Soil and land constraint assessment for urban and regional ... · soil and land constraint maps that portray the physical potential of the land to support a range of land uses. The

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)


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.


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.


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.


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,


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



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

)


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


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.


Figure 2: Preliminary soil and landscape constraint assessment map for standard residential development for the Hawkesbury–Nepean catchment


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 *.



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



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.



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


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.



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.


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


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.


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


(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


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).


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.



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


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.


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




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).


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

.


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.


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.



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

.


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.


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.


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



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



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.


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

.


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.



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.


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


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


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



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

Documents

Soil and land constraint assessment for urban and regional ... · soil and land constraint maps that portray the physical potential of the land to support a range of land uses. The