Document text
| Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Land Capability Classification
System for Forest Ecosystems
in the Oil Sands, 3" Edition
Volume 1: Field Manual for
Land Capability Determination
Prepared for
Alberta Environment
| By the Cumulative Environmental Management Association
Alberta
Environment
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
2007-03630
Land Capability Classification System - ne eee ee a = __ Vol. 1: Field Manual
Land Capability Classification
System for Forest Ecosystems
in the Oil Sands, 3" Edition
Volume 1: Field Manual for
Land Capability Determination
Land Capability Classification System = Vol 1: Field Manual
Pub. No. 7/875
ISBN: 0-7785-464/-/ (Print version)
ISBN: 0-7785-4642-X (Online version)
Website: www.gov.ab.ca/env/
Disclaimer: Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an
endorsement or recommendation for use.
Any comments, questions or suggestions on the content of this document may be directed to:
Regional Services, Northern Region
Alberta Environment
#111 Twin Atria Building
4999 — 98 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
T6B 2X3
Fax: (780) 427-7824
Additional print copies of this document are available from:
Information Centre
Alberta Environment
Main Floor, Oxbridge Place
9820-106 Street
Edmonton, Alberta TSK 2J6
Ph: (780) 427-2700
Fax: (780) 422-4086
Outside of Edmonton dial 310-0000 for toll-free connection
Email: [email protected]
Copyright in this publication, regardless of format, belongs to Her Majesty the Queen in right of
the Province of Alberta. Reproduction of this publication, in whole or in part, regardless of
purpose, requires the prior written permission of Alberta Environment.
© Her Majesty the Queen in right of the Province of Alberta, 2006.
,
| Land Capability Classification System __ Se ee __ Vol. 1: Field Manual
& Contents
f Glossary i
Purpose of manual and statement of limitations |
4 1.0 Manual approach 01
1.1 Assumptions and boundaries 01
t 2.0 Land Capability Classification System 02
2.1 Land Capability Classification System Principal Horizons 03
t 2.1.1 Natural mineral soils 03
2.1.2 Natural organic soils 04
i 2.1.3 Reclaimed soils 04
2.2 Land capability classes 05
3 2.3 Land capability subclasses 06
2.3.1 Subclass notation 07
5 2.3.1.1 General notation 07
Sates Detailed notation 08
4 3.0 Soil inventory requirements 09
3.1 Sampling design 09
5 3.2 Sampling intensity 12
3.2.1 Survey intensity level 12
i 3.2.2 Inspection and sampling densities 13
3.2.3 Baseline (pre-disturbance) evaluation ; 13
} 3.2.4 Reclamation (post-disturbance) evaluation 14
3.3 Sampling methods 17
i 3.4 Analytical requirements 18
3.5 Landscape and soil features 20
id Dae Site description 20
Sad Soil profile description 20
i 3.5.2.1 Horizon designations 21
3.5.2.2 Horizon depth and thickness 21
| S.Duted Water permeability 21
4.0 Land capability rating 22
e
i
Land Capability Classification System : eee _ sl. 1: Field Manual
4.1 Land Capability Rating Determination Overview 23
4.2 Soil Moisture Regime (SMR) Index: Subclass W or X 25
4.2.1 SMR Index Determination Where Water Table >100 cm 25
4.2.1.1 Profile AWHC 25
4.2.1.1.1 Organic modifier — Subclass O 27
4.2.1.1.1.1 Surface organic 28
4.2.1.1.1.2 Buried organic 28
4.2.1.1.2 Stoniness modifier — Subclass P 29
4.2.1.1.3 Impermeable layer modifier — Subclass Z 29
4.2.1.2 Layering modifiers 30
4.2.1.2.1 Impermeable subsoil 31
4.2.1.2.2 Coarse over fine material stratification 32
4.2.1.2.3 Fine over coarse material stratification 32
4.2.1.3 Landscape Modifier 34
4.2.1.4 Adjusted AWHC (water table >100 cm) 35
4.2.2 SMR Index Determination Where Water Table <100 cm 35
4.2.2.1 Natural Soils 35
4.2.2.2 Reclaimed Soils 36
4.3 Soil Nutrient Regime (SNR) Index: Subclass F 39 j
4.3.1 Total Organic Carbon and Total Nitrogen 39
4.3.2 C:N Ratio 39
4.3.3 Nutrient Retention Factor 40
4.3.4 SNR Cumulative Rating 40
4.4 Limiting Factor Deductions 42
4.4.1 Soil Structure: Subclass D 42
4.4.2 Soil Reaction (pH): Subclass V 47
4.4.3 Soil Salinity (EC): Subclass N 48
4.4.4 Soil Sodicity (SAR): Subclass Y 49
5.0 Mapping Applications 51
6.0 References 52
Land Capability Classification System
> W NN
Tables
General subclass approach examples
Acceptable sampling designs for pre- and post-disturbance assessments
Criteria for identifying survey intensity levels’
Guidelines for conducting soil surveys relative to
development and reclamation
Required soil analyses by principal horizon for land capability
determination for pre- and post-disturbance soils
Available water holding capacity multipliers (mm cm’') by texture
for natural and reclaimed soils
Summary of boundary conditions for the application of
layering modifiers!
Landscape adjustments according to aspect and slope position
for slopes =10 %
Guide to determining soil moisture regime
Carbon, nitrogen, C:N, and nutrient retention assigned ratings
and SNR indices
Structure type, kind, class, size (CanSIS, 1983) and corresponding
deductions for topsoil and subsoil
Wet, moist, and dry consistence from CanSIS (1983) and
corresponding deductions for topsoil and subsoil
Topsoil and subsoil reaction deductions for soil pH (measured in H2O)
Linear functions for calculation of percent deductions for SAR
Mapping conventions regarding polygon size
Mapping conventions to indicate purity of soil polygons
We. Piaks Manuel
26
33
35
37
4]
45
46
47
50
51
51
1] Calculating total nitrogen (Mg ha™') for a 0.20 m-thick topsoil horizon
with a bulk density of 1.0 Mg m” and a total nitrogen content of 0.20% 39
12 Calculating C:N ratio for the topsoil plus L,F and H horizons of a soil
Land Capability Classification System _ - at FO Marl i
Figures i
l Schematic diagram of principal horizons applied to idealized natural i
and reclaimed soil profiles 05
2 Schematic diagram of land capability rating process 24 ®
3 Slope positions and corresponding deductions 34
4 Soil salinity deductions 48 1
5 Soil sodicity deductions 49
§
Examples
l Profile AWHC for a natural mineral soil profile with no limitations 27 {
2 Profile AWHC for a reclaimed profile with surface organic material 28
3 Profile AWHC for a reclaimed profile with buried organic material 29 4
4 Profile AWHC for a reclaimed mineral profile with coarse fragments 29
5 Profile AWHC for mineral profile with an impermeable layer 30 a
6 Where impermeable layer occurs within the profile, any underlying
material does not contribute to the AWHC 30 i
7 Profile AWHC for a natural mineral soil with a shallow bedrock 31
8 Profile AWHC for a natural mineral soil with coarse over fine i
material stratification in the subsoil 32
9 Profile AWHC for a reclaimed mineral soil with fine over coarse e
material stratification in the subsoil 33
10 Calculating TOC (Mg ha”) for a 0.20 m-thick topsoil horizon with a 7
bulk density of 1.0 Mg m® and a TOC content of 4.0%. 39 i
3
with TOC of 52.6 Mg ha” and total nitrogen of 3.4 Mg ha’ 39
13 Nutrient retention ratings for TS and US horizons of a natural soil 40 i
14 Structure and consistence deductions for a natural soil 44
15 Soil reaction (pH measured in H2O) deductions for a reclaimed soil 48 }
I
i
Land Capability Classification System
16
17
B
D
Soil salinity (EC) deductions for a reclaimed soil
Soil sodicity (SAR) deductions for a reclaimed soil
Equations
Land Capability Classification Systems general equation
Adjusted AWHC
Soil salinity deductions for EC of 2 to 8 dS m”
Appendices
Soft-spots list
Suggested reclaimed horizon designations
Site and soil description form
Land capability worksheet
Example site and soil description and land capability worksheet
Vol. 1 Field Manual
49
50
03
48
oe » Wine - ‘ ¢ * A io g ag s »é " - &
Ken a a * is i — tee “=e +H SaetS w te ee, ie a é ,_* < Sk és - ~*~ —_ a
Land Capability Classification System _Vol. 1: Field Manual
GLOSSARY
Aggregates: The arrangement of individual soil particles into compound particles which are
separated from adjoining compound particles (aggregates) by planes of weakness through
processes of soil development.
Athahasca oil sands region: Generic description of a subsection of the Boreal Central
Mixedwood region of northeastern Alberta, centered roughly on the zone of surface oil sand
mining, north of Ft. McMurray and on both sides of the Athabasca River.
AWHC or Available water holding capacity: The difference in soil water content, typically
measured volumetrically, between “field capacity” (typically -10 or -33 kPa of matric potential,
depending on soil texture) and “permanent wilting point” (-1500 kPa of matric potential).
Capping depth: The thickness of soil material or “cap” placed on a given substrate as part of
reclamation activities.
Capping: A reclamation activity where a reclaimed structure or area with a given substrate is
reclaimed by placing a “cap” of soil material at the surface.
Commercial forest: A forest ecosystem producing trees of sufficient size/quality to enable
commercial recovery of their stems for pulp or sawlogs.
Control section: The vertical section upon which soil classification is based. The control
section usually extends to a depth of 100 cm in mineral materials and to 160 cm in organic
materials.
Cretaceous Clearwater material: Saline-sodic clay shale of the Cretaceous period
(~100 million year before the common era).
Cretaceous McMurray material: Bitumenous sands (a.k.a. oil sand, tar sand). The sand
having been deposited during the Cretaceous period (~100 million years before the common era).
Ecosystem productivity: The ability of an ecosystem to produce, grow, or yield biomass (total
living matter).
Edaphic: Of or pertaining to the soil.
CEMA Third Edition Page i
x
. to. ‘\‘ar* ‘ <tn a SEkek . : ; be .
8 ee ©. ee Me eee em. +, tom, o™ Te «ft e% eu Tey y emt. “eer, ee o**.'on bog”;
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manuai
Edatope: Soil moisture/nutrient grid that displays the potential ranges of combinations of
moisture (very dry to wet or xeric to hydric moisture regimes) and nutrient (very poor to very
rich) conditions (adapted from Beckingham and Archibald, 1996).
Edatope position: A location on the edatope, as defined above, delineating a specific
combination of soil moisture and nutrient conditions.
Equivalent land capability: The ability of the land to support various land uses after
conservation and reclamation similar to the ability that existed prior to an activity being
conducted on the land. The individual land uses will not necessarily be identical (Province of
Alberta, 2003).
Footprint: The area of land occupied by an industrial disturbance.
Fragments: Pieces of non-soil (e.g., geologic) material that has fractured along planes of
weakness.
Horizon: A layer of mineral or organic soil material approximately parallel to the land surface
that has characteristics altered by processes of soil formation (Soil Classification Working
Group, 1998).
Impermeable: A substance that cannot be permeated by water.
Land capability rating: The product, ona scale of 0 to 100 points, of the integration of
numeric values assigned to soil and landscape characteristics as described in this LCCS. The
land capability rating replaces the soil and landscape ratings from previous editions of this
document.
Material salvage: The process of physically removing soil from the pre-disturbance landscape
for use in reclamation activities.
Mineral horizon/material: Material having 17% or less total organic carbon by weight.
Natural soils: Those soils not severely disturbed by industrial activities such as surface mining,
aggregate mining, or oil/gas extraction. Soils may still be described as pre-disturbance/natural
soils after experiencing less severe disturbances resulting from industrial activities such as forest
harvest.
Organic horizon/material: Material having more than 17% organic carbon by weight.
CEMA Third Edition Page ii
«&
t Sed re
Land Capability Classification System 7 _ oe = aa. _ BSAA _Vol. 1: Field Manual
Parent material: The unconsolidated and more or less chemically weathered mineral or organic
matter from which the solum of soils developed by pedogenic processes (Brady and Weil, 1996).
Peat:mineral mix: A combination of organic and mineral soil that is typically achieved by
over-stripping organic deposits during material salvage or by mechanical incorporation post-
placement.
Pedon: A real unit of soil; the smallest homogenous, three-dimensional unit that can be
considered a soil.
Polygon: From mapping conventions - refers to a unit of land identified for land capability
assessment and is typically large enough to be mapped at the desired/required scale. Ideally
polygons are stratified prior to assessment based on known characteristics to reduce variability.
Principal horizons: The LCCS principal horizons include the topsoil (0-20 cm), the upper
subsoil (20-50 cm) and the lower subsoil (50-100 cm). Properties of horizons or strata existing
in each of these principal horizons are weighted differently.
Reclaimed: Reconstructed soils resulting from some form of soil salvage and replacement,
where the “soil” materials themselves (e.g. tailings sand) or their horizonation has been
anthropogenically altered.
Sodium adsorption ratio: the comparative concentrations of sodium, calcium, and magnesium
. : . + 2+ 2+ . : ~
in the soil solution, where [Na ], [Ca~ ], and [Mg] are the concentrations in mmol of charge per
litre of solution. The SAR of a soil extract takes into consideration that the adverse effect of
sodium is moderated by the presence of calcium and magnesium ions. SAR values of 7 and
higher cause dispersion of soils.
SAR = — [Na]
(0.5[Ca**] + 0.5[Mg?*})'?
Soil conservation: The planning, management and implementation of an activity with the
objective of protecting the essential physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the soil
against degradation (Province of Alberta, 2003).
Soil moisture regime index: Each soil moisture regime class is assigned a numerical index for
use in this LCCS to determine the land capability ating. The integration of numerical values
CEMA Third Edition Page iii
~
Land Capability Classification System
; Vol. 1: Field Manual
assigned to individual soil and landscape characteristics as described in this document
determines the soil moisture regime index for a given site.
Soil moisture regime properties: For the purposes of land capability determination, these
include depth to water table, slope percent, slope type, aspect, percent volume coarse fragments,
horizonation, horizon thickness, soil texture, and mottles.
Soil moisture regime: The available moisture supply for plant growth on a relative scale
ranging from very dry (xeric) to very wet (hydric) classes (adapted from Beckingham and
Archibald, 1996). In this LCCS, it is assessed through an integration of soil and landscape
characteristics.
Soil nutrient regime index: Each nutrient regime class is assigned a numerical index for use in
this LCCS to determine the land capability. The integration of numerical values assigned to
individual soil characteristics as described in this document determines the soil nutrient regime
index for a given site.
Soil nutrient regime properties: For the purpose of land capability determination, these
include percent total organic carbon, total nitrogen, soil texture and bulk density.
Soil nutrient regime: Amount of essential nutrients that are available for plant growth on a
relative scale ranging form very poor to very rich (adapted from Beckingham and Archibald,
1996). In this LCCS, it is assessed through an integration of soil characteristics.
Strata: A layer of mineral or organic material that is either not soil (such as rock or water or
unconsolidated material unaffected by soil forming processes) or a layer of material used in
reclamation.
Substrate: The material that underlies the reclamation material cap. Typical substrates include
cretaceous Clearwater formation, cretaceous McMurray formation (oil sand), and tailings sand.
Tailings sand: The coarse mineral by-product of the oil extraction process.
CEMA Third Edition Page iv
Land Capability Classification System ; ——— ___ Vol. 1: Field Manual
PURPOSE OF MANUAL AND STATEMENT OF LIMITATIONS
The goal of reclamation in Alberta is to achieve land capability equivalent to that which existed
prior to disturbance. The Land Capability Classification System for Forest Ecosystems manual
(LCCS) is a working document intended to facilitate evaluation of land capabilities for forest
ecosystems on natural and re timed lands in the Athabasca oil sands region, as required by
Alberta's Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) approvals, and by current
Alberta Environment terms of reference for Environmental Impact Assessments. The LCCS is
based on an integration of numeric values assigned to soil and landscape characteristics that are
known to be fundamental to ecosystem productivity. Parameters considered include soil moisture
regime, soil nutrient regime and soil physical and chemical properties that are potentially
limiting to plant growth.
The first edition of the LCCS was developed in 1996 by the Tailings Sand Reclamation Practices
Working Group, and was revised in 1998 based on results from field testing. The Soil and
Vegetation Subgroup (SVSG) of the Reclamation Working Group (RWG) of the Cumulative
Environmental Management Association (CEMA) is currently responsible for the continued
refinement of the LCCS, and has developed this 3"? (2006) Edition.
Commencing in 2000, a network of long-term monitoring plots (hereafter referred to as the “Soil
and Vegetation Plots”) was established to refine understanding of natural ecosystems and
evolution of reclaimed ecosystems. The 2006 Edition represents improvements in knowledge,
particularly in soil moisture and nutrient regime determination, gained from initial
characterization and analysis of plot data. This characterization and analysis has also resulted in
the identification of several key areas requiring additional research and monitoring. The SVSG
is managing a comprehensive work program, including ongoing assessment of the plot network,
to address remaining uncertainties associated with the LCCS (note that some components of this
work program are being addressed by non-SVSG industry research initiatives). Details of this
program, and remaining unaddressed issues, are presented in Appendix A. As understanding of
reclaimed ecosystems improves, the LCCS will be correspondingly improved (pursuant to
C&R/IL/98-7 [Alberta Environment, 1998] and individual project approval conditions).
CEMA a Third Edition Page |
|
Land Capability Classification System : Las Vol. 1: Field Manual
As described above, the goal of the LCCS is to provide a rating of land capability for forest
ecosystems. In order to both validate and calibrate the LCCS manual’s integration of numerically
valued soil/landscape properties, it is intended that the LCCS ratings be indexed to measured tree
growth performance. The first round of monitoring of the long-term plots has not resulted in
establishment of a clear correlation between LCCS-predicted forest site productivity and
measured forest site productivity, particularly on reclaimed sites. Further, reclaimed forest
stands are young, and, due to the dynamic nature of stand nutrient demand, early performance
may not be a reliable indicator of later growth and nutrient status. This is because regenerating
stands place increasing nutrient demand on soils with increasing foliar biomass, until peak foliar
biomass is attained approximately at crown closure (Ballard, 1984; Miller, 1984). Continued
measurement of the long-term plot network will provide a solid basis to further determine the
correlation between forest productivity and land capability classification, and provide data for
reclaimed stands as they reach maturity. Because long-term performance of reclaimed sites is not
fully documented or understood, there are uncertainties about the ability of minimum capping
depths to successfully achieve equivalent capability for productive forests on reclaimed sites.
The SVSG of CEMA is undertaking further monitoring in an attempt to resolve these
uncertainties. There is no foreseeable short-term solution for this issue, and caution should be
taken in relying on minimum capping depths until such time as the uncertainty is reduced.
Because the link between LCCS rating and forest productivity is currently undemonstrated, the
LCCS should be considered as one in a suite of tools for site evaluation and reclamation
planning, rather than a comprehensive system that alone will ensure replacement and
documentation of equivalent land capabilities. Reclamation certification (e.g., for a commercial
forest use site) will ultimately be evaluated based on above-ground measures of site productivity
as well as on the LCCS rating, and on other landscape characteristics (see Alberta Land
Conservation and Reclamation Council, 1991).
This document (LCCS Vol. 1) is a field manual intended to enable determination of land
capability. A complementary software tool designed to ensure correct and consistent calculation
of LCCS ratings will be available shortly. In addition, a corresponding background and rationale
document (LCCS Vol. 2) is under development, and will be released in the near future.
CEMA Third Edition Page I!
Land Capability Classification System A Vol. 1: Field Manual
1.0 MANUAL APPROACH
This manual outlines the procedure for determining land capability rating for natural and
reclaimed soils in forest ecosystems in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region of Alberta. Guidance is
also provided for sampling methods and intensities.
The products of land capability determination are the land capability rating, class and subclasses,
and the soil moisture and nutrient regime indices (combining to establish edatope position) for an
assessed soil polygon. These can be used in conjunction with the companion document
Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region (Oil Sands
Vegetation Reclamation Committee [OSVRC], 1998) for developing revegetation treatments on
reclaimed landscapes.
1.1 Assumptions and Boundaries
This LCCS has been calibrated for and is intended for use in the Athabasca Oil Sands
Region only. Use outside of this region is not supported by the issuers of this
document.
e Application of this manual requires knowledge and experience in the areas of soil
survey and classification. It is the responsibility of the project manager to ensure that
field personnel are competent in these areas. It is strongly recommended that projects
be managed by suitably qualified members of recognized professional associations.
e This LCCS is intended to evaluate equivalent land capability by comparing pre- and
post-disturbance capability.
e The use of the LCCS as a tool to calculate minimum soil requirements (i.e.,
thicknesses) necessary for the achievement of particular capability classes in the design
of reclaimed soils is not recommended. Reclamation treatments should be based on
knowledge of site-specific materials and objectives.
e This LCCS is used for evaluating the land capability to support upland commercial
forests. This assumes that all classes are capable of providing a range of other values
and end land uses.
CEMA Third Edition Page 1
~
!
Land Capability Classification System Vee Vol. 1: Field Manual
e Lands in each class can be similar in degree, but not necessarily in kind, for limitations
for forest production (i.e., similarly classed lands may be produced by different
limitations on different sites).
e Land capability assessment applies to the upper one metre of soil. It is the
responsibility of the respective permit holders to be aware of underlying material
quality.
e The climatic regime present during development of natural forest stands is assumed to
be similar to that which is affecting and will affect reclaimed sites. Thus, neither
climatic factors nor climate change, whether naturally or anthropogenically induced,
are incorporated in the LCCS.
e This LCCS assumes that soils meet operating approval requirements and do not have
characteristics that pose significant environmental risks to humans or the environment,
for example potentially toxic constituents.
e The LCCS manual is a “living document” that will be refined through testing and
evaluation in the field. As more experience is gained, and different natural soil and
reclaimed landscapes are evaluated, the LCCS will be modified through discussions
with stakeholders (C&R/IL/98-7; Alberta Environment, 1998).
2.0 LAND CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
The LCCS is an integrated soil and landscape rating calculated from key parameters including
soil moisture regime (SMR) properties, soil nutrient regime (SNR) properties, and potentially
limiting soil physical and chemical properties, in the three principal soil horizons (see below).
SMR properties are integrated into the SMR index (ranging from 10 to 80 points) and the SNR
properties are integrated into the SNR index (ranging from 0 to 20 points). The LCCS Base
Rating is the sum of the SMR and SNR indices. Potential limiting factors, including soil
structure and consistence, pH, electrical conductivity (EC [dS m']) and sodium adsorption ratio
(SAR), are calculated as a function of the Base Rating for each of the LCCS principal horizons
and deducted from the Base Rating to give the LCCS land rating (Equation 1). The Final Land
Rating determines the land capability class.
CEMA Third Edition Page 2
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Equation 1. LCCS general equation.
Final Land Rating = Base Rating — Limiting Factor Deductions
2.1 LCCS Principal Horizons
The LCCS rating is largely based on soil properties of the one-metre soil profile. Three principal
horizons are defined: topsoil (TS) 0-20 cm; upper subsoii (US) 20-50 cm; and lower subsoil (LS)
50-100 cm in the LCCS model to arrive at the land capability rating.
In the LCCS, ratings for limiting factor deductions are weighted by soil horizon: the properties
of the TS horizon are weighted most heavily and incur full (100%) deductions for any applicable
limiting factors; the US incurs 67 % deductions; and the LS incurs 33 % deductions.
The LCCS principal horizons are imposed on natural mineral, natural organic and reclaimed
soils. The LCCS principal horizon boundaries at 20, 50 and 100 cm will not necessarily match
up with the natural horizonation or the reclamation material boundaries as illustrated in Figure 1;
these measurements are intended as guidelines.
Soil description and sampling for the application of the LCCS is done on the basis of soil horizon
or strata. The boundary condition of 17 % total organic carbon (TOC) on a dry weight basis
(Soil Classification Working Group, 1998) is adopted in the LCCS to separate mineral soil
horizons from organic soil horizons (or strata).
This section presents how the LCCS principal horizons are applied to natural mineral, natural
organic, and reclaimed soils. Further details for the application of the principal horizons to soils
are provided in Section 3.3, Sampling Methods, and Section 3.5, Landscape and Soil Features.
2.1.1 NATURAL MINERAL SOILS
For natural mineral soils, defined as those having less than 40 cm of organic material at the soil
surface, the LCCS principal horizons begin at the mineral soil surface and normally include three
soil master horizons: topsoil horizons (e.g., Ae, Ahe, Ah), subsoil horizons (various B horizons)
and parent materials (C horizons). In general, the TS is typically comprised of natural A, AB
and possible B horizons; the US is comprised of natural B, BC and possible C horizons; and the
LS is comprised of natural C horizons.
CEMA Third Edition Page 3
~ '
Land Capability Classification System
Vol 1: Field Manual
Surface organic materials (i.e., L, F, H, or O horizons less than 40 cm thick) are sampled
separately from the mineral horizons. These organic horizons do contribute to the soil nutrient
regime index determination but do not contribute to the profile available water holding capacity
(AWHC) determination.
2.1.2 NATURAL ORGANIC SOILS
For natural organic soils, defined as those having 40 cm or more of organic material at the soil
surface, the LCCS principal horizons include the surface tier (0-40 cm) and the upper 75 % of
the middle tier (40-120 cm). This may include many different combinations of organic horizons
(Of, Om Oh, and Oco), mineral C horizons and water (W). Soil classification of organic soils
requires the investigation of all three tiers (Soil Classification Working Group, 1998).
Where L, F and/or H horizons overlay organic soil horizons (e.g., O horizons), they are sampled
separately. The former materials, in addition to the upper 20 cm of the underlying organic
horizons, contribute to the soil nutrient regime index determination. For organic soils, soil
moisture regime is determined by indicators including surface organic thickness, depth to water
table, and mottles/gleying, not by the profile AWHC.
2.1.3. RECLAIMED SOILS
For reclaimed soils, the LCCS principal horizons normally include the reconstructed soil strata
and may also include underlying mine waste materials. Reconstructed soil strata are materials
salvaged from the natural landscape and can be categorized very broadly as mineral or organic-
enriched.
Because it is often difficult to determine in the field whether a stratum is mineral or organic, the
TS is assumed to begin at the surface of material placement (as opposed to the mineral/organic
interface as in natural mineral soils).
CEMA Third Edition Page 4
Land Capability Classification System i = Vol as Field Manual
NATURAL RECLAIMED
LCCS
Organic Mineral Juvenile Mature Principal
horizons
=>
Topsoil (TS)
0-20 cm
pesecaneceecsenewn: cm 7 20
Upper subsoil (US)
20 — 50 cm "4
ip ed
—— -—4 50 =
oO
3
strata , :
Lower subsoil (LS)
50 — 100 cm
orecenneeneceann= -—+ 100
Underlying Underlying
material material
t+ Mineral horizons are defined as those having less than 17% total organic carbon (TOC) determined as outlined in Table 5)
++
Organic-enriched strata are mineral horizons containing organic matter (i.e., peat/mineral mixes and shallow soil salvage). In the cases
where the surface strata of a reclaimed soil or natural mineral soil with an O layer contains 17% or more TOC it is not considered to
contribute to the moisture regime of the soil (see Section 4.2.1.1.1)
§ These profiles are generalizations. Each soil type presented is characterized by wide ranges of variability in horizon thickness and
development. .
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of principal horizons applied to idealized’ natural and
reclaimed soil profiles.
2.2 Land Capability Classes
There are five classes of land recognized in the LCCS, rated according to potential and
limitations for productive forest use. Classes are based on adjusted Canada Land Inventory
categories, with Classes 1, 2, and 3 being capable of supporting commercial/productive forests,
and Classes 4 and 5 being non-commercial/lower-productivity forest lands. The classes are an
approximate assessment of the degree or intensity of limitation. For example, Class 3 land has
limitations that are more severe than Class 2. The subclasses describe the kind of limitations
responsible for class designation.
The classes represent an idealized generic trend of forest productivity representing 20 %
difference in productivity between classes. Different tree species are not all equally adaptable to
the range of moisture and nutrient regimes, and will respond differently to different soil-based
limitations.
CEMA ie Third Edition Page 5
~
Land Capability Classification System | : ; mith « Vol. 1: Field Manual
Class 1 High Capability (Final land rating 81 to 100): Land having no significant
limitations to supporting productive forestry, or only minor limitations that can be overcome
with normal management practices.
Class 2 Moderate Capability (Final land rating 61 to 80): Land having limitations
which, combined, are moderately limiting for forest production. The limitations will result in
reduced productivity or benefits, or require increased inputs to the extent that the overall
advantage to be gained from the use will still be attractive, but appreciably inferior to that
expected on Class | land.
Class 3 Low Capability (Final land rating 41 to 60): Land having limitations which,
combined, are moderately severe for forest production. The limitations will result in reduced
productivity or benefits, or require increased inputs to the extent that the overall advantage to be
gained from the use will be low.
Class 4 Conditionally Productive (Final land rating 21 to 40): Land having severe
limitations, some of which may be surmountable through management, but which cannot be
feasibly corrected with existing practice.
Class 5 Non-Productive (Final land rating 0 to 20): Land having limitations that
appear so severe as to preclude any possibility of successful forest production.
2.3 Land Capability Subclasses
A subclass, denoted by the letter(s) in brackets, indicates the kind of limitation, as follows:
Horizon-independent nee
e Soil moisture regime (SMR): Very dry (X), Wet (W)
e Organic surface (O), Stoniness (P), Impermeable layer (Z)
e Soil nutrient regime (SNR): Fertility (F)
Horizon-dependent factors:
e Soil structure and consistence (D)
e Soil reaction (V)
e Soil salinity (N)
CEMA Third Edition Page 6
Land Capability Classification System : > he Vol. 1: Field Manual
e Soil sodicity (Y)
Combination of three or more factors: (S)
2.3.1 SUBCLASS NOTATION
Two approaches to subclass notation, general and detailed, have been developed, depending on
user needs. The general notations are recommended for overview purposes such as
environmental impact assessments and mapping. Detailed notations are recommended for
reclamation planning, management and monitoring. The general and detailed notations are not
necessarily exclusive; for a single project, it may be necessary to determine both types of
subclasses to meet data presentation needs.
Class | soils do not have subclasses. Horizon-independent subclasses ’X” or ”W” are applied
for SMR as directed by Table 9, (subclasses O, P, and Z are applied as directed in Sections
4.2.1.1.1, 4.2.1.1.2, and 4.2.1.1.3), and ”F” for ’Poor” overall SNR, as calculated in Section 4.3.
Horizon-dependent subclasses for limiting factor deductions are applied differently based on the
approach: general versus detailed. A comparison of the geieral versus the detailed approach
with examples is presented in Table 1.
2.3.1.1 General Notation
The general approach limits the subclass notation to two limiting factors. Where three or more
limiting factors exist, the combination subclass notation (S) is applied. Notations are applied for
limiting factors where they incur a total 20-point deduction for the entire profile (i.e., the sum of
the TS, US, and LS point deductions [b, d, and e]). For example, subclass notations can be
applied for deductions incurred in a single horizon (as in Table 1, Profile 2) or for more than one
horizon (as in Table 1, Profiles 1 and 3). Where the total profile deduction is less than 20 points,
subclass notations are not applied (as in Table 1, Profile 4).
The advantages of the general approach are simplicity and ease in data management. The
disadvantage is that the quality and location (principal horizon) of the limitation is not readily
understood.
CEMA Third Edition : ii Page 7
—~
Land Capability Classification System
2.3.1.2 Detailed Notation
Vol 1: Field Manual
The detailed approach does not limit the subclass notation to two limiting factors, and the
combination subclass notation (S) is not used. Up to six subclasses can be included with a single
soil rating and the principal horizons are identified for horizon-dependent factors using
numerical subscripts (see examples presented in Table 1). Notations are applied where they incur
a 20-percent deduction for a principal horizon. For example, Profiles 1 and 2 (Table 1) have
subclasses because the deductions were 20 % in the respective soil horizons. Profile 4 (Table 1)
has subsoil point deductions (3 and | points respectively for the US and LS) but subclasses are
not applied because these deductions were only 10 % in the respective horizons.
The primary advantage of the detailed approach is the higher resolution of limitation notations.
The disadvantage is the greater complexity and corresponding increased data management
requirements.
Table 1. General Subclass Approach Examples.
Rating Component
(subclasses)'
Profile 1
Profile 2
Profile 3
Profile 4
SMR index
SNR index
Base rating (SMR+SNR) |; @
TS deduction | b
Interim soil rating | c
US deduction | d
LS deduction | e
Profile deduction [2 (b,d,e)]
Final land rating (a-b-d-e)
Land capability class and subclasses
General subclass notation
Detailed subclass notation
Profile |
Profile 2
Profile 3
Profile 4
52
10
62
12 (V)
50
7 (V)
3 (V)
22 (V)
40
4 V
4 Vizs
80
20
20 (V)
20 (V)
2 Vv;
Entire profile affected by a 20% pH limiting factor deduction
Topsoil affected by a 20% pH limiting factor deduction
"See Land Capability Worksheet (Appendix D) for calculation details
CEMA
Third Edition
a
Each principal horizon affected by a different limiting factor deduction
Profile with limiting SMR and SNR, and 10% limiting factor deductions in US & LS
(X)
XV,D,N;
38 (X)
0) (I)
38
0)
38
3
|
0
34
XF
XF
Page 8
et a
Land Capability Classification System
3.0 SOILINVENTORY REQUIREMENTS
This section presents soil sampling designs, intensities, and methods for purpose of land
capability classification of pre- and post-disturbance soils. Minimum soil and landscape data and
laboratory analyses required for input to the LCCS are presented.
It is the responsibility of the project manager to ensure that required coverage and analyses are
obtained, and that the input of appropriate professionals is sought to address any special
circumstances beyond the scope of the specifications outlined below.
3.1 Sampling Design
The purpose of this section is to provide guidance on appropriate sampling design for the
collection of LCCS data. The primary goal for sampling is to provide a representative
characterization of a system or population under investigation. The identification of appropriate
sampling designs is largely dependent on the purpose or objective of the assessment. Land
capability classification is rarely the only objective of a field program. It is performed on pre-
disturbance soils as part of Environmental Impact Assessments and on post-disturbance soils as
part of reclamation assessments and monitoring. Other important considerations for sampling
success include experience of the project manager and field personnel, degree of foreknowledge
about the area, site accessibility, need for statistical interpretation, time and cost.
The Mapping Systems Working Group (MSWG, 1981) outlines a range of acceptable sampling
designs for support of pre-disturbance mapping including free (purposive or authoritative),
random, systematic and stratified sampling designs. Following is a summary of advantages and
limitations of these designs (Crépin and Johnson, 1993), provided to aid in planning sampling for
the collection of data for input into this land capability system. All except free survey are
acceptable designs for post-disturbance evaluations.
Each of the sampling designs described below have different implications to cost, mapping, and
statistical interpretation. Where the objectives of a sampling program include statistical analysis
of the data, consultation with a professional statistician at the project planning stage is strongly
recommended.
CEMA Third Edition _ Page 9
,
Vol. 1 Field Manual
Free survey: Based on hypotheses regarding the distribution of different soils, the project
manager subjectively selects sample locations and extrapolates data from sample sites to other
areas considered to be similar without inspecting them. This approach can be appropriate in pre-
disturbance evaluations where soil-landscape relationships are well known and where the
surveyor is experienced, and is commonly used where time, cost and accessibility are significant
constraints (MS WG, 1981). Probability theory cannot be applied because the design is not
random and objective conclusions about the population cannot be made. However, the MSWG
(1981) cite studies that have shown free survey to be “acceptably accurate” for pre-disturbance
assessments. This approach is not appropriate on post-disturbance assessments because soil-
landscape relationships are not fully known or developed, and thus subjective plot sampling may
not adequately represent the full range of existing conditions.
Simple random sampling: The sampling area is divided into subunits and a randomization plan
for the sampling is developed prior to field sampling. Sample sites are selected randomly
according to the plan. The number of samples required can be determined from known or
estimated variance. Simple random sampling is appropriate for most statistical analysis but is
not frequently used for mapping.
Systematic sampling: From an initial randomly selected point, sample locations are established
in a fixed pattern and interval to provide complete coverage of a soil population, If the pattern
and interval match cyclical variation in the landscape, unrepresentative samples result. In this
case, statistical analysis is more difficult because samples are not collected at random; therefore,
a professional statistician should be consulted prior to statistical analysis of systematically
collected data. Systematic sampling is rarely used in pre-disturbance soil survey (MSWG,
1981); however, it is preferred for some mapping applications and geostatistics.
Stratified sampling: Based on existing data (surficial geology, topography, vegetation
interpretation, different material placement methods in soil reclamation, efc.) or a preliminary or
exploratory survey, the total area is broken into a number of subpopulations or strata.
Recognizing the strata allows partitioning of variation caused by the strata, thereby reducing the
error terms used to conduct relevant statistical tests, subsequently improving the sensitivity of the
test. This method is frequently used in soil survey. Within each stratum, free, random or
systematic sampling can be applied.
CEMA —~C—~—s—...S~™T.... Third Edition o . Page 10
Land Capability Classification System
Table 2. Acceptable sampling designs for pre- and post-disturbance assessments.
Natural Reclaimed
Acceptable where
soil-landscape x
relationships are well
known and
understood by
some. Surveyor.
Free survey
Pat
aw
X
Simple random . Y Y
x X
Systematic x x x Y Y
Stratified
~
CEMA Third Edition Page 11
/
\
\
\
\
maoaFeggq@ge@eaeae fae ws wseeqgee_7 qe waqG
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
3.2 Sampling Intensity
For statistical applications, the number of samples required to achieve a desired level of
precision in a given area is largely dependent on the variability within that area (Crépin and
Johnson, 1993). For mapping projects, the purpose or end-use of the map, the total hectares of
the individual map units, and the map scales for publication determine the number of sampling
sites required. Sufficient samples are to be collected to properly characterize the map units.
Recommended survey intensity level, mapping scales, inspection density, and sampling density
are presented in Table 3 and Table 4 pursuant to guidelines presented in the Soil Survey
Handbook Volume I (Expert Committee on Soil Survey, 1987) and the Soil Quality Criteria
Relative to Disturbance and Reclamation (Alberta Soil Advisory Committee, 1987).
3.2.1 SURVEY INTENSITY LEVEL
Soil survey intensity level (SIL) reflects the level of detail needed to properly conduct a survey
project. Five levels of SIL are recognized by soil surveyors, from the most detailed (SIL 1) to
the least detailed (SIL 5) (Expert Committee on Soil Survey, 1987). The SIL 1 and SIL 2 are
often used at a site-specific level for environmental projects. SIL 3 is normally used for regional
projects.
SIL is largely defined as the required number of field inspections per unit area, along with the
precision used to delineate the boundaries between the adjacent mapping units in the field, or
other estimates of accuracy. Application of a specific SIL is also related to the scope of the
project, map scale, degree of natural variability in the survey area, survey techniques, and desired
levels of soil taxonomy. SIL 1 surveys are tailored to identify objectives for specific operations
and are commonly conducted on the disturbance “footprint” areas. SIL 2 surveys are conducted
to aid in general planning, as for preliminary evaluations or in buffer areas surrounding
proposed/actual disturbances. The scale of mapping is based mainly on the minimum size of
field delineation. As a general rule, one inspection should be made for a field area that
corresponds to approximately | cm’ area on the map to be published. Table 3 provides a
summary of criteria for identifying required survey intensity level. The Soil Survey Handbook
Volume I (Expert Committee on Soil Survey, 1987) should be consulted for further details.
CEMA Third Edition Page 12
; Vol 1: Field Manual
Land Capability Classification System
For example, if soil units with different use potentials must be recognized down to a size of 4 ha
then the scale should be at least 1:20 000. Where reclaimed areas are very small (<16 ha), as in
wellsites, the higher range of inspection density for SIL 1 is recommended. Applicable criteria
should be followed for specialized applications such as wellsites, borrow pits, efc. For post-
disturbance mapping, a scale of 1:5 000 is suggested for non-selectively handled areas or where
materials-handling techniques were minimal. Where selective-handling techniques are
employed, a scale of 1:5 000 or 1:10 000 is suitable.
3.2.2. INSPECTION AND SAMPLING DENSITIES
The SIL chosen for a project defines the minimum intensities/densities of inspection and
sampling sites (Table 4). Two types of sites are established as part of a soil survey: sample sites
and inspection sites.
Sample sites are defined as invasive (i.e., soil pit) inspections where soil and landscape data and
soil samples are collected for analysis. Sample sites are established according to the soil
sampling density guidelines presented in Table 4. The soil and landscape data collected at
sample sites and the results from chemical analyses are used to input into this land capability
system. Sampling methods are presented in Section 3.3, minimum analytical requirements for
input to the LCCS are presented in Section 3.4, and field data collection requirements are
presented in Section 3.5.
Inspection sites are defined as invasive (e.g., hand auger) inspections where select soil and
landscape data may be collected but soil samples are not required. Inspection sites are
established according to the soil inspection density guidelines presented in Table 4. The soil
inspection density is always greater than the sampling density and is intended to evaluate
variability between sites within soil unit or type. Inspections are intended to confirm polygon
designations, and are not intended to produce data for input into the LCCS.
3.2.3. BASELINE (PRE-DISTURBANCE) EVALUATION
Baseline soils mapping is largely used to document soil distribution and type, and to guide soil
conservation or material salvage for reclamation. It should provide information, in sufficient
detail, on the types of soils present to support decision-making regarding optimum site location,
=~
materials handling, and post-disturbance soil reconstruction.
CEMA Third Edition Page 13
ae Vol. 1: Field Manual
Land Capability Classification System
The project manager should determine the smallest area to be described and delineated in the
field that can be read by users. The Expert Committee on Soil Survey (1987) recommends that
minimum size delineation on a soil survey map is 1x1 cm. For linear features, this corresponds
to 1 cm ata scale of 1:10 000.
SIL | is recommended for baseline footprints. For disturbances <10 ha, soil inspection densities
are higher (see Table 4) to ensure adequate characterization of map units. For disturbances
>10 ha, the minimum soil inspection density is 1/5 ha with a recommended minimum 3 sample
sites per major soil series and | per minor soil series. A major soil unit is defined as one that
occupies 3 % or more of the disturbance footprint (a minor unit occupying less than 3 % of the
disturbance footprint). This can serve as a guide to ensure resources are properly allocated
between dominant (major) and rare (minor) soil areas. Where sufficient foreknowledge or
reference material are not available to differentiate between major and minor soil units, or if the
surveyor perceives a soil has unique characteristics, it is recommended to sample at a higher
intensity and reconcile the required analyses at the end of the project.
When soil series occupy >1 500 ha, sample one additional site per 500 ha increment. Unique
sites or anomalies should have at least one sample site. In baseline mapping, the samples are
required for characterization and classification and should be to a minimum | m depth. Where
organic soils occur, determine the depth of the peat where >1 m. For SIL 2, only one sample site
per unit is required, or adjacent SIL | data may be used if applicable.
3.2.4 RECLAMATION (POST-DISTURBANCE) EVALUATION
Sampling intensities are greater in post-disturbance applications, as outlined in Table 4. When
materials are selectively handled, it is recommended that the soil inspection density be one per
hectare and the soil sampling density be one per 10 ha, with a minimum of 2 per soil type. Soil
type is considered the reclamation prescription (equivalent to a soil series). If better materials
are not identified and selectively handled (nonselective handling), the recommended
investigation and soil sampling densities are 4 per ha and one per 2 ha, respectively. The extents
of unique sites or anomalies within the reclaimed landscape are to be defined by applying an
intense grid (i.e., step-out) of inspection sites around the anomaly for selective and non-selective
handling.
CEMA Third Edition Page 14
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
of remotely sensed data verified
at closely spaced intervals.
major soil series.
Table 3. Criteria for identifying survey intensity levels’.
|
Definitive Characteristics Associated Features
Survey nen
f , oe ioe Main Kinds Appropriate
Intensity Common Inspection Investigations = ‘oa
: of Map Units Publication
Level Name Density Methods ; é
Soil Components Scale
(SIL) |
|
SIL | very detailed At least one inspection inevery —_ Transects or |
| delineation (1 per | to 5 ha). transverses less than | Manv
| | km apart. | Series or il 1:10 000
hind ; simple ‘
| Profile descriptions | phases of series. (1:5 000 to 15 000)
and analyses for all | units
soil series. |
|
SIL 2 detailed | At least one inspection in 90 % Transects and
of the delineations (1 per2to 20 _transverses 1.5 km or | Simple
an. tens apart. Series or and 1:20 000
, cas |
Soundares plotied by Profile Cescriptions phases of series. compound (1:10 000 to 1:40 000)
observations and interpretation and analyses forall |
units.
‘ Adapted from Soil Mapping System for Canada: Revised (Expert Committee on Soil Survey, 1987)
? Simple units have over 80% of a single soil series or a non-limiting inclusion. Compound units are complexes or associations of two or more soil series
CEMA
Third Edition
Page 15
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Table 4. Guidelines for conducting soil surveys relative to development and reclamation.
Purpose Levelof Recommended Minimum Area Soil Inspection Density® Soil Sampling Density‘
Survey Map Scale Represented (minimum) (minimum)
(1 m depth) (1 m depth, 3 principal horizons)
Mapping Land Areas
1 cm? on Map (ha) Inspection/area Sites
Baseline Footprint (<2 ha) l 1:1 000 0.01 16/ha 1/major soil series
Baseline Footprint (2 — 10 ha) l 1:5 000 0.25 8/ha 1/major soil series
: 3/major soil series plus 1/500 ha
Baseline Footprint (>10 ha) l 1:10 000 l 1/S ha ;
1/minor soil series
Baseline Buffer 1/major soil series plus 1/500 ha
; 2 1:10 000 l 1/20 ha ae
(Buffer = 500 m perimeter) 1/minor soil series
Post-Disturbance 1/2 ha
5 : l 1:5 000 0.25 /ha ;
(Nonselective Handling’) 2/soil type
Post-Disturbance 1/10 ha
‘ or l 1:10 000 l l/ha ;
(Selective Handling’) 2/soil type
Mapping Linear Corridors
1 cm on Map Inspection/km Sites/Major soil series
Baseline l 1:10 000 200 m* 5 2
Post-Disturbance 1 1:10 000 200 m* 5 2
4 Nonselective Handling = Soil materials excavated and replaced without selective handling; that is, without preferentially salvaging better materials
b Selective Handling = Soil materials excavated, stored or transported, and replaced in a planned manner to salvage better quality materials
procedures are known, in accordance with reclamation plans.
© For similar map units, 200 m is minimum; for contrasting units, 20 m is the suggested minimum and/or a symbol notation may be used
Areas of different materials, depths, and handling
d Soil inspection density = an invasive (i.e., hand-auger) inspection intended to evaluate variability within soil unit or type. Samples for analysis not required
e Soil sampling density = an invasive (i.e., soil pit) inspection where soil and landscape data and soil samples are collected to input into this land capability system
Adapted from: Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance and Reclamation (Alberta Soils Advisory Committee, 1987)
CEMA
Third Edition
Page 16
Land Capability Classification System _ ieamhmiehielammediaias ca __VO._1: Fiekd Manual
3.3 Sampling Methods
Once the surface (2-dimensional) components of sampling (design and intensity) are defined, the
next consideration is the vertical sampling design or protocol. Both natural and reclaimed soils
vary significantly in degree of vertical stratification, having as few as one and as many as five or
more recognizable horizons or strata. Vertical stratification in natural soils is a result of soil
forming processes impacting parent material since time of deposition or exposure. Initial vertical
stratification of reclaimed soils is anthropogenic in origin, and will be modified by soil forming
processes over time.
Despite these differences, the intent of the LCCS is to compare natural and reclaimed land
capability to assess equivalent capability, rendering the standardization of vertical sampling
protocol between sites a critical exercise. The minimum number of vertical samples is three,
representing the three LCCS principal horizons. Collection of three samples would occur where
no material stratification is observed in the field (as in a homogenous 100 cm pedon) or where
the pedon strata coincide with the LCCS principal horizons. Where more than three horizons or
strata are identified and/or where they deviate from the LCCS principal horizons, additional
samples are required.
At each sample site (see Section 3.2.2 for definition), soil horizons/strata are sampled discretely
for the | m soil profile and the L, F and H horizons, where present. Samples are not to be
composited between horizons or sample sites. Following is a list of good soil sampling
practices.
e Samples should be collected from freshly dug pits or cuts. The pit should be | m deep,
or to the bottom of the control section, whichever is deeper.
e Collect samples for analysis for the entire 1-m profile beginning from the bottom of the
pit, from a face about 50 cm wide for laterally uniform soils.
e To ensure that samples are representative of the entire horizon or stratum, samples are
to be collected from the entire interval, as opposed to the center of the interval.
Sampling intervals should not overlap.
CEMA Third Edition Page 17
¥
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
e If horizons are discontinuous, or vary greatly in thickness or degree of expression,
collect samples from different locations on the pit face to ensure a representative
sample of each horizon.
e Collect bulk density samples from the forest floor (L, F, and/or H layers should be
sampled together) and all horizons or strata in the surface 20-cm mineral layer for
mineral soils or the surface 20 cm for organic soils.
e Collect samples for chemical analysis from the forest floor (L, F, and/or H layers
should be sampled together) and all horizons or strata within the 100-cm mineral or
organic profile
3.4 Analytical Requirements
Table 5 outlines the soil analyses required for input to the LCCS for land capability
determination. Reference methods are from the Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance and
Reclamation (Alberta Soil Advisory Committee, 1987) and Soil Sampling and Methods of
Anaiysis (Carter, 1993). Additional analyses should be included as required by other program
objectives.
CEMA Third Edition Page 18
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Table 5. Required soil analyses by principal horizon for land capability determination for pre- and post-disturbance soils.
Parameter Bulk Density’ | Total Organic Total Particle Size | pH EC, SAR
Carbon Nitrogen and |
(TOC) (TN) Texture’
Method Reference* Core method | Dry combustion Kjeldahl Particle size analysis | — pH Soluble cations in saturation extract
McKeague, 1978 Mineral (3.611) (3.621 — 3.624) Pipette | 1:1 HO
(2.21) (2.11) | (3.12) (3.21)
Organic Hydrometer |
(2.24) (2.12)
Carter, 1993 (50.2.1) (21.4) (22.2 - 22.3) Pipette 1:2 H,O
(47.2) (16.2) (18.2.2
Hydrometer
(47.3)
Principal horizon | Depth (cm) Required (“)
L,F,H Variable v v v
Topsoil’ (TS) 0 - 20 v v v v v v
Upper subsoil (US) 20 - 50 v v v
Lower subsoil (LS) 50 - 100 ¥ v v
' Bulk density is required for the conversion of TOC and TN to Mg hectare”
? The C:N ratio is calculated from TOC and TN. Percent organic matter (OM%) can be estimated from TOC% as follows: OM% = TOC% x 1.724
? The pipette method (2.11) with pretreatment to remove organics is most appropriate for soils with >2% TOC
“ Numbers in parentheses refer to corresponding sections in cited reference manuals
* Any and all horizons beginning between 0 and 20 cm in the soil profile are considered TS horizons and require nutrient and bulk density analysis
CEMA Third Edition
Page 19
Land Capability Classification System
= Vol 1: Field Manual
3.5 Landscape and Soil Features
This section lists the key landscape and soil features that must be collected from each sample site
for input into the LCCS. A field form is included as Appendix C.
The Canada Soil Information System (CanSIS): Manual for Describing Soils in the Field
(Working Group on Soil Survey Data, 1983) presents standards for describing the individual
parameters outlined below. The Canadian System of Soil Classification (Soil Classification
Working Group, 1998) is used for the soil classification of natural soils.
3.5.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
A site description normally includes the following (CanSIS section in parenthesis):
e site type (natural or reclaimed)
e parent material (8A),
e landform classification (8B),
e slope (percent, type, class, aspect, position and length) (8C),
e soil moisture regime and drainage (class, seepage, water table) (8D),
e stoniness (surface stoniness) (8J),
e present land use (as related to delineated soil types) (8L).
3.5.2 SOIL PROFILE DESCRIPTION
The following list of morphological characteristics of the soil profile must be recorded for input
to the LCCS (CanSIS section in parenthesis). Additional guidance for some parameters is
presented in the following subsections.
e horizon designation (CSSC, 10A, Section 3.5.2.1, Appendix B),
e horizon depth and thickness (10B, Section 3.5.2.2),
e color (10C),
e texture (10K),
e structure (grade, class, kind) (10M),
CEMA Third Edition Page 20
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
e consistence (aggregate strength) (10N),
e mottles (10L);
e depth to water table (cm) (8G1);
e roots (depth, abundance, orientation, distribution) (10T),
e CaCO, effervescence (10W2);
e percent volume coarse fragments (22 mm diameter) by horizon
e water permeability (Section 3.5.2.3)
3.5.2.1 Horizon Designations
For natural soils, standard horizon designations as outlined in the CSSC (Soil Classification
Working Group, 1998) are to be used for soil profile descriptions.
Currently, no comprehensive standardized list exists for horizon designations of reclaimed soils.
The LCCS principal horizons (TS, US, and LS) are not to be used as horizon designations for
describing reclaimed soils because they imply a defined depth range.
The horizon designations of organic-enriched strata (i.e., peat mineral mixes) are to be “Ptmix”,
and tailings sand, “TSS”. Otherwise, the horizon designations for reclaimed soils are user
defined. Suggested horizon designations are presented in Appendix B.
3.5.2.2 Horizon Depth and Thickness
Horizon depth is to be recorded in two separate fields as the upper and lower limits of each
horizon from which the horizon thickness can be calculated.
3.5.2.3 Water Permeability
As part of the soil moisture regime (SMR) determination, it is necessary to identify whether soil
horizons are permeable to water. Water-impermeable layers perch water in the overlying
material but have zero water storage potential and must be identified to account for these
characteristics.
It is not expected that the SMR determination be made quantitatively, although quantitative
measures can be used to support the determination. Based on the surveyor’s observations and
CEMA af Third Edition Page 21
~
CEMA Third Edition
Land Capability Classification System = cet Vol. 1: Field Manual
knowledge, each layer or strata is to be identified as either permeable or impermeable to water.
Some examples of potentially impermeable layers include un-fractured bedrock (R),
un-weathered Cretaceous Clearwater overburden (KC), and oil sand (Cretaceous McMurray
overburden, “KM”).
4.0 LAND CAPABILITY RATING
Using collected data and this manual, the land capability rating is calculated for soil sample sites
using The Land Capability Worksheet (Appendix D). The procedure for determining a land
capability rating is summarized in Section 4.1 and details are presented in the subsequent
sections. Full disclosure to and acceptance by regulatory agencies is required for any
deviation(s) from the procedure outlined in this document.
There may be cases where ratings produced by this land capability system conflict with
vegetative indicators of edaphic conditions. On natural sites, where the relationship between
vegetation and edaphic conditions are relatively well understood, presence or absence of
vegetation indicator species may provide a more reliable assessment of capability than the
LCCS. In such cases, the project manager may wish to propose an altered LCCS rating. Both the
unaltered and proposed altered ratings will be submitted to Alberta Environment, Alberta
Sustainable Resource Development, and the SVSG, along with site data and rationale for
proposed alteration, for comment, review, and approval (the latter by the regulatory agencies). A
collection of such information will be very helpful in developing the next edition of the
classification system.
Land Capability Classification System __Vol. 1: Field Manual
4.1 Land Capability Rating Determination Overview
The following is an overview of the land capability rating process as illustrated in Figure 2.
I. Determine SMR index, as follows:
e Where the depth to water table is <100 cm, SMR index and subclass is determined by
the soil subgroup classification, as defined by the CSSC (Soil Classification Working
Group, 1998);
e Where the depth to water table is >100 cm, SMR index and subclass is determined by
AWHC in the 0-100 cm profile, as inferred from texture (particle size analysis) and
coarse fragments (percent volume), and excluding surface organic matter and
impermeable layers; and
e Adjust SMR for soil layering and slope effect modifiers, if applicable.
II. Determine SNR index from total organic carbon, total nitrogen, and C:N ratio of the L, F,
H, and TS (0-20 cm) layers in mineral soils or surface 20 cm of organic soils; and the
fine-fraction texture of the TS and US layers.
III. Determine the Base Rating (the sum of the SMR and SNR indices);
IV. Examine the soil profile to determine the extent of potentially limiting physical and
chemical features of the principal soil horizons (soil structure and consistence, pH, EC,
and SAR). Calculate deductions as specified by the worksheet (Appendix D) and
calculate the Final Land Rating;
V. Use final land rating to place soil profile into soil capability class. Assign subclasses by
either the general or detailed approach (Section 2.3.1).
CEMA _ . ; Third Edition Page 23
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
I: SMR index determination : IT: SNR index determination
| Water table depth (cm) |
>100cm | <100cm Parameter ratings for each:
4 i total organic carbon (iv)
: oe total nitrogen (v)
Profile AWHC (i) Subclasses ‘O', ‘P', ‘Z surface organic thickness C-N (vi)
horizon designation & thickness mottles and gley description texture (analytical) (vii)
texture (analytical)
percent volume stones
-— Layering Effect (ii)
horizon designation & thickness
texture (analytical)
-—| Landscape Effect (iii)
(iv) + (v) + (vi) + (vii)
Cumulative Rating =
slope aspect, percent and position
| Adjusted AWHC = (i) + (ii) + il) 1 SMR, Index & Subclass ‘X’, ‘VW } SNR, Index & Subclass ‘F
Table 9 Table 10
EEE EEE EEE EEE a te te te ee ee ee ee
IV: Limiting Factor Deductions
Y
! Topsoil deduction (b) = (a)(max of D, V, N, Y %) — Structure & consistence Subclass D !
Interim soil rating (c) = (a) — (b) Soil reaction (pH) Subclass V |
! Upper subsoil deduction} (d) = (c)(max of D, V, N, Y %)(0.67) F> Soil salinity (EC) Subclass N 3
Lower subsoil deduction] (e) = (c)(max of D, V, N, Y %)(0.33) F Soil sodicity (SAR) Subclass Y 3
a , Smite *
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of land capability rating process.
CEMA Third Edition Page 24
Land Capability Classification System cone Vol. 1: Field Manual
4.2 Soil Moisture Regime (SMR) Index: Subclass W or X
Land capability rating begins with the determination of the soil moisture regime (SMR) index as
outlined in the Land Capability Worksheet (Appendix D) and as follows:
e Where seepage and water table are >100 cm below surface (moisture regime mesic or drier),
the profile AWHC (mm 100 cm’') is inferred from texture using Table 6 and subsequently
adjusted by a series of modifiers to determine the adjusted AWHC (Section 4.2.1) which
determines the SMR index using Table 9.
e Where water table is present within 100 cm of surface (moisture regime subhygric or wetter),
depth to the water table, surface organic thickness, and mottle/gley description determines
the SMR index using Table 9 (the calculation of profile AWHC is not necessary). Proceed to
Section 4.2.2 and Table 9.
4.2.1 SMR INDEX DETERMINATION WHERE WATER TABLE >100 CM
4.2.1.1 Profile AWHC
For mesic or drier sites (where water table is below 100 cm of soil surface), the SMR index is
determined in a stepwise manner. First, profile AWHC is inferred from texture and
horizonation, or layering, of mineral soil horizons or layers.
The L, F, and H surface organic horizons of natural and reclaimed soils are not included in the
calculation of profile AWHC (recall from Figure | that these layers are above the LCCS
principal horizons for both natural and reclaimed soils).
In reclaimed soils where a surface organic-enriched stratum contains greater than 17% TOC, this
stratum does not contribute to the profile AWHC. However, where overlain by sufficient
mineral material, organic layers can contribute to the profile AWHC (refer to Section 4.2.1.1.1,
“Organic modifier — Subclass O”).
For the underlying materials, a multiplier (mm water per cm of soil) is applied to each qualifying
horizon to the maximum | m profile depth. Qualifying horizons are those that are permeable to
water and above any impermeable layer (i.e., horizons beneath an impermeable layer do not
contribute to the profile AWHC) (refer to Section 4.2.1.1.3, *Impermeable layer modifier —
Subclass Z”’).
CEMA Third Edition Page 25
>
Land Capability Classification System _ Vol. 1: Field Manual
The effective AWHC of any horizon or strata must be reduced proportionately to the percent
volume of that strata occupied by coarse fragments, where that volume is at least 10 % (refer to
Section 4.2.1.1.2, “Stoniness modifier — Subclass P”).
Profile AWHC is determined by summing the AWHC (mm) for each soil layer in the | m soil
profile. Multipliers for the range of soil textures and horizon designations are presented in Table
6.
Table 6. Available water holding capacity multipliers (mm cm’) by texture for natural
and reclaimed soils.
Field
— Description Texture class ¢ Horizon designation mm/cm
Suction
Organic sat Natural n/a O 0.0
, Surface ee
n/a material Reclaimed n/a - 0.0
(17 % TOC) Buried Reclaimed n/a - 1.0
: Ls,S Ptmix i.
Peat: mineral mix{ -
SL or finer Ptmix 1.7
Tailings sand (typically LS or S TSS 1.0
-10 kPa" : ane =n
Sand S : 0.8
Loamy sand LS - 1.1
Sandy loam SL - 1.4
Loam, sandy clay, sandy clay loam L, SC, SCL . 1.5
7 +
Clay loam CL - 1.7
-33 kPa —o . —
Silty loam, silt, silty sand SiL, Si, SiS - 1.8
Clay, silty clay loam, silty clay C, SICL, SiC - 1.6
t Symbols: L = loam, S = sand, Si = silt, C = clay
Horizon designations: O = organic (>17% total organic carbon)
Ptmix = a mineral reclaimed horizon that is enriched in organic material. The texture of the mineral component
(as obtained analytically) determines the multiplier for Ptmix
TSS = tailings sand. The horizon designation determines the multiplier regardless of texture (the texture should be
S or SL)
t Peat: mineral mixes 1:1 to 1:4 (volume) mix or more peat (Moskal, 1999)
The applicable AWHC multiplier for most horizons or layers is determined by the soil texture, as
determined by the methods outlined in Section 3.4. As shown in Table 6, the multipliers for
some horizons or layers are dependent on the horizon designation assigned to that layer.
Texture-determined multipliers: For mineral materials (< 17% TOC) that permit water
transmission (i.e., are not water repellent/impermeable), the soil texture determines the
multiplier, ranging from 0.8 mm cm’! for sand (S) to 1.8 mm cm’! for silty loam (SiL), silt (Si)
CEMA Third Edition Page 26
Land Capability Classification System _ Vol. 1: Field Manual
and silty sand (SiS) (Table 6). Example | shows a profile AWHC calculation for a natural
mineral soil profile where only texture-determined multipliers are used.
Example 1. Profile AWHC for a natural mineral soil profile with no limitations.
aut a “% Coarse
eee Texture Be wsenai ' Multiplier AWHC Fragments AWHC
Designation rhickness Spt
Adjustment
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
LI - 6 - - - : -
Ae > 20 0.8 16 0 0 16
Bm LS 30 1.1 33 0 0 33
BC LS 50 1.1 55 i) 0 55
Profile AWHC ee 104 (i)
Horizon designation-determined multipliers: For some materials or horizons, the horizon
designation, not the soil texture, determines the multiplier. These include natural organic
horizons (with an “O” master horizon designation), tailings sand (TSS), and peat/mineral mixes
(Ptmix) (Table 6).
All soil horizons or strata will be classified as either mineral or organic based on total organic
carbon (TOC %) data where available. Natural organic soil horizons or layers (with master
horizon designation of O) are assumed to be organic. Organic soil horizons or strata will be
. — " -|
assigned a multiplier of O mm cm”.
All other horizons are assumed to be mineral horizons and are assigned multipliers based on
texture class as outlined in Table 6.
In the field, the horizon designation for “Ptmix” is applied to reclaimed soil layers where peat
was mixed with mineral material (typically surface layers). The multiplier is determined by the
texture of the mineral component (refer to Section 3.4).
— . of - 2 . ° aneees en >
A multiplier of 1.0 mm cm” is applied to any horizon with the TSS (tailings sand) horizon
designation, regardless of texture.
The following sections provide example AWHC calculations for a range of examples: organic
layers, layers with > 10% coarse fragments, and impermeable layers.
4.2.1.1.1 Organic modifier — Subclass O
Organic soils (peat) are salvaged for use in reclamation. Typically, peat is mixed with
underlying mineral material at either the material salvage stage by over-stripping peat deposits or
CEMA Third Edition Page 27
Land Capability Classification System _
__Vol. 1: Field Manual
post-placement by mechanical incorporation. These peat/mineral mixes are usually classed as
mineral soils (< 17 % TOC). However, due to numerous factors, homogeneity of material is
difficult to achieve and organic material (>17 % TOC) can occur in the reclaimed soil profile.
4.2.1.1.1.1 Surface organic
For reclaimed soils, where the TOC content of surface material is > 17 %, the layer or strata is
considered a component of the profile (recall Figure 1) but does not contribute to the profile
AWHC and is assigned a multiplier of 0.0 mm cm". A reduction in profile AWHC is incurred
for each centimeter of organic material if it occurs/begins within the top 10 cm of the soil surface
and the subclass “O” is applied where peaty surface horizon is >15 cm thick. The underlying
mineral material does contribute to the profile AWHC. Subclass “O” would be applied to the
20 cm-thick organic horizon in the reclaimed soil in Example 2.
Example 2. Profile AWHC for a reclaimed profile with surface organic material.
Horizon Horizon % Coarse
: : Texture . Multiplier AWHC Fragments AWHC
Designation Thickness :
Adjustment
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Ptmix' - 20 0.0 0 0 0 0
MIN CL 30 1.7 51 0 0 51
Tss' S 50 1.0 50 0 0 50
Profile AWHC= 101 (i)
' Note that although this layer was defined as a “Ptmix” in the field, the analytical results returned >17% TOC,
therefore a multiplier of 0 is applied
4.2.1.1.1.2 Buried organic
In reclaimed soils where organic material occurs beneath a minimum of 10 cm mineral material,
the organic material does contribute to the profile AWHC and is assigned a conservative
multiplier of 1.0 mm cm‘'. Subclass “O” does not apply to buried organic horizons. An example
is presented in Example 3. It should be noted that the “buried organic” AWHC multiplier has
been developed to address isolated occurrences on reclaimed landscapes. This practice is not
recommended as a standard reclamation technique prior to evaluation of its performance in the
field.
CEMA i < Third Edition
Land Capability Classification System __ ; - sabiiiaieel _Vol. 1: Field Manual
oe
Example 3. Profile AWHC for a reclaimed profile with buried organic material.
Horizon Horizon 3% Coarse
a Texture prep Multiplier AWHC Fragments AWHC
Designation Thickness :
Adjustment
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
MIN’ Cl 30 1.7 5! 0 0 51
Ptmix - 20 1.0 20 0 0 20
ISS S 50 1.0 50 0 0 50
Profile AWHC= & 121 (i)
" Note that the texture of the layer determines the multiplier
4.2.1.1.2 Stoniness modifier — Subclass P
Percent volume of coarse fragments (mineral material >2 mm diameter) data is collected by
horizon to the nearest 10 %. The presence of coarse fragments reduces the effective soil volume
available for water storage. For any horizon containing 10 % or more coarse fragments, the
horizon AWHC is reduced proportionately, as illustrated by Example 4. Where the total
adjustment for a profile is > 30 mm, Subclass “P” is applied. In Example 4, 10 % coarse
fragments in the peat mix (Ptmix) and 30 % coarse fragments in the mineral layer (MIN) resulted
in a 17.7 mm loss therefore the “P” subclass notation would not be applied.
Example 4. Profile AWHC for a reclaimed mineral profile with coarse fragments.
Horizon Horizon % Coarse
<a Texture . Multiplier AWHC Fragments AWHC
Designation Thickness '
Adjustment
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Ptumix’ Ss 20 1.2 24 10 24 21.6
MIN i 8 30 1.7 51 30 15.3 35.7
Tss? S ‘ 50 1.0 50 0 0 50
Profile AWHC= 107.3 (i)
" Note that the horizon designation coupled with the texture determines the multiplier
* Note that the horizon designation determines the multiplier, not the texture for the TSS
4.2.1.1.3 Impermeable layer modifier — Subclass Z
Where impermeable or water-repellent layers are present within the 1-m profile, regardless of
their soil texture class, these materials do not contribute to the profile AWHC and are assigned a
multiplier of 0.0 mm cm”. Impermeable layers are identified qualitatively as described in
Section 3.5.2.3.
CEMA” Third Edition Page 29
|
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
The profile contributing to the AWHC is limited to the material above the impermeable layer.
Subclass “Z” is applied where an impermeable layer reduces the effective profile by at least
30 cm, i.e., where it occurs within 70 cm of the soil surface. In Example 5, a KC water-repellent
layer beginning at 50 cm in the mineral profile causes the “Z” subclass to be applied.
Example 5. Profile AWHC for mineral profile with an impermeable layer.
Horizon Horizon % Coarse
, : Texture : Multiplier AWHC Fragments AWHC
Designation Thickness .
Adjustment
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Punix' S 20 ef 24 0 0 24
MIN & F 30 1.7 51 0 0 51
Kc? + SL 50 0.0 0 0 0 0
Profile AWHC= 75 (i)
* Denotes an impermeable layer.
' Note that the horizon designation coupled with the texture determines the multiplier
* Note that this KC layer is impermeable and therefore a multiplier of 0 is applied
In Example 6, the water-repellent layer occupies only 30 cm of the profile, but reduces the
effective profile to 20 cm. The underlying mineral material does not contribute the profile
AWHC.
Example 6. Where impermeable layer occurs within the profile, any underlying material
does not contribute to the AWHC.
Horizon Horizon % Coarse
tar Texture — Multiplier AWHC Fragments AWHC
Designation Thickness .
Adjustment
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Ptmix S 20 1.2 24 0 0 24
Kc! . SL 30 0.0 0 0: 0 0
MIN? CL 50 0.0 0 0 0 0
Profile AWHC= 24 (i)
* Denotes an impermeable layer
t Note that this KC layer is impermeable and therefore a multiplier of 0 is applied
t Note that a multiplier of 0 is applied to this permeable layer because it underlies an impermeable layer
4.2.1.2 Layering Modifiers
Recent soil moisture research in reclaimed systems and extensive field experience in natural
systems of the region indicate that soil layering (textural/lithological discontinuities) can
influence the soil moisture regime.
CEMA Third Edition Page 30
Land Capability Classification System ___Vol. 1: Field Manual
The three following layering modifiers were developed to account for observations of wetter soil
conditions on natural sites than those indicated by calculated profile AWHC (information from
the Soil and Vegetation Plots), and for documented increases in total AWHC in several layered,
reclaimed systems (O’ Kane, 2003; and Chaikowsky, 2003).
Horizons of differing texture must be described and sampled discretely for layering modifiers to
be applied. Two adjacent horizons or strata must have unique horizon designations. Where soils
meet the criteria outlined below (summarized in Table 7), the profile AWHC is increased by
15 mm of AWHC (approximately one half class equivalent). The total maximum upgrade is
15 mm (two layering multipliers cannot be applied to a single site).
4.2.1.2.1_ Impermeable subsoil
In natural or reclaimed soils where there is a water-repellent layer (recall R, KC, IMP, i) in the
lower subsoil (50 - 100 cm), upgrade submesic or drier moisture regimes (<145 mm profile
AWHC before adjustment, Table 9) by 15 mm AWHC for lower, toe, depression, and level slope
positions (Figure 3) (O° Kane, 2003). Application of this modifier is illustrated in Example 7.
Example 7. Profile AWHC for a natural mineral soil with a shallow bedrock.
Horizon Horizon ve Cares
Designation Texture Thich Multiplier AWHC Fragments AWHC
Adjustment
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Ah Ls s 11 8.8. 0 0 8.8
— Ck—i“‘z S!®””””:C CU 506 2=~C—<“<«~C sti‘ O* 50.6
R i - _ 46 ; 0.0 : Oo : 0 7 0 : 9
; i — ProfileAWHC= 5 594 (i)
Impermeable subsoil ¥ 15
Coarse over fine material stratification * OO
Fine over coarse material stratification * 7
Layering effect = an” ae (ii)
Adjusted AWHC = 74.4
CEMA Third Edition ~ Page 31
Land Capability Classification System ’ a Vol. 1: Field Manual
4.2.1.2.2 Coarse over fine material stratification
In sand or loamy sand natural soils where there is a textural discontinuity (material with >30 %
clay) at least 10 cm in thickness in the lower subsoil (50 - 100 cm), upgrade submesic or drier
moisture regimes (<145 mm profile AWHC before adjustment) by 15 mm AWHC for lower, toe,
depression, and fevef sfope positions (Figure 3) (O’Kane, 2003). (&xampfe: a sandy veneer
overlying fine-textured morainal deposits [Example 8]).
Example 8. Profile AWHC for a natural mineral soil with coarse over fine material
' stratification in the subsoil.
Horizon Horizon oe Comes
Designation Texture Tides Multiplier AWHC Fragments AWHC
Adjustment
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
fy - 5 0.0 0 0 0 0
Ah LS 5 1.4 7 0 0 7
Ae S 10 0.8 8 0 0 8
Bm LS 30 1.4 42 0 0 42
ts LS 10 1.4 14 0 0 14
IiCk & 45 1.6 72 0 0 72
Profile AWHC= > 143 (i)
Impermeable subsoil *
Coarse over fine material stratification ~ fi 15
Fine over coarse material stratification *
Layering effect = 15 (ii)
Adjusted AWHC = sg
4.2.1.2.3 Fine over coarse material stratification
In layered natural and reclaimed soils where there is fine material (>30 % clay) over coarse
material (S, LS, SL) in the lower subsoil (50 - 100 cm), upgrade submesic or drier moisture
regimes (<145 mm profile AWHC before adjustment) by 15 mm AWHC for lower, toe,
depression, and level slope positions (Figure 3) (Moskal, 1999; O’ Kane, 2003; Chaikowsky,
2003).
Examples include Ruth Lake soils (natural) and tailings sand reclamation with fine-textured
mineral material as a component of the soil cap (Example 9).
CEMA Third Edition Page 32
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Example 9. Profile AWHC for a reclaimed mineral soil with fine over coarse material
stratification in the subsoil.
wromers et od opm me eee ee mt i eee me oe eee ~~ weer or eee wee eee
% Coarse
meveheers Texture Paes Multiplier AWHC Fragments AWHC
Designation rhickness Pil
Adjustment
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Ptmix S 25 1.2 30 GO 0 30
MIN Cl 30 ine 51 0 0 51
rss S 45 1.0 45 0 0 45
Profile AWHC= 126 (i)
Impermeable subsoil *
Coarse over fine material stratification *
Fine over coarse material stratification “ 15
Layering effect = 15 (ii)
Adjusted AWHC = 141
Table 7. Summary of boundary conditions for the application of layering modifiers’.
pomeertes urs + we eee ns eet es See as
= teers oe
= RE ee ee
: oa Layering Modifier
Boundary Conditions
Impermeable subsoil Coarse/Fine Fine/Coarse
Natural and reclaimed Natural only Natural and reclaimed
my : Submesic or drier
Initial SMR + i : :
<'45 mm 100 cm” profile AWHC prior to adjustment
Texture of overlying
No limitations S, LS > 30% clay
layer
Cexture of undertying Water impermeable! > 30% clay S, LS
layer
Minimum thickness fine
none 10 cm none
Strata
Depth at which boundary 50-100 cm 50-100 cm 50-100 cm
must occur
Landscape boundaries Receiving positions only’ —_ Receiving positions only’ Receiving positions only’
Upgrade 15 mm 15 mm 15 mm
Note: all applicable criteria within the appropriate layering modifier column must be met in order for that modifier to be applied.
? Layer identified as impermeable (See Section 3.5.2.3).
‘For lower, toe, depressional, and level positions, as illustrated in Figure 3
CEMA Third Edition Page 33
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
4.2.1.3 Landscape Modifier
Slope steepness, aspect, and position are considered in terms of influencing potential
droughtiness or wetness. Slope steepness is recorded in percent (%) ranging from 0 to 100 %.
Aspect is the direction toward which the surface of the soil faces, expressed as an angle between
0 and 360 degrees true measured clockwise from true north. Slope position is the location of the
sample site within the segment of the slope, recorded as crest, upper slope, mid slope, lower
slope, toe, depression or level (see Figure 3). Slope length and type (complex versus simple) and
microtopography are not considered in the LCCS at this time.
crest} upper
Se
A) re) mid
°C) lower
toe depression level
© mee Sayin Si
A Crest The uppermost portion of a slope; shape usually convex in all directions with no
distinct aspect.
The upper portion of the slope immediately below the crest; slope shape usually
B Upper slope Per P an P i ’ i lie
convex with a specific aspect.
C Mid slope The area of the slope between the upper and the lower slope where the slope shape is
P usually planar with a specific aspect.
The lower portion of the slope immediately above the toe; slope shape usually
D Lower slope P : P y P P '
concave with a specific aspect.
E Toe The lowermost portion of the slope immediately below or adjacent to the lower slope;
slope shape concave grading rapidly to level with no distinct aspect.
; Any area that is concave in all directions, usually at the toe of the slope or within level
F Depression
topography.
G Level Any level area excluding toe slopes, generally horizontal with no distinct aspect.
Figure 3. Slope positions and corresponding characteristics.
CEMA Third Edition Page 34
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1. Field Manual
or submesic or drier moisture regimes (<145 mm profile AWHC before adjustment) with slope
‘10 % make adjustments (deductions or additions) as shown in Table 8
Table 8. Landscape adjustments according to aspect and slope position for slopes 210 %.
Aspect ] Slope Position
(degree range, Crest Upper Mid Lower Toe Depression Level
true) A B i. D E F G
NW-NE
-15 0 +15 +15 0 0 0
(316-45)
NE-SE
-15 -15 0 0 0 0 0
SE-SW
-15 -30 -30 -30 0 0 0
(136-225)
SW-NW
-15 -15 0 0 0 0 0
(226-315)
4.2.1.4 Adjusted AWHC (water table >100 cm)
The profile AWHC has the potential to be increased by the layering effect and increased or
decreased by the landscape effect. The adjusted AWHC is used with Table 9 to determine the
SMR index for sites where the water table is below 100 cm.
Equation 2. Adjusted AWHC.
Adjusted AWHC = profile AWHC + layering effect + landscape effect
To assign the SMR index, locate the adjusted AWHC in the AWHC (mm 100 cm" profile)
column of Table 9 and apply the corresponding SMR index and subclass.
4.2.2 SMR INDEX DETERMINATION WHERE WATER TABLE <100 CM
4.2.2.1 Natural Soils
For subhygric or wetter sites (where water table is within 100 cm of soil surface), the SMR index
is determined by guidelines presented in Table 9 for water table depth, mottle/gley descriptions,
surface organic thickness, and other factors (e.g., tree growth performance), as determined by the
soil surveyor. Mottles are described according to the CanSIS manual (Working Group on Soil
Survey Data, 1983).
There may be cases in natural organic soils (organic horizons >40 cm) where the depth to water
table will be greater than 100 cm. In these cases, SMR should be determined based on
8 kt ee 7 Third Edition Page 35
;
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
descriptive criteria in Table 9, not on AWHC calculations in Table 6, as these soils are not likely
to have a mesic or drier moisture regime.
4.2.2.2 Reclaimed Soils
At this time, reclaimed soils have had insufficient time to develop critical indicators (mottling,
surface organic development, and tree growth and performance) required for the identification of
subhygric and hygric aerated moisture regimes. Therefore, the SMR index for reclaimed soils
with water tables within 100 cm of the soil surface is determined solely by the depth to that water
table (Table 9). Reclaimed soils with water tables between 30 and 100 cm from the soil surface
are limited to “Hygric reduced” (7r).
CEMA Third Edition Page 36
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Table 9. Guide to determining soil moisture regime.
7 | S i .
' = , SMR
Idealized Wat ; Soil : Adjusted
Moisture ; ' Surface Organic _ wow Primary Water Common ; | Common ae Index
Description Slope ed Table Depth ; ‘ Drainage ear, AWHC :
Regime one Thickness (cm) (cm) Source Texture’ ; Ecosites’ | and
Position’ | Class (mm 100 cm)
Subclass
Ven Water removed extremely , Very coarse ces
wie rapidly in relation to supply; soil A-B , <56 ,
xeric paety & eetaten to suppry, 98 <3 >100 Precipitation (gravel - S) Very rapid n/a 10X
is moist for a negligible time All : (40)
(1) following precipitation Shallow soil
ane ¢ +
Water removed very rapidly in Very rapid |
Xeric re n to supply: soil is moist A-B Coarse ; 56 - 85
Saatien to Gupyty, 60 'S enews 3 100 Precipitation to a 24X
(2) for brief periods following All (S) (70)
precipitation rapid
emia Water remover rapidly in 3-c Coarse to 96-115
Subxeric alg \ d- Il:
- relation to supply, soil 1s moist 3 100 Precipitation moderately coarse Rapid at 38X
(3) for short periods following Variable LS -SI (100)
ace precipitation a (LS = SL)
Water removed readily in Rapid
Submesic | relation to supply; water B-C e Moderately coarse 116-145 P
: a , 3-5 >100 Precipitation to | Bed | 52
(4) available for moderately short Variable (SL) (130)
periods following precipitation well
Water removed somewhat slowly Precipitation in Medium (SiL ~ L) Well
in relation to supply, soil may ; moderate to fine- to fine 7 " |
Mesic remain moist for significant but . 6-9 100 textured soil and to . 146-175 | 66
" | - > a is c |
(5) sometimes short periods ofthe | Variable limited seepage (SCL -C) moderately | | (160)
year, available soil water reflects in coarse- Few coarse weil |
climatic inputs textured soils fragments
| Water removed slowly enough to
x . fi } | lesisiiie Equivalent to
Subhygric | keep the soil wet for a significant D Maybe | Precipitation and | Variable q oe :
part of the growing season, some | 10 - 40 conan depending on Imperfect | e.g : 80
(6) temporary seepage and possible | Variable | 100 mies seepage (190)
| mottling below 20 cm
| Hygric aerated: Waterremoved |
oe ‘ | Permanent ‘
Hveric | Slowly enough to keep the soil seinnter when Variable
ve ’ oA ‘ ee * wate
; | wet for most of the growing | E-G | 16-40 30-100 ere - we depending on — o hf Wet 66
7, g | > fluctuates E
(7a) | season, mottling present within | phgen~yaee seepage
Sen | | | | often <100 cm
- al
| Hygric reduced: Water removed | —
Hygric | slowly enough to keep the soil Seepage, water Variable
* eh P , | E-G | 16-40 30-100 table fluctuates depending on Poor | ght Wet 24W
(7r) wet for most of the growing “Saige :
often <100 cm seepage |
season; >50% gley within 50 cm ia %
CEMA Third Edition Page 37
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
f T T .
} = | | . S\N
idealized ™ . . . | Sot | | Adjusted Sen
Moisture | : Surface Organic ater Primary Water Common | Common | ak Index
Description Slope : Table Depth : a | Drainage ar AWH(
Regime | i Thickness (cm) (cm) Source Texture® Ecosites | and
Position Class | (mm 100 cm) :
| | Subclass
| T
| Water removed slowly enough to
Sehtetate | keep the water table at or near Seepage or Veristte
ubhydric | 7 / | : : | ; .
: surface for most of the _— | E-G | > 40 0-30 permanent water depending on Very poor .i< Wet OW
(8) | organic and gleyed mineral soils: | ie REE
| | table <30 cm seepage
| permanent seepage < 30 cm ‘
| below soil surface } |
| Water removed so slowly that ,
Hydric | the water table is at or above the | Permanent Veswante
; |} E-G > 40 0 surface water depending on | Very poor Wet OW
(9) | soil surface all year; organic and | ° a 4
‘ table seepage
| gleyed mineral soils | |
See Figure 3 - Idealized slope positions do not take into account potentially significant scale
effects; in cases of conflict between this and other indicators (such as common texture and
vegetation), the other indicators should be taken as paramount
L = loam, S = sand, Si = silt, C = clay
> As defined by Beckingham and Archibald (1996)
As determined from profile AWHC, layering modifiers and slope modifiers
Range (mode) (information from the Soil and Vegetation Plots)
Subhygric and hygric aerated moisture reqimes are to be applied only to natural soils
CEMA Third Edition Page 38
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
4.3 Soil Nutrient Regime (SNR) Index: Subclass F
rhe soil nutrient regime (SNR) index is based on the total organic carbon (Mg ha’'); total
nitrogen (Mg ha’); C:N ratio of the L, F, and H horizons (where present); p/us the TS (0-20 cm)
and the percent sand in the TS and US principal horizons.
4.3.1 TOTAL ORGANIC CARBON AND TOTAL NITROGEN
The total organic carbon (TOC; Mg ha’) is determined from the percent organic carbon and bulk
density data for the L, F, and H horizons plus TS (Example 10). The total nitrogen (Mg ha’) is
determined from the percent total nitrogen and bulk density data (Example 11).
Example 10. Calculating TOC (Mg ha’) for a 0.20 m-thick topsoil horizon with a bulk
density of 1.0 Mg m® and a TOC content of 4.0%.
4 MgC | Mg soil \ { 0.20 m soil \ ( 10000m?
f0C be Che" ol —— oe foemen ———-— | = 80 Ade C he
100 Mg soil
;
m ha
Example 11. Calculating total nitrogen (Mg ha’') for a 0.20 m-thick topsoil horizon with a
bulk density of 1.0 Mg m” and a total nitrogen content of 0.20%.
a wn
m
; , , { 0.2MgN ‘1 Mg soil) (0.20 msoil ) { 10000m?
otal nitrogen Mg N ha © Baten. He i S sat a \s pioneer ll
_ -1=4MgNha'
100 Mg soil
ha
4.3.2 C:N RATIO
The TOC and total nitrogen are determined for each horizon and summed across these horizons.
The carbon to nitrogen ratio (C:N) is determined from the TOC and total nitrogen data for the
L,F and H plus TS (0-20 cm) as illustrated in Example 12.
Example 12. Calculating C:N ratio for the topsoil plus L,F and H horizons of a soil with
TOC of 52.6 Mg ha" and total nitrogen of 3.4 Mg ha".
Horizon Horizon Bulk Total Total
: : Depth ; TOC TOC :
Designation Thickness Density Nitrogen Nitrogen
(cm) (cm) (Mg m”) (%) (Mg ha") (%) (Mg ha")
LF 5-0 5 0.2 17 17 2 2
Ae 0-10 10 1.1 3 33 0.1 1.1
Bm 10-20° 10 1.3 0.2 2.6 0.02 0.3
.
52.6 : ws
C:N =52.6/3.4=15
~
CEMA Third Edition Page 39
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
4.3.3 NUTRIENT RETENTION FACTOR
A soil texture component is used to capture the importance of nutrient retention ability of finer-
textured mineral materials. The points for topsoil and upper subsoil textures are based on
increasing clay content, progressing from sand to finer materials, and associated cation exchange
capacity for retaining nutrients in the absence of organic matter. Organic horizons (O horizons)
are assigned a zero.
One assigned rating must be determined for each of the TS and US based on the texture of the
horizons within each of these LCCS principal horizons. In Example 13, the TS principal horizon
is comprised of two horizons of differing texture. Half of the TS (0 to 10 cm) has a SL texture,
assigned rating of 2, and half of the TS (10 to 20 cm) has a CL texture, assigned rating of 3
(Table 10). The weighted texture rating for this TS is therefore 2.5 (50 % of 2 plus 50 % of 3).
The US (20 to 50 cm) has a texture of CL, assigned rating of 3. The resultant cumulative rating
for nutrient retention is TS + US = 2.5 + 3.0 = 5.5.
Example 13. Nutrient retention ratings for TS and US horizons of a natural soil.
i Horizon i
archenen Depth Texture Ranges Weighted Average Calculation
Designation Thickness Rating
(cm) (cm)
LF 5-0 5 - -
Ae 0-10 10 SL F TS = 10/20 x (2) + 10/20 x (3) =2.5
10- ‘ . ,
Bm 40 cL 3 US = 30/30 x 3 =3
50+
4.3.4 SNR CUMULATIVE RATING
Table 10 shows the class ranges for each soil nutrient parameter along with the corresponding
assigned rating. The assigned ratings for each parameter are added, regardless of which class
they fit under, to obtain the cumulative rating. The SNR index is assigned to the corresponding
cumulative rating. The cumulative rating ranges reported in Table 10 are guidelines based on
measured results from a, b, d and e ecosites (Boreal Mixedwood) in the Soil and Vegetation
Plots. There is considerable variation and overlap among ecosites.
For the data presented in Example 12 and Example 13, 52.6 Mg ha"' of C = assigned rating of 4;
3.4 Mg ha” of N = assigned rating of 4; a C:N ratio of 15 = assigned rating of 4; and a nutrient
CEMA Third Edition Page 40
Land Capability Classification System _ — ; Vol. 1: Field Manual
4.3.3 NUTRIENT RETENTION FACTOR
A soil texture component is used to capture the importance of nutrient retention ability of finer-
textured mineral materials. The points for topsoil and upper subsoil textures are based on
increasing clay content, progressing from sand to finer materials, and associated cation exchange
capacity for retaining nutrients in the absence of organic matter. Organic horizons (O horizons)
are assigned a zero.
One assigned rating must be determined for each of the TS and US based on the texture of the
horizons within each of these LCCS principal horizons. In Example 13, the TS principal horizon
is comprised of two horizons of differing texture. Half of the TS (0 to 10 cm) has a SL texture,
assigned rating of 2, and half of the TS (10 to 20 cm) has a CL texture, assigned rating of 3
(Table 10). The weighted texture rating for this TS is therefore 2.5 (50 % of 2 plus 50 % of 3).
The US (20 to 50 cm) has a texture of CL, assigned rating of 3. The resultant cumulative rating
for nutrient retention is TS + US = 2.5 + 3.0 =5.5.
Example 13. Nutrient retention ratings for TS and US horizons of a natural soil.
ersten Depth eras Texture nay Weighted Average Calculation
(cm) (cm)
LF 5-0 5 *
Ae 0-10 10 SL 2 TS = 10/20 x (2) + 10/20 x (3) =2.5
es te an CL 3 US = 30/30x 3 =3
‘5=254+3=55_
4.3.4 SNR CUMULATIVE RATING
Table 10 shows the class ranges for each soil nutrient parameter along with the corresponding
assigned rating. The assigned ratings for each parameter are added, regardless of which class
they fit under, to obtain the cumulative rating. The SNR index is assigned to the corresponding
cumulative rating. The cumulative rating ranges reported in Table 10 are guidelines based on
measured results from a, b, d and e ecosites (Boreal Mixedwood) in the Soil and Vegetation
Plots. There is considerable variation and overlap among ecosites.
For the data presented in Example 12 and Example 13, 52.6 Mg ha" of C = assigned rating of 4;
3.4 Mg ha’ of N = assigned rating of 4; a C:N ratio of 15 = assigned rating of 4; and a nutrient
CEMA Third Edition Page 40
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
retention rating of 5.5, fora SNR cumulative rating of 17.5 (4+4+4+5.5), an overall medium
SNR, and a SNR index of 15 (17.5 rounded to 18).
Table 10. Carbon, nitrogen, C:N, and nutrient retention assigned ratings and SNR
indices.
Parameter Poor Medium Rich
Organic Carbon Mg ha’ <35 35-70 >70
assigned rating 2 4 6
Natural <1.5 1.5-5.0 >5.0
Total Nitrogen Mg ha’ .
Reclaimed <3.0 3.0-5.0 >5.0
assigned rating 2 4 6
C:N Ratio >30 15-30 <15
assigned rating 2 4 6
Nutrient Retention (Texture)
assigned rating
S = 0, LS = 1, SL = 2, Finer = 3,0 =0
Sum = topsoil + upper subsoil
Cumulative Rating 6-8 9-12 13-17 18-21 22-24
SNR Index .° 10 15 20
SNR Subclass F F - - -
Source Information from the Soil and Vegetation Plots. : : r : =i
S = Sand, LS = Loamy Sand, SL = Sandy Loam, O = organic (>17% total organic carbon)
CEMA Third Edition Page 41
~
, é
Land Capability Classification System
__Vol. 1: Field Manual
4.4 Limiting Factor Deductions
Once the base soil rating has been calculated (the sum of the SMR and SNR indices) horizon-
dependent limiting factor deductions are calculated for the following factors:
e Soil structure and consistence: Subclass D
e Soil reaction (pH): Subclass V
e Soil salinity (electrical conductivity - EC): Subclass N
e Soil sodicity (sodium adsorption ratio - SAR): Subclass Y |
First, the TS point deduction (b) is product of the Base rating (a) and the most limiting of
structure, pH, EC, and SAR percent deductions. An Interim soil rating (c) is calculated and used
in the calculation of the upper and lower subsoil deductions. The Interim soil rating is the
difference between the base rating (a) and the TS deduction (b).
The US and LS principal horizons deductions (d and e, respectively) are calculated based on the
Interim soil rating (c), not the Base rating as in the case for the TS, and are assigned a relative
weighting of 2:1 (67 %:33 %, respectively). Refer to the Land Capability Worksheet (Appendix
D) for more details.
As illustrated in Figure 1, natural horizon boundaries or reclamation material boundaries may not
coincide with LCCS principal horizon boundaries. Where more than one natural soil horizon or
reclamation material strata exists within an LCCS principal horizon, a weighted average of the
deduction incurred is determined for that LCCS principal horizon. The Land Capability
Worksheet (Appendix D) is intended to layout the land capability rating process and is useful for
presenting simple examples. Additional space may be required for complex sites.
4.4.1 SoimSTRUCTURE: SUBCLASS D
Soil structure and related physical properties affect root penetration and availability of water, air
and nutrients to plants, and are strongly influenced by soil texture, organic matter content,
composition of exchangeable cations, freeze/thaw cycles, and biotic activity. Deductions are
relatively subjective, based on descriptions of the class (size) and kind of structure (shape), as
well as consistence of soil aggregates (resistance to crushing). Rooting characteristics may also
CEMA Third Edition Page 42
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
provide supporting evidence for the assessment process. Knowledge of soil structure and
consistence classification is assumed. For guidance refer to the CanSIS manual (Working Group
on Soil Survey Data, 1983).
Soil structure refers to the cohesion of individual soil particles into aggregates or “peds”, and
formation of large “compound structural units” from small peds, as a result of pedologic
processes. Fragments are broken pieces of non-structured soil materials, and are observed when
a soil mass is disrupted, resulting in ruptures along non-pedogenic planes of weakness, common
in parent materials. Following is a list of guidelines for use of soil structure information in the
LCCS.
e Structure and consistence are described for each horizon or strata occurring within the
1 m soil profile.
e Soil structure and consistence deductions apply only to mineral soils.
e No deductions are incurred for organic layers.
e No deductions for structure or consistence are incurred for mineral horizons where the
consistence is loose, friable, or very friable.
e Table 11 and Table 12 present deductions for structure and consistence, respectively.
Deductions for TS horizons are more severe than for subsoil horizons because of the
greater effect of these parameters in surface soils on plant establishment, growth and
survival.
e Amorphous (massive) soil structure has been assigned size classes to represent the size
of fragments to which the material breaks down when a small force (i.e., breaking apart
by hands) is applied.
e The overall deduction for Structure (Subclass “D”) is the sum of the percent deduction
of structure and consistence as illustrated in Example 14.
In Example 14, the TS principal horizon is comprised of two horizons of differing structure.
Because the total deduction for each of these two horizons is 0, the overall TS structure and
consistence deduction is 0. If the two layers had differing total structure and consistence
~
CEMA Third Edition Page 43
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
deductions, a weighted average would be calculated to arrive at the overall TS deduction (as in
nutrient retention Example 13).
== er = = = ae = ees 5 SE
Horizon
‘ a Depth Structure Consistence Total
Designation
. .* . de y . Ye met . SHO
(cm) Grade Size Class , — ype ae - a" ”
LF 5-0 . - - - “ “ 2
Ae 0-10 moderate fine platy 0 friable 0 0)
subangula ~
Bm 10-60 moderate coarse gis. aes 20 friable 0 0!
blocky
Ck 60-100 - coars massive 20 firm 10 30
' Deduction of 0 because where consistence is loose, very friable, or friable, no structure deductions are incurred
CEMA Third Edition Page 44
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Table 11. Structure type, kind, class, size (CanSIS, 1983) and corresponding deductions for topsoil and subsoil.
Deduction (%)
Type Kind Class Size (mm)
TS US/LS
1. Structureless — no observable aggregation, no definite A. Single grain — loose, incoherent mass - - 0 0
orderly arrangement around natural lines of weakness. of individual particles, as in sands
B. Amorphous (massive) — a coherent Breaking to fine fragments: <20 5 5
mass showing no evidence of any distinct Breaking to medium fragments 20-50 0 20
arrangement of soil particles -
Breaking to coarse fragments: 50-100 20 20
Breaking to very coarse fragments >100 50 50
2. Blocklike — soil particles arranged around a point and A. Blocky (angular blocky) — faces Fine blocky <10 0 0
ace 4 ed lec .
bounded by flat or rounded surfaces. rectangular and flattened less than 5 Medium blocky 10-20 10 10
sided, vertices sharply angular.
Coarse blocky 20-50 30 30
Very coarse blocky 50 30 30
B. Subangular blocky — faces Fine subangular blocky <10 0 0
subrectangular, more than 5 sided, Medium subangular blocky 10-20 5 0
vertices mostly oblique, or subrounded.
Coarse subangular blocky 20-50 20 20
Very coarse subangular blocky >50 20 20
C. Granular — spheroidal, characterized Fine granular <2 0 0
by approximately rounded vertices Medium granular 7-5 ( 0
Coarse granular 5-10 0 0
3. Platelike — soil particles arranged around a horizontal A. Platy — horizontal planes more or less _ Fine platy <2 0 0
plane and generally bounded by relatively flat horizontal developed. Medium platy 2-5 0 0
surfaces.
Coarse platy >5 0 0
4. Prismlike — soil particles arranged around a vertical axis A. Prismatic — vertical faces well Fine prismatic <20 5 0
and bounded by relatively flat vertical surfaces. defined and edges sharp. Medium prismatic 20-50 i 0
Coarse prismatic 50-100 20 20
Very coarse prismatic >100 50 50
B. Columnar — vertical edges near topof Fine columnar <20 5 0
columns not sharp Columns may be flat- \4egium columnar 20-50 20 1"
topped, rounded-topped, or irregular
Coarse columnar 50-100 20 20
Very coarse columnar >100 50 50
CEMA Third Edition Page 45
Land Capability Classification System : Vol. 1: Field Manual
Table 12. Wet, moist, and dry consistence from CanSIS (1983) and corresponding deductions for topsoil and subsoil.
Wet Consistence Moist Consistence Dry Consistence Deduction (%)
. Loose Kae Loose . ike a ae
Nonsticky Very friable Soft 0
Slightly sticky Friable Slightly hard 0
Sticky Firm Hard 10
Very sticky Very firm Very hard 20
. - Extremely hard 30
CEMA Third Edition Page 46
Land Capability Classification System a: a ; ; : Vol. 1 Field Manual
4.4.2 Soi REACTION (PH): SUBCLASS V.
A slightly acidic soil condition is the ideal situation for a balanced nutrient supply (Brady and
Weil, 1996). Soils more acidic than pH 5.0 may result in decreased forest productivity. At pH
levels below 4.0, some elements may be present in toxic concentrations. High pH or alkaline
conditions reduce bioavailability of phosphorus and most micronutrients. High pH is often
associated with saline and sodic conditions, which can further affect plant performance. Percent
deductions for soil pH (determined in H2O) are presented in Table 13, and their application
illustrated in Example 15. Note that deductions for topsoil and subsoil are slightly different and
that not all pH ranges are of equal increments (pH 4.1-4.3 and 4.4-5.0). The accepted convention
is to use pH measurements determined in water. For evaluating previous results where pH was
determined in CaCl», add 0.5 units to pH values <7.5 and do not change pH values of 7.5 and
greater.
Table 13. Topsoil and subsoil reaction deductions for soil pH (measured in H;Q).
— a —— ee = —==—= ——— es
Deduction (%)
pH range | TS | US/LS
= eee ene - 80
36-40 | 60 | =
41-43 40 | ans
44-50 | IS | “
51-55 | 0 | :
5.6 — 6.0 0 | :
6.1 —6.5 e :
6.6 -7.0 0 :
71-75 10
7.6 — 8.0 25 S
8.1 —8.5 40 =
8.6-9.0 60 60
>9.0 80 80
CEMA Third Edition setae
Land Capability Classification System _
_ Vol 1: Field Manual
Example 15. Soil reaction (pH measured in H,O) deductions for a reclaimed soil.
= a == EEE — =
Poser Depth coe pH Deduction Weighted Average Calculation
(cm) (cm) (%)
Pumix 0-10 | 10 60 0 TS=10/20x0+1020x10-5%
MIN. 1060 SO. 73. 10 US=30/30x 10= 10%
‘TSS 60-1000—=—“(tiCK—(sti«is—<“i*é‘“‘é CLS = 10/50 x 10 + 40/50 x 20 = 18%
4.4.3 Soi SALINITY (EC): SUBCLASS N
Salinity refers to the presence of excessive concentrations of soluble salts, such as sodium and
magnesium sulphates. Salts can adversely affect plant growth due to chemical effects and by
reducing water availability to plants through an increase in soil osmotic potential. Soil salinity is
expressed in terms of electrical conductivity (EC) in dS m' and is determined in a saturated paste
extract. Figure 4 presents deductions for soil salinity.
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
Deduction (%)
0 ' T T ' T
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Electrical conductivity (dS m")
Figure 4. Soil salinity deductions.
No deductions are incurred where the EC (dS m’) is less than 2. For the sloped part of the line
(EC of 2 to 8), the percent deduction is calculated according to Equation 3. An example is
presented in Example 16.
Equation 3. Soil salinity deductions for EC of 2 to 8 dS m".
Deduction (%) = 15(EC) - 20
CEMA Third Edition Page 48
Land Capability Classification System | _Vol. 1: Field Manual
Example 16. Soil salinity (EC) deductions for a reclaimed soil.
Horizon Horizon . : : : s
2 . Depth EC Deduction Weighted Average Calculation
Designation Thickness
(cm) (cm) (dS m'') (%)
Ptmix 0-10 10 0.2 0 I'S = 10/20 x (0) + 10/20 x (0) = 0%
MIN 10-60 50 1.0 0 US = 30/30x 0 =0%
TSS 60-100 40 2.4 16 LS = 10/50 x (0) + 40/50 x (16) = 13%
4.4.4 Som Sopiciry (SAR): SUBCLASS Y
Sodic soils are those soils that contain high concentrations of soluble sodium. As the sodium
adsorption ratio (SAR) increases above 12 (usually associated with a pH over 8.5) the stability of
soil aggregates decreases markedly. The finer particles (clays and organic matter) become
dispersed, resulting in adverse physical conditions (i.e., massive and sticky when wet and
extremely hard when dry).
Deductions for soil sodicity are presented in Figure 5. No deductions are incurred if the SAR is
less than 4. If the texture is SL or coarser do not deduct for SAR, because dispersion of the
low proportion of clays should not result in a serious impact on soil structure.
110
100
90 No deduction for SL or coarser Ill
80
70
60
50
40 -
30
20
10
0 + r ,
Deduction (%)
Figure 5. Soil sodicity deductions.
~
CEMA Third Edition Page 49
Land Capability Classification System aes Vol. 1: Field Manual
The relationship presented in Figure 5 has three distinct slope segments between SAR values of
4 and 14, inclusive. Table 14 presents the linear functions that represent each of these slope
segments. An example is presented in Example 17.
Table 14. Linear functions for calculation of percent deductions for SAR.
Slope Segments SAR Range Deduction (%)
- <4.0 0
I >4.0-8.0 Deduction (%) = 5(SAR) —10
Il >8.0-12 Deduction (%) =10(SAR) — 50
I] >12-14 Deduction (%) = 5(SAR) +10
Example 17. Soil sodicity (SAR) deductions for a reclaimed soil.
==
Horizon Horizon
Designation Depth Thickness SAR Deduction Weighted Average Calculation
(cm) (cm) (%)
Ptmix 0-10 10 0.5 0 TS = 10/20 x (0) + 10/20 x (18) = 9%
MIN 10-60 50 5.6 —18—s« US = 30/30 x 18 = 18%
TSS 60-100 40 10.1 St LS=10/50x (18) + 40/50 x (51) = 44%
i CEMA Third Edition Page 50
, é
Land Capability Classification System _ __Vol. 1: Field Manual
5.0 Mapping Applications
For the purpose of reporting, land capability tables, spreadsheets, and maps must show the land
classes and subclasses. However, when tabulating total hectares per class it is not necessary to
differentiate subclasses. It is desirable to maintain simplicity and precision, hence “pure” units
should be mapped to avoid compiexes where possibie. Table 15 outlines mapping protocols with
respect to delineation of land areas or map polygons. Similar units are considered to be within
one class of each other; for example, Classes | and 3 are similar to Class 2. Contrasting units
differ by two or more classes, hence, Class 2 and 4 are contrasting units.
Where there is variation in soils, landscapes, and resultant capabilities, complexes are necessary.
Conventions for designating composition of polygons are shown in Table 16. Methods used in
any given report should be referenced or explained/justified if different. The information in
Table 15 and Table 16 was developed by a Task Group (2003) commissioned by the SVSG.
Table 15. Mapping conventions regarding polygon size.
Polygon Size Mapping Protocol for
Diameter _— Pure/Complex Units’ Comments
<0.04 ha Disregard unless it exceeds
<20 m . oy ; <wegeaices Must be safe, stable
(<400 m’) 10 %, then include in complex
Spot symbol (A) applies to
20-100 m 0.04 — I ha ; ;
contrasting units
Fixable operators/regulators discretion
100-500 m 1-25 ha Map polygon pure units Fixable operatoss/regulators discretion
Map polygon pure or complex General management portions of
>500 m >25 ha ;
units classes apply
' Contrasting unit: 2 or more class difference in capability
Table 16. Mapping conventions to indicate purity of soil polygons.
Capability (example) Description of Polygon Purity
Pure Class >90 % of the polygon contains soils in the designated class or one class higher or lower
(3S) (similar soils); over 75 % of soils should be in designated class.
Each class is shown and its proportion to the nearest 10% is indicated by a decile
3 : ; superscript | to 9 representing 10 to“? %, respectively. Use a maximum of 3 classes. No
GS’, 4MD’, 5W) superscript means 100 %. Contrasting soils should be given priority over similar soils.
Complex of Classes
CEMA Third Edition Page 51
i
~
t
-
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
6.0 References
Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council. 1991. A Guide to the Preparation of
Applications and Reports for Coal and Oil Sands Operations. Edmonton, Alberta.
Alberta Soils Advisory Committee (ASAC). 1987. Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance
and Reclamation (revised). Alberta Agriculture. 56 pp.
Ballard, R. 1984. Fertilization of Plantations. pg. 327-360. Jn G.D. Bowen and E.K.S.
Nambiar, Eds. Nutrition of Plantation Forests. Academic Press.
Beckingham, J.D. and J.H. Archibald. 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta. Nat.
Resour. Canada., Can. For. Serv., Northwest Reg., North. For. Center, Edmonton, Alberta.
Spec. Rep. 5.
Brady, N. and R. Weil. 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Prentice Hall, Inc.
Alberta Environment. 1998. C&R/IL/98-7 Conservation and Reclamation Information Letter:
Land Capability Classification for Forest Ecosystems in the Oil Sands Region (Revised).
http://www.gov.ab.ca/env/protenf/landrec/index. html
Carter, M.R. (Ed.). 1993. Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. Canadian Society of Soil
Science. Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Chaikowsky, C.L. 2003. Soil Moisture Regime and Salinity on a Tailings Sand Storage Facility.
M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. 135 pp.
Crepin.J and R.L. Johnson. 1993. Soi! sampling for environmental assessment. Pg. 5-13 Jn
M.R. Carter, Ed. Soil sampling and methods of analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science.
Lewis Publishers. Boca Raton, Florida.
Canadian Society of Soil Science.Boca Raton, Florida.Expert
Committee on Soil Survey. 1987. Soil Survey Handbook Volume 1. Land Resource Research
Center, Contribution Number 85-30, Technical Bulletin 1987-9E. Research Branch,
Agriculture Canada.
Mapping Systems Working Group. 1981. A soil mapping system for Canada, Revised. Land
Resource Research Institute Contribution No. 142. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada.
Ottawa, Ontario. 94 pp.
McKeague, J.A. (Ed.). 1978. Manual on Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2™ ed.
Canadian Society of Soil Science.
Miller, H.G. 1984. Dynamics of Nutrient Cycling in Plantation Ecosystems. pg. 53-78. /n G.D.
Bowen and E.K.S. Nambiar, Eds. Nutrition of Plantation Forests. Academic Press.
Moskal, T.D. 1999. Moisture Characteristics of Coarse Textured Soils and Peat:Mineral Mixes.
M.Sc. Thesis, University of Alberta. Edmonton, AB. 139 pp.
O’Kane, M. 2003. Analytical Evaluation of Available Water Holding Capacity for the Syncrude
Canada Ltd. Reclamation Cover Systems. Memo presented to Soil and Vegetation Working
Group.
CEMA Third Edition Page 52
Land Capability Classification System _ Vol. 1: Field Manual
Oil Sands Vegetation Reclamation Committee. 1998. Guidelines for Reclamation to Forest
Vegetation in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, AB.
Province of Alberta. 2003. Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and Regulations.
Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter E-12, with amendments in force as of December
18, 2003. Alberta Queen's Printer.
Soil Classification Working Group. 1998. The Canadian System of Soil Classification. NRC
Research Press. Ottawa. 187 pp.
Working Group on Soil Survey Data. 1983. The Canadian Soil Information System (CanSIS):
Manual for Describing Soils in the Field. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.
Yarmuch, M. 2003. Measurement of Soil Physical Parameters to Evaluate Soil Structure
Quality in Reclaimed Oil Sands Soils, Alberta, Canada. M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Alberta. Edmonton, AB. 134 pp.
CEMA Third Edition Page 53
~
Appendix A. Soft-Spots List
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Appendix A. Soft-Spots List.
The Land Capability Classification System for Forest Ecosystems (LCCS) manual can be
considered a working document to facilitate evaluation of land capabilities for forest ecosystems
for natural and reclaimed lands in the Athabasca Oilsands Region of Alberta. In 2005, some
improvements were made as compared to the 1998 edition, particularly in rating of the soil
nutrient regime. With the completion of research projects in the region, the LCCS should be
progressively improved over time.
The LCCS makes numerous assumptions, which may or may not be tenable. There are several
sources of uncertainty, which may confound predictions based on it. Yet the intent of the LCCS
is such that it cannot eliminate all uncertainty, nor avoid making assumptions. At best, it can
reduce the uncertainty and discard untenable assumptions.
Definition of soil capability requires identification of key attributes, based on the ecosystem
functions that soil provides in support of forest growth. It also involves measurement or
estimation of these attributes, and their integration into a soil capability rating. One source of
uncertainty in this estimation lies in the relationship between soil and landscape capability on the
one hand, and forest productivity on the other. The assumption extends to how the latter is
measured, and the issue of whether relationships defined for natural soils also apply to reclaimed
landscapes. This uncertainty has been identified in several reviews of the LCCS by forestry
experts.
The following table is a list of “soft spots”, or acknowledged uncertainties/information gaps,
compiled by members of the Soil and Vegetation Subgroup during the process of manual
revision. Over time, assuming the items in the “soft-spot” list will be addressed through research
and monitoring programs, more confidence may be placed in the LCCS for assessing natural and
reclaimed landscapes. However, given current lack of understanding of some key components of
the system, the LCCS should be used as a tool, not as a prescription, and it is critical for
operators to understand that the LCCS is not meant to be used as a recipe for reclamation. There
are other components of the EPEA approvals, including the minimum placement requirements,
the Site Index Productivity, the Mine Reclamation Plan, and the Life of Mine Closure Plan that
contribute to building a successfully reclaimed ecosystem. As a final test, a site must meet the
CEMA Third Edition Appendix A Page 1
- Vol 1 Field Manual
criteria for reclamation certification. It is in the operator’s best interest to ensure that all steps
are taken to ensure reclamation certification will occur in a timely fashion.
Specific comments regarding the “Soft-spot list” generated by the SVSG is presented in the
following table.
CEMA Third Edition Appendix A Page 2
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Table A. Soft-spots list for LCCS.
Issue Comments
Actions to address
Soil-Site Productivity Relationships
Provide a detailed breakdown of the research and/or literature
reviews and decisions needed to resolve the uncertainty over current
reclamation treatments and land ratings and actual vegetation
performance, particularly for thinner reclamation caps or marginal
Class 3-4 treatments.
Forest productivity,
site index, and
relationships to soil
properties
Site Index is only one measure of long-term productivity and needs
to be supplemented with other markers of long-term ecosystem
viability/sustainability.
Overall sampling design should be consistent with both research and
operational monitoring, and be integrated with FRP (Forest Resource
Plan) Growth and Yield requirements
AWHC modifiers
Proper research data and more literature results are needed to
compare the relative magnitude of impact to soil moisture regime by
textural bands, slope aspects, and slope locations. On the landscape,
it appears that the impact of slope steepness, slope aspect, and slope
location are the major factors that determine the drainage system.
The texture of soils appears to have a localized effect on internal
drainage and moisture distribution inside a pedon. The magnitude of
point deductions for slope position and slope aspect, compared to that
for textural bands and material strata (Section 4.2) in the LCCS
manual, are questionable.
Sampling protocol
Soil moisture regime
(SMR)
Protocol development should be based on validated models and well-
founded information.
Recommendations to be derived from review of forest productivity
work conducted by JS Thrower and Associates. These
recommendations, and those made by group members, will be
integrated into future (2006 and on) plot network measurement, as
well as other research/monitoring programs as required.
Group is initiating “Indicators of Ecosystem Function” proposal to
identify indicators alternative to site index of long-term ecosystem
viability/sustainability.
Sampling task group to address.
SVSG to initiate, in 2005/06 programs to quantify layering effects
(U of S, L. Barbour, 2006), and moisture properties of coarser-
textured materials (glaciofluvial overburden and coarse tails) (ARC,
2005)
CEMA Third Edition
Appendix A Page 3
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Issue
Comments
Actions to address
(SMR)
Organic surface (O)
Water-repellent modifier
The upgrade of soil moisture regime based on the presence of a lean
oil sand layer is controversial. This approach is not balanced; it has
not considered the possible toxic effects of hydrocarbons to a range
of tree species and the impact of soil moisture availability below the
lean oil sand layer in a soil profile. The application of this modifier
to water-repellent lean oil sand may not be sufficiently conservative.
Slope/aspect modifier
Table 8 specifies SMR modifiers for various slope position and
aspect combinations. These modifiers are based on a generalized
understanding of these relationships, but is neither field tested nor
Subhygric and wetter moisture regimes
Reclaimed soils have had insufficient time to develop critical
indicators (mottling and tree growth/performance) required for the
identification of Subhygric and Hygric aerated moisture regimes. For
natural soils, water table and mottle relationships are not sufficiently
understood to allow standardization of moisture regime
determination based on these parameters.
SMR to SNR relationship
SMR accounts for 80% of the base land rating in the current model of
the LCCS, with SNR accounting for 20%. The validity of this
weighting has not been demonstrated and continued research is
necessary to refine this weighting.
Uncertainties around the effect of peat on soil quality and forest
productivity, and risk of fire. Need to understand the mineral nutrient
component, CEC and AWHC uncertainty due to the percentage of
Organic Matter in the soil profile.
Hydrocarbons in soil research (toxicological effects and degradation
kinetics) (S. Visser, U of C, 2005).
Instrumented watersheds on lean oil sands (hydrologic and physical
effects) (Albian, Syncrude and Suncor).
Current research on “Instrumented Watersheds” seeks to better
quantify the rc 'ationship between site climatic conditions and soil
moisture conditions. This research will be applied to the manual as it
becomes available.
SVSG to develop a project to provide context for potential ground-
fire problem through a risk-based assessment. Assess the
combustion potential of peat-mineral mixes and existing reclamation
areas based on OM type and content in the soil horizon, carefully
considering the variation induced by varying placement and
materials handling methodologies.
CEMA
Third Edition
Appendix A Page 4
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Issue
Comments
Actions to address
Organic surface (O)
Soil nutrient regime
(SNR)
Effects of peaty surface may be related to more issues than moisture
retention. Future action may be to conduct a literature review to
address moisture retention, decomposition, heat reflection, efc, as
well as impacts of high organic content when applied at high levels
(i.e., up to 1.0 m thick) on variables like cold soils/permafrost, etc.
To return to equivalent land capability, original mineral or organic
materials found on site, before land-disturbance, should be conserved
and used to conduct reclamation, as those natural materials have
similar natural nutrient storage and characteristics. Extreme caution
should be exercised in using engineered materials unless overall
beneficial effect to the land and the ecosystem is solidly
demonstrated and sustainable.
The current LCCS model uses organic carbon capital, carbon:
nitrogen ratio, and silt/clay content to determine SNR. Uncertainties
around the contributions of other micro and macronutrients remain.
Inclusion of additional nutrients (e.g. phosphorus) in this index
should be considered. Phosphorus is the preferred element to replace
Ca as a nutrient parameter.
Evaluation of the potential of available nutrients (e.g., P, K, Mg, Zn,
Fe) and/or their ratios for determining the SNR index will be
undertaken following analysis of foliar and upper subsoil chemistry
data.
CEMA
Third Edition
Appendix A Page §
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Issue Comments Actions to address
The LCCS may not deal adequately with soil organic matter (SOM)
specifically in comparing peat and peat mineral mixes to natural L, F,
and H horizons. Notwithstanding the differences between
agricultural and forest soils, SOM is of fundamental importance,
especially to the long-term productivity of a site. Yet, because the : ‘er : ;
amount of SOM at steady state is the difference between inputs from 5Y!Vie Quideau’s/Cindy Prescott’s collaborative program.
vegetation through litter and its decomposition, it cannot be measured Investigate program to evaluate Von Post scale of decomposition as
at the time of placement of the reclamation materials or shortly potential parameter for determination of SNR.
thereafter. Inputs of organic C will change as vegetation changes at
the site, especially in forests. This will affect nutrient cycling, and N
dynamics in particular. SOM also affects soil structure and water-
holding capacity. Numerous models are currently used for predicting
SOM dynamics. They also provide an integrated description of the
Soil nutrient regime factors that determine SOM content.
(SNR) sracteacnnestiv aaa
Look at SOM models (mentioned on the left)?
Uncertainties around nutrient contributions of “deeper” mineral soil
(LCCS upper subsoil). The current LCCS model does not recognize
the nutrient contribution of the 20-50 cm material that may provide
significant nutrient contribution to long-term forest productivity
(White and McNabb, 2004).
Upper subsoil horizons to be analyzed in 2005 field program.
Uncertainties around which method of measuring nitrogen
availability is most appropriate. Mineralizable N should be evaluated Mineralizable nitrogen to be analyzed in 2005 field program.
as a potential input to the LCCS for SNR determination.
The SNR rating system (Table 10) includes a rating system based on
topsoil and upper subsoil texture. This system is based on general
understanding of fine soil fraction contributions to nutrient retention
and release. However, the system’s thresholds and weighting are
based on specific understanding of these relationships, and may
require re-evaluation.
CEMA Third Edition Appendix A Page 6
Land Capabiility Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Issue
Comments
Actions to address
Soil nutrient regime
(SNR)
Limiting fiactor
deductions
Structure and
Consistence (D)
Soil saliniity
Tailings sand has different characteristics that may affect soil nutrient
capability.
Compare natural sand and tailing sands to determine, for each of the
operating mines, if adjustments to LCCS soil rating are required.
Many or most of the reclaimed area is fertilized at least once and
sometimes several times in the first decade. This creates uncertainty
over the value of soil characterizations, as observations on ecosystem
health and tree growth in this early phase may be driven by
fertilization. It is difficult to assess the true state of nutrient
cycling/ecosystem functioning and so the calculated land ratings are
likely to be inaccurate.
CI’ may retard plant growth
Structure and consistence deductions are based on a generalized
understanding on the effects of soil root occupancy and plant growth.
These deductions are not based on specific understanding of these
relationships, and may require re-evaluation.
Other related literature on trees and salinity exists and should be
consulted in future revisions of the LCCS.
Movement of salts from subsoils to rooting zones may affect site
productivity over the long term. Work by L. Barbour (S. Kessler
MSc. Thesis, unpublished) indicates that the diffusion gradient on
saline-sodic overburden is 15 cm. Additional research evaluating the
effect of soil cover depth, soil type, and volume of biomass should be
initiated. °
Natural plot network does not contain any naturally saline sites,
precluding the ability to calibrate the LCCS for salts.
Coarse textured soil research:
moisture properties of coarser-textured materials (glaciofluvial
overburden and coarse tails) (ARC, 2005).
Investigate the role of fertilization on these unique soils and the
impact on land ratings. Consider whether the long-term
sustainability of the reclaimed soils can be evaluated with early
fertilization driving the system; balance this against the possible
startup dynamics where early fertilization may establish nutrient
cycling. Determine a program of study to investigate issue and
adjust LCCS accordingly.
Evaluate the effects of Cl as a component that requires a scale of
deductions.
Identify salt-affected sites and include in plot network. Determine
effect to growth, by species, for increasing levels of Cl’, Na and
other contributors of salinity.
2005-6 work partially funded by SVSG (B. Purdy, U of A).
CEMA
Third Edition
Appendix A Page 7
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Issue Comments Actions to address
Hydrocarbons in soil research (toxicological effects and degradation
iibiemuebiens Manual does not currently consider the effects of hydrocarbons in kinetics) (S. Visser, U of C, 2005).
soil on tree productivity. Instrumented watersheds on lean oil sands (hydrologic and physical
effects) (Albian, Syncrude and Suncor).
LCCS principal horizons and weightings
A more extensive literature review to cover common tree species
along with field observations should be integrated to deal with this
issue. Input from professional foresters and ecologists is needed to
adequately address this issue.
It appears that deeper depth is needed to deal with dry and sandy sites
for some species, or to protect trees from salt damage.
Model Is a 1-m profile appropriate (xeric)?
Limiting factor
Some sites of xeric character may necessitate up to a 3 m depth
evaluation in order to properly evaluate the required rooting depth
considering moisture limitations
Is a 1-m profile appropriate (Jack pine)?
Jack pine rooting depth in sandy slopes with shallow (<1m) depth to
inhospitable rooting material. Is this included in the “model” issue
above?
Most limiting factor approach for structure, pH, EC, and SAR.
Is the *most limiting” approach for limiting factors appropriate?
Could effects be cumulative?
The LCCS has progressed to the point where it should address how
Initiate review of assessment depths in light of published rooting
depths observed for boreal tree species on varying moisture regimes.
Determine depth of root zone that is important for Jack pine growth
and survival on sand substrates, related to above.
Determine which factors are cumulative and need to be considered
with additive deductions.
deductions factors are combined into a single rating. Given the number of
variables considered, some of the information included may provide
little or no benefit in terms of increasing the predictive power of the
system. The reason for this is covariance among variables. This is
especially true for the soils component.
CEMA Third Edition Appendix A Page 8
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Issue Comments Actions to address
Interactive effects of The salvage and use of upland forest LFH direct placement and
vegetation and woody debris to reclamation sites should contribute to soil rating in Evaluate these variables for inclusion in future edition of the LCCS.
material placement the LCCS.
Soil parameters and site index alone may not be sufficient indicators
Indicators of success of successful reclamation. Other indicators of ecosystem SVSG issuing RFP to determine list of candidate indicators.
function/health should be evaluated to validate the LCCS rating.
A formal peer review of the entire LCCS manual will be conducted
Peer Review and recommendations of the reviews added to the list of soft spots to
resolve prior to September of 2009.
Consider commissioning peer review after this release (rather than
2008) so issues found can be resolved prior to 2009 release.
CEMA Third Edition Appendix A Page 9
Appendix B. Suggested Reclaimed Horizon Designations
Land Capability Classification System _ a a _ Sean PS De Vol. 1: Field Manual
Appendix B. Suggested Reclaimed Horizon Designations
L, F, and H — As described in the Canadian System of Soil Classification (Soil Classification
Working Group, 1998). These horizons will develop on reclaimed sites over time.
OQ — This organic layer (having 17% or more organic carbon by weight) occurs where
insufficient mineral material has been incorporated with organic materials. Applies to
surface and buried layers. Buried “O” layers are those with 10 cm or more mineral
material (having less than or equal to 17 % organic carbon by weight).
OB — Refers to undifferentiated overburden material.
MIN — This mineral layer is low in organic matter and does not meet the criteria for Ptmix or O
layers. It is salvaged and replaced mineral overburden that does not meet the criteria for
R, KM, or KC. It is a dominant mineral component of many reclaimed landscapes.
TSS — Tailings sand is the coarse mineral by-product of the oil extraction process. It is a
dominant mineral component of reclaimed tailings structures where it occurs as the
substrate. It can also be found as a surface horizon (windblown).
R — This consolidated bedrock layer is too hard to break with hands (>3 on Moh’s scale) or to
dig with a spade when moist (Soil Classification Working Group, 1998).
KC — This mineral layer originates from the Cretaceous Clearwater formation. It is saline-
sodic, dispersive, and relatively impermeable to water. When it occurs, it is typically a
component of the lower soil profile (substrate).
KM — This oil-impregnated sand originates from the Cretaceous McMurray formation. The
total hydrocarbon content can vary significantly. When it occurs, it is typically a
component of the lower soil profile (substrate). It is often referred to as lean oil sand
(LOS).
Ptmix — This mineral layer is enriched with organic mater (peat), but not so much to be classed
as and ”O” layer (see above).
CEMA Third Edition Appendix B Page 1
Appendix C. Site and Soil Description Form
f
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Appendix C. Site and Soil Description Form
Location/Site Assessment date
Map Unit/Soil Series Assessor(s)
Soil Classification Ecosite abcdefghijkl
Parent Material Genetic: Type Natural Reclaimed
Expression:
Drainage VR R W MW i! VP Site Index and Species | Species: Site Index:
Height:
Age:
Soil Moisture Regime 123 4 5 6 7a 7b 8 9 Stand Quality High Moderate Low Non-Productive
Soil Nutrient Regime [T= SS Compaction None Sli Mod Sev V.Sev_ Ext
Topography Percent: Notes
Position:
Aspect:
Coarse Fragments (% vol. to | m) Gravel:
Stones:
Depth to water table (cm)
Samples
CEMA Third Edition Appendix C Page 1
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Structure Mottles —
; Sample
Horizon Depth Color Texture Size Consistence Impermeable | Fragments
Grade Kind Abundance | Size Contrast (%) ID
(mm)
Analytical results
Total :
Sample | Thickness | TOC ; Bulk density Clay Sand Silt pH EC
Site Id nitrogen Texture SAR
ID (cm) (%) (%) (Mg m”) (%) (%) (%) (H,O) | (dS m'')
CEMA Third Edition Appendix C Page 2
Appendix D. Land Capability Worksheet
Land Capability Classification System fe Vol. 1: Field Manual
Appendix D. Land Capability Worksheet.
SOIL MOISTURE REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Water table <100 cm!
Surface
; Water table
Moisture SMR i
i Index and Description oo ea depth
regime Subclass thickness
(cm) (cm)
Subhygric Water removed slowly enough to keep the soil wet for
. 80 a significant part of the growing season; some 10 - 40 May be <100
(6) temporary seepage and possible mottling below 20 cm.
Hygric Hygric aerated: Water removed slowly enough to keep
: 66 the soil wet for most of the growing season; mottling 16 - 40 30-100
(7a) present within 50 cm.
Hygric Hygric reduced: Water removed slowly enough to keep
> 24W the soil wet for most of the growing season; >50% gley 16 - 40 30-100
(7r) within 50 cm.
é Water removed slowly enough to keep the water table
Subhydric at or near surface for most of the year; organic and
OW ; a > 40 0-30
(8) gleyed mineral soils; permanent seepage < 30 cm
below soil surface.
Hydric Water removed so slowly that the water table is at or
OW above the soil surface all year; organic and gleyed > 40 0+
(9) mineral soils.
' Circle the appropriate SMR index and subclass based on soil and landscape description, surface organic thickness, and water table depth
Subhygric and hygric moisture reqimes are not to be applied to reclaimed soils at this time.
Note: additional indicators can be found in Table 9.
AWHC Calculation (water table >100 cm; no gleying)
: Be @ cenarce fraome
arvana Texture Serene Multiplier AWHC oeamnee Ragen AWHC
Designation Thickness adjustment
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Profile AWHC= (i)
Layering modifiers
Check box if soil profile information above Impermeable layer QO
meets the criteria for one of the layering Coarse over fine material stratification QO
modifiers for a 15 mm upgrade. Fine over coarse material stratification QO
Layering effect = (ii)
Subclass ‘O’ where >15 cm O horizon beginning at 0 cm (reclaimed soils).
Subclass ‘P’ where % coarse fragments adjustment is 230 mm
Subclass ‘Z° where R, KC, IMP, or i horizon occupies 230 cm of the profile.
CEMA Third Edition Appendix D Page 1
Land Capability Classification System _ _ - Vol. 1: Field Manual i
Landscape Modifiers (210% slopes) |
Aspect Crest Upper Mid Lower t
(degree range) 1 2 3 4
(iii)
Circle applicable slope and aspect combination, toe, depression and level = 0 i
Adjusted AWHC
Adjusted AWHC = (i) + (ii) + (iii) (i) + (ii) + (iii) = ‘
Moisture regime SMR Index and Subclass Adjusted AWHC (mm 100cm") uy
Very xeric (1) 10X < 56
Xeric (2) 24X 56 — 85 &
Subxeric (3) 38X 86 —115
Submesic (4) 52 116 — 145 :
Mesic (5) 66 146 — 175
SMR Index q
Subclass -
SOIL NUTRIENT REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Total C, N and C:N i
| lori zon Depth I a _ TOC TOC TT —
Designation thickness density Nitrogen Nitrogen
(cm) (cm) (Mg m’) (%) (Mg ha") (%) (Mg ha")
}> x §
C:N
CEMA Third Edition Appendix D Page 2
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Fieid Manual
Nutrient retention rating
Horizon Horizon i Assigned = ’
Desionati Depth exture fa Weighted average calculation
esignation thickness rating
(cm) (cm)
Cumulative rating
‘Parameter _ . | Value Rating
; Organic Carbon (Mg ha") 7
Total Nitrogen (Mg ha’')
C/N ratio
Nutrient Retention’ TS US
| Weighted average calculation may be required eae ny
Cumulative rating D>
Soil Nutrient Regime Index and Subclass SNR
Base rating
Base Rating = SMR Index + SNR Index = SMR Index + SNR index a (a)
Subclass(es) = _
LIMITING FACTOR DEDUCTIONS
Weighted average calculations must be performed as required.
Topsoil Adjustment (0-20 cm)
~ Factor Value ‘Deduction Subclass
Structure/Consistence % D
Reaction pH % V
Salinity EC (dS m'') | te: | % N
Sodicity SAR oes % Y
TS deduction (b) (b) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(a)
"(a ee
CEMA Third Edition Appendix D Page 3
Land Capability Classification System
Interim soil rating (c) (c) = (a) —(b)
(c) = ( ; re |
Upper Subsoil Adjustment (20-50 cm)
Factor Value
Structure/Consistence
Reaction pH
Salinity EC (dS m'')
Sodicity SAR
US deduction (d) (d) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.67)
ge Ce | ne
Lower Subsoil Adjustment (50-100 cm)
Factor Value
Structure/Consistence
Reaction pH
Salinity EC (dS m")
Sodicity SAR .
LS deduction (e) (e) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.33)
a
Final Land rating = (a) — (b) — (d) — (e)
Nol. 1: Field Manual
Deduction Subclass
% D
% V
% N
% Y
_(d)
Deduction Subclass
% D
% V
% N
% Y
Final Land Rating = ( )-( )-(. )-( )=
| Land capability rating ranges | Land capability class Land capability rating:
81-100 | Class | Land capability class:
61-80 | Class 2 Subclass(es):
41-60 | Class 3
21-40 Class 4
0-20 | Class 5
CEMA Third Edition Appendix D Page 4
Appendix E. Example Site and Soil Description and
Land Capability Worksheet
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Appendix E. Example Site and Soil Description and Land Capability Worksheet
Site and Soil Description Form
Location/Site 1 Assessment date May 24, 2006
Map Unit/Soil Series Dover Assessor(s) CEMA
Soil Classification Orthic Gray Luvisol Ecosite abc id efghijkl
Parent Material Genetic: Glaciolacustrine Type Natural (4 Reclaimed
Expression: Undulating
Drainage VR R W Mw . P Ww Site Index and Species | Species: White Spruce Site Index: 19
Height: 14 m
Age: 36 years
Soil Moisture Regime & 6 7a 7b 8 9 Stand Quality High Low Non-Productive
Soil Nutrient Regime P iM R Compaction Sli Mod Sev V.Sev Ext
Topography Percent: 3 Notes
Position: Midslope (C)
Aspect: 90° (East)
Coarse Fragments (% vol. to 1 m) Gravel: <2%
Stones: 0%
Depth to water table (cm) > 100 cm
Samples 4
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 1
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Structure Mottles Cc
oarse
: Sample
Horizon Depth Color Texture Size Consistence Impermeable | Fragments
Grade Kind Abundance Size Contrast (%) ID
(mm)
LFH 12-0 10YR2/Im | - - - . - - - - - 0 1-LFH
Ae 0-15 1OYR7/Id | L S 2-5 PL Friable - - - . <2 1-Ae
Bt 15-50 1OYR 3/2m | C M 10-20 SBK | Friable - - - - <2 1-Bt
BC 50-100 10OYR 5/3m | C M <20 MA | Firm - - - - <2 1-BC
Analytical results
Total :
Sample | Thickness | TOC ; Bulk density Clay Sand Silt pH EC
Site Id nitrogen Texture SAR
ID (cm) (%) (%) (Mg m*) (%) (%) (%) (H;0) | (dS m')
l 1 - LFH 12 27.1 1.06 0.15 - - - . 8 - ~
l 1 —Ae 15 0.52 0.02 1.65 20 36 44 L 4.6 0.3 1.0
| 1-Bt 35 0.25 0.01 1.60 58 9 33 Cc 5.0 0.3 1.0
l 1-BC 50 - . - 53 19 28 6.6 0.35 1.6
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 2
Land Capability Classification System ae ea Vol. 1: Field Manual
LAND CAPABILITY WORKSHEET
SOIL MOISTURE REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Water table <100 cm!
: Surface
eeeiede SMR = enmite Water table
: Index and Description iio depth
—— Subclass jm (cm)
Subhygric Water removed slowly enough to keep the soil wet for
, 80 a significant part of the growing season; some 10 - 40 May be <100
(6) temporary seepage and possible mottling below 20 cm.
Hygric Hygric aerated: Water removed slowly enough to keep
a 66 the soil wet for most of the growing season; mottling 16 - 40 30-100
(7a) present within 50 cm.
Hygric Hygric reduced: Water removed slowly enough to keep
nit 24W the soil wet for most of the growing season; >50% gley 16 - 40 30-100
(7r) within 50 cm.
Water removed slowly enough to keep the water table
Subhydric ‘ :
) ow at or near surface for most of the year; organic and > 40 0-30
(8) gleyed mineral soils; permanent seepage < 30 cm
below soil surface.
Hudric Water removed so slowly that the water table is at or
: OW above the soil surface all year; organic and gleyed > 40 0+
(9) mineral soils.
; Circle the appropriate SMR index and subclass based on soil and landscape description, surface organic thickness, and water table depth.
Subhygric and hygric moisture reqimes are not to be applied to reclaimed soils at this time.
Note: additional indicators can be found in Table 9
AWHC Calculation (water table >100 cm; no gleying)
sania Texture Poona Multiplier AWHC ™ Ta AWHC
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Ae L 15 1.5 WF Bo <2 - 23
Br C 35 1.6 56 <2 . 56
BC o 50 1.6 80 <2 - 80
Profile AWHC= <& 159 (i)
Layering modifiers
Check box if soil profile information above Impermeable layer O) :
meets the criteria for one of the layering Coarse over fine material stratification QO -
modifiers for a 15 mm upgrade. Fine over coarse material stratification O -
Layering effect = 0 (il)
Subclass ‘O’ where >15 cm O horizon beginning at 0 cm (reclaimed soils)
Subclass ‘P’ where % coarse fragments adjustment is >30 mm
Subclass ‘Z’ where R, KC, IMP, or i horizon occupies 230 cm of the profile
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 3
Land Capability Classification System _
Landscape Modifiers (210% slopes)
_Vol. 1: Field Manual
SMR, SMR index and Subclass
Aspect Crest Upper Mid Lower
(degree range) 1 2 3 4
NW-NE (316-45) -15 0 +15 +15
NE-SE (46-135) -15 -15 0 0
SE-SW (136-225) -15 -30 -30 -30
SW-NW (226-315) | -15 -15 0 0 0 (iii)
Circle applicable slope and aspect combination, toe, depression and level = 0
Adjusted AWHC
Adjusted AWHC = (i) + (ii) + (iii) 159 0 (ii) + 0 (iii) = 159
Moisture regime SMR Index and Subclass Adjusted AWHC (mm 100cm')
Very xeric (1) 10X < 56
Xeric (2) 24X 56 — 85
Subxeric (3) 38X 86-115
Submesic (4) 52 116 — 145
Mesic (5) 66 146 — 175
Mesic
Soil Moisture Regime
SMR Index 66
Subclass -
SOIL NUTRIENT REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Total C, N and C:N
i Horizon Bulk Total Total
Designation —_ thickness density — — Nitrogen Nitrogen
(cm) (cm) (Mg m') (%) (Mg ha’) (%) (Mg ha")
LFH 12-0 12 0.15 27 49 1.06 1.9
Ae 0-15 15 1.65 0.52 13 0.02 0.5
Bt 15-20 5 1.60 0.25 2 0.01 0.1
D> 64 D> 2.5
C:N =64/2.5 =26 ees
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 4
Land Capability Classification System _ ee ee a _ ____Vol. 1: Field Manual
Nutrient retention rating :
Horiz ——
meshes Depth ee Texture Aanigned Weighted average calculation a
Designation thickness rating
(cm) (cm)
LFH 12-0 12 . : 3
Ae 0-15 15 L 3 lS = 15/20 x (3) + 5/20 x (3) =3
Bt 15-50 35 _ 3 US = 30/30 x (3) =3
L=3+3=6 5
Cumulative rating
Parameter Value Rating :
Organic Carbon (Mg ha’) 64 4
Total Nitrogen (Mg ha’') 2.5 4 3
C/N ratio 26 4
Nutrient Retention’ TS 3 US 3 6
, Weighted average calculation may be required i
Cumulative rating > » 18
Soil Nutrient Regime Index and Subclass SNR 15
Base rating r
Base Rating = SMR Index + SNR Index SMR Index + SNR index = 81 (a) i
AA 18
Subclass(es) =
LIMITING FACTOR DEDUCTIONS
Weighted average calculations must be performed as required. ‘
Topsoil Adjustment (0-20 cm) ‘
Factor Value | Deduction Subclass
0-1 5cm=(75%)(0% ded.)=0%
Structure/Consistence 0% D
15-20cm=(25%)(0% ded.)=0%
0-1 5cm=(75%)( 15% ded.)=11%
Reaction pH 15% Vv
15-20cm=(25%)( 15% ded.)=4%
Salinity EC (dS m'') 0.3 0% N
Sodicity SAR l 0% Y ;
TS deduction (b) (b) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(a)
(b)=(__IS___ fa)=__ 12.2 _(b) i
CEMA i. Third Edition Appendix E Page 5
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Interim soil rating (c) (c) = (a) —(b)
(c)=(__ 81 _)-(___ 12.2) = _ 68.8 (¢)
Upper Subsoil Adjustment (20-50 cm)
Factor Value Deduction Subclass
Structure/Consistence 20-50cm=(100%)(0% ded.)=0% % D
Reaction pH 5.0 15% Vv
Salinity EC (dS m") 0.3 0% N
Sodicity SAR l 0% Y
US deduction (d) (d) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.67)
(@)=(__ 15M _iBBK0.67)=___—-6.9 (d)
Lower Subsoil Adjustment (50-100 cm)
Factor Value Deduction Subclass
Structure/Consistence 50-100cm=( 100%) 15%ded)=10% 15% D
Reaction pH 6.6 0% Vv
Salinity EC (dS m'') 0.35 0% N
Sodicity SAR 1.6 0% Y
LS deduction (e) (e) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.33)
(e) = ( I5_ 68.8 ~—(0.33)=__— 3.4 (e)
Final Land rating = (a) — (b) — (d) — (e)
Final Land Rating=(__81 )-( 12.2 )-( 6.9 )-( 3.4 )= 58.5
Land capability rating ranges Land capability class | Land capability rating: 59
. 81-100 Class | " Land capability class: 3
61-80 Class 2 Subclass(es):
41-60 Class 3
21-40 Class 4
0-20 Class 5
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 6
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Site and Soil Description Form
Location/Site 2 Assessment date May 24, 2006
Map Unit/Soil Series Mildred Assessor(s) CEMA
Soil Classification Eluviated Dystric Brunisol Ecosite a rn cdefghijkl
Parent Material Genetic: Fluvial Type Natural | @ Reclaimed
Expression: Undulating
Drainage VR W MW | PVP Site Index and Species | Species: Jack pine Site Index: /7
Height: /5 m
Age: 45 years
Soil Moisture Regime Sx (3 4 5 6 7a 7b 8 9 Stand Quality High Moderate Low Non-Productive
Soil Nutrient Regime AM R Compaction Sli Mod Sev V.Sev Ext
Topography Percent: 5 Notes
Position: Midslope (C)
Aspect: 180° (South)
Coarse Fragments (% vol. to | m) Gravel: <2%
Stones: 0%
Depth to water table (cm) > 100cm
Samples 4
CEMA - = Third Edition — Appendix & Page 7
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Structure Mottles Cc
oarse
: : Sample
Horizon | Depth Color Texture Size Consistence Impermeable | Fragments
Grade Kind Abundance | Size | Contrast (%) ID
(mm)
LF 5-0 1OYR2/Im | - - - - - - - - - 0 2-LF
Ae 0-11 LOYR 5/3m |S - - SG Loose - . - - <2 2-Ae
Bm 11-44 7,5YR 5/8m | LS - - SG Loose - - - - <2 2-Bm
BC 44-71 1OYR 5/6m | LS - - SG Loose : . - - <2 2-BC/C
G 71-100 1OYR 5/3m | LS - - SG Loose - - - : <2 2-BC/C
Analytical results
Sample | Thickness | TOC cna Bulk density Clay Sand Silt pH EC
Site Id nitrogen Texture SAR
ID (cm) (%) (%) (Mg m”) (%) (%) (%) (H,0) | (dS m’)
2 2-LFH 5 8.14 0.37 0.2 - - - - 5.0 - -
2 2-Ae 11 1.05 0.03 1.3 4 92 4 S 4.3 0.1 0.2
2 2-Bm 33 0.5 0.02 1.47 3 93 4 S 4.8 0.1 0.2
2 2-BC/C 56 - - - 3 90 7 S 5.4 0.15 | 0.3
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 8
Land Capability Classification System __Vol. 1: Field Manual
LAND CAPABILITY WORKSHEET
SOIL MOISTURE REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Water table <100 cm!
Surface Ww
. ; ater table
Moisture SMR Le organic
Index and Description prs cee depth
regime Subclass (cm) oat (cm)
Subhyeric Water removed slowly enough to keep the soil wet for
i 80 a significant part of the growing season; some 10 - 40 May be <100 |
(6) temporary seepage and possible mottling below 20 cm.
Hyeric Hygric aerated: Water removed slowly enough to keep
siege 66 the soil wet for most of the growing season; mottling 16 - 40 30-100
(7a) present within 50 cm.
Hyeric Hygric reduced: Water removed slowly enough to keep
ee 24W the soil wet for most of the growing season; >50% gley 16 - 40 30-100
(7r) within 50 cm.
Water removed slowly enough to keep the water table
Subhydric ow at or near surface for most of the year; organic and > 40 0-30
(8) gleyed mineral soils; permanent seepage < 30 cm
below soil surface.
Hydric Water removed so slowly that the water table is at or
; OW above the soil surface all year; organic and gleyed > 40 0+
(9) mineral soils.
, Circle the appropriate SMR index and subclass based on soil and landscape description, surface organic thickness, and water table depth
Subhygric and hygric moisture reqimes are not to be applied to reclaimed soils at this time.
Note: additional indicators can be found in Table 9
AWHC Calculation (water table >100 cm; no gleying)
(cm) ; (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Ae S 11 0.8 8.8 <2 . 8.8
Bm S 33 0.8 26.4 <2 - 26.4
BC/C S 56 0.8 23.2 <2 - 44.8
Profile AWHC= 80 (i)
Layering modifiers
Check box if soil profile information above Impermeable layer 7
meets the criteria for one of the layering Coarse over fine material stratification OQ -
modifiers for a 15 mm upgrade. Fine over coarse material stratification OQ -
Layering effect = 0 (ii)
Subclass ‘O’ where >15 cm O horizon beginning at 0 cm (reclaimed soils).
Subclass ‘P’ where % coarse fragments adjustment is 230 mm
Subclass *Z’ where R, KC, IMP, or i horizon occupies 230 cm of the profile.
CEMA ey Third Edition Appendix E Page 9
Land Capability Classification System _
Landscape Modifiers (210% slopes)
Vol. 1: Field Manual
—= SS Se =
Mid Lower
Aspect Crest Upper
(degree range) 1 2 3 4
NW-NE (316-45) -15 0 +15 +15
NE-SE (46-135) -15 -15 0 0
SE-SW (136-225) -15 -30 -30 -30
SW-NW (226-315) -15 -15 0 0 0 (iii)
Circle applicable slope and aspect combination; toe, depression and level = 0
Adjusted AWHC
Adjusted AWHC = (i) + (ii) + (iii) 80 (i) + 0 (ii) + 0 (iii) 80
Moisture regime SMR Index and Subclass
Adjusted AWHC (mm 100cm’')
Very xeric (1) 10X
Xeric (2) 24X
~ Subxeric(3) 38X
‘Submesic (4) 52
Mesic (5) 66
< 56
56 — 85
86 — 115
116-145
146 — 175
SMR, SMR index and Subclass
Soil Moisture Regime aan
SMR Index 24
Subclass X
SOIL NUTRIENT REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Total C, N and C:N
i Horizon Bulk Total Total
Daigualon — thickness density ian wees Nitrogen Nitrogen
(cm) (cm) (Mg m’) (%) (Mg ha’) (%) (Mg ha’)
LFH 5-0 5 0.2 8.14 8.1 0.37 0.37
Ae 0-11 11 7 ae 10s ti(ité«iSC 0.03 0.43
Bm 11-20 9 “a? ea We 6.6 0.02 0.26
agen. 5 yr (30 ca ‘oa
C:N =30/1.1=28
CEMA a _——~—~«<STin Edition =—s—“‘(it*é‘(!”!”~”~~C;C#Ai@pipenidix E Rage 10
Land Capability Classification System
_ Vol 1: Field Manual
Nutrient retention rating
ees ee = =e = 2 == OS see ee | ee eo
Psst Depth pee Pexture pp oy Weighted average calculation
(cm) (cm)
<x “na mene er eee -
Ae 0-11 aT S60 TS=11/20x (0) +9/20x(0)=0
Btoo~*«~*‘*SS A 3 § Os US = 24/30 x (0) + 6/30 x (0) =0
BC. . 44-50 6 : § ane ma 0 — z -0 +0=0 7
Cumulative rating
Parameter Value Rating
Organic Carbon (Mg ha’') 30 2
Total Nitrogen (Mg ha’') 1.1 2
C/N ratio 28 4
Nutrient Retention’ ‘TS wie 0 US 0 : 0
‘ Weighted average calculation may be required ——- —_
Cumulative rating z 8
Soil Nutrient Regime Index and Subclass SNR OF
Base rating
Base Rating = SMR Index + SNR Index SMR Index t SNR index = 24 (a)
24 iD
Subclass(es) X F
LIMITING FACTOR DEDUCTIONS
Weighted average calculations must be performed as required.
Topsoil Adjustment (0-20 cm)
Factor | Value Deduction Subclass
Structure/Consistence 0-20cm =(100%)(0% ded.)=0% 0% D
: 0-1 lom=(55%)(40% ded.)=11%
Reaction pH 29 % Vv
11-20cm=(45%)( 15% ded.)=4%
Salinity EC (dS m") 01 0% N
Sodicity SAR 02 0% Y
TS deduction (b) (b) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(a)
(2... in....@
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 11
|
|
Land Capability Classification System it ; = Vol. 1: Field Manual
Interim soil rating (c) (c) = (a) —(b)
(c)=(_ 24 )-(_ 70 )=_17 ©€)
Upper Subsoil Adjustment (20-50 cm)
: ; Factor ee Value Deduction Subclass
: 20-44cm=(80%)(0% ded.)=0%
Structure/Consi-tence 0% D
44-50cm=(20%)(0% ded.)=0%
: 20-44cm=(80%)( 15% ded.)=12%
Reaction pH 12% V
44-50cm=(20%)(0% ded.)=0%
Salinity EC (dS m") 0.1 0% N
Sodicity SAR 0.2 0% Y
US deduction (d) (d) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.67)
fs ee SE ae © A |!) LO. |
Lower Subsoil Adjustment (50-100 cm)
Factor Value Deduction Subclass
Structure/Consistence 50-100cm=( 100%) 10%ded)=10% 0% D
Reaction pH 5.4 0% V
Salinity EC (dS m") 0.15 0% N
Sodicity SAR 0.3 0% Y
LS deduction (e) (e) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.33)
(e)=(__O_ M__17_ —X0.33)=__ 9 _ e)
Final Land rating = (a) — (b) — (d) — (e)
Final Land Rating=( 24 )-( 7.0 )-(__14 )-(__0 )=__15.6
Land capability rating ranges Land capability class Land capability rating: 15.6
81-100 | Class | | Land capability class: ;
61-80 | Class 2 | Subclass(es): FVX
41-60 Class 3
21-40 Class 4
0-20 | Class 5 |
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 12
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Site and Soil Description Form
Location/Site 3 Assessment date May 24, 2006
Map Unit/Soil Series McMurray Assessor(s) CEMA
Soil Classification Gleyed Humic Regosol Ecosite abcd 2 fghijkl
Parent Material Genetic: Fluvial / bedrock within 100cm_ | Type Natural (WY Reclaimed
Expression: Terrace
Drainage
VR R W MW ff PvP
Site Index and Species | Species: Trembling Aspen
Height: 25 m
Age: 67 years
Site Index: 22
Soil Moisture Regime
123 4 5 @ 7a 7% 8 9
Stand Quality
High Moderate Low Non-Productive
Soil Nutrient Regime
pP M RR
Compaction Sli Mod Sev
V.Sev Ext
Topography
Percent: 5
Position: Lower (D)
Aspect: 90° (East)
Coarse Fragments (% vol. to | m)
Gravel: <2%
Stones: 0%
Notes: Consolidated Bedrock at 74 cm
Depth to water table (cm) 740m
Samples 5
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 13
EEE ee
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Structure Mottles Cc
oarse
; Sample
Horizon Depth Color Texture Size Consistence Impermeable | Fragments
Grade Kind Abundance | Size Contrast (%) ID
(mm)
LFH 6-0 10YR2/Im | - . - - - 7 - - - 0 3-LFH
Ahj 0-24 1OYR 5/2m | SiCL W 2-5 GR Friable - . - - <2 3-Ahj
Btjg) 24-61 10YR 4/4m_ | SiICL - 5-10 SBK | Friable Common Fine | Distinct | - <2 3-Btjg)
IIBCg 61-74 7.5YR 4/4m | CL a <20 MA | Friable Many Fine | Distinct | - <2 3-IIBCg
R 74-100 | 1OYR6/2m | - - >100 MA | Ext. hard - - - Yes 100 -
Analytical results
Sample Thickness TOC Total nitrogen | Bulk density Clay Sand Silt pH EC
Site Id Texture . SAR
ID (cm) (%) (%) (Mg m”) (%) (%) (%) (H,0) | (dS m°)
3 3-LFH 6 32.2 1.14 0.15 - - - . 6.8 - -
3 3 — Ahj 24 8.4 0.45 | 0.51 27 19 54 SiCL 7.3 0.4 0.5
3 3 — Btjgj 37 - - 1.19 34 14 52 SiCL 7.5 0.4 0.5
3 3 - IIBCg 13 - - 1.50 30 36 34 CL 7.6 0.63 0.7
3 3-R 26 - - - - - - - 7.6 0.63 0.7
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 14
Land Capability Classification System art
LAND CAPABILITY WORKSHEET
SOIL MOISTURE REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Water table <100 cm!
Vol. 1: Field Manual
» Surface
Niattene SMR kn ecguule Water table
Index and Description oe sar depth
regime Subclass (em) (cm)
Subhygric Water removed slowly enough to keep the soil wet for
2 80 a significant part of the growing season; some 10 - 40 May be <100
(6) temporary seepage and possible mottling below 20 cm.
Hygric Hygric aerated: Water removed slowly enough to keep
. 66 the soil wet for most of the growing season; mottling 16 - 40 30-100
(7a) present within 50 cm.
Hygric Hygric reduced: Water removed slowly enough to keep |
eal 24W the soil wet for most of the growing season; >50% gley 16 - 40 30-100
(71) within 50 cm.
Water removed slowly enough to keep the water table
Subhydric at or near surface for most of the year; organic and ‘
OW ‘ : > 40 0-30
(8) gleyed mineral soils; permanent seepage < 30 cm
below soil surface.
Hydric Water removed so slowly that the water table is at or
OW above the soil surface all year; organic and gleyed > 40 0+
(9) mineral soils.
' Circle the appropriate SMR index and subclass based on soil and landscape description, surface organic thickness, and water table depth
Subhygric and hygric moisture reqimes are not to be applied to reclaimed soils at this time
Note: additional indicators can be found in Table 9
AWHC Calculation (water table >100 cm; no gleying)
Horizon ice tee Horizon oe . % coarse fragments nc
Designation vue Thickness eee nee aes adjustment tetas
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Profile AWHC= 2
Layering modifiers
Check box if soil profile information above Impermeable layer “
meets the criteria for one of the layering Coarse over fine material stratification O -
modifiers for a 15 mm upgrade. Fine over coarse material stratification O -
Layering effect = 0
Subclass “O° where >15 cm O horizon beginning at 0 cm (reclaimed soils)
Subclass *P’ where % coarse fragments adjustment is 230 mm
Subclass ‘7’ where R, KC, IMP, or i horizon occupies 230 cm of the profile
(i)
CEMA
Third Edition
Appendix E Page 15
ne
Land Capability Classification System
Landscape Modifiers (210% slopes)
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Aspect Crest Upper Mid Lower
(degree range) 1 2 za 4
NW-NE (316-45) -15 0 +15 +15
NE-SE (46-135) -15 -15 0 0
SE-SW (136-225) -15 -30 -30 -30
SW-NW (226-315) -15 -15 0 0 te. (iii)
Circle applicable slope and aspect combination, toe, depression and level = 0
Adjusted AWHC
Adjusted AWHC = (i) + (ii) + (iii) = 80 (i) + 0 (ii) + 0 (iii) = 80
Moisture regime SMR Index and Subclass Adjusted AWHC (mm 100cm')
Very xeric (1) 10X < 56
Xeric (2) 24X 56 — 85
Subxeric (3) 38X 86-115
Submesic (4) 52 116-145
Mesic (5) 66 146 — 175
SMR, SMR index and Subclass Soil Moisture Regime Subhygric
SMR Index 80
Subclass
SOIL NUTRIENT REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Total C, N and C:N
iz Horizon Bulk Total Total
pala — thickness density _ _— Nitrogen Nitrogen
(cm) (cm) (Mg m’) (%) (Mg ha’) (%) (Mg ha")
LFH 6-0 6 0.15 32.3 29.1 1.14 1.0
Ahj 0-24 24 0.51 8.4 85.5 0.45 4.6
Btjgj 24-61 37 1.19 - - - -
IIBCg 61-74 13 1.50 - - - -
x 115 » 5.6
C:N =115/5.6=21
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 16
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual a
Nutrient retention rating i
| Horiz n a ik 7
rman Depth xe lexture sg Weighted average calculation i
Designation thickness rating
(cm) (cm)
LFH 6-0 6 - - 3
Ahj 0-24 24 SiCL 3 TS = 20/20 x (3) = 3
Big) 24-50 26 SiCl 3 US = 4/30 x (3) + 26/30 x (3) =3
~=3+3=6 i
Cumulative rating
Parameter Value Rating A
Organic Carbon (Mg ha’) 115 6
Total Nitrogen (Mg ha") 5.6 6
C/N ratio 21 4 ’
Nutrient Retention’ TS 3 US 3 6
Weighted average calculation may be required i
Cumulative rating x 22
Soil Nutrient Regime Index and Subclass SNR 20
Base rating :
Base Rating = SMR Index + SNR Index = SMR Index t SNR index = 100 (a)
Rn ” 4
Subclass(es)
LIMITING FACTOR DEDUCTIONS
Weighted average calculations must be performed as required. i
Topsoil Adjustment (0-20 cm) i
Factor Value Deduction Subclass
Structure/Consistence 0-20cm=(100%)(0% ded.)=0% 0% D q
Reaction pH a2 10 % Vv
Salinity EC (dS m") 0.4 % N
Sodicity SAR 0.5 0% Y ;
TS deduction (b) (b) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(a)
(b)=(__10__ fa)=__ 10) F
Interim soil rating (c) (c) = (a) —(b)
(c)=(__100_ _)-(__10 )=_90_(€) i
CEMA i Third Edition = Appendix E Page 17
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Upper Subsoil Adjustment (20-50 cm)
Factor Value Deduction Subclass
Structure/Consistence 20-50cm=(100%)(0% ded.)=0% 0% D
Reaction pH 7.5 10% V
Salinity EC (dS m'') 0.4 0% N
Sodicity SAR 0.5 0% Y
US deduction (d) (d) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.67)
(d)=(__10_ 90S (0.67)=_ 6.0 (dd)
Lower Subsoil Adjustment (50-100 cm)
Factor Value Deduction Subclass
; 50-74cm=(48%)(O%ded)=0%
Structure/Consistence 42% D
74-100cm=(52%)(80%ded)=42%
50-6 lom=(22%)( 10%ded)=2.2%
Reaction pH 17.8 % Vv
61-100cm=(78%)(20%ded)=15.6%
Salinity EC (dS m"') 0.63 0% N
Sodicity SAR 0.7 0% Y
LS deduction (e) (e) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.33)
(e)=(__42__ (_90_ (0.33) = _12.4 _ (e)
Final Land rating = (a) — (b) — (d) — (e)
Final Land Rating=( 100 )-( 10 )—( 6.0 )-(___ 12.4 _ )= 71.6
; Land capability rating ranges | Land capability class | Land capability rating: 72
81-100 Class | Land capability class: 2
61-80 Class 2 Subclass(es):
41-60 Class 3
21-40 Class 4
0-20 Class 5
CEMA i Edition sss— ~ Appendix E Page 18
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Site and Soil Description Form
Expression: Level
Location/Site 4 Assessment date May 24, 2006
Map Unit/Soil Series Algar Assessor(s) CEMA
Soil Classification Orthic Gleysol Ecosite abciefghijkl
Parent Material Genetic: Glaciolacustrine Type Natural 0M Reclaimed |
Drainage
VR R W MW I [AvP
Site Index and Species | Species: White Spruce
Height: 23 m
Age: 69 years
Site Index: /8
Soil Moisture Regime
1 23 4 5 6 [74 7b 8 9
Stand Quality
High Low Non-Productive
Soil Nutrient Regime
Pp [Mm R
Compaction
Sli Mod Sev V.Sev Ext
Topography
Percent: J
Position: Level (G)
Aspect: None
Coarse Fragments (% vol. to 1 m)
Gravel: <2%
Stones: 0%
Notes: Water table at 75 cm
Depth to water table (cm) 75
Samples 4
CEMA Third Edition
Appendix E Page 19
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1 Field Manual
Structure Mottles os
Coarse
Horizon Depth Color Texture Size Consistence Impermeable Fragments | Sample ID
Grade Kind Abundance | Size Contrast (%)
(mm)
LFH 2-0 10OYR2/Im | - - - : - - - 0 4-LFH/Om
Om 0-18 1OYR2/Im | - - - . - - 0) 4-LFH/Om
Ahe 18-20 lOYR4/3m | L W <2 GR Friable - 2 4-Ahe
Bg 20-50 1OYR4/2m | C M 10-20 SBK | Firm Many Coarse | Distinct - 2 4-Be
Cg 50-100 1OYR S/im_ | CL 50-100 | MA | Firm Many Coarse | Distinct - 2 4-Cg
Analytical results
Sample Thickness TOC Total nitrogen | Bulk density Clay Sand Silt pH EC
Site Id Texture SAR
ID (cm) (%) (%) (Mg m”) (%) (%) (%) (H;O) | (dS m')
4 4-LFH/Om 20 41.4 111 0.1 - - - - 5.1 :
a 4 -— Ahe 2 1.37 0.06 1.14 15 44 4] L 4.6 0.1 0.3
4 4-Bg 48 l 0.04 1.44 49 18 33 Cc 5.4 0.1 0.3
4 4-—Cg 46 - - 1.58 35 36 29 CL 5.4 0.22 0.4
CEMA ‘Third Edition A ONIX E Page 20
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
LAND CAPABILITY WORKSHEET
SOIL MOISTURE REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Water table <100 cm!
= —— oo
Surface
ee a ——— = = —_—
Water table
Moisture SMR P(t organic
Index and Description : depth
regime Seiinie thickness
oupciass (cm) (cm)
Subhygric W ater removed slowly enough to keep the soil wet for
, 80 a significant part of the growing season; some 10 - 40 May be <100
(6) temporary seepage and possible mottling below 20 cm.
Hyoric Hygric aerated: Water removed slowly enough to keep
slag 66 the soil wet for most of the growing season; mottling 16 - 40 30-100
(7a) present within 50 cm
Hygric Hygric reduced: Water removed slowly enough to keep
. 24W the soil wet for most of the growing season; >50% gley 16-40 30-100
(71) within 50 cm
Water removed slowly enough to keep the water table
Subhydric ow at or near surface for most of the year; organic and - 40 0-30
(8) gleyed mineral soils; permanent seepage < 30 cm
below soil surface
Hydric Water removed so slowly that the water table is at or
i OW above the soil surface all year; organic and gleyed » 40 0+
(9)
mineral soils
Circle the appropriate SMR index and subclass based on soil and landscape description, surface organic thickness, and water table depth
Subhyegric and hygric motsture reqimes are not to be applied to reclaimed soils at this time
Note additional indicators can be found in Table 9
AWHC Calculation (water table >100 cm; no gleying)
e en; > fraome
Horizon — Horizon Multiplier AWHC o coarse fragments AWHC
Designation Thickness adjustment
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Profile AWHC= (i)
Layering modifiers
Check box if soil profile information above Impermeable layer C) -
meets the criteria for one of the layering Coarse over fine material stratification O -
modifiers for a 15 mm upgrade. Fine over coarse material stratification QO -
Layering effect = 0 (ii)
Subclass ‘O” where 15 cm O horizon beginning at 0 cm (reclaimed soils)
Subclass ‘P’ where % coarse fragments adjustment is 230 mm
Subclass ‘Z’ where R, KC, IMP, or i horizon occupies 230 cm of the profile
CEMA © Third Edition ~ Appendix E Page 21
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Landscape Modifiers (210% slopes)
SMR, SMR index and Subclass
Aspect Crest Lower
(degree range) 1 2 3 4
NW-NE (316-45) -15 0 +15 +15
NE-SE (46-135) -15 -15 0 0
SE-SW (136-225) -15 -30 -30 -30
SW-NW (226-315) -15 -15 0 0 0 (iii)
Circle applicable slope and aspect combination, toe, depression and level = 0
Adjusted AWHC
Adjusted AWHC = (i) + (ii) + (iii) 66 (i) + 0 (ii) + 0 (iii) 66
Moisture regime SMR Index and Subclass Adjusted AWHC (mm 100cm"')
Very xeric (1) 10X < 56
Xeric (2) 24X 56 —85
Subxeric (3) 38X 86 —115
Submesic (4) 52 116 — 145
Mesic (5) 66 146 — 175
Hygric
Soil Moisture Regime
SMR Index 66
Subclass
SOIL NUTRIENT REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Total C, N and C:N
Horizon Bulk Total Total
Duiguien — thickness density = — Nitrogen Nitrogen
(cm) (cm) (Mg m’) (%) (Mg ha") (%) (Mg ha’)
LFH/Om 2-0-18 20 0.1 41.4 82.8 1.11 2.2 a
Abe 1-20 2 1.14 14 3.1 0.06 O1
—_ > 85.9 ee
C:N =86/2.3=37 ee
A’ UUt—~—~—~—~—S Se ee Sa Third Edition Appendix E Page 22
Land Capability Classification System _ 7 _ Vol. 1. Field Manual i
Nutrient retention rating i
‘jee a ee
areeers Depth Texture ses cng Weighted average calculation :
Designation thickness rating ‘
(cm) (cm)
LFH/Om 2-0-18 20 . . ¢
: 7 r/ + 8/2
Ahe 18-20 2 L 2 ee a
0.3
Bg 20-50 30 US = 30/30x (1) =3 2
~=0+3=3
Cumulative rating 3
Parameter Value Rating
Organic Carbon (Mg ha’') 86 6
Potal Nitrogen (Mg ha’') 2.3 4 i
C/N ratio 37 2
Nutrient Retention’ rs 0 US 3 3 A
Weighted average calculation may be required
Cumulative rating x 15
Soil Nutrient Regime Index and Subclass SNR 10 é
Base rating
Base Rating = SMR Index + SNR Index SMR Index ¢ SNR index = 76 (a) 4
AA in
Subclass(es) i
LIMITING FACTOR DEDUCTIONS 4
Weighted average calculations must be performed as required.
Topsoil Adjustment (0-20 cm) F
Factor Value Deduction Subclass
. ts 18cm=(90% (0% ded.)=0% :
Structure/Consistence 0% D
2cm=(10%)(0% ded.)=0%
18cm=(90% (0% ded.)=0%
Reaction pH a 1.5% Vv
2cm=( 10%) 15% ded.)=0%
Salinity EC (dS m") 0.1 0% N
Sodicity SAR 0.3 0% Y |
TS deduction (b) (b) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(a)
(b)=(__ 2 fa) ll (b) i
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 23
Land Capability Classification System : Vol. 1: Field Manual
Interim soil rating (c) (c) = (a) —(b)
(c)=(__ 76 __)-f LI ) 74.9 (ce)
Upper Subsoil Adjustment (20-50 cm)
Factor Value Deduction
Structure/Consistence 20-50cm=( 100% )( 10% ded.)=10% 10%
Reaction pH 5.4 0%
Salinity EC (dS m") 0.1 0%
Sodicity SAR 0.3 0%
US deduction (d) (d) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.67)
(d)=(__10_ 74.9 YK 0.67)=_ 5.0)
Lower Subsoil Adjustment (50-100 cm)
Factor Value Deduction
Structure/Consistence 50-100cm=( 100% )(0%ded)=30% 30 %
Reaction pH 5.4 0%
Salinity EC (dS m") 0.22 0%
Sodicity SAR 0.4 0%
LS deduction (e) (e) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.33)
(e)=(_ eM SD —N0.53) = 74 (e)
Final Land rating = (a) — (b) — (d) — (e)
Final Land Rating=( 76 )~—{( 1.1 )-( 5.0 )—( 7.4 )= 62.5
Land capability rating ranges Land capability class Land capability rating:
81-100 | Class | | Land capability class:
61-80 Class 2 Subclass(es):
41-60 Class 3
21-40 Class 4
0-20 | Class 5
CEMA (wt”~””””.COC;t~tCtitst«*:*«CST Me Edition me ie
Subclass
D
Subclass
D
V
N
y
—aaS
Appendix E Page 24
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Site and Soil Description Form
Location/Site 5 Assessment date May 24, 2006
Map Unit/Soil Series Muskeg ; Assessor(s) CEMA
Soil Classification Terric Mesisol Ecosite abcdefgh dj k |
Parent Material Genetic: Organic / Mineral Type Natural Reclaimed
Expression: Level
Drainage VR R W MW I P Site Index and Species Species: Black Spruce Site Index: N/A
Height: <5 m
Age: N/A
Soil Moisture Regime 123 4 5 6 7a 7b 9 Stand Quality High Moderate Low \Non-Productive
Soil Nutrient Regime P ny} R Compaction None Sli Mod Sev V.Sev Ext
Topography Percent: / Notes: Water table at 20 cm
Position: Level (G)
Aspect: None
Coarse Fragments (% vol. to | m) Gravel: <2%
Stones: 0%
Depth to water table (cm) 20
Samples 3
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 25
NN eeeeeeeeerererernrmeeneneseaeaeseeEprmmrmm>m=_EO
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Structure Mottles .
Coarse
Horizon | Depth Color Texture Size Consistence Impermeable | Fragments | Sample ID
Grade Kind Abundance | Size Contrast (%)
(mm)
Om 0-20 1OYR 2/im | - - - - : : - - - 0 5- Om!
Om 20-60 10YR 2/im | - - - - - - - - - 0 5- Om2
Beg 60-100 1OYR 4/3m | CL W 10-20 SBK | Very sticky | Many Coarse | Distinct | - <2 5-Bg
Analytical results
Sample | Thickness TOC | Total nitrogen | Bulk density Clay Sand Silt pH EC
Site Id Texture SAR
ID (cm) (%) (%) (Mg m”) (%) (%) (%) (HO) | (dS m°)
5 5-Om| 20 30 | 0.2 - - - - 4.5 0.46 0.17
5 5-Om2 40 - - - - - - - 5.0 0.23 0.25
5 5-Bg 40 - - - 30 30 40 CL 7.0 0.47 0.12
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 26
Land Capability Classification System _ : Vol. 1: Field Manual
LAND CAPABILITY WORKSHEET
SOIL MOISTURE REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Water table <100 cm!
Surface
: Water tabl
Moisture SMR va? organic soos
Index and Description ; a depth
regime Subclass thickness
subctass (cm) (cm)
Subhygric Water removed slowly enough to keep the soil wet for
, 80 a significant part of the growing season; some 10 - 40 May be <100
(6) temporary seepage and possible mottling below 20 cm.
Hygric Hygric aerated: Water removed slowly enough to keep
eg? 66 the soil wet for most of the growing season; mottling 16 - 40 30-100
(7a) present within 50 cm.
Hygric Hygric reduced: Water removed slowly enough to keep
gl 24W the soil wet for most of the growing season; >50% gley 16-40 30-100
(7") within 50 cm.
. Water removed slowly enough to keep the water table
Subhydric ow at or near surface for most of the year; organic and > 40 0-30
(8) — gleyed mineral soils; permanent seepage < 30 cm
below soil surface.
Hydric Water removed so slowly that the water table is at or
: OW above the soil surface all year, organic and gleyed > 40 0+
(9) mineral soils.
Circle the appropriate SMR index and subclass based on soil and landscape description, surface organic thickness, and water table depth
Subhygric and hygric moisture reqimes are not to be applied to reclaimed soils at this time
Note: additional indicators can be found in Table 9
AWHC Calculation (water table >100 cm; no gleying)
Horizon Horizon % coarse fragments
Texture Pct Multiplie WHC WHC
Designation eee Thickness ne soaies adjustment —
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
ProfileAWHC= 2% . (i)
Layering modifiers
Check box if soil profile information above Impermeable layer :
meets the criteria for one of the layering Coarse over fine material stratification QO -
modifiers for a 15 mm upgrade. Fine over coarse material stratification O .
Layering effect = 0 (ii)
Subclass ‘O’ where >15 cm O horizon beginning at 0 cm (reclaimed soils)
Subclass ‘P’ where % coarse fragments adjustment ts 230 mm
Subclass *Z’ where R, KC, IMP, or 1 horizon occupies 230 cm of the profile
CEMA anita > Third Edition — Appendix E Page 27
~
>
i Land Capability Classification System a ; Vol. 1: Field Manual
? Landscape Modifiers (=10% slopes)
; Aspect Crest Upper Mid 7 | Lower nai
(degree range) 1 2 3 4
NW-NE (316-45) -15 0 +15 +15
i NE-SE (46-135) -15 -15 0 0
SE-SW (136-225) -15 -30 -30 -30
i SW-NW (226-315) -15 -15 0 0 0 (iii)
Circle applicable slope and aspect combination; toe, depression and level = 0
Adjusted AWHC
i Adjusted AWHC = (i) + (ii) + (iii) = 0 (i) + 0 (ii) + 0 (iii) 0
. Moisture regime SMR Index and Subclass Adjusted AWHC (mm 100cm")
Very xeric (1) 10X < 56
z Xeric (2) 24X 56 — 85
Subxeric (3) 38X 86 —115
iy Submesic (4) 52 116 — 145
Mesic (5) 66 146 — 175
SMR, SMR index and Subclass Soil Moisture Regime Subhydric
i SMR Index 0
Subclass Ww
SOIL NUTRIENT REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
5 Total C, N and C:N
I fori zon Depth Horizon wes TOC TOC re ae
Designation thickness density Nitrogen Nitrogen
(cm) (cm) (Mg m’) (%) (Mg ha’) (%) (Mg ha”)
3 Om 0-20 20 0.2 30 120 2 lA 4
‘ x 120 x 4
C:N = 120/4=30
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 28
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Nutrient retention rating
a ee
Hori ssigne
Horizon Depth asene Texture hamgnen Weighted average calculation
Designation thickness rating
(cm) (cm)
Oml 0 - 20 20 - 0 TS=0
Om2 20 - 50+ 30 - 0 US =0
+ =0+0=0
Cumulative rating
Parameter Value . Rating
Organic Carbon (Mg ha ') 120 6
Total Nitrogen (Mg ha’) 4 4
C/N ratio 30 4
Nutrient Retention! TS 0 US 0 0
Weighted average calculation may be required
Cumulative rating » » 14
Soil Nutrient Regime Index and Subclass SNR 10
Base rating
Base Rating = SMR Index + SNR Index SMR Index t SNR index = 10 (a)
0 10
Subclass(es) W
LIMITING FACTOR DEDUCTIONS
Weighted average calculations must be performed as required.
Topsoil Adjustment (0-20 cm)
Factor | Value coe Deduction Subclass
Structure/Consistence - 0% D
Reaction pH 4.5 15% Vv
Salinity EC (dS m'') 0.46 0% N
Sodicity SAR 0.17 0% ¥
TS deduction (b) (b) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(a)
®)-(_.b... @= 15s (b)
Interim soil rating (c) (c) = (a) —(b)
(c) = ( 10 )-( 1.5 = 8.5 (c)
CEMA Third Edition
Appendix E Page 29
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Upper Subsoil Adjustment (20-50 cm)
Factor Value Deduction Subclass
Structure/Consistence - 0% D
Reaction pH 5.0 15% Vv
Salinity EC (dS m") 0.23 0% N
Sodicity SAR ti“(<‘i‘(C(#y””CO«S 0% Y
US deduction (d) (d) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.67)
te A Re een... 2
Lower Subsoil Adjustment (50-100 cm)
Factor . Value Deduction Subclass
’ 50-60cm=(20%)(0% ded)=0%
Structure/Consistence 16 % D
60-100cm=(80%)(20% ded)=16%
50-60cm=(20%)( 15% ded)=3%
Reaction pH 3% Vv
60-100cm=(80%)(0% ded)=0%
Salinity EC (dS m') 0.46 0% N
Sodicity SAR 0.17 0% Y
LS deduction (e) (e) = (most limiting of D, VN, Y%)c) (0.33)
Final Land rating = (a) — (b) — (d) — (e)
Final Land Rating=( _10 )-(__15 )-( 0.9 )-( 0.4 )= 7.2
Land capability rating ranges Land capability class | Land capability rating: 7.2
81-100 Class | Land capability class: 5
61-80 Class 2 Subclass(es): Ww
41-60 Class 3 a
21-40 Class 4
0-20 Class 5
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 30
| (e-)=(__16_)(__ 85 )(0.33)=__ 0.4 ()
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Site and Soil Description Form
Location/Site 6 Assessment date May 24, 2006
Map Unit/Soil Series Peat-mix / Mineral / Tailings sand Assessor(s) CEMA
Soil Classification Soil Series A Ecosite abcdefghijkl
Parent Material Genetic: N/A Type Natural Reclaimed Yi
Expression: Inclined
Drainage VR R Wi MW I P-_ VP Site Index and Species | Species: N/A Site Index: N/A
Height: -
Age: -
Soil Moisture Regime 123 4 [§ 6 7a 7% 8 9 Stand Quality High (Moderate Low Non-Productive
Soil Nutrient Regime P (v4 R Compaction Sli Mod Sev V.Sev Ext
Topography Percent: 3 Notes:
Position: Midslope (C)
Aspect: 270° (West)
Coarse Fragments (% vol. to | m) Gravel: 5%
Stones: 0%
Depth to water table (cm) >100
Samples 3 |
CEMA Third Edition ~ Appendix € Page 31
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Structure Mottles Cc
oarse
Sample
Horizon Depth Color Texture Size Consistence Impermeable | Fragments
Grade Kind Abundance | Size Contrast (%) ID
(mm)
Ptmix 0-13 1OYR2/2m | Ptmix W 2-5 GR_ | Very friable | - - - - 5 6 — Ptmix
MIN 13-47 10OYR4/2m | C 20-50 | SBK | Firm - - - - 2 6 — MIN
TSS 47-100 | 10OYR5/3m |S - - SG Loose - - - - <2 6-TSS
Analytical results
Sample Thickness TOC Total nitrogen | Bulk density Clay Sand Silt pH EC
Site Id Texture SAR
ID (cm) (%) (%) (Mg m”) (%) (%) (%) (H,0) | (dS m’)
6 6 — Ptmix 13 6.32 0.21 0.46 4 92 4 Von 1.22 0.2
6 6 — MIN 34 0.5 0.05 1.58 45 29 26 ee 1.13 1.1
6 6-TSS 53 - - 1.7] 3 95 2 8.1 0.21 0.8
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 32
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
LAND CAPABILITY WORKSHEET
SOIL MOISTURE REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Water table <100 cm'
a oe = ee a es
Surface
; ; Water table
Moisture SMR Deere organic
Index and Description pen depth
> m m . .
regime Subclass (em) (cm)
Subhygric Water removed slowly enough to keep the soil wet for
. 80 a significant part of the growing season; some 10 - 40 May be <100
(6) temporary seepage and possible mottling below 20 cm.
Hygric Hygric aerated: Water removed slowly enough to keep
> 66 the soil wet for most of the growing season; mottling 16-40 30-100
(7a) present within 50 cm.
Hygric Hygric reduced: Water removed slowly enough to keep
° 24W the soil wet for most of the growing season; >50% gley 16-40 30-100
(71) within 50 cm.
; Water removed slowly enough to keep the water table
Subhydric ow at or near surface for most of the year; organic and - 40 0-30
(8) gleyed mineral soils; permanent seepage < 30 cm
below soil surface.
Hydric Water removed so slowly that the water table is at or
OW above the soil surface all year; organic and gleyed > 40 0+
(9) mineral soils.
Circle the appropriate SMR index and subclass based on soi! and landscape description, surface organic thickness, and water table depth
Subhygric and hygric moisture reqimes are not to be applied to reclaimed soils at this time
Note: additional indicators can be found in Table 9
AWHC Calculation (water table >100 cm; no gleying)
erseneoa Texture bose Multiplier AWHC ae AWHC
(cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
Ptmix S 13 1.2 16 5 - 16
MIN 34 1.6 54 2 - 54
TSS S 53 1.0 53 <2 - 53
Profile AWHC= 123 (i)
Layering modifiers
Check box if soil profile information above Impermeable layer QO -
meets the criteria for one of the layering Coarse over fine material stratification QO -
modifiers for a 15 mm upgrade. Fine over coarse material stratification QO -
Layering effect = 0 (ii)
Subclass “O’ where >15 cm O horizon beginning at 0 cm (reclaimed soils)
Subclass ‘P’ where % coarse fragments adjustment is 230 mm
Subclass ‘Z” where R, KC, IMP, or i horizon occupies 230 cm of the profile.
>
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 33
Land Capability Classification System
Landscape Modifiers (210% slopes)
Vol. 1. Field Manual
— ase
Mid Lower
Aspect Crest Upper
(degree range) 1 2 3 4
NW-NE (316-45) -15 0 15 +15
NE-SE (46-135) -15 -15 0 0
SE-SW (136-225) -15 -30 -30 -30
SW-NW (226-315) -15 -15 0 0 0 (iii)
Circle applicable slope and aspect combination, toe, depression and level
Adjusted AWHC
Adjusted AWHC = (i) + (i) + (iii) 123 (i) + 0 (ii) + 0 (ili) 123
Moisture regime SMR Index and Subclass Adjusted AWHC (mm 100cm'') f
Very xeric (1) 10X < 56
Xeric (2) 24X 56 — 85
Subxeric (3) 38X 86 — 115
Submesic (4) 52 116 — 145
Mesic (5) 66 146 — 175
Submesic
SMR, SMR index and Subclass
Soil Moisture Regime
SMR Index 52
Subclass
SOIL NUTRIENT REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Total C, N and C:N
i Horizon Bulk Total Total
Suiguaen — thickness density — _ Nitrogen Nitrogen
(cm) (cm) (Mg m’) (%) (Mg ha") (%) (Mg ha")
Ptmix 0-13 13 0.46 6.32 38 0.21 1.3
MIN 13-47 34 1.58 0.5 5.5 0.05 0.6
TSS 47-100 53 1.71 - - - -
z 43 x 1.9
C:N =43/1.9=23 ne
CEMA - weir Third Edition Appendix E Page 34
Land Capability Classification System
Nutrient retention rating
Horizon Depth
Designation
(cm)
‘Penix 7 0-13
MIN 13-47
Iss 47-100
Cumulative rating
Parameter
Organic Carbon
otal Nitrogen
C/N ratio
Nutrient Retention’
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Weighted average calculation may be required
Base rating
Base Rating = SMR Index +
LIMITING FACTOR DEDUCTIONS
Weighted average calculations must be performed as required.
Topsoil Adjustment (0-20 cm)
Factor
Structure/Consistence
Reaction
Salinity
Sodicity
TS deduction (b)
CEMA
mace Texture nantes Weighted average calculation
thickness rating
(cm)
a _ ie — - crrcnomainees: ee
34 ( 3 IS = 13/20 x (0) + 7/20x (3) = 1
53 S 0 US 37 30 x (3) + 3/30 x (0) 3
E-1+3-4
Value Rating
(Mg ha’) 43 4
(Mg ha’') 1.9 2
23 4
rs | US i 4
Cumulative rating 2 14
Soil Nutrient Regime Index and Subclass SNR 10
SNR Index SMR Index SNR index = 62 (a)
9? in
Subclass(es)
Value Deduction Subclass
0-13cm=(65%)(0% ded.)=0%
13-20cm=(35%)(30% ded.)=11% gig tas
0-13cm=(65%)( 10% ded.)=6.5%
pH om 15% V
13-20cm=(35%)(25% ded)=8.75%
EC (dS m’') 1.22 0% N
SAR 0.2 0% Y
(b) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)a)
(b)=(__15_ fa)=____ 9.3 (b)
ae SS Appendix E Page 35
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Interim soil rating (c) (c) = (a) —(b)
(c) = ( 62 )-( 93) 52.7 (ce)
Upper Subsoil Adjustment (20-50 cm)
Factor Value Deduction Subclass
20-47cm=(90%)( 30% ded.)=23%
47-50cm=(10%)(0% ded.)=0%
20-47cm=(90%)(20% ded.)=18%
Reaction pH 22 % V
47-S0cm=(10%)(40% ded.)=4%
Structure/Consistence 27 % D
Salinity EC (dS m') 1.13 0% N
Sodicity SAR 1.1 0% Y
US deduction (d) (d) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.67)
(d) =( 27 $2.7 (0.67) 9.5 (d)
Lower Subsoil Adjustment (50-100 cm)
Factor Value Deduction Subclass
Structure/Consistence 50-100cm=( 100% )(0%ded)=0% 0% D
Reaction pH 8.1 40 % V
Salinity EC (dS m'') 0.21 0% N
Sodicity SAR 0.8 0% ¥
LS deduction (e) (e) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.33)
(e)=(__ 40) 52.7 )(0.33)=__ 7.0 (e)
Final Land rating = (a) — (b) — (d) — (e)
Final Land Rating=( _ 62 )-( 9.3 )-( | iz )-(__ 7.0 )= 362
Land capability rating ranges | Land capability class Land capability rating: 36
81-100 | Class | | Land capability class: 4
61-80 Class 2 Subclass(es): DV
41-60 | Class 3
21-40 Class 4
0-20 | Class 5
= °° °°°°°°°« NC. #&«:;.;+;. “Appendix E Page 36
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Site and Soil Description Form
Location/Site
7
Assessment date
May 24, 2006
Map Unit/Soil Series Direct Placement / Tailings sand Assessor(s) CEMA
Soil Classification Soil Series B Ecosite abcdefghijkl
Parent Material Genetic: N/A Type Natural Reclaimed 4
Expression: Inclined
Drainage VR R w MW I P_ VP Site Index and Species | Species: N/A Site Index: N/A
Height: -
Age: -
Soil Moisture Regime 123 4 6 7a 7 8 9 Stand Quality High [Moderate Low Non-Productive
Soil Nutrient Regime P (M4 R Compaction None Sli Mod Sev V.Sev Ext
Topography Percent: 18 Notes:
Position: Midslope (C)
Aspect: 0° (North)
Coarse Fragments (% vol. to | m) Gravel: 5%
Stones: 0%
Depth to water table (cm) >100
Samples 3
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 37
Land Capability Classification System Vol. 1: Field Manual
Structure Mottles ;
Coarse
Horizon Depth Color Texture Size Consistence Impermeable | Fragments | Sample ID
Grade Kind Abundance | Size | Contrast (%)
(mm)
MIN 0-20 1OYR3/2m | L W 2-5 GR Very friable - - - - 5 7-
MIN(TS)
MIN 20-46 1OYR 3/2m | L M 5-10 SBK | Friable - - - - 5 7-
MIN(US)
TSS 46-100 10YR 5/3m |S - - SG Loose - . . - <2 7-TSS
Analytical results
Sample Thickness TOC Total nitrogen | Bulk density Clay Sand Silt pH EC
Site Id Texture SAR
ID (cm) (%) (%) (Mgm?) | (%) (%) (%) (H;0) | (dS m’')
7 7-MIN(TS) 20 1.61 0.08 1.31 24 aa 32 L 7.4 1.69 0.6
...
7 26 - - 1.45 21 50 29 L 6.0 3.34 1.4
MIN(US)
7 7-TSS 54 - - 1.60 3 91 6 S 7.5 0.45 0.5
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 38
Land Capability Classification System = Vol. 1: Field Manual
LAND CAPABILITY WORKSHEET
SOIL MOISTURE REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Water table <100 cm!
. Surface
_— SMR = iain Water table
; Index and Description Pr a depth
regime Subclass (em) (cm)
Subhygric Water removed slowly enough to keep the soil wet for
: 80 a significant part of the growing season; some 10 - 40 May be <100 |
(6) temporary seepage and possible mottling below 20 cm.
Hygric Hygric aerated: Water removed slowly enough to keep
. 6 the soil wet for most of the growing season; mottling 16-40 30-100
(7a) _ present within 50 cm.
Hygric _ Hygric reduced: Water removed slowly enough to keep
: 24W the soil wet for most of the growing season; >50% gley 16 - 40 30-100
(7r) _ within 50 cm.
_ Water removed slowly enough to keep the water table
Subhydric at or near surface for most of the year; organic and :
OW : ; > 40 0-30
(8) gleyed mineral soils; permanent seepage < 30 cm
below soil surface.
Hydric Water removed so slowly that the water table is at or
OW above the soil surface all year; organic and gleyed > 40 O+
(9) mineral soils.
Circle the appropriate SMR index and subclass based on soil and landscape description, surface organic thickness, and water table depth.
Subhygric and hygric moisture reqimes are not to be applied to reclaimed soils at this time.
Note: additional indicators can be found in Table 9.
AWHC Calculation (water table >100 cm; no gleying)
Horizon petra Horizon oe . % coarse fragments
Designation Lieonas Thickness oo elaine adjustment —
; (cm) (mm) (vol.) (mm) (mm)
MIN Ls 46 1.5 69 5 - 69
TSS S 54 1.0 54 <2 - 54
Profile AWHC= 123 (i)
Layering modifiers
Check box if soil profile information above Impermeable layer oes
meets the criteria for one of the layering Coarse over fine material stratification QO -
modifiers for a 15 mm upgrade. Fine over coarse material stratification QO -
Layering effect = 0 (ii)
Subclass ‘O” where >15 cm O horizon beginning at 0 cm (reclaimed soils).
Subclass ‘P’ where % coarse fragments adjustment is >30 mm
Subclass *Z’ where R, KC, IMP, or i horizon occupies >30 cm of the profile.
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 39
~‘
Land Capability Classification System
Vol. 1: Field Manual
Landscape Modifiers (210% slopes)
SMR, SMR index and Subclass
Aspect Crest Upper Mid Lower
(degree range) 1 2 3 4
NW-NE (316-45) -15 0 +15 +15
NE-SE (46-135) -15 -15 0 0
SE-SW (136-225) -15 -30 -30 -30
SW-NW (226-315) -15 -15 0 0 15 (iii)
Circle applicable slope and aspect combination; toe, depression and level = 0.
Adjusted AWHC
Adjusted AWHC = (i) + (ii) + (iii) = 123 (i) + 0 (ii) + 15 (iii) = 138
Moisture regime SMR Index and Subclass Adjusted AWHC (mm 100cm")
Very xeric (1) 10X < 56
Xeric (2) 24X 56 — 85
Subxeric (3) 38X 86 — 115
Submesic (4) 52 116 — 145
Mesic (5) 66 146 — 175
" Submesic
Soil Moisture Regime
SMR Index 52
Subclass
SOIL NUTRIENT REGIME INDEX AND SUBCLASS DETERMINATION
Total C, N and C:N
Ff Hori Bulk Total Total
Horizon Depth ale a TOC TOC pic ie
Designation thickness density Nitrogen Nitrogen
(cm) (cm) (Mg m’) (%) (Mg ha”) (%) (Mg ha")
MIN 0-20 20 1.31 1.61 42 0.08 Ba
MIN 20-46 26 1.45 - - - -
TSS 46-100 54 1.60 - wo a i
Zz 42 ps 2.1
C:N =42/2.1=20
CEMA Third Edition Appendix E Page 40
Land Capability Classification System
Nutrient retention rating
Horizon
Horizon
Assigned
Depth Pexture Weighted average calculation
Designation thickness rating
(cm) (cm)
MIN 0-20 20 I 3
MIN 20-46 26 I 3 IS = 20/20 x (3) = 3
rss 46-100 54 S 0 US = 26/30 x (3) + 4/30 x (0) = 3
L=3+3=6
Cumulative rating
Parameter Value Rating
Organic Carbon (Mg ha’) 42 4
Total Nitrogen (Mg ha’) 2.1 2
C/N ratio 20 4
Nutrient Retention! rs 3 US 3 6
; Weighted average calculation may be required
Cumulative rating x 16
Soil Nutrient Regime Index and Subclass SNR 10
Base rating
Base Rating = SMR Index + SNR Index SMR Index + SNR index = 62 (a)
4? 10
Subclass(es)
LIMITING FACTOR DEDUCTIONS
Weighted average calculations must be performed as required.
Topsoil Adjustment (0-20 cm)
Factor Value Deduction Subclass
Structure/Consistence 0-20cm=(100%)(0% ded.)=0% 0% D
Reaction pH 7.4 10% Vv
Salinity EC (dS m’') 1.69 0% N
Sodicity SAR 0.6 % Y
TS deduction (b)
Interim soil rating (c)
(b) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(a)
(b)=(__10_ )(a)=__ 6.2 __—(b)
(c) = (a) —(b)
(c)=(__ 62 )-(___62 )=_
Vol. 1: Field Manual
CEMA
Third Edition
Appendix E Page 41
Land Capability Classification System
Upper Subsoil Adjustment (20-50 cm)
Factor Value Deduction
Structure/Consistence 20-50cm=( 100% (0% ded.)=0% 0%
20-46cm (87% (0% ded ) O%
Reaction pH ; 3%
46-S0cm=(13%)( 10% ded ) 4
20-46cm=(87% 30% ded.)=26%
Salinity EC (dS m") 26 %
46-50cm ( | 3% K0% ded ) 0
Sodicity SAR 1.4 0%
US deduction (d) (d) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%){c) (0.67)
(d)=(__26 (55.8 (0.67) 9.7 (d)
Lower Subsoil Adjustment (50-100 cm)
Factor Value Deduction
Structure/Consistence 50-100cm=( 100% )(O%ded)=0% 0%
Reaction pH 1S 10 %
Salinity EC (dS m") 0.45 0%
Sodicity SAR 0.5 0%
LS deduction (e) (e) = (most limiting of D, V, N, Y%)(c) (0.33)
(e) = ( | $5.8 )(0.33) 18 (e)
Final Land rating = (a
…[truncated]