Current through Register Vol. 54, No. 12, March 23, 2024
(a)
System required. The county board shall adopt a farmland
ranking system meeting the requirements of this section for use in prioritizing
applications for the appraisal of properties meeting the minimum criteria in
§
138e.16 (relating to minimum
criteria for applications). This farmland ranking system may include additional
or substitute criteria as approved by the State Board.
(b)
Review and approval of
system. The county board shall set forth its farmland ranking system
in its county program and submit the county program to the State Board for
review and approval in accordance with the act.
(c)
Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment (LESA) system. The farmland ranking system shall evaluate
tracts being considered for appraisal on a 100-point scale, using the two-part
LESA system described in this section. The weighted Land Evaluation (LE) score
shall be calculated in accordance with subsection (d). The weighted Site
Assessment (SA) score shall be calculated in accordance with subsection (e).
The total of the weighted LE and weighted SA scores equals the farmland ranking
score. The county board shall establish in the county program the weighted
values to be given the LE score and the SA score, as well as the weighted
values to be given the three general categories-development potential (DP),
farmland potential (FP) and clustering potential (CP)-of factors to be
considered in calculating the SA score. The weighted values set forth in the
county program shall total 100%, and shall be within the following ranges:
Minimum Weighted Value
| Maximum Weighted Value
|
Land Evaluation
(LE)... | 40% | 70% |
Site Assessment (SA) Developmental
Potential... | 10% | 40% |
Site Assessment Farmland
Potential... | 10% | 40% |
Site Assessment Clustering
Potential... | 10% | 40% |
A flow chart summarizing the farmland ranking system is set
forth at Appendix A.
(d)
Land Evaluation (LE).
(1)
Source of soils data. A farmland ranking system shall
designate either or both of the following as the source of the soils data used
in LE:
(i) The county soil survey, as
published by the USDA-NRCS in cooperation with the Pennsylvania State
University and the Department.
(ii)
The Soil and Water Conservation Technical Guide published and
updated by the USDA-NRCS.
(2)
Relative value of soil.
The county program shall set forth a relative value for each soil mapping unit
in the county. The relative value shall be on a 100-point-scale-with 100 points
assigned to the best soils for agricultural production and all other soils
assigned relative values of less than 100 points.
(3)
Calculation of average relative
value. The average relative value of the soils on a tract being
considered for appraisal shall be calculated by multiplying the relative value
of each soil mapping unit within the tract by the total acreage of the soil
mapping unit within the tract, adding these products and then dividing that sum
by the total acreage of the tract.
Example: A 60-acre tract has 10 acres
within soil mapping units with relative values of 95, 20 acres within soil
mapping units with relative values of 90 and 30 acres within soil mapping units
with relative values of 80. The sum of the relative values is calculated as
follows:
10 acres x 95 = 950 acres
20 acres x 90 = 1,800 acres
30 acres x 80 = 2,400 acres
Total 5,150 acres The 5,150 acre sum is then divided by
the total acreage of the tract (60 acres) to determine the average relative
value: 5,150 acres divided by 60 acres = 85.83 In this example, the average
relative value of the soils on the tract is 85.83.
(4)
Calculation of weighted LE
score. The weighted LE score of a tract being considered for appraisal
shall be the product of the average relative value of the soils on the tract
multiplied by the weighted value assigned to the LE score under the county
program.
Example. The average relative value of the
soils on the tract described in the example in paragraph (3) is 85.83. The
county program assigns a weighted value to the LE score of 60% (.60) of the
farmland ranking score. The weighted LE score for this tract would be 51.5,
calculated as follows:
85.83 x .60 = 51.5
(e)
Site Assessment (SA).
(1)
General categories of
factors. The county programs shall require the evaluation of three
general categories of factors in determining the SA score, and shall specify
the individual factors to be considered under each of these general categories.
These categories are as follows:
(i)
Development Potential (DP) factors. Factors that identify the
extent to which development pressures are likely to cause conversion of
agricultural land to nonagricultural uses.
(ii)
Farmland Potential (FP)
factors. Factors that measure the potential agricultural productivity
and farmland stewardship practiced on a tract.
(iii)
Clustering Potential (CP)
factors. Factors that emphasize the importance of preserving blocks of
farmland to support normal farming operations and help to shield the
agricultural community from conflicts with incompatible land uses.
(2)
Scoring
scale. The county program shall require that each of the three general
categories of factors described in paragraph (1) ranks tracts on a 100-point
scale. The total combined maximum score under these categories shall be 300
points.
(3)
Development
Potential (DP) factors.
(i)
Number. The county program shall specify no less than 3 and no
more than 10 factors to be considered in scoring the DP of a tract being
evaluated for appraisal. Three of these factors shall be the factors described
in subparagraphs (ii)-(iv), unless substitute factors are approved by the State
Board in accordance with subparagraph (v).
(ii)
Required factor: availability of
sanitary sewer and public water. The county program shall require that
the availability of sanitary sewer and public water to a tract be considered in
scoring its DP. A farmland tract is more likely to be surrounded by
incompatible land uses or be converted to nonagricultural use if it is in an
area which is suitable for onlot sewage disposal or if it is in an area which
has access to public sewer and water service or is expected to have access to
the service within 20 years. The tract shall receive a relatively higher score
than a tract that does not have sanitary sewer and public water.
(iii)
Required factor: road
frontage. The county program shall require that the public road
frontage of a tract be considered in scoring DP. Frontage on public roads
increases the suitability of a tract for subdivision or development, and is a
measure of the capability of a tract to be developed or improved for
nonagricultural use. A tract with extensive road frontage shall receive a
relatively higher score than a tract with less public road frontage.
(iv)
Required factor: extent of
nonagricultural use in area. The county program shall require that the
extent of nonagricultural use adjoining or in the area of a tract be considered
in scoring DP. Consideration shall be given to whether adjacent land uses
affect normal farming operations and whether surrounding, but not necessarily
adjoining, land uses affect the ability of the landowner to conduct normal
farming operations on the tract, or whether the impacts are likely to occur
within the next 20 years. Urban uses are generally considered incompatible with
agricultural uses. A tract with extensive nonagricultural uses in the area
shall receive a relatively higher score than a tract that is more distant from
the nonagricultural uses.
Example: A county program may require that
the percentage of adjacent land in nonagricultural use or the distance to urban
centers or growth areas, or both, be considered in scoring DP.
(v)
Substitute or
additional factors. Subparagraphs (ii)-(iv) notwithstanding, a county
program may set forth substitute or additional factors to be considered in
scoring development potential, if the factors are reviewed and approved by the
State Board.
(vi)
Weight of
individual factors. The county board shall establish and set forth in
its county program the number of points that may be awarded under any
individual factor in scoring DP. The number of points may vary from factor to
factor.
(4)
Farmland Potential (FP) factors.
(i)
Number. The county
program shall specify no less than 4 and no more than 10 factors to be
considered in scoring the FP of a tract being evaluated for appraisal. Four of
these factors shall be the factors described in subparagraphs (ii)-(v), unless
substitute factors are approved by the State Board in accordance with
subparagraph (vi).
(ii)
Required factor: percentage of certain types of land. The
county program shall require that the percentage of harvested cropland, pasture
and grazing land on a tract be considered in scoring FP. Large amounts of
productive farmland-harvested cropland, pasture and grazing land-make a farm
more viable. If a large percentage of a tract is not used as productive
farmland, the tract should receive a lower farmland potential score.
(iii)
Required factor: stewardship of
land. The county program shall require that the stewardship of the
land and the use of conservation practices and best land management practices
be considered in scoring the FP of a tract. A score will not be awarded under
this factor unless sound soil and water conservation practices are in place
with respect to at least 50% of the tract. The implementation of soil erosion
control, sedimentation control, nutrient management and other practices
demonstrating good stewardship of the tract shall be considered under this
factor.
(iv)
Required
factor: size of tract on application. The county program shall require
that the size of a tract described in the easement purchase application be
considered in scoring the FP of the tract. In general, a farmland tract with
higher acreage should be assigned a relatively higher value than a tract having
less acreage.
(v)
Required
factor: historic, scenic and environmental qualities. The county
program shall require that the designation or listing of a tract by
local/State/Federal authorities as an historically or culturally-significant
location, or a scenic area or open space be considered in scoring the FP of a
tract. Tracts adjoining designated protected areas such as flood plains,
wildlife habitat, parks, forests and educational sites shall also be considered
under this factor. The county program shall specify whether a tract shall
receive a relatively higher or relatively lower score based upon its historic,
scenic or environmental qualities.
(vi)
Substitute or additional
factors. Subparagraphs (ii)-(v) notwithstanding, a county program may
set forth substitute or additional factors to be considered in scoring FP, if
the factors are reviewed and approved by the State Board. The additional
factors may include a factor that awards points based upon the landowner's
offer to sell the easement at a reduced price.
(vii)
Weight of individual
factors. The county board shall establish and set forth in its county
program the number of points that may be awarded under any individual factor in
scoring FP. The number of points may vary from factor to factor.
(5)
Clustering Potential
(CP) factors.
(i)
Number. The county program shall specify no less than three
and no more than ten factors to be considered in scoring the CP of a tract
being evaluated for appraisal. Three of these factors shall be the factors
described in subparagraphs (ii)-(iv), unless substitute factors are approved by
the State Board in accordance with subparagraph (v).
(ii)
Required factor: consistency
with planning map. The county program shall require that the location
of a tract with respect to those areas of the county identified as important
agricultural areas of the county in the planning map described in §
138e.17 (relating to planning and
development map) be considered in scoring the CP of the tract. A tract that is
within an identified important agricultural area shall receive a higher score
than tracts that are distant from these areas. Tracts located within the
designated areas are more viable for agricultural use and are more likely to be
compatible with county and local comprehensive plans.
(iii)
Required factor: proximity to
restricted land. The county program shall require that the proximity
of a tract to land already under agricultural conservation easement-whether
held by a county, the State, jointly by the county and State, a unit of local
government, or by a nonprofit land conservation organization-be considered in
scoring the CP of the tract. A tract that is close to the restricted land shall
receive a higher score than tracts that are more distant from the restricted
land. Clustering easement purchases will develop a mass of farmland which
supports normal farming operations and reduces conflicts with incompatible land
uses.
(iv)
Required factor:
percentage of adjoining land in an agricultural security area. The
county program shall require that the percentage of a tract's boundary that
adjoins land in an agricultural security area be considered in scoring the CP
of the tract. The higher the percentage, the higher the score shall be. Areas
where agriculture has been given protection by the municipality, at the request
of the landowners, provides an environment conducive to farming.
(v)
Substitute or additional
factors. Subparagraphs (ii)-(iv) notwithstanding, a county program may
set forth substitute or additional factors to be considered in scoring
clustering potential, if the factors are reviewed and approved by the State
Board. The additional factors may include a factor that awards points for the
establishment of new clustering areas.
(vi)
Weight of individual
factors. The county board shall establish and set forth in its county
program the number of points that may be awarded under any individual factor in
scoring CP. The number of points may vary from factor to factor.
(6)
Calculation of
weighted Site Assessment (SA) score. The SA score of a tract being
considered for appraisal shall be calculated as follows: The product of the DP
score multiplied by the weighted value for that category is the weighted DP
score. The product of the FP score multiplied by the weighted value for that
category is the weighted FP score. The product of the CP score multiplied by
the weighted value for that category is the weighted CP score. The sum of these
three weighted scores is the weighted SA score.
Example: A county program assigns weighted
values of 10% to DP, 20% to FP and 30% to CP. The DP, FP and CP scores for a
particular tract are 92, 85 and 80, respectively. The weighted DP score equals
the DP score (92) multiplied by its weighted value (10%): 9.2. The weighted FP
score equals the FP score (85) multiplied by its weighted value (20%): 17. The
weighted CP score equals the CP score (80) multiplied by its weighted value
(30%): 24. The weighted SA score is the sum of these three weighted scores (9.2
+ 17 + 24): 50.2.
(f)
Calculation of farmland ranking
score. The sum of the weighted LE score and the weighted SA score
equals the farmland ranking score.
(g)
Use of farmland ranking
score. The farmland ranking score shall determine the order in which
tracts are selected by the county board for appraisal. Selection for appraisal
shall be made in descending order of farmland ranking score.
This section cited in 7 Pa. Code §
138e.11 (relating to general
requirements); 7 Pa. Code §
138e.42 (relating to review,
certification and approval of a county program); 7 Pa. Code §
138e.62 (relating to evaluation of
application); and 7 Pa. Code §
138e.66 (relating to offer of
purchase by county board).