National Scenic Trail Study National Scenic Trail Study
The Metacomet-Mattabesett Trails in Connecticut
Work Plan and Timeline as of January 1, 2004
Primary Goal: To determine the best way to ensure the long-term viability of a continuous public use trail system from Long Island Sound through Connecticut to the Massachusetts border.
Secondary Goal: To determine whether or not designation as a National Scenic Trail makes sense as a means of achieving the primary goal of long-term trail system viability.
National Park Service (NPS) and Study Team – NPS staff will be responsible for managing and coordinating the study process and study team, which includes the CT Forest & Park Association and CT Dept. of Environmental Protection from Connecticut, and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Franklin Regional Council of Governments, MA Dept. of Conservation & Recreation, and AMC from Massachusetts. The Study Team will be responsible for the final work product of the study, which will be a National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study. The Study will include a Management Concept Plan providing a blueprint for recommended long-term management approaches for the trail system and a recommendation as to whether or not a National Scenic Trail Designation should be a part of the management strategy.
CT Steering Committee – The CT Steering Committee is composed of large-lot landowners within the Trail corridor, municipal and state representatives, land trusts and trail-user groups. The Steering Committee 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
·
Review and provide input on data collection, mapping, and information
collected from landowners
·
Identifying and evaluating management issues
·
Developing a “vision” for the Trail
The Steering Committee will meet on a quarterly basis through the end of 2004. Meetings will be called and organized by NPS.
CT Work Plan
Objective 1) Expand the CT Steering Committee to include a broader representation of landowners, municipalities, land conservation organizations, state and regional agencies, trail-users and groups, and other interested stakeholders.
To accomplish Objective 1, the following tasks are proposed:
Task a) Establish database of stakeholders to invite to participate on the committee, including:
·
The
Towns of – Plainville,
Southington, Berlin, Farmington, Guilford, Durham, Suffield, East Granby, Simsbury,
Bloomfield, Avon, West Hartford, Meriden, Middletown, Middlefield, Wallingford,
Haddam, Madison, North Branford, New Britain
·
Land Trusts
- Avon Land Trust, Berlin Land Trust, Bethany Land Trust, Branford Land Trust,
Cheshire Land Trust, East Granby Land Trust, Farmington Land Trust, Guilford
Land Conservation Trust, Middlesex Land Trust, North Branford, Prospect Land
Trust, Simsbury Land Conservation Trust, Suffield Land Conservancy, Wallingford
Land Trust, Wintonbury Land Trust (Bloomfield)
·
Trail-Users
and Groups – CT Forest & Park Association, Hiking Clubs, Rock Climbing Clubs,
Naturalists, Mountain Bikers, Equestrian groups, ATV/Snowmobile
·
Landowners –
Use CFPA developed landowner database of 2,000 names
Completed
Task b) Develop a letter to be mailed to stakeholders that introduces the Study’s purpose and need and invites participation in the process either through the Steering Committee or at regional forums. Included with the letter will be an information sheet with a map -
Completed
Task c) Determine letterhead, envelopes, printing and postage needs and costs, obtain necessary components
Completed
Task d) Mail letter to the above-developed database.
Completed
Task e) Call first meeting of expanded Steering Committee for late October and then establish a quarterly meeting schedule.
Completed
Objective 2) Establish a Current Understanding of the Metacomet-Mondanock-Mattabesett Trail System. (Note: All mapping to be done using geographical information systems, relying best available data)
Task a) Map natural communities, unique flora and fauna, soils, geology, topography, hydrology, known and potential archaeological areas, and historic resources. Write accompanying narrative describing these features, highlighting what makes this trail system special (i.e. what are the outstanding resource values along the trail).
Who Responsible – Elizabeth Farnsworth
Completion Date – Summer 2004
Task b) Map land ownership types along trail (private, corporate, municipal, conservation, state, water utility, other?). Write accompanying narrative summarizing trail corridor protection status.
Who Responsible – NPS Staff
Completion Date – March 2004
Task c) Map features that make recreational trail experience unique include scenic view points, land use, connecting trails, and trail conditions. Write accompanying narrative.
Who Responsible – NPS Staff, Others?
Completion Date – March 2004
Task d) Research and write a narrative of the history of the Trail’s development, current use, maintenance, user issues/conflicts and administration.
Who Responsible – CFPA?
Completion Date – May 2004
Task e) Identify and document Trail issues and conflicts using Steering Committee input, regional forums and local community meetings. (see Objectives 1 & 3)
Who Responsible – NPS Staff, Steering Committee and Input from regional forums
Completion Date – March 2004
Objective 3) Develop a Vision for the Trail System. In developing the Vision, the following topics will be addressed:
·
Identifying
the Trail’s role in linking communities, recreational and open space resources
·
Identifying
land protection priorities in each community along current Trail location
·
Identifying
land protection priorities of state agencies and non-profits in the region
·
Identifying
sensitive ecological areas to buffer
·
Identifying
how the trail will be managed
·
Identifying
types of trail use
·
Linking to Long
Island Sound
Task a) Host 3 to 4 regional forums in October 2003 to introduce the Study’s process and collect input on vision issues. This process will include:
·
Identifying
and booking meeting locations
·
Implementing
Objective 1 above, through which stakeholders will be invited to forums
·
Developing
Press Release (and media contact list) – and then distributing
·
Organizing
forum agenda, facilitator(s), desired outcomes, logistics of meeting materials
i.e. flip charts, food, handouts, etc.
·
Develop
a brief Power Point presentation on the Study’s purpose and need and process
·
Develop
format to bring information back to Steering Committee and integrate into process
Completed
Task b) Dedicate Steering Committee meeting after regional forums to discuss components of trail vision
Who Responsible – Steering Cmt. NPS Staff
Completion Date – January 21, 2004
Task c) Meet with representatives from each town (ideally town planner) within the Trail corridor to gather applicable input on the above issues (such meetings will only be made if the town has not been represented on the Steering Committee or during the regional forums)
Who Responsible – NPS Staff
Completion Date – Spring ‘04
Task d) Identify local town ambassador from steering committee to help host a meeting of private landowners to gather input on the trail vision.
Who Responsible – Steering Cmt., NPS Staff
Completion Date – Spring ‘04
Task e) Develop and distribute via first class mail a questionnaire for all landowners that have the trail pass through their property to gather input on the trail vision. (Approximately 700 landonwers)
Who Responsible – NPS Staff with input from Steering Committee
Completion Date – Spring ‘04
Task f) Meet with state, corporate and water utility landowners within the Trail corridor to gather applicable input on the above issues (such meetings will only be made if they have not been represented on the Steering Committee or during the regional forums).
Who Responsible – NPS Staff
Completion Date – Spring ‘04
Task g) Establish website to describe Study and provide capability for collecting public input on above issues,
Who Responsible – Kate Moran, NPS Staff
Completion Date – February 1, 2004
Objective 4) Research Existing Models and Alternatives for Successful Long-Distance Trail Management, Protection, Maintenance and Administration among both designated [explain what “designated” means i.e. state, federal, local?] and non-designated trails systems.
The comparative analysis should include between 6 and 10 long-distance trails (in excess of 100 miles), and should include three trails designated as National Scenic Trails (NST) – recommended are Appalachian Trail; Florida Trail; North Country Trail. In choosing 3 to 7 non-NST trails, preference should be given to choosing trails that represent similarities to the M-M-M Trail in CT and MA, and which represent a variety of approaches. Candidates might include: Long Trail (VT); Bay Circuit Trail (MA); and other trails with a mix of land ownerships and little or no federal land ownership.
Task a) Gather information regarding following:
·
Administration
- staffing needs,
partner organization involvement, landowner communication and involvement,
issues management, level of formalized administration, signage plan and its
components
·
Protection
- strategies, standards,
methods to “protect” the trail and/or trail corridor, minimum or ideal trail
corridor widths, role of partner organizations, funding, level of success, viewshed
considerations
·
Management – methods, strategies, trail relocation
processes, conflict resolution, level of conflicts with adjacent uses, resolution
of adjacent use conflicts, status of formal management plan, signage as a management
tool, enforcement issues
·
Maintenance
methods, strategies,
implementation , use of volunteers, centralized vs. de-centralized, trail maintainers
involvement in other trail protection, management, or administration issues,
costs/funding
Who Responsible – Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Franklin Regional Council of Governments
Completion Date – June 1, 2004
Task b) Complete a concise written report that summarizes the management models by trail and highlights successful models in each category. 300 copies of the written report will be provided, along with an electronic version suitable for further reproduction and for posting on the web.
Who Responsible – Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Franklin Regional Council of Governments
Completion Date – June 1, 2004
Task c) Conduct presentation for the CT Steering Committee. At the presentation, an opportunity to discuss the findings and answers to questions will be provided.
Who Responsible – Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Franklin Regional Council of Governments
Completion Date – June 1, 2004
Objective 5) Complete a blueprint for long-term management, protection and maintenance of the Trail that seeks to:
Task a) Identify management issues and the current management activities to augment potential management strategies. The following are some identified management issues:
·
Trail user/landowner
conflicts and resolution strategies
·
Trail corridor
protection
·
Completing trail
gaps
·
Threats to trail
integrity
·
Management of
trail
·
Maintenance
of trail
·
Protecting sensitive
or otherwise valuable ecological or cultural areas and resources
Who Responsible – NPS Staff, with input from Steering Committee, trail user groups, landowners
Completion Date – Sept. 1, 2004
Task b) Evaluate and recommend preferred options for addressing management issues identified above. The development of recommendations will utilize the following guiding principles:
·
Reflect trail
vision
·
Ensure
the continued existence of a physical trail route/system
·
Maximize
the public benefit of the trail system for current and future generations
·
Respect
the rights of private property owners
·
Incorporate
processes for resolving conflicts
·
Determine trail
maintenance, administration, protection and management needs, and how to meet
them
·
Develop
a Coordination and Communication system for trail stakeholders
Who Responsible – NPS Staff, with input from Steering Committee, trail user groups, landowners
Completion Date – November 1, 2004
Task c) Using the results of Tasks a and b develop a recommended blueprint for managing the Trail system – overall management options to address include, but not limited to:
·
National Scenic
Trail designation
·
National Recreation
Trail designation, State Trail recognition, legislation, or priority for long
distance trail under State Greenways and Trails Program
·
Intergovernmental
Memorandum of Agreement
·
Formal and informal
landowner agreements, other landowner actions
·
Other local
or regional options (e.g. Bay Circuit Trail Alliance Model which combines local
trail groups within an overarching program sponsored by the Alliance with a
main partner being the National Park Service)
·
Work in collaboration
with local land trusts that may already have relationships with many of the
landowners along the trail and have a sense of their willingness to be a part
of the project
·
Evaluate the
Tully Initiative in the North Quabbin Region as a potential model for working
with local landowners.
Who Responsible – NPS Staff with input from Steering Committee
Completion Date – December 31, 2004
Note: Considering there will be no direct communication with landowners between June ’04 and April ’05 we should plan on developing and mailing an interim newsletter/report to landowners, towns, user groups, etc. to provide an update in the fall of ’04.
Objective 6) NPS and Study Team will prepare the final Study that includes a summary of the process, description of the existing trail, vision for the trail, recommended management strategy to achieve the vision, and a recommendation regarding the need for a National Scenic Trail designation to achieve the vision.
Task a) Produce a draft Study by compiling components of the feasibility study into a single document, including proposed recommendations regarding designation.
Who Responsible – NPS Staff
Completion Date – March 1, 2005
Task b) Distribute executive summary of draft Study to all stakeholders as described in Objective 1 – provide copies of full report online, at libraries, town halls, and other logical public meeting locations.
Who Responsible – NPS Staff
Completion Date – March 1, 2005
Task c) Host a second round of 3 to 4 regional forums following the process described in Objective 3, Task a. Primary purpose is to present findings and gather responses.
Who Responsible – NPS Staff with Assistance from Steering Cmt. Members
Completion Date – April 30, 2005
Task d) NPS and Study Team will review and compile input from forums, website and all other sources to produce the final Study.
Who Responsible – NPS Staff with support from Steering Committee
Completion Date – June 1, 2005