Title: Agricultural Land Rating Systems
1the landscape through a soil scientists eyes...
Advance slide?
2Agricultural Land Rating Systems...
- for the Non-Soil Scientist
Earl Yamamoto, State Department of
Agriculture February 5, 2000
Advance slide?
3OVERVIEW
- Presentation
- Overview of major rating systems
- Comparison of systems
- What approach?
Advance slide?
4OVERVIEW
- Four major systems
- Land Capability Classification,USDA
- Overall Productivity Rating,Land Study Bureau,
UH - Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of
Hawaii (ALISH), DOA/USDA/CTAHR - Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) System,
LESA Commission
Advance slide?
5Land Capability ClassificationUSDA1972
- Description
- Statewide USDA UH soil surveys
- Soil data used by all systems
- Agricultural suitability as limited by soil
climatic conditions - System favors mainland field crop mechanization
- 8 Classes I-VIII, best to worse
- Effective cutoffLCC Class IV
- Productivity estimated only for limited crops
- Sugar, pine, pasture, woodland
- Soils mapped statewide
Advance slide?
6Land Capability ClassificationUSDA1972
- Acreage in Agricultural District
- LCC I, II III statewide
- 381,609 acres (estimate)
- Percent LCC I, II III
- 20.6 of ag district
Advance slide?
7Overall Productivity Ratings,Detailed Land
ClassificationLSB, UH1965-1972
- Description
- Developed concurrent with USDA soil survey
- Soils grouped into land types based on soil
productive capabilities - Two sets of productivity ratings
- Overall Productivity Rating-A, very good to
E, not suitable - Crop Productivity ratings forPine, sugar,
vegetables, forage, grazing, orchard, timber - Soil types drawn over aerial photos (variable
scales)
Advance slide?
8Overall Productivity Ratings,Detailed Land
ClassificationLSB, UH1965-1972
- Acreage in Agricultural District
- LSB A-C statewide
- 447,250 acres (estimate)
- Percent LSB A-C
- 24 of ag district
Advance slide?
9ALISHDOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR 1977-78
- Description
- Part of national effort (USDA) to inventory
important farmlands - National criteria applied, adapted by USDA, CTAHR
DOA - Adopted by State Board of Agriculture, 1977
- Broad range of factors considered
- Soils, climate, moisture supply, input use, etc.,
- Production-related factors generalized
Advance slide?
10ALISHDOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR 1977-78
- Description
- 3 classes ofimportant agricultural lands
- Prime
- Soils with best physical, chemical, climatic
properties for mechanized field crops - Excludes built-up land/urban, water bodies
- Unique
- Land other than prime for unique high-value
crops--coffee, taro, watercress, etc. - Other important agricultural lands
- State or local important lands for production,
not prime or unique needing irrigation or
requiring commercial production management
Advance slide?
11ALISHDOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR 1977-78
- Acreage in Agricultural District
- ALISH statewide
- 846,363 acres (estimate)
- Percent ALISH
- 45.8 of ag district
Advance slide?
12LESALESA Commission1983-86
- Description
- 1983 State Land Evaluation Site Assessment
Commission(Act 273, Session Laws, 1983) - Standards criteria for identifying important
agricultural lands - Inventory of important agricultural land
- LESA system
- Numeric scoring system
- USDA system to determine impact of federal
activity on farmland - Used to identify lands or evaluate individual
sites
Advance slide?
13LESALESA Commission1983-86
- Description
- Three components
- Agricultural production goals
- Land evaluation (LE)
- Soils, topography, climate
- Site assessment (SA)
- Non-physical properties (location, land use)
Advance slide?
14LESALESA Commission1983-86
- Description
- Ag production goalsfor crop acreage requirements
- Amount of land required to attain ag production
objectives - Estimates based on current expected levels of
production, population per capita consumption - Typical crops profiled
- Sugar, pine, mac nuts, coffee, local dairy,
eggs/poultry - Crop acreage used to set cutoff score for LESA
IAL lands
Advance slide?
15LESALESA Commission1983-86
- Description
- Land Evaluation (LE)
- Combines 5 soil ratings into single score for
land capability - LCC
- ALISH
- LSB
- Modified Storie Index
- Soil Potential Index
- LE score is weighted average
Advance slide?
16- Description
- Site Assessment (SA)
- Based on USDA LESA manual, selected locational,
environmental, operational factors - 10 site factorscategories of factors
- Farm productivity/profitability
- Land use potential/conflicting uses
- Conformance with government programs/policies
- Soils rated for each criterion, weighted, summed
- Final LESA rating(LE ratingSA score) divided
by 2 - Threshold score for LESA IAL based on projected
acreage - Mapping GIS coverage limited
LESALESA Commission1983-86
Advance slide?
17LESALESA Commission1983-86
- Acreage in Agricultural District
- LESA IAL statewide
- 759,534 acres (estimate)
- Percent LESA IAL
- 41.1 of ag district
Advance slide?
18Comparison of Systems
- Common features
- Soils-based with factors for topography, climate
- Vary in consideration of other attributes like
crop yield - Limitations to agricultural productivity
considered in some form - Mostly physical and climatic limitations
- All are available on State GIS in some form
Advance slide?
19Comparison of Systems
- Major differences
- Soils-based systems exclude other factors related
to ag profitability - Determination of ag land requirements
- LESA system unique in its use of agricultural
production goals - Other systems do not predetermine land
requirements - Incorporation of land use policy considerations
- LESA includes policy criteria
- Land use policy dealt with in other systems only
by the exclusion of urbanized, built-up,
subdivided land
Advance slide?
20Comparisonof Systems
- Amount of land rated suitable for agriculture
- LEAST
- LCC 21 of ag district
- LSB 24
- LESA 41
- ALISH 46
-
- MOST
Advance slide?
21- LCC -- Lands better than Class IV
ALISH 8 Prime Other Important Ag
LCC
ALISH
LESA 8 Lands above threshold IAL score
LESA
LSB
Advance slide?
22Comparison of Systems
- Evaluation criteria (based on CTAHR, 1990)
- Ease of use
- Low cost, clear explanations, factors
well-defined - Objectivity
- Measurable factors with quantifiable data
- Consistency
- Scores would be same across individuals, clear
definitions, interpretations consistent, no
incentive for score manipulation - Adaptability
- Can be readily updated to reflect change
- GIS-readiness
Advance slide?
23Comparison of Systems
- Ease of Use
- Easiest
- LCCStraightforward use of soils data
- ALISH
- LSBCrop indices inputs would need to be
reassessed more cost to State - Difficult
- LESAMost complex, scoring system is opaque,
mapping problems most costly to define use
Advance slide?
24Comparison of Systems
- Objectivity
- Most objective
- LCC
- LSBCriteria clear/quantifiable for both
- Less objective
- ALISHNo standardized way to define unique
- Least
- LESAFactors not clear, difficult to quantify
map
Advance slide?
25Comparison of Systems
- Consistency
- Most consistent
- LCC
- LSBProperties, criteria clear
- Less so
- ALISHBoth unique other introduce
variability - Least
- LESAVariability in interpreting, assigning
values/weights to factors
Advance slide?
26Comparison of Systems
- Adaptability
- Most adaptable
- ALISH Criteria can be reapplied, accommodates
unique crops - Less so
- LCCCriteria constant, least sensitive to local
crop potential - LSBDated, system indexed to sugar pine farm
practices at time - Least
- LESAComponents outdated indexed to sugar
pine productivity goals rigid most difficult to
update
Advance slide?
27Comparison of Systems
- GIS-readiness
- Most GIS-ready
- LCCUSDA NRCS maintains GIS soils data, source of
State GIS data - ALISHOn State GIS, USDA soils data for update
available - Less so
- LSBOn State GIS, data old
- Least GIS-ready
- LESAData on State GIS of questionable value/need
to redigitize problems encountered in mapping
factors
Advance slide?
28Closing Thoughts
- Summary
- 1. Each of the systems has limitations in
application--none ideal
2. Ratings change with change in conditions or
opportunities Some examples...
Advance slide?
29Closing Thoughts
- Example of how one factor--irrigation--changes
ratings
Advance slide?
30Closing Thoughts
- Example of how one factor--irrigation--changes
ratings
... good ag lands WITH irrigation
Advance slide?
31- Two views of Lanai pineapple under different
rating systems--LSB D vs. ALISH Unique
Closing Thoughts
C
Unique
D
Advance slide?
32- Two views of Hanalei Valley taro under different
rating systems--LSB E vs. ALISH Unique
Closing Thoughts
ALISH unique
Advance slide?
33Closing Thoughts
- Summary
- 1. Each of the systems has limitations in
application--none ideal - 2. Ratings change with change in conditions or
opportunities
- 3. All need to be updated to reflect present
conditions--some more than others - 4. In general, system is more robust if
- Emphasis is on resource suitability
- System criteria are well-defined
Advance slide?
34Closing Thoughts
- In considering a system...
- Purpose of ratingsidentify resource,system
will be soils-based - Factors of land use policy more appropriate for
public decision making process,creates problems
if built into rating system - Must weigh value of additional time/money spent
on development maintenance of system
Advance slide?
35Credits Department of Agriculture James
Nakatani, Director Earl Yamamoto State Office of
Planning, DBEDT David Blane, Director Ruby
Edwards Chris Chung Dennis Kim, State GIS Program
36(No Transcript)