North Country National Scenic Trail

Optimal Location Review Handbook

Version 1

April 15, 2014


Introduction

The National Park Service North Country Trail Office has developed this handbook for the Optimal Location Review (OLR) process as one meansto document selection of the best route for the trail and identifythe land needed for the trail. The optimal location ofthe trail should provide the most desirable recreation setting,connectany outstanding natural or cultural features, and allow for safe use and access to trailheads, suitable watersourcesand camping sites. The handbookexplains the process to locate segments of the trail to fill the gaps where no trail has yet been developed, or relocate the trail when there are changes in land management or opportunities to put the trail in a more sustainable, permanently protected location.

Background

The National Trails SystemActof1968 (the Act) assigned the National Park Service (NPS)to be the administering federal agency of theNorth Country Trail. This responsibility includes selecting the route for the trail in conjunction with state, local governments, and private landowners that have jurisdiction for the land where the trail is located. Jurisdiction for managing the trail where the NCT is located rests with the landowner, or land managing agency, or parties they have delegated (these entities are also called managing authorities in some trail documents).

The NCT’s route was published in the 1982 Comprehensive Management Plan for the North Country Trail which was submitted to Congress to comply with the National Trail System Act. Originally estimated to be 3200 miles long, the actual finished length will be closer to 4600 miles. The developed portion of the trail as of 2013 extends a total distance ofover 2,700 miles. Approximately 1900 miles of temporary connector routes, primarily along roads, make up the remainder.

Purpose and Needfor an Optimal Location Review

The purposes of an OLR are to:

  • Identify the land needed for the trail tread, and trailway[1].
  • Ensure the selected route and trailway meets theintentofCongresstolocatetheNCThighlighting scenic, natural, cultural and historic features of the areas traversed by the trail;
  • Describe themost desirablerecreationsetting, includingnatural appearingscenery,safepublicaccess, suitablewater sources, andreasonable separationfrom residential,commercial andindustrial developmentsthatcouldimpair thedesiredNCTexperience;
  • Accurately map the route to national mapping accuracy standards (+/- 40 feet) to provide a digital record of the optimal trail alignment;
  • Document agreement on the trail alignment, trailway design, and acquisition needs among trail stakeholders.

This process may be needed to resolve issues such as:

  • Landusesanddevelopmentsthat excessivelyalter thedesiredrecreationsettingand scenery;
  • Trail damaged by disturbanceeventssuchasfloodsorfires;
  • Gaps in the trail or road walks;
  • When trail location is poor, leading to resource damage or a poor user experience;
  • When trail use is damaging the trail or causing a poor user experience;
  • Uniquecircumstancessuchasnewly identifiedhabitat for anendangered species.

The decision to pursue acquisition of the land deemed most desirable for the trail should weigh the scenic, recreational and cultural values in question against a long or uncertain wait. Landowners, their objectives, and land prices change over time, and there may be later opportunities to acquire the land or easements for the optimal location. NCT partners should pursue alternate locations to those identified as “optimal” if unique circumstances warrant using an alternate route. Any NCT partners may initiatean OLR process; however the National Park Service, as the Congressionally designated administrator for the trail, should always be consulted when land acquisition decisions affecting the trail route are being considered.

OLR Process

Introduction

It’s very possible that in the process of preparing the OLR, there will be some backtracking and iterations. You might set some early objectives in terms of “must see” places, but once you look at the area, realize it would take crossing large wetlands to get there, you might decide to drop that objective. Likewise, the initial endpoints for the OLR might change. Existing trail often is built to minimize the distance walked along roads, but the resulting alignment is not the optimal route for a permanent protected trail. Step back and look at the bigger picture in terms of providing a balance between the best trail experience for the users, taking advantage of what’s best in the landscape, and the feasibility of making it happen.

With trail design and layout itself, it takes more than one visit to a site to make sure the flag line is in the best location it can be. This is normal and part of making sure that the optimal route is really the optimal route. A common situation is that the owner of a key parcel has not been contacted in regards to allowing the trail to cross their property, or allowing volunteers to enter their property and look for the optimum route.

Once you have made a rough determination as to where an optimal route might be, the next step is to initiate contact with the land owners to seek permission to access the property, scout potential trail routes and discern the possible interest of the property owners to partner with the Trail. Document the results of landowner contact in a “Contact Log”.


With this information in-hand (scenic quality, natural, historic or cultural values and property owner interest) you can then compare alternative routes to determine the optimal trail location. Some team members might see this as slowing the process down, but it is essential: Without knowing whether property owners are willing to sell their land, grant an easement, or allow a handshake agreement, it will be difficult to make decisions about where the trail can go, and what the tradeoffs might be in getting there. In some cases the team might determine that despite current opposition of a landowner, a parcel is absolutely essential for the trail, and identify their parcel for acquisition anyway, realizing that it might be a generation or more before a willing seller situation emerges. Often there is more flexibility and one parcel may not be substantially more beneficial than another in terms of the value to the trail, so if one landowner refuses, there may be other equivalent opportunities with different landowners.

Summary of Steps in OLR process:

1.Identify Project Leader and Stakeholders

The OLR begins with a Project Leader whoinvites others to assist with the OLR, forms an appropriate team, and drives the OLR process. The team members may include NPS and NCTA staff, volunteers, and federal, state or local agency staff from host agencies. As we find partners such as land trusts, local and state government land management agencies who have land protection objectives that complement the trail, the OLR can serve as a land acquisition plan that will accommodate all the partner’s needs.

The project leader should:

  1. Set upopportunitiesfor partnerstobecomefamiliarwiththe project area;
  2. Discuss as a group theuniquerecreational nicheofthearea/place,and the desiredrecreation settingelements such as access,sights, sounds, site facilitiesandmanagement, social encounters, safety issues, visitorimpacts;
  3. Discussother resourceobjectivessuch as protecting habitats, farmland or viewsheds andtheir potential asadditional attractionsor vulnerabilitiesalong theNCT;
  4. Gather the information collected (parcel information, maps, photos, and narrative, make sure the information is compiled into the OLR, and get the signatures needed on the finished OLR.

2.Set Objectives for the Optimal Route

As with the rest of the OLR, setting the objectives for the section of trail covered by the OLR is probably going to be an iterative process-you set initial objectives, then after the inventory phase, you will very likely go back and adjust them, based on what you’ve found on the ground, or in other plans.

The OLR template in Appendix A contains a list of examples of OLR objectives. Two objectives are required by the NPS for every OLR for the North Country Trail. These are distilled from the fundamental purposes of the National Trail System Act:

1)Protection and Access. To establish a trail within scenic areas of the Nation to provide increased outdoor recreation opportunities and promote preservation of, public access to, travel within, and enjoyment and appreciation of the national scenic and historic resources;

2)Recreation Potential. To provide for maximum outdoor recreation potential and for the conservation and enjoyment of nationally significant scenic, historic, natural, and cultural qualities through which the trail passes;

Other objectives may be site-specificand might take the form of positive control points-places that the trail should go to, and negative control points that the trail should avoid. Objectives may come from the habitat conservation needs of partners such as land trusts. The initial control points can usually be determined from aerial photos or satellite imagery, however they must be field checked.

Examples of Positive Control Points

•Endpoint of existing high quality trail

•Vistas

•Meadows

•Unusual topographicandgeologicfeatures

•Streams, rivers, lakes, waterfalls

Examples of Negative Control Points

•Road crossings with poor sight distance

•A pronouncedlackofdesired recreationsettingorsceneryconditions;

•Motorized use;

•Excessivedisturbancewithin theNCTcorridoror viewsheddue toexistingor potential residential,commercialorindustrial development;

•Chronic, recurringmaintenancedemandsorproblems;

•Hazards tothepublic;

•Slopes over 40%. These make benching trail by hand very difficult.

3.Inventory

At least one of the OLR endpoints should be a point that connects to existing, established,high quality permanent trail, the other should be a logical point to define the study area: a bridge, road crossing, point of crossing other trail, public land parcel boundary, etc. Most easily manageable relocations or acquisition projects arelessthan3milesinlength, but the complexity of land ownership, size of parcels, and control points,suchasroad crossings, trail bridges, or high quality sections of established trail are all factors to consider when determining the end points of an OLR. Occasionally, an OLRwill evaluatelandsacrossadministrativeboundariesprovidingsufficient size toconsider alternatives regardlessoflandownership.OLRs within large blocks of land ownership and few parcels could cover 20 or more miles of trail.

The North Country Trail is a National SCENIC Trail; therefore the trail route should maximize opportunities for scenic views. These can be large scale vistas or small scale scenes. Other “values”, i.e. things that can provide education, interest or variety (such as items of local or national historical, cultural or natural importance) should be identified on a map that shows these positive control points.

It is important to inventory the context of the proposed route, that is, what kind of trail is the proposed route going to connect? Is it surfaced rail trail or a natural surfaced footpath? What uses are permitted on the existing trail on either side of the OLR area? What are the other trail plans and existing trail opportunities in the area provided by local, state or federal agencies?

After identifyingpossible trail alignments and what adjacent land is needed for the trailway, theOLR process should analyze all of theprivatelandslocatedwithin thisboundary. This will require gathering digital data that’s show the boundaries of the landownership parcels, along with the owner’s name and mailing address. The digital data is overlaid with the other OLR information. The digital parcel data (sometimes called tax parcel data) is usually available from County or Township governments, sometimes online. The North Country Trail Association headquarters can help you with this-they may have already gathered parcel data for your area.

All segments under review require an on-site intensive visit to determine the optimal location. The field review should involve key members of the OLR team. The OLR team will develop alternate routes and analyze them in comparison to the current route for identification of an optimal location.

•Use a GPS receiver to record various alternatives and map them with other features

•Note opportunities, problems and alternatives for the current route. Take plenty of photos.

•Identify the area adjacent to the optimal route that is needed for the trailway (the land adjacent to the trail managed for the trail experience.)

Ideally, the OLR team should have permission to access the private lands under consideration. In some cases the best available information for the route might come from looking at private parcels from adjacent public land to be sure that the parcel in question will provide the optimal trail location, or using aerial photos or satellite imagery. If an assessment of the optimal route cannot be made without entering the private property, then contacting landowners to secure permission to scout for the trail would be the next step. The best way to start this process is usually by doing some research, then writing the landowner to initiate contact. The NCTA has examples of letters to landowners, and information about working with landowners available on its website, or ask the Director of Trail Development for help. If the landowner response is positive, then move forward to secure permission for access to the property and field review. If the landowner does not respond, or declines to allow for scouting and the possibility of acquisition, then the team must make a decision about looking at other parcels and redesigning the optimum route, or keeping the alignment, and waiting for the parcel to become available, and using the best information available to complete the OLR.

TheOLRteamwill categorize thelandparcelsaseitheracquisition“Priority1” or “Priority2”. “Priority1”parcelsarethosenon-federal parcels locateddirectlyon theoptimallydeterminedlocationfor thetrail itself. “Priority2” parcelsdonotcrossthetrail butarelocatedwithin theTrail Corridordeterminedbythevisibilityanalysis.The OLRshould include alistof parcels inatablethat includes:route option number, acquisitionpriority,aparcel ID that is also shown onthe maps oftheOLR area, assessor’s parcel number (APN),parcel size in acres.

4. Analysis

Compare different route possibilities that will meet trail objectives, including the current route. Each route considered should be referenced by an “Alternative Number” that is cross-referenced to the report’s map. The document should include an evaluation of physical, site-specific trail considerations for the alternative. Include map(s) produced using GPS and GIS technologythat meets national mapping accuracy standards (+/- 40 feet positional accuracy). One or more maps in the OLR document should provide a visual depiction of the trail alignment and trailway, alternatives, positive and negative control points, and parcel boundaries and ids for lands on the optimal routes. See the maps in Appendix A.

5.Identify Optimal Route

This takes the form of a ranking table, where each alternative is ranked according to how well it meets each objective. See the example Provide a description of which alternative provides for an optimal trail location, and describe how it resolves concerns and meets trail objectives.

6.Prepare document and get signatures

OncetheOLR partnersreachconsensus andtheOLRteamcompletestheOLR document, theteam leader will obtain finalreview, acceptanceand signaturesfrom the stakeholders, NPS trail manager and superintendent. Signatures are divided into two blocks: recommended by and approved by. Examples of recommenders would be NCTA chapter presidents, the NCTA Director of Trail Development, the NPS trail manager, or staff from agencies that will manage the land where the trail is to be located or local government officials who have been engaged in trail protection or manage land involved in the optimal location. Approvers would be the NPS superintendent or the executive director of an affiliate trail organization where the OLR is located, or a local government official who had land or trails that were part of the OLR. The actual signatories may vary from one OLR to another, but should generally reflect the above examples.

APPENDIX A

TEMPLATE FOR OPTIMUM LOCATION REVIEW DOCUMENT

Cover Sheet

Connecting Points

County, State

Date

Location Map this should show the entire state, the approximate route of the trail, and have some type of symbol that shows the location of the project.

Example of Location map for a Project in North Dakota

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THIS OLR

•The purpose of this OLR is to locate the optimal route approximately xx miles from A to B…..

•The OLR is needed because…. (Roadwalk critical parcel for sale, existing trail is in poor alignment, etc.) Describe why there is a need to do an Optimal Location Review by identifying the known problems, issues and concerns with the existing trail location. Issues and concerns include such things as: unsafe road crossings, road walks, reservoir crossings, protection of unique areas, and encroachment by development. Describe the outcome of any public meeting(s) that may have been held.

TRAIL SETTING AND CURRENT ROUTE

•Use photos large enough they’re big enough to see- generally half a page is good. Notate as needed; photos should have captions with location, date taken, and description of what’s being shown. Photos should show typical settings, positive and negative control points

•Describe the area: primary land owners, the land use(s) (i.e. residential, urban, agricultural, industrial, etc.), terrain vegetation, water features, etc.

•Describe positive key positive and negative control points: river crossings, viewpoints, scenic sites, waterbodies, towns, wetlands, industrial sites, highways, etc.