Conserving Open Space:
A Profile and Analysis of Northampton’s Open Spaces, Core Habitats and
Wildlife Corridors.
Catherine Masek
Smith College
May 9th, 2007
Abstract:
The city of Northampton recognizes the need for open space conservation as part of
sustainable development. Chronic funding shortages prevent the acquisition of all potential
conservation land and create the need to identify key parcels that are both ecologically and
communally significant and relatively easy to purchase or protect. Parcel identification includes
land profiling areas of know ecological activity. A GIS land profile analysis was done on
Northampton’s open space and core habitats and wildlife corridors that run along the north, west
and south edges of the city. Wildlife committee maps were georeferenced onto city layers and
current permanently preserved land was removed. Remaining vulnerable land was examined by
the attributes of land use, zoning, dwelling presence and property value. The majority of the
land was forest with rural or suburban residential zoning, did not have a living unit present and
had parcel acres valued under a million dollars. Land profiles give the city a description of the
land in these conservation zones and can help identify individual parcels as they become
available for purchase and help target parcels of conservation interest within the areas. Welldesigned conservation plans along with smart growth will enable the city to maintain its rural
small town character while allowing essential city growth.
A Need for Open Space:
Land acquisition for conservation purposes is an important part of city planning. Open
space preservation is important both in protecting habitat integrity and providing natural
environment access to the public. Smart conservation practices increase the size and stability of
local ecosystems and foster stronger senses of place among residents without inhibiting essential
city growth. Development, housing and infrastructure must occur to accommodate the changes
in a city’s size and demographic distribution. Proper planning can enable urban development
without encroaching on open space, balancing human and wild habitats. The Sustainable Design
Assessment Team (SDAT) conducted a survey in 2005 of the City of Northampton’s current
development trends and gave recommendations for practices to ensure Northampton’s
sustainable growth (SDAT, 2005). The city took these recommendations and drafted the
Sustainable Northampton plan that includes smart growth strategies that allow development
while maintaining the rural, small town character of the city. Development is to model current
city composition. Rural cluster housing will encourage the retention of open space. Urban infill
will develop empty internal space inside downtown districts. Development will be focused on
increasing the density of downtown (OPD, 2007).
Part of this initiative included the five-year updating of the Open Space and Recreation
Plan by the Conservation Commission, Recreation Commission and Planning Board. In the new
1
2005-2010 draft, open space goals, natural resource needs and a five-year action plan were all
stated and included the acquisition of open space for increased land connectivity and ecological
viability. Major open space and recreation goals include:
“Preserve and expand city holdings of open space, wild lands and small pieces of open land in developed
areas. Preserve the character and integrity of rural areas, farms, forests, and rivers. Maintain and restore
healthy and sustainable natural ecosystems with diverse populations of indigenous flora and fauna” (CC,
RC & PB, 2005)
The top resource need was identified as “Permanent protection of large open space
parcels or linkage of open space parcels, to provide large natural habitat areas” (CC, RC & PB,
2005). Permanently protecting and limiting development in natural habitat areas including forest
and farmland as well as wildlife habitats and corridors were additional priorities. The five-year
action plan included “proactive planning and land acquisition” (CC, RC & PB, 2005) while
encouraging conservation restrictions and easements and forming linkages between properties.
Expanding current ecological inventories, collecting baseline data on conservation parcels, and
working with property owners, developers and other municipalities to expand contiguous open
space were all focal points. Concentrated efforts in Fitzgerald Lake, Saw-Mill and Mineral Hills
areas were noted (CC, RC & PB, 2005)
The Plan mentions utilizing data from the Wildlife Committee, a special interest group
monitoring keystone species in Northampton (Body, 2007). A historic subcommittee of the
Conservation Commission, the Wildlife Committee recently broke from city jurisdiction to better
implement their goals. More flexible as an independent group, the committee is committed to
wildlife monitoring, advocacy and education (Body, 2007). Scheduled as well as spontaneous
hikes contribute to the pool of data. A non-regulatory group, the committee makes valuable
recommendations to the commission and Office of Planning and Development in context of
wildlife protection and ecology. Using transects and GPS to plot the distribution of wildlife in
the city, the Wildlife Committee has identified land that serves as core wildlife habitat and
wildlife corridors. Three transects and over fifteen hikes in their first year, more transects and
more data collecting hikes are currently underway and more are planned for the future. From
their data compiled 2004 Wildlife Supermap, the three core habitats identified are Fitzgerald
Lake in the northeast corner of the city, Saw-Mill Mineral Hills in the northwest and western
edge of the city and Arcadia-Mt. Tom in the southeast corner of the city. Two corridors, the
2
Northern and Southern, connect Fitzgerald Lake to Saw-Mill Mineral Hills and Arcadia-Mt. Tom
to Saw-Mill Mineral Hills, respectively (Body, 2007).
This study brings together the needs and intentions of the Office of Planning and
Development with the knowledge and ecological focus of the Wildlife Committee to profile and
assess potential conservation land in Northampton. Parcel information focused in identified
conservation hot spots can enable the city to make informed acquisition decisions. The city can
both gain contextual information about particular parcels within the potential conservation land
as they become available for purchase as well as target parcels of interest that meet conservation
needs.
Methodology:
Wildlife Committee Hike:
Unable to attend an official transect hike, a wildlife watch hike led by the Wildlife
Committee was joined on February 25, 2007. Committee members led interested community
residents through woods in northwester section of the city within the Saw Mill-Mineral Hills
core habitat. The hike was on both public and private lands. Public land was owned by
Department of Public Works and was part of a water supply area. Permission had been obtained
to walk through the privately owned land. Passive recreation opportunities in the area were
discussed as well as wildlife sighting opportunities. General wildlife habits as well as the
importance of accessible open space in the city were additional topics of conversation. All tracks
and wildlife signs were identified by trained trackers. A GPS was used to mark all wildlife signs
and tracks. Data was saved for later mapping.
GIS Analysis:
1. Georeferencing: Wildlife Corridors jpeg map from the Wildlife Committee was
georeferenced along city boundary lines. Core habitats and wildlife corridors were polygon
traced and extracted as a layer, cores&corridors (Appendix I: Figure 1: Georeferenced core
habitats and wildlife corridors with generated permanently preserved open space). A data table
was generated for cores&corridors using area names from core habitats and wildlife corridors
3
maps. Wild supermap jpeg was used to generate animal species counts within core habitats and
corridors for data table.
2. Permanently Preserved Land Generation: A new attribute field was made in the
openspace layer to differentiate type of protection each parcel had. Permanently preserved land
was defined as open space parcels that were both entirely and permanently preserved
(Thompson, 2007). The open space layer was a layer of parcels owned by a federal or state
agency, protected by the city, owned by a private conservation organization or has a deeded
restriction of development rights (Young, 2007). The new binary attribute field divided
openspace between permanently preserved and not permanently preserved parcels. A new layer
was made of permanently preserved open space (Appendix I: Figure 1: Georeferenced core
habitats and wildlife corridors with generated permanently preserved open space).
3. Vulnerable Land Generation: A series of erases generated the vulnerable land
layers. The permanently preserved land, wetlands and rivers&lakes layers were erased from
both cores&corridors and openspace. Wetlands and rivers&lakes were erased because
watersheds are protected by the city under both the state’s Wetlands Protection Act and the city’s
Wetlands Ordinance. This generated vulnerable land polygons. Vulnerable land included not
permanently preserved open space, and land within core habitats and wildlife corridors that were
not permanently preserved. Vulnerable land does not include wetlands or rivers and lakes
because they are protected under independent ordinances. Cores&corridors were split into two
layers, core habitats, three polygons, and wildlife corridors, two polygons. This resulted in three
layers of vulnerable land, vulnerable core habitat, vulnerable corridors and vulnerable open
space. Then vulnerable open space within the core and corridor layers were found by
intersecting vulnerable open space with both vulnerable cores and vulnerable corridors to
produce two new layers, vulnerable core open space and vulnerable corridor open space. Five
layers were created for land profile analysis, three independent layers - vulnerable open space,
vulnerable cores and vulnerable corridors- and two sub layers - vulnerable core open space and
vulnerable corridor open space.
4
4. Land Profiles: Five data frames were made, one to show vulnerable area types –core,
corridor, core open space, corridor open space, open space- and one for each attribute of interestland use, zoning, dwelling presence and property value. All relevant layers were compiled into
each frame. All five vulnerable land layers were joined to the parcels layer. Additional joins
were conducted for land use and zoning. Vulnerable land layers were symbolized by attribute of
interest. The land use data frame was symbolized by massGIS land use codes. Zoning was
symbolized by City of Northampton zoning districts. Dwelling presence was symbolized by
living unit presence from the parcels layer. A new binary attribute field was generated in the
parcels table for presence or absence of living units. Property value was symbolized by the value
attribute from the parcels layer. Value is the sum of land and building value, giving total parcel
value. Manual breaks for property value was determined by dividing the total range of property
value across all five land layers into five categories, < quarter million, a quarter to half a million,
half to one million, one to five million and greater than five million.
5. Chart Generation: Twenty charts were generated, four attributes-land use, zoning,
dwelling presence and property value- for each of the five vulnerable land layers. Acreage was
calculated for each of the five land layers and summed by attribute of interest. A new table of
summary acres was generated. New attribute fields in the original attribute table were made for
the summary acres and attribute. A representative parcel was chosen for each attribute type and
the sum acres and attribute was manually edited into the table. New layers of the representative
parcels were made and the new layers’ attribute tables were used to generate summary acreage
tables by attribute. Using representative parcels maintained the original layers’ symbology in the
summary acres charts. For example, for the zoning layer, acreage was calculated for each parcel.
The zone district attribute was summarized by acres sum and a table of total acres for each zone
district was generated. This table was then manually edited back into the original attribute table
under a new field sum_acres using representative parcels for each different zone district. A new
layer was generated from the representative parcels and the summary acres attribute was graphed
and labeled by zone district. This allowed the acres for each zone district to be graphed while
maintaining original zoning symbology. This was repeated for land use, sum acreage by land
use, and dwelling presence, sum acreage by living unit presence. Property value chart generation
required an additional field. Since the symbology categories were manually derived, the value
5
attribute had to be categorized in a new field by the value ranges before being summed by acres.
The acres were summed by value ranges and then graphed.
6. City Profile: Full city maps were made for each of the four attributes; land use, zone
district, property value and dwelling presence. Maps had the same symbology as the vulnerable
land layers for each attribute to enable comparisons. Charts of the acreage breakdown in the city
for each attribute were generated in the same manner as the charts for the vulnerable land layers.
Data Sources: City of Northampton Department of Planning & Development
Zoning_20070413, Zoning_overlay_20070413, Parcels_20070413,
Openspace_20070413, Wetlands, Rivers_lakes,
Roads_DPW_20070130
MassGIS
City_boundary_massgis, Land Use 1985, NHESP Certified Vernal
Pools 2007
Wildlife Committee
Wildlife_corridors.jpg, Wild_supermap_7-04.jpg
Informal Interviews:
Members of the Conservation Commission, Wildlife Committee, and Office of Planning
and Development were interviewed over the phone or in person the week of April 9-13th.
Questions included histories of the different groups and current roles in land acquisition and
conservation. Members were asked about current city regulations, enforcement authority, and
recent conservation actions. The state Wetlands Protection Act and city Wetlands Ordinance
were discussed. Each member was also asked professional and personal opinions of the
Community Preservation Act. Recent city election of the CPA tax and its implications were
discussed including the formation of the Community Preservation Committee and predicted
allocations of the funding. Members were also asked their opinion of the future of conservation
in Northampton in light of the CPA.
Results:
Wildlife Committee Hike:
6
The mid afternoon hike lasted over two hours and consisted of a communal march
through partially trailed woods and along private dirt roads through fallow fields. Hikers were
there to enjoy a bright Western Massachusetts winter day outdoors. Attendance was selfselective and composed of committee members and avid outdoorsmen. Community participants
were mostly older residents of retirement age who owned property and had a long-standing
history with the area often spanning generations. A few families attended with young or middle
aged parents with young children. Few young adults attended, reflecting the ageing of the
citizen conservationist. All hikers had some environmental science knowledge, often deriving
from long-term experience with their personal surroundings. Many were from farming families.
All had a commitment to conservation and an avid interest in wildlife. All expressed an
emotional attachment to and personal investment in the local environment. There was a
consensual desire to keep spaces open, wild and accessible.
GIS Analysis:
Five maps and twenty charts were generated from this analysis. Total land acreages for
the city, permanently preserved land, total vulnerable land and the break down of vulnerable land
by each of the five land layers were found (Table 1. Northampton land acreage by vulnerability
status).
Table 1: Northampton land acreage by vulnerability status.
Type
Acres
City of Northampton
22,848.25
Permanently Preserved
3,730.03
Vulnerable Land
8,083.25
Vulnerable Core
6,058.82
Vulnerable Corridor
1,514.59
Vulnerable Open Space
909.22
Core Open Space
172.97
Corridor Open Space
226.40
7
In Northampton, 3,730.03 acres or 16.3% of its land acreage is permanently preserved.
Vulnerable land, as defined above, consists of 8,083.25 acres or 35.4% of Northampton’s land
acreage. Most of the vulnerable land is core habitat, 6,058.82 acres or 75.0% of the vulnerable
land and 26.5% of the city’s land. Vulnerable wildlife corridors, 1,514.59 acres, compose 18.7%
of vulnerable land and 6.6% of the city. Vulnerable open space, 909.22 acres, composes 11.2%
of the vulnerable land and 4.0% of the city. The majority of vulnerable open space, 509.85 acres
or 56%, lies outside of the core habitats and wildlife corridors. Most of the vulnerable land runs
along the north, west and south edges of the city, in the cores and corridors, although some
vulnerable open space lies in the center of the city (Appendix I: Figure 2: Potential Conservation
Land).
Land Use: The land use attribute was analyzed for each of the five vulnerable land layers and
mapped together (Appendix I: Figure 3: Potential conservation land by land use). The majority
of vulnerable land is forest, although twenty of the twenty one land uses are found in the
vulnerable land. Only salt water wetlands were not represented and this is due to initial wetland
removal from the vulnerable land layer. The acreage charts give land use details for each land
layer (Appendix II: Figure 7: Land use charts by vulnerable land layer).
All vulnerable land layers are over half forest. Vulnerable core (Figure 7a) has 4506.4
acres of forest or 74.4% of the vulnerable core acreage. Cropland is the next largest land use
with 566.2 acres or 9.3% of the vulnerable core. Low, medium and high density residential land
uses compose a total of 548.7 acres or 9.1% of the vulnerable core. Vulnerable open space
within vulnerable core habitat, 173.0 acres or 2.9% of the vulnerable core, (Figure 7c) is 80.9%
forest, 11.9% cropland, and 3.1% urban open. All three residential densities make up 1.2% of
vulnerable core open space. Vulnerable corridor (Figure 7b) has 1014.7 acres of forest or 67.0%
of vulnerable corridor acreage. Cropland follows forest with 133.1 acres or 8.8% of the
vulnerable corridor. Participation recreation is the third largest land use with 100.0 acres or
6.6% of the vulnerable corridor. Waste disposal and pasture compose 3.8% and 3.5% of the
vulnerable corridor respectively. Medium and low density residential compose a total of 89.0
acres, 49.0 and 40.0 respectively, or 5.9% of the vulnerable corridor. Vulnerable open space
within the vulnerable corridors, 226.4 acres or 14.9% of the vulnerable corridor, (Figure 7d) is
8
83.9% forest, 10.5% cropland and 4.5% woody perennial. There is only 1.7 acres of medium
density residential. Total vulnerable open space (Figure 7e) has 524.1 acres of forest or 57.7%
of the vulnerable open space. Urban open is 101.3 acres or 11.1%, spectator recreation is 78.9
acres or 8.7%, cropland is 77.6 acres or 8.5% and pasture is 63.7 or 7.0% of the vulnerable open
space. The three residential densities compose 32.6 acres or 3.9% of the vulnerable open space,
the largest portion being high density with 26.5 acres. Small acreages of transportation,
industrial, and commercial land uses were present in the vulnerable lands.
Zoning: The zone district attribute was analyzed for each of the five vulnerable land
layers and mapped together (Appendix I: Figure 4: Potential conservation land by zoning
district).
Almost all of vulnerable land is a residential zone. The majority is rural or suburban
residential, RR or SR, with a strong presence of both A and B urban residential zones. Very little
special conservancy is found, with none in vulnerable corridors. Fourteen of the fifteen districts
are represented, only planned village zoning is not present. All zone districts are represented,
including business, industry and medical zoning. The acreage charts give zone details for each
vulnerable land layer (Appendix II: Figure 8: Zoning charts by vulnerable land layer).
Vulnerable core (Figure 8a) is 4675.9 acres rural residential or 77.2% of vulnerable core
acreage. The second thru fifth largest zone districts were urban residential A with 467.2 acres or
7.7%, special conservancy with 380.9 acres or 6.3%, and suburban residential with 276.5 acres
or 4.6% and general industrial with 131.9 acres or 2.2% of vulnerable core acreage. Vulnerable
open space within vulnerable core habitat (Figure 8c), 173.0 acres or 2.9% of vulnerable core, is
161.5 acres or 93.4% rural residential, 8.1 acres or 5.0% urban residential A, 2.3 acres or 1.3%
special conservancy and less than an acre each of general industrial, business park, neighborhood
business, urban residential B and suburban residential. Vulnerable corridor (Figure 8b) is 1308.2
acres or 86.4% suburban residential. Rural residential is the next largest zone district with 148.5
acres or 9.8% of vulnerable corridor acreage, followed by business park with 43.7 acres or 2.9%,
urban residential A at 13.2 acres or 0.9% and less and an acre of general industrial. Vulnerable
open space within vulnerable corridor (Figure 8d) is 99.8% suburban residential. Urban
residential A and rural residential make up the remaining 0.2% acreage. Total vulnerable space
(Figure 8e) has 314.1 acres, 34.5%, of suburban residential, 232.2 acres, 25.5%, of urban
9
residential B, 204.5 acres, 22.5%, of rural residential, 103.3 acres, 11.4%, of urban residential A
and 7.1 acres, 0.8%, of urban residential C for a total of 860.6 acres of residential districts or
94.7% of vulnerable open space acreage. Special conservancy and medical were the largest nonresidential zone districts with 17.9 and 16.6 acres or 2.0% and 1.8% respectively. Highway
business, general industry, central business, special industry, business park and general business
compose the remaining acreage in descending order.
Dwelling Presence: The living unit presence attribute was analyzed for each of the five
vulnerable land layers and mapped together (Appendix I: Figure 5: Potential conservation land
by parcel living units). The majority of vulnerable land parcels do not have living units on them.
Only the vulnerable core open space had more acreage with dwellings than without living units
(Appendix II: Figure 9: Dwelling presence charts by vulnerable land layer).
Vulnerable core habitat (Figure 9a) has 3541.8 acres or 60.8% uninhabited land and
2280.2 acres or 39.2% land with a living unit present. Vulnerable open space within vulnerable
core habitat (Figure 9c), 172.7 acres or 2.9% of vulnerable core acreage, has 101.4 acres or
58.7% with a living unit present and 71.3 acres or 41.3% without a living unit. Vulnerable
corridor (Figure 9b) has 866.1 acres or 58.6% without a dwelling and 612.9 acres or 41.4% with
dwellings. Vulnerable open space within vulnerable corridors (Figure 9d) has 203.2 acres or
89.7% of the acreage without living units and 23.2 acres or 10.3% with living units. Total
vulnerable open space (Figure 9e) has 777.7 acres or 85.6% uninhabited land and 130.6 acres or
14.4% of the acreage with a dwelling present.
Property Value: The property value attribute, value equaling land and building values,
was analyzed for each of the five vulnerable land layers and mapped together (Appendix I:
Figure 6: Potential conservation land by parcel property value).
The largest single property value range of vulnerable core habitat and corridor lands is
the least expensive range of under a quarter million dollars. Vulnerable open spaces within
vulnerable cores and corridors are more expensive with the least expensive value range being the
second largest for both and the second least expensive and middle value range being the largest
acreages for each vulnerable open space respectively. Vulnerable open space is more expensive
than vulnerable cores and corridors in general. The most expensive value range of over 5 million
10
dollars is the largest acreage for vulnerable open space, followed closely by the least expensive
of under a quarter million (Appendix II: Figure 10: Property value charts by vulnerable land
layer).
Vulnerable core (Figure 10a) has 3302.2 acres or 56.7% of total acreage valued under a
quarter million dollars. 1,382.5 acres or 23.7% of vulnerable core acreage is valued between a
quarter and half a million dollars. 921.1 acres or 15.8% of the land is valued between half and
one million dollars. 202.5 acres or 3.5% is valued between 1 and 5 million and 13.6 acres or
0.2% is valued over 5 million dollars. Vulnerable core habitat has 5605.8 acres or 96.3% valued
under a million dollars. Vulnerable open space within vulnerable core habitat (Figure 10c) has
106.1 acres or 61.4% of its acreage valued between a quarter and half a million dollars. 54.5
acres or 31.6% of its acreage is valued under a quarter million. 6.7 acres or 3.9% is valued over
five million, 4.8 acres or 2.8% is valued between 1 and 5 million and 0.7 acres or 0.4% is valued
between half and one million. Vulnerable core open space has 161.3 acres or 93.4% valued
under a million dollars. Vulnerable corridor (Figure 10b) acreage has 663.9 acres or 44.9% of its
acreage valued under a quarter million dollars. 408.2 acres or 27.6% is valued between a quarter
and half a million. 321.7 acres or 21.8% is valued between half and one million. 68.1 acres are
valued between 1 and 5 million, 17.1 acres valued over five million dollars for 4.6% and 1.2% of
vulnerable corridor acreage respectively. Vulnerable corridors have 1393.6 acres or 94.2% of its
total acreage valued under a million dollars. Vulnerable open space within vulnerable corridors
(Figure 10d) has 143.6 acres or 63.4% of its acreage valued between half a one million dollars.
60.7 acres or 26.8% is valued under a quarter million dollars. 19.7 acres or 8.7% is valued
between one and five million, 2.4 acres or 1.1% is valued between a quarter and half a million,
and none of the vulnerable corridor open space is valued over five million dollars. A total of
206.7 acres or 91.3% of vulnerable corridor open space is valued under a million dollars. Total
vulnerable open space (Figure 10e) has 268.9 acres or 29.6% of its acreage valued over five
million dollars. 250.3 acres or 27.6% is valued under a quarter million, 165.7 acres or 18.2% is
valued between half and one million, 116.5 acres or 12.8% is valued between a quarter and half a
million and 106.9 acres or 11.8% is valued between 1 and 5 million dollars. A little over half,
532.9 acres or 58.7% of vulnerable open space is valued under a million dollars, with 41.3% or
375.4 acres worth over a million.
11
The City Context:
Each of the vulnerable land parcel layers can be examined in the context of the city as a
whole. Northampton’s land attribute profiles display the entire city by land use, zone district,
dwelling presence and property value (Appendix III: Figure 11: Northampton City Profile by
Land Attribute).
Northampton is predominantly forest in the north and west parts of the city (Figure 11a).
Cropland is located in the Fema floodplain on the east side of the city along the Connecticut
River. The city is predominantly residential zones with suburban and rural districts to the north,
west and south, urban districts in the central urban centers and a large special conservancy of the
Fema floodplain to the east (Figure 11b). Living units are concentrated in the central urban
centers and in large patches in the north, west and south (Figure 11c). The majority of parcel
acres are under a quarter million dollars with more expensive parcels closer to the central urban
districts (Figure 11d).
The city charts break down each attribute by acreage and displays the distribution within
each attribute (Appendix III: Figure 12: Northampton City Profile Charts).
Northampton is 53.6% forest, 13.7% cropland and 8.1% high density residential (Figure
12a). The city is 39.0% rural residential, 19.1% suburban residential, 19.3% urban residential
(A, B and C) and 17.0% special conservancy (Figure 12b). 67% of the city acreage lacks living
units (Figure 12c) and 52% of the acreage is valued under a quarter million dollars with an
additional 22.8% valued between a quarter and a half million (Figure 12d). The city as a whole
is less forested, less residentially zoned, has more living units and is more expensive than the
potential conservation land.
Informal Interviews:
Wetlands Protection:
A division of the Office of Planning and Development, the Conservation
Commission is a regulatory board that manages the City’s Wetland’s Ordinance in conjunction
with the state’s Wetlands Protection Act. Every city must have a Conservation Commission.
Northampton’s is composed entirely of volunteers appointed by the mayor and approved by the
city council (King, 2007). The commission is charged with upholding the wetlands acts and all
potential developments that might infringe on city wetlands or certified vernal pools must go
12
before the commission and get their building plans approved. The commission also administers
fines to those developers who are infraction of the act or ordinance and monitoring is ongoing.
Wetlands, which include riparian zones, all certified vernal pools, floodplains, watersheds
and “areas that are wet” (King, 2007) are protected under both the state act and the more
restrictive city ordinance. It is the only land type protected for its own sake, without the need of
conservation restrictions or easements. In Northampton, development cannot occur within 100
feet of any wetland. Development outside the 100 feet that directly affects the wetland is also
regulated by the commission (King, 2007). This is to provide a buffer between construction, the
eventual buildings, and the sensitive ecology being built around. Buffers allow wetlands to
retain their valuable role a water sink and detoxifier. Wetlands also protect the surface and
ground water quality and the water supply and discharge (OPD, 2007). Recent proposals to
expand the buffer to 200 feet failed to leave the commission (Wetzel, 2007) and separation of
vernal pools and wetlands within the Wetlands Ordinance has resulted in a relaxation of the
buffer around wetlands especially in urban settings (Body, 2007). In some circumstances
artificial or replacement wetlands are allowed to be built to replace natural wetlands lost through
development (OPD, 2007).
Community Preservation Act:
The CPA is an elective 1-3% property tax that funds the three fold effort of affordable
housing, historic preservation and open space conservation. The state promises to match 100%
of the collected taxes and 10% of the money funds each category. The city is allowed to allocate
the remaining 70% between the three (Young, 2007). Northampton voted for the full 3% tax and
$600,000 was collected. After the state match it constitutes $1.2 million dollars (Wetzel, 2007).
Certain members of the Conservation Commission were surprised the act was passed in light of
recent voting patterns. Voters recently turned down increased taxes for schools. The CPA
passed by a slim margin and public reaction since its approval has been mixed. Northampton is
expensive to live in and many people are resistant to any form of tax (Wetzel, 2007). But the
CPA has a broad support base due to its multifaceted nature and has the potential to help a wide
range of people (King, 2007). The funding goes towards noble and attractive causes. “Everyone
loves the concept of open space” (Wetzel, 2007) Fewer people want to pay for it.
But the CPA doubles the money. Every dollar the city puts in, it gets two out (Wetzel,
2007). The minimum 10% of CPA funds translates into $120,000, $60,000 of which derived
13
from the state. Members of the commission do not believe conservation will see a large chunk of
the unspecified funds due to project buildup in other development areas. The political reality is
that conservation probably won’t receive additional funds for a few years. Too many current
projects are under funded and really big land purchases from CPA money won’t happen right
away (Wetzel, 2007). The Wildlife Committee is especially concerned that open space
conservation will not be properly considered when funds are being distributed. Focus has been
on more urban developments and restoration projects like Forbes Library (Body, 2007).
The Community Preservation Committee has been formed from members of the
conservation, housing and historic commissions and two elected members (Wetzel, 2007). The
CPC is responsible for organizing the CPA funds and allocating the unspecified 70%. The
committee is currently in organizational stages and should begin work in the summer.
Discussion & Recommendations:
Maintaining a Sense of Place:
Northampton is a distinctive city with a rural atmosphere that offers both an active urban
district and the serenity of the back woods. This balance of culture and nature is part of what
draws people to this small city in western Massachusetts. Its quiet yet active character enables
residence to get the best of both developments, density and dispersion. But as the city grows in
popularity, the attributes that attract new community members are threatened. Population growth
puts pressure not only on urban centers with more traffic and the need for more commercial
offerings, but on the land around the downtown districts as people push their activities out into
the periphery of the city. The open spaces and less inhabited farm and forest land that framed
the bustling business district are now being built up to accommodate increasing demands. The
edges are being bought up and built out to bring more people and more profit into the
community.
But the community changes and looses pieces of its sheltered backwoods as people and
developers build homes and subdivisions that create the peaceful, natural feel. Demands for
space from new residence include demands for the rural atmosphere, which becomes less
available the more it’s desired and acquired. Maintaining the character of Northampton is
important not only to protect the resources and unique cultural climate, but to keep it attractive
14
for current and future community members. Maintaining the integrity of the city includes
retaining its current composition of urban and rural landscapes as much as possible while
allowing population growth and development. This requires extensive city planning and smart
growth initiatives which the city has already recognized and begun implementing. Contain the
majority of the growth within current urban centers. Increase the density of the three
downtowns, Northampton, Florence and Leeds, while selectively building out in areas of less
ecological and rural culture value. Reacquiring old developments like the State Hospital prevent
new subdivisions and site abandonment. The city need not fall stagnant; it must design new
development with the future in mind. It must project the desirable qualities of the historic and
current Northampton onto visions of the city in the decades to come. Its historic character and
wild, open space nature will be maintained with proper land acquisition and protection.
Bidirectional Land Acquisition:
Land acquisition for conservation often occurs on a parcel by parcel basis. Properties
become available as old owners die, deeds turn over or landowners desiring a tax cut come in
search of ways to manage their land. Agricultural restrictions, conservation restrictions and
easements can connect and protect privately owned land if the city is unable to purchase the land
outright (Young, 2007). Owners sell their property rights for permanent agricultural use of the
land with agricultural restrictions whereas in conservation restrictions owners relinquish their
right to develop while maintaining ownership. Back-taxes can be paid by the donation of land to
the city for preservation purposes. Chapters 61, 61A and 61B4 are temporary agreements
between owners and the city that reduce taxes if land is kept for agricultural, forestry and
recreational purposes (Young, 2007).
Land that is not set aside can be built upon to minimize the fractionary impact new
residential developments often bring to a landscape. Cluster housing in new subdivisions group
the houses close to each other and leave the surrounding land open for recreational use. This
allows single-family homes in the backwoods while maintaining habitat connectivity and leaving
space for wildlife. It also forms a strong sense of community between the homeowners.
Communal support is essential in the preservation of open space. Concerned citizen
groups and private conservation organizations like the Broad Brook Coalition and the Nonotuck
Land Fund are essential in helping secure land for preservation in both funding assistance and
15
advocacy (Young, 2007). Mass Audubon Society already manages Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary.
State protection also contributes to city conservation efforts, especially Mass Fish & Wildlife and
the Wetlands Protection and Endangered Species Acts. Collaborative efforts between individual
owners, citizen groups, the city and the state form a multilayered communal stewardship.
The data generated from this study can profile parcels within core habitats, wildlife
corridors and open spaces that become available for purchase. The city can use the attributes to
help assess whether an individual parcel fits the profile they are looking to conserve, including
land use type and affordability of property value.
The acquisition of any and all open space for conservation is good. Unfortunately, an asavailable method can lead to a haphazard form of land conservation where protected land is the
collection of piecewise acquisitions. This can result in scattered protected areas that are
disconnected from each other and not buffered against encroaching development in the
surrounding land. Habitat patches are not as ecologically stable as larger, more contiguous
spaces. The data generated from this study can help the Office of Planning and Development
continue their proactive approach to conservation and target areas and parcels that are of
particular interest. Land use type, zoning, dwelling presence and property value can all be used
to find land and select parcels that would be most feasible and desirable for acquisition; parcels
that are representative of the city, most cost effective and least hassle. Land that forms large
open spaces of natural habitat that can be utilized by wildlife should be targeted.
Intrinsic Habitat Protection & Regulation Resistance:
Wetlands are protected in part because their sensitive nature and ecological importance is
recognized. Their function as a water sink and detoxifier serve both the natural and human
communities. Habitat to many species of unique plants and animals, especially amphibians, as
well as water quality protection, flood control and runoff collectors make wetlands highly
productive habitats. Wetlands are economically beneficial by reducing the need to repair flood
damage. Protection in order to maintain the productivity of these lands is what created the
Wetlands Protection Act and Wetlands Ordinance.
“Dry lands” are not intrinsically protected in the same manner as wetlands. Open spaces
of natural habitat are not development restricted and regulated like wetlands. This is in dual part
a lack of explicit service, in an economic measure, these lands as a whole provide the community
16
and a lack of explicit definition of the land in the first place. It is hard to describe what a patch
of forest and an old farm field do for the city. Simply open space that hasn’t been developed
does not and cannot qualify land for protection. A definition like that would arrest city growth
and value all land without a building equal in ecological value. Natural habitat must be defined
by its contribution to the ecological community and framework of the city. Measures of
ecological productivity must be made to assess terrestrial lands and recognize their productivity
in the same manner as wetland recognition. Dry lands can be protected now if they are habitat to
an endangered species, but protection should expand beyond the isolated species and account for
the interconnection of ecosystems. Interactions between species, between species and their
environment and within natural systems as a whole must be a factor in measuring a lands’ worth.
But any new regulation that puts automatic restrictions on previously free land would be
met with resistance. As the rejection of the wetland buffer expansion illustrates, “people just
don’t like to be told what to do with their land” (Wetzel, 2007). Resistance stems from people’s
desire for and right to choice. An individual property owner’s land is theirs to make decisions
about. But a sense of communal responsibility and an understanding of ecological integration
may alleviate some of the hostility involved in property rights. The city is already trying to
rezone parcels with minimum zoning requirements, called approval not required land or ANRs,
to monitor the increasing development in more marginal lands (Young, 2007). A conscientious
owner’s land does not need city restrictions to prevent current development, but permanent
protection would ensure future preservation. Permanent protection maintains open space when
the land changes hands. It removes politics and private interests from the security and
sustainability of the land. A new form of jurisdiction that recognizes the ecological contribution
of open space might prevent the loss of the city’s most critical habitats.
Conservation Funding and Collaborations:
The Community Preservation Act comes to the city as a white knight to conservation
efforts. The three funding allocations, historic preservation, affordable housing, and open space
conservation, all enable the city to maintain its character while allowing people access to this
attractive community. Considered almost a form of free money by the Office of Planning and
Development, funds from the CPA will enable the department to expand permanent conservation
holdings (Young, 2007). The department is already savvy with purchasing funds, making a little
17
money go a long way. More money goes even farther. More land will be able to be bought
outright, parcels in process can be moved along faster and action can be taken sooner in initiating
conservation efforts of previously targeted lands. Funds can also go towards updating the
conservation inventory and identify new conservation zones. Funding will continue to come
from grants, donations and collaborative efforts between organizations, but the CPA will
strengthen the city’s conservation of open space.
Working with neighboring municipalities to keep open spaces contiguous outside
political boundaries is equally important. Nature does not follow human constructions and
natural habitat and wildlife’s use of it does not stop at city boundary lines. Neighboring
communities are equally responsible for maintaining shared habitats. Northampton will need to
work in close collaboration with the neighboring communities of Williamsburg, Westhampton,
Easthampton, Hadley, and Hatfield to form open space connections as well as Holyoke and
Amherst to extend connective conservation practices throughout the Pioneer Valley.
Three recommended conservation zones:
All conservation recommendations involve expanding current permanently protected land
areas and forming connections between them. Focus is on parcels that are in the cheapest
property value range, under a quarter million dollars, and lack living units, to help prevent
development and avoid potential conflicts with current residents. Owners of parcels with
dwellings can be approached with conservation or agricultural restrictions or easements to form
connections between unoccupied areas. The majority of the potential conservation land is
residentially zoned which leaves almost all available land open to development at the discretion
of the property owner. Housing subdivisions and homeowners wanting a house in the rural
woods pose the greatest risk to these areas.
Expanding Fitzgerald Lake to the South and in the Northwest into the Northern Corridor:
Efforts could be focused on the most southern parcels of the Fitzgerald Lake core habitat.
These parcels are surrounded on three sides by permanently protected land, and are all
unoccupied forest under a quarter million dollars in value. This land would flatten a now
concave edge of permanently preserved land.
18
Expansion efforts can continue in the cheaper sections in the northwest section of the
core habitat and work west through the northern portion of the Northern corridor to connect
Fitzgerald Lake to Saw-Mill Mineral Hills. Acquisition in this area can connect the current
permanently protected land in the core to a large wetland in the corridor. In the Northern
corridor, northern parcels are cheaper than southern parcels near the urban district of Leeds,
under half a million versus between a half and a whole million dollars. Land represents both
forest and cropland, with more forest, reflective of the area and entire city. All of the parcels in
the area are rural or suburban residential. Focus can be put on the contiguous parcels that lack
living units. Owners of parcels with living units could be contacted and offered conservation
restrictions or easements.
Connecting permanently preserved areas within Saw-Mill Mineral Hills:
Since the Saw-Mill Mineral Hills core habitat spans the entire western edge of the city,
conserving it entirely all at once is impractical. There are three large permanently protected
areas already within the core, Mineral Hills in the southwest section of the core, Saw Mill Hills
on the eastern side and Roberts Meadow to the northwest. A large patch of unoccupied
residential forest parcel-valued less than a quarter million dollars connects Roberts Meadow to
Saw Mill Hills. The land includes one small wetland and borders a larger one as well a small
patch of protected land. Acquiring this land would more than double the protected habitat and
link three now separately protected habitats.
Conserving space in Southern Corridor along Arcadia/Mt. Tom border:
Much of the land in the southern core habitat of Arcadia-Mt. Tom is permanently
protected, especially in the middle and to the east along the river but protection should be
expanded west into the Southern corridor. This forest land is industrially zoned and is in the
middle value range, between half and one million dollars, but lacks living units. This expansion
will buffer the known highly ecologically productive land against the encroachment of
development along routes 66 and 10. These parcels may be more expensive, but are important
due to their extreme proximity to a wildlife sanctuary.
Funding permitting, extending the habitat range further west in the Southern corridor
could connect Arcadia-Mt. Tom to the permanently protected patch in the corridor. This land
19
contains certified vernal pools that are not currently within protected areas. Parcels passed the
industrial zone are residential, under a quarter million dollars in value, cropland and participation
recreation with living units. Although cheaper, coordination with property owners would be
imperative to conserve that particular corridor link.
Conservation efforts must be focused due to the chronic condition of limited funding.
Land is expensive and the city must make informed decisions as to where to put their money and
what land to buy. The city cannot afford every potential conservation land parcel and judgments
must be made on where to allocate efforts. Often working with landowners and developers,
limited development and cluster developments with conservation restrictions and easements can
accomplish desired connectivity when entire parcels cannot be protected (Young, 2007). A new
funding source, at least 10% of the approximate $1.2 million dollar Community Preservation Act
(CPA) tax money (Young, 2007), will enable the Department of Planning and Development to
expand their conservation efforts. Expansion of permanently protected areas to connect core
habitats through wildlife corridors will protect the natural habitat, the wildlife that depends on it
and the communities that gain recreation and pleasure from these beautiful open spaces.
Permanent protection guarantees ecosystem and community sustainability by setting aside
critical habitats and encouraging intelligent growth and development around them.
20
References:
Body, John. Wildlife Committee Chair, personal communications, April 2007.
Conservation Commission, Recreation Commission & Planning Board, City of Northampton
Open Space and Recreation Plan, 2005-2010, Office of Planning and Development:
Northampton, Massachusetts; December, 2005.
King, Leslie. Conservation Commission member, personal communication, April 2007.
Office of Planning & Development, Northampton Goals and Objectives, Sustainable
Northampton Comprehensive Plan, Northampton, Massachusetts; April 2007.
Office of Planning & Development, Wetlands Protection, Wetlands Ordinance Proposal,
Northampton, Massachusetts; April 2007.
Sustainable Design Assessment Team, Northampton SDAT Building Economic and Land Use
Sustainability AIA Center for Communities by Design: Northampton, Massachusetts; October
2005.
Thompson, James. GIS Coordinator, Office of Planning & Development, personal
communication, April 2007.
Wetzel, Paul. Conservation Commission Chair, personal communication, April 2007.
Young, Bruce. Land Use and Conservation Planner, Office of Planning & Development,
personal communication, April 2007.
21
Appendix I: Potential Conservation Land Generation and Land Profile Maps
2
Miles
Figure 1: Georeferenced core habitats and wildlife corridors with generated permanently preserved open
space.
22
2
Miles
Figure 2: Potential Conservation Land.
23
2
Miles
Figure 3: Potential Conservation Land by Land Use. (NHESP Certified Vernal Pools 2007)
24
2
Miles
Figure 4: Conservation Land by Zoning District. (NHESP Certified Vernal Pools 2007)
25
2
Miles
Figure 5: Potential Conservation Land by Parcel Living Units. (NHESP Certified Vernal Pools 2007)
26
2
Miles
Figure 6: Potential Conservation Land by Parcel Property Value. (NHESP Certified Vernal Pools 2007)
27
Appendix II: Land Profile Charts by Vulnerable Land Layer
a
b
c
28
d
e
Figure 7: Land use charts by vulnerable land layer.
a
29
b
c
d
30
e
Figure 8: Zoning Charts by vulnerable land layer.
a
b
31
c
d
e
Figure 9: Dwelling Presence charts by vulnerable land layer.
32
a
b
c
33
d
e
Figure 10: Property Value charts by vulnerable land layer.
34
Appendix III: City Profile Maps and Charts by Land Attribute
a
b
35
c
d
Figure 11: Northampton City Profile by Land Attribute. A) Land Use. B) Zone districts with zone overlays. C)
Dwelling Presence. D) Property Value.
36
a
b
c
37
d
Figure 12: Northampton City Profile Charts. A) Land Use. B) Zone district C) Living unit presence. D) Property
Value.
38