The use of the agricultural land evaluation and site assessment system in the united states

Landscape and Urban Planrung, 14 (I 987) 183-l 99 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

183

THE USE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES

FREDERICK

STEINER’,

RICHARD DUNFORD

and NANCY

DOSDALL3

‘Department ofHorticulture and Landscape Architecture, Program in Environmental Science and Regional Planning, Washmgton State University. Pullman, II/A 99164-6414 (iY.S.A.) ‘Department ofAgricultural Economics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6210 (U.S.A.) -‘Program in EnvironmentalScience and Regional Planning, Washington State University, Pullman. WA 99164-6414 (U.S.A.) Scientific Paper No. 7 167, College of Agriculture and Home Economics Research Center, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, U.S.A. Project No. 0010 (Accepted for publication 25 April 1986)

ABSTRACT

Steiner, F., Dunford, R. and Dosdull, N., I987. The use of the agricultural land evaluation and site assessment system in the United States. Landscape

Urban

Plann.,

14: 183-199.

The Soil Conservation Service of the U.S. Department ofAgriculture has developed a new method ofsuitability analysis for use in theprotection of agricultural lands. The system has come about as a response to potential impacts of.federal programs on the conversion of farmlands to non-farm uses. Some states and local

INTRODUCTION A new system has been developed by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) to evaluate land being considered for conversion from farmland to other uses. This system is being used by the SCS, as well as by state and local

0169-2046/87/$03.50

0 1987 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

governments have adopted it for similar reasons. The system is comprised of two parts: land evaluation (LE) and site assessment (SA). When combined, the system is known as LESA. LE incorporates four rating systems: capability classes; important farmlands classification; soil productivity; soil potential. SA considers factors such as location, adjacent land uses, zoning, and other considerations which determine land suitability. This paper provides a brief description of LESA and explores the extent of its use in the United States.

officials, to evaluate the impacts of federal programs on farmland conversion. The system is needed because standard soil surveys do not provide enough information to meet current planning needs regarding issues of farmland conversion and farmland protection. Specifitally, soil surveys do not provide information

184

on economic, ecological, aesthetic or social issues that affect the relative suitability of land parcels for agricultural use. The new SCS system, which is known as the agricultural land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) system, provides additional sitespecific data for making such evaluations. The LESA system is designed to help planners determine the relative suitability of land for agricultural as compared to non-agricultural use. The quality of the soil for farming, as well as social, economic, ecological and aesthetic factors are considered. LIMITATIONS SOIL SURVEY

AND SUITABLE INFORMATION

USES OF

The oldest, most established system for defining the ability of the land to support various agricultural uses is the U.S. Soil Conservation Service’s Land Capability Classification (Soil Conservation Service. 196 1). Land capability classes are very general ratings of soil limitations that affect agricultural use without leading to serious deterioration of soil productivity over time. These classes are published in county soil surveys produced by the SCS. Published soil surveys also include interpretations of soil survey information that suggests limitations for land used as sites for septic tanks, sewage lagoons, homesites, lawns, streets and parking lots, athletic fields, parks and play areas, campsites, sanitary land fills and cemeteries. This information is increasingly utilized by planners, landscape architects and civil engineers because it is one of the most comprehensive and standardized sources of information about the natural environment in the United States. Several researchers have illustrated how soil survey information can be applied to planning and resource management (Bartelli et al., 1966; Lynch, 197 1; McCormack, 1974: Meyers et al., 1979). However, Miller (1978) has discussed how soil surveys are under pressure because of the limited information contained in them for

urban land-use planning. According to Gordon and Gordon (198 1 )_ soil survey information was found to be accurate when determining the limitations of soils as sites for septic tanks, but inconsistent for homesites and roads. “This implies”. Gordon and Gordon warn. “that the planners must use these published ratings with extreme caution in making environmental and land-use planning decisions and that consultation with state and local soil experts should be sought” (198 1, p. 30 1 ). These limitations arise in part because soil variability deemed of limited importance to agricultural use. and therefore not accounted for in routine soil mapping by the SCS. can be of great importance to urban or other land uses. To assist planners and resource managers, the SCS has developed other systems of land classification. One such effort is the Important Farmlands Mapping Program. This system identifies two major categories of farmland having national importance - prime and unique lands - and two other categories farmlands of state-wide importance and farmlands of local importance. There are national criteria for the first two categories, while the latter two are based upon criteria established at state and local levels (Dideriksen, 1984). The Important Farmlands Mapping Program coupled with the National Agricultural Lands Study (198 1 ), which documented substantial loss in the nation’s cropland base. presented new problems for both planners and soil scientists. For instance. 97O/o of the land in DeKalb County, Illinois. is classified as prime farmland. Obviously not all of this land can be preempted for agricultural use since there are also demands for other uses. On the other hand. in Whitman County, Washington. only 2.8% of the land is in the prime category. Most of the land in the county is excluded from the prime category due to steep slopes and high erosion potential. Yet, Whitman County is one of the most productive wheat areas in the nation. and most of the land in the county is under cultivation. As a result of such disparity between

185

land classification and use, a new system was needed to weigh the agricultural suitability of land against demands for other uses, and in 1981 a pilot program for such a system was launched (Wright, 1981; Wright et al., 1982, 1983; Dunford et al., 1983; Steiner et al., 1984a). Lloyd E. Wright, of the SCS’s office of land use in Washington, DC, is responsible for the design of this new system, which consists of two parts, (1) agricultural land evaluation (LE), and (2) agricultural site assessment (SA). Together, the LE and SA are known as the agricultural land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) system. This new system was tested by planners and soil scientists in two pilot counties in each of the following states - Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Washington - before being implemented nation-wide. LAND EVALUATION

VALUE

Agricultural land evaluation (LE) is a process of rating soils of a given area and placing them into 10 groups ranging from the best suited to the poorest suited for a specific agricultural use. A relative value is determined for each group, with the best group being assigned a value of 100 and all other groups assigned a lower relative value. The LE is based on National Cooperative Soil Surveys (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). Land evaluation rates the quality of soil for agricultural use by incorporating four rating systems: land capability classification; important farmlands classification; soil productivity; soil potential. SCS recommends that one of the last two ratings (soil potential being preferred) be used in conjunction with the first two ratings. The land-use staff of SCS has explained the method for combining these systems in the National Agricultural Land Evahation and Site Assessment Handbook (U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983). In that

handbook, the four systems are summarized given below.

as

Land Capability Class(fication identifies degrees of agricultural limitations that are inherent in the soils of a given area. It enables state and regional planners to use the system for planning and program implementation at regional and state levels. Soil Productivity relates the LE score to the local agricultural industry based on productivity of the soils for a specified indicator crop. The use of both soil productivity and land capability classification should provide some indication of relative net income expected from each category of soils. Soil Potentials for specified

indicator crops are preferred in place of soil productivity in the LE system. Soil potential ratings classify soils based on a standard of performance, recognition of the costs of overcoming soil limitations, plus the cost of continuing limitations if any exist. These classes enable planners to understand the local agricultural industry.

Important Farmland CIassiJication enables planners to identify prime and other important farmlands at the local level. Use of the national criteria for definition of prime farmland provides a consistent basis for comparison of local farmland with farmland in other areas (adapted from U.S. Department of Agriculture, I 983 ). The SCS recommends that soils be arrayed into 10 groups ranging from the best- to the worst-suited for the agricultural use considered (cropland, rangeland, forest). Each group should contain approximately 10% of the total planning area (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). Three evaluation systems are used in the ranking to prevent the assumptions of any one method from having an undue effect on the final outcome. For example, soil productivity may be used to establish the initial

186

SITE ASSESSMENT

groupings. These groupings are then modified based upon the other evaluation systems. Specifically, two soils may have the same productivity rating but different land capability ratings. In this case, the soil type with the better land capability rating would be placed in a higher grouping. Similarly. prime soils (according to the Important Farmlands Classification) would be placed in a higher grouping than soils of state-wide importance, even though both soils may have the same productivity rating. A relative value is determined for each agricultural grouping based on adjusted average yields. That is, a weighted-average yield is calculated for each soil grouping, with the weights determined by the relative acreage of each soil type within the grouping. The weighted-average yield for each grouping is then expressed as a percentage of the highest weighted-average yield. This percentage becomes the relative value for each agricultural grouping, and the relative value is the LE value that is combined with the site assessment value (U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983). Table I gives an example of the worksheet from which the LE relative values are determined.

TABLE

land-evaluation worksheet. This worksheet shows Source: U.S. Department OfAgriculture, 1983

I

2

Agricultural

Land capability

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Although the value from the LE system provides a good indication of the relative quality of a soil for a particular agricultural use, it does not take into account the effect of location, distance to market, adjacent land uses, zoning and other considerations which determine land suitability. In other words, relative agricultural value is only one of many site attributes which may be considered by planners and landuse decision-makers. Consequently, SCS has created the site assessment (SA) system to incorporate some of these other attributes into the decision-making process. The attributes that are included in the SA system form seven groups: agricultural land uses: agricultural viability factors: land-use regulations and tax concessions: options to proposed use; impact of proposed use: compatibility with, and importance to, comprehensive development plans; urban infrastructure. The factors listed below have been identified in the LESA handbook (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983) for use in site assessment procedures.

I

Agricultural evaluation.

group

VALUE

I Ilw 1 II II II II II/IIIW IIIe/IV/V Others

the criteria

for delineating

the 10 basic

groups

of soil for land

3 Important farmland determination

4 Potential or productivity

5 Percentage of total area

6 Acres

7 Kelati\ value

Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime State-wide State-wide ,411

95-100 95-100 94 90-94 80-89 70-79 69 All All ,411

18.8 31.3 5.4 9.6 21.0 3.5 7.1 2.1 0.9 0.3

76 270 I27 470 21975 39 365 85 635 14 570 28 695 8 275 3 410 1 375

100 94 88 84 81 75 44 31 78 0

c

187

Agricultural land use - Percentage of area in agriculture use within 1 mile. - Percentage of site farmed in 2 of the last 10 years. - Land-use adjacent to site. Agricultural viability factors Size of farm. Agricultural system (infrasupport structure). Land ownership. On-site investments (barns, storage, conservation measures, etc. ) . Impact of this conversion on retention of other farmland and the agricultural infrastructure. Conservation plan. Land-use regulations and tax concessions - Zoning for site. - Zoning for area around site. - Use of agricultural value assessment or other tax benefits. - Agricultural districts or right-to-farm legislation. Options to proposed use Unique siting needs for proposed use. Suitability of site for proposed use. Availability of less productive lands with similar attributes for proposed use. Number of undeveloped and suitable alternative sites and need for additional land. Impact qfproposed use - Compatibility of proposed use with existing land use. - Impact on flooding. - Impact on wetlands. - Impact on historical areas. - Impact on recreation and open spaces. - Impact on cultural features.

- Impact on unique vegetation. Compatibility with comprehensive development plans - Local. - Regional. - Degree of economic/social importance proposed use to the community.

of

Urban infrastructure Distance to urban area. Central water distribution system (within x miles). Central sanitary sewage system (within x miles). Investment for urban development. Transportation. Distance to other urban infrastructure (job centers, schools, shopping, etc.). Emergency services. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). Local communities may identify other factors. Any of the factors noted in the list may or may not be needed, or used, in the design of any local LESA system. Once specific factors have been chosen for the SA evaluation, each factor must be stratified into a range of possible points. The SCS recommends that a maximum of 10 points be given for each factor. In general, the maximum points are assigned when on-site conditions are most favorable to the continuation of agriculture. For example, suppose that the factor “percentage of area in agriculture” is included in the SA evaluation. If 90- 100% of the area in proximity to a site is in agricultural use, the maximum of 10 points would be given. Alternatively, if only about one-third of the surrounding area is in agriculture a lower number of points (e.g. 4) would be given. After points have been assigned for all factors, weights ranging from 1 to 10 can be considered for each factor. Those factors considered most important would be given the

188

highest weights, while factors of lesser importance would be given lower weights. The weights are multiplied by the assigned points for each factor, and the resulting products are then summed. Finally, the total is converted to a scale having a maximum of 200 points. Thus, the final SA value, as recommended in the LESA handbook, can range from 0 to 200 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). COMBINING

THE LE AND SA SYSTEMS

Although the LE and SA systems can be used separately, they are most useful when combined. Table II shows one method being considered to combine these systems in a county in Washington State. For each site, the acreage of each soil unit is multiplied by its relative value (LE value). These products are summed over all units and the sum is divided by the total acreage of the site to get an average LE value. In this example, 10 SA factors were selected, with each having a maximum of 20 points. The sum of the points assigned for each factor results in the SA value, which can be a maximum of 200 points. Finally, the LE value is added to the SA value for the total LESA value. The maximum LESA value is 300. The SA system tested in this Washington county deviated from the one recommended by the SCS in the LESA handbook. Instead of the more complicated weighting system for obtaining an SA straightforward addition score, a more approach was used. In the example in Table II, Site 1 has the greatest LESA value, indicating that it is more suitable for agricultural use than Site 2. Consequently, Site 2 would be favored for the residential development. In addition to being useful for judging the agricultural suitability of alternative sites, the LESA system can also be used to help decide whether a single parcel should be converted to a non-farm land use. Local decision-makers would have to specify a cut-off LESA value out of 300 points (or other maximum value). Par-

eels with a LESA value below the cut-off could be considered for conversion. USE OF LESA AT FEDERAL LEVEL The importance of LESA was enhanced by the adopted regulations implementing the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 198 1. These federal rules were adopted in 1984 (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1984). The FPPA was amended and strengthened somewhat by Congress in the passage of the Conservation Title in the Food Security Act of 1985. The FPPA requires federal agencies to identify and take into account the adverse effects of federal programs on farmland protection. to consider alternative actions, as appropriate, that could lessen such adverse effects. and to ensure that such federal programs, to the extent practical, are compatible with state. local and private programs and policies to protect farmland. For the purposes of the FPPA, farmland includes land identified under the important farmlands program (explained earlier). However, prime farmland that a state or local government has designated, through planning or zoning, for commercial, industrial or residential use is excluded from the provision of the FPPA. Federal programs under this act include activities or responsibilities that involve undertaking, financing or assisting construction or improvement projects, as well as acquiring, disposing or managing of federal lands and facilities. Some activities are not subject to the act, such as licensing activities. the granting of permits and national defense projects. The Soil Conservation Service has been given a prominent role in the implementation of the FPPA. In particular, the SCS is responsible for: developing the criteria that federal agencies must use in assessing the effects of their programs on farmland; providing information to states, local governments, individuals, organizations, and other federal agencies useful in farmland protection: providing tech-

189 TABLE II Hypothetical

example demonstrating

a possible use of the combined LE and SA systems in a county in Washington State

Proposed land use: single-family residential development Site I: 23 acres of Palouse silt loam, 7-25% slope with LE of 87 37 acres of Anders silt loam, 3-l 5% slope with LE of 48 Site 2: 32 acres of Cheney silt loam, O-7% slope with LE of 80 23 acres of Staley silt loam. 7-25% slope with LE of 63 L.and evaluation Ste I

Site 2 32x80=2560 23x63~1449 4009

23x87=2001 37X48= 1776 3777

4009 Average LE rating= p= 32+23

Average LE rating=%=63

73

Site assessment factors

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

(6) (7)

(8) (9) (10)

Percentage of area in agriculture within I mile Land use adjacent to site Wasting agricultural land Availability of non-agricultural land for proposal Compatibility with comprehensive plan and zoning Availability of public services Compatibility of proposed use with surrounding use Environmental factors Open-space taxation Other factors unique to the site

Total site assessment points Average land evaluation rating Total points (total of previous two lines) Choice for development:

Max. Pts.

Site 1

Site 2

20 20 20 20

20 20 20 20

10 10

20 20

17 15

15 10

20 20 20 - 20

20 20 15 15

I5 15 IO 13

200 100 300

182 63 245

128 73 201

15 15

Site No. 2

nical assistance to states, local governments and non-profit-making organizations wanting to develop farmland protection programs. Regarding criteria for assessing farmland effects, the SCS has mandated that federal agencies use LESA. The LE value is determined by the SCS on the form shown in Fig. 1. Federal agencies must then determine the SA value and combine it with the LE value, as specified in the regulations implementing the FPPA. As can be seen from Fig. 1, the SCS chose not to use the more complex weighting

system which it had recommended for SA in its handbook. In addition, the maximum SA value which can be obtained by federal agencies is 160 from the I2 SA factors, rather than the 200 maximum which the SCS recommends in its LESA handbook. Thus, the maximum LESA value is 260. In cases where a state or local government has adopted a LESA system and this system has been certified by the SCS state conservationist, it is recommended that the federal agencies use that system to make their evaluation of the farmland conver-

PART

IV

A.

(To

he complefed

Total

Acres Acres

f3

Total

C.

Percentage

D.

Perwntage

PART

V (To

VI

1

(To

_

Area

Local

In Govt by

SCS/

Oi Farmland

be corn,nleted

by

In Nonurban

Perlrnctur Prrcent

4

Protectlor

5

Distance

From

6

Distance

To

7

Stzu Of Present

8.

Creation

9

Avallablllty

Important

I

Farmland

Or Local

Ju;,sd,ct,on Land

Govt.

Umt

To Be Converted

With Same Or H,gher Relative

Eva!uatlon

TO Be Converted

Federal

Value

Criterion fkaleof

0 to 100 Pnmtsi

-’

, / i

Agency)

are expiainrd

By State

And

BuIltup

Support

Fartn

r” 7 CFR 658 5/b,

Farm

Local

Government

Area Sprwces

Unit

Of Nonfarmal~le

Compared

To

Average

Farmland

Support

Scrwces

Investments

11.

Effects

12

Compatibllty SITE

/

Farmec

Urban

Urban

Of

I

Use

Bring

Provided

OrlvFarm

I

InformatIon

Use

In Nonurbar Of Site

Evaluation

Farmland

In County

Cr~i?r,,i /These cr,rer,a

2.

TOTAL

And

Of Farmland

Value

Land

Unique

Statewide

3

10.

And

be complered

Sltr Arsrrsmenl

SC.Sl

Of Farmland

Relative PART

Prime

by

Of Conversion With

On

ASSESSMENT

Fig. 1. U.S. Department

Farm

Exlb,t!ni]

Support

Agricultural

Scrv~ces Ure

POINTS

of Agriculture. farmland conservation

sion effects of their programs. The recommendation that federal agencies use certified state LESA systems in their project reviews provides a strong incentive for

impact rating

states to adopt a LESA system. This might allow the state to have more control when federa1 projects are proposed because they would be evaluated according to criteria generated

191

from within the state. Another reason for state governments to develop LESA systems is for the review of state projects. The states of Illinois, Hawaii and Delaware have made the most progress in this regard. The program in these three states will be described further. Utah has developed a computerized educational program (Utah State University, 1984) and Virginia has a farmland protection policy which promotes land evaluation (Markert, 1984). Neither the Utah nor the Virginia systems will be described in this paper. Illinois Illinois has the most well-developed and extensive state-level LESA program in the United States. The program was initiated in response to the Illinois State Farmland Preservation Act of 1982. This act is similar to the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act in that it directs state agencies to consider the impacts on farmland when considering capital projects. LESA was chosen as the method to evaluate such projects. The Illinois LESA system was developed cooperatively by the Illinois Department of Agriculture, SCS, Cooperative Extension Service and the Association of Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The land-evaluation portion was developed by the staffs of the state soil scientist and the state resource conservationist. The site assessment part of LESA was developed by the Illinois Department of Agriculture (Rozenbaum and Reganold, 1986). Whenever a state agency participates in a state-funded capital project which will lead to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural purposes, the agency must submit written notice to the Illinois Department of Agriculture. The Department of Agriculture then determines whether the project is in compliance with state policy. If it is not in compliance, the agriculture department performs a

LESA analysis to determine the project’s impact on good agricultural land. A copy of the LESA analysis is then submitted to the director of the agency concerned and various state officials (Illinois Department of Agriculture, no date). Illinois LE The land evaluation section used in Illinois corresponds closely to the national approach developed by the SCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). The major exception is that a productivity index developed by the University of Illinois is used as the basis of the LE rating. A high management grain crop index, which combines corn, soybeans, wheat and oats, is used to provide commensurate productivity values and the best comparisons of productivity state-wide. Relative scores are determined by grouping the soils into land capability, important farmland and soil potential or productivity classes (Table III). In no case are different important farmland classes mixed into the same group. The highest possible LE score is 100. A computer program has been developed which allows county officials to obtain a complete land evaluation for their county with a minimum of effort. Illinois SA The highest possible site assessment score in Illinois is 200, or double that of the LE score to which it will be added. Site assessment factors were chosen “through field-testing, landuse planning practice, and extensive discussion amongst agency personnel responsible for implementing farmland protection at the state and federal level” (Illinois Department of Agriculture, no date). A total of I 6 factors were chosen; 12 factors have a maximum possible score of 10 and the other 4 have a maximum possible score of 20 (Table IV). In Illinois, there is strong support for LESA. As of January 1986, LESA systems were fully operational in 20 counties. In addition, the LE portion of the system was completed in nearly every county (Hiemstra and Bushwick, 1986).

192 TABLE III Illinois land evaluation system Land capability

Important farmland

Potential or productivity

Percent

.Acres

Relatl\ e value

Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Prime Important Important Important Important Important Important Important Important NP and NI NP and NI

I40-200 125-139 140-200 O-124 125-139 o-124 O-200 90-200 loo-200 75-89 85-99 o-74 70-84 O-69 O-200 l-200 0

12.5 23.0

3 809 700 6 994 200

100 98

15.2

4 608 800

87

22.6

6 879 000

75

12.7

3 863 500

74

2.6

777 300

57

I.5

469 800

50

I .o

293 600

45

9 IO

I I II I II II III/IV II/III IV II/III IV II/III IV IV vIvI/vII/vIII All ,411

6.4 2.5

I 937 600 770 600

44 0

Illinois Department

of Agriculture. no date

Agricultural group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Hawaii Hawaii officials are currently developing a state LESA system. The purpose of Hawaii’s LESA will be to identify important agricultural lands in the state. A 17-member landevaluation and site-assessment commission has been appointed to develop a system (Fisk and Richmond, 1984). The commission is to propose a recommendation to the state legislature. At what scale the system will be applied (state-wide, county, district) has not yet been decided. Thus far, general categories for both land evaluation and site assessment have been determined. The land evaluation will consider both quality of land and the availability or potential for irrigation system development. The site assessment will include: (1 ) land-use designation; (2) conformance with the state plan and functional plans; (3) county zoning; (4) conformance with county general plan and development plan;

( 5 ) non-agricultural needs: (6) financial feasibility; (7) proposed use compatibility: (8) effects on self-sufficiency in agricultural products (Fisk and Richmond, 1984). Delaware The Delaware state LESA is similar to Illinois in that it is being implemented in response to a state agricultural land preservation act. The Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Act of 198 1 established a state goal of protection and enhancement of the state’s agricultural economic base. The Delaware Department of Agriculture was directed to establish policies and rules to implement this directive and chose to employ a LESA system. An important difference between the state act and federal Farmland Protection Policy Act is that Delaware specifically mandates its Department of Agriculture to monitor state agencies actions and provides for injunction relief should the abide by the department not agency recommendations.

193 TABLE Illinois

TABLE V

IV site assessment

Single weighted (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (II)

Local jurisdictions with confirmed active LESA programs, 1986 (Dosdall, 1985; Chard, 1986)

factors

factors Distance to city Availability of central water system Availability of central waste-disposal system (sewer) Transportation Adjacent zoning classification Relationship of proposed site to an agricultural area Size of site Agricultural support system/services Does the comprehensive plan show the site for agriculture? Percentage of site in agriculture

(12)

Alternative sites proposed on less productive land Soil limitations for proposed use

Double weighted factors Adjacent land use (13) Compatibility of proposed use with (14) agriculture Have prior governmental actions (15) committed site to development? Percentage of area in agricultural use (16) within Illinois

Department

1.5 miles of the site

of Agriculture,

no date

A state-wide LE system was developed by the University of Delaware, the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, and the office of the state conservationist. The LE system uses soil productivity ratings. Delaware officials decided to develop separate site-assessments to be used in each of the three counties. Committees of county commissioners are currently developing the specific factors and weighting schemes to be used in each county. Once developed, the complete LESA system will be used to evaluate both state and federal projects, making the Delaware agricultural department the first state agency to be designated as the review agency for federal projects under FPPA (National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 1985).

Windsor, Connecticut Latah County, Idaho Lee County. Idaho Boone County, Illinois Brown County. Illinois Champaign County, Illinois DeKalb County. Illinois Ford County, Illinois Grundy County, Illinois Henry County, Illinois Jackson County, Illinois Johnson County. Illinois Kane County, Illinois Lee County, Illinois McHenry County, Illinois McLean County. Illinois Mercer County, Illinois Moultrie County, Illinois Rock Island County, Illinois Sangamon County, Illinois Schuyler County. Illinois Stephenson County, Illinois Will County, Illinois

Spring

Johnson County, Iowa Story County, Iowa Saline County, Kansas Shawnee County. Kansas Clark County, Kentucky Hardin County, Kentucky Howard County, Maryland Glasgow, Montana South Washoe County, Nevada Grafton County, New Hampshire Hunterdon County, New Jersey Dutchass County, New York Monroe County, New York Gaston County, North Carolina Medina County, Ohio Linn County. Oregon Bennington, Vermont Brattleboro, Vermont Clarke County. Virginia Culpeper County, Virginia Hanover County. Virginia Montgomery County, Virginia Whitman County. Washington

Local programs

There are at least 300 jurisdictions in the United States which use zoning to protect farmland. Forty percent of these local governments indicate that they are using some form of written criteria to evaluate zoning decisions (Toner, 1984). LESA is one system providing such criteria. There are at least 46 local governments in 19 states actively using LESA (Dosdall, 1985; Chard, 1986; Hiemstra and Bushwick, 1986) (Table V). Programs in another 29 local governments have been identified but not confirmed. In addition, at least 161 units of local government have officially requested assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop a LESA system. Several of the 46 active systems are incomplete. Others are complete, but have yet to be used in actual decision-making. All of these systems are relatively new, i.e. less than 5 years old. It is expected that they will be relined and used for new purposes as local government planners gain more experience. Planners and

194

conservationists in 36 of the 46 jurisdictions with confirmed LESA programs were contacted and asked about their experience with LESA. (The other 10 have been adopted since the survey). The observations about the LESA system by planning officials of the 36 local governments are given below. Local land evaluation

In most of these 36 localities the land-evaluation portion of LESA appears to be fairly straightforward and relatively easy to implement. This is probably because the land evaluation is largely done by SCS staff at the district level. Most land evaluations utilize established rating systems. As a result, there is seldom any controversy about their determination. In the words of one district conservationist, “the land evaluation portion posed [only a] few problems [and those] were easily overcome” (Dosdall. 1985, p. 49). The most common adaptation of the landevaluation portion was to use a soil productivity index developed specifically for the entire state. The states of Vermont, Illinois, New York, Iowa and Ohio have developed statespecific indices which are being used in local LESA systems. These productivity indices use the same information as SCS soil-productivity ratings. In most cases, productivity indices have been a result of cooperation between the SCS and state officials. The most common problem confronted by local areas in land evaluation is that LESA was not designed for areas with more than one major crop. Many areas have several major crops. One soil may be good for one type of crop and relatively poor for another. This problem has been addressed by local planners and conservationists in several ways. One approach to overcome this problem has been developed in Linn County, Oregon. The Linn County procedure for LE was to derive four single-crop soil-potential ratings and combine them into an overall rating of agricultural potential. Soil-potential ratings are rela-

tive measures of net return to soil management for the production of a given crop. For each soil under consideration, data must be assembled for crop yields, current prices for specific management practices required to crops, achieve those yields, and costs associated with each management practice. Once the data are assembled and the calculations are complete, the net returns are arrayed from high to low. The highest net return is set equal to 150. and all others are expressed as a percentage of the highest one. The result is a set of soil potential ratings on a scale of O-l 50 (Steiner et al., 1984b). Another approach is the development of separate indices for each major crop. Lee County, Georgia, uses this approach and has developed indices for corn. peanuts. soybeans and wheat. Each soil type has been rated for each major crop. The soil-potential rating for each crop results in the soil being placed into one of 6 classes (very high, high. medium. low. very low, none). The crop-type and respective rating to be used is determined when the specific site is evaluated (Lower Chattahoochee River Soil and Water Conservation District. 1984). A third way of addressing the problem of several major crops is the land evaluation system developed in Clarke County. Virginia. In Clarke County, agriculture consists largely of dairy. hog. beef cattle and horses. The two major crops used in the Clarke County evaluation are corn and grass-legume hay. Clarke County officials determined soil potential ratings for each soil type for both corn and grass-legume hay. The ratings were then simply averaged. A fourth method of integrating numerous crops into one index was developed in Monroe County, New York. The typical farm in Monroe County is a dairy farm where the major crops are rotations of corn silage and hay. In order to combine corn and hay into one index, the county determined the yield of each crop in tons per acre per year using the most inten-

195

sive rotation possible. The yields were then converted to total digestible nutrients. The total digestible nutrients determined the relative value of each soil type (Monroe County, 1984). Another area of land evaluation where there was some variation was in the placing of soils into groups ranging from the best to the worst for agricultural use. The SCS recommends that around 10 groups be used (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). Local governments are using anywhere from 6 to 12 groups. Linn County and Whitman County, Washington, planners have chosen not to use any groups at all. Soils there are individually assigned a relative value. Planners in these two counties believe that this simplifies the land evaluation system somewhat. Local site assessment Site assessment poses many more problems for local governments than land evaluation. In general, the local planners develop the siteassessment criteria with little help from the Soil Conservation Service. A local committee is formed to determine which factors are relevant and how to weight them. The committee may consist of local planners, planning commission members, soil and water conservation district representatives, cooperative extension agents, elected officials, agricultural leaders, building and real-estate industry representatives, and almost anyone else. The committee is responsible for determining the site-assessment factors that are important in the area (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). Site assessment is not mathematically precise. The weights assigned to each factor are meant to represent the general policy guidelines chosen by the locality. The factors and their respective weights should vary with the policy decisions and the purpose behind a local LESA system (U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983). There are two site-assessment factors which appear to be generic to all site assessments of the 36 surveyed systems, regardless of the pol-

icy and circumstances in the area and the purpose of the LESA system. These factors are the percentage of the area in agricultural use around the site, and the land use adjacent to the site. The wording and weighting of these factors varies with local situations, but every site assessment included the essence of both of these factors. In most cases these factors receive the heaviest weight. In Linn County, Oregon, only one other site-assessment factor is considered. The other commonly adopted factors suggested by SCS, in order of frequency of use, include: (1) compatibility with comprehensive plans; (2) size of farm; (3) agricultural zoning for site; (4) distance from urban area; ( 5 ) availability of central water/sewage system; (6) percentage of site farmed; (7) compatibility with surrounding existing land uses; (8) transportation; (9) soil limitations for proposed use; (10) environmental impacts of proposed use: (1 1 )agricultural support system sufficient. Additional factors suggested by the SCS which have been adopted less often, in order of decreasing frequency of use, include: (1 ) impact on historical areas; (2) impact on cultural features; (3) zoning for area around site; (4) availability of less agriculturally productive lands with similar attributes for proposed use; ( 5 ) impact on water quality; (6) emergency services; (7) impact on flooding: (8) conservation plan; (9) agricultural districts or right-to-farm legislation; (10) number of undeveloped and suitable alternative sites available; (I 1) impact on recreation and open space; ( 12) on-site investments;

196

(13) land ownership; ( 14) economic/social importance of proposed use; (15 ) distance to other urban infrastructures (job centers, schools, etc. ) : (16) use of agricultural value or other tax benefits; (17) unique siting needs for proposed use: (18) suitability of site for proposed use: (19) impact on wetlands: (20) compatibility with regional plans (never used). There are four general categories of site assessment which affect the types of factors chosen. These include those which seek to assess the agricultural economic viability of the site and alternative sites, agricultural potential without regard to proposed use, agricultural potential without regard to present management, and site assessments designed for a specific purpose such as determining eligibility in agricultural districts. These four general categories of site assessments will now be examined in more detail. Using site-assessment factors to help assess the agricultural economic viability of a site and to analyze alternative sites are key purposes of LESA. Of the 36 surveyed systems, this is the most common use for site assessment. There is no discernible pattern in the choice of factors for this purpose and their weighting. Factors are generally chosen from all seven attribute categories suggested in the LESA handbook by the SCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). The selection frequency of specific factors follows the list above, with surrounding land-use being the most frequently chosen and heavily weighted factor. Additional factors, not suggested in the LESA handbook by SCS but used in one or more assessments, include: number of residences within a certain number of miles; suitability for certain specialty crops; family farm value; irrigation systems;

degree proposed use not compatible with zoning; wasting of agricultural land: impact on drainage; impact on water rights: impact on water supply: impact on air-quality and noise: impact on scenic resources: impact on transportation: impact on pattern of development; impact on land values: ability of municipality to provide services; distance to utilities. Other local governments have sought to assess the viability of a site for agriculture without regard to proposed use. Examples of such localities are Bennington and Brattleboro, Vermont. In these evaluations, all factors related to the impacts and suitability of a site for the proposed use are left out. This has the advantage of allowing one score for a site regardless of the proposed project. Therefore the analysis only has to be done once. Localities which wish to use LESA for long-range planning may want to develop this type of assessment. Hunterdon County. New Jersey. is an example of a locality which designed its LESA for a single purpose. That purpose was the identification of farmers who would sell development easements for the lowest price. Factors unique to Hunterdon County’s site-assessment system include the offer to sell permanent easement, and the availability of municipal matching funds. Site assessment designed for other such single-purpose reasons may also contain factors reflecting that use. Aside from the problem of deciding which factors to choose and how to weight them, some local governments have been concerned with the subjective nature of some site-assessment factors. Assigning numbers and weights to factors tends to make the results seem objective and precise, whether or not they actually are. For example, determining whether a proposed use will have an impact on water resources can

197

be extremely subjective, meaning that two people performing the analysis on the same site may get different results. Local government officials and planners have found two means to address this problem - avoiding all subjective questions and providing best case/worst case scenarios. Linn County, Oregon, is an example of a government which has managed to avoid the use of any subjective criteria in its site assessment. Only three factors are used: the number of residences within 0.25 miles; the percentage of perimeter in non-compatible use; parcel size. All these factors are reliably measured. There is no room for judgement on the part of the scorer. Officials in Champaign County, Illinois, have approached this problem in a somewhat different manner. Rather than exclude all subjective factors, a best case/worst case scenario is used. For example, a properly designed and maintained on-site waste-water system may have little impact on water quality, while a poorly maintained system may have an adverse effect. Two LESA evaluations are done for each project, one assumes the best design and management and one the worst. In this manner, a range of values are given. Champaign County planners indicate that this analysis brings project uncertainty into the open for further discussion, and allows a good decision based upon performance requirements. Local overall weighting

There are some differences in the way local governments are weighting land evaluation and site assessment. The SCS recommends that site assessment should receive twice the weight of land evaluation (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). The majority ofthe 36 local active programs which were surveyed have followed this advice and weighted land evaluation as 100 and site assessment as 200 (Dosdall, 1985). Officials in Grafton County, New Hampshire, Dutchess County, New York, and Latah County, Idaho, have decided that land-evalu-

ation factors should receive more weight than site assessment, and have weighted land evaluation double that of site assessment. Oflicials in all three counties felt that the most productive farmland should be protected regardless of other factors, therefore they put most weight on productivity factors. In Linn County, Oregon, land evaluation and site assessment are weighted equally. Local use

All of the local governments currently using LESA believe it provides a sound basis for landuse change decisions involving farmland. For the majority of the local governments, this means including a LESA review in the staff report for projects such as re-zones, conditional-use permits, sub-divisions, and other development proposals. In all cases, the LESA review is advisory only; cut-off values are rarely developed. The localities which have developed cut-off values allow for further review of projects near the threshold value. Several local governments are using LESA to determine eligibility in certain farmland preservation programs. Howard County, Maryland, Hunterdon County, New Jersey, and Monroe County, New York, use LESA to evaluate farmland for inclusion in agricultural districts. The citizens of Brattleboro, Vermont, hope to use LESA as a basis for a newly proposed local farmland protection regulation and agricultural land protection fund. Other localities have chosen to use LESA for more long-range planning projects rather than for case-by-case decision-making such as the rezoning of land. Both Culpeper County, Virginia, and McHenry County, Illinois, have used LESA criteria in the development of long-range comprehensive plans. Simplified site assessment criteria were used in both cases to evaluate the agricultural potential and development capability of the entire county. In this manner, the counties developed future land-use maps. Many other counties hope to use LESA to update comprehensive plans in the future. Other,

198

more long-range uses for LESA include the experiences of Stephenson County, Illinois, and Bennington, Vermont. In these jurisdictions, local officials use LESA to evaluate where sewer and water lines should go in order to guide development away from the best farmland. Other local innovations Several counties are using LESA systems in innovative ways which deserve attention. Latah County, Idaho, instead of developing one index to determine agricultural viability, has considered five separate land-use indices to rate agricultural, forestry, range, urban and rural residential development. While the LESA handbook suggests procedures for developing separate land evaluations for forest and rangeland, the suitability of land for urban and rural residential development is usually integrated into the site assessment for agricultural land (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983). Latah County officials felt that better information could be obtained by separating the indices. In this manner it would be more apparent whether a site is poor for agriculture due to poor soils or location near urban development. It is also possible to use the system for more purposes than just protecting good farmland from development. Neighboring Whitman County, Washington, has developed a similar LESA program and is using it to rate the suitability of sites for heavy commercial development. South Washoe County, Nevada, has developed separate land-evaluation and site-assessment criteria for rangeland. The site assessment for rangeland is similar to farmland except that factors concerning irrigation and water rights are considered. A number of localities expressed an interest in developing indices for forest land but have not done so as yet. Hardin County, Kentucky, while developing a LESA system which does not stray very far from SCS guidelines, is using the system in a unique manner. The LESA system is used as the first step in a process (Development Guidance System) which is used in place of tradi-

tional zoning. LESA is used to determine a site’s eligibility for development based on the criteria of preserving prime agricultural land and reinforcing previous capital investments. The Development Guidance System allows Hardin County to guide development without the constraints of traditional zoning, which are often disliked in rural areas. CONCLUSIONS LESA is not a panacea. Alone, it cannot resolve agricultural land-retention issues. However, the system does offer a logical, straightforward and flexible framework for evaluating a site’s value for agriculture. LESA has been developed recently and is still evolving, yet its use is spreading throughout the United States. The relatively wide use of LESA by state and local governments reflects the increased adoption of farmland protection policies., LESA provides a useful approach to help implement these policies. The U.S. Congress, as evidenced by the FPPA and its amendment, has shown its concern about the impact of federal programs on farmland. The LESA system is now being used by the SCS nation-wide to evaluate the potential impacts of those programs. As the federal, state and local governexperience with land ments gain more evaluation and site assessment, it is possible for refinements to be made which will help prevent the unnecessary conversion of some of the world’s richest farmland to other uses. REFERENCES Bartelli. L.J., Klingebiel. A..4.. Baird, J.V. and Heddleson. M.R., 1966. Soil Surveys and Land-Use Planning. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI. I79 pp. Chard, S., 1986. Chief, Bureau of Farmland Protection, State of Illinois (interviewed, 7 February). Dideriksen, R., 1984. SCS important farmlands mapping program. In: F. Steiner and J. Theilacker (Editors). Protecting Farmland. AVI Publishing, Westport, CT, pp. 233-244. Dosdall, N., 1985. The Extent and Use of the Agricultural

199 Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) System. Master of Regional Planning Thesis, Washington State University, Pullman, WA, 109 pp. Dunford, R.W., Roe, R.D., Steiner, F.R., Wagner, W.R. and Wright, L.E.. 1983. Implementation of LESA in Whitman County, Washington. J. Soil Water Conserv., 38(2): 87-89. Fisk, A.L. and Richmond, C., 1984. Soil conservation and farmland protection: the western perspective. Annu. Meet. Western Governors Association, Palm Springs, CA, 133 PP. Gordon, S.I. and Gordon, G.E.. 1981. The accuracy of soil survey information for urban land-use planning. J. Am. Plann. Assoc., 47: 301-312. Hiemstra, H. and Bushwick, N., 1986. Highlights of the 1985 state activities in farmland protection. Farmland Notes, 5(l): 1-4. Illinois Department of Agriculture, no date. Illinois Statewide Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System, Springfield, IL, 18 pp. Lower Chattahoochee River Soil and Water Conservation District, 1984. Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) System, Leesburg, GA, 46 pp. Lynch, K., 1971. Site Planning, 2nd ed. MIT. Press, Cambridge, MA, 384 pp. Market-t, K., 1984. Application of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) System in Virginia (M.S. Thesis), Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 90 pp. McCormack, D.E., 1974. Soil potentials: A positive approach to urban planning. J. Soil Water Conserv., 29: 258-262. Meyers, C.R., Kennedy, M. and Sampson, R.N., 1979. Information systems for land-use planning. In: M.T. Beatty, G.W. Petersen and L.D. Swindale (Editors), Planning the Uses and Management of Land. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society ofAmerica, Madison, WI, pp. 889-907. Miller, F.P., 1978. Soil survey under pressure: The Maryland experience. J. Soil Water Conserv., 33(3): 104-I Il. Monroe County. New York, 1984. Monroe County LESA, Land Evaluation Site Assessment System, Rochester, NY, 49 PP. National Agricultural Lands Study, 198 1. Final Report. U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 108 pp. National Association of State Departments of Agriculture Research Foundation, 1985. Delaware Says No to Government Sponsored Farmland Conversion. Farmland Notes, 4(2): 1-3. Rozenbaum, S.J. and Reganold, J.P., 1986. State farmland preservation programs within the Upper Mississippi River Basin: a comparison. Landscape Plann., 12: 315-336. Soil Conservation Service, I96 1. Land Capability Classitication. Agricultural Handbook No. 210, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. Steiner, F.R., Dunford, R.W., Roe, R.D., Wagner, W.R. and Wright, L.E., 1984a. The use of the SCS agricultural land evaluation and site assessment system in Whitman County. Washington. Landscape J., 3(l): 3-14. Steiner, F, Huddleston, J.H., Pease, J.R., Stamm, T. and Tyler, M., 1984b. Adapting the Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) System in the Pacific Northwest. Western Rural Development Center, Corvallis, OR. 48 PP. Toner, W., 1984. Ag Zoning Gets Serious. Planning, 59( 12): 19-24. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1983. National Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Handbook. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, 120 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1984. Farmland protection policy, final rule. Federal Register, 49(130): 27716-27727. Utah State University, Environmental Field Service, 1984. Utah Cropland Evaluation System: User’s Guide. Department of Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Logan, UT, 32 pp. Wright, L., 198 1, Agricultural Land Evaluation and Assessment Systems: Pilot Program. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC, various page numbers (unpublished briefing paper). Wright, L, Aradas, S., Darden, R., Pfluger, S. and Zitzmann, W., 1982. Farmland: Want to protect? Planning, 48 (7): 20-2 I. Wright, L., Zitzmann, W., Young, K. and Googins, R., 1983. LESA-agricultural land evaluation and site assessment. J. Soil Water Conserv., 38(2): 82-86.