Land Classification Systems and Agricultural Land Use PlanningAgricultural Land Use Planning

in HawaiiMele Chillingworth

Masters Candidate, UH ManoaDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning

Department of Natural Resources and Environmental ManagementDepartment of Natural Resources and Environmental Management

Presentation to HIGICC LuncheonFriday, October 30, 2009

Outline • IntroductionOutline • Introduction• State Agricultural Land

U Di t i tUse District• Land Classification

Systems– LSB– ALISH– LESA

• Comparison and Analysis of SystemsAnalysis of Systems

• “Problem Definition ofIntroduction • Problem Definition of Hawaii’s Agricultural Lands: An Evolutionary

Introduction

Lands: An Evolutionary History”

• How a problem is defined determines how it can be solved

• Problems: 1) id i f i

State Land Use La 1) rapid conversion of prime

agricultural land to sprawling, “non-revenue producing”

Use Law 1961

residential uses;2) land speculation; and3) i ff ti t l i3) ineffective county planning

offices• Solution: statewide zoningSolution: statewide zoning

powerLand Use District JurisdictionLand Use District Jurisdiction

Conservation StateAgricultural State and Countyg y

Rural State and CountyUrban County

Agricultural DistrictAgricultural District

• “Catch-all” district from the startCatch all district from the startAll Lands in Hawaii

Forest andForest and Water

Reserve Areas

Built-up Areas All Others

Areas

Conservation Urban DistrictAgricultural

DistrictDistrict

(48%)

Urban District

(5%)

District

(47%)

• 1960s-80sLand

Classification 1960s 80s

• Ag District too large

Classification Systems

• Part of broader national effortsefforts

• LUC boundary change y gprocess

S i tifi b i f l d• Scientific basis for land use decisions

• 1978: State to preserve IAL

• Are capable of producingWhat are Important Are capable of producing

sustained high agricultural yieldswhen treated and managed according to accepted farming

Important Agricultural according to accepted farming

methods and technology;

C t ib t t th St t ’ i

Lands?• Contribute to the State’s economic

base and produce agricultural commodities for export or local

ticonsumption;

• Are needed to promote theAre needed to promote the expansion of agricultural activities and income for the future, even if currently not in production.currently not in production.

Act 183, Important Agricultural Lands

Lands meeting any of the criteria below shall be given consideration:

• Land currently used for agricultural production;• Land with soil qualities and growing conditions that support

agricultural production of food fiber or fuel- and energy-producingagricultural production of food, fiber, or fuel and energy producing crops;

• Land identified under agricultural productivity rating systems, such as the agricultural lands of importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) system adopted by the Board of Agriculture onHawaii (ALISH) system adopted by the Board of Agriculture on January 28, 1977;

• Land types associated with traditional native Hawaiian agricultural uses, such as taro cultivation, or unique agricultural crops and uses,

h ff i d lt d d tisuch as coffee, vineyards, aquaculture, and energy production;• Land with sufficient quantities of water to support viable agricultural

production;• Land whose designation as important agricultural lands is consistentLand whose designation as important agricultural lands is consistent

with general, development, and community plans of the county;• Land that contributes to maintaining a critical land mass important to

agricultural operating productivity;L d ith t i f t t d i t i lt l• Land with or near support infrastructure conducive to agricultural productivity, such as transportation to markets, water, or power.

Fact Sheet, Act 183, Important Agricultural Lands

• LSB: Overall Productivity RatingThree Major • LSB: Overall Productivity Rating,

Detailed Land Classification, Land Study Bureau, UH, 1965-1972

Major Systems

• ALISH: Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii

y

Importance to the State of Hawaii, DOA, USDA/SCS, others, 1977

• LESA: Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System, LESA Commission 1983-1986Commission, 1983 1986

• Developed concurrent with USDA soil survey

LSBOverall

• Soils grouped into land types based on soil & productive capabilities– Soil properties

Overall Productivity

Rating, Soil properties– Topography– Climate– Other factors such as technology, crop

type

Detailed Land Classification,

type– Excluded lands in urban use

• Two sets of productivity ratings:LSB, UH,

1965-1972 p y g– Overall Productivity Rating – “A” very good

to “E” not suitable– Crop Productivity ratings for pineapple,

sugar, vegetables, forage, grazing,

1965 1972

g , g , g , g g,orchard, timber

• Soil types drawn over aerial photos (variable scale)(variable scale)

LSBOverall

• Acreage in Agricultural District

Overall Productivity

Rating,

– LSB A-C statewide:

Detailed Land Classification,

– LSB A-C statewide:447,250 acres (approximate)LSB, UH,

1965-1972– Percent LSB A-C:

24% of ag district

1965 1972

24% of ag district

• StrengthsLSB

Overall • Strengths– More useful than soil

survey with respect to

Overall Productivity

Rating, y pagronomic suitability

– Land types generally d

Detailed Land Classification,

mapped

W kLSB, UH,

1965-1972 • Weaknesses– Indexed to dominant crops

at the time (primarily sugar

1965 1972

at the time (primarily sugar and pineapple) & existing inputsp

– Very detailed

• National effort (USDA) to• National effort (USDA) to inventory important farmlandsALISH

• National criteria applied, adapted by USDA, CTAHR &

DOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR

DOA

B d f f t

1977-78

• Broad range of factors considered– Soils climate moisture supplySoils, climate, moisture supply,

input use, etc.,– Production-related factors

generalizedgeneralized

• 3 classes of important agricultural landsagricultural lands– Prime

• Soils with the best physical, chemical and climatic properties for

ALISH

chemical, and climatic properties for mechanized field crops

• Urban or built-up lands and water bodies excluded

DOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR

bodies excluded– Unique

• Land other than prime for unique high-value crops such as coffee

1977-78

high value crops, such as coffee, taro, and watercress

– Other important agricultural landslands

• state or local importance for production but neither prime nor unique; need irrigation or require q ; g qcommercial production management

• Acreage in Agricultural• Acreage in Agricultural District

ALISH

– ALISH statewide:DOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR

• 846,363 acres (approximate)

1977-78

– Percent ALISH:• 43 8% of ag district• 43.8% of ag district

• Strengths– Criteria defined, can be

reapplied– National standard

ALISH

– National standard– Prime lands data is GIS-ready– Takes into account local,

DOA/USDA, UH/CTAHR

unique crops: coffee, taro, watercress

1977-78

• Weaknesses– Unique category not well

d fi ddefined– Maps need updating to reflect

current crop conditions & ppotential, e.g. papaya in Kapoho

1983 S LESA C i i

LESALand

• 1983 State LESA Commission (Act 273)

Standards & criteria for

Evaluation and Site

– Standards & criteria for identifying important agricultural lands (IAL)

Assessment System,

– Inventory of IALy

LESA • LESA system

– Numeric scoring systemAd t d f USDA t

Commission, 1983-1986

– Adapted from USDA system– Used to identify lands or

evaluate individual sitesevaluate individual sites

• Three componentsLESALand

– Agricultural production goals– Land evaluation (LE)

• Soils, topography, climate

Evaluation and Site

• Combines 5 soil ratings into single score

– LCC– ALISH

Assessment System, – ALISH

– LSB– Modified Storie Index– Soil Potential Index

y

LESA – Site assessment (SA)

• Non-physical properties (location, land use)Th t i f f t

Commission, 1983-1986

• Three categories of factors– Farm productivity/profitability– Land use potential/conflicting

uses– Conformance with government

programs/policies

• Acreage in Agricultural

LESALand • Acreage in Agricultural

DistrictEvaluation and Site

– LESA IAL statewide:Assessment System,

759,534 acres (approximate)

P t LESA IAL

y

LESA – Percent LESA IAL:

39.3% of ag districtCommission, 1983-1986

• Strengths– Takes into account other land use

LESALand

policy considerations– Attempts at comprehensiveness with

use of all indices for LE portionMost current

Evaluation and Site – Most current

• WeaknessesMost complicated of systems

Assessment System, – Most complicated of systems

– Some of LE indices are outdated, need to be reconstructed for current/future crops

y

LESA – Problems with SA criteria

• Subjectivity in assigning values and weights to factors: no two people would necessarily interpret the same

Commission, 1983-1986 y p

way – open to manipulation– Agricultural production goals

• Link to land requirements means that when ag land is converted to non-ag e ag a d s co e ted to o aguse, new land must be found to meet ag production

Amount of land rated suitable for agriculture

2,500,000

Amount of land rated suitable for agriculture

2,000,000

1,500,000

1 000 000

Acr

es

1,000,000

500,000

0LSB LESA ALISH All Prime Lands Prime Land

IntersectionsState Agricultural

District

Agricultural Land Rating System

Only 9% of LSB Prime lands are not included in ALISH or LESA

So let’s see where all the systems intersectSo let s see where all the systems intersect to see what lands they all agree could be IAL

IntersectionsIntersections

Areas of IntersectionAreas of Intersection

DivergenceDivergence

Areas of DivergenceAreas of Divergence

Kemole7,000 ft elevation

ALISH “Other” lands: state or local importance for production but neither prime nor unique; need irrigationproduction but neither prime nor unique; need irrigation or require commercial production management

284 835 acres284,835 acres

83% (237,057 acres) is “Other”

• Why are the “Other” lands i th t t t th

Future fun in that category, not the others?

with ALISH

– Erosion– Need irrigation– etc

• Document that in the data

AGTYPE NOTE1

NOTE Cause1 Erosion1

3 11 Erosion2 Drought

What’s the point?What s the point?

2,500,000

Amount of land rated suitable for agriculture

2,000,000

1,500,000

1 000 000

Acr

es

1,000,000

500,000

0LSB LESA ALISH All Prime Lands Prime Land

IntersectionsState Agricultural

District

Agricultural Land Rating System

R lState Land Use Districts

Rural0.3%

Urban5% Urban

5%

Rural0.3%

Other35% AgricultureConservation

48%Agriculture47%

Conservation48%

35%Conservation

66%

Agriculture29%

IAL17%

Current Districts LESA CommissionRecommendations

Why not?

Q tiQuestionsCommentsDiscussion

Thank you