• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Soil qualities and properties
 Evaluation of soil qualities and...
 Suitability of Florida soils for...
 Summary






Group Title: Department of Soils mimeograph report
Title: Evaluation of Florida soils for residential, industrial, recreational, and agricultural uses
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00091536/00001
 Material Information
Title: Evaluation of Florida soils for residential, industrial, recreational, and agricultural uses
Alternate Title: Department of Soils mimeograph report 67-1 ; University of Florida
Physical Description: 63 leaves : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Leighty, Ralph George, 1912-
Carlisle, V.W ( Victor Walter ), 1922-
Smith, F. B ( Frederick Burean )
University of Florida -- Dept. of Soils
University of Florida -- Agricultural Experiment Station
Publisher: Dept. of Soils, Agricultural Experiment Stations, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: July 1967
 Subjects
Subject: Soil surveys -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Soils -- Evaluation -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: by R.G. Lehighty, V.W. Carlisle, and F.B. Smith.
General Note: "July, 1967."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00091536
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 46836266

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Title Page
    Table of Contents
        Table of Contents
    Introduction
        Page 1
    Soil qualities and properties
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
    Evaluation of soil qualities and properties for specified use
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
    Suitability of Florida soils for alternative uses
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
    Summary
        Page 63
Full Text












DEPARTMENT OF SOILS
MIMEOGRAPH REPORT SL 67-1
JULY 1967










EVALUATION OF FLORIDA SOILS FOR
RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL,
RECREATIONAL, AND AGRICULTURAL USES

by

R. G, Leighty, V. W. Carlisle,
and F. B. Smith


Department of Soils
Agricultural Experiment Stations
University of Florida
Gainesville


11/67
200 copies







CONTENTS


Introduction.......................... ............................. 1

Soil Qualities and Properties........... .... ...................... 2

Table 1. Relationship Between Selected Soil Qualities and
Wetness Classes..................... .............. 4
Table 2. Relationships Between Soil Permeability Classes,
Hydraulic Conductivity, and Percolation Rates....... 5
Table 3. Depth to Bedrock Classes............................ 6
Table 4. Relationships Between Unified Soil Texture Classes
and Shrink-Swell Potential.......................... 7
Table 5. Presumptive Bearing Values in Pounds Per Square
Foot When Compacted for Soil Texture Classes........ 9
Table 6. Relationships Between Soil Classes and California
Soil-Bearing Values................................. 10
Table 7. Relationship Between Selected Soil Characteristics
and Corrosion Potential Classes................... 12
Table 8. Relationship Between Selected Soil Characteristics
and Water Impoundment Reservoir Embankments......... 14
Table 9. Relation of Selected Soil Characteristics to
Natural Productivity..... .... ...... ..... .. ....... ... 15
Table 10. Relationship Between Selected Soil Characteristics
and Trafficability Classes. (Foot and Vehicles).... 16
Table 11. Relation of Slope Gradient to Topography Classes.... 17
Table 12. Relationship Between Selected Soil Characteristics
and "Susceptibility to Erosion" Classes............ 18
Table 13. Relationship Between Capability Classes and
Agricultural Suitability Classes.................... 19

Evaluation of Soil Qualities and Properties for Specified Use...... 20

Residential ..................... ............................. 21
Table 14. Soil Series Evaluation for Residential (Estate)
Use. ................. ... ..... ............... 23
Recreational ... ...... ........ ............................ .. 31
Table 15. Soil Series Evaluation for Recreational Uses.... 33
Industrial and Transportational ............................... 41
Table 16. Soil Series Evaluation for industrial and Trans-
portation Uses.................... ........ ... 43
Agricultural........................... ....................... 51
Table 17. Soil Series Evaluation for Agricultural Uses.... 52

Suitability of Florida Soils for Alternative Uses................. 57
Table 18. Suitability of Soils for Alternative Uses....... 58

Summary ......... ............ ............... ................ .... 63







EVALUATION OF FLORIDA SOILS FOR RESIDENTIAL,
INDUSTRIAL, RECREATIONAL, AND AGRICULTURAL USES

INTRODUCTION


The avowed purpose of soil surveys is to furnish a scientific basis

for suggesting alternative uses for soil areas delineated on maps and to

obtain information necessary for predicting soil behavior. Soil surveys

contain maps that are made to accurately record the physical characteris-

tics of an area by presenting a natural classification of soils based on

their inherent qualities. Because of their sound scientific basis they

have become increasingly useful and precise. A knowledge of the soil is

essential for orderly land development.

Historically, soil surveys have been related to their agricultural

use. Only in recent years have people become aware that, in addition to

their use for agricultural purposes, soil surveys are the most detailed

and accurate soil inventory available for planning urban development.

They contain detailed descriptions of each kind of soil, its geology, and

associated vegetation. The accompanying soil maps show the locations of

the various kinds of soils and the predominant slopes where they occur.

About 75 different kinds of soil areas are shown on most county soil maps

in Florida; however, in some counties the distribution of soils is far

more complex and soil areas in excess of 150 various kinds are shown.

Our expanding population and increased urbanization are placing

greater demands on the land and water resources of our state, In recent

years, urban uses have been rapidly replacing agricultural uses for soils

in many parts of Florida. Since soil surveys provide an orderly classifi-

cation of soils based on both field and laboratory investigations, they

provide valuable information needed for land use planning. The nature and








properties of the soil at a given place determine its suitability for

residential, industrial, transportational, and recreational use. Soils

are the most important physical considerations in sound land use planning;

therefore, many future problems may be avoided if they are used as a guide

for planning rural and urban development.

This publication shows how soil qualities and properties may be used

to rate the soils of Florida for alternative uses.


SOIL QUALITIES AND PROPERTIES

The different soil qualities or properties can be evaluated as to

their behavior under various non-agricultural and industrial treatments.

The importance of any particular soil property may vary from one use to

another use. Some of the important properties, characteristics, or quali-

ties of soils that should be considered for various soil uses are as follows:

Wetness Susceptibility to erosion
Permeability or percolation Natural productivity
Depth to bedrock Water impoundment
Shrink Swell potential Trafficability
Bearing value Topography

For a large number of Florida soils, particularly those that occur

inextensively, only partial laboratory analyses are presently available.

Qualities and properties for these soils have been projected from available

data for soils with similar characteristics.

A rating of "A" has very slight limitations and only minor corrective

measures are needed for the soil to be used for the suggested use. A

rating of "8" has slight limitations, "C" has moderate limitations, "D" has

severe limitation, and "E" has very severe limitations. The ratings of

"B" through "E" denote increasing amounts of corrective measures needed

for the stated specific use. When a rating for a soil property is not





3.


given for a specific use, that soil property is considered not too impor-

tant for that use.

The properties and classes used in this publication have been estab-

lished by committees of soil scientists representing the U. S. Department

of Agriculture and State Experiment Stations at various Regional and Na-

tional Technical Work-Planning Conferences of the Cooperative Soil Survey.

Each of the listed soil properties is classified Into three to six classes

which are evaluated for the different non-agricultural and agricultural uses

in Tables I to 13.












Table 1. Relationship Between Selected Soil Qualities and Wetness Classes


Use Ratings
Soil Qualities Classes Agriculture Residental industrial and Recreation
Estate Transportation

Moderately well- and well-drained soils; water table
below 3 feet A A A
Somewhat poorly drained soils; water table fluctuates
from 6 to 36 inches below the surface C C A
Somewhat poorly and moderately well-drained soils in
depressions and convex slopes, subject ot ponding
or flooding for very short periods; also poorly
drained permeable soils that are now adequately
drained -C C B
Poorly drained soils; water table fluctuates from above
the surface to 36 inches below the surface E D C
All soils inundated for more than 2 weeks per year E D C
Water table above the surface most of the time E D C





Table 2. Relationships Between Soil


Permeability Classes, Hydraulic Conuctivi and Percolation Rates
Permeability Classes- Hydraulic Conductivity- and Percolation Rates- .


Use Ratings
Soil Qualities Agriculture Residential industrial and Recreation
Estate Transportation
Permeab lity __ Percolation
Hydraulic
Conductivity Rate
Class (In./Hr.) (Min./In.)

Very rapid, rapid
moderately rapid More than 2 Less than 30 A -
Moderate 1 2 30 60 A -
Moderately slow
to moderate 0.6 1 60 90 C -
Moderately slow Less than 0.6 More than 90 E -

YIU. S. Department of Agriculture. 1951. Soil Survey Manual, Agricultural Handbook No. 18, pages 167 168.
/Hydraulic Conductivity: Definition: "That quality of a saturated soil that enables it to transmit water."
For each major horizon, estimate the hydraulic conductivity In inches per hour. Use ranges given for per-
meability on page 168 of the Soil Survey Manual. The basis of the estimates should be stated. Often Uhland
Core data are obtainable for use and thereby can become the basis of estimates which are made.

3/Percolation Rate: Definition: "The downward movement of water In the soil." For the soil as a whole, esti-
mate the percolation rate in minutes per inch. This is in accord with terms used by sanitary engineers who
are concerned with septic tank function. Most often it will be well to use ranges as follows:


More than 90 minutes per inch -
60 90 minutes per inch
30 60 minutes per inch
10 30 minutes per inch
Less than 10 minutes per inch -
The basis of estimates should be in accord with data ob
or as outlined in the Manual of Septic Tank Practices.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, page 93,
estimates).


Usually not suited.
Questionable; maximum design required.
Suitable for drainage field system only.
Suitable for seepage pits.

stained by the percolation test procedures used locally
1963. Public Health Service Publication No. 526, U. S.
(Data needs to be collected and evaluated prior to














Table 3. Depth to Bedrock Classes


-Use Ratings
Soil Qualities- Agriculture Residential Industrial and Recreation
Estate Transportation
Depth Ranges Classes
(Feet)

More than 60" A A -
40 60 C C
20 40" 0 C -
Less than 20" E D -
Bedrock at the surface E D -











Table 4. Relationships Between Unified Soil Texture Classes and Shrink-Swell Potential I/


Use Ratings
Soil Qualities Agriculture Residential industrial and Recreation
Estate Transportation
Shrink-Swell
Unified Classes Potential
Classes

GW, GP, SW, SP Almost none A A

GM, SM, GC, SC, ML. Slight A A

CL, OL, MH, and that part of CH
with nonexpanding lattice clays Medium B B
predominating and liquid limit

OH and that part of CH with expanding
lattice clays predominating and High D D
liquid limit more than 60

PT Very High E E


I/ Shrink-Swell Potential: Definition: The percent volume
content is increased. Shrink-swell potential values are
most structures,


change which ove -dry soil goes through as the moisture
used to rate soil behavior when used as foundation for













Table 4. Cont.


2/ Portland Cement Association, 33 West Grand Ave., Chicago, Ill.
1962. P, C. A. Soil primer, p. 26, Table 4.


Group Symbols
GW

GP

GM
GC
SW

SP

SM
SC
ML


CL


OL
MH

CH
OH


Typical Names
Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little
or no fines.
Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures,
little or no fines.
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-wilt mixtures.
Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures.
Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little
or no fines.
Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little
or no fines.
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures.
Inorganic silts and very fine sands, silty
or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with
slight plasticity.
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,
gravelly clay, sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
Organic silts and silty clays of low plasticity.
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine
sandyor silty soils, elastic silts.
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
Organic clays of medium to high plasticity,
organic silts.
Peat and other highly organic soils.









Table 5. Presumptive Bearing Values-/ in Pounds Per Square Foot When Compacted for Soil Texture Classes.


Use Ratings
Agriculture Residential Industrial and Recreation
Soil Qualities Estate Transportation
2/
Texture Classes Bearing Value Classes-2


Sandy clay loam, clay loam 12-14,000 Ib./sq. ft. A
Fine sandy loam, loam, coarse
sand 9-12,000 lb./sq, ft. A -
Sand, fine sand, loamy sand,
loamy fine sand, sandy loam,
silty clay loam, sandy clay
loam 6-9,000 lb./sq. ft. B -
Silt loam, silt, silty clay 3-6,000 lb./sq. ft. -
Clay, peats, and mucks Less than 3,000 lb./sq. ft E
.. . ...... ... ,n tl L- ~~

SHough, 8. E. 1957. Basic Soils Enineering, Ronald Press Co., N. Y., pages 296-297, Definition: The calculated
maximum allowable loaTFor a "eci.teTTS? atrial when compacted. Presumptive bearing vaTues are used to determine
soil stability for building foundations in building codes. These rates are applicable where the ground water is below
the footing grade.

2'Where drainage hazard has not been overcome, reduce values 25%; for somewhat poorly drained soils and for poorly
drained soils, 50%.










Table 6. Relationships Between Soil Classes and California Soil-Bearing Valuesl/


Use Ratings
Soil Qualities Agriculture Residential Industrial and Recreation
Estate Transportation
Unified California Bearing
Classification2/ Bearing Ratio Classes


GW More than 60 Very low -- A

GM, GC, SW, GP
SM 25-60 Low A

SM, SC, SP 10-25 Low -

ML, CL 5-10 Medium C -

MH, CH, OH Less than 5 High D

PT Not suited E -

1/ Portland Cement Association, 33 West Grand Ave., Chicago, Ill. 1962. P. C. A. Soil Primer, p. 36,
figure 9. Definition: California bearing ratio is the ratio of resistance to penetration developed
by a subgrade soil to that developed by a specimen of standard crushed rock base material. These
values are used to determine soil for subgrade material in highway construction.











Table 6. Cont.

2/ Portland Cement Association, 33 West Grand Ave., Chicago, Ill. 1962
P. C. A. Soil Primer, p. 26, Table 4.
Group Symbols Typical Names

GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures,
little or no fines.
GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures,
little or no fines.
GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand silt mixtures.
GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures.
SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little
or no fines.
SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or
no fines.
SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.
SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures.
ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, silty or
clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight
plasticity.
CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,
gravelly clay, sandy clays, silty clays,
lean clays.
OL Organic silts and silty clays of low plasticity.
MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous
fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.
CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity,
organic silts.
PT Peat and other highly organic soils.





Table 7. Relationship Between Selected Soil Characteristics and Corrosion Potential I/ Classes
Use Ratings
Soil Qualities Agriculture Residential Industrial and Recreation
Soil Qualities Estates Transportation
Corrosion
Soil Conditions Potential
Classes


Well-drained sands and loamy sands Very low
with no textural 8 horizon; low total noncorrosivee)
acidity (below 4.0 me./O00 gr. soil);
redox above 400 mv2/
Well-drained soils with sandy loam and Low
loam B horizons; somewhat poorly drained (slightly corrosive)
sands with no textural B horizons; low
total acidity 4.1 to 8.0 me./100 gr. soil
(pH 4.5 to 6.0); redox potential 200 to
400 mv.
Poorly drained sands with no textural Moderate
B horizons; somewhat poorly drained
soils with loam and sandy loam B
horizons; well- and moderately well-
drained soils with clay loam or silty
clay loam 3 horizons; total acidity
8.1 to 12.0 me./l00 gr. soil (pH 4.5 to
6.0); redox potential 100 to 200 my.
Moderately well- and somewhat poorly High
drained soils with silty clay and (severe)
clay 8 horizons. Poorly drained soils
with clay loam to and including clay B
horizons; total acidity 12 to 16
me./l00 gr. soil (pH 4.5 to 6.0);
redox potential below 100 my.


--








Table 7 (Cont'd)
.. .. Use Ratings
Soil Oualities Agriculture Residential Industrial and Recreation
Estate Transportation
Corrosion
Potential
Soil Conditions Classes


Muck, peat, and all somewhat Very high D E
poorly and poorly drained soils
that are calcareous and those
that are very acid; total acidity
more than 16 me./100 gr. soil
(pH more than 7.0 or less than 4.5)


(Evaluate each major horizon according to this classification. Where more than one kind of metal is used in close
proximity, the corrosion rate is much higher, pH relationships are not highly correlated because strongly acid soils
with a low buffering capacity are less corrosive than a slightly acid soil with a high buffering capacity.)

I/ Corrosion Potential: The degree of metal pipe corrosion that the soil can cause on underground metal conduits.
2/ U. S. Dept. of Commerce. 1957. Underground Corrosion, Circ. 579, National Bureau of Standards, p. 154.









Table 8. Relationship Between Selected Soil Characteristics and Water Impoundment Reservoir Embankments If 4/

Use Ratings
Soil Qualities Agriculture Residential Industrial and Recreation
Estate 4/ Transportation

Soil Characteristics Classes

Low organic sandy loam, loam, sandy clay
loam, and clay loam -
Loamy sands, silt loam, silty clay loam,
silty clay anc high organic 2/ sandy loam,
loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam and
silty clay loam C C
Muck 3/, peat, sands, and gravel E E


Definition: The suitability of the soil materials for use in
less than 6 feet to impound surface water.


y/ For septic tanks use this table and permeability table of pages 4 and 5.


1/ Water Impoundment Reservoir Embankments:
constructing low berms or embankments of
2/ Five to 15% organic matter.
3/ More than 15% organic matter,








Table 9. Relation of Selected Soil Characteristics to Natural Productivity.
... ..Use Ratings
Soil Characteristics and Qualities Agriculture Residential Industrial and Recreation
Estate Transportation


Loamy soils 1/ with effective root depth of more than
2 feet and having base saturation of more than 35% A A

Loamy soils with effective root depth from to I to 21
feet, loamy soils with effective root depth of more
than 21 feet with Lase saturation less than 35%, and
organic soils A A
Loamy sands, fine sands, and clayey soils / C C

Coarse sands high in quartz and soils shallower
than 1 foot to bedrock D D
I- -II lll .. ,l


18, p. 213.


1/ U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. 1951. Soil Survey Manual, Agricultural handbook No.








Table 10. Relationship Between Selected Soil Characteristics and Trafficability Classes. (Foot and Vehicles)

Use Ratings
Soil Qualities Agriculture Residential Industrial and Recreation
Estate Transportation

Soil Characteristics Classes


Well-drained and moderately well-drained
loamy soils A

Well-drained and moderately well-drained
sandy and clayey soils A

Somewhat poorly drained loamy soils, rocky or
stony soils somewhat poorly or better in drainage
(class 3 stoniness or class 3 rockiness), and
artificially drained poorly and very poorly
drained loamy soils C

Poorly drained soils and artificially drained
very poorly drained clayey soils C

Organic soils, undrained very poorly drained
soils, and soils with slopes above 25% E
S -,. .













Table 11. Relation of Slope Gradient to Topography Classes.

Use Ratings
Soil Qualities Agriculture Residential Industrial and Recreation
SloFe Ranges Classes
Percent
0 to 2 C A B

2 to 5 A A B

5 to 12 A A A

12 to 25 C C A

25, plus E D C







Table 12, Relationship Between Selected Soil Characteristics and "Susceptibility to Erosion" 1/ Classes

Use Ratings
Soil Qualities Agriculture Residential Industrial and Recreation
Estate Transporation
Soil Characteristics Classes

Soils with less than 2% slopes A -

Sandy soils 2/ with 2 to 8% slopes and
loamy soils with 2 to 5% slopes A -

Sandy soils with more than 8% slopes, loamy
soils with 5 to 8% slopes, and clayey soils
with 2 to 5% slopes. B -

Loamy soils with more than 8% slopes, and
clayey soils with 5 to 8% slopes B -

Clayey soils with rore than 8% slopes E -


1/ Susceptibility to Erosion: Definition: The degree of susceptibility to erosion which the natural soil acquires
when protective vegetation is removed.

2/ The general textural classes, "sandy soils", "loamy soils", and clayeyy soils", are indicative in general of the
predominant texture between the 6 and 40 inch depths. Texture reflects permeability; the finer the texture the
slower the permeability.









Relationship Between Capability Classes and Agricultural Suitability Classes


Use Ratings
Soil Qualities Agriculture Residential Industrial and Recreation
Estate Transportation
Capability iClasses

Class I Very small limitation ) A -
Class II Some limitation ) -

Class 11I Severe limitation B -

Class IV Very severe limitation C -

Class V Very severe limitation but no )
part due to slope ) C -

Class VI Very severe limitation with sufficient )
slope to contribute to it; not suited )
to cultivation ) 0

Class VII Very severe limitation with sufficient )
slcpe to contribute to it; not feasible)
to improve for pasture or to cultivate )

Class VIII E -


Table 13.








EVALUATION OF SOIL QUALITIES AND PROPERTIES FOR SPECIFIED USE

The proposed use for a soil must be considered before its limitations

or suitabilities can be properly evaluated. Limitations for a particular

soil are determined by its inherent qualities and properties. Using avail-

able data, the soils of Florida have been evaluated for residential, indus-

trial, transportational, recreational, and agricultural uses.

In evaluating a soil for a specific use, only the soil characteristics

or properties considered to be important for that use are rated. Soils

rated "A" in certain properties need no or only minor corrective measures

to use the soil for the stated purpose. Soils whose ratings are considered

'"" through "E" need increasing amounts of corrective measures for the use

specified,

Nearly all of the variations of a soil within a delineated area will

perform as stated for the soil in the tables. However, near the border of

a soil area, the soils may be slightly different and will not behave under

treatments as the soil named. On-site investigations are necessary for

specific engineering information.

Soils are generally examined to a depth of 60 inches. Soil materials

occurring at greater depths may be entirely different than indicated in the

tables. The evaluation and statements about the various characteristics are

given for a soil series as defined prior to January 1, 1965. Since that

date, the definition of a particular soil series may be somewhat different.

The evaluation of the different soils are given for the predominant

slopes associated with the individual series as they occur in Florida.

Residences have better aesthetic value when located on 2 to 12% slopes than









on areas having 0 to 2% slopes; therefore, assuming other properties are

not limiting, a soil occurring on slopes within this gradient range is

considered most desirable. Slopes greater than 12% would have moderate

limitations for residential use.

The evaluation or ratings of a soil series for various soil properties

for specific non-agricultural and agricultural uses are given in Tables 14,

15, 16, and 17.

Residential

Of all criteria considered in evaluating Florida soils for residential

use, wetness and/or flooding is the most common limiting soil characteristic.

Where individual septic tanks are used, the water table must be deep

enough to permit proper functioning of the filter fields. Wet soils and

soils with a seasonal water table at shallow depths are suitable for septic

tank systems only after adequate drainage is provided. Construction in

areas subject to overflow may be severely damaged or periodically slightly

damaged to the extent that continued home ownership in these areas is

no longer economically feasible. Residential landscalpng:is affected

by wetness and may be easily damaged by flooding.

Severe limitations of permeability, topography, depth to bedrock,

shrink-swell potential, and bearing values, locally of equal importance

as wetness are associated with soils which do not occur extensively

throughout Florida. Slow soil permeability would not affect the development

of residential areas with community-type sewage disposal systems but

would be a limiting factor for estate type residences that are dependent on

septic tanks for sewage disposal. The cost of overcoming such limitations









as excessive slopes, bedrock at shallow depths, high shrink-swell potential,

and low bearing values may be too great for residential construction to

be considered.

The natural productivity, susceptibility to erosion, and corrosion

potential problems associated with soils considered for residential use

are usually overcome wi`h a minimum degree of treatment. The soils of

Florida are evaluated by soil qualities and properties for residential

use employing septic tanks for sewage disposal in Table 14.







TABLE 14. Soil Series Evaluation for Residential (Estate) Use

SoTl- etness Permeability Bedrock Shrink- Presumptive Reservoir Corrosion Productivity Topography
Series Class & Percolation Class Swell Bearing- Embankment Potential Class Class 1/
Class Potential Value Class Class Class
.. .- Class

Adamsville A A C A B E A C C
Americus A A A A B E A C A,C
Amite A C A B A A A A,C A,C
Angle A E A B B A D A,C A,C
Archer A E C B B C B A,C A,C
Arredondo A A A A B E A C A,C
Artell. E A A A B E B C C
Barth C A A A B E A C A,C
Bayboro E E A D E C D A C
Bibb E2 C A B A A D A C
Binnsville A E E B E C E A A,C
Bladen E E A D E C D A,C C
Blakely A A A B B A A A,C A,C
Blanton A A A A B E A C A,C
Blichton C C A D A A D A,C A,C
Boswell A E A D E C D A A,C
Bowie A E A B A A A A,C A,C







TABLE 14. Cont'd.

Soil Wetness Permeability Bedrock Shrink- Presumptive Reservoir Corrosion Productivity Topography
& Percolation Class Swell Bearing- Embankment Potential Class lass-/
Series Class Class Potential Value Class Class Class
Class

Brighton E A A E E E E A C
Broward C A D A B E E C C
Bushnell C E D B E C D A,C A,C
Byars E E A D E C D A C
Cahaba A C A B A A A A,C A,C
Carnegie A E A B B A B A,C A,C
Charlotte E A C A B E B C C
Chastain E E A B B C D A C
Chattahoochee A C A B A A A A,C A,C
Chewacla C2- C A B A A B A,C C
Chiefland A A C A B E A C A,C
Cocoa A A D A B E A C A,C
Congaree A- C A B A A A A,C C
Copeland E C D B A A B A,C C
Coxville E E A B B C B A,C C
Cuthbert A E A B B A D A,C A,C
Dade C A D A B E E C C
Delray E C C A B E B C C







TABLE 14. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Permeability Bedrock Shrink- Presumptive Reservoir Corrosion Productivity Topography
Series Class & Percolation Class Swell Bearing- Embankment Potential Class Class]/
Class Potential Value Class Class Class
Class


Dunbar C E A D B A D A A,C
Duplin A E A B B A D A A,C
Esto C E A B E A D A,C A,C
Eulonla A E A B B A D A,C A,C
Eustis A A A A B E A C A,C
Everglades E A C E E E E A C
Faceville A E A B B A B A A,C
Fairhope C E A B B A D A,C A,C
Felda E C C B A A C A,C C
Fellowship C E A D B C D A,C A,C
Fellsmere E A C B A A C A,C C
Flamingo E E A D B C E A C
Flint A E A D B C D A,C A,C
Fort Meade A A A A B E A C A,C
Gainesville A A A A B E A C A,C
Gandy E A A E E C E A C
Gilead A E A B B A B A,C A,C
Goldsboro A C A B A A B A,C A,C
t\>







TABLE 14. Cont'd.


-S-'-ol -- etness Permeabili ty Bedrock Shrink- Presumptive Reservoir Corrosion Productivity Topography
Series Class & Percolation Class Swell Bearing- Embankment Potential Class Class 1/
Class Potential Value Class Class Class
Class

Grady E E A D B C D A C
Greenville A E A B B A B A A,C
Hague A C A B A A B A,C A,C
Hannahatchee C 2/E A B A A B A,C A,C
Henderson A E D D E C D A,C A,C
Hernando A E C B 8 A B A,C A,C
Hialeah E A D E E E E C C
Hoffman A E A B B A D A,C A,C
Huckabee A A A A B E A C A,C
Hyde E E A D B C E A C
Immokalee C A A A B E B C C
Independence A A A A B E A C A,C
Irvington A E A B A A B A A,C
Istokpoga E A A E E E E A C
luka A2/ C A A A A B A C
Izagora A E A B B A D A,C A,C
Johnston E/ C A A B A E A C
Jonesville A A C A B E A C A,C






TABLE 14. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Permeability Bedrock Shrink- Presumptive Reservoir Corrosion Productivity Topography
Series Class & Percolation Class Swell Bearing- Embankment Potential Class Class 1/
Class Potential Value Class Class Class
Class

Kalmia A C A B A A A A,C A,C
Kanapaha A A A A .B E A C A,C
Keri C A C A B E E C C
Kershaw A A A A B E A D A,C
Klej A A A A B E A C A,C
Lakeland A A A A B E A C A,C
Lakewood A A A A B E A D A,C
Leaf E E A D E C O C C
Lenoir C E A D E C D A A,C
Leon C CIA A A B E 8 C C
Loxahatchee E A A E E E E A C
Luverne A C A B B C B A,C A,C
Lynchburg C C A B A A B A,C A,C
Magnolia A E A B B A B A A,C
Manatee E E C B A A D A,C C
Mantachie C 2 C A B A A B A,C C
Marlboro A E A B B A B A A,C
Matmon A C D B B C D A,C C
Meggett E E A D E C D A,C C
Myatt E E A B B A D A,C C
Negrett A C E B B E D D A,C






TABLE 14. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Permeabllity Bedrock Shrink- Presumptive Reservoir Corrosion Productivity Topography
Series Class & Percolation Class Swell Bearing- Embankment Potential Class Class If
Class Potential Value Class Class Class
ClMss


Norfolk
Ochlockonee
Ochopee
Okeechobee
Okeelanta
Okeene
Oktibbeha
Ona
Orangeburg
Orlando
Oviedo
Palm Beach
Pamlico
Panasoffkee
Parkwood
Perrine
Pheba
Plumner
Pocomoke
Pomello


A
2A/
A-
E
E
E
E
A
C
A
A
El/
A
E
C
C
E
C
E
E
C


B
8
A
E
E
B
D
A
B
A
D
A
E
B
A
C
B
A
8
A


A,C
A
C
A
A
A,C
A,C
C
A,C
C
A,C
C
A
A,C
C
A
A,C
C
A,C
C


A,C
C
C
C
C
C
A,C
C
A,C
A,C
C
A,C
C
A,C
C
C
A,C
C
C
A,C







TABLE 14. Cont'd. for Residential (Estate) Use


SSolI- Wetness Permeability Bedrock Shrink- Presumptive Reservoir Corrosion Productivity Topography
Series Class & Percolation Class Swell Bearing- Embankment Potential Class Class
Class Potential Value Class Class Class
Class

Pompano E A C A B E E C C
Portsmouth E C A B A A D A,C C
Rains E C A B A A D A,C C
Red Bay A C A B A A A A,C A,C
Rex A E A B A A B A,C A,C
Robertsdale C E A B A A B A,C C
Rockdale A C E B B E D D A,C
Ruston A C A B A A A A,C A,C
Rutlege E A A A B E B C C
Savannah C E A B A A A A,C A,C
Sawyer A E A B E C D A,C A,C
Scranton C A A A B E A C C
Shubuta A E A B B A B A,C A,C
St. Johns C A A A B E B C C
St. Lucle A A A A B E A D A,C
Stough C C A B B A B A,C C
Sunniland C C C B A A E C C
Sunsweet A E A B B A 0 A A,C
Susquehanna C E A D E C D C A,C
Suwannee C A A A B E A C C
Terra Ceia E A A E E E E A C 0






TABLE 14. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Permeability Bedrock Shrink- Presumptive Reservoir Corrosion Productivity Topography
Series Class & Percolation Class Swell Bearing- Embankment Potential Class Class 1/
Class Potential Value Class Class
Class Class


Thompson E- E A A B A D A,C C
Tifton A E A B 8 A 8 A,C A,C
Tombigbee A- A A A B C A C C
Vaucluse A E A B B A D A,C A,C
Wabasso C C A B A A E C C
Wahee C E A D B C D A,C A,C
Waugh A C A B B C D A A,C
Wehadkee E2 C A B B A D A,C C
Weston E E A O B C D A,C C
Williston A E C B B A B A,C A,C
Zuber A C A B A A B A,C A,C

I- II . 1 . l I I II i l I I I .I I mI I I II I I III i i l o li I Ill


Rating of specific site depends on
Subject to periodic flooding.


slope gradient.








Recreational
Evaluation of soils for recreational use is somewhat more complicated

than for most other purposes because of the variety of activities that

recreation embraces. Developed recreational areas include golf courses,

picnic areas, playgrounds, and campsites. Undeveloped areas are used

for hiking, hunting, and natural sanctuaries.

Soils used for developed recreation are primarily affected by wet-

ness or flooding. Periodic excessive wetness restricts the use of these

soils and flooding frequently deposits undesirable materials which may

have to be removed before the site Is again useable for developed rec-

reation. Areas used for hiking, hunting, and nature study are not

restricted by flooding and wetness to the same extent as developed

recreational facilities. Wet areas provide refuge for wildlife and

are suited for game reserves and hunting.

Undulating areas are usually very attractive for recreational use.

Areas with little change of relief are somewhat less attractive, parti-

cularly for developed recreation. Excessive slope may limit the use of a

soil for recreation; however, this does not occur frequently in Florida.

Trafficability, which refers to the ease of passage over an area by

foot or light vehicle, may affect the suitability of a soil for recreational

purposes. The better drained soils are usually more favorable than poorer

drained soils. This quality is only significant In determining the limita-

tions of soils for recreational use.

Naturally productive soils are ideal for growing a wide variety of

plants which may be used for landscaping developed recreational areas.

These soils produce an abundant supply of food and cover for wildlife.





32.

For recreational purposes the problems associated with susceptibility

to erosion, shrink-swell potentials, bearing values, depth to bedrock, and

corrosion potential of soils occur only locally and are considered as minor

restrictions. The soils of Florida are evaluated by soil qualities and

properties for recreational use in Table 15.





Soil Series Evaluation For Recreation Uses


Soil Wetness Productivity Reservoir Trafficability Topography
Series Class Class Embankment Class Class 1/
Class


Adamsville A C E C B
Americus A C E C B,A
Amite A A,C A A B
Angle A A,C A A A,B
Archer A A,C C A,C B
Arredondo A C E C B,A
Arzell C C E C B
Barth A C E C B
Bayboro C A C C B
Bibb C2 A A C B
Binnsville A A C C B,A
Bladen C A,C C C B
Blakely A A,C A A B
Blanton A C E C B,A
Blichton A A,C A C,A A,B
Boswell A A C A A,B
Bowie A A,C A A,C A,B
Brighton C A E E B
Broward A C E C B
Bushnell A A,C C A,C B
Byars C A C C B


Table 15.




Table 15. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Productivity Reservoir Trafficability Topography
Series Class Class Embankment Class Class 1/
Class


Cahaba A A,C A A,C B
Carnegie A A,C A A A,B
Charlotte C C E C B
Chastain C A C C B
Chattahoochee A A,C A A,C B
Chewacla B2- A,C A A B
Chiefland A C E C B
Cocoa A C E C B
Congaree B- A,C A A B
Copeland C A,C A C B
Coxville C A,C C C B
Cuthbert A A,C A A A,B
Dade A C E C B
Delray C C E C B
Dunbar A A A A B
Duplin A A A A B
Esto A A,C A A A,B
Eulonia A A,C A A,C B
Eustis A C E C A,B
Everglades C A E E B
Fac;eville A A A A B,A







Table 15. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Productivity Reservoir Trafficability Topography
Series Class Class Embankment Class Class 1/
Class

Fairhope A A,C A A,C B
Felda C A,C A C B
Fellowship A A,C C C A,B
Fellsmere C A,C A C B
Flamingo C A C C B
Flint A A,C C A B
Fort Meade A C E C B,A
Gainesville A C E C B,A
Gandy C A C E B
Gilead A A,C A A,C B,A
Golsboro A A,C A A,C B
Grady C A C C B
Greenville A A A A B,A
Hague A A,C A A,C B,A
Hannahatchee B A,C A A,C B
Henderson A A,C C A,C B,A
Hernando A A,C A A,C B
Hialeah C C E E B
Hoffman A A,C A A,C B,A
Huckabee A C E C B





Table 15. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Productivity Reservoir Trafficability Topography
Series Class Class Embankment Class Class 1/
Class

Hyde C A C C B
Immokalee A C E C B
Independence A C E C B
Irvington A A A A,C B
Istokpoga C A E E B
luka B-' A A A B
Izagora A A,C A A,C B
Johnston C- A A A B
Jonesville A C E C 8
Kalmia A A,C A A,C B
Kanapaha A C E C B,A
Keri A C E C B
Kershaw A D E C B,A
Klej A C E C B
Lakeland A C E C B,A
Lakewood A 0 E C B,A
Leaf C C C C B
Lenoir A A C A B,A
Leon A C E C B
Loxahatchee C A E E B
Luverne A A,C A A,C B,A





TABLE 15. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Productivity Reservoir Trafficability Topography
Series Class Class Embank-ment Class Class 1/
Class


Lynchburg A A,C A A,C B
Magnolia A A A A B,A
Manatee C A,C A A,C B
Mantachie B A,C A A,C B
Marlboro A A A A B
Matmon A A,C C A,C B
Meggett C A,C C C B
Myatt C A,C A C B
Negrett A D E A B
Norfolk A A,C A A,C B,A
2/
Ochlockonee A-' A A A B
Ochopee C C E C B
Okeechobee C A E E B
Okeelanta C A E E 8
Okeene C A,C A C B
Oktibbeha A A,C A A,C B,A
Ona A C E C B
Orangeburg A A,C A A,C B,A
Orlando A C E C B,A
Oviedo C A,C C C B
*






Table 15. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Productivity Reservoir Trafficability Topography
Series Class Class Embankment Class Class 1/
Class


Palm Beach A C E C B,A
Pamlico C A E E B
Panasoffkee A A,C C A,C B
Parkwood C C E C B
Perrine C A C C B
Pheba A A,C A A,C B
Plummer C C E C B
Pocomoke C A,C A C B
Pomello A C E C B
Pompano C C E C B
Portsmouth C A,C A C B
Rains C P,C A C B

Red Bay A A,C A A,C B,A
Rex A A,C A A,C 3,A
Robertsdale A A,C A A,C B
Rockdale A D E A,C B
Ruston A A,C A A,C B,A
Rutlege C C E C B
Savannah A A,C A A,C 3,A
Sawyer A A,C C A,C B,A





Table 15. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Productivity Reservoir Trafficability Topography
Series Class Class Embankment Class Classl/
Class


Scranton A C E C B
Shubuta. A A,C A A,C B,A
St. Johns A C E C B
St. Lucie A D E C B,A
Stough A A,C A A,C B
Sunniland A C A C B
Sunsweet A A A A B,A
Susquehanna A C C A B,A
Suwannee A C E C B
Terra Ceia C A E E B
Thompson C A,C A C B
Tifton A A,C A A,C B,A
Tombigbee A C C C B
Vaucluse A A,C A A,C B,A
Wabasso A C A C B
Wahee A A,C C A B
Waugh A A C A B
Wehadkee C A,C A A,C B
Weston C A,C C A,C B

U?







Table 15. Concluded.


Soil Wetness Productivity Reservoir Trafficability Topography
Series Class Class Embankment Class Classl/
Class


Williston A A,C A A,C B,A

Zuber A A,C A A,C B,A


Rating of specific site depends on slope gradient.
Subject to periodic flooding.








IndustrJal and Tra!nortational

The evaluation of Florida soils for industrial and transportational

uses is primarily affected by wetness or flooding and bearing value. Excess

water must be controlled In areas that are subject to periodic flooding and

excessively wet areas must be drained to prevent damage to foundations and

construction. Bearing values reflect the ability of a soil to sustain

static or mobile loads and are of primary consideration in determining the

proper design of foundations. Excessive organic matter content adversely

affects this soil property.

Topography, depth to bedrock, and shrink-swell potential are qualities

that may restrict the use of some soils for transportation and industry.

Fortunately, these soil qualities are not detrimental over extensive areas

in the state. Unfavorable topography may usually be overcome with additional

construction expenses. Soils with bedrock close to the surface are seriously

limited for construction purposes as the cost of laying cables, storm sewers,

and utility pipelines may be greatly increased in these areas. Volume

changes with changes of moisture in soils containing large amounts of ex-

panding clays create stresses which are frequently responsible for roads

buckling and walls cracking in buildings. In some instances soil materials

with extremely low bearing values or extremely high shrink-swell potentials

must be removed and replaced by better suited materials before proceeding

with construction.

Usually the problems associated with permeability, natural productivity,

susceptibility to erosion, and corrosion potential may be overcome with a

minimum degree of treatment for industrial and transportational uses. Some

of these are severe problems of local importance,








In some instances, facilities must be constructed on a given location

without regard to the soils involved. Interpretation of the soils and kind

of limitations present provides a key to the foundation designs needed to

overcome these limitations. Although soil maps serve as a useful tool for

urban planning, it is imperative that on-site investigations be made before

reaching a decision to proceed with construction. The soils of Florida are

evaluated by soil qualities and properties for industrial and transporta-

tional uses in Table 16.





TABLE 16. Soil Series Evaluation For Industrial and Transportation Uses


Soil Wetness Bedrock Shrink- California Corrosion Topography
Series Class Class Swell Soil-Bearing Potential Class I/
Potential Value Class Class
Class


Adamsville A C A B A A
Americus A A A B A A,C
Amite A A B B A A,C
Angle A A B C D A,C
Archer A C 82 D B A,C
Arredondo A A A B A A,C
Arzell D A A B B A
Barth C A A B A A,C
Bayboro 0 A 0 D D A
Bibb D3/ A C D A
Binnsville A 0 B2/ D E A,C
Bladen D A D 0 D A
Blakely A A B B A A,C
Blanton A A A B A A,C
Blichton C A D C D A,C
Boswell A A D 0 D A,C
Bowie A A B C A A,C
Brighton D A E E E A
Broward C C A B E A
Bushnell C C B2 D D A,C





TABLE 16. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Bedrock Shrink- California Corrosion Topography
Series Class Class Swell Soil-Bearing Potential Class 1/
Potential Value Class Class
Class

Byars D A D D D A
Cahaba A A B B A A,C
Carnegie A A B B B A,C
Charlotte D C A B E A
Chastain D A B/ D D A
Chattahoochee A A B B A A,C
Chewacla C3/ A B B B A
Chiefland A C A 8 A A,C
Cocoa A C A B A A,C
Congaree A/ A B B A A
Copeland D C B C E A
Coxville D A D D D A
2/
Cuthbert A A B2 C D A,C
Date C C A B E A
Delray D C A B E A
Dunbar C A D C D A,C
Duplin A A B C D A,C
Esto C A B2/ 0 A,C
Eulonia C A B2/ C D A,C
Eustis A A A B A A,C






TABLE 16. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Bedrock Shrink- California Corrosion Topography
Series Class Class Swell Soil-Bearing Potential Class 1/
Potential Value Class Class
Class


Everglades D C E E E A
Faceville A A B B B :,C
Fairhope C A B2- C D A,C
Felda D C B B E A
Fellowship C A D 0 D A,C
Fellsmere 0 C B B E A
Flamingo D A D D E A
Flint A A D D D A,C
Fort Meade A A A B A A,C
Gainesville A A A B A A,C
Gandy D A E E E A
2/
Gilead A A B- C B A,C
Goldsboro A A B B B A,C
Grady D A D D D A
Greenville A A B B B A,C
Hague A A B C B A,C
Hannahatchee C- A B B B A,C
Henderson A C D C D A,C
Hernando A C B-. C B A,C
Hialeah D C E E E A






TABLE 16. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Bedrock Shrink- California Corrosion Topography
Series Class Class Swell Soil-Bearing Potential Classl/
Potential Value Class Class
Class


Hoffman A A B2 C D A,C
Huckabee A A A B A A,C
Hyde D A D D E A
Immokalee C A A B B A
Independence A A A B A A,C
Irvington A A B B B A,C
Istokpoga D A E E E A
luka A-/ A A B B A
Izagora A A B C D A,C
Johnston D=/ A A B E A
Jonesville A C A B A A,C
Kalmia A A B B A A,C
Kanepaha A A A B A A,C
Keri C C A B E A
Kershaw A A A B A A,C
Klej A A A B A A,C
Lakeland A A A B A A,C
Lakewood A A A B A A,C
Leaf D A D 0 D A
Lenoir C A D C D A,C




TABLE 16. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Bedrock Shrink- California Corrosion Topography
Series Class Class Swell Soil-Bearing Potential Class I/
Potential Value Class Class
Class


Leon C A A 8 B A
Loxahatchee E A E E E A
Luverne A A 8 B B A,C
Lynchburg C A B B B A,C
Magnolia A A B B B A,C
Manatee D C B B E A
Mantachie CY/ A B B B A
Marlboro A A B B B A,C
2/
Matmon C C B- C D A
Meggett D A D D E A
Myatt D A B C D A
Negrett A 0 B C D A,C
Norfolk A A B B A A,C
3/
Ochlockonee A- A B B A A
Ochopee D C A B E A
Okeechobee D C E E E A
Okeelanta D C E E E A
Okeene D A B B D A
Oktibbeha A A D C D A,C
Ona C A A B A A
Orangeburg A A B B A A,C





TABLE 16. Cont'd


Soil Wetness Bedrock Shrink- California Corrosion Topography
Series Class Class Swell Soil-Bearing Potential Class 1/
Potential Value Class Class
Class


Orlando A A A B A A,C
Oviedo D/ A D D 0 A
Palm Beach A A A B A A,C
Pamlico D A E E E A
2/
Panasoffkee C C B- D D A,C
Parkwood O C A B E A
2/
Perrine D C &- C E A
Pheba C A B C B A,C
Plummer D A A B B A
Pocomoke D A B B D A
Pomello A A A B A A,C
Pompano D C A B E A
Portsmouth D A B B D A
Rains D A B B D A
Red Bay A A B B A A,C
Rex C A B C B A,C
Robertsdale C A B B B A
Rockdale A D B B B A,C
Ruston A A B B A A,C
Rutlege D A A B B A





TABLE 16. Cont'd.


Soil Wetness Bedrock Shrink- California Corrosion Topography
Series Class Class Swell Soil-Bearing Potential Class I/
Potential Value Class Class
Class


Savannah C A B B A A,C
2/
Sawyer A A B2 D D A,C
Scranton C A A B A A
2/
Shubuta A A B- C B A,C
St, Johns D A A B B A
St. Lucie A A A B A A,C
Stough C A B C B A
Sunniland C C B B E A
2/
Sunsweet C A B- D D A,C
Susquehanna C A 0 D A A,C
Suwannee C A A B D A
Terra Ceia D A E E E A
3/
Thompson D- A A C D A
Tifton A A B B B A,C
Tombigbee A A A B A A
Vaucluse A A B2/ C D A,C
Wabasso C A B B E A
Wahee A A D 0 D A,C
Waugh A A 82 C D A,C
Wehadkee 3/- A 8 B D A





TABLE 16. Concluded.


Soil Wetness Bedrock Shrink- California Corrosion Topography
Series Class Class Swell Soil-Bearing Potential Class l/
Potential Value Class Class
Class


Weston D A D D D A
Williston A C 8i/ C 8 A,C
Zuber A A B C B A,C


1/ Rating of specific site depends on slope gradient.
2/ A predominance of expanding lattice clays occurring locally may result in less desirable
rating.
3/ Subject to periodic flooding.







Agricultural

The primary soil characteristics and qualities considered for agri-

cultural evaluation are those associated with the production of crops. Soils

with a high natural productivity or those capable of responding to a minimum

amount of management practice have the potential to produce high yields of

many different kinds of crops.

Excessive wetness, flooding, or droughtiness may restrict the use of

soils for agricultural purposes. Removal of excess water from naturally

productive soils is usually accomplished by using a few simple practices.

Flooding or droughtiness are detrimental to plant growth and hence associated

with soils of low natural productivity. Soils occurring on steep slopes are

less favorable for crop production and more susceptible to erosion; there-

fore, the most favorable agricultural soils occur on nearly level or very

gentle slopes. Erosion is not a serious hazard on most Florida soils and

protective cover is easily maintained.

Soils favorable to sustained agricultural production are deep to bedrock.

Shallow soils are restricted in use or must have special management practices.

Bedrock or layers of soil containing a large amount of clay may restrict the

ability of a soil to transmit water. Soils with a very slow permeability are

not well suited for crop production.

Shrink-swell potential, corrosion potential, bearing values, and water

impoundment usually are not restricting problems in naturally productive

soils. The soils of Florida are evaluated by soil qualities and properties

for agricultural use in Table 17.








Table 17. Soil Series Evaluation for Agricultural Uses

Soil Natural Agricultural
Series Productivity Suitability
Class Class 1/

Adamsville C C
Americus C B
Amite A, A
Angle A,C B
Archer A,C A
Arredondo C B
Arzell C D
Barth C C
Bayboro A,C B
Bibb All D
Binnsville C C
Bladen A,C B
Blakely A,C A
Blanton C B
Blichton A,C B
Boswell C C
Bowie AC A
Brighton A B
Broward C C
Bushnell A,C B
Byars A B
Cahaba A,C A
Carnegie A,C A
Charlotte C C
Chastain A C
Chattahoochee A,C A
Chewacla AC/ C
Chiefland C B
Cocoa C C
Congaree A,C2 C
Copeland A,C B








Table 17. Cont'd.

Soil Natural Agricultural
Series Productivity Suitability
Class Class J/

Coxvllle A,C B
Cuthbert A,C C
Dade C C
Delray C B
Dunbar A B
Duplin A A
Esto A,C C
Eulonla A,C A
Eustis C B
Everglades A B
Faceville A A
Fairhope A,C A
Felda A,C B
Fellowship A,C B
Fellsmere A,C B
Flamingo A B
Flint A,C A
Fort Meade C B
Gainesville C B
Gandy A C
Gilead A,C B
Goldsboro A,C A
Grady A C
Greenville A A
Hague A,C A
Hannahatchee A,C'/ A
Henderson A,C B
Hernando A,C A
Hialeah C B
Hoffman A,C B
Huckabee C B








Table 17. Cont'd.

Soil Natural Agricultural
Series Productivity Suitability
Class Class ./

Hyde A B
Immokalee C C
Independence C B
Irvington A A
istokpoga A C
luka A/ C
Izagora A,C A
Johnston Al' D
Jonesville C B
Kalmia A,C A
Kanapaha C B
Keri C C
Kershaw D B
Klej C B
Lakeland C B
Lakewood D D
Leaf C C
Lenoir A,C B
Leon C C
Loxahatchee A D
Luverne A,C A
Lynchburg A,C B
Magnolia A A
Manatee A,C B
Mantachie A,C-/ C
Marlboro A A
Matmon A,C B
Meggett A,C B
Myatt A,C C
Negrett D C
Norfolk A,C A








Table 17. Cont'd.,

Soil Natural Agricultural
Series Productivity Suitability
Class Class 1/
.. I I ll

Ochlockonee A-/ C
Ochopee C B
Okeechobee A B
Okeelanta A B
Okeene A,C B
Oktibbeha AC B
Ona C A
Orangeburg A,C A
Orlando C B
Oviedo A C B
Palm Beach C C
Pamlico A B
Panasoffkee A,C B
Parkwood C B
Perrine A B
Pheba A,C C
Plummer C C
Pocomoke A,C B
Pomello C C
Pompano C C
Portsmouth A,C B
Rains A,C C
Red Bay A,C A
Rex A,C A
Robertsdale A,C B
Rockdale D C
Ruston A,C A
Rutlege C B
Savannah A,C A
Sawyer A,C B
Scranton C A








Table 17. Concluded.

Soil Natural Agricultural
Series Productivity Suitability
Class Class 1/


Shubuta
St. Johns
St. Lucle
Stough
Sunniland
Sunsweet
Susquehanna
Suwannee
Terra Ceia
Thompson
Tifton
Tombigbee
Vaucluse
Wabasso
Wahee
Waugh
Wehadkee
Weston
Williston
Zuber


A,C
C
D
A,C
A
A
C
C
A
A,C/
A,C
C2/
A,C
C
A,C
A
A,C
A,C
A,C
A,C


1/ Ratings are nearly level slopes. Soils having more than
5 percent gradients may be in a lower suitability class.
Sandy soils which have a finer textured horizon beginning
between 30 and 42-inch depths are generally a higher
suitability class than stated.

2/ Clayey materials occur at varying depths in soils with A,C
ratings. When these materials occur below a depth of 12
inches, the soil is rated A; however, the same series is
rated C when clayey materials occur within 12 Inches of the
surface.


j/ Subject to periodic flooding.









SUITABILITY OF FLORIDA SOILS
FOR ALTERNATIVE USES


The overall suitabilities of Florida soils for residential, industrial,

recreational, and agricultural uses are summarized in Table 18. The ratings

are listed as Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor, and Very Poor, for the soils

without modification of natural conditions such as wetness, slope, or

natural productivity, which may affect their suitability for a particular

use. For example, soils of the Bladen series are Very Poor for residential

use because of wetness and slow permeability, but Good for agricultural use

because of relative fineness of texture in the subsoil and good moisture

holding capacity. With fertilization and limited water management, these

soils are fairly productive. Table 18 shows ratings for individual soil

series occurring in Florida.








Table 18. Suitability of Soils for Alternative Uses

Residential Industrial and
Soil Series Estate Transportation Recreation Agriculture


Adamsville
Americus
Amite
Angie
Archer
Arredondo
Arzell
Barth
Bayboro
Bibb
Binnsville
Bladen
Blakely
Blanton
Blichton
Boswell
Bowle
Brighton
Broward
Bushnell
Byars
Cahaba
Carnegie
Charlotte
Chastain
Chattahoochee
Chewacla
Chiefland
Cocoa
Congaree
Copeland
Coxville


Good
Very Good
Very Good
Fair
Fair
Very Good
Very Poor
Fair
Very Poor
Very Poor-
Fair
Very Poor
Very Good
Very Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Very Poor
Poor
Poor
Very Poor
Very Good
Good
Very Poor
Very Poor
Very Good
Poor
Good
Good
Good/
Very Poor
Very Poor


Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor/
Poor
Poor
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Fair
Very Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Good
Fail/
Fair
Fair
Good/
Poor
Poor


Fair
Fair
Good
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poorl
Fair
Poor
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Very Good
Very Poor
Fair
Good
Poor
Good
Very Good
Poor
Poor
Good
Good1/
Fair
Fair
Good-
Poor
Poor


Fair
Fair
Very Good
Good
Very Good
Fair
Poor
Fair
Good
Poor/
Fair
Good
Very Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Very Good
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Fair
Fair
Very Good
Fairl/
Fair
Fair
Fair/
Good
Good








Table 18, Cont'd.

Residential Industrial and
Soil Series Estate Transportation Recreation Agriculture
.. -:T : . L , Z .L L f l.J itJ Jl


Cuthbert
Dade
Delray
Dunbar
Duplin
Esto
Eulonia
Eustis
Everglades
Faceville
Fairhope
Felda
Fellowship
Fellsmere
Flamingo
Flint
Fort Meade
Gainesville
Gandy
Gilead
Goldsboro
Grady
Greenville
Hague
Hannahatchee
Henderson
Hernando
Hialeah
Hoffman
Huckabee
Hyde
Immokalee


Good
Fair
Very Poor
Poor
Good
Poor
Good
Very Good
Very Poor
Good
Poor
Very Poor
Poor
Very Poor
Very Poor
Fair
Very Good
Very Good
Very Poor
Good
Very Good
Very Poor
Good
Very Good
Poor/
Fair
Fair
Very Poor
Good
Very Good
Very Poor
Fair


Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Poor
Good
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Good
Good
Very Poor
Fair
Good
Poor
Good
Fair
Fair-l
Poor
Fair
Very Poor
Fair
Good
Poor
Fair


Very Good
Fair
Poor
Good
Good
Very Good
Good
Fair
Very Poor
Very Good
Good
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Good
Fair
Fair
Very Poor
Very Good
Good
Poor
Very Good
Very Good
Good-V
Good
Good
Very Poor
Very Good
Fair
Poor
Fair


Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Very Good
Fair
Very Good
Fair
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Very Good
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Very Good
Fair
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good-
Good
Very Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair








Table 18. Cont'd.


Residential Industrial and
Soil Series Estate Transportation Recreation Agriculture


Independence
Irvington
Istokpoga
luka
Izagora
Johnston
Jonesville
Kalmia
Kanapaha
Keri
Kershaw
Klej
Lakeland
Lakewood
Leaf
Lenoir
Leon
Loxahatchee
Luverne
Lynchburg
Magnolia
Manatee
Mantachie
Marlboro
Matmon
Meggett
Myatt
Negrett
Norfolk
Ochlockonee
Ochopee
Okeechobee


Very Good
Good
Very Poor
GoodI/
Good

Very Poort/
Good


Very Good
Very Goodr



Fair
Good
Very Good
Very Good
Fair


Good
Very Poor
Very Good
Good
Very Poor
Poor
Fair
Very Poor
Very Good
Fair
Good
Very Poor
Poor/
Good
Fair
Very Poor
Very Poor
Fair
Very Good
Good-/
Very Poor
Very Poor


Good
Good
Very Poor
Good/
Fair
Poor1/
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Fair
Very Poor
Good
Fair
Good
Poor
Fair
Good
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Good
Good4
Poor
Very Poor


Fair
Good
Very Poor
Good'/
Good
Poor1
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Poor
Good
Fair
Very Poor
Very Good
Good
Very Good
Poor
Good1/
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Good
Very Good
Good-/
Poor
Very Poor


Fair
Very Good
Fair
Fair/
Very Good
Pool/
Fair
Very Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Fair
Very Poor
Fair
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Good
Good
Very Good
Good
Fair/
Very Good
Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Good
Fair-
Fair
Good








Table 18. Cont'd.


Residential Industrial and
Soil Series Estate Transportation Recreation Agriculture


Okeelanta
Okeene
Oktibbeha
Ona
Orangeburg
Orlando
Oviedo
Palm Beach
Pamlico
Panasoffkee
Parkwood
Perrine
Pheba
Plummer
Pocomoke
Pomello
Pompano
Portsmouth
Rains
Red Bay
Rex
Robertsdale
Rockdale
Ruston
Rutlege
Savannah
Sawyer
Scranton
Shubuta
St. Johns
St. Lucle
Stough


Very Poor
Very Poor
Fair
Fair
Very Good
Very Good
Very Poor/
Very Good
Very Poor
Poor
Poor
Very Poor
Fair
Very Poor
Very Poor
Fair
Very Poor
Very Poor
Very Poor
Very Good
Good
Poor
Fair
Very Good
Very Poor
Fair
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Fair


Very Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Good
Good
Poorly/
Good
Very Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Good
Fair
Fair
Poor
Good
Poor
Fair
Poor
Fair
Fair
Poor
Good
Fair


Very Poor
Poor
Very Good
Fair
Very Good
Fair
Poorly
Fair
Very Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
Fair
Poor
Poor
Poor
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Fair
Very Good
Poor
Very Good
Good
Fair
Very Good
Fair
Poor
Good


Good
Good
Good
Good
Very Good
Fair
Good/
Fair
Good
Good
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Very Good
Very Good
Good
Poor
Very Good
Fair
Very Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Very Poor
Fair








Table 18. Concluded.

Residential industrial and
Soil Series Estate Transportation Recreation Agriculture


Sunniland
Sunsweet
Susquehanna
Suwannee
Terra Cela
Thompson
Tifton
Tombigbee
Vaucluse
Wabasso
Wahee
Waugh
Wehadkee
Weston
Williston
Zuber


Fair
Good
Poor
Fair
Very Poor
Very Poor-/
Good
Good-/
Good

Fair
Poor
Very Good
Very Poor/
Very Poor
Fair
Very Good


Fair
Poor
Poor
Fair
Very Poor
Poor!/
Good
Good-
Fair
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor-
Poor
Fair
Fair


Fair
Very Good
Good
Fair
Very Poor
Poor-1
Very Good
Fairly/
Very Good
Fair
Good
Good
Poor1/
Poor
Very Good
Very Good


Good
Fair
Fair
Good
Good
Poorr-
Very Good
Fair/
Good
Fair
Fair
Very Good
Poorl
Good
Very Good
Very Good


j/ Subject to periodic flooding.


- c








SUMMARY


Soil surveys are the most detailed and accurate inventory available

for planning urban development. Since soil surveys give detailed descrip-

tions of soils based on field and laboratory investigations, they provide

valuable information needed for land use planning. Soil surveys are put

to their best use in the urban fringe when engineers, architects, planners,

and soil scientists work cooperatively with local county officials in order

to design a unified plan of urban development.




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs