Park Hill Trails Study (Winter 2016) by The Conway School

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY

PARK HILL PRIORITY PROTECTION AREA, EASTHAMPTON, MA Prepared for the Easthampton City Planning Department The Conway School Winter 2016

MAX MADALINSKI • SUSAN SCHEN

CONTENTS

Executive Summary Introduction

Analyses

Design Alternatives

Recommendations

References Photo Credits

42 43

Appendices Appendix 1: 330 CMR 22.12

Appendix 2: APR Special Permit Guidelines

Appendix 3: Accessible Trail Guidelines

Appendix 4: Boardwalk Construction

Appendix 5: Map Reference Data

View of Mount Caption here Tom from the slopes of Echodale Farm

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The city of Easthampton has made it a priority to protect agricultural land and to make this land available to the public through agri-tourism and recreational opportunities. A trail system in the Park Hill Priority Protection Area would fulfill this goal and provide opportunities for outdoor exercise in an area of the city which is currently lacking recreational facilities. The Easthampton Planning Department has engaged the Conway School to assess the feasibility of a trail network across a number of parcels here. This report presents the results of this assessment and design recommendations for trails in the study area given the legal and physical constraints of the site. Connectivity to the local network of open spaces and transit infrastructure are also explored.

Legal Landscape

Agricultural Preservation Restrictions (APRs) prohibit activities that could damage soils or negatively impact agriculture on the farmland they protect. Several parcels in the study area have APRs in place, limiting their potential for inclusion in a trail network due to these usage restrictions. The proposed trail designs focus on non-APR parcels for year-round trails and opt for winter-only ski and snowshoeing trails for the APR parcels.

Physical Landscape

The trail type most suitable, if any, for a particular area depends greatly on the terrain and the ability of the ecosystem to withstand human disturbance. In the study area, a perennial stream system and steep slopes dominate much of the land that is not actively used for agriculture. Critical endangered species habitat exists just downstream from the study area. These factors strongly influence the location and nature of the trail systems proposed.

Connections

While there are no formal hiking trails or sidewalks directly connecting the study area to nearby open spaces, there are a number of bike friendly roads that connect to local bike trails, including the Manhan Rail Trail and the Northampton Bikeway. Proposed connections to surrounding open spaces includes a scenic bike route which connects to existing regional bike trails.

A natural forest trail in Deception Pass State Park, Washington.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ill Roa

Park H

MPTON NORTHA MPTON EASTHA

Lathrop Community

Micka Farm

Flo

Park Hill Orchard

re n ce R

Park Hill Orchard

oad tre

et rS

oo Br

ive

ett

Bro

sett

Bas

rth

pto

Echodale Farm

Town Farm

Park Hill Road

Community Garden

tre

et West Stre

ver

n Ri

ha Man

Caption here

Woodlands

Study Area

Agricultural Land

Roads

Developed Land

Town Border

INTRODUCTION SITE CONTEXT

The study area is 485 acres in northwestern Easthampton along the border with Northampton. It is part of the Park Hill Priority Protection Area (PHPPA), the largest contiguous piece of agricultural land in Easthampton, which is bounded by Florence Road and Northampton Street to the east, West Street to the south, Oliver Street to the west, and the Northampton town border to the north. The area is bordered by residential properties to the east and south and by more wooded and agricultural land to the north. The PHPPA has been targeted for historic and agricultural preservation by the City of Easthampton (Master Plan 118). The city’s 2013 Open Space and Recreation Plan (OSRP) also has the goal of preserving agriculture and open space here (OSRP 63). The parcels comprising the study area are a mix of private and public lands and serve various agricultural, recreational, and conservation purposes, as shown in Table 1. Micka Farm, the northwesternmost parcel, is a privately owned farm used primarily for growing hay. The next property south is Park Hill Orchard, which spans across Park Hill Road to the east. It is primarily used for a pick-your-own apple orchard, but also hosts the popular “Art in the Orchard” event each fall where sculptures are placed amongst the trees for people to enjoy. South of that is the community garden, which has a number of individual garden plots and an orchard that is currently unmaintained. The southwesternmost parcel is the Town Farm, which is leased to farmers raising hay and is also home to the historical farm building which, established as a “poor farm” in 1890 for the city’s indigent population, is still being used for low-income housing today. To the east is Echodale Farm, home to beef cattle, sheep, and poultry as well as hayfields.

Finally, in the northeast corner of the study area is the Lathrop Community, a retirement community with a strong interest in preserving the wooded land on the western half of their property. The study area was once under the edge of ancient glacial Lake Hitchcock. As a result of alluvial deposition in the lake, the soils in the area are dominated by silty and sandy loam. The land is generally flat, rising more sharply to the north at the ancient lake shore and with steep areas along Bassett Brook, whose watershed includes the study area and parts of southern Northampton. The northern properties offer sweeping views including Mt. Tom to the southeast and Pomeroy Mountain to the southwest. The site is also in a regulated Zone II recharge area for the Barnes Aquifer, the drinking water supply for Easthampton. It is a part of the Manhan River watershed, a subwatershed of the Connecticut River five miles to the east. These topographic and hydrologic factors influence the suitability of the area for trails.

View of Mount Tom across Echodale Farm.

Table 1: Property Details Property

Acreage

Ownership

Land Use

Micka Farm

Private

Hay

Park Hill Orchard

123

Private

Orchard

Community Garden

City of Easthampton

Garden plots

Town Farm

City of Easthampton

Housing, hay

Echodale Farm

137

Private

Cattle, sheep, poultry, hay

Lathrop Community

127

Private

Housing, conservation

PARK HILL TRAILS INTRODUCTION

WHY TRAILS?

For a number of reasons, The City of Easthampton wants to bring trails to the Park Hill area. The city’s OSRP survey results showed that the highest rated outdoor activity (91.2% of respondents) is nonmotorized trail use (hiking, skiing, showshoeing, biking, etc.) and the highest recreational need (55.6% of respondents) is expansion of nature trails (OSRP 61). In response to these community desires, the city’s OSRP goals include expanding recreational facilities and opportunities (OSRP 63). Another goal is to ensure that “agriculture is preserved and promoted,” and to promote agri-tourism (OSRP 59). A trail network in the Park Hill area could potentially address both of those goals and address the interest in trails on these properties expressed by the participants in the public visioning workshop that was part of the OSRP creation process (OSRP 59). Proximity and access to open space is also important to the residents of Easthampton. The OSRP states that there is a need to “develop new parks within a half-mile of homes” (OSRP 60). Nineteen percent of OSRP survey respondents indicated there was not a park or open space “within a ten-minute walk from home” (OSRP 9). The map below shows how a trail network in the Park Hill

study area could improve access to open space. The black border shows the area within 1/2 mile of the study area. Residents in the green zone currently lack public trails within 1/2 mile of their homes but may gain access if trails are built in the study area. Residents in the yellow zones already have trails within 1/2 mile, but are also within 1/2 mile of the study area. The largest population of residents getting new access to open space is the neighborhood across Oliver Street to the south. Trails on Farms

Chestnut Hill Farm in Southborough, and Great Brook Farm and State Park in Carlisle are two examples of the many active farms with trails in Massachusetts (The Trustees of Reservations; MassParks). All maintain miles of publicly accessible trails and many have an expanded network of ski trails in the winter. Use limitations may be placed on trails (e.g., no dogs or no bicycles) to minimize interference with farm operations. Trails may also be closed for brief periods for safety reasons when agricultural activities like plowing, harvesting or chemical applications occur.

Figure 1: Open Space Access

Access to Existing Open Space 2

PARK HILL TRAILS INTRODUCTION

No Access to Public Open Space

Study Area

NEIGHBORING TRAIL SYSTEMS

There are a number of protected areas with trails near Park Hill, shown below in Figure 2. Hannum Brook and Pomeroy Meadows Conservation Areas to the south and Dwyer Conservation Area to the southeast are all within two miles of the study area. Within a five-mile radius are

larger open spaces—Saw Mill Hills and Mineral Hills open spaces, Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary, and Mount Tom State Preserve—and the connected Rocky Hill Greenway. This project will explore the connection of the study area to this network of open spaces.

Figure 2: Nearby Open Spaces

Sawmill Hill

Mineral Hills Rocky Hill Greenway

Arcadia

Dwyer

Hannum Brook

Mount Tom Pomeroy Meadows Open Space

Study Area

Proximity to Study Area Center 1 mile 2 miles

5 miles

Table 2: Trails within 5 Miles of the Study Area

Open Space

Hannum Brook

Pomeroy Meadows Dwyer

Proximity to Study Area <1 mile 2 miles

2.5 miles

Mineral Hills

3 miles

Mount Tom

* A bicycle trail is in the planning process.

0.5

2.5 miles

Sawmill Hill

0.1

2 miles

Arcadia

Rocky Hill Greenway

Miles of trails

3 miles 4 miles

5 4 2

22 PARK HILL TRAILS INTRODUCTION

TRAIL CRITERIA

The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (MA DCR) Trail Guidelines and Best Practices Manual outlines the following principles of sustainable trail design: Physical Sustainability Designing trails to retain their structure and form over years of use and under forces of humans and nature is a key factor in sustainability. Trail use promotes change, so trails must be designed in anticipation of change to ensure that they remain physically stable with appropriate maintenance and management. Ecological Sustainability Minimizing the ecological impacts of trails, and protecting sensitive natural and cultural resources is fundamental in sustainable trail design and development. Economic Sustainability For any trail, the implementing agency or advocacy group must have the capacity to economically support it over its life cycle. Developing and committing to a long-term maintenance strategy is a critical aspect of a successful trail program. (3) These three broad principles will guide the assessment of the Park Hill study area.

Physical Sustainability : Minimize Erosion The MA DCR trail handbook states that “erosion is the number one problem for sustainable trails.... Trails that collect water or channel water will be both environmentally and economically unsustainable” (22). Furthermore, the handbook lays out several rules for building a sustainable trail that minimizes erosion, two of which are particularly relevant for the conceptual planning of a trail network in the Park Hill study area:

Ten Percent Average Grade The MA DCR handbook offers the guideline that the average grade of a trail network should not exceed 10% (Trail Guidelines and Best Practices Manual 22). Maximum Sustainable Grade The maximum sustainable grade is the steepest grade the trail should attain. This is typically between 15% and 25%, but is dependent on several factors including soil type, trail construction methods, and amount of rainfall (22). The Park Hill study area will be evaluated using the average value of 20% for maximum sustainable grade. While a trail could be built along contour at a shallower slope within a steeper section, the risk of erosion caused by construction becomes higher and the need for expensive retaining walls increases. Trails should be routed to avoid traversing these areas particularly if they coincide with erodible soils.

CASE STUDY: FORT RIVER BIRDING AND NATURE TRAIL The Fort River Birding and Nature Trail in nearby Hadley, MA serves as an excellent example of a sustainably built and designed trail system. The 1.2-milelong network features a gravel trail system that follows along contours and uses natural grade changes in the landscape to gently collect water at low points and divert them off of the trail surface (French and McCollum, 4). Where the trail crosses into wetland areas and other sensitive ecosystems, the network utilizes tall boardwalks, bridges, and overlooks that allow light through to vegetation below (9-11). The trail was built to ADA accessibility standards to give users of all ages and abilities the opportunity to interact with the site and used mostly volunteer labor and donated materials in its construction (5,15).

A gravel trail winds through a field at the Fort River Birding and Nature Trail.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY INTRODUCTION

Ecological Sustainability: Avoid and Minimize Impact The MA DCR principles for creating ecologically sustainable trails that are most relevant for planning a Park Hills trail network are:

Avoid Sensitive Ecological Areas When planning trails, avoid sensitive ecological systems, including wetlands and waterways, endangered species habitat, fragile historical and archaeological sites, and areas of steep slope and erodible soil (18). If they cannot be avoided, take steps to minimize and mitigate trail impact. Develop Trails in Areas Already Influenced by Human Activity In accordance with the first principle, place trails in areas already influenced by human activities. For example, cross streams or wetlands near where they have already been crossed by roads or bridges; where appropriate, improve existing logging or hiking trails (18). Develop Appropriately when Trails Do Intersect with Sensitive Areas While the first two principles direct trails to avoid sensitive ecological areas there may be places within a trail network where a trail must intersect or interact with one of these areas or where it may even be desirable. The handbook states that “allowing controlled access to

sensitive ecological areas may be an integral part of educating the public about the value of protecting them. Most often, this takes the form of routing a corridor trail on the periphery of a sensitive area (with adequate buffers) and allowing more direct access to specific settings only in very select locations, and with appropriate trail forms (such as boardwalks and bridges) for closer observation” (19). Economic Sustainability: Legal Constraints While economic factors are primarily outside the scope of this study, it does take into account the effects various legal constraints may have on the ability to secure funding for the building and maintenance of trails within the study area. The MA DCR Recreational Trails Program, which commonly provides funding for building and maintaining trails in Massachusetts, requires that projects using private land secure an easement of no less than ten years duration before a grant will be awarded (Recreational Trails Program). Based on this requirement, the study area will be assessed for legal constraints and trails will be limited to areas where the right to build or maintain trails can be obtained for a minimum of ten years.

INFORMAL AND UNIMPROVED TRAILS For this document, informal and unimproved trails are being defined as those built, trampled, mowed, or otherwise constructed by public or private interests for the purposes of access or recreation without the oversight or management of a guiding agency. Some examples would be farm access roads, logging roads, unmarked hiking trails, or old railroad corridors. While these trails might meet the criteria for a sustainably built trail, they are not expressly designed with these criteria in mind and commonly violate them.

This informal trail with a small foot bridge borders the study area.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY INTRODUCTION

body

Forested wetland habitat on Echodale Farm.

GOALS The City of Easthampton has four goals for this trail study:

Assess site conditions in the study area

Identify relevant legal constraints, characterize the topography and hydrography, note sensitive and critical wildlife habitat, and understand the current human uses of the land.

Convergence of Needs

This project is about exploring ways to allow public use of the study area while protecting its natural, historical, and agricultural value. The graphic below conceptualizes the way in which these goals may or may not overlap. The assessment of legal constraints, land and water characteristics, critical habitat, and the opportunities for low-impact access will inform a trail plan that integrates all of these values.

Determine the feasibility of a trail network

Identify the areas most and least suitable for trails and the feasible extent of a trail system. Where possible, the trail system should accommodate hiking, biking, skiing, and snowshoeing.

Develop design guidelines for trail construction

Give guidance for the terrain types traversed by potential trails, e.g., wetlands, steep slopes, and snow.

Identify potential connections to local trail networks and surrounding open spaces

Propose connection paths to nearby trails via walking, biking, driving, and mass transit.

Productive farmland is a valuable resource. Shown above: a pea field.

Trails connect people with the land by offering access. Pictured above: Forest trail at Mine Hill Preserve in Connecticut.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY INTRODUCTION

SECTION HEAD LINE 1 Lathrop Community Micka Farm

Park Hill Orchard

Community Garden

Town Farm

Caption here

Park Hill Orchard

Echodale Farm

Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR)

Trail Easement

Affordable Housing Restriction (AHR)

Gas Line Easement

Historic Preservation Restriction (HPR)

Study Area Boundary

Conservation Restriction (CR) Prime Farmland or State-wide Important Soils

ANALYSES DEED RESTRICTIONS AND PROVISIONS FOR TRAILS

There are a number of methods for ensuring that agricultural and natural landscapes are protected from development. Some of the most enduring are restrictions permanently attached to a land parcel, passed on from owner to owner in perpetuity. A number of the parcels in the study area have this type of restriction in place. Easements are exclusions from the restrictions to allow a specific use, e.g. trails or utility lines. The Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) places the most severe limitations on trail construction, making a majority of the study area unavailable for all-season trails. Table 3 shows the parcels and their respective restrictions and easements along with the impact the restrictions have on trail construction. Definitions of each restriction type follow. Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR): Land is designated for farming and forestry use only. Activities that would endanger the future use of the land and soil for agriculture (e.g. building new structures, removal of topsoil, excavating) are prohibited. Trails are only allowed if expressly permitted within the APR, often within a designated easement. Historic Preservation Restriction (HPR): Land and features are protected to preserve historically significant aspects of a site, e.g., buildings, other man-made structures, and the landscape. Activities or modifications that would change the appearance of the site or are inconsistent with historical use are prohibited. An HPR is in place on the Town Farm to protect the historical farm building. Trail Easement: The right to build and maintain trails on a particular portion of a parcel is granted. This typically includes grading, construction of bridges and retaining walls, and public access.

Affordable Housing Restriction (AHR): Rental property on the site is required to remain affordable for those of low to moderate income. The resale price of homes on the property is limited to assure their future affordability. An AHR is in place so that the Town Farm continues to provide low-income housing. Conservation Restriction (CR): Land is protected with the intent to maintain natural or scenic quality, often with allowances for public access and recreation. Activities or modifications to the land that would negatively impact soil, water, or ecosystems are prohibited. A CR was granted during the creation of the community garden. Utility Easement: The right to build and maintain a gas pipeline, electrical transmission line, or other type of infrastructure on a portion of a parcel is granted. This includes digging, road creation, and maintenance. Sometimes utility companies allow for trails to cross their easements within some limitations. This is only an option if underlying restrictions (e.g., APR) allow trails.

Table 3: Deed Restrictions and Trail Provisions Parcel Micka Farm*

Restrictions and Easements

Restriction Holder(s)

APR

City of Northampton, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Park Hill Orchard*

APR, Gas Pipeline Easement

Echodale Farm*

APR, Gas Pipeline Easement, Trail Easement

Community Garden Town Farm

City of Easthampton, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Trail construction allowed? NO NO

City of Easthampton, Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Only on trail easement

City of Easthampton

YES

APR, HPR, AHR

City of Easthampton, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Massachusetts Historical Commission

Lathrop* None — YES *Private property. New trails or opening of existing trails to public use requires permission from the landowner. PARK HILL TRAILS ANALYSES

Establishing Trails on APR Protected Land Ideally, trail easements are put in place before a property is placed under APR. There are four options for trail creation on land already protected by APR (summarized below on Table 4). All require cooperation from the landowner. Agricultural Trails If a trail system using existing roads and trails is designated for agricultural education or the benefit of the agricultural operations on the farm, it can be created without needing permission from the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR). The use of the trails cannot interfere with agricultural operations (Hall, 16 Mar. 2016). Winter Trails Because trails on the surface of the snow have such minimal impact on the soil and use occurs when fields are not being farmed, a permit is only needed from MDAR if forest vegetation is to be cleared (Hall 16 Mar. 2016).

Table 4: Trail Option with APRs Option Advantages

Use existing roads and trails Does not require MDAR approval

Winter Trails

Does not require MDAR approval.

Minimal impact to the land. Apply for a special permit

Trails can be on fields.

Special Permit from MDAR This can allow a trail system using existing farm roads and trails without the requirement that it be related to agriculture; it simply must not interfere with agricultural operations (Hall 16 Mar. 2016). Two key limitations of this option are that the special permit cannot create new easements nor can it authorize any trails requiring removal of soil or addition of material (Hall 16 Mar. 2016). Per the APRs on Echodale Farm, Micka Farm, and Park Hill Orchard, special permits granted on those parcels must be renewed every five years and terminate upon sale or transfer of the property. This means that if a new owner does not want the public on their property, they can refuse to renew the special permit and end the use of the trail. The five-year term may also limit opportunities for funding trail construction if there is a project longevity requirement. Special scrutiny is given to special permit applications that involve nonagricultural activities on soils designated as prime farmland or soil of statewide importance—these soils are present over more than half of the study area (MDAR, 2). (Additional details of the special permit process can be found in the APR Special Permit Policy in Appendix 2).

Limitations and Challenges

Dependent on landowner allowing public access to the land.

Must be targeted for use in agricultural education or to benefit the agricultural operation on the property. No modifications to the land to support nonagricultural activity is permitted.

Dependent on landowner allowing public access to the land. Trails only available seasonally with sufficient snow.

Does not require release of land Dependent on landowner allowing public access to from APR. the land. Must be renewed every 5 years.

Does not allow for material addition or removal for trail construction. Apply for partial release of APR for easement

Special scrutiny for activities on prime or statewide important soils.

A trail easement could be Depends on landowner approval. acquired, allowing for trails and Area to be released must be found “no longer public access in perpetuity. suitable for agriculture or horticulture”(330 CMR 22.12). An area of unrestricted land of equal or greater area, monetary value, and agricultural value must be brought under APR. A 2/3 vote of the legislature is necessary for final approval.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

APR Release The last option is to apply to have the APR partially released to allow for a trail easement to be established. This is a new option being explored for the first time by planners and designers on a number of trail projects in the area. Essentially, the existing APR is partially released or modified to allow a small area to be removed from protection for trail use. The area released is offset by placing a new, equal or larger area of equal or higher soil quality under APR. This would require the City to coordinate efforts to bring new land under APR with those working to acquire easements for trails in the study area. It is also a lengthy process requiring new assessments and surveys as well as a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature for final approval (Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 330 CMR 22). (The text of the applicable section of the law, 330 CMR 22.12, is included in Appendix 1).

Establishing Trails on CR Protected Land The conservation restriction for the community garden is held by the City of Easthampton and administered by the city’s Conservation Commission. Trail plans on this property need the approval of the Commission.

The Beckley Trail at Pomeroy Meadows Conservation Area (CR held by Pascommuck Land Trust) crosses a gas line easement. Release of land from APR

Two key aspects of the process for applying for partial release of an APR are determining that the land is “no longer suitable for agriculture” and bringing additional land under APR to offset the area to be released. (330 CMR 22.12). Both are open to interpretation by MDAR and the legislature. An example of land no longer suitable for agriculture is an area not currently used for forestry that is delineated as wooded wetlands. Selection of the new land to be brought under APR to offset the land lost to a trail easement must be done carefully: the land must be of equal or better soil quality, suitable for equally or more productive agricultural use, and be equal or greater in area (330 CMR 22.12). The purpose of the release and the quality of the newly protected land will be evaluated by MDAR to ensure that the result is of benefit to the Commonwealth (Hall, 16 Mar. 2016). Due to the complexity and potential cost of the process and the number of criteria open to interpretation, it is recommended that the City work closely with the MDAR office if this option is explored.

Echodale Farm Trail Easement The trail easement on Echodale Farm is twenty feet wide and follows the property line along its southern and eastern borders. It allows for a ten-foot-wide unpaved trail and grants to the City of Easthampton the right to clear vegetation, grade the land, and construct bridges and retaining walls as necessary for trail construction. It also grants public access for non-motorized passive recreation. The portion of the easement that borders Park Hill Road allows access from the street.

Establishing Trails on HPR Protected Land Trails on the Town Farm, which has an HPR in place as well as an APR, would additionally need approval by the Massachusetts Historical Commission to verify that they don’t change the historical character of the site. (The Town Farm also has an AHR in place, but it places no restrictions on trails).

The historical Town Farm viewed from across the hay field.

Deed Restriction Summary The best opportunities for all-season trails in the study area in the short term are on the Echodale Farm trail easement, at the community garden, and on the Lathrop parcel—these areas have very few restrictions on trail construction. Special permits may allow for trails on APR land, but do not allow construction activities, so it is difficult to construct sustainable trails. In the long term, investigations into the APR release process may offer options for expansion of trail easements, which could allow for sustainable trail construction on APR protected parcels.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

WETLANDS, RIPARIAN AREAS, AND BASSETT BROOK

Wetland ecosystems experience seasonal or permanent flooding. Frequent flooding drives oxygen out of the soil, saturating it and creating what is known as a hydric soil. Typically, a smaller set of water-loving plants, known as hydrophytes, will thrive in these soils and their presence often indicates wetland conditions. Reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), cattails (Typha spp.), skunk cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), and white cedar (Chamaecyparis thyoides) are some species that thrive in these conditions and are used in the identification and delineation of wetlands. These ecosystems serve many valuable functions for humans and wildlife. Along rivers and streams they absorb floodwater and debris, protecting homes and businesses. They capture and slowly filter and release water into groundwater reservoirs (e.g. the Barnes Aquifer), rivers, and other water bodies. They provide habitat for many fauna, including more than one-third of the United States’ threatened and endangered species (Massachusetts Wetlands). Unfortunately, despite their important functions, wetland ecosystems nationally have been severely damaged or destroyed. It’s estimated that in the 1600s, there were nearly 221 million acres of wetland in the lower 48 states (Dahl 1). Since then, approximately 53% of those wetlands have been lost due to intentional or accidental human influence such as active drainage, development, pollution, and filling (1). In Massachusetts, estimates suggest that 28% of all wetland acreage was lost between 1780 and 1980 (6). To minimize damage to wetland ecosystems within the study area, trails should follow the process of “sequencing” as laid out in the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s Inland Wetland Replication Guidelines: • Avoid wetlands as much as possible. • Minimize the impacts where wetlands cannot be avoided by using appropriate construction. • Mitigate wetland disturbance with wetland replication.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

A field of dried reed canarygrass stretches over several acres next to the community garden.

Site Inventory The map in Figure 3 at the right shows Bassett Brook and wetlands delineated aerially by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) as well as their associated buffer zones (100 feet for wetlands and 200 feet for rivers and perennial streams) as regulated by the Wetlands Protection Act. Together, streams, wetlands, and buffers cover approximately 271(56%) of the study area’s 485 acres (Mass GIS). Community Garden wetlands A three-acre wetland stretches northward from the southern edge of the community garden parcel. This wetland and its 100-foot buffer cover nearly one-quarter of the parcel’s 24 acres. A riparian buffer along the western edge covers nearly another quarter of the parcel. Furthermore, a field assessment of this parcel suggests that more of this parcel may be wetland than what is shown in the GIS data layers, and further delineation is recommended prior to construction of any trails on this site. Any trails on this parcel would likely cross wetlands and would require appropriate construction and mitigation as a result.

Echodale Farm Trail Easement The Echodale Farm trail easement (shown in yellow on the map and picture below) crosses the southern branch of Bassett Brook in several places and passes through many areas protected by wetland and riparian buffers. Similar to the Community Garden trail, any trails along the Echodale Farm easement would cross wetland and riparian areas; several bridges, boardwalks, and wetlands reconstruction projects would likely be required.

Legal Process for Crossing Wetland Buffer Zones

Under the Wetlands Protection Act, before a trail can cross into a wetland or riparian buffer, a Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with both the Easthampton Conservation Commission and the Massachusetts DEP. The NOI applicant must then notify abutters of the parcels included in the project. The Conservation Commission and DEP will then assess the project and formulate any conditions or alterations to the project scope to meet standards as outlined in the Wetlands Protection Act. For example, certain construction techniques could be required, or areas designated for restoration to offset areas altered by the proposed project.

20’ TRAIL EASEMENT

The Echodale trail easement (yellow) crosses through Bassett Brook’s streambed in several places.

Figure 3: Streams, Wetlands, and Buffers

Community Garden

Bass

ett B

Wetlands

Wetland and Riparian Buffers

Echodale Farm Trail Easement

rook

Study Area Parcel Boundaries

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT

BioMap2 Species of Concern

Bassett Brook feeds into the Manhan River between two areas that have been designated as Core Habitat for endangered species by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program’s BioMap2 (see Figure 4 below). The Core Habitat designation “identifies key areas [for conservation] to ensure the long-term persistence of species of conservation concern, exemplary natural communities, and intact ecosystems across the Commonwealth (Woolsie, Finton, and DeNormandie 9).” Pollution or sedimentation of Bassett Brook could potentially degrade the water quality for several species of freshwater mussels, turtles, and insects within these two areas of Core Habitat.

Creeper Strophitus undulatus

Triangle Floater Alasmidonta undulata

Spotted turtle Clemmys guttata

Wood turtle Glyptemys insculpta

Figure 4: BioMap2 Core Habitat Downstream from the Study Area

Flo

i re c n tio

Bass

ettB

roo k

BioMap2 Core Habitat

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

ive

R an

Study Area Parcel Boundaries

Areas of Core Habitat

SLOPES AND EROSION

The shape and structure of the land strongly influence the suitability of a site for trails. Gently sloped areas ease construction of universally accessible trails and control surface water flow, reducing its capacity to erode the trail surface. Steep areas require careful grading to limit the slope of the trail surface and may require retaining walls and switchbacks or steps. Trails routed over soils that are particularly prone to erosion must be built with an erosion-resistant surface and very carefully graded for proper drainage. Figure 5 below illustrates the slopes and soil types found in the study area. The land slopes down from north to south, resulting in sweeping views of the south from the northern part of the study area. The most gentle slopes, less than 5% and shown in light grey, are chiefly found

in areas used for agriculture: hay fields, orchards, and pastures. The steepest slopes are found along Bassett Brook, particularly on the eastern branch on Echodale Farm and the Lathrop property. Many of the soils most susceptible to erosion are also along Bassett Brook, on the Park Hill Orchard and Lathrop properties. Erosion-prone soils and steep slopes coincide in several places, particularly along Bassett Brook on the Lathrop parcel, making disturbance in these areas more likely to cause erosion. The south central portion of the study has gentle slopes and erosion-resistant soils, characteristics favorable for trails. The most southeastern portion of Echodale Farm, and the land along Bassett Brook on the Lathrop parcel have steep slopes and highly erodible soils making them the least suitable areas for trails.

Figure 5: Slopes and Erosion-prone Soils

Lathrop Community Micka Farm

Park Hill Orchard

Community Garden

Town Farm Echodale Farm

<5% Slope (gentle)

>20% Slope (steep)

Study Area Parcel Boundaries

Soil Highly Susceptible to Erosion

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Assessing the study area’s accessibility to various modes of transportation will help to inform design, particularly the placement of trailheads.

Park Hill Orchard

Arrival by Car While a number of roads border the study area, only Park Hill Road offers access to existing publicly available parking. Park Hill Road borders the majority of the properties, offering vehicle access to the small public parking lot at the community garden as well as the private parking lot for Park Hill Orchard. The Park Hill Orchard lot, used for parking for pick-your-own fruit sales and the Art in the Orchard event, has an information kiosk which could be suitable for trailhead use. Street parking is possible on both sides of Park Hill Road, although cars would have to park on grass since the shoulder is unpaved. Park Hill Road also offers vehicle access to the trail easement on Echodale Farm.

Community Garden

Parking lots (pink) and kiosk (star) on Park Hill Road.

Micka Farm

Lathrop Community

enc

Flor

Park Hill Orchard

Park Hill Road

Figure 7: Streets and Sidewalks

oad

Park Hill Orchard Community Garden

tre

Town Farm

ive

am pto No rth

Echodale Farm

tre

t West Stree

Study Area Parcel Boundaries

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

Streets with Sidewalks Trail Easement

Information kiosk and parking for 25 cars at Park Hill Orchard.

Parking for 4 cars at the community garden.

Arrival on Foot Pedestrian access to the study area is possible, but not ideal. Most of the roads bordering the study area do not have sidewalks, as shown in Figure 7. While the streets within the Lathrop Community have a sidewalk on one side, Florence Road, the only public roadway serving the property, does not. Of the roads offering outside access to the study area, only West Street has sidewalks. It borders Echodale Farm’s trail easement, but access is

impractical due to the steep slopes and guard rail shown in the photo below. To walk to the site one must travel along the narrow shoulder of rural roads. The photo below shows the narrow and steep shoulder on Park Hill Road leading from Oliver Street across the bridge over Bassett Brook to the parking lots. Some improvements or signs may be necessary to ensure safety if there is increased road traffic due to trail use.

Pedestrian access to the site is blocked by a guard rail and steep slopes at the southeastern corner of Echodale Farm.

Narrow and steep shoulder and bridge guard rails along Park Hill Road between Oliver Street and the parking lots.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

Arrival by Bike or Bus Many of the major roads near the study area are friendly to cyclists1 and connect to nearby bike trails, including the Manhan Rail Trail and the Northampton Bikeway. This network of bike trails and bike-friendly roads connects the study area to the open spaces shown on the map in Figure 8. Arcadia Wildlife Preserve and Mount Tom State Preserve are both linked by rail trails. Saw Mill Hill and Mineral Hills open spaces are both adjacent to bike-friendly roads that intersect with the bike trails. Bike-friendly roads connect bike trails and

open spaces to the rural, low-traffic roads that pass through the study area. The Nashawannuck Express Flex Van route passes through downtown Easthampton where it connects to the route of the 41 bus which runs from Northampton to Holyoke. If called ahead of time, the flex van can pick up and drop off people along any road in the study area. Though taking the flex van takes a bit of planning, arrival by bus or by bicycle are both viable alternatives to driving.

Bike-friendly roads identified using local knowledge of cyclists at MassBike Pioneer Valley compiled by Friends of Northampton Trails and Greenways (Northampton Area Trail and Bike Map).

Figure 8: Bike-Friendly Roads and Trails and Bus Routes

Sawmill Hill

Mineral Hills Rocky Hill Greenway

Arcadia

Dwyer Mount Tom

Bike-Friendly Roads

Nashawannuck Express Route

Less Bike friendly Roads

41 Bus Route

Other Roads Study Area Parcel Boundaries

Rail Trail Bike Path

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

Open Spaces

Existing Trails There are a number of existing unpaved access roads and unimproved trails in the study area, including farm access roads serving the orchards and fields. The trails are limited to the wooded areas and the gas line easement on Micka Farm, Park Hill Orchard, and Echodale Farm. Some trails also pass through wetlands in the community garden. The Lathrop Community has a trail systems that crosses wooded, wetland, and meadow areas.

The existing trails on Micka Farm and the western parcel of Park Hill Orchard do not have an access path to the road, which would require creation of new road or trail to include them in a trail network. The trail in the Community Garden is a dirt path and passes through wetlands—it would need to be rerouted or elevated as a boardwalk to prevent damage to the wetland ecosystem. There is a farm road at Park Hill Orchard leading from Park Hill Road through the orchards and into the woods. One trail leads from this road to Bassett Brook near an old dam; another runs along the gas line easement

ending at the edge of Echodale Farm. The farm road is dirt and grass and may subject the underlying soil to compaction or erosion if used for frequent foot traffic. There is a trail along the southern border of Echodale Farm that runs from Park Hill Road approximately following the trail easement out to an overlook of the joining of the two branches of Bassett Brook. Only some portions of this trail might be suitable for inclusion in a trail network since it frequently crosses outside the boundary of the study area. The loop at the end of this trail is on level ground and offers a view over the joining of the two branches of Bassett Brook. The Lathrop Community has a system of trails that are frequently used by residents and include benches for resting and enjoying views. If a trail network was able to cross Bassett Brook, these trails could be accessed. The only existing trails suitable for inclusion in an allseason trail network are the sections along the trail easement on Echodale Farm. Winter trails could make use of the other existing trails and farm roads within the study area boundary.

Figure 9: Existing Trails and Farm Roads

Lathrop Community

Micka Farm

Park Hill Orchard Community Garden

Town Farm

Park Hill Orchard

Echodale Farm

Study Area Parcel Boundaries

Existing Trails

Roads

Farm Road

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

POINTS OF INTEREST

The 2013 Easthampton OSRP has identified the Park Hill study area as a scenic landscape of value to the community for protection and recreation. There are several points with scenic vistas that look across pastoral agricultural fields with Mount Tom to the east and Pomeroy Mountain to the west. At a community meeting held on February 4, 2016, a group of eighteen residents identified some key areas of interest within the study area. These special places were mapped with a GPS and their relationship to the site evaluated for: • Historical importance • Scenic views • Unique land forms • Important wildlife habitat The features on the following pages include many of the sites identified at the community meeting as well as some discovered during site visits.

Why integrate historical features and viewsheds? The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Trail Guidelines and Best Practices Manual states that, “well-designed trails will [...] use natural and built elements to create sequences of visual, physical, and emotional experiences that are pleasing to the trail user. All aspects of a site – its topography, viewsheds, water features, ecological communities, cultural sites, developed areas, roads, and trails – should be perceived as part of the sequence of events that give the trail its character (24).”

Similarly, in their book Trails for the 21st Century, Charles A. Flink, Kristine Olka, and Robert M. Searns, offer several suggestions for creating a unique trail network. These include incorporating natural features and sites of local historical and cultural importance (112-114). These sources indicate the importance of incorporating features like those on the following pages to enhance the user’s experience and create a local flavor and feel for a trail network.

Figure 9: Point of Interest

View Near “Big Red Frame

Old Orchard

Wetland Next to Community Garden

Dam Site

The Mounds Town Farm

View from Echodale Farm Bassett Brook Overlook

Point of Interest

Study Area Parcel Boundaries

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

Wetland next to Community Garden

A field of reed canarygrass flanked by sumacs, old orchard trees, and hay fields covers several acres next to the Easthampton community garden.

The large acreage of reed canarygrass in this wetland distinguishes it from the many other wetlands on the site.

The Mounds

Southeast of the wetland lies a set of several mounds about four feet tall by eight to ten feet wide by two hundred and seventy-five feet long that run in straight lines south to north. These linear features could be man-made, but no historical record provides any clues to who might have constructed them, why they may have been constructed, or how old they are. Further archaeological assessment might reveal a historical or cultural significance for these unique feature, which could be a resource for trails on the community garden.

Easthampton Town Farm

Constructed in 1890 to house Easthampton’s poor, the Town Farm provided its residents with shelter and land to raise livestock and grow their own produce. The building remains in use as a shelter for low-income residents to this day. The building’s style and construction are unique within Easthampton and it was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1996.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

View from Echodale Farm

Along the Echodale Farm trail easement there are pastoral views to the north and west over the hayfields and farm pastures toward the historical Echodale Farmhouse and barn in the distance.

Historical Dam Site

At the western edge of Park Hill Orchard lies the remnants of a historical dam. The exact nature of this dam is unknown. However, the agricultural nature of the lands abutting Bassett Brook suggest that it was likely used to power a mill for lumber or agriculture. The dam lays at a point where the banks of Bassett Brook are relatively tall and narrow.

Old Orchard

An unmaintained orchard nestled in the woods provides habitat and food for a variety of wildlife as indicated by fox, squirrel, rabbit and numerous bird tracks observed in the snow. This may provide an opportunity for trail users to observe wildlife and also provides a visual break from the surrounding fields and woodlands.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

Bassett Brook Overlook

A thirty-four-by-ninety-foot clearing on a plateau in the southeastern corner of Echodale Farm looks out over the intersection of the two branches of Bassett Brook. While the view appears to be blocked in the picture below, the

experience on site is much the opposite. The brook and its floodplain can be comfortably observed along with signs of beaver and other wildlife in this area.

View from The “Big Red Frame”

The signature feature of the study area, is the view from a high point on Park Hill Road near the “Big Red Frame,”a sculpture by Jean-Pierre Pasche created for Easthampton’s annual Art in the Orchard event held at Park Hill Orchard. There are views across the entire study area and over the city of Easthampton toward Mount Tom.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

SUMMARY ANALYSIS

The preceding pages presented analyses of legal restrictions, wetlands and critical habitat, slopes and soils, and site access opportunities and constraints. Points of interest and desirable views on the parcels were also identified. Overlaying these individual analyses (see Figure 10) allows for the identification of areas least and most suitable for all-season trails, as shown in Figure 11. Parcels under APR, shown in orange below, are unsuitable for immediate development of all-season trails due to limitations on new easements and construction. Because APR protections underlie the gas line easement, it cannot be used for trails. The existing farm road has a dirt and grass surface that is subject to soil erosion and compaction, making it unsuitable for trail use. Most of the existing trails are unsuitable since they lack access to roads and parking, and cannot gain access due to APR limitations on new road/trail construction. There is one section of existing trail in the

southeastern corner of Echodale Farm which could be suitable for use, but would require a special permit from MDAR. The usable section of the existing trail easement on Echodale Farm (see Figure 11) is limited to the length along Park Hill Road and a portion along the southern parcel boundary. The rest of the easement crosses steep slopes and Bassett Brook (making it unsuitable for trails) or is on the other side of the brook (making it inaccessible). Disturbance and erosion in the areas of steep slopes and wetlands along Bassett Brook would impact species in the immediate vicinity as well as have the potential to degrade downstream water quality, possibly harming core habitat for threatened species in the Manhan River. For this reason, trails should not be constructed on the steep slopes bordering Bassett Brook on the Lathrop parcel and in the southeastern corner of Echodale Farm. The existing parking lots at Park Hill Orchard and the

Micka Farm

Park Hill Road

Figure 10: Trail Constraints

ence Roa

Park Hill Orchard

Community Garden

Flor

Park Hill Orchard

Lathrop Community

sett

Bas

Echodale Farm

Bass

ok Bro

Town Farm

ett B

rook

Manh

an Ri

APR

Steep Slopes

Farm Road

Trail Easement

Wetland

Existing Trails

Stream

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

ver

community garden are accessible from Park Hill Road and are in the center of the study area. The Park Hill Orchard lot also has an information kiosk used for pickyour-own harvest. The Lathrop Community property has driving access to its existing trails from Florence Road, but these are currently not designated for public use and there are only two parking spaces at the trailhead. The community garden and Lathrop parcels have the most suitable areas for trails, though boardwalk construction would be necessary in some areas to minimize impact to wetlands. The trail easement along the southern border of Echodale Farm is also suitable. Additional trails on the APR parcels would only be possible if more trail easements could be acquired through release of land area from APR. Winter trails are suitable for all parcels, though subject to landowner approval on privately owned property. The most suitable parking is at the existing lots at Park Hill Orchard and the Community Garden.

Park Hill Orchard

Community Garden

Parking (pink) at Park Hill Orchard and the community garden. Information kiosk (star) at Park Hill Orchard.

Figure 11: All-Season Trail Suitability Zones

Lathrop Community

Micka Farm Park Hill Orchard Community Garden

Town Farm

Park Hill Orchard

Echodale Farm

Areas Suitable for Trails

Suitable Portion of Echodale Farm Trail Easement

Areas Unsuitable for Trails

Potentially Suitable Existing Trail

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY ANALYSES

Community Garden

Echodale Farm

Echodale Trail Boardwalk Echodale Trail N

500

1,000

2,000

Feet

Study Area Parcel Boundaries

Steep Slopes

Perennial Stream

Point of Interest

Community Garden Trail Boardwalk

Wetland

Community Garden Trail

Crosswalk

Echodale Farm Trail Easement

P Parking Lot Trailhead

DESIGN ALTERNATIVES HIKING TRAILS

Based on constraints created by legal restrictions, the possibility for a hiking trail network is limited to either side of Park Hill Road, the Community Garden parcel, and the Echodale Farm Trail Easement. The design at left shows an approximately two-milelong trail system that is composed of two segments: • The Community Garden Loop trail • The Echodale Trail

Parking and Trailheads

Agricultural Preservation Restrictions prevent the construction of additional parking lots on all parcels except the Community Garden. The community garden parking lot currently offers space for up to 4 cars, while the parking lot at Park Hill Orchard provides parking for up to 25 cars. In this scenario a trailhead at each parking lot welcomes guests to the site. A kiosk with a bulletin board at the trailhead provides a map of the trail network and a place to pin up additional signs.

Together, these two trails cross through wetlands, streams, and traverse areas of steep slope, all of which will increase the cost to construct the trail system and the risk of erosion or improper trail use that could damage ecosystems in the study area. The following pages provide a more in-depth study of each of the trail segments and presents their potential benefits and drawbacks.

An existing kiosk and parking at Park Hill Orchard could be used as a second trailhead.

An imagined trailhead kiosk at the community garden parking lot provides a map of the trail network and a place to post relevant trail information for visitors. PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Community Garden Trail Trail Distance: Approximately 0.47 miles (2,500 feet) round-trip

Average Slope: 2-5% Maximum Slope: 5% The Community Garden Trail features a 600-foot boardwalk that leads the hiker across the waving canarygrass wetland to a woodland loop trail. The woodland loop circles around the west side of The Mounds, links to a second 100-foot-long boardwalk, passes by the east side of the mounds, and then links back to the original boardwalk. Of the two trail segments this is the only one that can be built to National Forest Service accessibility guidelines due to legal and physical constraints on the other parcels (see table in Appendix 3). Currently, an informal trail crosses through the wetland community on this parcel. Frequent use of the informal trail compacts the wetland soil and crushes vegetation. Building a boardwalk trail through this wetland creates a less damaging alternative to the current use and provides potential for visitors to observe a wetland ecosystem. The new boardwalk is accompanied by signs informing users about the value of wetland ecosystems and requests that they help conserve this habitat by staying along the formal path.

PROS

• Can be built to ABA accessibility standards. • Has the least amount of legal constraints of all parcels, allowing the most flexibility in trail construction. • Offers an alternative to the damaging informal trail.

CONS

• Boardwalk construction could be expensive. • Wetland delineation needed to confirm the extent of boardwalk required. • Trail length is short.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

The Mounds

Boardwalk

Point of Interest

Formal Trail

Informal Trail

Wetland (Aerially Mapped)

P Parking Lot Trailhead

Echodale Trail Trail Distance: 1.47 miles (7,750 feet) one-way

Average Slope: 2-5% Maximum Slope: 13% The Echodale trail starts at the parking lot on Park Hill Orchard near the view by the “Big Red Frame.” From here it heads south along the east side of Park Hill Road to a 20-footlong crosswalk by the community garden parking lot and trailhead. It continues south along the west side of the road to a 150-foot-long walkway along the existing bridge over Bassett Brook. After the crossing, the trail follows entirely along the usable portion of the Echodale Farm trail easement with a slight deviation to reach the Bassett Brook overlook. Acquiring an additional easement would make it possible to reach the overlook without having to traverse areas of steep slope. The Echodale trail easement forces this trail to cross approximately 800 feet of wetlands, stream crossings, and steep slopes. The confluence of all these factors means that trail construction will be very complex and an engineer should be consulted if this trail is pursued.

Easement Option The dotted and dashed yellow line shows a potential easement acquisition that may shorten some of the wetland, stream, and steep slope crossings, otherwise required. The new easement crosses through two private parcels to reach a narrow point in the brook, reducing the length of difficult terrain crossings by approximately 300 feet.

PROS

• Connects to three scenic vistas in the study area. • Trail easement allows for sustainable trail construction

CONS

• Requires additional easement to reach Bassett Brook overlook. • Construction of several bridges, boardwalks, and steps increase construction costs. • Approximately 1/3 of the trail involves walking along the shoulder of Park Hill Road, which frequently has a narrow and sloping shoulder.

View Near “Big Red Frame

Park Hill Orchard Community Garden Parking Lot and Trailhead

The Echodale trail winds through the woods out toward the Bassett Brook Overlook.

Bassett Brook Overlook

Crosswalk/ Walkway Echodale Boardwalk or Bridge

Perennial Stream

Wetland

Steep Slopes

Echodale Trail

Easement Option Bridge

Easement Option Trail

Point of Interest

P Parking Lot Trailhead

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Lathrop Retirement Community

body

Trail Types

500

1,000

2,000

Feet

Boardwalk Trail

One-way Trail

Snowshoe Trail

Two-way Trail

Town Farm Loop

Point of Interest

Park Hill East Loop

Study Area Parcel Boundaries

Park Hill West Loop Echodale Snowshoe Trail

Crosswalk

P Parking Lot Trailhead

WINTER TRAILS While legal constraints prevent most of the study area from being included in a hiking trail network, the same restrictions do not apply to cross-country ski and snowshoe trails. Snow cover protects agricultural soils from damage and farming activity ceases in the winter, eliminating potential conflicts between farm use and trail use. However, APRs do require a special permit to clear brush for any non-agricultural activity, a necessary component of ski trails that travel through woodland areas. Because special permits expire after 5 years, it could be difficult to secure funding for trail maintenance. Thus, the design at left does not include any trails that might require application for a special permit.

The design at left shows an approximately seven-mile-long cross-country ski and snowshoe trail network consisting of three multi-use trails and one snowshoe only trail:

Winter trails also damage wetland and riparian areas less than hiking trails. Trail users are accessing these areas after the ground has frozen and much of the wildlife and vegetation have gone dormant. Natural crossings can be used on shallow streams up to 12 inches deep that freeze in early winter (Rathke and Baughman adapted in Cross Country Ski Trail Considerations). However, it is still generally recommend that trails avoid wetlands and waterway crossings to minimize their ecological impact and reduce the risk of users falling through thin ice (Pashek Associates 80).

On average each trail’s slope is five percent or less, with the steepest runs reaching up to seventeen percent. The length and slope of this particular trail network would be most suitable for skiers and snowshoers looking for trails of easy to moderate difficulty according to the Pennsylvania Trail Design and Development Principles, a publication prepared for the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (Pashek Associates 78) .

Cross Country Ski and Snowshoe Trails • The Park Hill East Loop (orange-dashed-and- dotted line)

• The Park Hill West Loop (yellow-dashed line) • The Town Farm Loop (white-dashed line) Snowshoe Only • The Echodale Trail (Red-dotted line)

This trail network connects to all the key points and traverses all parcels except for the Lathrop Community. However, while all of the trails are usable by snowshoe, not all areas can be reached using cross- country skis. The following pages provide more detailed information about each trail segment except for the Echodale Snowshoe Trail. This trail would use the same path as detailed for the Echodale Hiking trail (see page 29).

Clearing Width (12-24 inches)

Treadway Width (1-4 feet)

Clearing Width (12-24 inches)

Table 5: Trail Width and Grade Guidelines (adapted from Pashek Associates 78) Trail Type Easiest More Difficult Treadway Width 2-4 feet: One-way 1½-4 feet 5-6 feet: Two-way Clearing Width

18-24 inches outside of treadway

12-18 inches outside of treadway

Most Difficult 1-2 feet Typically not designed for two-way travel 12 inches outside of treadway

Treadway Grade

Less than 8% Maximum: 15% up to 150 feet

Less than 10% Maximum: 20% up to 150 feet

Less than 15% Maximum: 20% up to 200 feet

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

Ski Trail Design Details

0.37-mile Northern Loop

The Park Hill West Loop (yellow-dashed line) is the longest of the three proposed cross country ski trails at 3.02 miles. It passes by the parking lot and trailhead at the community garden and connects to three points of interest. This trail consists of three interconnected loops:

Micka Farm

Steep sections Park Hill Orchard

• A 0.37-mile northern loop on Micka Farm • A 0.7-mile central loop on Park Hill Orchard • A 0.75-mile southern loop on the Town Farm and community garden

Community Garden

Of all the ski trails in the winter trail network, the northern and central loops on Micka Farm and Park Hill Orchard contain the steepest sections, with three stretches that reach over 10% grade for at least 80 feet. A 20-foot-long crosswalk at the community garden connects the Park Hill West Loop to the Park Hill East Loop.

Town Farm

0.75 mile Southern Loop

The Park Hill East Loop (orange-dashed line) is the second longest ski trail at 1.58 miles. The trail stays entirely within the boundaries of Park Hill Orchard. This trail also consists of three smaller loop trails:

0.33mile Old Orchard Loop

• A 0.33-mile loop that travels to and around the old orchard area

0.7-mile Orchard Loop

The parking lot on Park Hill Orchard provides direct access to the Park Hill East Loop. A 0.1-mile-long snowshoe spur trail (green dots) leads to the old dam site.

The Town Farm Loop (white-dashed line) is the shortest of the winter trails at 1.18 miles. This trail consists of two loops contained entirely on the Town Farm:

To reach this trail skiers must use a 100-foot-long walkway along the shoulder of the existing bridge on Park Hill Road.

Two-way Trail

0.4-mile Forest Edge Loop

100-foot walkway

0.35-mile Small Hayfield Loop

• a 0.35 mile loop around a smaller hayfields

Snowshoe Trail

500 Feet

0.8-mile Large Hayfield Loop

• a 0.8 mile loop that around a larger hayfield

Boardwalk Trail

500 Feet

Park Hill Orchard

• A 0.4-mile loop that hugs the forest edge around a meadow

One-way Trail

Former Dam Site

Old Orchard

• A 0.7-mile loop that goes around orchards

Trail Types

0.7-mile Central Loop

500 Feet

Point of Interest Study Area Parcel Boundaries

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

N Town Farm Building Crosswalk/ Walkway Point of Interest

P Parking Lot Trailhead

Winter Trail Construction Most cross-country ski trails require no more than a snowmobile and a pull-behind trail groomer to construct (Cross-Country Ski Trail Considerations). The grooming equipment required depends on the style of cross-country ski being used: back country, traditional, or skate. While backcountry skis require little to no formal trail grooming, both traditional and skate ski trails may require repeated grooming throughout the season (Pashek Associates 77-78). Snowshoe trails, similar to back country ski trails, require little to no grooming (83).

The width of grooming equipment needed can also be affected by the intended difficulty of the trail, as listed in Table 6. Wider tread widths are required for easier trails. Direction of travel can also affect trail widths; skiers cannot travel in opposite directions on the same track so an additional adjacent track must be groomed to allow travel in the other direction.

A traditional ski trail requires two deep furrows and a relatively narrow track.

The simple equipment required makes winter trails relatively affordable to construct compared to hiking trails. Furthermore, this simple construction allows their location to change as needed for any given situation. However, trail grooming needs to be performed routinely for cross-country ski trails, with grooming frequency depending on conditions such as solar exposure and snowdrift. The Pennsylvania DCR trail manual, recommends that ski trails avoid southern exposures and recommends placing them on north facing slopes or in hardwood forests, since the former receive the more solar exposure than the latter (80). Of the land within the study area that would not require a special permit, over 90% is open farm field, wetland, or apple orchard. In February of 2016, wind driven snow filled in tracks within 3 hours on several occasions. Based on these observations, it is likely that full-time maintenance would be required to maintain ski trails. Looped trails with internal connectors are generally preferred to linear trails or spur trails as they allow skiers some control over the length they travel. Similarly, several small interconnected loops between one-half and three miles in length are preferred to one larger loop. (Cross-Country Ski Trail Considerations; Pashek Associates 78).

Skate skis require a relatively wide and icy track so that skiers can “skate,” using a similar motion to ice skating.

Table 6: Tread Width Criteria Tread width

Traditional Skate

One-way Traffic

6 to 8 feet

8 to 10 feet 12 to 14 feet

8 to 10 feet

14 to 16 feet

Two-way Traffic

Traditional and Skate

16 to 20 feet

Asphalt roads can damage cross-country skis and skiers must stop and remove their skis before crossing them. For this reason road crossings should be minimized. Easthampton should consult with local cross country ski groups such as the Western Massachusetts Cross Country Ski Area Association for further information on trail design, maintenance, and construction.

Table 7: Ski Trail Summary XC ski loops

Park Hill West

Park Hill East

Town Farm Loop

Total Length

3.02 miles

1.58 miles

1.18 miles

Solar Exposure

.82 mi of trail shaded by tree cover (73% exposed)

.45 miles of 1.58 mile network shaded by tree cover (72% exposed)

.08 miles of 1.18 mi trail shaded by tree cover (94% exposed)

Wind Exposure Slope

.5 mi of 2.65 mi trail protected .27 mi of 1.58 mile trail protected by by tree cover (84% exposed) tree cover (83% exposed) Average: <5% Maximum: 14% Average:<5% Maximum: 10%

0 miles of 1.18 mi trail protected by tree cover (100% exposed) Average: >5% Maximum: 7%

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

body

Coasting down Park Hill Road.

BIKE ROUTE CONNECTIONS

The proximity of the Manhan Rail Trail and other bicycle trails makes a cycling connection to the Park Hill area an attractive option. Shown below is a network of agricultural scenic routes that, using existing roads, connects the study area to several open spaces in the region. The northwestern branch1 (shown in orange below) begins at the Northampton Bikeway and takes cyclists past the Saw Mill Hills and Mineral Hills open spaces. Following bike-friendly and rural roads, it brings riders to the top of Park Hill, presenting a sweeping vista to the south which includes Mount Tom. One quarter mile south are the trailheads at Park Hill Orchard and the 1

community garden. The northeastern branch (shown in blue) originates on the Manhan Rail Trail at Arcadia Wildlife Sanctuary. It takes cyclists on existing bike trails through the Rocky Hill Greenway and along the Ice Pond Trail to a route on rural roads to the top of Park Hill. Here they join the same path as the northern branch along Park Hill Road with the sweeping views and trailheads. They can then return on one of the northern branches or take the southern branch (shown in brown) through quiet residential neighborhoods and past Hannum Brook and Pomeroy Meadows open spaces to the Manhan Rail Trail.

There is an unpaved section of Park Hill Road that may require improvement for bicycle access.

Figure 12: Bike Routes No

rth

Sawmill Hill

Mineral Hills

Ice Pond Trail

pto

ike

Rocky Hill Greenway

Manhan

Park Hill Road

il Rail Tra

Arcadia

Hannum Brook Mount Tom

Pomeroy Meadows Northeastern Branch Northwestern Branch Southern Branch

Bike-Friendly Roads Less Bike friendly Roads Rail Trail Bike Path

Open Space Unpaved Road Area Study Area Parcel Boundaries

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY DESIGN ALTERNATIVES

SECTION HEAD LINE 1

The forest Caption here edge along the hay field on the Town Farm.

RECOMMENDATIONS The following are recommendations for actions to be taken by the Easthampton Planning Department in cooperation with the Conservation Commission, neighboring towns, property owners, and MDAR. Both trail-related and alternative actions are presented.

TRAIL RECOMMENDATIONS Construct a boardwalk trail in the community garden wetlands.

Create winter trails on the APR parcels.

Boardwalk on the Nehantic Trail in Connecticut.

Cross-country ski trail near Lake Tahoe.

The community garden is the only parcel other than Lathrop allowing trails outside of easements. It has its own parking lot, an open wetland, a site of archaeological interest, and beautiful views of the surrounding properties. An accessible loop trail running through the old orchard, traversing the wetland via boardwalk, and bringing people to the mounds would be an asset to the city.

Cross-country skiing and snowshoeing trails use snow as surface and do not require disturbance of the soil. These seasonal trails would allow the most widespread access to the Park Hill properties. The area’s gentle slopes make it a great place for children and beginner skiers to learn and the views make the visit worthwhile for the more experienced winter athlete. These trails can make use of both open farm fields and existing farm roads and trails in the wooded areas. A special permit from MDAR would be required to clear trees and brush for additional trails in woodlands (Hall 16 Mar. 2016).

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

Place trailheads at existing parking lots.

Since the APR protections preclude expansion of parking on most parcels, existing parking lots must be used. Since access to the study area is primarily by car, trailheads should be located there as well. The parking lots at Park Hill Orchard and the community garden are centrally located and the Park Hill Orchard lot has an existing kiosk that could be used as a trailhead. They are both close to the recommended community garden trail and the center of the proposed winter trail system. An agreement would need to be reached with the Park Hill Orchard owners to allow the use of the lot and kiosk for a trail network.

Collaborate with the City of Northampton on an agricultural scenic bike route.

Park Hill is near to both bike-friendly roads and regional bike trails as well as a number of area open spaces with hiking and mixed-use trails. A bike route passing through Park Hill and connecting to rail trails would enable cyclists to visit the study area. (The design alternatives in the previous section show options for these routes and their connections to rail trails and open spaces).

Information kiosk at Park Hill Orchard parking lot.

Pursue easements to expand the trail network.

The current area available for trails is limited by terrain and legal restrictions. Properties bordering the study area that are free of existing restrictions offer potentially suitable areas for extending trails. Trail easements

negotiated with the landowners could increase the extent and connectivity within the proposed trail network. The Echodale Trail (described on page 29) could become a more viable option this way. Shown below are the parcels and the preferred route for the Echodale Trail.

Figure 13: Parcels for Echodale Trail Easements

Parcels (green) to consider for easements along Echodale Farm border to allow for Echodale Trail (yellow) to be constructed.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

Include recreational needs when bringing additional land under APR protection.

As written, the current APRs on parcels in the study area make it very difficult to add trails and their associated infrastructure (e.g., parking). If the trend of using APRs to preserve land in the Park Hill Priority Protection Area continues (see Figure 14 below), the City should work with MDAR and the landowners to ensure that new APRs include easements for public access and trail construction where appropriate. Trail easements should be designed based on assessment of access to sites of interest on the parcel, connection to trails on adjacent parcels, site conditions (e.g., wetlands and slopes), and compatibility with continued agricultural use. As evidenced on Echodale Farm, a trail easement placed along a property boundary without an analysis of the terrain is not ideal. Wetland and wooded areas should be excluded from the APR (unless the wooded area is to be used for forestry), perhaps protected instead by a CR allowing for public access and recreation.

Consult with Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources about APR release possibility to get trail easements.

There is a process by which an APR holder can apply to MDAR for release of some areas from APR in exchange for new land of equal agricultural value being brought under APR. If additional land in the Park Hill area is brought under APR, it might be able to be used to get approval for trail easements on the other parcels in the area. Unprotected parcels in the PHPPA are highlighted in yellow in Figure 14 below. The process and requirements for the APR release process are detailed in 330 CMR 22.12 in Appendix 1.

Figure 14: Adjacent Unprotected Parcels

Unprotected Agriculture and Woodlands

Study Area Property Boundaries

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

An Outstanding in the Field dinner at Live Earth Farm in Watsonville, CA. 40

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY SECTION TITLE

ALTERNATIVES TO TRAILS Given the current legal restrictions which limit the options for trails, it may be worth investigating some alternative options for bringing Easthampton residents to Park Hill for recreation. Farm Dinners Eating at a farm can help connect people to their food source and the land. Whether it’s a formal affair like the Outstanding in the Field dinner shown at left or a more casual event, bringing people together to eat among the plants and trees can be a powerful experience. Local chefs can showcase their skills while cooking outside and the farmers who supply the food can attend and educate the attendees. This could be especially meaningful to the people of Easthampton if some of the food came from the community garden. Getting on the Map The Massachusetts Department of Agriculture has an agri-tourism map of the state showing farms with public access. This includes pick-your-own blueberry fields in nearby Southampton. Some properties on Park Hill (e.g., Park Hill Orchard) might be suitable for addition.

Community Garden Expansion Expanding the community garden onto a portion of the Town Farm parcel is one of the goals of the City’s Seven Year Action Plan (OSRP 66) and could also open opportunities for education and trails. The Town Farm land next to the community garden is also adjacent to wetland and forest edge habitats. Expanding the garden into this area could offer education as to how to grow food near these ecosystems while having minimal impact. Depending on the crops grown, access roads and paths could double as hiking trails, linking with the ones in the community garden. The trails would have informative signs, serving the agricultural education goals of the farm and eliminating the need for a special permit from MDAR. This is dependent on the terms and duration of the current lease of the Town Farm land as well as delineation of wetlands on both parcels.

Clip of the MDAR agri-tourism map.

Drive-It-Yourself (or Bike-It-Yourself )

Farm Tours

For the past twenty-six years, Stark County in Ohio has held a drive-it-yourself farm tour in the fall (Stark County). A small number of farms welcome visitors— offering tours, educational materials, and free samples. Kids especially love the farms where they can meet the animals. At Park Hill, hay farmers could mow mazes in their fields, the orchard and community gardens would offer locally grown snacks, and cattle raisers could show their animals. Collaboration with farms in neighboring towns could make this an event with a regional draw.

Expansion (green) of community garden onto the Town Farm.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES City of Easthampton. Master Plan. 2008. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Code of Massachusetts Regulations, 330 CMR 22: Agricultural Preservation Restriction Program. 25 Dec. 2009. Web. <mass.gov> Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetlands losses in the United States 1780’s to 1980’s. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. 1-6. Flink, Charles A., Kristine Olka, and Robert M. Searns. Trails for the 21st Century: Planning, Design, and Management for Multi-Use Trails. 2nd ed. Washington DC, Island Press ,2001: 112-114. French, Andrew and McCollum Artie. Fort River Birding and Nature Trail: Providing Universal Access. 26 Feb. 2016, 25 March 2016: 4-15 <http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dcr/stewardship/greenway/docs/conference/2014/fort-riversolving-common-trail-problems-with-creative-solutions.pdf> Hall, Ronald; Pitel, Nicholas. Personal interview. 16 Mar. 2016. Horton, Nicholas. “Re: Northampton Trails Map Question.” Message to map reviewer. 15 Feb. 2016. Email. Lattrell, Bill. Personal interview. 9 Feb. 2016. Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources. Agricultural Preservation Restriction Program Guidelines: Requests for Special Permit to Conduct Non-agricultural Activities or Uses on APR Land. MDAR, 1 Dec. 2014. Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. Recreational Trails Program. 29 March 2013. 25 March 2016 < http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dcr/services-and-assistance/grants-and-technical-assistance/recreationaltrails-grants-program.html> Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. Trail Guidelines and Best Practices Manual. October 2014: 3-28. MassParks. Great Brook Farm State Park. 2016. Web. 22 Mar. 2016. < www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/dcr/massparks/ region-north/great-brook-farm-state.html> National Forest Service. Trails Management Handbook. October 2008: 8 Northampton Area Trail and Bike Map. Smith College Spatial Analysis Lab, 2009. Web. 23 Mar. 2016. < http://www. fntg.net/fntglarge2009.pdf> Northern Arizona University. Cross-Country Ski Trail Considerations. 3 Jan 2006. 25 March 2016 <http://www.prm. nau.edu/prm423/xc_ski_trail_design.htm> Open Space and Recreation Plan. City of Easthampton, 2013. Pashek Associates. Pennsylvania Trail Design & Development Principles: Guidelines for Sustainable, Non-Motorized Trails. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 13 Dec. 2013: 78-83. Stark County Farm Bureau. Stark County Farm Tour 2015. 3 Sep. 2015. Web. 23 Mar. 2016. < http://www.starkfb. org/stark-county-farm-tour-2015/> Steinholtz, Robert T., and Brian Vachowski. Wetland Trail Design and Construction. 2007 Edition USDA Forest Service Technology and Development Program, Missoula, MT 23-26. The Trustees of Reservations. Chestnut Hill Farms. 2016. Web. 22 Mar. 2016. < www.thetrustees.org/places-to-visit/ greater-boston/chestnut-hill-farm.html> Woolsey, Henry, Andrew Finton, and James DeNormandie. BioMap2: Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World. Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game and The Nature Conservancy, 2010: 9. Caption here 42

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY REFERENCES

PHOTO CREDITS All photos are taken by Susan Schen unless otherwise noted. Page 14 - “Creeper.” Public domain image. Page 14 - “Triangle Floater.” Public domain image. Page 14 - “Spotted Turtle.” Public domain image. Page 14 - “Wood Turtle.” Public domain image. Page 17 - Bottom Left: Google. Page 33 - Top: Public domain image. Page 33 - Bottom: McMahon, David. CC-BY-SA-3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode> Page 37 - Left: Morrow Long. CC-BY-SA-3.0 <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode> Illustrations by Max Madalinski.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY PHOTO CREDITS

APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: 330 CMR 22.12

22.12: Release of an Agricultural Preservation Restriction (1) Where the Commissioner has determined there to be extraordinary circumstances, and where the release clearly yields a substantial benefit to the agricultural resources of the Commonwealth, an APR may be released in whole or in part but only in accordance with M.G.L. c. 184, § 32, Article 97 of the Articles of Amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth, and the Land Disposition Policy of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and applicable “no net loss policies” of the Department. (2) The release shall be approved only where the Commissioner finds that the land to be released is no longer suitable for agriculture or horticulture. In making this determination the present use, nature, quality, and other attributes of the agricultural land proposed for release, including soil quality, land value, adaptability and fitness for other uses, and the nature, scope, and importance of any probable beneficial effect on the public good resulting from the release including, without limitation, the nature and adequacy of the consideration proposed by the Owner in exchange for the release. (3) The Owner shall file with the Department a written request for the release together with a full disclosure of all information relative to the anticipated uses of the land to be released. The request shall be on a form prescribed by the Department and shall include a detailed statement of the consideration that the Owner proposes in exchange for the release. (4) Prior to a release, the Commissioner shall determine: (a) the current market value of the interest of the Commonwealth to be released, which shall take into account any increase in value of the enlarged unrestricted land, owned or controlled by the Owner resulting from the addition of the parcel released, whether or not contiguous to the parcel; and (b) any diminution in the value of the remaining APR Parcel.

Caption here 44

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY APPENDIX 1

(5) To satisfy the then applicable Land Disposition Policy of the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and applicable “no net loss policies” of the Department, the Owner shall provide, on terms satisfactory to the Commissioner, an APR on unrestricted land determined by the Commissioner to be: (a) of equal or greater area and (b) of equal or greater agricultural quality, including soil and other agricultural attributes, meeting all APR Program requirements and (c) of equal or greater value to the total value of 330 CMR 22.12(4). At the sole discretion of the Commissioner, in the event that 330 CMR 22.12(5)(c) cannot be met, a payment making up the difference in value may be made to the Department’s Environmental Trust Fund or any other fund or party as directed by the Commissioner. (6) The Commissioner may require, at the sole expense of the Owner, work to be performed including, but not limited to, engineering, surveys, appraisals, title services, and document preparation related to the transaction. (7) Prior to a release, a 2/3 vote of both houses of the General Court shall be required in accordance with M.G.L. c. 184, § 32, and the approval of any Co-holder.

APPENDIX 2: APR SPECIAL PERMIT GUIDELINES

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY APPENDIX 2

body

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY APPENDIX 2

APPENDIX 3: ACCESSIBLE TRAIL GUIDELINES Source: DCR Trails Guidelines and Best Practices Manual, 2012. Page 28.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY APPENDIX 3

APPENDIX 4: BOARDWALK CONSTRUCTION Elevated boardwalk trails minimize trampling and compaction of soils and vegetation in wetland environments. However, some boardwalk construction causes more damage to these delicate ecosystems than others. The following diagrams show some examples of common boardwalk construction practices. However, Easthampton should consult with their local Conservation Commission and the Massachusetts DEP for further guidance and recommendations. Foundation

End-bearing piles consist of a concrete or rot-resistant wood footing dug into the soil to below the frost line. They require excavation to install and are most suitable for areas where firm soil or rock is found two to ten feet below the soil surface (Steinholtz and Vachowski 23).

Helical piles made of galvanized steel “screw” into wetland soils, causing less damage than the typical excavation required for friction type pilings While they require specialized training and equipment to install they are lighter, lower impact, and generally less expensive than friction pilings (26).

Friction piles consist of a twelve foot or longer rot-resistant or pressure treated wooden pole hammered, by hand or machine, into wetland soil. This type of footing is used when wetland soils are too deep and wet for an end-bearing pile to support the boardwalk. Their length and weight makes them awkward to handle and more difficult to install than many other types of boardwalk foundation (23-24).

Pad footings use large rot-resistant boards to spread the weight of the boardwalk out over a large surface. This type of footing is less awkward and difficult to install compared to friction piles. They also cause more damage than helical piles by smothering vegetation over the comparatively large area of the pad. However, unlike helical piles, pad footings require no special tools to construct. The Fort River Birding and Nature Trail, built primarily by student volunteers in nearby Hadley, MA, uses this type of footing extensively.

End-bearing Pile

Friction Pile

Helical Pile

Pad Footing

Wetland Soil Load Bearing Soil Decking

Metal grate decking made of an aluminum mesh allows light to pass freely through the boardwalk to vegetation below, regardless of the height of the boardwalk. However, the path may require mowing if there is not enough distance between the decking and the vegetation beneath. Also this decking cannot hold snow and therefore is not usable for skiing in the winter.

Metal Grate Decking

Loosely Spaced Boards

Tightly Spaced Boards

Wooden boards made of rot resistant or treated wood, can be laid as decking in several configurations. If spaced far enough apart they can allow light through to vegetation beneath reducing the amount of wetland replication required (Bill Lattrell). However, to be used for ski trails decking must be spaced tightly in order to be able to hold snow (Cross Country Ski Trail Considerations). Similarly, if the height of the boardwalk allows enough light to get to the vegetation below, this could also reduce the amount of wetland replication required (Bill Lattrell).

Short wooden decked boardwalk has higher impact on vegetation.

Tall wooden decked boardwalk has less impact on vegetation.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY APPENDIX 4

APPENDIX 5: MAP REFERENCE DATA Unless otherwise indicated, the maps in this document are for planning purposes only. These maps were created using data from several sources. Including: MassGIS. Office of Geographic Information, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information Technology Division USDA NRCS Geospatial Data Gateway Data created or processed by Conway School Team: Max Madalinski and Susan Schen

PROJECT AREA MAP Overview of project site, page i.

Data sources MassGIS

Hydrography. MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000). Accessed 11/15. Buildings. structures_poly_87. Accessed 2/16. Buildings. structures_poly_214. Accessed 2/16. Land Use. LANDUSE2005_POLY. Accessed 2/15. Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15.

NEW ACCESS TO TRAILS MAP

¯ 0

500 1,000

2,000 Feet

Half mile radius from site, page 2.

Data sources MassGIS

Buildings. structures_poly_87. Accessed 2/16. Buildings. structures_poly_214. Accessed 2/16. Land Use. LANDUSE2005_POLY. Accessed 2/15. Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15.

Conway Team

Distance to open space, derived from parcel boundary and Land Use. Created 3/22.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY APPENDIX 5

NEARBY OPEN SPACES MAP

Open spaces with trails within a five-mile radius of study area, page 3.

Data sources MassGIS

Hydrography. MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000). Accessed 11/15. Open Space. Created from OPENSPACE_POLY.shp Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15.

Conway Team

Proximity radius 1, 2, 5 miles. Created 2/16.

LEGAL RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS MAP Restrictions and easements on parcels in the study area, page 8.

Data sources MassGIS

Aerial photos. USGS Color Ortho Imagery (2013/2014). Accessed 1/16. Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15. SWI and Prime Soils. soi_hampce. Processed with PrimeFarmlandSoils.lyr. Accessed 1/16. Roads. EOTROADS_ARC. Accessed 2/16.

Conway Team

APR, CR, HPR, AHR. Scanned original documents. Masslandrecords.com Trail easement, gas line easement. Drawn in ArcMap based on scanned original documents. <Masslandrecords.com>

STREAMS, WETLANDS, AND BUFFERS MAP Sensitive wetland habitat, page 13.

Data sources MassGIS

Aerial photos. USGS Color Ortho Imagery (2013/2014). Accessed 1/16. Hydrography. MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000). Accessed 11/15. Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15. Wetlands. wetlandsdep_poly, wetlandsdep_arc. Accessed 2/16.

Conway Team

Created 100’ and 200’ buffers for wetlands and streams respectively. Trail easement, gas line easement. Drawn in ArcMap based on scanned original documents. <Masslandrecords.com>

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY APPENDIX 5

CORE HABITAT MAP

Critical habitat for endangered/threatened species, page 14.

Data sources MassGIS

Hydrography. MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000). Accessed 11/15. Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15. Core habitat. BM2_CORE_HABITAT.shp. Accessed 2/16.

SLOPES AND SOILS MAP

Steep slopes and erodible soils not suitable for trails, page 15.

Data sources MassGIS

Hydrography. MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000). Accessed 11/15. Erodible soils. soi_hampce classified by muhelcl. Accessed 1/16. Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15.

Conway Team

Slopes. Generated in ArcMap using elevation_ned10m42072c6.tif resampled (cubic) to 1m. Accessed 2/16.

ROAD ACCESS MAP

Roads that offer vehicle access to the study area, page 16.

Data sources MassGIS

Aerial photos. USGS Color Ortho Imagery (2013/2014). Accessed 1/16. Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15. Roads. EOTROADS_ARC. Accessed 2/16.

Conway Team

Trail easement. Drawn in ArcMap based on scanned original documents. <Masslandrecords.com> Sidewalk. “Sidewalk Type” map. City of Easthampton OSRP, Appendix D, 2013.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY APPENDIX 5

BIKE AND BUS ACCESS

Bike-friendly Roads and Trails and Bus Routes, page 18.

Data sources MassGIS

Hydrography. MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000). Accessed 11/15. Roads. EOTROADS_ARC. Accessed 2/16 Rail Trails. biketrails_arc. Accessed 1/16. Open Space. Created from OPENSPACE_POLY.shp Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15.

Pioneer Valley Transit Authority

41 and Nashawannuck Express Bus Routes. <PVTA.org>

Smith College Spatial Analysis Lab

Bike-friendly roads. Northampton Area Trail & Bike Map, 2009

EXISTING TRAILS

Farm roads and unpaved trails on the parcels in the study area, page 19.

Data sources MassGIS

Aerial photos. USGS Color Ortho Imagery (2013/2014). Accessed 1/16. Hydrography. MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000). Accessed 11/15. Roads. EOTROADS_ARC. Accessed 2/16 Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15.

Conway Team

Trails mapped by GPS. Created 2/16.

POINTS OF INTEREST

Views, historical structures, and natural features, page 20.

Data sources MassGIS

Aerial photos. USGS Color Ortho Imagery (2013/2014). Accessed 1/16. Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15.

Conway Team

Points of interest located by GPS. Created 2/16.

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY APPENDIX 5

SUMMARY ANALYSIS Overlay of analyses, page 24.

Data sources MassGIS

Conway Team

APR, CR, HPR, AHR. Scanned original documents. Masslandrecords.com Trail easement, gas line easement. Drawn in ArcMap based on scanned original documents. <Masslandrecords.com> Slopes. Generated in ArcMap using elevation_ned10m42072c6.tif resampled (cubic) to 1m. Accessed 2/16. Trails mapped by GPS. Created 2/16.

ALL-SEASON TRAIL SUITABILITY ZONES Areas least and most suitable for trails, page 25.

Data sources MassGIS

Aerial photos. USGS Color Ortho Imagery (2013/2014). Accessed 1/16. Roads. EOTROADS_ARC. Accessed 2/16 Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15.

Conway Team

Trail easement. Drawn in ArcMap based on scanned original documents. <Masslandrecords.com>

TRAIL DESIGN

Map used to aid in trail designs, pages 26-32.

Data sources MassGIS

Aerial photos. USGS Color Ortho Imagery (2013/2014). Accessed 1/16. Hydrography. MassDEP Hydrography (1:25,000). Accessed 11/15. Parcel Boundaries. L3_SHP_M087_Easthampton. Accessed 6/15.

Conway Team

Trail easement. Drawn in ArcMap based on scanned original documents. <Masslandrecords.com>

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY APPENDIX 5

BIKE ROUTES

Map used to illustrate bike routes, page 35.

Data sources MassGIS

Smith College Spatial Analysis Lab

Bike-friendly roads. Northampton Area Trail & Bike Map, 2009.

EXPANDING EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS

Map used to illustrate recommended easements and APR acquisitions, pages 38 and 39.

Data sources MassGIS

PARK HILL TRAILS STUDY APPENDIX 5