HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPA1677I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J HC
i07
.A42
J T3
v.2
J
J
PHASE I
RESOURCE INVENTORY
AUGUST, 1983
AGRICULTURE
ELEMENT
STATE OF ALASKA
Department of Natural Resources
4420 Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Soil Conservation Service
,
~
..)
~.
~
..
...,
:Jj
-"
.,.,
.;
_.
.;i
;-(C
~ "n:: !\hY /07
,A-"'Z,.,
AGRICULTURE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Tanana Basin includes 21 million acres of land
along the Tanana River stretching from the Canadian border
on the east to the Yukon River on the northwest. As shown
in Figure 1, it includes the most populated area of
Alaska's Interior. Except in the areas which have had area
plans completed, this study addresses all state selected,
tentatively approved and patented land within the Tanana ·
Basin.
Exclusive of lands already designated for agriculture,
this analysis indicates that there are an estimated
1,214,000 acres of lands with agricultural potential in the
Tanana Basin. About 582,000 acres of these lands lie
within six miles ·of a road or navigable river and are
therefore relatively accessible, although they may be
located a considerable distance from potential markets.
As discussed in Chapter 5, if the state is to supply a
reasonable share of the domestic market for agricultural
products, approximately 485,000 acres of cropland would be
needed. The current out of state demand for Alaskan barley
is minimal, since thus far, Alaskan barley prices have not
been competitive on the world market. This situation may
change, however, as more Alaskan farms come on line and
world prices change. In the meantime, however, the
domestic market appears to be the most promising.
Within the Tanana Basin, the state has already
designated 379,000 acres for agriculture, of which 115,000
have sold and the rest are expected to sell within the next
few years. In addition, there are extensive areas of
agricultural land in other areas of the state, particularly
in the Mat-Su reg ion. These areas should be adequate to
both supply the projected domestic market and test the
feasibility of exporting agricultural products.
Based on the information in this report, the Division
of Agriculture recommends that lands with agriculture
potential be designated for agriculture or resource
management wherever conf 1 icts with other resources can be
minimized. Overall, the emphasis will be on small scale
agricultural sales in the most accessible areas and
protection of agricultural soils through resource
management designation in the less accessible areas .
/'J
f/,Z..
CONTENTS
~
]
"
1,
'
Chapter I
Chapter2
Chapter3
Chapter4
ChapterS
Chapter&
Chapter7
Appendices
~-------------~
Introduction ....................................... 1·1
Issues and Local Preferences .......................... 2·1
Supply of Agricultural Soils ........................... 3·1
Economic Feasibility ................................. 4·1
Agricultural Land Demand ............................ 5·1
Demand vs Supply .................................. 6·1
Recommendations ................................... 7 ·1
3A. Soil Class Descriptions
38 • Criteria Physical Capability Map for Agriculture
UOJtanpO..I}UJ
r
r
'
l
l
r
l
r
[
r
' L
r
I b
'
'
-..,
"
-"
'
'lliis report sunmarizes the information gathered by the Tanana
Basin Area Planning staff, the University of Alaska Agricultural
Experiment Station and the DNR Division of Pqriculture concerning
the agricultural resources of the Tanana Basin. It is part of a
resource inventory of seven resources including fish and game,
agriculture, forestry, minerals, outdoor recreation, settlement aQP
water.
'llie purpose of the paper is to present the information on
agriculture in the Basin in a concise form for use during
preparation of the Tanana Basin Area Plan. This plan will allocate
state-owned land in the Basin to different uses and will stipulate
management guidelines for each allocation. The Final Plan is due
for completion in March, 1984.
1-1
'-
r
r
--------------------------------=--o
!
L
r
r
t
L
L
f
l
r
l
t
r
L
L
l
L
F
' L
'\
.A
l
'
"'
~
~
l
..
'
...
_;
~
-'
-.,
':;;
I. INTRODUCTION
Issues and local preferences are important pieces of informa-
tion which must be incorporated into the planning process.
Issues concerning the use of a specific resource provide a focus
and framework for the planning process; local preferences show
how the public feels these issues should be resolved. In this
section issues and local preferences are documented for incorpor-
ation in the planning process through the work of the Planning
Team Members.
A. Issues
An issue is something which is debated. For example, the
amount of land to be disposed of is an issue; some people favor
more land and others would prefer less. Another issue is the
effect of agriculture on fish and game; some feel that the effect
is positive; others feel that it is negative or neutral. The
purpose of this paper with any particular viewpoint. These
issues are then to be addressed in the Tanana Basin Area Plan
which will create policies to deal with them. The issues report-
ed here are those which the plan can affect through classifica-
tions or management guidelines.
The issues identified in this chapter were collected and
summarized from thre~ sources. The public meetings that were
held in the Tanana Basin during the spring of 1982 was the first
source of issues used for this chapter. Planning team members,
after reading the comments from the public meetings developed a
series of issues concerning the resource they represent. The
Tanana Basin Plan sketch elements were a second source used to
identify issues. The sketch elements were developed in 1981 to
provide a starting point for the Tanana Basin Area Plan. The
issues identified in the sketch elements were bas~d on conversa-
tions with agencies, resource experts and public interest
groups. The third source was interviews with agency representa-
tives.
B. Local Preferences
Local preferences about how these issues should be addressed
were determined from two principal sources. One of the sources
which will be used in the planning process for developing local
preferences is a series of community originated land use plans.
Several communities are currently working on proposed plans for
state land in their area; others have already submitted proposals
to DNR.
2·1
.,
..,
These local land use plans provide a clear indication of what a
community prefers. This is particularly true when a proposal re~
cei ves endorsement of village councils, city councils, native
corporations, and other interest groups in the area.
The possibility of doing land use plans was mentioned at the
public meetings and in a newsletter that was sent to all
communities. Only a few of the communities, however, have decid-
ed to submit proposals. Most of these proposals will not be com-
pleted until February, but some have been on file with the State
Department of Natural Resources and summaries are included in
this report.
The Tanana Basin Public Meetings are the other source of
information on local preferences. Public meetings were held in
all communities in the Basin in the spring of 1982 to discuss the
Tanana Basin Area Plan. The notes from these meetings were given
to members of the planning team who then developed the summaries
included here. The summaries represent the planning team members
understanding of how. residents want state land in their area
managed for a specific resource.
The sources of local preferences are not as accurate as a
public survey, but in most cases, they represent the only inform-
ation available. They should not be considered to be represen-
tative of the entire community; they are simply indications of
the opinions of some of the residents.
A survey now being conducted by the Alaska Department of
Community and Regional Affairs will provide a better indication
of local preferences in the Tok area. The results of this survey
will be available to the planning team by March of 1983 .
2-2
.,
"·
-,
c;;
-.
,
-,
~
'
-'
-,.
-"
_)
~
ISSUFS CONCERNING AGRICULTURE
The following issues concerning agriculture were drawn
from the public meetings, sketch elements and interviews
with agency representatives:
ISSUE 1. The amount of state land classified and sold for
agriculture.
ISSUE 2. The size of the farm parcels offered for sale by
the state.
ISSUE 3. The impact of agriculture on the economy of
Alaska.
ISSUE 4. The effect of land disposals on agriculture.
ISSUE 5. The effect of forestry on agriculture.
ISSUE 6. The effect of recreation on agriculture.
ISSUE 7. The effect of minerals on agriculture.
ISSUE 8. The effect of fish and wildlife on agriculture.
ISSUE 9 The effect of agriculture on recreation.
ISSUE 10. The effect of agriculture on land disposals.
ISSUE 11. The effect of agriculture on forestry.
ISSUE 12. The effect of agriculture on water quality and
the environment.
ISSUE 13. The effect of agriculture on fish and wildlife.
ISSUE 14. The effect of agriculture on mineral development.
2·3
'1
'
"
~~
-'
-,
~
.,
-'
~
_,
"'
,,
..,
'
.J
~
_;
III. LOCAL PREFERENCFS FOR AGRICULTURE
A. CoiDDlunity Originated Land Use Plans.
The following section lists the various community
originated plans . that have been completed, or are in pro-
gress for state lands in the Basin. For detailed informa-
tion on each plan listed here, contact the Division of
Research and Development.
1. Minto Flats
Minto Village Council passed a resolution in 1980 re-
questing that the state classify rv1into Flats for Wildlife
Habitat and Forestry. The village council sent the resolu-
tion with a· "Summary Report" about r1into Flats to the
Department of Natural Resources. The Summary Report dis-
cusses the fish and game resources, the village's utiliza-
tion of these resources, and includes a map which
identifies historic fishing spots and trails into the Minto
Flats.
The Department of Natural Resources sent the Summary
.Report and classification request for interagency. review,
but in late 1980 the proposal was put on hold so that it
can be addressed by the Tanana Area Basin Plan.
2. Tok River Basin
In 1979 the Department of Fish and Game, in response
to public opinion in the Tok area, requested that land in
the Tok River Basin be classified as Wildlife Habitat.
DFLWM gave public notice of the proposed classification at
which time the Tok Chamber of Commerce, Tetlin Village
Council and Tok Fish and Game Advisory Board voiced their
support of the classification. The Director of the Depart-
ment of Land and Water and Forests concurred with the
classification action and sent the request to the
Commissioner, at which time it was decided that the classi-
fication should wait until the Tanana Basin Area Plan was
under way .
The Department of Fish and Game wr9te a report in sup-
port of the Tok River classification. Tne report addresses
population, economic considerations, ·wildlife values, non-
consumptive recreation, timber harvesting, mining, manage-
ment objectives and procedures, and it includes a legal
-des,cFiption of the -a:r-ea proposed for wildlife habitat.
2-4
_,
~,
'
-'
'"'
,
4
-,
.JI
_;
~
-'
...:;
3. Lake MinehUJDina
In August 1979, the Lake Minchumina Homeowners
Association sent the Department of Natural Resources a for-
mal classification request based on a Land Use Plan for the
Lake Minchumina Area. The community identified nearby
lands for wildlife habitat, watershed, public recreation,
forestry, greenbelts and dispersed open-to-entry disposal
classification. The community wrote a narrative justifying
their 'proposal.
The proposal went through in-house and interagency
review and public notice. The DFLWM supported the classi-
fications ·and felt that the proposal had generated "a
general scheme for dealing with state iands that both the
public and the district can support." The District sent
the proposal to the Commissioner at which time the request
was put on hold pending the Tanana Basin Area Plan.
4. Yanert-Revine Creek Area CoJDJDunity:
LandUsePlan ·
In December 1979, the communities in the Yanert-Revine
Creek area' submitted a land use plan for lands adjacent to
their community to the . Department of Natural Resources.
The plan was "the result of efforts of the entire
community" and was developed over a period of three months
during which time the community conducted three public
meetings. The plan designated specific areas for dis-
posals, recreation, and wildlife habitat, and included
management guidelines for buffers, density of settlement
and public easements. The plan did not include any formal
classification requests, so it was not processed by the
Divisionof Land and Water. However, the cover letter from
the commurii ty stated that "We, as a community, strongly
urge the Division of Forests, Land and Water Management to
consider this proposal and adopt it as its guidelines for
land disposals in this area."
5. Lower Tanana-Manley Hot Springs Area
The Forestry Section of DFLWM in response to a pro-
posal from Northland Wood, ·requested that certain lands
along the major rivei drainages between Nenana and Manley
'Hot Springs be classified for forestry. The proposal
included a land use plan that discussed the following
topics: location, cri t.eria for the recorrunendation, access,
vegetation, timber resources, soils, wildlife and fish hab-
itat, recreation, current use, reasons for state selection
of the lands, adjacent land uses, benefit· to the public,
expected impact of forest classification, proposed manage-
ment guidelines, and justification for requested classifi-
cation. 2-5
J
'
~
~
--,
_jj
c
_,
The request was sent for interagency review at which
time it was decided that the classification was premature
since other resource potentials of the land had not been
assessed fully.
6. CoJDJDunity Strategy Plans
Tanana Chiefs Conference has worked ext:ensi vely over
the past several years with most Village Councils in the
Doyon Region to develop Community Strategy Plans. Strategy
Plans identify goals and objectives for each community.
r4ost goals and objectives address social services. How-
ever, there is a section in each strategy plan that identi-
fies land use concerns and priorities for their area.
7. Interior Village Assoeiation Planning Projeet
Interior Village Association, an organization based in
Fairbanks, which specializes in helping village corpora-
tions do corporate planning, is currently working with Man-
ley Hot Springs and Tanana to develop corporate plans for
the village's lands. These plans should be done by Septem-
ber. At that time, the village corporations will begin
doing feasibility studies on the projects they identified
in their plan. IVA is also encouraging other Village
Corporations to dQ similar plans.
8. Bean Ridge Corporation ClassifieaUon Request
Bean Ridge Native Corporation of Manley Hot Springs on
October 15, 1982, requested the state to classify lands
surrounding Manley Hot Springs as wildlife habitat. Bean
Ridge feels it is critical to protect habitat lands in the
Manley area, since the land is used for subsistence by
.residents of Manley, Minto, Tanana, Nenana and Rampart and
sport hunters from residents of other areas.
9. Upper Tanana Land Use Plan
The Upper Tanana Development Corporation is currently
working on a community and land use plan for the Upper
Tanana region. The plan will be based on a coordinated
effort of all local governments and interest groups in the
area.
The Upper Tanana Development Corporation hopes to have
some information from their planning effort available in
time to be used in the·Tanana Basin Area planning process.
10. Lower Tanana Land Use Plan
Tanana Chiefs Conference is currently working with the
village councils. city co~ncils and village corporations of
Minto, Manley, Tanana and Nenana on a set of classification
2-6
-,
.,,
~
:;
cJ
~
.JJ
~
-"
requests for state land in the lower Tanana River basin.
Classification requests are for forestry, minerals, and
fish and wildlife habitat. Also included in the plan is a
description of areas that should be off limits to dis-
posals, and lands where some settlement might be accept-
able. This effort should be completed in time to be used
in the Tanana Basin Area planning process.
11. Land Bank No~ninations
The states land disposal program allows the public to
nominate lands that they would like to see sold to the pub-
lic. During September 1982, DNR rece·ived 7 different nomi-
nations for land in the Tanana Basin that should be sold.
The decision on these requests were deferred to the Tanana
Basin Area Plan for planning team review.
2-7
-.
"'
J
"
~
-'
...
""!
-.
..,
-'
'
..,
-'
_..
---,
-""
"
~
..;;
~
-'
B. Tanana Basin Public Meetings
Carlos Lozano, the Tanana Basin Planning Team mem-
ber from the Alaska State Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Agriculture is responsible for incorporating
agricultural concerns into the planning process. After
attending several of the public meetings and reading the
meeting notes, he outlined the following local preferences
for each community in the Basin. These statements
represent the opinions of those who attended the meetings
and are not necessarily those of the community at large.
ANDERSON
The people at this meeting would like to see more
small farms and they prefer to have economics dictate the
future of agriculture.
CAN1WELL
There is support for grazing land and small farms.
DELTA
Very strong support for agriculture along with some
expression to prot~ct existing recreation trails and to
have large and small agricultural tracts was expressed.
Specific conditions or qualifiers which this community
has identified which affect the management of this re-
source are greenbelts.
DOT LAKE
An interest in subsistence farming was presented:
no other interest in agriculture was presented.
HEALY
There was support for agriculture and farm size was
felt to be important in that the farms must be large enough
to be economically supportive.
LAKE MINCHUMINA
According to the comments from the public meeting held
at this community there is very little, if any, support for
agriculture.
MANLEY HOT SPRINGS
A strong interest in small scale agriculture was
expressed.
2-8
'
:J;
~
...,
-'
'
~
__..
--..
...
=t
-'
~
_.
_.
1
_.
•
-l
_.
--.
'•
I
-~
MENTASTA LAKE -no specific concerns were identified.
MINTO -no specific concerns were identified.
NENANA
There was a positive interest in agriculture, however,
they wanted a variety of sizes --with the smaller tracts
located near their co~nunity.
NORTHWAY no specific concerns were identified.
TANACROSS
There was one recorded comment concerning agriculture
and it was a negative comment concerning its popularity in
the area.
TANANA
The group definitely supported the sale of small
agricultural tracts.
TETLIN ·-no specific concerns were identified.
TOK
There is support for agriculture in the area. There
is also concern about the impact of agriculture on fish and
game.
FAIRBANKS
A strong support for agriculture was expressed.
Specific conditions or qualifiers which this community
has identified which affect the management of agriculture:
Greenbelts are important. The timber resources should
be utilized and not wasted and farming should occur in an
environmentally sound manner.
2-9
- - - - ---- - - --------- -----~
L
r
L
r
L
r
L
r
f
L
---·
\...
L
r
I
L
L
J
~,
~,
~
..,
..,
~ .\
-:)
_J
·"
.....
~
.,
~
INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the supply of agriculture in
the Basin. It estimates the amount of land of different
quality which is available in the area.
The chapter is divided into two sections--the first is
"Physical Capability" and the second is "Suitability".
Physical capability concerns the supply of the resource
without reference to ownership, access, or land use poli-
cies. It represents the ability of the land to "produce" a
particular resource.
Suitability refines this capability by taking such
things as land ownership, accessibility/economic feasi-
bility, and minimum parcel size into account. Short-term
and long-term estimates of the supply.of the resource have
been made based on current and expected production costs.
Acreage summaries have been made by planning unit.
These units have no significance in themselves but are
used strictly for convenience in inventorying the re-
sources; it was felt that acreage summaries would be more
useful if done by smaller units rather than for the Basin
as a whole .
-=----------------------_.
3-1
~
'!<
)
~
~
-'
I
-'
~
.J
=:\.
1 _.
""
_:;
_J
~
_.
--,
PART 1. PHYSICAL CAPABILITY OF THE TANANA BASIN
FOR AGRICULTURE
This part of chapter 4 is divided into two sections:
(1) criteria used to produce the maps of physical capabil-
ity and (2) a discussion of the acreage and estimated sup-
ply of the resource by planning unit.
I. Criteria Used to Produee the Maps of Physical Capabllity
The maps showing areas in the Basin which are likely to
have Class II, Class III, Class IV, greater than Class IV
and unsuitable capability for agriculture were based on a
soils map of the Tanana Basin. The soils map used was pro-
duced in 1982 by Ray Krieg and Associates under contract tC>
the Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys. This
map is the best information available to date on the soils
of the Basin. The different sources of information used to
produce this soils map are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Reger, S. , Schoephorster, D. B. , and Furbush,.
1979, Exploratory Soil Survey of Alaska. U.S.
of Agriculture, 213 p., scale 1:1,000,000.
Soil surveys and reports.
Soil Conservation Service, 1975, Soil Taxonomy:
Dept. of Agriculture, no. 436, 754 p .
U.S.G.S. 1:250,000 topographic quadrangle
Aerial photography
c. E. I
Dept.
u.s.
For a detailed discussion of the process used to inte-
grate this information, refer to the Susitna River Basin
Automated Geographic Information System~ Land Capability
and Suitability Analysis, published by Environmental Sys-
tems Research Institute in 1981. This document explains ·
how soils maps were developed for the Susitna River Basin,
which was the same process as that used to produce the
vegetation map for the Tanana Basin.
The soil type map produced by Ray Krieg and Associates
was then used to determine the capability of different
areas for agriculture. To determine the capability of each
soil type to support agriculture, each soil type was class-
ified according to standard Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
categories. This classification was done by Mark Kinney of
the SCS in Fairbanks.
The capability classes rank each soil type according
to its limitations in terms of the plants which can be
grown and/or the conservation practices which must be
used. Class II soils, for example, have relatively few
limitations, while Class IV soils require more careful
use. The classification definitions are presented in
Appendix 4A.
3-2
-,
""1
~
_J
''<
-I
I
~
_.
""'
J
.....
""
i
....
~
-<
~.
""
~-~
....
...
--= -~ ~
"'
limitations,
use. The
Appendix 4A.
while Class
classification
IV soils require
definitions are
more careful
presented in
The results of the classification process are shown in
Appendix 4B. Many of the classifications can be found in
the detailed soil surveys prepared by the SCS for this
area. In areas not covered by detailed soil surveys but
covered by the exploratory soil survey the likely cap-
ability of the exploratory soil type to support agriculture
was estimated.
Based on these estimates and other information pro-
vided by SCS and ESRI (see appendix 4B) Class II, III, and
IV soils were mapped. The map that was produced however
has certain limitations.
In the Fairbanks, Tanana, Kantishna and Livengood
areas, the map and the number of acres in each soil group
is not entirely accurate. All areas with a slope of 12 to
15% that are mapped as Class II soils may include some
Class III and IV soils. The Division of Agriculture de-
cided that this inclusion of lower quality soils into a
higher category was preferable to the alternative. The
alternative not chosen by the Division would have excluded
some Class II soils in areas with 12 to 15% slope from the
Class II soils category. Also, some Class III soils in
areas between 12 and 15% slope would have been eliminated
from the Class III category .
The map of the Tanana Basin showing Class II, III and
IV soils is not included in this report. The map can be
seen at the Department of Natural Resources in Fairbanks.
A summary of the mapped information, however, can be found
in the next section on suitability.
3-3
""'!
._,
_j
...,
;.I
. ,
....
"'
~
_J
•'
...
'0
;i
-"
PART 2. LAND IN THE TANANA BASIN SUITABLE FOR
AGRICULTURE
This part of Chapter 4 refines the capability map explained
in the previous part of this chapter by examining (1) the
amount of agricultural land that is state owned and (2) tne
location of agricultural lands that are economically
feasible to develop.
I. State Owned Agrieultural Lands
~1e number of acres of state selected, tentatively approved
and patented land with Class II, III and IV soils was
calculated manually. The land ownership map used for these
calculations was provided by the Bureau of Land Management.
This ownership map was last updated December 15, 1982.
This information indicates that there are approximately
1, 214,000 acres of Class II and III soils on tentatively
approved and patented land and ·state selected land in the
Tanana Bas in. The actual number of acres of Class II and
III soils available for agriculture however is slightly less
than is indicated by these figures since the land that has
already been disposed of in the state land disposal and
agriculture program have not been subtracted .
3-4
,
"
~*
'
\
:;;
II. Location of Agriculture Lands that are Econo~nically
Feasible to Develop
Specific areas economically feasible to develop for
agriculture were not identified in this part of the
analysis. Numerous assumptions had to be made regarding
markets; transportation and road construction costs; and· how
the product is stored and packaged if areas were to be
identified. Because of the complexity of making these
assumptions and doing various scenarios, such a:n analysis
was not at tempted in this chapter. However, the planning
team member, Carlos Lozano will document the assumptions he
makes regarding these considerations in Chapter 7.
3-5
r
L
L
r
L
f
r
L
r
L
r
'
r
L
r
b
r
l
r
c
r
L
r
L
,..
I!
""
--'
INTRODUCTION
~
Many crop and livestock products can be produced in Alaska. If a
' commercial agricultural industry is to emerge in the state, these products
must be available to the consumer at a price which is competitive. For
this to occur, individual farming and processing units must be sized to
.... allow commercial production to take place in an economically viable
-"
manner. An efficient infrastructure must also be available to support ..,
.1
agricultural producers. If commercial farms and the associated infra-
~-
structure are to be efficient, a sufficient volume of products must be
-" produced and moved through the system.
-.. The State of Alaska is moving toward a feed-grain based agriculture.
Approximately 500,000 acres of farmland, producing feed grain as well as
harvested forage and other crops such as oilseeds, vegetables and seed for
feed grain, will provide the basis for an efficient, cost-effective agri-
cultural industry. Over half (268,000 acres) would be used for production
of feed grains. Most of this acreage is available in the Tanana Basin •
...
The model chosen for analysis for the Tanana Basin was a family farm,
~ "1
:co
3,000 acres in size producing barley on 2,600 acres. Although other crops
~ and livestock are being and will continue to be produced in the basin, the
di greatest portion of agricultural lands in production are producing barley.
~~ _ ~ _____ Th_i~ _ tr_e_nci i_s J-ik_e].y _to continue •
...
4-1 ,.
-'
Important elements contributing to the cast effectiveness of barley
production are. clearing cast, ~and p~ice, barley yield and barley priee.
Clearing cast will vary by caver crop and clearing technique used. In
~
the Tanana Basin, the caver crop is largely black spruce and moss. The .
most common clearing technique involves chaining and piling the caver crop
and breaking the land. Cast estimates for clearing approximately 3,000
' acres average $200 per acre in 1982. This cast was used in the madel.
An important variable in economie evaluations is land priee. Land
priee on the Delta I project in the Tanana Basin averaged $10 per acre
after homestead credits were applied. The interest rate was six percent.
Delta II farms, also in the Tanana Basin, sold for an average of priee of
$180 per acre with an interest rate of 12 percent. To determine the sensi-
tivity of costs to land priee, four priees were used: $10, $25, $50, and
$100 per acre. An interest rate of 10 percent was applied in all cases.
It has been demonstrated that yields as high as 1.8 tons per acre can
be reached on large acreages. On the other hand, as a result of poor
management practices, yields as low as .70 tons per acre have been
recorded. A yield of 1.5 tons per acre is a possible average. To deter-
mine sensitivity to yield, 1.00, 1.25 and 1.50 tons per acre were used.
In-state barley priees have been as high as $160 per ton and at
present are $130 per ton f.o.b. Delta Junction. World barley priees are
currently $120 per ton. To reflect bath export and in-state priee, $100,
$125, and $150 per ton were used.
~
4-2
'
'\
..
~
.i
"'
J
.,
.•
'::,
_i
A development scenario beginning with the purchase of agricultural
rights to uncleared land in the first year (1983) was used. Production and
investment costs for equipment, buildings, grain drying and grain storage
were obtained through personal interviews in the spring and fall of 1982
with farmers in the Delta I project. A typical equipment, building,
drying, and storage complement is shown in Table 1.
Four financial analysis techniques were used to determine the economic
feasibility of each combination of land price, barley yield and barley
price. These were:
1) annual budgets for farms when full production is reached;
2) annual cash flows from year 1 (1983) through year 19 (2001);
3) net present value from 1983 through 2001 and from 1990 when full
production was reached through 2001;
4) internal rate of return from 1983 through 2001 •
Annual budgets provide an indication of operating and average owner
costs for one year. Cash flows indicate how cash would move through an
enterprise over a period of years based on annual revenues and cash costs.
From the cash flows it can be seen in which years, if any, cash returns
would be negative and how many years would. be required to make up this
deficit. The net present value reflects the time value of money and is the
difference between the net cash flow and total capital expenditures. If
the net present value is greater than zero, the return from the project
will more than cover the cost of capital (discount rate). The internal
rate of return represents the rate of return on the capital expended.
" 4-3
..,
~
"
Table 1. Equipm.ent and BuDding Com.plem.ents
· Req~ired to Grow Barley on 2,600 Aeres
Salvage Annual
Item New Cost Value Life Depreciation
250 hp 4WD tractor $105,000 $ 21,000 7 $12,000
175 hp 4WD tractor 75,000 15,000 7 8,500
30 ft tandem disc 30,000 6,000 7 3,400
28 ft chisel 14,000 2,800 7 1,600
45 ft fertilizer
spreader 6,-600 1,300 7 750
36 ft grain drill 36,000 7,200 7 4,100
16 ft swather 20,000 4,000 7 2,300
24 ft combine (2) 200,000 40,000 7 22,800
45 ft tractor-mounted
sprayer 3,500 700 7 400
2-1/2 ton trucks (2) 50,000 10,000 7 5,700
3/4 ton pickup 12,000 2,400 7 1,300
6 ton grain wagons (2) 14,400 2,800 7 1,600
Total $566,500 $113,800 $64,450
60 x 80 building 57,600 -0-20 2,900
Storage and drying 85,000 17,000 20 3,400
-------·--
4-4
Interest
per Acre
$ I. 53
.10
.44
.20
.10
.53
.29
2.92
.05
0 73
.18
.21
$13.90
.66
1.24
I. ANNUAL BUDGETS
An annual budget can be used as a planning tool. It includes all
costs of production as well as cash and noncash ownership costs. Annual
budgets are usually calculated for an average production years, but can
also be used for development planning.
Costs for producing a barley crop are categorized as operating and
ownership costs. Operating costs are those incurred only if a crop is
produced. These include purchase of inputs, operation of equipment, labor,
repair and maintenance, and interest on operating capital. Ownership costs
are associated with purchase and ownership of equipment, buildings and land
and will be incurred whether a crop is produced or not. These costs
include insurance, depreciation and interest on investment.
A. Operating Costs
;i I. Fertilizer: :-:
Years 1-5 of production 154 lb/acre of 46-0-0 (N source)
78 lb/acre of 11-51-0 (P source)
67 lb/acre of 0-0-60 (K source)
Year 6 and beyond 122 lb/acre of 46-0-0 (N source)
.J 78 lb/acre of 11-51-0 (P source)
67 lb/acre of 0-0-60 (K source)
.i
The average price for these fertilizers in Delta Junction in 1982
::0 was $245/ton for 46-0-0, $325/ton for ll-51-0, and $270/ton for
0-0-60.
~
4-5
~'
~
'
,,
j
'">,
2. Seed: Seed prices for Lidal and Galt, the common varieties grown
in the Tanana Basin, was $22/cwt in 1982. The average seeding
rate was 65 lb/acre.
3. Fuel: Diesel fuel in 1982 averaged $1.15/gal, gasoline
$1.33/gal. (An average of $1.23/gal was used for combine fuel).
Where fuel consumption could be obtained from farmers for
particular implements, these f~gures were used. Where it could
not, standard consumption from Farm Machinery Costs as a Guide to
Custom Rates, Alberta Agriculture, Farm Business Management
Branch, Agdex 825-4, 1982, and Farm Power and Machinery Manage-
ment, Iowa State University Press, Ames, 1977, were used.
4. Hired Labor: An average price of $7 per hour was used. Farmers
in Delta Junction in 1982 paid $4/hour for laborers, S7/hour for
general farm workers and $10/hour for specialty operators.
5. Herbicide: Control is necessary for broadleaf weeds. The herbi-
cide commonly used is 2-4, D with an application rate of one pint
per acre. The average price in 1982 was $12.20/gal.
6. Repair and Maintenance: A standard percentage of five percent of
new cost was applied for equipment and two percent for buildings,
shop and office equipment, and storage and drying facilities.
4-6
ALASKA RESOURCES LIBRARY
U.S. DEPT. OF INi'ERIOR
J
'
_j
1
'•.
..J
. ,
7. Interest and Operating Capital: An eight percent rate, that
charged by the agricultura~ Revolving Loan Fund (ARLF); was used
assuming that the loan was obtained on April 1 and repaid
October 1.
B. Ownership Costs
I. Insurance: Insurance was assumed to be carried on equipment
only. A rate of $3.30 per $1,000 new cost was used.
2. Interest on Investment: Interest on Investment (IOI) was calcu-
lated using a standard formula which averages the interest paid
over the lifetime of the loan. An interest rate of eight percent
was used for equipment and buildings. Land loan interest rate was
10 percent. Clearing loan interest was eight percent •
(loan amount) + (salvage value)
IOI = (interest rate)
2
To obtain the cost per acre, IOI is divided by the number of acres
farmed, in the case'of equipment and buildings, and the number of
acres purchased, in the case of land 'and clearing loans •
!I'
4-7
":
·'
j
-'
~-
3. Depreciation: Calculations were made using the straight line
method. It was assumed that e.quipment had a life time of seven
years (the duration of ARLF loans on equipment) and a salvage
value of 20 percent of new cost. Life time of building and drying
and storage facilities was considered to be 20 years (ARLF loan
duration). Buildings were given a zero salvage value, drying and
storage facilities a slavage value of 20 percent of new cost.
4. Loan Conditions: Loans for equipment, buildings, drying and
storage facilities were considered to be financed at the 75
percent level, that is, 25 percent equity is .required from the
borrower. Ninety-five percent of the land cost is financed and
100 percent of the land clearing cost is financed.
An annual budget for a farm producing 2,600 acres of barley on 3,000
acres with a yield of 1.5 tons per acre, land price of $25 per acre, facing
a market price of $125 per ton is illustrated in Table 2. The farm is
assumed to be in full production after year six and thus is using the
reduced amount of fertilizer.
The annual budgets are useful for short-term planning. In the short
term, the farmer is most concerned with annual operating cost rather than
total cost. The annual decision to grow a crop is based on the ·operating
cost. As .long as crop receipts are above this cost, it is in the farmer's
best interest to produce since he will at least minimize losses even though
:t
4-8
-.
.,
"
J
?
-,,
all ownership costs are not covered. In the long term however, all costs
must be covered in most years if the farmer expects to stay in business.
Table 3 illustrates the manner in which the amount remaining to cover
ownership costs can be calculated from the annual budget in Table 2. A
management return has been subtracted prior to calculating the amount which
could be applied to ownership costs. This is an arbitrary figure and could
be eliminated if another source of income is available. In the case shown,
the $102.23 would totally cover ownership costs of $56.31.
:t
4-9
-~
'
. .,
...,
..,.,
.o<
""
Table 2. Annual Budget for 2,600 Acres in Production
ITL'f
ClOSS RECEIPTS FIOH PRODUCTION
CASK COSTS
CASH OPERATir.C COSTS:
FEITILIZEl
SEED
H'EliiiCIDE
FUEL
EQUIPMENT
TILL..\CE
FERTILIZE!
SEED
SllATH
COM!IIf!
HISCELUNEOUS
TlUCAS
FERTILUEit
SEED·
COHBI::'E
!IRED LABOR
DlYI::c
INT'EitEST ON OPERATIHC CAPITAL
TOTAL CASH OPERATIHC COST
CASH OVERHEAD COST:
lEPAII Atoll t!AIHTEIIAHCE
EQUIPY.EHT
TRUCXS
BUILDIIICS
IHSURAKCE
EQUIPHEHT
BUILDIKCS
TOTAL CASH OVERHEAD COST
TOTAL CASK COSTS
EARliiNCS AFTER CASH COSTS
HOM-cASK COSTS:
Ih1EREST ON INVESTMENT
EQUIPKE:liT
BUILDIKCS
STORACE AHD DRYIHC
I..A.ND C LEAlllliC
TOTAL lliiER'EST OH IHVESniEHT
EARHINCS AFTER INTEREST 0:1 INVESTMENT
DEPREC IA II ON
EQUIP:iENT
BUILDIKCS
STORACE AND DRYINC
TOTAL DEPRECIATION
EAB.HIIICS AFTER. DEPRECIATION
EAB.NIHCS AFTER DEPRECTATIOtl AUD
INTEREST ON INVESTY.ENT
LAHll CRJJlCE
EARHIHCS AFTER 1...\ND CIIARCE
EAB.IliiNCS AFTER LAND CHARCE AND
DEPRECIATION
EARiliiNCS AfTER LAND CHARCE,DEPRECIATIOH
ASD INTEREST ON INVESTMENT
"AfTER REACHI~C rULL PRODUCTION, CASH
COSTS ARE P.ED~CED BY 516.04/ACRE DUE
TO A REDUCTIO~ IS rERTILIZER COST
$/ACRE
187. ~0
46.57
13.09
1.53
1.36
0.29
0.29
0.20
1.42
0.40
0.17
0.05
0.80
15.19
8.25
3.68
93.29
I. 72
0.03
0.02
0.69
o.oo
2.46
95.75
91.75
8.28
0.84
1.24
16.00
26.36
65.39
24.90
0.89
1.31
27.10
64.65
38.29 ·-------· 2.85
88.90
61.80
35.44
4-10
ASSUHP:
ACRES IN PRODUCTION
LAfW PRICE-$/ACRE
BARLEY YIELD-T/ACIE
BARLEY PRICE-$/TON
AHOUHT
2600.00
25.00
I. ~0
125.00
"
~
'
..i
.;
'
_J
-,_
-,
J
Table 3. Amount Re~naining After Operating Costs Have Been Paid
TOTAL PER/ACRE
~============ac:=z===========~================================
PRODUCTIOn RECEIPTS 487500.00 187.50
LESS: PRODUCTION COSTS 201695.00 77.58
----------------------------
RETURN TO PRODUCTION COSTS 285805.00 109-92
LESS: HANAGEHENT RETURN 20000.00 7.69
-----------------------------
RE~~NINING TO APPLY TO
01-INER COSTS 265805.00 102.23
============a=== ==============
4-11
CASE:
BARLEY PRICE-$/T
BARLEY YIELD-T/ACRE
LAND PRICE-$/ACRE
ACRES IN PRODUCTIOn
$
125.00
1.50
25.00
2600.00
_j
..,
II. CASHFLOW
Cash flows were developed from the annual budgets. In place of the
average investment costs used in the annual budgets, the amortized yearly
payment were applied. All loan conditions were the same as those used in
the annual budgets.
To caluclate the cash flows, it was also necesssary to formulate a
development and payment schedule, a schedule of purchases of equipment,
buildings, and drying and storage facilities, and the rate at which maximum
.., yields were reached and fertilizer applied •
A. Purchase and PayDlent Schedules
J
"'
1. Land: Payments begin in 19R4
.J 2. Clearing: In 1983, 30 percent is completed. An additional 50
percent is completed in 1984. The final 20 percent in 1985.
--'
Payments begin in 1987 on the initial 30 percent ($60/acre). In
... ~ 1988, they include the additional 50 percent ($160/acre) and in
1989 the full amount ($200/acre).
3. Buildings In 19R5, 25 percent of the buildings are purchased ,_.
with payments beginning in 1986. In 1986 and 1987, an additional
37.5 percent are purchased each year with payments beginning in
1987 and 1988. --------------------------------
--~-~
..
4-12
4. Equipment: In 1985, 55 percent is purchased with payments begin-
ning in 1986. In 1986 and 1987, an additional 22.5 percent is
purchased each year with payments beginning in 1987 and 1988.
5. Drying and Storage: In 1986, 50 percent is purchased with
payments beginnings in 1986. In 1987, the remaining 50 percent is
purchased with payments beginning in 1988.
B. Land Development Schedules: The land development schedules were
prepared considering three levels of potential yields.
Potential Yields
Acres
Year Produced 1.0 Ton/ Acre 1.25 Ton/ Acre 1.50 Ton/ Acre
1985 520 1.00 1.00 1.00
1986 1,040 1.00 1.25 1.25
' 1987 1,560 1.00 1.25 1.25
.; 1988 2,080 1.00 1.25 1.50
1989 2,600 1.00 1.25 1.50
,; In the sixth year of production (1990), fertilizer requirements were
reduced as stated previously.
Cash flows were developed from the schedules. An example for a farm
producing 1.5 tons per acre, a barley price of $125 per ton and a land
price of $25 per acre is shown in Table 4. As can be seen, annual cash
flow becomes positive in 1992. The positive annual cash flows are indica-
tive of a farm which is in full production with and equipment complement
(Table 1) sized to 2,600 acres and fertilization rates lowered after
several crop years have been completed.
·=----~-~-----~-----------
_,
!l'
4-13
~ ....
~
\ _,,
I
.,J ~ i..~ -J __ J iL.._ I•' l ,J I' .. ,J
Table4. Cash Flow For 2,600 Aeres In Production
ANNUAL PROJECTED REVENUES AND EXPENSES
DELTA BARLEY PRODUCTION: 3000 ACRE FARM ---·-------------····----------
YF.AR: 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992
CASII RECEIPTS:
PRODUCTION RECEIPTS 65000 146250 227 500 325000 422500 455000 455000 455000
LOAN RECEIPTS
LA liD 71250
CLEARING 180000 300000 120000
OPERATING 46982 94813 142644 191324 240003 199997 199997 199997
BUILDING 10800 16200 16200
EQUIPMENT 233700 95605 95605 233700
DRYING & STORAGE 31875 31875
SALVAGE 62320
TOTAL RECEIPTS 251250 300000 476482 384743 513823 516324 662503 654997 654997 951017
DISBURSEMENTS:
CASH PRODUCTION COST 43586 87173 130759 174346 217932 176228 176228 176228
CASH DRYING COST 3396 7640 11885 . 16978 22071 23769 23769 23769
INVESTMENT
LAND 75000
CLEARING 180000 300000 I20000
BUILDING 14400 21600 21600
EQU IP~IENT 311600 127473 127473 311600
DRYING & STORAGE 42500 42500
TOTAL INVESTMENT 255000 300000 446000 191573 191573 0 0 0 0 311600
DEBT SERVICE {PRI!IC+INT)
LAND 8369 8369 8369 8369 8369 8369 8369 8369 8369
C.LEARING 15362 40965 51206 51206 51206 51206
BUILDING llOO 2750 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400
EQUIPMENT 4'·887 63250 81613 81613 81613 81613 81613
DRYH!G /. STORAGE 3247 6494 6494 6494 64911 6494
OPERATING 48861 98605 148350 198977 249604 207997 207997 207997
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 0 8369 57230 152961 241326 340818 401686 360079 360079 360079
TOTAL DlSBURSEtiENTS 255000 308369 550213 439347 57 5544 532141 641689 560076 560076 871677
YEARLY CASU CHANGE -3750 -8369 -73730 -54605 -61721 -15818 20814 94921 94921 79341
CUMHUU.TI VE CIIANGE -3750 -12119 -85849 -140454 -202175 -217992 -197178 -102257 -7336 72005
'j j,, L 'I .J ,J ·-
Table 4 (continued). Cash Flow for 2,600 Acres in Production
I 1992 1993 '1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 ASSUKP: AMOUNT
ACRES IN PRODUCTION 2600.00
LAND PRICE -$/ACRE 25.00
BARLEY YIELD -T/ACRE 1. 50
455000 455000 455000 455000 455000 455000 455000 455000 455000 406250 BARLEY PRICE -$/TON 125.00
OPERATING -$/ACRE 83.82
DRYING -$/BUSH 0.15
BUILDING - $ 57600.00
LARGE EQUIP~NT-$ 544546.00
199997 199997 199997 199997 199997 199997 199997 199997 199997 199997 SHALL EQUIPMENT -$ 22000.00
DRYING & STORACE - $ 85000.00
233700 95605 95605 233700 95605 95605 FARM SIZE -TOTAL ACRE 3000.00
CLEARING PRICE -$/ACR 200.00
LAND DEBT SERVICE:
62320 254?5 25495 62320 25495 25495 ' @$25/ACRE 8369.00
@$50/ACRE 16738.00
951017 776096 776096 654997 654997 654997 6 54997 951017 776096 77.6096 @$100/ACRE 33476.00 of" -INTEREST ON LAND (%) 10.00 ~
176228 176228 176228 176228 176228 176228 176228 . 176228 176228 176228
23769 23769 23769 23769 23769 23769 23769 23769 23769 21223
311600 127473 127473 311600 127473 127473
311600 127473 127473 0 0 0 0 311600 127473 127473
8369 8369 8369 8369 8369 8369 8369 8369 8369 8369
51206 51206 51206 51206 51206 51206 51206 51206 51206 51206
41.oo 4400 4400 4400 4400 4400 4/,oo 4400 4400 4400
81613 81613 81613 81613 81613 81613 81613 81613 81613 81613
6494 6494 61,94 6494 6494 6494 6494 6494 6494 6494
207997 207997 207997 207 997 207997 207 997 207 997 207997 207997 207997
360079 360079 360079 360079 360079 360079 360079 360079 360079 360079
871677 687549 687549 560076 560076 560076 560076 871677 687549 687 549
79341 88547 88547 94921 94921 94921 94921 79341 88547 88547
72005 160552 249099 344020 438941 533862 628783 708124 796671 885219
~ -Q')
<.'II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I!
,) ,. L L 'j ,J ~-J __ )
II . • •
11 Table 5. Net Present Value for 2,600 Acres 1n Production I .
PRESENT VALUE CASt! FLO\/
tf.ARI: RECEIPTS CASH-OUT NET-CASH PRESENT PV-CASII INVEST-PV-(8%) RATE-OF --------
, FLO\/ VALUE-S% FLO\/ HENT INVESTMENT RETURN
;;;;r················---~·-·········---~---········---~-·-·····---~~;;···········---~---·-····;;;~~~---······;;;;;~-;~·~;-~;;~-;~~~-=-······;;;~~;;~;;·
1984' 0 0 0 0,86 0 300000 258000 PV OF INVESTMENT • 1513981.34
1985: 65000 48861 16139 0.79 12750 446000 ... ·-. 352340 --·-·····-···
1986: 146250 98605 4~645 0.74 35257 191573 141764 NET PRESENT VALUP: • 44177.40
1987: 227500 148350 79150 0.68 53822 19157J 130270
19881 325000 198977 126023 0.63 79395 0 ---------····· 0 !lATE OF RETURN • 0.03
19891 422500 249604 172896 0.58 100280 0 0
9901 455000 207997 247003 0.51, 133382 0 0
991' 471250 208880 262370 0.50 131185 0 ........ ---0
992 1 549820 209763 31t0057 0.46 156426 311600 143336
9931 512995 20976) 303232 0.43 130390 127473 54813
9941 512995 209763 303232 0.40 121293 127473--------50989. --.
9951 487500 209763 277737 0.37 102763 0 0
996! 487500 209763 277737 0.34 94431 0 0
997
1
487500 209763 277737 0.32 88876 0 ------··---0
998 487500 209763 277737 0.29 80544 0 0
999 549820 . 209763 31,0057 0.27 91815 311600 84132
000 512995 209763 303232 0.25 75808 127473 ---31868
001 512995 209761 303232 0.23 69743 127473 29319
2187602.71
1Jb8662. 29
•··········•
818940.43
0.60
25.00
125.00
I. so
-,
,
·'
.,
'
--
'"'
""'
III. PRESENT VALUE AND INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN
The net present value considers the time value of money. To calculate
net present value, an appropriate discount rate (cost of capital) must be
determined. The prevailing loan interest rate from the ARLF is presently
eight percent. Negative net present values and internal rates of return
were not calculated. This occurred for the cases listed in Table 6.
Table 6. Scenarios Resulting in
Negative Average Returns to Total Costs
Yield Price
Land Price Tons/Acres Per Ton
$10 1.00 $100
125
1.25 100
25 1.00 100
125
150
1.25 100
1.50 100
50 1.00 100
125
150
1.25 100
1. 50 100
100 1.00 100
125
150
1.25 100
125
150
1.50 100
-.. ··---
4-17
'
I
i
i
I
I
I
!
I
J
1
~
"'
Twenty of the scenarios would not pay back total costs. This occurred
for yields of 1.00 and 1.24 tons per acre and barley prices of $100 per ton
for all land prices. Also, for all but the $10 per acre land price and
$125 and $150 per ton and a yield of 1.00 tons per acre resulted in
negative returns to total costs.
When the average earnings were positive, net present values and
internal rates of return were calculated. These results are given in Table
7 as are the per acre average returns.
Table 7. Average Returns, Net Present Values and
Internal Rates of Return for Scenarios Resulting in
Positive Average Returns to Total Cost
Average Net Internal
Land Price Yield Price Returns Present Rate of
Per Acre Tons/Acre Per Ton Per Acre Value Return
$ 10 1.25 $125 -4%
150 + 11
1.50 100 -4
125 + 9
150 + 15
25 1.25 125 s 4.19 -4
150 35.44 + 11
1.50 125 35.44 + 22
150 72.94 + 14
so 1.25 125 1.34 -3
150 32.59 + 9
1.50 125 32.59 -7
150 70.09 + 13
100 1.25 150 26.89 8
1.50 125 26.89 -7
150 64.39 + 12
---~ --------------------------·-·
4-18
~
-,.
"'
-,
~
'
Note that the net present value will always be negative when the
internal rate of return is less than eight percent since the discount rate
selected was eight percent.
For a constant yield and price per ton, changes in land price from $10
to $25 per acre had little or no effect on the internal rate of return. Ari
increase from $25 to $50 caused the internal rate of return to drop one to
two percent as did an increase from $50 to $100. Increasing yield from
1.25 to 1.50 tons per acre increased internal rate of return between three
and five percent. Increasing price from $125 to $150 per ton resulted in
increases in internal rate of return of five to seven percent.
Even though the change in rate of return due to shifts in land price
is less sensitive than to the change in barley yields and barley prices,
the affect is still significant. This is important because land price is
under the control of the state. The price that the state charges for agri-
cultural land can have a major role in providing economic feasibility.
The internal rate of return varied from a minimum of less than one
percent to a maximum of 15 percent. For those cases which had a positive
net present value, the minimum internal rate of return was eight percent.
The higher rates of return correspond to the highest yield and barley
prices. It is not considered unreasonable for yields of 1. 5 tons per acre
to be attained. The price of barley in Alaska will depend on demand and
supply conditions in the state and demand and supply conditions of world
feed grains. Past experience suggests that a price of $125 per ton is
reasonable and, in fact, may be conservative.
4-19
,
..,
~
""
-,
;:j
If yield should drop to 1.25 tons per acre, the internal rate of
return will be four percent for $10 and $25 per acre and three percent for
SSO per acre. At $100 per acre, returns to total cost are negative.
Yields between 1.25 and 1.5 tons per acre at a barley price of $125
per ton will result in returns between four and nine percent at a land
price 'of $10 and will bring negative to seven percent returns at a land
price of $100 per acre. Thus the farmers' management ability and the price
paid for the land wil play an important role in the decision to invest in a
farming enterprise of the type discussed.
It is theoretically irrational for an individual to farm if the total
benefit received is less than that received from an alternative invest-
ment. It is. rational, however, for an individual to receive benefits from
amenity values which are not monetary. The farmer may receive addi tiona!
benefits from the farming operation because it is enjoyable, it is a
desirable atmosphere in which to raise a family, or it is desirable to be
one's own boss. Historically, farmers have been willing to accept an
annual farm income lower than some other alternatives because of these and
perhaps other similar reasons.
~
4-20
?.
'
_,
.;
'
--,
-"
-,
_l
-.
::Ji
·'
_j
::i
-"
_Jj
V. AGRICULTURALLABOR
The importance of agricultural development can be illustrated using
the Delta area as an example. Changes in employment associated with 50,000
and 100,000 acres of agricultural land were projected in 1976. It was
assumed that the farms would be largely involved in small-grain p~oduc-
tion. Some livestock would be produced, but animal numbers would be insuf-
ficient to affect the number of jobs generated. Subsequent estimates of
actual employment on large grain farms indicate a reasonable agreement with
the 1976 projections~ Using this data base, Table 8 indicates the impact
on jobs that would occur if 500,000 acres were developed as family-type
grain farms producing 2,500 acres of barley. The number of jobs created
using a small-grain scenario only, both on and off the farms, by 1992 will
be 2,250.
Table 8. Em.ploym.ent Associated with the Developm.ent
of Grain Farm.s Totaling 500,000 Acres by 1992a
1980 1984 1988 1992
On-farm employment 51 170 510 RSO
(4.5 persons per farm -seasonal)
Off-farm employment 84 2RO 840 1,400
(7 persons per farm)
TOTAL 135 450 1,350 2,250
a lf livestock and other farming enterprises were included in these projec-
tions, employment both on and off the farm would be substantially
increased.
4-21 ~
..,
"
:0
~,
3
~
~
Of all agricultural enterprises, small-grain farms are the least labor
intensive. Employment is seasonal with peaks occurring during planting and
harvest. If enterprises are diversified to include livestock, employment
would increase and become less seasonal.
The development of new farms will encourage other agricultural enter-
prises. A nucleus for the expansion of poultry and vegetable production
already exists in Alaska. Commercial greenhouses will benefit from the
general expansion of agriculture. Grain production and the availability of
by-products from meat and fish processing will provide a feed base for the
expansion of fur farming. Historically, Alaskan furs have maintained a top
position in the market place •
In summary, the implication is that a self-sustaining agricultural
industry, which includes not only grain production but value-added products
such as livestock and dairy products as well, will add jobs where they were
not previously available. Additionally, these jobs will be year-round and
should provide community stability, a factor inherent in agricultural
development.
4-22
L
L
F
L
r
L
r
L
L
r
L
r
l
r
-
L
c
L
! ....
L
L
~.
_;
,
..
"'
_ii
,
;:Ji
·"
_j'
J
..
I. EXISTING PRODUCTION·
Table 9 illustrates recent trends in cropland1 planted and harvested
in Alaska. Data for these 15 years indicate that production statewide has
increased rather rapidly primarily as the result of the Delta I
Agricultural Project. Table 10 shows the distribution of crops on
harvested land.
Table 9. Cropland Statistics, 1981 a
Year Cropland Planted Cropland Harvested
1967 . 17,425 16,970
1968 17,020 16,590
1969 16,895 16,230
1970 17,430 16,210
1971 19,310 17,825
1972 19,905 18,720
1973 20,005 18,R65
1974 19,345 18,825
1975 20,335 19,R15
1976 19,017 18,485
1977 19,005 18,382
1978 20,181 19,828
1979 20,432 19,988
1980 30,484 29, 162
1981 36,881 25,173
Average 20,911 19,405
a Source: Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
1 Includes land in oats, barley, grain mixtures, grass, potatoes,
lettuce, cabbage, carrots, and miscellaneous vegetables.
5-1 ~
~
-,
~
-"
'
_,
_jj
:..j
a Table 10. Acres Harvested, 1981
Crop Acres Harvested
Potatoes 500
Other vegetables
Lettuce 100
Cabbage 41
Carrot 27
Miscellaneous 105
273
Grains
Oats 4,200
Barley 6,700
Grain mixtures 700
11 '600
Grass hay 12,800
TOTAL 25 '173
I
I
I
I
I
a Source: Alaska Crop and Livestock Reporting Service
Like crop production, outputs of other agricultural commodities in the
state are relatively minor at present when compared to production from any
of the "lower 48" states. The production of these other commodities is
shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Production of Selected
Agricultural CoDUDodities, 1981
Commodity Unit of Measurement Total
Beef and Veal lbs dressed weight 749,000
Lamb and Mutton lbs dressed weight 18,000
Pork lbs dressed weight 293,000
Poultry lbs dressed weight 231,000
Milk lbs 13,400,000
Eggs dozen 558,000
L-.......-.--~----
5-2
~
II. EXISTING CONSUMPTION/DEMAND
~ For some resource elements addressed in this report, a distinct
difference exists between actual consumption or available supply and
demand. For example, demand for remote recreation cabin sites currently
exceeds land being made available for this purpose, and is, therefore,
presently unfulfilled. Similarly, existing demand for particular minerals
also appears to exceed currently mined supplies.
For agricultural commodities, however, no such gap exists between
supplies available for consumption and supplies demanded even though at
present Alaska is the most dependent state in the United States in terms of
~
agricultural products (Table 12). People within and close to the study
area, for the most part, can readily obtain food products comparable in
quality and quantity to those available in the remainder of the United
--,., States, and far better than available in most countries throughout the
world. For all intents and purposes, the population has sufficient
supplies to consume what it demands.
-, The concern, however, in terms of resource issues and objectives
considered in this report, is that many Alaskans have a strong desire to
develop the state's renewable resources and become more self-sufficient.
_j
The term "self-sufficient" has strong implications when used in conjunction
~
with the concept of demand. The fact that Alaska's demand for agricultural
commodities is currently being met has little effect on Alaska's demand for
_j both agricultural commodities and self-sufficiency.
..d
~
5-3
..=.J
-.
-,
"-"
_:;
_jj
-"
A statewide goal or desire for self-sufficiency may result in negative
economic impacts unless meeting this goal is subject to economic
feasibility constraints. While most of Alaska's citizens favor the concept
of self-sufficiency, there are many who do so only if sufficiency results
in lower consumer prices than presently exist. Alaska prices tend to
approximate Seattle, Washington prices plus transportation. This price
differential suggests that in-state producers have an advantage over
outside suppliers. While this is true at present, it is true in terms of
transportation cost savings only. Other in-state costs such as labor and
equipment often offset this transportation cost advantage.
Table 12. Existing Supply and DeJDand of
Selected Agricultural CoJDJDodities a
Per Total 1981 Imports to Alaska
Capita Alaska Alaska
Commodity Demand Demand Supply Quantity
(lbs)b (1,000 lbs) (1,000 lbs) (1,000 lbs) Percent
Potatoes 74.8 31,580 9,500 22,080 69.9
Vegetables 158.3 66,832 2,32oc 64,512 96.5
Beef & Veal 124.3d 52,478 749 51,729 98.6
Lamb & Mutton 20.3d 844 18 826 97.6
Pork 56.1d 23,685 293 23,392 98.8
Poultry· 49.3d 20,814 231 20,583 98.6
Milk 546.oe 230,514 13 '400 217,114 94.2
Eggs 35.4f 14,945 874 14,071 94.2
a Based on 1981 Alaska population of 422,187. Source: Alaska Population
Overview -1981, Alaska Department of Labor.
b USDA Agricultural Statistics and USDA Food Consumption, Prices and
Expenditures (nationwide averages).
c Represents 1981 supply.
d Dressed weight -For poultry, dressed wt. and retail wt. are assumed to
be equal.
e Represents milk equivalent of per capita demand for all dairy products.
f One case= 30 dozen eggs= 47 lbs (7.66 eggs= 1 lb).
,.
5-4
.I'
'
I
--'
'
""
.....,
~
l
c3
~
-
~
_j
__;
III. ACREAGE REQUIRED TO SATISFY DEMAND
Since one of the objectives of this planning process is allocating
lands for various uses, the figures in Table 11 must be translated into
acres. However, because of differences in land quality and operator
managerial a~ility, this translation relies heavily on yield projections.
Table 13 has been prepared showing variability of barley yields in selected
areas for the past three years for which data are available.
Location
Alaska
u.s.
Canada
Table 13. Barley Yield8
(Bushels/ Acre)
1978 1979
37.5 49.5
49.2 50.9
45.4 42.2
European Commonwealth 69.7 75.3
Finland 47.8 48.5
Norway 67.3 57.8
Sweden 67.1 61.9
Australia 26.8 27.9
South America 23.8 23.8
Asia 23.1 23.4
Africa 14.9 15.1
World Average 39.4 33.8
1980 Average
29.5 38.8
49.6 49.9
44.8 44.1
79.2 74.7
62.1 52.8
64.7 63.3
70.3 66.4
20.3 25.0
22.5 23.4
22.9 23.1
16.6 15.5
37.6 36.9
i
a Source: Derived from Agricultural Statistics, USDA, 1981.
The vast differences in yields among selected areas of the world
reflect the availability (or lack) of three basic kinds of resources:
physical resources (including environmental), technological, and human
(management) resources. Lower yields in developing countries are primarily
a function of limited technology and management skills,_ while higher yields
"" 5-5
')
"'\
""
1
j
'"\
_j
"'I
.;,
-'
:'
=.:i
_;J
c:\
in developed nations indicate all three kinds of resources are available in
substantial quantities. Several questions have arisen concerning the
reasons for only mediocre yields for the U.S. as a whole. The most
important reason is that, although the u.s. possesses all of the three
basic resources, economics dictate that higher-value crops be grown on the
best soils. As a result, much of the U.S. barley crop is grown on poorer
soils, accounting for lower yield.
Currently, Alaska has a three year average barley yield of 38.8
bu/acre, which is approximately equal to the world average (.36.9 bu/acre).
One of the most overlooked explanations for Alaska's lower yields to date
relates to management--lack of farmer experience in Alaska. Alaska has
access to the best technology, adequate soils, and adequate growing season.
Because yields vary greatly in Alaska, the amount of land needed to
satisfy demand for 100 percent self-suficiency in various agricultural
products has been calculated using several alternative yield assumptions.
Obviously, the higher the assumed yield, the less land is required to
produce a particular quantity of product. Tables 14, 15, and 16 illustrate
land required per capita to satisfy demand for particular items assuming
various yields/acre. In other words, acreage figures shown in these tables
indicate the amount of land required to produce the average person's annual
intake of each commodity listed in the "item demanded" column. All "items
demanded" shown are for human consumption with the exception of horses
which are primarily for recreational use.
,..
5-6
...,
J
-,
=
-..,
_,
!:
!:
.::::;;
_jj
Item
Demanded
Meat
Poultry
Eggs
Dairy
Horses
TOTAL
Table 14. Barley and Bay Land
(Acres per Capita)
Assumed Yield per Acre
40 bu. barley 50 bu. barley 60 bu. barley
1.0tonshay 1.5 tons hay 2.0tons hay
2.154 1.681 1.385
0.126 0.101 0.084
0.092 0.074 0.061
0.415 0.322 0.264
0.066 0.048 0.038
2.853 2.226 1.832
Table 15. Vegetable Land
(Acres per Capita)
70 bu. barley
2.5 tons hay
1.178
0.072
0.053
0.224
0.032
1.559
Assumed Yield per Acre
Item Demanded
j 80Cwt j 90 Cwt j1oo Cwt 70Cwt
All vegetables currently 0.023 0.020 0.018
produced in Alaska
--------------··· ---
Item
Demanded
Potatoes
'--..--
Table 16. Potato Land
(Acres per Capita)
Assumed Yield per Acre
9tons 10tons 11 tons 12 tons
(180 cwt) (200cwt) (220cwt) (240 cwt)
.0042 .0038 .0034 .0031
0.016
13 tons
(260cwt)
.0029
When per capita land requirements are multiplied by population
i
-~-------ngure~f,-t:ne total -demanq for land for agricultural uses can be calculated.
:>
5-7
IV. ALANDBASEMODEL
3.)
It is highley unlikely that Alaska will become totally self-sufficient
in agricultural production at any time in the foreseeable future. However,
a reasonable model based on a feed grain production system can be
developed.
Adequate supplies of grain in the state would eliminate the cost of
freight from the Pacific Northwest as a component of the feed-grain price
in Alaska. The surplus not used by the in-state livestock industry would
\ be available for export. The only way to encourage production of surplus
feed grain is to provided an efficient system for accessing available
export markets.
An efficient system for exporting feed grain required a critical
_; volume of grain. A small export terminal at tidewater can be operated
efficiently when 150,000 tons of grain are moved through the system. This
volume would also lower transportation costs to in~state users.
i With increases in grain supplies in Alaska, livestock producers could
. ...I
supply significantly more than the two percent of the red meat marketed in
the state. Alaskan milk production could also be increased substantially
above the current 15 percent. Slaughter facilities could efficiently
....
process 100,000 hogs and 20,000 slaughter cattle annually in Alaska. These
r
would supply approximately 43 percent of the pork market and 25 percent of
-"
the beef market in the state. As dairies at Point MacKenzie and other
_j areas in the state expand milk production, raw milk supplied to Alaskan
~ processors will increase. By the end of the deca_c!e:_, _ _? ~-ee~r~~I!~ of the
co-:-~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ -~ = = ~ ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ______:_ ~~~----------------
,.
5-8
,
"'
f·
j
~
~
'
'"'
..,
""
"
-'
Alaskan market could be supplied by Alaskan producers. Expansion of
the livestock industry will occur in areas of the state other than the
Tanana Basin. This expansion is important to the basin, however, since it
will provide markets for feed grains and other products produced.
Expansion of Alaska's livestock industry will not occur unless compet-
itively priced feed grains are available. With competitively priced feed
grains, consumers also can expect food products from Alaskan poultry,
sheep, and goats to increase. Expanding infrastructures for grain produc-
tion would benefit farmers producing vegetable crops, oilseed crops, and
seed for feed grains and grasses.
The major components of a model for Alaskan agriculture are:
Competitively priced feed grain
Expansion of the livestock and dairy industry
Encouragement of production of other agricultural products.
The model must, by necessity, be land based. Sufficient cropland is needed
to produce feed grain for the in-state market and provide sufficient volume
for an efficient and cost-effective export system. 'This will provide feed
grain in Alaska at a competitive price. Additionally, grazing lands and
harvested forage will be required if cattle and sheep production are to be
expanded. Projections of animal numbers are based on the volume needed for
the efficient operation of facilities for meat and milk processing.
Parameters for animal pr_o<fuction and the percenta.ge_ of in-:-state
markets supplied by Alaskan animal products are shown in Table 18. The
acreage which will be needed to produce feed grains and harvest forage for
,.
5-9
~
'
"':
'
.i
"'
J
:
I
d
~
-·
.,
:..;;
_)
Ji
the livestock industry as well as feed grains for export is shown in Table
19. Much of this acreage is located in the Tanana Basin. Rangeland needs
and acreage for other crops such as seed, oilseed, and vegetables are also
listed, although those used for range will largely be located outside the
basin.
Table 17. Produetion ParaJDeters for a
Model of Alaskan Agriculture
Number of Requirements Per Animal Percentage of
Product
Animals a
State Market
Type Amount Satisfied
Beef Cattle 66,000 forage 2.00 acresb --
Slaughter Cattlec 20,000 feed grain 1.45 acresd 25
Market Hogs 100,000 feed grain .40 tonse 43
Dairy Cattle 6,000 feed grain 2.90 tons 75
forage 4.00 acres
-
a Number of other animals such as poultry, sheep and goats were not
estimated; rather acreage required for feed production was estimated.
b Based on an average of 1.6 ton/acre harvested.
c Only slaughter cattle are processed for the consumer market.
d Forage and range requirement included in Beef Cattle.
e Includes requirement for boars and sows.
5-10 :r
_)
~
j
-.,
~J
'
'1'
'
j
~,
.J
1
_j
' _.
--,
..J
'""'
Table 18. Crops and Acreage Required
to Support the Agricultural Model
Crop Amount Required (tons) Acres Required
Feed Grain
Slaughter Cattle
Market Hogs
Dairy
Other Livestock
Total In-state
Export
Total Feed Grain
Harvested Forage
Beef Cattle
Dairy
Other Livestock
Total Harvested
Other Crops ~·
Feed Grain Seed
Other Seed, Oilseed,
Vegetables & others
Total Other Crops
TOTAL CROPLAND
Grazing Land
Beef Cattle
TOTAL GRAZING
29,000a
4o,ooob
17,400C
10,000
96,400
150,000
246,400
211 '200
38,400
1.45 ton x 20,000 slaughter cattle = 29,000 tons
.40 ton x 100,000 hogs = 40,000 tons
2.90 ton x 6,000 dairy cattle= 17,400 tons
105,oood
163,oood
268,oood
132 oooe f ' ' 24,000g
24,000
180,000
12,000
25,000
37,000
485,000
69o,oooh
690,000
Assumes a yield of 1.15 ton per acres and that 1/4 of the land is fallow.
1.6 ton/acre x 66,000 beef cattle x 2 acres = 211,200 tons.
Includes the harvested forage requirement for slaughter cattle.
1.6 ton/acre x 6,000 dairy cattle x 4 acres = 38,400 tons.
15 acres x 46,000 beef cattle (does not include 20,000 slaughter cattle)
= 69,000 acres.
:>
5-11
Afddns ·sA puumaa
r
r
F
r
r
r
c
L
' L
r
~ L
r
L
i
l.
L
L
J
:;-
.,.
...,
..,
..1
\,
-.
_.;
'
.:0
j
-'
SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR AGRICULTURE
DEMAND
The gross area needed to meet current Alaskan demand for
potatoes, vegetables, beef, lamb, pork, poultry, milk, and
eggs is dependent on assumptions concerning both the per-
centage of the total demand that will be supplied from the
Tanana Basin, and the crop yields of Alaskan soils.
Assuming that it would be economically feasible for the
Tanana Basin to meet 100% of Alaska's demand for agri-
cultural products 1 and· that barley yields are in the 40
bushels per acre range, there will oe a demand for approxi-
mately 485,000 acres.
The demand for Alaskan agricultural products from out-
side the state is dependent on the competitiveness of
Alaskan prices on the world market. If Alaskan barley
prices become competitive, there could be a large demand
for land in the Bas in for agriculture. (See Chapter 4
concerning the competitiveness of Alaskan barley on the
world market) •
SUPPLY COMPARED TO DEMAND
The total supply of lands with Class II and III soils
in the Basin is approximately 1,214,000 acres. Already in
the Tanana Bas in approximately 1151000 acres of state land
have been sold in large and small tracts for agriculture.
The state has identified another 26 4, 000 acres for small
agriculture and the proposed Nenana-TOtchaket large tract
agriculture project. If these projects go, there will be a
total of over 379 1 000 acres of agricultural land in the
Basin. This is approximately 106,000 acres short of the
485,000 acres needed for the Tanana Basin to meet the likely
statewide demand for agricultural products.
The demand for this number of acres could be met from
the total supply of Class II and III soils in the Basin.
However, only a small percentage of these acres are
accessible by the existing transportation network, and the
accessible areas are most likely to be economically .
feasible.
6-1
SUOJlUpuammoaaH
rr
'
,r
L
r
' L
r
h
L
L
.r
L
,,
L
L
F
L
-,
~
c
'
'
j
--,
_J
...,_
) __,
_J
--"
'
_j
I. STATEWIDE GOAlS AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE
MANAGEMENT IN THE TANANA BASIN
A. Introduction
'Ihe preceding chapters describe existing and expected demarrl for
agricultural products, the availability of agriculture lands to supply
those . products, and the economic feasibility of agricultural
developnent. 'Ihese analyses, together with the goals for agriculture
laid out in the FY83 Statewide Natural Resources Plan, form the
foundation for the management recorrnnendations that follow.
B. Relationship of Statewide Agriculture Goals to the Tanana
Basin
'Ihe Statewide Natural Resources Plan is the broadest of the plans
developed by the Department of Natural Resources. It provides the
context for the area plans, such as the Tanana Basin Area Plan, by
setting forth goals and objectives for each resource. 'Ihe Statewide
Plan is used in formulating ADNR' s budget and setting inventory and
planning priorities.
The following goals and objectives were developed by the Div).sion of
Agriculture as part of their statewide framework to define the purposes
and goals of agriculture in the state.
1. Economic Development and Quality of Life. Develop an
agr1cul tural wdustry that contr1butes to state and local
economies, without long-term subsidy, by providing increased
employment, increased per-capita income, arrl opp.::>rtunities for
Alaskans to pursue an agrarian lifestyle.
Although it may not be economically feasible to bring all
agricultural lands into production by 1990, potential agricultural lands
should be preserved and managed so they will be available for future
agricultural use. Should the state pursue a self-sufficient agricultural
industry, the agricultural resources in the Tanana Basin would be
essential in meeting a portion of the land base requirements for in-state
production.
Sufficient agricultural soils (Class II and III) have been
identified in the ·ranana Basin to meet the projections for agricultural
production to 1990. In addition to 115,000 acres of agricultural land
already sold in the Tanana Basin, an additional 264,000 acres are
profX>Sed for sale by 1985. Assuming 65%a of this land comes into
production by 1990, there will be a sufficient amount of land
a. Agriculture Element Paper, Susitna Area Plan, 1983
7-1
""
.,
.-1
--'
'""'
'-'
'
_}
_.)
-,
"':
:_;;
.J,
on which to test large scale agriculture. Although the long term
feasibility of agriculture exp:>rts is uncertain under current market
conditions, it is imp:>rtant to have enough land dedicated to agriculture
to test its feasibility over a number of years. In the lon:j term,
exportation of agricultural ~oducts may be feasible and it would be wise
to set aside sufficient land for this possibility and thus not to
preclude the option.
Therefore sorne agricultural lands should be designated for
agriculture but not scheduled for sale at this point. As more land comes
into agriculture production and if and when market oonditions make sale
of more agriculture land desirable, then these acres should be added to
those scheduled for sale •
2. Providing Agricultural Products. Ensure the availability of
nutr1t1ous and low cost agricultural fcx:ii products produced in
Alaska and lower the State's dependence on imported food.
If 100% of the vegetables and potatoes oonsumed within Alaska were
grown in the state, 13-18,000 acres would be required to supfX)rt the
projected fOpulation by the year 1990. In the Tanana Basin, 115,000
acres have already been sold for agricultural developnent and 264,000
additional acres are scheduled for sale by 1985. This is enough land to
a~ly meet in-state demand for vegetables and potatoes.
A self-sufficient livestock industry could require a land base for
grain production of approximately 460,000 acres statewide by 1990. The
379,000 acres already allocated for agriculture in the Tanana Basin would
contribute substantially to this industry. Including roth past and
currently planned agriculture sales statewide, this acreage could meet
the entire statewide demand to tl1e year 1990.
Current constraints to providing agriculture products are not
related to the available land base but to efficient developnent of the
land already allocated. In-state agricultural production would be
furthered if existing farms produced higher yields rrore economically so
there would be sufficient economic incentive to buy locally grown food
products. Research and development of better methods and crops varieties
better suited to the Interior would aid in lowering prices of locally
grown crops.
3. Revenue for Farmers. Develop an agriculture industry that
increases the value of farm production to faDners.
The preceding goals and policies address various issues which will
help supp:>rt the profitability of farm production. In addition to
developing a nore profitable agricultural industry, certain non-monetary
values can also increase the value of farm production to individual
farmers. Many fX)tential farmers are interested in making a "living off
the land" as opp:>sed to large scale farming. The acres of small =---------scattered-parcels -of-Cfas_s_If -an<r rtf-soils,-too -small -for-agricuH.urar-----------
-~
projects, could be used to provide homestead acreage on which farmers
could p~rsue a lifestyle as well as agricultural production to contribute
7-2
~
·.,
...,
..i
:::I
-~
. .J
.f
:_j
to the local economy.
Improved production through better crop strains, improved management
techniques and improved infrastructure will also increase benefits to
farmers. Research can provide better crops strains and management
techniques and education can assist individual farmers in using the rrost
up-to-date technology. Continued sales of ·agricultural lands will
encourage production to help support infrastructure necessary to
economically process and market crops and commodities.
4.Conservation. Design and conduct all development programs
to maintain the productive capability of Class II and III soils,
and rangeland.
In order to protect resource values, Far~ Conservation Plans should
be required on all lands sold for agriculture production. These plans
will incorfX)rate appropriate ecologically sound agriculture practices
developed by the Soil Conservation Service and other agencies with
relevant expertise. In addition, agriculture parcel recipients should be
encouraged to participate in SCS conservation programs.
Grazing fX)tential is not identified for lands in the Tanana Basin
and lands for this purpose will mt be designated in the. plan. However,
guidelines for management of grazing lands will be developed. In order
to allow flexibility and tailoring of requirements to local conditions,
range manage.11ent plans will ·be developed instecrl of standard guidelines
for all areas. 'lbese plans will address stocking densities, water
quality protection and other habitat and environmental concerns.
C. CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, most of the statewide goals for agriculture are best
pursued in the Tanana Basin by pursuing the proposed agriculture
disposals and allocating those agriculture areas identified in the
subregions.
~e Tanana dasin can contribute to the state's goals for agriculture
through the sale of lands already allocatErl for primary use agriculture.
Based on current demand studies, there is sufficient land for agriculture
to the year 1990 uf we assume that the Basin will meet up to 50% of the
state's denand, based on the acreage already proposed for sale •
Class II and III soils should be designated for either agriculture
or resource management wherever there is ro conflict or where conflicts
can be minimized through management guidelines. Wlere conflicts do
exist and where lands are essential for other resources, the feasibility
of designating land for agriculture will have to be evaluated.
The designation of agricultural soils for resource management will
protect the potential for agricultural use of those lands in the future
if changing circumstances warrant such use. W:>rld needs and markets are
·~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~:ttr.i41Yal..l~y ~ -cl:!.ang-ing.-_p,g.,;.icuJ.-tut;a.l~ ~needs~ ~o-f~ ~tile~ st;ate~ Ot; ~ Gl'lan<3es ~ :1nc ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
economic feasibility may someday make more land for agriculture necessart
or desireable.
7-3
'
"
.1
3
-"
_;
ci
_)/
Meantime the way to meet statewide goals seems to be to increase
productivity and improve the feasibility of development of existing
agricultural lands. W:tys to do this include emphasizing research and
education, both for the industry in the Interior and for individual
farmers.
II. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
A. ReeoJDJDendations for Designations
'Ihe following goals and objectives were developed by the Division of
Agriculture for management of agriculture lands in the Tanana Basin.
1. Lands to be Managed Primarily for Agriculture
There is presently enough land allocated to agriculture in the
Tanana Basin to meet near term demand. Combined witl1 acreage recommended
in the Susitna Basin. Plan, there is sufficient acreage to meet
anticipated statewide demand to 1990. Sorne accessible agriculture lands
will be designated for agricultural sale over the next 20 years for snall
agriculture and agricultural homesteads .
Land designated for agriculture but not scheduled for near term sale
will be managed for other resource uses which do not preclude eventual
use for agriculture. /
2. Lands Where Agriculture Potential Needs to Be Protected
Although the state may not need additional agricultural lam for
production at present, changing needs and technology may produce
different requirements and possibilities at some point in the future.
The potential for export markets suggests that the bulk of prime state
agricultural lands should be reserved for agricultural ~se in the event
that long-term markets prove favorable. In order not to preclude
opportunities for resource developnent in resJ:)Onse to chang1ng needs,
capable soils should be designated for protection of agriculture values
wherever this is practicable.
'Ib accomplish this, the bulk of inaccessible areas of class II and
III soils should be classified resource management with agriculture
identified as a primary value. These lands should be managed for
multiple use in ways that will not preclude the developnent of
agriculture in the fu·ture and should be reevaluated when the plan is
revised or whenever market conditions warrant.
-=-· = =· = = = -~-= = = -~ = ~-= -~ ~ = ~-~----~----~---~-------.--~-~---------·-----~------------.-----------------~-----~----~ .....---~ --~ ~ ~ --~ ~~-~ ~ ~ = ---~
7-4
'
;
·,
"!
.J
--:--
--;;
_,
··--,
•'
,..,.
·"'
-"
B. Manage~nent Guidelines
1. Grazing
Natural grasslands in the Tanana Basin are scarce, but if the
vegetation is altered many areas can support grazing. Grazing leases
will be limited to consideration on marginal agriculture soils. or good
agriculture soils of limited extent. Other departments or divisions will
be consul ted prior to approval when improved pasture is proposed in a
grazing lease. Although grazing lands benefit the agricultural industry,
grazing activities often conflict with other land uses. Many of these
problems can be mitigated by grazing policies and guidelines. These
policies and guidelines will b€ addressed in the Statewide Natural
Resources Plan.
2. Timber Salvage
It is generally agreed tl1at the public should be compensated for the
value of the timber on lands to be cleared for agriculture. Policies and
guidelines for timber salvage will be addressed in the Statewide Natural
Resources Plan.
3. Farm Conservation Plans
Farm conservation plans should incorporate appropriate ecologically
sound agricultural practices developed by the Soil Conservation Service
and other agencies with relevant expertise. It is the responsibility of
the Soil Conservation Districts to act as liaisons between local fanners
and agencies or institutions with agricultural expertise.
4. Water Quality
In the design and management of agricultural land uses, ensure that
water quality is not degraded below standards designated by the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
7-5
,.,
• >
~
""
-~~
....
•• ,J
_j
:~
-·
_j
'rhe following items shall be included in the development and
approval of Farm Conservation Plans.
a. Width of undisturbed buffer strips along streams that
are not excluded in the disposal plan;
b. Method of vegetative waste disposal produced during land
clearing.
c. Identification of personal use ~ lot sites, to be
managed by the owner according to the Forest Resources Practices Act
5. Research and Educational Needs
In addition to periodic evaluations necessary in determining future
sales, continuing research arrl improved educational services may
significantly contribute to successful agricultural development •
A. Research needs
(1) Plant materials: As indicated by recent economic
feasibility studies, on-farm eeonomic success is most sensitive to plant
yields, management and oommodity prices. Continuing research of plant
strains best suited to Alaska's climate arrl appropriate crop arrl soil
management may improve yields which could offset Alaska's relatively high
production costs.
(2) Range inventories: t-bre detailed evaluation and
inventory of potential grazing areas will expedite leasing of publicly
owned lands for domestic livestock grazing, which may help keep feed
costs down.
(3) Economics of on-farm feasibility:
a) Diversified farming may provide better returns
than single crop production to the agricultural industry. The Division
of Agriculture is currently evaluating the success of diversified
operations on small arrl medium size farms. Continued study may provide
information on optimu~ crop DJtations and investment scheduling which may
help improve farm management.
b) Farm surveys: Little historical data exists
regarding oosts of production, crop management and yields. Surveys could
provide necessary information which w:>uld be useful in determining crop
budgets, expected yields and improved management techniques.
c) Forecasting: Projecting future price trends,
production costs and demand are necessary in planning sales far enough in
advance to allow land to be available and in production to benefit from
expected -~.market~ cond1tions.-~-· -~ --~
7~6
"'
-:'
/
..,
',
3--
B. Educational services
Educational services are needed on a regular basis for all farmers
to be kept abreast of plant and soil research findings; management
techniques including cc>nservation, optimum crop rotations and farm
financing and acoounting; and future investments based on forecast
information.
6. Water Quality
Protect and maintain water quantity and quality b:>th for and from
agricultural development.
7-7
r
r
r
r ·,
' L
.r
r
L
l
L
r ;
L
r
F
r
-,
.~
SOIL CLASS DESCRIPTIONS
Class II. Soils that have ·some limitations that reduce
the choice of plants or require moderate consen-ation
.,r.,c.tices.
· Snbchss IIc.-Soils for which the choice of crops is SuJ:>chss IVs.-Soils that ha"l"e very se"!"ere limit.a·
limited only by climatic factors. twns caused by shallowm::.; to excessinly perrneablt
Management group 1 (Uc-1): Deep, medium-substrat.'\ or to bedrock.
to coarse-textured, ''"ell-drained alluvial soils· ::llanagement group H (IYs-1): Shallow tc
permafrost deep or absent. ' ' very shallo''"• medima ~o coarse-textured, well-
Management group _2 (Uc-2): Deep, medium-drained to ex~essiv~ly drained, lenl tc
textured, well-dra1~ed, nearly level soils of up-moder;ttely slopmg s01ls.
lantls; not_ susceptible to thennokarst pit ling Subclass lVw.-Soils that have very senre limitations
__ ~ c~eanng. for cultivation because of excess water.
Management group 3 (Ilc--3): De.ep, medium-::lfanagement group H (IVw-1): Deep, medi-
te=:nured, mOderately well drained, ne.arly le"l"el um-textm·et!, poorly drained, level to sloping,
St?ll~ of uplands;. susceptible to thermo karst alluvial soils that are underlain by pernmh·os~.
p1ttmg after clearmg. · :Management "roup 15 (IVw-2): Deep, medi-
Subclass Ile.-Soils subject to moderat-e erosion if not urn-textured, gently sloping to moderately.
protected. sloping soils in upland drainao-eways and on·
Management group 4 (IIe-1): Deep and mod-no1th-facing hillsides; poorly drained because
erately deep1 mediu!fi·!.extured, well-drained, of ~igh permafrost tab!,;;. . .
gently slopn~g. soils; not susce.ptible to Class VI. So1ls that. have severe l_lmJ~atwns that ~n~e
thermo karst pltt.lng after clearing. them generally unsmtable for cult1vatwn and that hmtt
Management group 5 (IIe-2):. De.ep, medium-their use largely to p_nsture or ra~gt;. . .
textured, moderately well dramed, gently slop-Subclass \l'Ie.-S01ls se,·erely hmtted, chtefly by nsk
ing soils of uplands; susceptible to thermokarst of erosion if protection is not maintained.
pitting after cleaJ·ina-. · :Management group 16 (Vle-1): Deep and mod-
§nbclnss lls.-Soils that have moderate limitations erately dee.p, medium-textured, well-drained,
Gecause of shallowness to e:~:cessinly permeable steep soils.
substrata. .s.ubcla.sii...Y!s..-Soils generally unsuitable for culti-
.)fanagement g_roup 6 . (IIs--1): ~foderately vation and severely limited for other uses by
dP.ep, well-drnmed, medmm-to coarse-tPxtured. shallowness to bedrock.
alln_.-ial soils; pennafrost deep ·or absent. ' .Management grol)p _17 (Vls--1): Shallo~v to
Class Til. Smls that han senre limitations that reduce very shallo''"• m_edmm-textured, well-dram~d,
the choice of plants, or require special conser\·ation moderately sloplllg to moden\tely steep sotls.
practices, or both. Subclass VI w.-Soils se,·erely limited by excess water
-ubclass III e.-Soils subject to senre erosion if arid unsUitable for cultivation.
they are cuJtiYated and not protected. Management group 18 (Vlw-1): Deep, medi-
Management group 7(I!Ie-1): Deep and mod-um;text~lre?, me ~.erntely s~eep soils on nor_th-
erately deep} medium-texturPd, well-.druined, fncmg h1lls1des; poorly dramed becau5e of htgh
~odern.tely s oping soils; not·mally not suscep-pern~afrost table. . . .
t1ble to tloennokarst pitting aft-er clearina-Cb<s VII. S01ls_that have very severe hnutatlOns that
Management group 8 (Ille-2): Deep, medT~-make them unsuita_ble for cultivation ~nd_ restrict their
text~ red, !l'lodet-ntel.J: well drained, moderately use largely to grazmg,_ woodla~d, or wtldhf_e. .
slopmg so1ls; susceptible to thermokarst pitting fu!!:>~,;~ss VIIe.-Sot·ls unsUited to cult1vat10n and
aft-er clearing. severely limited by risk of erosion if cover is not
Snhclnss IIIs.-Smls that ha"l"e senre limitations maintained.
caused by shallmmess to excessively permeable sub-:Management group 19 (Vlle-1): ~feclium-tex-
stra.ta. or bedrock. tured, well-drainetl, st~ep to vet·y steep soils.
Ma~agement group 9 (Ills-1): Shallow, me-§!:!~lass VIh.-.---;-S?ils unsuited to culti,·ution and
dmm-to coarse-textured, well-drained allm·ial very severely lumted by exc~ss water.
soils; permafrost deep or absent. ' ::IIanarrement group 20 (VII w-1) : ShallO\'<", ~Ianao-ement group 10 (Ills-2): Shallow medium-textured, moderately steep to ,-ery med\um-te:~:tured, ,nlJ-dr:iined gent-ly sloping steep soils on nmth-facing slopes; poorly
soils. ' · drained because of a high permafrost table.
&bclass III,.-.-Soils that have senre limita-tions ~Ianngement group 21 (VIIw-2): Pe:lt soils
because of excess water. with a high permafro.•t table.
Management ~l"Ol!P 11 (IIIw-1): Deep, medi-Qg_~ __ y_III. Soils ~nd land types tha~ hM·e limit.ations
um-textur~a solls. of the alluvial plain; imper-that pt-:eclud~ th_etr us~ for commercm! prod_uct!on of
fectly drnmed because of permafrost within 30 plants aHd restnct the1r use to recreatiOn, wtldhfe, or
inches of soil surface. esthetic purposes.
Class IV. Soils t.hat haYe nry senre limitations thnt SubclnES VIIIs.·-Land types that are too stony to sup-
restnc£ the choice of plants, require nry careful port commercml plants.
management, or both. · . · . ~Ianagement group 22 (Vllls--1): Xonsoil
Subclass IV e.-Soils subject to nry severe erosion if areas. ~ --~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ _ 1h,gy ___ a.re_c!!l!J':.a~e~and not protected. Subcln~s VIII'"-:-Lnnd types that are too wet to sup-
:'llanao-ementgroup I'r(rve.::rr:---DeepniiG-moa:------po.r:t_comm__g.r<:l:tL.El~l!.t~ . ___ . __ rrut~ly drcp mrdium-textun·d well-<lrnincd :.\fnna~ement group !,!:J (Vlll\\'=-1-y:--ATlllllrdly-------------.
mode-rately ;tcep soils. ' ' flooded areas.
3A-1
"\
-'
Appendix 3D
Criteria Physical Capability Map for Agriculture
Map
Symbol
Eft-m
Eft-g
Sc
(Sal-
chal<et)
Tt
(Tol<otna)
,Ja
(Jarvis)
F:ot-m
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Class II
Soil Type (Red)
Typic Cryo-X
fluents (Good)
-Loamy
-Nearly level
to rolling
t1LRA ' s l 7 4 , l 7 5 ,
176
MLRA 173
Typic Cryo-
fluents
-Very gravelly
Coarse loamy II-c
mixed
Non-acid
Typic Cryo-
fluents
Coarse loamy
Non-acid
Typic Cryo-
fluents
Coarse loamy I I-s
over sandy or
sandy skeletal
mixed, non-acid
Typic Cryo-
fluents
Typic Cryo-X
rthents (Good)
-Loamy
Nearly level
to rolling
MLRA' s 17 4, 17 5,
176
Class III
(Green)
X
(Fair)
III-w
Class IV
(Blue)
X
(Poor)
_ _ _ _ _ ML~ 17 3 X
(Fair)
3B-1
Greater
Than
Class IV
(Yellow)
Unsuit-
able
(Blank)
..,
-'
Appendix 38 (eont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Map
Symbol Soil Type
·Class II
(Red)
Eot-m -Loamy
(cont.) Hilly to
steep
Kd Coarse silty
(Kandik) mixed cal-
careous
Typic Cryo-
rthen.ts
Ch
( Chena)
On
(Olnes)
FA
(Fair-
play)
EOq-g
Eol-g
Eog-g
Sandy skeletal
mixed
Typic Cryo-
rthents
Loamy skeletal
mixed non-
acid
Typic Cryo-
rthents
Loamy mixed
Non-acicl.
Pergelic Cryo-
rthents
Aquic Cryo-
rthents
-Very gravelly
-Hilly to steep
Lithic Cryo-
rthents
-Very gravelly
-Hilly to steep
Pergelic Cryo-
rthents
-Very gravelly-
nearly level
to rolling
Class III
(Green)
Class IV
(Blue)
X
(Poor)
IV-s
IV-s
IV-s
Greater
Than
Class IV
(Yellow)
VI-e
Unsuit-
able
(Blank)
X
X
X
-Very gravelly _ _ _ X ------···------~-----::Iii fiT to~ste-ep-~~-~--~----------~~--------------~~ ~~-~~~-~-~~-~~-~~-~ ~ ~-~-
38-2
-,
"
Appendix 38 (cont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Map
Symbol Soil Type
Class II
(Red)
Mk Loamy skeletal
(McKinley) mixed non-
acid
Est-c
Tk
(Tek-
lanika)
Hii
Kp
(Kan-
tishna)
Hyp
Lp
(Lameta)
Hm-p
Bo
(Bolic)
IQ•N'-m
Pergelic Cryo-
rthents
Typic Cryo-
psamments
-Sandy
-;;.learly level
to rolling
-Sandy
-Hilly to steep
Mixed Typic
Cryposamments
Hydric-Boro-
fibrists
Dysic Hydric
Borofibrists
Pergelic Cryo-
fibrists
Dysic Pergelic
Cryofibrists
Pergelic Cryo-
hemists
Dysic Pergelic
Cryohemists
Aerie Crya-X
quepts (Good)
Loamy
-Nearlv level
to rolling
Class III
(Green)
3B-3
Class IV
(Blue)
X
(Poor)
Greater
Than
Class IV
(Yellow)
VII-e
VI-e
VIII-w
VII-w
VI-w
Unsuit-
able
(Blank)
X
X
X
X
Appendix 38 (eont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING -
Greater
Than Unsuit-
-, Map Class II Class III Class IV· Class IV able
Symbol Soil Type (Red) (Green) (Blue) (Yellow) (Blank)
~ t1n Coarse silty II-e
mixed non-
acid Aerie
Cryochrepts
-Neariy level
' 0-3% slopes
·' ~ gently slop-II-e
ing 3-7%
slopes
-moderately III-e
sloping 7-12%
...... slopes
-strongly sloping IV-e
12-20% slopes
IQu·.,-r<t Aerichumic Crya-X
quepts· (Fair)
-Loamy nearly
level to
rolling
Pn Aerie-humic IV-w
( Pincher) Cryaquepts
IQph-m Histic pergelic X
Cryaquepts (Poor)
~.::i -Loamy nearly
level to
:,~ rolling
·" -Loamy
-Hilly to steep
X
-, Gt Loamy mixed acid IV-w
(Gold-Histic, Pergelic
stream) Cry a
Ks Loamy mixed acid VII-w
~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Jl5~s~kg~-~ ~ l:ii~!,:l_c 1 ~ t:e~r~g_E;!~lj£~~ ~-~~--~-~ ~ ~ ~ -~ -~
wim) Cryaquepts
3B-4
"
'
Appendix 38 (cont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Greater
Than Unsuit-
Map Class II Class III Class IV Class IV able
Symbol Soil Type (Red) (Green) (Blue) (Yellow) (Blank)
' Kl Loamy mixed, VII-w
(Kuslina) non-acid
Histic, Pergelic
Cryaquepts
Su Loamy mixe<i, IV-w
(Saulich) non-acid
" Histic, Pergelic
Cryaquepts
-Nearly level
0-3% slopes
.J
-Gently sloping IV-w
3-7% -,
-Moderately IV-w
sloping 7-12%
-Strongly VI-w
sloping 12-20%
-Moderately steep VII-w
20-30%
-Steep 30-45% VII-w
Ea Loamy, mixed, IV-w
(Easley) calcareous
Histic-pergelic
Cryaquepts
~ Yu Coarse loamy VII-w
(Yukon) mixed cal-
careous
Histic-pergelic
Cryaquepts
Gu Loamy over sandy IV-w
~ (Good-or sandy skele-
paster) tal-mixed non-
acid
----~------
_Hi~stic __ P~rgeli_c ----- - ---- -------------------- - - - - -
Cryaquepts
3B.-5
'
Appendix 38 (cont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Map
Symbol Soil Type
Class II
(Red)
IQph-g
Es
(Ester)
Na
(Uabesna)
IQp-m
BA
(Batza)
BR
(Brad-
way)
Histic pergelic
Cryaquepts
-Very gravelly
nearly level
-Very gravelly
hilly to steep
Loamy, skeletal
mixed acid
Histic Pergelic
Cryaquepts
Loamy, skeletal
mixed acid
!-listie Pergelic
Cryaquepts
Pergelic Crya-
quepts
-Nearly level
to rolling
MLRA's 174,175,176
MLRA 173
-Loamy
-Hilly to steep
Loamy mixed
non-acid
Perge1ic Crya-
quepts
Loamy mixed
non-acid
Pergelic Crya-
quepts
Class III
(Green)
X
(Fair)
Dt ·Loamy ~ixed III-w
(Dot non-acid
Class IV
(Blue)
IV-w
IV-w
Greater
Than
Class IV
(Yellow)
VII-w
VII-w
Unsuit-
able
(Blank)
X
X
X
X
-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~LiilseJ~ ~ ~ ~E~r~g~l:i,~c~i=J"Y<t.-~ ~ ~ ~--.·~-~ ~-~-~-~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~--~~--------~ ~-~-
~ quepts
3B-6
·~.
l
-'
"'
~,
_j
Appendix 38 (cont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Map
Symbol Soil Type
Class II
(Red)
TA Loamy mixed
(Tanana) non-acid
Pergelic Crya-
quepts
IQp-g Pergelic Crya-
In
(Innes-
vale)
KA
(Kar-
shner)
IRt-m
Ky
(Koyukuk)
quepts
-Very gravelly
-Nearly level
to rolling
-Very gravelly
-Hilly to steep
Loamy skeletal
mixed, acid
Pergelic Crya-
quepts
Loamy skeletal
mixed, acid
Pergelic Crya-
quepts
Typic Cryochrepts
-Loamy
-Nearly level
to rolling
MLRA 173
MLRA's 174,175, X
176 (Good)
-Loar:~y
-Hilly to steep
Coarse silty
mixed
Typic Cryochrepts
RA Coarse silty
Class III
(Green)
III-w
III-e
III-e
Class IV
(Blue)
X
(Fair)
X
(Poor)
Greater
Than
Class IV
(Yellow)
VII-w
VII-w
Unsuit-
able
(Blank)
X
X
,,~~~~~~~~~(&a_r_tl~~m_ix.ed~~-~-~-~---~~~--~-~-~~-~-~~~~---~~~-~-~ ~~~---------__________________ _ Typic Cryochrepts - - ------ - - - - - - ---------
3B-7
"1
'
~
-..
_.
Appendix 38 (cont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Map
Symbol Soil Type
Class II
(Red)
Me Coarse silty
(McCloud) mixed
Typic Cryochrepts
IRt-c Typic Cryochrepts
-Sandy
-Nearly level
to rolling
-Sandy
-Hilly to steep
BE Sandy mixed
(Beales) Typic Cryochrepts
IRt-g Typic Cryochrepts
-Very gravelly
-Nearly level
to rolling
MLRA 173
~ILRA' s 17 4, 17 6
-Very gravelly
-Hilly to steep
~e Coarse silty II-c
(Nenana) over sandy or
skeletal mixed
Typic Cryochrepts
-Moderately deep
-Nearly level
-Moderately II-e
deep
-Undulating
-Moderately deep
-Rolling
Class III
(Green)
X
(Fair)
X
(Fair)
X
(Fair)
III-e
Class IV
(Blue)
X
(Poor)
X
(Poor)
Greater
Than
Class IV
(Yellow)
VI-e
IV-s
Unsuit-
able
(Blank)
-.~------------------.ShaLlow _____ _ _ ______ .r.rr .... s__ _ _____________ ____ _____ __ _______________ _
-Hearly level
38-8
Appendix 38 (cont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Greater
Than Unsuit-
Map Class II Class III Class IV Class IV able
Symbol Soil Type (Red) (Green) (Blue) (Yellow) (Blank)
-Shallow III-e
-Undulating
-Shallow III-e
-Rolling
-Shallow IV-e
-Hilly
Lv Coarse silty II-c
(Liven-over frag-
good) mental mixed
Typic Cryochrepts
0-3% Slopes
3-7% Slopes III-e
-., 7-12% Slopes III-e
12-20% Slopes IV-e
20-30% Slopes VI-e
30-45% Slopes VII-e
FA Coarse silty-II-c
(Fair-mixed Alfie
banks) Cryochrepts
-Nearly level
, 0-3% Slopes
-Gently Slop-II-e
ing 3-7%
-Moderately II I-e
sloping 7-12%
.1
-Strongly IV-e
:· sloping 12-20%
;-; -Moderately VI-e
steep 20-30%
-Steep 30-45% VII-e
St (Sv) Coarst! silty III-e
(Steese) mixed Typic
Cryochrepts
=~ ~ ~ ------~~~ ~~
"' sloping 7-12%
38-9
..,_
~
c.
_,1
"
~
-'
;.i
Appendix 38 (eont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Map
Symbol
IRF-g
Soil Type
-strongly
sloping
12-20%
-moderately
steep 20-
30%
ClassD
(Red)
-steep 30-45%
Alfie Cryochrepts
-very gravelly
-hilly to steep
Gm Loamy skeletal
{Gilmore) mixed, Alfie
Cryochrepts
-gently sloping
3-7% slopes
-moderately
sloping 7-12%
-strongly sloping
12-20%
-moderately
steep 20-30%
-steep 30-45%
-very shallow
-gently slQping
3-7%
-very shallow
-moderately
slopins 7-20%
-very shallow
-moderately steep
20-30%
Class III
(Green)
III-e
Class IV
(Blue)
IV-e
X
(poor)
IV-e
IV-e
IV-e
Greater
Than
Class IV
(Yellow)
VI-e
VIl-e
VI-e
VII-e
VI-e
VII-e
-very shallow VII-e
Unsuit-
able
(Blank)
---------~-stee_p_ 30;;;;-45%--------------------------------------~------------
3B-10
...,
J
_]
:i
-'
,,__ ---
Appendix 38 (cont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Map
Symbol Soil Type
Class II
(Red)
Class III
(Green)
Class IV
(Blue)
!Rq-m
Rc
(Rich-
ardson)
IRq-g
Aquic Cryum-X
brepts (Good)
-loamy
Coarse silty II-c
mixed Aquic
Cryochrepts
Aquic Cryo-X
chrepts (Good)
-very gravelly
Vk Coarse silty 11-c
(Volkmar) over sandy
skeletal mixed
Aquic Cryo-
chrepts
IRd-g Dysteric Cryo-X
-----~ --~ ------~ --=--
Hu
(Hughes)
Icl-g
Ch
( Chesh-
nina)
chrepts (Poor)
-very gravelly
-hilly to steep
Loamy skeletal
mixed Typic
Cryochrepts
-strongly sloping
12-20%
-moderately steep
20-30%
-steep 30-45%
Lithic Cryo-
chrepts
-very gravelly
Loamy skeletal
mixed Lithic
Cryochrepts
-r.~oderately
sloping 7-12%
-SllOIIgTy-s-1 12-20% upTnn---
IV-e
3B-ll
Greater
Than
Class IV
(Yellow)
VI-e
VIl-e
VI-e
Unsuit-
able'
(Blank)
X
-'
-'
-'
'
J
='
=-1
d
_;
_;
-"
_;
Appendix 38 (cont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Map
Symbol Soil Type
Class II
(Red)
Ip-g
!Up-g
-moderately steep
20-30%
Pergelic Cryo-
chrepts
-very gravelly
Pergelic Cryurn-
brepts
-very gravelly
nearly level
to rolling
-hilly to steep
Ut Loamy skeletal
(Utopia) mixed Pergelic
Cryumbrepts
IUp-m
Sot-m
Pergelic Cryum-
brepts
-loamy
Typic Cryo-X
rthents (Good)
-loamy
-nearly level
to rolling
-hilly to steep
To Coarse loamy
(Toklat) mixed orstein
Typic Cryorthods
Sot-c Typic Cryorthods
-sandy
-nearly level
to rolling
-hilly to steep
Class III
(Green)
Ill-s
X
(Fair)
38-12
Class IV
(Blue)
X
(Poor)
X
(Poor)
Greater
Than
Class IV
(Yellow)
VI-e
VIl-e
Unsuit-
able
(Blank)
X
X
X
X
l
~
J
1
~
,.,-
..
l
d
?
_j
--,_
j
J
~
~
3
:1
_;
Appendix 3D (eont.)
AGRICULTURAL RANKING
Map
Symbol Soil Type
Class II
(Red)
Class III
(Green)
Class IV
(Blue)
Sol-g
SOp-g
Lithic Cryorthods
-very gravelly
-hilly to stee~
Pergelic Cryorthods
-very gravelly
-nearly level
to rolling
-hilly to steep
3B-13
Greater
Than
Class IV
(Yellow)
Unsuit-
able
(Blank)
X
X
X