HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Coastal Zone Agricultural Studies 1978; Program Report; 1978-10-01Bl
UCD Kellogg Program
DEFINING
LAND
John P. eganold and ichael J. Singer
Environmental Quality Series No. 29
Institute of Governmental Affairs, Institute of Icology, and UCD Kellogy Program
University of California, Davis
October, 1978
i
t
Institute of Ecology
b ..r UCD Kellogg Program
DEFINING
PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND
IN CALIFQRNIA
John P. Reganold and Michael J. Singer
Environmental Quality Series No. 29
Institute of Governnlental Affairs, Institute of Ecology, and UCD Kcllogg Program
University of California, Davis
October, 1978
J
Q Copyright, 1977, by
The Regents of the University of California.
All rights reserved. NO part of this work may be reproduced
in any form without thc written permission of the copyright holder.
ABSTRACT
Defining prime agricultural land in California for preservation
purposes is a serious problem for policymakers because of a lack of
agreement on how to determine which soils most deserve protection from
urban encroachment and other nonagricultural uses. The agreed-upon
definition Of prime farmland should reflect as much as possible soil
characteristics that are fixed and testable in a scientific sense, where-
as a definition based on "important crops'' or other economic criteria
is not fixed and will change over time.
This report begins with an analysis of the.reasons for preserving
agricultural land which include the problem of world hunger, maintenance
of sufficient commodities for domestic consumption, protection of local
and state economies as well as the nation's balance of trade, and mainten-
ance of open space. Alternatives to the preservation of prime agricultural
land are also discussed.
1.
The authors then examine the major technical definitions from which
prime agricultural land definitions arise. The paper considers the tech-
nical basis of the USDA Capability Classification System, the USDA Land
Inventory and Monitoring (LLY) System, the Storie Index, Iowa's Corn
Suitability Rating System, the Canadian Land Czpability System, California's
legislative definitions, the Tulare County Rural Valley Lands Plan, and the
City of Visalia Plan. The technical system chosen to define prime agricul-
tural land will determine what land is preserved, and each system will re-
sult in different amounts of land being preserved. This in turn affects
local tax receipts, production of crops, and land sale prices.
Finally, an examination of the implementation of a prime agricultural
land definition treats the following three major questions: who should
locate (map) prime agricultural land, what resource information is available,
and what are the roles of local, state, and federal governments in this
process? Although uncertainties exist in defining prime agricultural land
precisely and in implementing an equitable prime agricultural land policy,
such a policy ca,~ reduce uncertainties about the food and fiber supply of
future generations. ;i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
........................... :frt of Tables ii Ac;.nowledgments. ........................... iii
INTRODUCTION ........................ 1 2 . .............. I1 . WtIY PRESERVE AGRICULTURAL LAND? 3
The Problem of World Hunger ............... 3
Maintenance of Comodities and Benefits
To California's Economy ................ 5
The Open Space Issue ................... 6 The National Balance of Trade .............. 6
111 . ' ALTERNATIVES TO AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION ....... 7
Increasing Intensity of Production ........... 7
Expanding Agriculture to More Marginal Lands ...... 7 New Form of Agriculture ................ 10
Changing Society's Food Consumption Habits ....... 10
1v . DEFINITIONS OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL UXD .......... 11
USDA Land Capability Classification System ....... 11
USDA Prime and Unique Farmland Definition (LIM) ...... 12
Storie Index,.'. ..................... 13
Iowa'sCSR ........................ 14
California Legislative Definitions ........... 15
Canadian Land Capability System ............. 14
Tulare County Plan ................... 17
City of Visalia Plan .................. 18
Analysis of Definitions ................. 18
V .
VI.
IMPLENENTATION ...................... 24 .
Who Maps Prime Agricultural Land? ............ 24
Available Resource Information ............. 25
Roles of Local. State. and Federal Governments ..... 25
CONCLUSIONS ......................... 27
APPENDICES
A . Guide for Placing Soils in Land Capability Classes
B . USDA Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM) Definitions
C . Specific High-Value Food or Fiber Crops Grown on
in California .................... 29
of Farmland as Applied to California ........ 33
D . Storie Index Rating ................. 36
E . Status of California Soil Surveys .......... 40
Unique Farmland .................... 35
Literature Cited .......................... 42
-i-
..
LIST OF TABLES
1. Dollar Value of California and U.S. Exports of Selected Commodities ..................... 4
2. Hajor California Agricultural Products and
Their Value (1975-76). ..................... 5
3. Criteria for Prime Agricultural Land ............. 19
4. Summary of Acreages by Alternative Prime
Agricultural Land Definitions. ................ 20
-ii -
ACKNOWLEDGHENTS
The preparation of this paper was supported in part by a grant from the
Kellogg Foundation to the University of California. We thank Dr. Sy Schwartz,
Dr. Alvin Sokolow, Darwyn Briggs of the United States Soil Conservation Service,
and Marian Cain for their helpful comments on the manuscript.
i
i
-iii-
ERlUTA SHEET
,
i
Page 9 -
Page 11 -
Page 12 -
Page 13 -
Page 17 -
Page 18 -
Page 19 -
Page 21 -
line 21:no period after.acres
line 16:potentialities not potential
line 26: limitations not limitation
line 34: tions.. .", not tions",
line 34:claypan not clay pan'and hardpan not hard pan
2nd line from bottom:percent) not percent
line 28:approach? not approach.
line 31: made? not made.
note 4: I and I1 not 1 and 2
line 10; acres bf unique not acres unique
!
..
!
DEFINING PRLME AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CALIFORNIA
John P. Reganold"
Michael J. Singer f
I
INTRODUCTION
In Ca liforn ia there is currently a period of intense interest in the
preservation of agricultural land. This interest has been generated by a
. concern that urban encroachment 'on agricultural land is destroying an im-
portant nonreplaceable resource. Preservation, in this context, means al-
lowing the land to remain available for agricultural use. This may mean
legally protecting land by designating it for permanent agricultural use
and/or by offering fiscal incentives to protect it from high tax rates which
often force changes to nonagricultural use. These measures may variously
result in the redirection of urban growth onto tracts with low agricultural
potential, the establishment of new towns in nonagricultural areas, and
the creation of prime agricultural districts which.wil1 be preserved for
agricultural use in perpetuity.
Although marginal agricultural lands are being brought into 'production
while "prime" agricultural lands are lost to urbanization, the cost of
water and energy to accomplish this are great. California is approaching,,
if not already at, the point where more acres are lost to nonagricultural
uses than are brought into agricultural production. The California legis-
lature has considered two approaches to preserving "prime" agricultural
land. Assembly Bill 1900 and Senate Bill 193 passed their respective houses
of,origin in January 1978 but were withdrawn in August 1978 when state funds
needed to help make up the property tax losses of local.governments were
not available because of passage of Proposition 13.
Two kinds of problems threaten agricultural land: first, urban en-
croachment which removes.agricultura1 land from production and, second, de-
gradation of the land as a resource through misuse or pollution (e.g. Vlasin,
1975; Pimentel et d.,1976). It is important to recognize chat land misuse
and land degradation have removed and will continue to remove land from
*Research Assistant, Land, Air and Water. Resources Department, UCD, and
Resource Conservationist, USDA Soil Conservation Service f Assistant Professor, Land, Air and Water Resources Department, UCD - 1-
agricultural production. Misuse or pollution of the land is not discussed
further in this paper because this is a problem which has far different
solutions than urban encroachment. It is the intent of this report to
discuss the problems of preserving agricultural land from encroachment by
nonagricultural uses.
Chapter I1 briefly reviews the reasons for agricultural land preser-
vation. It is our belief that until one appreciates these reasons, the
arguments for protection are not meaningful. In Chapter 111, possible
alternatives to preservation of existing prime agricultural lands are dis-
cussed.. Chapter IV reviews the major technical definitions from which
"prime" agricultural land definitions arise. We consider the technical
basis of the USDA Capability Classification System, USDA Land Inventory
and Monitoring System (LIM), Storie Index, Iowa's CSR, the Canadian Land
Capability System, California's legislative definitions, the
Tulare County Rural Valley Lands Plan, and the City of Visalia Plan. We
then analyze the definitions by considering how many acres of land will be
preserved under different technical definitions. It is not our intent to
prove conclusively that technical definitions are the best, but we feel
strongly that technical definitions can be most easily administered and do
provide the necessary information for preserving prime agricultural land.
Chapter V, Implementation, treats three major questions: who should
locate (map) prime agricultural land, what resource information is avail-
able, and what are the roles of local, state, and federal governments in
this process. We are concerned that few decision-makers are aware of the
differences between technical agricultural land capability systems. The
technical system chosen to define prime agricultural land will determine
what land is preserved, and each system will result in different amounts of
land being preserved. This in turn affects local tax receipts, production
of crops, and land sale prices among other things. Thus, the choice of
definitions is a critical part of agricultural land preservation..
A second critical part is the political process of implementation.
Agricultural land classification schemes should not be used as means for
stopping urban growth. The development of some Tom of exclusion process
is needed to allow urban growth at the urban fringe. This needs to be a
separate and distinct process from that of determining land capability.
"here is a growing body of legal, political, and economic literature
on the debats between proponents and opponents of agricultural zoning,
transfer of development rights schemes, and deferred tax proposals (see
Lapping, 1977). Noattempt is made to discuss the positive and negative
aspects of these various mechanisms of agricultural land preservation.
Rather, we concentrate on technical definitions of what constitutes the
"best" or "prime" agricultural land.
i.
I1 .
WKY PRESERVE AGRICULTURAL LAND?
Perhaps the most frequently cited reason for preserving agricultural
land is the problem of world hunger (Carter, Youde, and Peterson, 1975).
However, other reasons including maintenance of sufficient commodities for
domestic consumption, protection of local, state, and regional economies,
maintenance of open space, and provision of exports for balance of trade
have been used to justify the-disruption of market mechanisms to preserve
agricultural land (Pearson, 1975; Derr, Smal1,and Dhillon, 1977).
Each of these is a rational reason for preserving agricultural land,
although all may not apply to any one given parcel of land. In California,
those areas used for vegetables, citrus, or avocado production (to cite
three examples) contribute little to solving the world food problem, but
they are vital to the economy of those local regions and to California.
In addition, their production contributes to balancing the U.S. trade defi-
cit.
The Problem of World Hunger
I
Hunger in the world is a great concern, and although arguments are made
that the problem is one of distribution rather than production (Boerma,1975),
most will agree that population growth, rising expectations, and rising in-
comes continue to increase demand for basic grains and for beef (see Brown,
1975; Thomas, 1975). The availability of food to meet future requirements
is primarily a problem for developing and low-income countries. Cecent data
and reports indicate that the United Statss has anple land resources and sup-
ply capacity to meet domestic food demands for decades ahead (Heady and Tim-
mons, 1975; Vlasin, 1975; Cotner, Skold, and Krause, 1975). Furthermore,
the United States can not feed the world, but we"can supply some food as well
as our knowledge and technology to developing nations.
Califorka's contribution to world food needs is a small percentage of
the total exported by the United States (Table 1). Although California
ranks. first in the United States in production and export of fruits, nuts,
and vegetables, and second in cotton, cotton seed oil, and rice, it does not
rank in the top ten states in the major world food item such as wheat, soy-
bean, feed grains, protein meal, or meats and meat production exports (Tontz
and McCall, 1976). It is fair to say that California's current production
is not directly contributing a major share to solving world food needs.
However, much of the 1and.which is currently growing cotton, fruits, and nuts
could be used for grain production if the land remains in agriculture and the
price of grain makes growing grain profitable.
-3 -
Table 1
Dollar Value of California and U.S. Exports of Selected
Commodities and Commodity Groups for 1976 1
R COTTON SEED DAIRY FEED
AREA CROP COTTON OIL PIIOD. CRAINS FRUITS' MEATS NUTS2 POULTRY RICE VEGETABLES2 WHEAT3 TOTAL
\
California 205.5 36.4 16.6 59.9 409.5 12.7 164.8 17.5 127.5 128.7 151 1466.6
P I ' United Scares 881.9 151 118.9 5597.7 729.8 572.7 176.5 197.7 540.8 556.6 4934.5 22.146.9
I I I
I I
Maintenance of Cornmodities and Benefits to California's Economy
Agriculture in California is vital to the maintenance of the supply of
commodities for domestic consumption and to the economy of the state.
California is the third largest state with 2 percent of the nation's farms
(USDA, Agricultural Statistics, 1976). On 63,000 farns, 9 percent of the nation's market crops are grown. In 1976, California's principal crops were
grown on 9.1 million acres, and 8.6 billion dollars in crops and livestock
were produced (Cal. Dept. of Food and Ag., 1977). Six commodities accounted
for over 54 percent of the production value (Table 2)) but were only a frac-
tion of the over 200 crops grown in the state. Many of these such as almonds,
artichokes, avocados, lettuce, melons, and walnuts were either a major por-
tion or the total production of the crop in the United States. To the Amer-
ican consumer who has come to expect a wide variety of foods in the super-
market and to the economy of the state of California, agriculture in Califor-
nia is indispensable.
Table 2
Major California Agricultural Products And
Their Value (1975-1976)
PRODUCT VALUE (1975)l (1976)
Millions of dollars
Cattle and Calves 1,101 1,101
Grapes 479 527
Hay
Processing Tomatoes
459
454
559
~85~
'Source - California Statistical Abstract, 1976. ..
2Source - Cal. Dept. , Food and Ag. 1977. California's Principal Crop and
Livestock Commodities.
3Tomatoes ranked 8th behind eggs ($399 million) and lettuce ($325 million)
in 1976.
4
Milk and Cream
Cotton Lint and Seed
997
566
t
1,089
946
- 5-
The Open Space Issue
Open space, that is, land not occupied by manmade structures, is recog-
nized as an important element in a high quality of life (Western Center for
Corn. Ed. and Dev., undated; Cal. Assembly Select Committee, 1973; Barlowe,
1975). Land is needed within cities and between cities for recreation, vis-
ual aesthetics, and buffers between competing land uses. Agricultural land
is suitable for open space provided that the production operations do not
cause environmental problems for the urban dweller, and, in return, the urban-
ite does not cause damage through unknowing carelessness or vandalism to the
agricultural operation (Singer, Tanji, and Snyder, 1978).
Preservation of open-space land does not necessarily need to coincidewith
preservation of agricultural land. The open-space issue can be separated from
the preservation of agricultural land because productivity need not enter,into
open space consideration. For example, land for open space can be of poor
agricultural quality as long as the space is open, available for recreation,
and aesthetically pleasing. This does not necessarily exclude agricultural
land from consideration.as open space, but it should include other nonagricul-
tural land as well.
The National Balance of Trade
A final justification is that agricultural productivity must be main-
tained if we are to maintain a reasonable balance of trade. Statistics sup-
port this justification. In 1975, of the 336 million acres of cropland har-
vested in the United States, 100 million acres or 30 percent of the total
were used for production of export crops (USDA, Agricultural Stztistics Cor
1976). In 1976, the value of agricultural esports was in escess of 22 bil-
lion dollars. This figure has been likened to the cash flow out of the coun-
try for energy (Van Bavel, 1977). Ten states contributed 60 percent of the 22
billion dollars in 1976, and California was fourth with 1.4 billion dollars
(6 percent) earned to improve the nation's balance of trade (Tontz and Mc-
Call, 1976).
- 6-
I I
i
111
ALTERNATIVES TO AGRICUTJTURAL LAND PRESERVATION
I
If preservation of agricultural land is discarded as unfeasible, a
number of alternative strategies are available which include: (1) increasing
intensity of production on the-remaining land, (2) expanding agriculture to
more marginal land, (3) seeking new forms of agriculture such as aquaculture
or greenhouse culture, or (4) changing the food consumption habits of soci-
ety. Each of these alternatives has a number of constraints although all
are possible.
-Increasing Intensity of Production
Production intensity can be 'increased by substituting new higher-
producing plant varieties for old plant varieties, by improving efficiency
of farm operations, by lowering quality standards to minimize marketing los-
ses, by substituting human energy for mechanical energy, and by increasing
fertilizer and pesticide inputs where needed. If the full productive capa-
'city of each acre of land is to be realized, then each input in the proper
proporti-ons must be made. This is frequently done in the United States, and
it is an area where great strides need to be made in other nations. The
major constraint on intensifying agricultural operations is the energy re-
quirement. Fertilizer, pesticide, and machinery all translate into energy
(Ccrvinka et aZ, 1974). Second, any increase in intensity is accompanied
by potential environmental effects such as air and water pollution and ac-
celerated soil erosion (Carter e% al, 1975). Third, California's agriculture
is currently at very high levels of inputs and yields; on the majority of
land, only small yield increases under favorable climatic conditions are
likely.
Expanding Agriculture to More Marginal Lands
Increasing producti.on by moving agr%culture onto marginal lands is
another alternative to preserving the best agricultural land. Marginal
lands have the benefit of being lower cost lands initially but have many
constraints, including soi1.s of lower productivity, fewer developed re-
sources such as water supplies, longer distances to markets and processors,
and a greatly increased hazard of environmental danage due to soil erosion.
As of 1965, 3.1.9 billion hectares of potentially arable land was es-
timated for the world (Carter et; aZ, 1975). Of this , only 46 percent was
cultivated in 1970, and thc primary constraints to development of the re-
maining acres were economic and instituti.ona1 rather than limitations of the
- 7-
i
i
I I
'
:
i
resource. Although this is a vast amount of land, its resource quality and
potential productivity are unknown.
The data are better known for the United States. Varying estimates of
the United States reserve of arable lands have been made. A 1967 Conserva-
tion Needs Inventory (CNI) made by USDA estimated that 631 million acres were
suitable for cultivation (this includes Class I, 11, and I11 land to be
defined later), 180 million acres were suitable for limited cultivation,
and 627 million acres were unsuitable for cultivation (USDA Economic Re-
search Service, 1974). Of the 631 million acres suitable for cultivation,
365 million acres (58 percent) were used as cropland, and 265 million acres
(42 percent) were in other uses, mainly forest and grassland, but were
considered suitable €or regular cultivation. Within the 265 million acres
with potential for regular curtivation, 152 million acres were estimated
to have high or medium potential for conversion to cropland and about 97.4
million acres were considered to be physically well adapted for conversion
to cropland in one to two decades (Cotner, et d., 1975). However, this
scenario was based on the interaction of several variables such as produc-
tion costs, climatic limitations, size of farn units, irrigation water,
drainage improvements, soil erosion, and profitability to the farmer in
order to offset the investnent cost.
More recently a Soil Conservation Service potential cropland study
showed a total of 400 million acresx in cropland in 1975, of which about
250 million were prim farnland as defined by the LIM system (discussed
later) (Schmude, 1977). In addition to this 400 million acres of cropland,
there are 111 million acres not in crops that can be converted to cropland
if needed. Of this 111 million acres of potential cropland, 24 million
acres Call LLIM prime farmland) can be easily shifted to crop use by simply
beginning tillage, 54 million acres (of which 15 million acres are LIX
prime farmland) have a high potential for cultivation requiring some soil
and water management to prevent erosion and sedimentation, and 33 million
acres (of which 9 million acres are LIM prime farmland) have a medium potsn-
tial for conversion to crops due to nore serious erosion hazards and water
disposal problems (Davis, 1976). If the figures in this 1975 study can be
compared with the 1967 CNI study (and there is considerable question that
they can), then 41 million acres of arable land (152 minus 111 equals 41)
are no longer 'in reserve. These may be under cultivation or in a nonagri-
cultural use ..
These figures show that there- is room for expansion of agriculture and
that in the short run,.at least, the broad picture of agricultural land
sufficiency in the United States is good. On the local scale and in the
long run, the picture is neither as clear nor as positive, and this is a
major reason for the concern with preserving agricultural land. Johnson
(1976) reported that in the United States cropland was taken from agricul-
ture at a rate of five million acres per year between 1967 and 1972. Of
this figure, two million acres a year were directly converted to uses other
than cropland, two million were leapfrogged and isolated, and one million
* This is 400 million acres in cropland as opposed to the earlier figure of
336 million acres of hatrvuited cropland.
-3 -
were converted to lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. If this rate of five mil-
lion acres per year continues, the 111 million acres of potential cropland.
will be gone by the end of the twentieth century. This assumes, of course,
that as present cropland is taken out of agriculture, it will be replaced
by the potential cropland. At this time there is no evidence that the rate
of agricultural land cooversion is decreasing.
A regional view of the problem is similar. Between 1967 and 1976,
3.4 million acres of USDA Class I, 11, and 111 land in the Pacific Coast
states were converted to nonagricultural uses. Of the 3.4 million acres,
1.3 million were converted directly to urban use and 2.0 million wer2 being
held for urban development. The region presently has only 3 million acres
of land with high or medium potential for conversion to cropland (Diderik- sen, 19 76) .
The change in land use in California has been documented by a .
number of authors (e.g., Harley, 1971; "The Land Squeeze in California,"
1970; Heller, 1972). Estimates of the amount of prime land are confused
by the many definitions in use and by changes in definitions which have
occurred over the past twenty-five years. A 1952 estiinate showed 6.7 mil-
lion acres of Class I and I1 lands in California,(TJohletz and Dolder, 1952).
A recent Soil Conservation Service estimate (1977) of the Class I and I1
lands in California is 8.7 million acres. (Darwyn Sriggs, SCS, personal
communication), This gain in prime land is due to (1) availability of new
detailed soils information, (2) changes in the definition of Classes I
and I1 land, and (3) a vast amount of land reclamation in the California
Great Valley including new land developed to irrigation. These figures
are countered by DWR estimates (California Dept. of Water Resources, 1974)
of 20,000 to 25,000 acres of irrigated farmland (mostly prime) which have
been converted to nonagricultural uses due to urbanization each year since
1960. Other estimates of farmland being lost to developers run as high as
50,000 to 70,000 acres per year in California (Dufur, 1978).
In California a high percentage of the lands being urbanized have been
of high quality (the "best" farmlard), and through extensive expenditures of
dollars and energy, lower quality lands have been brought into production.
The major loss is in the fact that large expenditures are needed to keep the
new lands "prime", for without continuous maintenance and irrigation they
will degrade to !heir original lower quality. In California, we are reach-
ing a point (sone environmentalists and specialists feel we are already
there) where the annual figures show a net loss rather than a net gain in
cultivated land. Two reasons for this switch are the lack of developed
irrigation facilities and the decrease in the allocation.of water for new
land conversion (Woodrow Wilson, Dept. of Water Res'ources, personal CO~UII- ication). why do we have a decrease in water allocation for new cropland con-
version? The optimal conversion sites for agricultural purposes have been
used, and the return from agriculture cannot afford to pay back the high
construction costs of storage reservoirs which in turn have increased be-
cause of environmental resistance, inflation, and non-optimal conversion
sites. In sumnary, the low economic viability of new water projects re-
duces the feasibility of replacing lost prime agricultural lands with.land
of lower quality.
-9 -
New Forms of Agriculture
Other alternatives to preserving agricultural land include a major
effort to bring technologies with minor dependence upon land use into food
production. Such technologies include kelp farming, greatly expanded fish- . ing, and aquaculture. These or other technologies may prove to be important
food sources in the future, but as yet none of them have been demonstrated
on a large scals.
Changing Society's Food Consumption Habits
Finally, the United States population might be convincedto change its
diet significantly, thus allowing for large acreages of land which now grow
feed grains for cattle to be converted to grains for people (see studies by
Hannon d., 1976; Alich and Inman, 1976). However, a change such as this
will require major sociological or economic transformations which are not
likely to start soon or occur rapidly.
Until such tine as new technologies or changing consumption habits.re-
duce the demand for land for production and until the rate of agricultural
land conversion is drastically reduced, the authors conclude that some form
of agricultural land preservation is prudent. A failure to preserve the
best land for agriculture may someday result in catastrophe. Preserving
land now for future generations may have some serious, economic consequences
such as rising land prices, but it will insure suitable land for growing
food supplies for future generations.
i
-10-
i
i IV .
t
The land best suited for a wide range-of agricultural crops has been
called "primell agricultural land. There is neither a single fixed definition
of "prime" agricultural land nor is there a single prescribed method for
determining what is ''prime." It is the purpose of this chapter to describe a
number of agricultural land classification systems in use in the United States
and Canada and to analyze their suitability as criteria for prime agricultural
land. Also, California legislative definitions of prime agricultural land
are discussed.
USDA Land Capability Classification System
This system is the best known and most widely used land capability clas-
sification system. It is an interpretive cIassification system for agricul-
tural purposes which uses soil and climaticdata to place delineated soil areas
into groups of approximately similar managenent options or problems (Klinge-
biel and Montgomery, 1973). The basic foundation of the system'is the soil-
mapping unit found in soil survey reports. Arable soils are placed into
groups according to their potential and limitations for sustained production
of cultivated crops. Nonarable soils are grouped according to their poten-
tialities and limitations for the production of pemnent vegetation and ac-
cording to their risks of soil damage if mismanaged.
Three levels of groupings are used of which the broadest level is the ca-
pability class. (See Appendix A for the criteria concerning these three group-
ings.) Soils are placed in Classes I through VI11 depending on limitations.
and risks of soil damage. Soils in the first four classes under good manage-
ment are capable of producing adapted plznts, such as forest trees or range
plants, and the common cultivated field crops and pasture plants. Class I has
virtually no linitation for cultivation, Class I1 some limitations, Class IT1
severe limitations, and Class IV very severe lidtations. In general, Classes
I, 11, and 111 are considered suitable for regular cultivation and Class IV
for limited cultivation, Although most soils in Classes V, VI, and VI1 are
not suited for cultivation but instead pasture, range, woodland, wildlife, and
recreation, some of these soils are capable of producing specialized crops such
as certain fruits or ornamentals. Soils in Class VI11 are restricted to rec-
reation, wildlife, watershed, or esthetic uses. Badlands, rock outcrop, sandy
beaches, and other nearly barren lands are included in Class VIII.
The second level is the subclass which groups soils within a capability
class on the basis of kind of limitations and hazards. The four subclasses
DEFINITIONS OF PRINE AGRICULTURAL LAND
!
- 11-
i
used are e-erosion hazard, w-wetness, s-rooting zone linitations, and c-cli-
maticlimitations. The third level, the capability unit, is the most de-
tailed grouping. It contains soils that have about the same response to
management practices of common cultivated plants.
Numerous assumptions are made before placing soils into capability
class, subclass, and unit. Among these are the following assumptions: (1)
this classification system is interpretive and is based on the combined ef-
fects of climate and permanent soil characteristics on production and risks
of environmental damage. Among the characteristics which may be permanent
limitations are slope, soil texture, rooting depth, permeability, toxicities,
salts, alkali, and available water-holding capacity. (2) A moderately high
level of management is assumed, but profitability is not part of the system.
(3) When limitations such as lack of water, excess water, stones, or hazard
of overflow exist but are amenable by management, they are not considered
permanent limitations. (4) Capability classification of soils of an area
may change due to reclamation projects in an area. (5) Economic factors
such as distance to market, kinds of roads, and land ownership patterns are
not included in the system.
Classes I and I1 in the system are often referred to as "prine" agri-
cultural land. This is an interpretation of an interpretive grouping.
As stated previously, soils in Class I have virtually no limitations that
restrict their use, while those in Class I1 have soEe limitations that re-
duce the choice of plants or require moderate conservation practices. Some
major limitations in Class I1 soils are gentle slopes, moderate susceFtibi1-
ity to wind or water erosion, slight salinity and/or alkalinity, and oc-
asional overflow or wetness. In general, practices needed to prevent soil
deterioration or to improve the land are easy to apply for Class I1 soils.
USDA Prime and Uniaue Farmland Definition (LIN)
The primary intention of the USDA in developing the Land Inventory and
Monitoring system is to inventory and evaluate the nation's best farmlands,
whereas their primary goal with the Land Capability Classification system
was to group lands accordino, to recommended conservation practices. The
specific criteria for designating prime agricultural lands (Fenton, "Defini-
tions'', 1975) according to the LIX system are that prine farmland has (a) an
adequate moisture supply, (b) a warn enough teEperature regime and long enough
growing season for crops adapted to the area, (c) a pH between 4.5 and 5.4 in
the root zone, (d) a water table that is maintained at a sufficient depth dur-
ing the cropping season to allow for crop growth, (e) an exchangeable sodium
percentage of less than 15 and a conductivity of a saturation extract of less
than 4 mmho/cn within the rooting zone, (f) no flooding more often than once
in 2 years, (g) a product of R (a soil erodibility factor) times percent
slope of less than 2.0, (h) a permeability of at least 0.15 cn/hr in the top
50 cm, and (i) a surface layer with less than 107; rock fragments coarser than
7.6 cm in the longest dimension (Appendix B). The above nine criteria form
a national LIM definition of prime farmland. In California, the Soil Conser-
vation Service has added a tenth criterion in order to liuit the "prime"
- 12-
J I
t
._ classification to deep soils. This tenth Criterion'states that the soil
must have a minimum rooting depth of 40 inches. Because the LIN criteria
are somewhat different than those of.the Land Capability Classification, in '
California the LIM criteria include within the prime land definition all of
irrigated Class I soils, almost all irrigated Class I1 soils, about 30-35%
of irrigated Class I11 soils, and perhaps 1% of irrigated Class IV soils.
The LIN system further defines (1) unique farmland, (2) additional farm-
land of statewide importance, and (3) additional farmland of local impor-
tance. Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is used for
the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops. Examples of such
crops in California are artichokes, avocados, dates, melons, and several oth-
er fruits and vegetables (see Appendix C for the list of unique crops in
California) .
"Additional farmland of statewide importance", in addition to prime and
unique farmlands, is land of statewide importance for the production of focd,
feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. An example of this land would be
rice, barley, cotton, or alfalfa grown on non-prime or non-unique lands.
Criteria for defining and delineating this land are to be determined by the
appropriate state agencies.
Last, "additional farmland of local inportance" covers those local farn- .
land areas that are of concern to cities or counties for the cultivation of
crops, excluding lands that are prime, unique, or of statewide importance.
These lands are to be identified by the local agency or agencies concerned.
This category was included to allow flexibility in determining which areas
should be preserved on a local level.
Storie Index
Storie (1932, 1964) published a system for rating land according to its
quality which vas determined on the basis of productivity data from a number
of mzjor soils in California in the 1920s and 30s. Unlike the USDA Capabil-
ity Classification or LIM systems, the Storie Index Eating (SIR) is a quan-
titative system which rates four soil factors on the basis of 0-100 points
(Appendix D). Factor A is a soil profile rating factor; for exanple, a deep,
well-draiced soil fomed from alluvium in the central valley would receive
100, while a similar soil with a clay pan or hard pan would receive a much
lower score, Factor B rates surface soil texture, with medium-texture soils
such as loam getting 100 and very coarse (gravelly sands) or fine (clays)
textures getting lower ratings. Factor C rates the slope, with 0 to 2 per-
cent slopes scoring 100 and the steeper slopes having lower values. The final
factor is the X factor which includes several soil limitations such as soil
drainage, alkali, nutrient level, acidity, erosion,and microrelief. Each
of these factors is rated and then all factors are multiplied together, the
result being the Storie Index Rating of the soil. As an example, a soil may
score as follows: A = 95, B = 100, C = 85, X = 90 (drainage), 90 (alkalin-
ity); SIR = (.95 x 1 x .85 x .90 x .90) :c 100 = 65.
i
-13 -
i
!
Prime agricultural land was not a part' of the SIR, but "excellent"
agricultural land was considered to rate between 80 and 100, rrgood'l agri-
cultural land 60 to 79, "fair" agricultural land 40 to 59, ttpoortt 20 to 39,
very poor" 10-19, and "nonagricultural" less that 10. Storie indices of
80 to 100 are considered prine farmland under the IJilliamson Act, while some
soil scientists and environmentalists prefer a range of 60 to 100. Reganold
and Singer (1978) have found that Storie Index ratings between 50 and 100
and USDA Capability Classes I and I1 preserve similar amounts of prime agri-
cultural land.
I1
Iowa's CSR
Fenton ("Use...", 1975) published a report on the use of corn suita-
bility ratings (CSR) for evaluating Iowa's agricultural potential. The CSR's
provide an index for comparing all soil napping units in the state and are
used by assessors in deteming the value of agricultural land. An individual
corn suitability rating for a soil napping unit reflects the integrated ef-
fect of soil properties and weather conditions that influence the yield po-
tential and frequency of soil use for corn and soybean production at a spec-
ified managenent level. Although prine agricultural land is not considered
in the system, this is an interesting approach to land capability classifi-
cation which might be considered for areas-with a few crops of major impor-
tance.
Canadian Land Capability System
The Canadian system is very similar to the USDA Capability Classifica-
tion System (Canada Dept. of Environment, 1972; McCormack, 1971). There are
seven classes and thirteen subclasses in the system. Organic soils (e.g.,
peats and mucks) are classified separately,and there are no capability units.
Classes 1, 2, and 3 are soils capable of sustained production of common
cultivated crops. Class 1 soils are the best, having no significant limita-
tions in use for crops. Class 2 soils have moderate limitations that re- *
strict the range of crops or require moderate conservation practices. The
limitations of soils in this class include clirnate, moderate effects of e-
rosion, poor soil structure or slow perneability, gentle to moderate slopes,
poor fertility which is easily correctable, and wetness correctable by drain-
age. Class 3 soils have moderately severe cropping limitations including
those mentioned for Class 2 plus problems of stoniness, poor drainage, fre-
quent overflow, restricted rooting zone, and moderate salinity.
Soils in Class 4 are marginal for crops due to severe limitation.
Either the range in crops is restricted or special conservation practices are
needed to farm the land.
Class 5 soils have such severe limitations that they are not capable of
sustained cultivation but are capable of use for sustained production of na-
tive or introduced species of forage plants. Some special crops may be grown
on Class 5 soils, provided they have unusually intensive management. Perma-
nent pasture and range are the most suitable uses for Class 5 soils. Class 6
-14 -
i
T
t
soils have severe limitations which restrict their use to wild (unim-
proved) pasture, and Class 7 soils have no capability for tillage or perman-
ent pasture. Forestry or recreational uses of these soils are not excluded I
from any of these classes, but suitability for these other uses is rated
under different systems.
California Legislative Definitions
All but one (USDA-LM) of the previous methods of classifying land
have avoided defining what is "prime" agricultural land. In part, this nay
be because such a determination is based on a policy definition rather than
a technical definition. Most California legislative definitions rely on the
preceding classification methods tu specifiy what is prime agricultural
land.
The California Land Conservation Act (CLCA) or Williamson Act of 1965
defines prime agricultural land as a combination of soil properties andfor
economic considerations, For the law, see California Govt. Code Sec 51230-
51295; for discussion of the.act, see Dean, 1975; Snyder, 1966; Hansen and
Schwartz, 1976. To qualify as prime land, the parcel must be one of the
following: USDA Class I or II, Storie Index 80 to 100, land that returned
an annual gross value of not less that $200 per acre for three of the past
five years, livestock supporting land with a carrying capacity of at least
one animal unit per acre, or land planted with fruit or nut trees, vines,
bushes or crops that have a nonbearing period 02 less than fi.ve years and -
that will normally return $200 per acre per year during the comnercial bear-
ing period. The broad definition was made on the basis that many of Califor-
nia's speciality crops are not grown on Class I and I1 lands.
Basically, under the lJilliamson Act, farmers accept land use restric-
tions which prohibit nonagricultural use of their land, and in return they
receive lower tax rates based on land productivity rather than highest and hest use evaluation. With the passage of Proposition 13, farmers
have the lower tax rates and do nOi have to accept land use restrictions
(unless thay have already signed the lJilliamson Act agreement). In addition,
most counties cannot afford to lose the property tax dollars by having far-
mers sign the Williamson Act agreement and thus pay eve5 lower taxes than
would otherwise be required by Proposition 13."
Recently, (1978), the California legislature considered two approaches
to the preservation of agricultural land. Assembly Bill 1900 (Calvo) and
Senate Bill 193 (Zenovich) passed their respective houses of origin in Jan-
uary 1978 bur died in August 1978 mainly because of the passage of Proposi-
tion 13. Both bills intended to allocate state funds (between $75 and $85
million annually) to local governments to compensate for tax revenue loss
*Under Proposition 13, farmers pay taxes at the rate of one percent of
the 1975 Williamson Act agreement land value, not one percent of the 1975
I1 market value" of their land.
- 15-
because of lower assessnents of agricultural land. ,These state subvention
payments could not be made because all available state revenues were returned
to local governments to minimize the impact of Proposition 13. In addition, ~
Proposition 13 eliminated the possiEility of the state paying for the ini-
tial local administration costs (estimated at $7 to $8 million) of locating
the agricultural land which would be preserved as described in the bills.
SB 193 represented a merger of two bills introduced last year (1977)
by Senators Zenovich and Garamendi, with Assemblyman Boatwright as the prin-
.cipal co-author. SB 193 would have required every city and county, except
San Francisco, to prepare an agricultural element for its general plan to
insure long-range preservation of commercial agricultural land. The bill
defined commercial agricultural land to exclude parcels of land less than
five acres in size and to include the following:
(1) "prime commercial agricultural land" which includes
(i) a minimum soil depth of 40 inches, rapid through very
slow soil permeability, a minimum depth to a water table
of 36 inches during the growing season, a minimum available
water holding capacity of 5.0 inches, slight salinity
and alkalinity, a slope of less than 9 percent, a mininum
frost-free season of 100 days, and an adequate water
supply for 8. out of 10 years;
and water characteristics "c'apable of growing crops important
to California's continued high level of agricultural
productivity;"
(2) prime commercial rangeland which has a separate set'of physical-
(3) nonprime coimercial agricultural' land which is producing food,
or (ii) croplands of state economic significance which have soil
chemical parameters;
fiber, feed or plant material and "which has during three of
the five preceding years returned sufficient revenue to cover all
direct cash costs . . ."
In contrast, AB 1900 defined "prime agricultural land" as being a par-
cel or continuous parcels over 10 acres in size, not having been developed
for a use other than agriculture, and including the following:
(1) prime famland as defined by the USDA-LIN national definition;
(2) "unique famland" which is suitable for the producEion of high-
value food and fiber crops that are econorciczlly significant
to California agriculture;
criteria.
(3) prime rangeland which has a separate set of physical-chemical
A major difference in the two bills was in the degree of local versus
state control. The Calvo bill would have yielded more control to the state,
with the state setting guidelines for preserving prime farmland and local
governments setting up regulations which adhere to the state's guidelines.
The Zenovich bill would give the state the final word with a minimum of
change of existing local procedures. Senator Zenovich and Assemblyman Calvo had been progressing towards a compromise joint bill.
- 16-
i
:
r.
Neither one' could find a source for the needed state'money to reimburse
cities and counties for local administration costs incurred during the proc-
ess of locating prime farmlands, so the two bills were withdram in August
1978 (Tom Willoughby, Assembly Comnittee on Resources, Land Use and Energy,
personal communication).
Two otherdefinitions of prime agricultural land have been developed in
California by Tulare County and the City of Visalia, each of which is strug-
gling with the same problem of urban development encroaching onto good ag-
ricultural land.
The Tulare County Plan
The Tulare County California Planning Department initiated the Rural
Valley Lands Plan (RVL?) in its county as a method of designating lands with
high or low development priority fron the standToints of preservation of
agricultural land and acconmodation of urban growth. This system ranks land
on the basis of points. If a parcel receives 17 points or more, it must re-
main in agriculture. If a parcel receives 11 points or less, it may be con-
sidered for nonagricultural'uses, and if it has 12, 13, 14, 15, or 16 points,
the decisicn may be based on other factors not within the system.
Land with USDA Capability Class I or II gets 4 points, Class 111 3
points, and Class IV 2 points. A parcel which is.5 acres or larger gets 4
points, and it gets 4 more if it is currently in agricultural use or has the
potential for agriculture. If the land receives the 4 points for existing
use, it may also recei've 3 points if 35 percent or less of the land within
1/4 mile of the perimeter of the site is in parcels smaller than 5 zcr2s.
In addition, if the land uses of the adjoining parcels are agricultural, the
parcel gets 3 more points. There are specific criteria and definitions for
which uses receive this 3-point value which need not be mentioned in this
- paper.
An additional 3 points are awarded if the parcel is near (within 1/2
mile) a use which would be considered offensive to urban uses such as a gra-
vel pit operation. The following two criteria can earn the land 2 points
. each: (1) the soil is highly perroeable and has a ground water table within
20 feet, and (2) the parcel is close to or abutting an agricultural preserve.
The following five one-point criteria exist in the system: if a parcel
(1) is more than five miles from a fire station, (2) does not have direct
access to a paved road, (3) has some historical, archaeological, or unique
natural feature, (4) is subject to 100-year floods, or (5) does not have ac-
cess to community domestic water, it earns 1 point for each. Thus, a parcel
may earn a maximum of 30 points if it is excellent agricultural land with no
on-site or adjacent urbanization. The rating system places a minimum weight
(6 of 40 points or 15 percent on physical properties such as soil or water,
and is, therefore, much broader than other definitions.
- 17-
I
I
i
The City of Visalia Plan ..
An urban/agricultural resource mnagement task force was assembled in
1976 and 1977 by the City of Visalia to deal with the problems of urban
growth (Holloway, 1977). Part IV of this report delineates a method for
determining what land should be protected from-urban ecpansion. The,.system
proposes to classify all land into four categories, A,B,C,D, with Classes A,
B, and C beicg agicultural resources which should be protected and Class D
being of no current or immediate potential for agriculture. There is then
a system of tests to exclude Class A,B, and C lands from protection. Class
A lands are those with highest quality soi.ls, Class B lands have fair quality
soils, and Class C lands ar2 range resource lands. More specifically, group
A lands are USDA Classes I and I1 with irrigation water available for agri-
cultural use. Group B includes Capability Classes I11 and IV with irriga-
tion water available for agricultural use. Group C lands are any class of
land, I through VIII, with insufficient water for irrigation but with suf-
ficient rainfall for grasses.
Exclusion of land from Classes A,B, or C to Class D is made by esamin-
ation of the irrigation water supply (the rainfall if irrigation water is not
available) and of land ovne.rship. Pablic lands and timber lands are excluded
from Groups A,B, or C. This system is similar to the Tulare County system
with the exception that it is far less detailed in kinds and number of allow-
able exclusions.
Analysis of Definitions
Among the many criteria used in defining prime agricultural land (see
previous discussions and Table 3), soil quality and water availability play
a key role. In comparing definitions, one key issue is: which of the pres-
ervation objectives (outlined previously in Chapter 11) will be reached by
each approach. X second issue which we do not attempt to resolve is: would
the attainment of these objectives be of sufficient public concern to dis-
rupt, as Wood (1976) says, the normal market mechanism through which most
land transactions and land use decisions .are made.
Definitions based on USDA Capability Classes I and 11, LLV criteria,
or the Willianson Act criteria will protect differingamountscf land. Esti-
mates of these differing amounts have been made by the Off ice of Planning and
Research (California OPR, 1974) and by the USDA Soil Conservation Service
(Feb. 1977, see Table 4). According to the OPR study, there are 12.6 million
acres of prime agricultural land in California by the definitions in the Wil-
liamson Act. The USDA Conservation Xeeds Inventory of 1970 found over 7 mil-
lion acres of Class I and I1 land in California, and a recent (1977) SCS map
of California shows 8.7 nillion acres of USDA Class I and I1 land.
Under the LE3 system, the SCS has estimated that all irrigated Class I
and Class I1 land (4.7 million acres) and some 13 percent of the irrigated
-18-
P I
W I
Soil
Perm. Depth
Soil
System
USDA'
("1
rapid
> 40 tirru
slow -
LIU
tn/hr.
> .06 40 -
" "- -
STORIE5 > 24
> rapid S5 193 to ver - 40
s low
ufl-
I"
AB 1900 - LIkl deflniLion (national)
Table 3
Criteria for Prime ,Agricultural Land
Max. Frost
Salinity Alkalinity Slope Free Water (X) nays Supply3
< 5 Irr
~ Dry
- < 8 &lo slight > 100 avail.
slight -
""
< 4 INU~O ESP < 15% (Note MAT 8/10
9) >32"F
.L
I
Surface 3raina e Flood Ph 7ockiness
Texture6 Class$ Hazard
SWP
SWE
mod slight 1s to c thru occasional
<60X c I" I ' Less I
Williamson Act - USDA Class I and 11, or Storie 80 to 100, or land returning an annual Kross vnlue 2 $200 per acre fnr 3 UlytotfivearK-
Notes: 1 Depth to water table during growing season
2 Available water holding capacity
3 Years of adequate supply 8/10=8 out of 10 years
4 Prime is USDA capability class 1 and 2
5 Storle Index Hating 60 to 100 is considered prime.
6 1s - loamy sand; c = clay
7 sup = somewhat poorly drained; swe = somewhat excessively drained
8 aquic. xeric, udic. ustic regimes
9 KxX slope < 2.0; Ix C - < 60
Table 4
Sununary of Acreages
By Alternative Prime Agricultural Land Definitions
USDA CLASS I 6 11
IRRIGATED TDTAL IRRIGATED TOTAL
USDA CLASS I, I1 & 111
Estimated Acreages Statevide in
Millions of Acres
7.0 12.0 4.7 8.7
I
1,ANI)S PRODUCING STORIE INDEX OTHER LANDS OF UNIQUE PRIME $200/AC PER YEAR
USDA LIN
(Wi1liamson Act) 50 - 100 STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE FANILAND FARMLAND
Above figures prepared by Soil Conservatlon Service, USDA, Davis, CA. (Feb. 1977).
1 rd 0 I
3.3 I 8.7 * ,I
4
.
Class 111 land (0.3 million acres) in California meet the criteria for prime
farmland (Table 4). We feel that this estimate of irrigated Class I11 land
is somewhat low, with a more realistic value being about 40 percent of the
irrigated Class 111 land (0.9 million acres). However, the difference (0.9
minus 0.3) is probably included in the SCS figures for "additional farmlands
of statewide importance" which total 3.3 million acres. The SCS estimates
that there are 0.7 million acres of unique farmland in California. Thus,
the estimated total farmland that would be preserved under the LLY defini-
tions is 9.0 million acres; i.e., 5.0 million acres (4.7 plus 0.3) of prine
statewide significant farmland equals 9.0 million acres total.
. farmland plus 0.7 million acres unique farmland plus 3.3 million acres of
Although the LIM figure of 9.0 million acres is quantitatively very
close to the USDA Class I and I1 figure of 8.7 inillion acres, the difference
in the kind of soil to be preserved differs tremendously. A major problem
with using the Class I and I1 system for preservation is that much of the high
value specialty-crop lands as well as the highly productive Clzss I11 soils
are excluded. On the other hand, 4.0 million acres of the 8.7 million total
acres of Class I and I1 is not irrigated but would be preserved as "potential"
prime farnland for future use.* The LIN system does capture these specialty
crop lands and productive Class I11 soils, but discards the 4.0 million acres
of' nonirrigated Class I and 11.
Because of the minor importance of soil quality in the Tulare County
definition, this system would include most agricultural land in the rural
areas as prime land regardless of its soil characteristics provided that water
was available. In addition to including large acreages of land in rural are-
as, it would exclude land at the city boundary and classify it for development
because of the enphasis in the system on maintaining and encouraging contig-
uous growth at the city edges. This sysien is much more than a definition of
prime agricultural land; it is also a policy implementation tool for reducing
urban sprawl and leapfrog development.
The plan developed by the City of Visalia Task Force is more general than
the Tulare Plan. It would include most Class I through IV land as well as
grasslands for range assuming that these lands meet the requirements of having
a natural or supplemental water supply. If this plan were adopted statewide,
a vast acreage of land would be preserved including the 12.6 million acres of
prime,land in the OPR (1974) definition plus most of the rangeland in Califor-
nia.
The Storie Index rates land very differently than any of the other sys-
tems and has been excluded from the two legislative definitions previously
discussed.
*The major restriction of these 4.0 million acres of 'lpotentfalllprime farmlanz
for present use is lack of available irrigation Water. However, in future
generations, prime farmland availability nay be SO 1iEited that water Will
have to be purchased from the northwestern staces or possibly Canada. Another
possibility, if energjr permits, is a desalinization program in order to Pro-
duce the needed water.
-21 -
i
If a 50-100 range of Storie Index were used-as a priine land definition, it
would include all Class I land, almost all Class I1 land, and a small amount
of Class I11 land (Reganold and Singer, 1978). Altogether. approximately.
the same acreage would be preserved under the Storie definition as under the
USDA Class I and I1 definition, provided that arangeof 50 to 100 were used.
A much less broad definition (80-100) would exclude most of the Class I1 as
well as some Class I land (Singer, 1975).
The Storie Index and the USDA Land Capability Classification systems
would preserve the most "flexible" land and the land with the fewest manage-
ment problems. One can assume that these lands would require the fewest en-
ergy inputs for maximum outputs or that maximun inputs will yield maximum '
outputs. No doubt these are the most important agricultural soils in Cali-
fornia from the standpoints of pott.ntid production in lessening the world
food problem and maintaining a strong export base. Some of these lands are
also important for much speciality crop production.
In comparison with the Storie and the USDA Capability systems, LDlwould
include more of the farmlands currently under cultivation and irrigation,
particularly the more steeply sloping lands which are used for production of
citrus and other fruit crops. Rice land, which generally is Class 111 or IV
because of salinity, rooting-depth, or drainage, is excluded from the areas
preserved under the USDA Capability Classification and Storie Index systems
but included under the L?3 system. Their exclusion is probably not serious
from the point of view that the major rice growing area of the Sacramento
Valley is not under urban pressure and is poor land for urban development.
This may amount to as much as 0.5 million acres (D. Briggs, SCS, personal
communication). Certain other areas, such -as steep grape land or citrus land,
that are protected by the LDI system but not protected under the USDA Capa-
bility System and the Storie Index, are not significant from the point of
view of the world food problem. However, although these lands are more lim-
ited in what can be grown on them, they are very important from the view-
point of the California state and local economies.
Some of the excluded lands are significant producers of crops for export
and domestic consumption. If the goal of .the preservation program is to pro-
tect local economies and specialized crop production for domestic consumption
or export markets, then the use of Class I and I1 lands as a prime farmland
dsfinition excludes much of the necessary acreage. However, the LL? system
and the Williamson Act definitions include these lands. A thorough study of
the size and value of these "specialty" areas needs to be made and is beyond
the scope of this paper.
Using the Williamson Act definitions, the Office of Planning and Re-
search (OPR, 1974) estimated 12.6 million acres of prime agricultural land
and 8.0 million acres of pot- prime agricultural land in California for
a total of 20.6 million acres. The LIM system captures 9.0 million acres of
prime farmland and, if one wants to donsider potential prime farmland, an ad-
ditional 4.0 million acres of nonirrigated Class I and I1 soils are included,
for a total of 13.0 million acres. One can see that the Williamson Act def-
initions are much broader than the LIM and USDA Capability Classification
#
- 22-
I
I
definitions. Perhaps a practical system to use for preserving a mzvimun
of good agricultural land would be a combination of the LM system and
the USDA Class I and I1 definitions.. L
The Tulare County plan and the City of Visalia plan are much broader
in scope and tend to include all land with agricultural value which has not
been urbanized. Both of these plans include much of the prime rangeland,
whereas the other system exclude sizeable areas of rzngeland under their
agricultural land definitions. If such a system as the Tulare County ' plan or the City of Visalia plan were enacted statewide, far more land
would be included than in the other systems discussed.
-23-
v
IMPLEMENTATION
..
I
Regardless of the final definition or mechanism for determining prime
agricultural land, once a definition has been selected and written into law,
implementation of the law is.necessary. This will require locating the land
which falls within the limits set for prime agricultural land. The critical
questions which arise are the fpllowing: Who should determine if a particular
soil unit meets the established criteria? What resource information is cur-
rently available to aid in prime land determinations? khat are the roles of
local, state, and federal governments in this process?
Who Maps Prime Agricultural Land?
Although the answer to this question appears obvious to a soil scientist,
not everyone may agree that it is .the qualified soil scientist's role to make.
interpretations such as the Land Capability Classification. In all the defi- nitions previously discussed, specific soil criteria are used to define soil
capability, and it is the soil scientist who is trained to make determinations
such as rooting depth, texture, available water-holding capacity, permeabil-
ity, salinity, or alkalinity.
This is particularly critical because of the amount of land and scale of
mapping needed. Because soils are closely related to land forms and soil sei-
entists are trained to recognize these relationships, they are the most quali-
fied individuals to do the land classification. There are, in addition to the
soil scientists, sone engineers and geologists with soils training WSo can
adequately perform the needed surveying.
The Soil Conservation Service of the USDA is ,the agency with the most ex-
perience in mapping and identifying soils in the agricultural area of the
state. In addition, the SCS has the largest staff of trained soil scientists
of any federal' agency. The United States Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management have trained personnel, but their work has been primarily on public
land.
The University of California, especially at Berkeley, Davis, and River-
side, California State University at San Louis Obispo, and the University Co-
operative Extension Service are the three groups among California state or-
ganizations with a great depth of expertise in soils. In addition, there are
private consultants, especially members of the California Professional Soil
Scientists Association, who are qualified to make soil interpretations on land
capability.
Within the California State government, there are few soil scientists be-
cause- of the lack of a state civil service.rating for soil scientists.
-24-
I .
Undoubtedly, there are soil scientists in some of the state agencies under
other titles. The State Cooperative Soil Vegetation Survey, which is a CO-
operative project between state, federal and university participants, has
soil science expertise which would be of particular use in mapping foothill
rangeland.
The final decision on whether a parcel has been zoned correctly may be ,
made in courts of law if the original soil mapping is not of high quality.
To avoid the costly and time-consuming debate between expert witnesses in
the courtroom, soil mapping and soil interpretations need to be made by qual-
ified individuals in those areas not surveyed or not previously mapped at a
small enough scale at the time_ the law takes effect.
Available Resource Information
Modern soil surveys cover much of the state., As of September 1978,
43.5 million acres of California were considered to have adequate soils in-
formation. For an up-to-date list of the status of California soil surveys
as wpped by the USDA Soil Conservation Service, see Appendix E. In addi-
tion, there is a considerable arcount of soils information in old soil survey
reports (pre-1958) and in generalized county soil maps, which is useful as a
guide to-the kinds of soils in an area but inadequate for detailed interpre-
tations.
According to OPR (1974), there are 1.06 million acres of prime and
potential prime agricultural land within the projected 1985 urban develop-
ment zone in California. This land, and perhaps another few million acres
not currently judged "prime" whose use or location makes them significant,
are high-priority areas for detailed soil mapping and interpretation. Three
million acres could be adequately mapped by ten people in eight years. This
is considering 150 mapping days a year and a daily mapping quota of 250 acres
per person which is a conservative figure. Doubling the number of high qual-
ity, well-trained individuals will greatly reduce the, time needed for the
survey. Nonetheless, it is a major undertaking yhich would still leave many
millions of acres outside the urban development zone with inadequate soils
information. However, once the urban boundary areas were adequately mapped
and interprered, then an accelerated program could continue on the remaining
areas.
The cost of such a mapping program is small, considering the size of the
state budget and pressing need for the inf.ormation. A reasonable estimate
for making a detailed soils map (1:20,000 scale) with interpretations is $1/
acre. This includes salaries, equipment, report writing,and publications.
Lower costs are possible depending on scale, manpower, and kind of final pro-
duct.
Roles of Local, State, and Federal Governments
Local government at the city, county. or regional level should have the major responsibility of implementing prime agricultural land policies,
-25-
while the state should have the primary responsibility of setting minimum
quality standards for lands to be included in a prime farmland definition.
National definitions should be used only if found suitable for state needs.
Perhaps federal guidelines can be used or adopted by the state to preserve
a core of high-quality land. The local areas can determine whether a broad-
er definition of prime farmland shoud be used for their county. I
Under such an arrangement the state would take responsibility for sub-
vention payments for the core areas, and the local areas would make their
own financial arrangements for the additional acreages preserved. The lo-
cal area could not be expected to finance the additional soil mapping needed
to identify either core or additional “prime” lands. This responsibility of
resource assessment (soil mapping) belongs to the state, thus giving uniform
quality to the soil maps. Each local area may elect to have a soil scien-
tist(s) or other trained person(s) as part of its staff to facilitate the
settlement of disputes over soil boundaries and classification of the land.
We envision a system where the state provides leadership in identifying
and preserving the 9 to 14 million acres of the best agricultural land in
California. This would be followed by local governments (most likely at
the county level) defining procedures such as the Tulare County Plan or the
City of Visalia Plan in which land not protected by the state could be
placed under protection.
.”” -
I
-26-
VI
CONCLUSIONS
* Agri cultural land i .s a vit a1 resource to California and the nation.
Because of California's climate, many crops have been adapted to the state
and are grown here in large numbers. Agriculture is important to the state
economy and to the national export base. Much of the land has the potential
for growing crops which can reduce the world need for food.
California's climate also makes it a desirable place to live, and the
state population is growing rapidly. This growth has caused urban areas to
spread into areas which were once agricultural and has led to concern that
the best agricultural land will be lost forever to urbanization. To date,
the amount of land brought into agriculture in California has been greater
than that removed by urban expansion. However, new land and irrigation water
are no longer plentiful for this purpose, and land'quality is being sacri-
ficed in the trade because much of the incoming land is inferior in quality
to that being removed. This has important long-term energy, water, and food
production effects.
Preservation of California's best agricultural land is a necessity, but
the question remains "What is best?" This paper has considered several ag-
ricultural land classification systems including USDA Land Capability Clas-
sification, USDA-LLY, Storie Index, Iowa's CSR, Canadian Land Capability,and
some local definitions. Each serves a different need and no single best
prime agricultural land definition exists. The definition that is best for
California will be dependent on what is to be preserved. From a conservative
standpoint, preserving as much high quality land as possible is best.
The authors would advocate preserving the best, most flexible lands for
agriculture. This includes the 9.0 million acres under the LIM definitions
and the 4.0 millions acres of Class I and I1 lands without developed irriga-
tion systems under the USDA Land Capability Classification System.
Part of the'LLY definition requires the selection of lands of statewide
importance, and there is considerable controversy about how to do this. This
problem could be avoided by manipulating the definition of prime farmland to
include more acres; i.e. , the physical and/or chemicaa criteria (e. g., soil
depth, slope, salinity, etc) of the LIX-prime farmland definition might be
adjusted in order to include the statewide important lands. Definitions based
on physical and chemical criteria are fixed and testable in a scientific
sense, whereas a definition based on "important crops" or economic criteria
are not fixed and will change over tine.
A prime agricultural land policy must be implemented to be useful. The
state's roles in implementation are (1) to set minimum standards for prime ag-
ricultural land in order to preserve the best and most flexible land and (2)
-27-
..
to make the necessary resource inventories needed to implement the policy..
Local governments roles are (1) to select additional land for preservation,
(2) to develop a preservation procedure, and (3) to provide local “experts”
to solve disputes over local policy.
Uncertainties L,uist in defining prime agricultural land precisely and
in implementing a fair and equitable prime agricultural land policy. Such
a policy can reduce uncertainties about the food and fiber supply for future
generations. It should be developed and implemented soon.
-28-
'I 2 40 2 20 20 Sandy Sandy Hod. rapid Well or 2 7.5 inch (21 <2t None or None or (4 nohoa None None 2 140
Loam thru loam thru thru mod. mod. well avarmgc AUC alight rare (none) days
Loam
clay clay 1Mm SlOV > 60" 2 0.13 InIIn.
Rapid thru
slow
I11 2 20 L 10 E 12 Any nay Sandy low
be grav- , thru clay elly or may be gra- cobtly velly or
cobbly
IV 2 10 2s 28 Any. maybe bamy rand very grav- thN clay. elly. very very grav- cobbly or elly. very smny El cobbly or stony El
V 2 20 Z6 Le Any. may Any, may be be ext- extremely remely gravelly. gravelly. extremely ext. cobb. cobbly or
Rapid thru
very slow
Somewhat 5.0 inch
Poorly thru average AUC 2 0.08 InlIn.
somuhat
>36" excensively
excesalvely Ave. AUC
Poorly thru 2 3.5 inch
7 20" L 0.06 INIIN.
Poorly thN 2 2.5 inch
> 20" excessive Avc. AUC r_ 0.04
Any > 3.0 inch Ava. AUC
(5X (0t Nona thru
nod.
(0X (lSX, None
hlgh rhru Hone ( 16 do. <50 None
occaaional mod.
tlacu thN
( 15X <2SX Any
(2t (2X None
or slight
Irony or very very stony
VI z 10 24 7-6 Any, nuy Any. may be hy Any 22.0 lash (25% (50% Any Any Dry land Dry land Dry land Any - 121 be ext- extremely Avo. AUC * (16 &a [25 alight
rernely gravelly Irr Irr. Irr. gravelly extremely Any (S alight extrekoely cobbly or thru
cobbly or very stony moderate very stony
VIII 141 Any Anv hY Any Any Any Ally Any
TI Permeability of the leaat parmeable subaurface horizon. I1 Clay pan# vith permeabilitica lass tt-n 0.06 Lncheslhour, will be treated as limiting the effective depth..
51 Availabls Miaturl between field capacity and wilting point. 31 Depth to water table during prnwing SeAson
zl In existing mnpping units 9'L and 302 can be substituted for 0% And 23%.
51 Use erosion hazard to help determine upper slope percent.
fl Column A 11 use for mils with K factors of 0.31 or greater soils subject to rill and gully eroalon.
01 For aalra and alkali to be a major limitation, there should be other sail limltationa. such ae
such as soils fo-d frm granitic parent ruterial or with Chypana. Other soils are in group B.
.low per%abiliriea or high water tables.
Anv Any Any Any hY Anv Anv Anr
Such as boron and magnealum that leach with dlfflculty warse fragment interfere with tillage, but do not prevent cropping.
Range and woodland mechanlcal prscticea can be applied to class VI land. Crcgilen: flooding that does not prevent nom1 cropping.
Range and woodland mechanical practices are Imprrctlcal on clus VI1 land. class VI11 land8 have liliCAtiOn.3 that preclude their use for coum~~rclal plant production and restrict their use m reCreAtiOll, water supply or
esthetic purposes.
I rj 0 I
APPENDIX A (Continued)
UNITED STATES DEPARTUENT OF AGRICULTURE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE November 1969 -
fdbla 2 - Guide for Placing So111 in Land Capability SubclAsaes in California
C,alde A - For placing solla In - For placing aoils in - For plactng .soils in
Landpabilicy Subclasses where Land Capability Subclnssea where Land Capability Subclnsses where
days, the land ie irrigated and days. high wind velacirrs occur (I) the gro-Ing season is over 160 the growing season is over 140 the groolng season is over 140 no high wind velocltiea occur and
cool reoperaturrs do not Itnit ao4 the soil is not irrigated2 days and the roil is nor irrigated. production of the cornon culti-
vated crops2
or (2) the production of common
cultivated crops is limited by lov
POD of less than 140 days2 temperatures or by a growing oen-
-1. [Werarely s1ovly.l roderstely. [rod- Subclass by Slope Classes3 Subclass by Slope Claa6es3
erately rapidlg.1. rapidly. [and vriy ABC D4 A B C D4 rapldlyl permeable. [aodcrstely well,) 0-22 2-5% 5-9% 9-15% 0-22 2-5Y 5-9I 9-15% urll. [somewhat excessively, and ex- cessively] drained soils (over 20" dcep) wlth following surface textures:
a. Flnr land very finel textured as e e e a e e e b. Moderately line textured 85 e e e
C. HrdIum textured 'b S e e e
d. I(Jdc:rately coarse tcxturrd.
Ivith or without] (textural B) e e e e e e. Coarse (and very EDJ~SCI tex-
as e e
tured [with] (textural 6) e e e e e
f. Coarse [and very coarse1 ter-
8ae
turrd [vithi (little or no II e e e e
textural 8)
688
3. Wet. poorly,and very poorly dmiued soi1r: a. Halerarely coarse to fine (ex- turd surface soils (Includes Y YY Y
clayprinn and fraglpans)
(!lttlr or nor textural 8) b. Coarse textured laolls witpi Y YV
c. ~eep organic aoilslo Y YY
4. [~rceas~vr~y, sowwhat cxceasivrly.1 well. and mdrr~trly wcll drained. .hallow [and very shallou] solls:
a. Kcckg vIthi6r 10-20" of surface 6 e b. Rocky within 0-10" of surface
ee
6 8. a
5. [Souuhat rxccssively.1 excessively.
well. and wdererrly well drelned 8 8C e saline and alkali solla (moderate
to severe saline and aikali).
6. [Very cobbly. very uravelly, rucky." and1 stony 8olla (class 2.3,6, and s s 5 atmineas).
as
S e e e
a e e e
Y Y e e
Y W W Y
W W Y
U Y Y
0 e e e s s a s
a 0 e e
Subclass by Slope Classes'
A BC D' 0-22 2-I% 5-92. 9-lJ2
s e e e
C e e a
C e e e
C e e e
S 0 e e
s a 6 s
. e e e
a I e
Y Y e e
W Y Y V
Y Y Y
Y Y Y
S 6 I a I S I S
1. Soila subject to da-giug overflow Y WY Y V Y Y v Y
Hare: Brackets 1 are wed to idcntify scaCement6 added co provide for .ore explicit Interpretation of term used in Soil Hemorandurn SCS-30. All additions sre in accordance with terminology of the Soil Survey hnual. The use ot parentheues ( ) La the aar as in Soil Xemornndu8
(Footnotes on next papa)
U'S-30.
APPENDIX A (cont'd.)
CAPABILITY UNITS are soil groups within the subclasses. The soils in one capability unit are enough alike to be suited to the sane crops
and pasture plants, to require similar management, and to have similar
productivity. Thus, the capability unit is a convenient grouping for
making many statements about management of soils for cropland. Capability
units are generally designated by adding an Arabic numeral to the subclass
symbol, for example, 111s-3 or IVe-5. The numbers used to designate units
within the subclasses in California are as follows:
0.-Indicates that a problem or limitation is caused by stony,
cobbly, or gravelly material in the substratum.
1.--Indicates that a problem or limitation is caused by slope or
by actual or potential erosion hazard.
2.--Indicates that a problem or limitation of wetness is caused by
poor drainage or flooding.
3.--Indicates that a problem or limitation of slow or very slow
permeability of the subsoil or substratum is caused by a clayey
subsoil or a substratum that is semiconsolidated.
4.--Indicates that a problem or limitation is caused by sandy or
gravelly soils with a low available water holding capacity.
5.--Indicates that a problem or limitation is caused by a fine-
textured or very fine textured surface layer.
6.--Indicates that a problem or limitation is caused by salt or
alkali.
7.--Indicates that a problem or 'limitation is caused by rocks,
stones, or cobblestones.
8.--IndFcateS that a problem or limitation exists in the root
zone, which generally is less than 40 inches over massive
bedrock. and lacks moisture for plants.
9.--Indicates that a problem or limitation is caused'by' low or
very low fertility, acidity, or toxicity that cannot be
corrected by adding normal amounts of fertilizer, lime, or
other amendments.
-32-
APPENDIX B
USDA Land Inventory and Monitoring (LIM)definition of prime farmlands
as applied to the state of California.*
Prime farmlands meet all the following criteria:
The soils have:
(a) Aquic, udic, ustic, or xeric moisture regimes and an available
water capacity of at least 4 inches per 40 to 60 inches of soil
to produce the commonly grown cultivated crops (cultivated crops
include, but are not limited to, grain, forage, fiber, oilseed,
sugar beets, sugarcane, vegetables, tobacco, orchard, vineyard,
and bush frvit crops) adapted to the region in 7 or more years
out of 10; or
(b) Xeric, ustic, aridic or torric moisture regimes in which the
available water'capacity is at least 4 inches per 40 to 60
inches of soil and the area has a developed irrigation water
supply that is dependable (a dependable water supply is one
in which enough water is available for irrigation in 8 out of
10 years for the crops commonly grown) and of adequate quality; and,
The soils have a temperature regime that is frigid., mesic, thermic,
or .hyperthermic (pergelic and cryic regimes are excluded). These
are soils that, at a depthoof 20 inches (50 cm), have a mean annual
temperature higher than 32 F (OOC). In addition, the meen summer
temperature at this depth in soils with an 0 horizon is higher
than 47'F (8'C); in soils that have no 0 horizon, the mean summer
temperature is higher than 5g°F (15OC); and,
The soils have a pH between 4.5 and 8.4 in all horizons within a
depth of 40 inches ; and,
me soils have a water tzble that is maintained at a sufficient
depth during the cropping season to allow cultivated crops common
to the area to be grown; and,
The soils can be managed so that, in all horizons within a depth
of 40 inches (1 meter), during part of each year the conductivity
of the saturation extract is less than 4 mmhos/cm and the exchangable
sodium percentage (ESP) is less than 15; and,
The soils are not flooded frequently during the growing season (not more often than once in 2 years); and,
* The national LIM definitions have been slightly modified for California
standards: . criterion (10) is a California definition, not a national one,
and part of (1) with an "AWC of at least 4 inches per 40 to 60 inches of
soil" is a California definition.
-33-
(7) The product of K (erodibility factor) x percent slope is less than
2.0; and,
(8) The soils have a permeability rate of at least 0.06 inch (0.15 em) per
hour in the upper 20 inches (50 em) and the mean annGal soil temperature
at a depth of 20 inches (50 em) is less than 59OF (15OC); the perme-
ability rate is not a limiting factor if the mean annual soil temper-
ature is 59'F (15OC) or higher; and,
(9) Less than 10 percent of the surface layer (upper 6 inches) in these
soils consists of rock fragments coarser than 3 inches (7.6 cm); and,
(10) The soils have a minimum rooting depth of 40 inches.
Unique Farmland
Unique farmland is land other thag'prime farmland that is used for the
production of specific high-valGe food and fiber crops. It has the special
combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply
needed to produce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific
crop when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. Examples
of such crops are citrus, olives, cranberries, fruit, and vegetables.
Unique farmland has the following characteristics:
1. It is used for a specific high-value food or fiber crop.
2. It has a moisture supply that is adequate for the specific-.
crop. The supply is from stored moisture, precipitation, or
a developed irrigation system-.
3. It combines favorable factors of soil quality, growing season,
' conditions, such as nearaess to market, that favor the grcwth
temperature, humidity, air drainage, elevation, aspect, or other
of a specific food or fiber crop.
Additional Farmland- of Statewide Irportance
This is land, 'in addition to prime and unique farmlands, that is of state-
wide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and
oilseed crops. Criteria for defining and delineating,this land are to
be determined by the appropriate state agency or agencies.
Additional Fam.land of Local Importance
In some lccal areas there is concern for certain additional farmlands
for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops, even
though these lands are not identified as having national or statewide
importance. Where appropriate, these lands are to be identified by the
local agency or agencies concerned.
-34-
I
APPENDIX C
Specific High-Value Food or Fiber Crops
Grown on Unique Farmland
,CrqE.
Artichokes
Avocados
Broccoli
Brussel Sprouts
Cauliflower
Celery
Cut Flowers
Dates
Figs
Grapes (Wine-Types)
Lettuce
Melons
Olives
Oranges
Strawberries
Tangerines
Acreage
10,000 acres
23,000
44,000
6,000
24,000
18,000
[unreported]
4,000
15,000
.234,000
44,000
45,000
30,000
196,000
10,000
10,000
TOTAL 713,000 acres- I/
-35-
t ,
APPENDIX D
R. Earl Storic is Professor Emeritus, Soils and Plant Nutrition and former Soil Technologist in the
Experiment Sttrtion, Berkeley.
The Storie Index
This method of soil rating, known as the Storie Index, is based on soil characteristics that govern the
land's potential utilization and productive capacity. It
is independent of other physiul or economic factors
that might determine the desirability of growing cer.
tain plants in a given location.
Essentially the presenr revision sets up a new factor
C to evaluate slope; the original factor C is now
designated as factor X. Percentage values are assigned to the characteristics
of the soil itself, including the soil profile (factor A); the texture of the surface soil (factor B); the slope
(factor C); and conditions of the soil exclusive of pro-
file, surface texture, and slope-for example, drain-
age, alkali content, nutrient level, erosion, and micro. relief (factor X). The most favorable or ideal condi-
tions with respect to each factor are rated at 100 per cent. The percentage values or ratings for the four factors are then multiplied, the result being the Storie
Index rating of the soil.
The characccristics oE the soil profile (factor A) are
essentially the features of the subsurface layers. For
California purposes the soils have been divided into
nine profile groups.* For example, soils that are deep
and readily pervious to roots and water (listed in pro- file group I in the soil-rating chart) are rated at 100
per cent. Profiles with dense clay subsoils (listed in
profile group IV on the soil-rating chart) are rated
lower. Primary or residual soils (listed in profile goups VZI, VIII, and IX) are rated in accordance with the
depth to bedrock. Next. the soils arc rated on the basis of the texture
of the surface soiIs (designated as factor B). Medium-
textured soils, such as the loams and the silt loams.
are rated highest; the extremes in texture, such as sands
and clays, lower.
Rating of the slope of the land is considered i,n lac-
tor C Nearly level or gently sloping land is rared at
100 pcr cent. As the slope increases. the rating for chis
*Steric. R. Earl, and Walter W. Weir. Manual for
Identifying and Clauifying Califurniu Soil Smrics, 1948.
with Supplement. 1958. Published by Associated Sttltlcnts' Store. Univ. of Calif., Bcrkclcy.
factor decreases. As shown in the soil-rating chart.
single letters are used to indicate simple slopes, and
double letters to indicate compound slopes. The per- cent slope cxpresses the number of feet rise or fall for
100 feet horizontal distance.
Conditions exclusive of profile. soil texture, and
slope are considered in factor X on the soil-rating
chart. These conditions consist of drainage. alkali or salt content. general nutricnt level. acidity, erosion.
and microrclief (surface regularity). If LWO or more
conditions exist that are listed under factor X, the ratings for each are treated independently; that is,
they are multiplied in order to secure the lactor X
rating.
Division of Agricultural Sciences
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIAL PUBLICATION
PRINTED SEPTEMBER 1976
-36-
I .
SOIL-RATXNG CHART
(Stork Soil Index rating= factor A x factor B x factor C x factor X)
FACTOR A-Roting on character of Physicol
profite per rent
I. .Soils 011 recent alluvial fans, flood plains.
or other secondary deposits having un-,
x.st~allow phases (on consolidated
s-shallow phases (on consolidated
developcd profiles ........ 100
~lraterial). 2 feet deep ...... 5040
material). S feet deep ...... 70
g-extremely gravelly subsoils ..... 80-95
s-stratified clay subsoils ....... 80-95
11: Soils on young alluvial fans. Rood plains. or other secondary deposits having
slishtly developed profiles ..... 95-100 x-shallow pl~aws (on consolidated
x-shallow phases (on consolidated
material), 2 feet deep ...... 50-60
Inaterial). 3 feet deep ...... TO
fi-extremely gavrlly suhsoils ...... 80-95
s-stratified clay subsoils ....... 80-95
111. Soilson older alluvial fana. alluvial plains.
or tcrraces having moderately developed
profilcs (moderately densc subsoils) . . 80-95
x-shdlow phases (on consolidated
~natcrial), 2 feet deep ...... 40-60
x.shallow phase5 (on consolidated material). 3 feet deep ...... 60-70
g-extremely gravelly subsoils ..... 60-90
I\'. Soils on older plains or terraces having
strongly drvcloped protiles (dense clay
suhsoils) ............ 40-80
V. Soils on ottler plains or terraces having
hardpan whhl layen
at lm than I foot ........ 5-20
at I to 2 feet ......... 20-30
at 2 to Y feet ......... "40
at 3 to 4 feet ......... 40-50
at 4 to 6 feet ......... 50-80
VI. Snils on older terraces and upland areas
having dense clay subsoils rcrrting on
moderately consoiidated or consnlidated
material ............ 40-80
-37-
VXI. Soils on upland ares underlain by hard
igneous bedrock
at less than 1 foot ........ 10-30
at 1 to 2 feet .......... 30-50
at 2 to 3 feet ......... .%-io
atSto4feet ........ 5M10
at 4 to 6 feet ......... 80-100
at more than 6 feet ....... 100
VXII. Soils on upland areas underlain by con-
solidated sedimentary rocks
at less than 1 foot ........ 10-30
at 1 to 2 feet ......... 30-50
at 2 to 3 feet ......... 50-iO . atSto4feet ......... i0-80 at 4 IO 6 feel ......... 8(J"lOO
at more than 6 feet ....... 100
IX. Soils on upland areas under{ain by softly
consolidirted material at less than 1 foot ........ 2040
. at 1 to 2 feet ......... -1-0
at 2 LO 3 feet ......... GO-SO
at 3 to 4 feet ......... 80-90
at 4 to 6 feet ......... 90-100
at more than 6 feet ....... 100
FACTOR %"Rating on basis of surface texture
Medium-textured: per cent
very fine sandy loam ......... 190 fine sandy loam .......... 100
loam ................ 100
silt loam ............. 100
sandy loam ............ 95 loamy fine sand .......... 90
silty clay loam ........... 90
clay loam. ............ 83
Heavy-textured:
silty clay ............. 60-70
clay .... ......... 50-60
Light- or coarx~textured:
coarse sandy loam. ......... i&?W
loamy sand ............ RO
very fine sand ........... 110
fine sand ............. 63 sand ............... 60
. coancsand ............ 30-60
Gravelly: ....... 9 gravelly Ioanr ........... 60-80
f gravelly silt loan1 .......... 60-80
s gravelly clay ........... 40-70
j. gravelly sand ........... 20-30
gravelly fine sandy loam 50-80
T
gravelly sandy loam ......... 50-70
gravelly clay loam ......... 60-80
i
i i 4
stony fine sandy loam
stony loam ...........
stony silt loam
stony sandy loam
stony clay loam .........
I Stony:
i
3
I stony sand ...........
.......
.......... i .........
........... i stony clay 1
i FACTOR C-Rating on basis of slope
.\--Nearly level (0 to 2%) ......
AA-Gently undulating (0 to 2%). ...
BBUndulating (3 to 87;) ......
CC-Rolling (9 to 157;) .......
D-Strongly sloping (16 to 30";) ....
E-Steep (30 to 43%). .......
B-Gently sloping (3 to 85.) .....
C"X1odcratelv sloping (9 to 155) ...
DD-Hilly (16 to 30%) .......
F-Very'steep (45% and over) ....
. 70-80 . 60-80 . 60-80 . 50-70 . 50-80 . 40-70 . 10-40
. I00 . 95-100 . 95-100 . 85-100 . 80-92 . 80-95 . 70-80 . 70-80 . 30-30 . 5-30
Iwr vrlll
i FACTOR X-Rating of conditions other than i those in factors A, 8, and C
i
1 i
t
i t I weIJ-drained 100
fairly well drained .. : ...... 80-90
yrr cent Drainage:
i ...........
....... 3 f subject to o\erflow variable
moderately waterlogged 40-80
badly watcrlogqed IC40 ......... ........
Alkali: ............ alkali-free 100
I slightly affccted .......... 60-9.5
i mdrratcly affccted 30-60 $
......... ..... .......... mderatcly to strongly affected 15-30
strongly affected 5-15
.............. Nutrient (fertility) level: high JOO fair. 95-100
poor .............. 80-95
very poor. ............ 60-80
..............
Acidity: accordirlg to degree ..... 80-95
Erosion:
none to slight ...........
detrimental deposition ........
moderate sheet erosion ........ occasional shallow gullies .......
moderate sbeet erosion with shallow gullies .
deep gullies ...........
moderate shcet erosion with deep gullics . .
severe sheet erosion .........
100 7 3-95
80-95
70-90
60-80
1 0-io
10-60
50-80 severe shea erosion with shallow gullies . . 4s.50
very sevcrc erosion ......... 10-40 moderate wind erosion ....... 80-95
severe wind erosion ......... 30-80
severe sheet erosion with deep gullies ... 1040
hIicrorelief:
smooth ............. 100
channels. ............ 60-95
hogwallows- ............. 60-95
low hummocks ........... 80-93 high hummocks ......... 20-60
dunes .............. 10-40
Soil Grading
For simplification, six soil grades have been set up in .
California by combining soils having ranges in index rating as follows:
Grade 1 (excellent): Soils that rate between 80 and
100 per cent and which are suitable for a wide range
of crops, including alfalfa, orchard, truck, and field crops.
Grade 2 (good): Soils that rate between 60 and 79
per cent and which are suitable for most crops. Yields
arc generally good to excellent.
Grade 3 (fair): Soils that rate between 40 and 59 per
cent and which are generally of fair quality, with less
wide range of suitability ttan grades 1 and 2. Soils in
this grade may give good results with certain specialized
crops. Grade 4 (poor): Soils that rare between 20 and 3'1
per cent and which have a narrow range in their agi cuitural possibilities. For example, a few soils in this
grade may be good for rice, but not good for many other uses.
Grade 5 (very.poor): Soils that rate between 10 and 19 per cent are of very limited use except for pasture, because of adverse conditions such as slrallowness.
roughness. and alkali content.
Grade 6 (nona@dtural): Soils that mte less than
10 per cent include, for example. tidelands, rivcrwaslr.
soils of high alkali content, and steep broken land.
..
-38-
i
I
Rating the Soil for a Tract of Land
The index for each soil type in the tract is calcu-
lated separately, and then a rating for the entire tract
is obtained by weighing each soil index according to
the proportion of the acreage of that soil in the tract.
As an example, using the soil map on the back page the rating of the tract is determined as follows:
1. Index for the area YI-A (Yolo loam, nearly level):
This a recent alluvial soil, deep, smooth, well
drained. Rating in
Factor A: Yolo series, profile group I . . . . 100
Factor B: loam texture . . . . . . . . . 100
Factor C: slope A, nearly level . . . . . . 100
Factor X: no other modifying factors . . . . 100
Index rating= 100% X 100% X 100% X 100% = 100%
2. lndex for Ac-BB (Antioch clay loam, undulating):
This is a claypan terrace soil with undulating topog- raphy. BAtiag in
per cent Factor A: Antioch series, profile group IV . . . 60
Factor B: clay loam texture . . . , . . . . 85
Factor C: undulating topography . . . . . . 95
Factor X:.no other modifying factors . . . . 100
Index rating = 60% X 85% X 95% X 100% = 48%
per cmt
3. lndes for Acl-CC (;\ltamor~t clay loam, rolling):
lhis is a I~-JWII upland soil fromshalc parent material;
rctlrock at a depth of 3 fect. Rolling topography,
nloderatc sheet erosion, with occasional gullies.
Hating in
Iwr wnt Factor A: Altamont serics. profile group VlII . . 70
I-.actor 13: clay loam texture . . . . . . . . 85
Factor C: rolling toi~ob~aphy . . . . . . . . 90
Factor X: rnoderate sheet erosion with st~all(~w gullics . . . . . . . . . . . 70
J~~drx rating = io?; X 85';; x 907: X,70y0 = 577;.
SOIL MAP
0.
kt- cc 27
YI -A YI -A
0 3?Q * 660 t
SCALE IN FEET
I k-BB
..
I
***. I
I
MAP sndm solls ACREAGE INDEX
YOLO LOAM 10 IO0
-PHTIOCH CLAY LOAM 5 $0
UTIYONT CLAY LDav 5 n
THIS LEAFLET is a revision ol the soil-rating
chart published originally by the author in Bulle-
tin 556, An lndex for Rnting the Agricr~lt~c~nl
Value of Soils, 1933, and later in the revised edi-
tion of 1937.
I
APPENDIX E
Status of California Soil Surveys, U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service, September 1978
ACRES-IN PUBLCN SOIL SURVEY AREA NAME SURVEY ACRES SOIL SURVEY AREA NAME SURVEY
SCALE
ACRES-IN
AREA MAPPED
ACRES PUBLCN
(2) AREA YAPPED SCALE (2)
Alameda Area (1)
Alaneda County, Western Part
hador Area (1)
Augeles National Forest Area
Antelope Valley Area (1)
Big Valley Area
Butte County Area
Butte Valley and Tule Lake
Area Calaveras County Area
Carson Valley Area (1)
Channel Islands Area
Coleville-Bridgeport Area
Colusa County
Contra Costa Coutty (1)
Drath Valley National
Monument Area
Desert Area
Eastern Fresno Area (1)
Eastern Santa Clara Area (1)
Eastern Stanislaus Area (1)
El Dorado Area (1)
El Dorado National Forest
Area
Fresno County, Coalinga Area
Fresno County, Mendota Area
Fresno-Sierra National Forest
Area
Glenn County (1)
llumbolt County Area
In~prrial Valley Area
325,000
144,000
298,992
691,088
1,045,575 .
742,760
887,680
410,mo
593,920
15,360
229.120
93 , 120
737,920
469.760
1,792,520
1,448,856
1,109,156
519 , 280
467,866
539.065 688,740
695,000
600,000
742.720
842,880
2,011,830
1,046,465
325,000 20 Inyo County Area
144,000 24 Jnyo National Forest, East,
Area
520.000 24 '
Inyo National Forest, West
Area
29a.992 20
1,045,575 24
24
24
24
15,360
469,760
1,109,156
519.280
467.866
539,065
$
742,720
842,880
1.046.465
24
15
24
24
24
20
24 30
24
24
24
24
20
24
24
Joshua Tree National Monument
Area
Kern County, Northeastern Part
Kern County, Northwestern Part
Kern County, Southeastern
Kern County, Southwestern Part
Kings Canyon National Park
Kings County
Klamath National Forest Area
Lake County
Lassen C0unt.y Area
Lassen National Forest Area
Los Angeles County, West San
Fernando Valley Area
Los Angeles County, Southern
Part
Los Padres National Forest
(South) Area
Madera Area (1) Marin County
Mariposa County Area (1)
Nendocino County, Eastern Part
Mendocino County, Western Part
Mendocino National Forest Area
Merccd Area (I) Merced County, Western Part
4,098,560
674.418
1,048,805
557,992
1.440.000.
1,371,900
1,007,800
619,100
454,650
892,800
1,038,600
I 006,976 .
1,653,590
1.303.6a6
113,920
693,760
1,545.260
864,000
332 , 800
418,720
987.600 .
1.042.400
316.748
659,840
609,820
375.000
653,902
1,007,800
10.717
473.986
541,000.
5,630
504,000,
113.920
250,000
864,000
230
478
10
112
315
.
. .' 281
852
310
140
740
659.840
8.647
24
24 24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
62
20
24
24
24
24
20
24
APPENDIX E
ACRES-IN
SOIL SURVEY AREA NAME SURVEY ACRES PUBLCN SdIL SURVEY AREA NAME ACRES-IN
AREA HAPPED SURVEY SCALE ACRES PUBLCN
(2) ARFA MAPPED SCALE (2)
Modoc County, Alturas Area 419.781
Hodoc National Forest 1,871,418
Area
Mono County, Mono Lake Area 599,040
Honterey County (1) 2 , 127,360
Napa County (1) 485,120
Nevada County Area (1) 341,966
Northern Santa Barbara Area(1) 830,870 Orange County and Western
Part of Riverside County (1)
Palo Verde Area (1)
Placer County, Uestern Part
Plums National Forest Area
Riverside County,Coachella
Valley Area
Rogue River National Forest
Area
Sacraamto County
San Benito Courrty (1)
San Bernardino Co. Nojave
River Area
San Bernardino County,
Southwest Part
San Bernardino National
Forest Area
San Dfrgo Area -(1)
San Joaquin County
SantuisObispo Co.. Carizzo
Plains Area
San LuLs Obispo County,
Coastal Part
San Luis Obispo County, Paso
Rubles Area
Sao Naceo Area (1)
San hI3tTO County. Eastern
580.994
154 , 240
411,544
1,553,424
573,400
94,935
629,088
893,440
1,999,520
296,880
812,633
2,204,880
901,760
585,600
562,152
687,000
168,890
150,460
.Part, and San Francisco County _-
Santa Barbara County, South 218,536
Coastal Part
Santa Clara Area (1) 314,000
Santa Cruz County 280,960
419,781 326,000
2,127,360
485.120
. 341,966
830,870
580,994
154,240
411,544
877.000
573,400
44,625
893.440
1,999,520
296.880
176,517
2,204,880
$250,085
555,865
687,000
168,898
24
24
2 4
24
24
24
20
24
24
24
24
24
20
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
15
24
218.536 . 24
314,000
280,960 24
Sequoia National Forest Area 1,37e,284
Sequoia lu'ational Park 386,551
Shasta Counties Area (1) 1,034,880
Sllasta-Trinity National ' 2,862,101
Forest Slerra National Forest Area 653,283
Sierra Valley Area (1) 204,352
Siskiyou County, Central Part 887 , 765
Six Rivers National Forest 1,107,854
Area
Solano County (1) 529,280
Sonorua county (1) 1,010,560
Stanislaus County, Western 394,214
Part Stanislaus National Forest i.089~967
Area
Surprise Valley liome Camp Area(1) 562,586
Sutter County 388,480
Tahoe Basin Area (1) 151,430
Tahoe National Forest Area. 1,243,000
Teimma County (1) 1,850,465
Totyabe National Forest Area 663,783
Trinity County Area 209 , 280
Tulare County, Central Part 815,360
Tulare County, Western Part 1,073,920
Tuolumne County, Western Part 275,040
Venturo Area (1) 548,874
Western Riverside Area (1) 1,105,940
YO10 county (1) 661,760
Yosemite National Park 760,951
Yuba County
(1) Recently (post-1957) published Soil Survey Report is available for this area;
(2) Publication scale: 20 - 1:20.000, 24 = 1:24,000, etc.
distribution purposes.
Area 336,640
L.,211,000
1,034,880
1,597,000
427,305
204,352
887,765
181.000
529,280
1.010,560
11.000
236,000
562,586
151,430
1,013,000
1,850.465
815,360
540,874
1,105,940
661 I 760
24
20
62
24
24
24
24
20
24
31
24 24
24
31
24
24
24
15 20
24
Amador Area and Madera Area reports are out of print.for
LITERATURE CITED
Alich, J. A., and Inman, R. E. "Energy from Agriculture". Energy, 1
(May, 19761, 59.
Barlowe, Raleigh. "Demands on Agricultural and Forestry Lands. to Service
Complementary Uses". In Perspectives on Prime Lands, pp 105-120.
Washington, D.C.: 1975.
Brown, Lester R. "The World Food Prospect". Science, 190 (12 Dec. 1975),
1053-1060.
California. Assembly Select Committee on Open Space Lands. Special Hearing
on Suggested Remedial Approaches to the California Land Conservation Act
of 1965. Sacramento: 1973, 151 pp. and appendix.
California. Department of Food and Agriculture. California's Principal Crop
and Livestock Commodities. Sacramento: 1977.
California. Department of Water Resources. The California Water Plan Outlook
in 1974. Sacramento: 1974, 186 pp.
California. Office of Planning and Research. 1974 Prime Agricultural Land
Report. Sacramento: 1974, 16 pp.
"
Canada. Department of the Environment. Soil Capability Classification for
Agriculture,. The Canada Land Inventory, Report 2. Ottawa: 1972. 16 pp.
Carter, Harold 0.; Youde, J. G., and Peterson, M. L. "Future Land Requirements .
to Produce Food for an Expanding World Population". In Perspectives on
Prime Lands, pp 37-60. Washington, D.C.: 1975.
Cervinka, V.; Chancellor, W. J.; Coffelt, R. J.; Curley, R. G.; and Dobie, J.B.
Encrny Requirements for Apriculture in California. Joint Study, Califor-
nia Department of Food and Agriculture and UC Davis. 1974, 151 pp.
Davis, R. M. "What's Left of Our Cropland 'Frontier'?" Soil Conservation,
' August, 1976, 2.
-42-
c
i
E
Dean, John B.. "A Panacea That Wasn't: The Williamson Conservation Act
Needs Repair". Cry California, 10 (Summer 1975), 18-23.
Derr, Donn; Small, Leslie; and Dhillon, Pritam. "Criteria and Strategies
for Maintaining Agriculture at the Local Level". Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, 32 (May/June 1977), 118-122.
Didericksen, Ray. "Potential Cropland: A Regional View". Soil Conservation,
Dec. 1976, 5-9.
Dufur, James. "Farmland Impasse ... Preservation Legislation Seems Unlike-
ly". Sacramento Bee, Jan. 1, 1978, p. AA3.
Fenton, Thomas E. "Definitions and Criteria for Identifying Prime and
Unique Lands". In Perspectives on Prime Lands, pp 133-150. Washington,
D.C.: 1975.
Fenton, Thomas E. "Use of Soil Productivity Ratings in Evaluating Iowa Agri-
cultural Land". Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 30 (Sept ./Oct.
1975), 237-240.
Hannon, B.; Harrington, C.; Howell, R.; and Kirkpatrick, K. The Dollar
Energy and Employment Costs of Protein Consumption. University of
Illinois, Center for Advanced Computation, Paper 182. Urbana: 1976,
17 PP-
Hansen, David E.; and Schwartz, Seymour I. "Prime Land Preservation: The
California Land Conservation Act". Journal of Soil and Water Conserva-
-2 tion 31 (Sept./Oct. 19761, 198-203.
Harley, Ron. "A Valley Weeps". The Farm Quarterly, 26 (May/June 1971) , 10-
13.
Heady, Earl 0. and Timmons, John F. "U.S. Land Needs for Meeting Food and
Heller, Alfred. The California Tomorrow Plan. Los Altos: William Kaufmann,
Inc., 1972, 120 pp.
Holloway, James S. California Agricultural Land Preservation. Final Report
of the Urban/Agricultural Resource Management Taskforce, Visalia Plan-
ning Department, 1977, 100 pp.
Johnson, William M. "Very Little Time to Protect Our Precious Cropland
Reserve". Soil Conservati.o., Dec. 1976, 4.
Klingebiel, A. A. and Montgomery, P. H. Land-Capability Classification.
Soil Conservation Service, Agriculture Handbook 210. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1973, 21 pp. ..
-43-
"Land Squeeze in California". The Farm Index, Dec. 1970, 4-6.
Lapping, Mark B. "Policy Alternatives for the Preservation of Agricultural
Land Use". Journal of Environmental Management, 5 (July 1977),
275-287.
McCormack, R. J. "The Canada Land Use Inventory: A Basis for Land Use
Planning". Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 26 (JulyIAug.
1971) , 141-146.
Pearson, G. G. "Preservation of Agricultural Land: Rationale and Legisla-
tion - The B.C. Experience". Agricultural Land Use in Canada, Work-
shop Proceedings. Canadian Journal. of Agricultural Economics, Mar.
1975, 64-74.
Pimentel, David; Terhune, E.C.; Dyson-Hudson, R.; Rochereau, S.; Samis, R.;
Smith, E. A,; Denman, D.; Riefschieder, D.; and Shephard, M. "Land
Degradation: Effects on Food and Energy Resources". Science, 194 (8
Oct. 1976), 149-156.
Reganold, John P. and Singer, Michael J. "USDA Capability Classification,
USDA Land Inventory and Monitoring, and Storie Index: A Comparison".
Submitted for publication to Soil Science Society of America Journal,
119781.
Schmude, Keith 0. "A Perspective on Prime Farmland". Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, 32 (Sept./Oct. 1977), 240-242.
Singer, Michael J.; Tanji, K. K.; and Snyder, H. "Delineation and Planning
of Cultivated Land". In Land Use Planning, American Society of Agron-
omy Monograph C11. In press [1978].
Singer, Michael J. "Storie Index and USDA Capability Classification: A
Comparison". Submitted for publication to Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation [1978].
Snyder, J. Herbert. "A New Program for Agricultural Land Use Stabilization:
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965". Land Economics, 42
(Feb. 1966), 29-41.
Storie, R. Earl. Handbook of Soil Evaluation. Berkeley: Associated Stu-
dents' Store, University of California, 1964, 225 p.
Storie, R. Earl. An Index for Rating the Agricultural Values of Soils.
California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 556. Berkeley:
1932, 44 pp.
Thomas, Gerald W. "World Hunger: The New Global Challenge". Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, 30 (Jan./Feb. 1975), 8-11.
-44-
t
Tontz, R. L. and McCall, Thomasine B. Foreign Agricultural Trade of the
United States. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1976.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics for 1976.
Washington, D.C.: 1976.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Our Land and Water Resources. Economic
Research Service Misc. Pub 1290. Washington, 'D.C.: 1974, 54 pp.
..
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Perspectives on Prime Lands: Background
Papers for Seminar on Retention of Prime Lands. Washington, D.C.:
1975, 257 pp.
Van Bavel, Cornelius H. M. "Soil and Oil" (Editorial) Science, 197 (15
Jul. 1977), 213.
Wohletz, L. R. and Dolder, E. F. Know California's Land. California
Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Soil Conservation Senice.
Sacramento: 1952,43 pp.
Wood, W. S., Jr. "Prime Lands--Definition and Policy Problems". American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 48 (Dec. 1976) , 909-9137
-45-
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Editori'al Board
SERIES
Lloyd D. Musolf, Institute of Governmental Affairs, UCD, Co-Editor
Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith, Institute of Ecology, UCD, Co-Editor
Eugene Bardach, Graduate School of Public Policy, UCB 1
Richard A. Cooley, Chairman, Board of Studies, Environmental Studies, UCSC
Richard W. Harris, Department of Environmental Horticulture, UCD
Laura M. Lake, Environmental Science and Engineering Program, UCU
Dean Mann, Department of Political Science, UCSB
!
I i t' . Helen Ingram, Director, Institute bf Governmental Research, University of
Meinolf Dierkes, Director, International Institute for Environment and
Arizona (Consulting Editor)
Society, 1 Berlin 12, Steinplatz 2, Germany (Consulting Editor)
29.
28.
27.
26.
25.
Publications List
New Series :
John P. Reganold and Nichael J. Singer, Defining Prime Agricultural
Ldnd in California (October 1978), 45 pp. ($3.00)
Irving Schiffman, The Politics of Land Use Planning: A Review Essay and
Annotated Bibliography (December 1977), 110 pp. ($4.50)
Robert A. Johnston, Seymour I. Schwartz, and Thomas F. Klinkner, General i
Plan Implementation: The Growth-Phasing Program of Sacramento County I
(April 1977) , 65 pp. ($3.50) I
Philip L. Dubois and Arlen C. Christenson, Public Advocacy and Environmental t
Decisionmaking: The Wisconsin Public Intervenor (February 1977), 71 pp.
.I i
i
($3.50) * i i
Alexander J, Groth and Howard Schutz, Voter Attitudes on the 1976 Nuclear
Initiative in Califcxnia (December 1976), 55 pp. ($3.50) i f
Old Series: .
24. Nedjelko D. Suljak, Environmental Management: A Selected and Annotated
Bibliography (July 19761, 225 pp. ($5.00)
23. Victor P. Goldberg, Blair Lord, and William Moss,
Density of Recent Construction in Sacramento (May
$1.75 when ordered with Research Report no. 31)
~n Analysis of Net k"
1975), 40 pp. ($2.00 or F E
22.
21.
20.
19.
18.
17.
16.
15..
. 14.
13.
12
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
Laurence I). Baxter, Regiondl Politics and the Challenge of Environmental
Planning (December 1374) , 69 pp. ($3.00)
Charles Finkelstein, with the asistance of Laurence D. Baxter, Planning
and Politics: A StaiY Terception of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
(November 1974), 47 pp. ($2.50)
Carl J. Seneker 11, Land Use Regulation for Urban Growth Control: Selected
Legal Principles (November 1974) , 37 pp. ($2.50)
W. Turrentine Jackson and Terry L. Dailey, Environmental Planning Efforts
at Lake Tahoe: The Evolution of Regional Government 1963-1968 (February
1974), 76 pp. ($3.50)
W. Turrentine Jackson, Early Planning Efforts at Lake Tahoe: The Role of
Joseph F. Mcmnald 1956-1963 (January 1974), 131 pp. ($3.50) .
Robert A. Burco , Tolicy and Planning in L5e Lake Tahoe Basin: The Case of
Transportation (August 1973), 45 pp. , ($2.50)
William E. Felts and Geoffrey Wandesforde-Smith, The Politics of Developnent
Review in the Lake Tzhoe Basin (May 1973), 40 pp. ($2.50)
W. Turrentine Jac7kon and Donald J. Pisani, From Resort Area to Urban
Recreation Center: Themes in the Development of Lake Tahoe 1946-1956 (April
1973), 87 pp. ($3.00)
James A. Meilson, Lake Tahoe Vegetation XI: Natural Vegetation Zones
-(February 1973), 35 pp. ($2.50)
Rita M. Mize, Interest Group Opinion and California Land Use Legislation
(Decenber 1972), 44 pp. ($2.00)
James A. Neilson, Lake Tahoe Vegetation I: A Symposium (November 19721,
50 pp. ($2.50)
Race D. Davies, Preserving Agricultural and Open-Space Lands: Legislative '
Poficymking in California (June 1972), 150 pp. ($3.50)
Fred C.' Doolittle, Land-Use Planning and Regulation on the California
Coast: The State Role (May 1972), 85 pp. ($3.00)
Geoffrey WandesfordeSmith, Environmental Watchdogs: The Promise of Law
and Politics (April 1972), 45 pp. ($2.50)
Roy S. Shlemon, A Quantitative Study of Soil Erodibility in the Lake Tahoe
Basin: Phase I Report (March 1972), 31 pp. ($2.50)
W. Turrentine Jackson and Donald J. Pisani, Lake Tahoe Water: B Chronicle
of Conflict Affecting the Envirorment 1863-1939 (February 1972), 72 pp.
($3.00)
..
~~ ~~~
3
5. Nedjelko D. Suljak, Public Policymaking and Environmental QGality: An
Annotated Interdisciplinary Bibliography (July 1971), 176 pp. ($3.75)
4. James McEvoy 111, The Americen Palic's Concern with the Environment: A
.Study of Public Opinion (February 1971), 29 pp. ($2.00)
3. Alvin D. Sokolow, AB 357: The Passage of California's 'Pure Air' Law in
1968 (November 1970), 23 pp. ($1.50)
2. Raymond G. Davis, Regional Government for Lake Tahoe: A Case Study in
Legislative Politics (November 1970), 29 pp. ($1.50)
(Note: numbers 11 and 1 of this series are no longer in print.)