Soil and land constraint assessment for urban and regional planning
Acknowledgements The constraint assessment process was developed, and this report prepared, by Jonathan Gray, Greg Chapman, Xihua Yang and Mark Young (DECCW). Paul Donnelly and Will Green (NSW Department of Planning) assisted in the initial development of the process. Neil McKenzie (CSIRO) provided early critical review. Further review was provided by Keith Emery, Mitch Tulau, Dacre King and Sally McInnes-Clarke (DECCW).
The report should be cited as:
DECCW 2010, Soil and land constraint assessment for urban and regional planning, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney
© State of New South Wales and Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water
Disclaimer
While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of printing, the State of New South Wales, its agents and employees disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of, or the consequences of, anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document.
Published by:
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water 59–61 Goulburn Street, Sydney PO Box A290, Sydney South 1232 Phone: (02) 9995 5000 (switchboard)
131 555 (environment information and publications requests) 1300 361 967 (national parks, climate change and energy efficiency information and
publications requests) Fax: (02) 9995 5999 TTY: (02) 9211 4723 Email: [email protected] Website: www.environment.nsw.gov.au Report pollution and environmental incidents Environment Line: 131 555 (NSW only) or [email protected] See also www.environment.nsw.gov.au/pollution DECCW 2010/072 ISBN 978 1 74232 536 1 September 2010
Front cover: Constraint map for standard residential development, SW Sydney region (DECCW)
Contents
Abstract
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................1
2 Background to land capability schemes.................................................................3 2.1 Overview .........................................................................................................3 2.2 Development of land capability schemes........................................................3
3 The soil and land constraint assessment scheme .................................................6 3.1 Land constraint assessment concepts ............................................................6 3.2 The assessment process ................................................................................8
3.2.1 Constraint assessment tables ...........................................................8 3.2.2 Generating results .............................................................................9
3.3 Presentation of results ..................................................................................12
4 Sources of information .........................................................................................15 4.1 Soil landscape mapping ................................................................................15 4.2 Other soil data...............................................................................................15 4.3 Other natural resource data ..........................................................................18
5 Soil landscape constraints ...................................................................................19 5.1 Landscape constraints ..................................................................................19
5.1.1 Steep slopes....................................................................................19 5.1.2 Water erosion hazard ......................................................................19 5.1.3 Flood hazard ...................................................................................21 5.1.4 Acid sulfate soils..............................................................................21 5.1.5 Mass movement ..............................................................................22 5.1.6 Wave erosion ..................................................................................22 5.1.7 Poor site drainage or waterlogging..................................................22 5.1.8 General foundation hazard..............................................................23 5.1.9 Shallow soils....................................................................................23 5.1.10 Rock outcrop ...................................................................................23
5.2 Soil physical constraints ................................................................................24 5.2.1 Shrink-swell potential ......................................................................24 5.2.2 Low soil strength .............................................................................24 5.2.3 Low or high permeability .................................................................25 5.2.4 Low plant available water-holding capacity .....................................25 5.2.5 Stoniness.........................................................................................26
5.3 Soil chemical constraints...............................................................................26 5.3.1 Salinity.............................................................................................26 5.3.2 Acid and alkaline soils .....................................................................26 5.3.3 Sodicity............................................................................................27 5.3.4 Low fertility and nutrient availability.................................................27 5.3.5 Low phosphorus sorption ................................................................27
6 Discussion............................................................................................................29 6.1 Uses of constraint maps................................................................................29 6.2 Interpretation .................................................................................................30 6.3 Review and further development...................................................................32
Appendix 1: Abbreviations used in constraint codes ...............................................33
Appendix 2: Soil and land constraint assessment tables.........................................35
References .............................................................................................................54
Figures
Figure 1: Main components of land capability assessment..........................................3
Figure 2: Preliminary soil and landscape constraint assessment map for standard residential development for the Hawkesbury–Nepean catchment..............13
Figure 3: Screenshots of standard residential constraint draft maps for western Sydney area, with information box for a selected pixel...............................14
Figure 4: Soil-landscape maps, July 2009 .................................................................16
Figure 5: Soils knowledge map of NSW, June 2003..................................................17
Tables
Table 1: Published capability tables for various land-use categories .........................5
Table 2: Constraint classes of individual attributes.....................................................7
Table 3: Scoring and costing of constraint classes applicable to individual attributes .......................................................................................................7
Table 4: Soil and land constraint assessment table for standard residential development with worked examples ...........................................................10
Table 5: Example of constraint scores at three sites ................................................11
Table 6: Constraints relevant to key land uses .........................................................20
Table 7: Standard land use zones for LEPs and equivalent physical constraint methods ......................................................................................................31
Abstract A new approach to land capability assessment, termed soil and land constraint assessment, has been developed. The system allows for the generation of detailed soil and land constraint maps that portray the physical potential of the land to support a range of land uses. The results provide an estimate of the potential financial costs of ameliorating site constraints to a level of acceptable risks. Both on- and off-site risks are considered. Land uses considered range from standard residential development to agricultural cropping and domestic wastewater disposal. The process is based around the application of constraint assessment tables prepared for each specific land use. Data are derived from 1:100 000 soil landscape maps and reports, digital elevation models, acid sulfate soil risk mapping and erosion hazard modelling. Outputs are digital maps on a 25 m x 25 m raster basis, with details on the overall level and nature of constraints included for each pixel. Results are considered reliable to a scale of 1:25 000 but for finer than this local site investigations are required. The results can be readily interpreted by land-use planners and land managers and should contribute to environmentally sustainable land-use decision making. Twenty of the 34 standard land use zones used in local environmental plans in New South Wales are effectively covered.
1 Introduction The effective and sustainable use of land involves matching site conditions with the specific requirements and potential impacts of different land uses. Significant costs to the environment and society in general may result where land is used for purposes that it is not physically capable of supporting. It is the responsibility of land-use planners and land managers to ensure that all land is used within its physical potential or capability.
Land capability may be defined as the inherent physical potential of land to safely and effectively sustain use without degradation to land and water resources. Failing to use land within its capability may have serious consequences. Common environmental impacts on- and off-site include soil erosion and sedimentation, contamination or other degradation of water resources (both surface water and groundwater), release of acid solutions from acid sulfate soils and other forms of land degradation. The long-term safety and effectiveness of a land use may be threatened by factors such as failure of building foundations, mass movement, flooding and restricted plant growth.
Land capability assessment provides information on:
the land uses most physically suited to an area, that is, the uses with the best match between the physical requirements of the use and the physical qualities of the land
the potential hazards and limitations associated with specific uses of a site
the inputs and management requirements associated with specific land uses.
Such information is valuable for land-use planners at both the state and local government levels. The information assists in the initial urban and regional planning processes including the preparation of planning instruments such as local environmental plans (LEPs) and regional environmental plans (REPs). It also aids in decisions relating to granting of consent to development applications and applying accompanying conditions. The information will assist land managers and advisers, including local government bodies, catchment management authorities and farmers to identify appropriate specific uses (for example, type of agricultural product) and intensity of use. It will also assist development proponents and consultants in determining project feasibility, appropriate design and necessary environmental impact control measures.
The importance of land capability assessment in protecting New South Wales soils and other natural resources is recognised in the NSW Total Catchment Management Policy 1987 which commits the NSW Government to ‘ensuring that land within the state’s catchments is used within its capability and on a sustained basis‘. Likewise, the NSW State Soils Policy 1987 states that the ‘use of the state’s soils for any purpose should not lead to their loss or degradation and must therefore be within the bounds of their inherent capability to ensure continued utility, stability [and] productivity’. It also states that ‘land capability and land suitability assessments which take full account of soil characteristics and limitations are essential prerequisites to determination of the best use of the state’s lands and associated soils’.
Various approaches to land capability assessment have been practised in Australia. The Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW (DECCW) has recently developed a new approach, termed soil and land constraint assessment, primarily for urban and regional planning applications. This involves a semi-quantitative analysis of soil-landscape constraints using the concepts of risk management, including an indication of potential costs in real dollar terms necessary to overcome these constraints. It is considered to be easily understood and interpreted by planners and other land-use decision makers, and more readily
Urban and regional planning 1
incorporated into the decision-making process than most standard land capability assessment outputs.
The approach is being used to progressively generate broadscale land constraint assessment maps with comprehensive supporting data for a wide range of land uses (for example, standard residential development and cropping) and land qualities (for example, domestic wastewater disposal). These maps and data are proposed to be made readily available to all potential users. The approach can also be applied over individual sites by the application of specific data collected for that site.
The aim of this report is to:
present the soil and land constraint assessment process
facilitate the interpretation of existing constraint maps and explain their potential use in the planning process
provide guidance on the generation of new constraint maps over regions or single sites.
Background information on land capability schemes in general and on the constraint assessment process methodology is provided in sections 2 and 3. Potential sources of information are outlined in section 4. A description of the major soil-landscape constraints that impact on different land uses is provided in section 5. The general application of the constraint tables is discussed in section 6. The specific land constraint assessment tables developed for each land use are presented in the Appendices. These include:
development – standard residential, medium density, high density and rural residential
agriculture – cropping and grazing
wastewater disposal – surface irrigation, trench absorption and pump-out methods.
The process is envisaged to have most application to urban and regional land-use planning in NSW. It is not intended to supersede the recently adopted Land and Soil Capability (LSC) scheme (Murphy et al. 2006, 2008) for the assessment of agricultural land in NSW, but rather provide a supporting and complementary assessment method for this land use.
The application of the soil and land constraint assessment maps and supporting data to land-use planning processes in NSW should assist in the effective and environmentally sustainable use of land resources in the state.
2 Soil and land constraint assessment
2 Background to land capability schemes
2.1 Overview Land capability is a measure of the inherent physical potential of the land to fulfil a certain use in an effective and environmentally sustainable manner. It involves a comparison of the requirements of different uses with the resources offered by the land (Dent and Young 1981; McRae and Burnham 1981). For land to be used within its capability, there should be no significant degradation to land and water resources, either on or off site, in both the short and long term. Capability has been equated with ’ecological carrying capacity’ of the land (Duggin 1992).
The concept generally considers only physical factors relating to soil and landscape conditions; it does not deal with socioeconomic factors such as prevailing market conditions or access to urban centres. Likewise, ecological, heritage or aesthetic factors such as the presence of endangered species, archaeological remains or scenic values are not normally considered within capability.
A simple conceptual model for land capability evaluation illustrating the combination of land-use requirements and land-unit characteristics is presented in Figure 1.
2.2 Development of land capability schemes The first formal land capability rating system was devised in the early 1950s by the Soil Conservation Service of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). It was mainly intended for farm planning and led to the publishing of the handbook Land capability classification (Klingebiel and Montgomery 1961). This scheme referred to the potential of the land for broad agricultural use, with or without specified soil conservation practices. It allocated land into one of eight classes based on the severity of various limitations, assuming a moderately high level of management. In its original form, the scheme has been criticised for being too generalised and subjective (Johnson and Cramb 1992). The USDA later developed other capability schemes for non-agricultural uses (USDA 1971, 1983).
Land use Land unit
Land characteristics and limitations
Evaluation process
Capability rating
Validation
Requirements and management inputs
Figure 1: Main components of land capability assessment
Source: Modified from Baja et al. (2001)
Urban and regional planning 3
Land evaluation processes were further developed by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) in the early 1970s. This led to the publication of A Framework for Land Evaluation (FAO 1976) which formed the basis of several more specific schemes such as those relating to rain-fed agriculture (FAO 1983) and forestry (FAO 1984). These schemes were particularly intended for use in developing countries and did not automatically assume a certain level of management. They are described as suitability classification schemes and are used to allocate land into one of five suitability classes (S1, S2, S3, N1 and N2) based on limiting factors. They went further than assessing purely physical features of the land by also considering economic factors. Another new concept introduced was the ’land utilisation type’ defining the technical specifications for a land use and the physical, economic and social setting (Johnson and Cramb 1992).
In later years several new entirely quantitative land evaluation systems were developed. These have been variously termed ‘arithmetic’, ‘integrated’ or ‘parametric’ systems. Most of these are either ‘additive’, involving a summing of factors to derive a final score, ‘multiplicative’, involving a multiplying of factors, or ‘complex’ involving a combination of those methods (van de Graaff 1988; Shields et al. 1996). With enhanced computer technology and increased availability of quantitative data, these schemes may be expected to gain more widespread use.
In Australia, different approaches to land evaluation are adopted in each state, but most systems in frequent use are based on one or both of the USDA capability and FAO suitability schemes. Most are empirical in nature, being based on experience and intuitive judgement. They are typically primarily qualitative with broad descriptive capability or suitability class definitions. However, quantitative criteria are increasingly being used to identify class limits, notably in systems used in Victoria (Rowe et al. 1988) and Western Australia (van Gool et al. 2005). Most are also limitations-based, relying on negative qualities to classify the land. Various arithmetic schemes are being developed and implemented around the country, for example Johnson and Cramb (1992) and Baja et al. (2001). There is commonly an emphasis on agricultural potential, with less treatment of other land uses. Accounts of the main contemporary schemes used in each state are provided by Shields et al. (1996).
In NSW, two broad systems have been widely used to evaluate agricultural potential of land: the rural land capability system developed by the former NSW Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (Emery 1985), and agriculture suitability system (NSW Department of Agriculture 1983). The SCS capability system has eight classes and is similar to the original USDA system. It is empirical and qualitative in nature, emphasising soil conservation aspects and the ease of maintaining the stability of land under cropping, grazing and timber. Most of eastern and central NSW has been mapped using the scheme at a scale of 1:100 000. The NSW Agriculture suitability system has five classes and identifies the agricultural productivity of the land (from better quality cropping land to poorer quality grazing land), mainly through qualitative descriptions. Unlike the SCS system it also considers social and economic parameters.
The SCS rural capability system has recently been revised to produce the land and soil capability (LSC) scheme (Murphy et al. 2006, 2008). It was developed for the NSW property vegetation planning program under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 and further upgraded for the NSW Monitoring Evaluation and Reporting program. It retains the eight classes of the earlier system but places additional emphasis on soil limitations and their management. It comprises separate detailed ratings for a range of soil and land hazards, for example, sheet erosion, structure decline and acidification.
4 Soil and land constraint assessment
An urban capability scheme for NSW was also devised by the SCS (Hannam and Hicks 1980). This essentially qualitative scheme assessed the capability of land for urban and associated uses in relation to soil erosion and other site hazards. Ratings were allocated on the basis of single limiting factors. Urban capability studies using the scheme were carried out over numerous expanding urban areas around the state in the 1970s and 1980s. Chapman et al. (1992) and the related work of Morse et al. (1992) proposed a more detailed approach to urban land-use capability assessment that involved examination of individual constraints. This approach, combined with residual risk management and relative costings, formed the basis of the constraint assessment scheme presented in this report.
The current soil and land constraint assessment process described in this report was developed by the former NSW Department of Natural Resources (now incorporated into DECCW) as part of the NSW Comprehensive Coastal Assessment process (DNR 2006; DoP 2007). This risk management based, semi-quantitative approach provided outputs that could be readily linked with other planning information for use in urban and regional planning processes. Although constraint tables for agricultural use have been included, it is envisaged that these will provide only a supporting and complementary role to the LSC scheme in relation to agricultural land-use management.
Table 1 lists published Australian and overseas land evaluation schemes developed for the main land-use categories.
Table 1: Published capability tables for various land-use categories
Land-use category Publication
Development Hannam and Hicks (1980), McRae and Burnham (1981), Rowe et al. (1988), Morse et al. (1992), USDA (1993), van Gool et al. (2005)
Agriculture Klingebiel and Montgomery (1961), Hilchey (1970), Rosser et al. (1974), McRae and Burnham (1981), NSW Department of Agriculture (1983), FAO (1983, 1985, 1991), Emery (1985), Rowe et al. (1988), Wells and King (1989), Johnson and Cramb (1992), van Gool et al. (2005), Murphy et al. (2006, 2008)
Waste disposal USDA (1993), EPA (1996), van Gool et al. (2005), DLG et al. (1998)
Forestry* McRae and Burnham (1981), FAO (1984), Rowe et al. (1988), USDA (1993), Cocks et al. (1995), Laffan (1997)
* This category is not dealt with in this report.
Urban and regional planning 5
3 The soil and land constraint assessment scheme
The soil and land constraint assessment scheme builds on previous capability systems applied in NSW. It provides an indication of the physical potential of land to sustainably support a particular land use without degradation to land and water resources, taking into account the cost of ameliorating site constraints and the remaining risks.
Unlike many standard capability systems, the land constraint assessment system gives semi-quantitative outputs from the combined effect of all constraints, not just the most limiting constraint. The system determines rankings on the basis that ameliorative measures will be applied to overcome constraints, which again differs from standard capability systems. The assessment provides an indication of the costs in meaningful financial terms of overcoming constraints to the point where acceptable conditions prevail for different land uses. This means the information becomes more meaningful and readily accepted by many planners, land managers and developers. The quantitative nature of the outputs facilitates integration with other quantitative natural resource and socioeconomic datasets increasingly being used in land-use planning and land management studies.
The constraint assessment approach presented here is as outlined in DNR (2006), Chapman et al. (2006), Gray and Chapman (2005), Yang et al. (2008), among others. In some of these publications the process is referred to as ‘feasibility assessment’.
3.1 Land constraint assessment concepts The assessment process involves evaluating the combined effects of a number of key soil and landscape attributes. Two key principles behind the approach are:
risk management – the risk assessment framework in the Australian and New Zealand Standards AS/NZS 4360:1999 was adopted. To quote this standard: ‘Risk assessment is based on the chance of something happening that will have an impact upon objectives. It is measured in terms of consequences and likelihood.’ Residual risk management is also considered, being defined in the Standard as ‘the remaining level of risk after risk treatment measures have been taken’. For example, large residual risks may remain on very steep sites with erodible soils even after intense erosion control measures have been implemented.
quantitative costings – the approximate costs of amelioration required to reach an acceptable level of risk for each constraint are estimated, facilitating the comparison of potential costs associated with different land-use scenarios. Further detail on the costings process is given below.
Five classes of constraint, ranging from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high), applying to individual attributes are defined, as shown in Table 2.
6 Soil and land constraint assessment
Table 2: Constraint classes of individual attributes
Constraint class of attribute
Description
1 Very low Very low constraint; low treatment costs; straightforward or no maintenance; associated with negligible financial, environmental or social site costs; very low residual risk.
2 Low Low constraint; associated with minor financial, environmental or social site costs; straightforward or low maintenance; low residual risk.
3 Moderate Moderate constraint; moderate financial, environmental or social costs beyond the standard; frequent maintenance required; moderate residual risk; marginally acceptable to society – other factors may intervene.
4 High High constraint; high financial, environmental or social costs beyond the standard; special mitigating measures are required; regular specialist maintenance; moderate to high residual risks and costs.
5 Very high
Very high constraint; risks very difficult to control even with site-specific investigation and design; very high financial, environmental or social costs beyond the standard; regular specialist maintenance may be mandatory; high residual risk; generally not acceptable to society.
Each of the five constraint classes is assigned a particular number of constraint points representing the degree of associated financial, environmental and social costs. Classes 1 and 2 do not attract any constraint points as these represent standard desirable conditions. Classes 3, 4 and 5 attract 1, 3 and 6 points respectively indicating increasingly detrimental conditions associated with higher costs. Widespread flooding falls into Class 5 but is considered a special case and attracts 9 constraint points.
Specific quantitative costings are brought into the process by assigning a relative cost to a constraint point. Each constraint point may be considered to represent an approximate additional cost of 5% of a benchmark cost as shown in Table 3. The more constraint points associated with a hazard, the more costly it is to overcome.
Table 3: Scoring and costing of constraint classes applicable to individual attributes
1 Very low
constraint
2 Low
constraint
3 Moderate constraint
4 High
constraint
5 Very high constraint
Constraint points 0 0 1 3 6*
Additional cost to land use (relative to benchmark cost)
0 0 1 x 5% = 5%
3 x 5% = 15%
6 x 5% = 30%
* Widespread flooding attracts 9 points (45% of benchmark cost).
The benchmark costs vary for different land uses. For development uses (such as standard residential or medium density development) the benchmark costs are the estimated initial construction costs, including associated infrastructure (such as roads and sewerage). For example, the benchmark cost for standard residential development is taken as $200 000 (2009 dollars), being a very approximate cost for a standard residence with associated infrastructure. Potential costs may accumulate over the life of the development (nominally 100 years). For agriculture, the benchmark cost is the estimated value of annual production. For domestic wastewater disposal,
Urban and regional planning 7
the benchmark cost is the estimated cost of establishing a reliable surface irrigation disposal system, valued at approximately $12 000.
The constraint points applied to individual attributes are added to give a total score for a particular site. The total constraint score allows a comparison of the costs associated with the land-use change at different sites. The higher the total score, the more costly and inappropriate the proposed land-use change. Specific examples of the scoring system are given in the section 3.2.
Costs associated with a particular constraint may be attributed to:
direct financial expenses for on-site actions including detailed site investigations, additional design work, special construction and impact mitigating measures, ongoing maintenance, and for major repair work that may be required, and/or
indirect environmental and social (external) costs converted to an equivalent financial cost, which may be required if the special design and mitigating measures are not properly applied or fail. These may be based on the costs necessary to return conditions to pre-impact state, for example the cost of neutralising the effect of acid conditions following disturbance of acid sulfate soils (ASS), or an estimate of the loss of public amenity.
The derived costings are approximate. Further development of the process will yield more precise estimates of the costs associated with different constraints. While some cost estimates for treatments are relatively easy to obtain (such as those that relate directly to commonly used building foundation types), there are others that are problematic (for example, treatment of disturbed ASSs). This may be due to a large number of variables, a wide range of available treatment methods or the uncertainty of treatment success.
3.2 The assessment process The assessment process may be applied over broad areas using existing regional data or over specific sites using field data collected from that site. It involves the application of constraint assessment tables as described in the following sections.
3.2.1 Constraint assessment tables
The constraint assessment tables synthesise the soil and landscape data relating to a range of potential constraints attributes for each land use or quality. They are used to determine a single constraint score for each area under study. A worked example for standard residential development is shown in Table 4, with the other tables in Appendix 2. The broad components of each table are:
Land-use description – a brief description of the land use or quality, including the main elements and associated actions and processes is provided above each table
Attributes – soil and land features relating to key constraints that potentially influence each land use are listed in the left-hand column of each table. Specific attributes or those derived from different data sources may be listed under each constraint. For example, under the shrink-swell constraint in Table 4, two attributes are listed: the broad limitation as identified by a soil surveyor and a volume expansion percentage derived from laboratory data, as reported in the relevant soil-landscape report. All constraints and attributes are described in section 5.
Constraint classes – five constraint classes are included in the next five columns. These range from Class 1, very low constraint, to Class 5, very high constraint, as defined in section 3.1. Within each class, each constraint or attribute is
8 Soil and land constraint assessment
Urban and regional planning 9
prescribed a range of values; for example, volume expansion is less than 5% for Class1, and 5–15% for Class 2. Less serious constraints or attributes may only extend to Class 4 or even Class 3 because of the relatively low costs associated with their amelioration.
Constraint rationale – this column gives a brief description of the potential consequences arising from each constraint.
Data source – this column indicates the source of data for each constraint or attribute. The entries that appear in the current tables represent the data source currently relied upon by DECCW. The intention should always be to use the most reliable data source available, so these entries will vary from study to study.
Certainty levels – the last two columns provide an estimate of the level of certainty associated with each constraint or attribute rating. One column refers to the theoretical certainty of the relationship between attribute values and the constraint class, the other the certainty of the rating using the available data source, that is, the confidence one has in the data being applied. Four certainty ratings are defined below, with the applied rating being the lowest from either column. certain: no doubt as to the theoretical relationships in the ratings – a very
reliable data source confident: sound observed and theoretical reasons to expect rating relationships
– mostly reliable data probable: rating relationships are based on findings from other aspects of soil
science – data is of moderate reliability, and may be of moderate variability within the soil-landscape unit
uncertain: rating relationships are untested – data is of questionable reliability, and may be of significant variability within the soil-landscape unit.
3.2.2 Generating results
For an individual unit or a specific site the constraint assessment tables are used to derive a constraint score as follows.
1 Data for each of the required constraints and attributes listed in each table is acquired. The data sources currently used by DECCW are given in the table, and those with the highest level of certainty are used.
2 Relevant values for each attribute are applied to the table, and are ranked into one of the five constraint classes.
3 An individual score is applied to each constraint, based on the worst rated attribute associated with that constraint. As shown in Table 3, Class 3 constraints attract 1 point, Class 4 constraints attract 3 points and Class 5 constraints attracts 6 points (or 9 for widespread flooding).
Att
rib
ute
1V
ery
low
c
on
str
ain
t
2L
ow
c
on
str
ain
t
3M
od
era
te
co
ns
tra
int
4
Hig
h
co
ns
tra
int
5V
ery
hig
h
co
ns
tra
int
Ra
tio
na
leD
ata
so
urc
eT
he
ore
tic
al
co
rre
lati
on
Co
rre
lati
on
u
sin
g d
ata
s
ou
rce
Slo
pe
(%)
<4
A,
C4
–88–
151
5–35
>35
Incr
ease
s co
mpl
exity
of
cons
tru
ctio
n an
d lo
ng-t
erm
acc
ess
DE
MC
erta
inC
ert
ain
Ero
sio
n h
azar
d (
ton
nes/
ha/y
ear)
<3
3–8
A,
C8–
40 B40
–135
>13
5Lo
ss o
f so
il, d
egra
des
wat
er
qual
ity,
sed
imen
tatio
n of
w
ate
rway
s
Soi
l ero
sion
haz
ard
ma
pC
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Wav
e er
osi
on
haz
ard
Not
rec
orde
dA
, B
, C
––
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
Uns
tabl
e gr
ound
, da
mag
e by
w
aves
and
wat
erLa
nds
cape
s lim
itatio
ns
tabl
eC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Flo
od
ha
zard
A,
BC
Pro
babl
ity (
%)
Nil
–<
1 e
vent
s le
ss f
requ
ent
th
an 1
in 1
00 y
ears
1–2
1 ev
ent
in
50 t
o 1
00 y
ears
>2
1
even
t in
<
50 y
ears
F
loo
ding
pos
es a
larg
e p
oten
tial
thre
at t
o h
uman
life
and
bui
lt st
ruct
ures
Fro
m f
lood
ris
k m
aps
Cer
tain
Ce
rta
in
Gen
eral
occ
urre
nce
Not
ob
serv
ed–
–Lo
calis
edW
ides
prea
dA
s ab
ove
Lan
dsca
pes
limita
tion
s ta
ble
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Ter
rain
uni
tH
ill s
lope
uni
ts
(exc
ludi
ng
foot
slop
es)
–Lo
w f
oots
lope
s,
plai
ns (
excl
udin
g
flood
plai
ns)
Hig
h flo
odp
lain
sM
iddl
e a
nd lo
wer
flo
odpl
ains
, dr
aina
ge
depr
ess
ion
s, s
trea
m
chan
nels
As
abov
eM
ulti-
attr
ibut
e m
app
ing,
soi
l la
ndsc
ape
desc
riptio
ns,
topo
grap
hic
map
s
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Ma
ss m
ove
men
t h
aza
rdN
ot o
bse
rved
A,
C
–Lo
calis
ed &
slo
pe
<15
%
W
ide
spre
ad &
slo
pe
<15
%Lo
calis
ed &
slo
pe >
15%
B
Wid
espr
ead
& s
lope
>
15%
Pot
entia
l fai
lure
of
grou
nd a
nd
stru
ctur
esLa
nds
cape
lim
itatio
ns t
able
an
d s
lope
est
imat
eC
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Aci
d s
ulf
ate
so
il ri
skN
o oc
curr
ence
A,
B
LP >
4 m
HP
> 4
mL
P 2
–4m
C
HP
2–4
mLP
<2m
HP
<2
mP
oten
tial a
cid
co
rros
ion
AS
S r
isk
map
sC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Sh
rin
k-sw
ell p
ote
nti
al
A,
BC
Shr
ink-
swel
l lim
itatio
n
N
ot r
ecor
ded
–W
ides
prea
d ov
er
min
ority
of
mat
eria
lsW
ides
pre
ad o
ver
maj
ority
of
mat
eria
ls–
Gro
und
mov
emen
t, p
oten
tial
crac
king
S
oil m
ate
rial l
imita
tions
ta
ble
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
V
olum
e e
xpan
sio
n (%
)
(wo
rst
soil
mat
eria
l)<
55–
1515
–30
>30
–A
s ab
ove
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b da
taC
onfid
ent
So
il st
ren
gth
A,
BC
Pla
stic
ityN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
over
m
inor
ity o
f m
ate
rials
Wid
espr
ead
over
m
ajor
ity o
f m
ate
rials
––
Pot
entia
l su
bsid
ence
and
cra
ckin
g of
str
uctu
reS
oil m
ate
rial l
imita
tions
ta
ble
Con
fiden
tP
roba
ble
Low
wet
bea
ring
str
engt
h
(ave
rag
e of
so
il m
ate
rials
)V
ery
hig
hH
igh
, m
odLo
w,
very
low
––
As
abov
eS
oil m
ate
rial d
ata
Con
fiden
tP
roba
ble
Org
anic
so
ilsN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
over
<
70%
of
mat
eria
lsW
ides
prea
d ov
er
>70
% o
f m
ater
ials
––
As
abov
eS
oil m
a te
rial l
imita
tions
ta
ble
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
Uni
fied
so
il cl
assi
ficat
ion
syst
em
(w
ors
t so
il m
ate
rial)
All
othe
rsC
LM
L,
MH
, C
H,
OL
OH
Pt
As
abov
eT
ype
pro
file
lab
data
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
Sal
init
y
A,
B,
C
Sa
line
soil
mat
eria
lsN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
over
m
inor
ity o
f m
ate
rials
Wid
espr
ead
over
m
ajor
ity o
f m
ate
rials
––
Pot
entia
l co
rros
ion
and
sal
t at
tack
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
abl
eC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Sa
line
land
scap
esN
ot r
ecor
ded
Loca
lised
Wid
esp
read
––
As
abov
eLa
nds
cape
s lim
itatio
ns
tabl
eC
onfid
ent
EC
e (d
S/m
)
(wo
rst
soil
mat
eria
l)<
0.1
0.1
–2.0
>2.
0–
–A
s ab
ove
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b da
taC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Wat
erlo
gg
ing
A,
BC
Se
ason
al w
ater
log
ging
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
–W
ater
we
aken
s fo
und
atio
ns,
prom
ote
s co
rros
ion
& r
isin
g da
mp
Lan
dsca
pes
limita
tion
s ta
ble
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
Pe
rman
ently
hig
h w
ater
tabl
eN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
edW
ides
prea
d–
As
abov
eLa
nds
cape
s lim
itatio
ns
tabl
eC
onfid
ent
Pro
bab
le
Gen
eral
fo
un
dat
ion
haz
ard
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
–O
vera
ll ha
zard
per
ceiv
ed
Lan
dsca
pes
limita
tion
s ta
ble
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Ro
ck o
utc
rop
Not
rec
orde
dA
, C
Loca
lised
BW
ides
pre
ad–
–Im
pede
s co
nstr
uctio
nLa
nds
cape
s lim
itatio
ns
tabl
eC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
To
tal
co
ns
tra
int
sc
ore
S
ite
A:
0
S
ite
B:
7
S
ite
C:
12
(d
eriv
ed
by
add
ing
su
b-s
core
s fr
om
ea
ch c
olu
mn
. A
ttrib
ute
s in
Mo
de
rate
co
lum
n:
1 p
oin
t; H
igh
co
lum
n:
3 p
oin
ts;
Ve
ry H
igh
co
lum
n: 6
po
ints
)
10 Soil and land constraint assessment
Tab
le 4
: S
oil
and
lan
d c
on
stra
int
asse
ssm
ent
tab
le f
or
stan
dar
d r
esid
enti
al d
evel
op
men
t w
ith
wo
rked
exa
mp
les
4 The total of the individual constraint scores are added to give the total constraint score for the unit or site. These scores typically range from 0 (very low constraints, very high capability) to 12 or greater (very high constraints, very low capability).
5 The score is converted to a proportion of the relevant benchmark cost, with each point being equivalent to 5–10% of the benchmark; for example, a constraint score of 6 for standard residential development is equivalent to approximately 30% of the initial construction costs (including associated infrastructure).
The process is illustrated by the following examples of three sites, A, B and C, being considered for standard suburban residential development.
Site A: current residential area, very gentle slope (2% gradient), low erosion hazard, all other attributes have nil or minor constraints.
Site B: current woodland, moderate to steep slopes (25% gradient), high erosion hazard, localised mass movement hazard, all other attributes have nil or minor constraints
Site C: current pasture land, very gently inclined site (2% gradient), high flood hazard (approximately 2% probability), slight acid sulfate soil risk, clay-rich soils with high shrink-swell potential and high plasticity, local seasonal waterlogging, all other attributes have nil or minor constraints.
Table 4 presents the standard residential constraint assessment table with constraint ratings applied to the various attributes for the three example sites. Table 5 gives a summary of the constraint scoring.
The tables show that Site A has a low constraint score of 0, with no constraints that cannot be easily overcome. Site B has high constraints (score of 7), indicating additional potential costs amounting to approximately 35% of original construction costs (including associated infrastructure) and high residual risks remaining. Site C has very high constraints (score of 12), indicating additional potential costs amounting to approximately 60% of original construction costs and high residual risks remaining.
Table 5: Example of constraint scores at three sites
Attribute (or group of attributes)
Site A Site B Site C
1 Slope 0 3 0
2 Erosion hazard 0 1 0
3 Wave erosion hazard 0 0 0
4 Flood hazard 0 0 6
5 Mass movement hazard 0 3 0
6 Acid sulfate soils 0 0 1
7 Shrink-swell potential 0 0 3
8 Soil strength 0 0 1
9 Salinity 0 0 0
10 Waterlogging 0 0 1
11 Rock outcrop 0 0 0
Total constraint score 0 7 12
Urban and regional planning 11
The process of generating constraint assessment results over broad areas involves incorporating rules from the tables into queries to allow interrogation of databases containing the regional soil landscape data. DECCW uses Hyperion® (formerly Brioquery) as the query program to extract preliminary results from MS Access databases called SLADE (Soil Landscape Access Database Environment).
These results are further sorted and analysed using MS Excel to derive intermediate results for each soil landscape unit. These intermediate results are imported into ArcGIS and linked with spatial coverage for each unit. Digital elevation models and rules derived from the soil landscape descriptions were used to delineate subcomponents, also termed facets, of many of the soil landscapes at 1:25 000 scale (Yang et al. 2007). Finally, the influence of acid sulfate soils, slope and erosion hazard are added to a 25 m x 25 m pixel basis to produce the final results. Further details on the process are provided in DoP (2007) and Yang et al. (2007, 2008).
3.3 Presentation of results The results of the land constraint assessment process may be presented as a series of hard copy and digital derivative maps for the range of land uses and qualities being considered. These identify levels of constraint associated with each use throughout the study area.
An example of a constraint map produced for the Coastal Comprehensive Assessment process is shown in Figure 2. The maps are best viewed in electronic format using GIS technology, allowing access to the comprehensive supporting data contained within the digital maps.
The maps are prepared on a 25 m x 25 m raster basis with constraint scores and associated data being allocated to each cell. Figure 3 shows an example of a screen image of a constraint map with supporting data for a particular point. The key data presented for each pixel includes:
constraint score – ranges between 0 (nil constraint) and 12 (extreme constraint), with a green to yellow to red colour ramping representing the increasing scores. Although some locations actually have scores higher than 12, these are brought back to the maximum 12 score, which is effectively limiting to any land use. As described above, each point of the score represents approximately 5–10% of a benchmark cost relating to the land use in question
constraint code – this presents the ratings applied to all constraints and attributes considered in the assessment process. The code begins with the rating of the most limiting factor. For example, the code shown in Figure 3a (5_fh5_mm1_ss3_pl2…) indicates a limiting factor rating of 5, with a flood hazard rating of 5, mass movement rating of 1, shrink-swell rating of 3, etc.). A full listing of abbreviations of all attributes used in the assessment process is given in Appendix 1. Some units contain the letters DF (dominant facet) in the code, indicating that the following part of the code relates only to the most widespread facet in that landscape, which may differ slightly from the landscape as a whole.
confidence rating – this gives the level of certainty associated with each constraint score, as described in section 3.2.1.
unit identifier – soil-landscape code and facet name to which each pixel belongs is provided. For example, in Figure 3a, spz_footslope refers to the Seconds Pond Creek landscape, footslope facet. In some cases, the four-digit 1:100 000 topographic map code may be included before the landscape code.
Further description of the soil landscape unit may be obtained by referring to the relevant published soil-landscape report.
12 Soil and land constraint assessment
Figure 2: Preliminary soil and landscape constraint assessment map for standard residential development for the Hawkesbury–Nepean catchment
Urban and regional planning 13
a) Approximately 1:100 000 scale
b) Approximately 1:10 000 scale
Figure 3: Screenshots of standard residential constraint draft maps for western Sydney area, with information box for a selected pixel
Note appearance of pixilation in the finer scale map, where the selected pixel is marked by *.
14 Soil and land constraint assessment
Urban and regional planning 15
4 Sources of information The main data sources available for use in the constraint assessment process are described below and are referred to in the assessment tables.
4.1 Soil landscape mapping The results of the mapping program provide the major source of data for the assessment process. The maps and accompanying reports present detailed information on soil-landscape units which are areas of land with relatively uniform soil types and landscape characteristics (such as slope, terrain and geology). Each unit is expected to have broadly similar qualities, limitations and land management requirements (Chapman and Atkinson 2007).
Soil landscape mapping at 1:100 000 scale is available for much of eastern NSW and at 1:250 000 scale for much of central NSW. The current status of mapping is shown in Figures 4 and 5. Recent published reports include King (2009) and Morand (2001). These maps have been enhanced by DECCW by subdividing the soil landscape units into subunits (facets), generally based on distinguishable topographic elements (such as crests and side slopes).
Three levels of information are available:
soil landscape limitations are broad limitations (constraints) applying across the entire landscape unit or facet. They include flood, mass movement, salinity or high water table hazards and are identified by the soil surveyor on the basis of all landscape observations, soil profile and site descriptions. The data is generally summarised in a table in the report
soil material limitations are limitations (constraints) applying to the dominant soil layers identified by a soil surveyor. They include constraints such as shrink-swell, low wet strength, low fertility, highly acidic and saline soils. The data is generally summarised in a single table in the report. Laboratory results assist in the identification of the limitations.
laboratory results include a range of physical and chemical laboratory results which are available for most soil materials and presented in tables in the reports. DECCW applies these results cautiously across entire landscapes in the assessment process.
Further detail on the NSW Government’s soil survey program is available on its website,1 and soil profile data can be accessed through the SPADE tool.2
4.2 Other soil data Acid sulfate soil risk maps identify areas at risk of containing these hazardous soils. Areas are mapped as having either high or low probability of containing the soils at different elevations (0–1 m, 1–2 m, 2–4 m or >4 m Australian Height Datum – AHD) or with no known occurrence. Maps have been completed around all estuarine systems of NSW to an elevation of 10 m and are available through the NSW Government’s natural resource agency (see Naylor et al. 1998).
Erosion hazard maps have been developed to show data on sophisticated erosion hazard modelling which combines topographic data from digital elevation models (DEMs) with soil erosivity and rainfall erosivity data (Yang et al. 2006).
1 www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soils/survey.htm 2 www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soils/data.htm
Fig
ure
4:
So
il-la
nd
scap
e m
aps,
Ju
ly 2
009
16 Soil and land constraint assessment
Urban and regional planning 17
Fig
ure
5:
So
ils k
no
wle
dg
e m
ap o
f N
SW
, Ju
ne
2003
Land resource maps, also termed multi-attribute maps, identify areas of uniform terrain and land-use character, usually at a scale of 1:25 000. They have been prepared over selected areas of eastern NSW and may be accessed through the NSW Government natural resource agency.
Soil regolith stability maps reveal the soil-regolith stability class of land, giving an indication of the combined soil and substrate erodibility and sediment delivery potential. Mapping has been completed over all state forests of eastern NSW (Murphy et al. 1998) and other secondary maps are being derived from soil-landscape mapping.
Comprehensive resource assessment maps are regional reconnaissance soil maps at scales of 1:100 000 and greater, carried out as part of comprehensive resource assessment projects for south-east NSW, north-east NSW and western NSW (southern Brigalow) to help inform nature conservation and forestry land-use allocation (Figure 5). The omission of many relevant soil and landscape attributes and lack of laboratory testing limit the maps’ usefulness for other land uses.
Land systems mapping in western NSW covers broadscale (1:250 000) land units with information on landform, geology, vegetation and soils (Walker 1991; Figure 5). The broad scale and lack of detail on many important attributes limit the use of these maps for capability assessment.
4.3 Other natural resource data Flood hazard maps indicate the probability of flooding in areas surrounding many of the state’s major watercourses. The maps are usually held by state government agencies dealing with water resources and local government bodies.
Groundwater vulnerability maps indicate the vulnerability to pollution of potable groundwater reserves. The maps are currently available over selected regions of the state and may be accessed through state government agencies dealing with water resources.
Land and soil capability maps are statewide digital maps recently produced by DECCW based on 1:100 000 and 1:250 000 scale soil-landscape mapping. The maps provide capability data on a number of specific soil and land hazards of relevance to rural land uses, such as sheet erosion, structure decline and acidification. More detailed urban capability maps are available over specific urban areas. Although these maps do not provide specific data required for the capability assessment process presented here, they do provide useful supporting information.
Topographic maps provide data on landscape features such as slope, terrain and relation to watercourses (giving potential for flooding). Maps at a scale of 1:25 000 are available for most of the eastern part of the state with 1:50 000 or 1:100 000 scale maps over the remainder
Digital elevation models (DEMs) provide spatial elevation data in digital format and give rise to a digital representation of the landscape. They consist of a raster (or regular grid) of spot heights. In NSW, models are available at different resolutions, with ground resolution of 25 m and vertical resolution of 1 m over much of eastern NSW. SRTM DEMs at 90 m ground resolution are available for western parts of the state and LiDAR DEMs at 1 m or finer ground resolution are available over selected areas, such as the Hunter, Central Coast, Sydney and Shoalhaven regions. They can also be used to identify topographic features such as slope gradients and lengths and various advanced topographic indices such as CTI (compound topographic index) or FLAG Upness index.
18 Soil and land constraint assessment
Urban and regional planning 19
5 Soil landscape constraints A wide range of soil landscape constraints is considered in the land constraint assessment process, with each land use subject to a subset of these constraints. This section briefly describes each constraint, with advice on their broad influence on land uses and the data sources relied on in the assessment tables. They are grouped into broad landscape constraints, soil physical constraints and soil chemical constraints, as shown in Table 6.
5.1 Landscape constraints
5.1.1 Steep slopes
Land gradient generally has a major influence on many land uses and qualities. Almost all land-use operations become increasingly difficult as slope increases, particularly above moderately inclined levels (>20%).
The greater the slope (gradient), the greater the potential for erosion due to the increased surface water velocity (thus erosive power), increased water runoff compared to infiltration and the increased gravitational force on the soil particles. Steeper slopes mean access is more difficult and cumbersome, especially where heavy machinery is required or heavy loads are being transported. Site preparation for construction work is more difficult, requiring greater cut and fill operations.
Slope data for use in the tables is acquired through the use of digital elevation models, contour separation on topographic maps, aerial photos using stereo dip comparators or from field measurement with a clinometer.
5.1.2 Water erosion hazard
Water erosion, which is of concern to most land uses, results in the removal of soil and its deposition elsewhere by the action of water. Water erosion may take the form of sheet, rill or gully erosion.
The impacts of water erosion occur at the site of erosion, in transporting water or at the site of deposition. Impacts at the site of erosion include loss of valuable soil needed for plant growth and damage to roads, access tracks and building foundations. Impacts in transporting water include a reduction in water quality arising from high turbidity, high nutrient levels or other contaminants, leading to degradation of aquatic ecosystems, blue-green algae outbreaks, contamination of human water supplies and loss of aesthetic and recreational value. Build-up of sediment at sites of deposition result in a loss of flow capacity in river and stream channels, thus increasing the risk of flooding, and decreasing depth of water bodies with associated loss of dam storage capacity, navigability and recreational amenity.
The magnitude of water erosion is dependent on a number of factors:
soil erodibility – the inherent susceptibility of the soil to erosion, dependant on factors such as soil texture, structure, dispersible character, permeability, organic content and stone content
slope factors – slope gradient and slope length
rainfall erosivity – the intensity and duration of rainfall events
ground cover – the degree of protection provided by vegetation, mulch, stones or other surface cover
land management practices, such as presence of erosion and sediment controls, contour ploughing.
Tab
le 6
:
Co
nst
rain
ts r
elev
ant
to k
ey la
nd
use
s
Att
rib
ute
/Co
nstr
ain
t D
ev
elo
pm
en
t A
gri
cu
ltu
re
Waste
wate
r D
isp
os
al
S
tan
da
rd
Res.
M
ed
ium
D
ensi
ty
Hig
h
Densi
ty
Rura
l R
es.
C
ropp
ing
Gra
zin
g
Surf
ace
Ir
rigat’n
T
ren
ch
Abso
rp’n
P
um
p-
ou
t
Lan
ds
cap
e C
on
str
ain
ts
S
teep s
lopes
Wate
r ero
sion h
aza
rd
F
loo
d h
aza
rd
A
cid
su
lfate
so
ils
M
ass
move
ment
Wave
att
ack
P
oor
site
dra
inag
e/
wa
terl
ogg
ing
G
enera
l foun
datio
n h
aza
rd
Sha
llow
so
ils
R
ock
outc
rop
So
il P
hysic
al
Co
nstr
ain
ts
S
hri
nk-
swe
ll po
tentia
l
Lo
w s
oil
stre
ngth
L
ow
or
hig
h p
erm
eabili
ty
P
lant
ava
ilable
wate
r
h
old
ing c
ap
aci
ty
S
tonin
ess
So
il C
he
mic
al C
on
str
ain
ts
S
alin
ity
A
cid
an
d a
lka
line
so
ils
S
odic
ity
Lo
w f
ert
ility
/nutr
ient
ava
ilabili
ty
Lo
w p
hosp
horu
s so
rptio
n
20 Soil and land constraint assessment
DECCW uses a newly developed erosion hazard modelling system that combines the above factors to provide estimates of potential soil loss in different locations (Yang et al. 2006). It is based on the revised universal soil loss equation (RUSLE) (Rosewell 1993).
5.1.3 Flood hazard
Flooding, a major constraint to many land uses, can damage or destroy buildings and their contents, infrastructure, crops and other assets. It can also be a threat to human life. Even a low probability of flooding at a site will restrict or prevent the establishment of most forms of development. It may take the form of:
flash floods – the rapid build up of water flow in narrow and confined valleys, typically in hilly or mountainous areas (Cluny 1991)
riverine floods – the more extensive inundation of floodplains adjacent to rivers following heavy rains in the catchment (NSW Government 2001)
coastal floods – the inundation of low lying coastal lands by ocean or estuarine waters, resulting from severe storm events and/or unusually high tides (NSW Government 1990).
In the constraint tables, the potential for flooding may be indicated by one of three different data sources:
1 percentage probability per year is the most reliable data and should be used wherever available; it can be acquired from flood maps or other data records available from local councils or the NSW natural resources agency
2 general occurrence is the susceptibility of an area to flooding and is recorded in landscape limitation data from the soil landscape mapping program as not observed, localised or widespread
3 terrain unit is by definition inherently more flood-prone than other areas. River channel and floodplains are high risk areas, while side slopes and crests are generally immune from risk. Terrain information is readily available from DECCW in the form of land-resource, soil-landscape or topographic maps, or aerial photos. This data is used where neither of the above sources is available.
5.1.4 Acid sulfate soils
ASSs are highly hazardous soils which are usually associated with estuarine margins. They are a potential constraint to all land uses involving excavation or the disturbance of soils, such as most forms of development and intensive cropping (cultivation).
Potential ASSs contain pyrite (FeS2) which reacts with atmospheric oxygen to form sulfuric acid (H2SO4) on exposure to air through drainage, excavation or dredging. Consequently very highly acidic solutions, with pH values as low as 2, may find their way into waterways. These acidic conditions cause the release of other toxic materials such as concentrated aluminium and heavy metals. The soils are often also highly saline.
The disturbance of these soils has the potential to cause severe problems, both on and off site, including:
degradation of aquatic ecosystems
corrosion of iron, steel, other metal alloys and concrete leading to extensive damage to foundations and underground services
inhibition or prevention of plant growth, thus threatening native vegetation, agricultural lands and revegetation programs during site rehabilitation/landscaping
increased soil erosion.
Urban and regional planning 21
22 Soil and land constraint assessment
For further information on ASSs refer to Stone et al. (1998) and DECCW’s website.3 The primary source of information for the constraint tables is the ASS risk maps referred to in section 4.2. Ratings are based on the probability of occurrence of ASSs at different elevations in the landscape (<1 m, 1–2 m, 2–4 m, >4 m AHD).
5.1.5 Mass movement
Mass movement includes landslides, earth slumps and rock falls and is a serious threat to many land uses. It may involve the collapse of a slope at one point and the accumulation of the failed material further downslope. The most serious consequences are damage or destruction of buildings and other infrastructure and injury or loss of life.
Mass movement occurs when the weight of slope material exceeds the materials restraining capacity. It frequently occurs during periods of rainfall when the weight of the ground material has increased and the internal friction has been reduced. Construction, particularly cuttings into slope bases, may exacerbate this hazard (Rosewell et al. 2007; DLWC 2000).
Data in the constraint tables is derived from the soil landscape limitation tables (indicating not observed, localised or widespread) in combination with slope values (<15% or >15%) derived from DEM or soil landscape descriptions.
5.1.6 Wave erosion
Beaches and foredunes are subject to wave attack, particularly during large storms, where the sand may be reworked or entirely removed. Areas subject to this hazard are highly unstable and thus have extreme constraints for most land uses, particularly those involving buildings or other infrastructure.
The constraint assessment tables use data on the extent of wave erosion hazard (not observed, localised or widespread) from landscape limitation data.
5.1.7 Poor site drainage or waterlogging
Poor site drainage associated with extended periods of saturated ground conditions pose a threat to foundations. Corrosion, accelerated weathering and general weakening of buried structures may be promoted, particularly if other undesirable conditions are present, such as highly acid or saline conditions. The soil mass will have reduced strength and load supporting capacity. Most crop and pasture species suffer under waterlogged conditions; exceptions include rice and sugar cane. Wastewater disposal is severely impeded under these conditions. There may be groundwater contamination in areas with high water tables.
Five related attributes are considered in the constraint tables.
1 Seasonal waterlogging refers to extended periods of waterlogging; derived from data on the extent of this limitation (not observed, localised or widespread) from landscape limitation tables
2 High watertables are sites where the watertable is permanently within 2 m of the surface, and data is derived from the extent of this limitation over the landscape unit
3 Poor drainage is on sites which are susceptible to extended periods of saturation; derived from data on the extent of this limitation over the landscape unit
4 Groundwater pollution hazard is normally associated with areas with high water tables, high permeability and low nutrient retention ability; derived from data on the extent of this limitation over the landscape unit
3 www.environment.nsw.gov.au/acidsulfatesoil/index.htm
5 Profile drainage considers the drainage of the soil and site in terms of six drainage classes, very poorly drained to rapidly drained (from McDonald et al. 1990) as recorded in soil type profile data. It should only be applied where one is confident of the representativeness of the type soil profile.
5.1.8 General foundation hazard
The stability of foundations is important for all land uses involving construction works, including buildings, roads and other infrastructure (above and below ground). Ground instability, soil weakness, potential chemical attack or other limitations of the foundation material may lead to partial or complete failure of a structure or facility.
General foundation hazard as applied in the constraint assessment tables represents a broad assessment by a soil surveyor of the degree of foundation hazards affecting an area, considering all potential soil and landscape constraints. It is provided in the landscape limitation tables. Note that in the constraint assessment process this limitation attracts a lower score than other constraints and is not applied at all where soil material data is available. This is to avoid an effective duplication with other related constraints and consequent over-rating.
5.1.9 Shallow soils
Shallow soils have firm weathered bedrock or a hard pan near the surface, being material effectively restricting crop root penetration. They pose a constraint to several land uses, particularly agricultural uses and waste water disposal. Plant growth is restricted by the limit to root depth and the lower volume of soil available to supply nutrients and moisture. Wastewater treatment is hindered by the low soil volume available for the uptake of nutrients and water in the waste supply. There may be insufficient depth to allow emplacement of trenches in the trench absorption systems. Shallow soils can also hinder excavation and the installation of underground services, but they are not directly considered in the current constraint assessment tables for development uses.
The attributes considered in the assessment tables include:
shallow soils which are less than 0.5 m deep; derived from data on the extent of this limitation over the landscape unit
depth to hard layer are soil depth derived from soil type profile data; only when one is confident of the representativeness of the results.
5.1.10 Rock outcrop
Rock outcrop is a significant impediment to workability. It impedes excavation associated with developments, road building and extraction operations and the cultivation of land for cropping and plantation forestry. Minor unsealed roads and access tracks may need to be re-routed to avoid outcrops. It may be a restriction for some recreational uses, particularly sporting fields. Rock outcrop takes the place of soil material on a site, thus there is less potential for plant growth per unit area. There will be less yield of crop or pasture per hectare of land. It often becomes a significant limitation where it covers over 20% of the land surface.
The constraint tables use data on the extent of rock outcrop limitation (not observed, localised or widespread) as provided in landscape limitation tables.
Urban and regional planning 23
5.2 Soil physical constraints
5.2.1 Shrink-swell potential
This attribute relates to the soil’s potential to change in volume as moisture content changes. Volume changes may exceed 40% in the most expansive soils. It is primarily dependent on the content of certain clays that are subject to swelling behaviour, most notably the smectite (montmorillonite) group of clays. The repeated expansion and contraction of these soils can lead to serious damage to building foundations, roads, underground infrastructure, dams and other structures. Appropriate design and mitigating measures must be implemented to avoid problems.
Data used in the constraint tables is derived from the soil material limitation tables. Laboratory data relating to volume expansion may also be applied where there is confidence of its representation over the whole unit. Volume expansion levels over 30% are considered detrimental to most building and underground infrastructure operations.
5.2.2 Low soil strength
This attribute provides an indication of the ability of the soil to support loads. Low strength soils represent a constraint to many building foundations, roads and other infrastructure. The rating applied is taken as the most limiting (worst) of the following four attributes:
plasticity describes highly plastic soils which are unsuitable for foundations and road materials. They are typically clay rich and easily deformed under stress in wet conditions, meaning that they have low wet-bearing strength and do not support high loads. They can be sticky and have poor trafficability. The constraint tables use the extent of ‘high plasticity’ limitation from soil material limitation data.
low wet bearing strength describes soils which have a low ability to support loads when wet. They may be highly plastic clay-rich soils, but also poorly graded sands and silts (that is, limited range of particle sizes), such as ‘quicksand’. Data on the extent of this constraint is derived from soil material limitation data.
organic soils are soils with large amounts of organic carbon (generally >12%) such as peats or peaty soils. They have low wet-bearing strength and may be subject to contraction and other changes as the organic material decays. Soil material limitation data is again the main source of data.
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), which is a widely used, relatively simple classification of soil materials for low level engineering purposes. It takes into account the engineering properties of the soil, including permeability, shear strength and compaction characteristics. It is based on the amounts of different particle sizes and the characteristics of the very fine particles. Although it cannot substitute for specific engineering tests, it can be a useful guide to soil behaviour in various engineering applications such as building and road foundations and small dam construction.
The 15 classes in the USCS are: GW well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GP poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines GM silty gravels, poorly graded gravels-sand-silt mixtures GC clayey gravels, poorly graded gravels-sand-clay mixtures SW well graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SP poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines SM silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixtures SC clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixtures
24 Soil and land constraint assessment
ML inorganic silts and very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands with slight plasticity
CL inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity OL organic silts and organic silt-clays of low plasticity MH inorganic silts, elastic silts CH inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH organic clays of medium to high plasticity Pt peat and other highly organic soils.
Hicks (2007) gives an overview of USCS. Soil materials with USCS classes Pt, OH, CH, MH, OL, ML and possibly CL may present limitations for stable building foundations (Finlayson 1982). USCS ratings are provided in the laboratory results for most soil materials in the soil landscape reports and may be applied for where one is confident of the representativeness of the type soil profile.
5.2.3 Low or high permeability
Permeability provides a measure of the soil’s potential to transmit water and is determined by soil attributes such as structure, texture, porosity and shrink-swell behaviour. It is independent of topographic and climate controls. Low permeability is an important factor contributing to poor drainage and waterlogging. Excessively high or low permeability can hinder most forms of agriculture and wastewater disposal.
Two attributes are considered in the constraint tables:
1 permeability ranking, which is derived from soil material data; a five class ranking from very low to very high is applied, which extends the four class system of very low to very high of McDonald et al. (1990)
2 saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) estimates are derived from laboratory data associated with type profiles, and are only applied in wastewater disposal tables, when there is confidence of the representativeness of the results.
5.2.4 Low plant available water-holding capacity
Plant available waterholding capacity (PAWC) is an important attribute for agriculture. It is a measure of the amount of water that can be stored by soil that is available to plants between rainfall or irrigation episodes. It represents the difference in water content between the soil when it stops draining (field capacity) to when the soil becomes too dry to support plant growth (the permanent wilting point). It influences the length of time a plant will survive without rewatering and varies between different plants.
Soil texture and structure both influence PAWC but the relationships are not straightforward, as revealed in Geeves et al. (2007) and Hazelton and Murphy (2007). While fine textured soils such as clays have higher water storing potential (field capacity) due to their greater surface area and absorptive capacity, it is more difficult for plants to extract this water, and as a consequence they have higher wilting points. Loams and clay loams generally have the highest PAWC while sands and medium–heavy clays (non-self mulching) tend to have lower values. Values under 10% are considered low while values over 20% are considered high.
The attributes considered in the constraint tables are:
PAWC rating, which is derived from soil material data and comprises a five-class rating from very low to very high
laboratory PAWC (in mm/m) derived from data associated with type profiles and only used where there is confidence of the representativeness of the results.
Urban and regional planning 25
5.2.5 Stoniness
This limitation refers to high proportions of rock fragments such as gravel, stone and cobbles. These materials occupy soil volume but do not provide or retain nutrients and moisture. They thus detract from a soils agricultural productivity and effectiveness for wastewater treatment. They can also reduce the workability of a soil, hindering cultivation.
Data on stoniness used in the constraint tables includes:
stoniness limitation which considers the extent (not observed, localised or widespread) in soil materials from the soil material limitation data
coarse fragment percentage, which is a volumetric proportion, derived from type profile data, only used where there is confidence inthe representativeness of the results.
5.3 Soil chemical constraints
5.3.1 Salinity
Saline soils constrain many land uses. Salt, which has an adverse effect on plant growth, increases the:
osmotic pressure of the soil solution, which increases the difficulty with which plants can extract water from the soil
soil content of specific ions, particularly sodium, chloride and bicarbonate ions, that can be toxic to crops at high concentrations
quantity of sodium in the soil’s exchange complex, leading to a breakdown in soil structure, reduced permeability and associated problems.
Plants have differing tolerances to saline conditions, but levels above 8 dS/m restrict all but salt tolerant plants and above 16 dS/m even salt tolerant plants suffer (Charman and Wooldridge 2007).
Salt is a corrosive agent that is of serious concern to many engineering applications. It can attack metals, concrete and other building materials, causing damage or ultimate failure of building foundations, underground infrastructure or other assets. The level of salinity that may impact on underground assets will vary according to site conditions, such as salt type, seasonal moisture and groundwater level fluctuations, so conservative ranking levels are applied in the constraint tables. A series of 10 booklets on urban salinity produced under the local government salinity initiative provide comprehensive information on this issue (DIPNR 2003a).
The constraint tables apply the most limiting of the following three attributes:
landscape salinity hazard – considers the extent (not observed, localised or widespread) from landscape limitation data
saline soil material – considers the extent in soil materials from soil material limitation data
ECe (effective electrical conductivity) – derived from the laboratory results of type soil profiles; only used where one is confident of the representativeness of the results.
5.3.2 Acid and alkaline soils
Acidity and alkalinity are indicated by pH, which is a measure of the effective concentration of the hydrogen ion. pH greatly influences soil chemical conditions, including the availability of most plant macro- and micronutrients, presence of toxic elements and soil microbe populations. For example, in highly acidic soil with pH
26 Soil and land constraint assessment
(CaCl) below 4.5, aluminium and many heavy metals will be released into solution and nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and other nutrients will become virtually unavailable. Different plants have different tolerances to acidity and alkalinity, but most plants thrive at pH (CaCl) levels between 6.0 and 7.5. Levels below 4.5 or above 8.5 present significant limitations for most plant growth (Fenton and Helyar 2007; Hazelton and Murphy 2007).
Highly acidic or alkaline soils are thus detrimental to agriculture. They are also detrimental to wastewater management by impeding plant growth in irrigation methods and by interfering with necessary microbial activity. Very acidic soils, such as those associated with ASSs (section 5.1.4), can lead to corrosion of untreated underground infrastructure, such as metal pipes and concrete foundations.
The constraint tables consider the following attributes, in addition to the ASS attribute:
acidity limitation – uses the extent of this limitation over component soil materials from the soil material data
alkalinity limitation – as above
aluminium toxicity limitation – as above
pH – uses laboratory derived measurements from the type soil profile data; only used where one is confident of the representativeness of the results.
5.3.3 Sodicity
Sodic soils are a significant constraint for agriculture and wastewater disposal. They are associated with poor soil structure, may be hard-setting when dry and often form surface crusts. They thus restrict water and air infiltration and plant growth. Sodic soils are also highly dispersible, meaning that they are prone to erosion and may have low wet bearing strengths, thus contributing to other constraints referred to in Table 6.
The constraint tables apply data from the:
sodicity limitation which considers the extent of this limitation over the component soil materials from the soil material data
exchangeable sodium percentage which derives from laboratory data for type profiles and is only used where one is confident of the representativeness of the results.
5.3.4 Low fertility and nutrient availability
Soils with low chemical fertility are a constraint to agricultural land uses. These soils have low levels of nutrients required for plant growth, such as P, N, K, Ca, Mg and a range of trace elements. Organic matter is typically low. These soils are usually characterised by a low ability to retain nutrients, as indicated by a low cation exchange capacity (CEC).
The agriculture constraint tables use the following data:
fertility ranking – uses the fertility rankings (very low to very high) from soil material data
nutrient availability – applies laboratory data from type profiles on P (Bray, mg/kg), organic matter (%) and CEC (me/100g); only used where one is confident of the representativeness of the results.
5.3.5 Low phosphorus sorption
This attribute refers to the capacity of the soil to adsorb phosphorus. It generally depends on the extent of phosphate fixing to iron, aluminium or calcium compounds as well as certain organic clay complexes. It often gives an indication of a soil’s anion
Urban and regional planning 27
exchange capacity, which is its ability to adsorb a range of negatively charged ions. Phosphate sorption by the soil normally occurs only up to half of the theoretical phosphate sorption capacity. Beyond this, leaching of the phosphate will occur if it is not taken up by plant growth (as in irrigation treatment methods) (DLG et al. 1998). Phosphate sorption is normally considered very low at levels less than 125 mg/kg and very high at levels greater than 600 mg/kg (Morand 2001). It is usually low in light coloured sandy soils and high in dark clay soils.
The attribute is considered in the wastewater treatment tables. It is derived from laboratory analysis for type soil profiles (only used where one is confident of the representativeness of the results).
28 Soil and land constraint assessment
6 Discussion The maps and supporting information prepared through the soil and land constraint assessment process present a clear indication of the nature and degree of soil and land constraints affecting various land uses at different locations over a subject coastal area. They provide an indication of the consequences and approximate economic costs of proceeding with different land-use scenarios. The presentation of constraints in terms of estimated monetary costs, such as proportions of initial development costs, facilitates interpretation by land-use planners and land managers. They will also be meaningful to development proponents and the wider community.
6.1 Uses of constraint maps Constraint maps can be used for:
1 planning by state and local government planners to:
assist urban and regional planning processes including the preparation of planning instruments such as LEPs and REPs
inform decisions relating to granting of consent to development applications and applying accompanying conditions.
2 land management by government natural resource management agencies, local government bodies, catchment management authorities, farmers and other land holders to:
identify appropriate specific uses and intensity of land use, such as the intensity and type of cropping
identify the constraints that need to be overcome for sustainable land management
identify areas to be excluded from particular land uses or land management
identify areas requiring careful monitoring and maintenance, such as for potential failure of wastewater disposal systems.
3 project development by development proponents and consultants to:
determine project feasibility, appropriate design and likely environmental impact control measures at a particular site
help to place developments where they are most environmentally sustainable.
Constraint assessment maps have been prepared over an extensive area of NSW with high land-use pressure. They cover most NSW coastal local government areas, with the exception of the Greater Sydney – Newcastle – Wollongong metropolitan areas, and were carried out under the NSW Comprehensive Coastal Assessment program (DoP 2007). The entire Hawkesbury–Nepean catchment area has been assessed. It is envisaged that other parts of the state will be covered as resources and new regional soil-landscape datasets become available.
Specific land uses include:
development – standard residential, medium density, high density and rural residential
agriculture – cropping and grazing
wastewater disposal – surface irrigation, trench absorption and pump-out methods.
The program could be expanded to include other land uses or land-use functions, for example specific types of cropping or unsealed road construction.
Urban and regional planning 29
30 Soil and land constraint assessment
It is not intended that the process will supersede the Land and Soil Capability scheme for the assessment of agricultural land in NSW, particularly for property vegetation planning requirements under the Native Vegetation Act 2003 (DNR 2006) or NSW Monitoring and Evaluation requirements (Murphy et al. 2006). Rather, it will provide a supporting and complementary assessment process to the LSC scheme.
The quantitative nature of the constraint assessment outputs allows the combination of the soil-landscape constraint information with other natural resource and socioeconomic assessment data in planning and land-management processes. The outputs are suitable for advanced GIS applications, as they can be readily integrated with other data layers. They may be easily added into multi-criteria analysis techniques such as those described in BRS (2007) or James (2001), which was used in the NSW Comprehensive Coastal Assessment process.
The NSW natural resource and planning agencies are collaborating with local government to facilitate the use of the constraint assessment products. From a physical capability viewpoint, the constraint maps and associated data could be used for 20 of the 34 standard land-use zonings as listed in Standard Instrument (Local Environmental Plans) Order 2006.4 Table 7 shows how the constraint maps, or combinations of them, could be applied for this purpose. The products may therefore directly assist in the preparation of LEPs.
6.2 Interpretation The modelled constraint assessment outputs are suitable only for broadscale planning and land-management purposes. They cannot be relied upon with certainty for land-use and management decisions at the local site level. This is because the information depends on the original soil-landscape data which is normally collected at a 1:100 000 scale in eastern NSW. Inevitably, many locations will vary from the standard conditions assessed for a particular soil-landscape unit; thus higher or lower constraints than those indicated by the output maps may be present.
With the application of facet-level information and topographic detail provided by digital elevation models the maps are generally considered reliable at a 1:25 000 scale. This suggests that when using the maps to identify constraint conditions it is necessary to consider the average conditions over the immediately surrounding area (with a radius generally of the order of 200 m). They can be used at finer scales where they are applied with specific local knowledge, for example knowledge of the presence or absence of waterlogging or a high rock outcrop. Where decisions are being made at a local site level, it will be necessary to undertake more specific site investigations.
Although the results are presented on a scale of 0 to 12 constraint points, for many purposes it may be more appropriate to group the scores into three broad classes:
1 0–3: low constraint, high capability
2 4–7: moderate constraint, moderate capability
3 8–12: high constraint, low capability.
The results do not directly indicate areas to be excluded from particular land uses. A high constraint score does not automatically exclude a land use, but rather it indicates the large amount of resources that would have to be expended in order to make the land use viable. In practice, scores higher than 8, which represent 40% of the benchmark cost, will exclude a land use from further consideration. In some cases, however, it will be deemed desirable to allocate the necessary resources, such as in high value residences with scenic views in high constraint, steeply sloping urban
4 www.planning.nsw.gov.au/planning_reforms/p/2006-155.pdf
Table 7: Standard land use zones for LEPs and equivalent physical constraint methods
Standard instrument (LEP) land uses Matching physical constraint assessment products
Zone RU5 Village Zone R1 General Residential Zone R2 Low Density Residential
Standard residential development
Zone R3 Medium Density Residential Zone B1 Neighbourhood Centre Zone B2 Local Centre Zone IN2 Light Industrial Zone B4 Mixed Use Zone IN4 Working Waterfront Zone SP3 Tourist
Medium density residential development
Zone R4 High Density Residential High density residential development
Zone B5 Business Development Zone B3 Commercial Core Zone B6 Enterprise Corridor Zone B7 Business Park Zone IN1 General Industrial Zone IN3 Heavy Industrial
High density development (revised version of high density residential product
Zone R5 Large Lot Residential Zone RU6 Transition
Rural residential
Zone RU1 Primary Production Agriculture – cropping (cultivation)
Zone RU1 Primary Production Agriculture – grazing
Wastewater dIsposal
Zone RU4 Rural Small Holdings Rural residential and wastewater disposal combined
Zone RU3 Forestry Zone SP2 Infrastructure
New tables required
Zone RU2 Rural Landscape Zone SP1 Special Activities Zone RE1 Public Recreation Zone RE2 Private Recreation Zone E1 National Parks and Nature Reserves Zone E2 Environmental Conservation Zone E3 Environmental Management Zone E4 Environmental Living Zone W1 Natural Waterways Zone W2 Recreational Waterways Zone W3 Working Waterways
No tables proposed, land constraint assessment does not apply
lands. Approval for any land use must always be on the basis that all site constraints are properly addressed.
It should be noted that constraint scores between different land uses are not directly comparable. It is apparent that some land uses have resulted in relatively lower (better) scores than other land uses; For example, scores for high density development are typically lower than for standard residential development. This is largely because constraint scores depend on the relative budget and economics of various land uses, with the costs of overcoming constraints being based on a percentage of initial development costs (or similar factor for non-development uses). For example, the costs of overcoming constraints such as erosion hazard are proportionally smaller for high density development than for standard residential development.
In some cases, the constraint score is averaged over a whole soil-landscape unit, rather than identifying differing levels of constraint in different components or facets. For example, if part of a soil-landscape unit is prone to flooding, with an associated
Urban and regional planning 31
extreme constraint level, but that facet could not be modelled, then the entire unit may be accorded a moderate constraint score. Thus, the non-flood prone areas of that unit will be accorded a slightly higher score than would be expected. This is an issue to be wary of in those units that could not be modelled, indicated by the letters CM (cannot be modelled) in the facet code and DF (dominant facet) in the constraint code.
6.3 Review and further development A rigorous process of testing and review has been undertaken, including comparing results against existing capability ratings, review by soil surveyors familiar with different areas and by field checking. Field testing of 149 sites throughout the north coast region and Hawkesbury–Nepean catchment indicated that for standard residential development the predicted constraint score fell within 1 constraint point of the observed score in 75% of sample sites, and within 2 constraint points in 86% of sites. For cropping land use, 65% of predictions fell within 1 point and 76% fell within 2 points of observed scores. For wastewater disposal (irrigation method) 73% of predictions fell within 1 point and 82% within 2 points of observed scores.
The testing process indicated that the outputs have a moderately high degree of reliability, bearing in mind the scale of the data upon which they are based. The process tends to give a conservative assessment, with the modelling tool being designed to give a cautious treatment of the identified soil landscape constraints; thus, predicted constraint scores tend to be slightly higher than actual constraints. The testing led to the identification of errors and weaknesses in the process and allowed for its improvement. The process is still subject to ongoing development and a further increase in reliability of results is anticipated.
Further information is needed to improve the costing information included with the process. While some cost estimates for treatments are relatively easy to obtain (such as those that relate directly to commonly used foundation types), others are more problematic. This may be due to the large number of variables, wide range of treatment methods and uncertainty of treatment success, for example in the treatment of disturbed acid sulfate soils. Information concerning the degree of the cost of dealing with various landscape constraints, known as site costs in the construction industry, is difficult to obtain and requires further investigation. Where possible, assessments of cost have been made (Chapman et al. 2004). The value of each constraint score point being equal to 5% of a standard benchmark cost is broad and arbitrary but allows for convenient calculation and spread of cost increments over the five constraint classes. A higher or lower cost unit may be more appropriate and further research is needed to confirm these cost estimates.
In conclusion, the soil and land constraint assessment process is a new form of capability assessment that portrays soil and landscape constraints at high levels of resolution. Detailed constraint maps, with comprehensive supporting data for a wide range of land uses, can be readily viewed and interpreted by land-use planners and land managers. The products should assist in environmentally sustainable land-use planning and land-management decision making throughout much of NSW.
32 Soil and land constraint assessment
Appendix 1: Abbreviations used in constraint codes
Code Description
ac acid soil hazard acc access al alkaline soil ass acid sulfate soil (ASS) at potential aluminium toxicity awf available water-holding capacity (field) de depth to hard layer dp depth to hard layer dr profile drainage dz discharge eh erosion hazard fe fertility of soil materials fel fertility of landscape fh flood hazard fou foundation hazard (excluding mass movement and ASS) gen general foundation hazard from surveyor gp groundwater pollution hazard gph groundwater pollution hazard hw high watertable mm mass movement hazard os organic soils pd poor drainage hazard pd profile drainage (wastewater maps) pdh poor drainage hazard (wastewater maps) pl plasticity pm poor moisture availability pp permeability prod agricultural productivity pwl permanent waterlogging ro rock outcrop rz recharge sa salinity (soil layers) sal salinity (landscape facets) sh shallow soils slo slope so sodic soil ss shrink swell potential st stony sw seasonal waterlogging wbs wet bearing strength we wave erosion hazard wl seasonal waterlogging work agriculture workability wt high watertable
Urban and regional planning 33
34 Soil and land constraint assessment
Urban and regional planning 35
Appendix 2: Soil and land constraint assessment tables
Development
1 Standard residential development .............................................................. 36
2 Medium density development ..................................................................... 38
3 High density development .......................................................................... 40
4 Rural residential development .................................................................... 42
Agriculture
5 Cropping (cultivation) .................................................................................. 44
6 Grazing ....................................................................................................... 46
Wastewater Disposal
7 Surface irrigation method............................................................................ 48
8 Trench absorption method.......................................................................... 50
9 Pump-out method ....................................................................................... 52
Constraint tables for foundations (small and medium) as applied in the Coastal Comprehensive Assessment project are presented in DNR (2006).
36 Soil and land constraint assessment
1 S
tan
dar
d R
esid
enti
al D
evel
op
men
t C
on
stra
int
Rat
ing
Ve
rsio
n 2
.04
.07
ceT
he
ore
tica
l
co
rre
lati
on
1
Co
rre
lati
on
u
sin
g d
ata
so
urc
e1
Slo
pe
Ce
rta
inC
ert
ain
Ero
sza
rd m
ap
Ce
rta
inC
onf
iden
t
Wa
tatio
ns
Co
nfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
Flo
o P m
aps
Ce
rta
inC
ert
ain
Gta
tion
s C
ert
ain
Co
nfid
ent
Tap
ping
,
ps
Ce
rta
inC
onf
iden
t
Ma
tatio
ns
e
Ce
rta
inC
onf
iden
t
Ac
Co
nfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
Sh S
mita
tion
s C
ert
ain
Co
nfid
ent
V
( d
ata
Co
nfid
ent
So P
mita
tion
s C
onf
ide
ntP
rob
able
L (ta
Co
nfid
ent
Pro
bab
le
Om
itatio
ns
Co
nfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
U (b
dat
aC
onf
ide
ntC
onf
iden
t
Th
is u
• st
• se
• un
Att
rib
ute
1V
ery
low
co
ns
tra
int
2L
ow
c
on
str
ain
t
3M
od
era
te
co
ns
tra
int
4H
igh
c
on
str
ain
t
5V
ery
hig
h
co
nst
rain
tR
ati
on
ale
Dat
a s
ou
r
(%
)<
44–
88
–15
15–3
5>
35In
crea
ses
com
ple
xity
of
con
stru
ctio
n a
nd lo
ng-
term
acc
ess
DE
M
ion
ha
zard
(to
nne
s/ha
/yea
r)<
33–
88
–40
40–1
35>
135
Los
s o
f so
il, d
egr
ade
s w
ate
r q
ualit
y,
sed
imen
tatio
n o
f w
ate
rway
sS
oil e
rosi
on
ha
ve e
rosi
on
haz
ard
Not
rec
orde
d–
–Lo
calis
ed
Wid
esp
read
Un
sta
ble
gro
und,
da
ma
ge b
y w
ave
s a
nd w
ate
rL
ands
cap
e lim
ita
ble
d h
aza
rdro
ba
blity
(%
)N
il
–
<1
eve
nts
less
fre
quen
t th
an
1 in
10
0 ye
ars
1–2
1 ev
ent
in
50
to 1
00 y
ears
>2
1 e
vent
in <
50
yea
rs
Flo
odi
ng p
ose
s a
larg
e p
ote
ntia
l th
rea
t to
hum
an li
fe a
nd
built
st
ruct
ure
s
Fro
m f
loo
d ris
k
ene
ral o
ccur
renc
eN
ot
obs
erve
d–
–Lo
calis
ed
Wid
esp
read
As
abo
veL
ands
cap
e lim
ita
ble
erra
in u
nit
Hill
slo
pe u
nits
(e
xclu
ding
fo
ots
lope
s)
–Lo
w f
oot
slo
pes,
p
lain
s (e
xclu
din
g
floo
dpla
ins)
Hig
h flo
odp
lain
sM
iddl
e a
nd lo
wer
flo
odpl
ains
, d
rain
age
de
pre
ssio
ns,
stre
am
ch
anne
ls
As
abo
veM
ulti
-att
ribut
e m
soil
lan
dsca
pe
des
crip
tions
, to
pog
rap
hic
ma
ss m
ov
emen
t h
aza
rdN
ot
obs
erve
d–
Loca
lise
d &
slo
pe
<1
5%
W
ide
spre
ad &
slo
pe
<15
%Lo
calis
ed
& s
lop
e >
15%
Wid
espr
ead
&
slop
e >
15%
Po
ten
tial f
ailu
re o
f g
rou
nd a
nd
stru
ctu
res
Lan
dsca
pe
limi
tab
le a
nd
slo
pe
stim
ate
id s
ulf
ate
so
il ri
skN
o oc
curr
ence
LP
> 4
mH
P >
4m
LP
2–
4mH
P 2
–4m
LP
<2
mH
P <
2mP
ote
ntia
l aci
d c
orr
osi
onA
SS
ris
k m
aps
rin
k-s
wel
l po
ten
tia
lhr
ink-
swel
l lim
itatio
n
N
ot r
ecor
ded
–W
ides
pre
ad o
ver
min
ori
ty o
f m
ater
ials
Wid
espr
ead
ove
r m
ajor
ity o
f m
ate
rials
–G
roun
d m
ove
me
nt,
pote
ntia
l cr
acki
ng
Soi
l mat
eria
l li
tab
le
olum
e ex
pans
ion
(%)
w
ors
t so
il m
ater
ial)
<5
5–15
15–3
0>
30–
As
abo
veT
ype
pro
file
lab
il s
tren
gth
last
icity
Not
rec
orde
dW
ide
spre
ad
over
m
ino
rity
of m
ate
rial
sW
ides
pre
ad o
ver
ma
jori
ty o
f m
ater
ials
––
Po
ten
tial s
ubs
iden
ce a
nd c
rack
ing
o
f st
ruct
ure
Soi
l mat
eria
l li
tab
le
ow w
et b
ear
ing
str
engt
h
a
vera
ge o
f s
oil
mat
eria
ls)
Ver
y h
igh
Hig
h, m
od
Low
, ve
ry lo
w–
–A
s a
bove
Soi
l mat
eria
l da
rgan
ic s
oils
Not
rec
orde
dW
ide
spre
ad
over
<
70%
of
ma
teria
lsW
ides
pre
ad o
ver
>70
% o
f m
ate
rial
s–
–A
s a
bove
Soi
l mat
eria
l li
tab
le
nifie
d so
il cl
ass
ifica
tion
sys
tem
wo
rst
soil
mat
eria
l)A
ll ot
hers
CL
ML
, M
H,
CH
, O
LO
HP
tA
s a
bove
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
se r
efe
rs t
o s
tan
dard
sub
urba
n re
side
ntia
l dev
elop
me
nts
as
mig
ht
be
est
ablis
hed
on
ne
w r
esi
dent
ial e
sta
tes.
S
uch
res
iden
tial a
reas
wo
uld
incl
ude
:an
dard
ho
usin
g u
p to
tw
o st
ore
ys w
ith e
ither
pie
r o
r co
ncr
ete
sla
b f
oun
datio
ns a
nd g
ene
rally
no
bas
em
ent
ale
d r
oad
s w
ith k
erb
an
d gu
tte
rsde
rgro
und
infr
ast
ruct
ure
incl
udin
g pl
um
bing
, st
orm
wa
ter,
po
wer
an
d te
leco
mm
unic
atio
n s
erv
ices
.
Urban and regional planning 37
Sa S
ckS
oil m
ater
ial l
imita
tion
s ta
ble
Co
nfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
SL
ands
cap
e lim
itatio
ns
tab
leC
onf
iden
t
EC
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b d
ata
Co
nfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
Wa S
ea
amp
Lan
dsca
pe
limita
tion
s ta
ble
Co
nfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
Pe
rL
ands
cap
e lim
itatio
ns
tab
leC
onf
ide
ntP
rob
able
Ge
Lan
dsca
pe
limita
tion
s ta
ble
Ce
rta
inC
onf
iden
t
Ro
Lan
dsca
pe
limita
tion
s ta
ble
Co
nfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
Co
To
1 C
ta e m
ode
rate
var
iab
ility
with
in t
he s
oil-
land
sca
pe o
r fa
cet
nds
cap
e o
r fa
cet
.
2 C
ots
for
ea
ch a
ttrib
ute
gro
up
tha
t fa
lls
n w
ith s
lope
co
nstr
ain
t,
3 T
linit
y
alin
e s
oil m
ate
rials
Not
rec
orde
dW
ide
spre
ad
over
m
ino
rity
of m
ate
rial
sW
ides
pre
ad o
ver
ma
jori
ty o
f m
ater
ials
––
Po
ten
tial c
orr
osio
n an
d sa
lt a
tta
alin
e la
ndsc
ape
sN
ot r
ecor
ded
Loc
alis
edW
ides
pre
ad–
–A
s a
bove
e (
dS
/m)
(w
orst
soi
l ma
teri
al)
<0
.10
.1–
2.0
>2
.0–
–A
s a
bove
terl
og
gin
g
sona
l wa
terl
oggi
ngN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
ed
Wid
espr
ead
–W
ate
r w
eake
ns
fou
ndat
ion
s,
pro
mot
es c
orr
osi
on a
nd
risin
g d
man
ently
hig
h w
ate
rtab
leN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
ed
Wid
espr
ead
–A
s a
bove
ne
ral
fou
nd
ati
on
haz
ard
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lise
dW
ides
pre
ad–
Ove
rall
haza
rd p
erc
eiv
ed
ck
ou
tcro
pN
ot r
ecor
ded
Loc
alis
edW
ides
pre
ad–
–Im
ped
es
cons
tru
ctio
n
nst
rain
t su
b-s
core
s2
tal
co
ns
tra
int
sc
ore
3
ert
aint
y o
f co
rrel
atio
n o
f a
ttri
but
e to
ra
nkin
g:
Th
e lo
we
st r
anki
ng
of
cert
aint
y fo
r a
ny a
pplic
abl
e li
miti
ng f
act
or
is a
pplie
d t
o t
he
ent
ire
tab
le.
Cer
tain
N
o d
oub
t a
s to
the
re
latio
nshi
p w
ith h
aza
rd,
very
re
liabl
e d
ata
sour
ce
Con
fiden
tC
onf
ide
nt r
elat
ion
ship
with
haz
ard
, s
oun
d ob
serv
ed
and
the
ore
tical
re
ason
s to
exp
ect
rel
atio
nsh
ip,
mos
tly r
elia
ble
da
Pro
bab
leR
ela
tions
hip
with
ha
zard
is b
ase
d o
n f
ind
ing
s fr
om
oth
er a
spe
cts
of
soil
scie
nce
, da
ta is
of
mo
dera
te r
elia
bili
ty,
may
b
Unc
erta
inR
ela
tions
hip
with
ha
zard
is t
heo
retic
al,
data
is o
f qu
estio
nab
le r
elia
bilit
y m
ay
be s
ign
ifica
nt v
aria
bilit
y w
ithin
th
e s
oil-
la
nstr
ain
t su
b-sc
ore
: S
core
1 p
oin
t fo
r e a
ch a
ttri
bute
gro
up t
hat
fal
ls in
Mod
era
te c
olu
mn
, 3
poi
nts
fo
r ea
ch a
ttri
bute
gro
up t
hat
fal
ls in
Hig
h co
lum
n,
and
6 p
oin
in t
he
Ve
ry h
igh
col
umn.
Exc
ept
ion
s ar
e f
or
eros
ion
haz
ard
wh
ich
att
ract
low
er s
core
s of
1,
2 a
nd 3
po
ints
res
pe
ctiv
ely,
to
avo
id d
upl
ica
tio
and
flood
ha
zard
(V
ery
hig
h)
attr
acts
9 p
oin
ts.
ota
l con
stra
int
scor
e:
Add
su b
-sco
res
fro
m M
ode
rate
, H
igh
and
Ve
ry h
igh
col
um
ns.
2
Med
ium
Den
sity
Res
iden
tial
Dev
elo
pm
ent
Co
nst
rain
t R
atin
gV
ers
ion
2.04
.07
A
ttri
bu
te 1
Ve
ry lo
w
co
ns
tra
int
2L
ow
c
on
stra
int
3M
od
era
te
co
nst
rain
t
4H
igh
c
on
str
ain
t
5V
ery
hig
h
co
ns
tra
int
Rat
ion
ale
Da
ta s
ou
rce
Th
eo
reti
ca
l
corr
ela
tio
n1
C
orr
ela
tio
n
usi
ng
dat
a
so
urc
e1
Slo
pe
(%)
<4
4–8
8–15
15–3
5>
35In
crea
ses
com
plex
ity o
f co
nstr
uctio
n an
d lo
ng-t
erm
acc
ess
DE
MC
erta
inC
erta
in
Ero
sio
n h
azar
d (
tonn
es/h
a/ye
ar)
<5
5–10
10–8
080
–17
0>
170
Los
s of
soi
l, de
grad
es w
ater
qua
lity,
se
dim
enta
tion
of w
ater
way
sS
oil e
rosi
on h
azar
d m
apC
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Wav
e er
osi
on
haz
ard
No
t re
cord
ed–
–Lo
calis
edW
ides
prea
dU
nsta
ble
grou
nd,
dam
age
by
wav
es
and
wat
erLa
ndsc
ape
limita
tions
tab
leC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Flo
od
haz
ard
Pro
babl
ity (
%)
nil
–
<1
ev
ents
less
fr
eque
nt t
han
1 in
10
0 ye
ars
1–2
1 ev
ent
in 5
0 to
100
ye
ars
>2
1 ev
ent
in
<50
ye
ars
F
lood
ing
pose
s a
larg
e po
tent
ial
thre
at t
o hu
man
life
and
bui
lt st
ruct
ures
Fro
m f
loo
d ris
k m
aps
Cer
tain
Cer
tain
Gen
eral
occ
urre
nce
Not
obs
erve
d–
–Lo
calis
edW
ides
prea
dA
s ab
ove
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns t
able
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Ter
rain
uni
tH
ill s
lope
uni
ts
(exc
ludi
ng
foot
slop
es)
–Lo
w f
oots
lop
es,
plai
ns (
excl
udin
g
flood
plai
ns)
Hig
h flo
odpl
ains
Mid
dle
and
low
er
flood
plai
ns,
drai
nage
d
epre
ssio
ns,
stre
am
chan
nels
As
abov
eM
ulti-
attr
ibut
e m
appi
ng,
soil
lan
dsca
pe
desc
riptio
ns,
topo
grap
hic
map
s
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Mas
s m
ove
men
t h
azar
dN
ot o
bser
ved
–Lo
calis
ed &
slo
pe
<15
%
Wid
espr
ead
& s
lope
<
15%
Loca
lised
& s
lope
>
15%
Wid
espr
ead
& s
lope
>
15%
P
oten
tial f
ailu
re o
f gr
ound
and
st
ruct
ures
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns t
able
and
sl
ope
estim
ate
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Aci
d s
ulf
ate
soil
risk
No
occu
rren
ce–
LP >
4mH
P >
4mLP
<4m
HP
<4m
Pot
entia
l aci
d co
rros
ion
AS
S r
isk
map
sC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Sh
rin
k-sw
ell p
ote
nti
al S
hrin
k-sw
ell l
imita
tion
N
ot
reco
rded
Wid
esp
read
ove
r m
inor
ity o
f m
ater
ials
Wid
esp
read
ove
r m
ajor
ity o
f m
ater
ials
––
Gro
und
mov
emen
t, p
oten
tial
crac
king
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
able
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
V
olum
e ex
pans
ion
(%)
(wor
st s
oil m
ate
rial)
<10
10–2
0>
20–
–A
s ab
ove
Typ
e pr
ofile
lab
data
Con
fiden
t
Thi
s us
e re
fers
to
med
ium
den
sity
res
iden
tial a
s m
ight
be
esta
blis
hed
as p
art
expa
ndin
g m
etro
lpol
itan
area
s. S
uch
deve
lop
men
ts w
ould
incl
ude
:•
build
ings
suc
h as
vill
a co
mpl
exes
and
sm
all s
ized
res
iden
tial a
par
tmen
t bl
ocks
. T
hese
are
ass
ume
d to
be
1–3
stor
eys
with
all
type
s of
fou
ndat
ions
, in
volv
ing
exca
vatio
ns t
o se
vera
l met
res
dept
h, t
ypic
ally
into
sol
id b
edro
ck•
seal
ed r
oads
with
ker
bs a
nd g
utte
rs,
seal
ed p
arki
ng a
reas
and
pav
ed f
ootp
ath
s •
exte
nsiv
e ab
ove
and
bel
ow g
roun
d in
fras
truc
ture
incl
udin
g pl
umbi
ng,
stor
mw
ate
r, p
ower
and
tel
ecom
mun
icat
ion
serv
ices
.
Rel
ativ
e to
res
iden
tial d
evel
opm
ent
capa
bilit
y, t
here
are
tw
o im
port
ant
cons
ider
atio
ns t
hat
need
to
be b
orne
in m
ind.
A
s m
ediu
m d
ensi
ty d
evel
opm
ent
is a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith a
gre
ater
inte
nsity
of
use
and
grea
ter
site
dis
turb
ance
, so
me
limita
tions
are
pot
entia
lly m
ore
serio
us,
e.g.
flo
odin
g, m
ass
mov
emen
t an
d di
stur
banc
e of
aci
d su
lfate
soi
ls,
thus
req
uirin
g m
ore
fav
oura
ble
con
ditio
ns t
han
resi
dent
ial d
evel
opm
ent.
On
the
othe
r ha
nd,
the
grea
ter
econ
omic
val
ue o
f th
e de
velo
pmen
t m
eans
the
re is
mo
re f
undi
ng t
o ov
erco
me
adve
rse
site
con
ditio
ns.
Als
o, t
he c
onst
ruct
ion
typi
cally
ext
ends
dow
n in
to s
olid
bed
rock
mea
ning
soi
l con
stra
ints
are
less
impo
rtan
t. T
hus
, so
me
site
and
so
il fe
atur
es c
an
be
be o
f le
ss d
esira
ble
char
acte
r th
an f
or r
esid
entia
l dev
elop
men
t, e
.g.
soil
stre
ngth
, sh
rink-
swel
l cha
ract
er a
nd e
rosi
on h
aza
rd.
38 Soil and land constraint assessment
S
alin
ity
Sal
ine
soil
mat
eria
lsN
ot
reco
rded
Wid
esp
read
ove
r m
inor
ity o
f m
ater
ials
Wid
esp
read
ove
r m
ajor
ity o
f m
ater
ials
––
Pot
entia
l cor
rosi
on a
nd s
alt
atta
ckS
oil m
ater
ial
limita
tions
tab
leC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Sal
ine
land
scap
esN
ot
reco
rded
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
––
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns t
able
Con
fiden
t
EC
e (d
S/m
) (
wor
st s
oil m
ater
ial)
<0.
10.
1–2.
0>
2.0
––
As
abov
eT
ype
prof
ile la
b da
taC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Wat
erlo
gg
ing
Sea
sona
l wat
erlo
ggin
gN
ot
reco
rded
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
––
Wat
er
wea
kens
fou
ndat
ions
, p
rom
otes
cor
rosi
on &
ris
ing
dam
pLa
ndsc
ape
limita
tions
tab
leC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Per
man
ently
hig
h w
ater
tab
leN
ot
reco
rded
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
–W
ate
r w
eake
ns f
ound
atio
ns,
pro
mot
es c
orro
sion
& r
isin
g da
mp
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns t
able
Con
fiden
tP
roba
ble
Gen
eral
fo
un
dat
ion
haz
ard
No
t re
cord
ed–
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
–O
vera
ll h
azar
d pe
rcei
ved
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns t
able
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Co
ns
tra
int
sub
-sco
res2
To
tal
con
stra
int
sco
re3
1 C
erta
inty
of
cor
rela
tion
of
attr
ibut
e to
ran
king
: T
he lo
wes
t ra
nkin
g of
cer
tain
ty f
or a
ny a
pplic
able
lim
iting
fac
tor
is a
pplie
d to
the
ent
ire t
able
.
Cer
tain
N
o d
oubt
as
to t
he r
elat
ions
hip
with
haz
ard,
ver
y re
liabl
e da
ta s
ourc
e
Con
fiden
tC
onf
iden
t re
latio
nshi
p w
ith h
azar
d,
soun
d ob
serv
ed a
nd t
heor
etic
al r
easo
ns t
o ex
pect
rel
atio
nshi
p,
mos
tly r
elia
ble
da
ta
Pro
babl
eR
ela
tions
hip
with
haz
ard
is b
ased
on
findi
ngs
from
oth
er a
spec
ts o
f so
il sc
ienc
e, d
ata
is o
f m
oder
ate
relia
bilit
y, m
ay b
e m
oder
ate
var
iabi
lity
with
in t
he s
oil-l
ands
cape
or
face
t
Unc
erta
inR
ela
tions
hip
with
haz
ard
is t
heo
retic
al,
dat
a is
of
ques
tiona
ble
relia
bilit
y m
ay b
e si
gnifi
cant
var
iabi
lity
with
in t
he s
oil-l
ands
cape
or
face
t .
2 C
onst
rain
t su
b-s
core
: S
core
1 p
oint
for
eac
h at
trib
ute
gro
up t
hat
falls
in M
oder
ate
colu
mn,
3 p
oint
s fo
r ea
ch a
ttrib
ute
grou
p th
at f
alls
in t
he H
igh
colu
mn,
and
6 p
oint
s fo
r ea
ch a
ttrib
ute
grou
p th
at f
alls
in t
he V
ery
high
col
umn.
Exc
eptio
ns a
re f
or e
rosi
on h
azar
d w
hich
att
ract
low
er s
core
s of
1,
2 an
d 3
poin
ts r
espe
ctiv
ely,
to
avoi
d du
plic
atio
n w
ith s
lope
co
nstr
aint
,
and
flood
haz
ard
(V
ery
high
) at
trac
ts 9
poi
nts.
3 T
otal
con
stra
int
scor
e:A
dd s
ub-s
core
s fr
om M
ode
rate
, H
igh
and
Ver
y hi
gh c
olum
ns.
Urban and regional planning 39
40 Soil and land constraint assessment
3
ce
Th
eo
reti
ca
l
co
rre
lati
on
1
Co
rre
lati
on
u
sin
g d
ata
so
urc
e1
Slo
pe
Cer
tain
Cer
tain
Ero
sio
n ha
zard
map
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Wav
e er
imita
tions
C
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Flo
od
ha
Pr
ris
k m
aps
Cer
tain
Cer
tain
Gen
erlim
itatio
ns
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Tbu
te m
appi
ng,
ape m
aps
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Aci
aps
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
Mas
s m
oim
itatio
ns
lope
est
imat
eC
erta
in
Sh
r
al
lim
itatio
ns
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
(we
lab
data
Con
fiden
t
Thi
• la
r•
seal
• ex
Bec
aus
Hig
h D
ensi
ty D
evel
op
men
t C
on
stra
int
Rat
ing
Ve
rsio
n 2
.04
.07
Att
rib
ute
1V
ery
low
c
on
str
ain
t
2L
ow
c
on
str
ain
t
3M
od
era
te
co
ns
tra
int
4H
igh
c
on
str
ain
t
5V
ery
hig
h
co
ns
tra
int
Ra
tio
na
leD
ata
so
ur
(%
)<
55–
1010
–20
20–4
0>
40In
crea
ses
com
plex
ity o
fco
nstr
uctio
n an
d lo
ng-t
erm
acc
ess
DE
M
ion
haz
ard
(to
nnes
/ha/
year
)<
66–
1515
–110
>11
0–
Loss
of
soil,
deg
rade
s w
ater
qua
lity,
se
dim
enta
tion
of w
ater
way
sS
oil e
ros
osi
on
haz
ard
Not
rec
orde
d–
–Lo
calis
edW
ides
prea
dU
nsta
ble
grou
nd,
dam
age
byw
aves
and
wat
erLa
ndsc
ape
lta
ble
zard
obab
lity
(%)
Nil
–<
1ev
ents
less
fre
quen
t th
an 1
in 1
00 y
ears
1–2
1 ev
ent
in 5
0 to
10
0 ye
ars
>2
1 ev
ent
in <
50 y
ears
F
lood
ing
pose
s a
larg
epo
tent
ial t
hrea
t to
hum
an li
fean
d bu
ilt s
truc
ture
s
Fro
m f
lood
al o
ccur
renc
eN
ot o
bser
ved
––
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
As
abov
eLa
ndsc
ape
tabl
e
erra
in u
nit
Hill
slo
pe u
nits
(e
xclu
ding
fo
otsl
opes
)
–Lo
w f
oots
lope
s,
plai
ns (
excl
udin
g
flood
plai
ns)
Hig
h flo
odpl
ains
Mid
dle
and
low
er
flood
plai
ns,
drai
nage
de
pres
sion
s, s
trea
m
chan
nels
As
abov
eM
ulti-
attr
iso
il la
ndsc
desc
riptio
ns,
topo
grap
hic
d s
ulf
ate
soil
risk
No
occu
rren
ce–
LP >
4mLP
<4m
HP
all
Thr
eat
to a
quat
ic e
cosy
stem
s,co
rros
ion
of s
truc
ture
sA
SS
ris
k m
vem
ent
Not
obs
erve
dLo
calis
ed &
slo
pe
<15
%W
ides
prea
d &
slo
pe
<15
%
Loca
lised
& s
lope
>
15%
Wid
espr
ead
&
slop
e >
15%
–
Pot
entia
l fai
lure
of
grou
ndan
d st
ruct
ures
Land
scap
e l
tabl
e an
d s
ink-
swel
l po
ten
tial
Shr
ink-
swel
l lim
itatio
nN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
over
an
y m
ater
ials
––
–G
roun
d m
ovem
ent,
pot
entia
l cra
ckin
gS
oil m
ater
ita
ble
Vol
ume
expa
nsio
n (%
)
or
st s
oil m
ater
ial)
<10
>10
––
–A
s ab
ove
Typ
e pr
ofil
s us
e re
fers
to
high
den
sity
com
mer
cial
dev
elop
men
t as
mig
ht b
e es
tabl
ishe
d in
exp
andi
ng C
BD
s of
tow
ns a
nd c
ities
. S
uch
deve
lopm
ents
wou
ld in
clud
e:ge
bui
ldin
gs f
or o
ffic
e, c
omm
erci
al a
nd r
esid
entia
l apa
rtm
ent;
the
se a
re a
ssum
ed t
o be
gre
ater
tha
n 3
stor
eys
with
fou
ndat
ions
, w
ith e
xcav
atio
n de
ep in
to s
olid
bed
rock
ed r
oads
with
ker
bs a
nd g
utte
rs,
seal
ed p
arki
ng a
reas
and
pav
ed f
ootp
aths
, w
ith li
ttle
or
no u
nsea
led
surf
aces
te
nsiv
e ab
ove
and
belo
w g
roun
d in
fras
truc
ture
incl
udin
g pl
umbi
ng,
stor
mw
ater
, po
wer
and
tel
ecom
mun
icat
ion
serv
ices
.
e of
the
inte
nse
scal
e an
d la
rge
finan
cial
res
ourc
es o
f th
ese
deve
lopm
ents
, m
any
cons
trai
nts
are
rela
tivel
y ea
sily
ove
rcom
e an
d ar
e no
t si
gnifi
cant
.
S
alin
ity
Sal
ine
soil
mat
eria
lsN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
over
an
y m
ater
ials
––
–S
oil m
ater
ial l
imita
tions
ta
ble
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
Sal
ine
land
scap
esN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
––
–La
ndsc
ape
limita
tions
ta
ble
Con
fiden
t
EC
e (d
S/m
) (
wor
st s
oil m
ater
ial)
<1
>1
––
–T
ype
prof
ile la
b da
taC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Gen
eral
fo
un
dat
ion
haz
ard
Not
rec
orde
dLo
calis
edW
ides
prea
d–
–O
vera
ll ha
zard
per
ceiv
ed
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns
tabl
eC
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Co
ns
tra
int
su
b-s
co
res
2
To
tal
co
ns
tra
int
sc
ore
3
1 C
erta
inty
of
cor
rela
tion
of a
ttrib
ute
to r
anki
ng:
The
low
est
rank
ing
of c
erta
inty
for
any
app
licab
le li
miti
ng f
acto
r is
app
lied
to t
he e
ntir
e ta
ble.
Cer
tain
N
o do
ubt
as t
o th
e re
latio
nshi
p w
ith h
azar
d, v
ery
relia
ble
data
sou
rce
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
rela
tions
hip
with
haz
ard,
so
und
obse
rved
and
the
oret
ical
rea
sons
to
expe
ct r
elat
ions
hip,
mos
tly r
elia
ble
data
Pro
babl
eR
elat
ions
hip
with
haz
ard
is b
ased
on
findi
ngs
from
oth
er a
spec
ts o
f so
il sc
ienc
e, d
ata
is o
f m
oder
ate
relia
bilit
y, m
ay b
e m
oder
ate
varia
bilit
y w
ithin
the
soi
l-lan
dsca
pe o
r fa
cet
Unc
erta
inR
elat
ions
hip
with
haz
ard
is t
heor
etic
al,
data
is o
f qu
estio
nabl
e re
liabi
lity
may
be
sign
ifica
nt v
aria
bilit
y w
ithin
the
soi
l-la
ndsc
ape
or f
acet
.
2 C
onst
rain
t su
b-sc
ore:
S
core
1 p
oint
for
eac
h at
trib
ute
grou
p th
at f
alls
in t
he M
oder
ate
colu
mn,
3 p
oint
s fo
r ea
ch a
ttri
bute
gro
up t
hat
falls
in t
he H
igh
colu
mn,
and
6 p
oint
s fo
r ea
ch a
ttrib
ute
grou
p th
at f
alls
in t
he V
ery
high
col
umn.
Exc
eptio
n is
for
ero
sion
haz
ard
whi
ch a
ttra
ct lo
wer
sco
res
of 1
, 2
and
3 po
ints
res
pect
ivel
y, t
o av
oid
dup
licat
ion
with
slo
pe c
onst
rain
t
3 T
otal
con
stra
int
scor
e:A
dd s
ub-s
core
s fr
om M
oder
ate,
Hig
h an
d V
ery
high
col
umns
.
Urban and regional planning 41
4 R
ura
l R
esid
enti
al D
evel
op
men
t C
on
stra
int
Rat
ing
Ver
sio
n 2
.04.
07
It is
ass
umed
tha
t th
ere
is n
o r
etic
ula
ted
se
we
rag
e sy
ste
m,
thu
s d
omes
tic s
ew
age
tre
atm
ent
is c
arri
ed
out
on
site
usi
ng s
ep
tic t
ank
s a
nd w
aste
wa
ter
dis
posa
l sys
tem
s. R
oad
s in
the
se a
rea
s ar
e g
en
era
lly u
nsea
led
.
A
ttri
bu
te 1
Ver
y lo
w
co
ns
tra
int
2L
ow
c
on
stra
int
3M
od
era
te
co
nst
rain
t
4H
igh
c
on
stra
int
5V
ery
hig
h
co
ns
tra
int
Ra
tio
na
leD
ata
so
urc
eT
he
ore
tic
al
co
rrel
ati
on
1
Co
rre
lati
on
u
sin
g d
ata
so
urc
e1
Slo
pe
(%
)<
66
–10
10–
2020
–40
>40
Incr
eas
es c
om
ple
xity
of
con
stru
ctio
n
DE
MC
erta
inC
erta
in
Ero
sio
n h
azar
d (
tonn
es/h
a/y
ear)
<3
3–
1010
–40
40–
135
>13
5L
oss
of
soil,
de
gra
des
wa
ter
qu
ality
, se
dim
ent
atio
n o
f
wat
erw
ays
So
il e
rosi
on
ha
zard
ma
pC
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Wav
e e
rosi
on
ha
zard
Not
rec
ord
ed
––
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ea
dU
nst
ab
le g
roun
d, d
amag
e b
y w
aves
an
d w
ate
rLa
ndsc
ape
lim
itatio
ns
tabl
eC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Flo
od
ha
zard
Pro
bab
lity
(%)
Nil
<1
even
ts le
ss f
req
uen
t th
an
1 in
100
ye
ars
1–
21
eve
nt
in 5
0 t
o 1
00
ye
ars
2–
10
1 e
vent
in 1
0 to
50
ye
ars
>10
ev
ents
mo
re
fre
quen
t th
an
1 in
1
0 ye
ars
Flo
od
ing
pos
es a
larg
e p
ote
ntia
l th
rea
t to
hu
ma
n li
fe a
nd b
uilt
st
ruct
ure
s
Fro
m f
loo
d ri
sk m
aps
Cer
tain
Cer
tain
Gen
era
l occ
urr
ence
No
t ob
serv
ed
–Lo
calis
ed–
Wid
espr
ea
dA
s ab
ove
Land
scap
e li
mita
tion
s ta
ble
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Te
rrai
n u
nit
Hill
slo
pe
uni
ts
(exc
lud
ing
foo
tslo
pe
s)
Low
fo
ots
lop
es,
pla
ins
(exc
ludi
ng
flo
od
plai
ns)
Hig
h flo
odp
lain
sM
iddl
e f
loo
dpl
ain
sLo
we
r flo
odpl
ain
s,
dra
ina
ge
de
pre
ssio
ns,
stre
am
ch
anne
ls
As
abov
eM
ulti-
attr
ibu
te m
app
ing
, so
il la
ndsc
ape
de
scrip
tions
, to
pog
rap
hic
map
s
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Ma
ss m
ov
emen
t h
azar
dN
ot
obse
rve
d–
Lo
calis
ed
& s
lope
<
15%
Wid
espr
ea
d &
slo
pe
<
15%
Lo
calis
ed
& s
lope
>
15%
Wid
espr
ead
& s
lop
e >
15
%P
ote
ntia
l fa
ilure
of
gro
un
d a
nd
stru
ctur
es
Land
scap
e li
mita
tion
s ta
ble
and
slo
pe e
stim
ate
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Aci
d s
ulf
ate
so
il ri
sk
No
occ
urre
nce
HP
> 4
mLP
>4m
HP
2–
4mL
P 2
–4m
LP <
2mH
P <
2mT
hre
at
to a
qu
atic
eco
syst
ems,
co
rro
sio
n o
f st
ruct
ure
sA
SS
ris
k m
aps
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Sh
rin
k-s
we
ll p
ote
nti
al
Sh
rink-
swel
l lim
itatio
n
Not
rec
ord
ed
–W
ides
pre
ad
ove
r m
inor
ity o
f m
ate
ria
lsW
ides
pre
ad
ove
r m
ajo
rity
of
ma
teri
als
–G
rou
nd m
ove
me
nt,
pot
ent
ial
crac
kin
g S
oil
mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns
tab
leC
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Vo
lum
e e
xpa
nsi
on (
%)
(wor
st s
oil m
ate
rial)
<5
5–
1515
–30
>30
–A
s ab
ove
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b d
ata
Con
fiden
t
Thi
s u
se r
efe
rs t
o lo
w in
tens
ity r
esi
den
tial d
eve
lop
me
nt in
rur
al s
ettin
gs,
typ
ica
lly o
n th
e h
inte
rlan
d o
f u
rban
ce
ntre
s. T
he r
ura
l re
side
ntia
l blo
cks
are
gen
era
lly a
t le
ast
1 h
a in
siz
e.
42 Soil and land constraint assessment
S
oil
stre
ng
th
Pla
stic
ityN
ot r
ecor
de
dW
ides
pre
ad
ove
r m
ino
rity
of
ma
teri
als
Wid
esp
rea
d o
ver
ma
jori
ty o
f m
ate
ria
ls–
–P
ote
ntia
l su
bsid
ence
an
d c
rack
ing
of
stru
ctur
eS
oil
mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns
tab
leC
onfid
ent
Pro
bab
le
Lo
w w
et b
earin
g st
ren
gth
(a
vera
ge o
f s
oil
ma
teri
als)
Ver
y hi
ghH
igh
, m
od
Low
, ve
ry lo
w–
–A
s ab
ove
So
il m
ate
rial l
imita
tion
s ta
ble
Con
fiden
tP
rob
able
Org
ani
c so
ilsN
ot r
ecor
de
dW
ides
pre
ad
ove
r <
70%
of
ma
teri
als
Wid
esp
rea
d o
ver
>70
% o
f m
ate
rial
s–
–A
s ab
ove
So
il lim
itatio
ns
tab
leC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Un
ifie
d so
il cl
ass
ifica
tion
sys
tem
(w
orst
soi
l mat
eria
l)A
ll o
the
rsC
LM
L,
MH
, C
H,
OL,
OH
Pt
As
abov
eT
ype
pro
file
lab
dat
aC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Sal
init
y
Sa
line
soil
mat
eria
lsN
ot r
ecor
de
dW
ides
pre
ad
ove
r m
ino
rity
of
ma
teri
als
Wid
esp
rea
d o
ver
ma
jori
ty o
f m
ate
ria
ls–
–P
ote
ntia
l co
rro
sio
n a
nd s
alt
att
ack
So
il m
ate
rial l
imita
tion
s ta
ble
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
Sa
line
lan
dsc
apes
Not
rec
ord
ed
Loca
lised
Wid
esp
rea
d–
–A
s ab
ove
Land
scap
e li
mita
tion
s ta
ble
Con
fiden
t
EC
e (d
S/m
) (
wo
rst
soil
ma
teri
al)
<0.
10.
1–2
.0>
2.0
––
As
abov
eT
ype
pro
file
lab
dat
aC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Wat
erl
og
gin
g–
Se
aso
nal w
ate
rlo
ggin
gN
ot r
ecor
de
d–
Loca
lised
Wid
esp
rea
d–
Wa
ter
we
aken
s fo
unda
tion
s,
pro
mo
tes
corr
osi
on
& r
isin
g d
am
pLa
ndsc
ape
lim
itatio
ns
tabl
eC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Pe
rma
nen
tly h
igh
wat
ert
ab
leN
ot r
ecor
de
d–
Loca
lised
Wid
esp
rea
d–
As
abov
eLa
ndsc
ape
lim
itatio
ns
tabl
eC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Gen
era
l fo
un
da
tio
n h
aza
rdN
ot r
ecor
de
d–
Loca
lised
Wid
esp
rea
d–
Ove
rall
ha
zard
pe
rce
ive
d La
ndsc
ape
lim
itatio
ns
tabl
eC
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Ro
ck o
utc
rop
Not
rec
ord
ed
Loca
lised
Wid
esp
rea
d–
–Im
pede
s co
nst
ruct
ion
Land
scap
e li
mita
tion
s ta
ble
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
Was
tew
ate
r d
isp
os
al(d
ep
ende
nt o
n m
eth
od)
Ve
ry lo
w
limita
tion
sL
ow li
mita
tion
sM
ode
rate
lim
itatio
nsH
igh
lim
itatio
ns
Ve
ry h
igh
lim
itatio
ns
Po
llutio
n o
f w
ate
rway
s, h
eal
th
ha
zard
Wa
ste
wa
ter
disp
osa
l ta
bles
Con
fiden
t
Co
ns
tra
int
sub
-sc
ore
s2
To
tal c
on
str
ain
t s
core
3
1 C
erta
inty
of
co
rrel
atio
n o
f a
ttrib
ute
to
ran
kin
g: T
he lo
we
st r
anki
ng
of
cert
ain
ty f
or a
ny a
ppl
ica
ble
limiti
ng
fact
or is
app
lied
to t
he
ent
ire
tabl
e.
Ce
rtai
n N
o d
oubt
as
to t
he
rela
tions
hip
with
ha
zard
, ve
ry r
elia
ble
dat
a s
our
ce.
Co
nfid
en
tC
onfid
ent
rela
tions
hip
with
haz
ard
, s
oun
d o
bser
ved
an
d t
heo
retic
al r
ea
sons
to
exp
ect
re
latio
nsh
ip,
mo
stly
rel
iab
le d
ata
.
Pro
babl
eR
elat
ions
hip
with
haz
ard
is b
ase
d o
n f
ind
ing
s fr
om o
ther
asp
ects
of
soil
scie
nce,
da
ta is
of
mod
era
te r
elia
bilit
y, m
ay b
e m
ode
rate
var
iabi
lity
with
in t
he
soil-
land
scap
e o
r fa
cet.
Un
cert
ain
Rel
atio
nshi
p w
ith h
azar
d is
the
ore
tical
, da
ta is
of
que
stio
nabl
e r
elia
bilit
y m
ay b
e s
ign
ifica
nt
vari
abili
ty w
ithin
th
e s
oil-
lan
dsc
ape
or
face
t.
2 C
onst
rain
t su
b-sc
ore
: S
core
1 p
oint
for
eac
h a
ttrib
ute
gro
up t
hat
falls
in t
he
Mod
era
te c
olum
n, 3
po
ints
for
eac
h a
ttrib
ute
gro
up t
hat
falls
in t
he
Hig
h co
lum
n, a
nd 6
poi
nts
for
each
att
ribu
te g
rou
p th
at f
alls
in t
he
Ve
ry h
igh
co
lum
n. E
xcep
tion
is f
or
ero
sion
ha
zard
wh
ich
att
ract
low
er s
core
s o
f 1,
2 a
nd
3 p
oin
ts r
esp
ectiv
ely,
to
avo
id d
upl
ica
tion
with
slo
pe
con
stra
int.
3 T
ota
l co
nst
rain
t sc
ore
:A
dd
sub
-sco
res
from
Mo
dera
te,
Hig
h a
nd V
ery
hig
h c
olu
mn
s.
Urban and regional planning 43
5
Ag
ricu
ltu
re –
Cro
pp
ing
V
ersi
on:
2
.04.
07
Con
stra
int
poin
ts a
re a
lloca
ted
for
each
att
ribu
te g
roup
ing
as f
ollo
ws:
Mod
erat
e co
nstr
ain
t –
1 p
oint
; H
igh
con
stra
int
– 3
poi
nts
; V
ery
Hig
h co
nstr
ain
t –
6 p
oint
s.
1
V
ery
low
c
on
str
ain
t
2
L
ow
c
on
str
ain
t
3
Mo
de
rate
c
on
str
ain
t
4
H
igh
c
on
str
ain
t
5V
ery
hig
h
co
ns
tra
int
Lo
w a
g. v
alu
e
Ph
ysic
al a
ttri
bu
tes
Slo
pe
(%)
<1
1–3
3–6
6–15
>15
Exa
cerb
ates
ero
sio
n ha
zard
an
d im
pede
s w
orka
bilit
yD
EM
Cer
tain
Ce
rtai
n
Ero
sio
n h
aza
rd
(ton
nes/
ha/y
ear)
<2
2–5
5–10
10–8
0>
80L
oss
of s
oil,
degr
ades
wat
er q
ualit
y,
sedi
men
tatio
n o
f w
ater
way
sS
oil
eros
ion
haza
rd m
ap
Cer
tain
Co
nfid
ent
Aci
d s
ulf
ate
soil
risk
No
occu
rren
ceH
P 2
–4m
LP 2
–4m
LP 1
–2m
HP
1–2
m
LP
<1m
HP
<1m
Rel
ease
of
acid
wat
ers
thro
ugh
d
istu
rban
ce o
r d
rain
age
AS
S r
isk
ma
psC
onfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
So
il d
epth
Sha
llow
soi
ls h
azar
d (<
50 c
m)
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lise
d W
ides
prea
d
–L
imits
ava
ilabl
e so
il La
ndsc
ape
limita
tions
tab
le
Con
fiden
tC
on
fiden
t
Dep
th o
f ty
pe p
rofil
e (m
)>
1.5
0.6–
1.5
0.3–
0.6
0.1
5–0.
3<
0.15
As
abov
eT
ype
pro
file
data
Pro
bab
le
Dra
inag
e/w
ater
log
gin
g
Sea
sona
l wa
terl
oggi
ngN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
ed
Wid
espr
ead
–
Sat
urat
ed s
oil i
nhi
bits
pla
nt g
row
th.
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns t
able
C
onfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
Poo
r dr
ain
age
haz
ard
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lise
d W
ides
prea
d
–La
ndsc
ape
limita
tions
tab
le
Pro
file
dra
inag
e o
f ty
pe
pro
file
Mod
we
llW
ell,
impe
rfec
tP
oor
Rap
id,
very
poo
r–
Wat
erlo
ggin
g, p
oor
wa
ter
rete
ntio
nT
ype
pro
file
data
Cer
tain
Co
nfid
ent
Mo
istu
re a
vaila
bili
ty
Ava
ilabl
e w
ater
hold
ing
cap
acity
fie
ld
estim
ate
(av
erag
e of
soi
l mat
eria
ls)
Ve
ry h
igh
Hig
h, m
oder
ate
Low
Ver
y lo
w–
Poo
r w
ater
ret
entio
nS
oil
mat
eria
l da
ta
Cer
tain
Co
nfid
ent
Ava
ilabl
e w
ater
hold
ing
cap
acity
(%
)>
2015
–20
5–15
<5
–A
s ab
ove
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b da
taC
erta
inC
onf
iden
t
Ro
ck
ou
tcro
p
Not
rec
orde
dlo
calis
ed–
Wid
espr
ead
–
Impe
des
culti
vatio
n,
redu
ces
ava
ilabl
e cr
op a
rea
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns t
able
C
onfid
ent
Pro
bab
le
Sto
nin
ess
Not
rec
orde
dW
ides
prea
d in
m
ino
rity
of s
oil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
esp
rea
d in
m
inor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
Lim
its a
vaila
ble
soil
So
il m
ater
ial l
imita
tion
s ta
ble
C
onfid
ent
Pro
bab
le
Thi
s ta
ble
dea
ls w
ith b
roa
d a
cre
cro
ppin
g us
e, u
nder
non
-irrig
ated
con
ditio
ns.
It co
nsid
ers
cro
ps s
uch
as c
erea
ls (
e.g.
wh
eat,
cor
n an
d oa
ts)
and
oils
(e.
g. c
anol
a a
nd s
unflo
wer
).
It is
ass
um
ed
the
area
has
alre
ady
bee
n cl
eare
d.
Clim
atic
con
ditio
ns a
re n
ot c
onsi
dere
d.
Hig
h a
gri
cu
ltu
ral v
alu
eM
od
era
te–
low
ag
. val
ue
A
ttri
bu
teT
he
ore
tic
al
co
rre
lati
on
1
Co
rre
lati
on
u
sin
g d
ata
so
urc
e1
Ra
tio
na
leD
ata
so
urc
e
44 Soil and land constraint assessment
Urban and regional planning 45
Ch
e
Aci
d
Ac
tion
s C
onfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
Alk
tion
s C
onfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
pa
Con
fiden
tC
onf
iden
t
Alu
tion
s C
erta
inC
onf
iden
t
So
dim
ical
att
rib
ute
s
ity/
alka
linit
y
idity
Not
rec
orde
dW
ides
prea
d in
m
ino
rity
of s
oil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
esp
rea
d in
m
inor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
Aci
d c
ondi
tion
s S
oil
mat
eria
l lim
itata
ble
alin
ityN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
in
min
orit
y of
so
il m
ater
ials
Wid
esp
rea
d in
m
inor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
Str
ongl
y al
kalin
e co
nditi
ons
So
il m
ater
ial l
imita
tabl
e
H (
1:5
wat
er)
(w
orst
top
300
mm
)6.
5–7.
55.
5–6.
5, 7
.5–8
.04.
5–5
.5,
8.0–
9.0
3.5
–4.5
, 9.
0–10
.0<
3.5,
>10
.0H
ighl
y ac
id o
r al
kalin
eT
ype
pro
file
lab
dat
min
ium
tox
icity
pot
entia
lN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
in
min
orit
y of
so
il m
ater
ials
Wid
esp
rea
d in
m
ajor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
Tox
ic c
ondi
tion
sS
oil
mat
eria
l lim
itata
ble
cit y
Soi
tion
s C
erta
inC
onf
iden
t
Ex
(wa
Cer
tain
Co
nfid
ent
Sal
i Sal
l ma
teri
al s
odic
ityN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
in
min
orit
y of
so
il m
ater
ials
Wid
esp
rea
d in
m
ajor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
Low
wa
ter
infil
trat
ion
So
il m
ater
ial l
imita
tabl
e
chan
geab
le s
odiu
m (
%)
orst
top
300
mm
)<
44–
88–
2020
–30
>30
Sod
ic s
oils
inhi
bit
plan
t g
row
th.
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b da
t
nit
yin
e la
ndsc
ape
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lise
d W
ides
prea
d
–A
s ab
ove
Land
scap
e lim
itat
ine
soil
mat
eria
lN
ot r
ecor
ded
–W
ides
pre
ad
in
min
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
espr
ead
in
maj
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
–S
alt
toxi
city
So
il m
ater
ial l
imita
tabl
e
e d
S/m
<2
2–4
4–8
8–16
>16
As
abov
eT
ype
pro
file
lab
dat
tilit
yca
pe f
ertil
ityN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
ed
Wid
espr
ead
l ma
teri
al f
ert
ility
Ve
ry h
igh
Hig
h, m
oder
ate
Low
Ver
y lo
w–
Low
fer
tility
So
il m
ater
ial d
ata
utrie
nt a
vaila
bilit
y
era
ge t
op 5
00 m
m)
– P
(B
ray)
(m
g/k
g)>
153
–10
1–3
<1
–L
ow f
ertil
ityT
ype
pro
file
lab
dat
– O
rgan
ic m
att
er (
%)
>5
2.5–
5.0
1.0–
2.5
<1.
0–
Low
fer
tility
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b da
t
– C
EC
(m
e/10
0 g)
>25
10–2
55–
10<
5–
Low
nut
rient
ret
aini
ng
capa
city
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b da
t
nst
rain
t s
ub
-sc
ore
s2
tal c
on
stra
int
sco
re3
rtai
nt
ions
tab
le
Cer
tain
Co
nfid
ent
Sal
tion
s C
erta
inC
onf
iden
t
EC
a
Fer La
nds
Soi
C
onfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
N (av
a
Con
fiden
tC
onf
iden
t
a
Con
fiden
tC
onf
iden
t
a
Con
fiden
tC
onf
iden
t
Co
To
1 C
ey
of
corr
ela
tion:
T
he lo
wes
t ra
nkin
g of
cer
tain
ty f
or a
ny a
pplic
able
lim
iting
fa
ctor
is a
pplie
d to
the
en
tire
tab
le.
Cer
tain
N
o d
oubt
as
to t
he r
ela
tions
hip
with
haz
ard,
ver
y re
liabl
e d
ata
sou
rce.
Con
fide
ntC
onfid
ent
rela
tions
hip
with
haz
ard,
sou
nd o
bser
ved
and
theo
retic
al r
easo
ns t
o ex
pect
rel
atio
nsh
ip,
mo
stly
rel
iabl
e da
ta.
Pro
babl
eR
ela
tions
hip
with
haz
ard
is b
ase
d on
fin
din
gs f
rom
oth
er a
spec
ts o
f so
il sc
ienc
e,
data
is o
f m
oder
ate
relia
bilit
y, m
ay b
e m
oder
ate
var
iab
Unc
erta
inR
ela
tions
hip
with
haz
ard
is t
heor
etic
al,
data
is o
f qu
est
iona
ble
relia
bilit
y m
ay b
e si
gni
fica
nt v
aria
bili
ty w
ithin
the
soi
l-lan
dsc
ape
or f
acet
.
nstr
aint
sub
-sco
re:
Sco
re 1
po
int
for
eac
h at
trib
ute
gro
up t
hat
falls
in M
ode
rate
col
umn,
3 p
oint
s fo
r ea
ch a
ttrib
ute
grou
p th
at
falls
in H
igh
colu
mn,
and
6 p
oin
ts f
or e
ach
attr
ibut
in t
he V
ery
high
col
umn.
Exc
eptio
n is
for
ero
sion
haz
ard
whi
ch a
ttra
cts
low
er s
core
s of
1,
2 an
d 3
poin
ts r
espe
ctiv
ely
, to
avo
id d
upl
icat
ion
with
slo
pe c
onst
r
tal c
onst
rain
t sc
ore:
Add
sub
-sco
res
from
Mod
era
te,
Hig
h a
nd V
ery
hig
h co
lum
ns.
ility
with
in t
he s
oil-l
ands
cape
or
face
t.
2 C
oe
grou
p th
at f
alls
ain
t.
3 T
o
6
Ag
ricu
ltu
re –
Gra
zin
gV
ersi
on:
2
.04.
07
Not
e th
at t
he a
lloca
tion
of c
onst
rain
t po
ints
in t
his
sche
me
diff
ers
from
oth
er s
chem
es –
see
not
es a
t ba
se o
f ta
ble.
1
V
ery
low
c
on
str
ain
t
2
L
ow
c
on
str
ain
t
3
Mo
der
ate
c
on
str
ain
t4
Hig
h
co
ns
tra
int
5
Ve
ry
hig
h c
on
str
ain
t
Lo
w a
g.
valu
e
Ph
ysic
al p
rop
erti
es
Slo
pe
(%
)<
55–
1010
–20
20–3
5>
35E
xace
rbat
es e
rosi
on h
azar
d an
d im
pede
s w
orka
bilit
yD
EM
Cer
tain
Cer
tain
Ero
sio
n h
azar
d (
tonn
es/h
a/ye
ar)
<3
3–8
8–60
60–1
50>
150
Loss
of
soil,
deg
rade
s w
ater
qu
ality
, se
dim
enta
tion
of
wat
erw
ays
Soi
l ero
sion
haz
ard
map
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Aci
d s
ulf
ate
soil
risk
No
occu
rren
ceH
P 2
–4m
LP 1
–4m
HP
0–2
mLP
1–2
m–
–R
elea
se o
f ac
id w
ater
s th
roug
h di
stur
banc
e or
dra
inag
eA
SS
ris
k m
aps
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
So
il d
epth
Sha
llow
soi
ls h
azar
d (<
50 c
m)
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
–Li
mits
ava
ilabl
e so
il La
ndsc
ape
limita
tions
tab
le
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
Dep
th o
f ty
pe p
rofil
e (m
)>
1.5
0.6–
1.5
0.3–
0.6
0.15
–0.3
<0.
15A
s ab
ove
Dra
inag
e/w
ater
log
gin
g
Sea
sona
l wat
erlo
ggin
gN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
edW
ides
prea
d –
Sat
urat
ed s
oil i
nhib
its p
lant
gr
owth
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns t
able
C
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Poo
r dr
aina
ge h
azar
dN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
edW
ides
prea
d –
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns t
able
Pro
file
drai
nage
of
type
pro
file
Mod
wel
lW
ell,
impe
rfec
tP
oor
Rap
id,
very
poo
r–
Wat
erlo
ggin
g, p
oor
wat
er
rete
ntio
nT
ype
prof
ile d
ata
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Mo
istu
re a
vaila
bili
ty
Ava
ilabl
e w
ater
hold
ing
capa
city
(a
vera
ge o
f so
il m
ater
ials
)V
ery
high
Hig
h, m
oder
ate
Low
Ver
y lo
w–
Soi
l mat
eria
l dat
a C
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Ava
ilabl
e w
ater
hold
ing
capa
city
(%
)>
2015
–20
5–15
<5
–P
oor
wat
er r
eten
tion
Typ
e pr
ofile
lab
data
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Ro
ck o
utc
rop
N
ot r
ecor
ded
Loca
lised
–W
ides
prea
d –
Red
uces
ava
ilabl
e pa
stur
eLa
ndsc
ape
limita
tions
tab
le
Con
fiden
tP
roba
ble
Sto
nin
ess
Not
rec
orde
dW
ides
prea
d in
m
inor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
Wid
espr
ead
in
maj
ority
of
soil
ma
teri
als
––
Lim
its a
vaila
ble
soil
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
able
C
onfid
ent
Pro
babl
e
Thi
s ta
ble
refe
rs t
o ca
pabi
lity
for
ope
n ra
nge
graz
ing
by li
vest
ock
such
as
shee
p an
d ca
ttle
on
nativ
e pa
stur
e. I
t is
ass
umed
the
are
a ha
s al
read
y be
en c
lear
ed.
Hig
h a
gri
cu
ltu
ral
valu
eM
od
era
te–
low
ag
. va
lue
Ra
tio
nal
eD
ata
So
urc
eT
he
ore
tic
al
co
rre
lati
on
1
Co
rrel
ati
on
u
sin
g d
ata
so
urc
e1
A
ttri
bu
te
46 Soil and land constraint assessment
Urban and regional planning 47
Ch
e
Ac A
cidi
tbl
e C
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Al
ble
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
pC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Al
ble
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
So S
obl
e C
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Ex
(C
erta
inC
onfid
e nt
Sal S
abl
e C
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Sa
C
erta
inC
onfid
ent
EC
Fer La S
obl
e C
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
N (
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
C
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
C
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Co
To
thin
the
soi
l-lan
dsca
pe o
r fa
cet
2 C
e gr
oup
that
fal
ls
3 T
1 C
mic
al p
rop
erti
es
idit
y/al
kalin
ity
yN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
in
min
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
espr
ead
in
min
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
––
Aci
d co
nditi
ons
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
a
kalin
ityN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
in
min
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
espr
ead
in
min
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
––
Str
ongl
y al
kalin
e co
nditi
ons
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
a
H (
1:5
wat
er)
(w
orst
top
300
mm
)6.
5–7.
55.
5–6.
5, 7
.5–8
.04.
5–5.
5, 8
.0–9
.03.
5–4.
5, 9
.0–1
0.0
<3.
5, >
10.0
Hig
hly
acid
or
alka
line
Typ
e pr
ofile
lab
data
umin
ium
tox
icity
pot
entia
lN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
in
min
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls in
top
50
0 m
m
Wid
espr
ead
in
maj
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls in
top
50
0 m
m
––
Tox
ic c
ondi
tions
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
a
dic
ity
il m
ater
ial s
odic
ityN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
in
min
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
espr
ead
in
maj
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
––
Low
wat
er in
filtr
atio
nS
oil m
ater
ial l
imita
tions
ta
chan
geab
le s
odiu
m (
%)
wor
st t
op 3
00 m
m)
<4
4–8
8–20
20–3
0>
30S
odic
soi
ls in
hibi
t pl
ant
grow
th.
Typ
e pr
ofile
lab
data
init
y
line
land
scap
eN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
edW
ides
prea
d –
Sal
t to
xici
tyS
oil m
ater
ial l
imita
tions
ta
line
soil
mat
eria
lN
ot r
ecor
ded
–W
ides
prea
d in
m
inor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
Wid
espr
ead
in
maj
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
–A
s ab
ove
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns t
able
e dS
/m<
22–
44–
88–
16>
16A
s ab
ove
Typ
e pr
ofile
lab
data
tilit
ynd
scap
e fe
rtili
tyN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
edW
ides
prea
d
il m
ater
ial f
ertil
ityV
ery
high
Hig
h, m
oder
ate
Low
Ver
y lo
w–
Low
fer
tility
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
a
utrie
nt a
vaila
bilit
y
aver
age
top
500m
m)
– P
(B
ray)
(m
g/kg
)>
153–
101–
3<
1–
Low
fer
tility
Typ
e pr
ofile
lab
data
– O
rgan
ic m
atte
r (%
)>
52.
5–5.
01.
0–2.
5<
1.0
–Lo
w f
ertil
ityT
ype
prof
ile la
b da
ta
– C
EC
(m
e/10
0 g)
>25
10–2
55–
10<
5–
Low
nut
rient
ret
aini
ng c
apac
ityT
ype
prof
ile la
b da
ta
ns
tra
int
su
b-s
core
s2
tal
co
nst
rain
t sc
ore
3
The
low
est
rank
ing
of c
erta
inty
fo
r an
y ap
plic
able
lim
iting
fac
tor
is a
pplie
d to
the
ent
ire t
able
.
Cer
tain
N
o do
ubt
as t
o th
e re
latio
nshi
p w
ith h
azar
d, v
ery
relia
ble
data
sou
rce.
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
rela
tions
hip
with
haz
ard,
sou
nd o
bser
ved
and
theo
retic
al r
easo
ns t
o ex
pect
rel
atio
nshi
p, m
ostly
rel
iabl
e da
ta.
Pro
babl
eR
elat
ions
hip
with
haz
ard
is b
ased
on
findi
ngs
from
oth
er a
spec
ts o
f so
il sc
ienc
e, d
ata
is o
f m
oder
ate
relia
bilit
y, m
ay b
e m
oder
ate
varia
bilit
y w
i
Unc
erta
inR
elat
ions
hip
with
haz
ard
is t
heor
etic
al,
data
is o
f qu
estio
nabl
e re
liabi
lity,
may
be
sign
ifica
nt v
aria
bilit
y w
ithin
the
soi
l-lan
dsca
pe o
r fa
cet
.
onst
rain
t su
b-sc
ore:
S
core
1 p
oint
for
eac
h at
t rib
ute
grou
p th
at f
alls
in t
he M
oder
ate
colu
mn,
2 p
oint
s fo
r ea
ch a
ttrib
ute
grou
p th
at f
alls
in t
he H
igh
colu
mn,
and
4 p
oint
s fo
r ea
ch a
ttrib
ut
in t
he V
ery
high
col
umn.
Exc
eptio
n is
for
ero
sion
haz
ard
whi
ch a
ttra
cts
low
er s
core
s of
1,
2 an
d 3
poin
ts r
espe
ctiv
ely,
to
avoi
d du
plic
atio
n w
ith s
lope
con
stra
int.
otal
con
stra
int
scor
e:A
dd s
ub-s
core
s f r
om t
he M
oder
ate,
Hig
h an
d V
ery
high
col
umns
.
erta
inty
of
cor
rela
tion
7 O
n-s
ite
Do
mes
tic
Was
tew
ater
Dis
po
sal:
Su
rfac
e Ir
rig
atio
n C
on
stra
int
Rat
ing
A
ttri
bu
te 1
Ve
ry lo
w
co
ns
tra
int
2L
ow
c
on
str
ain
t
3M
od
era
te
co
ns
tra
int
4H
igh
c
on
str
ain
t
5V
ery
hig
h
co
ns
tra
int
Ra
tio
na
leD
ata
so
urc
eT
he
ore
tic
al
co
rre
lati
on
1
Co
rre
lati
on
u
sin
g d
ata
so
urc
e1
Slo
pe
(%
)<
33–
66–
121
2–20
>2
0H
igh
slo
pe
late
ral s
eep
age,
ero
sio
n h
azar
dD
EM
C
ert
ain
Con
fide
nt
Flo
od
ing
Pro
bab
lity
(%)
Nil
<1
even
ts le
ss
freq
uent
tha
n 1
in
100
yea
rs
1–2
1 ev
ent
in 5
0–1
00
yea
rs
2–5
1 ev
ent
in 2
0–5
0 ye
ars
>5
Mor
e t
han
1 e
vent
in20
yea
rs
P
ote
ntia
l dam
age
to
faci
lity
and
su
rfa
ce w
ate
rco
nta
min
atio
n
Fro
m f
loo
d ri
sk m
aps
Ce
rtai
nC
erta
in
Ge
nera
l occ
urr
enc
eN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
edW
ide
spre
ad
–A
s a
bove
Land
scap
e li
mita
tion
tabl
esC
ert
ain
Con
fide
nt
Ter
rain
un
itH
ill s
lope
un
its
(exc
ludi
ng
foo
tslo
pes)
low
fo
otsl
ope
s,
pla
ins
(exc
ludi
ng
flo
odpl
ain
s)
Hig
h f
loo
dpla
ins
Mid
dle
flo
odpl
ain
sL
ower
flo
odpl
ain
s,
dra
inag
e de
pre
ssio
ns,
stre
am
ch
anne
ls
As
abo
veM
ulti
-att
ribut
e m
app
ing,
soi
l la
nds
cape
de
scri
ptio
ns,
top
ogra
phi
c m
aps
Ce
rtai
nC
onfid
ent
Mas
s m
ov
emen
t N
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
edW
ide
spre
ad
–
Po
tent
ial d
ama
ge t
o fa
cilit
y an
d su
rfac
e w
ate
r co
nta
min
atio
nLa
ndsc
ape
lim
itatio
ns t
able
sC
onf
ide
ntC
onfid
ent
Sh
rin
k-s
wel
l S
hrin
k-sw
ell
limita
tion
Not
rec
ord
edW
ide
spre
ad
ove
r m
inor
ity o
f m
ater
ials
Wid
esp
rea
d o
ver
maj
ority
of
mat
eria
ls
––
Po
tent
ial d
ama
ge t
o p
ipes
an
d ta
nks
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
abl
es
Con
fide
nt
Shr
ink-
swe
ll (V
E%
) (
wor
st la
yer
to 1
m)
<10
10–
2020
–30
>3
0–
As
abo
veT
ype
pro
file
lab
da
taC
onf
ide
ntC
onfid
ent
Dra
ina
ge/
wat
erl
og
gin
gS
easo
nal w
ate
rlog
gin
gN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
edW
ide
spre
ad
–W
ate
rlogg
ing
or
exce
ssiv
e d
rain
age
lim
its
eff
ect
ive
tre
atm
ent,
pot
entia
l wat
er
con
tam
inat
ion
Land
scap
e li
mita
tion
tabl
es
Ce
rtai
nC
onfid
ent
Per
man
ent
wa
terl
ogg
ing
Not
rec
ord
ed–
Loca
lised
–W
ide
spre
ad
As
abo
veA
s ab
ove
Ce
rtai
nC
onfid
ent
Poo
r dr
ain
age
haz
ard
Not
rec
ord
edLo
calis
edW
ide
spre
ad
–A
s a
bove
As
abo
ve
Pro
file
dra
inag
e
Wel
lM
od w
ell
Imp
erfe
ct,
rapi
dP
oor
Ver
y p
oor
As
abo
veT
ype
pro
file
dat
aC
ert
ain
Con
fide
nt
Per
mea
bilit
y ra
nkin
g
(ave
rage
of l
ayer
s to
600
mm
)M
ode
rate
Hig
hLo
w,
very
hig
hV
ery
low
–T
oo h
igh
or t
oo
low
per
me
abili
ty,
inhi
bitin
g
eff
ect
ive
was
tew
ate
r tr
eat
men
t a
nd p
lant
g
row
th
Soi
l lay
er d
ata
Ce
rtai
nC
onfid
ent
Per
mea
bilit
y (
mm
/day
) (w
orst
laye
r to
600
mm
)4
80–
2000
2000
–28
8060
–480
,
>
2880
12–
60
<1
2A
s a
bove
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b d
ata
Ce
rtai
nC
onfid
ent
Wat
ert
able
Hig
h w
ate
rta
ble
(<2
m)
Not
rec
ord
ed–
Loca
lised
Wid
esp
rea
d –
Lim
its a
bsor
ptio
n, p
ote
ntia
l gro
undw
ate
r co
nta
min
atio
nA
s ab
ove
Ce
rtai
nP
rob
able
Gro
undw
ate
r po
llutio
n h
azar
dN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
edW
ides
pre
ad
–G
roun
dwat
er c
onta
min
atio
nA
s ab
ove
Ce
rtai
nC
onfid
ent
De
pth
Sha
llow
soi
ls
(<5
0 cm
)N
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
edW
ide
spre
ad
–La
ndsc
ape
lim
itatio
n ta
bles
C
ert
ain
Con
fide
nt
Dep
th t
o h
ard
laye
r –
from
typ
e p
rofil
e
>
1.2
1.0
–1.
20
.5–
1.0
0.3
–0.
5<
0.3
Lim
its a
vaila
ble
soil
Typ
e p
rofil
e d
ata
Ce
rtai
nC
onfid
ent
Sto
nin
ess
Sto
nin
ess
Not
rec
ord
ed W
ide
spre
ad o
ver
min
orit
y o
f so
il m
ater
ials
Wid
esp
rea
d o
ver
ma
jorit
y o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
As
abo
veS
oil m
ate
rial l
imita
tions
ta
ble
sC
onf
ide
ntP
rob
able
Coa
rse
fra
gmen
ts (
>2
mm
) (%
) (a
vera
ge 0
–600
mm
)<
1010
–20
20–
50>
50
–L
imits
ava
ilabl
e so
ilT
ype
pro
file
dat
aC
ert
ain
Pro
bab
le
Ph
os
ph
oru
s s
orp
tio
n (
mg
/kg
)
( a
vera
ge to
600
mm
)
>4
001
50–
400
<1
50–
–L
ow a
bsor
ptio
n o
f p
hosp
horu
sT
ype
pro
file
lab
da
taC
ert
ain
Con
fide
nt
Thi
s re
fers
to
th
e p
hysi
cal p
ote
ntia
l of
a si
te t
o a
ppl
y th
e s
urf
ace
irri
gatio
n m
etho
d t
o t
he
dis
posa
l of
tre
ate
d d
omes
tic w
ast
ew
ate
r. S
uch
on–
site
sys
tem
s a
re r
equ
ired
wh
ere
the
re is
no
for
ma
l re
ticul
ate
d se
we
rag
e sy
ste
m.
Th
e e
fflu
ent
has
be
en s
eco
ndar
y tr
eate
d a
nd
chlo
rina
ted
, be
ing
der
ive
d fr
om a
era
ted
wa
stew
ater
tre
atm
ent
sys
tem
s (A
WT
S)
or f
rom
bio
logi
cal t
rea
tme
nt s
yste
ms
such
as
peat
be
ds.
Th
e m
etho
d in
volv
es ir
riga
ting
(usu
ally
by
drip
met
hod
s) a
veg
eta
ted
are
a w
ith t
he t
reat
ed
wa
stew
ater
. T
he v
ege
tatio
n t
ypic
ally
com
pris
es
gras
ses
such
as
kiku
yu,
buff
alo
, ry
e g
rass
or
cou
ch.
Th
e si
ze o
f a
n irr
igat
ion
are
a w
ould
ge
ner
ally
be
500
–100
0 sq
m f
or a
n a
vera
ge
sin
gle
hou
seho
ld (
with
fou
r p
eop
le).
Th
e nu
trie
nts
and
oth
er c
onta
min
ants
are
tak
en
up
by
the
pro
cess
es o
f so
il ab
sorp
tion
(a
nd a
dso
rptio
n),
an
d by
th
e a
ctiv
ely
gro
win
g ve
get
atio
n (w
hich
is p
erio
dica
lly c
ut a
nd r
em
ove
d fr
om t
he s
ite).
So
il m
icro
bes
serv
e t
o co
nver
t co
nta
min
ants
to
less
har
mfu
l mat
eria
ls o
r to
gas
th
at m
ay
esc
ape
into
th
e ai
r. M
uch
of
the
act
ual
wat
er is
re
mov
ed b
y ev
apor
atio
n an
d p
lan
t tr
ans
pira
tion
pro
cess
es.
Be
caus
e th
e w
aste
wa
ter
is a
ppl
ied
at
or n
ear
the
surf
ace,
it r
equ
ires
seco
nda
ry t
rea
tmen
t be
fore
its
rele
ase.
It g
ener
ally
re
quire
s th
e se
cond
mo
st s
uita
ble
con
ditio
ns o
f th
e t
hre
e d
isp
osal
me
tho
ds c
onsi
der
ed
in t
his
repo
rt.
48 Soil and land constraint assessment
Sa
linit
yS
alin
e la
ndsc
ape
Not
rec
ord
ed–
Loca
lised
Wid
esp
rea
d–
Inhi
bits
ad
sorp
tion
, m
icro
-oga
nis
ms
and
p
lant
gro
wth
Land
scap
e li
mita
tion
tabl
es
Ce
rtai
nC
onfid
ent
Sal
ine
soi
l mat
eria
lN
ot r
ecor
ded
–W
ide
spre
ad
ove
r m
ino
rity
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
esp
rea
d o
ver
ma
jori
ty o
f so
il m
ater
ials
–A
s a
bove
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
abl
es
Con
fide
nt
Sal
inity
EC
e (d
S/m
) (w
orst
to 6
00 m
m)
<1
1–2
2–4
4–10
>1
0A
s a
bove
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b d
ata
Ce
rtai
nC
onfid
ent
Ac
idit
y/a
lka
linit
y
Aci
dity
lim
itatio
n
Not
rec
ord
edW
ide
spre
ad
ove
r m
ino
rity
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
esp
rea
d o
ver
ma
jorit
y o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
Too
hig
h or
low
pH
inhi
bits
mic
ro-
oga
nism
s, p
lant
gro
wth
and
tre
atm
ent
pro
cess
es
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
abl
es
Ce
rtai
nP
rob
able
Alk
alin
ity li
mita
tion
Not
rec
ord
edW
ide
spre
ad
ove
r m
ino
rity
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
esp
rea
d o
ver
ma
jorit
y o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
As
abo
veS
oil m
ate
rial l
imita
tions
ta
ble
sC
onf
ide
ntP
rob
able
pH (
1:5
wat
er)
(w
orst
0–6
00 m
m)
5.5
–7.5
4.5–
5.5
, 7.
5–8
.53.
5–4
.5,
8.5
–10.
0<
3.5
, >
10.0
–A
s a
bove
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b d
ata
Ce
rtai
nC
onfid
ent
So
dic
ity
Sod
ic s
oil
ma
teria
lsN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
esp
rea
d o
ver
min
orit
y o
f so
il m
ater
ials
Wid
esp
rea
d o
ver
ma
jorit
y o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
Lim
its w
ate
r in
filtr
atio
n an
d n
utri
ent
abs
orp
tion
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
abl
es
Cer
tain
Con
fide
nt
Sod
icity
(E
SP
%)
(wor
st 0
–600
mm
whe
re C
EC
> 0
me/
100
g)<
33–
88–
20>
20
–A
s a
bove
Typ
e p
rofil
e la
b d
ata
Ce
rtai
nC
onfid
ent
Co
nst
rain
t su
b-s
co
res
2
To
tal
con
stra
int
sco
re3
1 C
erta
inty
of
co
rrel
atio
n o
f at
trib
ute
to
rank
ing:
The
low
est
rank
ing
of
cert
ain
ty f
or a
ny a
pplic
able
lim
itin
g fa
ctor
is a
pplie
d t
o th
e e
ntir
e t
abl
e.
Cer
tain
N
o do
ubt
as t
o t
he
rela
tions
hip
with
haz
ard
, ve
ry r
elia
ble
dat
a s
our
ce.
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent
rela
tions
hip
with
haz
ard
, so
und
ob
serv
ed
and
the
ore
tical
re
ason
s to
exp
ect
rela
tion
ship
, m
ostly
re
liabl
e d
ata
.
Pro
bab
leR
elat
ion
ship
with
ha
zard
is b
ase
d o
n fin
din
gs f
rom
oth
er a
spec
ts o
f so
il sc
ien
ce,
dat
a is
of
mod
erat
e re
liabi
lity,
may
be
mod
era
te v
aria
bili
ty w
ithin
the
soi
l-la
ndsc
ape
or
face
t.
Unc
erta
inR
elat
ion
ship
with
ha
zard
is t
heor
etic
al,
dat
a is
of
ques
tiona
ble
relia
bilit
y m
ay
be s
igni
fican
t va
riab
ility
with
in t
he s
oil-
land
scap
e o
r fa
cet.
2 C
onst
rain
t su
b-sc
ore
S
core
1 p
oint
for
eac
h a
ttri
bute
gro
up
tha
t fa
lls in
Mod
era
te c
olu
mn,
3 p
oint
s fo
r ea
ch a
ttrib
ute
gro
up
that
fal
ls in
Hig
h co
lum
n, a
nd
6 p
oin
ts f
or e
ach
att
ribu
te g
rou
p th
at
falls
in V
ery
hig
h co
lum
n.3 T
ota
l con
stra
int
scor
eA
dd s
ub-s
core
s fr
om M
oder
ate
, H
igh
an
d V
ery
hig
h c
olu
mns
.
Inte
rpre
tati
on
of
sco
res
0–3
poi
nts:
Go
od –
re
quire
s n
il or
min
or s
ite a
me
liora
tion
4–7
poi
nts:
Fai
r –
requ
ires
mod
era
te s
ite a
mel
iora
tion
>8
po
ints
: P
oor
– no
t ca
pabl
e o
f, o
r re
quir
es s
ign
ifica
nt,
site
am
elio
ratio
n.
Mai
n a
ctio
ns
an
d p
roce
sse
s
• In
stal
latio
n o
f se
ptic
ta
nk a
nd
aer
ate
d w
aste
wat
er
tre
atm
ent
syst
em
(A
WT
S)
incl
udi
ng in
itial
exc
ava
tion
of
pit
and
co
nnec
tion
with
was
tew
ate
r ou
tflo
w p
ipes
.
• In
stal
latio
n o
f a
n ir
rigat
ion
syst
em o
ver
the
site
, th
is b
ein
g c
onn
ecte
d to
th
e A
WT
S a
nd s
ept
ic t
ank
(as
per
AS
154
7).
• E
sta
blis
hmen
t of
ap
pro
pria
te v
ege
tatio
n o
ver
the
site
(m
ay in
volv
e in
itial
per
iod
of
exp
osed
gro
und)
and
pe
riodi
c cu
ttin
g a
nd r
emov
al.
• A
pplic
atio
n o
f w
aste
wa
ter
and
ass
ocia
ted
co
ntam
ina
nts
ove
r th
e si
te.
Po
ten
tial
en
viro
nm
en
tal a
nd
oth
er i
mp
acts
• E
rosi
on
and
se
dim
ent
tra
nsp
ort
ma
y o
ccu
r ov
er t
he s
ite d
urin
g t
he
est
abl
ishm
ent
pha
se a
nd
ove
r th
e lo
nger
ter
m if
su
rfa
ce r
eveg
eta
tion
is in
ade
quat
e.
• L
oss
of p
ublic
am
eni
ty d
ue
to u
nple
asa
nt o
dou
rs a
nd in
cre
ased
inse
ct n
um
ber
s m
ay o
ccu
r.
• C
ont
amin
atio
n of
the
site
itse
lf.
• In
ade
qua
te t
rea
tmen
t of
su
rfa
ce w
ate
r an
d gr
oun
dw
ate
r m
ay r
esu
lt in
con
tam
inat
ion
of
thes
e w
ate
rs b
y p
ath
ogen
s (s
uch
as
bact
eria
, vi
ruse
s),
high
nu
trie
nt le
vels
,
chem
ical
co
nta
min
ant
s (s
uch
as
org
ano-
chlo
rines
, h
eavy
met
als
), s
alt,
sod
ium
, fa
ts a
nd
oth
er m
ater
ials
.
Urban and regional planning 49
8
On
-sit
e D
om
esti
c W
aste
wat
er
Dis
po
sal:
Tre
nc
h A
bso
rpti
on
-Tra
nsp
irat
ion
Sys
tem
Co
nst
rain
t R
atin
g
A
ttri
bu
te 1
Ver
y lo
w
con
stra
int
2L
ow
co
nst
rain
t
3M
od
era
te
con
stra
int
4H
igh
co
nst
rain
t
5V
ery
hig
h
con
str
ain
tR
atio
nal
eD
ata
so
urc
e
Th
eo
reti
cal co
rrel
atio
n1
Co
rre
lati
on
usi
ng
d
ata
Slo
pe
(%)
<3
3–9
9–18
18–2
5>
25H
igh
slop
e la
tera
l see
page
, ero
sion
haz
ard
DE
M
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
tF
loo
din
g
Pro
babl
ity (
%)
Nil
<
1ev
ents
less
freq
uent
tha
n1
in 1
00 y
ears
1–2
1 ev
ent i
n 50
to 1
00
year
s
2–5
1 ev
ent i
n 2
0–50
ye
ars
>5
mor
e th
an 1
eve
nt in
20
yea
rs
Pot
entia
l dam
age
to fa
cilit
y an
d su
rfac
e w
ater
co
ntam
inat
ion
Fro
m fl
ood
risk
map
sC
erta
inC
erta
in
Gen
eral
occ
urre
nce
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
–A
s ab
ove
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
n ta
bles
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Ter
rain
uni
tH
ill s
lop
e un
its
(exc
ludi
ng
foot
slop
es)
Low
foot
slop
es,
plai
ns (
excl
udin
g
flood
plai
ns)
Hig
h flo
odpl
ains
Mid
dle
flood
plai
nsLo
wer
floo
dpla
ins,
dr
aina
ge
depr
essi
ons,
str
eam
ch
anne
ls
As
abov
eM
ulti-
attr
ibut
e m
appi
ng, s
oil
land
scap
e de
scrip
tions
, to
pogr
aphi
c m
aps
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Mas
s m
ove
men
t N
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
ed
Wid
espr
ead
–
Pot
entia
l dam
age
to fa
cilit
y an
d su
rfac
e w
ater
co
ntam
inat
ion
Land
scap
e lim
itatio
ns t
able
s C
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Sh
rin
k-sw
ell
Shr
ink-
swel
l lim
itatio
nN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
over
m
inor
ity o
f soi
l m
ater
ials
Wid
espr
ead
over
m
ajor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
Pot
entia
l dam
age
to p
ipes
and
tank
sS
oil m
ater
ial l
imita
tions
tabl
esC
onfid
ent
Shr
ink-
swel
l (V
E%
) w
ors
t la
yer
to 1
m<
1010
–20
20–3
0>
30–
As
abov
eT
ype
prof
ile la
b da
taC
onfid
ent
Con
fiden
t
Dra
ina
ge/
wat
erl
og
gin
gS
easo
nal w
ater
logg
ing
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lised
W
ides
prea
d –
Wat
erlo
ggin
g or
exc
essi
ve d
rain
age
limits
eff
ectiv
e tr
eatm
ent,
pot
entia
l wat
er c
onta
min
atio
n.La
ndsc
ape
limita
tion
tabl
esC
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Per
man
ent w
ater
logg
ing
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lised
–
Wid
espr
ead
As
abov
eA
s ab
ove
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Poo
r dr
aina
ge h
azar
dN
ot r
ecor
ded
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
–A
s ab
ove
As
abov
e P
rofil
e dr
aina
ge
Wel
lM
od w
ell
Impe
rfec
t, ra
pid
Poo
rV
ery
poor
As
abov
eT
ype
prof
ile d
ata
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Per
mea
bilit
y ra
nkin
g (a
vera
ge o
f lay
ers
to 1
m)
Mod
erat
eH
igh
Low
, ve
ry h
igh
Ver
y lo
w–
Too
hig
h or
too
low
per
mea
bilit
y, in
hibi
ting
effe
ctiv
e w
aste
wat
er t
reat
men
t and
pla
nt g
row
thS
oil l
ayer
dat
aC
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Per
mea
bilit
y (
mm
/day
) ( w
ors
t la
yer
to 1
m)
480–
1440
–10
0–48
0,14
40–2
880
24–1
00,
>28
80<
24A
s ab
ove
Typ
e pr
ofile
lab
data
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Wat
erta
ble
Hig
h w
ater
tabl
e (<
2 m
)N
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
ed
Wid
espr
ead
–Li
mits
abs
orpt
ion,
pot
entia
l gro
undw
ater
co
ntam
inat
ion
As
abov
e C
erta
inP
roba
ble
Gro
undw
ater
pol
lutio
n ha
zard
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
–G
roun
dwat
er c
onta
min
atio
nA
s ab
ove
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Dep
th
Sha
llow
soi
ls (
<50
cm
)N
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
ed
Wid
espr
ead
–La
ndsc
ape
limita
tion
tabl
es
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Dep
th to
har
d la
yer
– fr
om ty
pe p
rofil
e
>1.
51.
2–1.
50.
9–1.
20.
6–0.
9<
0.6
Lim
its a
vaila
ble
soil
Typ
e pr
ofile
dat
aC
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Sto
nin
ess
Sto
nine
ssN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
over
m
inor
ity o
f soi
l m
ater
ials
Wid
espr
ead
over
m
ajor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
As
abov
eS
oil m
ater
ial l
imita
tions
tabl
esC
onfid
ent
Pro
babl
e
Coa
rse
frag
men
ts (
>2
mm
) (%
) a
vera
ge
to 1
m<
1010
–20
20–5
0>
50–
Lim
its a
vaila
ble
soil
Typ
e pr
ofile
dat
aC
erta
inP
roba
ble
Ph
osp
ho
rus
sorp
tio
n (
mg/
kg)
av
era
ge
to 1
m>
300
100–
300
<10
0–
–Lo
w a
bsor
ptio
n of
pho
spho
rus
Typ
e pr
ofile
lab
data
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Ref
ers
to t
he p
hysi
cal p
oten
tial o
f the
site
to a
pply
the
tren
ch a
bsor
ptio
n m
etho
d to
dis
posa
l of d
omes
tic w
aste
wat
er. T
he w
aste
wat
er is
the
prim
ary
trea
ted
efflu
ent
deriv
ed fr
om a
sep
tic ta
nk. T
he li
quid
is p
asse
d th
roug
h a
netw
ork
of s
hallo
w t
renc
hes
(gen
eral
ly 4
5 to
60
cm
dee
p) f
illed
w
ith c
oars
e ag
greg
ate
then
a t
opso
il la
yer.
It th
en s
eeps
and
/or
is a
bsor
bed
into
the
surr
ound
ing
and
unde
rlyi
ng s
oil a
llow
ing
trea
tmen
t as
for
the
irrig
atio
n m
etho
d. A
por
tion
of th
e ac
tual
wat
er is
tran
spire
d in
to th
e at
mos
pher
e fr
om g
rass
es
grow
ing
on th
e su
rfac
e.
B
ecau
se th
e w
aste
wat
er is
rel
ease
d be
low
gro
und,
sec
onda
ry t
reat
men
t is
not r
equi
red.
It
requ
ires
the
mos
t sui
tabl
e co
nditi
ons
of th
e th
ree
disp
osal
met
hods
con
side
red
in th
is r
epor
t.
50 Soil and land constraint assessment
Urban and regional planning 51
Sal
iS
ads
cape
lim
itatio
n ta
bles
C
erta
inC
onfid
ent
Sa
mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
able
sC
onfid
ent
Sa
pro
file
lab
data
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Aci
d
Ac
mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
able
sC
erta
inP
roba
ble
Al
mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns t
able
sC
onfid
ent
Pro
babl
e
pH p
rofil
e la
b da
taC
erta
inC
onfid
ent
So
di
So
mat
eria
l lim
itatio
ns ta
bles
Ce
rtai
nC
on
fide
nt
So
wo
pro
file
lab
data
Cer
tain
Con
fiden
t
Co
ns
t
To
tal
1 Ce
ithin
the
soil-
land
scap
e or
face
t.
2 Co
ute
grou
p th
at f
alls
3 Tot
Inte
r
Ma
i•
Ins
• E
xcav
at•
Rev
e
Po
te
• E
ro
• P
art
• In
ade
of s
urfa
ce w
ater
, co
nt
• C
onnit
ylin
e la
ndsc
ape
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
–In
hibi
ts a
dsor
ptio
n, m
icro
-oga
nism
s an
d pl
ant
grow
thLa
n
line
soil
mat
eria
lN
ot r
ecor
ded
–W
ides
prea
d ov
er
min
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
espr
ea
d ov
er
maj
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
–A
s ab
ove
Soi
l
linity
EC
e (d
S/m
) w
ors
t to
1 m
<1
1–3
3–6
6–12
>12
As
abov
eT
ype
ity/
alka
lin
ity
idity
lim
itatio
n N
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
espr
ead
over
m
inor
ity o
f soi
l m
ater
ials
Wid
espr
ead
over
m
ajor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
Too
hig
h or
low
pH
inhi
bits
mic
ro-o
gani
sms,
pla
nt
grow
th a
nd t
reat
men
t pro
cess
esS
oil
kalin
ity li
mita
tion
Not
rec
orde
dW
ides
prea
d ov
er
min
ority
of s
oil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
espr
ead
over
m
ajor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
As
abov
eS
oil
(1:
5 w
ater
) w
ors
t 1
m5.
5–7.
54.
5–5.
5, 7
.5–8
.53.
5–4.
5, 8
.5–1
0.0
<3.
5, >
10.0
–A
s ab
ove
Typ
e
city
dic
soil
mat
eria
lsN
ot r
ecor
ded
–W
ides
prea
d ov
er
min
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
Wid
espr
ea
d ov
er
maj
ority
of
soil
mat
eria
ls
–Li
mits
wat
er in
filtr
atio
n an
d nu
trie
nt a
bsor
ptio
nS
oil
dici
ty (
ES
P %
) rs
t to
1 m
whe
re C
EC
>0
me
/10
0 g
<3
3–8
6–15
>15
–A
s ab
ove
Typ
e
rain
t su
b-s
core
s2
co
ns
tra
int
sco
re3
rtai
nty
of c
orre
latio
n of
att
ribut
e to
ran
king
: The
low
est r
anki
ng o
f cer
tain
ty fo
r an
y ap
plic
able
lim
iting
fact
or is
app
lied
to t
he e
ntir
e ta
ble.
Cer
tain
N
o do
ubt
as t
o th
e re
latio
nshi
p w
ith h
azar
d, v
ery
relia
ble
data
sou
rce.
Con
fiden
tC
onfid
ent r
elat
ions
hip
with
haz
ard,
sou
nd o
bser
ved
and
theo
retic
al r
easo
ns to
exp
ect r
elat
ions
hip,
mos
tly r
elia
ble
data
.P
roba
ble
Rel
atio
nshi
p w
ith h
azar
d is
bas
ed o
n fin
ding
s fr
om o
ther
asp
ects
of s
oil s
cien
ce,
data
is o
f m
oder
ate
relia
bilit
y, m
ay b
e m
oder
ate
vari
abili
ty w
Unc
erta
inR
elat
ions
hip
with
haz
ard
is t
heor
etic
al,
data
is o
f qu
estio
nabl
e re
liabi
lity
may
be
sign
ifica
nt v
aria
bilit
y w
ithin
the
soi
l-lan
dsca
pe o
r fa
cet
.
nstr
aint
sub
-sco
re:
Sco
re 1
poi
nt f
or e
a ch
attr
ibut
e gr
oup
that
falls
in th
e M
oder
ate
colu
mn,
3 p
oint
s fo
r ea
ch a
ttrib
ute
grou
p th
at f
alls
in th
e H
igh
colu
mn,
and
6 p
oint
s fo
r ea
ch a
ttrib
in t
he V
ery
high
col
umn.
al c
onst
rain
t sco
re:
Add
sub
-sco
res
from
the
Mod
erat
e, H
igh
and
Ver
y hi
gh c
olum
ns.
pre
tati
on
of
sco
res
0–3
poin
ts:
Goo
d –
requ
ires
nil o
r m
inor
site
am
elio
ratio
n.
4–
7 po
ints
: Fai
r –
requ
ires
mod
erat
e si
te a
mel
iora
tion.
>8
poin
ts:
Poo
r –
not
capa
ble
or r
equi
res
sign
ifica
nt s
ite a
mel
iora
tion.
n a
ctio
ns
an
d p
roce
sse
s
talla
tion
of s
eptic
tan
k in
clud
ing
initi
al e
xcav
atio
n of
pit
and
conn
ectio
n w
ith w
aste
wat
er o
utflo
w p
ipes
.io
n of
a n
etw
ork
of tr
ench
es in
the
abso
rptio
n fie
ld, g
ener
ally
45–
60 c
m d
eep,
50
cm w
ide
(as
per
AS
154
7).
geta
tion
of a
bsor
ptio
n fie
ld f
ollo
win
g co
mpl
etio
n of
tre
nche
s.
nti
al e
nvi
ron
me
nta
l an
d o
ther
imp
ac
ts
sion
and
sed
imen
t tra
nspo
rt m
ay o
ccur
ove
r th
e si
te d
urin
g th
e es
tabl
ishm
ent p
hase
and
ove
r th
e lo
nger
ter
m if
sur
face
rev
eget
atio
n is
inad
equa
te.
ially
trea
ted
was
tew
ater
from
the
sept
ic ta
nk p
assi
ng a
long
the
tren
ches
and
into
the
sur
roun
ding
and
und
erly
ing
soil
mas
s, w
ith n
utrie
nts,
fae
cal m
ater
ial a
nd o
ther
con
tam
inan
ts b
eing
abs
orbe
d by
quat
e tr
eatm
ent m
ay r
esul
t in
cont
amin
atio
n of
sur
face
wat
er a
nd g
roun
dwat
er b
y va
rious
mat
eria
ls a
s de
scrib
ed fo
r th
e irr
igat
ion
met
hod.
A
lthou
gh b
urie
d tr
ench
es r
educ
e th
e po
tent
ial f
or c
onta
min
atio
n am
inat
ion
rem
ains
a th
reat
.
tam
inat
ion
of t
he s
ite a
nd p
lant
s th
at m
ay e
nter
the
hum
an f
ood
chai
n cr
eate
s a
heal
th h
azar
d.
52 Soil and land constraint assessment
9 O
n-s
ite
Do
mes
tic
Was
tew
ate
r D
isp
osa
l: P
um
p-o
ut
Sys
tem
Co
nst
rain
t R
atin
g
A
tt s
ou
rce
Th
eore
tica
l
co
rre
lati
on
1
Co
rrel
ati
on
u
sin
g d
ata
so
urc
e1
Slo
pe
Ce
rtai
nC
onf
ide
nt
Flo
od
ing
P m
aps
Ce
rtai
nC
ert
ain
Gita
tion
tabl
esC
ert
ain
Co
nfid
ent
Te
map
pin
g, s
oil
scrip
tion s
, ap
s
Ce
rtai
nC
onf
ide
nt
Mas
itatio
ns
tabl
e C
onf
ide
ntC
onf
ide
nt
Sh
rin
k
Sh
atio
ns
tabl
es
Co
nfid
ent
Sh
ata
Co
nfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
Dra S
eita
tion
tabl
e C
ert
ain
Co
nfid
ent
Pe
Ce
rtai
nC
onf
ide
nt
Po
Pro
aC
ert
ain
Co
nfid
ent
Pe
Ce
rtai
nC
onf
ide
nt
Pe
wat
aC
ert
ain
Co
nfid
ent
Hi
Ce
rtai
nP
roba
ble
Gr
Ce
rtai
nC
onf
ide
nt
Dep S
pe
itatio
n ta
bles
C
ert
ain
Co
nfid
ent
De
taC
ert
ain
Co
nfid
ent
Thi
s o
f th
ese
syst
ems
aris
es d
ue
to t
he h
igh
pot
entia
l fo
r es
cap
s si
te a
nd s
oil
cond
ition
s sh
ou
ld b
e at
lea
st
acc
eu
itabl
e c
ond
itio
ns o
f th
e th
ree
dis
posa
l met
hod
s co
n
rib
ute
1V
ery
lo
w
con
stra
int
2L
ow
co
nst
rain
t
3M
od
erat
e co
nst
rain
t
4H
igh
co
nst
rain
t
5V
ery
hig
h
con
stra
int
Rat
ion
ale
Dat
a
(%
)<
66–
1515
–25
25–
35
>35
Rap
id r
uno
ff in
eve
nt o
f fa
ilure
DE
M
roba
blit
y (%
)N
il
<
1ev
ents
less
fre
quen
tth
an 1
in 1
00 y
ears
1–2
1 e
vent
in 5
0 to
100
ye
ars
2–5
1 e
vent
in
20–
50
yea
rs
>5
mor
e th
an 1
eve
nt
in
20
year
s
Pot
entia
l dam
age
to f
acili
ty a
nd s
urf
ace
wat
er
con
tam
ina
tion
Fro
m f
lood
ris
k
ene
ral o
ccur
ren
ceN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
edW
ides
pre
ad
–A
s ab
ove
Lan
dsc
ape
lim
rra
in u
nit
Hill
slo
pe u
nits
(e
xclu
ding
fo
ots
lope
s)
Low
foo
tslo
pes
, pl
ain
s (e
xclu
ding
flo
odp
lain
s)
Hig
h f
lood
plai
nsM
iddl
e flo
odp
lain
sL
owe
r flo
odpl
ain
s,
dra
inag
e de
pre
ssio
ns,
stre
am c
han
nels
As
abo
veM
ulti-
attr
ibut
ela
ndsc
ape
deto
pog
rap
hic
m
s m
ove
men
t N
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
ed
W
ides
pre
ad
P
oten
tial d
amag
e to
fac
ility
and
su
rfac
e w
ater
co
nta
min
atio
nL
and
scap
e lim
-sw
ell
rink-
swel
l lim
itatio
nN
ot r
ecor
ded
Wid
esp
rea
d ov
er
min
ority
of
soil
ma
teria
ls
Wid
esp
read
ove
r m
ajor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
Pot
entia
l dam
age
to p
ipe
s an
d ta
nks
Soi
l mat
eria
l lim
it
rink-
swel
l (V
E%
) w
orst
laye
r to
1 m
<1
010
–20
20–3
0>
30–
As
abo
veT
ype
pro
file
lab
d
ina
ge/
wat
erlo
gg
ing
ason
al w
ate
rlogg
ing
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lised
W
ides
pre
ad
–W
ater
logg
ing
or e
xce
ssiv
e d
rain
age
limits
ef
fect
ive
tre
atm
ent,
po
tent
ial w
ater
co
nta
min
atio
n
Lan
dsc
ape
lim
rman
ent
wa
terlo
ggin
gN
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
ed
–W
ides
pre
ad
As
abo
veA
s ab
ove
or d
rain
age
ha
zard
Not
rec
orde
dLo
calis
edW
ides
pre
ad
–A
s ab
ove
As
abov
e
file
drai
nage
W
ell
Mod
wel
lIm
per
fect
, poo
r, r
apid
Ver
y po
or–
As
abo
veT
ype
pro
file
dat
rmea
bilit
y ra
nki
nga
vera
ge
of la
yers
to
600
mm
Mod
era
teH
igh
Low
, ve
ry h
igh
Ver
y lo
w–
Too
hig
h o
r to
o lo
w p
erm
eabi
lity,
inhi
biti
ng
effe
ctiv
e w
aste
wat
er t
reat
men
t an
d pl
ant
gro
wth
Soi
l la
yer
data
rmea
bilit
y (
mm
/day
)or
st la
yer
to 6
00
mm
480
–14
4014
40–
2880
60–4
80,
>2
880
<6
0–
As
abo
veT
ype
pro
file
lab
d
gh w
ate
rtab
le (
<2
m)
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lised
W
ides
pre
ad
–Li
mits
abs
orpt
ion
, pot
entia
l gro
und
wat
er
con
tam
ina
tion
As
abov
e
oun
dwa
ter
pollu
tion
haz
ard
Not
rec
orde
d–
Loca
lised
Wid
espr
ead
–G
roun
dw
ater
con
tam
inat
ion
As
abov
e
th
hal
low
soi
ls
(<50
cm
)N
ot r
ecor
ded
–Lo
calis
ed
Wid
espr
ead
–
Lan
dsc
alim
pth
to h
ard
laye
r –
fro
m t
ype
pro
file
>
1.0
0.6–
1.0
0.4
–0.6
0.2–
0.4
<0
.2Li
mits
ava
ilab
le s
oil
Typ
e p
rofil
e d
a
sys
tem
is b
ased
on
the
reg
ula
r p
umpi
ng
out o
f al
l wa
ste
wat
er
deri
ved
from
a s
ept
ic t
ank
and
hold
ing
tank
into
a r
oad
tank
er
allo
win
g th
eir
rem
ova
l and
eff
ectiv
e di
spos
al e
lse
whe
re.
The
nee
d f
or c
apab
ility
ass
ess
men
te
of u
ntr
eate
d w
ast
ew
ate
r th
at a
rises
du
e to
the
pos
sibi
lity
of o
verf
low
(fr
om
inad
equ
ate
colle
ctio
n se
rvic
es o
r o
ther
failu
res)
. A
lthou
gh
failu
re m
ay b
e in
fre
que
nt,
the
con
sequ
ence
s o
f th
is m
ay b
e h
igh
. Th
is m
ean
ptab
le f
or w
aste
wa
ter
trea
tme
nt,
by p
roce
sses
as
men
tion
ed f
or
the
irrig
atio
n an
d tr
ench
met
hod
s (i
nclu
din
g pl
ant
gro
wth
). H
ow
eve
r, t
he c
ond
ition
s ne
ed
not
be
as s
trin
gen
t as
for
the
se m
eth
ods.
It
req
uire
s th
e le
ast
ssi
dere
d in
this
rep
ort.
53
Aci
dit
y/a
lkal
init
yA
cidi
ty li
mita
tion
Not
rec
orde
dW
ides
pre
ad
over
m
inor
ity o
f so
il m
ate
rials
Wid
esp
read
ove
r m
ajor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
Too
hig
h o
r lo
w p
H in
hib
its m
icro
-oga
nis
ms,
pl
ant
gro
wth
and
tre
atm
ent
pro
cess
esS
oil m
ater
ial l
imita
tion
s ta
ble
sC
ert
ain
Pro
bab
le
Alk
alin
ity li
mita
tion
Not
rec
orde
dW
ides
pre
ad
over
m
inor
ity o
f so
il m
ate
rials
Wid
esp
read
ove
r m
ajor
ity o
f so
il m
ater
ials
––
As
abo
veS
oil m
ater
ial l
imita
tion
s ta
ble
sC
onf
ide
ntP
roba
ble
pH (
1:5
wat
er)
wo
rst 0
–300
mm
5.5
–7.5
4.0
–5.5
, 7.
5–9
.0<
4.0
, >
9.0
––
As
abo
veT
ype
pro
file
lab
dat
aC
ert
ain
Co
nfid
ent
Co
nst
rain
t su
b-s
core
s2
To
tal
con
stra
int
sco
re3
1 C
erta
inty
of
cor
rela
tion
of a
ttri
bute
to
ran
kin
g: T
he lo
wes
t ra
nkin
g o
f ce
rtai
nty
for
any
app
lica
ble
limiti
ng
fact
or is
app
lied
to t
he e
ntir
e ta
ble
.
Cer
tain
N
o d
oubt
as
to t
he r
ela
tions
hip
with
ha
zard
, ve
ry r
elia
ble
dat
a so
urc
e.C
onfid
ent
Co
nfid
ent
rel
atio
nsh
ip w
ith h
azar
d,
sou
nd o
bse
rved
and
th
eore
tical
re
ason
s to
exp
ect
rel
atio
nshi
p,
mos
tly r
elia
ble
dat
a.P
roba
ble
Re
latio
nsh
ip w
ith h
aza
rd is
ba
sed
on f
indi
ngs
fro
m o
ther
asp
ects
of
soil
scie
nce,
dat
a is
of
mo
dera
te r
elia
bilit
y, m
ay
be
mod
era
te v
aria
bilit
y w
ithin
the
soi
l-la
ndsc
ape
or
face
t.U
ncer
tain
Re
latio
nsh
ip w
ith h
aza
rd is
the
oret
ica
l, da
ta is
of q
uest
iona
ble
rel
iabi
lity
may
be
sig
nific
ant
varia
bilit
y w
ithin
the
soil-
land
scap
e or
fac
et .
2 C
onst
rain
t su
b-sc
ore:
S
core
1 p
oint
for
eac
h a
ttrib
ute
gro
up t
hat
falls
in M
ode
rate
col
um
n, 3
poi
nts
for
each
att
ribut
e g
roup
tha
t fa
lls in
Hig
h c
olu
mn
, and
6 p
oin
ts f
or
each
att
ribu
te g
roup
that
fal
ls in
Ver
y H
igh
co
lum
n.
3 T
otal
con
stra
int s
core
:A
dd
sub-
scor
es
from
Mo
dera
te,
Hig
h a
nd V
ery
Hig
h co
lum
ns.
In
terp
reta
tio
n o
f s
core
s0–
3 p
oin
ts:
Goo
d –
requ
ires
nil o
r m
ino
r si
te a
mel
iora
tion
4–
7 p
oin
ts:
Fai
r –
requ
ires
mo
dera
te s
ite a
mel
iora
tion
>8
poin
ts:
Po
or –
not
cap
abl
e o
r re
qui
res
sign
ifica
nt
site
am
elio
ratio
n
Ma
in a
ctio
ns
an
d p
roc
esse
s
• In
sta
llatio
n o
f se
ptic
tan
k, s
tora
ge t
ank
and
con
nect
ion
pip
es,
incl
udin
g in
itial
exc
ava
tion
of p
its.
Po
ten
tial
en
viro
nm
enta
l an
d o
ther
imp
act
s
• F
ailu
re o
f th
e sy
stem
, u
sual
ly d
ue
to o
verf
low
fro
m a
n in
adeq
uat
e co
llect
ion
serv
ice,
may
re
sult
in c
onta
min
atio
n o
f su
rfac
e w
ater
and
gro
und
wat
er b
y va
riou
s m
ater
ials
as
desc
ribe
d fo
r irr
iga
tion
me
thod
.•
Con
tam
ina
tion
of t
he
site
itse
lf.
Urban and regional planning
References
Baja, S, Chapman, DM and Dragovich, D 2001, A conceptual model for assessing agricultural land suitability at a catchment level using a continuous approach in GIS, in Geospatial Information and Agriculture, Conference 17–19 July 2001, Sydney, NSW Agriculture
BRS 2007, Multi-criteria analysis shell for spatial decision support, Bureau of Rural Sciences, Australian Government, Canberra, adl.brs.gov.au/mcass/index.html
Chapman, GA and Atkinson, G 2007, Soil survey and mapping, in Soils: Their properties and management, 3rd edition, PEV Charman and BW Murphy (eds), Oxford University Press, Melbourne
Chapman, GA, Hird, C and Morse, RJ 1992, A framework for assessment of urban land suitability for NSW, in Proceedings of the 7th international soil conservation conference, Sydney, 27–30 September 1992, International Soil Conservation Organisation
Chapman, GA, Gray, JM and Pavan, N 2004, Urban feasibility assessment for land use planning, in SuperSoil 2004, proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Societies of Soil Science Conference, 5–9 December 2004, University of Sydney
Chapman, GA, Gray, JM, Yang, X, Young, M and Donnelly, P 2006, Standard land use zone constraint maps for coastal NSW, Proceedings of the NSW Coastal Conference, Coffs Harbour, 7–9 November 2006, www.coastalconference.com/2006/default.asp
Charman, PEV and Wooldridge, AC 2007, Soil chemical properties: Soil salinisation, in Soils: Their properties and management, 3rd edition, PEV Charman and BW Murphy (eds), Oxford University Press, Melbourne
Cluny, FC 1991, Living with floods: Alternatives for riverine flood mitigation, Land Use Policy 8:331–342
Cocks, KD, Ive, JR and Clarke, JL (eds) 1995, Forest issues: Processes and tools for inventory, evaluation, mediation and allocation: Report on a case study of the Batemans Bay area, NSW, Division of Wildlife and Ecology and Division of Forestry and Forest Products, CSIRO, Canberra
Conacher, A and Conacher, J 1995, Rural land degradation in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne
Dent, D and Young, A 1981, Soil survey and land evaluation, George Allen & Unwin, London
DIPNR 2003a, Introduction to urban salinity: Local government salinity initiative, NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Sydney
DIPNR 2003b, Building in a saline environment: Local government salinity initiative, NSW Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources, Sydney
DLG, EPA, DoH, DLWC and DUAP 1998, Environment and health protection guidelines: On-site sewage management for single households, Department of Local Government, Environment Protection Authority, Department of Health, Department of Land and Water Conservation and Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, Sydney
DLWC 2000, Soil and landscape issues in environmental impact assessment, Technical Report 34, 2nd edition, Department of Land and Water, Sydney
DNR 2006, Comprehensive coastal assessment, NSW coastal zone, Soil and land assessment, project 5 report, Natural Resource Decision Support (Soils), Department of Natural Resources, Parramatta
54 Soil and land constraint assessment
DoP 2007, The NSW comprehensive coastal assessment toolkit: protecting our coast (DVD), NSW Department of Planning, Sydney
Duggin, JA 1992, Land evaluation, unpublished lecture notes, Department of Ecosystem Management, University of New England, Armidale
Emery, KA 1985, Rural land capability mapping, Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney
EPA 1996, Environmental guidelines: Solid waste landfills, EPA, Sydney
FAO 1976, A framework for land evaluation, Soils Bulletin 32, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
FAO 1983, Land evaluation for rainfed agriculture, Soils Bulletin 52, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
FAO 1984, Land evaluation for forestry, Forestry Paper 48, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
FAO 1985, Guidelines: Land evaluation for irrigated agriculture, Soils Bulletin 53, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
FAO 1991, Guidelines: Land evaluation for extensive grazing, Soils Bulletin 58, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome
Fenton, G and Helyar, KR 2007, Soil chemical properties: Soil acidification, in Soils: Their properties and management, 3rd edition, PEV Charman and BW Murphy (eds), Oxford University Press, Melbourne
Finlayson, AA 1982, Terrain analysis, classification and an engineering geological assessment of the Sydney area, New South Wales, Technical paper No. 32, Division of Applied Geomechanics, CSIRO
Geeves, GW, Craze, B and Hamilton, GJ 2007, Soil physical properties, in Soils: Their properties and management, 3rd edition, PEV Charman and BW Murphy (eds), Oxford University Press, Melbourne
Gray, JM and Chapman, GA 2005, Feasibility assessment for on-site wastewater disposal, in Performance assessment for onsite systems: Regulation, operation and monitoring, Proceedings of on-site 05 conference, Armidale, 27–30 September 2005, Lanfax Laboratories
Hannam, ID and Hicks, RW 1980, Soil conservation and land use planning, Journal of Soil Conservation NSW 36(3): 134–145
Hazelton, PA and Murphy, BW 2007, Interpreting soil test results: What do all the numbers mean? CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne
Hicks, RW 2007, Soil engineering properties, in Soils: Their properties and management, 3rd edition, PEV Charman and BW Murphy (eds), Oxford University Press, Melbourne
Hilchey, JD 1970, The Canada land inventory: Soil capability analysis for agriculture in Nova Scotia, Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing, Department of Regional Economic Expansion, Canada
James, D. 2001, Topdec: Multi-criteria analysis for the NSW coastal comprehensive assessment project, unpublished report, Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney
Johnson, AKL and Cramb, RA 1992, An integrated approach to agricultural land evaluation, report to Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation, Canberra
King, DP 2009, Soil landscapes of the Armidale 1:100 000 sheet, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water, Sydney
Urban and regional planning 55
Klingebiel, AA and Montgomery, PH 1961, Land capability classification, Agriculture Handbook No. 210, Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington DC
Laffan, M 1997, Site selection for hardwood and softwood plantations in Tasmania: A methodology for assessing site productivity and suitability for plantations using land resource information, Soils Technical Report No. 3, 2nd edition, Forestry Tasmania and Forest Practices Board, Tasmania
McDonald, RC, Isbell, RF, Speight, JG, Walker, J and Hopkins, MS 1990, Australian soil and land survey field handbook, 2nd edition, Inkata Press, Melbourne and Sydney
McRae, SG and Burnham, CP 1981, Land evaluation, Clarendon Press, London
Milford, HB, McGaw, AJE and Nixon, KJ 2001, Soil data entry handbook for the NSW soil and land information system (SALIS), 3rd edition, Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney
Morand, DT 2001, Soil landscapes of the Woodburn 1:100 000 sheet, Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney
Morse, RJ, Chapman, GA and Hird, C 1992, Specific urban land capability assessment, in Proceedings of the 7th International Soil Conservation Conference, Sydney, 27–30 September 1992
Murphy, B, Cauchi, J, Lawrie, J, Taylor, S and Welch, A 2008, Land and soil capability: How we safely manage our soil. Land classifications of the Central West – 2008. Central West Catchment Management Authority, Wellington NSW
Murphy, B et al. 2006, A rural land and soil capability scheme to support monitoring and evaluation in NSW: Rule set to determine LSC classes, Version 4.2 (unpublished), Department of Environment and Climate Change, Sydney
Murphy, C, Fogarty, P and Ryan, P 1998, Soil regolith stability classification for state forests in eastern New South Wales, Technical Report No. 41, Department of Land and Water Conservation, Sydney
Naylor, SD, Chapman, GA, Atkinson, G, Murphy, CL, Tulau, MJ, Flewin, TC, Milford, HB and Morand, DT 1998, Guidelines for the use of acid sulphate soil risk maps, Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney
NSW Department of Agriculture 1983, Agricultural suitability maps: Uses and limitations, Agfacts, Sydney
NSW Government 1990, NSW coastline management manual, NSW Government, Sydney
NSW Government 2001, Floodplain management manual, NSW Government, Sydney
Rosewell, CJ 1993, SOILOSS: A program to assist in the selection of management practices to reduce erosion, Technical Handbook No. 11, 2nd edition, Department of Conservation and Land Management, Sydney
Rosewell, CJ, Crouch, RJ and Morse, RJ 2007, Forms of erosion: Water erosion, in Soils: Their properties and management, 3rd edition, PEV Charman and BW Murphy (eds), Oxford University Press, Melbourne
Rosser, J, Swartz, GL, Dawson, NM and Briggs, HS 1974, Land capability classification for agricultural purposes, Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane
Rowe, RK, Howe, DF and Alley, NF 1988, Manual of guidelines for land capability assessment in Victoria, Victorian Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands
Shields, PG, Smith, CD and McDonald, WS 1996, Agricultural land evaluation in Australia – A review. Australian Collaborative Land Evaluation Program, Canberra
56 Soil and land constraint assessment
Urban and regional planning 57
Stone, Y, Ahern, CR and Blunden, B 1998, Acid sulfate soils manual, Acid Soil Management Advisory Committee, Wollongbar NSW
USDA 1971, Guide for interpreting engineering uses of soils, US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC
USDA 1983, National agricultural land evaluation and site assessment, Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC
USDA 1993, National soil survey handbook, Part 620 – Soil interpretations rating guides, Soil Conservation Service, US Department of Agriculture, Washington DC
Van de Graaff, RHM 1988, Land evaluation, in Australian soil and land survey handbook – Guidelines for conducting surveys, RH Gunn, JA Beattie, RE Reid and RHM van de Graaff (eds), Inkata Press, Melbourne
van Gool, D, Tille, P and Moore, G 2005, Land evaluation standards for land resource mapping, Resource Management Technical Report 298, 3rd edition, Western Australian Department of Agriculture, Perth
Wells, MR and King, PD 1989, Land capability assessment methodology for rural residential development and associated agricultural land uses, Land Resource Series No. 1, Western Australian Department of Agriculture, Perth
Walker, P 1991, Land systems of western NSW, Technical Report 25, Soil Conservation Service of NSW, Sydney
Yang, X, Chapman, G and Heemstra, S 2006, Estimating soil erosion hazard for NSW coastal catchments using RUSLE in a GIS environment, in 10th Annual SIA Conference on Urban Stormwater Management, Parramatta, 27–30 June 2006
Yang, X, Chapman, GA, Gray, JM and Young, MA 2007, Delineating soil-landscape facets from digital elevation models using compound topographic index and terrain analysis, Australian Journal of Soil Research 45(8):569–576
Yang, X, Gray, JM, Chapman, GA and Young, MA 2008, Soil landscape constraint mapping for coastal land use planning using geographic information system, Journal of Coastal Conservation 11:143–151