Protecting significant views along the circuit · This report also describes the methodology used to assess the land conservation priorities of The Circuit Trails viewsheds. The methodology

PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT:

A VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF LAND CONSERVATION PRIORITIES FOR VIEWS HEDS ALONG

THE CIRCUIT TRAILS

SCHUYLKILL RIVER TRAIL

March 2019

PREPARED BY:

APPALACHIAN MOUNTAIN CLUB

Catherine Poppenwimer

Patricia McCloskey, AICP

Dave Publicover

Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 1

PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT

Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................. 4

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5

The Circuit ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Protecting Views Along The Circuit ................................................................................................................................ 5

Schuylkill River Trail ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Study Area Landscape ............................................................................................................................................... 6

SRT Section 1 ...................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Results for SRT Section 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 8

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 13

SRT Section 2 .................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Results for SRT Section 2 ........................................................................................................................................... 16

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 25

SRT Section 3 .................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Results for SRT Section 3 ........................................................................................................................................... 28

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 36

SRT Section 4 .................................................................................................................................................................... 38

Results SRT Section 4 .................................................................................................................................................. 39

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix A: Key Assumptions and Known Data Limitations ................................................................................. 49

Appendix B: Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 51

Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................... 51

Approach ....................................................................................................................................................................... 51

Analysis Components .................................................................................................................................................. 52

Combined Parcel Value Score .................................................................................................................................... 57

Additional Information ............................................................................................................................................... 57



List of Tables Table 1: SRT Section 1, Municipalities ............................................................................................................................ 7

Table 2: SRT Section 1, Visual Assessment Summary ................................................................................................ 13

Table 3: SRT Section 2, Municipalities .......................................................................................................................... 15






List of Figures Figure 1: SRT Section 1, Visibility Resources Score ................................................................................................... 10

Figure 2: SRT Section 1, Scenic Character Resources Score ..................................................................................... 11

Figure 3: SRT Section 1, Combined Parcel Value Score ............................................................................................ 12

Figure 4: SRT Section 2, Visual Resources Score ........................................................................................................ 19



Figure 7: SRT Section 3, Visual Resources Score ........................................................................................................ 31



Figure 10: SRT Section 4, Visual Resources Score ...................................................................................................... 41

Figure 11: SRT Section 4, Scenic Character Resources Score ................................................................................... 43

Figure 12: SRT Section 4, Combined Parcel Value Score .......................................................................................... 46

Figure 13: Visibility Resources ........................................................................................................................................ 53

Figure 14: Scenic Character Resources .......................................................................................................................... 55

Figure 15: Key Observation Point Resources .............................................................................................................. 56

Figure 16: Ownership Resources .................................................................................................................................... 57

Figure 17: Methodology Flow Chart.............................................................................................................................. 58

https://appalachianmountainclub-my.sharepoint.com/personal/pmccloskey_outdoors_org/Documents/Projects/Visual%20Assessment%20Project/Reports/Final%20Full%20Report/6-Schuylkill%20River%20Trail/Schuylkill%20River%20Trail%20Visual%20Assessment%20Report%20022119.docx#_Toc2258662



















List of Maps Map 1: SRT Section 1, Study Area ................................................................................................................................... 7

Map 2: SRT Section 1, Viewshed Area ............................................................................................................................ 8

Map 3: SRT Section 1, Visibility Resources .................................................................................................................. 10

Map 4: SRT Section 1, Scenic Character Resources .................................................................................................... 11

Map 5: SRT Section 1, Combined Parcel Value .......................................................................................................... 12

Map 6: SRT Section 1, Highest Ranked Parcels .......................................................................................................... 14

Map 7: SRT Section 2, Study Area ................................................................................................................................. 15

Map 8: SRT Section 2, Viewshed Area .......................................................................................................................... 16

Map 9: SRT Section 2, KOPs Location and Viewshed .............................................................................................. 17

Map 10: SRT Section 2, Visibility Resources................................................................................................................ 19

Map 11: SRT Section 2, Scenic Character Resources .................................................................................................. 20

Map 12: SRT Section 2, KOP Resources, KOPs 1-3 ................................................................................................. 21

Map 13: SRT Section 2, KOP Resources, KOPs 4&5 ............................................................................................... 22

Map 14: SRT Section 2, Combined Parcel Value ........................................................................................................ 24

Map 15: SRT Section 2, Highest Ranked Parcels ........................................................................................................ 26

Map 16: SRT Section 3, Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 27

Map 17: SRT Section 3, Viewshed Area........................................................................................................................ 28

Map 18: SRT Section 3, KOP Locations and Viewshed ............................................................................................ 29


Map 20: SRT Section 3, Scenic Character Resources .................................................................................................. 32


Map 22: SRT Section 3, KOP Resources, KOPs 4&5 ............................................................................................... 34



Map 25: SRT Section 4, Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 38

Map 26: SRT Section 4, Viewshed Area........................................................................................................................ 39

Map 27: SRT Section 4, KOP Locations and Viewshed ............................................................................................ 40


Map 29: SRT Section 4, Scenic Resources .................................................................................................................... 44




Map 33: Circuit Trails Included in the Study................................................................................................................ 51









Acknowledgements The Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) would like to acknowledge the many contributors who provided

their time and input to the development of Protecting Significant Views Along The Circuit: An Assessment

of Land Conservation Priorities for Viewsheds Along The Circuit Trails. Funding for this project was

generously provided by the William Penn Foundation. AMC wishes to thank its partners and key stakeholders

for their help and support.

Cover photos credit: Delaware and Lehigh National Heritage Area: https://delawareandlehigh.org/blog/image-gallery/

Berks Nature Friends of Chester Valley Trail

Sarah Chudnovsky Tim Lander

Brandywine Conservancy Lawrence Hopewell Trail Corporation

Sheila Fleming Becky Taylor

Bucks County Planning Commission Montgomery County Planning Commission

Paul Gordon Henry Stroud

Chester County Planning Commission Natural Lands

Rachael Griffith Carol DeWolf

Delaware River City Corporation Pottstown Area Regional Recreation Committee

Jim Fries Michael Lane

Delaware County Planning Department Schuylkill River Greenways NHA

Steven Beckley Robert Folwell

Julie Delmuto

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission

Shawn Megill Legendre



Introduction AMC promotes the protection, enjoyment, and understanding of the mountains, forests, waters, and trails of

the Appalachian region. AMC believes these resources have intrinsic worth and provide recreational

opportunities, spiritual renewal, and ecological and economic health for the region. Because successful

conservation depends on active engagement with the outdoors, AMC encourages people to experience, learn

about, appreciate, and understand the natural world.

AMC is an active member of The Circuit Coalition and has been advancing recreation planning, conservation

and outdoor recreation in the Greater Philadelphia region for over 135 years. Currently AMC maintains a

conservation office in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and hosts hundreds of outdoor activities and conservation

stewardship opportunities every year across the region coordinated by volunteers of the AMC Delaware

Valley Chapter. AMC’s members and supporters care deeply about the outdoors. AMC’s conservation

approach focuses on sound science, conservation advocacy, and long-term recreational resource planning.

The Circuit The Circuit Trails is an innovative, regional urban trail network connecting people of all ages to jobs,

communities and parks in Greater Philadelphia and New Jersey. Currently in progress, the project will

eventually encompass 800 miles of trails on both sides of the Delaware River, building upon the region’s

existing active transportation infrastructure. When it is complete, which is expected to be in 2040, more than

50% of the region’s population—over 3.1 million people—will live within a mile of the Circuit Trails.

The Circuit is comprised of many pathways that provide opportunities for commuting and recreation across

nine counties—including Philadelphia, Chester, Montgomery, Delaware and Bucks in Pennsylvania, and

Burlington, Gloucester, Camden and Mercer in New Jersey. The network is revolutionizing the way we view

trail systems and providing safe routes to business, employment and cultural destinations in the region1.

Protecting Views Along The Circuit Scenic views enhance the enjoyment of using The Circuit Trails. As development pressure in this region

increases, areas of scenic value may disappear, often incrementally, presenting additional challenges for

conservation planners. The targeted protection of lands that provide high scenic values to nearby trails will

preserve these values and will protect a high-quality trail experience, as well as conserve important natural

resources.

The goals of the Circuit Trails Visual Assessment project are two-fold. First, the study analyzes Circuit Trails

in suburban and rural landscapes to identify potential conservation needs based on the trail’s viewshed.

Second, using the results of the analysis, a conservation assessment and ranking of priority lands is developed.

This report also describes the methodology used to assess the land conservation priorities of The Circuit

Trails viewsheds. The methodology was developed from a visual assessment pilot project that focused on a

1 Rails to Trails Conservancy.



section of the Schuylkill River Trail2 and was reviewed by the project steering committee. The study results

can be used as a tool by conservancies and land managers to assist in prioritizing conservation efforts.

Schuylkill River Trail The Schuylkill River Trail (SRT) is a multi-use trail in

southeastern Pennsylvania with a projected length of almost

130 miles. The trail runs through the city of Philadelphia, and

parts of Montgomery, Chester, Berks and Schuylkill Counties.

Currently over 60 miles are complete in sections, including a

30-plus mile stretch from Philadelphia to Parkerford. The trail

breaks off in Parkerford and resumes in Pottstown where it

continues for about 20 miles to Reading. From there, cyclists

can follow a 20-mile signed on-road route to Hamburg. In

Hamburg, trail users can access a scenic seven-mile stretch to

Auburn in Schuylkill County.3 For a map of the Schuylkill

River Trail, click here.

Study Area Landscape

The SRT passes though urban, suburban and rural areas. The trail follows the Schuylkill River, the main

natural feature of the study area. The trail study includes major urban areas such as Philadelphia,

Conshohocken, Norristown, King of Prussia, Pottstown and Reading. Smaller boroughs that also help define

the trail corridor include Phoenixville, Royersford, Birdsboro and West Reading. Areas characterized by more

suburban development patterns include Upper and Lower Providence, North Coventry, and Douglass

Townships. Rural areas within the trail corridor include areas of Schuylkill, East Pikeland, Douglass, Union,

Amity, Robeson and Cumru Townships.

Major recreation areas of the study area include Valley Forge National Park, Black Rock Sanctuary, Sanatoga

County Preserve, and Union Township Recreation Area. A visual assessment of the SRT was prepared

according to each section as set forth below.

This report divides the Schuylkill River Trail into four sections. Section 1 follows the SRT from Bala Cynwyd

north to the east side of Phoenixville. Section 2 includes the SRT from Phoenixville north to Parker Ford.

Section 3 includes the SRT from Pottstown north to Birdsboro, and Section 4 includes the SRT from

Gibraltar to just north of Reading.

2 The Circuit Trails Visual Assessment Pilot Project report can be accessed at: http://pahighlands.org/conservation/planning-research/final-circuit-trails-visual-assessment-pilot-project-report. 3 Information from: https://schuylkillrivertrail.com/.

Schuylkill River Trail

Photo: https://schuylkillrivertrail.com/galleries/trail/

https://schuylkillrivertrail.com/



SRT Section 1 Map 1 below shows the study area for SRT Section 1. Table

1 provides the study area municipalities. The SRT Section 1

trail length is 19.2 miles. The study area extends for one

mile on either side of the trail and covers 25,660 acres. This

area falls within the city of Philadelphia and ten (10)

municipalities in Montgomery County. About 18% (4,525

acres) of the study area is protected from development.

Map 1: SRT Section 1, Study Area

Table 1: SRT Section 1, Municipalities Section 1: Philadelphia to Upper Providence Township

No. Municipality County

1 Philadelphia Philadelphia

2 Whitemarsh Township Montgomery

3 Lower Merion Township Montgomery

4 Borough of Conshohocken Montgomery

5 Borough of West Conshohocken Montgomery

6 Plymouth Township Montgomery

7 Borough of Bridgeport Montgomery

8 Upper Merion Township Montgomery

9 West Norriton Township Montgomery

10 Lower Providence Township Montgomery

11 Upper Providence Township Montgomery



Results for SRT Section 1 Assumptions made for this study and data limitations are discussed in Appendix A of this report. The

methodology used for this study is included in Appendix B. Study results for the SRT Section 1 are set forth

below.

Viewshed

Section 1 of the SRT’s viewshed area is shown on Map 2 below. The viewshed, developed from the digital

surface model (DSM), is approximately 1,651 acres or 6% of the study area. Of this area, roughly 294 acres or

18% lies within protected land. The visual magnitude within the visible area (i.e., the number of viewpoints

from which a cell is visible) ranges from 1-121, though the majority are two and less. Of the DSM viewshed’s

1,651 acres, 1,293 acres or 78% are composed of scenic character resources, with the remainder of the visible

area consisting of developed land.

Map 2: SRT Section 1, Viewshed Area

No key observation points (KOPs) were identified for SRT Section 1.



Parcel Value Assessment

The one-mile boundary area of Section 1 of the SRT study area contains roughly 44,536 individual parcels.

Within this area, 717 parcels of protected land total approximately 5,660 acres. Of the protected land, 512

parcels are existing open space consisting of federally-owned lands (117 parcels), state-owned (45 parcels),

county-owned (153 parcels) and municipally-owned (366 parcels). Three (3) parcels are privately-owned

conservation lands, and parcels with conservation easements total 31. Open space parcels range in size from

less than a tenth of an acre to over 240 acres, and together total 4,876 acres. The remaining parcels are

comprised mainly of structures and parking areas.

Viewshed Resources

The viewshed of the SRT Section 1 contains 9,865 parcels. Roughly 9,537 unprotected parcels encompassing

over 6,828 acres are potentially available for conservation protection. There are 328 protected parcels within

the viewshed for a total of 3,928 acres. Of the protected land, 224 parcels are open space.

There are 47 federally owned open space parcels and 14 state-owned open space parcels within the viewshed

of SRT Section 1. County-owned open space in the viewshed totals 36 parcels and municipally-owned open

space totals 116 parcels. Three (3) open space parcels are privately-owned conservation lands and eight (8)

open space parcels have easements. Open space parcels range in size from less than a tenth of an acre to over

240 acres and together total 3,220 acres of the viewshed’s area. The remaining parcels are comprised mainly

of structures and parking areas.



Visual Resources

The viewshed area, visual magnitude and

distance zone scores were combined to

determine the parcels’ visibility score (refer to

Appendix B: Methodology, page 51). Figure 1

and Map 3 display the distribution of the

visibility resources by parcel. Of the 9,537

unprotected parcels in the viewshed, 7,753

parcels have a score of 1 (lowest) and one (1)

parcel has a score of 10 (highest). For the 328

protected parcels, 156 have a score of 1

(lowest) and one (1) parcel has a score of 10

(highest).

Figure 1: SRT Section 1, Visibility Resources Score

Map 3: SRT Section 1, Visibility Resources



Scenic Character

Map 4 shows the scenic character resources

of the SRT Section 1 viewshed. The parcel

scenic character value is comprised of the

landform/topography, landcover, water and

historic/cultural resources scores (refer to

Appendix B: Methodology, page 51). Figure

2 displays the distribution of the scenic

character resource values. 2,661 (27%) of the

parcels (unprotected, 2,635 and protected,

26) have a score of zero, which represents

parcels that do not contain any identified

scenic character resources. Of the 9,537

unprotected parcels in the viewshed, 2,947 have a score of 1 (lowest) and 24 parcels have a score of 10

(highest). For the 328 protected parcels, 101 parcels have a score of 1 (lowest) and six (6) have a score of 10.

Map 4: SRT Section 1, Scenic Character Resources

Figure 2: SRT Section 1, Scenic Character Resources Score



Ownership Fragmentation

The parcel size and adjacency to protected areas scores were combined to determine the parcel ownership

fragmentation score. Of the roughly 9,865 parcels within the SRT Section 1 viewshed, 89% are less than one

acre in size. Eight (8) parcels over 150 acres in size represent the top 15% of the parcels. Of the unprotected

parcels, 352 are adjacent to existing protected open space areas, ranging from less than 1% to 97% adjacency.

Combined Parcel Value

The distribution of the combined parcel

value scores is shown in Figure 3. The

combined parcel value scores range from 1

to 20. Map 5 below displays the combined

parcel value score of both unprotected and

protected parcels. The “high” score value

represents the top 5% ranked parcels. The

“medium” category represents the next

10% ranked parcels, and the remaining

parcels represent the “low” score. Within

the SRT Section 1 study area, 125 parcels

have a “high” score, with a breakdown of 104 unprotected parcels and 21 protected parcels.

Map 5: SRT Section 1, Combined Parcel Value

Figure 3: SRT Section 1, Combined Parcel Value Score



Conclusion The SRT Section 1 study area has many conservation opportunities that will help protect views from the trail.

The trail viewshed contains roughly 9,865 parcels and 9,537 parcels consisting of over 7,102 acres are

currently unprotected. Of the 9,537 unprotected parcels, one (1) parcel scored the highest in terms of

visibility resources, and 24 parcels scored the highest for scenic character resources. Eight (8) parcels over

150 acres in size represent the top 15% of parcels in the SRT Section 1 viewshed. In terms of adjacency to

conserved land, 352 unprotected parcels are adjacent to protected open space areas. One hundred and two

(102) unprotected parcels have a “high” score for the combined parcel value. Table 2 summarizes the results

for the SRT Section 1 Visual Assessment Study.

Table 2: SRT Section 1, Visual Assessment Summary

Map 6 on the following page shows the highest ranked parcels along SRT Section 1. The highest ranked

parcels represent the combined parcel value score which includes scenic, visibility, KOP and ownership

fragmentation resources values.

Landscape Data: Parcel Value Assessment: Visual Resources, Scenic Character and KOPs:[3]

Miles of Trail: 19.2 Study Area Parcels: 44,536 Visual Resources:

Trail Study Area in Acres: 25,660 Number of Protected Parcels: 717 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 1: 7,753

Protected Acres in Study Area:[1] 4,525 Acres of Protected Parcels:[2] 5,660 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 10: 1

Percent Protected in Trail Study Area: 18% Parcels in the Viewshed: 9,865 Visual Magnitude Majority Score: 2 and less

Viewshed Area in Acres: 1,651 Unprotected Parcels: 9,537 Scenic Resources:

Percent Unprotected: 96.7% Acres with Scenic Character: 1,293

Ownership Fragmentation: Protected Parcels: 328 Percent with Scenic Character: 78%

Parcels < 1 acre in size: 8,821 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 1: 2,947

Percent Parcels < 1 acres in size: 89% Combined Parcel Value: Unprotected Parcels with a score of 10: 24

Parcels in the top 15% of parcels: 8 Score range: 1 to 20 Key Observation Points:

Acres of top 15% of parcels: 150+ High scoring parcels: 125 Total Number of KOP Parcels: 0

Unprotected parcels adjacent to protected High scoring unprotected parcels: 102 Parcels seen within 1 mile: NA

open space: 352 High scoring protected parcels: 23 Parcels seen from beyond 1 mile: NA

Notes:

[1] Includes protected land within the one-mile study area.

[2] Includes protected parcels that are both within and outside of the one-mile study area.

[3] For visual resources, a score of 1 is the lowest score and a score of 10 is the highest. For scenic resources, a score of zero represents parcels that contain

no scenic resources.



Map 6: SRT Section 1, Highest Ranked Parcels



SRT Section 2 Map 7 below shows the study area for SRT Section 2.

The SRT Section 2 trail length is 7.9 miles. The study area

extends for one mile on either side of the trail and covers

11,455 acres. This area falls within three municipalities of

Montgomery County and six municipalities in Chester

County. About 12% (1,386 acres) of the study area is

protected from development.

Table 3: SRT Section 2, Municipalities


Section 2: Upper Providence Township to Parkerford


1 Upper Providence Township Montgomery

2 Borough of Phoenixville Chester

3 Schuylkill Township Chester

4 East Pikeland Township Chester

5 East Vincent Township Chester

6 Borough of Spring City Chester

7 East Coventry Township Chester

8 Borough of Royersford Montgomery

9 Limerick Township Montgomery





below.

Viewshed


surface model (DSM), is approximately 522 acres or 5% of the study area. Of this area, roughly 132 acres or



522 acres, 432 acres or 81% are composed of scenic character resources, with the remainder of the visible





Study Area Key Observation Points

The locations of Key Observation Points (KOPs) identified within the SRT Section 2 study area are shown

on Map 9 below. Five (5) KOPs were identified in the study area, with a total viewshed of 39 acres. From

north to south, the KOPs are (1) view of the Schuylkill River near Veteran’s Drive and Commonwealth

Drive, Spring City, (2) marsh view, Spring City, (3) farm view near Exelon, Spring City Road, (4) former steel

mill, Phoenixville, and (5) view of French Creek from the historic truss bridge. Results for the individual

KOPs are discussed later in this report.

Map 9: SRT Section 2, KOPs Location and Viewshed





Within this area, 224 parcels of protected land total approximately 1,630 acres. Of the protected land,168

parcels are existing open space consisting of seven (7) state-owned parcels, 30 county-owned parcels, and 116

municipally-owned parcels. There are no federally-owned open space parcels. One (1) parcel is privately-

owned conservation land, and 14 parcels have conservation easements. Open space parcels range in size from

less than a tenth of an acre to over 144 acres, and together total 1,565 acres. The remaining parcels are


Viewshed Resources

The viewshed of the SRT Section 2 contains 2,483 parcels. Over 2,402 unprotected parcels encompassing


the viewshed for a total of 742 acres. Of the protected land, 65 parcels are open space.

There are no federally owned open space parcels and four (4) state-owned open space parcels within the

viewshed of Section 2 of the SRT. County-owned open space in the viewshed totals 13 parcels and

municipally-owned open space totals 37 parcels. One open space parcel is privately-owned conservation land

and ten (10) open space parcels have easements. Open space parcels range in size from less than a tenth of an

acre to over 120 acres and together total 711 acres of the viewshed’s area. The remaining parcels are




Visual Resources

The viewshed area, visual magnitude and distance

zone scores were combined to determine the parcels’

visibility score (refer to Appendix B: Methodology,

page 51). Figure 4 and Map 10 on the following page

display the distribution of the visibility resources by

parcel. Of the 2,402 unprotected parcels in the

viewshed, 2,067 have a score of 1 (lowest) and two

(2) parcels have a score of 10 (highest). For the 81

protected parcels, 39 have a score of 1 (lowest) and

two (2) parcels have a score of 10 (highest).

Figure 4: SRT Section 2, Visual Resources Score




Scenic Character

Map 11 shows the scenic character resources

of the SRT Section 2 viewshed. The parcel

scenic character value is comprised of the

landform/topography, landcover, water and

historic/cultural resources scores (refer to

Appendix B: Methodology, page 51). Figure 5

displays the distribution of the scenic character

resource values. 395 (16%) of the parcels

(unprotected, 392 and protected, 3) have a

score of zero, which represents parcels that do

not contain any identified scenic character

resources. Of the 2,402 unprotected parcels, 825 have a score of 1 (lowest) and 20 parcels have a score of 10

(highest). For the 81 protected parcels, 20 parcels have a score of 1 (lowest) and three (3) have a score of 10.





Key Observation Points

Study area KOPs for SRT Sections 2, and its corresponding distribution of KOP resources by parcel are

shown on Map 12 below and Map 13 on the following page. The KOPs viewshed for SRT Section 2 consists

of the following points:

1. View of Schuylkill River near Veteran’s Drive and Commonwealth Drive, Spring City (8 parcels)

2. Marsh view, Spring City (26 parcels)

3. Farm view near Exelon, Spring City Road (52 parcels)

4. Former steel mill, Phoenixville; (281 parcels) and,

5. View of French Creek from historic truss bridge (17 parcels).

Map 12: SRT Section 2, KOP Resources, KOPs 1-3



Map 13: SRT Section 2, KOP Resources, KOPs 4&5



A total of 378 parcels are seen from these KOPs. There are six (6) parcels identified in more than one KOP

viewshed. Two (2) of the 378 viewshed parcels can be seen from both KOPs 1 and 2. Four (4) of the KOP

viewshed parcels can be seen from both KOPs 4 and 5. No parcels beyond the one mile study area were

identified within the KOP viewshed. The KOP score was computed by totaling the KOP viewshed area and

distance zone scores together (refer to Appendix B: Methodology, page 51). For parcels identified within

more than one KOP viewshed, the KOP points for each viewshed were added together for that parcel’s

score.




acre in size. Six (6) parcels over 73 acres in size represent the top 15% of the parcels. Of the 2,402

unprotected parcels, 164 are adjacent to existing protected open space areas, ranging from less than 1% to

81% adjacency.


The distribution of the combined parcel

value scores is shown in Figure 6. The

combined parcel value scores range from

1 to 24. Map 14 on the following page

displays the combined parcel value score

of both unprotected and protected

parcels. The “high” score value represents

the top 5% ranked parcels. The

“medium” category represents the next

10% ranked parcels, and the remaining

parcels represent the “low” score. Within

the SRT Section 2 study area, 26 parcels

have a “high” score, with a breakdown of 18 unprotected parcels and 8 protected parcels.







Conclusion The SRT Section 2 study area has several conservation opportunities that will help protect views from the

trail. The trail viewshed contains over 2,483 parcels and 2,402 parcels consisting of over 2,968 acres are

currently unprotected. Of the 2,402 unprotected parcels, two (2) parcels scored the highest in terms of

visibility resources, and twenty (20) parcels scored the highest for scenic character resources. Six (6) parcels

over 73 acres in size represent the top 15% of parcels in the SRT Section 2 viewshed. In terms of adjacency

to conserved land, 164 unprotected parcels are adjacent to protected open space areas. Eighteen (18)

unprotected parcels have a “high” score for the combined parcel value. Table 4 summarizes the results for

the SRT Section 2 Visual Assessment Study.










Viewshed Area in Acres: 522 Unprotected Parcels: 2,402 Scenic Resources:

Percent Unprotected: 96.7% Acres with Scenic Character: 423


Parcels < 1 acre in size: 2,098 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 1: 825


Parcels in the top 15% of parcels: 6 Score range: 1 to 24 Key Observation Points: 5

Acres of top 15% of parcels: 73 High scoring parcels: 26 Total Number of KOP Parcels: 378

Unprotected parcels adjacent to protected High scoring unprotected parcels: 18 Parcels seen within 1 mile: 378

open space: 164 High scoring protected parcels: 8 Parcels seen from beyond 1 mile: 0

Notes:











The SRT Section 3 trail length is 8.8 miles. The study

area extends for one mile on either side of the trail and

covers 12,941 acres. This area falls within two

municipalities in Montgomery County, four

municipalities in Berks County and one municipality in

Chester County. About 12% (1,537 acres) of the study

area is protected from development.



Section 3: Pottstown to Birdsboro


1 Borough of Pottstown Montgomery

2 West Pottsgrove Township Montgomery

3 North Coventry Township Chester

4 Douglass Township Berks

5 Amity Township Berks

6 Union Township Berks

7 Robeson Township Berks





below.

Viewshed


surface model (DSM), is approximately 483 acres or 4% of the study area. Of this area, roughly 151 acres or



483 acres, 321 acres or 66 % are composed of scenic character resources, with the remainder of the visible






The locations of KOPs identified within the SRT Section 3 study area are shown on Map 18 below. Five (5)

KOPs were identified in the study area, with a total viewshed of 50 acres. From west to east, the KOPs are

(1) Schuylkill Navigation Canal, Union Township (2) view of river from Douglassville Bridge, Amity

Township (3) former Stanley Flagg Steel site, West Pottsgrove (4) view to the Manatawny creek from

pedestrian bridge, Riverfront Park, Pottstown, and (5) view of river from Riverfront Park, Pottstown. Results

for the individual KOPs are discussed later in this report.

Map 18: SRT Section 3, KOP Locations and Viewshed




parcels are existing open space consisting of twelve (12) state-owned parcels, nine (9) county-owned parcels,

and 212 municipally-owned parcels. There are no federally-owned open space parcels. Fifteen (15) parcels are

privately-owned conservation lands, and 10 parcels have conservation easements. Open space parcels range in

size from less than a tenth of an acre to over 717 acres, and together total 3,057 acres. The remaining parcels

are comprised mainly of structures and parking areas.



Viewshed Resources



the viewshed for a total of 851 acres. Of the protected land, 63 parcels are open space.

There are no federally-owned open space parcels and six (6) state-owned open space parcels within the

viewshed of SRT Section 3. County-owned open space in the viewshed totals two (2) parcels and municipally-

owned open space totals 34 parcels. Ten (10) open space parcels are privately-owned conservation lands and

five (5) open space parcels have easements. Open space parcels range in size from less than a tenth of an acre

to over 178 acres and together total 764 acres of the viewshed’s area. The remaining parcels are comprised

mainly of structures and parking areas.



Visual Resources

The viewshed area, visual magnitude

and distance zone scores were

combined to determine the parcels’

visibility score (refer to Appendix B:

Methodology, page 51). Figure 7 and

Map 19 below display the distribution

of the visibility resources by parcel. Of

the 1,558 unprotected parcels in the

viewshed, 1,178 have a score of 1

(lowest) and one (1) parcel has a score

of 10 (highest). For the 83 protected

parcels, 31 have a score of 1 (lowest)

and one (1) parcel has a score of 10 (highest).





Scenic Character

Map 20 shows the scenic character

resources of the SRT Section 3

viewshed. The parcel scenic

character value is comprised of the

landform/topography, landcover,

water and historic/cultural

resources scores (refer to Appendix

B: Methodology, page 51). Figure 8

displays the distribution of the

scenic character resource values.

532 (32%) of the parcels

(unprotected, 526 and protected, 6)

have a score of zero, which

represents parcels that do not contain any identified scenic character resources. Of the 1,558 unprotected

parcels in the viewshed, 577 have a score of 1 (lowest) and five (5) parcels have a score of 10 (highest). For

the 83 protected parcels, 23 parcels have a score of 1 (lowest) and no parcels have a score of 10 (highest).






The KOPs viewshed for the SRT Section 3 consists of the following points:

1. Remains of Schuylkill Navigation Canal (16 parcels)

2. Schuylkill River from Douglassville Bridge (23 parcels)

3. Former Stanley Flagg Steel Company site (218 parcels)

4. Manatawny Creek Bridge, Pottstown (2 parcels); and,

5. Schuylkill River from Riverfront Park, Pottstown (2 parcels).

KOP Resources are shown on Map 21 below and Map 22 on the following page. A total of 260 parcels are

seen from these KOPs. One (1) of the 260 viewshed parcels can be seen from more than one KOP (KOPs 4

and 5). No parcels beyond the one mile study area were identified within the KOP viewshed. The KOP score

was computed by totaling the KOP viewshed area and distance zone scores together (refer to Appendix B:

Methodology page 51). For parcels identified within more than one KOP viewshed, the KOP points for each

viewshed were added together for that parcel’s score.




Map 22: SRT Section 3, KOP Resources, KOPs 4 & 5




acre in size. Four (4) parcels over 174 acres in size represent the top 15% of the parcels. Of the unprotected

parcels, 203 are adjacent to existing protected open space areas, ranging from less than 1% to 80% adjacency.




The distribution of the combined

parcel value scores is shown in Figure

9. The combined parcel value scores

range from 1 to 22. Map 23 below

displays the combined parcel value

score of both unprotected and

protected parcels. The “high” score

value represents the top 5% ranked

parcels. The “medium” category

represents the next 10% ranked

parcels, and the remaining parcels

represent the “low” score. Within the

SRT Section 3 study area, 17 parcels

have a “high” score, with a breakdown of eight (8) unprotected parcels and nine (9) protected parcels.






The trail viewshed contains over 1,641 parcels and 1,558 parcels consisting of over 3,970 acres are currently

unprotected. Of the 1,558 unprotected parcels, one (1) parcel scored the highest in terms of visibility

resources, and five (5) parcels scored the highest for scenic character resources. Four (4) parcels over 174

acres in size represent the top 15% of parcels in the SRT Section 3 viewshed. In terms of adjacency to

conserved land, 203 unprotected parcels are adjacent to protected open space areas. Eight (8) unprotected

parcels have a “high” score for the combined parcel value. Table 6 summarizes the results for the SRT

Section 3 Visual Assessment Study.










Viewshed Area in Acres: 483 Unprotected Parcels: 1,558 Scenic Resources:









Notes:











Table 7 provides the study area municipalities. The SRT

Section 4 trail length is 7.6 miles. The study area extends for

one mile on either side of the trail and covers 11,102 acres.

This area falls within eight municipalities in Berks County.

About 16% (1,741 acres) of the study area is protected from

development.



Section 4: Robeson Township to Reading


1 Robeson Township Berks

2 Exeter Township Berks

3 Lower Alsace Township Berks

4 Cumru Township Berks

5 Borough of West Reading Berks

6 Spring Township Berks

7 City of Reading Berks

8 Bern Township Berks



Results SRT Section 4

Viewshed


surface model (DSM), is approximately 1,009 acres or 9% of the study area. Of this area, roughly 281 acres or


from which a cell is visible) ranges from 1-118, though the majority are three and less. Of the DSM

viewshed’s 1,009 acres, 823 acres or 82% are composed of scenic character resources, with the remainder of

the visible area consisting of developed land.





The locations of KOPs identified within the SRT Section 4 study area are shown on Map 27 below. Four (4)

KOPs were identified in the study area, with a total viewshed of 208 acres. From west to east, the KOPs are

(1) Thun Trail Overlook, Reading, (2) Fix-Gerber Cemetery, Reading, (3) Thun Trail overlook, south of

Reading, and (4) view of Schuylkill River and Neversink Mountain, south of Reading. Results for the

individual KOPs are discussed later in this report.

Map 27: SRT Section 4, KOP Locations and Viewshed






parcels are existing open space consisting of 19 state-owned parcels, 39 county-owned parcels, and 162

municipally-owned parcels. There are no federally-owned open space parcels. Fifty-six (56) parcels are

privately-owned conservation lands, and four (4) parcels have conservation easements. Open space parcels

range in size from less than a tenth of an acre to over 218 acres, and together total 1,712 acres. The remaining

parcels are comprised mainly of structures and parking areas.

Viewshed Resources



the viewshed for a total of 1,446 acres. Of the protected land, 139 parcels are open space.

There are no federally-owned open space parcels and eleven (11) state-owned open space parcels within the

viewshed of Section 4 of the Schuylkill River Trail. County-owned open space in the viewshed totals 18

parcels and municipally-owned open space totals 80 parcels. Twenty-nine (29) open space parcels are

privately-owned conservation lands and one open space parcel has an easement. Open space parcels range in

size from less than a tenth of an acre to over 218 acres and together total 1,304 acres of the viewshed’s area.

The remaining parcels are comprised mainly of structures and parking areas.

Visual Resources

The viewshed area, visual magnitude and

distance zone scores were combined to

determine the parcels’ visibility score

(refer to Appendix B: Methodology, page

51). Figure 11 and Map 28 on the

following page display the distribution of

the visibility resources by parcel. Of the

2,524 unprotected parcels in the

viewshed, 2,062 have a score of 1

(lowest) and one (1) parcel has a score of

10 (highest). For the 172 protected

parcels, 91 have a score of 1 (lowest) and

one (1) parcel has a score of 10 (highest).







Scenic Resources

Map 29 on the following page shows

the scenic character resources of the

SRT Section 4 viewshed. The parcel

scenic character value is comprised of

the landform/topography, landcover,

water and historic/cultural resources

scores (refer to Appendix B:

Methodology, page 51). Figure 12

displays the distribution of the scenic

character resource values. 1,125 (42%)

of the parcels (unprotected, 1,086 and

protected, 39) have a score of zero,

which represents parcels that do not

contain any identified scenic character resources. Of the 2,524 unprotected parcels in the viewshed, 791 have

a score of 1 (lowest) and two (2) parcels have a score of 10 (highest). For the 172 protected parcels, 32 parcels

have a score of 1 (lowest) and three (3) have a score of 10.




Map 29: SRT Section 4, Scenic Resources




Study area KOPs for SRT Section 4 and its corresponding distribution of KOP resources by parcel are

shown on Map 30 below. The KOPs viewshed for the SRT Section 4 consists of the following overlapping

points:

1. Thun Trail Bridge over the Schuylkill River overlook (97 parcels)

2. Fix-Gerber Cemetery view (51 parcels)

3. Thun Trail Bridge and scenic overlook (47 parcels); and,

4. Schuylkill River view and view of Neversink Mountain (50 parcels).


A total of 222

parcels are seen from

these KOPs. There

are 21 parcels

identified in more

than one KOP

viewshed. No parcels

beyond the one mile

study area were

identified within the

KOP viewshed. The

KOP score was

computed by totaling

the KOP viewshed

area and distance

zone scores together

(refer to Appendix

B: Methodology,

page 51). For parcels

identified within

more than one KOP

viewshed, the KOP

points for each

viewshed were added

together for that

parcel’s score.




The parcel size and adjacency to protected

areas scores were combined to determine

the parcel ownership fragmentation score.

Of the roughly 2,696 parcels within the

SRT Section 4 viewshed, 80% are less than

one acre in size. Six (6) parcels over 134

acres in size represent the top 15% of the

parcels. Of the unprotected parcels, 245

are adjacent to existing protected open

space areas, ranging from less than 1% to

100% adjacency.


The distribution of the

combined parcel value scores

is shown in Figure 13. The

combined parcel value scores

range from 1 to 31. Map 31

displays the combined parcel

value score of both

unprotected and protected

parcels. The “high” score

value represents the top 5%

ranked parcels. The

“medium” category represents

the next 10% ranked parcels,

and the remaining parcels

represent the “low” score.

Within the SRT Section 4

study area, 23 parcels have a

“high” score, with a

breakdown of 15 unprotected

parcels and eight (8) protected

parcels.






The trail viewshed contains roughly 2,696 parcels and 2,524 parcels consisting of over 4,553 acres are

currently unprotected. Of the 2,524 unprotected parcels, one (1) parcel scored the highest in terms of

visibility resources, and two (2) parcels scored the highest for scenic character resources. Six (6) parcels over

134 acres in size represent the top 15% of parcels in the SRT Section 4 viewshed. In terms of adjacency to

conserved land, 245 unprotected parcels are adjacent to protected open space areas. Fifteen (15) unprotected

parcels have a “high” score for the combined parcel value. Table 8 summarizes the results for the SRT

Section 4 Visual Assessment Study.










Viewshed Area in Acres: 1,009 Unprotected Parcels: 2,524 Scenic Resources:









Notes:










Appendix A: Key Assumptions and Known Data Limitations

While developing the methodology for this study, several assumptions were made in order to process the data

to obtain meaningful results. These assumptions, as well as data limitations of the study are discussed below.

1. It is recommended that the stakeholders ground truth potential high-value parcels. This assessment

does not incorporate ground-truthing.

2. The study area extends to one mile from either side of the trail. During the pilot project, the visual

assessment was conducted on areas one, two and three miles from the trail. Extending the

assessment zone from one mile to two miles increased the number of high scoring parcels by 54%;

extending from two to three miles increased high scoring parcels by 25%. The computer processing

time for the analysis increased significantly with greater distance from the trail. Processing time for a

one mile viewshed analysis was roughly six hours, the two mile viewshed analysis roughly 18 hours,

and the three mile viewshed analysis took roughly 23 hours to complete. Although the number of

high value areas increased further from the trail, it wasn’t high enough to offset the increase in

processing time which made it impractical to extend the study area beyond one mile.

3. All parcels within the trail’s viewshed will be included in the assessment, including parcels that are

identified as protected, such as property owned by local, county or state governments, conservation

organizations or contain a conservation/agricultural easement. The pilot project also included an

assessment that excluded conservation lands. However, since this approach resulted in only a small

increase in the area of unconserved lands ranked as “high”, it was not included in the final version.

4. Protected lands are identified in the data distribution spreadsheet, as well as if the parcels were used

in the Ownership Fragmentation Component - Adjacency to Protected Lands Component.

5. Key Observation Points (KOPs) will be identified by trail groups, conservancies, state, county and

local government agencies, and from the trails’ website. If no KOPs are identified for a trail, this

component will not be incorporated into the combined parcel value score.

6. KOP viewsheds will be extended beyond the one-mile study area. Preliminary distances will be

determined in Google Earth Pro viewshed tool. However, the KOP viewshed distance will not

exceed 10 miles. Parcels outside the study area will be listed in the data distribution spreadsheet.

Also, if a parcel is identified within more than one KOP viewshed, the KOP points for each

viewshed will be added together for that parcel’s score. The parcel will also be identified in the data

distribution spreadsheet as being within two or more KOP viewsheds and each KOP viewshed will

be identified.

7. A digital surface model (DSM) (which includes buildings and forest canopy) will be used to generate

the viewshed used in the parcel assessment instead of a digital elevation model (DEM) (which

represents a bare ground surface), since it more accurately represents what the viewer would actually

be able to see today. During the pilot project the viewshed analysis was developed using both a 1-

meter resolution DSM and a 1-meter resolution DEM. This was done to show a comparison



between the two viewsheds. The viewshed developed from the DEM encompasses a larger area than

the DSM since the DEM does not take into consideration the surface features (trees, buildings, etc.)

that block the view. However, the DSM underestimates the view for at least part of the year since

forests are represented as leaf on and not leaf off. Landscape’s vegetation and structures also can

change over time. The results in this study represent the priority viewshed protection needs based on

current conditions. It should periodically be updated to take into consideration changes in the

landscape.

8. Trails in heavily urban areas, on roads, and ones located in parks that are surrounded by wooded

areas are excluded.



Appendix B: Methodology

The methodology devised for the Visual Assessment project is set forth below, and includes a discussion the

project’s study area, approach, and analysis components.

Study Area Thirty trails of the greater Philadelphia Circuit Trails system are included in this study. Each trail will be

evaluated separately. The map below shows the Circuit Trails included in the study.

Map 33: Circuit Trails Included in the Study

PA Trails

Trail ID

No. PA Trails

Trail ID

No. NJ Trails

Trail ID

No.

Baxter Trail 1 Pennypack Trail 13 Delaware & Raritan Canal Trail 24

Big Woods Trail 2 Perkiomen Trail 14 Gloucester Twp. Health & Fitness Trail 25

Brandywine Trail 3 Power Line Trail 15 Johnson Trolley Line Trail 26

Chester Creek Trail 4 Radnor Trail 16 Kinkora Trail 27

Chester Valley Trail 5 Route 202 Parkway Trail 17 Lawrence Hopewell Trail 28

Cross County Trail 6 Schuykill River Trail 18 Monroe Township Bike Path 29

Cynwyd Heritage Trail 7 Skippack Trail 19 Pemberton Rail Trail 30

D&L Trail 8 Solebury Route 202 Gateway Trail 20

Darby Creek Trail 9 Struble Trail 21

East Branch Perkiomen Trail 10 Uwchlan Trail 22

Neshaminy Creek Trail 11 Wissahickon Green Ribbon Trail 23

Pennsy Trail 12



Approach Identifying areas for potential land conservation within the study area is based on an assessment of individual

parcels within a trail’s viewshed. Parcels in the trail’s study area but not within the trail’s viewshed were

removed from the analysis. All remaining parcels were assessed based on visibility from the trail (viewshed

area, visual magnitude and distance), scenic character within the trails viewshed (landform, landcover, water,

and historic/cultural resources), key observation points, and ownership fragmentation (parcel size and

adjacency to protected areas). A flowchart of the methodology is included in at the end of this section.

Analysis Components The various components evaluated in the study are described below.

1. Visibility Analysis: A viewshed is an area that is visible from a specific location or locations (the

viewpoints). It includes all areas that are visible from the viewpoints, and excludes areas that are beyond

the horizon or obstructed by terrain and other features (e.g., buildings, trees). Viewsheds were

determined using Geographic Information System (GIS) tools. Two datasets are required to calculate a

viewshed using GIS: DEM or DSM and an observation point or set of observation points defining the

locations from which a person would be viewing a landscape. The viewshed analysis was developed using

a 1-meter resolution DSM developed from 2006-2008 or 2015 LiDAR data.4 The trail centerlines were

reviewed and corrected as necessary in Google Earth Pro. Observation points were placed approximately

12.8 meters apart across the length of the trail. Viewsheds were generated at each observation point

assuming an observer height of 1.8 meters (5.9 feet) above the ground (average height of the human eye).

The analysis was limited to a distance of 1 mile from the trail. Visible cells that overlap forested canopy

were expanded by two cells in every direction. This was done because initial examination showed that the

visibility of forested areas was significantly undervalued.

The parcel visibility score was computed based on the composite value of viewshed area, visual

magnitude, and distance zone. The components were added together and then divided into 10 classes

based on a natural break classification (GIS determined) where 1 = lowest value and 10 = highest

value.

4 LiDAR data was produced by the PA DCNR PAMAP Program, www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/pamap. Data was downloaded from the Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access, http://www.pasda.psu.edu/. For trails within the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) region 2015 LiDAR data was used that was provided by DVRPC.



Figure 13: Visibility Resources

Viewshed Area by Parcel: The parcel viewshed area score was determined by the size of the

viewshed within the parcel (i.e., the number of visible cells within the parcel). Scores were assigned as

follows, with the parcels containing the largest amount of viewshed area receiving the highest score.

Score Grouping

1 Bottom 10% of cumulative area (Parcels with the smallest areas seen from the trail)

2 10% of cumulative area








10 Top 10% of cumulative area (Parcels with the largest areas seen from the trail)

Visual Magnitude: The parcel visual magnitude score was computed by the parcel’s visual

magnitude sum. The visual magnitude refers to the number of observation points from which a cell

is visible. Zero indicates a cell that cannot be seen from the trail. Low values indicate cells that can

be seen from a few observation points and high values indicate cells that can be seen from many

observation points. Areas with high visual magnitude can be seen more frequently by users from the trail



compared to areas of low visual magnitude.5 The sum represents the total value of all cells in the

viewshed that are within the parcel. Scores assigned as follows, with the parcels containing the largest

magnitude (most observations) receiving the highest score.

Score Grouping

1 Bottom 10% of cumulative frequency (area seen from the smallest number of viewpoints)

2 10% of cumulative frequency








10 Top 10% of cumulative frequency (area seen from the highest number of viewpoints)

Distance: The parcel distance score6 was assigned as follows, with parcels closest to the trail receiving

the highest score:

Score Zones

5 Adjacent (borders trail)7

3 Immediate (up to 300 feet)

1 Foreground (300 feet to 1 mile)

2. Scenic Character: The parcel scenic character score indicates the extent to which the visible portion of

a parcel contains visually appealing features. It was based on the composite value analysis developed by

the USFS as part of the Highlands Regional Study: Connecticut and Pennsylvania 2010 Update8. However, the

USFS study was not utilized directly since it did not overlap the study area. Therefore, a comparable

assessment was developed based on the USFS study’s methodology and incorporating only those

resources relevant to scenic character. Categories included are landform/topography, landcover, water

and historic/cultural resources. The purpose of the composite value assessment was to integrate various

sources of information to provide a comprehensive picture of relative scenic character resources across

the region, highlighting areas with high composite resource value that are a priority for conservation.

The parcel scenic character score was computed from the parcel’s mean value and then divided into 10

classes based on a natural break or clusters classification (GIS determined) where 1 = lowest value and 10

= highest value.

5 Wilson, Jeffrey, Greg Lindsey and Gilbert Liu. 2008. Viewshed characteristics of urban pedestrian trails, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA. Journal of Maps, 108-118. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250376254_Viewshed_characteristics_of_urban_pedestrian_trails_Indianapolis_Indiana_USA 6 USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Agricultural Handbook 701, USDA Forest Service. 7 Score is based on the closest point of the parcel to the trail. 8 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2010. Highlands Regional Study: Connecticut and Pennsylvania 2010 Update. http://na.fs.fed.us/pubs/stewardship/highlands_regional_study_ct_pa_10_screen.pdf.



Figure 14: Scenic Character Resources

3. Key Observation Points: The parcel KOP score utilized the same methodology as the Visibility analysis,

but only considering selected Key Observation Points (rather than all viewpoints along the trail). This

was done to give extra value to parcels that are visible from the most important viewpoints along the

trail. However, the KOP score was only ranked from 1 to 3. KOP viewsheds were extended beyond the

study area. Preliminary distances are determined in Google Earth Pro viewshed tool. However, the KOP

distance will not exceed 10 miles. Parcels outside the study area are listed in the data distribution

spreadsheet. Also, if a parcel is identified within more than one KOP viewshed, the KOP points for each

viewshed are added together for that parcel’s score. The parcel is also identified in the data distribution

spreadsheet as being within two or more KOP viewsheds and each KOP viewshed is identified.



4. Ownership Fragmentation: This category is based on parcel size and parcel adjacency to protected lands.

Size: The parcel size score was assigned as follows, with the largest parcels receiving the highest score.

Score Grouping

0 Bottom 35% of cumulative area (smallest parcels)





5 Top 5% of cumulative area (largest parcels)

Adjacency: The parcel adjacency score was determined by the percentage of the parcel’s boundary

bordering existing conservation and agricultural easement lands. The percentage was prorated to a

maximum score of 5 (which would be given to parcels that are entirely bordered by conservation land).

Figure 15: Key Observation Point Resources



Figure 16: Ownership Resources

Combined Parcel Value Score A combined parcel value score was developed by adding the visibility (scale 1 – 10), scenic character (scale 1-

10), KOP (scale 1-3), and ownership fragmentation scores (scale 1 – 10). The values range from 1 to 33,

where 1 represents the lowest value and 33 the highest value. The combined score identifies the parcels with

the highest value for conservation based on the resource values and landscape context. This information is a

helpful tool in both prioritizing conservation opportunities and obtaining funding for their protection.

The combined parcel value maps are displayed using three different colors representing high, medium and

low scores. The “high” category represents the top 5% ranked parcels, “medium”, the next 10% and “low”

for the remaining parcels.

Additional Information The following additional information was identified for each unconserved parcel9:

• The parcel’s mean score for each of the individual resource categories was identified. These resource

values include: landform/topography, landcover, water and historic/cultural resources. The mean

parcel scores in each category range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating higher resource

values.

• A parcel was noted if it contains or is adjacent to a historic site/building, or stream.

9 Distribution sheet was sent separately to project stakeholders.



Figure 17: Methodology Flow Chart