7 - f- i The Soils of The III Regional Municipality of Ottawa=Carleton (excluding the Ottawa Urban Fringe) Volume 1 Ministry of Agriculture and Food ONTARIO Ganada Jack Riddell, . Minister Research Direction Clay Switzer, Deputy branch de la recherche THE SOILS OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON (excluding the Ottawa Urban Fringe) Volume 1 REPORT NO. 58 OF THE ONTARIO INSTITUTE OF PEDOLOGY by L.W. Schut and E.A. Wilson 1987 The Ontario Institute of Pedology has the responsibility for coordinating activities in soil resource inventories and related research in soilgenesis, morphology, classification, characterization, and interpretation of Ontario soils. The Institute consists of three cooperating agencies, namely Agriculture Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the University ofGuelph. Theseagencies provide on-going support through the Land ResourceResearch Cen- tre, Research Branch ofAgriculture Canada, theSoil and WaterManagement Branch of the Ontario Ministryof Agriculture and Food, and the Department of Land Resource Science ofthe University ofGuelph. Staff from each of these agencies con- tribute to the programs ofthe Institute. Additional support for the Institute's programs and cooperation is also received from time to time from other agencies, such as the Ontario Ministry ofNatural Resources and Environment Canada. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . .4 SOIL INTERPRETATIONS. .77 LIST OF TABLES . .4 A. AGRICULTURAL CAPABILITY CLASSIFICATION . .77 FIGURES . 5 LIST OF (a) Explanation of Capability Classifications . .77 INTRODUCTION. 6 (1) Capability Classification for Mineral Soils . .77 HOW TO USETHE SOIL MAPS AND REPORT . 6 (a) Soil Capability Classes . .77 (b) Soil Capability Subclasses . .77 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA (c) Subclass Refinements . .78 Climate . 10 (d) Soil Capability Ratings . .80 Bedrock Geology . 12 (e) Guidelines Used in Rating Soils . .80 Physiography . 13 (1) Wetness (W) and Surficial Geology and Relationship to Soils . 17 Drainage Variability (V) . .80 SURVEY METHODS (2) Limitations Not Affecting Soil MappingProcedures . .24 the Rating. .81 Survey Intensityand Map Reliability . 24 (3) Associated Stoniness . .81 The Mapping System . 25 (4) Limitations Requiring Less Conventions Usedin Mapping . .25 Severe Downgrading . .81 Definitions of Terms Associated with (2) Capability Classification for Organic Soils . 81 the Soil Maps and Legend . .26 (a) Organic Soil Capability Classes . 81 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF SOIL (b) Organic Soil Capability Subclasses . 81 ASSOCIATIONS, LAND TYPES, AND (c) Organic Soil Capability Ratings. 82 MISCELLANEOUS LAND UNITS (3) Capability Classification for Land Type Introduction . .30 and Miscellaneous Land Units . 82 Soil AssociationKey - Figure 16 . .31 (b) Introduction to the Rating Tables . .82 Soil Association Descriptions . 30 (c) How to Apply the Capability Rating Tables . .83 Anstruther(A) . 30 (d) Examples of Rating Determinations for Bearbrook(B) . 32 SomeMap Symbols. 83 Borromee(BE) . 33 (e) The Capability Rating Tables . .85 Castor (C) . 34 Table 9 - Agricultural Capability Ratings for Chateauguay(CH) . 35 Soil Landscape Units representing Dalhousie(D) . 36 Mineral Soils . .85 Farmington (F) . 38 Table 10 - Agricultural Capability Ratings for Goulbourn(GB) . .39 Soil Landscape Units representing Greely(GY) . .40 Organic Soils. .93 Grenville(G). .41 Table 11- Agricultural Capability Ratings for Huntley(H) . .43 Land Type and Miscellaneous Ironside (I) . .43 Land Units . .93 Jockvale(J) . .45 B. SOIL INTERPRETATIONS FOR Kars(K) . .46 WATER EROSION . .94 Leitrim (L) . .48 1. Introduction . .94 Lemieux(LE) . 50 2. Factors Affecting Soil Erosion byWater. 94 Malakoff (MK) . 51 3 . Measurement of Factors Affecting Water Erosion Manotick(M) . 51 (a) Rainfall Factor (R) . 95 Mer Bleue (MB) . 53 (b) Soil Erodibility Factor (K) . .95 Mille Isle (MI). 54 (c) Slope Gradient (S) and Slope Length (L) Nepean(N) . 55 Factors. .98 North Gower (NG) . 56 (d) Cropping and Management Factors (C) . .98 Oka(O) . 58 4. Soil Erosion Assessment . 102 Osgoode(OS) . .64 C. LAND SUITABILITY CLASSIFICATION FOR Ottawa (OT) . 65 FOREST TREE SPECIES . 105 . .66 COMMON Queensway(Q) . 1 . Introduction . 105 Reevecraig(RE) . .67 . .105 . .68 2. Methods . Rideau(R) . 3. Explanation of SuitabilityRatings . 105 St. Thomas (ST) . .70 4 . Limitations to the Rating System . 105 Uplands (U) . .72 5 . How to Applythe Suitability Ratings Table . 106 Land Type Descriptions . .74 6. Examples of Some Ratings Determinations . 106 Recent Alluvium (AR) . .74 Eroded Channels (ER) . .74 REFERENCES . 111 Rockland(RK) . .74 APPENDIX 1 . Definitions of classes and phases used Escarpment (X) . .75 to describe soil and landscape Miscellaneous Land Units . .75 features . 112 Landslide (LD) . .75 Marshland (ML). .75 APPENDIX 2 . Correlation ofrecognized series and Altered by Man - Disturbedland (DL), subgroupsto previously published soil Land information . 114 Landfill site (LF), Sewage lagoon (SL), Topsoil removed (TR), Urban land (U) . .76 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES Members of the Ontario Institute of Pedology (OIP) pro- 1 . Summary statistics ofthe Eastern Counties and Renfrew vided assistance in many areas, especially B., van den Broek Climatic Regions . 10 and Dr. C.J. Acton, who acted throughout the project as tech nical advisers, and D. Irvineand J.A. McLennanwho provided 2 . Temperature data ('C) from the Ottawa-Carleton Region and cartographic assistance throughout the project . During map- vicinity . 10 ping the authors were assisted by R . Purdon, E . Taylor, R. 3. Precipitation data from the Ottawa-Carleton Region and Denis, J. Reynolds, J. Heinonen, R. Whiten, and K. Groves. vicinity. 12 Assistance during the developmental stage of the survey was 4. Growing season and frost data from theOttawa-Carleton provided by W White. Region and vicinity . 12 Laboratoryanalyses were primarily conducted bythe OIP 5. First field seeding or planting Soil dates for commercial pro- Characterization Laboratory, University of Guelph. Some duction of vegetables inthe Ottawa-Carleton Region . .12 analyses were alsocarried out bythe Service Laboratory ofthe Land Resource Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, 6. Correlation between physiographic regions, surficial Ottawa. Engineering analyses were done by the Aggregates materials, And soil associations and land types . 17,18 Sectionlaboratory ofthe Highway Engineering Division ofthe 7. Major, moderate, and minor subclass definitions . .78 Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, 8. Extremely severe, very severe, and severe subclass Toronto. When detailed soil characterization and sampling definitions . .80 was carried out, the authors were assisted by B. Hohner and K. Wires of Agriculture Canada, both of whom also con- 9. Agricultural capability ratings for soil landscape units ducted speciallaboratory analyses. representing mineral soils . .85 The authors are greatly indebted to C. Tarnocai of the 10. Agricultural capability ratings for soil landscape units Land Resource Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, representing organic soils . .93 Ottawa, for his assistance in sampling and characterizing the 11 . Agriculture capability ratings for land type andmiscella- organic soils and for contributingto their final descriptions on neous land units . .93 the soil maps andinthe report. 12. The relative effectiveness of common field crops in reduc- Appreciation is also expressed to members of the Cartog- ing water erosion in Ontario . .94 raphySection ofthe Land Resource Research Centre. Members 13. of that section were involved in the K-values, K-ranges, and erodibility.