SUBJECT: City of Happy Valley Plan Amendment
DLCD File Number 002-14
The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) received the attached notice of 
adoption.  Due to the size of amended material submitted, a complete copy has not been attached.  A 
Copy of the adopted plan amendment is available for review at the DLCD office in Salem and the local 
government office.  
Appeal Procedures*
DLCD ACKNOWLEDGMENT or DEADLINE TO APPEAL:  Tuesday, July 15, 2014 
This amendment was submitted to DLCD for review prior to adoption  pursuant to ORS 197.830(2)(b) 
only persons who participated in the local government proceedings leading to adoption of the amendment 
are eligible to appeal this decision to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). 
If you wish to appeal, you must file a notice of intent to appeal with the Land Use Board of Appeals 
(LUBA) no later than 21 days from the date the decision was mailed to you by the local government.  If 
you have questions, check with the local government to determine the appeal deadline.  Copies of the 
notice of intent to appeal must be served upon the local government and others who received written 
notice of the final decision from the local government.  The notice of intent to appeal must be served and 
filed in the form and manner prescribed by LUBA, (OAR Chapter 661, Division 10).  Please call LUBA 
at 503-373-1265, if you have questions about appeal procedures.
*NOTE:     The Acknowledgment or Appeal Deadline is based upon the date the decision was mailed by local 
        government. A decision may have been mailed to you on a different date than it was mailed to 
        DLCD. As a result, your appeal deadline may be earlier than the above date specified.  NO LUBA  
       Notification to the jurisdiction of an appeal by the deadline, this Plan Amendment is acknowledged.
Cc: Justin Popilek, City of Happy Valley
Gordon Howard, DLCD Urban Planning Specialist
Jennifer Donnelly, DLCD Regional Representative
<paa> YA
NOTICE OF ADOPTED AMENDMENT
06/30/2014
TO: Subscribers to Notice of Adopted Plan
or Land Use Regulation Amendments
FROM: Plan Amendment Program Specialist
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -1- Form updated November 1, 2013  
DLCD FORM 2 NOTICE OF ADOPTED CHANGE FOR DLCD USE 
 TO A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR File No.:        
 LAND USE REGULATION Received:       
 
Local governments are required to send notice of an adopted change to a comprehensive plan or land use regulation 
no more than 20 days after the adoption. (See OAR 660-018-0040). The rules require that the notice include a 
completed copy of this form. This notice form is not for submittal of a completed periodic review task or a plan 
amendment reviewed in the manner of periodic review. Use Form 4 for an adopted urban growth boundary 
including over 50 acres by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB or an urban growth boundary 
amendment over 100 acres adopted by a metropolitan service district. Use Form 5 for an adopted urban reserve 
designation, or amendment to add over 50 acres, by a city with a population greater than 2,500 within the UGB. Use 
Form 6 with submittal of an adopted periodic review task. 
 
Jurisdiction: City of Happy Valley 
Local file no.: CPA-02-14 
Date of adoption:  6-4-14  Date sent:  6/24/2014 
Was Notice of a Proposed Change (Form 1) submitted to DLCD? 
         Yes: Date (use the date of last revision if a revised Form 1was submitted): 2-28-14  
         No 
Is the adopted change different from what was described in the Notice of Proposed Change?      Yes       No 
If yes, describe how the adoption differs from the proposal: 
NO 
 
Local contact (name and title):  Justin Popilek 
Phone: 503 783-3810  E-mail: justinp@happyvalley.or.gov 
Street address: 16000 SE Misty Drive  City: Happy Valley    Zip: 97086- 
 
PLEASE COMPLETE ALL OF THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS THAT APPLY 
For a change to comprehensive plan text: 
Identify the sections of the plan that were added or amended and which statewide planning goals those sections 
implement, if any: 
The City adopted the Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan for inclusion into the City's overall 
Comprehensive Plan.  
For a change to a comprehensive plan map: 
Identify the former and new map designations and the area affected: 
Change from         to             acres.      A goal exception was required for this change. 
Change from         to              acres.      A goal exception was required for this change. 
Change from         to               acres.     A goal exception was required for this change. 
Change from         to              acres.     A goal exception was required for this change. 
Location of affected property (T, R, Sec., TL and address): City Wide 
      The subject property is entirely within an urban growth boundary 
     The subject property is partially within an urban growth boundary 
http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/Pages/forms.aspx -2- Form updated November 1, 2013  
If the comprehensive plan map change is a UGB amendment including less than 50 acres and/or by a city with a 
population less than 2,500 in the urban area, indicate the number of acres of the former rural plan designation, by 
type, included in the boundary. 
Exclusive Farm Use – Acres:       Non-resource – Acres:       
Forest – Acres:        Marginal Lands – Acres:       
Rural Residential – Acres:       Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space – Acres:       
Rural Commercial or Industrial – Acres:        Other:       – Acres:       
If the comprehensive plan map change is an urban reserve amendment including less than 50 acres, or 
establishment or amendment of an urban reserve by a city with a population less than 2,500 in the urban area, 
indicate the number of acres, by plan designation, included in the boundary. 
Exclusive Farm Use – Acres:       Non-resource – Acres:       
Forest – Acres:        Marginal Lands – Acres:       
Rural Residential – Acres:       Natural Resource/Coastal/Open Space – Acres:       
Rural Commercial or Industrial – Acres:        Other:       – Acres:       
For a change to the text of an ordinance or code: 
Identify the sections of the ordinance or code that were added or amended by title and number: 
      
 
For a change to a zoning map: 
Identify the former and new base zone designations and the area affected: 
Change from          to           Acres:        
Change from          to            Acres:       
Change from          to           Acres:       
Change from          to           Acres:       
 
Identify additions to or removal from an overlay zone designation and the area affected: 
Overlay zone designation:         Acres added:           Acres removed:       
Location of affected property (T, R, Sec., TL and address):       
 
List affected state or federal agencies, local governments and special districts:  City of Portland, Clackamas County 
and Metro 
 
 
 
Identify supplemental information that is included because it may be useful to inform DLCD or members of the 
public of the effect of the actual change that has been submitted with this Notice of Adopted Change, if any. If the 
submittal, including supplementary materials, exceeds 100 pages, include a summary of the amendment briefly 
describing its purpose and requirements. 
Signed final order, signed Notice of Decision and Staff Report including findings. 
 
 
 
 

 City Manager 
Jason A. Tuck 
Mayor 
Honorable Lori DeRemer 
CITY OF HAPPY VALLEY 
 
STAFF REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 
 
APRIL, 8 2014 
 
MT. SCOTT/SCOUTERS MTN. TRAIL LOOP MASTER PLAN (CPA-02-14)  
 
I. GENERAL INFORMATION: 
 
APPLICABLE CRITERIA: 
 
Applicable Statewide Planning Goals; OAR 660-034-0060 of the Oregon Administrative Rules; 
applicable Goals and Policies from the City of Happy Valley Comprehensive Plan; and 
applicable Sections of Title 16 (Development Code) of the City of Happy Valley Municipal 
Code, including 16.67.015, 16.67.020, and 16.67.060. 
 
EXHIBITS: 
 
A. Staff Report and Findings of Fact 
B. Proposed Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan 
C. Published Notice 
 
BACKGROUND: 
 
• The Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Tail Loop Master Plan is the continuation of an ambitions multi-
jurisdictional effort to establish a regional trail network connecting several communities 
within the Portland Metropolitan Area.  This trail loop will put in place an important piece of 
the trail network that will provide Clackamas County, Happy Valley, Damascus, and 
Portland residents with non-motorized recreation and transportation connections to regional 
destinations and facilities.  The roughly 37.5-mile trail loop project will offer a route for 
alternative transportation modes with a looped, north-south oriented multi-use trail system 
that will link the Springwater Corridor with the Sunrise Corridor, Clackamas River, and 
encompass Mount Talbert Nature Park, Powell Butte, Buttes Natural Areas, and Scouters 
Mountain Nature Park. The proposed regional trail will connect numerous schools, 
community parks, local trails, businesses, retail stores and the Happy Valley Town Center. 
The new trail will facilitate potential access to Mount Scott Creek, Rock Creek, and have 
connections to the future East Buttes Loop Trail and Powerline Corridor Trail.  
 
16000 SE Misty Drive, Happy Valley, Oregon 97086-4288 
Telephone: (503) 783-3800 Fax: (503) 658-5174 
happyvalleyor.gov 
 
Preserving and enhancing the safety, livability and character of our community 
 
• In the fall of 2011, Metro, in partnership with North Clackamas Parks and Recreation 
District, Clackamas County, and the cities of Happy Valley and Portland, began working 
with Otak, Inc., and Alta Planning + Design to prepare the Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail 
Loop Master Plan. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was assembled from agencies of 
the various jurisdictions, citizens, and those with private property the trail would pass 
through or be adjacent to. The following agencies were represented in the PAC: 
 
− City of Happy Valley 
− Clackamas County Sheriff, Transportation and Land Use Departments 
− Intertwine Alliance 
− Lincoln Park Memorial Cemetery 
− Metro 
− North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District 
− North Clackamas School District 
− Oregon Department of Transportation 
− Portland Parks & Recreation 
− Neighborhood associations  
 
The project consultant team began reviewing the land use and regulatory requirements 
governing the planning and implementation of the proposed trail loop. Based on a conceptual 
alignment identified by agency partners, a trail corridor was established as the limits of the 
project study area and geographic information system (GIS) mapping of the study area was 
developed by Metro and local partner staff for use by the consultant team in identifying 
alignment alternatives. GIS mapping was combined with natural resource evaluation, traffic 
analysis findings, property ownership data, and transportation system planning information to 
develop evaluation criteria for trail alignment options for the alternatives analysis. 
 
• Once a sufficient amount of information was gathered and documented, the PAC conducted 
the first of two public open houses (June 2012) that would provide a venue for presentation 
and discussion of the proposed trail project. Meetings were held at the Happy Valley City 
Hall. With input from the community and stakeholders, trail alignment alternatives were 
further refined and preferred alignments were identified. Based on the preferred trail 
alignments, trail typologies (modes) were established that suited the various conditions – 
both inside and outside of road right-of-ways – through which the trail would pass.  A trail 
design framework was developed based on trail typologies (modes), anticipated construction 
requirements, and the trail planning logistics of safety, security, and wayfinding. The 
preferred alignment and design framework information was presented at the second of two 
public open houses (January 2013) where additional comments were recorded to guide the 
final modifications of the trail master plan.  Building on the information accumulated 
throughout the trail master planning process, an implementation meeting was convened with 
the PAC to discuss and document trail project priorities, timelines, and funding strategies for 
trail segments studied during plan development. Information concerning implementation 
strategies including cost estimating data was compiled and organized for reference in future 
trail planning efforts.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OBSERVATIONS: 
 
MT. SCOTT/SCOUTERS MTN. TRAIL LOOP MASTER PLAN:  
 
• Spanning approximately 37.5 miles (when bifurcations are taken into account), the 
recommended trail loop alignment will provide an active transportation and recreation link 
between the Springwater Corridor, I-205 bike path and Clackamas River while connecting 
area residents to open space jewels including Powell Butte, Buttes Natural Area, Mitchell 
Creek property, Scouters Mountain, Mount Talbert and Happy Valley Nature Park. The 
preferred alignment will provide a convenient, comfortable and safe atmosphere for trail 
users of all ages and abilities; provide access and enhancements to natural and cultural 
resources while limiting impacts; and enhance non-motorized connectivity in the region. The 
Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan document (Exhibit B) describes the 
opportunities, constraints and recommendations associated with each preferred alignment by 
segment. 
 
• A large portion of the trail corridor resides in the North Clackamas Parks and Recreation 
District (NCPRD) and the City of Happy Valley. The City’s Pedestrian Master Plan and 
Trails Master Plan outline the proposed trails within the City, both generally identify the 
need for a trail system in the area of the Trail Loop.  The Trail Loop is proposed to provide a 
north-south, multi-modal transportation/recreation trail traversing the western and eastern 
“flanks” of an area that is known as the “bowl” of Happy Valley.  The Trail Loop is proposed 
to traverse both Mt. Scott and Scouters Mtn. in this area.  From this location, the Trail Loop 
will continue to the south and serve the southern portion of East Happy Valley and 
unincorporated lands located near Mt. Talbert.  The southern boundary of the Trail Loop 
consists of a segment that extends east-west along the Highway 212/224 corridor, a state 
facility that is partially located within the City Limits of Happy Valley.      
 
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: 
 
• Over the next 20-25 years, the trail will enter into an implementation phase. Currently, there 
are no dedicated funding sources to design and build the trail. To solicit additional support, 
the master plan will be discussed with a broad spectrum of stakeholders in the Winter/Spring 
of 2014 including the following: 
 
• parks, transportation and planning staff; 
• local parks and trails citizen committees; 
• city councils and other governing boards; and 
• the general public including property owners and neighborhood groups. 
 
The Plan will also be recommended for inclusion in or with local acquisitions of right-of-way 
and easements, capital improvement lists, as well as included in the queue for funding. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
II. FINDINGS OF FACT 
 
1. The following Statewide Planning Goals are applicable to the subject request: 
 
“GOAL 1: CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 
To develop a citizen involvement program that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved 
in all phases of the planning process. 
 
Staff Response:  
Statewide Planning Goal 1 requires governing bodies charged with preparing and adopting a 
comprehensive plan to adopt and publicize a program for citizen involvement that clearly defines 
the procedures by which the general public will be involved in the on-going land use planning 
process. The citizen involvement component of the Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master 
Plan provided many opportunities for the public to participate, provide comments, and obtain 
information about the process. As mentioned earlier in this report, a Public Advisory Committee 
was formed to work through the initial stages of the Trail Loop’s development and met multiple 
times to provide comments on the project.  Two open houses were held where the public was 
invited to provide comments on the Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan and City 
newsletter and website articles also provided opportunity for the community to be involved. 
Therefore, this criterion was satisfied by the Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan 
citizen involvement process.    
 
GOAL 8: RECREATIONAL NEEDS 
To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors and, where appropriate, 
to provide for the siting of necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts. 
 
Staff Response:  
The proposed Trail Loop will provide for additional recreational opportunities for the City’s 
residents, in the form of a multi-use trail system designed to accommodate both recreational 
users in addition to commuters.  This criterion has been satisfied.  
 
2. The following Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) are applicable to the subject request: 
 
“OAR Chapter 660, Division 34 (State and Local Park Planning)  
660-034-0000 
Purpose 
(1) The purpose of this division is to establish policies and procedures for the planning and 
zoning of state and local parks in order to address the recreational needs of the citizens of the 
state. This division is intended to interpret and carry out requirements of Statewide Planning 
Goal 8 and ORS 195.120 to 195.125.  
(2) In general, this division directs local government planning and zoning activities regarding 
state and local park master plans. OAR chapter 736, division 18, directs the Oregon Parks and 
Recreation Department (OPRD) with respect to state park master planning, and does not apply 
to local governments except where specified by this division.” 
 
Staff Response:  
As previously discussed, the proposed Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan will 
provide the framework for a multi-use trail system that will provide the City’s residents with 
both recreational and alternative transportation opportunities within Happy Valley and beyond.  
This criterion has been satisfied. 
 
 
3.  The following Land Use Policies from the City’s general Comprehensive Plan Policies 
are applicable to this request: 
 
“[…] 
Policy 57: To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of the state and visitors, and to 
provide additional park and outdoor recreational facilities in order to meet 
recreational needs of residents. 
 
Staff Response: 
With the adoption of the Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan, the City is planning 
for recreational needs, and specifically the needs of walkers, hikers, and bicyclists, throughout 
the City.  Pedestrian routes have been planned such that they provide multiple types of 
opportunities and fulfill different types of needs.  Routes are planned along nature corridors as 
well as in areas to provide alternatives to the automobile in order to complete necessary tasks.  
Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied by the proposed amendments. 
 
Policy 64: To develop good transportation routes (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, etc.) 
between residential areas (and major activity centers both inside and outside the 
City) with street interconnectivity and neighborhood livability issues being the 
paramount consideration. 
[…] 
Policy 70: To encourage the development of bike paths and pedestrian walkways throughout 
the city in accordance with OAR and the implementation of the County bikeway 
route through the City.” 
 
Staff Response: 
The Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan not only has the goal to provide pedestrians 
and bicyclists with recreational opportunities, but it also strives to connect residential areas with 
major destinations in the region.  The Master Plan also provides a very well interconnected 
pedestrian and bicycle system that would provide the citizens of Happy Valley and other users of 
the system an alternative to driving.  The Trail Loop as a whole, was developed in coordination 
with adjacent jurisdictions so as to ensure intermodal connectivity throughout the region.  
Therefore, these criteria have been satisfied by the proposed amendment.   
 
4. The following Sections from Title 16 of the City’s Municipal Code (Development Code) 
are applicable to this request: 
 
“Chapter 16.67 Comprehensive Plan Map, Specific Area Plans, Land Use District Map and Text 
Amendments 
16.67.015 Initiation of a plan amendment. 
A. Any change in the text, map or implementing ordinances of adopted Happy Valley land use 
regulations may be initiated by the city, any resident of the city, property owners or authorized 
agent…. The City may, for the purposes of revising or updating plans to comply with statewide 
goals, legal guidelines or other necessary criteria, initiate a change in the map or text of any 
plan and this Land Development Code at any time. 
 
Staff Response:   
The City is initiating the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. 
 
 
 
16.67.020  Legislative Amendments 
Legislative amendments are policy decisions made by City Council. Except in the case of 
expedited annexation, they are reviewed using the Type IV procedure in Section 16.61.050 and 
shall conform to the Transportation Planning Rule provisions in Section 16.67.060, as 
applicable. 
[…]” 
 
Staff Response:   
The proposed amendments are legislative in nature.  They will be reviewed using the Type IV 
procedure and will be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council. Compliance 
with the Transportation Planning Rule is addressed below. 
 
16.67.060 Transportation planning rule compliance.  
A. Review of Applications for Effect on Transportation Facilities. When a development 
application includes a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment or land use district change, 
the proposal shall be reviewed to determine whether it significantly affects a transportation 
facility, in accordance with Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 660-012-0060 (the 
Transportation Planning Rule – TPR) and the traffic impact study provisions of Section 
16.61.090. “Significant” means the proposal would: 
1. Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility 
(exclusive of correction of map errors). This would occur, for example, when a proposal causes 
future traffic to exceed the levels associated with a “collector” street classification, requiring a 
change in the classification to an “arterial” street, as identified by the City’s Transportation 
System Plan (“TSP”); or 
2. Change the standards implementing a functional classification system; or 
3. As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the TSP, allow types or levels 
of land use that would result in levels of travel or access that are inconsistent with the functional 
classification of an existing or planned transportation facility; or 
4. Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the 
minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP; or 
5. Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is 
otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified 
in the TSP.” 
 
Staff Response: 
The adoption of the Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan will establish the 
“framework” for a regional multi-use trail network that will work to reduce the number of 
vehicular “trips” on the existing and planned transportation facilities in the area.  Therefore, the 
proposed amendments are consistent with the Transportation Planning Rule. 
 
III. CONCLUSION: 
 
Staff has determined that the above findings demonstrate that the proposed Comprehensive Plan 
amendments satisfy the requirements of the Statewide Planning Goals, Oregon Administrative 
Rules, City of Happy Valley Comprehensive Plan Policies and the City’s Land Development 
Code.  Staff, therefore, recommends that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation 
of approval to the City Council on File Number CPA-02-14.    
 
              
 
 
 
 
February 2014
M o u n t  S c o t t  /  
S c o u t e r s  M o u n t a i n 
Tr a i l  L o o p  M a s t e r  P l a n
North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District | Portland Parks & 
Recreation | City of Happy Valley | Clackamas County 
Otak, Inc.
808 SW Third Avenue, Suite 300
Portland, Oregon 97204
503.287.6825
www.otak.com
David Haynes
Mandy Flett
Brad Swearingen
Alta Planning+Design
711 SE Grand Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97214
503.230.9862
www.altaplanning.com
George Hudson
Karen Vitkay
Plans and Appendices will be available online at Metro and partner websites. CDs of plans 
are available at cost from Metro. A printed version will be placed in local libraries.
Prepared for:
Metro Sustainability Center
North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District
City of Happy Valley
Portland Parks & Recreation
Clackamas County
Prepared by:
Portland Parks & Recreation
1120 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1302
Portland, Oregon 97204
503.823.6007
www.portlandoregon.gov/parks 
Printed on Recycled Paper
February 2014
M o u n t  S c o t t  /  
S c o u t e r s  M o u n t a i n 
Tr a i l  L o o p  M a s t e r  P l a n
North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District
150 Beavercreek Road
Oregon City, Oregon 97045
503.742.4348
www.ncprd.com
Clackamas County
150 Beavercreek Road
Oregon City, Oregon 97045
503.742.4500
www.clackamas.us
600 NE Grand Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97232
Mel Huie, Project Manager
503.797.1731
Mel.Huie@oregonmetro.gov 
City of Happy Valley
16000 SE Misty Drive
Happy Valley, Oregon 97086
503.783.3800
www.ci.happy-valley.or.us
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Metro 
Mel Huie, Regional Trails Coordinator and Project Manager
Heather Coston
Kate Holleran
Leslie Knight
John Mermin
Dan Moeller
Tim Richard
Elaine Stewart
Max Woodbury
North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD)
Katie Dunham
Portland Parks & Recreation
Lynn Barlow
Mart Hughes
Emily Roth
City of Happy Valley
Carol Earle
Rich Feucht
Justin Popilek
Jason Tuck
Michael Walter
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Project Advisory Committee
Carlotta Collette - Metro Council
Shirley Craddick - Metro Council 
Bob Stacey - Metro Council
Michael Morrow - Happy Valley City Council/NCPRD Advisory Board
Janet Alley - North Clackamas School District
Russell Aldridge - Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery
Linda Bauer - Portland Citizen
John Berry - Happy Valley Citizen
Bill Garity - Clackamas County
Jeff Johnson - Volunteer for Metro
Peter Lent - Community of Future of Damascus
Lori Mastrantonio - Clackamas County Department of Transportation and Land Use
Sara McClurg - Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office
Mike Oleson - Clackamas County
Bret Richards - Oregon Department of Transportation
iFebruary 2014 | Mount Scott/ScouterS Mountain trail loop MaSter 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ExECuTiVE SuMMARy ................................................................ iii
1. iNTRoDuCTioN .........................................................................1
PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 3
LOCATION .................................................................................................................... 4
PROJECT SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................................ 7
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................................... 7
PROJECT GOALS ........................................................................................................... 7
ACCESSIBILITy .............................................................................................................. 8
PROJECT APPROACH/PROCESS ..................................................................................... 9
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ............................................. 10
MASTER PLAN PURPOSE ............................................................................................. 11
2. ExiSTiNg CoNDiTioNS ........................................................... 13
PLANNING CONTExT  ................................................................................................. 15
JURISDICTIONS & OWNERSHIP .................................................................................... 16
LAND USE AND ZONING ............................................................................................. 18
DESTINATIONS ............................................................................................................ 18
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS .................................................................................. 35
APPROVALS AND REGULATORy REqUIREMENTS......................................................... 40
3. DESigN FRAMEwoRk .............................................................45
TRAIL CATEGORIES ..................................................................................................... 47
TRAIL TyPOLOGIES ..................................................................................................... 50
URBAN TRAIL CONSIDERATION ................................................................................... 56
4. AlTERNATiVES ANAlySiS .......................................................63
ALIGNMENT OPTIONS ANALySIS AND RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENTS ........................ 65
5. RECoMMENDATioNS .............................................................. 71
SEGMENT 1 - SPRINGWATER CORRIDOR TO CLATSOP ROAD ...................................... 75
SEGMENT 2 - CLATSOP ROAD TO FORMER GOLF CLUB .............................................. 77
SEGMENT 3 - FORMER GOLF CLUB TO HIGHWAy 212 VIA ROCK CREEK .................... 79
SEGMENT 4 - POWERLINE CORRIDOR TO HIGHWAy 212 VIA SIEBEN DRAINAGE ........ 81
SEGMENT 5 - SIEBEN DRAINAGE TO MOUNT TALBERT ................................................ 83
SEGMENT 6 - MOUNT TALBERT TO LINCOLN MEMORIAL ............................................ 85
SEGMENT 7 - LINCOLN MEMORIAL PARK CEMETERy TO I-205 BIKE/PED PATH AND 
SPRINGWATER CORRIDOR ..................................................................... 87
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 2014ii
6. iMPlEMENTATioN ...................................................................89
IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................................... 91
PERMITTING ................................................................................................................ 96
COST ANALySIS .......................................................................................................... 97
REFERENCES ............................................................................... 101
APPENDiCES............................................................................... 105
APPENDIx A: PAC MEETING AGENDAS/MINUTES
APPENDIx B: OPEN HOUSE SUMMARIES
APPENDIx C: STAKEHOLDER LIST/INTERVIEWS
APPENDIx D: PLAN REVIEW SUMMARy
APPENDIx E: ROADWAy ANALySIS
APPENDIx F: NATURAL RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
APPENDIx G: ALIGNMENT DETAIL OUTSIDE RIGHT-OF-WAy
APPENDIx H: THE INTERTWINE REGIONAL TRAILS SIGNAGE GUIDELINES (ExCERPTS)
APPENDIx I: ELIMINATED ALIGNMENTS
APPENDIx J: COST ESTIMATE By SEGMENT
iiiFebruary 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ExECUTIVE SUMMARy
introduction
The Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan is the 
continuation of an ambitious multi-jurisdictional goal to establish a 
regional trail network connecting the communities of the Portland 
Metropolitan area. The Trail Loop will put in place an important piece 
of the trail network that will provide Clackamas County, Happy Valley, 
Damascus, and Portland residents with non-motorized recreation 
and transportation connections to regional destinations and facilities. 
The roughly 37.5-mile trail project will offer a route for alternative 
transportation modes with a looped, north-south oriented multi-use 
trail system that will link the Springwater Corridor with the Sunrise 
Corridor, Clackamas River, and encompass Mount Talbert Nature 
Park, Powell Butte and Buttes Natural Areas, and Scouters Mountain 
Nature Park. The proposed regional trail will connect numerous 
schools, community parks, local trails, businesses, retail stores and 
the Happy Valley Town Center. The new trail will facilitate potential 
access to Mount Scott Creek, Rock Creek, and have connections to 
the future East Buttes Loop Trail and Powerline Corridor Trail. 
Planning Process/Relationship to other Plans
To guide the project planning, a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) 
was formed with representatives from agency stakeholders, both 
public and private. Through a public involvement process, the project 
brings together multiple jurisdictions, private partners, neighbors, 
and trail advocates including The Intertwine Alliance to provide a 
regional trail network through many areas lacking safe walking and 
biking options. 
The trail meets the goals of Metro’s Active Transportation Program 
and is identified in the Metro Greenspaces Master Plan and Regional 
Trails System Map, as well as the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 
bike and pedestrian network and system maps. The Springwater 
Corridor, which will be the northern terminus of the trail, is listed 
in the Metro regional trail and transportation plans and is identified 
as an Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Trail of Statewide 
Significance. The proposed trail alignments have also been 
coordinated with local Transportation System Plans (TSP), local trail 
plans, and land use plans.
Project goals
The vision for the Trail Loop is to provide a non-motorized trail 
between the existing Springwater Corridor in the north and the 
Clackamas River in the south, while connecting significant open 
space areas including Mount Scott, Mount Talbert Nature Park, Buttes 
Natural Area, Leach Botanical Garden, Powell Butte Natural Area, and 
Scouters Mountain Nature Park. 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 2014iv
ExECUTIVE SUMMARy
The primary goals for the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop 
Master Plan include the following: 
•	 identifying alternatives for a regional trail, which will have bike 
and pedestrian separated routes in certain areas and multi-use 
trails in other areas; 
•	 avoiding negative impacts to sensitive natural resource areas and 
riparian corridors and seeking opportunities to improve habitat 
and connectivity;
•	 planning for wildlife corridors where appropriate;
•	 designing green trails;
•	 considering ease of construction, maintenance, and longevity; 
and 
•	 providing a safe and enjoyable experience for multiple user 
groups as well as adjacent neighbors. 
Equestrian use in the Trail Loop system will be limited to the existing 
Springwater Corridor trail. While one goal of the master plan is to 
accommodate as many user groups as possible, careful evaluation 
of the other existing and proposed trail segments by the Project 
Advisory Committee determined that the Trail Loop is not well-suited 
for equestrian use.
Natural Resources and Habitats
The trail loop system will pass through pristine natural resource 
areas. To address the primary objective of avoiding negative impacts 
to sensitive areas, the PAC analyzed “Regional Conservation 
Strategy” data and convened meetings with several natural 
resource stakeholders to solicit input. Stakeholders included the 
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Audubon Society 
of Portland, North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District, the 
Johnson Creek Watershed Council, Portland Parks and Recreation, 
and representatives of Metro’s Natural Areas Program. The PAC 
guided the stakeholders through an evaluation of proposed trail 
alignments to identify general guidelines and garner site-specific 
recommendations that can be applied to trail development. The 
outcome of this process is a list of considerations recorded in a 
memorandum and included in Appendix F of this document. All 
future planning of the Trail loop in sensitive natural resource 
areas should begin with review of this document. 
vFebruary 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ExECUTIVE SUMMARy
Trail Design
An effort has been made to simplify the trail loop system by 
minimizing the number of different trail types, while recognizing 
that physical and environmental constraints within the 37-mile loop 
make a variety of trail types necessary. While the goal is to build the 
trail to regional multi-use trail guidelines, the trail will need to branch 
into different mode types to separately accommodate cyclists and 
pedestrians in order to minimize impacts to sensitive natural resource 
areas and locations with significant slopes. 
Table ES-1 lists the three general trail categories (within which the 
various trail typologies are defined) and both existing and proposed 
lengths within the Trail Loop system:
Table ES-1. Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Length in Miles
Typology (Modes) Existing Conceptual Total
Multi-use 3.95 17.95 21.90
Bicycle 0.00*  7.54 7.54
Pedestrian 3.45 4.62 8.07
Total 7.40 30.11 37.51
*Bike lanes exist in some areas; however, the concept of the master plan is that bike lanes be 
upgraded to buffered cycle tracks.
This report will describe all trail typologies (modes), with maps 
showing the location of each trail type.
Because of the bifurcations (i.e., separate bike and pedestrian 
routes) needed to facilitate use of the trail route by different users, 
it is important to emphasize that a well-implemented trail signage 
program needs to play a major role in the success of the trail loop 
system. 
Trail Alignment Alternatives
Working with the Project Advisory Committee, stakeholders and local 
community members; an extensive process was carried out to identify 
and evaluate trail alignment options. The evaluation was based on 
project goals developed during the planning process. Each alignment 
was considered with respect to fatal flaws reflecting the project 
evaluation criteria. Alignments without fatal flaws were further 
evaluated based on the criteria described in this document. This 
approach provided an objective means to compare segment options 
against one another as well as identify specific recommendations for 
improving alignments. The Project Team vetted the findings of the 
analysis with stakeholders, local decision makers and the public, and 
made refinements as needed to develop the recommended Trail Loop 
alignments. 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 2014vi
ExECUTIVE SUMMARy
Recommendations
Spanning approximately 37.5 miles (when bifurcations are taken into 
account), the recommended Trail Loop alignment will provide an 
active transportation and recreation link between the Springwater 
Corridor, I-205 bike path and Clackamas River while connecting area 
residents to open space jewels including Powell Butte, Buttes Natural 
Area, Mitchell Creek property, Scouters Mountain, Mount Talbert 
and Happy Valley Nature Park. The preferred alignment will provide 
a convenient, comfortable and safe atmosphere for trail users of all 
ages and abilities; provide access and enhancements to natural and 
cultural resources while limiting impacts; and enhance non-motorized 
connectivity in the region. This Master Plan document describes the 
opportunities, constraints and recommendations associated with 
each preferred alignment by segment.
viiFebruary 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
Figure ES-1. Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop - Final Alignment Recommendations
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 2014viii
This page was intentionally left blank.
1February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
1. iNTRoDuCTioN
2 Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 2014
The trail loop will traverse a wide variety of settings.
3February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
INTRODUCTION
Project Background
The Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop will provide 
Clackamas County, Happy Valley, Damascus, and Portland 
residents with non-motorized recreation and transportation 
connections to regional destinations and facilities with a looped, 
north-south oriented multi-use trail system that will link the 
Springwater Corridor with the Clackamas River, and encompass 
Mount Talbert Nature Park, Powell Butte and Buttes Natural 
Areas, and Scouters Mountain Nature Park. The proposed 
regional trail will connect numerous schools, community parks, 
local trails, businesses, retail stores and the Happy Valley Town 
Center. The new trail will facilitate potential access to Mount 
Scott Creek, Rock Creek, and have connections to the future 
East Buttes Loop Trail and Powerline Corridor Trail.
Through a public involvement process, the project brings 
together multiple jurisdictions, private partners, neighbors, 
and trail advocates to design a multi-use trail through many 
areas lacking safe walking and biking options. The project also 
meets the goals of Metro’s Active Transportation Program – a 
regional partnership to implement the recommendations of the 
Blue Ribbon Committee for Trails to develop non-motorized 
transportation modes – integrating on-street and off-street 
walkways and bikeways connected to transit, communities, and 
retail and employment centers. 
A large portion of the trail corridor resides in the North 
Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD) and the 
City of Happy Valley. The NCPRD Parks and Recreation Master 
Plan (2004) outlines proposed trails within the District, and 
includes the Trail Loop. The City of Happy Valley conducted a 
Transportation System Plan (TSP) process in 2009 that included 
outreach to the community and trail neighbors. This process 
concluded with a Trail Development Handbook, Chapter 5: 
Pedestrian Plan in the Happy Valley Transportation System Plan, 
and the stand-alone Happy Valley Pedestrian System and Trail 
Master Plan. These documents provide information that guides 
the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan 
process. 
The trail loop is identified in the Metro Greenspaces Master Plan 
and Regional Trails System Map and the Regional Transportation 
Plan (RTP) bike and pedestrian network and system maps. The 
Springwater Corridor, which will be the northern terminus of 
the trail, is listed in the Metro regional trail and transportation 
plans and is an Oregon Parks and Recreation Department Trail 
of Statewide Significance.
Trail Loop will connect to natural resource areas.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 20144
INTRODUCTION
location
The proposed Trail Loop will serve as a multi-use commuter and 
recreational trail connecting the Springwater Corridor regional trail to 
the Clackamas River. The trail’s southern terminus is envisioned to be 
the Sunrise Corridor and Clackamas River. The final trail alignment is 
proposed to be 37.5 miles in length and was identified through the 
findings of a trail alignment alternatives analysis.
The project study area focuses on a roughly quarter-mile wide 
corridor or buffer that generally follows a conceptual trail alignment 
identified by agency partners. The study area corridor is shown in 
Figure 1-1 and is divided into seven segments based on relatively 
unified land use characteristics. The master plan identifies up to two 
different alignment options for each of the seven segments.
Segment 1 begins at the Springwater Corridor regional trail near the 
southwest corner of the Powell Butte Nature Park and runs generally 
south to SE Clatsop Street. This segment is entirely within the City 
of Portland. Opportunities within the segment include connections 
to the Buttes Natural Area. Steep topography and forested lands 
dominate much of the terrain of this segment.
Segment 2 begins at SE Clatsop Street southeast of the Buttes 
Natural Area and runs south to SE Hagen Road, just north of the 
former Pleasant Valley Golf Club, and is characterized by steep 
slopes. This segment is within the City of Happy Valley. Opportunities 
for creating a link to the Metro-owned summit of Scouters Mountain 
Nature Park were explored in this segment.
Segment 3 begins at SE Hagen Road and runs generally southeast, 
then southwest, ending near the intersection of Clackamas Highway 
(212) and SE 152nd Avenue. This segment is primarily within the City 
of Happy Valley with minor portions that cross into unincorporated 
Clackamas County. Opportunities exist to locate much of this trail 
segment within large undeveloped parcels along the forested Rock 
Creek corridor. Connections to the Happy Valley Town Center, Hood 
View Park, Rock Creek Middle School, Verne A. Duncan Elementary 
School, a Pioneer Park, future employment centers, and the banks of 
the Clackamas River at public locations are the primary opportunities 
within this segment.
Segment 4 offers a second route for the southeast area covered 
by the Trail Loop, following the East Buttes Powerline Corridor. This 
segment could begin at a point along the corridor northwest of the 
former Pleasant Valley Golf Club and run southwest, crossing SE 
Sunnyside Road and continuing south to end near the intersection 
of Clackamas Highway (212) and SE 142nd Avenue. This segment 
is typified by extreme slopes and has many opportunities for 
connections to residential areas and undeveloped forested lands to 
5February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-1. Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Study Area (1/4 mile buffer)
Schematic alignment shown is superseded by this Master Plan. See the Master Planning Map on page 68 & 69.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 20146
INTRODUCTION
increase access and opportunities for outdoor recreation. A 0.67-mile 
length of this segment has been built between SE Chelsea Morning 
Drive and the point where the corridor crosses SE 142nd Avenue. 
However, it includes stairs and steep slopes, which are not ADA 
accessible, with expansive views to the south.
Segment 5 begins near the intersection of Clackamas Highway 
(212) and SE 152nd Avenue and travels west roughly parallel to 
Clackamas Highway (212) then follows the proposed Sunrise Corridor 
and Clackamas Bluffs Trail alignment. It then turns north to cross SE 
Mather Road and connects with an existing pedestrian trail through 
Mount Talbert Nature Park.  The portion of this segment between SE 
142nd Avenue and SE Mather Road is owned by ODOT and is part of 
the Sunrise Corridor project. While still in the early phases of design, 
a multi-use trail is being planned parallel to the highway corridor. 
This segment is in unincorporated Clackamas County and crosses a 
variety of land uses including commercial, light industrial, residential, 
and open space areas. The section of this trail north of SE Mather 
Road (constituting one of the two alignments to be studied in this 
segment) will capitalize on quality natural areas within the Mount 
Talbert Nature Park and open spaces associated with Scott Creek 
and related tributaries. North of Mount Talbert, the trail crosses SE 
Sunnyside Road and follows the Scott Creek drainage to the north. 
The conceptual alignment creates good opportunities to provide 
several access points serving a wide spectrum of the community and 
several schools including Clackamas High School.
Segment 6 begins in the Scott Creek drainage corridor north of 
Sunnyside Road and runs north to end near the intersection of SE 
Mount Scott Boulevard and SE Ridgecrest Road. This segment follows 
both natural resource areas and residential streets as it continues 
north through Happy Valley Nature Park and other open spaces 
associated with the Scott Creek drainage. This segment is nearly all 
within the City of Happy Valley. Opportunities within this segment 
include utilizing existing trail routes and creating several connections 
between residential areas and natural resource areas. The proposed 
trail has separate routes for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Segment 7 begins near the intersection of SE Mount Scott Boulevard 
and SE Ridgecrest Road and runs generally northwest to end near the 
intersection of the Springwater Corridor trail and the I-205 Pathway, 
about three miles west of the starting point of Segment 1. The 
southern portion of this segment is characterized by steep slopes. 
Opportunities include an alignment option through Lincoln Memorial 
Park Cemetery and connection to two schools. The end point of 
Segment 7 would be connected to the beginning point of Segment 1 
via the Springwater Corridor, completing the loop system. 
7February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
INTRODUCTION
Project Significance
The Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan will 
be a crucial regional trail linking numerous regional and local trails 
in the Happy Valley-Portland area. This area is a fast growing area 
and requires alternative and active transportation options such as 
trails, bike lanes, and sidewalks. The trail offers nearly 37 miles of 
proposed routes between the I-205 bike/ped path, Springwater 
Corridor, Clackamas River Bluffs, and future Sunrise Corridor and SE 
162nd/172nd. In many cases, bike lanes and pedestrian pathways are 
separated because of the need to protect natural areas and sensitive 
habitat. It will be the major trail along with the Springwater Corridor 
for the outer southeast quadrant of the metropolitan region.
The future trail will offer opportunities to protect wildlife, sensitive 
habitat and provide access for people. The trail will accommodate 
both recreational, commuter, and general transportation needs.
This trail provides a key link with the overall regional trail system 
and regional trails plan. The Happy Valley, Pleasant Valley, and north 
Clackamas locations are fast growing urban areas with many natural 
features such as the east buttes. Metro and local partners have been 
protecting these buttes for nearly 20 years through acquisition, 
restoration, and providing nature parks. A trail system to connect 
these buttes is needed.
Project implementation
Over the next 20-25 years, the trail will enter into an implementation 
phase. Currently, there are no dedicated funding sources to design 
and build the trail. To solicit additional support, the master plan will 
be discussed with a broad spectrum of stakeholders in the Winter/
Spring of 2014 including the following:
•	 parks, transportation and planning staff;
•	 local parks and trails citizen committees;
•	 city councils and other governing boards; and
•	 the general public including property owners and neighborhood 
groups.
The Plan will also be recommended for inclusion in or with local 
acquisitions of right-of-way and easements, capital improvement 
lists, as well as included in the queue for funding.
Project goals
The vision for the Trail Loop is to provide a non-motorized trail 
opportunity between the existing Springwater Corridor in the 
north, and the Sunrise Corridor/Clackamas River in the south, while 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 20148
INTRODUCTION
connecting significant open space areas including Mount Scott, 
Mount Talbert Nature Park, Buttes Natural Area, Powell Butte Natural 
Area, and Scouters Mountain Nature Park.
The primary goals for the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop 
Master Plan include the following: 
•	 identifying alternatives for a regional trail, which will have bike 
and pedestrian separated routes in certain areas and multi-use 
trails in other areas; 
•	 avoiding negative impacts to sensitive natural resource areas and 
riparian corridors and seeking opportunities to improve habitat 
and connectivity;
•	 planning for wildlife corridors where appropriate;
•	 designing green trails;
•	 considering ease of construction, maintenance, and longevity; 
and 
•	 providing a safe and enjoyable experience for multiple user 
groups as well as adjacent neighbors. 
Equestrian use in the Trail Loop system will be limited to the existing 
Springwater Corridor trail. While one goal of the master plan is to 
accommodate as many user groups as possible, careful evaluation 
of the other existing and proposed trail segments by the Project 
Advisory Committee determined that the Trail Loop is not well-suited 
for equestrian use.
Accessibility
Due to topographic constraints, achieving Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA) accessibility throughout the system may not be feasible. 
While the preference is to achieve fully accessible routes, more 
challenging alignments will need to be included to complete the 
system. While a goal is to build the trail to regional guidelines, the 
trail may branch into different types to separately accommodate 
cyclists and pedestrians in order to minimize impacts to sensitive 
natural resource areas and locations with significant slopes. Trail 
alignments which are off-street or outside of road right-of-way 
offer a safe and pleasant user experience worthy of regional status. 
Metro’s regional trail guidelines strive for 75% of a system to be 
off-street. Trail bifurcations due to steep terrain and sensitive natural 
resource areas have made this goal difficult to achieve. In locations 
where alignments are within road right-of-ways, protected bikeways 
or cycle tracks are recommended to provide comfort and safety 
similar to that provided by an off-street setting.
9February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
INTRODUCTION
Existing and proposed trail segments such as the Springwater 
Corridor, I-205 Bike/Ped Pathway, and Sunrise Corridor offer 
accessibility to all levels of trail users and are generally less than 5% 
slope.
Project Approach/Process
In the fall of 2011, Metro, in partnership with North Clackamas 
Parks and Recreation District, Clackamas County, and the cities of 
Happy Valley and Portland, began working with Otak, Inc., and Alta 
Planning + Design to prepare the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain 
Trail Loop Master Plan. A Project Advisory Committee (PAC) was 
assembled from agencies of the various jurisdictions, citizens, and 
those with private property the trail would pass through or be 
adjacent to. The following agencies were represented in the PAC:
•	 Clackamas County Sheriff, Transportation and Land Use 
Departments 
•	 City of Happy Valley
•	 Intertwine Alliance
•	 Lincoln Park Memorial Cemetery
•	 Metro
•	 North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District
•	 North Clackamas School District
•	 Oregon Department of Transportation
•	 Portland Parks & Recreation
•	 Neighborhood associations
The project consultant team began review of the land use and 
regulatory requirements governing the planning and implementation 
of the proposed trail. The project was officially launched with a 
kick-off meeting with members of the PAC to clarify roles and 
responsibilities and to tour the conceptual trail alignment as a group. 
Many opportunities and constraints of the conceptual alignment 
were identified and recorded on map exhibits that were prepared to 
display during the public involvement process. Information gathered 
during the kickoff tour was also used to inform the narrative of the 
existing conditions report. 
Based on a conceptual alignment identified by agency partners, a 
trail corridor was established as the limits of the project study area 
and geographic information system (GIS) mapping of the study 
area was developed by Metro and local partner staff for use by the 
consultant team in identifying alignment alternatives. GIS mapping 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201410
INTRODUCTION
was combined with natural resource evaluation, traffic analysis 
findings, property ownership data, and transportation system 
planning information to develop evaluation criteria for trail alignment 
options for the alternatives analysis. 
A stakeholder interview process was initiated by Metro staff to begin 
a dialogue with public and private entities affected by the proposed 
trail alignment. 
Once a sufficient amount of information was gathered and 
documented, the PAC conducted the first of two public open 
houses (June 2012) that would provide a venue for presentation 
and discussion of the proposed trail project. Meetings were held 
at the Happy Valley City Hall. With input from the community and 
stakeholders, trail alignment alternatives were further refined and 
preferred alignments were identified. 
Based on the preferred trail alignments, trail typologies (modes) 
were established that suited the various conditions – both inside and 
outside of road right-of-ways – through which the trail would pass. 
A trail design framework was developed based on trail typologies 
(modes), anticipated construction requirements, and the trail 
planning logistics of safety, security, and wayfinding. The preferred 
alignment and design framework information was presented at the 
second of two public open houses where additional comments were 
recorded to guide the final modifications of the trail master plan.
Building on the information accumulated throughout the trail master 
planning process, an implementation meeting was convened with 
the PAC to discuss and document trail project priorities, timelines, 
and funding strategies for trail segments studied during plan 
development. Information concerning implementation strategies 
including cost estimating data was compiled and organized for 
reference in future trail planning efforts. Appendix A has the meeting 
agendas, minutes, and attachments from each PAC meeting.
Public involvement and Stakeholder 
interviews
Metro and local partners hosted two public open houses with over 
120 persons in attendance. The open houses were held on June 7, 
2012, and January 31, 2013. See Appendix B for the open house 
summaries.
In addition, 17 stakeholder interviews were conducted. See Appendix 
C for details.
11February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
INTRODUCTION
Local neighborhood groups and associations, the David Douglas 
School District administrative staff, two school principals, 
Willamette National Cemetery staff, Lincoln Park Memorial 
Cemetery staff, and Boys Scouts of America staff were briefed and 
interviewed as well.
The trails planning effort was also highlighted on the Metro and 
local partner web sites and in local newsletters.
Additional public outreach will occur in the Winter/Spring of 2014 
when various parks and trails boards and government bodies are 
asked to endorse the recommendations of the plan.
Master Plan Purpose
The Master Plan details the trail network into a series of 
developable phases. The built-out trail system creates a regional 
trail network connecting the Springwater Corridor, Powell Butte 
in the north to Mount Talbert and the Sunrise Corridor/Clackamas 
River Bluffs and Greenway in the south. The system is extensive 
and comprehensive, and at the same time provides a realistic 
program for satisfying the needs of local residents regarding 
access to outdoor resources and linkage to popular destinations.
The early action network is designed to form an inner loop of 
trails through some of the most densely populated areas of the 
community, linking residents to existing resources that are in 
close proximity to where they live and work. This will create a 
critical mass of trail facilities that will offer the citizens many of 
the benefits that have been outlined in the plan. Among these 
benefits are improving access to outdoor resources for recreation, 
linking schools to residential neighborhoods providing children 
with the opportunity to walk or bike to school, and capitalizing on 
tourism and economic development opportunities.
The plan lays the groundwork for future planning of trails, right-
of-way or easement acquisition, construction, and maintenance 
costs for state, regional, local, and private property owners.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201412
This page was intentionally left blank.
13February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
2. ExiSTiNg CoNDiTioNS
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201414
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Site reconnaissance by the Project Advisory Committee
15February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Planning Context 
The Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan 
project connects Clackamas County, Happy Valley, and 
Portland, joining together several governmental agencies and 
organizations in a cooperative effort to make the trail system 
a reality. Development codes, planning documents, and design 
guidelines from each agency and from State and Federal 
sources serve as the foundation for the trail master plan. The 
identification of—and basis of design for—trail alignment 
alternatives will be guided by the planning documents listed 
below. 
Clackamas County
•	 NCPRD Parks and Recreation Master Plan 
•	 Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan
•	 Clackamas County Zoning and Development Ordinance
•	 Sunrise Corridor Project Final Environmental Impact 
Statement
•	 Connecting Clackamas webpage
City of Happy Valley
•	 Happy Valley Parks Master Plan
•	 Happy Valley Pedestrian System & Trail Master Plan
•	 Happy Valley Trail Development Handbook
Metro
•	 Metro Greenspaces Master Plan and Regional Trails System 
Map
•	 Metro Regional Transportation Plan
•	 Metro Active Transportation Plan
•	 Metro Target Area Plans from 2006 Voter Approved Bond
•	 Metro Wildlife and Habitat Protection Plans
•	 Metro Vision 2040 Growth Concept
•	 Resource Conservation Plan
City of Portland
•	 City of Portland Comprehensive Plan
•	 Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030
•	 Trail Design Guidelines for Portland’s Park System
•	 Portland Parks & Recreation: Recreational Trails Strategy
•	 Natural Area Acquisition Strategy (Vegetation Studies by 
Portland Parks)
•	 Multnomah County Transportation System Plan
A list of planning documents with detailed information 
and specific provisions relevant to the trail master plan are 
summarized in Appendix D. Many provisions established 
The Power Line Corridor trail is a key link to the 
regional trail system.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201416
ExISTING CONDITIONS
by governing agencies are supportive of trail planning objectives and help 
formulate strategies for trail location. For instance, the City of Happy Valley’s 
Development Code specifically requires that all developments “provide a 
continuous pedestrian and/or multi-use pathway system as shown in the City’s 
TSP, Happy Valley Parks Master Plan, or NCPRD Parks and Recreation Master 
Plan.”
Jurisdictions & ownership
The proposed Trail Loop is located within the cities of Portland and Happy 
Valley, as well as unincorporated areas of Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. 
Trail ownership and management responsibilities will span a number of 
involved agencies (Figure 2-1).
Large publicly-owned parcels present opportunities for trail alignments. 
Potential public agency project partners include: Metro, Clackamas County, 
City of Portland Parks and Recreation, City of Happy Valley, North Clackamas 
Parks and Recreation District, North Clackamas School District, David Douglas 
School District, and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT).
Mt. Scott/Scouters’ Mtn. Trail Page 7 
Existing Conditions Memo  December 6, 2012 
 
and/or multi‐use pathway system as shown in the City’s TSP, Happy Valley Parks Master Plan, or NCPRD 
Parks and Recreation Master Plan.” 
JURISDICTIONS & OWNERSHIP 
The proposed MS/SM Trail is located within the cities of Portland and Happy Valley, as well as 
unincorporated areas of Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. Trail ownership and management 
responsibilities will span a number of involved agencies (Figure 2). 
 
Large publicly owned parcels present opportunities for trail alignments. Potential public agency project 
partners include: Metro Region l Government, the City of Portland Pa ks and Recreation, the City of 
Happy Valley, North Clackamas  arks and Recreation District, North Clackamas School District, David 
Douglas School District, and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 
 
 The terrain rises steeply over ODOT’s future Sunrise Corridor 
 
Segments within privately held properties are also necessary for a complete trail system. Opportunities 
for trail development on private lands are most feasible on large parcels which are not developed. These 
include lands owned by home owner associations, developers, private individuals, cemeteries, hospitals, 
and utility companies. Trail easements shall only be considered on lands owned by willing sellers. 
 
 The Rock Creek area remains largely in private ownership 
The terrain rises steeply over ODOT’s future Sunrise Corridor.
Segments within privately held properties are also necessary for a complete trail 
system. Opportunities for trail development on private lands are most feasible 
on large parcels which are not developed. These include lands owned by home 
owner associations, developers, private individuals, cemeteries, hospitals, and 
utility companies. Trail easements and/or right-of-way shall only be purchased 
from willing sellers.
Mt. Scott/Scouters’ Mtn. Trail Page 7 
Existing Conditions Memo  December 6, 2012 
 
and/or multi‐use pathway system as shown in the City’s TSP, Happy Valley Parks Master Plan, or NCPRD 
Parks and Recreation Master Plan.” 
JURISDICTIONS & OWNERSHIP 
The proposed MS/SM Trail is located within the cities of Portland and Happy Valley, as well as 
unincorporated areas of Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. Trail ownership and management 
responsibilities will span a number of inv lved agencies (Figure 2). 
 
Large publicly owned parcels present opportunities for trail alignments. Potential public agency project 
partners include: Metro Regional Government, the City of Portland Parks and Recreation, the City of 
Happy Valley, North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District, North Clackamas School District, David 
Douglas School District, and Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). 
 
 The terrain rises steeply over ODOT’s future Sunrise Corridor 
 
Segments within privately held properties are also necessary for a complete trail system. Opportunities 
for trail development on private lands are most feasible on large parcels which are not developed. These 
include lands owned by home owner associations, developers, private individuals, cemeteries, hospitals, 
and utility companies. Trail easements shall only be considered on lands owned by willing sellers. 
 
 The Rock Creek area remains largely in private ownership 
The Rock Creek area remains largely in private ownership.
17February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
Figure 2-1. Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Ownership and Jurisdictional Boundaries
Schematic alignment shown is superseded by this Master Plan. See the Master Planning Map on page 68 & 69.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201418
ExISTING CONDITIONS
land use and Zoning
An area’s zoning dictates which land uses may occur on individual 
parcels, thereby driving the regional development pattern. The 
identification of residential, open space, commercial, and industrial 
areas shown in Figure 2-2 gives a broad view of where potential trail 
users may originate and travel. The Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain 
Trail Loop study further evaluates natural resource area and slope 
overlay zones which impose development and design restrictions 
(discussed in the permitting section below).
The majority of the Trail Loop study area is comprised of privately 
owned residential zoned properties. Commercial destinations 
are primarily concentrated along Sunnyside Road within mixed 
use developments. Highway 212 in the south is predominantly 
industrial and thus serves as an employment center for the region. 
Large parcels adjacent to Rock Creek between Sunnyside Road and 
Highway 212 have development potential. While most are owned by 
banks or private developers, Providence Health holds two properties 
just north of the highway. Discussions should occur with Providence 
regarding a partnership and the health benefits of trails. Parks, open 
spaces, and public facilities occur throughout the area providing 
destinations and connections along the trail route.
Destinations
In addition to commercial centers and employment opportunities, 
area destinations include local schools, parks, open spaces, 
cemeteries, and historic resources. Figure 2-3 highlights the study 
area’s many destinations.
Schools 
The Trail Loop has the potential to improve non-motorized access 
to 17 elementary, middle, and high schools, as well as one planned 
school in the David Douglas School System. Currently, opportunities 
to safely walk and bicycle to area schools are lacking.
Parks and open Spaces
Recreational destinations include neighborhood and regional parks, 
open spaces, and cemeteries. A series of ancient lava domes comprise 
the East Buttes, creating a ring of forested peaks around the study 
area. 
Mount Talbert Nature Park is a prominent destination offering a 
connection to nature close to home. At over 220 acres, it is the 
largest undeveloped butte in Northern Clackamas County, offers 
miles of hiking trails and interpretive information about local cultural 
19February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
Figure 2-2: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Zoning Map
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
åå
å
å
å
å
å
Clackamas
Multnomah
I2
05
17
2N
D
FOSTER
HWY 212
92
N
D
SUNNYSIDE
82ND
15
2N
D
14
5T
H
JENNIFER
97TH
MATHER
14
2N
D
IDLEMAN
KING
CLATSOP
16
2N
D
13
2N
D
13
6T
H
12
9T
H
12
2N
D
13
0T
H
S
TE
V
E
N
S
11
2T
H
13
5T
H
HW
Y 224
RIDGECREST
FU
LL
ER
MT SCOTT
11
1T
H
FLAVEL
OTTY
14
7T
H
CAPPS
HUBBARD
LAW
NFIE
LD
10
6T
H
EV
EL
YN
12
0T
H
I205-82N
D
I2
05
-S
UN
NY
SI
DE
10
2N
D
M
C
K
IN
LE
Y
212-224-I205
110TH
IN
D
U
S
TR
IA
L
SU
N
N
YSID
E-I205
FO
STER
 R
D
-I205 FW
Y
94TH
13
2N
D
11
1T
H
I2
05
212-224-I205
12
2N
D
92
N
D
12
2N
D
I205
Portland
Happy Valley
Damascus
Gresham
The Intertwine | Happy Valley | Clackamas County | Metro | North Clackamas PRD | Portland Parks & Recreation
Source: Data obtained from Metro
Date: October 2011
Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop: 
Zoning
I 0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Legend
å Schools
County Boundary
City Boundary
Water
Public Open Space
Generalized Zoning
Public Facilities
Commercial
Industrial
Mixed Use Employment
Mixed Use Residential
Multi Family
Single Family
Parks & Open Spaces
Rural
Schematic alignment shown is superseded by this Master Plan. See the Master Planning Map on page 68 & 69.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201420
ExISTING CONDITIONS
and natural resources. The nature park is owned by Metro and 
NCPRD and managed by NCPRD.
Another exciting destination along the trail will be Scouters Mountain 
Nature Park. East of SE 145th, the nearly 100 acre park is planned 
to open to the public in early 2014. Planned improvements include 
hiking trails, a picnic shelter, parking, and restroom facilities. 
Metro’s newly acquired Scouters Mountain is an exciting destination for trail users
North of the Springwater Corridor, the City of Portland’s Powell Butte 
Nature Park is a unique 600-acre open space opportunity. It provides 
nine miles of hiking, bicycling, and equestrian trails as well as a 
variety of wildlife habitat areas and exceptional views of five Cascade 
peaks and several nearby buttes, including Mount Hood.
The City of Portland’s Buttes Natural Area is a significant natural 
resource area north of Clatsop Road and west of Barbara Welch 
Road. Areas of intact mature forests, wetlands, stream tributaries, 
and rugged terrain make this a valuable natural resource area. 
The Leach Botanical Garden showcases plant collections including 
Oregon native plants, the historic Leach collection, flora of the 
southeastern United States, an extensive fern collection, and a 
Camellia exhibit. The site also provides a botanical library and 
environmental education opportunities.
Brookside Natural Area south of Foster Road and 110th Drive 
provides public access to Johnson Creek. The site includes a 
playground, walking trails, and opportunities to view wildlife. 
The site also provides important flood storage capacity, wetland 
improvements, and restored fish and wildlife habitat. Additional 
public amenities are currently being planned.
21February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Within the study area, the City of Portland’s park assets include 
PlayHaven Park. PlayHaven provides users with a basketball court, 
accessible play area, and picnic facilities, restrooms, and parking.
The 32-acre Happy Valley Park on Ridgecrest Road offers a variety of 
sport courts and fields, a walking loop, splash pad area, off-leash dog 
area, picnic facilities, skatepark, playground, restrooms, parking, and 
24 acres of wetlands accessible by boardwalks.
NCPRD’s Hood View Park is a 35-acre community park off of 
162nd Avenue in the southeastern portion of the study area. It 
accommodates 200,000 visitors each year with four all-weather 
ballfields, picnic facilities, restrooms and parking. Views from the 
park include Mount Hood and Mount St. Helens. Currently, visitors 
can only arrive by car due to a lack of connectivity for non-motorized 
users.
 
 
A trail alignment along Rock Creek will improve non-motorized access to Hood View Park
Southern Lites Park is a 3-acre park on SE 117th Avenue. It offers a 
basketball court, picnic facilities, playground area, and parking. The 
two-acre Pioneer Park on SE 153rd Drive features climbable rocks, 
picnic facilities and loop trial that opened in September, 2013. 
Numerous residential developments or home owners associations 
(HOA) within the area include built parks, trails, and open space 
areas. 
Zenger Farm is a six-acre urban farm situated between Foster 
Road and the Springwater Corridor which provides educational 
opportunities for youth, farmers, and families in sustainable 
agriculture, wetland ecology, and food security. Since 2011, the 
farm includes the Furey Community Garden which offers 36 
community plots for East Portlanders. Originally purchased by the 
City of Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services (BES), the farm is 
currently operated by the non-profit group Friends of Zenger Farm.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201422
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery and Willamette National Cemetery 
(WNC) offer unique pastoral settings and spectacular view 
opportunities. Lincoln Memorial already welcomes walkers, runners 
and cyclists. The trail is not planned to go through WNC.
The quiet roadways of Lincoln Memorial Cemetery welcome pedestrians and cyclists to enjoy the 
serene setting
Historic Resources
Historic properties create opportunities to showcase local history 
and culture. Two properties within the study area are included on 
the National Historic Register (Figure 2-4). The 300+ acre Willamette 
National Cemetery dates to 1949. The second property is the 1923 
Miller home in the Gilbert neighborhood, showcasing the Craftsman 
Bungalow architectural style.
Additionally, other properties in the study area have been inventoried 
and are eligible for historic status by the Oregon State Historic 
Preservation Office. These include the following:
•	 1890	Strickrott	Residence	–	Home	on	Mount	Scott	Boulevard,	
thought to be the oldest home in Happy Valley.
•	 1956	Camp	Withycomb	–	Over	two	dozen	historically	significant	
buildings and features. The site has been used as a military 
installation since 1910 when it was known as the Clackamas 
Rifle Range.
•	 1933	Pleasant	Valley	Grange	–	The	meeting	hall	has	both	social	
and political significance for local farmers.
•	 1920	Haberlach	House	and	Silverthread	Kraut	and	Pickle	Works	
Building – Located off of Hwy 212 on an old wagon road. 
Eligible buildings within this property include the bungalow style 
residence and agricultural product processing facility.
23February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
Figure 2-3: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Destinations
Schematic alignment shown is superseded by this Master Plan. See the Master Planning Map on page 68 & 69.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201424
Figure 2-4: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Historic Sites
25February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Connectivity & Circulation 
Trails
Trails are a popular means of transportation and recreation year-
round within the study area. Counts of trail users conducted by 
NCPRD and Metro in September of 2011 found that on average, 5.7 
users are encountered every fifteen minutes on nearby regional trails 
and bike facilities. The trail count process found that 72% of users 
were cyclists, while 28% were pedestrians. Intercept surveys revealed 
that most people use the trails because they are accessible or close to 
home, are a safe alternative to roadways, and are relatively flat (e.g., 
Springwater Corridor).
Currently, segments of built trails exist that may be designated as 
portions of the Trail Loop. These include both unpaved hiking paths 
as well as segments of well-established regional trails including 
Mount Talbert Nature Park trails, hiking paths within Happy Valley’s 
Nature Trail Park, local trails within the Lincoln Heights and Southern 
Lites neighborhoods, paved portions of the Powerline Trail, a segment 
of the paved multi-use Springwater Corridor, and a portion of the 
I-205 bike and pedestrian path. The City of Happy Valley requires as 
a condition of approval that private parcels to be developed provide a 
trail easement on the final plat. Affected property owners are further 
required to establish an agreement with the City which conveys trail 
maintenance and liability responsibilities to the property owners.
While portions of the Powerline Trail are built, stairs and slopes limit its use.
The Springwater Corridor and I-205 bike/ped path are significant 
regional trails which offer connectivity to the urban areas of 
downtown Portland, Gresham, and Vancouver, WA, as well as the 
rural setting of unincorporated Clackamas County to the east and 
possible future connections to Mount Hood and the Pacific Crest 
Trail. Future proposed trail connection opportunities including the 
North Clackamas Greenway to the west, Scouters Mountain Trail 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201426
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Extension towards Damascus, and Sunrise Corridor/Clackamas River 
Greenway in the south are documented within Clackamas County’s 
Comprehensive Plan, NCPRD’s Park Master Plan, and Metro’s 
Regional Trails and Greenways publication.
Trailheads and Access 
Access to the trail system exists in many locations where trails are 
already built. Mount Talbert Nature Park currently has neighborhood 
connections as well as two trailheads with parking spaces and 
interpretive signage. The built portion of the Powerline Corridor Trail 
is adjacent to residential properties and has numerous existing access 
points. The Southern Lites neighborhood also has access points to 
its existing local trail system as well as trails within Nature Trail Park 
(Figure 2-5). There is a parking lot at Powell Butte and there will be 
parking at East Lents Floodplain Restoration site off of SE Foster Road 
adjacent to where the Springwater Corridor crosses Foster Road.
The Scouters Mountain property is a relatively new acquisition for 
Metro. Plans for developing site amenities are in process and include 
a covered shelter, vehicle parking, and pedestrian trails.
Nature Trail Park includes neighborhood access and earthen hiking paths
Bicycle Facilities
Access to the Trail Loop by bicycle will occur easily via the various 
entry points along streets and trailheads. Bicycle access is adequate 
within the study area, though many routes are on high-speed and/
or high-volume roads without much protection from vehicle traffic. 
On-street, striped bike lanes exist primarily on the major arterials, 
including Sunnyside Road, Highway 212, and the minor arterials 
such as Foster Road and Mount Scott Boulevard. Partial bike lanes 
27February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
Figure 2-5: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Trails and Bicycle Facilities
Schematic alignment shown is superseded by this Master Plan. See the Master Planning Map on page 68 & 69.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201428
ExISTING CONDITIONS
or widened shoulders are prevalent on the collector roadways. Bike 
lanes are not typical or warranted on local roadways with low speed 
and traffic volumes. Of the roadways within the study area, those 
with the highest speeds and traffic volumes are currently outfitted 
with striped bike lanes. 
Access to the trail from outside the immediate study area will 
likely be through the fastest, most direct routes. Typically, these lie 
within the arterial road alignments, all of which are furnished with 
bike lanes. The I-205 bike/ped path and Springwater Corridor are 
dedicated bicycle facilities that have potential to intersect with the 
Trail Loop; however, no formal connections between the facilities 
currently exist between the established facilities and the conceptual 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain alignments. Such connections will be 
explored as part of this project. 
Public Transit 
Transit facilities exist within the study area on the arterial roadways 
only. Due to a low incidence of ridership and lack of employment 
centers or destinations, the frequency with which the buses or trains 
operate (also called headway) is nominal and few stops are provided 
with shelter amenities. A complete list of transit connections is 
provided below. 
Light Rail Service
•	 Light	rail	service	to	the	Trail	Loop	is	available	via	two	lines:	
the green line, running north-south along I-205 with stations 
located at SE Foster Road, SE Flavel Avenue, SE Fuller Road, 
and Clackamas Town Center; and the blue line, running east-
west to Gresham, with one nearby station option at SE 122nd 
Avenue and Burnside. In general, MAx trains operate every 15-
20 minutes on weekdays and Saturdays, and up to 30 minutes 
between trains on Sundays. This service will allow trail users from 
as far west as Hillsboro to access the Trail Loop.
Bus Service
•	 TriMet	line	#10	operates	on	Foster	Road	to	SE	136th	Avenue;	
no other line continues east toward Barbara Welch Road, a 
possible trail crossing location. This line intersects with the 
grade-separated Foster Road light rail station and operates on 
20-minute headways, weekdays only.
•	 TriMet	line	#71	operates	on	Foster	Road	to	SE	122nd	Avenue,	
also intersecting with the Foster Road light rail station. Of 
the	transit	connections	to	the	Trail	Loop,	the	#71	operates	
most frequently on 20-minute headways, both weekdays and 
weekends.
29February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ExISTING CONDITIONS
o	 Line	#71	has	a	unique	route	through	east	Portland.	Riders	
from	as	far	north	as	Parkrose	can	board	the	#71	south	along	
SE 122nd Avenue to Foster Road. Likewise, riders from outer 
southeast	could	use	the	#71	to	transfer	to	lines	#30,	155,	
and 156 at the Clackamas Town Center transit center. 
o	 Further	north,	line	#71	intersects	with	the	MAX	Blue	Line	to	
Gresham at SE 122nd Avenue and Burnside. 
•	 TriMet	line	#19	travels	east	on	Mount	Scott	Boulevard	to	SE	
112th Avenue where it turns around at the end of the residential 
zone, which is also the boundary of the two cemetery properties. 
The	#19	will	easily	connect	bicyclists	to	the	Trail	Loop,	as	the	
crossing near the Willamette National Cemetery is only 0.7 miles 
south. This line is intersects with the Flavel Street light rail station 
on I-205. Service varies between 15-45 minute headways.
•	 Sunnyside	Road	is	served	by	TriMet	line	#155,	with	45-minute	
headways between Clackamas Town Center and SE 157th. This 
line is accessible from the Clackamas Town Center light rail 
station, connecting those who travel to/from Clackamas County 
via MAx.
•	 TriMet	line	#156	weaves	its	way	across	several	potential	trail	
crossings as it travels east-west between Sunnyside and Highway 
212. With 90-minute headways on weekdays only, users must 
plan trips to the Trail Loop carefully. This line is also accessible 
from the Clackamas Town Center light rail station, connecting 
those who travel to Clackamas County via MAx.
•	 TriMet	line	#30	runs	along	Highway	212	on	60-minute	
headways; no service is available on Sundays. This line is also 
accessible from the Clackamas Town Center light rail station.
Roadway Analysis and Trail Crossings
Because the region is continuing to develop, the current roadside 
accessibility and crossing options are poor and will require 
improvements to create a safe bicycle and pedestrian environment. 
Major roadways are often barriers which affect paths of travel for 
cyclists and pedestrians. Major arterials within the study area include 
Sunnyside Road and Highway 212. These two roadways consist of 
two travel lanes in each direction with center turn lanes, and bike 
lanes on each side. The crossing distance ranges between 81- and 
120-feet. Because the speeds are posted at 40-45 mph, trail crossings 
must be protected, either by signals or by grade separation. Planning 
for the future Sunrise Corridor, a proposed high-speed highway will 
also impact the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop alignment 
(Figures 2-6 and 2-6a).
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201430
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Minor arterial and collector road crossings also exist within the Trail 
Loop alignment. Roadways such as Foster Road, Clatsop Street, 
162nd and 152nd Avenues have a narrower crossing distance but 
maintain higher speeds and lower volumes. In these instances, 
trail crossings must be located in areas of good sight distance and 
designated through advance signage and striping.
Local roadways, with lower traffic volumes and speeds, are preferred 
by cyclists and pedestrians. The majority of on-roadway alignment 
and roadway crossings will occur at local roadways. Examples within 
the corridor include Hagen Road, Vradenburg Road, and Spanish Bay 
Drive. Crossing distance, however, is significantly shorter due to the 
narrower roadway widths.
All primary roadways were analyzed for compatibility with trail 
alignments as shown Appendix E. In cases where on-street 
alignments will be used for the trail, designs will need to be as 
“trail-like” as possible, by providing comfort and protection for less-
confident cyclists.
152nd Avenue south of Clatsop Road is a quiet unpaved road.
intersections
In some circumstances, the Trail Loop will attempt to align with 
existing signalized intersections at the major arterial crossings 
to capitalize on existing infrastructure. Most of the signalized 
intersections are equipped with pedestrian countdown signals and 
crosswalk striping, providing a safe crossing treatment as all through-
traffic is stopped during the pedestrian phase. Some intersections 
also include a pedestrian island when the crossing distance is 
extremely long. 
Some crossings may occur at unsignalized intersections. In these 
cases, the trail may utilize a grade-separated crossing or a pedestrian 
activated signal such as a High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) 
or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB). ODOT has recently 
31February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ExISTING CONDITIONS
included rectangular rapid flashing beacons as standard details (see 
DET4436-4438). Examples of crossings not near existing signalized 
intersections include Highway 212 at SE 152nd Avenue where the 
nearest signal is approximately 700 feet east and Sunnyside Road at 
Rock Creek where the trail may be able to proceed under the existing 
bridge. Installing grade-separated crossings or new traffic signals are 
costly. New signals may also require re-timing of subsequent signals. 
The volume of potential trail users should be considered when 
determining the appropriate design for the crossing. 
Mid-block crossings are advantageous when the nearest intersection 
is too far away for pedestrians to safely choose that option. Mid-
block crossings also do not experience turning traffic, thereby 
eliminating a safety concern that occurs at intersection crossings. 
Examples of potential Trail Loop mid-block trail crossings are 
along Mather Road, SE 162nd Avenue, Hagen Road, Mount Scott 
Boulevard, and Clatsop Street. Depending on the existing conditions, 
treatments can include a range of items such as signage, crosswalk 
striping, speed table (flattened speed hump), HAWK, RRFB, or 
median island. An example of an existing mid-block crossing 
treatment is at SE 152nd Avenue at the Powerline Corridor Trail 
crossing.
All roadway crossings, regardless of the roadway’s functional 
classification, should be reviewed by an engineer to determine the 
crossing treatments. Regulatory traffic control devices should be 
installed on the trail at every road intersection. Conversely, roadway 
markings, including crosswalk stripes, will be designed and installed 
on a case-by-case basis. AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of 
Bicycle Facilities offers several options for signage, striping/markings, 
and hard-surface improvements. Likewise, the Manual on Uniform 
Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) describes warrants for proposed 
signals as well as detailed marking treatments. 
utilities
Various utilities traverse the landscape of the Trail Loop, and more 
will continue to infill before the trail is completed in this developing 
fringe of the urban growth boundary. Underground utilities 
include typical storm and sanitary sewer, domestic water lines, and 
communication ducts. Both electrical distribution and transmission 
(trunk) lines exist within the project study area. Working around these 
utilities is generally uncomplicated unless the trail grades demand a 
large amount of earthwork near an underground utility. Early and 
constant communication with the utility providers and agencies is 
important. Permanent easements for crossing the utilities will likely 
be unnecessary.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201432
Figure 2-6: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Trail / Roadway Crossings
Schematic alignment shown is superseded by this Master Plan. See the Master Planning Map on page 68 & 69.
33February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
Figure 2-6a: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Trail/Major Roadway Crossings Key Map
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201434
Figure 2-6a: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Trail/Major Roadway Crossings Key Map (Cont.)
35February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Additionally, the trail alignment may cross or run near to large, 
private utilities. These include a high-pressure gas transmission 
line located adjacent to the aerial electrical transmission line in the 
eastern portion of the study area. Crossing either of these utilities 
will require careful communication and notifications with the utility 
providers. A temporary easement for construction and a permanent 
easement for trail use will be required from each provider.
Environmental Conditions
Natural Resources
A group of extinct volcanoes and lava domes in north Clackamas and 
east Multnomah counties lend unique geographic character to the 
region, providing wildlife habitat and panoramic vistas. The buttes 
consist of some of the largest contiguous habitat in the region, while 
offering water quality protection of stream headwaters, as well as 
recreation opportunities close to home. Figure 2-7 shows regionally 
significant riparian and upland wildlife habitat, habitats of concern, 
and impacted areas as classified by Metro staff.
The buttes are characterized by large tracts of upland forests 
including old cedar trees, big-leaf maple, Douglas fir, and alders. 
Mount Talbert is home to conifer and streamside forests, a revitalized 
oak savanna, and a wet prairie meadow. Powell Butte contains a 
variety of wildlife habitats including an expansive grassland meadow, 
a scrub shrub transition area, and a mid-seral stage forest area. 
Scouters Mountain is another important natural area along the 
proposed route. The future nature park includes Mitchell Creek 
and its tributaries feeding Kelley Creek and ultimately Johnson 
Creek. Scouters Mountain features a small wet meadow and a 
large Douglas-fir forest with Western red cedar and hemlock trees. 
Management and restoration plans for Scouters Mountain, including 
the removal of invasive plant species, are currently being written. 
The Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop study area falls 
within three watersheds: Johnson Creek, Mount Scott, and Rock 
Creek. These watersheds include many streams which are attractive 
recreation corridors for trail users. One of the most important 
natural resources for the City of Portland is Johnson Creek. It is one 
of the last free-flowing streams in the Portland area and provides 
important habitat for Coho and Chinook salmon, Steelhead, and 
Cutthroat trout. Over the last 200 years, people have attempted to 
alter the creek in an effort to reduce flooding. Despite these efforts, 
over the last 60 years flooding has occurred at a rate of more than 
once every two years (Portland Bureau of Environmental Services 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201436
Figure 2-7: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Natural Resources
Schematic alignment shown is superseded by this Master Plan. See the Master Planning Map on page 68 & 69.
37February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ExISTING CONDITIONS
website). Wetlands within the Johnson Creek watershed have been 
highly impacted by development as well. Despite these impacts many 
wetlands in the basin retain good connectivity with undeveloped 
open space, upland habitats, and the Johnson Creek riparian corridor. 
Wetland areas provide significant areas of wildlife breeding and 
nesting with dense populations of amphibians, including red-legged 
frogs.
Similarly, Mount Scott Creek and Rock Creek provide important 
ecosystem functions within Clackamas County. Water Environment 
Services (WES) of Clackamas County has developed the Rock Creek 
and Kellogg/Mount Scott Watershed Action Plans in order to protect 
and enhance the health and function of each watershed, including 
water quality, aquatic habitat, and hydrologic functions. The action 
plans describe general concerns and challenges of the watersheds, 
such as impervious area, fish passage, flooding, poor streamside 
practices, lack of riparian vegetation, in-stream erosion and down 
cutting, and water quality concerns. Despite these challenges, adult 
salmon, steelhead, and cutthroat trout have been documented in 
Kellogg and Mount Scott creeks (Oregon Department of Fish and 
Wildlife [ODFW], 2008).
Rock Creek begins in the hills of western Damascus, flowing 
southwest through eastern Happy Valley, until it reaches its 
confluence with the Clackamas River. The Rock Creek watershed 
forms a patchwork of forested habitats and riparian corridors mixed 
with agricultural lands, roads, houses, and other development. 
The influences of development in the watershed have fragmented 
habitat connections and impacted the water and habitat quality of 
the riparian zones. However, there are still large patches of upland 
forest habitat and vegetated riparian corridors that provide dwelling, 
feeding, and nesting habitat and movement and migration for 
many of the region’s resident wildlife species. While the Rock Creek 
watershed has not yet been heavily developed, its urban areas are 
expected to grow significantly in the future within both the Cities 
of Happy Valley and Damascus. The watershed’s streams have been 
impacted by agriculture, roads, and other rural development since 
the early 1900s. Despite these impacts, Rock Creek supports a 
diverse array of native aquatic life. Recent sampling conducted by 
ODFW in 2008 indicates that Steelhead and Rainbow trout, Coho 
salmon, Chinook salmon and Cutthroat trout are present within the 
watershed (WES Rock Creek Watershed Action Plan, 2009). 
The creeks act as wildlife corridors for the passage of wildlife species 
not normally observed in large cities, including deer, coyote, and 
many woodland and meadow birds. The natural areas provide food 
and shelter for deer, coyotes, raccoons, Western gray squirrel, rubber 
boa, pileated and hairy woodpeckers, white-breasted nuthatch, 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201438
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Western tanager and many more species of wildlife. The combination 
of the upland habitats, seasonal wetlands and steams found within 
the natural areas of the study area provide forage, perch, roost and 
nest opportunities for birds, mammals and reptiles.
Topography
The Boring Fields are a series of extinct lava domes which formed the 
buttes and rolling hills of the Trail Loop study area, defining the area’s 
scenic landscape and local identity. The buttes provide visual relief for 
urban residents. Within the study area, elevations range between 70 
and 1,055 feet above sea level. 
Mount Scott has the highest peak in the study area. While much of 
the butte is covered by residential development, public access and 
views can be gained from Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery situated 
on the mountain’s northern slope. Rising more than 900 feet above 
the valley floor, Scouters Mountain offers views of the Cascades 
and Pleasant Valley. At over 240 acres, Mount Talbert is the largest 
undeveloped butte in northern Clackamas County, a forested green 
sentinel overlooking the busy I-205 and Sunnyside Road interchange 
just to the west. The lowest elevations within the study area are 
found along the Clackamas River in the south.  
The buttes have steep slopes which present challenges for trail 
development as well as achieving grades required by ADA guidelines. 
Figure 2-8 shows area contours and highlights steep slopes. Slopes 
equal to or greater than 25% are shown in red. Areas shaded in 
orange have slopes less than 25%, but equal to or greater than 10%. 
Steep slopes will present challenges for aligning trails and achieving 
ADA accessibility and Regional Trail Status.
The Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop study area is defined by its buttes and rolling terrain
39February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
Figure 2-8: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Topography & Slopes
Schematic alignment shown is superseded by this Master Plan. See the Master Planning Map on page 68 & 69.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201440
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Approvals and Regulatory Requirements
Permits and applications are required for the multi-use trail at the 
state, regional, and local agency levels. A permit will ensure the trail 
is designed, located, and constructed safely and responsibly for trail 
users, maintenance providers, property owners, and the impacted 
environment. Permits allow the enforcement of codes and standards 
that are adopted to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. 
Permits and applications needed for the Trail Loop project will address 
the following items:
•	 Land use planning
•	 Civil and structural engineering construction standards, including 
demolition
•	 Electrical standards for trail lighting
•	 Stormwater impacts, erosion control
•	 Compliance with fill/removal requirements within floodplains (if 
applicable)
•	 Protection or low-impact to historical properties, parks, 
cemeteries
•	 Protection or low-impact to wildlife, plants, streams/wetlands, 
steep slopes
•	 Tree/vegetation removals
The projected timeframes and costs for each permit vary widely 
across the jurisdictions and, therefore, are not listed in this document. 
As the Trail Loop project gets closer to final design, definition of 
permits’ time and cost will become clear for planning and budgetary 
purposes. Due to the variety of permits necessary, jurisdictions 
provide options for permits to be combined to save review time 
and costs to the applicant. Likewise, many permit costs depend on 
a total construction cost; this information will be available upon an 
established trail design.
The possible permits anticipated for this project are addressed in the 
following table.
41February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Table 2-1: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: 
Anticipated Permits
No. Discipline Requiring Agency Notes
Planning Permits/Applications
1 Code Interpretation Application City of Happy Valley
2 Conditional Use City of Happy Valley
3 Design Review - Major City of Happy Valley
4 Flood Mgmt Overlay Zone City of Happy Valley
5 Habitat Conservation Area Verification City of Happy Valley
6 Land Partition City of Happy Valley
7 Master Plan City of Happy Valley
8 Natural Resource Overlay Zone City of Happy Valley
9 Property Line Adjustment City of Happy Valley
10 Steep Slopes Development Overlay Zone City of Happy Valley
11 Variance City of Happy Valley  
12 Site Development City of Happy Valley  
13 Land Use Application Clackamas County  
14 Conditional Use Clackamas County  
15 Flood Development Permit Clackamas County  
16 Habitat Conservation Area District/
Development Permit
Clackamas County  
17 Water quality Resource Area District 
Construction Mgmt Plan
Clackamas County  
18 Hydrogeologic Review Clackamas County  
19 Principal River Conservation Area Review Clackamas County Needed for river access
20 Land Partition Clackamas County  
21 Natural Resource Overlay Zone Clackamas County  
22 Property Line Adjustment Clackamas County  
23 Steep Slope Review Clackamas County  
24 Environmental Review City of Portland  
25 Land Division City of Portland  
26 Adjustments City of Portland For any planning/design 
standard
27 Conditional Use City of Portland  
28 Property Line Adjustment City of Portland  
29 Johnson Creek Basin Plan District Review City of Portland  
30 Pleasant Valley Resource Review City of Portland  
31 Tree Review City of Portland  
32 Lot Consolidation City of Portland  
Construction Permits/Applications
33 Demolition City of Happy Valley List all structures, sewer 
line dis/connections, 
water meter removal/
relocations, private system 
decommissioning(s). Need 
letter of no hazmat.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201442
ExISTING CONDITIONS
No. Discipline Requiring Agency Notes
34 Grading City of Happy Valley Submit 2 sets of plans and 
geotech report
35 Grading Clackamas County Submit 3 sets of plans and 
geotech report
36 Erosion Control Permit City of Happy Valley Submit plans, schedule 
inspections
37 Erosion Control Permit Clackamas County  
38 Erosion Control: 1200C DEq  
39 Sensitive Areas Certification Form Clackamas County  
40 Sanitary & Storm Drainage Esmt Clackamas County  
41 Sewer Permit City of Happy Valley Includes storm drain
42 Plumbing Permit City of Happy Valley Needed for sewer pipes, 
drinking fountain
43 Electrical Permit City of Happy Valley Needed for trail lighting
44 Septic System Permit Clackamas County Needed for restrooms (if 
applicable)
45 Utility Placement Permit Clackamas County Submit 2 sets of plans and 
traffic control plans
46 Building Permit City of Happy Valley Needed for restrooms
47 Building Permit Clackamas County Covers planning, 
development, soils, sewer, 
building
48 Entrance Application Permit Clackamas County Needed for new driveways
49 Sign Permit City of Happy Valley Needed for monument 
signs
50 Type "B" Tree Removal Permit City of Happy Valley Needed for more than 3 
trees
51 DSL Removal/Fill Permit Dept of State Lands Needed for wetland 
delineation
52 Section 10 Permit US Army Corp Needed for fill in 
navigable waters 
(Clackamas River)
53 Public Improvements Permit City of Portland Includes inquiry meeting, 
consultation meeting, 
concept development 
meeting
54 Bureau of Transportation Review City of Portland  
55 Bureau of Environmental Services Review City of Portland  
56 Water Bureau Review City of Portland Needed for restrooms (if 
applicable)
57 Wetland/Waterways Fill Permit Corps - 404
DSL - Removal Fill
DEq - 401
Fill/removal in streams 
and/or wetlands.
Environmental Permits/Applications
58 ESA consultation letter   
59 SHPO Section 106 Clearance   
60 FHWA 4(f) Permit FHWA  
Table 2-1: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Anticipated Permits (cont.)
43February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ExISTING CONDITIONS
Table 2-1: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Anticipated Permits (cont.)
No. Discipline Requiring Agency Notes
61 FHWA 6(f) Permit FHWA  
62 Wetland and Stream Buffer Variance Clackamas County  
63 Floodplain Development FEMA
Environmental Protection
The City of Portland’s environmental overlay zones limit development 
within sensitive natural resource areas. The Environmental 
Protection (EP) Zone depicts areas where development is limited. 
The Environmental Conservation Zone (EC) allows environmentally 
sensitive development to occur. Per the City of Portland’s 
development code, trails meeting all of the following criteria are 
exempt from the regulations of the environmental overlay zone:
•	 trails must be confined to a single residential ownership; 
•	 construction must take place between May 1 and October 30 
with hand-held equipment;
•	 trail widths must not exceed 30 inches and trail grade must not 
exceed 20 percent; 
•	 trail construction must leave no scars greater than three inches in 
diameter on live parts of native plants; and
•	 trails must not be placed between the tops of banks of water 
bodies.
Similarly, the intent of the City of Happy Valley’s Natural Resource 
Overlay Zone (NROZ) is to implement the goals and policies of 
Metro’s Comprehensive Plan relating to natural resources, open space 
and the environment. Section 16.34.030 of Happy Valley’s Municipal 
Code describes exemptions including trails:
Low-impact outdoor recreation facilities for public use, including, 
but not limited to, multi-use paths, access ways, trails, picnic 
areas, or interpretive and educational displays and overlooks that 
include benches and outdoor furniture, provided that the facility 
meets the following requirements:
a. It contains less than five hundred (500) square feet of new     
impervious surface; and
b. Its trails shall be constructed using nonhazardous, pervious 
materials, with a maximum width of four feet.
Title 13: Nature in Neighborhoods Code
The purpose of Metro’s Title 13 Nature in Neighborhoods Code is 
to conserve, protect, and restore a continuous ecologically viable 
streamside corridor system that is integrated with upland wildlife 
habitat and the surrounding urban landscape. Title 13 Habitat 
Conservation Areas, generally describe sensitive natural resource 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201444
ExISTING CONDITIONS
areas where development is to be avoided, minimized or mitigated. 
As shown in Figure 2-7 above, upland habitat areas depicted as 
Class A and riparian areas noted as Class I are considered of the 
highest habitat value for wildlife. Local cities are required to apply 
the development requirements of Title 13 to their local land use code 
in order to minimize impacts to our most sensitive natural resource 
areas. 
Natural resource preservation and protection is essential for a number 
of reasons including providing wildlife habitat, fostering biodiversity, 
protecting water quality, and providing outdoor recreation 
opportunities. The Trail Loop will provide unique opportunities for the 
public to experience nature through access to the numerous streams, 
buttes and large tracts of intact forest within the area. As a goal of 
this planning effort is natural resource protection and enhancement, 
environmentally sensitive approaches to trail planning and design are 
described within the design chapter of this document. 
Steep Slopes
The City of Happy Valley’s Steep Slopes Development Overlay (SSDO) 
limits development activities on slopes as a means of minimizing 
seismic and landslide hazards. Areas with slopes in excess of 25% 
may not be developed. Section 16.32.050 Exempt or Permitted Uses 
allows trails constructed that comply with provisions of the City’s 
Engineering Design and Standard Details Manual. Thus, trails are a 
non-competitive use of space for lands where the SSDO applies. 
The City of Portland’s Environmental conservation (Ec) and 
Environmental protection (Ep) zones provide the highest level of 
protection and conserves important resources and functional values 
while allowing environmentally sensitive urban development. 
Development in the Ep zone will be approved only in rare, unusual 
circumstances. Areas within the zones are subject to the standards 
within Chapter 33.430 Environmental Zones.
45February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
3. DESigN FRAMEwoRk
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201446
Trail Project Advisory Committee meeting and site tour
47February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
introduction
This section discusses some of the implications of trail development 
that need to be considered, and recommendations for the types of 
trail that may be appropriate for specific alignments of the Mount 
Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop system. 
An effort has been made to simplify the trail loop system by 
minimizing the number of different trail types, while recognizing that 
physical and environmental constraints within the 37.5-mile loop 
make a variety of trail types necessary. The trail types that have been 
selected in this study include:
•	 Multi-use Trail: Outside of Right-of-Way
•	 Multi-use Trail: Inside of Right-of-Way
•	 Separated Sidewalk
•	 Buffered Cycle Track
•	 Under Crossing
•	 Pedestrian Trail
•	 Boardwalk
Each of these trail typologies is described in detail below. Figure 
3-1 is a map showing the location of each trail type, and includes 
important notations concerning site-specific deviations from the 
seven typologies listed.
The approach to signage and trail amenities (site furnishings) is also 
summarized in this section. It is important to emphasize that a well-
implemented signage and wayfinding program will play a major role 
in the success of the trail loop system. 
Trail Categories
With the challenging topography and existing land use that occurs 
within the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop area, creating 
a single alignment for a 12-foot paved width multi-use trail is not 
feasible for the entire trail system. In order to meet the functional 
objectives of a multi-use trail by accommodating all users, the 
alignments are frequently split into two routes to serve specific user 
types separately. This means that the connection between one trail 
point and the next is in many cases achieved by more than one trail 
alignment. In other less restrictive areas, a single multi-use trail is 
indicated that can accommodate a variety of users.
Three trail categories are applied in this master plan: 
•	 Multi-use: accommodates pedestrians, ADA users, and bicyclists. 
Ideally, this type of trail will be a 12’ wide, paved trail separated 
from roadways by a landscaped buffer.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201448
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
•	 Pedestrian only: this type of trail can be either on-street, 
coinciding with a sidewalk, or off-street as a hard- or soft-surface 
trail. Because of the steep slopes or right-of-way constraints, this 
trail is narrow in width, limiting the use to pedestrians only.
•	 Bicycle only: accommodates casual and commuter bicycle 
users via on-street protected bikeways or cycle tracks. These 
alignments are placed along existing roadways to provide routes 
having manageable rates of elevation change for bicyclists.
Natural Resource Considerations
Trails that are located outside of the road right-of-way will often 
pass through undeveloped open space areas. Indeed it is preferable 
to locate trails away from roadways as much as possible to reduce 
potential safety concerns inherent with roadside facilities, and to 
improve the trail user experience. When planning trails through 
open space tracts, consideration must be given to striking a balance 
between protection of natural resource areas on one hand, and 
both trail functionality and the desire to allow users to experience 
beautiful natural settings on the other. Detailed trail planning 
analyses of alignments traversing undeveloped areas need to proceed 
in consultation with a natural resource biologist familiar with trail 
development. Many issues need to be considered when trail planning 
in sensitive areas. A brief sampling of issues to consider include the 
following:
•	 avoiding fragmentation of small habitat areas
•	 locating trails on the perimeter of watersheds
•	 minimizing stream crossings
•	 on-site reconnaissance of proposed trail alignment to identify 
habitat conflicts
•	 opportunities for restoration of poor quality habitat
•	 procuring wide easements that encompass sensitive areas and 
buffers for long-term protection
•	 choosing construction materials with little or no toxicity
In the process of developing the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain 
Trail Loop master plan, Metro has engaged several local agency 
stakeholders for input on the issue of natural resource area 
protection. The information obtained from stakeholder interviews 
is included in the Consolidated Natural Resource Comments in 
Appendix F. This document includes valuable location-specific 
guidance and recommendations for trail planning and construction.
Trail Security and liability
New public trail projects often raise questions about trail security 
and liability. This is particularly true of trails that traverse private 
49February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
property within public access easements. Occasionally there is a 
perception that trails may bring crime to an area. While this is a 
reasonable concern, it can often be addressed through proper trail 
design. There are numerous national studies (e.g., Rail-Trails and 
Safe Communities, Burke-Gilman Trail’s Effect on Property Values 
and Crime in Seattle and King County, Washington) that indicate 
that trail projects have positive effects on adjacent neighborhoods. 
In fact, the rate of crime on suburban trails is usually lower than 
the national statistics for suburban crime on nearby streets and in 
homes (Rail-Trails and Safe Communities, 1998). In other words, 
less crime is generally committed in trails and parks than in the 
neighborhoods they serve. Obviously, any crime committed is 
undesirable, regardless of location, but there is no evidence that 
trails introduce above average crime levels.
A well-used trail is usually the best deterrent to crime. Crimes 
are less likely to be committed if there is a high risk of being 
seen. First responders recommend that trail access points from 
road connections be as accessible for their vehicles, as practical. 
Additional recommendations to maximize trail security are:
•	 eliminate overgrown vegetation immediately adjacent to the 
trail; 
•	 provide security lighting at trail heads; 
•	 place emergency phones at call-boxes at strategic locations; 
•	 keep the trail corridor clean and well-maintained to encourage 
community ownership; and
•	 encourage community litter and safety patrols along the trail. 
Other security-related recommendations are for the police 
department to be equipped with bicycles, motorcycles, or all-terrain 
vehicles for emergency response and patrolling trails; constructing 
trails with pavement sections suitable for emergency vehicles; and 
providing water supply stand pipes along the trail or at access 
points, as practical.
In addition, a Trail Watch program may be considered that is 
organized by neighborhood associations or other trail advocacy 
groups. The Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office has developed the 
following recommendations for Trail Watch programs:
•	 patrol the trail regularly;
•	 watch out for negative users of the trail;
•	 keep an eye out for things like graffiti or littering;
•	 “observe and report” strategy (do not confront negative users);
•	 foot and bike patrols should be done on an unpredictable 
schedule;
•	 persons should try to go out in teams – there is safety in 
numbers and the more eyes and ears the better;
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201450
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
•	 patrol participants should always carry a cell phone and be 
prepared to take pictures;
•	 carry a pad of paper and a pen; and
•	 bring a flashlight at dusk or at night.
Trail Watch participants need to avoid confronting negative users 
because this could create a dangerous situation. Suspicious activity 
needs to be reported to law enforcement officials. It is a good idea 
for patrol participants to share information about the trail via Email 
Group List, Phone Tree, FaceBook, and/or a Newsletter.
The issue of trail liability is discussed in detail in the report Rail-
Trails and Liability: A Primer on Trail-related Liability Issues & Risk 
Management Techniques (Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, 2000).
Again, proper design of the trail and its amenities will limit the risk 
of injury or harm to the trail user. The trail manager, in this case the 
jurisdiction hosting the trail, carries liability insurance as a last line of 
defense against claims of injury by users of the trail. 
Most states, including Oregon, also have laws that limit public 
and private landowner liability when providing access to lands for 
recreational use. These Recreational Use Statutes (RUS) have been 
established to encourage recreational access to lands while limiting 
exposure to liability and tort claims. The Recreational Use Statute 
for Oregon is contained in Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 
105 - Public Use of Lands. Section 105.682 of the ORS specifically 
states that “an owner of land is not liable in contract or tort for any 
personal injury, death, or property damage that arises out of the 
use of the land for recreational purposes.” Recreational Purposes 
are defined in the ORS to include hiking, nature study, outdoor 
educational activities, and viewing or enjoying scenic sites, and 
volunteering for any public purpose project.
It should be noted that this report is not intended to provide legal 
advice. Advice of counsel is recommended for specific questions 
regarding agency and property owner liabilities.
Trail Typologies
Within each segment, a variety of trail types are utilized to 
accommodate the trail within the existing conditions. As proposed, 
all segments will serve multiple users by means of trail bifurcations 
(forks in the trail) where site constraints make it necessary to separate 
cyclist and pedestrian routes. For the purposes of this master plan 
and high-level analysis, a general palette of design elements were 
identified for construction of each typology. Upon final design of 
the trail segment, each typology will be further detailed to account 
for the variability in existing conditions. (See Appendix G for the 
51February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
Schematic alignment shown is superseded by this Master Plan. See the Master Planning Map on page 68 & 69.
Figure 3-1: Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop: Trail Typologies Map
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201452
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
alignment details for each segment.) Below is a table showing the 
trail standards within each jurisdiction that the trail loop travels 
through.
*The trail standard applied may vary depending on funding sources. 
ODOT and the Federal Highway Administration generally require 
more stringent requirements on trail widths and surface materials.
Multi-use Trail: outside of Right-of-way
Using asphalt or occasional concrete surfacing, this multi-use trail 
type can serve all users, except equestrian. The trail is typically 12 feet 
wide with 3-foot shoulders on each side. Low landscaping or gravel 
will cover the area immediately adjacent to the trail, with larger trees 
and shrubs 3 feet or further from edge of pavement. In locations 
where ample width is available, use types may be on separate parallel 
tracks with a vegetated buffer inbetween. 
Representative segment: The proposed alignment in Segment 3 
between SE Sunnyside Rd and Hwy 224 that follows the Rock Creek 
drainage corridor.
 Jurisdiction
Portland Happy Valley
North Clackamas 
County
Metro
Tr
ai
l T
yp
e
Bike Lane (Bike only) 5'-6' 5'-6' N/A 5'-6'
Curb-tight Sidewalk 
(Ped only)
5' (only in special cases) 5'-6' N/A 5'
Separated Sidewalk 
(Ped only)
5'-6' 5'-7' (12' in 
special case)
N/A 5'-6'
Widened Shoulder 
(Bike, Ped)
4'-5' 
raised button 
detectable warnings/
device
4' swale separation 
where possible 
Continuation of road 
section
6' path, 10'-12' 
trail 
raised button 
detectable 
warnings
N/A N/A
Multi-use Trail (Bike, 
Ped)
8’-14’ AC or concrete Dwg. 400 10'-12' 
AC or concrete,
 2' shoulders 
geotextile
8'-12' AC or 
concrete
10'-12' AC or 
concrete 2'-4' 
shoulders
Hard Surface Trail (Ped 
only)
6'-12' AC, concrete, 
pavers, lumber
6' 
min 2' shoulders
8'-12' pavement N/A
Gravel Trail (Ped only) 4'-10' 6' min N/A N/A
Soft-Surface Trail (ped 
only)
18"-30" 6' min N/A N/A
Remarks See PPR Trail Guidelines 
for Cross Sections
Table 3-1. Trail standards within each jurisdiction
53February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
Multi-use Trail: inside of Right-of-way 
Using asphalt or occasional concrete surfacing, this multi-
use trail type can serve all users, except equestrian. The 
trail is typically 12-feet wide with 2-foot shoulders on 
each side. Constrained right-of-way widths will require 
right-of-way acquisition or trail width adjustments. Trails 
will in all cases be separated from vehicular travel lanes 
by a physical buffer. Buffer options include curb, curb and 
guardrail barrier, vegetated buffer with trees and shrubs, 
or a combination of these options. 
Representative segment: The proposed alignment along 
SE Mount Scott Blvd. between SE Carter Ln. and SE Aspen 
Summit Dr.
Discussion: 
The master plan trail map shows SE 162nd Ave. as a bicycle route, 
but given the low density of the area, low driveway frequency, and 
adjacent rural land uses, ideally this segment would have 
a multi-use trail. Improvements may require widening 
the road travel lanes and would include constructing 
a separated two way path on one side. This option 
would allow accommodation of pedestrians, who are 
underserviced in the area. The trail would be located 
on the west side to avoid challenging environmental 
constraints on the east. A 12-foot path on one side 
would require not much more room than two 6-foot bike 
lanes. Planning and involvement with additional adjacent 
property owners, residents, and the general public would 
be required.
If funding for multi-use trail improvements is not 
forthcoming then at a minimum improvements should 
include shared lane markings (SLMs), occasional safety 
pull-outs for cyclists, and reduced speed limit to make 
this roadway more safe and comfortable for cyclists. 
Other traffic calming measures may be considered. 
Simply widening each side and striping a bike lane 
would encourage drivers to travel faster. SLMs are not 
recommended on roadways with speeds greater than 35 
mph. SLMs are to be placed directly after intersections 
and every 250 linear feet thereafter. Improvements 
would also include wayfinding signs and signs stating: 
“Bicyclists may use full lane.” 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201454
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
Separated Sidewalk 
Separated sidewalks mimic a standard sidewalk 
structure. A trail alignment overlapping a typical 
sidewalk location will feature trail signage and 
occasional trail amenities such as benches, 
educational display panels, etc. Sidewalks will be 
separated from the roadway by a 6-foot wide 
landscape strip and are constructed of concrete. 
Representative segment: The proposed alignment 
along SE 147th Ave. between SE Tenino St. and SE 
Clatsop St.
Buffered cycle tracks are exclusively for bicyclists 
and can be used in combination with a new or 
existing sidewalk to provide a multi-use route with 
minimal impacts to existing roadway infrastructure. 
Improvements may include a 5-foot minimum 
width cycle track with 2-foot wide curbed buffer 
with openings to facilitate existing storm drainage. 
Existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk can remain in 
place. 
Representative segment: The proposed alignment along SE 122nd 
Ave. between SE Spring Mountain Dr. and SE Hubbard Rd. 
Discussion: 
Alignments in road right-of-ways where sidewalks exist may consider 
cycle track configuration instead of multi-use facilities:
•	 One-way cycle track: 6.5-foot width preferred (5-foot minimum), 
+ 3-foot buffer (1.5-foot minimum).
•	 Two-way cycle track: 12-foot width preferred (8-foot width 
allowed at pinch points/obstructions) + 6-foot 
buffer (2-foot minimum)
under Crossing 
Under crossings are proposed at existing roadway 
bridges where traffic volumes render surface 
crossings undesirable and where sufficient vertical 
clearance exists below the bridge structure. Trail 
construction will involve grading a trail bed into 
existing embankments which may require retaining 
walls. American Association of State Highway and 
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards set the 
minimum vertical clearance below structures at 10 
feet. 
55February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
Representative segment: The proposed alignment 
crossing SE Sunnyside Rd. at the north side of Mount 
Talbert Nature Park near Miramont Pointe Senior 
Living Community.
Pedestrian Trail
Between 18-inches and 6-feet wide, this trail type 
will vary in surface treatment and width to address 
various site conditions within natural areas or other 
limited access routes. Areas with severe slopes may 
require engineered structures to construct the trail. In 
residential areas, this trail may be a standard sidewalk. 
In natural areas, it will be more typical of a hiking trail. 
Bicycles will be prohibited within these segments. 
Representative segment: The proposed alignment 
from the intersection of SE Foster Rd and SE 134th 
Ave south to SE Clatsop St. 
overcrossings
A bridge or culvert crossing may be necessary along 
some trails traversing hillsides with frequent or intermittent streams. 
Each overcrossing must be engineered from both a structural and 
geotechnical perspective and designed and built to International 
Building Code (IBC) standards. For example, a 42-inch height 
pedestrian guard railing (54-inch for bicycle railing) is 
required where a vertical or nearly vertical drop of over 
30 inches occurs from trail surface to adjacent grade.
Boardwalk
A boardwalk would be used in ecologically sensitive 
areas in order to minimize environmental impacts. 
The trail is built on a post and beam frame so the trail 
surface is suspended above the ground. The surface 
of the trail will be engineered wood, steel grating, or 
concrete composite material. Non-slip surfaces are 
strongly preferred. Such a trail must be engineered 
from both a structural and geotechnical perspective.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201456
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
urban Trail Consideration
The Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop will run alongside 
busy streets, follow suburban neighborhood sidewalks, and 
bifurcate or fork into two separate trails in order to accommodate 
different users. Urban trails present a specialized set of challenges 
for consideration including trail typologies such as buffered cycle 
tracks, shared street routes, and bridge undercrossings (see Trail 
Typologies above). Other aspects of trail development to consider are 
discussed below including roadway crossings, drainage, signage, and 
furnishings.
Roadway Crossings
There are numerous roadway crossings throughout the Mount Scott/
Scouters Mountain Trail Loop system. Generally, the trail alignment 
guides users to the safest crossing, typically along the roadway to 
an intersection where drivers expect to see pedestrians cross. Where 
crossings coincide with arterial roads, the trail alignment shall cross 
at signalized intersections wherever possible to offer the highest 
protection from traffic. At crossings that occur at unsignalized 
intersections, utilization of a grade-separated crossing or a trail 
user-activated pedestrian signal such as a High-Intensity Activated 
Crosswalk (HAWK) or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) shall 
be investigated. At lower classification roadways, the trail alignment 
shall also cross at intersections when possible. Such intersections may 
or may not be stop-controlled and the crosswalk may or may not be 
striped. 
Mid-block crossings are advantageous when the nearest intersection 
is too far away for pedestrians to reasonably choose that option. 
Depending on the existing conditions, pedestrian crossing treatments 
can vary in level of infrastructure. In areas with good sight distance 
and low traffic volumes, a signed and striped crossing may be 
adequate. As the existing conditions become more challenging, 
treatments such as curb extensions, speed tables, pedestrian refuge 
islands, and additional signage shall be investigated. When crossing 
high-volume roadways, the use of a mid-block trail user-activated 
pedestrian signal such as a HAWK or RRFB may be warranted.
At the time of final design, each crossing type will be analyzed 
by an engineer for traffic conditions, safety, and proper design. 
Regulatory traffic control devices shall be installed on the trail at 
every roadway intersection. Roadway markings, including crosswalk 
striping, shall be designed and installed as warranted on a case-by-
case basis. AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 
and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) shall 
be consulted for options for signalization, signage, striping, marking 
treatments, and hard-surface improvements.
57February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
Drainage Treatments
Hard surfaced trails generate a small amount of stormwater runoff. 
Water quality treatment is not usually required for separated non-
motorized multi-use pathways in areas where the pathway runoff is 
not interacting with the runoff from adjacent roadways. However, it 
is necessary to provide proper drainage and stormwater conveyance 
to prevent ponding and erosion along the pathway. Landscaped or 
gravel shoulders can usually accommodate the stormwater through 
infiltration. Where topography prohibits adequate infiltration, 
conveyance systems may be required to transport runoff to 
downstream storm facilities or areas more conducive to stormwater 
disbursement. Trail segments constructed adjacent to (and flowing 
to) existing roadways may require water quality treatment based on 
jurisdictional requirements.
Should certain segments of the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain 
Trail Loop system require stormwater treatment, low-impact, parallel 
water quality facilities such as bioswales or rain gardens shall be 
evaluated as treatment options. These types of facilities can be fitted 
into landscape buffer zones or immediately adjacent to pathway 
alignments if feasible. Other forms of treatment could include larger 
regional basins or ponds and mechanical treatment devices such 
as filter-cartridge vaults and catch basins. These types of facilities 
usually require modification to existing or construction of additional 
conveyance systems to transport flows.
Trail Signage and wayfinding
The highly variable landscape characteristics and topographic 
extremes of the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop corridor 
offer a diverse trail experience for users. This same variability also 
presents logistic challenges to trail planning. Each of the seven trail 
segments studied in this master plan has at least two routes for 
getting users from one location to another, and trail routes often 
rely on existing sidewalks or residential streets to fill gaps in the trail 
system. To provide users with clear direction on how to navigate a 
trail of this nature will depend heavily on a trail signage strategy.
Ideally, trail signage will not only provide direction but will help unify 
the trail system through the consistent use of color, form, and graphic 
style that is readily recognizable. The Intertwine Regional Trails 
Signage Guidelines published by Metro in June 2012 provides a useful 
framework for this purpose. Excerpts from the Signage Guidelines 
are included in Appendix H. This document is available online in its 
entirety:
http://theintertwine.org/sites/theintertwine.org/files/file_attachments/
Intertwine%20Regional%20Trail%20Signage%20Guidelines.pdf
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201458
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
The following images depict several typical trail 
bifurcations where one trail type (e.g., multi-use trail) 
makes a transition into two different trail types (e.g., 
bicycle route and pedestrian-only route). An example is 
included in these figures of how signage may be applied 
to provide direction to trail users. Signage will be most 
effective when, in addition to trail identification, a 
schematic map is included showing the location where 
the trail bifurcation converges again, and the distance that 
each trail traverses to get there.
Trail Amenities 
Site furnishings for the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain 
Trail Loop corridor may include any or all of the following 
trail amenities:
•	 Benches
•	 Bike Racks
•	 Chicanes (changes in trail alignment or z-gates that 
help control speed)
•	 Viewing Platforms or Pull-outs
•	 Educational Display Panels
•	 Signs (trailhead, trail access, off-street trail signs, on-
street connection signs, maps, mile markers)
•	 Restrooms
•	 Water fountains
•	 Public art
Locations along the trail loop that are near popular 
destinations or employment centers may warrant 
development of a trailhead facility provided with some 
Multi-use Trail
Directional Sign
Directional 
Sign
Informational 
Sign
Pedestrian 
Only Trail
Bike Rack Off 
Multi-Use Trail: 
Visible from Street
Barricade 
with Sign
Pedestrian 
Only Trail
Trail Sign
Trail 
Sign
Bike 
Route
Multi-
use 
Trail
Directional Sign:
“Trail 
Crossing”
10’
10’ADA 
Compliant 
Curb Ramps
PEDS 
ONLY
BIKE
ROUTE
Multi-use Trail
Directional Sign
Directional 
Sign
Informational 
Sign
Pedestrian 
Only Trail
Bike Rack Off 
Multi-Use Trail: 
Visible from Street
Barricade 
with Sign
Pedestrian 
Only Trail
Trail Sign
Trail 
Sign
Bike 
Route
Multi-
use 
Trail
Directional Sign:
“Trail 
Crossing”
10’
10’ADA 
Compliant 
Curb Ramps
PEDS 
ONLY
BIKE
ROUTE
Traffic Bifurcation
Road Crossing
Trailhead at Pedestrian Trail Viewpoint
59February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
or all of the above amenities. Following are topics to consider when 
making decisions concerning trail amenity installation at trailheads or 
other locations along the trail system.
Design Style
The Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop takes users through 
many different contexts, both developed and pristine. Rather than 
identifying a specific design style to be applied at all locations for all 
trail amenities, selection of site furnishings should be based on site-
specific characteristics. For instance, a bench constructed of heavy 
lumber may be appropriate to a remote, woodland setting, while 
a bench built from stainless steel may be best suited for an urban 
context. 
Cost 
The decision to install trail amenities will need to consider both 
short- and long-term costs. Initial construction costs may be relatively 
low compared with the ongoing costs of maintenance and eventual 
replacement. Materials should resist corrosion and vandalism, and be 
readily available and sustainable. Construction should be simple and 
designed for ease of repair.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201460
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
Benches
While all of the listed amenities fulfill important functions depending 
on site-specific opportunities, the most popular item among trail 
users is a bench. Benches can be installed at certain intervals or 
at destinations depending on trail characteristics. Benches for trail 
segments with steep slopes will better serve users if provided at more 
frequent intervals. Benches are a welcomed addition at viewpoints, 
trailheads, and areas that offer educational opportunities. Benches 
and the setting should be ADA compliant where appropriate.
Bike Racks
A bike rack should be considered at locations where bikes 
may be left unattended, including trailheads of pedestrian-
only trails, and at destinations such as viewpoints. The level 
of use anticipated at bike rack sites will help determine the 
appropriate bike rack capacity. Bike racks are available in a 
vast array of shapes to suit nearly any context.
Chicanes
Traffic calming measures, usually thought of in connection 
with motor vehicles, also apply to trails. Chicanes consist 
of an apparent change in the horizontal alignment of the 
trail, and take many forms including anything from a simple 
jog in the alignment to a roundabout. They help to reduce 
the speed of cyclist and can be included at certain intervals 
along the trail or at specific locations such as intersections 
or before a significant change in slope. A variation of the 
trail chicane is a z-gate that requires cyclists to dismount 
or greatly reduce speed. Z-gates should be considered as 
a “last resort” option for controlling speed, but may be 
appropriate where there is a higher potential for collisions.
Viewing Platforms or Pull-Outs
Many locations within the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain 
Trail Loop will provide opportunities for spectacular views 
of the surrounding area, and for natural area educational 
displays. Viewpoints need to be carefully designed to 
minimize potential collisions between viewpoint visitors and 
trail users. Viewpoints attract users so provision for litter 
clean-up and other maintenance should be considered.
Educational Display Panels
With several schools near the proposed trail loop corridor, 
there is good potential along the trail for educational 
opportunities that support curricula. A highly successful 
61February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
material for display panels is phenolic resin with subsurface 
sign graphics fused to the resin through a process using 
heat and pressure. Placement needs to carefully consider 
accessibility and maintenance concerns.
Wayfinding Signs
Providing trail users with clear direction on how to navigate 
the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop will depend 
on a cohesive wayfinding sign system. Ideally, trail signage 
will not only provide direction but will help unify the trail 
system through the consistent use of color, form, and 
graphic style that is readily recognizable from a distance. See 
also the section on Trail Signage on page 55.
Restrooms 
A number of options exist for restroom facilities, including 
plumbed structures, prefab over pit, and portable. The 
decision to provide restrooms—and which type is most 
appropriate—will depend on the anticipated level of use 
and the resources available to service the facility over the 
long term. Meeting accessibility guidelines need to be 
considered. Restrooms will most likely be located at parks 
along the trail route.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201462
Trail segments will be located both inside and outside of the road right-of-way.
63February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
4. AlTERNATiVES ANAlySiS
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201464
Powerline corridors are a valuable alignment alternative for trail development.
65February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ALTERNATIVES ANALySIS
Alignment options Analysis and 
Recommended Alignments
Working with the Project Advisory Committee, stakeholders, 
and local community members, the Project Team undertook an 
extensive process to identify and evaluate trail alignment options. 
The evaluation was based on project goals developed during the 
planning process. Each alignment was considered with respect to 
fatal flaws reflecting the project evaluation criteria. Alignments 
which were evaluated and eliminated may be viewed in Appendix I. 
Alignments without fatal flaws were further evaluated based on the 
criteria described below. This approach provided an objective means 
to compare segment options against one another as well as identify 
specific recommendations for improving alignments. The Project 
Team vetted the findings of the analysis with stakeholders, local 
decision makers and the public, and made refinements as needed 
to develop the recommended Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail 
Loop Master Plan alignments.
Evaluation Criteria
The Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop study area is divided 
into seven tile maps, with each map having one or more potential 
trail alignments. Potential alignments were screened using evaluation 
criteria. For the screening, a high, moderate or low score was given 
to determine the most feasible alignments. A one indicated an 
unfavorable condition, a two indicated mixed or neutral conditions, 
and a three was given when favorable conditions were present. 
Criteria which reflected the primary goals of the project received 
a higher weight than other criteria in the final total score of each 
alignment. The evaluation scores were considered with respect to 
recommended design treatments to improve trails for alignments that 
achieved a recommended status. For example, an alignment with an 
overall high rating which scored low in the safety category received 
recommended design improvements which would improve safety.
Connection Value
This criterion evaluates connectivity and directness of route between 
area destinations. Destinations include schools, parks, residential, 
commercial and employment areas, as well as access to other trails, 
bikeways or transit. A high score was given to trail options that 
provide a direct route between area destinations. A low value was 
given to circuitous or indirect routes or those not in close proximity to 
area destinations. 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201466
ALTERNATIVES ANALySIS
Safety
Alignments were evaluated based on safety criteria including 
interactions with vehicle traffic. The assessment and evaluation 
considered existing crossing treatments (if any), roadway traffic 
speed, sight visibility, and traffic volumes. Alignments were further 
considered with respect to the following safety criteria: screening, 
visibility, presence of natural surveillance, emergency access, and 
proximity to hazards. Typically, alignments separate from traffic and 
having fewer roadway crossings received higher evaluative scores. 
Alignments within the road right-of-way, those which lack crossing 
improvements across roadways or those lacking natural surveillance 
opportunities were given a low score. Safety improvements are 
proposed for alignments which received low safety scores based on 
existing conditions, but were otherwise determined valuable. 
Topography
Site topography is a prevalent natural feature in the study area 
which affects potential trail alignment, user types and construction 
requirements. Steep grades prohibit some user groups from trail 
use. They also require more site disturbance and infrastructure to 
implement. Thus, alignments through generally flat areas received 
a positive score, whereas alignments in areas with significant slopes 
received a negative rating.
Environmental Enhancement or impact
Alignments were scored based on their potential to positively 
enhance or negatively impact environmentally sensitive areas. 
Options which present opportunities for environmental enhancement 
or benefit, such as degraded areas, received a high score. Alignments 
not interfacing with sensitive areas received a neutral score. 
Alignments through or near wetlands or other sensitive natural 
resource areas, were considered to have a potentially negative 
impact and thus received a low score. Environmentally sensitive 
design treatments are proposed for options that occur within or near 
sensitive areas, while otherwise having an overall positive or highly 
feasible rating, (i.e., the use of boardwalk through a wetland area, 
constrained trail widths and natural surfaces).
Public and Political Support
Having the support of local community members and political 
figures is essential to trail implementation. Alignments that have 
been favorably received by the general public and that have agency 
support received a high rating.
67February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ALTERNATIVES ANALySIS
Aesthetics/Quality of Experience
This criterion measures the quality of the proposed trail from the 
perspective of the user. It considers potential views, environmental 
aesthetics, and characteristics of the alignment context such as noise, 
and air quality. For example, an on-street route along a major roadway 
received a lower rating than an off-street route adjacent to a stream. 
Design improvements are recommended for alignments within the 
road right-of-way which otherwise score high or provide an essential 
connection. 
ownership/Private Property impacts
Alignments were scored based on their occurrence within parcels 
owned by public entities versus privately held properties. Trail proximity 
to private property is often a sensitive topic with landowners – it is 
important to gain input from land holders to ensure trail designs and 
location meet local needs, do not create maintenance or management 
issues, and provide positive experiences for neighbors. Trail segments 
identified as not requiring easements received the highest rating. 
Alignments on properties owned by identified willing sellers were given 
a moderate score, whereas alignments occurring on properties where 
the willingness of the owner to grant and easement or property sale 
was unknown received a low rating.
operations and Maintenance
Implementation of any trail alignment will require that a trail manager 
operate and maintain the facility. Alignments having fewer anticipated 
maintenance requirements (debris removal, resurfacing, flooding) and 
ready access received a high rating. Alignments expected to require 
intensive maintenance investment were scored lower. 
Environmental Education and Access
This criterion identified the ability of the trail segment to provide 
opportunities for environmental education, interpretation or access. 
This includes visual and proximal access to ponds, wetlands, streams, 
rivers and geological formations.
Cost/Ease of implementation
This criterion scored options that may have a relatively high cost for 
acquisitions, design, engineering, and/or construction, especially where 
crossing improvements, fencing, or other expensive infrastructure 
improvements would be necessary. Trails which may require 
boardwalks, environmental mitigation, or grade separated crossings 
will score lower than a flat, upland trail through a publicly-owned 
parcel. 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201468
ALTERNATIVES ANALySIS
M
t. 
Sc
ot
t/
 S
co
ut
er
s 
M
tn
. T
ra
il 
Lo
op
 
69February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
ALTERNATIVES ANALySIS
M
t. 
Sc
ot
t/
 S
co
ut
er
s 
M
tn
. T
ra
il 
Lo
op
 
This page was intentionally left blank.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201470
Possible trail locations near Scouters Mountain.
71February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
5. RECoMMENDATioNS
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201472
The Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery is a pedestrian-friendly alternative 
to Mount Scott Boulevard.
73February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommended Trail Alignments
The preceding map shows more than 37 miles of recommended 
trails comprising the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop. 
The trail system will provide an active transportation and recreation 
link between the Springwater Corridor, I-205 bike/ped path and 
Sunrise Corridor/Clackamas River while connecting area residents 
to open space and park jewels including Powell Butte, Buttes 
Natural Area, the Mitchell Creek property, Scouters Mountain, 
Mount Talbert, Happy Valley Nature Park and Hood View Park. The 
preferred alignment will provide a convenient, comfortable and safe 
atmosphere for trail users of all ages and abilities; provide access to 
and enhancement of natural and cultural resources while limiting 
impacts; and enhance non-motorized connectivity in the region.
The following pages describe the opportunities, constraints and 
recommendations associated with each preferred alignment by 
segment.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201474
RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 5-1 Recommendations: Tile 1 - Springwater Corridor to Clatsop Road
75February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
SEgMENT 1 - SPRiNgwATER CoRRiDoR To ClATSoP RoAD
1E - A pedestrian alignment connecting the Springwater Corridor to Leach Botanical Garden, the Buttes Natural Area, and 
crossing Clatsop Road. Preferred alignment to be selected with input from PP&R.
opportunities
•	 Connect two area schools and one future planned
•	 Cross Foster Road at existing signalized intersection
•	 Connect to Leach Botanical Garden
•	 Cross Johnson Creek via existing covered bridge
•	 Limit environmental impacts by following existing skid road 
within Buttes property and/or private property
•	 Alignment passes home on National Historic Register 
Constraints
•	 Property easements or agreements needed
•	 Natural areas require environmentally sensitive design 
treatments
•	 Roadway crossing improvements needed on SE Deardorff 
Road to provide safe crossing to existing sidewalk on west 
side of covered bridge as well as at Clatsop and SE 147th
 
SE 147th north of Clatsop
Recommendations
Sidewalks for portions within road right of way and natural surface hiking trail for sections on independent right-of-way. 
Wetlands and creeks to be bridged with boardwalk structures. Intersection improvements (pedestrian and wildlife) at Foster 
and SE 128th, Clatsop and SE 147th and across Deardorff. Provide bicycle parking at access point to Buttes Natural Area. 
Provide way-finding and interpretive information for historic home on Claybourne. Final alignment connection to or through 
Buttes to be confirmed with Portland Parks & Recreation. Intention is to be one alignment and not a loop trail.
1F - A bicycle facility connecting the Springwater Corridor to SE Clatsop Road. From north to south, alignment follows SE 
158th, SE Foster, SE 162nd and Vradenburg Roads with a spur alignment providing a connection to the Buttes Natural Area. 
opportunities
•	 Utilize existing low volume road right of way on SE 158th, 
162nd and Vradenburg Roads
•	 Existing light at SE Foster and 162nd
•	 Improve habitats along Kelly Creek with native plantings
•	 No property acquisition required 
Constraints
•	 Crossing improvements needed at Foster and SE 162nd 
and SE Clatsop and 152nd
•	 Narrow road right-of-way and environmental conditions 
limit design options
•	 Intersections with priority habitat areas require 
environmentally sensitive design treatments SE 162nd is a low volume road within a rural setting
Recommendations
Short term: add wayfinding signs, reduce travel speeds to 35 mph, add shared lane markings and bicycle safety pull-outs. 
Long term: install multi-use path on west side of SE 162nd. Intersection improvements at SE Foster and SE 162nd and SE 
Clatsop and 152nd. Provide bicycle parking at Buttes Natural Area. Improve riparian habitat and connectivity with trail 
design, construction and native plantings. 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201476
RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 5-2 Recommendations: Tile 2 - Clatsop Road to Former Golf Club
77February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
SEgMENT 2 - ClATSoP RoAD To FoRMER golF CluB
2D - Alignment follows SE 145th and 147th to connect the Buttes Natural Area to the Scouters Mountain entrance and 
Powerline Trail. Alignment spur provides a connection to the top of Scouters Mountain via an existing access road.
opportunities
•	 Connection to Scouters Mountain
•	 Connection to Happy Valley Park, Wetlands Park and 
Happy Valley Elementary School
•	 Connection to existing Powerline Trail.
•	 Most facilities are in place for a short-term solution 
Constraints
•	 Property easements or agreements needed at pinch point
•	 Alignment within constrained road right-of-way provides a 
less than scenic experience
•	 Crossing improvements needed at SE 147th and Clatsop
Much of SE 145th already includes bike lanes  
and sidewalk facilities
Recommendations
A route accommodating both cyclists and pedestrians from Buttes Natural Area at SE 147th and Clatsop Road along SE 
145th and 147th to Scouters Mountain and the existing Powerline Trail. Cyclists to use existing bike lanes and bicycle 
route as short-term solution. Seek easement on SE 147th between Kraus Lane and Monner to accommodate bicycles and 
pedestrians. Expand sidewalk facilities to provide a separated trail experience for both pedestrians and cyclists. Use existing 
Scouters Mountain access road as connection to the top of Scouters Mountain.
2E - A bicycle facility within SE 162nd and Vrandenburg road right-of-way as well as Boy Scouts property (if approved).
opportunities
•	 Utilize existing low volume road right-of-way on SE 162nd 
and Vrandenburg Roads
•	 Scenic quality of Vradenburg Road through Mitchell Creek 
property
•	 Connect to Scouters Mountain and Powerline Trail
•	 Potential to improve Mitchell Creek fish passage and red 
legged frog habitat at SE 162nd south of Clatsop
•	 Alignment within private property to be built when 
developed as condition of approval 
Constraints
•	 Crossing improvements needed on SE 162nd at Clatsop
•	 Property easements or agreements required
•	 Natural areas require environmentally sensitive design 
treatments
Vradenburg Road through the Metro  
owned Mitchell Creek property
Recommendations
A signed bicycle route, south of Clatsop on SE 162nd and Vradenburg. Provide wayfinding signs, bicycle safety pull-outs, 
vehicle travel speed of 35 mph or less. Continue alignment within private Boy Scout Camp property to beginning of multi-
use segment. Expand Mithcell Creek culvert under SE 162nd south of Clatsop to improve fish passage.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201478
RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 5-3 Recommendations: Tile 3 - Former Golf Club to Clackamas River
79February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
2F - A multi-use alignment from Boy Scouts Lodge Road, through private parcels to former golf club. 
opportunities
•	 Connect to Scouters Mountain and former golf club 
property
•	 Alignment within private property to be built when 
developed as condition of approval
•	 Follow scenic riparian drainage, potential for enhancement
Constraints
•	 Crossing improvements needed on SE 162nd north of 
Monner
•	 Alignment follows a riparian drainage and would require 
environmentally sensitive design treatments SE 162nd would require crossing improvements
Recommendations
A multi-use path from Boy Scouts access drive to former Golf Club property. Provide crossing improvements on SE 162nd, 
north of Monner. Locate trail up slope from creek drainage and to the edge of habitat blocks to reduce negative impacts. 
Secure a wide trail easement and couple trail development with habitat enhancement. Permission from private property 
owners will be required.
Continued from previous page:
SEgMENT 3 - FoRMER golF CluB To HigHwAy 212 ViA RoCk CREEk
3C - Alignment connects the former Pleasant Valley Golf Club to Highway 212 along Rock Creek.
opportunities
•	 Alignment occurs within several large undeveloped parcels
•	 Providence Health is a landowner and potential project 
partner
•	 Alignment within private property to be built when 
developed as condition of approval
•	 Opportunity for environmental enhancement of degraded 
areas 
•	 Provide connections to Hood View Park, Verne Duncan 
Elementary, Rock Creek Middle School and Pioneer Park on 
SE 153rd.
Constraints
•	 Property easements or agreements needed
•	 Natural areas require sensitive design treatments
•	 Crossing improvements needed at Sunnyside Road, and 
across Rock Creek and tributaries
•	 Alignment to be compatible with Sunnyside Corridor 
planned improvements
Development is anticipated along Lower Rock Creek
Recommendations
A multi-use path following Rock Creek between former golf club and Highway 212. Provide environmentally sensitive design 
treatments including wide setback from creek (200’ desired), bridges and boardwalks across creek crossings, tributaries and 
wetlands. Alignment to cross Sunnyside Road and Sunrise Corridor below grade. Include connections to Pioneer Park on SE 
153rd as well as Hood View Park and area schools. Explore opportunities for environmental interpretation. 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201480
RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 5-4 Recommendations: Tile 4 - Powerline Corridor to Hwy 212
81February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
SEgMENT 4 - PowERliNE CoRRiDoR To HigHwAy 212 ViA SiEBEN DRAiNAgE
4D - A bicycle alignment from the existing Powerline Trail, on SE 152nd to Sunnyside Road. The alignment travels on 
Sunnyside to the intersection of Sunnyside and SE 142nd.
opportunities
•	 Cross Sunnyside Road at existing signalized intersections at 
142nd and 152nd
•	 Connect to existing Powerline Trail
•	 Utilize road right-of-way and existing bike lanes as a short 
term solution 
Constraints
•	 Steep grades and high traffic volumes on SE 152nd
•	 High traffic volumes on Sunnyside Road
SE 152nd north of Sunnyside Road
Recommendations
Route to utilize existing bike lanes on Sunnyside and SE 152nd. Upgrade to buffered bicycle facility in long term. Include 
wayfinding signs per Intertwine Regional Trail guidelines.
4E - Alignment connects existing portion of the Powerline Trail to Highway 212. Alignment follows SE 142nd from 
Powerline Trail to Bridgeton Street, then connects to the Sieben Drainage. The segment follows the Sieben Drainage through 
NCPRD and private parcels before connecting to Highway 212. Alignment continues east and west near Highway 212 to 
connect to Rock Creek (segment 3C) and ODOT property (segment 5E).
opportunities
•	 Connect existing Powerline Trail and Highway 212 
commercial area
•	 Connect to Pfeifer Park through Forest Creek open Space
•	 Cross Sunnyside Road and Highway 212 at existing 
signalized intersections on 142nd
•	 Provide wetland access via raised boardwalks
•	 Provide environmental enhancement of degraded areas 
Constraints
•	 Property easements or agreements required
•	 Wetland areas require environmentally sensitive design 
treatments including boardwalk structures
•	 Requires three drainage crossings and crossing of Hwy 212
•	 High traffic volumes on Highway 212
The northern terminus of SE 142nd nearly connects to the existing 
Powerline Trail
Recommendations
A multi-use path between existing Powerline Corridor and Highway 212. Crossing of Sunnyside Road to occur at SE 142nd 
signalized intersection. Multi-use path through wetland areas and across drainages to be on boardwalks or bridge structures 
to minimize environmental impacts. Couple trail development with habitat restoration. Alignment within Highway 212 
right-of-way to be buffered from vehicle traffic. Crossing of Highway 212 at SE 142nd to be improved. Provide overlook of 
Clackamas River as southern terminus. Coordination with private property owners, ODOT, Clackamas County, and Sunrise 
Water Authority required.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201482
RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 5-5 Recommendations: Tile 5 - Sieben Drainage to Mount Talbert
83February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
SEgMENT 5 - SiEBEN DRAiNAgE To MouNT TAlBERT
5D - A pedestrian hiking trail through Mount Talbert utilizing existing trail. Path continues on Mather within road right-of-
way. 
opportunities
•	 Utilize existing Mount Talbert trail as pedestrian-only 
connection to Sunnyside and Mather Roads
•	 Connect to existing trailheads and trails at Mount Talbert
•	 Cross Sunnyside Road at existing signalized intersection 
(SE 117th) or by going under existing Mount Scott Creek 
bridge
•	 Existing sidewalks on Mather
•	 Minimal improvements needed to function as regional trail
Constraints
•	 Requires separation of bicycle users due to steep terrain
Existing bridge over Mount Scott Creek in Mount Talbert
Recommendations
Sign and designate existing trail as regional trail. Improve Mather Road crossing at Cranberry for trail users and wildlife. 
Expand sidewalks on Mather to provide buffered trail experience.
5E - A multi-use route within road right-of-way between the I-205 bike/ped path and the intersection of Highway 212 and 
SE 135th. Alignment follows Lawnfield, Mather, SE 122nd and Hubbard Road.
opportunities
•	 Provides an alternative route to the Sunrise Corridor
•	 Utilize road right-of-way, existing sidewalks, bike lanes and 
signalized intersections as short term solution
•	 Connect to existing trailhead and trails at Mount Talbert
•	 Improve connection to Clackamas High School
Constraints
•	 Not all sections have sidewalks
•	 Alignment requires infrastructure improvements to improve 
safety and comfort of cyclists in road right-of-way
 
SE Mather, 122nd and Hubbard Roads are transit routes  
with bike lanes, some sidewalk facilities and views of Mount Hood
Recommendations
Utilize existing bike lanes in the short term. Improve to buffered bicycle or multi-use facility in the long term.
5F - An off-street multi-use path paralleling the Sunrise Corridor project and Highway 212.
opportunities
•	 Coordinate with ODOT regarding multi-use path planned 
with Sunrise Corridor project
•	 Buffer experience from planned and existing highways 
Constraints
•	 Non-aesthetically pleasing trail experience
Undeveloped property provides an alignment opportunity  
away from Highway 212
Recommendations
Multi-use facility from I-205 bike path to Segment 4E along Sunrise Corridor project through ODOT and private properties.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201484
RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 5-6 Recommendations: Tile 6 - Mount Talbert to Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery
85February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
SEgMENT 6 - MouNT TAlBERT To liNColN MEMoRiAl
6C - A pedestrian alignment following existing trails through the Lincoln Heights community, Happy Valley Nature Park and 
along Mount Scott Creek. 
opportunities
•	 Utilize existing trails through Lincoln Heights neighborhood 
and Happy Valley Nature Park as well as along Mount Scott 
Creek
•	 Planned signalized intersection at Carter and Mount Scott 
Boulevard
Constraints
•	 Requires separation of bicycle users
•	 Alignment through sensitive natural resource area
•	 Property easements or agreements required Existing earthen trail at Happy Valley Nature Park
Recommendations
Work with HOAs and private property owners to sign and designate existing trails as regional trail. Trails through natural 
areas to be pedestrian only natural surface hiking trails. Provide road crossing improvements at Mount Scott Boulevard and 
Carter Road, as well as Idelman Road. Provide wide setback from Mount Scott Creek as well as environmental enhancement.
6D - Alignment follows Mount Scott Boulevard, SE 129th and SE 122nd within road right-of-way.
opportunities
•	 Limited impacts on natural resource areas by 
accommodating cyclists within the road right-of-way
•	 Improve non-motorized connection to elementary school
•	 Route passes oldest home in Happy Valley (corner of 
Mount Scott and Greiner) as well as Willamette National 
Cemetery and Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery
•	 Existing signalized intersection at SE 122nd and Sunnyside
Constraints
•	 Infrastructure improvements required for cyclist comfort 
and safety issues in road right-of-way
 
Mount Scott Boulevard currently has no facilities to accommodate  
cyclists north of Greiner
Recommendations
Buffered bicycle facilities within road right-of-way along Mount Scott Boulevard, SE 129th and SE 122nd. Provide 
interpretation for oldest home and Willamette National Cemetery.
6E - A pedestrian alignment between existing community trail and Mount Talbert trailhead.
opportunities
•	 Connect to existing trails and trailhead at Mount Talbert
•	 Separate users from roadway
•	 Cross Sunnyside under existing Mount Scott Creek bridge
Constraints
•	 Sunnyside under-crossing requires significant infrastructure investment
Recommendations
A paved pedestrian path from existing Scott Creek Park trails to Mount Talbert trailhead. Crossing of Sunnyside to occur 
under existing bridge along Mount Scott Creek. Signalized intersection at SE 117th may be used as short term solution.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201486
RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 5-7 Recommendations: Tile 7 - Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery to Springwater Corridor
87February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
RECOMMENDATIONS
SEgMENT 7 - liNColN MEMoRiAl PARk CEMETERy To i-205 BikE/PED PATH AND 
SPRiNgwATER CoRRiDoR
7C - Alignment within Mount Scott Boulevard right-of-way.
opportunities
•	 Connect I-205 bike/ped path and Happy Valley
•	 Road right-of-way available adjacent to Lincoln Memorial 
Park Cemetery
Constraints
•	 Steep grade on roadway
•	 Proximity to vehicle traffic
•	 Infrastructure improvements required for user comfort and 
safety
Mount Scott Boulevard looking east with Lincoln Memorial to the 
right
Recommendations
A multi-use path on the south and west sides of Mount Scott Boulevard. Coordination to occur with Lincoln Memorial.
7D - Alignment through Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery
opportunities
•	 Separated from heavy vehicle traffic
•	 A scenic alternative to Mount Scott Boulevard with 
viewpoints and historic points of interest
•	 Grade is gentler than Mount Scott Boulevard
•	 Property owner willing to accommodate cyclists and 
pedestrians
Constraints
•	 Access to be during daylight hours only
•	 Out-of-direction travel for commuters
Low volume roadways within Lincoln Memorial offer a serene 
alternative to Mount Scott Boulevard
Recommendations
A day use multi-use route through historic cemetery on existing roads. Coordinate access and signs with Lincoln Memorial.
This page was intentionally left blank.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201488
Wayfinding signage will be key to success of the trail loop system.
89February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
6. iMPlEMENTATioN
This page was intentionally left blank.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201490
91February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
implementation
Building on the information accumulated throughout the trail 
master planning process, an implementation workshop was 
convened with the PAC in February 2013 to discuss and document 
trail project priorities, timelines, funding strategies and the agency 
roles and responsibilities for each trail segment. An overview of 
implementation actions, including budgetary cost estimating data, is 
included in this section.
The February 2013 workshop with the PAC included a segment-by-
segment discussion to identify which implementing actions were 
needed for each segment and which agency would take the lead 
for each action. Much of the discussion focused on opportunities to 
integrate the implementation of the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain 
Trail Loop Master Plan with other plans and funding sources within 
each jurisdiction. An outcome of the workshop was a consensus on 
which actions would be taken by each partner agency. Examples of 
implementing actions include integration into existing Transportation 
System Plans or Parks and Recreation Master Plans, initiating property 
owner discussions and acquisitions, identifying new funding sources, 
and initiating design engineering for construction.
The agreed-to actions and timelines are included in the matrix in 
Table 6-1. The matrix is intended to help determine a strategy for 
ensuring the implementation of the final plan. The implementation 
meeting that informed the development of the matrix was also 
intended to help identify mechanisms to facilitate trail project 
implementation such as land acquisition and capital fund allocation, 
procuring operations and maintenance (O&M) funds, identifying 
governing entities with the authority and commitment to trail 
development, trail construction and management, and discuss where 
right-of-way or easement acquisitions may be required. The matrix 
summarizes discussion outcomes pertaining to appropriate and 
actionable implementation strategies for the various trail segments.
Metro will continue to convene meetings on an annual or semi-
annual basis and facilitate agency efforts to ensure progress on trail 
implementation is being made.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201492
IMPLEMENTATION Table 6-1: Implementation Matrix
Se
gm
en
t 
N
um
be
r
A
lig
nm
en
t 
D
es
cr
ip
ti
on
A
ct
io
n(
s)
Ti
m
el
in
e 
(y
rs
)
A
ge
nc
y
1E
*
A 
pe
de
st
ri
an
 o
nl
y 
al
ig
nm
en
t 
co
nn
ec
ti
ng
 t
he
 S
pr
in
gw
at
er
 
Co
rr
id
or
 t
o 
th
e 
Bu
tt
es
 N
at
ur
al
 A
re
a,
 C
la
ts
op
 R
oa
d 
an
d 
M
et
ro
 
ow
ne
d 
pr
op
er
ti
es
.
Re
fi
ne
 a
lig
nm
en
t
1-
3
PP
&
R
In
co
rp
or
at
e 
m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
 in
to
 T
SP
 u
pd
at
e
1-
3
PP
&
R
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
 
1-
3
Re
gi
on
al
 E
ff
or
t,
 n
ee
d 
pa
rt
ne
rs
Co
or
di
na
ti
on
 w
it
h 
D
av
id
 D
ou
gl
as
 S
ch
oo
l r
eg
ar
di
ng
 d
es
ig
n 
an
d 
fu
nd
in
g 
op
ti
on
s 
(S
af
e 
Ro
ut
es
 t
o 
Sc
ho
ol
)
1-
3
PP
&
R
PP
&
R'
s 
pr
io
ri
ty
 #
1.
W
or
k 
w
it
h 
PB
O
T 
on
 id
en
ti
fy
in
g 
st
re
et
 im
pr
ov
em
en
ts
3-
5
PP
&
R/
PB
O
T
G
eo
te
ch
ni
ca
l D
es
ig
n
3-
5
PP
&
R
Es
ta
bl
is
h 
an
 a
dv
oc
ac
y 
gr
ou
p
3-
5
PP
&
R 
- 
Pl
ea
sa
nt
 V
al
le
y 
N
ei
gh
bo
rh
oo
d 
G
ro
up
D
es
ig
n 
en
gi
ne
er
in
g
5-
10
PP
&
R/
PB
O
T
Ac
qu
ir
e 
pr
op
er
ty
 r
ig
ht
s
1-
20
PP
&
R
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
10
-1
5
PP
&
R/
PB
O
T
1F
*
A 
bi
cy
cl
e 
fa
ci
lit
y 
co
nn
ec
ti
ng
 t
he
 S
pr
in
gw
at
er
 C
or
ri
do
r 
to
 S
E 
Cl
at
so
p 
Ro
ad
. 
 F
ro
m
 n
or
th
 t
o 
so
ut
h,
 a
lig
nm
en
t 
fo
llo
w
s 
SE
 
15
8t
h,
 S
E 
Fo
st
er
, 
SE
 1
62
nd
  
an
d 
Vr
ad
en
bu
rg
 R
oa
ds
 w
it
h 
a 
sp
ur
 a
lig
nm
en
t 
pr
ov
id
in
g 
a 
co
nn
ec
ti
on
 t
o 
th
e 
Bu
tt
es
 N
at
ur
al
 
Ar
ea
.
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
Re
gi
on
al
 E
ff
or
t,
 n
ee
d 
pa
rt
ne
rs
16
2n
d 
(l
on
g 
te
rm
) 
bu
ff
er
ed
 b
ik
e 
la
ne
, 
m
ul
ti
-u
se
D
es
ig
n 
en
gi
ne
er
in
g
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
PP
&
R/
PB
O
T
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
PP
&
R/
PB
O
T
N
O
TE
: 
Ph
as
ed
 i
m
pl
em
en
ta
ti
on
. 
Ph
as
e 
1 
to
 i
nc
lu
de
 s
ig
ni
ng
an
d 
st
ri
pi
ng
. 
Ph
as
e 
2 
to
 i
nc
lu
de
 b
uf
fe
re
d 
cy
cl
e 
tr
ac
k 
or
 
m
ul
ti
us
e 
tr
ai
l
In
co
rp
or
at
e 
m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
 in
to
 T
SP
 u
pd
at
e
t
th
PP
&
R
M
ou
nt
 S
co
tt
 /
 S
co
ut
er
s 
M
ou
nt
ai
n 
Tr
ai
l L
oo
p 
Pr
op
os
ed
 Im
pl
em
en
ta
ti
on
 S
tr
at
eg
y
m
ul
ti
-u
se
 t
ra
il
.
In
co
rp
or
at
e 
m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
 in
to
 T
SP
 u
pd
at
e
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
PP
&
R
W
or
k 
w
it
h 
PB
O
T 
on
 id
en
ti
fy
in
g 
st
re
et
 im
pr
ov
em
en
ts
5-
10
PP
&
R/
PB
O
T
Cr
os
si
ng
 s
af
et
y 
im
pr
ov
em
en
ts
 a
t 
SE
 1
58
th
 i
s 
PP
&
R'
s 
pr
io
ri
ty
#3
.
Po
ss
ib
le
 G
eo
te
ch
ni
ca
l D
es
ig
n
5-
10
PP
&
R/
PB
O
T
2D
SE
 1
45
th
 a
nd
 1
47
th
 t
o 
co
nn
ec
t 
th
e 
Bu
tt
es
 N
at
ur
al
 A
re
a 
to
 
th
e 
Sc
ou
te
rs
 M
ou
nt
ai
n 
en
tr
an
ce
 a
nd
 P
ow
er
lin
e 
Tr
ai
l.
  
Al
ig
nm
en
t 
sp
ur
 p
ro
vi
de
s 
a 
co
nn
ec
ti
on
 t
o 
th
e 
to
p 
of
 S
co
ut
er
 
M
ou
nt
ai
n 
vi
a 
an
 e
xi
st
in
g 
ac
ce
ss
 r
oa
d.
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
In
it
ia
te
 p
ur
su
it
 o
f 
fu
nd
in
g/
Ac
qu
ir
e 
fu
nd
in
g
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
Si
gn
 a
nd
 d
ed
ic
at
e 
ex
is
ti
ng
 f
ac
ili
ti
es
 f
or
 im
m
ed
ia
te
 u
se
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
/N
CP
RD
D
es
ig
n 
en
gi
ne
er
in
g
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y 
(I
ns
id
e 
RO
W
)/
N
CP
RD
 
(O
ut
si
de
 R
O
W
)
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y 
(I
ns
id
e 
RO
W
)/
N
CP
RD
 
M
et
ro
 w
ill
 h
av
e 
a 
le
ad
er
sh
ip
 r
ol
e 
w
it
h 
th
is
pr
oc
es
s
2E
**
A 
bi
cy
cl
e 
fa
ci
lit
y 
w
it
hi
n 
SE
 1
62
nd
 a
nd
 V
ra
nd
en
bu
rg
 r
oa
d 
ri
gh
t 
of
 w
ay
 a
s 
w
el
l a
s 
Bo
y 
Sc
ou
ts
 p
ro
pe
rt
y.
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
Si
gn
 a
nd
 d
ed
ic
at
e 
ex
is
ti
ng
 f
ac
ili
ti
es
 f
or
 im
m
ed
ia
te
 u
se
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
W
or
k 
w
it
h 
de
ve
lo
pe
r 
to
 e
ns
ur
e 
re
gi
on
al
 t
ra
il 
st
an
da
rd
s 
ar
e 
m
et
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
M
et
ro
Ac
qu
ir
e 
ea
se
m
en
t 
pr
op
er
ty
 r
ig
ht
s
th
re
e 
to
 fi
ve
N
CP
RD
/H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
M
et
ro
2F
A 
m
ul
ti
-u
se
 a
lig
nm
en
t 
fr
om
 B
oy
 S
co
ut
 L
od
ge
 R
oa
d,
 t
hr
ou
gh
 
pr
iv
at
e 
pa
rc
el
s 
to
 f
or
m
er
 G
ol
f 
Cl
ub
. 
Re
fi
ne
 a
lig
nm
en
t
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
p
p
g
pp
y
y
93February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
IMPLEMENTATIONTable 6-1: Implementation Matrix (cont.)
Se
gm
en
t 
N
um
be
r
A
lig
nm
en
t 
D
es
cr
ip
ti
on
A
ct
io
n(
s)
Ti
m
el
in
e 
(y
rs
)
A
ge
nc
y
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
Es
ta
bl
is
h 
an
 a
dv
oc
ac
y 
gr
ou
p
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
/ 
PP
&
R 
(l
oc
at
io
n 
de
pe
nd
en
t)
Ac
qu
ir
e 
pr
op
er
ty
 r
ig
ht
s
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
 
W
or
k 
w
it
h 
de
ve
lo
pe
rs
 t
o 
en
su
re
 r
eg
io
na
l t
ra
il 
st
an
da
rd
s 
ar
e 
m
et
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
D
es
ig
n 
en
gi
ne
er
in
g*
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
 
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
*
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
 
* 
Co
nd
it
io
n 
of
 a
pp
ro
va
l.
3C
Al
ig
nm
en
t 
co
nn
ec
ts
 t
he
 f
or
m
er
 P
le
as
an
t 
Va
lle
y 
G
ol
f 
Cl
ub
 t
o 
th
e 
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 R
iv
er
 a
lo
ng
 R
oc
k 
Cr
ee
k.
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
im
m
ed
ia
te
N
CP
RD
/H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
Re
fi
ne
 a
lig
nm
en
t
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
N
O
TE
: E
ar
ly
 p
ar
ce
l d
ev
el
op
m
en
t 
lik
el
y 
in
 s
ou
th
, l
es
s 
lik
el
y 
in
 n
or
th
.
Es
ta
bl
is
h 
an
 a
dv
oc
ac
y 
gr
ou
p
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
N
CP
RD
/H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
Ac
qu
ir
e 
pr
op
er
ty
 r
ig
ht
s
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
N
CP
RD
/H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
W
or
k 
w
it
h 
de
ve
lo
pe
rs
 t
o 
en
su
re
 t
ha
t 
re
gi
on
al
 t
ra
il 
st
an
da
rd
s 
ar
e 
m
et
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
N
CP
RD
 
D
et
er
m
in
e 
if
 E
SA
 C
on
su
lt
at
io
n 
is
 n
ee
de
d
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
N
CP
RD
D
es
ig
n 
en
gi
ne
er
in
g*
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
N
CP
RD
/H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
*
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
N
CP
RD
/H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
* 
Co
nd
it
io
n 
of
 a
pp
ro
va
l.
A 
bi
cy
cl
e 
al
ig
nm
en
t 
fr
om
 t
he
 e
xi
st
in
g 
Po
w
er
lin
e 
Tr
ai
l
 o
n 
SE
 
4D
A 
bi
cy
cl
e 
al
ig
nm
en
t 
fr
om
 t
he
 e
xi
st
in
g 
Po
w
er
lin
e 
Tr
ai
l,
 o
n 
SE
 
15
2n
d 
to
 S
un
ny
si
de
 R
oa
d.
  
Th
e 
al
ig
nm
en
t 
tr
av
el
s 
on
 
Su
nn
ys
id
e 
to
 t
he
 in
te
rs
ec
ti
on
 o
f 
Su
nn
ys
id
e 
an
d 
SE
 1
42
nd
.
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
Si
gn
 a
nd
 d
ed
ic
at
e 
ex
is
ti
ng
 f
ac
ili
ti
es
 f
or
 im
m
ed
ia
te
 u
se
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
D
es
ig
n 
en
gi
ne
er
in
g*
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
*
fi
ve
 t
o 
se
ve
n
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
Ph
as
e 
1 
- 
si
gn
 e
xi
st
in
g 
fa
ci
li
ti
es
Ph
as
e 
2 
- 
bu
ff
er
ed
 c
yc
le
tr
ac
k
* 
Co
nd
it
io
n 
of
 a
pp
ro
va
l.
4E
Al
ig
nm
en
t 
co
nn
ec
ts
 a
n 
ex
is
ti
ng
 p
or
ti
on
 o
f 
th
e 
Po
w
er
lin
e 
Tr
ai
l t
o 
H
ig
hw
ay
 2
12
. 
 A
lig
nm
en
t 
fo
llo
w
s 
SE
 1
42
nd
 s
ou
th
 
Br
id
ge
to
n 
St
re
et
, 
th
en
 c
on
ne
ct
s 
to
 t
he
 S
ie
be
n 
D
ra
in
ag
e 
vi
a 
N
CP
RD
 p
ro
pe
rt
y.
  
Th
e 
se
gm
en
t 
fo
llo
w
s 
th
e 
Si
eb
en
 D
ra
in
ag
e 
th
ro
ug
h 
pr
iv
at
e 
pa
rc
el
s 
be
fo
re
 c
on
ne
ct
in
g 
to
 H
ig
hw
ay
 2
12
. 
 
Se
gm
en
t 
co
nt
in
ue
s 
ea
st
 a
nd
 w
es
t 
ne
ar
 H
ig
hw
ay
 2
12
 t
o 
co
nn
ec
t 
to
 R
oc
k 
Cr
ee
k 
an
d 
O
D
O
T 
pr
op
er
ty
.
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
im
m
ed
ia
te
N
CP
RD
Ea
st
/W
es
t 
- 
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
ou
nt
y 
Le
ad
W
or
k 
w
it
h 
O
D
O
T 
to
 e
ns
ur
e 
th
at
 m
ul
ti
-u
se
 p
at
h 
is
 in
te
gr
at
ed
 in
to
 
Su
nr
is
e 
Co
rr
id
or
 p
la
nn
in
g,
 d
es
ig
n 
an
d 
co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
N
or
th
/S
ou
th
 -
 N
CP
RD
 L
ea
d
Be
gi
n 
co
nv
er
sa
ti
on
s 
w
it
h 
ne
ig
hb
or
s 
an
d 
pr
op
er
ty
 o
w
ne
rs
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
fi
ve
 t
o 
te
n
N
CP
RD
/C
la
ck
am
as
 C
o.
/O
D
O
T/
W
ES
Ac
qu
ir
e 
pr
op
er
ty
 r
ig
ht
s
fi
ve
 t
o 
te
n
N
CP
RD
/C
la
ck
am
as
 C
o.
/W
ES
U
pd
at
e 
co
de
 t
o 
re
qu
ir
e 
tr
ai
ls
 w
it
h 
de
ve
lo
pm
en
t
fi
ve
 t
o 
te
n
N
CP
RD
/C
la
ck
am
as
 C
o.
D
es
ig
n 
en
gi
ne
er
in
g*
te
n 
to
 f
if
te
en
N
CP
RD
/C
la
ck
am
as
 C
o.
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
*
te
n 
to
 f
if
te
en
N
CP
RD
/C
la
ck
am
as
 C
o.
*
Co
nd
it
io
n
of
ap
pr
ov
al
 C
on
di
ti
on
 o
f a
pp
ro
va
l.
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201494
IMPLEMENTATION Table 6-1: Implementation Matrix (cont.)
Se
gm
en
t 
N
um
be
r
A
lig
nm
en
t 
D
es
cr
ip
ti
on
A
ct
io
n(
s)
Ti
m
el
in
e 
(y
rs
)
A
ge
nc
y
5D
A 
pe
de
st
ri
an
 h
ik
in
g 
tr
ai
l t
hr
ou
gh
 M
t.
 T
al
be
rt
 u
ti
liz
in
g 
ex
is
ti
ng
 t
ra
il.
  
Pa
th
 c
on
ti
nu
es
 o
n 
M
at
he
r 
w
it
hi
n 
ro
ad
 r
ig
ht
-o
f-
w
ay
. 
Cr
os
sw
al
k 
at
 C
ra
nb
er
ry
.
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
 a
nd
 in
cl
ud
e 
in
 T
SP
 u
pd
at
e.
im
m
ed
ia
te
N
CP
RD
/C
la
ck
am
as
 C
o.
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
im
m
ed
ia
te
N
CP
RD
/C
la
ck
am
as
 C
o.
Si
gn
 a
nd
 d
ed
ic
at
e 
ex
is
ti
ng
 f
ac
ili
ti
es
 f
or
 im
m
ed
ia
te
 u
se
im
m
ed
ia
te
N
CP
RD
/C
la
ck
am
as
 C
o.
5E
A 
bi
cy
cl
e 
fa
ci
lit
y 
be
tw
ee
n 
N
CP
RD
 p
ro
pe
rt
y 
an
d 
ex
is
ti
ng
 
bi
cy
cl
e/
pe
de
st
ri
an
 b
ri
dg
e.
  
Al
ig
nm
en
t 
fo
llo
w
s 
Su
m
m
er
s 
La
ne
 
an
d 
SE
 1
22
nd
.
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
 w
it
h 
TS
P 
up
da
te
.
im
m
ed
ia
te
N
CP
RD
/C
la
ck
am
as
 C
o.
Ac
qu
ir
e 
Ph
as
e 
1 
fu
nd
in
g
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
Si
gn
 a
nd
 d
ed
ic
at
e 
ex
is
ti
ng
 f
ac
ili
ti
es
 f
or
 im
m
ed
ia
te
 u
se
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
N
O
TE
: 
Ph
as
ed
 i
m
pl
em
en
ta
ti
on
. 
Ph
as
e 
1 
to
 i
nc
lu
de
 s
ig
na
ge
.
Ac
qu
ir
e 
Ph
as
e 
2 
fu
nd
in
g
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
/N
CP
RD
in
cl
ud
e 
bu
ff
er
ed
 c
yc
le
 t
ra
ck
.
D
es
ig
n 
en
gi
ne
er
in
g
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
/N
CP
RD
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
/N
CP
RD
5F
An
 o
ff
-s
tr
ee
t 
m
ul
ti
-u
se
 p
at
h 
be
tw
ee
n 
Su
m
m
er
s 
Ro
ad
 a
nd
 t
he
 
Si
eb
en
 D
ra
in
ag
e 
(t
o 
Se
gm
en
t 
4E
).
Re
fi
ne
 a
lig
nm
en
t
im
m
ed
ia
te
N
CP
RD
/C
la
ck
am
as
 C
o.
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
 a
nd
 in
cl
ud
e 
in
 T
SP
 u
pd
at
e.
im
m
ed
ia
te
N
CP
RD
/C
la
ck
am
as
 C
o.
W
or
k 
w
it
h 
O
D
O
T 
to
 e
ns
ur
e 
th
at
 m
ul
ti
-u
se
 p
at
h 
is
 in
te
gr
at
ed
 in
to
 
Su
nr
is
e 
Co
rr
id
or
 p
la
nn
in
g,
 d
es
ig
n 
an
d 
co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
im
m
ed
ia
te
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
/O
D
O
T
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
/N
CP
RD
Ac
qu
ir
e 
pr
op
er
ty
 r
ig
ht
s
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
/N
CP
RD
D
ig
 
gi
i
g
fi
 t
 t
Cl
k
C
/N
CP
RD
D
es
ig
n
en
gi
ne
er
in
g
fi
ve
 t
o 
te
n
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
/N
CP
RD
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
fi
ve
 t
o 
te
n
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
/N
CP
RD
6C
A 
pe
de
st
ri
an
 a
lig
nm
en
t 
fr
om
 t
he
 L
in
co
ln
 H
ei
gh
ts
 c
om
m
un
it
y 
th
ro
ug
h 
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y 
N
at
ur
e 
Pa
rk
 a
nd
 c
on
ti
nu
in
g 
on
 e
xi
st
in
g 
tr
ai
l.
In
it
ia
te
 fu
nd
in
g
te
n 
to
 t
w
en
ty
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
Si
gn
 a
nd
 d
ed
ic
at
e 
ex
is
ti
ng
 fa
ci
lit
ie
s 
fo
r 
im
m
ed
ia
te
 u
se
te
n 
to
 t
w
en
ty
N
CP
RD
Re
fi
ne
 a
lig
nm
en
t 
of
 n
ew
 t
ra
il
te
n 
to
 t
w
en
ty
Cl
ac
ka
m
as
 C
o.
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
te
n 
to
 t
w
en
ty
M
et
ro
N
O
TE
: t
he
se
 p
ar
ce
ls
 m
ay
 b
e 
to
o 
ch
al
le
ng
in
g 
fo
r 
a 
de
ve
lo
pe
r 
to
 p
ur
su
Ac
qu
ir
e 
pr
op
er
ty
 r
ig
ht
s
te
n 
to
 t
w
en
ty
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
M
ay
 n
ee
d 
to
 b
e 
ag
en
cy
 d
ri
ve
n
D
es
ig
n 
en
gi
ne
er
in
g
te
n 
to
 t
w
en
ty
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
te
n 
to
 t
w
en
ty
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
6D
Al
ig
nm
en
t 
fo
llo
w
s 
M
t.
 S
co
tt
 B
ou
le
va
rd
 a
nd
 S
E 
12
9t
h 
w
it
hi
n 
ro
ad
 r
ig
ht
-o
f-
w
ay
.
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
In
it
ia
te
 P
ha
se
 1
 f
un
di
ng
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
Si
gn
 a
nd
 d
ed
ic
at
e 
ex
is
ti
ng
 f
ac
ili
ti
es
 f
or
 im
m
ed
ia
te
 u
se
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
N
O
TE
: 
Ph
as
ed
 i
m
pl
em
en
ta
ti
on
. 
Ph
as
e 
1 
to
 i
nc
lu
de
 s
ig
na
ge
.
In
it
ia
te
 P
ha
se
 2
 f
un
di
ng
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
in
cl
ud
e 
bu
ff
er
ed
 c
yc
le
 t
ra
ck
.
D
es
ig
n 
en
gi
ne
er
in
g
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
fi
ve
 t
o 
se
ve
n
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
*T
op
 p
ri
or
it
y 
fo
r 
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
95February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
Se
gm
en
t 
N
um
be
r
Al
ig
nm
en
t 
De
sc
ri
pt
io
n
Ac
ti
on
(s
)
Ti
m
el
in
e 
(y
rs
)
Ag
en
cy
6E
A 
pe
de
st
ri
an
 a
lig
nm
en
t 
be
tw
ee
n 
ex
is
ti
ng
 c
om
m
un
it
y 
tr
ai
l 
an
d 
M
t.
 T
al
be
rt
 t
ra
ilh
ea
d.
Fo
rm
al
ly
 a
do
pt
 m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
t
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
im
m
ed
ia
te
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
De
te
rm
in
e 
if
 E
SA
 C
on
su
lt
at
io
n 
is
 n
ee
de
d
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
De
si
gn
 e
ng
in
ee
ri
ng
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y/
N
CP
RD
*T
op
 p
ri
or
it
y 
fo
r 
H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y
7C
Al
ig
nm
en
t 
w
it
hi
n 
M
t.
 S
co
tt
 B
ou
le
va
rd
 r
ig
ht
-o
f-
w
ay
.
In
cl
ud
e 
m
as
te
r 
pl
an
 a
lig
nm
en
ts
 in
 T
SP
 u
pd
at
e
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
PP
&
R
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
PP
&
R
De
si
gn
 e
ng
in
ee
ri
ng
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
PP
&
R/
PB
O
T
Co
ns
tr
uc
ti
on
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
PP
&
R/
PB
O
T
PP
&
R'
s 
pr
io
ri
ty
 #
2.
7D
Li
nc
ol
n 
M
em
or
ia
l P
ar
k 
Ce
m
et
er
y 
al
ig
nm
en
t.
Es
ta
bl
is
h 
us
e 
ag
re
em
en
t 
w
it
h 
Li
nc
ol
n 
M
em
or
ia
l
on
e 
to
 t
hr
ee
M
et
ro
/P
P&
R
In
it
ia
te
 f
un
di
ng
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
PP
&
R
Si
gn
 a
nd
 d
ed
ic
at
e 
ex
is
ti
ng
 f
ac
ili
ti
es
 f
or
 p
ub
lic
 u
se
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
M
et
ro
/P
P&
R
Ac
qu
ir
e 
ea
se
m
en
t 
fr
om
 L
in
co
ln
 M
em
or
ia
l
th
re
e 
to
 f
iv
e
M
et
ro
/P
P&
R
* 
PB
O
T 
is
 r
es
po
ns
ib
le
 fo
r 
im
pr
ov
em
en
ts
 o
n‐
st
re
et
 R
O
W
 a
nd
 P
P&
R 
is
 r
es
po
ns
ib
le
 fo
r 
of
f‐
st
re
et
 R
O
W
.
**
 N
CP
RD
 ‐ 
Pr
im
ar
y 
co
nt
ro
l w
it
h 
m
ul
ti
‐u
se
 t
ra
ils
. H
ap
py
 V
al
le
y 
ta
ke
s 
co
nt
ro
l w
it
h 
ro
ad
 d
ev
el
op
m
en
t.
Table 6-1: Implementation Matrix (cont.)
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201496
IMPLEMENTATION
Permitting
The purpose of this section of the report is to review resource 
agency permitting requirements associated with construction of 
the proposed trail in the Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop 
system.
State and Federal Agencies
Wetlands are subject to the jurisdiction of both the Oregon 
Department of State Lands (DSL) and the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (USACE). Limited areas within the proposed trail corridor 
meet the wetland jurisdictional criteria of both these agencies (see 
Boardwalk locations in Figure 3-1). Disturbance to these resources 
as a result of trail construction will require permits from each of 
these agencies. Permit requirements will include plans for mitigating 
resource impacts.
Formal studies will need to be conducted for wetlands and stream 
areas impacted by trail plans.
Findings of these studies will need to be submitted for agency 
concurrence to support wetland fill permit applications.
Impacts for any disturbance below the ordinary high water mark 
(OHWM) of streams where crossings are proposed would come 
under the more detailed process for Endangered Species Act (ESA) 
compliance if streams are listed as salmonid habitat. The permitting 
process for this work would start with an agency consultation with 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to determine what level 
of biological assessment would be required. NMFS would review 
the nature of the disturbance, the anticipated duration of the 
disturbance, alternative designs, and mitigation of unavoidable 
impacts to the stream and wetland. After consultation with NMFS, 
one of two processes will be completed: (1) a basic abbreviated 
Biological Assessment (BA) outlining project impacts and mitigation 
or (2) a more detailed Biological Opinion (BO) with formal agency 
consultation. The abbreviated BA is typically a six-month process. The 
BO process is a typically a one-year process.
Some portions of the trail may come under National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and require an Environmental 
Assessment (EA), depending on the funding sources (e.g., Federal).
local Jurisdictions
Construction of the trail project may result in disturbance to 
protected resources that require mitigation in compliance with local 
agency regulations (see Table 2-1 in the Existing Conditions chapter). 
Resource enhancement within the project area will likely be a key 
97February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
component in any project mitigation plan. Mitigation to address 
impacts to wetlands could include enhancement of existing low-
quality wetland areas. Other wetland mitigation options include 
restoration of historic wetland or creation of wetland in an area of 
upland.
Wetland impacts could be reduced by using a boardwalk trail 
alternative. Impacts under this alternative could be limited to the 
boardwalk footings, depending on the height of the structure.
Low-value wetlands adjacent to the boardwalk could be enhanced by 
planting dense wetland shrub and tree species.
Mitigation for impacts could include enhancing upland areas in or 
near the project area determined to be in “degraded” or “marginal” 
condition. This enhancement could include some combination of 
invasive species removal, native shrub and tree planting and, in 
some cases, supplementing existing native herbaceous cover with 
plantings.
other Permits
Construction of the trail project near Oregon Highway 224 will 
require coordination and permitting from the Oregon Department 
of Transportation (ODOT). Early coordination for the crossing 
improvements at the highway is strongly advised.
Cost Analysis
The construction cost estimate for the Mount Scott/Scouters 
Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan was developed based on a linear 
foot cost in 2012 dollars for each trail type specified within the 
master plan. Trail types identified include: 
•	 Multi-use Trail: Outside of Right-of-Way
•	 Multi-use Trail: Inside of Right-of-Way
•	 Separated Sidewalk
•	 Buffered Cycle Track
•	 Under Crossing
•	 Pedestrian Trail
•	 Boardwalk
In addition, costs are included for a pre-fabricated pedestrian bridge 
at anticipated river or stream crossings. Costs for roadway crossing 
improvements include lighting, signage, sidewalk ramps, and 
cross walks. An additional cost for extensive trail signage has been 
included for segments 1, 2, and 6 due to the trail bifurcations and 
number of potential trail connections/destinations associated with 
these segments. Trail segments 1 and 3 include areas of difficult 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 201498
IMPLEMENTATION
terrain for trail construction. A “Technical Contingency” cost of 15% 
has been added to these segments to account for additional grading, 
walls, or other engineered structures required to construct trails 
within these sections. 
The estimated construction costs are organized based on trail 
segments one through seven, as described in the master plan. Costs 
included are based on current dollars and were developed using unit 
prices from recent construction projects. An inflation factor of 2% 
per year was used to develop the 5- and 10-year costs
Table 3-2 summarizes the estimated construction costs per trail 
segment:
Table 3-2. Estimated Construction Costs Per Trail Segment
Segment
Estimated Construction Cost
2012 Dollars 2017 Dollars 2022 Dollars
1 $12.4 M $13.7 M $15.1 M
2 $13.3 M $14.7 M $16.2 M
3 $5.1 M $5.6 M $6.2 M
4 $7.2 M $8.0 M $8.8 M
5 $5.6 M $6.2 M $6.8 M
6 $7.1 M $7.8 M $8.7 M
7 $5.1 M $5.6 M $6.2 M
Total $55.8 M $61.6 M $68.0 M
The detailed cost estimates and a list of assumptions used in 
developing the estimates are included in Appendix J.
Maintenance and operations 
Both labor and funding resources required for maintenance of the 
Trail Loop may be higher than trails built in less environmentally 
dynamic conditions. Portions of the trail will need to be built in 
wetlands, forested/shaded areas, and sloping areas possibly requiring 
retaining structures and/or railings. 
Following is a summary of typical trail maintenance tasks and the 
anticipated frequency required for each task. Since materials, finishes, 
infrastructure, and various amenities associated with bridge or tunnel 
structures are not known at the time of this report, maintenance 
tasks are limited to trail facilities only. Inspection of trail facilities 
will be required annually or semiannually to establish the need for 
conducting each task.
99February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
IMPLEMENTATION
Table 3-3. Typical Trail Maintenance Tasks and Schedule
Task Schedule
Clean pavement/boardwalk Spring, biweekly in fall
Repair/replace trail amenities, furnishings As required based on inspections
Remove flood debris Late winter, late spring
Repair damage, natural causes or 
vandalism
Prioritize based on inspections
Replace/repair signs 2-3 years
Seal/repair asphalt pavement 4-12 years
Trim/clear vegetation at trail edge Early summer, late fall
Remove/dispose trash Weekly May-Sept., then bimonthly
Replace crosswalk markings 1-3 years
Clear drainage ditches, culverts As required based on inspections
Maintain animal waste bag dispensers/
receptacles
Biweekly
This list includes tasks that occur frequently and does not include 
major repair or replacement of trail materials that may be required 
after 15-20 years.
The costs associated with maintenance of trail segments within 
the Trail Loop project can vary widely depending on the type of 
trail, amount of use, incidents of vandalism, wildlife and insect 
activity, decisions about construction materials (for example, 
conventional asphalt or porous paving), and the actual frequency 
(versus estimated frequency) that a task is deemed necessary. 
That being said, an average level of maintenance can be assumed 
based on the maintenance history of similar projects and used as 
a starting point for estimating annual budget level maintenance 
costs for one mile of trail.
Table 3-4. Average Level of Annual Maintenance Per Mile
Task Estimated Avg. Annual Cost per Mile
Clean pavement/boardwalk $1,500
Repair/replace trail amenities, furnishings $1,000
Repair damage, natural causes or vandalism $2,000
Replace/repair signs $750
Seal/repair asphalt pavement $500
Trim/clear vegetation at trail edge $2,000
Remove/dispose trash $1,500
Repaint crosswalk markings $750
Clear drainage ditches, culverts $2,000
Maintain animal waste bag dispensers/receptacles Included in trash 
disposal above
Total $12,000
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 2014100
This page was intentionally left blank.
REFERENCES
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 2014102
This page was intentionally left blank.
103February 2014 | Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
r e F e r e n c e s
American Association of  State Highway and Transportation Official . (1999). AASHTO 
Guide for Development of  Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC. www.transportation.org
Clackamas County. (2011). Clackamas County Comprehensive Plan. http://www.clackamas.us/
transportation/planning/comprehensive/
City of  Happy Valley, August 2012. Happy Valley Municipal Code. 
City of  Happy Valley. (2011). Happy Valley Transportation System Plan. http://www.ci.happy-
valley.or.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=829
City of  Portland, April 2012.The Portland Plan
. 
City of  Portland. (2006). City of  Portland Comprehensive Plan. http://www.portlandonline.com/
bps/index.cfm?c=34249
Clackamas County Water and Environment Services, June 2009. Rock Creek Watershed 
Action Plan. 
Clackamas County Water and Environment Services. June 2009. Watershed Action Plan, 
Kellogg/Mount Scott Watershed. 
 
Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). 
Washington, DC. http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov
Federal Highway Administration. (2005). Report HRT-04-100, Safety Effects of  Marked Versus 
Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations. http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/04100/
Federal Highway Administration. (1999). Designing Sidewalks and Trails or Access. http://www.
fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sdiewalks/index.htm
Johnson Creek Watershed Council. Johnson Creek Watershed Action Plan: An Adaptive 
Approach. 
Metro 2012: RLIS Live, Geographic Information System data.
Metro, January 2012. Urban Growth Management Functional Plan. 
 
Metro. (2012). The Intertwine Regional Trail Signage Guidelines.
Metro. (2004). Green Trails: Guidelines for Environmentally Friendly Trails.
Metro. (2003). Metro Greenspaces Master Plan and Regional Trails System Map. http://www.
oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=595
Metro, June 2003. Regional Trails & Greenways: Connecting neighborhoods to nature. 
Multnomah County. (2005). Multnomah County Transportation System Plan. http://web.multco.
us/sites/default/files/transpo tation-planning/documents/mult_co_urb_pockets_tsp.pdf
North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District website, accessed June 2012. http://ncprd.
com/parks-and-trails. 
Mount Scott/Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan | February 2014104
r e F e r e n c e s
North Clackamas County Parks and Recreation District. (2004). NCPRD Parks and 
Recreation Master Plan. http://ncprd.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/North_
Clackamas_County_Parks_Plan1.pdf
National Center on Accessibility. (Fall 2001, revised October 2007). Trail Surfaces: 
What Do I Need to Know? http://www.ncaonline.org
Natural Resources Program Annual Report 2010-2011. North Clackamas Parks and 
Recreation District. 
Oregon Historic Site Database, accessed February 2012. heritagedata.prd.state.or.us/
historic.
Portland Bureau of  Transportation, February 2010.Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030.
 
Portland Bureau of  Environmental Studies website, accessed June 2012. www.
portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/214282 Johnson Creek Watershed History.
 
Portland Bureau of  Environmental Studies website, accessed June 2012. www.
portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/214247 Biological Communities in the Johnson 
Creek Watershed. 
 
Portland Bureau of  Environmental Studies website, accessed June 2012. www.
portlandoregon.gov/bes/article/214233 Johnson Creek Watershed Habitat. 
 
Portland Bureau of  Planning, January 1991. Portland Zoning Code. 
Portland Parks & Recreation. May 2009. Trail Design Guidelines for Portland’s Park 
System.
Portland Parks & Recreation. June 2006.Recreational Trails Strategy. 
Portland Parks & Recreation, November 2006.Natural Area Acquisition Strategy. 
 
Portland Parks & Recreation, March 2009.Clatsop Butte Park Master Plan. 
 
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. (1998). Rail-Trails and Safe Communities.
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. (2000). Rail-Trails and Liability: A Pimer on Trail-related 
Liability Issues & Risk Management Techniques.
State of  Oregon. (2011). Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) Chapter 105 Public Use of  Lands.
State of  Oregon. (Ongoing). State of  Oregon/DEQ Reports on environmental 
problems in project area. http://www.deq.state.or.us/lq/ECSI/ecsi.htm
http://theintertwine.org/sites/theintertwine.org/files/file_att hments/
Intertwine%20Regional%20Trail%20Signage%20Guidelines.pdf
United States Access Board. (2006). Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines 
(PROWAG). Wahsington, DC. http://www.access-board.gov/PROWAG/
alterations//guide.htm
Vegetation Studies (http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?c=39872)
APPENDix A
PAC Meeting Agendas/Minutes
This page was intentionally left blank.
Meeting Agenda 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\Trail Recon Field Trip_2011_11_17\MS-SM Trail Kickoff-Recon Agenda 111711.doc 
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
Phone (503) 635-3618
Fax (503) 635-5395
The proposed Mt. Scott – Scouters Mountain (MS-SM) Trail will serve as a multi-use commuter and 
recreational trail connecting the Springwater Corridor regional trail to the Clackamas River.  The trail 
alignment will be roughly 16.5 miles in length and cross through several jurisdictions including the 
City of Portland, Clackamas County, and the City of Happy Valley. The completed trail will serve 
both recreational users and commuters and link parks, greenways, wildlife refuges, schools, town 
centers, employment areas and neighborhoods, while also protecting water quality and natural and 
cultural resources. 
 
The meeting format will include both workshop and field reconnaissance. Each jurisdiction will have 
the opportunity to identify possible trail routes and discuss solutions to challenging segments.  
 
8:30–10:20  Pre-Tour Meeting (Happy Valley City Hall) 
8:35-8:40  Introductions/Meeting objectives (Metro) 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouter’s Loop Trail Master Plan
Kick-off/Site Reconnaissance 
 
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: November 17, 2011
Meeting Time: 8:30 am
Location: Happy Valley City Hall
Expected 
Attendees: 
George Hudson, Karen Vitkay – Alta
Russell Aldridge - Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery / 
Dignity Memorial  
Ugo Dilullo, Bill Garity, Lori Mastrantonio– Clackamas 
County 
Jason Tuck, Michael Walter - Happy Valley 
Leif Anderson, Kate Holleran, Mel Huie, John Mermin,   
Elaine Stewart, Molly Vogt – Metro 
Katie Dunham – North Clackamas Parks and 
Recreation Dept. 
Janet Alley - North Clackamas School District 
Bret Richardson – ODOT 
Mandy Flett, David Haynes, Amanda Owings, Dave 
Siegel – Otak  
Emily Roth – Portland 
 
Meeting Agenda – Mt Scott-Scouters Mtn Trail Loop 
November 17, 2011  Page 2 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\Trail Recon Field Trip_2011_11_17\MS-SM Trail Kickoff-Recon Agenda 111711.doc 
8:40-8:50  Project Overview (Metro/NCPRD) 
- Project objectives, guiding principles 
- Trail types: fully accessible, roadside, foot path 
 8:50-9:20  Trail alignment workshop (All – Otak/Alta to facilitate) 
- identify known trail route possibilities 
- identify challenging trail segments 
 9:20-9:30  Short break 
 9:30-10:20  Establish tour route based on workshop (All – Otak/Alta to facilitate) 
- Identify stop locations, durations 
- Record, copy, and distribute tour plan to drivers 
 
10:30–12:30 Trail Reconnaissance - participants will ride together in vans. 
 
12:30–1:00  Sack Lunch (location?) 
 
1:00–3:00  Trail Reconnaissance 
 
3:00–3:30  Wrap-up Discussion (City Hall)  
- Review issues, opportunities 
- Next Steps 
 
Note: Bring sack lunch, camera, water, walking shoes/boots, and weather-appropriate gear.  
 
Meeting Minutes 
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR  97035
Phone (503) 635-3618
Fax (503) 635-5395
 
Mel Huie, co-project manager with Metro, opened the meeting by giving a little background on the 
project. The proposed trail will serve as a multi-use commuter and recreation trail connecting the 
Springwater Corridor regional trail to the Clackamas River. The trail alignment will be roughly 16.5 
miles in length and cross through several jurisdictions. 
 
Mel then asked the committee members to introduce themselves and describe their role on the 
project. He also requested that during this time to start thinking about potential alignments and 
opportunities and constraints. 
 
Project Advisory Committee Attendees 
Name Organization Email Project Role 
Michael Walter City of Happy 
Valley 
michaelw@ci.happy-valley.or.us Economic and Community 
Development aspects for Happy 
Valley 
Carol Earle City of Happy 
Valley 
carole@ci.happy-valley.or.us Engineering Manager and will 
oversee development projects 
Rich Feucht City of Happy 
Valley 
richf@ci.happy-valley.or.us GIS Specialist 
Justin Popilek City of Happy 
Valley 
justinp@ci.happy-valley.or.us Initial plan review 
Peter Lent Community of 
Future of Damascus 
pclent@comcast.net Observer 
Kate Holleran Metro Kate.holleran@oregonmetro.gov Scientist looking for opportunities, 
enhancements, and protection of 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouter's Loop Trail Master Plan Kick-
off/Site Reconnaissance  
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: November 17, 2011
Meeting Time: 8:30 am
Location: Happy Valley City Hall
Attendees: Michael Walter, Carol Earle, Rich Feucht, Justin 
Popilek, Peter Lent, Kate Holleran, Emily Roth, 
David Siegel, John Mermin, Amanda Owings, Russell 
Aldridge, Leif Anderson, Jeff Johnson, John Berry, 
Michael Oleson, Bill Garrity, Lynn Barlow, Lori 
Mastrantonio, Janet Alley, Dan Moeller, David 
Haynes, George Hudson, Karen Vitkay, Mel Huie, 
Mandy Flett, Katie Dunham, Elaine Stewart  
Minutes By: Mandy Flett
Meeting Minutes 
November 17, 2011   Page 2 
 
 
Name Organization Email Project Role 
natural resources 
Emily Roth Portland Parks and 
Recreation 
Emily.roth@portlandoregon.gov Natural Resource and trail planner
David Siegel Otak David.siegel@otak.com Lead facilitator 
John Mermin Metro John.mermin@oregonmetro.gov Long Range Planner with an interest 
in bike and ped 
Amanda Owings Otak Amanda.owings@otak.com Project Engineer 
Russell Aldridge Lincoln Memorial 
Park 
Russell.aldridge@dignitymemorial.com Main contact at cemetery, concerns 
regarding possible impacts 
Leif Anderson Metro Leif.anderson@oregonmetro.gov Acquisitions in regards to trail 
management 
Jeff Johnson Metro Jeff.johnson@oregonmetro.gov Volunteer with Metro
John Berry Happy Valley 
Resident 
Jdberry50@yahoo.com Retired Forest Service/community 
member 
Michael Oleson Clackamas County michaelole@co.clackamas.or.us Inspector 
Bill Garrity Clackamas County billg@co.clackamas.or.us Constructability 
Lynn Barlow Portland Parks and 
Recreation 
Lynn.barlow@portlandoregon.gov Natural Resources Manager 
interested in the preservation of 
natural resources 
Lori Mastrantonio Clackamas County lorim@co.clackamas.or.us
 
Engineer, Coordination of 
unincorporated area of Clackamas, 
management of Comp Plan 
Amendment, grant writing 
Janet Alley NCSD 
Transportation 
alleyj@nclack.k12.or.us Safe routes to school for children
Dan Moeller Metro Dan.moeller@oregonmetro.gov Natural area land management, 
Alignment development and long-
range maintenance  
David Haynes Otak David.haynes@otak.com Consultant Project Manager
George Hudson Alta Planning georgehudson@altaplanning.com Consultant Co-project Manager
Karen Vitkay Alta Planning karenvitkay@altaplanning.com Landscape Architect 
Mel Huie Metro Mel.huie@oregonmetro.gov Project Manager 
Mandy Flett Otak Mandy.flett@otak.com Coordinator/Planner
Katie Dunham NCPRD kdunham@clackamas.us Co-Project Manager 
Elaine Stewart Metro Elaine.stewart@oregonmetro.gov Scientist with an interest in wildlife 
habitat and crossings integration 
 
Before Mel handed the floor over to the consultant project managers David Haynes (Otak) and 
George Hudson (Alta), he noted that there will be a Mt. Scott/Scouters Mountain. Loop webpage 
on Metro’s website which will be developed by Mel and Katie Dunham, co-project manager with 
North Clackamas Parks and Recreation. This webpage will also contain a link to the Intertwine 
Alliance website (an alliance with all local government agencies, non-profits, and community 
members to support the natural areas, parks, and trails throughout the Metro region).  
 
Due to the small budget, Katie and Mel will be the main avenues of all communication. They will 
also be responsible for all community outreach and one-on-ones with key stakeholders and possibly 
property owners that could be impacted by an alignment. 
 
Meeting Minutes 
November 17, 2011   Page 3 
 
 
Before the group began a brainstorming exercise, George asked if each segment of the trail will 
apply the same standards. He noted that as a group, we need to come to an agreement regarding 
what those standards are and where they will be applied. In general, what are things that the design 
team needs to think about when developing the alternatives? The following is a list of concepts from 
the brainstorming exercise: 
• This is a transportation and recreation trail. 
• ADA will need to be incorporated as much as possible to receive federal funding. 
• Property acquisitions must comply with the Uniform Act of 1970 for acquisitions – rules need to 
be followed to be eligible for federal funds.  
• Mt Talbert is a bike-free area and the team may need to consider a parallel route for bikes. 
• One of the biggest concerns/constraints is the general topography of the area.  
• If the bike trail needs to deviate from the walking path, please be sure to make it a safe and 
clearly defined route.  
• Dogs might be an issue, specifically within City of Portland limits. 
o Possible jurisdictional chart of dog laws. 
• The ideal trail type is paved, 10’ wide, with 2’ shoulders, and ADA compliant. 
• Pedestrian trail could be separate from bike trails, if needed. 
• Portions of the trail could be in the street right-of-way (ROW), bike only or both.  
o Continuity is key.  
o In street ROW trail will be separated with a planter if space allows.  
o If you are putting the bike lane on a busy street where the facility is already narrow, a cycle 
track or other separation options may be explored. 
• Stakeholders will need to be in consensus for high likelihood of construction, which will involve 
willing sellers. If we can’t reach an agreement with owners, then the design team will need to 
look at different alternatives. As alternatives are being developed, key stakeholders will need 
ongoing coordination. Metro will ask Leif Anderson to be present when meeting with property 
owners. 
• Separated paths are good for Safe Routes to Schools (SRTS). 
• Goal of the project is to have 75% of Regional Trail separated from traffic/off-street. This does 
include the buffered examples. 
o Need to consider the future build-out, refer to the TSP. 
• Portions of the existing trails don’t currently meet ADA requirements; when on-street, we will 
meet the grade requirements already established by the roadway. 
• Multi-use path cannot have stairways. 
• What grade is acceptable? It was suggested that one standard applies from node to node. 
o Steep sections equate to “high challenge” areas for ADA individuals; team should look at 
having pullouts as resting areas. 
• Have any studies been completed in regards to how many people will use the trail once it is 
completed? At this time we do not, but this could be part of the analysis.  
o Metro has recent trail counts on Springwater Corridor 
Meeting Minutes 
November 17, 2011   Page 4 
 
 
• Industrial land is planned in Happy Valley and large employment centers exist throughout 
Clackamas – how can we assist employers to emphasize getting their employees out of their cars 
and look into using the trail network? 
• The design team suggested creating a basis of design report for the Project Advisory Committee 
to review and comment on prior to the development of alternatives. 
• ODOT has been asked about ADA. PM generally said that it all needs to be ADA. This has yet 
to be determined. Addressing ADA needs to be a major chapter in the report. 
• When developing alternatives we could consider high and low cost options and then you can 
come back and provide upgrades. In doing this, the trail may deviate from the long range vision, 
and sometimes interim solutions become the final solution. 
 
George then asked the group what the key criteria are when developing the alternatives:  
• Decision making 
• Connectivity 
• Environmental Impacts 
• Directness of route 
• Ability to improve wildlife crossing 
• Safety (seclusion, lighting for parents with kids using trail for school) 
• Protection of natural resource 
• Cost to maintain over time 
• Accessibility 
• Reduction in user conflict, example – use as transportation vs. bird watching, need to have 
turnouts. 
• Aesthetic and design – high quality user experience (buffers, planters, trail bridges, viewing areas) 
can be based upon alternatives that are chosen 
• Highlight key viewpoints 
• Balance between natural resources and the trail itself, placement is key. 
• Sustainable practices: low irrigation, materials, maintenance – landscaping and hardscape 
• Private property impacts: looking at concern of increase of public activity through/next to 
private land (residential)  
• Emerald necklace concept – several destinations along the trail alignment 
• Habitat connectivity 
• Ease of access from public parking areas 
 
George asked if cost is a key factor for this project? For construction?  
• Group consensus: Not really just as long as there is a focus on the maintenance cost 
• Katie noted that all partners will own this trail. We will need consensus as a group of agencies on 
this trail Master Plan.  
• Need first phase of this project to be successful, everyone needs to support everyone. Goal of 
master plan is to give agencies a tool to be successful in developing the trail segments. 
 
Meeting Minutes 
November 17, 2011   Page 5 
 
 
Trail Alignment Options: Opportunities and Constraints 
 
David gave a high level overview of the trail plan. He outlined the seven segments and noted that 
two alignment possibilities will be developed for each segment. 
 
Portland Park and Recreations Segment 1 
• Add contours to existing maps (roll maps used at this meeting) to get a better idea of land types.  
• East Buttes Natural Area – requested no dogs and soft-surface trail – possibly locate trails at the 
edge so that we do not fragment natural area that exists today.  
• Existing trail opportunities next to the Campfire property. 
• Alignment idea from City of Portland: bring this trail west toward Foster Rd/Johnson 
Creek/Springwater Trail. There are opportunities to connect to the I-205 bike path and then link 
up to the Springwater Corridor (look at getting a copy from Emily Roth). 
• Best Johnson Creek crossing? Near East Lents rest area. 
• May be ideal to build undercrossing at Foster Road/Johnson Creek. 
• Bikes? Refer to the City of Portland’s Bicycle Master Plan if looking at a split trail. 
• Refer to the “East-Side In Motion” plan (PBOT), it has identified priority projects. 
• Foster Corridor Master Plan is being developed at this time. Look at a wildlife crossings. 
• No dogs in PPR Natural Areas and some parks. Issue is the off-leash dogs bringing in non-
native plants, defecation, etc. No $ for enforcement.  
• Emily will check in with BES regarding the East Lents Restoration plans as they are buying land 
at this time.  
 
Scouters Mt. Segment 2 
• Opportunities for getting to the top exist. 
• Top of the mountain is Metro-owned land, with easement across Boy Scout property for access. 
• Cultural and historic resources exist. 
• Picnic shelter will be placed on the old Boy Scouts’ lodge site (top of mountain). 
• Try to establish a trail on the mountain itself. 
• Vehicle access to the shelter will be maintained (existing paved road). 
o Existing road could be used a multi-modal path 
• Heavily forested = wildlife habitat. 
• Don’t fragment natural space more than it is now. 
• There are some private lands but the majority is City of Portland/ Metro. Portland currently 
maintains. 
o There has been contact with property owners, the doors are not shut at this time. The 
properties are already fragmented so the trail would go in those existing areas. 
• No studies for vegetation, environmental, etc. have been done at this time. 
• Opportunity to locate trail on the edges of the large natural areas. 
• Wildlife crossings are something that needs to be incorporated. 
Meeting Minutes 
November 17, 2011   Page 6 
 
 
• Extremely steep slopes 
• Boy Scouts own a large portion of the area, but the other areas would be protected for wetlands, 
steep slopes, and drainages. 
• Homeowners Association would be in place if parcels did sell to developers, design would need 
to determine where access points will need to be incorporated. 
• Metro – how to determine long-range, do not have a lot of data for wildlife. Consider what we 
do have from a natural elements user standpoint. 
 
Cemetery 
• Respect and dignity is very important. 
• There are gates that automatically close, but could look at making a route through the area and 
determine what times that it would be open for the trail users. 
• Trail will likely be on existing roadway to not disrupt existing plots.  
• Avoid the newer areas or specific sections of the cemetery where people will be visiting often. 
• Locate trail in older areas, covered awning areas that do not see many visitors. 
• Dog policy – not sure what the policy is for Willamette National, but at Lincoln Memorial dogs 
are allowed. 
• Mel noted that he knows someone who has a father in military and is buried in Willamette 
National. They also have a Chinese section. 
• Russ has two contacts that he will pass onto Mel. 
• Walkers/runners are not allowed in Willamette National. 
• National cemeteries have different rules. 
• Recently, public member gave 84+ acres to Willamette National; Russ to look into further. 
• Update maps with publicly owned lands. 
• Memorial and Veterans Day will be extremely busy times, potential conflict with trail users. 
 
Happy Valley-owned Properties 
• Some of the areas are built. 
o Nature park area which is currently gravel 
o HOA property – paved and maintained by City 
o On-street (separated by a green strip) 
o Gravel (sewer easement) looking at getting grants 
o Looking at grants to get to Sunnyside Road 
• Really steep near creek, look at a detention pond. 
• Look at creek crossing at Sunnyside/117th, may need to work with consulting engineer for plans.  
• City has steep slopes overlay: 15%-25% can be developed; over 25% cannot.  
• Can we put a trail in a Conservation area? Yes? Not paved and not as wide as a regional trail. 
• Happy Valley Hiker Maps – shows sewer easements that are possibilities for trails. 
 
Meeting Minutes 
November 17, 2011   Page 7 
 
 
Segment 5 
• Crossing at Mather Road, opportunity to create a safe crossing for pedestrians and critters. 
• Sunrise Corridor Plan has some bike/ped ideas incorporated in the design. 
• Use some existing bike lanes? 
• SE 122nd to 132nd loop has a grant from safe routes to school program. 
• SE 122nd has opportunity for enhancements. 
• Schools do not have connectivity besides vehicle access. Look at providing a safe route. 
• Habitat corridor – push the trail up on the terrace area, adding in landing points. 
• HOA ownerships may be an issue. 
• Pleasant Valley Golf Course site – there may be requirements for developers to have trails 
throughout property. 
• Equestrian use in this area? 
• Mountain bike trail areas under the power corridor?  
• If some land is sold to private developers, there may be trail opportunities. 
• Happy Valley Park that is a walk-through trail. Not a safe trail due to lighting issues. 
• Can we use 2006 Metro bond measures to purchase wildlife and trail corridors? 
• Use “dark sky” measures when looking at lighting for the trail. 
 
To see additional and more detailed notes on possible alignments, please see the attached marked up 
maps.  
 
At this time the group broke off into two groups and started the field tour portion of the meeting. 
 
Meeting Adjourned at 11:25 am. 
 
This information has been recorded in accordance with our applicable standard of professional 
care. If we do not receive any comments within five days of receipt, we will finalize these minutes 
as drafted for the project file. 
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 





  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 

  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
Meeting Agenda 
 
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
 
 
1. Introductions (Mel: 05 min.) 
 
2. Overview of key discussion items from November 2011 kick-off (David/George: 20 min.) 
 
3. Review of Feb 28 field trip findings (George: 10 min.) 
 
4. Development of trail alternatives status (George: 30 min.) 
 
5. Overview of Public Involvement program (Mel: 20 min.) 
a. Open House – June 7, 2012 from 5:30-8:00 pm (Happy Valley City Hall) 
b. Stakeholder Interview Process 
c. Engaging the Public, Adjacent Property Owners, Businesses, Other Government Agencies, 
Schools, Neighborhood Organizations, Trail Users, Recreation Groups, et. al. 
 
6. Wrap up/Next steps (David/George/Mel:  05 min.) 
 
Need more information or Questions?  Contact mel.huie@oregonmetro.gov  503.797.1731 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouter Mt. Loop Trail Master Plan: 
Project Advisory Committee Meeting #2 
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: Thursday, March 22, 2012
Meeting Time: 2:00-3:30 pm
Location: Happy Valley City Hall, 16000 SE Misty Drive 
2nd floor meeting space 
Expected 
Attendees: 
Carlotta Collette, Shirley Craddick Metro Council; Councilor 
Michael Morrow; Katie Dunham, N. Clackamas Parks and 
Recreation District; Janet Alley, North Clackamas School 
District; Russell Aldridge, Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery; 
Bill Garity, Clackamas Co.; Lori Mastrantonio, Clackamas 
County Transportation and Land Use; Mike Oleson, 
Clackamas County; Michael Walter, Carol Earle, Rich 
Feucht, Justin Popilek, city of Happy Valley; John Berry, 
Happy Valley Citizen; Emily Roth, Lynn Barlow, Portland 
Parks and Recreation; Peter Lent, Community of Future of 
Damascus; Bret Richards, ODOT 
Mel Huie, Dan Moeller, Elaine Stewart, John Mermin, Kate 
Holleran, Leif Anderson, Tim Richard, Metro; 
Jeff Johnson, Volunteer for Metro Trails; David Haynes, 
Mandy Flett, Otak; George Hudson, Karen Vitkay, Alta 
Planning 
Meeting Agenda  Page 2 
Thursday, January 26, 2012    
Mt. Scott / Scouter Mt. Trail Loop Master Plan 
List of Invitees to Project Advisory Committee Meeting No. 2 
 
Location:  Happy Valley City Hall 
 16000 SE Misty Drive 
 Happy Valley, OR (2nd Floor) 
 
Date March 22, 2012 (Thursday) 
 
Time:  2:00 to 3:30 p.m. 
 
Invited: 
1. Carlotta Collette, Metro Council 
2. Shirley Craddick, Metro Council 
3. Councilor Michael Morrow 
4. Katie Dunham, N. Clackamas Parks and Recreation District 
5. Janet Alley, North Clackamas School District 
6. Russell Aldridge, Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery 
7. Bill Garity, Clackamas Co. 
8. Lori Mastrantonio, Clackamas County Transportation and Land Use 
9. Mike Oleson, Clackamas County 
10. Michael Walter, city of Happy Valley 
11. Carol Earle, city of Happy Valley 
12. Rich Feucht, city of Happy Valley 
13. Justin Popilek, city of Happy Valley 
14. John Berry, Happy Valley Citizen 
15. Emily Roth, Portland Parks and Recreation 
16. Lynn Barlow, Portland Parks and Recreation 
17. Peter Lent, Community of Future of Damascus 
18. Bret Richards, ODOT 
19. Dan Moeller, Metro 
20. Elaine Stewart, Metro 
21. Jeff Johnson, Volunteer for Metro Trails 
22. John Mermin, Metro 
23. Kate Holleran, Metro 
24. Leif Anderson, Metro 
25. Tim Richard, Metro 
 
Mel Huie, Metro – Project Manager for the Trails Plan 
Consultant Team: 
 David Haynes, OTAK, Inc. 
 Mandy Flett, OTAK, Inc. 
 George Hudson, Alta Planning 
 Karen Vitkay, Alta Planning 


Meeting Minutes 
  
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
 
 
Mel Huie opened the meeting by thanking everyone for attending and asked that everyone take a 
moment to introduce themself. He then noted that the next meeting with this group will be May 24th 
to prepare for the open house on June 7th and review the refined segments that will be presented. 
 
A. Mel handed the floor over to David Haynes with Otak who he provided a quick review of the 
agenda and key discussion items from the November 17, 2011 meeting, the February 28, 2012 
field trip, and findings as the design has been refined, which are highlighted below: 
1. The team’s focus has been to look at two alternatives; the priority is to have a multi-use path 
that can accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians. However, when necessary, the two uses 
may be separated. 
2. One of the highest priorities is to determine which properties will be affected and initiate 
conversations with the owners. 
3. It was determined that the wayfinding program is going to be key to this trail project. 
o Tim Richards is the point of contact for signage and he noted that Fanno Creek Trail is the 
first site for testing this program. Tim has provided the design team with a draft copy of the 
Intertwine Signage Guidelines for review. 
4. A key challenge is the topography. 
5. Continued discussions of cost considerations knowing that the long term maintenance of the 
trail will be the main focus when trying to keep costs down. 
6. In Happy Valley, slopes over 25% cannot be developed. 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouters's Mtn. Loop Trail Master Plan, 
Project Advisory Committee  
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: March 22, 2012
Meeting Time: 2:00 pm
Location: City of Happy Valley, City Hall  
Attendees: Michael Morrow, Carol Earle, Rich Feucht, Justin Popilek 
– City of Happy Valley; Katie Dunham, N. Clackamas 
Parks and Recreation District; Janet Alley, North 
Clackamas School District; Mel Huie, John Mermin, Tim 
Richard, Elaine Stewart – Metro; Sara McClurg – 
Clackamas County Sheriff; Lynn Barlow – Portland Parks 
and Recreation; George Hudson, Karen Vitkay – Alta 
Planning; David Haynes, Mandy Flett – Otak  
Minutes By: Mandy Flett
Meeting Minutes 
March 22, 2012   Page 2 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC1_03_22_2012\MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2012_03_30.doc 
7. North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District may have future partnering opportunities with 
other local agencies (WES) when approaching acquisitions along the potential trail alignments. 
8. Segment 6: Lincoln Memorial is open to having a segment of the trail through the cemetery as 
well as along their property adjacent to Mt Scott Boulevard. 
o Dignity Memorial provided a mark-up map with their suggested route through the property. 
(see attached). Project staff reviewed and verified the route in the field on February 28th. 
o Might consider having access after operating hours. 
9. Segment 1: Recommendations were provided by the City of Portland on pedestrian only access 
to the Buttes National Area and have been incorporated into the recent design. (see attached) 
PP&R expects that the Friends of the Buttes Natural Area will be in opposition to trails within 
the natural area. The preferred alignment follows an existing skid road within the park and exists 
at a neighborhood roadway to the south. Additional field verification may be needed regarding 
the northern access point. 
10. Segment 3: is primarily through large, undeveloped private property. Individual parcels have 
been identified for potential easement discussions.  
11. Segment 5: includes existing pieces of built trail through Mt Talbert as well as a large area of land 
owned by ODOT for the Sunrise Corridor project. On street connections will link into area 
schools. 
12. Segment 4: is the powerline corridor and portions are existing. Extreme topography issues and 
the presence of stairs limit this to being a pedestrian only route. 
13. Segment 7: Willamette National Cemetery appears to not be a valid option. Instead the route is 
likely to be on Mt Scott Boulevard, with a connection to the existing I-205 bike path to the each 
and the Springwater Corridor to the north. 
 
B. At this point the discussion turned its focus to a review of the existing conditions maps provided 
by Alta. David handed the floor over to Karen Vitkay who discussed the opportunities and 
constraints presented by topographical, natural resource, and public and private property access 
issues. 
 
C. The discussion then turned to the most recent map of the potential segment alignments 
provided by Alta. Karen handed the floor over to George Hudson who discussed each segment. 
 
North 
1. East Portland Action Plan Implementation Group has voiced interest in the trail project, 
specifically around the area of 145th. 
2. The suggested route provided by the city of Portland allows for minimal impacts to the natural 
area and works well with the challenging topography. 
3. Connection to Barber/Welch is a challenge as it follows Johnson Creek and does not allow 
much room for a trail. 
4. An option is to bring the pedestrians across the covered bridge and connect with 134th. 
Meeting Minutes 
March 22, 2012   Page 3 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC1_03_22_2012\MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2012_03_30.doc 
5. Need to look at crossing Foster at signalized intersections only for safety. 
6. Do you think you can put a trail through a school area? Janet did believe so, but there would be 
design requirements.  
7. Does 162nd offer on-street protected bikeways? George noted that this a rural area, very flat, and 
low travelled. It works well for cyclists as is. 
 
South/West 
8. Cyclists could use 122nd as an alternative to going through Mt Talbert Nature Park. 
9. Trail Connection with the Sunrise Corridor at 122nd. Not sure when it will be built or what is will 
look like. Preliminary plans have a multi-use path on the north side of the Sunrise Corridor. 
10. Janet Alley with North Clackamas School District noted that she had some traffic data available 
and would be happy to coordinate this information with the design team. 
11. Katie noted that NCPRD is planning a 2 acre park close to the trail in the Rock Creek area. A 
connection to the park should be considered as well as to Hood View Park, Rock Creek Middle 
and Duncan Elementary School. A connection over the creek would be needed. 
12. The landowner of the former Pleasant Valley Golf Course is a key stakeholder and will be 
meeting with them soon to discussed trail opportunities.  
13. Powerline Corridor: 
o Stairs have been built in this area 
o Does not meet ADA requirements 
o Could use 142nd as an alternative route – nice wide street 
o The conceptual alignment currently follows an existing creek and avoids driveways on 142nd. 
o Trail users should be routed however to the existing signal at 142nd and Sunnyside. Currently 
the route is shown as being west of 142nd where open PGE property exists north of 
Sunnyside. This alignment also connects with existing parks south of Sunnyside. 
o Additional discussion and field work is needed in this area. 
14. Northern end of the corridor may require a trestle type bridgeNCPRD and WES developing a 
relationship in regards to acquisition and trail collaboration. 
 
D. Mel gave a brief overview of the upcoming June 7th open house at Happy Valley City Hall. He 
directed everyone’s attention to the fact sheet and map (which will be updated to display the 
most up to date map). He noted that stakeholder interviews will be one of the key next steps and 
will be handled by Emily Roth, Katie Dunham, Leif Anderson, and himself. If anyone on the 
PAC had any additional recommendations for the discussion with these key stakeholders to 
please email Katie and himself by Thursday, March 29th. 
 
Mel thanked everyone for attending and asked if there were any additional comments or questions 
before we adjourned. Michael Morrow asked Sara McClurg with Clackamas County Sheriff 
Department what she thought about the potential for an increase in criminal activity into areas of 
Meeting Minutes 
March 22, 2012   Page 4 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC1_03_22_2012\MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2012_03_30.doc 
Happy Valley? She realized that there are challenges with keeping criminal behavior along trails 
down, but she did not believe they would travel that far out of the city.  
 
Mel reminded everyone that the next meeting will be May 24th and thanked the city of Happy Valley 
for the refreshments. 
 
Meeting adjourned: 3:30 pm. 
This information has been recorded in accordance with our applicable standard of professional 
care. If we do not receive any comments within five days of receipt, we will finalize these minutes 
as drafted for the project file. 

  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
åå
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
å
åå
å
å
Jo
hn
so
n 
Cr
ee
k
Ro
ck
 C
re
ek
Moun
t Sco
tt Cre
ek
Cow Creek
Mitchel
l Creek
Kelley Creek
Cl
at
so
p 
Cr
ee
k
Sieben D
rainage D
itch
Veterans Creek
Jenne Cre
ek
Phillips Creek
C
la
ck
am
as
 R
iv
er
Joh
nso
n C
ree
k
I-205 C
orridor Trail
Springwater Corridor
M
ou
nt
 S
co
tt 
Tr
ai
l
Sc
ou
te
r M
ou
nt
ai
n 
Tr
ai
l
Eas
t Bu
ttes
 Po
we
r Li
ne 
Co
rrid
or T
rail
Clackamas Bluffs Trail
North Clackamas Greenway
Clackam
as River Trail
Clackam
as River Greenway
E
ast B
uttes P
ow
er Line C
orridor Trail
17
2N
D
FOSTER
HWY 212
SUNNYSIDE
15
2N
D
HAROLD
82ND
14
5T
H
97TH
14
2N
D
IDLEMAN
CLATSOP
KING
16
2N
D
MATHER
M
T SC
O
TT
FLAVEL
13
2N
D
MISTY
12
9T
H
11
2T
H
ST
EV
E
N
S
13
5T
H
SUMMERS
RIDGECREST
13
6T
H
WILLIAM OTTY
11
1T
H
SUNNYBROOK
CAUSEY
JENNIFER
12
6T
H
15
7T
H
OTTY
13
0T
H
D
EA
R
D
O
R
FF
93
R
D
HUBBARD
98TH
LAW
NFIE
LD
JOHNSON CREEK
BO
B SC
H
U
M
AC
H
ER
10
6T
H
13
9T
H
HW
Y 224
EV
EL
YN
11
7T
H
TYLER
ALTA VISTA
KANNE
89
TH
92
N
D
WOODSTOCK
13
4T
H
M
A
SA
AN
DE
RE
GG
90
TH
ROCK CREEK
12
2N
D
MOUNTAIN GATE
I20
5-
SU
NN
YS
ID
E
MONTEREY
VA
LL
E
Y 
V
IE
W
11
9T
H
PI
AZ
ZA
TERRITORY
I205-82N
D
IS
AA
C
W
AL
N
U
T
10
2N
D
110TH
M
C
K
IN
LE
Y
21
2-
22
4-
I2
05
SIEBEN CREEK
OREGON TRAIL
ROLLING MEADOWS
HINES
SP
R
IN
G
 M
O
U
N
TA
IN
14
7T
H
IN
D
U
ST
R
IA
L
10
4T
H
CLACKAMAS
I2
05
-2
12
-2
24
COUGAR
84TH OA
K B
LUF
F
ARMSTRONG
AD
O
LI
N
E
SPANISH BAY
I2
05
-J
O
HN
SO
N 
CR
EE
K
HAPPY VALLEY
PIONEER
14
0T
H
SUNN
YSID
E-I205
FO
S
TE
R
 R
D
-I205 FW
Y
BE
TH
A
N
Y
SU
N
N
YB
R
O
O
K-
I2
05
82
N
D
-I2
05
PARKSIDE
COUPLET
SNOWFIRE
17
0T
H
SIE
BE
N P
AR
K
I2
05
 F
W
Y-
FO
S
TE
R
 R
D
W
O
O
D
STO
C
K
 BLV
D
-I205 FW
Y
JAC
KSO
N H
ILL
S
GR
EIN
ER
CRYSTAL SPRINGS
R
O
LL
IN
G
 H
IL
LS
SCOTT CREEK
82N
D
-82N
D
PRINCETON VILLAGE
BRO
OKS
IDE
ALIMARIA
I2
05
-J
O
HN
SO
N 
CR
EE
K
SU
N
N
YSID
E-I205
H
IN
ES
11
1T
H
13
2N
D
14
7T
H
SU
N
N
YB
R
O
O
K-
I2
05
CAUSEY
14
7T
H
16
2N
D
FLAVEL
I2
05
-S
U
N
N
YS
ID
E
M
O
N
TE
R
EY
CLATSOP
I205-212-224
JENNIFER
212-224-I205
I2
05
-2
12
-2
24
16
2N
D
12
2N
D
12
2N
D
MONTEREY
145TH
13
9T
H
92
N
D
13
4T
H
12
2N
D
82N
D
MATH
ER
87
TH
97
TH
91
S
T
10
1S
T
14
1S
T
JE
N
NE
90
TH
88
TH
MONNER
99
TH
BLUFF
HAGEN
REX
SAGER
S
IE
R
R
A
VERLIE
96
TH
14
5T
H
KNAP
P
FORD
15
3R
D
15
5T
H
13
0T
H
84
TH
86
TH
13
2N
D
YUKON
92
N
D
FRYE
BAXTER
122ND
M
C
K
IN
LE
Y
14
7T
H
PL
AT
T
KNIGHT
OTTY
ELLIS
10
6T
H
FLAVEL
CLATSOP
15
2N
D
85
TH
11
9T
H
OGDEN
M
A
R
C
I
LYO
N
10
5T
H
TOLMAN
OTT
94
TH
MARTINS
V
R
A
D
E
N
B
U
R
G
16
2N
D
10
8T
H
FU
LL
ER
HILLTOP
93
R
D
15
6T
H
ALDRIDGE
14
3R
D
10
2N
D
NIA
LEXINGTON
13
4T
H
BYBEE
BARBARA W
ELCH
LENORE
DUNDEE
D
E
N
A
LI
11
0T
H
O
W
EN
WYNDHAM
AZAR
17
0T
H
STADIUM
HILLCREST
14
2N
D
NATALYA
RURAL
KING
DUNBAR
QUAILRIDGE
CLAYBOURNE
10
4T
H
11
7T
H
INSLEY
12
4T
H
157TH
10
3R
D
LAST
DUKE
121S
T
SUMMIT
ABBY
LUCILLE
13
7T
H
OPAL
10
9T
H
13
1S
T
14
0T
H
CRANBERRY
TARALON
HIGHLAND
CE
DA
R
HURON
KRAUSE
BOLLAM
VA
LL
EY
 V
IE
W
CREST
100TH
VA
N
 Z
Y
L
AN
TE
A
SLATE
KINGBIRD
S
P
Y
 G
LA
S
S
COOPER
RIMROCK
CI
RC
LE
E
LL
E
N
BA
RI
159
TH
ASHLEY
NORMANDY
REEDWAY
N
ELLA
CLOVE
R
TYLER
KAITLIN
GENEVA
STEELE
N
IC
H
O
LA
S
M
E
G
A
N
ALMOND
WILLET
15
4T
H
CHARJAN
VOGEL
11
1T
H
FALBROOK
89
TH
H
IL
LS
ID
E
AR
NO
LD
FOSTER
MOUNTAIN RIDGE
P
LO
V
E
R
TALBERT
B
E
L 
A
IR
EASTRIDGE
CART
ER
ROCK CREEK
TRISTIN
TOLBERT
LEA
16
9T
H
H
EM
M
EN
13
6T
H
11
6T
H
U
P
M
A
N
ASPEN SUMMIT
NIKLAS
TROGE
BLAINE
MARGIE
EQ
U
ES
TR
IA
N
GIA
MOUNTAIN SUN
CHELSEA M
O
RNING
H
AM
ILTO
N
13
9T
H
E
A
S
TV
IE
W
BRADFORD
12
0T
H
PA
R
K
W
O
O
D
14
8T
H
118TH
B
U
FO
R
D
RIDGEWAY
15
8T
H
PEBBLE BEACH
SUMMER
PALE
RMO
LO
S
TI
N
E
CITADEL
M
E
A
D
E
H
IL
L
S
IR
I
SHANNON
SAGEBRUSH
BRO
OKS
IDE
HI
GH
GA
TE
MAT
HER
DU
NL
IN
KISOR
DAHLQUIST
13
8T
H
G
O
O
S
E
H
O
LL
O
W
C
IT
Y
 V
IE
W
LAMBERT
AM
BLER
STONEYBROOK
12
8T
H
DAVIDOFF
JANN
SEN
VALEMONT
EC
KE
R
T
A
SP
E
N
JOHNSTON
SNOWFIRE
GRAY
FR
A
N
C
E
S
C
A
AQ
U
IL
A
12
5T
H
JA
S
O
N
A
LE
X
A
N
D
E
R
LOUISE
TENINO
11
3T
H
FAWN
N
IC
O
LE
S
U
N
N
Y
HAROLD
K
A
LI
A
KELA
14
4T
H
12
7T
H
PEGGY
EVENING STAR
VIOLET
MORNING
W
AT
E
R
LE
A
F
AMHERST
CHARLOTTE
R
O
G
E
R
S
MIA GARDEN
BRANDEIS
BO
Y S
CO
UT
 LO
DG
E
95
TH
PHEASANT RIDGE
O
N
E
O
N
TA
VISTA VIEW
NEHALEM
RAMONA
11
5T
H
TR
O
IK
A
14
9T
H
FR
O
N
TI
E
R
15
1S
T
ST LUCY
CAM
BRAY
ELINOR
11
4T
H
GAIBLER
JASPER
WESTGATE
HINKLEY
CALLAHAN
HEMRICK
FA
LC
O
ONE ROSA
WYLER
HARNEY
VISTA HEIGHTS
D
E
E
R
FIE
LD
D
IA
M
O
N
D
MERIDIEN
HE
ND
ER
SO
N
R
A
C
H
E
LL
A
RICHMOND
SOVEREIGN
LUDLOW
R
E
G
IN
A
KNEE
SPENCER
SU
N
 C
R
ES
T
12
6T
H
WELLINGTON
MELITA
H
U
N
TE
R
N
IG
H
TI
N
G
AL
E
15
0T
H
C
R
E
S
TH
IL
L
SEDONA
BRACKENBUSH
M
A
P
LE
 H
IL
L
W
ES
SE
X
SUNNYCREEK
SH
AU
NT
E
TERRA CASCADE
BLAIRE
O
R
CHARD VIEW
EASTHAMPTON
GR
EI
NE
R
KENSINGTON
ORCHARD
MARCUS
G
R
E
E
N
W
O
O
D
EAGLE GLEN
A
LI
M
A
R
IA
W
AT
E
R
FO
R
D
98
TH
MANLEY
PYRITE
W
ES
TV
IE
W
WENZEL
VA
LL
E
Y
HOLLAND
WALLOWA
DORSET
CHURCH
DO
NL
EY
MIA
M
O
N
TER
E
Y
FO
R
 M
O
R
GANNON
C
A
U
S
E
Y
EAGLE
MEADOWPARK
OLDS
SCO
RIA
MICAH
CLAREMONT
SPRUCE VIEW
13
5T
H
SO
LO
M
O
N
VIOLA VINEYARD
HAWK
SCENIC RIDGE
KALLISTA
IN
D
U
STR
IAL
LYNDA
THORNBRIDGE
LYNN
LINCOLN HEIGHTS
D
E
A
N
A
CHLOE
SIEFER
T
PHILIPS
GARDEN
O
LD
 T
O
W
N
LI
N
K
S
SYDNEY
BLAZE
EASTBOURNE
B
IG
 T
IM
B
E
R
H
IN
ES
BRYN
HE
NR
Y
13
3R
D
ELM PARK
SCOTTS SUMMIT
DAWSON
BO
R
D
EAU
X
WOODSTOCK
WOODED HEIGHTS
LYDIA
B
LA
C
KS
TO
N
E
FAIRWAY
TARNAHAN
ADAMS
177TH
HUNTERS BLUFF
AERIE CRESCENT
TERRITORY
A
S
TO
N
BRIT
TANY
12
3R
D
82
N
D
SOUTHERN LITES
SWIFT
CRYSTAL
HIGHPOINTE
MARKET
HER
BER
T
A
LI
S
O
N
TIMBER VALLEY
C
E
D
A
R
 P
A
R
K
H
A
D
E
E
D
14
6T
H
JOHN ASHLEY
HAZEL HILL
MAJESTIC
S
U
N
 B
U
R
S
T
PINEGROVE
ALEXA ROSE
KOALA
TE
RR
AC
E 
TR
AI
LS
GLENWOOD
M
IR
A
N
D
O
L
MALDEN
IMPERIAL CREST
12
9T
H
GRACE
MEADOWS
C
H
AT
FI
EL
D
MACANUDO
CARLTON
KESTREL
KRONAN
B
A
R
O
N
TERRACE
VALENTINE
LA
LA
HIGH CREEK
V
E
R
N
S
CALDERA
DENISE
JORDAN
FIR
CR
ES
T
S
TE
V
E
N
S
NYLA
PIONEER
JAMIE
SIEBEN PARK
PAGE PARK
S
AF
E
W
AY
E
LK
H
O
R
N
C
H
A
M
PA
G
N
E
N
O
RW
O
O
D
VELMA
BOLTON
C
AT
IN
A
W
AGNER
STANHOPE
BELVIEW
PA
R
K
LA
N
E
HIDALGO
QUAIL RUN
FALCON
EM
ME
RT
 VI
EW
LEVERN
B
E
R
K
S
H
IR
E
R
O
S
S
11
2T
H
TO
S
C
A
N
A
DU
NHI
LL
ALANSA
EM
IL
Y 
PA
R
K
CRYSTAL SPRINGS
BR
IS
TO
L 
PA
R
K
VERONA
DAVID
DAFFODIL
FO
R
TO
N
SUNSHADOW
ST
A
C
Y
NORTHERN HEIGHTS
BRIDGETON
CORNWELL
A
LY
S
S
A
PLEIDES
LU
C
A
NANCY
M
Y
R
A
TURLEY
BEARSPAW
LA
M
P
E
R
T
MELBROOK
W
A
R
R
E
N
POP
PY H
ILLS
DAYSPRING
SNODGRASS
C
H
IA
N
TI
WARBLER
ELON
W
IN
TE
R
C
R
E
S
S
E
A
G
LE
 C
R
E
S
T
LI
ZZ
BROYLES
PA
LA
TI
A
L
CASCADE VIEW
W
IL
LI
N
G
H
AM
LOPEZ
JU
B
IL
E
E
C
O
LE
ST HELENS
EVERGREEN
CRESC
ENT RI
DGE
BELMORE
PIN
ER
IDG
E
SOLSTICE
REGAL
AUGUSTINE
DER
EK
M
ER
LO
DONATELLO
C
AR
N
AB
Y
TARYN
OAK
 MEA
DOW
VERNAZZA
MARILYN
BADGER CREEK
APPLE
CON BATTIN
MITCHELL
LONE PINE
FAIRCREST
IVY CREEK
PARTAGAS
PIPER
O
R
EG
O
LD
PARKTREE
REGENCY VIEW
TAWNY
AUTUM
NW
O
O
D
C
H
U
LA V
ISTA
CRESTVIEW
R
ID
G
E
C
R
E
S
T
BECKET
HAMPSHIRE
LAV
ONA
CO
NS
TAN
CE
SCOTT CREEK
CE
LA
NO
BLACK
BERR
Y
S
O
N
O
R
A
GRA
ND V
ISTA
VIVIAN
10
7T
H
CLACKAMAS
LANDIS
TE
R
R
A 
LI
N
D
A
MT SCOTT
M
O
U
N
TA
IN
 C
R
ES
T
PA
RK
 M
OU
NT
AIN
PORTLAND VIEW
HUBBARD
CLEO
NE
BATTIN
DOVE
ROSE MEADOW
SUNSPRITE
CANNON
EMERALD
AL
TA
 V
ER
D
E
ADAIR
VI
LL
A
N
O
VA
TOP O'SCOTT
REDHAWKS
WIDGEON
CRYSTAL VIEW
SWEETGUM
G
LA
D
Y
S
 R
O
S
E
C
IC
E
LY
BRIE
DOUGIE
B
LI
S
S
DOE
RUSTLING RIDGE
PEB
BLE
G
R
EE
N
 H
IL
LSFO
R
E
S
T 
VI
E
W
O
VERLO
O
K
SKOKO
LANCE
S
U
M
M
IT
 R
O
C
K
NATHAN
C
AP
R
I
HO
NE
YS
UC
KLE
HAV
EN
WINDFLOWER
STERLING
BR
AE
M
AR
K
P
E
N
N
IN
G
TO
N
SAWTOOTH
GREEN FIR
SPRING MOUNTAIN
G
O
LD
FI
N
C
H
BANNER
MICHAELA
CLACKAMAS TOWN CENTER
SW
EET
 VA
LEN
TIN
E
W
IN
D
 S
O
N
G
STEVEN
BRISTOL
SONOMA
AN
TO
N
GLENDON
HA
RV
AR
D
M
IS
TW
O
O
D
ZA
C
H
A
R
Y
BELMORE HEIGHTS
QUIETWOODS
S
U
M
M
E
R
FI
E
LD
EI
SE
R
T
ELSASSER
B
U
C
K
S
K
IN
C
O
LE
 T
R
A
IN
CLARK
COUGAR
PURPLE FINCH
CHERYL
FINCH
POMFRET
GO
DD
AR
D
SC
O
TT
S 
RI
DG
E
LENN
ON
ECHO VALLEY
BRIAN
JUSTIN
KEELEY
W
H
ITEH
A
LL
LONE ACRE
SEGWAY
CHARVIEW
THOMSON
M
E
LI
N
D
A
TUMBLEWEED
M
O
N
E
T
SUNNYVIEW
M
A
D
U
R
O
S
DEER MEADOW
SUNPARK
MYSTERY SPRINGS
OWL
AU
RO
RA
BALDRY
FO
R
ES
T 
C
R
EE
K
D
EE
R
H
AV
EN
TOUCHDOWN
S
H
A
S
TA
MARY JEAN
WOODLA
ND
KE
MP
TO
N
R
EN
O
IR
REGINALD
KRIEGER
EM
IKO
SPRUCE
W
HIPPERW
ILL
ST
 AN
DR
EW
S
RANGER
CHICKADEE
BAUER
CO
HIBA
MADENA
TORRA VISTA
EMERY
WAHKEENA
BIG VIEW
DEX
TER
VISTA
HOBA
RT
NUTHATCH
WINTER
LEONARDO
PA
R
TR
ID
G
E
MARISA
CREEKSTONE
DURAN
GO VILLAGE SLOPE
CHEYENNE
KATHRYN
OREGON TRAIL
W
IN
G
S
PA
N
GARRETTE
KWA
NZA
N
PA
IN
TE
D 
HI
LL
S
W
H
IS
P
E
R
JOHANSEN
TO
M 
TH
UM
B
K
IM
B
E
R
LY
90
TH
MALDEN
ELLIS
15
4T
H
RAMONA
118TH
ALDRIDGE
14
0T
H
12
8T
H
13
9T
H
ELLIS
15
1S
T
BYBEE
13
3R
D
GLENW
OOD
CARLTON
14
0T
H
14
4T
H
13
3R
D
INSLEY
13
1S
T
86
TH
10
4T
H
97
TH
KNAPP
REX
97
TH
MALDEN
MALDEN
14
1S
T
11
8T
H
PORTLAND VIEW
INSLEY
ALMOND
93
R
D
10
5T
H
11
9T
H
12
7T
H
M
C
K
IN
LE
Y
KNAPP
HENDERSON
CALLAHAN
91
S
T
96
TH
COOPER
ORCHARD VIEW
ELLIS
12
5T
H
TY
LE
R
13
7T
H
GLENWOOD
INSLEY
94
TH
98
TH
COOPER
13
9T
H
INSLEY
RAMONA
15
8T
H
11
4T
H
10
2N
D
13
4T
HYUKON
13
9T
H
85
TH
88
TH
KNAPP
HAMPSHIRE
HENDERSON
14
1S
T
12
7T
H
13
9T
H
11
7T
H
15
5T
H
15
6T
H
99
TH
13
7T
H
LUCILLE
CALLAHAN
MA
LD
EN
13
1S
T
10
0T
H
10
3R
D
15
7T
H
C
E
D
A
R
RAMONA
SPENCER
12
7T
H
CLAYBOURNE
RAMONA
CLAYBOURNE
14
5T
H
13
1S
T
FLAVEL
91
S
T
12
5T
H
10
8T
H
HARNEY
10
3R
D
13
4T
H
STEELE
REGENCY VIEW
DUKE
98
TH
TA
R
N
A
H
A
N
HENRY
11
5T
H
90
TH
11
7T
H
96
TH
11
8T
H
HINKLEY
CRESCENT RIDGE
MARTINS
REEDWAY
HAROLD
12
0T
H
14
2N
D
10
4T
H
11
4T
H
119T
H
11
8T
H
13
0T
H
DUKE
FRYE
15
5T
H
12
1S
T
14
0T
H
FRYE
91
ST
12
3R
D
ELON
LIZZ
10
5T
H
12
8T
H
141S
T
144TH
MARTINS
DUKE
RAMONA
10
8T
H
13
1S
T
RAMO
NA
DUKE
14
3R
D
SCENIC RIDGE
E
C
K
E
R
T
13
3R
D
15
0T
H
86
TH
FLAVEL
LEXINGTON
10
8T
H
FOSTER
10
4T
H
TENINO
14
4T
H
CARLTON
INSLEY
93
R
D
HENDERSON
14
0T
H
86
TH
GO
OS
EH
OLL
OW
87
TH
KNAPP
13
0T
H
BYBEE
HILLCREST
CLAYBOURNE
M
ATH
ER
KNIGHT
10
5T
H
COOPER
RAMONA
15
4T
H
13
8T
H
11
6T
H
10
3R
D
CLATSOP
15
0T
H
HENRY
12
1S
T
135TH
TENINO
91
S
T
16
2N
D
10
1S
T
12
4T
H
REEDWAY
TENINO
94
TH
120
TH
93
R
D
REEDWAY
91
ST
HE
NR
Y
84
TH
11
9T
H
96
TH
11
4T
H
14
5T
H
14
0T
H
KNAPP
90
TH
SPENC
ER
15
5T
H
HENDERSON
99
TH
DUKE
12
5T
H
110TH
14
4T
H
10
6T
H
14
3R
D
13
6T
H
10
7T
H
REX
12
5T
H
10
0T
H
KNAPP
159TH
OGDEN
96
TH
12
9T
H
OGDEN
10
0T
H
12
7T
H
14
0T
H
89
TH
MARTINS
100TH
12
8T
H
COOPER
10
3R
D
86
TH
11
6T
H
15
2N
D
13
5T
H
88
TH
11
9T
H
C
A
U
S
E
Y
COOPER
MARTINS
12
0T
H
11
9T
H
11
3T
H
12
3R
D
13
4T
H
96
TH
86
TH
10
3R
D
116TH
15
6T
H
13
0T
H
BRISTOL
KING
RURAL
13
3R
D
97
TH
FLAVEL
CLACKAMAS
133R
D
DE
NA
LI
92
N
D
HENDERSON
MOUNTAIN RIDGE
11
5T
H
FLAVEL
115TH
108TH
99
TH
15
5T
H
10
1S
T
15
8T
H
11
0T
H
DUKE
145TH
11
6T
H
13
7T
H
NEHALEM
GLENWOOD
99
TH
85
TH
MARTINS
12
4T
H
93
R
D
12
9T
H
BROOKSIDE
REEDWAY
87
TH
14
2N
D
13
4T
H
CRYSTAL SPRINGS
12
9T
H
129TH
14
0T
H
MALDEN
11
7T
H
12
6T
H
14
4T
H
13
3R
D
13
4T
H
88
TH
14
4T
H
162N
D
89
TH
12
8T
H
87
TH
KNAPP
15
6T
H
94
TH
MATHER
91
ST
13
6T
H
140TH
12
7T
H
10
2N
D
14
2N
D
INSLEY
86
TH
HARNEY
11
5T
H
13
1S
T
HENRY
96
TH
BYBEE
11
4T
H
HENDERSON
10
0T
H
CRYSTAL
10
9T
H
98
TH
BRISTOL
DUKE
13
4T
H
16
2N
D
14
7T
H
13
4T
H
94
TH
94TH
12
0T
H
13
4T
H
85
TH
92
N
D
12
4T
H
139TH
13
7T
H
GLENWOOD
120
TH
117TH
GRAND VISTA
12
4T
H
139TH 14
7T
H
STEELE
89
TH
11
4T
H
ELLIS
Powell Butte Nature Park
Willamette National Cemetery
Mt. Talbert Nature Park
Buttes Natural Area
Pleasant Valley Golf Club
Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery
Clackamas HS
Wetland Park
Hood View Park
Scouter Mountain Boy Scout Camp
Gentemann Property
Lower Powell Butte Floodplain
Happy Valley Park
Clatsop Butte Park
Rock Creek Green Open Space
Nature Trail Park
Zenger Farm
Campfire Properties
Brookside Natural Area
Sunnyside Chimes Memorial Garden
Beggars-Tick Wildlife Refuge
Leach Botanical Garden
Happy Valley Hts Open Space
Scott Mtn Open Space
Glenwood Park
Happy Valley ES
Scott Creek Park
Sunnyside ES
Kelly ES
Spring Mountain ES
Mount Scott ES
Altamont Park
Pfeifer Property
Clackamas ES
Oregon Trail ES
Orchard Lake Open Space
Eastridge Park
Christillia Cemetery
Gilbert Primary Park
Mt. Talbert Nature Park Property
Kingsley D. Bundy Park
Amaron Heights Open Space
PlayHaven Park
Falbrook Open Space
Alice Ott SUN Community School
Justice Property
Eagle Landing Open Space
Southern Lites Park
Orchard Summit Open Space
Village Green Park
Deerfield Park Open Space
Veterans Creek Natural Area
Highland Summit Open Space
Eastbourne Downs Open Space
Tenino Property
James Abele Park Property
Sunnycreek Open Space
Vista Woods Open Space
Comanche Bluff Open Space
Mystery Springs Open Space
Red Rose Valley Open Space
Carrie Ann Open Space
Sieben Park
Lents Floodplain
Ashley Meadows Park
Portland Chinese Cemetery
Addington Place Open Space
Rebstock Park
Southern Lites Open Space
Summerfield Park
Quietwoods Open Space
Spring Mtn Ranch Open Space
Summerfield Open Space
Monterra Open Space
Mt Sun Village Open Space
Southeast District Headquarters
Shannon View Open Space
Rosemont (DART)
Kelly Elementary
Alice Ott Middle
Rock Creek Middle
Happy Valley Middle
Happy Valley Elementary
Kelly Center Head Start
Verne A Duncan Elementary
Clackamas High - East Campus
Scouters Mountain Elementary
Clackamas High - West Campus
Beautiful Savior Preschool & Kindergarten
I205
I205
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
C
C
Portland
Happy Valley
Damascus
Gresham
Legend
å Schools
Study Alignments
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Multi-use
Trails
Existing Regional Trail
Proposed Regional Trail
Proposed Greenway Corridor
Water Trail
Community Trail
Local Trail
Bicycle Facilities
Bike lane
Low traffic through street
Moderate traffic through street
High traffic through street
Caution area
¾¿ Bus Lines
Slope >25%
City Boundary
County Boundary
Private Open Space
Public Open Space
PublicProperties
The Intertwine | Happy Valley | Clackamas County | Metro | North Clackamas PRD | Portland Parks & Recreation
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop Master Plan
Source: Data obtained from Metro
Date: March 2012
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop: Draft Alignments
I
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
Meeting Agenda 
 
 
 
1. Publicity and Mailings for Open House (Mel: 5 min.) 
 
2. June 7 Open House Format/Content/Details (Mel/Otak/Alta: 30 min.) 
a. Aiming to have 75-100 persons attend. Everyone bring five persons.  
 
3. Scouter Mt. Picnic Shelter/Restrooms/access trail/bike racks and Habitat Restoration Project (Tim 
Richard/Kate Holleran: 10 min.) 
 
4. Stakeholder Interviews Process (Mel: 5 min.) 
 
5. Overview of the draft Existing Conditions memo (Otak/Alta: 10 min.) 
 
6. Next steps in developing the master plan (Otak/Alta: 10 min.) 
 
Need more information or Questions?  Contact mel.huie@oregonmetro.gov  503.797.1731 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouter Mt. Loop Trail Master Plan:  
Project Advisory Committee Meeting #3 
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: Thursday, May 24, 2012
Meeting Time: 2:00-3:30 pm
Location: Happy Valley City Hall, 16000 SE Misty Drive: Council Chambers
Expected 
Attendees: 
Carlotta Collette, Shirley Craddick Metro Council; Councilor Michael 
Morrow; Katie Dunham, N. Clackamas Parks and Recreation District; 
Janet Alley, North Clackamas School District; Russell Aldridge, Lincoln 
Memorial Park Cemetery; Bill Garity, Clackamas Co.; Lori Mastrantonio, 
Clackamas County Transportation and Land Use; Mike Oleson, 
Clackamas County; Michael Walter, Carol Earle, Rich Feucht, Justin 
Popilek, city of Happy Valley; John Berry, Happy Valley Citizen; Emily 
Roth, Lynn Barlow, Portland Parks and Recreation; Peter Lent, 
Community of Future of Damascus; Bret Richards, ODOT; Mel Huie, 
Dan Moeller, Elaine Stewart, John Mermin, Kate Holleran, Leif 
Anderson, Sheena VanLeuven, Tim Richard, Metro; Sara McClurg, 
Clackamas County Sheriff; Jeff Johnson, Volunteer for Metro Trails; 
David Haynes, Mandy Flett, Otak; George Hudson, Karen Vitkay, Alta 
Planning 



Meeting Minutes 
  
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
 
 
Mel Huie opened the meeting by reminding everyone that the focus of today’s meeting was to 
discuss the upcoming open house. Before handing the floor over to Karen Vitkay he thanked 
everyone for attending and asked that everyone take a moment to introduce themselves. 
 
1. Publicity and Mailings for Open House 
 Mel provided an update on the mailings; NCPRD graciously provided the open house 
announcement to 4700 people. This number was created by looking at residents with 300 feet of 
the proposed alignments.  
 Mel asked Otak to distribute the open house announcement to the entire PAC when issuing the 
meeting minutes. 
 
2. June 7th Open House Format/Contents/Details 
 Mel noted that we are aiming to have 75-100 attendees and asked that everyone tries to bring 
five people. 
 All handouts will be provided by the sign-in table in the lobby. 
 Mel to provide comment card and sign-in sheets. 
o It was asked what ever happened to the comment from the Scouter’s Mountain open house 
last year? Mel to locate.  Action: Metro 
 The draft PowerPoint developed by Karen and Mel and reviewed by Katie, Justin, and Emily. 
The PowerPoint will need to be submitted for review on Tuesday, May 31st. Action: Alta 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouters's Mtn. Loop Trail Master Plan, 
Project Advisory Committee Meeting No. 3 
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: May 24, 2012
Meeting Time: 2:00 pm
Location: City of Happy Valley, City Hall  
Attendees: Mike Oleson – Clackamas County Engineering; Linda 
Bauer – EPAP; Councilor Michael Morrow, Justin Popilek 
– City of Happy Valley; Katie Dunham, N. Clackamas 
Parks and Recreation District; Mel Huie – Metro; Sara 
McClurg – Clackamas County Sheriff; Emily Roth – 
Portland Parks and Recreation; Karen Vitkay – Alta 
Planning; David Haynes, Mandy Flett – Otak  
Minutes By: Mandy Flett
Meeting Minutes 
May 24, 2012   Page 2 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC3_05_24_2012\PAC3_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2012_06_04.doc 
o Mel noted that we will need to allow about 5 minutes for the Scouter’s Mountain update 
(Tim/Richard/Kate?). 
o Include a one slide that highlights the partners/introduction. 
o Katie, Justin, and Emily to supply pictures to Karen. 
 Karen provided a brief over view of the open house format:  
 
Potential Public Open House Staffing 
Mel Huie Tim Richards
George Hudson Katie Dunham
Karen Vitkay Lynn Barlow
Amanda Owings Emily Roth
Mandy Flett Justin Patterson
Amanda Owings Carol Earle
Sarah McClurg 
 
Draft Meeting Agenda: 
4:30 Team arrives for set up
5:30 Open House (30 min)
6:30 Introduction & Background (7 min) – Metro Councilor  
Why are we doing this? (Councilor Morrow City Councilor and 
Craddick) 
6:10  Presentation Topics (15 – 20 min max) Powerpoint format
• Process: Contacting property owners & stakeholder interviews 
• Existing Conditions: Mention Safety/Involvement of Sheriff 
• Design (Regional Guidelines) 
 Alignments (Preliminary) 
• Opportunities and Constraints 
• Scouter’s Mountain (TR, KH)-5 min. 
• Next Steps 
6:30 Stations: 
Background (Mel, Justin) 
 Schedule and Process-Stakeholder Interviews (Mel) 
 Implementation 
 Funding (Mel) 
 Design Guidelines -Trail Types (Otak/Alta) 
 
Existing Conditions (KD, ER) 
 Environmental, Topography, Ownership, Traffic, Zoning 
 
Opportunities and Constraints (Alta-George/Otak-Amanda) 
Meeting Minutes 
May 24, 2012   Page 3 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC3_05_24_2012\PAC3_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2012_06_04.doc 
 
Alignments (GH) 
 
Scouter’s Mountain (TR, KH) 
 
Safety (Clackamas Sherriff/Sara McClurg) 
7:30 Station Summaries (Mel to facilitate, station facilitators to report 
back) 
 Discussion 
 Next Steps 
 
3. Stakeholder Interviews 
 Mel noted that Justin, Katie, Emily, and himself have been conducting interviews. 
o Emily met with Friends with Powell Butte. They are in favor of the project and their main 
concern is safety. 
o Pleasant Valley Neighborhood is in favor of the trail but feel that using 162nd is a bad idea 
due to its lack of a scenic environment. 
o A meeting is planned with the cemeteries and Mel 
 Is there a need to reach out to the equestrian community? Emily to provide a contact to Mel. 
Action: Portland 
 Mel added that a little further into the project, the team will need to develop a FAQ for 
distribution. Action: Metro 
 It was requested that a standard set of questions be developed for inclusion stakeholder 
meetings. Action: Otak, Alta, Metro 
 
October 18th Public Meeting Topics 
 Summary/Lessons learned from public meeting #1 
 Alignment Refinement/Recommendations 
 Trail Design 
 Trail Management 
 (NCPRD Park Master Plan?) 
 
The attendees directed their focus onto the maps/exhibits that will be used at the open house. There 
were minor changes to the draft alignments that will need to be made prior to the open house, but 
overall ready to go. 
 
4. Existing Conditions Memo 
 Mel asked the reviewers that all comments are submitted to him by June 11th for consolidation 
and distribution to the consultant team. Action: PMT 
Meeting Minutes 
May 24, 2012   Page 4 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC3_05_24_2012\PAC3_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2012_06_04.doc 
o Emily and others noted that the natural resources section needs to be fleshed out. It seems 
that we are missing what is on the ground. 
 
5. Next Steps 
 The team will begin the development of criteria of the Alternatives Analysis. Mel asked for a 
map of the Comp Plan from Happy Valley. Action: Happy Valley 
 
Mel reminded everyone to bring 5 people to the open house and thanked the city of Happy Valley 
for the refreshments. 
 
Meeting adjourned: 3:30 pm. 
Meeting Agenda 
 
 
 
1. Overview of June 7th
 
 Open House (Mel: 15 min.) 
2. October Open House (Mel: 15 min.) 
a. Date 
b. Material 
 
3. Deliverables (Mel/Alta/Otak: 30 min.) 
a. Submitted to date 
b. Due by mid-October 
c. Next Steps in developing the Layout of master plan document 
 
4. Stakeholder/Acquisition Discussion (Mel/Katie: 20 min) 
 
5. Project Website Update (Mel: 5 min.) 
 
6. Other (5 min.) 
 
Need more information or Questions?  Contact mel.huie@oregonmetro.gov  503.797.1731 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouter Mt. Loop Trail Master Plan:  
Project Advisory Committee Meeting #4 
Project No.: 16088 
Meeting Date: Thursday, June 28, 2012  
Meeting Time: 2:00-3:30 pm 
Location: Alta Planning: 711 SE Grand Ave. Portland, OR 97214 
Expected 
Attendees: 
Carlotta Collette, Shirley Craddick Metro Council; Councilor Michael 
Morrow; Katie Dunham, N. Clackamas Parks and Recreation District; 
Janet Alley, North Clackamas School District; Russell Aldridge, Lincoln 
Memorial Park Cemetery; Bill Garity, Clackamas Co.; Lori Mastrantonio, 
Clackamas County Transportation and Land Use; Mike Oleson, 
Clackamas County; Michael Walter, Carol Earle, Rich Feucht, Justin 
Popilek, city of Happy Valley; John Berry, Happy Valley Citizen; Emily 
Roth, Lynn Barlow, Portland Parks and Recreation; Peter Lent, 
Community of Future of Damascus; Bret Richards, ODOT; Mel Huie, 
Dan Moeller, Elaine Stewart, John Mermin, Kate Holleran, Leif 
Anderson, Sheena VanLeuven, Tim Richard, Metro; Sara McClurg, 
Clackamas County Sheriff; Jeff Johnson, Volunteer for Metro Trails; 
David Haynes, Mandy Flett, Otak; George Hudson, Karen Vitkay, Alta 
Planning 
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
Meeting Minutes 
  
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
 
 
 
 
Mel started the meeting with a recap of Open House #1.  
 The event was a success with ~60 attending and yielding 20 comment cards, 4 phone calls, and 1 
letter. The majority of comments were supportive. 
 The comments were inserted into a map reviewed as a group. Key issues included: 
o safety concerns at the Foster Road segment, alternate routes were briefly discussed 
o potential new school location on 162nd 
o properties designated with “+” are either pro trail or would like to sell to Metro 
o concern about overflow parking at Scouters Mountain 
o need to obtain easements at Monner property and east of Scouters Mountain, among other 
locations 
 Alta noted that the alternatives analysis Task 4 should follow completion of the 
stakeholder/owner interviews. 
o David recommended revising the schedule so Task 4 would follow Task 5 to allow more 
time for stakeholder/owner interviews. 
o Stakeholder report will now be due Sept 13th  
o Additional stakeholders to consider include watershed councils, “Friends Of…” 
organizations, and equestrian groups. 
 Alta and Otak are to prepare Master Plan mock-up for review at the next PAC meeting. 
o Master Plan shall follow Metro’s format. 
o The next PAC meeting: Sept 27th at Happy Valley. 
o The next Open House: October 25th at Happy Valley (thanks HV!) 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouters's Mtn. Loop Trail Master Plan, 
Project Advisory Committee Meeting No. 4 
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: June 28, 2012
Meeting Time: 2:00 pm
Location: Alta Planning
Minutes By: David Haynes
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
Meeting Agenda 
 
 
 
1. Welcome/Introductions:  Huie/All  (05 min) 
2. Where We Are in the Planning Process:  Huie/Haynes (10 min) 
3. Schedule Updates/Moving Open House No. 2 to mid or late Jan. 2013: Huie (05 min) 
4. Review of Proposed Trail Alignments Map / Need Your Comments:  Huie (15 min) 
5. Comments on proposed trail alignments from Natural Resource Scientists:  Huie (10 min) 
6. Stakeholders Interview Process:  Update and What’s Next:  Huie  (10 min) 
7. What should be on the agenda for the Open House in January:  Hudson (15 min) 
8. Preview of the “look/format” of the master plan:  Vitkay (10 min) 
9. Other Components, Maps and Deliverables in the master plan:  Haynes (10 min) 
10. Other (5 min.) 
 
Need more information or Questions?  Contact mel.huie@oregonmetro.gov  503.797.1731 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouter Mt. Loop Trail Master Plan:  
Project Advisory Committee Meeting #5 
Project No.: 16088 
Meeting Date: Thursday, September 20, 2012  
Meeting Time: 2:00-3:30 pm 
Location: Metro, 600 NE Grand, Portland. Conf. Rm. 270 
Expected 
Attendees: 
Carlotta Collette, Shirley Craddick Metro Council; Councilor Michael 
Morrow; Katie Dunham, N. Clackamas Parks and Recreation District; 
Janet Alley, North Clackamas School District; Russell Aldridge, Lincoln 
Memorial Park Cemetery; Bill Garity, Clackamas Co.; Lori Mastrantonio, 
Clackamas County Transportation and Land Use; Mike Oleson, 
Clackamas County; Michael Walter, Carol Earle, Rich Feucht, Justin 
Popilek, city of Happy Valley; John Berry, Happy Valley Citizen; Emily 
Roth, Lynn Barlow, Portland Parks and Recreation; Peter Lent, 
Community of Future of Damascus; Bret Richards, ODOT; Mel Huie, 
Dan Moeller, Elaine Stewart, John Mermin, Kate Holleran, Leif 
Anderson, Sheena VanLeuven, Tim Richard, Metro; Sara McClurg, 
Clackamas County Sheriff; Jeff Johnson, Volunteer for Metro Trails; 
David Haynes, Mandy Flett, Otak; George Hudson, Karen Vitkay, Alta 
Planning 
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 


Meeting Minutes 
  
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
 
 
1. Welcome/Introductions 
Mel Huie opened the meeting by thanking everyone for attending and asked that everyone take a 
moment to introduce themselves. 
 
2. Where We Are in the Planning Process 
David provided a brief update on where we are at with the planning process. He noted that the 
consultant team is just about finished addressing all of the comments provided and should be 
wrapped up next week for final review. The open house that was held in June was a success. The 
next open house has been moved to mid or late January 2013 to allow for stakeholder interviews to 
occur prior to refinement to the trail segments.  
 
The team has begun to develop the evaluation criteria for the alternatives analysis memo and will be 
developing this document over the next few months. 
 
3. Review of the Proposed Trail Alignments Map 
Mel asked everyone to take a few moments to review the updated map of the trail alignments. See 
Attachment. 
 Karen asked about equestrian usage and if we needed to provide access? At this point we are not 
adding any equestrian facilities. Equestrians are known to use the Springwater Corridor 
currently. 
 Mel to add an equestrian contact to the stakeholder list. Action Item: Metro 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouters's Mtn. Loop Trail Master Plan, 
Project Advisory Committee Meeting No. 5 
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: September 20, 2012
Meeting Time: 2:00 pm
Location: Metro, 600 NE Grand, Portland. Conf. Rm. 270
Attendees: Lori Mastrantonio, Mike Oleson – Clackamas County; 
Councilor Michael Morrow, Justin Popilek – City of 
Happy Valley; Mel Huie, John Mermin, Kate Holleran, 
Elaine Stewart – Metro; Russell Aldridge – Lincoln 
Memorial Park/Dignity; Sara McClurg – Clackamas 
County Sheriff; Karen Vitkay, George Hudson – Alta 
Planning; David Haynes, Mandy Flett – Otak  
Minutes By: Mandy Flett
Meeting Minutes 
September 24, 2012   Page 2 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC5_09_20_2012\PAC5_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2012_09_24.doc 
 
Segment 1 (NE Corner) 
 Agreement with on-street routes for bikes. 162nd has low traffic and is safer for bicyclists. 
 
Segment 2 (Middle East Side) 
 Currently showing north, south and east access points to Scouter Mountain, possibly too many. 
o The consultant team is still screening out alternatives. 
o The east/west connection will be a long term project. 
o Need to look at connectivity to existing access road. 
o South access/connection would happen in the next 2-3 years. 
o Do we need an east/west connection? 
o Heading north out of Scouter Mt. has extremely unstable soils. 
 Since bicycles are not allowed on Scouter Mt., how do we accommodate them? 
o Provide bike facilities at the trail access points 
o Keep the bicyclists on 162nd/Vradenburg, add bike parking on Clatsop with “spurs” out to 
access the Buttes Natural Area and Scouter Mt. 
 In the short term we will need to work with the boy scouts regarding access, but in the long term 
it is likely they will be selling the property. Keep this in mind when phasing the alternatives. 
o Mel to make contact with boy scouts to discuss options and future plans. Action Item: 
Metro. 
 Part in Segment 1 and 2, it may be better to exit the Buttes Natural Area on SE 144th (which 
aligns with a former skid road), the then onto Tenino, followed by 147th which parallels the 
Natural Area. One drawback to this alignment is that few sidewalks exist to accommodate 
pedestrians. Crossing improvements will be needed to get across Clatsop. 
 Can we eliminate one of the two off-street options in the southern portion of segment 2?  
o Both routes are along private property. Once discussions have happened with the property 
owners, we will be able to eliminate one. 
 
Segment 3 (Rock Creek Area) 
 The majority of the segment is private undeveloped/underdeveloped property. 
 The golf course is still being used as a training facility for the fire department. Property owners 
are still looking for development opportunities. 
 Hidden Falls on Rock Creek may be purchased with NCPRD, need to confirm with Katie. 
 
Segment 4 (Powerline Corridor) 
Multiple alignments are currently shown to existing signal at 142nd and Sunnyside. A preferred 
alignment will be selected with the alternatives analysis.  
 
Meeting Minutes 
September 24, 2012   Page 3 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC5_09_20_2012\PAC5_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2012_09_24.doc 
Segment 5 (SW Corner) 
 Sunrise Corridor Phase 1 moving forward, will be built out to 122nd. With this phase it will cut 
off north-south bike/ped access. Any eastward extension of the Sunrise Corridor beyond 122nd 
is very long term. 
o West side of 122nd, bike lanes are currently being completed.  
o 122nd to Hubbard – sidewalks are planned. 
 Summers Ln. to Mather Rd. should be on-street for bike/ped. Change from pedestrian to multi-
use with a bike facility at trailhead to Mt. Talbert. 
 
Segment 6 (Middle West Side) 
 Looking at putting the trail under Sunnyside Road or have cross at the light at 117th 
 Mt. Scott Blvd, recommended improvements 
 Study mid block crossing at Mt. Scott Blvd. near exist from Lincoln Heights to accommodate 
convergence of multi-use/bike route/ped-only trail. 
 Exit at Lincoln Heights, a light is proposed in this area (verify it is in the TSP). 
 
Segment 7 (NW Corner) 
 Lincoln Memorial Park Cemetery: Currently entering at gates 7/8. Only concern with bike/peds 
is during service, but there is already current traffic through the cemetery so it should not be a 
problem. 
 Willamette National Cemetery is not interested in having a trail through their property. Metro to 
confirm. 
 
Elaine Stewart gave a brief overview of her discussions with specific natural resource leads from 
Metro, Portland Parks and Recreation, Johnson Creek Watershed Council, and ODFW. She 
provided a full report assessing the straw alignments in relation to natural resource areas (attached).  
 Consider keeping trail along Rock Creek, allows for a better experience for the user. Minimize 
stream crossings, maintain distance from the creek while providing spurs to access water. 
 Have we considered moving the alignment east to use 172nd? The new proposed facilities for this 
road will have sidewalks for pedestrians and either a bike lane or cycle track for bicyclists. 
 Follow-up meeting with Elaine and others next month to hear additional findings regarding 
natural resources. 
 
4. Stakeholder Interview Process 
Mel distributed two handouts: 
 List of Stakeholders 
 Stakeholder Interview Process 
 
Mel requested that everyone reviews and to let him know if someone should be added. George 
noted that it might be a good idea to hold a series of mini open houses at Metro over a couple of 
Meeting Minutes 
September 24, 2012   Page 4 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC5_09_20_2012\PAC5_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2012_09_24.doc 
days for the stakeholder interviews. A room could be set up for stakeholders to stop by during 
“open hours” and learn about the project. This would allow Metro to visit with many stakeholders in 
just a few days versus trying to schedule them one-on-one. 
 
See attached handouts for stakeholder information. 
 
5. What should be on the agenda for the Open House in January 
As noted above the open house has been pushed out until January to allow for more stakeholder 
input. A few items were mentioned for the open house, but this conversation will continue at the 
next PAC meeting: 
 Updated alignment 
 Graphics/cross-sections of what the regional trail will look like on the ground. 
 Environmental considerations 
 Stakeholder interview outcomes 
 
Mel asked if anyone could help cover the cost of postage for the upcoming open house.  
 
Will there be any guidelines that provide a branding or continuity between segments? The Intertwine 
Signage program will be used along with some standardized amenities. 
 
The next PAC meeting will be on November 1st at Metro from 2:00-3:30. 
 
Meeting adjourned: 3:30 pm.  
Meeting Agenda 
 
 
 
1. Welcome/Introductions:  Huie/All (05 min) 
2. Review Latest Proposed Trail Alignments divided into seven segments:  Huie/Vitkay (15 min) 
3. Natural Resource Considerations and Trail Impacts on Them:  Stewart (20 min) 
4. Natural Resources Q&A: Stewart/All (10min) 
5. Stakeholders Interview Process:  Update and What’s Next:  Roth/Dunham/Popilek/Huie (10 min) 
6. Alignment Evaluation Criteria Update:  Vitkay (5 min) 
7. Design Framework Update: Haynes (5 min) 
8. Agenda for the Open House in late January or early February at Happy Valley City Hall:  
Huie/Hudson (10 min) 
9. Other  
 
Need more information or Questions?  Contact mel.huie@oregonmetro.gov  503.797.1731 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouter Mt. Loop Trail Master Plan:  
Project Advisory Committee Meeting #6 
Project No.: 16088 
Meeting Date: Thursday, November 1, 2012  
Meeting Time: 2:00-3:30 pm 
Location: Metro, 600 NE Grand, Portland. Conf. Rm. 370-B 
Expected 
Attendees: 
Carlotta Collette, Shirley Craddick Metro Council; Councilor Michael 
Morrow; Katie Dunham, N. Clackamas Parks and Recreation District; 
Janet Alley, North Clackamas School District; Russell Aldridge, Lincoln 
Memorial Park Cemetery; Bill Garity, Clackamas Co.; Lori Mastrantonio, 
Clackamas County Transportation and Land Use; Mike Oleson, 
Clackamas County; Michael Walter, Carol Earle, Rich Feucht, Justin 
Popilek, city of Happy Valley; John Berry, Happy Valley Citizen; Emily 
Roth, Lynn Barlow, Portland Parks and Recreation; Bret Richards, 
ODOT; Mel Huie, Dan Moeller, Elaine Stewart, John Mermin, Kate 
Holleran, Leif Anderson, Sheena VanLeuven, Tim Richard, Metro; Sara 
McClurg, Clackamas County Sheriff; Jeff Johnson, Volunteer for Metro 
Trails; David Haynes, Mandy Flett, Otak; George Hudson, Karen Vitkay, 
Alta Planning 
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 


Meeting Minutes 
  
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
 
 
1. Welcome/Introductions 
Mel Huie opened the meeting by thanking everyone for attending and asked that everyone take a 
moment to introduce themselves. 
 
2. Alignment Evaluation Criteria Update 
Karen asked the attendees to review and comment on draft alignment evaluation criteria and 
provide input on the groups’ priorities, what is the most important vs. least important. 
 Connectivity (global sense) 
 Ownership (property impacts, avoidance of private property where possible) 
 Public/political support 
 Environment 
 Topography 
 Safety (driveways, provide buffers between bike/ped) 
 Aesthetics/comfort (quality of experience) 
 Universal access (walkable, cyclist) 
 Environmental access and education 
 Cost 
 
Karen asked the group if any criteria were missing?  
 Operations and Maintenance 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouters's Mtn. Loop Trail Master Plan, 
Project Advisory Committee Meeting No. 6 
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: November 1, 2012
Meeting Time: 2:00 pm
Location: Metro, 600 NE Grand, Portland. Conf. Rm. 270
Attendees: Katie Dunham – NCPRD; Emily Roth, Mart Hughes –
Portland Parks and Recreation; Lori Mastrantonio – 
Clackamas County; Councilor Michael Morrow, Justin 
Popilek, Carol Earle – City of Happy Valley; Mel Huie, 
John Mermin, Elaine Stewart – Metro; Linda Bauer – 
EPAP; Russell Aldridge – Lincoln Memorial 
Park/Dignity; Karen Vitkay, George Hudson – Alta 
Planning; David Haynes, Mandy Flett – Otak  
Minutes By: Mandy Flett
Meeting Minutes 
November 1, 2012   Page 2 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC6_11_01_2012\PAC6_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2012_11_01_FNL.doc 
 Safety is a large issue for members on the committee, specifically crossings for pedestrians on 
major streets. (Jenny/Springwater). Recommendations for crossings will be provided in the 
master plan. 
 Parks stated a preference to give less weight to environmental access and education. 
 Ownership should receive a lesser weighting or priority as alignments should seek the best route 
regardless of whether the property is already in public ownership.   
 
3. Review Latest Proposed Trail Alignments (divided into segments) 
Mel asked everyone to take a few moments to review the updated map of the trail alignments. See 
Attachment. 
 Karen directed the groups’ attention to the screen where she led the review of the seven 
segments as they will be shown in the master plan. She went over the changes that have been 
made and asked for any additional suggestions.  
 There was a recommendation to show a connection to to Hood River Park and adjacent 
schools. 
 PDOT reviewed the map and suggested to show both a red and blue line to signify areas that 
will have sidewalks and a bike lane vs. showing these pieces as multi-use. Only symbolize multi-
use when it actually multi-use. 
 
4. Natural Resource Considerations and Trail Impacts 
Elaine took this time to expand on her meetings with the natural resource leads from Metro, 
Portland Parks and Recreation, Johnson Creek Watershed Council, and ODFW. She provided the 
handout from the previous meeting (attached). In addition to the handout, Elaine focused her 
presentation on four maps: 
 Habitat Connectivity 
 Priority Riparian Habitat 
 Priority Upland Habitat 
 Areas referenced in consolidated comments 
 
Karen provided a map to facilitate a discussion clarifying issues or potential alignment impacts based 
on the consolidated natural resources memo.  Specific areas and comments discussed: 
 In the Buttes area, the trail alignment would work best at Deardorff Road. It provides a better 
and friendlier experience for the user. There is a concern regarding the steep topography.   
- Portland staff to discuss internally optimal alignment for recommendation. 
 Buttes has the best habitat in Portland, consider an easement from the HOA near the Buttes. 
- Following existing skid road will have the least potential impact to the Buttes NA while 
providing access to the public. 
 There appears to be an ideal potential to develop an alignment entirely west of the Mitchell 
Creek. 
- This comment was in response to an alignment on SE 145th which is no longer on the table. 
Meeting Minutes 
November 1, 2012   Page 3 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC6_11_01_2012\PAC6_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2012_11_01_FNL.doc 
 Do we consider routing bikes to 172nd?  
- No, out of direction. 
 Bike on 145th vs. Vradenburg due to fragmentation 
- 145th is no longer an option due to terrain 
 Clatsop/162nd is not a flattering alignment, consider alternative options. Maybe natural areas 
through subdivision. Mart proposes Clatsop Creek. 
- Project team to consider alternative alignment along Clatsop Creek. 
 Need to protect Rock Creek, locate trail as far away as possible. Attempt a 200 ft buffer. 
- Alignment has been adjusted to have minimal crossings while keeping a greater distance from 
the creek. Spur trails should be considered to allow limited access to the creek. 
 The current alignment within the Powerline Corridor is placed directly through an important 
habitat connector. Is it possible to get trail closer to 142nd. 
- An alignment on 142nd would require crossings of numerous private driveways.  Due to safety 
concerns, an environmentally sensitive route is preferred closer to the drainage.  Boardwalks to 
be considered through the sensitive areas. 
 Sunrise Corridor currently does not have the funding to construct the north side of the trail. 
- Sunrise Corridor planned multi-use trail alignment would be elevated adjacent to the roadway.  
Alignment is not preferred due to desire to provide for user comfort and a high quality 
experience. 
 Where to connect to Mt. Talbert, use the Sunrise Corridor. 
- Shown alignment utilizing Mather may be best due to public desire for a high quality user 
experience. 
 
5. Open House 
 The open house will be January 31st and at the Happy Valley City Hall. 
 
Topics to be covered at the open house: 
 Draft master plan (preliminary draft). 
 Walk through each alignment. 
 
Meeting adjourned: 3:30 pm.  
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 



  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
Meeting Agenda 
 
 
 
1. Welcome/Introductions:  Huie/All (05 min) 
2. Open House, January 31, 2013 (5:30 pm to 8:00 pm): Huie (20 min) 
• Set up by Metro (4:45 pm) 
• Presentation (6:00 pm) – Councilor Craddick to do the Welcomes 
o Review of the overall alignment/7 segments (see assignments below) 
o Update extensive stakeholder interviews (Mel Huie) 
o Website is a great place for up to date information (Mel Huie) 
o Design Treatments (David Haynes) 
o Scouters Mt. project update 
 
• At the end of open house possibly have a wrap up with a summary of comment heard from 
each station. 
• Presentation/Segment Stations 
o Segment 1 Emily Roth 
o Segment 2 Mel Huie 
o Segment 3 Katie Dunham 
o Segment 4 Katie Dunham 
o Segment 5 Carol Earle 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouter Mt. Loop Trail Master Plan:  
Project Advisory Committee Meeting #7 
Project No.: 16088 
Meeting Date: Thursday, January 10, 2013  
Meeting Time: 2:00-3:30 pm 
Location: Metro, 600 NE Grand, Portland. Conf. Rm. 270 
Expected 
Attendees: 
Carlotta Collette, Shirley Craddick Metro Council; Councilor Michael 
Morrow; Katie Dunham, N. Clackamas Parks and Recreation District; 
Janet Alley, North Clackamas School District; Russell Aldridge, Lincoln 
Memorial Park Cemetery; Bill Garity, Clackamas Co.; Lori Mastrantonio, 
Clackamas County Transportation and Land Use; Mike Oleson, 
Clackamas County; Michael Walter, Carol Earle, Rich Feucht, Justin 
Popilek, city of Happy Valley; John Berry, Happy Valley Citizen; Emily 
Roth, Lynn Barlow, Mart Hughes Portland Parks and Recreation; Bret 
Richards, ODOT; Mel Huie, Heather Coston, Dan Moeller, Elaine 
Stewart, John Mermin, Kate Holleran, Leif Anderson, Sheena 
VanLeuven, Tim Richard, Max Woodbury; Metro; Sara McClurg, 
Clackamas County Sheriff; Jeff Johnson, Volunteer for Metro Trails; 
David Haynes, Mandy Flett, Otak; George Hudson, Karen Vitkay, Alta 
Planning 
Meeting Agenda  Page 2 
Thursday, January 10, 2013    
 
o Segment 6 Justin Popilek 
o Segment 7 Mel Huie 
o Typical Trail Cross-Sections David Haynes 
 
3. Review Final Proposed Trail Alignments (divided into seven segments):  Huie/Vitkay (05 min) 
4. Review of Trail Typology: Haynes (25 min) 
5. Stakeholders Interview Process:  Update and What’s Next:  Roth/Dunham/Popilek/Huie (10 min) 
6. Schedule Review:  Haynes (5 min) 
7. Implementation Workshop – February 21, 2013 (need high attendance): Hudson/Haynes (05 min) 
8. Other  
 
Need more information or Questions?  Contact mel.huie@oregonmetro.gov  503.797.1731 
 
Meeting Minutes 
  
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
 
 
1. Welcome/Introductions 
Mel Huie opened the meeting by thanking everyone for attending and asked that everyone take a 
moment to introduce themselves. (Sign-in Sheet attached) 
 
2. Open House, January 31, 2013 (Open House Flyer attached) 
 Time: Set up by Metro and Mandy starts at 4:30 
 Facilitators should arrive at 5:00 
 Presentation will be at 6:00 
 Councilor Craddick will provide a brief welcome before handing the floor over to Mel. 
 Presentation will cover the following: 
o Overview of the project from the beginning (Mel Huie) 
o Overall alignment/7 segments (see assignments below) 
o Trail typologies (David Haynes) 
o Scouters Mt. project update 
 Each segment representative will then facilitate their station at the open house 
o Segment 1 - Emily Roth 
o Segment 2 - Mel Huie 
o Segment 3 - Katie Dunham 
o Segment 4 - Katie Dunham 
o Segment 5 - Carol Earle 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouters's Mtn. Loop Trail Master Plan, 
Project Advisory Committee Meeting No. 7 
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: January 10, 2013
Meeting Time: 2:00 pm
Location: Metro, 600 NE Grand, Portland. Conf. Rm. 270
Attendees: Mel Huie, John Mermin, Elaine Stewart, Tim Richard 
- Metro; Michael Morrow, Justin Popilek, Carol Earle 
- City of Happy Valley; Katie Dunham - NCPRD; 
Lynn Barlow, Emily Roth - Portland Parks & 
Recreation; Lori Mastrantonio - Clackamas County; 
Karen Vitkay, George Hudson - Alta; David Haynes, 
Tom Litster, Mandy Flett - Otak 
Minutes By: Mandy Flett
Meeting Minutes 
November 1, 2012   Page 2 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC7_01_10_2012\PAC7_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2013_01_15_FNL.doc 
o Segment 6 - Justin Popilek 
o Segment 7 - Mel for presentation/Portland Parks and Rec support at station 
 Trail typologies - David Haynes 
 
3. Implementation Workshop - February 21, 2013 
 Meeting will be held at Metro in Room 270 and led by Tom Litster with Otak. 
 Meeting will be from 1:30-3:30 pm (2 hours) 
 Mel requested that we leave 15 minutes at the end of the meeting for him to provide a report 
back on the open house. 
 
4. Review of Trail Typology Map and Guidelines (Preliminary Draft Map and Cross-Sections 
attached) 
David handed out a preliminary draft trail typology map so that the team could get an idea of how 
the different types of trails would be presented in the report and to the public. He noted that we will 
finalize this once the alignments have been agreed upon and received the final GIS files from Metro.  
 Mel requested that we use the same color palette as the alignment maps to avoid confusion. He 
will also need this available to insert into the PPT once completed. 
 David pointed out that in Tile 2 that the buffered cycle track will be changed to shared lane 
markings through the Gentemann property due to the existing topography. 
 Lynn Barlow noted a change for the maps; the Gentemann property is now officially called 
Mitchell Creek Natural Area. 
 On Mt. Scott Boulevard will there be a two-way cycle track on one side or a track on both sides 
of the street? If possible, there will be a buffered two-way cycle track with a sidewalk on one 
side. 
 PBOT is now saying that 12' path is not large enough. Consider areas that could accommodate a 
wider path or separation by user types, specifically in undeveloped areas. 
 From a natural resource standpoint, a large buffer between streams and rivers is preferred. 
 In Tile 3 what side of the creek will the trail be? Due to the topography and available space we 
will move the trail to the flattest area. Stream crossings, via bridges or boardwalks will be needed 
as part of the Rock Creek alignment in Tile 3. 
 Can we add trail surface types to the typology maps? Portland Parks and Recreation noted they 
no longer allow wood chips as a surface. They are currently using paved, compacted gravel, and 
correctly graded earth. 
 Elaine asked how the natural resources memo will be incorporated into the report/maps? At this 
time it is going to be an appendix, but Karen and David noted that we could take key items and 
add them to specific recommendations by segment. 
 She appreciated the undercrossing, the team should also consider this an opportunity to 
combine with wildlife crossing improvements as well. FHWA has great guidance for 
over/under-crossings. 
Meeting Minutes 
November 1, 2012   Page 3 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC7_01_10_2012\PAC7_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2013_01_15_FNL.doc 
5. Review of Final Proposed Trail Alignments (Maps are attached) 
Tile 1:  
 Portland Parks and Recreation noted that the current map shows three options and one that 
looks like a loop. This section is still in discussions and should be marked to show as option A 
and B to be clear. 
 Portland Parks and Recreation have heard concern about safe crossings at the Springwater 
Corridor. 
Tile 2:  
 Removed the airport option. 
 Currently the map shows a multi-use trail from SE Clatsop, heading south on SE 152nd with 
bicycle parking proposed at the corner of the Rogers property (Scouter Mountain). Should it be 
changed to show a pedestrian route only and keep the bikes on the eastern route on 
Vradenburg? From the natural resource perspective, even a pedestrian only alignment is a 
disturbance. Mel Huie to discuss with Dan Moller about jurisdictional management. 
 Within the Scouter Mt. Natural Area, there is a section of the multi-use trail that should be 
reflected to show pedestrian route only. This section is from the Future Picnic Shelter Site north 
to where the trail meets up with the existing pedestrian route. 
 Note in report that you will not be able to walk or ride your bike through the natural areas, you 
must stay on the bike route (with the exception of the paved access route to the top of Scouter 
Mountain which will be open to cyclists)  
Tile 3: 
 Why are there to spurs off of the main trail?  
o The trail that heads east provides access to Hood View Park. 
o The trail that heads west will provide access for those coming from 152nd. (This trail segment 
should be extended to 152nd.) 
o NCPRD intends to develop these segments to regional trail standards. 
Tile 4: 
 Clear signage will need to be provided at the intersection of SE 142nd and SE Sunnyside Road 
for bicyclist heading north towards the Power Line Corridor indicating there are stairs and steep 
grades ahead versus having the bicyclists riding up to the stairs and having to possibly turn back. 
Tile 5: 
 Intertwine wayfinding Signage will be very important, specifically at SE Mather Road and 
Summers Lane. 
Tile 6:  
 The existing multi-use trail is questionable. Currently it is not paved, but could be upgraded.  
Environmental issues associated with Mt Scott Creek make development challenging.  Current 
use is as a hiking trail. Consider changing from a multi-use path to pedestrian route and add in 
an additional route for bicyclists on 122nd. Suggestion to put cycling alignment on SE 122nd and 
129th between Sunnyside and Mt Scott Blvd. 
Meeting Minutes 
November 1, 2012   Page 4 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC7_01_10_2012\PAC7_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2013_01_15_FNL.doc 
Tile 7: 
 Mel requested that anything that is “off-street” is clearly marked on the maps. Metro to include 
labels on maps. 
 
 
 
Meeting adjourned: 3:30 pm.  

  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 









  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
Meeting Agenda 
 
 
 
1. Greetings and Open House #2 Summary:  Huie (10 min) 
2. Gilbert Middle School Principal: Stacie Moncrief (10 min) 
3. Implementation Overview: Haynes/Litster (10 min) 
4. Trail Segment Discussion: Consultant Team (85 min) 
5. Discussion Summary: Litster (10 min) 
6. Next Steps: Haynes (5 min)  
 
Need more information or Questions?  Contact mel.huie@oregonmetro.gov  503.797.1731 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouter Mt. Loop Trail Master Plan:  
Project Advisory Committee Meeting #8 
Project No.: 16088 
Meeting Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013  
Meeting Time: 2:00-3:30 pm 
Location: Metro, 600 NE Grand, Portland. Conf. Rm. 270 
Expected 
Attendees: 
Carlotta Collette, Shirley Craddick Metro Council; Councilor Michael 
Morrow; Katie Dunham, N. Clackamas Parks and Recreation District; 
Janet Alley, North Clackamas School District; Russell Aldridge, Lincoln 
Memorial Park Cemetery; Bill Garity, Clackamas Co.; Lori Mastrantonio, 
Clackamas County Transportation and Land Use; Mike Oleson, 
Clackamas County; Michael Walter, Carol Earle, Rich Feucht, Justin 
Popilek, city of Happy Valley; John Berry, Happy Valley Citizen; Emily 
Roth, Lynn Barlow, Mart Hughes Portland Parks and Recreation; Bret 
Richards, ODOT; Mel Huie, Heather Coston, Dan Moeller, Elaine 
Stewart, John Mermin, Kate Holleran, Leif Anderson, Sheena 
VanLeuven, Tim Richard, Max Woodbury; Metro; Sara McClurg, 
Clackamas County Sheriff; Jeff Johnson, Volunteer for Metro Trails; 
David Haynes, Tom Litster, Mandy Flett, Otak; George Hudson, Karen 
Vitkay, Alta Planning 
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 


Meeting Minutes 
  
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
 
 
1. Welcome/Introductions 
Mel Huie opened the meeting by thanking everyone for attending and asked that everyone take a 
moment to introduce themselves. He also asked that we provide a few minutes out of our meeting 
to hear from Stacie Moncrief from Douglas/Gilbert Park Schools. (Sign-in Sheet attached) 
 
2. Open House, January 31, 2013 Summary 
Mel gave a brief overview of the open house and quick recap of some of the comments heard that 
night. He noted that there were approximately 60 members of the public and we received about 20 
completed surveys. 
 Director of Willamette National Cemetery is supportive, but will not allow a trail to go through 
property.  
 There was developer present at the open house who requested that we do not have a trail going 
through his nice quiet subdivision and preferred that we use the perimeter of the property. On 
the other hand, home owners of this development were also present and they are in favor of 
having the trail system within the development. Need to discuss the possibility of an easement. 
 In Tile 1 option A is preferred over option B. 
 Tile 7 – no access to Willamette National Cemetery 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouters's Mtn. Loop Trail Master Plan, 
Project Advisory Committee Meeting No. 8 
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: February 21, 2013
Meeting Time: 1:30 pm
Location: Metro, 600 NE Grand, Portland. Conf. Rm. 270
Attendees: Mel Huie, John Mermin, Elaine Stewart, Tim 
Richard, Kate Holleran, Matthew Hampton - Metro; 
Michael Morrow, Justin Popilek - City of Happy 
Valley; Katie Dunham - NCPRD; Emily Roth - 
Portland Parks & Recreation; Lori Mastrantonio - 
Clackamas County; Stacie Moncrief – David 
Douglas/Gilbert Park Schools; Linda Bauer; Karen 
Vitkay, George Hudson - Alta; David Haynes, Tom 
Litster, Mandy Flett - Otak 
Minutes By: Mandy Flett
Meeting Minutes 
February 21, 2013   Page 2 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC8_02_21_2013\PAC8_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2013_02_21_FNL.doc 
 Purchase golf course and zone to low density with a park and trail system. 
 Scouter Project – 20 years is too long . . . “get it done.” 
 
In addition to open house comments, Elaine Stewart added that there were concerns regarding the 
number of crossing of Rock Creek, try to make an effort to limit how many times cross due to 
environmental issues. 
 
3. Gilbert Middle School Principal 
Stacie Moncrief provided the schools views of the trail system and what suggestions/concerns they 
have: 
 Supportive, but concerns about bringing in more traffic. Need to work with the City to get 
improved pedestrian facilities.  
 Due to the lack of pedestrian facilities most parents drive their children to school which creates 
a significant amount of congestion during peak drop-off and pick-up times. 
 Gilbert – 682 students (K-5 grades)  Alice Ott – 719 studenst (6-8 grades) 
 Concern with cutting into playfield. There is currently a fence and they are worried about 
children getting out of school property and strangers getting onto to school property. 
 They currently use the existing field for soccer and baseball. 
 Do not want a high fence around the property, gives the wrong feeling. 
 Would like the students/teachers to have the ability to walk safely to school. 
 Suggested 128th to Foster, this would branch off of the Springwater. 
 Suggested one street to the east past the cul-de-sac on Ramona. (Alice Ott) 
o Ramona currently has no sidewalks, apparently the city is planning sidewalks in the near 
future. 
 Access to Alice Ott is extremely limited, parents are stopping on Ramona which is a very narrow 
street, this is upsetting the neighbors. Is it possible to put a path on Ramona? 
 Karen suggested the possibility of shifting the staff parking to the right and add a path down the 
left side? 
o Minimal use due to people coming from the north. 
 Preferred solution would be pathways with crossings on both sides of 128th, Ramona, and 136th. 
 Future sight for school on Deardorph – no funding so may add onto existing schools. May sell 
building. 
 Emily with PP&R noted that her team will be walking the Tile 7 loop in the next week and will 
note these areas in her assessment. Considering a trail connection to the botanical gardens area. 
 Safe Routes to School for 128th and Ramona, Emily suggested looking at the bike master plan 
for green streets. 
 
4. Implementation Matrix Overview  
Tom Litster started off by establishing some ground rules to make sure that the meeting ended on 
time out of consideration for the attendees schedules. He asked that if we get bogged down on off 
Meeting Minutes 
February 21, 2013   Page 3 
 
L:\Project\16000\16088\Admin\Meetings\PAC\PAC8_02_21_2013\PAC8_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2013_02_21_FNL.doc 
topic issues or issues that need to be discussed in greater detail that we put them in the “parking lot” 
and discuss them at a later time. The goal of the today’s meeting is to have each agency review their 
sections and agree or change priorities, responsibilities, and timeframes. 
 
Extensive notes/changes were made to the implementation matrix. (See attached matrix 
spreadsheet). It was agreed that Otak would update and distribute one time for final 
comments/edits. 
 
 
Meeting adjourned: 3:30 pm.  
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 


Meeting Agenda 
 
 
 
1. Project Status:  Haynes, Huie (1:00 – 1:15 pm) 
2. Comment Review Discussion: All participants (1:15 – 2:45 pm) 
3. Summary Comments/Next Steps: Haynes/Huie (2:45 – 3:00 pm) 
 
Need more information or Questions?  Contact mel.huie@oregonmetro.gov  503.797.1731 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott-Scouter Mt. Loop Trail Master Plan:  
Project Advisory Committee Meeting #9 
Project No.: 16088 
Meeting Date: Wednesday, June 26, 2013  
Meeting Time: 1:00-3:00 pm 
Location: Metro, 600 NE Grand, Portland. Conf. Rm. 501 (Packy) 
Expected 
Attendees: 
Carlotta Collette, Shirley Craddick Metro Council; Councilor Michael 
Morrow; Katie Dunham, N. Clackamas Parks and Recreation District; 
Janet Alley, North Clackamas School District; Russell Aldridge, Lincoln 
Memorial Park Cemetery; Bill Garity, Clackamas Co.; Lori Mastrantonio, 
Clackamas County Transportation and Land Use; Mike Oleson, 
Clackamas County; Michael Walter, Carol Earle, Rich Feucht, Justin 
Popilek, city of Happy Valley; John Berry, Happy Valley Citizen; Emily 
Roth, Lynn Barlow, Mart Hughes Portland Parks and Recreation; Bret 
Richards, ODOT; Mel Huie, Heather Coston, Dan Moeller, Elaine 
Stewart, John Mermin, Kate Holleran, Leif Anderson, Sheena 
VanLeuven, Tim Richard, Max Woodbury; Metro; Sara McClurg, 
Clackamas County Sheriff; Jeff Johnson, Volunteer for Metro Trails; 
David Haynes, Tom Litster, Mandy Flett, Otak; George Hudson, Karen 
Vitkay, Alta Planning 
Meeting Minutes 
  
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
 
 
1. Welcome/Introductions 
Mel Huie opened the meeting by thanking everyone for attending and asked that everyone take a 
moment to introduce themselves. He then asked each jurisdiction who will need to review the 
document and when will they need the document by: 
 Portland Parks & Recreation:  
o Portland Council will not need to review the document 
o Parks Board will review in early October 
o PBOT – Emily will find out who at PBOT should review 
o Bike and Pedestrian Advisory Committee 
o Emily will coordinate with BES to determine if they would like to see document 
o Emily requested the GIS layer of the alignments for their comprehensive plan update. 
 Happy Valley: 
o Planning Commission will review prior to the Councils review. October is good for adding it 
to the agenda. 
 NCPRD 
o Advisory Board – need to verify with Jerome or Katie when she returns. Will it need to go in 
front of Commissioners 
 Lincoln Memorial 
o Mel to coordinate  
 Boy Scouts  
o They will not need to review the document. 
 
Meeting: Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan, 
Project Advisory Committee Meeting No. 8 
Project No.: 16088
Meeting Date: June 26, 2013
Meeting Time: 1:00 pm
Location: Metro, 600 NE Grand, Portland. Conf. Rm. 501
Attendees: Mel Huie, Elaine Stewart, Tim Richard - Metro; 
Justin Popilek - City of Happy Valley; Lynn Barlow, 
Emily Roth - Portland Parks & Recreation; Lori 
Mastrantonio - Clackamas County; Linda Bauer – 
Neighborhood Representative; Karen Vitkay, George 
Hudson - Alta; David Haynes, Mandy Flett - Otak 
Minutes By: Mandy Flett
Meeting Minutes 
June 26, 2013   Page 2 
 
C:\Documents and Settings\mandyw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet 
Files\Content.Outlook\M64V4QDS\PAC9_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2013_06_26_FNL-ddh.doc 
 
2. Comment Review Discussion 
David Haynes led the conversation and provided a brief over view of the comments we had received 
to date from stakeholders and a meeting that was held between Mel and himself. 
 Larry Conrad – requested that all maps should be updated to match the alignment shown on 
page 67. 
o The team made the decision to include a note that states “Schematic alignment shown is 
superseded by this Master Plan. See Map X on page 66-67. 
 Tim Richard – Noted to make the project name consistent throughout the document. He noted 
that for a current project they were going to spell Scouters with an “s” and Mountain will be 
abbreviated as Mtn. (Scouters Mtn.). 
o Mel is going to verify the project name within Metro and get back to the design team.  
 Mel Huie – Mel to provide stakeholder list 
o Requested that we eliminate blank pages, possibly add photos. 
o Traffic analysis colors: need legend 
o Cover subheading: Portland, Happy Valley, Clackamas County 
o Metro to provide more acknowledgements 
o Additional cosmetic items were noted 
o Under Portland Parks & Recreation add Mart 
o Emily noted when writing Portland Parks use an “&” vs. the word “and” 
o George noted that we are using their old logo  
o On cover remove logos and list their names 
 Justin 
o Noted the list of possible permits for Happy Valley seemed a little long.  
 The other jurisdictions took this opportunity to modify the list on page 38 
 Need to add a statement that not all of these permits will be required 
o It was noted that ODOT was not mentioned in this table. At this time ODOT has requested 
to remove the portion within segment 7C off of the alignment map. Otak and Metro will 
review the document to make sure any sections of the master plan mentioning this portion 
of the segment will be removed. The implementation matrix needs to be updated to remove 
segment 7-C. 
 Elaine 
o Nothing to add, but wanted to verify that her natural resource notes made it into the 
document when needed. 
 Lynn/Emily 
o On page 5 the current map could give the impression that there would be a paved path in 
natural areas.  
o Requested we move the final map to the end of the Executive Summary.  
o Mel also added that we should include a note in the title “Quarter Mile Buffer” 
Meeting Minutes 
June 26, 2013   Page 3 
 
C:\Documents and Settings\mandyw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet 
Files\Content.Outlook\M64V4QDS\PAC9_MTG_MIN_MS_SMTrail_2013_06_26_FNL-ddh.doc 
o Emily noted that the East Lents Flood Plain natural area is now officially Foster Flood Plain 
natural area 
 Linda  
o Emphasized that before trail segments are open for public use that they are safe. She 
stressed the need for safety specifically along the Foster Rd. route. Verify that there is a note 
in the implementation that supports safety. 
 George 
o Within the design framework section it would be a good idea to provide a two paragraph 
write up that explains how we are meeting metro’s trail guidelines and how these 
requirements can be tied to funding opportunities. 
o Consider a note as well on page 45. 
 
3. Additional Comments/Next Steps 
 Mel has agreed to transmit a final copy to ODOT 
 Tim Richard is the PM on the picnic shelter project and at this time bikes will only be allowed to 
the bike shelter. 
 
Meeting adjourned: 2:15 pm.  
APPENDIX B
Open House Summaries
This page was intentionally left blank.







  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 






























Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Loop 
Master Plan and Scouter Mt. Nature Park 
June  2012 
Project partners and consultants 
Neighbors, property 
owners and the public 
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop 
study area 
Hwy 212 
1
7
2
n
d
 
Springwater 
Corridor 
Clatsop 
Clackamas 
River 
Destinations 
along the 
future trail 
• Parks 
• Natural areas 
• Schools 
• Employment/ 
Commercial centers 
Trails and bicycle facilities 
 
Public land along 
future trail 
Topography: 
very steep 
terrain 
Natural  
resources 
• Buttes 
• Forests 
• Wetlands 
• Streams and 
rivers 
Trails and safety 
• Enforce positive trail 
usage 
• Early law enforcement 
involvement 
• CPTED: Crime Prevention 
through Environmental 
Design 
• Trails are safe 
alternatives to roadways 
• Trail watch groups 
 
 
Benefits of trails 
    Connections to nature, increased property values, 
reduced vehicle miles travel, healthy people, less 
CO2, tourism, environmental awareness and 
education, affordable recreation, independence 
for kids and seniors, connecting with neighbors, 
cleaner air to breathe, community pride, 
accessible/close to home, attractive to businesses, 
livable communities, cultural preservation and 
education, safe routes, economic development, 
habitat preservation and connectivity … 
Opportunities and challenges 
• Pedestrian 
• Bicycle 
• Multi-use 
 
Preliminary 
alignments 
Project schedule and process 
• Trail concept developed 1988-1992 
• Endorsed by Metro, Happy Valley, 
NCPRD and Clackamas Co. in 1992 
• Funding for master plan awarded by 
Metro from USDOT with support 
from all the local partners 
• Project approved by the region’s 
voters in 1995 and 2006 via two 
Metro bond measures 
 
 
Project schedule and process 
• Background planning started 11/2011 
• Project Advisory Committee – 11/2011 
• Open house No. 1 – 6/7/2012 
• Open house No. 2 – fall 2012 
• Open house No. 3 – early spring 2013 
• Stakeholder interviews, public 
outreach, neighborhood contacts – 
summer/fall ’12 
• Master Plan completion spring – 2013  
• Trail construction  – in phases over 20 
years 
 
What is a regional trail? 
• Asphalt, concrete, compacted gravel 
or hard surface 
• 10-12 feet wide with 2’ shoulders 
• Boardwalks can be used in land is 
wet 
• Serves a recreation and commuter 
users 
• Goal is to have 75% of the trail 
separated from traffic 
 
Some statistics 
• This “emerald necklace” trail would 
connect numerous parks, natural 
areas, schools, businesses, etc.  
• This trail would connect: 
 87 miles of existing local bike lanes 
 33 miles of other regional trail 
 
Some statistics 
• 21,000 residences and businesses are 
within ½ mile of the proposed trail  
• 56,000 people live within ½ mile of 
the trail 
• Proposed trail routes/alignments:   
32 miles 
• Completed sections of the trail:         
7 miles  
Scouter Mountain Nature Park 
• Nature Park to be completed: 
summer 2013 
• 99 acres of public open space 
• Picnic shelter, trail head, 
restrooms to be built by summer 
2013 
• Restoration of the site to begin in 
summer 2012 
 
Proposed schematic design 
Picnic shelter – east elevation 
Stabilization at Scouter Mountain 
 
• Property security: protects the integrity of our 
ownership via gates, established boundaries and 
signs 
• Property management: makes appropriate decisions 
about existing structures and infrastructure  
• Natural resources: protects the water quality, wildlife 
habitat and access to nature values for which the 
property was acquired 
For more information, contact Kate Holleran at 
kate.holleran@oregonmetro.gov 
Condition at 
acquisition Desired 
future 
condition 
Degraded 
condition 
Stabilized 
condition 
Acquisition 
Stabilization 
actions 
Restoration / 
enhance 
Long-term 
management  
Stabilization: ecological context 
Examples of stabilization activities at 
Scouter Mountain 
•Assess current condition  
•Meet neighbors/partners  
•Invasive weed control  
•Survey/post boundaries  
•Encroachment issues 
•Gates  
•Fence removal/repair 
•Identify desired future condition 
•Planting site preparation 
•Re-establish native vegetation 
•Remove/recycle structures 
•Garbage, tire removal 
•Hazard tree removal 
•Erosion control 
How land, right-of-way and 
easements will be obtained for trail 
• Metro works only with willing sellers 
• Metro will not condemn private 
property for the trail 
• If trail is designated to be built in a 
public right-of-way, local jurisdiction 
approval must be obtained. Public 
involvement is encouraged 
For more information 
www.oregonmetro.gov/scottscouter 
 
 
Mel Huie 
Metro Regional Trails Coordinator 
503-797-1731  
mel.huie@oregonmetro.gov 
 
Katie Dunham 
Parks Planner, North Clackamas Parks and Recreation 
District 
503-742-4358 
kdunham@co.clackamas.or.us 
 
Emily Roth 
Natural Resources Planner, City of Portland, Parks & 
Recreation 
503-823-9225 
emily.roth@portlandoregon.gov 
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
Memorandum 
D:\Admin\Meetings\Open House_01_31_13\OpenHouseSummary_2013_01_31.doc 
17355 SW Boones Ferry Rd.
Lake Oswego, OR  97035
Phone (503) 635-3618
Fax (503) 635-5395
 
 
 
On January 31, 2013 Metro held their second open house for the Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop 
Project. The event was held at the City of Happy Valley's City Hall from 5:30 to 8:00pm where 
approximately 47 members of the community attended. From 5:30 to 6:00 pm individuals had the 
opportunity to review the handouts and talk to staff regarding specific alignments.  
 
At 6:00 pm, Metro Councilor’s Collette and Craddick and City of Happy Valley Councilor Morrow 
began the presentation by thanking everyone for attending and showing support for this project. 
They then handed the floor off to Mel Huie with Metro who provided an overview of the project 
from the beginning to where we are currently. Next, Mel and members of the Project Advisory 
Committee from the different jurisdictions gave a brief overview of the opportunities and 
constraints for each of the seven segments. The presentation ended with David Haynes reviewing 
the different trail typologies and Kate Holleran providing a brief update on the Scouter's Mountain 
project.  
 
Mel thanked everyone for attending the open house and asked that if anyone had any specific 
questions about the project, trail segments, or typologies to visit the different stations around the 
room and talk with the project team members. He also reminded the attendee's that there was a 
comment form and asked that everyone take a moment to complete the form and leave it at the 
sign-in desk.  
 
Overall, the staff heard positive feedback on the alignments and were excited for the trail to be 
constructed. Based on the feedback from the public, below are the general concerns that were 
expressed: 
 
• Need to provide facilities for horses 
• Need to show connections to transit 
• Show the Sunrise Trial and Carver to Barton alignments 
• Develop an off leash dog area in the powerline corridor (Tile 4) 
To: Mel Huie, Metro
From: Mandy Flett
Copies: David Haynes
Date: January 31, 2013
Subject: MS/SM Trail Loop: Open House No. 2  
Project No.: 16088
Mel Huie, Metro  Page 2 
MS/SM Trail Loop: Open House No. 2  January 31, 2013   
 
D:\Admin\Meetings\Open House_01_31_13\OpenHouseSummary_2013_01_31.doc 
• Timeline for construction of trail is too long 
• Tile 7, trail segment that runs through cemetery should be rerouted to Mt. Scott Blvd. out of 
respect for families and friends paying respect 
• Possibility of the trail bringing transients into neighborhoods 
• Former Pleasant Valley Golf Course zoning should be low density so that the natural area and 
trail do not get lost in the middle of homes 
 
When asked “how important are each of the preliminary project goals to you”, the majority of the 
people felt that they were all equally very important or important. Also the majority of the attendees 
use the local neighborhood trails whether it be for personal exercise (biking/walking), walking the 
dog, or commuting to work. 
 
The open house wrapped at 8:00 pm. 
 
 
 
 
 
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Loop 
Master Plan and Scouter Mt Nature Park        .   
Open House #2 – January 31, 2013
5:30 – 8:00 p m Presentation at 6:00 p m    . .       . .
Happy Valley City Hall 16000 SE Misty
Project partners and consultants
Neighbors, property 
owners and the public
Regional Trails System   
• Metro and its partners throughout the four             
county region are planning a 1,200 mile 
system of regional trails and greenways To          .    
date, approximately 300 miles have been 
built.
• The proposed “Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail 
Loop” will range between 25 40 miles         –   .  
• The trail will accommodate pedestrians, 
bi li d i *cyc sts an  equestr an  use.
*(Springwater Corridor only)
Metro Regional Trails and Greenways
Mt.Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail  Loop Study Area
Springwater
Corridor
Clatsop
172nd
Hwy 212
Clackamas 
River
What is a regional trail?
• Serves recreation and commuter 
users.
• Goal is to have 75% of the trail 
separated from traffic.   
• Generally, paved in asphalt, concrete, 
compacted gravel, or hard surface.
• Soft surface may be allowed in 
environmentally sensitive areas.
• 10‐12 feet wide with 2’ shoulders.
• Boardwalks can be used if land is 
wet.
Benefits of trails
Connectivity: with your neighbors, neighborhoods, 
parks, other trails and nature;
Health: affordable recreation & exercise, transportation 
alternatives and cleaner air;
E i tt ti t b i d i dconom c: a rac ve  o  us nesses an   ncrease  
property values;
Ecological: environmental awareness improved water    ,     
quality, wildlife and habitat preservation.
Preliminary 
alignments
Leslie to update with new map from 
Dec 2012. 
In many cases, pedestrian 
and bike routes need to         
be separated due to 
topography or 
environmental concerns  .
Project history, process & schedule
• Trail concept developed 1988‐1992
• Endorsed by Metro, Happy Valley, 
NCPRD and Clackamas Co. in 1992
• Funding for master plan awarded by 
Metro from the US Department of 
Transportation with support from all 
the local partners.
• Project approved by the region’s 
voters in 1995 and 2006 via two 
Metro bond measures
Project history, process & schedule
• Background planning started in Nov. 2011
• Project Advisory Committee Meetings: Nov. 
2011 to March 2013
• Open House No 1: June 7 2012    .      , 
• Stakeholder interviews, Public Outreach 
Neighborhood Contacts Summer/Fall ‘12
O H N 2 J 31 2013• pen  ouse  o.  :  an.  , 
• Master Plan completion Spring 2013 
• Review and approval by local governing 
bodies and Metro Council: 2013
• Implementation in phases over 20 years
Trails and safety
• Enforce positive trail usage.
• Early law enforcement 
involvement in trail planning.
• Crime Prevention Through 
Environmental Design (CPTED).
• Trails are safe alternatives to 
roadways.
• Establish ‘Trail Watch’ program       
with neighbors.
• Work with ‘Safe Routes to         
School’ programs.
Some statistics
• This “emerald necklace” trail would 
connect numerous parks, natural 
areas, schools, businesses, etc. 
• This trail would connect:
 87 miles of existing local bike lanes            .
 33 miles of other regional trail.
 Numerous neighborhood and 
regional parks.
Some statistics
• About 21,000 residences and 
businesses are within ½ mile of the 
proposed trail.
• About 56,000 people live within ½ 
mile of the trail.
• Proposed trail routes/alignments:   25‐
40 miles (estimate).
Destinations
• Parks
• Natural areas
• Schools
• Employment/
Commercial centers
Trails & bicycle facilities
Ownership
Areas highlighted in blue are publicly 
owned parcels.
Green parcels show privately owned open 
spaces
Topography
Red >25% slope
Orange >10% slope
750’ elevation change
Natural 
Resources
• Buttes
• Forests
• Wetlands
• Streams & rivers
Shades of blue represent our rivers, 
streams, wetlands and the quality of 
these habitat areas Greens depict    .      
upland habitat quality.
Opportunities & challenges
How the you can get involved
• Contact Katie Dunham North Clackamas Parks and    ,         
Recreation District at 503.742.4358 or 
kdunham@co.clackamas.or.us
• Contract Emily Roth, Portland Parks and Recreation 
Bureau at 503.823.9225 or 
emily.roth@portlandoregon.gov
• Contact Justin Popilek, Happy Valley at 503.783.3810 
or justinp@ci.happy‐valley.or.us
• Contact Mel Huie, Metro at 503.797.1731 or 
mel.huie@oregonmetro.gov. 
Scouter Mountain
• Nature Park to be completed:
May 2013
• 99 acres of public open space
• Picnic Shelter, loop trail, restrooms
• Restoration of the site to begin in 
Summer 2012
Proposed schematic design
Picnic shelter – east elevation     
Stabilization at Scouter Mountain
• Property security: protects the integrity of our 
ownership via gates, established boundaries and 
signs
• Property management: makes appropriate decisions 
about existing structures and infrastructure 
• Natural resources: protects the water quality, wildlife 
habitat and access to nature values for which the                 
property was acquired
Stabilization: ecological context
Acquisition
Stabilization 
actions
Restoration / 
enhance
Long‐term 
Management 
d
Stabilized 
condition
Con ition at 
acquisition Desired future 
condition
Degraded 
condition
Examples of stabilization activities at 
Sco ter Mo ntainu u
•Assess current condition.
•Meet neighbors/partners.
•Identify desired future condition.     
•Vegetation control
•Invasive weed control, Hazard tree control, 
Erosion control, Re‐establish native vegetation.
•Land Management
l h d d f d d d•Environmenta   azar s i enti ie  an  remove
The Intertwine Website
http://www.theintertwine.org
Mt. Scott/ Scouter Mountain Trail master plan
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=40612
APPENDix C
Stakeholder list/interviews
This page was intentionally left blank.
Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Stakeholder 
Date Name
10/29/2012 Renee King
10/30/2012 Andrew Samson
10/31/2012 Bill Garity
10/31/2012 Terry Mungenast
11/7/2012 Sara McClurg
11/8/2012 Janet Alley
Date Name
8/17/2012 Brenton Chose
8/14/2012
BES Johnson Creek Watershed Group 
(Maggie Skenderian, Shanna Anderson, 
Jennifer Antak)
8/15/2012 Astrid Dragoy
10/4/2012 East Portland Parks Coalition
8/17/2012 Linda Robinson
2012 Carol Specht
8/13/2012 Debbie Timmins
Date Name
10/17/2012 Brett Sherman
10/22/2012 Chris Randall
10/16/2012 Michael Morrow
10/19/2012 Steve Campbell
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Happy Valley
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 4 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Andrew Swanson Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 1 
Mt. Scott / Scouter Mt. Trail Loop Master Plan: Stakeholder Interview Process 
Summer/Fall 2012 
 
Project Partners
Metro, ODOT, North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD), Cities of Happy Valley and 
Portland, Clackamas County and Residents/Property Owners/Businesses/Neighborhood Groups and 
Project Advisory Committee of Local Organizations 
 
Project Consultants
Otak, Inc. and Alta Planning + Design 
 
Stakeholder Interviews
30 minutes to 1 hour.  Individuals or in groups.  Keep notes for the record. 
Phase I: Introduce Self / Background and History of Project / Handouts / Fact Sheet / Map / Web Page 
Planning process began in November 2011 and will be completed by April or May 2013. 
 
Phase II: Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan:  20 Year Vision to implement the plan.  No current 
dedicated funding source to design, build and maintain trail yet.  Most likely will use local, state and 
federal funds.  System Development Charges (SDC), dedications and donations from private land owners 
and developers.  Trail concept has been documented in local, county and regional trail, parks and 
transportation plans.  
 
Any land, Right-of-Way and easements obtained for the trail will be from willing sellers (Metro policy).  
Local policies may differ. 
 
Phase III: Ask Questions (questions for all interviewees and tailored questions depending on 
individual/group).  Get the person to sign in:  Name, Address, Email, Phone Number.
Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 
Name/Affiliation: Andrew Swanson 
Address: 150 Beavercreek Road, Oregon City, 97045 
Email: amswanson98@aol.com andrewswa@clackamas.us
Phone: 503 742 4656 
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? 
No 
 
2. Do you know that the trail will connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, parks, 
natural areas, schools, businesses, etc?  Is this important to you? 
Yes. 
 
3. Did you know that part of the trail has already been built (eight miles), but may have another 
name? 
Yes. 
 
4. Do you know its location and the difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes? 
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 4 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Andrew Swanson Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 2 
Yes. 
 
5. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on Springwater 
Corridor only).  How do you feel about separating the users or placing them in a multi-use trail? 
Keep in mind- at what cost? Bike trails on existing roads, ok, but building extra, separate trails 
would be costly. Use existing roadways which can be appropriately upgraded to minimize costs 
as much as possible. Lean on support agencies to build.  
 
6. Do you feel a trail is necessary in this area?  FYI: Funding for trails come from other sources 
generally not available for schools, public safety, and social services. 
Not necessary, but for the health of the community and the quality of life in the area it would be 
extremely beneficial. People are getting fat and stressed and unhealthy. 
 
7. Would you use the trail?  How often? 
Yes. I walk/hike/jog every day.  
 
8. Do you currently:  Walk, Bike, Ride a Horse?  How often for each? 
Yes. See above. 
 
9. Do you mostly do the above (question #8) for recreational or commuter purposes? 
Recreation. 
 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, what do you think?  (Staff person may need to 
describe the locations). 
I think you should limit routes on busy roads. (ie) use 147th instead of 152nd.
11. Do you have any suggestions for safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists not shown on the map? 
City of Happy Valley Trails, HOA Trails (ie- Addington Place), Church trails at Sieben Creek, 
Clackamas County Property next to Pfier/Territory Drive Properties of NCPRD. 
 
12. Do you believe the trail will have recreational and commuter uses? 
Mostly recreation focused I think because there aren’t many jobs in the area (of Happy Valley) 
that aren’t service jobs.  
 
13. What are the most important trail amenities to you?  Please rank in order. 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 1 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience. 2
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, compacted rock, 
soft surface such as bark, other.  
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms  
• Water fountains  
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities)  
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 4 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Andrew Swanson Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 3 
• Lighting.  
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 3
• Bike Racks. 
• *****ADDED: Located in natural area with Native Vegetation 
 
14. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife and their habitat, birds, bees, butterflies 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you? 
Very important. “(People) don’t know what they’re missing.” 
 
15. How important are safe trail routes, bike lanes and sidewalks to schools, work, business, 
shopping to you?  High, medium, low, don’t know. 
Yes. Absolutely.  
 
16. What are your concerns about trail management? 
N/A 
 
17. What are your concerns about personal safety and potential crime as a trail user or cyclist? 
N/A 
 
18. What are your concerns about potential crime for adjacent properties? 
N/A 
 
19. Did you know there are specific design practices to reduce crime along a trail? 
N/A 
 
20. How can neighbors work with the local police and sheriff to keep the trail safe? 
N/A 
 
21. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? 
 
No 
 
22. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? 
Yes.  
 
23. Any other comments or suggestions? 
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 5 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Bill Garrity Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 1 
Mt. Scott / Scouter Mt. Trail Loop Master Plan: Stakeholder Interview Process 
Summer/Fall 2012 
 
Project Partners
Metro, ODOT, North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD), Cities of Happy Valley and 
Portland, Clackamas County and Residents/Property Owners/Businesses/Neighborhood Groups and 
Project Advisory Committee of Local Organizations 
 
Project Consultants
Otak, Inc. and Alta Planning + Design 
 
Stakeholder Interviews
30 minutes to 1 hour.  Individuals or in groups.  Keep notes for the record. 
Phase I: Introduce Self / Background and History of Project / Handouts / Fact Sheet / Map / Web Page 
Planning process began in November 2011 and will be completed by April or May 2013. 
 
Phase II: Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan:  20 Year Vision to implement the plan.  No current 
dedicated funding source to design, build and maintain trail yet.  Most likely will use local, state and 
federal funds.  System Development Charges (SDC), dedications and donations from private land owners 
and developers.  Trail concept has been documented in local, county and regional trail, parks and 
transportation plans.  Any land, Right-of-Way and easements obtained for the trail will be from willing 
sellers (Metro policy).  Local policies may differ. 
 
Phase III: Ask Questions (questions for all interviewees and tailored questions depending on 
individual/group).  Get the person to sign in:  Name, Address, Email, Phone Number.
Date: Wednesday, October 31, 2012 
Name/Affiliation: Bill Garity- DTD at Clackamas County  
Address: 150 Beavercreek Road, Oregon City, 97045 
Email: Billg@clackamas.us
Phone: 503 742 4674 
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? 
Yes- involved in the beginning. 
 
2. Do you know that the trail will connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, parks, 
natural areas, schools, businesses, etc?  Is this important to you? 
Yes. 
 
3. Did you know that part of the trail has already been built (eight miles), but may have another 
name? 
Yes. 
 
4. Do you know its location and the difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes? 
Yes. 
 
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 5 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Bill Garrity Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 2 
5. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on Springwater 
Corridor only).  How do you feel about separating the users or placing them in a multi-use trail? 
It is necessary. 
 
6. Do you feel a trail is necessary in this area?  FYI: Funding for trails come from other sources 
generally not available for schools, public safety, and social services. 
Yes 
 
7. Would you use the trail?  How often? 
Springwater Corridor with my grandkids at weekends occassionaly 
 
8. Do you currently:  Walk, Bike, Ride a Horse?  How often for each? 
Yes. Walk/Ride. Occassionally. 
 
9. Do you mostly do the above (question #8) for recreational or commuter purposes? 
Recreation. 
 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, what do you think?  (Staff person may need to 
describe the locations). 
I think you should limit routes on busy roads. (ie) use 147th instead of 152nd.
11. Do you have any suggestions for safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists not shown on the map? 
 
12. Do you believe the trail will have recreational and commuter uses? 
Yes, but need alternate, efficient routes for commuters in some cases. 
 
13. What are the most important trail amenities to you?  Please rank in order. 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience.  
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, compacted rock, 
soft surface such as bark, other. 1
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms  
• Water fountains  
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities)  
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
• Lighting.  
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs  
• Bike Racks. 
 
14. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife and their habitat, birds, bees, butterflies 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you? 
Commuters on road systems, nature hikers/nature interests on separate trails.  
 
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 5 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Bill Garrity Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 3 
15. How important are safe trail routes, bike lanes and sidewalks to schools, work, business, 
shopping to you?  High, medium, low, don’t know. 
High. Walking is important. Encourage healthy living. 
 
16. What are your concerns about trail management? 
 
N/A 
 
17. What are your concerns about personal safety and potential crime as a trail user or cyclist? 
N/A 
 
18. What are your concerns about potential crime for adjacent properties? 
 
N/A 
 
19. Did you know there are specific design practices to reduce crime along a trail? 
Positive use encourages positive use. 
 
20. How can neighbors work with the local police and sheriff to keep the trail safe? 
N/A 
 
21. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? 
 
No 
 
22. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? 
Yes.  
 
23. Any other comments or suggestions? 
No 
C:\Documents and Settings\emilyw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\LXFN4C48\Janet Alley Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 1 
Mt. Scott / Scouter Mt. Trail Loop Master Plan: Stakeholder Interview Process 
Summer/Fall 2012 
 
Project Partners
Metro, ODOT, North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD), Cities of Happy Valley and 
Portland, Clackamas County and Residents/Property Owners/Businesses/Neighborhood Groups and 
Project Advisory Committee of Local Organizations 
 
Project Consultants
Otak, Inc. and Alta Planning + Design 
 
Stakeholder Interviews
30 minutes to 1 hour.  Individuals or in groups.  Keep notes for the record. 
Phase I: Introduce Self / Background and History of Project / Handouts / Fact Sheet / Map / Web Page 
Planning process began in November 2011 and will be completed by April or May 2013. 
 
Phase II: Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan:  20 Year Vision to implement the plan.  No current 
dedicated funding source to design, build and maintain trail yet.  Most likely will use local, state and 
federal funds.  System Development Charges (SDC), dedications and donations from private land owners 
and developers.  Trail concept has been documented in local, county and regional trail, parks and 
transportation plans.  Any land, Right-of-Way and easements obtained for the trail will be from willing 
sellers (Metro policy).  Local policies may differ. 
 
Phase III: Ask Questions (questions for all interviewees and tailored questions depending on 
individual/group).  Get the person to sign in:  Name, Address, Email, Phone Number.
Date: Thursday, November 8th, 2012 
Name/Affiliation: Janet Alley- NCSD- Deputy Direct of Transportation (Safe Routes to Schools) 
Address: 13801 SE Webster Rd. Milwaukie, OR 97267 
Email: alleyj@nclack.k12.or.us 
Phone: 503-353-6155 
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? 
Yes- involved in the beginning. 
 
2. Do you know that the trail will connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, parks, 
natural areas, schools, businesses, etc?  Is this important to you? 
Yes. 
 
3. Did you know that part of the trail has already been built (eight miles), but may have another 
name? 
Yes. 
 
4. Do you know its location and the difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes? 
Yes. 
 
C:\Documents and Settings\emilyw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\LXFN4C48\Janet Alley Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 2 
5. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on Springwater 
Corridor only).  How do you feel about separating the users or placing them in a multi-use trail? 
It is necessary because of the terrain. 
 
6. Do you feel a trail is necessary in this area?  FYI: Funding for trails come from other sources 
generally not available for schools, public safety, and social services. 
Would be helpful, but not necessary.  
 
7. Would you use the trail?  How often? 
Yes, occasionally. (weekends, etc). 
 
8. Do you currently:  Walk, Bike, Ride a Horse?  How often for each? 
Yes. Walk/Cycle. 
 
9. Do you mostly do the above (question #8) for recreational or commuter purposes? 
Recreation. 
 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, what do you think?  (Staff person may need to 
describe the locations). 
There should be more East/West connectors.  
 
11. Do you have any suggestions for safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists not shown on the map? 
East and West Connectors. 
 
12. Do you believe the trail will have recreational and commuter uses? 
Yes. 
 
13. What are the most important trail amenities to you?  Please rank in order. 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 1 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience.  
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, compacted rock, 
soft surface such as bark, other. 1
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms  
• Water fountains  
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities)  
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping  3 
• Lighting. 2
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 4
• Bike Racks. 
 
14. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife and their habitat, birds, bees, butterflies 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you? 
Safety on the trail is my number 1 priority. Balance is important though because the natural 
areas in this region are amazing. 
C:\Documents and Settings\emilyw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\LXFN4C48\Janet Alley Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 3 
15. How important are safe trail routes, bike lanes and sidewalks to schools, work, business, 
shopping to you?  High, medium, low, don’t know. 
High.  
 
16. What are your concerns about trail management? 
 
Funding to keep up the maintenance.  
 
17. What are your concerns about personal safety and potential crime as a trail user or cyclist? 
Always concerns- managing transients and possible crime, though it won’t be different from any 
other trail.  
 
18. What are your concerns about potential crime for adjacent properties? 
Concern that legitimate trail users are using the trail- ensure positive trail use. Don’t want 
criminals scoping out the houses, etc. 
 
19. Did you know there are specific design practices to reduce crime along a trail? 
Fencing? 
 
20. How can neighbors work with the local police and sheriff to keep the trail safe? 
Report suspicious activity appropriately. Police bike patrols. 
 
21. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? 
Principals of local schools- Clackamas High- Christine Garcia.  
 
22. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? 
Yes.  
 
23. Any other comments or suggestions? 
Keep me posted on progress.  
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 6 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Renee King Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 1 
Mt. Scott / Scouter Mt. Trail Loop Master Plan: Stakeholder Interview Process 
Summer/Fall 2012 
 
Project Partners
Metro, ODOT, North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD), Cities of Happy Valley and 
Portland, Clackamas County and Residents/Property Owners/Businesses/Neighborhood Groups and 
Project Advisory Committee of Local Organizations 
 
Project Consultants
Otak, Inc. and Alta Planning + Design 
 
Stakeholder Interviews
30 minutes to 1 hour.  Individuals or in groups.  Keep notes for the record. 
Phase I: Introduce Self / Background and History of Project / Handouts / Fact Sheet / Map / Web Page 
Planning process began in November 2011 and will be completed by April or May 2013. 
 
Phase II: Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan:  20 Year Vision to implement the plan.  No current 
dedicated funding source to design, build and maintain trail yet.  Most likely will use local, state and 
federal funds.  System Development Charges (SDC), dedications and donations from private land owners 
and developers.  Trail concept has been documented in local, county and regional trail, parks and 
transportation plans.  
 
Any land, Right-of-Way and easements obtained for the trail will be from willing sellers (Metro policy).  
Local policies may differ. 
 
Phase III: Ask Questions (questions for all interviewees and tailored questions depending on 
individual/group).  Get the person to sign in:  Name, Address, Email, Phone Number.
Date: Monday, October 29, 2012 
Name/Affiliation: Renee King- Providence 
Address: 11785 SE 117th Ave, Clackamas, OR 97222 
Email: renee.king@providence.org
We4kings@comcast.net
Phone: 503-698-3494 
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? 
Yes 
 
2. Do you know that the trail will connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, parks, 
natural areas, schools, businesses, etc?  Is this important to you? 
Yes. Very.  
 
3. Did you know that part of the trail has already been built (eight miles), but may have another 
name? 
Yes. Springwater.  
 
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 6 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Renee King Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 2 
4. Do you know its location and the difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes? 
Yes 
 
5. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on Springwater 
Corridor only).  How do you feel about separating the users or placing them in a multi-use trail? 
I feel this is an advantage as it protects the natural areas.  
6. Do you feel a trail is necessary in this area?  FYI: Funding for trails come from other sources 
generally not available for schools, public safety, and social services. 
Yes, important to develop connections, especially for safe access to schools. Also important for 
safe cycling options to work. Would be great for lunch hour walks, cycle commuters, etc.  
 
7. Would you use the trail?  How often? 
Yes. Daily- Near Southern Lights Park and also at weekends at the Springwater Corridor and Mt 
Talbert. Though it’s very dark at night, so I have concerns about safety. 
 
8. Do you currently:  Walk, Bike, Ride a Horse?  How often for each? 
Walk. Daily. 
 
9. Do you mostly do the above (question #8) for recreational or commuter purposes? 
 
Could do both. Personally it’s mostly for recreation, though I have colleagues at Providence who 
commute on bike via Springwater Corridor, and my son would walk to school if possible. 
Walking Sunnyside, or bike loops further east if you could bus to bike route would be great for 
commuters. 
 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, what do you think?  (Staff person may need to 
describe the locations). 
I think you need to look at more east to west connections, not just north to south. Especially in 
the mid section of the map---near Scouters Mountain, etc. 
 
11. Do you have any suggestions for safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists not shown on the map? 
Not areas, but need lighting.  
 
12. Do you believe the trail will have recreational and commuter uses? 
Yes. 
 
13. What are the most important trail amenities to you?  Please rank in order. 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience. 
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, compacted rock, 
soft surface such as bark, other. 2 
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms 3 
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 6 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Renee King Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 3 
• Water fountains 4
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities) 1
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
• Lighting. 5
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 
• Bike Racks. 
 
14. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife and their habitat, birds, bees, butterflies 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you? 
Depends on purpose. For example, on Mount Talbert, it is essential and critically important, 
whereas on some connector pieces it might be less important as they are more functional.  
 
15. How important are safe trail routes, bike lanes and sidewalks to schools, work, business, 
shopping to you?  High, medium, low, don’t know. 
Very.  Especially for schools. Important to encourage safe and healthful commuting, too.  
 
16. What are your concerns about trail management? 
Have heard about transient issues on the Springwater Corridor? Confident in IGA process and 
ways to develop management strategies collaboratively. 
 
17. What are your concerns about personal safety and potential crime as a trail user or cyclist? 
Raise awareness of surroundings, lighting, keep landscaping back off the trail, bushes etc should 
be managed in a way that keeps a clear line of view for trail users.  
Security buttons along trail like in Chicago? Promote group walking, group usage, positive usage, 
etc.  
 
18. What are your concerns about potential crime for adjacent properties? 
As above- encourage positive trail usage. 
 
19. Did you know there are specific design practices to reduce crime along a trail? 
Yes. 
 
20. How can neighbors work with the local police and sheriff to keep the trail safe? 
Raise awareness around WHO to call WHEN. Promote neighborhood watches to include trail 
sections. Periodic Signage. 
 
21. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? 
Middle-age school groups- (ie) Athletic groups for middle-school aged children  
 
22. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? 
Yes.  
 
23. Any other comments or suggestions? 
Adopt-a-trail. Include drinking fountains in the plan- Work with Partners to supply. 
C:\Documents and Settings\emilyw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\LXFN4C48\Officer Sara McClurg Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 1 
Mt. Scott / Scouter Mt. Trail Loop Master Plan: Stakeholder Interview Process 
Summer/Fall 2012 
 
Project Partners
Metro, ODOT, North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD), Cities of Happy Valley and 
Portland, Clackamas County and Residents/Property Owners/Businesses/Neighborhood Groups and 
Project Advisory Committee of Local Organizations 
 
Project Consultants
Otak, Inc. and Alta Planning + Design 
 
Stakeholder Interviews
30 minutes to 1 hour.  Individuals or in groups.  Keep notes for the record. 
Phase I: Introduce Self / Background and History of Project / Handouts / Fact Sheet / Map / Web Page 
Planning process began in November 2011 and will be completed by April or May 2013. 
 
Phase II: Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan:  20 Year Vision to implement the plan.  No current 
dedicated funding source to design, build and maintain trail yet.  Most likely will use local, state and 
federal funds.  System Development Charges (SDC), dedications and donations from private land owners 
and developers.  Trail concept has been documented in local, county and regional trail, parks and 
transportation plans.  Any land, Right-of-Way and easements obtained for the trail will be from willing 
sellers (Metro policy).  Local policies may differ. 
 
Phase III: Ask Questions (questions for all interviewees and tailored questions depending on 
individual/group).  Get the person to sign in:  Name, Address, Email, Phone Number.
Date: Wednesday, November 7th, 2012 
Name/Affiliation: Officer Sara McClurg- Clackamas County Sherriff’s Department- Crime Prevention 
Coordinator. 
Address: 12800 SE 82nd Ave (Sunnybrook), Clackamas, OR 97015 
Email: saramcc@clackamas.us 
Phone: 503-785-5077 
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? 
Yes- involved in the beginning. 
 
2. Do you know that the trail will connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, parks, 
natural areas, schools, businesses, etc?  Is this important to you? 
Yes. Accessible trails are very important- encourage positive users.  
 
3. Did you know that part of the trail has already been built (eight miles), but may have another 
name? 
Yes. 
 
4. Do you know its location and the difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes? 
Yes. 
 
C:\Documents and Settings\emilyw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\LXFN4C48\Officer Sara McClurg Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 2 
5. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on Springwater 
Corridor only).  How do you feel about separating the users or placing them in a multi-use trail? 
Only choice because of erosion control, steep terrain, etc. Don’t know if it will 
enhance/denigrate the users experience. 
 
6. Do you feel a trail is necessary in this area?  FYI: Funding for trails come from other sources 
generally not available for schools, public safety, and social services. 
Not necessary but will enhance quality of life in high density urban area of Clackamas County.  
 
7. Would you use the trail?  How often? 
Yes, occasionally. 
 
8. Do you currently:  Walk, Bike, Ride a Horse?  How often for each? 
Yes. Walk Mount Talbert on occasion.  
 
9. Do you mostly do the above (question #8) for recreational or commuter purposes? 
Recreation. 
 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, what do you think?  (Staff person may need to 
describe the locations). 
Questions around steep terrains and willingness of residents for path “in their backyard” 
NIMBYism. 
11. Do you have any suggestions for safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists not shown on the map? 
Pretty good job- SE 134th/Foster not the safest area. High level of traffic, limited street lights, 
pockets of criminal activity (not major but some drugs, etc) in this area. 
 
12. Do you believe the trail will have recreational and commuter uses? 
Yes. 
 
13. What are the most important trail amenities to you?  Please rank in order. 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 1 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience.  
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, compacted rock, 
soft surface such as bark, other. 1
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms  
• Water fountains  
• Benches 5
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities)  
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping  2 
• Lighting. 3
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 4
• Bike Racks. 
 
14. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife and their habitat, birds, bees, butterflies 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you? 
C:\Documents and Settings\emilyw\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\LXFN4C48\Officer Sara McClurg Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 3 
It is an added bonus to step out of true urban area into nature. More natural settings where 
feasible would be encouraged, but be mindful of safety around vegetation and clear pathways 
for visibility, etc. 
 
15. How important are safe trail routes, bike lanes and sidewalks to schools, work, business, 
shopping to you?  High, medium, low, don’t know. 
Very High.  
 
16. What are your concerns about trail management? 
 
With huge network and many different groups involved, could be problematic to manage 
effectively. Number of access points and trail proposals. Also difficult without some supports- 
bike patrols, etc. 
 
17. What are your concerns about personal safety and potential crime as a trail user or cyclist? 
Depending on construction/natural setting, potential hidings spots for sex, drugs, crime, etc. 
Difficult to eliminate.  
 
18. What are your concerns about potential crime for adjacent properties? 
Connection to Springwater Cooridor with homeless population in close proximity might 
encourage travel further into trail system- not a major concern, but possible. 
 
19. Did you know there are specific design practices to reduce crime along a trail? 
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design- SM is Sherriff’s office liaison on this and is 
happy to lend her expertise during trail development stages. 
 
20. How can neighbors work with the local police and sheriff to keep the trail safe? 
Report suspicious activity appropriately- “Can’t fix what we don’t know.” Police bike patrols. 
Don’t take matters into their own hands.  
 
21. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? 
Fire Department- re: brush control- access and fire safety. 
 
22. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? 
Yes.  
 
23. Any other comments or suggestions? 
I’d like to encourage public engagement every step of the way- get public buy-in from the get-go 
and throughout the project. VERY IMPORTANT.   
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 7 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Terry Mungenast Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 1 
Mt. Scott / Scouter Mt. Trail Loop Master Plan: Stakeholder Interview Process 
Summer/Fall 2012 
 
Project Partners
Metro, ODOT, North Clackamas Parks and Recreation District (NCPRD), Cities of Happy Valley and 
Portland, Clackamas County and Residents/Property Owners/Businesses/Neighborhood Groups and 
Project Advisory Committee of Local Organizations 
 
Project Consultants
Otak, Inc. and Alta Planning + Design 
 
Stakeholder Interviews
30 minutes to 1 hour.  Individuals or in groups.  Keep notes for the record. 
Phase I: Introduce Self / Background and History of Project / Handouts / Fact Sheet / Map / Web Page 
Planning process began in November 2011 and will be completed by April or May 2013. 
 
Phase II: Goals and Objectives of the Master Plan:  20 Year Vision to implement the plan.  No current 
dedicated funding source to design, build and maintain trail yet.  Most likely will use local, state and 
federal funds.  System Development Charges (SDC), dedications and donations from private land owners 
and developers.  Trail concept has been documented in local, county and regional trail, parks and 
transportation plans.  
 
Any land, Right-of-Way and easements obtained for the trail will be from willing sellers (Metro policy).  
Local policies may differ. 
 
Phase III: Ask Questions (questions for all interviewees and tailored questions depending on 
individual/group).  Get the person to sign in:  Name, Address, Email, Phone Number.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012 
Name/Affiliation: Terry Mungenast- Clackamas County- Sunrise Corridor Project 
Address: 150 Beavercreek Road, Oregon City, 97045 
Email: Terrymun@clackamas.us
Phone: 503 742 4656 
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? 
No 
 
2. Do you know that the trail will connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, parks, 
natural areas, schools, businesses, etc?  Is this important to you? 
Yes 
 
3. Did you know that part of the trail has already been built (eight miles), but may have another 
name? 
Yes 
 
4. Do you know its location and the difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes? 
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 7 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Terry Mungenast Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 2 
Yes 
 
5. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on Springwater 
Corridor only).  How do you feel about separating the users or placing them in a multi-use trail? 
It is necessary in some spots. 
 
6. Do you feel a trail is necessary in this area?  FYI: Funding for trails come from other sources 
generally not available for schools, public safety, and social services. 
Added bonus, not necessary. 
 
7. Would you use the trail?  How often? 
N/A 
 
8. Do you currently:  Walk, Bike, Ride a Horse?  How often for each? 
N/A 
 
9. Do you mostly do the above (question #8) for recreational or commuter purposes? 
N/A 
 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, what do you think?  (Staff person may need to 
describe the locations). 
See below 
 
11. Do you have any suggestions for safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists not shown on the map? 
Should consider the ODOT property 97th/98th to Lawnfield 
 
12. Do you believe the trail will have recreational and commuter uses? 
Yes. 
 
13. What are the most important trail amenities to you?  Please rank in order. 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience. 
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, compacted rock, 
soft surface such as bark, other. 2 
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms 3 
• Water fountains  
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities)  
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
• Lighting.  
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 
• Bike Racks. 
 
C:\DOCUME~1\emilyw\LOCALS~1\Temp\Temporary Directory 7 for from NCPRD.zip\from NCPRD\Terry Mungenast Stakeholder Interview.docx Page 3 
14. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife and their habitat, birds, bees, butterflies 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you? 
Added bonus 
 
15. How important are safe trail routes, bike lanes and sidewalks to schools, work, business, 
shopping to you?  High, medium, low, don’t know. 
Added bonus 
 
16. What are your concerns about trail management? 
N/A 
 
17. What are your concerns about personal safety and potential crime as a trail user or cyclist? 
N/A 
 
18. What are your concerns about potential crime for adjacent properties? 
N/A 
 
19. Did you know there are specific design practices to reduce crime along a trail? 
N/A 
 
20. How can neighbors work with the local police and sheriff to keep the trail safe? 
N/A 
 
21. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? 
No 
 
22. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? 
Yes.  
 
23. Any other comments or suggestions? 
Check out ODOT’s Sunrise JTA plan 
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Stakeholder Interview
Name/Affiliation: Astrid Dragoy, PPR City Nature Natural Area Manager 
 
Address: 
 
Email: astrid.dragoy@portlandoregon.gov 
Phone: 
 
Questions/Responses
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? Yes, looked at Metro’s website. 
2. Is it important that the trail connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, 
parks, natural areas, schools, and/or businesses?  Yes to natural area – low impact trails 
for pedestrians within the natural area; proximity for bikes but not in natural areas 
unless designated. 
3. The trail is through difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes.  Are there 
features to include making the trail more accessible? 
 
4. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on 
Springwater Corridor only).  The trail through natural areas will be for pedestrians only. 
Should uses be separated on other sections of the multi-use trail? 
 
5. Do you mostly walk, cycle or ride a horse for recreational or commuter purposes? 
 
6. What are the most important trail amenities to you? 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience. 
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, 
compacted rock, soft surface such as bark, other. 
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms 
• Water fountains 
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities) 
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
• Lighting 
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 
• Bike Racks. 
Please rank in order. 
Top priority – Quality of trail surface; sustainable. 
 
7. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife habitat (birds, bees, butterflies), 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you?  Avoid unique natural areas.  Use sustainable 
practices to protect natural areas. 
8. What features should be included to ensure personal safety and safe routes to schools, 
work, business, and shopping?  
 
9. What are your concerns about trail management? Safety. Funding to maintain. 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, do you have suggestions for alternative 
alignments? 
 
11. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? Environmental Education 
12. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? No 
13. Any other comments or suggestions? What are the criteria/capacity limits for trailheads. 
Where would trailheads be located?   Bring environmental education people in at the 
right time. 
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Stakeholder Interview
Name/Affiliation: BES Johnson Creek Watershed Group 

 Maggie Skenderian., Watershed Manager 

 Shanna Anderson, Acquisition Specialist 

 Jennifer Antak, Project Manager 
 
Address: 
 
Email:  
Phone: 
 
Questions/Responses
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? Yes.  Shown in the Johnson Creek 
Partnership Plan.  Trail designations are desired and mentioned in Target Areas 5-9. 
2. Is it important that the trail connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, 
parks, natural areas, schools, and/or businesses?  More connections the better.  Keep 
some areas less impacted.  No bike trails in natural areas.  Maximize natural resource 
connectivity by only having human connection is not detrimental to the natural area. 
3. The trail is through difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes.  Are there 
features to include making the trail more accessible? 
 
4. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on 
Springwater Corridor only).  The trail through natural areas will be for pedestrians only. 
Should uses be separated on other sections of the multi-use trail? 
 
5. Do you mostly walk, cycle or ride a horse for recreational or commuter purposes? 
 
6. What are the most important trail amenities to you? 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience. 
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, 
compacted rock, soft surface such as bark, other. 
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms 
• Water fountains 
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities) 
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
• Lighting 
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 
• Bike Racks. 
Please rank in order. 
1. Quality of trail surface – pervious, low maintenance in natural areas. 
2. Landscaping – native vegetation 
3. Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs – labels sensitive and 
restored areas. 
 
7. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife habitat (birds, bees, butterflies), 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you?  Very important.  Working to restore salmon in 
Johnson Creek so would like to see habitat enhancements along with the trail.  These 
include shade near the creek, fish friendly crossings (bridge or culvert).  158th crossing of 
Johnson Creek is idea as BES has conceptual plans for this area and they own property 
on the west side. 
8. What features should be included to ensure personal safety and safe routes to schools, 
work, business, and shopping? Encourage safe, accessible access and invite good 
behavior.  Keep areas active – programmed walks, eyes on the trail/creek.  Signage.  In 
natural areas don’t encourage bathing. 
9. What are your concerns about trail management? Safety; on-going maintenance; on-
going protection of natural areas. 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, do you have suggestions for alternative 
alignments? 
 
11. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? Jim Labbe – Audubon 
Matt Clark – Johnson Creek Watershed Council 
12. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? 
Shannah.anderson@portlandoregon.gov
Jennifer.antak@portlandoregon.gov 
13. Any other comments or suggestions? Map tributaries and seasonal streams – have foot 
bridges and buffers.  Many seeps and springs in the area – avoid impacts to these areas. 
Possible trailhead at Foster Floodplain Natural Area.  
 
Culvert replacement at ODOT parcel to open up Veterans Creek.  BES may have a project on 
this property and would not want to rebuild the trail.  Possibility to incorporate restoration 
with trail construction. 
 
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Stakeholder Interview
Name/Affiliation: Brenton Chose/Portland Parks and Recreation Ranger 
 
Address: 
 
Email: Brenton.chase@portlandoregon.gov 
Phone: 
 
Questions/Responses
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? No 
 
2. Is it important that the trail connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, 
parks, natural areas, schools, and/or businesses?  NA 
3. The trail is through difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes.  Are there 
features to include making the trail more accessible? NA 
4. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on 
Springwater Corridor only).  The trail through natural areas will be for pedestrians only. 
Should uses be separated on other sections of the multi-use trail? NA 
5. Do you mostly walk, cycle or ride a horse for recreational or commuter purposes? NA 
6. What are the most important trail amenities to you? 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience. 
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, 
compacted rock, soft surface such as bark, other. 
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms 
• Water fountains 
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities) 
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
• Lighting 
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs – high priority for safety; need 
location to report incidents. 
• Bike Racks. 
Please rank in order. 
 
7. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife habitat (birds, bees, butterflies), 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you?  NA 
8. What features should be included to ensure personal safety and safe routes to schools, 
work, business, and shopping? Make areas less desirable for homeless camping by 
making the trail visible, limbing trees, and having low vegetation 6-10 feet on both sides 
of the trail.  Label cross-roads and mile markers every ¼ mile so people know their 
location; include tags that can be scanned by a smart phone for location.  Coordinate 
with police, sheriff and rangers across all jurisdictions. 
9. What are your concerns about trail management? Managing the vegetation to maintain 
visibility and make less desirable places for homeless camping. 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, do you have suggestions for alternative 
alignments? 
 
11. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? 
 
12. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? 
13. Any other comments or suggestions? 

 Budget for a steady ranger presence 

 Potential for homeless camping at Buttes NA and Mitchell Creek NA 

 Have the trail alignment in the Bureau of Emergency Communication system 

 Plan for mountain biking loops/area to reduce mountain bike impacts. 
 
Mt. Scott Souter Mt. Trail Loop Master Plan:  Stakeholder Interview Process 
Name: Carol Specht – Friends of Powell Butte 
dscpecht@comcast.net 
 
1.  Have you heard about the trail master plan project?   
Yes, nicely introduced at a Friends of Powell Butte meeting.
2.  It is important that the trail connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, parks, 
natural areas, schools, businesses, etc?   
As much as possible connectivity would be nice.
3.  Difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes. 
Do what you can to make using the trail pleasant for the most people.
4.  The trails will accommodate muli-users.  The trail through nature areas will be for 
pedestrians only.   Should uses be separated on other sections of the multi-use trail?   
I like the goal of limiting nature areas to pedestrians.  There might be other sections of the trail 
that should be set aside for pedestrians only. 
5.  Do you walk….for recreational or commuter purposes?   
I walk recreationally in Nature Parks and scenic settings.  I walk in my neighborhood parks 
with our dogs.  In my neighborhood, I walk for commuter purposes to the Safeway store on 
39th and Powell and Woodstock business area.
6.  I have no suggestions for alternative alignments.
7.  What are the most important trail amenities to me: 
 A.  Safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 
 B.  Peaceful/quiet experience. 
C.  Quality of trail surface.  Surface should match the terrain and how the surface drains. 
D.  Restrooms.  
E.  Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs and Trailheads. 
F.  Benches. 
G.  Viewpoints and Landscaping. 
H.  Lighting. 
I.  ADA compliance on part of the trail. 
J.  Water fountains. 
K.  Bike racks.   
 
8.  High priority for natural areas.
9.  Don't know features to include to ensure personal safety.
10.  My concerns about trail management are muddy trails, litter, no trail maintenance, crowds 
of homeless people.   
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Stakeholder Interview
Name/Affiliation: Debbie Timmins/PPR Disabled Citizen Recreation Coordinator 2 
 
Address: 
 
Email: Debbie.timmins@portlandoregon.gov 
Phone: 
 
Questions/Responses
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? No 
2. Is it important that the trail connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, 
parks, natural areas, schools, and/or businesses?  Yes, needs to connect ot accessible 
parks, and parking lots. 
3. The trail is through difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes.  Are there 
features to include making the trail more accessible?  

 Have benches for people to sit and rest 

 Flat surface or ramp for all bridges 

 Create a small accessible loop to a viewpoint to give people a similar experience 

 Curbs and sidewalks on all streets. 
 
4. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on 
Springwater Corridor only).  The trail through natural areas will be for pedestrians only. 
Should uses be separated on other sections of the multi-use trail? Include an accessible 
loop trail to a natural feature that creates the same outdoor experience.  For example, is 
there a small loop to Scouter Mountain that can be created using SE 147th, Boy Scout 
Road and off-street trail?   
5. Do you mostly walk, cycle or ride a horse for recreational or commuter purposes? For 
access make sure there are walking, wheelchair and equestrian facilities.  Remember 
that horses are  unpredictable 
6. What are the most important trail amenities to you? 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience. 
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, 
compacted rock, soft surface such as bark, other. 
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms 
• Water fountains 
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities) 
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
• Lighting 
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 
• Bike Racks. 
Please rank in order (not done in priority order).

 Quality of trail surface – paved asphalt is most easily used 

 Trailheads – larger trailheads should have bathrooms and drinking water 

 Benches 

 Viewpoints 

 Trail Way Finding Signs – include distance to next intersection or feature.  
Power chairs only have a specific amount of power so people need to 
know how far they can go.  Raised map (not Braille) and smart phone 
tags. 
 
7. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife habitat (birds, bees, butterflies), 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you?  Important 
8. What features should be included to ensure personal safety and safe routes to schools, 
work, business, and shopping?  

 Contact number to call if someone gets lost 

 Identify forks in the trail so limited site people know there is a choice 

 Flat trail or small lip that is spaced so that cane and chair users can stay on the 
trail. 
 
9. What are your concerns about trail management? Regular maintenance.  Tree roots and 
cracks need to be repaired; well drained so there is no pooling or patches of mud. 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, do you have suggestions for alternative 
alignments? 
 
11. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? 
 
12. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? Yes 
13. Any other comments or suggestions? 

 At all main entry points give information for where accessible trail is located. 

 Let people make a choice about using the trail by giving information of 
grade/steepness, distance to next parking lot, etc as trailheads or in a brochure. 

 Show a good faith attempt to make sure some section is accessible. 

 Seating areas for seniors – flat rock, cut logs, etc 

 Cross over trail where possible or on-street signs to form a loop option. 
 
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Stakeholder Interview
Name/Affiliation: East Portland Parks Coalition 
 C/o Alesia Reese, Chair     
 
Address:  East Portland Neighborhood Office 
 1017 NE 117th 
Portland, OR  
 
Email: alesiajmr@yahoo.com 
Phone: 
 
Questions/Responses
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? Five out of the 10 people have 
heard about the plan.  Two participants had filled out this survey with another group or 
individually. 
2. Is it important that the trail connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, 
parks, natural areas, schools, and/or businesses?   Important that trail connects to all of 
the above.  Need places with bathrooms.  The trail and parks will be used by many 
schools so make sure there are connecting trails.  Also important to provide access for 
people without cars. 
3. The trail is through difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes.  Are there 
features to include making the trail more accessible? Provide areas that are flat so 
people can rest or pull over.  Need benches along the way.  Provide information at 
trailhead on steepness of trail and distance.  Good to show topography in a graphic 
format. 
4. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on 
Springwater Corridor only).  The trail through natural areas will be for pedestrians only. 
Should uses be separated on other sections of the multi-use trail?  Sign trails with 
allowed users at trailheads and show protocols for who has priority to reduce conflicts. 
5. Do you mostly walk, cycle or ride a horse for recreational or commuter purposes? 7 walk 
for recreation; 2 cycle for recreation; 1 horseback rider; 1 walker for commuting. 
6. What are the most important trail amenities to you? 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience. 
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, 
compacted rock, soft surface such as bark, other. 
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms 
• Water fountains 
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities) 
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
• Lighting 
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 
• Bike Racks. 
Please rank in order. 
1. Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic 
2. Restrooms 
3. Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps /Interpretive signs 
4. Ability to enjoy a peaceful/quiet experience 
5. Benches 
6. Viewpoints 
7. Quality of Trail Surface – paved asphalt 
8. Water Fountains 
9. Trailheads 
10. Lighting 
 
7. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife habitat (birds, bees, butterflies), 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you?  Very important to maintain corridors and habitat 
for wildlife.  Naturescape the trail. 
8. What features should be included to ensure personal safety and safe routes to schools, 
work, business, and shopping?  Call boxes, wide shoulders on all street segments. 
9. What are your concerns about trail management? Trail maintenance – frequent 
sweeping, pick-up trash; provide trash cans. 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, do you have suggestions for alternative 
alignments? Needed more time 
11. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? East Portland Action Plan Co; 
East Portland Land-Use and Transportation Co. 
12. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates?  Yes 
13. Any other comments or suggestions? 
 
a. Signs on trailheads that give distance to bathrooms as trail intersections 
b. Put a Portland Loo  somewhere along the trail 
c. What happens where proposed multi-use trail meets a ped only trail?  How will 
cyclist continue? 
d. Need lock-up for bikes @ ped only trails. i.e. Buttes Natural Area 
e. Provide interpretation for cultural heritage sites – pioneer cemeteries 
f. Include Native American Sites  
g. Incorporate those new to our country/community.  Immigrant gardens, Slovic 
Church at 128th and Springwater Trail. 
h. Provide a bulletin board for posting information. 
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Stakeholder Interview
Name/Affiliation: Linda Robinson/East Portland Park Advocate 
 
Address: 
 
Email: lrobinspdx@comcast.net 
Phone: (503) 261-9566 
 
Questions/Responses
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? Yes, but didn’t know much about 
the alignment. 
2. Is it important that the trail connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, 
parks, natural areas, schools, and/or businesses?  Very important the trail connects to 
all listed.  Top three connections: 

 Other trails 

 Transit 

 Parks/destination – opportunity to rest and incentive to go further. 
 
3. The trail is through difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes.  Are there 
features to include making the trail more accessible? Places to stop and rest off the trail 
when going up steep hills.  Provide shaded sitting areas to rest.  Provide a landing at 
very steep places. 
4. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on 
Springwater Corridor only).  The trail through natural areas will be for pedestrians only. 
Should uses be separated on other sections of the multi-use trail? Ensure the trail is 
wide enough to accommodate all users.  Provide information on protocols for walkers, 
cyclists and horses. 
5. Do you mostly walk, cycle or ride a horse for recreational or commuter purposes? Ride a 
bike for recreation. 
6. After looking at the draft alignment map, do you have suggestions for alternative 
alignments? Do not know the area well enough to have alternatives 
7. What are the most important trail amenities to you? 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience. 
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, 
compacted rock, soft surface such as bark, other. 
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms 
• Water fountains 
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities) 
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
• Lighting 
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 
• Bike Racks. 
Please rank in order. 
1. Quality of Trail Surface.  Prefer paved asphalt for biking 
2. Ability to enjoy a safe experience via  separated trail from traffic 
3. Benches 
4. Restrooms 
5. Water fountains 
6. Trailheads with information 
7. Viewpoints 
 
8. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife habitat (birds, bees, butterflies), 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you?  People more likely to protect habitat if tey can 
get near it or have a view.  Good for mental health.  Need to balance the trail use with 
wildlife use. 
9. What features should be included to ensure personal safety and safe routes to schools, 
work, business, and shopping?  Low speed streets when it is on the road.  Wide bike 
lane on the street. Keep the bike lane/trail clean – no broken glass, remove hazards. No 
blind corners. Call boxes where there are few intersections. No hiding places/surprises. 
10. What are your concerns about trail management? 
Keep vegetation maintained. Trail maintenance – glass removal.  Cared for on a regular 
basis. Keep signs visible, replace as they fade.  Well signed at major trail crossings. 
 
11. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? Civic engagement group (get 
contact from Linda 
12. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? Yes 
13. Any other comments or suggestions? Where will people park?  Hills are challenging. 
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Stakeholder Interview
Name/Affiliation: Brett Sherman – Happy Valley Hikers 
 
Address: 13091 SE Evening Star Dr 
 
Email: brett@hvhikers.com 
Phone: 503-358-3434 (cell) 
Questions/Responses
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? Yes 
2. Is it important that the trail connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, 
parks, natural areas, schools, and/or businesses?  Yes – Makes more accessible and 
better utility. 
3. The trail is through difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes.  Are there 
features to include making the trail more accessible? Stairs can be useful for walkers, 
but switchbacks are better for bikers.  Maybe look for alternative routes for bike access? 
4. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on 
Springwater Corridor only).  The trail through natural areas will be for pedestrians only. 
Should uses be separated on other sections of the multi-use trail? Not necessary, 
utilization is typically low enough for trail-sharing. 
5. Do you mostly walk, cycle or ride a horse for recreational or commuter purposes? 
Walk/cycle for recreation. 
6. What are the most important trail amenities to you? 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 2 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience. 3 
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, 
compacted rock, soft surface such as bark, other. 1 
• Trailheads 5 
• Restrooms 11 
• Water fountains 12 
• Benches 6 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities) 9 
• Viewpoints  10 
• Landscaping   8 
• Lighting 4 
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 7 
• Bike Racks. 13 
 
Please rank in order  
7. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife habitat (birds, bees, butterflies), 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you? Very important 
8. What features should be included to ensure personal safety and safe routes to schools, 
work, business, and shopping? Trail quality, signage, lighting. 
 
9. What are your concerns about trail management? Hoping for appropriate funding over 
time.  Once created, trails don’t require too much recurring maintenance. 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, do you have suggestions for alternative 
alignments? Not at this time, but willing to help explore alternatives. 
11. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? N/A 
12. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? Yes 
13. Any other comments or suggestions? 
 
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Stakeholder Interview
Name/Affiliation: Chris Randall – City of H.V. Public Works Director     
 
Address: 16000 SE Misty Dr. 
Email: chrisr@ci.happy-valley.or.us 
Phone: (503) 783-3800 
 
Questions/Responses
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project? YES 
2. Is it important that the trail connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, 
parks, natural areas, schools, and/or businesses?  YES 
3. The trail is through difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes.  Are there 
features to include making the trail more accessible? YES, please consider ADA when 
applicable.  
4. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on 
Springwater Corridor only).  The trail through natural areas will be for pedestrians only. 
Should uses be separated on other sections of the multi-use trail? NO 
 
5. Do you mostly walk, cycle or ride a horse for recreational or commuter purposes? WALK 
 
6. What are the most important trail amenities to you? 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic.1
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience.2
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, 
compacted rock, soft surface such as bark, other.4
• Trailheads 
• Restrooms 
• Water fountains 
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities)3
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
• Lighting 6
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 5
• Bike Racks. 
 
Please rank in order  
7. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife habitat (birds, bees, butterflies), 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you? Extremely 
8. What features should be included to ensure personal safety and safe routes to schools, 
work, business, and shopping? Directional signage/mapping, Lighting where applicable 
and ADA as slopes and topography allow.  
9. What are your concerns about trail management? Vegetation maintenance, hazardous 
tree identification and storm damage. 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, do you have suggestions for alternative 
alignments? Consider topography where applicable. 
11. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview? Users and local governments. 
12. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? Yes, 
chrisr@ci.happy-valley.or.us 
13. Any other comments or suggestions? No 
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Stakeholder Interview
Name/Affiliation: Michael Morrow - Happy Valley City Council   
 
Address: 16000 SE Misty Dr. 
 
Email: michaelm@ci.happy-valley.or.us 
Phone: 503-347-2020 
Questions/Responses
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project?  Yes. 
2. Is it important that the trail connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, 
parks, natural areas, schools, and/or businesses?  Yes. 
 
3. The trail is through difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes.  Are there 
features to include making the trail more accessible?  Probably ?? 
4. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on 
Springwater Corridor only).  The trail through natural areas will be for pedestrians only. 
Should uses be separated on other sections of the multi-use trail?  Probably a necessity 
due-to the terrain. 
5. Do you mostly walk, cycle or ride a horse for recreational or commuter purposes?  Walk 
with a dog.  
6. What are the most important trail amenities to you? 
• Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 1
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience.  2 
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, 
compacted rock, soft surface such as bark, other.  9
• Trailheads 3
• Restrooms 4, Portable are good enough.  
• Water fountains  12 
• Benches  11 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities) 10 
• Viewpoints  6
• Landscaping  8
• Lighting  7
• Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs  5
• Bike Racks.  13 
 
Please rank in order  
7. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife habitat (birds, bees, butterflies), 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you?  Extremely  
 
8. What features should be included to ensure personal safety and safe routes to schools, 
work, business, and shopping?  Clear line of vision. Patrols (could be volunteers). 
9. What are your concerns about trail management? Not enough patrols  
 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, do you have suggestions for alternative 
alignments?  No 
11. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview?  Happy Valley Hikers. 
12. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? Already am 
13. Any other comments or suggestions?  No 
 
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mountain Trail Stakeholder Interview
Name/Affiliation: Steve Campbell – City of H.V. Director of Comm. Ser. & Pub. Saf.     
 
Address: 16000 SE Misty Dr. 
Email: stevec@ci.happy-valley.or.us 
Phone: (503) 783-3800 
 
Questions/Responses
1. Have you heard about the trail master plan project?  yes 
 
2. Is it important that the trail connect to other regional and local trails, mass transit, 
parks, natural areas, schools, and/or businesses?   yes 
3. The trail is through difficult terrain such as steep slopes and many buttes.  Are there 
features to include making the trail more accessible? yes 
 
4. The trail will accommodate pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians (horse use on 
Springwater Corridor only).  The trail through natural areas will be for pedestrians only. 
Should uses be separated on other sections of the multi-use trail? no 
5. Do you mostly walk, cycle or ride a horse for recreational or commuter purposes? walk 
 
6. What are the most important trail amenities to you? 
• X Ability to enjoy a safe experience via a separated trail from traffic. 
• Ability to enjoy a peaceful / quiet experience. 
• Quality of trail surface.  Which do you prefer: paved asphalt, concrete, 
compacted rock, soft surface such as bark, other. 
• Trailheads 
• X Restrooms 
• X Water fountains 
• Benches 
• ADA compliance (all or part of the trail accessible to those with disabilities) 
• Viewpoints  
• Landscaping   
• Lighting 
• X Trail Way Finding Signs/Maps/Interpretive Signs 
• Bike Racks. 
 
Please rank in order  
7. How important is the balance of natural areas, wildlife habitat (birds, bees, butterflies), 
and wildlife corridors to trails to you? Not very 
8. What features should be included to ensure personal safety and safe routes to schools, 
work, business, and shopping?  Regular patrols of those trails 
9. What are your concerns about trail management? Transient camps and unsafe areas 
10. After looking at the draft trail alignment map, do you have suggestions for alternative 
alignments? No  
 
11. Do you have any referrals on who we should interview?  No  
12. Would you like us to put you on the trail plan email list to receive updates? Yes  
13. Any other comments or suggestions? No  
 
This page was intentionally left blank.
APPENDix D
Plan Review Summary
This page was intentionally left blank.






	



















	















 




!














"
 
#

$%
%

!


%&





%
	

!

%
'

%
%


#
(




(
	

)(



(



!
*
+


'
,
)










*








!







#






	
)








#














#




 




!








)
 






-








*




!







*







	







.



!





)







*


)
/
0
'1

2


3	


!

!
!

4




!
'
0
'

05
6
7

8

#

9
9'



.#
2
#

!





!


*


!





!

	


*

#


	










1

!


!


!
!

4






*
#

	

)
!




#




.






+








)


	



	







.



!





)
'






*


)
/
,
,1

2


3	


!

!
!

4




!
'
0
'
'
05
6
7
9
8







	


#

	
)








)






"
 
#

$%
%&

2

	


	
%



%
!

*
	
%
*


%










.
%!

	



%
	
(

(	
2
(




(



!*
+


:	


0
1'

;
)



<





#


	
2






*
	






!

	


#

	
)







#






	
2










&
#


.








)
 
















)

!

=



>

)






*



$


)

7>

**







#
$?

**







#






!

!



4













!



!








	



*

2
)


.1
&


.
1
!

#







@

!

!










"



**







#


4






#


	




	
2

!








!

.




.



	
	
.



2




	
#


4


1



!
*








1

!

#









!


1

!








*



.


1
)
&
!

1




	
)


















A

2

#

**







#



!



&





4

!
2)
#









)





-

4





"


#


>


&
)
 


.


!
A
.





.
.	
!






!



.

**







#

**







#

#
	
!
2







!

.
!








!









&
#

=


!
&
)


?


!









*



$


)

1
 

**







#
$?

**







#






!

!



4










!

#


&


.




B	



"



**







#


#


	




	
2

!








!

.




.



	
	
.



2




	
#


4


1



!
*








1

!

#








!


1

!
	

!








*



.


1
)
&
!

1




	
)


















A

2

#

**







#



!



&





4

!
2)
#









)







C


.

.#


*
&
)
#






!

4




!




)

2

!

4




!

#





*	
	


1
**







#

)
2

!



.


!
&
#






!

!








#




!






)





-

4





"


#




!





 


.

D
	
!


!



.

**







#
 


.


**







#







!
*





#





!





!







!

)




!




#







@

!
4

#



?



















	


	

	








 
.


*







	



















	



















	
)




#




4



"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&





	

%







%



.
%



#




4

%
+








!

!
'

)





!






!
2
)













)

!
4



*






	
)








#






	
2










&
#


.








)
 









.

!
!

4








)




!









)

,
?
#



	
)
&









2

#




!








)




&
#
#

C

@







*

&




1
#



12

)



!





!



?





!









)
'
'







!
#







*
?0

,





*


!





&
)

/

	!

.


!

&


5?

!
?


;




*
2




?





!







<
3	





)
;
'








!
!

4






*?

	
2




)



*

2
#
&


.

!
2
)


.1






)


=
	



&
#
#


!

4






*


.#
2
#

!

!



	
)




"



#
	
!
2


!


*










.




.






!

4

2


1
!
.




1
!

C


.

.#


*
&
)
?



!






!
>
)



B





$


?

4
!



&



!

)





*
&

&
)


!
2


&
)






.


.
#2

#
!

1







1










1



	
)






1


#


1



1
2




1



)








1

#



=

!







1

.


2


&
)


!
&

&
)

1

!

#











!


?
'

?-
!


*)
&

&
)

!
2


&
)


4












)




	


!




!



	
	


&


*
&

&
)


!
2


&
)


#



	
)

!

)




?
0

?
	



3	




!
!

4






*
	

	



#


2

!


!
	
2


!

4



.
#


*
&
)
?
,

?A

	

.

2
)




!


!















4



!

#



	

2




?
7

?



	


&

&
)

!



.


!

#




!

)

#


&

&
)





!
1


!
.

#


	




	

)
!



.



!
!

1
#


<





<






*




E
.
#&
)

!









**



/<
<
E

5

!

!
1
!
#


<






&
#
 

2




<

/<
 
<
5

!

!
?


?



	


2


&
)

!



.


!

#




!

)

#

2


&
)





!
1


!
.

#


	





!

!

#





.

>
)




!


!








!
#


<





<






*




E
.
#&
)

!









**



/<
<
E

5

!

!
?
"
2

 


.






$
7
01
!

*



*
	
2

!



.







$
.

	

"



#

$

**







!






!
2
)




#


?
#




#


)
2

!

4




!



)










*


)1





)
1

)


4



	



	




?

D




&
)



$?

**








&
#

!



.


!
.



&
)

/

.

#








!









5
#


4
!




	



*


4












1








!

!
	



?







 
.

'
*







	



















	



















	
)
F

.

!
 

4







!




"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&





	

%







%



.
%@
!
=

+


'

)



-








*



.

!
!

4








)







#





?
#


!










!








#

.



!





*
#



	
)




#




4



?
6
.




8




)
 









.

!
!

4








)


'
7
<
 

4







	

!


#











4



 



>
	
!

)

!



!
"
D
>

#

2


!



.

!







4


#
2



!








1
!



@


!
4





*
*




&
!
*




7



!






!
2
)



*





$
>
B






#

2


!



.

!




@



*




.
	


2



1

	

1

!






!
2
)



G

&
*

	
2


	


!

4






!





*








*
!


!4


.

!





H

**


!




	
#
4






	
0
*


.
#

*
&
)








&
!
#







	





=


B


A
4





-










"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



.

.
4%

 

%
E
I
+%
A
D
-

%
	



(
A-
%
BA
-

#


+





!
*
 







.

!
2)
BE
I
<

B

2
	
)
''
1'


)



A
4













*

#


	





=


1



&



!





#
.#
&
)


.
E
&
)
'
'%
''
,1
2

&




-'
;

!
#









:	










#








)
 






A
4











!






#






!

=



#




*




!





4


*

#

	





=


&
	
!






&
#
#



	




	






#






4




	!



	
!






.

A
;
'
!
<
4

1&
#
#



4
!



*	
	



	








#


	




	







#








4


D




&
)












.





"
 
&
&
&
2


&







.
+


'

)



I

2




!



2

.



)






	
)

4











=










#





	



)
*


.





.

*
*





)
 









.
-!


*







)

4











=




#




.


-

	!






	


.




4



)

!

.
.






-

	!



	



	











1

&






	

	



#
&
)
2

&




#









.








!
#







-
!	




<




.

0
*







	



















	

















D

















!


.





)






"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



.




.
4
%
!

C

*
%.
%
2)
&

2
%
!J
;9
;
+


'
0
)



K



!
	



*




.





!
.



&
)

)




*

#





!















#














#




.





1
.	
!



)

!

	
)






)
 







**





2

)



!


!





*


)
4





1*










!







	












!


*


!








!


L
,



	



	






!


*

!








!


L
;













.












"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



.




.
4
%
!

C

*
%.
%
2)
&

2
%
!J
';
0

+


<
!


!
:	



1'


)




.


.











*

#




!






.








#






)

!

	
)




	
2




*





&
#
#







)
 








.












)

!

=




2=


4


0


4


#




<
#


4


!


.



*







!
&


.
12

)

.1
	


*





!

#


!

!


!


!	


!







#


	


2



!
!
4









M
'
9

2=


4


0
0
A3
	

2


<





!
>



B














4
!

*
*
!
2



!

3
	

2









4


#





!


4


#





!

*








!
2	








1

	
!
.





&
#

&




1
#
!


1


!



!





&
#
!


2




1





&

#
=
2
1

!	


1


4



1






1





!
	
	



4



M
'
9

2=


4


,
,
 



!


.





-








4



1




4



!

	


4



*


	
	
















	

.1
&


.
12


.1


.




1

!




.1

!

#
*

4



*
*






!


M
'
9

2=


4






	

A
4




M
<
4
!




@


	
!




2







*
#

!
&
!
*


#
2





4







1
&
!
*




!


1


.
*


*


!








M
'



2=


4


7

<

4



4
.
M

4
!




*

1

*

2



!

4
















#


	




4


4

.

!
#
)



4

)





!

)



!


!







4



M

'




*





.


M
2




*


	
	


$>
)
'
0;
1






2)
;






#

	

2


*






!











2


&
#

0


	


2)



12

)

.

!
	
2







&
#

;


	


2)


!

&


*





!








!

'
;

'

,


.


>

)





&


K








/
'

5
$
5
>	
!










!


&


*
2
)



*





#


4
!















'
,

.






05
>	
!

.




2
2

*
2
)





&
)




*
#




.

N



.


!

2

)





.)


.




!








&


K








/
'

75
$
'5
>	
!

&








!


&


*


!





*





#



4




.



!
2





2=


4


0


4


#




<
#


4


!


.



*







!
&


.
12

)

.1
	


*





!

#


!

!


!


!	


!







#


	


2



!
!
4










2=


4


0
0
A3
	

2


<





!
>




B













4
!

*
*
!
2



!

3
	

2









4


#





!


4


#





!

*








!
2	








1

	
!
.





&
#

&




1
#
!


1


!



!





&
#
!


2




1





&

#
=
2
1

!	


1




.

,
*







	



















	


















.


<






"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



.




.
4
%
!

C

*
%.
%
2)
&

2
%
!J

9

+


'
7
)



-!


*



'7


)

3	








.	
!











*
#


'







	

<



2
!




	



D




	!

$





#

!
&




*
#


#
)






#

	.
#

3	



*
&

!

!
#

!




	




	




!

	


2










#














#




.





1
.	
!



)

!

	
)






)
 










!












3	






	



	












!


.


<


<
1A

>
	



6#

$
%%
&
&
&



.




.
4
%
!

C

*
%.
%
2)
&

2
%
!J
'
77
8



.

<



>1
1
 
1

!
F









C

)

#







!

	



	

















I
!
*



!
E
2











"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



.




.
4
%
!

C

*
%.
%
2)
&

2
%
!J
0
'
+



.

.
)



D






*
2
	
#
2




















#














#




.





1
.	
!



)

!

	
)






)
 






I
!
*



!
E
2








-

	!


#
2


4



)

!





4





.


*

#





!






.


!
'

I




#

!





.





#







	!





!


*
)
.






!
&




#

!
#


#
1
!
#
2


*















K



'
,
D

&
#





"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



.




.
4
%
!

C

*
%.
%
2)
&

2
%
!J
'9

'
+


9
9;
)



;
)



.
&
#


.




4




!





.)
*

#




!






.








#








)

!

	
)




	
2




*





&
#
#

4





.








)
 








.


.
&
#


.





D

&
#













	!

$






	





1


1






!
*


!
2
#



!


!
	

!


#


	
2

.
&
#
2
	
!
)
















)




#



	!




)


*

4


1
	
#

2
)


.1
&


.

!
	

.







1

&







!
*


.#







!






.







!
.
&
#




*
!
**





)


1
	
#


&







1










1


!


1








	




!
	






4



!








-

#








	




	









1
.

*

!


.





	!


#


*

&

.$
E

)
K


)

!
 


	





&







1
B




!

!
	

)
!


!



!



.


!


=











!


1

!

	
#
*
#



!

	
!
E
&
)
''
,

!



.


!




)





!
#







	



	

!



.


!




!

	






#











&




.

;
*







	



















	














)
*



!




#




4



"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



!






%2

%
!

C

*
O
J0
,'
,9
+





<



!

!
:	
)
'

)




!
	



!








.


1






!
2
=


4


*

#



)
*



!







#






	



)
&
#


.





G








!
2)



!
@

.

!


!





)
 







!
	



!











.



)
'








$
?

4
!




	



*









!
4

	





*2
)





4
.



!




1
.
*

	



1



1


&
)


!

















#









	


*
#



)


4


1





1





!


	
.#


?

2=


4



7>
$?

**







#






!

!



4













!



!








	



*
2

)

.1
&


.
1
!

#







@

!

!


?

2=


4



''
A
$?
 

4





)
&
!




&


*


!








#










!










*









!








	





!





#


1



1




1

!

#


.

&





#




.





)




!
!
=








?



)

'0
>
)










$
?



#


2
)







.



*
!
)
*






!
1


	

)
*




*




#

*4






1
2)







.

2


&
)


&

1

4
!

.


!
*


*





1


4

.
2
)


%







.


1



	
.

.
2
)



	

1

!



.
2
)


.


*


?



)

,

!

#


.1
>
)


.1
I


.
1
!




$
?





#


	


*





4



!


*









	
#

!


#

.
1
2
)


.1
&


.
1
!





#
	
.#
	

#











?

2=


4



,
E
>




!


!






	


$?
A
#



#


4
	



!
2

	
)
*



!
N
2
)




!


!






	


2)



.
#






!
4

.


*


.
*


4

&



1









1

!







!



?

2=


4





I
!
*




!


$
?



4



!


#



!


.

&
)


!





&
)

&
#
#
#
4

4
	



&
!
*




!







.



1








1
!

#



.


&
!
*


#
2





1
!







#


4



)

!
3	


)
*
!




2


&
!
*


#

	.
#
	
	
2






?
2=


4


'


?A
#



#










!



#
4

#

#

)



4

.






	


-


4








#



)
N

4


1



1






!


	
.#


A

2

#


)




*



#








!
N



)
'
,

4
!


*


!





$?



!


C







!








)
2)


!










.
@


#

	

1




!
2
)



	








!









#




!
*

4


)



!
#




!
N

@




!
4





C







#



)



!








4
!


*








1

#

!
!
4





C







*



!





A

	


#

#




4



.

*

#
4



*

2


1
*



!



4



#
&
)

#








!
N


.
#2

#
!

1



1
&



*


	


1



*





1







!





1



)










!





?
	







.


*







	



















	





















)






"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



!






%






%

!

C
*

O
J;
',
9;
+


A*
*


4



)
,1
'
7
)











.


1





1
2
=


4


1













	




!

=




*

#



)
*



!







#



















*

)
*



!




#




4






)
 




















!

=




2=


4



7>
$?

**







#






!

!



4













!



!








	



*
2

)

.1
&


.
1
!

#







@

!

!


?

2=


4



''
A
$?
 

4





)
&
!




&


*


!








#










!










*









!








	





!





#


1



1




1

!

#


.

&





#




.





)




!
!
=








?



)

'0
>
)










$
?



#


2
)







.



*
!
)
*






!
1


	

)
*




*




#

*4






1
2)







.

2


&
)


&

1

4
!

.


!
*


*





1


4

.
2
)


%







.


1



	
.

.
2
)



	

1

!



.
2
)


.


*


?









!
>
)





*

'
0
"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



!






%






%

!

C
*

O
J,
,;
97
+


<
!


!
B

2
	
)

1'


)



>
)








1













	




!

=



*

#



)
*



!







#












!





!





1



1
2
=


4



!

=



*

#

















*
#




!




#




4






)
 






>
)






0









!


*
2


&
)


&



C



$
?



@

2


&
)


4





#



4




.



!

&







1










1



)









1






!




1










!





1


	


1
#


1



!








!







?
0
'
'






*

2


&
)
!



.
>


&
)


#
	
!
2

!



.

!
*

*


)1


*

1



4





1
!




	


1
!


#



4


)





0
'
7



$?






2


&
)

#




	

!


*
#



!
&
)

!
*	
)






!
*




@

!
4

#
	



*
*

#

)

4
!


2
)











.


!




)


4

!
2)








!


2
)






.



!









.



	
	
.



2






4





#



	





1&
#









1


2

!


!


4





!

.#

*
&
)











!




#


!
*





1




!


.
2
)



1

!





1





!

#






@

!
	




#


>	


	
*







N



*




!


)














!






!
*





*



#

!


&
#



4





2


?
?



)
2


#


!
2)
2
)



1


!







!

#







@

!
	



1
2	

#
	
!

4
!


#
)








*


#

4
)
&
#







#

)

#
	
!
2







!

.
!








!









&
#

=


!
&
)


!
2

!


*


!
#

	.
#


.
.


?
;
'

-









*



!
2


&
)

=




#
	
!
2

2


!

#


*

&

.




$

3	
)
G


	
)

	


G




4
)
1





!
2





!
	

1
4


2

)
*
2
)


.1


4

1


4


.

1
!


	



4








.

7
*







	



















	















 


.

D
	
!




*



!



)




"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



!






%


%
!

C

*
O
J'
;

;P
J
0
0

+



)
'
9
)



#



#



!


#


!


.

.	
!





*

)

.
)
*
!
**







)




#





!






)










#














#



)
*



!






)
 






 


.

D
	
!








#
	
!
2







!
*

4

#



1
#

	

2


*
4

#







.


#
	
!
2




@

!
I
#









C


&
#

!

1

	


&
#

&


4

#








!

!
4
	




#
	
!
2

#







#
	
!
2

!



.

!
*

4


2

)

!






4




<


	
#




2






#
	
!







#




1
!

#



C


.

)
2
)




!


!







&






#
	
!
2

!



.

!






#




	




!






*
#







*




C

#



)

#
	
!

4
!




.


*









#




!

*


.



!
2




1


	!

.
#



&
#
!


2






#


!
&


.

!
2

.



/


)


5
#
4

#


*

&

.
.	
!





$

4

!


#









G
#
	
!
2

*	
)





2


G&
!
#
1



1








!
	
4



!




2



&
)


!






!
2
)




4



4

	






!
G&
!
#
$

';
G

0
Q

.
	
!





/

;Q
*



!

!
1
Q

C
51









*
Q
G
!
	

9;
*

'

#
!



.





!1
'

*

'

#
!



.





!G


.#
!





;

G






&
!
#
*



!
R



14











*



/
'


	
!

2

!.


5G
#

@









*

*



!

*



!




*	

!
	



*

*	

#




#



*








!


.


.


*







	



















	
















!



P






$














.)
"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



!






%


%
!

C

*
O
J,
'
'7
P
J
'
,
7
+


:	


'

)



'
)



4



*




!



.





)







@



=




!
.
4












!
*	
!

.





.









#














#



)
*



!






)
 
















.

!










!

	












	!

!




.


*



#







!

;
#



)
	

*;
!
**







.


*




!



*

#




.





)



-











4




!
*

#


)


'
';

!










	

<



<
3
	








.)
/K

.






	!



2)



!



5
"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&



!






%


%
!

C

*
O
J,
0'
''
+



4


2

'


)







.)
*


#

4

.



!




!








4



*





.

!





.

#


#
)1






!

)




*

	





&
#

#



)
-
!


*





)

3	



@



*





.






!

	





#







)
!


*


!















#














#



)
*



!






)
 










!

	





#






*
#









&
#

#


2
	
!



*
#



)
*



!
1

&




#




#







*
#


	







&
#

#



)
2
	
!



1*

&
#

#



)




)
@



*


	





3	










E

)
K


)










"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&

#

)
4



)

	

%
 

	


K


&



CO
 
- 
J
07
+


<
!


!
:
	

)
'
1'

0
)




.

.




*



1







1



1
!







*






E

)
K


)







#













!
4




&
#
E

)
K


)




#




4






)
 









1







1



1







-

	!



4



)
*

C


.



!

!












E

)
K


)
/

	!

.


@

1
&



#
1
!

4







	

1
*





1
!

*






1




!


4






!

#





5
!

	



@




.

#


!
#)
!

.

*


	



#






)

	

)

.
)
*


)




E

)
K


)
/
'

''
5
-!


*






!
*







*






E

)
K


)






0
$



%

#&
)

*


)







!


$


.

	


*


)
&
!


*
*









)



*


)


*
*
!
#


	
2

-
!


*

!



!
*
,
'




*

#
&
)


!





	!

.


4



#







!
&
#
#







!

	




	






-

	
!




*!


.


!
















!
.	
!





/

7

5



!

4







!


*


!

#


#
!








*







!














	










.

9
*







	



















	













E

)
K


)


!





)




P









"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&

#

)
4



)

	

%
 

	


K


&



CO
 
- 
J
'
+


:	


'
9
)







#




4






.)
*
!

4




.
E

)
K


)


!





P





&









#














!
4




&
#
E

)
K


)




#




4






)
 








!






)





!



-!


*



0


.



	

	





#






!
&
#



2








	



	





$









1
I


E

)
K


)


1

!

&








#




*



*

!


*


!


!








)


!


!

	



.


!







!


E

)
K


)

'

0'
-
4







C


.


!






)





!




E

)
K


)1


	!

.








1
&



#
1

4
.

!





.
#
AC


.





#











#








	




	








	!


#





2




	






1

	
#










1






	






1
>





1
&







1


.
<



1
,7
#
<
4



1

!




E


.#









	














*





!


!






	




	!

$
5







	





'5









!





!









	!

.


#



!



1



	
)


4



1



*





1

!

C


.



)




05



	

1









!


.







,5


4












;5

C


.

!
&
)


!







&


5


!







*

)
75
	
2


	



5

!
&
)
*	







*




'
0
',
 

*




#


*
*






*





*



!







!

	

	






*
*






&

&
)

*
2

)




!


!






'
,
?
)


)
1&
!




!





*








!




2



**








*









!








!


4




/








.

#)
1
&



!

1



5
)


3	









*







#





*
#



	

	
!

.





!





*






#
	
!
2

2	


	



!


.




!
!

*

!








&
#
#


<






&
#
 

2




<

#


E

)
K


)
 


.



	


4
!


#





	





!
!

*


!





*






	
#



!

&


1

#
1



!
	
2




#

E

)
K


)


 

4







E

!2


	




#



)



4






*




	

.




!

4
!


.	
!





*







	



?

',
'
;






E

)
K


)


 

4






E

!2


"
 
#

$%
%

#

)4



)

4

	




% 

	


K


&



CO
 
- 
J0
;
+


:	


'
9
)



#

E

!2


!




2


#




!

4












1.








	





#
!
12





!
!


!
.	
!





1
!


	!


#


E

)
K


)


!






















#







#


.
	
!




#









#

E

)
K


)


!





)





!








)
 












	




!
!

4






-

	!


	



1
.	
!





1








1



C
1
!






*

#


*

&

.$











!







2

)1

	

	




1


!






#
1




.
&


1&
!



!

#
	
!



*


#


!



1

#&
)


#


	
2
1

#&
)

!


&
)



1
2
	
!







.
&


*

	

	





1

#%






!


.

1

#%






*







1

#%







1

!

!
2






.


.


*







	



















	













E

)
K


)








)






"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&

#

)
4



)

	

%
 

	


K


&



CO
 
- 
J
'9
+


<
!


!
:
	

)
'

)

















*

)
*
E

)
K


)




#




4










#






	
2










&
#


.








)
 




















!

=






)
2
$A

	

.



!










2

)
2)

4
!

.


*

1


	



!
!




2




!






	





)
0
$S
<



#


1



1
	
2

*






!









#

#
4


!










2


&
)




)
0
$>

)



!


!









#

2


!

4




!
&
#
#




C


.

!




!













)
0#
$
	

	


#



C




*
#




.



!






)




&
#


&
!

4









)
0=
$


.#
2
#

!

#

2








!




@


	

*!






4


*



!







!
2
)




#



#

4

!
&
#

&


!

4




!








)




!
*
*









)







)
0
$A

	




	









2



#



	











#







!




#


4
	


*
#



















0
0


4
!


!
!


!





!





.
4



.




E

)
K


)



)

$ 


.


!



	








*











#



3	






*
#


<






&
#
 

2




<


?
#









!
*

#


)








#




!

4
!



*
*











&










!






!
2
)






1


!	


4

#







!

4
!








4



#




!

&



)






#

2
	
!


	





/





1
&



!

1
4



5
!
4


!


.

#)
&
#

E

)
K


)

4
!






	
)

!

4





	




*
	



)



?

;
;

#



;


!














*




*

#


E

)
K


)


!





)





!



















*



.
%
 
AT








4







2







"
 
#

$%
%&
&
&
!

3






	
%
3%
A
-
%


#

+



.

.
)





 
AT
A
4









	



-
*




/A

-5
 

2



<



#
2


!

2


*





&
#

&















*

#
@
!
	


	
2












#








)
 






E
@


<
 
B




.



*






*






!

	


#

	



#

2






!

#





*
!










*



#

!
	









*

)
*
*



!












!

#



=

































"
 
+


)










#








)
 












 





.


*

  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
APPENDix E
Roadway Analysis
This page was intentionally left blank.
Project: Mt. Scott-Scouters Mountain Loop Trail Master Plan Clackamas County Happy Valley
Revised: 5/22/2013 Local 2-travel 28 28-32
Created By: Amanda Owings Collector
2-bike, 2-travel, 
1-turn 47 48
Minor Arterial
2-bike, 2-travel, 
1-turn 47 48
Potential Roadway Crossing, Traffic Analysis Major Arterial
2-bike, 4-travel, 
1-turn 69 74
Roadway Name Classification Jurisdiction Typical Section
Existing 
Right-of-
Way Width
Existing 
Crossing 
Distance
Future 
Crossing 
Distance
Existing 
Sidewalk 
Width, 
location
Posted 
Speed 2008 ADT
Existing 
Signal Existing Markings
Future Signal 
or RB Data Source Comments Potential On-Roadway Alignments
Foster Road/SE 134th Minor Arterial Portland
2 travel lanes,
2 bike lanes,
1 turn lane 80' 60' -- 6' both sides 40 18,324 Yes
Signal, marked 
crosswalk -- Clackamas County
bus stop pullout, poor 
sidewalk on east side of 134th, 
crossing on east leg only Roadway Name Classification
Foster Road/SE Barbara Welch Minor Arterial Portland
2 travel lanes,
2 bike lanes,
1 turn lane;
1 slip lane on BW 90' 48' -- 6' both sides 40 18,324 Yes
Signal, marked 
crosswalk -- Clackamas County
crossing with island on B. 
Welch. No sidewalks on B. 
Welch. Foster Road Minor Arterial
Mt. Scott Blvd./Carter Minor Arterial Ptld/HV/CC
2 travel lanes,
1 bike lane (west) 65' 30' 3 lanes 5' west side 35 5,800 No
dbl. yellow, 
fog/bike; no signs Yes
Clackamas 
County/Happy Valley
drivers exceed posted speed; 
need person gate at cemetary 
entrance; future signal at Mt. 
Scott/Carter 162nd Collector/Local
Clatsop/SE 147th Collector Happy Valley
2 travel lanes,
1 shoulder (south) 60' 40' 3 lanes 6' both sides 45
1,000 
(assumed) No
dbl. yellow, 
fog/bike; no signs
Yes, at 
Clatsop/145th Happy Valley steep cross slope Clatsop Minor Arterial
Clatsop/SE 152nd Collector Happy Valley 2 travel lanes 60' 21' 3 lanes -- 45
1,000 
(assumed) No
dbl. yellow, 
fog/bike; no signs No Happy Valley
not an existing crossing 
location Barbara Welch Collector
Hagen/east of 162nd Local Happy Valley 2 travel lanes 60' 22' 2 lanes -- 40 1,050 No
dbl. yellow, 
fog/bike; no signs
Yes, at 
Hagen/162nd Happy Valley steep cross slope, steep banks 134th Local
162nd/south of Hagen Local Happy Valley 2 travel lanes 60' 22' 3 lanes -- 40 3,750 No
dbl. yellow, 
fog/bike; no signs
Yes, at 
162nd/Misty Happy Valley
not an existing crossing 
location Mt. Scott Minor Arterial
152nd/SE Frye (Powerline crossing) Minor Arterial Happy Valley
2 travel lanes,
2 bike lanes
Refuge island 66' 46' 3 lanes 6' both sides 40 1,500 No
dbl. yellow, bike; 
signs No Happy Valley
existing crossing under 
powerline, well marked Vradenburg Local
Sunnyside/Rock Creek Major Arterial Clackamas County
4 travel lanes,
2 bike lanes,
1 turn lane/median ~140' 91' -- 6' both sides 40 7,850 No stripes, no signs No Clackamas County
possibility for refuge island in 
median Spanish Bay Local
Sunnyside/SE 142nd Major Arterial Clackamas County
4 travel lanes,
2 bike lanes,
1 turn lane/median,
1 RT turn lane (west) 90' 85'-99' -- 6' both sides 40 20,600 Yes
Signal, marked 
crosswalk -- Clackamas County 145th Collector
Sunnyside/SE 140th Major Arterial Clackamas County
4 travel lanes,
2 bike lanes,
1 turn lane/median 80' 81' -- 6' both sides 40 27,600 No
No signal
stripes, no signs No Clackamas County
not an existing crossing 
location; possibility for refuge 
island in median 147th Collector
Sunnyside/SE 122nd Major Arterial Clackamas County
5 travel lanes,
2 bike lanes,
1-2 turn lanes,
1 median ~200'+ 120' -- 6' both sides 40 34,500 Yes
Signal, marked 
crosswalk -- Clackamas County
traffic island/refuge creates 
secondary crossing (west) 152nd Collector
Sunnyside/SE 117th Major Arterial Clackamas County
6 travel lanes,
2 bike lanes,
1 turn lane ~150' 100' -- 6' both sides 40 38,200 Yes
Signal, marked 
crosswalk -- Clackamas County 122nd Minor Arterial
Mather Road/SE Cranberry Loop Collector Clackamas County
2 travel lanes
2 partial bike lanes 40' 30' -- 6' north side 35 4,100 No
dbl. yellow, 
fog/bike; no signs No Clackamas County
not an existing crossing; count 
assumed to match Summers. Sunnyside Road Major Arterial
Summers/west of 122nd Collector Clackamas County
2 travel lanes,
2 bike lanes 60' 36' -- 6' both sides 35 4,100 No
dbl. yellow, 
fog/bike; no signs No Clackamas County
not an existing crossing; steep 
banks Highway 212/224 Major Arterial
Highway 212/224/SE 152nd Major Arterial ODOT
2 travel lanes,
2 bike lanes,
1 median ~140' 81'
may be 
impacted by 
Sunrise 6' north side 45 35,100 No stripes, no signs No Clackamas County
not an existing crossing 
location; may be impacted by 
Sunrise Summers Road Collector
Assumptions Mather Road Collector
"Roadway Paved Width" and "Crossing width" is measured from pavement edge to pavement edge, or face of curb to face of curb.
"--" indicates no future changes to the existing condition.
Roadway Paved Width
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
W
IL
LI
AM
SE
OTTY RD
SE
 1
32
N
D
 A
V
E
SE SAGER RD
SE BAXTER RD
17
0
T
H
 A
V
E
HEMRICK RD
TROGE RD
VOGEL   RD
205
SE
  
  
 9
2N
D
 A
V
E
W
Y
SE
  
S
T
EV
E
N
S 
 R
D
SE
  
  
  
12
2N
D
SUMMERS L N
HWY 212
ARMSTRONG CIR
MONTEREY    AVE
SE
 T
O
N
G
 R
D
H
W
Y
    224
ROCK  CREEK   BLVD
SE
 1
62
N
D
  
 A
V
E
SE
  
  
14
7T
H
 A
V
E
CAUSEY AVE
SUN
NYBR O
OK
 BLV
D
SE MATHER R
D
M I S
TY
DR
H
U
M
A
C
H
ER
B
O
B
R
D
SE HWY 212 HWY
SE
 1
72
N
D
 A
V
E
SE
 9
2N
D
 A
V
E
SE
 1
22
N
D
SE
 1
45
T
H
 A
V
E
SE CLATSOP ST
SE MATHER RD
SE IDLEMAN RD
SE
 1
52
N
D
 D
R
SE
 1
52
N
D
 A
V
E
SE 97TH
 AVE
SE
 1
42
N
D
 A
V
E
SE
 1
62
N
D
 A
V
E
SE KING RD
SE RIDGECREST RD
SE
 1
32
N
D
SE
 1
29
TH
 A
VE
S
SE
 S
T
E
V
E
N
S
 R
D
SE HUBBARD RD
SE
 1
30
T
H
 A
V
E
SE
 1
02
N
D
 A
V
E
SE SUNNYSIDE RD
212
224
MT SCOTT BLVD SE FOSTE
R
 R
D
SE MT SCO
TT BLVD
SE HAGEN RD
SE
 1
62
N
D
 A
V
E
SE MONNE R RD
SE
 V
A
LL
EY
 V
IE
W
 T
E
R SE MOU NT
AI
N 
G
A
T
E
 R
D
B
C
G
I
J D
H
F
K
L
E
O
N
M
A
P Q
T
J
S
R
0 0.2 0.4 0.60.1
miles
City Limits 8-15
FIGURE
City of Happy Valley
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
Motor Vehicle Master Plan
Proposed Traffic Signal/Roundabout
Proposed Arterial/Collector
Sunrise Expressway
Interchange Access
Existing Traffic Signal
Proposed Roadway ExtensionX
Study Areas
LEGEND
Existing Roundabout
8-15
W
IL
LI
AM
SE
OTTY RD
SE
 1
32
N
D
 A
VE
SE SAGER RD
SE BAXTER RD
17
0T
H
 A
VE
HEMRICK RD
TROGE RD
VOGEL   RD
205
SE
  
  
 9
2N
D
 A
VE
I-205 FW
Y
SE
  
ST
EV
EN
S 
 R
D
SE
  
  
  
12
2N
D
SUMMERS L N
HWY 212
ARMSTRONG CIR
SE TILLSTROM RD
MONTEREY    AVE
SE TO
N
G
 R
D
H
W
Y    224
ROCK  CREEK   BLVD
SE
 1
62
N
D
  
 A
VE
SE
  
  
14
7T
H
 A
VE
CAUSEY AVE
SUN
NYBRO
OK 
BLVD
SE MATHER R
D
M IS
TY
DR
SCH
U
M
ACH
ER
BO
B
RD
SE SUNNYSIDE RD
SE
 1
72
N
D
 A
VE
SE
 1
45
TH
 A
VE
SE CLATSOP ST
SE 82N
D
 D
R
SE MATHER RD
SE IDLEMAN RD
SE
 1
52
N
D
 D
R
SE
 1
52
N
D
 A
VE
SE 97TH
 AVE
SE
 1
42
N
D
 A
VE
SE
 1
62
N
D
 A
VE
SE KING RD
SE RIDGECREST RD
SE
 1
32
N
D
SE
 1
29
TH
 A
VE
SE
 1
12
TH
 A
VE
SE HUBBARD RD
SE
 1
02
N
D
 A
VE
212
224
MT SCOTT BLVD SE FOSTER R
D
SE MT SCOTT BLVD
SE HAGEN RD
SE
 1
62
N
D
 A
VE
SE MONNER RD
SE
 V
AL
LE
Y 
VI
EW
 T
ER SE MOU
N T
AI
N 
GA
T
E 
R
D
not
to
scale
0 0.2 0.4 0.60.1
miles
LEGEND
City Limits
8-9
FIGURE City of Happy Valley
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM PLAN
Planning Level Right of WayNeeds
Proposed Number of Lanes
3 Lanes
5 Lanes
Proposed Extensions
3 Lanes
2 Lanes
5 Lanes
4 Lanes
2 Lanes
Study Areas
February 29, 2012
New cul-de-sac
access to 125th Ct
New cul-de-sac
access to 135th Ave
New cul-de-sac
access to 142nd Ave
JENNIFER
14
2N
D
13
0T
H
BLUFF
13
5T
H
13
2N
D
HUBBARD
FORD
MAT
HER
HWY 212
10
6T
H
M
A
R
C
I
13
1S
T
12
2N
D
11
4T
H 15
2N
D
MORNING
102N
D
D
IA
M
O
N
D
EA
G
LE
D
EA
N
A
FAW
N
KRONAN
LA
LA
JAMIE
M
IC
H
EL
LE
SKOKO
13
0T
H
102N
D
F
Sources:
         ODOT and Metro, Portland OR
Figure PA-7
Travel Patterns, Midpoint Area
1,000 0 1,000 Feet
Legend
Highway 212/224
Business District
Three Mobile Home Parks
SUNRISE PROJECT
Bluffs
Clackamas Industrial Area
!R( Right-in, Right-out
Existing Street
!S( SignalDirectional Traffic Flow Business Districts
Multi-use Path å Schools
Midpoint Area Boundary
!(212
!(212
!(224
!(224
Printing Date: 3/25/2010 11:19 AM
Filename: P:\O\ODOT00000648\0600INFO\GS\arcmap\FEIS_All\FigX_Traffic_Circulation_MidptArea.mxd
Neighborhoods
Proposed Project
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
APPENDIX F
Natural Resource Considerations
This page was intentionally left blank.









  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
APPENDix G
Alignment Detail outside Right-of-way
This page was intentionally left blank.
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop
PRELIMINARY 2013 DRAFT REVIEW
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL LOCATION
Clackamas County
City of Happy Valley
The Intertwine
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Metro
Otak, Inc
Alta Planning +
Design
10 feet
Interval:
Contour
SEGMENT 1
SPRINGWATER CORRIDOR  TO SE CLATSOP STREET
1 OF 2
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop
PRELIMINARY 2013 DRAFT REVIEW
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL LOCATION
Clackamas County
City of Happy Valley
The Intertwine
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Metro
Otak, Inc
Alta Planning +
Design
10 feet
Interval:
Contour
SEGMENT 1
SPRINGWATER CORRIDOR  TO SE CLATSOP STREET
2 OF 2
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop
PRELIMINARY 2013 DRAFT REVIEW
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL LOCATION
Clackamas County
City of Happy Valley
The Intertwine
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Metro
Otak, Inc
Alta Planning +
Design
10 feet
Interval:
Contour
SEGMENT 2
SE CLATSOP STREET TO FORMER VALLEY GOLF CLUB
1 OF 2
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop
PRELIMINARY 2013 DRAFT REVIEW
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL LOCATION
Clackamas County
City of Happy Valley
The Intertwine
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Metro
Otak, Inc
Alta Planning +
Design
10 feet
Interval:
Contour
SEGMENT 2
SE CLATSOP STREET TO FORMER VALLEY GOLF CLUB
2 OF 2
TRAIL OUTSIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY
TRAIL INSIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY
TRAIL SEGMENT LIMIT
LEGEND
EXISTING TRAIL OUTSIDE R.O.W.
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop
PRELIMINARY 2013 DRAFT REVIEW
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL LOCATION
Clackamas County
City of Happy Valley
The Intertwine
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Metro
Otak, Inc
Alta Planning +
Design
10 feet
Interval:
Contour
SEGMENT 3
FORMER GOLF CLUB TO CLACKAMAS RIVER VIA ROCK CREEK
1 OF 2
TRAIL OUTSIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY
TRAIL INSIDE RIGHT-OF-WAY
TRAIL SEGMENT LIMIT
LEGEND
EXISTING TRAIL OUTSIDE R.O.W.
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop
PRELIMINARY 2013 DRAFT REVIEW
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL LOCATION
Clackamas County
City of Happy Valley
The Intertwine
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Metro
Otak, Inc
Alta Planning +
Design
10 feet
Interval:
Contour
SEGMENT 3
FORMER GOLF CLUB TO CLACKAMAS RIVER VIA ROCK CREEK
2 OF 2
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop
PRELIMINARY 2013 DRAFT REVIEW
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL LOCATION
Clackamas County
City of Happy Valley
The Intertwine
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Metro
Otak, Inc
Alta Planning +
Design
10 feet
Interval:
Contour
SEGMENT 4
POWERLINE CORRIDOR TO HIGHWAY 212 VIA SIEBAN DRAINAGE
1 OF 2
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop
PRELIMINARY 2013 DRAFT REVIEW
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL LOCATION
Clackamas County
City of Happy Valley
The Intertwine
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Metro
Otak, Inc
Alta Planning +
Design
10 feet
Interval:
Contour
SEGMENT 4
POWERLINE CORRIDOR TO HIGHWAY 212 VIA SIEBAN DRAINAGE
2 OF 2


Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop
PRELIMINARY 2013 DRAFT REVIEW
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL LOCATION
Clackamas County
City of Happy Valley
The Intertwine
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Metro
Otak, Inc
Alta Planning +
Design
10 feet
Interval:
Contour
SEGMENT 6
MT. TALBERT TO LINCOLN MEMORIAL
1 OF 2
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop
PRELIMINARY 2013 DRAFT REVIEW
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL LOCATION
Clackamas County
City of Happy Valley
The Intertwine
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Metro
Otak, Inc
Alta Planning +
Design
10 feet
Interval:
Contour
SEGMENT 6
MT. TALBERT TO LINCOLN MEMORIAL
2 OF 2
Mt. Scott/Scouter Mt. Trail Loop
PRELIMINARY 2013 DRAFT REVIEW
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE CONCEPTUAL TRAIL LOCATION
Clackamas County
City of Happy Valley
The Intertwine
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation District
Portland Parks & Recreation
Metro
Otak, Inc
Alta Planning +
Design
10 feet
Interval:
Contour
SEGMENT 7
 LINCOLN MEMORIAL TO SPRINGWATER CORRIDOR
1 OF 1
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
APPENDix H
The intertwine Regional Trails Signage 
Guidelines (Excerpts)
This page was intentionally left blank.
THE
INTERTWINE
Regional Trails
Signage Guidelines
February 03, 2012
Signage Guidelines DRAFT
DRAFT
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
THE INTERTWINE:  Regional Trails Signage Guidelines
February 03, 2012
1.02 
Introduction
Mayer/Reed
Forward
The intent of this project is to create a set of guidelines for implementing a comprehensive and 
consistent signing system throughout the multi-jurisdictional regional trail network to link natural areas 
with active transportation and recreational routes. 
 
Using the Highway and Interstate sign system as a reference for consistent and familiar wayfinding 
across jurisdictions, the Regional Trail Signage illustrated in these guidelines is composed from a 
modular system of components to uniformly display directional and informational content.
Forward
City of Battle Ground
City of Camas
City of Cornelius
City of Durham
City of Fairview
City of Forest Grove
Forest Park Conservancy
City of Gladstone
City of Gresham
City of Hillsboro Parks & Recreation
Lake Oswego Parks & Recreation
Metro
North Clackamas Parks & Recreation Dept.
Oregon City Parks & Recreation Dept.
Oregon Parks & Recreation Dept.
Portland Parks & Recreation
City of Ridgefield
City of Sherwood
City of Tigard
City of Troutdale
City of Tualatin
Tualatin Hills Parks & Recreation District
Vancouver-Clark Parks & Recreation
Washington County
City of Washougal
City of West Linn Parks & Recreation
City of Wilsonville
City of Wood Village
The Intertwine Park Providers:
DRAFT
THE INTERTWINE:  Regional Trails Signage Guidelines
February 03, 2012
1.04 
Introduction
Mayer/Reed
Design Process Flow Chart
Process Flow Chart for Signing a Regional Trail
Identify Base Information for 
Trail / Trail Segment Determine Sign Locations
Develop Messages
Develop Map Diagram
Trailhead
Trail Access
Mileage
Directional
Trail Name
Regional Trail Affiliation
Trail Sign System:
· New or Integrate with Existing
Mode of Travel (Trail Use)
Trail Condition
· Off-Street Trail
· On-Street Connection
Applicable Regulations
Map should be diagrammatic and 
graphic for a quick comprehension 
of vicinity
Identify the following depending on 
area to be illustrated:
· Trail(s)
· Streets
· Landmarks and/or destinations  
 (i.e. rivers, parks, districts)
· Amenities (i.e. transit stops,   
 picnic areas) 
· On-street connection route  
 (if applicable)
Trail Entry Points
Decision Points
· On-Street Connection
 · Route for pedestrian 
  & bicyclists
· Intersections
· Spurs
Mileage
Determine if Regional System Trailhead or Standard 
Agency Trailhead will be used
Develop Applicable Rules and Regulations
Develop Map Diagram(s) with Mileage to Key Points
Develop Applicable Rules and Regulations
Determine whether to use a Map Diagram or Directionals 
depending on site context (i.e. space, speed of travel)
Develop Map Diagram(s) with Mileage to Key Points  
(if applicable)
Sign every 1/4 mile throughout trail
Establish a hierarchy of destinations for signing 
· Use major landmarks along the trail as necessary to  
 orient the user (i.e. city/town, major park, district) 
· Direct to regional destinations on approach to   
 destination (i.e. park, district, library, transit hub,  
 major streets, other trails) 
· Include relavent amenities at decision points (i.e.   
 streets/roads, transit stops, local amenities)
Consistently sign destination throughout trail to arrival of 
destination
Include consistent on-street connection information  
as applicable 
· Direct pedestrians and/or bicyclists to crosswalks on  
 the way to the next off-street trail segment
· Include connection diagram map as necessary for  
 complex on-street connections
Consistently sign on-street to arrival of off-street trail 
segment
Establish destination mileage (if applicable)
DRAFT
1'-0"
2'-0"
3'-0"
4'-0"
5'-0"
6'-0"
7'-0"
Trail Continues
On-Street
NW 185th AVE.
N
W
 W
ES
T 
UN
IO
N
 R
D.
RO
CK
 C
RE
EK
 T
RA
IL
ROCK CREEK TRAIL
Rock Creek
Greenway
Springwater
Corridor
I-205
Corridor
North
I-205
Corridor
South
Columbia
Slough Trail
Marine Drive
Trail
Portland
Sellwood
Lake Oswego
Willamette
Greenway
2 MI.
2 MI.
2 MI.
2 MI.
Columbia
Slough Trail
Marine Drive Trail
503-823-PLAY
www.PortlandParks.org
Commissioner Nick Fish
Director Mike Abbaté
Trail Continues
On-Street
STREET NAME
ST
RE
ET
 N
AM
E
TR
AI
L 
N
AM
E
TRAIL NAME
Leif Erickson Trail
2 MI.
503-823-PLAY
www.PortlandParks.org
Commissioner Nick Fish
Director Mike Abbaté
Wildwood Trail
Pittock 
Mansion
Portland
W Burnside
503-823-PLAY
www.PortlandParks.org
Commissioner Nick Fish
Director Mike Abbaté
2 MI.
2 MI.
1'-0"
2'-0"
3'-0"
4'-0"
5'-0"
6'-0"
7'-0"
Marine Drive Trail
Columbia River
Columbia Slough Trail
Kelley Point Park
Street Name
Street Name
Street Name
TRAIL RULES:
Trail open dawn to 
dusk
Alcohol, camping, 
fires, motorized 
vehicles are 
prohibited.
Dogs must be on 
leash and waste must 
be removed.
Walkers have the 
right-of-way.
Bicyclists yield to 
pedestrians.
No collecting plants 
or animals.
Trail contact
503.123.4567
Security
503.987.6543
Marine Drive Trail
Columbia RiverColumbia Slough Trail
Kelley Point Park
Street Name
Street Name
Street Name
Marine Drive Trail
Gresham
12 MI.
Portland
12 MI.
Street Name
Street Name
Street Name
Park
McKay Creek Greenway
TRAIL RULES:
Trail is open from 
dawn to dusk
Alcohol, camping, 
fires, motorized 
vehicles are 
prohibited.
Dogs must be on 
leash and waste must 
be removed.
Walkers have the 
right-of-way.
Bicyclists yield to 
pedestrians.
No collecting plants 
or animals.
Trail contact
503.123.4567
Security
503.987.6543
THE INTERTWINE:  Regional Trails Signage Guidelines
February 03, 2012
2.02 
Sign Family
Mayer/Reed
Off-Street Trail Signs
Off-Street Trail Signs
SIGN TYPE A: Trailhead 
Trailhead Kiosks are located at major trailheads of a 
regional trail. Trailheads are distinguished from other trail 
access points by including a discrete space that may 
feature car parking, restrooms, staging areas or other 
features. This Sign Type includes a map diagram of the 
full length of the trail and the surrounding amenities as 
well as provides space for jurisdiction/partner logos and 
trail regulations.
SIGN TYPE B: Trail Access
Trail Access signs are located at all access points along 
a regional trail which are typically where the trail meets 
the street right of way. This Sign Type informs the user of 
the trail name and trail use and includes a diagrammatic 
map of the vicinity.
Use these Sign Types along off-street trails in both urban or natural settings.
DRAFT
1'-0"
2'-0"
3'-0"
4'-0"
5'-0"
6'-0"
7'-0"
Trail Continues
On-Street
NW 185th AVE.
N
W
 W
ES
T 
UN
IO
N
 R
D.
RO
CK
 C
RE
EK
 T
RA
IL
ROCK CREEK TRAIL
Rock Creek
Greenway
Springwater
Corridor
I-205
Corridor
North
I-205
Corridor
South
Columbia
Slough Trail
Marine Drive
Trail
Portland
Sellwood
Lake Oswego
Willamette
Greenway
2 MI.
2 MI.
2 MI.
2 MI.
Columbia
Slough Trail
Marine Drive Trail
503-823-PLAY
www.PortlandParks.org
Commissioner Nick Fish
Director Mike Abbaté
Trail Continues
On-Street
STREET NAME
ST
RE
ET
 N
AM
E
TR
AI
L 
N
AM
E
TRAIL NAME
Leif Erickson Trail
2 MI.
503-823-PLAY
www.PortlandParks.org
Commissioner Nick Fish
Director Mike Abbaté
Wildwood Trail
Pittock 
Mansion
Portland
W Burnside
503-823-PLAY
www.PortlandParks.org
Commissioner Nick Fish
Director Mike Abbaté
2 MI.
2 MI.
THE INTERTWINE:  Regional Trails Signage Guidelines
February 03, 2012
2.03 
Sign Family
Mayer/Reed
Off-Street Trail Signs
SIGN TYPE C: Off-Street Pedestrian-Only Trail
This Sign Type is used along a pedestrian-only 
Regional Trail off-street to direct to destinations 
along the trail and when exiting the trail.
SIGN TYPE D: Off-Street Multi-Use Trail
This Sign Type is used along a multi-use 
Regional Trail off-street to direct to destinations 
along the trail and when exiting the trail.
SIGN TYPE E: Mile Marker
This Sign Type is used to 
identify every 1/4 mile along 
a regional trail.
DRAFT
1'-0"
2'-0"
3'-0"
4'-0"
5'-0"
6'-0"
7'-0"
8'-0"
9'-0"
10'-0"
Willamette
Greenway
3 MI.
Willamette
Greenway
3 MI. 15 MIN.
Willamette
Greenway
3 MI.
Sellwood
Riverfront
Park
3 MI.
Willamette
Greenway
3 MI. 15 MIN.
Sellwood
Riverfront Park
3 MI. 15 MIN.
THE INTERTWINE:  Regional Trails Signage Guidelines
February 03, 2012
2.04 
Sign Family
Mayer/Reed
On-Street Connection Signs
SIGN TYPE F: On-Street Pedestrian Connection
This Sign Type is used in the street right of way to 
connect pedestrians between the off-street trail 
segments.
SIGN TYPE G: On-Street Bicycle Connection
This Sign Type is used in the street right-of-way to 
connect bicyclists between the off-street trail segments.
On-Street Connection Signs
Use these Sign Types along street rights-of-way that connect off-street trail segments.
DRAFT
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
APPENDix i
Eliminated Alignments
This page was intentionally left blank.

  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
Segment 
Number Description Fatal Flaw / Analysis
1A SE 145th to 158th on SE Foster Road Undesirable user experience on Foster even with im-
provements, due to traffi c volume and speed.
1B Barbara Welch between Foster and 
Clatsop
Existing roadway condition has sharp curves and nar-
row width.  Improvement opportunities constrained by 
physical conditions (stream and topography).  
1C Original conceptual alignment through 
Buttes Natural Area
Too many environmental impacts.
1D Mitchell Creek alignment Private property and environmental impacts, out of 
direction travel.
2A SE 152nd between Clatsop Road and 
Scouter Mountain peak
Undesirable due to erosive soils and steep terrain on 
north side of Scouter Mountain.
2B Original conceptual alignment between 
Clatsop and former golf course
Does not consider existing features including topogra-
phy, environment and roadway crossings.
2C Scouter’s Mountain through former 
golf course.
Steep alignment all on private properties including an 
air landing strip.
3A SE 152nd from Sunnyside to Highway 
212
Steep alignment within limited width road right-of-
way.
3B Original conceptual alignment along 
Rock Creek between Sunnyside and 
Highway 212
Alignment impacts sensitive resource areas including 
numerous crossings of Rock Creek.
4A SE 147th including portions of vacated 
right-of-way
Very steep alignment
4B Powerline corridor within PGE property Steep alignment that encourages crossing of Sunny-
side Road at unprotected crossing.
4C SE 142nd between Red Maple and 
Highway 212
Narrow, steep roadway with multiple driveway cross-
ings.
5A Original conceptual alignment through 
Mt. Talbert and ODOT property
Does not consider existing features including trails, 
topography, environment and roadway crossings.
5B Adjacent to planned Sunrise Corridor Poor user experience, elevated and adjacent to high-
way.
5C Highway 212 between SE 122nd and 
142nd
Poor user experience adjacent to highway
6A Original conceptual alignment between 
Mt. Scott Blvd and Mt. Talbert
Does not consider existing features including topog-
raphy, environment, roadway crossings and existing 
trails.
6B Short segment on SE 117th that 
crosses Sunnyside at existing signal
On road alignment with at grade crossing less desir-
able than separated facility and undercrossing option. 
7A On street route between Springwater 
Corridor and Mt. Scott Blvd
Despite circuitous nature of route, alignment remains 
steep and has many sharp curves resulting in sight 
issues.
7B Original conceptual alignment from 
Mt. Scott Blvd, through Willamette 
National Cemetery to Deardorff Road.
National Cemetery not a willing partner.
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
APPENDIX J
Cost Estimate by Segment
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
Planning Level Cost Estimates for Trail Segment Construction
Mt. Scott / Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
02/12/13 Estimate by Otak, Inc.
This preliminary estimate was prepared using the following assumptions:
1 . Costs for right-of-way or easement acquisition is not included in this estimate.
2 . Preliminary cost estimate based on trail classification parameters specified below.
3 . Earthwork based on 1.25' excavation/embankment across entire improvement width. No rock excavation. Assumes 12" strippings (haul-off)
4 . Pavement section is assumed and may vary based on actual geotechnical recommendations and traffic volumes.
5 . Cost estimate is based on lineal foot of improvement.
6 . Cost estimate assumes that separated sidewalks and buffered cycle tracks will be constructed on both sides of the street.
7 . Quantities and costs are preliminary and subject to change upon completion of detailed construction plans and engineering reports.
8 . Striping assumes thermoplastic material.
9 . Signing frequency set at 400' o.c., additional line item used for more extensive signage.
10 . Landscape restoration was included at $12/LF for the pedestrian trails, multi-use path outside of right-of-way, bridges, and undercrosings.
11 . Estimate does not include irrigation, culvert crossings, retaining walls, or sound walls, unless otherwise noted.
12 . New franchise utility costs not included (underground power, natural gas, cable, telephone).
13 . Aerial utility relocation cost not included. Minor storm sewer adjustments are included.
14 . Utility service connections/reconnections not included. Major utility additions not included.
15 . No impacts or structural section changes for roadways that cross high-pressure utility lines.
16 . Costs are based on 2012 unit prices.
Segment
Number Segment Description
Segment
Length (mi)
Under-
crossing (ft) Boardwalk (ft)
Buffered Cycle
Track (ft)
Separated
Sidewalk (ft)
Multi-Use Trail
Inside ROW (ft)
Multi-Use Trail
Outside ROW (ft)
Pedestrian Trail
(ft)
Pedestrian
Bridge (ft)
Roadway
Crossing (Each)
Etensive Trail
Signage (LF)
Technical
Coningency (LS) Total Segment Cost
5-Year Cost
(2%/Year Inflation)
10-Year Cost
(2%/Year Inflation)
1
SPRINGWATER CORRIDOR TO
CLATSOP ROAD 4.39 5762 11362 6043 5 23167 1 $12,412,549 $13,704,457 $15,130,827
2
CLATSOP ROAD TO FORMER GOLF
CLUB 6.17 475 6397 11450 11368 2876 160 1 32566 $13,326,355 $14,713,373 $16,244,753
3
FORMER GOLF CLUB TO CLACKAMAS
RIVER VIA ROCK CREEK 2.84 120 389 14503 160 2 1 $5,101,297 $5,632,244 $6,218,452
4
POWERLINE CORRIDOR TO IGHWAY
212 VIA SIEBEN DRAINAGE 2.96 517 2876 6619 5611 120 1 $7,205,015 $7,954,919 $8,782,873
5 SIEBEN DRAINAGE TO MT. TALBERT 2.99 6046 7238 2509 40 1 $5,614,524 $6,198,889 $6,844,074
6 MT. TALBERT TO LINCOLN MEMORIAL 2.86 120 10957 4027 3 15104 $7,104,827 $7,844,303 $8,660,744
7
LINCOLN MEMORIAL TO SPRINGWATER
CORRIDOR 2.47 459 5633 6963 40 1 $5,081,635 $5,610,536 $6,194,485
Total Amount (ft) 240 1,840 26,276 5,762 35,064 45,683 15,455 520 14 70,837
Unit Cost (per ft) $626.56 $1,389.04 $579.36 $744.24 $480.11 $227.08 $123.43 $2,627.41 $53,328.62 $1.63 15% GRAND TOTAL $61,658,719.39 $68,076,208.43
Total Cost (per item) $150,375.14 $2,555,828.21 $15,223,294.10 $4,288,291.78 $16,834,721.77 $10,373,704.43 $1,907,545.78 $1,366,253.18 $746,600.65 $115,171.93 $2,284,414.57 $55,846,201.84 $55,846,201.54 check
  
 
 
 
This page intentionally left blank 
Planning Level Cost Estimates for Trail Typology Construction
Mt. Scott / Scouters Mountain Trail Loop Master Plan
02/12/13 Estimate by Otak, Inc.
This preliminary estimate was prepared using the following assumptions:
1 . Costs for right-of-way or easement acquisition is not included in this estimate.
2 . Preliminary cost estimate based on trail classification parameters specified below.
3 . Earthwork based on 1.25' excavation/embankment across entire improvement width. No rock excavation. Assumes 12" strippings (haul-off)
4 . Pavement section is assumed and may vary based on actual geotechnical recommendations and traffic volumes.
5 . Cost estimate is based on lineal foot of improvement.
6 . Cost estimate assumes that separated sidewalks and buffered cycle tracks will be constructed on both sides of the street.
7 . Quantities and costs are preliminary and subject to change upon completion of detailed construction plans and engineering reports.
8 . Striping assumes thermoplastic material.
9 . Signing frequency set at 400' o.c., additional line item used for more extensive signage.
10 . Landscape restoration was included at $12/LF for the pedestrian trails, multi-use path outside of right-of-way, bridges, and undercrosings.
11 . Estimate does not include irrigation, culvert crossings, retaining walls, or sound walls, unless otherwise noted.
12 . New franchise utility costs not included (underground power, natural gas, cable, telephone).
13 . Aerial utility relocation cost not included. Minor storm sewer adjustments are included.
14 . Utility service connections/reconnections not included. Major utility additions not included.
15 . No impacts or structural section changes for roadways that cross high-pressure utility lines.
16 . Costs are based on 2012 unit prices.
ITEM / DESCRIPTION UNIT COST UNIT UNIT/LF L.F. COST UNIT/LF L.F. COST UNIT/LF L.F. COST UNIT/LF L.F. COST UNIT/LF L.F. COST UNIT/LF L.F. COST UNIT/LF L.F. COST UNIT/LF L.F. COST UNIT/LF L.F. COST UNIT/LF L.F. COST UNIT/LF L.F. COST
Item Width 5 FT 10 FT 6 FT 6 FT 12 FT 12 FT 6 FT 16 FT 10 FT 0 FT 0 FT
Mobilization (8% to 10%) 8.00% LS 1.00 $23.20 1.00 $25.09 1.00 $18.27 1.00 $29.80 1.00 $19.22 1.00 $9.09 1.00 $4.94 $55.62 1.00 $105.20 1.00 $0.07 1.00 $2,135.28
Erosion Control (3%) 3.00% LS 1.00 $8.02 1.00 $8.67 1.00 $6.32 1.00 $10.30 1.00 $6.64 1.00 $3.14 1.00 $1.71 $19.22 1.00 $36.36 1.00 $0.02 1.00 $738.00
Removal of Structurs and Obstructions (3%) 3.00% LS 1.00 $8.02 1.00 $8.67 1.00 $6.32 1.00 $10.30 1.00 $6.64 1.00 $3.14 1.00 $1.71 $19.22 1.00 $36.36 1.00 $0.02 1.00 $738.00
Temporary Traffic Control (1% to 2.5%) 2.50% LS 1.00 $6.68 1.00 $7.23 1.00 $5.26 1.00 $8.58 1.00 $5.54 1.00 $2.62 1.00 $1.42 $16.02 1.00 $30.30 1.00 $0.02 1.00 $615.00
6" asphalt $27.00 SY
14" base course, (3/4" & 1/2"-0) crushed rock $24.00 SY
3" asphalt $16.00 SY 1.11 1.11 $17.78 1.33 $21.33 1.33 $21.33
8" base course, (3/4" & 1/2"-0) crushed rock $14.00 SY 1.11 1.11 $15.56 1.33 $18.67 1.33 $18.67 0.67 $9.33
6" gravel shoulder $11.00 SY 0.44 $4.89 0.44 $4.89 0.67 $7.33
8" wood chip course $9.00 SY $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Subgrade Geotextile $2.00 SY 1.11 $2.22 1.11 $2.22 1.33 $2.67 1.33 $2.67 0.67 $1.33
Concrete curb $15.00 LF 6.00 $90.00 1.00 $15.00 2.00 $30.00
4" Concrete sidewalk, 6' wide $7.00 SF $0.00 6.00 $42.00 12.00 $84.00
2" base course, 3/4"-0 crushed rock, 6' wide $0.50 SF $0.00 6.00 $3.00 12.00 $6.00
ADA Sidewalk/Trail Ramps $500.00 EA $0.00 4.00 $2,000.00
Lighting, 200' o.c. $5,000.00 EA 4.00 $20,000.00
Guardrail Barrier $25.00 LF 1.00 $25.00
Retaining Wall $50.00 SF 4.00 $200.00
Pre-fabricated Pedestrian Bridge $1,200.00 LF 1.00 $1,200.00 $0.00 $0.00
Boardwalk $40.00 SF 16.00 $640.00
Landscape Strip Topsoil, LS width, 12" thick, 6' wide $30.00 CY 0.07 $2.22 0.44 $13.33
Landscape Strip Street trees, 35' o.c. $300.00 EA 0.06 $17.14 0.06 $17.14
Landscape Restoration $12.00 LF 1.00 $12.00 1.00 $12.00 1.00 $12.00 1.00 $12.00
4" White Bike/Fog Line (thermoplastic) $4.00 LF $0.00 $0.00 1.00
Thermoplastic legends (per bike, turn lane) $3.00 LF 2.00 $6.00 $0.00 1.00
Raised Buttons/Detection Warnings $2.50 LF $0.00
12" Crosswalk Stripes $350.00 EA 0.0020 $0.70 $0.00 4.00 $1,400.00
Clearing & Grubbing $1.00 SF 14.00 $14.00 10.00 $10.00 10.00 $10.00 28.00 $28.00 14.00 $14.00 12.00 $12.00 10.00 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Stripping, 12" thkn., disposal offsite $25.00 CY 0.52 $12.96 0.37 $9.26 0.59 $14.81 1.04 $25.93 0.52 $12.96 0.44 $11.11 0.37 $9.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Earthwork, 1.25' exc/emb $25.00 CY 0.65 $16.20 0.46 $11.57 0.74 $18.52 1.30 $32.41 0.65 $16.20 0.56 $13.89 0.37 $9.26 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Traffic Signs $300.00 EA 4.00 $1,200.00
Trail Signs, 400' o.c. $300.00 EA 0.0050 $1.50 0.0025 $0.75 0.01 $1.50 0.005 $1.50 0.0025 $0.75 0.0025 $0.75 0.0025 $0.75 0.0025 $0.75 $0.00 0.0025 $0.75 $0.00
Swale/French Drain Construction $5.00 LF 1.00 $5.00 1.00 $5.00 1.00 $5.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Storm Sewer Allowance (12"-24") $105.00 LF 1.00 $105.00 1.00 $105.00 1.00 $105.00 1.00 $105.00
SUBTOTAL (Materials only) $313.17 $338.68 $246.70 $402.29 $259.52 $122.75 $66.72 $750.83 $1,420.22 $0.88 $28,826.28
Construction Contingency (engineering, materials) 35% LS 35% $109.61 35% $118.54 35% $86.35 35% $140.80 35% $90.83 35% $42.96 35% $23.35 35% $262.79 35% $497.08 35% $0.31 35% $10,089.20
SUBTOTAL $422.78 $457.22 $333.05 $543.09 $350.35 $165.71 $90.07 $1,013.62 $1,917.30 $1.19 $38,915.48
Soft Costs (engr, survey, testing, construction admin, permit
fees)
50% LS 50% $156.58 50% $169.34 50% $123.35 50% $201.15 50% $129.76 50% $61.37 50% $33.36 50% $375.42 50% $710.11 50% $0.44 50% $14,413.14
GRAND TOTAL Typology Estimate Total per LF $579.36 $626.56 $456.40 $744.24 $480.11 $227.08 $123.43 $1,389.04 $2,627.41 $1.63 $53,328.62
Multi-Use Trail
(Outside Road Right-of-Way)
Cycle Track
(both sides of street) Curb-Tight Sidewalk
Separated Sidewalk
(both sides of street)Under Crossing
Multi-Use Trail
(Inside Road Right-of-Way) Pedestrian Bridge Extensive Trail Signage Intersection ImprovementsPedestrian Trail Boardwalk
V:\PROJECT\16000\16088\Reports\Design Framework\MS-SM Trail Costs.xlsx Page 1 of 1 Printed: 11/15/2013
 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 
 City of Happy Valley Planning Commission and City Council  
 
Notice is hereby given that the City of Happy Valley Planning Commission and City Council will hold public hearings on 
the following dates in regard to a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to adopt the Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master 
Plan.  
 
Date & Time:  Planning Commission, April 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. 
City Council, May 6, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. 
 
Hearing Location: City Hall, 16000 SE Misty Dr. Happy Valley, OR 97086; 
 
File & Subject: CPA-02-14 (Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan).  
 
Proposal: The City seeks to adopt the Mt. Scott/Scouters Mtn. Trail Loop Master Plan for inclusion into 
the City's overall Comprehensive Plan.  The Trail Loop Master Plan is an approximately 37.5-
mile trail project that traverses through several jurisdictions including: City of Happy Valley; 
City of Portland; and unincorporated Clackamas County.  The proposed Trail Loop will serve as 
a multi-use commuter and recreational trail/path that will provide an active “link” between the 
Springwater Corridor regional trail, I-205 Bike Path, Clackamas River and the future Sunrise 
Corridor. 
 
Location: City Wide 
 
Applicant: City of Happy Valley 
 
Applicable Criteria: Applicable Statewide Planning Goals; applicable Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) sections; 
and, applicable Sections of Title 16 (Development Code) of the City of Happy Valley Municipal 
Code. 
 
Staff Contact: Justin Popilek, Senior Planner 
503-783-3810 
 
Interested parties are invited to attend this hearing or to submit comments in writing prior to the meeting time.  Written 
testimony may be submitted in advance or in person at the hearing.  Those wishing to present verbal testimony, either pro, 
con, or to raise questions, will be asked to speak after presentation of the reports.   
 
Testimony should pertain to the applicable criteria.  The decision will be made in accordance with said criteria, and may be 
appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals.  Failure to raise an issue in writing prior to or before the close of the written 
comment period or failure to provide sufficient specificity at the public hearing to afford the decision-making body an 
opportunity to respond to the issue precludes appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals based upon that issue.  The 
applicant and any person who submits written comments shall receive notice of the decision. 
 
The failure of the applicant to raise constitutional or other issues relating to the proposed amendments without sufficient 
specificity to allow the decision-making body to respond to the issue precludes an action for damages in circuit court.   
   
The decision-making criteria, application, and records concerning this matter are available at the City of Happy Valley City 
Hall at the above address during working hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays), please call for an appointment.  The 
Staff Reports will be available a minimum of seven days prior to the above referenced hearing dates.  For additional 
information, contact Justin Popilek, Senior Planner, at the above address and phone number. 
 
The meeting site is accessible to handicapped individuals.  Assistance with communications (visual, hearing) must be 
requested 72 hours in advance by contacting Marylee Walden, City Recorder at the above phone number.