contrast of components; 3. Mapping units of detailed surveys may be rated for specific or general land uses (dwellings, septic tanks, corn, recreation, etc.). 4. Mapping units of general soil maps should be rated only for broad land uses (cropland, urbanland, etc.); and 5. Users should be presented with: a. soil limitations b. treatment alternatives c. continuing limitations after treatment d. relative treatment costs and performance expected through array of best to worst e. adjective ratings assigned locally. A preliminary draft of Parts I and II, Section 404 of the National Soils Handbook, "Guides for Preparing Soil Potential 49 Ratings, was written during the early spring of 1977. The Task Force sponsored a conference on soil potential for septic tank filter fields March 1-2, 1977 at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville to test these proposed guidelines.4 Participants included representatives from the Soil Conservation Service, the Tennessee Department of Public Health, and the University of Tennessee. They considered the basic concepts developed by the Task Force and attempted to apply them to soil conditions in Tennessee. The participants prepared ratings of soil potential for several common soil mapping units in Tennessee (Table 2-2), identified a suitable kind of filter field along with other needed treatments for each, and listed any continuing limitations. Costs of these systems were assigned, as well as a cost for continuing limitations. These costs were in relative numbers rather than in actual dollar amounts computed from construction estimates of labor and materials. "Good judgement" on the part of conference participants formed the basis of the assignment of these cost indexes for treatments and continuing limitations. These indexes were later tallied for each soil with the indexes for all mapping units being arrayed from high to low. This numerical array was divided into classes and an adjective rating (Table 2-2) of soil potential assigned to each soil. Reaction of the conference participants was favorable to the concept of soil 4Personal communication with David F. Slusher, Assistant Director of Soil Survey Interpretations Division, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. on March 4, 1977. 50 potential and the draft procedures developed by the Task Force to arrive at these ratings. By working through the ratings of these different soils valuable experience was gained with the soil potential concept. The results along with suggestions and ideas from the ensuing discussions at the conference were considered by the Task Force committee in writing their draft report. Guidelines For Preparingethe Ratings In June 1977, the draft guides for preparing soil potential ratings were finally published and circulated among SCS and cooperating agency staff (SCS, USDA, 1977). These underwent thorough inter- disciplinary review and comment over the next year. The final guide for preparing soil potential ratings was published in April 1978 (SCS, USDA, 1978) incorporating many of the comments received from 5 A brief discussion of the these individuals and organizations. pertinent components of this guide follows. The first section of the guide (Section 404, Part 1) sets forth the policy of the Soil Conservation Service with reference to the preparation and use of soil potential ratings. These are considered as supplements to conventional soil survey interpreta- tions6 in interim soil reports, watershed workplans, soil handbooks, technical guides, and also included optionally in published soil 5National Soils Handbook, Notice 31: Section 404, "Soil Potential Ratings," April 21, 1978. 6This group includes land capability classes, woodland suitability groups, range sites, soil limitations, or soil management groups. 51 sooeuwa\.uw .am own .m>Fw> muwcemupw mmmcumz mmmcpmew .smpmxm choppcm>cou Np:opm mwewm mmaopm pcmuewa N ow o momweam chowmmuwo newmw "mem>wm EmoP ppwm mmmcmeo sooeumn\.we .om omm .mmmcwwec mumweamnzm mcw:wmem emwmzm .Emwmxm chowpcm>=ou mmmcwmz mmgopm ucmwema N ow o mmwcwmew :wwwcwmz “meow "mem>mm Emop upmm w_wumcw4 sooeumn\.pw .am com .cmwmmm mac—m .Empmzm chowucm>coo maopm mmgopm pcmuewa ON on N— wcoz ”meow ”wwwemuoz swap “Fem mesqswz sooeumn\.pw .cm com .EmumAm Pacowucm>cow mmaopm wcmuema m op N mcoz ”coca mcoz Ewop “Fem mpgasmz eooeumn\.ww .cm omp Emumzm chowwcm>zou mmaopm acmuema Np on m mcoz ”pew—pmoxm wcoz Emop appw>wem comemwewa mcovumuwswm acmzcwucoo ucmswmmeh mcowwupewmwm From .mwmmwccw» cm can emeucwwoa 1‘! was mcoewaueees meeOm uwwumem mo mupm_w eww_ee xcaa megawm eow Paewcwwoa Peon .N-N w.nae 52 .Nnmp .v seem: co .u.o .coumcwcmwz .muw>emm cowuw>ewmcoo Pwom .cowmw>mo mcowpmumeaemch am>e=m —wom mo eopumewc penummmm< .emcmapm .u ww>mo sup: comuwuw==EEou Pmccomewa "momzom l Emumam c:ocx oz maopm mmaopm ucmuema om cu mN "econ zem> "wem>wm Ewop HFPm mwzaewz xooe op gamma Ewpmam ccaoz »_:o_m muewm mmaopm ucmuema NP op m mcoz ”eooa "mem>mm 58°F u—wm uponpw» Emwmxm ucaoz mmmcumz mmaopm pcmoema N ca 0 mcoz "econ "mem>wm swap “Fem xpem>w3 mcovpmupepm mcwacwucou pcmewmeh meowuuwewmmm ucm wawcwwom ucw mcopwwwwswm O I'li‘l‘l’il‘llliilfiii 1.1.-11": .uazcewcow .~-~ «Pace 53 surveys. The policy statement encourages preparation of these ratings with interdisciplinary assistance from technical experts outside the SCS to supplement their expertise. Ratings must be made for soil map units by a systematic procedure although components of multitaxa map units may be evaluated separately to supplement the overall rating of the soil map unit. The policy statement also emphasizes that criteria used to prepare these ratings be agreed upon locally rather than using nationwide criteria. Hence, these ratings may be different in nearby areas, counties, states, or regions. The second part of the guide (Section 404, Part II) is a brief outline of the systematic procedures used in preparing soil potential ratings for documents published by the SCS. These identify the following information: ( i) measures and their costs for overcoming soil limitations; ( ii) the performance level of the soils; and (iii) limitations continuing after corrective measures have been applied. A "soil potential index" is calculated by tallying together the indexes of these three components. This numerical rating is used to determine the soils relative suitability or potential among all soils in an area for a given land use. The soil potential index (SP1) is expressed by the general equation: SPI = P- (CM + CL) 54 where P = index of performance or yield as a locally established standard CM = index of costs of corrective measures to overcome or minimize the effects of soil limitations CL = index of costs resulting from continuing limitations The ”P" component of this equation is an index of a performance or yield standard which is established and defined locally (Section 404.5a). This may be measured in terms of tons, bushels, cubic feet, or other yield levels for agricultural land uses. The actual yield or performance of each soil is then compared against this local standard. Soils with above average performance levels will have their SPI increased by the amount the yield exceeds the standard. Soils with substandard yields or performance will have their SPI decreased by the amount the yield is below the standard. In the case of primarily nonagricultural land uses where performance is not measured in tons, bushels, or other yield levels, P may be arbitrarily set at 100 or another convenient index value. The "CM" component of the equation is an index of added costs above a defined standard treatment or management system that is commonly used if there are no soil limitations that need to be overcome (Section 404.5b). Soils with no soil limitations, therefore, would have a CM value of zero with no corresponding decrease in the overall SPI value. The guide emphasizes that local experts are needed to help furnish this information on these kinds of corrective measures or workable options needed, their costs, 55 and effectiveness. Technical guides, soil handbooks, and research data published by the National Cooperative Soil Survey are also useful references for this type of information. For soils used extensively for the purpose being evaluated, the required corrective measures may be well known. However, for soils not now used for the land use being evaluated, corrective measures may need to be inferred from performances on similar soils in the local area for these purposes. The "CL" component of the equation is an index of costs resulting from limitations continuing after corrective measures have been applied. These may have adverse effects on either social, economic, or environmental values. As defined in the guide (Section 404.5c), there may be three general types of continuing limitations: ( i) performance such as low yields, inconvenience, dis- comfort, probability of periodic failure, limitations resulting from the size, shape, or accessibility of an area, or associated soils that restrict a soils use or use periods; ( ii) annual or periodic maintenance costs such as pumping to remove excess water, irrigation, maintenance of drainage or terrace systems, or pumping and removal of septic tank wastes; and (iii) off site damages from sediment or other forms of pollution. A worksheet is required to systematically record the infor- mation obtained for the components of this equation (P, CM, and CL). Table 2-3 is an example of one such worksheet provided as an illus— tration in the guide (Exhibit 404.6 [a]). As a first step for 56 .Amvm.¢o¢ uwnwcxw .wmmp .Pwumeeou mwummwm we wmemmo mumm cowpw=Fm>m mam _wom ”awe: mcwqawz "wwe< "mm: Peon '11..“ p'i.itll|“‘| E‘I'I'l' ""IIIEIEE- :‘l’ll-‘IIIE In II'IiII - III, III! III. ill! -3... 'IIIII- III. I. .mmcwume prucmwoq Fwom mcpemnwea eow wmmcmxeoz .muN mpnmh 57 completing this worksheet, the guide requires that the soil use be defined, local performance standard established, and evaluation criteria prepared (Section 404.6[b]). This definition must list the specific conditions under which the ratings apply. For many land uses this may require some assumption of the density of use, basic management system, or kind or size of equipment used. The evaluation criteria selected includes the soil, site, and other nonsoil features that affect the use. The soil factors considered for some land uses may be selected from guides used in rating mapping units by degree of limitations (National Soils Handbook, Section 403). Table 2-4 is an example of a completed worksheet which has been provided in the guide as a model illustration (Exhibit 404.6[c] [1], No. 3). Calloway silt loam has been rated, in this case, for dwellings without basements in Alpha County. For this use, the four selected evaluation factors, their class ranges, and limitation ratings have been entered on the worksheet. The effects of these factors on soil use and corrective measures to overcome or minimize soil limitations are noted, as well as limitations continuing after these measures have been applied. The costs of these corrective measures and continuing limitations are expressed in units of the same scale which may be initial installation or annual costs. In this example, these index values are a percentage of the estimated costs. Finally, the index values for corrective measures (CM) and continuing limitations (CL) are 58 .N.m .oz eev euv m.eoe benesxm .wem_ .mm m.N-P ow spawn xwmcfi ucwg xmmcH mccwx mm: :o cowumwmewm mcoFHPmcou meowwmm mcowwmwwemm mcwacwucou mmezmwmz w>_pwmeeou mpomwwm mo mmemmo wwwm cowpm=~m>u ccw Pwom Ewop upwm am:o_Pwu "awe: mcwaawz Nucaou w;a_< ”wme< mpcmEmmwn paosww: mmcwppm:o ”mm: From .l'll 1". Ch Will"; 1|) P 14' by All. r 1. ill... 11 .2 III "II.11II.II.III.I..IIII".I‘III Ell-1" Ill’ll .mmcwuwe Pmmwcmpoa Fwom mcwemamen eow ummsmxeo: umumpaeoo we mpnsmxm .euN m—nmh 59 summed for deduction from the performance standard index (P) to determine the soil potential index (SPI). The value of 90 obtained in this example is used to help array this mapping unit according to its soil potential for dwellings without basements in Alpha County. Since publishing this guide in April 1978, the SCS has undertaken several pilot projects to help familiarize state and regional personnel of the National Cooperative Soil Survey with its general methods and procedures for preparing ratings of soil potential. One completed project in southwestern Oregon has dealt with pear production; another in Leon County, Florida with septic tank filter fields. Work continues in other areas in the United States to gain experience at the local and regional level and to help recommend changes in the national guidelines where needed.7 Computerized Soil Maps The use of computers to assist in the analysis of soil survey data is a fairly recent development, as is their application to the production of maps, tables, and other graphic displays. The need for computer processing techniques became evident to many in the National Cooperative Soil Survey about 1960 (Swanson, 1970). With the introduction of more precise quantitative field descriptions and laboratory determinations of soil characteristics, the annual accumulation of research data was beginning to tax the [Personal communication with Donald E. McCormack, Director of Soil Survey Interpretations Division, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. on December 4, 1978. 60 capacity of existing manual data-handling techniques to efficiently store and process these new data. Coincident with this mushrooming data-handling problem was an increasing public awareness and appreciation of environmental quality concerns. Data on soil resources became extremely valuable tools for examining the rela- tionship between man and the land, but the response time for providing suitable data was correspondingly shortened. Responding to this challenge, soil scientists during the early 1960's looked to automatic data processing to allow more efficient handling of their data. These were primarily at first small-scale experiments, and it was not until the later part of the decade that concerted efforts were well underway to expand the use of these new automated techniques (Swanson, 1970). These efforts were truly international in scope with programs underway in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, The Netherlands, and the United States. Reviewing these systems, Bie and Schelling (1975) observed that most had an automated cartographic component permitting areal display of their stored data bases. Interpretive soil maps have been prepared manually from information contained within the soil survey, as well as from other resource inventories (Bauer, 1966). These maps have proved extremely useful for most user groups, although until recently their numbers were severely limited because of the difficulties and expense involved, especially if different source maps needed to be converted to a common scale or if the interpretive require- ments were complex. The lack of interpretive soil maps has been 61 one of the greatest restrictions to the use of soil surveys by resource planners (Hunter, Tipps, and Coover, 1966). Johnson (1975) sees the application of automated cartographic systems, joined with other automated systems for soil survey interpretations, as one way to "cut the cost of preparing interpretive resource maps and make them available to a great variety of users." Grid-Based Encoding of Soil Maps Nichols and Bartelli (1972) presented one of the first attempts to apply automated cartography to soil mapping. They adapted the Map Information Assembly and Display System, abbreviated MIADS (Amidon, 1966), to help produce interpretive soils maps for 451,200 acres in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. A grid of 40 acres per cell was superimposed over the detailed soil map sheets and the dominant kind of soil (covering at least 40 percent) in each cell was recorded for storage in the computer. The interpretive maps were generated by the MIADS program which translated the dominant soil in each cell to a rating and output this result on unlined paper using the computer's high-speed line printer. These final copies were put together with transparent tape to make a visual display for the entire county. Map scale was corrected through photographic reproduction. Place orientation for map readers was enhanced with a plastic overlay showing roads, streams, towns, and other cultural features. Nichols (1975) examined the characteristics of the computer- ized soil maps produced using the MIADS program. Nichols and 62 Bartelli (1972) termed these "in between maps" since the amount of detail furnished is intermediate between that presented by the detailed soil map and that presented by the general soil map published in county soil surveys. The authors made a study of the agreement between detailed soil maps and those which are computer-generated using different cell sizes. The results indicated that the average agreement for maps with a medium amount of cartographic detail was 70.5, 64.4, and 48.4 percent for cell sizes of 21.33, 40, and 160 acres, respectively. On maps with low, medium, and high amounts of cartographic detail, the average agreement was 71.6, 64.4, and 41.3 percent, respectively, for a cell size of 40 acres. These data reveal the importance of cell size and cartographic detail on the potential degree of change that can be expected in computerized soil maps relative to the actual map. A comparison was also made of the acreage of soil mapping units obtained from the MIADS program versus those reported in published soil surveys. The MIADS program can be used to produce measurement data by multiplying the cell size by the frequency of cell occurrence. A t test was used to examine the differences between the two sample means. This statistical test showed no significant difference in sample means for any of the mapping units at a 95 percent probability level. Nichols concluded that the tabular data obtained from the MIADS program can be effectively used in broad planning of large areas, such as townships, counties, and regions. 63 The digitizing process used in MIADS to convert the detailed soils map to a set of records completely readable by a computer has been widely practiced and is one of the most popular techniques to encode soils maps. Tilmann (1977) has called this grid-based procedure the "most straightforward method to computerize (geocode) a soils map." The procedure is relatively inexpensive since elaborate and costly machinery are usually not required and data encoders can be quickly trained (Calkins and Tomlinson, 1977). Although such arbitrary grid-cell encoding may involve a considerable loss of soils information, many investigators have balanced this loss of information with the relatively higher costs of utilizing more elaborate polygon-encoding techniques, if available, particularly, if there exists a large volume of data. Investigators have modified this grid-based technique to minimize losses of information without their having to resort to more costly graphic encoding options. A brief literature review illustrating the most relevent of these research projects follows. Relatively large-sized cells have been used for encoding soils data for statewide resource inventories. Generalized soils information was entered into the Land Use and Natural Resource Inventory of New York, abbreviated LUNR (New York State Office of Planning Services, 1971), from a general soil association map of New York State. The scale of this map was 1:250,000 and the nfinimum mapping unit size was approximately 300 acres. Data were encoded using the one-square kilometer cell size (247.1 acres) of the LUNR inventory entering only the dominant soil associated 64 within each of these cells. Similar procedures were used for encoding soils data into the Minnesota Land Management Information System, abbreviated MLMIS (Anderson, 1976). Scale of the generalized soil association map was 1:250,000 with the smallest unit delineation being approximately 600 acres. Cell size used for encoding was 40 acres. Both state systems utilize automated cartography to output high-speed, line-printer maps. Regional and county-wide projects have used much smaller cell sizes for encoding soils data. The study made by Hitchcock, etuele (1975) of Knox County, Tennessee is a fairly typical one. In this particular case, soil map data was digitized from a county soil survey using a grid-cell size of 2.68 acres (3.75 seconds on a side). Each cell was geodetically registered and a mylar-grid overlay was computer-drawn to compensate for cell size variation with latitude changes. The soil map unit recorded for each cell was the unit at the exact center of the cell. These data were supplied to the GRID mapping program (Sinton and Steinitz, 1971) to produce single-factor analysis maps on the computer lineprinter. Hepner (1977) also used similar procedures to encode soils data using a cell size of 4.25 acres for a 4,853 acre area in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania. The West Michigan Regional Planning Commission developed a natural resource information system, encoding soil maps for their region using a grid cell size of 10 acres (Stockman, 1977). They had been assisted by Michigan State University staff of the Project for the Use of Remote Sensing in Land Use Policy Formulation 65 who had previously used this same lO-acre cell size for encoding a soil map for Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan (Remote Sensing Project, M.S.U., 1976). Experimentation with Computer Display Devices The standard line printer referred to in many of these studies works on a fixed grid, usually with a line spacing of 0.10 inch and a character interval of 0.125 inch, thus each character printed occupies a rectangular space. Hence, computerized soil maps produced by these devices would not be true to scale on both the X and Y axes since the map will be stretched in the north- south direction. Ragg (1972) solved this problem by using a modified IBM line printer to produce square characters for a computer-generated soils map. These devices, however, are rarely available at many computer installations, hence computer map distortion is a common problem. Jansen and Fenton (1978) recom- mended procedures for generating computer soils maps which will help preserve the detail of soil survey base maps. They reported that cells used for encoding data had to be smaller than the smallest delineation on the source maps to preserve the approxi— mate shapes and continuity of these delineations. Their research indicated that a 0.5-acre grid size was adequate to fulfill this function for a base map at a scale of 1:15, 840. A slightly larger cell size (2 acres), in their opinion, had given poor reproduction for this same map scale, although it might suffice for a less detailed map. 66 Because of the inherent problems of computer map distortion using the line printer, several researchers have turned to the computer plotter (e.g., drum or flat-bed) for displaying soil survey data. Cox (1977) reported that by using the computer plotter he was better able to produce interpretive soils maps at a scale comparable to the original base maps without having the resort to cartographic or photographic techniques. These devices can also offer a wider range of mapping characters, drafting papers, pen sizes, and ink colors (Calkins and Tomlinson, 1977). Although plotter maps are relatively more expensive than those printed on lineprinters, they are also higher quality map products which reproduce extremely well for publication. Tilmann, Enslin, and Hill-Rowly (1977) reported that interpretive soils maps for Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan were produced primarily on the computer-plotter because the maps were to be reproduced and used in formal presentations. The PLOTTERMAP phase of the Resource Analysis Program, abbreviated RAP (Tilmann, 1978), was used to.direct the pen-and-ink plotter to draw different types of discrete symbols in each cell of the display map. A grey-tone or shading effect was developed in several plotter maps using concentric octagons arranged to represent density shading. Nominal data, such as soil type, were represented on other maps by alphabetic characters, with line boundaries drawn around contiguous cells. 67 Modifications to Grid-Based Encoding As a result of recent investigations and spectacular advances made in automated cartography, it has become possible to create on computer soil maps approximate boundaries corresponding to the original soil boundaries on the detailed soil map. The type of computer hardware required and techniques for data encoding vary greatly among the different systems in existence, but the investment needed usually remains relatively high. Also, as Bie and Schelling (1975) point out, various technical problems remain before these experimental systems can be adopted by many planning and research agencies. Researchers have attempted to modify the grid-based encoding technique to reconstruct the original boundaries on the soil map. Meyers, Durfee, and Tucker (1974) worked with an interdisciplinary team of computer scientists, planners, and soil scientists, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory to develop procedures for digitizing and displaying soil survey data on a plotter. These procedures were designed for use with soil scientists's field sheets or existing published soil maps. To illustrate this technique in Tennissee, a dot grid of 1.18 acres in size was drawn on a sheet of mylar, consisting of a series of points representing the four corners of each cell on the grid. By connecting the nearest lattice dots, approximate boundaries were formed corresponding to the original soil boundaries on the field sheet or published survey. An identifying soil number was placed within each soil 68 polygon. The boundaries and the soil number were manually digitized for storage in the computer. These data were then used by a plotter to generate soils maps or interpretive maps. Since 1970, some very interesting work on computer mapping has also been done by an interdisciplinary team of researchers at the University of Massachusetts (Fabos, 23.21;; 1973; Ferris and Fabos, 1974; Fabos and Caswell, 1977). During these years they have been developing a parametric landscape assessment model, named METLANO, which could help evaluate the consequences of metropolitanization on landscape resources, such as water, agri- cultural productivity, wildlife productivity, sand and gravel supply, and visual landscape quality. As part of this research effort, studies were undertaken to select a computer manipulating and mapping system to be used in the landscape planning model. The researchers modified an existing software package, named COMLUP (Allen, 1973), which was originally developed by the U.S. Forest Service. Data are input to this package in the form of digitized x-y coordinates of points in each line segment (soil boundary) on the map, with identifiers to the right and left of the line specified. These identifiers can be used to aggregate polygons by eliminating line segments separating them. The program includes subroutines at this stage to edit the digitized data for various type of coding errors and facilitate their correction. After this testing phase, COMLUP internally converts the digitized coordinates into points on a matrix by superimposing a grid with 500,000 cells 69 (500 x 1,000). These data points are then reconverted to line format so that they can be output on a Calcomp plotter in polygon form or on the line printer in grid format. Automatic scanner digitizers have been adapted by a number of researchers in order to speed up soil map production. A research team at Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, in conjunction with Argonne National Laboratory, have developed an experimental optical-scanner system interfaced with a computer for rapidly encoding soil maps (Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1977). This system was modified from an image processing machine used in fingerprint recognition to distinguish boundaries on soil maps. Briefly, the system consists of a cathode-ray tube as a light source, photocell sensors, and a photomultiplier which registers the small dots of points and lines on the scanned map. This scanner can encode nearly 80 acres of map area in three minutes. When these dots are assembled together and printed out they form lines which delineate the approximate soil boundaries on the original base map. Computer software programs, especially written for this system, can be used to calculate acreage for the encoded soil mapping units. Another computer software program, DISSPLA, is used to command a Calcomp 936 plotter to generate inter- pretive soil maps. These researchers believe that it is conceivable that other mapped data, such as geologic, vegetation, or land use, nay be digitized and stored for analysis and cross analysis. More importantly, however, this system offers the advantage of getting 70 current soil survey maps into a useable form to planners as quickly as possible. The Advanced Mapping System (AMS) is being prepared by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) of the U.S. Department of Agri- culture to provide such a system. For a number of years, the SCS viewed this system only as a method to significantly reduce the amount of map finishing work in the publication of soil survey reports (Swanson, 1970; SCS, USDA, 1975b). In 1974, a Washington task force determined that states could do the compilation and finishing of soil maps, so the AMS was redesignated to reproduce film positives or negatives of base, topographic, soil, and inter- pretive maps ready for photographic and lithographic processing (Johnson, 1975). Soil maps from published surveys will be digitized, stored together with data previously entered in the National Soil Pedon Data Bank (Thompson, 1977), and then processed, analyzed, and retrieved as desired. The AMS located at Hyattsville, Maryland, has been designed around four Hewlett-Packard 2,114 minicomputers and a Gerber Model 1,275 automatic drafting table. The system is made up of a scanning, identification, editing, and drafting subsystem. Each subsystem independently performs one or more operations. The scanning subsystem automatically scans and digitizes map sheets with any type of lines, such as contours or map boundaries, at the rate of four square inches per second. Coordinate data for lines, symbols, and alphanumerics will be recorded for each sheet 71 and transferred to the identification subsystem. All lines are stored as line segments with soil symbol identifiers on either side specified. Since character recognition is not yet part of the system, alphanumerics (soil symbols) have to be interactively entered in the data base to link line segments to soil symbols. These data are then passed onto the editing subsystem to produce a preliminary plot of the map. Correction of errors are then made on a graphic display screen (CRT's) and a magnetic tape produced for the automatic drafting machine. This device draws with a pen on paper or a beam of light to expose photographic films. Finished maps can be plotted at any scale with any line width desired. The cost for digitizing the soils map is estimated at $3,000. for an average county and then approximately $200. to $400 to produce each interpretive soils map.8 The recent arrival of powerful new computer technologies promises to change the way soil maps are digitized and this data displayed through interpretive maps. Rather than depending on centrally located computers, accessible only in large cities and universities, it may be available in retail stories. Yahner (1977) reports that Indiana is establishing a computer network of inter- active terminals, called the FACTS system, in county extension offices across the state. These terminal packages will have disc storage and rapid printing facilities enabling local groups to 8Personal communication from C. Gene Johnson, Chief, Map Construction Branch, Cartographic Unit, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. on January 21, 1977. 72 potentially store digitized soil maps and to generate interpretive maps. Already, a small number of researchers have developed computer software packages to store, manipulate, and display natural resource data on small computers or portable terminals. McCown, Butler, and Gates (1977) has written a computer software program, called GRASP, to operate a portable teletypewriter or graphic terminal connected to the computer by telephone. This system features use of simple English-like commands to simplify data entry, response time, editing and mapping procedures. Butler, McCown, and Gates (1977) used GRASP to generate line-printer maps on a portable computer terminal. Professor Peter Trowbridge and his associates at Cornell University have devised the Land Use Information Retrieval System (LUIRS) for use on small computers which store data on what is known as a floppy disc (Anonymous, 1978). They will be programmed for use by planners in small rural communities in New York, even if they have had no experience in computer programming. These and other innovative programs will grow in numbers and future importance as desk-top computers are adopted for use by many communities across America. Summary This chapter has discussed the historical development of the soil potential concept and the state-of-the-art in computer- drawn interpretive soil maps. Existing methods and techniques used to prepare soil potential ratings were presented and analyzed. The advantages and disadvantages of different map encoding and 73 display techniques used for preparing computer-drawn interpretive soil maps were discussed. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES The previous two chapters have served to precisely define the problem, state the objectives of the study, and review pertinent literature and work underway relevant to the problem. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the specific methods, techniques and tools employed to meet the objectives of this study. For the purpose of presentation, the chapter has been divided into three sections, namely, procedures used to generate ratings of soil potential, development of the computer masterfile and the data analysis process. Preparation of Soil Potential Ratinge For the purposes of this study, soil potential is defined as the relative quality or suitability of a soil for a particular land use, using the most recent, acceptible technology, as compared to other soils in Eaton County. A systematic procedure was employed in this investigation to numerically rate a soil‘s potential for several different land uses in Eaton County, Michigan. In deriving this "soil potential index," consideration was given to the relative costs of applying feasible treatments or management practices to overcome soil limitations, and the limitations remaining after these 74 75 corrective measures have been applied. The actual step-by-step procedures for preparing these soil potential ratings in the study area are described in the following pages. Land Uses and Soil Properties The first task for the investigator was to choose the land uses for which soil potential ratings would be prepared in the study. Those selected were the following: (1) septic tank filter fields for on-site waste disposal; (2) residential streets and roads; (3) residential dwellings with sanitary sewers and basements; (4) residential dwellings with sanitary sewers and without base- ments; and (5) excavations for residential waterlines. By selecting these five nonagricultural land uses the intention was to illustrate several different kinds of urban uses which have been closely identified with site considerations for residential home construc- tion in the Lansing metropolitan area and which also have slightly different physical properties. The next step was to develop an operational definition for each of these land uses and prepare rating criteria for their evaluation. The definitions were written to set forth for the reader the precise conditions and assumptions under which the soil potential ratings would apply. Evaluation guides were then developed for each land use listing the important soil, site and other factors affecting soil performance for the intended use. For the purposes of this study, these tables of criteria were modified, with the assist guide 103). evalua U) Se that c for a EXPECI depart 041913 WIIhCL 10t 31' r9916c C"Her that c ”eaSur 76 assistance of Delbert Mokma and Rodney Harner,1 from existing guide sheets published in the NationaleSoils Handbook (Section 403). The definition of these specific land uses and their evaluation guides are discussed in the sections which follow. (1) Septic tank filter fields for on-site waste disposal. These are subsurface systems of tile or perforated pipe that distribute sewage effluent from a septic tank into a soil for a single-family (three bedroom) dwelling. The system is expected to be appropriately designed to meet all local health department regulations and accommodate a peak flow of approxi- mately 150 gallons per day per bedroom for a year-round residence without surfacing of effluent or pollution of ground water. The lot size for this three-bedroom residence is expected to be a minimum of 1/3 acre with public water supply or 1/2 acre with private water supply. These lot sizes will allow sufficient land to isolate the system from wells, boundaries, dwelling foundations or bodies of water, and also to provide sufficient land for potential replacement of absorption fields. For disposal of septic tank effluent in seepage fields, criteria in Table 3-1 indicate the soil properties and site features that can affect selection, design, or application of treatment measures. Properties that affect absorption of sewage effluent are: the percolation rate, depth to water table or bedrock, and susceptibility to flooding. Rapidly and moderately permeable soils . . 1Assistant Professor Department of Crop and Soil Science, Michigan State University and State Soil Scientist, Soil Conservation Serv1ce, U.S. Department of Agriculture, E. Lansing, Michigan. 77 (percolation rates faster than 60 min./in.) with high water tables (<40 in.) or rapidly permeable soils shallow (<40 in.) to bedrock pose significant problems because inadequate soil is available to purify sewage effluent before it reaches the water table or bedrock layer. Slowly permeable soils (percolation rates slower than 60 min./in.) also have poor filtration capabilities because infiltrating liquid waste is unable to rapidly percolate through the slowly permeable subsoil horizons. Flooding causes difficulties with these systems by increasing the hazards of pollution. To overcome some of these limitations, the sewage disposal system is often raised above the natural soil by using suitable fill materials. This increases significantly the volume of material available for sewage filtration. Moderate slope (8-15%) is a soil property that makes installation and maintenance of septic tank filter fields more difficult. Steeper slopes cause difficulty in their layout and construction, as well as increasing the risk of soil erosion, lateral seepage, and surfacing of the effluent in downslope areas. Construction can be done on steep slopes, but careful design and maintenance is necessary. (2) Residential roads and streets. These are local roads and streets that have an all-weather asphalt pavement expected to carry up to 15 trucks and 500 cars per day serving the residential dwellings along the streets all year. Pavement width in these residential areas is commonly expected to be 30 feet with a minimum right-of—way of 66 feet. The full-depth asphalt pavement is also expected to consist of one or 1a: 30 See pr: CU dr, af' 78 Table 3-1. Rating criteria for soil potential of septic tank filter-fields for on-site waste disposal. Degree of Limitation Factors Affecting Use Slight Moderate Severe Soil percolation rate (min./in.) <45 45-60 >60 Seasonal high water table (depth in.) >72 40-72 <40 Flooding None Rare Common Slope (percent) 0-8 8-15 >15 Depth to bedrock (in.) >72 40-72 <40 more courses of hot-mixed bituminous material constructed on a prepared subgrade of the underlying local soil material, whether cut or fill. These roads are graded to shed water and conventional drainage measures are provided. Table 3-2 lists the soil properties and site features that affect soil performance, require corrective measures, and create limitations for residential roads and streets. Properties that affect the traffic-supporting capacity of the subgrade are: depth to seasonal high water table, soil strength as inferred from the United Soil Classification, and potential frost—action. Sands and gravels (GW, GP, SW, SP, GM, GS, SM, and SC) retain a substantial amount of their load-supporting capacity when wet, but organic soils (Pt) and those having appreciable amounts of clay and fine silt (CH, OH) become quite soft and plastic when wet. Careful design 79 Table 3-2. Rating criteria for soil potential of residential roads and streets. ' Degree of Limitation Factors Affecting Use Slight Moderate Severe Seasonal high water table (depth in.) >30 12-30 0-12 Flooding None Rare Common Slope (percent) 0-8 8-15 >15 Unified soil group GW, GP, CL- with CL- with classification SW, SP, PI1 less PI1 more GM, GC, than 15 than 15, SM, SC CH,MH,CH, 0L, Pt Potential frost action Low Moderate High 1P1 means plasticity index. of the pavement structure is required to take into account this reduced supporting capacity of the subgrade during the frost-melt period. Soils high in organic matter are also unstable when dried because the organic matter will oxidize and cause subsidence of the roadbed. The entire depth of organic or frost-susceptible material may have to be removed and replaced by suitable fill. The properties that affect the ease of excavation and grading are: susceptibility to flooding and slope. Flooding is a serious problem because roads are likely to be damaged to the extent that repairs are necessary. Grade heights may have to be established above seasonal flooding levels. Slope is also an 80 important consideration because it affects the work involved in roadway construction. Roads and streets can be built more easily on the soils with gentler slopes. Steeper slopes involve more cutting and filling of soil material and increasing hazards of erosion. (3) Residential dwellings with sanitary sewers and basements. These are single-family residences of not more than three stories high, located on 1/2 to 1/2 acre lots. The typical foundation is assumed to be a spread concrete design of approxi- mately 1,500 square feet built at a depth of 7 feet and fully waterproofed. The life span for these dwellings is expected to be more than 50 years and their design fully acceptable under the FHA Minimum Property Standards for One- and Two-Family Dwellings (FHA, HUD, 1973). The ratings for this land use assume adequate sewage disposal by sanitary sewers and intensive use of the yard, lawn, garden, and play areas. The soil properties and site features considered (Table 3-3) are those that affect excavation and construction costs and landscaping. The properties affecting excavation and construction costs of the basement foundation are: depth to seasonally high water table, depth to bedrock, susceptibility to flooding, slope, and subsurface soil texture. Foundations built on soils with high water tables and in flood-susceptible locations are likely to have wet basements unless they are waterproofed and reinforced to with- stand hydrostatic pressures.‘ Hard bedrock and organic materials 81 Table 3-3. Rating criteria for soil potential of residential dwellings with sanitary sewers and basements. Degree of Limitation Factors Affecting Use Slight Moderate Severe Seasonal high water table (in.) >72 30-72 0-30 Depth to bedrock (in.) >60 40-60 <40 Flooding None Rare Common Slope (percent) 0-8 8-15 >15 Unified soil group (20-60 in.) -- -- Pt also causes difficulties, especially if it is near the surface and must be excavated or blasted. Slope is another property that can cause difficulties in foundation excavation. Cuts and fills may be required on steeper slopes to provide level surfaces for building sites. The property affecting the landscaping of the dwelling site is the depth to seasonally high water table. High water tables reduce plant rooting depth and also restrict intensive use of yards and gardens. Subsurface drainage may be required to alleviate this problem if the soil is permeable enough for excess water to move through the soil into the drain tile. (4) Residential dwellings with sanitary sewers and without basements. These are single-family residences of not more than three stories high located on 1/3 to 1/2 acre lots. The typical foundation 82 of 1,500 square foot is assumed to have spread concrete footings and a slab-on-grade construction. The lifespan for these dwellings is expected to be more than 50 years and their design fully acceptable under the FHA Minimum Property Standards for One- and Two-Family Dwellings (FHA, HUD, 1973). The rating for this land use assumes adequate sewage disposal by sanitary sewers and intensive use of the yard, lawn, garden, and play areas. The soil properties and site features discussed for residential dwellings with basements (Table 3-3) are similar to those influencing the ratings for residential dwellings without basements (Table 3-4). The exceptions are: (l) the addition of soil strength as inferred from the Unified Soil Classification, and (2) the changing of the limitation rating of seasonally high water tables. Soil strength is a factor that affects the design of the foundation slab. Gravels (GM, GP) or sandy soils with or without silts and clay (GM, GC, SW, SP, SM and SC) and silts (ML, MH) provide the best support for a slab foundation on grade. Those laid on other soils (CL, 0L, CH and OH) require reinforcement to resist the differential movement of the soil. Soils high in organic matter (Pt) are not stable enough for the support of ground-supported slabs and are commonly removed from the site. High water tables also pose serious problems for construction of these foundations and drains may be required to control water movement under the slab. 83 (5) Excavations for residential waterlines. These are trenches or holes dug in the soil by trenching machines or backhoes below the greatest recorded frost penetration in the study area (60 inches) to install residential waterlines. The trench is expected to be about 2 feet wide and 5 feet deep or deeper for the pipe to be below frost penetration. Fire hydrants are also expected to be connected to these mains every 500 feet with provisions for shut-off valves every 800 feet on residential roads and streets. Table 3-4. Rating criteria for soil potential of residential dwellings with sanitary sewers and without basements. f Degree of Limitation Factors Affecting Use Slight Moderate Severe Seasonally high water table (in.) >30 18-30 0-18 Depth to bedrock (depth in.) >60 40-60 <40 Flooding None Rare Common Slope (percent) 0-8 8-15 >15 Unified soil group1 GM, GP CL, ML, CL, 0H, GC, SW, MH CH. DH. SP, SM, Pt SC 1 Thickest layer between 10 and 40 inches. Table 3-5 lists the soil pr0perties and site features that affect soil performance, require corrective measures, and create 84 Table 3-5. Rating criteria for soil potential of excavations for residential waterlines. ——— <— Degree of Limitation Factors Affecting Use Slight Moderate Severe Seasonal high water table (in.) >72 30-72 0-30 Depth to bedrock (in.) >60 40-60 <40 Flooding None Rare Common Slope (percent) 0-8 8-15 >15 Unified soil classification (20-60") -- -- Pt Corrosivity Low Moderate High limitations for residential waterlines. Properties that affect the ease of excavation and construction costs are: depth to seasonal high water table, depth to bedrock, susceptibility to flooding, slope, and the Unified soil group texture. High water table and flooding may restrict the time that the excavation can be made. Dewatering of the trench may be required in serious cases before the pipe can be laid. Hard bedrock and organic soils also cause difficulties, especially if they are near the surface and must be excavated or blasted. Backfill must be imported to replace these materials. Slope is a property that can cause difficulties in the use of backhoes and digging machines necessitating the use of manual techniques to lay the waterlines. Risk of corrosion is a factor that pertains to the potential soil—induced chemical action of the soil weakening uncoated metal 85 pipes. High risk soils may require protective measures for water- lines to help avoid or minimize damage resulting from the corrosion. Data Collection Once the land uses were defined and evaluation criteria prepared for each, the next task was to assemble data on local corrective measures to overcome the specific soil limitations, if any, their relative costs, and limitations that continue after these treatments are applied. A systematic plan was developed at this stage for collecting these data on local conditions existing in Eaton County, Michigan. The actual design of this data collection procedure is described in a step-by-step format below. (1) Identify technical experts to provide data. The first task was to identify key individuals and organi- zations that could provide information on the kinds of corrective measures needed on soils in the study area, the relative costs or difficulties involved in overcoming these soil hazards, and the problems existing after these practices are installed. A listing of important building contractors and professional construction trade organizations in the Lansing metropolitan area was assembled with the assistance of several Michigan State University faculty members from the Departments of Agricultural Engineering, Civil and Sanitary Engineering, Crop and Soil Science, and Resource Development, as well as Cooperative Extension Service personnel in the immediate area. The telephone numbers of the initial contact for those organizations or individuals on this list was obtained 86 by consulting the appropriate phone directory for that address in the Michigan State Library collection of current telephone books. (2) Compile list of corrective measures. The individuals and organizations on this list were then contacted by phone to arrange meetings or conferences with their staffs. At the outset of each meeting, a brief description of the research was provided. The investigator reviewed the need for soil potential ratings, their basic concepts and present status of development, the interdisciplinary needs, and the requirement for local input to meet the needs at a county or subcounty area. The overall role of Michigan State University and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station was stressed to demonstrate the noncommercial motives of the study. The prospective benefit to local contrwctors of the results of this research was also emphasized to additionally induce their cooperation. Conversations with offices of professional trade organizations usually resulted in referrals to member contractors judged by the initial contact to be well-informed about the use of soils information on con- struction design. Those interviewed were asked to describe the general construction designs they typically used and which they believed would overcome certain soil limitations. For example, home builders were asked how they compensated for hydrostatic pressure caused by high water tables in their construction of basement walls, or what engineering practice was used to prevent leakage in basements. 87 During the course of the interviews a list was then compiled (Table 3-6) of specific corrective measures used in the study area to overcome certain soil limitations for each land use. (3) Compute costs for corrective measures. The next task was to determine the relative costs of applying these corrective measures in the study area. Local building contractors and staff members of professional organizations assisted by making available actual case illustrations from their files with cost analyses where these corrective measures had been applied. The pricing information used in these projects, however, was not standardized since many projects had been undertaken in different years. The prices for these measures then had to be adjusted upward for rising material and labor costs existing in the Lansing metropolitan area at the time of this writing. Appendix 8 contains the adjusted average unit costs of materials and labor used in these corrective measures for the different land uses in Eaton County, Michigan. These data were obtained from a number of standard reference texts commonly used in the construction industry for making up engineering estimates. The prices listed were obtained from actual job costs in 1978 and material dealers 1979 quotations for major cities in the United States. These were adjusted for material and labor costs existing in the Lansing metropolitan area at mid-year 1978. The items in these tables also include adjustments from contractors' and subcontractors' overhead and profit estimated at 30 percent. 88 .wmz vamp umewvwmgm ms» ewe cmm: my meammme m>euuweeou mg» was» mwuwupucv x :< “whoz m=_eo;wcw van acrxuopa “maesh x . x .ucmz >3 —_wexuwa asap x x mp_ee aea meaw waoem amwum x coea=n_ewmpu .apemm x gucweu emumzmo x x ampm eo mmmcpaea x x acwaoow mo wmmcpmeo x x women mmpme ow __em vu< x x mmwcwmem wwmwesm muwzame< x mucmswman wooeaemawz mmmcuwz x canoe mcwm x w~pm upm_e emu—we mmuweucm xpzopm muemm x am_m mueomcwwm mmmcxu'3u wcmsm>mg wmmmewcm swmcweum 3o; x acmswmmp mooenemww: x x muaea wmeae 0» __ee au< muoo_e x x x gaze new mama wuw>muxm mass; mmwuxm x vases meow x x some mum>wuxu some on spawn x mama awe: xup>emoeeou mmcppemamz macmsmmmm use mucwsmmom muwwewm —wmoam.o mama: mmeamwm: m>pwuweeou ope_wwam mcopumueepm pmpucwuemwm -sum: mm=.p_wzo gap: mm:_—pm:o cam mecca mwem-co mm: new; El -1 I1 '11! 1|. 1 .III 1 I . 11111 ‘ III. . EL." ”hullnurwlufl “1. [“11' Illa-.41.! N“ ”.11“... Ell" 11 IN ll .camwguwz .zucacu copay cw mwm: veep eom emu: mmeammms m>puoweeou cam meowumuwawp ~_om .w-m m—nw» back by th is th and t in Ea them resul 89 These adjusted costs (Appendix B) were then substituted back into the cost analyses for the corrective measures provided by the local contractors and trade association staff. Appendix C is then a summary of the corrective measures likely to be needed and their costs at mid-year 1978 for the selected five land uses in Eaton County, Michigan. These costs have been rounded to make them easier to use and still maintain adequate precision of the results. The range in study results is reported in these five tables. (4) Determine continuing limitations. Although corrective measures are applied to overcome soil limitations some limitations may remain and have adverse effects on social, economic, and environmental values. The next task in this study was to identify these continuing limitations and then assign a qualitative rating, employing the terms slight, moderate, or severe, to indicate the severity of these remaining limitations. A brief discussion of the procedure used to collect these data follows below. Continuing limitations have been classified in the National Soils Handbook (Section 404.5c) into three general groups. The first group consists of those causing inconvenience or discomfort to a land user perhaps by the periodic failure of a corrective measure, such as a septic tank field. The second group contains those limitations that require increased expenditure for maintenance of these corrective systems. These are clearly economic since they 90 affect returns and profits. The last group of continuing limitations contains those which result in off-site damages to the environment either by pollution of the air or water. Table 3-7 was developed in order to rate these three different types of continuing limitations signifying not only the degree to which soil hazards have been corrected or overcome by special construction designs or treatment, but also, in general terms, a prediction of the cost and level of maintenance required for upkeep of these special treatments. A rating of slight means that good performance and low maintenance of the corrective measure can be expected. A rating of moderate means that one or more factors indicate somewhat less desirable performance and increased maintenance can be expected. A rating of severe means that poor performance and high maintenance can be expected. Assignment of these qualitative ratings to each continuing limitation was then made with the assistance of the technical experts. Recording Data for Computer Input A worksheet was developed for recording the critical data needed for generating the soil potential ratings by computer for the selected land uses in Eaton County, Michigan (Figure 3-1). Separate sheets were used for each soil mapped in Eaton County (45) and for each land use (5) in this study. The step-by-step process used for completing each numbered component of this worksheet is described below. 91 Table 3-7. Guide for preparing ratings of continuing limitations. General Degree of Limitation Groups of Factors Factors Affecting Use Slight Moderate Severe Group 1 Ease or convenience in maintenance of system Good Fair Poor Group 2 Annual or periodic maintenance cost for system Low Moderate High Group 2 Probability of periodic failure of system Low Moderate High Group 3 Probability of off site changes to the environment Low Moderate High 1. Map Unit--The name of the map unit was entered on each sheet whether it be a multitaxa or single taxon unit. Each component of a soil complex was rated on separate worksheets. The final rating of the entire unit was determined by multiplying the rating of each component by its estimated areal extent in the map unit and tallying these index values. Evaluation Factors--The evaluation factors for each land use (Tables 3-1 to 3-5) were entered on the worksheet. Soil and Site Conditions--For each soil map unit, the class or range of each soil property used as an evaluation factor was determined from the Eaton County Soil Survey (Feenstra, 22.21;; 1978). Degree of Limitation--The coordinated limitation ratings for each evaluation factor were recorded from the soil interpretations record (SCS-Soils-S). Effects on Use--The nature of the factors rated with moderate or severe limitations on land use were recorded. These indicated the major effects that required coorective measures. Corrective Measures-~The kinds of corrective measures needed to overcome or minimize one or more soil .Pmpucmpom ppom we mmcewme ampemamea eow mama mcwmeoume eow ummgmxeoz--.p-m mesmwm 92 .52 m .58 m 22:28 3:2. 82:. E 58 82:. mm: .8 222:2... we; 35:: $8.55... 8:52:28 3:33: 3:858 38:: mo :33 a: .__8 222356 N w m ¢ m N 285 ezwsmqus‘ 4.8 ":2: 2:92: _ "35 5...: oz: 93 limitations were recorded for each soil with the assistance of the technical experts. 7. Continuing Limitations-~Continuing limitations which are associated with each corrective measure were recorded as key phrases with the assistance of the technical experts. The qualitative ratings for each were entered as a numeric code (i.e., l = slight, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe in the appropriate column. 8. Totals--The costs for the corrective measures were then summed and the most restrictive rating for the continuing limitations were entered in the appropriate column. These two numeric values were interactively entered on a computer disk file for each soil and land use in the study. Generating Soil Potential Indices Following this data recording process described above, the next step was to use a statistical technique to calculate a "soil potential index" that would indicate each soil's relative suitability or quality for a given land use in the study area. This numerical index was derived from the cost of corrective measures used to overcome soil hazards and the ratings established for continuing limitations. These index values were subsequently used to assign each soil to a qualitative rating class indicating its relative potential for a particular use compared with that of other soils in the area. The multivariate statistical technique used to generate these numerical indices is called multidimensional scaling, and the remaining portion of this section will be devoted to a brief description of this technique. Multidimensional scaling is a multivariate statistical technique that was originally developed by behavioral scientists 94 for comparing the similarity between sets of objects (Golledge and Rushton, 1972; Tilmann, 1976). Each object can be thought of as existing in n-dimensional space, where n represents the number of attributes under examination. The numerical values of each attribute can be interpreted as a geometrical coordinate or projection on an orthogoral axes which, when used in conjunction with those of the other attributes, determines the location of the object or point in this n—dimensional space. The attribute may be measured on either the ordinal, interval or ratio scale since it is not necessary in multidimensional scaling to have metric information. Each attribute can be weighted to indicate its relative importance in defining the object. The Euclidean distance between that point and another located in this n-dimensional space is then the measure of the similarity between an object's attributes relative to the other object. This interpoint distance, di’ between h the it point with attribute set, Fn, of weighted importance, W", and another attribute set, on, is given as follows: - 2 1/2 di - [2wn (Fn - on) ] where n is the number of attributes in the dimensional space. Multidimensional scaling analysis was performed in this study using a computer algorithm, called SCALE, which was available in the Resource Analysis Package (Tilmann, 1978) on the Michigan State University CDC 6500 computer system. For the purposes of 95 this study, soil potential was defined as a function of the cost of corrective measures used to overcome soil hazards and the relative severity of limitations remaining after these measures are employed. These factors under consideration defined the set of orthogonal axes and also established a two-dimensional factor space for soil potential. The numerical values of each factor established a point or coordinate set for each soil in this two- dimensional factor space. The factors which exhibited the least limitations to the land use defined an optimum condition set and were also represented by a point in this factor space. The minimum limitation or optimum condition for each factor (On value in the equation above) was defined as the lowest cost for corrective measures of all the soils rated and the rating of slight for continuing limitations. The Euclidean distance between this optimum point and the point representing each soil was its soil potential index value normalized to a scale of O to 100. The index was then inverted so that soils with the highest soil potential would have the large numbers, while those with the lowest soil potential would have small numbers. As stated previously, each component of a soil complex was rated separately. The final rating of the entire unit was determined by multiplying the rating of each component by its estimated areal extent in the map unit and tallying these index values. 96 Assignment of Qualitative Ratings Once the soil potential indices were determined, the next step was to assign the soils to qualitative classes of soil potential according to their soil potential for each land use. Four classes were provided for comparative ratings of soil potential: excellent, good, fair, and poor. These classes were defined in terms of the performance expected of a soil if technologically feasible measures are applied to overcome its limitations, the costs of such measures, and the severity of the limitations that remain after corrective measures have been applied. The following is a definition of each class: Excellent Soil Potential--Soils rated excellent have pro- perties exceptionally favorable for the intended use. Soil limitations or restrictions are minor and can be corrected with usual management techniques or practices to assure high performance for the intended use. The initial installation and management costs to establish the use or maintain it are inexpensive compared to those on all other soils in the county. Continuing limitations are slight after these corrective measures have been applied. Soils rated excellent are the best in the county for the intended use. Good Soil Potential-~Soils rated good have properties favorable for the intended use. Some soil limitations or restrictions exist, but measures necessary to overcome these limitations are available. The measures needed usually increase costs of establishing or maintaining the use, but are not generally prohibitive in relation to design costs for soils rated fair or poor. Limitations continuing after these corrective measures are installed are slight. Performance for the intended use can be expected to be good. Fair Soil Potential--Soils rated fair have many properties favorable for the intended use. One or more soil limita- tions exist that can be overcome with corrective measures, but limitations are primarily of a continuing nature requiring practices or designs that need to be maintained, 97 or are more difficult, unusual, and costly. Limitations continuing after these corrective measures have been applied are commonly moderate. Performance for the intended use can be expected to be fair. Poor Soil Potential--Soils rated poor have properties un- favorable for the intended use. One or more soil limita- tions exist that are extremely difficult to overcome. The initial installation or maintenance cost for these measures, if available, are prohibitive as compared to those needed on all other soils in the country. Limitations continuing after these corrective measures are installed are severe and seriously detract from environmental quality or economic returns. Performance for the intended use can be expected to be poor. Soils rated poor are the worst in the county for the intended use. There are many kinds of class determination techniques used by researchers, but these can be generally separated into three major groups (Robinson, Sale, and Morrison, 1978). The best known technique essentially classifies data by a series of equal steps based on the data range. These are calculated by merely dividing the range between the maximum and minimum values by the desired number of classes to obtain the common interval difference. This integer number is then successively added to each class limit starting with the lowest class to obtain the next highest class limit. A second technique uses the parameters of a normal distri- bution, the mean and standard deviation, to form the interval class limits, such as the mean plus and minus one standard deviation, from one standard deviation to two standard deviations above the mean, and so on. The third common type of interval selection involves the use of quantiles or equal divisions of the data. These are calculated by arraying data observations by their magnitude from 98 the lowest to the highest. If one wished to divide the data into five intervals, then one proceeds to count one-fifth of the number of data observations from the bottom to obtain the value of the first quantile value, and so on. Prior to the advent of high-speed computers and efficiently written grouping-algorithms, it was an extremely time-consuming process to determine the consequences of employing different class intervals produced by these different methods. Computer programs are now available that will test the various sets of class intervals to see which best fits a researcher's data.9 These will commonly output statistical measures that state the degree of homogeneity within groups, as well as differences between them, for each different class interval chosen. A computer grouping program, called JENKS, was employed in this study to select class intervals for grouping soils into the four soil potential rating classes. The program was originally written by George Jenks at the University of Kansas (Jenks, 1976) and extensively modified at Michigan State University to run inter- actively on the University CDC 6500 computer system. The user is required to enter data values with identifying names or numbers along with specifying the desired number of class intervals. The program then computes statistically optimal class intervals for grouping the data by moving observations from one class to another 9Personal communication with Robert I. Wittick, Associate Professor, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, November 10, 1978. 99 to minimize within class variance (homogeneity) and maximize between class variance (heterogeneity). This process continues until the sum of the square deviations between each observation and its class mean can no longer be increased and the goodness of variance is maximized. Table 3-8 lists the optimal class intervals for soil potential classes determined by the JENKS program, and their goodness of variance fit for selected land uses in Eaton County, Michigan. Development of the Computer Masterfile A computer disk file, cataloged as SOIL POTENTIAL, was created out of the detailed data base collected by preparing the soil potential ratings for Eaton County, Michigan. These data were entered to disc storage via normal telephone lines connecting a portable terminal with the Michigan State University CSC 6500 computer system. Every line or record in this file, one for each of the 45 soils mapped in Eaton County, contained the following data for each of the given land uses: 1. estimated dollar cost for practices or management alternatives that may be used to overcome soil limitations; 2. qualitative rating given to the degree of continuing limitations which remain after corrective measures have been applied; 3. the numerical soil potential index values; and 4. the soil potential classification. 100 w_m me=m_em> me mmmeeeec mmmee .memcmeoa eeom Hf”... .Il.li -111 .cmmwsewz .xucaeo :eumm cw mmme ecmp ewuewpmm eem xwecm meucmuee pwem ms» cw mmmcme Ne mmmmmpe pmwucmuee _eem we acmEem_mm< .w-m mpemh -‘II '1‘ mo.mm o-Nv me-em nmuwm mmuoo_ mmcwpemum: mewcmewmmm _e.mm o-.e ee-mm oe-Nm ma-oo_ meeweamam eso;m_z mm::__mzo om.~m o-NN wNumm oe-Nm mm-oop uemsmmme new: mmcwppmzo oe.wm o-Nm mm-NN wN-Fm Nm-oop mpwmeum ecm memee Fm_w=mewmmm Np.wm o-¢ m-_m Nm-Fm Nmaoop mepwww emuPVw xemw ewuemm Aucweemev eeea ewmu eeew wcmppwexm mm: meme 101 Each alphanumeric soil map symbol was assigned a unique integer sequence number (Table 3-9) to facilitate computer processing. The costs of corrective measures and soils potential index values were coded as integer numbers, the latter ranging from O to a maximum of 100. In addition to these variables, the qualitative classifications for continuing limitations and the soil potential classifications were entered as numeric codes (Table 3-10, 3-11). The Remote Sensing Project at Michigan State University graciously provided a geocoded disk file containing soils and natural resource data for the study area (Windsor Township, of Eaton County). They had previously used it to demonstrate the utility of a computer- ized data processing system for regional water quality studies and general land use planning (RSP, MSU, 1976). Table 3-12 lists the data types and their resources included in this file. The general methods and procedures employed by these researchers to code these data are only briefly mentioned here. Readers are referred to the technical reports published by the Remote Sensing Project at Michigan State University for a detailed discussion of these specific tech- niques.10 The data file for Windsor Township was assembled using a grid#based geocoding procedure. This procedure is referred to grid- based because a grid network of equally spaced rows and columns is 10See for example, "Report on the Natural Resource Information System Developed For the Tri—County Regional Planning Commission," 1976 and "A Recommended Procedure to Computerize Soil Maps,“ by S. E. Tilmann, 1977. 102 Table 3-9. Numeric coding scheme for soils mapped in Eaton County, Michigan Code Map Number Symbol Soil Map Unit 1 Ad Adrian muck 2 BbA Bixby loam, 0-3% slope 3 8h Borrow land 4 BnB Boyer loamy sand, O-6% slopes 5 BnC Boyer loamy sand, 6-12% slopes 6 808 Boyer sandy loams, O-6% slopes 7 80C Boyer sandy loams, 6-12% slopes 8 BpD Boyer-Spinks loamy sands, 12-18% slopes 9 BrA Brady-Bronson sandy loams, O-3% slopes 10 CaA Capac loam, O-3% slopes ll CbB Capac-Marlette loams, l-6% slopes 12 Ch Cohoctah fine sandy loam, frequently flood 13 Co Colwood loam l4 Cp Colwood loam, depressional 15 Ed Edwards muck l6 Gf Gilford sandy loam l7 HaB Hillsdale sandy loam, 2-6% slopes 18 HaC Hillsdale sandy loam, 6-12% slopes 19 Ho Houghton muck 20 KbA Kibbie fine sandy loam, 0-3% slopes 21 Le Lenawee slilty clay loam, depressional 22 MaB Marlette loam, 2-6% slopes 23 Mac Marlette loam, 6-12% slopes 24 MaD Marlette loam, 12-18% slopes 25 MaE Marlette loam, 18-25% slopes 26 MbC3 Marlette clay loam, 6-12% slopes, severely eroded 27 MdA Matherton loam, O-3% slopes 28 MeA Metamora-Capac sandy loams, 0-4% slopes 29 058 Oshtemo sandy loam, 0-6% slopes 30 05C Oshtemo sandy loam, 6-12% slopes 31 OwB Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 1-6% slopes 32 OwC Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 6-12% slopes 33 OwD Owosso-Marlette sandy, loams, 12-18% slopes 34 Pa Palms muck 35 Pr Parkhill loam 36 Sb Sebewa loam 37 Sh Shoals-Sloan loams 38 SpB Spinks loamy sand, 0-6% slopes 39 SpC Spinks loamy sand, 6-12% slopes 4O StB Spinks-Metea loamy sands, O-6% slopes 41 StC Spinks-Metea loamy sands, 6-12% slopes 103 Table 3-9. Continued Code Map Number Symbol Soil Map Unit 42 TuA Tuscola fine sandy loam, 0-4% slopes 43 WaA Wasepi sandy loam, 0-3% slopes 44 WbA Wasepi sandy loam, bedrock variant, O-3% slopes 45 WnA Winneshiek silt loam, O-3% slopes 104 Table 3-10. Numeric coding scheme fOr the continuing limitations classification. Coding Rating Description Number Slight 1 Moderate 2 Severe 3 Table 3-11. Numeric coding scheme for the soil potential classification. ' Coding Soil Potential Classification Number Excellent 1 600d 2 Fair 3 P00? 4 105 Table 3-12. Data types and data sources included in the Windsor Township file. Scale of Data Type Data Source Date Original Map Soil type Eaton County Interim 1972 1:48.000 Soil Survey Slope Same as soil type 1975 1:15.840 Drainage Same as soil type 1975 1:15.840 Elevation Dimondale, Eaton Rapids, 1965 1:24.000 Lansing South, Aurelius and 7.5 minute quadrangles 1973 Distance to Same as elevation 1965 1:24.000 water bodies and 1973 Depth to bedrock Geological Survey, DNR, 1968 Interpolated Water well records to from point data 1976 Land cover/use Eaton County Land Cover/ 1972 1:48.000 Use Inventory SOURCE: Michigan State University, Project for the use of Remote Sensing in Land Use Policy Formulation, "Report on the Natural Resource Information System Developed For the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission," 1976. p. 14. 106 superimposed over the different map documents (Table 3-12) to be input into the computer. The geocoding aspect of this technique refers to the referencing of these grid cells so that the computers can associate the locations at which the data have been collected with their locations on the maps which are to be produced or the properties for which data are to be summarized or analyzed. Figure 3-2 illustrates this process using the encoding of a soils map as an example. As shown. a dot-grid of appropriate scale and resolution is prepared on a clear sheet of acetate with each cell referenced by its row-column coordinates. Rows and columns are numbered sequentially, starting from the upper left— hand corner. For example, the cell at the beginning of the first row (upper left) has the coordinates of 1,1; the cell in the far southeast corner has the coordinates of 8.8. By superimposing this dot grid onto the soil map, the soil occurring directly beneath each cell-centered dot can be assigned to that particular cell. This technique requires few operator decisions and map documents can be encoded rapidly. The final product of this encoding process is a data matrix (Figure 3-2). Each number in this matrix represents the soil for that parcel of land underneath the corresponding dot on the grid. These data are recorded on a computer coding form, each line or record containing all of the data gathered from the factor maps (cover or land use, soil type, slope. drainage, etc.) for the respective cell (see Table 3-12). Soils and other natural resource data are recorded for each cell using numeric codes (Appendix D). 107 .mpesmxw em mm ems prom m we mcweeeem meme: weaemueee memeewemw--.N-m meamwm 2558» .e 55$ .;.z S Sec. .2358 me 5:22 28 82 :em 25 .8 Bang q q q A q q - Ta 1 q j v 83 33 q d M u d M 4 u d q q 41.- “on” m m m m m o _ o n on“ 33 . s s finsmsvdquSJSJ N 83 q q « amqquqwq _ _«O-_AOJ _ an» 3?. m K. S 0 8 mm. m m. m m m .m W W o o o Eben. OEUOU o o o Q ‘11 5:300 _ so! —. Q 108 A ten-acre dot grid was used by the Remote Sensing Project to encode the different factor maps (Table 3-12) for the Windsor Township file. Among the major considerations for this choice of grid sampling interval was its close correspondence with minimum mapping unit size of remote sensing imagery used for the township. At this resolution, the township file with 36 sections has 2,304 cells, each section having 64 cells (Figure 3-3). These cells are numbered consecutively so that the rows run from west to east (0-48) and columns run north to south (0-48). The interval between cells is 660 feet or 1/8th mile allowing the cell boundaries to correspond to section lines and roads. A FORTRAN computer program was written to permit assignment of soil manuscript codes in the township file. A reference table was prepared where each interim soil map symbol was assigned the appropriate soil manuscript code and integer sequence number (Table 3-9). The program then became a simple table look-up procedure which changed one soil map code to another with the addition of new soil sequence numbers to each record in the file. These numeric codes were then used to access the previously stored data on soil potentials for five land uses in Eaton County. Michigan. These were added to each record in a revised computer master file for the township which was later copied to magnetic tape for permanent storage in the computer system. Appendix E shows the format of this revised file with space allocated for these new data. 109 Jam: 30109 Jon? Jonas 0133 (Jam 6 5 4 3 2| Josou Josos Jam 0925 Floss: J09“ 7 8 9 IO ll l2 H1701 J1me __lm7 ans Jun: JIMI 18 l7 I6 15 l4 l3 Jason J2509 _12517 32525 __l2533 Jam 19 20 2| 22 23 24 .1330: .Jssos .Jsan .Jsazs/ £333 ,_J3341 / 3O 29 28 .27 26 25 I r-II'O' H4109 H4117,fJ4125 “Janis: ,__l4141 / 36 3835 3935 4036403 Figure 3-3.--Grid numbering system for Windsor Township file at a lO-acre cell size. 110 Data Analysis Process A computer-assisted technique was developed to aid in the retrieval, manipulation, and display of stored soil potential ratings. A generalized flow chart illustrating the sequential steps in this process is presented in Figure 3-4. There are five major parts to this chart: the creation of the master file, the retrieval of selected data for analysis, the analysis strategy linking together specific RAP phases, the production of computer maps and tables of statistics, and the analysis and interpretation of the results. Notice that the process begins with the creation of a computer master file and ends with analysis and interpretation of the results. The specific underlying the creation of the master file used in this study were discussed in a previous section. Evaluation of the output from this study will be reserved to Chapters IV and V. Discussion of the intermediate steps between these phases will be specifically presented in the following sections. Data Retrieval from the Masterfile The Resource Analysis Program, called RAP, an interactive computer software system designed at Michigan State University (Tilmann, 1977b), was utilized to assist in the management, manipulation and graphic display of geocoded data stored in the computer masterfile. The program's analytical and graphic capabilities have been added to and modified by many contributors over a period of several years. This program has been well-documented 111 mSmem m...» wzzmmmmmpz. ozq wz_N>._wo m>m.m._.wm . _ _ moaooma > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r 1111111 E53. 5% 11111111111 ._ .3: 5:22 “.0 202.4me 112 and is currently maintained on the CDC 6500 computer by the Remote Sensing Project at the University. Figure 3-5 is a diagram of RAP's internal organization, a generalized graphic description of input, output. and sequencing of major operations. As shown, the grid-geocoded masterfile is stored external to the main program on cards, disk file. or magnetic tape. Users are required to attach this master file before RAP is executed. The program may be accessed either by batch or by terminal, although certain error checking features cannot be utilized fully from the batch mode. RAP was primarily written to be run interactively and, as such. internally prompts the user when data input from the terminal is required. Upon initial execution of RAP the WORKFILE phase is first called to transfer user-specified data from the master file to a binary work file. This file serves as an intermediate data depository through which data are passed from one phase of the system to another. The user is required to specify the format type of the master file (i.e., sequential, raster, scan, or compressed boundary) and whether the file is card image or binary. The user must also indicate: the row and column of the master file grid, the number of factors to be retrieved from this file, the name for each factor, and the column location of each factor. Once answers to these questions are completed, RAP instructs the computer to retrieve the required factors from the master file and c0py them on a binary workfile. RAP then relays a message (if by terminal) 113 .mmmw .ccmswwh ”mumsom .Emumxm w mmh2_¢¢ mm> 1AM "imam“: mw> wwqoa: wmdzm Adzozczwao 3.... mwpmds W. 35.5 m>.._.:owxw wc444» hmm>z_ hmom 2532.2: u4m<._..:0w macaw u4<.._mu>o mmo< mmmdxm Ema. wedged, 4415.55 mm 1‘91 an: 156’ vhf lab at‘ with one data the ment thes 11m 11x"! 120 115 requesting the user to enter the name of the next phase directive and options selected. Development of the Analysis Strategy RAP offers a wide array of analytical and mapping programs which are directly accessible to a user during a computer run. Table 3-13 lists the phases available and their principal functions at the time of this writing. These phases are linked together with an overlay structure to allow intermediate data results from one phase to be entered onto the work file of another for further data manipulation. For example, results obtained through use of the EROSION phase could be input into the GROUP phase for assign- ment into user specified grouping ranges. Data and results from these analytical phases could then be mapped on a pen-and-ink plotter with the PLOTTERMAP phase or on a line printer with the PRINTERMAP or TITLEMAP phases to produce grey-tone maps. The analysis strategy developed for this study basically consisted of linking together various RAP phases and choosing specific options available within each to produce a portfolio of display maps and accompanying tables of statistics. Included in this analysis strategy was the inevitable choice of which mapping option to use for display of the results. The present version of RAP offers two basic mapping alternatives. The PRINTERMAP phase uses the line printer to construct variable scale single or multi- character maps. The PLOTTERMAP phase uses the Calcomp plotter to draw a wider range of mapping characters, using different pen sizes 116 Table 3-13. Phases of RAP and their function. Phase Function 1. AGVALUE Determines assessment values for agricultural land based on current market values and soil indices. 2. CROSSTABS Generates l- to 3-way cross tabulation tables. 3. DELETE Deletes a factor from the Work File. 4. END Stops execution of RAP. 5. EROSION Calculates on-site erosion susceptibility according to the Universal Soil Loss Equation. 6. GROUP Factor is grouped into numeric ranges and each range is assigned an integer number (mapping directive). 7. INVERT Factor range is inverted. 8. LIST Lists current attributes of Work File. 9. NEWFILE Writes a coded Work File onto TAPE 6. 10. NORMALIZE Normalizes the numeric range of a factor between de- fault or user specified limits. 11. OVERLAY Generates comparative site indices by map overlay technique. 12. PLOTTERMAP Constructs variable scale symbol maps with plotter. l3. PRINTERMAP Constructs variable scale, single or multi-character symbol maps using line printer. 14. SCALE Generates comparative site indices using multi- dimensional scaling analysis. 15. SOILTABLE Retrieves soil-related properties from internal library tables. 16. SORT Assigns values (mapping directives) to pair-wise combinations of factors. . l7. TITLEMAP Constructs a fixed-scale line printer map where each grid cell may contain up to three lines of title or numeric data. 18. WINDOW Develops a new work file based on row-column or data window of previous Work File. 19. WORKFILE Retrieves factors from Master File and constructs Work File. SOURCE: Stephen E. Tilmann, Resource Analysis Progpam: User's Guide to RAP, 1978. 117 and colors on a larger variety of different drafting papers. Since the maps were to be reproduced in this report and used in formal presentations, a decision was made to utilize the PLOTTERMAP phase to graphically display the study results. Production of Computer Maps and Statistics Once the general analysis strategy was decided, the appro- priate sequencing of RAP phases was determined from the RAP documentation (Tilmann, 1978) in order to produce the desired graphic and tabular output for the study. This was particularly important since the final product depends upon the order of RAP phases, as well as the specific options selected during the execu- tion of each phase. By choosing the appropriate combination of analytical and mapping phases and their different options, eleven different computer maps, with accompanying tables of statistics were produced. A land use/cover map was drawn using the CROSSTABS, GROUP, and PLOTTERMAP phases. The CROSSTABS program was employed first to determine the acreage distribution of each land use/cover category. Results indicated that a more meaningful computer map could be drawn by eliminating or combining those land use/cover categories with little or no reported acreage on this frequency table. The GROUP phase was then used to combine several of these categories. The grouped data were then mapped on the plotter with the PLOTTERMAP phase. Since the data were nominally scaled, they were portrayed 118 as a letter code (i.e., A = residential, B = commercial, C = industrial. etc.) with boundaries drawn around those cells with the symbol type. The GROUP and PLOTTERMAP phases were also used to prepare five soil potential maps for the portfolio, each one illustrating a different land use in Windsor Township. Soil potential ratings were coded by a simple integer sequence number (i.e., l = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = fair, and 4 = poor). The GROUP phase was used to assign each a mapping directive number which had an associated symbol type (octagons) in the PLOTTERMAP phase. The analyst proceeded next to the PLOTTERMAP program where soil potential ratings were graphically displayed on the pen-and-ink plotter. After each map was plotted, the CROSSTABS program was called to print a table listing the percent distribution of all soils in each soil potential class. Soil limitation maps were next prepared which illustrated the same five land uses as displayed in the soil potential maps. In order to accomplish this task, the SORT phase was called after first retrieving the soil codes from the work file. This phase was employed to assign an integer sequence number to each soil indicating its soil limitation rating for each land use (i.e., l = slight, 4 = moderate, and 6 = severe). Existing tables (Feenstra, §£.§l;: 1978) and personal consultations with Delbert Mokma and Eugene Whitesiderlwere utilized to determine these soil 11Assistant Professor and Emeritus Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, respectively. 119 limitation ratings (i.e., slight, moderate, or severe). Each sequence number was then assigned a unique symbol type in the PLOTTERMAP phase to graphically display the soil limitations ratings for each land use. After each map was plotted. the CROSSTABS program was called to print a table giving the frequency distri- bution of all soils in each soil limitation class. In addition to providing summary statistics for each map, the CROSSTABS phase was employed to print a 3 X 3 contingency table for each land use. The rows of this chart represented soils 1 classified according to soil limitations (i.e., slight, moderate. or severe), and the columns representing soils classified according to soil potential (i.e., excellent, good, fair, or p00r). The number shown in each matrix cell was the number of observations corresponding to the particular row and column. Row totals, column totals, and a grand total were printed for each matrix. Summary This chapter discussed the methods and techniques used to prepare soil potential ratings and their display in computer-drawn interpretive maps. Data sources required to prepare these ratings were identified. Detailed procedures used to collect and record these data were presented. The sequential data analysis process was outlined which assisted in the retrieval. manipulation, and display of these stored soil potential ratings for each of the five selected land uses. CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The previous chapter reported on the research methods used to prepare soil potential ratings for five nonagricultural land uses and spatial displays of these ratings for soils in the study area. The purpose of this chapter is to present the data and analyze the results obtained for each of these selected land uses. On-Site Waste Disposal The soil potential index (SP1) and potential rating of each mapping unit for on-site waste disposal in Eaton County, Michigan, is shown in Table 4-1. The SPI ranges from a high of 100 for Bixby loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, to a low of l for the Shoals-Sloan complex. As shown in this table, all map units were also arrayed from excellent to poor potential according to their soil potential index. The class intervals generated by the JENKS computer program (see Table 3-8) with the maximum goodness of variance fit (98.17%) were used to assign each mapping unit to one of the four qualitative rating classes indicating its relative potential for on-site waste disposal in this county. Note that areas mapped as water (e.g., lakes, rivers, swamps, wet spots, etc.) and borrow land in the county soil survey report were left unrated in Table 4-1. Properties 120 121 Table 4-1. Soil potential index and rating of soil mapping units for on-51te waste disposal in Eaton County, Michigan. Soil Potential Soil Potential Soil Map Unit Index Rating 100 Excellent Bixby loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 100 Excellent Boyer loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Boyer sandy loams, O to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Oshtemo sandy loam, O to 6 per- cent slopes 100 Excellent Spinks loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 91 Excellent Boyer loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes 91 Excellent Boyer sandy loams. 6 to 12 per- cent slopes 91 Excellent Oshtemo sandy loam. 6 to 12 per- cent slopes 87 Excellent Hillsdale sandy loam, 2 to 6 per- cent slopes 84 Excellent Spinks-Metea loamy sands. O to 6 percent slopes 82 Excellent Spinks loamy sand, 6 to 12 per- cent slopes 82 Excellent Spink-Metea loamy sands, 6 to 12 percent slopes 80 Good Boyer-Spinks loamy sands, 12 to 18 percent slopes 78 Good Hillsdale sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 52 Good Marlette loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Table 4-1. Continued. 122 Soil Potential Soil Potential Soil Map Unit Index Rating 52 Good Owosso-Marlette sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 46 Good Brady-Bronson sandy loams, O to 3 percent slopes 43 Good Marlette loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 43 Good Marlette clay 10am, 6 to 12 per- cent slopes, severely erodes 43 Good Owosso-Marlette sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 31 Fair Marlette loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes 31 Fair Owosso-Marlette sandy loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes 25 Fair Capac-Marlette loams, l to 6 percent slopes 25 Fair Marlette loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes 8 Fair Kibbie fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 8 Fair Matherton loam, O to 3 percent slopes 8 Fair Tuscola fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 8 Fair Wasepi sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 8 Fair Wasepi sandy loam. bedrock var- iant, O to 3 percent slopes 8 Fair Winneshiek silt loam, O to 3 percent slopes 5 Fair Metamora-Capac sandy loams, O to 4 percent slopes Table 4-1. Continued. 123 Soil Potential Soil Potential Soil Map Unit Index Rating 1 Poor Adrian muck 1 Poor Capac loam, O to 3 percent slopes 1 Poor Cohoctah fine sandy loam, fre- quently flooded 1 Poor Colwood loam 1 Poor Colwood loam. depressional 1 Poor Edwards muck 1 Poor Gilford sandy loam 1 Poor Houghton muck 1 Poor Lenawee silty clay loam, de- pressional 1 Poor Palms muck 1 Poor Parkhill loam 1 Poor Sebewa 1 Poor Shoals-Sloan loams - Unrated Borrow land - Unrated Water 124 of borrow land are clearly too variable to be estimated adequately and on-site sampling and testing are needed. These are areas where soil materials have been excavated (Appendix A) resulting in the destruction of the original soil profile. The soil ratings shown in Table 4-1, and others reported in this study, should be cautiously used only for general planning purposes. These interpretations are not intended to eliminate the need for on-site sampling, testing,.or detailed investigative studies of specific sites for the design and construction of engineering structures, such as roads, pipelines, and buildings. Soils are variable and, due to these variations, each mapping unit in a soil survey includes a range of soil properties because areas of other soils may be included within each delineated mapping unit. Soil mapping standards stated in the 1951 Soil Survey Manual (Soil Survey Staff, USDA, 1951) require that 85 percent of a soil area must conform to the range of properties defined by a soil name. Hence, 15 percent of an area within a soil boundary may be slightly different from the main body. However, no standard quality evaluations are currently in general use. In reality. the accuracy of the soil map units is commonly much less than 85 percent, and nay average only 55 percent in glacial landscapes like those existing in Eaton County (Amos, 1973; Amos and Whiteside, 1975). This causes difficulties in the use of soil interpretations. For instance, if an individual, who is interested in constructing a septic tank filter field, determines from a soil survey that the 125 dominant soil in a given delineation has good potential for this use. he cannot be 100 percent sure that the soil at a specific site will be the soil shown on the map. This is the reason for the admonition to do on-site evaluations for such uses. Consequently, soil interpretations, whether they are expressed in terms of limitations or potentials, do not apply to the inclusions in a mapping unit. More detailed studies are needed if specific sites, especially for nonagricultural use, are to be deve10ped within a given soil map unit. Perhaps future descriptive legends will give more specific quantitative information about the composition of the soil map units. Corrective Measures and Continuing Limitations In cooperation with county, regional, and state health department officials. as well as local engineers and septic tank installers, designs of on-site waste disposal systems were identified for soils in Eaton County, Michigan. Appendix Table F1 lists soil factors affecting the use, recommended designs to overcome these limitations, and a statement of the kinds of limitations remaining after these designs are installed. As shown in this table, there are two feasible alternatives presently used in the study area to conventional septic tank filter field systems. These are mound systems and sewage holding tanks. Descriptions of these alterna- tive designs, as well as variations of the conventional system, are presented below. Alternate non-conventional systems, such as composting toilets, oil flush toilets, incinerating toilets, and 126 biological and chemical toilets, have been developed for handling home sewage, but have had little evaluation either by testing or by actual use in the Lansing metropolitan area.12 Consequently. these new approaches to on-site waste treatment systems have not been considered here, although they may prove feasible in the future after further testing in the study area. (1) Conventional septic tank system for on-site waste disposal. The conventional septic system for on-site waste disposal consists of a septic tank, breather pipe, outlet sewer, and an underground soil absorption system for final disposal of the effluent (Figure 4-1). Sewage flows by gravity through a house sewer to the septic tank. This large rectangular or cylindrical tank, which can be made up of concrete, steel, or reinforced fiberglass, acts as a primary settling tank for the system. Waste water is retained in an appropriately sized septic tank13 for a day or more allowing solids to separate from the liquid effluent. The heavier solids sink to the bottom of the tank where a "sludge blanket" develops, while lighter particles, including greases and oils, rise to the top to form a "scum layer." Anaerobic bacteria, organisms that live without oxygen, decompose some of the greases and heavy solids releasing methane and carbon dioxide gases which are vented from the tank through a stack vent commonly located on 12Personal communication with Durwood Zank. Sanitarian, Barry- Eaton District Health Department, Environmental Health Division, Charlotte, Michigan. 13The recommended minimum size tank for a single-family dwelling with 3 bedrooms or less is 1,000 gallons for Eaton County. 127 BREATHER PIPE SEPTIC TANK OUTLET SEWER NON PERFORMED PIPE Figure 4-l.--Conventional septic system for on-site sewage disposal. SOURCE: Witz. gee, 1974. 128 the roof of the dwelling. A breather or capped observation pipe (Figure 4-1) is used to provide convenient access for measuring the depth of undecomposed sludge and scum remaining in the tank. This material must be pumped out every 2 to 3 years under normal use to prevent clogging of the soil absorption fields. In the conventional system, the remaining liquid effluent then flows from the septic tank through an outlet sewer (Figure 4-1) into the soil of an absorption field. This is a series of long narrow trenches, not more than 100 feet long. filled with crushed gravel or stone which surround perforated plastic pipe or open- joint agricultural drain tile. The liquid effluent seeps out of the holes in these pipes and into the surrounding soil where the effluent is then filtered. removing disease-causing bacteria and viruses, fine solids, and some nutrients. In a properly designed and installed septic system, biological and chemical processes in the soil allow for adequate filtering of bacteria and nutrients before the percolating effluent reaches the groundwater. To rationally design a system for disposal of sewage effluent, an evaluation is commonly made by a local health department snaitarian of the soil profile (through soil borings or backhoe cuts) to locate limiting zones, and also percolation tests to determine the transmissibility of the natural soil formation. A limiting zone is any soil horizon, layer of bedrock, seasonally high water table, or other restricting layers that limit the soils' capability to purify the effluent before it reaches the groundwater. The depth to which these subsurface zones occur determines in large 129 measure whether or not a conventional septic system can be installed. Where a restricting subsurface layer is closer than 3 feet to the ground surface as identified by soil borings alternate methods of effluent disposal will have to be considered by the potential home owner (Machmeier. 1977). Soil percolation tests can also indicate whether the conventional-type disposal field can be satisfactorily used on particular soils. This is a standard test commonly used by sanitarians to evaluate the soils' ability to absorb sewage effluent. Soils have different capacities to handle septic tank effluent. Coarse-textured soils usually have rapid percolation rates and cannot adequately filter bacteria and viruses, while fine-textured soils have slow percolation rates not allowing enough water to pass through them. The conventional type disposal field is only satisfactory in soils having percolation rates faster than 60 minutes per inch. Results obtained from percolation tests for these soils, will provide valuable information on the required size of the absorption field to handle the sewage effluent dis- charged from the septic tank. The size of the absorption field in a conventional septic system depends upon the porosity of the soil as measured by the percolation rate and the amount of sewage needed to be filtered by the absorption field. The daily peak flow of household sewage is commonly estimated by sanitarians, using the United States Public Health Service guidelines, at 75 gallons per day per person 130 or 150 gallons per day per bedroom, assuming that two people occupy each bedroom in a residential dwelling (United State Public Health Service, 1958). The size of the absorption field required to adequately absorb this quantity of sewage effluent per bedroom is shown in Table 4-2 for soils with different percolation rates. The required absorption area for each bedroom is then multiplied by the number of bedrooms for the proposed house to calculate the total square feet of absorption area needed. This area is then divided by the proposed trench width to determine the total length of drainfield required. The layout of the trench and distribution of effluent depends primarily upon the topography of the proposed dwelling site. Figure 4-1 illustrates the use of a conventional absorption system on level or nearly level soils, and Figure 4-2 shows a similar conventional system constructed on sloping soils. The later incorporates a method of effluent disposal (commonly referred to as serial distribution) by distributing effluent to the drain- field trenches with drop boxes. This allows each trench to absorb the maximum amount of liquid before additional quantities will flow to the drop box of the next trench in the series. Each portion of this subsurface system is thus used to full capacity to absorb the liquid effluent reducing the chances for lateral flow and surface seepage downslope. (2) Elevated sand mound systems. The conventional septic tank-soil absorption system is unsuitable in many locations because of site limitations. such as 131 Table 4-2. Minimum absorption area for conventional septic systems in square feet per bedroom as indicated by percolation rates in Eaton County, Michigan. Percolation Rate1 Absorption Area Required2 (minutes/inch) (square feet/bedroom) 0 -10 165 ll - 15 190 16 - 20 220 21 - 25 260 26 - 30 300 31 - 40 350 41 - 45 375 46 - 60 425 61 or more Use alternative systems SOURCE: Barry-Eaton District Health Department, Sanitary Code Regulating Sewage Disposal, Table II. 1 Time required for water to fall one inch. 2Trench width 18 to 36 inches. 132 .Nmmw .emme;umz ”mumzom .muwm mcwee—m co Ewumzm ewuemm pmcewucm>ceu--.N-e wesmww 133 134 slowly permeable soils. or soils over shallow bedrock or seasonally high ground water tables. The elevated sand mound (Figure 4-3) is an alternative system developed to overcome some of these limiting soil and site conditions and also allow for subsurface disposal of household effluent. This alternative system has been adapted and modified by numerous researchers for soil and site conditions prevalent in their particular states (Witz, 22.21;; 1974; Bouma, 1975; Wooding, 1975; Machmeier, 1977). A septic tank-mound system has three basic units: a septic tank, a pumping chamber, and an elevated sand mound (Figure 4-3). The size of the spetic tank is the same as that used in the conventional septic tank disposal systems. Effluent flows from this tank after primary treatment into the pumping chamber where an electric pump delivers a portion of it periodically under pressure for distribution in the mound. The sewage treatment mound is simply an above surface absorption field elevated by sand fill above the natural soil consisting of fill material, an absorption area, a distribution system made up of perforated pipes, a clay barrier, and topsoil (Figure 4-3). The effluent that is pumped into the mound through the distribution system slowly percolates downward through the fill materials where it is filtered before it reaches the natural soil. The clay barrier, which is built around the mound, prevents effluent from moving out of the mound, promotes runoff, and provides frost protection. The topsoil over the entire area of the mound aids in establishing and maintaining a suitable grass cover to prevent erosion. 135 uu140 .. 1-.. 1..“ .. 4.09.3. \ 1.....1II---..1..I11.111.w «11:11-11 \ j; era; 4.633 .13.-.. §)) 1.“.14 1. xx. 1 44; Dram .. uni u)“. OUF> .20.. 3e: >=ee we: 8:5 0 .mEmEcmzeeemm emcee .8 38680 . m_ .6552: £88er A.... ewe mcezeo 000 ._e E:E_c_E mce..__eo 0.-.00_ .li: OMKMFME mm OJDOIm Ewkm>m .. m0<>>mm O._.z. 02:501.“. mm._.<>> 1. 1 .un. not. I-nho. or. . l 'J-Lég' V mm Ema—2 v.26? - eteqaqe x23 v <11 . 3."... $38 :53 5.: mai 53mm de N. ew ml 502430 ..e Maze: 1 w. RV .M ..91* .542. O._. mmeUd. mom wn:n_ =0 141 xcmp chcFo: oo0m mgw>mm gone coucmzoz smpmxm Pacovpcm>coo omNF mumgmuoz mmaopm ucmugma up on o .Emop macaw mpmnmppw: Emumam pocowucm>cou omop ugmwpm mmqopm pcwugwa 0 cu N .Emop aucmm mpmumppwz xcmp mcmupoz ooom mgm>om Emop accmm uLo$Ppw xcmp mcwcpo: ooom mgm>mm xuas mungum xcmu mcwupoz ooom mgm>wm chopmmmgamu .Emo_ noo:—ou xcmu mcwupo: ooom mgm>wm Eco” noozpou xcop mcwnpo: ooom mgm>mm umvoopm xrucmacmgm .Emop xucmm we?» gmuuogou mmwgmm myumpgmz mmm anon mppmpng Lou xcmu mcwupo: ooom mgm>mm mmaopm pcmugmn 9 cu F .msmo_ wuumpgmznumaou mmaopm «smegma m o» o .Emop umamu mpwom xumgm gum: xmpasou a cw xpco twang: smpmxm chowucm>cou cow mumgmuoz mmwgmm comcogm mmmgmm camcogm mmm “Lug comcogm Lon mmaopm Emumxm ocaoz comm mLm>mm “cwugmq m on o .msmop Aucmm :omcogm-aUmLm mmwgmm mxcwqm mmm puma mxcwnm sou mmaopm emumxm Pocowp=m>coo ommp mgm>mm “caugma mp op NF .mncmm ascop mxcwamugmxom Emumxm Pocowucm>cou coop mumgmuoz mmaopm acmugma NF ca 0 .mswop xucmm gmxom Emumxm pmcowucm>cou cow usmwpm mmaopm pcmugma o ea c .msmop avcmm gmxom Emumxm chowucm>cou ooo_ mpmgmuoz mmaoFm ucmugmn NP o» m .ccmm xsmop gmxom Emumxm chomucm>cou cow acmwpm mmaopm acmugma m on o .vcmm xsmop gmzom nmumgagmucw mp ow anmem> cop mmwpgmgoga camp 3oggom swamxm pmcowpcm>cou com uzmwpm mmaopm ucmogma m o» o .Emop xnxwm xcmu mcwu—oz ooom mLm>mm xuzs cmmgc< Amumpv szmmmZ m> wHUwLLOU “moo _mwuwcfi cowumpwew. _wom “we: an: Fwom mmgammwe m>wuumggou pcmgmw$wu mcwxpgqm we mpmou uwumewpmm new mcopumpwewy FAom .cmmwgowz .xucaou coumm cw Pomoqmwu mama: mpwmuco Low .mue mpnmh Umztxu:00 .hnv MKQEK 142 mmwgmm mupmpgm: mmm ugma muuw—Lmz gem mmaopm Emumxm chowpcm>cou ooom mpmgmcoz pcmugma N_ o“ o .msmop aucmm muumPLmzuommozo mmwgmm muampgmz mmm axon «pumpgmz so; mwaopm Emumxm pmcowucm>cou comp mumgmcoz ucmugma o o» P .manp Aucmm mgpmpnguommozo smumxm chowucm>cou coop mpmgmcoz mmaopm acougma NF on m .Emop aucmm campgmo smpmxm chowacm>coo com psmmpm mwaopm “caugma m on o .smop xucmm oewpgmo soumam Pacowucm>coo ooom mumgmcoz mmaopm ucmugma NP op m .mccom zsmop amumz-mxcmam $o pgma «mum: Emumzm Focoppcm>cou comp mpmgwooz mmaopm pcmugma m on o .mucmm xsmop mmumzumxcwqm we ugma omumz mppom mxcwam sup: xmpneou cw apco conga: «mum: mmwgmm ounce «mm ugma umamo gem mmao_m Empmxm uczoz ooum ogm>mm ucmogmg e on o .Emo_ macaw unamoumgosoumz swamxm ucaoz oomw mgm>mm mmqopm ucmugwa m on o .Emop cougwsumz smpmam chowucm>cou comm mgm>mm mmao_m pcmusmn mm on mp .Emo_ mppmpgoz EmumAm chowacw>cou ommm mgm>mm mmaopm acmugma mp op NF .Emop mpumpgmz umnogm smumxm chowucm>cou ooom wumgmuoz xpmgm>mm .ucmugma up on m .Emop xmpu muumFsmz Emumxm Pocowucm>cou ooom mungmnoz mmaopm pcmogma N_ cu m .Emop muumpgmz smumxm chowucm>coo oom_ mumgmuoz mmaopm “cougma m op N .Emop mupm_gmz Emumxm Pacowucm>cou ooom mgm>mm chowmmmgnmu .Emop ampu xapwm mwzmcmg Empmam cane: oosm mgm>wm mmaoFm pcmugma m o» o .Emo_ zucmm «cw; «Paavx Amhm_0 mgammmz m>wgumggou pmou Pmpuwcn cowampwew. .Pom “we: an: Pwom cm==_p=ou .m-¢ «Pack 143 Empmxm acne: OQNN mgm>mm mmgopm ucmugma m on o .smop uprm xmpgmmccwz monopm ucmugma Empmxm vase: scum wgm>mm m on o .ucmFgm> xuogumn .Eoop aucmm Pammmz smumxm ucsoz comm mgm>mm mmaopm ucmugma m on o .Emop zucmm Pawns: Emumam uczoz ooNN mgm>mm mmaopm acmugma e on o .Emop aucmm mcpw apoumap mmaoFm ucmugma m_ on up emumxm chowu=m>cou ommp mgm>wm .mucmm xamop mxcwamngmaom we axon mxcwnm mmwgmm mmumz mum pgma swam: Lou mmaopm Empmxm pmcowucm>cou coop muogmuoz “cmugma up on m .mucmm xsmop mmpmzumxcwam emumxm pmcopucm>cou coop mumgmuoz mmaopm ucmugwq Np o“ o .ucwm a5m0~ mxcpam mmpgmm «mum: mmm ugma mmumz so; maopm Emumxm pocowucm>cou com psmppm acougma m on o .mncmm zsmop ampmz-mxcmnm Emumxm pmcowucm>cou com usmmpm mmno—m ucmugmn m on o .ucwm »Emop mxcwam mmwgmm mpaosm cup: xmpaeou cw xpco umaqw: xcmu mcwupoz coon mgm>wm mmwgmm cmopm mmwgmm :mopm mmm “Lea :mopm Lou xcmp mcquoz ooom mgm>mm mama. cmopmnmpmozm xcou mcvaoz ooom mgm>mm Emop mzmnmm xcmu mcwupo: ooom mgm>mm Emop Ppngsma xcmu mcwcpoz ooom mgm>mm xuas mapma mmwgmm wupmpgoz mum pgoa mupmpgmz Lou mmaopm ucmugwa empmam Pacowucm>co0 ommm mgm>wm mp op NF .msmo_ aucmm mpumpgmzuommozo Awumpv «gammy: m>waumggou “moo meuwcfi cowgmppswd _?om “0:: an: ,Pom umacwpcou .m-e m_nmh 144 basis. The dollar figure listed in Table 4-3 is the mean of the range in costs (Appendix Table Cl) for installing the different corrective measures for each soil. These were computed from cost analyses of installed systems obtained from septic tank installers, engineers, and local health department personnel in the study area. The average initial costs of installing corrective measures on different soils for home sewage disposal in Eaton County ranges from $800 to $3,000 (Table 4-3). These data clearly indicate the need for additional investment and alternative nonconventional systems for adequate sewage disposal in soils with moderate to severe limitations. Soils with slight limitations (e.g., Bixby loam, Hillsdale sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes) require only an initial investment of about $800 to $1,050 for installation of conventional septic tank-disposal systems, while those soils with moderate limitations (e.g., Hillsdale sandy loam, 6 to l2 percent slopes, Marlette loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes) require an expenditure of $1,000 to $2,000 to install similar conventional systems. Initial costs for soils with severe limitations (e.g., Adrian muck, Houghton muck, Tuscola fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes) are higher, ranging from $1,250 to $3,000. In addition to the in- creased costs for installation, alternative nonconventional systems, such as mound systems or holding tanks, are necessary on many of these soils (Appendix Table F-l). These systems require increased maintenance and monitoring relative to conventional systems for home waste disposal. 145 Computer Output The soil potential ratings generated in the study and soil limitations gathered from engineering interpretation tables in the Eaton County Soil Survey (Feenstra, 93.21;: 1978) were entered into a grid-geocoded computer file for Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan. These data were then subsequently mapped using the PLOTTERMAP phase of RAP and the university Calcomp plotter. The computer-generated maps developed here demonstrate the unique graphic capabilities of the RAP system to facilitate a visual understanding of soil interpretations for different nonagricultural land uses. Figure 4-5 illustrates the locations of cells with limita- tions for home sewage disposal and offers an interesting picture. This computer-generated plotter map was drawn using concentric octagons to produce a visual density effect. The darker octagons on the map represent areas which have fewer limitations for home sewage disposal than other areas represented by lighter-shaded octagons. Each of the symbols on the map represents the appropriate rating for a lO-acre grid cell. Borrow land and water areas, including lakes and river, were left unrated in the study and show up as blank cells on the map. In viewing Figure 4-5 it is readily apparent that much of the land area in the township has severe limitations for home sewage disposal. Most notable perhaps is the area which straddles "Old Maid Swamp" (see Figure 1-3) in the northwest portion of the 146 .awsmczoh comucwz cw Famoammu mama: mpwmuco cow mcowpmuwamp F_om mcwpmcumzppw ans m>wpmcacmpcw :zmcuucmpsnsounu.m-¢ mczmwm 147 Ill . l l. l -I . ll- :11 .1 2.2 $9.53 3 n m 2.25.5 :2... 5.25:. _ .o_-ux .acaouc 4¢xe_oug up:¢~.~tocu accpnuu than: 1 g ~ a6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 sis. 6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666- 6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 a6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 o6666666666666666666666066666660666666666666666 o6666666666666666666666666666600666666666666666 a6666666666666666666666660666666666666066666666 a6666660666666666666606666666666666666666666666 o6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 066666666666666 6666666666666666606666666666666p a66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666665 o660666666666666o666666666666666666666666666666¢ 0066666666666666666666666666666666666666666666: a 0066666066666666666666666666666666666666666660 a6660666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 3666 6666666666666666666666666666666666666666660 a66660666600666666666666666666666666666 6666666 3666666666 0606666666666666666666666666666666666 a66666066666 0666666666066666666666666666666666w o66666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666 a6006666066666666666666666666666666666666666666p a666666666666666.066666666666666666666666666666- a6666666666666666666666666666666666606660160666 .a;=sz€!=§.:. a6666666666666666606666606600666666660666600666 a66666666666600600.6666006666666666666066666006 a66666666666666600.66660666666660666066066660665 :ii .12 0666666666666666666 666066666666066666060666666 6666666666666666666666666666666606666060606666_ i. o ua666666666666666666666666666666660666606.606666p 066666666666666666 66666666666666.66660660666665 66666666666666660 6666666666666666660066666666a 3N T .23. a 666666666666666666 6666666666666666666666666666o s. o 66666666666666666 6066666666666666666666066666: . 666666666666666 666666666666666666666666666666c a666666666666666 6666666606666666666666666666: !sz;s_l;t 666666666666666 66666666666666606666666666666.5 4666s 66s66666666660666666666666660.6666666sa.66: :25;;;g.gac 6666666666663666666666666666666606666666666656c 6622:6965; .66666666666666 6 66666666666666666606666666666 - 6666666666666 0066 666666606666666666666666666 .6666666666660 6666 666366666666666,36366F666p .¢:.n:. 66666666666666.6666 6666666666666 666666666: :mfr 6666666666666 66666 66666666666666666~66L666 “936,629.19. 66666666666666666666 66666666666666666666.66c ng Z: Z: a. 4 _ a... l- .4666E8@©E§E§09%E639F6£F r1--. - - - 11. l . 11%-..- 1 . L 148 township. A study of the soils map, sheet 23, in the Soil Survey of Eaton County, further indicates that the Adrian, Colwood, Edwards, Gilford, Houghton, Palms, and Parkhill soils dominate the landscape. These are nearly level, poorly and very poorly drained, mucky and loamy soils in depressions and drainageways (Table l-l and Appendix A). These soils are not well suited for home sewage disposal because they have high water tables for most of the year, and obviously have poor filtration capabilities due to these wet conditions. A second area in Figure 4-5 is the northeast portion of the township, located east of the Grand River (Figure l-3), also has predominantly severe limitations for home sewage disposal. A study of the soils map, sheet 30, in the soil survey report of the county, revealed that the Capac soils dominate this landscape. These are slowly permeable soils with water tables high enough to be troublesome for long periods. They present serious problems for installation of soil seepage systems because of severe limitations imposed by both slow soil permeability in clayey sub- soil horizons (percolation rates slower than 60 minutes per inch) and seasonally high ground water tables (commonly less than 2 feet below the soil surface). A third area in Figure 4-5 that stands out with predominantly severe limitations for home sewage disposal is situated near the King and Carleton drains (Figure l-3) in the southwest portion of the township. A visual inspection of the soils map, sheet 35, in 149 the soil survey of the county, shows that the Capac, Gilford, Houghton, and Sebewa soils dominate this area's landscape. Another area on the map with similar soils is located in the south-central portion of the township in proxmity to the upper Skinner Drain Extension (Figure l-3). As previously mentioned, these soils are sure to present problems for conventional on-site waste disposal because of their seasonally high water tables and slow percolation rates in subsoil horizons. Figure 4-5 also shows a few areas with only slight limita- tions for home sewage disposal. The spatial distribution of these soil areas is almost exclusively concentrated in the west-central portion of the township adjacent to U.S. Highway 27 and in proximity to West Windsor (Figure l-2). A second area with similarly rated soils is located in the center of the township (Figure 4-5) within the corporate boundary of the Village of Dimondale (Figure l-2). A visual examination of the soil map, sheets 29 and 30, indicates that Bixby, Boyer, Hillsdale, and Spinks soils tend to dominate these two areas. Generally, these soils are well drained, sandy loams or loamy sands with moderately rapid to rapid permeability. They require only minimal expenditure for installation of soil seepage systems because of these soil conditions, although those with rapid permeability must be sited appropriately to avoid pollution of shallow ground water supplies and nearby water courses, such as drains, lakes, and rivers. The spatial distribution of soil areas with moderate limita- tions is also well illustrated in Figure 4-5. These areas are 150 scattered throughout the map, especially concentrated in the southeast quadrant of the township. A study of the soil map, sheet 36, of the soil survey of the county, indicates that Marlette and Owosso soils dominate this area's landscape. Generally, these are well drained and moderately well drained gently sloping to hilly soils on till plains and moraines (Table l-l and Appendix A). Those soils with a moderate rating are only gently sloping to sloping; moderately steep to hilly soils have severe limitations due to slope. The moderately slow permeability of the subsoil horizons of these soils (percolation rate commonly between 45 and 60 minutes per inch) imposes moderate limitations for their use in home sewage disposal. Conventional soil absorption systems with serial distribution can be enlarged to compensate for this soil restriction, although obviously at increased costs relative to those systems designed for soils with only slight limitations. Table 4-4 shows the percent and approximate acreage of soils in Windsor Township with different degrees of limitations for home sewage disposal. The calculations are based on the number of cells in each category (slight, moderate, severe, unrated) as plotted in Figure 4-5. According to the information presented in this table, 968, 8,848, and 12,8l0 acres have slight, moderate, and severe limitations for on-site sewage disposal in Windsor Township, respectively. This total acreage accounts for 98.2 percent of the land area in the township (22,625 acres). The remaining acreage (4l5) is water and borrow land left unrated. 151 .Appmo cog mosom o_ .mppmo commv cue can mue mmgsmwm co comma mum mcoppmpzupou “who: oeomm o.oop mpe w.F mmmo N.me FmNN m.m Papa m.am Pmmp o.m .aHOP m.¢ w.F mpe m.P cognac: spam, o.mm "mam ~.me .mNN o.m gem m.~ mea>mm mama e.mm mmmm o.~m mmm e._ muaemuoz mom ~.e mam ~.e “emvpm mogu< x mmco< & mmcu< N mogu< N mogu< N mmgu< a Pouch counts: Lao; ammo uooo p=m_Pmuxm covaauvsws mewoam .mwucmuoa ,wom pvom mo mmgmmo .cmmvzowz .xuczou scum“ .avgmczo» comccwz cw Famoamwu mpmmz mpwmuco so» mpmwucmuoa new mcowpouwewp Pwom an ummwvmmmpo mFPOm mo mammgom mumepxogaam new ucmuxm mpmcowpgoaoga .eue oPQMP 152 These data then indicate that 42.6 percent of the land (9,816 acres) in the township has slight or moderate limitations for on-site sewage disposal, and is therefore suitable for use of conventional septic tank-soil absorption system, while more than half of the land area (55.6%) has severe soil restrictions for these systems. With the advent of new technologies to overcome or treat moderate and severe soil limitations, significant changes can occur in the amount of suitable land for nonagricultural land uses. Table 4-4 shows the proportionate extent and approximate acreage of soils in Windsor Township classified according to their potential for home sewage disposal. As indicated by the totals at the bottom of the table, 1,291, 9,101, 2,281, and 9,953 acres have excellent, good, fair, and poor potential, respectively, for on- site sewage disposal in the township. Further study of these data reveals that out of the 12,810 acres of land in the township which are rated as having severe soil limitations for on-site sewage disposal, over ll percent of this land area has good or fair soil potential for this land use. That is, assuming that modifications of conventional systems and mount systems are installed. This is a significant increase of 32 percent, 2,857 acres, in the amount of land that would be suitable for on-site waste disposal in the township. This additional area that would become suitable has either soil permeability rates and depth to seasonally high water tables or restrictive subsoil horizons presently adequate for mound systems, or soil slope gradients acceptable for specially 153 engineered conventional septic tank-absorption systems with serial distribution of effluent. With further research in home waste disposal technology, it may be possible in the future to construct mound systems or other alternative systems on soils with high water tables within 2 feet of the surface without resorting to less desirable and expensive alternatives, such as holding tanks.15 Thus, small but significant additional acreages of soils, now rated as having poor potential in Windsor Township (43.2 percent) would have increased soil potential for home sewage disposal. The locations of cells with different soil potentials for home sewage disposal are illustrated in Figure 4-6. It is readily apparent that several areas on the map stand out as particularly suitable for such uses. Most notable, perhaps, are the areas in the northwest quandrant of the township, specifically in sections 7, 8, l7, and 18 (Figure 1-2). Much of these areas have either excellent, good, or fair soil potential for home sewage disposal. By comparing Figure 4-5 with Figure 4-6, it is evident that soils in these areas, rated as having severe soils limitations, now have fair or good potential for on-site waste disposal. Other areas on these two maps show similar changes as well. The introduction of these modified conventional systems, as well as non-conventional systems for home sewage disposal, naturally poses a host of serious questions regarding land use. 15Personal communication with E. J. Tyler, Assistant Professor, Soil Science Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. 154 .awgmczoh Lamaze: :_ —mmoamwu mama: mummlco Lee Pompcwpoa Fwom mcwumgumappw awe m>m¢mgacmucw czmcuugmuaaeou--.oue mesmwu 155 new. amoruuuo ph—wxbzz; :cpm 88:33: 23.3. buufiox‘ gala—Owe u>:ccut00u acxbxuu zptox 03‘10 - _ _...L_ 3.: _ a o. Sui-tun (I... .6: .tl .u... ... _.-us.. In. mu .5 8 pl. my 53! . ‘:£! Ju. ’- ' z¢o_xu_: .ppzaou zopcu ¢_zmzzo» cowoz~3 Hzmzpcmm» moczwm uzoz mom 4¢_»zmbom 4~om N T 3 m c . _ _ _ . a — 303 QOSSOSOOOOOOOE 3333003333303000300333300333 aOQEO©O©©OO©OO©©O©©OOOO©O©OOO©OOOQ©6©©©OOOOO©©Oa aOE©EE©OO©©OO©O©©©OOOOOOO©©©©®©O@@@©©©©OOOO©©COa a©QE@©©©©O©©©OOOO©OOOO®OOO©©9909©©O©®©©OOOQ©©©© ©©EO©O©©©©©©O©©OOO©OOOOOOO©OO©©EEQQQOOOOOQEOOOa aO©O©©OO©0©©©O©©OOOO©O©OOOO©OO©O©©©©©©O€©OEOOOOO aOO©©©©©OO®©©OOOO©OQOO©©©©OQO©OOOE©9©©OOO€EE€€B OO©O©©O©OOOOOOOOO©O©©OO©©OOOOOOOOE©©9©OO©OEEEEB: OOO©©©©©O©©©O©© 990996009008000OOOOOO©O©OO@@@E50 3©©9 €©©OO©©©O©©©©OOO©EO©O©©©O©OO©O©©OOOO©0€E€85 O©©©OOO€@S..@©O©O©©©©©©©OO©OOOOO©6©OOOO ©©6©€660 O©O©©©©©€O .O.©O©©OOO©©©O€©©OO©©©©©©OO©OO©€€9€€E O©©©©©OO©©O© .©©@O©©O©©©OO.©©OOO©©©©O©©©©E€€€BE- O©998©©©®©©OOQOO©®O©OO©©OOOO©©OOO©©O©©©©EE®EEE€© , a . aEEEOEOEEOOEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEEEOEEEEEOEEEEEOOOOEEEC oEOEEEOEEOOOEEEEEEOOEEEEOEEOOEEEEEEEOOEEEOOOEEES aOEEEEOOEOEEOOOEOOOEEEEOOEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEOEOEO.E3 aEEEEEOEOOEEOOOOOOOEEOEOEEEEEEEEOEEEOOOOEEOEO9E6 oEEEEEEEOOOOEEEEOEE OEEOEOEEEEEEOEEEEEOOOEEEEEEG aEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEEOOEEEEOOOEEEEEOEEEfi.00:OE EEEG aOOEOEEEEEOEOOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEEEEOE5EGO OEOOOEEC OOEOEOOOEEEEEOEEEE .EEEEEEEOOEEEEOEEEEOEEOOEEEEi oEEOEOEOEEEEEEEEEO .EEEEEOEOEEEOOOEEEOOEEEEEEEES OEOOEOEEEEEEEEEEEO EEEEEOEOEEEOOEEEEEOEEEEEEEEE: QEOOOOEEEOEEEEEEEO EOEEEEOEEEEOEEEEEEEEEEOEEEEE: OEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEOEEEEEEEJEEEOEOOOEEOEEEEESwe: aOEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEQEEEEOEEOOEEEEEEEEEQEEESE: aEEEEEEEEEEEEOEE OEEEEGQEEGEEEEEOOOEEEEOEEEfissa. aOOEGEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEGEbEEEEEEEEEEOOEEEEEEsEnEEE: aEOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEEEEEEOEEEEEEEEOIEEEEEEEEEEE6; .EEOEEEEECEEEEE E EEEEOBOEEEEEEEEEEEOEEEEEEEEEE; EEEEEEEEEEEEE 0.69 OEEEEEEOEEEGEEEEEEEEE€E€€€cQ .EEEEEEEEEEEEO EEEE OEEEEEEEGEEEEEEEEEEECEEE.; EEEEEEEEEEEEEIEESO OED EEEEEEEEEE5E6€€660€:; OEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEeEEEEEoéijz.6i JCEEEEBEEEEEEEEEQEE EEOEEEEEEEEEEOECE€::a:.; . A EFFFBFEEEBBB JBTEEEBEPEEBFFBhEEPG n n p n a p n 2.. _ . . _. 156 Local health codes, which are based on the siting requirements for conventional systems, have often served in many communities as "de facto zoning ordinances," commonly stricting development in many nonsewered rural areas (Butler, McCown, and Gates, 1977). This has allowed protection of significant environmental features, such as agricultural lands, forest lands, groundwater recharge areas, resource deposits, and wildlife habitat. With the realization that areas with slowly permeable, shallow, or wet soils can safely absorb sewage effluent, the argument for banning residential dwellings from these environmentally critical areas on health grounds becomes less convincing. Additional land use conflicts are almost sure to emerge from this type of situation. An evaluation was made in Windsor Township to determine potential land use conflicts with the application of conventional and nonconventional on-site waste disposal systems. Figure 4-7 is a computer-generated land use cover map for the township from data gathered by interpreting color-infrared aerial photographs taken of the area during 1972. The minimum resolution of each area on the photograph was about 10 acres in size. Each symbol on the computer map then represents the dominant land use within each 10 acre cell. By visually comparing this generalized land use and cover map with Figure 4-6, it is evident that there are many potential land use conflicts between this non-agricultural use and current agricultural land in the township. In many instances, soils with excellent, good, or fair potential for home sewage disposal 157 .nwzmczoh Lomccmz cw Lm>oo\mm= vamp mcwpmcpmappm nus m>wpmgagwucw czmguugmpzasouuu.mue ocamwm 158 I g D ’r‘ .- ‘ . B on..- -E E —1 - . E—a.‘ 2 ’ ' u.‘ I—o - ‘UU .q: . to!” ‘4 ‘,' D " E --t~ z‘ -- ' _) —- g — ' Opt” I: U : cu:— ~ g s , . »— u... .u ' 1‘ -1: .. flux .. h)- --—3 U Jot-U s] D- ! 5:. / - C‘QO D m: .. I K‘-t OD .! / .- VIE; o ‘ 5 Id u ,_‘ JJU “'- Ugly __. O 3 ”88° Z Z2 3 o c: ° ' ° _._. 5...; ~— .UCUECI-‘IIJCI. - O 301 .. . : qu 8 C l l i 0 I I I o E I I I I I I I I I E E E E E 1 1 I I E E I I I o o I I a E o I I a x I x I I I E E E E 1 1 I I E I I 1 I I I I I I E I I I I I I I I I I E I E E I 1 I I E 1 C 1 O o o 1 I I E I I I I I I I I G I v. I E E I 1 1 I E 1 O I 1 ol1lol1 1 1 I I I I I II I I E E E I I I I I I E 1 I IE 6 o I I I I I I I I I I I I o E E E I I I I I E I I I E I— l ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I E E E I I I I I I I I O I I E I I I I I I I I I I I I I E I E E E I I I I I I I I I I I IE I I I I I I I I I I I I E E E E E E E E I I I I I I I I E I E E E a a 1 I I I I I I I I I E E E E E E E E I I I I I I I I E I E E I a 1 I I I I I I I I I I E E E E I I I I E E I E E I o I I I I - I IIE E E E E E I I I E E E E I I I I I I I - E E E I I I I E E E E 1 1 I E I I I E I E o I o OJI I I I I I I I E E E E I I I E I E E E E E E E E I I I I I I I I E E I I I I E E E E E E E E E E E 1 I I I I I I I I E E I I I I I E E E E E E E - I I I — u I I I I I I I E E E E I I I E E E o a I I I IE. I ol-l I E E II I 1 E E E . o u u I I I I I III 1 E E I I I 1 I I I I u u u o I o c c E c 1 -- - - -— — E E E E E o c I I I u u u I I I I 1 E 1 E I 1 1 - u E E E E E E I II II I I u u u I I I I I E u E I E E E u E E E E E E E I E E EII II on uII I I I I I I I E u E I E E E E E E E E E E E I I I II I r—dr—4 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I E I E E E E E E E E E E E E E I IIIE —. p—‘ -m E E e E E I I I III I I E E E E I E E E E E E E E E E IIE E E —-1 p— E E e E c a I I I I I 1 E E E E I E E E E E E E E I I I IE E E K o - I I t I I I E El- E E E E E I I I - -JE E I IJE 1|o I I I I E E E E E E E E I I I I I I I I 1E E E E E I I I I I I E E E E E E I I E I I 1I II E E E E E I I I E E E E E a. I I E E 1 1 IIE E - E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 1 E E E E E E E E E E E E- E E E E E E E E E E E E I I E - E EEE E E EE EEEE E EEEIII—EEEE EEEEEII EE E E IE E I IIEE II—uEEEEE IEEE III P—1 EE EI IIEE EIIIEEIIII——|IIEIEEEIII E I - IE E ~|EEE I I I IIIIIIII1E 1II o I I - 1 I E I I I II II I I I E E E 0 C '- 1 I E E I II I I E E E E E E O I 8 I. EEEE 00 EEE E 1 1-1IIIIEEE E 1 I n- o- - I E E E E E E I E I . - - 1 1|I|1 1 I I I I I ‘ — - 1 O - - E E I g 1 .- 1 I —d 1 I I E E E I I 1 — I I p—u ‘I O C 5]. . u- — — — —I. . . '| E E E E E E 1 1 E E E E E E E l 0 ° 1 E E E 1 1 E E E E E E I I I E E 1 1 E E E E E 1 ° I t E 1 1E E E EE EEEIIII I . U '1. 11" 1 E E E E E _ 159 occur in agricultural areas. The most notable perhaps occurs in sections 7 and 18 (Figure l-2) in the northwest quadrant of the township (Figure 4-6). Here soils with excellent, good, and fair potential occur in areas with cultivated cropland, broadleaved forest, permanent pasture, and brushlands. Several other areas scattered on the two maps show similar potential land use conflicts. Residential Roads and Streets The soil potential index (SP1) and potential rating of each mapping unit for residential streets and roads in Eaton County, Michigan, is shown in Table 4-5. The SPI ranges from a high of 100 for Bixby loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, to a low of 1 for Palms muck. As shown in this table, all map units were also arrayed from excellent to poor potential according to their soil potential index. The class intervals generated by the JENKS computer program (see Table 3-8), which have the maximum goodness of variance fit (98.4%), were used to assign each mapping unit to one of the four qualitative rating classes indicating its relative potential for residential roads and streets in the county. Areas mapped as borrow land or water in the soil survey of the county were left unrated as shown in Table 4-5. Borrow land is a miscellaneous land type resulting from the excavation of materials, such as fill materials, gravel, or sand, to be used at another location. In the process of removing these materials, the original soil profile has been destroyed in these areas. All ratings must therefore Table 4-5. Soil potential index and rating of soil mapping units for residential roads and streets in Eaton County, Michigan Soil Potential Soil Potential Index Rating Soil Map Unit 100 Excellent Bixby loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 100 Excellent Boyer loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Boyer sandy loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Hillsdale sandy loam, 2 to 6 per- cent slopes 100 Excellent Oshtemo sandy loam, 0 to 6 per- cent slopes 100 Excellent Spinks loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 95 Excellent Spinks-Metea loamy sands, 0 to 6 percent slopes 94 Excellent Boyer loamy sands, 6 to 12 per- cent slopes 94 Excellent Boyer sandy loams, 6 to 12 per- cent slopes 94 Excellent Hillsdale sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 93 Excellent Oshtemo sandy loam, 6 to 12 per- cent slopes 93 Excellent Spinks loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes 92 Excellent Brady-Bronson sandy loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes 90 Good Spinks-Metea loamy sands, 6 to 12 percent slopes 86 Good Marlette loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes lab 30' Table 4-5. Continued 161 Soil Potential Soil Potential Soil Map Unit Index 86 Good Matherton loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 86 Good Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 1 to 6 percent slopes 86 Good Wasepi sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 86 Good Wasepi sandy loam, bedrock variant, 0 to 3 percent slopes 86 Good Winneshiek silt loam, 0 to 3 per- cent slopes 85 Good Boyer-Spinks loamy sands, 12 to 18 percent slopes 81 Good Marlette loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 81 Good Marlette clay loam, 6 to 12 per- cent slopes, severely eroded 81 Good Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 78 Good Capac-Marlette, l to 6 percent slopes 75 Fair Parkhill loam 75 Fair Sebewa loam 75 Fair Colwood loam 75 Fair Colwood loam, depressional 75 Fair Gilford sandy loam 75 Fair Lenawee silty clay loam, depres- sional 71 Fair Marlette loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes 162 Table 4-5. Continued Soil Potential Soil Potential Soil Map Unit Index Rating 71 Fair Owosso-Marlette sandy loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes 70 Fair Capac loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 70 Fair Kibbie fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 70 Fair Metamora-Capac sandy loams, O to 4 percent slopes 70 Fair Tuscola fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 60 Fair Cohoctah fine sandy loam, fre— quently flooded 60 Fair Shoals-Sloan loams 52 Poor Marlette loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes 1 Poor Adrian muck 1 Poor Edwards muck 1 Poor Houghton muck 1 Poor Palms muck - Unrated Borrow land - Unrated Water 163 depend on an on-site investigation because of the highly variable nature of these units. Corrective Measures and Continuing Limitations In cooperation with officials at the Michigan Department of State Highways and Eaton County Road Commission, as well as pavement design engineers, local paving contractors, architects, designs for asphalt-paved residential roads and streets were identified for soils in Eaton County, Michigan. Appendix Tab1e F2 lists soil features affecting the use, recommended designs to overcome these limitations, and a statement of the kinds of limitations remaining after these pavement designs are installed on these soils. As shown in this table, there are four kinds of construction measures or practices commonly used, either separately or together, on soils in the county to overcome problem soil conditions. These are the following: increase pavement thickness, excavate peat and muck, add fill to raise grade of roadway, or cutting and filling. A brief discussion of each is presented below. (1) Increase pavement thickness. Tye typical full-depth aSphalt pavement structure for residential roads and streets consists of an asphalt surface course and one or more asphalt base courses placed directly on a properly compacted and prepared subgrade (Figure 4-8). "Hot-mix asphalt" is a term used by pavement design engineers to describe a hot-mixed asphaltic mixture composed of graded aggregate bounded together by asphalt (Michigan Asphalt Paving Association, 1977). 164 - fa :i-v ' ’ ' E5143 '- ”3:1“:IILL” :4”? ‘4gb=: .“?"55‘4511:5x“171~!!555"kEEAHEEE Figure 4-8.--Typica1 full-depth asphalt pavement cross-section for residential roads and streets. SOURCE: National Asphalt Pavement Association, 1975. 165 Research conducted over a number of years at different locations in the United States indicates that subbases and cushion courses composed of stone or gravel are not required with full-depth asphalt pavement (Brakey and Carroll, 1971; Beagle, 1974). In fact, these type of granular materials are detrimental in that they will collect water and distribute it over an entire subgrade, thereby allowing underground water to penetrate the pavement. Since asphalt surfaces and bases are themselves unaffected by moisture and frost, a well designed asphalt pavement can result in a waterproof section which will be a barrier to subsoil water, minimizing the damaging effects of frost. The principal factors that should be considered in deter- mining the overall thickness of an asphalt pavement section are: the estimated numbers and types of vehicles to use the roadway in the future, the support of the subgrade, and the properties of materials in the pavement structure. After gathering many years of test data, the design approach developed by the Asphalt Institute makers use of thickness design charts to determine the total thickness of hot-mix asphalt pavement required for given traffic and subgrade conditions (Asphalt Institute, 1970). Table 4-6 shows the typical thickness of asphalt pavements used for residential roads and streets in Michigan based on the load-supporting characteristics of subgrade soils. The design thickness for any given soil can then be determined by evaluating its load supporting characteristics, commonly measured by the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) test. Excellent subgrade soils will have a CBR value of 10 166 Table 4-6. Typical thickness of full-depth asphalt pavements by subgrade class for residential roads and streets in Michigan. Subgrade Surface Hot-Mix Total Class Course Asphalt Base Thickness Excellent 1.01 4.0 5.0 Good 1.5 5.0 6.5 Poor 1.5 6.5 8.0 1All thicknesses in inches. SOURCE: Michigan Asphalt Paving Association, Design and Construction Guide, 1977. 167 or more, good subgrade soils will have a CBR value of 6 to 10, and poor subgrade soils will have a CBR value of only 3 to 6 (Michigan Asphalt Paving Association, 1977). Each soil in Eaton County was assigned to one of these three subgrade categories with the assistance of experienced soils engineers located in the immediate area. Since laboratory test data were unavailable, the approximate correlation of the AASHTO16 and Unified Soil Classification systems with the CBR was then used to estimate CBR values from the AASHTO and Unified ratings for each soil. These values assured proper placement of each soil in one of the three subgrade classes. Based on the information provided then in Table 4-6, excellent subgrade soils (e.g., Bixby and Boyer soils) would only require a ''normal" asphalt pavement total thickness of 5 inches, while another offering poor subgrade support (e.g., Capac and Kibbie soils) would require an increased total thickness of 8 inches. (2) Excavate peat and muck. The treatment of peat and muck soils essentially involves either the total or partial excavation of these unstable organic materials. They make unsuitable subgrades for residential roads and streets being highly compressive and subject to severe frost action. Roads built on these soils often exhibit uneven and long- continued settlement of the roadway grade line. If the road alignment must cross these materials, the Michigan Department of 16System adopted by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 168 State Highways recommends that they should be excavated down to their mineral horizons, provided this can be accomplished satis- factorily with conventional equipment (Michigan Department of State Highways, 1970). The excavated material is then replaced by suitable borrow to an elevation 2 feet or more above the original soil surface before compaction of the grade material. As a general rule, 12 to 15 feet is commonly the maximum depth for excavation with conventional equipment. Deeper deposits of peat and muck soils require special treatment. The reader is referred to the Field Manual of Soil Engineering, published by the Michigan Department of State Highways, for an excellent discussion of the practices and techniques required for constructing roads on organic soils. (3) Add fill to raise grade above water table. In general, areas that have a seasonally high water table or are depressional will require elevation of grade. Good drainage is of critical importance in the design and construction of asphalt pavements. The accumulation of excess water in the underlying subgrade soils can cause eventual damage to the pavement structure. If this soil becomes wholly or partially saturated it will lose stability and support weakening the entire overlying pavement structure. The roadway would then be susceptible to breakup under imposed traffic loads. In soil areas with seasonally high water tables, the recommended practice of highway engineers is to raise the grade of the roadway with granular materials to provide a 169 separation between the asphalt pavement and the groundwater to cut off capillary rise. A common rule of thumb used by these engineers is to establish the grade line at least four feet above the yearly maximum ground water table (Asphalt Institute, 1966). (4) Cutting and filling. Residential roads and streets should be as flat as possible to permit automobiles and commercial vehicles to ascend or descend with ease at a constant speed. Although those with steep grades provide interesting scenic views of the surrounding countryside, they are, in general, tiring for pedestrians, bikes, and automobiles (Untermann, 1978). They can also be unsafe since descending com- mercial vehicles must use their brakes on grades of more than about 4 or 5 percent. This can pose a safety problem on wet or icy pavements. Keeping this in mind, public agencies which regulate the construction of residential thoroughfares have commonly set upper limits for the maximum grade of any road or street. For example, the Eaton County Road Commission, in its regulations pertaining to subdivision of lands, requires that the maximum grade of any street be no greater than 5 percent in the county (Eaton County Road Commission, 1968). To construct roads and streets with these gradients, requires some grading of soil materials to adjust the road alignment to the existing topography. Grading of soil materials consists of essentially two basic operations: removing soil material (called cutting) and adding soil material (called filling). Roads can be 170 laid out at angles to or perpendicular to the contour. The former nay require extensive amounts of grading, but is preferable because it results in a route that can move motorized vehicles gradually up or down or around a hill (Untermann, 1978). By balancing cut- and-fill operations, grading costs can be minimized because there will be little need to import or export soil materials. As in any earthmoving operation, however, disturbed areas on the roadway right-of—way must be seeded and mulched and vegetation maintained to prevent excessive soil losses due to erosion. Maintenance costs for these practices can be expected to be greater as slope gradients increase. Cost of Corrective Measures Table 4-7 presents the estimated costs of applying different corrective measures to overcome soil limitations for residential roads and streets in Eaton County, Michigan. Note that these are only estimates in 1978 dollars of the costs per linear foot of roadway required to install corrective measures on 30-foot wide roads. They are not intended to eliminate the need for cost estimating by local contractors on a site-by-site basis. The dollar figure listed in Table 4-7 for each soil is the mean of the range in costs (Appendix Table C2) for installing the different corrective measures. These were computed from cost analyses of previously completed road and street projects obtained from local asphalt pavers, home builders, and the county road commission, as well as other sources in the study area. 171 a.< om.mN mgm>mm Emop Encmm ucompwo a.u.< om.¢¢ mcm>mm xuzs mucmzum o.< om.m~ wcm>mm chowmmmcamc .Emop noozpou o.< cm.mm mcm>mm anp coozpou umuoo_E o.< om.m~ wcm>mm Epucosamcm .Emop Eugen mcwm gmaoo;ou mmwcmm mpumpcmz mom ucma mpumpcmz com m oo.¢~ mcm>mm monopm ucmucma o op p .msmop muumpcmzuumamo m oo.e~ mcm>mm manopm ucmocma m o» o .smop ounce mppom Enocm saw: xm_asoo a cw Epco young: < om.mp mcw>mm mmwcwm camcocm wwwcmm :omcocm mam pgma comcocm com monopm m om.mp mcm>mm acmucma m ea c .msmop Eucmm comcocmuxumcm mmpcmm mxcwam mom ucma mxcvnm com monopm m.< oo.o~ mcm>mm ucmugma mp on up .mccmm Eamop mxcwnm1cmxom u.< oo.E— mumcmvoz monopm ucmocma up on o .msmop Eucmm cmaom < om.m_ mamcmuoz monopm ucmucma m op o .mEmop Eucmm cmxom m.< oo.~. mumcmcoz monopm ucmocma up on m .ucmm Eamop cmaom < om.mp muncwcoz monopm acmocma m on o .ucmm Esmop cmxom noun; on on mpom_cm> ooa mmpucmaocm vamp soccom < om.mp mumcmuoz mmaoFm pcmocma m o» o .Emop Enxwm o.u.< om.¢v mcm>mm gaze :mwcu< mczmamz m>wuomccou Amfimpv cowompmsws Fpom ave: an: __om poem gooey; cm “moo pumuwcH .cmmvsowz .Euczou coumm cw mummcum can mumoc ~m_u:mvpmmc cow mwcammms m>wuumccoo acmcmEEmo mcmxpaam mo “moo umumewumm can =o_umupswp P'om .Eue mpnmh 172 m.< om.E— opmcmuoz monopm ucmocma NF cu m .smop steam campgmo < om.mp uzmwpm mmaopm ucmucma m op o .smop Eccmm oemugmo mmaoFm acmocma Np cu m u.m om.F~ mamcmcoz .mucmm Eamop mwumz-mxcwam Eo acma mono: monopm acmucwa o o» o m om.m— mumcmuoz .mucmm Eamop «mum: mxcpqm mo use; «mum: m—Pom mxcwam saw: xmpnsou cw Ergo woman: mono: mmwcmm umamo mom ucma umamo com monopm m oo.e~ mcm>mm acmocma e on o .Emop Evcum ongmu-mcosmumz m om.m_ mcm>mm monopm acmocma m op o .Emop coucmgumz m.m oo.om mco>mm monopm ucmocma mm o» mp .EmoP wuumpcmz u.m oo.¢~ mcm>mm monopm ucwucma mp on N, .smop muuopcmz cmuocm E_mgm>mm m.m oo._~ maggots: .ucmucmn NP on m .Eoop EmFU muumpccz m.m oo._m mumcmuoz monopm usmogma NP op o .Emo_ muumpcmz m om.m_ mumcouoz manoFm ucmocmn o o» N .Emop mppmpcmz o.< om.mN mcm>mm Pucommmmcamu .Emo_ Empo Eupwm mmzocm4 monopm m oo.e~ mcm>wm ucmocmg m ow o .Emop Eucmm we?» mmnawx o.u.< om.¢¢ mcm>mm xoae copgmao: monopm m.< oo.- mumcmuoz ucmucma NP on m .smop Eucmm mpmumppw: < om.mp mumcwcoz monopm ucwocmg m on N .smo_ Eucmm mpmumppwz mczmmwz m>muomccou Amnapv cowumuwsw4 Pwom “we: an: Pwom pool cmwcmg cm umou mepwcH umaccpcou .~-¢ m_amh 173 monopm unmoemn mp op Np m.< oo.ON mem>mm .mcnom Eamop mxcpnm-emaom Eo wean mxcpnm mmwemm mmumz mum wean swam: eon monopm m.< om.np mpmemcoz ucmoemn Np o» e .mocwm Esmop moumzumxcwnm m.< om.np oumemcoz monopm ucmuemn Np cu m .ucnm Eamop mxcpnm mmpemm swam: mom wean «mum: eon monopm < om.me nemeem ecaoemn n on n .mecam esaoe mmnmz-me=enm < om.mp anmwpm monopm pemoemn e on o .ucmm Eamon mxcpnm mowemm mpoosm guy: xmpnsou cw Epno umnnmz n.< om.MN wem>mm mowemm cmopm mowemm cmopm mom wean nmopm eon n.< om.MN mem>mm mamo_ cmopmumpmogm n.< om.mN mew>mm swap «zonmm n.< om.mN meo>mm Emop ppvgxemn n.u.< om.¢¢ meo>mm eons mspon mowemm oppmpemz mom wean mayo—em: eon mmnopm ucmuemn w.m oo.¢N mem>mm mp op NP .mEmop Eucmm muumpem210mmozo mowemm mppmpemz mam uemn «pumpemz eon mwnopm m.m om.mp mpmemuoz unmoemn NP on m .mEmo_ Eucmm mapmpeo21ommo3o mowemm «pumpemz mam neon mupopemz eon monopm m om.ep memento: ucmoemn m on F .msmop Eugen muumpemzuommozo menace: o>eeumeeon Amenev coenaueeen Peon nee: nu: _eom goon emwcwn em amou meupcn naneepeon .e-e menae 174 mppwm new mazu muaen «meme on Ppee uu< eons use pawn mum>moxm unmem>mn canon szE eo mmmcxupsu ummmmeocm ucm5m>mn :unmu Ppnm mo mmmcxuwnp Fmeeoz II (MUCH-l .muwz ume Euemnu Egzumom_ m om.mp mumemuo: monopm unmoemn m ea c .Emop upvm xmwsmmccmz monopm ucmoemn m m om.m_ mem>mm op o .ucmpem> gooeuwn .Emop Eucmm Enema: m om.m~ wem>mm mmnopm unmoemn m on o .Eoop Eucmm mnmmuz monopm m oo.¢N mew>mm pcmoemn e op o .smop Eccmm ocww epoumnh mezmnm: m>vuomeeou Amnn_v covumuwewn Fwom awe: nu: Fwom noon emmcwn em “moo pmwumcn vengeance .e-e m_nae 175 The average initial costs for installing corrective measures on different soils for roads and streets in Eaton County ranges from $15.50 to $44.50 per linear foot of roadway (Table 4-7). Further study of the data presented in this table reveals that the organic soils (i.e., Adrian, Edwards, Houghton, and Palms) have the highest costs (44.50) for road construction among all the units mapped in the county. In fact, their costs are nearly twice as much as those of the most costly mineral soils for road con- struction (i.e., Capac loam at $24.00 and Marlette loam 18 to 25 percent slopes at $30.00). The additional costs for overcoming their severe soil limitations are indeed quite high compared to those of mineral soils. This vividly illustrates the reason why organic soils should be avoided for residential road and street construction, if at all possible. Table 4-7 also shows the increased costs of residential road construction on sloping soils. In the case of the Marlette series, for example, there is approximately a 54 percent increase ($30.00 versus $19.50) in the cost of constructing a road on a Marlette map unit with an "E" slope (18 to 25 percent) compared to that on a "B" slope (2 to 6 percent). This increase in con- struction cost is due mainly because of the enormous volume of soil material that must be moved in order to provide a suitable road grade. The additional cutting and filling operation obviously requires an increase in manpower and machinery. As in the case of organic soils, the data compiled in this study indicates that 176 steeply sloping soils should be similarly avoided for residential road construction, if at all possible. Computer Output Figure 4-9 illustrates the locations of cells with soil limitations for residential roads and streets in Eaton County. The basic format of this computer-generated plotter map is similar to those previously discussed in this chapter. The darker octagons on the map represent areas which have fewer limitations for roads and streets than those areas represented by lighter- shaded octagons. The areas with blank cells are either borrow land or water and are unrated for this purpose. By visually inspecting the map it is apparent that much of the land in the township has severe limitations for residential roads and streets. Most predominant is the area in the vicinity of the "Old Maid Swamp" (see Figure 1-3) in the northeast portion of the township (Figure 4-9). As previously mentioned, this area has nearly level, poorly and very poorly drained, mucky and loamy soils (i.e., Adrian, Colwood, Edwards, Gilford, Houghton, Palms, Parkhill, etc.) located in depressions and drainageways on the landscape. Another area on the map with similarly rated soils is located in the extreme southwest corner of the township (Figure 4-9). A study of the soils map, sheet 35, for the county, indicates that this area's landscape is dominated by the Capac, Gilford, Houghton, and Sebewa series. Soils in these two areas present serious problems in the construction of residential roads and 177 .nwsmczo» eomucw: cw manoeum ucm mumoe _mwunmuwmme eoe mcowumawewp pwom mcwpmeumnppw nae m>Pumenema=w :zmecuempnnsouul.m-¢ menmpn 178 1|"! .Ilalli. :0. cuoxuuuo :_ncu>_xn :2... 21°25... no. u: CUIUEE auto—cu- u>_e¢¢uE09u .cuezuu ero: IueIa—I . _ E _ 3:. . I'. I. IEIII'E' i». Sta .3, 3.8 .I 2.13.. 3::- 00 Soul... 0 e32! . l-uIE—I_J :3 ‘EI ’ aco_zu_e .eeznoe zoene enzwzzoe momoz_3 mpmwmpm 02¢ moqom 4¢_pzuo_mum men mzo_»¢»_z_4 0_om fill ; l 3 n a . _ . . . _ 1.30303303 03030 333 0333300 aO©O©©OOOOOO©9©©OOOO©O©OO30©OOOO©©©©©©©O©O©OOOOa IOO©©@©@OOO©OO©OO©OOO©©©©©OOOQOOO©©O©OOOOO©©©OOa OO©O©©O©OOOO©OOOO©O©©OO©©OQOOQOOO©©©OOOO©O©©©©©a OOO©©©©©OO©©O©© 96990000009006BOO©OOO©O©OO©©©©©a a@000©OO©©©©©©©©©©O©©©OOOOOO©O©©OOOOO©OOOO©OO©©O OO©©O©99©O©©©O©O©©©O©©©O©©OO©©©OO©©OO©OOOOOOOO©a ©©©©OOO©O©©OO©O©OOOO©OO©©©©©O©OO©©O©©O©OOOOOOOa a 3©©OOO©3©©©O©©990©©O©O©OO©O©OOO©©O©©OOOO©O©O©a O©O©©©©©©O©OO©©©O©©O©O©©©O©©©OO©©O©©OOOOOO©OO©Oa 39©O ©©OOO©©©O©©©©©OOOOO©O©©©O©OO©O©OOQOOOOO©©Oa O©©©©©©©OO©©OOO©O©©©©O©OOO©OOOOO©O©OOOO ©©O©OOOI O©©©©©O©OO ©O©©O©©OOO©©OOO©©O©©©©©©OOOOOOOOOOOOO O©©©©©389©OO 09©©O©OO©©©9©©©©OO©©©©OO©©O©©OO©O©a O©909©©OO©©OO©OO©OO©OO©©OBBQOQQOO©©O©O©©©©O©©©©a aO©©OOOOOOO©OOOO©©©©O©O©©©©©©©OOO©OOO©©O©©O©OOOa aOOOQBOQO©OO©OOO©©©O©©OO©©©©OOOO©O©O©©O©©OO©OOOa OOOOO©O©OOOOOO©©9©O©©OO©O©©©©©O©©©O©©©©0333©©O© aO©OO©©O©OOOOO©O©©©©©0©O©©©©3©©©©©O©O©©OOE@©©OOI I©9®©EO©©OOO©O©©©O©O©©©©3©EOO©©©©©O©©3©©O©OC©©OO a0960©9©OOOOO©©OE©©O©©©©©O©OO©©©©OO@©930©O@OO@©. a©©©©©OO©OOOQOOB©©©O®OO©©©O©©O©©©O©©3©©3©©30©©© O@©©©©O©©OOOOO©©O©© ©OO©©OO©OO©©@©©O©@3@3©©©@©© I©©9@©©O@©O©©©©O®©@000EOOOOQOOOO©3©©O©3©303©©©©O aOOQOQEO©©O©OOE©EEOEE©©OOOOOOOO©©3©©©©393©3©©99I OOOCEOOOOC©©©O©O©O EEEOOOOOOOOOOOOQEOEOOOOEOEOB OO©©OO©OO©©©©©©©©© ©O©©O©OOOOOOOOO€O©33©OOOO©OO OOOO©O©OOO©©O©9©©© OOO©©OOO©©OOOOO©©O©OOOOO©©OOI OOOOOOOEEQOQEE©QO© O.©@©©OO©©BOOOOOOO©OOOOOOO©©I OO©©©©O©©©©©©€©O OOOEE©©OOO©©©OQOOOOO©O©OOOO©©OI aOQEOO©©©©O©OO©© a990©©©©©6©©©0©9©©6©©ee©eee©©©©9900©©99©0©©©©99 aee@©EEE@@©©@©e©eee@©eeeee©e@@©©©0©©©O©99©99©©ea oOOOQQE©E©©©©©© e ©©©9©©9e©e©eeee©@eoeeee©ee©eeo BOOQEEEEQQEE ©©ee eeeeeeeoe@©©ee©eeeeeeeeeeeec a6©©9©é©99®©e© e©©e eee@ee@e©@©e©©©©eeeeeeeee a©©©©©©€©©§©©©0©eee aeee©@eee©@ee @@©©© a©8©©€96©©©90©©©©©96 ©©OOOO©9©O©OOOOO©OOO©OOI baééééfi 179 streets, although the organic soils of this group (Adrian, Edwards, Houghton, Palms) have considerably more difficult soil limitations to overcome requiring additional corrective measures, thereby dramatically increasing the cost of residential road construction. Soils that present only slight limitations for residential road construction are almost exclusively concentrated in the west- central portion of the township (Figure 4-9) adjacent to U.S. Highway 27 (Temporary Interstate 69) and in the vicinity of West Windsor (Figure l—Z). Other soil areas with slight limitations are scattered throughout the map, but without any recognizable pattern and with limited areal extent. Table 4-8 shows the proportionate extent and approximate acreage of soils in Windsor Township with different degrees of limitations for residential roads and streets. The calculations are based on the number of cells in each category (slight, moderate, severe, or unrated) as plotted on Figure 4-9. According to the information presented at the right side in this table, 461, 9,308, and l2,856 acres have slight, moderate and severe limitations for residential roads and streets in windsor Township, respectively. This total acreage accounts for 98.2 percent of the land area in the township (22,625 acres); the remaining acreage (415) is water and borrow land which is unrated for this purpose in the county. These data indicate that only 42.4 percent of the land (9,769 acres) in the township has slight or moderate limitations for residential roads and streets, and is therefore suitable for .2.me can meson O_. amp—.mu VOMNV Oplv tam one mLamwn— :o tmmma wLw mcowuwpzupmu “MHOZ 180 oeomm o.oop mpg m._ mmow F.m mmmm ¢._¢ mmmm o.F¢ mov_ _.o peach mpe m._ m_¢ m._ u - n - - - u - nuance: ommwp m.mm - - omom _.m mmmm ¢.F¢ “no, m.¢ «QF m.o mgm>am mama e.o¢ - - - - - - mqmm F.Nm ooh m.m abaemuoz Poe o.~ - - - - - - - - Poe o.~ acm._m mmcu< & mogu< N mmLu< & mmgo< R mogu< & mmso< N Papa» omumgc: Loom wcflwmm Fmvpcmpoaummwm acmppmuxm P_mmwwmuwmemo cmmwguwz .zpczou :oumm .avgmzzoh comucmz cw mammcum new mama; Fawucmuwmmg Lo» mmepcmuoa can mcowpmuwemp Fwom An nmwwwmmmpu mpwom we mammgom mumswxoggnm new acmuxm mumcowugoaoxa .muv m_nmh 181 use without special road designs, while more than half of the land area (55.6 percent or 12,856 acres) has severe soil limita- tions for these same land uses, usually requiring more costly corrective measures. Significant changes can occur, however, in the amount of suitable land for residential roads and streets by applying different corrective measures on soils with moderate or severe limitations. Table 4-8 shows the proportionate extent and approxi- mate acreage of soils in Windsor Township classified according to their potential for residential streets and roads. According to the information presented along the bottom of the table, 1,405, 9,585, 9,539 and 2,096 acres have excellent, good, fair, and poor potential, respectively, for this land use. Further study of these data reveals that out of the 12,856 acres of land in the township, which are rated as having severe soil limitations for residential roads and streets, 83.7 percent has excellent, good, or fair potential for residential roads and streets. This is a significant increase of 111 percent or 10,760 acres in the amount of land that might be suitable for these land uses in the township, provided that the proper corrective measures are applied to each soil (Appendix Table F2). Even more significant is the fact that only 9.1 percent of the land area in the township has soils with poor potential for this land use because their soil limitations are extremely difficult and costly to overcome with different cor- rective measures. 182 Figure 4-10 shows the locations of soils with different potentials for residential roads and streets in Windsor Township. Three areas on the map stand out by having high concentrations of soils with excellent or good potential for such uses. The most significant perhaps is the area in the northwest quadrant of the township and located almost entirely in sections 17 and 18 (Figure 1-2). By visually inspecting this map, it is apparent that of the two, section 18 has the greatest number of cells with soils having excellent or good potential ratings. In fact, only one cell in the entire section has poor soil potential for residential roads and streets. A second such area on the map is located almost at the center of the township, in close proximity to the corporate boundary of the Village of Dimondale (Figure 1-2). A third such area, located in the southern portion of the township and east of the King and Carleton Drains (Figure 1-3), also has a favorable distribution of soils with excellent or good potential for this land use. Immediately west of this area on the map is a large number of contiguous cells which have predominantly poor potential for residential streets and roads. As in the case of on-site waste disposal systems, the best soils in the township for residential streets and roads commonly occur in areas presently used by agriculture. By visually comparing the generalized land use map for the township (Figure 4—7) with Figure 4-10, it is evident that the most notable example of this Potential land use conflict again occurs in sections 7 and 18 183 .awzmczo» somccwz cw mammcpm new mumog mepcwcwmmg com meucmuoa P?om mcvpmgum:_9w awe m>wpmgacmpcw czmgvugmpzaaouuu.o_-¢ mgzmwu L. PL 40 :2: «£1.53 .Zw-=_!..§.¢125z3: oaH .z 5.55::5 .azc_o.u .,_.ac.gaaE 51.52.“ x5¢or 3.5‘5—I . 0" o— Calais. ‘5. tin 5:. 3:.- .I. .Ild. 82 F. 5... G4 88 G. 3.1:: . 1.5-2.; 5... ’3 '. :¢u_xu_: .552305 zo5¢u ¢~Iwzzoh momoz_3 mhwumpm 02¢ moqom 4q_»zmo_wmm mom 4¢_52mhom 4_om 1" .l'.1|4 3 m m _ EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEEEEEEE JJCEEGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE: .EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE: IEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEEEEEEEEEEEEe EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEC EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEEEEEEEEEEEEEE: EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOUEEEEEEOOEEQEEEEEEEEEE:s EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE; EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEEEEEEEEEEEEOEEE E95Eas EEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE€55Eggs EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE555551 EEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEEEEEEEEG55555 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.5555 JEEOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEOEEEEEEEEEEEE:E552 OOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE:5i OOEJEEEOSEEEEEEEEEEEEEECEEEOEEEEEEEEEEEP55555: 5EEOUEEEEEEEEEEDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE5555: EEE :EaaaEEEEEGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE5@EEEEE65555; EGEEOOOQEEOOEEcE05E5EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECE 55555555 EEEEEEEEE OEOEEEEEEEEEEEEQQQEEEE5EEEEEEE5555555 JEEEEEOEEEEE .EEEEEaEEEEEEOGEEEcEEEEE55E555E5555 JEEDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEQE3E5E5 E5555555555555o EDOOEEEEOEEEEEEEEEEEEEEfiE5GEEEEEE5Ca5555555555E5 .ESEEacEEEEoEEEQOOEEEEEEEEGEEEE,555;555555555EE5 C5EE5EEEEEE5EEEEEEEEEEOEI55EE55E c.0555000055E6 JEEEEEG EEEEE5EEEEEE5EEEQOEE5O55EGE:55555.5.35EE 0E6EE5EEEEEEEEEE5EOEEEEOO5EOOE5555550.555OOOEEE0 EEEEEEEEEEEEEOOEOOOcEEEOOnEEEE 55EE55 0.0;.EOOE EEEnEEEEEOEEUEcOOOEEEEOEE EEE5 5.555.000550EOEE0 JDEEEEEEEOEEEEQEEEE 3E5O5E5EE55505EE550005.EEEEO .6E5EEEEEEEEEE5555E1555.55:555.55.5EE5350 O55EEO ECE€E5EEEEEEEE5555E55555E5OO5005.0555505OOOIOEE0 EEEEEQEECSEEE53EE OEE5E5555«055505555025006EEE0 :E5EEEEEEEE55EE5E. OE55E 55E5EEE54515500550EEEEE0 5:50:55 5.51.55.65.55...»55:55.50. EE: 5.5:555.555505EE55 EEEEEEEEEEo .EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE. EOEEEEEEEEEEEEE€E5EEEEOEEEEEo EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEE5EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE - EEEEEEE5OOEEEEEEEEOEEEEEEEEEo EEEEc::E:;E:,5E 055.5EE55EEE5505.5OOEEEEEEEEE5 :EEEEEE5EEE5:5555 O55v55:EEE5EEEEOOESEEEEEEEEEE EEE55E5EEE2E55555 .55EEE5 5EEE5555.EEEEEEEEEEEEE 55:55 5:5 5:5 5. 5 5 5. : 5 _,.5 5 5 5 :5 _5 5 5 5. :. 3 5 5 .5 5 5E3000EEOEEEEG 5E.555E$55E55 33.5 :55555E.{5555EEEEEEEEEEEEE5 E5EEE551E55500 5555 EE5E€€E55EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EEEEQ5QEQE555335E5: 9Ei555EE£56.@E©©O©OOOO€OQ :EEQ555555515 5555a 5555Ea5fioEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEa E5555555E5555555555. 55.55335.EE©©©O©©©9®EE©OS Funnnuuknnh nunhunn5nw.5knyrh. 3 0000000 3:05: 185 (Figure l-2) in the northwest quadrant of the township. Here soils with excellent, good, and fair potential occur in areas with cultivated cropland, broadleaved forest, permanent pasture, or brushlands. Residential Dwellings with Sanitary Sewers and Basements The soil potential index (SP1) and potential rating of each mapping unit for residential dwellings with basements in Eaton County, Michigan is shown in Table 4-9. The SPI ranges from a high of lOO for Bixby loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, to a low of l for Palms muck. As shown in this table, all map units were also arrayed from excellent to poor potential according to their soil potential index. The class intervals generated by the JENKS computer program (see Table 3-8), with the maximum goodness of variance fit (97.5%), were used to assign each mapping unit to one of the four qualitative rating classes indicating its relative potential for residential dwellings in the county. Note that the areas mapped as water and borrow land were again left unrated, as presiouvly discussed. Corrective Measures and Continuinggtjmitations In cooperation with private home builders and home con- struction trade organizations, as well as local engineers and architects, designs for residential dwellings with basements serviced with sanitary sewers were identified for soils in Eaton County, Michigan. Appendix Table F3 lists the features affecting Table 4-9. Soil potential index and rating of soil mapping units for residential dwellings with sanitary sewers and base- ments in Eaton County, Michigan. Soil Potential Index Rating Soil Map Unit 100 Excellent Bixby loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 100 Excellent Boyer loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent s1opes 100 Excellent Boyer sandy 1oams, 0 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Hillsdale sandy loam, 2 to 6 per- cent slopes 100 Excellent Marlette loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Oshtemo sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, l to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Spinks loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Spinks-Metea loamy sands, 0 to 6 percent slopes 91 Excellent Oshtemo sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 91 Excellent Spinks loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes 91 Excellent Spinks-Metea loamy sands, 6 to 12 percent slopes 91 Excellent Boyer sandy loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 91 Excellent Boyer loamy sands, 6 to 12 percent slopes 91 Excellent Hillsdale sandy loam, 6 to 12 per- cent slopes Table 4-9. Continued 187 Soil Potential Index Rating Soil Map Unit 91 Excellent Marlette loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 91 Excellent Marlette clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded 91 Excellent Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 86 Excellent Capac-Marlette loams, 1 to 6 per- cent slopes 73 Good Brady-Bronson sandy loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes 73 Good Capac loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 73 Good Kibbie fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 73 Good Matherton 10am, 0 to 3 percent slopes 73 Good Marlette loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes 73 Good Metamora-Capac sandy loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes 73 Good Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes 73 Good Tuscola fine sandy loam, O to 4 percent slopes 73 Good Wasepi sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 73 Good Winneshiek silt loam, 0 to 3 per— cent slopes 73 Good Boyer-Spinks loamy sands, 12 to 18 percent slopes lai 188 Table 4-9. Continued Soil Potential Index Rating Soil Map Unit 58 Fair Marlette loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes 58 Fair Wasepi sandy loam, bedrock variant, 0 to 3 percent slopes 27 Fair Colwood loam 27 Fair Colwood loam, depressional 27 Fair Gilford sandy loam 27 Fair Lenawee silty clay loam, depressional 27 Fair Parkhill loam 27 Fair Sebewa loam 20 Poor Cohoctah fine sandy loam, frequently flooded 20 Poor Shoals-Sloan loams 1 Poor Adrian muck 1 Poor Edwards muck 1 Poor Houghton muck 1 Poor Palms muck - Unrated Borrow land - Unrated Water 189 the use, recommended designs to overcome these limitations, and limitations remaining after foundations are installed on these soils. As shown in this table, there are six kinds of corrective measures commonly used, either separately or concurrently, on soils in the county to overcome problem soil conditions. These are the following: alternative basement construction design, add fill to raise grade of site, excavate rock, excavate peat and muck, cuts and fills, or improve surface drainage. A brief discussion of each is presented below. (1) Alternative basement construction design. A watertight basement is necessary to provide a dry and useable space for recreation rooms, workshops, or service areas, and storage rooms for valuable household articles. If water penetrates the walls or ground slab of a basement, this space may become damp and musty making it relatively useless for such purposes. Basements need not be damp or leaky. If either condi- tion exists, it is probably because proper drainage and foundation 17 Although there design was overlooked when the house was built. are remedial measures commercially available for repairing damp or leaky basements, it is obviously much easier and more economical to make a basement watertight when constructed than to correct a leaky one. Home builders use many and varied techniques to prevent basement leakage depending upon soil and site conditions. The 17Personal communication with Donald Carr, Staff Engineer, National Association of Home Builders, Washington, D.C. 190 conventional basement construction design commonly has a fair amount of waterproofing, such as an asphalt membrane on the basement walls, a thick polyethylene film under the slab, drainage tile around the building, and a sump system (National Association of Home Builders, 1966). The floor slab is usually about 4 inches thick placed over a 4 inch bed of gravel, and naybe lightly reinforced with welded-wire fabric. The basement walls typically consist of structurally plain concrete without reinforcement for hydrostatic pressure or concrete shrinkage. In site locations where the foundation is subjected to a seasonally high ground water table, additional waterproofing practices are required to protect basements against water infiltra- tion. There are basically two alternative systems commonly used by builders for waterproofing residential basements. The choice of either system is dependent to a large degree upon the magnitude of the soil water problem. The first alternative foundation system has a design very similar to that used in conventional basement construction (Figure 4-11). This system is referred to as "drained" because it allows infiltrating water to move through the underdrain gravel beneath the slab and collect at a drainage sump where it is subsequently pumped out of the basement. Its basement walls are horizontally and vertically reinforced throughout to withstand hydrostatic pressure. Weepholes are placed in the footing to allow water collected outside the wall to flow towards the sump. The basement 191 walls are also protected in this design from water seepage through applications of polyethylene plastic film (Figure 4—11) instead of only asphalt parging used in the conventional design. It is generally believed that the polyethylene improves the wall's impermeability and can adjust to future wall cracking when properly installed (National Association of Home Builders Research Founda- tion, 1977). To complete this waterproofing process, wall penetrations, such as sewer lines and water pipes, are properly sealed to prevent water seepage. This type of foundation design is adaptable to sites where the inflow of water from the surrounding soil is within the capacity of the sump to adequately remove this water. Proper maintenance of the electric sump pump is therefore an absolute necessity in order to prevent flooding of these basements. The costs to maintain and run these systems is clearly a continuing limitation. Where the soil water inflow is beyond the capacity of a sump in the drained system, an alternative "undrained" or barge fbundation design is required (Figure 4-12). Its basement walls and floor slab are designed to be watertight like the hull of a barge (National Association of Home Builders Research Foundation, 1977). They are wrapped in a complete waterproofing envelope made up of asphalt, rubber, neoprene, polyvinyl chloride, and polyethylene film. The walls and slab are both structurally strengthened throughout to resist the anticipated upward hydrostatic pressure from beneath the slab. Special care is taken in this construction 192 Standard wall and slab penetrations allowed (sealed) ‘ f7‘.J;75§V Seals ,H ///” ' Conventional h” 1 1)}; Flow 4_ ,.- .7' {-Structural . 1"“ "revolt .."\“1n‘.)ll “ . H o ' ’1. ‘v'Compacted Gravel, .,. M ’ FOOUHQ I \COMPOCted Crushed Stone Poly Gravel, Crushed Underdraln ‘. Stone Footing Sewer Draln DRAINED SYSTEM back-up valve Figure 4-ll.--Drained basement design system. SOURCE: National Association of Home Builders Research Foundation, 1977. 193 . _. -. —--. —,. . 1 b" a ‘q . [‘3’]. i i ' :, :. ”‘- 7va‘fi"”‘g,§ ‘34.}DF?WT§WB 3' .5, )‘v’ I' I ‘, 3}. .\I . . . . ':p /.6‘ Structural ”, StVUCthal ‘ O 31"; 1' Sllb Javall Membrane '-'-‘»'j-"~‘"' "7'1““ -‘" -“1-.'4.-'-.~'.-'-::*.- - . ' h .J 5" \Ja. -/u [,I._ '14“ . n '- \ ' :1” .-'I/“'. . ,H _. ,." . I ‘ :.,”.L (no underdraln req'33 13"” ' L Membrane (Compacted ‘ continues Sewer back-up 5011 through valve UNDRAINED SYSTEM Figure 4-l2.--Undrained basement design system. SOURCE: National Association of Home Builders Research Foundation, 1977. 194 design to insure that all joints and penetrations, such as pipes or conduits, are permanently sealed. In addition, there is continual inspection on-site to insure that there has been no penetration or puncture of the foundation's waterproof membrane during construction or backfilling. (2) Add fill to raise grade of site. Fills are commonly used by home builders to raise the existing grade of building sites located in depressions or low- lying areas. Once properly compacted and tested, these fills can support foundations with safety and only nominal settlement. This is one of the least expensive methods available to elevate the lowest floor (including the basement) of a residence to or above the base floor level (lOO-year flood) as indicated on a flood insurance rate map (Federal Insurance Administration, HUD, 1977). It is not the intent of this investigator to suggest that dwellings with basements should be built in floodprone areas, but rather where such construction may be appropriate, and not prohibited by law or regulation)8 flood losses to these dwellings constructed above flood levels can be minimized or eliminated. Although property damage may be minimized by raising the grade of the dwelling above base flood heights, its accessibility can still be restricted and yard use be eliminated during periods of prolonged flooding. 18Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program may prohibit building in the floodplain area unless it can be demonstrated that the preposed use will not increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one foot at any point. 195 (3) Excavate rock. The treatment of soils shallow to bedrock commonly requires excavation of the rock material down to the proposed footing depths for the dwelling foundations. The kind of special equipment required to excavate this material depends upon the type of bedrock encountered and its relative hardness. Rippable bedrock can be excavated with a single-tooth ripping attachment on a ZOO-horsepower tractor, while hard bedrock generally requires blasting with dynamite (Olson, Witty and Marshall, 1969). Whatever the method used to excavate this bedrock, the resulting spoil materials must then be loaded onto dump trucks and hauled from the site. These operations increase construction costs considerably although rock, especially if it extends under the dwelling foundation, makes an excellent foundation bed since it has an extremely high bearing capacity. (4) Excavate peat and muck. Peat and muck soils make unsuitable subgrade materials for dwelling foundations since they are highly compressible and have low bearing strength (Tilmann and Mokma, 1976). Dwellings built on these soils often show long-continued uneven settlement and eventual foundation cracking (Slusher, Cockaham and Mattews, 1974). This is bothersome to the homeowner and costly repairs may be needed because of this long-term settlement. Where single-family dwellings are constructed on sites consisting of organic soils, the common practice to overcome these difficulties is to excavate down to their mineral horizons and replace these materials by 196 suitably compacted borrow to the normal level of the foundation footing common for the area.19 This will provide firm support for the foundation footings. As in the case of rock excavation, these processes can increase construction costs substantially. (5) Cutting and filling. Land grading is common to practically all residential construction sites since these dwellings generally require a fairly level pad to sit on (Untermann, 1978). As in the case of residential road construction, the grading process for dwellings is similarly a two step process: cutting (removing soil materials) and filling (adding soil materials). With the size and quality of modern earth-moving machines and improved grading designs, there is almost no physical limit to the amount of earth-moving that can be accom- plished. Yet, as slope gradient increases, the shear volume of material that must be moved in order to level the excavation site increases geometrically, as do construction costs and soil and water control problems (Urban Land Institute, 1978). All grading causes erosion to a certain degree. Wherever possible steeply sloping sites and critically erodible soils should therefore be left undisturbed, or disturbed areas kept as small as possible to minimize soil losses. Those that are disturbed should be treated as soon as possible with adequate soil erosion V 19Personal communication with Donald Carr, Staff Engineer, National Association of Home Builders, Washington, D.C. 197 control measures (i.e., mulching, seeding, sodding, etc.)20 and to retain sediment on-site. Maintenance costs for these practices can be expected to be greater as slope gradients increase. (6) Improve drainage. Wet soils, unless drained, provide poor conditions for the establishment of lawns and trafficability of these yard areas for residential dwellings with basements. To overcome this wetness limitation, these soils commonly require a system of subsurface drainage, in addition to adequate surface drains, to collect and dispose of the free water from the soil. Conduits, such as agri- cultural drain tile, plastic pipe, or tubing, are installed beneath the soil surface. Water enters these plastic pipes through a series of holes, commonly facing downward, and then flows by gravity to an outlet. A typical system will have several laterals connected to a main line. These systems require maintenance or upkeep since frost action and equipment travel may dislodge sections of pipe and reduce efficiency of operation. Cost of Corrective Measures Table 4-10 presents the estimated costs of applying different corrective measures to overcome soil limitations for residential dwellings with basements in Eaton County, Michigan. The figures 20In Michigan, these must be identified in an erosion control plan to meet the requirements of Michigan's Public Act 347 of 1972, commonly known as the "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act," and its corresponding General Rules promulgated under the act. Standards and spedifications for different erosion control measures are usually available at Soil Conservation District Offices. 198 < comm acmwpm monopm acmugmn m op N .Emop Assam mpoumppw: z.a.u omam aea>am sao_ steam atom—Pm I.u.o.u scum mem>mm guns mcsmzum :.m.u ommm mem>mm chowmmmeamv .Emop coozpoo :.d.u omnm mgm>mm Emop voozpou umcoopm :.m.u omnm mem>mm zpucmzcmgw .EmoF zucmm mew; smuuozou momemm muumpemz mam wean muumpgmz eon :.m ooec wgm>mm mmqopm acousma c o» p .mEmop ovum—Lmz-umnmo :.m cove ogm>mm monopm Hemogmn m op o .an_ umnau mpwom semen gum: xmpasou a cw xpco conga: :.m coco mem>mm mmwgmm camcogm mowgmm :omcoem mom «can concoem Lou mmaopm :.m coco mem>mm pcmogwa m o» o .manp macaw concoemuxumgm mowgmm mxcvam mam wean mxcwnm god monopm w.< ommm mem>mm pcmugma mp o» Np .mucmm zsmop mxcwamlemaom o.< cmum mpaemcoz mmaopm pcmuewa Np o» o .mEmoF xocmm meom < comm uanFm monopm ucwugma 0 ca o .memop macaw emxdm w.< omum mumgmuoz mmaopm acmugma Np o» m .ucmm xsmop emzom < comm acmmFm mmaopm acmuema m op o .ucum zsaoF saxom capo; an op mpaamgm> op mmwuemaoga vamp 3oggom < comm ucmp_m maao_m acaaeaa m ea c .sao_ snxwm :.a.o.u ooum mem>mm suns caveu< matamaaz a>_auaaaou Amaopav coeaaaaswb Fwom awe: an: _Pom «new meeppmzo can “moo Pawa_=fi :mm_;uwz .xpcaou coumm cw mucmsmmma saw: mmcwppmzc pmwucwcmmme sow mwgammms m>Puumggou pcmgmmmwu mcwx—nam mo mumou cmumewpmm use mco_umuwswp Ppom .opue mpnmp 199 mmwemm mwwmwea: mam wean mwwmpeaz eon manopm < comm wemwpm wcaoemn o ow F .msaow Aucam mwwmweaZIOmmozo o.< omnm awaemaoz manowm wcwuemn NP ow o .sao_ macaw oswwgmo < comm wngFm manopm wcmuemn m ow o .anp Aceam osmwgmo manowm wcauemn mp ow m o.< omnm mwaemuoz .mncam asaow amwmzumecwnm mo wean amwmz manowm wcmuemn o ow o < comm mwaemuoz .mncam xsaop awww21mxcwnm mo wean amwmz wwwom mecwnm :wwz xmpnsou cw aweo wanna: amwmz mmwemm oanau mam wean uanau eon manopm =.m coco mem>mm wcmuemn a ow o .anp aucam uanaulaeoanmz :.m coco mem>mm manopm wcmuemn m ow o .an_ cowemcwaz o.< comm mem>mm manopm wcmuemn mm ow mp .anw mwwmpeaz o.< ommm mem>mm manowm wcmuemn mp ow Np .anp mwwwpeaz umuoem apmeo>mm a.< omen awaeaaoz .wcauean Ne ow a .sao_ eawu awwaweaz w.< omnm owaemcoz manopm wcmuemn NP ow m .anw mwwmpeaz a coma wane_m manowm weauean a ow a .anw awwaweaz :.n.u omnm mem>mm —a:owmmmenmu .anp xapu xwpwm mmzacmw manowm :.m coco aem>mm wcaoemn m ow o .anp xacam acme awnnwx :.e.n.n onen aea>am ease cowcnaoz o.< omnm mwaemcoz mmnowm wcmuemn Np ow o .anp macaw m—aanPPI maeamaaz asewuaeeon eaenewv coewawesen weom wee: na: weom awem meeweazn ean wmon .aewecw aazeewcon .oe-a awaaw 200 mano_m =.m cone mem>mm wcmuemn a ow o .saop zucam mcwm awoumnh monowm wcwuemn my ow NP o.< ommm mem>am .mccam xsaop mxcwnmuemzom we wean mxcwnm mmwemm amwmz mam wean amwaz eon manopm w.< omnm mwaemuoz wcmuemn NP ow m .mocam xsaop ammeImxcwnm w.< omnm mwaeouoz manopm wcauemn NF ow m .vcam asaow mxcwnm mmwemm amwmz mam wean amwmz eon manopm a scam wanwwm wcauean a ow o .macam esao_ aawaz-mecwnm < comm wgmwwm manowm wcauemn o ow o .ucam xsaop mxcwnm mmwemm mwaozm gwwz xmwneou cw cho wanna: :.n.u omnm mem>am mmwemm :aopm mmwemm can—m mam wean :aopm eon :.n.u omnm oem>am msaop caopmumpaosm :.n.u omnm mem>mm anw axmnmm :.n.u omnm wem>mm an_ wwngean :.n.o.u oonm . mem>am guns mswan mmwemm mwwmweaz mam wean mwwmpeaz eon manowm wcmuemn w.< ommm mem>mm mp ow NF .msao_ aacam mwwmweaz-ommozo mowemm mwwmwea: mam wean wwwwpeaz eon manopm wcmoemn o.< ownm awaemuoz NP ow o .manp macaw mwwmweaz-ommo3o mmeamamz w>wwumeeou Amnmwwv cowwawwsww Pwom wwca naz wwom awwm neeweazn ean wmon eawwwcn aoacewcon .n_-a aeaaw 201 poewcou mmacwaeu w>oensw u mwpwm uca mwnu mwwm mcwuwwan we muaem mmwam xuoe mwa>auxm wuss aca waon mwa>auxm :mwmmu wcmemman umcwaeuca m>wwacemww< cmwmwu wcmemman nmcwaea m>wwacemww< :mwmwc wcmEmman pacowwcm>=oo u II II (GOOD-1&5: m m coon mwaemco: mmnowm wcmuemn m ow o .anp wpwm emwsmmccwz . manopm wcmuewn m m.m coon mew>mm ow o .wcawea> xuoeumn .an_ Avcam wnmmaz :.m scam mem>mm manopm wcmuemn m ow o .an— zacam wnmmaz mmenmamz m>wwumeeou Amnmwmv cowwawwsww prom wwc: naz pwom awem ncwweazn ean wmon wawwwcn aaacewcon .n_-a awaaw 202 listed in this table are generalized estimates in 1978 dollars of the costs required to grade a proposed building site on each soil, excavate and install a basement foundation, and provide drainage if the soil is wet. They are clearly not intended to eliminate the need for cost estimating by home builders and others on a site-by-site basis. The dollar amount listed for each soil is the mean of the range in costs (Appendix Table C3) for installing these different corrective measures. These were computed from cost analyses of completed residential building projects in the county, obtained from home builders, construction trade organi- zations, engineers, architects, and others. The average initial costs for installing the basements with the different corrective measures where needed, on the soils in Eaton County, Michigan ranges from $5,200 to $9,700 (Table 4-10) per dwelling site. These data clearly indicate the need for additional investment and alternative foundation designs (B and C designs) for soils with moderate to severe limitations. Soils with slight limitations (e.g., Bixby loam, Hillsdale sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, Oshtemo sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes) require only an initial investment of about $5,200 for installation of conventional basements (A), while those soils with moderate limitations (e.g., Hillsdale sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, Oshtemo sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes) require an additional expenditure of about $550, ($5,750 total) primarily because of the increased 203 site grading (G) required. Further study of the data reveals that the initial costs for soils with severe limitations (e.g., Boyer- Spinks loamy sands, 12 to 18 percent slopes, Kibbie fine sandy loam, O to 3 percent slopes, Palms muck) are higher ranging from $5,950 to $9,700. The organic soils mapped in this county (Adrian, Edwards, Houghton, and Palms) have the highest initial costs ($9,700) for basements in home construction among all the soils listed in Table 4-10. In fact, their costs are 87 percent greater than the costs required to build dwellings with basements on soils having only slight limitations for this use. This clearly illus- trates the reason why organic soils should be avoided for building residential dwellings with basements, if at all possible. Computer Output Figure 4-13 illustrates the locations of areas with soil limitations for residential dwellings with basements in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan. The basic format of this computer-generated map is again essentially the same as those previously presented in this chapter. The darkest or black octagons represent areas which have only slight limitations for this use, while those areas with severe soil limitations are represented by unshaded or white octagons. Areas with moderate soil limitations are then represented by octagons which are intermediate in tone. Blank cells represent unrated borrow land and water areas. A visual examination of this map reveals that much of the land in the township has severe limitations for residential 204 .nwzm:30h eomucwz cw mwcasmman cwwz mmcww_m3u pawwcmuwmme eow meowwawweww Pwom mcwwaewmnwww nae m>wwmenemwcw czaecuemwanouuu.mpua menmwn 2’35 crow «wocuuuo plmcwizs 33m 2.378.: mo_-uz wwwsoxn Jean—owe u’_e¢uweoow wccwzuu zeta: a: ‘4: — 1i \ lit/i i O. Dunn-at. in. is .Ub' 03‘ .' .3. :5. e 5:... a i... o i-n....—4 a-. it. ‘ tad—:3: .>»z:ou (one... n_xmzzow «cmoznz mCZmzumqm renz woz_JJu3c man wzo_.—q::_J ion 3N T In x _ _ _ _a _ 50303 a: 3 a 33833 3333 33333 03003333 3333 aBO©O.90.90.00.000099000008000BOOO©OO©©OOQOOOOOa aO©©OOOOO©OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO©OO©OOOOOQOOOOOOOOOOa a.QQ©O.©©O©©.OOOOOOOOOOOOO©©OOOOOO©OO©OOOOOOOOOa ©©©OOQO©OEOOO©OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO©©OOOOOOOOO©OOOOa a©OO©OOO0.0900©OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO©O@OOOOOOOOOOOOa OOQOO©OOOOO©GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO©©Q000000090900a 000.960.9..O@009©OOOOOGOOOOOOOOO©OOOQ©OOO©OQOOa OOQOOOO©QOO©OOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00000©OOOO©©Oa aO©990890©O©©OOOOOOOQOQOOOOQOO©OOQOOOOOOOOOOOOQ 96.0.99©OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.©OOOO©OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOa 0.0.09000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO©OOO©OOOOO©OO©OOOOOOOa a OOOOOOOO©OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO©OOOOO©.O©@OOO0.0000 .90....©O©OOOOOO©00.9.0.0©0©OO©CO©©99©OOOOO€O€a .IE%®.IEXU.5XU .XQ..5%'.QX!®.QXQ@QZXUQQX!@QEXQCIEXZUOQEflQ.a .UQEKBIIEXQUIBXUQBflUO5XQQQKQQ@5flUQBfiQ.QXQU©§flQ®OX!@.E%U@.3223 aOX-OBHUQXQ.QXQOQXQUQXQQQZXUIBXQQEQUQXEUQXQUQXQUmx-.5%IIE¥IQEXU8 3DXUQBXUQBflUOEXQ.CXQU-ZEUCXUOEXQQ32!.mflQUmXQUQEXIOBXQCCKEIEXQU AUQEKUQEXUQBXUQBXU.EZU.5%I.5%UQEE®QEXQOmi!®l5¥®‘i!©mi!.-X!.Qi’ 39.99.90.00000.0..O..O©O©.@6......0©CJ.@6.@5.666 3.22.52'QXE'QE%U.5KQIQXQ.OXIOQflQOQXQOEXUOEXIOEH©@SSQfifigw.i!!ifiu 3CKQQ9IEXQUQBXQU.-Ek'.IRH®.®K:!U.5%EIOQZXUOQEEUOQEEUQ032'. .8C6390.QfifiUOQEXUBOXE'WIEX29032!.QKXQUOQZXU©QX!®@.X2®.CZ!'.G _.-Z!.-XQ.OXQUQE%Q.-R9tfivAQOXQCQE%U.5XU©QfiI.OflQ.®Z!®.5flQ@§SEI. 9IEXQOIEKU.IEXQUOEXRU@IEflQU.QEXQUQEXUQQX!I©@5%UOQZXU.GQE.@5 3oflUflEflUOB%IQXQ.OXUIE!JQEXQEXQCQXQUQXQUQflQCQXEUQEXQ.X9.Q:!!6Jr92 QEkUOQXRUOCSZIOQKP .15F2©IEXUOCXEUQEXUOQKXQUO65320-ERU.QEU AQIOflUQiXUfl-XZIIi!Q.i:U Obi-.532UQEXQU05%QUQEHQOEZ§U€C%QIQEX .UCXQOOXQUfififi'JEHQCXQIQVAUC12.5XUQXQ.QXQUQEXQ.QXEQfiEflUQfiXQMfiflU- AUQBXUQE¥ICBX2CE:I‘5XQ© 0X!.-:!.CK§©.5XUQEfiUQEXQQfiEflQOCXQhSE' ©....CJ......©©O 699....92.266©OOOOOQ©©€©9€QO§°CVa QC.O@.§.@€.€O©. ...C .O...€QOOQOOOQQO.OQCJCJCJCJ. 399.9CJQCOCJ 9.69.. QOCJ.E.: 6....9 @O.99909©CJQ.CJ. a .. 3CXQU.IX!'.CA!UCEEQOQEXUOQXQLIEBLEIXYQ.CXEIODXQUOCXRIOIZV_é .EXU-ZUIZ!2IIEOCKUOEHQOXUFZ!.O%2CC:UIFQCQXUOEE'QEXUQEflLQXEbCAUIEB QQQOCJ...€....O O ..COOOC. . J a OOCCOC j..9.€©OO.CCJ. FJCJC 6699.2 ...C 3:! ..OO OQOOOC ,_C . ...Cu© GJQCPJOOOCJCJCJCJx [20,. . ..€CJ...€€.§6. O©©O 909.55.? ...CJ@@..OOCJCJCJCJCJWE_C ..CJO.CJ.€.©..OO..CJQO Q .C .: JOCJCC ..OGJ.©CJCJOCJCJCJECJC CJCJCJ..CJOCJ @6529 SJ" aJQJ QC 2:“ .OCJCQO... UCJG. CJQJOCJCJCJCJCJCJC .H J.ECO©6.@QO@6 6.@OO _..CVPJC\OQCVOCU.C.. 2009.6983555 IFOEV FJW-KPEP.FhPr 206 dwellings with basements. The most predominant area again striddles the "Old Maid Swamp" (see Figure 1-3) in the northeast quadrant of the township. This area consists of nearly level, poorly and very poorly drained, mucky and loamy soils (i.e., Adrian, Colwood, Edwards, Gilford, Houghton, Palms, Parkhill, etc.) located in ancient glacial drainageways. This elongated area includes the swamp with muck soils and other low-lying soils with seasonal water tables near or at the soil surface. Another large area with similarly rated soils (i.e., Capac, Gilford, Houghton, Sebewa, etc.) is located in the extreme southwest corner of the township (Figure 4-13). Soils in these two areas present serious problems in the construction of residential dwellings with basements. However, the organic soils of the group (Adrian, Edwards, Houghton, and Palms) have considerably more difficult soil limitations to over- come (i.e., peat and muck at great depths) requiring additional corrective measures, thereby increasing the cost of residential construction. The spatial distribution of soil areas with only slight or moderate limitations for residential dwellings with basements is also well illustrated in Figure 4-13. These areas are scattered throughout the entire map. The most predominant area, however, is located in the west-central portion of the township, adjacent to U.S. Highway 27 (Temporary Interstate 69) and in vicinity of West Windsor (see Figure 1-2). A study of the soils map, sheets 29 and 30, of the county soil survey, indicates that Bixby, Boyer, Hillsdale, 207 Marlette, Spinks, and Owosso soils dominate this landscape. Generally, these soils are well or moderately well drained, sandy loams or loamy sands occupying nearly level to gently undulating portions of glacial moraines or outwash plains. Their relatively deep depth to seasonal water tables insures that dwellings built on these soils are unlikely to have wet basements. These soils also have fair to good bearing capacity and provide good foundation support (Feenstra, gt_gl;, 1978). Those with steeper slopes have moderate limitations because some land grading is required, although the undulating topography is a definite advantage from an aesthetic standpoint for homesites. Slopes in cuts and fills in these soils are stable and fairly easily vegetated. Table 4-11 shows the proportionate extent and approximate acreage of soils in Windsor Township with different degrees of limitations for residential dwellings with basements and sanitary sewers. These calculations are based on the number of cells in each category (slight, moderate, severe, unrated) as plotted on Figure 4-13. According to the information presented on the right side in this table, 7,189, 2,604, and 12,832 acres have slight, moderate, and severe limitations for residential dwellings with basements, respectively. These data then indicate that 42.5 percent of the land (9,793 acres) in the township has slight or moderate limitations for residential dwellings with basements, and is therefore suitable for use without special foundation, designs or additional grading and drainage, while more than half wwwmu emn mmeua op .mwwmu aommv «Fla uca mpua meamwn co umman mea meowwapaupao "whoz 208 caOmN o.oow awe a.e awaa m.o_ waOM «.m. acne a.nm wawow _.aa wawow m_a m._ mwa a._ - - - - - - - - aawaecn mmam_ e.mm - - nwaa m.o_ Faom N.mw acne a.om mam a._ aea>am comm m.__ n u u i u u l a «emu m.__ mwaemuoz nawe N._m - - - - - - - - ea_e N._m wane_m mm.» u< my meu< m meu< a mmLu< & mmLu< N mmLU< & econ eeae anon weapwauxn coewawwewJ .awoe aawaecn neewam waewcawon wwom wwom ea aaenan camwzuwz .chaou :owam .nwsmczow eomccwz cw mwcmemman swwz mmcwwpmzu pawwcauwmae eoe mpawwcmwon uca meowwawwew— _wom an uwwwwmmawu mwwom mo mmameua awaswxoenna aca wcawxm awacowweonoen .w—ua mpnah 209 of the land area (55.7 percent or 12,832 acres) has severe soil limitations for these same land uses, usually requiring more costly alternative corrective measures. Significant changes can occur, however, in the amount of suitable land this nonagricultural land use by applying different corrective measures on soils with moderate or severe limitations. Table 4-11 shows the proportionate extent and approximate acreage of soils in Windsor Township classified according to their potential for residential dwellings with basements and sanitary sewers. According to the information presented along the bottom of this table, 10,161, 7,004, 3,041, and 2,419 acres have excellent, good, fair, and poor potential for this land use. Further study of these data indicates that out of the 12,833 acres of land in the township, which are rated as having severe soil limitations, 81.2 percent of this land area has excellent, good, or fair potential for dwellings with basements. This is a significant increase of 106 percent or 10,413 acres in the amount of land that might be suitable for this land use in the township, provided that the proper corrective measures are applied to each soil where needed (Appendix Table F3). Even more significant is the fact that only 10.5 percent of the land area in the township has soils with poor potential, while 44.1 and 30.4 percent have soils with excellent and good potential, respectively. From these data it is obvious that Windsor Township has a quite favorable distribution of soils for this type of urban development. 210 Figure 4-14 shows the location of soils with different potentials for residential dwellings with basements and sanitary sewers in Windsor Township. It is evident that there are only a few predominant areas on the map which have high concentrations of soils with poor potential for this land use. One such area is located in the northwest quadrant of the township straddling the "Old Maid Swamp." Another elongated area is situated in the southwest quadrant of the township along the King and Carleton drains (Figure 1-3). Several other areas of minor acreage are located near the Grand River (Figure 1-3). These areas essentially consist of very poorly drained organic soils or alluvial soils (Cohoctah, Sloan) requiring elaborate and costly corrective measures for residential dwellings with basements (Appendix Tab1e F3 and Table 4-10). Although corrective measures can be applied to overcome some of their soil limitations, these soils are subject to flooding, and consequently, are among the poorest choices for building sites in the township. Figure 4-14 shows that much of Windsor Township has soils with excellent, good, or fair potential for residential dwellings with basements and sanitary sewers. By visually comparing Figure 4-14 with the generalized land use and cover map for the same area (see Figure 4-9), it is clear that a degree of incompati- bility and potential land use conflict exists. This overlap is most prevalent in the westcentral and southwest portions of the township where large contiguous soils areas have excellent and good 211 .nwcmczop eomucwz cw mwcmsmman swwz mmcw_szn Fawwcmuwmme eom Fawwcmwon Fwom mcwwaewmnwww nae m>wwmeneawcw czaeuuemwnnsouuu.apua menmwn 9. n1. 099— cuotuuuo ew_n¢ue_an wecem 2co_2u_: on..uz euuaoxe cho_ow¢ u»_e¢uweoou chezuu seen: 9'3. . 1|; \ O: .— innsgi ’- 9. .z. .2. .' .“. 2.. my cl. mu 3.....wa . ‘:.:: =8 '0. ‘ z:o_zn_c .».z:ou zoecu anxmzzow mowozez wpzmzmmqm LZ: mwz_Jszo man .5:szan .Zom 3 m” x 53. _ _ .0 _ _ . 3003 030 33330 3 333300333 OQQ.QOQOCQQOQQOOQOOOQQOOQOQQQOQQQCOOOOOOOOOOQOQO QOOOOCOQQOCQQOQOOOQQQOQOOOOOOO.QQOQOQOOOOOOOQQQO OOQOOOIQQOCQOQQQQQQQQOQOQQOOQOQQQQOQCOOOOOQOQQQO 3..Q.Q.’Q.IOQOCQQOCQQOOQQQOQQOOOOQQQQQOOOOOQQQO O.QQQQQ3.33QOQQQOQOOQOOQOQQQOQQQOQQQOOOOOOOQQQQ QQQQQQQQQOCQQQQOOQQOOQOOOQQQQQQQQQQQOQOCOOQQQQO .QOOQQQOQOOQOOQQOOOQQQQQQQQQQOOOQQQOQOOQOCQQQQa IOQOQOOQQQQQQOQOOQQQOOQOQQOQOQQQQOQQQQOOOOQOQQQQO N l oQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOOOOQQQQQ. QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOOQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQOQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQQG aQ3QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOOQQQOOQQQQQ OQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQOOQQQQQs QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQOOQQQQQG 0 QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOOOOQQQQQS QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOOOOOOQQQQQG OQQQ OQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOOOOQQQQQQ. QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQO QQQQQQQC QQQQQQQOQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQ QQ‘QQQQQQQQQODQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ» QQQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ. QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQCQQQaQQQQQGQJ OQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ,QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQGQQCQQ QQ: QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQQQQQQQQQQ:QQQQQQQQQQQQQQJQ aQQQQQQQQQQIQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQS QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQIQQQQQ aQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQS JQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQ -QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQEQaQQCQSQQQQCa QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQQQQCQQGQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQQQQQGQQQQQaQa QQJDEQQQDQSQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQOOOQOQQQQQQQQQQQQC QDQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOOOOQQQQQQQQQQQa QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQQQQQQQQQQQQOQQQQQQQQQQQQQa ,QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ OQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQDQ QQQQQQOQQQQQQQQQOQQQQQQEQQQQQQQQQQOQQOQQQQQQQQS QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOOQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQS QQQQQQQQQQQQQQ O QQQQQQQQQQQGQQQQQQQOOOQQQQQQQa QQQQQQQQQQQQ QQOO QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOOQOQQQQ OQQQQQQQQQQQQQ QQQO QQQQQCQQQQQQQQQQQQOOOODDQC JCQQCQQQCQCCQQCCQQQ QOCJCQCQQ JQ.’ QCOOCJQCQQCQCQCQCJC QQQ..Q®Q.3QQ 3.... QQQOCQQ9 9.... QQOCQOOQCJCJCJCJQ OCQCQQQJQQCOCQOCCQCCQO .CQQ9. Q Q9J9J.3 .QQCQQCJOFJQi/Ci CJC 213 potential for dwellings with basements. The implications of these potential land use conflicts are serious. Residential development of these suitable areas would destroy their high value for agri- culture and forestry. This calls for priorities to be established carefully for the preservation of good land for food and fiber production, as well as providing land for urban development. Residential Dwellings With Sanitary Sewers Without Basements The soil potential index (SP1) and potential rating of each mapping unit for residential dwellings without basements in Eaton County, Michigan, is shown in Table 4-12. The SPI ranges from a high of l00 for Boyer loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes, to a low of l for Palms muck. As shown in this table, all map units were also arrayed from excellent to poor potential according to their soil potential index. The class intervals generated by a JENKS computer program (see Table 3-8), with the maximum goodness of variance fit (98.ll%), were used to assign each mapping unit to one of the four qualitative rating classes indicating its relative potential for residential dwellings without basements in the county. Note that the areas mapped as water and borrow land were again left unrated for the reasons previously discussed. Corrective Measures and Continuing Limitations In cooperation with private home builders and home con- struction trade organizations, as well as local engineers and architects, designs for residential dwellings without basements 214 Table 4-12. Soil potential index and rating of soil mapping units for residential dwellings without basements in Eaton County, Michigan Soil Potential Soil Potential Index Rating Soil Map Unit lOO Excellent Boyer loamy sand, 0 to 6 per- cent slopes lOO Excellent Boyer sandy loams, 0 to 6 per- cent slopes lOO Excellent Hillsdale sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes lOO Excellent Oshtemo sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Spinks loamy sand, 0 to 6 per- cent slopes 93 Excellent Spinks-Metea loamy sands, 6 to 12 percent slopes 82 Good Bixby loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 82 Good Boyer loamy sands, 6 to l2 per- cent slopes 82 Good Boyer sandy loams, 6 to 12 per- cent slopes 82 Good Hillsdale sandy loam, 6 to l2 percent slopes 82 Good Marlette loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 82 Good Oshtemo sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 82 Good Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, l to 6 percent slopes 82 Good Spinks loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes 215 Table 4-12. Continued Soil Potential Soil Potential Index Rating Soil Map Unit 82 Good Spinks-Metea loamy sands, 6 to 12 percent slopes 82 Good Tuscola fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes 82 Good Winneshiek silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 71 Good Marlette loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 71 Good Marlette clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded 71 Good Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 70 Good Brady-Bronson sandy loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes 70 Good Capac-Marlette loams, 1 to 6 percent slopes 64 Fair Capac loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 64 Fair Kibbie fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 64 Fair Matherton loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 64 Fair Metamora-Capac sandy loams, O to 4 percent slopes 64 Fair Wasepi sandy loam, 0 to 3 per- cent slopes 64 Fair wasepi sandy loam, bedrock variant, 0 to 3 percent slopes 55 Fair Boyer-Spinks loamy sands, 12 to 18 percent slopes 216 Table 4-12. Continued Soil Potential Soil Potential Index Rating Soil Map Unit 55 Fair Colwood loam 55 Fair Colwood loam, depressional 55 Fair Gilford sandy loam 55 Fair Lenawee silty clay loam, de- pressional 55 Fair Marlette loams, 12 to 18 per- cent slopes 55 Fair Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 12 . to 18 percent slopes 55 Fair Parkhill loam 55 Fair Sebewa loam 43 Poor Cohoctah fine sandy loam, fre- quently flooded 43 Poor Marlette loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes 43 Poor Shoals-Sloan loam 1 Poor Adrian muck 1 Poor Edwards muck 1 Poor Houghton muck 1 Poor Palms muck - Unrated Borrow land Unrated Mater 217 but with sanitary sewers were identified for soils in Eaton County, Michigan. Appendix Tab1e F4 lists the features affecting the use, recommended designs to overcome these limitations, and a statement of the kinds of limitations remaining after these foundations designs are installed on these soils. As shown in this table, there are six kinds of corrective measures commonly used, either separately or concurrently, on soils in the county to overcome problem soil conditions. These are the following: reinforce slab, add fill to raise grade of site, excavate peat and muck, cutting and filling, drainage of footing and slab, and improve surface drainage. A brief description of each is presented below. (1) Reinforce slab. Slabs-on-grade are concrete foundation slabs which rest directly on a prepared base course underlain by either undisturbed soil or compacted fill (Figure 4-15). These have been Used extensively in residential construction since the large home- building expansion after World War 11 because of their low cost and, generally speaking, simple construction (Federal Insurance Administration, HUD, 1977). In a 1968 report for the Federal Housing Administration, the Building Research Advisory Board of the National Academy of Sciences recognized four different basic slab types (Building Research Advisory Board, FHA, 1968): Type I: Unreinforced Type II: Lightly reinforced against shrinkage and tempera- ture cracking ‘ r ) w 'l 3 I In I Sl'PER-STRL’CTURE UNREINFURCL‘U CUNL’RL‘I‘I‘.‘ MAII . =‘ l ‘ F()l1NI)ATIUN WAI I AND INIJTINU ‘0‘» - 218 GRADE ‘ - , ‘ \ I It | I sI‘I-IJI arm-I; rum; mmm' mzlmmu'mu .'4“'""’.Hl.l '33:; ’ _ mffflfiImE$m= . flit-LN . )IIHHHI n23“ IMIII \ rum. i‘ -_ ‘7 M In: .\l)\|lt|\ w\|| \.'~lv I'NII‘IMI Figure 4-15.—-Cross-section of Type I and II slabs-on-grade. SOURCE: Building Research Advisory Board, FHA, 1968. 219 Type III: Reinforced and stiffened Type IV: Structural (not directly supported on the ground). The first three are ground supported slabs, while the last is structurally supported independent of the ground, resting on piers, piles, or grade beams. The advisory board concluded in their report that in most cases a slab of Type I or II, as illustrated in Figure 4-15, would be completely satisfactory. They indicated that the choice between an unreinforced slab and a lightly reinforced one is primarily then influenced by subsoil conditions. Type I slab This is defined as a concrete slab at least 4-inch thick cast directly on a compacted slab bed and carrying no reinforcement over its entire area (Figure 4-15). Being unreinforced, the Type I slab lacks the necessary strength to withstand significant changes in volume of the slab bed. Its use therefore is limited to areas with firm ground which will not develop changes in volume with time. Type I slabs then should be placed only on well- drained and properly graded coarse-grained soils not subject to volume changes. Note from Figure 4-15 that the superstructure loads are supported independently on the slab on foundation walls and footings. Type II slabs Type II slabs are lightly reinforced over their entire length (Figure 4-15) and are applicable to building sites where soils may undergo differential movements due to expansion and 220 contraction. The welded-wire fabric reinforcement throughout their 4 inch thickness enables the slab to accommodate throughout these small changes and helps to control the size of shrinkage cracking. Since the slab can now accommodate thermal stresses, heating sources, such as pipes, ducts, or coils, can also be embedded in the slab. (2) Add fill to raise grade of site. Where slab-on-ground construction is intended, there is commonly a need for some preparation of the subgrade. Fills are used by home builders to raise the existing grade of the building sites located in depressions or low-lying areas above base flood levels or high ground water tables. Once soil materials are compacted to a suitable density, they can provide foundation support for Type I and Type II slabs on grade. Again, as previously mentioned, it is not the intent of this investigator to suggest that dwellings without basements should be built on floodprone or wetland areas, but rather where such construction may be appro- priate, and not prohibited by law or regulation, flood losses to those dwellings constructed above base flood levels can be minimized. Although property losses may be minimized by use of this construction practice, property accessibility can still be restricted and yard use all but eliminated during periods of prolonged flooding. (3) Excavate of peat and muck. Peat and muck soils make unsuitable subgrade materials for dwellings without basements since they are highly compressible and 221 have low bearing strength (Tilmann and Mokma, 1976). Type I and II ground-supported slabs require that their slab bed not expand or contact due to changes in moisture. Where dwellings with slabs on grade are constructed on sites consisting of these soils, the common practice is to excavate down to their mineral horizons and replace these materials with suitable compacted borrow. This will provide firm support for the foundation slab. (4) Cutting and filling. Land grading is used in residential development in un- dulating or hilly topography to create reasonably level areas for slab-on-ground construction. As slope gradient increases, how- ever, the volume of material that must be moved in order to level the dwelling site increases geometrically, as does construction costs and soil and water control problems (Urban Land Institute, 1978). Since all grading causes erosion to a certain degree, steeply leping sites and critically erodible soils should, there- fore, be left undisturbed or disturbed areas kept as small as possible to minimize soil losses. Those that are disturbed should be treated with adequate soil erosion control measures, as soon as possible, to retain sediment onsite. Maintenance costs can obviously be greater for these practices as slope gradient increases. (5) Drainage of footing and slab. High ground water tables can pose serious problems for dwellings with slabs-on-grade. If moisture can migrate through 222 the slab, then flooring materials and heating ducts could be extensively ruined. This subsurface water is usually collected by drain tile placed around and under the slab. The collected water then drains by gravity to an outlet at a lower elevation. This subdrainage_system is effective in minimizing the general wetting of the foundation soils due to the migration of free soil water. (6) Improve drainage. The subsurface drainage system used to collect and dispose of free soil water from dwelling sites with slabs on grade is the same as that used to drain dwelling sites with basements. Cost of Corrective Measures Table 4-13 presents the estimated costs of applying different corrective measures to overcome soil limitations for residential dwellings without basements in Eaton County, Michigan. The figures listed in this table are generalized estimates in 1978 dollars of the costs required to grade a proposed building site on each soil, excavate and install a slab on grade and provide drainage if the soil is wet. They are clearly not intended to eliminate the need for cost estimating by home builders and others on a site-by-site basis. The dollar amount listed for each soil is the mean of the range of costs (Appendix Table C4) for installing these different corrective measures. They were computed from cost analyses of completed residential building projects in the county, obtained 223 o.u.u.m omue mgm>mm Emop xvcmm ugoypww o.o.u.m ooem mgm>mm Jose mugmzum w.m.u.m omnv mcm>mm Pocommmmgamu .smop voozpou o.m.u.m omse mgm>mm swap coozpou umnooFQ u.u.u.m omnc ogm>wm xpucmaamgm .Emop aucmm mew; zmuoogou mwmgmm mupmpgmz mom ugma mppm—gmz Lou Q.m.m come mso>mm monopm ucmucmq m on F .mEmop mpumpgszomamo Q.m.m come mgm>mm monoFm “smegma m on o .Emo_ guano appom Anagm sup: xmpaeou a cw apco conga: m cmum mcm>mm mmmgmm concogm mmwgmm :omcogm mom upon camcogm Lou monopm w.u.m coma mgo>mm ucmugma m ow o .msmo_ avcmm camcongzcmgm mmwgwm mxcwam mom «can mxcpqm Lou monopm m.< oooe mgm>mm pcmocma mp ow up .mucmm xsmop mxcwamIgmxcm m.< omnm mumgmuoz monopm pcmogmq up on m .mEmop macaw gmxom < ommm mpmgwcoz monopm ucmogmn m o» o .msmop Xucmm gmxom u.< ommm mwmgwuoz monopm acmogmn NP cu m .ccmm xswop gmxom < ommm mumcmuoz monopm ucmugma m on o .ucam xsmo_ Lmzom noun; on o» m—nmwcm> op mmwugmaogg ucmpzogsom m omfim mumcmuoz monopm pcwugmg m on o .Emop saxwm u.o.o.m oowm mgm>mm xoas cowsn< acammaz a>mpuatcou Amum_wv cowpagwe_4 _Pom “we: an: Pwom upwm m=w__mzo can “moo _awpw=H cmmwgurz .zucsou coumm cw mpcmsmmmn “sogumz mmcwppmzu meacmuwmmg so; mwgzmmms m>_»umggou pcmngQFu mcwapaam mo mumou nmumswumm was m:o_umuvspp Fwom .mPIv o_amp 224 m.< omum mamgmuoz monopm ucmugma Np on o .smop zucmm oewusmo < ommm unmmpm monopm pcmugmq m on o .Emo. macaw osoucmo monopm pcmugwa Np cu m m.m omme mumgooo: .mucmm »Emo_ mmuszmxcwnm we «can mono: monopm «smegma u o» o m ommm mumgmuoz .mucmm asmop mmuszmxcpnm mo gem; «mum: mpwom mxcpnm ;p_3 xmpasoo cw xpco vegan: mono: mmwgmm umamo mom axon ounce can monopm w.u.m come mcm>mm acmogmq v on o .Emo— macaw umamu..mgo§mgmz o.u.m come mgm>mm monopm acougma m op o .smo_ coungumz m.m omme mgm>mm mmaopm pcmugmn mm op mp .Eoop muuwpgmz m.m ooome mcm>mm mono—m ucmugma m— op NF .Emo— mayo—Luz umuogm zpmgm>mm m.m some mumgouoz .ucmogma mp o» m .smop »m_u muumpgmz m.m come memgmnoz mmaopm ucmugoa up on o .Emo_ mppwpgmz m omum mpmgmnoz monopm acmogma o op N .Emo— muumpgmz w.u.m om~¢ wgm>mm chopmmmgqmu .Emop meu xuppm mmzmch monopm Q.u.m come mgm>mm ucmogwa m op o .smop xucmm mew» mwanwx w.o.o.m ooem aem>am xuas copgmzo: monopm m.m omhm mamameoz “caucaa N_ o» o .smop zucam mpaum_Fw: < ommm muugmuoz mmaopm Hemogma o ow N .Emop macaw mpmumFFw: masmamz m>wuuaccou Ammmpwv =o_bapwsw4 Pwom “we: no: Fwom muwm m=w_szo can “moo meuwcfi umzcmucou .m_I¢ mpnmh 225 monopm pcmunmn m_ o» Np m.< coon mnm>mm .mncmm xsmop mxcwnmIgmxom Qo ugmn mxcwnm mmwgmm noun: mum anon mono: Lon mmnopm m.< omnm mpmgmvoz ucmogmn up on o .mucnm xsnop mmaszmxcwnm m.< omnm mumgmuoz monopm acmugmn up on m .ucmm zEmop mxzwnm mmwnwm mmumz mmm anon noun: Lon monopm < ommm usmwpm acmugmn m o» o .mucnm xsnop mmaszmxcvnm < ommm pgmwpm monopm ucwugmn e on o .ucmm name, mxcwnm mmwnmm mpmogm saw: xmpnsou cw a_=o umnnnz Q.n.u.m omne mgm>mm mmwgmm cmopm mmrgmm :mopm mom ugmn coopm non w.n.u.m omnn mnm>mm mano— :moFmImpnosm u.n.u.m omne mnm>mm Eoop mzmnmm w.n.u.m omne mgm>mm swap Pppgxgmn u.o.u.m coem mgm>mm xone me_mn mmwnmm mpumpgmz mom “can «pumpnmz non monopm ucmonmn m.m some mgm>mm mp op NF .mEooF xvcmm muumpnszommozo mmmnmm mupmpgmz mwm yuan maumpgnz non mmno—m pcmunmn m.m omme mpmgmcoz up on o .msmo— xnnnm maumpgmz ommozo mmmgmm «pumpnnz mom anon mpampnmz Lon monopm m.m omnm mpngmnoz ucmugmn o op _ .msnop zucnm mpumpnszommozo acumen: m>wnumcton Awnnnwv conpauwenn _rom awe: nu: FPOW mnwm newppazn can “won .m?pw:n nm==_u=on .m_-n n_nan 226 ponucou mmmcpnnu m>onnEH ampm ccn unpuoom we mmncwmgn mppwy ucm munu guns mum>moxm manna wmwnn on FF?» vu< wanna go ampm HH mnzw wanna go ampm H mnxw II II II II II II mm op o .u:n_nm> xuonuma .Emop zucmm wnmmnz u.n.m come mnm>mm mmnopm unmonmn m op o .snop xucnm anmmz monopm m omnm mnm>mm unmogmn e ea c .smop aucmm mcwm «Poona» mnnmmoz m>wpumnnou Amnmpwv cowunprswn Pwom awn: no: Pwom nuvm ncwppmzn can amen Favuwcn nmacwucou .mpIe open» 227 from home builders, construction trade organizations, engineers, architects, and others. The average initial costs for installing the different corrective measures on these soils in Eaton County, Michigan, ranges from $3,250 to $5,400 (Table 4-13) per dwelling site. These data clearly indicate the need for additional investment and reinforced foundation designs (Type II slab) for soils with moderate to severe limitations (e.g., Capac loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, Marlette loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, Tuscola fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes). Soils with slight limitations (e.g., Oshtemo sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes, Spinks loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes) require only an initial investment of about $3,250 for installation of Type I slabs on grade (A), while similar soils with moderate limitations because of slope (e.g., Oshtemo sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, Spinks loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes) require an additional expenditure on the average of about $500 ($3,750 total), primarily because of the increased site grading (G) required. Further study of the data reveals that the initial costs for organic soils with severe limitations (e.g., Adrian, Edwards, Houghton, and Palms) have the highest costs for home construction without basements among all the soil listed in Table 4-13. In fact, their costs are 66 percent greater than those required to build similar dwellings on soils having only slight limitations for this use. This again clearly illustrates the reason why organic soils should be avoided for home construction, if at all possible. 228 Computer Output Figure 4-16 illustrates the locations of areas with soil limitations for residential dwellings without basements in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan. The basic format of this computer-generated map is again essentially the same as those previously presented in this chapter. The darkest or black octagons represent areas which have only slight limitations for this use, while those areas with severe soil limitations are represented by unshaded or white octagons. Areas with moderate soil limitations are thus represented by octagons which are intermediate in tone. Blank cells represent unrated borrow land and water areas. A visual examination of this map reveals that much of the land in the township has severe limitations for this land use. The most prominent area again straddles the "Old Maid Swamp" (Figure l-3) in the northeast quadrant of the township. This elongated area consists, as previously discussed, of nearly level, poorly and very poorly drained mucky and loamy soils (i.e., Adrian, Colwood, Edwards, Gilford, Houghton, Palms, Parkhill, etc.) located in ancient glacial drainageways. Another large area with similarly rated soils (i.e., Capac, Gilford, Houghton, Sebewa, etc.) is located in an extreme southwest corner of the township (Figure 4-15). Soils in these two areas present serious problems for the construction of dwellings without basements, although the organic soils of the group (Adrian, Edwards, Houghton, and Palms) have again considerably more difficult soil limitations to overcome 229 .nwzmczoh nomccwz cw mpcwsmmnn unogpwz mmcwppmzc meucmuwmon no» mcopumqu_P Fwom mcwumgumnppw nae m>wumgnnwacv czmnngmunnEooII.o_I¢ mnnmwn o;— CuOtuuuo 3 n C 5351.5 :2» 23.52. _ no.-u8 buufiocs auto—cu: u>_.¢¢ut00u 40.53.39 8.108 11.:3’03’0 QQQ: QQQ: QQQO QQO: QQQ: QQQ: 0660 000: 9690 QQQO QOOO OOQQ: QQQQO QQQQO 9090: 0000: 090: or: O. o—I'!' ‘5. ad .2. QOQQQOOQOOQQQOQQQQQQQQOOQQOOQQQQQOQQOQQQQOOQQO- OQQQQQOOOOQOQQOQQQOQQQQQOQQOQQQQOOQQOOQQOQCOQE9 QQQQQOOOOOOOQQOQQQOQQQQQQOQQOQQQQQQOQQOQQOQQQ Eai .l! QQQQQOQOOQOOOQQOOQ QOOQOOOQOOQQQQ099Q3Q3©€99QQ9 QQQQQQ9QQQOQQQOQQQOOQQQQOOOQOQQQOQQOQOQOQO99QQ9 £5 0 I OQOOOQOQQQQOOQQQQQQQQQOOOQOOOOQOOQQOQOQCQO9966C OQOQQOOOQQQQOQQQQ QQQOOQOOOOOQOOOOQOQOOQ.QOQQQG OQOOOQOOQQQQQQQQQ QOQQQQOOOOOOQQQOQQOOQQOQQQQQ9 3N T :2! o 66666666666666666 6666666666666666666666666666 I. 66666666666666666 6066666666666666666666066666. _ 0 666666666666666 666666666666666666666666666666c 666666666666666 6666666606666666666666666666p Iéz:i Is: 666666666666666 666666666666666066666666666666s 66666666666666666666666666666666.06666666a6666 659.;2§.2s 6666666666666666636666666666666606666666666 66c 6662:6955: 66666666666666 6 66666666666666666606666666a:60 666666666666 6666 6666666066666666666666666666 6666666666666 6666 6666666666666666666666666: n zEnn .J: 666666666666606666 666666666666666666666660 -22 46 no :3 666666666666 66666 666666666666666635666666c LGfizxnmon 66666666666666666666 66666666666666666666666c :....:EE: :8 I 3.666666666F66666b6696l6666666666666666666666666. 231 (i.e., peat and muck at great depths) requiring additional corrective measures (Appendix Table F4), thereby increasing the cost of residential construction. The spatial distribution of soil areas with only slight or moderate limitations for residential dwellings without basements is also well illustrated in Figure 4-l6. These areas are generally scattered throughout the entire map. Again, the most prominent area is located in the west-central portion of the township, adjacent to U.S. Highway 27 (Temporary Interstate 69) and in the vicinity of West Windsor (see Figure l-2). A study of the soils map, sheets 29 and 30, of the county soil survey, indicates that Bixby, Boyer, Hillsdale, Marlette, Spinks, and Owosso soils dominate this landscape. These well or moderately drained soils have deep depths to seasonal water tables insuring that foundation slabs built on these soils are unlikely to be wet. Their bearing capacity is fair to good and they provide good foundation support for slabs on grade. Those with steeper slopes have moderate limitations because some land grading is required, although the undulating topography is a definite advantage from an aesthetic standpoint for homesites. Slopes in cuts and fills in these soils are quite stable and fairly easily vegetated. Table 4-l4 shows the proportionate extent and approximate acreage of soils in Windsor Township with different degrees of limitations for residential dwellings with sanitary sewers and without basements. These calculations are based on the number of 232 Appmu 6mg mmgum op .mppmu cemmv upue cam m~-¢ mmgzmpu co ummmn use mcomuopzupmu "who: 660mm o.oo_ 6.6 m.F moem N.op oofim P.Ne mmem ~.F¢ mom 6.6 Pouch mpe m.P mpq m.~ . u u - u - n . umumgca mmm~_ “.mm - - moem N.o_ scum F.N¢ moo m.~ - - mgm>mm mem m.o¢ - - - - - - ¢~mm m.mm Rom N.N mumgmcoz .66 0.6 - - - - - - - - Poe o.~ “suppm mm... u< H mm.» u< ox. mmLu< N mm.» U< .N. mm.» U< & mmLU< & quoh vmuwgcs Loom swam coca ucmppmuxu cowpmumswg 656666 mepcmpoa .60m Fpom we mmcmmg cmmwguwz .xucaou coumm .awgmczoh Lowucwz cw mucmemmmn “accumz mmcpppmzu pmpucmuwmmg Low mpmwpcmuoa new mcowpwpwewp Fvom an cmpm_mmmFu mpwom 6o mammgum muoswxogaqm cam pcmpxm mpmcowucoaogm .ep-¢ mpnmh 233 cells in each category (slight, moderate, severe, unrated) as plotted on Figure 4-l6. According to the information presented on the right side of this table, 46l, 9,331, and 12,833 acres have slight, moderate, and severe limitations for residential dwellings without basements, respectively. These data then indicate that about 42.5 percent of the land (9,792 acres) in the township has slight or moderate limitations for this land use, and is therefore suitable for use without special drainage systems for the slab bed or yard, while more than half of the land area (55.7 percent or l2,832 acres) has severe soil limitations for these same land uses, usually requiring more costly corrective measures for drainage or soil slope. Significant changes can occur, however, in the amount of suitable land for this nonagricultural land use by applying different corrective measures on soils with moderate or severe limitations. Table 4-l4 also shows the proportionate extent and approximate acreage of soils in Windsor Township classified according to this potential for residential dwellings without basements. According to the information presented along the bottom of this table, 968, 9,492, 9,700, and 2,465 acres have excellent, good, fair, poor potential, respectively, for this land use. A study of these data indicates that out of the 12,833 acres of land in the township which are rated as having severe soil limitations, 80.8 percent of this land area has good or fair potential for dwellings with sanitary sewers and without basements. This is a 234 significant increase of lll percent or 10,368 acres in the amount of land that might be suitable for this land use in the township, provided that the proper corrective measures are applied to each soil (Appendix Table F4). Even more significant is the fact that only 10.7 percent of the land area in the township has soils with poor potential, while 4.2 and 41.2 percent have soils with excellent and good potential, respectively. Figure 4-l7 shows the location of soils with different potentials for residential dwellings without basements in Windsor Township. It is evident that there are only a few prominent areas on the map which have high concentrations of soils with poor potential for this land use. One such area is located in the northwest quadrant of the township straddling the "Old Maid Swamp." Another elongated area is situated in the southwest quadrant of the township along the King and Carleton drains (Figure l-3). Several other areas of minor acreage are located near the Grand River (Figure l-3). These areas essentially consist of very poorly drained organic soils or alluvial soils (Cohoctah, Sloan) requiring elaborate and costly drainage control measures (Appendix Table F4 and Table 4-13). Although corrective measures can be applied to overcome some of their limitations, these soils are subject to flooding, and consequently are among the poorest choices for building sites in the township. Figure 4-l7 shows then that much of Windsor Township has soils with excellent, good, or fair potential for residential 235 .nwgmczop gomucwz cw mpcmewmmn uzoguwz mmcwpmeu Fm_ucmuwmmg Low mepcouoa Fwom mcwpmgum=_Pv awe m>wpmgagmpcw :zmgu-gmu:asoo-s.mp-v m6:m_m '|.|l||l own. 2.92.660 >..wxu>_za .,c_n ::u_:u.: oo_.ua .uuwoc; daze—ow: u»__¢cusoo. o¢-.:.u z.-cz 02'...- _ a J O: .. =l'f' ‘5. I'd .3. .E.i :I! I: 6 s: 6 Bl Q :35: O C..-=0; :0. ‘6. ’ 2co_2u_: .>.x:ou zo_¢u m_zmzzo» momoz_: wbszmmcm ~30:»_2 woz_44mzo xou 4¢_»zwpom 4~om 6 3 n z _ _ . _ . o O 6 6 Q Q 9 © 6 O 9 © 9 9 © © 9 © 6 O O O 9 © 9 © 9 6 9 © 0 O O 60 60 ©©o ©©o 660 660 00: OO: 00: 0: ea 9 © 8 a QOQQOOQQQ©O©©©O©OOO©OO©OO©O©©©©©©©©©©©OOO©OOOOa OQQQOOQOOQQQQQQQQQQOOOQOOQOOQQQOQ©©©©©OO©O©OOOOo 0QQQQQQOQQ©©©@QQOQQOOQQOQOOQQQOOQOQQQOQOQQQ0090a oOQOQQQQQQQQQOQQOOOOQOQOQOOQQQQOQQQ©©©OO©O©OOOOo oOOQ@QQQQOQQQOOQOQOQOOQ©©©OO©©OO©©©©©©OOOO©©©OO oOQOQQOQOQQQQOOQQQOQQOOQQOQQQQOQOQQQOQOOQQQQQQOo OQOQQQQQOQQQQQQ 98668096006909OOOOQQQQQQOOQQQQQT a©©OOQQQQQQOQ©©©©©O©O©OO©©©O©©QQQQQOOQQOOOQOQQQ O@QOQQQQQOQQQOQQQQQQQQQOQQOOQQQGOQQOOQQOOOQQQOQa OOQQO@OQOQQOOQOQOQQOQOOOQQQQQQOOQQOQQQQ0099006a o OOQQQOQOQQQOQQOOQQQOQQQOOQQQQOOQQOQQOOOOQOQOQa oQOQOQQQQOQQOQQQOQQOQQQQQOQQQQQQQOQQOOOOOOQOQQQa aOQG QQQQOQQQOQQQQQOOQQOQOQQQQQOQQQQQOOOOOOOQQOy 0©©©©O©QQQOOQQQQOQQOQQQQOQQOOOQOQOQOOOO QQOQOOBr o©®©©©®©©© OQOQQQQOOOQQOOOQQOOQQQQQQOOQOQOQOQQ66 OQQQQQOOOQQQ OOQQQQQOQQ©©©©QQOQOQQQOOQQOQQQQQQQC oOQQQQ@886QOOQOOQQQQOOQQQQOOOQOOOQQQQOQQQQQQQQB o@008QQQOQQQOOQOQQQQQQQQQQQQQQOOOQQOOQQOQQQQOOEa aOOOQQOQQQOOQQQQOOQQOQOQQQQQOOOOQQQOQQOQQQQ6609o oOOQQQQOOQQQQQQQQQQQQQOQOQQQQQOQQQQQOQQQOOOOQQQF 39©99©©O©09©Q©©©6QQQQOQQQQQ@OQQQQQOQQQQQOQQOQQQ oQOQQQOOQOOOQQCQQQOQQ©660©©00©Q©©©®©©0©©€600666J aOOQQQ@OOOOQQOOQOOOQQQQOOQQQQQ©©©Q©©Q®O©Q€6€006 aQQQQQ9988@OOQQQOOOQQQQOQQQQQQQQOQQQIQQIQQOQOfiQ6 QQQQQBQQOBOQQQQOOQ @QQOOQOQQQQQOQQQQQOQOQQQQQQ» aQQOQQQQQQQQQQQQO©©O©®©©©©O®©©Q©©O©©QQO608.66666 aEQOBOQQQQEQQOQQQQQQQQQQQQQ@QQQQOOQQQQOQOQOQQQQo OEQOQOQOEQQQQBQQQB QQQOQQOQQQQQQ©06©960©€06©©€E6 OQQOOQQQOQQQQQQQQO ©®©Q9©9©®©©©®O©©€©OO©®Q€©Q©Q6 OOOOQOQQQOQQOQOQQQ @QQQBOQQQQSOQQQQQOQQQQQQ@666o OOOOOOOQQOOQQQQQQQ @066QQQQQQQOOOQOQQQQQQOQQQQQa OQQQQQBQQQQQQOQG 669669668866©66899©Q©€®©®6QQ66 QQQQQQQQQQQQQOQQ Q9@OQQQQQQQBOQOQQQQQQQBQQQQQa aBQQSQOCQQGQQOQQ @QBQSQQOQQQQBQQOQOQQQQQQQQQQQQ\ a006Q@Q@QEQBOQQQQQOQQOQQQOOQQQQQQOOOQQOQEQQQQQC a©86666666QOQQQQQQOQQOOQOOQQQQQQOOQOOQQQSQSSQQOP 066966396956668 e QQQOOCOOQOQQOOOQQOOOOOQQOQQQSc OOOQBQBQQQR_QQ .099 098000OOBQQQOSQQBQQOCOOOQQQ 3669966669666. @QQO OOOQOOQCQQQQQQQQOOOOGOOOS_ 3696666966666 :06698 @QBQQQOCQQQOQQQBOQQOBBOC 369966666966666 QQQQQ QSOQQOOOOQQ69669669666660 JEQGAEEQOQQEEQQOQQQO QQSOSOQBOCQOQCOQGQEOaQEC /, FQLPQ 237 dwellings with sanitary sewers and without basements. By visually comparing Figure 4-16 with the generalized land use and cover map for the same area (see Figure 4-9), it is clear that a degree of incompatability and potential land use conflict exists. This over- lap is most prevalent in the west-central and southwest portions of the township where large blocks of contiguous soil areas have excellent and good potential for dwellings without basements. Residential development of these suitable areas would likely destroy their high value for agriculture and forestry unless careful planning of priorities are established for the preservation of good land for food and fiber production, as well as providing land for urban development. Residential Waterlines The soil potential index (SP1) and potential rating of each mapping unit for residential waterlines in Eaton County, Michigan, is shown in Table 4-15. The SPI ranges from a high of 100 for Bixby loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, to a low of l for Wasepi sandy loam, bedrock variant, percent slopes. As shown in this table, all map units were also arrayed from excellent to poor potential according to their soil potential index. The class intervals generated by the JENKS computer program (see Table 3-8), with the maximum goodness of variance fit (95.06%), were used to assign each mapping unit to one of the four qualitative rating classes indicating its relative potential for residential waterlines in the county. Note that the 238 Table 4-15. Soil potential index and rating of soil mapping units for residential waterlines in Eaton County, Michigan Soil Potential Index Rating Soil Map Unit 100 Excellent Bixby loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes lOO Excellent Boyer loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Boyer sandy loams, 0 to 6 percent slopes lOO Excellent Hillsdale sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Marlette loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Oshtemo sandy loam, 0 to 6 percent slopes lOO Excellent Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, l to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Spinks loamy sand, 0 to 6 percent slopes 100 Excellent Spinks-Metea loamy sands, 0 to 6 percent slopes 78 Good Tuscola fine sandy loam, 0 to 4 per- cent slopes 78 Good Wasepi sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 78 Good Winneshiek silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 70 Good Capac-Marlette loams, l to 6 percent slopes 64 Good Boyer loamy sands, 6 to 12 percent slopes 64 Good Boyer sandy loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes Table 4-15. Continued 239 Soil Potential Index Rating Soil Map Unit 64 Good Hillsdale sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 64 Good Marlette loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 64 Good Marlette loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, severely eroded 64 Good Oshtemo sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes 64 Good Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 64 Good Spinks loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes 64 Good Spinks-Metea loamy sands, 6 to 12 percent slopes 64 Good Brady-Bronson sandy loams, 0 to 3 percent slopes 50 Fair Capac loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 50 Fair Kibbie fine sandy loam 0 to 3 percent slopes 50 Fair Matherton loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes 50 Fair Metamora-Capac sandy loams, 0 to 4 percent slopes 45 Fair Colwood loam 45 Fair Colwood loam, depressional 45 Fair Gilford sandy loam 45 Fair Lenawee silty clay loam, depressional 45 Fair Parkhill loam 45 Fair Sebewa loam Table 4-15. Continued 240 Soil Potential Index Rating Soil Map Unit 42 Poor Cohoctah fine sandy loam, frequently flooded 42 Poor Shoals-Sloan loams 40 Poor Marlette loam, 12 to 28 percent slopes 40 Poor Owosso-Marlette sandy loams, 12 to 18 percent slopes 27 Poor Boyer-Spinks loamy sands, 12 to 18 percent slopes 24 Poor Marlette loam, 18 to 25 percent slopes 21 Poor Adrian muck 21 Poor Edwards muck 21 Poor Houghton muck 21 Poor Palms muck 1 Poor Wasepi sandy loam, bedrock variant, 0 to 3 percent slopes - Unrated Borrow land Unrated Water 24] areas mapped as water and borrow land were again left unrated, as previously discussed. Corrective Measures and ContinuinggLimitations In cooperation with public works departments, professional trade organizations, and local engineers, designs for residential waterlines were identified for soils in Eaton County, Michigan. Appendix Table F4 lists the features affecting the use, recommended designs to overcome these limitations, and a statement of the kinds of limitations remaining after these waterline designs are installed on these soils. As shown in this table, there are seven kinds of corrective measures commonly used, either separately or concurrently, on soils in the county to overcome problem soil conditions. These are the following: install water pipe with pipe trencher, excavate peat and muck, excavate rock, dewater trench, wrap pipe with polyethylene, tamp backfill by hand, and thrust blocking and anchoring. A brief discussion of each is presented below. (1) Install water pipe with pipe trencher. Cast iron pipe has been commonly used for residential water lines where potable water is carried under pressure. Although in recent years thermoplastic pipe has been marketed as a low-cost substitute, cast iron pipe is still the preferred material among many public works agencies for waterlines because of its durability and resistence to high internal and external pressures. 242 In northern states, the usual procedure is to install the pipe in trenches below the maximum recorded depth of frost for the area (Cast Iron Pipe Research Association, 1951). The width of the trench must be sufficient to enable workmen to tamp the backfill around the bottom half of the pipe. A common rule of thumb, is that the trench should be from one to two feet wider than the outside of the pipe (Figure 4-18). Special trenching machines are used by some contractors to reduce or eliminate the need for sheeting or bracing the trench when installing small diameter (6 or 8 inches) pipes, thereby reducing costs of pipe laying.2] Generally speaking, these trenches are not opened up very far ahead of pipe laying in order to reduce the possibility of cave-ins or flooding caused by ground water. (2) Excavate peat and muck. All water pipes should be placed on a stable foundation. Installing pipe on unstable peat and muck soils can result in uneven support and possible breakage under the weight of the back- fill or above ground movements. A common practice is to excavate below the grade line and refill with material such as sand or gravel, thoroughly tamped, to bed the pipe. The pipe is then placed on this sand cushion (Figure 4-18). (3) Excavate rock. Where rock is encountered in trench excavation, it is also necessary that it be removed and a bed of sand be placed on the 21Personal communication with w. Harry Smith, President, Cast Iron Pipe Research Association, Oak Brook, Illinois. 243 Laws HIEXWUAELW ' .‘L‘ n EWW/élW/Ez-‘i‘h \ €37 deillilg} W ., . . Figure 4-18.--Placement of waterline in trench. W/fé‘g 244 bottom of the trench to provide a cushion for the pipe. Failure to do this may result in the pipe resting on a sharp point of rock, making it subject to breakage under the weight of the back- fill load, surface load, or earth movements (Cast Iron Pipe Research Association, 1952). (4) Dewater trench. The trench bottom for the pipe should be smooth and dry so that the pipe can be uniformly supported along its length (Cast Iron Pipe Research Association, 1952). High ground water in the excavated trench interferes with the proper placement of the pipe. In areas of this occurrence, well-point systems or backhoes are commonly used to pump out this water, and thereby temporarily lower the local ground water table. (5) Wrap pipe with polyethylene. Research has shown that in certain types of soils corrosion of uncoated cast iron pipe may occur (Romanoff, 1957). Corrosion is a physical and biochemical process which converts iron into its compounds resulting in putting holes in it and eventual service failure of the pipe. The potential corrosivity of a soil can be estimated by the following factors: (1) resistance to flow of electrical current, (2) total acidity, (3) soil drainage, (4) soil texture, and (5) conductivity of saturation extract (SCS, USDA, 1978). Soils are then assigned to one of three classes of corrosivity: low, moderate, or high. This information along with local knowledge of the service history of cast iron pipe can indicate the likelihood of potential corrosion. 245 Once having established that a soil is potentially corrosive to cast iron pipe, it is necessary to provide adequate means of pipe protection. Several pipe protection procedures have been studied over a long period of time, such as cathodic protection, factory-applied coatings, or cement armour coatings. For the most part, these are uneconomical due to either high installation costs or the continuing need for maintenance (Romanoff, 1964). Research conducted by the Cast Iron Pipe Research Association over a 15- year period (Wagner, 1964; Smith, 1968) indicates that effective and economical corrosion protection can be provided by encasing the pipe during installation with a loose external sleeve of polyethylene. Hundreds of thousands of feet of cast iron water pipe are now protected by this polyethylene tubing in extremely corrosive soils.22 (6) Tamp backfill by hand. Backfilling of the pipe trench after pipe installation usually follows as closely as possible to eliminate the problem of the pipe shifting out of line (Cast Iron Pipe Research Association, 1952). Generally, mechanical rolling equipment is used to compact the backfill, thereby saving labor costs. However, where the pipe is laid in undulating or hilly topography, hand labor is needed to insure that there is thorough compaction under and on each side of the pipe to provide support free from voids. 22Personal communication with George Bogs, General Manager, U.S. Pipe and Foundry Company, Birmingham, Alabama. 246 This lessons the possibility of the pipe shifting out of line due to the backfill slipping downhill. Erosion control measures in the trench area can also help prevent soil losses. Maintenance costs, however, obviously increase as slope gradient increases. (7) Thrust blocking and anchoring. In addition to hand tamping of the backfill, metal anchors and concrete thrust blocks are necessary where water pipes are installed in steep topography to insure that the pipe does not slip downhill with the backfill (Cast Iron Pipe Research Association, 1952). Concrete thrust blocks and metal anchors are used to align and support the pipe firmly under these conditions. Installation of these materials, however, require considerable labor and adds to construction costs significantly. Cost of Corrective Measures Table 4-16 presents the estimated costs of applying different corrective measures to overcome soil limitations for residential water lines in Eaton County, Michigan. The figures listed in this table are generalized estimates in 1978 dollars of the costs per linear foot required to install an 8-inch diameter pipe. They are clearly not intended to eliminate the need for cost estimating on a site-by-site basis. The dollar amount listed for each soil is the mean of the range in costs (Appendix Table C5) for installing these different corrective measures. These were computed from cost analyses of completed residential water lines in the county, 247 u.n.< mN.m_ mam>am sac. steam ugompww m.n.m.< oo.n~ mgm>mm suns mvgmzum m.n.< mm.mp mgm>mm Pacowmmmgnmu .smop coozpoo m.n.< m~.mp msm>mm swap cooz—ou umuoopm m.n.< m~.m~ mgo>mm apucwncmgw .Emo— avcwm 6:66 smuuosou mumsmm muumpgmz mam ugmn mupmpgmz Lon m.n.< m~.m_ mmnopm mmnopm pcmugmn a nu p .msmop wuampgmzuumnou m.o.< mN.mF mgm>mm manopm ucmugwn m on o .sno_ umnmu m_wom xnmsm gum: xmpnsoo 6 av AFco umnnmz n.< mn.- mgm>mm mmwgwm camcogm mm_gmm concogm mmm anon camcogm Lon mmnopm m.o.< m~.mp mgm>mm ucmugon m o» o .msmop macaw comcogmuxvmgm mmwgmm mxcmnm mom psmn mxcmnm Lon mmnopm n.< mn.mp mgm>mm ucwugmn mp 6“ up .mucmm zsmop mxcwnmugmzom n.< mn.mp mgw>mm mmnopm pmcogmn Np on m .msmop aucmm gmaom < mN.FF mgm>mm mmnopm ucmugon m o» o .msmo_ xucnm gmxcm n.< mn.mp mgm>mm manopm ucmugmn NP op m .ucmm zamop Luzon < m~.FP mgm>mm mmnopm acmogmn 0 cu o .vcmm AEmoF gmxom 632 mg 3 336.22, 08. $3.83.: 2:: 323m < m~.FP mungmcoz mmnopm unmugmn m op o .Emop anxwm m.o.m.< oo.n— mgm>mm xuns cmwgc< mgnmmmz w>wuomggoo Awnnpmv cowumuwswn Fwom “6:: nm: Fwom anon ancpn can “won Fawuwcn :wmwguwz .zucaou noun“ cw mmcppgmumz meucwcwmmg Low mmgammws m>_pomggou pcmgom6wu mcwzpnno 6o mumou umumewumm 6cm mcowgmupsmp pvom .opue mpnmp 248 n.< mn.mp mnm>mm mmno—m pcmugmn NF on m .Emop xucmm campgmo < m~.p_ mgm>mm mwnopm «smugmn o o» o .Emop 56:66 oemusmo mmnopm ucmugmn NP o» m n.< mn.mp mungouoz .mucmm xsmop nmumzumxcwnm mo ugmn mmpmz mmnopm ucmugmn m on o < mm. : 2an .288 252 882-35% .8 ta 8:: m__om mxcmnm saw: xmpnsou :6 xpco umnnmz mmumz mmwgmm umnmu omm anon omnou Lon mmnopm m.n.< m~.mp mgm>mm ucmugmn e o» o .Emop macaw umnmuuogoEmumz m.n.< mm.mp mnm>wm mmnoFm acmugmn m on o .Enop cougmgunz n.< mn.mp mgm>mm mmnopm ucmugmn mm ow mp .Emop «upmpgmz n.< mn.mp mgm>mm mmnopm acmugmn mp on N— .Emop muumpgmz umuogw apgm>mm n.< mn.m~ manemvoz .ucmunmn NF op o .566, ampu mppmpgmz n.< mn.mp «gunman: mmnoFm pcmogmn up on o .sno_ mppopnoz < m~._F mungwnoz mmnonm pcmugmn 6 cu N .Enop muuopgmz m.n.< mm.mp mgm>mm Pocommmmgnmu .smop ampo zupwm mmzmcmn mmnopm u.n.< mm.mp mgm>mm pcmugmn m o» o .Emop zucmm new» mwnnwx m.n.m.< oo.np mgm>mm xuas coucnno: mmnopm n.< mn.mp mumgmuoz unmogmn NF o» m .smo_ aucmm mpmcmppw: < m~.PF unmwpm mmnopm ucmogmn m o» N .smop macaw mpnvmppm: mgnmmmz m>wuumggou Amnmpmv cowumuvswn pwom awn: n62 Fwom noon gmmcwn tan amen Pananen umaenucon .op-e m_amh 249 moanmm omaw: mom anon omam: non monoam n.< mN.ma mnm>mm acwunmn Na ea c .mocom :sooa omam:-m::anm n.< mn.ma mnm>mm monoam acmunmn Na ea c .ucom :sooa mxcanm moanmm omam: mom anon omam: non monoam < mN._a mno>om acmunmn 6 ea c .mocom :Eooa omam:umxcanm < mN.aa mnm>mm monoam acmunmn e ea c .ocom :Eooa uncanm moanmm maoosm saw: xmansou ca xaco umnno: m.n.< mN.ma mno>mm moanmm coo—m moanmm cooam mom anon cooam non m.n.< mN.ma mno>mm msooa cooamumaoogm m.n.< mN.ma mno>mm soap ozmamm m.n.< mN.ma mnm>mm sooa apagnnon m.n.m.< oo.N— mnm>om nuns msaon moanom maamano: wow anon maamano: non monoam acmunon w.n.< mn.ma onm>om ma oa Na .msooa annom maaoanozaommozo moanmm maawano: mom anon maamano: non monoam acmunmn n.< mn.m_ oaonoooz Na ca 6 .msooa nocom aaaoanoz-ommozo moanom oaamano: mom anon maamano: non monoam < mN.aa maonmuo: acmonon 6 ca a .msooa mucom maawanozuommozo onnmom: m>aaoonnou Amnnawv :oaaoaaean aaom aaca no: Paom aoon nomcaa non amen aoaaaca ooacnacoo .o_-¢ mason 250 acanogoco oco mcaxuoaa amnnchuw oco; :n aaamxuon nsoaun mam—a;awaaon gaaz mnan nonzum socmna nmaozmnun noon mao>ouxmuu none woo aomn mao>ooxmum nmgucmna mnan caaz mnan aaoamcau< n.< mn.Na maonmoo: mono—m acmonmn m oa o .Eooa aaam nmagmmncaz monoam acmunmn n.o.< mN.m_ onm>mm m ea c .acoano> noonoma .Eooa aucom anmmoz n.< mN.Na mnm>mm monoam acmunmn m ea c .Eooa Anson anomoz monoam n.< mn.Na mnm>mm acounmn 6 ea c .sooa accom mcay oaoomah monoam acounmn ma oa Na o.n.< mn.ma mnm>mm .mocom :sooa mxcanm-nmxom no anon macanm anamooz osaauonnou nonmnav coaaoaaean anew ans: no: anon anon nomcaa nan amen aoaanen umacwacou .mpav manop 25l obtained from public works departments, construction trade organi- zations, engineers, and others. The average initial costs for installing the different corrective measures on these soils in the county ranges from $11.25 to $18.25 per linear foot of pipe. These data clearly indicate the need for additional investment for organic soils (Adrian, Edwards, Houghton, Palms) and those shallow to bedrock (Wasepi, bedrock variant). These soils have among the highest costs for water line construction of all the soils listed in Table 4-15. The organic soils require an expenditure of approximately $17.00 per linear foot which is 51.1 percent greater than the cost required to install similar waterlines in soils with only slight limitations. Soils shallow to bedrock require approximately $18.25 to install similar water lines, an increase of 62.2 percent over the costs on soils with slight limitation. This again clearly demonstrates the reason organic soils and those shallow to bedrock should be avoided for water line construction, if at all possible. Computer Output Figure 4-19 illustrates the locations of areas with soil limitations for residential water lines in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan. The basic format of this computer-generated map is again essentially the same as those previously presented in this chapter. The darkest or black octagons represent areas which have only slight limitations for this use, while those areas with severe limitations are represented by unshaded or white 252 .nacmczo» nomucaz ca mmcaanmaoz poaacmuammn non mcoaaoaasaa Paom mcaaonamaaaa nos m>aamnnnmaca axonuunoaansouuu.maie mnnman 53 urn. «surname >»_wcu>_z= mac.“ l¢°.xu—t 00—.un auusoun JCIG.¢U: u»_>¢¢unoou 4¢uhluu x—uo: lll. \ i 2 2|... I: i .1. all .I .l-.! III 0 all! 0 =21 O lublulua ii I. ' x¢o_xu_: .nnzneu gonzo 25:33 2392.: wuz_azu.—m: ._¢:zmn:mmx mo... mzo:¢::_._ flow If.-. i 254 octagons. Areas with moderate soil limitations are thus represented by octagons which are intermediate in tone. Blank cells represent unrated borrow land and water areas. A visual examination of the map indicates that much of the land in the township has severe limitations for this land use. The most prominent area again straddles the "Old Maid Swamp" (see Figure l-3) in the northeast quadrant of the township. This area consists, as previously mentioned, of nearly level, poorly and very poorly drained mucky and loamy soils (i.e., Adrian, Colwood, Edwards, Gilford, Houghton, Palms, Parkhill, etc.) located in ancient glacial drainageways. Another large area with similarly rated soils (i.e., Capac, Gilford, Houghton, Sebewa, etc.) is located in the extreme southwest corner of the township (Figure 4-18). A third area on the map with similar kinds of soils is located in the south-central portion of the township in the vicinity of the upper Skinner Drain Extension (Figure l-3). Soils in these three areas present serious problems for the installation of residential water lines, although the organic soils in these areas have again more difficult soil limitations to overcome (i.e., peat and muck at great depths, high water tables, corrosive, etc.) requiring additional corrective measures (Appendix Table F5), thereby increasing the cost of waterline construction. The spatial distribution of soil areas with only slight or moderate limitations for residential waterlines is also well illustrated in Figure 4-19). These areas are generally scattered 255 throughout the map. A notable area is located in the west-central portion of the township, adjacent to U.S. Highway 27 (Temporary Interstate 69) and in the vicinity of West Windsor (Figure 1-2). A study of the soils map indicates that Bixby, Hillsdale, Marlette, and Owosso soils dominate this area's landscape. These well and moderately drained soils have deep depths to seasonal water tables insuring that trenches dug in these soils are unlikely to be wet. In addition, their potential corrosivity of cast iron pipes is low. Table 4-17 shows the proportionate extent and approximate acreage of soils in Windsor Township with different degrees of limitations for residential waterlines. These calculations are based on the number of cells in each category (slight, moderate, severe, unrated) as plotted in Figure 4-19. According to the information presented on the right side of this table, 69, 8,525, and 14,031 acres have slight, moderate, and severe limitations for this land use, respectively. These data then indicate that only 37.3 percent of the land (8,594 acres) in the township has slight or moderate limitations for residential waterlines, and is therefore suitable for use without special pipeline installation measures, while more than half of the land area (60.9 percent or 14,031) has severe soil limitations for this land use, requiring usually more costly corrective measures. Significant changes can occur in the amount of suitable land for this nonagricultural land use by applying different corrective measures on soils with moderate or severe limitations. 256 .Aaaou non monoo op .maaoo oova ON-e ooo mane monoman co oomoo ono mooaaoaooaou HEbz oeomN o.oo_ man w.a nmmN a.aa nMNm _.oo comm w.ma mman N.am Foaoa man m.a mac m.a . u - - - - u . ooaonoz Poona n.oo . - nmmN _.aa mMNn a.oo omma m.m mom m.m ono>om mNmm o.Nm - - i u - - oomN o.oa aNNo o.NN oaonooo: no m.o - - - - - - - - mo m.o agoaam mono< a mono< a mono< a mono< a monon a mono< a Foaoa ooaonca noon naon oooo acoaaooxm ooaaoaasaa mcaaom Foaacoaoa aaom aaom no oonooo .oooasoa: .xacoou coaou .nEmozoa nomooaz E mocfinoaoz Foaacooamon now maoaacoaon oco mcoaaoaasaa Paom mo ooaaammoao maaom no omoonoo oaoeaxonnno oco aooaxo oaoooaanononn .Na-o oaooa 257 Table 4-17 shows the proportionate extent and approximate acreage of soils in Windsor Township classified according to their potential for residential waterlines. According to the information presented along the bottom of this table, 7,189, 3,640, 9,239, and 2,557 acres have excellent, good, fair, and poor potential, respectively, for this land use. Further study of these data indicates that out of the 14,031 acres of land in the township, which are rated as having severe soil limitations, 81.8 percent of this land area has excellent, good, or fair potential for residential waterlines after installation of corrective measures. This is a significant increase of 135 percent or 11,474 acres in the amount of land that might be suitable for residential waterlines, provided that the proper corrective measures are applied to each soil (Appendix Table F5). Just as significant is the fact that only 11.1 percent of the land area in the township has soils with poor potential, while approximately 31.2 and 16.8 percent have soils with excellent and good potential, respectively. Figure 4-20 shows the location of soils with different potentials for residential waterlines in Windsor Township. Notice that only a few areas on the map have high concentrations of soils with poor potential for this land use. One such area is located in the northwest quadrant of the township straddling the "01d Maid Swamp." Another elongated area is situated in the south- west quadrant of the township along the King and Carleton drains (Figure 1-3). Several other areas of minor acreages are located 258 .nazmczoa nomooaz ca mocaanoaoz Foaacooamon non aoaacoaon Paom moaaonamaaaa nos o>aaonnnoaca c3ono-noa=neou-u.ON-o anoman 259 cro— :ctnin 57.212: to; 2:51.; on” oz nonncun .azonooo u>_nu¢.noco .ounxno xnco: lup'a: . p _ 7 n 3.0 . Cl 0. 2|" ’0. [an .2. In». .. _'... '0 I... .Iua as. my mu on: aw .- all. 0:52 4.. - zao_xonc .nnzooo zonao n_rmzzo» mowoznz wmz_amw»q3 Janhzmonmmm men 4¢HPZmaon Anom 3 hi I 3 m a o@GJGJUQGCQIQUQQGQQUQGGQGIGQQQG.0.0QjfiQ3962nun- 666660600660660060066660606660666666066666:_ . 666000666066060006666666066666666o 66006665.. 406660066666066666666666666666J66o6066666650...2 66660606660066066606666666066066066666666606a.z o666666000060066066666666666660060666666666666:i 666666630006666006666606066666066600066066666.. 06006a6060066066606666666666600060.06666666c6aa o66600~6666606006666666660606666600000066666:66; 6600000666066666066600000666666600606666600066; 60600666666666666600660066666666660636666000.6. 66000066606600 66666666666666666066606666006.0. 60666066060660000060606666660660666660666606606 6606066660006060006000606660066600660666666660. 0000666060066060666606660600666600666666666666_ o 000666006006006660060606666066660666666606060 0660000666660006606060006606666066666666606606 9606 606666666666066666606600606666066666666006o 00060666600666660000606660666666606666 0060666" 060606066 060060066600666066606660666666666666. 00660066066 0600600606066660666066660060066660 6666006600666660666666666666066666666060666006a .6006666066066660660606660060066666660060060666a 6666666606606660006606666006666066600600660666. 6666666666666006060066666660060606660660000060 a6066066066666060060066660660000006660660660666 o0600066066606600606006600600000006660666660666 a6666066666660060006606006066006066666066666000 0606066666666660006666000600606066606606606000 000006066666600666 666066606666006606060666600. a0060006006600066606660666666666006666060606606 a6666606066066006666600666666660606666060606666o .uo -0-.-0 -0~0-0 mo-o --- QQQ.QOQQQ00€@Q00© QQQ.QQQQ.©QOQQQ00O©QQQQ©©IQ©o QQOQOO..QOQ000Q©© Q0000IQQ©0QOOOQOQ©©©990©Q©©0o @.000Q000000Q©Q ©99000066QQ©©QOOOOOQQQQQQQQQOQO OQQOQQOQ0©QOQOQ0 .00Q00000QQOOQOQQQQQOQO©QQQOo OQQOQQQQOQQOQO00 OQQ.QOQQ0000O©QOQOQ©©©QQOQ0@00 I0QQQ00000Q0QQQQ@Q0000990999..@0QQ.0OQOO©Q0000QQo QQ0.0.Q0.06006©Q©9009QQQQ.@000.Q0©OOQQQQQQQO0Qo QQQQ8000€0000O O 00QQQQQQQOOQQQQO0Q0OOOQOOQOQQo QQQQ.QOIOQ©@ 0000 86989990000099QQOOOOOOOOQQQ 00068000690660 Q©©O QQQ.OO.Q000Q©©.0QOOOOOOOQa O0QQOQ.Q0@00Q©00QQQ Q090QOQQQ008©0©OQOOOOOOS oQQO..QQQQ©QQ ©00©© @QQ..QQQQ000QQ©O©0OOOOOQa O0QOQQQQQO©OO©QQOOQO .0OQQQQQQQOQQOQQOOQQQQOS IIUO 000 O O 030 000 0 30303 000 0 260 near the Grand River (Figure l-3). These areas, as discussed previously, consist of very poorly drained organic soils or alluvial soils (Cohoctah, Sloan) requiring costly excavation and trench drainage procedures (Appendix Table F5 and Table 4-l5). Although corrective measures can be applied to overcome some of their limitations, these soils are subject to flooding, and conse- quently are among the poorest choices for building sites in the township. Figure 4-20 also shows that much of the township has soils with excellent, good, or fair potential for residential waterlines. By visually comparing Figure 4-l9 with the generalized land use and cover map for the same area (Figure 4-9), it is clear that a degree of incompatability and potential land use conflict exists. This overlap is most prevalent in the west-central and southwest portions of the township where large blocks of contiguous soils areas have excellent and good potential for residential water- lines. The extension of waterlines in these previously agricultural and wooded areas would increase pressures for urban development unless careful planning is begun to preserve both good land for food and fiber production, as well as providing land for urban development. Time/Cost Parameters for Preparation and Dispjay of Soil’PotEntialeatings Approximately one year was spent in collecting the necessary data needed for preparing the soil potential ratings for the five 261 urban land uses discussed here in Eaton County. For nearly half this time, twenty hours a week were spent, while throughout the remaining six months, the time spent was increased to forty hours a week. The following tasks were undertaken during this time span: (1) identification of technical experts to provide data on kinds of corrective measures needed; (2) compile list of corrective measures; (3) compile costs of corrective measures; (4) determine continuing limitations remaining after corrective measures are applied; (5) record data for soils in Eaton County; (6) enter costs for corrective measures and rating of continuing limitations for each soil into a computer disk file; (7) generate soil potential indexes using SCALE computer program; (8) array soils into soil potential classes based on intervals generated by use of JENKS computer program; and (9) prepare computer display maps using PLOTTERMAP program. The Windsor Township master file was obtained from the MSU Remote Sensing Project, who spent nearly $1,500 for encoding of data and creation of the master file.23 The investigator manipulated the file, at a cost of approximately $150, to allow inclusion of the collected data on soil potentials for the five different land uses. Computation costs using the SCALE and JENKS program were approximately another $150. The costs for producing each computer-plotter map were about $35 per map, including computer 23Personal communication with Steven Tilmann, Research Associate, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 262 and plotter time. The costs involved in using permanent files, tape purchase, and unsuccessful runs are not included in these figures. Summar This chapter presented the data collected in the study and discussed the results obtained for each of the five nonagricultural land uses. Recommended corrective measures for overcoming soil limitations were identified for soils in Eaton County, Michigan. Estimated costs of applying these different corrective measures for each land use were presented. The soil potential ratings generated in the study and soil limitation ratings obtained from the county soil survey were displayed in computer-generated maps. This facilitated a visual and statistical understanding of these soil interpretations for the different nonagricultural land uses in Windsor Township. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this final chapter is to summarize the entire study, present highlights of major findings, and discuss their implications. In addition, limitations of the study are pointed out and suggestions for further research are discussed. Summary of the Problem Over the last decade, soil interpretations for nonagricultural land uses have been presented largely through identification of the degree and kind of soil limitation that imposes hazards, risks, or obstructions for an intended use. A three-class system has been commonly used, employing the terms, "slight," "moderate," and "severe," to describe a sequence of increasing difficulties encountered in soil performance for a specified use. Unfortunately, however, these limitation ratings have not provided the soil survey user with adequate information about the performance and cost of potential practices for overcoming soil limitations in specific kinds of soil. It has been all too common for a community to survey its soils only to find that almost all soil areas within its boundaries have severe limitations for a variety of important land uses. More and more, planning officials and resource developers are requiring details of 263 264 designs or design criteria and estimates of costs for structures and management practices needed to overcome soil limitations in specific kinds of soil used for a variety of nonagricultural land uses. At the outset of this study, the concept of soil potentials was being strongly considered by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service as a new approach to help prepare these kinds of soil interpreta- tions for survey users. This pilot study in Eaton County, Michigan was primarily designed to develop and test a general set of techniques which would help generate these ratings of soil potential for nonagricultural land uses and also help to communicate these interpretations to soil survey users. The general objective was further defined in terms of several more specific research objectives: 1. Survey the relevant literature to locate existing methods and techniques used to generate soil potential ratings and computerized-interpretive soil maps. 2. Describe and identify the kinds of practices or alterna- tives that may be used to overcome soil limitations, their costs, and continuing limitations that remain after corrective measures have been applied. 3. Develop a set of computer-assisted procedures to help prepare soil potential ratings for several major non- farm land uses. 4. Demonstrate the use of a computer software system to assist in the retrieval, manipulation, and display of stored soil potential ratings. 5. Make recommendations concerning future needs and actions on the concept of soil potential. The technique developed in the study were illustrated by a test conducted in Windsor Township, Eaton County, Michigan, an urbanizing area which had a newly completed soil survey report. 265 Soil interpretations based on the soil potential approach were made of the following five urban land uses: (1) septic tank filter fields for on-site waste disposal; (2) residential roads and streets; (3) residential dwellings with sanitary sewers and without basements; and (5) excavations for residential waterlines. Summary of the Methods A systematic procedure was employed in this study to numerically rate a soil's potential for the several different urban land uses in Eaton County, Michigan. A thorough investigation of books, articles, studies, and interviews were undertaken to identify construction designs and development costs needed to overcome soil limitations. Professional trade associations and individual contractors, as well as state, regional, and local governmental agencies, were contacted to obtain this necessary information. Construction cost data were derived from nationally known reference texts or averages of actual case studies supplied by local contractors and adjusted for prices of materials and labor existing in the Lansing area in 1979. Estimates were also made of any continuing limitations remaining after designs or treatments have been installed to correct soil hazards. A three-class, employing the terms, "slight," "moderate," and "severe," was used to indicate the severity of these continuing limitations. The rating of a given kind of soil in such a system signified not only the degree to which soil hazards have been corrected or overcome by special construction 266 designs or treatments, but also, in general terms, a prediction of the cost and level of maintenance required for upkeep of these special treatments. Assignment of these qualitative ratings to each soil was made with the assistance of technical experts familiar with the construction and maintenance difficulties encountered with each particular urban land use. Data collected in the study were entered into an existing natural resource inventory system for Windsor Township. This data bank contained an extensive file of soils and natural resource data which were previously assembled by the Remote Sensing Project at Michigan State University using a ten-acre dot grid overlayed onto several different factor maps. A computer software system, called RAP (Resource Analysis Package), was used to assist in the retrieval, manipulation, and analysis of this spatially-encoded data. The ratings of soil potential for the five land uses were generated with the aid of a multi-dimensional scaling option available in RAP. For the purposes of this study, soil potential for a specific land use was defined as a function of the costs of construction practices or treatments required to overcome soil limitations and the severity of any continuing limitations remaining after treatment. Briefly, the multi-dimensional scaling technique used in this study consisted of establishing an n—space, where n is the number of factors in the analysis. The numerical value of each 267 factor established a point for it in the n-space. The Euclidian distance between that point and a point representing an optimum condition set for soil potential was the soil potential index. The resulting interpoint distances obtained were then normalized to cover the conventional range of O to 100. The index was then inverted so that soils with the highest soil potential would have large numbers, while those with the lowest soil potential Would have small numbers. Each component of a soil complex was rated separately with the final rating of the entire unit determined by multiplying the rating of each by its estimated areal extent in the map unit and tallying these index values. The final soil potential index values were then used to assign each soil to one of four qualitative classes of soil potential, employing the terms, "excellent," "good," "fair," and "poor." The JENKS grouping program, modified to run interactively on the University CDC 6500 computer, was then employed by this researcher to select statistically optimal class intervals for grouping soils in Eaton County into each of these four rating classes. The soil potential ratings for each land use were then entered to computer disk storage for subsequent analysis. A computer mapping program available in RAP was used to construct interpretive maps illustrating soil potentials and limitations for each of the five chosen urban land uses in this study. 268 Summary of the Findings Information obtained during the course of the study provided numerous findings concerning the kinds of practices or alternatives that may be used to overcome certain soil limitations, their costs, and continuing limitations that remain after the corrective measures have been applied to the five chosen non-agricultural land uses in Eaton County, Michigan. In addition, computer-generated interpretive maps drawn for Windsor Township both demonstrated the unique graphic capabilities of the RAP system and facilitated a visual understanding of soil interpretations for these different non- agricultural land uses. These findings are briefly summarized for each of these five land uses in the sections which follow. (1) Findings Relating to Septic Tank Filter Fields for On-Site Waste Disposal. 0f Windsor Township's total of 23,040 acres, only 9,816 or 42.6 percent of the land area has slight or moderate soil limitations for septic tank filter fields, and is therefore suitable for use of conventional septic tank-soil absorption systems. More than half of the land area (55.6 percent or 12,810 acres) has severe soil restrictions for these same systems. Based on the data collected in this investigation, there are two feasible alternatives, used in the study area, to conventional septic tank filter field systems. These are elevated sand mound systems and sewage holding tanks. The average initial costs in 1978 for installing corrective measures on different soils for on-site sewage disposal in Eaton 269 County, Michigan ranged from about $800 to $3,000. Soils with slight limitations for this land use required an initial invest- ment of only about $800 to $1,050 for installation of conventional septic tank disposal systems. Soils with moderate limitations required an expenditure of about $1,000 to $2,000 to install similar systems. Initial costs for soils with severe limitations are much higher ranging from about $1,250 to $3,000. With the advent of innovative new technologies to overcome or treat moderate and severe soil limitations, such as high seasonal ground water and slow percolation rates, significant changes may occur in the amount of land suitable for on-site waste disposal. Results from this study indicated that out of the 12,810 acres of land in Windsor Township which are rated as having severe soil limitations for this land use, over 11 percent or 2,857 acres may have good or fair soil potential, assuming that modifications of conventional systems and mound systems are installed. This is a significant increase of 32 percent or 2,857 acres in the amount of land that may be suitable for on-site sewage diSposal in the township. (2) Findings Relating to Residential Roads and Streets. Based on the data provided in the county soil survey report, there are 9,769 acres or 42.4 percent of the land in Windsor Town- ship which has slight or moderate limitations for residential roads and streets. These areas are suitable for use without special road designs. More than half of the land area (55.6 percent or 12,856 270 acres) has severe limitations for this land use, and usually requires more costly corrective measures. The following four kinds of corrective measures commonly used in Eaton County to over- come problem soil conditions for residential roads and streets: increase pavement thickness, excavate peat and muck, add fill to raise grade of roadway, or cutting and filling. The average initial costs for installing these corrective measures on different soils in Eaton County, Michigan in 1978 ranged from about $15.50 to $44.50 per linear foot of roadway (30-feet wide). Organic soils had the highest costs for roadbed construction. In fact, their initial construction costs are nearly twice as much as those of the most costly mineral soils. The data also indicated increased costs of residential roadway construction on sloping soils. There is an approximately 35 percent increase in the cost of construction for a road on an 18 to 25 percent slope compared to one on a 2 to 8 percent slope. This increase is due mainly to the enormous volume of soil material that must be moved in order to provide a suitable road grade for motorized vehicles. Data from the study indicated that significant changes can occur in the amount of suitable land for residential roads and streets by applying the different corrective measures on soils with moderate or severe soil limitations. Results showed that out of the 12,856 acres which have severe soil limitations for this land use, 83.7 percent of the land in the township has excellent, good, and fair potential for residential roads and streets. This is a 271 significant increase of almost 111 percent or 10,760 acres in the amount of land that might be suitable for this land use in Windsor Township if the proper corrective measures are applied on these soils. (3) Findings Relating to Residential Dwellings With Sanitary Sewers and Basements. There are 7,189, 2,604, and 12,832 acres of land in Windsor Township with slight, moderate, and severe soil limitations (respectively) for residential dwellings with basements. These data indicate that only 42.5 percent of the land has slight or moderate limitations, and is therefore suitable for use without special foundation designs or additional grading or drainage. The remaining land area (55.7 percent or 12,832 acres) which has severe soil limitations requires more costly corrective measures. The following corrective measures are currently commonly used by building contractors in Eaton County, Michigan: alternative basement construction designs, add fill to raise grade of site, excavate rock, excavate peat and muck, cuts and fills, or improve surface drainage. The average initial costs for installing these different corrective measures on soils in Eaton County, Michigan in 1978 ranged from about $5,200 to $9,700 per dwelling site. Soils with slight limitations only require an initial investment of about $5,200 for installation of conventional basements, while those soils with moderate limitations require and additional expenditure of about $550, primarily because of the increased site grading 272 required. The initial cost for soils with severe limitations are higher, ranging from about $5,950 to $9,700 per dwelling site. The organic soils mapped in the county have the highest costs for home construction with basements. In fact, their costs are almost 87 percent more than the costs required to build dwellings with basements on soils having only slight limitations for this use. Applying different corrective measures to soils with severe soil limitations for residential dwellings with basements may increase the amount of land suitable for this use. Data from this investigation indicated that out of the 12,833 acres of land in the township rated as having severe limitations for this land use, approximately 84.2 percent of this land area has excellent, good, or fair potential for dwellings with basements. This is a significant increase of about 106 percent or 10,413 acres in the amount of land suitable for this land use in the township, provided that the proper corrective measures are applied to each soil. (4) Findings Relating to Residential Dwellings With Sanitary Sewers and Without Basements. There are 461, 9,331, and 12,832 acres of land in Windsor Township with slight, moderate, and severe limitations for residential dwellings without basements, respectively these data indicate that only 42.5 percent or 9,792 acres in the township has slight or moderate limitations for this land use, and is therefore suitable for use without special drainage systems in the slab bed or yard. 273 More than half of the land area (55.7 percent or 12,832 acres) has severe soil limitations usually requiring more costly corrective measures for overcoming soil limitations. The following kinds of corrective measures are commonly used by building contractors in Eaton County, Michigan: reinforce slab, add fill to raise grade of site, excavate peat and muck, cutting and filling, drainage of footing and slab, or improve surface drainage. The average initial costs for installing these different corrective measures on soils in Eaton County, Michigan in 1978 ranged from about $3,250 to $5,400 per dwelling site. Soils with slight limitations only require an initial investment of about $3,250 for installation of slabs-on-grade. Those soils with moderate limitations require an additional expenditure of about $500, primarily because of the increased site grading required. The initial costs for soils with severe limitations are higher ranging from about $3,750 to $5,400. The organic soils mapped in the county have the highest costs for home construCtion without basements. In fact, their costs are nearly 66 percent greater than those required to build similar dwellings without basements on soils having only slight limitations for this use. Applying different corrective measures to soils with severe limitations for residential dwellings without basements may increase the amount of suitable land for this use. Data from this study indicates that out of the 12,832 acres of land in the township rated as having severe limitations for this land use, 80.8 percent 274 of this land area has excellent, good, or fair potential for dwellings without basements. This is a significant increase of lll percent or 10,368 acres in the amount of land that might be suitable for this land use in the township, provided that the proper corrective measures are applied to each soil. (5) Findings Relating to Residential Waterlines. There are 69, 8,525, and 14,031 acres of land in Windsor Township which have slight, moderate, and severe limitations for residential waterlines, respectively. These data indicate that only 37.3 percent or 8,594 acres of land in the township has slight or moderate limitations for residential waterlines, and is therefore suitable for use without special pipeline installation measures. More than 60 percent of the land area (60.9 percent or 14,031 acres) has severe soil limitations for this land use requiring more costly corrective measures for drainage or slope. Based on information provided by local contractors in the Lansing area, the following are corrective measures commonly used on soils in Eaton County to overcome these problem soil conditions: install waterpipe with pipe trencher, excavate peat and muck, excavate rock, dewater trench, wrap pipe with polyethylene, tamp backfill by hand, or thrust blocking and anchoring. The average initial costs for installing the different corrective measures on soils in Eaton County, Michigan in l978 ranged from about $11.25 to $18.25 per linear foot. Organic soils and those shallow to bedrock have the highest costs for waterline 275 construction. The organic soils require an expenditure of $17.00 per linear foot which is about 51.1 percent greater than the cost required to install similar waterlines in soils with only slight soil limitations. Soils shallow to bedrock require an expenditure of $18.25 per linear foot to install similar waterlines, an increase of about 62.3 percent over the costs required on soils with slight limitations. Data gathered during the study revealed that significant changes may occur in the amount of land suitable for residential waterlines by applying different corrective measures on soils with moderate or severe soil limitations. There are 7,189, 3,640, 9,239, and 2,557 acres which have excellent, good, fair, and poor soil potential for this land use, respectively. This indicates that out of the 14,031 acres of land in Windsor Township which use, approximately 81.8 percent of this land area or 11,474 acres have excellent, good, or fair potential for residential waterlines. This is a significant increase of about 135 percent or 11,474 acres in the amount of land that might be suitable for this land use, provided that the proper corrective measures are applied to each soil in Windsor Township. Uses and Limitations of This Study Since soils are among our most valuable natural resources they should be used in the most rational manner possible. This investigation has been designed to develop a set of procedures by which ratings of soil potential can be generated, stored, and displayed 276 in computer-drawn interpretive maps. The techniques and analytical results deve10ped in this investigation and illustrated by a pilot study in Windsor Township exhibit great practical usefulness and applicability as planning and educational tools which may help improve the land use decisions of both private and public resource developers. Although this investigator has not as yet made a definitive study in this regard, there are several important areas for which this study's work is particularly well suited. Assistance in State, Regional, and Local Growth Policies Federal land use legislation has failed to clear both houses of Congress since 1972. In the absence of a strong national land use policy, numerous state, regional, and local planning agencies are attempting to develop effective land use and growth management policies to help accommodate the nearly 50 million more Americans expected in the year 2,000 than there were in 1970, and yet also preserve our precious environmental quality. The legislature of the State of Florida, for example, has passed 24 which requires local governments throughout the legislation state to prepare comprehensive plans detailing how each community will accommodate the influx of population expected in the next decade. Planners and decision-makers in several Florida counties are already beginning to utilize soil potential ratings for 24”Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning Act of 1975” (Chapter 75-257, Laws of Florida, 1975). 277 agricultural and urban land uses as a basis for developing "growth management plans" to reserve their best soils for agriculture and to put houses and sewage disposal systems, for example, on somewhat less satisfactory soils in order to preserve critical agricultural lands important to both the state and local economies. From the author's brief discussions with these planners, it seems clear that the computer-based techniques developed in this study can be used to great advantage by these planning officials to aid in their drafting (and subsequent updating) of local comprehensive plans. Private/Corporate Land Use Decisions Corporate and private interests in the United States have traditionally been directly concerned with resource developments involving the use of land, such as housing subdivisions, shopping centers, recreational complexes, industrial parks, and utilities. Techniques developed in this study for generating soil potential ratings can be useful to these groups for determining potential optimal sites and their cost of development based on soils information for a given land use. These sites can later be investigated thoroughly by on-site field evaluations for detailed engineering designs and cost estimating. This process can help save valuable time and money for these firms, or their consultants for site analysis, and thus improve the locational decisions of private resource developers, as well as determining future invest- ment plans and land management strategies. 278 Cooperative Extension Service Soil interpretation is a way of simplifying what soil scientists know about soil properties and then relating them to the possible uses of the soil. Over the past decade Soil Extension Specialists have presented soil interpretations largely through ratings of soil limitations. The increased availability of soil survey reports and the remarkable increase in background knowledge of today's users requires Soil Specialists to expand soil inter- pretations beyond simple listings of soil limitations for different land uses and discuss possible management alternatives for problem soils, their costs, and what continuing limitations, if any, remain after these practices or devices are in place. This calls for more sophisticated soil survey educational programs by Cooperative Extension. The techniques developed in this study to generate and display soil potential ratings will be useful for these specialists to meet this educational challenge. Although in the past few paragraphs discussion has centered about the potential uses of the results of this study, there are only a number of limitations that merit special attention. First, like most studies dealing with soil survey interpretations, the soils information herein should be cautiously used only for general planning purposes. These interpretations are not intended, nor should they be used, to eliminate the need for onusite sampling, testing, or detailed field investigation for the design of engineering structures. Soils are variable and, due to these variations, each mapping unit in the soil survey includes a range of soil properties 279 because areas of other soils may be included within each delineated mapping unit. This is the reason for the admonition to do on-site soil evaluations for detailed site planning. Soil scientists are just beginning to document the variability of soils by quantitative descriptions of map unit compositions. Second, corrective measures for overcoming soil limitations and their costs may be quickly outdated since the range of technological alternatives is increasing thanks to current research findings. In the present study, cost data were collected during 1978 and the soil potential ratings generated considered all current alternatives used in Eaton County, Michigan, to overcome particular soil hazards for the five non-agricultural land uses. Updating of these ratings will almost surely be required to keep up with the new innovative technologies being developed and with rising material and labor costs. Third, the present analysis was handicapped by the absence of data concerning the costs of continuing limitations. Such data are critically important because they would provide a more precise and quantitative evaluation of a soil's potential for a given land use. Absence of such data led the researcher to develop a qualita- tive rating scheme for this study to help evaluate the degree of each soil's continuing limitations. Therefore, it was necessary to draw inferences about soil performance with the aid of technical experts rather than having detailed research data at hand to help make these decisions. Hence, analysis based on such assumptions 280 may possibly be under or overestimating the severity of these continuing limitations. Implications for Future Research In light of the above limitations to this study, the investigator believes that the following research topics merit special attention: 1. Research Concerning Map Unit Characterization. If soil scientists are to preserve their credibility in the eyes of soil survey users, they should document the variability and preciseness of the mapping units. What are the confidence limits of characterization data and interpretations? How much effort is needed to increase the confidence limits of soil surveys? What techniques or mechanical devices are best suited for this purpose? These appear to be key questions which merit special attention by the National Cooperative Soil Survey. 2. Research Concerning the Costs of Continuing Limitations. This present study was unfortunately handicapped by the lack of adequate existing data, particularly on the costs of limitations remaining after corrective measures are applied to overcome particular soil hazards. In future studies in this area, effective ways and means of collecting and analyzing such data should be initiated. It is important to discover from such a study the data sources where such information may be found and the time and costs required to procure this information. 281 3. Research Concerning the Social, Economic, and Political Impacts of Innovative Technologies for Overcoming Soil Limitations Upon Potential Land Uses. The introduction of new innovative technologies to overcome soil hazards invites serious questions regarding the potential impact on a region's natural resources. What is the possible impact which such systems may have on the land uses in the region? What land use controls are available and are effective? The introduction of this technology will mean that some new ways of planning and guiding land use may have to be developed. Results from this study tend to indicate that land which may have been previously closed to urban development may now be potentially available, provided that certain corrective measures are applied to overcome soil hazards. Thus, urban growth can be potentially induced in large areas of land for which development has not previously been planned. A well designed research study should be instituted to examine at this time land use regulations to determine what strategies and courses of action might best be taken. APPENDICES 282 APPENDIX A DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL SERIES IN EATON COUNTY, MICHIGAN 283 APPENDIX A DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL SERIES IN EATON COUNTY, MICHIGAN 541m Adrian soils consist of very poorly drained, nearly level, thin organic soils that formed over sand or loamy sand material. They occupy closed depressions, swamps, bogs, and broad low lying areas. Adrian soils have 16 to 50 inches of organic deposits over stratified sand and fine sand. The Adrian soils in most landscapes are generally near the Houghton, Palms, and Edwards soils. They have a thinner organic layer than the Houghton soils, and they have coarser underlying material than the Palms soils. They differ from the Edwards soils in having sand instead of marl below the 0 horizons. Bixby_ Bixby soils consist of well drained, nearly level to very gently sloping soils on outwash plains. They formed in loamy material, less than 40 inches thick, over dominantly sandy materials that usually become gravelly with depth. These soils have been deeply leached. The Bixby soils in most landscapes are near the Boyer soils. They differ from the Boyer soils in having finer textures in the B horizon and in having thicker and more acid sola. The Bixby soils are in a toposequence with the Matherton soils. They differ from 284 285 the Matherton soils in lacking grayish brown colors below the Ap horizon. BorrowLand Borrow land consists of areas from sand and loamy soil materials have been excavated. The original soils are impossible to identify because of mechanical mixing. In most areas the textures are variable and on site investigation is needed. Usually sandy borrow land is associated with coarse or moderately coarse textured soils and loamy borrow land is associated with medium to fine textured soils. 82x2: Boyer soils consist of well drained, nearly level to hilly soils which formed in sandy loam and loamy sand materials underlain at depth between 24 and 40 inches by calcareous gravelly very coarse sand. These soils are on outwash plains, moraines, and along old glacial drainage channels. The Boyer soils are generally near the Bixby, Oshtemo, and Spinks soils. They differ from the Bixby soils in having coarser textured B horizons and in having thinner and less acid sola. They differ from the Oshtemo soils in having a shallower depth to the C horizon. The Boyer soils differ from the Spinks soils in having a finer textured continuous B horizon and a shallower depth to the C horizon. 286 Brady Brady soils consist of somewhat poorly drained, nearly level to gently sloping soils which formed in sandy loam and loamy sand material over calcareous coarse sand. These soils are on outwash plains and along old glacial drainage channels. The Brady soils are similar to the Bronson, Matherton, and Wasepi soils. They differ from the Bronson soils in having gray mottles in the upper part of the B horizons. They differ from the Matherton soils in having coarser textures in the B horizons and in having a greater depth to the C horizons. They differ from the Wasepi soils in having greater depth to the C horizons. Bronson Bronson soils consist of moderately well drained, nearly level to very gently sloping soils which formed in sandy and loamy material over calcareous coarse sand. These soils are on outwash plains and along old glacial drainage channels. The Bronson soils are similar to the Brady, Tuscola, and Wasepi soils. They differ from the Brady soils in lacking gray mottles in the upper part of the B horizon. They differ from the Tuscola soils in having coarser textures in the B and C horizons. They differ from the Wasepi soils in having greater depths to the calcareous C horizon and in lacking grayish brown mottles in the upper part of the B horizon. 287 Capac Capac soils consist of somewhat poorly drained, nearly level to gently undulating soils on till plains and low moraines. These soils formed in calcareous loamy glacial till. Capac soils have a loamy surface horizon over a loamy to clay loam subsoil. The underlying material at 30 inches is calcareous browm loam. The Capac soils in most landscapes are near the Marlette and Metamora soils. They differ from the Marlette soils in having grayish brown mottles in the upper part of the B horizon. They differ from the Metamora soils in having finer textures in the A and B horizons. Cohoctah Cohoctah soils consist of poorly and very poorly drained, nearly level soils on the flood plains of streams and rivers. These soils formed in sandy and loamy materials that were deposited by flood waters. Cohoctah soils have a surface layer of fine sandy loam, 14 inches thick. Underlying the surface layer is a series of stratified layers, 27 inches thick, consisting of sandy loams, loamy sands, and loams. The underlying stratified material at 41 inches is loose mottled sand. The Cohoctah soils are similar to the Gilford and Sloan soils. They differ from the Gilford soils in having less gravel in the profile, and an organic matter content that decreases irregularly with depth. They differ from the Sloan soils in having coarser textures in the upper C horizons. The Cohoctah soils in 288 most landscapes are near the Houghton soils. They differ from the Houghton soils in having mineral instead of organic horizons. Colwood Colwood soils consist of poorly and very poorly drained, nearly level soils that are located in depressions and on broad flats of lake plains, old glacial drainage ways, and till plains. These soils formed in stratified very fine sands to silty material. Colwood soils have a surface layer of loam, 11 inches thick. Underlying the surface layer is a series of stratified layers, 22 inches thick, consisting of loams, silt loams, and light silty clay loams. The underlying material at 33 inches consists of calcareous silt loam. The Colwood soils in most landscapes are near the Kibbie soils. The Colwood soils differ from the Kibbie soils by having more predominant gray colors in the B horizon. The Colwood soils are similar to the Parkhill and Lenawee soils. They differ from the Parkhill soils by having stratified material throughout the solum and havd coarser textured material in the C horizon. The Colwood soils differ from the Lenawee soils in having a coarser texture, and a thicker A horizon. Edwards Edwards soils consist of very poorly drained, nearly level, thin organic soils. The organic layers are about 35 inches thick, underlain by marl. These soils are in swamps, along waterways, and in depressions in till plains and moraines. 289 The 0 horizons of the Edwards soils in similar materials, to the Adrian, Palms, and Houghton soils. They differ from the Adrian soils by having marl instead of sand and loamy sand below the 0 horizons. The Edwards soils differ from the Palms soils by having marl instead of loam materials below the 0 horizons. They differ from the Houghton soils by having thinner organic deposits. Gilford Gilford soils consist of very poorly drained, nearly level soils in depressions on outwash plains and along old glacial drainage channels. These soils formed in coarse loamy material underlain by calcareous coarse sand. Gilford soils have a loamy surface layer, 11 inches thick. Underlying the surface layer is a subsoil, 20 inches thick, consisting of sandy loams. The underlying calcareous material at 33 inches is coarse sand. The Gilford soils are similar to the Colwood and Cohoctah soils. They differ from Colwood soils in having calcareous coarse sand below the B horizon while Colwood soils have stratified layers of silt loam, and very fine sand. They differ from Cohoctah soils in having more gravel in the profile, and an organic matter content that decreases regularly with depth. Hillsdale Hillsdale soils consist of well drained, gently sloping to gently rolling soils of till plains and moraines. These soils formed in sandy loam material that has been deeply leached. Hillsdale 290 soils have a sandy loam surface layer, 9 inches thick. Underlying the surface layer is a subsoil, 87 inches thick, consisting of sandy loams. The Hillsdale soils are similar to the Marlette and Oshtemo soils. They differ from the Marlette soils in having coarser textures in the B and C horizons. They differ from the Oshtemo soils in having sandy loam instead of coarse sand in the C horizon. Houghton Houghton soils consist of very poorly drained, nearly level organic soils. The organic material extends to a depth greater than 50 inches. Typically, the organic materials range from 5 to 20 feet and a few deposits range to as much as 48 feet or more. These soils are in swamps, along waterways, and in depressions on the floodplains, outwash plains, till plains, and moraines. The Houghton soils formed in similar materials, in the 0 horizons, as the Adrian, Edwards, and the Palms soils. They differ from the Adrian, Edwards, and Palms soils in having thicker organic deposits. The Houghton soils in most landscapes are near the Cohoctah soils. They differ from the Cohoctah soils in having organic instead of mineral horizons. Kibbie Kibbie soils consist of somewhat poorly drained, nearly level to very gently sloping soils on lake plains and in old glacial drainageways. These soils formed in loamy material and in 291 water laid deposits of very fine sand, and silt. The surface layer consists of fine sandy loam, 9 inches thick. The underlying material, at 30 inches, is stratified silt loam and very fine sand with thin lenses of loamy fine sand. The Kibbie soils in most landscapes are near the Colwood and Tuscola soils. They differ from the Colwood soils in lacking predominant gray colors in the upper B horizon. The Kibbie soils differ from the Tuscola soils in having more predominant dark grayish brown colors on the faces of peds immediately below the Ap horizon. Lenawee Lenawee soils consist of poorly and very poorly drained soils on lake plains and till plains modified by shallow lake waters. These soils formed in silty clay loam material containing thin lenses of silt loam, silt, and fine sand. The surface horizon consists of clay loam, 9 inches thick, which is underlain by a subsoil of mottled silty clay loam. The underlying material at 30 inches is calcareous silty clay loam with thin lenses of fine sand and very fine sand. The Lenawee soils are similar to the Parkhill and Colwood soils. But, they are finer textured throughout the profile than the Parkhill and Colwood soils and have a thinner Ap horizon than the Colwood soils. 292 Marlette Marlette soils consist of well drained and moderately well drained, nearly level to steep soils on till plains and moraines. These soils formed in calcareous loam glacial till. The surface layer, 9 inches thick, is loam. The subsoil, 29 inches thick, is clay loam. The underlying material at 38 inches is calcareous loam. The Marlette soils in most landscapes are near the Capac and Owosso soils. They differ from the Capac soil in lacking gray mottles in the upper part of the B horizon. They differ from the Owosso soils in having finer textured A and B horizons. The Marlette soils are similar to the Hillsdale and Winnesheik soils. They differ from the Hillsdale soils in having finer textures in the B and C horizons. They differ from the Winnesheik soils by lacking limestone bedrock within 20 to 40 inches of the land surface. Matherton Matherton soils consist of somewhat poorly drained, nearly level to very gently sloping soils on broad outwash plains and terraces along old glacial drainage channels. These soils formed in loamy material over calcareous coarse sand and gravel. The Matherton soils are in a toposequence with the Bixby .soils. They differ from the Bixby soils in having grayish brown cxalors immediately below the Ap horizons. The Matherton soils are sinfilar'to the Brady, Sebewa, and Shoals soils. They differ from 293 the Brady soils in having finer textures in the B horizons and having a shallower depth to the C horizon. They differ from the Sebewa soils in having a thinner Ap horizon, and lack the predominant gray colors in the B horizon. They differ from the Shoal soils by having an organic matter content that decreases regularly with depth. Metamora Metamora soils consist of somewhat poorly drained, nearly level to gently sloping soils on till plains and river terraces. These soils formed in sandy loam material underlain at 20 to 40 inches with calcareous glacial loam till. The Metamora soils in most landscapes are near the Capac and Owosso soils. They differ from the Capac soils in having coarser textures in the A and B horizons. The Metamora soils are similar to the Owosso and Wasepi soils. They differ from the Owosso soils in having mottles in the B horizon. They differ from the Wasepi soils in having loamy materials in the C horizons. m Metea soils consist of well drained, nearly level to moderately steep soils on moraines and till plains. These soils formed in sandy glaciofluvial materials over loamy glacial till at depths of 20 to 40 inches. The surface layer, 9 inches thick, is loamy sand. The subsoil consists of three layers, 10 to 30 inches thick, of loamy sands on loams and light clay loams. The underlying material at 43 inches is calcareous loam. 294 The Metea soils are similar to the Owosso and Spinks soils. They differ from the Owosso soils in having coarser textures in the A and B horizons. They differ from the Spinks soils in having loamy materials below 20 to 40 inches. Oshtemo Oshtemo soils consist of well drained, nearly level to sloping soils on outwash plains, moraines, and old glacial drainage channels. These soils formed in sandy loam material underlain by calcareous coarse sand at depths below 40 to 60 inches. The Oshtemo soils in most landscapes are near the Boyer and Spinks soils. They differ from the Boyer soils in having a greater depth to the C horizon. They differ from the Spinks soils in having finer texture throughout the solum. The Oshtemo soils are similar to the Hillsdale soils. They differ from the Hillsdale soils in having coarse sand instead of sandy loam in the C horizons. 999.529. Owosso soils consist of well drained, nearly level to hilly soils on till plains and moraines. These soils formed in sandy loam material 20 to 40 inches thick over calcareous loamy till Inaterial. The Owosso soils in most landscapes are near the Marlette scfils. They differ from the Marlette soils in having coarser ‘textures in the A and B horizons. The Owosso soils are similar to tune Metamora and Metea soils. They differ from the Metamore soils 295 in lacking mottles in the B horizon. They differ from the Metea soils in having a finer texture in the A and B horizons. was Palms soils consist of very poorly drained, nearly level or slightly depressional, thin organic soils. These soils are in swamps, along waterways, and in depressions on till plains and moraines. The organic layers are about 34 inches thick over loamy material. The Palms soils were formed in similar materials in the 0 horizon, to those in the Adrian, Houghton, and Edwards soils. They differ from the Adrian soils in having loamy materials instead of sand and loamy sand below the 0 horizons. The Palms soils differ from the Houghton soils in having thinner organic deposits. They differ from the Edwards soils in having loamy materials instead of marl below the 0 horizons. Parkhill Parkhill soils consist of poorly and very poorly drained, nearly level soils on till plains and low moraines. These soils formed in loamy material underlain by calcareous loam glacial till. The surface layer, 9 inches thick, is loam. The subsoil, 25 inches thick, is mottled clay loam. The underlying material from 34 to 60 inches is calcareous loam. The Parkhill soils are similar to the Colwood, Lenawee, and Sebewa soils. They differ from the Colwood soils in lacking stra mate Lena They near' old g mater layer Clay The u sand. soils AP hDI Sebewa horizc level 5 IOdmy m inches 1 296 stratified material throughout the solum and lacking coarser textured material in the C horizon. The Parkhill soils differ from the Lenawee soils in being coarser textured throughout the profile. They differ from Sebewa soils in having loamy C horizons. £29393 Sebewa soils consist of poorly and very poorly drained, nearly level soils in the depressions on broad outwash plains and old glacial drainage channels. These soils formed in loamy materials over calcareous coarse sand and gravel. The surface layer, 11 inches thick, is loam. The subsoil consists of sandy clay loam, clay loam, or gravelly clay loam, 22 inches thick. The underlying material at about 36 inches is calcareous gravelly sand. The Sebewa soils are similar to the Matherton and Parkhill soils. They differ from the Matherton soils in having a thicker Ap horizon and predominantly gray colors in the B horizon. The Sebewa soils differ from the Parkhill soils in lacking loamy C horizons. saga; Shoals soils consist of somewhat poorly drained, nearly level soils that occur on flood plains. These soils formed in loamy materials deposited by flood water. The surface layer, 9 inches thick, is loam. Underlying the surface layer is a series of layers, 43 inches thick, consisting of mottled silt loams. 297 The underlying materials, at 52 inches, are calcareous fine and very fine sands. The Shoals soils are similar to the Matherton and Sloan soils. They differ from the Matherton soils in having an organic matter content decreasing irregularly with depth and have finer texture substrata. They differ from the Sloan soils in lacking predominant gray colors below the A horizon and within 30 inches of the surface. gagggl Sloan soils consist of very poorly drained, nearly level soils on flood plains. These soils formed in loamy materials deposited by flood water. The surface layer, 11 inches thick, is loam. The subsoil, 30 inches thick, consists of stratified loams, silt loams, and sandy loams. The underlying material, at 41 inches, is calcareous coarse and very coarse sand. The Sloan soils in most landscapes are near the Shoals soils. They differ from the Shoals soils in having predominantly gray colors below the A horizon. The Sloan soils are similar to the Cohoctah and Sebewa soils. They differ from the Cohoctah soils in having finer textures in the upper C horizons. They differ from the Sebewa soils in having organic matter that decreases irregularly with depth. Spinks Spinks soils consist of well drained, nearly level to hilly soils on sandy ridges on the till plains, moraines, and sandy beach 298 ridges or along major streams. These soils formed in loamy and sandy material. The surface layer, 9 inches thick, is loamy sand. The subsoil, 32 inches thick, consists of layers of loose sand banded with thin layers of loamy sand or sandy loam. The underlying material is calcareous coarse sand at 58 inches. The Spinks soils in most landscapes are near the Boyer and Oshtemo soils. They differ from the Boyer soils in having a coarser textured discontinuous B horizon and a greater depth to the C horizon. They differ from the Oshtemo soils in having a coarser texture throughout the solum. The Spinks soils are similar to the Metea soils. They differ from Metea soils in lacking loamy materials below 20 to 40 inches. Tuscola Tuscola soils consist of moderately well drained, nearly level to gently sloping soils in till plains and low moraines. These soils formed in water laid deposits of loams, very fine sand, and silt. The surface layer, 9 inches thick, in sandy loam. The subsoil consists of layers, 22 inches thick, containing silty clay loams and loams. The underlying material, at 31 inches, is calcareous stratified silt loam, very fine sand, and some fine sand. The Tuscola soils in most landscapes are near the Kibbie soils. They differ from the Kibbie soils in lacking dark grayish brown colors on the faces of peds immediately below the Ap horizon. The Tuscola soils are similar to the Bronson soils. They differ 299 from the Bronson soils in having finer textures in the B and C horizons. Wasepi Wasepi soils consist of somewhat poorly drained, nearly level and very gently sloping soils on broad outwash plains and terraces of old glacial drainage channels. These soils formed in coarse loamy material underlain by calcareous coarse and very coarse sand. The surface layer, 9 inches thick, is sandy loam. The subsoil, 28 inches thick, consists of sandy loam, sandy clay loams, and loamy sands. The underlying material at 37 inches is calcareous coarse sand and very gravelly sand. The Wasepi soils are similar to the Brady, Bronson, Owosso, and Wasepi variant soils. They differ from the Brady and Bronson soils in being shallower to the C horizon. In addition they have grayish brown mottles in the upper part of the B horizon which the Bronson soils lack. They differ from the Owosso soils in lacking loamy materials in the C horizons. They differ from the Wasepi variant soils in lacking sandstone bedrock at depths within 20 to 40 inches. Wasepi Variant The Wasepi Variant soil consists of somewhat poorly drained, nearly level and very gently sloping soils on terraces. These soils formed in coarse loamy outwash materials, 20 to 40 inches thick over sandstone bedrock. The surface layer, 9 inches thick, 300 is sandy loam. The subsoil, 17 inches thick, consists of sandy loams. The underlying material at 26 inches is sandstone bedrock. The Wasepi variant soils are similar to the Wasepi soils. They differ from the Wasepi soils by having sandstone bedrock within depths of 20 to 40 inches. Winneshiek Winneshiek soils consist of well drained, nearly level and very gently sloping soils on terraces. These soils formed in loamy outwash and water laid materials 20 to 40 inches thick over limestone bedrock. The surface layer, 9 inches thick, is silt loam. The subsoil, 17 inches thick, consists of loams, clay loams, and heavy clay loams. The underlying material at 26 inches is limestone bedrock. The Winneshiek soils are similar to the Marlette soils. They differ from the Marlette soils in having limestone bedrock within 20 to 40 inches of the land surface. SOURCE: Feenstra, et al., Soil Survey of Eaton County, Michigan, 1978. APPENDIX 8 AVERAGE UNIT PRICES OF MATERIALS AND LABOR USED IN CORRECTIVE MEASURES FOR SELECTED LAND USES IN EATON COUNTY, MICHIGAN 301 Table 81. Average Unit Prices of Materials and Labor Used in Corrective Measures for 0n-Site Waste Disposal in Eaton County, Michigan Cost Unit of Materials and Labor (1978) Measurement Sewage tanks Septic tanks (1,000 gallons) 450 each Drop box 50 each Wet well pumging chambera 230 each Holding tank 750 each Drainfield construction Excavation of trench 1.50 linear foot Crushed stone (3/4") 9.43 cubic yard Perforated PVC pipe (4" diameter)c 2.88 linear foot Layer of untreated building paper .04 square yard Backfill of trench 7.17 cubic yard Sand mound construction Sandfill 4.85 cubic yard Perforated PVC pipe for lateralsc 1.87 linear foot Crushed stone (3/4") 9.43 cubic yard Topsoil 6.10 cubic yard Note: Average unit costs taken from R.S. Means Company, Inc., Building Construction Cost Data (Duxbury, Massachusetts: R.S. Means Company Inc., 1978). These were adjusted for material and labor costs existing in the Lansing metropolitan area in 1978. The prices of these items in the table include adjustments for contractors' and sub- contractors' overhead and profit which is estimated at 30 percent. aCost is for a single pump rated at 1/3 hp. with an electronic warning device to indicate extremely high water levels in the pumping chamber. bIncludes electric warning device. cIncludes all costs for PVC pipe fittings. 302 303 Table 82. Average Unit Prices of Materials and Labor Used in Corrective Measures for Residential Streets and Roads in Eaton County, Michigan. Cost Unit of Materials and Labor (1978) Measurement Clearing and grubbinga .11 square yard Excavation and grading Muck and peat_excavation 4.70 cubic yard Balanced cut and fill 2.30 cubic yard Delivered fill 1.95 cubic yard Prepare and roll subgrade .34 square yard Paving b Bituminous wearing course 21.00 ton Bituminous base coursec 16.00 ton Tack or prime coat .50 gallon Note: Average unit costs taken from Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation, Report #114 3rd Quarter 1978 (Lansing: Michigan Department of State Highways and Transportation, 1978). These were adjusted for material and labor costs existing in the Lansing metropolitan area in 1978. The prices of these items in the table in- clude adjustment for contractors and subcontractors' overhead and profit estimated at 30 percent. aRoadway site assumed to be 50 percent wooded with average size trees and 50 percent old field. bMichigan Department of State Highways and Transportation Specifi- cation 4.12. cMichigan Department of State Highways and Transportation Specifi- cation 3.05, hot-mix asphalt base. 304 Table 83. Average Unit Prices of Materials and Labor Used in Corrective Measures for Residential Dwellings With Basements in Eaton County, Michigan . Cost Unit of Materials and Labor ($1978) Measurement Site/Subgrade Preparatiog Clearing and grubbing .11 square yard Cut and fill 2.30 cubic yard Excavate peat and muck 4.70 cubic yard Fill material 1.95 cubic yard Basement excavation 2.30 cubic yard Rock excacation 10.75 cubic yard Footing b Erect and strip forms 1.20 square foot Poured concrete footing (8" x 16") 32.00 cubic yard Thru-fboting drain openings 1.09 linear foot Horizontal reinforcing bar (#6) .38 linear foot Fixed vertical, hooked dowels .36 linear foot Wall Erect and strip forms 1.70 square foot Poured concrete wall 34.00 cubic yard Reinforcing bars Horizontal bar below window (#6) .38 linear foot Vertical bar each side of window (#4) .18 linear foot Other Vertical bars (#4) .18 linear foot Expansion dowels with cap (3/4" x 12") .95 each Control joints .10 linear foot Floor slab Concrete mud slab 34.60 cubic yard Concrete slab 34.60 cubic yard Underslab gravel (4" thick) 1.40 square yard Footing gravel (18" x 18") .42 linear foot Welded wire mesh (6 x 6-8/8) .24 square foot Reinforcing bars #4 bars .18 linear foot #6 bars .38 linear foot Control joint .10 linear foot Finish concrete .15 square foot Waterproofing (for wall or floor slab) Polyethylene film (6 mil) .06 square foot Concrete admixture 1.50 cubic yard Crystalline penetration treatment .39 square foot Pre-fabricated adhesive membrane .49 square foot 305 Table 83. Continued Cost Unit of Materials and Labor ($1978) Measurement Liquid applied elastometric membrane .30 square foot Protection boards .14 square foot Control joint waterproofing .03 square foot Outside corner protection board .02 square foot Sump pump system Pump (1/3 H.P.) incl. pipe and fittings 150.00 each Sump pit (24" x 30") 19.00 each Electrical wiring 24.00 each Note: Average unit costs from R.S. Means Company, Inc., Building Construction Cost Data (Duxbury, Massachusetts: R.S. Means Company, Inc., 1978) and Coert Engelsman, l978 Engelsman's General Construction Cost Guide (New York: Van Nostrand ReinhOld Company, 1978). These were adjusted for material and labor costs existing in the Lansing metropolitan area during 1978. An additional 30 percent has been added to the estimated cost of materials and labor to cover contractors' and subcontractors' profit and overhead plus engineering fees. aDwelling site assumed to be 50 percent wooded with average size trees and 50 percent old field. bCost assumes reuse factor of 6. 306 Table B4. Average Unit Prices of Materials and Labor Used in Corrective Measures for Residential Dwellings Without Basements in Eaton County, Michigan Cost Unit of Materials and Labor ($1978) Measurement Site/Subgrade Preparation Clearing and grubbing .11 square yard Cut and fill 2.30 cubic yard Excavate peat and muck 4.70 cubic yard Fill material 1.95 cubic yard Footings and wall Excavate trench b 2.30 cubic yard Erect and strip forms 1.20 square foot Poured concrete footing (8" x 16") 32.00 contact area cubic yard Poured concrete wall 34.00 cubic yard Horizontal reinforcing bar (#6) .38 linear foot Footing underdrains 1.56 linear foot Concrete slab construction Compact fill 2.40 square yard Soil poisoning for termites .18 square foot Slab underdrains 1.56 linear foot Underslab gravel (4" thick) 1.40 square yard Welded wire mesh (6 x 6-8/8) .24 square foot Vapor barrier (6 mil) .06 square foot Perimeter insulation .50 square foot Poured concrete slab 34.60 cubic yard Finish concrete .15 square foot Curing .06 square foot Drainage Subsurface drainage- 1.25 linear foot Note: Average unit costs taken from Coert Engelsman, 1978 Engelsman's General Construction Cost Guide (New York: Van Nostrand Réinhold Company, 1978), pp.2B-l, 3-1 - 3-19. These were adjusted for material and labor costs existing in the Lansing metropolitan area during 1978. An additional 30 percent has been added to the estimated costs of materials and labor to cover contractors' and subcontractors' profit and overhead plus engineering fees. aDwelling site assumed to be 50 percent wooded with average size trees and 50 percent old field. bCost assumes reuse factor of 6. 307 Table BS. Average Unit Prices of Materials and Labor Used in Corrective Measures for Residential Waterlines in Eaton County, Michigan Cost Unit of Materials and Labor ($1978) Measurement Trench excavationa Common soil 2.30 cubic yard Muck and peat 4.70 cubic yard Rock 10.75 cubic yard Preparation of trench for pipe installation Dewatering trench 3.45 cubic yard Sand cushion 3.50 cubic yard Delivered fill 1.95 cubic yard Pipe installation b Cast-iron soil pipe (8" diameter) 9.20 linear foot Trim trench for pipe bills .65 linear foot Polyethylene encasement (10 mil) .64 linear foot Backfill of trenEh .75 cubic yard Tamping backfill 5.25 cubic yard Note: Average unit costs taken from McGraw-Hill Information Systems Company, 1978 Dodge Guide to Public Works and Heavy Con- struction Costs (New York: McGraw-Hill Information Systems Company, 1978), pp. 18-19. These were adjusted for material and labor costs existing in the Lansing metropolitan area during 1978. An additional 30 percent has been added to the estimated costs of materials and labor to cover contractors' and subcontractors' profit and overhead plus engineering fees. aTrench assumed to be 2 feet wide and 5 feet deep to accommodate 8 inch diameter pipe. bCost includes furnishing pipe, valves, fittings, and fire hydrants. The assumed distance on residential streets between hydrants is 500 feet. The average cost per hydrant is $470 or $.98 per linear foot of water line. The assumed distance between valves on residential streets is 800 feet. The average valve cost is $540 or $.72 per linear foot of water line. cHard compaction in 6 inch layers. APPENDIX C CORRECTIVE MEASURES AND THEIR COSTS FOR SELECTED LAND USES IN EATON COUNTY, MICHIGAN 308 Tab1e Cl. Corrective Measures and Their Costs for On-Site Waste Disposal in Eaton County, Michigan Cost Per Dwelling Corrective Measures ($1978) Increase infield size O-ll minutes per inch, percolation rate 700-900a 11-25 minutes per inch, percolation rate 900-1200 26-45 minutes per inch, percolation rate 1200-1600 46-60 minutes per inch, percolation rate 1600-2000 Slope design 6-12 percent slopes 50-350 12-18 percent slopes 350-550 18-25 percent slopes 550-850 Sand mound design 0-6 percent slopes 2600-2800 6-12 percent slopes 2800-3200 Holding tank 2000-4000 4 Note: Costs are based on water use for a three bedroom, single-family dwelling, estimated at 75 gallons per person per day or 150 gallons per bedroom per day, with automatic washer, dish- washer, and garbage disposal unit. aRange of study averages. 309 310 Table C2. Corrective Measures and Their Costs for Residential Streets and Roads in Eaton County, Michigan Cost per Linear Foot Corrective Measures ($1978) Increase pavement thickness Excellent subgrade support 14.00-17.00a Good subgrade support 17.00-22.00 Poor subgrade support 22.00-26.00 Add fill to raise grade of road 6.00-10.00 Balanced cut and fill 6-12 percent slopes 1.00-3.00 12-18 percent slopes 3.00-6.00 18-25 percent slopes 6.00-10.00 Excavate peat and muck,replace with fill 16.00-26.00 Note: Costs are calculated for residential street sections, designed to handle a maximum of 15 trucks and 500 cars per day. The typical road section is assumed to be 30 feet wide and paved with a hot mix asphalt base and bituminous concrete wearing course. 6Range of study averages rounded off to whole dollar amounts. 311 Table C3. Corrective Measures and Their Costs for Residential Dwellings with Basements in Eaton County, Michigan Cost per Dwelling Corrective Measures ($1978) Waterproof basement construction Conventional design 5000-5400a Drained system design 6000-6800 Undrained (barge) system design 7100-9000 Cut and fill 6-12 percent slopes 400- 700 12-18 percent slopes 600- 900 18-25 percent slopes 800-1200 Excavate rock 400- 800 Excavate peat and muck 600-1300 Add fill to raise grade 300- 600 Improve surface drainage 200- 300 Note: Costs are calculated for the foundation area of single- family dwellings of three stories or less with basements. The fbundation area is assumed to be approximately 30 feet by 50 feet or 1500 square feet on a one-half acre lot. Landscaping costs are calculated for this average lot size. aRange of study averages rounded off to nearest hundred dollar amounts. 312 Table C4. Corrective Measures and Their Costs for Residential Dwellings Without Basements in Eaton County, Michigan Cost per Dwelling Corrective Measures ($1978) Reinforced slab Type 1 slab-on-grade 3000-3500a Type II slab-on-grade 3500-4000 Cut and fill 6-12 percent slopes 400- 600 12-18 percent slopes 600- 900 18-25 percent slopes 800-1200 Add fill to raise grade 300- 500 Drainage of footing and slab 200- 400 Excavate peat and muck 600-1300 Improve surface drainage 200- 300 Note: Costs are calculated for the foundation area of single- family dwellings of three stories or less without basements. The fbundation area is assumed to be approximately 300 feet by 50 feet or 1500 square feet sited on a 1/3 to 1/2 acre lot Landscaping costs are calculated for this average lot size. aRange of study averages rounded off to nearest hundred dollar amounts. 313 Table C5. Corrective Measures and Their Cost for Residential Waterlines in Eaton County, Michigan Cost per Linear Foota Corrective Measures ($1978) Install pipe with pipe trencher 10.00-12.50 Excavate peat and muckb 2.00- 2.50 Excavate bedrockb 3.50- 7.50 Dewater trench after excavation 1.25- 1.75 Tamp back in layers by hand 2.00- 3.00 Thrust blocking and anchoring 2.50- 3.50 Note: Costs are calculated for 8-inch diameter residential water mains buried 6 inches below greatest recorded frost penetration (60 inches) in the area. aRange of study averages. bIncludes cost for bed of sand (6 inches thick) placed on bottom of trench. APPENDIX D NUMERIC CODES FOR SOILS AND NATURAL RESOURCE DATA IN WINDSOR TOWNSHIP FILE 314 Table 01. Numeric coding scheme for soil drainage and slope in Windsor Township Drainage Numeric Class Description Code A Well-moderately l 8 Somewhat poorly 2 C Poorly-very poorly 3 Water or made land Slope Numeric Class Percent Code A 0-2 1 B 2-6 2 C 6-12 3 D 12-18 4 18-25 5 F 25+ 6 Source: Michigan State University, Project for the Use of Remote Sensing in Land Use Policy Formulation, "Report on the Natural Resource Information System Developed For the Tri-County Regional Planning Com- mission," 1976, Appendix B-2. 315 316 Table 02. Numeric Codes For Soil Management Groups in the Windsor Township Code Soil Management Code Soil Management Number Group Code Number Group Code 1 O a 31 3/5 b 2 O b 32 3/5 c 3 O c 33 4/1 a 4 1 a 34 4/1 b 5 1 b 35 4/1 c 6 l c 36 4/2 a 7 1.5 a 37 4/2 b 8 1.5 b 38 4/2 c 9 1.5 c 39 5/2 a 10 2.5 a 40 5/2 b 11 2.5 b 41 G a 12 2.5 c 42 G bc 13 3 a 43 L-2 a 14 3 b 44 L-2 c 15 3 c 45 L-4 a 16 4 a 46 L-4 c 17 4 b 47 L-M c 18 4 c 48 M c 19 5 a 49 M/l c 20 5 b 50 M/3 c 21 5 c 51 M/4 c 22 5.3 a 52 M/ mc 23 5.7 a 53 M/R c 24 3/1 a 54 R a 25 3/.1 b 55 R bc 26 3/1 c 56 2/R a 27 3/2 a 57 2/R bc 28 3/2 b 58 3/R a 29 3/2 c 59 3/R bc 30 3/5 a 60 4/R a Source: Michigan State University, Project for the Use of Remote Sensing in Land Use Policy Formulation, "Report on the Natural Resource Information System Developed For the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission," 1976, Appendix B-l. 317 Table D3. Numeric Coding Scheme for Land Cover/Use in Windsor Township File Land Code Cover/use Number Code Category 1 11 Residential 2 12 Commercial, Services, Institutional 3 13 Industrial 4 14 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities 5 14A Solid Waste Disposal 6 14B Sewage Treatment 7 l7 Extractive 8 19 Other Urban 9 2A Cultivated Cropland and Hay 10 2B Tree Fruits 11 2C Brush Fruits 12 20 Confined Feeding 13 31 Permanent Pasture 14 32 Brushlands 15 41 Broadleafed Forest 16 42 Coniferous Forest 17 43 Mixed Forest 18 5 Open Water 19 6A Forested Wetlands 20 6B Shrub Swamp 21 6C Marsh Source: Michigan State University, Project for the Use of Remote Sensing in Land Use Policy Formulation, "Report on the Natural Resource Information System Developed For the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission," 1976, Appendix C. APPENDIX E WINDSOR TOWNSHIP MASTER FILE STRUCTURE 318 319 Tab1e E1. Windsor Township Master-File Structure Column Item Format 1 2-3 County code (Eaton = 23) 12 4-5 Township code (Windsor = 08) 12 6-7 Row coordinate 12 8-9 Column coordinate 12 10 Blank - 11-16 Interim soil map codes A6 17 Blank - 18-20 Land use/cover code 13 21-23 Elevation 13 24 Blank - 25-26 Distance to water bodies 12 27 Blank - 28-33 SMG code A6 34-35 SMG number 12 36 Blank - 37 Slope number 11 38 Blank - 39-40 Land use/cover code number 12 41 Blank - 42-46 Erosion (T/A/Y) F5.l 47 Blank - 48 Erosion class number 11 49 Blank - 50-52 Depth to bedrock 13 53-55 Percent clay I3 56 Blank - 57 Soil drainage number 11 58 Blank - 59 Recharge class number 11 60-62 Recharge scale index 13 63 Blank - 64-73 Land use/cover title A10 74-76 Blank - 77-81 Manuscript soil map code A4 82 Blank - 83-84 Manuscript soil map code number 12 85 Blank - 86 Hydrologic soil group number 11 87-92 Design cost, waste disposal F6.0 93 Continuing limitation, waste disposal 11 94-95 Soil potential index number 12 96 Soil potential class number 11 97-102 Design cost, streets and roads F6.0 103 Continuing limitations, streets and roads Il 320 Table El. Continued Column Item Format 104-105 Soil potential index number 12 106 Soil potential class number 11 107-112 Design cost, foundation on grade F6.0 113 Continuing limitations, foundation on grade 11 114-115 Soil potential index number 12 116 Soil potential class number 11 117-122 Design cost, foundation below grade F6.0 123 Continuing limitation, foundation below grade 11 124-125 Soil potential index number 12 126 Soil potential class number 11 127-132 Design cost, water lines F6.0 133 Continuing limitation, water lines 11 134-135 Soil potential class number 11 136 Blank - APPENDIX F SOIL POTENTIAL RATINGS, RECOMMENDED DESIGNS TO OVERCOME LIMITATIONS OF SOILS FOR SELECTED LAND USES IN EATON COUNTY. MICHIGAN 32.1 322 .uceepwwe he mewweeem geuez eeeegm zeppenm we cewue—wee epewmmee "bemwpm .uceerwe he mmwpeeem gene: eceegm zeppecm we cewueppee epewmmee "esmw_m .meewpeweum new em: Lewes .xeeu cw pe>e_ eweewp we mcwgeu -wcee weecwucee .zmw; emezem mewpee; we umeu Nege>em epeww pweEm .eweww seewww xcee ewe -eem pecewuee>=eu "peePFeexm eweww _Pmsm .e_eww Leupww gee» ewe -eem Fecewuce>ceu ”acepweexm gene m:2e_oz "Lee; ”ecewwm ”egmw_m meweeeww .mmecaez Hege>em meeepm peeegee 9 ea o .eeem xseew Leaem eeeeee cewueeemcw euwm nee .eeuegegeucw en en epnewee> eeu mewueeeege ecep gogwem meeewm peeegee m ea c .Eeep Aexwm xeee cewge< meewueuwewe mewecwpceu. meeemeez e>wueeggeu ecu _mwecmeoa _wom mcewpewgumem ecu acoweaeweee “we: newness Fwem :emwsewz .xaceeu :epem cw Femeemwe meme: muwmuce Lew wwwem we mcewuepwewp mcwecwpcee ece JESSE: :3 3.8.33 3 £6.53 Beams—=88 .3:qu $3558 :3 .E 023. 323 .eeepmczee uceewwwe we mcwemweem peeewmeeee .uceepwwe x3 mew—anew geuez eceegm zeppegm cowe=nwtemwe Pawcam .ewaww FPaEm .e_eew eee_ww xeae ewe mewsem mxcwem mew ugee mxewem Lem we :ewuepwee ewewmmee neem Fecewa=e>eeu eeewm meeewm aceeeee mp e» N— ”euegeeez fleece Hege>em .mecem xseew mxcwemugeaem :ewueewepmwe .ewgem .ecezpwwe we mmw_aa=m .e_eww P_asm .e_e_w seam: eeeegm zeppegm Leupww xeep ewe we eewweppee ewnwmmee -eem Pecewuce>eeu eeewm meeepm peeegee up op m "ucmwpm nucepweexm "eueeeeez .mEeeF xecem Leaem epeww .uceepwwe me mewpeeem ppeEm .epeww gene: eeeegm zep—egm eeuwww xceu ewe we eewpeppee eFewmmee leem Pecewuce>eeu meeepm peeegee m op o "ucmwpm ”peepweexm ”usmwwm .mEeep xenon gexem :ewueewgumwe Fewgem .ecespwwa an mappaazm .epeww Peasm .e_mww Lean: eeeegm zewpesm Lea—ww xeeu ewe we gowns—Fee ewewmmee -eem Pecewpce>ceu eeewm meeewm eceegee NF cu m "psmwpm nucewpeexm "epmgeeez .ecem wane, gexem meewueuwewe mcwecwueeu megemmez e>wueeggeo mcewuewgumex awe: ecu _mwe=eeoa .wom ecu meoweaewewe mcweeez Fwem emaceacou - ._a speak 324 .cewaewgpm 1mg em: wean: .xceu cw we>mw eweeww we mcwgeu swces weecwueee .smwg emmzem mcwwee; we “moo newe>em .cewuewwumec em: Lewes .xcee cw we>ew eweeww we mewweuwcee weeewucee .smw; eme izem mcwwee; we umeu Nege>em smumam woe -ewewe we meeecepewez "usmwpm .mumee Lezee .mgewwew we xuwwwewmmee .eeumzm ease we mececeucwez ”eueemeez xcae newewez “Lee; xcae mcwewoz "seem emeewewe eeew -Lemeem eewzeege .eweww wweEm .eweww Leuwww xeeu ewe neem Fecewuce>ceu "eeew ewneu cope: saw; new: wwwem Lew sea -mxm eeeee\eweeem ”ewe; mcewueawswe mcweewuceu megemme: e>wueewweu new .mwecaeoa wwom xwzewm muwmn .mmmcumz "egw>mm zwzewm muwwa .mmmcumz "ege>mm mmecpmz ”eueweeez mmmeuez newe>em mewgem euuewwez mew “wee eupewwez Lew meeewm peeewee o ea _ .Eeew euaepgezueeeeu meeewm acmewee m ea c .Eee_ eeeeu mwwem weewm new: xepesee e cw xwee eeeeez mewwem :emcewm mewwem cemcecm mew Heme cemcewm Lew mmeewm uceewee m on o .Eme_ xecem cemeegmu>emwm meewpewwpmem new meowemewewe ewe: mcweeez wwem emecwpceo . .Pw «Peep 325 aceepwwe he mewpeeem geuez eceewm ze—pegm we eewuewwee ewewmmee "egewpm meewuewwumeg em: Lupe: .xceu cw —e>e_ eweew— we acwgeu -weee weeewueee .cmw; emezem mewpee; we umeu Hege>em mcewuewgum 1e; was gene: .xceu :w we>mp eweeww we mcwgeu -wees weeewuceu .cmwg muesem mcwpee; we umeu Hewe>em mcewuewwum 1e; em: Lean: .xeeu cw we>mp eweeww we mcwweu -wcee weecwucee .cmw; emezem mewwee: we umeu Nege>em mcewuewwum 1e; em: seam: .xceu cw wm>wp eweewp we mewweu -wcee weeewucee .cmw; emezem mcwwee; we umeu newe>em eweww seweee .e—eww Leuwww xceu ewe -eem pecewu=e>ceu "peewpeexu game m=_e_o= "ween xcae ecwewoz ”ween game ecwewo: ”Loon xceu mcwewez ”ween ”ecmw_m meeeww .mmecuez nece>em meeeww .mmeeuez newe>em meee—w .mmecuez Hege>em meeeww .mmeeuez newe>em mcewueewewe mcwecwueeu mewememz e>wuewwweu ecu wewucwuee wwem mcewuewgumem ecu meoweaewewe IlllIl‘ol-l meeewm aceegee o e» N seep weeem eweemw—w: Seep hecem ewewwwu xeee ewezem weeewm -megeee .Eee— eeexweu See. eeezweu eeeeeww xwuceeeegw .Eeew zeeem eeww neueexeu awe: meweeez wwem 1IVIIIIIIIIIII .I IDTIIIIII III-III emacweeoe - ._a e_nuw 326 .meewuewwum 1e; em: Lean: .xcep cw we>ew eweeww we mcwweu -wcee peeewucee .gmw; emezem mewwee; we emeu "mge>em .mumee Lezee .ewewwew we xuwwwewmmee .Eeumzm ease we eececeucwez ”euewmeez meewuewgum leg em: ween: .xeeu cw we>ew eweeww we mcwgeu -weee weecwucee .zmw; emezem mewwee; we umeu xcae mcwe_o= ”ween me—eeu seam; saw; new: wwwem eweeee leee zwzewm Lew Emu imam eeeee\ewueem "ewew xcme mcwewo: xw izewm meeee .mmecpez Hege>em ». izewm ewee .mmecpez newe>em meeeww .mmecpez Fecewmmeweee .Eeew hewe zuwwm eezecee meeewm useewee m e» o .Eeew xecem eeww eweewx newe>em “Leee newe>em xeee cougmee: :eweeeweumwe wewwem .uceewwwe an mewweeem .eweww Seweee .eweww Lean: eeeewm 3ewwenm Leuwww xceu ewe we :ewuewwee ewewmmee -eem weeewuce>ceu eeewm meeewm acmewee NP ea c "azmwwm "eeeo ”eueweeez Eeew xecem eweemwww: meewueuwewe mcwecwueeu meeemeez e>wueewweu mcewpewcumem “we: use wewuceuee wwem ecu meowemewswe meweeez wwem emacwecoe - .wa awnmw 327 .eewmege u=e>ege e» ge>ee e>wueueme> eweuewee .eeewmczee uceewwwe we :ewueewwumwe wewwem ee>ewesw Lew eeemwmee wwweweeem .eweww eagew .eweww weuwww xeeu ewe meweewgem wecewmeeeo -eem wecewu=e>eeu eeewm meeewm uceewee mm ea mp Hege>em "ewew Nege>em .Eeep eueepgez eewueewwumwe wewwem .eweww macaw .eweww .eeewmczee ueeewwwe we weuwww xcmu ewe mcweewgem weeewmeeeo -eem weeewuce>ceu eeewm meme—m pceewee mp on up ”euegeeez "swam neLe>em .Eeep eppewwez cewueewwumwe wewwem eeeese awewe>em .ewmww aetmw .e_aww .eceeeaa NF oe e weuwww xceu ewe .Eee_ xewe eueewgez -eem wecewu=e>ceu wee—m .awzewm megee meeewm nemesee Nw ea c Hucmwwm "eeew ”eueweeez .Eeew euuewgez eweww emwmw .eweww Leawww xeeu ewe -eem Fecewuee>ceu xwzewm megee meeewm pceegee 0 ea N "ugmwwm "eeew "eueweeez .Eeew euuewwez mcewueewewe mcwecwuceu mewemeez e>wueewgee mcewpewcumem awe: can wmwecmeoa wwom new meoweaewewe mcweeez wwem eazcwecoe - .wa owaaw 328 “egmwwm Necewwm .mumee eezee .eeewwew we auwwwewmmee .sepmxm gaze we eeeeeepewez ”euegeeez .mumee eezee .eeewwew we zuwwwewmmee .EeumAm ease we eececepcwez “eaeeeeez cewueewepmwe weweem .eweww mega. .eweww Lepwww gee» ewe neem Fecewuee>=eu "eeee ewaww meta. .e_eww wepwww xceu ewu neem wecewuce>ceu fleece meweep gene: new; sew: meOm eweeeseee now see -mxm eeeee\ewueem “ewew meweeu Lean: new; sew: meOm eweeeewee Lew sea -mam eeeee\ewueem "ewew eeewm .xwzewm meeee "epeeeeez zwzewm meeee ”eueeeeez mmecuez newe>em mmecpez Hege>em meeewm peee -eee NF e» e .meeem xseew eeuezumxcwem we peee mepez meeewm acee seen o e» o .meeem xseew meuezumxcwem we “gee eeuez wwwOW mxcwam gewz xewesee cw che eeeeez meweem eeuez meweem eeeeu eem aeee eeeeu Lew meeewm aceeeee e eu o .mEee_ aeeem eeeeuueeeseuez meeewm eeeeeee m e» o .Eeew cepeecuez mcewueuwewe mcwecwuceu meeemeez e>wueeeeeu ecu wmweceeoa wwom mcewueweumem use meowemewswe “we: mcweeez wwem eeecwuceu . .ww ewnew 329 cowaeeweumwe Feweem .ewmww mete. .eweww eeuwww xceu ewe neem weeewace>ceu "unmwwm "eeee cowaeeweumwe weweem .eweww mete. .eweww eepwww xceu ewe -eem weeewuce>eeu eeewm .xwzewm meeee "eueeeeez szewm mewee meweem eupepeez eem ugee eupewwez gee meeewm uceeeee NF ea c .seew aeeem euueweeZIemmezo meweem euueweez eem “wee euueweez Lew meeewm aceeeee e ea — ”pgmwwm "eeeo "eueeeeez .Eeew xecem eupeweezsemmezo :ewueeweemwe Feweem .eceawwwe an mewwaaam .eweww wweEm .e_eww gene: eceeem :ewwegm eeuwww xcep ewe we :ewuewwee ewewmmee -eem wecewece>ceu eeewm meeewm weeeeee Np ea c ”agmwwm ”ucewweexm "epeeeeez .see_ aecem eEeugmo .eceawwwe we mewwaaam eweww w_e2m .eweww gene: eeeeem :e—wegm wee—ww gee» ewe we cewuewwee ewewmmee -eem wecewuce>ceu meeewm pceeeee e on o "enmwwm "pcewweexm Haemwwm .Eeep meeem eEepcmo meewueewewe mcwecwuceu meeemeez e>wueeeeeu meewuewepmem “we: use weweeeeoa Fwom ece meoweeewswe meweeez wwem eezcwecoe - ._a e_new 330 .eewueweum nee em: Leue: .xceu cw we>ew eweeww we meweea -weee peecwucee .smw; eme3em mew—2e; we umeu "eee>em xcee mcwewoz "seem .eeweeweem -ew em: eeae: .xcep cw Pe>ew eweeww we meweep uwcee weecwacee .gmw; eme3em mewwee; we umeu Hege>em xcee newewoz "seem .cewueweum 1e; em: eeue: .xceu cw Pe>ew eweeww we mcweeu -weee weecwpcee .cmw; eme3em mcwwee; we umeu xceu mcwewex mcweeeww .mmecuez neLe>em mcweeeww .mmecuez neLe>em meweeeww .mmeeuez Seep e:eeem Eco: wwngeea Hege>em "eeee "eee>em xeee mewee ceweeewepmwe Feweem .eweww emeew .eweww meweem euueweez .eeewmczee eceewwwe we eeuwww xceu ewe eem peee euueweez Lew mcweeweem wecewmeeeo -eem weeewuce>=eu eeewm meeewm peeeeee mp e» N— Heueeeeez "ewew ”eee>em .mseew aecem epueweezuemme3o mcewueuwewe mcwecwuceu meeemeez e>wueeeeeu meewueweumem ewe: ece Peweceeoa _wom ecu meoweeewswe meweeez Fwem neecwucou 1 .Fw epneh 331 .pceewwwe An mewweeem gene: eeeeem :ewwesm we cewuepwee ewewmmee ”egewwm .pceewwwe ze mewweeem gene: eceewm :epwesm we cewuewwee ewewmmee ”ecewwm .cewuewwum 1e: em: :eue: .xcep cw we>ew eweeww we mewweu 1weee weecwucee .gmw: eme:em mewwee; we umeo "eee>em .cewueweum 1e; em: eeue: .xeeu cw we>ew eweeww we meweeu 1weee Feecwucee .cmw; emezem mcwwee; we pmeu Hege>em :ewueewepmwe weweem .eweww PPeEm .eweww eeuwww see» ewe 1eem wecewuce>ceu "pee—weexm eweww PweEm .eweww eeuwww xcep ewe 1eem weeewaee>ceu ”weewweexm xcee ecwewoz ”ween xcee mcwewoz ”ween eeewm "eueeeeez ”egmwwm mcweeeww .mmecuez Hege>em mcweeeww .mmecuez ”eee>em meweem eeuez eem peee eeuez Lew meeewm uceeeee up on e .mecem aseew eepez1mxcwem meeewm uceeeee NF ea c .ecem »Eeew mxcwem mewwem eepez eem “gee eeuez new meeewm peeeeee o e» o .mecem aseew eeue21mx=wem meeewm aceeeee e ea c .ecem AEee— mxcwem wwwem mweegm new: xewe 1eee e cw xwee eeeeez meweem :eewm meweem :eewm eem “Lee eeewm Lew maeew eeewm1mweegm mcewuepwewe meweewueeu meeemeez e>wueeeeeu use _ewe=eeoa wwom mcewueweumem use meoweeewewe awe: mcweeez wwem ceecwpceu 1 ._w ewnew 332 .mumee Lezee .eeewwew we auwwwewmmee .Eeumzm ease we eeeeceuewez ”eueeeeez .mumee ee:ee .eeewwew we apwwwewmmee .eepmxm ease we eececeucwez ”eueeeeez .mumee ee:ee .eeewwew we auwwwewmmee .eeumxm ease we eeeeceucwez "epegeeez .mumee eezee .eeewwew we xpwwwewmmee .Eepmzm gaze we eececeecwez "eueeeeez .eeewme:ee pceewwwe we mcweeweem wecewmeeee .pceewwwe an mewweeem eeue: eceeem :ewwecm we :ewpewwee ewnwmmee "eueeeeez xeeeeee e» :ew 1wegm wwem Lew eeu 1mam eeeee\ewueem "ewew xeeeeee e» :ewwegm mwwem eew see 1mzm eeeee\ewueem ”ewe; eweeu gene: sew; sew: wwwem sew sea 1mxm eeees\ewpeem "ewew ewnee twee: sew; new: wwwem Lew Eeu 1mxm eeeee\ewpeem "ewew coweznwtemwe weweem .eweww wweEm .e_eww eeuwww xceu ewe 1eem Fecewuce>ceu "ewew xeoeeea op segue Hege>em xeeeeee e» ceeee .mmeeuez neLe>em mmeeuez Hege>em mmecaez Hege>em eeewm Hege>em meeewm uceeeee m ea c .Eeew pwwm xewzmeeewz meeewm aceewee m eu o .ueewee> xeeeeee .Eee— xeeem weemez meeewm uceeeee m ea c .Eeew aecem weemez meeewm uceeeee e ea c .Eeew zecem ecww eweemew meee—m peeeeee mp ep NF .meeem aseew excwem1wexem we usee mxcwem mcewueuwswe mcweewuceu meeemeez e>wueeeweu ece Feweceeoa Fwom mcewuewwumem ece meoweeewewe ewe: mcweeez wwem emzcwecoe - ._e wepew 333 ”eemwwm "egmwwm xpwwwnwmmeeee mcwueweumee meweeeww aceeeeew eu weeneem newe>em peeee>ee gueee1wwew ea mmeexewge Feeeez Hueewweexm pceee>ee :ueee1—wew we mmecxewgu weeeez "weewweexm pee5e>ee :ueee 1ww=w we mmeexewcp weseee eeewm emwes e» wwww eee xeee ece ueee eee>eexm ”ween cewpee “menu ”eueeeeez :ewpee “meek ”epeeeeez :ewpee umeww .weweeuee ewcemee eweepmce .mmecuez Hege>em meeewm peeegee m e» o .ecem xsee_ weaem .eeeee: :ewueeemcw euwm 1=e .eepeweeeuew en en eweewee> eee mewueeeewe ecew :eeeem meeewm eceeeee m ee o .Eee_ xexwm xeee :ewee< mcewpeuwewe mcwecweceu meeemeez e>wpeeeeeu ece weweceeoa ”wow mcewueweamem use meoweeewswe awe: mcweeez wwem cemwcewz .auceeu ceaeu cw mueeeem ece meeee wewpceewmee Lew wwwem we mcewueuwsww mcwecwucee ece .mcewueewsww wwem eEeeee>e ea cmwmee eeeeeEEeeew .mmcwuee wewuceuee wwem 1 .Nw eweew 334 "usewwm xez1we1pcmwg :e weeueee :ewmewm “eueeeeez he:1we1a;mww ce weeueee eewmeem "esewwm upsuwwm we31we1ucmww co weeucee :ewmeem “usuwwm peeEe>ee zeeee1wwew we mmeexewsu emeewecw fleece ace5e>ee sueee1wwew we mmecxewzp weeeee mwwww ece menu ”eeee peeEe>ee :ueee1wwew we mmeexewcu Peewez ”ucewweexm aceee>ee :ueee1wwew we mmecxewgp weewez "pcewweexm acese>ee gueee1wwew we mmecxewgu weeeee wwwww ece muse "ucewweexm cewuee umeew Hege>em eeewm Nege>em :ewuee umeww .eeewm "eueeeeez :ewuee emcee eueeeeez cowaee umeew .eeewm "eueweeez meweem cemeewm eem ugee cemeeem eew meeewm uceeeee m ea c .Eeew aecem eemceem1xeeem meweem exewem eem awee mxcwem sew meeewm peeegee m. eu up .mecem aseew excwem1eezem meeewm peeeeee Np e» o .mEeew zeeem semen meeewm peeeeee e on o .mEeew xecem eeAem meeewm peeeeee NF ea c .ecem aseew eeaem mcewueuwewe mcwecwuceu meeemeez e>wueeeeeu use _eweseess wwsm mcewueweumem use essweeewswe “we: meweeez wwem uesswesse 1 .Na e_sew 335 :ewwee>e Eeeepm we mcweeeww ea eee eeuewwumee mp 1wewes wewwwswmmeses “eueeeeez mewuwwwewmmeeee mcweeweumee mcweeeww peeeeeew e» peeneem ueLe>em ”HEB; “usewwm Hesuwem pceEe>ee zpeee1wwew we mme: 1xewcu weELe: eeeem em_es se _www uu< "ewew geese>ee :ueee1wwew we mme: 13.35 Pesto: .eeeem emwee e» wwww ee< ”ewe; aces 1e>ee :eeee1wwew we mmecxewgu emeeeecw ”ewee aces 1e>ee epeee1wwew we mmecxewsu emeeeecw “ewew usese>ee nueee1wwew we mmecxewcu weeLez ”ucewweexm spmceeum :ew .cewe 1ee umeew .mmeepez "eee>em gumceeum :ew .cewu 1ee pmeew .meeeww neLe>em cumceeum :ew meewuee umeew Hege>em gumceeum :ew meewuee emcee Hege>em :ewpee emcee newe>em weeewmmeeeee .Eeew eeezweu .Eeew eee:_eu eeeeeww awaceeeeew .Eeew meeem ecww :eueegeu meweem euueweez eem peee epuewwez Lew meeewm pceeeee o ee w .seew eepewee21eeeeu meeewm uceeeee m eu o .Eeew eeeeu mwwss xueem sew; xeweeee e cw xwee eeeeez meweem :emceem meewueuwewe mewecwpeeu meeemeez e>wueeeeeo use Feweseess Pwsm mcewuewwumem use esswseswswe ewe: meweeez wwem eeecwuceu 1 .Nw ewnew 336 we31we1ucmwe co weeueee :ewmeem "usewwm "esmwwm :ewwee>e seesaw Le mcweeeww e» eee eeueweemee wwwewee auwwwewmmeee< ”epeeeeez xuwwwewmmeeee mcwuewepmee meweeeww peeeeeww op eeeweem Hege>em aces 1e>ee cueee1wwew we mmecxewgu weELe: .mwwww ece maze "ucewweexm uceEe>ee seseu1_wsw we mmeexewgp weseez ”ucewweexm ucese>ee cueee1wwew we mme: 1xewcu weEee:.eeeem emwee e» wwww ee< ”ewe; eeeee>ee nueee 1__ew we mmecxewgp weswe:.eeeem emwee op wwww eee.xees nee ueee eee>eexm fleece :ewuee umeew "eueeeeez :ewuee emcee ”eueeeeez sswe 1ee pmeew .mmecuez Nege>em :ewpee umeww .weweeuee ewcemee e—eepmce .mmecuez Hege>em meeewm uceeeee NF ep m seep aucem eweemwww: meeewm peeeeee e on N .Eeew aecem eweemwww: seep xecem eeewwwe gees mewe:em mceweeewswe mcwecwuceu meeemeez e>wueeeeeu use .e_eseess wwsm meewueweemem use mssweeewswe ewe: meweeez wwem uesswesse 1 .Ne ewsew 337 aces 1e>ee speee1wwew we mmecxewzu emeeeecH "usewwm Husue .:ewwee>e uceee>ee Eeeepm ee mcweeeww :ueee1wwew we mme: e» eee eeuewepmee 1xewgu weELe: .eeeem wwwewss New._swmmeee< eeees se Fwww uu< "eueeeeez newew aces 1e>ee gueee1wwew we mmecxewcu emeegecw “usuwwm "ewe; peeee>ee speee 1wwew we mmecxewgu wee 1eec .eeeem emwee usweewsemes uswusspw es F_ww uue.sess aceeeeew ea peewnem ece ween eue>eexm Hege>em "eeee zuwwwewmmeeee :ewuee umeew "eueeeeez :ewuee umeww .mmecuez newe>em cumceepm :ew .cewuee pmeew Hewe>em mmecue: .eeweee umeew .wewweuee ewcemwe eweepme: ”eee>em meeewm pceeeee o e» N .Eeew eauepwez weeewmmeeeee .Eeew aewe xuwwm eezeeee meeewm uceeeee m e» o .Eeew xecem eeww eweewx xeee ceuzmeez meeemeez e>wueeeeeu use _eweseess wwsm mcewpepwewe mcwecwuceu mcewuewwpmem use essweeewswe ewe: mcweeez wwem uesswusue 1 .Ne ewsew 338 aces 1e>ee gueee1wwew we mmecxuwsu emeewecw "usuwwm "twee aces 1e>ee :ueee1wwew we mmecxewgu emeeeecw cewuee umeew Hege>em :ewuee umeew mewgem eeeeu eem ewee eeeeu wee meeepm ueeeeee e e» o .mseew zueem eeeeu1eee5epez meeewm uceewee m ee o "ucmwwm ”eeeu ueLe>em .Eeew ceuwesuez aces 1e>ee :ueee1w—ew we ae:1we1pnmwe mmecxewsu emeeweew ee weeueee eewmeem .wwww use muse eeewm meeewm weeeeee mN e» mp Nege>em "weee Nege>em .Eeew euueweez peeee>ee gueee1wwew xe:1we1p;mwe we mmeexewcp emeeeecw we weepcee cewmeeu .wwww ece muse eeewm meeewm pceeeee m— e“ NF "eueeeeez "ewew Hege>em .seew euuewgez wees eeeeee xwewe>em 1e>ee cueee wwew we .eceeeee NP ea c ze:1we1e;mwe mmecxewcu emeeeecw ego—m .Eeew xe—e euueweez :e weeueee :ewmeeu .pwww ece menu .cewuee emcee meeewm uceeeee NF e» o "uzmw—m neeee "eueeeeez .Eeew euueweez meewpeuwewe mewecwuceu meeemeez e>wueeweeu eewueweumem ewe: use _eeeseess Fwsm use essweeewawe mcweeez wwem uesseeses - .Ne epsew 339 aceee>ee :peee1wwew ae:1we1u;mwe we mmecxewnp wesLee :ewuee ce weeecee :ewmewm .mwwww ece maze umeew .eeewm meeewm pceeeee N_ e» o Hesmwwm "ucewweexm "eueeeeez .seew xecem eeeugmo uce5e>ee zueee1wwew we mmecxewgp weeeez meeewm uceeeee m on o "ecmwwm upcewweexm nucmwwm .Eeew aecem eseusmo aces 1e>ee gueee1wwew we mmecxewzu emeeeecw eeewm meeewm “ceeeee .mwwww use «use .eewuee emcee NF ea c .meeem aseew “ucmwwm "eeew "eueeeeez eeuez1mxcwem we ween eeuez aces 1e>ee :ueee1wwew we meeewm uceeeee mmeexewsu emeeeeew :ewpee emcee e on o .mecem erew “esmwwm "eeee “epeeeeez eeue21mxewem we peee eeuez mwwsm exswsm sews xewesee cw awee eeeeez meweem eeuez mcewpeuwewe mcweewucee meeemeez e>wueeeeeo :ewpeweumem “we: use Feweseess Fwsm use essweeewswe unweeez wwem neeewpceu 1 .Nu epneh 340 uceee>ee gueee wwew we mmeexewca wee zuwwwewmmeeee 1ee= .eeeem emwee usweswsemee uswussww se ..ww uue.¥ess peeeeeww ea weeneem ece ween eue>eexu "eee>em "Leee aces 1e>ee sueee1wwew we ae31we1usmwe mmecxewgp emeeeecw :e wewpcee cewmewm .mwwww nee menu "eeeeeeez "ewe; aces 1e>ee gueee1wwew we he:1we1u;mwg mmeexewsu emeeeeew :e weeucee :ewmeem .mwwww eee mpeo "unmwwm "eeew acee 1e>ee gueee1wwew we mmecxewgu emeegeew ”unmwwm ”eeeu :ewuee umeew .eeupee ewcemee eweeumce .mmecuez newe>em eeewm Hege>em :ewuee emeww .eeewm "eueeeeez :ewuee pmeww neueweeez xees mewee meweem epueweez eem peee eepeweez wee meeewm peeeeee mp ea Np .mseew xeeem epaeweez1emmezo meweem epuewwez eem “gee euueweez new meeewm aceeeee NF on e .Eeew xecem eupeweez1emme30 mewwem euueweez eem ugee euuewwez Lew meee—m peeeeee e on w .mEeew xecem euuewee21emme:o mcewueuwewe meweewuceu meeemeez e>wueeeeeu use Pewuceuoe pwem cewueweumem use essweeewswe ewe: mcweee: wwem uesswesse 1 .Ne ewsew 341 auwwwewmmeeee mewueweumee mcweeeww uceeeeew e» peeneem newe>em xpwwwewmmeeee mcwpewwumew meweeeww uceeeeew ea peeneem uceee>ee sueee 1wwew we mmeexewgu weeee: .eeeem eewes se wwww uu< ”ewew peeee>ee cueee 1ww=w we mmecxewcu Feeeee .eeeem emwee ea wwww ee< meeepw .cewpee umeww .mmecuez HeLe>em meeeww .eewuee umeww .mmeepez m—wem mweesm sew: xepeeee cw xwee eeeeez .meweem nee—m meweem ceewm eem «Lee ceewm gem ueLe>em "ewew Hege>em .mseew seepm1mpeezm :ewwee>e pceee>ee zueee Eeewum we meweeeww 1wwew we mmecxewgu ea eee eepeweumee peELe: .eeegm eewuee >,wwewé xuwwwnwmmeee< emwee ea wwww ee< umeww .mmeeuez "eueeeeez "ewew newe>em Eeew e:eeem :ewwee>e aceee>ee Eeeepm Le mcweeeww saeee1wwew we mme: ea eee eeueweumee 1xewcp Pesee: .eeeem meeeww.cewpee wwwewee xuwwwewmmeee< emwee ea wwww ee< umeew .mmeeuez "eueeeeez ”ewew Nege>em Seep wwnggee meewueuwewe mcwecwuceo meeemeez e>wueeeeeu :ewueweumem awe: use Feweseees wwsm use essweeewswe meweeez Pwem eeeewuceo 1 .Nw e—new 342 “usewwm ae31we1pcmwe co weeucee cewmeem ”eeeeeeez ”esmw_m "usuwwm aces 1e>ee speee1—wew we mmecxewgu emeeeeew "ewe; aces 1e>ee gueee1wpew we mmecxewgp weeee: .mwwww ece menu "eeee wees 1e>ee :peee1wwew we mmeexewgu weseec .mwwww ece muse "eeeo pceee>ee cueee1wwew we mmecxewgu Peseez uucewweexm cewpee umeww Nege>em eeewm Hege>em eeewm "epeeeeez "esmwwm meeewm pceeeee u e» o .Eee_ hecem eeww eweemew meeewm peeeeee mp ea NP .meeem »Eeew excwem 1ee>em we ween macwem meweem eeuez eem peee eeuez eew meeewm peeeeee Nw ea c .meeem haeew eeue21mxcwem meeewm peeeeee N_ e» o .eeem x5eew exewem meweem eeuez eem peee eeuez Lew meeewm aceegee m ep o .meeem >Eeew eepez1mxcwem meeewm pceeeee e on o .ecem ereF mxewem mcewpeuwewe mcwecwuceu megemeez e>wueeeeeu use weesseess wwsm mcewpeweumem use mssweeewewe ewe: mcweeez wwem ueuswpseo 1 .Nw ewnuw 343 uses 1e>ee speee1wwew we mmeexewsu emeeeecw ”esuw_m "usse aces 1e>ee gueee1ww=w we mmeexewgp emeeeeew "esew_m Husse wees 1e>ee neeee1wwew we mmecxewgp emeeeeew. "esme_m Husse :ewpee umeew .xessues se seems “eueeeeez xessues se seseu .eewuee umeew newe>em coweee emcee Hege>em meeewm peeeeee m e» o .Eeew pwwm xewcmeccwz meeewm neeeeee m ea c .ueewee> xeeeeee .Eeew xecem weemez meeewm uceeeee m e» o .Eeew xeeem weemez mcewpeuwewe mcwecwuceu meeemeez e>wueeeeeu ece wewuceuee wwem meewuewepmem use essweeewewe “we: meweeez wwem uesseesse 1 .Ne e_sew 344 sawmeu seweeeeumsee uses 1emee wesewese>seu meeewm useeeee u e» o ”psmwwm "usewweexm "esmwwm .usem xseew eeaem ueuees sewuemweme>sw euwm 1se .ueueeeeeusw ea e» eweewee> eeu mewuweeeee usew :ewsem smwmeu seweeesumsee uses 1emee _esewuse>seu meeewm useeeee m ea c "esuwwm ”use_wesxe ”esuwwm .ses. wsxwe weeusee emesweeu e>eeeew.smwmeu sewn 1eeeamsee useeemee uesweeus: e>wues Eeumzm emesweeu we 1eeewe .pwww sew: eesesepswee .em: use» euwm uswuwwee we mueeww use xewwwewmmeeee euesm emweg .xeee .wewseuee ewsemee msweeweumee mswueeww use ueee epe>eexm eweepms: .mmesuez Hege>em "sees Hege>em xees seweu< msewueuwewe msweswuseu meeemeez e>wueeeseo msewueweumem uwsa use Pewsseess .wsm use msswseewswe uswssez Fwsm semwsewz .auseeo seuem sw meseeemee saw: mmswwwezu wewpseuwmee eew wwwem we msewueuweww msweswusee use .msewueuwsww wwem eeeese>e ea msmwmeu ueuseEEeees .mmswuee wewuseuee wwem 1 .mw eweew 345 sawmeu sewueeeumsee uses mewwem mxswem weepsee 1emee wesewuse>see eem usee mxswem sew eaesweeu use sewmeew .mwwww use muse eeewm meeewm useewee mp op Np "eueeeuez ”ueeo "eee>em .musem aseew mxswem1se>em sawmeu sewueeeumsee uses wesusee 1emee wesewuse>see emeswesu use sewmeww .mwwww use muse eeewm meeewm useeeee NF e» u "usmwwm "usewweexw “eueeeuez .Eeew ausem sexem sawmeu sewueeepmsee uses 1emee wesewase>seu meeewm useeeee u on o “usmwwm "usewweexm ”usmwwm .Eeep ausem weaem sawmeu sewueesemsee uses wesusee 1emee wesewuse>see emesweeu use sewmeew .mwwww use muse eeewm meeewm useesee N_ on u "usmwwm "usewweexw "epeeeuez .usem AEeew eexem msewueewewe esweswuseo meeemeez e>wpeeeeeu msewpewsumem uwsu use _eweseess Fwsm use mssweeswswe msweeez wwem uesswesse 1 .mw ewsew 346 wegusee emesweeu eeumxm eme e>eeeew .sewueeeum mewwem eupe—wez 1sweeu use seemxm ease 1see useeemee ue eem usee euueweez sew ease we eeseseuswez 1sweeu e>wueseeuw< mmesuez meeewm useeeee m on w "usmwwm "ueew Hege>em .mEeew eeeeweez1eeeeu Fesusee emesweeu seemxm eme e>egesw .sewpeeeum 1sweeu use seemAm ease 1see useEemee ue ease we eeseseeswez 1swesu e>wueseeuw< mmeseez meee—m “seesee m on o "usmwwm "ueee Hege>em .seew eeeeu Eepmxm eme sewueeepm 1swesu use eeumxm ease 1see usesemen ue wwwem zuewm new: eEem we eeseseuswez 1swesu e>wuesseuw< mmesuez xeweeee sw zwse ueeeez "usmwwm "ueeu "eueeeuez meweem semseem weeusee emesweeu seemxm eme e>eeeew .sewpeeeum meweem semseem 1swesu use seemxm ease 1see useeemee ue eem eeee semseem sew esem we eeseseuswez 1swesu e>wuesseuw< mmesuez meeewm useeeee m ea c "psmwwm nueee neLe>em .mseew zusem semsesm1>ueem meeemeez msweswuseu meeemeez e>wueeeeeu msewueweumem uws: use _eweseess wesm use mssweeewswe msweeez wwem uesswesse 1 .mw e_sew 347 wesusee emeswesu e>eseew .smwmeu sewu 1e=spmsee useeemee ueswesuse e>waes Eeumam emeswesu 1seuwe .wwww saw: we eesesepswee .em: euwm mswuwwee we use» use xuwwwewmmeeee euesm emwes .xeee mswuewspmes mswueeww use ueee eae>eexu “ese>em "sees wespsee emeswesu e>eseew .smwmeu sewueesumsee sepmam useeemee ueswesuse emeswesu we eeseseuswee e>wuesseuwe .wwww .use» we speweswemeeee sew; muse uswuswss mswuewsumes mswueeww we euesm emwem "eweseuez “swew wespsee emeswesu e>eseew .smwmeu sewu spmsesum :ew .mueeww .mmespez "ese>em sumsesum :ew .muee—w .mmesuez ”ese>em sees muse:um wesewmmeseeu .Eeew uee:weu Eeew ueezweu Eeumzm emeswesu 1eespmsee ueswesuse we eesesepswee .em: e>wuesseuwe .wwww use» use xpwwwewmmeeee saw: euwm mswuwwee sewuee umesw mswuewspmes mswueeww we euesm emwem .mmespe: .mueeww ueueeww zwaseeeesw ”ese>em ”sees ”ese>em .Eeew wusem esww sepeeseu mseweeuwewe msweswaseu mesemeez e>wpeesseu mseweewsumem uws: use wewuseeew wwem use msswseewswe msweeez wwem uesseesse 1 .ew essew 348 seam»m emeswesu we eeseseaswee .eme use» use »uwwwswmmeeee mswuewsumes mswueeww "ese>em wesusee emeswesu use sewmesw "usewwm ”esmwww seem»m emeswesu we eeseseuswee .eme use» use »uw_wewmmeeee mswuewsumes mswueeww ”eyeseuez wespsee emeswesu e>eseew .smwmeu sewueesumsee usesemee ueswesuse e>wuesseewe .Fwww sew: eswe useuwwss we euesm emwes .xeee use wees eue>eexw "seew smwmeu sewueesumsee uses 1emee wesewuse>see .eswww use muse "usewweexu sawmeu sewueesumsee uses 1emee wesewuse>seu ”usewweexw wesusee emeswesu e>eseew .useEemee ueswesuse e>wuessepwe .w—ww sew: eewe uswuwwss we euesm emwem ”swew sumsesum :ew .mueeww .mmesaez "ese>em eeewm "eueseuez “usewwm mmesuez "ese>em sees seasmee: meeewm useesee Np e» u .Eeep »usem eweumwww: meeewm useesee u e» N .Eeew »usem epeumwww: seep »usem usewwwe msewueuwewe msweswpseu mesemeez e>wpeesseu use _eweseess wwsm msewuewsumem use msswseewswe uwsu msweee: Fwem uesswesse 1 .ew e_sew 349 wesusee emeswesu use sewmesw "esuwwm "esmwwm smwmeu sewueesumsee uses 1emee wesewpse>see .mwwww use menu "usewweexw sawmeu sewpeesumsee uses 1emee Pesewuse>seu "usewweexm seam»m emeswesu we emeswesu e>eseew .seu eeseseuswee .em: use» use »ewwwewmmeeee mswuewsumes mswueeww ueueseuez seam»m eme 1swesu use seam»m ease ease we eesesepswez “usewsm 1m»m ueswesuse e>wues 1seese .eewm eswuswss we euesm emwem "swew wesusee emeswesu e>esesw .smwmeu sewueesum 1see useeemee ue 1swesu e>weesseew< "ueeo eeewm ueueseuez “esuwwm mueeww .mmesuez "ese>em sumsesum :ew .mmesuez "ese>em ueuese »wse>em Nw ea u .Eeew »ewe epuewsez meeewm useesee NF e» u .Eeew euuewsez meeewm useesee u on N .Eeew epuewsez wesewmmeseeu .Eeew »ewe »uwwm eezesee meeewm useesee m e» o .Eee_ »usem esww ewanwx msewueuwewe msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu use Feweseess seem msewaewspmem use sssweeseswe uwsa msweeez wwem uesswesse 1 ..mw ewsew 350 seam»m eme 1swesu use seam»m ease ease we eesesepswez "usewwm seam»m eme 1swesu use seem»m ease ease we eeseseuswez "esmwwm wesusee emeswesu use sewmesw ueueseuez wesusee emeswesu use sewmesw ueueseuez wesusee emeswesu e>eseew .sewpeesum 1see aseeemee ue 1swesu e>wpessepw< "ueee wesusee emeswesu e>eseew .sewueesum 1seu useEemee ue 1swesu e>wuesseuw< "ueeo smwmeu sewueesumsee uses 1emee wesewuse>see .mwwww use muse “swew sawmeu sewueesemsee uses 1emee wesewese>see .mwwww use mpeu "ueee mmespez "ese>em mmesuez "ese>em eeewm "ese>em eeewm ”ese>em ewwse esswsm sews xeweeee sw »Fse ueeeez mewsem eeuez eem uses eeeeo sew meeewm useesee u e» o .mEeew »usem eeee01ese5euez meeewm useesee m on o .Eeew seusesuez meeewm useesee mN ea mp .Eeee euuewsez meeewm useesee mp e» NF .Eeew euuewsez msewueuwswe msweswaseu mesemeez e>wueesseu use seeeseess swam msewuewsumem use mssweeswswe ewsu msweeez wwem uesswesse 1 .ew essew 351 sawmeu sewueesumsee asee posesee 1emee wesewuse>see emeswesu use sewmesw .mwwww use muse eeewm meeewm useesee NF e» u ”usmwwm "usewweexw ueueseuez .Eeew »usem eeeusmo sawmeu sewueespmsee uses 1emee wesewuse>seu meeewm useesee u on o ”psmwwm “usewweexw "asmwwm .Eeew »usem eeeusmo sawmeu sewueesumsee uses wesusee 1emes wesewuse>see meeewm useesee emeswesu use sewmesw .mwwww use muse eee—m N— on u .musem »Eeew . ”psmwpm "usewweexw ueueseuez eepez1mxswem we uses eeuez smwmeu seweeesumsee uses meeewm pseesee 1emee wesewpse>seu u ea c .musem »Eeew ”esewwm "usewweexe "usewwm eeeez1msswem we esee eeeez mseweeuwswe mswesweseu mesemeez e>wueesseu msewpewsumem pws: use Feweseeee wwem use eseweeewswe msweeez wwem uesswesee 1 .me eweew 352 wesusee emeswesu e>essew .smwmeu sewu 1eesumsee useeemee ueswesuse e>wues eeum»m emeswesu 1seu_e .wwww suw: we eeseseuswee .eme euwm mswuwwee we use» use »uwwwswmmeeee euesm emwes .xees sumsesum :ew mswuewsumes uswueeww use uees eue>eexm .mueeww .mmesuez ”ese>em "sees "ese>em sees «ewes smwmeu sewueesumsee uses mewsem euuewsez wesusee 1emee wesewuse>see eem uses euuewsez sew emeswesu use sewmesw .mwwww use muse esewm mesewm useeses mu eu NF ueueseuez "ueew "ese>em .mEeew »usem euue—sez1emme3o sawmeu . sewueesumsee uses mewsem euuewsez wesusee 1emee wesewuse>see eem uses euuewsez sew emeswesu use sewmesw .muwww use muse esewm mesewm useeses NF eu u ”usmwwm "usewweexm ueueseuez .mseew »usem euuewsez1emme3o sawmeu mewsem euuewsez sewueesumsee uses eem uses euuewsez sew 1emee wesewuse>seu mesewm useeses u eu w ”usmwwm "usewweexm "usmwum .mEeew »usem euuewse21emmezo msewueuwewe msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu msewuewsumes uws: use wewuseuee seem use esewueuwsws mswssez wwem ueeswusee 1 .ew eueew 353 wesusee emeswesu e>esssw .smwmeu sewueesumsee seum»m emeswesu useeemee ueswesuse we eeseseuswes .em: e>wuesseuwe .wwww use» use suwuwewmmeeee sue; euwe eswuswss mswuewsumes mswueeww we euesm emwes "ese>em ”sees wesusee emeswesu e>essew .smwmeu sewueesumsee seum»m emeswesu useEemee ueswesuse $0 wocmcmficme «mm: w>wflwc&mflpm appm$ use» use »uwwwawmmeeee suw: euwm mswuwwee mswuewsumes mswueeww we euesm emwes ueueseuez ”swew wesusee emeswesu e>essew .smwmeu sewueesumsee mueeww .mmesuez "ese>em mueeww .mmesuez "ese>em mewsem seewm eem uses seewm sew .mEeew seewm1mweesm Eeew ezeuem Eeum»m emeswesu usesemen ueswesus: $0 wucwcmucme .wm: w>wHMCLmHPm appww use» use »uwwwewmmeeee suw: euwm mswuwweu mswuewsumes mswueeww we euesm emwes mueeww .mmesuez ueueseuez ”swew “ese>em Eeew wwwsxses msewueuwewe msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu msewuewsumem uwsu use ueueseuee swem use esewueuwsws mswssez wwem uesswusee 1 .ew eweew 354 wesusee emeswesu use sewmesw "usewwm “usewwm eeum»m emeswesu we eeseseuswee .eme use» use »uwwwewmmeeee mswuewsumes mswueeww "ese>em smwmeu sewu 1e=sumsee uses 1emee wesewuse>see .mwwww use muse ”usewweexw sawmeu sewueesumsee uses 1emes wesewuse>seu ”usewweexm wesusee emeswesu e>esssw .smwmeu sewu 1eesumsee useeemes ueswesus: e>wues 1seuwe .wwww suw: euwm eswuwwse we euesm emwes "sees esewm ueueseuez ”usewum mueeww .mmesuez ”ese>em mewsem eeuez eem uses eeuez sew mesewm useeses Nu cu m .musem »Eeew eeue21mxswsm mesewm useeses Nw eu u .usem »Eee_ mxswsm mewsem eeuez eem uses eeuez sew mesewm useeses u eu o .musem »Eeew eeuez1mxswsm mesewm useeses u eu o .usem »Eee_ mxswsm mewsem mweesm suw: xewseee e sw »wse uessez mewsem seewm msewueuwewe msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu use wewuseues wwem msewuewsumem use msewueuwsws uwsu mswssez uwem uesswusee 1 .ms eweew 355 wesusee .smwmeu sewueesum Eeum»m eme 1see useeemee ue 1swesu use Eeum»m sass 1swesu e>wuesseuwe mmesue: mesewm useeses m eu o ssem we eeseseuswez .xeesuee eue>eexw .xeesuee eu suseo .usewse> seesuee ”usmwwm ”swew "ese>em .seew »usem usemez wesusee emeswesu e>essew eeum»m eme .smwmeu sewueesum 1swesu use Eeum»m sass 1see useeemee ue sasm we eeseseuswez 1swesu e>wuesseuw< mmesuez mesewm useeses m eu o ”usmwwm "ueee "ese>em .Eeew »usem usemez wesusee emeswesu e>essew Eeum»m eme .smwmeu sewueesum 1swesu use Eeum»m sass 1see usesemee ue sane we eeseseuswez 1swesu e>wuesseuw< sumsesum :ew .mmesuez mesewm useeses u eu o "usmwwm ”ueew "ese>em .Eeew »usem esww eweemew smwweu sewu 1eesumsee uses wesusee 1emee wesewuse>see mesewm useeses emeswesu use sewmesw .mwwww use muse esewm mu eu NP .musem »seew ueueseuez ”ueee ”ese>em mxswsm1se»em we uses mxswsm msewueuwewu msweswuseo mesemeez e>wueesseu msewuewsumes uwsu use sewuseuee wwem use esewueuwsws mswssez wwem uesswusee 1 .es eweew 356 Eeum»m eme 1swesu use Eeum»w sass sEem we eeseseuswez ”usewum Pesusee emeswesu e>essew .smwmeu sewueesum 1see useEemen ue 1swesu e>wuesseupe .xeesuee eue>eexw "swew msewueuwewu msweswuseu meszmeez e>wueesseu use sewuseuee wwem seesuee eu suseo mesewm useeses m eu o “ese>em .seew uwwm sewsmesswz msewuewsumes uwsu use msewueuwswu mswssez wwem ueeswusou 1 .mw ewneh 357 euesm se wesusee eme H es»u .newm eesewswes 1swesu use sewmesm ”usewwm ”usewwm “usewwm Eeum»m emeswesu we eeseseuswee .em: use» use »uwwwuwmmeeee mswuewsumes mswueeww ”ese>em .ewuww use muse "ueew euesm se newm H es»H ”usewweexw euesm .uewm eesewswes "ueew wesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm se newm HH es»u .sewm eesewswes .euwm eswuwwse we euesm emwes .xees use uees eue>eexw "sees sewuee umesw .esewm ueueseuez sewuee umesw ueueseuez wwe3m1xswssm .msewuee umesw ueueseuez mueeww .sumsesum :ew .mmesuez ”ese>em mesewm useeses NF eu u .usem »Eeew se»em mesewm useeses u eu o .usem »Eeew se»em ueuees sewuemwume>sw euwm 1se .ueuessseusw en eu eweewse> eeu mewusesess usew :essem esewm useeses m eu o .seew »uxwm sees sewsu< msewueuwewe msweswuseu mesumeez e>wueesseu use .ewuseuee uwem msewuewsumes use msewueuwswe uwsu esweees swem cemwzuwz .»us:ou :oueu cw musesemes usesuw: mmswwwezu wewuseuwmes sew mwwem we msewueuwsww msweswusee use .msewueuweww wwem eeeese>e eu msmwmeu ueuseEEeees .mmswues wewuseues wwem .uw eweew 358 euesm se sepm HH es»u eewm eesewswem sewuee umesw e_wem suese sew; xewssee sw »wse uessez “usmwwm ”ueec ”ese>em mewsem semsesm wesu 1see emeswesu e>ess 15w .euwsm se eewm mewsem semsesm us es»u newm eesew eem uses semsesm sew mEeum»m eme 1swes .eewm use msw sewuee 1swesu we eeseseuswez 1ueew we emesweso umesw .mmesuez mesewm useeses m eu o ueueseuez "swew ”ese>em .mEeew »usem semsesm1»uesm euesm se newm mu es»u mewsem mxswsm wesusee .eewm eesewswes eem uses mxswsm sew emeswesu use sewmesw .mwwww use mueu esewm mesewm useeses mu eu NF ueueseuez ”swew “ese>em .musem »Eeew mxswsm1se»em euesm se newm HH es»u wesusee .eewm eesewswes emeswesu use sewmesw .mwwww use mueu esewm .sewuee umesw mesewm useeses Nu cu m “usmwwm "ueeo ueueseuez .Eeew »usem se»em euesm se sewm us es»u sewuee umesw mesewm useeses u eu o "usmwwm ”usewweexw ueueseuez .Eee— »usem se»em msewueuwswu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueeseu msewuewsumes uws: use wewuseuee swem use msewueuwswe esweez uwem uesswusee 1 .es eueew 359 Eeum»m emeswesu we eeseseuswee .eme use» use »uw_wswmmeeee mswuewsumes mswueeww "ese>em mEeum»m eme 1swesu we eeseseuswe: ueueseuez mseum»m emeswesu we eeseseuswez ueueseuez wesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm se eewm HH es»u.eewm eesewswes .mswueew we emeswesu .uuww sew: euwe esw 1uww=e e euesm emwes "sees wesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm se Hm es»u newm eesew 1swes ee—m use msw 1ueew we emeswesa ”swew wesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm se eepm HH es»u .eewm eesewswes .eewm use msw 1ueew we emesweso “swew eueeww .sewuee umesw .mmesuez “ese>em mmes 1ue: .sewuee umesw ese>em mmes 1ue: .sewuee umesw “ese>em ueueeww »wuseeeesw .Eeew »usem esww seueeseu mewsem euuewsez eem uses euuewsez sew mesewm useeses m eu w .mseew euuewsez1eeseu mesewm useeses m eu o .Eeew eeseu msewueuwewu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueeseu use uewuseuee .wem msewuewsumem use esewueuwswe uwsu eswssez wwem uesswusee 1 .us eueew seum»m emeswesu we eeseseuswee .eme use» mswuewsumes mswueeww ueueseuez eeum»m emeswesu we eeseseuswee .eme use» use »uwwwewm 1meeee mswuewsumes mswueeww "ese>em 360 eeum»m emesuesu we eeseseuswee .eme use» use »uwwwuwmmeeee mswuewsumes mswueeww ueueseuez wesusee eaeswesu e>esssw .euesm se newm wu es»u .eewm eesewsw 1es .euwe eswuuwse we euesm emwes "swew wesusee emeswesu e>esssw .euesm se sewm HH es»u .eewm ueesewswes .euwe eswuuwse we euesm emwes .xeee use uees eue>eexw "sees wesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm se newm HH es»w .eewm eesewsw 1es .eewm use msw 1ueew we eoeswesu .euwm eswuwwse we euesm emwes ”swew sewuee umesw .mmesuez "ese>em muee—w suesesum :ew .mmesuez ”ese>em sewuee umesw .mmesuez "ese>em Eeeu »usem usewwwe sees musezum wesewm 1messeu .Eeew uee:_eo Eeeu uee:weu msewueuwewu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu use uewuseuee wwem msewuewsumes use eseuueuwsws uwsu mswssez wwem uesswusee 1 .es eweew 361 wesusee emeswesu e>ess 15w .euesm se newm HH es»u .uewm ueesew eeum»m 1swes .eewm use emeswesu we eeseseuswez mswueew we emesweso "usewum Hswew wesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm se newm Hw es»u eeum»m emeswesu .sewm eesewswes we eeseseuswee .em: .euwm mswupwee we use» use »uwwwewmmeeee euesm eMwes .xeee mswuewsumes mswueeww use uees eue>eexm "ese>em "sees euesm so newm H es»u .mwwww use muse sumsesum :eu .sewuee umesw .mmesuez "ese>em mueeww .sumsesum :ew .mmesuez "ese>em ese—m .sewuee umesw mesewm useeses m eu o Eeew »usem esww ewaewx sees seusmue: mesewm useeses NP cu m usmwwm "ueee ueueseuez .Eeew »usem eweumwww: euesm se sewm Hm es»u sewuee umesw mesewm useeses o eu N “usmwwm "use—weexw ueueseuez .Eeew »usem eweumpww: msewueuwswu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu msewuewsumes uwsu use wewuseuee wwem use esewueuesws esweees wwem uesswusee 1 .ew eusew 362 euesm se newm HH pesusee es»u .eewm ueesewsw emeswesu use sewmesw 1es .mwwww use mueu "ese>em "sees euesm se uewm HH wesusee es»u .uewm eesewsw emeswesu use sewmesw 1es wwwww use mueo ueueseuez ”swew euesu se uewm uu wesusee es»u .eewm eesewsw emeswesu use sewmesw 1es wwwww use muse "usewum Hueee euesm se newm uu es»H “usewwm Hueee Pesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm se eewm HH es»u .uewm ueesewsw 1es .euwe eswuwwse we euesm emwem "swew Eeum»m emeswesu we eeseseuswee .em: use» use »uwwwewmmeeee mswuewsumes mswuee—w ueueseuez esewm ”ese>em esewm "ese>em sewuee umesw .esewm ueueseuez sewuee umesw ueueseuez mueeww .sewu 1ee umesw .mmesuez “ese>em mesewm useeses mN eu mp .Eeew euuewsez mesewm useeses we eu Nu .Emop muvw Tum: ueuese useeses NP eu u .see_ »e_e euuewsez mesewm useeses NP cu m .Eeeu euuewsez mesewm useeses u eu N .Eee_ euuewsez wesewmmesseu .Eeew »ewe »uwwm ee:eseu msewueuwewu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu use wewuseuee _wem msewuewsumes use msewueuwewu uwsu esweeez uwem ueeswusee 1 .es e_sew 363 euesm se newm Hu es»u .newm eesewswes sewuee umesw mese—m useeses u eu o .musem »Eeew eeuez1msswsm we uses eeuez “usmwwm "usewweexm ueueseuez wwwem mxswsm suw: xewssee sw »Pse uessez mewsem eeuez wesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm se ueum HH es»u .DeFm eesewsw mewsem eeseu eem uses Eeum»m 1es .eewm use msw eeseu sew mesewm usee emeswesu we eeseseuswez 1ueew we emesweso sewuee umesw .mmesuez 1ses u eu o .mEee_ »usem ueueseuez "swew ”ese>em eeseu1eseEeuez wesusee emeswesu e>esssw .euesm se eewm HH es»u .eewm eesewsw eeum»m 1es .uewm use msw emeswesu we eeseseuswez 1ueew we emesweso sewuee umesw .mmesuez mesewm useeses m eu o ueueseuez "swew Hese>em .Eeew seusesuez msewueuwewe msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu msewuewsumem uwsu use sewuseuee wwem use mseeueuwsws mswsse: wwem uesswusee 1 .es eseew 364 euesm se eeHm HH es»u .mewsem euueHsez Hesusee eeHm eesewswes eem uses euueHsez sew emeswesu use sewmesw .ewaw use muse eseHm .sewuee umesw meseHe useeses NH eu u ”usmem "ueee ueueseuez .mEeeH »usem euueHsez1emme:o .mewsem euueHsez euesm eem uses euueHsez sew se eeHm HH es»u sewuee umesw meseHm useeses 0 cu H ”usmem "ueee ueueseuez .mEeeH »usem euueHse21emme:o. euesm Hesusee se eeHm H es»u emeswesu use sewmesw .mHwa use muse eseHm meseHm useeses NH eu e "usmem "ueee ueueseuez .EeeH »usem eeeusmo euesm se eeHm H es»w meseHm useeses "usewwm “usesueexe "useeum e eu e .seeu susee eseusme euesm se ueHm HH Hesusee es»u .ueHm eesewsw meseHm useeses emeswesu use sewmesw 1es .mHwa use muse sewuee umesw .eseHm NH cu m .musem »seeH "usmem "ueee ueueseuez eeue21mxswsm we uses eeuez msewueuwewu msweswuseo mesumeez e>wueesseu msewuewsumes uwsu use Hewuseuee Hwem use esewueuwsws esweeez Hwem uesswusee 1 .sw eueew 365 eeum»m emeswesu we eeseseuswee .eme use» use »uHHwewmmeeee mswuewsumes mswueeHw ueueseuez Eeum»m emeswesu we eeseseuswee .eme use» use »uwstwmmeeee mswuewsumes mswueeHw Hesusee emesuesu e>essew .euesm se ueHm HH es»u .eeHm eesewswes .ueHm use mswueew we emeswesu .euwe eswuwuse we euesm emwem "swew sewuee umesw .mueeHw .mmesuez "ese>em Hesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm se eeHm HH es»u .seHm eesewswes .eewm se mswueew we emeswesu .euwm eswuuwee we euesm emwem sewuee umesw .mueeHw .mmesuez EeeH ezesem ueueseue: "swew ”ese>em EeeH Hstxses Hesusee emeswesu e>esssw .euesm se eeHm HH seum»m emeswesu es»u .eeHm eesewsw we eeseseuswee .eme 1es .euwm mswunee use» use »uwHwewmmeeee we euesm emwes .xeee sumsesum mswuewsumes mswueeHw use uees eue>eexw :eH .mueeHw .mmesuez "ese>em "sees "ese>em sees meHes euesm se aeHm Hesusee HH es»u.ueHm eesewsw emeswesu use sewmesw 1es .mHwa use muse eseHm meseHm useeses NH eu NH ueueseuez "swew "ese>em .mseeH »usem euueHse21emme:o msewueuwewu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseo msewuewsumes uwsu use Hewuseuee seem use msewueuwswe ueuese: Hwem uesswusee 1 .ss essew 366 Hesusee emeswesu use sewmesm ”usewum “usewwm seum»m emeswesu we eeseseuswes .eme use» use »uwHwewmmeeee mswuewsumes mswueeHw "ese>em eeum»m emeswesu we eeseseuswee .em: use» use »uwHwewmmeeee mswuewsumes mswueeHw ”ese>em euesm se seHm H es»u .mHwa use muse "ueew euesm se eeHm H es»H ”useHHeexw Hesusee emeswesu e>esssw .euesm se eeHm HH es»u .neHm eesewsw 1es .euwm eswuuwse we euesm emwes "sees Hesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm so eeHm HH es»u .eewm eesewsw 1es .euwm eswuuwse we euesm emwes "sees eseHm ueueseue: usmwwm sewuee umesw .mueeHw .mmesuez "ese>em sewuee umesw .mueeHw .mmesuez “ese>em meseHm useeses NH eu u .musem »seeH msswsm mewsem eeuez eem uses eeuez sew meseHm useeses u eu o .musem »EeeH eeue21msswsm meseHm useeses u eu o .musem »seeH mxswsm mewsem mHeesm suw: ersEee e sw »Hse uessez mewsem seeHm mewsem seeHm eem uses seeHm sew maeeH seeHm1mHeesm msewueuwewu msweswuseu mmwamwwz m> wwquLoo use Hewuseuee Hwem msewuewsumes use msewueuwsws uwsu esweees seem uesswusee 1 .us ewsew 367 Hesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm se eeHm HH es»u .eeHm eeum»m eesewswes .eeHm use seesuee eu suseu meseHm useeses m emeswesu we eeseseuswez uswueew we emesweso .mmesue: .sewuee umesw eu o .usewse> seesueu "usmem "swew ”ese>em seeH »usem usemez Hesusee emeswesu e>essew .euesm se eeHm HH es»u .seHm eeum»m eesewswes .eeHm use emeswesu we eeseseuswez mswueew we emesweso mmesue: .sewuee umesw meseHm useeses m eu o ueueseuez "swew “ese>em .EeeH »usem usemez euesm sumsesum se eeHm HH es»u :eH .sewuee umesw meseHm useeses u eu o ”usmem “ueee ”ese>em .EeeH »usem esww eHeemew euesm Hesusee se eeHm H es»u meseHm useeses emeswesu use sewmesw .mHwa use mueu eseHm wH eu NH .musem »EeeH ueueseuez ”swew "ese>em mxswsm1se»em we uses mxswsm mewsem eeuez eem uses eeuez sew meseHm useeses NH eu u .musem »EeeH eeue21mxswsm msewueuwewu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu msewuewsumes uws: use sewuseuee uwem use msewueuwsws mswssez Hwem uesswusee 1 .ew eseew 368 “usewsm euesm se ueHm HH es»u .eeHm eesewswes "ueew sewuee umesw ueueseuez meseHm useeses m eu o .seeH uHHm sewsmesswz msewueuwswu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu use Hewuseuee seem msewuewsumes use esewueuwsws uwsu mswssez Hwem uesswusee 1 .uw eueew 369 uesEeu »HHewesee Hwa 1xeee .sesesesu esws eese sesesu suw: esws seue: sew Hesusee sewmesw sesw umee HHeumsH eseHm .e>ee msseeueu meseHm useeses NH eu u "usmem “ueee "ese>em .usem »EeeH se»em sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH e>ee museeueu meseHm useeses u eu o ”usmem "useHHeexw "ese>em .usem »EeeH se»em ueuees sewueesmsw euwm1se .ueuessseusw es eu eHeewse> eeu mewusesess useH :essem sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH e>ee mxseuueo meseHm useeses m eu o “usmem "useHHeexw ueueseuez .EeeH »sxwm eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .esws seue: useNes suHees sesw umee HHeumsw e>wmessee mswmeee use sweses .sesesu seuezeu .xees .mueeHw .Hewseuee ewsem oswewsumes mswueeHw use uees eue>eexw 1se eweeumse .mmesuez ”ese>em "sees ”ese>em sees sewsu< msewueuwewe msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu msewuewsumes uws: use Hewuseuee Hwem use msewueuwswe esweeez seem semwsewz .»us:eu seuew sw mestseue: Hewuseuwmes sew meem we sewuequwH msweswusee use .msewueuwewH Hwem eseese>e eu msmwmeu ueuseseeees .mmswues Hewuseues Hwem .mw eHeew 370 eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum 1sw .sesesu seue:eo "usewum .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum 1sw .sesesu seue:eo ”usewsm .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum 1sw 1sesesu seue:eo ”usewwm mswsesese use mswxeeHs umessu uesEeu »HHewesee Hwa 1xeee .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH Hwasseu esweewsm Hwaxeeu .eese sesesu sew Hesusee sewmesw ueueseuez "swew ”ueee ”ueee "sees e>wmessee .mmesuez "ese>em e>ee mxseeuee .mmesuez ”ese>em e>ee mxseeuee .mmesuez "ese>em e>ee museeuee .eseHm nese>em meseHm useeses m eu o .EeeH eeseu meem »uesm suw: erseee e sw »Hse uessez mewsem semsesm mewsem semsesm eem uses semsesm sew meseHm useeses m eu o .mEeeH usem semsesm1»uesm mewsem mxswsm eem uses mxswsm sew meseHm useeses mH eu NH .musem »EeeH msswsm1se»em msewueuwswu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu use wewuseuee Hwem msewuewsumes use msewueuwswe uwsu mswssez Hwem uesswusee 1 .ms eweew 371 eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws useees suHees suw: esws seue: mswmeee use sweses sesw umee HHeum mswuewsumes mswueeHw 1sw .sesesu seue:ea ueueseuez "swew eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws useNes suHees suw: esws seue: mswmeee use sweses sesw umee HHeum mswuewsumes mswueeHw 1sw .sesesu seue:eo "ese>em "sees eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum 1sw .sesesu seue:eo ”usewum ”swew e>wmessee .e>ee museuuee .mueeHw .mmesuez "ese>em e>wmessee .mueeHw .mmesuez ”ese>em e>wmessee .mmesuez "ese>em Hesewmmesseu .seeH ueezHeu seeH uee:Heu ueueeHw »Huseeeesw .EeeH »usem esww seueeseu mewsem euueHsez eem uses euueHsez sew meseHm useeses m eu H .mEeeH euueHse21eeseu msewueuwewu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu use Hewuseuee Hwem msewuewsumes use msewueuwsws uwsu mswssez Hwem uesswusee 1 .mw eueew 372 uesseu »HHewesee Hwaxeee .sesesesu esws eese sesesu suw: esws seue: sew Hesusee sewmesw sesw umee HHeumsH "useme ”ueee sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH ”usewwm "usesweexe eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: mswmeee use sweses sesw umee HHeum mswuewsumes mswueeHw 1sw .sesesu seue:eu ueueseuez "swew useees suHees eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsw .sesesu mswmeee use sweses seue:eu .xeee mswuewsumes mswueeHw use uees eue>eexw ”ese>em "sees useees seuees eseHm ueueseuez ”usewwm e>wmessee .e>ee msseeuee .mmesuez "ese>em e>wmessee .mueeHw .Hewseuee ewseese eHeeumsw .mmesuez "ese>em meseHm useeses NH cu m .seeH »usem eHeumHHw: meseHm useeses u eu N .EeeH »usem eHeumHHH: EeeH »usem usewwa sees musezum msewueuwswe msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu use Hewuseuee Hwem msewuewsumem use msewueuwswe uwsu mswssez Hwem uesswusee 1 .es eseew 373 "usewwm useNes suHees mswmeee use sweses mswuewsumes mswueeHw ueueseuez ”usewwm useNes suHees mswmeee use sweses mswuewsumes mswueeHw ”ese>em sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH "useHHeexw eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum 1sw .sesesu seue:eu "swew eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum 1sw .sesesu seue:eu "swew eseH»sue»Hes suwz sews ses: .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsw .sesesu seue:eu .xees use uees eue>eexw "sees e>ee mxsenueu ueueseuez e>wmessee .mueeHw .mmesuez ”ese>em e>wmessee .e>ee mssesuee .mmesuez "ese>em e>wmessee .mueeHw .Hewseuee ewsemse eHeeum 1s: .mmesuez ”ese>em meseHm useeses u eu N .EeeH euueHsez Hesewmmesseu .EeeH »eHe »unm ee:eseu meseHm useeses m eu o .EeeH »usem esww eweewx sees seusmeez msewueuwewu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseo use Hewuseuee Hwem msewuewsumes use esewueuwsws uws: mswssez Hwem ueeswusou 1 .mw epneh U1“- (Flank. 374 eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw emee HHeum 1sw .sesesu seue:eu ”usmem "swew mswsesese use mswxeeHe umessu .uesEeu swuswesee stwseee .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH Huessseu esweewwm Hwaxeee .eese sesesu sow posucou cowmosw "ese>em ”sees mswsesese use mswxeeHe umessu .uesEeu swuswesee stwseee .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH Hewssseu esweewwm Hwaxeen .eese sesesu sow Fosucou cowmosm Heueseuez "sees uesEeu suuswesee Hwaxeee .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH eese sesesu sew Hesusee sewmesw e>wmessee .e>ee mxseeuee .mmesuez eese>em eseHm eese>em eseHm ”ese>em eseHm .e>ee mxeenueu meseHm useeses m eu o .seeH seusesuez meseHm useeses mN eu NH .EeeH euueHsez meseHm useeses wH eu NH .EeeH euueHsez ueuese »Hese>em .meseHm useeses NH eu u .EeeH »eHe euueHsez meseHm useeses NH cu m "usmem "ueee ueueseuez .EeeH euueHsez msewueuwewu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu msewuewsumes uws: use wewuseuee seem use esewueuwsws esweeez usem uesswusee 1 .ew eweew 375 sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH "usewum "useuueexe uesEeu »HHewesee Hwaseeu .sesesesu esws eese sesesu suw: esws seue: sew Hesusee sewmesw sesw umee HHeumsH "usewwm "ueee sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH “usewum ”usewueexe eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum 1sw 1sesesu seue:eu ”usmem uswew e>ee mxseeueu ”ese>em eseHm ueueseuez "usewum e>wmessee .mmesuez ”ese>em meseHm useeses u eu o .EeeH »usem eeeusmo meseHm useeses NH eu u .musem »EeeH eeuez1mxswsm we uses eeuez meseHm useeses u eu o .musem wseeH eeuez1msswsm we uses eeuez mwwem msswem suwz erseee sw »Hse uessez mewsem eeuez mewsem eeseu eem uses eeseu sew meseHm useeses u eu o .mEeeH »usem eeseu1ese5euez msewueuwewu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu use Hewuseues Hwem msewuewsumem use msewueuwsws uwsu esweees Hwem uesswusee 1 .ew ewsew 376 stssseu esweewwm HHwaeee .eese sesesu sow Fosucou commosm ueueseuez ”usewwm ”usewsm eese sesesu sew Hesusee sewmesm ”usewum mswsesese use mswxeeHs umessu .uesEeu »HHewesee Hwaxeee .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH "sees uesEeu suwswesee uswwxeee .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH ”ueee sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH "useHHeexw uesseu »HHewesee Hwaxees .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HweumsH "ueew eseHm eese>em eseHm ueueseue: ”usewsm eseHm .e>ee mxsenueu eese>em mewsem euueHsez eem uses euueHsez sew meseHm useeses mH eu NH .mEeeH »usem euueHse21emme3o mewsem euueHsez eem uses euueHsez sew meseHm useeses NH eu u .mseeH »usem euueHse21emme3o mewsem euueHsez eem uses euueHsez sew meseHm useeses e eu H .mEeeH »usem euueHsez1emmezo meseHm useeses NH eu u .EeeH »usem eeeusmo msewueuwswu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu use Hewuseuee Hwem msewuewsumem use msewueuwsws uws: mswssez Hwem uesswusee 1 .mw eweew 377 useNes suHees mswmeee use sweses mswuewsumes mswueeHw ueueseuez useNes suHees mswmeee use sweses mswuewsumes mswueeHw ueueseuez use~es suHees mswmeee use sweses mswuewsumes mswueeHw "ese>em eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsw .sesesu seue:eu "swew eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum 1sw 1sesesu seue:eu "swew eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsw sesesu seue:eu .sees use uees eue>eexm "sees e>wmessee .mueeHw .mmesuez "ese>em e>wmessee .mueeHw .mmesue: "ese>em e>wmessee .mueeww .seuues ewsem 1se eHeeumse .mmesuez "ese>em EeeH e:euem seep wstxses sees mEHes msewueuwewu msweswuseu mwkzmmwz m) wuquLOU use Hewuseuee Hwem msewuewsumes. use msewueuwswe uwsu mswssez Hwem uesswusee 1 .mw eseew 378 sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH e>ee mxseeueu mewsem eeuez eem uses eeuez sew meseHm useeses u eu o .musem »seeH eeue21mxswsm meseHm useeses 0 cu o “usmem "useHHeexm eese>em .usem »seeH msswsm eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws useNes suHees suw: esws seue: mswmeee use sweses sesw umee HHeum e>wmessee meem mHeesm suw: mswuewsumes mswueeHw 1sw 1sesesu seue:eu .mueeHw .mmesuez erseee e sw »Hse uessez eese>em "sees eese>em mewsem seeHm eseH»sue»Hes suw: esws ses: .sesesesu esws use~es suHees suw: esws seue: mswmeee use sweses sesw umee HHeum e>wmessee mewsem seeHm mswuewsumes mswueeHw 1sw .sesesu seue:eu .mueeHw .mmesuez eem uses seeHm sew "ese>em "sees eese>em mEeeH seeHm1mHeesm msewueuwewu msweswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu msewuewsumem uwsu use Hewuseuee Hwem use msewueuwswe esweeez Hwem uesswusee 1 .ms eueew 379 sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum 1sw .sesesu seue:eu ”usewum “ueee mswsesese use mswxeeHs umessu uesEeu »HHewesee Hwaxeee .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH "sees Huwwsseu esweswum Hwaxeee .eese sesesu sew Hesusee sewmesw ueueseuez uesEeu »HHewesee Hwaseee .sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeumsH "ueew eese sesesu sew Hesusee sewmesw "usewum e>ee mxseeuee .mmesuez nese>em e>ee mxseeuee1eseHm eese>em e>ee mxseuuee .eseHm eese>em meseHm useeses u eu o .EeeH »usem esww eHeemew meseHm useeses mH eu NH .musem »EeeH msswsm1se»em we uses mxswsm mewsem eeuez eem uses eeuez sew meseHm useeses NH eu u .musem »EeeH eeuez1mxswsm meseHm useeses NH eu u .usem »EeeH mxswsm mesemeez e>wueesseu use Hewuseuee Hwem msewueuwewu msweswuseu msewuewsumes use msewueuwews uwsu mswssez Hwem uesswusee 1 .es eweew 380 sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum 1sw 1sesesu seue:eu mmesue: meseHm useeses m eu o ”usewum Hueee ueueseuez .seeu uuwm sewsmesswz sesesesu seue: suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum mmesue: meseHm useeses m eu o 1sw .xees eue>eexw .xeesues eu suses .usewse> seesuee ”usmem "sees eese>em .EeeH »usem wseme: sesesesu esws suw: esws seue: sesw umee HHeum e>ee 1sw .sesesu seue:eu mxseeuee .mmesuez meseHm useeses m eu o ”usmem ”ueee eese>em .EeeH »usem useme: msewueuwewu mswuswuseu mesemeez e>wueesseu msewuewsumes uwsu use Hewuseuee Hwem use msewueuwsws esseeez usem uesswusee 1 .ew eueew BIBLIOGRAPHY 381 BIBLIOGRAPHY Allen, N. 1973. Computer mapping for land use planning: COMLUP United States Forest Service, Washington, D.C. Amidon, E.L. 1966. MlADS2 - an alpha-numeric map information assembly and display system for a large computer. Res. Paper PSW-38. Pacific SW Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Berkeley, California. Amos, D.F. 1973. Soil Surveys: a critical evaluation with emphasis on use in urbanizing areas. Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Amos, D.F., and E.P. Whiteside. 1975. Mapping accuracy of a contem- porary soil survey in an urbanizing area. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39: 937—942. Anderson, J. 1976. Soils information and interpretive procedures. State Planning Agency and Center for Urban and Regional Affairs. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Anonymous. 1978. Land planners to be aided by floppy disc. Cornell Chronicle, Fall 1978, p. 5. Asphalt Institute. 1966. Drainage of asphalt pavement structures. Manual Series 15. Asphalt Institute, College Park, Maryland. Asphalt Institute. 1970. Thickness design - full-depth asphalt pavement structures for highways and streets. Manual Series 1. Asphalt Institute, College Park, Maryland. Bartelli, L.J. 1972. Soil potential for urbanization. Soil Conservation Workshop on Soil.Survey, Fort Worth, Texas. Bartelli, L.J. 1975. Soil Survey interpretations - a look ahead. In Proceedings of National Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey at Orlando, Florida on January 31 - February 4. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Bartelli, L.J., Klingebiel, A., Baird, 0., and Hedleson, M. (eds.). 1966. Soil surveys and land use planning. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin. Bartelli, L.J. and H. Ikawa. 1975. An approach to soil interpretation by use of a soil potential index. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 382 383 Barry - Eaton District Health Department. 1975. Sanitary code. Barry- Eaton District Health Department, Charlotte, Michigan. Bauer, K.W. 1966. Application of soils studies in comprehensive region- al planning. p. 42-59. In L.J. Bartelli (ed.) Soil surveys and land use planning. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wis- consin. Beagle, C.W. 1974. Ten years with full-depth asphalt. p. 175. In Proceedings of 19th annual convention of National Asphalt Pave- ment Association, Riverdale, Maryland. Bie, S.W. and J. Schelling. 1975. Soil information systems in 1975. p. 3-13. In Proceedings of the Meeting of the ISSS Working Group of Soil Information Systems at Wageningen, Netherlands on Septem- ber 1-4. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, Netherlands. Bauma, J. 1974. New concepts in soil survey interpretations for onsite disposal of septic tank effluent. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 28: 941-946. Bouma, J. 1975. Innovative on-site soil disposal and treatment systems for septic tank effluent. p. 152-163. In Proceedings of the National Home Sewage Disposal Symposium, 1975. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan. Building Research Advisory Board, FHA. 1968. Criteria for selection and design of residential slabs - on - ground. PB 261-551 National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia. Butler, K.S., McCown, B.H., and W.A. Gates. 1977. Use of a computer - based resource data system to evaluate on-site waste disposal alternatives. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 32: 214-219. Cain, J.M. 1967. A critical analysis of the use of soil survey information in preparation and implementation of land use plans. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Calkins, H.W. and R.F. Tomlinson. 1977. Geographic information systems, methods, and equipment for land use planning, 1977. U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, Geological Survey. Washington, D.C. Camp, W.J. 1968. Soil Survey of Spartenburg, South Carolina. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Cast Iron Pipe Research Association. 1952. Handbook of cast iron pipe. Cast Iron Pipe Research Association, Chicago, Illinois. Cline, M.G. 1977. Historical highlights in soil genesis, morphology, and classification. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 41: 250-254. 384 Converse, J.C., Carlile, B.L., and G.W. Petersen. 1977. Mound systems for on-site disposal for problem soils. p. 100-121. In Proceed- ings of the Second National Home Sewage Treatment Symposium, 1977. American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Michigan. Cox, T.L. 1977. Integration of land use data and soil survey data. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 33: 1127-1133. Dodge Building Cost Services. 1978. Dodge guide for estimating public works construction costs. Annual Edition 10. McGraw-Hill Com- pany, New York, New York. Dorr, J.A. and D.F. Eschman. 1970. Geology of Michigan. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Eaton County Road Commission. 1968. Subdivision regulations. Eaton County Road Commission, Charlotte, Michigan. Engelsman, C. 1978. Engelsman's general construction cost guide. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, New York. Fabos, J.G. et a1. 1973. Model for landscape assessment: Part I of the metropolitan landscape model (METLAND). University of Massachu- setts Agricultural Experiment Station, Amherst, Massachusetts. Fabos, J.G. and S.J. Caswell. 1977. Composite landscape assessment. Bulletin 637. University of Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, Amherst, Massachusetts. Federal Housing Administration, HUD. 1973. Minimum property standards fOr one and two family dwellings. United States Government Print- ing Office, Washington, D.C. Federal Insurance Administration, HUD. 1977. Elevated residential struc- tures. Federal Insurance Administration, HUD, Washington, D.C. Feenstra, J.E. et al. 1978. Soil survey of Eaton County, Michigan. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Ferris, K.H. and J.G. Fabos. 1974. The utility of computers in landscape planning. Bulletin 617. University of Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, Amherst, Massachusetts. Golledge, R.G., and G. Rushton. 1972. Multidimensional scaling: review and geographical applications. Technical Paper 10. Association of American Geographers, Washington, D.C. Hepner, L.D. 1977. Soil inventory system for land use planning. M.S. thesis. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Hitchcock, H.C., Cox, T.L., Baxter, F.D., and C.W. Smart. 1975. Soil and land cover overlay analyses.‘ Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 41: 1519-1524. 385 Hunter, W.R., Tipps, C.W., and J.R. Coover. 1966. Use of soil maps by city officials for operational planning. p. 31-37. In L.J. Bartelli (ed.) Soil surveys and land use planning. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin. Jansen, I.J. and T.E. Fenton. 1978. Computer processing of soil survey information. J. Soil and Water Conservation 33: 188-190. Jenks, G.F. 1976. Optimal data classification for choropleth maps. Occasional Paper 2. Department of Geography, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Johnson, C.G. 1975. The role of automated cartography in soil survey. p. 48-52. In Processings of the Meeting of the 1555 Working Group of Soil Information Systems at Wageningen, Netherlands on September 1-4. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, Netherlands. Johnson, R.W., Brasfield, J.F., Merrill, F.S., Neiswender, R., and B. Kercher. 1975. Soil potentials and limitations: a supplement to the soil survey, Seminole County, Florida. Soil Conservation Service, Gainesville, Florida. Kellogg, C. 1961. Soil interpretation in the soil survey. Soil Conser- vation Service, Washington, D.C. Kellogg, C. 1966. Soil surveys for community planning. p. 1-7. In L.J. Bartelli (ed.) Soil surveys and land use planning. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin. Kloosterman, B. and L.M. Lavkulich. 1972. A method of statistically in- terpreting soil data for agricultural and engineering land use. Soil. Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 37: 285-291. McCormack, D.E. 1974. Soil potentials: a positive approach to urban planning. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 29: 258-262. McCown, 8., Butler, K. and W. Gates. 1977. A resource data management system-GRASP, and its application to the Lake Superior shorelands. Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin. Machmeier, R.E. 1977. Town and county sewage treatment. Extension Bulletin 3-4. Agricultural Extension Service, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota. Meyers, C.R., Durfee, R.C., and T.C. Tucker. 1974. Computer augmenta- tion of soil survey interpretation for regional planning ap- plications. In Proceedings of the 29th annual meeting. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. 1974. Cleaning up the water: private sewage disposal in Maine. Department of Environ- mental Protection, Augusta, Maine. 386 Michigan Asphalt Paving Association. 1977. Design and construction guide. Michigan Asphalt Paving Association, Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Department of State Highways. 1970. Field manual of soil engineering. Michigan Department of State Highways, Lansing, Michigan. Michigan Department of State Highways. 1978. Report 114, 3rd. quarter 1978. Michigan Department of State Highways, Lansing, Michigan. Miller, R.P. 1978. Soil survey under pressure: the Maryland experience. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 33: 104-111. National Association of Home Builders. 1966. Causes, prevention, and correction of basement water leakage problem. National Assoc- iation of Home Builders, Washington, D.C. National Association of Home Builders Research Foundation. 1977. Manual for the construction of residential basements in non-coastal flood environs. Federal Insurance Administration, HUD. Washington, D.C. New York State Office of Planning Services. 1971. New York State land use and natural resource inventory. New York State Office of Planning Services, Albany, New York. Nichols, J.D. 1975. Characteristics of computerized soil maps. Soil. Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 39: 927-932. Nichols, J.D. and L.J. Bartelli. 1972. Computer-generated interpreta- tive soil maps. p. 20-24. In Proceedings of 27th annual meeting, Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. 1977. Soil mapping by com- puter. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, Chicago, Illinois. Office of Land Use, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1974. Michigan land use classification system. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan. Olson, G.W., Witty, J.E., and R.L. Marshall. 1969. Soils and their use in the five-county area around syracuse. Cornell Miscellaneous Bulletin 80. New York State College of Agriculture, Ithaca, New York. Porter, H.C., et_al;, 1963. Soil survey of Fairfax County, Virginia. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Ragg. J.M. 1977. The recording and organization of soil field data for computer areal mapping. Geoderma 19: 81-89. 387 Remote Sensing Project, Michigan State University. 1976. Interpretive guidelines and technical specifications for the Windsor Township resource management portfolio. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Robinson, A., Sale, R., and J. Morrison. 1978. (Fourth Edition) Elements of cartography. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York. Romanoff, M. 1957. Underground corrosion. National Bureau of Standards Circular 579. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. R.S. Means Company, Inc. 1978. Building construction costs data. R.S. Means Company, Inc. Duxbury, Massachusetts. Simonson, R.W. (ed.) 1974. Non-agricultural applications of soil surveys. Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, New York, New York. Sinton, D. and C. Steinitz. 1971. GRID Manual, Version 3. Laboratory for Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Slusher, D.F., Cockerham, W.L., and 5.0. Mattews. 1974. Mapping and interpretations of histosols and hydraquents for urban deve10p- ment. p. 95-109. In A.R. Aandahl (ed.) Histosols: their characteristics, classification, and use. SSSA Special Pub- lication Series 6. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin. Smith, H.S. 1976. Soil survey of the District of Columbia. U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Smith, W.H. 1968. Soil evaluation in relation to cast iron pipe. J. American Water Works Association 60: 221. Soil Conservation Service, USDA. 1967. Guide for interpreting engineer- ing uses of soils. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Soil Conservation Service, USDA. 1972. Report of the organic soils task force. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Soil Conservation Service, USDA. 1975a. Report of the national com- mittee on organic soils. In Proceedings of National Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey at Orlando, Florida on January 31-February 4. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Soil Conservation Service, USDA. 1975b. Report of committee 2: improving soil survey techniques. In Proceedings of National Work Planning Conference of the National Cooperative Soil Survey at Orlando, Florida on January 31-February 4. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 388 Soil Conservation Service, USDA. 1976. Report of the national task force on the implementation of the soil potential concept. Soil Conser- vation Service, Washington, D.C. Soil Conservation Service, USDA. 1977. Draft guides for preparing soil potential ratings. Advisory soils 13. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Soil Conservation Service, USDA. 1978. National soils handbook. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Soil Survey Staff, USDA. 1951. Soil Survey Manual. Agriculture handbook 18. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Stockman, R.L. 1977. Functional data bank. West Michigan Regional Planning Commission, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Swanson, D.W. 1970. Use of automatic data processing in the soil survey. Soil Survey Technical Note. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Taff, H.A. 1972. Use of soil information in resource planning. p. 15—19. In Proceedings of the 27th annual meeting. Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa. Thompson, J.A. 1977. The national pedon data subsystem: a status report. Paper presented to the American Society of Agronomy Annual Meetings at Los Angeles, California. Tilmann, S.E. 1976. Evaluating limitations to ground water recharge by a multidimensional scaling model. Technical Paper 76-2. Remote Sensing Project, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Tilmann, S.E. 1977. A recommended procedure to computerize soil maps. Remote Sensing Project, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Tilmann, S.E. 1978. Resource analysis program: user's guide to RAP. Re- mote Sensing Project, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Tilmann, S.E. and D.L. Mokma. 1976. Engineering properties of soil manage- ment groups. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Rep 313. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Tilmann, S.E., et_al;_ 1977. Report of the natural resource information system developed for the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Remote Sensing Project, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Tilmann, S.E., Enslin, W.R., and R. Hill-Rowley. 1977. A computer software system for integration and analysis of grid-based remote sensing data with other natural resource data. Remote Sensing Project, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 389 Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. 1967. Background for planning. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Lansing, Michigan. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. 1976. 208 Water Management plan: interim outputs. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Lansing, Michigan. Untermann, R.K. 1978. Principles and practices of grading, drainage and road alignment. Reston Publishing Company, Inc., Reston, Virginia. Urban Land Institute. 1978. Residential erosion and sediment control. Urban Land Institute, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1895. Yearbook of Agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Public Health Service. 1958. Manual of septic tank practice. Public Health Service Publication 526. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Wagner, E.F. 1964. Loose plastic film wrap as cast iron pipe protection. American Water Works Association 56: 361. Wheeler, F.F., gt_al;_ 1976. Soil survey of Harris County, Texas. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Whitney, M. 1900. Field operation of the Division of Soils 1899. U.S. Department of Agriculture Report 64. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Whitney, M. and T. Means. 1898. Alkali soil of the Yellowstone Valley. USDA Bureau Soils Bulletin 14. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Witz, R.L.. §£_gl; 1974. Waste disposal systems for rural homes. Circular AE-43. North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota. Wooding, N.H. 1975. Alternate methods of effluent disposal for on-lot home sewage systems. Special Circular 214. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania. Yahner, J. 1977. Using soil surveys in the third century. In Proceedings of the 32nd annual meeting, Soil Conservation Society of America, Ankeny, Iowa.