Due to the loss of farmland within Franklin County, an Agricultural Easement program

Transcription

1 Emily Grabenstein Practical Exam March 9th - 16th Corrections Dr. George Pomeroy and Dr. Janet Smith Developing an Agricultural Land Preservation Priority Map for Southampton Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania Using Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Introduction Due to the loss of farmland within Franklin County, an Agricultural Easement program was established to preserve farmland. This program is crucial to Franklin County due to the speed at which the agricultural industry is expanding within the county (Franklin County, 2012). The program requires that the farm must be at least 35 acres and be a part of an Agricultural Security Area as well as have an active conservation plan in place (Franklin County, 2012). With this program, Franklin County ranks 11 th in the state for number of farms preserved and 7 th for the total number of acres enclosed under easement (Franklin County, 2012). In order for a farm to become a part of this Agricultural Easement program, it must be assessed for preservation. There are many ways to conduct such as assessment however, the systems used in Franklin County is the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system. This Practical Exam uses this system to evaluate Southampton Township of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Literature Review Land capability looks at the physical capacity at which the land can support a specific development (Randolph, 2004). Land suitability displays information pertaining to the land in P a g e 1

2 individual maps that are overlaid using a Geographic Information System (Randolph, 2004). This analysis is used to determine the most favorable locations for certain land uses. In order to conduct a land suitability analysis, many sources of information are required pertaining to both ecological and non-ecological factors (Berke et al., 2006). When suitability analysis first began, transparent maps of a particular feature shaded in gray were overlaid. The darkest locations revealed the most suitable sites. Presently this analysis is conducted through Geographic Information System (GIS) software (Berke et al., 2006). Four of the most common land suitability analyses include pass/fail screening, equivalent rating, weighted rating, and direct assignment rating (Berke et al., 2006). Pass/fail screening determines a minimum acceptable rating at which any parcel that score below are automatically considered unsuitable for that particular land use (Berke et al., 2006). This technique is optimal due to its ease and promptness of use. However, all factors are considered equal with no distinction in the degree of suitability. Equivalent rating applies a suitability value to each feature for a particular land use then uses a graduated scale. This technique produces a more refined rating and is easy to understand. One limitation is that all landscape features are calculated equal in weight (Berke et al., 2006). Weighted rating assigns a weight to each land feature based off its importance to suitability. This process reveals the importance of landscape features (Berke et al., 2006). This method is easy to use however it does not allow for unique combinations of landscape features. Direct assignment rating applies a suitability rating using a combined examination of landscape data. Unique combinations of feature and rating are considered. This technique looks at interrelationships among features and graduated scales though this method is exceedingly complex (Berke et al., 2006). P a g e 2

3 Table 1: Assessment of Land Suitability Techniques (Berke et al., 2006). Technique Ease in Understanding Degree of Suitability Weight of Suitability Unique Combinations Pass/fail screening Yes No No No Equivalent rating Yes Yes No No Weighted rating Yes Yes Yes No Direct assignment rating No Yes Yes Yes The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) rating system was created by the Natural Resources Conservation Service in 1981 as a union between New York s land classification system and the need for an evaluation tool for land use decisions (Natural Resources Conservation Service). This system was developed in response to the Farmlands Protection Act of 1981 (Randolph, 2004). While select states manage their own application of the LESA system, most delegate the application of local counties. This allows the system to be responsive to local, areawide, and national need (Randolph, 2004). The use of LESA to assess agricultural lands as increased steadily over the last few decades (Randolph, 2004). The Land Evaluation portion is conducted on soil factors while Site Assessment evaluates non-soil factors pertaining to the geographic setting. The Site Assessment factors are broken into three categories: development potential, farmland potential, and clustering potential. Using both the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, this tool helps official identical which farmland parcels to protect based off a rating system (Natural Resources Conservation System). There are several benefits to the LESA system: flexibility, best agricultural land suitability assessment tool available, and encourages future planning for agriculture (Farmland Information Center, 2006). Some drawbacks of the LESA system include time commitment to development, in consistent scores, and reevaluation required periodically (Farmland Information Center, 2006). P a g e 3

4 Study Area Southampton Township is located in the north-east portion of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. It is a medium rural township experiencing rapid growth. The main industry in Southampton Township is farming (Southampton Township, 2015). Between 2000 and 2010, Southampton Township experienced a 30% population increase, containing 7,987 people (Southampton Township, 2015). The township spans an area of 38 square miles (U. S. Census Bureau, 2015), or 20, acres. Franklin County has historically been an agricultural community (Franklin County, 2012). The need to support and preserve agriculture and its supporting industries is listed as a goal in the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan as the industry is considered a foundation for the County s economy (Franklin County, 2012). More than 30% of Franklin County s acreage is considered prime agricultural soil; however 30% of the land is made up of pasture and grassland while 14% is row crops (Franklin County, 2012). This rich soil is a combination of a gentle slope with well-drained soil (Franklin County, 2012). Methods Data for this LESA was collected from Franklin County, Southampton Township, and PASDA. The township provided data on parcels, sewer and water mains, soils, and zoning. Franklin County supplied data on agricultural target areas, preserved farms. Road data was downloaded from the Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access. The LESA system is broken into two parts: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Site Assessment is divided into three components: Development Potential, Farmland Potential, and Clustering Potential. The scoring in this LESA system followed the Numerical Farmland Ranking System for the Franklin County Agricultural P a g e 4

5 Land Preservation Program as closely as possible (Table 2). Some liberty was taken into account for missing data elements. For data that was missing, that portion of the LESA system was not carried out and was not given a score. The projection utilized in this project was NAD 1983 State Plane PA South Feet. The data were added to GIS where they were clipped to the township boundaries. Each feature was created into a raster in order to be reclassified the feature to match the Numerical Farmland Ranking System. This was done because only raster data can be reclassified. Finally, the features were entered into the Weighted Overlay tool where a weight was applied to the features for each component respectively. This tool requires that data be reclassified. The resulting map was a suitability map of which portions of the township should be given priority for preservation (Figure 1). The student had issues converting raster data back into the corresponding parcel layer. Due to this, resulting maps were analyzed as a percentage to the township. Scoring This project utilized the Numerical Farmland Ranking System for the Franklin County Agricultural Land Preservation Program (Table 2). The Land Evaluation consisted of 40% of the total score within the LESA. This part of the system analyzed the soil mapping units of the Township. The soils were rated on a score of 100 where 1 was considered the poorest soils and 100 the most suitable for agriculture. The Franklin County Soil Survey was used to determine the ranking of the soils. The type of soil utilized is pivotal to successful farmland, resulting in soil occupying 40% of the LESA. Farmland that sits on top of prime agricultural soil should receive a higher score to be preserve than farmland that is located on inferior soil. P a g e 5

6 The Site Assessment rounded out the remaining 60% of the LESA. Within Site Assessment, Development Potential makes up 10%, Farmland Potential 20%, and Clustering Potential 30%. Site Assessment looks at non-ecological factors pertaining to the area. The three components within Site Assessment look at different areas of these factors. Development Potential determines the ease at which the agricultural land could be converted to non-agricultural uses. This component looks at sewer systems, water systems, road frontage, and the extent of non-agricultural uses in the area. The closer the parcel is located to sewer or water systems, as well as the amount of road frontages along the parcel, the higher score the parcel will receive. This component also looks at the intensity of development surrounding the farmland parcel. The more intense the development, the high the score the parcel shall receive. This component is scored out of 100 points. Farmland Potential calculates the productivity of the farmland parcel. Elements include acreage, percentage of tract harvested, stewardship and use of best management practices, historic and environmental qualities, farm product sales, and percentage of total family income derived from farming operation. Within this component, only acreage was computed due to lack of data. The higher quality the farmland is the higher score it shall receive. A farm with a higher quality is worth preserving more than a lower grade farm parcel. Farmland Potential is normally scored out of 100 points. Due to lack of data, this component was only scored out of 20 points for the acreage. Clustering Potential looks at factors that support the agricultural community and help shield the community from conflicts with incompatible land uses. A farm parcel that is closer to parcels that are already preserved will receive a higher score. Factors include consistency with comprehensive plans, proximity to agricultural conservation easements, percentage of adjoining P a g e 6

7 land is an agricultural security area, consistency with planning map, and consistency with targeted areas. This component helps group preserved farmland together to decrease the effect of non-agricultural uses on farmland. Clustering Potential is typically scored out of 100 points. As some data was missing from the analysis, this component was scored out of 90 points. Table 2: Numerical Farmland Ranking System for the Franklin County Agricultural Land Preservation Program (Franklin County, 2003). Shaded boxes represent components that were not scored during this Practical due to missing data. Factor Score Weight Land Evaluation % Development Potential % Public Sanitary Sewer System (40) Sewer line adjacent to tract (20) Sewer line within ¼ mile (10) Sewer line within ½ mile (5) Sewer line within 1 mile (0) Sewer line 2 or more miles away Public Water System (20) Water line adjacent to tract (15) Water line within ¼ mile (10) Water line within ½ mile (5) Water line within 1 mile (0) Water line 2 or more miles away Road Frontage Extent of Non-Agricultural Use in Area (20) Greater than 1 mile (10) ½ mile to 1 mile (5) Less than ½ mile (20) Intensive development adjacent (10) Intensive development within ½ mile (5) Scattered non-agricultural development within 1 mile (0) No significant non-agricultural development in area Farmland Potential % Acreage of Farmland Tract (20) Over 80 acres (10) 51 to 80 acres (5) Less than 50 acres Percent of Tract in Harvested Cropland, Pasture, or Grazing Stewardship of Land and Use of Best Management Practices (20) 100% (10) 75% to 99% (5) 50% to 74% (0) less than 50% (20) 86% to 100% (15) 71% to 85% (10) 61% to 70% P a g e 7

8 Proximity to Land with Agricultural Conservation Easements Percentage of Adjoining Land is in Agricultural Security Area Consistency with Planning Map (5) 50% to 60% (0) Less than 50% Historic, Scenic, and Environmental Qualities (15) Exceptional features favorable for preservation (10) Significant features favorable for preservation (5) Features favorable to preservation Farm Product Sales (10) Gross annual receipts of $50,000 or more (5) Gross annual receipts of $25,000 to $49,999 (0) Gross annual receipts less than $25,000 Percentage of Landowners Total Family Income Derived from Farming Operation (15) 100% (10) 75% to 99% (5) 50% to 74% (0) Less than 50% Clustering Potential % Consistency with County and Local Comprehensive Plans (10) Tract is located in area designated for agricultural use (5) Tract is located in area designated for both agricultural and non-agricultural use (0) Tract is located in area designated for nonagricultural use (40) Adjacent (20) Within ¼ mile (10) Within ½ mile (5) Within 1 mile (20) 100% (15) 75% to 99% (10) 50% to 74% (5) 25% to 49% (0) 10% to 24% (20) Prime farmland (15) Unique farmland, other than prime (10) Additional farmland of state-wide importance (5) Additional farmland that qualifies as agricultural capability class IV Consistency with Targeted Areas (10) Tract is located in designated target area (5) Tract is located partially in designated target area (Tract is not located in designated targeted area Total % Overall, this LESA system was scored on 310 points weighed accordingly. Data that were not included in this analysis can easily be included in the LESA when the data was available. Data that was missing was simply left blank. Maps for Development Potential and Cluster Potential contain data that does not fully encompass the entire township. Because of this, P a g e 8

9 these maps, in addition to the final LESA map, do not cover all the entirety of the township. This may be due to missing data creating holes in the system or scores of 0 not being represented. Summary statistics Once the overall suitability map was produced, an analysis of the land of Southampton Township could be conducted. Southampton Township contains 3010 parcels. Of those parcels, 994 are zoned as agricultural. Sixty eight percent of the parcels contain 80 or more acres (Figure 2). The Land Evaluation portion of the LESA revealed that 38% of Southampton Township consists of the following soil types: Bedington channery silt loam (BhB), Clarksburg silt loam (CsA), Allegheny loam (AgB), Jugtown silt loam (Jg), Hagerstown-carbo silty clay loam (HbB), Dufffield silt loam (DsB), Hagerstown silt loam (HaB), Philo silt loam (Ph), Funkstown silt loam (Fu), Murrill gravelly loam (MrB), Downsville gravelly loam (DoB), Ryder-Nollville channery silt loams (RyB), Covegap cobbly sandy loam (CvB), and Linside silt loam (Ln) (Figure 3). These soils rank 91 out of 100. Only 4% of Southampton Township contains prime agricultural soil ranking 100: Hagerstown silt loam (HaA), Murrill gravelly loam (MrA), Pope soils (Po), and Duffield silt loam (DsA). This does correlate with the numbers seen in the Franklin County Comprehensive Plan. In Southampton Township, 30% of the soils ranked less than a 50 out of 100. Development Potential revealed 21% of Southampton Township ranked the lowest in this component. This means that these portions of land are at the most risk of easily being converted to non-agricultural uses. Only one section ranks the highest. Ninety percent Southampton Township falls below the median score (Figure 4). These sections would be located the closest to sewer and water system allowing for non-agricultural development to expand with ease. P a g e 9

10 Clustering Potential found that 65% of Southampton Township ranked in the bottom three places (Figure 5). This land would be the most sporadically located and surrounded by intense development. Only 5 percent of land in Southampton Township ranked the highest for Clustering Potential. These are located the closest to established Agricultural Security Areas or in areas lacking intense development. The overall suitability map shows that 35.77% of land in Southampton Township ranked in the top score cohort (Table 3). In Southampton Township, 67% of the land ranked above the median score. While suitable portions of land are located sporadically throughout the township, large clusters can be seen in the north eastern portion of the Township. While this area does have sewer and water systems flowing through it, other factors such as large acreage and proximity to Agricultural Security Areas assists in the land obtaining a higher score. Table 3: Overall Final Score for Southampton Township Score Acreage Percentage , % , % , % , % % Conclusion The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system was created to assist policy makers form decisions in preserving suitable farmland. This system uses soil and non-soil factors to conduct an analysis on the area. This practical created a LESA to determine suitable farm parcels in Southampton Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Franklin County is one of the leading counties in the state in regards to the Agricultural Conservation Easement Purchase Program. This analysis found that only 35.77% of land in Southampton Township ranked above all others and should be reviewed first for preservation. The use of this LESA system assisted in P a g e 10

11 stream lining the process and evaluated Southampton Township on a whole rather than evaluate individual sections of land. P a g e 11

12 Appendix Figure 1: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment map for Southampton Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania P a g e 12

13 Figure 2: Farmland potential (Site Assessment) map of Southampton Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania P a g e 13

14 Figure 3: Land evaluation map of Southampton Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania P a g e 14

15 Figure 4: Development potential (Site Assessment) map of Southampton Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania P a g e 15

16 Figure 5: Clustering potential (Site Assessment) map of Southampton Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania P a g e 16

17 References Berke, P., Godschalk, D., Kaiser, E., and D. Rodriguez, Urban Land Use Planning. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, Fifth Edition. Farmland Information Center, Fact Sheet: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Accessed March 15th, Franklin County 2012, Franklin Forward: The Comprehensive Plan for Franklin County, PA. Franklin County, GIS Data Franklin County, Numerical Farmland Ranking System for the Franklin County Agricultural Land Preservation Program. Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural Lands, Second Edition. Randolph, J., Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. Island Press, Washington, DC. Southampton Township, GIS Data via Maria Misner Southampton Township, Demographics. Accessed March 15 th, U.S. Census Bureau, Southampton Township. Accessed March 14th, P a g e 17

18 Data Provided Figure A: Agricultural Protection Areas P a g e 18

19 Figure B: Preserved Farms P a g e 19

20 Figure C: Sewers P a g e 20

21 Figure D: Watermains P a g e 21

22 Figure E: Zoning P a g e 22