National Scenic Trail Study

The Metacomet-Mattabesett Trails in Connecticut

Connecticut Public Steering Committee


The Connecticut Steering Committee is composed of municipal and state representatives, large-lot landowners within the trail corridor, land trusts, trail-user groups, and other interested citizens. The Steering Committee meets on a quarterly basis, and is responsible for providing input and guidance on the development of the Study products. In addition to guiding the development of the Study, the Steering Committee may also contribute to the following tasks:

• Providing advice to NPS and Study Team regarding National Scenic Trail significance, feasibility and desirability


• Providing input on the creation of the Management Concept Plan and final Study Report findings


• Reviewing and commenting on all work products leading up to recommendations.


• Providing information on such items as scenic, historic, archeological, and sensitive ecological resources, land protection priorities, new development, and threats to trail integrity


• Identifying and evaluating management issues


• Developing a "vision" for the Trail

Metacomet-Mattabesett-Monadnock Trail Study
CT Steering Committee Meeting Notes
July 21, 2004

REMINDER: NEXT MEETING WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 20 AT CFPA

REMINDER: RESEARCH ECOLOGIST ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH WILL PRESENT THE FINDINGS OF HER MMM TRAIL NATURAL RESOURCES ASSESMENT ON SEPTEMBER 23 AT CFPA AT 7PM.

Attendees – See Attached List

1.      Introductions & Review of Meeting Agenda –

Attendees introduced themselves and their affiliations.  Chairman Jim Mahoney asked to adjust the agenda to address the items regarding the landowner questionnaire and the vision statement first as some people have to leave early and these are important items for everyone to consider.    

2.      Approval of January Meeting Notes-

Committee chairman Jim Mahoney asked if there were questions concerning the April Meeting Notes. There were none and the Committee adopted the notes.

3.      Reports on Study Work Plan Progress to Date –

Dan Hubbard of NPS reported on the response to date from the questionnaire sent out in May to landowners who we understand have the trail on their property.   The questionnaire asked a brief number of questions including: the landowner’s knowledge of the trail being on their property; the types of trail uses landowner’s observe, allow and desire; and the trail management issues landowners feel need to be addressed.  To date there have 77 responses to the 215 questionnaires sent out.  This represents 52% of the parcels that intersect the trail system, and 43% of the total trail miles in CT.  Efforts are currently focused on compiling the date and comparing responses based on parcels represented, property owners represented and miles of trail represented.  Hubbard shared preliminary compilation of data based on number of properties the responses represent.   This questionnaire serves many purposes including further promotion of the trail study with landowners and collection of important insights into land owner’s knowledge and preferences regarding trail use.  Landowners were also asked if they would like to meet with the Park Service directly and 33 out of the 77 respondents noted yes.  One or two meetings with just landowners are being planned for September.  It was noted it will be helpful to further asses the data and determine who the respondents are by landowner type, and whether any landowner groups are not represented.  Final results from this effort will be available at the October steering committee meeting.  

4.      Open Discussion of Final Vision Statement Components

Kevin Case of NPS reviewed the current status of the language in the vision statement.  Dick Whitehouse of the CT Forest and Park Association, Chip Beckett of the CT Horse Council and John Turchi of the New England Mountain Bike Association all spoke in favor of supporting the language of the third draft dated February 6, 2004.   The consensus of the Committee was to support this as the final vision statement.  (See final version attached).  It was noted the vision statement will be helpful as the study process moves forward in developing a blueprint for a management plan. 

5.      Report on Study Workplan Progress To Date:

Kevin Case of NPS reviewed the study workplan timeline, including the anticipated dates for delivery of a draft study report to Congress and general  distribution of the draft study report for public comment.  Case shared an outline of the study report components and noted the makeup of each component.  Case shared highlights from a recently-completed Natural Resource Assessment of the MMM trail system prepared by Elizabeth Farnsworth, a research ecologist with the New England Wildflower Society.  Case asked Committee members if there was interest in a public presentation by Farnsworth of the Assessment findings. There was a high level of interest, and a tentative presentation date of Thursday, September 23 at CFPA headquarters was set. Case then shared the results of a population assessment conducted using US census data that shows (among other findings) approximately 1.3 million citizens living with ten miles of the MMM trail system in Connecticut. Case briefly reviewed other ongoing components of the study workplan, including the effort to update GIS trail data, the planned meetings with trail stakeholders, and the possible extension of the trail to Long Island Sound. Regarding the latter, he noted that Leslie Kane (Asst. Town Planner, Town of Guilford) has conducted meetings with some local officials and landowners. NPS will meet with her in the near future to ascertain next steps.

Jamie Fosburgh of NPS concluded the Workplan progress report by highlighting the preliminary results of a long distance trail analysis conducted by the Massachusetts Trail Study team. Fosburgh explained that the purpose of the report is to give Study Team members in both states an understanding of how management strategies are developed, implemented and administered for other long-distance trail systems. The Study Teams may apply some of the relevant learnings to the development of a management plan blueprint for the MMM trail system.  The six long distance trails studied were the Long Trail (Vermont); Taconic Crest Trail (N.Y.); Bay Circuit Trail (MA.); North Country Trail (multiple states); Appalachian Trail (multiple states); and the Florida Trail (FL).  Fosburgh said he expects a complete and final report to be made available this coming September.

6.      Other Business / Adjournment:

Mahoney asked if there was any other business to be brought to the attention of the Committee. There being none, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:30pm.

Final Version CT Steering Committee - July 21, 2004

VISION FOR THE

METACOMET-MONADNOCK-MATTABESETT TRAIL SYSTEM

The Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett trail system will be a continuous, protected trail running from Long Island Sound to the northern Massachusetts Border, following the traprock ridges of the Metacomet Range and other unique landscapes. 

The management approach for the trail system, guided by a respect for property owners, will be developed and implemented by a volunteer- based trail stewardship organization that includes broad involvement from landowners, users, land conservation organizations, and governments. 

The trail will provide users a quality experience that values the long-term health of the area’s distinct natural and cultural resources, while connecting a diverse network of communities that benefit from its unique educational, economic and recreational assets.

Return to Top

REMINDER: NEXT MEETING WEDNESDAY JULY 21 AT CFPA

Attendees – See Attached List

1.      Introductions & Review of Meeting Agenda –

Attendees introduced themselves and their affiliations.

2.   Approval of January Meeting Notes-

Committee chairman Jim Mahoney asked if there were questions concerning the January Meeting Notes. There were none and the Committee adopted the notes.

3.      Discussion of Study Work Plan Progress to Date-

Dan Hubbard of NPS reviewed the twelve meetings that have been held with elected and appointed officials in towns that the MM trails pass through. Meeting attendees have typically included representatives from Conservation Commissions, Planning Offices and Park and Recreation Departments.  In some towns the Mayor or 1^st Selectman has also attended. Hubbard described the purpose of the meetings: to brief officials on the nature and status of the NPS study; to solicit feedback on the Study Vision statement; and to learn about specific trail issues and language discussing trails, open space protection, ridgeline protection etc. that may exist in town  documents such as a plan of conservation and development. He noted that such language might be viewed as a general indication of support for the long-term preservation of the trail or the lands it passes through.

Hubbard discussed NPS plans to continue public outreach by communicating with different trail user groups, government and quasi-government agencies, corporate landowners and private land trust organizations.  The purpose of the meetings will be similar to the local government meetings currently being conducted. Outreach of this type is critical to a successful study process.  Hubbard noted that some meetings will held in person and that others will take place through a combination of phone calls and sharing of information through postal mail.  He indicated the meetings should be completed by the end of June.

Kevin Case of NPS shared a draft of a landowner profile report for the trail system in Connecticut.  The report breaks down the trail system by owners and shows both the miles and percentages of trail owned by each group. He noted that there is approximately 14% of the trail that remains unidentified in terms of ownership and that one reason for this is the lack of clearly measurable data for the city of Meriden. Case also highlighted the relatively high percentage of trail that exists on roads (12.5%).  In response to a request it was agreed that the report draft will be sent to all Steering Committee members via email, and posted on the mmm.trail.org website.

Case provided a brief update on the possible extension of the Mattabesett Trail to Long Island Sound by routing it through Guilford.  He noted that Leslie Kane, Environmental Planner for the Town of Guilford, was not in attendance but had provided the following information to convey to the meeting:

Kane is leading preliminary discussions with elected officials and citizens in Guilford.  A possible route has been identified but meetings with landowners along the possible route have not been held. Alternate routes continue to be an option.  Kane expects to attend the July Steering Committee meeting and to provide an update at that time.

Case briefly reviewed the Massachusetts workplan activities on behalf of Jamie Fosburgh of NPS who was not able to attend the meeting.  He noted that a recent public meeting in Franklin County was held and that public comment and input on the study process was generally positive.

4.   Open Discussion of Current and Future Workplan Items:

Hubbard of NPS asked for Committee input on strategies to meet with private landowners whose lands intersect the trails.  He stated the importance of gathering input from this group, especially with regard to permitted and observed uses of the trail. He noted the number of private landowners along the entire trail corridor in Connecticut is slightly less than 300.  Hubbard stated that current NPS thinking calls for ten separate regional meetings to be held with the private landowners only, but expressed doubt that attendance would be significant – based in part on the fact that three separate NPS outreach efforts by mail plus three public trail forums had not produced much  input from this group. 

Hubbard floated some alternate possibilities for landowner contact: email, delivery of a questionnaire through postal mail, and telephone contact efforts. A steering Committee member asked if it was feasible to conduct a door-to-door contact effort with the help of volunteers.  Hubbard shared a draft of the landowner questionnaire, noting that a similar landowner contact approach is taking place in Massachusetts.  Various Steering Committee members offered comment on the questionnaire draft.  Hubbard and Case said they would consider all comments and suggestions before moving forward with a contact effort to begin in early June. 

Hubbard and Leslie Lewis of CT. DEP discussed an on-the-ground trail survey that is being conducted by a DEP intern with assistance and guidance from DEP and CFPA.  The purpose and content of the survey was reviewed. Hubbard said that if Steering Committee members or others were interested in helping to conduct the survey their participation would be welcome.  He shared the contact information for the DEP intern with those in attendance and agreed to send a copy of the survey via email to Committee members.

Case of NPS led a discussion of current and proposed trail use policies for the Metacomet and Mattabesett.  He stated that the current NPS vision statement for the trail system does not dicuss specific use policies, but that in meetings with trail town elected and appointed officials a desire has been expressed to define what those uses might be.  Case noted one of the four guiding principles for the NPS study, as published in the original study brochure:

“Emphasis will be on strengthening existing partnerships, characteristics of use, maintenance, ownership, and voluntary stewardship.”

Case then noted the specific language NPS has used to date in public documents discussing trail use policies:

“Historically the MMM trail has primarily been a footpath with other mixed uses ocurring on certain sections. This is similar to National Scenic Trail precedent and legislative guidance which amount to a footpath with exceptions allowed. A key component of the study process will be to gather landowner and user input to determine an overall vision for the trail, including future desired use patterns. Ultimately it is up to the private landowner to decide what types of use will be allowed on their property, regardless of any trail designation.”  

Case noted that by gathering input on current uses of the trail from landowners NPS will be able to determine whether other uses are currently taking place, if those uses are legal, and to what extent landowners are interested in continuing these uses or allowing new ones. This information will help the Committee understand how future management plan language should address this issue.

Adam Moore of CFPA shared with the Committee copies of CFPA’s Trail Use Policies.  He highlighted the fact that the trails have been used primarily as footpaths for over seventy years, with exceptions based on private landowner wishes.  Diane Ciano of the Connecticut Horse Council expressed the desire to make parts of the trail system available to more equestrian use. Lewis of DEP noted the State Forest and Park areas where equestrian use is currently allowed. Case asked Diane to confirm those parts of the MM trail where her members are currently allowed to ride as well as those where they would like to ride in the future.  Several Committee members noted that in numerous spots the trail is not appropriate for horse or non-motorized vehicle use, specifically ridge-tops, steep and/or narrow sections.  Moore noted that maintaining a trail for uses other than walking is a much greater undertaking. 

Moore of CFPA asked that the MMM Trail Vision statement be amended to include language stating that the trail system in Connecticut is a footpath only with exceptions for private landowner wishes.  Ciano of the Connecticut Horse Council opposed the request.  Hubbard of NPS noted that vision statements are usually quite broad in nature and are not designed to delve into specific management policies. Case suggested that NPS work on some language addressing the issue to be considered at the July Steering Committee meeting.  Hubbard added that by July he should have some information from a variety of landowners that might help clarify existing use patterns and desired future uses.  Committee agreed to Case’s idea for developing language for the next meeting.

5.      Set next CT Steering Committee meeting date, time and location

Jim Mahoney stated that the next meeting will take place on Wednesday, July 21 at 5pm at CFPA headquarters in Middlefield.

6.  Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 7:00pm.

Return to Top

Metacomet-Mattabesett-Monadnock Trail Study
CT Steering Committee Meeting Notes
January 21, 2004

REMINDER: NEXT MEETING WEDNESDAY APRIL 21 AT CFPA

Attendees – See Attached List

1.      Introductions & Review of Meeting Agenda –

Attendees introduced themselves and their affiliations. Chairman Jim Mahoney reviewed the agenda.

2.      Approval of October Meeting Notes-

Mahoney asked if there were questions concerning the October Meeting Notes. There were none. He then secured Committee approval of the Notes.

3.      Discussion of Study Work Plan Progress to Date-

Kevin Case of NPS reviewed the three public forums that were held in November 2003. The forums introduced the trail study to CT landowners and other interested parties. The agenda consisted of an open house format supported by presentations from NPS and CFPA. Other important elements were the availability of collateral information and the question and answer sessions.  Case said the most comments were neutral to positive regarding the study. He stated that equestrian interests were well represented and that a follow up meeting with this interest group is taking place in February. He identified property rights and landowner liability as two additional topics that received significant attention during the Q&A. Other questions were very specific to a piece of land or local issue, and Case said they are being followed up on individually by NPS and CFPA staff.  He estimated total attendance for the three forums at 140 people.

Jamie Fosburgh of NPS gave an update on the Massachusetts portion of the study. He noted the steering committee structure is different in Massachusetts in that there are three separate committees, each representing a distinct region of the state. All three committees held meetings in November 2003 with approx. 25-30 attendees at each one.  A significant number of the questions raised concerned landowner issues. Examples: landowners who had experienced illegal use of trails; landowner private property rights; landowner liability laws, etc. Other questions focused on the possible future management team structure for the trails.

Fosburgh said that the Massachusetts Study team is currently completing a trail profile report that updates information on specific landowners.  These landowners will be invited to a series of public forums that will take place in the spring. Case added that a joint meeting of the CT and MA study teams took place in November with Congressman John Olver in attendance. This was a good venue for the sharing of information and ideas.  Fosburgh said that Federal funds for the continuation of the study had been approved for FY2004, aided in part by Congressman Olver.

4. Long Island Sound Connection Update-

Leslie Kane (Guilford Town Planner and Steering Committee member) gave an update on the possible extension of the Mattabesett Trail to Long Island sound through Guilford, a distance of approx. eleven miles from the trail’s current southernmost point. Kane has been working with the Guilford Land Trust (which owns over 2500 acres in Guilford) to examine possible routes.  Kane said the Town is generally interested in protecting ridge land. She has submitted a map depicting a possible extension route to the town’s land acquisition commission, which will be meeting in February.

Kane described the various property owners whose lands intersect the possible trail extension route. She noted there are many types of owners, including the town, a hunting club, private owners, and a monastery.

She said people in town are “beginning to think about the idea.” She believes citizens will want to know what type of assistance NPS might provide. There are a number of other trails in town (Audubon, town trails, greenway trail) and the town may want to ensure that their management is fiscally possible.

There are a number of different routes the trail extension could take. One or more might involve connecting through nationally recognized historic areas. Fosburgh expressed support for this idea.  Questions were raised about other re-route options, and another attendee asked if Madison had been considered as a reroute option.  He pointed out that Hamonassett State park would be an excellent terminus for the trail.  A representative of the Madison Land Trust said that the northern part of Madison is more appropriate for a possible re-route than the south due to development pressure.

Ann Colson said CFPA could help investigate possible routes and build them if appropriate. She said CFPA has been supportive of the trail extension idea for some time.  A motion was made and approved supporting Leslie and her continued work to advance the trail extension concept. She said she plans to meet with the Guilford 1^st selectman and that Madison and Branford will also be included in future discussions. Jim Mahoney said that Steering Committee members should feel free to participate in investigating various possible trail routes or other aspects of this project.

5.      Creation of a Trail Vision Statement-

Case led an exercise designed to gain feedback and consensus on the Study Team’s draft vision statement for the MMM Trail in Connecticut.  A goal was to get consensus to the point where the Study Team can go forward with a draft to the public, user groups, landowners, etc. The Team will then report back to the Steering Committee and additional discussion will take place. Case offered a definition of vision. The Committee then went through each of the five sub-sections comprising the full, one-page vision statement.

Comments were offered on the overall likes and dislikes of each section. Numerous suggestions were offered on language that should be added or deleted. Dan Hubbard of NPS cataloged all comments offered. Case will review them and incorporate the ones that appeared t have the most support among the Committee. The revised statement which will be shared as soon as possible with the Committee prior to public use.

6.   Continuation of Local Outreach Efforts-                             

Dan Hubbard described outreach efforts scheduled for spring 2004.  The broad goals are to continue satisfying the study’s due diligence requirements by gathering specific input for the vision portion of the work plan.  The study team will continue to build relationships at the local level that will form the basis of their understanding of each town’s structure of influential individuals and groups. Hubbard confirmed the target audiences for the outreach efforts. They are property owners, municipal government agencies, local civic groups, land trusts, user groups, corporate property owners, and the State of Connecticut.

Hubbard said NPS will host meetings specifically for local property owners and government officials to gather their input, and that input from the other audiences mentioned above will also be directly pursued.

Hubbard asked the Committee to help identify individuals (Steering Comm. Members or not) who could serve as “ambassadors” to people and information within each town. He outlined the ambassador duties as follows: 1) to research or help confirm the agency officials that NPS needs to be meeting with; 2) to help access the town C&D plan and other documents pertaining to conservation, preservation and recreation; and 3) to organize and help promote both the landowner and agency official meetings.

Hubbard stated that the ambassador’s duties will run for 2-3 months and will begin in earnest in mid-February.  Seven Committee members volunteered to serve as ambassadors, and several other names were suggested that Case and Hubbard will follow up on.  All together twenty ambassadors will need to be identified – one for each Connecticut town that the MMM Trail passes through.

7.   Other Business-

Ann Colson proposed that CFPA write a grant proposal to the Hartford Foundation to fund some parts of the study.  There was agreement that this should be done.

8.   Adjournment-

Mahoney confirmed the next Steering Committee Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, April 21, 2004 from 5-7pm at the CT. Forest & Park Association office in Middlefield.

ADJOURNMENT

Metacomet-Mattabesett-Monadnock Trail Study
CT Steering Committee Meeting
October 21, 2003 Meeting Notes

CT Forest & Parks Association
Attendees – See Attached List

1.      Introductions & Review of Meeting Agenda –

Attendees introduced themselves and their affiliations.

2.      Review Steering Committee Mission, Charge, Chairperson Issue –

Kevin Case of NPS reviewed the layout of the MM Trail System in CT.  He re-introduced the Steering Committee Mission Statement and goals that were developed at a prior Steering Committee meeting. He reviewed the Study Principles and noted two important components: that respect for private property rights issues is fundamental, and that Federal condemnation of land will NOT be considered an option.  He discussed the Committee’s specific responsibilities, which include serving as a sounding board for the study work products, helping to develop a vision statement for the trail, and serving as an information source for study research components. He stressed that the Steering Committee should operate on a consensus basis.

Case raised the idea of having a local individual not connected with NPS serve as a Steering Committee Chairman. After brief discussion Jim Mahoney (head of economic development, Town of Berlin) was nominated and confirmed as Chairman.  Mahoney suggested that a Vice Chairman also be appointed in case he is not able to attend a future meeting.  Leslie Kane (Environmental Planner, Town of Guilford) was nominated and confirmed for this position.

Mahoney offered a tentative schedule for meeting dates through the end of 2004.  The quarterly dates suggested are Wednesday, Jan 21; Wednesday, April 21; Wednesday, July 21; and Wednesday, October 20.  A 2005 meeting date of Wednesday, January 19 was also suggested.  5:00pm – 7:00pm is the time for all meetings. There was general agreement on all dates and times.

3.      Update on Workplan Progress and Tasks Completed to Date–  

Case reviewed the six Trail Study Work Plan objectives. He noted that the objectives have been published in a NPS Trail Informational Brochure that has been sent to all Steering Committee Members and approximately 1250 property owners along the Trail Corridor.  Ann Colson of the CT Forest & Park Assn. (CFPA) reviewed the history of the MM Trails in Connecticut, noting date established, length, and stewardship.  She noted that information on property owners along Trail Corridors has historically been lacking.  She reviewed the process of documenting the land parcels in the 20 towns that the trails run through, and discussed the creation of a master parcel information data base.  She gave a progress report on what’s been completed to date, and showed slides depicting the database files.  She provided an example of how the database has already been used to aid in trail protection efforts by CFPA.  She reviewed the initial mail outreach to landowners. Dan Hubbard of NPS discussed the effort to expand the Steering Committee membership to include a wide variety of elected and appointed government officials, users groups, and large landowners. He noted the Steering Committee contact list currently contains over 250 names. Hubbard also reviewed media outreach efforts to date and circulated copies of articles about the Trail Study that have been published in the NY Times, Middletown Press, and Farmington Valley Post.

4.   Report on Upcoming Study Workplan Tasks -

Case reviewed the details surrounding the NPS public forums to be held in Durham, Berlin and East Granby on November 6, 13 and 20 respectively.  He discussed the format and the concept of having local issue experts on hand to answer attendee questions.  A request was made to email everybody on the Steering Committee an electronic file of the forum informational flyer. Stan Watson of Northeast Utilities suggested identifying private individual  landowners who support the trail study and perhaps asking them to speak at a forum. Case reviewed the additional Workplan components, including a Vision Statement, Trail Narrative Reports, Long-Distance Trail Management Review, and Management Plan Blueprint for the MM Trail, all of which will help lead to a final recommendation on whether designation is recommended and if so how management would be conducted. Jamie Fosburgh of NPS reviewed the Workplan elements currently underway for the Massachusetts portion of the Trail Study.

5.      Open Discussion: Trail Issues and Opportunities -                               

Fosburgh said he hopes to convene the steering Committees from both Massachusetts and Connecticut to share in a discussion of key issues and challenges of the Workplan and study process. 

A Committee Member pointed out that local towns have little or no open space acquisition budget. Could designation help their efforts? Could Federal dollars go to towns for land acquisition purposes?  Ann Colson mentioned that both of the MM Trails have received Greenways status which may make them eligible for funds.  Leslie Lewis of DEP discussed scenarios for obtaining state or federal grant money, and suggested that if local towns view trails as an economic and social asset it may form a platform from which to obtain protection and funding.

If the committee decides one of its tasks is to build public support for the study or designation what form will that support take?  Norm Zimmer pointed out that the Metacomet Ridge Conservation Compact could serve as a model for support efforts. 

Jim Mahoney suggested appointing a Steering Committee representative for each town along the Trail Corridor who could serve as the point of contact for elected officials, citizens, businesses, etc.  Case/Hubbard to follow up.

Can easements be purchased by towns? Leslie Lewis agreed to look into this.

Committee Members would like to obtain documents that provide more details on the National Trail Study Act. They are interested in what designation could mean on a local level. 

On a similar note Committee Members want to know if a Scenic Trail designation will result in economic benefit to towns along the Trail Corridor. It was agreed that case studies from previous Scenic Trail designations might help answer this question.

A member asked exactly what designation will mean (ie. Lots of Federal involvement?) and stated that he anticipates that question coming soon from citizens and officials in his town.  He said that at this point it may be fairly easy to tell people what designation won’t mean but not what it will mean. Fosburgh pointed out that this is a primary goal of the study process – to gather a variety of diverse input to help build a consensus on the desired role of all stakeholders (Federal, State, Local, user groups, landowners) and a vision for management.

Kane and others supported the idea of extending the Trail to Long Island Sound. Several options for a trail location in Guilford or Madison were discussed.  It was agreed that this idea will be advanced through further research.

Committee Members want to know what percentage of the MM Trails are protected and what form that protection takes.

REMINDER NEXT MEETING IS WEDNESDAY, JAN 21^ST AT 5:00PM   

ADJOURNMENT

1.      Introductions & Review of Meeting Agenda –

Attendees introduced themselves and their affiliations.

2.      Advisory Committee Mission –

Case distributed a draft Mission Statement for the group.  He suggested using the term “Steering Committee” rather than Advisory Committee in the future as both have been used at different times in discussing the study.  Overall consensus of group supported the mission statement with some minor reorganizing.  Final version attached.

3.      Update on Workplan Progress – (this included discussion of items d. & e. on the agenda regarding Trail Vision and Outreach)

Fosburgh reviewed components of latest “Workplan Elements” document. The intent is to mesh the task components of the previous work plan drafted by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission (dated 4/1/03) and discussed at the 4/24 meeting, within the structure of this “Workplan Elements” document.  Topics of interest that were suggested to be added include: information on the history of the trail’s development; the special natural, historic and archeological features of the trails corridor; the value the trail provides as “access” to special places; and an assessment of how well the trail corridor is recognized and protected at the local level. 

A discussion ensued regarding strategies to get the work done once the workplan is finalized.  CFPA could be a key partner due to their knowledge and resources regarding the trail.  It was recognized the Mass. and Conn. efforts need to be well coordinated both in terms of workplan approach and in timing of implementing certain tasks such as landowner outreach. 

How the “Vision for the Trail” will be established was discussed.  It was recognized questions such as the contiguous nature of the trail, its connection to Long Island Sound, footpath only vs. other uses, and overnight usage locations are some of the many components that will have to be explored both with the Committee, as well as with other stakeholders, user groups and landowners to establish a vision that brings together all the various interests and priorities. 

It was recognized a fact sheet is needed regarding an overview of the study process, existing local involvement, and opportunities to participate in the process.  

The outreach approach being established in Mass. was reviewed.  It involves breaking into 3 geographically distinct sub-groups. This was not seen as necessary for CT.  Efforts have been and will continue to be made to keep the Steering Committee geographically diverse, as well any community outreach meetings will be implemented with an emphasis on hosting multiple meetings in geographically dispersed areas.     

Kane suggested possibly approaching UMASS, UCONN or Central CT regarding having graduate students do components of the study as a studio project.  Lewis noted both schools planning programs are part of the New England Greenways Consortium.  Case with others will pursue further.

Prior to June 10 (date of joint Mass./Conn. Steering Committee meeting – see below) a well-meshed workplan and timeline will be drafted along with a draft basic fact sheet on the study and a list of study contacts.   Fosburgh, Case and RPA representatives from Mass. will be working on this.    

4.      Parcel Mapping/Landowner Database –

Fosburgh reported that NPS is planning to contract with CFPA, as reported at the 4/24 meeting, to complete GIS based mapping of the trail corridor properties and their abutters.  Colson provided details of CFPA’s strategy to undertake and complete the work.  This product will establish the landowner database necessary to begin outreach and communication with this most important stakeholder group. It is anticipated work will be completed by the end of August.

5.      Joint Meeting with MA Steering Committee and Steve Elkinton of NPS on June 10 –

A joint meeting of the two state’s Steering Committees has been scheduled for Tuesday, June 10 from 2-4 PM at the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission’s offices in West Springfield, MA.  A hike will precede the meeting.  Mike Stanley of Suffield agreed to host.  There are two primary purposes to the meeting, first to provide an opportunity for the steering committees to meet each other and get a sense of how each is approaching the study, and second to have some time with the Park Service’s National Coordinator of the National Scenic Trails Program, Steve Elkinton.  The Committee was asked to provide Fosburgh and Case with questions they have currently for Elkinton, and they will be forwarded to him prior to the meeting so he can prepare.  A list of questions was developed.  The list follows in no particular order.

·        Are there examples of Scenic Trail Studies that were recommended for designation but designation was never given?
·        Is there a preferred pattern or approach to a study?
·        How and what types of federal funds can be used for land acquisition/conservation and what implications of federal involvement come with use of such funds? Note: Condemnation is not considered an option in this study or in any possible designation.
·        Is a completed contiguous trail necessary for a successful designation?
·        Are there examples of long-distance trails that have chosen after a study process that designation is not desirable? Why?
·        Are there studies on the financial impacts/trail usage of designating a trail?  What do they tell us?
·        Are there studies assessing property values along designated trails?
·        How are ATV’s, and other multiple uses managed?
·        What type of federal support and funds are available to a trail system if designated?  
·        Are there federal issues regarding property taxes if your property accommodates public trails?
·        Are there examples of “federalization” fears that other studies have addressed?
·        Have endangered species issues come up in establishing a trail, hindering its progress?
·        Does ADA apply on federally designated trails?
·        Is there a process for moving a federally designated scenic trail if needed?
·        What protection does a National Scenic Trail Designation provide?
·        What effect does a designation have on landowner liability?
·        Does the issue of how to connect to Long Island Sound need to be resolved before designation could occur?

The next CT Steering Committee Meeting will be Wednesday, July 16 at 4:00 PM at CFPA.  Agenda items include review of final workplan and identifying leads on specific tasks, outreach strategy and media plan, and follow-up on the June 10 Steve Elkinton meeting.

MMM Trail
National Scenic Trail Study
Steering Committee – CT Section

Mission Statement – May 30, 2003

The Steering Committee is an informal group created to assist the National Park Service and stakeholders of the Connecticut Section of the Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails in determining:

1. The best way to establish and ensure the long-term existence of a continuous public use trail from Long Island Sound to the Connecticut/ Massachusetts border, and
2. Whether or not designation as a National Scenic Trail should be a part of the strategy to achieve such a trail’s long-term viability.

Return to Top


Metacomet-Mattabesett-Monadnock Trail Study
CT Steering Committee Meeting Notes

January 19, 2005

REMINDER: NEXT (AND FINAL) MEETING IS WEDNESDAY APRIL 20 AT CFPA HEADQUARTERS IN MIDDLEFIELD

Attendees – See Attached List

1. Introductions & Review of Meeting Agenda –

Attendees introduced themselves and their affiliations.

2. Approval of October Meeting Notes-

Kevin Case of NPS apologized for not having copies of the previous meeting notes available for review. They will be available at the next meeting.

3. Review of Long-Distance Trail Analysis Report-

Dan Hubbard of NPS presented a series of Powerpoint slides developed by the MMM Trail Study team in Massachusetts. The Massachusetts team was asked to investigate six different long-distance trail systems around the country to see what could be learned from their administrative, management, maintenance, and conflict resolution processes. Case of NPS stated that several best practices identified in the report had already been incorporated into the draft management plan blueprint for the MMM Trail.

The six trails reviewed in the report and presentation were as follows: Appalachian, Bay Circuit, Florida, Long Trail, North Country, and Taconic. Hubbard stated that the full report from the Massachusetts team will be posted on the mmmtrail.org website around the end of January. Several questions were asked by attendees concerning the report which were answered by Hubbard, and Jamie Fosburgh of NPS. The report will be made available on the mmmtrail.org website soon.

4. Review/Comment on Current Version of the Blueprint for Trail Management-

Case of NPS distributed a packet of information to attendees containing the following:

* Outline of draft Study Report
* Blueprint for Management (including an introductory page)
* Potential Management Alternatives

Case reviewed the Blueprint in detail and solicited comment on each of the seven Blueprint sections:

* Landowner Issues
* Trail Use
* Trail Protection
* Trail Management, Development and Maintenance
* Community Connections
* Administrative Framework
* Provisions if NST designation occurs

Fosburgh suggested that the general management goals for the Blueprint be more directly tied to each of the Report Sections. Under Section 1-4-B Fosburgh doubted the capabilities of the US Dept. of Justice to provide effective legal service or support to landowners being sued for liability. Moore of CFPA noted that legislation has been introduced in Connecticut that would force the CT Attorney General to defend landowners being sued for recreational liability. The sponsor was Rep. Heagney of Simsbury. It was agreed that CFPA should monitor the progress of this legislation closely

Joe Hickey suggested that ongoing silvaculture (forestry activities) be added to section 1-7. Under section 3-5, he suggested adding The Nature Conservancy and CFPA to the list. Mahoney asked if federal regulations cover trail construction, relocation and maintenance issues for NSTs. Fosburgh said not that he is aware of.

Doug McKain and Adam Moore of CFPA said CFPA should have larger representation on the Council. Fosburgh said that engaging partners in a “value added” way would help work get done that otherwise might not get done. Moore suggest that CT Urban Forest Council be looked at as a model.

Fosburgh concluded by noting that there has been significant support in Massachusetts for the idea of starting up a Trail Stewardship Council immediately. He stated that whether this was an appropriate action or not remained to be seen as far as NPS was concerned. Other attendees voiced concerns about this action happening prior to release of the draft study report.

5. Review/Comment on Draft Alternative Management Recommendations

Fosburgh of NPS led a discussion on the management plan alternatives, which are in essence, the various possible recommendations for future management of the trail. Case said NPS will email the alternatives document to each steering committee member shortly for their review and comment.

6. Other Business

Steering Committee Chairman Jim Mahoney asked for a consensus vote on whether the Steering Committee should support a full National scenic trail designation for the MMM trail. Moore of CFPA suggested waiting on a vote. Present meeting attendees then voted in favor of supporting NST designation.

Diana Ciano from the CT Horse Council said that their members are completing an evaluation of the MMM Trail to see which portions might be appropriate for equestrian use. They mapped 14 areas in CT and Mass. and are sending NPS their findings. Their conclusions were that many sections are appropriate for horse use and that sections of the trail that are not appropriate could be made appropriate. Diana suggested that parts of the Horse Council report be incorporated into the final NPS study report draft.

Case of NPS reported that NPS and CFPA had recently met with Congresswoman Nancy Johnson to update her on the progress of the Trail Study. (Note: Johnson was an original co-sponsor of the legislation that led to passage of the Trail Study bill.) Case said that Johnson remains interested and willing to participate in a public forum to discuss the draft study report once it’s released. Hubbard noted that Johnson was very familiar with specific details of the trail and stated that she was planning to speak with Congressman John Olver of Massachusetts (1st District) about the progress of the study in his state.

7. Discuss Next Steering Committee Meeting

Case of NPS stated that the Steering Committee had now completed all of its scheduled meetings but that one final meeting was being recommended to review the draft study report. There was agreement that an additional meeting would be appropriate and it was scheduled for Wednesday, April 20, at 5pm, at the usual location: CFPA headquarters in Middlefield.

8. Adjournment

Meeting was adjourned at 7:00pm.

(List of attendees is attached)

January 19, 2005 Meeting Attendees

Jan 19, 2005 Meeting Attendees
First Name	Last Name	Organization Name
Jamie	Fosburgh	NPS
Dave	Niedzwiecki	Plainville
Doug	McKain	CFPA, Berlin Land Trust, CT Chapter-AMC
Mary	Hoffernon	Wallingford Conservation Copmmission
Adam	Moore	CFPA
Leslie	Lewis	CT Dept. of Environmental Protection
Chet	Matczak	Tariffville Village Assn.
Laurie	Matczak	Tariffville Village Assn.
Kevin	Case	National Park Service
E	Kelsey	Citizen
Diane	Ciano	CT Horse Council
Alex	Sokolow	CT DEP
Mike	Stanley	CFPA, Suffield Land Trust
Jeff	Bolton	Windsor Locks
Dan	Hubbard	National Park Service
Joe	Hickey	CFPA
John	McCahill	Town of Avon Planning Department
Norm	Zimmer	CFPA
John	Strillacci