University of Kentucky College of Agriculture Landscape Architecture Franklin-Simpson County In Franklin-Simpson County 85% of the land area is devoted to agriculture (USDA, NASS 2002). This agricultural land is highly valuable under its current use ($ avg. production market value/acre), more so than agricultural land in any of Simpson County’s neighbors (USDA, NASS 2002). Reasons for identifying land for agricultural preservation: Working value of farmland Stakeholder desire to preserve farmland Preservation of rural character In order to compare agricultural lands they must first be evaluated and assessed quantitatively. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Identifying agriculturally important lands can be accomplished through a process called LESA. LESA methods were developed by the National Resources Conservation Service in The LESA process was developed as a tool to assist local “officials in identifying farmland for protection by taking into account not only soil quality but also other factors that affect agricultural practices and then rating farmland sites on a relative scale for decision making.” (LESA, xiv-xv) This process allows entire landscapes to be assessed for agricultural preservation potential based on stakeholder identified criteria. It has also been used successfully in more than 200 state and local governments for identifying lands for Purchase of Development Rights and Transfer of Development Rights land preservation programs. LESA Components Land Evaluation (LE) – Soil Factors (ex. land capability class, soil productivity, etc.) Site Assessment (SA) – SA-1: Factors other than soil-based qualities measuring limitations on agricultural productivity or farm practices. (ex. Contiguity of agricultural lands, Size, Shape, Compatibility of surrounding uses) – SA-2: Factors measuring development pressure or land conversion. (ex. Distance to public sewer or water, Proximity to urban center, Urban growth boundary or incorporated boundary) – SA-3: Factors measuring other public values, such as historic or scenic values. (ex. Scenic values, Presence or proximity to historic sites ) (LESA, p. 13) Sources: GIS Data from KYGEONET Pease, J. R. & Coughlin, R. E. (1996). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural Lands, Second Edition. Soil and Water Conservation Service Draft Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Rating (0-100) x Weighting (Total=1.00) = Weighted Factor Rating Factor (weighting) Rating Land Evaluation (.4) Land capability classification (.25) I…………………………….100 II……………………………..80 III…………………………….60 IV……………………………40 VI……………………………20 VII…………………………….5 No Soil……………………….0 Soil Productivity (.1) Corn Productivity (avg. bu. /acre) (.05) …………………… – 149 ………………… – 139 ………………… – 129 ………………… – 119 …………………20 99 or less …………………..0 Pasture Productivity (.05) (animal-unit-mo.) …………………… – 8.9 ………………… – 6.9 ………………… – 4.9 ………………… or less ………………….0 Farmland Classification (.05) All areas Prime Farmland..………………100 Farmland of Statewide Importance ……………….80 Prime Farmland if drained ………………...…60 Prime Farmland if drained and either protected from flooding or not frequently flooded ……………………40 Prime Farmland if protected from flooding or not frequently flooded during the growing season …….20 Not Prime Farmland ……...0 Factor (weighting) Rating Site Assessment (.6) SA-1: Agriculutral Productivity (.22) Slope (.05) 2% - 6% ………………….100 0% - 2% ………………… % - 12% ………………….40 12% + …………………… Contiguity of Agricultural Lands (.11) Contiguous ………………100 Mostly Contiguous ……….80 Somewhat Contiguous …..60 Somewhat In-contiguous..40 Mostly In-contiguous….…..20 Not Contiguous …………….0 Shape (perimeter/area ratio) (.06) Square or nearly square..100 Mostly square …………….80 Somewhat square ………..60 Somewhat Polygonal..…...40 Mostly Polygonal………….20 Polygonal………..…..…….10 SA-2: Development Pressure (.26) Distance to Public Sewer (.03) 200 ft or less or on site… ft. -.24mi. …………… mi mi. ……………60.50 mi mi. …………… mi. – 1.49 mi. ………… mi. + …………………..0 Distance to Public Water (.04) 200 ft or less or on site… ft. -.24mi. …………… mi mi. ……………60.50 mi mi. …………… mi. – 1.49 mi. ………… mi. + …………………..0 Distance to State Maintained Highway (.04).25 mi. or less………… mi mi. ……………80.75 mi. – 1.24 mi. ………… mi. – 1.74 mi. ……… mi. – 2.24 mi. ……… mi. + …………………...0 Distance to Urban feeder Highway (.05) 1 mi. or less …………… mi, - 2 mi. ……………….80 2 mi. – 3 mi. ………………60 3 mi. – 4mi. ……………….40 4 mi. – 5 mi. ………………20 5 mi. + ……………………...0 Distance to Incorporated Boundary (.1).25 mi. or less ………… mi mi. ………… mi. – 1.24 mi. ……… mi. – 1.74 mi. ……… mi. – 2.24 mi. ……… mi. + …………………0 SA-3: Public Values (.12) Proximity to Historic Building or Site (.04) 200 ft. or less or on site ft mi. ………… mi mi. ………… mi mi. ………… mi. – 1.5 mi. ………… mi. + ……………………0 Scenic Values (.04) 2 or more viewsheds … viewshed ………………50 Not in a viewshed ………...0 Proximity to Wetlands and Riparian Values (.04) 100 ft or less or on site ft. –  mi. …………  mi. –  mi. …………...….60  mi. –  mi. ……………….40  mi. –  mi. …………  mi. + ………………………0 HIGH LOW LOW HIGH Development Pressure Agricultural Productivity LEGEND W 1008 Drakes Creek The LESA presented here is merely an example of one that could be utilized by Simpson County in the decision making process. Some of the rating values used were reached with the help of a current Cooperative Extension Agent. Weighted values were determined with regard to the expressed desire by many citizens to preserve agricultural lands, therefore additional value was assigned to Land Evaluation factors. It is important to note that in a LESA, ratings and weights should be determined by a local committee (or committees) in accordance with suggestions presented in Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural Lands, Second Edition.