City of Northampton Final Report-UribeCITY OF NORTHAMPTON,
MASSACHUSETTS
REPORT ON CONSERVATION LAND FORESTS
AND THEIR IMPACT ON CARBON SEQUESTRATION
PREPARED BY PAULA XIMENA URIBE
JUNE 2022
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES & CONSERVATION 160 WAY,
AMHERST, MA 01003-9285
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction.............................................................................................................................1
Methods ..................................................................................................................................3
Results.......................................................................................................................................6
Conclusions and Future Recommendations............................................................................10
Appendices...............................................................................................................................11
Introduction
The City of Northampton is located in
the Pioneer Valley of Western
Massachusetts (Figure 1). As part of their
commitment to conservation and climate
change mitigation, 25% of the city is
permanently protected from development
(Figure 2).
Though the present study focuses on
carbon sequestration, there are many other
relevant reasons to conserve land. Some of
these include the protection of water
resources, providing recreational and
spiritual spaces for communities, preserving
farmland and forests, as well as protecting
wildlife habitat (Executive Office of Energy
and Environmental Affairs). Overall, land
conservation is a powerful tool in planning
for greener and healthier communities.
Indeed, conservation land not only sets
aside green space for the above purposes. It
also absorbs greenhouse gases while
preventing greenhouse gas emissions that
could result from development, “including
deforestation, construction, and the
additional driving required by poorly
planned growth” (Land Trust Alliance).
Conserving land protects communities’
natural resources, well-being and even
regulates local climate.
Using LiDAR and i-Tree data, this study
analyzes the composition and impact of
these protected lands on carbon
sequestration. More specifically, based on i-
Tree data, this study quantifies the amount
of carbon monoxide (CO) annually
sequestered by trees per square meter of
each parcel. Furthermore, LiDAR data
obtained from MassGIS is analyzed to
determine the land cover make-up of the
permanently protected green spaces. ArcPro
GIS then allowed for necessary spatial
analysis to identify carbon sinks within the
City.
By analyzing these i-Tree and LiDAR
data, this project is able to identify
underproductive parcels that could
potentially be managed to increase their
mitigating effect on climate change. Indeed,
the data produced by the spatial analysis on
ArcPro GIS also allows for projections in
carbon sequestration gains with the addition
of soil amendments.
Examining the impacts and potentials of
conservation land on CO sequestration is
but a starting point in advocacy. Protecting
our forests and farmlands safeguards the
wellbeing of our current and future
communities.
Fig. 1: Study area
Fig. 2: Location of protected land
Uribe│2
Methods
The present study had three separate but
interconnected goals.
1.Quantify the benefits of trees in each
protected parcel on i-Tree Canopy.
2.Conduct spatial analysis on ArcPro
GIS in order to determine the size of
each parcel and its effect on carbon
sequestration by the square meter.
3.Calculate potential gains on CO
sequestration of each parcel with the
addition of soil amendments.
i-Tree Canopy
i-Tree canopy is a tool in i-Tree peer-
reviewed software suite developed by the
USDA Forest Service in collaboration with
the U.S Forest Service, Davey Tree Expert
Company, The Arbor Day Foundation,
Society of Municipal Arborists, International
Society of Arboriculture and Casey Trees (i-
Tree).
The purpose of i-Tree canopy is to
accurately classify land cover classes such as
grass, tree, and impervious
surfaces over any desired
geographical area. Based on
these classifications, the software
calculates impacts of tree canopy
on CO sequestration, air pollution
and stormwater. i-Tree canopy
works in conjunction with Google Earth
imagery, onto which it assigns randomly
generated points that the user is then
responsible for classifying. The tool is
geographically relevant, as the calculations
on landcover benefits follow equations that
correspond to averages for trees in the
locality. For example, the results for a
similarly sized and forested lot in Chicago
may the different from one in Northampton.
The more points that the user identifies, the
more accurate that results are.
For this study, shapefiles of the
protected lands were obtained from the City
of Northampton and projected onto i-Tree
for analysis. One-hundred points were
classified for each of the 94 parcels. A
detailed .PDF report on benefits was
generated for each parcel (see sample
report in Appendix A). All 94 reports were
then organized into an Excel document to
later be exported into ArcPro GIS.
ArcPro GIS
Once all 94 reports were carefully
analyzed and organized into an excel file
with uniform units, the area of each parcel
was calculated in m². The sequestration data
was then joined to the attribute table for
the shapefiles. This allowed for calculations
resulting in annual carbon sequestration per
square meter (kg/ m²).
To get more detailed information
regarding total canopy cover, LiDAR data
was able to further differentiate between
different types of wetlands (palustrine
Table 1: Data Sources
Uribe│4
forested and palustrine emergent) as well as
different types of forested land (evergreen
and deciduous). To do this, raster LiDAR
data from NOAA was clipped to show only
the parcels in question. The now clipped
raster data was analyzed to find the total
percentages of each land cover.
Sources for data are shown in Table 1.
Soil Amendments
In order to project gains in carbon
sequestration for each parcel, the carbon
sequestration data (kg/ m²) from ArcPro GIS
was exported as an Excel document (see
Appendix C). Once in Excel, gains in
sequestration were calculated based on
numbers provided by the Northampton
Climate Resilience and Regeneration Plan
(CRRP) Appendix on Carbon Sequestration in
Forests and Soils. This report was obtained
from the City directly.
The report cites a study conducted
by Brown, Miltner and Cogger that found
that a single application of soil amendments
increases average carbon sequestration by
0.22 metric tons per hectare per year over a
15-year time frame (2012). This number was
then converted to match i-Tree and GIS data
that was presented in kg/ m². Once units
were uniform (.22 MT/ ha = .022 kg/ m²), it
was possible to calculate gains in annual
carbon sequestration for each parcel of
protected land. This was done with the
following equations:
ASA= AS + 0.022(kg)
TASA = ASA * A
Abbreviation Definition
ASA Annual sequestration
with amendments (kg/
m²)
AS Current annual
sequestration (kg/m²)
TASA Total annual
sequestration with
amendments (kg
sequestered by the
whole parcel)
A Area of the parcel (m²)
Once each parcel had current and
projected rates of annual carbon
sequestration, each scenario was projected
for the next 15 years.
For a clearer
presentation of
the data, the
Descriptive
Statistics tool
found in Excel’s
Data Analysis
package was
used.
Uribe│5
Results
The analysis of NOAA LiDAR data found
that more than 75% of all protected parcels
are forested (Figure 3). The trees across all
parcels sequester a total of 3,336,533.07 kg
(3,336.53 metric tons) carbon every year
(Table 2). The productivity per square meter
(Figure 4) varies amongst parcels due to
their vegetation makeup (Figure 5).
Annual carbon sequestration per
square meter ranges from 0.033 kg
to 0.25 kg (Figure 4). By looking
at Figures 4 and 5, it becomes obvious
that the parcels with the lowest
carbon sequestration rates are
those that have less forested land cover.
Please see Appendix C for the carbon
sequestration and storage data for each of
the 94 parcels, and Appendix B for a
reference map.
Soil amendments are a successful
tool in increasing the productivity of
Northampton conservation land. Using
amendments increases annual carbon
sequestration from 3,336,533.07 kg to
3,673,580.67 kg. This number becomes even
more significant at the end of the 15-year
period following a single application of the
amendments. Northampton conservation
lands, without amendments, can sequester
a total of 50,047,996.02 kg in 15 years. With
amendments, this number increases to
55,103,710.07 kg. Table 3 compares the
descriptive statistics for sequestration per
square meter of conservation land (top left
and right) as well as total sequestration of all
parcels (bottom left and right). Please
see Appendix D for data on
each parcel.
Fig. 3: Land cover composition for all protected land in Northampton
Table 2: The impact of protected land on carbon
sequestration
Uribe│7
Fig. 4: Annual Carbon Sequestration (kg/m²) at each parcel
Table 3: Comparison of carbon sequestration with and without soil
amendments.
Uribe│8
Fig. 5: Land cover types
Uribe│9
Conclusions and Future Recommendations
The numbers presented in this study may
be hard to conceptualize due to their
magnitude.
i-Tree estimates that 1 metric ton of
carbon monoxide is equivalent to about 3.66
metric tons of carbon dioxide (see Appendix
A). At the same time, the EPA calculates that
“a typical passenger vehicle emits about 4.6
metric tons of carbon dioxide every year”
(EPA). That is, a car emits the equivalent of
1.26 metric tons of CO.
Based on these numbers,
Northampton’s conservation land has the
capacity to sequester the yearly emissions of
nearly 2,650 passenger vehicles. With the
addition of soil amendments, this number
increases to over 2,915 vehicles.
While i-Tree provided data on overall
carbon sequestration rates for the entirety
of each parcel, the spatial analysis on ArcPro
GIS identified parcels that could be
reforested in order to increase their
productivity. These parcels are represented
by the white areas in Figure 4. It is important
to keep in mind that the present study does
not account for the impacts of cultivated
land and wetlands on carbon sequestration.
Future studies should focus on the potential
of these land cover types, as they are known
to be powerful carbon sinks. The protection
and sustainable management of land are
powerful tools in climate change mitigation.
Uribe│11
Appendices
Appendix A: i-Tree Canopy Sample Report
Appendix B: FID Reference Map
FIDs are used to identify polygons, in this case parcels, in ArcPro GIS. Numbers on this map
correspond to FID numbers on Appendix C.
Appendix C: Conservation Land Attribute Table.xlsx
FID Site Name Area m² Annual CO Sequestration (kg/m² )CO Storage (kg/m² )
0 Meadows Greenway 11838.7002 0.05337769911 1.614949942
1 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 14156.7998 0.2338960022 7.075210094
2 Mill River Greenway 2134.340088 0.2313019931 6.998079777
3 Mill River Greenway 7663.120117 0.216640994 6.537119865
4 Mill River Greenway 604.427002 0.1728439927 5.229300022
5 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 131218 0.238932997 7.228829861
6 Rainbow Beach Greenway 195394 0.2313069999 6.998030186
7 CT River Greenway - Meadows 13095.40039 0.1343940049 4.07614994
8 Mill River Greenway 5650.419922 0.2167450041 6.536059856
9 Mill River Greenway 19078.30078 0.2035170048 6.152100086
10 Burts Bog Greenway 1059.810059 0.2164320052 6.548130035
11 Burts Bog Greenway 509871 0.2313019931 6.998119831
12 CT River Greenway - Meadows 107733 0.04833469912 1.461159945
13 CT River Greenway - Meadows 14102.7998 0.0584619008 1.768769979
14 CT River Greenway - Meadows 61182.19922 0.05590000004 1.691830039
15 CT River Greenway - Meadows 12087 0.03304319829 0.9997310042
16 CT River Greenway - Meadows 212809 0.06863279641 2.076380014
17 Rocky Hill Greenway 4109.339844 0.2494609952 7.536799908
18 Roberts Meadow Greenway 50798.89844 0.08250559866 2.496059895
19 West Farms Greenway 48995.89844 0.2414419949 7.305860043
20 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 2812210 0.218592003 6.613520145
21 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 31124.09961 0.2288070023 6.921040058
22 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 237919 0.2389219999 7.228759766
23 Beaver Brook Greenway 105374 0.2414879948 7.305669785
24 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 19010.80078 0.2314389944 6.998060226
25 Rocky Hill Greenway 79180.5 0.2160820067 6.536660194
26 Rocky Hill Greenway 6214.859863 0.2233349979 6.767179966
27 Rocky Hill Greenway 1529.119995 0.2414709926 7.30576992
28 Mill River Greenway 39795.39844 0.1600289941 4.844880104
29 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 1974000 0.2414699942 7.305689812
30 Mill River Greenway 19397.5 0.216068998 6.536779881
31 Mineral Hills Greenway 265677 0.2262180001 6.844250202
32 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 92620 0.2388930023 7.228579998
33 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 68782.39844 0.2389879972 7.228740215
34 Mill River Greenway 5701.879883 0.2084250003 6.305240154
35 Mill River Greenway 2466.780029 0.216049999 6.536640167
36 CT River Greenway 20102.5 0.2238350064 6.767389774
37 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 35521.19922 0.2416010052 7.313159943
38 Mary Browns Dingle 6320.22998 0.238270998 7.228509903
39 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 159070 0.2465430051 7.459249973
40 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 165574 0.2109429985 6.382900238
41 Barrett St. Marsh Greenway 104988 0.1728170067 5.22935009
42 Mineral Hills Greenway 367438 0.2287729979 6.921199799
43 Burts Bog Greenway 28361.5 0.2287030071 6.921239853
44 Mill River Greenway 161142 0.2182080001 6.60270977
45 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 46926.10156 0.233919993 7.074810028
46 Broad Brook - Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 101172 0.1067939997 3.229830027
47 Mill River Greenway 13594.59961 0.2415670007 7.309740067
Conservation Land Attribute Table.xlsx
FID Site Name Area m² Annual CO Sequestration (kg/m² )CO Storage (kg/m² )
48 Mineral Hills Greenway 892990 0.2440080047 7.382639885
49 Rocky Hill Greenway 433706 0.2262180001 6.844329834
50 Mineral Hills Greenway 145133 0.236402005 7.151939869
51 Mineral Hills Greenway - Hannum Brook 147691 0.2440399975 7.382730007
52 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 71825.89844 0.2414920032 7.306009769
53 Mineral Hills Greenway - Hannum Brook 299039 0.2236720026 6.767469883
54 Saw Mill Hills Greenway - Roberts Hill 506256 0.2338490039 7.074940205
55 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 83653.79688 0.2287109941 6.921189785
56 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 68796.89844 0.2440810055 7.382679939
57 Florence Greenway 18184.30078 0.2185110003 6.613699913
58 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 115079 0.2541530132 7.690090179
59 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 137614 0.238903001 7.228789806
60 Burts Bog Greenway 19296.90039 0.04575230181 1.384240031
61 Mineral Hills Greenway - Galena 165549 0.2389219999 7.228859901
62 CT River Greenway - Meadows 26709.40039 0.2336789966 7.074910164
63 Beaver Brook Greenway 423567 0.2135130018 6.459700108
64 Beaver Brook/Broad Brook Greenway 76046.70313 0.2288040072 6.920909882
65 Rocky Hill Greenway 11049.7998 0.2339839935 7.075349808
66 Mineral Hills Greenway - Marble Brook 485537 0.2338510007 7.074960232
67 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 219710 0.203354001 6.152060032
68 Hannum Brook Greenway 59311.80078 0.1982260048 5.998459816
69 Parsons Brook Greenway - Pine Barrens 83478.89844 0.1677899957 5.075540066
70 Parsons Brook Greenway - Pine Barrens 104775 0.1245080009 3.768229961
71 CT River Greenway 364651 0.1982540041 5.998320103
72 CT River Greenway 148436 0.1651969999 4.997409821
73 Parsons Brook Greenway - Pine Barrens 72711.79688 0.2364290059 7.15199995
74 Parsons Brook Greenway - Pine Barrens 38985.69922 0.2313009948 6.998119831
75 Parsons Brook Greenway - Pine Barrens 357423 0.2084310055 6.306029797
76 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 82669.79688 0.2541480064 7.690070152
77 Rocky Hill Greenway 426352 0.1194749996 3.614439964
78 Rocky Hill Greenway 28110.80078 0.2184800059 6.613770008
79 Beaver Brook Greenway 184667 0.2465610057 7.459400177
80 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 96134.89844 0.2440299988 7.382430077
81 Parsons Brook Greenway - Pine Barrens 2227.699951 0.1880930066 5.690810204
82 Broad Brook Greenway 24106.19922 0.2337000072 7.074969769
83 Mill River Greenway 75253.79688 0.2262720019 6.844349861
84 Burts Bog Greenway 21059.80078 0.2463980019 7.459579945
85 CT River Greenway 12186.09961 0.1883440018 5.69051981
86 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 220642 0.2363740057 7.151869774
87 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 6925.319824 0.229241997 6.920479774
88 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald Lake Greenway 33416.5 0.2337429971 7.074989796
89 Parsons Brook Greenway - Pine Barrens 1626.130005 0.1677599996 5.075570107
90 Mineral Hills Greenway 12584.5 0.2544690073 7.690289974
91 Mineral Hills Greenway 62929.10156 0.2491080016 7.536389828
92 Mill River Greenway 5002.919922 0.1831440032 5.537849903
93 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 52443.19922 0.241485998 7.305640221
FID Site Name Area m²
Annual
Sequestration
(kg/m²)
Annual
Sequestration
(kg/m²) with
amendments
Total annual
sequestration
(kg)
Total annual
sequestration (kg)
with amendments
0 Meadows Greenway 11838.70 0.05 0.08 631.92 892.37
1
Broad Brook-Fitzgerald
Lake Greenway 14156.80 0.23 0.26 3,311.22 3,622.67
2 Mill River Greenway 2134.34 0.23 0.25 493.68 540.63
3 Mill River Greenway 7663.12 0.22 0.24 1,660.15 1,828.73
4 Mill River Greenway 604.43 0.17 0.19 104.47 117.77
5 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 131218.00 0.24 0.26 31,352.30 34,239.11
6
Rainbow Beach
Greenway 195394.00 0.23 0.25 45,195.94 49,494.67
7
CT River Greenway -
Meadows 13095.40 0.13 0.16 1,759.94 2,048.04
8 Mill River Greenway 5650.42 0.22 0.24 1,224.70 1,349.01
9 Mill River Greenway 19078.30 0.20 0.23 3,882.75 4,302.48
10 Burts Bog Greenway 1059.81 0.22 0.24 229.38 252.69
11 Burts Bog Greenway 509871.00 0.23 0.25 117,934.02 129,151.34
12
CT River Greenway -
Meadows 107733.00 0.05 0.07 5,207.24 7,577.37
13
CT River Greenway -
Meadows 14102.80 0.06 0.08 824.48 1,134.74
14
CT River Greenway -
Meadows 61182.20 0.06 0.08 3,420.09 4,766.09
15
CT River Greenway -
Meadows 12087.00 0.03 0.06 399.39 665.31
16
CT River Greenway -
Meadows 212809.00 0.07 0.09 14,605.67 19,287.47
17 Rocky Hill Greenway 4109.34 0.25 0.27 1,025.12 1,115.53
18
Roberts Meadow
Greenway 50798.90 0.08 0.10 4,191.19 5,308.77
Appendix D: Soil Amendments Calculations
19 West Farms Greenway 48995.90 0.24 0.26 11,829.69 12,907.58
20 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 2812210.00 0.22 0.24 614,726.52 676,595.24
21 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 31124.10 0.23 0.25 7,121.40 7,806.14
22 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 237919.00 0.24 0.26 56,844.20 62,078.30
23 Beaver Brook Greenway 105374.00 0.24 0.26 25,446.53 27,764.78
24 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 19010.80 0.23 0.25 4,399.85 4,818.08
25 Rocky Hill Greenway 79180.50 0.22 0.24 17,109.50 18,851.45
26 Rocky Hill Greenway 6214.86 0.22 0.25 1,387.99 1,524.72
27 Rocky Hill Greenway 1529.12 0.24 0.26 369.24 402.88
28 Mill River Greenway 39795.40 0.16 0.18 6,368.44 7,243.92
29 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 1974000.00 0.24 0.26 476,662.08 520,089.77
30 Mill River Greenway 19397.50 0.22 0.24 4,191.19 4,617.94
31 Mineral Hills Greenway 265677.00 0.23 0.25 60,100.99 65,945.81
32 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 92620.00 0.24 0.26 22,126.24 24,163.91
33 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 68782.40 0.24 0.26 16,438.19 17,951.38
34 Mill River Greenway 5701.88 0.21 0.23 1,188.41 1,313.86
35 Mill River Greenway 2466.78 0.22 0.24 532.95 587.22
36 CT River Greenway 20102.50 0.22 0.25 4,499.64 4,941.90
37 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 35521.20 0.24 0.26 8,581.97 9,363.42
38 Mary Browns Dingle 6320.23 0.24 0.26 1,505.93 1,644.97
39 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 159070.00 0.25 0.27 39,217.60 42,717.14
40 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 165574.00 0.21 0.23 34,926.61 38,569.30
41 Barrett St. Marsh 104988.00 0.17 0.19 18,143.69 20,453.45
42 Mineral Hills Greenway 367438.00 0.23 0.25 84,059.74 92,143.53
43 Burts Bog Greenway 28361.50 0.23 0.25 6,486.37 7,110.31
44 Mill River Greenway 161142.00 0.22 0.24 35,162.48 38,707.60
45 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 46926.10 0.23 0.26 10,976.94 12,009.33
46 Broad Brook - Fitzgerald 101172.00 0.11 0.13 10,804.57 13,030.35
47 Mill River Greenway 13594.60 0.24 0.26 3,284.01 3,583.09
48 Mineral Hills Greenway 892990.00 0.24 0.27 217,896.70 237,542.49
49 Rocky Hill Greenway 433706.00 0.23 0.25 98,112.03 107,653.64
50 Mineral Hills Greenway 145133.00 0.24 0.26 34,309.73 37,502.66
51 Mineral Hills Greenway - 147691.00 0.24 0.27 36,042.45 39,291.71
52 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 71825.90 0.24 0.26 17,345.37 18,925.55
53 Mineral Hills Greenway - Hannum Brook299039.00 0.22 0.25 66,886.73 73,465.51
54 Saw Mill Hills Greenway - RobertsHill506256.00 0.23 0.26 118,387.61 129,525.09
55 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 83653.80 0.23 0.25 19,132.53 20,972.93
56 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 68796.90 0.24 0.27 16,791.99 18,305.55
57 Florence Greenway 18184.30 0.22 0.24 3,973.47 4,373.52
58 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 115079.00 0.25 0.28 29,247.64 31,779.41
59 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 137614.00 0.24 0.26 32,876.37 35,903.91
60 Burts Bog Greenway 19296.90 0.05 0.07 882.88 1,307.41
61 Mineral Hills Greenway - Galena 165549.00 0.24 0.26 39,553.25 43,195.38
62 CT River Greenway - 26709.40 0.23 0.26 6,241.43 6,829.03
63 Beaver Brook Greenway 423567.00 0.21 0.24 90,437.25 99,755.54
64 Beaver Brook/Broad 76046.70 0.23 0.25 17,399.80 19,072.82
65 Rocky Hill Greenway 11049.80 0.23 0.26 2,585.48 2,828.57
66 Mineral Hills Greenway - 485537.00 0.23 0.26 113,543.24 124,225.13
67 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 219710.00 0.20 0.23 44,678.85 49,512.53
68 Hannum Brook 59311.80 0.20 0.22 11,757.11 13,062.00
69 Parsons Brook Greenway 83478.90 0.17 0.19 14,006.93 15,843.46
70 Parsons Brook Greenway 104775.00 0.12 0.15 13,045.32 15,350.38
71 CT River Greenway 364651.00 0.20 0.22 72,293.55 80,315.84
72 CT River Greenway 148436.00 0.17 0.19 24,521.20 27,786.77
73 Parsons Brook Greenway 72711.80 0.24 0.26 17,191.15 18,790.84
74 Parsons Brook Greenway 38985.70 0.23 0.25 9,017.42 9,875.12
75 Parsons Brook Greenway 357423.00 0.21 0.23 74,498.01 82,361.34
76 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 82669.80 0.25 0.28 21,010.40 22,829.10
77 Rocky Hill Greenway 426352.00 0.12 0.14 50,938.42 60,318.15
78 Rocky Hill Greenway 28110.80 0.22 0.24 6,141.64 6,760.09
79 Beaver Brook Greenway 184667.00 0.25 0.27 45,531.60 49,594.36
80 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 96134.90 0.24 0.27 23,459.80 25,574.77
81 Parsons Brook Greenway 2227.70 0.19 0.21 419.02 468.02
82 Broad Brook Greenway 24106.20 0.23 0.26 5,633.62 6,163.96
83 Mill River Greenway 75253.80 0.23 0.25 17,027.86 18,683.41
84 Burts Bog Greenway 21059.80 0.25 0.27 5,189.10 5,652.41
85 CT River Greenway 12186.10 0.19 0.21 2,295.18 2,563.27
86 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 220642.00 0.24 0.26 52,154.05 57,008.16
87 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 6925.32 0.23 0.25 1,587.57 1,739.93
88 Broad Brook-Fitzgerald 33416.50 0.23 0.26 7,810.86 8,546.04
89 Parsons Brook Greenway 1626.13 0.17 0.19 272.80 308.57
90 Mineral Hills Greenway 12584.50 0.25 0.28 3,202.36 3,479.22
91 Mineral Hills Greenway 62929.10 0.25 0.27 15,676.15 17,060.58
92 Mill River Greenway 5002.92 0.18 0.21 916.26 1,026.32
93 Saw Mill Hills Greenway 52443.20 0.24 0.26 12,664.30 13,818.05
Totals 15320341.58 19.35 21.42 3,336,533.07 3,673,580.67
At the end of 15 year time-frame50,047,996.02 55,103,710.07
*What is an FID?
FIDs are used to identify polygons, in this case parcels, in ArcPro GIS. Please see Appendix B.
References
Brown, S., Miltner, E., & Cogger, C. (2012). Carbon Sequestration Potential in Urban Soils. In R. Lal & B.
Augustin (Eds.), Carbon Sequestration in Urban Ecosystems (pp. 173–196). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2366-5
Climate Change. Land Trust Alliance. https://www.landtrustalliance.org/topics/climate-change
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. Land Conservation Benefits. Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. https://www.mass.gov/service-details/land-conservation-benefits
References. i-Tree. https://www.scribbr.com/apa-examples/website/