GIS and Farmland Protection: The Case of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

Tom Daniels, Ph.D., Jay Parrish, Ph.D., Jordan Henk
Copyright 1997 Daniels, Parrish, Henk
Geographic Information Systems(GIS) are becoming increasingly employed in the management of natural resources. GIS offers a cost-effective way to identify important resources according to location, soils, and parcel size. Similarly, GIS coverages can show development threats to land resources in the proximity to public sewer and water lines. But once a local government has embarked upon a program to protect land resources, GIS can help keep track of zoning, agricultural districts, Urban Growth Boundaries, and land protected by conservation easements. Furthermore, GIS enables planners to be strategic in identifying priorities for land protection.

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

Lancaster County covers 603,000 acres of southeast Pennsylvania and contains some of the most productive farmland in the United States. About 75 percent of the county has soils rated Class I, II, or III by the Soil Conservation Service. More than 50 percent of the county has Class I and II soils considered "prime" farmland. According to the 1992 Agricultural Census, almost two-thirds of the county, or 388,000 acres, are currently in farm use. The 4,700 farms in the county average 86 acres, but this small farm size is deceptive. The county generated $750 million in farm gate sales in 1993, ranking it first among counties in Pennsylvania and in the entire Northeastern United States, and eighteenth among all counties in the nation. Dairy, cattle, and poultry are the leading enterprises, and crops grown include hay, corn, wheat, tobacco, and vegetables.

The strength of Lancaster's farming sector suggests that a county farmland protection program should not be aimed so much at

preserving open space, but rather at maintaining a working rural landscape where the farming industry is a vital component of the local economy. The open space that farms provide contributes both to a thriving tourist industry of an estimated five million visitors a year and $500 million in annual revenues in 1993 and to the overall quality of life which has made the county a very desirable place to live.

Lancaster County is the heart of the Pennsylvania Dutch country. About thirty percent of the county's farmers belong to the Plain Sect community--Amish, Mennonite, and Brethren. Their presence is another major contributor to the tourist industry and to the refreshing diversity of the county.

Development pressures in Lancaster County have risen steadily over the past 40 years. Between 1950 and 1980, the county population increased by 127,000 people. By 1992, over 422,000 people were living in the county. In April 1994, U.S. News and World Report named Lancaster County as one of the ten booming areas of the United States, (U.S. News, 1994, p. 69). Thus, Lancaster County has been confronted with the commercial, industrial, and residential growth pressures that have occurred in metropolitan areas throughout the United States (see Lockeretz, 1987). The population of Lancaster County is projected to increase to 545,000 residents by the year 2010 (Lancaster County Planning Commission, 1993). Lancaster County growth has come from increases in indigenous population, and from newcomers who work in the county or in Greater Harrisburg, Wilmington, Delaware and Greater Philadelphia--all of which are within a 45-minute drive of the county.

The visible loss of farmland and open space together with serious traffic congestion have convinced many county inhabitants that managing growth is essential if the landscape and the quality of life it provides are to be sustained. A March 1995 poll by the "Lancaster New Era" found that farmland preservation was the number two priority among county residents, second only to crime and just ahead of traffic congestion (Lancaster New Era, March 21, 1995, p. 1).

Integrated Farmland Protection in Lancaster County

Lancaster County has employed a complementary set of farmland protection techniques to help channel growth away from productive farmland. These techniques include: agricultural zoning, agricultural districts, the purchase of development rights, and urban growth boundaries.

Agricultural Zoning

In 1976, East Donegal Township adopted the first agricultural zoning ordinance in the county, and other townships soon followed. By the end of 1994, 39 of the county's 41 townships had adopted agricultural zoning ordinances encompassing over 320,000 acres. (Agricultural Preserve Board, 1995). Most townships employ a zoning standard of one building lot of up to two acres for every 25 acres owned. For example, a landowner with 100 acres would be allowed to subdivide up to 4 lots and a total of 8 acres, retaining 92 acres for the farming operation. Three townships have adopted a standard of one building lot per 50 acres. Zoning is by no means permanent. Zoning may be changed through a petition process to the township. But thus far, there have been relatively few re-zonings of agricultural land to non-farm uses. Agricultural zoning could be rescinded by township officials, but this has not happened in a single township that has adopted agricultural zoning.

Restrictive agricultural zoning remains somewhat controversial because farmers may not easily sell out for development, and hence the value of their land is limited. On the other hand, there is a recognition that agricultural zoning serves to separate farming (which is essentially an industrial land use) from potential conflicts with residential and commercial development. The key ingredient here is the commitment of the farming community to remain in farming. If the farm economy sours for several years, then pressure for re-zonings out of agriculture could become common. At present, however, it is not politically popular for elected township officials to openly favor the conversion of farmland to non-farm uses.

Agricultural Security Areas

In Act 43 of 1981, the Pennsylvania legislature authorized townships to create "agricultural security areas," similar to agricultural districts formed in other states, such as New York. Agricultural security areas are voluntary; the creation, modification, or termination of a security area is a matter of landowner initiative and township supervisor approval or denial.

An agricultural security area must be at least 250 acres in size, but the land does not have to be contiguous. The security area offers landowners three benefits:

  1. A strengthened right-to-farm. Township supervisors agree not to enact nuisance ordinances which would restrict normal farming practices within the security area;
  2. Greater protection against eminent domain. Government bodies seeking to condemn land in a security area must receive approval from the state Agricultural Lands Condemnation Acceptance Board and the township; and
  3. Landowners in a security area have the option to apply to sell their development rights to the County Agricultural Preserve Board. (The New York agricultural districts do not provide this benefit). As of March 1997, there were 30 security areas in Lancaster County comprising over 120,000 acres. Over 2.5 million acres have been enrolled in security areas throughout Pennsylvania.
The creation of a security area or additions of land to a security area may occur at any time, but a landowner or group of landowners must submit a petition to the township supervisors requesting the creation of a security area or addition of their land to an existing security area. Every seven years, a township will conduct a review of the security area to determine whether to reestablish the security area for another seven years, terminate the security area, or make modifications to it. During the review, landowners may apply to the supervisors to remove land from the security area.

The agricultural security areas have helped to stabilize the farmland base. Although a security area does not impose any land use restrictions on a farmland owner, it does provide some important protection from nuisance suits and condemnation actions by government agencies. Relatively little land in security areas has been developed. The ability to sell development rights has not been the the most significant part of the success of agricultural security areas, simply because of limited public funds to buy development rights. But interest in selling development rights has compelled many farmers to apply to join security areas.

The Purchase or Donation of Development Rights (Conservation Easements)

In 1980, the Lancaster County Commissioners appointed a nine-member Agricultural Preserve Board to develop and administer farmland protection programs. The Preserve Board determined that the county should pursue a purchase of development rights program and accept the donation of development rights. For the donation of a perpetual easement, a landowner may receive a deduction for federal income tax purposes. There are no tax incentives for the donation of a less than perpetual easement, such as a 25-year easement.

In America, a landowner essentially owns a bundle of rights that go with the land. These rights include water rights, air rights, the right to sell the land, the right to pass it along to heirs, the right to use the land, and the right to develop it. Any of these rights can be separated off from the bundle and sold, donated, or otherwise encumbered.

Under a purchase of development rights arrangement, a farmland owner voluntarily sells the development rights (also known as a conservation easement) to a government agency or private land trust and receives compensation in return for the restrictions placed on the land. The farmer retains title to the land and can sell or pass along the farm, although the use of the land is limited to farming and open space. An easement is placed on the landowner's deed and "runs with the land," either in perpetuity or for a period of time specified in the easement document. The easement typically prohibits residential development except for the owner, the owner's children, or farm labor. Public access is not normally allowed, nor is the dumping of garbage or the removal of soil. Normal agricultural practices and structures are permitted as long as they comply with state and federal statutes.

In 1982, the Lancaster County Agricultural Preserve Board received its first donation of a perpetual conservation easement. In 1984, the Board purchased its first conservation easements, using an allocation from the county general fund. Between 1984 and 1988, the Board offerred only $250 an acre for perpetual easements or 25-year term easements. This easement price was generally well below the true value of a permanent easement, and most landowners opted for the 25-year term easement. In 1988, the Board authorized the use of appraisals to determine easement value.

Between 1989 and 1997, the Board received 305 easement sale applications and purchased 150 easements on 14,000 acres at an average price per acre of just under $2,000, or a total cost of about $25 million. The Board currently holds 215 easements totalling over 19,000 acres. Of these easements, 38 were donated by landowners (see Table 1).

Table 1. Conservation Easements Donated and Purchased, 1982-1996.

25-Year Term Perpetual TOTAL
Donated 1
acres 51.9 		36
acres 2,667.91 		37
acres 2,719.81
Sold 19
acres 1,993.2 		159
acres 14,176.36 		178
acres 16,538.56
Total 20
acres 2,045.1 		195
acres 16,843.27 		215
acres 19,258.37

Source: Agricultural Preserve Board, 1997.

The increase in easement purchases in 1989-1996 was made possible mainly through funding from the Pennsylvania Bureau of Farmland Protection. In November, 1987, Pennsylvania voters approved the issuing of $100 million in bonds to purchase easements on farmland throughout the state. The bond money was spent or committed by 1994. Since then, the state funds have come from a two-cent a pack tax on cigarettes, which has generated about $22 million a year. From 1989 through 1996, Lancaster County received $20.2 million from the state for easement purchases.

In order to receive state funds, a county first had to develop program guidelines which would then be approved by the State Agricultural Land Preservation Board, an appointed 17-member body. Second, a county had to appropriate funds for easement purchases. The amount of state funds a county received was determined by the appropriation made by each county and by the amount of money appropriated by all counties with approved program guidelines.

Lancaster County appropriated an average of $850,000 a year between 1989 and 1996, more than any other county in the state. Lancaster County raised some of the funds through the sale of general obligation bonds, and some from the county general fund, based mainly on property tax revenues. The county commissioners allocated $1.75 million for farmland preservation in 1996, second only to Sonoma County, California, and sold $4.5 million in bonds to buy easements in 1997-1999.

The Preserve Board uses two strategies to guide the easement purchase program. The first strategy is to preserve farms that are close to each other. The second strategy is to preserve farmland to help create urban growth boundaries.

This first strategy serves three purposes:

  1. Large blocks of preserved ground for farming are likely to help farm support businesses remain profitable. One of the great strengths of agriculture in Lancaster County is the availability of transportation, processing, marketing, and farm input services. If these support businesses remain strong, agriculture as an industry will remain strong as well.
  2. The more farmland that is preserved in a neighborhood, the less likely there will be non-farm development that can cause conflicts with farming neighbors.
  3. Under Pennsylvania law, if a farm has been preserved for at least 25 years, and if the farm becomes surrounded by development and there are no markets for what the farm is producing, the landowner may apply to buy back the development rights (at the appreciated value). The Preserve Board believes that by preserving farmland in large blocks, such buy backs of development rights will rarely occur.

Urban Growth Boundaries

The Preserve Board pursues a policy that is unique in the United States: a strategic effort to the purchase development rights on farms fairly close to development to help create "Urban Growth Boundaries" and "Village Growth Boundaries" which will limit sprawl out onto productive farmland. In turn, these growth boundaries will help to encourage more compact development which is cheaper and easier to service. An urban growth boundary is drawn through an agreement by a city or village and surrounding townships with the aim of providing enough buildable land for the next twenty years within the boundary; and urban services--particularly public sewer and water--will not be extended beyond the boundary. The boundary may be changed upon review every three to five years.

As of 1997, twelve urban growth boundaries have been created in Lancaster County. Only five proposed boundaries have not been formed. The county has acted as a catalyst in getting jurisdictions to accept growth boundaries. Significantly, the development community has supported the growth boundary concept because it creates a 20-year supply of buildable land and developers will not face the struggles over approvals like they have on rural land without public sewer and water.

The first growth boundary was formed in 1993, so that it is too early to assess the long-term effectiveness of this tool. Still, no boundary, once adopted, has yet been removed. The incentive for the townships is that less residential growth means fewer children to educate and less development to service, and hence more manageable property taxes.

Critical Mass and Land Prices

Lancaster County is making good progress toward the protection of a critical mass of farmland to enable support businesses to survive. Land prices for farmland, however, continue to be high, averaging $5,000 to $6,000 an acre; these prices make it difficult for existing farms to expand and for the entry of new (young) farmers. So far, the integrated package of agricultural zoning, agricultural security areas, easement purchases, and urban growth

boundaries has been a reliable farmland protection program. The real test will come in the next fifteen to twenty years when an additional 100,000 people are expected to live in Lancaster County. Also, the cost of farmland protection has been reasonable. Zoning and urban growth boundaries are low cost techniques and even easement purchases averaging $2,000 an acre appear to be good long term investments, especially compared to easement costs in suburban Philadelphia counties which average over $5,000 an acre.

The Application of GIS to Farmland Protection

Lancaster County has employed GIS to perform three important functions to support its farmland protection effort: 1) identification of high quality agricultural land; 2) the annual ranking of easement sale applications; and 3) maintenance of a dynamic data base over time on farmland protection parcel status, including agricultural zoning, agricultural security areas, farms under easement, farms with easement sale applications.

Identification

County-wide identification of high quality farmland is made possible through a soils coverage. The soil coverage was acquired at a scale of 1:24,000 while the other GIS coverages wee acquired at 1:2,400. Normally, one would not mix coverages at two different scales, but as there was only one set of soils data available, there was little choice. Because the GIS analysis is done for large acreages, the 1:24,000 scale for soils was considered adequate. On a parcel-specific basis, orthophotos were acquired with a two-foot spatial resolution. These aerial photographs have been corrected for viewing angle and lens distortion so that they are geometrically correct. The vector coverages may be overlain on a raster image, showing size of parcel, buildings, soil types, and acreage in each soil type. Another important criterion in identification is the location of the farm relative to urban and village growth boundaries in the county. It is a policy of the Preserve Board not to preserve farms inside growth boundaries.

The Ranking of Easement Sale Applications

The ranking of easement sale applcations determines the order in which appraisals will occur and if a farm scores enough points to be appraised I the first place. The Preserve Board will not preserve a farm within a designated urban growth boundary, but does want to create large blocks of contiguous preserved land. In addition, the Board wants to create parts of urban growth boundaries to channel development away from prime farming areas. Lancaster County has extensive GIS coverages available for use in an automated ranking of farm parcels for preservation consideration. The factors for the automated ranking are:
  1. Road frontage, as a measure of accessibility and development potential. Fortunately, the parcel layer had an attribute which indicated which arc was along a road, otherwise this would have been a very difficult parameter to qualify. 10 points if > 1320 feet.
  2. Percentage of Class I and II soil types, as determined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. These soils are the easiest to develop because of gentle slope, generally good drainage, and soil depth. The percentage of prime soils in the parcel times 20.
  3. Proximity to existing sewer lines, as a measure of development potential. The measurement process used the parcel centroid and calculated the distance to the nearest sewer line. 20 points if < or = 1320 feet and 10 points if >1320 feet but < or = 2640 feet.
  4. Distance in Miles
    Proximity to: .25 or less .26-.50 greater than .50
    preserved farm 20 points 10 points 0 points
    applicant farm 10 points 5 points 0 points
    non-farm zoning 20 points 10 points 0 points
    Proximity to non-agricultural zoning, farms already preserved under conservation easements, and farms under application for easement sale. Nearly all of the parcels under application for easemnt sale are zoned for agriculture, generally at one building lot per 25 acres. The proximity to non-farm zoning reflects development potential. The Preserve Board tries to create contiguous blocks of preserved farmland, so there is an emphasis on preserving farms that are near already preserved farms and farms with easement sale applications. The three criteria are measured through .25 and .5 mile buffering as follows:
  5. Large acreage. Preference is given to larger tracts because they are thought to be more viable for farming. If the parcel is > or = 100 acres, 10 points; 75-99.9 acres, 8 points, 40-74.9 acres, 5 points.

    The maximum possible score is 110 points. The Fry farm scored a rating of 101 points. The farm has over 1/4 mile of road frontage, consists of 65% prime soils, is within 1/4 mile of public sewer, preserved farms and easement sale applications, and finally, the farm is 90 acres in size. The Fry farm received full points for all criteria, except 13 out of 20 for soils and 8 out of 10 for acreage. This farm is a strong candidate for preservation.

    This particular scoring awarded points in increments of 5 points, resulting in less variation in the final score. A more detailed scoring scheme would result in more differentiation among parcels ranked for easement sale. This appraoch requires digital data which is current (i.e. maintained over time). The coverages used were: parcels, sewers, zoning, soils, preserved farms, and farms with easement sale applications. Because this ranking approach is computationally intensive, it requires many hours of computer time, and therefore it is best accomplished in batch mode. Each parcel has all calculations performed and a score given and placed in an INFO table.

    Maintaining a Dynamic Data Base

    A GIS system has the advantage of being easily updated, and producing updated maps at relatively little cost. Each year, about 25 to 30 farms are preserved by Lancaster County and the Lancaster Farmland Trust; several hundred acres are added to agricultural security areas, and dozens of applications are submitted for easement sale.

    The GIS data base can be used to provide scenarios of "what if" situations. For example, what if all the easement sale applications are settled in a particular township? What if all applications are settled on farms adjacent to already preserved farms?

    Further GIS Applications

    The GIS data base could also be used in conjunction with a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to numerically indentify farmland that should or should not be developed, depending on the quality of the farm (parcel size, land quality) and development pressure (road frontage, proximity to public sewer and water and non-farm zoning). The Delaware Department of Agriculture has produced GIS maps using a LESA system. The maps use three colors to show prime farming areas (green), urban areas (light blue), and areas of contention (yellow). The Department has then added preserved farms in purple, easement applications in red, and agricultural districts in orange.

    Conclusion

    Lancaster County is employing a complementary set of farmland protection tools. The county comprehensive plan identified lands that should remain in agricultural use; nearly all of the townships have placed important farmland in agricultural zones with one small building lot allowed per 25 acres; landowners in conjunction with the townships have placed over 120,000 acres in agricultural security areas; and the purchase and donation of conservation easements have preserved nearly 25,000 acres of farmland. Moreover, the use of easement purchases to create large blocks of preserved farmland and to help create growth boundaries has strengthened the overall effort to channel growth to appropriate locations.

    GIS has been a helpful tool in identifying high quality farmland, ranking easement sale applications, and maintaining a dynamic data base. Future applications might include a numerically-based appraisal system for easement values.

    A final observation is that the success of farmland protection depends on the farmland owners. In Lancaster County, landowners have demonstrated a fairly strong commitment to remain in farming. This commitment is partly due to the presence of the Plain Sect community for whom farming is an integral part of their culture, and partly due to the fact that farmers can make a living in farming. But should the economics of farming become less attractive and the lure of development dollars rise, then greater pressure could be brought to bear on agricultural zones and Security Areas. In such a scenario, public offers to purchase development rights may not be competitive with non-farm offers. A crucial point is that local and even state policies directed at maintaining a landscape of working farms can attempt to restrict and channel development, but the economics of farming are greatly influenced by federal farm and interest rate policies.

    References:

    Agricultural Preserve Board of Lancaster County. 1995. Annual Report, 1994, Lancaster, PA: Agricultural Preserve Board.

    ____________. 1997. Annual Report, 1996. Lancaster, PA: Agricultural Preserve Board.

    Daniels, Thomas L. 1991. The Purchase of Development Rights: Preserving Agricultural Land and Open Space. Journal of the American Planning Association. 57,4: 421-431.

    Lancaster New Era. 1995. Life in Lancaster County. March 21, 1995 p. 1.

    Lockeretz, William, ed. 1987. Sustaining Agriculture Near Cities. Ankeny, IA: Soil and Water Conservation Society.

    U.S. News and World Report. 1994. America's New Boomtowns. April 11, 1994, 62-69.

    Tom Daniels, Ph.D., Director
    Agricultural Preserve Board

    Jay Parrish, Ph.D.
    GIS Applications Coordinator

    Jordan Henk, Director, GIS Department
    County of Lancaster
    50 North Duke St.
    Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17608-3480