Detailed Soil Survey of the Mount Revelstoke Summit Area.
Detailed Soil Survey of the Mount Revelstoke Summit Area. Detailed Soil Survey of the Mount Revelstoke Summit Area.
45especially where bedrock is close to the surface .Slope is not as severelylimiting for trails ; however, it does increase erosion hazard as well asconstruction and maintenance costs .Depth to bedrock isan important soil characteristic for almostall uses .Shallow depths are especially limiting for septic tank filterfields, buildings with basements, and road construction .Soil infiltration capabilities should be considered when planningcamping or picnic areas, especially in an area of late snowmelt and frequentsummer showers . When considering sewage disposal, soil permeability may bethe factor that results in success or failure of the system .Further information regarding the interpretation of soil propertiesfor limitations torecreational uses may be found in Montgomery andEdminster (1966), Soil Conservation Guide (1967), Brocke (1970), Knapik andLandals (1972), Greenlee (1973a, 1973b), and Coen and Holland (in press) .With a knowledge of soil properties and behaviour,interpretationscan be made for various land uses .Through the use of a soils map theseinterpretations can be related to the planning area under study . Thesoils of the Mount Revelstoke Summit area have been grouped into threeperformance groups for each of various uses based on degree of soil limitationsfor each use .The soils have been rated according to their limitations forcamping areas, picnic areas, trails, roads and parking lots, buildings, andseptic tank filter fields (Table 10) . Rating groups of none to slight,moderate, and severe limitations are described as follows :1 . None to slight soil limitations . The soil properties are essentiallysuited for the intended use .Minimal environmental damageLimitations are minor and easily overcome .and good performance can be expected withproper management .
2 . Moderate soil limitations . These soils are moderately suitable forthe intended use .Soil limitations are present which may be overcomeby proper soil manipulation, correct construction practices andcontinued maintenance .3 . Severe soil limitations . These soils have one or more limitingproperties which make them unsuitable for the proposed use . Thepotential for environmental damage may be high, construction andmaintenance costs may also be high, or both conditions may prevail .Soil reclamation may be possible but it may drastically alter theecology of the surrounding area, and such work may not be economicallyfeasible .Limitations of the Summit Soils for Recreational UsesRatings of the severity of limitations of the soils on theSummit for various recreational uses are shown in Table 10 .These ratingsare based on inherent soil characteristics using guidelines from Tables 4to 9 as they apply to this specific area .Essentially the same procedurewas used in Waterton Lakes National Park (Coen and Holland,in press) and isbeing used also in Yoho National Park (study in progress by the authors) .By using such a system of rating soil limitations, comparisons and extrapolationsmay be made between National Parks as well as within the specificstudy area .Due to the~relative homogeneity of the soils within the smallSummitarea many of the soils fall into the same limitation grouping .In general, the Summit area has a considerable limitation torecreational use, due largely to the topography .The steep slopes, usuallygreater than 15 percent (greater than class E), provide severe limitationsfor such uses as camping areas, picnic areas, roads and parking lots,
- Page 2 and 3: DETAILED SOIL SURVEYOF THEMOUNT REV
- Page 4 and 5: PageSOIL PRODUCTIVITY 53BIBLIOGRAPH
- Page 6 and 7: LIST OF PLATESPagePLATE 1 . Humo-Fe
- Page 8 and 9: INTRODUCTIONIn recent years Parks C
- Page 10 and 11: THE STUDY AREAGeographic LocationTh
- Page 12 and 13: calcareous rocks in the study area
- Page 14 and 15: Mount Copeland (6,060 feet ASL) .At
- Page 16 and 17: METHODS OF INVESTIGATIONField Techn
- Page 18 and 19: 116 . Pyrophosphate-Extractable Alu
- Page 20 and 21: 13FIGURE 2 .DIAGRAM OF A SOIL PROFI
- Page 22 and 23: 15Soils of the Summit AreaThe soils
- Page 24 and 25: MISCELLANEOUS MAPPING UNITSRBedrock
- Page 26 and 27: AhBhf20 cm-Plate l .The Humo-Ferric
- Page 28 and 29: 21extremely sloping land surfaces o
- Page 30 and 31: Soil Map Unit 3(Orthic and Cumulic
- Page 32 and 33: 25These soils have severe limitatio
- Page 34 and 35: 27Horizon Depth (cm) Color Texture
- Page 36 and 37: 295-a20 cm-5 -bPlate 5 .The hummock
- Page 38 and 39: 31stands are made up of Abies lasio
- Page 40 and 41: 6-aAeBfR20 cm-6 -bPlate 6 .The Lith
- Page 42 and 43: 37INTERPRETATIONSSoil Properties an
- Page 44 and 45: 39TABLE 4,GUIDES FOR ASSESSING SOIL
- Page 46 and 47: 41TABLE 6 .GUIDES FOR ASSESSING SOI
- Page 48 and 49: 43TABLE 8 .GUIDES FOR ASSESSING SOI
- Page 52 and 53: TABLE 10 . DEGREE AND NATURE OF SOI
- Page 54 and 55: 49The soils of map units 1, 8 and 9
- Page 56 and 57: 51compounds thus inhibiting percola
- Page 58 and 59: 53PRODUCTIVITYProductivity ratings
- Page 60 and 61: S4 XTABLE 11 . DISTRIBUTION OF SOIL
- Page 62 and 63: 57BIBLIOGRAPHYAlberta Department of
- Page 64 and 65: 59Terzaghi, K . and R .B . Peck . 1
- Page 66 and 67: 61ecosystem .While the activities i
- Page 68 and 69: TABLE A. CLASSES OF FRAGILITY FOR P
- Page 70 and 71: TABLE B. CLASSES OF FRAGILITY FOR S
- Page 72 and 73: 67than to channel use to a rarer ty
- Page 74 and 75: 69approximately 10 cm thickness and
- Page 76 and 77: 71ANALYTICAL DATA 1HorizonDepthcmCa
- Page 78 and 79: 73several species of common occurre
- Page 80 and 81: 75Soil Map Unit 3The imperfectly to
- Page 82 and 83: 77Soil Classification :Orthic Regos
- Page 84 and 85: 79ANALYTICAL DATA 3BHorizonDepthcmC
- Page 86 and 87: 81Elevation : 6,000 ft . ASL (1,830
- Page 88 and 89: 82ANALYTICAL DATA 4HorizonDepthcmCa
- Page 90 and 91: Aspect :southeastElevation : 6,200
- Page 92 and 93: Soil Map Unit 6Hummocky microrelief
- Page 94 and 95: ANALYTICAL DATA 6HorizonDepthcmCaC1
- Page 96 and 97: Location : S-7Parent Material :glac
- Page 98 and 99: Soil Map Unit 8These soils have med
2 . Moderate soil limitations . These soils are moderately suitable for<strong>the</strong> intended use .<strong>Soil</strong> limitations are present which may be overcomeby proper soil manipulation, correct construction practices andcontinued maintenance .3 . Severe soil limitations . These soils have one or more limitingproperties which make <strong>the</strong>m unsuitable for <strong>the</strong> proposed use . Thepotential for environmental damage may be high, construction andmaintenance costs may also be high, or both conditions may prevail .<strong>Soil</strong> reclamation may be possible but it may drastically alter <strong>the</strong>ecology <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> surrounding area, and such work may not be economicallyfeasible .Limitations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Summit</strong> <strong>Soil</strong>s for Recreational UsesRatings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> severity <strong>of</strong> limitations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> soils on <strong>the</strong><strong>Summit</strong> for various recreational uses are shown in Table 10 .These ratingsare based on inherent soil characteristics using guidelines from Tables 4to 9 as <strong>the</strong>y apply to this specific area .Essentially <strong>the</strong> same procedurewas used in Waterton Lakes National Park (Coen and Holland,in press) and isbeing used also in Yoho National Park (study in progress by <strong>the</strong> authors) .By using such a system <strong>of</strong> rating soil limitations, comparisons and extrapolationsmay be made between National Parks as well as within <strong>the</strong> specificstudy area .Due to <strong>the</strong>~relative homogeneity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> soils within <strong>the</strong> small<strong>Summit</strong>area many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> soils fall into <strong>the</strong> same limitation grouping .In general, <strong>the</strong> <strong>Summit</strong> area has a considerable limitation torecreational use, due largely to <strong>the</strong> topography .The steep slopes, usuallygreater than 15 percent (greater than class E), provide severe limitationsfor such uses as camping areas, picnic areas, roads and parking lots,
Change language