The oak woodlands and annual grasslands of Monterey County provide critical ecosystem ... are increasing economic incentives for ranchers to sell their land. ... For each of these two time periods we calculated and identified land .... ranchland price per acre over time from the American Society of Farm Managers and.
Conserving Monterey County’s Ranchland—Spatial Analysis
Appendix A Spatial and Real Estate Transaction Analysis of Monterey County Ranchland A.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. A-1 A.2 METHODS ........................................................................................................ A-2 A.2.1 Overview..................................................................................................... A-2 A.2.2 Ranchland Extent ........................................................................................ A-2 A.2.3 Vegetation Types ........................................................................................ A-3 A.2.4 Ranchland Ownership ................................................................................. A-3 A.2.5 Ranchland Conversion ................................................................................ A-3 A.2.6 Characterization of Converted Ranchland .................................................. A-4 A.2.7 Future Trends .............................................................................................. A-4 A.2.7 Incentive to Sell .......................................................................................... A-5 A.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................ A-6 A.3.1 Ranchland Extent ........................................................................................ A-6 A.3.2 Vegetation Types ........................................................................................ A-7 A.3.3 Ranchland Ownership ................................................................................. A-7 A.3.4 Ranchland Conversion ................................................................................ A-8 A.3.5 Characterization of Converted Grazing Land ........................................... A-10 A.3.6 Future Trends ............................................................................................ A-12 A.3.7 Incentive to Sell ........................................................................................ A-13 A.4 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................. A-15 A.5 REFERENCES................................................................................................. A-18
Conserving Monterey County’s Ranchland—Spatial Analysis
A.1 Introduction Monterey County covers 3,321 square miles of land in the Central Coast region of California. Much of the land in the county is privately owned ranchland. Cattle ranching has been an important part of Monterey County’s culture and economy since the 18th century (Johnston, 2004). Monterey County currently has the 12th largest cattle and calf industry (by value of sales) in the state, with over $22 million in annual sales (National Agriculture Statistics Service, 2002). Monterey County’s population is growing. In 2005, the county’s population was 412,104, up 2.6% since 2000. The California Department of Finance projects a 16% increase in Monterey County’s population between 2005 and 2010, and a 19% increase between 2010 and 2020 (United States Forest Service, 2003). In California, population pressures in rural areas have increasingly led to rural residential ranchette development (American Farmland Trust, 2006). As population densities increase, conservation organizations are looking for new ways of protecting scenic landscapes and native ecosystems. The Big Sur Land Trust, a non-profit group in Monterey County, aims to protect properties that have significant natural habitat, as well as open space, agricultural, watershed and recreational value (S. Danner, personal communication, October 10, 2006). The oak woodlands and annual grasslands of Monterey County provide critical ecosystem services. Ranchers own the majority of the oak woodlands and annual grasslands in California (Ewing, 1988); therefore, conserving ranchland helps to ensure that these ecosystems are protected. In addition, working with ranchers to conserve ranchland could help preserve habitat connectivity within and between these landscapes. Based on the ecological, economic, and cultural importance of ranching, the Big Sur Land Trust is interested in understanding the current status of ranchers and their ranchland in Monterey County. The objectives of our study were to estimate the current extent of private ranchland in Monterey County; determine the amount, location, and characteristics of ranchland that has changed use over the last 20 years (ranchland conversion); determine the level to which current ranchlands are protected under the Williamson Act1; estimate the potential impact of future development on ranchland; and analyze whether there are increasing economic incentives for ranchers to sell their land. Using land-use maps, real-estate transaction records, and county assessor’s parcel data, we made
1
The Williamson Act, officially known as the California Land Conservation Act, provides tax relief to landowners in exchange for an agreement to limit development on the land. Ranchlands under the Williamson Act are therefore protected to some extent.
A-1
Conserving Monterey County’s Ranchland—Spatial Analysis
reliable estimates of how the ranching landscape has changed in Monterey County, and how it might change in the future.
A.2 Methods A.2.1 Overview To assess ranchland trends in Monterey County, we used two independent land cover datasets. Using these two sets of data, the Monterey County Assessor’s Office (assessor) parcel map data and California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (CFMMP) map data, we identified privately owned ranchlands in Monterey County. We used assessor grazing land to represent the current (2006) spatial extent of private ranchland in the county. To identify changes in private ranchland area, we used three different years (1986, 1996, and 2004) of CFMMP data. We focused on private ranchland because it faces greater development pressure than publicly owned ranchland, and is therefore more of a conservation priority for the Big Sur Land Trust. Thus, the term “ranchland” is used throughout this document to refer to private ranchland. A.2.2 Ranchland Extent We mapped the extent of private ranchland in Monterey County based on the assessor’s classification of land use (classifications current as of December 2006). We defined ranchland as the collection of parcels in Monterey County whose land use was classified as 4A or 4H. The 4A or 4H designation means a parcel is either being used as grazing land or is appropriate for use as grazing land. The only difference between the two designations is that 4H land is linked to an active Williamson Act contract, and 4A land is not. The size of the parcel is not a factor in determining the parcel’s appropriateness as grazing land (R. Lent, personal communication, February 5, 2007). We chose to use assessor designated grazing land to represent the current spatial extent of ranchland for two reasons. First, assessor land use designations are assigned by a county appraiser who makes a qualitative assessment of the land use onsite. Second, our real estate transaction data was linked to assessor land use classifications. To conservatively estimate CFMMP ranchland, we chose only to consider CFMMP land coded as grazing land. We were aware that the CFMMP category “other land” contains large areas of grazing land.
A-2
Conserving Monterey County’s Ranchland—Spatial Analysis
A.2.3 Vegetation Types We used the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) multi-source land cover map, which identifies 55 different vegetation types, to determine the types of vegetation on assessor ranchland (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 2003). A.2.4 Ranchland Ownership We used assessor’s records to estimate the number of people who own more than 160 acres of ranchland in Monterey County. More than 4,000 parcels in the county were designated as grazing land by the assessor. We consolidated the parcel list by combining parcels listed under the same “assessee.” However, assessor’s records often refer to the same landowner by a slightly different name for each parcel. We therefore further consolidated the list by combining parcels for which the assessee names were so similar that we could reasonably conclude the parcels belonged to the same person. Because assessor’s records include acreage, we were able to determine how many people owned ranchland areas greater than 160 acres. A.2.5 Ranchland Conversion Since 1984, the CFMMP has monitored changes in urban and agricultural land, and produced updated maps of these changes every two years. The mapping process uses aerial photographs, a computer mapping system, public review, and field reconnaissance to verify the updates. The CFMMP uses eight land use classifications: urban and built-up land, other land, water, grazing land, and four types of farmland. To identify the changes in ranchland area we looked only at the grazing classification. We looked at changes in grazing land area between 1986 and 1996 and then again between 1996 and 2004 (the 2006 update was not yet available when we conducted our analysis). For each of these two time periods we calculated and identified land that had been converted from grazing land to non-grazing land, as well as land converted from non-grazing land to grazing land. To supplement our spatial analysis of ranchland conversion, we used real estate transaction data from DataQuick, Inc.2 to explore trends in the number of ranchland parcels being sold every year. We purchased all the records for transactions involving land classified as pastureland (APAS) by DataQuick. APAS land corresponds to the county assessor’s 4A and 4H grazing land designations. Both large ranches and smaller rural residential “ranchettes” could be classified by an assessor as grazing land; however, we were only interested in true ranch transactions. 2
DataQuick, Inc. is a national real estate data repository that sells real estate information, including transaction records and land use information, based on parcel numbers.
A-3
Conserving Monterey County’s Ranchland—Spatial Analysis
The American Farmland Trust, a non-profit organization that works to protect U.S. agricultural resources, defines a ranchette as a 1.7 to 40 acre “weekend hobby farm.” Ranchettes are not typically used for traditional farming or ranching. Based on conversations with Monterey County ranchers and appraisers, we expanded our definition of a ranchette to include properties up to 160 acres. In Monterey County, ranchland areas of less than 160 acres are not usually large enough for viable cattle ranching operations. We defined a ranch as one or several parcels of pastureland totaling more than 160 acres, sold under the same ownership, at the same time, with the same sale document number as identified by DataQuick. We were able to track only those transactions in which the parcel was sold as ranchland (the 4A or 4H assessor’s designation), and was still classified as ranchland at the time of our analysis. While these transactions therefore do not likely represent conversion of ranchland to a non-ranching use, an increasing number of transactions could indicate an increasing uncertainty in the future use of these lands. A.2.6 Characterization of Converted Ranchland We characterized the areas converted from grazing land to non-grazing land between 1986 and 2004 based on three factors: soil type (including slope), distance to major roads, and distance to the nearest city. We then compared these lands to current (2004) grazing lands. We used United States Geological Survey soil data (SSURGO) to identify the type of soil and the slope for each 40 acre cell in areas that had been converted from grazing land to other uses. We selected the 40 acre resolution because it corresponded to the minimum mapping unit for the CFMMP data. We converted raster cells to points to calculate the distance from each raster cell to the nearest city3, and to primary and secondary roads4. Cities and roads outside of Monterey County were not considered. A.2.7 Future Trends To assess the impact future population growth might have on Monterey County’s ranchland, we used the Western Futures Growth model, which projects housing densities by applying population estimates and a set of spatial rules to disperse future housing across the landscape. Past housing density distribution and growth are used to project future housing density patterns. The model subdivides United States Census 3
Cities include both incorporated places and populated places that are named locations with clustered or scattered buildings and a permanent human population (California Spatial Information Library, 2000). 4 Primary roads include nationally and regionally important highways. Secondary roads include mostly state highways and may include some county highways that connect smaller towns, subdivisions, and neighborhoods (California Spatial Information Library, 2000).
A-4
Conserving Monterey County’s Ranchland—Spatial Analysis
tracts into block-groups containing roughly 250 to 550 housing units. Block-groups are then subdivided into blocks that are roughly a city block in size in urban areas, but may be many square kilometers in rural areas (Theobald, 2005). The model computes growth in each of four housing density classes: less than 0.25 acres per unit is considered urban, 0.25-1.7 acres per unit is considered suburban, 1.740 acres per unit is exurban, and housing densities greater than 40 acres per unit are considered rural. We further divided the rural density class into two separate classes to depict the changes in housing densities that would typically occur on ranchlands. We defined “rural residential” housing densities as 40-160 acres per unit, and “rural” housing densities as greater than 160 acres per unit. We mapped the housing density classes for 1980 and 2000, as well as the projected density classes for 2020. We then calculated the percent change of each density class between these three time periods. The Western Futures Growth Model forecasts possible development patterns without taking the local land-use regulations and zoning ordinances into account. It gives only crude predictions of future development based on historical growth patterns of the census blocks. A.2.7 Incentive to Sell To assess the financial incentive for ranchers to sell their land, we obtained data on ranchland price per acre over time from the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers (ASFMRA) Trends in Agricultural Land and Lease Values report. This annual report lists an average land value range for each type of agriculture, for each county in California. The report is assembled by private practice appraisers in Monterey County based on their assessment of the market (American Society of Farmland Managers and Rural Appraisers, 2006). To verify the ASFMRA land values, we generated price per acre values from the DataQuick transaction data and looked for trends in the distribution of price per acre of the ranches sold, over four and five-year time periods (1986-1990, 1991-1995, 1996-2000, and 2001-2005). To evaluate the significance of price difference between 1986-1995 and 1996-2005, we converted all prices to 2005 dollars using the Consumer Price Index (Sahr, 2006). We then eliminated outliers that were more than two standard deviations from the mean for each time period, and then ran a two sample T-test assuming unequal variances on Monte Carlo replicated mean values from a simple random sample at 1000 iterations. We did not include transactions where the price per acre was below 100 dollars because these transactions are often the result of partial sales or of a transfer to another family member, in which the land is sold well below market value (ASFMRA, personal communication December 7, 2006).
A-5
Conserving Monterey County’s Ranchland—Spatial Analysis
A.3 Results and Discussion A.3.1 Ranchland Extent Private ranchland area derived from the assessor’s parcel map data was 1,420 square miles (Figure 1), while private ranchland area derived from the CFMMP map data was 1,416 square miles (Figure 2). Of all land in Monterey County, 43% is private ranchland. Overall, 28% of Monterey County is public land; of the remaining 72% of land that is private, 60% of it is ranchland. Of Monterey County’s private ranchland, 1,016 square miles, or 72% of it, is under Williamson Act contract. There are currently 2,544 ranchland parcels under Williamson Act (Figure 1); only 13 of which (4 square miles) are in non-renewal.
Figure 1. Monterey County, showing public land, assessor ranchland, and assessor ranchland under the Williamson Act. (Data Source: Monterey County Assessor’s Office)
A-6
Conserving Monterey County’s Ranchland—Spatial Analysis
We found that while assessor ranchland and CFMMP ranchland are nearly identical in total area, they have different spatial extents. This discrepancy is the result of differing identification methodologies. For example, we calculated that 17% of total assessor ranchland (247 square miles) is classified as “other land” instead of “grazing land” by CFMMP. A.3.2 Vegetation Types Nearly 50% of ranchland in Monterey County is annual grassland, and 27% of ranchland is oak woodland. Of all annual grassland in Monterey County, 68% is on ranchland, and of all oak woodlands in the county, 50% are on ranchland (Table 1). Table 1. Vegetation types found on Monterey County ranchland. (Data Source: FRAP) Square miles Square miles Percent of in Monterey on Ranchland County Ranchland
Percent of Monterey County Total on Ranchland
Annual Grassland
995.9
679.3
48.1
68.2
Mixed Chaparral
421.0
75.5
5.3
17.9
Agriculture
389.7
19.0
1.3
4.9
Blue Oak Woodland
388.3
268.0
19.0
69.0
Coastal Oak Woodland
383.9
119.9
8.5
31.2
Coastal Scrub
315.8
177.9
12.6
31.2
Urban
106.7
7.4
0.5
6.9
Chamise-Redshank Chaparral
88.0
43.7
3.1
49.6
Montane Hardwood
64.9
4.1
