Soil series profile
Gilman soil series
Gilman is a well drained soil with a loam surface, mapped on 458,718 acres in 9 counties across 2 states. Hydrologic group B.
- Drainage class
- Well drained 92% of mapped acres
- Hydrologic group
- B 70% of mapped acres
- Typical topsoil pH
- 8.2 moderately alkaline · range 8.0–8.2
- Mapped area
- 459k acres in 9 counties, 2 states
Typical Gilman profile
Texture and pH by depth
Show as a table
| Depth | Texture | pH | Clay | Sand | Organic matter |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–18 in (Ap) | Loam | 8.2 | 24% | 39% | 0.25% |
| 18–37 in (C1) | Loam | 8.2 | 13% | 46% | 0.25% |
| 37–64 in (C2) | Very fine sandy loam | 8.2 | 13% | 64% | 0.25% |

What this means
What Gilman soil means for gardens, lawns and septic systems
For gardens
Typical topsoil in Gilman soils is moderately alkaline: pH 8.2 (most land between 8.0 and 8.2). Acid-loving plants such as blueberries and azaleas struggle without amended beds, and some trees and shrubs show iron chlorosis (yellow leaves with green veins).
Loamy topsoil (loam, silt loam and similar) covers 86% of mapped Gilman acres: generally the easiest soil to garden, holding moisture without staying waterlogged. The most common surface texture is loam (52% of mapped Gilman acres).
99% of mapped Gilman acres is moderately well to excessively drained, which suits most garden plants.
For lawns and yards
Most land is in hydrologic groups B and C, where rain soaks in at a moderate pace.
For a septic system
For conventional septic absorption fields, NRCS rates 29% of the acres in mapped Gilman soils very limited, 69% somewhat limited and 1% not limited (1% not rated, such as urban land, pits or water).
Flooding is mapped on 38% of the acres (27% occasional, 0% frequent).
Only a licensed site evaluation or perc test at the actual lot decides whether a system is allowed and which design.
Where Gilman soil is found
Mapped acres
Gilman is mapped in Arizona and California.
| County | Acres | Share of county land |
|---|---|---|
| Maricopa County, AZ | 264,899 | 4.3% |
| Riverside County, CA | 56,569 | 1.9% |
| La Paz County, AZ | 37,287 | 1.3% |
| Pinal County, AZ | 36,339 | 1.1% |
| Pima County, AZ | 28,471 | 0.6% |
| Yuma County, AZ | 14,177 | 0.6% |
| San Diego County, CA | 5,231 | 0.2% |
| San Bernardino County, CA | 599 | 0.0% |
| Imperial County, CA | 29 | 0.0% |
Septic absorption fields
NRCS rating, share of Gilman acres
Show as a table
| Category | Share of acres |
|---|---|
| Not limited | 1.3% |
| Somewhat limited | 68.5% |
| Very limited | 29.2% |
| Not rated | 1.0% |
Drainage, water table and flooding
Share of Gilman acres
- Depth to seasonal high water table
- About 3.9 feet (47 in) (median where reported).
- Flooding
- Mapped as flooding on 38% of acres (27% occasional, 0% frequent).
- Slope
- Typically 0–2% (median 1%).
- Topsoil organic matter
- Median 0.2%.
Drainage class
Show as a table
| Category | Share of acres |
|---|---|
| Excessively drained | 2.1% |
| Somewhat excessively drained | 0.0% |
| Well drained | 92.3% |
| Moderately well drained | 4.6% |
| Somewhat poorly drained | 0.0% |
| Poorly drained | 0.0% |
| Very poorly drained | 0.0% |
| Not rated | 1.0% |
Hydrologic soil group
Show as a table
| Category | Share of acres |
|---|---|
| A: fast infiltration (mostly sandy or gravelly) | 17.5% |
| B: moderate infiltration | 69.8% |
| C: slow infiltration | 11.7% |
| D: very slow infiltration (clayey, shallow or wet) | 0.0% |
| A/D: D as is, A if drained | 0.0% |
| B/D: D as is, B if drained | 0.0% |
| C/D: D as is, C if drained | 0.0% |
| Not rated | 1.0% |
Sources & data dates
- Source
- USDA NRCS Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO), queried through Soil Data Access. Public domain.
- Data date
- SSURGO as published on November 3, 2026 (most recent survey area update October 26, 2026). NRCS refreshes SSURGO each October.
- Scope
- All map unit components named Gilman (component kind "Series") in SSURGO: 458,718 acres.
- Method
- Shares are by mapped acres of Gilman components. The profile comes from the single largest Gilman component. Full methodology.