MOUNTAIN RECREATION FACILITIES MASTER PLAN PUBLIC MEETING #3 Wednesday, April 27, 2016 Park City High School, 5:30pm – 7:30pm (45 people signed in)  A total of 9 comment forms were filled out and left with the planning team at the meetings.  3 people submitted comments on the “Comment Forum” on the project website.  6 people submitted comments via email. VERBATIM COMMENTS Question #1: A list of potential uses and facilities has been identified for each site identified for development or expansion. Do you agree with the potential activities listed in the Facilities and Locations Matrix?  50‐meter pool as high priority is great. Like Concept E for pool if E saves money and rec pool/play center is delayed for funding. Concept F makes sense for planning and not disrupting swimmers during construction. All these options are great for all ages to enjoy swimming.  Yes, a bit overwhelming at this point. Frisbee golf?  Should be 2 aquatic centers, one in PC/one out of PC. Not at MARC.  Seems like Jeremy Ranch area is an obvious gap. Add a land swap along Rasmussen Road. Add a lake/fishing pond at Bear Hollow (was once in adopted development plan). Question #2: Do you agree with the Guiding Principles that have been established for this project? Are there other Guiding Principles that should be considered? Please specify.  Yes, well done.  Cost to build, cost to maintain both personnel and cost of cooling water run off from turf fields.  Yes.  Neighborhood parks and green space, unprogrammed/natural.  If a sport can be local/neighborhood (eg. tennis, basketball, small field) put in pocket parks in neighborhoods vs. large centralized facilities (ice, pool, fieldhouse). Question #3: Do you agree with the Evaluation Criteria? Are there other criteria that should be considered when evaluating the various options? Please specify.  Not sure how ice rink got 5 more points than 50‐meter pool. All sexes and ages benefit from water/pool access. Additional ice rink should be down on the list because it benefits fewer people.  Yes.  The evaluation criteria is comprehensive! Suggest value weighting for compatible uses.  Large facilities (pool, ice, fieldhouse) should be on the periphery – ease of access by whole community. Along I‐80, SR 40). Tourist considerations should be last priority!! Question #4: What do you think of the building programs for the major facilities? Let us know if the buildings address all needs and requirements.  It appears that the Park City School Board did not hear the public last fall. Everything on the school bond that was defeated is 61‐39% is back.  Develop needs based plan for 3‐5 years. Phased over time. Allow flexibility to accommodate future recreational pursuits. 1 




Put new pool at non-school site – reduce conflicts with other after school activities.
Consider a suspended indoor track on the Kearns Campus fieldhouse.
The two northern fields on Trailside Concept B are smaller than the FIFA standards.
Combine the Ice and Pool into one building on the Triangle Parcel (this comment was seconded).
City Park – softball field needs to shift to the south to avoid balls going over the fence – then do
sand volleyball instead of the basketball on Concept A.
Question #5: What do you think of the site designs and layouts? Let us know how well the site design for
each option addresses needs and requirements.
 Well done clear options.
 A bit early to say, but City Park plan has problems. Site/adjacencies.
 Kearns Site: Keep North 40 as multi-use – no track site. Prefer school expansion out toward
baseball field and move fields (not Dozier) to Treasure site.
 Delete most of the turf fields. Scale down buildings.
 Need to give this more thought.
 Site designs are great! – depending on where to put everything.
Additional Comments or Questions (Comment Forms, Emails, Meetings):
 I can see the benefit of separating larger aquatic play center from 50-meter pool if necessary.
Then Concept E could be done and play pool could be attached to Basin Rec or built elsewhere.
 I feel the pool at Ecker Hill would meet the best needs of the community overall. There is plenty
of room for expansion and it is well run by Todd. I have been using this facility since it opened.
 Aquatics – Leisure pool does not belong on school property; would very much like to see the
Canyons property used for leisure pool needs.
 Ecker Hill – do not need a leisure pool here. Concept E is the best option to expand the pool.
Would prefer a non-attached addition if 5th/6th grades are added here.
 Kearns Campus – Keep Dozier field as-is. Would prefer to see athletic support building under
bleachers combined with concessions, etc. Concept F is the best option, but would like to see
only a “potential” indoor multipurpose fieldhouse. Do we really need more tennis courts?
Fieldhouse should go off-campus. Do NOT put track or turf on North 40
 Disperse options – don’t centralize into a mega-center.
 Do not account for lacrosse needs! Not a sanctioned HS sport – does not belong on School
District property.
 50-meter pool that could host major swim meets and water polo tournaments as well as high
altitude training.
 Pool time anywhere in Salt Lake and Park City is nearly impossible to get for water polo or new
club swimming.
 Opposed to large multi-use facility on current Treasure Mountain site – impact on neighborhood
and traffic issues along Kearns make it not feasible.
 Add the cost for full-time residents. Divide by 12 for monthly impact. Then add the additional
taxes proposed and their impacts.
 I think it would be great to expand the pool facility at the aquatic center at Eckert Middle School
instead of building a new one as they seem to have the space for expansion and a team to
manage the day to day
 On the North 40 parcel - High water table, sewer trunk line in the city ROW.
 Prefer regionally located facilities vs. large super center.
2


























Difficult to distill this information down to a feasible and affordable plan that will meet
community needs.
Differentiate needs and wants.
How many soccer fields, ice sheets, aquatic centers, and leisure pools do we need?
Would prefer to see some parcels left undeveloped for future use.
I support expansion at our recreational facilities within boundaries of affordability.
No development in North 40. No school only facility, jointly developed.
Delineate public/private endeavors. Golf learning center might be out of scope.
Aquatic centers – yes.
Ice expansion – yes.
Ecker – no mega school. Number of fields is excessive. Aquatics good.
Kearns – High School to the south – yes. Fieldhouse at Treasure Mountain site. No to moving
Dozier.
PC MARC – No major expansion here. Leave as city neighborhood.
City Park – Lower impact buildings. Small. Save trees.
Don’t put any new high-demand facility (ice, pool, fieldhouse) anywhere that would require
coming in 224 or 248. Put these facilities outside or along I-80 or SR-40.
Redundant/small facilities – outdoor basketball, tennis courts, pickleball, small fields or single
neighborhood fields can be dispersed and inside the I-80/SR-40 “moat”.
If Dozier is to be moved, put it out at Quinn’s and make it nice – football/soccer/lacrosse doesn’t
have to practice on the competition field. Makes big game night easier on traffic/parking.
Outdoor ice rink – needs an all (off) season use (tennis?) or don’t bother.
Put new ice at Ecker, Silver Creek, or Triangle.
New pool at Quinn’s to reduce traffic around Basin.
Try to better use/open PCSD elementary, Ecker gyms.
Tourism (except off-season tournaments) should be the last consideration! Build for the
residents and the tourists will benefit (Unless Vail is paying for it all.)
Silver Creek – Make sure there is enough parking for each field.
No more golf.
I like the Triangle Plan for new ice, pool, and fieldhouse.
Add “Safety” to guiding principles.
(ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT SUBMITTED IN A LETTER IS ATTACHED TO THE END OF THIS
DOCUMENT)
Thank you for the informative meeting last Wednesday night and the opportunity to provide public
input. Here is a number of our thoughts:
 Guiding Principles - Missing is “Existing Neighborhood Impacts shall not be increased”
 Evaluation Criteria – Impact on Neighborhoods needs to be broadened to:
o Respect existing neighborhoods by locating future facilities with noise, traffic, parking,
lighting and other impacts onto parcels with no immediate neighbors.
o Upgrades to existing facilities will not expand impacts such as noise, traffic, parking
overflow and lighting above levels that is currently experienced by adjacent
neighborhoods.
 Using these additional principles and guidelines will go a long ways to utilizing parcels that are
located where the bulk of the Basin’s population lives and is expanding. Park City Municipal’s
(PCMC) population has been stagnate for many years and may contract given the conversion of
3



primary residential to second homes and current build out of PCMC by second home
development.
We do not support a fieldhouse on the Kearns Campus from a cost standpoint or practicable
stand point. Between all of the taxing/bonding jurisdictions, there are becoming more and
more tax and fee increases. If we are going to build more facilities then they must be multi-use,
non-duplicative and located where the greatest number of users live. Basin Rec wants a new
fieldhouse and so does the school district. Such a facility should be outside of the city where the
majority of users live and where student athletic team members will be passing by on their way
home. Practicably, the School District is in the middle of answering questions regarding pre-K –
6th grades, updating its strategic plan. In concert with its learning plan, they should better
inform the master planning for the school district’s future building program regarding
academics, PCCAPS (Park City School District Center for Professional Studies) and CTE (Career
and Technical Education).
We were involved with the 1990 Master Planning Process for the Kearns Boulevard Campus aka
City/Schools Fields. We were very focused on the North 40 parcel as it is adjacent to our home
of 34 years. Since the signing of the 1990 lease agreement and the City/Schools Fields Master
Plan, we have enjoyed it as our neighbor with all of its attendant uses. Even Autumn Aloft being
introduced to the North 40, though not allowed under the current agreement, ended up being a
good and welcome use. Our only complaints have been the City’s use of the parking lot on the
east side for construction staging, off leash dogs and a couple of corporate events with blaring
loud speakers.
We are attaching three documents and adding some comments:
 Park City School ROW Easement – this is from the County records and shows the existing
ROW in favor of the City right through critical portions of the existing North 40 and
wetlands. Within the ROW is a Snyderville Basin Water Reclamation District Outfall/Sewer
Line.
 North 40 Sewer & ROW Approx Alignment – this is a very general depiction of the sewer
line. If you go out onto the fields over by the bridge you can see a sewer manhole access.
There are at least two others in the wetlands and another in the school district parking lot.
Additionally the North 40 fields have a high water table. Let’s remember that most of Park
Meadows was a part of a wetlands complex that Enoch Smith, the developer, filled in and
drained in the 70s. Many homes throughout Park Meadows to this day cannot have
basements and are pumping out their crawl spaces due to high water table. Additionally,
the original location for McPolin Elementary School was to be on the North 40 but the
escalating costs to develop a floating slab, drain system and other costly items to counter
the high water table changed the location to where it is today.
 School Fields Master Plan and Lease – A lot of work and public process/input was done in
1990 and resulted in the City/Schools Fields Master Plan and Lease. In particular I point out:
o On .pdf page 33 Alternate "D/Revised" Highlights
 Area 3 (Parcel adjacent to wetland area)
 3 Temporary play fields
 1 Temporary Soccer field
 This area is a last priority for adult use.
 Minimal encroachment on wetland area .
 8' pathway with 4' soft shoulder .
 Berming along west property line .
 75 parking spaces at east end with access to future R.O.W. 1
 Temporary parking located at the north end with access to Lucky John .
4

o
Note: All temporary fields to have portable backstops or soccer goals.
On .pdf page 67 of the Lease Agreement
 4.0 Term
 Subject to prior termination, as provided, the term shall be thirty
(30) years commencing
 November 8, 1990.
 The City, at its sole discretion, may extend the term by twenty (20)
years by providing notice
 to the District of its intent to end by November 8, 2019.
In closing, we are not big users of the facilties that are being considered. Our main interests are open
space and trails. Our biggest concerns are formalized athlectic and recreation facilties that continue to
grow in their impacts. We clearly need to develop some new facilties outside of the City to serve our
growing Basin needs.
(REFERENCED DOCUMENTS ARE INCLUDED AT THE END OF THIS DOCUMENT).
Ongoing Public Comment since March 16th Advisory Committee Meeting
Following the last Advisory Committee Meeting on March 16th and prior to the Public Meeting on April
27th:
4 people submitted comments on the “Comment Forum” on the project website.
5 people submitted comments via email.

Thank you for all you are doing and for inviting feedback. Before anything can be decided on
land use, the school district needs to determine a fully vetted, completely sane and viable
solution for grade realignment, should that still remain a quest of theirs. Please carefully
determine the linear decision making that needs to occur before rushing forward on anything.
That way you can be more assured someone won't come forward later and throw a wrench in
the works. Thank you for all you are doing and for inviting feedback. Research favors K - 8
buildings. Can the architects provide more options including how elementary schools might look
if they were to be expanded and a fifth elementary school built somewhere among the 12 sites
we have? My assumption is that there will be give and take on the parcels available to us. This
assumption is based on that so many recreational fields and facilities are depicted on school
property such that there might be appropriate tradeoffs.

I thought the architects did a nice job in their depictions and in explaining during last night's
presentation that these are only depictions offering ways to utilize the 12 sites available to the
three entities joined in this endeavor (Park City, Basin Recreation, and PC School District). That
we have so many possibilities available to us is key to expressing a more viable solution in the
end. This is great! Now we need our committees to be attentive to the community in their
decisions moving forward.

I have general comments. The different options presented on April 27, 2016 were too numerous
to address individually.
5
Most important- I agree that coordination with PCSD and Basin Rec is critical. On that note,
many options will be affected by PCSD's decisions about the high school site. Your process may
need to slow down to work with PCSD. For instance, building a field house at Quinn's Junction
may not be a good idea if the school board builds one at the high school. Same with a new lap
pool at the MARC.
1. I believe that facility decisions should be based on better poling than this type of public
input. A particularly vocal group might have undue influence. I think someone
mentioned that the Rec board has conducted this type of survey. It would be
appropriate.
2. I believe that certain facilities should be reasonably near the population they plan to
serve. Rec pools, tennis courts, playgrounds and even dog parks can be neighborhood
gathering places. Larger or one of a kind facilities, such as ice rinks or 50 meter lap
pools, are good for a Quinn's Junction or the Triangle location where there is good road
access. I also think strong consideration should be given to projected growth patterns in
locating these facilities.
3. If a decision is made that a field house is appropriate at Quinn's Junction, I am intrigued
by the idea of converting the ice rink into that field house and building 2 new, side by
side ice rinks.
4. We missed an opportunity when we built the current ice rink. It is exposed to the sun all
day, particularly on a summer day. We could have built the rink partially underground or
even into the hillside. This would have offered energy savings by using the ground as
insulation. Additionally, it would give more flexibility in the design by using the hillside
to our advantage. This can be done with the new rink.
5. I am not a fan of artificial turf fields. The majority of fields should be grass.
6. Grass fields require a different layout than turf fields. Many options presented showed
fields that could not be moved or adjusted. This is a mistake. A grass field will
experience wear near a goal or in the middle of the field and a design should allow the
field to be moved 20 yards left or right or rotated to even out the wear. The North 40 in
its current layout allows this and it works well. A permanent running track at the North
40 would not allow that.
7. I agree with previous comments that fields should be away from highways or streets
where possible. Put the parking near the road. Think stray balls and kids chasing them.
8. If you want to attract a baseball or softball tournament, build a baseball/softball
complex. If you want to attract a soccer, lacrosse, or rugby tournament build a complex
to support it.
9. I think the MARC is big enough and I think the basketball court should remain. If you
want to build an indoor lap pool, locate it somewhere else.
6
10. I do not think we should build a permanent structure over some of the outdoor courts
at the MARC.
11. The North 40 is the wrong place for a running track. Leave it around the football field
and lock the equipment building securely.
12. There is a written understanding that the North 40 will not have lights. Check with
Chuck Klingstein.
13. I think that the idea of relocating Dozier field to Quinn's Junction or the Triangle is worth
examining. That field would have good highway access and could be a larger venue to
host regional games. Think football, soccer, lacrosse and rugby.

My family is in favor of a 50 Meter Pool with adequate locker room facilities to support.. From
water polo, competitive swimming, master’s swimming, etc., the greater Park City area is in
desperate need for a facility such as the one shown.

I am a teacher at Ecker Hill Middle School. I'm also the coordinator for our school garden. I'm
hoping to come to the meeting on Wednesday, April 27th, however I have a conflict and may
not be able to attend.
My biggest concern is that as the possibilities for a 5/6 campus at the Ecker site are put forth, I
would like to have a dialogue about the continuation of our school garden. The garden has been
a great addition to our school community. I would like to see the garden expanded, and if there
is a 5/6 and 7/8 campus, a shared effort in continuing the garden. It could also become a
community garden (beyond that of the school community) such as the one at the Matt Knoop
park.
Currently I am the coordinator and run the garden program. I have had teachers and many
parents, along with EATs express an interest in keeping the garden going. While this is not an
athletic facility, it will impact, or could be impacted by the expansion of the athletic facilities at
Ecker. Please consider including myself and our program in the dialogue as you continue
forward with the master plan. Thank you!

I play hockey, soccer and tennis year round so I am quite interested in the Master Planning
process. I also swim in a masters program in Northern California. Perhaps we can talk prior to
Wednesday so I can best understand how to help you to help us all.
Can we ask rink, Marc, Eckert Hill Acquatics, library to send notice to their patrons notifying the
Wednesday meeting is coming? I find few of my fellow tennis players or hockey players know
the process is underway and open to public comment.
Separately, I was one of several in the last public meeting asking the process include a
swimming expert before we go to detailed budget estimating. I have identified a highly qualified
swim facility and programming director from Northern California who has been retained by
several municipalities to consult on facility design and programming. I sent this information to
the website above; no one acknowledged receipt so that site comment place seems to be a
7
dead letter box.
Finally, my wife and I attended the last meeting at Basin Rec. I posted several comments on the
public site, per the flyer I picked up at the meeting. My wife did not post any comments,
however she has been getting occasional emails pertaining to this planning process whereas I
have not. Please add my name to your public meeting notification lists.

I would love to have more indoor courts to play basketball.

I am very excited by the proposed options. I feel that one larger facility or location could
minimize impact on traffic. I definitely think public bus routes should be expanded to include the
approved location. Of the options presented, I feel that the triangle parcel or an area near
Quinn's junction would support a large recreation facility. These locations may feel slightly
isolated at this time, but I believe this would be a centralizing feature for future growth in Park
City. If the proposal at silver creek village is selected, traffic concerns and access to the village
from the highway should be evaluated as well. In regards to facilities, I would love to see more
indoor aquatics options. I would also be excited by the possibility of indoor rock climbing at one
of these facilities.

Dear Advisory Committee:
Please find attached document containing feedback on the Equestrian Friendly Trail Map
provided by SBSRD as follow up to the March 25th meeting between SBSRD and PC Recreation.
You may also find a copy on the Park City Equine Partnership website
www.ParkCityEquinePartnership.org
We look forward to continued open public dialog on the future of Equestrian Friendly trails, trail
heads and parks Snyderville Basin and Park City.
Regards,
Dawn Bowes
(THE REFERENCED DOCUMENT IS ATTACHED TO THE PDF VERSION OF THESE COMMENTS)

Please ensure that safety concerns and impacts to neighborhoods are taken into account before
making decisions. Willow Creek Park is a fantastic facility, but it is frequently so overcrowded
during sporting events that cars are parking along Split Rail Lane and people are
entering/existing their vehicles along a busy road. It's just a matter of time before an accident
happens, and anybody who has visited the park on a busy Saturday knows this is a problem. The
schematic that proposes adding more field space to Willow Creek Park is going to add more cars
along the road and make the safety risk even worse. The advisory committee must consider
safety risks and put additional field space at venues that can better handle the crowds and
parking.

Recreation and active lifestyles are ingrained in the DNA of Park City and the surrounding area
and I am happy to see strategies to offer multi-generational opportunities. I also believe that
several of the sites presented have the ingredients to address other community issues such as
parking or affordable housing. Please consider the opportunity for recreation development to
8
also provide community wide transportation or housing solutions. Several large sites considered
that are on bus routes and transportation corridors may provide public/private, revenue
generating partnerships to help pay for recreation facilities as well as relieve traffic or housing
needs.

More artificial turf fields would be great. It's nice enough to practice outside now but we are
limited because the grass fields won't be released until late April. Today is March 21.
Reservation system / app for reserving tennis courts would be great.

As the mother of two soccer and lacrosse athletes, I would love to see additional turf fields in
Park City.
Thank you!

Please consider adding additional granularity to the Master Plan for dog friendly recreational
assets. Specifically, distinguish between relatively small space dog parks and large open spaces
where dogs can run off-leash while owners hike, bike, etc. It appears that while progress has
been made in providing small area high density off-leash dog parks there is actually less open
space for hiking and biking with dogs off leash.

I like the idea of the recreational pool at the Canyons Village location. It makes a lot of sense to
me to maximize the use of that facility. I am not supportive of turf fields or a track on the North
40 fields. Full disclosure--I live very close to the North 40 fields. The water table of the North 40
fields is very high. These grass fields require the least amount of water to maintain compared to
the grass fields in other locations throughout the community. The high school soccer coaches
prefer their teams to play and practice on natural grass when the weather permits. If we are
going to have any grass soccer fields in the city, it makes sense to me that the North 40 should
be the location of these grass fields. I do not believe a track should be located on the North 40
fields. I think the track should be located around the football field. If vandalism to football
equipment continues to be a problem when the track is open to the public, then I think a
football equipment storage unit should be built to store this equipment when not in use.
Additionally, a code entry lock could be placed on the gate to the track. Public runners that use
the track could request the combination to the lock for their use. This should eliminate or at
least minimize any vandalism to the football equipment. No need for a track in a separate
location, especially on the North 40 fields. Thank you for your consideration.

During the public meeting several residents raised questions about who was planning and would
be programming the swimming facility. The speakers agreed a professional with this expertise
would be welcome. Another set of anxieties were voiced because the School District was not
participating and tax payers want efficient use of funds. I have an expert who happens to offer
consulting services. Tim Sheeper, currently head of aquatics for Menlo Park, CA and retained by
St Helena and Santa Clara counties to help with their facility planning/programming for families,
seniors, school age children and athletes. I swam in Menlo Park this week and got an
enthusiastic "yes" when I asked Tim if he would be interested in talking to Park City Recreation.
Here is his profile: http://menloswim.com/sports/triathlon/team-sheeper-triathlon/#coachesinstructors Great guy. Knows government facility mgmt, school age requirements and aquatic
programming for all ages. If you bring him to Park City, he is welcome to stay in our home.
9

As the Field House expands please consider the ever growing popularity and growth of yoga
class attendance. Soon a larger space/expandable space or additional space will need to be
dedicated to this. Thanks for listening. We buy an annual couple pass with fitness for the sole
purpose of yoga classes. FYI.

I am writing this to voice my family’s strong support for a high level Aquatics Complex, equipped
with a 50 Meter Pool and large locker room facilities to support.
Pool time for competitive swimming, water polo, masters swimming and other is becoming hard
to come by as the use of the current facility continues to increase.
Please consider providing the greater Park City area with an Aquatic Center that compliments
our progressive mountain recreation community.

Indoor climbing facilities would be a great addition to Park City recreation options. This is an
area that is significantly unmet in Park City and would provide an additional recreation and
fitness option to Park City residents. Greater variety of recreational/fitness options would be
more likely to attract people to use the facilities and live a more healthy and active lifestyle.

I like the idea of the recreational pool at the Canyons Village location. It makes a lot of sense to
me to maximize the use of that facility.
I am not supportive of turf fields or a track on the North 40 fields. Full disclosure--I live very
close to the North 40 fields. The water table of the North 40 fields is very high. These grass fields
require the least amount of water to maintain compared to the grass fields in other locations
throughout the community. The high school soccer coaches prefer their teams to play and
practice on natural grass when the weather permits. If we are going to have any grass soccer
fields in the city, it makes sense to me that the North 40 should be the location of these grass
fields.
I do not believe a track should be located on the North 40 fields. I think the track should be
located around the football field. If vandalism to football equipment continues to be a problem
when the track is open to the public, then I think a football equipment storage unit should be
built to store this equipment when not in use. Additionally, a code entry lock could be placed on
the gate to the track. Public runners that use the track could request the combination to the
lock for their use. This should eliminate or at least minimize any vandalism to the football
equipment. No need for a track in a separate location, especially on the North 40 fields.
Thank you for your consideration.
10
Synderville Basin and Park City Master Recreation
Equestrian Trails and Trail Heads
Date: April 12, 2016
Dear Advisory Committee:
Thank you for considering the needs of equestrians in the Park City and Snyderville Basin Master Recreation Plan. As we have discussed, our
initial focus is for equestrian trails and trailheads with a long term vision of creating a Park City Horse Park.
The purpose of this document is to provide our feedback and recommendations on the existing equestrian friendly trails and the policies
included in the Basin Recreation and Park City Master Trails Plans and Websites and the Mountain Trails Foundation website. This document
proposes suggested modifications to the existing equestrian friendly trails and trailheads and offers specific design guidelines and locations for
proposed future equestrian trails and trailheads.
Our feedback and recommendations are based on representing the needs of hundreds of local equestrians and based on two national
authorities’ on equestrian trails the US Dept. of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Equestrian Design Guidebook for trails and
trailheads and the Rails to Trails Foundation.
We appreciate the opportunity to continue our open public dialog and public input in the 2016 Master Planning Process with the hope that we
can provide friendly, safe, enjoyable, and desirable trails and trail heads for equestrians in our community.
Sincerely,
Dawn Bowes
Dawn Bowes
Owner, EquiSportUSA, a 3-Day Eventing Barn www.EquiSportUSA.Blogspot.com
Founder, Park City Equestrian Partnership (PCEP) www.ParkCityEquinePartnership.org
Founder, Park City Pony Club (PCPC) www.ParkCityPonyClub.org
Cell: 435-729-9349
e-mail: [email protected]
1
Contents
Equestrian Friendly Trails in Snyderville Basin and Park City ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Master Trail Plans .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Park City Recreation ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
Basin Recreation Master Trails Plan ........................................................................................................................................................................ 11
Recommendations ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Proposed Guidelines .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Riders' Needs ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Multi-Use Trail Design .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Conflicts ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Equestrian-Only Trails .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 15
Compatible Uses ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Trail Length .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Trail Scenarios .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Trail Sight Distance................................................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Trail Clearance ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Tread Width ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Choosing Horse-Friendly Surface Materials ................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Surface Options ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23
Amenities and Facilities ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Water Troughs ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Mounting Blocks ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Open Parking Areas.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 32
Traffic Control .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
2
Hitch Rails................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
Sign Plans ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 34
Reducing Environmental and Health Concerns ...............................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Horse Manure ..............................................................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Soil Erosion and Root Damage .....................................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Vegetation and Facility Damage ..................................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Toxic Vegetation ..........................................................................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3
Equestrian Friendly Trails in Snyderville Basin and Park City
Listed on the map are approximately 40 miles, 14 trails and 3 trailheads identified as
equestrian friendly. The following summarizes the attributes of these trails:
1. 11% of all 350 miles of trails are labeled “Equestrian Friendly Trails”
2. Less than 10 miles of equestrian friendly trails are accessible from designated
equestrian friendly trailheads.
3. The Rail Trail from Promontory to Quinn’s is not listed as Equestrian Friendly.
4. 5.2 miles are paved (Quinn & 3-mile trail) with insufficient side surfaces. The
paved trails provide the only public access to 22 miles of equestrian friendly
trails.
5. 10 miles equestrian friendly looped trails (Glenwild, Trailside) private access only.
6. 1.8 miles of soft-surface 8’ wide trails (Wasatch) is the Most Horse Friendly
URBAN trail surface for equestrian transportation.
7. Less than 1 mile of trails where riders can safely travel faster than a trot.
8. 12 miles of equestrian friendly trails where dogs are allowed off leash (Round
Valley) without any equestrian etiquette training on dogs around horses.
9. 11 miles of the only backcountry trails (Glenwild) high bike traffic, no trailhead.
10. 2 mounting blocks (Wasatch Trail Tunnel) none at equestrian friendly trailheads.
11. No water sources for horses.
12. No Signage at Trail Kiosks educating trail users on how to give way to horses.
13. Unsafe Horse Passage on Rail Trail, Bollisters are too narrow.
14. Limited safe horse ties and no horse ties at trailheads near highway.
15. One Horse Trailer semi-friendly Parking Trailhead (Promontory) – needs water,
bollisters and horse ties 4’ high and 12’ away from obstacles.
16. Zero miles of public equestrian friendly trails that are desirable and enjoyable
and specifically designed for equestrian use (Bridle Path, Gallop track, Cross
Country Course, Competitive Trail Course, Endurance Track, Small 1-2 hour
loops).
4
Analysis of Park City and Snyderville Basin Horse Friendly Equestrian Trails
In the table below is a breakdown of all criteria that designates equestrian friendly trails based on National Equestrian Trail Standards.
Trail
Owner
Wasatch
Trail
SBSRD
Frie
nd?
Med
type
Use
Dogs
SURF
Urban
Low
No
Soft
Glenwild
Loop
SBSRD
Med
Back
country
High
No
Single
Track
Wid
th
8'
Gate
Miles
EDU?
Loop?
Access
Challenges
Walk
1.8
No
No
Private, Rail
Trail
Dead ends at tunnel. No Plans from MTF or SBSRD.
Only public access from Promontory trail head.
2'
Walk
Trot
11
No
Yes
Wasatch
Trail
High Bike Traffic, Lacks trail head access, primarily
private access, high speed road crossing,
Challenging bridges to navigate. Bollisters narrow.
Silver Quinn
MTF
Low
Rural
High
Yes
Paved
8'
Walk
2.2
No
No
RV Express
Paved, no direct access, high traffic, dogs off leash.
RV Express
MTF
Med
Rural
High
Yes
Dirt
2'
Walk
2
No
No
Highland
Accessed via Paved Trails. Dogs off-leash. High Use.
Valderode
MTF
Med
Rural
High
Yes
Dirt
2'
Walk
1.2
No
No
Quinn’s
Loop
Mountain
Ranch Trail
Trailside
MTF
Med
Rural
High
Yes
Dirt
2-4'
4
No
Yes
MTF
Med
Rural
Med
Yes
Dirt
2-4'
1
No
No
MTF
Med
Rural
High
No
Dirt
2'
Walk
Trot
Walk
Trot
Walk
RV Express,
Matt's
Quinn TH,
Fastpitch
Paved Trail
1.2
No
Yes
Private
Round Valley Trailhead unsuitable for Horse Trailer
Parking. Dogs off leash. High Traffic.
Round Valley Trail Head Kiosk not suitable for
Horse Trailer Parking. High Use. Dogs off leash
Direct access for Mtn. Ranch, Trailside Equestrian
Community only. No trail head access.
Private access only from Trailside, Mtn. Ranch
Equestrian
MTF
Med
Rural
High
Yes
Dirt
Road
2'
Walk
Trot
0.4
No
No
Private,
Rambler
Rambler is advanced single track. No trailhead
access. Must use Highland Dr.
McCloud
Creek
SBSRD
Med
Urban
High
No
Soft
Surface
8’
Walk
Trot
2.0
No
No
Private, Old
Ranch Rd
Private access for Quarry Mtn Ranch & ORR as no
trail heads provide access for horse trailers.
Rail Trail
MTF
Med
Rural
High
No
Soft
Surface
10'
Walk
Trot
0.85
No
No
Promontory
Trailhead.
No connector, Why is Rail Trail past Promontory
not included as an equestrian friendly trail?
3-Mile
Canyon
Rocmon
SBSRD
Low
Rural
Low
No
Paved
8'
Walk
3
No
No
SBSRD
Med
Rural
low
No
Dirt
2'
Walk
0.6
No
No
Promontory
Trailhead
Rail Trail
Difficult to navigate a horse with baby strollers and
burley's on a 2’ wide soft surface trail with a horse.
Not clear on access.
South
Canyon
SBSRD
Med
Rural
Low
Yes
Dirt
2'
?
4.3
No
No
5
Rockmon
Trail.
Not clear on access for equestrians.
Analysis of Horse Friendly Trailheads
In the Table below is a list of the criteria that supports an equestrian friendly trailhead based on national standards for equestrian trailheads.
The only partially friendly trail head is Promontory Trailhead.
Trailhead Name
Horse
Friendly
Rest
Rooms
Mount
ing
Blocks
Water
Horse
Ties
Bollisters
6' wide
Horse
Trailer
Parking
Right of
Way
Education?
Traffic
Challenges
No
Soft
Surface
Accessible
Trails
Yes
Promontory
Medium
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Low
Not Safe
No
No
High
Not Safe
No
Yes
High
Widen Bollisters from 3’ to 6' wide.
Provide mounting blocks and water
trough, education on how to give
way to equestrians. Trail Kiosk is too
close to rail trail entrance. Horse ties
should be 3’6" high with 12 '
clearance.
Parking paved, lanes too close
together to tie horses to trailer, no
horse ties provided, right off
highway, Horse could get lose and
crash through fence onto highway.
Trail access is 2' wide soft surface
alongside 8-10' wide paved trail. Soft
surface ends at some point as all
paved as it enters back of IHC and
continues to be all paved until Round
Valley.
Parking Paved, no RV/Trailer parking,
a lot of turns difficult for long
trailers, no horse ties, no staging
area, no water, high traffic.
Highland Drive
Low
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Round Valley
Low
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
6
Specific Examples of Challenges
Promontory Trailhead
This Trailhead Kiosk is too close to the entrance of the trail that could cause a mounted rider to hit their head on
the roof as they tried to make it through the trailhead bollisters that are too close together for an equestrian to
ride through with dangerous barbed wire surrounding the entrance and horse ties that could cause a horse to get
loose as it slips off the end of the tie.
Silver Creek – Wasatch Trail Tunnel
The entrances are paved with concrete tunnel, bollisters are set too close together. Mounting Blocks are great, but
located where the horse has to straddle pavement and some grass. There is no marked trails connecting the
tunnel to the Rail Trail.
Highland Trailhead
The entrance to Highland Trailhead is paved for trail users and soft surface for motorized traffic. From an equestrian
perspective this is indicative of the challenges equestrians face in educating on what it means to have equestrian
friendly trails.
Highland Dr. Trail Head Kiosk
This is fairly high traffic, multi-use trail without information to designate this as an equestrian friendly trailhead or
education for trail users on how to give trail right of way with horses and dogs off leash are allowed.
7
The photos above are of Silver Quinn trails accessed from Highland TH. The trail starts with 2’ wide soft surface, too narrow with dogs off leash and high traffic. Trail ends with
no soft surface. No safe access to Round Valley Trails.
Highland TH Parking - Paved & Too Close – Dog’s Off Leash.
Quinn’s TH only reference to horses – Horse trailer parking not safe or accessible.
8
Top Left Photos: Trails near Trailside, not on Equestrian Friendly SBSRD Map. Not on map as Trailhead parking for Equestrians but signage seems to indicate horses are allowed.
Recommend to be included in Map with Horse Trailer Parking. The Quinn’s TH Kiosk without information to educate on right of way and how to give it. High use and Dog’s off
leash allowed.
9
Master Trail Plans Equestrian Trail Users
Park City Recreation
Park City Recreation 2008 Master Trail Plan. Horse Trails is mentioned 4
times in the entire document as listed below.
Required trail improvements under the ordinance of the Land
Management Code in accordance with the Trails Master Plan can insure
the preservation of a proposed trail route.
Under the Subdivision title of the Land Management Code, the section
for Sidewalks, hiking trails, bike paths, horse trails specifically requires
these improvements.
Section........... Sidewalks, Hiking Trails, Bike Paths, Horse Trails.
Required Improvements.
I.
Sidewalks shall be included within the dedicated non-pavement right-of-way of all roads unless an alternate location has
been specifically approved by the Planning Commission. In many cases pedestrian paths separate from the road right of
way may be preferable due to snow removal concerns.
II.
Concrete curbs are required for all roads where sidewalks are required by these regulations or where required in the
discretion of the Planning Commission.
III.
Sidewalks shall be improved as required in Section .. of these regulations.
IV.
Trails, pedestrian paths, and bike paths shall be related appropriately to topography, require a minimum of site
disturbance, permit efficient drainage, and provide safe access.
V.
Hiking trails, bike paths, and horse trails shall be provided by the developer in accordance with the City Trails Master Plan
and where otherwise necessary as determined by the Planning Commission. Trails should connect traffic generators such
as, schools, recreation facilities, commercial areas, parks, and other significant natural features. Such trails shall be built to
City specifications and easements shall be dedicated for such trails. The trails shall be constructed at the time of road
construction, unless the Planning Commission determines otherwise, in which case cash deposits shall be required
pursuant to Chapter 15-7.2-2 of the code.
Page. 18 B. Crushed Gravel Trail Anticipated uses along crushed gravel trails include mountain bikes, pedestrians and horses (where
specifically designed). Width varies with anticipated intensity of use. Surface drainage across soft-surfaced trails should be designed to
minimize erosion of the trail surface and edges.
10
Basin Recreation Master Trails Plan
In the 2006 SBSRD Master Trails Plan, equestrians/horses are mentioned twice as follows:
Page 15. SNYDERVILLE BASIN RECREATION AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN Adopted March 22, 2006 15 6.3.3.2 Trail designs, including a
determination of trail widths, grade, surface(s), clearance height and amenities shall be determined based on the expected user groups,
frequency of use, and location. Consideration will be given to whether the trail will be used more by children or adults, for transportation or
recreation, by hikers, runners, equestrians, mountain bicyclists, road bicyclists, in-line skaters, scooters, skiers and other forms of non-motorized
transportation.
Page 17. 6.5.7 Recreational Land Use Immunity Act (HB 107 1999). Restores immunity for injuries arising from the “inherent risks” of
“recreational activities,” expressly including hiking, bike riding and equestrian activity.
Recommendations
To provide enjoyable, friendly and desirable trails for equestrians that meet national trail design and safety standards, we are suggesting the
following seven (7) actions be taken:
1. Shore up existing designated “Equestrian Friendly Trails and Trailheads” to adhere to national equestrian trail standards. For example,
provide soft-surface trails that meet trail standards alongside all equestrian designated trails (3 mile, Silver Quinn, All Trailheads, Rail
Trail and Wasatch Trail Tunnel).
2. Create an Equestrian Master Trail and Trailhead Plan w/ specific plan for trails and parks that meet national standards.
3. Provide additional Equestrian friendly trails meeting national standards (back country, 8’ wide, soft surface, looped with 1-2 hour loops,
trailhead access, near equestrian communities, without high traffic dogs off leash and bike traffic). Such as: bridle paths, gallop tracks,
cross country courses, competitive trail courses). Locations should be identified and included in the Master Trails Plan for development.
These trails should provide multi-use such as winter cross country skiing trails.
4. Construct the Silver Gate Rd. Trail to connect Wasatch Trail Tunnel to Rail Trail to meet equestrian trail design standards.
5. Do not pave the Rail Trail from Promontory to Quin’s Junction without providing for equestrian trails.
6. All Trail Bollisters should be set minimum of 6’ wide apart. (Rail Trail, Wasatch Trail Tunnel)
7. All equestrian trail heads should provide kiosk locations for horse trail etiquette, safely designed horse ties and/or trailer parking that
allows horses to be tied to trailers with soft surface (not paved) parking. (Promontory, Quinn’s, Round Valley) Including websites.
11
Proposed Guidelines for Equestrian Trails and Trailheads
The rest of the document outlines proposed specific guidelines for equestrian trails and trailheads based on the National Equestrian trail
standards.
Trail Settings
The setting is the overall environment of the trail. We recognize the three commonly used settings in our area are wildlands, rural, and urban.
The definition of the setting helps us to make decisions on matters such as the suitability of particular locations, trail types, construction
methods or maintenance levels and affect esthetic decisions.
Backcountry
Most equestrians place a high value on riding in backcountry settings. These areas are generally
minimally developed or dispersed multiple-use, single track trail areas, such as Park City Mountain,
Glenwild and Promontory trails. Wildland settings in our area often present the most challenge for
equestrians, because of safe access, mountain bikes, and dogs off leash, topography, and trail
hazards. These conditions make it less likely equestrians will use these trails if dog owners, bikers
and hikers are not properly educated on how to properly give way to a horse and rider. Steep single
track switch back with poor line of site and high bike traffic is not horse friendly trail. These types of
trails are dangerous as there not typically enough time to react to a speeding bike nor is there room
for horses to pass a bike on a steep incline.
Rural Settings
Rural Settings include road rights-of-way trails that typically allow equestrians to ride their horses from
home to Wildland Settings. Examples include Silver Creek Estates where Service District #3 in
constructing road right of way 10’ wide soft surface multi-use trails along paved roads to provide
resident’s safe non-motorized access to Lewis Park and Basin Rec’s Wasatch Trail providing access to the
Wildland trails of Glenwild and Preserve Trails. Rural settings can also be between fence lines. This
would be a good practice in equestrian neighborhoods. Rural settings can alos include open spaces and
preserves near highly populated areas such as Round Valley. Safety concerns for riders in rural settings
include visibility, interaction with other recreationists, and natural hazards. Rural trails may cross or run
at grade parallel to roads with vehicular traffic, a significant safety concern. Bollards should be placed a
minimum of 5 to 7 feet apart to allow for mounted riders to pass through them with relative ease and
restricts passenger vehicles and trucks. Currently bollards are placed at 3 feet apart along the Rail Trail.
12
Urban Settings
Urban settings usually are highly developed or congested areas. Trails in urban settings often accommodate
many different user groups and frequently require many facilities. Urban trails may share routes with other
modes of transportation and are often paved trails, such as the Basin Rec transportation trails in and around
Synderville Basin. Unfortunately, these trails do not provide a 5 foot wide soft surface and are not suitable
for equestrians. Safety is a significant consideration when animals must mix with motorized traffic, road
bikes, baby strollers and paved trails without a 5 foot wide soft surface large enough to accommodate a
horse.
Riders' Needs
Equestrians in our area include youth and adult recreational,
amateur and professional riders; organized groups; novices to
advanced riders; people with disabilities; and working ranchers.
Riders recreate singly or in groups, and for many reasons--including
pleasure, exercise, or challenge. Popular group trail events include
social trips, competitive trail rides, cross country, and endurance
races. Less common are the drivers of horses that pull carts or
carriages, but they should be considered as well. Well-designed
horse trails consider the setting of the trail system, the needs of all
user groups, and the specific needs of horses and their riders. Some
riders prefer gentle, wide trails, and easy trail access. Others prefer
technically challenging situations. We are requesting that Park City
and Basin Rec use equestrian trail and trail head guidelines when
determining the opportunities to offer trail users.
Multi-Use Trail Design
Park City and Basin Recreation could prohibit equestrian use on public trails, fearing conflicts with other users and damage to the trail surface.
However, with proper design, a multi-use trail can accommodate equestrians while minimizing user conflicts.
Hard surfaces (asphalt and concrete) and coarse gravel can injure horse hooves, so equestrians prefer loose or compacted dirt trails. If we plan
to use a hard surface, we should consider placing a softer, separate 5-foot-wide tread for horses alongside the main path. Vertical clearance
13
should be at least 10 feet, with a horizontal clearance of at least 5 feet. Sight distance should be at least 100 feet, and proper signage is needed
to indicate which user has the right-of-way priority.
Horses often prefer water crossings to bridges. If this isn’t practical, provide mounting blocks at the ends of bridges so that riders can dismount
and lead their horses across the structure. In addition to the standard amenities for human users, parking and staging areas, water for horses
and hitching posts at any area where the rider may stop to take a break (rest areas, restrooms, etc.) should be provided.
Conflicts
Horses, hikers, runners, and bicyclists sometimes share trail corridors that are modified to meet each user group's requirements. However
when conflicts seem likely, land managers may separate trail users on different trails or on different treads separated by buffers. Motorized
traffic is one of the most dangerous hazards to horses. Collisions or conflicts can cause serious injury or death to people and horse. Design
that considers the needs of all users is vital.
Whether or not riders and bicyclists can share a trail without conflict depends on local circumstances and customs. It also may reflect the local
cycling style-- mountain bikers have different needs than road cyclists. While there are situations where bicyclists and horses don't coexist
well, in other situations they may be very compatible.
Here are three approaches:

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) generally finds it undesirable to mix horses and
bicyclists on paved shared-use trails. Paved shared-use trails are common in areas with high and moderate levels of development. The
Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO 1999) recommends a separate bridle trail in such cases. The reasoning is that
many bicyclists are ill-informed about the need to slow down and make room for horses and horses may be unpredictable if they think
a bicyclist poses a danger

The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC) notes that some rural trails with hard surfaces already include a soft shoulder for
joggers (Rails and Trails: Design of Trails 2005). The PBIC recommends providing a parallel trail with suitable surface for horses where
there is adequate space.

Michael Kelley, in a 1998 address at the National Symposium on Horse Trails in Forest Ecosystems held at South Carolina's Clemson
University, made a case for trails shared by mountain bikers and riders. "My basic thesis is that horses and bikes can, and must, share
trails together with all other nonnotarized users. I hope to show that problems are often matters of perception rather than reality, and
those that are real can almost always be solved with a proactive approach.”
14
In Figure 3-11 shows a single track trail that could be designated for equestrians only or for shared use. Most public trails are designated for
shared use, although there may be instances where a trail is not appropriate or safe for all users--for example, a narrow and winding
recreation trail with a steep drop-off.
Equestrian-Only Trails
Single track or wide paths trails that are reserved exclusively for horses are also called bridle paths, gallop tracks or conditioning tracks.
Gallop Tracks or sometimes referred to as conditioning tracks are primarily used by
equestrians to train and condition their horses at all gates (walk, trot, canter and gallop).
The tracks are typically 12 to 18 feet wide are made of dirt or sand footing that is graded on
a regular basis. This type of track is preferred by equestrians as it allows them to safely go
at faster speeds alone or with other riders side by side without running into blind spots,
other non-equestrian trail users.
and
Steeplechase is typically a competitive course in which competitors are required to jump
diverse fence and ditch obstacles. The event originated in Ireland. Horses and riders
raced from one town's steeple to the next. The steeples were used as markers due to
their visibility over long distances. Along the way runners inevitably had to jump streams
low stone walls separating estates.
15
Cross country is an endurance test that forms one of the three phases of the sport of eventing; it may
also be a competition in its own right, known as hunter trials or simply "cross-country", although
these tend to be lower level, local competitions.
The object of the endurance test is to prove the speed, endurance and jumping ability of the true
cross-country horse when he is well trained and brought to the peak of condition. At the same time, it
demonstrates the rider's knowledge of pace and the use of this horse across country. The crosscountry course is approximately two and three quarter to four miles (6 km) long, comprising some
twenty-four to thirty-six fixed and solid obstacles. Obstacles usually are built to look "natural" (out of
logs, for instance), however odd materials and decorations may be added to test the horse's bravery.
Obstacles can include all those that might be found if riding across the countryside, including water,
trees, logs, ditches, and banks.
All obstacles or compulsory passage ways are flagged, with a red flag on the right and a
white flag on the left. A black stripe on the red flag indicates that it is an option for the
obstacle, and another route may be taken if the rider so chooses, without penalty. All
obstacles are numbered, and the color of the numbering can indicate which level the fence
is for if multiple levels are competing at the event.
Cross-country courses for eventing are held outdoors through fields and wooded areas.
The terrain is unique for each course, which usually incorporates the course into the
natural terrain of the area, and therefore events in certain parts of the world may be held
on mostly flat land, while others are over very strenuous hills.
Good course designers will use the terrain to either help the inexperienced horse or rider at the lower levels to prepare for an obstacle, or to
make an obstacle more difficult for the experienced competitors. For example, the designer may place a fence at the opening of a wooded area,
resulting in a lighting difference between the takeoff and landing side. This requires careful riding and a confident horse. Designers may make an
obstacle more difficult by placing it along the side of a steep hill, at the top of a mound (so the horse cannot see the landing until he is about to
take off, testing bravery), or use the natural trees and ditches to force riders to take slightly more difficult lines to their fences.
A good course designer will be able to incorporate the obstacles into the landscape so that they seem natural, yet still fairly test the horse and
provide the horse an option to run-out if the rider makes a mistake. Most designers use accuracy fences, such as skinnies (fences with a narrow
face) and corners, to make the rider's job more difficult, while still being very "horse-friendly."
16
All courses begin with a "start box," where the horse and rider wait as the time keeper begins to count-down to their start time. They are not
allowed to go out the front of the box before the timer reaches zero on the count-down, nor are they allowed to have a flying start. The first few
fences of most well-designed courses are usually straightforward and inviting, such as a large log or roll top, which helps to build the horse and
rider's confidence, get them settled in a galloping rhythm, and beginning to focus on the job at hand. The technicality of the obstacles then
begins to increase, and elements such as banks, ditches, and water are introduced. The final fences of a course are usually slightly easier, to
allow the horse and rider to finish on a good note, before they gallop across the finish.
Compatible Uses
Cross Country, Steeplechase, and Competitive Trail Courses are all compatible with other trail users. For example, cross country courses are
commonly used for cross country skiing in the winter, cross country running events, cycle cross events, dog and sheep herding trials.
17
Trail Length
A single trail system can give trail users choices, including scenic variety, different trail lengths, or more than one challenge level. Trails with
loops let trail users travel new ground the entire way. Most recreation trail users ride their animals at a walk on trails, or combine a walking
gait with periods of trotting or cantering, averaging between 4 and 6 miles per hour (6.4 and 9.7 kilometers per hour). Keep in mind that many
riders stop along the trail to socialize or enjoy the setting, slowing their average time. Some riders train for endurance rides fast athletic
events that cover 25, 50 or 100 miles.
The average speeds of the most common horse gaits on relatively flat ground are:




Walk--About 2.5 to 4 miles per hour (4 to 6.4 kilometers per hour), about as fast as a person walks
Trot--About 8 miles per hour (12.9 kilometers per hour)
Canter or Lope--About 12 miles per hour (19.3 kilometers per hour)
Full Gallop--About 20 to 30 miles per hour (32.2 to 48.2 kilometers per hour)
Loop trails allow more miles of trail in smaller areas and avoid the extra traffic of out-and-back--or linear--trails. Elongated loops with cross
trails allow trail users to select their own trails. An interesting variation contains stacked loop trails, which resemble the links in a chain. A
common approach is designing the closest loop to appeal to the greatest number of trail users and to be the easiest to travel. Succeeding
loops provide additional length or more challenge.
Trail users' travel speeds differ, and it is important to vary the trail length. Design
horse trails no shorter than 5 miles (8 kilometers)--preferably longer. It takes 1 to
2 hours for most equestrians to ride an average 5-mile trail. The length of many
day-use trails ranges from 5 to 25 miles (8 to 40.2 kilometers). The best trail
systems include a variety of routes that allow rides of 2 to 3 hours, a half-day,
and a full day or more. Provide reasonable access to horse water. When practical,
the Forest Service (1991) recommends providing water at intervals of no more
than 10 miles (16.1 kilometers) and informing visitors if water is not available
within this distance. In areas that experience very hot weather, consider locating
water sources at 5- to 6-mile (8- to 9.7- kilometer) intervals.
18
Trail Scenarios
The trail scenarios are design approaches that commonly work for riders. These are not the only possible solutions--designers are encouraged
to learn about horses and rider needs, and then mix and match trail elements to best fit local conditions and requirements.
From the rider's perspective, trails must have enough room so their mount feels at ease. Horses tend to stay a comfortable distance away
from other trail users and from walls or fences they cannot see through or over, sometimes even moving to the far side of the trail to avoid
them. Accommodate this behavior by widening the trail, routing it away from disturbing objects or activity, locating the horse tread on the far
side of the trail corridor, providing a physical separation or visual screen, installing barriers, or increasing the horizontal distance--also called
the shy distance--from the discomfort. Shy distance is in addition to tread width.
Horses are most comfortable in the track that other horses have trod. They favor the outer edge of a tread, especially if this ground is less
densely packed. Having a 2-foot shoulder (0.6- meter) of non-tread material or a downslope defines the edge to the animal and rider.
In areas with low development, horses tend to travel about 18 inches (457 millimeters)
from the edge of the tread surface. Riders often guide their animals farther away from
fences or other obstacles because the riders are more comfortable there. The trod
area frequently lies 2 feet (0.6 meter) or more away from obstacles. In areas with a
high level of development, for example between tall structures, horses tend to walk
about a foot (0.3 meter) from the tread edge of a single-lane trail. If there is a 2-foot
(0.6-meter) shoulder, this means they travel about 3 feet (0.9 meter) from the wall or
building.
The amount of horizontal shy distance an animal needs in addition to tread width
depends on the trail design. Bill Archibald (personal communication) of the Canadian
Equestrian Federation suggests using reasonable design parameters, based on what is
appropriate for average riders. Too much shy distance may be counterproductive,
because a startled animal that wants to bolt may take advantage of the available
space. Experienced horses, under the control of experienced riders, often get by with 3
to 4 feet (0.9 to 1.2 meters) of horizontal shy distance. They usually keep within the
normal 5- to 6-foot (1.5- to 1.8-meter) tread width on many horse trails, provided
there is adequate clearance on both sides of the tread.
19
Trails for the Twenty-first Century: Planning, Design, and Management Manual for Multiuse Trails, 2d Edition (Flink and others 2001) is a
popular reference for trail developers. The detailed guide addresses developing trails in former railroad corridors, but the concepts apply to all
shared-use trails.
Designing Shared Use Trails to Include Equestrians (O'Dell 2004) is an equestrian overview of trail design. More information is available
athttp://www.aiusa.com/anneodel/ODell-Designing%20Shared-Use%20Trails.pdf.
Trail corridors--especially in urban areas--are often not as wide as would be ideal for multiple treads. Planners and designers resort to working
with the space that is available, designing compact trails with multiple treads. These trail widths only apply in tight corridors and represent the
minimum for shared-use situations-- additional width and more separation between treads would be better. The widths shown assume that
riders and their mounts have at least average trail experience, and are comfortable in the setting. The recommended minimum width is 8 feet
(2.4 meters) for double-track horse trails and 6 feet (1.8 meters) for single-track horse trails.
Trail Sight Distance
Mounted riders can see farther than trail users on the ground. This added height helps others see the rider. Near the crest of a hill, a trail user
should see the head of another trail user on the other side of the hill before reaching the hill's crest. Riders training for endurance races and
other trail users that travel at increased speeds require plenty of sight distance
to avoid collisions. Downhill travelers need more stopping distance than uphill
travelers. Curves in the trail reduce the sight distance; in such cases, trim
vegetation along the curve. Design trail curves for appropriate speeds and sight
distance to prevent conflicts, considering individual site conditions. The large
group of riders shown in requires a long sight distance to give them time to
react.
Sight distance in areas with low development is most critical when trail users
encounter approaching bicyclists or riders. It is often customary for other trail
users to yield to horses. To do so, trail users need adequate warning and space.
When two horses meet, passing is difficult. Frequently, horses heading uphill
take precedence. In some areas, time is used to separate trail users.
20
Trail Clearance
Vegetation that encroaches on tread width and overhead clearance is more than a nuisance for trail users--it can entangle users and gear.
Trim or remove vegetation and other obstacles--such as boulders--from this area so trail users can more easily avoid plants that have prickly
seeds, thorns, and pointed branches. Periodically providing larger cleared areas for turnouts gives trail users room to move off the tread for
breaks or to allow others to pass. Keep in mind that the weight of leaves can cause deciduous tree branches to bend 1 to 2 feet (0.3 to 0.6
meter) in summer and snow can cause evergreen trees to bend in winter, reducing the overhead clearance (Baughman and Serres 2006).
Trail clearance varies by trail use and setting. Table 4-1 shows a general range for clearing widths and overhead clearance on single-track
horse trails. Appropriate clearing width depends on the site. For example, on shared-use bicycle/pedestrian trails, AASHTO (1999)
recommends at least 2 feet (0.6 meter) of graded width on each side of the tread. A distance of 3 feet (0.9 meter) is preferred from trees,
poles, walls, fences, guardrails, and other obstructions. On Forest Service pack and saddle trails in the Northern Rockies, the trail clearing
width is 8 feet (2.4 meters) and the trail vertical clearance is 10 feet (3 meters).
Table 4-1-Suggested widths and clearance for a standard, single-track
horse trail. Agency specifications may vary.
Trail element
Low development
(feet)
Moderate
development
(feet)
High
development
(feet)
Tread width
1.5 to 2
1.5 to 2
8 to 12
Clearing width
(horizontal)
5.5 to 8
9 to 12
14 to 18
(Tread plus 2 to 3 feet to each side) (Tread plus 3 feet to each side) (Tread plus 3 feet to each side)
Overhead clearance 10
(vertical)
10 o 12
10 to 12
21
Tread Width
No national standards establish the width of shared-use trails. Determining the best trail width is site-specific and depends on many factors,
including the types of trail users and their needs, the level of development, the setting, land availability, jurisdictional requirements, safety,
potential conflicts, local expectations, and maintenance concerns.
To accommodate their natural stride, horses require a tread that's at least 1.5 to 2 feet (0.5 to 0.6 meter) wide. A horse and rider require
about 4 feet (1.2 meters) of unobstructed width.
Tread width also varies by the number of incorporated lanes--or tracks. A single-track tread forces trail users to travel single file. They must
move off or to the side of the trail when meeting or passing others. A double-track tread allows trail users to travel two abreast or easily
accommodates passing. Single-track treads vary from 1.5 feet (0.5 meter) wide in wildland areas to 8 feet (2.4 meters) or wider in urban
areas. Double-track treads are often 5 to 6 feet (1.5 to 1.8 meters) wide if there is plenty of clearance on each side to allow passing. This is a
common configuration for moderately developed trails in rural settings. In highly developed areas, double-track treads frequently are 8 to 12
feet (2.4 to 3.6 meters) wide to meet the needs of all trail users. Trails should be wider in areas with heavy shared use.
In areas with low development, trail users usually have fewer encounters with other users, and the trail tread can be narrower. To allow
proper use and to reduce animal impacts, horse trails with low levels of development require at least 1.5 to 2 feet (0.5 to 0.6 meter) of tread
width. Narrower trails force horses to step off the tread. The outer edges of a wildland trail generally receive the greatest impacts from horses
and wildlife. The suggested tread width for horse trails is summarized in Table 4-2. Narrow single-track treads require trail users to move to
the side when others pass. Design cleared areas or wide spots to accommodate this practice. Double-track treads may need additional width
near walls, fences, or other obstacles. Highly developed trails often have to be wider to accommodate higher traffic volumes and multiple trail
user groups. The preferred tread width on shared-use trails depends on who is doing the sharing. The guidelines in table 4-2 apply to most
non-motorized shared-use situations except those involving bicycles--which require additional considerations.
Table 4-2-Suggested tread width on shared-use horse trails with no bicyclists.
Agency specifications may vary.
Number of tracks
Low development
(feet)
Moderate
development
(feet)
High
development
(feet)
Single-track tread
1.5 to 2
3 to 4
6 to 8
22
Double-track tread Usually is a converted vehicle trail 5 to 6
8 to 12
Choosing Horse-Friendly Surface Materials
Although horses are sure-footed in the wild, surfaces need to be considered when developing trails and recreation sites. How well horses can
walk on a surface depends on the degree of slope and traction, the horseshoes they are wearing, the distance they must travel, and the
surface material itself.
Surface Options
For equestrian use, materials should compact to a firm, slip-resistant surface that can withstand the impact of horseshoes. Paved surfaces
provide little traction for horseshoes, and are rarely suitable. If possible, choose a surface material that produces minimal dust and whose
color blends with the native soil. Sometimes making the surfaces a slightly different color helps users distinguish between areas, such as
recreation site roads and parking spaces or parking pads.
Table 6-1 summarizes relative characteristics of common surface materials and table 6-2 identifies their relative suitability for horse trails and
recreation sites. For discussion purposes, this guidebook categorizes surface materials as natural materials, aggregate, additives, and
pavement. Specialty products and geosynthetic materials are listed separately.
Table 6-1-Relative characteristics of common surface materials for horse trails, trailheads, and campgrounds. Specialty materials are not included. Agency specifications
may vary.
Natural
materials
Surface material
Traction or
slipresistance*
Durability
Natural
appearance**
Dust free
Horse comfort
Cost of
material
Maintenance
Susceptibility to
displacement
Native soil***
Variable
Variable
Excellent
Variable
Good to
excellent
Low
Variable
Variable
Wood chips
Fair to good
Poor
Good
Good
Excellent
Low
Moderate
High
23
Aggregate
Additives
Crushed rock with Excellent
fines
Excellent
Good
Good to
excellent
Good
Moderate
Low
Low
Crushed rock
without fines
Good
Excellent
Good
Good
Fair
Moderate
Low to
moderate
High
Rounded gravel
without fines
Poor
Excellent
Fair to good
Good
Poor to good
(varies with
particle size)
Moderate
Moderate
High
Sand
Good
Good
Excellent
Poor
Good
Moderate
High
Cinders
Good
Good
Poor
Moderate
High
Soil additives**** Good
Good
Good
Good to
excellent
Good
High
Moderate
Moderate
Poor
Good
Poor
Excellent
Poor
High
Moderate
Low
Asphalt with chip
seal
Fair
Good
Fair
Excellent
Poor
High
Moderate
Low
Rough textured
concrete
Good
Excellent
Poor
Excellent
Poor
High
Low
Low
Concrete with
washed surface
Poor to fair
Excellent
Fair
Excellent
Poor
High
Low
Low
Hard, traction
friendly pavers
Good
Good
Poor to fair
Excellent
Poor
High
Moderate
Low
Pavement***** Asphalt
24
* Wet surfaces may have reduced traction.
** How natural a product appears varies by location
*** Native soils are quite variable. Consult local geotechnical engineers or soil scientists for more information.
**** Characteristics of soil additives vary according to the manufacturer and the method of installation.
***** Coatings and surface washes may change the characteristics of paved surfaces, including traction and appearance.
Table 6-2-Suitability of common surface materials for equestrian trailheads and campgrounds. Specialty materials are not included. Agency specifications may vary.
Note: Appropriate surface materials for arenas and round pens depend on the activities they're being used for. Consult other references for more details.
Surface material
Natural materials
Roads, parking areas, and
parking pads used by horses
Native soil**
Living area (camp or
picnic area)
Horse area (tying
area, corral, or pen
X
X
Wood chips
Aggregate
Crushed rock with
fines
Wearing surfaces around water
hydrants, troughs, and wash racks*
X
X***
X
Crushed rock with
fines
X
X
X
Rounded gravel
without fines
X
X
X
Sand
Cinders
X
X
X
X
25
Additives
Soil additives***
Pavement*****
Asphalt
X
X****
Asphalt with chip seal
X
Rough-textured
concrete
X
X
Concrete with washed
surface
X
X
Hard, traction friendly
pavers
X
* To reduce slipping hazards, use rubber mats in wash racks.
** Native soils are quite variable. Consult local geotechnical engineers or soil scientists for more information.
*** The surface must be compacted.
**** Soils treated with additives should not be used for tent pads.
***** Coatings and surface washes may change the characteristics of paved surfaces, including traction and appearance.
Natural Materials
As with all surface options, natural materials have advantages and disadvantages. Horse-friendly unpaved surfaces are attractive and well
received by users. On the other hand, these surfaces may be damaged by rain or snow, and some, such as loose shale, round tree needles,
damp moss, or moist vegetation, offer poor traction, posing slipping hazards for all recreationists.
26
Native Soils
Native soils vary, even within a single trail corridor. Soils that are coarsely textured with
high percentages of gravel and sand can be very good surface materials for trails and living
areas--camp and picnic areas. Finely textured soils, those with a higher percentage of
organic matter, silt, and clay, tend to be poor surface materials. Roads, parking areas, and
parking pads surfaced with native soils are generally difficult to maintain and can become
muddy. Hoofs, boots, and wheels can damage the tread in wet or boggy areas. When these
areas dry out, the ruts may make the trail difficult to use. Some native soils also produce a
lot of dust, an issue of special concern in urban areas and near residences. Unhealthy dust
conditions may require abatement measures. Native soils may be economical, but they may
require frequent maintenance, reducing their overall cost effectiveness.
Soil Stabilizers On Universally Accessible Trails (Bergmann 2000) reviews several products that claim to stabilize native materials used for trail
surfaces while maintaining a natural appearance. Results varied from very poor to satisfactory stabilization. The report is available
athttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/recreational_trails/publications/fs_publications/00231202/ or http://www.fs.fed.us/td/pubs/pdf/00231202.pdf. This Web site requires a username and password. (Username: t-d, Password: t-d)
The National Center on Accessibility is conducting a study to determine which trail surface materials are accessible as well as environmentally
friendly. The National Trails Surface Study is available at http://www.ncaonline.org/trails/research.
Pavement
Pavement to refer to hardened materials such as asphalt, concrete, and hard pavers. Although they are durable, hardened materials
frequently are not horse friendly.
Pavement usually is smooth, offering poor traction for horseshoes. Most equestrians are uncomfortable riding, unloading, or tying their
horses on pavement. For example, a horse stepping out of a trailer may slip once its weight hits the smooth surface. Some horses balk at the
trailer door when they are being loaded. As the handler works to get the animal inside, a smooth surface makes a difficult situation
dangerous.
There are other reasons for avoiding pavement in areas used by riders. When horses and mules are comfortable, they are more likely to stay
quiet. Horses may spend many hours tied to trailers or confined in corrals, and they are more comfortable standing on softer surfaces.
27
Pavement is inherently dangerous for horses. If pavement in a horse area is absolutely unavoidable, minimize the paved area. Horses and
mules can successfully navigate short sections of smooth surface if they are accustomed to doing so. However, many horses are reluctant to
step on unfamiliar or uncomfortable surfaces.
Because pavement does not absorb liquids well, urine and rainwater can form puddles. Standing puddles of horse urine are unattractive,
inconvenient for pedestrians, and may make the surface slippery.
Asphalt
Asphalt surfaces generally are not recommended for horse trails, roads, parking areas, or parking pads because they provide little grip for
horseshoes. However, trails may have to cross sections of asphalt. Roughen the surface in such areas. Some uncoated asphalt surfaces are
somewhat rough, providing a degree of traction that is better than coated asphalt. Rubberized asphalt--regular asphalt mixed with finely
ground used tires--has been used with some success in Arizona. Caution: asphalt heats up and softens in hot climates. The softened material
sticks to hoofs and can burn the living tissue under some circumstances.
Horses need traction even when they're not on the trail. For example, when the Northern Region Pack Train participated in the Rose Bowl
Parade, the horses wore special horseshoes. Welded to the gripping surface of each shoe was a slip-resistant borium coating. Many sponsors
of large events require the use of borium-treated horseshoes to reduce risk.
Asphalt With Chip Seal
Asphalt with a chip-seal finish slightly improves traction on asphalt road surfaces. This option is suitable for limited use at trail crossings,
bridges, and bridge approaches. Type III asphaltic emulsion slurry seal may be an option.
To reduce the potential for slipping by humans and horses, the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, IL, surfaced the equestrian parking
lot at Waterfall Glen Forest Preserve with a Type III asphaltic emulsion slurry seal. The seal uses larger aggregate and is applied in a thick layer.
The result is a coarse surface texture that improves traction for all users. In other areas of the country, the treatment is commonly referred to
as slurry seal or slurry surfacing.
Slurry seal emulsion is comprised of well-graded fine aggregate, mineral filling (if needed), emulsified asphalt, and water. Type III slurry seal is
usually used as the first of many coatings, to correct surface conditions, or to improve skid resistance. Technical information is given in
Supplemental Specifications and Recurring Special Provisions (Illinois Department of Transportation 2005)
athttp://www.dot.il.gov/desenv/07supp.pdf.
28
Rough-Textured Concrete
Concrete is one of the slipperiest surfaces a horse or mule may encounter, and many riders do not recommend it. Nonetheless, horses
manage to cross concrete surfaces without incident. This doesn't make concrete any safer. A heavy, rough-broom finish, applied
perpendicular to the direction of travel, is one mitigation measure used successfully in some places. A rough finish may increase traction, but
does not eliminate the danger that a horse or mule might slip and fall on the hard surface.
Concrete With Washed Surface
Concrete, with exposed 1- to 1½-inch (about 25- to 38-millimeter) crushed aggregate and a ½- to ¾- inch (about 13- to 19-millimeter) water
wash finish, provides more traction than smooth concrete. Riders do not agree on the advisability of using this finish. Local weather, site
conditions, or top coatings can reduce surface traction. For example, the surface may be slippery when wet, especially if a sealer coat has
been applied. Before choosing this surface treatment, consult with local trail users.
Amenities and Facilities
Equestrian facilities and amenities--trail access, water sources, toilets, corrals, and so forth--help determine the value of a site. The most
important elements at trailheads are trail access, convenient toilet buildings, and a sturdy place to secure horses. Potable water is highly
desirable, although in some areas recreationists bring their own water. Table 7-1 summarizes the relative desirability of selected facilities and
amenities at recreation sites.
Table 7-1-Suggested recreation facilities at equestrian trailheads
Facility
Basic
Trail access
X
Water sources*
Toilet building
Often provided
Optional
X
X
Shower building (campground only)
X
Wash rack
X
Mounting ramp**
X
29
Loading ramp
X
Mounting block
X
Manure disposal***
X
Highline or corral
X
Hitch rail
X
Arena or round pen
X
* In some areas, recreationists bring their own water.
** Mounting ramps must be accessible, if they are provided.
*** Manure disposal is not required in all areas of the country.
Water Troughs
Most horses are comfortable using traditional, economical metal or plastic horses tanks-- also called troughs. Avoid using low troughs--1-foot
(0.3-meter) high or less--that sit on the ground. Curious horses may paw at them and get their hoofs caught or flip the trough. Cold climates
require frost-free hydrants. The picture below shows a trough suitable for a high level of development. Many riders prefer watering their
horses in clean, freshly filled water troughs.
You can lead a horse to a public water source, but it may not drink. A dehydrated horse may not drink because its
judgment is clouded by lack of salt. A healthy horse may refuse water that smells or tastes differently than the water
it is used to drinking. Many riders prefer watering their animals in clean, freshly filled water troughs.
Horses suck water into their mouths through lips that they keep mostly closed. They can get a hearty drink from a
water source that is only a few inches deep. Some innovative shallow troughs fill for a single animal's use. After the
animal has finished, the remaining water flushes into the drainage system. The raised shallow basin permits horses to
see in all directions while drinking. These troughs are appropriate only in highly developed sites.
30
Water troughs require a surrounding area that is clear of vegetation, signs, and other obstructions. When surroundings are clear, horses can
drink from either side and avoid conflicts. Water troughs also require regular maintenance. To prevent them from getting plugged, drain
debris and standing water regularly. Mosquito that carry serious horse diseases, such as West Nile virus, breed in standing water. In some
areas of the country, water troughs must be scrubbed frequently to remove scum, algae, or mineral deposits.
Mounting Blocks
Riders of all abilities and ages can use mounting blocks. A mounting block resembles a short staircase that ends in midair. The rider climbs the
stairs to reach the saddled animal standing at the elevated end. Mounting blocks may be made of wood, steel, concrete, plastic, fiberglass, or
a combination of these materials. Structures that are more permanent, for example those made of concrete or steel, are most suitable at
trailheads that have easy access for construction equipment. Permanent structures also discourage theft. Structures made from wood,
fiberglass, or plastic are easier to transport, install, and place along trails.
Parking Area
For the safety and comfort of riders and their horses, equestrian parking areas need to
be somewhat level. This makes it easier to unload horses and gear, to saddle an
animal, or to spend time in mobile living quarters. Horses tied to trailers are much
happier standing for an extended period in a level area. The recommended grade for a
parking area is 1 to 2 percent, a comfortable range that allows proper drainage of
rainwater and animal urine. Accessibility requirements also stipulate grades within
this range.
Popular equestrian sites need staging areas where it is easy and safe to unload,
groom, and saddle horses. This means providing extra length and width in parking
spaces. Extra length allows riders to unload horses and tie them at the rear of the trailer. Extra width allows horses to be tied at the trailer's
side
Designers laying out the Blue Mountain Horse Trailhead near Missoula, MT, had very little space to provide rider, pedestrian, and bicyclist
facilities. Local riders wanted parking areas that were 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide to accommodate horses tied to the sides of trailers. Doing so
would have greatly reduced the number of equestrian parking spaces. To resolve the problem, planners chose 18-foot- (5.5-meter-) wide
parking spaces and provided ample hitch rails nearby.
31
Open Parking Areas
Some riders prefer a parking area that does not have defined parking spaces. This allows drivers to arrange vehicles in a manner that best
suits their needs. When space is plentiful and riders want flexibility, an open parking area is appropriate for a trailhead. Where possible, locate
open parking areas in a large, sparsely vegetated area with a slope no steeper than 4 percent.
Riders want to park facing the exit as they arrive, orienting their vehicles for an easy departure. The parking
area should be large enough for undefined parking spaces 28 feet by 78 feet (8.5 meters by 23.8 meters) and
aisles that are 15 feet (4.6 meters) wide per lane. The generously sized parking area will allow many parking
configurations.
Equestrians frequently ride or stand on interior recreation site roads, in parking areas, and on parking pads.
Many times these areas are paved with asphalt, chip seal, or concrete--surfaces that are not recommended
for equestrian use. Pavement and horses don't mix well because the hard surface provides poor traction for
metal horseshoes. Aggregate is the recommended surface for equestrian recreation areas, because it is slipresistant, doesn't allow water to pool, and is comfortable to stand or walk on.
At a trailhead intended for shared use, apply aggregate only in the section where riders unload and saddle
horses before a ride. Pave the remaining non- equestrian sections of the parking area.
Traffic Control
Avoid placing barriers that restrict vehicles along the perimeters of site roads and parking areas that are traveled by horses. Barriers in these
areas can be dangerous for horses and riders. Some horses may become
nervous around barriers, such as wood bollards. This is especially true if
the passageway between the bollards is constricted. Attempts to ride or
lead a nervous animal through the barrier may produce an accident.
While there are no completely horse-safe barriers, a wood or steel
railing is suitable. Make sure barriers have no sharp edges or other
potential hazards. Large boulders appear more natural to a horse or
mule and may be an alternative to bollards. The barriers on the Rail Trail
are examples of dangerous barriers for horses.
32
Hitch Rails
Hitch rails--also called hitching rails or tethering rails--allow riders to secure horses for relatively short periods. Riders tie the lead rope around
the hitch rail to restrain the animal. Riders appreciate hitch rails near toilet buildings and information stations. Another good place to install
hitch rails is near water hydrants. Doing so minimizes the distance
handlers have to carry water buckets for horses. Allow at least 25 feet
(7.6 meters) between the hitch rail and the hydrant to keep animal waste
away from the water source.
Install hitch rails at trail access points so riders can tie their horses up
before and after outings. Hitch rails midway on trails longer than 8 miles
(12.9 kilometers) allow riders to secure their horses during short breaks.
Hitch rails commonly are constructed of wood or steel. Wood rails are
suitable for low and moderate levels of development--however, horses
may chew on them, causing damage. Common steel hitch rails range from
4 to 10 feet (1.2 to 3 meters) long. A hitch rail that is 4 feet long generally has space for one animal tied on each side. A hitch rail that is 10
feet long accommodates three animals--two animals on one side (one animal near each end of the rail) and the third animal tied to the
opposite side in the middle of the rail. This allows a comfortable distance between the three animals.
The recommended height for hitch rails is 42 inches (1,067 millimeters). This
height is good for both riders and horses when lead ropes are tied properly. To
avoid injuries, round the corners of hitch rails. Properly designed hitch rails don't
allow a lead rope to slide from the horizontal rail down the upright posts. If this
happens, the animal could easily step over the rope and tangle its front legs, a
setup for panic and injuries. Cross members may be installed at each end of the
rail to keep the rope from sliding down or tie rings could be installed on the rail.
When lead ropes are tied to the rings, they can't slide along the length of the
rail. Lead ropes tied to the long, overhanging ends of the hitch rail shown in may
slide off, releasing the horse.
33
Sign Plans
Signs of particular interest to riders include those used at:



Highways or roads, including recreation site roads--Regulatory, warning, and guide signs
Recreation sites (non-road signs)--Site identification signs, interpretive signs, and signs at visitor information stations
Trails--Regulatory, warning, and guide signs; site identification signs, interpretive signs, and signs at visitor information stations
Regulatory signs inform users of traffic laws or regulations and indicate legal requirements that
are not readily apparent. Stop signs, yield signs, and speed limit signs are regulatory signs. These
signs also inform users of non-traffic regulations that protect resources and ensure user safety
and enjoyment. Limit regulatory signs to the minimum needed to:



Ensure consistent protection of trails, recreation sites, and adjacent resources
Enhance user safety and enjoyment
Provide a basis for enforcing regulations
Regulatory signs also may be used to direct equestrian parking at trailheads, especially shareduse trailheads.
Riders are especially interested in warning signs regarding motorized traffic on the route or other
hazards. On horse trails, warning signs often indicate road intersections and shared uses. When trails intersect roads, sight and stopping
distances may be limited for all users. It is critical to incorporate road signs that warn vehicles of an upcoming horse crossing.
Warning signs give drivers and recreationists advanced notice of unexpected conditions on or adjacent to a road or trail, and of situations that
might not be readily apparent. Warning signs indicate the need for caution. They may call for a reduction in speed or a maneuver that is not
consistent with user expectations. Before using a warning sign on a trail, consider changing trail grade, alignment, or location, or take other
measures to mitigate the hazard.
34
Carefully place advance warning signs for gates, cattle guards, bridges, or underpasses. Because
these passages may be new to horses or mules, they could balk. If the animal rears, a nearby
sign mounted on a post may pose a danger. Locate advance warning signs at least 15 feet (4.6
meters) ahead of these constricted passageways.
Guide Signs
Guide signs convey essential travel information--such as direction or distance--allowing
travelers to easily reach their destinations. Some agencies refer to guide signs as destination
signs. Use guide signs on highways near the approaches to recreation sites, in recreation sites, and on trails.



Give directions--Directional guide signs identify the trail, show the trail's direction, or guide
trail users to destinations. Directional signs usually include the trail name, trail number, and
direction arrows.
Identify junctions--In a trail system where junctions are designated with numbers or letters,
a junction identity sign may be used. Provide trail maps or You are here signs at trail access
points or along the trail. Place the junction identity signs so they can be seen at or before the
junction. Junction identity signs are often used with other trail guide signs at trail junctions.
Occasionally, trails and roads share the same route. Place signs along such routes before
shared use occurs, based on engineering judgment or an engineering study. The
optional Share the Road sign shown in warns motorists about shared use on a road. Agencies
or jurisdictions may have specific sign and management standards and guidelines for shared routes. More
information is available in the MUTCD.
35
Visitor Information Stations
Visitor information stations--sometimes called information kiosks--are useful at trailheads. They contain information that:



Familiarizes recreationists with the site or trail
Discusses facility use, trail conditions, and safety
Provides instructions regarding rules, regulations, and etiquette
Information station design must be appropriate for the level of development and the
amount of information provided. Permanent sign panels or bulletin boards with one to
three panels usually are adequate. If the information changes frequently, bulletin
boards allow the land manager to post new items easily. It would not be safe for riders
to lead or ride their horses under a roof. If there is a roof over the information station,
provide a hitch rail nearby so riders can dismount and tie their horses to the hitch rail
while viewing signs.
On visitor information stations without a roof, mount posters so they can be read from horseback by placing the poster's center about 5 feet
(1.5 meters) above the ground. To increase readability, size the text according to the distance between the viewer and the poster. Add 1 inch
(25.4 millimeters) of letter height for every 10 feet (3 meters) of viewing distance. For example, use letters that are at least 1 inch (25.4
millimeters) high on a poster that is 1 to 10 feet (0.3 to 3 meters) from the reader. Make sure posters are made from weather-resistant
materials. Maps posted at visitor information stations familiarize recreationists with the site's facilities so they can select a camp unit or find a
trail access point. Similarly, maps posted at trail access points familiarize riders with the trail routes. Locate information stations a safe
distance from vehicle and horse traffic.
Visitor Information Stations at Recreation Sites
Some information is useful to recreationists before their arrival at a recreation site, and some information is beneficial once they are onsite.
For information relevant to all users, refer to the land agency's sign guidelines.
Visitor information stations at trail access points are similar to those in recreation sites. These information stations familiarize riders with trail
conditions, etiquette, and hazards. Riders want to know trail conditions because the conditions determine the kind of ride they can expect.
Provide updated information to help them make informed decisions.
36
Many riders appreciate a message board for posting notes and activity announcements. This can be a simple
bulletin board at the visitor information station or in a group gathering area. Notes left on a message board
can guide late arrivals to the appropriate trail location and can let them know whether their friends arrived
earlier.
One of the most important messages to convey to users on shared-use trails is who has the right-of-way. The
philosophy varies across the country and with land
management agencies. In many regions, hikers and
mountain bikers yield to riders, and mountain bikers yield to hikers. Yielding the right-ofway is a courtesy--generally it is not enforceable by law. No matter who has the right-ofway, all users need to know who is expected to yield. Post right-of-way information at the
trail access point and along the trail. To be effective, the sign and the information on it
must be large enough to be seen at a distance, and the message must be easy to
understand. Follow the guidelines established by the land management agency.
It helps if mountain bikers call out as they approach a horse. If bicyclists approach quietly
at a rapid speed, horses may be surprised and become frightened. If an area is heavily
traveled by mountain bikers, signs explaining mountain bike etiquette are critical.
Accessibility Information
Some riders have difficulty using trails that require dismounting for obstacles or
negotiating steep or uneven terrain. Provide maps, signs, or handouts to help trail users
make informed choices. Standard posted messages include the trail name, number,
destination, and distance. If pedestrian trails have been evaluated for accessibility, post
the following additional information: Typical and maximum trail grade, Minimum trail
width, Typical and maximum cross slope, Trail surface--type and firmness of surface, Any
major obstacle--such as boulders in the trail tread.
37
Riders, Signs, and Safety
If riders must dismount to read a sign or use facilities, provide a hitch rail nearby. The hitch rail should be located where riders can monitor
their horses. It is a good idea to provide a mounting block as well.
Try to leave more than enough room for horses to pass safely when installing signs. It is easy for a sign or post to catch a leg, stirrup, or tack. A
horse can scrape its side. Besides causing injuries, such encounters may startle horses, especially if part of the saddle catches. Reduce the
possibility of injury by rounding all sign corners and removing sharp objects from posts.
Vehicles towing horse trailers are relatively large and drivers can have difficulties maneuvering them at trailheads and campgrounds. Avoid
placing signs near areas where towing vehicles travel, turn, or back, or near entries to back-in or pullthrough parking pads. To avoid damage
by bored horses, install signs at least 7 feet (2.1 meters) from areas where horses are confined.
38
BOOK
SECTION 3
T2S-R4E
PAGE
ACRES 640.80
SALT LAKE BASE & MERIDIAN
SCALE
34 80.44 chs.
52:" e
'89 °
WEST RIDGE SUB.
PH.IC (1991)
"4".•
fa..totz. •=t
■1,00
t 14A.
Nbt I-17r
( PC-A - 2 - 00 - ) 8
1 , LOT -%
5 Z -'757
5Ia
40,2
511 75 6
LOT 3
LOT 2
LOT 1
10.21
40.19
40.17
FAIRWAY HILLS
ESTATES PH. It
(1993)
PARK ITY RECREATIO
COMP EX AMENDED (2( 08:
275- B5
15-/509
55 - 5 -7 -
t<. Ck-ry Mut4 ■ c
cif..1,
L
80
o Ac
150c,
E?)
27 — .'"5 3
tst
12-7q , 77'
SEZ
Z Cv
seho -
5TEPHEN A
os&U-rt-IOR
(NOW: 2300 MEADOWS
DRIVE SUB.) (2010)
Ac.ree4=
5860
5.91 - 100
49 - tc)7
\14- - 2401
2o- laou
- c03 =
LA , 9 , a
e2.-7
-X
.
Pck -- A )K
I
37, opp ree5
/11 i Do LE
5C
4,7_1.10
..,zt .253
/<E/R/v5
0
U.Q.o7r
c..ts
° " °1
A pproved
Utah StateTaxComm
'BLVD
_
AA ' k v=4-- 71-2-
(In Pencil )
ONE INCH 400 FEET
BOOK
Engineering Associates Inc.
5e4
PAGE
2 .6•-.4/ th;
CITY/SCHOOL FIELDS MASTER PLAN
Alternate "0/Revised" Highlights
General
•
•
•
No field lighting in any area .
Field numbers and types meet current park and recreation demands only.
Entire scheme focuses on youth activities .
Area 1 (Adjacent to high school)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
No parking provided adjacent to Lucky John Drive.
Central core area for efficient play field control.
Orientation of baseball field is the high school's 1st preference .
Orientation of softball field is the high school's and city's 2nd preference .
1 - Permanent soccer field
1 - Permanent little league field .
200 parking spaces adjacent to high school.
Field configuration responds to plan for futu re expansion of high school.
Level open space for play fields meets elementary school needs.
Area 2 (Adjacent to middle school)
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
Open fie ld play area concept
Optional play field between middle school and wetland area.
100 parking spaces with access from future R.O.W.
Field configuration responds to middle school P.E. class needs .
Middle school playground re-located to minimize conflicts with other actives .
1 Permanent little league field
2 Temporary soccer fields
3 Permanent play fields
Area 3 (Parcel adjacent to wetland area)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o·~'--' -l-· ~)
3 Temporary play fields
~
1 Temporary Soccer field
../
\.]his area is a last priority for adult use. l Minimal encroachment on wetland area .
8' pathway with 4' soft shoulder.
Berming along west property line .
75 parking spaces at east end with access to future R.O.W.
Temporary parking located at the north end with access to Lucky John .
J
1
Note : All temporary fields to have portable backstops or soccer goals.
Exhibit #16
Alternative 0/Revised-Highlights
LEASE AND AGREEMENT
FOR USE OF
SCHOOL FACILITIES FOR RECREATION
.aLl.
THIS t t : J , . : D USE AGREEMENT (Agreement) is made and entered into this
of
1990 by and between Park City, a Municipal Corporation ("City") and the
Park City School District ("District").
~day
IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual promises and other considerations expressed herein,
the District and the City agree as follows:
1.0
Premises.
The property covered by this Agreement consists of real property in Park City, Summit County,
Utah commonly known as school fields, the legal description of which is set forth in Exhibit "A"
2.0
Lease of Premises and Renl
The District hereby leases the Premises to the City for one (1) dollar per year, payable in advance,
subject to the cond itions and restrictions of this Agreement.
3.0
Usc of Premises.
(a) The City shall use or cause the Premises to be used for public recreation programs and the
construction, renovation and maintenance of facilities for such programs.
(b) The City sha ll secure written approval according to procedures described in paragraph 5.0 from
the District for new facilities (not renovation or maintenance) prior to commencing construction.
(c) The City shall have the responsibility for scheduling use of the recreation fields and
improvements.
(d) The District shall be assured pnonty in the use of the recreation fields for official school
purposes by permitting the District to reserve space in advance of the City or other groups and
scheduling City activities around the times school is in session.
(e) The District may displace recreation improvements for the construction or development of any
school facility provided that the District gives the City twelve (12) months written notice of its
intent to displace the improvements and compensates the City for the current value of
improvements. The value may be established by mutual agreement or independent appraisal.
(f) The City shall be responsible for the Leased Premises at all times when the premises are not
used by the District or its agents. The City expressly assumes the risk, obligation and liability in
connection with the Leased Premises except for those times during which the District is scheduled
to usc the Leased Premises or any part thereof.