Protecting significant views along the circuit · This report also describes the methodology used...
Transcript of Protecting significant views along the circuit · This report also describes the methodology used...
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 2
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Table 4: SRT Section 2, Visual Assessment Summary ................................................................................................ 25
Table 5: SRT Section 3, Municipalities .......................................................................................................................... 27
Table 6: SRT Section 3, Visual Assessment Summary ................................................................................................ 36
Table 7: SRT Section 4, Municipalities .......................................................................................................................... 38
Table 8: SRT Section 4, Visual Assessment Summary ................................................................................................ 47
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 5: SRT Section 2, Scenic Character Resources Score ..................................................................................... 20
Figure 6: SRT Section 2, Combined Parcel Value Score ............................................................................................ 23
Figure 7: SRT Section 3, Visual Resources Score ........................................................................................................ 31
Figure 8: SRT Section 3, Scenic Character Resources Score ..................................................................................... 32
Figure 9: SRT Section 3, Combined Parcel Value Score ............................................................................................ 35
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 3
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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 19: SRT Section 3, Visibility Resources................................................................................................................ 31
Map 20: SRT Section 3, Scenic Character Resources .................................................................................................. 32
Map 21: SRT Section 3, KOP Resources, KOPs 1-3 ................................................................................................. 33
Map 22: SRT Section 3, KOP Resources, KOPs 4&5 ............................................................................................... 34
Map 23: SRT Section 3, Combined Parcel Value ........................................................................................................ 35
Map 24: SRT Section 3, Highest Ranked Parcels ........................................................................................................ 37
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 28: SRT Section 4, Visibility Resources................................................................................................................ 42
Map 29: SRT Section 4, Scenic Resources .................................................................................................................... 44
Map 30: SRT Section 4, KOP Resources, KOPs 1-4 ................................................................................................. 45
Map 31: SRT Section 4, Combined Parcel Value ........................................................................................................ 46
Map 32: SRT Section 4, Highest Ranked Parcels ........................................................................................................ 48
Map 33: Circuit Trails Included in the Study................................................................................................................ 51
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 4
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 5
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 6
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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/
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 7
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 8
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 9
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 10
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 11
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 12
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 13
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 14
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Map 6: SRT Section 1, Highest Ranked Parcels
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 15
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Map 7: SRT Section 2, Study Area
Section 2: Upper Providence Township to Parkerford
No. Municipality County
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 16
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Results for SRT Section 2 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 2 are set forth
below.
Viewshed
Section 2 of the SRT’s viewshed area is shown on Map 8 below. The viewshed, developed from the digital
surface model (DSM), is approximately 522 acres or 5% of the study area. Of this area, roughly 132 acres or
25% 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 1-82, though the majority are two and less. Of the DSM viewshed’s
522 acres, 432 acres or 81% are composed of scenic character resources, with the remainder of the visible
area consisting of developed land.
Map 8: SRT Section 2, Viewshed Area
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 17
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 18
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Parcel Value Assessment
The one-mile boundary area of Section 2 of the SRT study area contains roughly 13,570 individual parcels.
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
comprised mainly of structures and parking areas.
Viewshed Resources
The viewshed of the SRT Section 2 contains 2,483 parcels. Over 2,402 unprotected parcels encompassing
over 2,968 acres are potentially available for conservation protection. There are 81 protected parcels within
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
comprised mainly of structures and parking areas.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 19
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Map 10: SRT Section 2, Visibility Resources
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 20
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Figure 5: SRT Section 2, Scenic Character Resources Score
Map 11: SRT Section 2, Scenic Character Resources
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 21
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 22
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Map 13: SRT Section 2, KOP Resources, KOPs 4&5
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 23
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Ownership Fragmentation
The parcel size and adjacency to protected areas scores were combined to determine the parcel ownership
fragmentation score. Of the roughly 2,483 parcels within the SRT Section 2 viewshed, 84% are less than one
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.
Combined Parcel Value
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.
Figure 6: SRT Section 2, Combined Parcel Value Score
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 24
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Map 14: SRT Section 2, Combined Parcel Value
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 25
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Table 4: SRT Section 2, Visual Assessment Summary
Map 15 on the following page shows the highest ranked parcels along SRT Section 2. 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: 7.9 Study Area Parcels: 13,570 Visual Resources:
Trail Study Area in Acres: 11,455 Number of Protected Parcels: 224 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 1: 2,067
Protected Acres in Study Area:[1] 1,386 Acres of Protected Parcels:[2] 1,630 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 10: 2
Percent Protected in Trail Study Area: 12% Parcels in the Viewshed: 2,483 Visual Magnitude Majority Score: 2 and less
Viewshed Area in Acres: 522 Unprotected Parcels: 2,402 Scenic Resources:
Percent Unprotected: 96.7% Acres with Scenic Character: 423
Ownership Fragmentation: Protected Parcels: 81 Percent with Scenic Character: 81%
Parcels < 1 acre in size: 2,098 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 1: 825
Percent Parcels < 1 acres in size: 84% Combined Parcel Value: Unprotected Parcels with a score of 10: 20
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:
[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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 26
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Map 15: SRT Section 2, Highest Ranked Parcels
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 27
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
SRT Section 3 Map 16 below shows the study area for SRT Section 3.
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.
Map 16: SRT Section 3, Study Area
Table 5: SRT Section 3, Municipalities
Section 3: Pottstown to Birdsboro
No. Municipality County
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 28
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Results for SRT Section 3 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 3 are set forth
below.
Viewshed
Section 3 of the SRT’s viewshed area is shown on Map 17 below. The viewshed, developed from the digital
surface model (DSM), is approximately 483 acres or 4% of the study area. Of this area, roughly 151 acres or
31% 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 1-96, though the majority are two and less. Of the DSM viewshed’s
483 acres, 321 acres or 66 % are composed of scenic character resources, with the remainder of the visible
area consisting of developed land.
Map 17: SRT Section 3, Viewshed Area
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 29
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Key Observation Points
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
Parcel Value Assessment
The one-mile boundary area of Section 3 of the SRT study area contains roughly 11,906 individual parcels.
Within this area, 359 parcels of protected land total approximately 3,293 acres. Of the protected land, 264
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 30
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Viewshed Resources
The viewshed of the SRT Section 3 contains 1,641 parcels. Over 1,558 unprotected parcels encompassing
over 3,970 acres are potentially available for conservation protection. There are 83 protected parcels within
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 31
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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).
Map 19: SRT Section 3, Visibility Resources
Figure 7: SRT Section 3, Visual Resources Score
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 32
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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).
Map 20: SRT Section 3, Scenic Character Resources
Figure 8: SRT Section 3, Scenic Character Resources Score
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 33
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Key Observation Points
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 21: SRT Section 3, KOP Resources, KOPs 1-3
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 34
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Map 22: SRT Section 3, KOP Resources, KOPs 4 & 5
Ownership Fragmentation
The parcel size and adjacency to protected areas scores were combined to determine the parcel ownership
fragmentation score. Of the roughly 1,641 parcels within the SRT Section 3 viewshed, 74% are less than one
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 35
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Combined Parcel Value
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.
Map 23: SRT Section 3, Combined Parcel Value
Figure 9: SRT Section 3, Combined Parcel Value Score
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 36
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Conclusion The SRT Section 3 study area has many conservation opportunities that will help protect views from the trail.
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.
Table 6: SRT Section 3, Visual Assessment Summary
Map 24 on the following page shows the highest ranked parcels along SRT Section 3. 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: 8.8 Study Area Parcels: 11,906 Visual Resources:
Trail Study Area in Acres: 12,941 Number of Protected Parcels: 359 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 1: 1,178
Protected Acres in Study Area:[1] 1,537 Acres of Protected Parcels:[2] 3,293 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 10: 1
Percent Protected in Trail Study Area: 12% Parcels in the Viewshed: 1,641 Visual Magnitude Majority Score: 2 and less
Viewshed Area in Acres: 483 Unprotected Parcels: 1,558 Scenic Resources:
Percent Unprotected: 94.9% Acres with Scenic Character: 321
Ownership Fragmentation: Protected Parcels: 83 Percent with Scenic Character: 66%
Parcels < 1 acre in size: 1,216 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 1: 577
Percent Parcels < 1 acres in size: 74% Combined Parcel Value: Unprotected Parcels with a score of 10: 5
Parcels in the top 15% of parcels: 4 Score range: 1 to 22 Key Observation Points: 5
Acres of top 15% of parcels: 174 High scoring parcels: 17 Total Number of KOP Parcels: 260
Unprotected parcels adjacent to protected High scoring unprotected parcels: 8 Parcels seen within 1 mile: 260
open space: 203 High scoring protected parcels: 9 Parcels seen from beyond 1 mile: 0
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 37
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Map 24: SRT Section 3, Highest Ranked Parcels
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 38
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
SRT Section 4 Map 25 below shows the study area for SRT Section 4.
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.
Map 25: SRT Section 4, Study Area
Table 7: SRT Section 4, Municipalities
Section 4: Robeson Township to Reading
No. Municipality County
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 39
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Results SRT Section 4
Viewshed
Section 4 of the SRT’s viewshed area is shown on Map 26 below. The viewshed, developed from the digital
surface model (DSM), is approximately 1,009 acres or 9% of the study area. Of this area, roughly 281 acres or
28% 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 1-118, 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.
Map 26: SRT Section 4, Viewshed Area
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 40
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Key Observation Points
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 41
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Parcel Value Assessment
The one-mile boundary area of Section 4 of the SRT study area contains roughly 20,774 individual parcels.
Within this area, 414 parcels of protected land total approximately 1,899 acres. Of the protected land, 280
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 of the SRT Section 4 contains 2,696 parcels. Over 2,524 unprotected parcels encompassing
over 4,553 acres are potentially available for conservation protection. There are 172 protected parcels within
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).
Figure 10: SRT Section 4, Visual Resources Score
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 42
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Map 28: SRT Section 4, Visibility Resources
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 43
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Figure 11: SRT Section 4, Scenic Character Resources Score
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 44
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Map 29: SRT Section 4, Scenic Resources
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 45
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Key Observation Points
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).
Map 30: SRT Section 4, KOP Resources, KOPs 1-4
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 46
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Ownership Fragmentation
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.
Combined Parcel Value
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.
Figure 12: SRT Section 4, Combined Parcel Value Score
Map 31: SRT Section 4, Combined Parcel Value
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 47
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Conclusion The SRT Section 4 study area has many conservation opportunities that will help protect views from the trail.
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.
Table 8: SRT Section 4, Visual Assessment Summary
Map 32 on the following page shows the highest ranked parcels along SRT Section 4. 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: 7.6 Study Area Parcels: 20,774 Visual Resources:
Trail Study Area in Acres: 11,102 Number of Protected Parcels: 414 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 1: 2,062
Protected Acres in Study Area:[1] 1,741 Acres of Protected Parcels:[2] 1,899 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 10: 1
Percent Protected in Trail Study Area: 16% Parcels in the Viewshed: 2,696 Visual Magnitude Majority Score: 3 and less
Viewshed Area in Acres: 1,009 Unprotected Parcels: 2,524 Scenic Resources:
Percent Unprotected: 93.6% Acres with Scenic Character: 823
Ownership Fragmentation: Protected Parcels: 172 Percent with Scenic Character: 82%
Parcels < 1 acre in size: 2,167 Unprotected Parcels with a score of 1: 791
Percent Parcels < 1 acres in size: 80% Combined Parcel Value: Unprotected Parcels with a score of 10: 2
Parcels in the top 15% of parcels: 6 Score range: 1 to 31 Key Observation Points: 4
Acres of top 15% of parcels: 134 High scoring parcels: 23 Total Number of KOP Parcels: 222
Unprotected parcels adjacent to protected High scoring unprotected parcels: 15 Parcels seen within 1 mile: 222
open space: 245 High scoring protected parcels: 8 Parcels seen from beyond 1 mile: 0
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 48
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Map 32: SRT Section 4, Highest Ranked Parcels
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 49
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 50
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 51
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 52
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 53
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
3 10% of cumulative area
4 10% of cumulative area
5 10% of cumulative area
6 10% of cumulative area
7 10% of cumulative area
8 10% of cumulative area
9 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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 54
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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
3 10% of cumulative frequency
4 10% of cumulative frequency
5 10% of cumulative frequency
6 10% of cumulative frequency
7 10% of cumulative frequency
8 10% of cumulative frequency
9 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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 55
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 56
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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)
1 20% of cumulative area
2 20% of cumulative area
3 10% of cumulative area
4 10% of cumulative area
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
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 57
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
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.
Appalachian Mountain Club, March 2019 58
PROTECTING SIGNIFICANT VIEWS ALONG THE CIRCUIT
Figure 17: Methodology Flow Chart