Final HHC SWCA PVPC Combined_REDACTED June 2023.pdf
Archaeological Reconnaissance
Survey for the Hampshire and
Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield,
Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
DECEMBER 2022
REVISED JUNE 2023
PREPARED FOR
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission
(PVPC)
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY FOR THE
HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL DOCUMENTATION PROJECT, SOUTHWICK, WESTFIELD, RUSSELL,
SOUTHAMPTON, EASTHAMPTON, AND NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS
THIS REPORT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Prepared for
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC)
60 Congress Street Springfield, Massachusetts 01104-3419 Attn: Shannon Walsh
Prepared by
Zachary Nason and Nadia Waski, M.A. SWCA Environmental Consultants 15 Research Drive Amherst, Massachusetts 01002
(413) 256-0202 www.swca.com
SWCA No. 70766
SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 22-899 December 2022 Revised June 2023
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
i
ABSTRACT
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted a background review and an archaeological reconnaissance survey on behalf of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission as part of an ongoing, multi-town documentation and mapping effort of the approximately 30-mile-long Massachusetts portion of the
Hampshire and Hampden Canal.
SWCA field staff were able to conduct a walkover reconnaissance of roughly 90 percent of the former Hampshire and Hampden Canal. SWCA geographic information system (GIS) personnel used this collected field data, in conjunction with historical mapping and references, to accurately depict the former canal’s course, on parcel-level mapping, as it operated through Massachusetts. As part of this study, Massachusetts Historical Commission Area Forms were also completed describing the canal area within the bounds of each of the six townships, describing the route’s impacts on the towns individually, as well as detailing the physical presence canal engineering had, and still has, on the land.
Following the completion of the GIS map review and field verification, 78 remnant canal segments and/or features were recorded and mapped, with others lacking any remaining surficial indications plotted using other means. In all, approximately 34 percent of the original canal prism contains surficial remnants still identifiable today, with the remaining 66 percent being a combination of altered or obscured by post-canal impacts (46%), repurposed by subsequent engineering (9%), or not field verified (11%). Of the original 32 canal locks and two guard locks, 12 still contain surficial, identifiable traces of the former engineering.
Surficial evidence of the majority of the 12 original aqueducts and culverts constructed to ferry the canal over larger waterways have been completely removed, with much of the stone used in their construction repurposed for subsequent engineering efforts. In addition to the above-mentioned engineering features, an unknown number of basins, waste weirs, dams, masonry drains, and traversal bridges may have been present along the route through Massachusetts, any surficial evidence of which has since been altered/obscured.
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is significant on the local, state, and national level, being eligible for listing, in its entirety, on the National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A, C, and D. The present project includes extensive historical research and provides accurate mapping and field data on the present condition of the canal, with an initial statement of significance. We anticipate that additional work will be needed to complete the National Register nomination. This next step will need to explore the canal’s impact and design within the context of the greater Canal Era of the northeastern United States, as well as describe the significance of the entire endeavor in both its engineering scope and socioeconomic impacts on the region.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
iii
CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Scope ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Regulatory .............................................................................................................................................. 4
Project Personnel .................................................................................................................................... 4
Report Organization ............................................................................................................................... 4
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 4
Background Research ............................................................................................................................. 4
GIS Mapping .......................................................................................................................................... 5
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey ................................................................................................. 6
Consultations ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Survey Results ............................................................................................................................................. 8
Background Research ............................................................................................................................. 8 The Hampshire and Hampden Canal ............................................................................................... 8 Southwick ...................................................................................................................................... 10 Westfield ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Russell ............................................................................................................................................ 12 Southampton .................................................................................................................................. 12 Easthampton ................................................................................................................................... 13 Northampton .................................................................................................................................. 14 Previous Canal Documentation ...................................................................................................... 15
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey ............................................................................................... 18
Summary of Work .................................................................................................................................... 23
Future Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 25
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 26
Appendices
Appendix A. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Parcel-Level Map Appendix B. Mapbook Parcel ID Key Appendix C. MHC Area Forms (Form A) Appendix D. MHC Historic Archaeological Site Forms (HA Forms)Confidential- Redacted
Figures
Figure 1. Overview of Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area through Massachusetts. ................................ 2 Figure 2. Remnant canal prism in Segment 2, facing northeast. ................................................................. 19
Tables
Table 1. Canal Features Previously Recorded with the MHC .................................................................... 17
Table 2. Remnant Canal Prism and Features Recorded During Reconnaissance ....................................... 19
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
1
INTRODUCTION
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) conducted a background review and an archaeological reconnaissance survey on behalf of the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC) as part of an ongoing, multi-town documentation and mapping effort of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. SWCA
completed background research using historical sources, including mapping, previous research, past surveys, and personal communications with informed parties, among other sources, in order to develop a comprehensive documentation of the historic canal route and its associated features, as well as what
developments/impacts may have altered its state since its abandonment. SWCA archaeologists conducted a walkover investigation of the length of the canal, excluding areas with restricted permissions and/or safety concerns, conducting surficial presence and condition documentation and GPS point mapping. No subsurface investigations were conducted as part of this effort. In addition, SWCA staff photographed segments of well-preserved canal prism and remnant engineering features as they exist today.
The project area consisted of a 75-foot wide linear corridor covering the historic route of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Upon completion, the canal ran approximately 30 miles through Hampshire and Hampden Counties, from the Connecticut border in Southwick to a meander of the Connecticut River in
Northampton called “the honey pot” (Figure 1). Six cities and towns were part of this joint effort, all of which contain sections of the original canal route and/or associated feeders. The original route, from south to north, crossed into Southwick, Massachusetts, from Connecticut, before continuing north through
Westfield and into Southampton, shifting slightly northeast. The canal route progressed through Easthampton and into Northampton prior to reaching its terminus at the Connecticut River, just north of Elwell Island. Additionally, three feeder canals were documented as they occurred within the state of
Massachusetts: the Salmon Brook feeder, located in Southwick; the Little River Feeder, located in Westfield; and the Westfield River feeder, which begins in Russell before emptying into the mainline in Westfield. This project is a regional, joint venture involving the cooperation and efforts of six cities and towns (Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton) under the stewardship of
the PVPC. The PVPC is a consortium of local governments, encompassing 43 cities and towns in Hampden and Hampshire Counties, who jointly, under the provisions of state law, serve to address problems and opportunities that are regional in scope. The Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (PVPC)
has been the designated regional planning body for the Pioneer Valley region. SWCA conducted all documentation and recordation of the project area under the guidance of the PVPC Historic Preservation Planner, Shannon Walsh, with recommendations provided by historian Carl E. Walter.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
2
Figure 1. Overview of Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area through Massachusetts.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
3
Scope
In 2003 the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) prepared a comprehensive scope for a survey aimed at collecting information necessary to locate, document, describe, and evaluate NRHP eligibility of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. MHC’s comments were synthesized and incorporated into PVPC’s
request for a consultant in 2021, with the goal of restarting the documentation project with the tasks listed below.
The project goals for this phase of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal documentation effort were as follows:
• Task 1: Background Research and Development of Project Area
o Using current mapping, historical mapping, LiDAR data, relevant histories and site data, and previously conducted reconnaissance work, develop digital mapping of the approximate, historic canal route (project area) to guide the archaeological
reconnaissance survey, as well as determine private parcel ownership to address access permissions.
• Task 2: Conduct an Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Designated Survey Areas
o Conduct a targeted archaeological and structural reconnaissance survey of properties along the entire Hampshire and Hampden County portion of the canal. This runs from the
state line south of the Congamond Ponds in Southwick to the Connecticut River in Northampton and includes a feeder line from the Westfield River in Russell. Record current GPS data, photographs, and integrity information.
• Task 3: Development of Final Assessor’s Parcel Level Canal Mapping
o Using the field collected data points, in conjunction with available historical resources
and LiDAR data, develop a final digital canal map and related map book depicting the historic route of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal as it progresses through the modern landscape. Include current integrity data for reconned segments and engineering features, as well as approximate locations of canal features, plotted using available locational data.
• Task 4: Preparation of Area (Priority) and Archaeological Site Forms for Submission to the MHC
o Based on data collected from the reconnaissance survey and relevant background research, complete six MHC Area Forms (Form A), detailing the canal as it exists in each of the cities/towns in Hampshire and Hampden Counties. Then prepare MHC Historic
Archaeological Site Forms (Form D) for priority sites along the canal route. Priority is determined following the completion of the reconnaissance survey. Prepared forms will be submitted to the MHC for inclusion in the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth, MACRIS and MHC MACRIS Maps, as applicable.
• Task 5: Completion of an Archaeological Survey Report to be provided to the PVPC,
Participating Cities/Towns, and the MHC
o Complete an archaeological survey report, providing a project description, methodologies, survey results, and recommendations related to listing the Hampshire and
Hampden portion of the canal in the NRHP, as well as providing recommendations relevant to municipal and regional planning. Final report documents will be submitted to the MHC and PVPC and made available to related project cities and towns.
Project tasks were conducted in anticipation of a potential NRHP nomination, as well as to provide updated mapping and documentation of the remaining structural and archaeological features of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal to be utilized as a planning and development tool for local municipalities.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
4
Regulatory
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal documentation project requires no permitting from local, state, or federal agencies. The project is being administered by the PVPC, in cooperation with the six towns involved, with funding provided at the local level. A portion of the funds supporting this project were
received through the Massachusetts Community Preservation Act. The cities of Easthampton, Northampton and Westfield, and the town of Southampton, are funding this work through their Community Preservation Act funds. The project was reviewed by the MHC
SWCA conducts archaeological investigations in compliance with state regulations. State legislation dealing with the protection of historic and archaeological resources includes Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 9, Sections 26- 27C, and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (M.G.L., Chapter 30, amended by Chapter 947 of the Acts of 1977). Projects involving the discovery of human remains or cemeteries are conducted in compliance with M.G.L. Chapter 7, Section 38A; Chapter 38, Section 6; Chapter 9, Sections 26A and 27C; and Chapter 114, Section 17, all as amended. Massachusetts archaeological permit regulations are outlined in 950 Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR) 70.00. The products of this project meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Preservation (as amended and annotated). The archaeological reconnaissance survey was conducted under State Archaeologist’s Permit No. 4167.
Project Personnel
Christopher Donta, Ph.D., served as Principal Investigator for this project and was the permittee from the MHC. Nadia Waski, M.A., and Zachary Nason completed the background review, archaeological
reconnaissance survey, and coauthored the report. Julia Zorn developed the digital mapping, parcel-level map book and completed the graphics for the report. Shannon Walsh is the PVPC Historic Preservation Planner, providing guidance on project goals and facilitated communication with related parties. Carl
E. Walter provided recommendations for the research design, contributed valuable background information, and participated in a portion of field reconnaissance. Municipal contacts for the participating towns were as follows: Lee Hamberg in Southwick, Cynthia Gaylord in Westfield, Bruce Cortis in
Russell, Bob Kozub in Southampton, Jamie Webb and Michael Czerwiec in Easthampton, and Sarah LaValley in Northampton.
Report Organization
This report is divided into four main sections. Following this introduction is a discussion of the methodology used for this effort. The third section presents the survey results, including the background
research and reconnaissance survey. The report concludes with a recommendations section and references cited. Final canal mapping and prepared MHC forms are included in the appendices.
METHODOLOGY
Background Research
A substantial bibliography of canal resources has been developed over the years based on the work of Carl Walter, Michael Raber (2002), PAL’s pilot scope and results (PAL 2006, 2008), and interested stakeholders within the six Massachusetts communities. SWCA staff acquired, synthesized, and utilized
these documents in preparation of completing the canal’s documentation. The culmination of this research
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
5
provided the current canal documentation project with a starting point and subsequently assisted in establishing methods.
Prior to research conducted by Carl Walter, there was little documentation on the Massachusetts portion of the canal. The canal’s Connecticut portion from Suffield to New Haven was listed in the NRHP in 1985. Walter has been researching the canal for 30 years, working with individuals and historic commissions in all six Massachusetts towns in which the canal was situated. In 2002, Michael Raber conducted a survey to identify and map canal resources in support of an NRHP nomination for the canal (Raber 2002), assisted by Walter. However, mapping of the canal length and its specific structural elements were insufficiently precise enough to support a nomination, leaving too much ambiguity in the location of the canal. In 2007, PAL conducted a pilot project of two small portions of the canal in
Southwick and Westfield, to assess how to provide better mapping (PAL 2008). Since the projects of the 2000s, the six Massachusetts towns have worked to develop ways to combine knowledge and efforts to support a single cohesive study of the canal, with the ultimate goal of completing an NRHP nomination for the canal.
SWCA continued background research into nineteenth century historic maps (Walter 2006), photographs, USGS topographic data, GIS data including LiDAR and assessor’s parcel information, town
reconnaissance and regional reconnaissance information, town histories, and archaeological reports. Numerous reports in the MHC’s Inventory discuss small portions of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal encountered during projects over the past 30 years. Most of these refer to small areas of the canal route intersected by a project. However, out of these reports, two focus specifically on the canal. Raber’s report (2002) is an overall study aimed at assessing the canal’s current condition and mapping its location in support of a National Register nomination. The PAL 2008 report deals with two very small portions of the canal to assess methods for documenting and mapping the canal. SWCA used data from these reports to provide more accurate, parcel-level mapping, and conditional information about the canal route and its associated infrastructure.
SWCA also conducted research at the MHC offices in Boston prior to fieldwork to obtain copies of relevant archaeological forms, reports, and Inventory files. The goal was to assimilate all relevant data to obtain the most accurate mapping possible for the canal route and its associated components, and to support a reconnaissance survey of the route. This research included a study of previous work along the Blackstone and Middlesex Canals to see what methods of recording were used and what proved most
successful, and how such could be applied to this survey.
Historic archaeological sites in Massachusetts are numbered according to the town where they are located and the sequence of their inclusion in the state site files, using a three-letter code for the town name. The
letter codes for the six towns in this project area are: SOU for Southwick, WSF for Westfield, STH for Southampton, RUS for Russell, EAH for Easthampton, and NTH For Northampton. The first historic archaeological site recorded in Northampton, for instance, is recorded as NTH.HA.1. Records for archaeological resources are available through MACRIS, but only to those approved consultants with research needs regarding archaeology in Massachusetts.
GIS Mapping
As a starting point, SWCA’s GIS team used the canal centerline shapefile provided by the Northampton GIS Coordinator James Thompson. Then, using LiDAR-derived digital elevation models, the landscape in
the vicinity of that original center line was examined for manmade ditch/canal topography. Following this review, SWCA adjusted the centerline to match the topography more accurately. After that stage, any gaps which remained likely indicated the absence of a distinct canal prism. To fill those gaps in data, SWCA used portions of the Carl Walters map for landscape context and waypoint indications. A
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
6
georeferenced version of that map was provided by the Northampton GIS coordinator. The GIS team further refined the missing prism areas by reviewing the aerial imagery for soil staining, which can
indicate a filled waterway. In areas that had no geographical indication of the canal’s existence, written historic descriptions of the canal’s route were relied upon. SWCA then created a coded centerline file indicating the confidence level of each segment’s location, which served as a guide for the on-site field reconnaissance.
The field reconnaissance team took on-site GPS data points and photographs to document presence, absence, variations from the estimated centerline, and prism integrity status along all accessible segments of the canal route. Using these GPS data points, in conjunction with the previous LiDAR imagery mapping, the centerline was refined. The 75-foot-wide project corridor was created by adding a 37.5-foot
buffer around the established canal centerline, encompassing the width of the typical canal prism and towpath, along with associated engineering features. This corridor was separated into segments determined by the field reconnaissance team, and those segments were assigned status based on their condition at the time of survey, Spring 2022. Remnant or repurposed prism segments have accurate geographical placement. Segments which could not be field verified or contained no surficial traces of former canal engineering were approximated using historical references, topography, and general canal
engineering practices, as they could neither be retraced in the field nor using GIS mapping resources.
The locations of specific engineering features integral to canal operations (i.e., locks, aqueducts, culverts, etc.) were approximated on the preliminary pre-field mapping, primarily using the Carl Walter Map (Walter 2006). Distinctions between remnant features, and features which lack surficial evidence, as seen in the parcel-level mapping, were determined by the field-reconnaissance team and were subsequently coded accordingly. Similar to the canal prism segments, remnant engineering features were able to be accurately placed geographically, while the features lacking any surficial indication were approximated using historical resources and the Carl Walter Map.
The Parcel-Level Mapbook (Appendix A) was generated within ESRI’s ArcGIS Pro software using the abovementioned location information. Parcel and infrastructure data such as parcel boundaries, roads, and trails were acquired from the MassMapper Interactive Map (MassGIS 2022). For visual clarity, intersected parcels were assigned arbitrary numbers from 1 to 821, which correspond to a separate key indicating the original Parcel ID as it appears on the tax assessor’s map (Appendix B).
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey
Following background research and the development of an approximated canal centerline, SWCA conducted an archaeological reconnaissance survey along the project area from May 9 to 24, 2022. The purpose of this reconnaissance survey was to verify the canal centerline as represented on the original mapping completed by the GIS team, while also assessing the surficial conditions of the canal and determining the presence or absence of canal-related features. No archaeological subsurface testing
strategy was implemented as part of this effort. During this field verification process, photographs would be taken representing present conditions of said features.
Field verification points were recorded on a handheld GPS unit and plotted in real-time on ArcGIS field maps. Photographs were also recorded in the field and georeferenced on the same mapping. In the field, only the physical engineering elements were evaluated. While much of the canal route maintains its original location, setting, feeling, and association, the presence or absence of surficial structural remnants
was the determining factor as to whether a segment was considered present or lacking surficial indication. Using the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the NRHP, some segments described as having no surficial remnants may merit the integrity required for listing due to these other contributing aspects.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
7
It was anticipated that portions of the canal would be inaccessible by field crews due to safety concerns and/or restricted access by property owners. Here, along with areas of the former prism lacking surviving
surficial indications, the canal mapping utilized historical references, area topography, and a general understanding of the canal engineering to approximate the route between verified points.
Upon completion of the field reconnaissance, the GIS mapping was refined, and MHC Area Forms were completed describing the canal area as it exists within each of the six participating townships (Appendix C).
CONSULTATIONS
Documentation of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal began as a collaborative effort between the PVPC and individual communities of Easthampton, Northampton, Russell, Southampton, Southwick and Westfield, Massachusetts. Project contacts include: Shannon Walsh, PVPC; Carl Walter, lead Hampshire and Hampden Canal historian and expert; Lee Hamberg, Chair, Southwick Historical Commission; Cynthia Gaylord, Chair, Westfield Historical Commission; Bruce Cortis, Town of Russell Historian; Bob Kozub, Chair, Southampton Historical Commission; Jamie Webb, City of Easthampton Planner; Michael Czerwiec, Chair, Easthampton Historical Commission; Sarah LaValley, City of Northampton Conservation and Land Use Planner; and James Thompson, City of Northampton GIS Coordinator.
SWCA participated in numerous virtual calls held between PVPC and project contacts to discuss various stages of progress. Consultation was initiated with the MHC to discuss and develop the most informative, consistent, and thorough methods for documenting the canal. A kick-off meeting with MHC and members of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal team took place on May 3, 2022, to discuss goals of the project and expected deliverables. Information collected from consultation with MHC was incorporated into the
canal documentation research design and methodology.
Permission to enter private properties believed to hold canal-related resources were obtained by PVPC on behalf of SWCA. All outreach to landowners was communicated in writing via postcards generated by
PVPC and approved by Hampshire and Hampden Canal team members. Language in these mailers explained to property owners that SWCA would be conducting a walkover survey of the former Hampshire and Hampden Canal between the months of May and July 2022. Additional content included an explanation that certain individual’s property may contain portions of the canal’s path. The card asked for cooperation and allowance of SWCA staff access to the property to gather visual and photographic documentation related to the canal. A list was generated prior to fieldwork of accessible parcels and SWCA attempted to conduct documentation from adjacent public lands, for those individuals who opted out. Additionally, a press release was issued on PVPC’s website in April 2022 to connect individuals interested in canal field work to future information about the canal and project.
Throughout the project, SWCA consulted with Carl Walter regarding his personal expertise on the canal’s history and location. SWCA utilized his technical drawings and extrapolated surveyor data information to
assist with building a field map. Walter joined archaeologists for their first day of canal documentation on May 9, 2022, in Southwick. He provided critical feedback on in-field data collection and facilitated the implementation of methods to enhance canal mapping.
SWCA submitted deliverables to stakeholders for comments, which were then integrated into the final report documents.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
8
SURVEY RESULTS
Background Research
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal
The widespread enthusiasm for, and promotion of, canals that spread across the eastern United States in the early nineteenth century was not missed by entrepreneurs in New Haven and the upper Connecticut River Valley. First conceived by local businessmen in New Haven in 1822, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was constructed between 1826 and 1834 with the purpose of transporting goods from the upper
Connecticut River Valley to the tidewaters of New Haven, Connecticut (Camposeo 1977). When fully operational, the canal route connected with the Farmington Canal at a guard lock in Southwick, Massachusetts, and continued approximately 30 miles north, emptying into the Connecticut River in Northampton, Massachusetts. The canal operated in its entirety for roughly 13 years before officially closing the waterway due to financial strain on January 18, 1848, prior to the navigational season of that year.
Upon completing construction in 1834, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was an approximate 30-mile linear prism generally oriented north to south with associated crossover bridges, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, basins, towpath, and in places, embankments. The original engineering specifications
dictated the canal prism be 35 feet wide at the surface with the capacity to hold 4 feet of water. Generally, this prism was earthen and unlined. In its entirety, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks, each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear, with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses (Raber 2002). These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet, spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds (Raber 2002). Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the much smaller Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design.
In 1822, when businessmen in New Haven hired Benjamin Wright, chief engineer of the Erie Canal, for a preliminary survey of the predicted canal route. Wright returned with the conclusion that the terrain in the area was very favorable to canal construction and that per mile expenses would be less than that of canals being constructed in New York at that time. Following this assessment, a charter was granted to the Farmington Canal Company to build a canal from New Haven to the northern border of the state (Harte
1933). Members of the Farmington Canal Company then traveled into Western Massachusetts to garner support from local entrepreneurs for the Massachusetts branch of the route. A committee was formed, and funds were raised for a survey of the Massachusetts segment from Southwick into Northampton. Holmes
Hutchinson and Benjamin Wright’s son Henry, civil engineers with experience on the Erie Canal, were commissioned to conduct the land survey. Upon receiving a favorable report, a charter was granted to the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company to “construct and operate a canal from the northern boundary
line of Connecticut to the Great Bend in the Connecticut river in Northampton” (Camposeo 1977). At its conception, the grand plan for this venture had the route linking the tidewaters of Long Island Sound to the St. Lawrence River, connecting the Western New England Interior to Canada and the Atlantic Ocean (Harte 1933). This original undertaking was to be constructed in stages, with the first stage to be the completion of a canal way from New Haven to the border of Massachusetts in Southwick. This would then be followed by entrepreneurs in western Massachusetts picking up the route from that point and linking it to a bend on the Connecticut River in Northampton.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
9
Following a more detailed survey and cost projection conducted by Henry Wright under the direction of his father in 1823, commission members voted for construction to begin as soon as possible. David Hurd,
another veteran of the Erie Canal, was appointed chief engineer for the project (Camposeo 1977). Financial strains slowed the construction of the Farmington Canal, leaving the members of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company concerned for the Massachusetts branch of the canal. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company hired Jarvis Hurd, the brother of Davis, to conduct a final survey of their segment of the canal route. By the spring of 1826, the majority of the Farmington Canal route had been completed and Jarvis Hurd was able to complete his final survey and cost projection (Camposeo 1977).
With the impending completion of the Farmington Canal and the requisite funds raised, groundbreaking on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal took place on November 1, 1826. By 1829, weather difficulties
related to heavy rains and drought left the canal company in bad shape. In addition to this, both Davis and Jarvis Hurd resigned from the project that year, being replaced by William Butler as Chief Engineer (Camposeo 1977). Construction on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal again came to a standstill in 1831 when the company lacked the funds to finish the construction and were subsequently denied federal assistance. This problem was solved when a New Haven bank, with contributions from the surrounding Massachusetts towns, was able to provide the funds necessary for the completion of the canal. With this
new influx of capital, construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was completed on August 30, 1834. However, the first boat did not traverse the entire route until July 29 of the next year, which was declared the official opening of the entire canal (Camposeo 1977).
While there was a steady growth of business along the canal following its completion, constant repairs and delays began to severely compromise both companies’ ability to operate and maintain the route. Due to these growing financial strains, the Farmington Canal Company and the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company merged to create The New Haven and Northampton Canal Company in 1836 to operate and maintain the entire route of the canal (Camposeo 1977). Financial woes continued through the early portion of the 1840s with the company operating annually in the red, and the need for new capital to maintain operation was dire. Late in that year, a successful businessman by the name of Joseph Sheffield purchased controlling interest in the company and by the spring of 1841, succeeded Steven Staples as company president. The following 4 years proved to be the canal’s most successful, with tens of thousands of pounds of goods transported along the waterway with minimal delay and interruption. In January of 1845, Sheffield stepped down as company president and was replaced by Henry Farnum,
which was the beginning of the end for the canal (Camposeo 1977).
The significant drought of the summer of 1845 rendered the canal unnavigable. By the time the canal returned to operation, a large break in the Connecticut portion of the route caused service to be delayed once again. To mitigate rising costs of repairs and service delays, Henry Farnum commissioned a report to the practicability of constructing a railroad along the canal route. With the increased popularity and profitability of railroads across the nation, a plan was developed in Connecticut to operate a railroad along
the canal’s towpath concurrently with regular canal operation. By 1847, work had begun on the New Haven and Collinsville Railroad (nicknamed the Canal Line), and by the winter of that year, canal transportation between New Haven and Northampton ended, with the official closing of the canal taking place on January 18, 1848 (Camposeo 1977).
In Massachusetts, the towns were left with an abandoned canal and no plans to convert or monetize the route. However, proponents of the Canal Line were determined to continue the rail line north to Northampton despite strong opposition from several railroads in the state. By 1853, the Hampshire and Hampden Railroad was formed with service from Granby, Connecticut, to Northampton, Massachusetts,
beginning in 1856. This line followed on or near the canal route from Southwick to Northampton. The railroad changed hands numerous times over the next century until the latter half of the twentieth century when much of the Canal Line began to be abandoned. Much of the abandoned right-of-way through
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
10
Massachusetts has been railbanked and today has been converted to multiple rail trails running along the former canal route.
Southwick
The town of Southwick is located in the Westfield River watershed and was first incorporated as an independent town in 1770. First settled in the late-seventeenth century, the area was given the nickname “Poverty Plains” due to the lack of agricultural success throughout the region, leading settlers to believe
the land was infertile. It was not until the early nineteenth century that the town saw an economic and population boom via the area’s cultivation of tobacco and the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal through the town (MHC 1982a). Additionally, the successful ice harvesting industry of
the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries provided refrigeration for food storage from New York to Boston. The location of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal through the Congamond Lakes area and along Great Brook had little impact on the town’s settlement pattern other than the influx of Irish immigrants due to the necessity for canal diggers. After the abandonment of the canal operation and its replacement by the Canal Railroad, Southwick saw a steady population decline leading into the mid-twentieth century. Development and improvements to local autoroutes and the area’s highways brought an influx of commercial business to the region, specifically along Route 10 and Route 202 (MHC 1982a). Despite the growth in commercial business in the twentieth century, the tobacco industry continued to be the town’s principal economic staple. Today, Southwick is dominated by residential development and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area.
The overall economic impact of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal on the town of Southwick is difficult
to determine. At its inception, the canal was believed to bring trade and market growth to participating towns, which when fully operating, the canal indeed did for short periods. However, with significant engineering mistakes and shortcuts, along with costly repairs, seasonal closure, and weather-related
stoppages, the canal never was able to establish itself as the prominent interior New England trade route that it was envisioned to be. In Southwick, the construction of the canal did, in part, contribute to a period of population growth for the town, the likes of which would not be seen again until the 1920s. The canal’s contribution to this growth can be observed through the influx of Irish immigrants into Southwick, many of whom settled in the area as canal builders in the late 1820s (MHC 1982a). The growth of the tobacco and cigar industry were likely beneficiaries of the canal route and subsequent railroad through Southwick in the first half of the nineteenth century. While soils in the area proved poor for growing staple crops, landowners began to realize at the turn of the nineteenth century that it was more than suitable for the growth of certain cash crops, primarily tobacco (MHC 1982a). Southwick and its neighbors soon had a resource with limited means of export. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal, followed by the Canal Railroad, served to facilitate this need and soon Southwick and Westfield had a thriving cigar-making
industry and an in-demand commodity. The canal’s closure impacted the ability of Southwick to trade and export goods, but only for a limited amount of time, as the Canal Railroad was completed through the town by 1855. Today, the route of the railroad has been converted into recreational trails and areas of the
original canal prism can still be observed to the north and south of Congamond Lakes.
Westfield
The city of Westfield is located within the Westfield River watershed and Woronoco Valley. It was incorporated as an independent town in 1669. First settlement of the area occurred in the late-seventeenth century in the form of the Woronoco fur trading station (MHC 1982b). Eventually, the town developed into an important agricultural center during the Colonial Period with farmsteads on the fertile lowlands. Construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal in 1826 divided Main Street and reoriented the town
center along Elm Street to the northside depot (NRHP 2013). The canal was the transportation innovation of the late eighteenth to early nineteenth century. Powder mills were added onto the previously
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
11
established ones from the seventeenth century to supply the blasting powder used for the canal’s construction (MHC 1982b). Westfield’s population grew as a result of worker needs for construction
efforts. An expansion of Westfield Village attracted newcomers and the town saw an influx of Irish immigrants who became canal laborers. The town’s thriving commerce was likely directly linked to the canal’s opening in 1829. Agricultural traffic to New Haven and other towns along the canal route allowed farmers to deliver their great variety of market produce (NRHP 2013). Formation of the Hampden National Bank and the organization of docks and warehouses followed the canal’s opening. The canal’s most prosperous period was in the years surrounding 1840. The canal was abandoned by 1845, and following a flood in 1853, the canal company was reorganized as the New Haven and Northampton Canal Company. The canal’s route was broadened and replaced by a railroad running north-south from the years of 1855 and 1856. Westfield’s Lyman Lewis was closely connected to the canal’s reorganization and oversaw freight and passenger traffic at the port (MHC 1982b). Lyman’s successor was H.B. Smith, who raised funds for the Western Railroad and had interest in the new Canal Railroad. Smith was nationally
recognized for his manufacturing of boilers and iron fences. The H.B. Smith Company is responsible for growing Westfield’s industry during the mid-nineteenth century through the acquisition of Samuel F. Gold’s patent for hot-air furnaces. Additional facets of Westfield’s economy during this time included
whipmaking and paper production (MHC 1982b). However, as early as 1855, Westfield led Hampden County in tobacco production, which was a title it retained for much of the remaining century. Whip production peaked in 1915 and new industries of bicycles, automobiles, and textile manufacturing
continued to attract laborers. There was an increase in multi-family housing developments along the industrial belt (MHC 1982b).
The early twentieth century brought development and improvements to local autoroutes and the area’s highways. After this, there was an influx of commercial business to the region, specifically along the Route 20 axis (MHC 1982b). Westfield has experienced rapid suburban expansion, especially in farmland areas along the Western Avenue axis to the State College campus. The town was re-incorporated into a city in 1920 and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area. The city’s north side primarily consists of warehousing centers for large corporations due to its proximity to
interstate highways. South of the Westfield River represents intersecting trends of growth since it is home to Westfield State University and the old downtown business district.
In 1822, the town’s citizens voted to approve the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal’s
Westfield portion. Canal construction began in 1826, and by 1829, the Westfield to New Haven route was opened. The canal link between Westfield and Northampton had been completed by 1835 (MHC 1982b). The former canal route follows the level topography along Great Brook (Southwick), crossing Little River
and through Westfield Center, cutting across Main Street, and running between the Mechanic Street Cemetery and Elm Street. It then crossed to the west side of Elm Street, meeting the Westfield River (NRHP 2013). A bridge existed to cross the Westfield River. Upon its divergence from the Westfield River, the canal follows the current route of Pochassic Road, where it spans Moose Meadow Brook via a stone-arch culvert. On the north side of the river, the canal shifts southeast, running roughly parallel to North Elm Street. It then follows northward along Powder Mill Brook to Brickyard Brook along the course of Lockhouse Road and off the canal’s main route is an extensive feeder. The Westfield River Canal Feeder ran south along the edge of the Westfield River crossing from Westfield into the town of Russell (Raber 2002).
During construction of the canal, Westfield’s population started to change as Irish immigrants were brought in to complete the intense, laborious tasks of digging and masonry work (NRHP 2013). Afterward, these individuals stayed and went on to work for new industries in the town. In the 1820s and 1830s, canal construction and operation in Westfield Center increased residential development on surrounding streets. The new canal introduced a cheaper means of transportation to the town and provided
Westfield with a direct route to the coast.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
12
The establishment of industry in the community changed the town’s character, shaping it into an industrial hub in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The new industrial base evolved around three
primary products: whips, cigars, and paper. Opening of the canal assisted in time to carry farm produce, whips, kegs, and muskets, among other goods, between Northampton and Connecticut, generating business in Westfield Center. A building boom simultaneously occurred in Westfield, with the construction of hotels, taverns, and warehouses. The canal’s presence initiated a speculative anticipation that the canal would attract an increase in business. As a result of construction density, Westfield’s first fire company and associated equipment were acquired in 1826. The canal’s route was repurposed by the Westfield & Northampton Railroad, which passed through the town’s center in 1865. The Railroad utilized the canal’s route by eventually constructing an elevated berm next to the canal route ca. 1889. It generally followed the route but deviated north and south of the town’s center.
Russell
The town of Russell is located in the Westfield River watershed and was incorporated as an independent town in 1792. Settlement of Russell occurred later than its surrounding towns, probably due to the rugged nature of the landscape and the ample farmlands of Westfield and the Connecticut River Valley to the east. Colonial settlers first began establishing roots in in the area by the late-eighteenth century, with the first meetinghouse being constructed at Russell Pond in 1792 (MHC 1982c). Russell saw slow population growth through the first half of the nineteenth century, with limited industrial development encouraging additional settlement. The 1820s saw the construction of the Westfield River Feeder through the eastern portion of Russell, with its headworks constructed just east of the village of Woronoco. By the latter part
of the nineteenth century, Russell was becoming an important throughway with multiple turnpikes and highways establishing themselves through the town, connecting the Berkshires to the west to Springfield to the east. This improved transportation network, along with the arrival of the railroad and the paper
industry, brought about a population surge not seen in the surrounding mountain towns during this period (MHC 1982c). This growth continued throughout the late industrial period with the construction of a tannery in Russell and the continued development of the areas thriving paper industry. The population
boom of the early 1900s began to slow down following the end World War 2 (MHC 1982c). The paper industry continued to be the driving force of the economy through this period up until the closure of the Westfield River Paper Mill in 1994 and the Strathmore Paper Mill in 1999. Following the abandonment of the paper mills, Russell was left without any real industrial or commercial operations. Today, Russell contains mostly residential development and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area.
In Russell, the construction of the canal had a minimal effect on population and economic growth. While the nearby location of a shipping route to the Long Island Sound probably had a small impact on the
import and export of goods for the residents of Russell, the limited industry and agriculture taking place in the township at the time meant there was not a large market to take advantage of the route. The booming paper industry was not established until the second half of the nineteenth century and at that
point was shipping goods along the Western Railroad, which was completed through Russell in 1841, and partially utilized the canal’s original towpath to lay its tracks (MHC 1982c). Today, that rail line still exists along this route and areas of the original canal prism can still be observed to the east and north of
the Westfield River.
Southampton
The town of Southampton is located in the Connecticut River Valley and was first incorporated as an independent town in 1775. It was first settled in the mid-eighteenth century by groups expanding out from
the Northampton civic center. Early settlement was established on Town Hill along present-day College Highway, with agricultural development focused along the Manhan River (MHC 1982d). Industrial
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
13
development began in Southampton early on with mining operations occurring just west of Lead Mine Road and lumber being produced at multiple sawmills along the Manhan River throughout the eighteenth
century, some even predating the establishment of a permanent settlement. Despite this early and rapid industrial development, agriculture within the Manhan River Valley continued to be the town’s economic staple throughout the modern day. Mining operations in Southampton continued throughout the early part of the nineteenth century with the addition of sandstone and granite quarrying in the eastern and western parts of town, respectively (MHC 1982d). Sandstone, sourced from these quarries, was used in lock construction along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (MHC 1982d). Improvement of the Manhan River transportation corridor came in the form of the aforementioned Hampshire and Hampden Canal, which was completed in 1835, subsequently abandoned in 1847, and replaced by the Westfield and Northampton Railroad in 1856. By the twentieth century, most of the town’s industrial and manufacturing ventures were abandoned with the closure of the lead mine in 1865. The secondary industrial center in Russellville was also largely abandoned after the formation of three water supply reservoirs in Southampton, the
formation of which dried up much of the Manhan watershed, and with it, water sources for many small mills along the river’s tributaries (MHC 1982d). The end of manufacturing in Southampton was the primary factor in the town’s population decline throughout early twentieth century. A trend that continued
up through the 1950s, when suburban development caused an influx of new residents. Today, Southampton contains mostly residential development and agricultural lands, and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area.
At its inception, the canal was believed to bring trade and market growth to participating towns. When fully operating, the canal indeed did for short periods. However, with significant engineering mistakes and shortcuts, along with costly repairs, seasonal closure, and weather-related stoppages, the canal never was able to establish itself as the prominent interior New England trade route that it was envisioned to be. The town of Southampton did see its population spike in the 1830s following a period of canal construction and its initial operation. Similar to Southwick, the canal’s contribution to this growth can be observed through the influx of Irish immigrants, many of whom settled in the area as canal builders in the late 1820s (MHC 1982d). During its operation, a secondary development of industrial activity began to
establish itself along the route, specifically at East Street and College Highway. This settlement center took the name Lockville due to its location around a series of three canal locks near Lyman Pond (Roberts and Friedberg 2000). When in operation, the canal provided a means of exporting the region’s raw
materials down to New Haven, while also supplying this part of the interior with finished goods from the south. Regional agriculture, specifically the tobacco industry, was a likely beneficiary of the canal route and subsequent railroad through Southampton during the first half of the nineteenth century. From the
development of an industrial village and shipping center around Lyman Pond to the evident expansion of tobacco production, it is clear the canal, at least for a short time, had a positive impact on Southampton. Though the financial burden, frequent delays and stoppages, and development of more efficient shipping/transportation methods likely limited its potential and overall impact. The canal’s closure likely impacted the ability of Southampton to trade and export goods, but only for a limited amount of time, as the Canal Railroad was completed through the town by 1855. Today, the route of the former railroad has been largely abandoned and most of the former canal area is in a state of disuse. Lockville has been listed in the NRHP, with the locks and original canal prism still visible throughout this district.
Easthampton
Previously, the lands now comprising Easthampton were the traditional territory of the Nipmuc and their
ancestors for many thousands of years. During the Contact Period, these Algonquin-speaking communities were subject to substantial impacts by the influx of European settlement which significantly affected the traditional indigenous lifeway. Historically, the town of Eastampton, originally a part of
Northampton, was first settled by these European immigrants in the latter half of the seventeenth century. Situated within the Connecticut River Valley and bordered by Mount Tom, the town of Easthampton was
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
14
independently incorporated in 1809. Roughly bisected by the Manhan River, Easthampton had ample waterpower sites through the center of town and provided suitable agricultural land for cultivation.
Industrial expansion occurred throughout the nineteenth century, especially around Upper and Lower Mill Ponds (MHC 1982e). The completion of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal and the subsequent railroad further contributed to the growth of industrial enterprises throughout Easthampton, creating an industrial corridor connecting Southampton Center to Northampton. However, following the turn of the twentieth century, manufacturing in the town began to decline, causing massive layoffs and wholesale closures that impacted the local community. Though buoyed slightly by both World Wars, manufacturing in Easthampton would never regain the prominence it had through the previous century. Small agricultural operations and commercial/mercantile business remained the preeminent enterprises in Easthampton. Settlement of the town was focused along Main Street, Union Street, and Cottage Street, the results of which are evident today (MHC 1982e). It was also through the latter portion of the twentieth century where suburban development began to increase, specifically along trolley routes. Increased residential
development and urban expansion has caused a revitalization of Easthampton downtown, with agricultural activities still prominent around the Oxbow.
In Easthampton, the construction of the canal likely impacted the growth in regional industry seen during
this period; however, no direct correlation could be identified. Button manufacturing was a prominent industry in Easthampton through the first half of the nineteenth century, with Williston Button Works employing a large section of its residents (MHC 1982e). These industrial enterprises likely saw benefits of operating in close proximity to shipping lanes such as the canal. With the operation of the Clapp Tavern during the years of canal activity, it is understood that at least some small mercantile industries grew around and benefited directly from this transportation route. One reason cited for the establishment of Williston Seminary School in Easthampton was its proximity to the canal and the ease of transportation for students (Carroll 1984). While the population of Easthampton grew throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, the gradual increase was likely more related to the industrial growth along the Manhan River and Mill Ponds, for which the canals contributions were likely minimal. Settlement through Easthampton continued to be focused along College Highway, south of the canal route, a trend
that existed prior to the canal’s construction. As seen in most of the towns through which the canal traveled, the abandonment of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal and subsequent construction of the Westfield and Northampton Railroad in its place proved far more beneficial. Easthampton saw a rapid
growth in population and its industrial economy in the latter half of the nineteenth century, a direct result of the introduction of the railroad (MHC 1982e). Today, the former canal route through Easthampton has been largely impacted by erosion and development. Some trace remnants of the canal prism and towpath
can still be observed in areas such as, just south of Highland Avenue, paralleling the west side of the Manhan River and north of O’Neill Street, extending to the Northampton border.
Northampton
Northampton is situated within the Connecticut River Valley, with the river itself serving as the town’s eastern boundary. Originally part of the Nonotuck Plantation land grant in 1653, Northampton was independently incorporated in 1883. From its inception, Northampton’s position on the Connecticut River and at the junction of regional transportation routes made the city an important civic and industrial center
in western Massachusetts (MHC 1982f). The abundance of fertile meadowland along the Connecticut River floodplain further reinforced the city as prominent settlement in the valley. By the nineteenth century, the city was well established, having expanded commercial and industrial activity along main
street and the Mill River, as well as the completion of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal shipping lane through the town. Northampton continued its expansion through the nineteenth century with the introduction of the railroad, repurposing much of the previous canal route, and the establishment of
multiple factory village throughout the town, including at Leeds, Florence, and encompassing the Bay State paper mills (MHC 1982f). Civic and commercial growth would continue into the late nineteenth to
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
15
early twentieth century with commercial blocks, a courthouse, a concert hall, railroad stations, a library, hospitals, and Smith College all being constructed. The twentieth century saw continued commercial
growth, and as transportation routes were improved and expanded, the introduction of suburban development throughout the city. Today, Northampton is still a cultural center of educational and commercial development, with expanded suburbanization as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts, Metropolitan Area.
In Northampton, the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal did, in part, contribute to a period of population growth for the town, with the population growing by over 25 percent between 1820 and 1830, more than double either decade before or after (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). The expanded trade network allowed by the operation of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal opening exports in the Long
Island Sound, likely benefitted the growing tobacco industry in Northampton as well as the burgeoning silk production of the 1830s (MHC 1982f). Northampton silk production was considered one of the most extensive in the union during this period (MHC 1982f). Numerous other industries also grew during this time; however, these other manufacturers expanded significantly more following the closure of the canal and the introduction of the railroad. It was also during the years of canal operation that the factory village at Florence was established, likely in part due to the expanded trade network provided by the canal. The
canal’s closure impacted the ability of Northampton to trade and export goods, but only for a limited amount of time, as the Westfield and Northampton Railroad was completed through the town by 1856 (MHC 1982f). During the period between the canal’s abandonment and the establishment of the railroad, stagnant water in the open prism increased the spread of disease among the residents of town, with groups raising funds to fill watered sections for sanitary reasons, such as near King Street and State Street. Today, the route through Northampton has been largely filled and built over, with much of the former route now home to commercial blocks or city streets. Areas of the original canal prism and locks can still be observed to the north near the route’s intersection with the Connecticut River.
Previous Canal Documentation
Prior targeted efforts have been made to document segments of the canal. These include the 2002 Michael S. Raber survey in advance of a proposed NRHP nomination (Raber 2002). A pilot study was conducted in 2008 by PAL, on sections of the canal in Southwick and Westfield (PAL 2008). Extensive research and documentation has been completed by independent scholar, Carl E. Walter, culminating in the production of the Walter Hampshire and Hampden Canal Map (Walter 2006). These previous documentation efforts have been mainly completed independently, either within certain townships or concentrated on specific features or areas.
Summary of Carl E. Walter Research
Independent scholar Carl. E Walter has extensively studied the New Haven and Northampton Canal over
a period of more than 20 years. During his research, Walter has walked the former canal route in its entirety on multiple occasions. In doing so, he has not only accumulated a comprehensive knowledge of the canal’s history, design, and course, but also a framework of resources and references to which all
future nominations should refer. From this research, Walter has generated hand-drafted technical drawings depicting the canal’s course
and speculative historic property boundaries (not available to the public at this time); a map of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal on USGS topographic quadrangles, including symbology representing present surficial indication of the canal prism and features (Walter 2006); and a digital program that compiles the documentary items collected over years of study via links embedded in a comprehensive canal map (C. Walters, personal communication, 2022) (not available to the public at this time).
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
16
Summary of Raber Associates Report
In 2002, Raber Associates prepared a Survey and Inventory of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal for a
Proposed National Register of Historic Places Nomination (Raber 2002). Included in this report were a brief engineering and construction summary; a description of the canal route and features; study methodology; mapping, photographs, and descriptions of surficial canal features; and an overview of the proposed historic district boundary and its contents. Survey methodology for this effort relied heavily on previous procedures utilized for the successful nomination of the Farmington Canal in Connecticut to the NRHP.
Completed with the assistance of Carl E. Walter, the Raber study attempted to map the entirety of the canal route and evaluate its eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP district, using the previously successful methodology of the Farmington Canal NRHP nomination. The proposed New Haven and Northampton District was defined in the Raber report as a series of discontinuous canal sections, where “both sides of the prism are substantially intact, visually indicating the full profile as well as the course of the canal; and
no later intrusions significantly detract from this visual indication” (Raber 2002:4).
Following the completion of his survey, Raber identified 51 discontinuous sections of canal that conformed to the previously described criteria. Within these sections, Raber also describes 21 remnant
engineering features or other structures directly affiliated with canal operation still present along the route.
Summary of PAL Pilot Study
The Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. (PAL), drafted a technical memorandum reviewing what would be required to complete a potential NRHP nomination. In this memorandum, PAL reviewed previous canal studies, presented survey methodologies, and divided the scope of work into four phases, of which only Phases I and II were ever completed (PAL 2006). Following this, PAL completed a pilot study of two areas of the former canal route, one approximately 1,300-foot section in Southwick and another approximately 2,100-foot section in Westfield (PAL 2008). This study was conducted with the goal of providing a reliable means for generating parcel-level mapping of the former canal route, as required for an NRHP nomination. Field documentation of visible historic and archaeological features within each of the Pilot Study Areas was conducted in 2007. Alternative survey and mapping approaches were completed at the two study areas.
Summary of Other Contributing Research
A collection of historic maps depicting the Hampshire and Hampden Canal were consulted at various stages of the study to both refine the route mapping and to better contextualize the canal’s location,
locally and regionally. Some historical resources served to fill gaps in the mapping where surficial traces of the route no longer exist. Some of the referenced maps include Bailey’s map of Westfield (Bailey 1875), Beers’ Atlases of Hampshire and Hampden Counties (Beers 1870, 1873), Dwight’s plan map of Southampton (Dwight 1830), Jocelyn’s combined map of the Farmington, and Hampshire and Hampden Canals (Jocelyn 1828), aerial imagery of the Congamond Lakes from 1934, and the plan of Congamond Lakes (Parks 1904). Additionally, SWCA consulted other regional canal-related NRHP documents to assist in formulating a framework of how to approach this study. These included the Blackstone Canal Historic District National
Register of Historic Places Nomination, Massachusetts (Adams 1995), the Middlesex Canal
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
17
Comprehensive Survey Phase IV Survey Report (Adams and Kierstead 1999), and the Farmington Canal National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form (Raber and Clouette 1984).
Previously Documented Canal Features
The MHC maintains records of these previously documented segments; however, due to the limited details in many of these forms, and/or significant post-recordation alterations to these segments, they serve as only a baseline from which further research was conducted. After review of MHC’s Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth, it was evident that little of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal has been recorded in the form of archaeological sites.
In total, 10 remnant features of the canal are presently on record at the MHC, in the form of Historic Archaeological sites (HA forms), Buildings (numbers below 900), Structures (900 numbers), and Districts (letters) (Table 1). Inconsistency in what type of form should be used for what type of canal feature was an issue addressed during the present survey.
There are three recorded archaeological sites associated with the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. These are the Hampden and Hampshire County Canal site (SOU.HA.5), a 2.4-mile (3.9-km) segment of visible canal prism in northern Southwick; the Feeder Canal site (WSF.HA.4) in Westfield; and the New Haven
and Northampton Canal (NTH.HA.14), an isolated segment of canal prism in Northampton. A fourth archaeological site, the New Haven and Northampton Canal, is recorded as a structure (EAH.900) and is a 0.5-mile segment of canal in Easthampton.
Three additional canal engineering features have been recorded as structures. One of the feature locks associated with the canal has been documented as STH.907 (New Haven-Northampton Canal Lock #22 Remnant). Stonework associated with the South Manhan River Aqueduct of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal were repurposed for usage by the railroad and have been documented as the Northampton and Westfield Railroad Bridge (STH.906). A marker was established in 1960 on Main Street in Westfield to commemorate the former site of the Westfield Basin of the New Haven and Northampton Canal (WSF.914).
The Connecticut portion of the New Haven and Northampton Canal was listed in the NRHP in 1985. Part of the intent of Raber’s work in 2002 was to develop an NRHP nomination for the Massachusetts portion, but there were some insufficiencies in this data, particularly with reference to the level of accuracy of the mapping. None of the individual components of the Massachusetts portion of the canal are presently listed
in the NRHP, although some components have been included as contributing elements in other NRHP districts (STH.90 [New Haven Northampton Canal Storehouse] and STH.907 as part of STH.B [Lockville Historic District], listed in 2001).
Table 1. Canal Features Previously Recorded with the MHC
MHC ID Number Site Name Location Recordation Date Description NR Evaluation
SOU.HA.5 Hampden and Hampshire County Canal
Southwick 1981 Approx. 2.5 mi of abandoned canal prism, paralleling Great Brook; recorded as having fair integrity.
Not evaluated
WSF.HA.4 Feeder Canal
(misnomer) Westfield 1978 Approx. .6 km of abandoned canal prism with adjacent towpath. Stone abutments from former Little River Aqueduct were also observed.
Not evaluated
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
18
MHC ID Number Site Name Location Recordation Date Description NR Evaluation
WSF.914 New Haven and Northampton Canal Marker
Westfield 1960 Bronze plaque indicating the former site of the South Basin. Not evaluated
STH.90 New Haven – Northampton Canal Storehouse
Southampton 1987 Vernacular-style storehouse constructed in 1832 to facilitate the transfer of freight to and from canal boats; converted to residences.
Listed as part of STH.B (Lockville Historic District) in 2001
STH.907 New Haven – Northampton Canal Lock # 22 Remnant
Southampton 1987 Approx. 5 feet by 20 feet of surficial eastern wall from the rebuilt stone-lined chamber of Lock 22; later repurposed as railroad embankment (now abandoned).
Listed as part of STH.B (Lockville Historic District) in 2001
STH.906 Northampton and Westfield Railroad Bridge
Southampton 1987 Railroad trestle supported by dressed stone abutments; stone abutments were repurposed from South Manhan River Aqueduct.
Listed as part of STH.B (Lockville Historic District) in 2001
STH.B Lockville Historic District Southampton 1998 Historic district encompassing the area of canal Locks 20, 21, and 22; District includes STH.90, STH.907, STH.906, and a canal prism remnant.
Listed in 2001
EAH.593 n.d. (Clapp’s Tavern & Warehouse)
Easthampton 1986 Wood-framed, two-story Federal style structure, c. 1810; operated as warehouse and toll collection during canal years.
Not evaluated
EAH.900 New Haven and Northampton Canal
Easthampton/Northampton 1984 Approx. 1.2 km of abandoned canal prism and towpath stretching into Northampton.
Not evaluated
NTH.HA.14 New Haven and Northampton Canal
Northampton 1974 Approx. 400 m of canal prism including the remnants of Lock 31 and 32. Not evaluated
Source: MHC (2022).
Note: n.d. = no data
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey
In May of 2022, SWCA conducted the field reconnaissance survey, during which the majority of the
former canal route, from the Connecticut border in Southwick to the Connecticut River in Northampton, was traversed on foot and documented.
During this effort, the canal area was divided into segments based on presence or absence of surficial canal remnants (Figure 2). A third distinction, “Repurposed,” was allotted for areas of prism and towpath that have been mostly obscured by subsequent development but where the original design, orientation, and/or course remains discernable. The appearance, approximate dimensions, and present surficial conditions of the canal segments and all canal-related features were recorded, on mapping, in narrative notes, and in tabular format. Representative photographs were also recorded during the effort, the locations of which were also mapped.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
19
Figure 2. Remnant canal prism in Segment 2, facing northeast.
Access to parcels intersected by the expected canal area, as determined by the GIS team’s review, was coordinated by the PVPC on behalf of SWCA, with permission notices disseminated specifically in each township by town representatives. Areas in which SWCA was not permitted access, or otherwise posed a
safety risk to the field crew, were not field verified and existing centerline mapping was utilized.
In total, 78 remnant canal features were identified during the reconnaissance, 69 along the main line and an additional nine along the three feeder canal routes (Table 2). The present physical condition of these
features varies dramatically, with surficial identification of large sections impossible due to numerous factors including but not limited to, erosion, development, filling and leveling, natural phenomena, and removal/destruction. The canal corridor, as depicted, represents the locations of the former canal and its associated features as best can be determined using the available resources and methods. Detailed descriptions of all recorded segments were completed for each town and are located in their corresponding Area Form (Appendix C).
Table 2. Remnant Canal Prism and Features Recorded During Reconnaissance
Feature Name Segment ID Location Description
Main Line
Canal Prism and Towpath 1 Southwick Well-preserved, rail trail occupies former western towpath; prism is watered
Guard Lock 1 Southwick Visible earthworks with approximately 15 feet of remnant stonework along eastern chamber wall
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
20
Feature Name Segment ID Location Description
Canal Prism and Towpath 2 Southwick Western towpath is identifiable along southern portion of segment, prism is visible, though moderately eroded, watered
Canal Prism and Towpath 4 Southwick Towpath along western side, visible prism, though partially altered by modern landscaping and erosion
Canal Prism and Towpath 6 Southwick Section repurposed by modern culvert for Point Grove Road, towpath exists along western bank, but only north of Point Grove Road
Canal Prism and Towpath 10 Southwick Visible prism segment with western towpath
Lock 2 10 Southwick Surficial earthworks from original chamber and southern gate sill
Lock 3 10 Southwick Surficial earthworks from original chamber
Lock 4 10 Southwick Only southern half of original lock earthworks is visible; northern portion altered by landscaping efforts
Canal Prism and Towpath 12 Southwick Towpath extant along western embankment heading north to location of change-over bridge where it shifts to the eastern embankment, relatively well-preserved
Lock 6 12 Southwick Surficial earthworks with some areas (approximately 50 feet) of visible stonework from original canal chamber repairs; northern gate and end of lock has been moderately eroded by Great Brook associated wetland
Change-over bridge 12/13 Southwick Bridge abutment earthworks remain extant, with spilled stone in prism center from original stone construction
Canal Prism and Towpath 13 Southwick Towpath extant along eastern embankment heading north, relatively well-preserved
Lock 7 13 Southwick Well-preserved lock features, last remaining lock feature reflecting original timber-lined chamber construction; earthwork remained visible throughout, original stone headers can also be observed, with some timber preservation
Canal Prism and Towpath 15 Southwick Meandering segment with evidence of embankments and eastern towpath; well-preserved
Canal Prism and Towpath 17 Southwick Original eastern towpath presently utilized as Department of Public Works (DPW) access road (Canal Road)
Canal Prism and Towpath 19 Southwick Original eastern towpath presently utilized as DPW access road (Canal Road)
Canal Prism and Towpath 20 Southwick Partially altered, western portion of prism has seen filling from adjacent residential development; original eastern towpath presently utilized as DPW access road (Canal Road)
Canal Prism and Towpath 22 Southwick Towpath identifiable, shifts from eastern embankment to western embankment in the vicinity of aqueduct, no evidence of a change-over bridge.
South Great Brook Aqueduct 22 Southwick Originally spanned approximately 30 feet, remnant stonework from abutments is visible, spilled stone original piers can also be seen deposited in waterway
Potential Basin 22 Southwick Possible turn-around basin location, semi-circle earthworks can be seen just outside southern gate of Lock 8
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
21
Feature Name Segment ID Location Description
Lock 8 22 Southwick Chamber earthworks remain, some degradation along the chambers eastern wall; no visual evidence of stonework or timbers and neither do the northern and southern sills
Canal Prism and Towpath 24 Southwick Repurposed by DPW road; roadway runs within former prism with towpath along western embankment
Canal Prism and Towpath 26 Southwick/ Westfield Repurposed by DPW road; roadway runs within former prism with towpath along western embankment
Canal Prism and Towpath 28 Westfield Repurposed as roadside drainage with Shaker Road running along western embankment; towpath now to the east, former change-over bridge probably existed in Segment 27; however, no surficial evidence was located
Canal Prism and Towpath 29 Westfield Altered portions of the eastern towpath cut out for trail access; modern two-track runs through the prism
Canal Prism and Towpath 30 Westfield Well-preserved, two-track runs through prism
Canal Prism 31 Westfield Partially altered segment, eastern towpath removed by residential development, but remainder of original prism is identifiable
Canal Prism and Towpath 33 Westfield Partially altered segment, eastern towpath removed, remainder of original prism identifiable; Small section within Segment 33 was Not Field Verified due to access restrictions
Canal Prism and Towpath 34 Westfield Towpath along eastern embankment
Canal Prism and Towpath 36 Westfield ATV trail along interior of prism; towpath remains visible along northern side of prism
Little River Aqueduct 36 Westfield Some stonework from the original eastern abutment remains, western landing not visible; very little surficial evidence of this feature remains
Canal Prism and Towpath 37 Westfield Partially altered, prism is significantly wider than original dimensions due to erosion
Canal Prism and Towpath 42 Westfield West embanking cut into natural hillslope, with visible eastern towpath, moderate erosion has widened original channel
Canal Prism and Towpath 44 Westfield Surficial evidence of eastern towpath; section is watered from Arm Brook Reservoir
Lock 15 44 Westfield Earthworks remain, narrowed chamber visible; northern and southern sill have been eroded by small stream which flows through the canal. Some spilled stone can be seen in stream, unsure if related to original chamber stonework
Canal Prism and Towpath 45 Westfield Railroad likely along former eastern towpath, former prism has been utilized as drainage along railbed; partially filled, with sections of the western embankment likely removed by railroad construction
Canal Prism and Towpath 46 Westfield Railroad likely along former eastern towpath, former prism has been utilized as drainage along railbed
Canal Prism and Towpath 47 Westfield Railroad likely along former eastern towpath, former prism has been utilized as drainage along railbed; some sections of the western embankment not visible
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
22
Feature Name Segment ID Location Description
Canal Prism and Towpath 48 Westfield Railroad likely along former eastern towpath, former prism has been utilized as drainage along railbed; partially filled, with sections of the western embankment not visible
Canal Prism and Towpath 50 Westfield Surficial evidence of embankments and channel; some erosion from adjacent agricultural activities
Canal Prism and Towpath 52 Westfield/ Southampton Repurposed by subsequent railroad (now abandoned), Root Road built upon original eastern towpath
Canal Prism and Towpath 53 Southampton Repurposed by subsequent railroad, towpath switches from eastern bank to western bank most likely within this segment
Canal Prism and Towpath 54 Southampton Relatively well preserved, western towpath observable.
Canal Prism and Towpath 56 Southampton Visual evidence of prism, north end has railroad along original western towpath
Lock 21 57/58 Southampton Partially altered earthworks, southern portion has been washed-out but northern half and northern sill earthworks remain identifiable
Canal Prism and Towpath 58 Southampton Railroad transitions from western towpath into original prism
Canal Prism and Towpath 59 Southampton Repurposed subsequent railroad, with tracks running through original prism and lock feature
Lock 22 59 Southampton Well-preserved, visible stonework chambers eastern wall; original chamber was timber construction later rebuilt with stone
Canal Storehouse 59 Southampton Constructed in 1832 to operate as a goods storehouse and tolls collection; Presently utilized as apartments
Canal Prism and Towpath 60 Southampton Visible canal prism and towpath
South Manhan River Aqueduct 60 Southampton Stone abutments were repurposed for railroad trestle (now abandoned), evidence of stonework remains
Canal Prism and Towpath 61 Southampton Repurposed by subsequent railroad, towpath along eastern embankment
Canal Prism and Towpath 63 Southampton Railroad along former eastern towpath
Canal Prism and Towpath 65 Southampton Identifiable eastern towpath
Canal Prism and Towpath 67 Southampton High banks through this stretch, visible eastern towpath
Canal Prism and Towpath 69 Southampton Some minor impacts from agricultural usage, prism and towpath remain discernable
Canal Prism and Towpath 71 Southampton Reclaimed by natural drainage, original earthworks remain identifiable
Canal Prism and Towpath 73 Southampton Some erosion, channel has high banks through section; eastern towpath
Canal Prism and Towpath 75 Easthampton Approximately 210 feet of remnant prism surrounded by areas of significant washout
Canal Prism and Towpath 77 Eastampton Fragmented prism, agricultural activities has significantly impacted former channel and western embankment, eastern embankment remains prominent through most of segment
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
23
Feature Name Segment ID Location Description
Clapp’s Tavern and Warehouse 77 Easthampton Wood-framed, two-story Federal style structure, c. 1810
Canal Prism and Towpath 78 Easthampton Eastern towpath visible
Canal Prism and Towpath 80 Easthampton/ Northampton Eastern towpath now utilized as walking trail
Canal Prism and Towpath 84 Northampton Former eastern towpath contains rail trail
Canal Prism and Towpath 90 Northampton Visible canal prism and towpath
Lock 31 91 Northampton Stonework from original construction can be observed here, although surrounding earthworks have largely eroded
Canal Prism and Towpath 92 Northampton Watered; reclaimed by Slough Brook
Lock 32 92 Northampton Stonework along eastern and western walls can be observed, with earthworks remaining around most of the chamber, northern and southern sills also partially visible.
Salmon Brook Feeder
Feeder Canal Prism A-2 Southwick Constructed in 1830, segment contains visible prism with east and west embankment
Little River Feeder
Feeder Canal Prism B-2 Westfield Small segment; moderately eroded, but remains identifiable
Westfield River Feeder
Feeder Canal Prism C-1 Russell Evidence of original northern terminus altered by Westfield River; parallel railroad
Feeder Canal Prism C-4 Westfield Prism presently utilized by logging access road
Feeder Canal Prism C-6 Westfield Runs along hilltop, partially visible prism with both embankments
Moose Meadow Brook Culvert C-6 Westfield Discernable stone abutment at eastern landing, with additional scattered stone along the brook’s western bank
Feeder Canal Prism C-7 Westfield Altered segment, western embankment has been impacted by residential development
Feeder Canal Prism C-9 Westfield Relatively well-preserved segment
Feeder Canal Prism C-11 Westfield Surficial evidence of prism
SUMMARY OF WORK
In all, SWCA field staff were able to conduct a walkover reconnaissance of roughly 90 percent of the former Hampshire and Hampden Canal. SWCA GIS personnel used this collected field data, in conjunction with historical mapping and references, as well as the Walter Map (Walter 2006) to accurately depict the former canal’s course, on parcel-level mapping, as it operated through
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
24
Massachusetts. During this effort, SWCA staff assessed the surficial conditions of the canal as it exists on the landscape today. MHC Area Forms were also completed as part of this study, describing the canal
area within the bounds of each of the six townships, the route’s impacts on the towns individually, as well as detailing the physical presence canal engineering had, and still has, on the land (MHC ID# RUS.H, STH.F, SOU.C, EAH.T, NTH.AL, and WSF.O). Segments and features lacking any present surficial indications were plotted as best could be determined using the available resources and methods, including historical resources, previously conducted studies, Carl E. Walter’s extensive canal research, and a general understanding of canal engineering practices.
One thing that was evident following the field reconnaissance was the amount of degradation that has occurred since the Raber Associates survey. Areas of canal prism described in the Raber report as being
relatively well-preserved or clearly identifiable upon walkover were either significantly altered by erosion and natural phenomena or, in some instance, obscured. Newer developments have been constructed along major transportation routes through many of the participating townships as populations grow and urban centers expand, with many of these routes located on the periphery of the former canal area, directly or indirectly effecting its preservation.
Following the completion of the GIS map review and field verification, 78 remnant canal segments and/or
features were recorded and mapped, with others lacking any remaining surficial remnants plotted using other means. In all, approximately 34 percent of the original canal prism contains surficial remnants still identifiable today, with the remaining 66 percent being a combination of altered or obscured by post-canal impacts (46%), repurposed by subsequent engineering (9%), or not field verified (11%). Of the original 32 canal locks and two guard locks, 12 still contain surficial, identifiable traces of the former engineering. Surficial evidence of the majority of the 12 original aqueducts and culverts constructed to ferry the canal over larger waterways have been completely removed, with much of the stone used in their construction repurposed for subsequent engineering efforts. In terms of other remnant canal-related features documented during the course of this survey, only abutments of a former towpath change-over bridge and the eroded earthworks of a potential basin in Southwick were observed. In addition to the above-mentioned engineering features, an unknown number of basins, waste weirs, dams, masonry drains, and traversal bridges may have been present along the route through Massachusetts, any surficial evidence of which has since been altered/obscured.
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is significant on the local, state, and national level, being
eligible for listing, in its entirety, in the NRHP under criteria A, C, and D. Under Criteria A and C, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area reflects engineering design, economic efforts, and industrial and transportation improvements undertaken during the Canal Era (c. 1800–1850) of the northeastern United States and further exacerbated by the success of the Erie Canal, completed in 1825. The canal area embodies the entirety of the engineering endeavor that was the Hampshire and Hampden Canal whose individual components may lack distinction independent of the whole. The area also reflects the
widespread enthusiasm for canal construction seen during the titular Canal Era. Under Criteria D, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area embodies not only what surficial features remain present on the landscape but also the features, associated structures, and as of yet unrecorded archaeological components extant below the ground surface. These undocumented components may contribute to the greater understanding of canal engineering practices of the day, as well as the wider implications canal construction, operation, and subsequent closure had on the local communities, their settlement patterns, and its use/disuse post-abandonment.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
25
FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
While this effort assessed the surficial presence, or lack thereof, of canal engineering features along the former route, further research will be required to ascertain the integrity of certain segments or features as defined by the National Park Service in How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
(National Park Service 1990). The present project includes extensive historical research and provides accurate mapping and field data on the present condition of the canal, with an initial statement of significance. We anticipate that additional work will be needed to complete the NRHP nomination. This next step will need to explore the canal’s impact and design within the context of the greater Canal Era of the northeastern United States, as well as describe the significance of the entire endeavor in both its engineering scope and socioeconomic impacts on the region. It is also recommended that a finalized list of all potential areas, properties, and archaeological sites contributing to the proposed district be compiled and evaluated using defined NRHP selection criteria.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
26
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Virginia H. 1995 Blackstone Canal Historic District National Register of Historic Places Nomination,
Blackstone, Millville, Uxbridge, Worcester, Massachusetts. On file, MHC, Boston.
Adams, Virginia H., and Matthew A. Kierstead 1999 Middlesex Canal Comprehensive Survey Phase IV Survey Report. PAL Report No. 0989
submitted to the Middlesex Canal Association. On file, MHC, Boston.
Bailey, O. H. 1875 Westfield 1875. O.H. Bailey & Co., Boston, Massachusetts.
Beers, F.W. 1870 Atlas of Hampden County, Massachusetts. F.W. Beers and Company, New York, New York.
1873 Atlas of Hampshire County, Massachusetts. F.W. Beers and Company, New York, New York.
Camposeo, James Mark 1977 The History of the Canal System between New Haven and Northampton (1822-1847).
Historical Journal of Massachusetts 1(6):37-53.
Carroll, William F.
1984 Documentation of the New Haven and Northampton Canal in Easthampton EAH.900. Form
F – Structure. On file with the MHC, Boston.
Dwight, Justus
1830 A Plan of Southampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Historical Survey.
Harte, Charles Rufus 1933 Some Engineering Features of the Old Northampton Canal. Paper presented at the 49th
Annual Meeting of the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers, Hartford, Connecticut.
Jocelyn, Nathaniel 1828 Map Exhibiting the Farmington, and Hampshire & Hampden Canals: together with the line
of their proposed continuation through the Valley of the Connecticut River to Canada. N. & J. J. Jocelyn, New Haven.
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 1982a MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Southwick. MHC, Boston.
1982b MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Westfield. MHC, Boston.
1982c MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Russell. MHC, Boston.
1982d MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Southampton. MHC, Boston.
1982e MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Reports: Easthampton. MHC, Boston.
1982f MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Reports: Northampton. MHC, Boston.
2021 Bibliography of Archaeological Survey & Mitigation Reports: Massachusetts. Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston, Massachusetts.
Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Documentation Project, Southwick, Westfield, Russell, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, Massachusetts
27
2022 Inventory of Historic and Archaeological Assets of the Commonwealth. On file, Massachusetts Historical Commission, Massachusetts Archives Building, Boston. Also
available at: http://maps.mhc-macris.net/. Accessed 2022.
MassGIS (Bureau of Geographic Information) 2022 MassGIS Data: Property Tax Parcels. Available at: https://www.mass.gov/info-
details/massgis-data-property-tax-parcels#downloads-. Accessed August 2022.
National Park Service 1990 National Register Bulletin––How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Cultural Resources, National Register of Historic Places, History and Education, Washington, D.C.
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 2013 Westfield Center Historic District, Westfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts. National Register #13000441.
Parks, Oren E. 1904 Plan of Congamond Lakes & Vicinity, Southwick, Mass., & Suffield, Conn. showing properties of The Congamond Ice Company of New York City. Westfield, Massachusetts.
Public Archaeology Laboratory, Inc. (PAL) 2006 Technical Memorandum: New Haven and Northampton Canal, Southwick, Westfield, Southampton, Easthampton, Northampton, and Russell, Preliminary Scoping for Pilot Study. PAL NO. 2017. On file, MHC, Boston, Massachusetts. 2008 Phase I and II Products – Pilot Study Areas, New Haven and Northampton Canal, Southwick
and Westfield, Massachusetts. On file, MHC, Boston, Massachusetts. Raber, Michael S. 2002 Survey and Inventory of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (New Haven and Northampton Canal) for Proposed National Register of Historic Places Nomination. On file MHC, Boston. Raber, Michael S., and Bruce Clouette 1984 Farmington Canal National Register of Historic Places Inventory–Nomination Form. On file
Connecticut Historical Commission, Hartford. Roberts, Norene A., and Betsy Friedberg
2000 Lockville Historic District National Register Nomination. On file, MHC, Boston.
U.S. Census Bureau 2020 U.S. Decennial Census Data. Available at: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table. Accessed
November 2022.
Walter, Carl E. 2006 Hampshire & Hampden Canal, 1829-1847. Map. On file, Connecticut Historical Society,
Hartford.
APPENDIX A The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Parcel-Level Map
APPENDIX B Mapbook Parcel ID Key
PageNumber Map_LABEL MAP_PAR_ID LOC_ID
1 265 162_004_000_000_000 M_93937_862511
1 266 163_001_000_000_000 M_93679_862236
1 267 163_002_000_000_000 M_93310_862170
1 277 169_003_000_000_000 M_92979_862100
1 278 169_003_001_000_000 M_93028_862127
1 279 169_004_000_000_000 M_92788_861999
1 280 169_005_000_000_000 M_92774_861939
2 261 161_007_000_000_000 M_94877_862405
2 262 162_001_000_000_000 M_94762_862734
2 263 162_002_000_000_000 M_94476_862573
2 264 162_003_000_000_000 M_94286_862361
2 265 162_004_000_000_000 M_93937_862511
2 266 163_001_000_000_000 M_93679_862236
2 267 163_002_000_000_000 M_93310_862170
3 188 149_004_000_000_000 M_94914_863745
3 246 160_018_000_000_000 M_95073_863179
3 247 160_019_000_000_000 M_95072_863161
3 248 160_020_000_000_000 M_95062_863144
3 249 160_021_000_000_000 M_95045_863117
3 250 160_022_000_000_000 M_95030_863096
3 251 160_023_000_000_000 M_95019_863085
3 252 160_025_000_000_000 M_94998_863061
3 253 160_027_000_000_000 M_94980_863035
3 254 160_030_000_000_000 M_94958_862997
3 255 160_031_000_000_000 M_94957_862982
3 256 160_014_000_000_000 M_95047_863259
3 257 160_015_000_000_000 M_95061_863243
3 258 160_016_000_000_000 M_95063_863217
3 259 160_017_000_000_000 M_95068_863197
3 260 160_032_000_000_000 M_94867_862957
3 261 161_007_000_000_000 M_94877_862405
3 262 162_001_000_000_000 M_94762_862734
3 263 162_002_000_000_000 M_94476_862573
3 264 162_003_000_000_000 M_94286_862361
3 265 162_004_000_000_000 M_93937_862511
3 290 <Null>M_95968_864992
4 86 138_048_000_000_000 M_95499_864682
4 87 138_049_000_000_000 M_95595_864760
4 88 138_050_000_000_000 M_95596_864743
4 89 138_051_000_000_000 M_95595_864724
4 90 138_052_000_000_000 M_95636_864730
4 91 138_061_000_000_000 M_95628_864674
4 92 138_062_000_000_000 M_95587_864655
4 95 138_079_000_000_000 M_95555_864629
4 183 149_006_000_000_000 M_95061_863711
4 184 149_007_000_000_000 M_95058_863696
4 186 149_001_000_000_000 M_95106_863939
4 187 149_003_000_000_000 M_95068_863875
4 188 149_004_000_000_000 M_94914_863745
4 189 149_005_000_000_000 M_95064_863730
4 290 <Null>M_95968_864992
5 47 124_010_000_000_000 M_95685_866061
5 48 124_011_000_000_000 M_95694_866014
5 49 124_012_000_000_000 M_95686_865975
5 50 124_016_000_000_000 M_95658_865865
5 51 124_017_000_000_000 M_95656_865835
5 52 124_018_000_000_000 M_95652_865805
5 79 135_015_000_000_000 M_95634_865479
5 80 135_027_000_000_000 M_95686_865311
5 81 135_028_000_000_000 M_95690_865267
5 84 136_002_000_000_000 M_95780_865394
5 85 136_004_000_000_000 M_95762_865353
5 86 138_048_000_000_000 M_95499_864682
5 87 138_049_000_000_000 M_95595_864760
5 88 138_050_000_000_000 M_95596_864743
5 89 138_051_000_000_000 M_95595_864724
5 90 138_052_000_000_000 M_95636_864730
5 91 138_061_000_000_000 M_95628_864674
5 92 138_062_000_000_000 M_95587_864655
5 95 138_079_000_000_000 M_95555_864629
5 290 <Null>M_95968_864992
6 1 099_050_000_000_000 M_96050_867075
6 2 099_030_001_000_000 M_96185_867294
6 3 099_031_000_000_000 M_96138_867349
6 4 099_031_002_000_000 M_96269_867306
6 5 099_031_003_000_000 M_96375_867280
6 6 099_033_000_000_000 M_96428_867328
6 7 099_034_000_000_000 M_96517_867301
6 8 099_038_000_000_000 M_96423_866582
6 9 099_042_000_000_000 M_96117_867153
6 10 099_047_000_000_000 M_96136_867088
6 11 099_048_000_000_000 M_96092_867051
6 12 UNKNOWN M_95774_866496
6 13 114_020_000_000_000 M_96021_866941
6 14 113_057_000_000_000 M_95744_866467
6 15 113_058_000_000_000 M_95751_866428
6 37 114_077_000_000_000 M_95833_866670
6 38 114_078_000_000_000 M_95899_866640
6 39 114_083_000_000_000 M_95984_866771
6 40 114_083_001_000_000 M_95991_866785
6 41 114_084_000_000_000 M_96006_866801
6 42 114_085_000_000_000 M_96028_866814
6 43 114_086_000_000_000 M_96039_866842
6 44 114_087_000_000_000 M_96065_866856
6 45 114_175_000_000_000 M_95918_866468
6 46 114_176_000_000_000 M_95775_866609
6 47 124_010_000_000_000 M_95685_866061
6 48 124_011_000_000_000 M_95694_866014
6 49 124_012_000_000_000 M_95686_865975
6 290 <Null>M_95968_864992
6 291 <Null>M_96243_866839
6 304 114_080_000_000_000 M_95951_866719
6 305 114_080_002_000_000 M_95929_866707
7 2 099_030_001_000_000 M_96185_867294
7 3 099_031_000_000_000 M_96138_867349
7 4 099_031_002_000_000 M_96269_867306
7 5 099_031_003_000_000 M_96375_867280
7 6 099_033_000_000_000 M_96428_867328
7 7 099_034_000_000_000 M_96517_867301
7 8 099_038_000_000_000 M_96423_866582
7 291 <Null>M_96243_866839
7 797 091_012_000_000_000 M_96964_867740
7 798 091_013_000_000_000 M_96866_867672
7 799 091_014_000_000_000 M_96845_867900
7 800 091_021_000_000_000 M_97089_867901
7 802 074_006_000_000_000 M_96813_868331
7 803 091_027_000_000_000 M_97285_868370
7 808 067_132_000_000_000 M_96791_868628
7 815 098_004_000_000_000 M_96648_867383
7 816 098_005_000_000_000 M_96683_867461
7 817 098_006_000_000_000 M_96769_867612
7 818 098_007_000_000_000 M_96773_867537
7 820 090_011_000_000_000 M_96642_868086
7 821 090_014_000_000_000 M_96417_867714
8 801 074_005_000_000_000 M_97206_868741
8 802 074_006_000_000_000 M_96813_868331
8 803 091_027_000_000_000 M_97285_868370
8 804 048_004_000_000_000 M_97895_869485
8 806 067_048_000_000_000 M_97567_869295
8 807 067_101_000_000_000 M_97507_869037
8 808 067_132_000_000_000 M_96791_868628
8 809 068_006_000_000_000 M_97758_869386
8 810 068_007_000_000_000 M_97718_869341
8 811 068_008_000_000_000 M_97652_869263
8 812 068_009_000_000_000 M_97783_869297
8 813 068_054_000_000_000 M_97709_868715
8 814 068_055_000_000_000 M_97581_869121
9 296 <Null>M_98257_870622
9 796 043_002_000_000_000 M_98380_870275
9 804 048_004_000_000_000 M_97895_869485
9 805 048_005_000_000_000 M_98013_869926
9 806 067_048_000_000_000 M_97567_869295
9 809 068_006_000_000_000 M_97758_869386
9 812 068_009_000_000_000 M_97783_869297
9 819 023_002_000_000_000 M_98439_870671
10 16 143-9 F_323751_2859528
10 17 143-10 F_323842_2859566
10 18 143-11 F_324005_2859582
10 19 143-3 F_323495_2859198
10 20 7R-3 F_324577_2859906
10 21 7R-4 F_324708_2860101
10 22 143-2 F_323445_2859110
10 23 143-7 F_323623_2859414
10 24 7R-1 F_323268_2858443
10 25 143-8 F_323676_2859475
10 26 143-1 F_323387_2859026
10 27 143-4 F_323546_2859290
10 28 7R-53 F_325102_2860706
10 29 147-44 F_325295_2860539
10 30 7R-5 F_324772_2860294
10 31 7R-6 F_324845_2860466
10 33 W SPRINGFIELD WATER LINE F_324393_2859783
10 296 <Null>M_98257_870622
10 819 023_002_000_000_000 M_98439_870671
11 20 7R-3 F_324577_2859906
11 21 7R-4 F_324708_2860101
11 28 7R-53 F_325102_2860706
11 29 147-44 F_325295_2860539
11 30 7R-5 F_324772_2860294
11 31 7R-6 F_324845_2860466
11 32 <Null>F_325269_2861732
11 33 W SPRINGFIELD WATER LINE F_324393_2859783
11 34 7R-51 F_325438_2861199
11 35 7R-28 F_325346_2861493
11 36 147-45 F_325590_2860992
11 67 7R-11 F_325716_2861330
11 78 122-45 F_325133_2864183
11 116 122-4 F_324950_2862946
11 117 19R-33 F_325701_2862366
11 118 19R-43 F_325247_2862768
11 121 19R-45 F_325256_2863074
11 125 19R-44 F_325250_2862919
11 126 123-48 F_325213_2862643
11 127 122-5 F_325030_2863250
11 154 122-58 F_324934_2863077
11 156 122-17 F_324936_2863417
11 157 122-6 F_325050_2863428
11 159 122-16 F_324911_2863535
11 161 122-15 F_324897_2863642
11 162 122-7 F_325040_2863600
11 167 122-13 F_324932_2863839
11 168 122-8 F_325062_2863741
11 169 122-14 F_324908_2863746
11 170 122-42 F_324899_2864181
11 175 119-4 F_325147_2864414
11 178 122-43 F_325017_2864184
11 179 122-46 F_325144_2864278
11 180 122-11 F_324990_2863942
11 181 122-12 F_324895_2863952
11 185 119-5 F_325201_2864650
11 196 153-57 F_324964_2864481
11 199 119-22 F_325216_2864966
11 200 119-6-1A F_325120_2864977
11 201 153-22 F_325015_2865112
11 202 153-56 F_325008_2864673
11 203 119-6 F_325182_2864821
11 210 119-7 F_325224_2865125
11 793 7R-8 F_325161_2861082
11 795 7R-8-1 F_325118_2860965
12 182 116-2 F_325373_2867172
12 185 119-5 F_325201_2864650
12 194 116-9 F_325051_2867229
12 196 153-57 F_324964_2864481
12 199 119-22 F_325216_2864966
12 200 119-6-1A F_325120_2864977
12 201 153-22 F_325015_2865112
12 202 153-56 F_325008_2864673
12 203 119-6 F_325182_2864821
12 204 119-9 F_325310_2865480
12 207 153-21 F_325058_2865247
12 208 119-8 F_325279_2865319
12 209 119-10 F_325348_2865599
12 210 119-7 F_325224_2865125
12 212 119-11 F_325266_2865733
12 213 119-12 F_325407_2865779
12 214 119-14 F_325308_2866003
12 215 119-15 F_325394_2866063
12 216 119-16 F_325515_2866103
12 218 117-2 F_325408_2866238
12 219 117-1 F_325548_2866259
12 220 119-13 F_325437_2865863
12 221 119-19 F_325214_2865895
12 222 153-9 F_325078_2865450
12 223 119-21 F_325168_2865652
12 224 117-28 F_325530_2866805
12 228 117-29 F_325492_2866883
12 229 117-30 F_325443_2866951
12 231 118-13 F_323823_2866847
12 232 118-14 F_323999_2866854
12 235 117-27 F_325577_2866711
12 237 117-26 F_325493_2866628
12 238 116-1 F_325398_2867045
12 239 117-20 F_324845_2866939
12 240 117-22 F_325180_2866708
12 242 116-3 F_325326_2867262
12 243 116-10 F_324862_2867352
12 281 117-21 F_325043_2866888
12 283 118-16 F_324299_2866886
12 285 118-15 F_324150_2866865
12 286 117-18 F_324437_2866902
12 288 29R-13 F_324420_2867500
12 293 116-23 F_324683_2867552
12 306 28R-7 F_323432_2867559
13 211 118-33 F_322847_2866327
13 225 21-32 F_319813_2867561
13 227 118-12 F_323653_2866768
13 230 28R-33 F_322582_2866722
13 231 118-13 F_323823_2866847
13 232 118-14 F_323999_2866854
13 233 118-32 F_323023_2866386
13 234 118-31 F_323189_2866411
13 236 118-10 F_323353_2866579
13 241 118-11 F_323502_2866693
13 274 17R-28 F_319122_2866967
13 276 17R-22 F_320479_2866164
13 282 28R-32 F_322846_2866818
13 283 118-16 F_324299_2866886
13 284 28R-8 F_322098_2866779
13 285 118-15 F_324150_2866865
13 286 117-18 F_324437_2866902
13 288 29R-13 F_324420_2867500
13 289 28R-6 F_321373_2867264
13 293 116-23 F_324683_2867552
13 302 21-32-1A F_319030_2867878
13 306 28R-7 F_323432_2867559
14 160 16-23 F_318154_2869657
14 171 19-2 F_318371_2868437
14 225 21-32 F_319813_2867561
14 274 17R-28 F_319122_2866967
14 275 15R-3-1B F_316999_2865861
14 276 17R-22 F_320479_2866164
14 297 19-15 F_318120_2867931
14 300 19-14 F_317843_2868181
14 301 19-13 F_318165_2868210
14 302 21-32-1A F_319030_2867878
14 308 <Null>F_318593_2867592
14 309 19-17 F_318354_2868821
14 310 16-19 F_318217_2869403
14 311 16-21 F_318191_2869509
14 312 16-17 F_318322_2869214
14 313 16-18 F_318239_2869304
14 314 16-25 F_318111_2869831
14 315 16-24 F_318136_2869731
14 316 16-22 F_318173_2869582
14 326 12-1 F_317850_2871062
14 335 16R-48 F_318190_2869947
14 357 <Null>F_318105_2871750
14 634 25-1 F_317235_2867734
14 643 19-1 F_318370_2869030
14 644 19-13-1A F_318263_2868162
14 645 19-15-2B F_318434_2868222
15 160 16-23 F_318154_2869657
15 171 19-2 F_318371_2868437
15 225 21-32 F_319813_2867561
15 274 17R-28 F_319122_2866967
15 275 15R-3-1B F_316999_2865861
15 297 19-15 F_318120_2867931
15 300 19-14 F_317843_2868181
15 301 19-13 F_318165_2868210
15 302 21-32-1A F_319030_2867878
15 308 <Null>F_318593_2867592
15 309 19-17 F_318354_2868821
15 310 16-19 F_318217_2869403
15 311 16-21 F_318191_2869509
15 312 16-17 F_318322_2869214
15 313 16-18 F_318239_2869304
15 314 16-25 F_318111_2869831
15 315 16-24 F_318136_2869731
15 316 16-22 F_318173_2869582
15 335 16R-48 F_318190_2869947
15 634 25-1 F_317235_2867734
15 643 19-1 F_318370_2869030
15 644 19-13-1A F_318263_2868162
15 645 19-15-2B F_318434_2868222
16 83 9-101 F_318011_2871582
16 94 9-36 F_317749_2872499
16 98 57-85 F_317403_2873813
16 110 57-86 F_317404_2873862
16 326 12-1 F_317850_2871062
16 335 16R-48 F_318190_2869947
16 356 9-78 F_317940_2872123
16 357 <Null>F_318105_2871750
16 358 9-103 F_318029_2871810
16 362 <Null>F_318036_2872221
16 364 9-81 F_317928_2872359
16 368 9-80 F_317926_2872247
16 378 9-39 F_317753_2872622
16 400 9-40 F_317726_2872688
16 416 9-41 F_317723_2872823
16 418 9-44 F_317703_2873012
16 432 <Null>F_317848_2872780
16 445 56-59 F_317445_2873555
16 449 <Null>F_317608_2873400
16 450 56-60 F_317418_2873502
16 451 56-77 F_317607_2873202
16 452 57-83 F_317387_2873713
16 453 57-81 F_317441_2873687
16 455 57-82 F_317424_2873773
16 456 57-87 F_317415_2873910
16 460 57-58 F_317471_2874170
16 462 57-88 F_317427_2873965
16 490 57-35 F_317427_2874539
16 491 RR F_327242_2868597
16 494 <Null>F_317779_2874569
16 506 221-4 F_319139_2876355
16 516 <Null>F_318624_2876255
16 646 <Null>F_304425_2877256
16 794 41R-9 F_317364_2875122
17 111 202-73 F_318492_2876673
17 412 244-4 F_320652_2879802
17 485 247-24-1A F_319961_2879828
17 502 202-70 F_318388_2876412
17 503 202-71 F_318415_2876483
17 505 202-74 F_318549_2876826
17 506 221-4 F_319139_2876355
17 507 202-72 F_318437_2876546
17 511 202-91 F_318690_2877094
17 512 221-6 F_319207_2877200
17 513 221-31 F_319502_2876877
17 516 <Null>F_318624_2876255
17 517 229-1 F_319451_2877489
17 538 229-94 F_319551_2877849
17 566 246-3 F_319215_2879266
17 570 245-1 F_319542_2878811
17 571 247-24 F_319577_2879733
17 587 <Null>F_319555_2878489
18 412 244-4 F_320652_2879802
18 485 247-24-1A F_319961_2879828
18 566 246-3 F_319215_2879266
18 571 247-24 F_319577_2879733
18 572 247-25 F_320310_2880320
18 579 250-24 F_320946_2880604
18 581 250-23-1A F_321075_2880756
18 582 50R-3 F_320388_2880865
18 584 <Null>F_318689_2883887
18 587 <Null>F_319555_2878489
18 588 49R-12 F_318165_2884142
18 599 251-68 F_321834_2881010
18 601 50R-8 F_319174_2883204
18 602 50R-11 F_319307_2883331
18 603 50R-5 F_320446_2881495
18 608 49R-30 F_317807_2883835
18 609 49R-31 F_318165_2883993
18 612 50R-12 F_319127_2883928
18 617 56R-4 F_318440_2884396
18 618 56R-8 F_318840_2885088
18 621 50R-23 F_319930_2883695
18 628 <Null>F_318548_2884879
19 377 63R-2 F_319871_2889830
19 488 55R-43 F_318016_2889005
19 489 <Null>F_318454_2889085
19 584 <Null>F_318689_2883887
19 588 49R-12 F_318165_2884142
19 607 49R-32 F_317504_2883869
19 608 49R-30 F_317807_2883835
19 609 49R-31 F_318165_2883993
19 612 50R-12 F_319127_2883928
19 613 49R-11 F_317651_2884267
19 614 49R-8 F_316521_2883578
19 616 56R-100 F_318130_2886736
19 617 56R-4 F_318440_2884396
19 618 56R-8 F_318840_2885088
19 619 49R-37 F_317127_2884123
19 621 50R-23 F_319930_2883695
19 625 56R-99 F_318311_2884756
19 626 55R-42 F_317872_2887881
19 627 56R-3 F_317940_2885750
19 628 <Null>F_318548_2884879
20 522 27_9_3 M_90288_880621
20 524 32_2_9 M_90570_880164
20 525 32_2_10 M_90912_879911
20 526 32_2_11 M_90926_879900
20 527 32_2_12 M_89991_881910
20 530 32_4_5 M_90566_880037
20 532 32_4_4 M_90751_879895
20 533 33_1_1 M_90976_879823
20 535 32_3_10 M_90410_880238
20 536 32_3_9 M_90332_880507
20 540 <Null>M_88257_877565
20 542 <Null>M_90879_879704
20 544 <Null>M_89176_881890
21 486 <Null>M_91573_879289
21 491 RR F_327242_2868597
21 524 32_2_9 M_90570_880164
21 525 32_2_10 M_90912_879911
21 526 32_2_11 M_90926_879900
21 527 32_2_12 M_89991_881910
21 532 32_4_4 M_90751_879895
21 533 33_1_1 M_90976_879823
21 534 33_1_2 M_91247_879672
21 540 <Null>M_88257_877565
21 541 <Null>M_91455_879204
21 542 <Null>M_90879_879704
21 622 38R-2 F_301101_2883379
21 623 38R-4 F_302745_2883926
21 646 <Null>F_304425_2877256
22 491 RR F_327242_2868597
22 610 38R-22 F_302645_2882705
22 611 38R-23 F_302191_2882460
22 615 38R-5 F_304714_2883322
22 622 38R-2 F_301101_2883379
22 623 38R-4 F_302745_2883926
22 646 <Null>F_304425_2877256
23 410 39R-41 F_308629_2879409
23 491 RR F_327242_2868597
23 565 39R-34 F_307845_2879343
23 567 39R-33 F_307955_2879249
23 568 39R-32 F_308053_2879123
23 573 39R-40 F_308510_2879755
23 577 39R-35 F_307912_2879630
23 578 39R-17 F_307940_2881993
23 583 39R-28 F_306449_2880744
23 589 38R-15 F_305910_2881571
23 591 38R-29 F_305856_2881770
23 592 39R-2 F_306382_2881398
23 593 38R-14 F_306116_2881828
23 594 39R-3 F_306109_2881286
23 597 39R-26 F_306252_2881203
23 598 39R-5 F_306619_2881061
23 600 39R-18 F_308570_2880703
23 615 38R-5 F_304714_2883322
24 410 39R-41 F_308629_2879409
24 413 40R-110 F_312539_2879641
24 491 RR F_327242_2868597
24 545 40R-48 F_311660_2877799
24 546 40R-145 F_310629_2878456
24 547 40R-97 F_312327_2878366
24 548 40R-144 F_310763_2878457
24 549 40R-157 F_310393_2878862
24 550 40R-178 F_313051_2879152
24 551 40R-159 F_310494_2878673
24 552 40R-161 F_310630_2878712
24 553 40R-160 F_310504_2878810
24 554 40R-154 F_310141_2878878
24 555 40R-158 F_310340_2878689
24 556 40R-162 F_310741_2878688
24 557 40R-155 F_310226_2878755
24 558 40R-143 F_310906_2878458
24 559 40R-179 F_313118_2878935
24 560 40R-108 F_312038_2878672
24 561 40R-127 F_309792_2878986
24 562 40R-27 F_308770_2878935
24 563 40R-152 F_310071_2879055
24 564 40R-156 F_310298_2878916
24 565 39R-34 F_307845_2879343
24 567 39R-33 F_307955_2879249
24 568 39R-32 F_308053_2879123
24 569 40R-165 F_309190_2878841
24 573 39R-40 F_308510_2879755
24 574 OPEN SPACE F_310931_2877979
24 576 40R-109 F_312189_2879173
24 577 39R-35 F_307912_2879630
24 585 47R-4 F_311233_2881936
24 600 39R-18 F_308570_2880703
24 646 <Null>F_304425_2877256
25 411 40R-21 F_313111_2879962
25 413 40R-110 F_312539_2879641
25 547 40R-97 F_312327_2878366
25 550 40R-178 F_313051_2879152
25 559 40R-179 F_313118_2878935
25 560 40R-108 F_312038_2878672
25 574 OPEN SPACE F_310931_2877979
25 575 40R-177 F_313229_2879464
25 576 40R-109 F_312189_2879173
25 585 47R-4 F_311233_2881936
25 586 48R-78 F_313964_2883071
25 595 48R-52 F_313360_2882684
25 596 48R-1 F_313019_2880896
25 791 48R-1-1 F_312615_2881106
26 586 48R-78 F_313964_2883071
26 588 49R-12 F_318165_2884142
26 595 48R-52 F_313360_2882684
26 604 48R-5 F_314322_2883334
26 605 48R-6 F_314180_2883357
26 606 48R-7 F_314072_2883366
26 607 49R-32 F_317504_2883869
26 608 49R-30 F_317807_2883835
26 609 49R-31 F_318165_2883993
26 613 49R-11 F_317651_2884267
26 614 49R-8 F_316521_2883578
26 619 49R-37 F_317127_2884123
26 620 49R-38 F_316831_2884188
26 624 48R-29 F_315021_2884175
26 625 56R-99 F_318311_2884756
26 627 56R-3 F_317940_2885750
26 635 48R-30-1D F_314687_2883326
26 636 48R-30-1C F_314655_2883463
26 637 48R-30-1B F_314607_2883596
26 638 48R-30-5E F_315602_2883396
26 639 48R-30-4D F_315042_2883426
27 377 63R-2 F_319871_2889830
27 487 62R-23 F_318593_2889698
27 488 55R-43 F_318016_2889005
27 489 <Null>F_318454_2889085
27 529 <Null>F_319020_2893892
27 531 69R-20 F_319674_2893560
27 626 55R-42 F_317872_2887881
27 628 <Null>F_318548_2884879
27 629 62R-24 F_318674_2891284
27 630 63R-1 F_319606_2891502
27 631 <Null>F_319248_2890706
27 650 69R-29 F_319288_2893128
28 361 69R-1 F_318206_2894653
28 376 69R-12 F_318451_2895561
28 528 69R-21 F_319100_2894507
28 529 <Null>F_319020_2893892
28 531 69R-20 F_319674_2893560
28 629 62R-24 F_318674_2891284
28 632 69R-9 F_318924_2897684
28 633 <Null>F_318817_2897026
28 640 <Null>F_318899_2897232
28 641 69R-30 F_318958_2895812
28 642 69R-7 F_318677_2896924
28 647 69R-10 F_318610_2896404
28 648 <Null>F_318765_2895729
28 649 69R-11 F_318553_2896024
28 650 69R-29 F_319288_2893128
28 792 69R-22 F_318634_2897711
29 60 39_37 F_320108_2900917
29 61 39_16_A F_320393_2899764
29 62 39_7_A F_319132_2900229
29 63 39_29_A F_318888_2898314
29 64 39_29_B F_318630_2898446
29 65 39_101 F_318616_2899562
29 66 39_34 F_320483_2901195
29 82 39_38 F_320413_2901019
29 93 39_8 F_319499_2900319
29 96 39_29 F_318921_2898890
29 97 39_99 F_318812_2899343
29 152 34_61 F_320529_2901515
29 163 39_32 F_320522_2901342
29 164 39_33 F_320328_2901322
29 244 39_86 F_321150_2900704
29 632 69R-9 F_318924_2897684
29 633 <Null>F_318817_2897026
29 640 <Null>F_318899_2897232
29 642 69R-7 F_318677_2896924
29 737 16_3 F_308410_2911163
29 771 34_179 F_319214_2902056
29 792 69R-22 F_318634_2897711
30 60 39_37 F_320108_2900917
30 66 39_34 F_320483_2901195
30 82 39_38 F_320413_2901019
30 112 34_11_B F_320888_2903588
30 113 34_66 F_320729_2902033
30 114 34_62 F_320581_2901653
30 115 34_64 F_320703_2901805
30 119 34_19 F_322082_2905308
30 122 34_3 F_321904_2905095
30 137 34_5 F_321714_2904808
30 140 34_6 F_321640_2904690
30 152 34_61 F_320529_2901515
30 163 39_32 F_320522_2901342
30 164 39_33 F_320328_2901322
30 166 28_94 F_322437_2905684
30 172 34_8 F_321491_2904454
30 173 34_139 F_321332_2904201
30 176 34_141 F_320130_2902484
30 177 34_150 F_320266_2902738
30 190 34_65 F_320594_2902153
30 191 <Null>F_320512_2902047
30 192 34_46 F_320498_2902302
30 193 34_67 F_320806_2902162
30 195 34_47 F_320625_2902389
30 198 34_7 F_321563_2904571
30 205 28_115 F_322211_2905453
30 206 34_13 F_321087_2903752
30 226 28_82 F_320452_2903925
30 244 39_86 F_321150_2900704
30 287 34_9 F_321402_2904331
30 292 34_10 F_321236_2904032
30 295 34_4 F_321781_2904931
30 298 34_12 F_321131_2903862
30 299 34_151 F_320421_2902593
30 737 16_3 F_308410_2911163
30 771 34_179 F_319214_2902056
31 119 34_19 F_322082_2905308
31 122 34_3 F_321904_2905095
31 165 28_24 F_322774_2906018
31 166 28_94 F_322437_2905684
31 197 28_20_A F_322953_2906835
31 205 28_115 F_322211_2905453
31 226 28_82 F_320452_2903925
31 294 28_21_A F_322938_2906504
31 307 28_22 F_323703_2908747
31 328 29_31 F_323849_2907531
31 360 24_47 F_324517_2909414
31 363 28_18_B F_323141_2907715
31 384 29_13 F_324662_2908605
32 303 24_38 F_325504_2910387
32 307 28_22 F_323703_2908747
32 317 24_5_A F_325115_2912127
32 325 24_32 F_325570_2911067
32 329 24_20_P F_326473_2912235
32 330 24_21_A F_327030_2911971
32 342 24_21_B F_327530_2912695
32 359 24_39 F_324926_2909941
32 360 24_47 F_324517_2909414
32 369 24_50 F_325086_2909684
32 383 24_37 F_325240_2910529
32 384 29_13 F_324662_2908605
32 437 19_141 F_327207_2913715
33 329 24_20_P F_326473_2912235
33 330 24_21_A F_327030_2911971
33 342 24_21_B F_327530_2912695
33 436 19_67_A F_328429_2914117
33 437 19_141 F_327207_2913715
33 438 19_68 F_328701_2914341
33 446 19_42 F_329345_2915429
33 447 13_155 F_327630_2917403
33 454 19_144 F_327891_2913226
33 457 19_35 F_328281_2916286
33 458 19_7_A F_327626_2916668
33 492 19_13_A F_328972_2916116
33 493 19_184 F_328896_2914937
33 495 19_188 F_329176_2915012
33 496 13_157 F_329111_2918625
33 497 19_9_A F_327835_2917131
33 498 19_10 F_327713_2917259
33 499 19_7_B F_327519_2916997
33 500 19_67_B F_328696_2914064
33 504 19_47 F_328726_2914716
34 414 13_76 F_327757_2918478
34 419 13_49 F_329633_2920340
34 420 13_122 F_329185_2920268
34 447 13_155 F_327630_2917403
34 448 13_85 F_327739_2917641
34 457 19_35 F_328281_2916286
34 458 19_7_A F_327626_2916668
34 484 13_48 F_329794_2920492
34 496 13_157 F_329111_2918625
34 497 19_9_A F_327835_2917131
34 498 19_10 F_327713_2917259
34 499 19_7_B F_327519_2916997
34 508 13_18 F_327945_2919630
34 509 14_26 F_330557_2921003
34 521 13_21 F_328522_2919822
34 523 13_78 F_330123_2920056
34 539 14_27 F_330448_2920600
34 590 13_37 F_329941_2920885
34 772 14_25 F_330161_2921132
35 417 142_14 M_101274_891620
35 484 13_48 F_329794_2920492
35 509 14_26 F_330557_2921003
35 510 8_1 F_329999_2924520
35 514 8_8 F_330764_2921927
35 515 8_13 F_332023_2924169
35 518 8_10 F_331482_2923675
35 519 8_12 F_331759_2923977
35 520 7_33 F_330520_2921611
35 523 13_78 F_330123_2920056
35 537 8_11 F_332030_2923732
35 539 14_27 F_330448_2920600
35 543 8_36 F_331350_2922558
35 580 8_2 F_331843_2924364
35 590 13_37 F_329941_2920885
35 651 142_14_2 M_101349_891512
35 772 14_25 F_330161_2921132
35 773 8_3 F_331424_2924507
36 355 138_7 M_102482_891937
36 385 139_166 M_101846_891736
36 415 142_2 M_101724_891716
36 417 142_14 M_101274_891620
36 421 142_3 M_101690_891637
36 422 142_4 M_101602_891596
36 423 142_6 M_102009_891530
36 424 143_16 M_102467_891829
36 425 143_17 M_102588_891797
36 426 143_15 M_102430_891820
36 427 143_40 M_102029_891699
36 428 143_41 M_101985_891709
36 429 142_9_1 M_101474_891545
36 430 143_13 M_102349_891789
36 431 143_14 M_102396_891787
36 433 143_5 M_102272_891717
36 434 143_6 M_102308_891730
36 435 143_7 M_102300_891761
36 439 143_28 M_102228_891676
36 440 143_29 M_102211_891719
36 441 143_30 M_102177_891702
36 442 143_31 M_102146_891689
36 443 143_38 M_102102_891734
36 444 143_39 M_102067_891718
36 510 8_1 F_329999_2924520
36 515 8_13 F_332023_2924169
36 519 8_12 F_331759_2923977
36 537 8_11 F_332030_2923732
36 580 8_2 F_331843_2924364
36 651 142_14_2 M_101349_891512
36 773 8_3 F_331424_2924507
37 217 128_113 M_103593_892592
37 318 137_2 M_103147_892137
37 319 137_3 M_103127_892116
37 320 137_1 M_103179_892174
37 321 137_10 M_102901_892021
37 322 137_11 M_102876_892032
37 323 137_12 M_102835_892048
37 324 137_13 M_102782_892060
37 327 137_4 M_103103_892090
37 331 137_6 M_103052_892042
37 332 137_68 M_103384_892350
37 333 137_69 M_103356_892334
37 334 137_5 M_103067_892061
37 336 137_7 M_103029_892006
37 337 137_70 M_103331_892315
37 338 137_71 M_103314_892300
37 339 137_72 M_103281_892274
37 340 137_78 M_103220_892245
37 341 137_79 M_103237_892217
37 343 137_8 M_103034_891896
37 344 137_80 M_103273_892234
37 345 137_81 M_103301_892248
37 346 137_82 M_103335_892271
37 347 137_83 M_103384_892287
37 348 137_84 M_103614_892295
37 349 138_1 M_102810_891928
37 350 137_9 M_102946_891944
37 351 138_4_1 M_102789_891690
37 352 138_4_2 M_102627_891941
37 353 138_5 M_102603_891886
37 354 138_3 M_102699_891915
37 355 138_7 M_102482_891937
37 424 143_16 M_102467_891829
37 425 143_17 M_102588_891797
37 426 143_15 M_102430_891820
37 431 143_14 M_102396_891787
38 68 113_5 M_104435_893120
38 69 114_13 M_104525_893752
38 70 114_13_1 M_104474_893768
38 71 114_14 M_104481_893585
38 72 114_18 M_104440_893497
38 73 114_19 M_104411_893435
38 74 114_20 M_104383_893382
38 75 114_21 M_104342_893306
38 76 114_25 M_104109_893094
38 77 114_23 M_104268_893146
38 217 128_113 M_103593_892592
38 245 129_19_2 M_104111_892942
38 268 129_24_1 M_104097_892761
38 269 129_25 M_104021_892798
38 270 129_26 M_104045_892839
38 271 129_39 M_103895_892716
38 272 129_22 M_104362_892946
38 273 129_24 M_104109_892837
38 348 137_84 M_103614_892295
39 68 113_5 M_104435_893120
39 69 114_13 M_104525_893752
39 70 114_13_1 M_104474_893768
39 71 114_14 M_104481_893585
39 72 114_18 M_104440_893497
39 73 114_19 M_104411_893435
39 74 114_20 M_104383_893382
39 673 51 -010-001 M_104521_893981
39 674 51 -014-001 M_104431_893901
39 686 44 -132-001 M_104591_894345
39 687 45 -010-001 M_105267_894559
39 704 44 -033-001 M_104531_894159
39 705 44 -034-001 M_104566_894180
39 706 44 -036-001 M_104536_894209
39 707 44 -037-001 M_104603_894209
39 708 44 -039-001 M_104599_894466
39 709 44 -040-001 M_104617_894621
39 710 44 -056-001 M_104627_894699
39 711 44 -057-001 M_104671_894098
39 712 44 -060-001 M_104563_894149
39 713 44 -087-001 M_104635_894743
39 714 44 -044-001 M_104742_894936
39 721 44 -117-001 M_104565_894211
39 768 999-999-766 M_104578_894045
39 774 999-998-079 M_104694_895111
39 787 <Null>M_104187_894779
40 483 31D-245-001 M_106057_896379
40 675 38C-012-001 M_105349_895759
40 676 38C-013-001 M_105139_895679
40 677 38C-020-001 M_105616_895793
40 678 38C-021-001 M_105703_895819
40 687 45 -010-001 M_105267_894559
40 700 38C-070-001 M_105269_895760
40 701 38C-078-001 M_105151_895822
40 702 38C-082-001 M_105294_895737
40 711 44 -057-001 M_104671_894098
40 713 44 -087-001 M_104635_894743
40 714 44 -044-001 M_104742_894936
40 725 <Null>M_105028_895768
40 731 38C-003-001 M_105115_895819
40 732 38C-004-001 M_105181_895828
40 746 37 -051-001 M_104613_895623
40 747 38C-076-001 M_105318_895816
40 769 999-999-775 M_105499_895730
40 774 999-998-079 M_104694_895111
40 775 999-999-952 M_105500_895840
40 782 38C-016-001 M_105641_895855
40 787 <Null>M_104187_894779
41 459 31D-096-001 M_106393_896852
41 468 31D-098-001 M_106446_896939
41 469 31D-186-001 M_106488_896733
41 470 31D-191-001 M_106469_896677
41 471 31D-176-001 M_106451_896583
41 472 31D-177-001 M_106454_896600
41 473 31D-178-001 M_106460_896618
41 474 31D-193-001 M_106460_896648
41 475 31D-194-001 M_106487_896648
41 476 <Null>M_106489_896871
41 477 31D-170-001 M_106418_896724
41 478 31D-172-001 M_106447_896537
41 479 31D-174-001 M_106447_896552
41 480 31D-175-001 M_106448_896568
41 481 31D-243-001 M_106444_896910
41 482 31D-244-001 M_106452_896893
41 483 31D-245-001 M_106057_896379
41 501 <Null>M_106455_896721
41 652 38B-014-001 M_106346_896414
41 653 38B-015-001 M_106361_896436
41 654 38B-016-001 M_106393_896451
41 655 38B-017-001 M_106417_896464
41 656 38B-018-001 M_106447_896523
41 657 38B-021-001 M_106452_896507
41 658 38B-024-001 M_106468_896490
41 659 38B-032-001 M_106466_896455
41 660 38B-053-001 M_105997_896146
41 661 38B-055-001 M_106171_896210
41 662 38B-056-001 M_105890_895939
41 663 38B-057-001 M_105919_895969
41 664 38B-058-001 M_105946_895977
41 665 38B-060-001 M_105984_896006
41 666 38B-061-001 M_106005_896017
41 667 38B-062-001 M_106022_896024
41 668 38B-063-001 M_106034_896043
41 669 38B-064-001 M_106060_896049
41 670 38B-065-001 M_106078_896059
41 671 38B-066-001 M_106094_896072
41 672 38B-059-001 M_105948_896011
41 675 38C-012-001 M_105349_895759
41 677 38C-020-001 M_105616_895793
41 678 38C-021-001 M_105703_895819
41 679 38C-022-001 M_105725_895828
41 680 38C-023-001 M_105743_895835
41 681 38C-024-001 M_105755_895842
41 682 38C-025-001 M_105769_895849
41 683 38C-026-001 M_105789_895856
41 684 38C-027-001 M_105804_895868
41 685 38C-028-001 M_105838_895894
41 688 38B-067-001 M_106110_896087
41 689 38B-068-001 M_106126_896102
41 690 38B-069-001 M_106140_896114
41 691 38B-071-001 M_106160_896157
41 692 38B-072-001 M_106172_896127
41 693 38B-073-001 M_106198_896157
41 694 38B-074-001 M_106217_896181
41 695 38B-075-001 M_106248_896218
41 696 38B-076-001 M_106278_896260
41 697 38B-078-001 M_106319_896262
41 698 38B-079-001 M_106313_896296
41 699 38B-080-001 M_106264_896370
41 703 38D-001-001 M_105865_895917
41 726 <Null>M_106364_896365
41 727 <Null>M_106153_896125
41 736 999-999-622 M_106479_896699
41 747 38C-076-001 M_105318_895816
41 750 999-999-189 M_106163_896189
41 758 999-999-101 M_106490_896492
41 759 999-999-102 M_106443_896630
41 760 999-999-103 M_106519_896630
41 769 999-999-775 M_105499_895730
41 775 999-999-952 M_105500_895840
41 777 999-998-117 M_106467_896985
41 782 38C-016-001 M_105641_895855
42 120 24D-050-001 M_106369_898123
42 123 24D-069-001 M_106393_898102
42 124 24D-070-001 M_106422_898252
42 128 24D-110-001 M_106417_898138
42 129 24D-111-001 M_106435_898115
42 130 24D-112-001 M_106431_898100
42 131 24D-113-001 M_106433_898080
42 132 24D-120-001 M_106470_898029
42 133 24D-126-001 M_106441_897981
42 134 24D-127-001 M_106438_897957
42 135 24D-128-001 M_106439_897943
42 136 24D-129-001 M_106441_897924
42 138 24D-145-001 M_106444_897888
42 139 24D-146-001 M_106449_897835
42 141 24D-167-001 M_106455_897750
42 142 24D-168-001 M_106465_897774
42 143 24D-169-001 M_106463_897792
42 144 24D-170-001 M_106460_897810
42 145 24D-171-001 M_106402_897825
42 146 24D-172-001 M_106404_897793
42 147 24D-206-001 M_106405_897896
42 148 24D-207-001 M_106403_897916
42 149 24D-209-001 M_106408_897935
42 150 24D-210-001 M_106400_897960
42 151 24D-212-001 M_106386_898003
42 153 24D-204-001 M_106415_897874
42 155 24D-322-001 M_106442_897969
42 158 24D-327-001 M_106394_898057
42 174 <Null>M_106406_897769
42 365 31B-039-001 M_106457_897686
42 366 31B-024-001 M_106407_897743
42 367 31B-031-001 M_106456_897716
42 370 31B-089-001 M_106428_897603
42 371 31B-090-001 M_106479_897615
42 372 31B-102-001 M_106417_897568
42 373 31B-103-001 M_106482_897598
42 374 31B-072-001 M_106422_897639
42 375 31B-073-001 M_106477_897642
42 379 31B-104-001 M_106483_897581
42 380 31B-134-001 M_106456_897465
42 381 31B-135-001 M_106457_897448
42 382 31B-136-001 M_106489_897545
42 386 31B-182-001 M_106455_897417
42 387 31B-183-001 M_106454_897398
42 388 31B-184-001 M_106497_897414
42 389 31B-185-001 M_106501_897397
42 390 31B-148-001 M_106492_897498
42 391 31B-149-001 M_106516_897474
42 392 31B-128-001 M_106424_897549
42 393 31B-130-001 M_106452_897529
42 394 31B-131-001 M_106439_897504
42 395 31B-132-001 M_106444_897483
42 396 31B-204-001 M_106383_897351
42 397 31B-207-001 M_106462_897377
42 398 31B-208-001 M_106499_897379
42 399 31B-223-001 M_106423_897304
42 401 31B-254-001 M_106476_897225
42 402 31B-255-001 M_106483_897187
42 403 31B-256-001 M_106483_897158
42 404 31B-257-001 M_106482_897143
42 405 31B-258-001 M_106526_897260
42 406 31B-259-001 M_106525_897221
42 407 31B-265-001 M_106535_897242
42 408 31B-229-001 M_106471_897275
42 409 31B-310-001 M_106535_897322
42 459 31D-096-001 M_106393_896852
42 461 <Null>M_106491_897525
42 463 31D-103-001 M_106465_897058
42 464 31D-104-001 M_106480_897128
42 465 31D-108-001 M_106517_897108
42 466 31D-110-001 M_106524_897075
42 467 31D-111-001 M_106523_897054
42 468 31D-098-001 M_106446_896939
42 469 31D-186-001 M_106488_896733
42 476 <Null>M_106489_896871
42 477 31D-170-001 M_106418_896724
42 481 31D-243-001 M_106444_896910
42 482 31D-244-001 M_106452_896893
42 483 31D-245-001 M_106057_896379
42 724 31B-277-001 M_106516_897170
42 728 31D-105-001 M_106521_897135
42 729 31D-109-001 M_106526_897095
42 730 <Null>M_106530_897114
42 733 999-999-527 M_106491_898066
42 734 999-999-533 M_106558_897191
42 735 999-999-467 M_106525_897739
42 738 999-999-413 M_106434_897789
42 739 999-999-497 M_106421_897450
42 740 999-999-567 M_106540_897672
42 741 999-999-569 M_106526_897568
42 742 999-999-576 M_106420_897961
42 743 999-999-647 M_106470_897497
42 744 999-999-649 M_106310_898028
42 745 999-999-153 M_106496_897229
42 748 999-999-037 M_106411_898073
42 749 999-999-053 M_106533_897434
42 751 999-999-062 M_106473_897860
42 752 999-999-066 M_106502_897123
42 753 999-999-067 M_106502_897014
42 754 999-999-205 M_106405_898124
42 755 999-999-203 M_106407_897657
42 756 999-999-605 M_106456_897611
42 761 999-999-319 M_106442_897696
42 762 999-999-321 M_106390_897855
42 766 999-999-723 M_106417_897203
42 767 999-999-724 M_106486_897340
42 770 999-999-799 M_106282_898091
42 777 999-998-117 M_106467_896985
42 788 24A-237-001 M_106099_898326
43 53 18D-031-001 M_106322_899245
43 54 18D-032-001 M_106335_899257
43 55 18D-034-001 M_106386_899303
43 56 18D-038-001 M_106124_899131
43 57 18D-039-001 M_106248_899163
43 58 18D-047-001 M_106256_899076
43 59 18D-070-001 M_106201_899139
43 99 24B-008-001 M_106114_898838
43 100 24B-009-001 M_106146_898786
43 101 24B-010-001 M_106152_898813
43 102 24B-015-001 M_106182_898835
43 103 24B-016-001 M_106185_898864
43 104 24B-017-001 M_106162_898852
43 105 24B-018-001 M_106184_898892
43 106 24B-019-001 M_106207_898951
43 107 24B-042-001 M_106096_898491
43 108 24B-044-001 M_106159_898649
43 109 24B-079-001 M_105995_899016
43 120 24D-050-001 M_106369_898123
43 123 24D-069-001 M_106393_898102
43 124 24D-070-001 M_106422_898252
43 128 24D-110-001 M_106417_898138
43 129 24D-111-001 M_106435_898115
43 130 24D-112-001 M_106431_898100
43 715 18D-018-001 M_106396_899452
43 716 18D-054-001 M_106366_899557
43 717 18D-003-001 M_106307_899525
43 718 18D-056-001 M_106263_899422
43 720 <Null>M_106523_899542
43 722 19 -001-001 M_106725_899622
43 723 18 -009-001 M_106257_899673
43 754 999-999-205 M_106405_898124
43 757 999-999-100 M_106371_899237
43 763 999-999-683 M_105919_898785
43 764 999-999-685 M_106172_898754
43 765 999-999-706 M_106195_898920
43 770 999-999-799 M_106282_898091
43 776 999-998-103 M_106402_899386
43 778 999-998-022 M_106350_898965
43 779 999-998-083 M_106168_899438
43 780 18D-029-001 M_106327_899356
43 781 18D-029-001 M_106291_899296
43 783 18D-052-001 M_106175_898925
43 784 18D-052-001 M_106316_899258
43 785 18D-052-001 M_106343_899339
43 786 18D-052-001 M_106437_899646
43 788 24A-237-001 M_106099_898326
43 789 999-999-135 M_106251_899203
43 790 999-999-005 M_106299_899210
44 715 18D-018-001 M_106396_899452
44 716 18D-054-001 M_106366_899557
44 717 18D-003-001 M_106307_899525
44 718 18D-056-001 M_106263_899422
44 719 18 -045-001 M_106381_899767
44 720 <Null>M_106523_899542
44 722 19 -001-001 M_106725_899622
44 723 18 -009-001 M_106257_899673
44 776 999-998-103 M_106402_899386
44 786 18D-052-001 M_106437_899646
APPENDIX C MHC Area Forms (Form A)
Follow Massachusetts Historical Commission Survey Manual instructions for completing this form. 12/12
FORM A - AREA
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 Photograph
Remnant canal prism in Segment 2, facing northeast.
Assessor’s Sheets USGS Quad Area Letter Form Numbers in Area
023, 043, 048, 067, 068, 074, 090, 091, 098, 099, 113, 114, 124, 135, 136, 138, 149, 160, 161, 162, 163, 169
Southwick, MA SOU.C
See Data Sheet
Town/City: Southwick
Place (neighborhood or village):
Name of Area: Hampshire and Hampden Canal
Present Use: Former canal route with varied modern-day
land use (residential, recreational, undeveloped)
Construction Dates or Period: Built 1826-1834, operated
until 1847
Overall Condition: Varied- some areas of remnant prism and Lock features with other areas obscured or washed out by flooding episodes.
Major Intrusions and Alterations: Altered or obscured by railroad construction and residential development Acreage: Complete- 71.04 acres, Remnant segments-
25.85 acres (discontinuous)
Recorded by: Zachary Nason and Nadia Waski, SWCA
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Organization: PVPC and Southwick Historical Commission
Date (month/year): 11/2022
Locus Map
[See continuation sheet pages 27-36.]
see continuation sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 1
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If checked, you must attach a completed National Register Criteria Statement form.
Use as much space as necessary to complete the following entries, allowing text to flow onto additional continuation sheets.
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Describe architectural, structural and landscape features and evaluate in terms of other areas within the community. Upon completing construction in 1834, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was an approximate 30-mile linear prism generally oriented north to south with associated crossover bridges, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, basins, towpath, and in places, embankments. The canal route ran from a guard lock at the state line in Southwick, MA, south of Congamond Ponds, to where it connects to the Connecticut River in Northampton, MA. The original engineering specifications dictated the canal prism be 35 feet wide at the surface with the capacity to hold 4 feet of water. Generally, this prism was earthen and unlined. In its entirety, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks, each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear, with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses (Raber 2002). These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds (Raber 2002). Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the much smaller Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design. The following description documents the physical characteristics of the existing canal route within Southwick (SOU.C). While much of the canal route maintains its original location, setting, feeling, and association, the presence or absence of surficial structural remnants was the determining factor as to whether a segment was considered present or lacking surficial indication. Using the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the NRHP, some segments described as having no surficial remnants, may merit the integrity required for listing due to these other contributing aspects. The existing physical condition of these features varies, with some segments having been substantially altered and to others containing small trace features of the canal’s original construction and design. A portion of the original canal route was repurposed to facilitate the tracks of the New Haven and Northampton Railroad, which much of today has been again repurposed as the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway (Rail Trail). In Southwick, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is an approximately 71.04-acre, 7.83-mile, 75-foot-wide linear corridor tracing the historic route of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal, as it exists/existed within the town’s borders. The route was determined using historical mapping, modern technological data, field verification, oral accounts, and archival research. This corridor includes the route of the linear canal prism and towpath, along with any other engineering infrastructure directly associated with canal operation. The physical condition of the Southwick portion of the canal route varies, with surficial identification of substantial sections of the former canal modified by erosion, building development, infill, natural phenomena, and other alterations. Segments/features which were not able to be field verified, either due to access related restrictions or the lack of any surficial indication, may require further, more detailed documentary research and/or subsurface archaeological testing to better ascertain their exact locations. The canal corridor as described below, represents the route of the canal as determined using the available resources and methods. During field verification, the canal was divided into segments based on the physical characteristics of the surficial canal remnants. Following is a brief description of these sections proceeding from south to north, beginning at the Connecticut-Southwick, MA border and ending at the Southwick-Westfield town line. A section of the canal through Southwick has been previously recorded in the MHC database as SOU.HA.5, and approximately encompasses Segment 11 through 24, though the included descriptions and details are limited.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 2
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Canal Prism Segment 1 (MHC ID) of the canal route begins at the guard lock located at the CT-MA border controlling the water flow between the states (Photo 1). The prism and guard lock (MHC ID) through this section are identifiable, with the former location of the towpath being repurposed by the subsequent railroad and then again by the modern-day rail trail along the prism’s western bank (Photos 2 to 3). A small portion of the original guard lock masonry can still be observed along its eastern bank. Segment 1 continues to the north to the point of curve (POC), where the prism diverges from the established rail trail and proceeds northeast into the southern portion of Congamond Lake. The quarry adjacent to this segment likely produced most of the stone utilized in the construction of the southern portion of the canal. Canal Prism Segment 2 (MHC ID) (Photo 4) of the canal route begins to widen as the prism opens into Congamond Lake. Here, the original earthworks can still be observed, but flooding episodes have impacted the condition of the prism, altering the original dimensions. Throughout this section, the western towpath can still be observed up to the point where it is lost into the lake. Once the route enters the lake, all evidence of the canal is obscured, and Segment 2 ends. A modern double-box concrete culvert crossed the canal from east to west facilitating access to the adjacent agricultural field. Segment 3 opens in the South Pond of Congamond Lakes. From the shoreline, linear surficial current disturbances can be observed, suggesting some remnants of the submerged towpath remain, causing disruptions to the natural flow. These remnants though submerged, represent the former man-made, earthen towpath which was constructed a short distance from the actual shoreline and traversed the majority of the Congamond Lakes. Segment 3 also crosses back over a small peninsula within the state of Connecticut, which was not surveyed as part of this study. However, before being filled in the 1970s to facilitate residential development, the canal created an island separating this former peninsula from the mainland. Throughout the twentieth century this was referred to as Miller’s Island. Just north of this present-day peninsula, approximately 700 feet of floating towpath would have crossed Middle Pond. This segment terminates at the southern point of another peninsula at the end of Island Pond Road. Canal Prism Segment 4 (MHC ID) (Photo 5) begins as a small, partially visible segment of the canal route that bisects a small peninsula from the mainland at the end of Island Pond Road. Similarly, the original earthworks can still be observed, but flooding episodes have impacted the condition of the prism, altering the original dimensions. After approximately 340 feet, the canal route runs back into the open water of the Middle Pond of Congamond Lakes and begins Segment 5. Segment 5 of the canal route contains no surficial evidence and is located within the Middle Pond. This stretch terminates at the crossing between the Middle and North ponds of the Congamond Lakes at Point Grove Road. Segment 6 is a remnant prism segment beginning at the crossing where the original route runs through a modern stone-lined culvert for Point Grove Road (Photo 6). This partially visible segment continues to the north roughly 350 feet before heading back into the lake. A small segment of the western towpath can be observed along this section but only to the north of the road before it is again lost into the lake. Segment 7 of the canal route contains no surficial evidence and would have historically traversed the North Pond of Congamond Lakes. Here, the canal historically split the North Pond into two bodies of water, likely with a culvert(s) being the only location(s) linking the then separate waterbodies. The smaller southwesterly section was referred to as the "Lilly Pond," at least during the twentieth century. A significant portion of the towpath survived into the 1950’s and while the towpath survived the 1955 flood, it was subsequently removed in 1956 (Hamberg 1997:119).
Segments 8 and 9 contain no surficial evidence of canal prism or features. Segment 8 begins at the northern intersection of Congamond Lake and the end of Summer Drive. Here, the canal has been infilled and leveled to facilitate residential development. Segment 9 runs just to the north of South Longyard Road and contains the probable location of Lock 1, but the entire area was devastated by the 1955 flood, and no trace of the lock or the original prism are discernible.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 3
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Canal Prism Segment 10 (MHC ID) (Photos 7 to 9) contains remnant canal features beginning at a POC just north of South Longyard Road and continuing northeast. Segment 10 contains well-preserved prism and the remnants of Lock 2 (MHC ID), Lock 3 (MHC ID), and Lock 4 (MHC ID), with the towpath visible along the prism’s western bank. Only earthworks remain of Locks 2 and 3, with all original timber and masonry having been removed or otherwise obscured. Earthworks for the southern sill remain visible in Lock 2; however, the northern sill and the sills for Locks 3 and 4 are completely eroded. Only the southern portion of the Lock 4 earthworks remain, with the northern half bulldozed and the area now occupied by two artificial ponds and manicured landscaping. Where the remnants of Lock 4 intersect with this artificial landscape is the termination point of Segment 10. Segment 11 is a segment of the canal route that was bulldozed to create the aforementioned manicured landscape area. Probable location of Lock 5. This section ends at a sharp POC where the canal route shifts from its easterly heading, turning to a north-northeast direction. Canal Prism Segments 12 & 13 (MHC ID) Segments 12 and 13 contains remnant canal prism and features where the canal route parallels Great Brook. From here, through a portion of Segment 24, has been recorded as a historic site (SOU.HA.5; Photo 12) and is on file with the MHC. The western towpath is visible along the southern portion of Segment 12, at which point it shifts to the east side of the prism at the location of a historic change-over bridge (MHC ID) and continues along the eastern bank to the north. Remnants of this change-over bridge include earthwork embankments on both the east and west sides as well as remnant masonry spilled into the prism at the base of these embankments. Segment 12 contains the remnants of Lock 6 (MHC ID) (Photos 10 to 11). Lock 6 contains visible stonework and earthworks. Segment 13 proceeds north to the intersection with wetlands associated with Great Brook (Photo 13). This segment contains the remnants of Lock 7 (MHC ID) (Photos 14 to 15), one of the most well-preserved lock features remaining along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Lock 7 contains evidence of stonework and earthworks along the eastern and western banks as well as at the upper and lower gate sills. The very northern portion of Lock 7 is inundated by waters from Great Brook. Segment 14 of the canal has been completely inundated by Great Brook and its associated wetlands. Flooding events have completely removed any surficial indication of the former prism through this segment of the canal. Canal Prism Segment 15 (MHC ID) (Photo 16) is a well-preserved canal segment that runs parallel to Great Brook to the east. Prism earthworks can be observed throughout this section with minimal erosion. The towpath remains visible through this section on the canal’s eastern bank. Section meanders gently through this segment to the north, where it intersects with a Department of Public Works (DPW) roadway. Segment 16 is a small segment of the canal route where the DPW access road runs right through the canal, removing any surficial indication of canal engineering in this section. To the north of this intersection, Segment 17 which contains traces of remnant canal prism begins and proceeds north. Along Segment 17, the former eastern towpath has been widened and repurposed to facilitate the DPW access road. Segment 18 is an eroded segment of the canal route along the base of a small hill. Any evidence of the original prism has been obscured by erosion episodes. Only the area of the eastern towpath, which continues to be utilized as the DPW access road is definable. Segments 19 and 20 are altered prism segments following the DPW access road occupying the original eastern towpath route containing identifiable eastern and western embankments, and channel. The northernmost portion of Segment 20 has been partially filled by adjacent residential development. This section ends just south of Feeding Hills Road, where the road disturbances have completely obscured any surficial evidence of the canal route. Segment 21 of the route contains very minimal surficial indication of the former canal, beginning at the Feeding Hills Road disturbance and continuing north through the Great Brook Drive residential development. One of the canal embankments
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 4
SOU.C See Data Sheet
can be observed very sporadically throughout the rear to the residential development; however, no evidence of an opposite bank, channel, or towpath could be located. Canal Prism Segment 22 (MHC ID) (Photo 17) is a canal prism segment containing the remnants of Lock 8 (MHC ID) (Photo 20) and the South Great Brook Aqueduct (MHC ID) (Photos 18 to 19). Somewhere in the vicinity of the aqueduct, a historic crossover bridge once existed, as seen by the shift of the towpath from the eastern bank south of Great Brook to the western bank north of Great Brook. No evidence of this bridge remains visible today. Originally, the South Great Brook Aqueduct spanned approximately 30 feet across Great Brook. Today, only some remnant masonry can be observed along the banks of Great Brook shifted from its original location. Lock 8 is visible at the northern end of Segment 22. Earthworks exist along the lock’s west bank and along some of the lock’s east bank. All masonry has been eroded/obscured, with the original timbers and sills having been eroded away. Just south of Lock 8, a small semi-circle cut into the prism’s east bank was observed, hypothesized to be the location of an original turn-around basin (MHC ID). Segment 23 begins at the intersection of the canal route with an unnamed tributary of Great Brook. Any evidence of the original prism has been washed away and/or otherwise obscured by flooding events. Segment 23 runs into Segment 24 directly to the north of the washout channel. Canal Prism Segment 24 (MHC ID) is a repurposed prism segment with remnant eastern and western embankments with the prism itself being utilized as a DPW access route. Along the prisms western bank, the towpath is still clearly visible throughout this section. Segment 25 contains no surficial indication of the former canal route where the DPW building and road construction have removed/obscured any evidence of the original route. Just past this stretch, the repurposed canal prism can be observed again throughout Canal Prism Segment 26 (MHC ID) (Photo 21) running north into the town of Westfield. Segment 26 is identical to Segment 24. Within Southwick, the northernmost portion of the Salmon Brook Feeder also occurs flowing into the canal route just north of the guard locks northern gate. The route of this feeder enters Massachusetts just east Route 10 and proceeds northeast. Segment A-1 is the first feeder canal segment in Southwick and is an eroded section containing a large washout channel and two large berms; however, it is unknown if either of these berms are related to original canal construction. Segment A-1 transitions to Segment A-2 at a modern culvert used to access an adjacent gravel/sand quarry to the southeast. Section A-2 is a preserved feeder canal segment with both visible embankments. This section continues to the northeast approximately 1,000 feet, where it terminates at an arbitrary property boundary. From this point to the feeder’s intersection with the main canal route, field verification was not possible due to access restrictions; however, visually, from this location, the canal appears to enter into a large wetland which has likely obscured any surficial evidence of the feeder. HISTORICAL NARRATIVE
Explain historical development of the area. Discuss how this relates to the historical development of the community. History of Southwick
The town of Southwick is located in the Westfield River watershed and was first incorporated as an independent town in 1770. First settled in the late-seventeenth century, the area was given the nickname “Poverty Plains” due to the lack of agricultural success throughout the region, leading settlers to believe the land was infertile. It was not until the early nineteenth century that the town saw an economic and population boom via the area’s cultivation of tobacco and the construction of the H&H Canal through the town (MHC 1982). Additionally, the successful ice harvesting industry of the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries provided refrigeration for food storage from New York to Boston. The location of
the Hampshire and Hampden Canal through the Congamond Lakes area and along Great Brook had little impact on the town’s settlement pattern other than the influx of Irish immigrants due to the necessity for canal diggers. After the abandonment of the canal operation and its replacement by the Canal Railroad, Southwick saw a steady population decline leading into the mid-twentieth century. Development and improvements to local autoroutes and the area’s
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 5
SOU.C See Data Sheet
highways brought an influx of commercial business to the region, specifically along Route 10 and Route 202 (MHC 1982). Despite the growth in commercial business in the twentieth century, the tobacco industry continued to be the town’s principal economic staple. Today, Southwick is dominated by residential development and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal The widespread enthusiasm for, and promotion of, canals that spread across the eastern United States in the early nineteenth century was not missed by entrepreneurs in New Haven and the upper Connecticut River Valley. First
conceived by local businessmen in New Haven in 1822, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was constructed between 1826 and 1834 with the purpose of transporting goods from the upper Connecticut River Valley to the tidewaters of New
Haven, Connecticut (Camposeo 1977). When fully operational, the canal route connected with the Farmington Canal at a guard lock in Southwick, Massachusetts, and continued approximately 30 miles north, emptying into the Connecticut River in Northampton, Massachusetts. Operating, in its entirety, for roughly 13 years before officially closing the waterway due to financial strain on January 18, 1848, prior to the navigational season of that year.
At its conception, the grand plan for this venture had the route linking the tidewaters of Long Island Sound to the St.
Lawrence River, connecting the Western New England Interior to Canada and the Atlantic Ocean (Harte 1933). This original undertaking was to be constructed in stages, with the first stage to be the completion of a canal way from New
Haven to the border of Massachusetts in Southwick. Which then would be followed by entrepreneurs in western Massachusetts picking up the route from that point and linking it to a bend on the Connecticut River in Northampton.
These lofty ideas were birthed in 1822 when businessmen in New Haven hired Benjamin Wright, chief engineer of the Erie Canal, for a preliminary survey of the predicted canal route. Wright returned with the conclusion that the terrain in the
area was very favorable to canal construction and that per mile expenses would be less than that of canals being constructed in New York at that time. Following this assessment, a charter was granted to the Farmington Canal
Company to build a canal from New Haven to the northern border of the state (Harte 1933). Members of the Farmington Canal Company then traveled into Western Massachusetts to garner support from local entrepreneurs for the
Massachusetts branch of the route. A committee was formed, and funds were raised for a survey of the Massachusetts segment from Southwick into Northampton. Holmes Hutchinson and Benjamin Wright’s son Henry, civil engineers with
experience on the Erie Canal, were commissioned to conduct the land survey. Upon receiving a favorable report, a charter was granted to the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company to “construct and operate a canal from the northern
boundary line of Connecticut to the Great Bend in the Connecticut river in Northampton” (Camposeo 1977).
Following a more detailed survey and cost projection conducted by Henry Wright under the direction of his father in 1823, commission members voted for construction to begin as soon as possible. David Hurd, another veteran of the Erie Canal,
was appointed chief engineer for the project (Camposeo 1977). Financial strains slowed the construction of the Farmington Canal, leaving the members of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company concerned for the Massachusetts branch of the canal, which would be a familiar theme throughout the venture. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company hired Jarvis Hurd, the brother of Davis, to conduct a final survey of their segment of the canal
route. By the spring of 1826, the majority of the Farmington Canal route had been completed and Jarvis Hurd was able to complete his final survey and cost projection (Camposeo 1977).
With the impending completion of the Farmington Canal and the requisite funds raised, groundbreaking on the Hampshire
and Hampden Canal took place on November 1, 1826. By 1829, weather difficulties related to heavy rains and the drought of the summer of that year left the canal company in bad shape. In addition to this, both Davis and Jarvis Hurd
resigned from the project that year, being replaced by William Butler as Chief Engineer (Camposeo 1977). Construction on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal again came to a standstill in 1831 when the company lacked the funds to finish the construction and were subsequently denied federal assistance. This problem was solved when a New Haven bank with contributions from the surrounding Massachusetts towns were able to provide the funds necessary for the completion
of the canal. With this new influx of capital, construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was completed on August
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 6
SOU.C See Data Sheet
30, 1834. However, the first boat did not traverse the entire route until July 29 of the next year, which was declared the official opening of the entire canal (Camposeo 1977). While there was a steady growth of business along the canal following its completion, constant repairs and delays began to severely compromise both companies’ ability to operate and maintain the route. Due to these growing financial strains, the Farmington Canal Company and the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company merged to create The New Haven and Northampton Canal Company in 1836 to operate and maintain the entire route of the canal (Camposeo 1977). Financial woes continued through the early portion of the 1840s with the company operating annually in the red, and the need for new capital to maintain operation was dire. Late in that year, a successful businessman by the name of Joseph Sheffield purchased controlling interest in the Company and by the spring of 1841, succeeded Steven Staples as company president. The following four years proved to be the canal’s most successful, with tens of thousands of pounds of goods transported along the waterway with minimal delay and interruption. In January of 1845, Sheffield stepped down as Company president and was replaced by Henry Farnum, which would signal the beginning of the end for the canal (Camposeo 1977). The summer of 1845 brought with it a significant drought that had rendered the canal unnavigable. By the time the canal returned to operation, a large break in the Connecticut portion of the route caused service to be delayed once again. To mitigate rising costs of repairs and service delays, Henry Farnum commissioned a report to the practicability of constructing a railroad along the canal route. With the increased popularity and profitability of railroads across the nation, a plan was developed in Connecticut to operate a railroad along the canal’s towpath concurrently with regular canal operation. By 1847, work had begun on the New Haven and Collinsville Railroad (nicknamed the Canal Line), and by the winter of that year, canal transportation between New Haven and Northampton ended with the official closing of the canal taking place on January 18, 1848 (Camposeo 1977). While in Massachusetts, the towns were left with an abandoned canal and no plans to convert or monetize the route. However, proponents of the Canal Line were determined to continue the rail line north to Northampton despite strong opposition from several railroads in the state. By 1853, the Hampshire and Hampden Railroad was formed with service from Granby, CT to Northampton, MA, beginning in 1856. This line followed on or near the canal route from Southwick to Northampton. The railroad changed hands numerous times over the next century until the latter half of the twentieth century when much of the Canal Line began to be abandoned. Much of the abandoned right-of-way through Massachusetts has been railbanked and today has been converted to multiple rail trails running along the former canal route. Canal Impacts on Southwick
As the canal entered Massachusetts through the guard lock on the border of Suffield, CT and Southwick, MA, it carved a path north where it intersected with the South Pond of Congamond Lake. While traversing the shallower segments of Congamond Lake, an earthen towpath was constructed in the form of a man-made dike a short distance from the shoreline, from which, draft animals could tow canal boats through the lake. One approximately 700-foot segment through
the Middle Pond utilized a floating towpath where the water proved too deep for the earthen towpath to be laid and as a measure to not dam the pond (Walter 2006). Along this stretch, wooded rafts moored to either bank served as the towpath
allowing the crossing of the draft animals. In the North Pond, the earthen towpath split the pond into separate waterbodies likely only linking them via culverts under the towpath. From here, the canal continued through the remainder of Middle and North Ponds, where it again was carved into dry land just south of South Longyard Road. Here was the first lift lock location along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal, Lock 1. Originally constructed of dry-laid masonry inlaid with chestnut
and oak to create a watertight chamber, Lock 1 has since been removed by the flood of 1955 (Raber 2002). A lockhouse, in the vicinity of Lock 1, survived the initial abandonment of the canal and was relocated farther inland in 1894 by Frank Jarry (Davis 1951:283). Here, the former lockhouse was converted into a private residence before being destroyed by the 1955 flood. Over the next 4/10 of a mile, 5 additional locks, constructed in a similar fashion to Lock 1, lowered the canal
into the Westfield River Valley (Walter 2006). After proceeding past Lock 6, the canal parallels Great Brook through the remainder of the town of Southwick into Westfield. Along this stretch, the canal is lowered approximately another 7-10 feet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 7
SOU.C See Data Sheet
at Lock 7 and again at Lock 8. Today, Lock 7 remains the best example of a timber-lined lock design along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal due to the swamp preserving the timbers and the remoteness of its location, discouraging later reuse of the stone. Just south of Lock 7, the only surviving, surficial remnant of the unknown number of change-over bridges along the canal can be observed at which the towpath shifted from the prisms west to east banking. The last confirmed engineering feature along the canal in Southwick was the South Great Brook Aqueduct. Aqueducts along the canal were constructed using two stone abutments located at the ends of the earthen prisms, with a timber aqueduct truck spanning the distance between the abutments supported by stone piers seated on bedrock where possible. A wooden towpath bridge was also constructed along one side of the trunk spanning the distance between abutments (Raber 2002). Along with the above-mentioned canal features, an unknown number of basins, waste weirs, dams, masonry drains, and traversal bridges may have been present along the route through Southwick, any surficial evidence of which has since been eroded/obscured. The overall economic impact of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal on the town of Southwick is difficult to determine. At its inception, the canal was believed to bring trade and market growth to participating towns. Which when fully operating, the canal indeed did for short periods. However, with significant engineering mistakes and shortcuts, along with costly repairs, seasonal closure, and weather-related stoppages, the canal never was able to establish itself as the prominent interior New England trade route that it was envisioned to be. In Southwick, the construction of the canal did, in part, contribute to a period of population growth for the town, the likes of which would not be seen again until the 1920s. The canal’s contribution to this growth can be observed through the influx of Irish immigrants into Southwick, many of whom settled in the area as canal builders in the late 1820s (MHC 1982). The growth of the tobacco and cigar industry were likely beneficiaries of the canal route and subsequent railroad through Southwick in the first half of the nineteenth century. While soils in the area proved poor for growing staple crops, landowners began to realize at the turn of the nineteenth century that it was more than suitable for the growth of certain cash crops, primarily tobacco. Southwick and its neighbors soon had a resource with limited means of export. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal, followed by the Canal Railroad, served to facilitate this need and soon Southwick and Westfield had a thriving cigar-making industry and an in-demand commodity. The canal’s closure impacted the ability of Southwick to trade and export goods, but only for a limited amount of time, as the Canal Railroad was completed through the town by 1855. Today, the route of the railroad has been converted into recreational trails and areas of the original canal prism can still be observed to the north and south of Congamond Lakes. BIBLIOGRAPHY and/or REFERENCES
Camposeo, James Mark
1977 The History of the Canal System between New Haven and Northampton (1822-1847). Historical Journal of
Massachusetts 1(6):37-53.
Davis, Maud E. 1951 Historical Facts and Stories About Southwick. Southwick, Massachusetts.
Hamberg, Lee David 1997 Southwick Revisited. Arcadia Publishing, Mount Pleasant, South Carolina.
Harte, Charles Rufus 1933 Some Engineering Features of the Old Northampton Canal. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of
the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers, Hartford, Connecticut.
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)
1982 MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Southwick. MHC, Boston.
Raber, Michael S.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 8
SOU.C See Data Sheet
2002 Survey and Inventory of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (New Haven and Northampton Canal) for Proposed National Register of Historic Places Nomination. On file with the MHC, Boston.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2021 Southwick Quadrangle topographic map, 1:24,000 scale. United States Department of the Interior, Washington.
Walter, Carl E. 2006 Hampshire & Hampden Canal, 1829-1847. Map. On file with the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 9
SOU.C See Data Sheet
National Register of Historic Places Criteria Statement Form
Check all that apply: Individually eligible Eligible only in a historic district Contributing to a potential historic district Potential historic district
Criteria: A B C D
Criteria Considerations: A B C D E F G Statement of Significance by _______Zachary Nason___________
The criteria that are checked in the above sections must be justified here. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal, otherwise known as the Massachusetts portion of the New Haven and
Northampton Canal, meets the criteria for listing, in its entirety, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A, C, and D. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is nationally significant under Criterion A for its associations with the Canal Era (c. 1800-1850) of the northeastern United States, illustrating the movement to improve industry and transportation with a canal network, and led by the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825. The area reflects the widespread and nationwide enthusiasm for canal construction during this era. The Canal Area is also significant under Criterion C as representing a distinct engineering endeavor and embodying the full extent of
the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Under Criterion D, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area embodies not only what surficial features remain
present on the landscape but also the features, associated structures, and unrecorded archaeological components that are likely to be yielded extant below the ground surface. These as of yet undocumented components may contribute to the greater understanding of canal engineering practices of the day, as well as the wider implications canal construction, operation, and subsequent closure had on the local communities, their settlement patterns, and its use/disuse post-abandonment.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 10
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Covering the approximate 30-mile extent of the original Hampshire and Hampden Canal through Southwick, Westfield, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, with a feeder route also coming into the mainline from Russell, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is significant at the local, state, and national level for its role in the history of not just the Canal Era, but for its contributions to the industrial expansion of New England and transportation engineering as a whole. With the Farmington Canal, the Connecticut portion of the
New Haven and Northampton Canal, having already been listed on the NRHP, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal represents the northern half of the greatest undertaking of its kind in New England, an approximately 80-mile manmade waterway connecting the Connecticut River Valley and western New England as a whole with a seaport on the Long Island Sound. Along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal, a variety of engineering features and structures were incorporated into its design and function, utilizing an array of construction techniques. In its entirety the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses. These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds. Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the small Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were
of a similar but narrower design. Additional operational components include headworks, boat basins, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, a 700-foot floating towpath, Lockkeepers houses, stores, warehouses, toll and tariff collection structures, hotels, waste weirs, traversal bridges, towpaths, towpath cross-over bridges, along with an unknown amount of additional architectural resources. A number of other sites associated with canal construction may include quarries, excavation pits, worker housing, among others.
The canal’s construction and operation directly and indirectly affected change and growth in the participating communities as well as the larger region, contributing to local and regional economic growth and expansion, influencing the development of transportation networks and modes, shifting settlement patterns, and enabling more population movement. The canal’s abbreviated lifespan and subsequent absorption by newer technological advancements such as the railroad also contribute to the greater record of industrial expansion of New England. The major engineering feat alone, and its remnant presence still extant on the landscape, further reinforces the endeavor that was the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Further undocumented/not fully documented archaeological resources within the proposed area may also have the
potential to contribute to the potential district’s significance, should subsurface testing be conducted.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 11
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial
Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
1 Canal Prism
From Connecticut border to
where route diverges from rail trail Y
Well-preserved, rail trail
occupies former western towpath; prism is watered 1
1 Guard Lock At Massachusetts-Connecticut border Y
Surficial earthworks with approx. 15 ft of remnant stonework along eastern chamber wall
2, 3
2 Canal Prism From rail trail to the south pond of Congamond Lake Y
Western towpath is preserved along southern portion of
segment, prism is visible, though moderately eroded, watered
4
3 Canal Prism
Through the South Pond of Congamond Lake into
southern portion of Middle Pond; crossing small portion of Connecticut
N Obscured by Congamond Lake
3 Floating Towpath Traversing an approx. 700 ft section of Middle Pond N No surficial evidence remains
4 Canal Prism End of Island Pond Road peninsula Y
Towpath along western side, visible, though partially altered by modern landscaping and
erosion
5
5 Canal Prism Through Middle Pond N Obscured by Congamond Lake
6 Canal Prism At crossing from Middle Pond to North Pond Y
Repurposed by modern culvert for Point Grove Road, towpath exists along western bank, but only north of Point Grove Rd.
6
7 Canal Prism Crossing North Pond N Obscured by Congamond Lake
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 12
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
8 Canal Prism From north of North Pond to North Pond Road N Filled and leveled by residential development
9 Canal Prism From North Pond Rd. to north side of South Longyard Rd. N Eroded/obscured by 1955 flood
9 Lock 1 South of South Longyard Rd. N Eroded/obscured by 1955 flood
10 Canal Prism North of South Longyard Rd. Y remnant prism segment with western towpath
10 Lock 2 Southern portion of Segment 10 Y
Surficial earthworks from
original chamber and southern gate sill 7
10 Lock 3 Approx 100 m east of Lock 2 Y Identifiable earthworks from
original chamber 8
10 Lock 4 Northern end of Segment 10 Y
(partially)
Only southern half of original lock earthworks remain;
northern portion removed by landscaping efforts
9
11 SOU.HA.5
(partially) Canal Prism West of sharp turn, west of
Granaudo Circle N Altered/removed by
landscaping efforts
11 Lock 5 Approx. located near center of Segment 11 N Altered/removed by landscaping efforts
12 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism From west of Granaudo Circle
to south of Great Brook Y
Towpath extant along western
embankment heading north to location of change-over bridge
where it shifts to the eastern embankment, relatively well-
preserved
12
12 Lock 6 Southern end of Segment 12 Y
Intact earthworks with some areas (50 ft approx.) of intact
stonework from original canal chamber repairs; northern gate
and end of lock has been
10, 11
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 13
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
moderately eroded by Great Brook associated wetland
12/13 Change-over bridge At the boundary between Segment 12 and 13 Y
Bridge abutment earthworks remain extant, with spilled stone in prism center from original stonework construction
13
13 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism From change-over bridge to large Great Brook associated wetland Y Towpath extant along eastern embankment heading north, relatively well-preserved
13 Lock 7 Approx. 60 m north of change-over bridge Y
Once of the most well-preserved lock features, last remaining lock feature reflecting original timber-lined chamber construction (at ground surface); earthwork remains throughout, original stone headers can also be observed, with some timber preservation
14, 15
14 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism Within large, Great Brook wetland N Eroded due to proximity to Great Brook; probable site of former waste weir
15 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism From Great Crossing to Canal Road Y
Meandering segment with intact embankments and eastern towpath; well-preserved
16
16 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism Southern end of Canal Road N No surficial evidence remains due to DPW access road and water supply
17 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism Along Canal Road Y Original eastern towpath presently utilized as DPW
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 14
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
access road (Canal Road)
18 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism Along Canal Road N Obscured by erosion, DPW road, likely eastern towpath,
remains (Canal Road)
19 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism Along Canal Road Y Original eastern towpath presently utilized as DPW
access road (Canal Road)
20 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism Northern end of Canal Road Y
Partially visible, western portion of prism has seen filling from
adjacent residential development; original eastern
towpath presently utilized as DPW access road (Canal
Road)
21 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism From Feeding Hills Road to north of Great Brook Drive N
Mostly removed/obscured by road construction and
residential development; western embankment visible
very sporadically, minimal
22 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism From south of Great Brook crossing to unnamed Great Brook tributary Y
Towpath identifiable, shifts from eastern embankment to
western embankment in the vicinity of aqueduct, no surficial
evidence of a change-over bridge.
17
22 South Great
Brook Aqueduct At Great Brook crossing Y
Originally spanned approx. 30
ft, remnant stonework from abutments is visible, spilled
stone from original piers can also be seen deposited in
waterway
18, 19
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 15
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
22 Potential Basin At southern end of Lock 8 Y
Possible turn-around basin location, semi-circle earthworks can be seen just outside southern gate of Lock 8
22 Lock 8 Northern end of Segment 22 Y
Chamber earthworks remain, some degradation along the chambers eastern wall; no stonework or timbers exist at ground surface and neither do the northern and southern sills
20
23 SOU.HA.5 Canal Prism Eastern side of Great Brook N Eroded due to flooding
24 SOU.HA.5
(partially) Canal Prism Along DPW road, paralleling
Great Brook Y
Repurposed by DPW road; roadway runs within former
prism with towpath along western embankment
25 Canal Prism Just south of Westfield border N
Removed/obscured by DPW
outbuildings and roadway; canal was cut into natural
hillslope along eastern side
26 Canal Prism From just south of Westfield border, extending into Westfield Y
Repurposed by DPW road; roadway runs within former
prism with towpath along western embankment
21
A-1 Salmon Brook Feeder Prism
From Connecticut border
along rear of residential and commercial parcels N
Constructed in 1830, this
segment has been completely eroded/obscured by flooding
A-2 Salmon Brook Feeder Prism
Adjacent to agricultural fields
just north of Connecticut border Y
Constructed in 1830, segment
contains visible prism with east and west embankment
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 16
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Photo 1: Remnant canal prism in Segment 1, facing southeast.
Photo 2: Narrowed chamber of guard lock, facing southeast.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 17
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Photo 3: Remnant stone from original guard lock chamber, facing east.
Photo 4: Remnant canal prism in Segment 2, facing northeast.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 18
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Photo 5: Remnant canal prism in Segment 4, facing north.
Photo 6: Remnant canal prism in Segment 6, facing north.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 19
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Photo 7: Remnant earthworks of Lock 2, facing northeast.
Photo 8: Remnant earthworks of Lock 3, facing northeast.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 20
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Photo 9: Remnant earthworks of Lock 4, facing southwest.
Photo 10: Remnant earthworks and stonework of Lock 6, facing northeast.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 21
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Photo 11: Remnant stonework from Lock 6 chamber headers, facing east.
Photo 12: Remnant canal prism in Segment 12, facing south.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 22
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Photo 13: Earthworks from change-over bridge abutments, facing east.
Photo 14: Remnant earthworks and stonework of Lock 7, facing north.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 23
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Photo 15: Stonework headers of Lock 7, facing northwest.
Photo 16: Remnant canal prism and towpath in Segment 15, facing north.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 24
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Photo 17: Remnant canal prism in Segment 22, facing north.
Photo 18: Earthworks of South Great Brook Aqueduct chute, facing northeast.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 25
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Photo 19: Stone from original southern abutment of aqueduct, facing east.
Photo 20: Earthworks of Lock 8 (modern trail occupies base of original chamber), facing north.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 26
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Photo 21: Remnant canal prism repurposed by DPW access road in Segment 26, facing north.
Photo 22: Remnant feeder canal prism in Segment A-2, facing northeast.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK SOU.C HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 1-10
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 27
SOU.C See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK SOU.C HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 1-10
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 28
SOU.C See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK SOU.C HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 1-10
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 29
SOU.C See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK SOU.C HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 1-10
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 30
SOU.C See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK SOU.C HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 1-10
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 31
SOU.C See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK SOU.C HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 1-10
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 32
SOU.C See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK SOU.C HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 1-10
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 33
SOU.C See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK SOU.C HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 1-10
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 34
SOU.C See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK SOU.C HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 1-10
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 35
SOU.C See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHWICK SOU.C HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 1-10
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 36
SOU.C See Data Sheet
Follow Massachusetts Historical Commission Survey Manual instructions for completing this form. 12/12
FORM A - AREA
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 Photograph
Remnant canal prism in Segment 46, facing south.
Assessor’s Sheets USGS Quad Area Letter Form Numbers in Area
9, 12, 16, 19, 21, 25, 56, 57, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 143, 147, 153, 202, 221, 229, 244, 245, 246, 247, 250, 251, 7R, 15R, 16R, 17R, 19R, 28R, 29R, 38R, 39R, 40R, 41R, 47R, 48R, 49R, 50R, 55R, 56R, 62R, 63R, 69R
West Springfield, MA & Mount Tom, MA & Woronoco, MA
WSF.O
See Data Sheet
Locus Map
[See continuation sheet pages 25-42.]
see continuation sheet
Town/City: Westfield
Place (neighborhood or village): Name of Area: Hampshire and Hampden Canal
Present Use: Former canal route with varied modern-day land use (residential, recreational, agricultural, industrial, commercial, undeveloped)
Construction Dates or Period: Built 1826-1834, operated until 1847
Overall Condition: Varied- some areas of remnant
prism and Lock features with other areas obscured or altered by commercial development.
Major Intrusions and Alterations: Altered, obscured, or repurposed by railroad construction, residential and commercial development
Acreage: Complete-138.75 acres, Remnant segments-53.90 acres (discontinuous)
Recorded by: Zachary Nason and Nadia Waski, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Organization: PVPC and Westfield Historical
Commission
Date (month/year): 11/2022
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 1
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If checked, you must attach a completed National Register Criteria Statement form.
Use as much space as necessary to complete the following entries, allowing text to flow onto additional continuation sheets.
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Describe architectural, structural and landscape features and evaluate in terms of other areas within the community.
Upon completing construction in 1834, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was an approximate 30-mile linear prism oriented generally north to south with associated crossover bridges, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, basins, towpath
and, in places, embankments. The canal route ran from a guard lock at the state line located in Southwick, MA south of Congamond Ponds to where it connects to the Connecticut River in Northampton, MA. The original engineering
specifications dictated the canal prism be 35 feet wide at the surface with the capacity to hold 4 feet of water. Generally, this prism was earthen and unlined. In its entirety the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses (Raber 2002). These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122-foot elevation difference between
the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds (Raber 2002). Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of
which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the much smaller Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design. The following description documents the physical characteristics of the existing canal route within Westfield (WSF.O).
While much of the canal route maintains its original location, setting, feeling, and association, the presence or absence of surficial structural remnants was the determining factor as to whether a segment was considered present or lacking surficial indication. Using the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the NRHP, some segments described as having no surficial remnants, may merit the integrity required for listing due to these other contributing aspects. The existing physical condition of these features varies, with some segments having been substantially altered and to
others containing small trace features of the canal’s original construction and design. A portion of the original canal route was repurposed to facilitate the tracks of the New Haven and Northampton Railroad, which much of today has been again
repurposed as the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway (Rail Trail). In Westfield, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is an approximately 138.75-acres, 15.27-mile, 75-foot-wide linear corridor tracing the historic route of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal within the town’s borders. The route was
determined using historical mapping, modern technological data, field verification, oral accounts, and archival research. This corridor includes the route of the linear canal prism and towpath, along with any other engineering infrastructure
directly associated with canal operation. The physical condition of the Westfield portion of the canal route varies, with surficial identification of substantial sections of the former canal modified by erosion, building development, infill, natural
phenomena, and other alterations. Segments/features which were not able to be field verified, either due to access related restrictions or the lack of any surficial indication, may require further, more detailed documentary research and/or
subsurface archaeological testing to better ascertain their exact locations. The canal corridor as described below, represents the route of the canal as determined using the available resources and methods. During field verification, the canal was divided into segments based on the physical characteristics of the surficial canal remnants. Following is a brief description of these sections proceeding from south to north, beginning at the Southwick-Westfield border and ending at
the Westfield-Southampton town line. Within the town of Westfield exists the eastern portion of the Westfield River Feeder, which is described from west to east as the feeder enters Westfield from Russell to where it empties into the Main
Line.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 2
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Canal Prism Segment 26 (MHC ID) (Photo 1). is a repurposed canal segment with visible eastern and western embankments with the prism itself being utilized as a DPW access route. This segment is partially within the Town of Southwick, running northward into Westfield. Segment 27 is the first segment of the canal entirely within Westfield. Here surficial evidence of the former route has been altered/obscured by the DPW access road and buildings, Shaker Road, and the surrounding residential development. The site of Lock 9 formerly existed in this segment but has been removed/obscured by the construction of Shaker Road and residential lots along this road. The segment ends at Canal Drive. Canal Prism Segment 28 (MHC ID) is a small section of repurposed canal that now serves as roadside drainage that begins at Canal Drive and ends after crossing Great Brook. This segment contains no surficial evidence of the former North Great Brook Aqueduct, either washed out along Great Brook or removed by residential construction along Shaker Road. The towpath shifts to the east side of the canal just south of Great Brook, no evidence of a cross-over bridge was located. Canal Prism Segments 29, 30, and 31 (MHC ID) (Photos 2 to 3) encompass a continuous, uniform canal segment that extends east of Shaker Road, curving to follow in the rear of residential lots that parallel Great Brook and Springfield Aqueduct to the canal’s east. Through these segments surficial remnants of the prism and towpath can be observed. Here, canal meanders northwest, where the prism contains a modern culvert and tightly built development before meeting Shaker Road. A two-track trail currently utilizes the canal prism as a right-of-way, here the prism is well-preserved. The eastern towpath is mostly visible, with evidence of erosion and construction activities sporadically obscuring it in sections. A small 230-foot segment (Segment 32) of the canal was altered/obscured by Shaker Road construction, before traces of the prism pick back up and continue for another 0.74 miles (Segment 33, 34), finally terminating just west of Tow Path Lane. Segment 33 cuts in the rear of multiple homes in a tightly built residential area that has altered/obscured the majority of the canal’s eastern embankment and towpath. The western embankment is visible and cut out of the natural slope side. Multiple road crossings and additional small disturbances are noted in this area, with 0.14 miles between 583 and 595 Little River Road (Map) not field verified due to access related restrictions. Surficial evidence of the prism picks back up, crossing Ridgecrest Drive, and the eastern towpath is visible in the rear of residential house lots on the land bounded by Little River Road and Ridgecrest Circle (Segment 34). Canal Prism Segment 35 (MHC ID) is a 959-foot altered/obscured section of canal in an area that has experienced significant washout events. Significant erosion of the former prism location is evident. Canal Prism Segment 36 (MHC ID) (Photo 5) contains a well-preserved prism and northern towpath, with a modern ATV trail utilizing the former canal route. This segment contains remnants of the Little River Aqueduct (MHC ID). Although the aqueduct is mostly washed out, with its western end not surficially identified in the field, its eastern abutment stonework was observed along the eastern bank of Little River. On the western side of Little River is another 420 feet of remnant canal prism. While much of the prism channel has experienced significant washout and erosion, the evidence of the towpath still exists. This segment ends at the edge of a large agricultural field. This segment of the canal, also including Segments 35 and 34, has been previously recorded in the MHC database as WSF.HA.4, though the included descriptions and details are limited (Photos 6 to 7). Segments 38 is an approximately 0.88-mile stretch of the former canal route altered/obscured by agricultural activities and the infrastructural development of Westfield. After crossing active agricultural lands (Segment 38), the route runs through an industrial park south of the Westfield town center. No surficial remnants of the canal were located. The former location of the Little River Feeder would have emptied into Segment 38. Segment B-1 begins at the intersection with the Little River and extends to the transmission ROW, no surficial evidence of the route remains, washed out by storms and flooding events and/or otherwise obscured. No surficial evidence of the former headworks of the Little
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 3
WSF.O See Data Sheet
River Feeder were located, likely impacted by flooding, erosion, and transmission line construction. A short, 160-foot Segment B-2 contains a partially visible prism with a remnant of the northern embankment. The western bank was altered/obscured by the transmission line right-of-way construction. The remaining 0.3 miles of feeder (B-3) crosses over Ponders Hollow Road and through an industrial park, no surficial evidence of the route remains. Segments 39 and 40 contain 1.5 miles of repurposed canal route that was first utilized by the New Haven and Northampton Railroad as their railbed corridor and then later, was again transformed into the Mass Central Rail Trail. No surficial evidence of the East Silver Street Lift Bridge (Segment 39), South Basin (Segment 39), Main Street Lift Bridge (Segment 39), Elm Street Lift Bridge (Segment 40), Guard Lock (Segment 40), and North Basin (Segment 40) were located. However, the location of the South Basin is immortalized by a canal marker (WSF.914) just off Main Street. Any surficial evidence of the former Westfield River Aqueduct has also since been removed/obscured. With its former location in the center of town, stone was likely removed and repurposed for later engineering efforts as a cost saving measure. Historic mapping of Westfield shows the former canal channel paralleling the railbed, which ran along the eastern embankment and towpath after the rail company purchased the canal ROW. While the channel has since been filled and built over, the former railbeds have been converted to recreational trails and still occupy that original embankment/towpath through these segments. A 190-foot section of the former canal containing no surficial remnants (Segment 41) exists between the repurposed Segment 40 and a surficial 470-foot Canal Prism Segment 42 (MHC ID) (Photo 8). Remnant features in Segment 42 include the prism and east towpath; however, erosion has significantly widened the canal prism. After this small section, no surficial evidence of the canal remains for about 1.41 miles (Segment 43). Within Segment 43, railroad and road construction, and flooding events, including the creation of the Arm Brook Reservoir, have altered/obscured Locks 10 and 11. A portion of Arm Brook, north of the Massachusetts Turnpike and south of the dam, is hypothesized to have been diverted into the former canal channel, away from its natural drainage during reservoir construction, based on the flat surface to the east likely being the former towpath. There is no surficial evidence of Locks 12 and 13 due to inundation by the establishment of the dam. Canal Prism Segment 44 (MHC ID) is a stretch of approximately 0.28 miles of remnant canal prism filled with water from the damming of Arm Brook. Here, the east towpath exists, and earthworks from Lock 15 remains partially visible. The lock’s earthworks remain along the west bank, while to the east, they are visible near the northern and southern locations of the former gates. However, surficial remnants of these sills or gates are no longer present. There was no surficial evidence of Lock 16. Canal Prism Segments 45, 46, and 47 (MHC ID) comprise approximately 1.2 miles of remnant canal. The canal’s east towpath was utilized by the New Haven and Northampton Railroad bed (now Pioneer Valley Railroad), with construction of the railroad filling large portions of the canal prism. Only the eastern embankment and towpath, and very sporadic prism sections are identifiable through Segment 45. Both east and west banks are visible (Segment 46; Photo 9) for about
1,675 feet until the west bank disappears for the remainder of the Segment 47 (Photo 10). In Segment 45 no surficial
evidence of Locks 17 and 18 was located, though through historic mapping and documentation it is understood these were their approximate locations. Canal Prism Segment 48 (MHC ID) is a section of remnant canal that begins on the north side of Bennett Road,
extending to just across Summit Lock Road. Similar, to the previous three sections, the railroad continues to occupy the former towpath. Through here the prism has been partially filled and is currently utilized as a railbed drainage channel. Surficial evidence of the canal is lost for approximately 1,100 feet (Segment 49) and the former route crosses wetlands, likely exacerbating erosion. Segment 49 extends north to just after crossing an unnamed tributary of Brickyard Brook.
Segment 50 is a 446-foot-long canal section with visible evidence of the prism and east and west embankments. Impacts related to agricultural activities, such as field drainage, are evident. Following this, Segment 51 contains no surficial evidence of the canal north to North Road.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 4
WSF.O See Data Sheet
For the next approximately 0.87 miles (Canal Prism Segments 52 and 53 [MHC ID]), the former canal prism was repurposed by the railroad. The railroad first parallels the canal for 0.3 miles placing the tracks on the former east towpath in Segment 52 (Photo 11). As it crosses over Root Road, the tracks drop into the original prism and continue into Southampton. The former towpath was likely itself repurposed by Root Road through this stretch. The northernmost portion of the Westfield River Feeder exists in the Town of Russell before flowing south towards the main canal route. The original 1834 Westfield River Feeder Headworks that controlled water flow into the canal was washed out by a flood in 1836. The prism remains visible for 0.36 miles (Segment C-1) before ending at Valley View Road. The embankments along this section are not continuous; the western end of the prism, near its confluence with Westfield River, contains a scattering of cut stone, but it is undetermined whether this is associated with the former dam and headworks or with the adjacent railroad running along the prism’s northern embanking. Segment C-1 continues south to the point where the canal is bisected by Valley View Avenue. Segment C-2 begins at Valley View Avenue and continues to parallel the Westfield River through Russell. This section has been altered/obscured by erosion along the Westfield River, industrial development along with road, and railroad construction. Throughout Segment C-2, only minimal traces of prism and embankment remain visible, too discontinuous to merit consideration. This section continues east to the end of Tekoa Avenue. Due to access restriction and safety concerns, field verification was not conducted from here to the end of Pochassic Road in the town of Westfield. Instead, LiDAR and historic mapping were relied upon to confirm the canal route from Tekoa Avenue to Pochassic Road. The route of the feeder continues east as it enters Westfield. No surficial remnants of the canal were observed in Segment C-3, likely having been altered/obscured agricultural activities that leveled the prism and towpath. Only the natural northern hillslope remains, which would have served as an embanking. A section of the canal way remains visible (Segment C-4; Photo 12) before a road for logging operations removed 245 feet of the prism (Segment C-5). These segments stretch from the beginning of the quarry/sand pit access road to a small lumber operation to the east, just before Moose Meadow Brook. A two-track road occupies the center of the prism through this stretch. Feeder Canal Prism Segment C-6 (MHC ID) traverses the hilltops adjacent to Moose Meadow Brook (Photo 13) before transitioning into C-7, as the route approaches a residential area. Surficial evidence of both embankments through Segment C-6 remains, with only the far western section partially filled by agricultural compost. At the crossing of Moose Meadow Brook, remnants of the original stone arch culvert (Moose Meadow Brook Culvert [MHC ID]) can be seen in the form of stonework along the brook’s eastern bank, as well as other scattered stone in the waterway from the original culvert feature. Segment C-7 is a small, remnant prism section crossing through the rear of the residential area. Small sections of the western and southern embanking have been cut out by residential development. C-7 terminates at the intersection of West Road. Between Segments C-7 and C-8, the route could not be field verified due to access related restriction. Segment C-8 is a small section of canal removed by the Hawks Circle development. No surficial evidence of the canal was identified in this segment. Feeder Canal Prism Segment C-9 (MHC ID) (Photo 14) is a long, continuous segment of the canal prism extending from the end of the Hawks Circle development to just south of Furrowtown Road. This meandering section passes through the rear of the Kane Brothers Circle development and possesses preserved embankments and prism.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 5
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Segment C-10 is a section of the canal running from Furrowtown Road to approximately 75 meters north of the Fish and Game Pond. Large sections of Segment 10 have been washed out with others having been altered by the artificial pond construction. No surficial remnants of the canal were identified in this segment. Beginning just north of the pond and continuing to Montgomery Road, Feeder Canal Prism Segment C-11 (MHC ID) remains visible. Segment C-12 encompasses the former feeder canal route from Montgomery Road to the crossing of Powdermill Brook. No surficial indications of the canal were noted through this section, likely due to residential development and the construction of I-90. Just north of present-day I-90 would have been the location of the Powder Mill Brook Culvert, a single stone arch culvert, traversing Powder Mill Brook, of which no surficial evidence was identified. Due to safety concerns and access restrictions, the canal area from the eastern side of Powdermill Brook to the western end of Turnpike Industrial Road was not field verified. The final section of the Westfield River Feeder, Segment C-13, has been obscured by infrastructure improvement and the development of Westfield. Beginning at the end of Turnpike Industrial Road, this segment continues to where the feeder would have emptied into the main canal, which has also been completely leveled and built over by the development of Westfield. No surficial indications of the former feeder canal route were identified in Segment C-13. HISTORICAL NARRATIVE
Explain historical development of the area. Discuss how this relates to the historical development of the community. History of Westfield The Town of Westfield is located in the Westfield River watershed and Woronoco Valley. It was incorporated as an independent town in 1669. First settlement of the area occurred in the late-seventeenth century in the form of the Woronoco fur trading station (MHC 1982). Eventually, the town developed into an important agricultural center during the Colonial period with farmsteads on the fertile lowlands. Construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal in 1826 divided Main Street and reoriented the town center along Elm Street to the northside depot (NRHP 2013). The canal was the transportation innovation of the late-eighteenth to early-nineteenth century. Powder mills were added onto the previously established ones from the seventeenth century to supply the blasting powder used for the canal’s construction (MHC 1982). Westfield’s population grew as a result of worker needs for construction efforts. An expansion of Westfield Village attracted newcomers and the town saw an influx of Irish immigrants who became canal laborers. The town’s thriving commerce was likely directly linked to the canal’s opening in 1829. Agricultural traffic to New Haven and other towns along the canal route allowed farmers to deliver their great variety of market produce (NRHP 2013). Formation of the Hampden National Bank and the organization of docks and warehouses followed the canal’s opening. The canal’s most prosperous period was in the years surrounding 1840. The canal was abandoned by 1845, and following a flood in 1853, the canal company was reorganized as the New Haven and Northampton Canal Company. The canal’s route was broadened and replaced by a railroad running north-south from the years of 1855/56. Westfield’s Lyman Lewis was closely connected to the canal’s reorganization and oversaw freight and passenger traffic at the port (MHC 1982). Lyman’s successor was H.B. Smith, who raised funds for the Western Railroad and had interest in the new Canal Railroad. Smith was nationally recognized for his manufacturing of boilers and iron fences. The H.B. Smith Company is responsible for growing Westfield’s industry during the mid-nineteenth century through the acquisition of Samuel F. Gold’s patent for hot-air furnaces. Additional facets of Westfield’s economy during this time included whipmaking and paper production (MHC 1982). However, as early as 1855, Westfield led Hampden County in tobacco production, which was a title it retained for much of the remaining century. Whip production peaked in 1915 and new industries of bicycles, automobiles, and textile manufacturing continued to attract laborers. There was an increase in multi-family housing developments along the industrial belt (MHC 1982).
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 6
WSF.O See Data Sheet
The early twentieth century brought development and improvements to local autoroutes and the area’s highways. After this, there was an influx of commercial business to the region, specifically along the Route 20 axis (MHC 1982). Westfield has experienced rapid suburban expansion, especially in farmland areas along the Western Avenue axis to the State College campus. The town was re-incorporated into a city in 1920 and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. The City’s north side primarily consists of warehousing centers for large corporations due to its proximity to interstate highways. South of the Westfield River represents intersecting trends of growth since it is home to Westfield State University and the old downtown business district. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal
The widespread enthusiasm for, and promotion of, canals that spread across the eastern United States in the early
nineteenth century was not missed by entrepreneurs in New Haven and the upper Connecticut River Valley. First conceived by local businessmen in New Haven in 1822, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was constructed between 1826 and 1834 with the purpose of transporting goods from the upper Connecticut River Valley to the tidewaters of New Haven, Connecticut (Camposeo 1977). When fully operational, the canal route connected with the Farmington Canal at a
guard lock in Southwick, Massachusetts, and continued approximately 30 miles north, emptying into the Connecticut River in Northampton, Massachusetts. Operating, in its entirety, for roughly 13 years before officially closing the waterway due
to financial strain on January 18, 1848, prior to the navigational season of that year. At its conception, the grand plan for this venture had the route linking the tidewaters of Long Island Sound to the St. Lawrence River, connecting the Western New England Interior to Canada and the Atlantic Ocean (Harte 1933). This
original undertaking was to be constructed in stages, with the first stage to be the completion of a canal way from New Haven to the border of Massachusetts in Southwick. Which then would be followed by entrepreneurs in western
Massachusetts picking up the route from that point and linking it to a bend on the Connecticut River in Northampton. These lofty ideas were birthed in 1822 when businessmen in New Haven hired Benjamin Wright, chief engineer of the
Erie Canal, for a preliminary survey of the predicted canal route. Wright returned with the conclusion that the terrain in the area was very favorable to canal construction and that per mile expenses would be less than that of canals being
constructed in New York at that time. Following this assessment, a charter was granted to the Farmington Canal Company to build a canal from New Haven to the northern border of the state (Harte 1933). Members of the Farmington
Canal Company then traveled into Western Massachusetts to garner support from local entrepreneurs for the Massachusetts branch of the route. A committee was formed, and funds were raised for a survey of the Massachusetts
segment from Southwick into Northampton. Holmes Hutchinson and Benjamin Wright’s son Henry, civil engineers with experience on the Erie Canal, were commissioned to conduct the land survey. Upon receiving a favorable report, a
charter was granted to the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company to “construct and operate a canal from the northern boundary line of Connecticut to the Great Bend in the Connecticut river in Northampton” (Camposeo 1977).
Following a more detailed survey and cost projection conducted by Henry Wright under the direction of his father in 1823, commission members voted for construction to begin as soon as possible. David Hurd, another veteran of the Erie Canal, was appointed chief engineer for the project (Camposeo 1977). Financial strains slowed the construction of the
Farmington Canal, leaving the members of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company concerned for the Massachusetts branch of the canal, which would be a familiar theme throughout the venture. The Hampshire and
Hampden Canal Company hired Jarvis Hurd, the brother of Davis, to conduct a final survey of their segment of the canal route. By the spring of 1826, the majority of the Farmington Canal route had been completed and Jarvis Hurd was able to complete his final survey and cost projection (Camposeo 1977).
With the impending completion of the Farmington Canal and the requisite funds raised, groundbreaking on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal took place on November 1, 1826. By 1829, weather difficulties related to heavy rains and the drought of the summer of that year left the canal company in bad shape. In addition to this, both Davis and Jarvis Hurd resigned from the project that year, being replaced by William Butler as Chief Engineer (Camposeo 1977). Construction
on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal again came to a standstill in 1831 when the company lacked the funds to finish the construction and were subsequently denied federal assistance. This problem was solved when a New Haven bank
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 7
WSF.O See Data Sheet
with contributions from the surrounding Massachusetts towns were able to provide the funds necessary for the completion of the canal. With this new influx of capital, construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was completed on August 30, 1834. However, the first boat did not traverse the entire route until July 29 of the next year, which was declared the official opening of the entire canal (Camposeo 1977). While there was a steady growth of business along the canal following its completion, constant repairs and delays began to severely compromise both companies’ ability to operate and maintain the route. Due to these growing financial strains, the Farmington Canal Company and the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company merged to create The New Haven and Northampton Canal Company in 1836 to operate and maintain the entire route of the canal (Camposeo 1977). Financial woes continued through the early portion of the 1840s with the company operating annually in the red, and the need for new capital to maintain operation was dire. Late in that year, a successful businessman by the name of Joseph Sheffield purchased controlling interest in the Company and by the spring of 1841, succeeded Steven Staples as company president. The following four years proved to be the canal’s most successful, with tens of thousands of pounds of goods transported along the waterway with minimal delay and interruption. In January of 1845, Sheffield stepped down as Company president and was replaced by Henry Farnum, which would signal the beginning of the end for the canal (Camposeo 1977). The summer of 1845 brought with it a significant drought that had rendered the canal unnavigable. By the time the canal returned to operation, a large break in the Connecticut portion of the route caused service to be delayed once again. To mitigate rising costs of repairs and service delays, Henry Farnum commissioned a report to the practicability of constructing a railroad along the canal route. With the increased popularity and profitability of railroads across the nation, a plan was developed in Connecticut to operate a railroad along the canal’s towpath concurrently with regular canal operation. By 1847, work had begun on the New Haven and Collinsville Railroad (nicknamed the Canal Line), and by the winter of that year, canal transportation between New Haven and Northampton ended with the official closing of the canal taking place on January 18, 1848 (Camposeo 1977). While in Massachusetts, the towns were left with an abandoned canal and no plans to convert or monetize the route. However, proponents of the Canal Line were determined to continue the rail line north to Northampton despite strong opposition from several railroads in the state. By 1853, the Hampshire and Hampden Railroad was formed with service from Granby, CT to Northampton, MA, beginning in 1856. This line followed on or near the canal route from Southwick to Northampton. The railroad changed hands numerous times over the next century until the latter half of the twentieth century when much of the Canal Line began to be abandoned. Much of the abandoned right-of-way through Massachusetts has been railbanked and today has been converted to multiple rail trails running along the former canal route. Canal Impacts on Westfield In 1822, the town’s citizens voted to approve the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal’s Westfield portion. Canal construction began in 1826 and by 1829, the Westfield to New Haven route was opened. The canal link between
Westfield and Northampton had been completed by 1835 (MHC 1982). The former canal route follows the level topography along Great Brook (Southwick), crossing Little River and through Westfield Center, cutting across Main Street,
and running between the Mechanic Street Cemetery and Elm Street. It then crossed to the west side of Elm Street, meeting the Westfield River (NRHP 2013). A bridge existed to cross the Westfield River. Upon its divergence from the Westfield River, the canal follows the current route of Pochassic Road where it spans Moose Meadow Brook via a stone-arch culvert. On the north side of the river, the canal shifts southeast, running roughly parallel to North Elm Street. It then
follows northward along Powder Mill Brook to Brickyard Brook along the course of Lockhouse Road and off the canal’s main route is an extensive feeder. The Westfield River Canal Feeder ran south along the edge of the Westfield River crossing from Westfield into the town of Russell (Raber 2002).
During construction of the canal, Westfield’s population started to change, as Irish immigrants were brought in to complete the intense, laborious tasks of digging and masonry work (NRHP 2013). Afterward, these individuals stayed and went on
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 8
WSF.O See Data Sheet
to work for new industries in the town. In the 1820s and 1830s, canal construction and operation in Westfield Center increased residential development on surrounding streets. The new canal introduced a cheaper means of transportation to the town and provided Westfield with a direct route to the coast. The establishment of industry in the community changed the town’s character, shaping it into an industrial hub in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The new industrial base evolved around three primary products: whips, cigars, and paper. Opening of the canal assisted in time to carry farm produce, whips, kegs, and muskets, among other goods, between Northampton and Connecticut, generating business in Westfield Center. A building boom simultaneously occurred in Westfield, with the construction of hotels, taverns, and warehouses. The canal’s presence initiated a speculative anticipation that the canal would attract an increase in business. As a result of construction density, Westfield’s first fire company and associated equipment were acquired in 1826. The canal’s route was repurposed by the Westfield & Northampton Railroad, which passed through the town’s center in 1865. The Railroad utilized the canal’s route by eventually constructing an elevated berm next to the canal route ca. 1889. It generally followed the route but deviated north and south of the town’s center. BIBLIOGRAPHY and/or REFERENCES
Camposeo, James Mark
1977 The History of the Canal System between New Haven and Northampton (1822-1847). Historical Journal of
Massachusetts 1(6):37-53.
Harte, Charles Rufus 1933 Some Engineering Features of the Old Northampton Canal. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of
the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers, Hartford, Connecticut.
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC)
1982 MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Westfield. MHC, Boston.
National Register of Historic Places 2013 Westfield Center Historic District, Westfield, Hampden County, Massachusetts. National Register #13000441.
Raber, Michael S. 2002 Survey and Inventory of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (New Haven and Northampton Canal) for Proposed National Register of Historic Places Nomination. On file with the MHC, Boston.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2021 Mount Tom Quadrangle topographic map, 1:24,000 scale. United States Department of the Interior, Washington.
2021 West Springfield Quadrangle topographic map, 1:24,000 scale. United States Department of the Interior,
Washington.
2021 Woronoco Quadrangle topographic map, 1:24,000 scale. United States Department of the Interior, Washington.
Walter, Carl E. 2006 Hampshire & Hampden Canal, 1829-1847. Map. On file with the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 9
WSF.O See Data Sheet
National Register of Historic Places Criteria Statement Form
Check all that apply:
Individually eligible Eligible only in a historic district
Contributing to a potential historic district Potential historic district
Criteria: A B C D
Criteria Considerations: A B C D E F G
Statement of Significance by _______Zachary Nason___________
The criteria that are checked in the above sections must be justified here. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal, otherwise known as the Massachusetts portion of the New Haven and Northampton Canal, meets the criteria for listing, in its entirety, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A, C, and D. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is nationally significant under Criterion A for its associations with the Canal Era (c. 1800-1850) of the northeastern United States, illustrating the movement to improve industry and transportation with a canal network, and led by the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825. The area reflects the
widespread and nationwide enthusiasm for canal construction during this era. The Canal Area is also significant under Criterion C as representing a distinct engineering endeavor and embodying the full extent of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal.
Under Criterion D, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area embodies not only what surficial features remain present on the landscape but also the features, associated structures, and unrecorded archaeological
components that are likely to be yielded extant below the ground surface. These as of yet undocumented components may contribute to the greater understanding of canal engineering practices of the day, as well as
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 10
WSF.O See Data Sheet
the wider implications canal construction, operation, and subsequent closure had on the local communities, their settlement patterns, and its use/disuse post-abandonment. Covering the approximate 30-mile extent of the original Hampshire and Hampden Canal through Southwick, Westfield, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, with a feeder route also coming into the mainline from Russell, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is significant at the local, state, and national level for
its role in the history of not just the Canal Era, but for its contributions to the industrial expansion of New England and transportation engineering as a whole. With the Farmington Canal, the Connecticut portion of the New Haven and Northampton Canal, having already been listed on the NRHP, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal represents the northern half of the greatest undertaking of its kind in New England, an approximately 80-mile manmade waterway connecting the Connecticut River Valley and western New England as a whole with a seaport on the Long Island Sound. Along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal, a variety of engineering features and structures were incorporated into its design and function, utilizing an array of construction techniques. In its entirety the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses. These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds. Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with
water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the small Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design. Additional operational components include headworks, boat basins, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, a 700-foot floating towpath, Lockkeepers houses, stores, warehouses, toll and tariff collection structures, hotels, waste weirs, traversal bridges, towpaths, towpath cross-over bridges, along with an unknown amount of additional architectural resources. A number of other sites associated with
canal construction may include quarries, excavation pits, worker housing, among others. The canal’s construction and operation directly and indirectly affected change and growth in the participating communities as well as the larger region, contributing to local and regional economic growth and expansion, influencing the development of transportation networks and modes, shifting settlement patterns, and enabling more population movement. The canal’s abbreviated lifespan and subsequent absorption by newer technological advancements such as the railroad also contribute to the greater record of industrial expansion of New England. The major engineering feat alone, and its remnant presence still extant on the landscape, further
reinforces the endeavor that was the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Further undocumented/not fully documented archaeological resources within the proposed area may also have the potential to contribute to the potential district’s significance, should subsurface testing be conducted.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 11
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial
Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
26 Canal Prism From Southwick Border to DPW facility Y
Repurposed by DPW road;
roadway runs within former prism with towpath along western embankment
1
27 Canal Prism From DPW facility to Canal Drive N Filled and leveled by road construction
27 Lock 9 Approx. located at intersection of Shaker Rd. N Filled and leveled by road construction
28 Canal Prism From Canal Drive to Great Brook crossing Y
Repurposed as roadside drainage with Shaker Road
running along western embankment; towpath now to the east, former change-over bridge probably existed in, the
now destroyed, Segment 27
28 North Great Brook Aqueduct At Great Brook crossing N Removed/obscured by road construction and utilities
29 Canal Prism From Great Brook to where route diverges from Shaker Rd. Y
Mostly identifiable, with the
exception of a few portions of the eastern towpath being cut out for trail access; modern two-track runs through the
prism
30 Canal Prism Running through the rear of Shaker Road parcels, ending
at modern culvert
Y Well-preserved, two-track runs through prism 2, 3
31 Canal Prism From culvert to Shaker Road Y
Partially altered segment, eastern towpath removed by residential development, but remainder of original prism is
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 12
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
identifiable
32 Canal Prism From Shaker Rd. to Cardinal Ln. N Removed/obscured by road and development construction
33 Canal Prism From Cardinal Ln., paralleling Little River Road Y
Partially visible segment, eastern towpath removed, remainder of original prism identifiable; Small section within Segment 33 was Not Field Verified due to access restrictions
34 WSF.HA.4 Canal Prism West of Little River Road, near Towpath Lane Y Towpath along eastern embankment 4
35 WSF.HA.4 Canal Prism Paralleling Ridgecrest Circle N Eroded; significant washout events
36 WSF.HA.4 Canal Prism Paralleling Ridgecrest Circle to the Little River Y ATV trail along interior of prism; towpath remains visible along northern side of prism 5
36 WSF.HA.4 Little River
Aqueduct At the Little River crossing Y
Some stonework from the original eastern abutment remains, western landing not identified; very little evidence of this feature remains
6, 7
37 Canal Prism From the Little River to the avicultural fields Y Partially altered, prism is significantly wider than original dimensions due to erosion
38 Canal Prism Through agricultural fields to South Meadow Road N
Filled and plowed by agricultural fields and otherwise obscured by infrastructure and industrial park
39 Canal Prism From South Meadow Road to Main Street N Repurposed originally by railroad, now used as a
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 13
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
recreational rail trail; area is heavily developed, original design completely obscured
39 East Silver Street Lift Bridge At Silver Street crossing N No surficial evidence remains
39 WSF.914 South Basin Immediately south of Main Street N No surficial evidence remains
39 Main Street Lift Bridge At Main Street crossing N No surficial evidence remains
40 Canal Prism From Main Street to east of
Crown Street N
Repurposed originally by railroad, now used as a recreational rail trail; area is heavily developed, original design completely obscured
40 Elm Street Lift Bridge At Elm Street crossing N No surficial evidence remains
40 Guard Lock Just south of Westfield River N No surficial evidence remains
40 Westfield River Aqueduct At Westfield River crossing N
No surficial evidence of original feature remains; however, original stone was likely repurposed for other local efforts
40 North Basin Just north of Westfield River N No surficial evidence remains
41 Canal Prism East of Crown Street N Eroded, with section leveled by railyard
42 Canal Prism East of Crown Street Y
West embanking cut into natural hillslope, intact eastern towpath, moderate erosion has widened original channel
8
43 Canal Prism From south of Notre Dame N Removed/obscured, partially by
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 14
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
Street to the Arm Brook Reservoir railroad construction with most of the original prism removed by significant flooding events
43 Lock 10 Approx. near confluence of Powder Mill Brook and Arm Brook N No surficial evidence remains
43 Lock 11 Approx. just north of Lockhouse Road N No surficial evidence remains
43 Lock 12 Within, what is now, Arm Brook Reservoir N Inundated by the damming of Arm Brook
43 Lock 13 Within, what is now, Arm Brook Reservoir N Inundated by the damming of Arm Brook
44 Canal Prism From Arm Brook Reservoir to east of Lockhouse Road Y Intact, with eastern towpath; section is watered from Arm Brook Reservoir
44 Lock 14 Approx. located at southern end of Segment 44 N No surficial evidence remains
44 Lock 15 Northwest of Arm Brook Reservoir Y
Earthworks remain, narrowed chamber visible; northern and southern sill have been eroded by small stream which flows through the canal. Some spilled stone can be seen in stream, unsure if related to original chamber stonework
44 Lock 16 Northern end of Segment 44 N No surficial evidence remains
45 Canal Prism Along railroad tracks to the north and south of Servistar
Industrial Way
Y
Railroad likely along former eastern towpath, former prism has been largely filled through section
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 15
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
45 Lock 17 Approx. located near southern intersection with railroad N No surficial evidence remains, altered/obscured by railroad
45 Lock 18 Approx. located at intersection with Servistar Industrial Way N No surficial evidence remains, altered/obscured by railroad
46 Canal Prism Along railroad, south of Ampad Road Y
Railroad likely along former eastern towpath, former prism has been utilized as drainage along railbed
9
47 Canal Prism From Ampad Road to Bennett Road Y
Railroad likely along former eastern towpath, former prism has been utilized as drainage along railbed; some sections of the western embankment have been removed
10
48 Canal Prism From Bennett Road to north of Summit Lock Road Y
Significantly impacted by railroad construction and operation; former prism is mostly filled and used as shallow drainage
49 Canal Prism From north of Summit Lock Road to intersection with Brickyard Brook tributary N Prism eroded into wetland
50 Canal Prism Northwest of Brickyard Brook
tributary Y Visible embankments and channel; some erosion from adjacent agricultural activities
51 Canal Prism South of North Road N Filled and leveled by commercial business and railroad
52 Canal Prism From North Road into Southampton Y Repurposed by subsequent railroad (now abandoned), Root Road built upon original 11
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 16
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
eastern towpath
B-1 Feeder Canal Prism From Little River to near South Ashley Road N
No surficial evidence of where the feeder route encounters the Little River remains, washed-out or otherwise obscured
B-1 Little River Feeder Headworks
At intersection of feeder prism and Little River N No surficial evidence remains
B-2 Feeder Canal Prism South of South Ashley Road Y Moderately eroded, but remains identifiable
B-3 Feeder Canal
Prism
South of South Ashley Road to intersection with main line canal N Removed/obscured by
industrial park development
C-3 Feeder Canal Prism Immediately north of Pochassic Road N
Leveled by agricultural field, northern bank was cut into a natural hillslope and can still be identified
C-4 Feeder Canal Prism Paralleling the northern side of Pochassic Road Y Prism visible, presently contains logging access road 12
C-5 Feeder Canal Prism West of unnamed farm road off Pochassic N Area altered by farm road and logging operation
C-6 Feeder Canal Prism From unnamed farm road to northwest of West Road Y Runs along hilltop, partially intact prism with both
embankments
C-6 Moose Meadow Brook Culvert At Moose Meadow Brook crossing Y
Visible stone abutment at eastern landing, with additional scattered stone along the brook’s western bank
13
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 17
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
C-7 Feeder Canal Prism Immediately west of West Road Y
Partially altered, western embankment has been impacted by residential development
C-8 Feeder Canal Prism Along the Hawks Circle Development N Removed/obscured by Hawks Circle development
C-9 Feeder Canal
Prism
From the Hawks Circle Development to south of Furrowtown Road Y Relatively well-preserved
segment 14
C-10 Feeder Canal
Prism
South of Furrowtown Road to
north of Fish and Game Pond N Filled and leveled by Fish and Game Club and creation of game pond
C-11 Feeder Canal Prism North of pond to Montgomery Road Y Surficial evidence of prism
C-12 Feeder Canal Prism From Montgomery Road to Powdermill Brook N
Removed/obscured by residential development, agricultural activities, and the construction of the Mass Pike
C-12 Powder Mill Brook Culvert At Powermill Brook crossing N No surficial evidence remains; destroyed by Mass Pike
C-13 Feeder Canal Prism
From end of Turnpike Industrial Road to the intersection with the main line canal route
N Removed/obscured by industrial park development
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 18
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Photo 1: Repurposed canal prism in Segment 26, facing southwest.
Photo 2: Remnant canal prism in Segment 30, facing northeast.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 19
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Photo 3: Remnant canal prism in Segment 30, facing north.
Photo 4: Remnant canal prism in Segment 34, facing west.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 20
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Photo 5: Remnant canal prism in Segment 36, facing west.
‘
Photo 6: Stonework from eastern abutment of the Little River Aqueduct, facing east.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 21
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Photo 7: Eastern landing of the Little River Aqueduct, facing west.
Photo 8: Remnant canal prism in Segment 42, facing north.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 22
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Photo 9: Remnant canal prism in Segment 46, facing south.
Photo 10: Remnant canal prism in Segment 47, facing south.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 23
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Photo 11: Former canal route repurposed by railroad (now abandoned) in Segment 52, facing north.
Photo 12: Remnant feeder canal prism in Segment C-4, facing east.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 24
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Photo 13: Intact stonework from original Moose Meadow Brook Culvert, facing northeast.
Photo 14: Remnant feeder canal prism in Segment C-9, facing southeast.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 25
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 26
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 27
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 28
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 29
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 30
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 31
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 32
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 33
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 34
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 35
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 36
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 37
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 38
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 39
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 40
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 41
WSF.O See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET WESTFIELD WSF.O HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 11-29
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 42
WSF.O See Data Sheet
Follow Massachusetts Historical Commission Survey Manual instructions for completing this form. 12/12
FORM A - AREA
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 Photograph
Remnant feeder canal prism in Segment C-1,
facing north.
Assessor’s Sheets USGS Quad Area Letter Form Numbers in Area
27, 32, 33 Woronoco, MA RUS.H
See Data Sheet Town/City: Russell
Place (neighborhood or village):
Name of Area: Hampshire and Hampden Canal
Present Use: Former feeder canal route with varied
modern-day land use (commercial, industrial, recreational, undeveloped)
Construction Dates or Period: Built 1826-1834, operated
until 1847
Overall Condition: Varied- minimal areas of remnant
prism with other areas obscured or altered by flooding episodes and commercial development.
Major Intrusions and Alterations: Altered or obscured by railroad construction and commercial development Acreage: Complete-14.45 acres, Remnant segments-3.31
acres (discontinuous)
Recorded by: Zachary Nason and Nadia Waski, SWCA
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Organization: PVPC and Town of Russell
Date (month/year): 11/2022
Locus Map
[See continuation sheet pages 11-12.]
see continuation sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 1
RUS.H See Data Sheet
Recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If checked, you must attach a completed National Register Criteria Statement form.
Use as much space as necessary to complete the following entries, allowing text to flow onto additional continuation sheets.
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Describe architectural, structural and landscape features and evaluate in terms of other areas within the community. Upon completing construction in 1834, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was an approximate 30-mile linear prism generally oriented north to south with associated crossover bridges, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, basins, towpath, and in places, embankments. The canal route ran from a guard lock at the state line in Southwick, MA, south of Congamond Ponds, to where it connects to the Connecticut River in Northampton, MA. The original engineering specifications dictated the canal prism be 35 feet wide at the surface with the capacity to hold 4 feet of water. Generally, this prism was earthen and unlined. In its entirety, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks, each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear, with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses (Raber 2002). These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds (Raber 2002). Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the much smaller Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design. The following description documents the physical characteristics of the existing canal route within Russell (RUS.H). While much of the canal route maintains its original location, setting, feeling, and association, the presence or absence of surficial structural remnants was the determining factor as to whether a segment was considered present or lacking surficial indication. Using the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the NRHP, some segments described as having no surficial remnants, may merit the integrity required for listing due to these other contributing aspects. The existing physical condition of these features varies, with some segments having been substantially altered and to others containing small trace features of the canal’s original construction and design. A portion of the original canal route was repurposed to facilitate the tracks of the New Haven and Northampton Railroad, which much of today has been again repurposed as the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway (Rail Trail). In Russell, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is an approximately 14.45-acre, 1.59-mile, 75-foot-wide linear corridor tracing the historic route of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal within the town’s borders. The route was determined using historical mapping, modern technological data, field verification, oral accounts, and archival research. This corridor includes the route of the linear canal prism and towpath, along with any other engineering infrastructure directly associated with canal operation. The physical condition of the Russell portion of the canal route varies, with surficial identification of substantial sections of the former canal modified by erosion, building development, infill, natural phenomena, and other alterations. Segments/features which were not able to be field verified, either due to access related restrictions or the lack of any surficial indication, may require further, more detailed documentary research and/or subsurface archaeological testing to better ascertain their exact locations. The canal corridor as described below, represents the route of the canal as determined using the available resources and methods. During field verification, the canal was divided into segments based on the physical characteristics of the surficial canal remnants. Following is a brief description of these segments proceeding from south to north, beginning at the Westfield River and ending at the Russell-Westfield town line.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 2
RUS.H See Data Sheet
The Feeder Canal Prism Segment C-1 (MHC ID) (Photos 1 to 3) of the Westfield River Feeder begins at the original location of the 1834 feeder headworks that controlled the water flow into the canal, which was washed out by a flood in 1836. Through this section, surficial remnants of the canal are present; however, the embankments are not continuous throughout. The western end of the prism, near its confluence with Westfield River, contains a scattering of cut stone, but it is undetermined whether this is associated with the former dam and headworks or with the adjacent railroad running along the prism’s northern embanking. Segment C-1 continues south, paralleling the Westfield River, to the point where the canal is bisected by Valley View Avenue. The route through this area is heavily overgrown and difficult to access. Segment C-2 begins at Valley View Avenue and continues to parallel the Westfield River to the end of Tekoa Avenue. This section has been largely altered/obscured by erosion along the Westfield River, industrial development along with road, and railroad construction. The Strathmore Paper Mill (now abandoned) occupies the majority of the former canal in Segment C-2, removing/obscuring any surficial indications of the former canal way. Throughout Segment C-2, only minimal traces of prism and embankment remain visible, too discontinuous to merit consideration. From the end of Tekoa Avenue to the border of Westfield, the route was not able to be field verified due to safety concerns and access related restrictions. HISTORICAL NARRATIVE Explain historical development of the area. Discuss how this relates to the historical development of the community. History of Russell The town of Russell is located in the Westfield River watershed and was incorporated as an independent town in 1792. Settlement of Russell occurred later than its surrounding towns, probably due to the rugged nature of the landscape and the ample farmlands of Westfield and the Connecticut River Valley to the east. Colonial settlers first began establishing roots in in the area by the late-eighteenth century, with the first meetinghouse being constructed at Russell Pond in 1792 (MHC 1982). Russell saw slow population growth through the first half of the nineteenth century, with limited industrial development encouraging additional settlement. The 1820’s saw the construction of the Westfield River Feeder through the eastern portion of Russell, with its headworks constructed just east of the village of Woronoco. By the latter part of the nineteenth century, Russell was becoming an important throughway with multiple turnpikes and highways establishing themselves through the town, connecting the Berkshires to the west to Springfield to the east. This improved transportation network, along with the arrival of the railroad and the paper industry, brought about a population surge not seen in the surrounding mountain towns during this period (MHC 1982). This growth continued throughout the late industrial period with the construction of a tannery in Russell Village and the continued development of the areas thriving paper industry. The population boom of the early 1900s began to slow down following the end World War 2 (MHC 1982). The paper industry continued to be the driving force of the economy through this period up until the closure of the Westfield River Paper Mill in 1994 and the Strathmore Paper Mill in 1999. Following the abandonment of the paper mills, Russell was left without any real industrial or commercial operations. Today, Russell contains mostly residential development and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal The widespread enthusiasm for, and promotion of, canals that spread across the eastern United States in the early nineteenth century was not missed by entrepreneurs in New Haven and the upper Connecticut River Valley. First conceived by local businessmen in New Haven in 1822, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was constructed between 1826 and 1834 with the purpose of transporting goods from the upper Connecticut River Valley to the tidewaters of New Haven, Connecticut (Camposeo 1977). When fully operational, the canal route connected with the Farmington Canal at a guard lock in Southwick, Massachusetts, and continued approximately 30 miles north, emptying into the Connecticut River in Northampton, Massachusetts. Operating, in its entirety, for roughly 13 years before officially closing the waterway due to financial strain on January 18, 1848, prior to the navigational season of that year.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 3
RUS.H See Data Sheet
At its conception, the grand plan for this venture had the route linking the tidewaters of Long Island Sound to the St. Lawrence River, connecting the Western New England Interior to Canada and the Atlantic Ocean (Harte 1933). This original undertaking was to be constructed in stages, with the first stage to be the completion of a canal way from New Haven to the border of Massachusetts in Southwick. Which then would be followed by entrepreneurs in western Massachusetts picking up the route from that point and linking it to a bend on the Connecticut River in Northampton. These lofty ideas were birthed in 1822 when businessmen in New Haven hired Benjamin Wright, chief engineer of the Erie Canal, for a preliminary survey of the predicted canal route. Wright returned with the conclusion that the terrain in the area was very favorable to canal construction and that per mile expenses would be less than that of canals being constructed in New York at that time. Following this assessment, a charter was granted to the Farmington Canal Company to build a canal from New Haven to the northern border of the state (Harte 1933). Members of the Farmington Canal Company then traveled into Western Massachusetts to garner support from local entrepreneurs for the Massachusetts branch of the route. A committee was formed, and funds were raised for a survey of the Massachusetts segment from Southwick into Northampton. Holmes Hutchinson and Benjamin Wright’s son Henry, civil engineers with experience on the Erie Canal, were commissioned to conduct the land survey. Upon receiving a favorable report, a charter was granted to the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company to “construct and operate a canal from the northern boundary line of Connecticut to the Great Bend in the Connecticut river in Northampton” (Camposeo 1977). Following a more detailed survey and cost projection conducted by Henry Wright under the direction of his father in 1823, commission members voted for construction to begin as soon as possible. David Hurd, another veteran of the Erie Canal, was appointed chief engineer for the project (Camposeo 1977). Financial strains slowed the construction of the Farmington Canal, leaving the members of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company concerned for the Massachusetts branch of the canal, which would be a familiar theme throughout the venture. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company hired Jarvis Hurd, the brother of Davis, to conduct a final survey of their segment of the canal route. By the spring of 1826, the majority of the Farmington Canal route had been completed and Jarvis Hurd was able to complete his final survey and cost projection (Camposeo 1977). With the impending completion of the Farmington Canal and the requisite funds raised, groundbreaking on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal took place on November 1, 1826. By 1829, weather difficulties related to heavy rains and the drought of the summer of that year left the canal company in bad shape. In addition to this, both Davis and Jarvis Hurd resigned from the project that year, being replaced by William Butler as Chief Engineer (Camposeo 1977). Construction on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal again came to a standstill in 1831 when the company lacked the funds to finish the construction and were subsequently denied federal assistance. This problem was solved when a New Haven bank with contributions from the surrounding Massachusetts towns were able to provide the funds necessary for the completion of the canal. With this new influx of capital, construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was completed on August 30, 1834. However, the first boat did not traverse the entire route until July 29 of the next year, which was declared the official opening of the entire canal (Camposeo 1977).
While there was a steady growth of business along the canal following its completion, constant repairs and delays began to severely compromise both companies’ ability to operate and maintain the route. Due to these growing financial strains, the Farmington Canal Company and the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company merged to create The New Haven and Northampton Canal Company in 1836 to operate and maintain the entire route of the canal (Camposeo 1977). Financial woes continued through the early portion of the 1840s with the company operating annually in the red, and the need for new capital to maintain operation was dire. Late in that year, a successful businessman by the name of Joseph
Sheffield purchased controlling interest in the Company and by the spring of 1841, succeeded Steven Staples as company president. The following four years proved to be the canal’s most successful, with tens of thousands of pounds of goods transported along the waterway with minimal delay and interruption. In January of 1845, Sheffield stepped down as Company president and was replaced by Henry Farnum, which would signal the beginning of the end for the canal
(Camposeo 1977). The summer of 1845 brought with it a significant drought that had rendered the canal unnavigable. By the time the canal returned to operation, a large break in the Connecticut portion of the route caused service to be delayed once again. To
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 4
RUS.H See Data Sheet
mitigate rising costs of repairs and service delays, Henry Farnum commissioned a report to the practicability of constructing a railroad along the canal route. With the increased popularity and profitability of railroads across the nation, a plan was developed in Connecticut to operate a railroad along the canal’s towpath concurrently with regular canal operation. By 1847, work had begun on the New Haven and Collinsville Railroad (nicknamed the Canal Line), and by the winter of that year, canal transportation between New Haven and Northampton ended with the official closing of the canal taking place on January 18, 1848 (Camposeo 1977). While in Massachusetts, the towns were left with an abandoned canal and no plans to convert or monetize the route. However, proponents of the Canal Line were determined to continue the rail line north to Northampton despite strong opposition from several railroads in the state. By 1853, the Hampshire and Hampden Railroad was formed with service from Granby, CT to Northampton, MA, beginning in 1856. This line followed on or near the canal route from Southwick to Northampton. The railroad changed hands numerous times over the next century until the latter half of the twentieth century when much of the Canal Line began to be abandoned. Much of the abandoned right-of-way through Massachusetts has been railbanked and today has been converted to multiple rail trails running along the former canal route. Canal Impacts on Russell
The feeder canal begins in Russell at the location of the dam and headworks on the Westfield River just north of the village of Woronoco. The dam and headworks for the Westfield River Feeder had to be moved and reconstructed multiple times during the relatively short lifespan of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal due to flooding damage and poor
construction (Walter 2006). From this point, the canal paralleled the Westfield River to the southeast passing along the opposite bank of Woronoco. Just south of where the canal is presently bisected by the Massachusetts Turnpike, the route
begins to diverge from the Westfield River in a more easterly direction as it crosses into the town of Westfield. Aside from the abovementioned dam and headworks, of which no surficial remnants were identified, no other known engineering features of the canal are located within the boundaries of Russell. The overall economic impact of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal on the town of Russell is difficult to determine. At its inception, the canal was believed to bring trade and market growth to participating towns. Which when fully operating, the canal indeed did for short periods. However, with significant engineering mistakes and shortcuts, along with costly repairs, seasonal closure, and weather-related stoppages, the canal never was able to establish itself as the prominent interior New England trade route that it was envisioned to be. In Russell, the construction of the canal had a minimal effect on population and economic growth. While the nearby location of a shipping route to the Long Island Sound probably had a small impact on the import and export of goods for the residents of Russell, the limited industry and agriculture taking place in the township at the time meant there was not a large market to take advantage of the route. The booming paper industry was not established until the second half of the nineteenth century and at that point was shipping goods along the Western Railroad, which was completed through Russell in 1841, and partially utilized the canal’s original towpath to lay its tracks (MHC 1982). Today, that rail line still exists along this route and areas of the original canal prism can still be observed to the east and north of the Westfield River. BIBLIOGRAPHY and/or REFERENCES
Camposeo, James Mark 1977 The History of the Canal System between New Haven and Northampton (1822-1847). Historical Journal of
Massachusetts 1(6):37-53.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 5
RUS.H See Data Sheet
Harte, Charles Rufus 1933 Some Engineering Features of the Old Northampton Canal. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers, Hartford, Connecticut.
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 1982 MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Russell. MHC, Boston.
Raber, Michael S.
2002 Survey and Inventory of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (New Haven and Northampton Canal) for Proposed National Register of Historic Places Nomination. On file with the MHC, Boston.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2021 Woronoco Quadrangle topographic map, 1:24,000 scale. United States Department of the Interior, Washington.
Walter, Carl E. 2006 Hampshire & Hampden Canal, 1829-1847. Map. On file with the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 6
RUS.H See Data Sheet
National Register of Historic Places Criteria Statement Form
Check all that apply:
Individually eligible Eligible only in a historic district
Contributing to a potential historic district Potential historic district
Criteria: A B C D
Criteria Considerations: A B C D E F G Statement of Significance by _______Zachary Nason___________
The criteria that are checked in the above sections must be justified here.
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal, otherwise known as the Massachusetts portion of the New Haven and Northampton Canal, meets the criteria for listing, in its entirety, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A, C, and D.
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is nationally significant under Criterion A for its associations with the Canal Era (c. 1800-1850) of the northeastern United States, illustrating the movement to improve industry
and transportation with a canal network, and led by the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825. The area reflects the widespread and nationwide enthusiasm for canal construction during this era. The Canal Area is also significant under Criterion C as representing a distinct engineering endeavor and embodying the full extent of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Under Criterion D, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area embodies not only what surficial features remain present on the landscape but also the features, associated structures, and unrecorded archaeological components that are likely to be yielded extant below the ground surface. These as of yet undocumented
components may contribute to the greater understanding of canal engineering practices of the day, as well as the wider implications canal construction, operation, and subsequent closure had on the local communities, their settlement patterns, and its use/disuse post-abandonment.
Covering the approximate 30-mile extent of the original Hampshire and Hampden Canal through Southwick, Westfield, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, with a feeder route also coming into the mainline
from Russell, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is significant at the local, state, and national level for its role in the history of not just the Canal Era, but for its contributions to the industrial expansion of New England and transportation engineering as a whole. With the Farmington Canal, the Connecticut portion of the
New Haven and Northampton Canal, having already been listed on the NRHP, the Hampshire and Hampden
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 7
RUS.H See Data Sheet
Canal represents the northern half of the greatest undertaking of its kind in New England, an approximately 80-mile manmade waterway connecting the Connecticut River Valley and western New England as a whole with a seaport on the Long Island Sound. Along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal, a variety of engineering features and structures were incorporated into its design and function, utilizing an array of construction techniques. In its entirety the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses. These locks raised or lowered
boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds. Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the small Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design. Additional operational components include headworks, boat basins, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, a 700-foot floating towpath, Lockkeepers houses, stores, warehouses, toll and tariff collection structures, hotels, waste weirs, traversal bridges, towpaths, towpath cross-over bridges, along with an unknown amount of additional architectural resources. A number of other sites associated with canal construction may include quarries, excavation pits, worker housing, among others. The canal’s construction and operation directly and indirectly affected change and growth in the participating
communities as well as the larger region, contributing to local and regional economic growth and expansion, influencing the development of transportation networks and modes, shifting settlement patterns, and enabling more population movement. The canal’s abbreviated lifespan and subsequent absorption by newer technological advancements such as the railroad also contribute to the greater record of industrial expansion of New England. The major engineering feat alone, and its remnant presence still extant on the landscape, further reinforces the endeavor that was the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Further
undocumented/not fully documented archaeological resources within the proposed area may also have the potential to contribute to the potential district’s significance, should subsurface testing be conducted.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 8
RUS.H See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial
Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
C-1 Feeder Canal Prism From Westfield River to Valley View Avenue Y
Evidence of original northern
terminus removed by Westfield River; parallel railroad 1, 2, 3
C-1 Original Westfield River Headworks
Approx. at location near where presently mapped canal route and the Westfield River intersect
N
Some spilled stone along prism; unsure if related to original canal feature or post-canal RR construction
C-2 Feeder Canal Prism From Valley View Ave. to the end of Tekoa Ave. N
Impacted by significant development from the former
paper mill and erosion from the West River
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 9
RUS.H See Data Sheet
Photo 1: Remnant feeder canal prism in Segment C-1, facing north.
Photo 2: Where feeder canal prism encounters the Westfield River, facing southwest.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 10
RUS.H See Data Sheet
Photo 3: Remnant feeder canal prism (heavily overgrown), facing south.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL RUS.H HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 20-21
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 11
RUS.H See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET RUSSELL RUS.H HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 20-21
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 12
RUS.H See Data Sheet
Follow Massachusetts Historical Commission Survey Manual instructions for completing this form. 12/12
FORM A - AREA
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 Photograph
Intact canal prism in Segment 54, facing south.
Assessor’s Sheets USGS Quad Area Letter Form Numbers in Area
7, 8, 13, 14, 16, 19, 24, 28, 29, 34, 39
Mount Tom, MA STH.F
See Data Sheet
Town/City: Southampton
Place (neighborhood or village): Name of Area: Hampshire and Hampden Canal
Present Use: Former canal route with varied modern-day land use (commercial, residential, recreational, undeveloped) Construction Dates or Period: Built 1826-1834, operated until 1847
Overall Condition: Varied- some areas of remnant prism
and Lock features with other areas obscured or completely altered by development and erosion. Overall, the
Southampton portion of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal has surficial evidence and includes the well-preserved Lock 22 located within the Lockville Historic District.
Major Intrusions and Alterations: Altered or obscured by railroad construction and residential development Acreage: Complete- 59.25 acres, Remnant segments-
25.28 acres (discontinuous)
Recorded by: Zachary Nason and Nadia Waski, SWCA
Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Organization: PVPC and Southampton Historical
Commission
Date (month/year): 11/2022
Locus Map
[See continuation sheet pages 18-25.]
Follow Massachusetts Historical Commission Survey Manual instructions for completing this form. 12/12
see continuation sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 2
STH.F See Data Sheet
Recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If checked, you must attach a completed National Register Criteria Statement form.
Use as much space as necessary to complete the following entries, allowing text to flow onto additional continuation sheets.
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Describe architectural, structural and landscape features and evaluate in terms of other areas within the community. Upon completing construction in 1834, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was an approximate 30-mile linear prism generally oriented north to south with associated crossover bridges, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, basins, towpath, and in places, embankments. The canal route ran from a guard lock at the state line located in Southwick, MA south of Congamond Ponds to where it connects to the Connecticut River in Northampton, MA. The original engineering specifications dictated the canal prism be 35 feet wide at the surface with the capacity to hold 4 feet of water. Generally, this prism was earthen and unlined. In its entirety the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks, each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear, with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses (Raber 2002). These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds (Raber 2002). Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the much small Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design. The following description documents the physical characteristics of the existing canal route within Southampton (STH.F). While much of the canal route maintains its original location, setting, feeling, and association, the presence or absence of surficial structural remnants was the determining factor as to whether a segment was considered present or lacking surficial indication. Using the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the NRHP, some segments described as having no surficial remnants, may merit the integrity required for listing due to these other contributing aspects. The existing physical condition of these features varies, with some segments having been substantially altered and to others containing small trace features of the canal’s original construction and design. A portion of the original canal route was repurposed to facilitate the tracks of the New Haven and Northampton Railroad, which much of today has been again repurposed as the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway (Rail Trail). In Southampton, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is an approximately 59.25-acre, 6.53-mile, 75-foot-wide linear corridor tracing the historic route of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal within the town’s borders. The route was determined using historical mapping, modern technological data, field verification, oral accounts, and archival research. This corridor includes the route of the linear canal prism and towpath, along with any other engineering infrastructure directly associated with canal operation. The physical condition of the Southampton portion of the canal route varies, with substantial sections of the former canal modified by erosion, building development, infill, natural phenomena, and other alterations. Segments/features which were not able to be field verified, either due to access related restrictions or the lack of any surficial indication, may require further, more detailed documentary research and/or subsurface archaeological testing to better ascertain their exact locations. The canal corridor, described below, represents the route of the canal as determined using the available resources and methods. During field verification, the canal was divided into segments based on of the physical characteristics of the surficial canal remnants. Following is a brief description of these sections proceeding from south to north, beginning at the Westfield-Southampton border and ending at the Southampton-Eastampton town line.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 3
STH.F See Data Sheet
Canal Prism Segment 52 (MHC ID) is the first section of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal located in the town of Southampton. Partially occurring in both Westfield and Southampton, Segment 52 is a repurposed section of canal now occupied by abandoned tracks from the former New Haven & Northampton Railroad. The current route of Root Road now occupies a portion of the former eastern towpath. Canal Prism Segment 53 (MHC ID) (Photo 1) runs just west of Brickyard Road is identical to Segment 52; however, traces of the towpath remain invisible due construction related to the railroad. Canal Prism Segment 54 (MHC ID) (Photo 2) begins at the point from which the former canal route and railbed diverge east of Brickyard Road. The southern portion of this segment contains sporadic embankments due to past agricultural efforts; however, the western towpath and the remainder of the section remain fairly unaltered. Crossing through the rear of a residential area, the canal route becomes obscured just south of Coolidge Drive, serving as the terminus of Segment 54. Segment 55 is a segment of canal that has been heavily altered, making it difficult to discern specifics of the original banking. The residential development encompassing Coolidge Drive and north of Brickyard Road has mostly obscured all surficial indications to the former route. This segment comes to an end just west of the abandoned railbed. Segment 56 represents a visible portion of the canal, stretching from the abandoned railbed to the rear of a residential area just west of Brickyard Road. This meandering segment contains the former location of Lock 19, of which no remnants were observed during field survey. Numerous large stones were located within this prism segment; however, no association with the former location of Lock 19 was evident. The western towpath was visible through this segment. Segment 57 traverses the rear of a residential area along Brickyard Road. Here, the prism and embankments are not discernable among the very hummocky ground surface and washout areas. The abandoned railbed continues to parallel the route through Segment 57. The approximate location of Lock 20 occurs within this section; however, no surficial evidence of it remains. Segment 58 begins at the remnants of Lock 21 (MHC ID), of which only the northern sill and walls remain. A washout episode from the Manhan River has left no visible trace of the remaining portion of the Lock. Only the very northern earthworks remain of Lock 21, with some evidence of stonework visible spilled within the chamber. Railroad tracks run along the western towpath before transitioning into the prism in Segment 58’s northern portion. Both prism embankments are visible within Canal Prism Segment 58 (MHC ID) and the towpath was evident along western side. This segment occurs within the Lockville Historic District (STH.B). Canal Prism Segment 59 (MHC ID) is a repurposed section of prism, which housed the track for the New Haven and Northampton Railroad prior to its abandonment in the mid-twentieth century. Within this segment, the well-preserved Lock 22 (STH.907) (MHC ID) (Photo 3) exists, which contains masonry along the eastern embankment, and abandoned railroad tracks running through the former lock chamber. Directly adjacent to Lock 22, along the eastern edge of the canal, lies the former canal storehouse (STH.90) that has been converted to apartments. The area is presently bisected by Route 10 and its associated drainage. The area has been neglected and is heavily overgrown, limiting the viewshed. This segment continues to just before the Manhan River crossing where the route diverges from the railbed. It is likely that a former crossover bridge existed in this segment, as the towpath changes from the west bank to the east in the vicinity of Lock 22; however, no surficial evidence remains of this feature. This segment occurs within the Lockville Historic District (STH.B). Canal Prism Segment 60 (MHC ID) begins at the approximate location of the South Manhan River Aqueduct (STH.906) (MHC ID) (Photo 4), of which no visible remnants were discernible. However, directly adjacent to this location, the abandoned stone rail bridge can be seen traversing the river, and likely contains repurposed stone from the former aqueduct. Much of the former chute has been eroded by washout episodes, some large stone can be observed at the bottom of the ravine, though it is unknown if these are associated with the former aqueduct. Through this segment, the
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 4
STH.F See Data Sheet
eastern towpath has been largely repurposed to house the former railroad tracks. This segment continues to where the railroad again shifts into the canal prism and Segment 61 begins. Canal Prism Segment 61 (MHC ID) is a small, repurposed segment similar to Segment 59. Here, the railroad tracks follow the canal prism, with the east and west embankments and towpath visible to the east. This portion only continues a short distance before areas of heavy storm damage have washed out portions of the canal. Segment 62 is a segment of canal located within the Manhan Meadows Sanctuary area, which has been subject to recent, extensive storm damage and as a result, no surficial remnants of the historic canal route exist through this section. Adjacent agricultural fields, along with two-tracks and railroad construction, has also impacted the canal prior to the washout event. Canal Prism Segment 63 (MHC ID) contains visible evidence of the canal prism and begins at the point where the route again parallels the abandoned railbed. Through this stretch, the railroad ran along the canal’s eastern towpath, following the approximate route of the Manhan River. Agricultural field drainage has caused small washout areas within this segment. Segment 63 houses the historic location of the Potash Brook Culvert, which was most likely a single stone-arched culvert. Presently, this location contains a more modern steel culvert, which likely replaced the previous canal culvert during railroad operation. No evidence of the former was discernable in the field. A large agricultural field drainage has altered a section of canal just north of Potash Brook. This area is referred to as Segment 64. Canal Prism Segment 65 (MHC ID) continues to the north of this agricultural drainage, in the rear of the Helen Drive cul-de-sac and contains surficial evidence of the canal prism, western embankment, and east towpath. Segment 66 is a large stretch of the former canal route where any remnants of its exact course have been obscured. It is likely the prism through this section has been impacted significantly by railroad construction, residential development, agricultural practices, road construction, and general erosion by the Manhan River. This segment continues to just north of Gunn Road. Access restrictions limited the team’s ability to field verify the next 0.25-mile of former canal. Following this unverified section, Canal Prism Segment 67 (MHC ID) (Photo 5) begins a visible stretch of canal prism is noticeably wet in some portions. Through this section, canal banks are abnormally high, with the eastern towpath discernable. The canal runs through a tall grass field owned by the town. No remnants of Lock 23 are distinguishable, which would have been located within this segment, but the prism does narrow slightly towards the southern end of the section that may provide some indication of its original placement. Segment 68 begins at the canal routes northern intersection with College Highway, development has obscured the canal from here to just past Glendale Road. The former west embankment is discernable, but visibly graded. Proceeding north from Glendale Road, Canal Prism Segment 69 (MHC ID) begins and is a segment of prism and associated embankments visible as a depression, traversing former agricultural fields. As it enters the adjacent forested areas, the canal prism and towpath forms are discernable. The towpath is visible along the prism’s east bank. Some small sections are visibly grated/eroded from land use. Presently the land is operated as the Szczypta Conservation Farm. Lock 24 most likely spanned from the northern end of Segment 69, into the southern end of Segment 70. Segment 70 is a small area that encounters a tributary of the Manhan River, where significant erosion has occurred. Very high banks are extant but neither towpath nor channel can be discerned. An elevation change can be seen from the northern end of Segment 69 into the southern end of Segment 70, suggesting the probable location of Lock 24, though no surficial remnants exist. Canal Prism Segment 71 (MHC ID) (Photo 6) contains a partially visible canal prism and eastern towpath. The channel has been reclaimed by a small Manhan River tributary, resulting in moderate erosion to the prism. Segment 71 continues to a modern culvert facilitating agricultural field access.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 5
STH.F See Data Sheet
Segment 72 stretches from this agricultural field access to a restricted access parcel boundary. Erosion has removed visible evidence of the canal and its historic route is not discernable. Canal Prism Segment 73 (MHC ID) (Photo 7) follows the end of a restricted access parcel located off Thomas Circle. It contains a small segment paralleling the Manhan River to the east. The eastern towpath continues through this section with a discernable prism. The final segment of the canal in Southampton is Segment 74. Segment 74 has been severely impacted by washout episodes likely caused by the modern housing developments and their drainage, and its course paralleling the Manhan River. Through this segment, the eastern towpath is visible, with erosion obscuring any remnants of the prism. Similarly, the historic locations of Locks 25, 26, or 27 are not discernable, nor any remnants of Pomeroy’s Basin, all of which would have been contained within this segment. Segment 74 continues in Southampton until its crossing of the North Branch of the Manhan River, at which point the route crosses into Easthampton. HISTORICAL NARRATIVE Explain historical development of the area. Discuss how this relates to the historical development of the community. History of Southampton The town of Southampton is located in the Connecticut River Valley and was first incorporated as an independent town in 1775. First settled in the mid-eighteenth century by groups expanding out from the Northampton civic center. Early settlement was established on Town Hill along present-day College Highway, with agricultural development focused along the Manhan River (MHC 1982). Industrial development began in Southampton early on with mining operations occurring just west of Lead Mine Road and lumber being produced at multiple sawmills along the Manhan River throughout the eighteenth century, some even predating the establishment of a permanent settlement. Despite this early and rapid industrial development, agriculture within the Manhan River Valley continued to be the towns economic staple throughout the modern day. Mining operations in Southampton continued throughout the early part of the nineteenth century with the addition of sandstone and granite quarrying in the eastern and western parts of town, respectively (MHC 1982). Sandstone, sourced from these quarries, were used in lock construction along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (MHC 1982). Improvement of the Manhan River transportation corridor came in the form of the, aforementioned, Hampshire and Hampden Canal, completed in 1835 and subsequently abandoned (1847) and replaced by the Westfield and Northampton Railroad in 1856. By the twentieth century, most of towns industrial and manufacturing ventures were abandoned with the closure of the lead mine in 1865. The secondary industrial center in Russellville was also largely abandoned after the formation of three water supply reservoirs in Southampton; the formation of which, dried up much of the Manhan watershed, and with it, water sources for many small mills along the river’s tributaries (MHC 1982). The end of manufacturing in Southampton was the primary factor in the town’s population decline throughout early twentieth century. A trend that continued up through the 1950’s, when suburban development caused an influx of new residents. Today, Southampton contains mostly residential development and agricultural lands, and is classified as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal The widespread enthusiasm for, and promotion of, canals that spread across the eastern United States in the early nineteenth century was not missed by entrepreneurs in New Haven and the upper Connecticut River Valley. First conceived by local businessmen in New Haven in 1822, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was constructed between
1826 and 1834 with the purpose of transporting goods from the upper Connecticut River Valley to the tidewaters of New Haven, Connecticut (Camposeo 1977). When fully operational, the canal route connected with the Farmington Canal at a guard lock in Southwick, Massachusetts, and continued approximately 30 miles north, emptying into the Connecticut River
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 6
STH.F See Data Sheet
in Northampton, Massachusetts. Operating, in its entirety, for roughly 13 years before officially closing the waterway on January 18, 1848, prior to the navigational season of that year. At its conception, the grand plan for this venture had the route linking the tidewaters of Long Island Sound to the St. Lawrence River, connecting the Western New England Interior to Canada and the Atlantic Ocean (Harte 1933). This original undertaking was to be constructed in stages, with the first stage to be the completion of a canal way from New Haven to the border of Massachusetts in Southwick. Which then would be followed by entrepreneurs in western Massachusetts picking up the route from that point and linking it to a bend on the Connecticut River in Northampton. These lofty ideas were birthed in 1822 when businessmen in New Haven hired Benjamin Wright, chief engineer of the Erie Canal, for a preliminary survey of the predicted canal route. Wright returned with the conclusion that the terrain in the area was very favorable to canal construction and that per mile expenses would be less than that of canals being constructed in New York at that time. Following this assessment, a charter was granted to the Farmington Canal Company to build a canal from New Haven to the northern border of the state (Harte 1933). Members of the Farmington Canal Company then traveled into Western Massachusetts to garner support from local entrepreneurs for the Massachusetts branch of the route. A committee was formed, and funds were raised for a survey of the Massachusetts segment from Southwick into Northampton. Holmes Hutchinson and Benjamin Wright’s son Henry, civil engineers with experience on the Erie Canal, were commissioned to conduct the land survey. Upon receiving a favorable report, a charter was granted to the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company to “construct and operate a canal from the northern boundary line of Connecticut to the Great Bend in the Connecticut river in Northampton” (Camposeo 1977). Following a more detailed survey and cost projection conducted by Henry Wright under the direction of his father in 1823, commission members voted for construction to begin as soon as possible. David Hurd, another veteran of the Erie Canal, was appointed chief engineer for the project (Camposeo 1977). Financial strains slowed the construction of the Farmington Canal, leaving the members of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company concerned for the Massachusetts branch of the canal, which would be a familiar theme throughout the venture. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company hired Jarvis Hurd, the brother of Davis, to conduct a final survey of their segment of the canal route. By the spring of 1826, the majority of the Farmington Canal route had been completed and Jarvis Hurd was able to complete his final survey and cost projection (Camposeo 1977). With the impending completion of the Farmington Canal and the requisite funds raised, groundbreaking on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal took place on November 1, 1826. By 1829, weather difficulties related to heavy rains and the drought of the summer of that year left the canal company in bad shape. In addition to this, both Davis and Jarvis Hurd resigned from the project that year, being replaced by William Butler as Chief Engineer (Camposeo 1977). Construction on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal again came to a standstill in 1831 when the company lacked the funds to finish the construction and were subsequently denied federal assistance. This problem was solved when a New Haven bank with contributions from the surrounding Massachusetts towns were able to provide the funds necessary for the completion of the canal. With this new influx of capital, construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was completed on August
30, 1834. However, the first boat did not traverse the entire route until July 29 of the next year, which was declared the official opening of the entire canal (Camposeo 1977). While there was a steady growth of business along the canal following its completion, constant repairs and delays began to severely compromise both companies’ ability to operate and maintain the route. Due to these growing financial strains, the Farmington Canal Company and the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company merged to create The New Haven and Northampton Canal Company in 1836 to operate and maintain the entire route of the canal (Camposeo 1977). Financial woes continued through the early portion of the 1840s with the company operating annually in the red, and the need for new capital to maintain operation was dire. Late in that year, a successful businessman by the name of Joseph Sheffield purchased controlling interest in the Company and by the spring of 1841, succeeded Steven Staples as company president. The following four years proved to be the canal’s most successful, with tens of thousands of pounds of goods transported along the waterway with minimal delay and interruption. In January of 1845, Sheffield stepped down as Company president and was replaced by Henry Farnum, which would signal the beginning of the end for the canal (Camposeo 1977).
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 7
STH.F See Data Sheet
The summer of 1845 brought with it a significant drought that had rendered the canal unnavigable. By the time the canal returned to operation, a large break in the Connecticut portion of the route caused service to be delayed once again. To mitigate rising costs of repairs and service delays, Henry Farnum commissioned a report to the practicability of constructing a railroad along the canal route. With the increased popularity and profitability of railroads across the nation, a plan was developed in Connecticut to operate a railroad along the canal’s towpath concurrently with regular canal operation. By 1847, work had begun on the New Haven and Collinsville Railroad (nicknamed the Canal Line), and by the winter of that year, canal transportation between New Haven and Northampton ended with the official closing of the canal taking place on January 18, 1848 (Camposeo 1977). While in Massachusetts, the towns were left with an abandoned canal and no plans to convert or monetize the route. However, proponents of the Canal Line were determined to continue the rail line north to Northampton despite strong opposition from several railroads in the state. By 1853, the Hampshire and Hampden Railroad was formed with service from Granby, CT to Northampton, MA, beginning in 1856. This line followed on or near the canal route from Southwick to Northampton. The railroad changed hands numerous times over the next century until the latter half of the twentieth century when much of the Canal Line began to be abandoned. Much of the abandoned right-of-way through Massachusetts has been railbanked and today has been converted to multiple rail trails running along the former canal route. Canal Impacts on Southampton
Southampton contains numerous engineering features related to canal operation. As the canal crosses into Southampton from Westfield, it continues meandering north along the Manhan River, and what is today, Brickyard Road. From here, the
route begins to descend from the northern Timberswamp summit, being lowered by four successive locks (19-22), southwest of Route 10 (College Highway). This section of the canal is located within the Lockville National Register Historic District (STH.B) and contains the chamber and masonry wall from Lock 22 (STH.907), The Lockville Hotel (STH.89) [a residence converted into a hotel, operated for people traversing the canal route], and New Haven and
Northampton Canal Storehouse (STH.90). The Northampton Canal Storehouse, also referred to as the Lyman & Elder’s Storehouse, likely functioned as a storehouse for transshipment of goods and as a collection point for canal related tolls
and tariffs by Lyman, who acted as an agent for the canal company (Raber 2002). The canal crosses out of the Lockville District as it spans 60 feet across the Manhan River at the site of the former South Manhan River Aqueduct. No surficial remnants of the aqueduct are evident. Some of the original stone may have been repurposed for construction of the adjacent Northampton and Westfield Railroad Bridge (STH.906). As the canal continues to the northeast, it passes the
location of a probable basin (Walters 2006), of which no there is no surficial evidence. At the crossing of Potash Brook, the original stone-arch culvert has been replaced by a more modern corrugated steel culvert during post-operation
railroad maintenance. Most of the canal way through this stretch was converted to facilitate the Hampshire and Hampden Railroad, with the abandoned tracks still present along the former towpath. Just south of College Highway, Lock 23 would have operated, lowering the canal deeper into the Manhan River floodplain. No visible remnants of Lock 23 have survived. Similarly, just to the north Lock 24 operated, of which no visible evidence remains. Prior to its crossing of the North
Branch of the Manhan River, a series of three locks (25-27) lowered the canal further to approximately 146 feet above sea level (Walter 2006). Within this series of locks is also the probable location of Pomeroy’s Basin. No distinguishable
evidence of these former canal features could be identified in the field. Where the canal route crosses into Easthampton over the North Branch of the Manhan River, lies the historic location of the North Manhan River Aqueduct. Surface remains of a former 60 feet by 24 feet stone aqueduct was unable to be located in the field (Raber 2002). Along with the above-mentioned canal features, an unknown number of basins, waste weirs, dams, masonry drains, and traversal
bridges may have been present along the route through Southampton, any visible evidence of which has not been identified.
The overall economic impact of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal on the town of Southampton is difficult to determine. At its inception, the canal was believed to bring trade and market growth to participating towns. Which when fully operating, the canal indeed did for short periods. However, with significant engineering mistakes and shortcuts, along with
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 8
STH.F See Data Sheet
costly repairs, seasonal closure, and weather-related stoppages, the canal never was able to establish itself as the prominent interior New England trade route that it was envisioned to be. The town of Southampton did see its population spike in the 1830s following a period of canal construction and its initial operation. Similar to Southwick, the canal’s contribution to this growth can be observed through the influx of Irish immigrants, many of whom settled in the area as canal builders in the late 1820s (MHC 1982). During its operation, a secondary development of industrial activity began to establish itself along the route, specifically at East Street and College Highway. This settlement center took the name Lockville due to its location around a series of three canal locks near Lyman Pond. When in operation, the canal provided a means of exporting the region’s raw materials down to New Haven, while also supplying this part of the interior with finished goods from the south. Regional agriculture, specifically the tobacco industry, were likely beneficiaries of the canal route and subsequent railroad through Southampton during the first half of the nineteenth century. From the development of an industrial village and shipping center around Lyman Pond to the evident expansion of tobacco production, its clear the canal, at least for a short time, had a positive impact on Southampton. Though the financial burden, frequent delays and stoppages, and development of more efficient shipping/transportation methods likely limited its potential and overall impact. The canal’s closure likely impacted the ability of Southampton to trade and export goods, but only for a limited amount of time, as the Canal Railroad was completed through the town by 1855. Today, the route of the former railroad has been largely abandoned and most of the former canal area is in a state of disuse. Lockville has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places, with the locks and original canal prism still visible throughout this district. BIBLIOGRAPHY and/or REFERENCES
Camposeo, James Mark 1977 The History of the Canal System between New Haven and Northampton (1822-1847). Historical Journal of
Massachusetts 1(6):37-53.
Harte, Charles Rufus 1933 Some Engineering Features of the Old Northampton Canal. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers, Hartford, Connecticut.
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 1982 MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Southampton. MHC, Boston.
Raber, Michael S. 2002 Survey and Inventory of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (New Haven and Northampton Canal) for Proposed National Register of Historic Places Nomination. On file with the MHC, Boston.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
2021 Mount Tom Quadrangle topographic map, 1:24,000 scale. United States Department of the Interior, Washington.
Walter, Carl E. 2006 Hampshire & Hampden Canal, 1829-1847. Map. On file with the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 9
STH.F See Data Sheet
National Register of Historic Places Criteria Statement Form
Check all that apply: Individually eligible Eligible only in a historic district Contributing to a potential historic district Potential historic district
Criteria: A B C D
Criteria Considerations: A B C D E F G
Statement of Significance by _______Zachary Nason___________
The criteria that are checked in the above sections must be justified here. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal, otherwise known as the Massachusetts portion of the New Haven and Northampton Canal, meets the criteria for listing, in its entirety, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A, C, and D.
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is nationally significant under Criterion A for its associations with the Canal Era (c. 1800-1850) of the northeastern United States, illustrating the movement to improve industry and transportation with a canal network, and led by the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825. The area reflects the widespread and nationwide enthusiasm for canal construction during this era. The Canal Area is also significant under Criterion C as representing a distinct engineering endeavor and embodying the full extent of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal.
Under Criterion D, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area embodies not only what surficial features remain present on the landscape but also the features, associated structures, and unrecorded archaeological
components that are likely to be yielded extant below the ground surface. These as of yet undocumented components may contribute to the greater understanding of canal engineering practices of the day, as well as the wider implications canal construction, operation, and subsequent closure had on the local communities, their settlement patterns, and its use/disuse post-abandonment.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 10
STH.F See Data Sheet
Covering the approximate 30-mile extent of the original Hampshire and Hampden Canal through Southwick, Westfield, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, with a feeder route also coming into the mainline from Russell, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is significant at the local, state, and national level for its role in the history of not just the Canal Era, but for its contributions to the industrial expansion of New England and transportation engineering as a whole. With the Farmington Canal, the Connecticut portion of the New Haven and Northampton Canal, having already been listed on the NRHP, the Hampshire and Hampden
Canal represents the northern half of the greatest undertaking of its kind in New England, an approximately 80-mile manmade waterway connecting the Connecticut River Valley and western New England as a whole with a seaport on the Long Island Sound. Along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal, a variety of engineering features and structures were incorporated into its design and function, utilizing an array of construction techniques. In its entirety the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses. These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds. Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the small Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design. Additional operational components include headworks, boat basins,
aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, a 700-foot floating towpath, Lockkeepers houses, stores, warehouses, toll and tariff collection structures, hotels, waste weirs, traversal bridges, towpaths, towpath cross-over bridges, along with an unknown amount of additional architectural resources. A number of other sites associated with canal construction may include quarries, excavation pits, worker housing, among others. The canal’s construction and operation directly and indirectly affected change and growth in the participating
communities as well as the larger region, contributing to local and regional economic growth and expansion, influencing the development of transportation networks and modes, shifting settlement patterns, and enabling more population movement. The canal’s abbreviated lifespan and subsequent absorption by newer technological advancements such as the railroad also contribute to the greater record of industrial expansion of New England. The major engineering feat alone, and its remnant presence still extant on the landscape, further reinforces the endeavor that was the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Further undocumented/not fully documented archaeological resources within the proposed area may also have the potential to contribute to the potential district’s significance, should subsurface testing be conducted.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 11
STH.F See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Intact
(Y/N)
Comments Photo #
52 Canal Prism From Westfield border to west of Brickyard Road Y Repurposed by subsequent railroad, Root Road built upon original eastern towpath
53 Canal Prism Crossing Brickyard Road Y
Repurposed by subsequent railroad, towpath switches from eastern bank to western bank most likely within this segment
1
54 Canal Prism
From where route diverges
from abandoned railbed east of Brickyard Road to south of
Coolidge Drive
Y Relatively well preserved, western towpath observable. 2
55 Canal Prism From Coolidge Drive to railroad crossing N Segment largely repurposed by former railroad (now rail trail)
56 Canal Prism Paralleling east side of the Manhan River Y Visible prism, north end has railroad along original western towpath
56 Lock 19 Probably at northern end of Segment 56 N
Substantial spilled stone within
prism, unsure if related to original lock structure or
subsequent railroad construction
57 STH.B (partially) Canal Prism Paralleling west side of Brickyard Road N Heavily eroded, hummocky/uneven ground surface through area
57 STH.B Lock 20 Immediately west of Brickyard
Road N Completely removed and/or
washed-out
57/58 STH.B Lock 21 Approx. 80 m north of Lock 20 Y Partially identifiable earthworks, southern portion has been
washed-out but northern half
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 12
STH.F See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Intact (Y/N) Comments Photo #
and northern sill earthworks
remain visible
58 STH.B Canal Prism South of College Highway Y Railroad transitions from western towpath into original
prism
59 STH.B Canal Prism From south of College Highway
to just west of Brickyard Road Y
Repurposed subsequent railroad, with tracks running
through original prism and lock feature
59 STH.907 Lock 22 From Fort Hill Terrace to northern end of State Street Y
Most well-preserved, identifiable
stonework chambers eastern wall; original chamber was
timber construction later rebuilt with stone
3
59 STH.90 Canal Storehouse 100 Brickyard Rd. Y
Constructed in 1832 to operate
as a goods storehouse and tolls collection; Presently utilized as
apartments
60 STH.B (partially) Canal Prism
From west of Brickyard Road
paralleling abandoned railroad tracks Y
Former chute eroded by wash out events; large stone
observed in ravine; eastern towpath repurposed to house
former railroad tracks
60 STH.906 South Manhan
River Aqueduct
At crossing of South Manhan
River Y
Stone abutments were repurposed for railroad trestle
(now abandoned), intact stonework remains
4
61 Canal Prism Along railroad tracks Y
Repurposed by subsequent
railroad, towpath along eastern embankment
62 Canal Prism Bisecting East Street, N Eroded; extensive storm
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 13
STH.F See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Intact (Y/N) Comments Photo #
paralleling abandoned railroad damage
63 Canal Prism Bisecting Potash Brook, paralleling abandoned railroad Y Railroad along former eastern towpath
63 Potash Brook Culvert Crossing Potash Brook N
Original stone culvert removed, replaced by modern corrugated steel during railroad improvements
64 Canal Prism North of Potash Brook,
paralleling abandoned railroad N Leveled for agricultural field, original prism utilized as field drainage
65 Canal Prism North of Potash Brook, paralleling abandoned railroad Y Eastern towpath
66 Canal Prism Paralleling abandoned railroad, ending north of Gunn Road N Eroded and leveled by residential development
66/67 Lock 23 Approx. located at boundary between Segments 66 and 67 N Prism narrow at boundary, possible indication of lock feature
67 Canal Prism Southeast of College Highway Y High banks through this stretch, eastern towpath 5
68 Canal Prism From College Highway to Glendale Road N Residential development
69 Canal Prism From Glendale Road to crossing of Manhan River tributary Y Some minor impacts from agricultural usage, prism and towpath remain discernable
69/70 Lock 24 At approx. boundary of Segment 69 and 70 N No evidence remains
70 Canal Prism Along unnamed Manhan River tributary N Washed-out from flooding episodes
71 Canal Prism Along unnamed Manhan River
tributary Y Reclaimed by natural drainage, original earthworks remain identifiable 6
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 14
STH.F See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Intact (Y/N) Comments Photo #
72 Canal Prism
From unnamed Manhan River
tributary to east of Thomas Circle N
Wash-out episode have
obscured original prism through this area
73 Canal Prism From east of Thomas Circle to east of Duggan Lane Y
Some erosion, channel has high
banks through section; eastern towpath 7
74 Canal Prism From south of Pomeroy Meadow Road to Easthampton border N
Impacted by significant erosion,
likely due to alteration of natural drainage by extensive adjacent
development; extends into Easthampton; only portions of
eastern towpath remain
74 Lock 25 Approx. south of Pomeroy Meadow Road N No evidence remains, significant erosion
74 Lock 26 Approx. south of Pomeroy
Meadow Road N No evidence remains,
significant erosion
74 Pomeroy’s Basin Approx. south of Pomeroy Meadow Road N No evidence remains, significant erosion
74 Lock 27 Approx. just south of Pomeroy
Meadow Road N No evidence remains,
significant erosion
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 15
STH.F See Data Sheet
Photo 1: Canal prism repurposed by railroad (now abandoned) in Segment 53, facing south.
Photo 2: Intact canal prism in Segment 54, facing south.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 16
STH.F See Data Sheet
Photo 3: Intact stonework from Lock 22, facing south.
Photo 4: Stone abutments from South Manhan River Aqueduct (repurposed by railroad trestle), facing southwest.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 17
STH.F See Data Sheet
Photo 5: Intact canal prism in Segment 67, facing northwest.
Photo 6: Intact canal prism in Segment 71, facing west.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 18
STH.F See Data Sheet
Photo 7: Intact canal prism in Segment 73, facing north.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON STF.F HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 29-36
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 19
STH.F See Data
Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON STF.F HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 29-36
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 20
STH.F See Data
Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON STF.F HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 29-36
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 21
STH.F See Data
Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON STF.F HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 29-36
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 22
STH.F See Data
Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON STF.F HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 29-36
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 23
STH.F See Data
Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON STF.F HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 29-36
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 24
STH.F See Data
Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON STF.F HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 29-36
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 25
STH.F See Data
Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET SOUTHAMPTON STF.F HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 29-36
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 26
STH.F See Data
Sheet
Follow Massachusetts Historical Commission Survey Manual instructions for completing this form. 12/12
FORM A - AREA
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 Photograph
Canal Prism remnant in Segment 80, facing north.
Assessor’s Sheets USGS Quad Area Letter Form Numbers in Area
113, 114, 128, 129, 137, 138, 139, 142, 143
Easthampton, MA EAH.T
See Data Sheet
Town/City: Easthampton
Place (neighborhood or village): Name of Area: Hampshire and Hampden Canal
Present Use: Former canal route with varied modern-day land use (industrial, residential, recreational, undeveloped)
Construction Dates or Period: Built 1826-1834, operated until 1847
Overall Condition: Poor- some areas with remnant prism and lock features; however, majority of former canal route has been obscured or completely altered by residential development and erosion.
Major Intrusions and Alterations: Altered or obscured by residential development Acreage: Complete-26.73 acres, Remnant segments-9.46
acres (discontinuous)
Recorded by: Zachary Nason and Nadia Waski, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc
Organization: PVPC and Easthampton Historical
Commission
Date (month/year): 11/2022
Locus Map
[See continuation sheets Pages 16-20. ]
see continuation sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 1
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
Recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If checked, you must attach a completed National Register Criteria Statement form.
Use as much space as necessary to complete the following entries, allowing text to flow onto additional continuation sheets.
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Describe architectural, structural and landscape features and evaluate in terms of other areas within the community. Upon completing construction in 1834, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was an approximate 30-mile linear prism generally oriented north to south with associated crossover bridges, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, basins, towpath, and in places, embankments. The canal route ran from a guard lock at the state line located in Southwick, MA south of Congamond Ponds to where it connects to the Connecticut River in Northampton, MA. The original engineering specifications dictated the canal prism be 35 feet wide at the surface with the capacity to hold 4 feet of water. Generally, this prism was earthen and unlined. In its entirety the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses (Raber 2002). These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122-foot elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds (Raber 2002). Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the much smaller Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design. The following description documents the physical characteristics of the existing canal route within Easthampton (EAH.T). While much of the canal route maintains its original location, setting, feeling, and association, the presence or absence of surficial structural remnants was the determining factor as to whether a segment was considered present or lacking surficial indication. Using the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the NRHP, some segments described as having no surficial remnants, may merit the integrity required for listing due to these other contributing aspects. The existing physical condition of these features varies, with some segments having been substantially altered and to others containing small trace features of the canal’s original construction and design. A portion of the original canal route was repurposed to facilitate the tracks of the New Haven and Northampton Railroad, which much of today has been again repurposed as the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway (Rail Trail). In Easthampton, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is an approximately 26.73-acre, 2.94-mile, 75-foot-wide linear corridor tracing the historic route of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal within the town’s borders. The route was determined using historical mapping, modern technological data, field verification, oral accounts, and archival research. This corridor includes the route of the linear canal prism and towpath, along with any other engineering infrastructure directly associated with canal operation. The physical condition of the Easthampton portion of the canal route varies, with surficial identification of substantial sections of the former canal modified by erosion, building development, infill, natural phenomena, and other alterations. Segments/features which were not able to be field verified, either due to access related restrictions or the lack of any surficial indication, may require further, more detailed documentary research and/or subsurface archaeological testing to better ascertain their exact locations. The canal corridor as described below, represents the route of the canal as determined using the available resources and methods. During field verification, the canal was divided into segments based on the physical characteristics of the surficial canal remnants. Following is a brief description of these segments proceeding from south to north, beginning at the Southampton-Easthampton border and ending at the Easthampton-Northampton town line. From the Southampton-Easthampton town line, at the crossing of the north branch of the Manhan River, to the intersection with Northampton Street, surficial evidence of the canal prism has been almost completely removed.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 2
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
Encompassing the entirety of Segments 74, 75, and 76, only an approximately 210 ft stretch of prism remnant exists south of Oakridge Circle (Segment 75). The route through this section is fairly uniform, in so far as, the course of the canal exists in a fairly rural setting on the periphery of newer suburban development, keeping its historic setting and feeling consistent, with the exception of the intrusion of the Meadowbrook Drive development in Segment 76. Canal Prism Segment 75 (MHC ID) (Photos 1 and 2) specifically, contains remnants of the original eastern/southern towpath and embankment a discernable channel. The western/northern embankment through this section, and extending into both Segments 74 and 76, was likely dug into the natural terrace slope which exists but which has been heavily altered by erosion removing any resemblance to its original design. Just northeast of Glendale Street, in parcels 52, 53, and 54 on the mapping, the landowner informed field staff that as recently as the first decade of the 21st century the prism existed through this area but was removed, by him, in an effort to level the land for agricultural purposes. Just southeast of West Street, where the canal traverses Bassett Brook, formally Sawmill Brook, remnants of an arched culvert can be seen; however, the present feature likely represents episodes of infrastructural engineering post-canal operation. Stone may have been repurposed from the original culvert design in subsequent efforts, such as the West Street Culvert over Bassett Brook, but more detailed feature specific research would need to be conducted to state definitively. Where the canal area crosses Northampton Street and proceeds northeast, surficial canal remnants exist, though in a fragmentary state. Canal Prism Segment 77 (MHC ID) (Photos 3 to 6) encompasses the area from said Northampton Street crossing to south of Highland Avenue. Although present, agricultural activities, erosional episodes, and the general expansion of residential development have significantly impacted the area leading to the fragmented nature of the prism through this section. Along Mill Street, surface depressions can be seen indicating the canals original route, with the eastern towpath becoming increasingly evident as one proceeds farther to the northeast. Through the copse of trees bisecting the agricultural fields, most of the prism has been obscured by either filling or leveling activities associated with agricultural practices, with the exception of the very prominent eastern embankment and towpath which has been adapted into a private walking path. The northern end of Segment 77 has seen extensive erosion due to its proximity to the Manhan River, but its course remains identifiable due to surficial depressions and terrace slope which served as the original canals western banking. Adjacent to this segment, at the intersection of Mill Street and Northampton Street also exists the former Clapp’s Tavern and Warehouse (EAH.593; Photo 7), which operated as a warehouse and collection point along the canal. Just past a small tributary of the Manhan River, south of Highland Ave, Canal Prism Segment 78 (MHC ID) (Photo 8) comprises a prism section with an identifiable eastern towpath. This segment ends immediately south of where Highland Avenue bisects the route. A wooded area bounded by agricultural lands, the area of Segment 78 contains a relatively visible prism, visually representative of the canal’s original construction in a physical and environmental context. North of this segment, from near Highland Avenue to south of O’Neill Street, surficial remnants of the former canal prism have been completely obscured (Segment 79). A filled and graveled access road inhabits a large portion of the former route, with other sections having been completely washed-out, especially along the northern portion of this segment, where erosion and drainage impacts were likely exacerbated by commercial and industrial development along Industrial Parkway and O’Neill Street. Previous documentation of this section of canal was recorded in 1984 (EAH.900) and is on record at the MHC. Canal Prism Segment 80 (MHC ID) (Photos 9 to 11)., the northernmost segment in Easthampton, extends from south of O’Neill Street to the border of Northampton (Photos 9 to 11). The canal area through this segment is easily identifiable, containing both embankments, east towpath, and channel. Passing through a small, wooded area amongst industrial parks and commercial properties, the eastern towpath now contains a walking path. The prism has experienced moderate weathering over the years and extends north crossing the border into Northampton.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 3
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
HISTORICAL NARRATIVE
Explain historical development of the area. Discuss how this relates to the historical development of the community. History of Easthampton Previously, the lands now comprising Easthampton were the traditional territory of the Nipmuc and their ancestors for many thousands of years. During the Contact Period, these Algonquin speaking communities were subject to substantial impacts by the influx of European settlement which significantly affected the traditional Native lifeway. Historically, the town of Eastampton, originally a part of Northampton, was first settled by these European immigrants in the latter half of the seventeenth century. Situated within the Connecticut River Valley and bordered by Mount Tom, the town of Easthampton was independently incorporated in 1809. Roughly bisected by the Manhan River, Easthampton had ample waterpower sites through the center of town and provided suitable agricultural land for cultivation. Industrial expansion occurred throughout the nineteenth century, especially around Upper and Lower Mill Ponds (MHC 1982). The completion of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal and the subsequent railroad further contributed to the growth of industrial enterprises throughout Easthampton creating an industrial corridor connecting Southampton Center to Northampton. However, following the turn of the twentieth century, manufacturing in town began to decline, massive layoffs and wholesale closures impacted the local community. Though buoyed slightly by both World Wars, manufacturing in Easthampton would never regain the prominence it had through the previous century. Small agricultural operations and commercial/mercantile business remained the preeminent enterprises in Easthampton. Settlement of the town was focused along Main Street, Union Street, and Cottage Street, the results of which are evident today (MHC 1982). It was also through the latter portion of the twentieth century where suburban development began to increase, specifically along trolley routes. Increased residential development and urban expansion, has caused a revitalization of Easthampton downtown with agricultural activities still prominent around the Oxbow. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal The widespread enthusiasm for, and promotion of, canals that spread across the eastern United States in the early nineteenth century was not missed by entrepreneurs in New Haven and the upper Connecticut River Valley. First
conceived by local businessmen in New Haven in 1822, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was constructed between 1826 and 1834 with the purpose of transporting goods from the upper Connecticut River Valley to the tidewaters of New
Haven, Connecticut (Camposeo 1977). When fully operational, the canal route connected with the Farmington Canal at a guard lock in Southwick, Massachusetts, and continued approximately 30 miles north, emptying into the Connecticut River in Northampton, Massachusetts. Operating, in its entirety, for roughly 13 years before officially closing the waterway due to financial strain on January 18, 1848, prior to the navigational season of that year.
At its conception, the grand plan for this venture had the route linking the tidewaters of Long Island Sound to the St. Lawrence River, connecting the Western New England Interior to Canada and the Atlantic Ocean (Harte 1933). This original undertaking was to be constructed in stages, with the first stage to be the completion of a canal way from New
Haven to the border of Massachusetts in Southwick. Which then would be followed by entrepreneurs in western Massachusetts picking up the route from that point and linking it to a bend on the Connecticut River in Northampton.
These lofty ideas were birthed in 1822 when businessmen in New Haven hired Benjamin Wright, chief engineer of the Erie Canal, for a preliminary survey of the predicted canal route. Wright returned with the conclusion that the terrain in the area was very favorable to canal construction and that per mile expenses would be less than that of canals being constructed in New York at that time. Following this assessment, a charter was granted to the Farmington Canal
Company to build a canal from New Haven to the northern border of the state (Harte 1933). Members of the Farmington Canal Company then traveled into Western Massachusetts to garner support from local entrepreneurs for the
Massachusetts branch of the route. A committee was formed, and funds were raised for a survey of the Massachusetts segment from Southwick into Northampton. Holmes Hutchinson and Benjamin Wright’s son Henry, civil engineers with
experience on the Erie Canal, were commissioned to conduct the land survey. Upon receiving a favorable report, a
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 4
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
charter was granted to the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company to “construct and operate a canal from the northern boundary line of Connecticut to the Great Bend in the Connecticut river in Northampton” (Camposeo 1977). Following a more detailed survey and cost projection conducted by Henry Wright under the direction of his father in 1823, commission members voted for construction to begin as soon as possible. David Hurd, another veteran of the Erie Canal, was appointed chief engineer for the project (Camposeo 1977). Financial strains slowed the construction of the Farmington Canal, leaving the members of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company concerned for the Massachusetts branch of the canal, which would be a familiar theme throughout the venture. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company hired Jarvis Hurd, the brother of Davis, to conduct a final survey of their segment of the canal route. By the spring of 1826, the majority of the Farmington Canal route had been completed and Jarvis Hurd was able to complete his final survey and cost projection (Camposeo 1977). With the impending completion of the Farmington Canal and the requisite funds raised, groundbreaking on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal took place on November 1, 1826. By 1829, weather difficulties related to heavy rains and the drought of the summer of that year left the canal company in bad shape. In addition to this, both Davis and Jarvis Hurd resigned from the project that year, being replaced by William Butler as Chief Engineer (Camposeo 1977). Construction on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal again came to a standstill in 1831 when the company lacked the funds to finish the construction and were subsequently denied federal assistance. This problem was solved when a New Haven bank with contributions from the surrounding Massachusetts towns were able to provide the funds necessary for the completion of the canal. With this new influx of capital, construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was completed on August 30, 1834. However, the first boat did not traverse the entire route until July 29 of the next year, which was declared the official opening of the entire canal (Camposeo 1977). While there was a steady growth of business along the canal following its completion, constant repairs and delays began to severely compromise both companies’ ability to operate and maintain the route. Due to these growing financial strains, the Farmington Canal Company and the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company merged to create The New Haven and Northampton Canal Company in 1836 to operate and maintain the entire route of the canal (Camposeo 1977). Financial woes continued through the early portion of the 1840s with the company operating annually in the red, and the need for new capital to maintain operation was dire. Late in that year, a successful businessman by the name of Joseph Sheffield purchased controlling interest in the Company and by the spring of 1841, succeeded Steven Staples as company president. The following four years proved to be the canal’s most successful, with tens of thousands of pounds of goods transported along the waterway with minimal delay and interruption. In January of 1845, Sheffield stepped down as Company president and was replaced by Henry Farnum, which would signal the beginning of the end for the canal (Camposeo 1977). The summer of 1845 brought with it a significant drought that had rendered the canal unnavigable. By the time the canal returned to operation, a large break in the Connecticut portion of the route caused service to be delayed once again. To mitigate rising costs of repairs and service delays, Henry Farnum commissioned a report to the practicability of constructing a railroad along the canal route. With the increased popularity and profitability of railroads across the nation, a plan was developed in Connecticut to operate a railroad along the canal’s towpath concurrently with regular canal operation. By 1847, work had begun on the New Haven and Collinsville Railroad (nicknamed the Canal Line), and by the winter of that year, canal transportation between New Haven and Northampton ended with the official closing of the canal taking place on January 18, 1848 (Camposeo 1977). While in Massachusetts, the towns were left with an abandoned canal and no plans to convert or monetize the route. However, proponents of the Canal Line were determined to continue the rail line north to Northampton despite strong opposition from several railroads in the state. By 1853, the Hampshire and Hampden Railroad was formed with service from Granby, CT to Northampton, MA, beginning in 1856. This line followed on or near the canal route from Southwick to Northampton. The railroad changed hands numerous times over the next century until the latter half of the twentieth century when much of the Canal Line began to be abandoned. Much of the abandoned right-of-way through
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 5
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
Massachusetts has been railbanked and today has been converted to multiple rail trails running along the former canal route. Canal Impacts on Easthampton
In terms of engineering features along the Easthampton portion of canal, very little of interest exists. Aside from the canal prism itself, which overall is in poor physical condition, only a portion of the North Manhan River Aqueduct, which ferried the canal from Southampton into Easthampton, and the Sawmill Brook Culvert were constructed in the boundaries of Easthampton. Where the canal route crosses into Easthampton over the North Branch of the Manhan River, lies the
historic location of the North Manhan River Aqueduct. A former 60 feet by 24 feet stone aqueduct, that has since been removed (Raber 2002), although stone from the former aqueduct, as well as Lock 27, were used in the footings of the
Pomeroy Meadow Road bridge. From here the canal continued north, it traversed Sawmill Brook, now Bassett Brook, over a single stone arch culvert (Sawmill Brook Culvert). Remnants of an arched culvert can be seen at this location; however, the present structure likely represents episodes of infrastructural engineering post-canal operation. Traces of the original canal culvert feature have likely been removed, repurposed, or potentially obscured by later engineering features. Just
northeast of the Sawmill Brook crossing, at the intersection with Northampton Street, the building that formerly operated as Clapp’s Tavern and Warehouse (EAH.593) remains. During canal operation, this structure would have likely served as
a storehouse for the transshipment of goods and as a collection point for canal related tolls and tariffs (Raber 2002). Along with the above-mentioned canal features, an unknown number of basins, waste weirs, dams, masonry drains, and
traversal bridges may have been present along the route through Easthampton, any surficial evidence of which has since been removed. The relatively level terrain and the short distance the canal traveled through Easthampton, limited the
overall physical effect the canal had throughout the town.
Overall, the economic impact of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal on the town of Easthampton is difficult to determine. At its inception, the canal was believed to bring trade and market growth to participating towns. Which when fully operating, the canal indeed did for short periods. However, with significant engineering mistakes and shortcuts, along with costly repairs, seasonal closure, and weather-related stoppages, the canal never was able to establish itself as the
prominent interior New England trade route that it was envisioned to be. In Easthampton, the construction of the canal likely impacted the growth in regional industry seen during this period; however, no direct correlation could be identified.
Button manufacturing was a prominent industry in Easthampton through the first half of the nineteenth century, with Williston Button Works employing a large section of its residents (MHC 1982). These industrial enterprises likely saw benefits of operating near shipping lanes such as the canal. With the operation of the Clapp Tavern during the years of canal activity, it is understood at least some small mercantile industries grew around and benefited directly from this
transportation route. One reason cited for the establishment of Williston Seminary School in Easthampton was its proximity to the canal and the ease of transportation for students (Carroll 1984)). While the population of Easthampton
grew throughout the first half of the nineteenth century, the gradual increase was likely more related to the industrial growth along the Manhan River and Mill Ponds, for which the canals contributions were likely minimal. Settlement through
Easthampton continued to be focused along College Highway, south of the canal route, a trend that existed prior to the canal’s construction. As seen in most of the towns through which the canal traveled, the abandonment of the Hampshire
and Hampden Canal and subsequent construction of the Westfield and Northampton Railroad in its place, proved far more beneficial. Easthampton saw a rapid growth in population and its industrial economy in the latter half of the
nineteenth century, a direct result of the introduction of the railroad (MHC 1982). Today, the former canal route through Easthampton has been largely impacted by erosion and development. Some trace remnants of the canal prism and towpath can still be observed in areas such as, just south of Highland Avenue, paralleling the west side of the Manhan River and north of O’Neill Street, extending to the Northampton border.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 6
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
BIBLIOGRAPHY and/or REFERENCES
Camposeo, James Mark 1977 The History of the Canal System between New Haven and Northampton (1822-1847). Historical Journal of Massachusetts 1(6):37-53.
Carroll, William F. 1984 Documentation of the New Haven and Northampton Canal in Easthampton EAH.900. Form F – Structure. On file with the MHC, Boston.
Harte, Charles Rufus 1933 Some Engineering Features of the Old Northampton Canal. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers, Hartford, Connecticut.
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 1982 MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Easthampton. MHC, Boston.
Raber, Michael S.
2002 Survey and Inventory of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (New Haven and Northampton Canal) for Proposed National Register of Historic Places Nomination. On file with the MHC, Boston.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2021 Southwick Quadrangle topographic map, 1:24,000 scale. United States Department of the Interior,
Washington.
Walter, Carl E. 2006 Hampshire & Hampden Canal, 1829-1847. Map. On file with the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 7
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
National Register of Historic Places Criteria Statement Form Check all that apply:
Individually eligible Eligible only in a historic district Contributing to a potential historic district Potential historic district
Criteria: A B C D
Criteria Considerations: A B C D E F G
Statement of Significance by _______Zachary Nason___________
The criteria that are checked in the above sections must be justified here. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal, otherwise known as the Massachusetts portion of the New Haven and
Northampton Canal, meets the criteria for listing, in its entirety, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A, C, and D.
The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is nationally significant under Criterion A for its associations with the Canal Era (c. 1800-1850) of the northeastern United States, illustrating the movement to improve industry and transportation with a canal network, and led by the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825. The area reflects the
widespread and nationwide enthusiasm for canal construction during this era. The Canal Area is also significant under Criterion C as representing a distinct engineering endeavor and embodying the full extent of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Under Criterion D, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area embodies not only what surficial features remain present on the landscape but also the features, associated structures, and unrecorded archaeological components that are likely to be yielded extant below the ground surface. These as of yet undocumented components may contribute to the greater understanding of canal engineering practices of the day, as well as the wider implications canal construction, operation, and subsequent closure had on the local communities, their settlement patterns, and its use/disuse post-abandonment.
Covering the approximate 30-mile extent of the original Hampshire and Hampden Canal through Southwick, Westfield, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, with a feeder route also coming into the mainline from Russell, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is significant at the local, state, and national level for
its role in the history of not just the Canal Era, but for its contributions to the industrial expansion of New England and transportation engineering as a whole. With the Farmington Canal, the Connecticut portion of the New Haven and Northampton Canal, having already been listed on the NRHP, the Hampshire and Hampden
Canal represents the northern half of the greatest undertaking of its kind in New England, an approximately 80-mile manmade waterway connecting the Connecticut River Valley and western New England as a whole
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 8
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
with a seaport on the Long Island Sound. Along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal, a variety of engineering features and structures were incorporated into its design and function, utilizing an array of construction techniques. In its entirety the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses. These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds. Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with
water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the small Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design. Additional operational components include headworks, boat basins, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, a 700-foot floating towpath, Lockkeepers houses, stores, warehouses, toll and tariff collection structures, hotels, waste weirs, traversal bridges, towpaths, towpath cross-over bridges, along with an unknown amount of additional architectural resources. A number of other sites associated with canal construction may include quarries, excavation pits, worker housing, among others. The canal’s construction and operation directly and indirectly affected change and growth in the participating communities as well as the larger region, contributing to local and regional economic growth and expansion, influencing the development of transportation networks and modes, shifting settlement patterns, and enabling
more population movement. The canal’s abbreviated lifespan and subsequent absorption by newer technological advancements such as the railroad also contribute to the greater record of industrial expansion of New England. The major engineering feat alone, and its remnant presence still extant on the landscape, further reinforces the endeavor that was the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Further undocumented/not fully documented archaeological resources within the proposed area may also have the potential to contribute to the potential district’s significance, should subsurface testing be conducted.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 9
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
74 Canal Prism From Southampton border to
west of Meadowbrook Drive N Segment lacks surficial evidence; extends into Southampton
74 North Manhan River Aqueduct Crossing North Branch of the Manhan River N Spans border of Southampton and Easthampton, no surficial evidence remains
75 Canal Prism South of Oakridge Circle Y Approx. 210 ft 1, 2
76 Canal Prism From west of Meadowbrook Drive to Northampton Street N Developed
77 Canal Prism From Northampton Street to crossing of unnamed Manhan
River tributary
Y
Eroded; eastern towpath still extant and well-preserved; channel visible along portions of segment
3, 4, 5, 6
77 Sawmill Brook Culvert Spanning Bassett Brook N Original culvert feature obscured/removed
77 EAH.593 Clapp’s Tavern and Warehouse Intersection of Mill Street and Northampton Street Y Wood-framed 2-story Federal style structure, c. 1810 7
78 Canal Prism From unnamed tributary to south of Highland Ave. Y Prism section with an identifiable eastern towpath 8
79 EAH.900 Canal Prism From south of Highland Ave. to south of O’Neill St. N Through industrial park. Filled and graveled with areas of severe washouts
80 EAH.900 (partially) Canal Prism From south of O’Neill St. to unnamed Mill River tributary Y Extends into Northampton; contains both embankments, east towpath, and channel 9, 10, 11
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 10
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
Photo 1: Canal prism remnant in Segment 75, facing west.
Photo 2: Canal prism remnant in Segment 75, facing east.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 11
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
Photo 3: Eastern towpath remnant in Segment 77, facing southwest.
Photo: Eastern towpath remnant in Segment 77, facing northeast.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 12
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
Photo 4: Eastern towpath remnant in Segment 77, facing northeast.
Photo 5: Canal prism remnant in Segment 77, facing northeast.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 13
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
Photo 6: Structure formerly operated as Clapp's Tavern and Warehouse, facing northeast.
Photo 7: Canal prism remnant in Segment 78, facing southwest.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 14
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
Photo 8: Canal prism remnant in Segment 80, facing north.
Photo 9: Eastern towpath remnant in Segment 80, facing southwest.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 15
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
Photo 10: Canal prism remnant in Segment 80, facing northeast.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON EAH.T HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 35-39
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 16
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON EAH.T HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 35-39
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 17
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON EAH.T HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 35-39
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 18
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON EAH.T HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 35-39
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 19
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET EASTHAMPTON EAH.T HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL MAPS 35-39
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 20
EAH.T See Data
Sheet
Follow Massachusetts Historical Commission Survey Manual instructions for completing this form. 12/12
FORM A - AREA
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
MASSACHUSETTS ARCHIVES BUILDING
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125 Photograph
Intact canal prism in Segment 92, facing north.
Assessor’s Sheets USGS Quad Area Letter Form Numbers in Area
18, 19, 37, 44, 45, 51, 18D, 24A, 24B, 24D, 31B, 38B, 38C, 31D, 38D
Easthampton, MA
NTH.AL
See Data Sheet
Town/City: Northampton
Place (neighborhood or village):
Name of Area: Hampshire and Hampden Canal
Present Use: Former canal route with varied modern-day land
use (commercial, residential, recreational, undeveloped)
Construction Dates or Period: Built 1826-1834, operated
until 1847
Overall Condition: Poor- some areas of remnant prism and
lock features with majority of former canal route obscured or largely not visible due to land development.
Major Intrusions and Alterations: Altered or obscured by railroad construction and downtown Northampton expansion
and development Acreage: Complete- 41.85 acres, Remnant segments- 2.76
acres (discontinuous)
Recorded by: Zachary Nason and Nadia Waski, SWCA Environmental Consultants, Inc.
Organization: PVPC and Northampton Office of Planning &
Sustainability
Date (month/year): 11/2022
Locus Map
[See continuation sheets pages 16-21.]
see continuation sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 1
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
Recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If checked, you must attach a completed National Register Criteria Statement form.
Use as much space as necessary to complete the following entries, allowing text to flow onto additional continuation sheets.
ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
Describe architectural, structural and landscape features and evaluate in terms of other areas within the community. Upon completing construction in 1834, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was an approximate 30-mile linear prism generally oriented north to south with associated crossover bridges, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, basins, towpath, and in places, embankments. The canal route ran from a guard lock at the state line in Southwick, MA, south of Congamond Ponds, to where it connects to the Connecticut River in Northampton, MA. The original engineering specifications dictated the canal prism be 35 feet wide at the surface with the capacity to hold 4 feet of water. Generally, this prism was earthen and unlined. In its entirety, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks, each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear, with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses (Raber 2002). These locks raised or lowered boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds (Raber 2002). Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the small, Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design. The following description documents the physical characteristics of the existing canal route within Northampton (NTH.AL). While much of the canal route maintains its original location, setting, feeling, and association, the presence or absence of surficial structural remnants was the determining factor as to whether a segment was considered present or lacking surficial indication. Using the seven aspects of integrity as defined by the NRHP, some segments described as having no surficial remnants, may merit the integrity required for listing due to these other contributing aspects. The existing physical condition of these features varies, with some segments having been substantially altered and to others containing small trace features of the canal’s original construction and design. A portion of the original canal route was repurposed to facilitate the tracks of the New Haven and Northampton Railroad, which much of today has been again repurposed as the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway (Rail Trail). In Northampton, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is an approximately 41.85-acre, 4.6-mile, 75-foot-wide linear corridor tracing the historic route of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal within the town’s borders. The route was determined using historical mapping, modern technological data, field verification, oral accounts, and archival research. This corridor includes the route of the linear canal prism and towpath, along with any other engineering infrastructure directly associated with canal operation. The physical condition of the Northampton portion of the canal route varies, with surficial identification of substantial sections of the former canal modified by erosion, building development, infill, natural phenomena, and other alterations. Segments/features which were not able to be field verified, either due to access related restrictions or the lack of any surficial indication, may require further, more detailed documentary research and/or subsurface archaeological testing to better ascertain their exact locations. The canal corridor as described below, represents the route of the canal as determined using the available resources and methods. During field verification, the canal was divided into segments based on the physical characteristics of the surficial canal remnants. Following is a brief description of these sections proceeding from south to north, beginning at the Easthampton-Northampton border and ending at the Connecticut River. The northern end of Canal Prism Segment 80 is the first section of canal in Northampton, beginning just south of the intersection with a Manhan River tributary (MHC ID). Segment 80 contains remnant canal prism with a discernable
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 2
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
eastern towpath, terminating at the historic location of a culvert crossing said tributary, no surficial evidence of original culvert engineering remains. Extending from the tributary crossing to north of Easthampton Road, Segment 81 contains no surficial remnants of the original canal engineering. Some areas of small berms can be identified through the residential properties along Easthampton Road; however, it is unknown if these are from original canal construction or post-canal development. The railroad likely repurposed a small section of the eastern towpath when laying tracks along this stretch of canal. Presently, the railroad berm continues away from the canal obscuring any design of the original towpath on which it likely sits. Development and railroad construction have removed surficial remnants of the former canal through this segment. Canal Prism Segment 82 (MHC ID) contains approximately 400 feet of repurposed canal route that was first utilized by the New Haven and Northampton Railroad as their railbed corridor and then later, transformed into the New Haven and Northampton Canal Greenway that follows the historic canal route north, to the intersection with a tributary of the Mill River. Remnants of the east and west embankments can be observed interspersed through this small segment, with the railroad, now rail trail, first occupying the towpath before shifting into the prism itself for a short time. At this tributary crossing, Segment 83 begins as the route deviates slightly away from the former railbed and present rail trail. Segment 83 contains no surficial remnants of the canal, having likely been eroded and obscured by the wetland the presently occupies the area. The original site of the Rocky Hill Basin was most likely within this segment; however, no surficial evidence of the feature remains. Canal Prism Segment 84 (MHC ID) (Photo 1) is a small, visible prism segment beginning where the canal route nears the location of the former railroad. Here the railbed runs along the former eastern towpath of the canal. Containing both embankments and a watered channel, the prism is relatively well-preserved here. The segment ends at a large washout area, which exists all the way to the intersection of Easthampton Road. Segment 85 is a large, obscured segment of former canal, which includes the large washout near the northern terminus of Segment 84, the crossing of the modern route of the Mill River, and a portion of the commercial and residential area paralleling South Street. This segment deviates from the existing rail trail, opting for a more southerly route following the course of present-day South Street. The diversion of Mill River, expansion of Northampton, and general infrastructure development and erosion have removed all surficial traces of the from canal through this segment Segment 86 is a segment of canal that has been heavily altered to facilitate residential lawn space. Some semblances of the original banking can still be observed; however, the significant alterations make discerning the specifics of the former prism difficult. The residential development encompassing South Street has mostly obscured all surficial indications to the former route. Segment 87 occurs along the base of a large terrace that has been completely eroded. Recreational and residential development have also played a role in obscuring the original canal route through this segment. The canal originally utilized this terrace slope as a natural prism embankment; however, its historic form has seen significant erosional impacts. No defined channel or western embankment was discernable at ground surface. Segment 88 begins a large section of the former canal route that has been built over, removed, or otherwise obscured to facilitate the creation and expansion of the Northampton Downtown area. Beginning at approximately Fort Hill Terrace, Segment 88 follows the northern end of South Street and the then the entirety of State Street to the northwestern edge, of what is now the Stop & Shop Plaza off King Street. State Street was constructed directly atop the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Within this segment, the former locations of the Mill River Aqueduct (crossing the original route of the Mill River which has since been rerouted), an arched stone bridge, and North Basin all occur; however, no surficial evidence remains of these former engineering features.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 3
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
Similarly, Segment 89 is another large segment traversing the urban area of Northampton. Here, all surficial evidence of the former canal route has been removed, by erosion near the southern terminus and by development to north. Extending approximately from the rail trail to the crossing of Lane Plant Road, the southern portion of the segment exists within a wetland area which has removed all traces of the former prism. It was also along this stretch where a former railroad bed existed parallel to the canal; however, like the prism itself, evidence of this former railroad has also been removed. From Barrett Street to the end of Denise Court, a small, repurposed drainage can be observed, most likely utilizing the remnants of the previous canal prism; however, this is only hypothesized as the current drainage does not resemble the original engineering design of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Upon encountering King Street, commercial and industrial development has removed any visual evidence of the canal prism. The location of Lock 28 and part of Lock 29 would have most likely occurred within this segment; however, no surficial evidence remains of these features. Canal Prism Segment 90 (MHC ID) (Photo 2) is an identifiable canal prism segment beginning at the crossing of Lane Plant Road and extending to the southern end of Lock 31. The canal was carved into the natural slope to the east. Sporadic evidence of the western towpath remains, although the majority has been washed away. Part of Lock 29 and the entirety of Lock 30 occurred within this segment; however, no surficial evidence remains of these features. Segment 91 is a, eroded prism segment located just northwest of the River Run residential development. The original prism through this section has been reclaimed by Slough Brook, which has caused significant erosion to the former earthworks of the canal. The prism through this section has been widened considerably by the flow of water from Slough Brook flooding episodes. Within this segment, visible evidence of stonework from the Lock 31 (MHC ID) (Photo 3) chamber wall can be observed, although the surrounding earthworks have been completely eroded. A small, modern traversal bridge crosses the canal within this segment along an abandoned former roadway, with the concrete bridge remaining overgrown and in disrepair. The significant alterations to the channel have obscured any surficial evidence of the former prism design through this segment. The northern terminus and final segment of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal is Canal Prism Segment 92 (MHC ID) (Photos 4 and 7). Segment 92 is a visible canal segment stretching from the southern end of Lock 32, to where the prism empties into the Connecticut River in the area referred to as the “Honey Pot”. This section contains water from Slough Brook and is watered to the present-day Connecticut River level. No towpath is visible, probably having been washed away during previous flooding episodes. Lock 32 (MHC ID) (Photos 5 and 6) remain relatively well preserved with masonry visible along the eastern and western walls and surficial earthworks surrounding most of the channel, with both sills also partially visible. This segment, as well as portions of Segments 91 and 90 were previously recorded in MACRIS as NTH.HA.14 in 1974. However, much of the surrounding landscape has been altered since this section of canal was documented. HISTORICAL NARRATIVE
Explain historical development of the area. Discuss how this relates to the historical development of the community.
History of Northampton
Northampton is situated within the Connecticut River Valley, with the river itself serving as the town’s eastern boundary. Originally part of the Nonotuck Plantation land grant in 1653, Northampton was independently incorporated in 1883. From its inception, Northampton’s position on the Connecticut River and at the junction of regional transportation routes, made the city an important civic and industrial center in western Massachusetts (MHC 1982). The abundance of fertile meadowland along the Connecticut River floodplain further reinforced the city as prominent settlement in the valley. By the nineteenth century, the city was well established, having expanded commercial and industrial activity along main street and the Mill River, as well as the completion of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal shipping lane through town. Northampton continued its expansion through the nineteenth century with the introduction of the railroad, repurposing much of the previous canal route, and the establishment of multiple factory village throughout the town, including at Leeds, Florence, and encompassing the Bay State paper mills (MHC 1982). Civic and commercial growth would continue
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 4
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
into the late nineteenth-early twentieth century with commercial blocks, a courthouse, a concert hall, railroad stations, a library, hospitals, and Smith College all being constructed. The twentieth century saw continued commercial growth, and as transportation routes were improved and expanded, the introduction of suburban development throughout the city. Today, Northampton is still a cultural center of educational and commercial development, with expanded suburbanization as part of the Springfield, Massachusetts Metropolitan Area. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal The widespread enthusiasm for, and promotion of, canals that spread across the eastern United States in the early
nineteenth century was not missed by entrepreneurs in New Haven and the upper Connecticut River Valley. First conceived by local businessmen in New Haven in 1822, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was constructed between
1826 and 1834 with the purpose of transporting goods from the upper Connecticut River Valley to the tidewaters of New Haven, Connecticut (Camposeo 1977). When fully operational, the canal route connected with the Farmington Canal at a guard lock in Southwick, Massachusetts, and continued approximately 30 miles north, emptying into the Connecticut River in Northampton, Massachusetts. Operating, in its entirety, for roughly 13 years before officially closing the waterway due
to financial strain on January 18, 1848, prior to the navigational season of that year.
At its conception, the grand plan for this venture had the route linking the tidewaters of Long Island Sound to the St. Lawrence River, connecting the Western New England Interior to Canada and the Atlantic Ocean (Harte 1933). This
original undertaking was to be constructed in stages, with the first stage to be the completion of a canal way from New Haven to the border of Massachusetts in Southwick. Which then would be followed by entrepreneurs in western
Massachusetts picking up the route from that point and linking it to a bend on the Connecticut River in Northampton. These lofty ideas were birthed in 1822 when businessmen in New Haven hired Benjamin Wright, chief engineer of the
Erie Canal, for a preliminary survey of the predicted canal route. Wright returned with the conclusion that the terrain in the area was very favorable to canal construction and that per mile expenses would be less than that of canals being
constructed in New York at that time. Following this assessment, a charter was granted to the Farmington Canal Company to build a canal from New Haven to the northern border of the state (Harte 1933). Members of the Farmington
Canal Company then traveled into Western Massachusetts to garner support from local entrepreneurs for the Massachusetts branch of the route. A committee was formed, and funds were raised for a survey of the Massachusetts
segment from Southwick into Northampton. Holmes Hutchinson and Benjamin Wright’s son Henry, civil engineers with experience on the Erie Canal, were commissioned to conduct the land survey. Upon receiving a favorable report, a
charter was granted to the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company to “construct and operate a canal from the northern boundary line of Connecticut to the Great Bend in the Connecticut river in Northampton” (Camposeo 1977).
Following a more detailed survey and cost projection conducted by Henry Wright under the direction of his father in 1823,
commission members voted for construction to begin as soon as possible. David Hurd, another veteran of the Erie Canal, was appointed chief engineer for the project (Camposeo 1977). Financial strains slowed the construction of the
Farmington Canal, leaving the members of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company concerned for the Massachusetts branch of the canal, which would be a familiar theme throughout the venture. The Hampshire and
Hampden Canal Company hired Jarvis Hurd, the brother of Davis, to conduct a final survey of their segment of the canal route. By the spring of 1826, the majority of the Farmington Canal route had been completed and Jarvis Hurd was able to complete his final survey and cost projection (Camposeo 1977). With the impending completion of the Farmington Canal and the requisite funds raised, groundbreaking on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal took place on November 1, 1826. By 1829, weather difficulties related to heavy rains and the
drought of the summer of that year left the canal company in bad shape. In addition to this, both Davis and Jarvis Hurd resigned from the project that year, being replaced by William Butler as Chief Engineer (Camposeo 1977). Construction on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal again came to a standstill in 1831 when the company lacked the funds to finish the construction and were subsequently denied federal assistance. This problem was solved when a New Haven bank with contributions from the surrounding Massachusetts towns were able to provide the funds necessary for the completion of the canal. With this new influx of capital, construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal was completed on August
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 5
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
30, 1834. However, the first boat did not traverse the entire route until July 29 of the next year, which was declared the official opening of the entire canal (Camposeo 1977). While there was a steady growth of business along the canal following its completion, constant repairs and delays began to severely compromise both companies’ ability to operate and maintain the route. Due to these growing financial strains, the Farmington Canal Company and the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Company merged to create The New Haven and Northampton Canal Company in 1836 to operate and maintain the entire route of the canal (Camposeo 1977). Financial woes continued through the early portion of the 1840s with the company operating annually in the red, and the need for new capital to maintain operation was dire. Late in that year, a successful businessman by the name of Joseph Sheffield purchased controlling interest in the Company and by the spring of 1841, succeeded Steven Staples as company president. The following four years proved to be the canal’s most successful, with tens of thousands of pounds of goods transported along the waterway with minimal delay and interruption. In January of 1845, Sheffield stepped down as Company president and was replaced by Henry Farnum, which would signal the beginning of the end for the canal (Camposeo 1977). The summer of 1845 brought with it a significant drought that had rendered the canal unnavigable. By the time the canal returned to operation, a large break in the Connecticut portion of the route caused service to be delayed once again. To mitigate rising costs of repairs and service delays, Henry Farnum commissioned a report to the practicability of constructing a railroad along the canal route. With the increased popularity and profitability of railroads across the nation, a plan was developed in Connecticut to operate a railroad along the canal’s towpath concurrently with regular canal operation. By 1847, work had begun on the New Haven and Collinsville Railroad (nicknamed the Canal Line), and by the winter of that year, canal transportation between New Haven and Northampton ended with the official closing of the canal taking place on January 18, 1848 (Camposeo 1977). While in Massachusetts, the towns were left with an abandoned canal and no plans to convert or monetize the route. However, proponents of the Canal Line were determined to continue the rail line north to Northampton despite strong opposition from several railroads in the state. By 1853, the Hampshire and Hampden Railroad was formed with service from Granby, CT to Northampton, MA, beginning in 1856. This line followed on or near the canal route from Southwick to Northampton. The railroad changed hands numerous times over the next century until the latter half of the twentieth century when much of the Canal Line began to be abandoned. Much of the abandoned right-of-way through Massachusetts has been railbanked and today has been converted to multiple rail trails running along the former canal route. Canal Impacts on Northampton
Being the northern terminus of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal, Northampton played a very significant role in canal operations and contained numerous engineering features related to the canal. Just over the border from Easthampton, a stone-constructed single arch culvert was built to cross a small tributary of the Manhan River. As the canal continued north, a turnaround basin (Rocky Hill Basin) was constructed along the drainage from Rocky Hill Pond. These basins
would have facilitated loading and unloading, turnarounds, and other canal boats passage in the opposite direction. When the canal was constructed, Mill River had not yet been diverted to its modern course, forcing the historic route to traverse
the original river flow via the Mill River aqueduct near the present-day intersection of Main Street and South Street. Upon construction, the Mill River Aqueduct was a 24-foot wide, 280 feet long stone aqueduct structure crossing the river. Just to the north of the aqueduct, the canal was crossed over by an arched stone bridge facilitating traversal along what is today main Street. Near this same location, the North Basin would have also likely existed. The expansion of Northampton,
including residential, municipal, commercial, and industrial development, has removed all surficial traces of these former canal features, leaving only some small sections of discernable prism behind. At the canal’s northern end, where the route empties into the Connecticut River, a series of five locks lowered boats down to the Connecticut River water level. Locks 28-32 existed over an approximately 0.25-mile stretch from what is today just south of Interstate 91 to near its intersection
with Connecticut. This series of locks would have lowered boats approximately 48 feet down to roughly 98 feet asl. Surficial evidence of the three southernmost locks in this series (28, 29, 30) has been completely removed by modern
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 6
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
road construction and erosional events. Lock 31 and 32 are relatively well preserved with remnants of the original masonry still visible. These final two locks on the Hampshire and Hampden Canal also are the only examples of locks constructed originally with all stone chambers as the other locks along the route were originally of a timber construction and only later replaced with stone due to rot and leakage (Raber 2002). Along with the above-mentioned canal features, an unknown number of basins, waste weirs, dams, masonry drains, and traversal bridges may have been present along the route through Northampton, any surficial indications of which has since been removed. The overall economic impact of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal on the town of Northampton is difficult to determine. At its inception, the canal was believed to bring trade and market growth to participating towns. Which when fully operating, the canal indeed did for short periods. However, with significant engineering mistakes and shortcuts, along with costly repairs, seasonal closure, and weather-related stoppages, the canal never was able to establish itself as the prominent interior New England trade route that it was envisioned to be. In Northampton, the construction of the canal did, in part, contribute to a period of population growth for the town, with the population growing by over 25% between 1820 and 1830, more than double either decade before or after (USCB 2020). The expanded trade network allowed by the operation of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal opening exports in the Long Island Sound, likely benefitted the growing tobacco industry in Northampton as well as the burgeoning silk production of the 1830s (MHC 1982). Northampton silk production was considered one of the most extensive in the union during this period (MHC 1982). Numerous other industries also grew during this time; however, these other manufacturers expanded significantly more following the closure of the canal and the introduction of the railroad. It was also during the years of canal operation that the factory village at Florence was established, likely in part due to the expanded trade network provided by the canal. The canal’s closure impacted the ability of Northampton to trade and export goods, but only for a limited amount of time as the Westfield and Northampton Railroad was completed through the town by 1856 (MHC 1982). During the period between the canal’s abandonment and the establishment of the railroad, stagnant water in the open prism increased the spread of disease among the residents of town, with groups raising funds to fill watered sections for sanitary reasons, such as near King Street and State Street. Today, the route through Northampton has been largely filled and built over, with much of the former route now home to commercial blocks or city streets. Areas of the original canal prism and locks can still be observed to the north near the route’s intersection with the Connecticut River. BIBLIOGRAPHY and/or REFERENCES
Camposeo, James Mark
1977 The History of the Canal System between New Haven and Northampton (1822-1847). Historical Journal of Massachusetts 1(6):37-53.
Harte, Charles Rufus 1933 Some Engineering Features of the Old Northampton Canal. Paper presented at the 49th Annual Meeting of the Connecticut Society of Civil Engineers, Hartford, Connecticut.
Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC) 1982 MHC Reconnaissance Survey Town Report: Northampton. MHC, Boston.
Raber, Michael S.
2002 Survey and Inventory of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal (New Haven and Northampton Canal) for Proposed National Register of Historic Places Nomination. On file with the MHC, Boston.
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 2020 U.S. Decennial Census Data. Available at: https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table. Accessed November 2022.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 7
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2021 Southwick Quadrangle topographic map, 1:24,000 scale. United States Department of the Interior, Washington.
Walter, Carl E. 2006 Hampshire & Hampden Canal, 1829-1847. Map. On file with the Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 8
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
National Register of Historic Places Criteria Statement Form
Check all that apply: Individually eligible Eligible only in a historic district Contributing to a potential historic district Potential historic district
Criteria: A B C D
Criteria Considerations: A B C D E F G
Statement of Significance by _______Zachary Nason___________
The criteria that are checked in the above sections must be justified here. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal, otherwise known as the Massachusetts portion of the New Haven and Northampton Canal, meets the criteria for listing, in its entirety, on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A, C, and D. The Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is nationally significant under Criterion A for its associations with the Canal Era (c. 1800-1850) of the northeastern United States, illustrating the movement to improve industry and transportation with a canal network, and led by the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825. The area reflects the widespread and nationwide enthusiasm for canal construction during this era. The Canal Area is also significant under Criterion C as representing a distinct engineering endeavor and embodying the full extent of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal.
Under Criterion D, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area embodies not only what surficial features remain present on the landscape but also the features, associated structures, and unrecorded archaeological
components that are likely to be yielded extant below the ground surface. These as of yet undocumented components may contribute to the greater understanding of canal engineering practices of the day, as well as the wider implications canal construction, operation, and subsequent closure had on the local communities, their settlement patterns, and its use/disuse post-abandonment. Covering the approximate 30-mile extent of the original Hampshire and Hampden Canal through Southwick, Westfield, Southampton, Easthampton, and Northampton, with a feeder route also coming into the mainline from Russell, the Hampshire and Hampden Canal Area is significant at the local, state, and national level for
its role in the history of not just the Canal Era, but for its contributions to the industrial expansion of New England and transportation engineering as a whole. With the Farmington Canal, the Connecticut portion of the New Haven and Northampton Canal, having already been listed on the NRHP, the Hampshire and Hampden
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 9
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
Canal represents the northern half of the greatest undertaking of its kind in New England, an approximately 80-mile manmade waterway connecting the Connecticut River Valley and western New England as a whole with a seaport on the Long Island Sound. Along the Hampshire and Hampden Canal, a variety of engineering features and structures were incorporated into its design and function, utilizing an array of construction techniques. In its entirety the Hampshire and Hampden Canal contained 32 lift locks each measuring 80 feet by 12 feet in the clear with an unknown number of associated lockkeepers’ houses. These locks raised or lowered
boats by approximately 298 feet spanning the about 122 feet elevation difference between the Connecticut River and the Congamond Ponds. Two feeder canals were also constructed to provide the main prism with water, the 6.6-mile-long Westfield River Feeder, and the 3.4-mile-long Salmon Brook Feeder (most of which is located in Connecticut), with the addition of the small Little River Feeder in 1830. These feeder canals were of a similar but narrower design. Additional operational components include headworks, boat basins, aqueducts, culverts, masonry drains, a 700-foot floating towpath, Lockkeepers houses, stores, warehouses, toll and tariff collection structures, hotels, waste weirs, traversal bridges, towpaths, towpath cross-over bridges, along with an unknown amount of additional architectural resources. A number of other sites associated with canal construction may include quarries, excavation pits, worker housing, among others. The canal’s construction and operation directly and indirectly affected change and growth in the participating
communities as well as the larger region, contributing to local and regional economic growth and expansion, influencing the development of transportation networks and modes, shifting settlement patterns, and enabling more population movement. The canal’s abbreviated lifespan and subsequent absorption by newer technological advancements such as the railroad also contribute to the greater record of industrial expansion of New England. The major engineering feat alone, and its remnant presence still extant on the landscape, further reinforces the endeavor that was the construction of the Hampshire and Hampden Canal. Further
undocumented/not fully documented archaeological resources within the proposed area may also have the potential to contribute to the potential district’s significance, should subsurface testing be conducted.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 10
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial
Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
80 Canal Prism From Easthampton border to small brook crossing Y Segments extends into Easthampton
80 Culvert Crossing small Manhan River tributary N
81 Canal Prism From small Manhan River tributary to just north of Easthampton Road N Small section likely repurposed by former railroad (now rail trail)
82 Canal Prism Along rail trail north of Easthampton Road Y Segment largely repurposed by former railroad (now rail trail)
83 Canal Prism Along rail trail paralleling west side of Easthampton Road N Eroded
83 Rocky Hill Basin Western side of canal, along drainage from Rocky Hill Pond N
84 Canal Prism Along rail trail paralleling west side of Easthampton Road Y Former eastern towpath contains rail trail; well-preserved 1
85 Canal Prism From north of Easthampton Road to along South Street N
86 Canal Prism Along west side of South Street N
87 Canal Prism Along west side of South Street, bisecting Herbert Ave. N
88 Canal Prism From Fort Hill Terrace to northern end of State Street N Built over/Developed
89 Canal Prism From Fort Hill Terrace to northern end of State Street N Along wetlands
89 Lock 28 Approx. south of I 91 near present day railroad crossing N No surficial evidence remains
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 11
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
Segment ID MHC ID Historic Name Location Surficial Evidence (Y/N)
Comments Photo #
90 NTH.HA.14 Canal Prism From Lane Plant Road to south of Lock 31 Y Intact 2
90 NTH.HA.14 Lock 29 Approx. at Lane Plant Road Crossing N No surficial evidence remains
90 NTH.HA.14 Lock 30 Approx. 80 m north of Lock 29 N No surficial evidence remains
91 NTH.HA.14 Canal Prism Between southern end of Lock 31 and Lock 32 N Eroded; reclaimed by natural drainage
91 NTH.HA.14 Lock 31 Southern end of Segment 91 Y
Intact stonework from original
construction can be observed here, although surrounding
earthworks have largely eroded
3
92 NTH.HA.14 Canal Prism Northern terminus Y Watered; reclaimed by Slough Brook 4, 7
92 NTH.HA.14 Lock 32 Southern end of Segment 92 Y
Intact stonework along eastern
and western walls, with earthworks remaining around
most of the chamber, northern and southern sills also partially
visible.
5, 6
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 12
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
Photo 1: Remnant canal prism in Segment 84, facing northeast.
Photo 2: Intact canal prism in Segment 90, facing north.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 13
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
Photo 3: Stonework from original Lock 31 chamber, facing north.
Photo 4: Intact canal prism in Segment 92, facing south.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 14
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
Photo 5: Stonework from original Lock 32 chamber, facing south.
Photo 6: Lock 32 earthworks, facing south.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 15
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
Photo 7: Intact canal prism in Segment 92, facing north.
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON NTH.AL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL Maps 39-44
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 16
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON NTH.AL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL Maps 39-44
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 17
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON NTH.AL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL Maps 39-44
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 18
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON NTH.AL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL Maps 39-44
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 19
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON NTH.AL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL Maps 39-44
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 20
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
INVENTORY FORM A CONTINUATION SHEET NORTHAMPTON NTH.AL HAMPSHIRE AND HAMPDEN CANAL Maps 39-44
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION Area Letter Form Nos.
220 MORRISSEY BOULEVARD, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02125
Continuation sheet 21
NTH.AL See Data Sheet
APPENDIX D
MHC Historic Archaeological Site Forms (HA Forms)
CONFIDENTIAL- REDACTED