04  PROVINCE: BRITISH COLUMBIA

05  PROJECT: Taseko Lakes
        REPORT NUMBER: 36
        REPORT NAME  : Taseko Lakes
        MAP TITLES   : Hanceville 92O/NW  Chilcotin River 92O/NE
                       Taseko Lakes 92O/SW  Churn Creek 92O/SE
        REPORT CONTRIBUTION #:

06  MAP/REPORT PRINTED PUBLICATION DATE: 1988

07  AUTHORS AND CONTRIBUTORS:
    NAME                      AFFILIATION
    ------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
    Valentine, K.W.G.         Land Resource Research Centre

08  CONTACT PERSON AT CLBRR, OTTAWA:

09  PHOTOGRAPHY SCALE: 1:63,360

10  SIL:

11  OBSERVATION STRATEGY AND SUPPORTING DATA FOR: FREE

12  SYMBOL CONFIGURATION INCLUDING CONCEPT OF SOIL MAP UNIT:
         Documentation file for Taseko Lakes Report #36

    This covers the Soil Map Unit File (SMUF), Soil Name File (SNF),
    Soil Layer File (SLF), and Soil Map Errors File which pertain to
    the 4 maps which belong to the Taseko Lakes report. These maps are:

    Churn Creek     92O/SE        CanSIS ID.# BC057800
    Chilcotin River 92O/NE        CanSIS ID.# BC037800
    Taseko Lakes    92O/SW        CanSIS ID.# BC047800
    Hanceville      92O/NW        CanSIS ID.# BC027800

                Soil Map Unit File Documentation

    The soils and extents are set by the map unit description. Phases
    of the soils in the map unit are also defined by the map unit
    description. Where there is a range in the extent, the midpoint of
    the range rounded to the nearest 5 is used. Only the most important
    inclusions are included in the SMUF. The minimum percentage for a
    minor inclusion is 15%. Extents, phases, and stoniness were checked
    by Keith Valentine, the author of the report and by the provincial
    correlator, Herb Luttmerding.

    The slopes given on the map pertain to the polygon and in the SMUF
    the slopes relate to the specific soil. In order to assign most
    likely slopes for each soil, the most likely slope range for each
    soil was determined by reading the report to determine the soil
    landscape relations of on soil to another. The midpoint of the
    range was chosen (rounded to the nearest whole number). The
    provincial correlator has adjusted slopes where he felt the
    estimated value was too high or too low.

    Stoniness is given in the text of the report or estimated from the
    parent material.

                  Soil Name File Documentation

    The soil codes are as set by the old CanSIS soil name file or added
    as needed. eg. RKL for rockland.

    Modifiers are set by E. Kenney and are created as required for soil
    phases, variants, and taxijuncts.

    MODIFIERS USED IN B.C. FOR ARC-INFO SOIL MAP SOIL NAME AND SOIL
                     LAYER FILES DEC.16/88

    NUMBER  DESCRIPTION OF PHASE

    01      gleyed subgroups
    02      gravelly stony and gleysolic phase
    03      typic (deep) organics
    04      gleysolic soils
    05      lithic soils - shallow to bedrock rock within 100 cm
    06      shallow to till (veneers over till)
    07      saline phase
    08      carbonated phase
    09      very shallow lithic soils bedrock within 50 cm
    10      cumulic phase
    11      terric (shallow) organics
    12      peaty phase
    13      stony and gleyed
    14      eroded phase
    15      sphagnic (fibric) phase
    16      sandy capping or overlay
    17      bouldery phase stony class = 5 or 3
    18      orthic subgroups -  used when soil is defined as gleyed
                          and phased soil is better drained
    19      slumping: unstable (past or present slumping evident)
                          eg. Churn Creek in Taseko Lakes Report
    20      typic (deep) organics with fibric (sphagnic) tops
    21      turbic and lithic
    22      turbic (solifluction)

    Watertable: Unless stated in the report imperfectly drained and
    poorly drained soils assigned YU and organics assigned YB.

    Root restriction: Assigned to most likely horizon based on text
    description and profile description of root number.

    Drainage: Most common drainage from text.

    Mode of deposition: Most common assigned from text.

    Taxonomy: Most common assigned from text and updated to 1988
    taxonomy.

    Profile: In B.C. this field is assigned -.

    Sortcat is a provincial field and is sum of soilcode + modifier.

                  Soil Layer File Documentation

    For the Taseko Lakes Report the sources for each soil profile are
    indicated. Where data was missing, the data were estimated. Where
    required thickness of horizons were adjusted from those in the
    descriptions so as to fit the taxonomy requirements.

    Beehive 09: profile from Taseko Lakes report. Data from the
          Redtop soil used as an estimate as Redtop is podzol
          on same parent material as Beehive which is a Brunisol.

    Big Bar: profile from Taseko (same as Lac La Hache)

    Big Bar 16: use Big Bar as an estimate. The 2 surface horizons
          are eolian Use Vedan Meadows eolian as estimate)

    Big Creek: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Bowman: profile from Taseko Lakes (same as Lac La Hache)

    Borin: profile from Taseko Lakes.

    Borin 09: use Borin and add rock at 45 cm.

    Cardiff: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Cardiff 05: use Cardiff and add rock at 75 cm.

    Cavanaugh: profile from Taseko Lakes (same as
          Lac La Hache)

    Chasm: profile from Taseko Lakes report (same as in Lac La Hache
          report). Data are estimated from profile description and
          soil description in text.

    Chasm 05: use Chasm profile as estimate  add rock at 75 cm.

    Chaunigan Lake: use profile from Taseko Lakes. Cg1 is volcanic
          ash. Rail data are used as an estimate for Ph, CEC, organic
          C and organic and volcanic ash estimates used for other
          estimates.

    Chilcotin: profile from Williams Lake report (same as Taseko
          Lakes).

    Chimney: profile from Williams Lake report (same as Taseko Lakes).
          Also the same profile as in Bill Watt's masters thesis.

    Chimney 05: use Chimney as an estimate and add rock at 75 cm.

    Chimney 07: use Chimney as estimate and add sa horizons, alter
          Ph and EC to fit saline phase. Add g horizon to fit
          imperfect drainage.

    Churn Creek 19: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Cone Hill: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Courtney: profile from Taseko Lakes report (same as Lac La Hache)

    Desperation: profile from Taseko Lakes report. Data estimated.

    Dil Dil: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Dog Creek 05/09: use profile from Taseko Lakes add rock at
          appropriate depths 45 or 75 cm.

    Drummond: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Elliot 08: profile from Taseko Lakes report (same profile as
          in Lac La Hache report).

    Fletcher Lake: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Gay Lake: profile from Williams Lake report (same as Taseko Lakes)

    Granite Creek: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Hargreaves: profile from Williams Lake report (same as Taseko
          Lakes)

    Hawks: profile from Horsefly report CF% estimates based on Hawks
          in Taseko (gravelly textures) Also fact soil is GLFL and
          is gravelly - sandy skeletal.

    Helena: profile from Taseko Lakes (same as Lac La Hache)

    Helena 17: use Helena as an estimate and increase coarse
          fragments in surface to 50%.

    Kloakut: profile from Taseko Lakes report. BD and COFRAG data from
          Bill Watt's thesis.(same profile).

    Konni Mountain 09: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Mount Vic 22: profile from Taseko Lakes report. add u to horizons
          to indicate the solifluction.

    New Meadow 12: profile from Taseko Lakes report. Add surface 30 cm
          of Om.

    Plitz: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Plitz 05: use Plitz, drop C add Rock.

    Purjue: profile from Taseko Lakes.

    Rail 11: profile is from Taseko Lakes report (same as Lac La Hache
          report). Cg1 is volcanic ash. Bulk density and KP33, KP1500
          are from averages for similar volcanic ashes reported by
          Fosberg, M.A., A.L. Falen, J.P. Jones, and B.B. Singh 1979.
          Physical, chemical, and mineralogical characteristics of
          soils from volcanic ash in northern Idaho: I. Morphology and
          genesis. Soil Sc. Soc. Am. J. 43:541-547.

    Redtop Mountain: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Shemwell: profile from Taseko Lakes report. Same profile as in Bill
          Watt's thesis.

    Taseko: profile from Williams Lake report (same as Taseko).

    Tatlow: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Tatton: profile from Taseko Lakes report (same as Lac La Hache)

    Tete Angela: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Tete Hill: profile from Bill Watt's thesis. William J. Watt,
          1974. Master of Science Thesis, Marginal Capability
          Lands of the Chilcotin, UBC Dept. Soil Science.

    Toosey: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Trurans: profile from Taseko Lakes (same as Lac La Hache)

    Tubbs: profile from Taseko Lakes report (same as Lac
          La Hache)

    Tyee: profile from Taseko Lakes report (same as Lac La Hache
          report).

    Tyee 05: use Tyee as estimate. Drop C horizon and add rock at 75
          cm.

    Tyee 17: use Tyee as an estimate and increase coarse
          fragment content in surface horizons.

    Vedan Meadow: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Whiskey Creek: profile from Williams Lake report (same as Taseko
          report).

    Willan Lake 09: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Williams Lake: use profile from Williams Lake report (same as Lac
          La Hache).

    Williams Lake 05: use Williams Lake and add rock at appropriate
          depth.

    Williams Lake 07: use Williams Lake as an estimate and add sa,g
          horizons and increase Ph and EC to fit saline phase.

    Williams Lake 17: use Williams Lake and increase coarse fragment
          content in the surface horizons.

    Withrow: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Yalakom: profile from Taseko Lakes report. 1st Bm is volcanic ash.
          (Cg1 of Rail is used as an estimate for particle size),
          buried Ah changed to Bm at suggestion of correlator.

    Yohetta: profile from Taseko Lakes report.

    Zenzako: profile from Williams Lake report (same as Taseko
          report).

    Note: number of observation = 1 if real data for that horizon
          and that profile and = 0 if estimate, either as a value
          from another profile or estimated from no real data.

13  ANALYTICAL METHODS LIST [refer to McKeague if possible]:
        McKeague, J.A. 1976

    CF% unless a percentage is given:
    gravelly = 35%, very gravelly = 60%, and if description indicates
    some gravels present percentage = 5%, 10%, or 15% depending on
    materials or description.

    Particle size fractions estimated from mid points of texture class
    if not provided, Where data for one horizon is real and texture in
    underlying or overlying horizon is same the real data is used as
    estimate. Particle size estimates used for various textures given
    below:

    Texture        % sand    % silt    % clay

    HC             10        10        80
    C              20        30        50
    SIC            5         45        50
    SICL           10        55        35
    CL             35        30        35
    SCL            60        10        30
    SIL            25        60        15
    SIL-SICL       10        64        26
    SIL-FSL        45        50        5
    L              40        42        18
    L-SL           50        32        18
    SL-L           55        30        15
    SL             65        25        10
    FSL            45        50        5
    LS             80        15        5
    S              90        5         5
    SANDY GRAVEL   95        3         2

    organic carbon was given in most cases and for lower horizons C%
    was estimated to decrease with depth.

    PhCaCl2 estimated from PhH2O and vice versa add .5 to PhCaCl2 to
    estimate PhH2O (Davies,1971, Soil Sc Soc Am J. 35:551-552)

    cec was provided for this report in most cases and where data not
    available for lower horizons data estimated from previous horizons.
    Bases calculated from the cec and exchangeable bases.

    Ksat estimated using structure as developed by McKeague etal 1986
    and discussed in Coen and Wang 1989. This is the approved method
    for this project.

    Given the level of accuracy the following values are used:

    cm/hr          class

    60             H2
    30             H1
    10             M3
    3              M2
    1              M1
    0.3            L3
    0.1            L2
    0.01           L1

    In estimating Ksat each horizon is treated independently, and the
    horizon above or below does not  have an influence.

    Water retention values: Kp0 calculated from total porosity
    equation. Kp10,Kp33, and Kp1500 are calculated from regression
    equations developed for B.C. using available data.

    Bulk density estimated from texture, and horizon using the approved
    methods for this project. Refer to Pettipiece 1987, and McKeague
    and Wang 1985?

    Note: bulk density values reported in Bill Watt's thesis indicate
    that there are high values for the parent materials. Bill also
    indicated in a telephone conversation April 16,1990, that the soils
    in the interior Chilcotin Williams Lake area are quite compact
    especially the tills, even the ablation till. The estimates of 1.70
    and 1.80 for C horizons in till are not out of line with what has
    been measured for the region. Also, used the corrected BD values
    from W. Watt's thesis. The BD values from Lac La Hache report have
    been corrected for coarse fragments.

    EC unless indication of salinity EC = 0 and CanSIS guidelines
    followed for salinity classes.

    CaCo3 unless indication is given = 0 weakly calcareous = 3
    Ck = 10 Cca = 20.

    Where PH2 >= 8.0 EC=1, CACO3=1 if no other indication of salinity
    or carbonate given.

    Litter estimates based on summary of available North American data.

    Organic soil estimates based on summary of available Northern
    Hemisphere data.

14  ESTIMATE OF RELIABILITY: None Given

15  LIST OF ORIGINAL CATEGORIES AND CONVERSIONS (OPTIONAL):

16  OTHER PROVINCIAL INTERPRETATIONS:

17  OTHER PROVINCIAL COMMENTS: