terrain and soils - alberta · environmental baseline study: terrain and soils total e&p canada...

Environmental Baseline Study:

Terrain and Soils

Total E&P Canada Ltd.Calgary, Alberta

Binder Section Pages.indd cover7Binder Section Pages.indd cover7 12/11/2007 1:53:15 PM12/11/2007 1:53:15 PM

Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and Soils Table of Contents

TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd. December 2007 Page i

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Focus of Baseline Investigations .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Local Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.4 Regional Study Area .................................................................................................................... 1-1 2 Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Local Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.1 Review of Historical Data ............................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 High-Definition Terrain Interpretation and Mapping ...................................................... 2-1 2.1.3 Soil Classification and Mapping ..................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.4 Land Suitability Rating System for Agricultural Crops .................................................. 2-4 2.1.5 Soil Reclamation Suitability Ratings .............................................................................. 2-6 2.1.6 Wind and Water Erosion Risk ......................................................................................... 2-7

2.2 Regional Study Area .................................................................................................................... 2-7 2.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control ....................................................................................... 2-7 3 Results ......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Local Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Surficial Deposit Mapping .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Soil Classification and Mapping ..................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.3 Soil Suitability Ratings for Agricultural Crops ............................................................... 3-8 3.1.4 Soil Reclamation Suitability Ratings ............................................................................ 3-12 3.1.5 Water and Wind Erosion Risk ....................................................................................... 3-16

3.2 Regional Study Area .................................................................................................................. 3-18 3.2.1 Soil Series in the Regional Study Area ......................................................................... 3-18 3.2.2 Acid Sensitivity of Soils in the Regional Study Area ................................................... 3-23

4 Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 4-1 5 References ................................................................................................................................... 5-1 Appendix A Detailed Soil and Site Descriptions ............................................................................. A-1 Appendix B Land Suitability Calculations ....................................................................................... B-1

List of Tables

Table 2.1-1 Land Suitability Classes for Agricultural Crop Production ............................................ 2-5 Table 2.1-2 Description of Land Suitability Subclasses ..................................................................... 2-5 Table 2.1-3 Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance and Reclamation ...................................... 2-6 Table 3.1-1 Surficial Deposits in the Local Study Area ..................................................................... 3-1 Table 3.1-2 Mapped Soil Types in the Local Study Area ................................................................... 3-7 Table 3.1-3 Agricultural Suitability Ratings for Soil Types in the Local Study Area ........................ 3-9 Table 3.1-5 Soil Reclamation Suitability Ratings for Soil Types in the Local Study Area .............. 3-12 Table 3.1-6 Topsoil Reclamation Suitability – Area and Proportion of Local Study Area .............. 3-13 Table 3.1-7 Subsoil Reclamation Suitability – Area and Proportion of Local Study Area .............. 3-13 Table 3.1-8 Topsoil Depth for Mapped Soil Types in the Local Study Area ................................... 3-16 Table 3.1-9 Water Erosion Risk for Soil Types in the Local Study Area......................................... 3-17 Table 3.1-10 Wind Erosion Risk for Mapped Soil Types in the Local Study Area ........................... 3-18

Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and Soils Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and SoilsTable of Contents

December 2007 TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd.Page ii

Table 3.2-1 Soil Series and Extent in the Regional Study Area ....................................................... 3-19 Table 3.2-2 Criteria for Rating Mineral Soils to Acidic Inputs ........................................................ 3-24 Table 3.2-3 Sensitivity and Critical Load Categories for the Major Chemical/Biotic Peat

Types ............................................................................................................................. 3-24 Table 3.2-4 Overall Acid Sensitivity of Mineral Soil Series in the Regional Study Area ................ 3-25 Table 3.2-5 Overall Sensitivity of Organic Soils to Acid Deposition .............................................. 3-27 Table A-1 Detailed Soil and Site Descriptions in the Local Study Area1........................................ A-3 Table A-2 Descriptions of Symbols Used in Table A-1 ................................................................ A-13 Table A-3 Soil Polygon Attribute Summary for the Local Study Area ......................................... A-15 Table A-4 Soil Types in the Local Study Area .............................................................................. A-18 Table A-5 Gleyed BAWLF (BWFgl) — Site and Soil Characteristics ......................................... A-19 Table A-6 Gleyed BAWLF (BWFgl) — Site and Soil Characteristics (Profile Example) ........... A-19 Table A-7 Gleyed BAWLF (BWFgl) Soil Series — Chemical Characteristics ............................ A-19 Table A-8 Gleyed BAWLF (BWFgl) Soil Series — Chemical Characteristics

(Profile Example) ......................................................................................................... A-20 Table A-9 Coarse Cucumber (CCBco) — Site and Soil Characteristics ....................................... A-20 Table A-10 Coarse Cucumber (CCBco) — Site and Soil Characteristics (Profile Example) ......... A-20 Table A-11 Coarse Cucumber (CCBco) — Chemical Characteristics ............................................ A-21 Table A-12 Coarse Cucumber (CCBco) — Chemical Characteristics (Profile Example) ............... A-21 Table A-13 Fine Desjaris (DSJfi) — Site and Soil Characteristics ................................................. A-21 Table A-14 Fine Desjaris (DSJfi) — Site and Soil Characteristics (Profile Example) ................... A-22 Table A-15 Fine Desjaris (DSJfi) — Chemical Characteristics ...................................................... A-22 Table A-16 Fine Desjaris (DSJfi) — Chemical Characteristics (Profile Example) ......................... A-22 Table A-17 Golden Spike (GSP) — Site and Soil Characteristics .................................................. A-23 Table A-18 Golden Spike (GSP) — Site and Soil Characteristics (Profile Example) .................... A-23 Table A-19 Golden Spike (GSP) —Chemical Characteristics ........................................................ A-23 Table A-20 Helliwell (HLW) — Site and Soil Characteristics ....................................................... A-24 Table A-21 Helliwell (HLW) — Site and Soil Characteristics (Profile Example) .......................... A-24 Table A-22 Helliwell (HLW) —Chemical Characteristics ............................................................. A-25 Table A-23 Helliwell (HLW) — Chemical Characteristics (Profile Example) ............................... A-25 Table A-24 Mundare (MDR) — Site and Soil Characteristics ........................................................ A-26 Table A-25 Mundare (MDR) — Site and Soil Characteristics (Profile Example) .......................... A-26 Table A-26 Mundare (MDR) — Chemical Characteristics ............................................................. A-27 Table A-27 Mundare (MDR) — Chemical Characteristics (Profile Example)................................ A-27 Table A-28 Manatokan (MNTaa) — Site and Soil Characteristics ................................................. A-28 Table A-29 Manatokan (MNTaa) — Site and Soil Characteristics (Profile Example) ................... A-28 Table A-30 Manatokan (MNTaa) — Chemical Characteristics ...................................................... A-28 Table A-31 Peace Hills (PHSxc) — Site and Soil Characteristics .................................................. A-29 Table A-32 Peace Hills (PHSxc) — Site and Soil Characteristics (Profile Example) .................... A-29 Table A-33 Peace Hills (PHSxc) —Chemical Characteristics ........................................................ A-30 Table A-34 Peace Hills (PHSxc) — Chemical Characteristics (Profile Example) .......................... A-30 Table A-35 Miscellaneous Brunisols (ZBR) — Site and Soil Characteristics ................................ A-30 Table A-36 Orthic Melanic Brunisol (ZBR) — Site and Soil Characteristics

(Profile Example) ......................................................................................................... A-31 Table A-37 Orthic Melanic Brunisols (ZBR) — Chemical Characteristics (Profile Example) ....... A-31 Table A-38 Miscellaneous Coarse-Textured Gleysols (ZGWco) — Site and Soil

Characteristics .............................................................................................................. A-31

Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and Soils Table of Contents

TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd. December 2007 Page iii

Table A-39 Miscellaneous Coarse-Textured Gleysols (ZGWco) — Site and Soil Characteristics (Profile Example) ................................................................................ A-32

Table A-40 Miscellaneous Coarse-Textured Gleysols (ZGWco) — Chemical Characteristics ...... A-32 Table A-41 Miscellaneous Coarse-Textured Gleysols (ZGWco) — Chemical Characteristics

(Profile Example) ......................................................................................................... A-32 Table A-42 Miscellaneous Fine-Textured Gleysols (ZGWfi) — Site and Soil Characteristics ...... A-33 Table A-43 Miscellaneous Fine-Textured Gleysols (ZGWfi) — Site and Soil Characteristics

(Profile Example) ......................................................................................................... A-33 Table A-44 Miscellaneous Fine-Textured Gleysols (ZGWfi) — Chemical Characteristics ........... A-34

List of Figures

Figure 1.1-1 TOTAL Lands ................................................................................................................. 1-2 Figure 1.3-1 Terrain and Soils Local Study Area ................................................................................ 1-3 Figure 1.3-2 Terrain and Soils Regional Study Area ........................................................................... 1-4 Figure 2.1-1 Soil Inspection and Sampling Sites in the Local Study Area .......................................... 2-3 Figure 3.1-1 Dominant Surficial Deposits in the Local Study Area .................................................... 3-2 Figure 3.1-2 Topography in the Local Study Area .............................................................................. 3-4 Figure 3.1-3 Soil Series and Types in the Local Study Area ............................................................... 3-6 Figure 3.1-4 Agricultural Land Suitability Ratings in the Local Study Area .................................... 3-11 Figure 3.1-5 Topsoil Reclamation Suitability Ratings for the Local Study Area .............................. 3-14 Figure 3.1-6 Average Topsoil Depth and Type in the Local Study Area .......................................... 3-15 Figure 3.2-1 Acid Sensitivity of Soils in the Regional Study Area ................................................... 3-28 Figure A-1 Soil Polygons in the Local Study Area ........................................................................ A-17

Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and Soils Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and SoilsTable of Contents

December 2007 TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd.Page iv

Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and Soils Abbreviations

TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd. December 2007 Page v

Abbreviations

AAFRD ..................................................... Alberta Agriculture Food and Rural Development CEC ................................................................................................... cation exchange capacity DEM ........................................................................................................ digital elevation data EC .......................................................................................................... electrical conductivity EIA ...................................................................................... environmental impact assessment LSA .................................................................................................................. local study area masl ....................................................................................................... metres above sea level N/A ..................................................................................................................... not applicable NR ............................................................................................................................... not rated OC ..................................................................................................................... organic carbon the Upgrader .................................................................................... TOTAL Upgrader Project SCA ........................................................................................................ Soil Correlation Area SIL ........................................................................................................ Survey Intensity Level TOTAL ........................................................................................... TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd. QA ................................................................................................................. quality assurance QC ..................................................................................................................... quality control

Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and Soils Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and SoilsAbbreviations

December 2007 TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd.Page vi

Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and Soils Section 1: Introduction

TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd. December 2007 Page 1-1

1 Introduction 1.1 Background

TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd. (TOTAL) owns a parcel of land in Alberta’s Industrial Heartland near Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta (see Figure 1.1-1). The parcel is situated in the following portions of Township 55, Range 21, West of the 4th Meridian:

• Section 18: • portions of legal subdivisions (LSDs) 11, 12 • all of LSDs 13 and 14

• Section 19 • Section 20:

• portion of LSD 3 • all of LSDs 4, 5 and 6

The proposed site secured by TOTAL is in an area zoned for heavy industrial development.

Throughout this document, this land (including small inholdings that TOTAL is intending to acquire) is referred to as the TOTAL lands.

This report is one of a series of studies prepared to document the environmental baseline conditions of the TOTAL lands and surrounding area.

1.2 Focus of Baseline Investigations

Key information required in support of the terrain and soil environmental baseline investigations included:

• distribution of terrain units in the TOTAL lands (e.g., drainage regime and surficial geologic material types)

• soils information (e.g., soil series, topsoil and subsoil reclamation suitability, land capability for agriculture, water and wind erosion risk)

1.3 Local Study Area

Soils were mapped in the seven whole or partial quarter sections that comprise the TOTAL lands. These areas also define the LSA (see Figure 1.3-1). The LSA is 426 ha. Local disturbance has affected small areas of the LSA. As soil profiles at these locations are not yet reclaimed, they are classed as disturbed land.

1.4 Regional Study Area

The boundary of the regional study area (RSA) was established based on air modelling output of the predicted extent of the PAI critical load (0.25 keq H+/ha/a) for sensitive soils (CASA–AENV 1999). The total area of the RSA is about 247,840 ha (see Figure 1.3-2).

TITLE

FIGURE 1.1-1TOTAL LANDS*

SCALE

North Saskatchewan River

Redwater River

Sturgeon R

iver

ManawanLake

CookingLake BeaverhillLake

Lamont

TofieldBeaumontDevon

GibbonsBonAccord

Legal

Bruderheim

Redwater

Morinville

Leduc

Edmonton

21

28A2

831

45

637

16

FortSaskatchewan

STURGEONMUNICIPAL DISTRICT

LAMONTCOUNTY

BEAVERCOUNTY

STRATHCONACOUNTY

LEDUCCOUNTY

COUNTY OFTHORNHILD NO.7WESTLOCKCOUNTY SMOKY LAKECOUNTY

IMPROVEMENTDISTRICT 13

North Sask

atchewa

n River

15

RR 22

0

830TWP RD 552

TWP 55RGE 21W4MTWP 55RGE 22W4M


Sturgeon River

Astotin C

reek

RR 21

5

RR 21

4

TWP RD 554

5 0 5 10 15Distance in Kilometres

500 0 500 1,000 1,500Distance in Metres

TOTAL LandsPaved Access - DividedPaved AccessUnpaved AccessRailwayWatercourse

Alberta Industrial HeartlandMunicipal BoundaryTOTAL LandsPaved AccessUnpaved AccessRailwayWatercourseUrban Area

*includes small inholdings TOTAL intends to acquire

A B

AB

North Sask

atchewan

River

15

RR 22

0

830TWP RD 552



Astotin

Cree k

RR 21

5

RR 21

4

TWP RD 554

358500

358500

361000

361000

363500

363500

595600

0

595600

0

595850

0

595850

0

596100

0

596100

0

596350

0

596350

0

FIGURE 1.3-1 500 0 500 1,000 1,500Distance in Metres

Local Study AreaTOTAL LandsPaved Access - DividedPaved AccessUnpaved AccessRailwayWatercourseUrban Area

TITLE SCALE

TERRAIN AND SOILSLOCAL STUDY AREA

North Saskatchewan RiverRedwater River

Sturgeon R

iver

ManawanLake

CookingLake

Lamont

TofieldBeaumontDevon

GibbonsBonAccord

Legal

Bruderheim

Redwater

Morinville

Leduc

Edmonton

21

28A2

831

45

16

FortSaskatchewan

North Sask

atchewa

n River

320500

320500

360500

360500

592050

0

592050

0

596050

0

596050

0

FIGURE 1.3-2 5 0 5 10 15Distance in Kilometres

Regional Study AreaTOTAL LandsPaved AccessUnpaved AccessRailwayWatercourseUrban Area

TITLE SCALE

TERRAIN AND SOILSREGIONAL STUDY AREA

Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and Soils Section 2: Methods


2 Methods


2.1.1 Review of Historical Data

The LSA is underlain by Upper Cretaceous bedrock of the Belly River Group. It consists of grey to greenish grey thick bedded feldspathic sandstone, grey clayey siltstone and grey and green mudstone with concretionary ironstone beds; all of non-marine origin (Hamilton et al. 1999).

Soil development on the TOTAL lands has been previously mapped at a scale of 1:100,000 (Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001) and 1:126,720 (Bowser et al. 1962). Information from the AGRASID 3 soil information system was the primary source of data for soil series found on the TOTAL lands, as well as associated topographic and other terrain data (Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001). These data were compared with previously published soil, surficial geology, glacial history and physiographic reports and maps (Bowser et al. 1962; Pettapiece 1986; Shetsen 1990; Achuff 1994; Hamilton et al. 1999).

The LSA is located in the Eastern Alberta Plains, a region with elevations ranging from 600 to 700 m above sea level (masl) (Pettapiece 1986). The LSA spans the interface between the Redwater Plain to the northwest and Lake Edmonton Plain to the southeast.

The Redwater Plain is dominated by undulating to hummocky glaciofluvial deposits composed of gravelly sand (Shetsen 1990). The sands are sometimes reworked by aeolian processes to form low-relief dunes, particularly in the northwestern portion of the LSA.

The Lake Edmonton Plain comprises glaciolacustrine bedded clay and silt, which forms gently undulating topography in the LSA (Shetsen 1990). AGRASID 3 indicates that the LSA landscape is undulating, mostly with slopes of 4% or less (Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001). Collected information was used to focus the field survey of baseline terrain and soil conditions in the LSA.

2.1.2 High-Definition Terrain Interpretation and Mapping

To determine the baseline conditions for terrain in the LSA, terrain units were mapped using the Purview™ mapping system. The softcopy photogrammetry system used 1:20,000-scale diapositives (source photography dated May 2001) of aerial photographs combined with 1:60,000 digital elevation data (DEM) acquired from AltaLIS Ltd. (agent for spatial data warehouse). This technology allows a mapper to view imagery in stereo on a computer monitor and zoom in to much larger scales than that of the actual photograph, without resolution loss. Images can be viewed at scales ranging from 1:1000 to 1:20,000. As a result, specific features can be identified and delineated with accuracy.

Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and Soils Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and SoilsSection 2: Methods

December 2007 TOTAL E&P Canada Ltd.Page 2-2

Preliminary aerial photo interpretation indicates that the LSA is relatively flat; terrain stability, therefore, is not likely to be adversely affected by development. The entire area was checked in the field and assessed for material type, slopes and geomorphic processes such as seepage, active slumping and gullying. A geomorphological approach was used, which differs from an engineering approach in that the terrain stability assessment considers effects of the project on current terrain conditions rather than how current conditions would affect project engineering and construction.

2.1.3 Soil Classification and Mapping

Soil conditions in the LSA were interpreted using the Purview™ mapping system together with data collected during the field survey to produce 1:5000-scale baseline soil maps. The soil database was linked to digital map polygons to relate soil series and topsoil depth attributes. These polygons were used to determine soil series spatial extents and topsoil depths.

Mapping was verified with ground-truthed information on terrain and soil characteristics collected in the LSA from April 23 to May 2 and May 15, 2007. Detailed soil profile information was recorded at 96 locations in the LSA (see Figure 2.1-1). The overall inspection density fulfills the requirements of Survey Intensity Level (SIL) 1 (one site per 5 ha) on the TOTAL lands, which is required for site-specific soil-management planning (Expert Committee on Soil Survey 1983). Soil inspections were not done on pipeline rights-of-way, or in locations later mapped as disturbed land. Areas classed as disturbed land include dugouts, farmyards where soil profiles have been eroded or mixed with subsoil, roads and associated ditches, borrow pits and land where reclamation has not yet taken place. For descriptions of soil properties at inspection sites, see Appendix A, Table A-1.

Soils were inspected using a shovel and Dutch auger to a depth of 1.2 m, where possible. All soil profiles were classified to the subgroup level according to the Canadian System of Soil Classification (Soil Classification Working Group 1998). The profiles were then assigned a series name based on geographic location, parent material and subgroup using the Alberta Soil Names File (Gen. 3) database (Brierley et al. 2006) and from the Soil Names File database associated with AGRASID 3 (Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001). The soil correlation area (SCA) for the study site is SCA 10 (Brierley et al. 2006). This SCA is referred to as the Thick Black Soil Zone of Central and East–Central Alberta. Where existing soil series in the database did not adequately describe an important soil type found in the LSA, an alternative series variant was identified.

For each inspection, the following site conditions were recorded: • UTM coordinates, recorded on a GPS unit • surface expression • slope position • slope aspect • slope gradient • slope length • drainage • surface stoniness • parent materials • colour differentiation between topsoil and subsoil • potential for erosion and compaction

TITLEFIGURE 2.1-1

15

RR 220


A stotin

C reek

RR 215

RR 214

TWP RD 554

TC148

TC143

TC101

TC100TC097

TC096

TC091

TC089TC088

TC085TC075

TC015

TC147

TC145TC142

TC141TC138

TC137TC135

TC132 TC130

TC126

TC125TC124

TC119

TC116

TC115TC114

TC111

TC107TC104

TC103TC102

TC092

TC083

TC080

TC079

TC076

TC074

TC073

TC072

TC070TC069

TC068

TC067

TC066TC065

TC064

TC063

TC062TC061

TC059TC057

TC055

TC054

TC053

TC052

TC051TC050

TC049TC048

TC047

TC046TC045

TC044TC043

TC042

TC041

TC040

TC039

TC036

TC034TC033

TC032

TC030TC029

TC028

TC026TC025

TC024TC023

TC022

TC021

TC020TC019

TC018TC017

TC016

TC013TC007TC006TC005

TC004

TC003TC002

TC085-2TC090

TC058

TC014

360000

360000

596000

0

596000

0

200 0 200 400 600Distance in MetresSOIL INSPECTION AND SAMPLING SITESIN THE LOCAL STUDY AREA

SCALE

Soil Sampling SitesSoil Inspection SitesPipeline Right of WayDisturbed LandLocal Study AreaTOTAL LandsPaved Access - DividedPaved AccessUnpaved AccessRailwayWatercourseUrban Area



At each soil inspection site, soil horizons were described using criteria established by the Soil Classification Working Group (1998) and according to national standards established by the Expert Committee on Soil Survey (1983). The following information was collected for each horizon when field conditions permitted: • depth • texture • colour • structure • consistence • coarse fragments content, shape and size • presence of salts • calcareousness • extent of mottling • horizon boundaries

Representative profiles from each major series were sampled by horizon to provide a characterization of the series encountered in the LSA. Samples were placed in clean plastic bags, labelled and sent to Bodycote Testing Group in Edmonton. Analyses were performed using standard soil investigation methods, as outlined by McKeague (1978).

Selected horizons were analyzed for the following soil properties:

• pH and electrical conductivity (saturated paste) • soluble chloride, calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium and sulphate • saturation percentage and sodium adsorption ratio • cation exchange capacity and base saturation • exchangeable calcium, magnesium, sodium, potassium • calcium carbonate equivalent • total organic carbon

Previously published sources of chemical data were used when analytical results were not available from the samples collected by field personnel. Soil analysis results were used from the Alberta Soil Layer File, which contains representative chemical and physical data for each horizon of named soil series in Alberta (Brierley et al. 2006).

2.1.4 Land Suitability Rating System for Agricultural Crops The land suitability rating system for agricultural crops (AAC 1995) was used to evaluate pre-disturbance agricultural land capability for soils in the LSA. This system provides a rating for spring-seeded small grains, though the underlying procedure can be used to rate land resources for a variety of crop types. The system is based on land and environmental conditions as they affect arable, dryland agriculture, and assumes current management practices. For descriptions of the seven land suitability classes, where soil and landscape components are rated numerically and combined to produce an overall rating, see Table 2.1-1.

Subclasses for land suitability are based on factors that limit suitability of the land for spring-seeded small grains production (see Table 2.1-2). Land suitability classes for the LSA were determined using physical and chemical data for soil profiles from the LSA and representative of the mapped soil series. For land suitability calculations, see Appendix B.



The system can be applied to lands used for grazing or forage production and provides an index value for all soil types in terms of their ability to support cereal crop production.

Table 2.1-1 Land Suitability Classes for Agricultural Crop Production Suitability Class Degree of Limitation

1 None to Slight (80 to 100 index points): Land in this class has no significant limitations for production of specified crops.

2 Slight (60 to 79 index points): Land in this class has slight limitations that might restrict growth of specified crops or require modified management practices.

3 Moderate (45 to 59 index points): Land in this class has moderate limitations that restrict growth of specified crops or require special management practices.

4 Severe (30 to 44 index points): Land in this class has severe limitations that restrict growth of specified crops or require special management practices or both. This class is marginal for sustained production of specified crops.

5 Very Severe (20 to 29 index points): Land in this class has very severe limitations for sustained production of specified crops. Annual cultivation using common cropping practices is not recommended.

6 Extremely Severe (10 to 19 index points): Land in this class has extremely severe limitations for sustained production of specified crops. Annual cultivation is not recommended even occasionally.

7 Unsuitable (0 to 9 index points): Land in this class is not suitable for production of specified crops.

SOURCE: AAC (1995)

Table 2.1-2 Description of Land Suitability Subclasses Land Suitability Subclass Type of Limitation

C – Climate General climatic restriction. A – Moisture Inadequate moisture for optimal growth of specified crops. H – Temperature Inadequate heat units for the optimal growth of specified crops. S – Soil General soil restriction. M – Water-holding

capacity/texture Specified crops are adversely affected by lack of water due to inherent soil characteristics.

D – Soil structure Specified crops are adversely affected by soil structure that limits the depth of rooting, or by surface crusting that limits emergence of shoots. Root restrictions by bedrock and high water table are considered separately (see R and W).

F – Organic matter Mineral soil with low organic matter content in the Ap or Ah horizon (often considered a fertility factor).

E – Depth of topsoil Mineral soil with a thin Ap or Ah horizon (often resulting from erosion). V – Soil reaction Soil with a pH value either too high or too low for optimum growth of specified crops. N – Salinity Soils with amounts of soluble salts sufficient to have adverse effect on growth of

specified crops. Y – Sodicity Soils with amounts of exchangeable sodium sufficient to have adverse effect on soil

structure or on growth of specified crops. O – Organic surface Mineral soils with a peaty surface layer up to 40 cm thick. W – Drainage Soils in which excess water (not due to inundation) limits the production of specified

crops. Excess water could result from a high water table or inadequate soil drainage. Z – Organic soil

temperature Additional temperature limitation associated with organic soils – particularly where the regional climate has less than 1600 Effective Growing Degree Days.



Table 2.1-2 Description of Land Suitability Subclasses (cont’d) Land Suitability Subclass Type of Limitation

S – Soil (cont’d) General soil restriction. R – Rock Soils with bedrock sufficiently close to the surface to have adverse effect on

production of specified crops. B – Degree of

decomposition or fibre content

Organic soils in which the degree of decomposition of the organic material is not optimum for production of specified crops.

G – Depth and Substrate

Shallow organic soils with underlying material that is not optimum for production of specified crops.

L – Landscape General landscape restriction. T – Slope Landscapes with slopes steep enough to incur a risk of water erosion or to limit

cultivation. K – Landscape

pattern Strongly contrasting soils or nonarable obstacles that limit production of the specified crops or substantially affect management practices.

P – Stoniness and Coarse Fragments

Sufficiently stony (fragments coarser than 7.5 cm) or gravelly (fragments smaller than 7.5 cm in diameter) so as to hinder tillage or limit production of specified crops.

J – Wood content Organic soils with a wood content or of Eriophorum species sufficient to limit the production of the specified crops.

I – Inundation Subject to inundation or flooding that limits production of specified crops.

SOURCE: AAC (1995)

2.1.5 Soil Reclamation Suitability Ratings

Reclamation suitability ratings were determined for the topsoil (upper lift) and subsoil (lower lift) of each undisturbed mineral soil series using Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance and Reclamation (AAFRD 1987), and physical and chemical data for the mapped soil series. These criteria were designed for mineral soils, thus suitability ratings for organic soils were not evaluated, unless mineral soil was present in the subsoil. The rating system has a range from unsuitable for use as a reclamation material to good suitability. For a synopsis of the rating system, see Table 2.1-3.

Table 2.1-3 Soil Quality Criteria Relative to Disturbance and Reclamation Suitability Class Description

Good None to slight soil limitations that affect use for plant growth. Fair Moderate soil limitations that affect use but can be overcome by proper planning

and good management. Poor Severe soil limitations that make use questionable; careful planning and very good

management are required. Unsuitable Chemical or physical soil properties are so severe that reclamation is not possible or

economically feasible.

SOURCE: AAFRD (1987)



2.1.6 Wind and Water Erosion Risk

Wind and water erosion potential of soils in the LSA was evaluated using surface soil and site characteristics. The risk of wind and water erosion for soil series mapped in the LSA was based on ratings in Pedocan Land Evaluation (1993) and Tajek et al. (1985). Soil series not rated in the Pedocan Land Evaluation (1993) were evaluated for inherent wind erosion risk using the criteria outlined by Coote and Pettapiece (1989).


Soil properties in the RSA were determined from existing published information. AGRASID 3 (Alberta Soil Information System 2001) was the primary source for identifying soil types and their areal extent, as well as the characteristics of individual soil types.

2.3 Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures were applied to all key stages of the terrain and soils environmental baseline study, including data collection, data analysis and reporting:

• The environmental baseline study process was supervised and controlled by senior terrain and soils scientists who reviewed the methods used for field work, mapping and data analysis, and result interpretations, and provided senior review of draft and final reports.

• Pre-field and post-field soil mapping was supervised and controlled by a senior soil scientist to verify adequate selection of soil sites, and proficiency in delineating and classifying soil polygons.

• Field work was inspected by a senior soil scientist to check proficiency in selecting survey sites, describing soils and parent materials, and in soil sampling.

• Field data were reviewed by a senior soil scientist to verify soil series naming and interpretation of parent materials.

• An internal audit system was used to ensure that all methods met standards for quality.

Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and Soils Section 3: Results


3 Results


3.1.1 Surficial Deposit Mapping

Field inspections confirmed that glaciofluvial sediments of the Redwater Plain have been reworked by aeolian activity to form low-relief dunes in the northwestern part of the LSA. This also confirms the data provided by Shetsen (1990). The dunes have created an undulating topography with slopes of 2 to 9%, with some slopes up to 16%.

The central part of the LSA is dominantly glaciofluvial deposits. The southeastern portion of the LSA comprises gently undulating glaciolacustrine deposits of moderately fine texture.

Surveyed elevations in the LSA vary between 625 and 635 masl. The relief in the LSA is generally low and therefore terrain is stable. Terrain-based constraints for potential facility development in the LSA include local areas of seepage and accumulation of surface organic material in isolated wetlands.

For the areal extent of the main surficial deposits in the LSA, see Table 3.1-1. For the mapped distribution of the surficial deposits, see Figure 3.1-1.

Table 3.1-1 Surficial Deposits in the Local Study Area

Surficial Deposit

Local Study Area Extent

(ha)

Proportion of Local Study Area

(%) Aeolian blanket 152.0 35.7 Glaciofluvial veneer or blanket 169.5 39.8 Glaciolacustrine undulating 52.5 12.3 Disturbed Land 14.0 3.3 Organic veneer or blanket 37.8 8.9 Total 425.9 100.0

3.1.1.1 Aeolian Deposits

The aeolian deposits are mostly fine to medium-grained massive sand, represented in the LSA by 3- to 5-m-high irregularly shaped dunes, which are now stable and forested. Where the dunes have been used for pasture, there are blowouts and evidence of reactivation. Depressions between the dunes are occupied by wetlands and veneers (less than 1 m) and blankets (more than 1 m) of organic sediments (see Figure 3.1-1). The peaty deposits generally have contact with the mineral surface within 1.6 m.

TITLE

FIGURE 3.1-1

15

RR 220


Astot in

Creek

RR 215

RR 214

TWP RD 554

FGb

FGbLGu

Ob

Eb

FGb

Ob

Ov

OvLGu

DL

LGu

EbObEb

FGb

Ov

LGu

DL DL

DL

LGu

FGvLGu

DL

DL LGu

359000

359000

360000

360000

361000

361000

362000

362000

363000

363000

595800

0

595800

0

595900

0

595900

0

596000

0

596000

0

200 0 200 400 600Distance in MetresDOMINANT SURFICIAL DEPOSITSIN THE LOCAL STUDY AREA

SCALE

Dominant Surficial DepositsAeolian blanket (Eb)Glaciofluvial blanket (FGb)Glaciofluvial veneer (FGv)Glaciolacustrine undulating (LGu)Organic blanket (Ob)Organic veneer (Ov)Disturbed Land (DL)




3.1.1.2 Glaciofluvial Deposits

Undulating glaciofluvial deposits in the LSA have a sand to loamy sand texture with minor amounts of gravel. These deposits are generally stratified and commonly have contact with underlying glaciolacustrine deposits within 1 m. Aeolian processes have slightly reworked the surface of glaciofluvial sediments, especially in the transition zone to the dunes.

3.1.1.3 Glaciolacustrine Deposits

Glaciolacustrine deposits in the LSA consist of clay and clay loam and form gently undulating topography.

3.1.1.4 Organic Deposits

Organic materials form veneers (less than 1 m thick) and blankets (more than 1 m thick) in depressional areas. These deposits are underlain by glaciofluvial, eolian or glaciolacustrine deposits, depending on their location in the LSA. Organic deposits are generally thin in this area, but in some cases are deeper than 2.2 m.

3.1.1.5 Disturbed Land

Disturbed Land (DL) has been affected by human activities but not reclaimed to its original condition. Specifically, Disturbed Land represents areas where topsoil and upper subsoil were removed, significantly disturbed or covered with construction material (pavement or buildings) and had not been reclaimed at the time of inspection. Examples of Disturbed Land in the LSA include a recently constructed well drilling pad, an abandoned farmyard, a large dugout, a north–south road and associated ditches, a forest products production facility and an active sand pit. Pipeline rights-of-way are not defined as Disturbed Land because they are reclaimed.

3.1.1.6 Topography and Relief

For topography in the LSA, see Figure 3.1-2. Elevation is generally near 630 mamsl, except for some closed basins that are near or less than 620 mamsl. Most of the LSA has undulating topography, except for the dune complexes, which are undulating to hummocky.

TITLE

FIGURE 3.1-2

North Saska

tchewan Ri

ver

634

633 633

634

629

634

635

633

055-21W4

630

630

632

630

633633

633

629

633632

626

Astotin Cr

eek

15

RR 22

0

830


RR 21

5

RR 21

4

TWP RD 554

630

620610

600

600

630610

630630

630

630

630

630

630

630

630

630

630

630 630

630

630

630

630

630

630

630

630

630

620

358000

358000

360000

360000

362000

362000

364000

364000

595800

0

595800

0

596000

0

596000

0

300 0 300 600 900Distance in MetresTOPOGRAPHY IN THE LOCAL STUDY AREA

SCALE

1m Contour Interval10m Contour IntervalLocal Study AreaTOTAL LandsPaved Access - DividedPaved AccessUnpaved AccessRailwayWatercourseUrban Area



3.1.2 Soil Classification and Mapping

For soil distribution in the LSA, see Figure 3.1-3 and Table 3.1-2. About half the LSA has Black and Dark Grey Chernozemic soils. Brunisolic soils make up just under 20% of the area. The remaining area has primarily Gleysolic and Organic soils, and these occupy isolated wetland depressions.

Chernozemic soils were the most common soil type in the LSA, and their variation (Black, Dark Grey) was due to differing organic matter contents in the surface horizon, and differing textures over the LSA. The variation of organic matter content seemed most related to soil texture, but even within the coarse-textured soils, organic matter content varied significantly, probably due to past forest vegetation encroachment at the site. Finer-textured Chernozems tended to have higher organic carbon content than coarser-textured members of this group.

The dominant Chernozemic soil series in the LSA is Mundare (MDR). Mundare soils are Orthic Black Chernozems formed on very coarse-textured aeolian and glaciofluvial parent materials. This soil series is primarily associated with the more subdued parts of the sand dune topography in the LSA.

Portions of the southern and eastern LSA were mapped as the coarse phase of the Cucumber series (CCBco) to represent the dominance of Orthic Black Chernozemic profiles and moderately fine-textured glaciolacustrine materials. These occupy 8% of the LSA. The parent materials are typically moderately fine textured, rather than fine textured as is usual for the Cucumber soil series, hence the term coarse phase.

The remaining areas dominated by Chernozemic soils were mapped as Helliwell (HLW), where topsoils had lighter surface colours and lower organic matter content, and shallow Peace Hills over clay (PHSxc), where the SL-textured material was underlain by fine-textured glaciolacustrine material. There are also small areas mapped as Gleyed Bawlf (BWFgl). Profiles of the BWFgl soil series have weakly saline lower subsoils and are associated with depressional areas where localized groundwater discharge has occurred.

High seasonal water tables are an important condition in the LSA, with depressional areas often seasonally flooded or at least with water tables reaching very near the soil surface. Thus, the second-largest soil component in the LSA are Gleysolics. Because of the variation in parent material and texture, they are mapped as two groups, distinguished by soil texture. Those Gleysolic soils formed on coarse to medium-textured aeolian and glaciofluvial parent materials were mapped as Miscellaneous coarse-textured Gleysols (ZGWco). Actual profiles in these areas were usually classified as Rochester (RCS) (Orthic Humic Gleysol) or Daken (DKN) (Rego Humic Gleysols) series. They occurred in such close proximity that it was not feasible to map them separately. Similarly, areas of moderately fine- to very fine-textured Gleysols were mapped as Miscellaneous Gleysols (ZGWfi) on fine-textured materials. These areas had profiles of the Haight (HGT) and Kerensky (KSY) soil series. Again, their close proximity meant mapping them separately was not possible at this scale of resolution. Overall, the coarser-textured Gleysols were most common, whereas the finer-textured Gleysols covered less than 5% of the LSA. Gleysolic soil profiles often have a peaty surface horizon less than 40 cm thick.

TITLEFIGURE 3.1-3

15

RR 220


Astotin

Creek

RR 215

RR 214

TWP RD 554

ZBR 6/HLW 2/ZGWco2

PHSxc8/ZGWco2

MDR 8/ZGWco2

CCBco10

MDR 10MDR 9/ZGWco1

HLW 6/ZGWco2/ZBR 2

PHSxc8/ZGWfi2

ZBR 6/ZGWco4

PHSxc8/ZGWco2

ZGWco10

GSP 7/MNTaa3

ZGWco6/ZBR 4

DL 10 MDR 6/ZBR 2/ZGWco2

MDR 8/ZGWco2ZGWfi9/CCBco1

MNTaa8/ZGWco2

MNTaa8/ZGWco2

GSP 6/MNTaa3/ZGWfi1

ZGWco8/MNTaa2

MDR 6/ZBR 3/DL 1

MNTaa8/ZGWco2HLW 6/ZBR 3/ZGWco1

BWFgl8/ZGWfi2

CCBco10

DSJfi6/ZGWco4

DL 10

DSJfi6/ZGWco4

MDR 9/ZGWco1

ZGWfi10

CCBco10

ZGWco9/MDR 1

ZGWfi7/CCBco3

DL 10

DL 10

DL 10

MNTaa8/ZGWco2

CCBco8/ZGWfi2

ZGWco9/MDR 1

MDR 8/ZGWco2

CCBco8/ZGWfi2

DL 10

PHSxc8/ZGWco2

ZBR 6/ZGWco4

MDR 6/ZBR 2/ZGWco2

MDR 6/ZBR 2/ZGWco2

PHSxc8/ZGWco2

359000

359000

360000

360000

361000

361000

362000

362000

363000

363000

595800

0

595800

0

595900

0

595900

0

596000

0

596000

0

200 0 200 400 600Distance in MetresSOIL SERIES AND TYPES IN THELOCAL STUDY AREA

SCALE

Soil SeriesDisturbed LandLocal Study AreaTOTAL LandsPaved Access - DividedPaved AccessUnpaved AccessRailwayWatercourseUrban Area

Label CCBco10Soil Code Phase Code Decile



Table 3.1-2 Mapped Soil Types in the Local Study Area Soil Series, Type and

Phase Code

Soil Series Name and

Phase

Classification (Soil Subgroup and

Phase) Parent Material

Drainage

LSA Extent

(ha)

Proportion of LSA

(%) BWFgl Bawlf –

gleyed phase Gleyed Rego Black Chernozem, saline phase

Moderately fine glaciolacustrine

Imperfect 2.8 0.7

CCBco Cucumber –coarse phase

Orthic Black Chernozem Moderately fine to fine glaciolacustrine

Well to imperfect

33.2 7.8

DSJfi Desjarlais –fine phase

Orthic Humic Gleysol, saline phase

Medium glaciofluvial

Poor 1.8 0.4

GSP Golden Spike Typic Mesisol Fen pit Very poor 11.6 2.7 HLW Helliwell Orthic Dark Grey

Chernozem Very coarse glaciofluvial or aeolian

Well to imperfect

38.7 9.1

MDR Mundare Orthic Black Chernozem Very coarse glaciofluvial or aeolian

Rapid to well 95.8 22.5

MNTaa Manatokan-aa Terric Mesisol Fen pit over moderately coarse glaciofluvial or aeolian

Very poor 24.3 5.7

PHSxc Peace Hills –over clay phase

Orthic Black Chernozem Moderately coarse glaciofluvial over moderately fine to fine glaciolacustrine

Moderately well to imperfect

35.6 8.3

ZBR Miscellaneous Brunisols

Orthic Eutric Brunisols, Orthic/Gleyed Melanic Brunisols, Orthic Dystric Brunisols

Very coarse glaciofluvial or aeolian

Rapid to imperfect

70.6 16.6

ZGWco Miscellaneous Gleysols –coarse to medium textured

Orthic and Rego Humic Gleysols, Orthic and Rego Gleysols

Coarse to medium

Poor 78.6 18.4

ZGWfi Miscellaneous Gleysols – fine and moderately fine textured

Orthic and Rego Humic Gleysols, Orthic and Rego Gleysols

Fine to moderately fine

Poor 18.3 4.3

DL Disturbed Land

N/A N/A Various 14.6 3.4

Total 425.9 100.0

NOTE: N/A Not applicable

Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and Soils Environmental Baseline Study: Terrain and SoilsSection 3: Results


A small area of Saline Orthic Humic Gleysols of the Desjarlais soil series (DSJ) was mapped at the southwestern corner of the LSA. This area is associated with a shallow drainage channel that transports water into Astotin Creek east of the LSA.

Profiles of the Orthic Eutric, Orthic Melanic, Gleyed Melanic and Orthic Dystric Brunisols formed on moderately coarse to very coarse glaciofluvial and aeolian materials were identified over much of the northern and western parts of the LSA. Currently there are no established soil series for these kinds of profiles in SCA 10 (Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001). Therefore, areas dominated by these soil types were mapped as Miscellaneous Brunisols (ZBR) developed on coarse-textured aeolian and glaciofluvial materials. Interpretations for these areas were based on soil profiles of the Orthic Melanic Brunisolic soil subgroup that has formed on very coarse-textured materials. They comprise about 17% of the LSA. These Brunisols rarely possess eluvial features, and seem to have both Brunisolic and Chernozemic soil-forming processes operating, with weak topsoil development being the most common feature. Nevertheless, the juvenile topsoil development in these profiles is insufficient to result in a Chernozemic A horizon and thus these soils are best described as Brunisols. Vegetation in these areas was typically a mixture of open forest, including pine and grass.

Depressional areas of persistent high water tables have developed peat accumulations – an indication of long-term high water table conditions at the site. Organic soils on the LSA were represented by Typic Mesisols of Golden Spike (GSP) soil series and Terric Mesisols of the Manatokan (MNTaa) soil series. They differ in terms of peat depth: the former has more than 160 cm of moderately decomposed peat, whereas the latter has between 40 and 160 cm of moderately decomposed peat. Areas mapped as these two soils make up about 8% of the LSA.

3.1.3 Soil Suitability Ratings for Agricultural Crops

Soils in the LSA range in suitability for agricultural crop production (see Table 3.1-3) from land with slight limitations (Class 2) to unsuitable land (Class 7). For the extent of soil series in each agricultural suitability class in the LSA, see Table 3.1-3. For spatial distribution of the suitability classes, see Figure 3.1-4. Excess water and coarse texture are the main limitation of land suitability in the LSA. The majority of soils have loamy sand to sandy surface texture. Texture limits land suitability for agricultural crops because coarse-textured soils do not have the nutrient or water-holding capacity necessary for sustained cultivation.

Poor drainage and shallow water tables in some portions of the LSA reduce land suitability for agricultural crops because the land is not suitable for machinery during parts of the year and special management techniques might be required. Temperature is also a restriction for agriculture in the LSA. Effective growing degree-days are limited due to the relatively northern latitude of the LSA.

Accumulation of organic matter (i.e., peat) on the soil surface limits land suitability for agricultural crops not only because of special techniques required but also because of additional temperature limitations when climate has less than 1600 Effective Growing Degree Days (AAC 1995). Organic surface horizon has a much lower thermal conductance than mineral soil, so the climatic limitations are amplified for soil profiles with these characteristics.



Table 3.1-3 Agricultural Suitability Ratings for Soil Types in the Local Study Area

Soil Series4 Soil Sampling

Site3

Index Points and Suitability Class1 Agricultural Suitability Class and Subclass8

Climate Rating5

Landscape Rating6

Mineral Soil Rating7

BWFgl TC1481 60 (2) 47 (3) 80 (1) 3 WHT CCBco TC1431 60 (2) 84 (1) 80 (1) 2 HT DSJfi TC0881 60 (2) 16 (6) 90 (1) 6 WNH GSP TC1382 60 (2) 0 (7) 100 (1) 7 WZ HLW TC0671 60 (2) 95 (1) 35 (4) 4 MH MDR TC0291 60 (2) 80 (1) 40 (3) 4 MHT MNTaa TC0132 60 (2) 2 (7) 97 (1) 7 WZ PHSxc TC0851 60 (2) 80 (1) 67 (2) 2 HMT ZBR TC0411 60 (2) 95 (1) 36 (4) 4 MH ZGWco TC0701 60 (2) 95 (1) 29 (5) 5 WH ZGWfi TC1192 60 (2) 62 (2) 95 (1) 2 WH DL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

NOTES: 1Ratings based on soil samples submitted for laboratory analyses. 2Ratings based on field data from inspection site and AGRASID data for a representative profile (Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001).

3See Figure 2.1-1 for locations of soil sampling sites. 4Soil series codes. 5Limitations conferred by regional climate; see Table 2.1-1 and Table 2.1-2 for description of rating system codes. Values represent degree of limitation index; number in parentheses represent suitability class.

6Limitations conferred by landscape related features; see Table 2.1-1 and Table 2.1-2 for description of rating system codes. Values represent degree of limitation index; number in parentheses represent suitability class.

7Limitations conferred by soil profile characteristics; see Table 2.1-1 and Table 2.1-2 for description of rating system codes. Values represent degree of limitation index; number in parentheses represent suitability class.

8Number refers to the most limiting class and letters refer to the subclasses that provide the limitation.



Table 3.1-4 Soil Series, Agricultural Suitability Class and Extent in the LSA

Soil Series, Type and Phase Code

Soil Series Name and Phase

Agricultural Land Suitability Class and Subclass8

LSA Extent

(ha) Proportion of LSA

(%) BWFgl Bawlf –

gleyed phase 3 WHT 2.8 0.7

CCBco Cucumber –coarse phase

2 HT 33.2 7.8

DSJfi Desjarlais –fine phase

6 WNH 1.8 0.4

GSP Golden Spike 7 WZ 11.6 2.7 HLW Helliwell 4 MH 38.7 9.1 MDR Mundare 4 MHT 95.8 22.5 MNTaa Manatokan-aa 7 WZ 24.3 5.7 PHSxc Peace Hills –over

clay phase 2 HMT 35.6 8.3

ZBR Miscellaneous Brunisols

4 MH 70.6 16.6

ZGWco Miscellaneous Gleysols –coarse to medium textured

5 WH 78.6 18.4

ZGWfi Miscellaneous Gleysols – fine and moderately fine textured

2 WH 18.3 4.3

DL Disturbed Land N/A 14.6 3.4

NOTE: 1Number refers to the most limiting class and letters refer to the subclasses that provide the limitation.

TITLE

FIGURE 3.1-4

15RR

220


Asto tin

Creek

RR 215

RR 214

TWP RD 554

2HT(10)

4MH(8)-5WH(2)

2HT(10)

2HMT(8)-5WH(2)

4MHT(8)-5WH(2)

4MH(8)-4WH(2)

4MHT(10)

4MHT(9)-5WH(1)

2HMT(8)-5WH(2)

4MH(6)-5WH(4)

5WH(10)

7WZ(10)4MHT(8)-5WH(2)

2WH(9)-2HT(1)4MHT(10)

2HMT(8)-5WH(2)

7WZ(9)-2WH(1)

7WZ(8)-5WH(2)

5WH(6)-4MH(4)

7WZ(8)-5WH(2)

5WH(8)-7WZ(2)7WZ(8)-5WH(2)

5WH(9)-4MHT(1)4MHT(8)-5WH(2)

4MH(9)-4WH(1)

2HT(10)

3WHT(8)-2WH(2)

2HT(10)2HMT(8)-5WH(2)

6WNH(6)-5WH(4)

6WNH(6)-5WH(4)

2WH(7)-2HT(3)

2WH(10)

4MHT(9)-5WH(1)

7WZ(8)-5WH(2)

2HT(8)-2WH(2)

5WH(9)-4MHT(1)

4MHT(8)-5WH(2)

2HMT(8)-5WH(2)

4MHT(8)-5WH(2)

359000

359000

360000

360000

361000

361000

362000

362000

363000

363000

595800

0

595800

0

595900

0

595900

0

596000

0

596000

0

200 0 200 400 600Distance in MetresAGRICULTURAL LAND SUITABILITY RATINGSIN THE LOCAL STUDY AREA

SCALE

Dominant Land Suitability2 - Slight Limitations3 - Moderate Limitations4 - Severe Limitations5 - Very Severe Limitations6 - Extremely Severe Limitations7 - UnsuitableDisturbed Land


Land Suitability Subclass LimitationsH - TemperatureM - Water-holding capacity/textureD - Soil structureV - Soil reactionN - SalinityW - DrainageZ - Organic soil temperatureB - Degree of decomposition or fibre contentT - Topography

2HMT(8)-5WH(2)Rating Decile SubclassLimitations

Label



3.1.4 Soil Reclamation Suitability Ratings

The soils in the LSA are rated poor to fair for reclamation suitability (see Table 3.1-5). Poor suitability ratings are mainly due to the very coarse-textured nature of the soils (HLW, MDR, ZBR) or pH (CCBco, GSP, MNTaa, ZGWco, ZGWfi). Droughty conditions and low nutrient-retention capacity are associated with coarse-textured soils and can affect reclamation success by inhibiting vegetation establishment. The majority of the LSA was rated as poor both for both topsoil and subsoil reclamation suitability. Next most common was fair reclamation suitability.

Table 3.1-5 Soil Reclamation Suitability Ratings for Soil Types in the Local Study Area

Soil Series,

Type and Phase Soil Sampling Site

Reclamation Suitability Rating

Main Limitation in the Topsoil

Main Limitation in the Subsoil Topsoil3 Subsoil4

BWFgl TC1481 Fair Fair Saturation pH, Texture CCBco TC1431 Fair Poor pH, Saturation Texture DSJfi TC0881 Poor Fair Salinity pH, Salinity,

Stoniness, TextureGSP TC1382 Not rated Not rated – – HLW TC0671 Poor Poor Texture, Organic

Matter Texture

MDR TC0291 Poor Poor Texture Texture MNTaa TC0132 Not rated Poor – – PHSxc TC0851 Poor Poor Organic Matter Texture ZBR TC0411 Poor Poor Texture, Organic

Matter Texture

ZGWco TC0701 Fair Poor pH Texture ZGWfi TC1192 Fair Fair pH, Texture,

CaCO3 pH

DL N/A N/A N/A N/A

NOTES: N/A Not applicable 1Ratings are based on soil samples submitted for laboratory analyses. 2Ratings are based on field data from inspection site and AGRASID data (Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001) for representative profile.

3Topsoil includes all A horizons, except Ae and transitional horizons between the A and B or A and C horizons (e.g., AB, BA, AC and CA horizons; these are classified as subsoil) as the organic carbon in these horizons is less than 2%. Including these horizons as topsoil might decrease reclamation suitability.

4Subsoil includes B horizons, but does not include BC horizons.



Topsoil from poorly drained coarse-textured Gleysols is rated fair for reclamation suitability. Sandy loam or peaty-textured soils are preferable to loamy sand or sandy-textured soils as surface material for reclamation. However, reclamation suitability is limited by low pH in the surface horizons. Low pH contributes to fair reclamation suitability ratings because the growth of some plant species could be limited if material with a low pH is used for revegetation. Subsoil material of coarse-textured Gleysols (ZGWco), Brunisols (ZBR) and Terric Mesisols (MNTaa) is rated poor for reclamation suitability as it has been formed from the same coarse-textured parent material as the other series in the LSA.

The reclamation suitability rating system allows rating of organic soils (MNTaa, GSP) but with fewer criteria than mineral soils. No soils in the LSA were rated unsuitable for reclamation.

For the areal extent of each reclamation suitability class for topsoil in the LSA, see Table 3.1-6 and for subsoil, see Table 3.1-7. For the spatial distribution of topsoil reclamation suitability ratings, see Figure 3.1-5.

Table 3.1-6 Topsoil Reclamation Suitability – Area and Proportion of Local Study Area

Topsoil Reclamation Suitability

Area (ha)

Proportion of LSA (%)

F (Fair) 71.0 16.7 P (Poor) 300.9 70.6 O (organic, not rated), except for mineral subsoil 39.9 9.4 DL (disturbed land, not rated) 14.0 3.3 Total 425.9 100.0

Table 3.1-7 Subsoil Reclamation Suitability – Area and Proportion of Local Study Area

Subsoil Reclamation Suitability

Area (ha)

Proportion of LSA (%)

F (Fair) 20.1 4.7 P (Poor) 374.1 87.8 O (organic, not rated, except for mineral subsoil) 17.7 4.2 DL (disturbed land, not rated) 14.0 3.3 Total 425.9 100.0

Topsoil depths were mapped based on interpretation of the landscape and data collected at the soil inspection sites (see Figure 3.1-6). Stripping depth and material type show significant variation. For example, dune areas have less than 10 cm of topsoil and in some areas peat deposits are nearly 1 m deep. Ah horizon depth was combined with organic matter (peat or LFH) depth to calculate topsoil thickness (see Table 3.1-8). Three types of topsoil were identified based on the presence of very poorly drained peaty material. Soil of Organic and Gleysolic orders were assigned Peaty and Peaty to Mineral topsoil types, whereas soils of other orders were assigned the Mineral topsoil type.

TITLE

FIGURE 3.1-5

15

RR 220


Astot in

Creek

RR 215

RR 214

TWP RD 554

359000

359000

360000

360000

361000

361000

362000

362000

363000

363000

595800

0

595800

0

595900

0

595900

0

596000

0

596000

0

200 0 200 400 600Distance in MetresTOPSOIL RECLAMATION SUITABILITY RATINGSFOR THE LOCAL STUDY AREA

SCALE

Topsoil Reclamation SuitabilityFairPoorDisturbed Land


TITLE

FIGURE 3.1-6

15

RR 220


Astot in

Creek

RR 215

RR 214

TWP RD 554

20(M)26(M)

19(M)

25(M)

25(M)

21(M)

25(M)

26(M)

44(M)

0( )

25(M)

44(M)

28(PM)

159(P)

40(PM)

79(P)

79(P)

144(P)

24(PM)

26(M)19(M)

79(P)

23(M)

28(PM)

25(M)

0( )

0( )

28(PM)

25(M)

0( )

0( )

29(M)

25(M) 37(M)

44(M)

79(P)

44(M)

40(PM)

25(M)

0( )

41(PM)

43(M)

26(M)

28(PM)

26(M)

25(M)

29(M)

25(M)25(M)

359000

359000

360000

360000

361000

361000

362000

362000

363000

363000

595800

0

595800

0

595900

0

595900

0

596000

0

596000

0

200 0 200 400 600Distance in MetresAVERAGE TOPSOIL DEPTH AND TYPEIN THE LOCAL STUDY AREA

SCALE

Soil PolygonDisturbed LandLocal Study AreaTOTAL LandsPaved Access - DividedPaved AccessUnpaved AccessRailwayWatercourseUrban Area

Topsoil Type:M - MineralP - PeatPM - Peat and Mineral

10(PM)Depth (cm) Topsoil Type

Label



Table 3.1-8 Topsoil Depth for Mapped Soil Types in the Local Study Area

Soil Series Types and

Phase Topsoil

Type

Topsoil Thickness (cm)

Organics Thickness (cm)

Average Min Max Average Min Max BWFgl M 26 15 37 0 0 0 CCBco M 44 23 54 0 0 0 DSJfi M 43 43 43 0 0 0 GSP P 188 170 205 188 170 205 HLW M 19 8 27 0 0 0 MDR M 25 11 44 0 0 0 MNTaa P 92 40 149 84 40 149 PHSxc M 24 17 41 0 0 0 ZBR M 17 8 26 0 0 0 ZGWco PM 28 7 89 4 0 28 ZGWfi PM 40 13 68 7 0 29 DL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

NOTES: M – Mineral topsoil P – Peat topsoil PM – Combination of mineral and organic topsoil N/A – Not applicable

3.1.5 Water and Wind Erosion Risk

3.1.5.1 Water Erosion

Water erosion is a natural process in any landscape, the rate of which is related to the erodibility of the soil, and texture is a key indicator of a soil’s resistance to erosion. Silty or fine sandy soils with weak structure are generally most susceptible to water erosion, although slope gradient and length are important factors controlling the rate of erosion. A steep slope does not allow infiltration of precipitation to occur, while a long slope allows the quantity of the water to accumulate and thereby increases the erosive power (Tajek et al. 1985).

Most of the soils mapped in the LSA have low (or slight) to moderate water-erosion ratings (see Table 3.1-9), with all rated soils having a low rating where slope class is less than 5%. The Manatokan and Golden Spike series are unrated because they are Organic soils normally found in depressions. Gleysols and Organic soils occur in concave portions of the landscape that receive and store water and thus are not subject to the erosive forces of overland water flow.



Table 3.1-9 Water Erosion Risk for Soil Types in the Local Study Area

Soil Series Code

Water Erosion Rating (Pedocan Land Evaluation 1993) Water Erosion Rating

(Tajek et al. 1985) Slope



Table 3.1-10 Wind Erosion Risk for Mapped Soil Types in the Local Study Area Soil Series Code

Wind Erosion Rating

(Pedocan Land Evaluation 1993)BWFgl Low CCBco High DSJfi Not Rated GSP Not Rated HLW High MDR High MNTaa Not Rated PHSxc High ZBR Not Rated ZGWco Not Rated ZGWfi Not Rated DL N/A

NOTE: N/A – Not applicable

Erosion can lead to decreased soil productivity because it removes fine particles from the surface soil layers where organic matter is concentrated. Fine soil particles provide abundant nutrient retention capacity and when these particles are removed, along with organic matter, the root zone becomes nutrient depleted. The soils at the site could be prone to erosion based not on climatic conditions, but on properties of the soil – that is, clay and sandy soils are more likely to erode than medium-textured soils when exposed to the wind (AAFRD 1987). Wind-erosion risk is greatest in soils with little aggregation in the surface layers, such as the loose consistency of loamy sand or sandy-textured soils (Coote and Pettapiece 1989). Most of the LSA has soils with these loose surface textures, so wind-erosion risk is high, particularly the crests and upper slope positions of dunes that are exposed to the elements.

Based on the pattern of topsoil depths in the northern portion of the LSA, it is evident that some topsoil erosion has occurred. Much of the higher ground has had topsoil eroded and deposited in lower-lying areas of the undulating terrain. It is quite likely that some of topsoil has moved due to agricultural use of the site.


3.2.1 Soil Series in the Regional Study Area

The RSA occupies parts of Soil Correlation Areas (SCA) 10, 12 and 21 (Brierley et al. 2006). SCA 10 is described as the Thick Black/Dark Grey–Grey Soil Zone of central Alberta and east–central Alberta, and, while dominated by Black Chernozemic soils, has appreciable extents of less-productive Dark Grey Chernozemic and Grey Luvisolic soils in the higher elevations of the RSA (e.g., Cooking Lake uplands and Elk Island National Park).



SCA 12 is described as the Dark Grey–Grey soil zone of northeast–central Alberta, and includes soils of the Chernozemic, Luvisolic, Brunisolic and Organic orders, reflecting the transition between boreal forest and central parkland. SCA 21 is described as the Central Mixedwood Area of east–central Alberta, and is dominated by Luvisolic, Brunisolic and Organic soils.

There are also areas described as possessing undifferentiated soils in the RSA, primarily near the North Saskatchewan River. Soil texture and profile development in these areas is too complex to describe in terms of soil series at these mapping scales.

Gleysolic soils are of local importance where surface drainage is restricted. Organic order soils occupy a minor extent of the RSA.

Soil information was summarized from the AGRASID 3 database (Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001). For the soil series names, subgroup classification, parent material characteristics, associated drainage regime for soils in the RSA and areal extent of each series, see Table 3.2-1. The area of the RSA is 247,842 ha.

Table 3.2-1 Soil Series and Extent in the Regional Study Area Soil Series

Name

Soil Series SymbolClassification

Parent Material

Drainage Regime

Extent

(ha) Angus Ridge

AGS Eluviated Black Chernozem

Moderately calcareous, moderately fine-textured glacial till

Well drained 20084

Beaverhills

BVH Orthic Black Chernozem


Well drained 1551

Brightbank

BRK Dark Grey Luvisol Noncalcareous, non-saline, moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial material

Well drained 69

Camrose

CMO Black Solodized Solonetz

Moderately calcareous, moderately saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till

Well drained 2384

Cooking Lake

COA Orthic Grey Luvisol Moderately calcareous, moderately fine textured glacial till

Well drained 17564

Duagh

DUG Black Solonetz Weakly calcareous, moderately saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine material

Moderately well drained

1285

Elk Point

ELP Dark Grey Luvisol Weakly calcareous, moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial material

Well drained 107

Ferintosh

FTH Orthic Black Chernozem

Weakly calcareous, gravelly very coarse-textured glaciofluvial material

Well drained 166



Table 3.2-1 Soil Series and Extent in the Regional Study Area (cont’d) Soil Series

Name

Soil Series Symbol Classification

Parent Material

Drainage Regime

Extent

(ha) Gabriel

GBL Dark Grey Luvisol Moderately calcareous, moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial over moderately fine textured glacial till

Well drained 102

Helliwell

HLW Orthic Dark Grey Chernozem

Weakly calcareous, very coarse-textured glaciofluvial material

Well drained 94

Hobbema

HBM Eluviated Black Chernozem

Moderately calcareous, medium-textured glaciolacustrine overlying moderately fine textured glacial till

Well drained 3312

Kavanagh

KVG Black Solodized Solonetz

Weakly calcareous, weakly saline, moderately fine-textured soft rock, fine saline sodic material


2505

Kawood

KWO Grey Solodized Solonetz

Weakly calcareous, non-saline, moderately fine-textured soft rock, fine saline sodic material

Well drained 395

Looma

LOM Orthic Dark Grey Chernozem

Weakly calcareous, very fine-textured glaciolacustrine overlying moderately fine-texture glacial till

Well drained 5380

Macola

MLA Dark Grey Luvisol Moderately calcareous, very fine-textured glaciolacustrine material


1248

Malmo

MMO Eluviated Black Chernozem

Weakly calcareous, non-saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine material

Well drained 16,343

Malmo (xt)

MMO xt Eluviated Black Chernozem

Weakly calcareous, non-saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine material overlying fine textured glacial till

Well drained 18

Manatokan (aa)

MNTaa Terric Mesisol (modal Soil Correlation Area 12)

Fen peat overlying moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial material

Very poorly drained

863

Maywood

MYW Orthic Grey Luvisol Moderately calcareous, non-saline, very fine-textured glaciolacustine material

Well drained 126

Mico

MCO Orthic Dark Grey Chernozem

Moderately calcareous, non-saline, very fine-textured glaciolacustrine material


3078




Name

Soil Series SymbolClassification

Parent Material

Drainage Regime

Extent

(ha) Ministik

MNK Grey Solodized Solonetz

Weakly calcareous, weakly saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine material

Well drained 267

Miquelon

MIQ Orthic Grey Luvisol Moderately calcareous, very fine-textured glaciolacustrine overlying moderately fine texture glacial till


384

Mundare

MDR Orthic Black Chernozem

Weakly calcareous, very coarse-textured fluvio–eolian material

Well drained 6371

Navarre

NVR Gleyed Black Chernozem

Weakly calcareous, fine-textured glaciolacustrine material

Imperfectly drained

3853

Peace Hills

PHS Orthic Black Chernozem

Weakly calcareous, moderately coarse-glaciofluvial material

Well drained 4548

Peace Hills gleyed

PHS gl Gleyed Black Chernozem

Weakly calcareous, moderately coarse glaciofluvial material

Imperfect 294

Pibroch

PIB Gleyed Eluviated Black Chernozem

Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till

Imperfect 450

Ponoka

POK Eluviated Black Chernozem

Moderately calcareous, medium-textured glaciolacustrine material

Well drained 5759

Ponoka(xp)

POK xp Eluviated Black Chernozem

Moderately calcareous, medium-textured glaciolacustrine overlying moderately fine soft rock saline sodic material

Well drained 84

Primula

PRM Eluviated Eutric Brunisol

Noncalcareous, non-saline, very coarse-textured glaciofluvial material

Rapidly drained

4585

Redwater

RDW Orthic Dark Grey Chernozem

Weakly calcareous, moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial material

Well drained 356

Rimbey

RMY Orthic Dark Grey Chernozem

Moderately calcareous, medium-textured glaciolacustrine material

Well drained 199

Rolly View

RLV Orthic Dark Grey Chernozem


Well drained 9891




Name

Soil Series Symbol Classification

Parent Material

Drainage Regime

Extent

(ha) Ukalta

UKT Orthic Black Chernozem

Moderately calcareous, moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial material

Well drained 370

Uncas

UCS Dark Grey Luvisol Moderately calcareous, moderately fine-textured glacial till

Well drained 16,729

Wetaskiwin

WKN Black Solodized Solonetz

Weakly calcareous, moderately saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine material


967

Winterburn

WTB Orthic Dark Grey Chernozem

Weakly calcareous, medium-textured glaciofluvial material

Well drained 490

Miscellaneous fine textured Black Chernozem

ZFI zbl Fine-textured Black Chernozem

Undifferentiated mineral material

Well drained 449

Miscellaneous Gleysols

ZGW Undescribed Gleysols


Poorly drained 19,804

Miscellaneous Organics

ZOR Undescribed Organics

Undifferentiated organic material

Very poorly drained

4017

Miscellaneous Solonetzic soils, black variant

ZSZ zbl Miscellaneous Solonetzic soils, black variant


Well 1044

Miscellaneous undifferentiated mineral soil

ZUN Undifferentiated mineral soil


Well 80,683

Miscellaneous coarse soils, black variant

ZCO zbl Miscellaneous coarse textured , Black Chernozemic variant


Well 2849

Miscellaneous eroded soils, black variant

ZER zbl Miscellaneous eroded phases of Black Chernozemic soils


Well 372

Total Areal Extent 247,842

NOTE: N/A – not applicable

SOURCE: AGRASID 3 database (Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001)



3.2.2 Acid Sensitivity of Soils in the Regional Study Area

An increase in acid deposition from air emissions could result in acidification of the surface horizon of sensitive mineral and organic soils. The loading rate of potential acid input (PAI) is measured in terms of keq H+/ha/a: the amount of hydrogen ions (acid) deposited on a hectare of land in a single year; PAI includes both wet and dry deposition, and also accounts for base cation deposition. The Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA) has adopted the concept of “critical load,” a numerical expression of the level of deposition that does not lead to long-term, harmful changes to a receptor (CASA–AENV 1999). Soil sensitivity to acid deposition varies. The critical loads adopted by CASA–AENV for soils are 0.25, 0.5 and 1 keq H+/ha/a for high-, moderate- and low-sensitivity mineral soils.

When a critical PAI load is exceeded, soil chemistry might be adversely affected. The following sections describe acid-sensitive soils in the RSA, their characteristics and distribution.

The types of changes in soil chemistry that can occur from PAI deposition include:

• acidification (pH depression) • base loss (decreased base saturation) • aluminum solubilization (increased aluminum bioavailability) These changes can affect nutrient cycling and decomposition processes by altering microbial community populations and function. In addition, increased aluminum bioavailability can result in aluminum toxicity in vegetation.

The degree to which soils are affected by acid deposition depends on:

• PAI loading rate • sensitivity of the soil to acid inputs

3.2.2.1 Methods

Soil acid sensitivity rating systems based on pH and cation exchange capacity (CEC) of the surface horizon were developed for mineral soils by Holowaychuk and Fessenden (1987) and for peatland types (organic soils) by Turchenek et al. (1998). For the criteria for classifying soils as high, moderate or low acid sensitivity, see Table 3.2-2 for mineral soils and Table 3.2-3 for peatland types.



Table 3.2-2 Criteria for Rating Mineral Soils to Acidic Inputs Soil Property Sensitivity

Cation Exchange Capacity

(cmol (+)/kg) pH

Base loss

Acidification

Aluminum Solubilization

Overall Sensitivity

15 6.0 L L L L

NOTES: L – low sensitivity M – medium sensitivity H – high sensitivity

Table 3.2-3 Sensitivity and Critical Load Categories for the Major Chemical/Biotic Peat Types

Peatland Type Acid Sensitivity Critical Load Extreme rich fen Low >0.5 keq H+/ha/a Moderate rich fen Low >0.5 keq H+/ha/a Poor fen Medium 0.25–0.5 keq H+/ha/a Bog Medium 0.25–0.5 keq H+/ha/a



Modelled PAI loading rates were compared with PAI critical loads for soils in the RSA to assess emissions effects on soils. A multi-step approach to the assessment was taken, as follows:

1. Determine soil series occurring in the RSA (see Table 3.2-1). 2. Rate each of the identified series for its sensitivity to acid deposition, according to the

methods of Holowaychuk and Fessenden (1987) for mineral soils and Turchenek et al. (1998) for organic soils. (see Table 3.2-2 for criteria used for rating mineral soil series sensitivity and Table 3.2-3 for criteria for rating organic soil series sensitivity).

3. Assign a sensitivity rating of high, moderate or low to each soil series and determine the critical load for each by comparing chemical data for the soil series to the criteria for rating sensitivity.

4. Overlay PAI isopleths of 0.25, 0.5 and 1 keq H+/ha/a on soil polygons derived from the regional soil provincial soil database (AGRASID 3.0). These isopleths represent the PAI critical loads for high-, moderate- and low sensitivity soils adopted by CASA–AENV (1999).

For overall acid sensitivity of the soils series in the RSA, see Table 3.2-4 for mineral soils and Table 3.2-5 for organic soils and their related peatland t

terrain and soils - alberta · environmental baseline study: terrain and soils total e&p canada...

Documents