Metacomet Monadnock Mattabesett

Trail System

National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study and Environmental Assessment

Draft Report

Metacomet Monadnock Mattabesett Trail System

Massachusetts/Connecticut

National Park Service, Northeast Region

Project Manager: Jamie Fosburgh, National Park Service

Project Leader, Connecticut: Kevin Case, NPS

Project Assistant, Connecticut: Dan Hubbard, NPS

Project Leaders, Massachusetts: Christopher Curtis, Pioneer Valley Planning Commission

Peggy Sloan, Franklin Regional Council of Governments

Project Staff, Massachusetts: Jessica Allan, PVPC

Jessica Atwood, FRCOG

Eliot Brown, FRCOG

Anne Capra, PVPC

Raphael Centeno, PVPC

Ryan Clary, FRCOG

Matt Delmonte, PVPC

Beth Gianinni, FRCOG

Shaun Hayes, PVPC

Sigrid Hughes, FRCOG

Gretchen Johnson, FRCOG

Bill Labich, FRCOG

Jim Scace, PVPC

Heather Vinsky, PVPC

Tracy Zafian, FRCOG

Todd Zukowski, PVPC

All cover photos and interior photos for Massachusetts by Christopher Curtis and for Connecticut by

Robert Pagini and Connecticut Forests and Parks Association

For further information, or to comment on this draft report, please contact:

MMM Trail National Scenic Trail Feasibility Study

National Park Service, Northeast Region

15 State Street

Boston, MA 02109

Tel. 617-223-5051
Summary of Findings 1

Trail System Background 1

Study Accomplishments 2

Important Spin-Offs of the Study 2

Introduction and Study

Background 5

A Summary of National Trails System Act 5

B. Background on Metacomet MonadnockMattabesett Trail Study 5

C. Study Approach 5

D. Summary of Public Involvement and

Participation 7

The Metacomet-MonadnockMattabesett Trail System 11

A. Development of the Trail 11

B. Description of the Trail 12

C. Management and Administration of

the Trail 12

D. Recreational Use of the Trail 15

E. Demographics of Adjacent Trail Towns 18

F. Population 18

G. Landuse 20

H. Community Involvement with the Trail 21

I. Natural and Cultural Resources 24

Significant Evaluation 33

Contents

Trail System Issues and

Opportunities 43

A. Trail Use 43

B. Trail Protection 43

C. Landowner Issues/Interests 45

D. Maintenance and Trail Management

Related Issues 46

E. Administration 46

F. Community Connections 47

G. Trail Continuity and Relocations 47

H. Alternate National Scenic Trail Route

in Massachusettts 49

I. Alternate National Scenic Trail Route

in Massachusetts 49

A Blueprint For Management

of the Trail 53

A. Landowner Issues 53

B. Trail Use 54

C. Trail Protection 54

D. Trail Management and Maintenance 54

E. Community Connections 54

F. Administrative Framework 55

G. Provisions if National Scenic Trail

Designation Occurs 55

H. Proposed Blueprint Budget 56

Management Alternatives and

Environmental Assessment 59

A. Purpose and Need 59

B. Alternatives Considered and Rejected 59

C. Alternatives Considered 60

D. The Affected Environment 61

E. Impacts of Alternatives 62

Sources 67

West Peak, Connecticut
View of Connecticut River from Hadley, Massachusetts
National Park Service 1

Summary of Findings

Trail System Background

The Metacomet Monadnock Mattabesett

(MMM) Trail System is a 190-mile trail route that

has been in existence for over half a century. It

travels through 39 communities in central

Connecticut and western Massachusetts. The

trail system is one of two long-distance recreational trails, the other being the 92-mile

Midstate Trail, serving the south-central region

of New England.

The MMM Trail System hosts an array of scenic

features and historic sites. Long distance vistas

with rural towns as the backdrop, agrarian lands,

unfragmented forests, and large river valleys are

among the classic New England landscape

features located along the trail system. The trail

system also travels through important Native

American and colonial historical landmarks

showcasing the unique landscape of the area.

The trail system harbors a range of diverse

ecosystems and natural resources, including

traprock ridges, mountain summits, forested

glades, vernal pools, lakes, streams and waterfalls.

The Connecticut Forest and Park Association

(CFPA) is the steward of the trail system in

Connecticut through their “Blue-Blazed Hiking

Trail” program. The Berkshire Chapter of the

Appalachian Mountain Club (AMC) is the

principal steward of the trail system in Massachusetts. The entire trail system is predominantly

managed and maintained by volunteers, and

much of it relies on the generosity and commitment of landowners who voluntarily allow it to

cross their lands.

As growth continues to change the landscape of

southern New England, portions of the MMM

Trail System have experienced increasing

pressures that threaten the long-term viability of

this continuous long-distance trail. Residential

subdivision and other growth pressures are

forcing relocations of the trail system with

increasing frequency, and options for such

relocations are dwindling. The growth pressure

is most acute in Connecticut and in the southern

and central regions of Massachusetts.

Study Background and Approach

Responding to the perceived threats to the longterm viability of the trail system, Congressman

John Olver of Massachusetts and Congresswoman Nancy Johnson of Connecticut sponsored federal legislation to study the Metacomet

Monadnock Mattabesett Trail System in

Connecticut and Massachusetts. Based on the

expressed intent of the sponsors and principal

trail steward organizations, two goals were

established for the study that became Public Law

107-338 in December, 2002:

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/New Hampshire 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.

In addition, the study had four guiding

principles:

• Meaningful investigation of the trail system’s

long-term viability can only occur with the full

involvement of trail advocates, landowners,

and other interested parties.

• Emphasis will be on strengthening existing

trail system partnerships and characteristics of

use, maintenance, ownership, and voluntary

stewardship.

• Respect for private property rights is a

fundamental component of a successful

project.

• Federal condemnation of land will not be

considered as an option in establishing or

protecting the trail system. Mattabesett Trail, Durham, Connecticut

looking west toward Totoket Mountain
2 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

To ensure broad stakeholder involvement, an adhoc steering committee was formed in Connecticut and working groups were formed in Massachusetts to assist in the completion of the study.

Involvement was open to all interested parties,

including landowners, trail users, trail

maintainers, non-profit land conservation

groups, regional planning organizations and local

and state agencies. The steering committee and

the working groups met quarterly and provided

input and feedback to the National Park Service

on the study products as they were developed.

Considerable effort was also put into engaging

trail landowners and leaders in each of the

communities that the trail system travels through.

Outreach efforts included trail-use questionnaires, newsletters, establishment of a website

and a series of community meetings that were

held to introduce the study and provide opportunities for public involvement.

Study Accomplishments

In addition to researching the trail and its natural,

cultural and recreational attributes, several

accomplishments completed during the study are

worthy of particular note, including:

• Mapping the Trail. Modern GIS (Geographic

Information System) and GPS (Global

Positioning System) mapping techniques

allowed for more detailed and accurate

mapping of the existing trail system route.

• Identifying and Communicating with Trail

Landowners. By cross referencing accurate

trail location data with tax map records in

town and city offices, 613 landowners owning

1,070 parcels of land on the trail system were

identified and communicated with as a part of

the study.

• Identifying Trail Issues and Opportunities.

Working committees, trail landowners, user

groups, community officials, trail stewards and

others all contributed to an understanding of

trail issues and opportunities.

• Research on Successful Long-Distance Trail

Management. The Pioneer Valley Planning

Commission and Franklin Regional Council of

Governments researched different types of

long-distance trail management practices to

better inform the study process and products

(Appendix G).

• A Blueprint for the Future of the Trail. A

culmination of much of the study’s effort, the

“Blueprint for Management” of the trail system

was developed from all of the input cited

above. The Blueprint is intended to be a useful

guide to the future of the trail whether or not

National Scenic Trail designation is implemented.

Important Spin-Offs of the Study

The mapping, landowner communication, and

stakeholder dialogue sponsored by the study

generated important spin-off accomplishments

undertaken by volunteer partners:

• Extension to Long Island Sound. Town

planners in Guilford, CT assumed the challenge of connecting the existing trail system to

Long Island Sound in coordination with the

Study Steering Committee. A 14-mile potential

route has been identified and is incorporated

into the Preferred Management Alternative.

• Successful Trail Relocations. Several

landowners who were contacted during the

study requested that the trail be removed from

their lands. Trail managers and community

partners subsequently moved several miles of

trail in both Connecticut and Massachusetts

onto permanently protected routes.

Preferred Management Alternative: Implementation of the Trail Management Blueprint

through National Scenic Trail Designation from

Long Island Sound in CT to the NH Border,

including a significant re-route in the

Belchertown – Leverett area in Massachusetts.

The study concludes that the long-term viability

of the MMM Trail System as a high quality,

continuous, long-distance trail will require a

sustained level of increased focus and resources

by a wide array of trail partners. National Scenic

Trail designation appears to be the most feasible

way to generate such an increased level of

attention and resources. The trail system,

proposed to be named the New England

National Scenic Trail, would be approximately

220 miles in length, including a new trail extension and relocations.

In summary, the designation would:

• Provide the best opportunity to secure longterm trail viability;

• Provide an opportunity for federal funding for

trail management and protection;

• Address critical landowner issues through

commitment to a Management Blueprint;

• Coalesce trail partners and communities

through creation of a Trail Stewardship

Council;

• Facilitate a trail extension to Long Island

Sound

• Elevate the profile of the trail system to the

level of national significance.

The preferred alternative includes the following elements:
National Park Service 3

Blueprint for Management. The Blueprint

document was developed with input from a full

range of study participants to provide the best

possible plan for long-term trail viability. Future

trail management, administration and protection

efforts would be based on the Blueprint.

Creation of a Trail Stewardship Council. The

council would bring trail partners and stakeholders together on a regular basis to discuss trail

issues and coordinate management activities, and

generally guide implementation of the Blueprint

for Management. The Council would have

advisory powers only, being non-regulatory in

nature.

National Park Service Role. The Study identified

no need for direct federal trail ownership or

direct federal trail management. Thus, the

National Park Service role in implementing the

proposed National Scenic Trail designation

would be one of technical and financial assistance to existing trail partners, coordinated

through the Trail Stewardship Council.

A New Name. A new, unifying name is suggested

for National Scenic Trail purposes: New England

National Scenic Trail. Traditional trail names

would continue to be used where appropriate --

for example “Mattabesett Trail, part of the New

England National Scenic Trail.”

New Route Opportunities. In addition to the

proposed extension to Long Island Sound in

Guilford, CT, a new conceptual route for the

National Scenic Trail is proposed in the

Belchertown-Leverett area of Massachusetts.

The route alternative is envisioned to take

advantage of substantial state-owned lands that

can provide a quality, protected trail route, while

avoiding a segment of the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail almost completely devoid of protected

lands. No specific alignment is suggested or

proposed.

Ridgetop fall scene, Connecticut
4 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

View of Bare Mountain, Amherst, Massachusetts
National Park Service 5

Introduction and Study Background

Table 1. Designated National Scenic trails

Name of Trail Year Designated Authorized Length (miles)

Appalachian 1968 2170

Pacific Crest 1968 2638

Continental Divide 1978 3200

Ice Age 1980 1000

North Country 1980 4100

Florida 1983 1300

Natchez Trace 1983 440

Potomac Heritage 1983 700

A. Summary of the National Trails System Act

The National Trails System Act (Public Law 90-

543, as amended through Public Law 107-325)

institutes a national system of historic, scenic,

and recreation trails. National Scenic Trails are

trails at least 100 miles long that provide for

maximum outdoor recreation potential, and for

the conservation and enjoyment of nationally

significant scenic, historic, natural, or cultural

qualities of trail areas.

Section 2 [16USC1241] of the National Trails

System Act notes that “trails should be established (i) primarily, near the urban areas of the

Nation, and (ii) secondarily, within scenic areas

and along historic travel routes of the Nation

which are often more remotely located.”

Currently, there are a total of eight designated

National Scenic Trails. See Table 1

B. Background on Metacomet-MonadnockMattabesett Trail Study

The Metacomet Monadnock Mattabesett

(MMM) Trail System consists of three generally

contiguous trails: the Metacomet, the

Metacomet-Monadnock, and the Mattabesett,

that travel 190 miles in a north-south direction

from the Massachusetts-New Hampshire border

south towards Long Island Sound in Connecticut. The portion of the Metacomet-Monadnock

Trail included in the study is located entirely

within Massachusetts, while the Metacomet and

Mattabesett Trails are located entirely within

Connecticut.

In December 2002, President George W. Bush

signed Public Law 107-338, directing the U.S.

Department of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study of the Metacomet Monadnock

Mattabesett Trail System in Connecticut and

Massachusetts for possible inclusion in the

National Trails System through designation as a

National Scenic Trail. Note that the MetacometMonadnock Trail extends into New Hampshire,

but that this portion of trail was not included in

the study’s authorizing language.

The MMM Trail System Study was proposed

jointly by U.S. Representatives John Olver of

Massachusetts and Nancy Johnson of Connecticut. Representatives Johnson and Olver acted in

response to public interest in the trail and to

requests from constituents that it be preserved.

House co-sponsors of the study legislation

included Representatives DeLauro, Larson,

Maloney, and Simmons of Connecticut, Representative Neal of Massachusetts, Representative

Bass of New Hampshire, and Representative

Udall of New Mexico. Senate co-sponsors

included Senators Dodd and Lieberman of

Connecticut, and Senators Kennedy and Kerry

of Massachusetts.

The principal rationale for the MMM Trail

Study, as expressed in testimony before Congress, is that without a concerted effort to protect

the trail system it will cease to exist as a recreational resource for future generations.

 C.Study Approach

Goals of the Study

The following goals were established at the

outset of the study, and served to guide development of the work plan and study products:

• The primary goal of the MMM Trail System

study is to determine the best approach to

ensure the long-term viability of a continuous

public use trail system from Long Island

Sound through Connecticut to the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border.
6 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

• A secondary goal is to determine whether or

not designation as a National Scenic Trail is an

appropriate means of achieving the primary

goal of long-term trail system viability.

The study engaged a full spectrum of trail

stakeholders in an exploration of the trails as

they exist today and their potential for future

generations. GIS technology was used to map

the trail and cross-reference the location with

local landownership data in the 39 abutting

communities, facilitating communication with

trail landowners, in many cases for the first time.

The study team developed a set of principles

based on the intentions of the study’s Congressional sponsors, the operating principles of the

National Park Service, and the input of trail

stakeholders in Connecticut and Massachusetts.

The principles are as follows:

• Meaningful investigation of the trail system’s

long-term viability can only occur with the full

involvement of a wide range of trail advocates,

landowners, and other interested parties.

• A particular emphasis of the study will be on

strengthening existing partnerships and

characteristics of use, maintenance, ownership, and voluntary stewardship.

• Respect for private property rights is a fundamental component of a successful study.

• Federal condemnation of land will not be

considered as an option in establishing or

protecting the trail system.

Overview of the Scope of Work

The major tasks identified and completed for the

study were as follows:

1) Establish a detailed and current understanding

of the MMM Trail System:

• Map the existing trail system route using GIS

and GPS technologies. Identify all landowners

whose properties intersect the trail;

• Identify the location and significance of

natural communities, unique flora and fauna,

soils, geology, topography, hydrology, known

and potential archaeological areas, and historic

resources;

• Identify the location and quantity of land

ownership types along the trail system,

including private, corporate, municipal,

conservation, state, and utility;

• Identify the location and significance of

features that make the recreational trail system

experience unique, include scenic view points,

multi-use areas, connecting trails, trail access

points, road sections, and cultural and/or

historic features.

2) Conduct a variety of public outreach activities

designed to explain the study process and

collect input, including:

• Regional forums held in separate Connecticut

and Massachusetts locations;

• Written and/or verbal communication with

municipal leaders and state legislators from

each of the towns the trail system passes

through;

• Written and/or verbal communication with all

landowners living along or directly abutting

the trail system;

• Meetings with state, corporate and utility

landowners along the trail;

• Establishment of a website to provide current

information about the study process and

progress.

3) Research existing models and alternatives for

successful long-distance trail management,

protection, maintenance and administration

among both designated and non-designated trail

systems.

4)Complete a blueprint for long-term management, protection and maintenance of the trail

system based on a vision for the trail that reflects

the concerns of property owners, trail user

groups, and other stakeholders.

5) Identify and evaluate broad management

alternatives.

View from Peak Mountain, East Granby, Connecticut
National Park Service 7

“in cooperation with

interested interstate,

State, and local governmental agencies, public

and private organizations, and landowners

and land users concerned.”

From the above five components this draft study

report has been drafted for public review and

comment.

D. Summary of Public Involvement and

Participation

Extensive public involvement has been a central

feature of the MMM Trail System Study, and is

based on a recognition that meaningful investigation of the trail’s long-term viability can only

occur with the full involvement of a wide range

of trail advocates, landowners, and other

interested parties. Additionally, Sec. (5) (b) of the

National Trails System Act directs that studies of

trails under consideration for Federal designation

shall be completed:

“in cooperation with interested interstate, State,

and local governmental agencies, public and

private organizations, and landowners and land

users concerned.”

To achieve the primary and secondary goals of

the feasibility study, the study has included many

methods for public outreach and participation, as

summarized below.

Quarterly Open Meetings of Trail Study

Working Groups

Study Teams in both Connecticut and Massachusetts held public “working group” meetings on a

quarterly basis throughout the study to keep trail

stakeholders apprised of study progress and

solicit input on work plan components. These

meetings took place between the fall of 2003 and

the spring of 2005.

In Connecticut, a single working group was

formed and adopted the name “MMM Trail

Study Steering Committee,” while in Massachusetts three separate working groups were formed

by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission

(PVPC) and Franklin Regional Council of

Governments (FRCOG), acting as consultants to

the National Park Service. The quarterly

meetings provided an effective vehicle for review,

comment and insight on the development of

study work products, beginning with the work

plan itself and continuing through to the

development of alternatives and production of

the draft report. The development of the

Blueprint for Management document received

considerable attention, comment, and revision

through these forums.

In Connecticut, the MMM Trail Study Steering

Committee had fairly regular attendance from

the following organizations and entities:

• Appalachian Mountain Club – Connecticut

Chapter

• Central Connecticut Planning Agency

• Connecticut Department of Environmental

Protection

• Connecticut Horse Council

• Connecticut Forest & Park Association

• Landowners (both individual and corporate)

• Local, non-profit land trust organizations

• Municipal government representatives

• New England Mountain Bike Association

• New England Orienteering Club

• Ragged Mountain Foundation

In Massachusetts, the Pioneer Valley Planning

Commission (PVPC) convened one working

group for the trail west of the Connecticut River

(Hampshire County) and one working group for

the trail east of the Connecticut River (Hampden

County). The Franklin Regional Council of

Governments (FRCOG) formed one working

group for the Franklin and Worcester County

sections of the trail.

The Massachusetts regional working group

meetings had much more varied attendance over

the course of the study. However, attendance

was consistent from municipal representatives,

property owners, and trail user groups. Individuals or representatives of groups who attended

one of the meetings were automatically added to

the mailing list to receive future meeting notices.

Attendees included:

• Bay State Trail Riders Association

• Landowners (both individual and corporate)

• Local, non-profit land trust organizations

• Municipal government representatives

• New England Mountain Bike Association

• Snowmobile Association of Massachusetts

Hikers on the MMM trail
8 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

In both states, efforts to encourage participation

were directed toward representatives of the

communities through which the trail system

travels, landowners along the trail, representatives of trail user groups, state agency representatives, trail maintainer organizations, and members of the general public who were interested in

the project.

Trail Stakeholder Communications

As part of an ongoing effort to identify and

contact all persons with a direct interest in the

trail system (“stakeholders”), the Connecticut

and Massachusetts study teams compiled a

database containing the names of over 2,000 trail

landowners, trail user groups, land trust organizations, local municipal officials, and other

parties. During the study period a variety of

outreach communications were delivered to

these stakeholders, including:

• Announcement of the study and related

activities

• Description of study goals, work-plan and

timeline

• Description of frequently asked questions and

answers

• Announcement of steering committee and

regional working group meetings

• Solicitation of public comment on study

activities

• Announcement of public forums

• Property owner questionnaire

Trail Stakeholder Meetings

During the course of the study, meetings were

held individually with a number of key stakeholders to provide information about the study and to

solicit input on issues concerning the trail system:

• Connecticut Department of Environmental

Protection

• Connecticut Department of Public Health

• Connecticut Department of Transportation

• Connecticut Regional Water Utilities

• Massachusetts Department of Conservation

and Recreation

• Corporate Landowners

• Land Trust Organizations

• Trail User Groups

In addition, the Connecticut study team met with

representatives of municipal governments from

seventeen of the twenty communities that the

trail system passes through in Connecticut. The

remaining three towns did not wish to meet, and

received a packet of information to be shared

among interested town officials.

Typical meeting attendees included town

selectmen, planning and zoning officers, recreation directors, environmental compliance

officers, and representatives from natural

resource commissions, land trusts, and trail user

groups. Study team members provided a

briefing on the study, a timeline for various

activities, and materials to be posted or shared at

municipal offices. Significant portions of each

meeting were devoted to sharing of local

concerns and to question and answer sessions.

In Massachusetts, municipal officials were

invited to attend all working group meetings.

Public Outreach Meetings

In late 2003 and throughout 2004, the Connecticut and Massachusetts study teams sponsored a

series of public meetings designed to publicly

introduce the trail study and solicit input on a

variety of study and trail management issues. In

Connecticut, three public forums were held in

the northern, central, and southern regions of

the state with approximately 200 citizens

attending. In Massachusetts, three public forums

were held: one in Hampden County, one in

Hampshire County, and one in Franklin County.

In addition, working committee meetings were

held quarterly within the same areas.

Although the meeting formats varied slightly

from state to state and region to region, the

following agenda items were covered over the

course of the public outreach meetings:

• Introduction of study purpose, background,

objectives, principles, work plan components,

and timeline.

View from MMM Trail in Connecticut
National Park Service 9

• Description (using maps) of the trail system as

it currently exists.

• Description of study tasks underway or

completed, including trail system mapping,

natural and cultural assessment reports,

identification of current trail system recreational uses, and identification of trail system

management issues.

• Solicitation of input on issues and concerns

regarding the trail system, including maintenance, unauthorized use, signage, parking, and

recreational use liability.

• Solicitation of input on the draft trail management blueprint.

• Presentation of findings from research on

other long-distance trail systems.

• Distribution of trail study public materials,

including a study brochure, question/answer

document, vision statement, and management

plan draft.

• Description of available methods for providing

comment on the study process and trail system

issues.

Data Collection from Trail Landowners

In 2004, two separate questionnaires were

developed for use in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Each questionnaire was designed to gather

input from property owners whose lands

intersect (cross) or abut (lie near) the MMM

Trail system.

The questionnaires sought to confirm the

accuracy of trail property ownership data, to

collect data on observed, allowed, and preferred

trail uses, and to provide landowners with the

opportunity to comment on the trail system and

the study. Questionnaires were mailed in both

states to property intersectors and abutters. In

Connecticut, a follow-up postcard was mailed to

encourage recipients to return the questionnaire.

Trail Study Public Website

A web site was developed for the purpose of

disseminating public information regarding the

study. The site (www.mmmtrail.org) has received

over 4,000 separate visits since its inception. The

key web site informational sections include a

listing of study goals and principles, the study

work plan, information on Connecticut Trail

Study Steering Committee activities, a list of

frequently asked study questions, photos and

maps, and information on contacting study team

members with questions and/or comments.

Mormon Hollow Brook along the MMM Trail in Wendell, Massachusetts
10 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

View from Summit House looking towards the Connecticut River
National Park Service 11

The Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett

Trail System

A. Development of the Trail

The earliest origins of the MMM Trail System in

Connecticut and Massachusetts are largely

unknown. Sections of trail in the lower elevations of both states probably originated as Indian

footpaths that later were used by local hunters in

search of game. It is known that some of the first

sections of trail were located in areas that

eventually became the cities of Meriden and

Middletown in Connecticut.

Formal development and construction of

individual sections of the Trail System began in

the early 1930’s. Over the next four decades, the

MMM Trail System came to assume its present

structure and route.

Connecticut

Organized trail construction and maintenance

activities for the Metacomet and Mattabesett

Trails officially began in the 1930’s under the

auspices of the Connecticut Forest and Park

Association (CFPA). CFPA is the oldest nonprofit conservation organization in Connecticut.

Its mission is to conserve the land, trails and

natural resources of Connecticut, particularly its

woodlands, farms, and wildlife habitats.

CFPA was first organized as the Connecticut

Forestry Association in 1895 and during its

formative years worked to promote state

legislation protecting forests. The nascent

organization lobbied the state to appoint a

forester, making Connecticut the first state in the

nation to have one. The Connecticut Forestry

Association also promoted laws to establish local

tree wardens and protect shade trees.

In 1929, CFPA President Theodore Salisbury

Woolsey sensed an emerging interest in hiking as

a recreational activity and responded by creating

CFPA’s first trails committee. Woolsey appointed Edgar L. Heermance, a retired minister,

as chairman of the committee, thus changing the

direction of CFPA’s work. At its first meeting on

December 27, 1929, the committee agreed

unanimously to create a system of hiking trails

throughout the state to support growing public

interest. With that decision, CFPA established

the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trail System, which

today consists of over thirty-five distinct trails

totaling over 700 miles in length.

The creators of the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trails,

being avid hikers and trail enthusiasts, brought

considerable knowledge and experience to the

task of setting up the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trail

System. The trail system’s colorful moniker

references the blue paint used to mark the trails.

On February 14, 1930, the committee voted to

mark the trails with a distinctive shade of blue

paint, one that Heermance had painstakingly

mixed himself until settling upon a shade that

could be seen at twilight. This unique hue is still

used on the trails today.

On April 29, 1931, the trails committee voted to

officially name the Meriden and Middletown

sections of trail the Metacomet Trail and

Mattabesett Trails, respectively, thus retaining a

tradition of using Native American names for

Blue Blazed Trails. The Metacomet Trail was

named for the Indian Chief Metacomet, who

directed many Indian raids throughout the

Connecticut Valley region of northern Connecticut and Massachusetts. Frederick W. Kilbourne

was one of the first trail managers (or section

heads, as they were once known). Kilbourne, a

librarian and associate editor of Webster’s

International Dictionary, was the first to formally

blaze the Metacomet Trail through Meriden.

The Mattabesett Trail derives its name from the

Native American word for Middletown. Karl P.

Harrington was responsible for early construction and blazing of the Mattabesett, extending

the trail to almost 50 continuous miles.

Harrington, a professor at Wesleyan University,

recruited the Wesleyan Outdoor Club to help

create and maintain the Mattabesett Trail.

Massachusetts

By the 1950s, the Connecticut Forest and Park

Association (CFPA) had succeeded in fully

developing a significant percentage of the BlueBlazed Hiking Trails System, including the

Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails. It is believed

that the Massachusetts section of the trail was

established after discussions among CFPA

members that a ridgeline trail connecting the

Metacomet Trail to Mount Monadnock in New

Hampshire would be a worthy project.

According to a July 1, 1993 article in The Springfield, Massachusetts Republican, “with Walter
12 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Banfield as their leader, a corps of 15 hiking

enthusiasts began laying out the (Massachusetts

section of the) trail in 1951, taking up a dare to

extend the Metacomet.” According to the article,

the group worked every weekend for the next 15

years.

Walter Banfield was a professor of botany at the

University of Massachusetts at Amherst

(UMass), a resident of Shutesbury, and an avid

hiker who had enjoyed the outdoors since

childhood. He was also a member of

Metawampe, the faculty hiking club at UMass.

According to the Springfield Republican article,

the route of the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail

was determined by Banfield to follow “the

beauty and attractiveness of the countryside.”

Banfield is quoted in the article as saying, “I had

no great vision of what it would be or what it

would become. We had good beginnings. Mount

Holyoke, for one, already had a good trail

system.”

By the early 1960s, Banfield and his team finished

the trail and published the first MetacometMonadnock Trail guide. The trail was described

in the guide book using the United States

Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps

as a base with the trail route over-laid in black.

B. Description of the Trail

The MMM Trail System consists of three largely

contiguous trails: the Metacomet-Monadnock

Trail, the Metacomet Trail, and the Mattabesett

Trail. The trails collectively travel 190 miles in a

north-south direction, from the MassachusettsNew Hampshire border south towards Long

Island Sound. The portion of the MetacometMonadnock Trail included in the study is located

entirely within Massachusetts, while the

Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails are located

entirely within Connecticut.

The Metacomet Trail in Connecticut follows a

traprock mountain range running from the

Hanging Hills of Meriden to the Massachusetts

State line for approximately 57 miles. The Trail

reaches elevations of over 1,000 feet at its highest

point.

The Mattabesett Trail is approximately 53 miles

in length. The trail begins at the Connecticut

River, and roughly forms a large horseshoe as it

travels south and west before assuming a

northerly direction to its terminus at the Berlin

Turnpike in Berlin. A road-walk then connects

to the southern terminus of the Metacomet Trail.

The Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in Massachusetts is approximately 80 miles in length. The

trail is located in Hampden, Hampshire,

Franklin, and Worcester Counties, passing

through 19 separate communities. The elevation

of the trail varies from 100’ at its lowest point

along the Westfield River in Agawam to 1,618 feet

at its highest point on Mount Grace in Warwick.

The trail enters New Hampshire at the state line

and continues northward, eventually reaching

the summit of Mt. Monadnock.

In order to understand the existing trail system, a

detailed field survey and inventory was completed. In 2003 and 2004, a combination of

regional planning professionals and volunteers

hiked the trail system in both Connecticut and

Massachusetts, utilizing a global positioning

system (GPS) to record detailed data. The

following information was collected and compiled into a geodatabase:

• General descriptions and photographs of the

trails;

• Information on resources, scenic view sheds

and other special assets;

• Physical characteristics including geology,

hydrology, vegetation and wildlife;

• Cultural resources located along the trails or

within close proximity;

• Wildlife habitats;

• Historic and archaeological features;

• Other characteristics that make the trail system

unique.

Other data collected during the field hiking

included:

• Condition of the trails;

• Locations of trailheads and parking areas;

• Identification of problem areas needing

attention;

• Trail route continuity;

• Maintenance issues.

A complete segment-by-segment description of

the MMM Trail System, including information

on connecting trails, may be found in Appendix

A.

C. Management and Administration of

the Trail

The Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail

System is a publicly available trail that functions

without cost to taxpayers. It exists largely due to

private landowner permission, and is managed

and maintained by volunteer organizations, their

members, and other members of the public.

MMM Trail passage near Horse Cave
National Park Service 13

Connecticut

In Connecticut, day-to-day management

responsibility for the Metacomet and

Mattabesett Trails (and for Connecticut’s entire

Blue-Blazed Hiking Trail System) belongs to the

Connecticut Forest and Park Association

(CFPA), a non-profit conservation organization.

As it has done for over seventy-five years, CFPA

sets policies and oversees a network of volunteer

trail managers.

No current management plan exists for the

Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails. With one

exception, CFPA does not own the lands that the

Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails pass through.

Where the trails traverse state lands they are

subject to Connecticut state statutes and policies

as administered by the state’s Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP). In practice,

DEP approves trail placements and determines

the types of recreational uses permitted. All

maintenance and improvement tasks are left to

CFPA to complete. This shared-management

model also applies to land owned by municipal

governments, corporations, non-profit organizations, and private citizens.

The primary management authority within CFPA

for the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trails is its Trails

Committee, which determines policy and

implements actions for the trails with the stated

goal of managing, maintaining, and protecting

them for present and future users. The committee takes action consistent with the approved

mission, plans and budgets of CFPA. Their

responsibilities include assigning and training

new trail managers, recommending long range

activities and budgets for committee operations,

and preparing and executing trail protection and

maintenance plans.

Currently there are thirteen volunteer trail

managers who, with the occasional assistance of

other volunteers, oversee the care of the

Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails. Trail

managers come from a variety of backgrounds.

Some are retirees, while others are members (and

a designated representative) of local land trust

organizations or trail user groups such as hiking

clubs. Assistance is available to trail managers for

major trail construction and relocation projects

from two roving trail crews made up of CFPA

volunteers.

Each trail manager is responsible for a variety of

duties such as blazing, building bridges and

erosion control measures, and trail clearing and

brushing. They are also responsible for communicating with landowners and helping to try and

re-route trails when necessary. This is often a

time consuming process that sometimes produces no suitable alternative route, forcing a trail

manager to close a section of trail. In 2003 alone,

trail managers and other volunteers donated over

600 hours of their time to work on the

Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails.

CFPA also publishes the Connecticut Walk Book,

a trail guide covering the entire Blue-Blazed

Hiking Trail System. Since 1932, eighteen editions

of the Walk Book have been published. A

completely redesigned Walk Book was published

in 2005, reflecting the latest information and

maps for all trails including the Metacomet and

Mattabesett.

Approaches to Trail Protection:

A current challenge in trail protection efforts

involves trail closures due to unwilling landowners and development pressures. Because a

significant portion of the Metacomet and

Mattabesett Trails lie on private property, CFPA

must work directly with landowners to ensure

public access.

CFPA employs a variety of different types of

agreements to protect the trail system, including

conservation easements, rights of way, trail

license agreements, and donations of land.

Conservation easements are restrictions placed

on a piece of property to protect its associated

resources. The easement is either voluntarily

donated or sold by the landowner. It is legally

binding, and may limit certain types of uses or

prevent development from taking place on the

land in perpetuity while the land remains in

private hands. Conservation easements protect

land for future generations while allowing

owners to retain many private property rights

and to live on and use their land.

CFPA currently has two easement agreements in

the final stages of negotiation. Some towns and

private land trusts have secured easements on

significant tracts of land. The towns of Avon,

Durham, Farmington, Guilford, Middlefield, and

Simsbury have been active in obtaining easements or purchasing land which in turn may

protect sections of the Metacomet and

Mattabesett Trails.

Rights of way are less formal written agreements

that are usually recorded in municipal property

records. They often exist in perpetuity and

transfer from old to new property owner when a

parcel of land is sold.

Blue-blazed trail in Connecticut
14 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

The trail license agreement has proven to be

successful, as it represents a revocable compact

between an organization such as CFPA and the

landowner, documenting both parties’ expectations for use and maintenance of the trail. To

date, CFPA has obtained at least four trail license

agreements for the Metacomet and Mattabesett

Trails. Additional, informal agreements exist

with Northeast Utilities, the Hill-Stead Museum

and the Town of Avon. CFPA is currently

pursuing trail license agreements with the

Durham Conservation Commission and the

towns of Farmington and Middlefield.

Private landowners understandably have many

concerns regarding the public use of their land.

Historically, many of these landowners did not

live on the property in question and merely

maintained their land as woodlots. Concerns

typically involved the risk of fire and the proliferation of litter. To address these concerns and

ultimately obtain permission to use their land,

individual trail managers met with private

landowners. After the meeting, most landowners

allowed access across their land, often finalizing

the agreement with a simple handshake or

informal letter.

Today the job of securing landowner permission

is a more complex matter. Landowners sometimes resist public access to their property out of

liability concerns. However, in 1971, the General

Assembly addressed this concern by enacting a

landowner liability law (Connecticut General

Statutes Sections 52-557), that (with exceptions)

limits the liability of property owners who allow

their land to be used for recreational purposes

without charge. This critical legislation helps

CFPA to continue the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trail

System on private lands without increased fear of

liability.

Partnerships:

As the oldest non-profit conservation organization in Connecticut, CFPA has found it advantageous to open lines of communication with

corporations, private individual landowners, trail

user groups, local land trusts, and other nonprofit organizations to help facilitate constructive

dialogue concerning the future of the trails.

Discussions are held on trail management and

maintenance issues, land protection strategies,

educational opportunities, and other subjects.

Partner groups that are involved in discussions

and projects include:

• American Hiking Society

• Appalachian Trail Conference

• Appalachian Mountain Club

• Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station

• Connecticut Department of Environmental

Protection

• Connecticut Forest Stewardship Council

• Ensign Bickford Foundation

• Friends of Connecticut State Parks

• Green Mountain Club

• Meshomasic Hiking Club

• Metropolitan District Commission

• National Wildlife Federation

• National Woodland Owners Association

• Northeast Utilities

• New Haven Hiking Club

• Ragged Mountain Foundation

• Rockfall Foundation

• South Central Regional Water Authority

• Society of American Foresters

• University of Connecticut, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources

• USDA Forest Service

• Yale University School of Forestry

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, the Appalachian Mountain

Club (AMC) acts as the primary steward for the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail. The AMC is the

oldest conservation and recreation organization

in the United States, with over 90,000 members

in total and over 3,400 members in western

Massachusetts.

Soon after the release of the first MetacometMonadnock Trail guide book in the early 1960s,

the Berkshire Chapter of the AMC assumed

overall responsibility for maintaining and

managing the trail. The Berkshire Chapter is an

all-volunteer organization and is one of twelve

chapters of the AMC in the northeast.

The Chair of the Berkshire Chapter’s Trails

Committee, who is also the Chair of the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail Committee, acts as

the coordinator of all trail maintenance activities.

The trail maintenance work is generally completed by approximately two dozen volunteers

who are not necessarily members of the Berkshire Chapter of the AMC. Generally, the only

qualifications for the trail maintenance crews are

that they are committed and interested in

spending time outdoors along the trail.

Although there is no formal trail maintenance

and/or management plan currently in place, there

is a process followed by the Berkshire Chapter of

the AMC in its oversight of the MetacometMonadnock Trail. The Berkshire Chapter Trails

Committee Chair recruits volunteer trail “adopters” who oversee the maintenance along a

particular section of the trail. Generally, the trail
National Park Service 15

sections (as defined in the AMC’s Trail Guide)

are divided and “adopted.” Two sections of the

trail are currently being maintained by the

Pioneer Valley Hiking Club, but otherwise the

trail is currently being maintained by individual

adopters.

The role of the adopter is to complete three

walk-thru or trail inspections for their section of

the trail each year (spring, summer and fall).

During each walk-thru the adopter will check for

fallen limbs that may be blocking the trail, replace

signs as necessary, and complete routine brush

trimming to keep the trail open. Major maintenance tasks are reported back to the Trails

Committee Chair so that group work days can be

organized to complete any more large scale work

projects that are needed. A webpage has also

been established that enables hikers to provide

feedback on the conditions of the trail. The

Trails Committee Chair may then contact the

appropriate adopter about the needed work.

An organizational meeting is held annually in

January to plan for maintenance projects for the

year. This meeting is advertised in order to

attract new people who may be interested in

providing help along the trail as well. In addition,

a get together is usually held with the volunteers

in June or July to coordinate other needed

maintenance work and show appreciation for

their efforts. The bi-annual meetings allow

members time to discuss any issues or needed

trail work. Decisions are made by consensus.

Regular communication between Chapter

members allows for ongoing discussions of trail

issues and trouble shooting. Any changes that

are made to the trails are relayed to the member

whose responsibility includes the development

and updating of the guide book and trail maps.

A treasurer keeps track of the finances. Revenues

that are generated from membership dues and

the sale of the trail guide are used to print more

trail guides and fund larger maintenance projects.

Approaches to Trail Protection

AMC’s Berkshire Chapter employs a land

protection approach that is similar to CFPA’s in

terms of its use of conservation easements,

rights-of-way agreements, handshake agreements, and direct contact with landowners.

The organization is also developing its first trail

license agreement for a section of the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail.

The Berkshire AMC Trails Committee has also

recently donated $5,000 to the Mt.

Grace Land Conservation Trust to assist its

efforts in acquiring a 46 acre parcel of land in

Northfield. The property contains a number of

trails including the Metacomet-Monadnock

Trail. The Berkshire AMC chapter has completed six such land protection projets using

donations and profits from the sale of the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail Guide. Together

the donations have protected several miles of the

trail system.

Partnerships:

In Massachusetts, the work of AMC volunteers

has been completed in collaboration with various

partners. They include major landowners such as

the managers of the Massachusetts Department

of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) State

Forests and Parks along the trail; conservation

land trusts including the Mount Grace Land

Conservation Trust and the Kestrel Trust.

In addition, organizations such as the Pioneer

Valley Hiking Club have provided volunteer

labor, assistance in maintaining the trail, and

completed special projects. For example, the

Pioneer Valley Hiking Club built a shelter off of

the trail in Royalston. Another example of this

collaboration in completing projects along the

trail include the Berkshire Chapter of the AMC

helping the manager of Wendell State Forest

build a foot bridge to enable the trail to cross a

brook.

D. Recreational Use of the Trail

The MMM Trail System is primarily used as a

continuous hiking trail, with alternative uses

(permitted or not) occurring on certain sections

of trail. Overnight camping is permitted in a

limited number of locations, usually on state park

or forest lands. Public and private owners of land

crossed by the trail retain ultimate control over

what uses are allowed on the portion of the trail

that crosses their property.

Connecticut

As the manager of the Metacomet and

Mattabesett Trails in Connecticut, the ConnectiLooking out onto the Connecticut River from MMM Trail,

Connecticut
16 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

cut Forest and Park Association (CFPA) has a

trail use policy subcommittee that establishes

recreational use policies. The current policies

state (in part) that the Metacomet, Mattabesett

and other trails in the CFPA Blue-Blazed Hiking

Trail System are maintained as footpaths, and

they “...are neither designed nor maintained to

the standard necessary to accommodate hoof,

bicycle, or motorized vehicle traffic.”

CFPA acknowledges landowner uses that may

differ from their policies for the trails. If, for

example, a landowner permits horseback riding

on his or her land and CFPA determines that the

physical design of that section of trail is conducive to it, they (CFPA) will abide by the wishes of

the landowner. If they determine that the trail is

not conducive to a specific alternate use, they

may seek to re-locate the trail.

In addition, the organization supports a number

of diverse recreational use activities on the

Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails, including:

picnicking, running or jogging, outdoor photography, bird watching, wildlife viewing,

snowshoeing and cross-country skiing, visiting

cultural sites, and rock climbing. This support

extends to hunting and camping where permitted

by landowner. CFPA augments their support of

such activities by providing education to hikers

on safe trail use during hunting seasons and

“leave no trace” camping practices.

CFPA acknowledges the use of motorized

vehicles on the Blue-Blazed Hiking Trails by fire,

police, rescue, and Connecticut Department of

Environmental Protection vehicles in cases of

emergency or when needed for enforcement, fire

suppression or other purposes.

Recognizing Federal Universal Access laws,

CFPA seeks to make sections of the Blue-Blazed

Hiking Trails accessible to those who use

wheelchairs and those who have difficulty

walking where the host landowner has granted

permission and where site and trail conditions

(distance from trailhead, slope, wetness, rocks,

roots, etc.) permit.

CFPA has employed a partnership approach to

obtain more official support for their recreational

use policies. The State of Connecticut has

designated those portions of Blue Blazed Trails

(including the Metacomet and Mattabesett) that

cross state property as official State Hiking trails;

with horse, bicycle and motorized vehicle use

prohibited. The State of Connecticut also

designated the entire Blue-Blazed hiking Trail

System as an official State Greenway in 2001.

Use of motorized vehicles is a growing problem

for most trail administrators. CFPA identifies

motorized, illegal trespass as a “frequent occurrence” on certain sections of trails, and is

supporting legislation to identify, develop and

maintain specific areas for all-terrain and other

motorized vehicle use.

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, the Metacomet-Monadnock

Trail is accessed by recreational users for a variety

of passive and active opportunities, including

hiking, snowshoeing, birding, horseback riding,

wildlife and plant observation, cross country

skiing, mountain biking, snowmobiling, and

riding all terrain vehicles, (ATV).

Uses that are permitted on the individual sections

of the trail are determined by the property owner

hosting the trail. Although the trail route includes

the use of abandoned roads and routes used by

land owners for mechanized forestry equipment,

hiking is a consistent and dominant use on the

trail. It is the use for which the trail was developed, and for which it is currently maintained by

the Berkshire Chapter of the AMC. Along some

sections of the trail mountain biking,

snowmobiling, and other motorized uses are

occasionally permitted by owners. In many spots

such uses are not physically possible because of

the narrow, steep and rocky nature of the terrain.

Like many trail systems, conflicts between

recreational users can occur. Landowners have

the ability to restrict certain user groups on their

land, such as horseback riders, while permitting

other groups, such as hikers.

On the Hampden and Hampshire County

sections of the trail it was noted that passive and

active recreation users access all segments of the

trail, but higher concentrations of ATVs and

mountain bikers can be found in a variety of

locations. The Mount Tom Reservation is one

area where there have been conflicts between

hikers and mountain bikers, while sections of the

trail in Holyoke are more frequently used (with

or without permission) by all-terrain vehicle

riders.

In Franklin County and Royalston approximately

17.5 miles of the trail travels through state forests

including the Wendell, Erving, Northfield,

Warwick, Mount Grace and Royalston State

Forests. These forests are managed by the

Massachusetts Department of Conservation and

Recreation (DCR). DCR permits horseback

riding, mountain biking and snowmobiling in the

Wendell, Erving, Northfield, Warwick,

Royalston, and Mount Grace State Forests.

However, these activities do not occur on all
National Park Service 17

portions of the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail

within these state forests because sections of the

trail are too steep for uses other than hiking.

DCR does not permit all-terrain vehicle use in

any of these state forests. However, a representative of DCR noted that un-permitted ATV use

occurs regularly in the Erving, Warwick, and

Mount Grace state forests and that such use has

become an enforcement issue. In general, motor

bikes and all-terrain-vehicles have become more

common on the trail and are considered to be the

two trail uses with the greatest negative impacts.

The tire ruts created by these vehicles can lead to

erosion problems. In addition, in some instances

the riders of these vehicles have created side

trails to bypass a footbridge or other route

intended for hikers, which results in braided

trails systems. This in turn expands the impact

the trail has on bordering vegetation and habitats.

Research on Recreational Trail Use:

Within the resources and time constraints of the

Trail Study an effort was made to develop an

Table 2. Types and amount of observed recreational uses along the MMM Trail system in Connecticut

and Massachusetts

Types of Observed Use Number of Responses Percentage of Responses

Hiking 482 87.4

Mountain biking 240 43.5

All-terrain vehicles 174 31.5

Horseback riding 145 26.3

Other passive uses* 139 25.2

Hunting 120 21.7

Snowmobiling 92 16.6

Other motorized uses** 22 3.9

Total Responses 1414

* “Other passive uses” refer to a variety of uses including but not limited to: camping, crosscountry skiing, dog-walking, nature photography, picnicking, rock climbing, and wildlife

observation.

** “Other motorized uses” refers to truck and motorcycle uses.

Source: National Park Service, PVPC and FRCOG questionnaires, 2004

Table 3. Types and amount of observed recreational uses along the MMM Trail system in Connecticut

and Massachusetts

Types of Observed Use Number of Responses Percentage of Responses

Hiking 468 84.9

Mountain biking 163 29.5

Other passive uses* 147 26.6

Horseback riding 144 26.1

Hunting 52 9.4

Snowmobiling 46 8.3

All-terrain vehicles 34 6.1

Other motorized uses** 7 1.2

Total Responses 1061

* “Other passive uses” refer to a variety of uses including but not limited to: camping, crosscountry skiing, dog-walking, nature photography, picnicking, rock climbing, and wildlife

observation.

** “Other motorized uses” refers to truck and motorcycle uses.

Source: National Park Service, PVPC and FRCOG questionnaires, 2004

understanding of the types and frequency of

recreational trail use along the MMM Trail

System. During the summer of 2004, NPS and its

study partners developed and distributed a

questionnaire to Connecticut and Massachusetts

property owners whose lands intersect (cross) or

abut (lie near) the trail system.

The questionnaire responses received indicated

that a wide variety of recreational uses (permitted

or not) have been observed along the trail system

by property intersectors and abutters. The types

of uses observed and the number of observations

of each use (by responding land parcels) were

reported as follows, see Table 2

Property owners (both intersectors and abutters)

strongly indicated that hiking, other passive, and

non-motorized uses of the trails are preferred.

The types of uses desired and the number of

responses (by land parcel) desiring them were

reported as follows, see Table 3.
18 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

E. Demographics of Adjacent Trail Towns

Connecticut

The Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails in

Connecticut travel through some of the more

densely populated and developed areas of the

state, while also crossing rural and lightly

populated areas. Generally suburban in nature,

these communities (similar to Connecticut as a

whole) show signs of significant growth pressures

occurring over the last two decades that are

changing the area’s landscape.

The communities of New Britain, Meriden and

Middletown are considered to be small cities in

their own right, with fairly high population

densities and urban downtown areas. Avon,

Berlin, Bloomfield, Farmington, Plainville,

Southington, and West Hartford are bedroom

communities for the City of Hartford, while

North Branford, Guilford, Madison, and

Wallingford serve as growing bedroom communities for New Haven and parts of upper Fairfield

County. The towns of Durham, East Granby,

Middlefield, Haddam, and Suffield have retained

more of their rural nature than other Connecticut

trail towns.

Most of the municipal economies are led by

businesses in the service sector, followed by trade

and manufacturing. The communities vary in

size from 10 to 47 square miles, each operating

independently and governed by a board of chief

elected officials that is responsible for overall

town management. A number of different town

boards and commissions can address issues

affecting the trail including the chief elected

officials, conservation commissions, open space

commissions, recreation commissions, planning

commissions, and zoning commissions.

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, the Metacomet-Monadnock

Trail travels through communities that are urban,

suburban and rural in character.

The southernmost section of the trail passes

through the communities of Southwick, Agawam,

Westfield, West Springfield, and Holyoke in

Hampden County. These municipalities are

mostly suburbs to the cities of Springfield,

Massachusetts and Hartford, Connecticut and

provide a mix of rural landscapes and urban

amenities to the residents who live there. All the

communities have in recent years have seen a

sharp decline in the farming industry and an

increase in residential and commercial

development.

In Hampshire County, the trail passes through

the communities of Southampton, Easthampton,

Hadley, South Hadley, Amherst, Granby, Pelham

and Belchertown, primarily along the ridgetop of

the Mount Holyoke Range. These communities

are more suburban and rural in character, and

many of them continue to have a significant

farming industry.

To the north, the trail travels through Franklin

County and a small section of Worcester County

(in the town of Royalston) before passing into

New Hampshire. The Franklin and Worcester

County sections of the trail pass through

Shutesbury, Leverett, Wendell, Erving,

Northfield, Warwick, and Royalston. These

towns were originally settled in the mid-to-late

eighteenth century, and still possess the historically rural character of that time period. Today,

the towns remain relatively small and primarily

rural, with less dense development patterns.

F. Population:

Along its entire length, the MMM Trail System

passes through some of the most densely

populated parts of the country. According to the

2000 U.S. Census, the 39 municipalities that the

trail system is located in have a combined

population of 775,604 people and an average

population of 686 per square mile, over eight

times the national average of 80 people per

square mile. Population in the 39 towns grew

3.1% between 1990 and 2000, while overall

population growth for the same period nationally

was over 13% and in Connecticut and Massachusetts combined was 4.8%. Population growth in

towns along the trail system varied greatly from

over 22% to -9%.

When considering how many people live within

certain distances from the trail, the dichotomy of

a semi-wilderness trail experience located in the

middle of a heavily populated area becomes

clear. Nearly two million people live within 10

miles of the trail, and within 15 miles that number

increases to over 2.5 million people. A more

detailed summary of population by state follows.

View from Mount Norwottuck on MMM Trail in

Amherst, Massachusetts
National Park Service 19

Connecticut

The majority of the population along the MMM

Trail System is located in Connecticut. In the

twenty communities in Connecticut that MMM

Trail System passes through, the total population

was 526,575, according to the 2000 U.S. Census,

representing 68% of the population for the entire

39 town area.

Population per town ranged from 4,203 to 71,538

with an average population of 26,329, and a

median of 18,901. Population is less than 24,000

for 70% of the towns, and 20% have less than

8,000 people. While Connecticut ranks 4th in the

nation with a population density of 703 people

per square mile, the 20 communities through

which the trail passes had a combined population

density of 923 people per square mile, nearly 24%

higher than the state average.

Between 1990 and 2000 population in the twenty

town region, which represents approximately

15.5% of total state population, grew 3.7%, fairly

consistent with overall statewide growth of 3.6%

during the same period. Population change

varied by town over the ten year period from -

5.2% to 18.6% with 25% of the communities,

primarily mature suburban and urban areas,

having virtually no growth or negative growth,

while 40% of the communities had growth rates

at least twice the state average.

When considering population within certain

distances from the trail, it becomes clear that the

trail provides a substantial outdoor recreational

opportunity for a significant number of people in

Connecticut. According to the 2000 U.S. Census:

• 811,000 people live within 5 miles of the trail;

• 1.35 million people live within 10 miles of the

trail;

• 1.85 million live within 15 miles of the trail.

See Table 4.

Massachusetts

The Metacomet-Monadnock Trail passes

through nineteen communities in Massachusetts.

According to 2000 U.S. Census data, the total

population of these communities is 249,029. The

population per town ranges from 750 to 40,072,

with an average population of 13,107 and a

median population of 6,132 (see table below).

Fifty-eight percent of the towns have a population of less than 12,000 for, with 37% having less

than 2,000 people. Although Massachusetts

ranks 3rd in the nation with a population density

of 810 people per square mile, the MetacometMonadnock Trail travels through more rural area

of the state. The 19 communities through which

the trail passes have a combined population

density of 453 people per square mile, 44% lower

than the state average.

Between 1990 and 2000 population in the 19-

town region, which represents approximately 4%

of total state population, grew 2% less than half

of the overall state growth rate of 5.5% during the

same period. Population change varied by town

Table 4. Population Statistics: Metacomet-Mattabesett Trail in Connecticut 2000

Town Name 2000 Population % Change 1990-2000

Avon 15,832 13.60%

Berlin 18,215 8.50%

Bloomfield 19,587 0.50%

Durham 6,627 15.50%

East Granby 4,745 10.30%

Farmington 23,641 14.70%

Guilford 21,398 7.80%

Haddam 7,157 5.70%

Madison 17,858 15.30%

Meriden 58,244 -2.10%

Middlefield 4,203 7.10%

Middletown 43,167 0.90%

New Britain 71,538 -5.20%

North Branford 13,906 7.00%

Painville 17,328 0.40%

Simsbury 23,234 5.50%

Southington 39,728 3.10%

Suffield 13,552 18.60%

Wallingford 43,026 5.40%

West Hartford 63,589 5.80%

Total 526,575 3.68%

Statewide 3,405,565 3.60%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000
20 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

over the ten year period from -8.9% to 22.6%

with 58% of the communities having growth

rates less than the state average, while 26% of the

communities had growth rates at least twice the

state average.

As the trail travels further north through Massachusetts, population becomes substantially less

dense. The seven northern towns the trail passes

through in Franklin and Worcester Counties

represent only 4.4% of the total trail town

population. This section of the trail is significant

because it provides access within a short drive for

many trail users to a recreational resource that is

located in a pristine, rural environment with vast

areas of unfragmented forest . In Massachusetts,

according to the 2000 U.S. Census:

• 363,000 people live within 5 miles of the trail;

• 612,000 people live within 10 miles of the trail;

and

• 690,000 people live within 15 miles of the trail.

See Table 5.

G. Land Use

Of the 723,000 acres of land within the 39 town

area the MMM Trail System passes through, 44%

is forested, 20% is considered a combination of

open land, agricultural and turf, and another

20% is considered developed. Overall land use

trends in both states show an ongoing conversion

of forest and open land to developed land over

the last two to three decades. While the format

of the land use data was somewhat different in

each state, both data sets provide a strong

indication that residential, commercial and

industrial growth continues to expand, while

forest land, farmland and other open areas are in

decline. Over a 28 year period between 1971 and

1999 Massachusetts trails towns lost 13,452 acres

of forest land and 7,871 acres of agricultural land,

while gaining 19,243 acres of developed area. In

Connecticut trends were similar over a 17 year

period between 1985 and 2002 where trail towns

lost 11, 965 acres of forest and gained 10,930 acres

of developed area.

Connecticut

Overall land use patterns and trends within the

20-town Connecticut area show that, as with the

rest of Connecticut and southern New England,

there are ongoing growth pressures that are

causing broad changes in the landscape. The trail

corridor includes some of the most heavily

developed areas of the state.

As of 2002, nearly 25% of the land area of the 20

Connecticut municipalities that the Metacomet

and Mattabesett Trails pass through is considered

developed, while statewide the figure is estimated

at 19%. Developed area ranges widely by town

from 10% to 68%. At the same time forest cover

accounts for 45% of the 20 town area, while

statewide it is over 55%. The range of forested

area by town goes from a low of 11% to a high of

72%. Changes in land cover, which reflect to a

certain extent growth pressures, tended to mirror

statewide changes. Between 1985 and 2002 the

twenty town region lost over 13,000 acres, or 7%,

of its forest cover while increasing developed

Table 5. Population Statistics: Metacomet-Mattabesett Trail in Massachusetts 2000

Town Name 2000 Population % Change 1990-2000

Agawam 28,144 3.00%

Amherst 34,874 -1.00%

Belchertown 12,874 22.58%

Easthampton 15,994 2.94%

Erving 1,467 6.50%

Granby 6,132 10.19%

Hadley 4,793 13.28%

Holyoke 39,838 -8.85%

Leverett 1,663 -6.8%

Northfield 2,951 4.0%

Pelham 1,403 2.18%

Royalston 1,254 9.3%

Shutesbury 1,810 15.9%

South Hadley 17,196 3.06%

Southwick 8,835 15.23%

Warwick 750 1.4%

Wendell 986 9.7%

West Springfield 27,899 1.31%

Westfield 40,072 4.43%

Total 249,029 2.0%

Statewide 6,349,097 5.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000
National Park Service 21

area by nearly 11,000 acres, or 14%. This compares statewide with a decrease of nearly 6% of

forested area and an increase of almost 15% of

developed area.

Within the twenty Connecticut towns, the

developed area increased from 3.5% to nearly

28%, with three quarters of the towns experiencing an increase in developed area of more than

10%. All 20 towns saw a decrease in forested area

ranging from -2% to over -15%, with 75% of the

towns experiencing forest loss greater than the

state average. See Table 6.

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, an analysis of land use data for

the years 1971, 1985 and 1999 revealed that the

towns that the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail

passes through continue to see a loss of farmland, forests, and other previously undeveloped

land. In addition, there was an increase in

developed land without a significant increase in

population.

In 1999, 16% of the land within the 19 Massachusetts towns the trail passes through was considered developed, while statewide this figure was

estimated at 23%. The percentage of developed

area ranged widely by town, from under 3% to

over 47%. At the same time forest cover accounted for 65% of the 19 town area, while

statewide forest cover stood at 57%. The

percentage of forested area by town ranged from

28% to over 90%. Between 1970 and 1999,

residential, commercial, and industrial development increased 52% or 19,243 acres, while the

acreage of farmland declined by 18% or 7,873

acres. Forests also declined by over 5%, or 13,543

acres. At the same time, the total population for

the 19 towns increased by less than 3%.

Within the 19 Massachusetts towns along the

trail, the increase in developed area ranged from

18% to over 157%. Fifty three percent (53%) of

the towns experienced an increase in developed

area of more than 50%. All nineteen towns saw a

decrease in forested land, which ranged from -

2% to over -22%, with 32% of the towns experiencing forest loss greater than the state average.

As noted in the population statistics, the northern Franklin and Worcester County towns are

the most rural along the entire two-state trail

route, with forest and agricultural land use

dominating between 83% and 92% of the

landscape in each town. Residential land use for

these towns ranges from 6.6% to 2.3%.

See Table 7.

H. Community Involvement with the Trail

Each of the 39 communities that the MMM Trail

System passes through in Connecticut and

Massachusetts has its own relationship to the

trail. While primarily viewed as a recreational

asset, some local governments have, through

town planning efforts, taken steps to more

formally recognize the trail system as an important natural, recreational and historic resource.

Connecticut

In Connecticut, the community connections

between the trail system and towns are well

established, with a range of citizens using the trail

for recreational, social and educational purposes.

Local hiking clubs such as the New Haven

Hiking Club, Green Mountain Hiking Club, and

the Connecticut Chapter of the Appalachian

Mountain Club regularly sponsor guided hikes

along the Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails for

their members. Other organized recreational

clubs, including rock climbing, snowmobiling,

and horseback riding clubs use approved

portions of the trails for their activities. The trails

are regularly used by Boy Scout troops as an

educational setting for earning merit badges.

School programs involving the trails range from

informal class trips to more organized programs.

An example of the latter is the Metacomet Ridge

Table 6. Metacomet-Mattabesett Trail in Connecticut Landcover Profile and Change in Landcover for

20 Town Trail Region-1985-2002

Landcover Type 2002 Landcover Change in Landcover 1990-2000

Developed 23.43% 14.26%

Turf & Grass 7.63% -1.28%

Other Grass & Ag 14.05% 2.16%

Forest (Deciduous 7 Coniferous) 45.21% -6.61%

Water 2.60% -10.97%

Non-forest Wetland 0.42% 73.03%

Forested Wetland 3.75% -8.40%

Tidal Wetland 0.74% 2.21%

Barren Land 1.64% 52.53%

Utility ROW 0.52% -2.68%

100.00% n/a

Source: UConn Center fo Land Use Education and Research, 2002
22 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Interdistrict Academy (MRIA), which brings

approximately 500 middle and high school

students each school year from eight different

central Connecticut school districts to collaborate on an interdisciplinary study of the

Metacomet Ridge.

This program involves multiple, interdisciplinary

field studies, interschool visits and exchanges of

information through technology. The participating students work in interdistrict teams to collect,

organize, and analyze data and to produce

reports that can be used by the Connecticut

Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

The program enables students from a wide

variety of racial, ethnic, and sociological backgrounds to acquire and use many specific

scientific skills that are highly technical in nature.

The students use Global Positioning System

(GPS) technology for determining locations, and

scientific equipment in the field to collect

information on the Ridge’s unique geology, plant

life and animal habitats. Computers are incorporated to study the Ridge remotely using Landsat

satellite images and Geographic Information

System (GIS) software and databases.

Citizens in a number of Connecticut towns are

also involved with the Metacomet and

Mattabesett Trails through participation in

National Trails Day activities. The program was

conceived by the American Hiking Society to

focus attention on trails across the United States.

In Connecticut alone, over 100 events were

organized by CFPA in 2005 on a single day. The

types of events varied from guided trail walks to

work parties conducting trail maintenance. The

events were hosted at sites all over Connecticut,

including several on the Metacomet and

Mattabesett Trails.

Inclusion in Town Plans:

In 2001, the Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails

were designated by Connecticut’s governor as

official State Greenways. As such, they are

included in the “State Plan of Conservation and

Development” that is prepared by the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. Municipalities are required to use this advisory document as a guide when preparing their own plans

of conservation and development.

In each Connecticut municipality, state law

requires that a plan of conservation and development be developed, maintained, and updated

every ten years. These plans generally seek to

promote the orderly and beneficial growth of

towns through conservation of existing assets

and through provision for, and regulation of,

housing, commercial uses, mixed land uses, and

recreational needs. The plans often reflect the

desire of communities to promote economic

growth while maintaining a sensitivity to qualityof-life and environmental issues.

Based on a survey of conservation and development plans, 11 of the 20 Connecticut towns

surveyed had incorporated language discussing

the importance of the Metacomet or Mattabesett

Trails in their plans. An example of such language, taken from the Town of Farmington’s 1995

Plan, reads as follows:

Table 7. Land Use Change in Massachusetts Trail Towns: 1971-1999

1971 1985 1999 1971-1999

Acreage % in Acreage % in Acreage % in Acreage %

Land Use in Town Town in Town Town in Town Town Change Change

Forest 240,821 68.31% 233,355 66.25% 227,278 64.53% -13,452 -5.53%

Agricultural 43,776 12.43% 41,217 11.70% 35,903 10.19% -7,871 -17.98%

Other Open

Space &

Recreation 30,428 8.64% 31,615 8.98% 32,602 9.26% 2,080 7.38%

Residential 30,020 8.52% 37,279 10.58% 46,200 13.12% 16,182 53.91%

Commercial

Industrial &

Infrastructure 7,185 2.04% 8,763 2.49% 10,248 2.91% 3,061 42.60%

Total Acreage 352,231 100% 352,231 100% 352,231 100% 0

Source: UConn Center fo Land Use Education and Research, 2002

View of trail on Mount Holyoke range
National Park Service 23

The Metacomet Trail crosses through the eastern

portion of the Town of Farmington for approximately 5.5 miles. Such a trail system would be

extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reestablish

today. Farmington, therefore, possesses a trail of

great importance not only to its own residents, but

to Connecticut as a whole. For most of its length

through Farmington the trail exists due to the

willingness and support of private property

owners. The continued support of these private

property owners should be encouraged, while

conservation easements or open space acquisition

should be considered in some cases to ensure the

trail’s permanent protection.

Source: Town of Farmington Plan of Conservation and Development,

1995.

At least nine of the Connecticut trail towns are

currently in the process of updating their plans

of conservation and development. In some

instances, language has been proposed for these

plans by town officials or by private citizens that

refers specifically to the Metacomet or

Mattabesett Trails. An example of language

proposed in the town of Wallingford reads as

follows:

The Mattabesett Trail passes through the town of

Wallingford, providing natural, cultural, and

recreational benefits to its citizens. The town of

Wallingford views the Mattabesett Trail system as

an important component of its recreational and

open space resources. Accordingly, the future

viability of the trail system should receive priority

within any recreational and/or open space

planning activities.

Source: Connecticut Forest and Park Association

Towns have also worked together to protect the

traprock ridgelines over which much of the

Metacomet Trail travels. A statewide focus on

ridgeline protection was initiated in 1998 with the

creation of the Metacomet Ridge Compact. The

Compact serves as a guide for local land use

decision-makers when discussing land use issues

in ridge-line areas. Ultimately signed by eighteen

towns out of the nineteen ridge-line communities, this agreement committed local conservation commissions to:

• Conduct natural resource inventories in ridgeline areas.

• Prioritize these areas for protection and enter

them into local open space, conservation and

development plans.

• Help planning and zoning commissions to

rework zoning and subdivision regulations.

• Educate citizens within their communities

about the value of traprock ridge-lines.

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, there are a number of community groups that are involved in preservation of

the trail system, including conservation organizations, hiking clubs and youth groups. These

groups organize hikes and activities to provide

opportunities for outdoor recreation and

stewardship of the trail.

The Pioneer Valley Hiking Club and the Friends

of the Mt. Holyoke Range are hiking and

backpacking clubs that help maintain several

portions of the trail. The Pioneer Valley Hiking

Club offers outdoor recreation activities centered

on hiking in New England. They are committed

to land stewardship and low-impact camping.

The Friends of the Mt. Holyoke Range organizes

hikes and maintains 11 miles of trail along the Mt.

Holyoke Range.

The Berkshire Chapter of the Appalachian

Mountain Club recruits and manages a group of

volunteer “trail adopters” who maintain the trail.

Two to four times a year work parties are held to

complete trail maintenance and improvement

projects. AMC also hosts a Youth Opportunities

Program that provides training for young

workers to lead groups into the outdoors. The

program covers technical camping and leadership skills, and contains an environmental

awareness component. The Holyoke Boys and

Girls Club and the Bright Side program of the

Sisters of Charity of Providence also help

maintain sections of trail, under the supervision

of the AMC. The goal is to bring kids who

otherwise would have no interaction with nature

into the outdoors.

Inclusion in Town Plans:

A research survey of conservation and development plans for each of the 19 Massachusetts trail

towns revealed numerous references to the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail. Examples of such

references include the following:

• The 1997 Southwick Master Plan discussed a

connection between the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail and the Southwick Rail-Trail, which

at the time was still in its planning stage.

• The 1999 Holyoke Master Plan emphasized the

importance of protecting natural resources

along the Mount Tom and East Mountain

Ranges, which include a long segment of the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail. It addressed

the need for a planning process to identify

parcels that merit permanent preservation and

parcels where development might occur

without damaging natural resources.
24 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

• The 2001 Agawam Open Space and Recreation

Plan made recommendations to protect and

preserve Provin Mountain and the portions of

the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail that run

along its ridge. The mountain is relatively

undeveloped due to its steep slopes and lack of

public services. The report stated that the

town will assist the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts in its efforts to maintain the trail

for public use.

•The 2002 Pelham Open Space and Recreation

Plan identified the need to preserve access to

lands and trails. The plan stated that numerous

trails are minimally protected or unprotected,

including abandoned roads, minor trails, and

the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail. These trails

were stated to be vulnerable to destruction by

development and incompatible forestry

practices.

•The existence of the Metacomet-Monadnock

Trail is noted in the Shutesbury Open Space

and Recreation Plan (1999), which is currently

being updated by the town’s Open Space

Committee.

•The Metacomet-Monadnock Trail is mentioned

in the Leverett Open Space and Recreation

Plan. The town currently owns the Roaring

Brook Conservation Area that the trail travels

through.

• The Trail System is discussed in the Wendell

Open Space and Recreation Plan as a resource

worthy of future protection.

• There are numerous references to the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in the town of

Erving Open Space and Recreation Plan. The

plan also mentions that the town is interested

in developing a greenway recreational trail that

could possibly link with the MetacometMonadnock Trail.

• The Warwick Open Space and Recreation Plan

discusses the trail as it travels through Mount

Grace State Forest to the north and west of

Warwick Center. The plan also mentions

hiking, cross-country skiing, horseback riding

and snowmobiling trails that connect to the

Trail.

• The trail is mentioned in the 2004 Royalston

Open Space & Recreation Plan, Regional Trails

section. The plan notes that a short section of

the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail passes

through the town and is maintained by the

Appalachian Mountain Club’s Berkshire

Chapter.

I. Natural and Cultural Resources

The MMM Trail System hosts an array of diverse

eco-systems, natural resources, and culturallysignificant features. Resource specialists in

Connecticut and Massachusetts conducted

separate natural resource assessments of the trail

system in 2004 and 2005. A summary of findings

for both states follows. The full natural resource

reports, offering additional information on topics

including soils, climate, and rare and endangered

species may be found in Appendix B.

Geology and Glacial Geomorphology

The Metacomet Range is one of the best places in

the world, and the only area on the eastern

seaboard with a developed trail system, to view a

broad array of well-preserved volcanic and

sedimentary features such as columnar basalt.

The term “trap rock,” used to describe this

columnar basalt, derives from the Swedish word,

“trappa,” meaning “step.” Towers of columnar

basalt create the precipitous, west-facing cliffs so

characteristic of the Metacomet Range. Upon

exposure to air, the iron-rich minerals of basalt

turn a brownish rusty color.

Other volcanic features of interest include pillow

lava (magma that instantly cooled into rounded

shapes as it bubbled into a water body) and lava

tubes (formed as surface lava cooled while

underground lava continued to flow), both of

which are especially well exposed where the

Metacomet Trail passes through Talcott Mountain State Park in Simsbury, Connecticut.

The sedimentary layers of the Metacomet Range

hold their own fascination, principally in the

form of fossils. Dinosaur footprints abound in

certain areas, including the Mirror Lake area in

Hubbard Park, Meriden, Connecticut, and in the

sandstone bedrock at Dinosaur Footprints

Reservation to the east of Mt. Tom, Massachusetts. Fossils of bony fish remain on Totoket and

Pistapaug Mountains in Durham, Connecticut,

reminders of when fish abounded in stagnant

tropical lakes of the late Jurassic period.

Glaciers made multiple advances through central

Connecticut and Massachusetts between 2.3

million and 16,000 years ago, creating ice sheets

more than a mile deep. Dragging enormous

quantities of sediment and rock over the summits

of the Metacomet Range and other local highlands, ice sheets rounded and scarified the

bedrock surface; these scratches are still visible

on Metacomet summits today. Glacial erratics,

large boulders transported and strewn about by

glaciers, are frequent features along the Trail.

Trap rock ridges on East Peak,

Connecticut

Dinosaur footprints along the

Connecticut River, Massachusetts
National Park Service 25

Glacial till, the predominant soil type of the

region, is a mixture of materials of varying size

and composition – from sand grains to boulders –

brought and deposited by the expanding and

contracting rivers of ice. The underlying bedrock

of traprock (basalt) results in soils that are nearneutral (circumneutral) in acidity. Circumneutral

soils result in a number of plant communities that

are rare or non-existent in the rest of the state.

Other kinds of bedrock in these ridges include

sandstone and shale that result in more acidic

plant communities.

Hydrology

Fissuring and faulting of the basaltic bedrock,

and interbedding with sedimentary layers,

creates complex drainage patterns along the

Metacomet Range. Precipitation evaporates

quickly from the exposed summits. Off the

summits, water drains rapidly through talus and

glacial till, finding routes through bedrock

crevices until it encounters impermeable strata.

Water tends to collect at the surface along these

bedrock shelves, forming vernal pools (seasonally flooded depressions), seeps, and more

extensive wetlands.

The scattered vernal pools along the trail are

temporary bodies of water that provide critical

habitat for many vertebrate and invertebrate

wildlife species. Many vernal pools are filled up

by spring rains and snowmelt and dry up during

the hot, dry month of summer. Vernal pools

constitute a unique and increasingly vulnerable

type of wetland.

The valleys associated with the Metacomet

Range often constitute important groundwater

recharge areas for drinking water. Valleys

formerly covered by glacial lakes are particularly

valuable recharge areas, as deep coverage of clay

and gravel protects aquifers to a certain degree

from direct surface contamination. No fewer

than eight drinking water reservoirs occur in

association with the range.

The MMM Trail System crosses three of New

England’s premiere rivers: the Connecticut, the

Farmington, and the Westfield. It also skirts

around numerous ponds and public water supply

reservoirs, countless babbling brooks, wetlands,

vernal pools, and waterfalls. Portions of the

Farmington and Westfield Rivers have been

federally designated as National Wild and Scenic

Rivers.

The Connecticut and Westfield Rivers are of

special note. The Connecticut is New England’s

longest river, running 410 miles from the Canadian border south through Vermont, New

Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut to

Long Island Sound where it meets the Atlantic

Ocean. The huge watershed encompasses 11,260

square miles, with 148 tributaries, including 38

major rivers and numerous lakes and ponds. The

river was designated a national American

Heritage River by President Clinton.

Flowing through a break in the trap rock ridge,

the Westfield River is the first designated

National Wild and Scenic River in Massachusetts. The watershed is composed of 23 communities, 330,000 acres of land, 98,000 people, 89

state-listed rare species, 19 state forests and parks,

630 miles of rivers and streams, and hundreds of

miles of trails and scenic roads. The watershed

extends from the Berkshire Mountains to the

Connecticut River. The Westfield River is also

Massachusetts’s only regenerating Atlantic

Salmon habitat.

Biological Richness

The MMM Trail System traverses undulating

terrain with numerous climbs and descents from

sea level to over 1,600 feet. It crosses traprock

ranges, valleys, open waters, streams, and

wetlands that together create habitats for a wide

array of species.

Two major attributes explain the biological

richness and significance of the environments

along the trail: 1) high diversity of landforms; 2)

high connectivity among parcels that are protected for conservation purposes or that suffer

minimal lasting damage from human disturbance.

Because the trail system visits such varied and

unusual terrain, it is home to a concentration of

plant and animal species, several of which are

state-listed or globally rare. In fact, the trail

system and its environs constitute a “hotspot” in

the northeastern United States for rare and

declining species.

The Silvio Conte National Fish and Wildlife

Refuge, for example, has identified the Mt. Tom

and Mt. Holyoke Range areas in Massachusetts

as “special focus areas’ containing significant

biological features. The MMM Trail System

Mount Holyoke Range and Connecticut River in

Massachusetts
26 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

crosses both mountain ranges, which, according

to the Conte Refuge, contain over 30 rare plant

and animal species. Additional information

concerning biological features along the Trail

system may be found in Appendix C.

Vegetation

The traprock ridges along the Connecticut River

Valley have a high diversity of plant communities

and species. Traprock ridges have a characteristic

ecology due to their exposed summits with little

or no soil, steep rocky cliffs with scattered small

ledges and cracks, and a talus slope built from

boulders that have broken off the cliff. A few

stunted trees grow on the summits including red

cedar, dwarf oak, hickory, and white ash. Forests

dominated by hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) are

very common along the lower slopes and at

brook crossings. The base of the talus slope is

often the most diverse of the traprock habitats.

This area is typically dominated by sugar maple,

ash and basswood. Wetlands form in level areas

and at the base of slopes.

The mixed transitional hardwood forests of

hemlock and oak typically have a higher and

denser canopy than the drier, upland woodlands.

Red oak, sugar maple, white ash, and hickory

share the canopy in various proportions.

Hemlock is widespread and variable in the

under-story, along with black, white, and yellow

birch and hop hornbeam.

In sections, the trail passes through reclamation

stands of young red pines and stands of old sugar

maples on the sites of abandoned farms. Occasional specimen trees – black birch, red oak,

white pine, white oak, or hemlock that exceed 40

inches in diameter – are found, but there are no

known areas of old growth or virgin forest. The

state forest land and private lands crossed by the

trail tend to be harvested periodically.

Mountain laurel, witch hazel, striped maple, and

maple-leaf viburnum are the most common

shrubs forming a relatively dense shrub layer. The

herb layer varies in density but includes a more

acidic plant association of teaberry, clubmosses,

marginal fern, Christmas fern, sedges, and

grasses. Certain wild shrubs pose threats to the

integrity of the natural communities, including

Japanese barberry, multiflora rose, and glossy

buckthorn.

The wooded swamp is the most common

wetland type in southern New England and the

type of wetland generally found along the trail

corridor. These areas are dominated by red

maple (Acer rubrum) with slippery elm often

present in smaller numbers. Other common

plants of this habitat include the shrub known as

spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and non-woody

plants such as skunk cabbage, cinnamon fern and

jack-in-the pulpit.

Wildlife

Because they are relatively undeveloped,

traprock ridges are home to many animals,

including some rare and endangered species.

The Mount Tom ridge is an example of an

important habitat for amphibians and reptiles.

Thirty-eight species of amphibians and reptiles

have been recorded on the Mount Tom ridge,

representing 76% of all herp species found in

Massachusetts (TTOR, 2005). Of these, the rarest

species include marbled salamander, box turtle,

wood turtle, copperhead snake, timber rattlesnake, and black rat snake.

Hemlock forested areas are popular places for

deer in the winter due to their ability to hold a lot

of snow in their canopy, leaving the forest floor

less deep in snow pack. Hemlock needles are

preferred food for white-tailed deer and porcupine like to feed on hemlock bark and twigs.

Ridge tops along the MMM Trail System are also

a valuable stop-over habitat for migratory birds.

A breeding land bird pre-survey conducted by

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2003

documented blackburnian warbler, blackthroated blue warbler, blue-winged warbler,

northern parula, and yellow-rumped warbler.

Goat Peak and Mount Holyoke in Massachusetts

are known for their hawk migration viewing

spots.

Cultural and Historic Resources

Native American History

Connecticut and Massachusetts have been

occupied by humans for at least 10,000 years, and

human activity has resulted in critical influences

on the landscapes of the MMM Trail System.

In Connecticut, Native American activity was

intense throughout the central portion of the

state, with the Niantic tribes focused on the

mouth of the Connecticut

River and the Mohegan-Pequot tribes inhabiting

areas to the east. Quinnipiac Indians were

known to create settlements in the Branford and

Guilford areas. Numerous Archaic and Woodland sites dating from 9,000 BC are documented

from the region, particularly where stream

tributaries meet the main stem of large rivers like

the Connecticut. Low, flat river terraces were

preferentially occupied during spring to fall,

Box Turtle
National Park Service 27

when foragers exploited rich shellfish beds and

anadromous fish. Basalt was used for flint and

arrowheads.

The name of the Metacomet Trail commemorates

an important Native American figure who once

occupied the region. Chief Metacomet (aka

“King Philip”), son of the

Wampanoag ally of the Pilgrims, Massasoit, is the

trail’s most notorious namesake,

leading some of the most damaging attacks

against white settlers throughout

Massachusetts and Connecticut in the 1670’s.

The promontories of the Metacomet Range

served as strategic lookout points for mounting

raids on the nascent towns of Connecticut.

Legends, many apocryphal, ascribe natural

landmarks such as “King Phillip’s Cave” (a lava

tunnel visible from the Trail at Talcott Mountain)

to famous battles between Native Americans and

colonists.

Native Americans likely exerted profound local

influences on the structure of

natural communities in the region, but their

precise impacts are still being reconstructed.

Deer hunting, fishing, and plant gathering would

have been the predominant activities during the

Woodland Period. Intentional burns may have

been used in limited ways to concentrate wildlife,

or to promote growth of blueberries or nutbearing trees, but evidence for major fires with

large-scale impacts on forests is not conclusive.

The MMM Trail System in Massachusetts

parallels several Native American trails
28 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Pollen evidence suggests that forests during

Native American occupation were dominated by

chestnut (Castanea dentata), oak (Quercus spp.),

beech (Fagus grandifolia), hickory (Carya spp.),

and pine (Pinus spp.), with chestnuts and

hickories providing a major food source. Sedentary agriculture did not commence until after

1,000 years AD, with some tribes in central

Connecticut planting corn, sunflowers, and

squash. Cultivation would have required only

limited land clearing using axes and hoes.

Although no record has been found of specific

Native American dwellings along the trail

corridor in Massachusetts, their presence in the

region is well documented. Regional control of

the Connecticut River valley from Connecticut in

the south to Vermont in the north was attributed

to the Pocumtucs belonging to the Algonquian

tribe.

The Pocumtucs were principally located near

Deerfield in a town of the same name. A branch

of the Pocumtucs, the Agawams were a native

group who by the 17th century are said to have

claimed control of the land situated within the

Connecticut River drainage area between Enfield

Falls in Enfield, Connecticut and South Hadley

Falls in South Hadley Massachusetts. By around

1660, most of the Agawams had moved across the

Connecticut River to live in a village on what is

now Long Hill Street in Springfield. This corresponds to the dates at which the first permanent

homes were established in Agawam.

The territory to the east was held by another

Algonquin tribe called the Nipmucs. The Nipmuc

occupied the central plateau of Massachusetts as

far west as the Connecticut River, concentrating

in the southern part of Worcester County, but

also extending into Northern Rhode Island and

Connecticut. The territory to the west of the

Pocumtuc region was controlled by the

Mohicans, extending over most of Berkshire

County where they were represented mainly by

the Housatonic or Stockbridge Indians. The fort

of the Pocumtuc proper, on Fort Hill near

Deerfield, was destroyed by the Mohawk in 1666.

The Pocumtoc combined with the Narraganset

and Tunxis in attacks on the Mohegan chief

Uncas, and later joined the hostile Indians under

King Philip. At the close of the [King Philip] war,

they fled to Scaticook on the Hudson, where

some of them remained until 1754, going then to

St. Francis, Canada.

Estimates vary greatly, but it is probable that no

more than 5,000 Indians were left in all of New

England by 1636 when William Pynchon and his

partners from the Massachusetts Bay Colony

established the plantation of Agaam (or Agawam)

which was later to be known as Springfield. The

twenty-five square mile town was bisected by the

Connecticut River and included Provin Mountain along its western boundary.

It is highly probable that the Agawam Indians

traveled regular paths through the Provin

Mountain Range to connect two well-traveled

trails on each side of it. The mountain range and

the Connecticut River separated two well

documented native trails. The Podunk path led

through their land on the east side of the

Connecticut River and the great ‘Maya’ or trail

that led from Quinnipiac (New Haven) to

Canada, crossed through ‘Mayawauk’ (West

Suffield) and Feeding Hills and Westfield. Old

English records speak of this as the Hampton and

Westfield paths. A secondary north-south trail

along the east base of the Provin Mountain range

existed from the Paucatuck ford on the Westfield

River to Johnson Corner in Agawam.

Native American tribes, namely the Pocumtucks,

maintained agriculture in the fertile river

floodplains of the Westfield River. Native

settlement probably concentrated in the floodplains during the spring fishing months. Historically (1500-1620), a possible ford existed at

Paucatuck across the Westfield River at May

Hole. Paucatuck is within the river floodplain,

east of East Mountain and in the vicinity of the

junction of Paucatuck Brook and the Westfield

River. See map on page 33.

As the trail travels north to its intersection with

the Connecticut River, there is evidence of a

fortified native site on Fort Hill near the Connecticut River oxbow in Easthampton. Native

Americans likely hunted on the Mount Tom

Range with farming in the fertile river valley

lowlands. Local natives were likely involved in

the valley Anglo-Indian fur trades between 1500

and 1620.

View of the Mount Holyoke Range from Hadley farmland

in Massachusetts
National Park Service 29

Due to river meandering and seasonal flooding,

Native American sites within the floodplain of

the Connecticut River have never been fully

documented. However, it is suspected that the

Pocumtucs lived at the Hockanum flats area of

the Connecticut River floodplain in Hadley.

Local farmers and area historians have found

numerous arrowheads and other stone implements. Further documenting their existence in

the region, between 1675 and 1775, colonial

troops were attacked repeatedly by native tribes

at settlements in Hockanum Flats during King

Philip’s War. Today, this area is some of the most

productive farmland in the entire valley.

Native sites are also suspected around

Metacomet Lake, located southeast of the MMM

Trail on Section 9 in Belchertown. The three area

lakes (Metacomet, Holland, and Arcadia) were

probably the focal point of native fishing.

European Settlement

Europeans entered Connecticut in the 1630s, and

large-scale land clearing, homesteading, tilling,

and grazing of the Connecticut River and

Farmington River valleys began in the 1650’s

(Feder 1999). Intentional fires and logging

became widespread throughout the next century,

transforming a largely forested landscape to a

pastoral one. This activity shifted forest composition to young, disturbance-tolerant stands

dominated by birch (Betula spp.), maple (Acer

spp.), pine (Pinus spp.), cherry (Prunus spp.), and

poplar (Populus spp.). Many house foundations

of the 1700’s were built of trap rock collected

from the bases of talus slopes along the

Metacomet Range.

Industrialization during the early 1800’s led to the

construction of innumerable dams on large and

small rivers, providing hydro-energy for mills,

and altering the courses and flow dynamics of

many waterways. Logging to provide wood

fuel for local foundries and other industries may

have denuded some portions of the Metacomet

ridge from valley to summit. A large traprock

quarry opened on East Rock (New Haven,

Connecticut) in 1810, and large-scale extraction

of traprock to provide crushed paving stone and

brownstone for a large number of buildings in

the Northeast and beyond began in the 1850’s.

In the 1830’s to 1850’s, increasing urbanization,

population pressure, and large-scale exploitation

of the New England landscape stirred a new

aesthetic appreciation among the populace for

the remaining natural areas of the region. Henry

David Thoreau, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and

painters of the emerging Hudson River School

(Thomas Cole, Thomas Charles Farrar, William

Henry Bartlett, and others) extolled the virtues of

nature in writings and artwork. The painters in

particular flocked to the Metacomet Range to

capture its grandeur and views.

In 1836 Thomas Cole visited the summit of Mt.

Holyoke and created one of the most well-known

paintings of the era: View from Mount Holyoke,

Massachusetts after a Thunderstorm. Interestingly,

the paintings of this time reveal the mountains as

some of the only forested land in a sea of agriculture and rural settlement, indicating that some of

the mountains may have provided a critical refuge

for plant and animal species for hundreds of years.

Buildings dating from this period began to spring

up along the summits of the Metacomet Range

from Massachusetts to Connecticut. The historic

Heublein Tower atop Talcott Mountain, for

example, was the fourth in a series of towers built

at the site from 1810 to 1914 (Leary 2004). Eminent

visitors to these landmarks made the range

famous: Mark Twain quoted his friend, the

Reverend Joseph Twichell issuing the cry, “Just

look at this magnificent autumn landscape! Look

at it! Look at it! Feast your eyes on it!”

While the ridge was never densely populated, it

was (and continues to be) a popular day-trip

destination for tourists, students, and artists. This

popularity created the impetus for the establishment of a protected system of hiking trails, among

the first of its kind in the United States.

Local hiking trails attracted visitors from mediumsized, decentralized urban areas (Hartford,

Meriden, New Haven, etc.) throughout the state.

In the late 1800’s, philanthropic industrialists

donated large areas of land for parks and recreational areas. By 1895, the Connecticut Forestry

Association (later called the Connecticut Forest

and Park Association) formed with a mission to

preserve woodlands, and the state of Connecticut

formed a park commission in 1913. Many of the

protected areas cobbled together during this time

were very small, but emphasized the same kind of

views that had thrilled Twain and many others.

Frederick W. Kilbourne, a Meriden resident,

pioneered the idea of a “Trap Rock Trail” to span

the distance from Long Island Sound to the

Massachusetts border in 1918, and Edgar Laing

Heermance took the project forward. By 1929, the

Connecticut Forest and Park Association devised

its first Trails Committee, and the concept of the

Blue-Blazed Hiking Trail System was inaugurated.

The cumulative effect of this land protection and

outreach was the creation of a trail of almost 50

miles, a corridor of green in an urbanized context

unlike any other trail before it.
30 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Socially, the trail system permitted a burgeoning

number of recreation seekers to gain a new

appreciation for Connecticut’s natural ecosystems, and engaged a new class of volunteers in

construction and maintenance. An utterly new

literary genre – the trail guide – was invented to

educate trail users about their environs, and the

trail received a great deal of attention in the

popular press of the time. Ecologically, the

formation of the Metacomet and Mattabesett

Trails led to the long-term conservation of

dozens of contiguous miles of relatively intact

habitat.

Historic and Culturally Significant Areas

A number of noteworthy sites of historical or

cultural significance exist along the MMM Trail

System corridor in Connecticut and Massachusetts, including:

Connecticut:

The Connecticut State Archaeologists Office

provided a list of 23 sites along or near the trail

that are known archaeological or historic sites.

Eleven of the sites are considered highly significant, with 8 of them having National Registry

potential, and two are already listed on the

National Register. In addition, the study team

identified a number of other culturally significant areas. Some of the more significant

resources include:

Castle Craig. A tower built with native trap rock

and donated to the city of Meriden, Connecticut

by local industrialist Walter Hubbard, this 32-

foot tall structure is part of a 1,800-acre municipal park. Views to Long Island Sound and the

hills of Massachusetts are visible.

Guilford Historic Town Center and Clapboard Hill District. A proposed extension of

the Mattabesett Trail south to Long Island Sound

would pass by homes included on the National

Historic Register and through the Guilford

Historic Town Center District.

Historic Town Center District. Numerous

abandoned carriage and stagecoach roads

intersect the Trail in the towns of Haddam,

Durham, and Middlefield, providing evidence of

early regional transportation routes.

Hospital Rock. A State Archaeological Preserve

surrounds “Small Pox Hospital Rock” in

Farmington, a monument to the quarantine at the

site of colonial-era Farmington and Hartford

residents afflicted by smallpox.

Heublein Tower. The present day tower (located

in Simsbury in Talcott Mountain State Park) is

the fourth in a series of towers built at the site

from 1810 to 1914. Heublein Tower is recognized

as a National Register Site and is open to the

public. The Metacomet Trail travels approximately 1/4 of a mile to the south of the tower.

Nike Missile Installation. An abandoned

concrete base that once stored Nike military

missiles is located just off the trail in Plainville.

Table 8. MMM Trail System in Connecticut and Massachusetts: Landownership Profile

Ownership Miles of % Total # of % Total # of % Total

Type Trail Trail Owners Owners Parcels Parcels

Individuals 37.2 19.58% 355.0 57.91% 391.0 36.54%

Corporate 28.8 15.14% 56.0 9.14% 130.0 12.15%

Municipal 17.7 9.32% 25.0 4.08% 67.0 6.26%

State 40.2 21.15% 9.0 1.47% 118.0 11.03%

Non Profit 11.2 5.88% 17.0 2.77% 43.0 4.02%

Water Utility 24.3 12.77% 11.0 1.79% 47.0 4.39%

Roads,

crossings 24.9 13.10% 6.0 0.98% 16.0 1.50%

Miscellaneous 5.8 3.06% 134.0 21.86% 258.0 24.11%

Total 189.9 100% 613 100% 1070 100%

Castle Craig in Meriden, Connecticut
National Park Service 31

Old Newgate Prison. This 18th and 19th century

prison and copper mine lies within one mile of

the Metacomet Trail in East Granby, and can be

seen from the Metacomet Trail atop Copper

Mountain. The site is listed on the National

Register of Historic Places and is maintained by

the State of Connecticut with the support of local

partners.

Selectman Stones. At a point on the Mattabesett

Trail where the town boundaries of Durham,

Guilford and Madison intersect lie a pile of

inscribed rocks known as Selectman Stones. It

was common practice once, and still is in some

towns, for elected officials to be required to walk

the boundaries of their towns once elected. As

proof that they completed this task (called

perambulating the border) they would inscribe a

rock with the date or their name and leave it at

the corner of the town boundary. These piles of

stones still exist along the Mattabesett Trail.

Washington-Rochambeau Route. The

Mattabesett Trail intersects the WashingtonRochambeau Revolutionary Route, a network of

land and water routes traversing nine states over

which traveled the American and French armies

and navies at various times between June 1781 and

December, 1782. The Route was studied by the

National Park Service in 2003 for possible

designation as a National Historic Trail. Washington himself is believed to have traveled what is

now the Mattabesett Trail twice, once on his way

to assume command of the new American

revolutionary army and again in 1789 when he

was elected President.

Will Warren’s Den. At a site along the

Metacomet Trail in Farmington is a cave where,

according to legend, a 17th century local citizen

named Will Warren was hidden by Native

Americans. Warren had tried to burn down the

village of Farmington after he was flogged for not

going to church. Driven out of town and pursued

into the mountains, he hid in the cave, which

Table 9. Metacomet and Mattabesett Trail in Connecticut: Landownership Profile

Ownership Miles of % of Total # of % of Total # of % of Total

Type Trail Trail Owners Owners Parcels Parcels

Private Individ. 15.0 13.6% 204 74.5% 215 46.4%

Private Corp. 19.5 17.6% 31 11.3% 84 18.1%

Municipal 14.9 13.5% 15 5.5% 50 10.8%

State 14.7 13.3% 7 2.6% 41 8.9%

Non Profit 6.6 6.0% 10 3.6% 35 7.6%

Water Utility 15.4 13.9% 7 2.6% 23 5.0%

Roads 19.8 17.9% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Miscellaneous 4.8 4.3% 0 0.0% 15 3.2%

Total 110.7 100% 274 100% 463 100%

today bears a bronze plaque recounting the

legend.

Massachusetts:

Beehive Kilns. East of the Rattlesnake Gutter

area of the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail can be

found a series of kilns used in the production of

charcoal during the 1800’s.

Central Vermont Railroad. Built between 1845-

1849 by Charles Paine, the 116-mile line was part

of a railroading operation that by 1873 controlled

793 miles of track in four states, making it the

largest railroad in New England and seventh

largest in the U.S. The line was sold approximately

ten years ago to the New England Central

Railroad, and is still in operation today. The

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail crosses the railroad

tracks near Route 9 and Holland Glen in

Belchertown.

Fifth Massachusetts Turnpike. In Warwick, the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail turns southeast

down an old county road, formerly the old

Boston-Albany Toll Road known as the Fifth

Massachusetts Turnpike.

Hermit Mountain and Erving Castle Trail. In

Erving, the Metacomet-Monadnock Trial crosses

a side trail built in 1998 by a federally funded

AmeriCorps trail crew to allow visits to the 1800’s

cave home of the hermit John Smith, who came to

Beehive Kiln, Leverett, Massachusetts
32 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Table 10. Metacomet and Mattabesett Trail in Massachusetts: Landownership Profile

Ownership Miles of % of Total # of % of Total # of % of Total

Type Trail Trail Owners Owners Parcels Parcels

Individuals 22.2 28.00% 151.0 72.25% 176.0 47.83%

Corporate 9.3 11.68% 25.0 11.96% 46.0 12.50%

Municipal 2.8 3.525 10.0 4.78% 17.0 4.62%

State 25.5 32.14% 2.0 0.96% 77.0 20.92%

Non Profit 4.6 5.78% 7.0 3.35% 8.0 2.17%

Water Utility 8.9 11.18% 4.0 1.91% 24.0 6.52%

Roads,

crossings, 5.1 6.42% 6.0 2.87% 16.0 4.35%

Miscellaneous 1.0 1.28% 4.0 1.91% 4.0 1.09%

Total 79.2 100% 209 100% 368 100%

the area from the British Isles and lived an

isolated, eccentric existence here for more than

10 years.

J.A. Skinner State Park. The 390-acre Skinner

State Park in Hadley offers breathtaking views of

the Connecticut River Valley. The summit is

accessible by road from April through November,

and by hiking trails year-round, including the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail. The Summit

House, once a well-known mountain top hotel in

the mid-1800’s, is a popular destination point

offering tours, programs, historical displays, and

special events. Other historic sites within the Park

include:

• Titan’s Piazza – A well-known columnar trap

rock formation and cliff named by Amherst

College Geology Professor Edward Hitchcock

in the 1830’s. One is able to overlook the

Connecticut River and valley while standing

atop it.

Mount Holyoke Range State Park. The

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail travels through

this recreational area in Amherst in close

proximity to the following sites:

• The Horse Caves – A series of overhanging

ledges where Daniel Shays, a former Revolutionary Army captain, hid horses used in the

farmer’s rebellion known as Shay’s Rebellion.

• US Air Force Bunker – The U.S. Air Force

Strategic Air Command built a massive

underground communications bunker

featuring three-foot thick walls and steel blast

doors. In the event of a nuclear war, it was

designed to hold 350 people for 35 days. The

facility was expanded in 1962. In 1972, the

Bunker complex was sold to the Federal

Reserve Bank for record storage.

Mount Tom State Reservation. Mount Tom

State Reservation in Holyoke is recognized for

both its historic significance to the region and

also its cultural importance today. Mount Tom

itself boasts an unparalleled view of the Connecticut Valley north and south, the Berkshire

Historic illustration of Mount Holyoke Summit House

Cable car to Summit House

The Horse Caves
National Park Service 33

mountains to the west, and the Pelham Hills to

the east. The 1,800-acre reservation includes the

following sites of cultural and historic significance:

• Eryie House, Mount Nonotuck - Ruins of an

old hotel, the Eryie House is located on Mount

Nonotuck, the northern most peak on the

Mount Tom Range. The Eryie House was built

in 1861 by William Street, a wealthy entrepreneur from Holyoke, and was located near the

Mount Tom train depot at Smiths Ferry on the

Connecticut River.

• Mountain Park – In 1895, the Holyoke Street

Railway Company began construction of

Mountain Park, a trolley and amusement park

at the base of Mount Tom. The park opened in

1897 and was a popular attraction for both

locals and tourists for decades. In its heyday,

Mountain Park was the largest street railway

park in the world, comprising more than 400

acres.

• Mount Tom Summit House and the Mount

Tom Railroad – The Holyoke Street Railway

Company opened the Mount Tom Summit

House with the opening of Mountain Park in

1897. The Summit House featured a restaurant,

constant entertainment, and a spectacular view.

Access to the Summit House was by way of two

counter-balanced trolleys.

• The Airmen Monument – In 1946, a B-17

converted into a transport plane crashed into

the side of Mount Tom, killing 25 people. A

monument in memory of those who died was

erected at the site of the crash.

Old Adams Homestead. The MMM Trail passes

the Old Adams Homestead in Shutesbury, MA,

formerly owned by Walter Banfield, the developer of the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in

Massachusetts. The site contains an old farmhouse, mill pond, and mill works.

Westfield-Holyoke Street Car Route. Between

1620 and 1675 an interior route across the East

Mountain ridge was maintained as Whitney and

Rock Valley Roads in the vicinity of Ashley Pond

in Holyoke. Between 1870 and 1915 a trolley route

to Westfield was established across East Mountain on a private way to Appremont Highway in

Westfield. The streetcar service was abandoned

in the 1920’s. The abandoned road bed still exists

today, and is briefly intersected by the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail.

J. Ownership and Protection of the Trail

Land Ownership Profile

The 190-mile MMM Trail System travels through

1,070 parcels of land owned by 613 landowners in

Connecticut and Massachusetts. The largest

group of trail landowners are individuals and

corporations, who combined account for 35% of

the total trail length. The states are the next

largest landowner with 21% of the trail. Over 13%

of the current trail (almost all of it located in

Connecticut) is on roads, most of which are

either woods roads or small local roads. These

statistics do not include an additional 10 miles of

trail that are not officially part of the MMM Trail

System but connect various portions of the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in Massachusetts.

See Table 8.

Connecticut

The Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails in

Connecticut travel approximately 110 miles,

crossing 463 parcels of land owned by 274

landowners. Landownership along the trails is a

diversified mix of ownership types. The largest

portion of trail length, over 31%, is privately

owned by individuals and corporations, with

water utilities, municipalities and the state of

Connecticut each owning approximately 13%.

Private individuals account for nearly 75% of all

trail owners, owning 46% of the parcels the trail

passes through.

97% of the trail length owned by non-profit

organizations is owned by land conservation

organizations such as the Nature Conservancy

Historic illustrations of Mount Tom Summit House
34 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

and local land trusts. While there are 31 corporate owners identified along the trail, five

corporate landowners host 79% of the corporately owned trail. These major owners include

two traprock quarry operations and the primary

electric utility in the state.

While the largest portion of trail is shown to be

on roads a majority of that, 53%, is either on

woods roads traveling through state parks and

forests or small local roads traveling through

neighborhoods. Only 6.4% of the trail is

considered to be on secondary roads and 2% on

primary roads. Four key junctures in the trail

account for 50% of the trail that is on road, these

include where the Mattabesett Trail crosses

Interstate 91 (3.4 miles), where the Metacomet

Trail crosses Interstate 84 (1.6 miles), where the

Mattabesett and Metacomet Trails come together

(2.6 miles) and where the Metacomet Trail

intersects with the Metacomet-Monadnock

Trail traveling into Massachusetts (2.2 miles). See

Table 9.

Massachusetts

The Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in Massachusetts travels 79 miles, crossing 368 parcels owned

by 209 landowners. Private ownership, both

individual and corporate, is the largest landowner type, accounting for 40% of the total trail

length. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts

owns another 32% of the trail while the remaining five landownership categories account for

28% of the trail length. Private individuals and

corporations account for 86% of all 213 landowners and own 66% of the 407 parcels the trail

passes through.

Over 6% of the total trail length is associated

with roads or road crossings, substantially lower

than Connecticut’s nearly 18%.

As reported above, these statistics do not include

an additional 10 miles of trail consisting of 44

parcels owned by a single private landowner,

Cowl’s Lumber, that is not officially part of the

MMM Trail System but connects various

portions of the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in

Massachusetts. See Table 10.

Level of Protection

Trail “protection” generally refers to efforts to

establish or preserve the right for the trail to exist

in a certain location and have public access.

Most of the history of trail ownership and

protection along the entire MMM Trail System

has been that of handshakes and verbal agreements sufficing for permission to locate and

maintain the trail route.

The amount of protected trail on the MMM Trail

System was determined by the mileage of the trail

which crossed lands that could be considered

permanently protected open space. Lands

considered permanently protected include state

forest and park lands, municipal lands and

nonprofit land conservancy lands. Water utility

lands in Massachusetts were also considered

permanently protected.

Currently 72.7 miles, over 38% of the total trail

length, of the MMM Trail System is considered

permanently protected. An additional 20.4 miles

or nearly 11% of the trail is considered partially

protected between the two states.

Connecticut

The Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails cross

state forest and park lands, municipal lands and

nonprofit land conservancy lands for 36.2 miles,

or 33%, of the total trail system in Connecticut.

In Connecticut, there are only a very few

instances where trail easements have been

established to permanently protect the trail

location and their total trail length was found to

be an insignificant amount of the total trail.

The trail also crosses municipal and private water

utility lands. In Connecticut lands owned by

water utilities that are considered either class one

or class two based on public health code definition, have a fairly high level of protection (see CT

Dept. of Public Health Public Health Code 25-

37c-1 for details). As a result it was determined

these sections of trail that cross water utility

lands could be considered partially protected in

Connecticut. The total trail length on class one

or two water utilities lands is 11.8 miles or 10% of

the total trail length.

The overall trail length on either permanently

protected or partially protected lands totals 48

miles, or 43%, of the total trail length in Connecticut.

Through Public Act 490 (CGS Sections 12-107a

through 107-f) Connecticut has a local property

tax abatement program that provides the ability

for landowners to achieve substantial local

property tax savings by agreeing to keep their

lands in farm, forest or open space. While this

may provide the trail with some partial protection data was not available to assess the amount

of trail on “490” lands in Connecticut. All other

land ownership types were not considered to

provide any significant trail protection.
National Park Service 35

View of Connecticut River from MMM Trail

Massachusetts

A large portion of the Metacomet-Monadnock

Trail in Massachusetts is located on protected

lands. In all 36.5 miles, or 46%, of the trail

travels across state parks, public water supplies,

and municipal conservation properties and is

considered protected. In Massachusetts it was

determined that water utility lands provide

permanent protection for the trail, which differs

from Connecticut.

A total of 8.6 miles or 11% of the MetacometMonadnock Trail crosses lands in the Chapter 61

program and as such are considered temporarily

protected. Chapter 61 is designed to encourage

the preservation and enhancement of the

Commonwealth’s forests. It offers significant

local tax benefits to property owners willing to

make a long term commitment to forestry. In

exchange for these benefits, the municipality in

which the land is located is given the right to

recover some of the tax benefits afforded the

owner when the land is removed from classification and an option to purchase the property

should the land be sold or used for non-forestry

uses. However, land that is protected for forestry

purposes does not carry an obligation for

continued trail permission.

The overall trail length on either permanently

protected or partially protected lands totals 45.1

miles, or 57%, of the total trail length in Massachusetts.
36 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Cedar tree along the MMM Trail
National Park Service 37

Significance Evaluation

Section (5) (b) of the National Trails System Act

identifies a set of factors to be addressed in

studies of potential new National Scenic Trails.

The following sections describe each of the

criteria in Section (5) (b), and specifies how the

MMM Trail System meets them.

National Trails System Act Factors – Sec. (5)

(b):

A. The proposed route of the trail:

The route of the MMM Trail System generally

follows the existing route of three contiguous

trails – the Metacomet-Monadnock, the

Metacomet, and the Mattabesett – that travel

more than 190 miles in a north-south direction

from the Massachusetts-New Hampshire border

south towards Long Island Sound. The portion

of the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail included in

the route is located entirely within Massachusetts, while the Mattabesett and Metacomet

Trails are located entirely within Connecticut. As

it exists today, this route is consistent with The

National Trails System Act Section 3(b) description of an extended trail.

The MMM Trail System route avoids wherever

possible highways and other roads, mining areas,

power transmission lines, commercial and

industrial developments, private operations, and

other activities that might detract from the trail’s

recreational purposes. The historical design of

the trail is tailored to highlight regional landscape

features and to provide views of scenic, natural,

and geologic resources.

In Connecticut, Public Law 107-338 directed the

National Park Service to examine the feasibility

of extending the Mattabesett Trail south to a new

terminus at Long Island Sound. A route has been

determined to be feasible and is one that would

add desirable new features to the overall trail

system. The proposed extension of the trail

would travel through state forests, protected

water utility lands, two village sites listed on the

National Register of Historic Places, and coastal

environments including tidal marshes and a

public beach.

In Massachusetts, the route that is proposed for

inclusion in the National Scenic Trail program

would also deviate from the existing alignment of

the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail over an

approximately fifteen-to-twenty mile section in

the Belchertown-Leverett area. The deviation

would re-route the trail between the Mt. Holyoke

Range and Wendell State Forest, along existing

unpaved roads and trails in the Quabbin Reservoir area, rejoining the existing MetacometMonadnock Trail alignment south of the Route 2

highway crossing. The intention of this proposed, conceptual National Scenic Trail route

would take advantage of substantial protected

lands owned by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, while avoiding an area almost completely devoid of protected land areas.

B. The areas adjacent to the trail to be

utilized for scenic, historic, natural, cultural

or developmental purposes:

The MMM Trail System hosts an array of scenic

features and historic sites. Long vistas of rural

towns, agrarian lands, extensive unfragmented

forests, and large river valleys, as well as pathways

through important Native American and colonial

landmarks showcase some of the best examples

of classic New England landscapes that are

unique in the nation.

The Trail System harbors a range of diverse ecosystems and natural resources, including

mountain summits, forested glades, vernal pools,

lakes, streams and waterfalls. Assessments of

these ecosystems and resources have been

completed for both the Connecticut and Massachusetts portions of the trail, as described in

Section III and Appendix B.

At numerous points along the existing trail route,

the MMM Trail System intersects or travels near

a number of points of national or regional

environmental, historic or cultural interest.

Columnar basalt is displayed at Titan’s These intersecting or adjacent features are Piazza, South Hadley, Massachusetts
38 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

described throughout the study report document, and include:

Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge

This 7.2 million acre site protects the biodiversity

of the Connecticut River Watershed. The Conte

Refuge works with numerous partners to acquire

key parcels, to better manage already protected

land, and to educate the citizens within the

watershed about important habitat issues.

The Connecticut River

Designated a National American Heritage River

by President Clinton, the Connecticut River is

one of New England’s premier natural resources.

The Mattabesett Trail begins near the banks of

the Connecticut, and in Massachusetts the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail directly intersects

the river.

The Metacomet and Mt. Holyoke Mountain

Ranges

The MMM Trail System traverses these scenic

ranges for much of its length. The Mt. Holyoke

Range has been identified as an area of special

focus by the Silvio O. Conte National Wildlife

Refuge Action Plan of 1995.

National Historic Landmarks, National Historic

Sites, State-registered Historic Districts and

Properties

Several federally-recognized sites are located

within close proximity to the MMM Trail System.

They provide examples of New England colonial

architecture, lifestyle, and industry. Chapter II of

this report contains a summary of these resources and sites.

Connecticut and Massachusetts State Forests and

Parks

The trail system intersects ten state-managed

forests and parks at various locations along its

length. See Chapter II and Appendix B for

additional information.

C. The characteristics which, in the judgment

of the appropriate Secretary, make the

proposed trail worthy of designation as a

national scenic trail

The MMM Study team has identified the main

characteristics for consideration in evaluating

National Scenic Trail status applicability, as

described in the following sections.

Significance

The Recreational Experience

The MMM Trail System traverses an outstanding

variety of New England landscapes, offering trail

users a unique recreational opportunity. Highlights of the trail experience include:

• Metacomet, Mt. Tom, and Mt. Holyoke Ranges

The trail across these three ranges provides

one of the best places in the world and the only

area on the eastern seaboard with a developed

trail system, to view a broad array of wellpreserved volcanic and sedimentary features

such as columnar basalt. The ranges provide

outstanding views of the Connecticut River

Valley, classic New England village settlement

patterns, and a cross-section of the region’s

varied landscapes. One such view was

immortalized in Thomas Cole’s famous

painting, “The Oxbow” depicting the view in

1835 of the Connecticut River Valley from Mt.

Holyoke. The trails have existed across these

ridges for more than fifty years, and warrant

evaluation for listing on the national register of

historic places.

• Historic New England Villages - The trail

provides vistas of rural towns, agrarian lands,

extensive unfragmented forests, and the river

valley, and traverses important Native American and colonial landmarks. The trail also

showcases some of the best examples of classic

New England landscapes that are unique in the

nation. Many side trails exist along the MMM

trail route, and connect to or have the potential

to connect hikers to village centers and historic

districts. Over 50 national register listed

historic districts are located in communities

abutting the trail, many of which are visible

(church steeples, municipal buildings, town

greens, etc.) from the trail. The proposed

extension of the trail to Long Island Sound

would take the trail directly through the

National Register listed Guilford Historic

Town Center District.

• Proximity - The National Trail System Act

places high priority on locating designated

Thomas Cole painting, “The Oxbow”
National Park Service 39

trails “primarily near the urban areas of the

Nation,” and being located “so as to provide

for maximum outdoor recreation potential.”

The MMM Trail System lies in close proximity

to towns and suburbs of major cities while

providing a near wilderness trail user experience. Over 2 million people live within 10 miles

of the trail system.

Side trails in many communities connect

neighborhoods to the trail, providing access to

recreational opportunities for both casual and

more serious athletes alike. Study investiga

tions documented at least 25 formal, connecting trails in the two states, and as many as 100

informal connections. The trail system offers

future opportunities to connect to other

established trails. In addition to a proposed

connection to Long Island Sound, the trail

system could be connected to local trails

within Connecticut and Massachusetts, or to

larger regional long-distance trails such as the

Appalachian Trail.

In sum, the existing MMM Trail System is very

accessible both by proximity to population and

existing and potential side trail connections.

Geology

The backbone of much of the MetacometMonadnock-Mattabesett Trail System consists of

a series of knife-edged ridges collectively known

as the Metacomet Range. The range, as accessed

by the trail, is known as one of the best places in

the world to view an array of volcanic, sedimentary and glacial geology. Towers of columnar

basalt create the precipitous west facing cliffs

characteristic of the Metacomet Range. Additional volcanic features are well exposed to

hikers on the ridge. The range is also rich in

fossils left over from ancient glacial activity. In

particular, the area is famous for “world class”

dinosaur footprint and fish fossil locales.

Professor Edward Hitchcock, President of

Amherst College, became world-renowned for

his three decade study of the region’s prints in

the 1800’s.

Endangered Species and Natural

Communities

The trail system traverses mountain summits,

forested glades, vernal pools, lakes, streams, and

waterfalls, including some of the most rugged,

picturesque, and diverse landscapes of southern

New England. In Connecticut, the trail and its

environs constitute a “hotspot” in the state and

the northeast for rare and declining species.

Overall, the trail visits 3 of Connecticut’s 13 most

imperiled ecosystems, namely traprock summits,

coastal beaches, and large riparian systems.

There are 132 occurrences of rare species or

natural communities recorded within 1,000 feet

of the trail in Connecticut, including northern

copperheads, timber rattlesnakes, Jefferson

salamanders and Peregrine falcons. In addition

two of the natural communities, poor fens and

forest glades along rocky summit outcrops, are

considered globally rare.

In Massachusetts, the Silvio Conte National

Wildlife Refuge has identified both the Mt. Tom

and Mt. Holyoke Ranges as “special focus areas”

containing significant biological features,

containing over 30 rare plant and animal species.

Thirty-eight species of amphibians and reptiles

have been recorded on the Mount Tom ridge

alone, representing 76% of all herp species found

in Massachusetts.

Feasibility

The entire MMM Trail System under study has

continuously existed for nearly 40 years, with the

Connecticut sections in place for almost 75 years.

It is clearly feasible that this route can exist, as it

is already in place today, and is consistent with

The National Trail System Act Section 3(b)

description of an extended trail. However, the

continued existence of this trail system along its

current route is not assured as land ownership

Glacial erratic along MMM Trail, Holyoke, Massachusetts

Broad banded Copperhead
40 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

and land use priorities continue to change and

evolve, especially for those parts of the trail

under private ownership.

Strategies regarding long-term trail continuity

and viability were explored in depth during the

study and captured in the Trail Management

Blueprint. Implementation of these Blueprint

strategies, which have broad stakeholder support,

will help ensure that the trail exists for future

generations.

A current challenge for maintaining the trail,

especially in Connecticut, is growing number of

trail miles currently on roadways. Efforts are

continually being made to limit the amount of

trail on road, but over the last several years the

Connecticut Forest & Park Association has been

forced to move approximately three miles of trail

onto roadways. In other instances, however,

proactive efforts have led to the elimination of

certain road-walks by relocating sections of trail

onto state forest land. This will continue to be an

ongoing challenge with a trail system that travels

through the 4th most densely populated state in

the Nation.

In Massachusetts, trail stewards have been able to

avoid relocating the trail to roads. Several such

relocations were accomplished during the study.

However, there is concern that in the long term,

options will dwindle, and the trail may be more

often relocated on roads. Maintaining an offroad trail will require a concerted effort to secure

permanent trail routes.

Desirability

The MMM Trail System is considered one of the

most important long distance trails in New

England and the most important in south-central

New England. It is highly valued by communities, the states, landowners, non-profit organizations and user groups.

The great majority of the landowners who host

the trail on their property, and attended public

forums or responded to questionnaires showed

strong interest in the long-term viability of the

trail system.

Actions at the municipal level have shown a

consistent interest in sustaining the long-term

viability of the trail. From signing the Metacomet

Ridge and Mt. Holyoke Range Compacts, to

identifying specific goals in their plans of

conservation and development and master plans,

to taking actions through open space acquisition

and the use of open space set asides when

approving subdivisions, municipalities have

shown a continued interest in the trail system. In

2001, the Mattabesett and Metacomet Trails were

designated official state greenways in Connecticut, and officially listed in the State Plan of

Conservation and Development. Likewise, the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts has identified

the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail as one of the

state’s highest long-distance trail priorities in a

recent statewide planning/prioritizing effort

(“Commonwealth Connections: A Greenway

Vision for Massachusetts”). The Appalachian

Mountain Club and Connecticut Forest and Park

Association have been powerful trail advocates

and include the trail system among their highest

trail priorities.

D. The current status of land ownership and

current and potential use along the

designated route

A summary of landownership can be found in

Chapter II of this report. Land ownership along

the entire trail is varied with no one land ownership type overly dominant. Overall ownership of

the trail is fairly evenly distributed between

private individual landowners, private corporate

landowners and the states, with water utilities

and municipalities having smaller equal portions.

In Connecticut 33% of this land is considered

permanently protected, while in Massachusetts

46% is considered permanently protected.

The fact that the trail has existed in harmony

with adjacent land uses for many decades speaks

to a broad compatibility between the trail and

present (and anticipated future) land use

patterns.

Fall view of Merrimere Reservoir,

Meriden, Connecticut
National Park Service 41

E. The estimated cost of acquisition of lands

or interest in lands, if any

No federal acquisition of land or interest in land

is anticipated under the National Scenic Trail

designation model proposed in this draft report.

There will be no eminent domain takings of land

for the trail. The Blueprint for Trail Management

document that was developed during the study

process anticipates that significant portions of

the trail system will continue to be hosted by

private individuals, corporations, and others on a

voluntary basis for the foreseeable future.

Approximately 62% of the existing trail route is

hosted in this manner today.

Permanent protection of the entire trail system

footprint is a long-term goal; one that will

require some level of funding for acquisition of

lands and easements by entities such as land

trusts, communities, state agencies, and others,

working with willing and interested landowners

as opportunities arise.

The study’s congressional sponsors have

indicated an interest in providing federal

acquisition funds to local, non-profit and state

partners if the trail system is designated as a

National Scenic Trail. These funds might be

provided through established granting mechanisms, directly through the NST designation, or

through other means. The potential costs of

such acquisitions are difficult to ascertain given

changing national and local economies and real

estate markets, and the wide variability of terrain

and development potential associated with

different portions of the trail.

F. The plans for developing and maintaining

the trail and the cost thereof

Unlike other recently proposed National Scenic

Trails, the MMM Trail System has already been

developed. The entire general trail route has

existed for 40 years (with large sections in place

for seventy-five years) and has been managed

and maintained by non-profit organizations with

the assistance of citizen volunteers. Only the

extension of the Mattabesett Trail to Long Island

Sound and a proposed trail re-route in the

Quabbin Reservoir area of Belchertown/Leverett

in Massachusetts would need to be developed.

The estimated annual federal portion of the costs

for implementing the Blueprint for Management

is $271,000 (see budget details in the Blueprint).

These costs represent the level of federal funding

estimated to be necessary to support the work of

the local partners who will have primary

responsibility for implementing the Blueprint for

Management. It is anticipated the funding will

support one half- time equivalent staff person for

each state. The staff may be either from the

National Park Service or local trail system

partners. It is anticipated that the Cooperative

Agreement authority of the National Trails

System Act will be utilized to allocate federal

funds to trail partners including CFPA, AMC,

state agencies and other appropriate partners

consistent with the intent of the Trail Management Blueprint.

In addition to this estimated administrative and

management funding need, it is anticipated that if

the trail system were designated it would also

have access to the National Park Service Challenge Cost-Share funding dedicated to the

National Scenic and Historic Trails. This

program provides an additional mechanism to

support non-federal trail partners working in

partnership with the NPS.

G. The proposed Federal administering

agency

The National Park Service would be the lead

Federal agency for the trail if designated as a

National Scenic Trail. Administration and

management would be accomplished through a

partnership approach with the proposed Trail

Stewardship Council as outlined in the Blueprint

for Trail Management. It is anticipated that the

Appalachian Mountain Club and Connecticut

Forest and Park Association would continue to

play leadership roles in trail maintenance and

management, with support from the additional

partner organizations comprising the Trail

Stewardship Council, including the NPS, state

agencies, communities, landowners, land trusts,

and trail user groups.

H. The extent to which a State or its political

subdivisions and public and private

organizations might reasonably be

expected to participate in acquiring the

necessary lands and in the administration

thereof

The National Scenic Trail designation model

proposed in this draft report anticipates, and is

based upon, an unprecedented level of commitment and involvement from landowners,

communities, land trusts, state agencies, and

other entities through creation of the Trail

Stewardship Council. All of these parties have a

history of commitment to the trail system that

has been demonstrated over a seventy-year
42 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Chauncey Peak, Berlin, Connecticut

history. The NST designation relies upon the

interest and commitment of these partners in

implementing all aspects of the Blueprint for Trail

Management.

The envisioned Trail Stewardship Council, while

not proposed to be a federally appointed

Advisory Council, is consistent with the legislative intent of the National Trails System Act that

each designated trail should have an “advisory

council” of local, state and non-governmental

trail interests. In this case, since the NPS would

not own or directly manage any of the trail

system, the Trail Stewardship Council would be

more oriented to establishing an “implementation” dialogue among trail stakeholders than to

advising the National Park Service.

I. The relative uses of the lands involved,

including: the number of anticipated

visitor-days for the entire length of, as

well as segments of, the trail; the number

of months which the trail, or segments

thereof, will be open for recreational

purposes; the economic and social benefits

which might accrue from alternate land

uses; and the estimated man-years of

civilian employment and expenditures

expected for the purposes of maintenance,

supervision, and regulation of the trail

The MMM Trail System is currently open 365

days per year. Occasionally segments of the trail

system (such as the ascent of Ragged Mountain

in Connecticut) are closed for safety related

reasons during winter months when snow and

ice are present. In these situations, the user is

directed to a side-trail which skirts the closed

section. Determining the number of anticipated

visitor days was not possible due to a lack of

existing use data, no availability of comparable

data from other similar trail systems, and the

limited time and resources to complete such an

analysis during the study process.

Land uses patterns in the immediate vicinity of

the MMM Trail System are not expected to be

significantly altered by future management

activities. All landowner-permitted existing uses

will continue. A discussion of proposed

management activities is contained in the

Blueprint for Management section of the report.

A discussion of the estimated man-years of

civilian employment and expenditure for

maintenance, supervision and regulation

purposes are addressed in the Blueprint for

Management section of the report. It is noted

that the Connecticut Forest and Park Association

currently estimates that over 600 volunteer

hours of maintenance labor are performed on

the Mattabesett and Metacomet trails each year.
National Park Service 43

Trail System Issues and Opportunities

A substantial amount of time was committed

during the study process to understanding trail

management issues and the potential opportunities available to address those issues. The

following is a summary of the findings received

as a result of questionnaires and public input

sessions. This information provided guidance for

the development of the Blueprint for the

Management of the Trail (Chapter V) and may

continue to be used as a foundation for addressing future management issues.

A. Trail Use

The key trail use issues and problems facing the

MMM Trail System are:

Wheeled motorized vehicle use: ATVs and

other wheeled motorized vehicles cause

erosion and damage to the trail in some areas.

Help in controlling unwanted trail users:

Some private landowners want the trail, but

want help in controlling unwanted trail users,

such as ATVs and other wheeled motorized

vehicles.

Trail users don’t stay on the trail: Trail users

sometimes wander off the trail onto private

lands.

Hiking during hunting season: Safe hiking

during hunting season is a concern.

Equestrian use: Equestrian groups have

expressed a strong interest in expanding access

to the trail for horse use.

Possible strategies or opportunities to address

trail use issues include:

Limiting wheeled motorized vehicle use:

Some options available include:

a) Post signs noting allowed and/or restricted uses at trailheads

b) Create physical barriers to ATVs at

trailheads, using boulders or gates

c) Request help from state environmental

police in severe enforcement problem areas

d) Request help from ATV user groups to

help police themselves.

Provide trail maps and information: Provide

more detailed maps of the trail, posted at trail

heads, with printed copies available for

distribution.

Trail markings and blazes: Make sure trail

blazes and markers are kept up to date and

clearly delineate the route.

Land owner – Trail Steward agreements:

Written agreements could specify the terms of

use for the trail on private lands, including the

types of trail users that landowners want or do

not want.

Volunteer trail rangers: Establish a system of

volunteer “ridge runners’ to be the “eyes and

ears of the trail.”

Safe hiking education: Educate hikers and

trail users on hunting season dates and the use

of blaze orange clothing during hunting

season.

Equestrian Use: Explore options (based on

landowner wishes) for increased equestrian

access to the trail. Consider findings of

“Equestrian Trail Survey Evaluations of the

Metacomet & Mattabesett Trails” published by

the Connecticut Horse Council.

B. Trail Protection

The key trail protection issues and problems

facing the MMM Trail System are:

Development pressures along the trail: Land

surrounding the trail will increasingly be

developed over time if existing trends continue, and the trail will be located in an

increasingly urbanized landscape, detrimentally altering its character.

Funding for trail protection: Few of the trail

stewardship groups have sufficient funding to

purchase properties or easements along the

trail.

Sale of private lands on the trail: Some

landowners may want to sell their properties,

and an option to sell a trail corridor or

property may be desirable to them.

Possible strategies or opportunities to address

trail protection issues include:

Federal funds for land protection: Federal

funds provided to local land trusts or trail

stewards, or local land trust funds, could

provide another option for landowners

wishing to sell land for purposes other than

development.

Municipal actions: In certain trail towns,

municipal governments have taken steps to

protect the Trail System. Examples are listed

below.

State actions: Examples of state involvement

in protecting trails are listed below.

Municipal Actions:

There are no specific local regulations in
44 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Connecticut supporting the protection of the

Metacomet or Mattabesett Trails. However, some

communities have adopted zoning regulations to

preserve the character of the various traprock

“ridgelines”. The Connecticut State General

Assembly adopted ridgeline protection enabling

legislation in February, 1998 (Public Act 95-239),

allowing towns to create specialized ridgeline

protection ordinances in accordance with their

comprehensive plans.

Ridgeline protection ordinances may seek to

restrict development on ridgelines by controlling

the density, height and size of buildings, percentage of a lot that may be occupied, location and

use of buildings for commercial purposes, or the

height, size and location of advertising signs and

billboards. Other zoning techniques involve the

creation of ridge overlay districts, new zoning

districts, and cluster subdivision regulations. The

success or failure of these ordinances has not

been fully evaluated.

A survey of the twenty Connecticut trail communities revealed that fourteen of them have

included specific language related to ridgeline

protection in town planning documents. An

example of language from the town of

Middlefield reads as follows:

Our traprock ridges have been a natural barrier to

the push of progress across the state, creating

towering vistas of rocks and trees that lift our eyes

and refresh our minds, But the ruggedness of

terrain is not sufficient to prevent inappropriate

land uses that can destroy open space values. The

fragile traprock ecosystem needs to be protected by

controlling its disturbance and by maintaining an

unbroken corridor of forest and the associated

scenic vistas and provide public access via designated trails and overlooks where such provisions

do not adversely impact the ridge ecosystem.

Source: Town of Middlefield, 2002 Plan of Conservation and

Development.

Seven of twenty towns along the Metacomet and

Mattabesett Trails in Connecticut have also (at

times) taken regulatory or non-regulatory actions

designed to enforce ridgeline protection policies.

Examples of regulatory actions might include the

enforcement of height restrictions on new home

construction, or enforcement of the percentage

of a lot within a ridgeline zone that may be

cleared.

Open space conservation may also be considered

to be a ridgeline protection tool. Non-regulatory

actions in support of ridgeline protection goals

primarily take the form of land purchases by

municipalities for protection purposes. Such

actions have been aided considerably by legislation passed by the State of Connecticut in 1998

that created and funded a Department of

Environmental Protection Open Space Grant

Program. Under the program, land trusts and

municipalities have received partial funding

grants to help purchase and preserve important

lands, including ridge tops.

An example of how this program has benefited

the trail may be found on Mount Pisgah in

Durham. For years a portion of the Mattabesett

Trail remained closed due to an unwilling

landowner until the Town was able to make an

offer and purchase the land through an open

space grant. This eventually led to the reopening of this very popular section of trail. The

towns of Avon, Farmington, Guilford,

Middlefield, and Simsbury have also have been

active in obtaining easements or purchasing land

which in turn may protect sections of ridgeline

along the Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails.

In Massachusetts, examples of municipal actions

include the Hadley Land Development Ordinance, Section V-H, which mandates that there

shall be no construction of residential dwellings

or commercial buildings on any portion of land

which is above 350 feet elevation above sea level

within one mile of a State Park as defined by U. S.

Geological Survey maps. If there is no buildable

portion of a lot below 350 feet, no construction

will be permitted without a special permit from

the Planning Board. The Planning board will

only grant the permit if it finds the applicant has

taken all feasible measures to eliminate or

diminish the effect of such construction on the

scenic, natural and historic values of the Mount

Holyoke Range.

State Actions:

The State of Connecticut is involved in efforts to

protect land. In 1995, the Connecticut General

Assembly acted upon the recommendations of

the Governor’s Greenways Committee and

passed Public Act 95-335, which institutionalized

Connecticut’s Greenways program. Greenways

are linear open spaces that help to conserve

native landscapes and ecosystems by protecting,

maintaining and restoring natural connecting

corridors.

In 2001, Governor John Rowland and the

Connecticut Greenways Council designated the

Blue-Blazed Hiking Trails and the Metacomet

Ridge system as official State Greenways.

Because they are excellent examples of connective, open spaces that create new opportunities

for outdoor recreation, and protect environmen-
National Park Service 45

tal, cultural and historical qualities they are now

listed in the State Plan of Conservation and

Development. This plan serves as a blueprint for

state agencies and state-funded projects. This

important designation will help attract state grant

money that may be available and assist in the

pursuit of federal designations. In addition to the

greenway designation, the National Park Service

selected a portion of the Metacomet Trail in

cooperation with the New Britain Youth Museum as a National Environmental Study Area

in 1981.

This legislation has helped with trail system

extensions in recent years. While most extensions are small, adding just a few miles, in 1993

the Mattabesett Trail saw a major extension

north from Reservoir Road to the Connecticut

River through the Maromas section of

Middletown. This extension increased the

overall length of the trail and provided access to

the Connecticut River, a valuable public resource.

C. Landowner Issues/Interests

The key landowner-related issues and interests

facing the MMM Trail System are:

Permission for the trail: When the MMM

Trail System was originally developed, some

landowners, particularly in Massachusetts,

were never asked for permission for the trail to

cross their property. In other cases, the

permission was informal, or granted many

years ago. Lands have changed owners over

the years and some new owners are not aware

of any trail agreements.

Landowner liability: Landowners are

concerned about liability and the potential for

being sued by trail users in the event of

accidents or injuries on the trail.

Trail users don’t respect private property:

Property owners have reported problems with

trail users trespassing on private lands near the

trail system, complaining about forest harvesting or other use of private lands, and related

problems.

Landowners opposed to the trail: The trail

system crosses some private properties where

landowners do not want the trail to exist.

Concerns about National Scenic Trail

designation: Some landowners are concerned

that National Scenic Trail designation could

adversely affect their property, through

increased federal regulations or restrictions,

community land use controls, or increased trail

use and popularity. Private landowners should

have the option to individually opt out of

National Scenic Trail designation.

Concerns of hunters: Hunting clubs along

the trail system do not want restrictions on

hunting and shooting on private lands.

Concerns about local zoning restrictions:

Landowners do not want local zoning restrictions along the trail corridor.

Concerns about eminent domain takings:

Landowners do not want eminent domain

takings by the federal government along the

trail.

Possible strategies or opportunities to address

landowner-related issues include:

Proactive Communication with Landowners:

There is an opportunity now, for trail stewards

to reach out to landowners and establish better

relations. Trail stewards should meet individually with each landowner to discuss trail use,

landowner concerns and to secure agreements

for trail access.

Liability Protection: There are several

options for increasing liability protection for

landowners, including:

a) Massachusetts and Connecticut law

(MGL Chapter 21, sec. 17c, CGS Sec. 52-557g)

limits the liability of landowners making land

available to the public without a fee for

recreational purposes.

b) Landowners on National Scenic Trails

can enter into agreements with the National

Park Service through its “Volunteers in Parks”

program and receive liability protection from

the federal government as if they were federal

employees.

c) Seek support from a stewardship or

public entity to assume liability or establish a

“landowner liability fund.”

Signage for Private Lands: Trail stewards

could increase public awareness of private

lands, by posting signs at private property

boundaries noting that trail users are entering

private property and asking that they stay on

the trail and respect private property rights and

the generosity of landowners.

Trail Relocations: Trail stewards could work

with local officials to relocate the trail in areas

where landowners do not support the trail on

private lands. In many cases it is possible to

relocate the trail to publicly-owned lands.

Limit National Scenic Trail designation:

Initial designation could include only publicly

owned land parcels (i.e. state and municipal

lands), with additional privately owned lands

to be added individually at a later date based

upon landowners’ voluntary approval of a

“certification” agreement. Private landowners

should have the option to not participate in the

National Scenic Trail.

Local zoning: Work with communities to

ensure that zoning restrictions do not

Please stay on the trail and

respect the land and rights of

the private property owner

who has graciously allowed

the Metacomet-Monadnock

Trail to cross this property.

Pedestrian use only is

allowed, unless

permission is

granted by the

property owner.

ENTERING

PRIVATE PROPERTY

MONADNOC

M

K

ETACOMET

TRAIL

Signs were posted along the MMM

trail by PVPC and AMC to help

address private landowner concerns
46 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

adversely affect landowners.

Prevent eminent domain takings: Ensure that

any National Scenic Trail legislation specifically

excludes eminent domain takings.

D. Maintenance and Trail Management Related

Issues

The key trail maintenance and management issues

and problems facing the MMM Trail are:

Erosion and blow-downs: In some areas of the

trail, there is severe erosion caused largely by

motorized vehicles. In other areas, the trail is

partially blocked by large numbers of trees that

have blown down.

Dumping of litter and garbage: This is a

problem, particularly at some trailhead areas,

where old tires, car parts, garbage bags, yard

waste and other trash has been dumped.

Inadequate parking: Parking is very limited or

unsafe or not well signed at some trailhead

areas.

Beavers cause flooding: Newly constructed

beaver dams have flooded some trail areas.

Logging can obscure trail: In some cases,

logging directly on the trail makes the trail hard

to find, and debris makes hiking difficult.

Increased trail traffic: There are some

concerns that increased publicity about the trail

system will result in increased traffic on the trail.

Noise pollution: Noise pollution from

snowmobiles adversely affects wildlife in winter.

Possible strategies or opportunities to address trail

maintenance and management issues include:

Volunteer work parties: Trail stewards can

organize volunteer work parties to clean up

trash, repair erosion, remove tree blow-downs

and other work.

Parking improvements: Make parking and

safety improvements with federal funds or other

funding sources.

Relocate beavers or trail: Beavers damaging

the trail could be trapped and relocated.

Alternatively, the trail could be moved to loop

around beaver areas.

Temporary signage in logging areas: Trail

stewards may need to put up temporary trail

signage or markers in logged areas. Trail

stewards could also work with landowners to

voluntarily minimize the impacts of harvesting

activity on the trail experience.

Trail publicity: In order to minimize impacts

associated with potential overuse, information

on responsible recreational practices should be

promoted or publicized.

Controlling trail use: Restrictions on the use of

the trail by snowmobiles, ATVs or other

motorized vehicles can only be determined by

property owners.

Connecticut Horse Patrol: In areas where

equestrian use is permitted explore the possible

use of the Connecticut Horse Council’s Horse

Patrol program.

E. Administration

The key trail administration issues and problems

facing the MMM Trail System are:

Access to trail stewards: Landowners don’t

know how to contact trail stewards.

Coordinated trail management: There is no

single entity responsible for management and

administrative decisions for the MMM Trail.

Trail maps and route information: Trail users

often seek information on the trail route,

parking, and maps. This information can be

difficult to find.

Trail signage, rules and brochures: Very little

signage and printed information materials exist

to inform trail users about the trail and trail

rules.

Conflict or problem resolution: There is no

entity established to solve trail problems or

resolve conflicts between users and/or

landowners.

Possible strategies or opportunities to address trail

administration issues include:

MMM Trail System website: Create a permanent website for the MMM Trail System that lists

contact information for local trail stewards, as

well as trail maps, trail rules and other trail

information. Post the website address at trailGarbage left at trailhead, MMM Trail, Southwick,

Massachusetts

Erosion caused by ATV use, MMM Trail in Holyoke,

Massachusetts
National Park Service 47

• Specific instances of illegal or unwanted

recreational use prompt owner to request a

relocation of a section of trail

• Acquisition of land by a non-profit organization

(primarily a land trust) or public agency creates

an opportunity for a section of trail to be rerouted onto such property

It appears that relocations have increased along

the MMM Trail System over the past several years.

A survey of trail managers who are responsible for

sections of the MMM Trail provided the following

examples of trail relocations:

Mattabesett Trail

Eagle's Beak Point Section:

A section of the trail between Foothill Rd and

Weise Albert Road was closed to public access by

a property owner. The trail was subsequently

relocated onto a paved road, resulting in a road

walk section totaling approximately 0.7 miles

Mount Pisgah - Mica Ledges Section:

The trail was a road walk from Route 79 to Cream

Pot Road of approximately 1.4 miles. The Town of

Durham permitted the trail to be relocated over

Mount Pisgah, eliminating all but 0.5 miles of road

walk.

Mount Higby Section:

A section of the trail was rerouted due to the

widening of State Route 66. No additional road

walk sections were created.

Haddam Section:

A short section of trail was moved at the request

of a property owner onto Cockaponset State

Forest property. Distance: about 0.1 mile.

Durham Section:

Property containing the trail was sold to a

developer who requested that the trail be removed. The trail was relocated onto Cockaponset

State Forest and Town of Durham property. The

relocation added approximately 0.8 mile to the

trail.

Metacomet Trail

Crooked Brook Section:

The trail was rerouted onto newly-created,

protected property as a result of a planning and

zoning approval process for the planned construction of a gas power generation plant. The total

distance of the relocation was about 0.5 miles.

Hanging Hills Section:

The trail was closed on West Peak by property

owners. It was rerouted onto Meriden Water

Company property to Edgewood Road, which

head kiosks and on trail brochures and guides.

Trail signage and brochures: Create and

install informational kiosks at trail-head areas

to inform hikers of trail rules, private lands,

etc. Create and make available trail system

brochures with trail rules and map.

Trail Stewardship Council: Create a locally

based MMM Trail System Stewardship

Council, comprised of trail stewards, landowners, representatives from land trusts, communities and trail user groups. This group could

assist with trail system management, administration and conflict resolution.

F. Community Connections

The key community connections issues and

problems facing the MMM Trail are:

Community trail links: Some communities

would like better links between the MMM

Trail system and local trail networks connecting to residential areas.

Possible strategies or opportunities to address

community connections issues include:

Grants for trail building: Trail stewards could

work with communities to apply for Recreational Trails Act grants, Self-help grants and

other funds to help build a better community

linked trail system.

Federal funds for trail building: If designation

occurs allocated a portion of potential federal

funding to local community trail-related needs.

G. Trail Continuity and Relocations

Volunteer management organizations such as

AMC and CFPA are continually seeking to

protect the continuity of the MMM Trail System.

When an individual landowner determines that

the trail should no longer be located on his or her

land, a suitable alternate route must be found.

Often times, this involves extensive town hall

research and negotiations with adjacent landowners to secure their permission. Only after

permission is granted can the task of blazing the

new trail begin. In cases where there are no

suitable alternate routes, a portion of the trail

system must be closed indefinitely or re-routed

onto a road.

In general, relocations are initiated for one or

more of the following reasons:

• Change in individual ownership of a parcel

results in an unwillingness to host a section of

trail

• New sub-division of land results in creation of

a number of smaller land parcels that the

developer deems are not appropriate for

hosting a section of trail
48 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

resulted in 1.4 miles on Edgewood Road. This reroute occurred in the late 1990’s.

Hill-Stead to Talcott Mountain Section:

The trail was closed between Mountain Road

and Route 4 due to development. It was rerouted

onto property belonging to the Hillstead

Museum. No road walks were created.

Prattling Pond Section:

The trail was rerouted off Prattling Pond Road

onto land trust property, eliminating about 0.5

miles of road walk. The trail was also rerouted

between the end of Prattling Pond Road and Old

Mountain Road onto easements obtained by the

town of Farmington. No road walk.

Tarriffville Gorge Section:

The trail was rerouted from the Farmington River

Bridge to north of the bridge. A similar road

walk section to the previous route was created.

Suffield to Massachusetts Section:

The trail was closed between Mountain Road

(Route168) and the Massachusetts border,

resulting in a road walk of approximately 2.3

miles.

New Britain Water Company lands:

The trail was relocated away from New Britain

Water Company facilities in Berlin, New Britain

and Southington. The new route is 6.5 miles

while the old route was 4.0 miles. An 0.8 mile

road walk was replaced by a different 0.8 mile

road walk.

West Hartford, Metropolitan Water District

property:

Sections of the trail on MDC lands were rerouted. No new road walks were eliminated or

created.

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail

Massachusetts Fish & Wildlife Department lands:

A 3 mile section of trail was relocated onto

public, protected land after a request for removal

of the trail from private lands by the landowner.

Cherry Street Section:

A relocation of the trail off Cherry Street brought

the trail down to an area where a direct crossing

onto protected land could be accomplished.

Length: .3 mile.

West Springfield Section:

A 1.5 mile section of trail was taken off a road and

placed on YMCA lands.

West Springfield Section:

At the request of a private landowner, a 2 mile

section of trail was successfully re-routed onto

conservation land.

Pratt Corner Section:

A two-mile section of trail was relocated at the

request of a private land owner.

Pratt Corner Section:

A one-mile section of trail was moved onto a

road section because of logging operations and

land owner concerns.

Atkins Reservoir Section:

A major relocation took 6 miles of trail off water

company property and away from power lines.

Banfield Section:

0.3 miles of trail was relocated to place it on

newly created Leverett Conservation lands.

Leverett Section:

A five-mile relocation of the trail was necessary

due to land owner request that the trail be moved

off private property.

Erving Section:

A relocation of .05 miles of trail was needed

because of new land owner building on trail.

Warwick Section:

A ten-mile section of trail was moved off an

Holland Glen, Massachusetts
National Park Service 49

abandoned road at the request of the landowner

and onto Mass. DCR lands.

H. Trail Extension To Long Island Sound

Public Law 107-338 in part directed the National

Park Service to examine the feasibility of

extending the Mattabesett Trail in Connecticut

south to a new terminus at Long Island Sound.

The MMM Trail Study Steering Committee

subsequently authorized a research team to

report on possible extension routes and approval

issues. This team, led by the Environmental

Planner, Town of Guilford, developed a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) map showing

the southernmost portion of the Mattabesett

Trail and its relationship to roads and existing

public and private parcel boundaries in both

Guilford and western Madison.

After examining a number of possible trail

extension routes, the team identified a general

corridor of approximately fourteen miles

through which a route to Long Island Sound

could travel. They subsequently contacted a total

of four landowners in Guilford over whose lands

the proposed trail would travel to explain the

nature of the trail extension project. The parcels

along the generally proposed route are owned by

the following entities:

• South Central Regional Water Authority

• Town of Guilford

• State of Connecticut

• Guilford Land Conservation Trust.

As a result of the research, it appears that a trail

extension is feasible and that it would add

desirable new features to the existing Mattabesett

Trail. The proposed extension of the trail would

travel through protected water utility lands, state

forest lands, a National Register Historic District,

two State of Connecticut historic districts, and

coastal environments including a tidal marsh and

public beach.

A map showing the generally proposed trail route

is contained within this report. To finalize a route

and construct a trail path, formal approvals will

be needed from all landowners. Separate

applications will need to be submitted to the

South Central Regional Water Authority and the

Connecticut Department of Public Health for

permission for the trail to travel through watershed lands. It is estimated that this process could

take six months or more once initiated.

I.. Alternate National Scenic Trail Route in

Massachusetts

In Massachusetts, this study identified a problem

and an opportunity: the lack of existing pro1) Liability for trail accidents is a concern for landowners.

2) ATVs and other wheeled motorized vehicles

cause trail erosion and disruptions.

3) Trail users do not show respect for private property.

4) Trail crosses some private properties where landowners do not want the trail.

5) Trail users sometimes wander off the trail onto

private lands.

6) Landowners are concerned that National Scenic

Trail designation could adversely affect their property.

Potential Strategies

a) Massachusetts law (MGL Chapter 21, sec. 17c)

limits the liability of landowners.

b) Landowners liability protection on National Scenic Trails under the federal “Volunteers in Parks”

program.

c) Seek support from a stewardship or public entity

to assume liability or establish a “landowner liability fund”.

a) Post signs noting restricted uses at trailheads

b) Create physical barriers to ATVs at trailheads

c) Request help from state environmental police

d) Self-policing by ATV user groups

a) Post signage at private property boundaries noting that trail users are entering private property

and asking that they stay on the trail and respect

private property rights and the generosity of landowners.

a) Work with trail stewards to relocate the trail.

a) Provide better maps of the trail, posted at kiosks

at trailheads, and printed copies for distribution.

b) Make sure trail blazes and markers are kept up

to date and clearly delineate the trail route.

a) Initial designation could include only publicly

owned land parcels (i.e. state and municipal lands),

with additional privately owned lands to be added

individually at a later date based upon landowner’s

voluntary approval of a “certification” agreement.

Table 10. Summary of Trail Issues and Strategies

Issue or Problem
50 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Issue or Problem

7) Landowners either were never asked for permission for trail to be on private land, or permission was informal, or was granted many years ago.

8) Landowners don’t want any federal rules or impacts on their lands as part of National Scenic Trail

designation.

9) Hunting clubs along trail do not want restrictions on hunting and shooting.

10) Some landowners want the trail, but want help

controlling unwanted trail users (i.e. ATVs).

11) Erosion and blow-downs are problems in a few

areas of the trail.

12) Dumping of litter and garbage is a problem at

some trailhead areas.

13) Beavers cause flooding in some trail areas.

14) In some cases, logging directly on the trail

makes trail hard to find, and debris make hiking

difficult.

15) Parking is not adequate in some trailhead

areas.

16) Landowners don’t know how to contact trail

stewards.

17) Some landowners may want to sell their trail

corridor or properties.

18) Landowners don’t want local zoning restrictions along the trail.

19) Landowners don’t want eminent domain takings by the federal government along the trail.

20) Land surrounding the trail will increasingly be

developed over time, and trail will be located in an

urbanized environment.

21) There are concerns about increased traffic on

the trail with publicity.

Potential Strategies

a) Trail stewards should meet individually with all

landowners, and seek formal permission for trail.

b) Agreements could specify types of trail users

that landowners want or do not want.

a) See 6a above. A “certification” agreement

would provide a printed agreement between landowners and trail stewards assuring landowners that

no restriction will be imposed.

a) See 3a, 6a and 8a above.

a) Provide assistance to landowners to implement

2a-2c above.

b) Landowner-Trail Steward Agreements could

specify types of trail users that landowners want or

do not want.

c) Establish a system of volunteer “ridge runners”

to be the “eyes and ears of the trail”.

a) Trail stewards can organize volunteer work parties to fix problems.

a) Trail stewards can organize volunteer work parties to clean up areas.

b) Engage local law enforcement to help address

this issue.

a) Relocate trail or beavers.

a) Trail stewards will need to put up temporary

signage in logged areas.

b) Work with property owners to seek advance notice of harvesting activity in the trail area and to

promote voluntary measures to minimize permanent impact to the trail.

a) Make parking and safety improvements with

federal funds or other funding sources.

a) Publicize web address at trail-heads and

through direct communication with landowners.

b) Create a locally based “trail council” of trail

steward and managers, and publicize their contact

information.

a) Federal funds or local land trusts could provide

another option for landowners other than development.

a) Work with local communities to help foster constructive dialogue concerning zoning issues.

a) Ensure that any National Scenic Trail legislation

specifically excludes any eminent domain takings.

a) See 17a above.

a) Develop a current understanding of the carrying

capacity of the trail system.

b) Design promotional activities consistent with objectives for managing trail traffic.

c) See 3a above.a) Trail use to be determined by

landowners.

Table 10 (cont.d)
National Park Service 51

Issue or Problem

22) Very little signage and printed educational materials exist to inform trail users about the trail and

rules.

23) Private landowners should have the option to

individually opt out of National Scenic Trail designation.

24) Hiking during hunting season is a concern.

25) Noise pollution from snowmobiles may adversely affect wildlife in winter.

Potential Strategies

a) Create and install informational kiosks at

trailhead areas to inform hikers of trail rules, private lands, etc.

b) Create and make available trail brochures with

trail rules and map

c) See 3a above.

a) See 6a above.

a) Educate hikers and trail users on hunting season

dates and appropriate precautions such as the use

of blaze orange clothing during hunting season.

a) Trail use to be determined by landowners.

Table 10 (cont.d)

Millers River along the MMM Trail, Massachusetts
52 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

tected lands on the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail

in the Belchertown-Leverett area; and the nearby

presence of large blocks of existing, protected

state lands in the Quabbin Reservoir area.

Inquiries into the reasons for the lack of protected lands along the existing trail indicate that

the area lies in between two high state land

protection priorities: the Connecticut River

Valley and the greater Quabbin landscape area.

State officials have indicated that generally they

are not able to make land protection a priority in

this area, despite the desire to protect the

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail. 

 Based on these findings, state officials were asked

about the feasibility of accommodating an

alternative trail alignment utilizing state forest

lands (west of Route 202) and, potentially,

watershed protection lands surrounding

Quabbin Reservoir (east of Route 202). The

connection of these areas to the Metacomet-

 

Monadnock Trail (at the Mt. Holyoke Range on

the south end and at Wendell State Forest to the

north) would track established “greenway

corridor” goals of the Commonwealth’s statewide greenway priorities as articulated in:

“Commonwealth Connections: A Greenway

Vision for Massachusetts.”

Preliminary results of these inquiries indicate

that an alternate Quabbin watershed “statelands” alignment appears to be possible. Any

portion of the alignment that entered the

Quabbin watershed lands would need to meet

strict protection standards, would be limited to

hiking, and would not be available for overnight

camping. Within the Quabbin Reservoir area,

north-south running trails and old road alignments that are currently open to the public could

be a suitable and desirable location for a new

route.

Implementation of this alternate route, while

conceptually feasible, will need further detailed

exploration in partnership with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and other trail partners.

View of Bilger Farm from the MMM Trail
National Park Service 53

A Blueprint for the Management of the Trail

The MMM Trail System Management Blueprint

has two main purposes:

1. Collect the best recommendations and

strategies that have come out of the Connecticut

and Massachusetts Trail Study working groups to

meet the Study’s primary objective of ensuring

long-term trail viability.

2. Establish a clear basis for management of the

trail should it be designated as a National Scenic

Trail.

The Blueprint is organized into seven sections, as

follows:

Section A. Landowners Issues

Section B. Trail Use

Section C. Trail Protection

Section D. Trail Management and

Maintenance

Section E. Community Connections

Section F. Administrative Framework

Section G. Provisions If National

Scenic Trail Designation

Occurs

Section H. Proposed Blueprint Budget

The implementation of this Blueprint will be

coordinated through the Trail Stewardship

Council as described in Section F: Administrative

Framework.

The following Management Principles underlie

the Blueprint and are critical to its success:

- There is full involvement of a wide range of

trail constituents

- The Blueprint builds off of existing trail

partnerships and traditions

- Private property rights are respected and

landowners participation encouraged

- No new regulatory trail protection is proposed

or advocated by this blueprint or by the trail

stewardship council on private property.

The cost to implement this blueprint is estimated

at $271,000 and is described in Section H:

Proposed Blueprint Budget.

Each section begins with a goal statement

followed by a set of recommended tasks, policies

and objectives that could be undertaken to

support achievement of the goal.

A. Landowner Issues

Goal: Work with landowners hosting the trail to

foster good communication along with support

for, and involvement in, sustaining the trail.

1. Set up a system to communicate with landown

ers, including:

a. All landowners receive at least one

newsletter per year with trail updates and

contact information;

b. Keep up-to-date contact information on web

site (trail maintainers, section leaders, town

contacts).

2. Maintain an up-to-date landowner database

(parcel map/ database updated annually).

3. Establish a mechanism to enforce trail policies.

a. Develop relationships with enforcement au

thorities and individuals (local, state, land

owner)

b. Develop strategies to address trash, illegal

dumping, trespassing and parking issues.

4. Provide increased liability protection for

landowners hosting the trail.

a. Establish a “liability protection fund” to pay

legal costs in the event of a suit;

b. Explore additional options, including the

National Park Service VIP program; personal

liability policies; adding landowners to

insurance coverage of trail stewardship/

protection organizations.

5. Seek to formalize permission for trail access

such as through voluntary, revocable written

agreements that are mutually beneficial to trail

stewards and landowners.

6. Trail relocation requests are to be expected

and will be accommodated in a timely fashion.

7. All existing landowner uses and rights including hunting, fishing, timber management and

trail uses such as equestrian, mountain biking,

and snowmobiling will continue to be at the

discretion of landowners.

8. Provide educational materials to local commissions, recreational users, and other stakeholders regarding private property rights associated

with the trail.
54 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

B. Trail Use

Goal: Set trail system use policies to provide

positive trail experiences, respect trail capacity

and landowner rights.

1. Support the MMM Trail System primarily as a

continuous, long-distance hiking trail with

uses such as mountain biking, equestrian, or

snowmobiling on sections based on landowner

wishes and terrain suitability.

a. landowners have the final say regarding trail

uses on their property

b. the Stewardship Council will be available to

review and provide recommendations on

multi-use issues brought forth by user groups

or landowners.

2. Develop a conflict resolution process to

address landowner and trail user issues,

utilizing the Trail Stewardship Council.

3. Track trail use levels, types, impacts and

conditions including using standard methodologies for comparison with other trails and

trail systems.

C. Trail Protection

Goal: Secure a continuous off-road trail system

that respects natural resources, from Long Island

Sound to the MA/NH border.

1. Trail protection is defined as supporting the

long-term existence and use of the MMM trail.

2. Trail protection will occur using a wide range

of tools including but not limited to: conservation restrictions; revocable recreational

easements; fee simple acquisition; or memoranda of agreement.

3. Trail protection will occur with landowners on

voluntary basis only. No land takings will

occur.

4. No specific trail system corridor width is

required or established.

5. Trail protection will be encouraged and

assisted (financial, coordination, establishing

priorities) by the Stewardship Council,

working with the Appalachian Mountain Club

(MA), Connecticut Forests and Parks Association (CT), state agencies, land trusts, communities, and others.

6. Track the current level of protection on maps

and database.

7. No regulatory protection of a “trail corridor”

or “view corridor” is required.

8. New or relocated sections of trail will be laid

out and constructed in an environmentally

sensitive manner.

D. Trail Management and Maintenance

Goal: Support a volunteer-based trail stewardship program to ensure a well-maintained trail

system.

1. AMC and CFPA will continue to be the lead

volunteer-based entities for day-to-day trail

system management and maintenance. The

Trail Stewardship Council will assist and

coordinate with AMC and CFPA as appropriate to ensure consistent and successful Trail

management across the two states, including:

a. consistent guidelines for trail management

and trail volunteers;

b. consistent trail signage standards;

c. consistent trail relocation procedures;

d. consistent mechanisms to monitor trail

conditions;

e. evaluate and meet parking needs.

2. Use a trail guidebook and signage to clearly

identify appropriate parking areas, as well as

private land trail segments which need to be

respected.

3. Additional organizations such as the Snowmobile Association of Massachusetts and Connecticut Horse Council have strong track

records of volunteer maintenance on certain

trails. These organizations may play lead roles

on the MMM Trail System if sections of the

trail are deemed appropriate for such alternative uses.

E. Community Connections

Goal: Engage towns as trail system partners, and

maximize trail connections to communities.

1. Appoint town representatives to Trail Steward

ship Council.

a. encourage towns to appoint two representatives: one trail landowner and one from an

appropriate “lead” town board/committee

2. Identify and promote physical connections

between the MMM Trail and other resources

such as town forests and parks, state forests

and parks, other existing trail systems, down

towns, or other compatible resources.

3. Develop a small grants program for communities to promote trail stewardship, connections,

and protection.
National Park Service 55

F. Administrative Framework

Goal: Create a locally based trail administrative

structure to assist and support the leadership role

CFPA and AMC will continue to have in overall

trail management and maintenance.

1. Establish a Trail Stewardship Council comprised of individual Councils in Massachusetts

and Connecticut.

a. Each Trail Stewardship Council will have

only advisory powers, and will use the

management blueprint as a guiding document

in the long-term management of the trail while

working as a supportive partner with CFPA

and AMC.

b. The Councils will decide if/when they need

a formal Memorandum of Understanding;

c. By-laws will be developed by the Council

based on similar groups, such as Westfield and

Farmington Wild and Scenic Advisory

Committees;

d. All meetings will be open to the public and

governed by the applicable CT and MA state

statutes (open meeting laws, etc.)

e. Working committees/subcommittees will be

encouraged, and may be formed around trail

segments and/or issues. Participation will be

open to individuals and organizations beyond

the Stewardship Council.

2. Members of the Council will include representatives from:

a. Massachusetts and Connecticut – two

representatives for each state, to be determined

by the commissioner of the appropriate state

environmental agency.

b. The AMC – two representatives

c. CFPA – two representatives

d. Municipalities – one representative per

town, ideally a pertinent town staff member or

commission member, to be appointed by the

chief legislative body

e. Landowner – one representative per town to

be appointed by the chief legislative body

f. User Groups – four seats will be available on

each state Council to represent user interests,

including non-hiking interests such as eques

trian, snowmobiling and mountain biking.

g. Regional Planning Agencies – one seat will

be available for each regional planning agency

that has the trail in their region

h. Nonprofit Land Conservation Organizations – one seat will be available for each land

conservation group that owns or manages

property over which the trail crosses.

i. Others as the Council sees appropriate

including individuals, water utilities or

corporate landowners.

3. The Stewardship Council will operate on a

consensus-based decision-making process for

most decisions; there may be certain decisions

such as adoption of by-laws, changes to the

management blueprint or election of officers

where more formal votes will be desired.

4. Bi-state meetings to be held between Massachusetts and Connecticut as needed, but at

least once a year.

G. Provisions if National Scenic Trail

Designation Occurs

Goal: If NST designation occurs, provide federal

assistance to implement this Blueprint, while

supporting local management and property

rights.

1) Trail Stewardship Council

a) The National Park Service will become a

member of the Trail Stewardship Council and

occupy a single seat.

b) The Trail Stewardship Council shall be

established in a timely manner.

c) The National Park Service will not be

eligible to chair the Council or hold other

officer positions.

d) The Council and its subcommittees shall not

be considered federal advisory committees for

the purpose of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

2) National Park Service Assistance

a) The primary role of National Park Service

will be to assist the Council, its member institutions, and other partners in the implementation of this Management Blueprint, subject

to Congressional appropriations.

b) The National Park Service will coordinate

the expenditure of federal funds provided by

Congress for the Trail with the Council, and

will seek consensus from the Council on the

most effective use of such funds.

c) Priorities for use of federal funds/assistance

shall include: coordination and support of the

Council itself and any subcommittees that the

Council creates; trail continuity; maintaining

up-to-date mapping and landowner contact

information; signage; capital improvements

such as parking and trailheads; trail maintenance; assistance to communities and other

partners for trail connections, planning,

enforcement, protection and enhancement;

other priorities as established by the Council.

3) Limitations of NST Designation and Safe

guards for Landowners

a) For the purposes of NST designation, no

specific trail system corridor width will be

established.
56 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

b) Federal funds provided to purchase land or

development rights as a result of NST designation may only be used in conjunction with

willing seller transactions. Such expenditures

must have the support of the MMM Trail

Stewardship Council. Such funds could be

used to support state, local or non-governmental organization initiatives to protect portions

of the trail.

c) The National Park Service will not acquire,

own or manage any lands under authority of

the NST designation.

d) No segment of the MMM Trail shall be

officially recognized as a portion of the

National Scenic Trail against the wishes of the

landowner.

e) The National Park Service will not impose

recreational use restrictions on any segment of

the MMM Trail. If the NPS finds that a trail

segment’s uses are incompatible with NST

designation, the NPS should seek the consensus of the Council to pursue alternative routes

for the trail.

f) The National Park Service will not impose

any land use restrictions or viewshed restrictions.

Category Expense

I. Landowner Issues

1a Newsletter - Printing, Design & Postage $5,000

1b Website Maintenance – outsource $5,000

2a Maintain and Update Landowner Database $5,000

3b Trash & Illegal Dumping Clean-up $4,000

4a Landowner Liability Protection Fund $20,000

8 Trail Brochure - Design, Print & Distribute $7,000

Sub-total $46,000

II. Trail Use

3 Track Trail Use, Types, Impacts & Conditions $20,000

Sub-total $20,000

III. Trail Protection

5 Support Voluntary Trail Protection Projects - surveys, appraisals, legal fees $10,000

7 Track current level of trail protection & GIS data upkeep - outsource $7,500

Sub-total $17,500

IV. Trail Management & Maintenance

1d See Item II.3.

2 Trail markers, trail head signs, road crossing signs, kiosks $20,000

Sub-total $20,000

V. Community Connections

3 Community Small Grant Program $100,000

Sub-total $100,000

Staff and Administrative

1 One Half-Time Equivalent for Each State $60,000

2 Stationary, envelopes $2,000

3 Office Supplies $2,000

4 Travel $2,000

5 General Postage $1,500

Sub-total $67,500

TOTAL $271,000

Table 11. Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabasett Trail Study Blueprint for Management

Estimated Operating Budget-Federal Costs-Draft May 12, 2005

H. Proposed Blueprint Budget

The estimated annual federal portion of the costs

for implementing the Blueprint for Management

is $271,000 (see budget details below). These

costs represent the level of federal funding

estimated to be necessary to support the work of

the local partners who will have primary

responsibility for implementing the Blueprint for

Management. It is anticipated the funding will

support one half- time equivalent staff person for

each state. The staff may be either from the

National Park Service or the local partners. It is

proposed that funding will be distributed for use

by the local partners, primarily CFPA and AMC,

through cooperative agreements or similar type

arrangements.

In addition to this estimated administrative

funding need, it is anticipated if the trail were

designated it would also have access to the

National Park Service Challenge Cost-Share

funding dedicated to the National Scenic and

Historic Trails. As well, it is hoped a designation

may also leverage opportunities for additional

funding through statutory aid or other means to

support local and state land conservation

activities associated with protecting the trail

system. See Table 11.
National Park Service 57

Budget Notes:

• This budget is for the entire two state trail

system assuming designation occurs and the

blueprint is implemented.

• This budget does not address any potential

funding associated with voluntary land

protection efforts associated with the trail.

• All other components of the blueprint for

management not mentioned in the budget are

considered to require only staff time and have

no additional associated expenses.

• It is anticipated that the Landowner Liability

Protection Fund (Item I.4a.) will not need to be

replenished annually.

• It is anticipated that funding needs for the trail

use impacts and conditions work (Item II.3.)

will not need permanent levels of funding at

the level budgeted. In future years funding

would evolve to address issues identified in the

trail use, impacts and conditions assessment,

such as trail and trail head improvements,

parking improvements or other related items.

View of Mount Tom, Easthampton, Massachusetts
58 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

The Connecticut River in the background from the porch of the Summit House, Holyoke, Massachusetts
National Park Service 59

Management Alternatives and Environmental

Assessment

This chapter of the Feasibility Study discusses

alternative schemes for the management and

protection of the MMM Trail System and the

likely environmental and socio-economic impact

of those alternatives.

A. Purpose and Need

This document is being prepared in response to

passage of Public Law 107-338, directing the

National Park service to study the MetacometMonadnock-Mattabesett Trail System in

Connecticut and Massachusetts for potential

inclusion in the National Trails System through

designation as a National Scenic Trail. Based on

the expressed intent of the legislative sponsors

and principal trail steward organizations, two

goals were established for the study:

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/New

Hampshire 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.

In addition, the study had four guiding principles:

• Meaningful investigation of the trail system’s

long-term viability can only occur with the full

involvement of a wide range of trail advocates,

landowners, and other interested parties.

• Emphasis will be on strengthening existing

trail system partnerships and characteristics of

use, maintenance, ownership, and voluntary

stewardship.

• Respect for private property rights is a fundamental component of a successful project.

• Federal condemnation of land will not be

considered as an option in establishing or

protecting the trail system.

These goals and guiding principles are the

framework for the study and for the development

of alternatives discussed in this Chapter.

B. Alternatives Considered and Rejected

Only alternatives considered practical and feasible

are evaluated in detail, based upon realities of the

trail system, advice of study partners, congressional intent and similar limiting factors. The

study team eliminated from detailed consideration

several trail management and protection approaches that relied on an unacceptable level of

federal involvement and/or control.

Utilization of Federal Condemnation Authority

Consistent with Congressional intent and direction expressed prior to and after authorization of

the MMM Trail System study, any alternative

involving federal condemnation of lands was

eliminated from consideration prior to commencement of the study.

Direct Federal Management of the Trail

In further developing the intent and direction of

the study, the study team Goals and Principles

emphasized strengthening existing trail traditions

of management and protection. Through working

groups, landowner feedback, and public forums,

this emphasis has been widely supported. Little or

no support has been voiced for any direct federal

management of the trail. Existing local, state and

nongovernmental institutions are well situated to

implement management and protection strategies

for the trail. Therefore, any alternative calling for

direct federal management of the trail has been

eliminated from consideration.

Federal Ownership of the Trail

As is the case regarding direct federal management

of the trail, little support or need for direct federal

ownership of the trail has been voiced. Direct

federal ownership or acquisition of trail lands

would unnecessarily complicate trail protection,

management and administration. Direct federal

ownership of lands under a potential National

Scenic Trail designation has been eliminated from

consideration.

Abandonment of Long-Distance Trail Continuity in Favor of Local/Regional Trail Segments

Any alternative that considered abandoning the

goal of long-distance trail continuity in favor of

working toward a series of shorter, unconnected

day hikes was dropped from consideration based

upon congressional intent, historical trail context,
60 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

established goals of the states of CT and MA, and

the input of principal trail partners, including the

AMC and CFPA.

National Recreation Trail Status

Although more than 50 miles of the MetacometMonadnock Trail in Massachusetts were

designated as a National Recreation Trail in 2001,

National Recreation Trail status for the entire

MMM Trail System was not sought due in large

part to the requirement that written approval of

all participating landowners be obtained. With

over 600 landowners and 1,000 separate parcels

of land along the trail system, the process of

gathering the necessary written approvals was

not determined to be feasible.

C. Alternatives Considered

• Alternative 1: Continuation of Current

Practices

Under this alternative, no specific actions or

organized effort would be made to alter

current trail management practices or administrative structures, and no comprehensive effort

to implement the recommendations of the

MMM Trail “Blueprint” would be made.

Some of the Blueprint’s recommendations

might be picked up and implemented by

groups such as the Connecticut Forest and

Park Association in CT and the Appalachian

Mountain Club in MA.

• Alternative 2: Implementation of the Trail

Blueprint through National Scenic Trail

Designation for the Entire Existing Route of

the MMM Trails in Connecticut and

Massachusetts

Under this alternative, the entire historical trail

route of the MMM Trails in CT and MA would

be designated as a National Scenic Trail to be

managed in accordance with the MMM Trail

Management Blueprint developed as a part of

the Study. This alternative would adhere

closely to the intent of the Study legislation,

and would elevate the profile of the MMM

Trail system as a resource of national significance. This alternative is not considered a

feasible alternative due to significant landowner opposition and the general lack of

existing trail protection in the trail section

north of the Mt. Holyoke Range (western

Belchertown town boundary). This section of

trail includes several long stretches with little

or no existing trail protection and substantial

landowner opposition to either trail protection

or NST designation.

• Alternative 3: Implementation of the Trail

Management Blueprint through National

Scenic Trail Designation from Long Island

Sound in CT to the NH Border, including a

significant re-route in the Belchertown to

Leverett area in Massachusetts.

Under this alternative the entire trail system

from Long Island Sound to the NH border

would be designated as a National Scenic Trail

under a name such as the New England

National Scenic Trail. The route would include

a significant deviation from the existing

Metacomet-Monadnock trail for the portion

of the designation between the Mt. Holyoke

Range and Wendell State Forest, consistent

with the generalized map found within this

report. This alternate route is conceptual only

at this time. Preliminary discussions with state

of Massachusetts officials indicate that this

potential route alternative, which may be able

to take advantage of existing State Forest and,

possibly, Quabbin Reservoir lands, is conceptually feasible. The total length of the National

Scenic Trail route from Long Island Sound to

the New Hampshire border is estimated at 220

miles. This alternative and its implementation

is more fully discussed below.

• Alternative 4: Non-Federal Implementation

of “Blueprint” Recommendations

Under this alternative, another state-based or

non-profit-based entity would take the lead in

promoting the MMM Trail Blueprint in an

organized and comprehensive fashion. The

most likely possibility is that the CFPA and the

AMC, cooperating with the states of Massachusetts and Connecticut, could form a bistate partnership whose mission was to

implement the MMM Trail Blueprint and

ensure long-term trail viability and continuity.

CFPA and AMC would need to raise funds

privately and through various grant sources to

fund this effort. This alternative is not

considered feasible since neither the states of

Connecticut or Massachusetts nor the AMC or

CFPA are in a position to undertake the efforts

necessary.

Discussion of Alternative 3: Implementation of the

Trail Management Blueprint through National

Scenic Trail Designation from Long Island Sound

in CT to the NH Border, including a significant reroute in the Belchertown – Leverett area in

Massachusetts

General

National Scenic Trail designation would elevate

the level of importance associated with longterm viability of a continuous trail system from

Long Island Sound to the New Hampshire

border. The creation and support of the envi-
National Park Service 61

sioned Trail Stewardship Council would create a

vehicle for increased coordination, communication, and partnering among all trail stakeholders

in achieving the goal of long-term trail viability,

enhancement and protection articulated in the

Trail Management Blueprint developed as a part

of this study. The potential availability of federal

funds through the designation, as well as the

leveraging effect of the national designation,

would help support and catalyze the efforts of all

trail partners. Continued leadership from the

Appalachian Mountain Club and the Connecticut Forest and Park Association, augmented by

increased funding levels and increased

partnering opportunities through the Trail

Stewardship Council appears to be an effective

vehicle for achieving trail system goals, while

maintaining the heritage and traditions of the

trail system.

Deviations from Historical Routes

Extension to Long-Island Sound - Based on

legislative direction and the interest of CFPA

and other trail partners in CT, the study

process in Connecticut has included investigation of potential alternatives to connect the

existing Mattabesett Trail to Long Island

Sound. A map contained within this report

shows the conceptual route of such an

extension that has been developed through the

efforts of the CFPA and the Town of Guilford.

This extension is believed to have a high

degree of feasibility and is included as a part of

the NST designation alternative.

New Alignment in Massachusetts North of the

Mt. Holyoke Range - A new alignment for NST

purposes is envisioned between the Mt.

Holyoke Range and the Wendell State Forest in

the Belchertown-Leverett area. This alternative route warrants exploration based on the

potential to take advantage of existing state

lands that lie to the east of the existing

Metacomet-Monadnock Trail, and due to the

high priority for future land protection in this

Greater Quabbin Landscape area. By contrast,

the existing route in this area is almost

completely devoid of protected lands, and

substantial landowner opposition in this area

has been voiced against land protection and

NST designation. Multiple potential variations

on a new trail alignment in this area are

possible, and full exploration of this new

alignment and options associated therewith

would be necessary before any specific

alignment or route is proposed. It may be

possible, for example to stay entirely west of

Route 202, and continue to cross Mt. Lincoln

(both suggestions that have been made through

public meetings associated with the Study).

The traditional route of the Metacomet –

Monadnock Trail through this area could

continue to exist unchanged from present

conditions, managed by the AMC and the

landowners, but would not be considered part

of the NST designation.

A New Name for NST Purposes

It is recommended that the National Scenic Trail

designation be pursued under a new name, such

as the New England National Scenic Trail. The

historical trail names might be continued for

individual trail segments, where appropriate,

such that a guidebook or trail sign might refer to,

“Metacomet Trail, part of the New England

National Scenic Trail,” or “Mattabesett Trail, part

of New England National Scenic Trail,” etc. This

same technique has been used on other National

Scenic Trails, where prior existing trail name

segments have kept their historical identities as a

part of a later, differently named NST designation. The Trail Stewardship Council, AMC and

CFPA would need to determine how to name

and sign various trail segments. For example, the

Guilford extension to Long Island Sound could

either become part of the Mattabesett Trail, or

could simply be a segment of the New England

National Scenic Trail, or some other variation

under the NST umbrella.

A distinct NST name would also help eliminate

confusion in Massachusetts where it is quite

possible that the historical Metacomet-Monadnock Trail and a new NST route might exist as

distinct alternative hiking routes in the portion

north of the Mt. Holyoke Range.

D. The Affected Environment

The MMM Trail System consists of three largely

contiguous trails: the Metacomet-Monadnock

Trail, the Metacomet Trail, and the Mattabesett

Trail. The trails collectively travel 190 miles in a

north-south direction, from the MassachusettsNew Hampshire border south towards Long

Island Sound. The portion of the MetacometMonadnock Trail included in the study is located

entirely within Massachusetts, while the

Metacomet and Mattabesett Trails are located

entirely within Connecticut.

The Metacomet Trail in Connecticut follows a

traprock mountain range running from the

Hanging Hills of Meriden to the Massachusetts

State line for approximately 57 miles. The Trail

reaches elevations of over 1,000 feet at its highest

point.

The Mattabesett Trail is approximately 53 miles

in length. The trail begins at the Connecticut

River, and roughly forms a large horseshoe as it
62 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

travels south and west before assuming a

northerly direction to its terminus at the Berlin

Turnpike in Berlin. A road-walk then connects to

the southern terminus of the Metacomet Trail.

The Metacomet-Monadnock Trail in Massachusetts is approximately 80 miles in length. The

Trail is located in Hampden, Hampshire,

Franklin, and Worcester Counties, passing

through 19 separate communities. The elevation

of the trail varies from 100’ at its lowest point

along the Westfield River in Agawam to 1,618 feet

at its highest point on Mount Grace in Warwick.

The trail enters New Hampshire at the state line

and continues northward, eventually reaching

the summit of Mt. Monadnock.

In order to understand the existing trail system, a

detailed field survey and inventory was completed. In 2003 and 2004, a combination of

regional planning professionals and volunteers

hiked the trail system in both Connecticut and

Massachusetts, utilizing a global positioning

system (GPS) to record detailed data. The

following information was collected and compiled into a geodatabase:

- General descriptions and photographs of the

trails

- Information on resources, scenic view sheds

and other special assets

- Physical characteristics including geology,

hydrology, vegetation and wildlife

- Cultural resources located along the trails or

within close proximity

- Wildlife habitats

Historic and archaeological features

- Other characteristics that make the trail system

unique.

Other data collected during the field hiking

included:

- Condition of the trails

- Locations of trailheads and parking areas

- Identification of problem areas needing

attention

- Trail route continuity

- Maintenance issues

A complete segment-by-segment description of

the MMM Trail System, including information

on connecting trails, may be found in Appendix

Section A.

E. Impacts of Alternatives

This section compares the likely trail viability,

environmental, cultural and socio-economic

impacts of the four alternatives.

Methodology

The study team has evaluated the impacts of the

alternatives based on experience with similar trail

systems in the past, and on the substantial data

collected regarding the actual conditions and

experiences on the MMM Trail System which

has existed on the ground for decades in most

places.

Context

The evaluation of existing trail conditions

documents existing environmental damage, poor

trail conditions, and opportunities for improvement in many sections of the existing MMM

Trail System. The provisions of the Blueprint For

Management have been specifically developed to

minimize negative environmental consequences

related to existing trail conditions, and to avoid

such consequences in the future. The context for

considering existing and potential future

conditions and impacts requires generalization of

these potentials. Each on-the-ground situation

related to actual trail conditions and impacts

must be evaluated on a case by case basis in the

future as a part of ongoing trail management and

maintenance.

Timing

The timing of any particular action or consequence related to the alternatives can also only be

generalized. None of the alternatives would have

immediate on the ground impacts distinguishable

from the others. Only over the longer term will

differences begin to emerge. No specific

timeframe can reasonably be assigned to reflect

this reality.

Intensity

Intensity of impacts and consequences is also

very difficult to predict. The ongoing management of the Trail System, and provisions built

into the Blueprint For Management will seek to

track trail conditions and trail related impacts.

Existing conditions provide a baseline for

comparison in the future.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct and indirect effects of the alternatives are

also addressed in a generalized way based upon

the reasonably foreseeable consequences based

on past experiences on similar projects and

professional judgement.
National Park Service 63

Alternative 1: Continuation of

Current Practices

Under this alternative, no

specific actions or organized

effort would be made to alter

current trail management

 practices or administrative

structures, and no comprehensive effort to implement the

recommendations of the MMM

Trail “Blueprint” would be made.

Alternative 2: Implementation

of the Trail Blueprint through

National Scenic Trail Designation for the Entire Historical

Route of the MMM Trails in CT

and MA

Under this alternative, the entire

historical trail route of the MMM

Trails in CT and MA would be

designated as a National Scenic

Trail to be managed in accordance with the MMM Trail

Management Blueprint developed as a part of the Study.

Alternative 3: Implementation

of the Trail Management Blueprint through National Scenic

Trail Designation from Long Island Sound in CT to the NH

Border, including a significant

new route in the Belchertown

– Leverett area in Massachusetts

Under this alternative the entire

trail system from Long Island

Sound to the NH border would

be designated as a National

Scenic Trail under a name such as

the New England National Scenic

Trail. The route would include a

significant deviation from the

historical Metacomet-Monadnock

trail for the portion of the

designation north of the Mt.

Holyoke Range, consistent with

the generalized map found

within this report.

The impacts of this alternative on

long-term trail viability are

similar to alternative 2, except

that trail viability and continuity

in the Belchertown-Leverett

section would be enhanced by a

new NST route that takes

advantage of nearby stateowned lands and simultaneously

avoids an area largely devoid of

protected lands, in which

substantial landowner opposition

to NST designation and longterm trail protection has been

voiced. The new alignment

would track existing state

greenway priorities and land

protection priorities of the

greater Quabbin landscape.

The impacts of this alternative

would be similar to alternative 2,

except that the new alignment of

the NST in the BelchertownLeverett area would likely result

in increased usage for that area,

as would the creation of the NST

extension through Guilford to

Long Island Sound. The extent of

increased use cannot be known

until plans move beyond the

conceptual stage, and may vary

considerably depending upon

actual routes chosen. This issue

will require more attention if and

when the new route options

move beyond the conceptual

stage.

Impacts on types of usage would

be similar to alternative 2.

Alternative 4: Non-Federal

Implementation of “Blueprint”

Recommendations

Under this alternative, some

alternative State-based or Nonprofit-based entity would take

the lead in promoting the MMM

Trail Blueprint in an organized

and comprehensive fashion. The

most likely possibility is that the

CFPA and the AMC, cooperating

with the States of Massachusetts

and Connecticut, could form a bistate partnership whose mission

was to implement the MMM Trail

Blueprint and ensure long-term

trail viability and continuity.

CFPA and AMC would raise funds

privately and through various

grant sources to fund this effort.

This alternative has the potential

to enhance long-term trail

viability beyond the status quo.

However the lack of increased

stature conferred by potential

NST designation, and the lack of

potential federal funding support

are significant drawbacks to

realizing this alternative. To date

none of the likely entities (states,

CFPA, AMC) have expressed any

interest in this alternative.

Implementation of this alternative would have similar use

impacts to alternative 2 if

increased attention to the trail

resulted in similar improvements

to overall trail conditions and

continuity.

Impacts on types of usage would

also be expected to be similar if

additional resources for stewardship and enforcement were made

available.

Impacts on Long-Term Trail

Viability

This alternative would do

nothing to increase the current

level of organization, effort, and

funding devoted to the longterm viability of the MMM Trail

System. Over the long-term, it is

expected that breaks in the trail,

road walks, and similar threats to

trail continuity will increase, and

that the trail may evolve into a

series of unconnected ridge hikes

and shorter trail segments.

Impacts on Recreational Trail

Use

No comprehensive data currently

exists on trail use levels. Certain

trail segments are known to be

heavily used (Mt Tom,

Metacomet Ridge, for example).

Very little “end-to-end” usage is

believed to occur. Breaks/road

walk sections (especially in CT)

likely limit the use of some

sections and long distance use

attractiveness.

Types of usage are currently

governed by the landowner, with

hiking a pervasive use and other

uses occurring in some areas.

Table 13

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative

This alternative would confer the

benefits of National Scenic Trail

designation (potential federal

funding, national recognition

and status, organization

commitment to the Trail Stewardship Council and Trail Management Blueprint) to the entire

existing trail system. Long-term

trail continuity and viability

would be enhanced. However, in

the Belchertown-Leverett section

of the trail, in MA, short and

long-term trail continuity could

be adversely affected by

significant landowner opposition

and potential trail closings

NST designation would likely

serve to publicize the trail above

current levels and could result in

increased usage. Over time, if

additional resources of designation and attention of the

Stewardship Council served to

improve overall trail conditions

and continuity, this would likely

result in increased usage of

currently under-used areas and

long distance (end-to-end type)

usage.

Types of usage would not be

expected to change, since usage

would continue to be governed

by the landowner. Additional

resources available for stewardship and enforcement might have

the effect of reducing unwanted

or illegal uses, such as unauthorized ATV use.
64 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Impacts on the Natural

Environment

Under current practices, the

MMM Trail system traverses many

significant natural landforms,

landscapes, and habitat types.

The trail serves to connect people

to these natural features and

encourages their appreciation

and preservation. Over time,

trail protection efforts have

increased protected lands and

preservation of associated

natural features. At the same

time, some negative human

impacts are generated through

man’s presence, erosion, litter

and similar impacts. Under this

alternative this pattern would

continue unchanged.

Impacts on Sensitive Habitats

such as Wetlands, Vernal Pools

and Floodplains

The existing trail system traverses

or impacts sensitive habitats such

as wetlands, vernal pools, and

floodplains in a variety of

locations, and some of these

areas have been noted to be

causing environmental damages

in need of remediation. Little

funding has been available for a

systematic approach to such

issues, though the AMC and CFPA

do attempt to address serious

issues as they become aware of

them.

Impacts on the Cultural

Environment

The trail as it exists provides

access to and through a variety

of culturally significant landscapes, sites and features.

Opportunities to experience the

New England Landscape through

vistas and physical trail connections are high. Appreciation and

protection for these cultural

resources and sites is increased by

human awareness and understanding. There is little evidence

of negative human impact on the

cultural environment from the

trail.

Table 13 (cont’d)

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative

Under this alternative, it is

expected that efforts at trail and

associated natural resource

protection would be increased

over the status quo, resulting in a

likely increase in long-term

natural resource and habitat

protection. Additional resources

would also be available for user

education, trail maintenance and

similar aspects the Trail Management Blueprint identifies that

may be expected to reduce

negative human impacts

associated with the trail.

NST designation of the existing

trail system has the potential to

increase the amount of attention, funding and resource

devoted to such issues through

implementation consistent with

the intent of the Blueprint For

Management. It may be possible

to utilize the baseline information collected as a part of this

Study to implement a systematic

approach to identification,

prioritization and resolution of

problem areas. Over the longterm, it is reasonable to predict

that impacts to sensitive

environmental areas will be

reduced under this alternative.

Under this alternative additional

resources and attention would be

devoted to cultural resource

interpretation and connection

through efforts of the Trail

Stewardship Council and

implementation of the Trail

Management Blueprint. The

opportunity to connect with the

New England Landscape as a

significant aspect of the nation’s

cultural heritage would be

emphasized by the NST designation. The Blueprint’s emphasis on

“community connections” would

Impacts of this alternative on the

natural environment are similar

to alternative 2, except that in

the Belchertown-Leverett area

additional federal resources and

attention of the Trail Stewardship Council would be directed

away from the historical route of

the Metacomet-Monadnock Trail

and toward the new NST route

to the east. This would increase

natural resource protection and

stewardship efforts for the new

alignment of the NST, while such

efforts and attention on that

portion of the historical trail

would remain status quo or

potentially decrease. The new

NST segments in both MA and

Guilford, CT also have the

potential to increase human use

in these areas, potentially

increasing negative human

impacts as well. This issue will

require further consideration if

and when these new route

options move beyond the

conceptual stage.

Impacts of this alternative are

similar to those described for

Alternative 2, except that the

development of new trail

sections in Guilford and the new

NST section proposed in Massachusetts. For these new trail

areas, conceptual plans reflect

the intent of the Blueprint For

Management to avoid negative

impacts to sensitive environmental areas. When moving from

conceptual to on-the-ground

layout, these issues will need to

be reassessed to ensure that long

and short-term impacts are

avoided.

The impacts of this alternative

would be similar to alternative 2,

except that a significant new

opportunity to connect the NST

to the unique history of the

Quabbin Reservoir area and to

the Historic District and features

of the Town of Guilford could be

developed. The potential for a

trail overlook and interpretive

signage telling the story of the

communities removed and

flooded in the development of

the Quabbin Reservoir could add

to the culturally significant

This alternative has the potential

to increase natural resource

protection and stewardship

efforts similar to alternatives 2

and 3. However, the lack of

resources and known institutional interest in this alternative

makes realization of this

potential unlikely. Over the long

and short term it is expected that

the natural resource impacts of

this alternative would be most

similar to alternative 1: status

quo.

Over the long and short-term it is

likely that the impacts of this

alternative to sensitive environmental areas would be similar to

those of Alternaive 1: status quo.

As with natural resources above,

this alternative has the potential

to increase the attention paid to

cultural resources associated with

the trail, but the lack of implementation options makes it likely

that actual impacts would be

similar to the status quo.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
National Park Service 65

Impacts on SocioEconomic

Resources

The MMM Trail system is highly

valued by communities, landowners and users as a positive

contributor to quality of life in

the areas through which the trail

passes. Many communities

formally recognize this contribution in local planning documents,

town web sites, and similar

venues.

Numerous studies have indicated

that proximity to trails and open

space recreation has a positive

effect on property values, and it

is likely that the MMM Trail

System has such an effect,

though no research on this topic

was conducted as a part of this

Study.

There are no known negative

socio economic impacts related

to the Trail System.

Under this alternative, it is likely

that the positive socio economic

value of the MMM Trail System

will be diminished in some areas

of the trail over time, as trail

breaks, road walk sections, and

similar trail issues increase.

Indirect and Cumulative

Impacts

Under the status quo alternative

there is expected to be a slow

erosion of the MMM Trail System

long distance trail viability.

Increased development pressure

will likely continue and accelerate the current trend of breaks in

the trail, need for frequent

relocations, and ultimately

fragmentation of the Trail System

into a series of unconnected

short hiking opportunities.

Such a system will still have

substantial value as a recreational and socio economic

resource, though the value will

be diminished over time and

likely lost in some areas completely. The indirect and

cumulative impacts of such a

pattern are not expected to be

large or intense, rather minor

and subtle. Over time impacts on

secondary values such a property

values, less attention to open

space preservation, and quality

of life indices in negatively

impacted areas may be noticed.

Table 13 (cont’d)

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative

enhance the opportunities to

connect the trail with heritage

resources at the community level.

Under this alternative, additional

attention and resources devoted

to the quality, continuity and

protection of the trail, together

with the prestige of the NST

designation itself, should

increase the socio-economic

value of the trail as a community

resource and contributor to

quality of life factors. This would

be expected to have a positive

impact upon property values and

related socio-economic factors.

The indirect and cumulative

impact of NST designation will

relate principally to increased

attention to open space preservation, side and connecting trails,

Trail System connectivity,

partnerships formed through the

Trail Stewardship Council, and

related efforts stimulated and

supported by NST designation.

Property values, quality of life

measures, open space preservation will be accentuated and

fewer areas will experience the

long-term decline in such spin-off

values that may occur under

Alternative 1: status quo.

The short and long-term socio

economic impacts of this

alternative are expected to be

similar to alternative 1:status

quo.

The lack of likely implementation

of this alternative makes indirect

and cumulative impacts of this

alternative similar to that of

Alternative 1: status quo.

resources associated with the

trail, as could the connection to

the historical resources of the

Town of Guilford.

The short and long-term impacts

of this alternative on socio

economic factors are expected to

be similar to alternative 2. The

development of the new NST

routes in the BelchertownLeverett section of MA and in

Guilford, CT would be unlikely to

generate significantly different

socio-economic impacts from

alternative 2, though, over time,

the benefits of the Trail System

would be expected to accrue to

the new NST routes, as they

become established and

recognized.

The indirect and cumulative

impacts of this alternative are

similar to those expected for

Alternative 2, except that the

two proposed NST route

extensions are anticipated to

increase the long term MMM

Trail System viability, and

therefore extend long-term

indirect and cumulative benefits.

Because this alternative anticipates development of new trail

routes that are currently only

conceptual in nature, the indirect

and cumulative impacts of the

trail in these new areas is less

well understood than for the

existing trail areas, and will need

to be considered in the further

planning of these extensions.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
66 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Costs

There are no new costs associated with this alternative. The

AMC and CFPA would continue

to lead trail management and

protection efforts through

primarily volunteer efforts, with

some paid staff support and

involvement. Communities, the

states, and other partners would

contribute to efforts on an ad

hoc/ opportunistic basis, as they

have in the past. Taken as a

whole, the existing local, state,

NGO commitment to the trail is

substantial and is expected to

continue to be so.

Conclusions

The existing MMM Trail System,

together with existing management and protection systems,

represents an excellent recreational feature providing positive

environmental and socio

economic values for southern

New England and the 40

abutting communities. Continuation of current practices will

generally continue this success,

however, increased development

pressure and trail management/

protection issues are evident and

expected to increase. Over time,

this alternative will continue a

trend of Trail System fragmentation, relocations, encroaching

development and other similar

factors. A long-term downward

trend in the overall value of the

Trail System can therefore be

expected.

Table 13 (cont’d)

Comparison of Impacts by Alternative

The federal component of

management costs associated

with NST designation in accordance with the Blueprint For

Management are estimated at

$271,000 annually (assuming

congressional appropriations

equaling the recommended

funding level). A breakdown of

how this figure is arrived at is

included in Chapter V, Section H).

This can be seen as a “match” to

existing local, state and NGO

resources represented in the

status quo. Non-federal

commitment of resources would

also be expected to increase,

based on an increased level of

activity stimulated by federal

seed $$, the Trail Stewardship

Council activity, and additional

opportunities that NST designation might reasonably be

expected to generate.

NST designation of the existing

MMM Trail System, in accordance

with the Blueprint For Management, will have the effect of

increasing the level of attention

paid to the Trail System. Formation and support of the Trail

Stewardship Council will increase

communication and coordination, and will likely stimulate

local, state, and NGO attention

and resources devoted to the

Trail System, associated open

space protection, and side/

connecting trails. Long-term

impacts compared to the status

quo will include less trail

fragmentation, increased open

space protection, and positive

effects on socio economic factors

such as property values and

quality of life factors. This

alternative, however would fail

to realize extension opportunities in Guilford, CT, and would

fail to address trail protection

and landowner conflict issues in

the Belchertown-Leverett section

of Massachusetts.

Implementation of the Blueprint

For Management in the absence

of NST designation would carry

with it the same $271,000 annual

price tag. However, actual

implementation of this level of

support would require local,

state and NGO partners to

greatly increase their existing

levels of staff and funding to the

MMM Trail System.

Implementation of the Blueprint

For Management without NST

designation is conceptually

attractive, but is not considered

practical, as none of the key

parties (States, NGO’s, communities, etc.) have to date shown any

interest in this alternative.

Therefore, the overall impacts of

this alternative are considered to

be the same as for Alternative 1:

status quo.

The costs associated with this

alternative are expected to be

similar to those associated with

Alternative 1. The conceptual

route extensions might therefore

divert resources from other

MMM Blueprint priorities. This

balancing of resource allocation

priorities would be one of the

main functions of the Trail

Stewardship Council.

NST designation according to the

Blueprint For Management, and

including conceptual new routes

in Guilford, CT and Belchertown/

Leverett section of Massachusetts

offers the potential to realize the

positive impacts of Alternative 2,

plus additional positive benefits

associated with the new route

proposals. The fact that the new

route extensions are conceptual

at this time will necessitate

further planning and resources

devoted to realization of these

benefits. This could result in a

diversion of resources from other

MMM Trail issues/opportunities.

It will be up to trail partners on

the Trail Stewardship Council to

balance these competing needs

to avoid negative impacts from

this alternative, while realizing

positive potential long-term

benefits.

F. Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The Study concludes that the long-term viability

of the MMM Trail system as a high quality,

continuous, long-distance trail will require a

sustained level of increased focus and resources

by a wide array of trail partners. National Scenic

Trail designation as described in Alternative 3

appears to be the most feasible way to generate

such an increased level of attention and resources.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
National Park Service 67

SOURCES:

Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

Connecticut State Office of Archaeology

Massachusetts Historical Commission. Connecticut Valley Study Unit Part I and II, Commonwealth

of Massachusetts, Office of the Secretary of State, 294 Washington Street, Boston, MA: 1982.

Kingsley, Elbridge. Hadley: The Regicides, Indian and General History. Picturesque Publishing

Company, Northampton, MA: May 7, 1895.

LaFrancis, Edith. Agawam, Massachusetts: A Town History. The Pond-Ekberg Co., Springfield, MA:

1980.

Lockwood, Rev. John H. Westfield and Its Historical Influences 1699-1919. Press of Springfield

Printing and Binding Company, Springfield, MA: 1922.

Parmenter, (No First Name Listed). History of Pelham, Massachusetts. (Publisher Page Missing): 1896.

Swanton, John R. The Indian Tribes of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, City of Washington: 1968.

Swift, Esther M. West Springfield Massachusetts: A Town History. The West Springfield Heritage

Association, West Springfield, MA: 1969.

Walker, Alice Morehouse. Historic Hadley. The Grafton Press, NY: 1906.

Anderson, M. G. and M. D. Merrill. 1998. Connecticut River watershed: Natural

communities and neotropical migrant birds. Report for The Nature Conservancy,

Boston, Massachusetts.

Anonymous. 1932. Hiking interest is increasing in Connecticut: Trail building in state

results in more than 200 miles of trails. Christian Science Monitor, July 9.

Anonymous. 1933. Connecticut trail system lures many hikers: Forests, lakes,

woodland brooks provide setting. Telephone News Volume VII, No. 11, July 1933.

Bell, M. 1985. The Face of Connecticut: People, Geology, and the Land. Bulletin 110

of the State Geological and Natural History Survey, Hartford, Connecticut.

Berlin Conservation Commission, Meriden Conservation Commission, and Middletown

Conservation Commission. 1994. Lamentation Mountain Tri-Town Project Land Use

Plan, Connecticut, USA.

Bertness, M. D., P. Ewanchuk, and B. R. Silliman. 2002. Anthropogenic modification of

New England salt marsh landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science

99:1395-1398.

Bonneau, L. R., K. S. Shields, and D. L. Civco. 1999. Using satellite images to classy

and analyze the health of hemlock forests. Biological Invasions 1: 255-267.

Brumbach, J. J. 1965. The Climate of Connecticut. Bulletin 19 of the Connecticut

State Geological and Natural History Survey, Hartford, Connecticut.
68 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Camacho, A., S. A. Canham, R. Ferik, H. H. Moore, and H. M. Richards. 2002. A

management plan for Yale University's Peabody Museum Natural Area, Branford and

Guilford, Connecticut. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven,

Connecticut.

Clapp, M. and D. Kohl. 1978. The Metacomet trail: A resource guide. Revised Edition,

New Britain Youth Museum, New Britain, Connecticut.

Connecticut Department of Labor. 2004. Connecticut Economic Digest, June 2004.

Available at http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/misc/cedjun04.htm.

Connecticut Forest and Park Association. 1997. Connecticut Walk Book, 60th

Anniversary Edition. Rockfall, Connecticut.

Connecticut Office of Policy and Management. 2003. Census 2000 Population Counts

for Connecticut Municipalities & Counties. Available at

http://www.opm.state.ct.us/pdpd3/data/estimate.htm.42

Connecticut State Climate Center. 2004. Overview of climate in Connecticut. Available

at: http://www.canr.uconn.edu/nrme/cscc/CTweatherstationintroduction/

conncticutintroduction.htm

Connecticut State Climate Center. 2004b. Summary climatic data for Bradley

International Airport, Windsor Locks, Connecticut. Available at

http://www.canr.uconn.edu/nrme/cscc/ CTweatherstationintroduction/mIddletown.htm

Connecticut State Climate Center. 2004c. Summary climatic data for Middletown,

Connecticut. Available at http://www.canr.uconn.edu/nrme/cscc/

CTweatherstationintroduction/mIddletown.htm

Cronon, W. 1983. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New

England. Hill and Wang, New York, New York.

Doezema, M. (Editor). 2002. Changing Prospects: The View From Mount Holyoke.

Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Dowhan, J. J. and R. J. Craig. 1976. Rare and Endangered Species of Connecticut

and Their Habitats. State Geological and Natural History Survey of Connecticut, Report

of Investigations No. 6, Hartford, Connecticut.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. AirData Monitor Values Report for

Connecticut. Available at

http://www.epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?st~CT~Connecticut.

Farnsworth, E. J. 2001. Corydalis flavula (Yellow Corydalis) Conservation and

Research Plan. New England Wild Flower Society, Framingham, Massachusetts.

Farnsworth, E. J. 2003. Planning for the future of over 100 rare species. New England

Wild Flower 7: 6.

Farnsworth, E. J. In press. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer: A

conservation biologist’s perspective on invasive and rare species. Trends in Ecology

and Evolution, commissioned article.

Fitzgerald, H. 2001. Establishing conservation priorities on Connecticut’s traprock

ridges: A site conservation plan. Report prepared for The Nature Conservancy,

Middletown, Connecticut.
National Park Service 69

Griffith, G. E., J. M. Omernik, and S. M. Pierson. 2004. Ecoregions of Massachusetts,

Connecticut, and Rhode Island. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Western

Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon. Available at

http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/mactri_eco.htm.43

Hall, B., G. Motzkin, D. R. Foster, M. Syfert, and J. Burk. 2002. Three hundred years of

forest and land use change in Massachusetts. Journal of Biogeography 29: 1319-1336.

Higbee, M. 2003. Mother’s Day hike becomes nightmare. The Middletown Press 119:

1, May 12.

Hitchcock, E. 1857. On surface geology, especially that in the Connecticut Valley in

New England. Pages 1-76 in Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge: Illustrations of

Surface Geology. Collins Publishers, Philadelphia.

Hubbard Brook Research Foundation. 2003. Nitrogen pollution from the sources to the

sea. Science Links Report, Concord, New Hampshire. Available from

http://www.hubbardbrook.org/hbrf/page.php3?subject=Publications.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001. Climate Change 2001: The

Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK.

Juli, H. D. 1994. Late prehistory of the Thames River: Survey, landscape, and

preservation along a Connecticut estuary. Northeast Anthropology 47: 21-44.

Keegan, W. F. and K. Noble Keegan. 1999. The Archaeology of Connecticut: The

Human Era – 11,000 Years Ago to the Present. Bibliopola Press, UConn Co-op, Storrs,

Connecticut.

Kerlinger, P. 1989. Flight Strategies of Migrating Hawks. Chicago University Press,

Chicago, Illinois.

Klemens, M. W. 1993. Amphibians and reptiles of Connecticut and adjacent regions.

State Geological and Natural History Survey, Hartford, Connecticut.

Kizlinski, M. L., D. A. Orwig, R. C. Cobb, and D. R. Foster. 2002. Direct and indirect

ecosystem consequences of an invasive pest on forests dominated by eastern hemlock.

Journal of Biogeography 29: 1489-1504.

Lapin, B. 1992. Lamentation Mountain natural resources inventory report.

Unpublished report for The Nature Conservancy, Middletown, Connecticut.

Lareau, A. 1997. Needless discord: The debate over the future of Connecticut’s

traprock ridges. Thesis, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut.

Leary, J. 2004. A Shared Landscape: A Guide and History of Connecticut’s State

Parks and Forests. Friends of Connecticut State Parks, Rockfall, Connecticut.

44

Lee, C. 1985. West Rock to the Barndoor Hills: The Traprock Ridges of Connecticut.

Vegetation of Connecticut Natural Areas No. 4, State Geological and Natural History

Survey, Hartford, Connecticut.

Little, R. D. 2003. Dinosaurs, Dunes, and Drifting Continents: The Geology of the

Connecticut River Valley. Third Edition. Earth View, L. L. C., Easthampton,

Massachusetts.
70 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Lobel, M., D. Ballon, A. Hausman-Rogers, and M. Mirvis. 2002. Progress, triage, and

traprock: A study of traprock ridge protection efforts in Middletown. Unpublished report,

Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut.

Longwell, C. R. and E. S. Dana. 1932. Walks and Rides in Central Connecticut and

Massachusetts. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Lyell, C. Sir. 1865. Elements of Geology; Or, The Ancient Changes of the Earth and Its

Inhabitants as Illustrated by Geological Monuments. J. Murray Publishers, London.

McCartney, J. M., P. T. Gregory, and K. W. Larsen. 1988. A tabular survey of data on

movements and home ranges of snakes. Journal of Herpetology 22: 61-73.

McDonald, N. 1996. The Connecticut Valley in the Age of Dinosaurs: A Guide to the

Geologic Literature, 1681-1995. Bulletin 116, State Geological and Natural History

Survey, Hartford, Connecticut.

McShea, W. J., H. B. Underwood, and J. H. Rappole 1997. The Science of

Overabundance : Deer Ecology and Population Management. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington, D. C.

Menunkatuck Audubon Society. 2001. Biodiversity Day 2001: Report of the survey of

biodiversity in Guilford, Connecticut, September 8, 2001. Guilford, Connecticut.

Metzler, K. J. and D. L. Wagner. 1998. Thirteen of Connecticut’s most imperiled

ecosystems. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford,

Connecticut.

Moorhead, W. H. III. 2003. Farmington River Watershed Association 2002 Biodiversity

Project, rare plant and natural community inventory. Summary Report, Farmington,

Connecticut.

Motts, W. and O'Brien, Geology and hydrology of wetlands in Massachusetts,

Publication No. 123, Special report, Water resources research center, University of

Massachusetts at Amherst, 1981, 45

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2004. Connecticut climate

summary, April 2004. Available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/

cag3/CT.html

NatureServe Explorer. 2004. NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web

application]. 2000. Version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at:

http://www.natureserve.org.

New England Regional Assessment Group. 2001. Preparing for a Changing Climate:

The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. New England Regional

Overview. U. S. Global Change Research Program, University of New Hampshire,

Durham, New Hampshire.

Orwig, D. A. 2002. Ecosystem to regional impacts of introduced pests and pathogens:

historical context, questions and issues. Journal of Biogeography 29: 1471-1474.

Orwig, D. A., D. R. Foster, and D. L. Mausel. 2002. Landscape patterns of hemlock

decline in New England due to the introduced hemlock woolly adelgid. Journal of

Biogeography 29: 1475-1488.

Parshall, T. and D. R. Foster. 2002. Fire on the New England landscape: regional and

temporal variation, cultural and environmental controls. Journal of Biogeography 29:

1305-1318.
National Park Service 71

Peterson, R. C. and R. W. Fritsch, II. 1986. Connecticut’s venomous snakes: The

timber rattlesnake and northern copperhead. Bulletin 111, State Geological and Natural

History Survey, Hartford, Connecticut.

Reynolds, C. 1979. Soil survey of Middlesex County, Connecticut. United States

Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington DC.

Ruf, C. 1985a. Natural Resources Inventory of Higby Mountain Preserve. Report for

The Nature Conservancy, 55 High Street, Middletown, Connecticut.

Ruf, C. 1985b. Natural Resources Inventory of Bluff Head Preserve. Report for The

Nature Conservancy, 55 High Street, Middletown, Connecticut.

Searcy, K. B., B. F. Wilson, and J. H. Fownes. 2003. Influence of bedrock and aspect

on soils and plant distribution in the Holyoke Range, Massachusetts. Journal of the

Torrey Botanical Society 130: 158-169.

Shaw, H. B. 1989. Connecticut’s Central Park. M. A. Thesis, Wesleyan University,

Middletown, Connecticut.

Sultzmann, L. 1997. First Nations Histories. Available at

http://www.tolatsga.org/Compacts.html46

The Mineral Database. 2004. Regional report: Connecticut, USA. Available at

http://www.mindat.org/rloc.php?loc=Connecticut%2C+USA.

Thorson, R. M. 2002. Stone by Stone. Walker and Company, New York, New York.

Tuttle, M. D. 1995. The little-known world of hoary bats. Bats Magazine 13: 3-6.

Twain, M. 1876. Old Times on the Mississippi. Belford Brothers Publishers, Toronto,

Ontario. Quote from reprint of “A literary nightmare” from the Atlantic Monthly, February

1876.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. No ordinary refuge: The Silvio O. Conte National

Fish and Wildlife Refuge Action Plan. Turner’s Falls, Massachusetts.

Waterman, L. and G. Waterman. 1989. Forest and Crag : A History of Hiking, Trail

Blazing, and Adventure in the Northeast Mountains. Appalachian Mountain Club,

Boston, Massachusetts.

Wetherell, D. V. 1992. Traprock Ridges of Connecticut: A Naturalist’s Guide.

Department of Environmental Protection Bulletin 25, Hartford, Connecticut.

Woodside, C. 2004. The trail pioneers. Connecticut Woodlands 69: 8-15.

http://home.mtholyoke.edu/offices/artmuseum/images/pages/exhibition/cole.html

http://www.holyokemass.com/historic/mttomrr/mttomp29.html

http://www.defunctparks.com/parks/MA/mountain/mountainpark.htm

http://wgby.org/localprograms/mountainpark/summithouse.html

http://fomhr.tripod.com/history2.html

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/parks/central/robn.htm

http://www.mass.gov/dem/parks/skin.htm

http://www.mass.gov/dem/parks/hksp.htm

http://www.mass.gov/dem/parks/mtom.htm

http://www.mass.gov/dem/parks/crgw.htm

http://www.agawamrevolver.org

http://vermonthistory.org/arccat/findaid/vtcentrl.htm
72 Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail System

Holland Glen, Massachusetts