evaluation of trail impact assessments for use at oregon ... › cps › sites › › files ›...

of 95

Evaluation of Trail Impact Assessments

for use at Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

Rocky Houston

PA 512 – Capstone Project

June 2012

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Doug Morgan

Portland State University

Hatfield School of Government

Public Administration Division

Center for Public Service

of 95

This page left blank intentionally.

of 95

Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 6

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background............................................................... 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................. 11 National Park Service ............................................................................................................... 11 United States Forest Service .................................................................................................... 11 Bureau of Land Management ................................................................................................... 12 California State Parks ............................................................................................................... 13 Point Sampling or Sample Points Models ................................................................................. 13 Problem Assessment Method ................................................................................................... 14 Lineal Segmentation Inventories ............................................................................................. 15 Qualitative Trail Condition Model ............................................................................................. 15 Summary of Literature Review ................................................................................................ 15

Chapter 3: Research Problem and Objectives ..................................................... 17 Objectives of Research ............................................................................................................ 19 Main Objective: ................................................................................................................................. 19

Sub-objectives: ................................................................................................................................. 19

Chapter 4: Research Methods ................................................................................ 20 Best Practices Review .............................................................................................................. 21 Focus Group ............................................................................................................................. 21 Model Development ................................................................................................................. 22 Adoption ................................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 5: Research Assessment and Findings ................................................... 25 Research Assessment .............................................................................................................. 25 Research Findings .................................................................................................................... 25 Focus Group ...................................................................................................................................... 25

Model Outline .................................................................................................................................... 27

Level One Priority: Public Safety and Rapid Trail Condition Assessment ................................. 28

Level Two Priority: Public Safety and Trail Problem Assessment .............................................. 32

Level Three Priority: Trail Planning and Trail Inventory and Condition Assessment .............. 36

Model Test ............................................................................................................................... 41 Revised Model Test .................................................................................................................. 42 Focus Group ............................................................................................................................. 45

Leadership Application- Development of Implementation Strategy................. 47 Context of Leadership Opportunity .......................................................................................... 48 Organization Structure – Re-Framing ............................................................................................ 48

Stakeholder Analysis: ....................................................................................................................... 57

of 95

SWOT Analysis: ................................................................................................................................. 58

Leadership Assessment ............................................................................................................ 60 Strengths Assessment ...................................................................................................................... 60

Leadership Strategy ................................................................................................................. 63 Stage 1 – Communication ............................................................................................................... 63

Stage 2 – Training ............................................................................................................................ 65

Stage 3 – Integration ....................................................................................................................... 65

Appendix A: Trail Inventory.................................................................................... 72

Appendix B: Trail Inventory and Condition Assessment .................................... 73

Appendix C: Trail Problem Assessment ................................................................ 74

Appendix D: Trail Rapid Condition Assessment ................................................... 75

Appendix E - Trail Inventory and Assessment Report ......................................... 76

Appendix F - Smart Power Tool ............................................................................... 91 Table A: Sources of Discretionary Power ...................................................................................... 92

Table B: Hard Power ........................................................................................................................ 93

Table C: Soft Power ......................................................................................................................... 94

Table D: Assessment to Discern Smart Power Strategy ............................................................. 95

of 95

Table of Figures Figure 1 - California State Parks Trail Maintenance Prioritization Matrix .................................................. 13 Figure 2 - Comparison of Trail Assessment Methods ................................................................................. 17 Figure 3 - Study Design ............................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 4 - Proposed Time-Frame for Study ................................................................................................. 21 Figure 5 - Focus Group Summary of Core Trail Information Needs ............................................................ 26 Figure 6 - Trails Assessment Hierarchy ....................................................................................................... 27 Figure 7 - Rapid Trail Condition Assessment ............................................................................................... 32 Figure 8 - Trail Problem Assessment .......................................................................................................... 34 Figure 9 - Trail Problem Assessment - Trail Attribute Data Dictionary ....................................................... 36 Figure 10 - Trail Inventory & Assessment ................................................................................................... 38 Figure 11 - Trail Degradation Level Matrix ................................................................................................. 39 Figure 12 - Summary of Trails from Trail Inventory .................................................................................... 40 Figure 13 - Comparison of Trail Inventory and Condition Assessment Models .......................................... 44 Figure 14 - Trail Assessments Hierarchy ..................................................................................................... 45 Figure 15 - Trail Assessments Hierarchy Matrix .......................................................................................... 46 Figure 16 - Human Resource Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution .................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 17 - Structural Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution .......... 51 Figure 18 - Political Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution ............. 53 Figure 19 - Symbolic Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution ........... 54 Figure 20 - Summary of Re-Framing Opposition and Support to Change .................................................. 55 Figure 21 - Summary of Re-Framing Acceptance or Rejection to Proposed Solutions ............................... 56 Figure 22 - Stakeholder Analysis ................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 23 - SWOT Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 59 Figure 24 - Strength Assessment Summary ................................................................................................ 60 Figure 25 - Smart Power Tool...................................................................................................................... 62 Figure 26 - Implementation Plan Timeline .................................................................................................. 63

of 95

Executive Summary

The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department manages nearly 1,000 miles of

recreation trails through its park system, without a system to assess and manage trail

maintenance. Trails are a key recreational amenity that provides safe access to the

natural resources of Oregon. The agency is challenged to provide a world class trail

experience to their users, while protecting the natural resources that are the draw for

millions of users every year. The agency needs a methodology to:

1. Identify problem areas for immediate maintenance or that pose a public

safety concern;

2. A means to systematically assess trails and identify all maintenance needs to

allow for the park manager to prioritize trail maintenance tasks; and

3. A means to assess trail system planning decisions to manage impacts to the

natural resources, make management decisions related to forecasting future

maintenance needs, direct decision making on closing a trail or limiting use

(by user type or season) and creating new trails or re-routing sections of an

existing trail.

This study used a quasi-experimental method to conduct the research. The

design used a focus group to develop data collection priorities for trail assessments.

The design draws from existing trail assessment models to create new model for the

agency. The model will use existing parks to determine the best trail assessment model

of 95

to meet the agency’s needs. A focus group will be used to re-affirm the models efficacy

in collecting trail data.

The research resulted in three trail assessment tools being developed. The first

is a rapid trail condition assessment tool to assess public safety concerns. It is easy to

use, quick and allows annual maintenance needs to be addressed along with the critical

conditional assessments. The second is a trail problem assessment tool that provides

an assessment of problems with the trail and provides a methodology to identify,

diagnosis, and provide a treatment recommendation for the problem. The third trail

assessment tool provides data to assist with trail system planning needs, while

addressing environmental impacts and trail conditions that arise over a period of time.

of 95

Chapter 1: Introduction and Background

The mission of the State Parks and Recreation Department (agency) is to

“provide and protect outstanding, natural, scenic, cultural, historic and recreational sites

for the enjoyment and education of present and future generations.” The agency

manages Oregon’s state parks, recreation programs, community grants and heritage

programs through a headquarters staff in Salem and three field regions. The agency

operates over 233 parks, 950 miles of trail on over 100,000 acres. Oregon’s state parks

are among the most popular in the United States. Their combined day-use and

camping attendance of 44.2 million visitors (2009) consistently ranks the system among

the ten most visited in the nation.

The agency manages nearly 1,000 miles of recreation trails through its park

system, without a system to assess and manage trail maintenance. Trails are a key

recreational amenity that provides safe access to the natural resources of Oregon. The

agency is challenged to provide a world class trail experience to users, while protecting

the natural resources that are the draw for millions of users every year.

When trails are in degraded and in poor condition, the experience is impacted

negatively (Pettebone, Newman, & Theobald, 2009). Trail users become concerned

with personal safety (not falling, slipping, etc.) instead of appreciating the natural world

the trail brings them into. These safety concerns create increased concerns that

negatively impact the aesthetic experience, resulting in customer complaints, a

diminished user experience and potentially fewer users coming to state parks.

of 95

Once a trail gets to a point where someone communicates its poor or unsafe

condition to the agency, most others have just bypassed the site, creating a braided

trail and increased the negative impacts to the trail and adjacent natural resources

(Bruehler & Sondergaard, 2004; Pettebone, Newman, & Theobald, 2009). The agency

needs a methodology to:

1. Identify problem areas for immediate maintenance or that pose a public

safety concern;

2. A means to systematically assess trails and identify all maintenance needs

to allow for the park manager to prioritize trail maintenance tasks; and

3. A means to assess trail system planning decisions to manage impacts to

the natural resources, make management decisions related to forecasting

future maintenance needs, direct decision making on closing a trail or

limiting use (by user type or season) and creating new trails or re-routing

sections of an existing trail.

Most of the agency’s trails were built decades ago and built in a manner that

creates maintenance issues. The trails receive minimal maintenance or monitoring by

staff. The combination of poor design and deferred maintenance has led to increased

impacts. The agency has no uniform trail assessment tools being used to manage the

trail system’s maintenance needs. The agency has relied on user complaints and park

ranger’s annual or biannual vegetation management work to identify major problems.

of 95

The challenge of increased use levels and natural resource impacts has not been

met with an increase in staff to manage and maintain the use. Since the 1970s, the

agency’s staffing levels have continually decreased. The agency’s assessed level of

needed staffing to manage parks is over twice as high as the actual staffing level (33%

to 40% of needed full time employees, depending on management unit) (Oregon Parks

and Recreation Department, 2010).

The dependence on a triage-based trail management philosophy has led to an

approach that does not allow the agency to quantify trail conditions and make informed

management decisions (Pettebone, Newman, & Theobald, 2009). As such, the trail

system is not keeping up with the impacts and the nature of problems is growing in size

(fiscal impacts and environmental impacts) and frequency.

of 95

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The agency is not alone in dealing with this matter. All recreation-based land

managers have had to grapple with the dilemma of reduced budgets and staff and

increased recreational use. Assessing impacts is a complicated endeavor for land

managers, especially if reducing access is one of the solutions. Several land managers

trail assessment processes have been reviewed to identify best practices in the field.

National Park Service

The National Park Service (NPS) has developed the Visitor Experience and

Resource Protection Framework handbook to deal with this issue (National Park Service,

1997). While this is a good holistic model, it takes a good amount of time and

resources to complete the process. Most land managers do not have the time or

resources to complete the process.

United States Forest Service

The United States Forest Service (USFS) has implemented the Trail Condition

Assessment Survey Matrix (CASM) as part of their Trail Management Objectives (TMO)

(United States Forest Service, 2011). CASM is their guide for conducting trail inventory

and condition surveys. The CASM bases the level of survey method and expected data

accuracy based on the level of trail development (trail class), investment in trail

structures, and visitor expectations (United States Forest Service, 2011). The

assessment tool takes into consideration the National Quality Standards for Trails. The

of 95

key measures are: Health and Cleanliness, Resource Setting, Safety and Security,

Responsiveness, and Condition of Facilities (United States Forest Service, 2011).

The USFS has incorporated the CASM into the USFS Trail Deferred Maintenance

Protocols. The protocols set forth the priorities of maintenance to be completed versus

those that are deferred based off of the class of trail and the National Quality Standards

for Trails. This process results in a prioritized list of trail maintenance tasks and clear

measures to communicate to staff and the public on the reasons behind the trail

maintenance tasks implemented.

Bureau of Land Management

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) uses a trail condition assessment tool

model that segments trails. Each segment is then evaluated by the type of trail,

surface slope, impact rating, mud/muck index, trail drainage, trail surface

characteristics, trail width, stone hindrance, and vegetation stripping. Each category is

scored. The scoring system then provides a maintenance need level for each trail

section.

This system has been implemented to collect trail location and condition data

and to prioritize the trail work to the trails and trail segments that are in the highest

need of maintenance. The trail manager can then plan trail maintenance activities and

determine maintenance funding needs.

of 95

California State Parks

California State Parks has developed a system that is based on cyclic

replacement occurrences that are contingent on normal wear-out life spans for different

types of infrastructure. As Figure 1 below shows, trails have a third order priority

compared to bridges, steps and retaining walls but are expected to be done every 5

years compared to higher priority infrastructure that is expected to be done every 10-30

years. California has developed a periodic trail inspection model that keeps trail

managers on top of trail current conditions.

Facility Trail Maintenance Priority Replacement Example Structure construction/re-construction Bridges Puncheon Steps Retaining wails

1 15-20 years 10-15 years 10% of total yearly as needed

Drainage facility construction/re-construction 2 as needed Trail rehabilitation 3 performed every 5 years Turnpike construction/re-construction 4 every 10 years Trail re-route 5 as needed Figure 1 - California State Parks Trail Maintenance Prioritization Matrix

Point Sampling or Sample Points Models

The sample point model is the most used model in the research found on trail

impact assessments. The sample point model uses a measuring wheel to identify

sample sites that are at a specified interval. At each interval, the trail conditions are

assessed. This model provides accurate and precise measures of trail characteristics

that are continuous e.g., width or depth, or frequent, exposed soil (Marion & Leung,

2001; White, Waskey, Brodehl, & Foti, 2006; Wood, Lawson, & Marion, 2006; Marion,

Leung, & Nepal, 2006; Marion & Olive, 2006; Pettebone, Newman, & Theobald, 2009).

of 95

Leung & Marion found that the best interval spacing for accuracy is less than 100

meters between sampling sites (Leung & Marion, 1999). A down fall in the point

sampling model is that trail impacts are not constant along a trail. Trail use levels, site

specific issues, and other uncommon trail problems have an impact on trail conditions

outside of the sample sites (Marion & Leung, 2001).

Variations to the Point Sampling model include Permanent Point Sampling. This

model is essentially the same at the point sampling model, but the same spot is

sampled during future assessments. This provides a longitudinal sample that allows for

impact comparison over an annual or longer period of time. Another point sampling

model is the Spatially Balanced Probability-Based Sampling Plan. It uses a variety of

different algorithms to create a hierarchical randomization of points along the trail and

then the interval spacing is selected to create the sampling points along the trail

(Pettebone, Newman, & Theobald, 2009). This model can provide statistically

significant data with fewer data points than the point sample model (Pettebone,

Newman, & Theobald, 2009).

Problem Assessment Method

The Problem Assessment Method measures and inventories the problem areas

and degree of impact within each problem site. This is the preferred method to monitor

trail characteristics that can easily be defined e.g., excessive erosion or trail braiding,

and are infrequent along the trail (Marion & Leung, 2001). Measurement can become

subjective as to where the beginning and ending of a problem is located (Marion,

of 95

Leung, & Nepal, 2006; Marion & Leung, 2001; Nepal, 2003). Close supervision and

training is needed to ensure consistent data.

Lineal Segmentation Inventories

The Lineal Segmentation Inventory model assesses every linear foot of a trail.

The model captures the trail in segmented features, trail point features and/or area

features and then segment is then assessed by a trail attribute rating system (Bruehler

& Sondergaard, 2004). The model can provide a multiple data points or attributes for

each segment. It allows the land manager to extrapolate the data in multiple ways.

This model requires the most amount of time to complete, since multiple data attributes

are collected simultaneously.

Qualitative Trail Condition Model

The qualitative trail condition model is a variation of the lineal segmentation

model and collects only one attribute along the trail. The model breaks the trail into

four classes of trail conditions based on amount of damage (Marion, Leung, & Nepal,

2006). While this model is not rich in attributes, it provides a simple holistic

understanding of the trails condition. A downfall of this model is the subjectivity of

distinguishing between the condition classes (Marion, Leung, & Nepal, 2006).

Summary of Literature Review

Each of the trail survey techniques have a best use and weakness. Figure 2

provides a summary of survey types identified in the literature review. The methods

can be broken down into three main groups. Sampling-based models use systematic

of 95

point samples, where the trail is assessed only at the sample spots. Census-based

models divide the trail into sections and assess the trail by section. Census-based

models can also just assess the sections that are identified as problems from a pre-

determined list of identified problems. Lineal Segmentation Inventory is a method that

breaks the entire trail down into segments and can assess general or specific

conditions.

Whereas the preceding agency models do a good job of assessing problems and

prioritizing maintenance tasks, they do not assess ecological impacts on trails. There

are several examples of processes that assess natural surface trails to identify impacts

and monitor natural resource conditions. However, they do not provide the functional

data needed to keep a trail system maintained.

Current research studies do not look at the staffing impact of the trail impact

assessment tools. They are concerned primarily with the effectiveness of the trail

impact assessment model in identifying trail conditions. There are studies which

suggest that the trail impact assessments all take a similar amount of time (Marion &

Leung, Trai Resource Impacts and An Examination of Alternative Assessment

Techniques, 2001; Pettebone, Newman, & Theobald, 2009), since all of the models

require you to hike the entire length of the trail. But this staffing cost was not a

specific consideration in any of the methods surveyed.

of 95

Figure 2 - Comparison of Trail Assessment Methods

Chapter 3: Research Problem and Objectives

The Oregon Parks and Recreation Department is not using a consistent trail

impact assessment model. The Park Managers and Park Rangers have limited time and

experience with trail impact assessment tools. When previous models have been

experimented with, the assessment tool was rich in attributes, but not user friendly.

The tool took too much time to complete, so it was not used by staff (Davison, 2011).

Comparison of Trail Survey Techniques

Survey Type Sampling methodology

Key Parameters Best Use Weakness

Trail Inventory Census

Document general physical attributes

and/or trail conditions

Comprehensive overview of entire

system Timely

Problem Assessment

Method Census

Identifies predefined unacceptable

conditions

Primarily a management tool

for quickly surveying trails

Doesn’t generate averages on trail width/ incision

Rapid Survey Method Sampling

Width and incision, but can include

others

Quickly describes trail conditions and

identifies major changes

Cannot detect small changes

Permanent Sampling Method

Sampling Width and incision,

but can include others

Describes trail conditions and

precisely identifies subtle changes

Samples only a small portion of the trail,

can be time consuming

Use Assessment

Census Assess types and amounts of trail uses Census tool accuracy

and costs

Trail Condition Monitoring

Systematic procedures for assessing trail conditions to

monitor trends, understand trail degradation and assess efficacy of

management actions

of 95

Agency staff want to see that collecting park maintenance data is going to make

their job easier in the future. When you have multiple pressing issues vying for your

time, the trail impact assessment tool needs to be immediately recognizable as a time

saver, not a time taker. The trail impact assessment tool needs to be based on staff

needs.

A consistent complaint from users and from staff is the feeling that the agency

and other land managers get stuck in “planning” and not “doing”. The trail impact

assessment developed as part of this research needs to meet the test of usability.

Additionally, with the projections of budget and staffing levels staying flat or

decreasing, the agency needs a trail impact assessment tool that is simple to learn and

easily picked up by volunteers. This allows data to be collected and maintenance

planning to occur, without impacting current staffing levels and duties. Other land

managers are using this model effectively (Bartlett, 1997). The Agency needs a trail

assessment tool or tools that meet the following goals.

• Easy to use

• Provides information on critical (public safety) issues

• Can be used to prioritize the allocation of scarce resources

• Identifies a wide range of problems, their causes and practical options to solve

the problems.

• Provides systemic assessment of impact use

• Takes advantage of existing data collection systems

of 95

• Links to existing funding mechanisms (local budget vs major maintenance

budget)

Objectives of Research

Main Objective: The objective of this research proposal is to develop a model for trail impact

assessment that meets the Agency’s information needs for maintenance and planning.

Sub-objectives: 1. To determine the usability (complexity, time to complete, etc) of the trail

assessments by agency staff and volunteers.

2. To determine the essential trail assessment attributes needed by the agency.

of 95

Chapter 4: Research Methods

This study used a quasi-experimental method to conduct the research. The

design was selected to allow for a baseline of data from a focus group to develop data

collection priorities for trail assessments. The design builds off of current trail

assessment models to create a model for the agency. The model then uses trial setting

results that can then be assessed from a quantitative and qualitative approach to

determine the best trail assessment model to meet the agencies needs. These major

elements of the design model are illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3 - Study Design

The various stage of this study will be completed over a 9 month period. The

time-frame is established to allow for sufficient time for communication to agency staff

and allow the field tests to be completed close to the normal spring trail condition

assessment period. The timeline for the completion of the various stages of the study

are outlined in figure 4 below.

Best Practices Review

Focus Group

Model Development

Model Adoption

of 95

Figure 4 - Proposed Time-Frame for Study

In the sections that follow, I will summarize in greater detail how the work in

each of the four stages of Figure 3 was completed.

Best Practices Review

The study began with a review of best practices. The literature review examined

key land managers who have established trail assessment tools to facilitate their trail

management practices. In addition, the literature review looked for other models of

trail condition assessments that are being used in the research of trail conditions and

trail impacts. Based on the literature review, a sample of the best practices was

developed to formulate a series of options that the agency to review. These best

practices were used to assist the focus group work in developing ideas on what data

should be collected by the agency.

Focus Group

The agency is currently in the process of revising its trail standards and has a

multi-disciplinary steering committee. The study utilized this existing steering

committee as the focus group for the study. The steering committee was used to

develop a list of trail attributes that they believed should be part of a trail impact

Literature Review &

Instrument Construction Focus Group

Data Analysis

Field Test and Focus

Group Data

Analysis Field Test Data

Analysis Report Writing

September -

October 2011

November

2011

December

2011

January

2012

February

2012

March

2012

April

2012

May

2012

of 95

assessment tool. This steering committee will be referred to as the focus group from

her on in.

A sub-committee of this focus group served as the primary focus group,

comprising a cross-section of park managers, park rangers, and park planning staff, to

assist in developing a synthesized list of agency trail priorities. After composing a trail

priorities list, the focus group was presented with a series of techniques which they

used to create a prioritized list of trail attributes that the focus group believed should be

collected through a trail assessment process. This information was then used to

develop the trail assessment model to be tested.

Model Development

The priority assessment model that was developed by the focus group, as

outlined above, was then field tested. The field test was completed as part of a park

master planning process. The master planning process occurs every 10 to 20 years and

provides a comprehensive overview of the recreational needs of the area, the natural

resource priorities of the site, and development plans for future development within the

park’s management unit.

The Tryon Creek Natural Area Management Unit master planning process began

in the fall of 2011. It was fortuitous for the research to coincided with the Tryon Creek

master planning process. The master planning process began with an assessment of

natural resources, cultural resources and recreational resources. The model trail

of 95

assessment was then used to enhance the recreational resource assessment of the

management unit.

This trail assessment model that was developed by the Focus Group was field

tested at a variety of parks in Northwestern Oregon within the Portland metro area.

These parks have a considerable variety of differences with respect to use levels, trail

types, etc. The field test stage of development allowed the initial model developed by

the focus to be further refined by a multi-discipline team of agency staff who will review

the trail assessment outcomes and assist in developing what data is needed for long-

term planning. In addition, the park’s management will be able to provide feedback on

the trail assessment models from an operational perspective.

The study will use Silver Falls State Park, located in rural Marion County at the

base of the Cascades Range as an additional assessment site, if additional field testing

is needed prior to moving the model forward for adoption. The park is just over 9,000

acres and has a trail system of over 42 miles. The trail system includes paved trails, old

logging roads, and natural surface trails developed for single and multi-use. The site is

in close proximity to the study’s office and provides the diversity of trails needed to

assess the functionality of the new model being tested.

Adoption

Upon testing, the Focus Group will review the findings and recommend revisions

or refer it to the full trail standards steering committee for review. Once the focus

group has determined that the trail assessment tool is satisfactory, the adoption

of 95

process will begin. The adoption strategy will be reviewed in Chapter 6, Leadership

Application.

of 95

Chapter 5: Research Assessment and Findings

Research Assessment

The study design’s strength is its field assessment of the model. This

assessment will use empirical data collection to facilitate model comparison and

selection. It also uses qualitative methods to determine agency needs and quantify

what is important for the agency.

The study design’s weakness is that it is not a true experimental research

project. It does not allow for randomization. The study is also limited by the

qualitative data relevancy. The judgments over findings and what is important to the

agency can be subject to a variety of biases. For example, the study is limited by being

agency specific, whereas the results may not be relevant to another park system’s trail

assessment needs. The project could be limited by geographic limitations (eastern

Oregon vs western, etc.) that create differences that are not captured in the study.

Research Findings

Focus Group

As noted above in the discussion of the role of the focus group in figure 1, the

agency has a standing trail standards multi-disciplinary steering committee created to

assist in reviewing the agency’ trail standards. The trail standards steering committee

was asked to develop a list of trail attributes that are needed to be assessed by a trail

impact assessment tool. I sent out an email request for examples of trail assessment

tools that members of the committee were aware of or were using currently to assist

of 95

with the discussion of what they thought was critical trail data that needed to be

collected.

The group’s comments can be summarized into three main groups: public safety

concerns, trail problem identification and trail planning needs. The public safety

concerns revolved around the need to identify critical safety issues on a trail to alert

agency management to close or repair trail to ameliorate potential injury to park users

or major natural resource damage. The second theme was trail problem identification.

The group saw the need to create a common way to identify trail problems, identify

potential causes and repair solutions. The last theme surrounded trail planning, which

includes the collection of baseline data and prioritization of needs. This information is

summarized in Figure 5 below.

Core Trail Information Needs

Public Safety Problem Resolution Trail Planning

• Identify key concerns • Help in organizing annual

maintenance needs

• Linked with Trail Standards

• Flexible – allows for single site or entire trail to be assessed

• Assists in identifying when technical resources should be called in

• Identifies trail impacts • Creates census of all trail

assets • “Baseline” for system

Secondary Needs

• Speedy • Triage focused • Basic, easy to learn

• Link with fiscal resources access

• Integrated into park planning process

Figure 5 - Focus Group Summary of Core Trail Information Needs

of 95

Model Outline

The key trail data sets identified through the focus group has created a diverse

set of data collection needs that cannot be easily accommodated by one trail

assessment tool. A suite of trail assessments appears to be needed, based on the core

trail assessment needs summarized in Figure 5. The focus group recommended

developing three trail assessment tools instead of just one. The focus group made this

recommendation as a means to address the trail data needs while not over- burdening

the limited staffing available within the agency.

The trail model began to take shape as a trails assessment hierarchy, which is

summarized in Figure 6. Unlike a pyramid shaped hierarchy, focused on a chain of

command, the trails assessment hierarchy is more like a network of gears that work

together to provide the needed level of information and work together to provide a

comprehensive assessment of trail needs. Each “gear” in the hierarchy is specialized

Trail Inventory & Assessment

Trail Problem

Assessment

Rapid Trail Condition

Assessment

Figure 6 - Trails Assessment Hierarchy

of 95

for different data to be collected. This allows the data collection to be triaged with less

experienced staff and allows only critical data to be collected.

The focus group identified Public Safety as a first level need. The Focus Group

argued that the tool for this concern needs to be easy to use, quick and allow annual

maintenance needs to be addressed along with the critical conditional assessments.

The second level priority identified by the Focus Group was Trail Condition

Assessment. The Focus Group argued that an assessment tool for this category of

concerns needs to provide an assessment of problems with the trail and provide a

methodology to identify, diagnosis, and provide a treatment recommendation for the

problem. The trail assessment also needs to look at the causes of the problem.

The third level of priority identified by the Focus Group was Trail Inventory

Assessment. The Focus Group argued that an assessment tool for this category of

concerns needs to provide data that provides data to assist with trail system needs,

while addressing environmental impacts and trail conditions that arise over a period of

time. This data should be developed in a manner that can be used for park planning.

In the sections that follow, I will discuss each of these three levels of priority in

greater detail and identify an assessment tool that is most likely to meet the needs

identified by the Focus Group.

Level One Priority: Public Safety and Rapid Trail Condition Assessment

The focus group identified public safety as a level one priority and argued that a

trails assessment instrument for this purpose needs to be centered around triaging

critical trail failures to reduce the risk to park patrons, manage large environmental

of 95

impacts, and identify annual maintenance needs. The main concern raised was time

and staff training. This is consistent with other research on trail management practices.

Most trail managers did course observations and large-scale erosion features (Gotra &

Boyle, 2006). Most identified a lack of skilled staff and relied on seasonal staff or

volunteers (Gotra & Boyle, 2006). Therefore, the tool needs to be simple to learn and

quick to implement.

Annual maintenance is usually identified in the spring. The agency staff useone

or more combination of the following three methodoligies to assess their maintenance

needs: walk the trail to assess, use user complaints, and assess on the fly. The first

method generally has agency staff walk the trails and assess the trail maintenance

needs and prioritizes them. The second method uses complaints from users to identify

the maintenance needs. Usually, the user can identify the trail name and issue, but not

the specific location. The last method uses agency staff to begin with core trails. As

they conduct maintenance tasks, usually with an inmate crew, they deal with trail issues

as they come upon them. The latter two methods work well if you have a small trail

system, but is ineffective on larger trail systems where trail maintenance needs often

out-pace staffing and resource levels.

It was determined from the focus group that most annual maintenance reviews

completed by agency staff consist of looking at obstacles (trees blown across trail,

heavy brush), structure repairs (bridge decking or railing, signs, benches, etc.), and

major impacts to the trail (landslides, washouts, large wet areas, etc.). In developing a

rapid trail assessment model, these elements need to be incorporated into the model.

of 95

Water is the key culprit to trail degredation and environmental impacts

(International Mountain Biking Association, 2004). Managing water becomes the key

concern for trail managers. Whereas a trail can become a stream and rapidly remove

soil, often what is seen is muddy sections of the trail. The muddy sections are avoided

by trail users, thereby widening the trail. This increases the impacts. A review of many

trail problem and trail condition assessment tools have criteria related to water borne

trail issues (mud, erosion, seasonal creeks, etc.) (Bruehler & Sondergaard, 2004)

(Chatterjea, 2007) (Marion, Leung, & Nepal, 2006) (Valley Mountain Bikers and Hikers,

2007) (Thurston & Reader, 2001) (Meyer, 2011).

The USFS and BLM models identified trails as assets and typically broke them

down into segments for assessment purposes (United States Forest Service, 2011)

(Bruehler & Sondergaard, 2004). The lineal segmentation model was replicated in

many of the condition assessment models as well (Marion, Leung, & Nepal, 2006)

(Nepal, 2003). The trail segments varied from a couple of feet to entire trails that could

be serveral miles. The concensus of condition assessment research identified that 100

meters was an ideal length for accuracy of data sampling (Leung & Marion, 1999).

The model should include a faction of segmentation to identify location and to

allow for some rudimentary comparision of condition to prioritize trail work. The agency

uses a database that places asset identification numbers on every trail in the system.

The local park manager has the capacity to further segment the trail into multiple asset

numbers. This existing practice should be integrated into the model.

of 95

With the assistance of the focus group’s sub-committee, a rapid trail condition

assessment model was developed (Appendix D) Figure 7 provides a breakdown of

each attribute collected in the model and defines the data that is collected. The model

incorporates the annual maintenance review priorities of the agency on trails, while

integrating a segmentation model for trail condition assessment. The model keeps trail

assessment protocols at a very high level, which does not take highly skilled reviewers,

nor takes much time. This model helps the agency staff to quickly identify the trails

with the highest maintenance needs and helps in gathering information for a potential

trail closure.

Rapid Trail Condition Assessment Section 100 ft minimum; 1/4 mile maximum – pre-determined by agency staff

Point Points within the Section where impacts, obstacles or structures are bad

Tread Width Measured in Feet

Tread Surface N - Natural Surface;

DG - Dirty Gravel (gravel used to harden trail); CG - Compacted Gravel; P - Pavement (cement, pavers, etc.)

Mud & Muck N – None; M - Mud on trail; VM - Very muddy, users walking around mud; XM - Extremely Muddy, can't get around or more than 3x tread width

Impacts W - Washout (length in feet); R - Ruts (Inches deep); L - Landslide (length in feet); U - User created short-cut or trails

Obstacles DT - Down Tree; BR - Brush growing into trail width

Structure Repairs

SF - Structure Failure (Any man-made structure that has failed, such as bridge, boardwalk, culvert, gate, etc. - Use notes to identify what has failed; TS - Trail Signs (Any kiosk, trail signs, trail markers, etc. that are damaged or potentially missing); Other - Note any other repairs or failures not identified above.

Notes Use this section to provide additional information related to the section or point and/or condition that will be useful to assess repair priority and/or locate the site.

of 95

Figure 7 - Rapid Trail Condition Assessment

The training for the rapid trail condition assessment model should be fairly quick.

The tool does not take extensive or specific knowledge of trails or trail maintenance. A

person with typical trail user experience should be able to learn the methodology with a

10 minute orientation and have the concepts mastered within 30 minutes of operation.

The tool is designed to be a blunt instrument that will provide broad information to

agency staff. As figure 7 indicates, the information gathered is fairly obvious.

The trickiest portion of this model is the development of the sections. This is a

task that needs to be accomplished in advance. This will need to be completed by the

park manager or someone with more extensive knowledge of the system. The sections

are designed to be initially broken down by each trail. The trail itself can be segmented

further by features (intersections with other trails, viewpoints or other destinations on

the trail, etc.) or by linear feet (300 ft sections, 0.25 mile sections, etc.). This will need

to be completed in advance and formatted for the reviewer with an accompanying map.

Once the assessment is completed, the trail’s critical maintenance needs can be

identified quickly and additional resources can be called in, as needed, to determine if

the trail is safe to remain open or if a more extensive problem exists and needs

assessed.

Level Two Priority: Public Safety and Trail Problem Assessment

The focus group identified Trail Assessment Problems as a second level priority.

Trail systems need tune-ups, just like a car. Even with general maintenance, there

comes a time when a more extensive assessment is needed. The tool designed for

of 95

genral trail assessment is intended to address this kind of problem. The tool needs to

be flexible in it’s use, allow for “spot” problem assessment use and for assessing an

entire trail’s problems.

The agency is currently updating its trail standards. Part of this process includes

developing a trail construction and maintenance standards volume. This volume is

being organized to allow for easy linkages between operational needs (I need to fix X)

and informational resources (section in trail standards volume to show what and how I

need to fix X). The trail problem assessment tool should be linked to facilitate the

operational needs and informational resources.

The trail problem assessment model will require the identification of trail

sections, just like the trail problem assessment mode. This will need to be completed

by the park manager or someone with more extensive knowledge of the system in

advance. The sections are designed to be initially broken down by each trail. The trail

itself can be segmented further by features (intersections with other trails, viewpoints

or other destinations on the trail, etc.) or by linear feet (300 ft sections, 0.25 mile

sections, etc.). This will need to be completed in advance and formatted for the

reviewer with an accompanying map.

The trail problem assessment methodology is a three part assessment of the

problem. It was adapted from the NPS at Valley Forge and is summarized in Figure 8

below. The parts include: Feature Types, Condition Categories, and Work Needed. The

goal is to allow for identification of the trail feature, what the problem is, and what

of 95

work needs to be done to fix the problem. An example of the model can be found in

Appendix C.

Trail Problem Assessment

Section Pre-determined by agency staff

Point Location, in feet, in section to assist in problem location

Feature Types See Trail Problem Assessment attribute data dictionary

Condition Categories See Trail Problem Assessment attribute data dictionary

Work Needed See Trail Problem Assessment attribute data dictionary

Notes Narrative of trail problem. Measurements, materials, etc.

Figure 8 - Trail Problem Assessment

For the trail problem assessment model to work effectively, however, it needs to

have a corresponding trail attribute dictionary (see figure 9). The trail attribute

dictionary creates a short-hand for agency staff to use to complete the trail problem

assessment. The trail attribute dictionary corresponds to the trail standards

development and construction standard sections. This enables the agency to translate

trail inventory information into operational practices that address the actual problems

identified in the inventory.

The final product should produce a rudimentary work plan for each trail. The

park manager will be able identify the primary and secondary maintenance needs. This

will assist park managers in developing a multiple year budget plan for the trail and

identify the projects that are beyond the scope of their maintenance budgets or trail

maintenance ability. If a trail problem is too big, then the park manager can submit the

project into the agency’s major maintenance program.

of 95

The agency’s major maintenance program provides technical assistance from

engineering and planning staff to complete project scoping to identify the necessary

solution and develop a budget for the project. This information is then reviewed by

senior management and prioritized for funding on a biennial basis. In addition, this

process can assist in identifying additional resources (grants, volunteer groups, etc.) to

repair the trail.

Trail Problem Assessment – Attribute Data Dictionary

Feature Types: Condition Categories: Work Needed: 1. Route: 1.1 Unauthorized Trail 1.2 Trail Braid 1.3 Intersection 2. Treadway: 2.1 Bench Cuts 2.2 Gravel Tread 2.3 Unconstructed Tread 2.4 Asphalt 2.5 Soil Cement 3. Vegetation: 3.1 Trimming 3.2 Large Tree 3.3 Restoration 4. Retaining Structures: 4.1 Water Bars 4.2 Log Coping 4.3 Stone Coping 4.4 Stone Retaining Wall 4.5 Log Retaining Wall 5. Drainage: 5.1 Water Bars 5.2 Drainage Dips 5.3 Culverts 5.4.1 Open Culverts 5.4.2 Pipe Culverts 5.4.3 Pipe Culverts with

Headwalls 5.4.4 Log-Capped Box Culverts 5.4.5 Catch Basins 5.4 Gutters 6. Steps: 6.1 Stone 6.2 Wood 6.3 Concrete 7. Crossings: 7.1 Bridges 7.2 Causeway

A. Eroding B. Running water C. Wet areas D. Gullies along trail E. Gullies across trail F. Berms G. Along gullies H. Outslope lost on benches I. Irretrievable benches J. Loss of crown K. Exposed water bars L. Eroding water bars M. Unstable stonework N. Damaged Stonework O. Collapsing stonework P. Unauthorized trails Q. Trail widening R. Trail braiding S. Deferred maintenance T. Poor signage U. Overgrown vegetation V. Hazardous area W. Trespassing X. Litter Y. Vandalism

BR. Trail Bridge CA. Causeway CK. Culvert CW. Coping Wall DG. Ditching GN. Other GP. Gravel Pave IS. Intersection Sign LC. Log Check LS. Log Sign PL. Plaque RF. Reference Point RL. Relocation RW. Retaining Wall SD. Stone side drain SN. Sign SP. Stone Paving SR. Safety Rail SS. Step Stones ST. Rock Step SW. Sidewall TP. Turnpiking TW. Treadway VP. Vegetation Thinning WB. Water bar WD. Water Dip WN. Miscellaneous

of 95

8. Guidance 8.1 Direction Signs 8.2 Information Signs 8.3 Trail or Feature Name 9. Barriers:

9.1 Metal 9.2 Wood 9.3 Stone

10. Associated Feature 10.1 Viewpoint 10.2 Rest Area 10.3 Waterfall Figure 9 - Trail Problem Assessment - Trail Attribute Data Dictionary

Level Three Priority: Trail Planning and Trail Inventory and Condition Assessment

The focus group’s identified was trail planning as the final trail assessment need.

A trail assessment tool assists in developing new trails in a park (identifies trail users

and trail density); the re-route or closure of existing trails, based on environmental

impacts and; provides a census of trails in the park and the man-made features

associated with the trail. This level of data collection is time consuming and should be

approached cautiously to ensure staff resources are used efficiently.

There are several examples of processes that assess natural surface trails to

identify impacts and monitor resource conditions. The methods can be broken down

into three main groups. Sampling-based models use systematic point samples, where

the trail is assessed only at the sample spots. Census-based models divide the trail into

sections and assess the trail by section. Census-based models can also just assess the

sections that are identified as problems from a pre-determined list of identified

problems. Lineal Segmentation Inventory is a method that breaks the entire trail down

of 95

into segments and can assess general or specific conditions (Marion, Leung, & Nepal,

2006) (Nepal, 2003).

A sampling-point model will be employed to conduct the condition assessment.

The model will use a fixed sample point interval of 300 ft. Marion and Leung (2001)

found that this interval spacing had the highest statistical comparison to a complete

census-based model, while enabling an efficient collection of data (Leung & Marion,

1999) (Marion & Leung, 2001). At each point, the trail conditions will be inventoried

(figure 10). A cumulative aggregation of the sample points will provide an average trail

condition for each trail (Marion & Leung, 2001).

In reviewing various trail condition assessment models, the data most often

collected to assess trail condition include (Leung & Marion, 1999) (Marion & Olive,

2006) (Marion, Leung, & Nepal, 2006):

• Tread Width – to determine width and compare to trail standards.

• Trail Incision – to determine the amount of erosion or compaction

• Trail Profile – to determine erosion, compaction, or sloughing

• Cross-Slope – angle of grade across (horizontal plane) a trail

• Trail Grade – angle of grade down (vertical plane) a trail

• Trail Surface – material making up trail tread

• Trail Degradation Level – condition of trail, based off of criteria

The trail condition assessment portion of the model will incorporate these data

categories to assess the trail condition (figure 10). The trail degradation level will

of 95

adopt the model developed by Nepal (Nepal, 2003). The model in Figure 11 provides a

simple, yet comprehensive matrix to quickly provide an overview of the condition of the

trail.

Trail Inventory & Assessment Trail Condition Assessment

Section 300 ft in length, based off of individual trails

Point Location, in feet, in section to assist in problem location

Tread Width In feet

Trail Incision In inches, measured at lowest point in trail tread

Trail Profi le CR – crowned CP – compacted RT – Rutted OS – outsloped IS – insloped FL - flat

Cross-Slope In percentage of grade

Trail Surface N - Natural Surface; DG - Dirty Gravel (gravel used to harden trail); CG - Compacted Gravel; P - Pavement (cement, pavers, etc.)

Trail Degradation Level Level I – lightly damaged trail Level II – moderately damaged trail Level III – highly damaged trail Level IV – severely damaged trail, trail “hot spot”

Trail Feature Inventory and Problem Assessment

Feature Types See Trail Problem Assessment attribute data dictionary

Condition Categories See Trail Problem Assessment attribute data dictionary

Work Needed See Trail Problem Assessment attribute data dictionary

Notes Narrative of trail problem. Measurements, materials, etc.

Figure 10 - Trail Inventory & Assessment

The second part of the trail condition assessment model will incorporate the trail

problem assessment model. Instead of collecting just the problems, this model will also

use the same methodology to inventory all of the trail assets on the trail (Appendix B).

This will serve as a mechanism to provide a clear understanding of all trail assets to

of 95

ensure that the agency’s trail maintenance management plan protocols are accurately

reflecting all assets that need to be maintained. In addition, this component will allow

the agency’s asset data base (The HUB) to be updated with all assets pertaining to the

trails in that park.

Trail Degradation Level Matrix Condition Level Description

Class I Lightly damaged trail. The trail is stable and does not require any non-routine maintenance.

Class II Moderately damaged trail. The trail requires non-routine maintenance to manage issues.

Class III Highly damaged trail. The trail is significantly impacted and requires extensive maintenance.

Class IV Severely damage trail. The trail requires urgent repair to remove ecological or public safety risks.

Figure 11 - Trail Degradation Level Matrix

The resulting collection of data for each trail will allow for the park’s trails to be

summarized (Figure 12). Each trail will be identified by its name and HUB ID. The

length of the trail and average grade will be gathered from existing GIS information.

The trail class or the level of development, surface construction material, trail grade,

trail cross-slope, and trail users will be identified for quick reference for future

maintenance tasks. Finally, the trail’s difficulty will be determined. This summary of

trail data for each park will assist the manager and recreation planners in managing the

trail system (Appendix A).

The collection of the trail inventory and condition data will assist the park trails

specialist to conduct a trail inventory report (Appendix E). The trail inventory report will

be a component of the park’s comprehensive planning process. This is conducted, in

of 95

ideal conditions, on a ten year cycle. The trail inventory report will utilize the trail

inventory and condition data to formulate recommendations on trails within the park.

The report will be used by the planning steering committee along with natural resource

reports, cultural resource reports, and regional and statewide recreation need

assessments to develop the park’s comprehensive plan. The trail inventory and

condition data will assist in quantifying the necessary trail modifications (trail repairs,

trail re-routes) and the addition of additional trails to the park’s system.

Trail Inventory – Summary of Trails HUB ID Agency asset management system code

Trail Name As identified by agency staff

Trail Length Measured in miles or tenths of a mile

Trail Class Based off of the 5 classes the Agency uses

Trail Surface N - Natural Surface;

DG - Dirty Gravel (gravel used to harden trail); CG - Compacted Gravel; P - Pavement (cement, pavers, etc.)

Trail W idth Measured in feet

Trail Difficulty ADA – meets accessible standards Easy – per agency guidelines Moderate Difficulty – per agency guidelines Very Difficult – per agency guidelines Extremely Difficult – per agency guidelines

Trail Average Grade In percentage of grade

Trail Average Cross-Slope In percentage of grade

Trail User(s) Hikers Bicycling Equestrian

Figure 12 - Summary of Trails from Trail Inventory

of 95

Model Test

The Trail Assessment Models developed for the three priority levels discussed in

the previous three sections were tested at the Tryon Creek Management Unit, located

in the Portland metropolitan area. The management unit covers state parks located in

parts of Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington County. The planning team

recommended that the models be tested at Tryon Creek State Natural Area and Milo

McIver State Park. Both parks have extensive trail systems that cover over 10 miles at

each park and have a diversity of trail types and trail users.

The initial model was tested at Tryon Creek State Park on December 21, 2011.

The testing group included the researcher and an agency staff from the planning

section who was part of the sub-committee to the focus group. The testing group

spent four hours using the trail inventory and condition assessment model. This model

was chosen since it contained components of two models. After the four hours, roughly

1.6 miles of trail were assessed. The testing group came to the following conclusions:

• The assessment tools needed were bulky and required both members of the

group to capture data.

• Incision measurement appeared to be time consuming and considered trail

degradation level as potential stand alone measurement.

• Average grade measurement required additional tools and consideration of using

GIS data to average trail grades and simply noting steep areas of the trail

system.

of 95

• Cross-Slope measurement appeared to be time consuming and consideration of

just a trail profile could capture similar data.

Revised Model Test

Based on this initial field test of the models, they were modified. The researcher

identified that some data, while valuable, appeared to be very time consuming and did

not add significantly to the trail condition assessment. The specificity that the trail

grades, trail cross-slope, trail incision, and trail profile provided were not required to

make the trail condition assessments. The experience of the trail researcher was able

to be utilized to capture the level of detail in the point sampling by capturing trail

degradation level rating. This allowed for all of those elements to be considered in

creating a rating of degradation. It was felt that the additional time to take the

measurable data versus the more subjective rating were not going to provide significant

increases in data that would be used by the agency in the future.

The following elements were modified:

• Trail grades, trail cross-slope, trail incision, and trail profile were removed to

allow for a reduction in tools and to determine if the level of data was

compromised.

The focus group’s sub-committee met and discussed these changes and determined

that it was an appropriate choice. The inventory of trail problems would provide the

additional data needed to assist park staff to determine if the degradation level was

consistent with the problems being identified on the trail. The only concern raised was

of 95

the need to develop a sufficient training program to ensure that there was consistent

definitions being used to rate the degradation level of trails. Since it would be a small

group of highly trained staff performing this task, it was determined to be a minor risk.

The researcher returned to Tryon Creek State Park and completed an assessment of

the entire 13 mile trail system. In addition, the researcher completed a trail inventory

and condition assessment of Milo McIver State Park as well. The trail inventories and

condition assessments were completed at the end of January through the beginning of

February, 2012.

The revised trail inventory and condition assessment model appeared to provide the

level of detail needed to determine the condition of the trails. The speed of assessment

was increased significantly, with limited tools required and a single person able to

collect the data. The remaining 25.4 miles of trail was completed in about 20 hours.

The revised model allowed for 1.27 miles to be assessed per hour versus 0.4 miles with

the initial model. This resulted in a 318% improvement, with half of the staffing

requirement (figure 13).

The overall impression conclusion by the researcher was that the condition

assessment was not significantly compromised by the reduction of information

collected. It provided sufficient information to aid in trail planning. The trail problem

assessment tool filled the information gaps by providing a census of trail problems,

which acted as duplicate assessment of conditions to measure the trail degradation

level by.

of 95

Figure 13 - Comparison of Trail Inventory and Condition Assessment Models

The trail inventory and condition assessments were compiled into a trail

inventory summary and trail inventory report (Appendix E). The report identified

several trail opportunities for each park. The opportunities were divided into trail re-

route and removal opportunities and trail addition opportunities. Each trail opportunity

was rated as a high, medium or low priority. This report was then forwarded on to the

planning team for incorporation into the park’s comprehensive plan.

The data collected and accompanying reports were forwarded to the focus group

sub-committee for review. Initial concerns over linear segmentation used in the models

versus the HUB identification (agency asset management tool) segments were brought

up. The concern was over the need to create HUB identification codes for each linear

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Initial Model

Revised Model

0.4

1.27

2

1 Miles of TrailAssessed perhour

Staffing LevelNeeded to AssessTrail

of 95

segment derived in the trail inventory and condition assessment. A single email

rectified the concern, since the point sampling interval of 300 ft was not relevant to the

HUB identification process. Upon the clarification of this point, the focus group sub-

committee agreed that these three models addressed the concerns identified by the

focus group.

Focus Group

The three models developed from the initial focus group were presented to the

focus group. The following summary of the model was provided to the focus group

(figure 14):

Figure 14 - Trail Assessments Hierarchy

1 year

3 -5 year

10 years

of 95

The three models provide a continuation of care or heirarchy for agency staff to

use to create an appropriate expenditure of staff time to address the key concerns

agency staff had identified in the initial focus group (figure 15). The hierarchy is

divided into the frequency of use for each model, the primary goal or focus of that

model, and the proposed training needed to implement the model by staff.

Trail Assessments Hierarchy In order to assess trails systematically, meet the maintenance needs of the trails, and not create a burden to the limited staffing available, the three trail assessment tools have been created: Trail Rapid Condition Assessment

Frequency: Goal:

Training:

Once per year Rapid assessment of trail condition and critical repair needs 10 minute module, volunteer, seasonal or staff

Trail Problem Assessment Frequency:

Goal:

Training:

Every 3 to 5 years or as needed Identify trail problems and assess work needed to be implemented to repair problems 3 Day module, staff

Trail Inventory Frequency:

Goal:

Training:

Every 10 years or Park Comprehensive Plan Identify census of trail impacts, trail problems, trail structures and assess long-range plans for trail work to be implemented to repair problems and minimize future impacts. 1 week module or 2 Day add on to the Trail Problem Assessment module, trail specialist or trained field staff

Figure 15 - Trail Assessments Hierarchy Matrix

The focus group concurred that these three models addressed the trail data

needs that were identified and that the models should be recommended for further

review by the agency for adoption as the models for trail assessments at the agency.

of 95

Leadership Application- Development of Implementation Strategy

The research has identified a potentially advantageous trail assessment process

that meets the needs identified by the focus group. What I have now is a good idea,

but to integrate and implement the findings into the OPRD trails program and the

agency’s practices becomes the real key. To understand the most effective way to

implement the proposed changes I need to create contextual intelligence (Nye, 2008).

Contextual intelligence is the fusion of and analytical assessment of the situation

with the inferred knowledge built from experience to create the strategy to implement

the trail assessment process (Nye, 2008). I will use several tools to develop this

strategy. I will begin by establishing a foundation of the context of the leadership

opportunity. This will involve a re-framing exercise that will look at the agency from a

structural perspective, a human resource perspective, a political perspective and a

cultural perspective. This will culminate in an assessment of support and opposition to

the change and an assessment of the acceptance or rejection to my proposed solution.

I will then use complete a stakeholder analysis and SWOT analysis to further clarify the

context of leadership opportunity and evaluate the current trends in the agency that will

assist in implementing the trail assessment process.

I will then assess my leadership capacities and complete the Smart Power Tool.

The context exercises and leadership assessment will culminate in a leadership strategy.

I will outline the strategy and provide each part into context. Finally, I will identify the

timeline for the implementation.

of 95

Context of Leadership Opportunity

Organization Structure – Re-Framing

In order to understand the context of the environment of the agency and the

trends that may affect the implantation strategy for the trails assessment process, I will

use a re-framing process provided by Dr. Kass in PA 545 to judge the potential for

change. It will be based off of the Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and

Leadership book’s principles on organizational frames (Bolman & Deal, Reframing

Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership, 2008). An overview of each

organizational frame’s basic assumptions will precede the re-framing exercise for each

organizational frame.

Before I can assess the change, I need to know what change I envision. To

create this vision, I will need to reference the problem statement and use a back to the

future statement. The problem statement was identified earlier on page 16. Simply

put, the problem is that the agency does not have a trail assessment tool being used.

The back to the future statement for the trail assessment process is…

In two years all parks will be using the trail assessment tools to facilitate

maintenance needs on trails, to identify resources (capital and staff) to manage

trails, and to direct trail planning activities.

Human Resource Frame

The Human Resource framework’s basic assumption is that there is a symbiotic

relationship between people and the organization. They both have needs that get met

of 95

by each other and they need each other to meet their needs. When there is unbalance

to this relationship, one or both suffer consequences. The human resource framework

makes the assumption that employees are not lazy and stupid. When employees find

satisfaction and meaning in their work, the organization will benefit from increased

outputs, effective use of their talents, and greater job satisfaction. Conversely,

management’s thoughts about their staff become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The organization needs to set-up a human resource strategy that invests in

people. This is accomplished by hiring the right people for the job, rewarding them

well, providing job security, promoting from within, ensuring that the staff have

effective training and education and promoting on the job training. The strategy should

also empower the staff. They should be autonomous and have a voice in the

outcomes. Staff should have open communication from management on the good and

bad news and vice-versa. Teaming is another strategy to ensure staff is engaged.

Application

A series of questions have been identified to facilitate the potential for change in

an organization. The questions are based off of a tool presented by Dr. Kass in PA 545.

The questions and answers for the human resource frame are found in Figure 16.

of 95

Human Resource Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution

Are there individuals or groups internal or external to the focal unit who see the problem(s) you have identified as trivial or non-existent? Who are they? Why do they feel this way? How important are they to the change?

None identified yet.

Are there individuals or groups who will interpret your statement of the problem(s) as threatening them, their identities, their positions and/or making them objects of the ‘blame game’? Who are they? Why do they feel this way? How important are they to the change?

Park Managers and Park Rangers could see the tools as a mechanism to blame them and add work for them. Could be seen as an accountability tool. Need these groups to use tool to be effective.

What positions are eliminated, added, changed if any? What are the impacts positive and negative on individuals and their organizational status of these position changes?

No positions eliminated or added. This tool is added to existing work load and similar methods should be used by staff. Could view as added work.

What positions does the solution enrich or diminish if any? Could link staff with resources and enrich their capacity to rectify problems on trails quicker and more effectively.

What impacts does the solution have on union contracts if any? None identified. What impacts will it have on morale positive or negative if any? Situational. Should have positive morale effect. But, could be

negative if viewed as extra work and not an asset to their work flow.

Figure 16 - Human Resource Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution

Structural Frame

The basic assumption for the structural framework is that the organizational

structure is organized by a rational structure of work, tasks and skills to achieve the

goals and objectives of the organization. The organization becomes more efficient and

effective by specializing tasks and division of labor based off of skills, customers or role

in the process. The structure should result in a stable environment that is hierarchical

and power or authority is vertical with lateral power is used for decision making that is

based off of the blueprint of expectations and procedures.

The structural framework values the rational response to deficiencies in

outcomes. It values that analysis will identify a structural constraint that will bring forth

the outcome desired. The structural framework assumes that personal agendas and

external forces are checked by the structure of the organization. The structural

of 95

framework determines that major re-structuring is done in response to environmental

shifts, technology changes, organizational growth or leadership changes.

Application

A series of questions have been identified to facilitate the potential for

change in an organization. The questions are based off of a tool presented by Dr. Kass

in PA 545. The questions and answers for the structural frame are found in Figure 17.

Structural Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution

To what degree are the back to the future and problem statement(s) framed in terms of structural changes and /or changes in formal processes and procedures?

No structural changes, just changes to process and procedures.

Solely in terms of rationally evaluated cause and effect, will the change(s) implied by the statements actually improve efficiency and effectiveness? Why?

Yes. It will provide consistent tool for decision makers to review needed resources and provided a mechanism for staff to assess trails quickly and link to resources effectively. It provides a common language and process, which will allow the use of resources (capital and staff) to be more effective and equitable.

What structural changes does the solution make if any? No structural changes, fit into current structure. What changes in formal procedures and processes if any? Require tools to be used. Use tools as basis for decision making

on resource allocation and planning activities. From a rational (cause and effect ) standpoint will these changes actually resolve the problem? How?

It will provide a consistent set of tools to assess trail conditions. Actual changes (trail repairs, resource allocation, planning) require staff and agency to implement and use.

Figure 17 - Structural Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution

Political Frame

The Political Framework views the organization as a collection of coalitions

composed of individuals and groups with different views, vying over scarce resources.

Power and conflict are central themes in decision making. Through the use of

positional power and leverage from power contenders, agendas are brought forth that

are core to their beliefs, values and interest, not the organizations. Bargaining and

negotiating among the power contenders result in the organization’s goals, policies and

of 95

structure. Through this process, power is captured and used to the advantage of the

victor. The outcome usually results in spoils that can result in demeaning and

deconstructing the loser and their platform.

The Political Framework acknowledges that the Director’s core function in

managing organizational change is setting up the agenda, framing the issues and then

negotiating the political terrain of pro-platform and anti-platform networks. The

director will be forced to choose between an open and collaborative process or an

autocratic process.

Application

A series of questions have been identified to facilitate the potential for

change in an organization. The questions are based off of a tool presented by Dr. Kass

in PA 545. The questions and answers for the political frame are found in Figure 18.

Political Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution

Do the back to the future and the problem statement(s) suggest blame for the problem that might lead to a shift in the distribution of power in the organization? Why?

No blame identified. Power could be shifted to those who use the trail assessment tools, if they are linked as a gatekeeper to accessing resources, i.e. must be completed to request additional resources.

Who would gain power from this shift and who would lose it? Participatory Parks would gain power (resources), traditional Parks who get additional resources now could lose power, if they do not use tools.

Has either or both of you’re your back to the future and problem statement(s) been intentionally framed to suggest a shift in the power structure of the focal unit or larger organization?

Focus was on use of tool, which directs power to line staff and potentially elevates trail resource needs (as compared to other capital improvement needs in agency).

Does anyone in top management reject the way you have framed the future and/ or formulated the problem(s)? Who? Why? Is their rejection important to the success of the OD project?

None identified yet.

Does the solution(s) shift important resources needed to exercise power in the organization? i.e. positions of authority, material and human resources, status, expertise, alliances etc.? What are these shifts and who is most impacted?

Links assessment with access to resources. May place higher status of Trail Coordinator by staff to access resources and for training of staff on tool and trail management.

of 95

Externally and internally to the focal unit, who wins and who loses most as a result of these shifts in power? What do they win or lose? How important are the winners and losers to making the change?

Looser could be other capital improvement projects that trails would compete for agency resources from. Trails and ultimately the trail users gain the most by having more access to and less resource damage from trails.

Do the solutions have the genuine support of top management? Who in top management? If so why do they support it? Given your organization’s power structure, how important is this support?

Asst. Director of Operations supports due to systematic methodology to identify and prioritize trail maintenance needs and fits within the methodology of other capital improvement assessment tools. Very important support.

Planning Manager support, since it provides a platform to discuss recreational needs of parks on par with natural resource and cultural resource needs in the park. Adds to the nature of how park used and integrates trails into recreational use paradigm.

Do the solutions have opposition in top management? Who? If so, why do they oppose the solution(s)? Given your organization’s power structure, how important is this opposition to the success of the OD project?

None identified at this time.

Figure 18 - Political Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution

Symbolic Frame

The basic assumption of the Symbolic Framework is that the world is a complex

and ambiguous world where meaning, symbolism and faith are at the core of an

organization. Humans are social animals that want to belong to the tribe and want to

view their tribe as better and different than others. Over time, the organization’s story

forms. Staff and leaders create their own mythology of the organization through the

stories, rituals and ceremonies that perpetuates the identity of the organization as

unique and special.

The organization’s outcomes become judged by the expectations and the

perception of the outcomes versus tangible outcomes. The role you play is as

important as the outcomes. Even an unsuccessful outcome re-enforces the bond

between member and the organization. In addition, these rituals can become

important in improving the organization’s image.

of 95

Application

A series of questions have been identified to facilitate the potential for change in an

organization. The questions are based off of a tool presented by Dr. Kass in PA 545.

The questions and answers for the symbolic frame are found in Figure 19.

Symbolic Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution

Does your problem statement(s) question traditional ways of operating? How?

No, it fits within the current mechanism of the Agency.

Does your problem statement(s) support or call into question deeply held values in the focal unit, larger organization and/or organizational environment? What are these values?

It supports the Park staff’s need to have workload validated and supported and provides tool to make work easier and access to resources justified based off of agency adopted platform.

Does your problem statement(s) imply that solution of the problem(s) will improve the internal and/or external image of the focal unit? How? Conversely, does it threaten this image? How?

The tool could be perceived as a mechanism to blame Park staff for not doing work or adding additional work to them. Goal is the opposite of this and tries to rectify the gap between resource needs and resources for trails in parks.

Given the history of the organization, does the problem statement (s) seem to be in line with earlier accepted criticisms of the organization or a radical departure from them? Why?

Appears to be consistent with the direction and history of Agency. It follows the trends within the agency to prioritize work and resource needs.

Does the organization have a history of ritualistic cosmetic change that has had little real effect on the organization?

Several structural changes in the past few years. Jury is out on effect, but goal was to align structure to produce better results for agency.

How does the solution (s) impact the customary (traditional) way the organization operates? Would this impact be judged positively or negatively and by who?

Fits within the methodology used by agency. Could be viewed as another “hoop” to access resources.

How does the solution(s) impact the organization’s most important values positively and/or negatively?

Fits with the importance set on recreation and natural resources and their impact on the recreational experience.

How does the solution (s) fit in with past efforts to change the organization? Has the organization had a history of successful or unsuccessful reform that is commonly known and remembered? Would the solution(s) be seen as radical or similar to other changes and by who?

No trail changes since the 1990s. However, a variation of this was implemented locally at one park with poor results. The trail assessment did not link well with resource allocation or staff work changes.

How does the solution(s) impact the organization’s current image externally/ internally? Is the solution(s) similar to others going on in your type of and/or in the administrative world in general? If so to what degree are these reform trends seen as positive or negative? By who?

Tool could be used by several local and regional trail providers, allowing agency to be seen as recreational leader on trails and trail management.

How will the solution(s) be received by important actors in your organization’s environment?

Should be received well. Tool established based off of agency identified needs. It is reflective of staffing limitations and problem resolution (active) vs data collection (passive) of problems.

Figure 19 - Symbolic Re-Frame: Assessing Opposition and Support to the Problem and Solution

of 95

Re-Framing Summary

The re-framing exercise has assisted in developing an understanding of the support and

opposition to the implementation of the trails assessment. The agency is currently going

through a process of identifying funding priorities for capital improvement projects. The

projects include development of new facilities and heavy restoration of existing facilities. The

trail assessment process fits within the current climate and focus of the agency. The structural

and political frames appear to be well aligned with the implementation of the trail assessment

tool. Figure 20 shows the degree of opposition and support based off of the four frames

reviewed.

Figure 20 - Summary of Re-Framing Opposition and Support to Change

of 95

The only frame that provides some potential for opposition is the human resource

frame. The trail assessment tools could be viewed by staff as additional work, additional hoops

to get resources, and a means to showcase their deficiencies. The implementation will need to

take heed of these concerns and factored into the stakeholder analysis.

The degree of acceptance or rejection of the trail assessment tools follows the same

trends as the opposition to the problem. The human resource factor appears to be biggest

barrier to a successful implementation. Overall, the agency appears to be in position to accept

the proposed change. It seems to fit within the current initiatives of the agency and the

environment is open to adding additional review of trails to the operational maintenance matrix.

Figure 21 provides an overview of the re-frame’s assessment of degree of acceptance or

rejection to the proposed solution.

Figure 21 - Summary of Re-Framing Acceptance or Rejection to Proposed Solutions

of 95

Stakeholder Analysis:

To assess the stakeholders associated with the implementation of the trails

assessment process, I have used the tool provided by Dr. Kass in PA 545. The tool

allows each stakeholder to be identified on three core attributes: Importance, Support,

and Motivation. The attribute of importance will be assessed on a standard 1 to 5 scale

where 1 is moderately important and 5 is extremely important. The attribute of support

will be assessed on a standard 1 to 5 scale where 1 is moderately supportive or

opposed and 5 is extremely supportive or opposed. The motivation attribute will

identify reasoning for the support, opposition or neutrality of the stakeholder. Figure 22

provides a summary of the stakeholder analysis.

Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder Importance Support

Level Motivation Agency Executives 5 3 Supportive with desire to quantify need

Planning Section 2 3 Supportive to facilitate trail planning

Region Managers 4 2 Moderately Supportive if helps allocate resources

District Managers 3 2 Moderately Supportive if helps allocate resources

Park Managers 4 3 Supportive, if creates results

Park Rangers 3 3 Supportive, if is effective use of time

Citizen Trail Advisor Group 2 4 Very Supportive to showcase agency as leader

Figure 22 - Stakeholder Analysis

The most important stakeholder identified is the agency executives. They are

important for two primary reasons. First, I need their support or neutrality to

implement the trail assessment tools. If they do not support the concept, then there is

nothing to implement. Second, they can provide the necessary direction to overcome

of 95

any initial concerns raised by the Regional Managers. Our organization is very

hierarchical in the field structure.

The Region Manager and District Manager stakeholder groups are key to getting

Park Managers and Park Rangers to implement the trail assessment tools. They will

only do this if they see that the trail assessment tools are getting the necessary

resources to their staff to resolve the trail issues. If there is a failure to create this

nexus or if they determine it has a high workload impact, they will begin to oppose the

trail assessment tools.

The Park Manager and Park Ranger stakeholder groups have the most to gain

and most to lose from this implementation. It is primarily on their shoulders to use the

tools and to determine the efficacy of the tools for them. As long as the tools provide

the results they need and are seen to add value, I will have a supportive stakeholder

group.

SWOT Analysis:

SWOT analysis is a strategic planning method used to evaluate the Strengths,

Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats involved in a project. It involves specifying the

objective of the project and identifying the internal (strengths and weaknesses) and

external factors (opportunities and threats). Figure 23 provides a summary of the

SWOT analysis for this leadership opportunity.

of 95

Figure 23 - SWOT Analysis

The internal factors will be reviewed first. The strengths to the trail assessment

tools implementation is their foundation in stakeholder needs. The design is simple and

flexible, which should allow stakeholders to use the tools to assist in resolving their trail

needs. The primary weakness is the lack of a crisis. In addition, the trail maintenance

needs will be higher than the resources available to resolve them. The amount of

training and support to implement the trail assessment tools could outweigh the staffing

resources available. In addition, to achieve buy in, there will be several layers of the

agency to work with.

The external factors revolve around environmental and perception issues. The

opportunity to be in the right environment for implementation is crucial. The agency is

implementing similar methodologies to allocating resources. In addition, there is a push

from the legislatures to place better quantification of agency needs and demonstration

of results of our expenditures. The threats to the trail assessment tools revolve around

of 95

the perception that the tools are not effectively meeting staff’s needs or area burden on

their workload.

Leadership Assessment

Strengths Assessment

Gallup found that the 34 Clifton StrengthFinder themes naturally cluster into four

domains of leadership strength (Rath & Conchie, 2008). The four domains are:

Executing, Influencing, Relationship Building, and Strategic Thinking. I completed the

StrengthFinder Assessment in November 2010 and my five top strengths were:

Activator, Achiever, Analytical, Futuristic, and Command (Figure 24). I do not have a

top strength in relationship building. I will need to ensure that this domain is captured

by the implementation strategy or members of the implementation team.

Strengths Assessment Executing Influencing

Relationship Building Strategic Thinking

Achiever Activator

Command

Analytical

Futuristic Figure 24 - Strength Assessment Summary

In looking at my strengths, I will need to use them to meet the four basic needs

that my stakeholders will have. The basic needs are trust, compassion, stability, and

hope (Rath & Conchie, 2008). As an Activator, I excel at turning thoughts into action.

In order to create trust, action can instill trust. But, only if the stakeholders identify

that their needs are being listened to and acted upon. To ensure trust is built in me

and the trail assessment tool, I need to ensure the process has a double feedback loop,

of 95

thereby ensuring that the trail assessment tool continues to meet the needs of the

stakeholders. This can also assist in meeting the second basic need of the

stakeholders, compassion. By listening to the stakeholder’s feedback and acting on it, I

can demonstrate my compassion to their needs.

Stability can be accentuated on by ensuring that sufficient training and resources

are available as the trail assessment tools are implemented. This can reassure

stakeholders that they are supported in this. As an activator, I can inspire hope

through my actions and support of stakeholders to engage in the use of the trail

assessment tools.

Smart Power Assessment

Based off of the context of this leadership opportunity, the stakeholders, and the

SWOT analysis I need to assess the distribution of power and determine the best

strategies to tap those power sources to implement the trail assessment tools (Nye,

2008). By mapping the power resources, I can also determine at what cost the sources

of power are. I will use the Smart Power Tool from PA 517 (see Appendix F).

of 95

Figure 25 - Smart Power Tool

Power Type You Would Like to Use Rationale for Using that Type of Power

Hard Power strategies: Rationale:

Use Project Review Board to adopt trail assessment tools as methodology for budget identification and funding priority

process to get local Oregon Parks and Recreation Department staff to use trail assessment tools.

Hold carrot out to park staff to implement. • Table A: (Reward) • Table B: (Machiavellian – economic incentives; build winning

coalitions)

Have Operations Management Team approve policy to adopt trail assessment tools.

Leverage this show of support to create funding and staffing prioritization for gaps.

• Table A: (Legitimacy) • Table B: (Organizational Capacity- manage information system; inner

and outer circles)

Integrate trail assessment tools into Trail Standards

Creates organizational support and buy-in from top to bottom of organizational. Allows for Director and Commission awareness and support.

• Table A: (Legitimacy) • Table B: (Machiavellian – Ability to Bully, buy and bargain)

Soft Power strategies: Rationale:

Training and Testimonials

Articulate vision and steps to successfully implement the trail assessment tools. Showcase the fiscal and local impacts.

• Table A: (Reward, Informational, Rational Persuasion, Referent Power, Expert Power, Charisma)

• Table B: (Machiavellian – build winning coalitions) • Table C: Communications, Vision, Emotional IQ

Integrate into Planning Process for Parks

Creates approach to advocate for trails by speaking with parks to resolve issues, grows system of parks planned through the process, and communicate with local agency/politicians on needs of the trails.

• Table A: (Expert Power, Charisma) • Table B: (Empower follower and indirect leadership to outer circles) • Table C: Vision – attract followers, Communications, Emotional IQ

ORTAC Presentation

This is a citizen based advisory group who can speak with their peers and show to leaders the broad-based, citizen-driven support for the Oregon Coast Trail.

• Table A: (Legitimacy, Referent Power, Expert Power) • Table B: (Indirect leadership; Machiavellian – build winning

coalitions) • Table C: Vision, Communications

Operations Management Team Informational Presentation

Provides opportunity for questions to get answered and support for system to be implemented as a best practices method.

• Table A: (Rational Persuasion, Expert Power) • Table B: (Manage information systems) • Table C: Communications, Vision

of 95

Leadership Strategy

The trail assessment tools are a culmination of agency identified data needs for

trails. They represent a best practices methodology to manage trail maintenance and

keep trails safe and enjoyable for our users. As identified in Figure 3, Adoption of the

trail assessment tools methodology is the final step.

My strategy to implement the trail assessment tools will take into consideration

the contextual assessment and leadership assessment that I have completed. The

strategy will employ three stages: Communication, Training, and Integration. The

steps will follow the timeline outlined in Figure 26 .

Communication Training Integration

OMT April 2012 ORTAC May 2012 Field Staff June 2012

Fall 2012 Fall / Spring 2013

Figure 26 - Implementation Plan Timeline

Stage 1 – Communication

I will set-up informational presentations with key decision making and advisory

bodies for the agency. Following the focus group presentation, I will make a

presentation to our Operational Management Team (OMT) in April 2012. OMT is made

up of senior operations managers and operational support managers who have

extensive experience with parks. OMT is a policy advisory group for our park

operations. They are influential in the implementation of any program. OMT is a

critical connection to ensure that the focus group’s identified trail data needs are

of 95

consistent with OMT’s. The focus of the presentation will be to inform OMT of the trail

assessment tools and seek feedback on the tools and their usefulness for park

operations.

Pending a favorable presentation to OMT, I will then present the information to

the agency’s citizen trail advisory group, Oregon Recreation Trails Advisory Council

(ORTAC) in May 2012. ORTAC is responsible for advising the agency on trails and is

made up of trail professionals and trail advocates from all over the state. They

represent decades of experience on trail issues. The presentation to ORTAC will follow

the OMT model. The goal of presentation will be to broaden the review of the trail

assessment tools and seeking feedback on the tool efficacy from non-agency staff trail

experts.

The goal of the communication stage is to use my personal power, my expert

power, charisma and referent power to communicate the vision and display my capacity

to understand the needs of my audience and be empathetic to their needs. These

techniques will be implemented through soft power techniques. The strategy is

consistent with the structure and culture of the agency and will allow a coalition to be

formed (internal and external of the agency) that agrees on the need for the proposed

solution.

Upon favorable presentations, this will allow me to begin a communication

campaign with our field staff on the new tool in June 2012. This will begin with

of 95

informational presentations and begin to market training modules for the trail

assessment tools. This will setup stage two, training.

Stage 2 – Training

The training of agency staff on the trail assessment tools will be crucial in the

implementation of the tools as a valued addition to their trail management regiment.

The training will need to be developed at two levels: staff and volunteer training

modules and train-the-trainer modules. The training stage will begin in the Fall of

2012, after the peak summer season and when field staff begin to attend trainings.

The training will rely on soft power to communicate the vision and re-validate the

feasibility of the trail assessment tools to meet the stated needs and be an effective use

of staff’s time. The training will then lead into the justification to integration the trail

assessment tools into other agency practices related to trail standards, trail planning

and capital allocation.

Stage 3 – Integration

The final stage will be the integration of the trail assessment tools into three key

processes at the agency. The first is the trail standards. The trail standards are a

comprehensive review and update of all trail planning, construction and maintenance

activities for the agency. The trail standards will include a chapter on trail assessments

and the trail assessment tools developed in this research will be the content of that

chapter. The trail standards could culminate into a trails policy, which would prescribe

the trail assessment tools as the mechanism for agency staff to assess trail

of 95

maintenance needs. This will begin during the Fall of 2012 when the training stage

begins.

The second integration activity will be with the park planning process. The

agency completes park master plans. These plans are completed on a 10 to20 year

cycle. The trail assessment tools will be integrated into the recreational assessment

and recommendations section of the park master plan. Over a 10 year period, all parks

will have completed a park master plan, thereby integrating the trail condition and

inventory into every park. This step essentially began with the Tryon Creek

Management Unit planning process, but will begin to be integrated into the next master

plan scheduled to begin in the Fall of 2012.

The third integration activity will be the integration of the trail problem

assessment with the capital allocation process. The agency is currently revising the

allocation process and created two capital allocations categories: Enhancements and

Major Restoration. The major restoration category could require that the trail problem

assessment be used to justify the capital request or consideration between two like

projects could be used to provide extra points for those parks that completed annual

assessments of trails. This process is in the planning process currently. In the Spring

of 2013 the end of this fiscal year will begin the stage as priorities are established for

the new fiscal year.

The third stage relies primarily on hard power. The use of fiscal incentives to

stimulate behaviors is coupled with positional power is the final power paradigm used.

of 95

The goal is that the soft power techniques will have brought on followers early and the

hard power is only needed to change the behaviors of the few remaining outliers.

of 95

Bibliography

Administration, H. C., & Government, T. H. (n.d.). Smart Power Tool.

Bartlett, J. (1997, Feburary). Jefferson County Open Space Natural Surface Trail Maintenance Management Plan. Colorado State Trails News, pp. 3-8.

Boehm, A., & Staples, L. (2005). Grassroots Leadership in Task-Oriented Groups: Learning from Successful Leaders. Social Work With Groups, 77-96.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2006). Wizard Warrior: Leading with Passion and Power. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Reading, MA: Addisin-Wesley Publishing Company.

Bruehler, G., & Sondergaard, M. (2004). GIS/GPS Trail Condition Inventories: A Virtual Toolbox for Trail Managers. Eagle River: U.S. Department of Intertior, Bureau of Land Management, Glennallen District, Alaska.

Chatterjea, K. (2007). Assessment and Demarcation of Trail Degragation in a Nature Reserve, Using GIS: Case of Bukit Timah Nature Reserve. Land Degradation & Development, 18, 500-518.

CoastWatch. (2010, November 17). Retrieved November 17, 2010, from Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition: http://www.oregonshores.org/coastwatch.php5

Federal Geographic Data Committee, Standards Development Group. (2008). Federal Trail Data Standards. Washington, D.C.: Federal Geographic Data Committee.

Gotra, S. H., & Boyle, K. E. (2006). Sustainable Trail Management, Definitions and a Management Model. In D. Siegrist, C. Clivaz, M. Hunziker, & S. Iten (Ed.), Exploring the Naure of Management (pp. 174-178). Rapperswil: Research Centre for Leisure, Tourism and Landscape, Institute for Landscape and Open Space, University of Applied Sciences.

Houston, R. (2010, April 28). Trail Planning. Retrieved November 15, 2010, from Oregon Parks and Recration Department:

of 95

http://www.oregon.gov/OPRD/PLANS/docs/trails/Connection-Strategy/OCT_Connection_Strategy_42810.pdf

International Mountain Biking Association. (2004). Trail Solutions: IMBA's Guide to Buidling Sweet Singletrack. Boulder: International Mountain Biking Association.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The Leadership Challenge.

Leung, Y.-F., & Marion, J. L. (1999). Assessing trail conditions in protected areas: application of a problem-assessment method in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. Environmental Conservation, 26(4), 270-279.

Leung, Y.-F., & Marion, J. L. (1999). The influence of sampling interval on the accuracy of trail impact assessment. Landscape and Urban Planning, 43, 167-179.

Marion, J. L., & Leung, Y.-F. (2001). Trai Resource Impacts and An Examination of Alternative Assessment Techniques. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 19(3), 17-37.

Marion, J. L., & Olive, N. (2006). Assessing and Understanding Trail Degradation: Results from Big South Fork National River and Recreational Area. Blacksburg: Department of the Interior: U.S. Geological Survey, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Virginia Tech Field Unit.

Marion, J. L., Leung, Y.-F., & Nepal, S. K. (2006). Monitoring Trail Conditions: New Methodological Considerations. The George Wright Forum, 23(2), 36-49.

Meyer, K. G. (2011). A Comprehensive Framework for Off-Highway Vehicle Trail Managment - draft. Missoula: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Technology and Development Program.

Morgan, D. F., Green, R., Shinn, C. W., & Robinson, K. (2008). Foundations of Public Service. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

Morgan, D. F., Green, R., Shinn, C. W., & Robinson, K. S. (2008). Foundations of Public Service. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

National Park Service. (1997). VERP: Visitor Experience and Resource Protection Framework - A Handbook for Planners and Managers. Denver: NPS Denver Serivce Center.

Nepal, S. (2003). Trail Impacts in Sagarmatha (Mt. Everest) National Park, Nepal: A Logistic Regression Analysis. Environmental Management, 32(3), 312-321.

of 95

Nissen, L. B., Merrigan, D. M., & Kraft, M. (2005). Moving Mountains Together: Strategic Community Leadership and Systems Change. Child Welfare, 123-140.

Nye, J. S. (2008). The Powers to Lead. New York: Oxford University Press.

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. (2010). MMP Assessment and FTE Allocation per Management Unit.

Oregon, P. a. (2008, January 20). 2008-2012 Oregon SCORP. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from Oregon Parks and Recreation Department: http://egov.oregon.gov/OPRD/PLANS/scrop08_12.shtml

Ouellette, P. M., Lazear, K. M., & Chambers, K. B. (1999). Action Leadership: The Development of an Approach to Leadership Enhancement for Grassroots Community Leadership in Children's Mental Health. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 26(2), 171-184.

Pettebone, D., Newman, P., & Theobald, D. (2009). A Comparison of Sampling Designs for Monitoring Recerational Trail Impacts in Rocky Mountain National Park. Environmental Management, 43, 523-532.

Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths Based Leadership: Great Leaders, Teams, and Why People Follow. New York: Gallup Press.

Reiter, R. (2006, July). Profiles in Advocacy: APTA Leaders Offer Insights. PT Magazine, pp. 24-26.

Thurston, E., & Reader, R. J. (2001). Impacts of Experimentally Applied Mountain Biking and Hiking on Vegetation and Soil of a Deciduous Forest. Environmental Management, 27(3), 397-409.

United States Forest Service. (2011). Trail Fundamentals and Trail Management Objectives.

Valley Mountain Bikers and Hikers. (2007, June 10). Trail Assessment Procedures For Trails in the Matanuska and Susitna Valleys. Retrieved from Valley Mountain Bikers and Hikers: http://www.vmbah.org

White, D. D., Waskey, M. T., Brodehl, G. P., & Foti, P. E. (2006). A Comparative Study of Impacts to Mountain Bike Trails in Five Common Ecological Regions of the Southwestern U.S. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 24(2), 21-41.

of 95

Wimpey, J. (2010). Environmental Impacts of Mountain Biking: Science Review and Best Practices. IMBA World Summit. Augusta, GA: International Mountain Biking Association.

Wood, K. T., Lawson, S. R., & Marion, J. L. (2006). Assessing Recreation Impacts to Cliffs in Shenandoah National Park: Integrating Visitor Observation with Trail and Recreation Site Measurements. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 24(4), 86-110.

Young, C. (n.d.). Monitoring with Panoramas and Fixed Photopoints: Monitoring recreational impacts, and assessing habitat change from the office using panoramic and fixed photopoints.

of 95

Appendix A: Trail Inventory

of 95

Appendix B: Trail Inventory and Condition Assessment

Sect

ion

Po

int

Tre

ad W

idth

(f

t)

Tra

il I

nci

sio

n

Tra

il P

rofi

le

Cro

ss-S

lop

e

Tra

il S

urf

ace

Tra

il

Deg

rad

atio

n

Leve

l

Feat

ure

Typ

e

Co

nd

itio

n

Cat

ego

ries

Wo

rk N

eed

ed

Notes

Trail Condition Assessment

Trail InventoryTrail: Park:

Trail Inventory - Features & Problems

of 95

Appendix C: Trail Problem Assessment

Trail Problem Assessment Park:

Sect

ion

Po

int

Feat

ure

T

ype

Co

nd

itio

n

Cat

ego

ries

Wo

rk

Nee

ded

Notes

Trail:

of 95

Appendix D: Trail Rapid Condition Assessment

of 95

Appendix E - Trail Inventory and Assessment Report

TRAIL INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT Tryon Creek Management Unit

February 13, 2012

of 95

The mission of the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department is to provide and protect outstanding natural, scenic, cultural, historic and recreational sites for the enjoyment and education of present and future generations.

Oregon Parks & Recreation Department

725 Summer St. NE, Ste C

Salem, OR 97301-0792

Info Center: 1-800-551-6949

egov.oregon.gov/OPRD/index.shtml

Title: Tryon Creek Management Unit: Trail Inventory and Assessment

Author: Rocky Houston, Park Trails Specialist, Integrated Park Services Division

Publication Rights: Information in this report may be copied and used with the condition that credit is given to Oregon Park and Recreation Department. This report has been prepared for in-house use and will not be made available for sale. Photographs and graphics may not be reproduced for reuse without permission of the owners or repositories noted in the captions.

Trail Inventory and Assessment

of 95

Table of Contents 1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 79

1.1 Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 79 1.2 Location and Setting ...................................................................................................... 79 1.3 Inventory of Current Trails .............................................................................................. 79

2 Trail Needs Assessment ....................................................................................... 84 2.1 Statewide and Regional Issues and Needs ................................................................... 84 2.2 Local Issues and Needs ................................................................................................. 84

3 Trail Opportunities ................................................................................................ 85

Trailhead Additions..................................................................................................... 86

Trailhead Additions..................................................................................................... 88

Appendix A: Examples of Appendices ...................................................................... 89

Error! Bookmark not defined.

of 95

Overview

The trail inventory and assessment is a component of the comprehensive plan for the Tryon Creek Management Unit. The purpose of this assessment is to provide guidance for rehabilitating the trails in the management unit and to provide management recommendations that will reduce the need for major rehabilitation projects in later years. An inventory of all the trails and trail structures in the management unit was completed to assist in future management planning. The trail assessment also provides short term and long term recommendations to enhance the recreational capacity of the trails while protecting archeological resources and protecting natural resources.

Objectives

The object of the trail inventory and assessment is to do the following:

• Inventory existing trails and trail conditions • Provide recommendations on re-routing and restoration priorities • Provide input into the comprehensive planning process on new trail development, trail needs

and additional trail related facilities • Establish a baseline for trail classes and trail standards that assist in comprehensive park

maintenance planning

Location and Setting

The Tryon Creek State Natural Area is 656 acres located in the northern Willamette Valley in Clackamas and Multnomah County adjacent to the city of Lake Oswego and the southwest boundary of the city of Portland. The park boundaries are SW Boones Ferry Rd to the West and SW Terwilliger Blvd to the North and East. Highway 43 is the southern boundary. The park follows the watershed of Tryon Creek from near the confluence of Tryon Creek with the Willamette River to Marshall Park, a City of Portland Park, to the northwest.

Milo McIver State Park is 975 acres located in rural Clackamas County near the city of Estacada. The park boundaries are the Clackamas River to the east and rural residential property to the south, north and west. The park has over four miles of river front access. PGE manages a dam, creating Lake Clackamas and manages a local park (Timber Park) across the lake.

Inventory of Current Trails

The focus of the trail inventory follows the focus of the comprehensive plan priorities. That is that the major focus of the inventory work was at the Tryon Creek State Natural Area and Milo McIver State Park. A minor focus on Wapato State Natural Area and Bonnie Lure State Park was completed for trail inventory work.

of 95

Tryon Creek State Natural Area

The 1971 Tryon Creek State Natural Area master plan identified 17 miles of trail to be developed. The park currently has 14.85 miles of trail.

Trail User/Type 1971 Master Plan Recommendation

Current Conditions

Equestrian Trail 4.5 miles 3.71 miles Bicycle Trail 2.0 miles 2.39 miles

Interpretative / Nature 2.3 miles 0.37 miles General Hiking / Walking 8.4 miles 6.53 miles

Total Miles 17.0 miles 13.0 miles Trails Planned in 1971 and current number of miles, by type, developed at Tryon Creek State Natural Area

The trails were inventoried and the resulting table identifies each trail.

Trail Inventory - Summary of Trails Park: Tryon Creek State Natural Area

HUB ID Trail Name

Tra

il Le

ng

th

Tra

il C

lass

Tra

il S

urf

ace

Tra

il W

idth

Tra

il D

iffi

cult

y

Tra

il A

vera

ge

Gra

de

Ave

rage

D

egra

dat

ion

Le

vel

Tra

il U

ser(

s)

Maple Ridge Trail 0.54 3 CG 4 Easy I Ped Center Trail 0.28 4 CG 4 Easy I Ped Big Fir Trail 0.38 3 CG 4 Easy I Ped Cedar Trail 0.93 3 CG 4 Moderate I Ped Fourth Avenue Trail 0.15 3 CG 3 Easy I Ped Hemlock Trail 0.11 3 CG 4 Easy I Ped Iron Mountain Trail 1.02 4 CG 6 Easy I Ped Lewis & Clark Trail 0.83 2 Dirt 2 Moderate II-III Ped Middle Creek Trail 0.53 3 CG 3 Easy I Ped North Creek Trail 0.44 3 CG 3 Easy II Ped Old Main Trail 0.53 4 CG 8 Easy I Ped Red Fox Trail 0.41 3 CG 3 Moderate I Ped South Creek Trail 0.38 3 CG 3 Easy I Ped Trillium Trail 0.37 5 Paved 8 ADA I Ped North Horse Loop 1.99 4 CG 6 Easy I Eq, Ped West Horse Loop 0.94 4 CG 6 Easy I Eq, Ped Boones Ferry Trail 0.34 4 CG 6 Easy I Eq, Ped Englewood Trail 0.44 4 CG 6 Easy I Eq, Ped Terwilliger Bike Path 2.39 5 Paved 8 ADA I Multi Total (miles) 13.0 Tryon Creek State Natural Area Trail Inventory Summary

of 95

Map of Tryon Creek Natural Area Trail System

of 95

Milo McIver State Park

Trail Inventory - Summary of Trails Park: Milo McIver State Park

HUB ID Trail Name

Tra

il Le

ng

th

Tra

il C

lass

Tra

il S

urf

ace

Tra

il W

idth

Tra

il D

iffi

cult

y

Tra

il A

vera

ge

Gra

de

Ave

rage

D

egra

dat

ion

Le

vel

Tra

il U

ser(

s)

Maple Ridge Trail 1.84 miles 2 Dirt 3 Moderate Ped Cedar Knoll Trail 0.22 mile 2 Dirt 3 Moderate Ped Nature Trail 0.80 mile 3 CG 4 Easy Ped Riverside Trail 1.51 miles 2 Dirt 6 Easy Ped

Riverbend Bike Trail 0.59 mile 4 Paved 8

Easy Ped, Bike

Vortex Trail 1.25 mile 2 Dirt 2 Moderate Ped River Mill Horse Trail 3.88 miles 4 CG 5 Easy Eq., Ped Bat Trail 0.98 mile 3 Dirt 3 Easy Eq., Ped Dog Creek Trail 0.56 mile 3 Dirt 3 Easy Ped Maple Ridge Connector 0.10 mile 2 Dirt 3 Easy Ped Riverside Connector 0.40 mile 2 Dirt 3 Easy Ped Boat Launch Connector 0.06 mile 3 Dirt 6 Easy Ped PGE Road to River Mill Horse Trail 0.13 mile 4 Dirt 8 Easy Eq., Ped Campground to North 0.09 mile 4 Dirt 6 Easy Ped River Mill Connector to Group Camp 0.27 mile 4 Dirt 4 Easy Eq., Ped Group Camp to East 0.14 mile 4 Dirt 6 Easy Ped Camp to Group Camp Connector 0.25 mile 4 Dirt 6 Easy Ped Horse Trail @ Bat Barn area 0.69 mile 3 Dirt 4 Easy Eq., Ped Viewpoint Trail 0.16 mile 4 Paved 4 Easy Ped Viewpoint to River Mill Horse Trail 0.22 mile 3 Dirt 4 Easy Ped Total (miles) 14.14

of 95

Trail Needs Assessment

Statewide and Regional Issues and Needs

Statewide Trails Plan

The Statewide Trails Plan was completed in 2005. The plan identified two statewide trail issues and five statewide non-motorized trail concerns. The issues and concerns that are applicable to these parks are:

• Statewide Issue A: Need for trail connectivity • Statewide Issue B: Need for trail maintenance • Statewide Non-Motorized Trail Concern 1: Need for more trails in close proximity to where

people live • Statewide Non-Motorized Trail Concern 2: Need for additional non-motorized trails

The Statewide Trails Plan also identified trail issues at a regional level. The regional issues for the northwest section, where this management unit is located is:

• Need for trail connectivity within the region providing access from urban to rural trails, connections between public facilities, parks and open space and connections from stat and regional trails to community trails.

• Need for additional non-motorized trails (for all user types) – especially in close proximity to where people live

• Need for additional funding for non –motorized trail acquisition and development. Potential strategies include allocation a certain portion of the state’s lottery fund; acquisition of fee title, easements, and land exchanges; and ways to allow users to pay for trail facilities and services.

Regional Trail Identification

• Tryon Creek State Natural Area:

o Hillsdale-Lake Oswego Trail

o Terwilliger Blvd Bike Path

• Milo McIver State Park:

o Mount Hood Connections

Cazadero Trail

Local Issues and Needs

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department conducted user surveys in 2011. The following are trail related items identified that have relevance to this assessment:

• Tryon Creek State Natural Area – User Survey requested more parking and more trails

• Milo McIver State Park – Trail User Survey requested more bicycle options

of 95

Trail Opportunities

Tryon Creek State Natural Area

Tryon Creek SNA is in the center of a highly developed suburban area. The park is used daily by many local residents and the current system consolidates use at the Nature Center. The primary focus of the recommendations is to disperse access and use of the trail system, meet local and regional trail needs, reduce conflicts, and enhance the user experiences at Tryon Creek SNA (See Appendix A for a map).

Trail Use Change Suggestions

Given the location of the Park, use trends, and the regional trail needs a couple of changes have been identified:

• Disperse the use, especially jogging, out of the core Nature Center to perimeter trailhead locations. This can be done through enhanced access to neighborhoods (pedestrian trailheads and new connecting trails) and enhancement of two larger trailheads to the southwest and southeast corners of the park.

• Promote jogging outside of the core Nature Center area by offering 5k and 10k routes using starting from alternative access points.

• Change Iron Mountain Trail from pedestrian to multi-use (bike, pedestrian) to enhance commuting and regional trail connection (Hillsdale-Lake Oswego Trail and Terwilliger Blvd Bike Path).

• Develop a jogging and mountain biking specific trail loop on the southwest side of the park around Iron Mountain Trailhead to meet regional trail needs and disperse jogging away from the Nature Center core.

• Remove duplicate trails (trails that are within 30 – 50 ft), especially in the Tryon Creek corridor. Trail Re-route and Removal Considerations

The focus of the trail re-routes and removals is to enhance the sustainability of the trails and remove the density of trails along Tryon creek. All routes will need to be field verified (See Appendix A for a map).

Trail Removal / Re-routes Notes Priority Trail Class

Trail Users Distance

Cedar Trail Re-route section at West Horse Loop & near north of Park Creek and slide area near Red Fox trail intersection

High 3 Pedestrian 1,978 ft re-route 835 ft removal

North Creek Trail Re-route slide area High 3 Pedestrian 652 ft re-route 571 ft removal

Lewis & Clark Trail Re-route upper section and eliminate lower section

Medium 2 Pedestrian 2,381 ft re-route 2,406 ft removal

Middle Creek Trail Remove from High Bridge to Beaver Bridge, including Beaver Bridge

Medium 3 Pedestrian 165 ft re-route 1,661 ft removal

Old Main Trail Remove trail from Middle Creek intersection down to Obie’s Bridge. Re-route using Middle Creek Trail and new re-route

Medium 3 Pedestrian 734 ft removal

Hemlock Trail Re-route initial section to Cedar Trail connection

Low 3 Pedestrian 1,546 ft re-route 408 ft removal

Red Fox Trail Re-route connection to Old Main Trail Low 3 Pedestrian 210 ft re-route 162 ft removal

South Creek Trail Re-route section near Iron Mountain Trail Low 3 Pedestrian 316 ft re-route 290 ft removal

Total 181 ft

of 95

Trail Addition Concepts

The addition of trails fall into three categories: Enhance access to local neighborhoods, create connections with regional trails and new acquisitions and disperse and enhance use to meet local and regional trail needs. All routes will need to be field verified (See Appendix A for a map).

Trail Additions Notes Priority Trail Class Trail Users Distance

Nature Trail West of Nature Center High 4 Pedestrian 0.25 mile

Kathy's View Trail Bike Path or R.Pennington Trail to Iron Mountain Trail

High 2 Trail Runner/Bike 1.75 miles

Poppe's Trail Iron Mountain Trail to Bike Path High 3 Trail Runner/Bike 0.73 mile

Iron Mountain Trail Section from Tryon Creek east to Bike Path change use to allow bikes

High 4 Trail Runner/Bike, Pedestrian

0.00 mile

Boca Ratan Trail Iron Mountain Trail to Boca Ratan St Medium 3 Pedestrian 0.22 mile

Park Creek Loop Trail Englewood Trail to Cabins to West Horse Loop

Medium 4 Equestrian, Pedestrian

0.91 mile

East Tryon Trail Bike Path Parking to Iron Mountain Trail Medium 4 Pedestrian/Bike 0.39 mile

Padget Creek Trail Englewood Rd to Bonnie Brae Trail Medium 3 Pedestrian 0.56 mile

Marshall Trail Southwest Trail #5 from 4th St to Marshall Park

Medium 3 Pedestrian 0.81 mile

Bonnie Brae Trail Red Fox Trail to Bonnie Brae St Low 3 Pedestrian 0.03 mile

Briercliff Trail Briercliff to Padget Creek Trail Low 3 Pedestrian 0.11 mile

13th Court Trail 13th Court to Park Creek Loop Trail Low 3 Pedestrian 0.12 mile

Cumberland Trail Cumberland Rd to Iron Mountain Trail Low 3 Pedestrian 0.39 mile

Virginia Trail Cumberland Trail to Virginia St Low 3 Pedestrian 0.1 mile

Mauren's Trail Lewis and Clark Trail to Nursery Trailhead (4th St)

Low 2 Pedestrian 0.26 mile

Total 6.63 miles

Trailhead Additions Concepts

The park has one key parking area, the Nature Center, which consolidates use and creates a bottleneck for trail use. The existing satellite trailheads are sparse and not located near the neighborhoods. The trailhead plans need to be field verified (See Appendix A for a map).

Trailhead Additions Notes Priority Type

Iron Mountain Trailhead Use existing trailhead as entrance road and place west of bike path - up to 30 cars High Vehicle

Cabin / South Boones Ferry Trailhead Re-route access road, space for 15-20 cars Medium Vehicle

Boca Ratan Rd Simple trail sign, Park sign Medium Pedestrian

Bonnie Brae Rd Simple trail sign, Park sign Low Pedestrian

Briercliff Rd Simple trail sign, Park sign Low Pedestrian

13th Court Simple trail sign, Park sign Low Pedestrian

Cumberland Rd Simple trail sign, Park sign Low Pedestrian

Virginia St Simple trail sign, Park sign Low Pedestrian

Nursery Trailhead (4th St) Acquisition required - Space for 20-30 cars Low Vehicle

of 95

Implementation Strategy

Upon completion of the Comprehensive Plan and final parkwide planning efforts are completed, a trails advisory group should be established. The focus of this group would be to establish communication between the users groups to enhance awareness of trail use needs and foster trail etiquette values among all users groups. The advisory group would assist the Park Manager in prioritizing development priorities, trail maintenance priorities, and recruitment of volunteers to assist in implement their recommendations.

Milo McIver State Park

Milo McIver State Park is a gateway recreational facility, providing extensive day-use year round and camping seasonally. The primary focus of the recommendations is to implement a trail wayfinding plan, create connections from the north and south developed areas, enhance equestrian and bicycle trail access, meet local and regional trail needs, and enhance the user experiences at the park (See Appendix A for a map).

Trail Use Change Suggestions

Given the location of the Park, use trends, and the regional trail needs a couple of changes have been identified:

• Enhance equestrian trail system around existing parking are and proposed horse camp. • Provide northern access to equestrians on Vortex and Riverside Trail. • Provide bicycle trail access around campground and connections to northern section. • Investigate the use of the PGE maintenance road as a multi-use trail and short-term connection

to Estacada. • Investigate bridge alternatives with PGE and the City of Estacada.

Trail Re-route and Removal Considerations

The focus of the trail re-routes and removals are to enhance the sustainability of the trails and remove public safety concerns. All routes will need to be field verified (See Appendix A for a map).

Trail Removal / Re-routes Notes Priority Trail Class

Trail Users Distance

Vortex Trail Slide requires removal in initial portion of trail High 2 Pedestrian 1,426 ft removal

Maple Ridge Trail Slide has created a dispersal of water and multiple crossings. Re-route trail and re-located bridge to east of current location

Low 2 Pedestrian 116 ft re-route

91 ft removal

Total -1,401 ft

of 95

Trail Addition Concepts

The addition of trails fall into three categories: Enhance access to for equestrians, create connections with the developed areas of the park, and disperse and enhance use to meet local and regional trail needs. All routes will need to be field verified (See Appendix A for a map).

Trail Additions Notes Priority Trail Class Trail Users Distance

River Lake Road Trail River Lake Rd (PGE) from Lake Clackamas to South Boundary

High 4 Multi-Use 0.52 mile

North Connector Trail Trail from viewpoint parking lot and new welcome center to Vortex Trail and The Heights Trail

High 4 Multi-Use 0.20 mile

Lake Clackamas Trail River Mill Horse Trail to River Lake Road Trail

High 3 Equestrian, Pedestrian

1.4 mile

Maple Glen Loop Loop from proposed new horse camp to north or south connection to River Mille Horse Trail

Medium 3 Equestrian, Pedestrian

1.36 mile

Alt. River Lake Road Trail Alternative Route if PGE doesn’t allow use of their road

Medium 4 Multi-Use 0.55 miles

The Heights Trail Trail west of north access road connecting to Vortex Trail

Medium 4 Multi-Use 0.83 mile

Isolation Drop Trail Trail connecting The Heights Trail to Maple Ridge Trail


Clackamas River Trail North-South Connector making connections to Vortex Trail, Riverside Trail and Dog Creek Trail


Riverside Trail Extension to the south to Vortex Trail Low 3 Multi-Use 0.15 mile

Flume Trail Connection to River Mill HorseTrail and Maple Glen Loop

Low 4 Equestrian, Pedestrian

0.30 mile

Total 6.42 miles

Trailhead Additions

There are no proposed trailhead additions.

Implementation Strategy

Upon completion of the Comprehensive Plan and final parkwide planning efforts are completed, a trails advisory group should be established. The focus of this group would be to establish communication between the users groups to enhance awareness of trail use needs and foster trail etiquette values among all users groups. The advisory group would assist the Park Manager in prioritizing development priorities, trail maintenance priorities, and recruitment of volunteers to assist in implement their recommendations.

of 95

Trail Recommendations

To be determined through Comprehensive Planning.

of 95

Appendix A: Examples of Appendices

Page 15 – Tryon Creek Trail Map – Trail Opportunities

Page 16 – Tryon Creek Trail Map – Trail Opportunities by Use

Page 17 – Milo McIver Trail Map – Trail Opportunities

Page 18 – Milo McIver Trail Map – Trail Opportunities by Use

Page 19 – Tryon Creek – Cabins Trailhead Concept

Page 20 – Tryon Creek – Iron Mountain Trailhead Concept

Page 21 – Tryon Creek – Nursery Trailhead Concept

of 95

Appendix F - Smart Power Tool Overview and Instructions

Leadership is exercised through relationships. Leaders need to influence themselves and others to take Vision-directed and Values-based action. There are three types of power available for influencing action in relationships: hard, soft and smart. The purpose of this tool is to assist leaders to develop the most suitable balance of hard and soft power for a specific leadership situation, i.e., smart power.

Complete this chart. Read question #1. If your answer is yes, proceed to question #2. If it is no, proceed to ‘Leader Actions’ #1. Follow the same directions to answer questions #2 and 3. Next, use the charts on the following pages to take your ‘leadership actions’.

Conditions for Deciding on Sources and Types of Power Decision Rules Comments

1 2 3

1. Does the leader know the types and sources of legitimate discretionary power that they have available?

No Yes Yes

2. Does the leader understand the types of hard and soft power available within the context of the leadership role? No Yes

3. Does the leader understand the decision rules for balancing combinations of hard and soft power (e.g., smart use of power) under typical leadership system scenarios?

No

Leader Actions

1. Leader needs to determine their level of discretionary power by reviewing “sources of power” inventory (Table A)

X

2. Review descriptions of hard and soft power type uses (Tables B & C)

X

3. Review the contingency table (Table D) for applications of types of hard and soft power by standard types of scenarios

X

of 95

Table A: Sources of Discretionary Power

Category Major Sources Operational Description

Position Power

1. Legitimacy Others recognize and accept authority associated with the position

2. Reward Position allows control over provision of rewards

3. Coercive Position allows capacity to control punishments

4. Informational Position allows access to privileged data or knowledge

Personal Power

5. Rational Persuasion Person relies on logical augments or factual evidence to convince others

6. Referent Power Person is liked or respected by others in important positions

7. Expert Power Person has superior knowledge and experience in a certain field

8. Charisma Person’s personality is engaging & magnetic with clear visions that inspire trust

of 95

Table B: Hard Power

Category Dimensions Description

Organizational

Capacity

Manage the Reward and Information Systems

Understand information flows, i.e., top down and bottom up as well as horizontally amongst the followers, and how to monitor them. Implement systems that provide good information leading to valuable input. Make sure that unfiltered news can reach the leader.

Manage Inner and Outer Circles (direct and indirect leadership)

Manage the inner circle to ensure an accurate flow of information and influence. Understand the importance of empowering the followers by allowing them to speak out. Construct teams and hire subordinates who can compensate for any deficiencies.

Machiavellian

Skills

Ability and Authority to Bully, Buy, and Bargain.

Bully or repeatedly humiliate and dominate others in order to force others to behavior a certain way. Buy or provide economic incentives to followers to stimulate their performance. Bargain or cut deals with followers to get them on the ‘right’ track.

Ability to Build and Maintain Winning Coalitions

Build successful partnerships and stabilize the partnerships though time. Politically engage followers and involve them in participatory roles, i.e., inclusion.

of 95

Table C: Soft Power

Categories Dimensions Description

Emotional IQ

Relationships and charisma. Effectively understand and display empathy. Control and display confidence and optimism.

Emotional self-awareness and control.

Emotional Intelligence involves the awareness and control of such signals. It also involves self-discipline that prevents personal psychological needs from distorting policy.

Communications

Persuasive words & symbols

Tailoring nuances of the language used to reinforce the direction in which the leader wants to lead. Symbolic communications such as Gandi’s simple dress depicted that his actions spoke louder than his words. Using symbolic events or public stunts to convey an image.

Persuasive to followers (near and distant)

The ability to successfully attract and manage both an inner circle of followers and a large audience. Using narratives and other forms of oratory skill e.g. using well-selected anecdotes or proverbs.

Vision

Attractive to followers

Shaping an idea or vision and adding attributes attract the interests of followers. Choosing a vision that followers can relate to or desire to accomplish e.g. Workplace Safety as the new CEO because this is a commonality between all workers and because once followers improve in one are they begin to improve in others as well.

Effective -balance ideals & capabilities.

The combination of inspiration and feasibility. The effective combination of inspiring follower’s with your vision while paying close attention to the details and feasibility of whether or not the dream can realistically be accomplished.

J. Nye, 2008.

95

Table D: Assessment to Discern Smart Power Strategy

1. Analyze your leadership project to determine situations that may require the use of power. 2. Select hard and soft power strategies and record your rationale for utilizing them using the Tables on the attached pages. 3. Then, examine the strategies as a group to determine how they combine to equal Smart Power. 4. Record your answers here.

Power Type You Would Like to Use Rationale for Using that Type of Power

Hard Power strategies:

Rationale:

Soft Power strategies:

Rationale:

5. Describe how this combination of soft and hard power balances to equal Smart Power. Adjust the strategies until the mix does make Smart Power.

6. Describe your rationale.

evaluation of trail impact assessments for use at oregon ... › cps › sites › › files ›...

Documents