LAND USE SUITABILITY FOR DECISION SUPPORT IN OHIO LAKE ERIE BASIN By Joseph A. MacDonald, Ph.D....

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

CONSERVATIONDEVELOPMENT

PILOT PRIORITY CONSERVATION

AREAS

PILOT WATERSHED PARTNERSHIP VALUES

AGRICULTURE LAND


CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: PRIORITY AREAS

DEVELOPMENT LAND


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.)

CANDIDATES INITIAL NEW *TOTALAGRICULTURE 16 8 1 9

CONSERVATION 17 8 1 9

DEVELOPMENT 13 7 6 13

*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


STEP 4 (cont):*SUITABILITY

FACTORS CATEGORYAll High High

At least 1 Moderate Moderate

At least 1 Low Low

*Adopted from Asotin County Biological Inventory and Land Use Suitability Analysis (Beach et. al., 1978)


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


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


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


• 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



• HIGH agriculture land suitability– All areas are prime farmland– Prime farmland if drained


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


STEP 3 (cont):

• LOW agricultural land suitability– Not prime farmland– Water features



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

Riley

Lake

Scott

Eden

Troy

Perry

Benton

Scipio

Henry

Clay

Bloom

Bloom

Biglick

Liberty

Carroll

Liberty Adams

Plain

Rice

Allen

Milton

BaySalem

Allen

Harris

Seneca

Cass

Portage Ballville

Loudon Clinton

Liberty

Jackson

Jackson

Washington

Pleasant

Center

Hopewell

Jackson

Marion Big Spring

Webster

Erie

Woodville

Freedom

Pleasant

Middleton

Perrysburg

Madison

Eagle

Portage Washington

Montgomery

Blanchard

Green Creek

Union

Findlay

Sandusky

Washington

Jackson Amanda

Weston

Tiffin

Fremont

Northwood

York

Reed

Venice

Perrysburg

Bowling Green

Thompson

Grand Rapids

Fostoria

Townsend

Rossford

PerrysburgPerrysburg

Port Clinton

Marion

Portage

Fostoria

Green Springs

Perrysburg

Green Springs

Sandusky

MarionLiberty

Marion

Marion

Plain

Clinton

Sandusky

Jackson

CenterSanduskySandusky

Plain

Jackson

00224

00006

000

23

00020

0002400

06

8

00020

00020

00080

000

75

004

75 00280

±

LEGEND

interstate

us routes

Not Prime

Prime

Prime if Drained

Prime if Flood-Protected

Prime if Drained or Flood-Protected

10 0 10 205Kilometers

IMPORTANT FARMLAND CLASSIFICATIONS: PORTAGE RIVER WATERSHED

AGRICULTURE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: PORTAGE RIVER WATERSHED

SHOW FACTOR SUITABILITY MAP

Riley

Lake

Scott

Eden

Troy

Perry

Benton

Scipio

Henry

Clay

Bloom

Bloom

Biglick

Carroll

Liberty

Liberty Adams

Plain

Allen

Rice

Milton

BaySalem

Allen

Harris

Seneca

Cass

Portage Ballville

Loudon Clinton

Liberty

Jackson

Jackson

Washington

Pleasant

Center

Hopewell

Jackson

Marion Big Spring

Webster

Pleasant

Erie

Woodville

Freedom

Middleton

Perrysburg

Madison

Portage Washington

Blanchard

Montgomery Green Creek

Eagle

Findlay

Sandusky

Union

Washington

Weston

Jackson Amanda

Tiffin

Fremont

Northwood

York

Reed

Venice

Perrysburg

Bowling Green

Grand Rapids

Thompson

Fostoria

Townsend

Rossford

PerrysburgPerrysburg

Marion

Port Clinton

Portage

Fostoria

Green Springs

Perrysburg

Green Springs

Sandusky

MarionLiberty

Marion

Marion

Plain

Clinton

Sandusky

Jackson

CenterSanduskySandusky

Plain

Jackson

00224

00006

000

23

00020

00024

000

68

00020

00020

00080

0007

5004

75

±

LEGEND

interstate

us routes

HIGH

MODERATE

LOW

10 0 10 205Kilometers

AGRICULTURE LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: NEXT STEP


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




NOTE: Steps 3 and 4 combined for conservation land suitability analysis


*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 andwildlife 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).


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 mi2

– 0-200m if drainage area > 20 mi2 and < 300 mi2 – 0-140m if drainage area > 0.5 mi2 and < 20 mi2 – 0-100m if drainage area > 0.05 mi2 and < 0.5 mi2 – 0-60m if drainage area < 0.05 mi2


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


STEPS 3 & 4 (cont):MODERATE conservation land suitability• Riparian Buffers (distance from stream)

– 600-1200m if drainage area > 300 mi2

– 200-400m if drainage area > 20 mi2 and < 300 mi2 – 140-280m if drainage area > 0.5 mi2 and < 20 mi2 – 100-200m if drainage area > 0.05 mi2 and < 0.5 mi2 – 60-120m if drainage area < 0.05 mi2


STEPS 3 & 4 (cont):MODERATE conservation land suitability (cont)• Wetland Buffers (distance from wetland)

– 100-200m if Category 3 Wetlands– 60-120m if Category 2 Wetlands– 20-40m if Category 1 Wetlands


STEPS 3 & 4 (cont):LOW conservation land suitability• Non-riparian zones (distance from stream)

– >1200m if drainage area > 300 mi2

– >400m if drainage area > 20 mi2 and < 300 mi2 – >280m if drainage area > 0.5 mi2 and < 20 mi2 – >200m if drainage area > 0.05 mi2 and < 0.5 mi2 – >120m if drainage area < 0.05 mi2


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


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


• 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


STEP 2 (cont.):

What factors are important to assess an area’s suitability for residential, commercial, and industrial development?


STEP 2 (cont.): PRIMARY FACTORS CITED

RESIDENTIAL FREQUENCY(%)On-Site/Proximal Sewer Service 69On-Site/Proximal Water Service 69Quality of Area Schools 69Pro-Development Attitude 61Land Cost 46Area Household Income 38Land Availability 38



RESIDENTIAL FREQUENCY(%)Area Growth 31Proximity to Arterials/Highways 31Proximity to Interchanges 31Terrain (aesthetics) 31Trees (aesthetics) 31Proximity to Employment 23Proximity to Shopping/Retail 23Water Features (aesthetics) 23



RESIDENTIAL FREQUENCY(%)Area Zoning 15Greenfield (“Clean Slate”) 15Proximity to Parks/Recreation 15Area Racial Composition 8Low Property Taxes 8Proximity to Fiberoptics 8Proximity to Public Services 8Public Transportation 8



COMMERCIAL FREQUENCY(%)On-Site/Proximal Sewer Service 62On-Site/Proximal Water Service 62Area Household Income 54Area Population Density 54Proximity to Arterial/Highway 46Area Growth 38Land Availability 38Pro-Development Attitude 38Proximity to Interchange 38



COMMERCIALFREQUENCY(%)

Proximity to Other Commercial 31Proximity to Population Center 31 Area Traffic Density 23Land Cost 23Proximity to Workers/Clients 15



COMMERCIALFREQUENCY(%)

Highway visibility 8Low Property Tax 8Proximity to Fiberoptics 8Public Transit 8Quality of Area Schools 8“Well-known” location 8



INDUSTRIAL FREQUENCY(%)Proximity to Arterial/Highway 62On-Site/Proximal Sewer Service 54On-Site/Proximal Water Service 54Land Availability 46Proximity to Interchange 46Pro-Development Attitude 31Proximity to Employees (incl. CEO) 31



INDUSTRIAL FREQUENCY(%)Area Household Income 23Land Cost 23Area Growth 15Low Property Taxes 15Proximity to Gas Pipeline 15Proximity to Population Center 15Proximity to Freight Rail 15Public Transit 15



INDUSTRIAL FREQUENCY(%)Area Population Density 8Brownfield Liability 8Proximity to Electric Power 8Proximity to Fiberoptics 8Quality of Area Schools 8Site Cleanup Cost 8Unionized Work Force 8


STEP 2 (cont.): SECONDARY FACTORS CITED

RESIDENTIAL FREQUENCY(%)Depth to Bedrock 8Slope 8Soil Type/Stability 8COMMERCIALSoil Type/Stability 23Depth to Bedrock 15Slope 15INDUSTRIALSoil Type/Stability 31Slope 23Depth to Bedrock 15Floodplains 15Wetlands 15

DEVELOPMENT LAND SUITABILITY ANALYSIS: NEXT STEP


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. 199-213.

LAND USE SUITABILITY FOR DECISION SUPPORT IN OHIO LAKE ERIE BASIN By Joseph A. MacDonald, Ph.D....

Documents

Transcript of LAND USE SUITABILITY FOR DECISION SUPPORT IN OHIO LAKE ERIE BASIN By Joseph A. MacDonald, Ph.D....