Soils (Non Agricultural)

Technical Data Report Soils
ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT
AMEC Earth & Environmental A division of AMEC Americas Limited

Edmonton, Alberta
L. Turchenek, Ph.D., P.Ag. Jacques Whitford Ltd.

Sidney, British Columbia
N. Tashe, M.Sc., P.Ag.
October 2010
Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents
Table of Contents
1 2 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 2.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................ 1-1 Spatial Boundaries ........................................................................................... 2-2
2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 Physiographic Region Boundaries ................................................................ 2-2 Provincial Agricultural Boundaries ................................................................. 2-4 Spatial Boundaries for Soil Disturbance Study .............................................. 2-4 2.1.3.1 Project Development Area ........................................................... 2-5 2.1.3.2 Project Effects Assessment Area ................................................. 2-5 Spatial Boundaries for Assessment of Soil Acidification Sensitivity .............. 2-6 2.1.4.1 Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area .................... 2-6
Methods ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1.4
2.2 2.3
Delineation of Landscape Units ........................................................................ 2-6 Field Verification of Landscape Units ............................................................... 2-7
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 2.3.5 2.3.6 Ecological Mapping Field Programs .............................................................. 2-8 Terrain Field Programs .................................................................................. 2-9 Soil Field Programs ....................................................................................... 2-9 Supplementary Soil Surveys ....................................................................... 2-10 Soil Classification ........................................................................................ 2-10 Soil Sampling and Laboratory Analysis ....................................................... 2-12 Review of Soil Data Sources ....................................................................... 2-13 Agricultural Soil Mapping in Alberta ............................................................ 2-14 Non-agricultural Soil Mapping in Alberta and in All Lands in British Columbia...................................................................................................... 2-14 2.4.3.1 Development of the Soil Model Matrix ....................................... 2-15 2.4.3.2 Modelling Application and Model Accuracy ............................... 2-17 Soil Map Units for Agricultural Lands of Alberta .......................................... 2-19 2.5.1.1 Soil Model Symbol ..................................................................... 2-19 2.5.1.2 Slope Class ................................................................................ 2-28 Soil Map Units for Non-agricultural Lands in Alberta and All Lands in British Columbia .......................................................................................... 2-28 2.5.2.1 Soil Subgroup and Parent Material Symbol ............................... 2-29 2.5.2.2 Slope Class ................................................................................ 2-31
2.4
Soil Landscape Units ..................................................................................... 2-13

2.4.1 2.4.2 2.4.3
2.5
Development of Soil Map Units ...................................................................... 2-18

2.5.1
2.5.2
2.6 2.7 2.8
Baseline Soil Map Production and Baseline Soil Conditions ........................... 2-31 Land Capability Classification for Agriculture.................................................. 2-31 Soil Erosion Risk ............................................................................................ 2-33
2.8.1 2.8.2 Wind Erosion Risk ....................................................................................... 2-34 Water Erosion Risk ...................................................................................... 2-35
2.9 2.10
Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk................................................................ 2-36 Acidification Sensitivity of Soil ........................................................................ 2-37
2010
Page i
Results of Baseline Investigations ...................................................................3-1

3.1 Eastern Alberta Plains ...................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 3.1.2 Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soil in the Eastern Alberta Plains........ 3-1 Soil Description of the Eastern Alberta Plains ............................................... 3-2 3.1.2.1 Project Effects Assessment Area ................................................. 3-2 3.1.2.2 Project Development Area ......................................................... 3-10 Agricultural Land Capability of the Eastern Alberta Plains .......................... 3-17 Soil Erosion Risk for the Eastern Alberta Plains.......................................... 3-17 Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Eastern Alberta Plains ............ 3-24 Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soil in the Southern Alberta Uplands ........................................................................................................ 3-24 Soil Description of the Southern Alberta Uplands ....................................... 3-27 3.2.2.1 Agricultural Soils of the Southern Alberta Uplands .................... 3-27 3.2.2.2 Non-agricultural Soils of the Southern Alberta Uplands ............. 3-30 Agricultural Land Capability of the Southern Alberta Uplands .................... 3-33 Soil Erosion Risk of the Southern Alberta Uplands ..................................... 3-43 3.2.4.1 Agricultural Soil Erosion Risk ..................................................... 3-43 3.2.4.2 Non-agricultural Soil Erosion Risk ............................................. 3-43 Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Southern Alberta Uplands ........ 3-57 3.2.5.1 Agricultural Soil Compaction Risk of the Southern Alberta Uplands ...................................................................................... 3-57 3.2.5.2 Non-agricultural Soil Compaction Risk of the Southern Alberta Uplands .......................................................................... 3-57 Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soil in the Alberta Plateau ................. 3-65 Soil Description of the Alberta Plateau ........................................................ 3-65 3.3.2.1 Project Effects Assessment Area ............................................... 3-65 3.3.2.2 Project Development Area ......................................................... 3-67 Soil Erosion Risk of the Alberta Plateau ...................................................... 3-71 Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Alberta Plateau ......................... 3-73 Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soils in the Rocky Mountains ............ 3-74 Soil Description of the Rocky Mountains ..................................................... 3-75 3.4.2.1 Project Effects Assessment Area ............................................... 3-75 3.4.2.2 Project Development Area ......................................................... 3-77 Soil Erosion Risk of the Rocky Mountains ................................................... 3-78 Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Rocky Mountains .................... 3-91 Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soil in the Interior Plateau ................. 3-94 Soil Description of the Interior Plateau ........................................................ 3-95 3.5.2.1 Agricultural Soils of the Interior Plateau ..................................... 3-95 3.5.2.2 Non-agricultural Soils of the Interior Plateau ............................. 3-97 Agricultural Land Capability of the Interior Plateau ................................... 3-115 Soil Erosion Risk of the Interior Plateau .................................................... 3-116
3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5
3.2
Southern Alberta Uplands ............................................................................... 3-24

3.2.1 3.2.2
3.2.3 3.2.4
3.2.5
3.3
Alberta Plateau ............................................................................................... 3-65

3.3.1 3.3.2
3.3.3 3.3.4
3.4
Rocky Mountains ............................................................................................ 3-74

3.4.1 3.4.2
3.4.3 3.4.4
3.5
Interior Plateau ............................................................................................... 3-94

3.5.1 3.5.2
3.5.3 3.5.4
Page ii
2010
Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents 3.5.4.1 Agricultural Soil Erosion Risk of the Interior Plateau ............... 3-116 3.5.4.2 Non-agricultural Soil Erosion Risk of the Interior Plateau ........ 3-118 Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Interior Plateau ...................... 3-130 3.5.5.1 Agricultural Soil Compaction Risk of the Interior Plateau ........ 3-130 3.5.5.2 Non-agricultural Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Interior Plateau ......................................................................... 3-130 Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soils of the Coast Mountains .......... 3-139 Soil Description of the Coast Mountains.................................................... 3-139 3.6.2.1 Agricultural Soils of the Coast Mountains ................................ 3-139 3.6.2.2 Non-agricultural Soils of the Coast Mountains ......................... 3-139 Agricultural Land Capability of the Coast Mountains ................................. 3-157 Soil Erosion Risk of the Coast Mountains ................................................. 3-157 3.6.4.1 Agricultural Soil Erosion Risk of the Coast Mountains ............. 3-157 3.6.4.2 Non-agricultural Soil Erosion Risk of the Coast Mountains ..... 3-159 Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Coast Mountains .................... 3-174 3.6.5.1 Agricultural Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Coast Mountains ...................................................................... 3-174 3.6.5.2 Non-agricultural Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Coast Mountains ...................................................................... 3-174 Acidification Sensitivity of Soil ................................................................... 3-182 Soil Suitability for Reclamation - Area inside the Kitimat Terminal Security Fence ........................................................................................... 3-195 3.6.7.1 Topsoil Thickness .................................................................... 3-195 3.6.7.2 Reclamation Suitability ............................................................. 3-195
3.5.5
3.6
Coast Mountains .......................................................................................... 3-139

3.6.1 3.6.2
3.6.3 3.6.4
3.6.5
3.6.6 3.6.7
References ..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 4.2 Literature Cited ................................................................................................ 4-1 Internet Sites .................................................................................................... 4-6
Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G
Soil Landscape Models ......................................................... A-1 Land Capability Classification for Agriculture, Water Erosion, Wind Erosion and Compaction Ratings for Soil Types in the PEAA ................................................................ B-1 Soil Plot Data ........................................................................ C-1 Soils Atlas Pipeline Route ................................................... D-1 Soil Analytical Data ............................................................... E-1 Abbreviations Used in Soil Database ...................................... F-1 Methodology for Modelling Critical Loads of Acid Input to Soils ..................................................................................... G-1
2010
Page iii
List of Tables
Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 2-3 Table 2-4 Table 2-5 Table 2-6 Table 2-7 Table 2-8 Table 2-9 Table 2-10 Table 2-11 Table 2-12 Table 2-13 Table 2-14 Table 2-15 Table 2-16 Table 2-17 Table 2-18 Table 3-1 Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Table 3-4 Table 3-5 Table 3-6 Table 3-7 Table 3-8 Physiographic Region Boundaries along the Pipeline Route .................. 2-2 Agricultural Land intersecting the RoW - by Physiographic Region......... 2-4 Baseline Photography Used for Mapping - by Physiographic Region ..... 2-6 Soil Inspection Sites by Physiographic Region ....................................... 2-7 Soil Orders and Great Groups in the PEAA........................................... 2-11 Summary of Soil Data Sources ............................................................. 2-13 Soil Series in Agricultural Lands of Alberta in the PEAA ....................... 2-20 Soil Model Numbers .............................................................................. 2-24 Slope Class Descriptions ...................................................................... 2-28 Map Unit Symbol Descriptions for Soil Subgroups ................................ 2-30 Map Unit Symbol Descriptions for Parent Materials .............................. 2-30 Land Capability Classification System for Agriculture ........................... 2-32 Agricultural Capability Classes - Subclasses of Limitations .................. 2-33 Wind Erosion Risk Classes and Potential Soil Losses .......................... 2-34 Water Erosion Risk Classes and Potential Soil Losses ......................... 2-35 Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk Classes......................................... 2-36 Sensitivity of Mineral Soil to Acidic Inputs - Rating Criteria ................... 2-38 Sensitivity and Critical Load Categories for the Major Chemical and Biotic Peat Types .................................................................................. 2-38 Dominant Soil Series in the PEAA Eastern Alberta Plains .................... 3-3 Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Eastern Alberta Plains ......................................................................... 3-10 Soils of the North Saskatchewan River Staging Area and the Initiating Station near Bruderheim in Agricultural Lands Eastern Alberta Plains ........................................................................................ 3-16 Soils of Three Stockpile Sites in Agricultural Lands Eastern Alberta Plains ........................................................................................ 3-16 Soil Ratings for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Eastern Alberta Plains ........................................... 3-18 Soil Ratings for the Initiating Station, Three Stockpile Sites and the North Saskatchewan River Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Eastern Alberta Plains ........................................................................... 3-19 Wind Erosion Risk for Agricultural Soils in the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Eastern Alberta Plains .................................. 3-20 Wind Erosion Risk for the Initiating Station, Three Stockpile Sites and the North Saskatchewan River Staging Area Eastern Alberta Plains .................................................................................................... 3-21
Page iv
2010
Table 3-9 Table 3-10 Table 3-11 Table 3-12 Table 3-13 Table 3-14 Table 3-15 Table 3-16 Table 3-17 Table 3-18 Table 3-19 Table 3-20 Table 3-21 Table 3-22 Table 3-23 Table 3-24 Table 3-25 Table 3-26
Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Eastern Alberta Plains ................................................... 3-22 Water Erosion Risk for the Initiating Station, Three Stockpile Sites and the North Saskatchewan River Staging Area Eastern Alberta Plains.................................................................................................... 3-23 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Eastern Alberta Plains ................................................... 3-25 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Initiating Station, Three Stockpile Sites and the North Saskatchewan River Staging Area Eastern Alberta Plains .......................................................................... 3-26 Soils of the PEAA in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands .... 3-27 Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands .................................................................. 3-29 Soils of the Athabasca River East Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ........................................................ 3-30 Soils of the PEAA in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ................................................................................................ 3-31 Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ........................................................ 3-34 Soils of Three Construction Camps and Two Powerlines in Nonagricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ..................................... 3-36 Soils of the Smoky River and Whitecourt Pump Stations and Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ................................................................................................ 3-38 Soils of the Braaten, Calahoo Creek, Deep Valley Creek and Kaybob Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ................................................................................................ 3-39 Soils of the Latornell River, Stony Creek and Whitecourt Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ................. 3-40 Soils of Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands .................................................................................... 3-41 Soil Ratings for the PEAA, RoW, Temporary Workspaces and Athabasca River East Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands .................................................................................... 3-42 Wind Erosion Risk in the PEAA, RoW, Temporary Workspaces and Athabasca River East Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands .................................................................................... 3-44 Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW, Temporary Workspaces and a Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ................................................................................................ 3-45 Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands .......................... 3-46
2010
Page v
Table 3-27 Table 3-28 Table 3-29 Table 3-30 Table 3-31 Table 3-32 Table 3-33 Table 3-34 Table 3-35 Table 3-36 Table 3-37 Table 3-38 Table 3-39 Table 3-40 Table 3-41
Wind Erosion Risk for Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ................................................................... 3-47 Wind Erosion Risk for the Smoky River and Whitecourt Pump Stations and Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands..................................................................................... 3-47 Wind Erosion Risk for the Braaten, Kaybob, Stony Creek and Whitecourt West Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ..................................................................... 3-48 Wind Erosion Risk for the Smoky River Powerline and Calahoo Creek, Deep Valley Creek, Latornell River and Whitecourt Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands.................. 3-49 Wind Erosion Risk for Three Construction Camps and the Whitecourt Powerline in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ................................................................................................. 3-50 Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ...... 3-52 Water Erosion Risk for Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands......................................................... 3-53 Water Erosion Risk for the Smoky River and Whitecourt Pump Stations and Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands..................................................................................... 3-53 Water Erosion Risk for the Braaten, Kaybob, Stony Creek and Whitecourt West Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ..................................................................... 3-54 Water Erosion Risk for the Smoky River Powerline and the Calahoo Creek, Deep Valley Creek, Latornell River and Whitecourt Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands.................. 3-55 Water Erosion Risk for Three Construction Camps and the Whitecourt Powerline in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ................................................................................................. 3-56 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW, Temporary Workspaces and a Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands..................................................................................... 3-58 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ...... 3-59 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Braaten, Kaybob, Stony Creek and Whitecourt West Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands......................................................... 3-60 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Smoky River Powerline and Calahoo Creek, Deep Valley Creek, Latornell River and Whitecourt Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ................................................................................................. 3-61
Page vi
2010
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Smoky River and Whitecourt Pump Stations and Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands .................................................................... 3-62 Compaction and Puddling Risk for Four Staging Areas in Nonagricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands ..................................... 3-63 Compaction and Puddling Risk for Three Construction Camps and the Whitecourt Powerline in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands .................................................................................... 3-64 Soils of the PEAA in the Alberta Plateau .............................................. 3-65 Soils of the PDA in Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau ............... 3-68 Wind Erosion Risk in the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces on Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau ......................................... 3-71 Wind Erosion Risk in the Stony Lake Staging Area, South Redwillow River Construction Camp and Stockpile Site on Nonagricultural Lands Alberta Plateau ...................................................... 3-72 Water Erosion Risk in the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces on Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau ......................................... 3-72 Water Erosion Risk in the Stony Lake Staging Area, and South Redwillow River Construction Camp and Stockpile Site on Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau .............................................. 3-73 Compaction and Puddling Risk in the PEAA and PDA on Nonagricultural Lands Alberta Plateau ...................................................... 3-73 Compaction and Puddling Risk in the Stony Lake Staging Area, and South Redwillow River Construction Camp and Stockpile Site on Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau .............................................. 3-74 Soils of the PEAA in the Rocky Mountains ........................................... 3-75 Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in the PDA Rocky Mountains ............................................................................................. 3-79 Soils of the Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp and Pump Station, and the Missinka River and Tlooki Lake Staging Areas Rocky Mountains ............................................................................................. 3-82 Soils of the Tumbler Ridge, Missinka River and Quintette Creek Stockpile Sites and Tumbler Ridge Powerline Rocky Mountains........ 3-83 Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Rocky Mountains ................................................................................ 3-85 Wind Erosion Risk for the Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp and Pump Station, and the Missinka River and Tlooki Lake Staging Areas Rocky Mountains ...................................................................... 3-86 Wind Erosion Risk for the Tumbler Ridge, Missinka River and Quintette Creek Stockpile Sites and Tumbler Ridge Powerline Rocky Mountains .................................................................................. 3-87
2010
Page vii
Table 3-60 Table 3-61 Table 3-62 Table 3-63 Table 3-64 Table 3-65 Table 3-66 Table 3-67 Table 3-68 Table 3-69 Table 3-70 Table 3-71 Table 3-72 Table 3-73 Table 3-74 Table 3-75 Table 3-76 Table 3-77 Table 3-78
Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Rocky Mountains ............................................................ 3-88 Water Erosion Risk for the Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp and Pump Station and the Missinka River and Tlooki Lake Staging Areas Rocky Mountains ...................................................................... 3-89 Water Erosion Risk for the Tumbler Ridge, Missinka River and Quintette Creek Stockpile Sites and the Tumbler Ridge Powerline Rocky Mountains ................................................................................... 3-90 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Rocky Mountains ............................................................ 3-91 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp and Pump Station and the Missinka River and Tlooki Lake Staging Areas Rocky Mountains ......................................................... 3-92 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Tumbler Ridge, Missinka River and Quintette Creek Stockpile Sites and Tumbler Ridge Powerline Rocky Mountains ................................................................ 3-93 Soils of the PEAA in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ..................... 3-95 Soils of the PDA in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau........................ 3-98 Soils of the PEAA in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ............ 3-101 Soils of the RoW, Temporary Workspaces and Two Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ............................................. 3-105 Soils of Five Construction Camps in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau .................................................................................... 3-109 Soils of Five Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ................................................................................................ 3-110 Soils of Three Staging Areas and the Burns Lake Powerline in Nonagricultural Lands Interior Plateau..................................................... 3-112 Soils of Four Pump Stations in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ................................................................................................ 3-113 Soils of Bear Lake and Burns Lake Pump Station Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ............................................. 3-114 Soil Ratings for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau .................................................... 3-115 Soil Ratings for the Fenton Creek Stockpile Site, Houston Powerline and Fort St. James Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau .................................................................................... 3-115 Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau................................................. 3-116 Wind Erosion Risk for the Fenton Creek Stockpile Site, Houston Powerline and Fort St. James Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ................................................................................... 3-117
Page viii
2010
Table 3-79 Table 3-80 Table 3-81 Table 3-82 Table 3-83 Table 3-84 Table 3-85 Table 3-86 Table 3-87 Table 3-88 Table 3-89 Table 3-90 Table 3-91 Table 3-92 Table 3-93 Table 3-94 Table 3-95
Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA and PDA in Agricultural Lands - Interior Plateau ...................................................................... 3-117 Water Erosion Risk for the Fenton Creek Stockpile Site, Houston Powerline and Fort St. James Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ................................................................................... 3-118 Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ........................................ 3-119 Wind Erosion Risk for Five Construction Camps in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ...................................................................... 3-120 Wind Erosion Risk for Bear Lake and Burns Lake Pump Stations and Access Roads, and the Houston and Fort St. James Pump Stations in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau........................... 3-121 Wind Erosion Risk for Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ................................................................................. 3-122 Wind Erosion Risk for the Bear Lake, Beaver Lake, Buck Creek, Burns Lake and Co-op Lake Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ...................................................................... 3-122 Wind Erosion Risk for the Fox Creek, Muskeg River, Parsnip River, Stuart River and Thautil River Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ...................................................................... 3-123 Wind Erosion Risk for Three Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ................................................................................... 3-124 Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau .................... 3-125 Water Erosion Risk for Five Construction Camps in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ...................................................................... 3-126 Water Erosion Risk for Bear Lake and Burns Lake Pump Stations and Access Roads, and the Fort St. James and Houston Pump Stations in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau........................... 3-127 Water Erosion Risk for Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ...................................................................... 3-128 Water Erosion Risk for the Bear Lake, Beaver Lake, Buck Creek, Burns Lake and Co-op Lake Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ...................................................................... 3-128 Water Erosion Risk for the Foxy Creek, Muskeg River, Parsnip River, Stuart River and Thautil River Stockpile Sites in Nonagricultural Lands Interior Plateau .................................................... 3-129 Water Erosion Risk for Three Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ................................................................................... 3-130 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ........................... 3-131
2010
Page ix
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Fenton Creek Stockpile Site, Houston Powerline and Fort St. James Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ....................................................................... 3-132 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau..................... 3-133 Compaction and Puddling Risk for Five Construction Camps in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ............................................. 3-134 Compaction and Puddling Risk for Bear Lake and Burns Lake Pump Stations and Access Roads, and the Fort St. James and Houston Pump Stations in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau ... 3-135 Compaction and Puddling Risk for Four Staging Areas in Nonagricultural Lands Interior Plateau..................................................... 3-136 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Bear Lake, Beaver Lake, Buck Creek, Burns Lake and Co-op Lake Stockpile Sites in Nonagricultural Lands Interior Plateau..................................................... 3-136 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Foxy Creek, Muskeg River, Parsnip River, Stuart River and Thautil River Stockpile Sites in Nonagricultural Lands Interior Plateau..................................................... 3-137 Compaction and Puddling Risk for Three Powerlines in Nonagricultural Lands Interior Plateau..................................................... 3-138 Soils of the PEAA and Tunnel Powerline in Agricultural Lands - Coast Mountains .................................................................... 3-140 Soils of the PEAA in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains.......... 3-141 Soils of the RoW, Temporary Workspaces and the Kitimat Terminal Area inside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains............................................................................................ 3-144 Soils of Four Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains............................................................................................ 3-148 Soils of Four Construction Camps in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains............................................................................................ 3-150 Soils of the Kitimat Pump Station, Access Road and Powerline, and the Area outside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ................................................................................. 3-151 Soils of the Clearwater and Clore River Stockpile Sites, and the Clearwater and Tunnel Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ................................................................................. 3-153 Soils of the Clearwater Pump Station and Stockpile Site and Two Tunnel Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ... 3-155 Soils of Five Tunnel Excess Cut Disposal Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains..................................................................... 3-156 Soil Ratings for the PEAA and the Tunnel Powerline in Agricultural Lands Coast Mountains..................................................................... 3-157
Page x
2010
Table 3-114 Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA and Tunnel Powerline in Agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ................................................. 3-158 Table 3-115 Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA and Tunnel Powerline in Agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ................................................. 3-158 Table 3-116 Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ...................................... 3-160 Table 3-117 Wind Erosion Risk for the Kitimat Terminal Bypass and the KitimatStikine, Bulkley-Nechako and Clore River Access Roads in Nonagricultural Lands Coast Mountains ................................................. 3-161 Table 3-118 Wind Erosion Risk for the Clearwater, Clore River, Tunnel North and West Construction Camps and the Kitimat Terminal inside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ............. 3-162 Table 3-119 Wind Erosion Risk for the Clearwater Pump Station, and Kitimat Pump Station, Access Road and Powerline, and the Area outside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ....... 3-163 Table 3-120 Wind Erosion Risk for Two Tunnel Staging Areas and the Tunnel East and East North Excess Cut Disposal Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains .................................................................... 3-164 Table 3-121 Wind Erosion Risk for Three Tunnel and Kitimat Terminal Excess Cut Disposal Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ...... 3-165 Table 3-122 Wind Erosion Risk for the Clearwater and Clore River Stockpile Sites, and the Clearwater and Tunnel Powerlines in Nonagricultural Lands Coast Mountains ................................................. 3-166 Table 3-123 Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ................. 3-167 Table 3-124 Water Erosion Risk for the Kitimat Terminal Bypass and Three Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains .............. 3-168 Table 3-125 Water Erosion Risk for the Clearwater Pump Station, and the Kitimat Pump Station, Access Road and Powerline in Nonagricultural Lands Coast Mountains ................................................. 3-169 Table 3-126 Water Erosion Risk for the Clearwater, Clore River, Tunnel North and West Construction Camps and the Kitimat Terminal Area inside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ....... 3-170 Table 3-127 Water Erosion Risk for the Tunnel East and Middle Staging Areas, and Tunnel East and East North Excess Cut Disposal Areas in Nonagricultural Lands Coast Mountains ................................................. 3-171 Table 3-128 Water Erosion Risk for Four Excess Cut Disposal Areas and the Clearwater Stockpile Site in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ........................................................................................... 3-172 Table 3-129 Water Erosion Risk for the Clore River Stockpile Site, the Clearwater and Tunnel Powerlines, and the Area outside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ............. 3-173
2010
Page xi
Table 3-130 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA and the Tunnel Powerline Coast Mountains............................................................... 3-174 Table 3-131 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW, Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains .................. 3-175 Table 3-132 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Kitimat Terminal Bypass and Three Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains..... 3-176 Table 3-133 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Kitimat Pump Station, Access Road and Powerline, and the Clearwater Pump Station in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains .......................................... 3-177 Table 3-134 Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Clearwater, Clore River, Tunnel North and West Construction Camps and the Kitimat Terminal Area inside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains ................................................................................. 3-178 Table 3-135 Compaction and Puddling Risk for Two Tunnel Staging Areas, and the Tunnel East and East North Excess Cut Disposal Areas in Nonagricultural Lands Coast Mountains .................................................. 3-179 Table 3-136 Compaction and Puddling Risk for Three Tunnel Excess Cut Disposal Areas and the Clearwater Stockpile Site in Nonagricultural Lands Coast Mountains .................................................. 3-180 Table 3-137 Compaction and Puddling Risk for Clore River Stockpile Site, and Clearwater and Tunnel Powerlines, and the Area outside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains .............. 3-181 Table 3-138 Summary of Soil and Geology Sites in the Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area .................................................................... 3-185 Table 3-139 Changes in Soil Chemistry in Relation to Different Acid Inputs Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area ........................... 3-191 Table 3-140 Acidification Sensitivity in the Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area ................................................................................ 3-193 Table 3-141 Criteria for Evaluating Suitability of Surface Soils for Reclamation in Mountain Regions ............................................................................... 3-196 Table 3-142 Topsoil Depths and Soil Reclamation Suitability at the Area inside the Kitimat Terminal Security Fence.................................................... 3-197
List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 3-1 Broad Physiographic Regions and Location of Agricultural and Nonagricultural Land...................................................................................... 2-3 Map Unit Symbol Description for Agricultural Lands of Alberta ............. 2-19 Map Unit Symbol Description for Non-agricultural Lands in Alberta and All Lands in British Columbia .......................................................... 2-29 Visual Inspection Locations in the Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area ................................................................................ 3-183
Page xii
2010
Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3
Detailed and Sample Inspection Locations in the Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area.................................................. 3-184 Regional Soils and Associated Acid Sensitivity in the Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area.................................................. 3-194
2010
Page xiii
Soils Technical Data Report List of Abbreviations
List of Abbreviations
A, Ae, Aeg, Ah, Ahe, Ahg ............................................................................... see Glossary AGRASID .................................... Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database ALR ............................................................................................ Agricultural Land Reserve B, Bg, Bm, Bt, Btg ........................................................................................... see Glossary C, Cg, Ck, Ckg ................................................................................................ see Glossary CEC ...............................................................................................cation exchange capacity CLI .................................................................................................. Canada Land Inventory DEM ................................................................................................. digital elevation model DiAP ............................................................................. digital photogrammetry application ESA ............................................................ environmental and socio-economic assessment EUB ............................................................................ (Alberta) Energy and Utilities Board HDD .......................................................................................... horizontal directional drills HD-MAPP ............................................................ high definition mapping and application ICP-AES ............................... inductively coupled plasma atomic absorption spectroscopy KP ................................................................................................................... kilometre post LFH ........................................................................................................................ leaf litter Of, Oh, Om ....................................................................................................... see Glossary PAI ......................................................................................................... potential acid input PCOSI...................................................................................... Petro-Canada Oil Sands Inc. PDA .............................................................................................. project development area PEAA ...................................................................................project effects assessment area pH ................................................................ measure of acidity or alkalinity of a substance RADEAA ................................................. regional acid deposition effects assessment area REAA .................................................................................regional effects assessment area RoW ..................................................................................................................right-of-way SIL .......................................................................................................survey intensity level TDR ...................................................................................................... technical data report USDA ................................................................... United States Department of Agriculture USLE ......................................................................................... universal soil loss equation UTM .................................................................................... Universal Transverse Mercator VEC ................................................................................. valued environmental component
2010
Page xv
Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F
Glossary1
A, Ae, Ah, Ahe, Aeg, Ahg horizon acid deposition See horizon, soil. Acidic material arising from air contaminants such as sulphur and nitrogen oxides, which is introduced to ground and water surfaces as wet deposition from precipitation, dry deposition from particle fallout, and acid fog. A soil having a pH of less than 7.0. Amount of weak and strong acids expressed as millimoles of a strong base necessary to neutralize those acids. A group of soil particles cohering so as to behave mechanically as a unit. Government of Alberta provincial guidelines for classifying ecosystems. A soil having a pH greater than 7.0. A general term for all detrital material deposited or in transit by streams, including gravel, sand, silt, clay and organic debris, and all variations and mixtures of these. Agricultural production based on cultivation practices; land that is cultivated or capable of being cultivated; arable agriculture contrasted with grazing systems. The compass direction toward which a slope faces (expressed in units of degrees with zero degrees indicating north). That portion of any element or compound in the soil that can readily be absorbed and assimilated by growing plants. See horizon, soil. The solid rock (harder than 3 on Moh's scale of hardness) underlying soil and the regolith in depths ranging from zero (where exposed to erosion) to several hundred metres. A surficial layer of angular shattered rocks formed in either modern or Pleistocene periglacial environments.
acid soil acidity aggregate Alberta Ecological Classification Guidelines alkaline soil alluvium, alluvial deposit
arable
aspect available nutrients B, Bt, Bm, Bg, Btg bedrock
block field
Most of the definitions are taken directly or adapted from the Soil and Environmental Science Dictionary (Gregorich et al. 2001).
2010
Page xvii
bog
A peat-covered area or peat-filled wetland, generally, with a high water table. The water table is at or near the surface. The surface is often raised or level with the surrounding wetlands. It is virtually unaffected by the nutrient-rich groundwater from the surrounding mineral soil. So, the ground water of the bog is generally acid and low in nutrients. The dominant peat materials are sphagnum and forest peat underlain, in places, by fen peat. The associated soils are Fibrisols, Mesisols, Humisols and Organic Cryosols. Bogs may be treed or treeless and they are usually covered with Sphagnum and feather mosses, and ericaceous shrubs. Coarse fragment greater than 0.6 m in diameter. Government of British Columbia provincial guidelines for classifying ecosystems based on biological, geographical and climatic constraints. A soil order in the Canadian system of soil classification, in which soils have sufficient development to exclude them from the Regosolic order, but without sufficient development to include them in any other order. These soils develop under various climates and vegetation, and are often characterized by a reddish colour. See horizon, soil. Soil containing sufficient calcium carbonate, often with magnesium carbonate, to effervesce visibly when treated with cold 0.1 N hydrochloric acid. The content of carbonates in a soil. An evaluation of land performance that focuses on the degree and nature of limitation imposed by the characteristics of a land unit on a certain use, assuming a specific management system. Capability is determined by characteristics such as climate, landform, slope, soils, geology and current vegetation. The interchange between a cation in solution and another on the surface of any surface-active material in the soil such as clay or organic matter. The total amount of exchangeable cations that a soil can adsorb, expressed in centimoles (positive charge) per kg of soil (cmolc/kg).
boulder British Columbia biogeoclimatic classification guides Brunisolic
C, Ck, Cg, Ckg calcareous soil
calcareousness capability (land)
cation exchange cation exchange capacity
Page xviii
2010
Chernozemic
An order of soils in the Canadian system of soil classification that have developed under xerophytic or mesophytic grasses and forbs, or under forest-grassland transition vegetation, in cool to cold, subarid to subhumid climates. The soils have a dark-coloured surface (Ah, Ahe, or Ap) horizon and a B or C horizon, or both, of high base saturation. The order consists of the Brown, Dark Brown, Black and Dark Gray great groups. The systematic arrangement of soil into categories according to their inherent characteristics, or on some interpretation of those properties for various uses. Broad groupings are made based on general characteristics and subdivisions are made according to more detailed differences in specific properties. The Canadian system describes soil hierarchically, using five categories: order, great group, subgroup, family and series (see Appendix F). (i) As a particle size term: a size fraction less than 0.002 mm equivalent diameter, or some other limit (geology or engineering). (ii) As a rock term: a natural, earthy, fine grained material that develops plasticity with a small amount of water. (iii) As a soil term: a textural class. See also texture, soil. (iv) As a soil separate: a material usually consisting largely of clay minerals but commonly also of amorphous free oxides (sesquioxides) and primary minerals. A national level mapping of multi-disciplinary land ratings. The rating system, as it applies to agricultural soil, is based on seven classes of agricultural land capability. Class 1 lands have the highest and Class 7 lands the lowest capability to support agricultural land use activities. Subclasses are used to identify specific limiting factors for each class. Rock or mineral particles (harder than 3 on Moh's scale of hardness) larger than 2 mm in diameter. Coarse fragments in soil are: gravels or channers (up to 0.08 m in diameter or 0.15 m in length), cobbles or flags (0.08-0.25 m diameter or 0.15-0.38 m length), and stones (greater than 0.25 m diameter or 0.38 m length). See Munsell colour system.
classification, soil
clay
Canada Land Inventory
coarse fragments
colour
2010
Page xix
compaction
Increase in soil bulk density because of mechanical forces, involving the translocation and resorting of textural components in the soil (sand, silt, and clay particles), destruction of soil aggregates, and collapse of aeration pores. Compaction is assisted by high moisture contents. When the mechanical force is great enough, and bearing strength is reduced due to factors such as high soil moisture content, rutting can occur. The effects of compaction and rutting are manifested by changes in water infiltration rates, soil heat flux, root penetration and oxygen supply in the soil. All of these conditions may influence soil quality and, ultimately, soil productivity. The extent of the effect on the soil depends on soil wetness, applied stress and number of passes with machinery. The susceptibility of soil to water compaction. Applicable to the calculation of water erosion risk. Accounts for the reduction in soil loss achieved by good conservation practices. Specifically defined as the ratio of soil loss with specific support practices to the loss from a field with up-and-down slope cultivation. Conservation practices such as contour tillage, mulching and terracing slow runoff of water and reduce soil transport. (i) The resistance of a material to deformation or rupture. (ii) The degree of cohesion or adhesion of the soil mass. Terms used for describing consistence at various soil moisture contents are: wet soil - nonsticky, slightly sticky, sticky, and very sticky moist soil - loose, very friable, friable, firm, and very firm dry soil - loose, soft, slightly hard, hard, very hard and extremely hard
compaction hazard conservation practices factor
consistence
cover management factor
Applicable to the calculation of water erosion risk. The ratio of soil loss under a specific crop condition to the soil loss from continually fallowed (i.e., bare) land. An order of soil in the Canadian system of soil classification. Cryosolic soils are mineral or organic soils that have perennially frozen material within 1 m of the surface in some part of the soil body. The mean annual soil temperature is less than 0C. They may or may not be markedly affected by cryoturbation. Frost action that causes churning, heaving, and considerable structural modification of the soil and subsoil. The uncovering of an area from beneath glacier ice because of melting.
Cryosolic
cryoturbation deglaciation
Page xx
2010
delta
A fan-shaped alluvial deposit at the mouth of a river formed by deposition of successive layers of sediments brought down from the land and spread out on the bottom of a basin. Where the stream current reaches quiet water, the bulk of the coarser load is dropped and the finer material is carried farther out. The accumulation of material left in a new position by a natural transporting agent such as water, wind, ice or gravity; or by human activity. Describing an area with elevation lower than that of the surrounding area; any hollow, basin, or flat, low-lying area in the landscape. See disturbed land. Area where vegetation, topsoil, or overburden is removed, or where topsoil, spoil and processed waste are placed (as in mining). The removal of excess surface water or groundwater from land by natural runoff and percolation, or by surface or subsurface drains.
deposition, deposit
depressional disturbed area disturbed land drainage
2010
Page xxi
drainage class
The conditions of water movement, over the surface of the land and in the soil (surface drainage and internal drainage). Surface drainage conditions are described in terms such as excessive, where a large percentage of precipitation is shed at the soil surface, to slight, where very little runoff occurs. Seven drainage classes of internal soil drainage consider the duration of soil moisture contents above field capacity following additions of water: Very rapidly drained - water is removed from the soil very rapidly in relation to supply. Excess water flows downward very rapidly if underlying material is pervious. Ability to retain water and support plant growth is very low. Rapidly drained - water is removed from the soil rapidly in relation to supply, either by surface or internal flow. Ability to retain water and support plant growth is limited. Well drained - water is removed from the soil readily but not rapidly. Soils have intermediate texture and depth, and have capacity to retain water for plant growth. Moderately well drained - water is removed from the soil somewhat slowly in relation to supply, and the soil remains wet for a small but significant part of the time. Imperfectly drained - water is removed from the soil sufficiently slowly in relation to supply to keep the soil wet for significant periods but not all of the time. Poorly drained - water is removed so slowly in relation to supply that the soil remains wet for a large part of the year. Even when the water table is at its lowest level, the soil above remains wet most of the time. Very poorly drained - water is at or near (within 0.3 m) the soil surface most of the time.
drift, glacial dune ecoregion ecosite
All material moved by glaciers and by the action of meltwater streams and associated lakes. A mound or ridge of sand piled up by the wind. An area characterized by distinctive regional climate, as expressed by vegetation types. Ecological units that develop under similar environmental influences (climate, moisture and nutrient regime). Ecosites are groups of one or more ecosite phases that occur within the same portion of the edatope (e.g., lichen ecosite).
Page xxii
2010
ecosite phase
A subdivision of the ecosite based on the dominant tree species in the canopy. On some sites where a tree canopy is lacking, the tallest structural vegetation layer determines the ecosite phase (e.g., shrubby and graminoid phases). Generally ecosite phases are mappable units. The combined moisture and nutrient regime of a site. The ability of water to conduct an electric current, measured as current per unit area divided by the voltage drop per unit length. Commonly used as an index of salinity, and usually measured as decisiemens per metre (dS/m). A soil horizon that has been formed by the process of eluviation. The transportation of soil material in suspension or in solution in the soil by the downward or lateral movement of water. Well sorted materials, predominantly sand and silt, deposited by wind. (i) The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice or other geological agents, including such processes as gravitational creep. (ii) Detachment and movement of soil or rock by water, wind, ice or gravity. The susceptibility of exposed soil to water erosion. Infiltration capacity and structural stability are regarded as the most important factors in controlling water erosion. Soil erosion hazard decreases as clay, sand or silt content increases. As organic matter depth and vegetation cover increase, erosion hazard decreases. A winding ridge of irregularly stratified sand, gravel, cobbles, and stones that was deposited under or in ice by a rapidly flowing glacial stream. Term referring to peatlands that are relatively nutrient-rich; also refers to soil and waters with high nutrient content and high biological activity. Condition in which soil is near, at or exceeding its moisture holding capacity. Excess soil moisture limits growth of some types of vegetation, and is a concern because serious site degradation can occur if sites are not properly managed. Operating heavy equipment on wet sites can cause serious rutting, compaction and puddling damage and therefore should be avoided. A peat-covered or peat-filled wetland with a high water table which is usually at or above the surface. The peat materials are derived primarily from sedges and brown mosses with inclusions of partially decayed stems of shrubs formed in a eutrophic environment because of the close association of the material with mineral-rich waters.
edatope electrical conductivity
eluvial horizon eluviation eolian erosion
erosion hazard (water)
esker eutrophic excess moisture
fen
2010
Page xxiii
fen peat
Peat material constituting fens, composed of the partially decayed remains of sedges, brown mosses, and small amounts of leaves, stems and trunks of trees and shrubs such as black spruce and tamarack. The status of a soil with respect to the amount and availability to plants of elements necessary for plant growth. Also nutrient regime. Organic materials containing large amounts of weakly decomposed fibres whose botanical origins are readily identifiable; fibric material has 40% or more of rubbed fibre by volume (or weight of rubbed fibre retained on a 100-mesh sieve) and is classified in the von Post scale of decomposition as Class 1 to Class 4. See also horizon, soil. The land bordering a stream, comprising sediments from overflow of the stream and subject to inundation when the stream is at flood stage. All sediments deposited by flowing water. Originally deposited from moving water, subsequently transported by wind. A great group of soils in the Organic order (Canadian system of soil classification). The soils are not usually saturated for more than a few days a year, and consist of 10 cm or more of LFH horizons derived from leaf litter, twigs, branches, and mosses. A lithic content or fragments material occurs at a depth of less than 160 cm. Mineral layers less than 10 cm thick may lie above the lithic contact. Peat materials derived mainly from trees such as black spruce, ericaceous shrubs and feathermosses. Also see Folisol. (i) Of or relating to the presence and activities of ice or glaciers, such as glacial erosion. (ii) Pertaining to distinctive features and materials produced by or derived from glaciers and ice sheets, such as glacial lakes. (iii) Pertaining to an ice age or region of glaciation. Material moved by glaciers and subsequently deposited by streams flowing from the melting ice. The deposits may be unsorted or sorted. Sorted deposits are stratified and may be in the form of outwash plains, deltas, kames, eskers and kame terraces. Fine-grained sediment deposited in proglacial lake environments. It is composed of suspended material brought by meltwater streams flowing into lakes bordering glaciers. A chemical reduction process that takes place in soils that are saturated with water for long periods of time. The horizon of most intense reduction is characterized by a gray, commonly mottled appearance, which (on drying) shows numerous rusty brown iron stains or streaks.
fertility, soil fibric
floodplain fluvial (alluvial) material fluvial/eolian sediments Folisol
forest peat glacial
glaciofluvial
glaciolacustrine
gley, gleying
Page xxiv
2010
Gleysolic soil
An order in the Canadian system of soil classification, in which soils are developed under wet conditions resulting in reduction of iron (i.e., rust) and other elements, and in gray colours and mottles. Plant of a large family characterized by rounded and hollow jointed stems, narrow sheathing leaves, flowers borne in spikes and hard-grained seeds. (i) As a deposit term: it refers to glaciofluvial or fluvial materials with 60% or more coarse fragments, usually sub-rounded to rounded and of variable size. (ii) As a particle size term: it refers to a size fraction between 2 and 75 mm diameter with rounded, sub-rounded, angular or irregular shapes. Containing appreciable amounts of rounded or sub-rounded rock or mineral fragments 2 to 75 mm in diameter. Angular gravelly refers to fragments that are less rounded. A category in the Canadian system of soil classification. It is a taxonomic grouping of soils having certain morphological features in common and a similar soil forming environment. Detailed survey conducted at specific sites within a project area. Used to gather in depth information on soil characteristics at a small spatial scale. Water that is passing through or standing in the soil and the underlying strata in the zone of saturation. Gravity governs its motion. Any flowering plant except those developing persistent woody bases and stems. The geologic time period since last deglaciation (about 10,000 years B.P.). A layer of soil or soil material nearly parallel to the land surface; it differs from adjacent genetically related layers in properties such as colour, structure, texture, consistence and chemical, biological and mineralogical composition. For a list of the designations and some of the properties of soil horizons and layers, see Appendix F. More detailed definitions of some horizons and layers may be found in The System of Soil Classification for Canada (Agriculture Canada Expert Committee on Soil Survey 1987). A type of surface expression of peatland terrain consisting of a flat peat surface not broken by any marked elevations or depressions.
grass
gravel
gravelly
great group
ground inspection groundwater herb Holocene horizon, soil
horizontal
2010
Page xxv
humic
Organic material that is at an advanced stage of decomposition. It has the lowest amount of fibre, the highest bulk density and the lowest saturated water-holding capacity of the organic materials; it is physically and chemically stable over time, unless it is drained; the rubbed fibre content is less than 10% by volume and the material usually is classified in the von Post scale of decomposition as class 7 or higher. See also horizon, soil. The processes by which organic matter decomposes to form humus. A type of landform consisting of a complex sequence of slopes extending from somewhat rounded depressions or kettles of various sizes to irregular to conical knolls or knobs. There is a lack of concordance between knolls and depressions. Slopes are generally 9% to 70%. Ridge or mound like feature formed by deposition of glacial till with a surface covered in smaller low mounds or knolls. (i) The fraction of the soil organic matter that remains after most of the added plant and animal residues have decomposed. It is usually dark coloured. (ii) Humus is also used in a broader sense to designate the humus forms referred to as forest humus. (iii) All the dead organic material on and in the soil that undergoes continuous breakdown, change and synthesis. A soil horizon in which material carried from an overlying layer has been precipitated from solution or deposited from suspension as a layer of accumulation. The process of depositing material that has been transported in suspension or solution from one horizon in the soil to another, usually from an upper to a lower horizon in the profile. Illuviated substances include silicate clay, hydrous iron and aluminum oxides and organic matter. A condition which hinders the movement of water through soil under the influence of gravity. A horizon that hinders the movement of water by the influence of gravity through soil. A sloping, unidirectional surface of at least 300 m in length and not broken by marked irregularities. Slopes can be 2% to 70%. In natural resources mapping, a soil, terrain or other feature that constitutes up to 15% or 20% of a unit. Some map units contain several inclusions that together add up to a substantial percentage. The downward entry of water into the soil.
humification hummocky
hummocky moraine humus
illuvial horizon
illuviation
impeded drainage impeding horizon inclined inclusion
infiltration
Page xxvi
2010
kame
A depositional feature, an irregularly shaped hill or mound composed chiefly of poorly sorted sand and gravel deposited by a sub-glacial stream. Material deposited in lake water and later exposed either by lowering the water table or by uplift of the land. The sediments range in texture from sands to clays. A rating system that measures the ability of the land to support a given land use, based on an evaluation of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the land, including climate, topography, drainage, hydrology, soil and vegetation. The various shapes of the land surface resulting from a variety of actions such as deposition or sedimentation (eskers, lacustrine basins), erosion (gullies, canyons), and earth crust movements (mountains). Landforms are considered to have two basic attributes, genetic material and surface expression. The downward movement in the soil of materials in solution. A flat or very gently sloping, unidirectional surface with a generally constant slope not broken by marked elevations and depressions. It refers to slopes generally less than 2%. See horizon, soil. A general term referring to soil with consolidated bedrock within 1 m. Accumulation of leaves, needles, twigs and other woody materials on the surface of a soil. Land that is saturated with water long enough to promote wetland or aquatic processes, shown by poorly drained soil and hydrophytic vegetation. An order of soils in the Canadian system of soil classification. Soils in this order have eluvial (Ae) horizons and illuvial (Bt) horizons in which silicate clay is the main accumulation product. It refers generally to soil developed under forest or forest-grassland transition in a moderate to cool climate. The Gray Luvisol great group is the most common in western Canada. A combination of kinds of soil, terrain, or other feature that can be shown at a specified scale on a map, for the defined purpose and objectives of a particular survey.
lacustrine
land capability rating
landforms
leaching level
LFH lithic litter lowland
Luvisolic
map unit
2010
Page xxvii
marsh
A mineral or a peat-filled wetland which is periodically inundated by standing or slowly moving, nutrient-rich water. Water levels may fluctuate seasonally, with declining levels exposing drawdown zones of matted vegetation or mud flats. The substratum usually consists dominantly of mineral material, although some marshes are associated with peat deposits. The associated soils are dominantly Gleysols with some Humisols and Mesisols. Marshes characteristically show a zonal or mosaic surface pattern of vegetation comprising unconsolidated grass and sedge sods, often interspersed with channels or pools of open water. Marshes may be bordered by bands of trees and shrubs, but the predominant vegetation consists of emergent non-woody plants such as rushes, reeds, reed-grasses and sedges. Where open water areas occur, a variety of submerged and floating aquatic plants flourish. A large channel formed by water derived from melting of glacial ice. In the prairie region, these channels are often referred to as coulees. Organic materials at a stage of decomposition between that of fibric and humic materials; peat soil material with greater than 10% and less than 40% rubbed fibres; mesic peat usually is classified in the von Post scale as Class 5 or 6. A soil consisting predominantly of, and having its properties determined predominantly by, mineral matter. Usually contains less than 30% organic matter, but may contain an organic surface layer up to 0.3 m thick. Of or pertaining to moraine. A mound, ridge, or other distinct accumulation of unsorted, unstratified drift, predominantly till, deposited chiefly by direct action of glacier ice in a variety of topographic landforms that are independent of control by the surface on which the drift lies. It is now commonly used as a geomorphologic name for a landform composed mainly of till that has been deposited by a glacier. (i) The physical constitution, particularly the structural properties, of a soil profile as exhibited by the kinds, thickness, and arrangement of the horizons in the profile, and by the texture, structure, consistence, and porosity of each horizon. (ii) It also refers to the structural characteristics of the soil or any of its parts. A small leafy plant lacking any true vascular system or roots. Spots or blotches of different colour or shades of colour interspersed with the dominant colour of a soil; formed mainly by the effects of impeded drainage.
meltwater channel mesic
mineral soil
morainal moraine
morphology, soil
moss mottles, mottling
Page xxviii
2010
Munsell colour system
A colour designation system specifying the relative degrees of the three simple variables of colour: hue, value and chroma. For example, 10YR6/4 is the colour of a soil having a hue of 10YR, value of 6, and chroma of 4. These notations can be translated into several different systems of colour names. This is a North American term often employed for peatland. The word is of Algonquin Indian origin and is applied in ordinary speech to natural and undisturbed areas covered more or less with Sphagnum mosses, tussocky sedges, and an open growth of scrubby trees. (In this report, the words peatland and muskeg are used interchangeably.) Amount of essential nutrients that are available for plant growth. The determination of nutrient regime requires the integration of many environmental and biotic parameters. Soil nutrient regime is rated on a relative scale as follows: very poor, poor, medium, rich and very rich. See horizon, soil, and Appendix F. See horizon, soil, and Appendix F. See horizon, soil, and Appendix F. Term for peatlands or surface waters that are poor to extremely poor in nutrients and with low biological activity. Biological growth in oligotrophic water is often limited by low levels of phosphorus and nitrogen. Refers to peatlands receiving nutrients exclusively from precipitation, resulting in oligotrophic nutrient conditions. Peat bogs area ombrotrophic systems. A category in the Canadian system of soil classification. All the soil within an order have one or more characteristics in common. An order of soils, within the Canadian system of soil classification, that have developed dominantly from organic deposits. The majority of Organic soils are saturated for most of the year, unless artificially drained, but some of them are not usually saturated for more than a few days. They contain 17% or more organic carbon, and: (i) if the surface layer consists of fibric organic material and the bulk density is less than 0.1 [with or without a mesic or humic Op less than 0.15 m thick], the organic material must extend to a depth of at least 0.6 m; or (ii) if the surface layer consists of organic material with a bulk density of 0.1 or more, the organic material must extend to a depth of at least 0.4 m; or if a lithic contact occurs at a depth shallower than stated in 1) or 2) above, the organic material must extend to a depth of at least 0.1 m.
muskeg
nutrient regime
Of Om Oh oligotrophic
ombrotrophic
order, soil Organic soil
2010
Page xxix
organic carbon, soil Organic Cryosol
The percent by weight of soil carbon in organic forms determined by the difference between total carbon and inorganic carbon. An organic soil having a surface layer containing more than 17% organic carbon by weight, with permafrost within 1 m below the surface. In the Canadian system of soil classification, Organic Cryosol is more than 0.4 m thick, or more than 0.1 m thick over a lithic contact, or more than 0.1 m thick over an ice layer that is at least 0.3 m thick. The organic fraction of the soil; included are plant and animal residues at various stages of decomposition, cells and tissues of soil organisms and substances synthesized by the soil organism population. An order in the Canadian system of soil classification consisting of soils that have developed dominantly from organic deposits. The majority of Organic soils are saturated for most of the year. They contain 17% or more organic carbon, and consist of at least 0.4 m peat if it is mesic or humic, at least 0.6 m peat if it is fibric, or at least 0.1 m peat if it overlies bedrock. A subgroup referring to the modal or central concept of various great groups in the Brunisolic, Chernozemic, Cryosolic, Gleysolic, Luvisolic, Podzolic and Regosolic orders of the Canadian system of soil classification. That part of a geologic formation or structure that appears at the surface of the earth. Stratified sediments (chiefly sand and gravel) deposited by meltwater streams in front of the end moraine or the margin of an active glacier. Materials of any nature, consolidated or unconsolidated, that overlie a deposit of useful, generally mineable, materials. The unconsolidated and more or less chemically weathered mineral or organic matter from which a soil has developed by soil forming processes. The effective diameter (grain size) of a particle measured by sedimentation, sieving or micrometric methods. The amounts of the various soil separates in a soil sample, usually expressed as percentage of sand, silt and clay. A type of surface expression associated with fen peatlands and consisting of a pattern of parallel or reticulate low ridges.
organic matter, soil
Organic soil
orthic
outcrop outwash overburden parent material
particle size particle-size distribution patterned (ribbed)
Page xxx
2010
peat
Material constituting peatlands, not including the live plant cover, consisting largely of organic residues accumulated because of incomplete decomposition of dead plant constituents under conditions of excessive moisture. A general term for any tract of land covered with a layer of soil containing a high percentage of peat. The potential of a soil to transmit water internally, as inferred from soil characteristics such as structure, texture, porosity, cracks and shrinkswell properties. The negative logarithm of the hydrogen-ion activity of a soil solution. The degree of acidity or alkalinity of a soil, as determined by a suitable electrode or indicator at a specified moisture content or soil-water (or CaCl2 solution) ratio and expressed in terms of the pH scale. A subdivision of a soil type, based on a variation in a property or characteristic such as depth of lime, degree of erosion, content of stones and peat surface. The physical nature of the land; it includes topography (the relief and contours of the land), elevation, aspect, slope, surface pattern of landforms and drainage. An extensive tract of flat land or an undulating terrain without prominent hills or depressions. Consisting of soil aggregates that have developed predominantly along the horizontal axis; laminated; flaky. An order of soils in the Canadian system of soil classification that has a B horizon in which the dominant accumulation is amorphous material composed mainly of humified organic matter combined with varying degrees of aluminum and iron. Typically Podzols occur in coarse to medium textured soil with acidic parent material, formed under forest or heath vegetation in cool to very cold humid climates. A map delineation that represents a tract of land with certain landform, soil, hydrologic, vegetation or other features. An ecosite that is transitional between fen and bog. A poor fen is intermediate in nutrient regime and is similar floristically to the fen and bog. Sedges and peat moss, golden and brown mosses compose the majority of the organic matter content. See also rich fen. A void or space in a soil or rock not occupied by solid mineral material. The volume percentage of the total bulk not occupied by solid particles.
peatland perviousness
pH, soil
phase, soil
physiography
plain platy Podzolic
polygon, map poor fen
pore porosity, soil
2010
Page xxxi
productivity, soil profile, soil puddling
The capacity of a soil, in its normal environment, to produce a specified plant or sequence of plants under a specified system of management. A vertical section of the soil through all its horizon and extending into the parent material. Pooling of water on the ground surface due to reduced movement of water into the soil profile or limited movement overland. Results in the formation of puddles. The susceptibility of soil to puddling. Soil puddling is the process by which the structure of the surface soil layer is destroyed through the realignment of clay particles, ultimately leading to restricted drainage. The best prevention against soil puddling is to avoid operations during wet periods and to leave the surface organic layer intact. The second period of the Cenozoic era. The latest period of geologic time, covering the last 2 million years of the Earth's history, and divided into two epochs: the Pleistocene, 2 million years ago to about 10,000 years ago; and the Holocene, from about 10,000 years ago to the present. The degree of acidity or alkalinity of a soil, usually expressed as a pH value. Descriptive terms used here with certain ranges in pH are: acid, less than 5.5; neutral, 5.5-7.4; alkaline, greater than 7.4. Surficial deposits of late post-glacial age, i.e., within the last few hundred to few thousand years. The process by which water is absorbed and added to the subsurface zone of saturation (groundwater). The process of reconverting disturbed land to its former or other productive uses. Preliminary survey used to investigate the general characteristics of a project area followed by a more detailed survey if necessary Geographical zone within which soil response to acid accumulation is investigated, to provide a relevant local context. An order of soils in the Canadian system of soil classification, in which soils have no horizon development, or in which development of the A and B horizons is insufficient to meet the requirements of the other orders. The topographic difference in elevation between the high and low points in a landscape.
puddling hazard
Quaternary
reaction, soil
Recent (deposits) recharge reclamation reconnaissance survey regional acid deposition effects assessment area Regosolic
relief
Page xxxii
2010
residual material
Unconsolidated and partly weathered (physically and chemically) mineral materials formed by the disintegration of consolidated rock in place. A peatland with moderate to well-decomposed sedge, grass, reed and brown moss peat material formed in eutrophic environments. Mineralrich waters are at or just above the fen surface. Sphagnum is usually absent or subordinate to other mosses. A type of surface expression of mineral landforms, characterized by a long, narrow elevation of the surface, usually sharp crested with steep sides. Ridges may be parallel, subparallel or intersecting. Any naturally formed, consolidated or unconsolidated material, other than soil, composed of two or more minerals, or occasionally of one mineral, and having some degree of chemical and mineralogical constancy. Landform consisting of long, regular or smooth, often convex slopes with a cycle distance of about 0.5 to 1 km. Soil rutting is the displacement of soil by the sinking of wheels, tracks, skids or other parts of vehicles and machinery. Rutting restricts the movement of water through and across the soil profile making the rutted area too wet to grow most types of vegetation and preventing the surrounding areas from receiving moisture that it would normally receive. See compaction, compaction hazard. A non-alkali soil containing soluble salts in such quantities that they interfere with the growth of most plants. The conductivity of the saturation extract is greater than 4 decisiemens per metre (dS/cm), the exchangeable sodium percentage is less than 15, and the pH is usually less than 8.5. The amount of soluble salts in a soil, expressed as the electrical conductivity in decisiemens per metre (dS/m) of a saturated paste of a soil sample. (i) As a particle size term: a size fraction between 0.05 and 2.0 mm equivalent diameter, or some other limit (geology or engineering). (ii) As a soil term: a textural class with abundant sand-sized particles. A sedimentary rock formed largely of sand-sized particles. Erosion by moving water or ice. A grass-like herb that grows in marshy places.
rich fen
ridged
rock
rolling rutting
rutting hazard saline soil
salinity, soil
sand
sandstone scour sedge
2010
Page xxxiii
sediment
Solid particles of material that have been derived from rock weathering. They are transported and deposited from water, ice or air as layers at the earth's surface. An area, generally small, where water percolates slowly to the land surface. Synonymous with spring where the flow of water is substantial. A category (or level) in the Canadian system of soil classification. A subdivision of the soil subgroup classification level, this is the basic unit of soil classification, and consists of soils that are essentially alike in all major profile characteristics except the surface texture. A sedimentary rock, composed of clay and silt sized particles that splits readily along bedding planes. A woody perennial plant differing from a tree by its low stature and by generally producing several basal shoots instead of a single trunk. (i) As a particle size term: a size fraction between 0.002 and 0.05 mm equivalent diameter, or some other limit (geology or engineering). (ii) As a soil term: a textural class with abundant silt sized particles. The degree of deviation of a surface from horizontal, measured as a numerical ratio, as percent, and as degrees from horizontal. The description of an area or region in terms of the steepness of slopes. The slope classes, class limits (in percent slope), and descriptive terminology are:
Slope (%)/ Approximate degrees 0-0.5/0 0.5-2/0.3-1.1 2-5/1.1-3 5-9/3-5 9-15/5-8.5 15-30/8.5-16.5 30-45/16.5-24 45-70/24-35 70-100/35-45 >100/>45
seep
series, soil
shale shrub silt
slope slope classes
Class 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Terminology level nearly level very gentle slopes gentle slopes moderate slopes strong slopes very strong slopes extreme slopes steep slopes very steep slopes
Page xxxiv
2010
sloping
A type of surface expression associated with peatlands, consisting of a peat surface with a generally constant slope not broken by marked irregularities. A generic term referring to water bodies that occupy shallow undrained depressions. They may be intermittent or permanent, but contain standing water throughout most years. (Shallow open water body is the preferred term.) The naturally occurring, unconsolidated mineral or organic material at least 0.1 m thick that occurs at the earth's surface and is capable of supporting plant growth. Soil extends from the earth's surface through the genetic horizons, if present, into the underlying material to the depth of the control section (normally about 1 to 2 m). Soil development involves climatic factors and organisms, conditioned by relief and water regime, acting through time on geological materials, and thus modifying the properties of the parent material. A map showing the distribution of soil types, classes, or other soil mapping units in relation to the prominent physical and cultural features of the earth's surface. See horizon, soil. Predictive models that assign soil characteristics to sites within a project area. Soil temperature is related to seedling growth and survival. In cold soil, the rate of root development and the ability of plants to uptake water is considerably reduced. Opportunities exist to increase soil temperatures using various site preparation methods that loosen and expose mineral soil to the sun. An order of soils in the Canadian system of soil classification that have developed under grass or grass-forest vegetative cover semiarid to subhumid climates. The soils have a stained brownish Solonetzic B (Bnt or Bn) horizon and a saline C horizon. The surface may be one or more of Ap, Ah, or Ae horizons. The order includes the Solonetz, Solodized Solonetz, Solod and Vertic great groups. The aqueous liquid phase of the soil and its solutes consisting of ions dissociated from the surfaces of the soil particles and of other soluble materials. A type of surface expression of mineral landforms, consisting of erosional slopes, greater than 70% (35), occurring on consolidated and unconsolidated materials.
slough
soil
soil map
soil horizon soil landscape models soil temperature limitations
Solonetzic
solution, soil
steep
2010
Page xxxv
stones stoniness/gravel classes
Rock fragments greater than 0.25 m in diameter, if rounded, and greater than 0.38 m along the greater axis, if flat. Categories of density of coarse fragments in surface soil: 0 non-stony (coarse fragments greater than 30 m apart) 1 slightly stony (coarse fragments 10 to 30 m apart) 2 moderately stony (coarse fragments 2 to 10 m apart) 3 very stony (coarse fragments 1 to 2 m apart) 4 exceedingly stony (coarse fragments 0.1 m to 1 m apart) 5 gravelly (coarse fragments 0.05 to 0.1 m apart) 6 very gravelly (coarse fragments less than 0.05 m apart)
stratification structure, soil
The arrangement of sediments in layers or strata marked by a change in colour, texture, size of particles and composition. The combination or arrangement of primary soil particles into secondary particles, units or peds. These peds may be, but usually are not, arranged in the profile in such a manner as to give a distinctive characteristic pattern. The peds are characterized and classified based on size, shape, and degree of distinctness into classes, types, and grades. The soil structure classes are described in Appendix F. A category in the Canadian system of soil classification, which is a subdivision of the great groups and, therefore, is defined more specifically. The B horizons of soil with distinct profiles. In soil with weak profile development, the subsoil can be defined as the soil below the ploughed soil (or its equivalent of surface soil) in which roots normally grow. The form (assemblage of slopes) and pattern of forms of parent genetic materials. See Appendix F for surface expression classes. See stoniness/gravel classes. A nearly level, usually narrow plain bordering a river or lake. Rivers sometimes are bordered by a number of terraces at different levels. The landscape, or lay of the land. The physical features of a tract of land; e.g., landform (or surface expression), active and inactive processes that modify material and form, slope, aspect and drainage conditions. Terrain analysis is the identification of the above land surface features, to a more or less defined depth and determining their areal extent. The identification of special features such as permafrost, erosion, and landforms indicating subsurface structures are included in such analyses.
subgroup, soil
subsoil
surface expression surface stoniness terrace terrain
Page xxxvi
2010
texture, soil
The relative percentages of the soil separates in a soil (i.e., sand, silt and clay particles) as described by the classes of soil texture. For the limits of the various classes and subclasses, see Appendix F. Unsorted and unstratified drift (morainal material), consisting of clay, silt, sand, gravel and boulders intermingled in any percentage, deposited by and underneath a glacier without subsequent reworking by glacial meltwater. The physical condition of soil as related to its ease of tillage, fitness as a seedbed, and impedance to seedling emergence and root penetration. The physical features of a district or region, such as those represented on a map, taken collectively; especially the relief and contours of the land. On most soil maps topography may also mean topography classes that describe slopes according to standard ranges of percent gradient. (i) The layer of soil moved in cultivation. (ii) The A horizon. (iii) The Ah horizon. (iv) Presumably fertile soil material used to topdress road banks, gardens and lawns. A type of landform characterized by wave-like patterns of very gentle slopes with low local relief. Slope length is generally less than 0.5 km and slope gradients are commonly 2% to 5%. A surface soil layer of specified thickness that is selectively removed, stored, and replaced as topsoil in the reclamation process. Layers of plant growth based on morphology and normal height of all species. These layers are used to describe the dominant vegetation components of ecosite phases and plant community types in the ecosite classification system. Primary strata include: trees, shrubs, forbs, grasses, mosses and lichens. A mantle of unconsolidated materials too thin to mask the minor topographic irregularities of the underlying material. As used in this report, a veneer is generally less than 1 m thick and lacks a surface form typical of a particular material's genesis. Follow up to a preliminary survey, used to confirm site characteristics at specific plots, without conducting an in depth investigation. Humification scale describing peat moss in varying stages of decomposition ranging from H1, which is completely undecomposed, to H10, which is completely decomposed. It is determined by squeezing a peat sample in the hand. For criteria, see Appendix F. The percentage of water remaining in the soil material after having been saturated and after drainage of free water has practically ceased.
till
tilth topography
topsoil
undulating
upper lift vegetation strata
veneer
visual checks von Post
water holding capacity
2010
Page xxxvii
water logged water table
Saturated with water. (i) The upper surface of groundwater or that level below which the soil is saturated with water. (ii) Groundwater surface or elevation at which the pressure in the water is zero with respect to atmospheric pressure. Refers to calcareous profiles, rego profiles, and profiles that are thinner than normal. The physical and chemical disintegration, alteration and decomposition of rocks and minerals at or near the earth's surface by biological, chemical and physical agents or combinations of them. Land having the water table at, near, or above the land surface or which is saturated for a long enough period to promote wetland or aquatic processes as shown by hydric soil, hydrophytic vegetation and various kinds of biological activity which are adapted to the wet environment.
weakly developed weathering
wetland
Page xxxviii
2010
Soils Technical Data Report Section 1: Introduction
1
1.1
Introduction
Objectives
The purpose of this technical data report (TDR) is to describe the baseline characteristics of soils assessed for the development of the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (the Project) as presented in the environmental and socio-economic assessment (ESA) (see Volume 6A). This TDR outlines the methods used to evaluate the baseline conditions, including soil series mapping in agricultural lands in Alberta and the soil modelling approach used for non-agricultural soil and the Agricultural Land Reserve in British Columbia (see Section 2.4.3). The results of the evaluation will be used to predict project effects and assist in identifying measures required to minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects on soil during construction and operations. Information has been generated and synthesized from existing literature sources and field surveys for both agricultural and non-agricultural soil. The distinction between agricultural soil and soils that have not generally been disturbed is the basis for establishing agricultural soil and non-agricultural soil as the valued environmental components (VECs) for the soil assessment in the ESA. For contaminated soil baseline conditions the land dispositions related to historical spills are reported in the Non-Traditional Land Use TDR (Karki and Hamelin 2010).
2010
Page 1-1
Soils Technical Data Report Section 2: Methods
Methods
This section provides an overview of the methods used to complete the description of baseline soil conditions. The soil baseline program is intended to meet the requirements of the Soil and Soil Productivity Filing Requirements of Guide A.2 (Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment of the Rules, Regulations, Guidelines, Guidance Notes and Memoranda of Guidance) pursuant to the National Energy Board Act. Elements of the filing requirements pertinent to baseline information are differentiated between elements applicable to agricultural soil only and elements applicable to agricultural and non-agricultural soil. These elements include: agricultural soil description and quantification of, at a scale that matches the project magnitude, the soil classification, including the order, group, family, series and type of soil before construction description of productivity of land and the type of agricultural resource description of soil types in the project effects assessment area (PEAA) and project development area (PDA) that are highly susceptible to wind and water erosion, soil compaction and loss of structure and tilth description of any other soil types that need specific management or mitigation measures agricultural and non-agricultural soil description of the general soil characteristics and the current level of disturbance associated with soil description of any known or anticipated contaminated soil in the PEAA that may be encountered during the course of the Project
To meet these requirements the following steps had to be done: establishing spatial boundaries for the soil assessment delineating landscape units verifying landscape units in the field mapping soil in the landscape units developing soil map units creating the soil map products assigning agricultural land capability classes, soil erosion risk, soil compaction and puddling risk, and acidification sensitivity to soil map units identifying historically contaminated soil along the pipeline route
2010
Page 2-1
2.1
Spatial Boundaries
A number of spatial boundaries were used for defining the baseline soil area. The boundaries are environmental (physiographic regions, and the regional acid deposition effects assessment area [RADEAA]), administrative (provincial boundaries, agricultural land use boundaries) and technical (project-defined ground disturbance and effects assessment area). Project-defined effects assessment areas were used for consistency with Volume 6A, Section 6 of the ESA. The following are the defined boundaries: physiographic regions provincial agricultural areas project development area (PDA) project effects assessment area (PEAA) regional effects assessment area (REAA) to assess regional and cumulative effects, which will be referred to as the RADEAA
2.1.1
Physiographic Region Boundaries
See Table 2-1 for a summary of the physiographic regions along the pipeline route (from east to west). Baseline soil conditions are summarized for the Project by physiographic region. Physiographic regions were based on those defined by Pettapiece (1986) for Alberta and those defined by Holland (1976) for British Columbia. The boundaries of each physiographic region were refined to incorporate the detailed mapping (see Figure 2-1).
Table 2-1
Province Alberta
Physiographic Region Boundaries along the Pipeline Route

Physiographic Region Eastern Alberta Plains Southern Alberta Uplands Start 1 Point (KP) 0 166 End 2 Point (KP) 166 516 Approximate Location Length (km) 166 350 From Bruderheim Greencourt To Greencourt AlbertaBritish Columbia boundary Kinuseo Creek
British Columbia
Alberta Plateau
516
560
44
AlbertaBritish Columbia boundary Kinuseo Creek Parsnip River Gosnell Creek
Rocky Mountains Interior Plateau Coast Mountains
560 663 1067
663 1067 1172
103 404 105
Parsnip River Gosnell Creek Kitimat Terminal
NOTES: Pipeline Route R 1 The eastern start point is near Bruderheim, Alberta. 2 The western end point is the Kitimat Terminal, south of Kitimat.
Page 2-2
2010
New Hazelton Kitwanga
Mackenzie
Prince Rupert
Smithers
Tumbler Ridge
Telkwa
ALBERTA
Swan Hills
ca Ri v er
Coast Mountains
S ke e na Riv er
Terrace
McLeod Lake
Rocky Mountains
Alberta Plateau
er i R iv Wapit
Sm o ky Riv
Aiyansh
er
KP 1000
Morice Lake
Kemano
Houston Burns Lake
Fort St. James
KP 750
M cGre go r R i
ha
KP 500
er Cutban k R i v
b as
Hoult and Clore Tunnels
L ak
od R
tsa
Ootsa Lake
e
N at alku z L
Prince George
e ak
Kitwanga
se r
Wildh a
Oo
Fort Fraser
Fra
Hutton
iv er
Wells Quesnel
S as
katc
McBride
he
50 Kilometres
100
150
JWA-1038983-031-002b
Reference: Pipeline Route R Projection Parameters: Lambert Conformal Conic Central Meridian: 120E 1st Standard Parallel: 50N Latitude of Origin: 40N 2nd Standard Parallel: 70N
Hoult and Clore Tunnels

0 20 40 Kilometres 60
Kamloops 80
Franois Lake
Fraser Lake
Fort Fraser
Vanderhoof Vanderhoof
Ootsa Lake
Kelowna O otsa
Okanagan Lake
Lak e
Kootenay Lake
Kemano
REFERENCES: NTDB Topographic Mapsheets provided by the Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.
Lower Arrow Lake
CONTRACTOR:
FIGURE NUMBER:
DATE:
Jacques Whitford AXYS Ltd.

PREPARED BY:
PREPARED FOR:

SCALE:
2-1
AUTHOR:
20100212
APPROVED BY:
Natalkuz L a k e Broad Physiographic Regions and Location of Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Land (Updated October 2010)
1:5,000,000
PROJECTION:
JP2
DATUM:
DC NAD 83
LCC
Z:\Clients\Enbridge\Gateway\Figures\MXD\JWA-CAL-031_ALR\JWA-CAL-031-002b.mxd
AL AS KA
B ab
i ne
Manson Creek
Interior Plateau
lli Wi n sto La ke
P
e ac e R
Peace River
ea ch
Fort St. John
P eace R
Rycroft Chetwynd Dawson Creek
iv
er
Utikuma Lake
Lesser Slave Lake

High Prairie Valleyview
sn ar
ip R
eac h
Grande Prairie
Athabasca
Southern Alberta Uplands KP 250
La
ke
At
Whitecourt
Newbrook
Kitimat
Fraser Lake
Franois Lake
Fraser Lake Vanderhoof
ver
Eastern Alberta Plains

Vimy
KP 1172.2
Ri
ve
KP 0
rsn Pa
Bruderheim
Hixon
llo Wi
ea c h ip R
Ri
ve r
Mc
Le
wR
Iv e
r
Stony Plain
Edson Hinton
Edmonton
wa
n Rive
r
Camrose
Pembina R iv e r
BRITISH COLUMBIA
Kilometre Post Pipeline Tunnel Construction Camp Pump Station Stockpile Site Staging Area Excess Cut Disposal Area
Kitimat
Jasper
N or
th
Winfield Bashaw
F r a se r R i v e
Valemount Smithers Telkwa Rocky Mountain House
Physiographic Region Boundary Green Area White Area Agricultural Land Reserve Urban Area
Alexandria Coast Mountains
Horsefly
Red Deer
Ba
e bin La
ena Ske
r Rive
ke
Houston Fort St. James
KP
Calgary
Kitimat Terminal
KP 1000
Morice Lake
Burns Lake
KP 1172.2
Fraser Lake
2.1.2
Provincial Agricultural Boundaries
Agricultural lands in Alberta and British Columbia are divided into land use areas for the purpose of land use, regulatory and policy settings. The spatial boundaries of the agricultural land that intersects the rightof-way (RoW) are defined by physiographic region (see Table 2-2). Additional areas within the PEAA and facilities also intersect agricultural area and are identified in baseline results. Agricultural lands in Alberta are designated as the White Area, which is all land designated for settlement, including agriculture (Alberta Sustainable Resource Development 2006, Internet site). Agricultural lands in British Columbia are designated as the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) in which agriculture is recognized as the priority use (Agricultural Land Commission 2009, Internet site). Farming is encouraged and non-agricultural uses are controlled.
Table 2-2
Province Alberta
Agricultural Land intersecting the RoW - by Physiographic Region

Physiographic Region Eastern Alberta Plains Southern Alberta Uplands Start Point (KP) 0 165.8 184.4 187.47
1
End Point (KP) 165.8 178.9 187.47 516.8 810.7 818.6 821.75 830.18 1,010.36
1
British Columbia
Interior Plateau
810.6 816.98 819.4 829.08 1,007.75
NOTES: 1 Agricultural Land Reserve within 45 m of RoW. 2 Based on Route R.
2.1.3
Spatial Boundaries for Soil Disturbance Study
Two study areas that addressed the effects of soil disturbance were established for the description of soil baseline conditions: the PDA, and the PEAA. A regional assessment area was defined for soil acidification as expressed by the largest air emission airshed (see Section 2.1.4). Two sections of the pipeline RoW, approximately 33 ha in total, are not part of the PDA or PEAA for the soil component because there will be two tunnels (Hoult and Clore) through Nimbus Mountain and north Hope Peak, and no surface disturbance is anticipated.
Page 2-4
2010
2.1.3.1
Project Development Area
The PDA comprises the 1,172 km pipeline route and includes the pipeline RoW and temporary workspace: The construction RoW will consist of a 25-m permanent RoW, a 25-m temporary workspace, and extra temporary workspace totalling roughly 10% of the construction RoW. The extra temporary workspace is reduced in riparian areas and is not added to the RoW if it intersects-project infrastructure. As the location and areal extent of the extra temporary workspace is not known yet, the pipeline RoW is assessed by adding an additional 10% to the construction RoW (i.e., 10% of 50 m, or 5 m) for the total construction RoW. This extra workspace is assumed to occur along the length of the RoW, with the exception of most riparian areas and associated watercourse crossings. An estimated 10% of riparian areas will require extra temporary workspace (5 m). Riparian areas are defined as any soils within active fluvial terrain.
The PDA also includes the associated infrastructure such as pump stations, construction camps, stockpile sites, access roads and the Kitimat Terminal. For this report, infrastructure is divided into construction and operations infrastructure. A powerline to the central tunnel area will be required if tunnel construction uses tunnel-boring machines. The powerline to the central tunnel portal area will be approximately 75 km long and will require a 40-m easement. Construction infrastructure will be reclaimed within months to a maximum of a few years and will include: temporary workspace 14 construction camps 15 staging areas 28 stockpile sites (used for temporary storage of pipe, materials and equipment)
Operations infrastructure will be in place for decades and will require long-term stockpiling of soil, which can affect soil capability and quality, will include: 10 pump stations 9 powerlines 12 access roads 6 excess cut disposal areas the Kitimat Terminal, including the area outside the security fence Project Effects Assessment Area
2.1.3.2
The PEAA is used to assess changes resulting from temporary access outside the PDA, as well as changes that might extend beyond the PDA. The PEAA encompasses the entire pipeline RoW, and associated temporary workspace and extra temporary workspace, pump stations, all infrastructure and powerlines for the Project.
2010
Page 2-5
2.1.4
2.1.4.1
Spatial Boundaries for Assessment of Soil Acidification Sensitivity

Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area
The regional assessment area is used for quantifying cumulative effects on soils associated with acidifying emissions. This is called the regional acid deposition effects assessment area (RADEAA) and is defined by the largest extent of acidifying emissions that have the potential to affect soil quality. The RADEAA was established near the Kitimat Terminal to identify the sensitivity of soil to acidification. The RADEAA is about 32,000 ha and extends about 14 km northeast, 8 km west-northwest, and 17 km southwest of the Kitimat Terminal. Its shape is based on the 0.25 keq/ha (kiloequivalents per hectare) potential acid input (PAI) isopleth for the Future Case example (see Atmospheric Environment TDR [Brennand and Reid 2010]).
2.2
Delineation of Landscape Units
The description of soil baseline conditions in the PEAA was integrated with the description of terrain baseline conditions through the delineation, field verification and mapping phases. For mapping in British Columbia, TEM polygons, vegetation characteristics (particularly wetland and floodplain areas and forest structural stage) were incorporated in further defining soil delineations. Landscape units were delineated based on the interpretation of aerial photographs of the pipeline route (see Table 2-3). For British Columbia, available photography included black-and-white coverage as well as colour photographs. Photography for Alberta was 1:60,000, 1:40,000, and 1:20,000 black and white dated from 1989 to 2001.
Table 2-3
Baseline Photography Used for Mapping - by Physiographic Region

Year of Photography 2001 1983 1995 2001 Scale of Photography 1:20,000 1:60,000 1:60,000 1:30,000 1:30,000 1:40,000 (TRIM dataset) 1:40,000 (TRIM dataset) 1:15,000 1:30,000 1:40,000 (TRIM dataset) 1:30,000 Colour (Tumbler Ridge area) Black and white Black and white Colour Colour Black and white Black and white Colour Black and white Black and white
Physiographic Region Eastern Alberta Plains Southern Alberta Uplands
Alberta Plateau Rocky Mountains Interior Plateau (KP 663.3 to KP 942.5)
2005 1997 1996 1997
Interior Plateau (KP 942.5 to KP 1065.6) and Coast Mountains
2001 2001 2003
Page 2-6
2010
Aerial photographs were interpreted through a soft-copy photogrammetric approach using the DiAPTM and PurviewTM stereo platforms in 2005 and 2006 and HD-MAPPTM and supporting software in 2008. This approach allows the mapper to view the images on a computer screen in three dimensions at a resolution of 1:1,000, allowing for good mapping accuracy and a high level of confidence in the baseline mapping. Once interpretation was complete, preliminary landscape unit boundaries were displayed on top of the aerial photographs in field atlases and used as a basis for selecting inspection points in the field surveys. All mapping was presented at 1:20,000 scale with a minimum polygon size of 1 cm2 (equivalent to 4 ha).
2.3
Field Verification of Landscape Units
Verifying the landscape units in the field was done through soil surveys conducted from July to October 2005, May to August 2006, June to September 2008, and July and October 2009. The objectives of the field soil surveys were to provide adequate information to describe the dominant soil types in the landscape units delineated for the PEAA and to confirm the landscape-unit boundaries. The soil field surveys were completed through the following discipline-led programs: ecological mapping field programs terrain field programs soil field programs
These programs are described below followed by a brief description of the soil classification system, and the sampling and laboratory analyses used in the field programs. The programs were designed to account for appropriate survey intensity levels in support of baseline mapping. For the number of soil inspections completed through the ecological mapping, terrain and soil programs in each physiographic region, see Table 2-4. The survey intensity level (SIL) of soil mapping in the PEAA was a reconnaissance survey, which corresponds to a SIL 3 as defined by the Mapping Systems Working Group (1981). SIL is a measure of sampling density that characterizes the number of field inspections per hectare. SIL 3 is defined as having 1 inspection for every 20 to 200 hectares and is in support of 1:20,000 scale mapping of soil series, or phases of soil subgroups.
Table 2-4
Soil Inspection Sites by Physiographic Region

Total Number of Survey Sites 179 462 85 301 769 Sites Observed from the Air 22 148 43 125 331 Inspection Density within the 2 PEAA (density/ha) 1/105 1/117 1/106 1/76 1/100
Physiographic Region Eastern Alberta Plains Southern Alberta Uplands Alberta Plateau Rocky Mountains Interior Plateau
Total Area (ha) 16,453 36,611 4441 13,463 44,031
Ground Plots 157 314 42 176 438
2010
Page 2-7
Table 2-4
Soil Inspection Sites by Physiographic Region (contd)

Total Number of Survey Sites 308
1
Physiographic Region Coast Mountains Sites outside the PEAA Total
Total Area (ha) 18,540 N/A 133,539
Sites Observed from the Air 158 N/A 827
Ground Plots 150 N/A 1277
Inspection Density within the 2 PEAA (density/ha) 1/124 N/A 1/105
1115 3219
NOTES: 1 Sites were located outside the PEAA in areas where access to the PEAA was not practical, where facilities or powerlines occur outside the PEAA, or where sites are located on previous alignments. 2 Plots per hectare, used for SIL, is calculated within the PEAA, using only ground plots. The number of plots per hectare for Eastern Alberta Plains and Southern Alberta Uplands is underestimated as soil plot data and mapping from the Alliance Pipeline (Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership 1997) were used in support of mapping. N/A Not applicable Data are for Route R.
2.3.1
Ecological Mapping Field Programs
The methods for sampling design and data collection and mapping generally followed the Guidelines and Standards for Terrestrial Ecosystem Mapping in British Columbia (Resources Inventory Committee 1996). The purpose of the ecological mapping field program was to describe the vegetation types as either ecosite phases (Alberta) or site series (British Columbia). The field sampling program included detailed inspections, ground inspections and visual checks. Soil data collected for the ground inspections were used for this report. Soil data were collected at ground and detailed inspection sites, which represent 20% of the TEM field program sites. Visual sites constituted the majority of the sites (80%), and only limited soil and land information could be obtained from these (e.g., bedrock exposure, rock fields, drainage and wetlands). Soil data were collected according to standards derived from British Columbias Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems (British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and British Columbia Ministry of Forests 1998). Soil descriptions and classification systems applied in Alberta and British Columbia were those of the Soil Classification Working Group (1998) and the Expert Committee on Soil Survey (1983). Mineral soil inspections involved digging small pits to a depth of 0.5 to 0.8 m followed by hand augering to a depth of at least 1 m, or to stony contacts and auger refusal. Organic soils were examined by extracting samples with a soil auger or a soil probe with extensions to about 2.5 m if a terric contact was not reached within 1 m. Mineral soil profile attributes described in the field included: drainage and presence of seepage soil moisture and nutrient regime horizon thickness and sequence colour texture
Page 2-8
2010
structure consistence calcareousness (qualitative HCl test for carbonates) salinity (presence of salt crystals) coarse fragments mottles roots boundary characteristics parent material type and terrain classification soil subgroup classification depth and type of root restricting layer
Additional information was collected that was specific to organic layers or horizons. Humus forms were classified and, for organic soil, the von Post degree of decomposition and the general botanical composition of peat layers were determined. The pH of water squeezed from the surface layer of organic soil was determined with pH paper or a field pH meter. This information allowed a preliminary evaluation of nutrient status and wetland type. To determine the pH of Brunisolic B horizons, a Hellige-Truog pH kit was used in the field, or samples were collected and the pH was verified in the laboratory. Site attributes recorded at detailed and ground inspections included: slope and aspect, surface expression, surface stoniness, slope position, landscape slope class, slope length, horizontal and vertical curvature, land use, depth to seepage, humus form, nutrient regime, moisture regime, drainage, depth to bedrock and a general description of vegetation and terrain conditions.
2.3.2
Terrain Field Programs
Details of the terrain field program are included in the Geology and Terrain TDR (OLeary et al. 2010). The PEAA was surveyed for the terrain field program between Kitimat, British Columbia and a location near Bruderheim, Alberta in 2005. These surveys included portions of agricultural land in British Columbia and Alberta. Additional field programs were conducted in 2006 and 2008, for areas of route refinement and newly acquired land access. Ground inspection locations were pre-selected and indicated on the field atlases. Ground sites were selected that were representative of the different types of terrain. Soils at these sites were described using the same methods as described for the ground sites of the TEM field program (see Section 2.3.1).
2.3.3
Soil Field Programs
The soil field program consisted of describing soil profiles and obtaining samples for laboratory analysis on: private agricultural lands in the White Area of Alberta from KP 0 to KP 184, and KP 184 to KP 187, where land access was granted
2010
Page 2-9
the Agricultural Land Reserve within the PEAA near Fort St. James, Kitimat and Burns Lake, British Columbia non-agricultural lands in the Green Area of Alberta from KP 179 to KP 516 non-agricultural lands in British Columbia from KP 516 to KP 1171 the RADEAA near Kitimat, British Columbia several sites for pump stations and construction camps, and the area of the Kitimat Terminal inside the security fence
The soil field programs were carried out in 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009. Soil ground inspection sites within agricultural lands were approximately 250 m apart where land access was granted, and 400 m apart if the agricultural land paralleled the Alliance Pipeline in the White Area of Alberta. Site selection was based on the centreline of the RoW, where feasible, for all agricultural areas that were surveyed. Most dig sites were screened for underground utilities according to ground disturbance protocols of British Columbia and Alberta. In some areas soils were described to a maximum 30 cm depth, to obtain topsoil salvage depth information while ensuring no conflict with any underground features. Soil sampling was done in the RADEAA, and sites were selected based on ease of road access or helicopter landing, and on obtaining adequate spatial coverage of the area. At each inspection site, the soil was described using methods as described for the ground sites of the TEM field program (see Section 2.3.1).
2.3.4
Supplementary Soil Surveys
During the detailed engineering phase of the Project in Alberta, additional fieldwork will be required in agricultural areas to determine the depth and quality of topsoil where the surface will be disturbed so that detailed soil stripping and salvage recommendations can be made. During this process, appropriate locations for topsoil storage will be identified.
2.3.5
Soil Classification
Soil types in the PEAA were classified according to The Canadian System of Soil Classification, 3rd Edition (Soil Classification Working Group 1998). For a brief definition of the main characteristics of the soil orders and great groups that were identified in the field program in the PEAA, see Table 2-5.
Page 2-10
2010
Table 2-5
Soil Orders and Great Groups in the PEAA

Order Great Group Eutric Dystric Sombric Melanic Black Dark Gray Distinguishing Characteristics Ah < 0.1 m, pH of upper B horizon > 5.5 Ah < 0.1 m, pH of upper B horizon < 5.5 Ah > 0.1 m, pH of upper B horizon < 5.5 Ah > 0.1 m, pH of upper B horizon > 5.5 A horizon has value 3.5 m,d, chroma 1.5 d A horizon has value 3.5 m, 4.5 d, chroma 1.5 d Ah 0.1 m, no Bt Has a Btg, usually has an Ahe or an Aeg Ah > 0.1 m May or may not have Ah, has Ae and Bt, usually MAST 8C
Brunisolic Soils that have sufficient development to exclude them from the Regosolic Order, but lack degrees or kinds of horizon development specified for other orders Chernozemic Soils that have an A horizon darkened by organic matter accumulation - Ah, Ahe or Ap. They develop under grassland or grasslandforest communities Gleysolic Soils having features indicative of periodic or prolonged water saturation, and reducing conditions, i.e., mottling and gleying Luvisolic Soils with light-coloured eluvial (Ae) horizons, and illuvial horizons (Bt) of silicate clay accumulation. They develop under forest vegetation Organic Soils composed mostly of organic materials; most are water saturated for prolonged periods Podzolic Soils with light-coloured eluvial horizons Ae, and B horizon of amorphous material accumulation - Bf, Bhf, Bh. They develop in acid parent materials under forest or heath vegetation Regosolic Development in these soils is too weak to meet requirements of any other order Solonetzic Soil with Solonetzic B horizon; has columnar or prismatic structure, is hard to very hard when dry, and has exchangeable Ca:Na 10; developed in saline parent material
Gleysol Luvic Humic Gray
Mesisol Fibrisol Folisol Humic Ferro-Humic Humo-Ferric Regosol Humic Regosol Solonetz SolodizedSolonetz Solod
Dominantly mesic Dominantly fibric Dominantly folic Bh 0.1 m, OC > 1%, pFe < 0.3%, OC:pFe 20 Bhf 0.1 m, OC > 5%, pFe and pAl 0.6% Bf 0.1 m, OC 0.5-5%, pFe and pAl 0.6% Ah 0.1 m, B horizon absent or < 0.05 m Ah > 0.1 m, B horizon absent or < 0.05 m Ae 0.02 m Ae 0.02 m, intact Bnt or Bn Ae 0.02 m, distinct AB or BA, disintegrating Bnt
NOTES: d dry; m moist; MAST mean annual soil temperature; OC organic carbon; pFe pyrophosphate extractable iron; pAl pyrophosphate extractable aluminum SOURCE: Soil Classification Working Group (1998).
2010
Page 2-11
2.3.6
Soil Sampling and Laboratory Analysis
Soil samples were collected at some of the detailed sites where soil pits were dug for profile description. Samples were also collected from: known locations of infrastructure unusual soils (e.g., atypical parent material type) soils difficult to classify (e.g., Brunisols versus Podzols) soils with potential constraints (e.g., salinity issues) sites of proposed spill scenarios in Alberta major soil types in agricultural lands to verify CLI ratings soils with high potential sensitivity to acidification (i.e., in the RADEAA)
After collection, labelled soil samples were sealed in plastic bags and frozen until submitted to the AMEC laboratory in Edmonton. Soil samples were air dried and analyzed. Texture (by hydrometer using the method of Kalra and Maynard [1991]) and pH (by saturated paste in water [Carter 1993] and in CaCl2 [McKeague 1978]) were determined for all samples. The parameters evaluated in selected samples, depending on depth and organic matter content, were: rubbed fibre (peat samples) by weight, on samples retained by a 1-mm sieve after processing 10 minutes with a mixer-agitator (Levesque and Dinel 1977) cation exchange capacity by neutral ammonium acetate extraction (McKeague 1978) and calculation of NH4 determined by ammonium electrode exchangeable cations calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K) and sodium (Na) by inductively coupled plasma atomic absorption spectroscopy (ICP-AES) of the ammonium acetate extract pyrophosphate extractable iron (Fe) and aluminum (Al) by sodium pyrophosphate extraction, method 3.53 (McKeague 1978) total carbon by LECO Carbon Analyzer electrical conductivity determined on extracts of saturated pastes (Carter 1993) base saturation calculated as the sum of exchangeable cations Ca, Mg, K and Na divided by the cation exchange capacity
Surface organic samples (i.e., LFH or O horizon) from several sites were analyzed for calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium and 16 trace elements (aluminum, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, thallium, vanadium and zinc). The analyses were for total elemental content, which involves acid digestion of samples and elemental measurement by ICP-AES.
Page 2-12
2010
2.4
Soil Landscape Units
The classification and mapping of soil landscape units in the PEAA was integrated with terrain and surficial geology classification and mapping. Soils were mapped in the PEAA according to principles and methods outlined in the Expert Committee on Soil Survey (1987) and the Mapping Systems Working Group (1981), which provide guidelines for data requirements in relation to different intensity levels of surveys. The soils were then mapped onto landscape units that were identified in the PEAA by the terrain and surficial geology component of the Project (see the Geology and Terrain TDR). To identify these landscape units, unique terrain and landscape conditions were delineated by interpretation of aerial photographs and supporting field verification. These units were delineated as polygons (i.e., areas) in a digital dataset as part of the terrain and surficial geology program. This detailed dataset includes information on surface material type, topographic form, material thickness and drainage characteristics. Soil mapping included a general review of existing soil data sources in agricultural and non-agricultural lands to guide the assignment of soil types to delineated polygons. After this, the approach for assignment of soil types to polygons differed between agricultural lands in Alberta and non-agricultural lands in Alberta and all lands in British Columbia. Agricultural lands mostly occur in the White Area in Alberta and in the Agricultural Land Reserve in British Columbia. Non-agricultural lands are referred to as Green Area in Alberta. The distribution of agricultural and non-agricultural lands along the pipeline route is shown in Figure 2-1.
2.4.1
Review of Soil Data Sources
Existing soil data for the PEAA in Alberta and British Columbia in provincial soil survey information, Alberta ecological classification guides, British Columbia biogeoclimatic manuals, and provincial geologic maps that described part of the PEAA were reviewed for each physiographic region. No soil surveys were available for the Coast Mountains physiographic region. In addition to the field data, the existing soil data guided the classification of dominant soil types in each polygon. For a list of the topics reviewed and the applicable references, see Table 2-6.
Table 2-6
Summary of Soil Data Sources

Topic Reference Bowser et al. 1962; Lindsay et al. 1968; Twardy and Lindsay 1971; Wynnyk et al. 1969 Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership 1997 Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001
Soil surveys in the Eastern Alberta Plains Soil information for the Alliance pipeline in the Eastern Alberta Plains Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database (AGRISID) Version 3.0 soil survey in the Eastern Alberta Plains and the Southern Alberta Uplands Soil surveys in the Southern Alberta Uplands Ecological classification guides for the Southern Alberta Uplands Soil survey in the Alberta Plateau and Rocky Mountains
Knapik and Lindsay 1983; Twardy and Corns 1980 Beckingham et al. 1996; Beckingham and Archibald 1996 Vold et al. 1977
2010
Page 2-13
Table 2-6
Summary of Soil Data Sources (contd)

Topic Reference DeLong et al. 1994 Runka 1972; Dawson 1989; Cotic 1974 DeLong et al. 1990; DeLong et al. 1993; DeLong 2003 Banner et al. 1993 Hamilton et al. 1999; Massey et al. 2005 Agra Earth and Environmental Limited (AGRA) 1998 West side of North Saskatchewan River: PCOSI (PetroCanada Oil Sands Inc.; 2006, Volume 2, Part B, Section 17) East side of North Saskatchewan River: Shell Canada Energy (2008, Volume 2, Section 9) BA Energy Inc. 2004 Massey et al. 2005, Internet site
Biogeoclimatic manual in the Rocky Mountains Soil surveys in the Interior Plateau Biogeoclimatic manuals in the Interior Plateau Biogeoclimatic manual in the Coast Mountains Alberta and British Columbia provincial geological maps Detailed soil surveys that cover the PEAA at the North Saskatchewan River crossing near Bruderheim from KP 0 to KP 10
Detailed soil survey that covers the PEAA East of the North Saskatchewan River crossing near KP 0 Bedrock Geology map of British Columbia (Map at 1:1,000,000 scale)
2.4.2
Agricultural Soil Mapping in Alberta
In agricultural lands of Alberta, soils were mapped in the PEAA by assigning dominant soil series to the delineated polygons. Agricultural lands cover the pipeline route in the Eastern Alberta Plains physiographic region and a small part of the route in the Southern Alberta Uplands physiographic region. Terrain and surficial geology polygon boundaries were modified and dominant soil series were assigned to each polygon using information from the soil field program, the Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database, Version 3.0 (AGRASID 3.0) (Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001), the Alliance Pipeline Natural Gas Pipeline Project Environmental Alignment Sheets (Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership 1997) and applicable soil survey reports (see Table 2-4). From the UTM Zone 11-12 boundary (near KP 66) to the White AreaGreen Area boundary in Alberta (near KP 177), the PEAA follows the Alliance pipeline. Soil series identified for landscape units along the Alliance pipeline were correlated with the terrain and surficial geology classification of parent material, drainage and slope in the same landscape unit. This correlation enabled extrapolation of the Alliance soil survey information to the PEAA and assignment of soil series and slope class information to each polygon on this portion of the pipeline route.
2.4.3
Non-agricultural Soil Mapping in Alberta and in All Lands in British Columbia
In non-agricultural lands of Alberta and in all lands of British Columbia, a soil modelling approach was taken to account for the large geographic area and the often limited background data. Soil map units in the PEAA were assigned to each polygon by applying soil landscape models, which were defined on the basis of soil-forming concepts. Soil landscape models are predictive models that assign soil attributes to terrain delineated polygons through the unique association of soil subgroups with specific terrain and landscape conditions.
Page 2-14
2010
Soil landscape models were developed based on the digital dataset developed by the terrain and surficial geology program. Using the information collected during the terrain interpretation and mapping, including surficial material type, topographic form, material thickness and drainage characteristics, related soil landscape models were developed. The associations between terrain attributes and soil subgroup distribution were developed into specific soil model matrices through a combination of field data analyses, existing data sources, professional knowledge of soil development processes, and analysis of distribution patterns of soil types in a specific landscape. The soil landscape models were enhanced by the inclusion of on-site field verification data, which enabled realistic characterization of the soil conditions in the PEAA. The soil landscape models accounted for the effect of climate on soil type, with information obtained from general climate information available for the biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia, and the ecoregions of Alberta (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1996). Soil landscape model matrices (Appendix A) were developed for the following physiographic regions along the pipeline route (from east to west): Southern Alberta Uplands Alberta Plateau Rocky Mountains Interior Plateau Coast Mountains
In the Southern Alberta Uplands, the soil landscape model matrix was only applied to the non-agricultural lands. A soil landscape model was not developed for the Eastern Alberta Plains physiographic region, where soil series mapping was applied instead. In British Columbia, additional soil modelling was required to capture the diversity of wetland and floodplain types and their associated soil types, and to use forest structural stage to verify the presence of Folisols in coastal locations occurring in areas of shallow bedrock. Soil assignment was based on terrain and vegetation mapping whereas the soil type associated with each wetland was based on British Columbias wetland classification system (MacKenzie and Moran 2004). Following field data collection and terrain interpretation mapping, steps were taken to develop each soil landscape model. These steps included: developing the soil model matrix modelling the application and its iterations analyzing model accuracy and making final adjustments Development of the Soil Model Matrix
2.4.3.1
The development of the soil model matrix for each of the five physiographic regions where soil landscape models were applied required the following series of steps: convening a working group to develop the basic concept and criteria to be applied to the model configuration considering and summarizing applicable reference materials (see Section 2.4.1)
2010
Page 2-15
incorporating the ground site data collected during the 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009 seasons, along with the model developers knowledge of soil and soil development processes in the region selecting terrestrial variables that correspond to unique environmental conditions, to accurately predict the soil-forming conditions in each physiographic region in the PEAA refining the models for accuracy relative to ground data, terrain mapping and knowledge of the area
To accurately reflect the conditions in each region, the regions were further subdivided by climatic and elevational criteria with topographical and hydrological conditions in each subregion analyzed to reflect unique soil landscape conditions. Climate and terrestrial variables were used to define a decision matrix that would accurately predict soil distribution patterns in each physiographic region. Background and regional published reports, along with onsite sampling, were used to refine the matrix table to show the expected dominant soil type each combination of influencing factors would produce. Each matrix predicts a dominant or co-dominant soil subgroups for each combination of variables. Where the physiographic region was subdivided because of climatic variation, unique matrix tables of landscape conditions and soil types were developed for each climate zone in the region. The following five terrestrial variables were identified in non-agricultural lands of the PEAA as affecting soil formation processes and therefore constituting important elements of each soil model matrix: parent material, surface expression, active processes, drainage and geology. Parent Material Parent material is a major determining factor in soil formation. The origin of the material from which a soil forms influences the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil matrix. Organic soil and floodplain soil were further subdivided using vegetation mapping. Geology Local bedrock geology also contributes to the development and classification of soil. The identification of alkaline or acid bedrock lithologies is important in the overall understanding of certain soil-forming conditions. The linkage of soil pH levels to local bedrock is used as a key indicator, especially in the Brunisolic order. In certain physiographic regions of the PEAA, two categories were developed: less than pH 5.5 (CaCl2) and greater than pH 5.5 (CaCl2). This distinction was made to predict whether the dominant Brunisols were classified as part of the Eutric or Dystric great groups (Soil Classification Working Group 1998), respectively. Appendix A presents the soil model matrices and their accompanying model criteria for non-agricultural lands in the Southern Alberta Uplands, and for non-agricultural and agricultural lands in the Alberta Plateau, Rocky Mountains, Interior Plateau and Coast Mountains physiographic regions.
Page 2-16
2010
Surface Expression Surface expression refers to the form (assemblage of slopes) and pattern of forms expressed by a surficial material at the land surface (Howes and Kenk 1997). Surface expression plays an important part in soil pedogenesis by affecting water and energy distribution. For example, soils on steep slopes or veneers tend to be less developed than those on gentle slopes or on thicker accumulations of material. Active Processes In some cases, a distinction in soil development was made between soil undergoing active processes and those formed under relatively inactive geomorphic processes. Active processes are particularly substantial in soils forming on fluvial materials. Soils in the active zone of streams are subjected to periodic inundation and are generally less well developed than those that have stabilized farther away from stream channels. Drainage Soil drainage characteristics are key predictors with regard to development of soil. Drainage is commonly linked to parent material textures, surface expression and landscape position. Groundwater in the soil profile is a controlling factor in soil development. The movement of water through the profile also contributes substantially to the development of soil. For soils where drainage is impeded and soils are saturated for prolonged periods due to elevated water tables, gley colours and mottles often form and result in gleyed soils. Under very poor drainage regimes, organic matter accumulates and peaty mineral soil variants or Organic soils form. In areas where soil water movement is not impeded, eluviation and illuviation can occur. In areas where there is both upward and downward movement of water in the soil profile, secondary enrichment of minerals such as salt and calcium carbonate can occur. This interaction of groundwater and textural conditions forms the basis of soil classification and identification. Drainage information was taken from the terrain database and applied to the soil landscape model. 2.4.3.2 Modelling Application and Model Accuracy
The model decision matrix was applied to each physiographic region (except for the Eastern Alberta Plains and agricultural land of the Southern Alberta Uplands as noted previously) using spatial analysis with the ESRI ARC software platform. In the spatial and database environment of the ARC platform, specific combinations of terrain attributes were identified for each polygon and, based on the model decision matrix table, soil subgroups were identified. The resulting output table included additional columns containing the predicted soil subgroup for each decile of the terrain classification. Each polygon was populated with one to three soil subgroups, depending on the complexity of the terrain attributes assigned during classification. Upon successful completion of the beta test, the outputs of the model were evaluated and reviewed by the working group. Model adjustments were made to account for areas not properly defined. The application of the model for each physiographic region was then applied to the PEAA with output of soil subgroups for each region. This output was then reviewed to ensure that the model accurately predicted the expected soil conditions for a region. The model was run again and deficiencies were noted mostly within the Interior Plateau of British Columbia in regard to wet soil. From here a wetland model matrix was created
2010
Page 2-17
(Appendix A) to account for wetland and floodplain soils. In addition, a deficiency was noted along the coast. Terrain calls do not account for organic veneers that occur over rock or colluvium, which are quite common due to climatic conditions in the Coast Mountains physiographic region. These soils are classified as Folisols and represent the rooting medium for many coastal forests. As a result, the model was adjusted so that structural stages 4, 5 and 6 (mature forests) growing on rock or colluviums would be classified as Folisols. Model effectiveness was evaluated by using background literature, knowledge of the area and on-site ground inspections. On-site field plot data were used to verify model accuracy, any discrepancies between model results and the field data were noted, and patterns of discrepancy with the model were adjusted to reflect field data. When no patterns were evident, an attempt was made to understand the discrepancy, especially if there was a marked difference between the model prediction and field data. In certain cases, the on-site ground inspection overrode the predicted soil subgroup and was applied to the polygon.
2.5
Development of Soil Map Units
The soil map unit is a defined and named repetitive grouping of soil bodies occurring together in an individual and characteristic pattern over the soil landscape (Gregorich et al. 2001). A soil map unit may consist of a single soil type, but more commonly consists of a dominant soil type (series or variant) and inclusions (10% to 20% of a map unit) of other soil types (series or variants). A description of map units is based on percentages of different soil types in specific landscape types. At large mapping scales, the goal of mapping is to subdivide the landscape into units consisting of one main soil type. However, this could not be consistently achieved in the PEAA because of the scale of mapping, and the inherent variability in soil types over short distances. Therefore, where more than one soil type was present, the map unit consisted of complexes comprising a dominant soil type with one or two differing soil types, which together account for the entire map unit. The map unit is the basic classification unit shown on a soil map. The two types of map units used in the Project are: Alberta Agricultural Lands Soil Map Units (applied in the Eastern Alberta Plains and part of the Southern Alberta Uplands physiographic regions) Alberta Non-agricultural Lands and All Lands in British Columbia Soil Map Units
Each map unit type is described separately in the following sections.
Page 2-18
2010
2.5.1
Soil Map Units for Agricultural Lands of Alberta
The map unit symbol used in the agricultural lands of Alberta has a soil model symbol and a slope class, which is illustrated in Figure 2-2 and described in the subsections that follow.
Soil Map Unit Symbol GRgZU2/2-3
GRgZU2 Soil Model Symbol
2-3 Slope Class
2 Model Number
Figure 2-2
2.5.1.1
Map Unit Symbol Description for Agricultural Lands of Alberta

Soil Model Symbol
The soil model symbol consists of a three-, four- or five-letter code followed by a one- or two-digit model number. A three-letter code means that one soil series is the dominant soil, occupying more than 60% of the soil polygon. A four-letter code means that two soil series are co-dominant, each soil occupying more than 30% and less than 60% of the soil polygon. Alternatively, a four-letter code may consist of three upper-case letters, with a lower-case letter indicating that there is a variant. For example a lower-case g means that the soil series shown is the dominant soil, and that it is imperfectly drained or a gleyed variant of the soil series. Additional lower-case letters show that the soil series has another specific variant; examples are g, p, c or t. The soil series names, series symbols, variant symbols and associated characteristics occurring in agricultural lands in the Alberta segment of the PEAA are modified from the AGRASID Version 3.0 soil names file (see Tables 2-7 and 2-8). The modification is that the symbols are truncated from the original names file, to reduce the number of letters in map unit symbols for presentation on the soil maps.
2010
Page 2-19
Table 2-7
Soil Series 1 Symbol AGS ARM
Soil Series in Agricultural Lands of Alberta in the PEAA

Soil Series Name Angus Ridge Armena Classification Eluviated Black Chernozem Black Solodized Solonetz Parent Material Description Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Moderately calcareous, moderately saline, medium-textured glaciolacustrine over moderately fine-textured glacial till Weakly calcareous, weakly saline, fine-textured lacustrine Moderately calcareous, non-saline, fine glaciolacustrine Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately coarse glaciofluvial Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately fine glacial till Moderately calcareous, moderately saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Moderately calcareous, non-saline, very fine-textured glaciolacustrine Organic soil formed of sphagnum peat Weakly calcareous, non-saline, very coarse glaciofluvial Well Moderately well Drainage
BIT BLB BLR BMY CMO
Bittern Bloomsbury Blue Ridge Bremay Camrose
Rego Gleysol Orthic Gray Luvisol Orthic Gray Luvisol Gleyed Gray Luvisol Black Solodized Solonetz Orthic Gray Luvisol Orthic Humic Gleysol Typic Mesisol Rego Humic Gleysol
Very poorly Well Well Imperfectly Well
COA CYN DEV DKN DMY DNT
Cooking Lake Cynthia Devon Daken Demay Dnister
Well Very poorly Very poorly Very poorly Poorly Well
Orthic Luvic Gleysol Weakly calcareous, non-saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Gray Solodized Solonetz Eluviated Eutric Brunisol Black Solonetz Gleyed Gray Luvisol Solonetzic Black Chernozem Dark Gray Luvisol Moderately calcareous, moderately saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately coarse colluvial Weakly calcareous, moderately saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine Moderately calcareous, non-saline, very fine-textured glaciolacustrine Moderately calcareous, weakly saline, fine glaciolacustrine Weakly calcareous, non-saline, moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial Forest (Bog) Peat Non-calcareous, non-saline, medium-textured glaciofluvial
DPV DUG EBG ELL ELP
Deep Valley Duagh Evansburg Ellerslie Elk Point
Well Imperfectly Imperfectly Moderately well Well
FKE GOY
Fickle Glory
Typic Mesisol Orthic Gray Luvisol
Very poorly Well
Page 2-20
2010
Table 2-7
Soil Series 1 Symbol GRZ GSP HAT
Soil Series in Agricultural Lands of Alberta in the PEAA (contd)

Soil Series Name Gratz Golden Spike Hattonford Classification Cumulic Humic Regosol Typic Mesisol Eluviated Eutric Brunisol Parent Material Description Moderately calcareous, non-saline, medium-textured fluvial Fen Peat Weakly calcareous, non-saline, moderately coarse glaciofluvial overlying moderately fine-textured glacial till Moderately calcareous, non-saline medium-textured glaciolacustrine overlying moderately fine-textured glacial till Moderately calcareous, non-saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine Moderately calcareous, non-saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine Weakly calcareous, non-saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Moderately calcareous, non-saline, medium-textured glaciolacustrine Weakly calcareous, non-saline, medium-textured glaciolacustrine Weakly calcareous, weakly saline, moderately fine-textured soft rock Moderately calcareous, weakly saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Weakly calcareous, non-saline, very fine-textured glaciolacustrine overlying moderately fine-textured glacial till Moderately calcareous, non-saline, medium-textured fluvial Moderately calcareous, non-saline, very fine-textured glaciolacustrine Weakly calcareous, non-saline, very coarse-textured fluvioeolian Moderately calcareous, weakly saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine Well Very poorly Well Drainage
HBM
Hobbema
Eluviated Black Chernozem
Moderately well
HDR HGT HUB JFF JVE KVG LNN
Heldar Haight Hubalta Jeffrey Jarvie Kavanagh LaNonne
Dark gray Luvisol Orthic Humic Gleysol Orthic Gray Luvisol Gleyed Eluviated Black Chernozem Humic Luvic Gleysol Black Solodized Solonetz Solonetzic Dark Gray Chernozem Orthic Dark Gray Chernozem
Moderately well Poorly Well Imperfectly Poorly Moderately well Well
LOM
Looma
Well
MAK MCO MDR MJU MKY MLA MLT
Menaik Mico Mundare Majeau Mackay Macola Millet
Rego Humic Gleysol Orthic Dark Gray Chernozem Orthic Black Chernozem Solonetzic Dark Gray Chernozem
Poorly Moderately well Well Well Poorly Moderately well Poorly
Orthic Luvic Gleysol Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Dark Gray Luvisol Orthic Humic Gleysol Moderately calcareous, non-saline very fine-textured glaciolacustrine Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial
2010
Page 2-21
Table 2-7
Soil Series 1 Symbol MMO MNT

Soil Series Name Malmo Manatokan Classification Eluviated Black Chernozem Terric Mesisol Parent Material Description Weakly calcareous, non-saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine Non-calcareous, non-saline, fen peat over moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial Well Very poorly Drainage
MSH
Marsh Head
Orthic Luvic Gleysol Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial Orthic Gray Luvisol Solonetzic Gray Luvisol Gleyed Black Chernozem Orthic Humic Gleysol Orthic Black Chernozem Eluviated Black Chernozem Eluviated Eutric Brunisol Brunisolic Gray Luvisol Moderately calcareous, non-saline, very fine-textured glaciolacustrine Moderately calcareous, weakly saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Weakly calcareous, non-saline fine textured glaciolacustrine Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Weakly calcareous, non-saline, moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial Moderately calcareous, non-saline, medium-textured glaciolacustrine Non-calcareous, non-saline very coarse-textured glaciofluvial Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately coarse-textured glaciofluvial overlying moderately fine-textured glacial till Undifferentiated material of steep, unstable, water course banks and valleys Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Moderately calcareous, non-saline, very fine-textured glaciolacustrine Moderately calcareous, weakly saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Moderately calcareous, non-saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till Weakly calcareous, weakly saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine Moderately calcareous, weakly saline, moderately fine-textured glacial till
Poorly
MYW NKU
Maywood Nakamun
Well Well
NVR ONW PHS
Navarre Onoway Peace Hills
Well Poorly Well
POK PRM PTO
Ponoka Primula Pinto
Well Rapidly Well
RB
Rough Broken
Unclassified soil
Very rapidly
RLV RVN TBY
Rolly View Raven Thorsby
Orthic Dark Gray Chernozem Orthic Humic Gleysol Dark Gray Solod
Well Very poorly Well
UCS WAB WHF
Uncas Wabamun Whitford
Dark Gray Luvisol Dark Gray Solod Black Solonetz
Well Well Moderately well
Page 2-22
2010
Table 2-7
Soil Series 1 Symbol WKN WSN ZAV ZDL, DL ZER

Soil Series Name Wetaskiwin Weasone Miscellaneous Alluvial Disturbed Land Miscellaneous Eroded Miscellaneous Gleysol Miscellaneous Organic Rough Broken Lands Miscellaneous Solonetzic Miscellaneous Undifferentiated Mineral Water Classification Black Solodized Solonetz Orthic Gray Luvisol Various N/A Chernozems Luvisols Brunisols Gleysols Mesisols Fibrisols Unclassified soil Parent Material Description Weakly calcareous, moderately saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine Moderately calcareous, non-saline, fine-textured glaciolacustrine Alluvial deposits N/A Any material; partially or entirely eroded A horizons, and B horizons in places Various Various Mix of colluvial materials and exposed bedrock on steep (generally >15%) slopes Various Various Drainage Moderately well Moderately well Various N/A Well
ZGW ZOR ZRB
Poorly Very poor N/A
ZSZ ZUN
Solonetzic Various
Well Well
ZWA
N/A
N/A
N/A
NOTES: 1 Variant symbols are applied to many soil series. Variant definitions are as follows: AA not modal to the soil correlation area (SCA) CA calcareous CO greater than 10% coarse fragments or one textural group coarser than modal CR carbonated ER eroded FI one textural group finer than modal GL gleyed PT peaty SC saline subsoil SZ Solonetzic TK thick A soil horizon XC clay at 0.3-0.99 m XG gravel at 30-99 cm XP paralithic at 0.3-0.99 m XS sand at 0.3-0.99 m XT till at 0.3-0.99 m
2010
Page 2-23
Table 2-7
NOTES: contd YC clay at 1-2 m YG gravel at 1-2 m YT till at 1-2 m ZR Regosolic ZZ atypical subgroup N/A Not applicable SOURCE: modified from Alberta Soil Information Centre (2001).
The one- or two-digit soil model number, used in conjunction with the letter code, describes the recognizable pattern of substantial soils of different soil classification, material, drainage, and chemistry or other properties. For example, in Figure 2-2, Gratz soil series (GR) occupies greater than 60% of a polygon area and less than 30% is applied to miscellaneous undisturbed soils (ZU). Substantial soils are defined as occupying more than 10% but less than 30% of the soil polygon. These substantial soils may or may not have been named as a specific soil name or may be described as a more general miscellaneous soil (e.g., wet soil and sloughs associated with Solonetzic soil). An individual soil polygon contains none to five substantial soils, depending upon the complexity of the area. The soil model numbers are briefly described in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8
Model Number
Soil Model Numbers

Description Soils occupying >10 to <30% are either not identified in the polygon or not strongly contrasting from the dominant soil (occupying >60%) or co-dominant soil (each occupying >30 to <60%). 1i the dominant soil or co-dominant soil consists predominantly of the gleyed subgroups of the named soil 1g gravelly material occurs sporadically within 1 m of the surface 1j the dominant soil or co-dominant soil consists partially (>10 to <30%) of the gleyed subgroups of the named soil 1r soft rock occurs within 1 m of the surface 1t soil in the unit overlies glacial till within 1 m of the surface 1c soil in the unit overlies clay material 1n subsoils are saline between 1 and 2 m, and may be saline within 1 m 1p poorly drained soil units have peaty surfaces up to 0.6 m thick Combinations of two letters the unit has characteristics of both letters
1, 1i, 1g, 1gj, 1j, 1r, 1ir, 1t, 1c, 1n, 1p, 1pn, 1pr
Page 2-24
2010
Table 2-8
Model Number
Soil Model Numbers (contd)

Description Soils occupying >10 to <30% are poorly drained or have area ponding. The rule is not applied if the dominant soil (occupying >60%) or co-dominant soil (each occupying >30 to <60%) is poorly drained or has area ponding. 2c the soil in the unit overlies clay material 2p the poorly drained soils have peaty surfaces up to 0.6 m thick 2i the better drained, dominant soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups 2j a portion (>10 to <30%) of the better drained soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups 2n subsoils are saline between 1 and 2 m, and may be saline within 1 m of the surface 2p the Gleysolic portion of the unit consists mainly of the peaty phase 2r soft rock occurs within 1 m of the surface 2t the soil in the unit overlies glacial till within 1 m of the surface 2w open water occurs within the unit Combinations of two letters the unit has characteristics of both letters Soils occupying >10 to <30% are saline 3c the soil in the unit overlies clay material 3t the soil in the unit overlies glacial till within 1 m of the surface Soils occupying >10 to <30% have Regosolic and/or calcareous and/or eroded profiles. This rule is not applied if the soil polygon has an eroded landscape modifier or if the dominant soil (occupying >60%) or co-dominant soil (each occupying >30 to <60%) has a Regosolic subgroup. 4c the soil in the unit overlies clay material 4i the better drained, dominant soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups 4j a portion (>10 to <30%) of the better-drained soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups 4n subsoils are saline between 1 and 2 m, and may be saline within 1 m of the surface 4s the soil unit has a relatively coarse-textured overlay in places (>10 to <30% of the unit) 4t the soil in the unit overlies glacial till within 1 m of the surface Soils occupying >10 to <30% are finer textured than the dominant soil (occupying >60%) or co-dominant soil (each occupying >30 to <60%) 5i the better-drained, dominant soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups 5j a portion (>10 to <30%) of the better-drained soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups 5jc a portion (>10 to <30%) of the better-drained soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups; soil of the unit also overlies clay material 5nc the soil in the unit overlies clay material. Subsoils are saline between 1 and 2 m, and may be saline within 1 m of the surface. 5t the soil in the unit overlies glacial till within 1 m of the surface Soils occupying >10 to <30% are coarser textured than the dominant soil (occupying >60%) or co-dominant soil (each occupying >30 to <60%) 6g gravelly material occurs in the subsoil, within 1 m of the surface 6i the better-drained, dominant soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups 6j a portion (>10 to <30%) of the better-drained soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups
2, 2c, 2p, 2w, 2i, 2j, 2ji, 2ip, 2jp, 2ir, 2iw, 2n, 2p, 2jn, 2r, 2rp, 2t, 2tp, 2w
3, 3c, 3t
4, 4c, 4i, 4j, 4n, 4s, 4t
5, 5i, 5j, 5jc, 5nc, 5t
6, 6i, 6j, 6g
2010
Page 2-25
Table 2-8
Model Number 7, 7i, 7j, 7t

Description Soils occupying >10 to <30% are Solonetzic. The rule is not applied if the dominant soil (occupying 60%) or co-dominant soil (each occupying >30 to <60%) is Solonetzic. 7i the dominant soil or co-dominant soil consists predominantly of the gleyed subgroups of the named soil 7j a portion (>10 to <30%) of the better-drained soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups 7t the soil in the unit overlies glacial till within 1 m of the surface Meets the criteria of units 2 and 4 7i the dominant soil or co-dominant soil consists predominantly of the gleyed subgroups of the named soil 7ip the dominant soil or co-dominant soil consists predominantly of the gleyed subgroups of the named soil; the Gleysolic portion of the unit consists mainly of the peaty phase Meets the criteria of units 2 and 6 9ip the better-drained, dominant soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups; the Gleysolic portion has peaty surfaces up to 0.6 m thick 9j the better-drained, dominant soil has a substantial portion (>10 to <30%) of gleyed subgroups Meets the criteria of units 2 and 7 10i the dominant soil or co-dominant soil consists predominantly of the gleyed subgroups of the named soil Meets the criteria of units 4 and 6 Meets the criteria of units 6 and 7 Soils occupying >10 to <30% are Chernozemic. This rule is not applied if the dominant soil (occupying >60%) or co-dominant soil (each occupying >30 to <60%) soil is Chernozemic 16i the better-drained, dominant soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups 16j the better-drained, dominant soil has a substantial portion (>10 to <30%) of gleyed subgroups 16n subsoil is saline between 1 and 2 m, and may be saline within 1 m of the surface 16p the poorly drained soil components have peaty surfaces up to 0.6 m thick Meets the criteria of units 5 and 7 17j the better-drained, dominant soil has a substantial portion (>10 to <30%) of gleyed subgroups 17n subsoil may be saline within 1 m of the surface, and is likely saline between 1 and 2m Meets the criteria of units 2 and 5 18p the poorly drained components have peaty surfaces up to 0.6 m thick 18i the better-drained, dominant soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups 18ip the better-drained, dominant soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups; the Gleysolic portion has peaty surfaces up to 0.6 m thick Meets the criteria of units 16 and 2 Soils occupying >10 to <30% are freely or imperfectly drained and the dominant soil (occupying 60%) or co-dominant soil (each occupying >30 to <60%) is poorly drained or has area ponding 20p the poorly drained, dominant soil has peaty surfaces up to 0.6 m thick
8, 8i, 8ip
9, 9ip, 9j
10, 10i
11 15 16, 16i, 16j, 16n, 16p
17, 17j, 17n
18, 18i, 18ip
19 20, 20p
Page 2-26
2010
Table 2-8
Model Number 21 , 21i, 21j, 21ip, 21r
1

Description Soils occupying >10 to <30% are Organic and the dominant soil (occupying >60%) or codominant soil (each occupying >30 to <60%) is soil of any other order. 21i the better-drained, dominant soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups 21j the dominant soil, if not a Gleysol, consists partly of gleyed subgroups 21ip the better-drained, dominant soil consists mainly of gleyed subgroups; the poorly drained soil components have peaty surfaces up to 0.6 m thick 21r soft rock occurs within 1 m of the surface Organic soil is dominantly (>60%) a Typic, Terric or other subgroup as defined by the soil series. Soils occupying >10 to <30% are either not identified in the polygon or not strongly contrasting with the dominant soil. Organic soil is dominantly (>60%) a Typic or other subgroup with peat depth >1.6 m. Soils occupying 10 to <0% are Terric Organic subgroups or open water. Letters designate: 2t Terric subgroup over till 2c Terric subgroup over clay-textured material 2w water occupies 10 to 30% of unit Organic soil is dominantly (>60%) a Typic, Terric or other subgroup as defined by the soil series. Soils occupying 10 to 30% are peaty Gleysols. Letters designate: 2t Gleysols on till 2c Gleysols on clay-textured material Organic soil is dominantly (>60%) a Typic, Terric or other subgroup as defined by the soil series. Soils occupying 10 to 30% are upland, imperfectly drained to well-drained soil with Gleysols. Letters designate: 2t Luvisols on till 2c Luvisols on clay-textured material Disturbed Lands refers to roads, gravel pits and other major disturbances. Farm yards are not distinguished and included in soil delineations Open water bodies Major pipeline RoW
Organic Soil Model Numbers 1
2, 2t, 2c, 2w
3, 3t, 3c
4, 4t, 4c
Miscellaneous Land Units ZDL ZWA ZPL
NOTE: 1 All definitions are as provided in AGRASID (Alberta Soil Information Centre 2001). Use of model number 21 was modified for application to the PEAA such that the dominant soil could belong to any soil order (not only Gleysols as specified in AGRASID). SOURCE: Modified from Alberta Soil Information Centre (2001).
2010
Page 2-27
2.5.1.2
Slope Class
Generally the values for slope class shown in the soil map unit for each polygon consist of a single number, indicating there is one dominant slope class. However, map units may also have two values for slope classes, the first number representing the dominant slope class and the second number representing a subsidiary but substantial slope class. For a list of slope classes, the associated gradients and general descriptions see Table 2-9.
Table 2-9
Slope Class Descriptions

Slope Gradient (%) 00.5 >0.52 >25 >510 >1015 >1530 >3045 >4570 >70100 >100 Level Nearly level Very gentle slopes Gentle slopes Moderate slopes Strong slopes Very strong slopes Extreme slopes Steep slopes Very steep slopes Description
Slope Class Symbol 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SOURCE: Soil Classification Working Group (1998).
2.5.2
Soil Map Units for Non-agricultural Lands in Alberta and All Lands in British Columbia
The soil map unit symbol used in the Alberta non-agricultural lands and all lands in British Columbia has a soil subgroup and parent materials symbol, and a slope class. The combination of soil subgroup with parent material is a soil series; however, soil series are not named as in the agricultural area. For an illustration of these components, see Figure 2-3. See the following subsections for a description.
Page 2-28
2010
Soil Map Unit Symbol L1mB2gO1o/ 2-3
L1mB2gO1o Soil Subgroup and Materials Model
2-3 Slope Class
L1, B2, O1 Soil Subgroup
m, g, o Parent Material
Figure 2-3
Map Unit Symbol Description for Non-agricultural Lands in Alberta and All Lands in British Columbia
Soil Subgroup and Parent Material Symbol
2.5.2.1
The soil subgroup and parent materials symbol is a three-, six- or nine-character alphanumeric code. A three-character code means that one soil subgroup formed on one parent material is the dominant soil, occupying close to 100% of the soil polygon. The first two characters (upper-case letter followed by a number) in the code refer to the soil subgroup; the third character (lower-case letter) refers to the parent material. A six-character code means that two soil subgroups are in the polygon, each soil occupying at least 10% and not more than 90% of the soil polygon. The soil subgroups are listed in order of dominance. The lower-case letter following each of the soil subgroups shows the parent material associated with the subgroup. A nine-character code means that three soil subgroups are in the polygon, each subgroup occupying at least 10% and not more than 80% of the soil polygon. Again, the soil subgroups are listed in order of dominance. The lower-case letter following each of the subgroups refers to the parent material associated with each. For example, in Figure 2-3, the nine-character code is shown as L1mB2gO1o. This soil map unit shows that three soil subgroups occur in the particular polygon associated with this map unit. The subgroups correspond to L1, B2 and O1. The parent materials are shown by m, g and o. In this example, the first two characters, L1, show an Orthic Gray Luvisol soil subgroup (see Table 2-10) and the third character, m, shows till (morainal) parent material (see Table 2-11). The remaining six characters in the example, B2gO1o, show two additional subgroup-parent material types in the polygon - B2g is an Eluviated Eutric Brunisol subgroup on glaciofluvial parent material, whereas O1o is a Terric Fibrisol subgroup that has formed on organic parent material.
2010
Page 2-29
Table 2-10
Soil Subgroup Symbol B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 B6 B7 B8 B9 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 L6 O1 O2 O3 O4 O5
Map Unit Symbol Descriptions for Soil Subgroups

Soil Subgroup Symbol O6 O7 O8 O9 O10 O11 O12 O13 O14 O15 P1 P2 P3 R1 R2 R3 R4 DL SC WA BR a c c1 d
Soil Subgroup Orthic Eutric Brunisol Eluviated Eutric Brunisol Gleyed Eutric Brunisol Gleyed Eluviated Eutric Brunisol Orthic Dystric Brunisol Eluviated Dystric Brunisol Gleyed Dystric Brunisol Gleyed Eluviated Dystric Brunisol Gleyed Melanic Brunisol Orthic Gleysol Orthic Luvic Gleysol Orthic Humic Gleysol Rego Gleysol Rego Humic Gleysol Orthic Gray Luvisol Brunisolic Gray Luvisol Gleyed Gray Luvisol Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Luvisol Podzolic Gray Luvisol Gleyed Podzolic Gray Luvisol Terric Fibrisol Typic Fibrisol Terric Mesisol Typic Mesisol Histic Folisol
Soil Subgroup Hemic Folisol Cumulic Mesisol Limnic Mesisol Hydric Mesisol Terric Fibric Mesisol Mesic Fibrisol Terric Mesic Fibrisol Terric Humisol Fibric Mesisol Hydric Fibrisol Orthic Ferro-Humic Podzol Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol Gleyed Humo-Ferric Podzol Orthic Regosol Gleyed Regosol Cumulic Regosol Gleyed Cumulic Regosol Disturbed Land Stream Channel Water Bedrock Anthropogenic Colluvium Colluvium with landslides Weathered bedrock
Table 2-11
e f g k l m
Map Unit Symbol Descriptions for Parent Materials

Parent Material Eolian Fluvial Glaciofluvial Glaciolacustrine Lacustrine Till (morainal) r u w x Parent Material Symbol o Parent Material Organic Bedrock Undifferentiated Marine Glaciomarine
Parent Material Symbol
Page 2-30
2010
2.5.2.2
Slope Class
For many of the map units there was one dominant slope class for the polygon. However, a range of two slope classes was possible, with the first number representing the dominant slope class and the second number representing a subsidiary but substantial slope class. The list of slope classes, the associated gradients and descriptions are outlined in Table 2-9 and are the same ones applied to agricultural map units.
2.6
Baseline Soil Map Production and Baseline Soil Conditions
Soil map units were assigned to each delineated polygon in the PEAA to create the final baseline soil map. Adjacent polygons displaying identical soil map units were merged. A colour-coded soil map with appended legend was developed using GIS software. Spatial statistics for the PEAA were generated for agricultural and non-agricultural lands in each of the six physiographic regions along the pipeline route, powerlines and above ground facilities within the PEAA using the digital map files. To describe baseline soil conditions in the PDA, the PDA boundary was overlain on the PEAA, and the PEAA data were clipped to this boundary. Spatial statistics were then generated for agricultural and non-agricultural lands in each of the six physiographic regions along the pipeline route for the PDA using the digital map files.
2.7

Land Capability Classification for Agriculture
Agricultural lands occur: throughout the Eastern Alberta Plains and on the eastern edge of the Southern Alberta Uplands between Bruderheim and Whitecourt in the Agricultural Land Reserve of British Columbia in the Interior Plateau near Fort St. James in the Coast Mountains in the Kitimat Valley
Soil capability for agriculture was determined for each soil map unit using the criteria outlined in Canada Land Inventory (CLI) (1972, Internet site) and Kenk and Cotic (1983), and then checked against digital 1:250,000 scale maps of agricultural soil capability (CLI 2003, Internet site). Existing soil survey information was compared with the CLI classification to ensure validity. Table B-1 outlines the ratings for CLI for soil series in Alberta. The CLI classification system for agricultural soil capability is a seven-class system whereby parcels of land are assigned a class according to the limitations for growing agricultural crops, the range of crops that may be grown, and the extent or success of conservation and improvement measures (see Table 2-12). Class 1 has no substantial limitations for agricultural production of row crops, whereas Class 7 is unsuitable for arable agriculture. Limitations and the need for conservation measures increase with increasing class numbers. Subclasses describe associated limitations (see Table 2-13). The system also assumes soils are well managed and cropped, and that lands requiring improvements that can be achieved economically by the landowner are classed as if the improvements have already been made (CLI 1972, Internet site).
2010
Page 2-31
Agricultural land capability ratings were assigned to each soil series identified in the PEAA in agricultural lands in Alberta, and to each soil subgroup identified on a specific parent material in the PEAA in agricultural lands in British Columbia. These ratings are presented in Appendix B (see Table B-1).
Table 2-12
Class 1 2
Land Capability Classification System for Agriculture

Limitations None Moderate Range of Crops Not restricted Fairly wide Special Management Practices Required None Moderate Managed and cropped with little difficulty Special Timing and ease of tillage, planting and harvesting, choice of crops and methods of conservation affected Special Timing and ease of tillage, planting and harvesting, choice of crops and methods of conservation seriously affected Improvements may include bush clearing, cultivation, seeding, fertilization, water management Improvements are not feasible Improvements are not feasible
Agricultural Production Category Annual Field Cropping
Moderately severe
Fair
Severe
Fair
Forage
Very severe Not capable of producing annual field crops Extremely severe Can be used for grazing No capability for arable culture or permanent pasture. Includes rockland, water bodies and non-soil areas. Organic soil
Perennial forage species
Pasture
Rangeland species
None
No agriculture is feasible on these lands.
No ratings available
Improvements may or may not be feasible, depending on wetland conditions
SOURCE: modified from CLI (1972, Internet site).
Page 2-32
2010
Table 2-13
Subclass C D
Agricultural Capability Classes - Subclasses of Limitations

Limitation Description Low temperature or low or poor distribution of rainfall, or a combination Difficult to till, very slow water absorption, restricted rooting zone depth because of conditions other than a high water table or consolidated bedrock Past erosion damage limits agricultural use Low soil fertility that either is correctable with careful management in the use of fertilizers and soil amendments or is difficult to correct by any practical means. The limitations may be because of lack of plant nutrients, high acidity or alkalinity, low exchange capacity, high levels of carbonates or presence of toxic compounds Flooding by streams or lakes limits agricultural use Crops are affected by drought, usually because soils have low water-holding capacity Excessive soluble salts present, which adversely affect crop growth or restrict the range of crops that may be grown Stones interfere with tillage, planting and harvesting The presence of bedrock less than 3 m from the surface restricts agricultural use of the soil If two or more of subclasses d, f, m or n are applicable to the same area, then subclass s will be substituted, denoting a combination of subclasses related to soil limitations Either steepness or the pattern of slopes affects the cost of farming and the uniformity of growth and maturity of crops as well as the hazard of erosion Excess water because of poor drainage, a high water table, seepage, or runoff from surrounding areas limits use for agriculture Moderate limitation caused by the cumulative effect of two or more adverse characteristics that are not serious enough alone to affect the class rating
adverse climate undesirable soil structure or low permeability erosion damage low fertility
E F
I M N P R S
1 1,2
inundation moisture limitations salinity stoniness consolidated bedrock soil limitations
T W X
1
adverse topography excess water cumulative effect of two or more adverse ratings
NOTES: 1 These subclasses are not included in the Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in British Columbia (Kenk and Cotic 1983). 2 Subclass A, soil moisture deficiency is used in the Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in British Columbia (Kenk and Cotic 1983) instead of M, moisture limitations used in CLI (1972, Internet site). SOURCE: Modified from CLI (1972, Internet site) and Kenk and Cotic (1983).
2.8
Soil Erosion Risk
Determining soil erosion risk includes evaluating water erosion risk and wind erosion risk. Wind erosion risk was determined using a rating system based on inferred soil texture, soil structure and soil moisture regime. The rating system maximizes risk, based on a land surface that is isolated, level, smooth, unsheltered, wide and bare (no vegetation or cover), and with a non-crusted surface. This approach is an adaptation of a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) method (Coote and Pettapiece 1989; Alberta Agriculture 1985). Water erosion risk was determined by applying the modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) as described by Tajek et al. (1985).
2010
Page 2-33
2.8.1
Wind Erosion Risk
The wind erosion ratings pertain to areas where soils have been exposed because of clearing. See Table 2-14 for a list of the wind erosion risk classes. The classification of wind erosion risk consists of eight categories, but was simplified to three classes. For most of the PEAA, assumptions about soil texture were based on parent material (see Table B-5). For a soil to be affected by wind erosion, it must be dry: therefore, all soils with a normally wet soil moisture regime (Gleysolic and Organic soils) were classified as having a low wind erosion risk, regardless of texture.
Table 2-14
PEAA Wind Erosion Risk Class High
Wind Erosion Risk Classes and Potential Soil Losses

USDA Erosion Risk Class 1, 2 Dry Soil Aggregates >0.84 mm (wt%) 110 Potential Soil Loss (t/ha/a) >300
Properties of Soil Very fine sand; fine sand; sand; coarse sand; loamy very fine sand; loamy fine sand; loamy sand; humic organic materials. 3: Very fine sandy loam, fine sandy loam, sandy loam, coarse sandy loam. 4: Clay, silty clay, non-calcareous clay loam, or non-calcareous silty clay loam that has more than 35% clay content. Non-calcareous loam and silt loam with <20% clay content; sandy clay loam; sandy clay; mesic organic materials. Non-calcareous loam and silt loam that has more than 20% clay content or non-calcareous clay loam that has less than 35% clay content. Silt, non-calcareous silty clay loam that has less than 35% clay content, and fibric organic soil material. Soil not susceptible to wind erosion because of coarse fragments at the surface or to wetness.
High
3, 4
25
192
Moderate
40
125
Moderate
45
107
Low
50
85
Low
NOTE: USDA United States Department of Agriculture. SOURCE: Modified from Coote and Pettapiece (1989), Alberta Agriculture (1985) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2009, Internet site).
Wind erosion risk classes were defined for each soil series identified in agricultural lands in Alberta and for each soil type identified in non-agricultural lands in Alberta and all lands in British Columbia (see Tables B-4 and B-5). In the agricultural lands of Alberta, wind erosion risk ratings for many of the named soil series are presented in Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. (1993) (see Table B-4). Where applicable, these ratings were used. The wind erosion risk for each map unit was rated primarily in terms of the dominant soil subgroup or soil series. For all soils, a change in management will result in a corresponding change in the risk of
Page 2-34
2010
erosion. For example, the wind erosion risk of soils that are normally wet will be determined by the surface texture if they are allowed to dry out after clearing. The risk of wind erosion will decrease once vegetation re-establishes in cleared areas.
2.8.2
Water Erosion Risk
The USLE was developed for agricultural soil, and it is commonly calculated based on bare soil using rainfall, soil erosivity and topography factors only. This approach is applicable to other soil situations where the greatest risk of water erosion occurs on bare soil resulting from recent disturbance or on stockpiled soil. Thus, the cover management factor and the conservation practices factor (defined in the Glossary) were not used in calculating the water erosion risk. The rainfall, soil erosivity and topography factors represent the water erosion risk for a given soil or map unit when it is left unprotected. This approach thus estimates the maximum potential soil loss that could occur. For the water erosion risk classes and their associated potential soil losses, see Table 2-15. The USLE system has six categories of water erosion risk, which were reduced to three categories for the Project to help rating of soils for which there are relatively little data. A water erosion calculator provided in Tajek et al. (1985), by which the water erosion risk class is determined based on the previously mentioned factors, was applied in evaluating the soils in the PEAA. For most of the PEAA, soil erosivity was based on texture. Soil texture was based on type of parent material as shown in Appendix B (see Table B-3). Topography was based on slopes associated with each map unit. Rainfall was derived from long-term averages associated with the ecoregion or Biogeoclimatic Ecosystem Classification (BEC) zone within which each map unit was located, and is also reported in the Hydrology TDR (Wagner 2010).
Table 2-15
Water Erosion Risk Classes and Potential Soil Losses

Universal Soil Loss Equation System Category Negligible and Slight Moderate Severe, Very Severe and Extreme Potential Soil Loss (t/ha/a) 011 1122 >22
Water Erosion Risk Class Low Moderate High
Water erosion risk classes were defined for each soil series identified in agricultural lands in Alberta and for each soil subgroup identified in non-agricultural lands in Alberta and all lands in British Columbia (see Tables B-2 and B-3). In the Agricultural lands of Alberta, water erosion risk ratings for many of the soil series are presented in Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. (1993) and Tajek et al. (1985). Where applicable, these ratings were used. Water erosion risk for each map unit was rated in terms of the dominant soil subgroup or soil series using the slopes within each polygon.
2010
Page 2-35
2.9
Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk
Susceptibility to soil compaction, rutting and puddling is dependent on soil physical properties, the moisture content at the time of disturbance and the nature of the applied force (Cannon and Landsburg 1990; British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food 1990). Generally, the potential for soil compaction to occur increases with higher clay content, higher soil moisture content, and lower organic matter content (Cannon and Landsburg 1990). Rutting refers to the destruction of soil structure because of the pressure of wheels and tracks leaving depressions in soil (Archibald et al. 1997). Soil puddling refers to the loss in soil structure and macroporosity that occurs when saturated soil is worked (British Columbia Ministry of Forests 1999). In many soils, rutting occurs under moist to wet conditions, but when water saturation occurs, soils lose their strength and ability to resist deformation, leading to puddling (United States Department of Agriculture 2001). Soil compaction, rutting and puddling risk was determined for each soil map unit in the PEAA by adapting the soil compaction and puddling hazard key as described in British Columbia Ministry of Forests (1999) and the compaction and rutting hazard rating criteria used for forest soil in Ontario (Archibald et al. 1997). The key (see Table 2-16) has three risk classes: low, moderate and high. While the British Columbia and Ontario systems were developed for forest soil, the factors affecting susceptibility are the same for cultivated soil (Cannon and Landsburg 1999), and the system was also applied to agricultural soils along the PEAA.
Table 2-16
Soil Compaction and Puddling Class Low Moderate
Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk Classes

CoarseFragment Content (%) >70 <70 >70 <70 <70 <70 0
Soil Texture 1 (00.3 m) All textures Very coarse sand, loamy sand All textures Very coarse sand, loamy sand All textures except very coarse
Drainage Class Very rapidlyimperfectly Very rapidlyimperfectly Poorlyvery poorly Poorlyvery poorly Very rapidlyimperfectly Poorlyvery poorly Poorlyvery poorly
High
All textures except very coarse Organic (peat)
NOTE: 1 Soil textures: very coarse (S-sand; LS-loamy sand); all textures except very coarse comprise moderately coarse (sandy loam, fine sandy loam), medium (loam, silt loam, very fine sandy loam), fine (clay, silty clay, sandy clay) and very fine (heavy clay). SOURCE: Modified from British Columbia Ministry of Forests (1999) and Archibald et al. (1997).
In this rating system, the dominant soil texture and coarse-fragment content of the upper 0.3 m of mineral soil, combined with the drainage class, is used to determine compaction and puddling risk. Where there are two or more textures within the upper 0.3 m, the most limiting soil texture that is greater than or equal to 0.05 m thick is used to determine the class (British Columbia Ministry of Forests 1999). The most limiting soil textures are finer than sand and have a lower coarse-fragment content (less than 70%).
Page 2-36
2010
For most of the PEAA, soil texture information was inferred from parent material type (see Table B-7). Compaction and puddling risk classes were assigned to each map unit based on the drainage class and soil texture of the dominant soil subgroup or soil series. Soil compaction and puddling risk classes were defined for each soil series identified in agricultural lands in Alberta and for each soil type identified in non-agricultural lands in Alberta and all lands in British Columbia (see Tables B-6 and B-7). Soil units with a dominantly low or moderate risk class were assigned complex ratings (LH or MH low or moderate with a component of high) where poorly drained (Gleysolic or Organic) soils constitute 10% or more of a unit.
2.10
Acidification Sensitivity of Soil
The sensitivity of mineral soil to acid deposition in the RADEAA was evaluated by using an established sensitivity rating system for Western Canada and by examination of possible soil chemistry changes using a soil acidification model. In the sensitivity rating system for mineral soils, soils are categorized as having high, medium or low sensitivity to the potential losses of base cations, acidification (pH decrease) and aluminum solubilization (based on the pH and cation exchange capacity [CEC] values) of the surface soil (0 to 0.2 m) (Wiens 1987; Holowaychuk and Fessenden 1987). The magnitude to which acidification, base loss and aluminum solubilization occurs is determined by the buffering capacity of the soil. Buffering capacity is generally reflected by several soil properties including: mineralogy and base cation reserve cation exchange capacity (CEC, a function of organic matter and clay content) pH
Respectively, these three properties reflect: the amount of base cations in reserve in the soil to counteract acidity the capacity of the soil to retain base cations against loss the magnitude of acidity already in the soil
Overall soil sensitivity is then derived for each soil according to the most limiting of the three above-mentioned categories (Holowaychuk and Fessenden 1987; Wiens 1987). Table 2-17 outlines the rating criteria for acid sensitive soil. In general, low soil pH, low CEC, or both, correspond to high overall sensitivity of the soil.
2010
Page 2-37
Table 2-17
Cation Exchange Capacity (cmol [+]/kg) <6
Sensitivity of Mineral Soil to Acidic Inputs - Rating Criteria

Soil Property pH <4.6 4.65.0 5.15.5 5.66.0 6.16.5 >6.5 Base Loss H H H H H L H M M M L H M M L L Sensitivity to: Acidification L L M H H L L L LM LM L L L L LM L Aluminum Solubilization H H H M L L H H M LM L H H M LM L Overall Sensitivity H H H H H L H M M M L H M M L L
6-15
<4.6 4.66.0 5.15.5 5.66.0 >6.0
>15
<4.6 4.65.0 5.15.5 5.66.0 >6.0
NOTE: L - low sensitivity; M - medium sensitivity; H - high sensitivity SOURCE: Wiens 1987 (adapted from Holowaychuk and Fessenden 1987)
The sensitivity of organic soils to acid deposition was based on criteria suggested by Turchenek et al. (1998) as outlined in Table 2-18. This organic soil sensitivity rating is based on the classification of peatlands into bog, poor fen, moderate rich fen and extreme rich fen categories. Each category is associated with certain chemical characteristics that influence their susceptibility to acid deposition. Each peatland type is rated as having high, medium and low sensitivity as in Holowaychuk and Fessenden (1987). From this, an overall soil sensitivity rating is developed.
Table 2-18
Sensitivity and Critical Load Categories for the Major Chemical and Biotic Peat Types
Peatland Type Acid Sensitivity Low Low Medium Medium
Extreme rich fen Moderate rich fen Poor fen Bog SOURCE: Turchenek et al. (1998)
Page 2-38
2010
A modified empirical system developed from guidelines in Hornung et al. (1995) was also considered for assessing the sensitivity of mineral soils to acidic deposition. This approach allocates soil to a certain critical load class depending on dominant weatherable minerals, particle size, precipitation, elevation, vegetation type, soil drainage, soil depth, sulphate adsorption capacity and base cation deposition. Applying this approach to the RADEAA in the Coast Mountains physiographic region produces similar results to those outlined in Wiens (1987). Because there were no apparent discrepancies in the two methods, Northern Gateway decided to use the Wiens (1987) system to determine soil sensitivity to acidification because it was developed for assessment of Canadian soils, while the model of Hornung et al. (1995) was developed for Great Britain. A soil chemistry model that predicts changes in soil acidification parameters over time was also applied in assessing the acidification potential of soils in the RADEAA. The model was applied using data from four soil profiles in the RADEAA. The model provided estimates of changes in soil pH and other related chemical parameters in relation to different levels of acid input. The model output data were then used to support or modify the sensitivity ratings derived as indicated above. Various process-oriented models have been developed to predict the long-term effects of acid deposition on soils. A dynamic model is a type that mathematically calculates the acidification process path for a soil through time. Other models, referred to as steady state, are used to calculate critical loads of acidity on soils, without calculating changes through time. Dynamic models can also be used to calculate critical loads, or are applied in a more general way to examine changes in soil in relation to different levels of acid inputs. A review of several dynamic models can be found in Turchenek and Abboud (2000). In Alberta, a model developed at the Alberta Research Council (ARC) has been applied to examine soil chemistry and to estimate critical loads for soils. The ARC model simulates soil chemical processes directly related to acidity and acidification of soils, and predicts the associated soil properties of pH, base saturation, solution Al3+ concentration and base cation to aluminum (BC:Al) ratio. The ARC model is described in Abboud et al. (2002). This model is adapted from the Bloom and Grigal (1985) model, and modified to a two-layer model by calculation of acidification in the duff (LFH) and the mineral layers separately. Details of the model and its application to RADEAA soils are presented in Appendix G.
2010
Page 2-39
Soils Technical Data Report Section 3: Results of Baseline Investigations
Results of Baseline Investigations
This section provides an overview of soil types and baseline soil conditions in the PEAA. Soil descriptions are by physiographic region. The PEAA results are for the undisturbed ground area of the PEAA, pipeline RoW, temporary workspace and facilities. Descriptions of agricultural land capability, soil erosion risk, soil compaction and puddling risk, and contaminated soil in agricultural and non-agricultural lands for each physiographic region are included. For each physiographic region, baseline soil conditions are summarized in terms of area in hectares and percentage of the total area. For details of the soil polygon data, including agricultural map unit descriptions, see Appendix C. Non-agricultural polygon data and map units are presented in Appendix B. A soil survey atlas (see Appendix D on CD) shows the distribution of soil in the PEAA. For abbreviations used in the project soil database to describe site, terrain and soil characteristics, see Appendix F. For definitions of terms, see the glossary.
3.1
3.1.1
Eastern Alberta Plains

Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soil in the Eastern Alberta Plains
The Eastern Alberta Plains physiographic region extends from KP 0 to KP 165.7. Bedrock geology, surficial geology and topography are described for the PEAA in the Eastern Alberta Plains in the Geology and Terrain TDR. Vegetation types in the PEAA in the Eastern Alberta Plains are described in the Vegetation TDR (Reid et al. 2010). The landscape along the pipeline route is dominated by undulating terrain with clay loam to clay-textured glaciolacustrine deposits, along with undulating-to-hummocky moraine consisting of calcareous, clay-loam-textured glacial till. Some areas of sandy to gravelly glaciofluvial sediments also occur, along with some loamy, sandy and gravelly fluvial deposits along watercourses. Well to imperfectly drained Black and Dark Gray Chernozemic soils dominate in the eastern half of the Eastern Alberta Plains, whereas Luvisols are prominent in the western part of this region. Solonetzic soils occur in association with the Chernozems at several places. Small areas of sandy materials are characterized by Brunisolic soils, whereas Regosols are limited mainly to steep banks of stream valleys. Gleysols sometimes accompanied by Organic soil occur in poorly drained depressions in the landscape. The agricultural soil is generally Class 2 and 3 along the pipeline route and is used primarily as cropland. The Eastern Alberta Plains has a continental climate, consisting of short, warm summers and long, cold winters with continuous snow coverthe main limiting factor to crop growth is climate. Most of the precipitation falls as rain during summer (Bowser et al. 1962; Lindsay et al. 1968). The mean annual precipitation ranges from 400 to 500 mm. The mean annual temperature is about 1.5C.
2010
Page 3-1
3.1.2
Soil Description of the Eastern Alberta Plains
The soil series found in the Eastern Alberta Plains physiographic region are as follows (see also Table 2-7): The non-saline Chernozemic soil series: Angus Ridge (AGS), Hobbema (HBM), Jeffrey (JFF), Looma (LOM), Mico (MCO), Mundare (MDR), Malmo (MMO), Navarre (NVR), Peace Hills (PHS), Ponoka (POK) and Rolly View (RLV); The non-saline Luvisolic soil series: Bloomsbury (BLB), Cooking Lake (COA), Elk Point (ELP), Glory (GOY), Hubalta (HUB), Macola (MLA), Maywood (MYW), Pinto (PTO), Uncas (UCS), and Weasone (WSN); The saline soil series, including Solonetzic soils and Solonetzic subgroups of other soil types: Armena (ARM), Camrose (CMO), Dnister (DNT), Duagh (DUG), Kavanagh (KVG), LaNonne (LNN), Majeau (MJU), Nakamun (NKU), Thorsby (TBY), Wabamum (WAB), Whitford (WHF) and Wetaskiwin (WKN); and, Gleysolic soils: Bittern (BIT), Daken (DKN), Demay (DMY), Haight (HGT), Jarvie (JVE), Menaik (MAK), Millet (MLT), Onoway (ONW); Raven (RVN), and miscellaneous Gleysols (ZGW).
Several soil series are limited in extent and include Regosolic soils (including Gratz (GRZ)), Organic soils (Devon (DEV), Golden Spike (GSP) and Manatokan (MNT)), Brunisolic soils on eolian materials (Primula (PRM)), and miscellaneous areas including Rough Broken terrain (ZRB), Undifferentiated Material (ZUN), Disturbed Lands (ZDL), Miscellaneous Alluvium (ZAV), and water (ZWA). 3.1.2.1 Project Effects Assessment Area
The soil series of greatest extent in the PEAA of the Eastern Alberta Plains are Chernozems and Luvisols (see Table 3-1). Soils series of relatively high extent are: Chernozems: Mico (MCO), Orthic Dark Gray Chernozems formed on very fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits 10%; Malmo (MMO), Eluviated Black Chernozems on fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits 5%; Ponoka (POK), Eluviated Black Chernozems on medium-textured glaciolacustrine deposits 5-6%; Rolly View (RLV), Orthic Dark Gray Chernozems on moderately fine-textured morainal materials 5%; Mundare (MDR), Orthic Black Chernozems on very coarse-textured fluvioeolian deposits 3-4%; Hobbema (HBM)- Eluviated Black Chernozems on medium-textured glaciolacustrine deposits overlying till 3%; Navarre (NVR), Gleyed Black Chernozems on fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits 2-3% Luvisols: Cooking Lake (COA), Orthic Gray Luvisols on moderately fine-textured morainal deposits 10%; Macola (MLA), Dark Gray Luvisols 9% and Maywood (MYW), Orthic Gray Luvisols 5%, both on very fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits Solonetzic soils: Thorsby (TBY), Dark Gray Solods on moderately fine-textured morainal materials 4% Gleysols: Raven (RVN), Orthic Humic Gleysols developed on very fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits 4%
Page 3-2
2010
Table 3-1
Dominant Soil Series in the PEAA Eastern Alberta Plains

PEAA
1
Dominant Soil Series AGS
Soil Variant
Area (ha) 104.4 37.8 148.0 290.2 51.5
Percentage (%) 0.7 0.2 0.9 1.8 0.3 0.02 3.9 0.02 0.05 7.9 1.2 <0.01 0.7 0.1 2.0 3.4 0.2 9.1 0.8 9.9 1.3 0.02 0.01 1.3 0.08 <0.01 0.08 <0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.08
GL SC Total AGS ARM GL Total ARM BIT XT Total BIT BLB AA GL XT Total BLB CMO GL Total CMO COA GL Total COA DEV XT YC Total DEV DKN PT Total DKN DMY PT SC SCPT Total DMY
3.4 635.3 3.7 7.5 1,281.8 183.4 0.3 117.2 15.4 316.3 532.3 32.9 565.2 1,439.2 127.7 1,566.9 212.4 3.9 2.0 218.3 12.7 0.1 12.8 0.3 1.2 9.5 1.9 12.9
2010
Page 3-3
Table 3-1
Dominant Soil Series in the PEAA Eastern Alberta Plains (contd)

PEAA
1
Dominant Soil Series DNT
Soil Variant
Area (ha) 42.2 4.8 46.2 1.8 95.1 210.0
Percentage (%) 0.3 0.03 0.3 0.01 0.6 1.3 0.1 0.1 0.04 1.6 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.9 <0.01 0.01 1.1 0.2 2.2 0.6 <0.01 1.0 0.3 <0.01 0.2 0.03 1.4 3.0
GL XP XPGL Total DNT DUG GL XT XTGL Total DUG ELL ELP GOY GRZ AAGL CO GL XG Total GRZ GSP HAT HBM COTK CR GL HBM (contd) Total HBM GLTK TK
22.6 15.1 6.2 253.9 7.0 1.0 8.8 140.7 0.3 0.9 169.8 32.9 344.5 87.8 0.7 165.8 48.74 0.3 30.2 4.9 220.1 470.1
Page 3-4
2010
Table 3-1

PEAA
1
Dominant Soil Series HGT
Soil Variant
Area (ha) 70.2 0.7 0.4 1.1 1.4 3.2 22.0 23.9 12.9 135.7 13.8
Percentage (%) 0.4 <0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.1 0.2 0.08 0.9 0.1 <0.01 0.1 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.1 0.02 0.1 0.02 0.3 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.04 0.6 0.2 0.02 0.3 7.6 2.6 0.03 10.2
CRZZ GLSCTK PT PTSC PTXT SC SCPT XT Total HGT HUB HUB Total HUB JFF JFF Total JFF JVE PT SC TK Total JVE KVG LNN LOM GL Total LOM MAK PT Total MAK MCO GL XT Total MCO PT AA
0.6 14.4 1.7 0.2 1.9 20.5 3.7 13.8 2.6 40.6 150.5 125.9 97.2 6.3 103.5 39.2 3.5 42.6 1,203.2 408.6 5.4 1,617.2
2010
Page 3-5
Table 3-1

PEAA
1
Dominant Soil Series MDR
Soil Variant
Area (ha) 356.6 89.8 1.9 19.4 5.1 18.1 96.5 0.7 588.0 201.2 1,012.6
Percentage (%) 2.2 0.6 0.01 0.1 0.03 0.1 0.6 0.0 3.7 1.3 6.4 1.5 0.3 1.0 0.1 9.2 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.1 0.01 2.0 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.3 0.4 0.06 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 5.0
ER FI, GL GL GLZR TK XC YG Total MDR MJU MLA GL SC XT YT Total MLA MLT PT TK Total MLT MLY MMO GL MMO (contd) GLSC GLSZ GLTK SC SCGL TK TKGL TK,SC XT XTGL Total MMO XTGL
232.6 43.1 156.5 13.7 1,458.5 6.5 4.4 5.4 16.3 1.0 309.9 11.6 4.8 8.8 27.3 59.1 9.1 249.5 36.0 18.4 20.4 28.1 783.0
Page 3-6
2010
Table 3-1

PEAA
1
Dominant Soil Series MNT MYW
Soil Variant AA GL XT
Area (ha) 50.1 669.2 62.0 52.5 783.6 68.4 31.0
Percentage (%) 0.3 4.2 0.4 0.3 4.9 0.4 0.2 0.7 0.3 1.5 2.6 0.5 0.3 0.01 0.01 0.2 1.0 0.7 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.3 1.2
Total MYW NKU NVR SC TK TKSC Total NVR ONW PT PTSC PTXT XPPT Total ONW PHS GL GLTK TK XC Total PHS
104.5 43.2 236.4 415.1 82.5 46.0 1.4 0.9 26.3 157.0 118.0 5.1 10.4 13.2 51.6 198.2
2010
Page 3-7
Table 3-1

PEAA
1
Dominant Soil Series POK
Soil Variant
Area (ha) 58.9 0.8 10.4 45.2 5.2 1.1 0.4 8.8 18.5 28.2 576.3 20.2 1.5 70.2 15.1 860.7 45.7
Percentage (%) 0.4 0.00 0.07 0.3 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.1 0.2 3.6 0.1 0.01 0.4 0.1 5.4 0.3 0.07 0.4 0.02 0.02 0.04 4.8 0.05 0.01 0.1 5.0 1.8 2.2 0.01 3.9
CO COTK GL GLCO GLFI GLSC GLTK GLTKXC SCTK TK TKGL XC XC, TK XT Total POK PRM GL Total PRM PTO GL Total PTO RLV CO COGL GL Total RLV RVN PT YT Total RVN
10.4 56.1 3.3 2.9 6.2 754.5 7.6 2.2 22.2 786.4 280.0 341.6 1.8 623.5
Page 3-8
2010
Table 3-1

PEAA
1
Dominant Soil Series TBY
Soil Variant
Area (ha) 345.5 16.8 29.0 236.5 3.90 631.7 8.9 284.6
Percentage (%) 2.2 0.1 0.2 1.5 0.02 4.0 0.06 1.8 0.2 2.0 0.6 0.02 0.6 0.4 0.02 0.01 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.2 0.00 0.2 5.1 0.01 0.4 0.02 0.8 100.0
CO GL XP XPGL Total TBY TGL UCS GL Total UCS WAB GL Total WAB WHF GL GLXT Total WHF WKN XT Total WKN WSN Total WSN ZAV ZAV Total ZAV ZDL ZGW ZRB ZUN ZWA TOTAL NOTE: 1 Soil series and variant abbreviations are described in Table 2-7. GL AA AAGL
27.6 312.2 86.8 3.8 90.6 64.8 2.8 1.1 68.7 29.9 60.8 90.7 2.6 7.6 10.3 30.0 0.5 30.5 809.7 1.2 55.7 3.0 130.1 15,846.8
2010
Page 3-9
3.1.2.2
The PDA in the agricultural lands of the Eastern Alberta Plains physiographic region includes the 25-m RoW, 25-m temporary workspace, and the approximate 10% extra temporary workspace. The above ground facilities include the initiating station near Bruderheim, three stockpile sites (Cherhill, Mearns and Mayerthorpe) and the North Saskatchewan River staging area. For a summary of the soil series that occur in the PDA of the Eastern Alberta Plains, see Tables 3-2 to 3-4. Table 3-2 shows that most of the RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces consists of Chernozemic soils of the Mico (MCO) (11%), Ponoka (5%) and Malmo (MMO) (5%) soil series, and Luvisols of the Macola (MLA) (10%) and Cooking Lake (COA) series (9%). Significant soils also include Solonetzic soils of the Thorsby (TBY) series (4%) and 4% Disturbed Lands (ZDL). Tables 3-3 and 3-4 describe the soil series for the areas intended for project infrastructure in the Eastern Alberta Plains. Most of the area of initiating station near Bruderheim and of the North Saskatchewan River staging area is on Disturbed Lands (ZDL) (see Table 3-3). The Mayerthorpe stockpile site is dominated by the Chernozemic Mico (MCO) soil series (80%), with Luvisols of the Maywood (MYW) soil series (20%) (see Table 3-4). The Mearns stockpile site is situated on Solonetzic soil of the Duagh (DUG - 70%) and Whitford (WHF - 20%) soil series; minor Gleysolic Haight (HGT) soils are also present (10%) (see Table 3-4). The Cherhill stockpile site is situated on the Luvisolic Macola (MLA) (50%), the Solonetzic Chernozem Majeau (MJU) (30%), and Chernozemic Rolly View (RLV) (20%) soil series (see Table 3-4).
Table 3-2
Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Eastern Alberta Plains
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.5 0.2 0.8 1.5 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.5 0.0 1.8 Percentage (%) 0.6 0.3 1.0 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.6 0.0 2.1
Dominant Soil 1 Series AGS
Soil 1 Variant
RoW Area (ha) 2.7 1.1 3.9 7.7 1.4 0.2 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.3 5.9 2.6 0.2 8.7 Percentage (%) 0.7 0.3 0.9 1.9 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.0 2.1
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 2.4 1.2 3.9 7.5 1.4 0.3 1.7 0.2 0.2 0.4 5.9 2.6 0.2 8.7 Percentage (%) 0.6 0.3 0.9 1.8 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.4 0.6 0.0 2.1
GL SC Total ARM GL Total BIT XT Total BLB GL XT Total
Page 3-10
2010
Table 3-2
Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Eastern Alberta Plains (contd)
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 3.0 0.2 3.2 6.9 0.6 7.5 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.7 0.2 2.0 0.8 1.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.4 3.1 Percentage (%) 3.6 0.3 3.9 8.4 0.7 9.1 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.9 0.2 2.4 0.9 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.8 3.7
Dominant Soil 1 Series CMO
Soil 1 Variant
RoW Area (ha) 14.7 1.0 15.7 34.4 2.9 37.3 5.7 0.0 5.7 0.3 0.3 1.0 2.3 0.0 3.3 3.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 4.6 0.2 3.5 Percentage (%) 3.6 0.2 3.8 8.3 0.7 9.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.3 0.2 2.3 0.9 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 1.7 3.7
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 15.1 1.1 16.2 33.5 3.0 36.5 5.6 0.1 5.7 0.3 0.3 1.3 2.2 0.2 3.7 3.5 0.5 0.4 0.1 4.5 0.2 3.2 0.0 5.2 1.0 9.4 3.8 5.2 1.2 1.0 0.4 7.2 15.0 Percentage (%) 3.7 0.3 3.9 8.1 0.7 8.9 1.4 0.0 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.0 0.9 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.3 0.2 2.3 0.9 1.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.7 3.6
GL Total COA GL Total DEV XT Total DKN DMY DNT XP XPGL Total DUG GL XT XTGL Total ELL GRZ CO GL XG Total GSP HBM COTK GL GLTK TK Total SC
0.0 5.2 1.0 9.7 3.7 5.5 1.2 1.1 0.4 7.2 15.4
2010
Page 3-11
Table 3-2
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 7.4 1.9 9.3 2.0 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.5 3.2 1.1 Percentage (%) 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 9.0 2.3 11.3 2.4 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 3.9 1.3
Dominant Soil 1 Series HGT
Soil 1 Variant
RoW Area (ha) 1.1 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.4 0.3 3.0 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.1 1.4 5.0 2.9 2.4 Percentage (%) 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.1 8.8 2.2 11.0 2.0 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6 3.4 1.3
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 1.2 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.4 0.5 3.3 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 1.3 4.8 2.8 2.3 0.4 2.7 0.8 0.1 0.9 35.9 9.0 44.9 8.6 2.6 0.2 0.4 2.4 14.2 5.3 Percentage (%) 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 8.7 2.2 10.9 2.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.6 3.4 1.3
GLSCTK PT SC SCPT XT Total JVE PT SC TK Total KVG LNN LOM GL Total MAK PT Total MCO GL Total MDR ER GL TK XC Total MJU
0.2 2.6 0.5 0.1 0.6 36.4 9.0 45.4 8.4 2.7 0.4 0.4 2.3 14.2 5.3
Page 3-12
2010
Table 3-2
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 5.6 1.2 0.4 1.0 0.1 8.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.1 0.4 3.7 0.4 0.5 4.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.2 1.4 2.3 Percentage (%) 6.8 1.5 0.4 1.2 0.1 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 5.0 0.5 4.5 0.4 0.5 5.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.7 2.9
Dominant Soil 1 Series MLA
Soil 1 Variant
RoW Area (ha) 27.7 5.9 1.8 4.8 0.4 40.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3 8.2 0.3 0.2 0.9 1.6 0.8 6.3 1.0 0.5 0.4 0.7 20.9 1.7 18.3 Percentage (%) 6.7 1.4 0.4 1.2 0.1 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 5.1 0.4 4.4 0.4 0.5 5.3 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.7 2.9
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 26.5 6.2 1.8 5.0 0.4 39.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 7.7 0.3 0.2 0.9 1.6 0.7 6.3 1.0 0.5 0.8 0.6 20.6 2.0 18.5 1.7 2.1 22.3 2.0 1.1 2.4 1.2 6.8 11.5 Percentage (%) 6.4 1.5 0.4 1.2 0.1 9.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.9 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 5.0 0.5 4.5 0.4 0.5 5.4 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.3 1.7 2.8
GL SC XT YT Total MLT TK Total MLY MMO GL GLSZ GLTK SC SCGL TK TKGL TKSC XT XTGL Total MNTaa MYW GL XT Total NKU NVR SC TK TKSC Total XTGL
1.7 2.1 22.1 2.0 1.2 2.6 1.2 6.9 11.9
2010
Page 3-13
Table 3-2
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.3 1.9 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 2.9 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.1 4.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.0 3.5 0.2 3.8 1.3 1.8 3.1 Percentage (%) 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.3 2.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 5.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 4.3 0.3 4.6 1.5 2.2 3.7
Dominant Soil 1 Series ONW
Soil 1 Variant
RoW Area (ha) 2.0 1.0 0.2 0.7 3.9 3.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.3 4.7 1.3 1.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.5 0.7 14.5 0.4 0.0 1.9 0.5 21.6 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.1 17.8 Percentage (%) 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.1 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 3.5 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 5.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.3 0.3 4.6 1.5 2.2 3.7
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 2.0 1.4 0.2 0.7 4.3 2.9 0.2 0.1 0.4 1.3 4.9 1.2 1.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 14.7 0.5 0.1 1.9 0.4 21.9 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.1 17.3 1.1 18.4 6.3 9.6 15.9 Percentage (%) 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.2 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.6 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.1 5.3 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 4.2 0.3 4.5 1.5 2.3 3.9
PT PTXT XPPT Total PHS GL GLTK TK XC Total POK GL GLCO GLSC GLTK GLTKXC SCTK TK TKGL XC XCTK XT Total PRM GL Total RB RLV GL Total RVN PT Total
1.1 18.9 6.4 9.0 15.4
Page 3-14
2010
Table 3-2
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 2.1 0.1 0.2 1.4 3.7 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 82.0 Percentage (%) 2.5 0.1 0.3 1.7 4.6 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 100.0
Dominant Soil 1 Series TBY
Soil 1 Variant
RoW Area (ha) 10.0 0.3 1.0 6.8 18.1 0.2 7.1 Percentage (%) 2.4 0.1 0.2 1.6 4.4 0.0 1.7 0.1 1.8 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 4.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 100.0
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 10.2 0.4 1.1 6.5 18.2 0.3 7.0 0.6 7.6 2.3 0.2 2.5 1.2 0.1 1.3 0.7 2.0 2.7 0.5 19.7 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 412.1 Percentage (%) 2.5 0.1 0.3 1.6 4.4 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.8 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.1 4.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 100.0
CO GL XP Total TGL UCS GL Total WAB GL Total WHF GL Total WKN XT Total ZAV ZDL ZGW ZRB ZUN ZWA Total
0.5 7.6 2.2 0.2 2.4 1.2 0.1 1.3 0.7 2.1 2.8 0.4 19.6 0.0 0.7 0.0 1.5 413.8
NOTE: 1 Soil series and variant abbreviations are described in Table 2-7.
2010
Page 3-15
Table 3-3
Soils of the North Saskatchewan River Staging Area and the Initiating Station near Bruderheim in Agricultural Lands Eastern Alberta Plains
PDA North Saskatchewan River Staging Area Area (ha) 1.2 0.2 TK 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 60.0 10.0 30.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.3 1.1 1.9 Initiating Station near Bruderheim Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.4 14.3 57.3 100.0
Dominant Soil 1 Series HBN JVE POK DKN MDR PRM Total
Soil Variant TK
Table 3-4
Soils of Three Stockpile Sites in Agricultural Lands Eastern Alberta Plains

PDA Cherhill Stockpile Site Area (ha) 7.9 GL Total 0.0 7.9 4.7 3.1 0.0 GL Total 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 SCPT 0.0 0.0 15.7 Percentage (%) 50.0 0.04 50.0 30.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Mayerthorpe Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 3.1 8.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 30.0 80.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Mearns Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 2.7 5.3 26.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 70.0 10.0 20.0 100.0
Dominant Soil 1 Series MLA
Soil 2 Variant
MJU RLV MCO
MYW DUG HGT WHF Total
Page 3-16
2010
Soil map units occurring on agricultural lands in the PEAA in the Eastern Alberta Plains and Southern Alberta Uplands physiographic regions are presented spatially in the soils atlas (see Appendix D on CD). Associated agricultural land capability ratings, water erosion, wind erosion, and compaction and puddling risk ratings are defined for each soil map unit in Appendix B. Soil chemistry data are presented for several data points in the Eastern Alberta Plains in Appendix E.
3.1.3
Agricultural Land Capability of the Eastern Alberta Plains
In the Eastern Alberta Plains, Class 2 and 3 land capabilities are most common, followed by Class 4 and Class 1. Lands rated as Classes 5, 6 and 7 are limited in areal extent. Class 1 and 2 lands are most suitable for annual crop production and are generally used for this purpose. Class 3 and 4 lands are commonly used for a combination of annual crops, forage and pasture. For the Canada Land Inventory ratings for the PEAA and all areas in the PDA in the Eastern Alberta Plains, see Tables 3-5 and 3-6. (Table 2-12 provides a description of the agricultural land capability classification system.)
3.1.4
Soil Erosion Risk for the Eastern Alberta Plains
See Tables 3-7 and 3-8 for summaries of the wind erosion risk ratings for the PEAA and the PDA; the ratings are described in Table 2-14. In the Eastern Alberta Plains, soil in the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces are predominantly at low risk for wind erosion. Moderate and high ratings are assigned to moderately coarse and very coarse-textured soil; about 12% of the area has soil at moderate risk of wind erosion with another 5% rated at high risk (see Table 3-7). The initiating station area has an approximately 62% high rating and a 28% low rating for wind erosion. The Cherhill and Mearns stockpile sites are predominantly at low risk, whereas the Mayerthorpe stockpile site is at moderate risk of wind erosion (see Table 3-8). See Tables 3-9 and 3-10 for water erosion risk ratings for the PEAA and the PDA. Table 2-15 describes the water erosion risk rating system. Most soil (60%) in the Eastern Alberta Plains in the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces are at low risk for water erosion, with most of the rest (approximately 30%) at moderate risk. These low to moderate ratings are related to the gentle terrain in the region. About 5% of all areas are composed of soil at high risk of water erosion (see Table 3-9). The pump station, stockpile sites and staging areas are rated as having low risk for water erosion (see Table 3-10), although most of the pump station area is Disturbed Land and not rated.
2010
Page 3-17
Table 3-5
Soil Ratings for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Eastern Alberta Plains
PDA PEAA Area (ha) 1,791.2 3,851.2 4,662.2 2,871.2 142.4 1,173.3 71.4 344.1 809.7 130.1 15,846.8 Percentage (%) 11.3 24.3 29.4 18.1 0.9 7.4 0.5 2.2 5.1 0.8 100.0 Area (ha) 49.4 102.7 122.1 75.5 3.9 27.6 0.8 10.8 19.6 1.5 413.9 RoW Percentage (%) 11.9 24.8 29.5 18.2 0.9 6.7 0.2 2.6 4.7 0.4 99.9 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 49.0 102.1 120.4 76.1 4.0 28.9 0.8 11.1 19.7 0.0 412.1 Percentage (%) 11.9 24.8 29.2 18.5 1.0 7.0 0.2 2.7 4.8 0.0 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 9.8 21.4 24.8 15.8 0.8 5.6 0.2 2.2 1.1 0.3 82.0 Percentage (%) 12.0 26.1 30.2 19.3 0.9 6.8 0.2 2.7 1.4 0.4 100.0
CLI Rating of Dominant Subgroup 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 O Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
NOTE: 1 Ratings are according to Canada Land Inventory Ratings (CLI 1972, Internet site) and are described in Table 2-12.
Page 3-18
2010
Table 3-6
Soil Ratings for the Initiating Station, Three Stockpile Sites and the North Saskatchewan River Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Eastern Alberta Plains
PDA North Saskatchewan River Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
CLI Rating of Dominant Subgroup 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 O Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
Initiating Station near Bruderheim Area (ha) 0 0 0 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Percentage (%) 0 0 0 21.5 50.1 28.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Cherhill Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0 7.9 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 Percentage (%) 0 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mearns Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0 5.3 18.5 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 Percentage (%) 0 20.0 70.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mayerthorpe Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0 5.2 3.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 Percentage (%) 0 50.0 30.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
NOTE: 1 Ratings are according to Canada Land Inventory Ratings (CLI 1972, Internet site) described in Table 2-12.
2010
Page 3-19
Table 3-7
Wind Erosion Risk for Agricultural Soils in the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Eastern Alberta Plains
PDA PEAA Area (ha) 12,164.0 1,921.4 821.6 809.7 130.1 15,846.8 Percentage (%) 76.8 12.1 5.2 5.1 0.8 100.0 Area (ha) 320.3 53.2 19.2 19.6 1.5 413.8 RoW Percentage (%) 77.4 12.9 4.6 4.7 0.4 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 321.1 52.5 18.7 19.7 0.0 412.1 Percentage (%) 77.9 12.7 4.6 4.8 0.0 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 64.7 10.8 5.1 1.1 0.3 82.0 Percentage (%) 78.8 13.2 6.2 1.4 0.4 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total NOTE:
1
Wind erosion risk classes are explained in Table 2-14.
Page 3-20
2010
Table 3-8
Wind Erosion Risk for the Initiating Station, Three Stockpile Sites and the North Saskatchewan River Staging Area Eastern Alberta Plains
PDA Initiating Station near Bruderheim Area (ha) 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.9 Percentage (%) 37.8 0.0 62.2 0.0 100.0 Cherhill Stockpile Site Area (ha) 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Mearns Stockpile Site Area (ha) 26.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Mayerthorpe Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0 10.3 0.0 0.0 10.3 Percentage (%) 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.0 2.0 100.0 100.0 North Saskatchewan River Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0
Wind Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
NOTE: 1 Wind erosion risk classes are explained in Table 2-14.
2010
Page 3-21
Table 3-9
Water Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Eastern Alberta Plains
PDA PEAA Area (ha) 9,606.5 4,399.3 901.2 809.7 130.1 15,846.8 Percentage (%) 60.6 27.8 5.7 5.1 0.8 100.0 Area (ha) 243.5 126.4 22.8 19.6 1.5 413.8 RoW Percentage (%) 58.8 30.5 5.5 4.7 0.4 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 244.5 125.5 22.4 19.7 0.0 412.1 Percentage (%) 59.3 30.5 5.4 4.8 0.0 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 50.5 25.6 4.5 1.1 0.3 82.0 Percentage (%) 61.6 31.2 5.5 1.4 0.4 100.0
NOTE: 1 Water erosion risk classes are explained in Table 2-15.
Page 3-22
2010
Table 3-10
Water Erosion Risk for the Initiating Station, Three Stockpile Sites and the North Saskatchewan River Staging Area Eastern Alberta Plains
PDA Initiating Station near Bruderheim Area (ha) 0.7 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.9 Percentage (%) 37.8 0.0 62.2 0.0 100.0 Cherhill Stockpile Site Area (ha) 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Mearns Stockpile Site Area (ha) 26.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Mayerthorpe Stockpile Site Area (ha) 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 North Saskatchewan River Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
Water Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
2010
Page 3-23
3.1.5
Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Eastern Alberta Plains
See Tables 3-11 and 3-12 for a summary of the soil compaction and puddling risk ratings for the PEAA and the PDA. Table 2-16 describes the compaction and puddling risk rating system. Soils in the Eastern Alberta Plains in the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces are predominantly at moderate risk for soil compaction and puddling, with a substantial percentage of soil at moderate-high risk. This rating implies that under normal field-moist soil conditions, soil of moderately coarse, medium and fine textures are susceptible to some degree of compaction (see Table 3-11). The Cherhill, Mearns and Mayerthorpe stockpile sites are rated as having mostly moderately high to moderate risk for soil compaction and puddling. The initiating station site is mostly unrated because it is disturbed land with a small area of low risk soils (see Table 3-12).
3.2
3.2.1
Southern Alberta Uplands

Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soil in the Southern Alberta Uplands
The Southern Alberta Uplands physiographic region extends from KP 165.7 to KP 510 of the Project. Bedrock geology, surficial geology and topography for the PEAA in the Southern Alberta Uplands are described in the Geology and Terrain TDR. Vegetation types in the PEAA in the Southern Alberta Uplands are described in the Vegetation TDR. Agricultural capability is more conducive to pasture than cropland as compared to the Eastern Alberta Plains and most of the agricultural soil occurs near the Athabasca River Valley near Whitecourt. The lower agricultural capability is partially attributed to the climate of the Southern Alberta Uplands. The continental climate is historically characterized by cold winters and short, cool summers (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1996) with a mean annual temperature that ranges between 1C and 2C. Mean summer temperatures range between 13C and 14C and mean winter temperatures range from -9 to -13C. The mean annual precipitation ranges from 450 to 600 mm, falling mostly as rain in the summer months (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1996). Soil parent materials in this region consist of till, colluvium, glaciolacustrine, fluvial, glaciofluvial, eolian and organic deposits (Twardy and Corns 1980; Knapik and Lindsay 1983). Luvisols occur in this region on a variety of parent materials, including: moderately fine- to fine-textured continental till fine-textured glaciolacustrine deposits coarse-textured glaciofluvial or eolian deposits
Page 3-24
2010
Table 3-11
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Eastern Alberta Plains
PDA PEAA Area (ha) 736.8 116.7 9,692.3 3,362.5 998.7 809.7 130.1 15,846.8 Percentage (%) 4.6 0.7 61.2 21.2 6.3 5.1 0.8 100.0 Area (ha) 16.8 3.5 252.6 94.3 25.5 19.6 1.5 413.8 RoW Percentage (%) 4.1 0.8 61.0 22.8 6.2 4.7 0.4 100.1 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 17.1 3.2 251.3 93.6 27.2 19.7 0.0 412.1 Percentage (%) 4.1 0.8 61.0 22.7 6.6 4.8 0.0 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 3.6 0.9 52.1 18.7 5.3 1.1 0.3 82.0 Percentage (%) 4.4 1.1 63.5 22.8 6.4 1.4 0.4 100.0
Compaction and 1 Puddling Risk Class L LH M MH H Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
2
NOTES: 1 Compaction and puddling risk classes are explained in Table 2-16. 2 LH, MH complex ratings, where the first rating is dominant and the second is a component greater than 10%. 3 Totals may not be exact due to rounding
2010
Page 3-25
Table 3-12
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Initiating Station, Three Stockpile Sites and the North Saskatchewan River Staging Area Eastern Alberta Plains
PDA North Saskatchewan River Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 100.0
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class L LH M MH H Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
2
Initiating Station near Bruderheim Area (ha) 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.9 Percentage (%) 73.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
Cherhill Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Mearns Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.5 0.0 0.0 0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 100.0
Mayerthorpe Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 0 10.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0 100.0
15.7
100.0
26.5
NOTES: 1 Compaction and puddling risk classes are explained in Table 2-16. 2 LH, MH complex ratings, where the first rating is dominant and the second is a component greater than 10%.
Page 3-26
2010
Brunisolic soils develop in very coarse- to coarse-textured glaciofluvial and eolian sediments (Twardy and Corns 1980; Knapik and Lindsay 1983). Regosolic soils occur in variably textured recent fluvial and colluvial sediments associated with the valleys, terraces and floodplains of watercourses (Twardy and Corns 1980; Knapik and Lindsay 1983). Gleysolic soils are found on all types of surficial materials in areas with a high or fluctuating water table. Organic (peat) soils are associated with poorly to very poorly drained areas. The two main types of peat deposits are bog (or sphagnum) peat and fen (or sedge-moss) peat (Twardy and Corns 1980; Knapik and Lindsay 1983).
3.2.2
Soil Description of the Southern Alberta Uplands
Agricultural lands occur from KP 165.7 to KP 177 and from KP 183 to KP 186 in the Southern Alberta Uplands. Non-agricultural lands cover the remainder of the physiographic region. 3.2.2.1 Agricultural Soils of the Southern Alberta Uplands
Project Effects Assessment Area Agricultural soils in the PEAA of the Southern Alberta Uplands are mainly Orthic Gray Luvisols of the Hubalta (HUB) soil series (24% to 25%), Cumulic Humic Regosols of the Gratz (GRZ) soil series (24%), Brunisolic Gray Luvisols of the Pinto (PTO) soil series (14%), and Eluviated Eutric Brunisols of the Hattonford (HAT) soil series (12%). The Hubalta series has developed on moderately fine-textured glacial till, whereas the Pinto series has developed on glaciofluvial veneers over moderately fine-textured till. The Gratz series is associated with fluvial channels, including the Athabasca River valley. Minor inclusions of other soil series are also present (see Table 3-13).
Table 3-13
Soils of the PEAA in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands

PEAA
1
Dominant Soil Series BLR
Soil Variant
Area (ha) 58.9
Percentage (%) 4.2 0.0 4.2 1.6 2.1 0.1 0.0 6.9 2.9 2.7
GL Total BLR BMY DPV FKE GGW GRZ AA AAGL AA
0.4 59.7 21.8 29.4 0.9 0.2 97.5 40.8 38.2
2010
Page 3-27
Table 3-14
Soils of the PEAA in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands (contd)

PEAA
1
Dominant Soil Series
Soil Variant AAXG AAGLX AAPT AAGLXG
Area (ha) 100.1 64.2 0.5 0.2 341.5 145.0
Percentage (%) 7.1 4.5 0.0 0.0 24.1 10.3 1.6 11.8 24.5 0.1 24.6 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.2 11.3 2.1 0.4 0.1 13.9 1.4 0.2 1.6 9.1 3.0 0.5 3.5 1.9 100.00
Total GRZ HAT GL Total HAT HUB GL Total HUB MAK AA AAGL Total MAK MKY MSH ONW PTO GL ZZ ZZGL Total PTO WSN GL Total WSN ZDL Disturbed Land ZRB GL Total ZRB ZWA Water Total NOTE: 1 Soil series and variant abbreviations are explained in Table 2-7.
22.5 167.5 346.7 1.7 348.4 3.0 4.8 0.9 8.7 8.6 1.2 2.2 159.9 29.7 5.8 1.8 197.2 20.3 2.8 23.1 127.9 42.3 7.0 49.3 27.4 1,415.00
Page 3-28
2010
Project Development Area The PDA in the agricultural lands of the Southern Alberta Uplands physiographic region includes the 25-m RoW, the 25-m temporary workspace and 10% extra temporary workspace. Table 3-13 summarizes the soil series that occur in the PDA. Most of the PDA is dominated by Hubalta (HUB) soils (29%-32%), with inclusions of the Pinto (PTO) (14%17%), Gratz (GRZ) (12%), and Hattonford (HAT) soil series (11%16%), and with 10%15% Disturbed Lands (ZDL) (Table 3-14). The Gratz soil series is dominant for the Athabasca River East staging area (see Table 3-15). This area is along the Athabasca floodplain and agricultural soils are poorly developed.
Table 3-15
Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.4 0.02 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.6 0.1 0.85 0.9 0.1 1 2.1 0 2.1 0.1 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.03 1.13 Percentage (%) 6.5 0.4 2.6 0.8 0.6 8.9 1.7 12.0 14.0 1.7 15.7 32.2 0.1 32.3 2.3 0.1 2.4 0.8 0.1 0.2 14.2 1.3 0.7 0.5 16.7
Dominant 1 Soil Series BLR BMY DPV GRZ
Soil 1 Variant
RoW Area (ha) 1.6 0.1 Percentage (%) 4.8 0.3 0.0 0.3 1.2 8.5 1.8 11.8 9.7 1.8 11.5 29.1 0.0 29.1 2.7 0.3 3 0.9 0.0 0.0 11.8 1.2 0.9 0.6 14.5
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 2.0 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.4 2.9 0.6 4.1 4.3 0.5 4.8 10.3 0.0 10.3 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 4.4 0.5 0.2 0.1 5.2 Percentage (%) 6.1 0.3 2.1 0.6 1.2 8.9 1.8 12.5 13.1 1.5 14.6 31.3 0.0 31.3 1.8 0.3 2.1 0.9 0.0 0.3 13.4 1.5 0.6 0.3 15.8
AA AA AAGL AAXG GLAA
0 0.1 0.4 2.8 0.6 3.9 3.2
Total GRZ HAT GL Total HAT HUB GL Total HUB MAK AA Total MAK MKY MSH ONW PTO GL ZZ ZZGL Total PTO
0.6 3.8 9.6 0 9.6 0.9 0.1 1 0.3 0 0 3.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 4.8
2010
Page 3-29
Table 3-16
Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands (contd)
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 6.5 Percentage (%) 1.9 1.1 5.3 2.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Soil Series WSN ZDL ZRB ZWA Total
Soil 1 Variant
RoW Area (ha) 0.6 5.7 1.1 0.6 33.1 Percentage (%) 1.8 17.2 3.3 1.8 100.0
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.6 1.8 1.5 0.7 32.9 Percentage (%) 1.8 5.5 4.6 2.1 100.0
NOTE: 1 Soil series and variant abbreviations are explained in Table 2-7.
Table 3-17
Soils of the Athabasca River East Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Athabasca River East Staging Area Soil Variant AA AAXG
1
Dominant Soil 1 Series GRZ Total
Area (ha) 0.3 0.7 1.0
Percentage (%) 26.7 73.3 100.0
NOTE: 1 Soil series and variant abbreviations are explained in Table 2-7.
Soil map units occurring on agricultural lands in the PEAA in the Southern Alberta Uplands physiographic region are spatially presented in the soils atlas (see Appendix D on CD). Associated agricultural land capability ratings, water erosion, wind erosion, and compaction and puddling risk ratings are defined for each soil map unit in this table. 3.2.2.2 Non-agricultural Soils of the Southern Alberta Uplands
Project Effects Assessment Area Gray Luvisols (L) formed on fluvial, glaciofluvial, glaciolacustrine and morainal deposits make up most of the area of the PEAA in the Southern Alberta Uplands (63%) (see Table 3-16). Brunisolic soils (B) on glaciofluvial, colluvium and eolian deposits also account for a substantial portion of the area (12%). Other soil and land types are: Disturbed Lands (DL) 8%; Organics (O) 8%; Gleysols (G) 4%), and Regosols (R) 1%-2%.
Page 3-30
2010
Table 3-18
Soils of the PEAA in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands

1
Dominant Subgroup B1 (O.EB) B2 (E.EB)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1 Glaciofluvial (g) B2 Colluvium (c) B2 Eolian (e) B2 Glaciofluvial Total B2
PEAA Area (ha) 1,999.5 215.6 1,131.8 72.7 1,420.1 479.6 26.8 136.6 163.4 4,062.6 1.8 80.8 82.6 725.6 371.6 1,097.2 0.3 123.4 123.7 1,303.5 1.2 3,957.2 10,537.0 14,495.4 363.7 1,490.7 4,218.4 5,709.1 162.4 20,730.6 1,212.5 1,484.2 2,696.7 Percentage (%) 6.1 0.7 3.4 0.2 4.3 1.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 12.3 0.01 0.2 0.3 2.2 1.1 3.3 0.0 0.4 0.4 4.0 0.0 12.0 32.0 44.0 1.1 4.5 12.8 17.3 0.5 63.0 3.7 4.5 8.2
B3 (GL.EB) B4 (GLE.EB)
B3 Glaciofluvial B4 Colluvium B4 Eolian Total B4
Total B (Brunisols) G1 (O.G) G1 Eolian G1 Glaciofluvial Total G1 G2 (O.LG) G2 Glaciolacustrine G2 Morainal Total G2 G4 (R.G) G4 Colluvial G4 Fluvial Total G4 Total (Gleysols) L1 (O.GL) L1 - Fluvial L1 Glaciolacustrine L1 Morainal Total L1 L2 (BR.GL) L3 (GL.GL) L2 Glaciofluvial L3 Glaciolacustrine L3 Morainal Total L3 L4 (GLBR.GL) Total L (Luvisols) O3 (T.M) O4 (TY.M) Total O (Organic) O3 Organic O4 Organic L4 Glaciofluvial
2010
Page 3-31
Table 3-16
Soils of the PEAA in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands (contd)

1
Dominant Subgroup R1 (O.R)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit R1 Colluvium R1 Bedrock Total R1
PEAA Area (ha) 192.8 35.0 227.8 71.3 138.7 53.5 491.3 790.6 Percentage (%) 0.6 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.2 1.5 2.4 8.2 0.5 100.0
R2 (GL.R) R3 (CU.R) R4 (GLCU.R) Total R (Regosols) SC Stream Channel DL Disturbed Land WA - Water Total
R2 Colluvium R3 Fluvial R4 Fluvial
DL Anthropogenic WA
2,698.1 152.8 30,926.2
NOTE: 1 Soil subgroup abbreviations are according to the Soil Classification Working Group (1998). Subgroup symbols (e.g., L1, L2) are described in Table 2-10.
Project Development Area The PDA in the non-agricultural lands of the Southern Alberta Uplands physiographic region includes the 25-m RoW, 25-m temporary workspace, 10% extra temporary workspace, four staging areas, two pump stations and associated access roads, three construction camps (Braaten, Whitecourt and Deep Valley Creek), and eight stockpile sites (Braaten, Calahoo Creek, Deep Valley Creek, Kaybob, Latornell River, Stony Creek, Whitecourt and Whitecourt West). For a summary of the areas of dominant soil subgroups in each area in the PDA on non-agricultural lands of the Southern Alberta Uplands, see Tables 3-17 to 3-22. Most of the RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces is composed of Gray Luvisols (L), with Orthic Gray Luvisols on morainal deposits and Gleyed Gray Luvisols on glaciolacustrine deposits being most prevalent. Brunisols (B) also occur, mostly as Orthic Eutric Brunisols on glaciofluvial deposits and Eluviated Eutric Brunisols on eolian deposits (see Table 3-17). The Braaten construction camp site is dominated by Orthic Gray Luvisols (L) on glaciolacustrine deposits, whereas the Deep Valley Creek construction camp site is situated on a combination of Orthic Gray Luvisols on glaciolacustrine deposits and Gleyed Gray Luvisols on glaciolacustrine deposits. The Whitecourt construction camp site is similar, consisting of a combination of Orthic Gray Luvisols on moraine deposits and Gleyed Gray Luvisols on both moraine and glaciolacustrine deposits. The Smoky River powerline traverses an area dominated by Orthic Gray Luvisols, with 52% Disturbed Lands (DL). The Whitecourt powerline lies on 63% Disturbed Lands, with some areas dominated by Orthic Gleysols (G) on glaciofluvial sediments (see Table 3-18).
Page 3-32
2010
In the Smoky River pump station site, Orthic Gray Luvisols (L) on glaciolacustrine deposits are dominant. The Whitecourt pump station site is dominated by Orthic Eutric Brunisols (B) on glaciofluvial deposits, with some Typic Mesisols (O) (see Table 3-19). Tables 3-20 and 3-21 present the dominant soil subgroups for the stockpile sites in the Southern Alberta Uplands. Orthic Gray Luvisols (L) on glaciolacustrine sediments occur in 100% of the Braaten stockpile site and 44% of the Deep Valley Creek stockpile site. Orthic Gray Luvisols on morainal deposits are situated at the Kaybob stockpile site (almost 100%), 80% of the Stony Creek stockpile site, almost 65% of the Whitecourt West stockpile site and about 50% of the Calahoo Creek and Deep Valley Creek stockpile sites (see Table 3-20). Gleyed Gray Luvisols make up 36% of the Whitecourt West stockpile site and 36% of the Stony Creek stockpile site. Eutric Brunisols (B) dominate the Latornell River stockpile site (see Table 3-21) and the Calahoo Creek stockpile site (33%) (see Table 3-20). Disturbed lands make up 100% of the Whitecourt stockpile site and almost 20% of the Calahoo Creek stockpile site. Luvisols are dominant in the Athabasca River West and Fox Creek staging areas, Brunisols are dominant in the Latornell River staging area, and disturbed lands dominate the Pinto Creek staging area (see Table 3-22). Soil map units occurring on non-agricultural lands across the PEAA, including the Southern Alberta Uplands physiographic region, are presented in Appendix B. Associated water erosion, wind erosion, and compaction and puddling risk ratings are also defined for each soil map unit in Appendix B.
3.2.3
Agricultural Land Capability of the Southern Alberta Uplands
For a summary of the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) ratings for the PEAA and the PDA in the agricultural lands of the Southern Alberta Uplands, see Table 3-23. This region generally has a lower capability for agriculture when compared with the Eastern Alberta Plains because the soil is less suitable, the climate is cooler and the growing season is shorter. In the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces, Class 4 lands account for 70% of the area. Class 5 lands occupy 8% of the area and Class O lands occupy 6%, and minor amounts of Class 3, 6 and 7 are also present.
2010
Page 3-33
Table 3-19
Dominant 1 Subgroup B1 (O.EB) B2 (E.EB)
Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1 Glaciofluvial (g) B2 Colluvium (c) B2 Eolian (e) Total B2 RoW Area (ha) 44.2 1.2 32.1 33.3 8.8 0.6 3.5 4.1 90.5 G1 Glaciofluvial(g) G2 Fluvial (f) G2 Glaciolacustrine (k) G2 Morainal (m) Total G2 1.5 9.9 16.1 6.7 28.9 1.5 31.9 L1 Fluvial (f) L1 Glaciolacustrine (k) L1 Morainal (m) Total L1 4.9 95.9 258.3 359.1 Percentage (%) 5.4 0.1 3.9 4.1 1.1 0.1 0.4 0.5 11.1 0.2 1.2 2.0 0.8 3.5 0.2 3.9 0.6 11.7 31.6 43.9 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 47.7 3.7 35.2 39.5 11.7 1.2 4.1 5.4 104.5 1.8 12.0 16.4 7.1 30.9 1.7 34.4 4.8 101.6 270.0 376.5 Percentage (%) 5.8 0.4 4.3 4.8 1.4 0.1 0.5 0.7 12.7 0.2 1.5 2.0 0.9 3.7 0.2 4.2 0.6 12.4 33.0 46.4 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 10.1 1.0 7.4 8.3 2.3 0.4 0.8 1.2 21.9 0.4 2.4 3.8 1.5 6.6 0.2 6.8 1.1 21.1 57.9 80.1 Percentage (%) 6.3 0.6 4.6 5.2 1.4 0.2 0.5 0.7 13.5 0.2 0.9 2.3 0.9 4.1 0.1 4.2 0.7 13.1 35.8 49.5
B3 (GL.EB) B4 (GLE.EB)
B3 Glaciofluvial (g) B4 Colluvium (c) B4 Eolian (e) Total B4
Total B G1 (O.G) G2 (O.LG)
G4 (R.G) Total G L1 (O.GL)
G4 Fluvial (f)
Page 3-34
2010
Table 3-17
Dominant 1 Subgroup L2 (BR.GL) L3 (GL.GL)
Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands (contd)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit L2 Glaciofluvial (g) L3 Glaciolacustrine (k) L3 Morainal (m) Total L3 RoW Area (ha) 5.5 37.9 110.1 148.0 3.0 514.8 O3 Organic (o) O4 Organic (o) R1 Colluvium R2 Colluvium R3 Fluvial R4 Fluvial DL Anthropogenic (a) WA 20.7 35.2 55.9 2.6 0.7 1.7 0.5 9.4 113.5 2.2 819.2 Percentage (%) 0.7 4.6 13.4 18.0 0.4 62.9 2.5 4.3 6.8 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.1 13.9 0.3 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 9.0 37.1 114.3 151.3 4.5 541.4 20.2 35.7 55.9 2.5 1.0 2.2 0.6 6.3 68.5 2.4 817.7 Percentage (%) 1.1 4.5 14.0 18.7 0.6 66.8 2.5 4.4 6.9 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.8 8.4 0.3 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 1.9 8.3 24.1 32.6 1.0 115.4 4.2 7.3 11.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 1.0 4.3 0.5 163.20 Percentage (%) 1.2 5.2 14.9 20.0 0.6 71.4 2.6 4.5 7.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.03 0.6 2.6 0.3 100.0
L4 (GLBR.GL) Total L O3 (T.M) O4 (TY.M) Total O R1 (O.R) R2 (GL.R) R3 (CU.R) R4 (GLCU.R) Total R DL Disturbed Land WA - Water Total
L4 Glaciofluvial (g)
2010
Page 3-35
Table 3-20
Soils of Three Construction Camps and Two Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1 Glaciofluvial (g) B2 Colluvium (c) B3g G1g G2 - Fluvial (f) L1f L1k L1m Total L1 Braaten Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 14.3 0.2 0.0 0.2 14.5 O3 Organic (o) O4o R1c R3f 0.04 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 98.6 0.0 98.6 1.4 0.0 1.4 100.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.5 19.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.6 78.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 8.5 44.3 34.6 Deep Valley Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.3 Whitecourt Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 10.4 11.4 3.6 9.5 13.1 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 42.4 46.5 14.7 38.8 53.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.9 21.5 1.5 23.9 2.1 2.7 4.8 28.7 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.4 1.2 28.4 2.0 31.5 2.8 3.6 6.4 37.9 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.2 Smoky River Powerline Area (ha) 6.3 0.3 0.0 6.6 Percentage (%) 8.3 0.4 0.0 8.7 0.1 2.6 1.6 0.5 2.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0 0.1 0.1 0.6 16.9 10.4 3.3 13.7 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.6 0.0 2.6 0 0.6 0.6 Whitecourt Powerline Area (ha) 2.5 Percentage (%) 16.3
Dominant 1 Subgroup B1 (O.EB) B2 (E.EB) B3 (GL.EB) Total B G1 (O.G) G2 (O.LG) Total G L1 (O.GL)
L3 (GL.GL)
L3k L3m Total L3
Total L O3 (T.M) O4 (TY.M) Total O R1 (O.R) R3 (CU.R) Total R
Page 3-36
2010
Table 3-18
Soils of Three Construction Camps and Two Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands (contd)
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit DLa WA Braaten Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 14.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 Deep Valley Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 5.2 0.0 24.6 Percentage (%) 21.1 0.0 100.0 Whitecourt Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 Smoky River Powerline Area (ha) 39.3 0.1 75.8 Percentage (%) 51.8 0.1 100.0 Whitecourt Powerline Area (ha) 9.7 0.04 15.3 Percentage (%) 63.4 0.3 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup Disturbed Land Water Total
NOTE: 1 Soil subgroup abbreviations are according to the Soil Classification Working Group (1998). Subgroup and parent material map unit symbols (e.g., L1f, L2k) are described in Table 2-10.
2010
Page 3-37
Table 3-21
Soils of the Smoky River and Whitecourt Pump Stations and Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Smoky River Pump Station and Access Road Whitecourt Pump Station and Access Road Area (ha) 2.6 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.9 Percentage (%) 89.3 89.3 0.0 0.0 10.7 0.0 100.0
Dominant Subgroup B1 (O.EB) Total B L1 Total L O3 (T.M) Disturbed Land Total
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1 Glaciofluvial (g) L1k O3o DLa
Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 3.8 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.8
Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Page 3-38
2010
Table 3-22
Soils of the Braaten, Calahoo Creek, Deep Valley Creek and Kaybob Stockpile Sites in Nonagricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1g L1k L1m Total L1 L3k L3m Total L3 Braaten Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 14.5 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 R1r DLa 0.0 0.0 14.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Calahoo Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 3.8 0.0 5.8 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0.0 2.1 11.7 Percentage (%) 33.1 0.0 49.1 49.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.1 0.0 17.8 100.0 Deep Valley Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 6.5 7.6 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 14.6 0.0 0.1 14.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 43.9 52.0 0.0 3.4 0.0 3.4 99.3 0.0 0.7 100.0 Kaybob Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 22.8 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 23.1 0.3 0.0 23.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 97.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 98.3 1.3 0.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B1 (O.EB) L1 (O.GL)
L3 (GL.GL)
Total L R1 Disturbed Land Total
2010
Page 3-39
Table 3-23
Soils of the Latornell River, Stony Creek and Whitecourt Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1g B2e G4f L1m L3k L3m Total L3 Latornell River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 11.6 2.9 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 DLa 1.2 15.7 Percentage (%) 73.9 18.5 92.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6 100.0 Stony Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 14.1 0 3.4 3.4 17.6 0.0 17.6 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 80.1 0 19.3 19.3 100.0 0.0 100.0 Whitecourt Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 11.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Whitecourt West Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.6 4.2 4.8 13.4 0.0 13.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.2 4.5 31.3 35.8 100.0 0.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B1 (O.EB) B2 (E.EB ) Total B G4 (R.G) L1 (O.GL) L3 (GL.GL)
Total L Disturbed Land Total
Page 3-40
2010
Table 3-24
Soils of Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands

PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B2e B4e L1m L3k L3m Total L3 Athabasca River West Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.4 1.4 2.0 DLa 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 70.0 70.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 Fox Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 0.6 1.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.4 68.4 68.4 31.6 100.0 Latornell River Staging Area Area (ha) 1.0 0.7 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 Percentage (%) 55.6 38.9 94.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 100.0 Pinto Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.6 Percentage (%) 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 68.8 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B2 (E.EB) B4 (GLE.EB) Total B L1 (O.GL) L3 (GL.GL) Total L Disturbed Land Total
2010
Page 3-41
Table 3-25
Soil Ratings for the PEAA, RoW, Temporary Workspaces and Athabasca River East Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.2 4.8 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 6.5 Percentage (%) 2.8 73.8 6.5 8.4 5.3 0.0 1.2 2.0 100.0 Athabasca River East Staging Area Area (ha) 0.2 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 Percentage (%) 20.0 70.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 100.0
CLI Rating of Dominant Subgroup 3 4 5 6 7 O Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
PEAA Area (ha) 61.3 62.8 884.4 121.4 61.6 52.2 1.39 142.6 27.3 Percentage (%) 4.3 4.4 62.5 8.6 4.4 3.7 0.10 10.1 1.9 Area (ha) 0.8 20.8 1.3 2.8 1.1 0.0 5.7 0.6 33.1
RoW Percentage (%) 2.4 62.6 3.9 8.6 3.4 0.0 17.3 2.0 100.0
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 1.0 23.1 2.0 2.6 1.5 0.0 1.9 0.7 32.9 Percentage (%) 3.0 70.4 6.1 7.9 4.6 0.0 5.8 2.1 100.0
NOTE: 1 Ratings are according to Canada Land Inventory (CLI 1972, Internet site) described in Table 2-12.
Page 3-42
2010
3.2.4
3.2.4.1
Soil Erosion Risk of the Southern Alberta Uplands

Agricultural Soil Erosion Risk
For a summary of the wind erosion risk for the PEAA, RoW, temporary workspace, extra temporary workspace and Athabasca River East staging area in agricultural lands in the Southern Alberta Uplands, see Table 3-24. Low to moderate wind-erosion risk covers about 90% of these lands. Disturbed Lands that have no wind-erosion risk ratings make up the remaining area. For a summary of the water erosion risk for the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces in agricultural lands in the Southern Alberta Uplands, see Table 3-25. Much of the area (about 50%) exhibits moderate susceptibility to water erosion, whereas 15% to 19% of the PEAA and PDA are highly susceptible to water erosion. These areas occur sporadically and mainly consist of lands characterized by relatively steep slopes. Disturbed Lands that have no water erosion risk ratings make up the remainder of the PEAA and PDA area. 3.2.4.2 Non-agricultural Soil Erosion Risk
For a summary of the wind-erosion risk for the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces in non-agricultural lands of the Southern Alberta Uplands, see Tables 3-26 to 3-31. In these areas, low wind-erosion risk is predominant with inclusions of high wind-erosion risk areas. The high susceptibility of soil to wind erosion is mainly due to coarse surface soil textures. The above ground facilities have a range of erosion risk, with most areas being low risk for wind erosion due to the dominant clay texture of the till and glaciolacustrine parent material. Staging areas in the nonagricultural Southern Alberta Upland region are dominantly at low risk for wind erosion, with only the Latornell River staging area exhibiting a high risk. A substantial portion of these areas is classified as unrated Disturbed Lands. The Smoky River pump station and access road consist of low-risk areas for wind erosion, whereas the Whitecourt River pump station and access road are at high risk for wind erosion. Stockpile sites in the non-agricultural Southern Alberta Uplands region are dominantly at low risk for wind erosion, with only the Latornell River stockpile site exhibiting a high risk. Significant portions of these areas are also unrated Disturbed Land. All construction camps in the area have a low wind-erosion risk, with a small portion of unrated Disturbed Land. The Smoky River and Whitecourt powerlines are mostly unrated Disturbed Lands, although there are some rated occurrences of low and high wind erosion-risk soils at these sites.
2010
Page 3-43
Table 3-26
Wind Erosion Risk in the PEAA, RoW, Temporary Workspaces and Athabasca River East Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 4.0 2.3 0.1 Percentage (%) 61.5 35.5 1.5 Athabasca River East Staging Area Area (ha) 0.9 0.0 0.1 Percentage (%) 90.0 0.0 10.0
Wind Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
PEAA Area (ha) 816.1 431.2 141.7 Percentage (%) 57.7 30.5 10.0 Area (ha) 19.3 7.5 5.7
RoW Percentage (%) 58.2 22.7 17.3
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 19.6 10.8 1.8 Percentage (%) 59.6 32.8 5.5
26.0 1,415.0
1.8 100.0
0.6 33.1
1.8 100.0
0.7 32.9
2.1 100.0
0.1 6.5
1.5 100.0
0.0 1.0
0.0 100.0
Page 3-44
2010
Table 3-27
Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW, Temporary Workspaces and a Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 1.0 3.7 1.6 0.1 Percentage (%) 15.4 57.0 24.6 1.5 Athabasca River East Staging Area Area (ha) 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 Percentage (%) 90.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
PEAA Area (ha) 374.3 636.4 236.7 141.6 Percentage (%) 26.5 45.0 16.7 10.0 Area (ha) 5.4 16.4 5.0 5.7
RoW Percentage (%) 16.4 49.5 15.1 17.2
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 5.5 17.8 7.1 1.8 Percentage (%) 16.7 54.1 21.6 5.5
26.0 1,415.0
1.8 100.0
0.6 33.1
1.8 100.0
0.7 32.9
2.1 100.0
0.1 6.5
1.5 100.0
0.0 1.0
0.0 100.0
2010
Page 3-45
Table 3-28
Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA PEAA RoW Area (ha) 615.1 88.4 0.0 0.0 113.5 2.2 819.2 Percentage (%) 75.1 10.8 0.0 0.0 13.8 0.3 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 647.9 98.9 0.0 0.0 68.5 2.4 817.7 Percentage (%) 79.2 12.1 0.0 0.0 8.4 0.3 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 137.7 20.6 0.0 0.0 4.3 0.5 163.1 Percentage (%) 84.5 12.6 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.3 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk Class Low High Medium Not Rated Bedrock Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
Area (ha) 26,021.9 66.8 3,951.6 35.0 2,698.1 152.8 32,926.2
Percentage (%) 79.0 0.2 12.0 0.1 8.2 0.5 100.0
Page 3-46
2010
Table 3-29
Wind Erosion Risk for Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Fox Creek Staging Area Athabasca River West Staging Area Area (ha) 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Latornell River Staging Area Area (ha) 0.7 1.0 0.1 1.8 Percentage (%) 38.9 55.5 5.6 100.0 Pinto Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 0.4 0.1 1.1 1.6 Percentage (%) 25.0 6.3 68.8 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk Class Low High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
Area (ha) 1.3 0.0 0.6 1.9
Percentage (%) 68.4 0.0 31.6 100.0
Table 3-30
Wind Erosion Risk for the Smoky River and Whitecourt Pump Stations and Access Roads in Nonagricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Smoky River Pump Station and Access Road Whitecourt Pump Station and Access Road Area (ha) 0.3 2.6 0.0 2.9 Percentage (%) 10.3 89.7 0.0 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk Class Low High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
Area (ha) 3.8 0.0 0.0 3.8
Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
2010
Page 3-47
Table 3-31
Wind Erosion Risk for the Braaten, Kaybob, Stony Creek and Whitecourt West Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Braaten Stockpile Site Kaybob Stockpile Site Area (ha) 23.2 0.3 23.5 Percentage (%) 98.7 1.3 100.0 Stony Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 17.6 0.0 17.6 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 100.0 Whitecourt West Stockpile Site Area (ha) 13.4 0.0 13.4 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk Class Low Not Rated Bedrock Total
Area (ha) 14.5 0.0 14.5
Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 100.0
Page 3-48
2010
Table 3-32
Wind Erosion Risk for the Smoky River Powerline and Calahoo Creek, Deep Valley Creek, Latornell River and Whitecourt Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Smoky River Powerline Area (ha) 29.2 7.2 39.3 Percentage (%) 38.6 9.5 51.8 Calahoo Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 5.8 3.8 2.1 Percentage (%) 49.6 32.5 17.9 0.1 0.7 Deep Valley Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 14.6 Percentage (%) 99.5 14.5 1.2 92.4 7.6 Latornell River Stockpile Site Area (ha) Percentage (%) Whitecourt Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 11.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0
Wind Erosion 1 Risk Class Low High Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
0.1 75.8
0.1 100.0
0.0 11.7
0.0 100.0
0.0 14.7
0.0 100.0
0.0 15.7
0.0 100.0
0.0 11.7
0.0 100.0
2010
Page 3-49
Table 3-33
Wind Erosion Risk for Three Construction Camps and the Whitecourt Powerline in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Braaten Construction Camp Area (ha) 14.5 0.0 0.0 14.5 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Whitecourt Construction Camp Area (ha) 24.5 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Deep Valley Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 19.4 0.0 5.2 24.6 Percentage (%) 78.9 0.0 21.1 100.0 Area (ha) 2.6 3.0 9.7 15.3 Whitecourt Powerline Percentage (%) 17.0 19.6 63.4 100.0
Wind Erosion 1 Risk Class Low High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
Page 3-50
2010
Water erosion risk is generally low or moderate in forested, non-agricultural lands in the Southern Alberta Uplands (see Tables 3-32 to 3-37). This low risk reflects the predominantly gentle slopes in the region. In the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces, low water erosion risk is dominant with some areas of moderate and high erosion risk. The high-susceptibility areas are mainly near river valleys or in gullied terrain where slopes are greater than 20%. Above ground facilities are mostly low risk except for the Braaten and Deep Valley Creek construction camps, which are at high risk of water erosion. In the non-agricultural Southern Alberta Uplands region, the staging areas, pump stations and access roads are dominantly at low risk for water erosion. A substantial portion of these areas is unrated Disturbed Land. The stockpile sites in the non-agricultural Southern Alberta Uplands region are dominantly at low risk for water erosion, with only the Braaten stockpile site area exhibiting a high risk (see Table 3-35). The Whitecourt construction camp site exhibits a low water erosion risk (see Table 3-37). The Smoky River and Whitecourt powerlines are mostly unrated disturbed land, though rated areas are dominantly low water erosion risk (see Table 3-36 and 3-37, respectively). Water erosion risk is generally low or moderate in forested, non-agricultural lands in the Southern Alberta Uplands (see Tables 3-32 to 3-37). This low risk reflects the predominantly gentle slopes in the region. In the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces, low water erosion risk is dominant with some areas of moderate and high erosion risk. The high-susceptibility areas are mainly near river valleys or in gullied terrain where slopes are greater than 20%. Above ground facilities are mostly low risk except for the Braaten and Deep Valley Creek construction camps, which are at high risk of water erosion. In the non-agricultural Southern Alberta Uplands region, the staging areas, pump stations and access roads are dominantly at low risk for water erosion. A substantial portion of these areas is unrated Disturbed Land. The stockpile sites in the non-agricultural Southern Alberta Uplands region are dominantly at low risk for water erosion, with only the Braaten stockpile site area exhibiting a high risk (see Table 3-35). The Whitecourt construction camp site exhibits a low water erosion risk (see Table 3-37). The Smoky River and Whitecourt powerlines are mostly unrated disturbed land, though rated areas are dominantly low water erosion risk (see Table 3-36 and 3-37, respectively).
2010
Page 3-51
Table 3-34
Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA PEAA Area (ha) 25,475.0 1,644.6 2,918.7 37.0 2,698.1 152.8 32,926.2 Percentage (%) 77.4 5.0 8.9 0.1 8.2 0.5 100.0 Area (ha) 652.0 34.9 16.6 0.0 113.5 2.2 819.2 RoW Percentage (%) 79.6 4.3 2.0 0.0 13.8 0.3 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 689.3 38.6 19.5 0.0 67.9 2.4 817.7 Percentage (%) 84.3 4.7 2.4 0.0 8.3 0.3 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 145.8 7.8 4.8 0.0 4.2 0.5 163.1 Percentage (%) 89.4 4.8 2.9 0.0 2.6 0.3 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Bedrock Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
Page 3-52
2010
Table 3-35
Water Erosion Risk for Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Fox Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 1.3 0.6 1.9 Percentage (%) 68.4 31.6 100.0 Athabasca River West Staging Area Area (ha) 2.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 100.0 Latornell River Staging Area Area (ha) 1.7 0.1 1.8 Percentage (%) 94.4 5.6 100.0 Pinto Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 0.4 1.1 1.6 Percentage (%) 28.4 71.6 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
Table 3-36
Water Erosion Risk for the Smoky River and Whitecourt Pump Stations and Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Smoky River Pump Station and Access Road Area (ha) 3.8 0.0 3.8 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 100.0 Whitecourt Pump Station and Access Road Area (ha) 2.9 0.0 2.9 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
2010
Page 3-53
Table 3-37
Water Erosion Risk for the Braaten, Kaybob, Stony Creek and Whitecourt West Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Braaten Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 14.5 14.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 Kaybob Stockpile Site Area (ha) 22.5 0.5 0.0 0.4 23.5 Percentage (%) 96.0 2.1 0.0 1.9 100.0 Stony Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Whitecourt West Stockpile Site Area (ha) 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.5 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Not Rated- Bedrock Total
Page 3-54
2010
Table 3-38
Water Erosion Risk for the Smoky River Powerline and the Calahoo Creek, Deep Valley Creek, Latornell River and Whitecourt Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Smoky River Powerline Area (ha) 28.7 1.6 6.1 39.3 0.1 75.8 Percentage (%) 37.9 2.1 8.0 51.8 0.1 100.0 Calahoo Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 9.6 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 11.7 Percentage (%) 82.1 0.0 0.0 17.9 0.0 100.0 Deep Valley Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 14.7 Percentage (%) 99.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 100.0 Latornell River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 14.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 15.7 Percentage (%) 92.4 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 100.0 Whitecourt Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 11.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
2010
Page 3-55
Table 3-39
Water Erosion Risk for Three Construction Camps and the Whitecourt Powerline in Nonagricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Braaten Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.2 14.3 0.0 14.5 Percentage (%) 1.3 98.7 0.0 100.0 Whitecourt Construction Camp Area (ha) 24.5 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Deep Valley Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 19.4 5.2 24.6 Percentage (%) 0.0 78.9 21.1 100.0 Area (ha) 5.6 0.0 9.7 15.3 Whitecourt Powerline Percentage (%) 36.6 0.0 63.4 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
Page 3-56
2010
3.2.5
3.2.5.1
Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Southern Alberta Uplands

Agricultural Soil Compaction Risk of the Southern Alberta Uplands
For a summary of the compaction and puddling risk of the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces in agricultural lands of the Southern Alberta Uplands, see Table 3-38. The agricultural soils of almost half of this area have a moderate risk for compaction and puddling. Low and low-to-moderate risk areas make up another third of the area. 3.2.5.2 Non-agricultural Soil Compaction Risk of the Southern Alberta Uplands
For the compaction and puddling risk ratings for soil on non-agricultural lands in the PEAA and PDA of the Southern Alberta Uplands, see Tables 3-39 to 3-44. The various ratings are linked primarily to texture and drainage in the different soil parent materials, with coarse sandy-textured glaciofluvial material with good drainage being rated lower, relative to imperfectly drained glaciolacustrine, which is at a higher risk for compaction and puddling. In the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces, most land has a low to moderate risk of compaction and puddling, with high risks at certain locations. The stockpile sites in the non-agricultural Southern Alberta Uplands region are mostly at low risk for compaction and puddling. However, the Calahoo Creek stockpile site is at moderate risk, the Braaten stockpile site is at high risk and the Deep Valley Creek stockpile site has both moderate and high risk. The Whitecourt stockpile site consists entirely of Disturbed Lands. The Smoky River pump station and access road are high risk areas for compaction and puddling, whereas the Whitecourt River pump station and access road are at low risk. The staging areas in the non-agricultural Southern Alberta Uplands region are dominantly at moderate risk for compaction and puddling, although the Latornell River staging area exhibits a low risk. A substantial portion of these areas is unrated Disturbed Land (see Table 3-43). The Braaten and Deep Valley Creek construction camps have a high risk of compaction and puddling, whereas the Whitecourt construction camp is at moderate risk (see Table 3-44). The Smoky River and Whitecourt powerlines are mostly unrated disturbed land, though rated areas are a mix of low, moderate and high risk for compaction and puddling (see Tables 3-41 and 3-44, respectively).
2010
Page 3-57
Table 3-40
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW, Temporary Workspaces and a Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 1.2 1.1 0.1 3.2 0.5 0.1 0.1 Percentage (%) 18.5 16.9 1.5 49.3 7.8 1.5 1.5 Athabasca River East Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 26.0 1,415.0 1.8 100.0 0.6 33 2.0 100.0 0.7 32.9 2.1 100.0 0.2 6.5 3.0 99.8 1.0 100.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class L LM LH M MH H Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
2 2
PEAA Area (ha) 193.3 224.7 22.1 639.4 163.7 4.1 141.6 Percentage (%) 13.7 15.9 1.6 45.2 11.6 0.3 10.0 Area (ha) 5.7 2.4 0 15.1 2.7 0.9 5.7
RoW Percentage (%) 17.2 7.2 0 45.6 8.1 2.7 17.2
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 5.9 4.9 0.5 15.7 2.7 0.6 1.8 Percentage (%) 18.0 15.0 1.6 47.8 8.1 1.8 5.6
NOTES: 1 Compaction and puddling risk classes are explained in Table 2-16. 2 LH, MH complex ratings in which the first rating is dominant and the second is a component greater than 10%.
Page 3-58
2010
Table 3-41
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 26.2 85.8 46.3 0.0 4.3 0.5 163.1 Percentage (%) 16.1 52.6 28.4 0.0 2.6 0.3 100.0
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Bedrock Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
PEAA Area (ha) 5,098.8 15,673.4 9268.2 35.0 2698.1 152.8 32,926.2 Percentage (%) 15.5 47.6 28.1 0.1 8.2 0.5 100.0 Area (ha) 110.4 381.0 212.1 0.0 113.5 2.2 819.2
RoW Percentage (%) 13.5 46.5 25.9 0.0 13.9 0.3 100.0
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 126.4 401.9 218.5 0.0 68.5 2.4 817.7 Percentage (%) 15.5 49.2 26.7 0.0 8.4 0.3 100.0
NOTE: 1 Compaction and puddling risk classes are explained in Table 2-16.
2010
Page 3-59
Table 3-42
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Braaten, Kaybob, Stony Creek and Whitecourt West Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Braaten Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 14.5 0.0 0.0 14.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Kaybob Stockpile Site Area (ha) 23.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 23.5 Percentage (%) 98.7 0.0 0.0 1.3 100.0 Stony Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 17.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Whitecourt West Stockpile Site Area (ha) 12.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 13.4 Percentage (%) 95.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 100.0
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Bedrock Total NOTE:
1
Compaction and puddling risk classes are explained in Table 2-16.
Page 3-60
2010
Table 3-43
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Smoky River Powerline and Calahoo Creek, Deep Valley Creek, Latornell River and Whitecourt Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Smoky River Powerline Area (ha) 7.6 4.7 24.1 39.3 0.1 75.8 Percentage (%) 10.0 6.2 31.8 51.9 0.1 100.0 Calahoo Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 3.9 5.8 0.0 2.1 0.0 11.7 Percentage (%) 33.3 49.6 0.0 17.9 0.0 100.0 Deep Valley Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 7.0 7.7 0.1 0.0 14.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 47.6 52 0.7 0.0 100.0 Latornell River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 14.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 15.7 Percentage (%) 92.4 0.0 0.0 7.6 0.0 100.0 Whitecourt Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 11.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
2010
Page 3-61
Table 3-44
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Smoky River and Whitecourt Pump Stations and Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Smoky River Pump Station and Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 3.8 0.0 3.8 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 Whitecourt Pump Station and Access Road Area (ha) 2.5 0.4 0.0 2.9 Percentage (%) 86.2 13.8 0.0 100.00
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class Low High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
Page 3-62
2010
Table 3-45
Compaction and Puddling Risk for Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Fox Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.6 1.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 68.4 0.0 31.6 100.0 Athabasca River West Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Latornell River Staging Area Area (ha) 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.8 Percentage (%) 94.4 0.0 0.0 5.6 100.0 Pinto Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 0.1 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.6 Percentage (%) 6.3 0.0 25.0 68.8 100.0
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
2010
Page 3-63
Table 3-46
Compaction and Puddling Risk for Three Construction Camps and the Whitecourt Powerline in Non-agricultural Lands Southern Alberta Uplands
PDA Braaten Construction Camp Whitecourt Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 19.9 4.6 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 81.2 18.8 0.0 100.0 Deep Valley Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 19.4 5.2 24.6 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 78.9 21.1 100.0 Whitecourt Powerline Area (ha) 3.6 1.6 0.4 10.2 15.8 Percentage (%) 22.8 10.1 2.5 64.6 100.0
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0 14.5
Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
Page 3-64
2010
3.3
3.3.1
Alberta Plateau
Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soil in the Alberta Plateau
The Alberta Plateau physiographic region in British Columbia extends from KP 510 to KP 560.3. The Alberta Plateau and the Southern Alberta Uplands constitute essentially the same physiographic region, but are divided by a provincial boundary and have different names in each province. However, the main difference between these two physiographic regions is that no agricultural land reserve occurs in the Alberta Plateau and the baseline is solely for non-agricultural soil. Here, as in the Southern Alberta Uplands, Luvisols dominate the mostly forested landscape. Like the Alberta Prairies, the area is gently undulating, with subtle terrain and deeply incised rivers. More details on the landscape are outlined in the Geology and Terrain TDR. Vegetation types in the PEAA in the Alberta Plateau are described in the Vegetation TDR.
3.3.2
3.3.2.1
Soil Description of the Alberta Plateau

Project Effects Assessment Area
Soils in the PEAA of the Alberta Plateau are dominantly Brunisolic Gray Luvisols on morainal parent materials (see Table 3-45). Eluviated Dystric Brunisols on glaciofluvial deposits, Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Luvisols on morainal materials, and inclusions of Terric Fibrisol (T.F) and Typic Fibrisols (TY.F) also occur.
Table 3-47
Soils of the PEAA in the Alberta Plateau

1
Dominant Subgroup B1 (O.EB) B2 (E.EB)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1 Colluvium (c) B2c B2 Morainal (m) Total B2 B5 c B5 Glaciofluvial (g) Total B5
PEAA Area (ha) 8.6 3.8 15.4 19.2 1.3 10.7 12.0 534.4 4.0 2.7 2.3 6.7 583.3 Percentage (%) 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.2 11.0 0.1 0.1 <0.1 0.2 12.0
B5 (O.DYB)
B6 (E.DYB) B7 (G.DYB)
B6g B7g B7 Glaciolacustrine (k) B7o Total B7
Total B (Brunisols)
2010
Page 3-65
Table 3-45
Soils of the PEAA in the Alberta Plateau (contd)

1
Dominant Subgroup G1 (O.G)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit G1 Fluvial (f) G1g G1k G1m G1o Total G1
PEAA Area (ha) 22.5 20.9 6.1 50.6 5.2 105.3 208.4 2.5 210.9 21.6 11.5 32.9 1.4 8.2 2.2 77.7 21.7 3.7 11.8 2.0 39.2 12.0 1.1 18.8 31.9 465.1 82.3 17.1 243.5 76.4 2175.1 2512.1 Percentage (%) 0.5 0.4 0.1 1.0 0.1 2.2 4.3 0.1 4.3 0.4 0.2 0.7 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 1.6 0.4 0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.8 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.7 9.6 1.7 0.4 5.0 1.6 44.7 51.6
G2 (O.LG)
G2k G2 Lacustrine (l) Total G2
G3 (O. HG)
G3f G3g G3k G3l G3m G3o Total G3
G4 (R.G)
G4f G4g G4k G4l Total G4
G5 (R. HG)
G5f G5m G5o Total G5
Total G (Gleysols) L1 (O.GL) L2 (BR.GL) L1k L2f L2g L2k L2m Total L2
Page 3-66
2010
Table 3-45
Soils of the PEAA in the Alberta Plateau (contd)

1
Dominant Subgroup L4 (GLBR.GL)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit L4f L4g L4k L4m Total L4
PEAA Area (ha) 11.0 64.9 24.7 331.2 431.8 3026.1 308.6 159.0 78.2 87.9 633.7 0.3 5.5 4.1 9.9 4.1 107.0 37.9 4867.1 Percentage (%) 0.2 1.3 0.5 6.8 8.9 62.2 6.3 3.3 1.6 1.8 13.0 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 2.2 0.8 100.0
Total L (Luvisols) O1 (T.F) O2 (TY.F) O3 (T.M) O4 (TY.M) Total O (Organic) R1 (O.R) R3 (CU.R) R4 (GLCU.R) Total R (Regosols) Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total BRr DLa WA R1c R3f R4f O1 Organic (o) O2o O3o O4o
NOTE: 1 Soil subgroup abbreviations are according to the Soil Classification Working Group (1998).
3.3.2.2
The PDA in the Alberta Plateau physiographic region includes the 25-m RoW, 25-m temporary workspace, and 10% extra temporary workspace, the South Redwillow River construction camp and stockpile site, and the Stony Lake staging area. See Table 3-46 for the dominant soil subgroups in the PDA of the Alberta Plateau. Table 3-46 shows that in the RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces of the Alberta Plateau, soil distribution is similar to the PEAA. About 66% of the soils are Luvisols (L), with 54% on morainal parent materials. Dystric Brunisols (B) on glaciofluvial deposits (11%) and Terric Fibrisols (T.F) (8% to 9%) are also common.
2010
Page 3-67
Table 3-48
Soils of the PDA in Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau

PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B5g B6g G1f G1g G1m Total G1 South Redwillow River Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 South Redwillow River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B5 (O.DYB) B6 (E.DYB) G1 (O.G)
RoW Area (ha) 0.5 13.6 14.1 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 7.3 0.4 7.7 0.2 0.6 0.6 1.4 Percent (%) 0.4 11.0 11.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.4 5.9 0.3 6.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.1
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.3 12.8 13.1 0.0 0.5 1.4 1.9 7.5 0.6 8.1 0.4 0.6 0.5 1.6 Percent (%) 0.2 10.4 10.6 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.5 6.0 0.5 6.5 0.3 0.5 0.4 1.3
Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.0 2.7 2.7 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.5 0.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Percent (%) 0.0 10.9 10.9 0.0 0.4 1.2 1.6 6.1 0.4 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4
Stony Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total B (Brunisols)
G2 (O.LG)
G2k G2l Total G2
G3 (O.HG)
G3f G3g G3k Total G3
Page 3-68
2010
Table 3-46
Soils of the PDA in Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau (contd)

PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit G4f G4k Total G4 South Redwillow River Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 Percent (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 94.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 South Redwillow River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup G4 (R.G)
RoW Area (ha) 0.3 0.1 0.4 11.2 0.6 10.7 0.7 57.6 69.6 1.6 0.1 1.8 0.2 8.8 11.0 82.2 Percent (%) 0.2 0.1 0.3 9.1 0.5 8.7 0.6 46.5 56.2 1.3 0.1 1.5 0.2 7.1 8.9 66.4
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.3 0.1 0.4 12.0 0.8 10.6 0.6 55.9 68.0 0.7 0.0 2.0 0.4 9.1 11.4 79.4 Percent (%) 0.2 0.1 0.3 9.7 0.7 8.6 0.5 45.5 55.4 0.9 0.0 1.6 0.3 7.4 9.3 64.7
Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.1 2.2 0.1 11.5 13.9 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.8 2.3 16.5 Percent (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 0.4 8.9 0.4 46.6 56.3 1.2 0.0 1.6 0.4 7.3 9.3 66.8
Stony Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percent (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total G (Gleysols) L2 (BR.GL) L2f L2g L2k L2m Total L2 L1 (O.GL) L4 (GLBR.GL) L1k L4f L4g L4k L4m Total L4 Total L (Luvisols)
2010
Page 3-69
Table 3-46
Soils of the PDA in Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau (contd)

PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit O1o O2o O3o O4o R3f DLa WA South Redwillow River Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 24.5 Percent (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 0.0 100.0 South Redwillow River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.7 Percent (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup O1 (T.F) O2 (TY.F) O3 (T.M) O4 (TY.M) R3 (CU.R) Disturbed Land Water Total
RoW Area (ha) 10.5 2.7 0.6 1.0 14.8 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.0 123.9 Percent (%) 8.5 2.2 0.5 0.8 11.9 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.0 100.0
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 12.0 3.1 1.0 0.8 16.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.1 122.8 Percent (%) 9.8 2.5 0.8 0.6 13.7 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.1 100.0
Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 2.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.7 Percent (%) 8.9 2.4 0.8 0.8 13.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Stony Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Percent (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Total O (Organic) Total R (Regosols)
NOTE:
1
Soil subgroup abbreviations are according to the Soil Classification Working Group (1998).
Page 3-70
2010
The South Redwillow River construction camp is dominated by Brunisolic Gray Luvisols (L) on morainal parent materials (94 %). The Stony Lake staging area and South Redwillow River stockpile site consist of 100% Brunisolic Gray Luvisols (L) on morainal parent materials. Soil map units occurring on non-agricultural lands across the PEAA, including the Alberta Plateau physiographic region, are presented in Appendix B. Associated water erosion, wind erosion, and compaction and puddling risk ratings are also defined for each soil map unit in Appendix B.
3.3.3
Soil Erosion Risk of the Alberta Plateau
See Table 3-47 for the wind erosion risk ratings for the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces on non-agricultural lands in the Alberta Plateau. Similar to the Southern Alberta Uplands, most of these areas are classified as having a low risk for wind erosion as the texture is clay-rich and the areas of moderate and high risk are associated with coarser, less aggregated textures. The South Redwillow River construction camp and stockpile sites and the Stony Lake staging area are predominantly at low risk for wind erosion (see Table 3-48).
Table 3-49
Wind Erosion Risk in the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces on Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau
PDA Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 77.3 19.8 24.3 0.1 1.2 Percentage (%) 62.9 16.1 19.8 0.1 1.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 15.5 4.1 5.1 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 62.8 16.6 20.6 0.0 0.0
Wind Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Bedrock Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
PEAA Area (ha) 3,058.8 849.0 810.3 4.1 107.0 Percentage (%) 62.9 17.4 16.6 0.08 2.2 Area (ha) 76.9 19.9 25.5 0.1 1.5
RoW Percentage (%) 62.1 16.1 20.6 0.1 1.2
37.9 4,867.1
0.8 100.0 123.9
0.0 100.0
0.1 122.8
0.1 100.0 24.7
0.0 100.0
2010
Page 3-71
Table 3-50
Wind Erosion Risk in the Stony Lake Staging Area, South Redwillow River Construction Camp and Stockpile Site on Nonagricultural Lands Alberta Plateau
PDA Stony Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 2.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 100.0 South Redwillow River Construction Camp Area (ha) 23.5 1.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 95.9 4.1 100.0 South Redwillow River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 15.7 0.0 15.7 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
In the Alberta Plateau, water erosion risk is dominantly low and linked to the gently undulating terrain. There are about equal percentages of both moderate and high erosion risk in the PEAA and PDA. The high erosion risk areas are often linked to areas of incised terrain near waterways (see Tables 3-49 and 3-50).
Table 3-51
Water Erosion Risk in the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces on Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau
Water Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Bedrock Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
PEAA Area (ha) 3,058.8 849.0 810.3 4.1 107.0 Percentage (%) 62.8 17.4 16.6 0.1 2.2 Area (ha) 81.6 20.8 19.9 0.1 1.5
RoW Percentage (%) 65.9 16.8 16.1 0.1 1.2
37.9 4,867.1
0.8 100.0
0.0 123.9
0.0 100.0
0.1 122.8
0.1 100.0
0.0 24.7
0.0 100.0
Page 3-72
2010
Table 3-52
Water Erosion Risk in the Stony Lake Staging Area, and South Redwillow River Construction Camp and Stockpile Site on Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau
PDA Stony Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 South Redwillow River Construction Camp Area (ha) 21.7 0.6 1.1 1.0 24.4 Percentage (%) 88.9 2.5 4.5 4.1 100.0 South Redwillow River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 14.0 1.7 0.0 0.0 15.7 Percentage (%) 89.4 10.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
3.3.4
Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Alberta Plateau
Most of the non-agricultural lands in the PDA and PEAA of the Alberta Plateau have a mix of low, moderate and high compaction or puddling risk (see Table 3-51).
Table 3-53
Compaction and Puddling Risk in the PEAA and PDA on Nonagricultural Lands Alberta Plateau
PEAA Area (ha) 1,949.5 1,643.0 1,125.6 4.1 107.0 Percentage (%) 40.1 33.8 23.1 0.1 2.2 Area (ha) 52.4 43.8 26.1 0.1 1.5
RoW Percentage (%) 42.4 35.4 21.1 0.0 1.2
37.9 4,867.1
0.8 100.0
00.0 123.9
0.0 100.1
0.1 122.8
0.1 100.0
0.0 24.7
0.0 100.0
NOTE: 1 Compaction and Puddling risk classes are explained in Table 2-15. 2 Totals may be not exact due to rounding
2010
Page 3-73
The South Redwillow River construction camp and stockpile sites and the Stony Lake staging area are predominantly at moderate risk for compaction and puddling (see Table 3-52).
Table 3-54
Compaction and Puddling Risk in the Stony Lake Staging Area, and South Redwillow River Construction Camp and Stockpile Site on Non-agricultural Lands Alberta Plateau
PDA Stony Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 2.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 100.0 South Redwillow River Construction Camp Area (ha) 23.4 1.0 24.4 Percentage (%) 95.9 4.1 100.0 South Redwillow River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 15.7 0.0 15.7 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 100.0
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class Moderate Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
NOTE: 1 Compaction and Puddling risk classes are explained in Table 2-15.
3.4
3.4.1
Rocky Mountains
Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soils in the Rocky Mountains
The Rocky Mountains physiographic region in eastern British Columbia extends from KP 560.3 to KP 663.3. Bedrock geology, surficial geology and topography in this region are described for the PEAA in the Geology and Terrain TDR. Vegetation types in the Rocky Mountains are described in the Vegetation TDR. Climate in the region is influenced by the Rocky Mountains in a west-to-east direction, as well as by altitude. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 500 to 700 mm with the highest values occurring in the south. The mountains delay moisture-laden air from the west coast moving eastward, which results in more precipitation and wetter and cooler conditions on the western side than the eastern side of the mountains. At higher elevations, snowfall accounts for half of the annual precipitation (Maxwell 1987). The mean annual temperature for the area is about 1.5C, with a summer mean of 12C and a winter mean of -10C. Soil development in the Rocky Mountains region is primarily influenced by topography, which further influences other soil forming factors such as climate, parent material and slope stability. Morainal, colluvial and bedrock materials predominate, with organic and fluvial materials occupying a small portion of the region. Luvisols and Brunisols are most common east of the Continental Divide and in the foothills, whereas Podzols may occur on the western side of the Continental Divide where there is more precipitation. Regosols, which exhibit very little soil development, are associated with active fluvial channels and unstable colluvium. Gleysols and Organic soils are present in poorly drained areas (Vold et al. 1977).
Page 3-74
2010
3.4.2
3.4.2.1
Soil Description of the Rocky Mountains

Project Effects Assessment Area
The Rocky Mountains physiographic region consists entirely of non-agricultural lands. For the areas and percentages of soil subgroups found in the PEAA in the Rocky Mountains region, see Table 3-53. Gray Luvisols (L) are the most common soils in the PEAA of the Rocky Mountain physiographic region, accounting for 56% of the area. About 23% of the PEAA in the Rocky Mountains region has Eutric and Dystric Brunisols (B) on colluvium, weathered bedrock, morainal and glaciofluvial (Dystric only) parent materials. Gleysols occur over about 6% of the area. Other soils present in the PEAA include Organic soils (O) and Regosols (R) on various parent materials, with each of these making up less than 5% of the total area.
Table 3-55
Soils of the PEAA in the Rocky Mountains

1
Dominant Subgroup B1 (O.EB)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1 Colluvium (c) B1 - Moraine (m) Total B1
PEAA Area (ha) 495.5 102.2 597.7 433.1 9.8 579.9 1,022.8 9.3 4.3 13.7 3.7 117.4 1.3 8.4 130.8 221.7 2.7 864.2 86.8 1,175.5 10.2 1.3 4.0 15.5 0.1 2,956.2 Percentage (%) 3.9 0.8 4.7 3.4 0.1 4.6 8.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.1 1.0 1.7 0.0 6.8 0.7 9.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 <0.1 23.3
B2 (E.EB)
B2c B2 Weathered Bedrock (d) B2 m Total B2
B3 (GL.EB)
B3c B3m Total B3
B5 (O.DYB)
B5c B Glaciofluvial (g) B5k B5m Total B5
B6 (E.DYB)
B6c B6d B6g B6m Total B6
B7 (GL.DYB)
B7c B7g B7m Total B7
B9 (GL.MB) Total B (Brunisols)
B9c
2010
Page 3-75
Table 3-56
Soils of the PEAA in the Rocky Mountains (contd)

1
Dominant Subgroup G1 (O.G)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit G1c G1 Fluvial (f) G1m Total G1
PEAA Area (ha) 1.9 59.0 34.8 95.7 2.3 380.9 10.8 13.2 55.6 20.2 483.1 2.2 145.0 1.3 13.7 8.3 170.5 778.5 832.7 555.5 690.3 2,078.5 240.2 303.0 27.9 3436.6 4,007.7 224.7 51.1 4.8 133.4 414.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 3.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.3 6.1 6.6 4.4 5.4 16.4 1.9 2.4 0.2 27.1 31.6 1.8 0.4 0.0 1.1 3.3
G3 (O.HG)
G3c G3f G3g G3 Glaciolacustrine (k) G3m G3 Organic (O) Total G3
G4 (R.G)
G4c G4f G4k G4m G4o Total G4
Total G (Gleysols) L1 (O.GL) L1f L1k L1m Total L1 L2 (BR.GL) L2f L2g L2k L2m Total L2 L3 (GL.GL) L3f L3k L3 Lacustrine (l) L3m Total L3
Page 3-76
2010
Table 3-57
Soils of the PEAA in the Rocky Mountains (contd)

1
Dominant Subgroup L4 (GLBR.GL)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit L4f L4g L4m Total L4
PEAA Area (ha) 56.5 137.4 389.4 583.3 7,083.5 216.9 76.5 128.9 20.6 13.5 456.4 119.6 13.1 99.1 231.8 5.4 23.9 75.4 104.7 119.5 685.3 265.2 12,681.3 Percentage (%) 0.4 1.1 3.1 4.6 55.9 1.7 0.6 1.0 0.2 0.1 3.6 0.9 0.1 0.8 1.8 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.9 5.4 2.1 100.0
Total L (Luvisols) O1 (T.F) O2 (TY.F) O3 (T.M) O4 (TY.M) O7 (CU.M) Total O (Organics) R1 (O.R) R1c R1d R1f Total R1 R2 (GL.R) R3 (CU.R) R4 (GLCU.R) Total R (Regosols) Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total BRr DLa WA R2f R3f R4f O1 Organic (o) O2o O3o O4o O7o fluvial environment
3.4.2.2
The PDA in the Rocky Mountains physiographic region includes the 25-m RoW, the 25-m temporary workspace, 10% extra temporary workspace; Tumbler Ridge construction camp, pump station and access road; Missinka River and Tlooki Lake staging areas; Tumbler Ridge, Missinka River and Quintette Creek stockpile sites, and; the Tumbler Ridge powerline. For the areas and percentages of soil subgroups found in the PDA in the Rocky Mountains region, see Tables 3-54 to 3-56. Gray Luvisols (L) are the most common soils in the RoW (63%). These soils have developed primarily on morainal parent materials, with minor occurrences on fluvial, glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine deposits. About 20% of the RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces consists of Eutric and Dystric Brunisols (B) on colluvium, weathered bedrock, morainal and glaciofluvial (Dystric only) parent materials. The remainder of this area is mainly Disturbed Lands (DL) (11%).
2010
Page 3-77
The Missinka River staging area is dominated by Orthic Dystric Brunisols on glaciofluvial parent materials (68%) with 17% Orthic Humic Gleysols (G) on fluvial sediments and 15% Disturbed Lands. The Tlooki Lake staging area is dominated by Brunisolic and Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Luvisols on morainal sediments (80%), and has 20% organic soils. The Tumbler Ridge construction camp area is dominated by Eluviated Dystric Brunisols on glaciofluvial sediments (68%) and Orthic Eutric Brunisols on colluvium (22%). Brunisolic and Gleyed Brunisolic Gray Luvisols are also present. The Tumbler Ridge pump station area is dominated by Eluviated Dystric Brunisols on glaciofluvial sediments (80%), and has 19% Disturbed Lands. The Tumbler Ridge stockpile site is dominated by Eutric Dystric Brunisols on glaciofluvial sediments (68%) with some Gleyed and Orthic Gray Luvisols on fluvial and morainal materials (20%). The Missinka River stockpile site has Orthic Dystric Brunisols on glaciofluvial sediments (80%), and 20% Orthic Humic Gleysols on fluvial sediments. The Quintette Creek stockpile site is dominated by Brunisolic Gray Luvisols on morainal sediments (82%); the remaining area is Disturbed Lands. The Tumbler Ridge powerline area is dominated by Disturbed Lands (37%), with 32% Brunisols and 27% Gray Luvisols. Soil map units occurring in the PEAA within the Rocky Mountains physiographic region are presented in Appendix B. Associated water erosion, wind erosion, and compaction and puddling risk ratings are also defined for each soil map unit in Appendix B.
3.4.3
Soil Erosion Risk of the Rocky Mountains
See Tables 3-57 to 3-59 for a summary of the wind erosion risk for the PEAA and the PDA in the Rocky Mountains physiographic region. Soils with a low wind-erosion risk are dominant. About 35% of these areas have moderate and high wind-erosion risk. The Tumbler Ridge construction camp and pump station, and Missinka River staging area are dominated by high wind erosion risk; these areas are associated with the coarse-textured Luvisols and Brunisols in the Rocky Mountains. The Tlooki Lake staging area is at moderate risk, whereas most of the area for the Tumbler Ridge pump station access road is on unrated Disturbed Land. Stockpile sites have a range of ratings (see Table 3-59). See Tables 3-60 to 3-62 for a summary of the water erosion risk for the PEAA and the PDA in this physiographic region. High risk of water erosion is dominant in the PEAA, RoW, temporary workspace, extra temporary workspace and the Tlooki Lake staging area, mainly because of steep slopes. The Tumbler Ridge construction camp and pump station, and the Missinka River staging area are dominantly at low risk of water erosion.
Page 3-78
2010
Table 3-58
Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in the PDA Rocky Mountains
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1 Colluvium (c) B2c B2 Weathered Bedrock (d) B2 Moraine (m) Total B2 PDA RoW Area (ha) 6.2 6.0 0.2 18.6 24.8 0.0 1.3 0.9 2.2 4.1 10.4 1.8 16.3 0.3 0.6 0.9 50.4 Percentage (%) 2.5 2.4 0.1 7.5 9.9 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.6 4.2 0.7 6.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 20.2 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 8.2 7.4 0.1 20.0 27.5 0.3 1.5 1.0 2.8 5.6 9.5 2.1 17.2 0.3 0.5 0.8 56.5 Percentage (%) 3.3 3.0 0.1 8.1 11.2 0.1 0.6 0.4 1.1 2.3 3.8 0.8 6.9 0.1 0.2 0.3 22.8 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 1.6 1.4 0.1 4.0 5.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.6 1.0 2.2 0.5 3.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 11.5 Percentage (%) 3.2 2.8 0.1 8.1 11.0 0.4 0.6 0.2 1.2 2.0 4.4 1.0 7.5 0.1 0.2 0.3 23.2
Dominant 1 Subgroup B1 (O.EB) B2 (E.EB)
B5 (O.DYB)
B5c B5 Glaciofluvial (g) B5m Total B5
B6 (E.DYB)
B7 (GL.DYB)
B7c B7m Total B7
Total B (Brunisols)
2010
Page 3-79
Table 3-54
Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in the PDA Rocky Mountains (contd)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit G1c G1m Total G1 PDA RoW Area (ha) 0.3 0.7 1.0 2.9 0.2 0.2 3.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 4.6 L1f L1k L1m Total L1 11.1 17.4 21.4 49.9 5.3 1.1 0.3 86.1 Percentage (%) 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.2 0.1 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 1.8 4.4 7.0 8.6 20.0 2.1 0.4 0.1 34.5 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.2 0.7 0.9 2.6 0.2 0.3 3.1 0.3 0.4 0.7 4.7 10.2 20.5 22.8 53.5 5.4 0.9 0.8 93.1 Percentage (%) 0.1 0.3 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.9 4.1 8.2 9.2 21.5 2.2 0.4 0.3 37.6 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 1.0 2.6 4.6 4.8 12.0 1.1 0.2 0.1 19.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.1 1.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 2.0 5.2 9.3 9.7 24.2 2.2 0.4 0.2 39.1
Dominant 1 Subgroup G1 (O.G)
G3 (O.HG)
G3 Fluvial (f) G3 Glaciolacustrine (k) G3m Total G3
G4 (R.G)
G4f G4m Total G4
Total G (Gleysols) L1 (O.GL)
L2 (BR.GL)
L2f L2g L2k L2m
Page 3-80
2010
Table 3-54
Soils of the RoW and Temporary Workspaces in the PDA Rocky Mountains (contd)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit Total L2 PDA RoW Area (ha) 92.8 0.5 1.0 3.5 5.0 0.5 8.7 9.2 156.9 O1 Organic (o) O3o O4o R1c R1f Total R1 1.4 1.1 0.2 2.7 1.5 0.7 2.2 1.7 30.1 0.9 249.5 Percentage (%) 37.2 0.2 0.4 1.4 2.0 0.2 3.5 3.7 62.9 0.6 0.4 0.1 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.7 12.1 0.4 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 100.2 0.5 1.1 4.1 5.7 0.5 8.0 8.5 167.9 1.1 0.8 0.2 2.1 1.6 0.7 2.3 1.8 11.5 0.9 247.7 Percentage (%) 40.5 0.2 0.4 1.7 2.3 0.2 3.2 3.4 67.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.9 0.7 0.3 1.0 0.7 4.6 0.4 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 20.8 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.2 0.1 1.7 1.8 35.8 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.1 49.6 Percentage (%) 41.9 0.2 0.6 1.6 2.4 0.2 3.4 3.6 72.2 0.6 0.4 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.2 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup
L3 (GL.GL)
L3f L3k L3m Total L3
L4 (GLBR.GL)
L4g L4m Total L4
Total L (Luvisols) O1 (T.F) O3 (T.M) O4 (TY.M) Total O (Organics) R1
Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total
BRr DLa WA
2010
Page 3-81
Table 3-59
Soils of the Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp and Pump Station, and the Missinka River and Tlooki Lake Staging Areas Rocky Mountains
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1c B2 Morainal (m) B5 Glaciofluvial (g) B6 Glaciofluvial (g) G3 Fluvial (f) L2g L2m Total L2 Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp Area (ha) 5.2 0.0 0.0 15.9 21.1 0.0 0.3 1.6 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.0 O1 Organic (o) O3o DLa 0 0.2 0.0 23.3 Percentage (%) 22.2 0.0 0.0 68.2 90.4 0.0 1.5 6.9 8.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 8.7 0 0.9 0.0 100.0 Tumbler Ridge Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.1 2.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 2.0 79.2 81.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.8 100.0 Missinka River Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 2.7 0.0 2.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 67.8 0.0 67.8 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.3 100.0 Tlooki Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 30.0 30.0 80.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B1 (O.EB) B2 (E.EB) B5 (O.DYB) B6 (E.DYB) Total Brunisols G3 (O.HG) L2 (BR.GL)
L4 (GLBR.GL)
L4g L4m Total L4
Total Luvisols O1 (T.F) O3 (T.M) Disturbed Land Total
Page 3-82
2010
Table 3-60
Soils of the Tumbler Ridge, Missinka River and Quintette Creek Stockpile Sites and Tumbler Ridge Powerline Rocky Mountains
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit 3.4 0.6 Total B1 B2 Morainal (m) B5 Glaciofluvial (g) B6 Glaciofluvial (g) G3 Fluvial (f) G3m Total G3 Tumbler Ridge Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 12.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 68.4 70.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.9 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Missinka River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8 0.0 15.8 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 79.7 0.0 79.7 19.9 0.0 19.9 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Quintette Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.3 0.0 0.7 0 28.8 33.0 0.8 0.8 1.6 8.7 1.0 9.7 2.5 6.1 8.6 0.6 0 27.8 31.8 0.7 0.8 1.5 8.4 1.0 9.3 2.4 5.9 8.2 Tumbler Ridge Powerline Area (ha) 2.6 0.9 Percentage (%) 2.6 0.8
Dominant 1 Subgroup 3.5 0.8
B2 (E.EB) B5 (O.DYB) B6 (E.DYB) Total Brunisols G3 (O.HG)
L1 (O.GL)
L1f L1m Total L1
L2 (BR.GL)
L2g L2m Total L2
2010
Page 3-83
Table 3-56
Soils of the Tumbler Ridge, Missinka River and Quintette Creek Stockpile Sites and Tumbler Ridge Powerline Rocky Mountains (contd)
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit L3f L3m Total L3 Tumbler Ridge Stockpile Site Area (ha) 2.8 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 O1 Organic (o) O3o BR DLa WA 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 17.6 Percentage (%) 15.9 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 9.2 9.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 100.0 Missinka River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Quintette Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.0 12.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 82.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 100.0 Tumbler Ridge Powerline Area (ha) 1.2 1.2 2.4 0.7 4.4 2.1 7.2 27.8 1.4 0.1 1.5 0.5 38.4 0.3 103.8 Percentage (%) 1.1 1.1 2.3 0.7 4.3 2.0 7.0 26.8 1.3 0.1 1.4 0.5 37.0 0.3 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup L3 (GL.GL)
L4 (GLBR.GL)
L4f L4g L4m Total L4
Total Luvisols O1 (T.F) O3 (T.M) Total Organics Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total
Page 3-84
2010
Table 3-61
Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Rocky Mountains
PDA PEAA RoW Area (ha) 129.3 57.6 29.9 1.7 30.1 0.9 249.5 Percentage (%) 51.8 23.1 12.0 0.7 12.0 0.4 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 144.0 61.2 28.2 1.8 11.6 0.9 247.7 Percentage (%) 58.1 24.7 11.4 0.7 4.7 0.4 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 30.4 12.1 6.5 0.4 0.0 0.1 49.6 Percentage (%) 61.4 24.4 13.1 0.7 0.0 0.3 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Bedrock
Area (ha) 6,964.5 2,171.3 2,475.9 119.5 684.9 265.2 12,681.3
Percentage (%) 54.9 17.1 19.5 0.9 5.4 2.1 100.0
Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
2010
Page 3-85
Table 3-62
Wind Erosion Risk for the Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp and Pump Station, and the Missinka River and Tlooki Lake Staging Areas Rocky Mountains
Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp Tumbler Ridge Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.6 3.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 82.4 17.6 100.0 Missinka River Staging Area Area (ha) 0.7 0.0 2.7 0.6 4.0 Percentage (%) 17.5 0.0 67.5 15.0 100.0 Tlooki Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 Percentage (%) 50.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk Class Low Moderate High
Area (ha) 7.1 0.0 16.3 0.0 23.3
Percentage (%) 30.3 0.0 69.7 0.0 100.0
Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
Page 3-86
2010
Table 3-63
Wind Erosion Risk for the Tumbler Ridge, Missinka River and Quintette Creek Stockpile Sites and Tumbler Ridge Powerline Rocky Mountains
Tumbler Ridge Stockpile Site Area (ha) 5.5 0.0 12.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 17.6 Percentage (%) 31.0 0.0 68.4 0.0 0.6 0.0 100.0 Missinka River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 4.0 0.0 15.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.9 Percentage (%) 19.9 0.0 80.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Quintette Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 9.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 12.0 Percentage (%) 82.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 Tumbler Ridge Powerline Area (ha) 24.1 0.2 40.3 38.4 0.5 0.3 103.8 Percentage (%) 23.2 0.2 38.8 37.0 0.5 0.3 100.0
Wind Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated - Bedrock Not Rated Water Total
2010
Page 3-87
Table 3-64
Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Rocky Mountains
PDA PEAA Area (ha) 3,431.4 875.7 7,386.5 32.9 674.7 280.1 12,681.3 Percentage (%) 27.1 6.9 58.2 0.3 5.3 2.2 100.0 Area (ha) 43.1 19.1 156.7 0.5 30.1 <0.1 249.5 RoW Percentage (%) 17.3 7.7 62.8 0.2 12.1 0.0 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 44.7 22.9 179.4 0.5 0.2 <0.1 247.7 Percentage (%) 18.0 9.2 72.4 0.2 0.1 0.0 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 9.6 4.5 35.4 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 49.6 Percentage (%) 19.3 9.1 71.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 100.0
Page 3-88
2010
Table 3-65
Water Erosion Risk for the Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp and Pump Station and the Missinka River and Tlooki Lake Staging Areas Rocky Mountains
Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp Area (ha) 15.6 7.8 0.0 23.3 Percentage (%) 66.8 33.2 0.0 100.0 Tumbler Ridge Pump Station Area (ha) 2.7 0.1 0.6 3.4 Percentage (%) 79.7 2.0 17.6 100.0 Missinka River Staging Area Area (ha) 3.4 0.0 0.6 4.0 Percentage (%) 85.0 0.0 15.0 100.0 Tlooki Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
2010
Page 3-89
Table 3-66
Water Erosion Risk for the Tumbler Ridge, Missinka River and Quintette Creek Stockpile Sites and the Tumbler Ridge Powerline Rocky Mountains
Tumbler Ridge Stockpile Site Area (ha) 13.7 0.0 3.9 0.0 0.0 17.6 Percentage (%) 77.6 0.0 22.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 Missinka River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Quintette Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 9.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 12.0 Percentage (%) 82.0 0.0 0.0 18.3 0.0 100.0 Tumbler Ridge Powerline Area (ha) 35.7 3.0 26.5 38.2 0.4 103.8 Percentage (%) 34.4 2.9 25.5 36.8 0.4 100.0
Page 3-90
2010
3.4.4
Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Rocky Mountains
See Tables 3-63 to 3-65 for a summary of the compaction and puddling risk for the PEAA and the PDA in the Rocky Mountains physiographic region. Lands classified as having low and moderate compaction and puddling risk are the most common, with areas of high compaction and puddling risk occupying a small part of the PEAA and PDA.
Table 3-67
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces Rocky Mountains
PEAA Area (ha) 5,640.9 4,736.9 1,233.5 119.5 685.3 Percentage (%) 44.5 37.4 9.7 0.9 5.4 Area (ha) 97.5 96.6 22.7 1.7 30.1
RoW Percentage (%) 39.1 38.7 9.1 0.7 12.1
265.2 12,681.3
2.1 100.0
0.9 249.5
0.4 100.0
0.9 247.7
0.4 100.0
0.0 49.6
0.0 100.0
2010
Page 3-91
Table 3-68
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp and Pump Station and the Missinka River and Tlooki Lake Staging Areas Rocky Mountains
Tumbler Ridge Construction Camp Area (ha) 16.3 6.8 0.2 0.0 23.3 Percentage (%) 70.0 29.1 0.9 0.0 100.0 Tumbler Ridge Pump Station Area (ha) 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.4 Percentage (%) 81.7 0.0 0.0 17.6 100.0 Missinka River Staging Area Area (ha) 3.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 4.0 Percentage (%) 85.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 100.0 Tlooki Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 1.0 Percentage (%) 80.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 100.0
Compaction and 1 Puddling Risk Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
Page 3-92
2010
Table 3-69
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Bedrock Not Rated Water Total
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Tumbler Ridge, Missinka River and Quintette Creek Stockpile Sites and Tumbler Ridge Powerline Rocky Mountains
Tumbler Ridge Stockpile Site Area (ha) 14.9 1.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 Percentage (%) 84.6 6.3 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Missinka River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 12.0 18.3 0.0 0.0 100.0 Quintette Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 9.8 Percentage (%) 0.0 81.7 Tumbler Ridge Powerline Area (ha) 47.5 14.7 2.4 38.4 0.5 0.3 103.8 Percentage (%) 45.8 14.2 2.3 37.0 0.5 0.3 100.0
2010
Page 3-93
3.5
3.5.1
Interior Plateau
Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soil in the Interior Plateau
The Interior Plateau physiographic region extends from KP 663.3 to KP 1065.6 and contains both agricultural and non-agricultural soils. The occurrence of agricultural lands is primarily associated with topography where relatively level glaciolacustrine deposits, mostly near Fort St. James, allow soils to be used for agriculture. Bedrock geology, surficial geology and topography are described for the PEAA in the Interior Plateau physiographic region in the Geology and Terrain TDR. Vegetation types in the PEAA in the Interior Plateau are described in the Vegetation TDR. Climate affects soil development and agricultural capability and the diverse climate in this region results in a variety of soils. The climate is slightly warmer and considerably wetter in the western (Bulkley Ranges) part of the region as compared to the Fraser Basin and Fraser Plateau to the east. The mean annual temperature for the entire region, excluding the higher elevations of the Bulkley Ranges, is about 2.5C to 3C with a summer mean of 11.5C to 12.5C and a winter mean of -7C to -8C. Mean annual precipitation ranges from 1,500 mm in the west to as low as 250 mm in the central part of the region (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1996). This physiographic region consists of the Fraser Basin, the Fraser Plateau and the Bulkley Ranges. Fraser Basin Immediately west of the Rocky Mountains lies the Fraser Basin, which covers the plateaus and plains of north-central British Columbia. The ecoregion is underlain by flat-lying tertiary and volcanic bedrock that generally lies below 1,000 m. It has a gently rolling surface covered by thick glacial drift into which the Fraser River and its major tributaries are incised. The glacial deposits include moraine with well-developed drumlinoid features, glaciofluvial terraces, eskers and large areas of glacial lake deposits. Rapidly to imperfectly drained Luvisolic and Brunisolic soils are dominant in the region, whereas Podzolic soils occur sporadically. Regosols are limited to steep upland terrain and banks of stream valleys. Gleysolic soils occupy poorly drained depressions in the landscape, accompanied by Organic soil in places (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1996). Fraser Plateau The Fraser Plateau extends west from the Fraser Basin and includes the interior foothills of the Coast Mountains. This region is a broad, rolling plateau with elevations between 1,150 and 1,800 m. The PEAA passes through the northernmost part of this region, where surface deposits include glacial till with well-developed drumlinoid features, pitted terraces, simple and compound eskers and areas of glacial lake (lacustrine) deposits. Luvisolic and Brunisolic soils are dominant, with Podzols occurring in places. Regosols occur on steep upland terrain and banks of stream valleys. Numerous depressions in the landscape are occupied by Gleysolic and Organic soil (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1996).
Page 3-94
2010
Bulkley Ranges The Bulkley Ranges are on the western side of the Interior Plateau, and are a transition between the coastal region to the west and the drier montane Fraser Plateau to the east. This ecoregion is characterized by folded Jurassic and Cretaceous sediments and volcanic rocks and intrusions of igneous rocks in its southern section. Glaciers occur among the highest peaks at 2,500 to 2,800 m. Brunisolic and Podzolic soils are dominant in the subalpine zone, whereas Brunisolic and Luvisolic soils are associated with the low-elevation valley systems in moist montane regions where western red cedar and western hemlock forests grow. Isolated patches of low-ice content permafrost occur in the northern portion of the ecoregion (Ecological Stratification Working Group 1996).
3.5.2
3.5.2.1
Soil Description of the Interior Plateau

Agricultural Soils of the Interior Plateau
Project Effects Assessment Area For a summary of the areas and percentages of the soil subgroups found in the agricultural lands of the PEAA in the Interior Plateau physiographic region, see Table 3-66. Orthic Gray Luvisols on glaciolacustrine deposits and Brunisolic Gray Luvisols occupy about 65% of the agricultural lands in the PEAA. Small areas of Brunisols (10%), Disturbed Lands (6%), Organics (3%) and Gleysols (1%) comprise the remainder of the PEAA.
Table 3-70
Soils of the PEAA in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau

1
Dominant Subgroup B1 (O.EB)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1 Colluvium (c) B1 Morainal (m) Total B1
PEAA Area (ha) 9.9 9.8 19.7 0.8 68.8 178.3 2.9 250.0 270.4 0.7 0.2 10.1 0.5 1.0 7.5 20.1 Percentage (%) 0.4 0.4 0.8 <0.1 2.5 6.4 0.1 9.0 9.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.7
B5 (O.DYB) B6 (E.DYB)
B5 Fluvial (f) B6c B6 Glaciofluvial (g) B6 Morainal (m) Total B6
Total B (Brunisols) G3 (O.HG) G3f G3g G3 Glaciolacustrine (k) G3 Lacustrine (l) G3m G3o Total G3
2010
Page 3-95
Table 3-66
Soils of the PEAA in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau (contd)

1
Dominant Subgroup G4 (R.G) G5 (R.HG)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit G4 Fluvial (f) G5f G5k G5o Total G5
PEAA Area (ha) 1.4 0.8 15.1 1.6 17.5 38.9 80.5 845.8 0.9 263.6 1,190.9 131.5 509.3 640.8 10.8 262.9 273.6 5.9 4.5 10.4 2,115.8 8.2 13.0 21.7 42.8 6.6 0.1 6.6 1.8 2,70.0 21.9 2,768.4 Percentage (%) 0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.1 0.6 1.4 2.9 30.6 <0.1 9.5 43.0 4.8 18.4 23.1 0.4 9.5 9.9 0.2 0.2 0.4 76.4 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.5 0.2 <0.1 0.2 0.1 9.8 0.8 100.0
Total G (Gleysols) L1 (O.GL) L1f L1k L1l L1m Total L1 L2 (BR.GL) L2g L2m Total L2 L3 (GL.GL) L3f L3k Total L3 L4 (GLBR.GL) L4g L4m Total L4 Total L O1 (T.F) O2 (TY.F) O3 (T.M) Total O R1 (O.R) R3 (CU.R) Total R Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total BR DLa WA R1f R3f O1 Organic (o) O2o O3o
Page 3-96
2010
Project Development Area The PDA in the agricultural lands of the Interior Plateau physiographic region includes the RoW, the temporary workspace and the extra temporary workspace, the Fenton Creek stockpile site and Houston powerline. For a summary of the areas and percentages of soil subgroups found in the PDA, see Table 3-67. In the RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces, Luvisolic soils are dominant - Orthic Gray Luvisols, Gleyed Gray Luvisols and Brunisolic Gray Luvisols are present. Minor areas of Organic soil and Disturbed Lands also occur (see Table 3-67). The Fenton Creek stockpile site is dominated by Brunisolic Gray Luvisols on morainal sediments (85%), with some organic soil (9%) and Eluviated Dystric Brunisols (5%). The Houston powerline is situated mainly on Luvisols (78%) on morainal and glaciolacustrine sediments 3.5.2.2 Non-agricultural Soils of the Interior Plateau
Project Effects Assessment Area For a summary of the areas and percentages of soil subgroups found in the non-agricultural lands of the PEAA in the Interior Plateau physiographic region, see Table 3-68. The non-agricultural lands within the PEAA are dominated by Luvisolic soils (71%), consisting mainly of Orthic and Brunisolic Gray Luvisols on morainal parent materials. Brunisols occur on 16% of the area. Minor areas of Organic soil, Disturbed Lands, Gleysolic soil and Regosolic soil also occur.
2010
Page 3-97
Table 3-71
Soils of the PDA in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau

Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1Colluvium (c) B1Moraine (Till) (m) Total B1 PDA RoW Area Percentage (ha) (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.6 2.2 2.8 2.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.6 5.6 7.2 7.2 0.0 0.4 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.6 2.2 2.8 2.9 0.0 0.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.7 5.6 7.3 7.3 0.0 0.3 Extra Temporary Workspace Area Percentage (ha) (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.6 5.6 7.2 7.3 0.0 0.4 Fenton Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 1.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 Houston Powerline Fort St. James Staging Area
Dominant 1 Subgroup B1(O.EB)
Percentage Area Percentage Area Percentage (ha) (ha) (%) (%) (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 5.2 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.7 0 0 2.9 0.0 3.6 <0.1 0.0 0.8 0.9 1.7 0 0 7.2 0.0 8.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
B5 (O.DYB) B6 (E.DYB)
B5 Fluvial (f) B6c B6 Glaciofluvial (g) Total B6
Total Brunisols (B) G3 (O.HG) G3f G3 Glaciolacustrine (k) G3o Total G3 G4 (R.G) G4f
0.0 0.1 <0.1
0.1 0.5 0.1
0.0 0.2 <0.1
0.1 0.4 0.1
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1
0.1 0.5 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 <0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
Page 3-98
2010
Table 3-67
Soils of the PDA in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau (contd)

Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit G5f G5k G5o Total G5 PDA RoW Area (ha) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.1 19.0 0.0 19.2 1.2 7.1 8.2 0.1 5.7 5.8 0.1 33.2 Percentage (%) 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 1.0 0.4 48.8 0.0 49.2 3.0 18.1 21.1 0.2 14.5 14.8 0.2 85.2 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.2 18.6 0.0 18.8 1.1 7.1 8.2 0.1 5.7 5.8 0.1 32.9 Percentage (%) <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.4 1.0 0.4 47.8 0.0 48.2 2.8 18.3 21.1 0.2 14.8 15.0 0.2 84.5 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 3.8 0.0 3.8 0.2 1.4 1.6 <0.1 1.1 1.1 <0.1 6.6 Percentage (%) 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.5 1.1 0.4 48.3 0.0 48.7 2.9 18.2 21.1 0.2 14.6 14.8 0.2 84.8 Fenton Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.9 84.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.9 Houston Powerline Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 1.4 6.1 10.4 17.9 1.4 8.6 10.0 0 4.5 4.5 0.0 31.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 3.6 15.2 26.0 44.8 3.5 21.5 25.0 0 11.3 11.3 0.0 77.6 Fort St. James Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.0 0.0 83.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup G5 (R.HG)
Total Gleysols (G) L1 (O.GL) L1f L1k L1m L1 total L2 (BR.GL) L2g L2m Total L2 L3 (GL.GL) L3f L3k Total L3 L4 (GLBR.GL) L4g
Total L (Luvisols)
2010
Page 3-99
Table 3-67
Soils of the PDA in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau (contd)

Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit O1 Organic (o) O2o BRr DLa WA PDA RoW Area (ha) 0.2 0.0 0.2 <0.1 2.0 0.3 39.0 Percentage (%) 0.4 0.1 0.5 <0.1 5.1 0.9 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.2 0.0 0.2 <0.1 2.0 0.6 38.9 Percentage (%) 0.4 0.1 0.5 <0.1 5.2 1.4 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) <0.1 <0.1 0.5 <0.1 0.4 1.4 7.8 Percentage (%) 0.4 0.1 0.5 <0.1 5.2 1.1 100.0 Fenton Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 2.2 2.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 23.6 Percentage (%) 0.0 9.4 9.4 0.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Houston Powerline Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 39.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 100.0 Fort St. James Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup O1 (T.F) O2 (TY.F) Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total
Total Organics (O)
Page 3-100
2010
Table 3-72
Dominant 1 Subgroup B1(O.EB)
Soils of the PEAA in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau

Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1c B1m Total B1 PEAA Area (ha) 1,031.4 172.4 1,203.9 4.7 267.5 272.2 64.4 6.1 70.6 8.1 106.2 116.3 132.6 3.7 1.4 1,758.6 2,118.8 426.2 1,667.6 174.1 2,267.9 2.9 6.5 0.6 9.9 1.5 161.5 163.0 8.6 6,123.1 G1c G1f G1g G1m G1o Total G1 14.8 9.1 9.6 105.1 59.3 197.9 Percentage (%) 2.7 0.5 3.2 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 4.7 5.7 1.1 4.4 0.5 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 16.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.5
B2 (E.EB)
B2c B2m Total B2
B3 (GL.EB)
B3c B3m Total B3
B4 (GLE.EB) B5 (O.DYB)
B4f B5c B5f B5g B5k B5l B5m Total B5
B6 (E.DYB)
B7 (GL.DYB)
B8 (GLE.DYB)
B8c B8m Total B8
B9 (GL.MB) Total B G1 (O.G)
B9c
2010
Page 3-101
Table 3-68
Dominant 1 Subgroup G3 (O.HG)
Soils of the PEAA in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau (contd)

Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit G3a G3c G3f G3g G3k G3l G3m G3o Total G3 PEAA Area (ha) 0.3 3.9 165.5 36.1 110.4 1.9 415.8 101.5 837.3 122.6 1.9 8.8 19.2 152.5 77.6 0.1 0.9 0.5 28.4 58.4 165.8 1,338.9 L1f L1k L1l L1m Total L1 624.5 530.4 0.6 12,056.7 13,212.1 697.8 9987.9 10,685.7 192.3 121.6 1357.4 1671.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.0 1.1 0.3 2.2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 3.6 1.7 1.4 0.0 32.0 35.1 1.9 26.5 28.4 0.5 0.3 3.6 4.4
G4 (R.G)
G4f G4g G4m G4o Total G4
G5 (R. HG)
G5f G5g G5k G5l G5m G5o Total G5
Total G L1 (O.GL)
L2 (BR.GL)
L2g L2m Total L2
L3 (GL.GL)
Page 3-102
2010
Table 3-68
Dominant 1 Subgroup L4 (GLBR.GL)
Soils of the PEAA in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau (contd)

Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit L4f L4g L4m Total L4 PEAA Area (ha) 0.7 121.0 843.4 965.1 26,534.1 O1o O2o O3o O4o O7f O7o 514.1 484.4 307.4 188.3 82.8 43.9 126.7 17.8 1638.8 P2c R1c R1- weathered bedrock (d) R1f R1l Total R1 8.4 26.7 8.8 68.6 0.6 104.7 7.0 0.1 7.1 27.1 67.7 206.6 BRr DLa WA 161.3 1,256.3 357.0 37,637.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.3 2.2 2.6 70.5 1.4 1.3 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 3.3 0.9 100.0
Total L O1 (T.F) O2 (TY.F) O3 (T.M) O4 (TY.M)
O7 (CU.M) O9 (HY.M) Total O P2 (O.HFP) R1 (O.R)
Total O7 O9o
R2 (GL.R)
R2f R2l Total R2
R3 (CU.R) R4 (GLCU.R) Total R Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total
R3f R4f
2010
Page 3-103
Project Development Area The PDA in the non-agricultural lands of the Interior Plateau physiographic region includes the RoW, temporary workspace, extra temporary workspace, two powerlines (Bear Lake and Houston), five construction camps (Gosnell Creek, Maxan Creek, Parsnip River, Salmon River and Taltapin Lake), ten stockpile sites (Bear Lake, Beaver Lake, Buck Creek, Burns Lake, Co-op Lake, Foxy Creek, Muskeg River, Parsnip River, Stuart River and Thautil River), four staging areas (Bear Lake, Fort St. James, Parrot Creek and Sheraton Creek), and four pump stations (Bear Lake, Burns Lake, Fort St. James and Houston). For a summary of the areas and percentages of soil subgroups found in the PDA, Tables 3-69 to 3-73. Orthic and Brunisolic Gray Luvisols on morainal parent materials dominate the RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces (73%-77% of the area). Brunisols also occur in these areas, mostly as Eluviated Dystric Brunisols on glaciofluvial deposits and as Orthic Dystric Brunisols on morainal deposits that occupy another 14%-15% (see Table 3-69).
Page 3-104
2010
Table 3-69
Soils of the RoW, Temporary Workspaces and Two Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 16.2 3.9 20.1 6.7 1.9 3.7 3.1 48.8 55.6 5.0 38.0 2.4 45.4 4.5 129.7 Percentage (%) 1.8 0.4 2.2 0.7 0.2 0.4 0.3 5.4 6.1 0.6 4.2 0.3 5.1 0.5 14.2 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 4.1 0.8 4.9 1.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 10.3 11.7 1.0 8.6 0.6 10.2 0.9 28.6 Percentage (%) 2.2 0.4 2.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.4 5.7 6.3 0.6 4.7 0.3 5.6 0.5 15.5 Bear Lake Powerline Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 7.7 Houston Powerline Area (ha) 1.5 0.4 1.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 11.1 0.0 11.1 0.0 13.2 Percentage (%) 2.8 0.7 3.5 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 20.9 0.0 20.9 0.0 4.1
Dominant 1 Subgroup B1 (O.EB)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1 Colluvium (c) B1 Morainal (m) Total B1
RoW Area (ha) 19.2 3.8 23.0 7.2 2.0 3.9 2.4 49.2 55.5 4.9 39.8 2.7 47.4 4.7 135.1 Percentage (%) 2.1 0.4 2.5 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.3 5.4 6.1 0.5 4.4 0.3 5.2 0.5 13.8
B2 (E.EB) B3 (GL.EB) B5 (O.DYB)
B2m B3c B5 Fluvial (f) B5 Glaciofluvial (g) B5m Total B5
B6 (E.DYB)
B8 (GLE.DYB) Total B
B8m
2010
Page 3-105
Table 3-69
Soils of the RoW, Temporary Workspaces and Two Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau (contd)
PDA Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.3 3.7 3.9 4.0 0.6 4.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.5 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.3 0.2 0.9 Percentage (%) 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.1 0.5 Bear Lake Powerline Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Houston Powerline Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit G1f G1m Total G1
RoW Area (ha) 0.3 3.6 3.9 3.9 0.9 3.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4
G3 (O.HG)
G3f G3g G3 Glaciolacustrine (k) G3m Total G3
14.0 22.5 2.8 0.8 1.0 1.8 31.0 8.1 9.0 354.4 371.3
1.5 2.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 3.3 0.9 1.0 38.8 40.7
13.5 22.5 2.9 1.2 0.4 1.6 30.9 8.1 9.0 351.9 368.8
1.5 2.1 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.1 2.9 0.9 1.0 38.9 40.8
2.3 4.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.3 6.3 1.7 1.9 74.0 77.6
1.2 2.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 3.4 0.9 1.1 40.8 42.8
0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 6.3 6.3
4.5 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 70.5 70.5
0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.3 1.7 4.2 6.2
0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.6 3.1 8.0 11.7
G4 (R.G) G5 (X.X)
G4f G5f G5m Total G5
Total G L1 (O.GL) L1f L1k L1m Total L1
Page 3-106
2010
Table 3-69
PDA Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 9.4 227.1 236.5 3.6 3.1 40.1 46.8 2.3 15.3 17.6 669.7 7.7 3.4 5.2 4.4 1.4 0.0 22.1 Percentage (%) 1.0 25.1 26.2 0.4 0.3 4.4 5.1 0.3 1.7 2.0 75.1 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 2.5 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 2.1 46.9 49.0 0.8 0.7 8.2 9.7 0.6 3.2 3.8 140.1 1.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.3 0.0 4.4 Percentage (%) 1.1 25.9 27.0 0.4 0.4 4.5 5.3 0.3 1.8 2.1 77.4 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.0 2.5 Bear Lake Powerline Area (ha) 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 9.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Houston Powerline Area (ha) 11.2 16.5 27.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 36.6 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 Percentage (%) 21.2 31.1 52.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 69.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup L2 (BR.GL)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit L2g L2m Total L2
RoW Area (ha) 9.1 225.1 234.2 3.4 3.2 39.3 45.9 2.8 15.9 18.7 670.1 8.1 2.9 4.7 4.5 1.6 0.0 21.8 Percentage (%) 1.0 24.6 25.6 0.4 0.4 4.3 5.1 0.3 1.7 2.0 73.4 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.0 2.5
L3 (GL.GL)
L4 (GLBR.GL)
L4g L4m Total L4
Total L O1 (T.F) O2 (TY.F) O3 (T.M) O4 (TY.M) O7 (CU.R) O9 (HY.M) Total O O1 Organic (o) O2o O3o O4o O70 O90
2010
Page 3-107
Table 3-69
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit P2c R1c R3f R4f BRr DLa WA PDA RoW Area (ha) 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.5 2.1 2.3 44.3 1.6 913.2 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 4.8 0.2 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.5 2.0 2.5 41.3 1.7 904.6 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 4.6 0.2 100.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.4 181.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) Percentage (%) Bear Lake Powerline Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 8.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 100.0 Houston Powerline Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.9 0.0 53.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 3.6 0.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup P2 R1 R3 (CU.R) R4 (GLCU.R) Total R Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total
Page 3-108
2010
Table 3-70
Soils of Five Construction Camps in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau

Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B6g G4-Fluvial (f) L1m L2m L3f L3m Total L3 PDA Gosnell Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 0.0 4.4 4.4 20.5 O1o DLa 2.3 1.6 24.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.0 0.0 0.0 17.9 17.9 83.9 9.6 6.5 100.0 Maxan Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.7 4.1 0.0 0.7 0.7 24.5 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 80.5 16.8 0.0 2.8 2.8 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Parsnip River Construction Camp Area (ha) 19.4 19.4 4.8 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 24.5 Percentage (%) 78.9 78.9 19.7 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.8 100.0 Salmon River Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.6 0.6 0.0 23.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 23.9 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 2.5 2.5 0.0 96.4 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 97.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Taltapin Lake Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 20.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B6 (E.DYB) Total B G4 (R.G) L1 (O.GL) L2 (BR.GL) L3 (GL.GL)
Total L O1 (T.F) Disturbed Land Total
NOTE:
1
Soil subgroup abbreviations are according to the Soil Classification Working Group (1998).
2010
Page 3-109
Table 3-71
Soils of Five Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau

PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B5 - Fluvial (f) B6 Glaciofluvial (g) L1m L2m L3f DLa B5m - Morainal B6g glaciofluvial B8m Bear Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 13.1 13.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 13.2 11.8 0.0 0.2 12.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 99.2 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 100.0 96.0 0.0 1.6 97.6 Beaver Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 1.8 1.8 13.3 1.1 0.8 15.2 0.0 16.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 10.4 10.4 78.7 6.5 4.4 89.6 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Buck Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 22.9 0.0 18.5 0.0 18.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 92.3 0.0 0.0 7.7 100.0 0.0 93.4 0.0 93.4 Burns Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.5 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 93.2 0.0 0.0 93.2 6.8 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Co-op Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.1 7.8 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 1.5 98.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B5 (O.DYB) B6 (E.DYB) Total Brunisols (B) L1 (O.GL) L2 (BR.GL) L3 (GL.GL) Total Luvisols (L) Disturbed Land Total B5 (O.DYB) B6 (E.DYB ) B8 (GLE.DYB) Total Brunisols
Page 3-110
2010
Table 3-71
Soils of Five Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau (contd)

PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit L1Glaciolacustrine (k) L1m L3m O1o - organic DLa Bear Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 Beaver Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 Buck Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 Burns Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 24.4 Percentage (%) 99.5 Co-op Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup L1 (O.GL)
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 12.3
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 100.0
22.1 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 22.1
100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 19.8
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 100.0
0.0 0.0 24.4 0.0 0.1 24.5
0.0 0.0 99.5 0.0 0.5 100.0
34.3 0.2 34.5 0.1 1.5 36.1
95.1 0.6 96.1 0.2 4.2 100.0
L3 (GL.GL) Total Luvisols O1 (T.F) Disturbed Land Total
2010
Page 3-111
Table 3-72
Soils of Three Staging Areas and the Burns Lake Powerline in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit G4 Morainal (m) L1m L2m L3m L4m DLa Bear Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 2.0 Percentage (%) 6.5 58.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.3 35.2 100.0 Parrot Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 Sheraton Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 2.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 2.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 69.0 20.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 100.0 Burns Lake Powerline Area (ha) 0.0 1.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 2.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 57.5 42.5 0.0 0.0 42.5 0.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup G4 (R.G) L1 (O.GL) L2 (BR.GL) L3 (GL.GL) L4 (GLBR.GL) Total Luvisols Disturbed Land Total
Page 3-112
2010
Table 3-73
Soils of Four Pump Stations in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau

PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B6 Glaciofluvial (g) L1Glaciolacustrine (k) L1m L2g L2m DLa Bear Lake Pump Station Area (ha) 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Burns Lake Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Fort St. James Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Houston Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.7 2.7 0.0 0.4 3.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 18.8 70.3 0.0 10.8 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B6 (E.DYB) L1 (O.GL)
L2 (BR.GL) Disturbed Land Total
2010
Page 3-113
Luvisols and Brunisols are the main soil types for the powerlines. The Bear Lake powerline area is 81% Luvisols, and 7% is Disturbed Land. The Houston powerline area is 69% Luvisols, 21% Disturbed Lands and 4% Brunisols. Luvisols mainly on morainal parent materials are dominant at the Salmon River (97%), Maxan Creek (100%) and Gosnell Creek (84%) construction camps. Luvisols are also dominant at the Taltapin Lake construction camp area (100%). The Parsnip River construction camp area is dominated by Eluviated Dystric Brunisols (80%) (see Table 3-70). Luvisolic soils are dominant at the intended areas for the Beaver Lake (90%), Buck Creek (92%), Burns Lake (94%), Muskeg River (100%), Stuart River (100%) and Thautil River (96%) stockpile sites. Brunisolic soils are dominant at the Bear Lake (99%), Co-op Lake (100%), Foxy Creek (98%) and Parsnip River (93%) stockpile sites (see Table 3-71). Luvisolic soils on moraine and glaciolacustrine parent materials are dominant at the Bear Lake (65%), Fort St. James (85%), Parrot Creek (100%) and Sheraton Creek (90%) staging areas (see Table 3-72). Luvisolic soils are dominant at the Burns Lake (100%), Fort St. James (100%) and Houston (89%) pump stations (see Table 3-73). Brunisolic soils are dominant at the Bear Lake (100%) pump station area. Soil map units occurring on agricultural and non-agricultural lands across the PEAA, including the Interior Plateau physiographic region, are presented in Appendix B. Associated water erosion, wind erosion, and compaction and puddling risk ratings are also defined for each soil map unit in Appendix B.
Table 3-74
Soils of Bear Lake and Burns Lake Pump Station Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B6 Glaciofluvial (g) G3k L1m L1k L2m L2g DLa Bear Lake Pump Station Access Road Area (ha) 0.07 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.15 Percentage (%) 47.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52.9 100.0 Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 Burns Lake Pump Station Access Road Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 89.4 0.0 10.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B6 (E.DYB) G3 (O.HG) L1 (O.GL) L1 L2 (BR.GL) L2 (BR.GL) Disturbed Land Total
Page 3-114
2010
3.5.3
Agricultural Land Capability of the Interior Plateau
Tables 3-75 and 3-76 summarize the Canada Land Inventory Ratings for agricultural lands in the Interior Plateau. In the PEAA and the PDA, agricultural lands consist primarily of Class 5 lands suitable for pasture. Significant portions of Class 4 and Class 6 lands, 20% each, are also present except for the stockpile site and powerline which are almost totally Class 6. Climate is the primary reason for the lower class rating of these agricultural lands.
Table 3-75
Soil Ratings for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 13.1 17.8 5.2 0.3 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 33.6 45.7 13.4 0.8 0.0 5.1 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 2.8 3.8 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 35.3 48.8 14.0 0.7 0.0 0.0
CLI Rating of Dominant 1 Subgroup 4 5 6 7 O Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
PEAA Area (ha) 686.1 1,316.3 335.9 128.1 29 252.2 Percentage (%) 24.8 47.5 12.1 4.6 1.0 9.1 Area (ha) 13.3 17.9 5.2 0.3 0.0 2.0
RoW Percentage (%) 34.1 45.9 13.3 0.8 0.0 5.1
20.8 2,768.4
0.8 100.0
0.3 39.0
0.8 100.0
0.5 38.9
1.4 100.0
0.1 7.8
1.1 100.0
NOTE: 1 Canada Land Inventory (CLI) ratings according to Kenk and Cotic (1983).
Table 3-76
Soil Ratings for the Fenton Creek Stockpile Site, Houston Powerline and Fort St. James Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Fenton Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 9.8 12.5 1.3 Percentage (%) 41.4 52.9 5.7 Area (ha) 12.5 20.5 2.2 2.0 Houston Powerline Percentage (%) 31.2 51.4 5.4 5.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 83.0 0.0 0.0 Fort St. James Staging Area Area (ha) Percentage (%)
CLI Rating of Dominant 1 Subgroup 4 5 6 7
2010
Page 3-115
Table 3-76
Soil Ratings for the Fenton Creek Stockpile Site, Houston Powerline and Fort St. James Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau (contd)
PDA Fenton Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 Area (ha) 2.8 Houston Powerline Percentage (%) 7.0 Fort St. James Staging Area Area (ha) 0.4 Percentage (%) 17.0
CLI Rating of Dominant 1 Subgroup Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
23.6
100.0
40.0
100.0
2.0
100.0
NOTE: 1 Canada Land Inventory (CLI) ratings according to Kenk and Cotic (1983).
3.5.4
3.5.4.1
Soil Erosion Risk of the Interior Plateau

Agricultural Soil Erosion Risk of the Interior Plateau
A low risk of wind erosion dominates the agricultural lands of the PDA and the PEAA (see Table 3-77 and 3-78) covering approximately 75% to 89% of the area.
Table 3-77
Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 32.8 3.5 2.0 Percentage (%) 84.5 8.9 5.1 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 6.9 0.8 0.0 Percentage (%) 88.9 9.9 0.0
Wind Erosion 1 Risk Class Low High Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Bedrock Not Rated Water Total
PEAA Area (ha) 2,076.9 397.8 270.0 Percentage (%) 75.0 14.4 9.7 Area (ha) 33.2 3.5 2.0
RoW Percentage (%) 85.1 9.0 5.1
1.8 21.9 2,768.4
0.1 0.8 100.0
0.0 0.3 38.9
0.0 0.8 100.0
0.0 0.6 38.8
0.0 1.4 100.0
0.0 0.1 7.8
0.0 1.1 100.0
Page 3-116
2010
Table 3-78
Wind Erosion Risk for the Fenton Creek Stockpile Site, Houston Powerline and Fort St. James Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Fenton Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 23.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 23.6 Percentage (%) 99.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 100.0 Houston Powerline Area (ha) 30.2 5.7 0.0 4.0 39.9 Percentage (%) 75.7 14.3 0.0 10.0 100.0 Fort St. James Staging Area Area (ha) 1.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 Percentage (%) 83.0 0.0 0.0 17.0 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk 1 Class Low High Not Rated - Bedrock Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
In the agricultural lands of the Interior Plateau the water erosion risk is mostly rated low or moderate. Low ratings are applied to soils developed in morainal materials while moderate ratings are more typical of soils on steeper slopes and on glaciolacustrine materials due to their silty to clayey nature. Smaller areas of both low and high water erosion risk are present (see Tables 3-79 and 3-80).
Table 3-79
Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA and PDA in Agricultural Lands - Interior Plateau
PDA Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 3.7 24.7 7.9 2.0 Percentage (%) 9.5 63.7 20.4 5.1 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.8 5.3 1.6 0.0 Percentage (%) 10.4 68.0 20.5 0.0
Water Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
PEAA Area (ha) 383.9 1,459.1 652.5 252.2 Percentage (%) 13.9 52.7 23.6 9.1 Area (ha) 3.6 25.0 8.0 2.0
RoW Percentage (%) 9.3 64.1 20.5 5.2
20.7 2,768.4
0.7 100.0
0.3 39.0
0.8 100.0
0.5 38.9
1.4 100.0
0.1 7.8
1.1 100.0
2010
Page 3-117
Table 3-80
Water Erosion Risk for the Fenton Creek Stockpile Site, Houston Powerline and Fort St. James Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Fenton Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 22.2 0.0 1.3 0.0 23.6 Percentage (%) 94.3 0.0 5.7 0.0 100.0 Area (ha) 4.9 18.8 13.4 2.8 39.9 Houston Powerline Percentage (%) 12.3 47.1 33.6 7.0 100.0 Fort St. James Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.3 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 83.0 0.0 17.0 100.0
Water Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
3.5.4.2
Non-agricultural Soil Erosion Risk of the Interior Plateau
Wind erosion risk is summarized for the non-agricultural lands of the Interior Plateau in Tables 3-81 to 3-87. Most non-agricultural lands are characterized by low risk of wind erosion; however, minor areas of moderate and high risk occur in the PEAA, RoW, temporary workspace, extra temporary workspace and the Bear Lake powerline. The Foxy Creek stockpile site has a moderate wind erosion risk. High wind erosion risk is dominant at the Bear Lake pump station and access road, Houston pump station and access road, Parsnip River construction camp, Bear Lake stockpile site and the Houston powerline. High wind erosion risk is associated with coarse textured (i.e., sandy) surface soil.
Page 3-118
2010
Table 3-81
Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
Wind Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Bedrock Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
2010
Page 3-119
Table 3-82
Wind Erosion Risk 1 Class Low High DL Total
Wind Erosion Risk for Five Construction Camps in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Gosnell Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 22.9 0.0 1.6 24.5 Percent (%) 93.5 0.0 6.5 100.0 Maxan Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 24.5 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percent (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Parsnip River Construction Camp Area (ha) 5.0 19.4 0.2 24.5 Percent (%) 20.2 78.9 0.8 100.0 Taltapin Lake Construction Camp Area (ha) 20.9 0.0 0.0 20.9 Percent (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Salmon River Construction Camp Area (ha) 23.9 0.6 0.0 24.5 Percent (%) 97.5 2.5 0.0 100.0
Page 3-120
2010
Table 3-83
Wind Erosion Risk for Bear Lake and Burns Lake Pump Stations and Access Roads, and the Houston and Fort St. James Pump Stations in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Pump Station and Access Road Area (ha) Percentage (%) 0.0 99.2 0.8
2
Wind Erosion Risk 1 Class
Burns Lake Pump Station Area (ha) 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Burns Lake Pump Station Access Road Area (ha) 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Fort St. James Pump Station Area (ha) 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Houston Pump Station Area (ha) 0.7 2.6 0.4 3.7 Percentage (%) 18.9 70.3 10.8 100.0
Low High DL Total
0.0 3.7 0.1 3.8
100.0
NOTE: 1 Wind erosion risk classes are explained in Table 2-14. 2 Access road component is 0.1 ha at the Bear Lake pump station site.
2010
Page 3-121
Table 3-84
Wind Erosion Risk for Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 1.3 0.7 2.0 Percentage (%) 64.8 35.2 100.0 Fort St. James Staging Area Area (ha) 1.6 0.4 2.0 Percentage (%) 80.0 20.0 100.0 Parrot Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 2.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 100.0 Sheraton Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 2.6 0.3 2.9 Percentage (%) 89.7 10.3 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk 1 Class Low DL Total
Table 3-85
Wind Erosion Risk for the Bear Lake, Beaver Lake, Buck Creek, Burns Lake and Co-op Lake Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 13.2 0.1 13.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 99.2 0.8 100.0 Beaver Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 15.2 1.8 0.0 16.9 Percentage (%) 89.6 10.4 0.0 100.0 Buck Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 21.1 0.0 1.8 22.9 Percentage (%) 92.1 0.0 7.9 100.0 Burns Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 7.3 0.0 0.5 7.8 Percentage (%) 93.6 0.0 6.4 100.0 Co-op Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 7.9 0.0 7.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk 1 Class Low High DL Total
Page 3-122
2010
Table 3-86
Wind Erosion Risk for the Fox Creek, Muskeg River, Parsnip River, Stuart River and Thautil River Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Foxy Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.2 11.8 0.0 0.3 12.3 Percentage (%) 1.6 96.0 0.0 2.4 100.0 Muskeg River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 22.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.1 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Parsnip River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 18.5 1.3 19.8 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 83.9 5.9 100.0 Stuart River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 24.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 24.5 Percentage (%) 99.6 0.0 0.0 0.4 100.0 Thautil River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 34.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 36.1 Percentage (%) 95.8 0.0 0.0 4.2 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High DL Total
2010
Page 3-123
Table 3-87
Wind Erosion Risk for Three Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Powerline Area (ha) 7.6 0.7 0.6 0.0 8.9 Percentage (%) 85.6 7.7 6.7 0.0 100.0 Burns Lake Powerline Area (ha) 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Area (ha) 28.2 22.9 1.9 0.0 53.0 Houston Powerline Percentage (%) 53.3 43.1 3.6 0.0 100.0
Wind Erosion 1 Risk Class Low High DL WA Total
For a summary of the water erosion risk for the non-agricultural lands of the Interior Plateau, see Tables 3-88 to 3-94. About 50% of the soils in the PEAA, RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces have high water erosion risk ratings, with substantial areas at moderate risk, and minor areas at low risk. Most of the project infrastructure sites are rated as having low water erosion risk. Sites that have moderate water erosion risk ratings are: Maxan Creek construction camp (80%), Salmon River construction camp (96%), Burns Lake pump station (100%) and access road (89%), Fort St. James (80%) and Parrot Creek (100%) staging areas, and the Bear Lake stockpile site (79%). High water erosion risk is dominant at the Taltapin Lake construction camp (100%), Bear Lake (65%) and Sheraton Creek (78%) staging areas, and the Muskeg River (100%) and the Burns Lake (94%) stockpile sites. Some facilities have co-dominant water erosion risk ratings. The Gosnell Creek construction camp has more or less equal areas of low and moderate risk ratings. The Bear Lake and Burns Lake powerlines have co-dominant mixes of moderate and high erosion risk ratings, while the Houston powerline has co-dominant low and high risk ratings.
Page 3-124
2010
Table 3-88
Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA PEAA Area (ha) 6,338.8 9,931.6 19,740.6 312.2 59.7 1,254.4 37,637.4 Percentage (%) 16.8 26.4 52.4 0.8 0.2 3.3 100.0 Area (ha) 130.9 286.7 449.5 0.6 44.3 1.2 913.2 RoW Percentage (%) 14.3 31.4 49.2 0.1 4.9 0.1 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 127.1 284.0 450.3 0.5 41.4 1.3 904.6 Percentage (%) 14.1 31.4 49.8 0.1 4.6 0.1 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 26.8 59.5 94.7 0.1 0.2 0.3 181.5 Percentage (%) 14.7 32.8 52.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 100.0
2010
Page 3-125
Table 3-89
Water Erosion Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High DL Total
Water Erosion Risk for Five Construction Camps in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Gosnell Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 9.4 9.1 4.4 1.6 24.5 Percentage (%) 38.4 37.1 18.0 6.5 100.0 Maxan Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.7 19.7 4.1 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 3.1 80.2 16.8 0.0 100.0 Parsnip River Construction Camp Area (ha) 24.2 0.0 0.1 0.2 24.5 Percentage (%) 98.8 0.0 0.4 0.8 100.0 Salmon River Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.9 23.6 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 3.8 96.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 Taltapin Lake Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 20.9 0.0 20.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
Page 3-126
2010
Table 3-90
Water Erosion Risk for Bear Lake and Burns Lake Pump Stations and Access Roads, and the Fort St. James and Houston Pump Stations in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Pump Station and Access Road Area (ha) 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.8
2
Burns Lake Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Burns Lake Pump Station Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 1.2 0.1 0.0 1.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 89.1 10.9 0.0 100.0
Fort St. James Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Houston Pump Station Area (ha) 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 3.7 Percentage (%) 89.2 0.0 0.0 10.8 100.0
Percentage (%) 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 100.0
NOTE: 1 Water erosion risk classes are explained in Table 2-15. 2 Access road component is 0.1 ha at the Bear Lake pump station site.
2010
Page 3-127
Table 3-91
Water Erosion Risk for Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 1.3 0.7 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 65.0 35.0 100.0 Fort St. James Staging Area Area (ha) 1.6 0.0 0.4 2.0 Percentage (%) 80.0 0.0 20.0 100.0 Parrot Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Sheraton Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 0.3 2.3 0.3 2.9 Percentage (%) 11.3 78.0 10.3 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Moderate High DL Total
Table 3-92
Water Erosion Risk for the Bear Lake, Beaver Lake, Buck Creek, Burns Lake and Co-op Lake Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 13.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 13.3 Percentage (%) 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 100.0 Beaver Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 2.5 13.3 1.1 0.0 16.9 Percentage (%) 14.8 78.7 6.5 0.0 100.0 Buck Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 21.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 22.9 Percentage (%) 92.1 0.0 0.0 7.8 100.0 Burns Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.5 7.8 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 93.8 6.4 100.0 Co-op Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 7.3 0.0 0.6 0.0 7.9 Percentage (%) 92.5 0.0 7.5 0.0 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High DL Total
Page 3-128
2010
Table 3-93
Water Erosion Risk for the Foxy Creek, Muskeg River, Parsnip River, Stuart River and Thautil River Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Foxy Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 10.0 2.0 0.0 0.3 12.3 Percentage (%) 81.3 16.3 0.0 2.4 100.0 Muskeg River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 22.1 0 22.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0 100.0 Parsnip River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 18.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 19.8 Percentage (%) 93.4 0.0 0.0 6.6 100.0 24.4 0.0 0.1 24.5 99.6 0.0 0.4 100.0 Stuart River Stockpile Site Area (ha) Percentage (%) Thautil River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 34.1 0.5 0.0 1.5 36.1 Percentage (%) 94.5 1.4 0.0 4.1 100.0
2010
Page 3-129
Table 3-94
Water Erosion Risk for Three Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Powerline Area (ha) 1.0 3.6 3.7 0.6 0.0 8.9 Percentage (%) 11.3 40.4 41.6 6.7 0.0 100.0 1.5 1.1 0.0 0.0 2.7 57.5 42.5 0.0 0.0 100.0 Burns Lake Powerline Area (ha) Percentage (%) Area (ha) 27.9 4.8 18.4 1.9 0.0 53.0 Houston Powerline Percentage (%) 52.6 9.1 34.7 3.6 0.0 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High DL WA Total
3.5.5
3.5.5.1
Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Interior Plateau

Agricultural Soil Compaction Risk of the Interior Plateau
In the Interior Plateau physiographic region, most of the agricultural lands in the PEAA and PDA are characterized by soils with moderate (20% to 32%) and high (43% to 68%) compaction and puddling risk ratings (see Table 3-95). These ratings are attributed to the high percentage of poorly drained soil in the area. Soils at moderate risk for compaction and puddling are dominant in the Fenton Creek stockpile sites and the Houston powerline (see Table 3-96), and the Fort St. James staging area has mainly high risk (83%). 3.5.5.2 Non-agricultural Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Interior Plateau
Compaction and puddling risks are summarized for the non-agricultural lands of the Interior Plateau in Tables 3-97 to 3-103. Low compaction and puddling risk dominate Parsnip River construction camp, Bear Lake and Houston pump stations and access roads, Bear Lake, Parrot Creek and Sheraton Creek staging areas, and the Bear Lake, Co-op Lake, Foxy Creek and Parsnip River stockpile sites. Moderate compaction and puddling risk ratings dominate in all construction camps (except Parsnip River), the Muskeg River and Thautil River stockpile sites, and the Bear Lake powerline. High compaction and puddling risk is dominant in the Fort St. James pump station site, the Fort St. James staging area, and the Stuart River stockpile site. The Houston powerline is a mixture of low, moderate and high risk for compaction and puddling, in addition to including a substantial portion of unrated Disturbed Lands.
Page 3-130
2010
Table 3-95
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA PEAA Area (ha) 415.5 872.1 1,187.2 1.8 21.9 2,768.4 Percentage (%) 15.0 31.5 42.9 0.1 0.8 100.0 Area (ha) 3.7 7.8 25.2 2.0 0.3 39.0 RoW Percentage (%) 9.4 19.9 64.7 5.1 0.9 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 3.6 7.8 24.8 2.0 0.6 38.8 Percentage (%) 9.3 20.1 64.0 5.1 1.4 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.8 1.6 5.3 0.0 0.1 7.8 Percentage (%) 10.3 20.7 67.8 0.0 1.1 100.0
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
2010
Page 3-131
Table 3-96
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Fenton Creek Stockpile Site, Houston Powerline and Fort St. James Staging Area in Agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Fenton Creek Stockpile Site Houston Powerline Area (ha) 5.7 19.7 10.6 0.0 4.0 39.9 Percentage (%) 14.3 49.3 26.5 0.0 10.0 100.0 Fort St. James Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.4 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 83.0 0.0 17.0 100.0
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated - Bedrock Not Rated Disturbed Land Total
Area (ha) 0.0 21.2 2.2 0.1 0.0 23.6
Percentage (%) 0.0 90.0 9.4 0.5 0.0 100.0
Page 3-132
2010
Table 3-97
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Nonagricultural Lands Interior Plateau
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Not Rated Bedrock Not Rated Disturbed Land Not Rated Water Total
2010
Page 3-133
Table 3-98
Compaction and Puddling Risk for Five Construction Camps in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Gosnell Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 20.6 2.3 1.6 24.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 84.1 9.4 6.5 100.0 Maxan Creek Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 24.5 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Parsnip River Construction Camp Area (ha) 19.4 5.1 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 79.2 20.8 0.0 0.0 100.0 Salmon River Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.9 23.6 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 3.8 96.2 0.0 0.0 100.0 Taltapin Lake Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 20.9 0.0 0.0 20.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High DL Total
Page 3-134
2010
Table 3-99
Compaction and Puddling Risk for Bear Lake and Burns Lake Pump Stations and Access Roads, and the Fort St. James and Houston Pump Stations in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Pump Station and Access Road Area (ha) 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.8
2
Burns Lake Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3
Burns Lake Pump Station Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Fort St. James Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
Houston Pump Station Area (ha) 2.6 0.7 0.0 0.4 3.7 Percentage (%) 70.3 18.9 0.0 10.8 100.0
Percentage (%) 99.2 0.0 0.0 0.8 100.0
NOTES: 1 Compaction and puddling risk classes are explained in Table 2-16. 2 Access road component is 0.1 ha at the Bear Lake pump station site.
2010
Page 3-135
Table 3-100
Compaction and Puddling Risk for Four Staging Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Staging Area Area (ha) 1.3 0.0 0.7 2.0 Percentage (%) 65.0 0.0 35.0 100.0 Fort St. James Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 1.6 0.4 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 80.0 20.0 100.0 Parrot Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Sheraton Creek Staging Area Area (ha) 2.6 0.0 0.3 2.9 Percentage (%) 89.7 0.0 10.3 100.0
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class Moderate High DL Total
Table 3-101
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Bear Lake, Beaver Lake, Buck Creek, Burns Lake and Co-op Lake Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 13.1 0.0 0.1 13.2 Percentage (%) 99.2 0.0 0.8 100.0 Beaver Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 2.5 14.4 0.0 16.9 Percentage (%) 14.8 85.2 0.0 100.0 Buck Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 21.1 1.8 22.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 92.2 7.8 100.0 Burns Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 7.3 0.5 7.8 Percentage (%) 0.0 93.6 6.4 100.0 Co-op Lake Stockpile Site Area (ha) 7.9 0.0 0.0 7.9 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class Low Moderate DL Total
Page 3-136
2010
Table 3-102
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Foxy Creek, Muskeg River, Parsnip River, Stuart River and Thautil River Stockpile Sites in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Foxy Creek Stockpile Site Area (ha) 12.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 12.3 Percentage (%) 97.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 100.0 Muskeg River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 22.1 0.0 0.0 22.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Parsnip River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 18.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 19.8 Percentage (%) 93.7 0.0 0.0 6.6 100.0 Stuart River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 24.4 0.1 24.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 99.6 0.4 100.0 Thautil River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 34.6 0.1 1.5 36.2 Percentage (%) 0.0 95.6 0.3 4.1 100.0
2010
Page 3-137
Table 3-103
Compaction and Puddling Risk for Three Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Interior Plateau
PDA Bear Lake Powerline Area (ha) 0.7 7.2 0.4 0.6 0.0 8.9 Percentage (%) 7.9 80.9 4.5 6.7 0.0 100.0 Area (ha) 0.0 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.7 Burns Lake Powerline Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Area (ha) 23.5 25.4 2.2 1.9 0.0 53.0 Houston Powerline Percentage (%) 44.3 47.9 4.2 3.6 0.0 100.0
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High DL WA Total
Page 3-138
2010
3.6
3.6.1
Coast Mountains
Biophysical Setting and Overview of Soils of the Coast Mountains
The Coast Mountains physiographic region extends from KP 1065.6 to 1172.2. Parent material, bedrock geology and climate influence soil development in the region. On the western side of the mountains, Podzols and Brunisols have developed on colluvium, glaciofluvial, morainal, glaciomarine and marine parent materials. Regosols lack substantial profile development and are associated with bedrock and unstable materials such as colluvium and fluvial deposits. Poorly drained areas of all parent material types are characterized by Gleysolic soils. Organic soils are found primarily along poorly to very poorly drained margins of open wetlands, in lake or pond basins and other (localized) depressional areas in the landscape. Other organic soils are composed entirely of upland (folic) materials that are usually well to imperfectly drained. The distribution of these soils is limited to mid- to upper-slopes of steep, rocky terrain. Soils of the eastern side of the mountains are generally similar to those of the western side, but the somewhat drier climate influences the distribution of soil types. Podzols and folic organic soils are less common, whereas Brunisols dominate. Luvisolic soil is also more prominent here. At high elevations, active periglacial processes such as frost shattering, colluviation, soil creep and cryoturbation, in combination with a severe climate, limit soil formation; therefore, Regosols are predominant. Less common are Brunisols, which develop on colluvial, morainal and fluvial sediments. Podzols constitute minor inclusions, generally developing under krummholz and dwarf evergreen scrub vegetation.
3.6.2
3.6.2.1
Soil Description of the Coast Mountains

Agricultural Soils of the Coast Mountains
The agricultural lands in the PEAA of the Coast Mountains region are characterized by Podzols developed on glacial marine sediments (see Table 3-104). The soils atlas (see Appendix D on CD) presents the spatial distribution of agricultural lands for this physiographic region. The PDA does not intersect agricultural lands in the Coast Mountains region. 3.6.2.2 Non-agricultural Soils of the Coast Mountains
Project Effects Assessment Area See Table 3-105 for a summary of the areas and percentages of soil subgroups found in the non-agricultural lands of the PEAA in the Coast Mountains region. In this region, Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzols that have formed on glaciofluvial and glaciomarine parent materials occur on about 62% of the agricultural lands (see Table 3-105). Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzols that have formed on colluvium, glaciofluvial, morainal and glaciomarine parent materials occur on about 65% of the non-agricultural lands (see Table 3-105). About 17% of the PEAA is occupied by Brunisols; Orthic Dystric Brunisols on colluvium, fluvial, glaciofluvial and morainal parent materials are dominant
2010
Page 3-139
in this group. The remainder of the PEAA consists of small percentages of Organics (6%), Disturbed Lands (4%), Regosols (1%-2%), Bedrock (1%) and Gleysols (4%).
Table 3-104
Soils of the PEAA and Tunnel Powerline in Agricultural Lands - Coast Mountains
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B8 Glaciofluvial (g) G1 Glaciomarine (x) G3o G3x Total G3 PEAA Area (ha) 8.2 1.8 0.9 3.4 4.3 6.1 O1 Organic (o) O3o 0.3 0.9 1.2 P2g P2x Total P2 92.8 94.4 187.1 310.5 497.6 DLa 37.0 550.1 Percentage (%) 1.5 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.8 1.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 16.9 17.2 34.0 56.4 90.5 6.7 100.0 Clore and Hoult Tunnels Powerline Area (ha) 0.2 5.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 5.4 0 0 0 2.9 0.1 3.0 7.2 10.1 0.6 16.4 Percentage (%) 1.4 31.2 0.8 1.2 2.0 33.2 0 0 0 17.5 0.6 18.1 43.8 61.9 3.6 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B8 G1 G3 (R.HG)
Total G (Gleysols) O1 (T.F) O3 (T.M) Total O (Organics) P2 (O.HFP)
P3 (GL.HFP) Total P (Podzols) Disturbed Land Total
P3x
Page 3-140
2010
Table 3-105
Soils of the PEAA in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains

1
Dominant Subgroup B1 (O.EB) B4 (GLE.EB)
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1 Fluvial (f) B1 Glaciolacustrine (k) B4f B4k Total B4
PEAA Area (ha) 1.0 46.0 15.7 16.8 32.5 431.6 1,064.9 248.2 717.6 6.1 2,468.4 106.0 16.7 28.2 150.9 20.9 206.3 43.3 58.8 329.4 3,028.1 62.3 1.8 7.7 26.8 0.7 44.2 143.6 44.3 10.5 6.1 50.3 40.2 151.5 Percentage (%) <0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 2.5 6.2 1.4 4.2 <0.1 14.3 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.3 1.9 17.5 0.4 <0.1 <0.1 0.2 <0.1 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.2 0.9
B5 (O.DYB)
B5 Colluvium (c) B5f B5 Glaciofluvial (g) B5 Morainal (m) B5 Glaciomarine (x) Total B5
B6 (E.DYB)
B6f B6m B6x Total B6
B8 (GLE.DYB)
B8c B8f B8g B8m Total B8
Total B (Brunisols) G1 (O.G) G1f G1g G1k G1 (O.G) (contd) G1m G1o G1x Total G1 G3 (O.HG) G3f G3g G3m G3o G3x Total G3
2010
Page 3-141
Table 3-105
Soils of the PEAA in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains (contd)

1
Dominant Subgroup G4 (R.G) G5
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit G4f f m o Total G5
PEAA Area (ha) 318.8 0.3 0.5 4.8 5.6 619.5 10.4 47.2 67.9 25.9 17.0 907.3 1065.2 82.9 3,266.6 1,886.6 4,412.6 1,077.2 10,642.9 2.8 4.2 48.8 364.2 419.9 11,145.8 88.7 8.3 1.7 98.7 1.2 99.8 62.0 261.8 Percentage (%) 1.8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3.6 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 5.3 6.2 0.5 18.9 10.9 25.6 6.2 61.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 2.1 2.4 64.6 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.6 <0.1 0.6 0.4 1.5
Total G (Gleysols) L5 (PZ.GL) O1 (T.F) O3 (T.M) O4 (TY.M) O5 (HI.FO) O6 (HE.FO) Total O (Organic) P1 (O.FHP) P2 (O.HFP) P1c P2c P2g P2m P2x Total P2 P3 (GL.HFP) P3f P3g P3m P3x Total P3 Total P (Podzols) R1 (O.R) R1c R1 Weathered bedrock (d) R1 Marine (w) Total R1 R2 (GL.R) R3 (CU.R) R4 (GLCU.R) Total R (Regosols) R2w R3f R4f L5 Marine (w) O1 Organic (o) O3o O4o O5o O6o
Page 3-142
2010
Table 3-105
Soils of the PEAA in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains (contd)

1
Dominant Subgroup Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total
Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit BRr DLa WA
PEAA Area (ha) 197.2 731.5 195.4 17,255.0 Percentage (%) 1.1 4.2 1.1 100.0
NOTE: 1 Soil subgroup abbreviations are according to the Soil Classification Working Group 1998.
Project Development Area The PDA in the non-agricultural lands of the Coast Mountains physiographic region includes the RoW, temporary workspace, extra temporary workspace, the Kitimat Terminal, access roads, powerlines, four construction camps (Clearwater, Clore River, Tunnel North and Tunnel West), the Clearwater pump station, the Tunnel East and Tunnel Middle staging areas, the Clearwater stockpile site and five tunnel excess cut disposal areas (East, East North, Middle North, Middle South and West). For a summary of the areas and percentages of the soil subgroups found in the PDA, see Tables 3-106 to 3-112. In the RoW, temporary and extra temporary workspaces, Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzols on colluvium, glaciofluvial, morainal and glaciomarine parent materials are dominant. Substantial areas of Disturbed Lands and Brunisolic soil, especially Orthic Dystric Brunisols on fluvial and morainal parent materials, also occur. The remainder includes small amounts of Gleysolic, Organic and Regosolic soils. The area inside the Kitimat Terminal security fence is dominated by Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzols (91%) on colluvium, morainal, and glaciomarine deposits. The various above ground facilities are dominated by Podzols and Brunisols. The Bulkley-Nechako access road passes through predominantly Brunisolic soils, while other access roads are dominated by Podzolic soils. The Clearwater, Clore River and Tunnel West construction camps are dominated by Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzols on colluvium, glaciofluvial and morainal deposits, whereas the Tunnel North construction camp area is dominated by Orthic Dystric Brunisols on colluvium and glaciofluvial materials. The Clearwater pump station is dominated by Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzols on glaciofluvial materials, and Disturbed Lands dominate the Clearwater stockpile site. The Tunnel East staging area consists mainly of a mix of Orthic Dystric Brunisols and Orthic Gleysols, and the Tunnel Middle staging area consists mainly of Humo-Ferric Podzols with about 10% Disturbed Lands. Soil map units occurring on agricultural and non-agricultural lands across the PEAA, including the Coast Mountains physiographic region, are presented in the soils atlas (see Appendix D on CD). In addition, the associated water erosion, wind erosion, and compaction and puddling risk ratings are defined for each soil map unit in Appendix B.
2010
Page 3-143
Table 3-106
Soils of the RoW, Temporary Workspaces and the Kitimat Terminal Area inside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B1 Glaciolacustrine (k) Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.6 2.5 2.3 0.6 3.0 8.4 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.6 1.8 11.0 Percentage (%) 0.2 1.0 0.2 1.2 5.1 4.7 1.2 6.1 17.2 0.2 2.2 0.2 1.2 3.7 22.5 Kitimat Terminal Area ins ide S ecurity F enc e Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2
Dominant 1 Subgroup B1 (O.EB) B4 (GLE.EB)
RoW Area (ha) 0.6 1.4 0.4 Percentage (%) 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.8 2.6 3.8 1.5 5.8 13.7 0.3 1.3 0.1 1.0 2.4 17.4
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.7 1.3 0.7 2.0 7.0 10.4 2.2 14.2 33.8 1.0 3.5 0.4 1.8 5.7 43.2 Percentage (%) 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 2.9 4.3 0.9 5.9 14.0 0.4 1.5 0.2 0.8 2.5 18.0
Total B4 B5 (O.DYB) B5 Colluvium (c) B5f B5 Glaciofluvial (g) B5 Morainal (m) Total B5 B6 (E.DYB) B8 (GLE.DYB) B6m B8f B8g B8m Total B8 Total B
1.8 6.7 9.7 3.9 14.7 35.0 0.7 3.4 0.2 2.6 6.2 44.3
Page 3-144
2010
Table 3-106
Soils of the RoW, Temporary Workspaces and the Kitimat Terminal Area inside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains (contd)
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit G1f G1k G1m G1 Glaciomarine (x) Total G1 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.8 0.2 0.2 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.0 2.2 Percentage (%) 1.6 0.0 0.4 0.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 4.1 4.5 Kitimat Terminal Area ins ide S ecurity F enc e Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 7.9 9.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 3.8 4.3
2
RoW Area (ha) 2.2 0.2 1.2 1.0 4.6 1.2 0.5 0.2 1.3 3.2 0.1 7.9 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.3 8.0 9.3 Percentage (%) 0.9 0.1 0.5 0.4 1.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.5 1.3 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.1 3.2 3.7
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.9 2.5 1.4 0.4 0.3 1.4 3.5 0.1 6.1 0.0 0.4 1.1 0.2 10.0 11.7 Percentage (%) 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 1.1 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 1.5 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.2 0.5 0.1 4.2 5.0
G3 (HU.G)
G3f G3g G3o G3x Total G3
G4 (R.G) Total G L5 (PZ.GL) O1 (T.F) O3 (T.M) O4 (TY.M) O6 (HE.FO) Total O
G4f L5 Marine (w) O1 Organic (o) O3o O4o O6o
2010
Page 3-145
Table 3-106
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit P1c P2c P2g P2m P2x Total P2 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.2 9.1 7.7 6.1 8.3 31.2 1.1 32.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 Percentage (%) 0.4 18.6 15.7 12.5 17.0 63.8 2.2 66.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.8 Kitimat Terminal Area ins ide S ecurity F enc e Area (ha) 0.0 18.0 0.0 43.5 118.5 180.0 10.0 190.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 8.6 0.0 20.7 56.5 85.8 4.8 90.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
2
Dominant 1 Subgroup P1 (O.FHP) P2 (O.HFP)
RoW Area (ha) 1.0 42.2 36.8 29.1 39.9 148.0 3.9 152.9 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.8 0.2 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.4 16.7 14.7 11.5 15.8 58.7 1.5 60.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.8
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.7 48.2 36.1 27.9 38.5 150.7 4.5 155.9 0.6 4.1 4.7 0.7 0.3 5.7 Percentage (%) 0.3 20.1 15.1 11.6 16.1 62.9 1.9 65.1 0.3 1.7 2.0 0.3 0.1 2.3
P3 (GL.HFP) Total P R1 (O.R)
P3x R1c R1 Weathered bedrock (d) Total R1 R3f R4f
R3 (CU.R) R4 (GLCU.R) Total R
Page 3-146
2010
Table 3-106
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit BRr DLa WA Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.7 0.8 0.1 48.9 Percentage (%) 1.4 1.6 0.2 100.0 Kitimat Terminal Area ins ide S ecurity F enc e Area (ha) 0.3 9.5 0.0 209.8 Percentage (%) 0.1 4.5 0.0 100.0
2
Dominant 1 Subgroup Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total
RoW Area (ha) 3.6 32.6 0.1 252.7 Percentage (%) 1.4 12.9 0.0 100.0
Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 0.0 16.8 0.1 239.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 7.0 0.0 100.0
NOTE: 1 Soil subgroup abbreviations are according to the Soil Classification Working Group (1998). 2 This refers to the area inside the security fence at Kitimat Terminal, excluding Kitimat pump station site.
2010
Page 3-147
Table 3-107
Soils of Four Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains

PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B5 Colluvium (c) B5 Fluvial (f) B5 Glaciofluvial (g) B5 Morainal (m) Total B5 Bulkley-Nechako Access Road Area (ha) 2.2 0.2 1.8 3.9 8.1 0.8 8.9 L5w O3 Organic (o) O6o P1c P2c P2m P2x Total P2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 23.4 2.1 19.1 41.5 86.1 8.5 94.6 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clore River Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 1.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 35.0 35.0 95.0 Kitimat Terminal 2 Bypass Road Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.6 0.1 2.6 0.2 0.4 3.2 3.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.3 31.3 2.0 11.8 3.9 4.3 62.7 64.7 Kitimat-Stikine Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.4 1.4 0.0 1.6 0.6 0.9 3.2 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 15.2 15.2 0.0 17.4 6.5 9.8 34.8 0.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B5 (O.DYB)
B8 (GLE.DYB) Total B (Brunisols) L5 O3 (T.M) O6 (HE.FO) Total O (Organic) P1 (O.FHP) P2 (O.HFP) P2 P2 Total P (Podzols)
B8m
Page 3-148
2010
Table 3-107
Soils of Four Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains (contd)

PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit R1c BRr DLa WA Bulkley-Nechako Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 9.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 3.2 0.0 1.1 100.0 Clore River Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Kitimat Terminal 2 Bypass Road Area (ha) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 5.1 Percentage (%) 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Kitimat-Stikine Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 0.3 4.0 0.0 9.2 Percentage (%) 0.0 3.2 43.5 0.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup R1 Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total
NOTE: 1 Soil subgroup abbreviations are according to the Soil Classification Working Group 1998. 2 The bypass road will provide access for the public to travel beyond the Kitimat Terminal and rejoins Bish FSR to the southwest. This will allow the public unobstructed access to Bish Cove and surrounding areas during construction and operations of the Kitimat Terminal.
2010
Page 3-149
Table 3-108
Soils of Four Construction Camps in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains

PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B5 Colluvium (c) B5 Glaciofluvial (g) Total B5 Clearwater Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 12.1 0 1.3 13.4 90.3 0 9.7 100.0 Clore River Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tunnel North Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.1 5.7 5.8 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 Percentage (%) 1.3 74.0 75.3 24.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Tunnel West Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 5.7 0.0 0.0 6.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0 93.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
G1 (O.G) P2 (O.HFP)
G1 Morainal (m) P2c P2g P2m Total P2
Disturbed Land Total
DLa
Page 3-150
2010
Table 3-109
Soils of the Kitimat Pump Station, Access Road and Powerline, and the Area outside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B5f B5x B6m B8m G1f O6c P1c P2c P2g P2m P2x Kitimat Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 81.8 0.0 81.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.6 8.8 0.0 0.0 2.5 36.2 0.0 0.0 Kitimat Pump Station 2 Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Kitimat Pump Station Powerline Area (ha) 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.1 2.8 0.6 8.3 Percentage (%) 0.8 0.8 1.2 0.0 2.8 0.4 11.5 2.5 34.2 Kitimat Terminal Area outside Security 3 Fence Area (ha) 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.7 6.8 0.0 23.5 0.0 53.2 0.0 53.9 62.7 0.7 117.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.7 3.2 0.0 10.9 0.0 24.7 0.0 25.1 29.1 0.3 54.5
Dominant 1 Subgroup B5 (O.DYB) B5 B6 (E.DYB) B8 (GLE.DYB) Total B G1 (O.G) O6 (HE.F)) P1 (O.FHP) P2 (O.HFP)
P3 (GL.HFP) Total P
P3x
2010
Page 3-151
Table 3-109
Soils of the Kitimat Pump Station, Access Road and Powerline, and the Area outside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains (contd)
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit R1c R1d BRr DLa Kitimat Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Kitimat Pump Station 2 Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 100.0 Kitimat Pump Station Powerline Area (ha) 1.1 0.4 0.9 0.2 24.3 Percentage (%) 4.5 1.7 3.7 0.8 100.0 Kitimat Terminal Area outside Security 3 Fence Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 6.5 8.0 215.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 3.0 3.7 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup R1 (O.R) Bedrock Disturbed Land Total
NOTE: 1 Soil subgroup abbreviations are according to the Soil Classification Working Group 1998. 2 The Kitimat Terminal pump station access road (also referred to as the Kitimat Terminal permanent access road and the Kitimat main access road) will be an upgrade of Bish FSR from the end of the existing pavement to the security fence. 3 These numbers refer to the area outside the security fence at Kitimat Terminal, excluding Kitimat Terminal excess cut disposal area, pump station access road, powerline easement and bypass road.
Page 3-152
2010
Table 3-110
Soils of the Clearwater and Clore River Stockpile Sites, and the Clearwater and Tunnel Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B5f B6f B8f B8g Clearwater Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 G1m G3o O6c P1c P2c P2g P2m P3m P3x 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clore River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 82.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clearwater Pump Station Powerline Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Clore and Hoult Tunnels Powerline Area (ha) 3.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 3.6 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.2 39.7 13.7 89.2 1.4 5.7 151.9 Percentage (%) 1.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.1 20.2 7.0 45.3 0.7 2.9 77.1
Total B G1 (O.G) G3 (HU.G) Total G O6 (HE.FO) Total O P1 (O.FHP) P2 (O.HFP)
Total P
2010
Page 3-153
Table 3-110
Soils of the Clearwater and Clore River Stockpile Sites, and the Clearwater and Tunnel Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains (contd)
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit R1c BR DLa WA Clearwater Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 19.8 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 0.0 100.0 Clore River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.8 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 100.0 Clearwater Pump Station Powerline Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 100.0 Clore and Hoult Tunnels Powerline Area (ha) 0.3 0.3 0.1 40.2 0.0 196.9 Percentage (%) 0.2 0.2 0.1 20.4 0.0 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup R1 Total R Bedrock Disturbed Land WA Total
Page 3-154
2010
Table 3-111
Soils of the Clearwater Pump Station and Stockpile Site and Two Tunnel Staging Areas in Nonagricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit B5 Glaciofluvial (g) G1 Morainal (m) P2g P2m Total P2 Clearwater Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 Clearwater Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.0 19.2 0.7 19.9 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 96.5 0.0 96.5 3.5 100.0 Tunnel East Staging Area Area (ha) 1.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Percentage (%) 57.9 42.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Tunnel Middle Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 1.6 16.6 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.4 90.4 9.6 100.0
Dominant 1 Subgroup B5 (O.DYB) G1 (O.G) P2 (O.HFP)
Disturbed Land Total
DLa
2010
Page 3-155
Table 3-112
Soils of Five Tunnel Excess Cut Disposal Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Dominant Subgroup and Parent Material Map Unit Tunnel East Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 3.0 2.2 1.1 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.3 Percentage (%) 37.8 28.3 13.7 79.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 100.0 Tunnel East North Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.5 2.7 0.7 3.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 5.4 Percentage (%) 8.1 50.2 13.2 71.6 25.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.5 0.0 100.0 Tunnel Middle North Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 28.9 28.9 0.0 0.6 2.3 32.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 89.5 89.5 0.0 1.9 7.1 100.0 Tunnel Middle South Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 14.4 23.2 0.0 0.0 2.3 25.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.5 0.0 56.5 91.0 0.0 0.0 9.0 100.0 Tunnel West Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 8.6 9.8 0.0 0.0 1.6 11.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 75.5 86.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 100.0
B5 Colluvium (C) B5 Glaciofluvial (g) B5 Morainal (m) Total B5
G1 (O.G) O6 (HE.FO) P2 (O.HFP)
G1m O6 Organic (o) P2c P2g P2m Total P2
R4 (GLCU.R) Bedrock Disturbed Land Total
R4 Fluvial (f) BR Dla
Page 3-156
2010
3.6.3
Agricultural Land Capability of the Coast Mountains
There are approximately 21 ha of agricultural land reserve in the PEAA in the Coast Mountains physiographic region. This small forested area is located north and east of Kitimat where agricultural capability is limited by climate, soil characteristics and steep topography. Class 5 and 6 lands account for 75% and 18% (respectively) of the agricultural land in the PEAA, mainly due to steep topography. Class 7 is unsuitable for agriculture and is linked to gullies and potentially unstable terrain features where agriculture is not feasible (see Table 3-113).
Table 3-113
Soil Ratings for the PEAA and the Tunnel Powerline in Agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PEAA Area (ha) 410.2 98.9 2.8 37.0 1.2 550.1 Percentage (%) 74.6 18.0 0.5 6.7 0.2 100 Clore and Hoult Tunnels Powerline Area (ha) 9.1 6.7 0.0 0.6 0.0 16.4 Percentage (%) 55.5 40.8 0.0 3.7 0.0 100.0
CLI Rating of Dominant 1 Subgroup 5 6 7 DL O Total
NOTE: 1 Canada Land Inventory (CLI) rating classes are explained in Table 2-12.
3.6.4
3.6.4.1
Soil Erosion Risk of the Coast Mountains

Agricultural Soil Erosion Risk of the Coast Mountains
Wind erosion risk in the agricultural lands of the PEAA of the Coast Mountains physiographic region is dominantly rated as low with small amounts of moderate and high risk areas. A small percentage consists of unrated Disturbed Land (see Table 3-114).
2010
Page 3-157
Table 3-114
Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA and Tunnel Powerline in Agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PEAA Clore and Hoult Tunnels Powerline Percentage (%) 59.3 17.2 16.9 0.0 0.0 6.7 100.0 Area (ha) 12.8 0.1 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.6 16.4 Percentage (%) 78.3 0.6 17.5 0.0 0.0 3.7 100.0
Wind Erosion Risk Class Low Moderate High Bedrock (BR) Water (WA) Disturbed Land (DL) Total
Area (ha) 326.0 94.4 92.8 0.0 0.0 37.0 550.1
In agricultural lands of the Coast Mountains, the water erosion risk is generally rated high, due to the steep slopes and the erosive nature of parent materials in that area (see Table 3-115).
Table 3-115
Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA and Tunnel Powerline in Agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PEAA Clore and Hoult Tunnels Powerline Percentage (%) 18.1 75.2 6.7 100.0 Area (ha) 3.0 12.8 0.6 16.4 Percentage (%) 18.3 78.0 3.7 100.0
Water Erosion Risk Class Low High Disturbed Land (DL) Total
Area (ha) 99.6 413.5 37.0 550.1
Page 3-158
2010
3.6.4.2
Non-agricultural Soil Erosion Risk of the Coast Mountains
See Tables 3-116 to 3-122 for a summary of the wind erosion risk for non-agricultural lands of the Coast Mountains. In non-agricultural lands, areas with moderate risk for wind erosion dominate. Significant percentages of the PEAA and PDA for this region are at low and high risk for wind erosion. The Clearwater construction camp, pump station and access road, the Tunnel North construction camp, the Tunnel East staging area and the Tunnel East North excess cut disposal area are at high risk for wind erosion. Water erosion risk is summarized for non-agricultural lands of the Coast Mountains in Tables 3-123 to 3-129. In the non-agricultural lands, high water erosion risk is dominant because of steep slopes. Areas with relatively flat terrain have low and/or moderate water erosion risk (Clore River stockpile site, Clearwater pump station, powerline and stockpile site, Kitimat pump station, access road and powerline, and the area outside the security fence).
2010
Page 3-159
Table 3-116
Wind Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA PEAA Area (ha) 1,544.2 11,027.5 3,559.2 197.2 731.5 195.4 17,255.0 Percentage (%) 8.9 63.9 20.6 1.1 4.2 1.1 100.0 Area (ha) 22.2 142.6 51.6 3.6 32.6 0.1 252.7 RoW Percentage (%) 8.8 56.4 20.4 1.4 12.9 0.0 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 21.0 148.2 49.6 3.8 16.8 0.1 239.5 Percentage (%) 8.8 61.9 20.7 1.6 7.0 0.0 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 4.5 31.7 11.0 0.8 0.8 0.1 48.9 Percentage (%) 9.3 64.8 22.5 1.6 1.6 0.2 100.0
Wind Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Bedrock Disturbed Land Water Total
Page 3-160
2010
Table 3-117
Wind Erosion Risk for the Kitimat Terminal Bypass and the Kitimat-Stikine, Bulkley-Nechako and Clore River Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Kitimat Terminal Bypass Road Area (ha) 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 5.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 95.4 0.0 2.0 2.6 0.0 100.0 Kitimat-Stikine Access Road Area (ha) 0.3 4.6 0.0 4.0 0.3 0.0 9.2 Percentage (%) 3.3 50.0 0.0 43.4 3.3 0.0 100.0 Bulkley-Nechako Access Road Area (ha) 1.0 6.1 1.9 0.0 0.3 0.1 9.4 Percentage (%) 10.6 64.9 20.2 0.0 3.2 1.1 100.0 Clore River Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Wind Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Disturbed Land Bedrock Water Total
2010
Page 3-161
Table 3-118
Wind Erosion Risk for the Clearwater, Clore River, Tunnel North and West Construction Camps and the Kitimat Terminal inside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Clearwater Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Clore River Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 12.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 13.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 89.6 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 100.0 Tunnel North Construction Camp Area (ha) 1.8 0.1 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 Percentage (%) 23.4 1.3 75.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Tunnel West Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Kitimat Terminal Area ins ide S ecurity F enc e Area (ha) 12.2 187.7 0.0 9.5 0.3 0.1 209.8 Percentage (%) 5.8 89.5 0.0 4.5 0.1 0.1 100.0
2
Wind Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High DL BR WA Total
NOTE: 1 Wind erosion risk classes are explained in Table 2-14. 2 This refers to the area inside the security fence at Kitimat Terminal, excluding Kitimat pump station site.
Page 3-162
2010
Table 3-119
Wind Erosion Risk for the Clearwater Pump Station, and Kitimat Pump Station, Access Road and Powerline, and the Area outside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Clearwater Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Kitimat Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Kitimat Pump Station 2 Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 100.0 Kitimat Pump Station Powerline Area (ha) 0.1 22.9 0.2 0.9 0.2 24.3 Percentage (%) 0.4 94.4 1.0 3.8 0.4 100.0 Kitimat Terminal Area outside Security 3 Fence Area (ha) 4.4 196.6 0.0 6.5 7.9 215.4 Percentage (%) 2.0 91.3 0.0 3.0 3.7 100.0
Wind Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Bedrock Disturbed Land Total
NOTE: 1 Wind erosion risk classes are explained in Table 2-14. 2 The Kitimat Terminal pump station access road (also referred to as the Kitimat Terminal permanent access road and the Kitimat main access road) will be an upgrade of Bish FSR from the end of the existing pavement to the security fence. 3 These numbers refer to the area outside the security fence at Kitimat Terminal, excluding Kitimat Terminal excess cut disposal area, pump station access road, powerline easement and bypass road.
2010
Page 3-163
Table 3-120
Wind Erosion Risk for Two Tunnel Staging Areas and the Tunnel East and East North Excess Cut Disposal Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Tunnel East Staging Area Area (ha) 0.8 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 Percentage (%) 40.0 0.0 60.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Tunnel Middle Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 15.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 16.6 Percentage (%) 0.0 90.4 0.0 9.6 0.0 100.0 Tunnel East Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.0 4.1 2.2 0.5 1.0 7.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 56.1 30.8 6.3 13.1 100.0 0.1 5.4 1.5 100.0 Tunnel East North Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 1.3 1.2 51.9 Percentage (%) 25.0 21.6 51.9
Wind Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High Disturbed Land Bedrock Total
Page 3-164
2010
Table 3-121
Wind Erosion Risk for Three Tunnel and Kitimat Terminal Excess Cut Disposal Areas in Nonagricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Tunnel Middle North Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.0 29.4 0.0 2.3 0.6 32.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 91.0 0.0 7.1 1.9 100.0 Tunnel Middle South Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.0 23.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 25.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 91.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 100.0 Tunnel West Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.0 9.8 0.0 1.6 0.0 11.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 86.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 100.0 Kitimat Terminal Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.6 30.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 32.1 Percentage (%) 1.8 93.9 0.0 0.0 4.4 100.0
2010
Page 3-165
Table 3-122
Wind Erosion Risk for the Clearwater and Clore River Stockpile Sites, and the Clearwater and Tunnel Powerlines in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Clearwater Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 19.1 0.7 0.0 19.8 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 96.5 3.5 0.0 100.0 Clore River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 0.0 1.2 6.4 0.2 0.0 7.8 Percentage (%) 0.0 15.4 82.0 2.6 0.0 100.0 Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.0 0.3 Clearwater Powerline Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 35.9 64.1 0.0 100,0 Clore and Hoult Tunnels Powerline Area (ha) 7.8 131.9 16.8 40.3 0.1 196.9 Percentage (%) 4.0 67.0 8.5 20.5 0.0 100.0
Page 3-166
2010
Table 3-123
Water Erosion Risk for the PEAA, RoW and Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA PEAA Area (ha) 3,300.0 757.4 12,073.5 197.2 731.5 195.4 17,255.0 Percentage (%) 19.1 4.4 70.0 1.2 4.2 1.1 100.0 Area (ha) 44.2 4.5 171.3 0.0 32.6 0.1 252.7 RoW Percentage (%) 17.5 1.8 67.8 0.0 12.9 <0.1 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 43.4 5.2 174.0 0.0 16.8 0.10 239.5 Percentage (%) 18.1 2.2 72.7 0.0 7.0 0.04 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 9.7 1.0 37.3 0.0 0.8 0.1 48.9 Percentage (%) 19.9 2.1 76.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High BR DL WA Total
2010
Page 3-167
Table 3-124
Water Erosion Risk for the Kitimat Terminal Bypass and Three Access Roads in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Kitimat Terminal Bypass Road Area (ha) 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 5.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 98.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 100.0 Kitimat-Stikine Access Road Area (ha) 0.0 4.9 0.3 4.0 0.0 9.2 Percentage (%) 0.0 53.2 3.3 43.5 0.0 100.0 Bulkley-Nechako Access Road Area (ha) 1.3 7.7 0.3 0.0 0.1 9.4 Percentage (%) 13.8 81.9 3.2 0.0 1.1 100.0 Clore River Access Road Area (ha) 0.1 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 5.0 95.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low High BR DL WA Total
Page 3-168
2010
Table 3-125
Water Erosion Risk for the Clearwater Pump Station, and the Kitimat Pump Station, Access Road and Powerline in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Kitimat Pump Station Access Road Area (ha) 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.5 Percentage (%) 60.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 100.0 Clearwater Pump Station Area (ha) 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Kitimat Pump Station Area (ha) 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Kitimat Pump Station 2 Powerline Area (ha) 0.3 22.9 0.9 0.2 24.3 Percentage (%) 1.2 94.3 3.7 0.8 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low High BR DL Total
NOTE: 1 Water erosion risk classes are explained in Table 2-15. 2 The Kitimat pump station powerline (also called the proposed 287 kV powerline) goes to the electrical yard and substation, where power will then be distributed throughout the Kitimat Terminal as required.
2010
Page 3-169
Table 3-126
Water Erosion Risk for the Clearwater, Clore River, Tunnel North and West Construction Camps and the Kitimat Terminal Area inside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Kitimat Terminal Area ins ide S ecurity F enc e Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 200.3 9.5 0.0 209.8 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 95.5 4.5 0.0 100.0
2
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High DL WA Total
Clearwater Construction Camp Area (ha) 15.8 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 64.3 35.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Clore River Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 12.1 1.3 0.0 13.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 90.4 9.7 0.0 100.0
Tunnel North Construction Camp Area (ha) 2.8 0.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 7.7 Percentage (%) 36.4 0.0 63.6 0.0 0.0 100.0
Tunnel West Construction Camp Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 6.1 0.0 0.0 6.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
NOTE: 1 Water erosion risk classes are explained in Table 2-15. 2 This refers to the area inside the security fence at Kitimat Terminal, excluding Kitimat pump station site.
Page 3-170
2010
Table 3-127
Water Erosion Risk for the Tunnel East and Middle Staging Areas, and Tunnel East and East North Excess Cut Disposal Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Tunnel East Staging Area Area (ha) Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Tunnel Middle Staging Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 1.6 16.6 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 90.4 0.0 9.6 100.0 Tunnel East Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.4 0.0 5.9 1.0 0.0 7.3 Percentage (%) 5.5 0.0 80.8 13.7 0.0 100.0 Tunnel East North Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.5 0.0 4.8 0.1 0.0 5.4 Percentage (%) 8.9 0.0 88.9 1.2 0.0 100.0
Water Erosion 1 Risk Class
Low Moderate High BR Disturbed Land Total
0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9
2010
Page 3-171
Table 3-128
Water Erosion Risk for Four Excess Cut Disposal Areas and the Clearwater Stockpile Site in Nonagricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Tunnel Middle North Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 91.0 1.9 7.1 100.0 Tunnel Middle South Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 23.2 0.0 2.3 25.5 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 91.0 0.0 9.0 100.0 Tunnel West Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 1.6 11.4 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 86.0 0.0 14.0 100.0 Kitimat Terminal Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 32.1 0.0 0.0 32.1 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Clearwater Stockpile Site Area (ha) 16.6 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.7 19.8 Percentage (%) 83.9 12.7 0.0 0.0 3.5 100.0
Low Moderate High BR Disturbed Land Total
0.0 0.0 29.4 0.6 2.3 32.3
Page 3-172
2010
Table 3-129
Water Erosion Risk for the Clore River Stockpile Site, the Clearwater and Tunnel Powerlines, and the Area outside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Clore River Stockpile Site Area (ha) Percentage (%) 82.2 0.0 15.6 2.2 0.0 100.0 Area (ha) 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 Clearwater Powerline Percentage (%) 33.3 33.3 0.0 66.7 0.0 100.0 Clore and Hoult Tunnels Powerline Area (ha) 12.3 1.1 0.0 39.9 0.0 196.9 Percentage (%) 6.3 0.5 57.9 20.3 15.0 100.0 Kitimat Terminal 2 Area outside Security Fence Area (ha) 0.0 0.0 207.4 7.9 0.0 215.3 Percentage (%) 0.0 0.0 96.3 3.7 0.0 100.0
Low Moderate High Disturbed Land Bedrock Total
6.4 0.0 1.2 0.2 0.0 7.8
NOTE: 1 Water erosion risk classes are explained in Table 2-15. 2 This refers to the area outside the security fence at Kitimat Terminal, excluding Kitimat Terminal excess cut disposal area, pump station access road, powerline easement and bypass road.
2010
Page 3-173
3.6.5
3.6.5.1
Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Coast Mountains

Agricultural Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Coast Mountains
The agricultural area of the PEAA has primarily a moderate risk of compaction and puddling (see Table 3-130). Soils commonly have high coarse-fragment content as well as lower clay content relative to other regions, resulting in relatively lower risk of compaction and puddling.
Table 3-130
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA and the Tunnel Powerline Coast Mountains
PEAA Area (ha) 101.0 405.6 6.6 37.0 550.1 Percentage (%) 18.4 73.7 1.2 6.7 100.0 Clore and Hoult Tunnels Powerline Area (ha) 3.1 7.3 5.4 0.6 16.4 Percentage (%) 18.9 44.5 32.9 3.7 100.0
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Disturbed Land (DL) Total
3.6.5.2
Non-agricultural Soil Compaction and Puddling Risk of the Coast Mountains
See Tables 3-131 to 3-137 for a summary of the compaction and puddling risk for non-agricultural lands of the Coast Mountains. Low risk of compaction and puddling characterizes most of the RoW and above ground facilities. Moderate or high compaction and puddling risk is dominant in areas proposed for the Clore and Hoult tunnel powerline, the area inside the Kitimat Terminal security fence and the Kitimat pump station.
Page 3-174
2010
Table 3-131
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the PEAA, RoW, Temporary Workspaces in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PEAA PDA RoW Area (ha) 14,162.5 1,606.3 362.4 197.2 731.5 195.4 17,255.0 Percentage (%) 82.1 9.3 2.1 1.1 4.2 1.1 100.0 Area (ha) 164.7 47.7 4.0 3.6 32.6 0.1 252.7 Percentage (%) 65.2 18.9 1.6 1.4 12.9 0.0 100.0 Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 168.0 46.2 4.7 3.8 16.8 0.1 239.6 Percentage (%) 70.1 19.3 2.0 1.6 7.1 0.0 100.0 Extra Temporary Workspace Area (ha) 36.3 10.1 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.1 48.9 Percentage (%) 74.2 20.6 1.8 1.5 1.6 0.1 100.0
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High BR DL WA Total
NOTE: 1 Compaction and puddling risk ratings are explained in Table 2-16.
2010
Page 3-175
Table 3-132
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Kitimat Terminal Bypass and Three Access Roads in Nonagricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Kitimat Terminal Bypass Road Area (ha) 4.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 5.1 Percentage (%) 88.2 7.8 2.4 2.0 2.0 0.0 100.0 Kitimat-Stikine Access Road Area (ha) 3.7 0.9 0.3 0.3 4.0 0.0 9.2 Percentage (%) 40.2 9.8 3.3 3.2 43.5 0.0 100.0 Bulkley-Nechako Access Road Area (ha) 8.9 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1 9.4 Percentage (%) 95.0 0.0 1.1 3.2 0.0 0.7 100.0 Clore River Access Road Area (ha) 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High BR DL WA Total
Page 3-176
2010
Table 3-133
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Kitimat Pump Station, Access Road and Powerline, and the Clearwater Pump Station in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Kitimat Pump Station Powerline Area (ha) 14.3 8.9 0.2 0.9 24.3 Percentage (%) 58.9 36.6 0.8 3.7 100.0
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class Low Moderate DL BR Total NOTE:

1
Kitimat Pump Station Access Road Area (ha) 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.5 Percentage (%) 60.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 100.0
Clearwater Pump Station Area (ha) 3.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Kitimat Pump Station Area (ha) 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 1.2 Percentage (%) 21.0 79.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Compaction and puddling risk ratings are explained in Table 2-16.
2010
Page 3-177
Table 3-134
Compaction and Puddling Risk for the Clearwater, Clore River, Tunnel North and West Construction Camps and the Kitimat Terminal Area inside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Kitimat Terminal Area ins ide S ecurity F enc e Area (ha) 61.9 135.8 2.2 0.3 9.5 0.1 209.8 Percentage (%) 29.5 64.8 1.1 0.1 4.5 0.0 100.0
2
Compaction and Puddling 1 Risk Class Low Moderate High BR DL WA Total
Clearwater Construction Camp Area (ha) 24.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24.5 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Clore River Construction Camp Area (ha) 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 13.4 Percentage (%) 90.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 0.0 100.0
Tunnel North Construction Camp Area (ha) 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.7 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Tunnel West Construction Camp Area (ha) 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
NOTE: 1 Compaction and puddling risk ratings are explained in Table 2-16. 2 This refers to the area inside the security fence at Kitimat Terminal, excluding Kitimat pump station site.
Page 3-178
2010
Table 3-135
Compaction and Puddling Risk for Two Tunnel Staging Areas, and the Tunnel East and East North Excess Cut Disposal Areas in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Tunnel East Staging Area Area (ha) Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Tunnel Middle Staging Area Area (ha) 15.0 0.0 1.6 16.6 Percentage (%) 90.4 0.0 9.6 100.0 Tunnel East Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 6.3 1.0 0.0 7.3 Percentage (%) 86.9 13.1 0.0 100.0 Tunnel East North Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 5.3 0.1 0.0 5.4 Percentage (%) 98.5 1.5 0.0 100.0
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class
Low Bedrock Disturbed Land Total
1.9 0.0 0.0 1.9
2010
Page 3-179
Table 3-136
Compaction and Puddling Risk for Three Tunnel Excess Cut Disposal Areas and the Clearwater Stockpile Site in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Tunnel Middle North Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) Percentage (%) 91.0 1.9 7.1 100.0 Tunnel Middle South Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 23.2 0.0 2.3 25.5 Percentage (%) 91.0 0.0 9.0 100.0 Tunnel West Excess Cut Disposal Area Area (ha) 9.8 0.0 1.6 11.4 Percentage (%) 86.0 0.0 14.0 100.0 Clearwater Stockpile Site Area (ha) 19.1 0.0 0.7 19.8 Percentage (%) 96.7 0.0 3.5 100.0
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class
Low Bedrock Disturbed Land Total NOTE:

1
29.4 0.6 2.3 32.3
Compaction and puddling risk ratings are explained in Table 2-16.
Page 3-180
2010
Table 3-137
Compaction and Puddling Risk for Clore River Stockpile Site, and Clearwater and Tunnel Powerlines, and the Area outside the Security Fence in Non-agricultural Lands Coast Mountains
PDA Kitimat Terminal 2 Area outside Security Fence Area (ha) 134.4 66.5 0.0 7.9 6.5 215.3 Percentage (%) 62.4 30.9 0.0 3.7 3.0 100.0 Clore River Stockpile Site Area (ha) 7.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 7.8 Percentage (%) 97.8 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0 100.0 Area (ha) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 Clearwater Powerline Percentage (%) 100.0 0.0 0.0 66.7 0.0 100.0 Clore and Hoult Tunnels Powerline Area (ha) 150.4 5.8 0.3 40.3 0.1 196.9 Percentage (%) 76.4 2.9 0.2 20.5 0.0 100.0
Compaction and Puddling Risk 1 Class Low Moderate High Disturbed Land Bedrock Total
NOTE: 1 Compaction and Puddling risk classes are explained in Table 2-16. 2 This refers to the area outside the security fence at Kitimat Terminal, excluding Kitimat Terminal excess cut disposal area, pump station access road, powerline easement and bypass road.
2010
Page 3-181
3.6.6
Acidification Sensitivity of Soil
Acidification sensitivity of soil was assessed in the RADEAA in the Coast Mountains physiographic region (approximate area of 32,000 ha). The information was based on ground inspection points and supported by visual inspections and terrain mapping. The location of both visual and ground inspection sites within the RADEAA are shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 respectively. Sixteen soil assessment points were established in the RADEAA and samples analyzed for pH, CEC, texture, exchangeable cations, and pyrophosphate extractable iron and aluminum. Soil analytical results are presented in Appendix E. Most of the RADEAA is underlain by quartz diorite and quartz monzonite (an intermediate igneous rock), with about 20% of the area underlain by calc-alkaline basalt and 20% underlain by orthogneiss (British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources 2005). Colluvial, fluvial, glaciofluvial, morainal, organic, glaciomarine and marine deposits that are interspersed with bedrock outcrops occur in the RADEAA. Humo-Ferric and Ferro-Humic Podzolic, Humic and Hemic Folisolic, Eluviated Dystric Brunisolic and Orthic and Gleyed Regosolic soil occur in this area. Table 3-138 summarizes soil and geological data, and assigns an acidification sensitivity class to the 16 inspection sites in the RADEAA that were collected in 2006. This table also summarizes 21 ground inspection points collected in 2005, and seven inspection points described in 2009. These sites were assigned to categories of soil acid sensitivity to potential acid input.
Page 3-182
2010
OP008 STV72 TERA106
SRV91 TER54 STV73 STV73 STV74 OP007
OP006 SRV107 STV75 TERA107 STV76 STV77 STV78
KP 1150
TER46A TER45A TER45 TER44
OP005
TER42A STV80 STV81 RA5 STV82 STV83 TERA109 STV84 STV85 TERA108
Kitimat
KP 1160
STV86
RA6
TERA110 STV108 STV109
RA4
STV110 KW067-KW068 STV111 STV112 TERA111
KP 1170
RA3 CDA1-CDA7 STV115 STV116 SRV100 SRV99 SRV98 RA7
KW066
Kitamaat Village
TERA112 STV114 KW065 KT1-KT11 KW062-KW063 SRV94 SRV93 SRV97
KP 1172.2
RA2
KW064
KW061
KITIMAT TERMINAL
RA1
Kilometre Post Model Inspection Site Pipeline Route Project Effects Assessment Area Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area Soil Polygons Security Fence
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometres
JWA-1038983-035-015
Reference: Pipeline Route R
CONTRACTOR:

PREPARED BY:
PREPARED FOR:
FIGURE NUMBER:
DATE:
3-1
SCALE: AUTHOR:
20091109
APPROVED BY:
Model Inspection Locations in the RADEAA (Updated October 2010)
1:175,000
PROJECTION:
JP2
DATUM:
CM NAD 83
UTM 9
Z:\Clients\Enbridge\Gateway\Figures\MXD\JWA-CAL-035-Air_Results\JWA-1038983-035-015.mxd
SSAD4
TER50 TER52
TER51
KP 1150
OP004
TER47
OP003
OP002 OP001
TER24G TER26G TER25G
TER23G TER21G
KP 1160
TER22G
Kitimat
SSAD12 SSAD13 SSAD14
SSAD24 SSAD9 SSAD10 TER18G TER17G SSAD23 STD113 TER28G TER27G KP SSAD2 TER13G TER12G TER19G TER20G
SSAD11
1170
SSAD8 TER30G SSAD6 TER1 TER6G SSAD3 TER5G TER4G TER15 TER1G
TER10G TER11G TER9G TER8G TER7G SSAD7 TER29G SRG96 SRV95 SRG92
Kitamaat Village
KP 1172.2
SSAD1
TER14G
SSAD5 TER3G TER15G TER16G
KITIMAT TERMINAL
Detailed Inspection Site Sampled Inspection Site Kilometre Post Pipeline Route Project Effects Assessment Area Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area Soil Polygons Security Fence
0 1 2 3 4 5
Kilometres
JWA-1038983-035-013
CONTRACTOR:

PREPARED BY:
PREPARED FOR:

Detailed and Sample Inspection Locations in the RADEAA
(Updated October 2010)
FIGURE NUMBER:
DATE:
3-2
SCALE: AUTHOR:
20091109
APPROVED BY:
1:175,000
PROJECTION:
JP2
DATUM:
CM NAD 83
UTM 9
Table 3-138
Summary of Soil and Geology Sites in the Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area
Dominant Terrain Type (based on Ground Inspections) Organic veneer over bedrock Glaciomarine veneer-blanket over bedrock Glaciomarine veneer over bedrock Organic veneer over bedrock Organic thin veneer over bedrock Glaciomarine veneer-blanket over bedrock Glaciomarine veneer over bedrock Organic veneer over bedrock Morainal veneer over bedrock Organic thin veneer over bedrock Fluvial terrace
Site Number SSAD1 SSAD2
Dominant Terrain Type (based on Map Polygon) Colluvium veneer Glaciomarine blanket Glaciomarine blanket Glaciomarine blanket Not identified Glaciomarine blanket Glaciomarine blanket Colluvium veneer Colluvium veneer Colluvium veneer Fluvial plain
Parent Rock Type Quartz diorite Quartz diorite
Soil Subgroup Humic Folisol Orthic FerroHumic Podzol Orthic HumoFerric Podzol Humic Folisol Hemic Folisol Eluviated Dystric Brunisol Orthic FerroHumic Podzol Hemic Folisol Orthic HumoFerric Podzol Hemic Folisol Orthic Regosol
pH (H2O) 020 cm 3.6 4.7
Surface Texture Organic Sandy loam
CEC 020 cm -1 (cmolc kg ) 111 43
Soil Depth (m) 0.76 >1
Acid 1 Sensitivity High High
SSAD3 SSAD4 SSAD5 SSAD6
Quartz diorite Quartz diorite Quartz diorite Quartz diorite
4.2 3.4 3.6 5.2
Sandy loam Organic Organic Sandy loam
35 NA 92 NA
>1 0.32 0.42 >1
High High High Medium
SSAD7 SSAD8 SSAD9 SSAD10 SSAD11
Quartz diorite Quartz diorite Quartz diorite Quartz diorite Calc- alkaline basalt
5.2 3.6 4.6 3.4 5.3
Loamy sand Organic Sandy loam Organic Sand
32 130 NA NA 3.4
0.5 0.67 >1 0.23 >1
Medium High High High High
2010
Page 3-185
Table 3-138
Summary of Soil and Geology Sites in the Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area (contd)
Dominant Terrain Type (based on Ground Inspections) Fluvial plain
Site Number SSAD12
Dominant Terrain Type (based on Map Polygon) Organic veneer
Parent Rock Type Calc- alkaline basalt Calc- alkaline basalt Calc- alkaline basalt Quartz diorite Quartz diorite NA
Soil Subgroup Eluviated Dystric Brunisol Hemic Folisol Gleyed Regosol Humic Folisol Orthic HumoFerric Podzol Hemic Folisol
pH (H2O) 020 cm 4.3
Surface Texture Silt loam
CEC 020 cm -1 (cmolc kg ) 29
Soil Depth (m) >1
Acid 1 Sensitivity High
SSAD13 SSAD14 SSAD23 SSAD24 SRG92
Organic veneer Fluvial plain Colluvium veneer Colluvium veneer Colluvial, thin veneer Organic blanket and colluvial veneer Colluvial, thin veneer Organic, thin veneer, and Colluvial, thin veneer
Organic veneer over Fluvial Fluvial terrace Organic over bedrock Steep colluvium slope Very thin Organic and Colluvial over rock Organic blanket
3.4 5.1 3.4 4.3 NA
Organic Silt loam Organic Sandy loam Loam
57 17 92 25 NA
>1 >1 0.54 0.36 0.15
High Medium High High High
SRG96
NA
Typic Mesisol
NA
NA
NA
>1.6
High
SRV95 STD113
Colluvial, thin veneer Organic veneer over very thin Colluvial over Rock
NA NA
Hemic Folisol Hemic Folisol
NA NA
Sand Loam
NA NA
0.45 0.64
High High
Page 3-186
2010
Table 3-138
Dominant Terrain Type (based on Ground Inspections) Very thin Lacustrine veneer Thin Organic over Colluvial Very thin Lacustrine veneer Very thin Glaciomarine veneer Very thin Colluvial veneer over Glaciomarine Glaciomarine veneer Colluvial blanket
Site Number TER1
Dominant Terrain Type (based on Map Polygon) Glaciomarine veneer and thin veneer Colluvial veneer and blanket Fluvial blanket
Parent Rock Type NA
Soil Subgroup Orthic HumoFerric Podzol Orthic Regosol Orthic Humic Gleysol Eluviated Dystric Brunisol Gleyed HumoFerric Podzol Hemic Folisol Gleyed HumoFerric Podzol Orthic HumoFerric Podzol Orthic HumoFerric Podzol
pH (H2O) 020 cm NA
Surface Texture Sandy Loam
CEC 020 cm -1 (cmolc kg ) NA
Soil Depth (m) 0.18
TER14G TER15
NA NA
NA 4.1 (0-0.1 m) 4.3 (0.1-0.3 m) NA
Loam Clay Loam
NA NA
0.8 0.44
High High
TER15G
Glaciomarine veneer and thin veneer Colluvial blanket Glaciomarine veneer Colluvial blanket and veneer Glaciomarine blanket Glaciomarine blanket
NA
Sandy Loam
NA
>0.8
High
TER16G
NA
5.0 0.10.4 m NA NA
Silt Loam
NA
>1.0
High
TER1G TER27G
NA NA
Sand Silt Loam
NA NA
>1.3 >0.8
High High
TER28G TER29G
Glaciomarine blanket Glaciomarine blanket
NA NA
NA NA
Silt Loam Silt Loam
NA NA
>0.6 >0.8
High High
2010
Page 3-187
Table 3-138
Dominant Terrain Type (based on Ground Inspections) Very thin Glaciomarine veneer Colluvial veneer or blanket Glaciomarine Glaciomarine veneer
Site Number TER30G
Dominant Terrain Type (based on Map Polygon) Glaciomarine veneer and thin veneer Colluvial veneer and blanket Glaciomarine Glaciomarine veneer and blanket
Parent Rock Type NA
Soil Subgroup Orthic HumoFerric Podzol Orthic Regosol Orthic Humic Gleysol Ortstein Humo-Ferric Podzol
pH (H2O) 020 cm NA
Surface Texture Sandy Loam
CEC 020 cm -1 (cmolc kg ) NA
Soil Depth (m) 0.15
TER3G TER4G TER5G
NA NA NA
NA NA 4.1 (0.6-0.12 m; 5.0 (0.12-0.23 m) NA 4.9 (0.2-0.24 m) NA NA 3.5
Sandy Loam Silty Clay Sandy Loam
NA NA NA
>0.4 >0.7 0.69
High High High
TER6G TER7G
Colluvial blanket Colluvial veneer and thin veneer Colluvial veneer and thin veneer Colluvial veneer and thin veneer Fluvial veneer
Colluvial Colluvial blanket
NA NA
Gleyed Eutric Brunisol Sombric Humo-Ferric Podzol Hemic Folisol Orthic Eutric Brunisol Terric Mesisol
Loamy Sand Loamy Sand
NA NA
>1.0 1.1
High High
TER8G TER9G RA1
Very thin Organic over Rock Thin Colluvial veneer over Rock Organic veneer over Fluvial
NA NA NA
NA Silt Loam Organic
NA NA 33
0.1 0.4 0.68
High High High
Page 3-188
2010
Table 3-138
Dominant Terrain Type (based on Ground Inspections) Thin Organic over Rock Fluvial fan Colluvial over Rock CEC 020 cm -1 (cmolc kg ) 41 Soil Depth (m) 0.17
Site Number RA2
Dominant Terrain Type (based on Map Polygon) Rock and Colluvial veneer over Rock Fluvial fan Colluvial, moderately steep Colluvial and Rock Fluvial veneer and blanket Fluvial plain
Parent Rock Type NA
Soil Subgroup Hemic Folisol
pH (H2O) 020 cm 3.3
Surface Texture Organic
RA3 RA4
NA NA
Gleyed Regosol Gleyed Eluviated Sombric Brunisol Orthic Dystric Brunisol Orthic Humic Gleysol Orthic Dystric Brunisol
3.9 4.1
Sandy Clay Loam Clay
49 22
0.32 0.41
Medium High
RA5 RA6 RA7
Colluvial Fluvial Fluvial plain
NA NA NA
3.9 4.6 4.5
Sandy Clay Loam Silt Loam Loamy Sand
22 13 13
0.21 0.23 0.07
Medium Medium Medium
NOTES: NA not available 1 Sensitivity values assigned by soil type, pH and parent material.
2010
Page 3-189
Soil map units in the RADEAA were placed into groups and assigned initial acidification sensitivity ratings based on the information in Table 3-138. The soil groups are as follows: Rego Humic Gleysol - on any type of parent material Cumulic Regosol on Fluvial sediments Gleyed Regosol on Fluvial sediments Orthic Humo - Ferric Podzol on Colluvium Orthic Humo - Ferric Podzol on Glaciofluvial materials Orthic Humo - Ferric Podzol on Morainal materials Orthic Humo - Ferric Podzol on Glaciomarine sediments Gleyed Orthic Humo - Ferric Podzol on Glaciomarine sediments Orthic Dystric Brunisol on Fluvial sediments Podzolic Gray Luvisol on Marine sediments Orthic Regosol on Colluvium
Soil modelling for acidification of soils was carried out on four soil profiles (Sites SSAD1, SSAD7, SSAD13 and RA7, in Table 3-138. An additional Brunisolic soil profile (SSAD21) from the Interior Plateau physiographic region was also modelled. The model provides predictions of change in soil pH, exchangeable base saturation, and base cation:aluminum ratio over time. As soil acid input increases, the value of each of these diminishes over time. These three parameters are considered to be key indicators of soil acidification, and critical values below which plant growth and other ecological processes are affected have been suggested in the literature. Indicators and thresholds (or critical levels) of stress in forest ecosystems that have been proposed area: pH(CaCl2) - 3.5; pH(H2O) - 4.2; base saturation percentage - less than 10% of effective CEC; and base cation:aluminum ratio - 1.0 (50% risk of effect to vegetation) (Ulrich et al. 1984; Sverdrup and Warfvinge 1993; Cronan and Grigal 1995; Posch et al. 2003). A base cation:aluminum ratio (BC:Al ratio) of 2 has been suggested as being relatively more protective of forests in general (Abboud et al. 2002). Results of modelling soil chemistry changes over time are summarized in Table 3-139.
Page 3-190
2010
Table 3-139
Acid Input (kmol ha -1 yr ) Folisol 0.5 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.5 Podzol A 0.5 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.5 Podzol B 0.5 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4
-1
Changes in Soil Chemistry in Relation to Different Acid Inputs - Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area
pHh Base Saturation 100 yr 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 1
BC:Al Ratio 300 yr 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0 yr 42 42 42 42 42 16 16 16 16 16 4 4 4 4 4 50 yr 42 42 42 42 42 12 12 12 12 12 4 4 4 4 4 100 yr 42 42 42 42 42 1
0 yr
50 yr 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
300 yr 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
0 yr 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
50 yr 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
100 yr 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 1
300 yr 42 42 42 42 42 4 4 4 4 4
4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
4 4 4 4 4
2010
Page 3-191
Table 3-139
Acid Input (kmol ha -1 yr ) 0.5 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.5 Brunisol B 0.5 1.0 3.0 5.0 7.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
-1
Changes in Soil Chemistry in Relation to Different Acid Inputs - Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area (contd)
pHh Base Saturation 100 yr 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.6 4.4 300 yr 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.5 1
BC:Al Ratio 300 yr 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.27 0.27 0.19 0.08 1
0 yr 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4
50 yr 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.5
0 yr 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30
50 yr 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.15 0.05
100 yr 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.21 0.10 <0.01
0 yr 7 7 7 7 7 13 13 13 13 13
50 yr 6 6 6 6 6 12 13 11 9 7
100 yr 6 6 6 6 6 12 12 11 8 6
300 yr 6 6 6 6 6 12 12 10 8 1
Brunisol A
NOTE: 1 Further change cannot be calculated in the model after the base saturation is reduced to a minimal level.
Page 3-192
2010
Based on the soil chemical data presented in Table 3-138, colluvial, fluvial, morainal and organic surface deposits in the RADEAA have a high sensitivity to acidification. Some fluvial deposits with mediumtextured materials (i.e., loamy silt loam) may have a moderate acidification sensitivity rating. Glaciomarine and marine deposits appear to have areas of high and moderate sensitivity to acidification, and are therefore given a rating of moderate to high. Acidification sensitivity ratings in the RADEAA and associated dominant soil subgroups and dominant parent materials are summarized in Table 3-140. Figure 3-3 presents the acidification sensitivity classes of soil types in the RADEAA.
Table 3-140
Acidification Sensitivity in the Regional Acid Deposition Effects Assessment Area

Dominant Soil Subgroup Rego Humic Gleysol Cumulic Regosol Gleyed Regosol Dominant Parent Material Fluvial Fluvial Fluvial Total Low Fluvial Marine Colluvium Total Moderate to High Colluvium Glaciofluvial Morainal Glaciomarine Glaciomarine Total High with Low Area (ha) 388 484 92 964 3,460 612 258 4,330 19,588 Percentage of Area (%) 1.2 1.5 0.3 3.0 10.8 1.9 0.8 13.4 60.9
Acidification Sensitivity Rating Low
Moderate to High
Orthic Dystric Brunisol Podzolic Gray Luvisol Orthic Regosol
High with Low
Orthic Humo-Ferric Podzol
Gleyed Humo-Ferric Podzol Not Rated R (Rock) Water Disturbed Land
56 19,644 1,011 4,996 1,237
0.2 61.0 3.1 15.5 3.8 22.5 100.0
N/A N/A N/A Total Not Rated Grand Total
7,244 32,182
2010
Page 3-193
KP 1150
L5wL6w L5wL6w L5wL6wO3o P2cWA P2cP2x P2c B5fB8f P2cBRr R1cP2cBRr P2mP2cO3o
BRr
B5fB8f
R2fB7f R2f
L5w
R2f B5fB8f
B5fO5oO3o B5fR2f R2f R2f R2f B5fR2f DL
R2f
R2f B5fB7fO5o
B5fB8f
DL P2gP2cBRr R2fO3o P2cBRrO6o

BR
B5fO5oO3o DL o fO 5 P2xR2w
5o
DL
KP 1160 R2f
DL B5fB7f DL G5oR2f DL R2fP3c DL
Rr
Kitimat
G 5o
B5f
R2
P2cO 6o
DL DL R3f DL R2f R3fR2f
P2c B
R2f
P2cBRr
Rr
6o
P2cB
P2xR2w
DL
6o
P2
cO
P2gP2x
B5fB7fR2f WA
P2
P2cBRr
O6 o
WA
BRrB5cB7c
P2
P2cBRr
xB Rr
P2cO
Kitamaat Village
6o P2
KP 1170 KP 1172.2
rP 2
cO
6o
P3xO3oR2f
BRrB5cB7c 6o rO R B c P2 P2xBRr
P2cBRr P2cBRrP2m P2cBRrP2m P2cBRrO6o
KITIMAT TERMINAL
cB
Rr
P2
cO
DL
P2
R2fP3c
cG
P2cBRr
WA
Kilometre Post Pipeline Route Project Effects Assessment Area
P2cBRrO6o
P2xO3oR2f P2cBRrP2m
Regional Acid Deposition Environmental Assessment Area Security Fence Soil Acid Sensitivity Ratings
WA
Low Acid Sensitivity Medium-High Acid Sensitivity High-Low Acid Sensitivity
P2cBRrO6o WA Not Rated
WA
Soil Map Unit L1mB2g01o

L1, B2, 01
P2 c
R2f
R2 f
P2 cB Rr O 6o
BR c rP 2 O6 o
BRrB 5cB7 c
WA
m, g, o
Soil Subgroup Parent Material See Appendix C for Map Unit Definitions
0 1 2 3 4 5 Kilometres
JWA-1038983-035-016
CONTRACTOR:

PREPARED BY:
PREPARED FOR:

R egional Soils and Acid Sensitivity in the RADEAA
(Updated October 2010)
FIGURE NUMBER:
DATE:
3-3
SCALE: AUTHOR:
20091109
APPROVED BY:
1:175,000
PROJECTION:
JP2
DATUM:
CM NAD 83
UTM 9
3.6.7
Soil Suitability for Reclamation - Area inside the Kitimat Terminal Security Fence
Soil suitability is important for determining soil salvage and storage where reclamation is required. The development of the area inside the Kitimat Terminal the security fence will require long-term storage of soil for reclamation. The baseline presented provides the approximate volumes of topsoil and the associated reclamation suitability. Subsoil and overburden can be used as reclamation material, but may require separate handling from the more organic enriched A, AB and AC horizons. In addition, overburden has not been assessed as bedrock is near the surface and available overburden from site construction will likely be limited and insufficient as reclamation material. 3.6.7.1 Topsoil Thickness
Topsoil thickness (or depth) is the combined thickness of the organic surface horizon (LFH or O horizon) plus the A horizon (Ah, Ahe, Ae). The topsoil thicknesses were highly variable. Averages and ranges based on field data are as follows: Podzols: range 15 to 59 cm; mean 37 cm (based on 7 sites) Brunisols: range 12 to 65 cm; mean 38 cm (based on 6 sites) Folisols: range 11 to 70 cm; mean 48 cm (based on 9 sites) Gleysols: range 40 to 45 cm; mean 43 cm (based on 2 sites)
Generally a topsoil depth of 40 cm was used to characterize the mineral soil map units. Topsoil thicknesses in the thin part of the ranges above are commonly associated with soils developed on veneers or very thin veneers overlying bedrock. In these cases, a topsoil depth of 20 cm was applied to characterize thin soil map units. 3.6.7.2 Reclamation Suitability
Reclamation suitability ratings of soils were derived according to guidelines of the British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (1998), which are based on criteria developed for the Eastern Slopes Region of Alberta (Alberta Soils Advisory Committee 1987). Ratings were determined for soil subgroups and their variants, which are mainly related to thickness of soil over bedrock. Soil map units were rated in terms of the dominant and the subdominant soil types within them. In the rating system, individual soil horizons are rated as G (good), F (fair), P (poor), or U (unsuitable) for reclamation. Criteria are presented in Table 3-141. Available soil chemistry data for determining the suitability ratings consisted only of pH; the major physical determinants of the capability rating were soil texture, the depth to bedrock and inferred coarse fragment content of the soil. Soil textures of A horizons determined at field inspection sites were mainly sandy loam and silty clay loam; consequently, according to the criteria, reclamation suitability ratings for texture are mainly Good to Fair. Based on pH, all soil types were categorized as having a Fair rating. Typical pH values are indicated in Table 3-138 in Section 3.6.6. A fair rating is applied to soils with a pH in the range of 4.0 to 5.0. While some soils have pH levels lower than this, the data from other sample sites suggest that values between 4.0 and 5.0 are most common. Based on this rating, no soils in the area could have a rating higher than Fair. Most soils had up to 40 cm organic material overlying the mineral soil. Where the LFH
2010
Page 3-195
layer was more than 40 cm, the soils were classified as Folisols. Organic material generally has organic carbon content of 30% or more, and falls into either the LFH or O (peat) type of material. According to Table 3-141, these materials would be rated as Fair for reclamation. LFH and peat are best regarded as amendments that can be mixed with mineral soil with underlying mineral soil for use in reclamation. Reclamation suitability ratings and topsoil thicknesses at the area inside the Kitimat Terminal security fence are presented in Table 3-142. Many soils are developed on veneers, blankets, or other surficial forms without bedrock or bedrock at some depth. Coarse fragment contents of the A horizons ranged from no content to about 50% content. Consequently, these soils were rated as Good to Fair in terms of coarse fragment content. Soils developed on veneers overlying bedrock can have high coarse fragment contents (in excess of 50%); consequently, these soils are rated as Poor for reclamation. Where the soil surface includes bedrock or very thin soils on bedrock, the rating is Unsuitable. Based on these criteria, common ratings for the soils in the area are F (Fair), FP (Fair with subdominant Poor) and PU (Poor with subdominant Unsuitable).
Table 3-141
Limitation/ 1 Property Reaction (pH) Salinity (EC) dS/m Sodicity (SAR) Saturation (%) Texture
2
Criteria for Evaluating Suitability of Surface Soils for Reclamation in Mountain Regions
Good 5.0 to 6.5 <2 <4 30 to 60 Fair 4.0 to 5.0 and 6.5 to 7.5 2 to 4 4 to 8 20 to 30 or 60 to 80 Poor 3.5 to 4.0 and 7.5 to 9.0 4 to 8 8 to 12 15 to 20 or 80 to 120 S, LS, C, SiC, HC 51 to 70 Very firm <1 Unsuitable <3.5 and >9.0 >8 >12 <15 and >120 Bedrock >70 Extremely firm
L, SiL, SL, FSL, VFSL CL, SCL, SiCL <30 Very friable, friable 2-30 31 to 50 Loose, firm 1 to 2, or >30 (soil amendment only) 2 to 20
Coarse fragments (% by volume) Moist Consistency Organic Carbon (% by weight) CaCO3 Equivalent (%)
<2
20 to 70
>70
NOTES: 1 Adapted from Alberta Soils Advisory Committee (1987) and British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (1998). 2 Texture codes are provided in Appendix A.
Page 3-196
2010
Table 3-142
Topsoil Depths and Soil Reclamation Suitability at the Area inside the Kitimat Terminal Security Fence
Reclamation Suitability Rating Fair Fair Fair to Poor Fair to Poor Fair to Unsuitable Poor to Unsuitable Water Disturbed Land Disturbed Land Topsoil Depth (cm) 40 40r 40pr 40r 40r 20r N/A N/A N/A
1
Site Location Area inside the Kitimat Terminal security fence
Area (ha) 103.8 7.2 15.8 76.0 0.6 2.5 0.1 9.5 9.5 215.5 16.4 7.9 7.7 32.1
Percentage (%) 48.2 3.4 7.3 35.3 0.3 1.1 0.0 4.4 4.4 100.0 51.3 24.8 24.0 100.0
Total Area inside the Kitimat Terminal security fence Excess Cut Disposal Area Fair Fair to Poor Poor to Unsuitable Total Excess Cut Disposal Area 40 40r 20r
NOTES: 1 Topsoil depth classes are as follows: 20r Depth 20 cm; range 10-30 cm; bedrock exposed or with very thin soil cover in parts of polygon 40 Depth 40 cm; range 20 to 60 cm 40r Depth 40 cm; range 20 to 60 cm; bedrock exposed or with very thin soil cover in parts of polygon 40pr Depth 40 cm; range 20 to 60 cm; bedrock exposed or with very thin soil cover in parts of polygon; part of polygon has peat deposits N/A not applicable
2010
Page 3-197
Soils Technical Data Report Section 4: References
4
4.1
References
Literature Cited
Abboud, S.A. and L.W. Turchenek. 1990. Assessment of present and potential effects of acidic and acidifying air pollutants on Alberta soils. In Acidic deposition: sulfur and nitrogen oxides, The Alberta Government/Industry Acid Deposition Research Program (ADRP). A.H. Legge and S.V. Krupa (eds.). Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan. 555605. Abboud, S. A., L. W. Turchenek, L.W. and L.A. Halsey. 2002. Critical loads of acid deposition on soils in the Athabasca Oil Sands Region, Alberta. Prepared by Alberta Research Council, AMEC Earth & Environmental Ltd., and University of Alberta, for NOx-SO2 Management Working Group, Cumulative Environmental Management Association. Edmonton, AB. Agra Earth and Environmental Limited (AGRA). March 1998. Environmental Impact Assessment Scotford Upgrader. Volume 2. Prepared for Shell Canada Limited. Calgary, Alberta. Agriculture Canada Expert Committee on Soil Survey. 1987. Soil survey handbook, Vol. 1. G.M. Coen (ed.). Land Resource Research Centre, Contribution No. 85-30. Tech. Bull. 1987-9E. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Ottawa, ON. Alberta Agriculture. 1985. Soil erosion and salinity surveys: a procedures manual. Conservation and Development Branch, Alberta Agriculture. Edmonton, AB. Alberta Soils Advisory Committee. 1987. Soil quality criteria relative to disturbance and reclamation (Revised 1993). Prepared by the Soil Quality Criteria Working Group, Soil Reclamation Subcommittee, Alberta Soils Advisory Committee. Alberta Agriculture. Edmonton, AB. Alberta Soil Information Centre. 2001. AGRASID 3.0: Agricultural Region of Alberta Soil Inventory Database (Version 3.0). (ed.) J.A. Brierley, T.C. Martin, and D.J. Spiess. Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, Research Branch; Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Conservation and Development Branch. Alliance Pipeline Limited Partnership. 1997. Environmental Alignment Sheets. June 1997. Volume VI-A. Archibald, D.J., W.B. Wiltshire, D.M. Morris, and B.D. Batchelor. 1997. Forest management guidelines for the protection of the physical environment. Version 1. Report MNR #51032. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.
BA Energy Inc. May 2004. BA Energy Heartland Upgrader Environmental Impact Assessment.
Calgary, Alberta. Banner, A., W. MacKenzie, S. Haeussler, S. Thomson, J. Pojar, and R. Trowbridge. 1993. A field guide to site identification and interpretation for the Prince Rupert Forest Region. British Columbia Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, BC, Land Manage. Handbook. No. 26.
2010
Page 4-1
Beckingham, J.D. and J.H. Archibald, 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of Northern Alberta. Special Report 5. Prepared by the Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC Beckingham, J.D., I.G.W. Corns and J.H. Archibald, 1996. Field Guide to Ecosites of West-Central Alberta. Special Report 9. Prepared by the Canadian Forest Service, Northwest Region, Northern Forestry Centre. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC Bloom, P.R. and D.F. Grigal. 1985. Modeling soil response to acidic deposition in nonsulfate adsording soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 14: 489495. Bowser, W.E., A.A. Kjearsgaard, T.W. Peters and R.E. Wells. 1962. Soil Survey of Edmonton Sheet (83-H). Report No. 21. Canada Department of Agriculture, Edmonton, AB. Brennand, M. and P.D. Reid. 2010. Atmospheric Environment Technical Data Report. Prepared for Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB. British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 1990. Soil Factsheet: Soil Compaction. A review of its Origin and Characteristics. Resource Management Branch, Abbotsford, BC. Agdex 579. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and British Columbia Ministry of Forests, 1998. Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems. Crown Publications Inc. Victoria, BC British Columbia Ministry of Forests. 1999. Hazard assessment keys for evaluating site sensitivity to soil degrading processes guidebook. 2nd edition. Version 2.1. British Columbia Forest Practices Code of British Columbia Guidebook. For. Prac. Br., British Columbia Min. For., Victoria, BC. Cannon, K.R. and Landsburg, S. 1990. Soil compaction and pipeline construction. A literature review. NOVA Corporation of Alberta, Calgary, AB. Carter, M. (ed.). 1993. Soil Sampling and methods of analysis. Canadian Society of Soil Science. Sunrise Publishers. Boca Raton, FL. Coote, D.R. and W.W. Pettapiece. 1989. Wind Erosion Risk Alberta. Canada-Alberta Soil Inventory, Land Resource Research Centre, Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Cotic, I. 1974. Soil of the Nechako-Francois Lake Area Interim Report. British Columbia Department of Agriculture, Kelowna, BC. Cronan, C.S. and D.F. Grigal. 1995. Use of calcium/aluminum ratios as indicators of stress in forest ecosystems. J. Environ. Qual. 24: 209226. Dawson, A.B. 1989. Soil of the Prince George-McLeod Lake Area. MOE Technical Report 29. British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Victoria, BC. DeLong, C. 2003. A field guide for site identification and interpretation for the southeast portion of the Prince George Forest Region. Res. Br., British Columbia Min. For., Victoria, BC. Land Management Handbook No. 51.
Page 4-2
2010
DeLong, C., A. MacKinnon, and L. Jang. 1990. A field guide for site identification and interpretation for the northeast portion of the Prince George Forest Region. British Columbia Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, BC. Land Management Handbook No. 22. DeLong, C., D. Tanner, and M.J. Jull. 1994. A field guide for site identification and interpretation for the northern Rockies portion of the Prince George Forest Region. British Columbia Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, BC. Land Management Handbook No. 29. DeLong, C., D. Tanner, and M.J. Jull. 1993. A field guide for site identification and interpretation for the southwest portion of the Prince George Forest Region. British Columbia Min. For., Res. Br., Victoria, BC. Land Management Handbook No. 24. Ecological Stratification Working Group. 1996. A national ecological framework for Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Research Branch, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research and Environment Canada, State of Environment Directorate, Ottawa/Hull. (Map at scale 1:7.5 million. Available from: http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/ecostrat/intro.html) Expert Committee on Soil Survey. 1983. Canada Soil Information System (CANSIS) Manual for describing soil in the field 1982 revised. (ed.) J.H. Day. LRRI Contribution Number 82.52. Expert Committee on Soil Survey. 1987. Soil survey handbook, Vol. 1. G.M. Coen, ed. Land Resource Research Centre, Contribution No. 85-30. Tech. Bull. 1987-9E. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Ottawa, ON. Gregorich, E.G., L.W. Turchenek, M.R. Carter and D.A. Angers. 2001. Soil and environmental science dictionary. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Hamilton, W.N., M.C. Price and C.W. Langenberg (compilers). 1999. Geological Map of Alberta. Alberta Geological Survey, Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. Map No. 236, Scale 1:1,000,000. Holland, S. S. 1976. Landforms of British Columbia: a Physiographic Outline, 2nd Edition. British Columbia Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources, Victoria, British Columbia. Bulletin 48. Holowaychuk, N. and R.J. Fessenden. 1987. Soil Sensitivity to Acid Deposition and the Potential of Soil and Geology to Reduce the Acidity of Acidic Inputs. Alberta Research Council. Earth Sciences Report 87-1. Edmonton, AB. Hornung, M., K.R. Bull, M. Cresser, J. Hall, S.J. Langan, P. Loveland, and C. Smith. 1995. An empirical map of critical loads of acidity for soil in Great Britain. Environmental Pollution 90 (3): 301310. Howes, D.E. and E. Kenk. 1997. Terrain Classification System for British Columbia. Version 2. A system for the classification of surficial materials, landforms and geological processes of British Columbia. Kalra, Y.P. and D.G. Maynard. 1991. Methods manual for forest soil and plant analysis. Northwest Region, Information Report NOR-X-319. Forestry Canada, Northwestern Region, Northern Forestry Centre, Edmonton, AB.
2010
Page 4-3
Karki, R. and Hamelin, R. 2010. Non-Traditional Land Use Technical Data Report. Prepared for Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB. Kenk, E. and I. Cotic. 1983. Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in British Columbia. MOE Manual 1. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Surveys and Resource Mapping Branch, Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Soils Branch, Kelowna, BC. Knapik, L.J. and J.D. Lindsay. 1983. Reconnaissance Soil Survey of the Iosegun Lake Area, Alberta. Bulletin 43. Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, AB. Levesque, M. and H. Dinel. 1977. Fibre content, particle-size distribution and some related properties of four peat materials in eastern Canada. Can. J. Soil Sci. 57: 187195. Lindsay, J.D., W. Odynsky, T.W. Peters and W.E. Bowser. 1968. Soil Survey of Buck Lake (NE83B) and Wabamun Lake (E83G) Areas. Report No. 24. Canada Department of Agriculture, Edmonton, AB. MacKenzie, W.H. and J.R. Moran. 2004. Wetlands of British Columbia: a guide to identification. Res. BR., BC Min. For., Victoria, BC Land Manage. Mapping Systems Working Group. 1981. A soil mapping system for Canada: revised. Land Resource Research Institute, Contribution No. 142. T. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada Ottawa, ON. Maxwell, R. 1987. Biophysical soil resources and land evaluation of the northeast coal study area, 1977-1978 Jarvis Creek - Morkill River area. British Columbia Soil Survey. Report No. 41. McKeague, J.A. 1978. Manual on Soil Sampling and Methods of Analysis. 2nd Edition. Canadian Society of Soil Science, Ottawa, ON. O'Leary, D., M. Trommelen and D. Huntley. 2010. Geology and Terrain Technical Data Report. Prepared for Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB. PCOSi (Petro-Canada Oil Sands Inc). 2006. Application for Approval of the Sturgeon Upgrader: Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment. Calgary, AB. Pedocan Land Evaluation Ltd. 1993. Soil Series Information for Reclamation Planning in Alberta. Alberta Conservation and Reclamation Council Report No. RRTAC 93-7. Pettapiece, W. 1986. Physiographic Subdivisions of Alberta 1:1,500,000. Land Resource Centre, Research Branch. Ottawa, ON. Posch, M., J-P. Hettelingh and J. Slootweg (eds.). 2003. Manual for dynamic modelling of soil response to atmospheric deposition. Report 259101012/2003. ICP M&M Coordination Center for Effects. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands. Reid, D.E., C. E. Thompson, and M.A. Johnson. 2010. Vegetation Technical Data Report. Prepared for Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB. Resources Inventory Committee (RIC). 1996. Guidelines and Standards to Terrain Mapping in British Columbia. Surficial Geology Task Group, Earth Sciences Task Force British Columbia.
Page 4-4
2010
Runka, G.G. 1972. Soil Resources of the Smithers-Hazelton Area. British Columbia Department of Agriculture, Kelowna, BC. Shell Canada Energy. 2008. Application for the Approval of the Scotford Upgrader 2 Project: Supplemental Information, Volume 2: Environmental Update. Calgary, AB. Soil Classification Working Group. 1998. The Canadian System of Soil Classification. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Publication 1646. 3rd Edition (revised). Sverdrup, H. and P. Warfvinge. 1993. The effect of soil acidification on the growth of trees, grass and herbs as expressed by the (Ca+Mg+K)/Al ratio. Reports in Ecology and Environmental Engineering: 2. Lund University, Sweden. Tajek, J, W.W. Pettapiece and K.E. Toogood. 1985. Water erosion potential of soil in Alberta: estimates using a modified USLE. Agriculture Canada Technical Bulletin No. 1985-29. Ottawa, Canada. Turchenek, L.W. and S. A. Abboud. 2000. Site-specific critical loads of acid deposition on soils in the Provost-Esther area, Alberta. Prepared by AGRA Earth & Environmental Ltd. and Alberta Research Council for Science and Technology Branch, Environmental Sciences Division, Alberta Environment. Edmonton, AB. Turchenek, L.W., S.A. Abboud and U. Dowey. 1998. Critical loads for organic (peat) soils in Alberta. Prepared for Target Loading Subgroup, Clean Air Strategic Alliance, by Alberta Research Council and AGRA Earth & Environmental Ltd. Edmonton, AB. Twardy, A.G. and I.G.W. Corns. 1980. Soil Survey and Interpretation of the Wapiti Map Area, Alberta. Report No. 39. Alberta Research Council, Edmonton, AB. Twardy, A.G. and J.D. Lindsay. 1971. Soil Survey of the Chip Lake Area. Report No. 28. Alberta Department of Lands and Forests, Edmonton, AB. Ulrich, B., K.J. Miewes, N. Konig and P.K. Khanna. 1984. Untersuchungsverfahren und Kriterion zur Bewertung der Versauerung und ihrer Folgen in Waldboden. Forst. u. Holzwirt 39: 278286. Vold, T., R. Maxwell and R. Hardy. 1977. Biophysical Soil Resources and Land Evaluation of the Northeast Coal Study Area, 1976-1977. Prepared for the Environment and Land Use SubCommittee on Northeast Coal Development. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Victoria, BC. Wagner, M. 2010. Hydrology Technical Data Report. Prepared for Northern Gateway Pipelines Inc. Calgary, AB. Wiens, J. H. 1987. Sensitivity of Western and Northern Canada Soils and Geology to Acidic Input. Prepared for British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks, Technical Committee for the Long-Range Transport of Atmospheric Pollutants in Western and Northern Canada., Coordinating Committee on Soil and Geology Sensitivity Mapping (Canada). British Columbia Ministry of Environment and Parks, Victoria, BC. Wynnyk, A., J.D. Lindsay and W. Odynsky. 1969. Soil Survey of the Whitecourt and Barrhead Areas. Report No. 27. Canada Department of Agriculture, Edmonton, AB.
2010
Page 4-5
4.2
Internet Sites
Agricultural Land Commission. 2009. About the ALR. Available at: http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/ Alberta Sustainable Resource Development. 2006. Green/White Areas. Available at: http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/lands/geographicinformation/resourcedataproductcatalogue/greenwwhit eareas.aspx British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. 2005. Geoscience Map 2005-3: Geology of British Columbia. Available at: http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geolsurv/Publications/Geomaps/GM2005-3/toc.htm British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. 1998. Application requirements for a permit approving the mine plan and reclamation program pursuant to the Mines Act R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 29 (March 1998). Available at: http://www.empr.gov.bc.ca/Mining/ProjectApprovals/PermitApplicationRequirements/Pages/ appendices.aspx#baseline Canada Land Inventory (CLI). 1972. Soil Capability Classification for Agriculture. Report No. 2. Environment Canada, Ottawa, ON. Available at: http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/publications/Scanned%20Reports/Canada%20Land%20Inventory%20%20Soil%20Capability%20Classification%20for%20Ag.pdf Canada Land Inventory Digital Data. 2003. Soil Capability for Agriculture. Scale 1:250,000, Projection lat/lon, Resolution .00024414 degrees, NTS MAPSHEET: 83F, 83G 83H, 83J, 83K, 83L, 93E, 93F, 93G, 93J, 93K, 93L, 93P, 103I. Library and Archives Canada. Reproduced with permission from the Library and Archives Canada. Government of Canada with permission from Natural Resources Canada, Application Version: 1.0.5. Downloaded from http://nlwissnite1.agr.gc.ca/cli-itc/index.phtml Environment Canada. 2006. RsEau Thematic Mapping Water Budget. Available at:
http://map.ns.ec.gc.ca/thematic_map/?contexturl=http://map.ns.ec.gc.ca/contexts/waterbudget.xml
Environment Canada. 2008. Canadian Climate Normals and Averages 1971-2000. Atmospheric Environment Service. Available at: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/index_e.html Massey, N.W.D., D.G. MacIntyre, P.J. Desjardins and R.T. Cooney. 2005. Geology of British Columbia 1:1 000 000, Geoscience Map 2005-3. Available at: http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/Mining/Geolsurv/publications/GeoMaps/GM2005-3/toc.htm United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). May 2001. Rangeland Soil Quality Compaction. Rangeland Sheet 4. Soil Quality Institute, Grazing Lands Technology Institute and National Soil Survey Center, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Accessed: December 2005. Available at: http://soil.usda.gov/sqi/files/RSQIS4.pdf United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). October 2009. National Soil Survey Handbook NSSH Part 618 Exhibits. Wind Erodibility Groups (WEG) and Index. Accessed: October 2009. Available at: http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part618ex.html#ex16
Page 4-6
2010

Soils (Non Agricultural)

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Soils (Non Agricultural)

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Technical Data Report Soils

ENBRIDGE NORTHERN GATEWAY PROJECT

AMEC Earth & Environmental A division of AMEC Americas Limited

L. Turchenek, Ph.D., P.Ag. Jacques Whitford Ltd.

N. Tashe, M.Sc., P.Ag.

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Methods ......................................................................................................... 2-1

Soil Landscape Units ..................................................................................... 2-13

Development of Soil Map Units ...................................................................... 2-18

2.6 2.7 2.8

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Results of Baseline Investigations ...................................................................3-1

3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5

Southern Alberta Uplands ............................................................................... 3-24

Alberta Plateau ............................................................................................... 3-65

Rocky Mountains ............................................................................................ 3-74

Interior Plateau ............................................................................................... 3-94

Coast Mountains .......................................................................................... 3-139

References ..................................................................................................... 4-1

Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Soils Technical Data Report Table of Contents

Figure 3-2 Figure 3-3

Soils Technical Data Report List of Abbreviations

Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F

aspect available nutrients B, Bt, Bm, Bg, Btg bedrock

Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F

boulder British Columbia biogeoclimatic classification guides Brunisolic

C, Ck, Cg, Ckg calcareous soil

calcareousness capability (land)

cation exchange cation exchange capacity

Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F

Canada Land Inventory

Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F

compaction hazard conservation practices factor

cover management factor

Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F

depressional disturbed area disturbed land drainage

Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F

drift, glacial dune ecoregion ecosite

Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F

edatope electrical conductivity

eluvial horizon eluviation eolian erosion

erosion hazard (water)

esker eutrophic excess moisture

Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F

fertility, soil fibric

floodplain fluvial (alluvial) material fluvial/eolian sediments Folisol

forest peat glacial

Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F

ground inspection groundwater herb Holocene horizon, soil

Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F

hummocky moraine humus

impeded drainage impeding horizon inclined inclusion

Soils Technical Data Report Glossary0F