Schuyler County Idle Farmland Analysis. Conducted by Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schuyler County

Similar documents
PPT Slide. Slide 1 of 32. Notes:

Too Close for Comfort

Information Paper. Kansas City District. Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project Jim and Olivia Hare Wildlife Area, MO

Cripps Ranch 76+/- Acres Orchard Development Opportunity Dixon, CA. Presented By:

TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL M E M O R A N D U M. To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 4B10

Sacramento River Farmland Anderson, California

New Land Cover & Land Use Data for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Introduction. Project Summary In 2014 multiple local Otsego county agencies, Otsego County Soil and Water

Chesapeake Bay Remote Sensing Pilot Executive Briefing

TRACT 7: ±252 Acres Irrigated Farmland Grassland

GIS SERVICE CENTER MAP ORDER FORM

Great California Delta Trail Blueprint for Contra Costa and Solano Counties GIS AND MAPPING MEMORANDUM JULY 2010

Final Group Project Paper. Where Should I Move: The Big Apple or The Lone Star State

Fall River Valley Irrigated Farmland

Vector Analysis: Farm Land Suitability Analysis in Groton, MA

V. THE INTERACTIVE MAP

² 2015 Program Year. Farm Tract McLeod County, Minnesota 1:4, NHEL NHEL

Chapter 3 Geographic Location Systems

Public Transportation Infrastructure Study (PTIS) - 2 nd Technical Advisory Committee Meeting

Summary of Legal Descriptions

OCPS GIS History Prior to 2002 OCPS used MapInfo and largely created own data sets GIS was used primarily by Pupil Assignment to map rezoning options

The Use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) by Local Governments. Giving municipal decision-makers the power to make better decisions

Land Use and Zoning Page 1 of 10 LAND USE AND ZONING

APPENDIX 1 LITTLE EGYPT FROM THE AIR

INDIANAMAP VIEWING APPLICATION

Regional Performance Measures

Regional Performance Measures

Workbook Exercises for Statistical Problem Solving in Geography

NEW WATERFRONT METROPARK. P u b l i c O p e n H o u s e, J u n e 2 1,

Analyzing Suitability of Land for Affordable Housing

Location Suitability Analysis

Section B - Chapter 13 Neuse River Subbasin Bay River and Pamlico Sound

SITE SUMMARY REPORT Candor Dump NONCD Montgomery County

Former Guterl Specialty Steel Site

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission Regional Zoning GIS Project Documentation

MVP WMS, George Schorr

Development of Webbased. Tool for Tennessee

Technical Memorandum #2 Future Conditions

2011 Land Use/Land Cover Delineation. Meghan Jenkins, GIS Analyst, GISP Jennifer Kinzer, GIS Coordinator, GISP

CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL PR OPERTIES, IN C. GALE RANCH

Chittenden Road Prune Orchard Corning, California

NC 73 Transportation / Land Use Corridor Plan

VALIDATING A SURVEY ESTIMATE - A COMPARISON OF THE GUYANA RURAL FARM HOUSEHOLD SURVEY AND INDEPENDENT RICE DATA

Lecture 5. Symbolization and Classification MAP DESIGN: PART I. A picture is worth a thousand words

Voter Enrollment by Town/Ward/District With Signatures Required Based on 5% Required

Protocol Calibration in the National Resources Inventory

LUCAS: A possible scheme for a master sampling frame. J. Gallego, MARS AGRI4CAST

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN CREATING A REGIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD TYPOLOGY

Producing Chandler Walnut Orchard

Rural Louisiana. A quarterly publication of the Louisiana Tech Rural Development Center

Palo Pinto County Appraisal District Property Info

Site Selection & Monitoring Plot Delineation

ILLINOIS STATE WATER SURVEY ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES SECTION THE RELATIONSHIP OF ILLINOIS WEATHER AND AGRICULTURE TO THE EASTERN COTTONTAIL RABBIT

(b)(5) deliberative process

Vacant Land Identification in the City of Lakeway Texas and Growth potential of the Lakeway Area

PW Parkway ES Prince William County, Virginia WSSI #

Integrating GIS into West Nile Virus Planning and Surveillance

The Driftless Area. Dave Speer Geography 326

GIS Resources for Local Governments

GIS Test Drive What a Geographic Information System Is and What it Can Do. Alison Davis-Holland

APPLICATION TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP (FLUM) SMALL SCALE

Development and Land Use Change in the Central Potomac River Watershed. Rebecca Posa. GIS for Water Resources, Fall 2014 University of Texas

Mapping Earth. How are Earth s surface features measured and modeled?

TSEGI WASH 50% DESIGN REPORT

1. To appreciate the value of the soil survey as a tool to obtain important information about soils and vegetation in given geographic areas

Geodatabase for Sustainable Urban Development. Presented By Rhonda Maronn Maurice Johns Daniel Ashney Jack Anliker

Planning for Sea Level Rise in the Matanzas Basin

Old Thomasson Range, Chico, CA

LOCATED IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PREPARED FOR S.J.R.W.M.D. AND F.W.C.D. DECEMBER, 2003 Updated 2007 Updated May 2014 PREPARED BY

Assessing the benefit of green infrastructure/wsud on urban microclimate

Least-Cost Transportation Corridor Analysis Using Raster Data.

Incorporating GIS into Hedonic Pricing Models

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Advanced Methods for Agricultural and Agroenvironmental. Emily Berg, Zhengyuan Zhu, Sarah Nusser, and Wayne Fuller

Introducing GIS analysis

Introduction to Mapping

CAMARGO RANCH, llc. CRAIG BUFORD BufordResources.com

2.1.2 Land cover data

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Employment Capacity in Transit Station Areas in Maryland

Internet Mapping Framework 1 (IMF) to Common Web Mapping (CWM) Legend Comparison

CITY OF PORTLAND, TEXAS SERVICE PLAN FOR ANNEXATION AREA

BROWN COUNTY FARMLAND AUCTION

Warner Real Estate Advisors, Inc. Minto West Non -Residential Intensity Analysis

Neighborhood Locations and Amenities

Precision Ag Services

1.0 PURPOSE AND FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR

Getting to know GIS. Chapter 1. Introducing GIS. Part 1. Learning objectives

FOR LEASE ±1,800 SF OUTPARCEL NEW CONSTRUCTION, SINGLE TENANT

LANDUSE APPLICATIONS OF EARTHQUAKE HAZARD MAPS CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE


MPOs SB 375 LAFCOs SCAG Practices/Experiences And Future Collaborations with LAFCOs

GROUNDWATER MONITORING DATA 2016 SAMPLING EVENT HARSHAW CHEMICAL COMPANY FUSRAP SITE

LAND COVER IN OHIO S TOWNSHIPS: AN ANALYSIS OF TOWNSHIP LAND COVER AND POPULATION CHANGE

What is a published soil survey?

Chapter 02 Maps. Multiple Choice Questions

Appendix P San Joaquin Valley Greenprint

Geospatial Technologies

METHODOLOGIES FOR ANALYZING IMPACT OF URBANIZATION ON IRRIGATION DISTRICTS

AGENDA CLAYTON BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Transcription:

Schuyler County Idle Farmland Analysis Conducted by Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schuyler County June 15, 2010

Schuyler County Idle Farmland Analysis Purpose: The purpose of this analysis is to approximate the amount of fallow land in Schuyler County. 1 Method: 1. 5 sample points were placed in each of the three county agriculture districts. (Map 1) The placement of each point was determined by asking a series of questions: 1. Where in each agriculture district is there a large number of contiguous farm parcels? 2. Do the locations of these points represent each part of the County? That is, is there a point in the north, east, south and west part of the County? This was done to get as close to a representative sample as possible. 2. Parcels within 0.5 miles of the dropped points were highlighted and analyzed. (Map 2) Once the parcels were selected, the areas around them were viewed to make sure that the selected parcels accurately reflected the area they were representing. 3. Each sample area was analyzed for fallow land using high resolution aerial imagery and a GIS measuring tool. (Map 3 7) (Appendix 1) The aerial was taken in May 2007. It should be noted that depending on the time of the year, the lands can look different, which means that the analysis could be biased. It should also be noted that differing interpretations of what constitutes idle farmland and differing interpretations of what is being seen on the aerial imagery can lead to skewed results. 4. All fallow parcels identified in Step 4 were visited and fallow acreage numbers were adjusted as needed. (Appendix 2) Parcels that were classified as fallow based on the analysis in Step 4 were visited to determine, if in fact, they were actually fallow. Based on the site visits, adjustments were made to the number of fallow acres calculated in Step 4. 1 Fallow land (which is an absence of agricultural activity) may be fallow for reasons other than lack of agricultural opportunities (e.g. hunting, recreation, privacy, speculation, etc.). 1

Results: Fallow land for the sample points ranged from 7% 17%. Agriculture District #1 East: 7% Agriculture District #2 East: 17% Agriculture District #3: 9% Agriculture District #1 West: 16% Agriculture District #2 West: 7% Combining the samples: Total acreage in the sample is: 5316.17 Total fallow land in the sample is: 571.89 The percentage of fallow land in the sample is: 11% Based on this sample, it can be inferred that of the available farmland in Schuyler, an average of 11% may be fallow, but this amount can vary significantly depending on location. 2

Map 1: Sample Points Map Created By: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Schuyler County Date: April 2010 Date Sources: CUGIR, U.S. Census AgD#1 West AgD#1 East AgD#2 West AgD#2 East AgD#3 Legend Sample Points Agriculture District #1 Agriculture District #2 Agriculture District #3 Schuyler County Boundary Parcels Water Body ± 4 2 0 4 Miles

Map 2: Highlighted Parcels Map Created By: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Schuyler County Date: April 2010 Date Sources: CUGIR, U.S. Census AgD#1 West AgD#1 East AgD#2 West AgD#2 East AgD#3 Legend Sample Points Highlighted Parcels Agriculture District #1 Agriculture District #2 Agriculture District #3 Schuyler County Boundary Water Body Parcels ± 3 1.5 0 3 Miles

Map 3: Agriculture District #1 East Map Created By: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Schuyler County Date: April 2010 Date Sources: CUGIR, U.S. Census AgD#1 East Legend Sample Points Highlighted Parcels Water Body ± 0.250.125 0 0.25 Miles

Map 4: Agriculture District #1 West Map Created By: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Schuyler County Date: April 2010 Date Sources: CUGIR, U.S. Census AgD#1 West Legend Sample Points Highlighted Parcels Water Body ± 0.2 0.1 0 0.2 Miles

Map 5: Agriculture District #2 East Map Created By: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Schuyler County Date: April 2010 Date Sources: CUGIR, U.S. Census AgD#2 East Legend Sample Points Highlighted Parcels Water Body ± 0.2 0.1 0 0.2 Miles

Map 6: Agriculture District #2 West Map Created By: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Schuyler County Date: April 2010 Date Sources: CUGIR, U.S. Census AgD#2 West Legend Sample Points Highlighted Parcels Water Body ± 0.2 0.1 0 0.2 Miles

Map 7: Agriculture District #3 Map Created By: Cornell Cooperative Extension, Schuyler County Date: April 2010 Date Sources: CUGIR, U.S. Census AgD#3 Legend Sample Points Highlighted Parcels Water Body ± 0.2 0.1 0 0.2 Miles

Appendix 1 AgD#1 East Parcel ID Total Acres Fallow Acres % Fallow 15.00 1 70 423.99 6 1% 25.00 1 10 64.09 0 0% 25.00 1 10 54.00 0 0% 25.00 1 4 95.80 0 0% 25.00 1 41 101.98 1 1% 25.00 1 42 66.16 5 8% 25.00 1 44.1 92.87 10 11% 25.00 1 46 87.22 0 0% 25.00 1 47 82.07 7 9% 25.00 1 48 2.60 0 0% 25.00 1 5.11 134.97 44 33% 25.00 1 5.12 1.83 0 0% 25.00 1 5.2 6.96 1 14% 25.00 1 52.111 45.90 10 22% 25.00 1 52.21 6.08 2 33% 25.00 1 6.1 6.95 0 0% 25.00 1 6.2 5.42 4 65% 25.00 1 7 3.54 0 0% 25.00 1 9.11 11.02 0 0% 25.00 1 9.12 4.83 0 0% 25.00 1 9.211 21.56 0 0% 25.00 1 9.212 5.05 0 0% 25.00 1 9.22 4.36 0 0% 25.00 1 9.23 5.01 0 0% 25.00 1 9.24 5.66 0 0% Total 1339.90 89.78 7%

AgD#1 West Parcel ID Total Acres Fallow Acres % Fallow 12.00 1 50 7.50 0 0% 12.00 1 67.1 10.47 0 0% 12.00 1 67.2 9.84 0 0% 12.00 1 69.2 41.08 0 0% 12.00 1 70 104.03 22 21% 12.00 1 71 11.30 2 15% 12.00 1 72.1 12.41 1 10% 12.00 1 72.2 9.81 0 0% 12.00 1 73 17.66 7 37% 12.00 1 74.2 25.63 0 0% 12.00 1 75.112 4.81 0 0% 12.00 1 75.113 16.16 2 12% 13.00 1 2.1 50.17 7 14% 13.00 1 2.2 47.31 14 30% 22.00 1 60.114 23.82 0 0% 22.00 1 60.115 44.31 20 45% 22.00 1 61.111 64.91 0 0% 22.00 1 61.112 1.80 0 0% 22.00 1 61.113 21.33 0 0% 22.00 1 61.12 13.32 0 0% 22.00 1 61.2 4.94 0 0% 22.00 1 62 53.34 8 15% 22.00 1 64.11 157.65 11 7% 22.00 1 64.12 5.19 0 0% 22.00 1 64.2 2.90 0 0% 22.00 1 65 21.65 4 18% 22.00 1 66.1 50.46 40 80% 22.00 1 67.022 6.35 1 16% 22.00 1 67.112 8.83 0 0% Total 848.97 138.87 16%

AgD#2 East Parcel ID Total Acres Fallow Acres % Fallow 52.00 1 26.111 32.18 10 31% 52.00 1 26.114 31.41 3 9% 52.00 1 26.115 37.06 15 40% 52.00 1 26.117 6.09 3 42% 53.00 1 67 3.76 0 0% 53.00 1 68 101.45 6 5% 63.00 1 10 45.88 0 0% 63.00 1 11 6.38 3 47% 63.00 1 12 6.69 4 52% 63.00 1 14.11 1.01 0 0% 63.00 1 14.12 103.96 20 19% 63.00 1 14.2 2.16 0 0% 63.00 1 15 5.00 0 0% 63.00 1 16 0.95 0 0% 63.00 1 18.1 46.93 25 53% 63.00 1 18.2 2.89 0 0% 63.00 1 7 92.03 0 0% 63.00 1 8 0.65 0 0% 63.00 1 9 4.83 0 7% 63.00 3 14.113 13.28 8 58% 64.00 1 1.1 118.68 14 12% 64.00 1 3.11 16.56 0 0% 64.00 1 4.11 23.08 0 0% 64.00 1 53.2 50.24 25 50% 64.00 3 1.1 168.52 42 25% 64.00 3 1.2 1.95 0 0% 64.00 3 2 0.63 0 0% 64.00 3 3.11 37.85 1 1% 64.00 3 3.12 86.72 0 0% Total 1048.84 176.55 17%

AgD#2 West Parcel ID Total Acres Fallow Acres % Fallow 28.00 1 12 79.79 0 0% 28.00 1 13 85.97 4 5% 28.00 1 14.1 0.88 0 0% 28.00 1 14.211 40.38 6 15% 28.00 1 14.212 14.77 3 17% 28.00 1 14.213 4.57 0 0% 28.00 1 14.214 13.66 0 0% 28.00 1 14.215 9.57 3 34% 28.00 1 15 114.75 10 9% 28.00 1 16 59.04 0 0% 28.00 1 17 183.93 0 0% 28.00 1 21 232.01 9 4% 28.00 1 31 2.82 0 8% 28.00 1 32 4.86 0 0% 39.00 1 11 187.99 34 18% 39.00 1 12 87.92 10 11% Total 1122.90 78.81 7%

AgD#3 Parcel ID Total Acres Fallow Acres % Fallow 107.00 1 16 1.14 0 25% 107.00 1 17.1 75.48 29 38% 107.00 1 17.2 3.97 0 0% 107.00 1 18 1.23 0 0% 107.00 1 19 56.31 2 4% 97.00 1 18 1.33 0 0% 97.00 1 19.111 134.26 0 0% 97.00 1 24 23.10 6 24% 97.00 1 25 12.44 0 0% 97.00 1 26 8.05 0 0% 97.00 1 27.1 10.37 0 0% 97.00 1 27.2 1.97 0 0% 97.00 1 28.1 57.03 0 0% 97.00 1 62 11.77 10 85% 97.00 1 64 7.80 5 64% 98.00 1 30 35.97 0 0% 98.00 1 34 11.66 0 0% 98.00 1 35 0.90 0 0% 98.00 1 36 1.17 0 0% 98.00 1 37 17.72 8 42% 98.00 1 38 99.24 8 8% 98.00 1 39 120.59 0 0% 98.00 1 41 30.89 5 16% 98.00 1 42 22.66 1 4% 98.00 1 43 1.47 0 0% 98.00 1 44 0.96 0 0% 98.00 1 45 8.57 0 0% 98.00 1 46.111 11.74 2 17% 98.00 1 46.112 2.60 1 23% 98.00 1 46.12 14.28 0 0% 98.00 1 46.2 6.01 1 8% 98.00 1 47 42.90 0 0% 98.00 1 48.12 64.28 5 8% 98.00 1 50.2 0.47 0 0% 98.13 1 1 0.47 0 0% 98.13 1 10 0.52 0 0% 98.13 1 11 1.04 0 0% 98.13 1 12 1.08 0 0% 98.13 1 13 0.67 0 0% 98.13 1 14 0.32 0 0% 98.13 1 15 0.57 0 0% 98.13 1 16 0.34 0 0% 98.13 1 17 0.09 0 0% 98.13 1 18 10.42 0 0% 98.13 1 19 0.69 0 0%

98.13 1 2 0.79 0 0% 98.13 1 20 0.42 0 0% 98.13 1 21 7.01 7 100% 98.13 1 22 0.90 0 0% 98.13 1 23 1.09 0 0% 98.13 1 24 0.41 0 0% 98.13 1 25 0.64 0 0% 98.13 1 26 0.28 0 0% 98.13 1 27 1.07 0 0% 98.13 1 28 0.55 0 0% 98.13 1 29 0.55 0 0% 98.13 1 3 0.59 0 0% 98.13 1 30 0.59 0 0% 98.13 1 31 0.39 0 0% 98.13 1 33 1.20 0 0% 98.13 1 34 2.24 0 0% 98.13 1 4 0.37 0 0% 98.13 1 5 0.52 0 0% 98.13 1 6 0.83 0 0% 98.13 1 7 0.38 0 0% 98.13 1 8 0.41 0 0% 98.13 1 9 0.56 0 0% 98.00 1 40 13.01 0 0% 98.00 1 50.1 1.05 0 0% 98.00 1 50.2 3.14 0 0% Total 955.56 87.88 9%

Appendix 2 The following pictures show some of the parcels that were visited. The following parcel was classified as fallow: The following parcels were classified as active: