1/11 through 1/13/2011
Trails Planning Meeting Notes Summary
Location: Tucson Interagency Fire Center
Participants:
Chuck Frayer / Michael Warta / Jim WhiteCyndee Maki / Jonathan Kempff / Laurie Thorpe
Jaime Schmidt / John ‘Fender’ Diefenderfer / Terry Terry on phone
Aaron Stanford / Jonathan Stephens / Vicky Duvall on phone
Topics / Discussion / Conclusions
GIS / Data has been stored locally in the past. Now it is being migrated to an Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW). The data will meet specific protocols and can be used for many projects nationally.
From EDW the data can be used by Mapping Services which also has standardized maps. From here backgrounds can be chosen including Google earth.
Standardized Maps that are web-based come from the Mapping Services. / Trails Planning will use EDW and Mapping Services so web-based maps can be produced nationally and shared with the public in a uniform way.
Forest Interviews / All forests wanted maps to show the public trails alternatives for planning purposes. Whenever possible these maps would include more than just forest service trails.
Forestsalso want a quick and easy way to determine use levels. Both the amount of use and what type of use is going on. Trail counters have been used in the past but they do take a lot of effort to be done properly. One caution about use is that it can be misinterpreted as one trail being more valuable than another. Another caution is that it can result in pitting one user group against another. NVUM does not have trail specific information.
Cost of trail operation and maintenance is also desired by the forests. One forest suggested a method to display this information spatially and requested that the information be made available like it was for recreation sites in a previous effort. / Trails Planning will provide a way for forests to have maps that can display alternatives for the public to see on the web.
Use a spreadsheet that a forest can fill in may be one tool to assist a forest.
Trail costs will be used and displayed on maps, charts and in reports.
Quality / The public will want to know what the visual quality of the trail is as well as the condition and the quality of the overall experience. Example: A trail in an alpine setting that goes to a lake may be interpreted by the public as being a higher quality experience than a trail that goes through the sage and open area with no lake.
Using the forest recreation niche, a qualitative value may be arrived at by setting. This can in turn be used as a part of determining priority of trails through a series of questions.
Another method could be to use a quadrant system based on value and risk. See object from slide show. / Trails planning must include quality in some way. The public wants information like this however the effort must be cautious in how this is presented and how it is used.
Assessment - Interview Tool / This was a ‘show and tell’ of an excel spreadsheet that is currently being used with the Colville NF. The assessment piece shows the counts of missing information shown in a summary tab. The assessment is for the data’s Completeness, Accuracy and Compliance with business rules.
Missing data, questionable entries, and contradictions are highlighted on the Interview tabs. A regional coordinator can analyze what is there and ask specific questions that would help a forest make sure trail data is ready for trails planning. / This will be one of the tools for Data Validation.
GIS Capability / This was a ‘show and tell’ of interactive maps currently in existence. The Dixie NF, the Deschutes NF and the Uinta NF were all shown for different approaches on what can be done.
Map Services will pull from the EDW which can serve up data from the FS and other agencies like the BLM. There are some differences in symbology between agencies however the Federal Trail Data Standards will help resolve some of this. / Trails planning will pursue this methodology for making maps.
Current Management Intent / The TMO is the intended management direction for the trail but not a pie-in-the-sky intention. The cost may be different on the ground from what the TMO indicates. If the DM is high it may be an indicator that the trail may not be at the TMO currently. If there are CIP costs that is possibly an indicator that it has not attained the TMO yet. / TMO’s are critically important and will be an anchor throughout any tool development.
Visitor use / This tool may be in the form of a spreadsheet with each trail segment being a row. The columns would be labeled something like: types of use, quantity, duration, demographics, and unauthorized routes. There would possibly be a need for ranges with qualitative wording to measure by. / If this approach is taken, the forest would fill in the data based on their knowledge. This would be similar to the approach the Deschutes NF used.
Costing and Bench Mark Cost Derivation / The cost per mile can come from the random sample at the national level.
Make sure this is changeable and updateable at the unit level
Cost per mile by: mgmt use, trail class, wilderness, non-wilderness,
Approach from Infra – TMO, surveyor identifies what needs to be done to bring it to TMO level, that is the cost to bring it to standard and maintain it to standard.
Operations, Annual maintenance, DM, and CIP are costs that aresplit out within Infra. The inclusion of facilities associated with the trail (i.e. trail head costs) should be included to get a truer benchmark cost for the trails.
Deferred Maintenance divided by the Cost to construct the trail can yield a Facility Condition Index for comparison.
What is in Infra should reflect how the unit gets the work done.
Benchmarks should come from thenational sampling, then a regional sampling. A local unit may have better costs because of contracting or some other experience and that can be entered into a column which will adjust the cost from the benchmark cost.
Consider: A challenge coefficient could be used by deriving it from designed use & trail class. / The 1% sample will determine the National cost per mile
If a Region has an adequate (over 90%)sample they will use the Regional cost per mile.
If a Region does not have an adequate sample the National cost per mile will be used
Cost coefficients such as non-mechanized instead of a Wilderness coefficient should be used
The Infra cost variables and the related coefficients will be used (i.e. Designed use will not be usedlike it was for the Deschutes work; (howeverdesigned use may still be needed for planning so don’t throw it out yet)
A view will have the cost variables and the related coefficients to be used in a tool. This provides an updateable data set that can be used nationally.
TMO Task Frequencies will come from the Infra view if the TMO’s exist within Infra.
A Region may adjust those coefficients to meet their needs, however this will typically be an exception not the rule.
A Forest must get agreement from the Region to adjust the coefficients to meet Forest differences.
Priority Questions / These were handed out in hard copy but not reviewed as a team. One side note: Watershed questions are needed for the environmental sphere / These need to be vetted by the team members as well as how these questions are used to address the three spheres of sustainability.
Basic Tools / Three basic tools were identified by the team as being needed for trails planning. /
- Trails Information View
- Data Validation Suite of Tools
- Scenario Builder
Trails Information View / This view supports the interactive travel map
This view supports primary and secondary base map production
It is based on one or more views from the new Linear Event table within Infra / This view consists of raw data from Infra and some derived fields to produce maps, charts, and reports.
Data Validation / All Trails records are initially included so the list of NFST’s can be confirmed.
The NFST inventory must be complete, accurate, and comply with National protocols.
A basic set of information is complete and accurate for non-NFST trails to be considered in the planning effort.
There may be some data clean-up in phases while other data will be absolutely needed for trails planning (NFST Inventory, TMO, ATM data is mandatory for planning) / This will include a suite of tools that uses Infra data and highlights potential data conflicts and gaps in required data needed for trails planning.
Data corrections/updates will be made in Infra using explorer, TMO and ATM forms.
Scenario Builder / This tool is fed from Infra and other applicable sources. It provides a unit with entry fields for additional data, and derives results from both the Infra data and the additional data.
A tab could be added with blank columns that a forest could fill in, and then a macro would output scenario templates for forest maps
Scenario Example: We are going to build bike trails at a low challenge level for the beginning mtn. biker
- 80% of my mtn. bike trails will have beginner opportunities
- The variation in challenge will change so that beginners can ‘learn to be gonzo riders’
Action Items
Item / Action / Who / WhenCreate a ‘what a public would like in a map’ list / Create a starter list / Jonathan K. / Next 30 days
Try out making a map. / Use the Gallatin NF
Finish II Linear event Table,
ID columns,
Writing View
Making the map / Michael
Aaron / Next 30 days
30 days
April 1, 2011
Trail evaluation Tool and Guide / Send populated tool and guide to Jonathan K, Jaime, and Terry Terryfor testing over next 90 days / Jim / Next 90 days
Monthly Conference Calls / Review products & notes / Fender
Laurie / 2nd Wed. of the month
Trails Analysis Handbook / Write up and discuss on Conference call / Laurie / 2nd Wed. of the month
Brief Art Jeffers
Director’s Update / Show/demonstrate map / Jonathan S.
Map use -Aaron / April 11th
Trail Fundamentals Training & Infra TMO / All members attend / Jaime lead
Fender doodle / Spring 2011
Next meeting in Portland, Or / Notes from this meeting; meeting rooms and approval / Fender
Contact Gail Troop / Week of June 6th
Sustainable Recreation Update / Present at Portland meeting samples of ongoing work with forests. / Laurie / Week of June 6th
Work Topics for next meeting / Review and vet products ( trails information view, data validation suite, scenario builder, sustainability questions, basic map with travel-analysis consistent symbology) / View – Michael & Aaron
Validation – Jaime, Michael, Jim, Chuck
Scenario – Jim
Questions – Jim
Basic Map - Aaron / Week of June 6th
Existing Visitor Use / Bring examples to next meeting
Find Round 2 NVUM examples / Everyone - any forest with data
Robert Burns/Chuck / Week of June 6th
Forest Interviews / Continue these and start a Blog on RecLinK / Jonathan S.
Fender / Ongoing
Webinar / Show the tools, and maps to Regional Trail coordinators / Team / After next meeting
Page 1 of 5