LAND USE SUITABILITY FOR DECISION SUPPORT IN OHIO LAKE ERIE BASIN By Joseph A. MacDonald, Ph.D. EcoCity Cleveland January 19, 2006

AGENDA Decision-support for pilot watersheds Land use planning for watersheds Conceptual framework: priority areas Basin-wide land suitability methodology Progress report for land suitability analyses –Agriculture –Conservation –Development Continuing work and references

ECOCITY CLEVELAND OFFERS DECISION-SUPPORT FOR PILOTS 1)Work with pilots collectively to create a GIS- based methodology for land suitability analysis applicable across Lake Erie Basin 2)Work with pilots individually to create a GIS- based methodology for multi-criteria decision analysis to map Priority Conservation and Development Areas 3)Team with pilots to gather data for both basin-wide land suitability analysis and individual multi-criteria decision analysis

LAND USE PLANNING FOR WATERSHEDS Location and design define land use pattern for watersheds Planning decisions made at three levels: –Land Use Site Location within Watershed –Feature Location within Land Use Site –Design of Feature Three levels nested within spatial hierarchy that provides organizational framework for land use planning

SPATIAL HIERARCHY OF LAND USE PLANNING WATERSHED LAND USE SITE FEATURE

PURPOSE OF PRIORITY AREAS Address first level of spatial hierarchy: Locating Land Use Sites in Watersheds Achieve goals of Balanced Growth Task Force –PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREAS (PCAs) protect critically important ecological, recreational, agricultural, heritage, public access, and other critical areas –PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS (PDAs) support growth and/or redevelopment

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY MAP PACKAGE BASIN-WIDE LAND SUITABILITY METHODOLOGY AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT PILOT PRIORITY CONSERVATION AREAS PILOT WATERSHED PARTNERSHIP VALUES AGRICULTURE LAND SUITABILITY MAP PACKAGE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: PRIORITY AREAS DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY MAP PACKAGE PILOT PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS DATA RESOURCES PILOT MULTI- CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS

WHY APPLY SAME LAND SUITABILITY METHODOLOGY ACROSS ENTIRE BASIN? Ultimate goal of the Balanced Growth Initiative is to mitigate human impact on Lake Erie’s water quality through collaborative land use decision-making in each Lake Erie Basin watershed Collaborative land use decision-making in each watershed begins with a common database and data analysis methodology to support consistency in each pilot partnership’s contribution to a common solution. Each analysis should reflect area’s suitability for land use in question, not lack of suitability for other land uses Overlap of areas assessed as high suitability for more than one land use present opportunities for creative planning

WHY ASSESS LAND SUITABILITY FOR AGRICULTURE, CONSERVATION, AND DEVELOPMENT SEPARATELY? While in every case there should be a little doubt as to the ranking (of factors) within a category (of land use), there is no possibility of ranking the categories (of land use) themselves (McHarg, 1969) Two-step land suitability methodology: –Assess suitability of factors within categories of land use to determine category suitability –Overlay of HIGH land use category suitability to identify areas of conflict and opportunity within watersheds

EXAMPLE OVERLAY OF HIGH SUITABILITY AREAS FOR SEPARATE LAND USE CATEGORIES HIGH AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY HIGH CONSERVATION SUITABILITY HIGH DEVELOPMENT SUITABILITY

AREAS OF CONFLICT AND OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFIED BY CATEGORY SUITABILITY OVERLAY AREA HAS HIGH SUITABILITY FOR BOTH AGRICULTURE AND CONSERVATION LAND USES AREA HAS HIGH SUITABILITY FOR BOTH CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT LAND USES

WHY RESERVE PILOT VALUES FOR PRIORITY AREA MAPS AND NOT BASIN- WIDE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS? Land suitability maps should reflect consistent, objective, and comprehensive analysis across all watersheds in the Lake Erie Basin to address a common problem Priority Conservation and Development Area decisions should consider land suitability maps, but relative importance of agriculture, conservation, and development suitability (among other values) reserved for individual pilot watershed partnerships

BASIN-WIDE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY STEP 1:Consult the land suitability analysis literature to determine method of suitability assessment STEP 2:Assemble and consult technical advisory committees (agriculture, conservation, and development) to determine factors that affect suitability of an area for a particular use

BASIN-WIDE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (cont.) STEP 2 (cont.): Ed Hammett (Ohio Lake Erie Commission) and David Beach (EcoCity Cleveland) suggested candidates for each technical advisory committee Candidates invited to participate Willing candidates comprised the initial technical advisory committees; new members also added based on committee member recommendations

BASIN-WIDE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (cont.) STEP 2 (cont.) CANDIDATESINITIAL NEW *TOTAL AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION DEVELOPMENT *LIST OF TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS AVAILABLE TO PILOT REPRESENTATIVES UPON REQUEST

BASIN-WIDE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (cont) STEP 3:Use the literature and input from technical advisory committees to translate factor values into suitability levels STEP 4:Use the methodology gleaned from the literature to combine individual factor suitability levels to generate overall category suitability levels

BASIN-WIDE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (cont) STEP 4 (cont): *SUITABILITY FACTORSCATEGORY All HighHigh At least 1 ModerateModerate At least 1 LowLow *Adopted from Asotin County Biological Inventory and Land Use Suitability Analysis (Beach et. al., 1978)

BASIN-WIDE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (cont) STEP 5:Submit each land suitability methodology (agriculture, conservation, and development) to the pilot watershed partnerships for review STEP 6:Modify factors and factor values for each land suitability methodology based on feedback from pilot watershed partnerships

BASIN-WIDE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (cont) STEP 7:Apply revised land suitability methodologies to neutral watershed (Portage River) to generate land suitability map packages: »factor value maps »factor suitability maps »Land use category suitability maps »Overlay map of HIGH land use category suitability areas STEP 8:Submit Portage River Watershed map packages to the pilot watershed partnerships for review

BASIN-WIDE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY (cont) STEP 9:Apply approved land suitability methodologies and revised mapmaking techniques to create land suitability map packages for each pilot watershed STEP 10:Submit pilot watershed map packages to the pilot partnerships (map packages may serve as input to the multi-criteria decision analysis each pilot partnership will craft to designate priority areas)

AGRICULTURE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS STEP 1:Consult the land suitability analysis literature to determine method of suitability assessment Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) developed and supported by the United States Department of Agriculture Land Evaluation portion most appropriate to assess agriculture land suitability Site Assessment portion most appropriate to prioritize specific sites within areas of high agriculture land suitability

AGRICULTURE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2:Assemble and consult technical advisory committee to determine factors that affect suitability of an area for a particular use Four suggested methods for Land Evaluation in the literature –Land Capability Classification –Soil Productivity Rating System –Soil Potential Rating System –Important Farmlands Classification Important Farmlands approach is simplest

AGRICULTURE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 3:Use the literature and input from technical advisory committees to translate factor values into suitability levels HIGH agriculture land suitability –All areas are prime farmland –Prime farmland if drained

AGRICULTURE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 3 (cont): MODERATE agricultural land suitability –Prime farmland if either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season –Prime farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season –Farmland of unique importance –Farmland of local importance

AGRICULTURE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 3 (cont): LOW agricultural land suitability –Not prime farmland –Water features

AGRICULTURE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 4:Use the methodology gleaned from the literature to combine individual factor suitability levels to generate overall category suitability levels The only factor used in the important farmlands classification system to evaluate land for agriculture suitability is the classification assigned by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Factor Suitability = Agriculture Suitability

IMPORTANT FARMLAND CLASSIFICATIONS: PORTAGE RIVER WATERSHED

AGRICULTURE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: PORTAGE RIVER WATERSHED SHOW FACTOR SUITABILITY MAP

AGRICULTURE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: NEXT STEP STEP 5:Submit each land suitability methodology (agriculture, conservation, and development) to the pilot watershed partnerships for review QUESTIONS FOR PILOTS TO CONSIDER: Is Important Farmland Classification the agriculture suitability methodology you want to use? If not, what changes would you like to make?

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS STEP 1:*Consult the land suitability analysis literature to determine method of suitability assessment Literature emphasizes protection of riparian and wetland buffers Literature findings also urge conservation of “pristine” sub-watersheds (little or no impervious cover *Special thanks to Chagrin River Watershed Partners and Summit County for prior work

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2:Assemble and consult technical advisory committee to determine factors that affect an area’s suitability for a particular use Riparian Corridors Wetland Buffers Pristine Sub-watersheds

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 3:Use the literature and input from technical advisory committees to translate factor values into suitability levels STEP 4:Use the methodology gleaned from the literature to combine individual factor suitability levels to generate overall category suitability levels NOTE:Steps 3 and 4 combined for conservation land suitability analysis

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) *STEPS 3 & 4 (cont): Land suitability for conservation determined by sub-watershed imperviousness, size of drainage area, and wetland category Three categories of land suitability for conservation: HIGH, MODERATE, LOW *Summary of studies of pollutant removal effectiveness and wildlife habitat value of vegetated buffers shows that 600m buffers will provide 99% sediment and pollutant removal, excellent wildlife value, support a diverse community, and protect significant species (Desbonnet, et. al., 1994).

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEPS 3 & 4 (cont): HIGH conservation land suitability Entire drainage area/subwatershed if imperviousness < 8%, otherwise: Riparian Buffers (distance from stream) –0-600m if drainage area > 300 mi 2 –0-200m if drainage area > 20 mi 2 and < 300 mi 2 –0-140m if drainage area > 0.5 mi 2 and < 20 mi 2 –0-100m if drainage area > 0.05 mi 2 and < 0.5 mi 2 –0-60m if drainage area < 0.05 mi 2

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEPS 3 & 4 (cont): HIGH conservation land suitability (cont) Wetland Buffers (distance from wetland) –0-100m if Category 3 Wetlands –0-60m if Category 2 Wetlands –0-20m if Category 1 Wetlands

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEPS 3 & 4 (cont): MODERATE conservation land suitability Riparian Buffers (distance from stream) – m if drainage area > 300 mi 2 – m if drainage area > 20 mi 2 and < 300 mi 2 – m if drainage area > 0.5 mi 2 and < 20 mi 2 – m if drainage area > 0.05 mi 2 and < 0.5 mi 2 –60-120m if drainage area < 0.05 mi 2

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEPS 3 & 4 (cont): MODERATE conservation land suitability (cont) Wetland Buffers (distance from wetland) – m if Category 3 Wetlands –60-120m if Category 2 Wetlands –20-40m if Category 1 Wetlands

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEPS 3 & 4 (cont): LOW conservation land suitability Non-riparian zones (distance from stream) –>1200m if drainage area > 300 mi 2 –>400m if drainage area > 20 mi 2 and < 300 mi 2 –>280m if drainage area > 0.5 mi 2 and < 20 mi 2 –>200m if drainage area > 0.05 mi 2 and < 0.5 mi 2 –>120m if drainage area < 0.05 mi 2

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEPS 3 & 4 (cont): LOW conservation land suitability (cont) Non-wetland zones (distance from wetland) –>200m if Category 3 Wetlands –>120m if Category 2 Wetlands –>40m if Category 1 Wetlands

CONSERVATION LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: NEXT STEP STEP 5:Submit each land suitability methodology (agriculture, conservation, and development) to the pilot watershed partnerships for review QUESTIONS FOR PILOTS TO CONSIDER: Are the impervious level, riparian buffer width, and wetland buffer width criteria the conservation suitability methodology you would like to use? If not, what should change?

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS STEP 1:Consult the land suitability analysis literature to determine method of suitability assessment Development category too broad; break down into residential, commercial, and industrial Traditional land suitability analysis focuses on physical landscape factors (slopes, soils, floodplains, etc.) and some locational factors (proximity to arterials and utilities)

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2:Assemble and consult technical advisory committee to determine factors that affect an area’s suitability for a particular use Technical advisory committee members suggested location factors are primary; physical landscape factors are secondary Pilots should review response frequency and determine the factors to consider

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2 (cont.): What factors are important to assess an area’s suitability for residential, commercial, and industrial development?

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2 (cont.): PRIMARY FACTORS CITED RESIDENTIALFREQUENCY(%) On-Site/Proximal Sewer Service69 On-Site/Proximal Water Service69 Quality of Area Schools69 Pro-Development Attitude61 Land Cost46 Area Household Income38 Land Availability38

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2 (cont.): PRIMARY FACTORS CITED RESIDENTIALFREQUENCY(%) Area Growth31 Proximity to Arterials/Highways31 Proximity to Interchanges31 Terrain (aesthetics)31 Trees (aesthetics)31 Proximity to Employment23 Proximity to Shopping/Retail23 Water Features (aesthetics)23

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2 (cont.): PRIMARY FACTORS CITED RESIDENTIAL FREQUENCY(%) Area Zoning15 Greenfield (“Clean Slate”)15 Proximity to Parks/Recreation15 Area Racial Composition8 Low Property Taxes8 Proximity to Fiberoptics8 Proximity to Public Services8 Public Transportation8

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2 (cont.): PRIMARY FACTORS CITED COMMERCIALFREQUENCY(%) On-Site/Proximal Sewer Service62 On-Site/Proximal Water Service62 Area Household Income54 Area Population Density54 Proximity to Arterial/Highway46 Area Growth38 Land Availability38 Pro-Development Attitude38 Proximity to Interchange38

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2 (cont.): PRIMARY FACTORS CITED COMMERCIALFREQUENCY(%) Proximity to Other Commercial31 Proximity to Population Center31 Area Traffic Density23 Land Cost23 Proximity to Workers/Clients15

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2 (cont.): PRIMARY FACTORS CITED COMMERCIALFREQUENCY(%) Highway visibility8 Low Property Tax8 Proximity to Fiberoptics8 Public Transit8 Quality of Area Schools8 “Well-known” location8

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2 (cont.): PRIMARY FACTORS CITED INDUSTRIALFREQUENCY(%) Proximity to Arterial/Highway62 On-Site/Proximal Sewer Service54 On-Site/Proximal Water Service54 Land Availability46 Proximity to Interchange46 Pro-Development Attitude31 Proximity to Employees (incl. CEO)31

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2 (cont.): PRIMARY FACTORS CITED INDUSTRIALFREQUENCY(%) Area Household Income23 Land Cost23 Area Growth15 Low Property Taxes15 Proximity to Gas Pipeline15 Proximity to Population Center15 Proximity to Freight Rail15 Public Transit15

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2 (cont.): PRIMARY FACTORS CITED INDUSTRIALFREQUENCY(%) Area Population Density8 Brownfield Liability8 Proximity to Electric Power8 Proximity to Fiberoptics8 Quality of Area Schools8 Site Cleanup Cost8 Unionized Work Force8

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS (cont) STEP 2 (cont.): SECONDARY FACTORS CITED RESIDENTIALFREQUENCY(%) Depth to Bedrock8 Slope8 Soil Type/Stability8 COMMERCIAL Soil Type/Stability23 Depth to Bedrock15 Slope15 INDUSTRIAL Soil Type/Stability31 Slope23 Depth to Bedrock15 Floodplains15 Wetlands15

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: NEXT STEP STEP 3:Use the literature and input from technical advisory committees to translate factor values into suitability levels QUESTIONS FOR PILOTS TO CONSIDER: Which factors identified by the technical advisory committee are useful? Do you want to use other factors not identified by the committee? How would you measure development factors to assess suitability?

CONTINUING WORK Agriculture (Step 5): pilots submit suggested revisions, if any, within one week; pilots and EcoCity then discuss suggested revisions to reach consensus (approximately two weeks) Conservation (Step 5): same as Agriculture Development (Step 3): –Pilots submit factor changes within one week –Pilots and EcoCity discuss factor changes & methods of measurement to reach consensus (approximately two weeks) Development (Step 4): translate factor values to suitability & methodology

KEY REFERENCES Beach, R., Benson, D., Brunton, D., Johnson, K.L., Knowles, J., Michalovic, J., et al. (1978). Asotin County ecological inventory and land use suitability analysis. Pullman, WA: Cooperative Extension Service, Washington State University. Desbonnet, A., Rogue, P., Lee, V., & Wolff, N. (1994). Vegetated buffers in the coastal zone. Providence, RI: Coastal Resource Center, University of Rhode Island. Malczewski, J. (1999). GIS and multicriteria decision analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

KEY REFERENCES (cont) McHarg, I. (1969). Design with nature. New York: Natural History Press. Pease, J.R., & Coughlin, R.E. (1996). Land evaluation and site assessment: A guidebook for rating agricultural lands, 2nd ed. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society. Steiner, F.S. (2000). The living landscape: An ecological approach to landscape planning. New York: McGraw-Hill.

KEY REFERENCES (cont) Steiner, F.S., McSherry, L., & Cohen, J. (2000). Land suitability analysis for the upper Gila River watershed. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50, pp