HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 08-10-1994 L.. . .s
1
ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
P.O. Box 8181
HILLSBOROUGH, N.C.
27278
Moses Carey,Jr. 732-8181
Alice M.Cordon 968-4501
Stephen H. Halkiotis 688-7331
Verla C. Insko 227-2031
Don Willhoit 644-3004 (Fax)
• ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
FOR
AUGUST 10, 1994
The Orange County Board of Commissioners will hold a special
meeting for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on a proposed
bond issue to purchase development rights for farmland
preservation.
The meeting will be held on August 10, 1994 at 7 : 30 p.m. in
Superior Courtroom, new County Courthouse at 106 Margaret Lane,
Hillsborough, North Carolina.
,i i : 1 f 'I
M.se' Carey, Jr. , Chair
Board of Commissioner=
. . ..
P q :t.--- . F/ icyc?
,, i
ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
306F REVERE ROAD
> HILLSBOROUGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27278,
r
L
y \41
MEMORANDUM
TO: ORANGE COUNTY BOARMOMSSIONERS
FROM: MARVIN COLLINS, PLANNING DIRECTOR
DATE: AUGUST 3, 1994
SUBJECT: FARMLAND PRESERVATION REPORT/ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
COPIES: AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS ADVISORY BOARD
JOHN LINK, COUNTY MANAGER
GEOFFREY GLEDHILL, COUNTY ATTORNEY
BEVERLY BLYTHE, CLERK TO THE COMMISSIONERS
Enclosed is the final draft of Preserving Our Farms: A Purchase of Development Rights Program for
Orange County,North Carolina.For all but Chair Carey,copies of the complete report are enclosed. Chair
Carey has been provided with copies of draft sections and update materials as completed.
The study is the subject of a report scheduled for the Commissioners'August 8, 1994 regular meeting. It
is also the subject of a special public hearing which has been scheduled for August 10, 1994.
Listed below are the recommendations of the Agricultural Districts Advisory Board pertaining to the study
and the proposals contained in it.
1. Approval of the LESA system as presented for use in ranking farmland for the purchase of
development rights (PDR) program.
2. That a farmer who has sold his/her development rights be allowed to create one additional building
lot per 25 acres of protected land.
(See the discussion under Question 10 of Section 3.0 -pages 3.18 - 3.20.)
3. That after 25 years, a farmer will have the right to buy back the development rights at market
value.
(See the discussion under Question 16 of Section 3.0 -pages 3.20 -3.21.)
4. That at least 80 acres be offered to be eligible for participation in the PDR program.
(See the discussion under Question 9 of Section 3.0-page 3.18. The Advisory Board felt that the
threshhold should be the same as required for participation in the Voluntary Agricultural
Districts Program.)
The vote of all of the above recommendations was unanimous and was taken at a special Advisory Board
meeting on July 28, 1994. Recommendations regarding the Advisory Board's position on the financial
aspects of the PDR program are contained in the August 8
agenda abstract.
Should you have questions regarding the study or the Advisory Board's recommendations,please feel free
to call me at Extension 2592.If assistance is needed in updating your notebook,just give me a call or drop
by the office.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Section 1 Introduction L1
Section 2 The LESA System: Land Evaluation & Site Assessment 2.1.1
Section 2.1 Introduction 2.1.1
Section 2.2 Ranking Agricultural Significance 2.2.1
Cropland Suitability 2.2.1
Forest Land Suitability 2.2.14
Site Assessment Criteria 2.2.27
Defining Agricultural Priorities 2.2.39
Section 2.3 Ranking Natural & Cultural Resource Significance 2.3.1
Site Assessment Criteria 2.3.1
Natural & Cultural Resource Priorities 2.3.39
Section 2.4 Putting It All Together: A Composite Picture 2.4.1
Identifying Resource Conservation Priorities 2.4.1
Ranking Farmland 2.4.1
Section 3 Purchase of Development Rights: Questions &Answers 3.1
Appendices
2.1
) INTRODUCTION
This nation has always had abundant food production, but part of the reason is that we've always
had a new frontier available to us. When we used up the land in the Northeast, we simply moved south
and west, down through the Ohio Valley, out across the Plains and on to the West Coast. When we ran
out of new geographic frontiers,we relied on mechanical,chemical,and technological frontiers to enhance
production. But, there is reason to believe that those rapid productivity gains of the last 50 years are
tapering off. National average yields in corn production in 1991 were about equal to what they were 10
years ago - the first decade in this century when we have not had a continuing upward trend in
productivity.
Is the apparent leveling off of the yield curve a temporary occurrence? Or, is it an indicator that
technology is running up against the natural limits of the land?In any case, it seems risky to count on
continuing technological advances for future food production. Biotechnology holds great promise.A new
generation of genetics, chemical, and other production enhancers may be just around the corner, but can
we take the chance? It is therefore prudent to protect the land, especially our best land, as insurance.
Ralph Grossi
American Farmland Trust
The reasons for increased interest in farmland preservation cited by Ralph Grossi, a California
farmer,are not always connected to food supply. Quality of life and protection of the natural environment
are increasing in importance to the public,especially to people moving from urban to rural areas.Expanded
transportation networks have made the move easier, making cities and employment centers more
accessible.
As the shift to the countryside continues, the result is inevitable - sprawl. Whether it takes the
form of half-acre or two-acre lots, whether it takes five years or five decades, the most productive lands
for farms and forest are lost. The fiscal impacts of such development are painfully evident all across the
country as tax rates increase to pay for the demand for public services. Farmland preservation offers a
solution to this dilemma,for farmland pays more in property taxes than in demands for such services.The
savings in avoided costs for future public services to developed farmland may alone be greater than the
cost of preserving it. As Ralph Grossi put it - Cows don't go to school.
Ultimately land use is an issue decided at the local level. If farmland is to be preserved, how do
local citizens and government officials decide which land has highest priority in terms of preservation?The
land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) system offers a solution. It was created in 1981 by the Soil
Conservation Service as a tool to determine which lands should be given the highest level of protection.
As noted previously,a LESA system consists of two parts.The first part focuses on land evaluation
and provides a method for evaluating the quality or productivity of a given site. The second part, site
assessment, examines specific characteristics of a site to assess its continued economic viability. A LESA
system can be used to assign priorities in acquiring development rights,identify important farm and forest
lands,and potential agricultural districts, and prepare and update comprehensive land use plans.The real
benefit of such a system is that the most productive and economically viable farm and forest lands are
preserved for future generations.
The LESA system proposed for Orange County in this section is based on the premise that a
"farm" is more than a farm. It provides a method for ranking the significance of any site as a farm, as a
site characterized by significant natural, scenic, and/or historic resources, or as the "best of everything".
2.1.1
2.1.1
•
Part of the rationale for this approach is found in the definition of agriculture. It is an activity not limited
to just the production of crops and the raising of livestock, but it includes the planting and production of
trees and timber as well. It addresses the interests of the general public and land owners alike in seeing
that farms as well as forests are preserved. Finally, the system provides a means of balancing what often
seem to be conflicting interests. By defining priorities in terms of other resources (e.g., natural, historic,
and scenic), it helps to achieve the broader goal of preserving our most valuable resources.
Is Orange County the only jurisdiction to consider or make use of a LESA system?No.In a study
conducted by Arizona State University and the Soil Conservation Service in 1991, 212 local and state
governments in 31 states were identified as active or former users of LESA. Of that total, 138 local and
eight state governments are currently using a LESA system,with its use much more common in east coast
states (70%).
Historically, the use of LESA by local jurisdictions increased sharply between 1983 and 1985,
leveled off during 1985-1989, and then accelerated again in 1989-1990. The recent acceleration can be
traced largely to state programs that call for the use of a LESA system (e.g., Pennsylvania, where LESA
must be used to set priorities for purchase of development rights).A total of 30 jurisdictions reported that
they were in the process of developing a system.
In North Carolina, five counties were identified in the 1991 study as having LESA experience.
Forsyth County is perhaps the most notable, using its system to identify priorities for purchase of
development rights. Gaston County used its LESA for environmental impact assessment, property tax
assessment, and to review the impact of land acquisition by a federal agency. Of the remaining counties,
Stanly and Henderson started to develop a system but abandoned the idea principally because of
insufficient funding and staffing, and Wake County was in the process of developing a LESA system.
Since 1991, Durham County has actively pursued development of a T,ESA system. In addition,
Burke County won an award from the N.C. Chapter of the American Planning Association for its
innovative use of a LESA system to evaluate land use proposals in an "Open Use" zoning district.
In this section, a LESA system is proposed for Orange County. It is presented in some detail to
help staff, advisory and governing member, and the public alike to understand and use the system. To
assist in this effort, 12 farms were selected as "case studies" to illustrate the development and application
of each aspect of the system. These farms were selected to reflect a variety of sizes, geographic locations,
soil conditions, and farm types. Bingham Township is also used as a "case study" to illustrate how the
system may be used to define overall preservation priorities on a broader scale.
The development of the LESA system has involved reliance on many information sources,ranging
from Soil Conservation Service guidebooks and soil surveys to inventories of natural areas and historic
sites. Preparation of the system has not only involved the use of recent technology; e.g., a geographic
information system, to assemble and analyze large amounts of data, but consideration of a variety of
scoring methods. While the system has been designed to be flexible and allow its use for many purposes,
it is one tool which can be used to begin sorting through competing priorities and objectively identify
significant resources of the county to be preserved.
2.1.2
2.2
RANKING AGRICULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
As noted in the introductory part of Section 2, the development of the LESA system by the Soil
Conservation Service was a response to the lack of analytical tools for local officials on which to base land
use decisions regarding agriculture. A central question which arises, however, is what does agriculture
encompass? Cropland, forest land, or both?
Land evaluation procedures for use in LESA have been developed for both cropland and forest
land. In evaluating land for crop production, soils may be rated by one or more of the following criteria
land capability, important farmland classification, and soil productivity. In evaluating land for forest
production, soils may be rated by one or more of the following criteria soil productivity, indicator tree
species, steepness of slope, and other soil limitations.
The site assessment part of LEA A is designed to rate those factors other than soils and overall
productivity of the land. Site assessment involves the human influence on the land, such as proximity of
the land to urban centers, parcel size, and type of land use adjacent to the site.
The LESA system proposed for Orange County incorporates all of these features and reflects the
definition of agriculture contained in the North Carolina General Statutes [G.S.106-581.1]:
The cultivation of soil for the production of crops, including but not limited to fruits, vegetables,
flowers, and ornamental plants, the planting and production of trees and timber, and the raising
of livestock, for individual and public use, consumption, and marketing.
CROPLAND SUITABILITY
The first step in the preparation and use of an agricultural T,ESA system is to determine the
quality of land for cropland use. To accomplish this, soils must be arrayed in order of importance in
agricultural groups, and the value of each group relative to another must be calculated.
Defining Agricultural Groups
In designing a system for evaluating cropland,soils must be rated and placed in agricultural groups
ranging from the best to the worst suited for cropland use. The soils of most areas can be arranged in 10
groups, with agricultural group 1 containing the best soils available, and groups 2-10 having successively
lower values.
Three land evaluation methods are used in developing the groups of soils: land capability
classificatio::, soil productivity index, and important farmland class. Ideally, each of the 10 groups should
contain 10 percent of the total land of the county. However, groups containing 5-15 percent are practical.
In some cases, groups may contain more or less than 5-15 percent, and fewer or more than 10 groups may
be needed. The intent is to provide enough groups to adequately differentiate significant soil classes.
Land Capability Classification: Capability classes and subclasses show the suitability of soils
for most kinds of field crops.The soils are classed according to their limitations when used for field crops,
the risk of damage when used, and the manner in which they respond to treatment.
In the capability system, soils are grouped at two basic levels: capability class and subclass.
Capability classes, the broadest groups, are designated by Roman numerals I through VIII. The numerals
2.2.1
indicate progressively greater limitations and narrower choices for practical use. The classes are defined
as follows:
1. Class I soils have few limitations that restrict their use. (None in Orange County)
2. Class II soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of crops or require
moderate conservation practices.
3. Class III soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of crops or require special
conservation practices, or both.
4. Class IV soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of crops or require very
careful management, or both.
5. Class V soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that
limit their use. (None in Orange County)
6. Class VI soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation.
7. Class VII soils have very severe limitations that make them unsuitable for cultivation.
8. Class VIII soils have limitations that nearly preclude their use for commercial crop
production. (None in Orange County)
Capability subclasses are soil groups within one class. They are designated by adding a letter E,
W, or S to the class numeral, for example, IIE. The letter E means that the main limitation is risk of
erosion unless close-growing plant cover is maintained.Wmeans that water in or on the soil interferes with
plant growth or cultivation. S means that the soil is limited mainly because of inherent soil qualities.
Soils are placed in agricultural groups according to their land capability class. The lowest land
capability class for the soils should occur in agricultural group 1,with subclass designations used to identify
different groups; e.g., IIE in group 2, IIW in group 3, etc. It is acceptable, however, to have agricultural
groups that have more than one capability class or subclass.
The land capability classes and subclasses for Orange County soils are shown in Appendix A and
Column 4 of Table 2.2.2.
Soil Productivity Index: Soil productivity is the capacity of a soil to produce a specified crop
using the most recent soil and crop management practices,and is reflected in the estimated yield/acre that
can be expected. Estimated yields are based on the records of farmers, conservationists, and extension
agents. It is the differences in yields of a specific crop on different soils that provide a measure of
comparison among soils.
To derive the productivity index for a given soil or group of soils, an indicator crop, such as corn,
is selected which represents the single most cultivated crop.Next,the estimated yields for corn on various
soils are obtained from the local soil survey or the local or state Soil Conservation Service office. If the
estimated yield exceeds 100 bushels/acre for any soil, it is converted to 100, and all other yields are
converted to an index relative to 100. For example, the estimated yield for a corn crop on Hiwassee soil
is 103 bushels/acre. Thus,the productivity index would be 100 (103/103 = 1 x 100).For Altavista soil,the
estimated yield is 100 bushels/acre, and the productivity index would be 97 (100/103 = .97 x 100).
2.2.2
Productivity Rating: The productivity rating is based on the productivity of the designated
indicator tree species for each soil. An indicator species is defined in the SCS National Forestry Manual
as"that species which is common in the area and is generally the most productive on the soil in question."
The indicator species for each soil is determined from the woodland interpretation tables contained
on the Orange County Soil Survey. The indicator species is the first species listed under the column
heading"Productivity Potential."The indicator species for Orange County soils are shown in Appendix D.
Productivity ratings for each soil are derived from site index values. Site index values are also
determined from the woodland interpretation tables in the Soil Survey and refer to the average height an
indicator tree species will reach by the age of 50 years. Productivity ratings are determined from the SCS
National Forestry Manual according to the indicator tree species and site index value for each soil type.
Site index values and productivity ratings for each Orange County soil are shown in Appendix D.
Individual productivity ratings are then arranged in as many as 10 groups. The range of
productivity ratings shown in Table 2.2.7 was derived from the SCS National Forestry Manual and
recommended for use in North Carolina.
The highest productivity class in the range is rated 1.00. The ratings assigned to the other classes
are relative values derived by dividing the average productivity of each class by the highest average
productivity. For example, the average for the second class (121-166) is 144, and it is assigned a rating of
144/166 or 0.87. The average for the third class (79-120) is 100, and it is assigned a rating of 100/166 or
0.60.
TABLE 2.2.7 - PRODUCTIVITY RATINGS
Productivity Range
(Cubic Feet/Acre/Year) Rating
166+ 1.00
121-165 0.87
79-120 0.60
51-78 0.39
21-50 0.22
<20 0.00
Sources: 1/ Soil Survey of Orange County, NC, USDA, Soil Conservation Service
2/National Forestry Manual, USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Indicator Species Rating: This rating is based on the value of the indicator species that occur
in the county. Table 2.2.8 below lists the various indicator species in order of decreasing value for the
major wood product in the area, building timber and firewood.
The most valuable indicator is always assigned a rating of 1.00. The ratings for other species are
relative values determined by dividing mill value of the next indicator species by the mill value of the most
important species. For example, the indicator species oak has a mill value of$135, and it is assigned a
rating of 135/150 or 0.90. The indicator species mixed hardwood has a mill value of$85, and it is assigned
a rating of 85/150 or 0.57.
2.2.15
TABLE 2.2.8 - INDICATOR SPECIES RATING
Indicator Tree Species Mill Value* Rating
Pine (Loblolly/Shortleaf) $150 1.00
Oak (Northern Red Oak) $135 0.90
Mixed Hardwood (Sweetgum) $85 .57
Note: * Value/1000 board feet of standing timber.
Sources: 1/Timbermart South, July, 1990.
2/ Soil Survey of Orange County, and State Office, USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Steepness of Slope Rating:In many cases, slope steepness is one of the most important factors
limiting forest management activities or making them more costly. Table 8 lists slope classes for Orange
County in order of increasing limitation for forest management. A rating of 1.00 is assigned to the slope
class (0-6%) with the least limitation to management. Ratings assigned to other slope classes are relative
to the lowest slope class (15-45%) in terms of cost management.
As an example,the 0-6 percent slope class is rated 1.00.The 15-45 percent slope class is rated 0.50,
because it costs approximately 50 percent more to harvest trees on such slopes (1.00 x 0.50 = 0.50, and
1.00 - 0.50 = 0.50). Since there is roughly a "straight line" relationship between harvest cost and slope,
the 6-15 percent slope class is rated as 0.75.
TABLE 2.2.9 - STEEPNESS OF SLOPE RATING
Slope Percentage Rating
0-6 1.00
6-15 0.75
15-45 0.50
Source: Soil Survey of Orange County, NC, USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Appendix E lists Orange County soils from the flattest to the steepest according to slope.The list
served as the basis for the slope ranges identified in Table 2.2.9 above.
Soil Limitations Rating: In this rating, soil features, other than slope, that limit management
activities or make them more costly are evaluated. Soil characteristics that limit forest management
activities were derived using a system of ordination symbols which identify woodland suitability.
The first part of the ordination symbol, a number, indicates the potential productivity of the soils
for important trees. The number 1 indicates very high productivity-, 2, high; 3, moderately high; 4,
moderate; and 5, low. The second part of the symbol, a letter, indicates the major kind of soil limitation.
For Orange County, the limitations are few but important.The letter w indicates excessive water in or on
the soil; c, clay in the upper part of the soil; and r, steep slopes. The letter o indicates insignificant
limitations or restrictions.
Ordination symbols for Orange County soils are shown in Appendix E.The major limitations,other
2.2.16
than slope, for forest land use are identified below. Where no limitations exist, a soil is assigned a rating
of 1.00. Ratings for clayey and wet soils were based on similar ratings used in a county in the Piedmont
section of Virginia.
TABLE 2.2.10 - SOIL LIMITATION RATING
Soil Characteristic Rating
No limitations 1.00
Clayey 0.40
Excessive wetness 0.10
Source: Soil Survey of Orange County, NC, USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Forest Land Relative Value Rating
To develop relative values for Orange County soils, the ratings derived above are first displayed
for each soil (see Table 2.2.11). Next, a composite value is obtained by adding the ratings for each soil
series. As an example, the composite value for Appling(ApB) soil is 3.60, the sum of cob imns 3, 4, 6, and
8. The composite value for Herndon (HrC) soil is 3.35.
Relative values are obtained by arranging the soils in descending order of composite value,dividing
the composite value of each soils series by the highest composite value obtained, and multiplying the
quotient by 100 to produce a whole number. For example, the relative value of Appling (ApB) soil is 100
(3.60/3.60 = 1.0 x 100 = 100).The relative value for Herndon(HrC) soil is 3.35/3.60 = 0.93 x 100 = 93).
Forest Land Group Value Rating
Unlike cropland, forest land soils are rated and placed into groups using a different technique.
Group 1 still contains the best soils for forest land use and is assigned a relative value of 100. The relative
value for lower groups, however, is the average of the relative value range.
Based on their relative values, soils are again grouped into approximately 10 groups. Fewer than
10 groups are permissible, though, depending upon the number of soil types present and their suitability
for forest land use. A range in values for all of the soils in each group is then assigned, with no overlap
occurring in the ranges of adjacent groups.The average of each relative value range is then calculated and
becomes the relative value for that group.As an example, the relative value range for Group 3 is 83 to 88.
The group relative value is the range average or 86.
It is the group relative values that are used to calculate the value of one site relative to another
for forest land use. The assignment of relative value ranges and the calculation of group relative values
is shown in detail on Table 2.2.12.
2.2.17
TABLE 2.2.11
•
FOREST LAND RELATIVE VALUE RATING
Soil
Map Soil Productivity Species Slope Slope Soil Limits Composite Relative
Symbol Series Rating Rating (%) Rating Limits Rating Value Value
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ApB Appling 0.60 1.00 2-6 1.00 None 1.00 3.60 100
CB Cecil 0.60 1.00 2-6 1.00 None , 1.00 3.60 100
GeB Georgeville 0.60 1.00 2-6 1.00 None 1.00 3.60 100 •
HrB Herndon 0.60 1.00 2-6 1.00 None 1.00 3.60 100
HwB Hiwassee 0.60 1.00 2-6 1.00 None 1.00 3.60 100 •
VaB Vance 0.60 1.00 2-6 1.00 None 1.00 3.60 100
Cp Congaree 0.80 0.57 0-2 1.00 None 1.00 3.37 94
ApC Appling 0.60 1.00 6-10 0.75 None 1.00 3.35 _ 93
CfC Cecil 0.60 1.00 6-10 0.75 None 1.00 3.35 93
GeC Georgeville 0.60 1.00 6-10 0.75 None 1.00 3.35 93
HrC Herndon 0.60 1.00 6-10 0.75 None 1.00 3.35 93
HwC Hiwassee 0.60 1.00 6-10 0.75 None 1.00 3.35 93
LoC Louisburg 0.60 1.00 6-15 0.75 None 1.00 3.35 93
WmD Wedowee 0.60 1.00 8-15 0.75 None 1.00 3.35 93
WxD Wilkes 0.60 1.00 8-15 0.75 None 1.00 3.35 93
GhC Georgeville-Urban 0.60 1.00 2-10 0.75 None 1.00 3.35 93
AuB Appling-Urban 0.60 1.00 2-10 0.75 None 1.00 3.35 93
G1D Goldston 0.60 1.00 15-45 0.50 _ None , 1.00 3.10 86
Wr E Wedokee 0.60 1.00 15-25 0.50 None 1.00 3.10 86
LoF Louisburg 0.60 1.00 15-45 0.50 None 1.00 3.10 86
WxF Wilkes 0.60 1.00 15-45 0.50 None _ 1.00 3.10 _ 86
2.2.18
DEFINING AGRICULTURAL PRIORITIES
In a purchase of development rights program where participation is voluntary, a LESA system
does not determine who will offer to sell his/her development rights or how many. Neither does it
guar tee that once an offer is made to the seller that he/she will accept it. The advantage of Having a
LES system is that it provides a tool to aid in decision-making, e.g,which development rights to acquire.
For purchase of development rights program, it can be used, as Forsyth County has, to rank individual
f and assign priorities in acquiring such rights. It may also be used to identify important farmlands
and target" potential agricultural districts.
Identifying Agricultural Priority Areas. The first level at which a LESA system is useful is
for general planning purposes; e.g., identifying the most productive land for farm and forest use. Using
Bing Township as a case study, the location and relative values for each agricultural and forest land
grow were combined using the County's geographic information system. For example, the relative value
of cultural Group#1 is 100 (Table 2.2.3)while the relative value of Forest Land Group#2 is 91 (Table
2.2.1 ). The combined value of the two soil groups is thus 191.
j Of 70 possible combinations of relative value scores(10 agricultural groups x 7 forest groups), only
19 wSre found to exist. The composite scores were then grouped into three priority categories - critical,
high, and moderate - based on their distribution and the soil chz..-acteristics associated with each. The
composite scores as well as the priority categories are shown on Table 2.2.29. The land coverages
ass fated with these categories have been mapped on Figure 2.2.16, illustrating where priorities should
be signed if important farm and forest lands are to be preserved in Bingham Township. However, the
map oes not indicate whether such lands are located in rural subdivisions or in association with farms and
ed forest tracts.
Based on parcel data from the Orange County Land Records Office, Figure 2.2.17 shows the
locat on of the boundaries of lots and tracts in the township. Properties in single ownership comprised of
100 res or more in size and participating in the Preferential Assessment/Deferred Taxation Program are
also 'ghlighted. Where such tracts are contiguous, they have been combined to identify "critical masses"
of farm and forest land. In addition, public and university-owned lands have been denoted. Finally, soil
groups which fall into the "critical" priority category have been plotted.
The resulting map narrows the focus of planning efforts by identifying large tracts of land in farm
and forest use where the most productive soils exist. In this sense, the focus shifts from a resource to a
geog aphic orientation and assists in defining broad conservation areas comprised of public lands, farms,
and rests within which rural subdivisions may co-exist.
Ranking Farmland.The second level at which a LESA system is useful is in evaluating specific
tract in farm and forest use. By combining the land evaluation and site assessment scores derived in the
prec ding sections, an overall agricultural significance rating for individual farms may be obtained. To
illust ate this use of the LESA system, scoring sheets for each of the 12 study farms have been provided
in A pendix G and the results summarized in Table 2.2.31. The table provides two different sets of
agric tural significance scores and rankings, with the difference resulting from the number or points
awar ed for farm distance from an urban area.
Table 2.2.30 illustrates the shift in ranking when more points are awarded to farms closest to
urb: 1 areas. As shown in that table, there is no change in ranking for one-fourth of the farms, and half
the = is- shift only one position. In only one instance, the Hogan farm, does the ranking change
'y ' ,cantly, enabling that farm to rise from eleventh to fifth position.
2.2.39
•
TABLE 2.2.29
DISTRIBUTION OF COMPOSITE CROPLAND/FOREST LAND SCORES
BINGHAM TOWNSHIP - ORANGE COUNTY, N.C.
COMPOSITE SCORES PRESERVATION PRIORITIES
Composite Number Number Cumulative Percent Cumulative Composite Percent
Score of of Acreage of Percentage Score Acreage
Total Records Acres Total Total Distribution Category Range Distribution Characteristics
200 82 mm
.3270.30 3270.30 6.89% 6.89%
195 329 9069.60 12339.90 19.12% 26.01% Critical 193-200 42% Highly productive soils with few
193 273 755130. 19891.20 15.92% 41.93% limitations that restrict their use.
191 14 519.00 20410.20 1.09% 43.02%
171 87 1399.20 21719.40 2.76% 45.78% Soils with some limitations that
170 59 1768.20 23487.60 3.73% 49.51% High 161-192 29% reduce the choice of plant material
169 394 1018140 33668.70 .21.46%.: 70.97% or require moderate conservation
164 3 4.80 33673.50 0.01% 70.98% practices.
159 277 6623.40 40296.90 13.96% 84.94%
153 28 764.80 41061.70 1.61% 86.55%
147 .37 540.90. 41602.60 1.14% 87.69%.
145 16 300.20 41902.80 0.63% 88.32%
140 65 2854.60 44757.40. 6.92% 94.34% Soils with severe limitations that
126 6 79.40 44836.80 0.17% 94.51% Moderate 0-160 29% restrict the choice of plant
121 27 .297.60 45134.40 0,63% 95.13% material,require special
115 57 1515.70 46650.10 3.19% 9833% conservation practices,or both.
89 26 438.10 47088.20 : 0.92% 99.25%
86 14 138.90 47227.10 0.29% 99.55%
•
0 143 21550 .47442.60 .0.45% 100.00%
Totals I 1937 I 47442.60 I 47442.60 I 100.00% I 100.00%
2.2.40
_
TABLE 2.2.30
COMPARISON OF AGRICULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE RANKINGS
FOR SELECTED ORANGE COUNTY FARMS
Rank When Farms...
Township Change in
Farm Location Farther from Closer to Rank
Urban Area Urban Area
Mangum Little River 1 1 None
Latta Cedar Grove 2 _ 3 -1
Snipes Bingham 3 4 -1
Walters Cedar Grove 4 2 +2
1 Nutter Bingham 5 6 -1
Shambley Cheeks 6 7 -1
Strayhorn Chapel Hill 7 9 -2
Stroud Bingham 8 8 None
Nichols Cedar Grove 9 10 -1
' Rogers Cedar Grove 10 11 -1
Hogan Chapel Hill 11 5 +6
Lloyd Cheeks 12 12 None
From the standpoint of acquiring development rights, the real implication of the use of rankings
is in etermining how to expend limited funds.For example,if funds were available to purchase the rights
on s' farms, and more points were awarded to farms farther from urban areas, the Mangum, Latta,
Snip s,Walters, Nutter,and Shambley farms would be considered.If more points were awarded to farms
close to urban areas, only one change would result - the Hogan farm would replace the Shambley farm
in be g considered for acquisition of development rights.
1
' Awarding more points to farms farther from urban areas is more in keeping with the intent of the
pro am - farmland preservation. In such locations, more farms are likely to be found in close proximity,
allo g a "critical mass" of farmland to be preserved with fewer nuisance complaints. In the case of the
Ho farm, it is located in and surrounded by an area designated for future urban development in the
Orange County-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan. Even if development rights on
all or a portion of the farm were acquired, it is questionable whether the farm would survive when
surrounded by such development.
Another example of the use of the LESA system for this purpose involves the three study farms
located in Bingham Township. Whereas the maps derived previously may help in targeting the Snipes,
Nutter, and Stroud farms as critical farmland, only through the evaluation of each site can guidance be
obtaMed regarding the order of development rights acquisition.Through the scoring aspects of the system,
a det rmination can be made to acquire from Snipes first, Nutter second,and then Stroud. This assumes,
of course, that all three owners have offered to sell their development rights.
2.2.41
TABLE 2.231
• COMPARISON OF AGRICULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE SCORES AND RANKINGS
FOR SELECTED ORANGE COUNTY FARMS
Cropland Forestland Site
Productivity Productivity Assessment Total Score
Farm
Farm Total Farm Total Farm Total Farm Total Farm as %of Rank
Points Points Points Points Points Points Points Points Total
...WHEN MORE POINTS ARE AWARDED TO FARMS FARTHER FROM URBAN AREAS
Mangum _ '100 : 90 : 100 95 100 98 300 283 . 94% 1
Latta 100 82 100 92 100 96 300 270 90% 2
Snipes 100 83 100 92 100 94 . 300 269 90% 3
Walters 100 90 100 96 100 78 300 264 88% 4
Nutter 100 79 : 100 : 91 100 90 300 : 260 > 87%. 5
Shambley 100 80 100 90 100 87 300 257 86% 6
:Strayhorn ' 100: 82 100 91 100 81 300: : 254: 85%. 7
Stroud 100 83 100 88 100 83 300 254 85% 8
Nichols :100: :81 . :100: . 91 100 77 300 : 249 : .83% .. 9
Rogers 100 76 100 78 100 92 300 246 82% 10
Hogan 100 77 100 : :87 100 . 74 : 300 238: 79% . 11
Lloyd 100 75 100 87 100 60 300 222 74% 12
...WHEN MORE POINTS ARE AWARDED TO FARMS CLOSER TO URBAN AREAS
Mangum 100 90. 100 : 95 .100 . 79 300 '264 ' 88% ' Z.
Walters 100 90 100 96 100 67 300 253 84% 2
Lana 100 :82 100 92 100 77 ; 300 :251: 84% : 3
Snipes 100 83 100 92 100 75 300 250 83% 4
Hogan :100 : 77 100 87 100 ` 85 .300: 249. 83.% 5.
Nutter 100 79 100 91 100 71 300 241 80% 6
Shambley 100 : 80 100 90 100 . 68 300 238 79% 7
Stroud 100 83 100 88 100 64 300 235 78% 8
Strayhorn 100' 82 . 100 91 100 62 300 235 78% 9
Nichols 100 81 100 91 100 58 300 230 77% 10
Rogers . .100 ; 76 _ 100 78 : 100 73 300 227.. 76% .11
Lloyd 100 75 100 87 100 _63 300 225 75% 12 -
2.2.42