AVAILABLE OPEN LAND IN THE TOWN OF SOUTH HADLEY, MASSACHUSETTS
Final Paper
for
Professor David Smith, Environmental Science and Policy Seminar
By
Laurel Carpenter
May 10, 2006
Carpenter 2
AVAILABLE OPEN LAND IN THE TOWN OF SOUTH HADLEY, MASSACHUSETTS
ABSTRACT
Massachusetts is a rapidly growing state with evidence of development in many of its
regions. South Hadley is an example of one such rapidly developing town in the state. Being a
college community, with a low crime rate, and recently upgraded schools, South Hadley has
become a desirable place to live. To the average town resident, South Hadley appears to be
developing at an astronomical rate. Open agricultural lands are being taken over by
developments, and because prime developable land is becoming scarce, large condominiums are
being erected on lots intended for one or two houses. With these thoughts in mind, a study was
conducted to analyze the extent of open space remaining in South Hadley. Further analyses were
conducted to determine the ecological integrity of the available open space, and to select areas of
high priority to recommend for land acquisition. The ultimate goal of the study was to provide
the South Hadley Conservation Commission with a list of high value property parcels to be used
in its land acquisition process. Unfortunately, due to data issues, the study could not be carried
out to the fullest extent.
INTRODUCTION
Development is a large issue facing wildlife species in today’s world. Development
fragments habitat, degrades habitat, and can destroy it all together. For this reason, it is
important to conserve large areas of vital habitat before development efforts can ensue.
The state of Massachusetts is one of the most concentrated states in the country with an
average of 809.8 people per square mile (Healy). Once an open farming state, Massachusetts has
Carpenter 3
grown rapidly in the last few decades. Annually, 16,000 acres of open space is developed
(Healy). This pace of development greatly threatens the ecology and aesthetics of the state.
An example of a rapidly developing town within Massachusetts is South Hadley. South
Hadley, once a small farming town in western Massachusetts, became a noticeable place on the
map due to its large history. South Hadley is known for possessing the first operable canal.
Likewise, the town is the home of the well respected Mount Holyoke College, the first women’s
college. Additionally, with a low crime rate, newly renovated schools, and close proximity to
the other four colleges, it seems that this town has become a very desirable place to live.
A question arose as to the extent of availability of quality open space in South Hadley;
so, a study was conducted in an attempt to answer this question. There were several goals of the
study these included: to determine the amount of open space in South Hadley, to determine
which pieces of property are most ecologically valuable to wildlife species (including plants), to
determine which pieces of ecologically valuable property are developable vs. un-developable,
and to determine which pieces of property land conservation groups should focus on during the
land acquisition process.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Data layers for the town of South Hadley were obtained from the town Conservation
Commission, Town Planner, and from Professor Kevin McGarigal at the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst. ArcView 3.3 was the primary analysis tool, with ArcGis 9.0 also used.
The first step of analysis was to determine the extent of open space in South Hadley. For this
Carpenter 4
process, a detailed land use data layer was obtained from Kevin McGarigal. All sections of the
data layer that indicated open space were left visible (i.e. wetlands, agricultural land, cultural
grasslands, forests, etc.) while sections that showed high human impact (i.e. residential areas,
industry, etc.) were hidden (Figure 1.)
Figure 1. Open space land use in South Hadley, Massachusetts
Carpenter 5
The next step of the analysis was to determine the ecological integrity of the open space.
Ecological integrity is defined as the ability of an area to support biodiversity, and the ecosystem
processes necessary to sustain biodiversity, over the long term (McGarigal 2001). To do this
analysis, the CAPS computer program developed by Kevin McGarigal et al. at the University of
Massachusetts, Amherst was used. CAPS is a program that performs a coarse grained analysis
of whole communities of organisms. CAPS provides an initial assessment (prediction) of a piece
of land in terms of ecological integrity, determining which areas and points are high value to low
value. Further field work, in addition to analyses of rare species data (considered a fine filter) is
needed along with the computer analysis to verify the extent of the property’s ecological value
(McGarigal 2001). The reason CAPS looks at the community level is because it is thought that
by protecting fully-intact biological communities, one is also protecting all of the finer organisms
and processes that otherwise may be overlooked (McGarigal 2001). CAPS looks at each
individual point and patch of land, and applies a series of filters to these points that analyze the
ecological integrity. The underlying data set by which points are evaluated is a map of
“predicted natural communities that are modeled from satellite imagery and terrain data (which
captures abiotic factors such as elevation, soil moisture, and solar radiation)” (McGarigal 2001).
As stated, filters are applied to this data set to evaluate the extent of the ecological integrity.
McGarigal describes these filters as being analogous to a camera filter. “Each biodiversity filter
acts as a lens that allows you to see different aspects of the underlying natural community map
(McGarigal 2001). The filters described include: a composition filter, a spatial character filter, a
context filter, and a condition filter. The composition filter evaluates the rarity, richness, or
evenness of natural communities or abiotic values in the focal patch without regard to the context
Carpenter 6
of the patch (McGarigal 2001). Essentially, this filter looks at the quality of resources found
within the community. The spatial character filter evaluates the shape or configuration of a
patch, without regard to its composition or context (McGarigal 2001). In other words, this filter
looks at only the shape of the patch, it doesn’t look at the resources making up the patch or the
neighboring land. The context filter evaluates the composition and configuration of
neighborhood surrounding each point in a community. Finally, the condition filter evaluates
possible negative effects on the ecological integrity of each point in the community. This
analysis is based on the composition and configuration of the neighborhood (McGarigal 2001).
Filter data results are then transferred to a GIS map and displayed as patches of ecologically
ranked property. Points on the map are ranked from 0 to 1, with 1 being the highest ecological
integrity (marked in a dark red), and 0, the lowest ecological integrity (being marked with a light
red). The CAPS analysis can be done on three different levels. The primary level is the broadest
and includes primary communities that can be further divided into secondary communities and
these can be divided into tertiary communities.
McGarigal provided a GIS data layer that indicated the results of a primary CAPS
analysis for the entire Connecticut River Valley (Figure 2.). South Hadley was picked out of this
data for analysis. The Bio Map data layer (Bio Map being very similar to CAPS), obtained from
MassGIS was then placed over the CAPS results. This process indicated the validity of the
CAPS results. Areas where the two layers agreed on the ecological integrity were areas that
were considered the most ecologically valuable parcels (Figure 3.). A final layer of the current
conservation areas was overlayed on the CAPS results to figure out which high ecological
Carpenter 7
Figure 2. CAPS analysis for South Hadley, Massachusetts
Carpenter 8
Figure 3. Bio Map Data for South Hadley. Red indicates core habitat and blue indicates
supporting habitat. Areas indicates on this map correspond to areas of high ecological integrity
in CAPS.
Carpenter 9
Figure 4. Town conservation areas (indicated in blue) shown on the CAPS ecological integrity
analysis results
Carpenter 10
patches were already protected. Unfortunately, no further analyses could be conducted due to
the fact that the parcels data layer from the town planner came back repeatedly corrupt, and the
data layer indicating developable and un-developable land was not able to be obtained from the
conservation commission officer.
RESULTS
From the analyses, it was determined that the vast majority of open space remaining in
South Hadley is located in the northern part of the town, as well as the western part of the town
(Figure 5.). This open space is mostly comprised of agricultural land, forested land (deciduous,
mixed, and conifer), and wetlands.
Figure 5. Largest areas of open space in South Hadley indicated by circles
Carpenter 11
The CAPS results show that the areas of greatest ecological integrity lie in the northern section
of the town, as well as a small patch of land to the west (Figure 6.). A high value patch is also
present in the southeastern corner. Bio Map agrees with these findings and indicates the same
areas as being either core habitat or supporting habitat (Figure 3.).
Figure 6. CAPS analysis results of ecological integrity in South Hadley. Areas indicated by
circles are areas of greatest ecological integrity
Carpenter 12
An overlay of the conservation commission data layers indicated that a vast majority of the
northern section of the town is already protected (Figure 4.). Additionally, the southwestern
corner is largely protected as conservation land. The final high integrity area to the west, is
partially protected by the town, however, a large section was turned into a golf course. For this
reason, the current ecological integrity is disputable.
When looking at large areas of land, in conjunction with ecological integrity, three areas
were selected to be focused on for land acquisition purposes (Figure 7.). These areas were
chosen to be focused on because they are large tracts of undeveloped land.
Figure 7. Recommended tracts of land to be focused on for land acquisition purposes.
Carpenter 13
DISCUSSION
There is a common question as to how reliable Bio Map and CAPS are. There is even a
common statement that CAPS is better than Bio Map. This statement is not true, the two
programs have aspects that the other cannot offer; so, when used in conjunction, they make a
powerful tool.
Both programs have the ultimate goal of providing guidance to conservation planning
processes in the area of biodiversity protection (McGarigal). Compared to CAPS, Bio Map
looks at known occurrences of rare plants, animals, and communities, and it identifies priority
land based on such priorities (McGarigal). There are two issues with this method. First, an
actual biologist must sit down and predict high ecological value areas using this data, hand
drawing the boundaries. This approach produces some discrepancies, as different biologists
make different predictions, as to where the boundaries actually are. The second problem with
the Bio Map method is the fact that the map is based on observations of rare plant, animals, and
communities. Most of these observations are made where people are most commonly present or
recreating. This produces bias, because areas less traversed by humans, where rare and
endangered species may be abundant, get neglected.
In contrast, CAPS, being entirely computer based, does not have such a high level of
human input. The program removes the issue of human discrepancies of how to draw ecological
boundaries and the entire process is standardized. The problem with this method is that some
incorrect interpretations can be made without human input. For example, in the Connecticut
River Valley analysis, landfills were recognized as cultural grasslands by the program; so, they
were labeled as areas of high ecological integrity. Clearly, the CAPS analysis will have to be
double checked in the field.
Carpenter 14
Overall, in terms of the study performed, Bio Map and CAPS results were consistent.
When looking at high-priority land to be focused on by the town of South Hadley for land
acquisition purposes, the entire northern section was ignored. This area is part of the Mt.
Holyoke Range, and a section is a protected drinking water reservoir. A large portion of this
high ecological integrity land is already protected by state, town and private sources (Figure 4).
Additionally, due to the lack of roads, the presence of the reservoir, and some steep terrain,
development doesn’t seem likely in the near future. For these reasons, property in the rest of the
town should be focused on. The sections of the town selected as areas to be considered in future
land acquisition, all are broad areas of land with few physical barriers disrupting them. While
the areas selected are not largely comprised of high ecological value habitat, they do contain
patches of such. The assumption was made that in general a larger un-fragmented piece of
lower-quality habitat is better than a small fragmented area of high-quality habitat. The selected
land to the north is very close in proximity to the large northern area of high quality habitat
(Figure 7.). This area of property is beneficial because it allows for a continuation of the
northern area potentially allowing for a corridor for wildlife species. Though the property to the
west has a golf course in the middle of it, it still has potential to provide quality habitat in the
large sections of land around the golf course. Finally, the area of land in the middle contains
valuable resources such as Stoney Brook, a brook in which state listed species have been
discovered. Other parcels of property in the town may also be acquired to compliment already
protected areas. Property around the conservation land in the southeastern corner may be
acquired to broaden the extent of the ecologically valuable habitat it possesses.
Carpenter 15
While these initial recommendations have been presented, one must remember that the
CAPS program only provides a prediction of ecological value of a piece of land. Field work
must be done to verify that a piece of property is ecologically valuable as predicted.
Sadly, the analyses for this study could not be carried out to the fullest extent. The
original plan was to overlay the CAPS results with the town parcels data layer. This step would
indicate individual parcels of land that are of the greatest ecological value. The next step after
would have been to overlay the parcels data layer with another indicating whether or not a parcel
was considered developable or un-developable. The intent of this was to rank developable high
ecological integrity parcels as the most important to conserve in land acquisition. Unfortunately,
the parcels data layer was consistently corrupted the three times it was requested, and the
developable vs. un-developable layer was never received. Another problem in the analysis was
the fact that the format of the data was not consistent, so a full analysis using GIS was not
possible. These matters should be addressed in future studies.
CONCLUSION
Three main areas in the town of South Hadley were selected to be focused on for land
acquisition. These areas of land, while not generally areas of the greatest ecological integrity in
the town, they do possess some important characteristics. These areas were selected due to their
large un-fragmented nature and for their connection with other important habitats (i.e. close
proximity to the Mt. Holyoke Range, or connection with Stoney Brook). Other parcels that
expand upon already existing protected areas should also be considered. The predictions found
in this study, however, should in no way be used as an absolute when acquiring land. The
Carpenter 16
selected properties should undergo sight visits to check on the CAPS analysis results, as some
aspects of the property may have been overlooked. Additionally, further in depth analysis of the
town of South Hadley should be conducted to further facilitate land acquisition decisions. As
this study had intended to do, future studies should divide the town into parcels revealing which
parcels of land are owned by whom. Large parcels of high ecological integrity should be
focused on for land acquisition, or large areas of land of medium to low ecological value, that
have some connection to either an area of high ecological value or an important habitat.
Additionally, the data layer created by the town conservation commission officer distinguishing
parcels as developable or un-developable should be obtained. With this analysis, large parcels of
high ecological integrity property that is developable should be focused on. These are the pieces
of property that would most likely be the most desirable to a person wishing to build and would
be the first to be developed. I would not recommend that areas of land in the northern section of
the town be focused on, at this time, unless there is some direct threat. This part of the town
seems relatively protected from development, as there is a protected reservoir in the area, there
are no roads in the area, and because a large portion of the land is already protected by state,
town, and private sources. It is the intent of the researcher to continue on with these analyses, as
discussed, and to present to the town a list of high-value parcels, with the names of those who
owns them and potentially what the economic value is of these parcels.
REFERENCES
Healy, Kerry. “Open Space Protection.” Executive Office of Environmental Affairs.
http://www.mass.gov/envir/openspace/default.htm
McGarigal, Kevin. "Biodiversity Filters." Un-published paper
McGarigal, Kevin. "Housatonic Biodiversity Modeling and Biomap Projects Why These are Not
Redundant." Un-published paper
McGarigal et al. CAPS Computer Program.