SOILS OF THE NEW BRUNSWICK

SOILS OF THE

BLACK BROOK WATERSHED

ST. ANDRE PARISH

MADAWASKA COUNTY

NEW BRUNSWICK

Canada/New Brunswick Agreement on Soil Conservation 89/92

SOILS OF THE


ST. ANDRE PARISH

MADAWASKA COUNTY

NEW BRUNSWICK

K. T. Mellerowicz

formerly Land Resources Branch

New Brunswick Department of Agriculture

Fredcricton, New Brunswick

H. W. Rees

Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research

Research Branch, Agriculture Canada


T. L. Chow

Fredcricton Research Station

Research Branch, Agriculture Canada


I. Ghanem

Land Resources Branch




and

Agriculture Canada

1993

Copies of this report arc available from:

Agriculture Canada

CLBRR, Land Resources Division

Frcdericton Research Station

P.O. Box 20280

Frcdericton, New Brunswick

E3B4Z7


Land Resources Branch

P.O. Box 6000

Frcdericton, New Brunswick

E3B5H1

Cover photograph:

Sicgas Soil Landscape

(Photo by H.W. Recs, Agriculture Canada)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ust of figures, tables and map ....................................................................................................................................... v

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Summary............................................................................................................................................................................. 2

Introduction..................—.................................................................................................................................................. 3

General description of the area .................................................................................................................................... 4

Location and extent .....„................—.........._.........._.................................................................................. 4

Soil forming factors ........................................................................................................................................... 4

Geology................................................................................................................................................. 4

Parent Material................................................................................................................................... 4

Topography.......................................................................................................................................... 4

Climate............................................................................................................................................... 5

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................ 5

Land use ..................................................„................................................................................—........ 6

Surveying methods ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

Soil classification ...............................................................................................................................................................8

Mapping unit descriptions ............................................................................................................................................. 12

Grand Falls........................................................................................................................................................ 12

Extent and distribution .....................................................................................................................12

Soil material, range in characteristics, and topography ............................................................. 12

Land use.............................................................................................................................................. 12

Diffcrcntialing from other units ..................................................................................................... 12

Taxonomy............................................................................................................................................ 12

Holmesville ........................................................................................................................................................ 12



Land use.............................................................................................................................................. 13

Differentiating from other units ..................................................................................................... 13

Taxonomy........................................................................................................................................... 13

Interval............................................................................................................................................................... 14

Extent and distribution .................................................................................................................... 14

Soil material, range in characteristics, and topography............................................................. 14

Land use .............................................................................................................................................. 14


Taxonomy ............................................................................................................................................ 14

Muniac................................................................................................................................................................ 14



Land use.............................................................................................................................................. 15


Taxonomy ............................................................................................................................................15

Siegas ...................................................................................................................................................................15


Soil material, range in characteristics, and topography............................................................. 15

in

Land use ......................................—................................................................—.................................. 15


Taxonomy ............................................................................................................................................ 16

St. Qucntin ........................................................................................................................................................ 16



Land use .............................................................................................................................................. 16


Taxonomy ............................................................................................................................................ 16

Undine ................................................................................................................................................................ 16



Land use ............................................................................................................................................. 17


Taxonomy ............................................................................................................................................ 17

Soil Interpretations for Agriculture ............................................................................................................................ 19

Canada Land Inventory soil capability for agriculture ............................................................................. 19

Soil suitability for selected crops and management practices ................................................................. 19

References ............................-......................................................................................................—............................—... 25

Appendix 1 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Morphological descriptions and analyses for soil associations ............................................................... 26

Appendix 2 ....................................................................................................................................................................... 38

Rating guidelines for soil suitability for selected crops and management practices .......................... 38

IV

LIST OF FIGURES, TABLES, AND MAP

Figures

Figure 1. New Brunswick map outline showing location of the

Black Brook Watershed survey area .............................................„...—........................................ 4

Figure 2. Topography of the Black Brook Watershed survey area .......................................................... 5

Figure 3. Forest areas in the Black Brook Watershed ............................................................................... 6

Figure 4. Soil associations in the Black Brook Watershed ..................................................................... 10

Tables

Table 1. Climate normals for Grand Falls and Grand Falls Drununond ............................................... 5

Table 2. Soil extended legend of the Black Brook Watershed ................................................................. 9

Table 3. Correlation of soil associations with established soil series ................................................... 11

Table 4. Soil suitability for selected agricultural crops and management practices ........................... 20

Table A2-1. Rating guidelines - soil suitability tor alfalfa ...................................................................... 39

Table A2-2. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for forages .................................................................... 39

Table A2-3. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for pasture .................................................................... 40

Table A2-4. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for peas ......................................................................... 40

Table A2-5. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for potatoes .................................................................. 41

Table A2-6. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for spring cereals ......................................................... 41

Table A2-7. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for subsurface drainage .........................................._ 42

Table A2-8. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for deep ripping .......................................................... 42

Map.................................................................................................................................................................. Map Pocket

v

Y

Y

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Field work for the soil survcy was carricd out witb assistance from G. Dajardins, G. Wilson, and S. Paradis.

A grcat dcal of insight in10 local soils was gaincd through pcsonal contact with J.K. MacMil- lan of Ihe New Brunswick Departmcnt of Agricul- turc, Land Rcsources Branch, who with othcrs had prcviously survcycd this arca at thc 1:50 O00 scalc. Thcir resulting soil survey r c p r t SOI% ofMadawu- ska C o q , New wwiswick, was uscd extcnsivcly during this soil survcy as weii as during ihc time of wriling this report.

Thc soil map was digirisicd by G. Walkcr of the Ncw Brunswick Dcpartmcnt of Agriculture, Land Resources Branch, Land Usc and Informa- tion Section using thc New Brumick Agriculuual

Land Inforniaiion system. Figures in the report werc also draftcd by G. Walkcr. cartographic work and map reproduction wcre handled by the Cariographic Dcsign and Reproduction Unit, Ccntrc for Land and Biological Resourm Rcscarch, Rcscarch Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.

Soil samples wcrc a n a i y d in the Analy- tical SeMces Laboratory, Ccntrc for Land and Biological Rcsources Rcscarch, Ottawa and in the %ils Hydrology Laboratory of the Agridture Canada, Fredericton, Rescarch Station.

Fundingwas providod through the Canada/ Ncw Brunswick Agrccmcnt on Soil Conservation 89m

1

SUMMARY

The Black Brook watershcd consisls of 1450 ha, l m t c d north of Grand Falls, Ncw Bruns- wick

Thc arca is undcrlain by Ordovician an4or Silurian calcarcous and argillaccous sodimcniary rocks. Surficial gcology consisis of compad till, .wmc of which bas bcen rcworkcd, wiih or without a surficial capping of ablaiional Li& rcsidual; giaciofluvial, and alluvial dcposits. The topogrdphy, ranging from 180 to 260 m abovc sca lcvcl, is chardctcr id by pralomùiantly undulating to rolling surface cxprcssions with avcrdgc slopcs of 515%- The climate is mcdcrately cool borcal with a humid to pcrhumid soi1 moisturc rcgirnc. Forcst, mainly mixcd wooc1s, covcrs l m than 25% of thc arca. Thc main crops on ihc agricultural land arc p t a toes in rotation with grains, p s , and hay. Somc land is undcr Pasture.

Soils of the arca wcrc survcycd at the scalc of 1:10 ûW. Six mincral soil associations and one organic soü association wcrc idcntikd. Thcy are dcscribcd in the tcxt of lhis report. Their distnbu- tion is prcscntcd on a soü map in a pockct at the end of ihc rcport. Rcsulis of physical and chc- mical analyscs of soil samplcs arc included in Appcndix 1.

Each uniquc map symbol listcd on the soil map has bccn ratcd or intcrprctcd The intcrprcta- tions includc a gcncral rating of soil capability for agriculture. bascd on Canada Land hventory (CLI) guidclincs, and spcciric ratings for select& crop suilahililics (alfalfa, foraga, Pasture, peas, poia- tocs, and spring cercals) and managcmcnt practices (subsurface drainagc and decp ripping). Rating guidclincs for the sclawd crop and management practicci arc summarimi in Appcndix 2.

2

INTRODUCTION

L-

W

The Black Brook Watcrshcd is pari of an intcgrated projoct 10 dciine the impacts of cropping practices, soii charactcristics and climatic conditions on the hydrologic praccsscs of wdlcr runoff and watcr percolation within the Ncw Brunswick Potato Belt Thc objectivc is 10 idcntify the impacts of thcse hydrologic prOccsses on agricultural susrainability (crop production and soii dcgradation) and environmental quality (surface and ground watcr contamination).

Thc soiis, landscapes, and farming systcms of the Black Brook Watcrshed wcrc sclccicd as

king typical of polato producing areas in New Brunswick

This rcport characterizes the soii and soii landscap of the Black Brook Watershed Corre sponding farming systcms information and climatic data arc a b k i n g coiicctcd. The soil and landscapc dala gcncratcd in thk report wïli be used in the cvaluation of sclcctcd crosion prediction mtdcis. It a h provides soüs information that can k uscd for watcrshed and individual on-farm land managcmcnt docision making.

'Y

-a

c 3

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA

LOCATION AND EXTENT

I

.,

The survcyed arca is localcd north of Grand Falls, Ncw Brunswick and comprises the Black Brook watershcd (Figure 1). il mers approximatcly 1450 ha bctwcen 47005' and 47009' N and betwc.cn 67043' and 67048' W. The Mllagc o f St. André w-th 1294 inhabitants is situatcd within thc wdtcrshcd

SOIL FORMiNG FACTORS

Timc, parcnt matcrial, climatc, tOpOgrdphy (drainage), vcgctation, and organiqms arc important in soi1 dcvclopmcnt. Givcn the morc or lcss uniform timc framc of soi1 dcvclopmcnt and climatic conditions wiihin the watcrshcd, thc major factors accounting for soi1 dificrcnccs arc: parcnt matcrial origin; topographic position and rclicf as il aiïwts drainagc; vcgctation, forcst vcrsus agriculture; and organisms - csp ia l ly man. Land usc is a particularly important soi1 iorming factor bccausc it is rcsponsiblc for changcs of largc magnitudc in both surfacc soi1 dcplction duc to crosion, or its incrcmcnt duc to scdimcnt deposition (ovcrwash).

Gcology

Acwrding to the Gcological Map o f Ncw Brunswick at the 1:50(1 O scalc (Pottcr ct al., 1x58) the wdtcrshcd is undcrlain by Ordovician and/or Silurian (Maiapuiia Group) calcarcous and argillaccous scclimentary rocks (shalc, slatc, limc- stonc) with somc intcrbcddcd volcanic rocks.

Parent material

During the last Glacial Icc Agc, thc study arca was covcrod with a lobc of thc Wisconsin icc shcet. Glacier retrcat consistai of a scrics oï rctrcab and rcadvanccs rcsulling in thc deposition of scvcral laycrs of dnfL Bcing at the cnd of thc glacicr icc shcct, an abundancc o f glaciofluvial dcposits a h accompanicd ihc usual morainal till deposils. Thus, the arca wcst of the Si. AndrC 10 Lcvcyuc Scttlcmcnt highway (Route 255) is chardctcrimi by rillwah composcd o f mixd u n d , stoncs, rcworkcd till and strcaks o f gravcl and silt. And, the a r a w t of this rodd is mainly undcrlain by compact till w-th somc alluvial fans in the form of hummoxks and ridgcs o f stratificd gravcl, sand,

and silt. Ti11 tcxturc varia from sandy loam to Clay loam (Lee, 1959).

8 SUR VEY AREA SUR VEY AREA

P

Figure 1. Ncw Brunswick map outline s h d g Icxxtion of thc Black Brook Watcrshcd survcy arca.

In ihc soulhcrn part of the Black Brook watcrshcd, dcposiis of soncd gravcl OCCur in the Valley botioms and gradc into reworkcd tiii caiicd 'dirty gravcl dcposiis' (Langmaid et d, 1980) on midslopc positions.

The watcrshcd is compriscd of vaiicys along thc Black Brook and its tributaries, as well as somc adjacent plaicaus (Figure 2). Elcvation r angs from 180 to 260 m abovc mcan sea lcvcl. The uppcr and ccntral part of the watcrshcd has rnostly undulating to gcntiy rolling topoqpphy with slopcs of 14% in thc uppcr and 49% in thc

'c

4

Y


SAMT ANORE PARISH MAOAWASKA COUHTY

NEW BRUNSWICK

CONTOUR MAP

CONTOUR INTERVAL

5 METERS

Figure 2. Topography of the Black Brook Water¬

shed survey area.

central parts, and few hummocks. In the lower

portion, however, topography is more strongly

rolling with slopes of 5-16%. In this same area

some (<5% of cleared land) man-made terraces

with 3-6% slopes arc also present

Climate

The watershed is situated in a moderately

cool boreal climate with a humid to perhumid soil

moisture regime. Mean monthly temperatures,

rainfall, snowfall, and growing degree days (Enviro¬

nment Canada, 1982a) are shown in Table 1.

The frost free period extends over 120 days

on average (Environment Canada, 1982b).

Vegetation

In the Black Brook watershed, forest

constitutes less than one quarter of the total land

area (Figure 3). It is represented by one major

forest complex at the source of the Black Brook

and scattered patches of woods along the rest of

the stream course. In this riparian forest the

dominant tree species include eastern cedar, black,

while, and red spruce; balsam fir; white and

Table 1. Climate normals' for Grand Falls (1) and Grand Falls Drummond (2).

Monthly means

Rainfall

(mm)

Snowfall Daily Temperatures

(cm) (°C)

Growing Degree Days

above 5°C

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

October

November

December

173

18.1

21.0

55.1

74.1

79.1

90.4

110.2

91.5

84.7

59.4

29.8

20.8

14.1

25.2

52L5

71.6

87.9

110.8

117.4

110.3

81.5

60.4

28.0

6&2

58.1

48.6

213

1.5

-

-

-

-

5.1

27S

76.1

58.5

56.1

46.5

18.1

1.9

-

-

-

-

5.7

23.7

62S

-1Z2

-11.1

-4.6

2.7

10.0

15.8

IS3,

16.6

12.2

63

-0.1

-8.9

-12JO

-11JO

-AS

23

9.6

15.4

18.1

16.5

11.7

5.8

-0.6

-9.4

0.0

0.1

29

18.9

163.1

3255

410.0

3623

2133

70.2

12.9

0.9

0.0

0.0

1.5

16.6

151.2

312.2

407.1

357.4

201.6

67.6

10.1

1.0

Annual 730.7 780.5 306.7 2733 3.7 3.5 1390.0 15293

••Environment Canada, 1982a.

BLACK BROOK WATERSHED SAINT AWR£ PARISH HAOAWASKA COUNTY

NEW BRUNSWICK

IAND COVEK TYPE

CLEARED WOODED

Figure 3. Forest areas in the Black Brook Water¬

shed.

yellow birch; red and sugar maple; beech; balsam

poplar; and trembling aspen. Larch, striped and

mountain maples, speckled alder, pin cherry,

beaked hazel, amclanchicrs, and willows arc also

present. Ground vegetation consists of wood

sorrel; starflowcr; goldthread; twinflowcr, yellow

clintonia; false lily-of-the-vallcy; bunchbcrry;

blackberry; raspberry; sphagnum; mountain-fern;

Schrebcr's, plume, broom, and mnium mosses;

shining clubmoss; and bracken, wood, and ostrich

ferns.

Land use

Agricultural land constitutes approxi¬

mately 1050 ha, the rest of the watershed being

forested. The major crop is potatoes in rotation

with grains, peas, and hay for forage. Some of the

land is kept under pasture.

A common field observation in cultivated

lands was to find that the Bf horizon originally

present in native soils had vanished or was severely

depleted (<5 cm thick) and average depth to the

parent material decreased. This implies that some

of the original soil material at the surface was

removed by erosion. There were also sites in

which the Ap, the uppermost soil horizon, was

more than 50% thicker than average, for example,

being 40 cm thick, whereas the typical plow layer

is only 25 cm thick. These sites illustrate soil over-

wash (rcdcposition of eroded sediment). Over

48% (511 ha) and 8% (90 ha) of cleared land were

classified as eroded and ovcrwash soils, respective¬

ly. At the same tune, there were sites with similar

soils and comparable topographic features that

displayed no such soil modifications. This vari¬

ation is attributed to different field management

It stresses the importance of land use as one of the

dominant soil forming factors in modifying profile

characteristics.

SURVEYING METHODS

The watershed area was mapped at the

scale of 1:10 000. Within the watershed, 254 ha

had previously been surveyed at the same scale as

part of the on-fann soil survey program (MacMil-

lan, no date). This area was not re-surveyed but

instead the on-fann data were incorporated into

the final map.

On average one soil inspection was made

for every 2 ha of agricultural land and for every 9

ha of forested land. Each inspection consisted of

observing the soil to a depth required for classi¬

fication, considering a control section of 1 m. The

following soil profile properties were recorded: soil

parent material, drainage, depth to constricting or

contrasting layer, depth to bedrock, textures of the

soil surface and of the parent material, soil phases,

and horizon sequence. Slope, stonincss, and

rockincss were also noted (Agriculture Canada

Expert Committee on Soil Survey, 1983). This

information allowed for identification of the soil at

the association level. Inspection sites were chosen

using a combination of free mapping and the

transcct approach (Agriculture Canada Expert

Committee on Soil Survey, 1981). Coloured 1:12

500 scaled aerial photographs were used for site

selection and location. Line base maps at scale 1:4

800 were also available for some of the survey

area.

Once all field inspections were done, the

aerial photographs were used to finalize soil

polygon boundaries. The mapping unit identifies

the soil that is dominant in a delineated polygon

and is described at the association level. For this

report an association is considered as the equival¬

ent of a soil catena, consisting of soils that have

developed on the same parent material but differ

in drainage characteristics because of topographic

position. A maximum of 15% inclusions of dif¬

ferent soil types was allowed. Some units of

strongly contrasting conditions or land use were

assigned land type designations (see list below in

SOIL CLASSIFICATION). The published map

symbol consists of the soil association, phase

(where present), drainage, and slope as based on

soil and site characteristics recorded in the field.

It has the following format:

Soil Association (Phase) Drainage f Slope

e.g. Ho(e)2/c

SOIL CLASSIFICATION

The soil associations found in the Black

Brook watershed are described in Table 2 and their

general locations are shown in Figure 4. Six

mineral soil associations and one organic soil

association were identified during the mapping

exercise:

Mineral - Grand Falls

Holmcsvillc

Interval

Muniac

Sicgas

Undine

Organic - St Qucntin.

Generalized characteristics of the associa¬

tions are provided in the following pages under

"MAPPING UNIT DESCRIPTION". These

descriptions combine information from Fahmy et

at (1986) and Langmaid et ai (1980 and 1976) as

well as reflect the particularities of the survey area

which were identified during the detailed field

investigations.

The following connolalivc land types were

also identified during the mapping process:

Farmyard

Lagoon

Sinkholc

St. Andrc (village of)

Stone Pile

Stream Valley

Water

Phases were used to identify map units in

which a significant component (>33%) of the

polygon varied from the central concept of the soil

association. The soil association phases that were

considered arc:

e - eroded (Bf<5cm),

o - overwash (Ap>1.5 limes average Ap

thickness),

s - shallow to bedrock (<5()cm), and

v - variable depth to bedrock (IQ-l(X)cm).

When eroded (c), lodgment till soils such

as Holmcsvillc and Sicgas have less available

friable surface soil material for root growth. Con¬

versely, overwash phases (o) where eroded sedi¬

ments have been rcdcpositcd, tend to have

increased available rooting zones. Overwash

materials, because of their relative fineness, may

enhance the water and nutrient retention capabil¬

ities of coarser tcxturcd soils, such as Grand Falls.

Units mapped as cither shallow to bedrock (s) or

variable depth to bedrock (v) are usually affected

by bedrock outcrop. However, most of these sites

arc at worst only slightly rocky, with 2-10% of the

unit's surface area being rock exposures. Units that

arc both eroded, and cither shallow or variable

depth to bedrock, arc most likely to have bedrock

outcrop, but still these lend to occupy less than

10% of the total unit area. It should be noted that

by definition, sites with less than 10 cm of

unconsolidalcd soil material over solid bedrock are

considered rock exposures.

Soil material of representative mapping

units was collected at the end of the soil survey.

These samples were chemically and physically

analyzed and the results of these analyses arc pres¬

ented in Appendix 1 along with morphological

descriptions of the soil profile.

In the reconnaissance mapping of Madaw-

aska (Langmaid et at, 1980) and Northern Victoria

(Langmaid et ai, 1976), soil series were designated

in the mapping unit and map symbol In this

report only soil association names are used. The

name of the soil association was taken from the

catena soil series that has the "best" natural drain¬

age. To maintain correlation with existing soil

names, this relationship between soil associations

and established soil series is provided in Table 3.

Table 2. Soil extended legend of the Black Brook Watershed.

Soil

Association

(Symbol)

Grand Falls

(GF)

Holmcsvillc

(Ho) or

(Hosil)4

Interval

(In)

Mode of

Deposition

GladoOuvial

Compact till

Alluvial

Petrology Depth to

Compact

Layer

(cm)

Noncaica- >100

reous Slate,

Ouartritc,

Sandslonc

Sandstone, 20-70^

Quartzite,

with some

Argillite,

Slate, Shale,

SUtstone

Undiffcren- >100

Uatcd

Surface

Torture7

gSI^gLS

SL-L

orSiL,

possibly

gravelly,

cobbty

SiL-vfSL

Pare]

Torture

vgLS

-LG

cobSL-

Lor

SiL

Sil^vfSL

Dl Mater

Colour

Olive

Gray

Ydlow-

Olive

Brown

Olivc-

Oarfc

Yellow

Brown

ial

pHCHÔ)

5.0-6.0

43-6.0

5.5-6.5

Classifi¬

cation^

0.1 IFF

O.HFP

O.R

Drainages

Mapped3

W-P

W-P

VP

Coaree

Fragments

>SO%

gravels,

cfaanners

15-30%

cobbles,

graveb

<5%

gravefa

Muniac Gladofluvial Calcareous >100

(Mu) Slate, Shale,

Quartzite,

Sandstone

L^SL gSI^ Light &5-7J O.HPP W-P >20%

vgLS Olive graveb

Brown

Sicgas

(Si)

St. Qucntin

(Sl)

Undine

(Un)or

(IJnsI)4

Compact till

Organic

Residual

or Ihio till

over Resi¬

dual

Ouartzite,

Sandstone,

with some

Shale, Slate,

Argillite

Forest Peat

WcaUy

Calcareous

Shale, Slate

or Sandstone

20-605

40-160

to miner¬

al soil

65-100

to

bcdrodL

L(CL)

Fibiic-

Mcsic

SiL-L

orL-SL

CL-L

Mcsic

chSil/^

chLor

chSL^

chl.

Light

Olive-

Yellow

Brown

Dark

Brown-

Reddish

Brown

Light

Oliw-

YcUow

Brown

6.5-7.5

6.0-7.0

S.Q-6S

PZ.GL

T.M

0.1 IFF

W-VP

VP

W-I

<20%

gravels

—

10-30%

channere

••'''rarture symbols arc a combination of the following: C-clay, G-gravcl, L-loam(y), S-sand^), Si-sill, g-gtavclty, ch-channery, cob-cobMy, vf-vcry Cnc, and vg-vcry gravelly.

Ât subgroup Icvd of classification for the catena head on native soils only: O.I IPP-Orthic Humo-Fcrric Podzol, PZ-GL-Podzolic Gray

Luvisol, O.R-Orthic Rcgosol, and T.M-Tcrric Mcsisol (Agriculture Canada Expert Committee on Soil Survey, 1987).

^Drainage classes are as follows: R-rapidly, W-wcll, MW-modcratdy well, I-impcrfcctly, P-pooriy, and VP-veiy pooriy drained soils.

'Hosil silt loam variant of Holmesville or Unsl-sandy loam variant of Undine associations.

'The depth to compact layer is typically 40-60cm for I lolmcsville and 30-50cm for Sicgas associations, but it is reduced in eroded phases

(c) and increased in ovcrwash phases (o).

9

SOIL ASSOCIATIONS


SAINT ANOft£ PARISH

MADAWASKA COUNTY

NEW BRUNSWICK

LEGEND

^

— Grand Falls

— Holmesvllle

Interval

$§^ — Munlac

— St. Quantin

Undine

General Land Types

Figure 4. Soil associations in the Black Bnxik Watershed.

10

Table 3. Correlation of soil associations with established soil series.

Association Drainage

Well Moderately Well Imperfect to Poor

Grand Falls

Hoimcsvillc

Interval

Muniac

Sicgas

St. Qucniin

Undine

Grand Falls

IIolmcsvillc

Interval

Muniac

Sicgas

Undine

Sirois

JoboviIIc

Waasis

Imtushore

Salmoo

Cariingford

11

MAPPING UNIT DESCRIPTIONS

GRAND FALLS

Extent and distribution

The Grand Falls mapping units occur

along the Black Brook in the lower part of the

watershed. They cover 48.1 ha of agricultural land

and riparian forest.

Soil material, range in characteristics, and topog¬

raphy

Grand Falls arc deep, olive gray, strongly

to medium acid, gravel soils, very low in natural

fertility, which have developed on glaciofluvial

deposits of noncalcarcous slate, quarlyjtc, and

sandstone. They have a loose, rapidly permeable,

very gravelly loamy sand to loamy gravel parent

material and a friable to loose, moderately per¬

meable, gravelly sandy loam or possibly loamy sand

topsoil. Coarse fragments arc rounded gravels and

cobbles, usually exceeding 50% of the soil volume.

Surface sloniness is not a problem. Most units are

only slightly stony, with stones 10-30 m apart.

Grand Falls soils occupy well, moderately well, im¬

perfectly, and poorly drained sites.

Slopes range from 2 to 15% with sites

varying from horizontal or gently inclined terraces

to the steep sides of bnxik valleys.

Land use

These units form strips of land along the

edges of riparian forest. Hence, they arc cultivated

the same way as the rest of a field that may con¬

tain more agriculturally suitable soils. On the

other hand, since these units are located at the

bottom of hills that have been subjected to years of

up-and-down slope cultivation, they often serve as

eroded sediment sinks, thus, enhancing the inher¬

ently low fertility of the lopsoil. So, even though

these mapping units arc generally less suitable

because of low water holding capacity and low

fertility, potatoes, grains, and peas arc successfully

grown. The forested areas of Grand Falls soils arc

poorly drained, with sparsely growing trees of

eastern cedar, balsam fir, black spruce, speckled

alder, willow, and ground vegetation including

wood sorrel, bunchbcrry, goldthread, yellow clin-

lonia, twinflowcr, wood fern, mountain fcm and

Schrcbcr's mosses.

Differentiating from other units

The Grand Falls mapping units are readily

differentiated from soils which have developed on

compact lodgment till (Holmesville and Siegas)

and residual material (Undine), however, they may

be confused with the other glaciofluvial soil, ie.

Muniac.

The Grand Falls mapping units differ from

Muniac units in (i) higher content of coarse fragm¬

ents, especially cobbles and coarse gravels in

Grand Falls soils and (ii) Muniac soil parent

materials arc calcareous while Grand Falls soils are

noncalcarcous.

Taxonomy

Well to moderately well drained Grand

Falls units are classified as Orthic Humo-Fcmc

Podxols for both forested and cultivated sites.

Some of the wooded sites arc poorly drained

Orthic Glcysols.

HOLMESVILLE


These soils cover 648.7 ha, occurring

mainly to the cast of the St. Andrc-Levcsque

Settlement highway (Route 255) and in the south¬

ern portion of the watershed south of St. Andre.

Holmesville soils arc the most extensive of any soil

association found in the watershed. They occupy

some 45% of the total land base.


raphy

The Holmesville map units consist of

deep, yellowish to olive brown, add, coarsc-tex-

turcd soils, low to moderate in natural fertility,

that have developed in deposits of compact till

with a surficial mantle of cither friable ablaiional

12

till or waicr-reworked basal till, derived mainly

from sandstone and quartzilc, with some shale,

slate, and argillitc. These soils usually consist of

40-60 cm of relatively friable, permeable, solum

material underlain by a firm, compact, slowly

permeable subsoil. Surface horizon textures for

well to moderately well drained sites arc sandy

loam to loam with some gravelly or cobbly incl¬

usions while the subsoil material is usually cobbly

loam to sandy loam. There arc usually 20-30%

coarse fragments consisting of subroumlcd to

angular cobbles and gravels. The pH of the subsoil

is less than 6.0, and more often less than 5.5.

Imperfectly (260.1 ha) and poorly (273 ha)

drained sites tend to be slightly heavier tcxturcd

than the well to moderately well drained soils in

both the friable solum and compact subsoil.

However, both fall within the limits of the above

mentioned soil texture classes.

Holmcsville soils are typically moderately

stony. This is especially true of forested sites where

stones are usually 2-10 m apart. Stone picking on

cultivated sites has reduced the presence of stones

to the point that they only hinder tillage slightly or

not at all.

A lexlural variant, with silt loam textures

throughout the profile depth and occurring in all

drainage classes, is also present in the survey area.

These units are differentiated from the modal

concept by a Icxtural abbreviation which follows

the association symbol, ie. Hosil. Another phase,

(v), of Holmcsville is characterized by 55 to less

than 100 cm of friable and compact materials

underlain by soil weathered in situ from calcareous

shale or fine grained sandstone with bedrock

present within 1 m of the surface soil (sec:

Undine). Some of the Holmcsville unils also

include weakly water rcworkcd friable material in

the solum that resembles "dirty Grand Falls* units

(Langmaid et at, 1980).

Eroded and ovcrwash phases of Holmcs¬

ville soils, 334.2 ha and 55.0 ha respectively, arc

common, indicative of the extensive soil erosion

and deposition that have taken place. In eroded

phases, the depth to the compact restricting subsoil

is less than 40 cm, and commonly less than 30 cm,

with the only friable zone being the plow layer.

Ovcrwash phases have increased thickness of

friable surface soil, at least 15 cm more than the

normal 40-60 cm. This is due to the accumulation

of surface sediments on the Ap horizon. One

shallow to bedrock phase, with less than 50 cm of

soil material over consolidated bedrock, was also

found.

Holmcsville soils arc characterized by

undulating to strongly rolling surface expressions

with slopes of 1-20%.

Land use

Well to moderately well, and some imper¬

fectly drained sites are generally used for growing

potatoes, grains, peas, and hay. Some land has

been kept under pasture. Most of the poorly

drained sites arc forested with balsam fir; black,

red, and white spruce; eastern cedar, tamarack;

while and gray birch; red maple; speckled aider,

willow, pin cherry; and black ash. Stands are over

mature with a great deal of dead trees.


Holmcsville mapping units differ from:

Sicgas units in (i) parent material texture - Holme-

svillc sandy loam or loam versus Sicgas clay loam

or heavy loam, (ii) coarse fragments - while of

similar origins, coarse fragments arc of greater size

and in greater amounts in the Holmcsville till, (iii)

higher acidity in the Holmcsville subsoil, and (iv)

surface expression, which is undulating to strongly

rolling in contrast to the gently undulating Sicgas

landscape;

Undine units, because Holmcsville soils have more

than 55 cm of till over the residual soil/bedrock

interface; and

Grand Falls units, because of the presence of (i) a

compact till subsoil, (ii) lesser amounts of coarse

fragments and (iii) limited water rcworking effects

in Holmcsville soils.

Taxonomy

Well drained virgin Holmesville soils are

classified as Onhic Humo-Fcmc Podzols, whereas,

the imperfectly and poorly drained soils are Glcycd

Humo-Fcmc Podzols and the very poorly drained

soils arc Onhic Glcysols. The classification of

cultivated land on better drained sites is frequently

13

changed to Orthic Mclanic (Ap's pH>5.5 in

CaCy or Sombric (Ap's pH<5.5 in CaCy Bruni-

sols. When seasonal change of the pH due to

liming is considered, many of these soils arc

experiencing seasonal change in soil classification

at the Great Group level.

Soil degradation can have an equally

important impact on soil classification. Cultivated

soils often display eroded profiles manifested in a

total lack of the originally diagnostic Bf horizon.

These soils arc classified as Orthic (well drained

units) or Glcycd (imperfectly drained units) Humic

Rcgosols.


Interval soils are readily identified by their

physical characteristics. They are friable coarse

fragment-free materials consisting primarily of

stratified fine sands and silts. Interval soils are

easily distinguished from the other water deposited

sediments. Grand Falls and Muniac, which arc

glaciofluvial soils with coarser textures and an

abundance of coarse fragments (at least 20%).

Taxonomy

Interval soils arc regularly flooded, gaining

an increment of new sediment each year, and thus

depositions have not yet developed any soil profile.

Poorly drained site conditions have led to these

soils being classified as Glcycd Regosols and Rego

Glcysols.

INTERVAL


Only one Interval mapping unit (1.8 ha)

was identified. It is in the wooded area located

below the village of St. Andrc.


raphy

Interval soils consist of deep, olive brown

to dark yellowish brown, medium to slightly acid,

mcdium-lcxturcd soils, high in natural fertility,

which have formed in recent alluvial deposits. The

entire depth of the soil is relatively friable, per¬

meable, stratified silt and fine sand. No coarse

fragments arc present. There are very few nat¬

urally occurring surface stones.

The mapped unit consists of a narrow

stream terrace that is very poorly drained and has

slopes of less than 5 %.

Land use

The site is wooded, with a forest of balsam

fir, black and red spruce, gray birch, red maple,

wood sorrel, starflowcr, bunchberry, yellow clinlo-

nia, wcxxl and bracken ferns, and Schrebcr's and

broom mosses.

MUNIAC


The Muniac mapping units are located in

the upper and central parts of the watershed ex¬

tending over 11.5 ha.


raphy

These units arc deep, light olive brown,

neutral, coarse-lcxturcd gravel soils, low to moder¬

ate in natural fertility, which have formed in loose

outwash deposits derived mainly from calcareous

slates, shales, quarlxitcs, and sandstones. The

entire depth of the soil profile (greater than 100

cm) consists of a loose, moderately to rapidly

permeable material. The subsoil is gravelly sandy

loam to gravelly or very gravelly loamy sand tcx-

turcd. The texture of the surface horizons varies

from sandy loam to loam, and even silt loam, and

may be gravelly. Coarse fragment content varies

from 20-50%, usually increasing in content with

depth. Most coarse fragments arc subroundcd

gravels, which, below the weathered zone, arc often

coated with calcium carbonate. Soil pH may

remain acidic (below pH 5.5) from the surface to

a depth of more than 80 cm before abruptly rising

14

above pH 7, or it may increase gradually with

depth. Surface stones are few, with most map units

being either nonstony or only slightly stony. Well,

moderately well, imperfectly and poorly drained

sites are mapped.

Muniac occurrence is limited to kame,

csker, and terrace type deposits with slopes ranging

from 2 to 9%.

Land use

Muniac mapping units maintain both

agricultural as well as forest production. These

units have low water storage capacity and fertility

retention. However, since they consist of small

hcctaragcs, they have usually been managed simi¬

larly to the predominant soils in a field. They are

used for potato and grain production and are more

than adequate for pasture. Forest trees include

spruces, balsam fir, trembling aspen, red maple,

and white birch, with ground vegetation of beaked

hazel, mountain maple, wood sorrel, sarsaparilla,

bunchbcny, goldthread, and twinflower.


Muniac soils arc most oflcn confused with

the Grand Falls soils association, since both are of

glacioduvial mode of deposition. Differentiation is

based on coarse fragment content, but more

definitively on soil reaction. The Muniac soil

parent material is calcareous in comparison to the

Grand Falls subsoil which is noncalcareous. Also,

the Grand Falls soils arc usually more gravclly-

cobbly than Muniac soils.

Taxonomy

Well drained Muniac units arc Orthic

Humo-Fcrric Podzols. Imperfect to poorly drained

sites arc classified as Glcycd Humo-Fcrric Podxols

to Orlhic Humic Gleysols.

SIEGAS


Sicgas is the second most prevalent soil

association in the watershed, occupying some 4773

ha, or 33% of the area. These soils are found

almost exclusively in the northern and central

portions of the map area.


raphy

Sicgas soils consist of deep, light olive to

yellowish brown, slightly acidic to neutral, fine-

Icxtured soils, moderate in natural fertility, which

have formed in compact till deposits derived

mainly from sandstone, quartzite, argillite, and

shale. These soils usually have 30-50 cm of rela¬

tively friable, permeable loam, or occasionally clay

loam, surface material over a dense, compact,

extremely slowly permeable clay loam to loam till

subsoil, which is often gravelly. Both surface and

subsoil textures often vary towards silt loam.

Coarse fragments arc mostly angular to subround-

cd gravels, and usually less than 20% by volume.

While virgin forested sites are typically moderately

stony with up to 3% of the surface area occupied

by stones, most cultivated fields are only slightly

stony, due to regular stone removal (picking). Soil

pH increases with depth from an acidic surface to

neutral at 1 m, often being calcareous below.

Well and moderately well (202.0 ha),

imperfectly (177.9 ha), poorly (89.1 ha), and very

poorly (7.9 ha) drained units are all located within

the survey area.

Sicgas soils occupy surface expressions that

are undulating to gently rolling with slopes averag¬

ing 2-9%.

Eroded phases (c) arc common but not

extensive (74.7 ha). They occur on most slope

classes, even on gently inclined slopes, thus indicat¬

ing that past management can play a dominant role

in soil loss, not just slope gradient Eroded phases

have less depth to the compact subsoil than the

norm, with often only an Ap horizon remaining.

Some 11.3 ha of ovcrwash is also present Only

two units are mapped as variable depth to bedrock

with 10-100 cm of soil material over consolidated

bedrock.

Land use

Potatoes, grains, peas, and hay are the

most common crops on agricultural land that is

15

primarily well to imperfectly drained. Some arc

also left as pasturcland. A number of mapping

units with similar or worse drainage arc forested.

Balsam fir, red, white, and black spruce; sugar and

red maple; beech; yellow and white birch; striped

and mountain maple; and beaked hazel arc com¬

mon tree and shrub species present.


The Sicgas mapping units can be

distinguished from Holmcsvillc units by (i) Sicgas

parent material texture - clay loam as opposed to

sandy loam to loam for Holmcsvillc, (ii) coarse

fragments size - Sicgas coarse fragments lend to be

gravels and less abundant than the cobbles and

gravels of Holmcsvillc material, (iii) less acidic

parent material of the Siegas soil association, and

(iv) the generally gentler sloping topography of the

Sicgas landscape.

Taxonomy

Siegas soils arc classified as Pod/A)lic

Gray Luvisol, Glcycd Podxolic Gray Luvisol, and

Orlhic Luvic Glcysol for well to moderately well,

imperfectly to poorly, and very p<x)rly drained

native soils, respectively. On the agricultural

lands, well to moderately well and imperfect to

poorly drained Sicgas mapping units arc classified

as BrunLsolic Gray Luvisol and Gleycd Bninisolic

Gray Luvisol, respectively. Some units have been

eroded to such an extent that they arc classified as

Orthic Humic RegosoLs. Very poorly drained sites

arc not under cultivation.

ST. QUENT1N


Only one unit of St. Qucntin was mapped.

It occupies 24.9 ha in the forest complex located in

the northern portion of the watershed.


raphy

This soil consists of forest peat material,

40-160 cm thick, but usually ranging from 40-100

cm in accumulation. St. Qucntin soils are essen¬

tially swamps. The dominant materials are moder¬

ately well decomposed (mcsic) forest peat formed

in a eulrophic, or nutrient rich environment,

resulting from strong water movement from the

deposit margins and adjacent mineral soils. The

soil matrix is a dark brown to reddish brown

colour and contains randomly distributed pieces of

wood, roots and other plant debris. Soil reaction

is medium acid to neutral. Density usually

increases with depth and permeability decreases.

Standing to gently flowing waters occur seasonally

or persist for long periods on the surface. The

substrate is usually continually waterlogged. The

unit of SL Qucntin peat that was mapped is

underlain by an olive brown clay loam tcxturcd till,

probably Sicgas parent material. The unit is gently

undulating with a 3% slope.

Land use

A forest of eastern cedar, balsam fir, black

spruce, gray birch, red maple, and trembling aspen

trees, with common sphagnum and some sedges, is

present. This area acts as a reservoir for the Black

Brook stream.


St. Quenlin soils arc readily distinguished

from all other mapping units by the presence of

40-1 (X) cm or more of peat material over the

mineral soil.

Taxonomy

The SL Quenlin unit is classified as a

Terric Mesisol.

UNDINE


Undine units arc found mostly between

Siegas and Holmesvillc mapping units in the

central portion of the surveyed area, occupying ap¬

proximately 156.5 ha, or 11 % of the area.

16


raphy

Soils of the Undine Association are

moderately deep, light olive to yellowish brown,

slightly to strongly acidic, coarse to mcdium-tcx-

tured soils, moderate in natural fertility, which

have developed primarily in situ by weathering of

calcareous shale or fine grained calcareous sand¬

stone bedrock. A thin surficial mantle of till may

be present Total thickness of the soil over bedrock

is usually 65-100 cm of triable or loose, permeable

material that grades from a silt loam to loam

surface texture into a channcry silt loam subsoil.

Coarse fragments at the surface arc usually flat or

subangular gravels and often include a non-shale

component of mixed origins such as sandstones,

argillilc, slate, and quartxitc. The subsoil contains

virtually nothing but channcrs or flagstones of

highly weathered calcareous shale. On average,

coarse fragments usually range from 10-30%,

increasing in abundance with depth. Surface

stonincss ranges from slightly stony to moderately

stony, with most cultivated lands being only slightly

stony due to stone picking.

Drainages mapped arc well to moder¬

ately well (133.8 ha), and imperfectly (22.7 ha)

drained.

Included with the Undine mapping units

arc soils characterized by a thin overburden of

glacial till, usually less than 55 cm of friable to

slightly compact debris (see: Holmcsvillc) overlying

the shaly residual material. A sandy variant,

derived from fine grained weakly calcareous sand¬

stone, is mapped as UnsL Textures of these sandy

variants arc usually gravelly to nongravclly sandy

loam throughout the profile.

Both eroded (e) and ovcrwash (o) phases

of Undine were mapped. Loss of solum thickness

in the eroded phases is critical in the Undine soil

association. Any loss of soil material has the

potential of taking the site out of viable agricultur¬

al production, especially if the soil material is very

shallow to bedrock- More than half of the Undine

soils mapped are classified as eroded phases, but

only 4% as ovcrwash.

Undine mapping units occur on undulating

and rolling 3-9% slopes.

Land use

Undine soils are mostly found under

agricultural production. They are used to grow

potatoes and grains, and some are left under

pasture.


The Undine mapping units occupy the

transition zone between the Sicgas units in the

northern and central portions of the watershed

west of the St. Andr6-Levesque Settlement highway

(Route 255), and the Holmcsville units, east of the

highway in the central and southern portions of

the watershed (Figure 4). This accounts for the

presence of some sites with thin (<55 cm) surficial

layers of friable and compact till similar to the

upper profile of the Holmesvillc units. It also

explains the mixed character of topsoil coarse

fragments on other sites.

The Undine mapping units differ from:

Sicgas units in (i) parent material consistence,

noncompact Undine versus compact Siegas, (ii)

parent material texture of sandy or silt loam in the

Undine as opposed to clay loam in Sicgas, and (iii)

the channcry shale Undine residual materials

which grade into bedrock versus the mixed gravelly

till debris of the Siegas; and

Muniac units in (i) parent material texture, chan¬

ncry silt loam, with exception of those Undine

units developed from (ine grained sandstone, as

compared to gravelly sandy loam to gravelly or

very gravelly loamy sand, and (ii) coarse fragments

of highly weathered sharp angular channel's and

flagstones of either shale or fine grained sandstone

in the Undine versus subrounded to rounded

gravels of mixed origins in the Muniac parent

material.

Taxonomy

The Undine mapping units belong to

Orihic Sombric (Ap's pH<5.5 in CaCy or

Mclanic (Ap's pH>5.5 in CaCy Brunisols on well

to moderately wcU drained cultivated sites and

Glcycd Sombric or Mclanic Brunisols on imper¬

fectly drained cultivated sites. This classification

varies with changes of pH that are seasonal

Eroded mapping units have developed a modified

17

horizon sequence which qualifies them as Orthic or Well drained virgin soils arc typically Orlhic

Glcycd Humic Rcgosols for well to moderately Humo-Fcrric Podxols.

well and inipcrfcctly drained soils, respectively.

18

SOIL INTERPRETATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE

This section of the report provides inter¬

pretations of the mapped soils for various agri¬

cultural land uses. Each unique map symbol listed

on the soil map (which is located in the map

pocket at the end of the report) is rated or inter¬

preted. The interpretations (Table 4) include a

general rating of soil capability for agriculture and

specific ratings for selected crop suitabilities and

management practices.

CANADA LAND INVENTORY SOIL CAPA¬

BILITY FOR AGRICULTURE

In the Canada Land Inventory (CLI) soil

capability for agriculture classification, mineral

soils are grouped into seven classes according to

their potentialities and limitations for agricultural

use (Canada Land Inventory, 1972). The Gist

three classes are considered capable of sus¬

tained production of common cultivated crops,

while the fourth is only marginal for sustained

arable culture. Classes five, six and seven are not

recommended for cultivated crops.

The class, the broadest category in the

classification, is a grouping of soils with subclasses

that have the same relative degree of limitation

or hazard. The limitation or hazard becomes

progressively greater from Class 1 to Class 7. The

soils within a capability class arc similar with

respect to degree but not necessarily to kind of

limitations in use for agricultural purposes. Each

class includes many different kinds of soils and

many of the soils within any one class may require

dissimilar management and treatment. Soils that

arc considered feasible for improvement are

classified according to their continuing limitations

after improvements have been made.

The subclass is a grouping of soils with

similar kinds of limitations and hazards. It pro¬

vides information on the kind of limitation or

conservation problem while the class indicates the

intensity of the limitation. Subclass limitations

include: adverse climate (C); undesirable soil

structure and/or low permeability (D); past dam¬

age from erosion (E); low fertility (F); inundation

by streams (I); moisture limitation (M); consoli¬

dated bedrock (R); topography (T); and excess

water (W).

SOIL SUITABILITY FOR SELECTED CROPS

AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Guidelines for assessing the soil and

landscape suitability tor selected crops and man¬

agement practices are provided in Appendix 2,

Tables A2-1 to A2-8. The major soil and land¬

scape properties influencing the given uses are

listed along with four degrees of soil suitability -

good (G), fair (F), poor (P) and unsuitable (U).

Good (G) - The soil is relatively free of

problems that hinder crop production and soil

management, or the limitations that do occur

can be easily overcome.

Fair (F) - Moderate soil and/or landscape

limitations exist, but they can be overcome with

good crop management and improvement prac¬

tices or special techniques.

Poor (P) - Severe soil and/or landscape

limitations exist which will be difficult and costly

to overcome. Crop production is severely

hindered and the efficacy of land improvement

practices is low.

Unsuitable (U) - The inputs required to utilize

or improve these soils for crop production is too

great to be justified under existing economic

conditions.

Each unique map symbol is rated for soil

suitability for alfalfa, forages, pasture, peas, pota¬

toes, spring cereals (wheat, oats, barley), subsurface

drainage, and deep ripping. These ratings, along

with an assessment of the Canada Land

Inventory soil capability for agriculture, are pro¬

vided below in Table 4. The degree of soil suit¬

ability is based on the most restrictive soil property

or properties, given existing conditions. The major

soil properties influencing use are also provided

along with the degree of soil suitability. Major soil

properties influencing use for the rated crops and

management practices are: depth to bedrock

(b); depth of friable soil, or undesirable soil

structure and slow permeability (d); Hooding, or

inundation (i); stoniness (p); rockiness (r); slope,

or topography (l); drainage, or wetness (w); and

soil texture (x).

19

Tablc 4. Soïl suitability for sclcctcd agricultural crops and management practiccs.

hiap unit

symm

No. of Awa

p*P= @a)

CL1

wr@-)

Crop Suitabihties Management Plauices

Fo=-w-= Pasture Pals Potatas spring SUb- cereals surtace uippillg

-

Farmyard GF(e)ZVd

GF(o)2/c

GF(o)W GF(o)Z/e ~;F(O)~/C GF(o)3/d

GF(v,e)2/d

GF3,‘c

GFUd GF4fe

GF5ld

r-Io(c)uc

Ho(e)Z’d

Ho(eP’f

We)3lb

Ho(Wc

We)Ud

Ho(ey3/e

Ho(e)4/a I-Io(C)Wb

H~(~)O/C 1 Io(c)4/d Ho(e)%

WeW Ho(e)s~ Ho(+Vd Ho(o)aT Ho(o)3k

16 1657

3 6.66

1 253

3 5.74

1 659

1 1.93

1 153

1 235

1 186

1 1.65

1 1.73

1 15.48

2 1.02

2 9-02

1 3.81

5 8.78

21 60.69

18 5558

2 432

1 0.90

5 15.45

12 30.90

11 34.86

1 139

1 4.38

1 334

1 058

1 1.06

6 5.48

m?m 2c

3T

4T

2c

3T

3-IRE

3hfF

3-r?@

4Tw

5w

3IED

5T

3ED

3ED

3lED

4T

4WED

4WED

4wLm

4WED

4TwE

5T

5w

5W

5T

24T

Fx G G

G G G

G G G

Ft Ft Ft

Fw G G

FW G G

Fx G G

FWX G G

l-+x G G

Pw Flw R

uw Pw Fw

FdX G G

FdX G G

Pt Pt Pt

Ftd G G

Fkix G G

FWdX G G

Ftïd Ft R

Pw Fw G

Pw Fw G

Pw FW G

Pw Fw G

Pw Ftw FI

PtW Pt Pt

uw Pw Fw

UW Pw Rv

Pt Pt Pt

Fw G G

Ftx

G

Ft

Pt

G

Ft

Fx Iztx Pt

Pw

Fx

I-%x

ut

Fx

Fx

Ftx

Pt

Fwx

rivx

l-+x

Ftwx

Pt

ut

Pw

Pw

ut

G

Pt Ftx Nu NR G G Nu Nu Pt Ft Nu Nu ut Pt Nu Nu G G G Nu Pt Ft G Nu Pt Ftxr ub Nu Fx Fx G Nu Pt Ftx G Nu ut Pt G Nu Ptw Pw G Nu Fdv I% Nu Fx Pt Flx Nu px ut ut ut Pt F* px FM Fx F* Fx Fd Fx Pt Fax Fd Fx ut Pt Fd mx Fwdx r+x Fld Fwx rwdx rwx Fld l%x rktx mx Fd Rvx Pt Ftwx Fd Fwx ut Pt Fd Ftwx ut ut ut Pt Pw Pw Fld ht Ptw Pw Fd Fbl ut ut NU Ptd

G G G Pd

l

Ho(o).WJ 3 6.76

2 3.00

6 857

5 14.41

1 7.65

1 0.45

1 0.77

1 1.41

1 216

1 1.65

3 4.22

1 1.17

1 3sMJ

1 146

1 632

1 259

1 263

2 1334

3 17.75

5 1280

12 30.79

2 7.92

2 4.33

1 3.61

2 6.91

1 1.74

1 1.17

2 4.69

3 10.46

1 0.42

1 232

2 4.10

16 4243

10 40s

2 3.86

1 1.24

3T 4w

3w

3Tw

5w

5w

3RJm

3R

3TR

3R

3R

3TR

ST

4RW

4RW

4RW

4lRw

3RED

3RFD

3REm

4TR

4RWE

4RWE

4TRw

2c

4w

4w

2c

3T

4T

2c

XI

m

4T

ST

G

Fw

Fw

Fw

Pw

Pw

G

G

G

G

G

G

Pt

Fw

Fw

b

mv

G

G

G

G

Ft

Fw

Fiv

Ftlu

G

F%v

F%v

G

G

Ft

G

G

G

FI

Pt

c

G

G

G

G

rw

J3w

G

G

G

G

G

G

Pt

G

G

G

Ft

G

G

G

G

FI

G

G

Ft

G

G

G

G

G

FI

G

G

G

Ft

Pt

1 f

Ft

r-iv

Fw

Ftw

Pw

Ptw

Fxr

Fr

Ftr

Fr

Fr

m

ut

F#T

rr

Ftwr

Pt

Fxr

Fxr

Fxr

Ftxr

Pt

Fkxr

Fhn

Pt

G

Fw

Fhw

G

Ft

Pt

G

G

FI

Pt

ut

i

Pt

Fw

Fw

Pt

Pw

ut

FdXr

Fr

Pt

Fr

Fr

Pt

ut

Rwr

Fwr

Pt

ut

FdXK

FdU

FdU

Pt

ut

Fwdr

Pt

ut

G

Rv

Pt

G

Pt

ut

G

G

Pt

ut

ut

Ft G Pd

Fw Ft Pd

Fw G Pd

FKW G Pd

Pw FI Pd

Ptw G Pd

Fxr ubr ub

Fr NR Pdb

m NR Pdb

Fr ubr Pdb

Fr Ubr Pdb

Flr ubr Pdb

ut ut Ptdb

FbT ubr Pdb

Fwr ubr Pdb

FIwr ubr Pdb

Pt ubr Pdb

Fx NR ub

Fx ubr ub

Fxr ubr ub

Fhr ubr ub

Pt ubr ub

Fwxr ubr ub

Ftwx ubr ub

Pt ubr ub

G Pb Pd

Fk Pb Pd

Rwr Pb Pd

G NR Pd

Ft NR Pd

Pt NR Pd

G Ft Pd

G G Pd

Ft G Pd

Pt G Pd

ut ut Ptd

-

Table 4. Soi1 suitability for selcctcd agricultural crops and management practices (amtïnucd).

Map uni1 No. of Area symm Pdygoos @a)

Cmp Suitabititia Management PracGœs

FOGigCS Paaue Pas Pota- Spring SUb- Gxrals sulface l+piJlg

-

Ho4/b 1 132

Ho4k 14 5751

1 bvd 10 48.64

Hdk 1 3.06

HO~/C 1 13.46

Ho5/d 1 1.79

Hosil(v,e)3/d 1 0.93

WC 1 1.75

hgooa 1 250

Mu(e)Uc 1 202

MU% 2 337

MUd 1 1.75

Mwb 1 0.82

MlA/C 1 268

Mab 1 0.87

Si(e)?& 5 883

Si(e)uc 9 zm2

Si(e)3/d 1 10.10

Si(e)ur 1 1.10

Si(e)4/b 2 6.84

Si(e)Qlc 8 18.16

Si(c)4/d 4 7.68

Si(o)3/b 2 334

Si(o)r(k 6 5.31

Si(o)4M 1 1.68

Si(v)Q/c 1 16.27

Si(v,o)5/d 1 1.00

SiiC 3 3.72

Sizle 2 244

I 1

3w

3w

3Tw

4T

4w

4w

5Wl

Pw

Pw

Pw

Pw

uw

uw

Fwdr

uwi

3FME Fw

3m G

3TFM G

4w Pw

4w Pw

5w uw

3DE Pd

3DE Pd

3TDE Pd

ST Ptd

4WDE Pwd

4WDE M

4WDE Pd

3D Ftw

4w Pw

4w Pw

4RWD Pw

5RW uw

3D Fd

4T ml

rw

rw

nw

Fhv

Pw

Pw

G

uw

G

G

G

rw

Fw

Pw

G

G

G

Pt

Fw

I%v

Iàr

G

I+v

Fw

Rv

Pw

G

Fl

G Rv Fw Fw Ft Pd

G FW Fw Fw G Pd

G Ftw Pl Flw G Pd

FI Pl Ut Pi G Pd

Fw Pw Pw Pw G Pd

Fw Pw Ptw Pw G Pd

G Ftx Pt m ub ub

uw uw uw uw Pw NR

G G G G G NR

G G G G Nu Nu

G FI Pt FI NR Nu

G Fw FW Fw Ft Nu

G Fw Fw Fw G NR

Fw Pw Pw Pw FI NR

G Fd Pd Fd Ftd Fx

G Fd Pd Fd Fd Fx

G Fld PI m Fd FX

h Ut Ut ut ut Pt

G r%vd Pd Fwl FUI ré

G Fwd Pd Fkl Fd r+x

G Ftwd PI Ftd Fd Fwx

G G G G FI Pd

G I%v I%v fàr G Pd

G Ftw Pt nw G Pd

G Fwl Fwr l+r ubr Pb

Fw Pw Plw Pw Ph Pdb

G G Fd G NU Fx

FI PI Ut PI NU Fix

I I I

I

Si3/b

Si3/C

Si3/d

Si3/e

Si4/b

Si/c

Si4fd

Sii/e

siijf

sii/b

SiSIC

SWd

Sii/f

si6/c

Si

St. Andre

Slb/c

stone Pi

streamvauey

Un(e)Ub

Uo(e)2/d

Un(e)*

Un(e)=

Un(e)3k

Un(e)3/d

Un(e)%

Un(e)4/d

un(o)3/c

Un(o)TVe

Uo(s)yr

Uo2/b

Uoz/c

Uo2Ed

Unz/e

UnX

Unud

1 4 i

7 16.93

22 91.62

7 3959

1 227

4 16.72

18 82.24

7 15.45

1 5.87

1 1.68

3 14.46

10 6485

2 4.42

1 439

2 789

1 0.41

1 s8B5

1 24.91

1 0.76

1 213

1 3.61

2 2Lso

1 332

2 1.78

4 21.94

3 24.36

1 229

2 889

3 451

1 1.15

1 1.47

1 3.14

7 1930

1 1.61

1 4.46

4 8.%

4 781

!

3D mvd 31) Fwd

3TD F&i

4T Ftwd

4WD Pw

4WD Pw

4WD Pw

4TWD Pw

ST Ptw

5w uw

5w uw

5W uw

STW uw

SW uw

3RE

4T

ST

uw

Fu%

FIX

Fh

Pt

Fmx

FWTX

Pw

Pw

Fw

mv

Ptr

m

Fr

Fr

F\r

Rvr

Rvr

4RW

4RW

2c

4T

STR

3R

3R

3lR

4T

3R

3-l-R

I

G

G

G

Ft

Fw

m

Fw

Ftw

Pt

Pw

Pw

Pw

Phv

uw

uw

G

G

R

Pt

G

G

Fw

Fw

G

R

Pt

G

G

G

FI

G

G

l 1

G

G

G

F-t

G

G

G

Ft

Pt

Fw

Rv

Fw

Pt

uw

uw

G

G

Ft

Pt

G

G

G

G

G

FI

Pt

G

G

G

FI

G

G

s I

G Fd G Ftd G Fd G Fd

Ft Pt Ft Fd

Pt Ut Pt Fd

Fiv Fw m Fw

Fw Fw lb Fd

Ftw Pt Ftw Fd

Pt ut Pt Fd

Ut ut ut ut

Pw Pw Pw Fcd

Pw Pw Pw Fd

Pw Phv Pw Fd

ut ut ut ut

uw uw uw Pw

uw uw uw Pw

FrX

Ftrx

Pt

Ut

Fl%

FLrx

Fwlx

FtwT

G

Pt

Ul

Fr

Fr

l3r

Pt

Fr

F+r

Frp

Pt

ut

ut

Frp

Pt

Pt

G

ut

ut

Fr

Fr

Pt

ut

Fr

Pt

FIX NR

FIIX NR

Pt NR

ut NR

FKX ub

Ftlx ub

Rvm ub

Ftwr ub

G G

Pt G

ut NR

Fr NR

Fr NR

m NR

Pt NR

Fr Pb

Ftr Pb

Fx

Fx

Fx

Fbr

Fwx

Fwt

Ftwx

Pt

Fwx

Fwx

Fwx

Pt

uw

uw

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

NR

Table 4. Soïl suitability for sclcctcd agricultural crops and management practiczs (axttinucd).

h4ap unit

symw

No. of

pdyg-

Gop Suilabihtier

Pasture Pcas

Management Prauiœs

PoMoeS Spnng SUb- cereals suIface Ripping

Drainage

Un3lf 1 0.66 5T Pt Pt n Ut ut Ut ut NR

Ull4JC 5 10.12 4RW Pw Fiv G FWr Fivr Fwr Pb NR

Un4/d 1 1.42 4RW Pw Fw G FtWT Pt FtwT Pb NR

Unsl(e)Zk 1 245 3RE FIX G G Ftx FT FI% NR NR

unsl3/c 1 0.77 3R FWT G G Fr Fr Fr Pb NR

Water 1 1.26

CL1 Soil capability for AgJialhre

CIassl.NotfoundinNmBmnswick uass 2 Moderate 1imilatiom. aass 3. Modelately sd%ere limilalions Qass 4. sevae Ihitatïons aass5.velysmere limilaliws clas6.N0soiJsczwifKdinthisQ1egoIy. Chs 7. No capabiIity for arable adlurc

Crop Suitabilities and Management Practims

G - (Gmd) - Rclatiwzty fke of problem F - (Fair) - Moderalc soif and/or landscape limilations. P - (Poor) - Smere soil and/or landscapc lïmilalions U - (umuiLaMe) - Inputs lupimd arc km gfcat. NR - (Mot Reqired) - Net reqti.

I 1

C -Adwfsedimate D - Undesimblc soil structure and/or km pameability E -Pastdamagefmmaosion F -hwfea-tïlity 1 -IllundaliOObyS~rivcrsaod~ M - Moisture IimiIation R -coasdidatalbodroclr

T -~opograpby w -l.kxswatef

b -depthtobedmk d - dcpth of friable GI, or undcsirable soil strudun:

ad skm pumcability

i - noodin& or iIlundalion

p -St- r -rpcLiass

1 -wG~w%=+Pby w -draina&orwetmss x -8oïltcKture

1 l 1 I t

REFERENCES

Agriculture Canada Expert Committee on Soil

Survey. 1987. The Canadian System of Soil Classi¬

fication. Agriculture Canada, Research Branch.

2°'* Edition. Publication 1646. 164 pp.


Survey. 1983. The Canada Soil Information Sys¬

tem (CanSIS). Agriculture Canada, Research

Branch. LRRI Contribution No. 82-52. Edited by

J.H.Day. 95pp.


Survey. 1981. A soil mapping system for Canada:

Revised. Agriculture Canada, Research Branch.

Contribution 142. 94 pp.

Canada Land Inventory. 1972. Soil Capability

Classification for Agriculture, Canada Land Inven¬

tory Report No. 2 (1965, reprinted 1972). Informa¬

tion Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Cat. No. Fo63-

2/1972. 16 pp.

Environment Canada. 1982a. Canadian Qimate

Normals 1951-1980. Temperature and Precipita¬

tion: AtlanticProvinccs. Atmospheric Environment

Service, Environment Canada, Ottawa. 136 pp.

Environment Canada. 1982b. Canadian Climate

Normals, Volume 6, Frost, 1951-1980. Atmos¬

pheric Environment Service, Environment Canada,

Ottawa, Ontario. 276 pp.

Fahmy, S.H., H.W. Rces, and J.K. MacMillan.

1986. Soils of New Brunswick. A first approxima¬

tion. N.B. Dcpt. of Agriculture. 105 pp.

Holmstrom, D.A-1986. Soils of the Sussex Area of

New Brunswick. Tenth Report of the New Bruns¬

wick Soil Survey. LRRC Contr. No. 83-38.

Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. 151 pp.

Langmaid, K-K., J.K. MacMillan, and J.G. Losicr.

1980. Soils of Madawaska County. New Bruns¬

wick. 8th Report of the New Brunswick Soil

Survey. Agriculture Canada. 186 pp.

Langmaid, K.K., J.K. MacMillan, and J.G. Losier.

1976. Soils of Northern Victoria County, New

Brunswick. 7th Report of the New Brunswick Soil

Survey. Agriculture Canada. 153 pp.

Lee, H.A. 1959. Surficial Geology, Map 24-1959,

Grand Falls. Madawaska and Victoria Counties,

New Brunswick- Map Sheet 21 0/4, Geological

Survey of Canada, Dcpt. of Mines and Technical

Surveys, Ottawa.

MacMillan, J.K. No Dale. Selected oil-farm soil

surveys within the Black Brook Watershed. On-

Fann Soil Survey Program, Land Resources

Branch, New Brunswick Department of Agricul¬

ture, Fredcriclon, N.B.

Paltcrson, G.T and Thompson, B.L. 1989.Soils of

the Northumberland Shore Area of Nova Scolia.

Report No. 24, Nova Scolia Soil Survey. Agricul¬

ture Development Branch, Agriculture Canada,

Truro, Nova Scotia. 98 pp.

Potter, R.R., E.V. Jackson, and J.L. Davies. 1968.

Geological Map New Brunswick. Map Number

N.R.-1, New Brunswick Department of Natural

Resources, Prcdcricton, New Brunswick-

Rccs, H.W., Duff, J.P., Colville, S., and Chow, T.L.

In Press. Soils of selected agricultural areas of

Monclon Parish, Westmorland County, New

Brunswick. Centre for Land and Biological

Resources Research, Research Branch, Agriculture

Canada.

Sheldrick, B.H. (Editor). 1984. Analytical methods

manual 1984. L.R.R.I. Contribution No. 84-30,

Land Resource Research Institute, Research

Branch, Agriculture Canada.

Wcbb, K-T. 1990. Soils of Piclou County, Nova

Scotia. Report No. 18, Nova Scotia Soil Survey.

LRRC Contr. No. 85-44. Research Branch, Agri¬

culture Canada. 183 pp.

25

APPENDIX 1

MORPHOLOGICAL DESCRIPTIONS AND

ANALYSES FOR SOIL ASSOCIATIONS

This section lists in alphabetical order

selected profile descriptions for the more import¬

ant members of soil associations mapped on the

Black Brook Watershed. Results of physical and

chemical analyses are also provided.

The soil profile morphology is described

in defined terminology according to established

guidelines (Agriculture Canada Expert Committee

on Soil Survey, 1983). Classification is based on

the Canadian System of Soil Classification. Profile

descriptions usually include: horizon designations

and depths, colour, texture, mottling (where pres¬

ent), structure, consistence, and coarse fragments.

Site parameters arc also recorded: location, eleva¬

tion, parent material, slope, physiographic position,

aspect, surface expression, drainage, slonincss,

rockincss, and present land use.

Chemical and physical analytical procedur¬

es used arc those specified in Shcldrick (1984).

Determinations consist of pH in Cad^ (2.1 84-

(X)l), % organic carbon (2.6 84-013), % nitrogen

(LECO furnace), sodium pyrophosphate extract-

able Fc and Al (2.5 84-012), ditluonite extractable

Fc and Al (2.5 84-010), cation exchange capacity

and exchangeable base cations Ca, Mg and K (2.3

84-004), carbonates (2.4 84-009), available P (2.7

84-018), electrical conductivity (2.2 84-003), par¬

ticle size distribution with sand tractions (3.1 84-

026), bulk density with coarse fragments (3.2 84-

029), saturated hydraulic conductivity (3.5 84-037),

and % water retention by volume at given tensions

(3.4 84-035 & 84-036).

Soil pH values referred to in the text of

this report arc for water determined values unless

otherwise staled.

26

Association:

Mapping Unit:

Sampling Date:

Location:

Parent Material:

Slope (Type):

Physiographic Position:

Grand Falls

GF2/e

Nov. 5,1991

47° 05' 51"N, 67° 44' 06"W

Acidic, sandy skeletal

glacioOuvial with noncalcanoous

slate, quartzilc and sandstone

gravels

11% (complex)

Lower slope

Aspect:

Surface Expression:

Elevation:

Drainage:

Stonincss:

Roctincs*:

Classification:

lând Use:

East

Terraced

185m AMSL

WcU drained

Moderately stony

Nonrocky

Orthic Humo-Ferric

Podzol

Left (allow after harvest¬

ing potatoes

Horizon Depth Description

(cm)

Ap 00-28 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); gravelly sandy loam; very weak, very Doe to fine granular; very friable; few,

medium roots; 20% gravels and some cobbles; abrupt, smooth boundary.

Bf 28-40 Strong brown (7.5YR 5/6); very gravelly sandy loam; very weak, very fine platy, friable; very few, very fine root*;

40% gravels and cobbles; abrupt, broken boundary.

BC 40-70 Olive brown (Z5Y 4/4); very gravelly sandy loam; single grain; loose; 60% gravels, cobbles and some flags;

diffuse, smooth boundary.

C 70-100 Olive brown (25Y 4/4); very gravelly loamy coarse sand; single grain; loose; 60% gravels, cobbles, channels, and

flags.

Horizon

Ap

Bf

BC

C

Depth

(cm)

00^28

28^10

40-70

70-100

pH

(Cacy

5.9

4.8

4.9

5.1

Org.C

(%)

2JSI

135

0.58

030

N

(%)

0.20

0.11

0.03

0.08

PyropI

%Fc

-

0.81

0.12

-

losphatc

%A1

-

0.50

0.26

-

Dilli

%Fc

ZOO

2.46

0.74

0.93

[ionilc

%A1

0.67

0.55

0.28

0.15

CEC

(mcxff

lOOg)

14.4

8.1

3.1

25

Exchai

(•

Ca

6.26

1.82

038

0.55

DgeablcB

BCq/lOOg)

Mg

0.46

0.13

0.02

0.08

ascs

K

0.78

0.13

0.08

0.12

CaCO^

Equiv.

(meq)

0.60

0.16

0.50

036

Avail.

P

(PPn»)

43

28

105

12

Electric

Good.

(ins/cm)

0.09

0.06

0.04

0.05

%Sand Horizon Depth

(cm) VC C M F W Total

%Silt %Clay Bulk Hydr. % Water Retention

Dens. Cond. Sat 50cm 100cm 33 100 400 1500

(S/cm3) (cm/h) HÔ HÔ kPa kPa kPa kPa

Ap 00-28 10.8 15.8 10.7 11.6 7.9 56.7

Bf 28^10 19.2 245 15.2 10.7 43 73.9

BC 40-70 14.1 13.0 22.9 14 J 9.1 73.6

C 70-100 18.0 27.2 19.8 18.2 35 86.6

325 10.8

18.1 8.0

22.7 3.7

95 3.9 1.48 21.1 44.2 21.6 20.1 17.9 6.0 3.7 2.4

1.45 8.81 45.4 27.7 25.4 21.0 73 63 4.1

27

Association:

Mapping Unit:

Sampling Dale

location:

Parent Material:

Slope OVpc):


IIolmcsvillc '

]lo2/b

Oct. 30, 1991

47° 06" 13"N, 67° 46' 00"W

Acidic, coarse-loamy lodgment

till with sandstone, quartxitc,

shale and slalc gravels and

cobbles over residual shale-

slate material

2% (complex)

Upper slope

Aspect:

Surface tyqmession:

Elevation:

Drainage:

Slonincss;

Rockincss:

Classification:

I .and Use:

Cast

Undulating

240m AMSL

Well drained

Slightly stony

Nonrocky

Orlhic Humo-Ferric

Podzol

Rye after harvcst-

ing polalocs

Horizon Depth

(cm)

Ap 00-29

Hf 29-42

BC 42-65

Description

Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); loam; weak, rmc granular, friable; plentiful, (ine roots; 10% gravels; clear,

smooth boundary.

Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6); loam; very weak, (inc to medium subangular blocky; very friable; few, Bne roots;

10% gravels; gradual, wavy boundary.

Light olive brown (2J5Y 5/4); gravelly sandy loam; weak, fine, angular blocky to platy, friable to finn;

20% channel's and cobbles; diffuse, smooth boundary.

lie

R

I Ion/on

Ap

Bf

HC

IIC

R

65-140

140 +

Depth

(cm)

00-29

29^2

42-65

65-140

140+

Olive

Shale

pll

(Cad;,)

5.1

4.8

5.1

4.6

Shale-slate bedrock.

brown (Z

<lalc bedi

Org.C

(%)

234

0.95

038

0.23

5Y4/4

rock.

N

(%)

0.15

0.08

0.08

0.07

);vciy)

Pyropi

%Kc

-

030

0.09

-

gravelly ki

losphatc

%A1

-

0.43

0.16

-

am; weak, vcr

Dithionilc

%l'c %A1

1.67 0.53

1.24 034

0.92 0.16

1.07 0.16

y fine angi

CKC

(mcq/

lOOg)

13.1

5.6

3.8

3.8

ular bloc

I'jichai

("

Ca

4.02

1.25

1.43

1.41

ky.frial

igeaMc

icq/100;

Mg

1.03

0.08

0.13

0.18

A

liases

e)

K

^40%

0.44

0.03

0.77

0.13

> charmers

CaCOj

liquiv.

(mcq)

3.47

059

0.43

0.23

and Oaf

Avail.

P

(ppm)

82

31

21

27

P-

Eicctric

Cond.

(ms/cm)

0.08

0.08

0.05

0.07

I lorixoo Depth

(cm)

%Sand %Sill %Clay Hulk llydr. % Water Retention

VC C M F VI-' •lolal Dens. Cond. Sat. 50cm 100cm 33 100 400 1500

(6/cm3) (cm/h) HÔ 11^0 kPa kPa kPa kPa

Ap 00-29 6.2 7.7 7-9 9.2 10.5 41-5 46.9 11.6

Bf 29-42 8.2 9.7 10.2 13.4 6.8 48.1 41.2 10.7 151

BC 42-65 5.9 6.9 13.6 15-7 16.7 58.8 30.4 10,8

IIC 65-140 3.6 6.3 9.7 14.2 14.9 48.6 36.0 153 1-58

R 140+ Shale-slate bedrock.

0.65 43.0 38.0 37,0 34.1 19.8 12.8 6.2

1.67 40.4 32.0 31.0 28.6 22.9 5.4 5.2

* I lolmesvillc surface soil (0-65 cm) with Undine subsoil.

28

Association:

Mapping Unit:

Sampling Date:

Location:

Parent Material:

Slope (Type):

Holincsvillc

Ho(v)3/d •

Oct. 30,1991

47° 06' 11"N, 67° 45' 04"W

Thin, acidic, coarse-loamy

lodgment till with sandstone,

quartzilc, shale and slate gravels

and cobbles over shale-slate

bedrock

6% (complex)


Aspect:

Surface Expression:

Iilcvalion:

Drainage:

Stonincss;

Rockincss:

Classification:

1,311(1 Use:

Lower slope

South

Undulating

207m AMSL

Moderately well drained

Moderately stony

Nonrocky

Orthic Dystric Bruaisol

Left tallow after harvest¬

ing potatoes


(cm)

Ap 00-30 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); loam; weak, fine granular; triable; plentiful. One roots; 10% gravels; dear,

smooth boundary,

Bm 30-39 Light olive brown (2JY 5/6); silt loam; weak to moderate, fine subangular Mocky; friable; 10% gravels;

gradual, irregular boundary.

BCgj 39-63 Light olive brown (2-SY 5/4); gravelly sandy loam; few, line, faint 2^Y 5/4 mottles; weak, tine, subangular

Mocky; friable; 30% channels; diffuse, irregular boundary.

Cgj 63-75 Olive brown (2^Y 4/4); very gravelly loam; few, One, faint 2^Y 5/4 mottles; very weak, fine aogular Mocky;

triable; 40% channels and flags.

R 75 + Shale-slate bedrock.

Horizon Depth pH Oig. C N Pyrophosphatc Dilhionilc CEC

(cm) (CaCy (%) (%) %Pe %A1 %Pc %A1 (mcq/

lOOg)

laichangcable Bases CaCOs Avail. Electric

(mcq/lOOg) Equiv. P Cond.

Ca Mg K (mcq) (ppm) (ms/an)

Ap

Bm

BCgj

Cg)

R

00-30

30-39

39-63

63-75

75+

53

53

4.8

4.7


1.89

0.56

0.06

0.10

0.12

0.05 0.15 0.26

0.02 0.03 0.09

0.04

130

139

0.69

0.93

053

0.44

0.13

0.07

9.4

4.4

3.1

4.4

ZOO

1.18

1.18

1.57

0.68

0.15

0.23

031

0.25

0.06

0.06

0.12

035

0.51

030

0.44

55

14

21

27

0.06

0.09

0.17

0.01

Hori/on Depth

(cm)

%Sand

VC C M F VP Total

%Silt %day Bulk Hydr. % Water Retention

Dens. Cond. Sat. 50cm 100cm 33 100 400 1500

(g/cm-5) (cm/h) HÔ IIÔ kPa kPakPakPa

1.59

Ap 00-30 5.7 10.5 7.8 10.6 133 47.9 41.7 10.5

Bm 30-39 4.2 5.5 6.0 8.6 12.1 36.4 52.8 10.8

BCgj 39-63 3.4 5.4 63 15.7 213 52.1 38J 9.4

Cgj 63-75 2S 5.2 5.6 11.8 18.8 43.9 46.6 9.6 1.57

R 75+ Shalc-slalc bedrock.

038 40.0 333 323 29.2 22.7 123 6.1

0.79 40.8 36.6 35 S 31 £ 20.9 9.4 53

* Eroded profile inclusion in a noncrodcd map unit.

29

Association:

Mapping Unit:

Sampling Date

Location:

Parent Material:

Slope (rypc):

I lolnicsvilli: •

Ho(c)3/b

OcL 30, 1991

47° 06' 2<rN, 67° 44' 56"W

Acidic, coarse-loamy lodgment

till with sandstone, quait/jlc,

shale and slate gravels and

cobbles over residual shale-slate

material

0.5% (complex)


Aspect:

Surface Expression:

Elevation:

Drainage:

Stonincss;

RockiDtSs:

Classification:

I-andUsc:

Crest

Level

Undulating

220m AMSL


Nonslony

Nonrocky

Orthic Dystric Brunisol

Left fallow after harvest¬

ing potatoes

Horizon Depth

(cm)

Ap 00-20

Bin 20^0

C 40-60

I1C 60-115

R 115 +

Description

Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); loam; weak, tine granular; triable; very few, fine roots; 10% gravels; clear,

smooth boundary.

I-ighl olive brown (2-5Y 5/4); loam; weak, line to medium platy; friable; 10% gravels; diffuse wavy boundary.

Olive brown (2-5Y 4/4); gravelly sandy loam; weak, fine to medium plaly; friable to firm; 25% gravels and channels;

abrupt, smooth boundary.

Light dive brown (2-5Y 5/6); gravelly silt loam; structureless breaking to very weak, fine angular Mocky; very

triable; 30% (-banners and (lags.

Shale-state bedrock.

I lorixoo

Ap

Dm

C

IIC

R

Depth

(cm)

00-20

20-40

40-60

60-115

115+

pH

(Cad;,)

53

5.2

4.7

6.2

Shale-slate bedrock-

Org.C

(%)

238

0.90

0.22

0.10

N

(%)

0.17

0.09

0.06

0.14

Pyropi

%If

0.89 0.17

-

0.19

-

losphalc

%A1

-

0.42

-

Dilhionitc

%Fe %A1

1.66 0.48

1.03 0.46

1.70 0.11

CEC

(mcq/

lOOg)

13.1

IS

3.1

63

Exchai

(I

Ca

536

1.60

038

4.16

agcable R

acq/lOOg)

Mg

0.90

0.22

0.09

0.49

ascs

K

034

031

0.09

0.06

CaCOj

Equiv.

(mcq)

0.29

035

037

0.48

Avail.

P

(ppm)

73

20

17

10

Electric

Cond.

(ins/cm)

0.09

0.11

0.06

0.06

I lorKon Depth

(cm)

%Sand

VC C M F V1-- Total

%Sill %C1ay Bulk Hydr. % Water Retention

Dens. Cond. Sal. 50cm 100cm 33 100 400 1500

(g/cm3) (cm/h) UÔ IlÔ kPa kPa kPa kPa

Ap 00-20 5.1 6.9 7.1 10.1 12.0 41.3 433 15.5

Urn 20-40 9.1 10.1 6.7 10.1 13.1 49.2 413 9-5 1.48

C 40-60 6.2 8.7 93 13.7 15.9 53.9 36.6 9.5

I1C 60-115 1.1 7.0 6.8 8.9 9.0 32.7 54.2 13.1 1.40

R 115+ Shalc-slalc bedrock.

3.83 44.0 28.6 27.1 24.1 19.7 10.4 5.9

0.19 47.2 45.6 45.1 40.2 24.5 12-5 6.9

* I lolmcsvillc surface soil (0-60 cm) with Undine subsoil.

3<)

Association:

Mapping Unit:

Sampling Date

luxation:

Parent Material:

Slope (Type):


Holmcsvillc

Ho(c)3/e •

Nov. 5,1991

47° 04' 3(TN, 67° 45' 04"W

Addic, coarse-loamy lodgment

till with sandstone, quartrile,

shale and slate gravels and

cobbles

13% (complex)

Upper slope

Aspect:

Surface Expression:

Elevation:

Drainage:

Stooincss:

Rockincss:

Classification:

[.and Use:

North

Undulating

225m AMSL


Slightly stony

Nonrocky

Orthic Humo-Fcrric

Podzol

Ijcfl tallow after harvest¬

ing potatoes


(cm)

Ap 00-27 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); gravelly loam; moderate, fine to medium granular; friable; plentiful, fine

roots; 20% gravels; clear, srnooth boundary.

Bf 27-41 Light olive brown (2^Y 5/4); gravelly sandy loam; weak to moderate, line subangular blocky; friable;

20% gravels; very few, fine roots; dear, wavy boundary.

BC 41-58 Olive brown (2^Y 4/4); gravelly sandy loam; very weak, fine to medium subangular blocky; friable; 30% gravels

and cobbles; clear, wavy boundary.

CB 58-72 Dark grayish brown (2^Y 4/2); gravelly loamy sand; single grain; loose; 30% gravels and cobbles; dear, wavy

boundary. /

C 72-100 Olive brown (25Y 4/4); gravelly loam; moderate, medium plaly, firm; 20% gravels and cobbles.

Horizon

Ap

Bf

BC

CB

C

Depth

(cm)

00-27

27^tl

41-58

58-72

72-100

pll

(Cacy

6.1

5.2

5.0

5.2

4.7

Org.C

(%)

2^6

1.46

0.40

0.19

0.11

N

(%)

0.27

0.14

0.06

0.11

0.08

Pyropi

%Fe

. -

0.42

0.13

-

-

lOKphatc

%A1

-

0.46

0.16

-

-

Dill

%Fe

1.55

1.59

1.29

0.80

137

lionitc

%A1

0.44

0.57

0.29

0.14

0.14

CEC

(mcq/

lOOg)

11.9

8.1

3.8

3.8

63

Exchai

("

Ca

7.63

2.04

1.46

1.07

2.97

igeablcB

icq/lOOg)

Mg

0.66

0.19

0.10

0.08

0.49

ascs

K

035

0.12

0.09

0.05

0.27

CaCOj

Equiv.

(mcq)

132

0.18

1.09

0.73

052

Avail.

P

(ppm)

59

26

9.5

11

18

Electric

Good.

(ms/cm)

0.10

0.09

0.09

0.07

0.06

1 lorizon Depth %Sand %Sill %Clay Bulk Ilydr. % Water Retention

(cm) VC C M F VF Total Dens. Cond. Sat. 50cm 100cm 33 100 400 1500

(g/cm3) (cm/h) HÔ 1^0 kPa kPa kPa kPa

Ap 00-27 73 9.1 8.7 9.8 9.6 44.4

Bf 27-11 12S 173 10.1 10.2 8.5 59.0

BC 41-58 113 15-5 16.2 14.5 9.9 67.4

CB 58-72 4.6 12J 27.9 313 9.4 85.7

C 72-100 4.6 53 6.1 8.0 93 33.5

1.63 10.1 383 24.1 22^ 20.0 18.1 12.9 73

41.2 14.4

27.9 13.1

23.4 9.4

9.0 53

48.1 18.4 1.71 1.11 35.5 31.1 30.0 28.2 26.1 18.5 10.6

* Noncrodcd profile in an eroded (c) map unit.

31

Associati

Mapping

Sampling

Location:

Parent M

Slope CF

Physiogn

Horizon

Ap

Bf

BC

C

IIC

R

I lorizon

Ap

Bf

»C

C

11C

R

I Ion/on

Ap

Bf

BC

C

11C

R

on:

Unit:

Date

[alcrial:

fpc):

iphic Pos

Depth

(cm)

00-30

30^3

43-61

61-79

79-110

110 +

Depth

(cm)

00-30

30^3

43-61

61-79

79-110

110+

Depth

(cm)

00-30

30-13

43-61

61-79

79-110

110+

Muniac Aspect:

Mu3/d Surface Expression:

Oct. 31, 1991 lilcvation:

47° 06' 54"N, 67° 45' 22"W Drainage:

Coarse-loamy glacio- Stonincss:

fluvial with calcareous Rockincss:

gravels of slate, sandstone. Classification:

shale, and quartzitc

7% (complex) 1-and Use:

ilion: Toe

Description

Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2); loam; moderate, medium granular; firm; m<

15% gravels; clear, smooth boundary.

Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6); gravelly loam; weak, (inc subangular blocky; friable

20% gravels with some cobbles, and stones; diffuse, wavy boundary.

Light olive brown (2-5Y 5/4); gravelly sandy loam; weak, line subangular blocky; 1

30% gravels with some cobbles and stones; diffuse, smooth boundary.

Olive brown (2-5Y 4/4); very gravelly loam; weak, (inc angular blocky, very triable

40% gravels with some cobbles, stones, and channels; clear, wavy boundary.

Olive brown (2îY 4/4); very gravelly silt loam; moderate, Cnc platy; very triable;

Shale-stale bedrock.

pH Org. C N Fyrophosphatc Dilhionilc CEC lachangcabic B

(CaCy (%) (%) %!•<; %A1 %Fc %A1 (met)/ (mcq/lOOg)

lOOg) Ca Mg

5.7 4.61 0.51 - - 1.48 0.42 24.4 12.47 1.58

5.9 130 0.10 0.38 0.22 ZOO 039 9.4 5.76 0.33

6.2 036 0.04 0.09 0.06 1.29 0.19 5.0 3.28 0.14

5.9 0.24 0.09 - - 1.10 0.12 4.4 2.80 0.15

63 0.14 0.12 - - 1.83 0.14 7-5 4.77 0.25


%Sand %Silt %C1ay Bulk Ilvdr.

VC C M !•• VI'- Total Dens. Cond. Sal. 50cm

(g/cm3) (cm/h) I L,0

6.1 6.6 7.2 7.4 8.6 35.9 48.7 15.4

7.2 8.5 7.4 7.4 16.0 46.6 38.6 14.9

135 24.8 48.9 27.8

12.4 16.6 8.8 9.4 7.4 54.6 34.1 11.2

63 9.4 113 113 11.9 50.1 37.6 12.4

1.44 1,90 45.5 36.6

3.6 5.2 3.8 5.9 9.6 28.0 52-8 19.2


Nonh

Rolling

217m AMSL


Nonstony

Nonrocky

Orthic Humo-Ferric

Podzol

Pasture

xlium, abundant roots;

; plentiful, fine roots;

"riable; few, Gnc roots;

:; very few, fine roots;

50% channel's and (lags.

ascs CaCOs Avail. Electric

Equiv. P Cond.

K (rocq) (ppm) (ms/cm)

0.52 0.18 9.1

0.44 036 3.2

0.07 0.19 4.2

0.09 0.25 4.8

0.11 0.20 2.1

% Water Retention

100cm 33 100 400

HÔ kPa kPa kPa

26.5 24.1 18.6 92

35.8 33.2 15.5 103

0.08

0.05

0.03

0-04

0.03

1500

kPa

4.9

5.5

32

Association:

Mapping Unit:

Sampling Date:

Location:

Parent Material:

Slope (Type):


Sicgas

Si4/c

Nov. 5,1991

47° OT 52"N, 67° 46' 52"W

Weakly acidic, fine-loamy

lodgment till with gravcb

of sandstone, quartxitc,

argillite, and shale

3% (complex)

Middle slope

Aspect:

Surface Expression:

Elevation:

Drainage:

Stooincss:

Rockincss:

Classification:

Land Use:

North

Undulating

245m AMSL

Imperfectly drained

Nonstony

Nonrocky

Glcycd Podzolic Cray

Luvisol

Abandoned farmland

Horizon

Ap

BF

Btjgj

Btg

Cg

Horizon

Ap

Bf

Btjgj

Btg

(^

I lorizon

Ap

Bf

Btjgj

Btg

Cg

Depth

(cm)

00-22

22-32

32-43

43-75

75-100

Depth

(cm)

00-22

22-32

32^3

43-75

75-100

Depth

(cm)

00-22

22-32

32-13

43-75

75-100

Dea

Ver

roof

Bro

1591

Olh

met

Olh

plat

oih

roci

pH

(Cad

5.7

5.8

5.6

5.0

6.2

VC

3.8

1.5

3.9

3.0

2JS

-nption

ydarkgn

ls;15%gi

wnish yell

h gravels;

ie brown

liumsuba

re brown

y; firm to

fe brown

lium plat;

Org. 1

2) (%)

5.93

2.62

058

0.20

0.17

C M

63 5.1

4.2 9.0

5.7 6.9

5.8 5.7

4.0 5.6

lyish brown

navels; abru

low (10YR

gradual, wa

(25Y 5/4);

ngularbloc

(25Y 4/4);

enable; 20'

(25Y 4/4);

r, Gnn; 209

C N I

(%) '

054

0.13

0.14

0.03

0.00

%Sand

F VF

103 6.9

24.7 16.4

115 8.9

10.6 83.

9.0 6.6

(25Y 3/2); loai

pt, smooth boun

6/6); sandy loan

ivy boundary.

gravelly loam; ft

ky; friable; few,

gravelly loam; o

% channel's; diff

gravelly day loa 'i channels.

'yrophosphatc

We. %Al

1.95 0.42

058 0.61

0.18 0.22

0.07 0.07

158 0.07

%Silt

Total

323 46.9

55.6 25.0

37.0 393

33.2 41.8

27.9 405

n; weak to modi

daiy.

i; weak to mode

•w, medium, dis)

rme roots; 20%

Mninon, mcdiun

use, wavy bourn

m; common, OK

Dilhionitc

%Pe %Al (

1

154 055

1.12 0.27

1.43 0.13

%day Bulk

Dcni

(g/cn

20.9

193

131

23.7

25.0

31.6 1.70

[•rate, Gnc to rocti

rate, tine granula

linct 10YR 5/6 m

gravels and cfaan

i, distinct 10YR;

lary.

xlium, distinct 10

CEC Exchan{

mcq/ (nM

lOOg) Ca

7&S 17.4

16.9 8.03

75 2.92

5.6 2.97

8.8 835

IIydr.

i. Cond. Sat

\3) (cm/h)

133 50.6

0.84 35.8

% Water Retention

lium gra

r.triabt

olllcs;«

ncre; ck

i/fimoti

YR5/6

;cablcli

xi/lOOg)

Mg

037

0.10

0.04

0.26

0.45

50cm

"2°

333

32.9

inular; &

z, picntil

/cak to 11

•ar, wavy

les; weal

mollies;

.ascs <

l

K

0.44

0.04

0.04

0.09

0.11

100cm

"2°

31.7

323

nn; abundant,

ul, medium n

nodcrate, fine ' boundary.

i to modcratt

weak to mod

CaCOj Ava

Equhr. P

(mcq) (ppi

057 53

0.71 3.8

439 33,

0.41 14

054 53

33 100

kPa kPa

28.6 -

29.8 -

.medium

30tS;

to

, medium

erate,

iL Electric

Cond.

n) (mi/cm)

0.07

0.05

0.03

0.03

0.03

400 1500

kPa kPa

21.0 14.7

- 155

33

Association:

Mapping Unit:

Sampling Date:

Location:

Parent Material:

Slope (Type):


Sicgas

Si6/c

Nov. 1, 1991

47° 08' 15-N, 67° 47' ITW

Weakly acidic, fine-loamy

kxjgmcnt till with gravels

of sandslonc, quartatc,

argillitc, and shale

3% (complex)

Depression

Aspect:

Surface lycprcssion:

lilcvalion:

Drainage:

Slonincss:

RockincsK

Classification:

I-and Use:

Level

Level

258mAMSL

Imperfectly drained

Slightly stony

Nonrocky

Glcycd Podzolic Gray

Luvisol

Unproductive woodland

(abandoned larmland)

Horizon

Ap

Bf

Hmgj

Hlg

CB

1 lorixon

Ap

Kf

Bmgj

Rtg

c-si

Depth

(cm)

00-21

21-31

31-44

44-78

78-100

Depth

("")

00-21

21-31

31^4

44-78

78-110

Description

Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/6); loam; weak to moderate, fine granular, friable; abundant, medium roots;

10% gravels; abrupt, smooth boundary.

Yellowish bnwn (10YR 5/6); sandy loam; weak to moderate, line granular, friable; plentiful, Gnc roots;

10% gravels; clear, broken boundary.

Olive brown (2L5Y 4/4); clay loam; few, line, faint 2J>Y 4/3 mottles; friable; moderate, (ine to medium platy;

very few, very tine roots; 10% gravels and some flags; dear, wavy boundary.

Olive brown (25Y 4/4); clay loam; common, medium, distinct 25Y 4/2 mottles; moderate, Dnc to medium platy;

very Qnn; 10% gravels and flags; diffuse, smooth boundary.

Olive brown (2-5Y 4/4); clay loam; many medium, faint Z5Y 4/4 mottles; moderate to strong, medium platy;

very (inn; 10% gravels and flags.

pH Org. C N Pyrophosphale Oilhionilc CEC Exchangeable liases CaCOj Avail. FJcctric

(CaCy (%) (%) %l-e %A1 %l-'e %A1 (mcq/ (mcq/lOOg) liquiv. P Good.

lOOg) Ca Mg K (mcq) (ppm) (ins/cm)

4.7 4.92 0.40 - - 2.16 039 22J 5.10 0.66 0.14 0.50 7.4 0.05

4.9 2.79 0.11 0.77 0.97 1.63 1.06 13.8 2.01 0.13 0.04 0.59 2.1 0.03

4-5 0.40 0.06 0.16 0.17 1-27 0.22 6.9 1.89 0.27 0.08 030 43, 0.02

5.0 0.25 0.00 0.09 0.05 132 0.15 7.5 5.18 0.67 0.11 0.19 12 0.03

6.0 0.11 0.03 - - 1.57 0.13 10.0 8.00 0.95 0.13 0.43 8.4 0.03

I lorixo

Ap

Hf

Brngj

Rig

Cgj

o l")eplh

(cm)

00-21

21-31

31 ^t4

44-78

78-110

VC

4.4

9.6

3.4

2S

2.9

C

8.1

153

6.4

4.7

4.8

M

83

11.1

5.8

7.7

5.3

%Sar

F

10.2

10.7

8.4

10.2

8.4

id

VI-'

9.9

11.5

6.9

6.6

5.8

Total

40.9

58.2

30.8

31.7

27.2

%Silt

43.9

29 J5

39.8

35.2

373

%Clay Hulk llvdr. % Water Retention

Dens. Cond. Sal. 50cm 100cm 33 100 400 1500

(g/cm^) (cm/h) II/) 11^0 kPa kPa kPa kPa

15.2

123

1.18 9.83 55.6 42.2 39.9 36.6 225 17.2 10.0

29.4

33.2

35.5 1.73 0.26 34.7 32S 32.1 30.4 - - 18.6

34

Associat'H

Mapping

Sampling

Location:

Parent M

Slope (11

Horizon

Ap

Brngj

BCg

Cg

R

Horizon

Ap

Bmgj

BCg

Cg

R

lloriyon

Ap

Bmgj

BCg

Cg

R

w:

Unit:

Date

atcrial:

fP^

Depth

(cm)

00-24

2+41

41-65

65-92

92+

Depth

(cm)

00-24

24-41

41-65

65-92

92+

Depth

(cm)

00-24

24^11

41-65

65-92

92+

Sicgas Physiographic Position: Upper slope

Si(v)6/c • Aspect: Southeast

Nov. 1,1991 Surface Expression: Undulating

47° 08' 31"N, 67° 46' 41"W Hcvatioo: 257m AMSL

Acidic, Gnc-loamy Drainage: Imperfectly drained

lodgment till with gravck Slooincss: Nonslony

of sandstone, quarlrile, Rockincss: Nonrocky

argillitc, and shale aver aassiticatioo: Gleycd Sombric Bnmisol

shalc-slatc bedrock Land Use: Rye after harvesting

3% (complex) peas

Description

Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4); gill loam; weak to moderate, line to medium granular; friable; abundant,

medium roots; 10% gravels; abrupt, wavy boundary.

Olive brown (2-5Y 4/4); sill loam; few, medium, distinct 10YR 4/4 mottles; weak, (me to medium subangular

Mocky; friable; few, very fine roots; 10% gravels; diffuse, •wavy boundary.

Olive brown (Z5Y 4/4); gravelly silt loam; common, medium distinct 10YR 4/4 mottles; moderate, fine to

medium platy, firm; few, very tine roots; 20% gravcb and channels; diffuse, smooth boundary.

Olive brown (Z5Y 4/4); gravelly silt loam; common, medium, distinct 10YR 4/4 mottles; weak, fine to medium

platy; [inn; 30% gravels and channel's.


pH Org. C N Pyrophosphalc Dilhiooite CEC Exchangeable Bases CaCOj Avail. Electric

(CaCy (%) (%) %Fc %A1 %Fe %A1 (moq/ (n>cq/100g) Equiv. P Cood.

lOOg) Ca Mg K (mcq) (ppm) (no/cm)

5.5 2.09 0.19 - - 1.76 0.47 10.0 3.77 1.57 0.26 0.64 53.1 0.05

4.9 039 0.04 0.11 0.16 137 0.25 4.4 1.06 0.27 0.14 0.11 13.7 0.03

4.7 0.20 0.04 0.07 0.10 1.41 0.18 3.8 0.10 0.29 0.44 0.47 8.4 0.03

4.7 0.16 0.02 - - 1.65 0.17 5.6 3.21 032 0.13 039 12.6 0.04

Shalc-slale bedrock.

%Sand %Silt %ClaY Bulk Ilvdr. % Water Retention

VC C M F W Total Dens. Cond. Sat. 50cm 100cm 33 100 400 1500

(£fcm3) (cm/h) HÔ 1^0 kPa kPa kPa kPa

4.4 63 4.0 6.2 10.9 31.8 52.9 153

4.2 S3 3.9 4JS 13.4 31.9 53.7 14.5

2.6 4.8 2.2 3.1 8.8 21.4 633 153 1.49 4.26 43.6 31.0 29.5 26.4 20.1 11.6 63

3.6 4.7 3.6 3.9 7.6 235 56.4 20.1 1.61 051 39.2 36.9 36.1 32.9 26.4 15.8 9.4


* Eroded profile inclusion in a Doocrodcd map unit.

Sicgas grading to Holmcsvillc.

35

Association:

Mapping Unit:

Sampling Date:

Location:

Parent Material:

Slope ClYpe^


Undine

Un(e)2/c

Oct. 31, 1991

47° 06- 5TV, 67° 46' 05-W

Acidic, shaly, coarsc-silty

residual over shale slalc

bedrock

3% (complex)

Upper slope

Aspect:

Surface Expression:

Elevation:

Drainage:

Sternness:

Roduncss:

Classification:

(.and Use:

North

Undulating

248m AMSL

WcU drained

Nonstony

Nonrocky

Orthic Dystric Bmnisol

\jch (allow after harvest¬

ing potatoes

Horizon Depth

(cm)

Ap 00-22

Description

Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); loam; weak, dnc granular; friable; few, (ine roots; 10% gravels; clear,

smooth boundary.

Bm

BC

C

R

Horizon

Ap

llm

HC

C

R

I lorKon

AP

Bm

1.51 2.73 43.0 36.4

HC

C

R

22-27

27-42

42-85

85 +

Depth

(cm)

00-22

22-27

27-42

42-85

85+

Depth

(cm)

00-22

22-27

27-42

42-85

85+

Olive yellow (25Y 6/6);

Light olive brown (2-5Y

cobbles; diffuse, smooth

Ijghl olive bmwD (25Y

Shale slate bedrock.

pH Org. C N Pyrophosphatc

(CaCy (%) (%) %I-c %A1

4.7 2.03 0.18

4.6 1.02 0.06

4.4 0.22 0.06

53 0.30 0.01

Shale-slate bedrock-

%Sand

VC C M V V1--

5.7 8.8 6.6 9.0 9.6

4.0 5.6 6.8 10.0 10.1

3.0 6.2 7.0 14.3 15.6

1.1 2.8 3.8 6.4 10.6

Shale stale bedrock.

silt loam; weak,

5/6); gravelly to

boundary.

5/4); very gravelly sill loam; moderate, medium angular blocky,

1.49 0.51

0.56 0.43

0.09 0.09

1.95 0.21

%Sill

Total

39.7 46.7

36-5 50-3

46.1 41.7

24.7 6ZO

fine grannl

am; moden

Dithionilc

•^fcKc %A1

135 058

0.99 0.20

%Clay

i

13.7

13.2

12.2

133

ar, triable; 10% gravels; clear,

ite, medium subangular bloclq

CEC Exchangeable H.

(meq/ (mcq/lOOg)

lOOg) Ca Mg

11.2 332 3.04

7.5 1.65 0.14

3-8 1.42 0.14

63 235 0.20

Hulk llvdr.

Dens. Cond. Sat. 50cm

[g/cm^) (cm/h) 11^0

137 0.41 48.4 43.7

broka

r, friabi

ascs

K

032

0.13

0.07

0.11

% Water Retention

lOOcc

11^0

353

42.8

a boundary.

c; 20% gravels and

triable; 40% channels.

CaCOj Avail. Electric

Fxjuiv. P Cond.

(mcq) (ppm) (ms/cm)

053 75

0.40 18

0.17 24

0.16 8.4

a 33 100 400

kPa kPa kPa

3Z6 30.6 12^

36.1 273 13.9

0.07

0.21

0.13

0.10

1500

kPa

6.7

7.8

36

Association:

Mapping Unit:

Sampling Date:

location:

Parent Material:

Slope (Type):


Undine

Unsl(e)2/c

Oct. 31, 1991

47° 06' 31"N, 67° 45' 25"W

Acidic, sbaly, coarse-loamy

residual over shalc-tlate

bedrock

5% (complex)

Middle slope

Aspect

Surface Expression:

Elevation:

Drainage:

Stonincss:

Rockincss:

Classification:

Land Use

South

Undulating

240m AMSL

Well drained

Slightly »toay

Nonrocky

Orthic Dystric Bnmisol

Left fallow after harvest¬

ing potatoes

Horizon Depth

(cm)

Ap 00-30

Description

Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4); loam; weak to moderate, fine granular, friable; plentiful, fine rood;

15% gravels and channels; dear, smooth boundary.

Bf

BC

C

R

Iloruon

Ap

Bf

BC

C

R

Horizon

Ap

Bf

BC

C

R

30-34

34-50

50-98

98 +

Depth

(cm)

00-30

30-34

34-50

50-98

98+

Depth

(cm)

00-30

30-34

34-50

50-98

98+

Ydlowi

Light o

20% p

Olive b

Sbale-«

pH

(Cacy

5.0

4.6

4.7

4.8


%Sand

VC C M

4.0 7.7

4.7 6.8

13.1 52

3.7 6.1


ishbrc

live bt

avds;

mown i

latctx

Org.(

(%)

255

1.28

0.62

0.29

6.2

13.1

7.9

6.0

>wn(10YP

x>wn(25'i(

diffuse, so

(25Y4/4);

xlrock-

: N

(%)

0.15

0.11

0.03

0.00

F W

113 14.6

11.1 15.0

14.1 19.2

13.1 21.8

1 5/6); loam; weal

'5/4); gravelly aa

loolh boundary.

; very gravelly k)c

Pyrophosphalc

%Fc %A1

1.44 0.56

0.69 0.46

0.13 0.20

1.16 0.25

%Silt

Total

43.7 45.8

50A 395

59.4 315

50.8 36.4

k, fine to m

n<ly loam; v

im; weak to

Dilhiooite

%re %AI

1.62 052

0.78 0.36

%day

I

105

9.7

9.1

12.9

cdium platy; 1

veak to model

moderate, mi

CBC

(mcq/

lOOg)

15.6

9.4

63

4.4

Bulk Ilydr

Dens. COD(

[S/cm3) (cm/I

139 259

1.46 0.81

Friable;]

•ale, ma

edium p

Exchan;

(DK

Ca

4.00

1.47

0.65

153

1. SaL

h)

47.4

45.0

15%grai

lium sul

laty; fria

;cab)cB.

ÔOg)

Mg

0.89

0.16

0.05

0.15

% Water Retention

50cm

"2°

38.9

37.9

/els; cle

langiilqi

Me; 40'

ascs

K

0.25

0.10

0.13

0.20

lOOcn

"2°

36.2

363

ar, broken bo<

r blocky; friabi

^> charmers an

CaCOj Avail. Electric

Equiv. P Cond.

(meq) (ppm) (ms/cm)

0.40 54

0.20 27

0.12 12

0.15 11

i 33 100

kPa kPa

315 24.7

30.8 17.8

mdary.

Ie;

dOagx.

0.06

0.06

0.04

0.06

400 1500

kPa kPa

12.7 65

10.6 5.9

37

APPENDIX 2

RATING GUIDELINES FOR SOIL SUITABIL¬

ITY FOR SELECTED CROPS AND MANAGE¬

MENT PRACTICES

This appendix lists the interpretive

guidelines that have been used to rate the soil map

units identified in the Black Brook Watershed.

The guidelines arc in tabular format. Soil and

landscape conditions that impact on the intended

use arc rated from good to unsuitable. The soil

suitability is determined by the most restrictive

(least suitable) rating assigned to any of the listed

soil properties. The properties listed are dcdncd

in cither the Canadian System of Soil Classification

(Agriculture Canada Expert Committee on Soil

Survey, 1987) or the Canada Soils Information

System (CanSIS) (Agriculture Canada Expert

Committee on Soil Survey, 1983).

The objective of this appendix is to docu¬

ment the approach used to rate the soil map units

for the selected uses. These rating guidelines arc

considered as "best approximations". The soil

rating indicates the severity of the limitation or

lack of suitability of the soil if it is used without

corrective or precautionary measures. As more is

learned about soil behavior and crop response,

these rating guidelines may be amended. Applica¬

tions of new technologies may change crop yields

and the relative suitabilities of the soils for various

uses. The soil interpretations provided here are

only examples of how soil resource information

can be used in land related decision making.

Numerous other interpretations can be made from

this data.

The rating guidelines listed here are for:

Crop suitability - alfalfa

- forages

- pasture

- peas

- potatoes

- spring cereals

Management practices - subsurface drainage

- deep ripping

38

Table A2-1. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for alfalfa1).

Major soil properties

influencing use

Slope in % (t)

Drainage (w)

Depth of friable

soil in cm (d)

Friable soil

texture (x)

Stonincss (p)

Rockincss (r)

Flooding (i)

e

Good

2-9

Well

>50

^Ha sL.vlSL

0,1

—

Never

Degree of suitabili

Fair

<2,9-15

Moderately Well

30-50

CL,g-cobL,

g-coBSiL, g-cobSL

2

1

—

iy

Poor

15-30

Imperfect

20-30

——

3

2

Occasional

Unsuitable

>30

Poor, Very Poor

<20

'——

4,5

3.4.5

Frequent,

Very Frequent

i) Modified from Holmstroni (1986) and PaUcrson and Thompson (1989).

Table A2-2. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for forages1).

Major soil properties influencing use

Slope in % (t)

Drainage (w)

Depth of friable

soil in cm (d)

Friable soil

texture (x)

Slonincss (p)

Rockincss (r)

Flooding (i)

Good

<9

Well, Moderately WcU

>20

L.g-cobL,

SiL, g-cobSiL,

SL, g-cobSL, v(SL

0,1

0,1

Never,

Occasional

Degree of i

Fair

9-15

Imperfect

—

CL

2.3

2

Frequent

suitability

Poor

15-30

Poor

—

—

3

—

Unsuitable

>30

Very Poor

<20

4,5

4,5

Very Frequent

i) Modified from Pattcreoo and Thompson (1969).

39

Table A2-3. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for pasture.

Degree of suitability

Major snil properties

influencing use Good Fair Poor Unsuitable

Slope in % (I) <9 9-15 >15

Drainage (w) Well, Poor — Very Poor

Moderately Well,

Imperfect

Depth of friable >20 — <20

soil in cm (d)

Friable soil L, g-cobL, CL — —

texture (x) SiL, g-cobSiL,

SL, g-cobSL,

v(SL

Slonincss (p) 0, 1,2 3 4 5

Rockincss (r) 1 2 3 4,5

Flooding (i) Never, Frequent Very Frequent

Occasional

Table A2-4. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for peas.


Major snil properties

infTuencing'usc Good Fair Poor Unsuitable

Slope in % (l) <5 5-9 9-15 >15

Drainage (w) Well, Imperfect Poor Very Poor

Moderately Well

Depth of friable >30 20-30 — <20

soil in cm (d)

Friable soil L, SiL, g-cobL,

texture (x) SL, vISL, g-cobSiL,

CL g-cobSL

Slonincss (p) 0, 1 2 3 4,5

Rockincss (r) 0 1 — 2,3,4,5

Flooding (i) Never — Occasional Frequent,

Very Frequent

40

Table A2-5. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for potatoes^.


uluucncing use

Slope in % (t)

Drainage (w)

Depth of friable

soil in cm (d)

Friable soil

texture (x)

Stoutness (p)

Rockincss (r)

Flooding (i)

Good

<5

Well,

Moderately WeU

>50

^Ha sL.vfSL

0,1

0

Never

Degree of suital

Fair

—

Imperfect

30-50

g-cobL» g-oobSiL,

g-cobSL

2

1

Occasional

bility

Poor

5-9

Poor

20-30

CL

3

—

Frequent

Unsuitable

>9

Very Poor

<20

——

4,5

2, 3, 4. 5

Very Frequent

l) Modified from Rccs el al. (In Press).

Table A2-6. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for spring cereals1) (wheat, oats, barley).

Major soil properties inHuencing use

Slope in % (t)

Drainage (w)

Depth of friable

soil in cm (d)

Friable soil

texture (x)

Stomncss (p)

Rockiness (r)

Flooding (i)

Good

<5

WeU, Moderately Well

>30

^^ sL,vlSL»

0.1

0

Never


Fair Poor

5-9 9-15

Imperfect Poor

20-30

CL,e<obL, —

g-cobSiL,

g-cobSL

2 3

1

Occasional Frequent

Unsuitable

>15

Very Poor

<20

—-

4,5

2. 3, 4, 5

Very Frequent

l) Modified (rom Holmsliom (1986), Pattcison and ThonipBon (VS9), aad Wcbb (1990).

41

Table A2-7. Rating guidelines - soil suitability for subsurface drainage'.


influencing use

Slope in % (I)

Drainage2) (w)

Depth in cm of friable

soil with permeability

> 0.5 cm/hr (d)

Depth to bedrock

in cm (b)

Rockincss (r)

Stonincss (p)

Flooding (i)

; Modified from Rccs cl al. 2) Well drained soils do not include less tolerant plants.

Table A2-S. Rating gu


influencing use

Slope in % (t)

Drainage (w)

Depth of friable

soil in cm (d)

Texture of compact

subsoil (x)

Depth to bedrock

in cm (b)

Rockincss (r)

Stonincss (p)

Flooding (i)

Good

2-15

Moderately Well,

Imperfect,

Poor

>5()

> 100

0

0,1,2

Never

(In Press).

require sulKurfHce drainage.

idelincs - soil suitabilit)


Gcxxl

<9

Well,

Moderately Well

<50

4 SiL, SL, vfe4 gLS, gS, vgLS.tG.gS4 cnSi4 chL, chSL

> 75

0

0,1,2

Never

Degree of si

Fair

<2

Very Poor —

20-50

—

1

3

Occasional

Drainage of Moderately Well drained soils will

' for deep ripping1).

Fair

9-15

Imperfect, P(X)r

—

CL, cobL,

cobSL, cobSiL

—

1

3

Occasional

iiilabilily

Poor

—

<20

100-75

2

—

Frequent

Poor

>15

—

50-75

50-75

2.3

—

Frequent

Unsuitable

>15

—

<75

3.4,5

4,5

Very Frequent

expand cropping options to

Unsuitable

—

Very Poor

>752)

<50

4,5

4,5

Very Frequent

1) Modified from Rccs ct al. (In Press).

) Subsoiling is not required.

42

Documents

SOILS OF THE NEW BRUNSWICK