Fort Nelson Arability Mapping Project
Conducted by:
Geoterra Integrated Resource Systems Limited
For:
The Fort Nelson Farmer’s Institute
Funding for this project was provided by the the Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and the Investment Agriculture Foundation of B.C. 2
December, 2007 Fort Nelson Arability Mapping Project
Table of Contents Page
Executive Summary...... 3
I. Introduction...... 4
II. General Information and Land-Use of the Study Area...... 5
III.Climate Capability for Agriculture...... 5
IV. Study Area Locality and Accessibility……………...... 6 Area 1………………………………………………… ….…. 6 Area 2…………………………………………………… ….…. 6 Area 3…………………………………………………… ….…. 6 Area 4…………………………………………………… ….…. 7
V. Background Information and Data………………………………...... 8 VI. Project Methods and Procedures…………...……………………..... 8 VII. Discussion of Soils, Land Capability for Agriculture and Arability... 13 Area 1…………………………………………………………... 14 Area 2…………………………………………………………... 15 Area 3…………………………………………………………... 16 Area 4…………………………………………………………... 16 VIII. Project Results and Products……………………………………... 17 IX. References…………………………………………………………. 19
List of Figures Page
Figure 1. Map of the Study Area of the Fort Nelson Area…………….... 7 3
Executive Summary
Successful completion of the Fort Nelson Arability project has resulted in land capability for agriculture/soils/arability classification of over 21 000ha of land in the vicinity of Fort Nelson, B.C. During the field inspection it was determined that approximately 18 000ha (86%) was classified as arable and approximately 14% (3000ha) was classified as unarable. The majority of land was found to have a 3WDC class. Class 1 soils were found in some areas along the Fort Nelson River and were determined to be best suited for agricultural purposes. Excess water was determined as the most limiting factor throughout the entire study area and mostly occurred in black spruce type lands. Project funding was provided by the Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC via the Fort Nelson Farmer’s Institute. 4
I. Introduction
The Fort Nelson Arability project was undertaken to assess the land capability for agriculture and arability of specified Crown land in the vicinity of the town of Fort Nelson. The project was initiated by the Fort Nelson Farmer’s Institute and the Ministry of Agriculture. An airphoto/soil map data interpretation project had been completed that has identified areas that are potentially arable in the Fort Nelson area. The study area for assessment has been compiled based on this interpretation. Due to the large areas identified, budget constraints and remote access (economically unfeasible), these areas were further reduced by the Ministry of Agriculture and the Fort Nelson Farmer’s Institute and prioritized according to location, accessibility, specified areas of interest amongst local farmers and areas in the vicinity of the Fort Nelson First Nations Reserve. The purpose of the project is to identify lands that are most suitable for agriculture purposes with the highest value potential. These results will provide arability information that will be used by Ministry professional and technical staff in evaluating the suitability of Crown land for agriculture use
The capability portion of this arability mapping project is the key component in determining agriculture development areas within the Fort Nelson Land and Resource Management Plan. The Government of British Columbia approved the plan in October 1997. The products resulting from this capability and the subsequent suitability phase will guide plan implementation as well as future operational level planning processes. Upon government approval for the project, the Fort Nelson Farmer’s Institute initiated this study and subsequently found funding approval by the Beef Cattle Industry Development Fund, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and the Investment Agriculture Foundation of BC to assess the future potential of lands for agriculture purposes. Soils information of the area is limited and as a result, this study was necessary to assist future planning and create interest of future farming in the Fort Nelson area. Two soils studies have been conducted in the area with the last study occurring in 1982. It is anticipated that the results of this study will enhance the future of the agricultural resource of Fort Nelson.
The study area encompasses over 21 000 hectares covering eighteen mapsheets which were further divided into 4 areas due to locality. These are further identified in the Study Area Locality and Accessibility section of the report. Elevations range from 223m to 663m mainly from the river bottom of the Fort Nelson River to the Poplar Hills area along Highway 77. Areas were assessed along the Fort Nelson River that is a main tributary throughout the region. The study area was also located along the Alaska Highway, Liard Highway (Hwy 77), Sierra-YoYo-Desan Road, Andy Bailey Road, McConachie Road and the Apache Road.
The methodology for the land capability for agriculture conformed to the Ministry of Environment Manual 1, 1983 publication, “Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in British Columbia” while the arability classes were assigned according to contract specifications as determined by the contract manager (identified further in report in the Background Information and Data section). Contract administration was provided by Mark Yawney, P.Ag., B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Prince George and by Danny Soles, president of the Fort Nelson Farmer’s Institute, Fort Nelson, B.C..
5
II. General Information and Land-Use of the Study Area
General information of Fort Nelson was provided by the Northern Rockies Regional District and by local knowledge of the consultants. Fort Nelson is located at Historical Mile 300 on the Alaska Highway, in the Northeast corner of the province of British Columbia. The town was established in 1805 by the Northwest Fur Trading Company. With the building of the airport in 1941 and the completion of the Alaska Highway the following year, these major factors contributed to the growth of the town. The current population stands at over 4700, of which, approximately 15% consists of the First Nations population. Over 500 members of the First Nations reside in the Fort Nelson reserve alone, and are active members of the Fort Nelson community. The town experiences seasonal population increases, prominently in the winter, when logging and oil and gas activities bring in an additional 2000 people to the area.
Fort Nelson's economic base rests on its natural resource industries. This northeast area of the province is currently the only part of BC that is producing oil and gas, and is considered one of the most active areas in petroleum industry and natural gas output in North America. The boreal mixed wood forests of the Fort Nelson Forest District is used to generate its Forestry industry, with its plywood and sawmill complex and Oriented Strand Board plants. Agriculture is a relatively recent focus in the Fort Nelson area, and it utilizes its long hours of sunlight during the spring and summer months. The meat product market includes bison, in addition to conventional livestock, and many types of crops are currently being explored in the area for agricultural purposes. Typical crops grown in Fort Nelson include hay, aphalfa, oats and wheat. As agricultural land is becoming more in demand with a rising global population, identifying arable land in Fort Nelson along with the land capability is important for future agricultural crops. This project will help to identify future agricultural land.
III. Climate Capability for Agriculture
The land capability for agriculture rating is based on a combination of both climatic and soil limitations with the climatic class providing the base rating (Luttmerding et al, 2004). Soil characteristics only influence the land capability rating if the soil limitations are as, or more severe than the climatic limitations.
No climatic capability maps were found of the Fort Nelson area and limited data could be found on the climatic capability. Discussions with local farmers acknowledged their agriculture limitations of a short growing season. Direction for climatic limitations classes were given by Herb Luttmerding of Kelowna, BC. Since limited data was available for climatic limitations, elevation was used instead as a criteria to base the guideline on. The classes for adverse climatic limitations were as follows: Class 1 = less than 340m; Class 2C = 340m to 450m; Class 3&4C = 451m to 555m; Class 5C = 556m to 740m and Class 6&7C = greater than 740m.
Fort Nelson is situated at an elevation of 422m, and normally experiences a dry climate with an annual average precipitation of 452mm and 106 frost-free days. Average annual snowfall is 178cm, rainfall is 320mm, and the average hours of sunshine is 2035 hours. Fort Nelson has all four seasons, with a summer average temperature of 15.5 degrees Celsius (with a high of mid-30's) and a winter average temperature of -18.5 degrees Celsius (which can go down to -40's). The spring and summer months of 2007 were unusually wet, with a precipitation total of 106.6mm, 96.7mm, 84.4mm, 58.7mm in the 6 months of May, June, July and August, respectively. Being a wetter than normal summer, this created a better set of circumstances for assessment of the arability and land capability as this would assist farmers in knowing what soil conditions would be like during a wet season. Weather data obtained for the study was provided through Environment Canada created from the Fort Nelson Airport weather station.
The study found that only a small area was found to have Class 1 rating, and these were found along the Fort Nelson River terraces of mapsheets 94J.058, 94J.059 and 94J.067 as they occur on lower elevations. The majority of the study area was found to have Adverse climatic Class 3C. Class 5C was the most limiting found in this project and these were found in the vicinity of Highway 77 on mapsheets 94J.094 and 94J.095. These areas typically receive the first snowfall and accumulate the most snow throughout the winter season as noted by the consultants from previous experience. No specific weather data could be found for this area but should agriculture land be released, further assessment of the climatic capability should be assessed, as it is uniquely different to the town of Fort Nelson.
IV. Study Area Locality and Accessibility
The study encompassed a large area surrounding Fort Nelson and therefore the areas were divided into four areas based on locality. Similar soil characteristics were usually found within each of the areas. Figure 1 shows the locality of the study area within all eighteen mapsheets in relation to Fort Nelson (study area highlighted in red). Discussed below is a more detailed description of each of the four areas along with accessibility. Although most areas were accessed via roads, access was the most limiting factor in the data collection of this study. Most areas were remote with a lot of walking required through dense bush and swamps. Beavers are abundant in the Fort Nelson area and posed some problems reaching the study area. Seismic lines were used when available, however most were overgrown and quite old.
Area 1: Study Area 1 is located west and northwest of the town of Fort Nelson in the Poplar Hills and Cridland area (mapsheet #: 94J.094,095,084,085,086 and 096). Majority of this area was accessible by truck/walking off the Alaska Highway and Highway 77. The most western parts of the areas on mapsheet 94J.094 and the most eastern parts of 94J.095 were reached by ATVs. Mapsheet 94J.096 was only accessible by ATV. Farming parcels of land are currently located on mapsheets 94J.086 and extend to 94J.085. Currently there are no parcels of agricultural land located past the Highway 77, Alaska Highway junction nor anywhere along the Highway 77.
Area 2: Study Area 2 is located in the vicinity of town and just northeast of town in the Snake area (mapsheet #: 94J.087, 097 and 098). The parts near town were accessible by truck along the McConachie Road, but ATVs were necessary to reach the area on mapsheet 94J.097 and the northeastern portion of 94J.087 (with the permission of farmers to cross through their land). Mapsheet 94J.098 could only be accessed by riverboat along the Fort Nelson River after attempts were made by ATV’s and argo. The majority of farms currently located in Fort Nelson occur on mapsheet 94J.087 along the McConachie loop road.
Area 3: Study Area 3 is located east of the First Nations reserve on mapsheets 94J.088, 089, 078 and 079. This area was accessible by truck on the Sierra-YoYo-Desan road. Some remote parts of the area were accessed by ATVs. East of Fort Nelson is the area where Oil and gas activities typically occur (along the Sierra-Yo Yo-Desan Road). Small borrow pits were scattered along the road system along 7 with well sites.
Area 4: Study Area 4 is located south of town shown on mapsheets 94J.077, 067, 057, 058 and 059. Most parts were accessible by truck off the Alaska Highway (94J.077, 94J.57 and 94J.067), the Apache Road (94J.067) and the Andy Bailey Road (94J.058 and 94J.059). Areas along the Fort Nelson River on mapsheets 94J.058 and 94J.059 were accessed with a river boat. The entire area south of Fort Nelson within these mapsheets have Oil and Gas activities occurring from old to new well sites along with pipelines occurring. Permission by Spectra Energy was required to go access an area behind their plant in the northeast portion of mapsheet 94J.067. An area in the western portion of 94J.058 centered around a woodlot license. Agriculture land in currently located along the Andy Bailey Road, the Apache Road and the Alaska Highway.
Figure 1. Map of the Study Area (in red) of the Fort Nelson Arability Project 8 (Provided by GIS Department, Integrated Land Management Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Fort St. John, B.C.) V. Background Information and Data
Background and resource information and data for the project area were provided by the contract manager as well as that supplied by the consultant and includes the following: 1) Maps at 1:20 000 scale showing the study area location, forest cover types, roads, swamps and boundaries (maps were drawn up and provided by GIS Department, Integrated Land Management Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, Fort St. John, B.C.). 2) Aerial photographs (1:20 000 scale) of the study area 300 in total (provided by the Ministry of Forests and Range, Fort Nelson District Office, Fort Nelson, BC) 3) Digital 1:20 000 scale TRIM and cadastral files for all 18 mapsheets of the study area including 94J.057, 94J.058, 94J.059, 94J.067, 94J.077, 94J.078, 94J.079, 94J.084, 94J.085, 94J.086, 94J.087, 94J.088, 94J.089, 94J.094, 94J.095, 94J.096, 94J.097, 94J.098. Study area boundaries were further downloaded onto GPS units for field data collection. 4) Published soil survey report Soils of Fort Nelson Area of British Columbia, Soil Survey Report No.12, by K.W.G. Valentine, 1971 that includes maps and information on all of the mapsheets in the study except for 94J.094, 94J.095 and 94J.085. 5) Published soil survey report Soil of the Fort Simpson Trail, Report No. 58, British Columbia Soil Survey, by R.C. Kowall, 1982 that includes maps and information North and West of Fort Nelson and in particular includes mapsheets 94J.094, 94J.095, 94J.096, 94J.085 and 94J.086. 6) Various forest development maps used primarily for determining access to some of the project areas. 7) Digital Ortho photos BC_94line used for field maps and forest cover data. 8) Report on the Morrice LRMP Arability Mapping Project – Phase 2 by Luttmerding et al, 2004 (used primarily as a reference guide for methodology). 9) Publication on the Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in BC, Ministry of Environment Manual 1, 1983 (used for determining the capability classes). 10) The definition of the ‘arable’ land class for the purpose of this project was provided by the contract manager and reads as follows: “BCLI class 1-5 lands capable of being cultivated and able to produce all climatically adapted crops including forages lying below 2625 ft (800 meters) should be considered as arable. Lands with southern aspects lying between 2625-3000 ft (800-915 meters) with appropriate soil characteristics could be considered potentially arable. Organic soils that can be drained (drainage development and water control not requiring a community or regional scale project) and cultivated to produce crops should be considered as arable. Slopes should not exceed 15% on long simple slopes (not greater than 20% on very short slopes) or 12% on complex topography. The total coarse fragment content (greater than 2.5cm in diameter) should not exceed 35% of the soil volume in the upper 25 cm and able to be improved with stone picking”.
VI. Project Methods and Procedures
The Fort Nelson Arability Project was initiated in July, 2007, field data collection commenced in August, 2007 and project completion by the end of the year. The following steps were undertaken throughout the duration of the project:
1) Prior to this study an airphoto/soil data analysis was taken of the Fort Nelson area that delineated preliminary terrain and soil polygons based on surficial geologic materials, topography, land 9 drainage, rockiness, and other pertinent landscape features identifiable on the air photos. Land polygons likely to be ‘non-arable’ (as defined by the arability guidelines) were also identified at this time. The photos from this interpretation were not available for the study but data had been transferred into digital file for the use of this study.
2) Meetings were held with a consultant in July, 2007 to verify study methodology and project strategies to achieve the deliverables of the study.
3) Discussions with the contract manager in regards to contract specifics were ratified in July, 2007. Discussions included finalizing project methodology, identifying project staffing and contact persons, and confirmed the deliverables of the project. These issues were satisfied and brought contract finalization. Budget allocations for the project indicated that areas would have to be reduced. Areas were discussed on accessibility issues, most potential for arable land, and areas of interest from local farmers and final decisions of the study area were achieved. Final map deletions were done and were subsequently acquired to start the project.
4) The finalized project areas identified were outlined onto ortho-photos and maps for field data collection. Preliminary delineation of polygons were conducted in the office based on forest cover types, drainage attributes, topography and identifiable features as seen on the airphotos.
5) In early August, 2007, a two week intensive training session was conducted by a consultant. Field inspection of the preliminary polygons was initiated to verify/modify the boundaries and confirm, in detail, the characteristics of the soils within the polygons by periodic soil inspections in hand- dug/augur combinations at least 50cm in depth and by observance of other landscape features such as topography, rockiness and excess water along the traverse routes.
Data at each of the field inspection sites were recorded on plot cards created for this study that included the following information: mapsheet number; plot number; mapper’s name; soil parent material; elevation; aspect; slope % gradient, length and type (including simple or complex); soil name (names were derived from the previous two soil reports conducted of the Fort Nelson area), soil drainage; generalized land use and cover; UTM co-ordinates (collected by hand-held GPS units); soil order (based on the Canadian System of Soil Classification System, 1998) ; the ‘unimproved’ and ‘improved’ land capability for agriculture rating (according to the methodology outlined in Land Capability Classification for Agriculture in British Columbia MOE Manual 1, 1983); and a soil profile summary. The soil profile summary included information on identified soil horizons and their thickness, texture, coarse fragment content, structure and other pertinent information that could affect the capability. Data for soil profiles were based on the Canadian System of Soil Classification, 1998 and the Field Manual for Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems, Land Management Handbook #25, 1998 (updated from 1990 by Luttmerding et al..
The field traverses were designed so that they generally passed through the majority of the polygons identified in the preliminary office stage. The majority of the traverses are 400m apart and may extend to 600m apart due to large continuous polygons identified. The location and direction of the traverses were based on ‘surveyor’s choice’ to ensure most landscape variations were inspected. Swamps such and black spruce land and tough access also were factors into the location of traverses. On average, the traverses ranged 7 to 21 inspections for each 250 ha in areas where potentially arable land was anticipated and an overall average of 12 inspection sites per 250ha was achieved. In areas where photo interpretation suggested non-arability such as swamps, the inspection density was lower and only sufficient to confirm the non-arability premises. After inspection sites were 10 established in a variety of types, it became common for the black spruce forest types to be non- arable due to the excess water limitation. Discussions were made with the contract manager to exchange anticipated non-arable black spruce land on mapsheet 94J.094 with potential arable land at higher elevations on mapsheet 94J.095. This exchange was approved and the delineations and new areas for mapping were made by the consultant and the Fort Nelson Farmer’s Institute. A digital file and new area calculations were not available during the project and therefore this report will state that over 21 000 hectares was sampled as opposed to an exact number and calculations on densities will be made to 21 000 ha. An early snowfall in late September created difficulty in traversing the study area due to the large shrubs intertwined with heavy snow on top creating a fencelike block. Soils were thus insulated and did not freeze, therefore still allowing data collection of the soil pits. The early snowfall also created problems for farmers to remove their crops from the fields.
The data portion of this project was completed in October, 2007. In total, 1010 separate sites were inspected and recorded for the project area. Their locations along with the field traverse routes are depicted on the 1:20 000 scale maps of the project area. UTM co-ordinates were printed out and hand drafted for actual plot location. Maps were hand-drawn and submitted for digital data transferring at a later date (2008). The maps along with the individual site inspection plot cards, form part of the ‘deliverables’ for the Fort Nelson Arability Project.
6) After the field data collection portion of the 18 mapsheets was completed (ie. soil and land capability boundaries confirmed, map labels attached and field data forms completed) an office review was performed. The information was reviewed in detail for consistency, technical accuracy, and adherence to guidelines. The polygon boundaries and map labels were then transferred from field maps to 1:20 000 scale maps for submission. As these were hand-drafted and to be digitally transferred by the government agency, the polygons were labeled numerically and labeled onto spreadsheets to limit transfer error. The mapping label consisted of the soil name, the arability rating and the unimproved and improved rating. Below, will discuss how each was determined for the study.
The soil names are found at the end of the mapping label in abbreviated form after a forward slash and may contain up to two names. The soil names were derived from the previous soil studies conducted: Soils of the Fort Nelson Area by K.W.G. Valentine, 1971 and Soils of the Fort Simpson Trail by R.C. Kowall, 1982. Soil names throughout this study were based on the soil characteristics found along with the soil orders determined by the Canadian System of Soil Classification. Seventeen soil names were found throughout the study area and are scattered throughout. Soil orders were attributed to the soil names based on drainage, texture and general characteristics. Not all soils fit the categories perfectly but general characteristics were used and identified. The following will discuss the soil names, soil orders used, and general characteristics: 1. Fort Nelson (Fn): These were typically luvisols (mainly Orthic Gray Luvisol) and had a texture of silty clays. A Bt horizon was usually present and drainage was typically moderate. 2. Hamilton (Ha): These were gleyed luvisols that had silty clay to clay soil texture. Mottles were evident in the soil profile and drainage was imperfect to moderately well. 3. Simpson (Sp): These were the gleysol type soils with evident mottling occurring. Usually had an Ah horizon greater than 10cm and soils were imperfect to poorly drained (Sp1) or well drained (Sp2). 4. Parker (Pk): These were organic soils that were usually an organic veneer over clay soils. Fibrisols (Of horizon) and Mesisols (Om horizon) were Pk1. Humisols (Oh horizon) were Pk2. These soils had very poor drainage. 5. Sikanni (Sk): These were Orthic Gray Luvisols, that were characterized by clay type soils with 11 gravel and typically moderate slopes. Drainage was moderately well to imperfect (Sk1) or poorly drained (Sk2). 6. Klowee (Kl): These soils were gleysols, clay loams and poorly drained. A rich Ah horizon may be present (Kl2) or not all all (Kl1). 7. Klua (Ku): These soils were cryosols and usually of mesic and fibric organic matter. These were poorly drained and most commonly referred to as the frozen soils (permafrost). 8. McConachie (Mc): These were Terric Humic Fibrisols that were Of dominant with mineral soil underneath (typically silty clay) and may contain an Ah horizon. Soils are very poorly drained. 9. Jackfish (Jf): These soils were brunisolic luvisols, gleysols and also Podzolic Gray Luvisols. Soils were usually sandy loam and sands over clay types and had imperfect to moderately well drainage. Typically a Bm over a Bt horizon and may be gleyed sand types. 10. Trail (Tr): These were brunsiols and Orthic Humic Ferric Podzols. These were sand types (sand, sandy loam and loamy sand), contained a Bf horizon and well drained (Tr1)or wetter with mottles (Tr2). 11. Utahn (Ut): These were rego gleysols and had sandy loams and sand that was very poorly drained. 12. Bar (Br): These were Orthic Gray Luvisols that were characterized by sand and sandy loam with gravel. Drainage is well drained. 13. Donaldson (Dd): These fell into the soil order category of Orthic Gray Luvisol, Podzolic Gray Luvisol or Brunisolic Gray Luvisol. These were sands over clay types and were well drained. 14. Milo (Mi): These were orthic and gleyed regosols that that silty clay to clay soil textures. Drainage was imperfect to moderately well and associated with steeper slopes. 15. Prophet (Pr): Many orders encompassed this soil name such as regosols, brunisols, brunisolic luvisols and gleysols. Brunisols dominated with soils having a Bm horizon. Soils with this name were silt loam and silty clay loams and had imperfect to moderately well drainage. The Orthic Melanic Brunisol have a thick, rich Ah horizon and are best suited for agriculture. 16. Snake (Sn): These include Cumulic Regosol and Orthic Eutric Brunisol (O.EB) soil orders. They are sandy loam and silt loam soil textures. The O.EB are rich sites, have Bm horizons with no mottles, are well drained and are along raised terraces along rivers. 17. Pouce (Po): These are Orthic Regosols that include loams with gravel, are well drained and usually fluvial in origin.
Both ‘unimproved’ and ‘improved’ land capability ratings for agriculture were determined for the lands in the project area. The ‘unimproved’ ratings are those that exist naturally, that is, without improvements through enhanced management and technology. The ‘improved’ ratings (ie. bracketed symbol on the map label) represent the land capability after certain land management undertakings are applied (eg. artificial drainage, stone picking, subsoiling and irrigation) and are the basis for the arability determinations. Most of the improved ratings were established based on the criteria given in the Land Capability for Agriculture report. The Fort Nelson Farmer’s Institute was consulted to determine improvements on soils currently occurring on the Fort Nelson farms. This information was valuable is assessing an improvement rating especially on excess water and undesirable soil structure. The following is a brief description of the most common land capability sub-classes found and their improvement rating potential: 1. Excess water (W): This subclass is based on drainage including factors of a high water table, seepage or run-off from surrounding areas. In general, the following characteristics were used to determine this class: 2W has moderately well drained soils with weak mottles; 3W has imperfect drainage with seepage greater than 25cm of mineral soils; 4W-5W has poor to very poor drainage with seepage within 25cm of mineral soils or seepage found anywhere in organic soils; 6W has very poor drainage with intermittent pools of water occurring at the surface; and 7W has very poor 12 drainage with abundant standing water. This class was most limiting throughout the Fort Nelson area and thus farmers found as most limiting due to previous experience. Excess water can be improved by 2 (except for unarable class 6/7) through ditching/draining of the soils. 2. Stoniness (P): This subclass applies to soils with sufficient coarse fragments that significantly hinder tillage, planting, and/or harvesting operations. Coarse fragments greater than 2.5cm in diameter are included in this class found in the upper 25cm of the soil. Stoniness class can be improved by 1 (except for unarable class 6/7) through picking cobbles and stones. Discussions with local farmers found this limitation in conjunction with clay soils a problem as frost heaving brings up coarse fragments from further done. 3. Fertility (F): This subclass has soils that are limited by fertility characteristics. The limitations may be due to a variety of reasons and during this study it was noted that small areas with high levels of carbonates (identified by dropping HCL onto the soil and looking for effervescence) and areas with acidic soil conditions created by a high percentage of labrador tea shrub species. Labrador tea was typically found in swampy areas associated with mosses. These found were given the Fertility class F. Fertility can improve by 2 classes with fertilization except for the unarable 6/7 class. 4. Topography (T): This subclass occurs to soils which topography limits agricultural use and is based on percent slope (steepness) and the pattern or complexity of slopes. Topography subclass cannot be improved. 5. Undesirable soil structure (D): This subclass is used for soils difficult to till requiring special management for seedbed preparation and soils with trafficability problems for common farm implements. Also included are soils which have insufficient aeration, absorb and distribute water slowly. This subclass is based mainly on soil texture. The class only goes to 4D which has soils of heavy clay occurring within the upper 25cm. After consultation were soil scientist and local farmers, it was agreed that undesirable soil structure could be improved by 1 class if the LFH is greater than 10cm in depth. This would allow mixing a sufficient amount of LFH into the undesirable soil creating better soil conditions. 6. Permafrost (Z): The presence of a cryic (permanently frozen) layer is a severe limitation to agriculture production. In addition to maintaining undesirable cold soil temperatures, drainage problems are complicated when permafrost is present. There is limited experience regarding the affect of this limitation on agriculture use and therefore improvement of permafrost conditions is assumed impractical. 7. Soil moisture deficiency (A): This subclass is used where crops are adversely affected by droughtiness such as low water holding capacity of sandy soils in Fort Nelson (as low precipitation tends to not be a factor in this area). This subclass can be improved through irrigation. This limitation was not common and mainly occurs in isolated pockets. 8. Adverse climate (C): This subclass is used on a local basis. This study uses the following classes based on elevations: Class 1 = less than 340m; Class 2C = 340 to 450m; Class 3&4C = 451 to 555m; Class 5C = 556 to 740m; and Class 6&7C = greater than 740m. Adverse climate limitation can not be improved at this time.
Some mapped polygons consisted partly of arable and partly of non-arable lands. These are the [1] and [2] square bracketed numbers found in the mapping label. Note that the arability class was based on the definition derived from contract specifications. Where the arable portion compromises at least 50% of the polygon, the whole polygon is designated as being arable. Conversely, when the non-arable portion of a polygon exceeds 50%, the whole polygon is designated as non-arable. Many polygons had more than 3 limitations and it was determined that an order of preference be established as guidelines specify only 3 limitations to be included onto the mapping label. Consultation with the Fort Nelson Farmer’s Institute established the following as their most limiting 13 to least limiting factors to agriculture in Fort Nelson based on experience and local knowledge: excess water (W), stoniness (P), fertility (F), topography (T), undesirable soil structure (D), and then adverse climate (C). This was used as the basis for final mapping labels. The above were the most common subclasses found in the study and other ones such as permafrost (Z), soil moisture deficiency (A), erosion (E), inundation (I), and depth to solid bedrock and/or rockiness (R) were found in rare isolated instances and put ahead the adverse climate limitation in the label.
7) Two sets of eighteen mapsheets were completed in early November and submitted in early December, 2007. One set included polygon boundaries with a numerical label, field inspection sites and traverse lines locality (polygon mapping labels were attached onto spreadsheets). The second set of maps included the non-arable land colored in green and borderline arable as colored in blue. Arable land was left uncolored. These maps are only hand-drafted and will further be transferred into digital format by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.
8) Upon completion of the maps, a presentation was made with the Fort Nelson Farmer’s Institute to review the draft maps and to relate details of the project along with the results. Most of the members were present at the presentation and was informative for all involved. Particular interest in certain areas were reviewed and a detailed analysis was given in regards to data collection and the creation of mapping labels.
9) A report was completed in draft form in December, 2007 and outlines the background for the project, the general information and land-use of the study area, climate capability for agriculture, study area locality and accessibility, background information and data, project methods and procedures and results of the arability and land capability assessment. After a review of the draft copy by the contract manager and edit corrections and modifications, final copies were submitted in December, 2007 (7 hard cover copies and one in electronic form).
VII. Discussion of Soils, Land Capability for Agriculture and Arability
The project area consists of Crown land areas of mainly large continuous areas with some smaller areas scattered. The smallest discontinuous parcels of land were situated along the river terraces on mapsheets 94J.058 and 94J.059. The largest continuous areas of study area were in mapsheets 94J.094 and 94J.095 (area 1) with all areas attached at an approximate area of 5500 hectares and followed by mapsheets 94J.088 and 94J.089(area 3) with a continuous area totaling about 4300 hectares. Combined, these 4 mapsheets represent almost half of the project area.
The study area is characterized by flat and gently rolling plateaus having poorly organized drainage. Surrounding Fort Nelson is vast areas of Muskeg and streams that meander across the landscape to join on to the major river systems such as the Fort Nelson River. Geophysical regions of the Fort Nelson Arability Study include the Fort Nelson lowland which is a subdivision of the Alberta Plateau and the Tsoo Tablelands which is a portion of the Alberta plateau. The lowland area is generally level and in places, gently rolling and lies below 610m. The Fort Nelson River is at 75 to 120m below the plateau level. The Tsoo Tablelands is an area of flat and gently rolling upland ranging in elevation from 610 to 1125m. Topographies throughout the study area were mainly level with some areas ranging from gently undulating to moderately rolling hills and the steepest slopes found occurring along major drainage systems. East of Fort Nelson contained the most continuous level ground (94J.088 and 94J.089) with the most western parts of the study area containing moderately rolling terrain (94J.094 14 and 94J.095). The areas just northwest of Fort Nelson (mapsheet 94J.097) contained the steepest slopes and most diverse terrain from river bottom terrace, to a very steep slope to the upper terrace and steep slopes along drainages within.
There is a lack of information in regards to the geomorphologic processes of the Fort Nelson area despite the vast Oil and Gas sector. The majority of information collected are privately owned by companies and kept confidential. Through data collection of soil characteristics throughout this study, it was identified that the soils had developed in a variety of surficial geologic deposits. The most common and widespread was the large continuous areas of silty to clayey glacial lacustrine deposits occurring throughout the majority of the study area. Deposits of glacial fluvial origin have created sandy type soils which were found in small isolated pockets but overall dominated in mapsheet 94J.067. Very small pockets scattered throughout the study area of morainal deposits were identified that contained coarse fragments. Fluvial deposits were found along the Fort Nelson river bottoms where silts dominated. These areas showed deposits have occurred through periodic flooding over the many years due to ice and snow melt and in extreme conditions have flooded over the banks creating the soil conditions. Fluvial deposits can be found on mapsheets 94J.098, 94J.077, 94J.067, 94J.058 and 94J.059 on areas adjacent the Fort Nelson River. Areas of organic deposits were scattered throughout the project areas found in depressional pockets of varying size. These areas typically were found un- arable.
Due to the lack of information of geological processes of this area, previous soil studies of the area did not group the soils according to their parent material and therefore this study will group the results according to the four areas designated in the study area as previously identified. These following sections will discuss the land capability for agriculture and arability relationships of the four areas.
Area 1 – West of Fort Nelson Along Alaska Highway and Highway 77
Soils have mainly developed from glacial lacustrine origin and contained silty clayey type soils. Morainal deposits were also scattered containing coarse fragments ranging up to 75% gravels, cobbles and stones. In particular, 94J.096 had the majority of being morainal with a small portion of glacial lacustrine. Organic deposits were scattered throughout in varying sizes but the majority of organics were found in black spruce type swampy land with a continuous moss floor. These typically were found unarable and had a class of 6 or 7W.
There were many soils found in area one. The majority of soils were Hamilton (Ha) and Fort Nelson (Fn) typically in the aspen moderately drained silty clay sites and were Klowee (Kl) and Simpson (Sp) in the wetter poorly drained clay sites. Sikanni soils were found when clays and gravels were found mostly of morainal origin. Parker (Pk) soils were the organics and were borderline to unarable and mainly exhibited an excess water limitation. The rest of the soil types were scattered throughout and identified according to soil profile characteristics.
Mapsheet 94J.084 had all clay to silt loam soils, both 94J.085 and 94J.086 had mostly SiC and SiCL with some heavy clays dispersed throughout, and 94J.096 had mostly SiL and SiCL with a small area containing sands. 94J.094 were mostly clay types with sands/sandy loam types making up about 15- 20% and 94J.095 has soils ranging from gravelly sandy loams in morainal areas to heavy clays in glacial lacustrine areas. Mostly clays dominated 94J.095.
Mapsheet 94J.084 had 76% as arable land and 94J.085 had about 84% as arable and mainly had arability classes of 3WDC. Slopes and coarse fragments were rare in these two mapsheets but both had 15 a stair-step like slope heading south with the highest slope found at 30%. Generally slope and coarse fragments were between 0-5%.
The majority of 94J.094 (97%) was found to be arable while 94J.095 had the most unarable classified land at 27%. Mapsheets 94J.094 and 94J.095 had a variety of limitations. These included the highest C class found throughout the entire study area as higher elevations were most prevalent in these mapsheets. The elevation ranged from 453m to 663m and generally had a 4 or 5C limitation. Other limitations on 94J.094 and 94J.095 included a topography (T) limitation as this area had moderately rolling hills usually ranging from 0 to 15%. The highest percent slope was found at 25%. In general these slopes were incorporated into polygons as a percentage unless it was of distinguishable size. Coarse fragments were scattered also throughout ranging up to 75% gravels, cobbles and stones but the majority of the area contained no coarse fragments. These pockets of coarse fragments were difficult to map as they were intermittently found and attempts were made to group and identify these areas. Class stoniness (P) ranged up to 7P in isolated pockets. The most common land capability classes, unimproved, found on 94J.094 and 94J.095 were in the 4 and 5 class range: 4CW, 4WDC, 5WC, 5WDC, 5CP and 5PC. Other classes were also found ranging from 3DC to 6WF8 7W2.
The majority of 94J.096 was found to be classified as arable at 97%. Mapsheet 94J.096 was also at a higher elevation with a 4 to 5C limitation, had excess water issues of 4 to 5W, contained coarse fragments up to 20% with the majority under 5%. Mapsheet 94J.096 was generally under 5% slope and had a maximum coarse fragment content of 20% but the majority were under 5%. Overall 94J.096 had unimproved ratings of 5WC, 5CW, 4FCW, 5C and 6WC with some percentages of stoniness intermixed. Fertility limitation was not as common in area one, but where found was associated with the excess water class (W) and contained large percentages of labrador tea. The majority of area 1 had imperfect to poorly drained soils thus an excess water (W) was attributed to the BCLI rating.
Area 2 – Surrounding Town and North of Fort Nelson
The majority of area 2 was of glacial lacustrine origin with scattered areas of morainal origin dispersed with coarse fragments (up to 25% found morainal in 94J.097). Fluvial deposits were found along the river bottoms of the Fort Nelson River on mapsheet 94J.098. Organic deposits were scattered of varying size and mainly found in black spruce types.
Area two consisted of a variety of soils. The majority of soils were Hamilton (Ha) and Fort Nelson (Fn) typically in the aspen moderately drained silty clay sites and were Klowee (Kl) and Simpson (Sp) in the wetter poorly drained clay sites. Sikanni soils were found in small pockets when clays and gravels were found. Parker (Pk) soils were the organics and were borderline to unarable and mainly exhibited an excess water limitation. The rest of the soil types were scattered throughout and identified according to soil profile characteristics. The Snake (Sn) and Prophet (Pr) soil types were typically found along the river bottoms (94J.098) and consisted mainly of sandy loams and silty clay type soils. Vegetation in these areas consisted of high brush, Balsam Poplar trees and a high horsetail ground cover. An area on mapsheet 94J.087 had Klua (Ku) soils which were permanently frozen organic soils (permafrost).
Soils in all three mapsheets (94J.087, 94J.097 and 94J.098) were predominantly loamy clay types with heavy clay types dispersed. Mapsheet 94J.098 also had scattered sand pockets. Soil drainage ranged from well to poor with the majority found with imperfect drainage.
About 14% was found unarable on mapsheet 94J.087 mainly due to excess water. Elevation on 16 mapsheet 94J.087 ranged from 396m to 535m which mainly gave a 2 to 4C class and slopes averaged 0 to 3% with a maximum slope of 25% found. Coarse fragments on this mapsheet were scattered with the highest found at 12%. Excess water was the most limiting on this mapsheet. The most common unimproved capability classes for this mapsheet was 3WCD and 4WDC.
Mapsheet 94J.097 was a small area south of Cridland Creek in which about 26% was determined to be unarable due to excess water. There was a lot of black spruce type swamps with a continuous moss cover that had very wet conditions up to a 7W class. A fertility class (F) was also usually associated to these areas as high amounts of labrador tea was found. Elevations ranged from 386m to 407m, a 25% slope was found adjacent to a creek in the north but the majority of the area was 0 to 3% slopes. Coarse fragments were mainly absent in most areas with a small area containing 10% coarse fragments. An area of permafrost organics was found in this area giving it a 7Z rating. The unimproved ratings for this mapsheet ranged from 3DWT to 7W and 7Z. 5WF was also very common in this area.
Mapsheet 94J.098 ranged from 280m (along the Fort Nelson River) to 425m (west up the hill terrace). A maximum of 5% coarse fragments was found with the majority absent of coarse fragments. The area was level along the river bottom then climbed up a steep hill (up to 40% slope) and was level to gently rolling at the upper terrace. Approximately 31% was found unarable due to topography (T) and excess water (W) limitations and had the most % unarable per mapsheet throughout the study. There was a variety of unimproved land capability ratings found ranging from 2WD to 7T and 7W. Since this area was so diverse, there was no common ratings found.
Area 3 – East of Fort Nelson in Vicinity of East of the Fort Nelson First Nations Reserve
The majority of area 3 was of glacial lacustrine origin with scattered areas of morainal and organic deposits found. Soils are mostly clays and silt loam types with sandy soils found in soils of morainal origin. Soils throughout the four mapsheets (94J.078, 94J.079, 94J.088 and 94J.089) were found to have soils of similar characteristics overall. These soils were most consistent throughout the entire study area. Mapsheet 94J.078 was 92% arable, 94J.079 was 79% arable, 94J.088 was 89% arable and 94J.089 was 97% arable.
The majority of soils found in area 3 were Hamilton (Ha) on drier sites and Klowee (Kl) on the wetter sites. Jackfish (Jf) and Trail (Tr) were found scattered where sands typically occurred. Other soil types were found throughout the area.
Area 3 was mainly level with small areas gently rolling and a maximum slope of 15% was found. Elevation range was minimal from 390m to 484m. A maximum of 30% coarse fragments was found although the majority of area 3 contained no coarse fragments. Excess water (W) was the most common limiting factor. Permafrost areas were found in organic bogs and found unarable with a Z class. The most common unimproved land capability classes were 3WDC and 5 and 6W where drainage is poor. Capability classes ranged from 2C to 7W and 7Z.
Area 4 – South of Fort Nelson Along Alaska Highway, Apache Road and Andy Bailey Road
Area 4 varied in geologic formation. Mapsheet 94J.057 was mostly of glacial lacustrine origin with morainal areas scattered. Mapsheets 94J.058 and 94J.059 had fluvial parent material along the river bottom floodplain, some scattered glacial lacustrine deposits but the majority was of morainal origin. Parent material of 94J.067 had a mix of glacial lacustrine, glacial fluvial and fluvial deposits with a few scattered morainal types. Few soils were exclusively glacial lacustrine and organic veneers over glacial 17 laccustrine blankets were scattered. Soils were mainly silts in fluvial deposits and silty clayey types in glacial lacustrine areas. Coarse fragments and sandy loams were found in morainal areas and sands were found in glacial fluvial soils.
Fort Nelson (Fn) and Hamilton (Ha) soils were found in silty clayey moderate drained sites whereas Klowee (Kl) and Simpson (Sp) was found on the wetter sites. Parker (Pk) and McConachie (Mc) were found where organic deposits occurred and Trail (Tr), Jackfish (Jf) and Donaldson (Dd) soils were of sands soils. The most sand deposits were found in area four, south of Fort Nelson. Snake (Sn) and Prophet (Pr) soils were found along the river bottoms of all four mapsheets and contained mainly silty soils.
Mapsheet 94J.057 had a minimum elevation of 476 and a maximum of 530m and therefore slopes were mainly level with a maximum found at 5%. Coarse fragments were found up to 25% and drainage was generally imperfect to poor and thus the excess water (W) limitation was found in almost all of the unimproved mapping polygons. Unarable land was found at 7% and were mainly 6 and 7W class. The majority of unimproved land capability ratings were 3WDC, 3DCW, 4WC and 4C.
Elevations on mapsheets 94J.058 and 94J.059 ranged from 304 to 503m and had slopes up to 35%. These mapsheets had coarse fragments found throughout with the highest found at 50%. One of the best areas suited for agriculture according to land capability classes (despite accessibility issues) was found along the Fort Nelson River and had no limitations at a class of 1. Excess water (W) was the main limitation on these two mapsheets followed by topography (T) and stoniness class (P). Class 7W and 7T were found most unarable in this area and it was projected that 22% was unarable on 94J.058 and 14% unarable on 94J.059. A variety in range of classes was found on these 2 mapsheets ranging from 1 to 7 agriculture capability class and anything in between.
Mapsheet 94J.067 had a minimum elevation of 223m (along the river bottom) and a maximum of 503m with the highest coarse fragments found at 35%. Maximum slopes of 40% were found in the northwestern portion but in general were at 0 to 5%. This mapsheet also had an area along the Fort Nelson River with a 1 class with no limitations and ranged up to 7W and 7T as well. Approximately 10% was found to be unarable. Excess water (W) followed by fertility (F), topography (T), undesirable soil structure (D) and soil moisture deficiency (A) were the most common limitations found. The majority of sands were found on this mapsheet and therefore soil moisture deficiency was a limitation on this mapsheet. A variety in range of classes was found on these 2 mapsheets ranging from 1 to 7 agriculture capability class and anything in between but mostly of 3 and 5 class.
Mapsheet 94J.077 was a small area that was along the Fort Nelson River and connected up to an area on 94J.067. Elevations ranged from 300m to 324m, the highest slope found at 8% but was generally level. This area was mainly a rich floodplain area with excess water (W) and undesirable soil structure (D) as the most limiting. There was no unarable land found and the most common unimproved land capability ratings were 2WD and 3WD with the most limiting found at 5W.
VIII. Project Results and Products
Successful completion of the Fort Nelson Arability project has resulted in detailed land capability for agriculture ratings along with an arability classification of approximately 21 000ha of land. During the field inspection portion of the study, anticipated unarable land in 94J.094 was exchanged with potentially arable land in 94J.095. As maps are to be digitally transferred at a later date only estimates 18 could be made to determine arable and unarable land. It is estimated that 18 000ha (about 86%) were classified as arable. The most arable land found throughout the entire study was located along the Fort Nelson River. These areas mainly had no limitations but posed problems in accessing the areas for agriculture purposes. Mapsheet 94J.077 had the most simplest access to the river as a gravel road leads to the area. The most common rating found was 3WDC and mainly characterized by silty clay soils and level topography. In general, areas found with a class 4 and under were most suitable for agricultural purposes and were found arable and capable of producing forages and coarse cereal grains. Class 5 areas were found to be arable but were borderline of being able to produce crops, Class 6 was nonarable and was only suited for grazing and Class 7 was unarable, not suitable for growing crops nor for grazing.
The largest areas of unarable land was found in black spruce forested types that were generally characterized by poor drainage, a continuous moss cover, high percentages of labrador tea, stunted black spruce and sometimes tamarack trees, and mostly organic soil matter. Small isolated areas within these areas black spruce swamps were found frozen. Other unarable land found in other forest types found limitations of excess water, topography and stoniness. Excess water was found most limiting in all areas of the study area and topography and stoniness were more localized limitations.
The products of the Fort Nelson Arability Project include the following and these have all been provided to the client: 1. 1:20 000 scale hand-drafted maps of all 18 mapsheets depicting the land capability for agriculture polygon boundaries, locations of the field traverses and site inspections and polygon ratings (attached onto spreadsheets that include the arability rating (in square brackets), the unimproved rating (no brackets), the improved rating (in brackets), and soil association symbols). These will later be transferred into digital map and data files by government staff. 2. 1:20 000 scale hand-drafted maps of all 18 mapsheets that display the non-arable polygon boundaries (colored in green), borderline arable polygon boundaries (colored in blue) and arable polygons (not colored). These will later be transferred into digital maps depicting all arable and non-arable land. 3. Completed field inspection forms (1010 in total) compiled at site inspection locations along transects. 4. A CD containing digital photos taken during the data collection. 5. A report summarizing the purpose of the project, procedure and methodology employed, the characteristics and distribution of the soils that are present in the project area, their land capability for agriculture rating, and their arability classification.
Throughout the duration of this project, it was determined there was lack of information available in regards to soils of the Fort Nelson area. Updated maps in regards to the soil names is needed as the last studies were in the 1970’s and early 1980’s and based on limited site inspections. More data is required on climatic capability, especially on Highway 77 if agriculture land is to be released there. Since there is a large amount of organic deposits found in the Fort Nelson Area, it is recommended to assess these areas in more detail with trial crops to determine if these soils can become more productive. Also, within these organic deposits, frozen soils were found and there is currently limited data on permafrost and their capability for agriculture. Fort Nelson agriculture mainly concentrates on growing fodder for livestock and grains. It is recommended to conduct trials on a variety of crops in different localities around Fort Nelson and in particular of Highway 77 and organic areas. Global warming may change weather conditions and thus agriculture producing potential. This in combination with an increasing global population and decreased agriculture land makes Fort Nelson important as a 19 future agriculture producing area. It is recommended to conduct further research into the Fort Nelson agriculture sector. IX. References
Canada Land Inventory. 1965. Soil Capability Classification for Agriculture. Canada Department of Forestry, ARDA. Report No. 2. 16pp.
Climatic Capability Classification for Agriculture. 1981. APD Technical Paper 4. Air Studies Branch. B.C. Ministry of Environment.
Environment Canada. Weather data for Fort Nelson. Website: www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/
Kowall, R.C. 1982. Soils of the Fort Simpson Trail Area. Report No. 58. British Columbia Soil Survey. Ministry of Environment, Assessment and Planning Division. 45pp.
Northern Rockies Regional District. Fort Nelson Information and background. Website: www.northernrockies.gc.ca/
Luttmerding, H.A. 2004. Morrice LRMP Arability Mapping Project – Phase 2. 13pp.
Luttmerding, H.A., D.A. Demarchi, E.C. Lea, D.V. Meidinger and T.Void. 1998 updated from 1990. Field Manual For Describing Terrestrial Ecosystems. Land Management Handbook 25. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks and B.C. Ministry of Forests.
Runka, G.G. 1973. Methodology, Land Capability for Agriculture. B.C. Land Inventory. Soil Survey Division, B.C. Department of Agriculture. 25pp.
Soil Classification Working Group. 1998. The Canadian System of Soil Classification. Agric. And Agri-Food Can. Publ. 1646 (Revised). 187pp.
Valentine, K.W.G. 1971. Soils of the Fort Nelson Area of British Columbia. Canada Department of Agriculture, Research Branch. British Columbia Soils Survey Report No. 12. 60pp.