The Ogden Valley Pathway Master Plan
The Vision
The Ogden Valley Pathway Master Plan was developed by the
Ogden Valley Chapter of Weber Pathways, a non-profit organization whose mission
is to plan, promote, construct, and protect a network of non-motorized public pathways and related open spaces throughout Weber County, Utah.. The plan development represents
a grassroots community effort and was directed by a steering committee
consisting mostly of local volunteers, who adopted the following vision
statement.
We believe that non-motorized pathways in Ogden
Valley help to maintain and enhance its beauty, pastoral atmosphere, rural
lifestyle, outdoor recreational opportunities, and sense of community.
Therefore, we envision a network of pathways linking all of Ogden Valley and
enabling residents, visitors, and their children to travel in safety on foot,
bicycle, horseback, or skis to a wide variety of destinations throughout the
valley.
Background
Ogden Valley, Utah is nestled on the eastern side of
the Wasatch Mountains, 10 miles east of Ogden and 40 miles north of Salt Lake
City. It is a land of open spaces,
mountains, wetlands, rivers and a reservoir.
People here can still hike, bike or ride horseback through green fields
and groves, sagebrush hills, and the remnants of a pastoral landscape that is
becoming rare in northern Utah. The
valley has one incorporated town, Huntsville, and four unincorporated
communities: East Huntsville, Eden,
Liberty and Nordic Valley. It is home
to approximately 7000 permanent residents and 700 seasonal residents. Ogden
Valley was explored in the early 1800s by fur trappers, who created some of the
historical trail routes that are still used today.
It was then settled by Mormon pioneers in the mid-1800s. Its historical sites include the oldest
saloon in Utah and the birthplace of David O. McKay, former president of the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The first free public school in
Utah was located in Ogden Valley.
Why Do We Need a Pathway Master Plan?
Ogden Valley is experiencing its
most rapid period of growth since the pioneers first settled here. This growth is changing the valley and
threatens to put an end to the rural lifestyle that residents have
enjoyed. Highways where one could once
ride a horse or bicycle have now become unsafe due to large volumes of traffic. Development threatens to cut off access to
some of the open space, public lands and recreational opportunities in the
valley. Growth must be planned for, in
order to achieve quality growth. A
General Plan exists for Ogden Valley, but the only type of transportation it
addresses is motorized.
While the automobile will certainly
remain the primary mode of transportation here, many residents want other
choices as well. They want to be able
to walk to the post office or the grocery store, or to take their horses on a
trail without having to drive them many miles in to get there. In short, they would like the opportunity to
live in a walkable community. Now is
the time for pathways planning in Northern Utah, before rampant development
makes future pathways impossible, and the current Governor’s Trails Initiative
has called for trailheads linked to a major trail system within a 15-minute
drive of every urban resident in Utah.
It is for these reasons that we are planning for our collective future
in the Ogden Valley by developing a Pathway Master Plan.
The Benefits of Pathways
A network
of non-motorized pathways in Ogden Valley will ensure that children, local
citizens, and visitors here can travel safely.
The Master Plan illustrates pathway connections to residential areas,
schools, libraries, recreation facilities, and commercial areas. It also connects amenities such as community
parks, National Forests, open spaces, and existing trailheads.
The
pathways in this plan will also help protect a way of life that Valley
residents have traditionally enjoyed, by ensuring that access to water,
wilderness, historic trails, and open space will be preserved. The Master Plan has been designed to
encourage the preservation of historic trails, to promote the creation of
pathways that celebrate the unique character of Ogden Valley, and to prevent
new development from cutting off non-motorized access to traditional recreation
areas. It will also help connect the
communities of the Valley in a way that highways cannot.
Pathways
can also help provide significant health benefits to a community. Health problems such as heart disease,
stroke, diabetes, and obesity are all linked to a lack of exercise. Walking, bicycling, and similar activities
are excellent forms of exercise that nearly everyone can do, yet many people do
not participate in them because they have no safe, convenient place to go. Non-motorized pathways provide that place.
It has also
been shown that pathways actually tend to reduce crime and increase property
values. Experience both nationwide and
here in Weber County has shown that well-planned trails attract families, local
residents, and other friendly, responsible people, whose presence on the trails
serves in effect as a neighborhood watch, driving troublemakers away. Access to pathways is one of the most
desirable amenities that homebuyers seek, and the value of most properties is
enhanced by being near a trail.
The Public Planning Process
Public input and support were integral to the development
of the plan. A series of three
community workshops held in 2001 informed citizens about the master plan
concept, answered questions, and identified needs, concerns and issues
regarding the proposal. Before each
workshop, flyers were distributed in the Ogden Valley News, which is
delivered to all Valley residents and to subscribers outside the Valley. The workshops asked participants to describe
trails that they would like to see, to identify opportunities for pathway
development, to prioritize trails for current and future development, to
comment on various pathway proposals, and to express their ideas and concerns.
The Ogden Valley Chapter of Weber
Pathways encouraged community involvement in other ways as well. Since its inception in 1999, it has held
regular meetings, which anyone interested is welcome to attend, and it has held
two annual essay contests at Valley Elementary and Snowcrest Junior High on the
topic of pathways in the Valley. It has
also conducted a school field trip program to introduce children to local
trails and trail etiquette, and it publicly dedicated the Eden Trail in June
2001.
Working with the public input generated from these
workshops as well as several Ogden Valley Chapter meetings, the steering
committee put together this Master Plan, which reflects the desires of many
Valley residents as well as the advise and expertise of planning
professionals. The plan describes the
findings of the committee and makes specific proposals for the implementation
of a network of non-motorized public pathways that will serve the recreation
and transportation needs of Ogden Valley communities.
Findings and Recommendations
It is clear that many Ogden
Valley residents desire a non-motorized public pathway network, which would
provide residents and visitors alike with a safe, pleasant way to visit their
neighbors, make trips to school or shops, reach their favorite destinations,
benefit from physical exercise, and enjoy their surroundings. Furthermore, as Ogden Valley grows,
non-motorized pathways can help mitigate some of the negative effects of
development. Therefore it is proposed
that Weber County (henceforth referred to as “the County”) adopt this Plan and
the associated Proposed Pathways Map as an amendment to the General Plan for
Ogden Valley.
All the
pathways in this Plan, as described below under “Pathway Types,” are designated
for non-motorized use, which is defined to include use by pedestrians,
bicycles, horses, skates, scooters, skis, snowshoes, and any type of conveyance
for persons with disabilities, but not mopeds, “push bikes,” motorized
bicycles, motorized scooters, or snowmobiles.
No motor vehicles shall be allowed on any of these pathways except as
used by law enforcement officers and other authorized personnel in the course
of their duties.
The Plan provides for three general categories of pathways:
1. A Valleywide pathway network as shown on the Proposed Pathways Map.
2. Pathways to connect individual neighborhoods or subdivisions to the network.
3. Additional pathways that may be proposed in the future as amendments to this Plan.
Each pathway on the Map, as well as other pathways that
may be proposed in the future, should be constructed or designated for public
use under one or a combination of the following scenarios:
1. On currently existing public rights-of-way.
2. On rights-of-way or easement corridors acquired from willing
landowners, who may grant or sell a piece of property, an easement, or a
license for use.
3. On land that is being developed, as part of the requirements
for subdivision. As described below, the provision of pathways should fulfill what is currently a sidewalk
requirement.
Implementation
Some pathways will be constructed
as described below under “Subdivision and Development.” Others will be constructed by the County
with the involvement of local residents and the Ogden Valley Chapter of Weber
Pathways. The Proposed Pathways Map
shows the network that is to be created, but it is not intended to define the
exact route of every pathway. Further
research and negotiations on property ownership and other issues will be needed
to determine the final alignments, which should be established in accordance
with the guidelines in this Plan.
Wherever possible, pathways should be located in corridors that have
been or will be preserved as natural or green space, thus creating a “greenway”
and not merely a sidewalk or alley. The
pathway system should conform to national standards for safety while reflecting
the unique character of Ogden Valley.
Pathways should be convenient, aesthetically pleasing, and beneficial to
the general quality of life here. A
further goal of implementation will be to connect pathways to trails on Forest
Service, Division of Wildlife Resources, and other public lands, where
applicable.
It is suggested that the County
could create a Trail Coordinator position, which might be a shared position
with the Forest Service or another agency.
It could be funded wholly or partly by special improvement district proceeds
as described below. The Trail Coordinator
would see that the Master Plan is carried out, work with County departments to
arrange for and oversee pathway construction, and work with Weber Pathways and
other interested parties to refine pathway routes and coordinate the use of
private funds. The Trail Coordinator
would also assist in applying for federal and state grants.
The County should also work in
cooperation with the Ogden Valley Chapter of Weber Pathways and other
interested groups, as appropriate, to convince the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT) to incorporate bike lanes, as described below, into the design of both
of its highways in the Valley at such time as they may be reconstructed or
improved. The County, in cooperation
with Weber Pathways or other non-profit organizations, should also work with
private landowners to acquire trail easements wherever appropriate.
Funding
Development in the Valley will
probably continue to occur at a very rapid rate, and many pathway corridors
must be secured soon or they will no longer be available. Furthermore, although volunteer efforts are
important, professionally designed and constructed pathways cannot be built
through volunteer efforts alone.
Therefore all of the following potential funding sources should be
considered:
Federal funds. There are several sources of Federal money that can be used for pathway
construction, including Transportation Enhancement Funds, Scenic Byway Funds,
National Recreational Trails Funds, and the Land and Water Conservation
Fund. As a governmental agency, the
County is eligible to apply for these funds, which are administered through the
State of Utah.
State funds.
The State of Utah makes annual appropriations to its Non-Motorized Trail
Fund and Riverway Enhancement Fund, which are administered by the Division of
Parks and Recreation. Grants from these
funds, which require a 50% match, are available on a competitive basis to
governmental agencies such as Weber County.
Private grants and donations. The experience of Weber Pathways and other
trail organizations has shown that there is considerable community interest in
trails, and many individuals have made donations to the Ogden Valley Chapter to
help create pathways in the Valley. In
addition, there are many private grantmaking foundations to which non-profit
organizations like Weber Pathways are eligible to apply. Some of these foundations are unique to
Utah; others are national or regional in scope and listed on sites such as
www.sonoran.org. Weber Pathways has
collaborated with the County on other trails projects and will continue to work
as a County partner. Other
organizations such as the Great Western Trail Association also have funds
available for their trail projects, some of which will tie into this Master
Plan.
Cooperative projects. The USDA Forest Service has a continuing commitment to provide
quality recreation opportunities in the National Forest and has been the major
trailbuilding agency in the Valley to date.
It has been assisted in some projects by private organizations such as
the Back Country Horsemen of Utah.
Whenever possible, the County should pursue partnerships with other
agencies and organizations in order to accomplish more than either entity could
achieve on its own, thus making the best use of trailbuilding dollars.
In-kind donations.
Local businesses have been instrumental in helping to create trails in
Weber County by donating materials such as roadbase and pipe or services such
as hauling and spreading dirt.
Organizations such as Weber Pathways can help extend the County’s
trailbuilding money by arranging for in-kind donations like these.
A special improvement district. Results from the third community
workshop indicated that many Valley residents would support the creation of
such a district to pay for pathway construction, maintenance, and land
acquisition. The district could be
limited to Weber County east of the crest of the Wasatch Range, including Ogden
Canyon east of the Ogden City boundaries.
Alternatively, it could include the whole county, reflecting the fact
that Weber Pathways will be proposing trails in the western part of the county,
as the County is developing a new General Plan for that area.
Pathway Types and Standards
Although concrete sidewalks with
curbs and gutters can help serve pedestrian needs, they are an urban design
element, inappropriate to the rural character that the Plan seeks to protect in
the Valley, and community workshop participants unanimously preferred pathways
to sidewalks. Therefore it is proposed
that the County discontinue the urban roadway section, which includes curb,
gutter, and sidewalk, as a standard in the Valley, and that the County replace
its sidewalk requirement, which is currently waived for lots with a frontage
greater than 150 feet, with a requirement for pathways as described in this
Plan.
Pathways in the Valley will be
used by a wide variety of user groups, ranging from birdwatchers to bicyclists
and from young schoolchildren to senior citizens.
Yet trails are not always easy to construct, and pathway
corridors are often very difficult to acquire.
Therefore multiple-use pathways can often provide the greatest benefit
to the most users. It should be assumed
that most of the pathways described in this plan will be utilized by more than
one kind of user group.
In some cases, however, a pathway
suitable for one user group may be unsuitable for another, because of inherent
conditions such as surface or location.
An example is a soft dirt trail that is ideal for horses but impossible
for in-line skates. Therefore this Plan
calls for pathways to be of five general types, as follows:
1. Unpaved trails. Typically
located in parks or undeveloped areas, these pathways are suitable for
equestrians, hikers, walkers, joggers, and mountain bikes. They should normally be at least 4 feet
wide, except in the back country, where they should conform to USDA Forest
Service standard trail specifications for desired and expected user types. They are to be constructed of native
material or surfaced with road base when necessary to prevent erosion or
muddiness. Where they parallel a
roadway, trails must be separated from the roadway by a barrier or by at least
10 feet of open space or landscaping.
The County should adopt the typical unpaved trail section shown in Figure 1.
2. Bike paths. Also called “shared use paths” or “Class I
Bikeways,” these pathways are suitable for walkers, joggers, skaters, and
others, as well as children and casual bicyclists.
They are to be paved with asphalt, concrete, or a compacted surface
such as roto-mill or crushed rock and must be separated from roadways by a
barrier or by at least 10 feet of open space or landscaping. Certain
trails may be designed as unpaved trails at first, with the expectation that
they will later be converted to bike paths as funds become available. Bike paths should be at least 10 feet wide
and designed to AASHTO (American Association of State Highway Transportation
Officials) standards for shared use paths; therefore the County should adopt
the standard bike path section shown in Figure 2.
Because bike paths are intended
to be a safe place for persons who are uncomfortable near automobile traffic,
their routing requires careful consideration.
Bicyclists do not want to make frequent stops, and each intersection
with a road or driveway presents a potentially dangerous point of conflict,
especially where shrubs or fences block the view.
Therefore bike paths should be planned to have the fewest roadway
and driveway crossings possible. It is
not appropriate to run a bike path alongside a roadway with densely spaced
homes or businesses, unless no other route is possible. Where
they terminate at a roadway, bike paths must be designed wherever possible to
discourage bike riding on the wrong (left) side of the road.
italic">Bollards or gates may be placed at the entrance to a bike path to
prevent unauthorized use by motor vehicles.
Bollards should be placed 5 feet apart, with one bollard on the
centerline of the bike path to divide it into two traffic directions. Appropriately designed signs should be
installed to explain the purpose and use of the bike path.
3. Side paths. These paths are designed to run alongside a
roadway and are intended primarily for pedestrian use. They may be paved with concrete, asphalt,
road base, or crushed rock. They should
normally be five feet wide, which is the minimum needed for two pedestrians to
pass comfortably but narrow enough to discourage vehicular use. They may be wider in commercial areas or
where pedestrian traffic is heavy. Because
of heavy snow accumulations in the Valley and the need to pile up snow at the
edges of roadways, and because the pathway experience is enhanced the farther
it is from automobile traffic, side paths need to be located at least 10 feet
from the roadway wherever possible, separated from it by open space or
landscaping. The County should adopt
the standard roadway section with side path shown in Figures 3
and 4.
4. Shared
roadways. These are simply minor or
dead-end streets, where it is safe to walk or bike in the roadway, and no
separate pathway is really needed. The
shared roadway concept can be very practical in certain situations, eliminating
the need to maintain a separate path.
It is appropriate for local roads, loop roads and cul-de-sacs that are
no more than 1,000 feet long and serve no more than 25 dwelling units, or are
otherwise so designed as to exclude through traffic and prevent high motor
vehicle speeds. It is not appropriate
for highways or commercial areas.
5. Bike lanes. Also called “Class II Bikeways,” these are
roadway lanes that have been specially striped, marked, and signed for the use
of bicycles. They should always form a
pair, with one lane in each direction, so that bicyclists can ride on the right
side of the road, as required by law.
Proposed bike lanes are not shown as on the Map, because they are not
separate pathways, but they should form an integral part of the Valley’s
non-motorized transportation system.
Experienced bicyclists headed for a particular destination want to get
there as quickly and directly as possible, and the roadway system often
provides the most direct routes between popular destinations. Yet the presence of bicycles and pedestrians
in the motorized travel lanes of busy roads is dangerous and undesirable.
Therefore all County roads in the
Valley with an actual or expected average daily traffic count (ADT) of 1,000
or more should, when undergoing reconstruction or alteration, be constructed
with bike lanes, and the County should adopt the standard roadway section with
bike lanes shown in Figure 5.
These bike lanes are normally at least 5 feet wide, but when it comes to
bicycle and pedestrian safety, even marginal improvements are better than
none. Therefore where terrain,
obstacles, or other considerations make it impossible to construct bike lanes
to the full width specified here, the County should still widen highway
shoulders as much as practical.
yes"> The design of grates for stormwater catch basins is also critical
to bicycle safety on all roadways.
Grates with parallel bars pose a special danger to bicyclists, whose
tires can easily slip down between the bars.
Furthermore, other types of grates have been designed that effectively
carry away stormwater and are also safe for bicycles.
Therefore the County should amend its public works standards to
replace the currently specified catch basin grate with a “bicycle-safe” grate
such as that shown in Figure 6.
In addition, the County may
establish a bikeway system consisting of bike paths, bike lanes, bike routes
(signed shared roadways, also called “Class III Bikeways”), or a combination of
any of these. The bikeways should be
signed in accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)
and should be recorded in map form and made available for publication in maps
such as “Pathways in Weber County.”
Because of safety concerns, side paths and sidewalks must not be
designated as bikeways.
Utilities and Pathways
Because various construction
activities, especially the digging and filling of utility trenches, can affect
pathways, the County should require utility, construction, and excavation
companies to repair any pathway torn up for utility work, restoring the pathway
to its original condition or better.
The installation of utilities in trail corridors is generally
encouraged, except where it would cause undue environmental damage or
permanently impair the trail use. Fees
collected for trail corridor use by utilities should be reserved for trail
building and maintenance rather than going into the County’s general fund.
Utility lines that run parallel
to the pathway should be placed under the trail bed where possible to minimize
site disturbance. Laterals and lines
perpendicular to the pathway should be located to minimize site disturbance and
removal of significant vegetation.
Physical obstructions should be located away from the pathway, and
access points such as manhole covers should be located flush with the pathway
surface where they do not pose a hazard.
A bond may be required to ensure that pathway restoration is completed.
Furthermore, if a utility line of
any significant distance is proposed to be trenched, the County should first
determine whether the utility route could reasonably be used for a pathway as
described in this Plan or on the Map.
If so, the utility company should be required to return the trench not
to the original contours of the landform, but to a grade that can be used for a
pathway.
Subdivision and Development
One of the methods by which
pathways in this plan are to be developed is construction in new subdivisions
or developments, which should all be connected to the Valleywide pathway
network or be so designed as to provide for connection at a later date. Pathways should be required in every subdivision,
unless the approval process shows that they are not needed. However, the required pathway construction
should not exceed that which is reasonable and proportionate to the development
in question. Pathways are contemplated
under two scenarios:
The first
is a proposed pathway that is shown on the Proposed Pathways Map as passing
through or near the land in question.
In this case, the County should determine whether a pathway corridor
must be set aside and what the exact route and width of the corridor must
be. Land set aside in this manner
should count towards the provision of open space for clustering and other
requirements.
The second is a local pathway
system that is not shown on the Map but serves a particular development and is
designed to tie into the general pathway network.
To accommodate the design and construction of such a system, the
County should require pathway routes in each development, instead of
sidewalks. These routes will consist of
shared roadways, bike paths, side paths, or any appropriate combination
thereof. Unpaved trails may be used to
link a development to Forest Service or other recreational land. Analysis should be made during the approval process
as to which pathway types are most appropriate and where they should be located. Emphasis should be placed on safety,
attractiveness, and design that is tailored to the local topography and
conditions, rather than trying to stamp the same “cookie-cutter” pattern on
every development.
Signage and Facilities
Standard and consistent signs
will be used to designate trailheads, pathway uses, directional information,
educational information and historical information along the pathways. Information will also be provided at
trailheads on how to donate to Weber Pathways and other trail
organizations. All signs should
conform, where applicable, to MUTCD standards and the Ogden Valley Sign
Ordinance.
Adequate vehicle and bicycle
parking, restrooms, drinking water, trail information, and hitching posts
should be provided as reasonable at trailheads and, in certain cases, along the
pathways. Sufficient parking for horse
trailers should be provided where appropriate, and restrooms should conform to
accessible standards. Not all
trailheads will include all the items listed above; the design of trailhead
facilities should be determined as part of the pathway route finalization
process. Trailheads should be located
so as to minimize their impact on the local communities and complement the
rural setting.
Roadway crossings should in most cases
be accomplished by means of a signed and striped crosswalk. Zebra-style crosswalks are recommended as
having the highest visibility to motorists.
Tunnels may be constructed under high-traffic roads, where funds
permit. Tunnels should conform to AASHTO
and accessibility standards and should be located on the most convenient
pedestrian route in order to ensure their use and justify their expense. Pedestrian overpasses are not recommended,
because of their inconvenience, inaccessibility, and negative aesthetic
impacts.
As portions of the pathway system
are developed, uniform materials, surfacing, and signs should be
installed. Wherever possible, materials
indigenous to the site should be used.
Where the use of indigenous materials is not possible, the use of
historic looking materials should be considered.
Maintenance
Before construction of a pathway,
the entity to be responsible for its maintenance should be established. Typically, that entity will be the owner of
the pathway corridor or right-of-way.
The maintenance of a pathway that is not open to the public, such as
that within a gated development, should be the sole responsibility of the
developer or homeowner’s association.
The maintenance of a pathway on privately owned land over which a public
easement is granted should be determined by agreement between the County and
the landowner.
Volunteers from the Ogden Valley
chapter of Weber Pathways and from other trail-advocacy organizations should
monitor the pathway system to report problems and necessary maintenance issues
to the county. In addition, volunteer
efforts, by groups such as the Boy Scouts of America and various trail users,
may be used for simple maintenance tasks.
An adopt-a-trail program, modeled on Ogden City’s, should be instituted
as one way to assist with litter cleanup.
Landowner Relations
Respect for private property
rights is an essential aspect of the Pathway Master Plan. As described under “Proposed Pathways
Network” above, the scenarios under which pathways are to be constructed or
designated for public use invite the cooperation of private property owners and
the expression of their opinions and concerns.
Furthermore, whenever a pathway is constructed along a pre-existing corridor
formerly used for a different purpose, such as a canal or a power line, any
pre-existing rights held by adjacent landowners concerning drainage, ditch
maintenance, crossing and access, and other matters will continue to be
honored.
Trespassing and liability are
sometimes concerns of property owners adjacent to trails. While trespassing from pathways, just like
trespassing from roadways, cannot absolutely be prevented, signs will be posted
at all trailheads reminding users to “Please respect private property by
staying on the trail.” Access will not
be allowed or provided from a pathway onto private property without the
permission of the landowner. However,
if landowners next to a pathway want to create their own access paths to
connect to the pathway, they should be allowed and encouraged to do so.
The question of liability cannot
be solved by this or any other master plan; however, it should be emphasized
that the potential liability incurred by property next to a pathway is no
greater than that experienced next to a roadway.
Furthermore, Utah has adopted a Limitation of Landowner
Liability—Public Recreation Act (Section 57-14-1 et seq.). This act specifically protects landowners
who allow the public onto their property free of charge for recreational
purposes.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
The presence of wildlife is part
of the heritage and charm of the Valley, and the protection of wildlife habitat
and environmentally sensitive areas is an important value for many Valley
residents. The Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources (DWR) has identified three types of critical wildlife
habitat in the Ogden Valley area:
1. Winter range, primarily for deer and elk, in the Middle Fork-Monastery area.
2. The Class 1 fishery in Ogden Canyon.
3. Small areas of wetlands and Class 3 fisheries in the Valley.
The first two types of habitat are shown on the map. Wetlands have not been mapped on the Pathway
Master Plan, but along with riparian areas, or the corridors of vegetation
along streambanks, they are habitats of great importance to local
wildlife. The development of wetlands
is also regulated by federal law, and trails along streambanks are regulated by
the State Division of Water Rights.
The impacts of pathways on
wildlife can be positive or negative and are not always precisely known. They vary according to the situation and the
species in question. The benefits to
the community of well-designed pathways usually outweigh their impacts on
wildlife, but in order to minimize any negative effect on critical habitat, the
following recommendations should be implemented:
1.
Pathways on public land in the critical winter range area
shall be closed seasonally during such dates as recommended by the DWR. Locked gates, with signage explaining the
importance of the habitat and the reason for the closure, shall be installed at
the trailheads or other appropriate locations.
2.
Any pathway near a stream, in Ogden Canyon or elsewhere, shall
be constructed so as not to adversely affect the water quality or riparian
vegetation of the stream or to impair the natural processes of the stream, such
as spring flooding.
3.
When any pathway is planned for a designated wetland area, the
Corps of Engineers shall be contacted for a 404 permit.
4.
Where possible, pathways shall not be routed through the
middle of large undisturbed areas of natural vegetation, but shall be located
on the edge of such areas or in places that have already been disturbed by
human activities.
5.
Pathways shall not be routed continuously along streambanks,
depriving wildlife of important undisturbed habitat, but they shall provide a
reasonable number of access points to the stream, so that the public will not
be tempted to create unauthorized or “social” trails to reach the water.
6.
Where appropriate, pathways shall be used to improve habitat
through the consolidation of many social trails into one well-designed
pathway. The social trails should be
revegetated with species that are native to the Valley or beneficial to
wildlife.
7.
Dogs shall not be permitted to run free to chase, harass, or
kill wildlife.
The Proposed Pathways
The pathways described below and
shown on the Proposed Pathways Map constitute a Valleywide network that
reflects the results of the public planning process.
The alignments shown on the map are conceptual, and exact
locations will be determined only after landowner negotiations and fieldwork
are completed. The map is intended for
the use of trail planners, County officials and developers. It should not be used by the general public
as a trail map.
Certain pathways are proposed for
immediate development and noted by an asterisk (*). They were chosen to satisfy present demand,
to provide significant safety benefits, or because they depend on corridors
that may soon become unavailable. They
will be bike paths and unpaved trails, because workshop results suggested that
most Valley residents are currently more interested in separate pathways than
in bike lanes. mso-bidi-font-weight:
bold">Of course, actual construction will depend on the availability of funds,
the route planning process, and property ownership status. No trails are proposed for private property
without a landowner’s consent.
1. Old Trappers Loop Road. * This historic
road, representing a route used by the early fur trappers, should be kept open
to the public for non-motorized use, with special access granted to neighboring
landowners, and a trailhead developed at an appropriate location at the north
end.
2. Wheeler Creek—Trappers Loop Trail. A trail
should be created to connect the Forest Service trails in the Wheeler Creek
complex with the top (south) end of the Old Trappers Loop Road. The trail would be constructed in
cooperation with the Forest Service and the private landowner in the area and
would include a trailhead on the Trappers Loop Highway.
3. Pineview Loop Pathway. * This pathway will
form a complete loop around Pineview Reservoir, connecting with the Pineview
West Trail. The exact route has not yet
been determined and is suggested only in a generalized fashion on the map. Parts of it will parallel the highway, while
other parts will run along the shore. Much
of the route will lie on land under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service,
which will probably be the lead agency for much of the pathway planning and
construction.
4. Ogden Canyon Pathway. Ogden Canyon is
probably the most dangerous road in the County for bicyclists and pedestrians,
and the need for a safe alternative is obvious.
It is suggested that a pathway separate from the road be built on
existing and former rights-of-way, with the goal of creating a practical,
beautiful, and usable pathway route while respecting the privacy and other
concerns of private landowners.
5. Radford Hills Trail. * This trail is
proposed to connect the Pineview West Trail with the Skyline Trail, with a
trailhead to be considered on Highway 158.
The developer of Radford Hills has already expressed enthusiasm for the
trail, but Forest Service cooperation will be required to complete the
connection.
6. Grove Trail. This trail is meant to form
a connection between Nordic Valley and the Pineview West Trail. Its exact route will need to be determined
according to local terrain and property ownership.
7. Pole Canyon Trail. This trail would
connect Nordic Valley to the Skyline Trail by means of the existing path in the
Pole Canyon area or a similar route. It
should be designed in coordination with the development plans of the Nordic
Valley resort.
8. Nordic Valley Pathway. This pathway would
connect Nordic Valley to the pathway network in the valley, providing a safe
access route as an alternative to the highways.
9. Western North Fork Pathway. This pathway
would serve the western side of the northern Ogden Valley and connect Nordic
Valley to North Fork Park. An important
component would be a spur to the Pioneer Trail over North Ogden Divide, with a
trailhead at the east end of the Pioneer Trail.
10. North
Fork/Sheep Creek Pathway. * This pathway would run from North Fork Park down through Liberty to Eden, where it
would connect with the Eden Trail. It
is intended as an alternative to the increasingly busy highways and would
ideally run near the North Fork River or near Sheep Creek.
11. Avon—Liberty Road. This unpaved road is
currently open to motorized vehicles in the summer but is closed in the
winter. If a new all-weather highway is
constructed to Cache Valley, it is suggested that the old road be designated
for pathway use.
12. Sheep Creek—Wolf Creek Trail. * This
trail, which is to be left unpaved to accommodate equestrian use, is meant to
connect the Sheep Creek development with the Wolf Creek resort. Planning for this trail must occur soon, in
conjunction with the master plans for the development that is proceeding in
both areas.
13. Powder Mountain—Wolf Creek Trail. This
trail, not currently a priority, may with increasing activity at Powder
Mountain gain importance as a non-motorized alternative to the Powder Mountain
highway.
14. Wolf Creek Pathway. * This pathway is needed
to provide Wolf Creek residents and visitors with a safe way to reach the shops
in Eden without having to use their cars.
It would ideally be built in a separate corridor, but it is tentatively
planned for the highway right-of-way for the sake of convenience.
15. East Eden Pathway. * This pathway would
connect the Eden Trail with the Pineview Loop Pathway and the Middle Fork
area. It is intended to help complete
the continuity of the Valleywide pathway network and provide residents and
visitors with a safe and convenient connection to the shops and other
attractions in the Eden area.
16. Middle Fork Pathway. * The purpose of this
pathway is to connect the existing Middle Fork trailhead area to the reservoir
and the Pineview Loop Pathway. The
exact route has not been determined, but it may follow a streamcourse, roadway,
or other corridor.
17. Ogden Valley Canal Pathway. * This
pathway would follow the Ogden Valley Canal, either on its banks or generally
running parallel to it on an alignment respectful of landowner concerns. It will form a very important component in
the pathway network connecting the Valley from northwest to southeast.
18. Power Line Trail Connection. This trail extension
will connect the existing Power Line Trail with the Wolf Creek development.
19. Wolf Creek—Middle Fork Trail. * This
trail, popular with equestrians, would connect the trailhead being proposed at
the Wolf Creek resort with the Middle Fork trail complex. Like other trails in the Wildlife Management
Area, it would be closed in the winter, with a gate near the eastern end of the
Wolf Creek developed area.
20. Geertsen Canyon Trail Connection. This
extension of the north branch of the Geertsen Canyon Trail would connect to the
trail network on top of the mountain.
21. La Plata Ridge Road. This trail would
provide access from Powder Mountain to the mountainous areas on the east.
22. La Plata Road and Trail. The old ridgetop
road would be extended southward as a trail connecting to the Geertsen
Canyon—Shupe Canyon loop.
23. Northern Connection Trail. This trail, whose
exact route is yet to be determined, would provide a trail connection from the
La Plata area to Beaver Creek and the eastern portions of the County.
24. South Fork—Beaver Creek Pathway. This pathway would
parallel Highway 39, either in the existing right-of-way or in a separate
corridor, or a combination of both, to provide safe non-motorized access to the
South Fork campgrounds, the Causey area, and the lower part of Monte Cristo.
25. Pine Creek Road. This trail, to be designated
in consultation with the private landowners in the area, would connect Brown’s
Hole to the South Fork—Beaver Creek Pathway.
26. Causey Trail. This trail would provide a
safe connection from the South Fork—Beaver Creek Pathway to Causey Reservoir.
27. Skull Crack Canyon Road. This trail would form
part of a grand loop in the southeastern part of the County and would be opened
in cooperation with the private landowners in the area.
28. South Ridgeline Trail. A continuation of
the trail loop as described under “Skull Crack Canyon Road.”
29. Bennett Creek Loop Trail. This loop, which
circles from the Monastery area to South Fork, already sees some trail use, and
an official designation should be negotiated with local landowners.
30. South Fork Pathway. This pathway would extend
east and west through the South Fork area as a safe alternative to the busy
stretch of Highway 39. Ideally, it
would be located in a separate corridor, but it may be built in an existing road
right-of-way.
31. East Huntsville Pathway. This pathway
would branch off the South Fork Pathway to provide a more direct connection to
parts of Huntsville.
32. South Fork—Monastery Pathway. Another
short connecting link, this pathway would help complete a safe network of
pathways in the South Fork area.
33. South Bench Canal Pathway. * This pathway would
follow the South Bench Canal, running from the Monastery area west to the Old
Trappers Loop Road and the Jefferson Hunt Campground area. It could be built in conjunction with
alterations that have been proposed for the canal.
Acknowledgements
This master plan was created with
technical assistance from the National Park Service Rivers, Trails and
Conservation Assistance Program and the cooperation of the Weber County
Commission, the Weber County Planning Department, the Weber County Township
Planning Commission, the East Huntsville Township Planning Commission, the Eden
Planning Committee, and the Liberty-Nordic Township Planning Commission. The USDA Forest Service’s Ogden Ranger
District, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, also provided crucial input in the
planning process.
The project coordinator was
Geoffrey E. Ellis. The steering
committee included Craig Barker—Weber County Planner, Suzanne Bazin, Sam
Bellarosa, Rita Booth, Anthony Botello—USDA Forest Service, Bill
Farrand—National Park Service, David C. Holmstrom, Sharon K. Holmstrom, Lori
Mortensen, Ed Radford—Chair of the Ogden Valley Chapter of Weber Pathways,
Keith Rounkles, Kay Salazar—National Park Service, Susan Summers, and Rick
Vallejos—USDA Forest Service.
Appendix A: The Community Workshops
The Ogden Valley
Pathway Master Plan Steering Committee organized three community workshops in
order to develop a plan that reflects the wishes of the community. The workshops were publicized through
articles and inserts in the Ogden Valley News, which is delivered to all Valley
residents as well as to subscribers outside the Valley. Letters announcing the upcoming workshops
were also sent to individuals on the Ogden Valley Pathways mailing list.
Community Workshop #1 – June 21, 2001
Objectives: The objectives of the first community workshop were to:
·
Develop a broader understanding by the Ogden Valley
citizens of the Ogden Valley Pathway master plan project.
·
Create annotated maps reflecting public ideas for
potential pathway routes, amenities, activity nodes, sensitive areas, pathway
uses, etc.
·
Formulate a list of project opportunities and challenges.
Attendance: Fifty-four people.
Actions: Participants were asked to fill in a comment
sheet that asked their opinion on various aspects of the pathway planning
process. They were also asked to draw
their “wish-list” of pathways on maps that were provided.
Results: Thirty people turned in the comment
sheets. Participants responded that
safety was the most important issue:
specifically, providing pedestrians and bicyclists with a way to get off
the highways. Promoting health and a
sense of community were also important to them.
When asked how to
avoid negative impacts, many indicated that working cooperatively with private
property owners and respecting their rights, as well as trail maintenance and
litter cleanup were most important.
The most popular
trail activities among respondents were walking and hiking, followed by
bicycling, skiing and horseback riding.
The “wish-list” drawn by the participants yielded 49 desired
pathways. The ones suggested by the
most people were Old Trappers Loop, a Pineview Loop, and a pathway in Ogden
Canyon.
Community Workshop #2 – August 23, 2001
Objectives:
The objectives of the second community workshop were to:
· Communicate the results of the June 21, 2001 workshop.
· Agree on pathwayprioritizing criteria.
· Rank and agree upon the list of prioritized pathways.
Attendance: Twenty-four people.
Actions: Using a matrix and map
illustrating all 49 proposed pathways from the first community workshop, the
participants formed four groups and were asked to rate pathways on various
criteria such as their value for recreation, transportation, and historical
use. They also indicated whether each
route should be an unpaved trail, a paved trail, or a set of bike lanes along a
highway. Finally, each person voted for
the top 16 pathways that he or she would like to see constructed or preserved
in the valley.
Results:
Working in groups allowed for
ample discussion of the merits of each pathway, as well as the importance of
various criteria to the public. The
only constraint on achieving the objectives was time; however, the four groups
ranked as many pathways as they could, including their favorites. The top five proposed pathways were Pineview
Loop, Ogden Canyon, Pineview Shoreline, Monastery Loop, and Ogden Valley Canal. There was also overwhelming support for
keeping an existing trail, the Old Trappers Loop Road, open to the public.
Community Workshop #3 – November 7, 2001
Objectives: The objectives of the third community workshop were to:
· Present the draft Ogden Valley Pathways Master Plan.
· Create an understanding of the draft master plan.
· Compile a list of ideas and changes for the draft master plan.
· Complete the comment sheets.
Attendance: 22 people.
Actions: The
program began with a power point presentation on pathways and the current draft
of the master plan, which was available to everyone present and had also been
mailed out with the workshop announcements so that people would have a chance
to read it ahead of time. Next was a
question-and-answer session and general discussion of issues. Then the participants set to work in three
small groups to fill out the comment sheets and list ideas and suggestions.
Results: Most
participants strongly preferred separate pathways to bike lanes. One family was very concerned about the
vandalism and partying that is currently occurring on the Pineview shoreline
where there is no trail. Another important issue was that of not requiring too
much from developers and creating a “takings” issue.
Sixteen
people turned in comment sheets. An
important suggestion was that the pathways on the plan not be limited to the
most important but rather form a complete network over the whole Valley. A majority of participants indicated that
they would be willing to pay for a Special Improvement District for pathways,
with $60.00 per year being the most common response.
Appendix B
The Goal of the Ogden Valley Pathway Master Plan Committee
Our goal is to work with citizens, organizations, planners,
and elected officials to prepare a master plan for pathways in Ogden
Valley. This includes proposed pathway
and trailhead locations and standards that will be adopted by Weber County as
an amendment to its general plan and become official public policy to be
carried out as decisions are made for Ogden Valley’s future.
Objectives of the Ogden Valley Pathway Master Plan Committee
We intend to accomplish the following tasks in order to achieve our goal:
- Inventory existing conditions.
- Research pathway plans, standards, and issues.
- Involve the community through contact with public officials and other interested parties.
- Involve the public in the plan development process by means of a series of workshops.
- Utilize public input and factual research to create a pathways plan that:
- Provides a system of interconnected, non-motorized, multi-use trails throughout all areas of the valley and allows for regional connections.
- Includes connections to existing pathways.
- Provides a variety of recreational experiences and transportation options.
- Specify standards for pathway development, construction, and maintenance to protect the valley’s natural beauty and resources.
- Prescribe strategies to incorporate pathways into the development process for roads, residential subdivisions, and commercial properties.
- Present the plan to local citizens, planning commissions and the Weber County Planning Commission.
- Assist the planning commissions in making revisions as necessary.
- Incorporate the plan into the Wasatch Front Regional Council’s plans.
- Identify partnerships and maintenance strategies.
- Work with the County and other agencies to implement the Master Plan.
Appendix C: Case Studies on the Benefits of Pathways
Many
people who have had little experience with trails and pathways become fearful
when a trail is proposed near the place where they live. They are afraid that the trail will cause
increased crime problems, such as vandalism, theft, and disturbance of the
peace, and that it will lower their property values.
In some cases, these fears are based on problems that are already
occurring, in the absence of a trail; in other cases, they are simply an
emotional response to that which is new and unknown.
But are these fears justified?
In most cases, the answer is no!
The following case studies examine what really happens when a new
pathway is constructed:
A study
was conducted in 1987 on the Seattle, Washington’s Burke-Gilman Trail, which
was created from an abandoned railroad right-of-way, to determine what effect,
if any, that trail had on property values and crime.
It was found that property immediately adjacent to the trail was
slightly easier to sell than other property in the area and had the same
average selling price. Property near
but not adjacent to the trail, however, was significantly easier to sell and
sold for six percent more, on average.
Real estate agents were even using the trail as a selling point for
homes, condominiums, and apartments.
Furthermore,
the Burke-Gilman trail had no apparent effect on vandalism and crimes
experienced by adjacent property owners.
Police officers interviewed stated that burglaries and vandalism had not
increased, and they recommended the development of more trails. Residents also had good things to say about
it; one woman stated that the “trail is much more positive than I
expected. I was involved in citizens
groups opposed to the trail. I now feel
that the trail is very positive; fewer problems than before trail was built;
more litter and beer cans and vagrants when railroad was in.”
The
Kal-Haven Trail in Michigan is another example of initial concerns about crime
failing to come to pass after the trail was developed. Sheriff Tom Edmonds of Kalamazoo County
stated in 1994 that there had been no increase in crime, with trespassing being
the only, and an infrequent, crime.
Likewise Van Buren County Sheriff H. Cal Rosema found that his earlier
concerns were unfounded. “It pretty
well takes care of itself,” he said. In
fact, his department received more complaints about trespassing before the
abandoned railroad corridor was turned into a trail than afterwards.
The
situation along another Michigan trail, the Hart-Montague Trail, proved to be
similar. Sheriff Fred Korb of Oceana
County said in the same 1994 article, “I was halfway reluctant about it off the
bat. What kind of law enforcement
problems are we going to have? We have
had virtually zero problems on it.”
Department of Natural Resources records showed eight reports of
vandalism during a two-year period, but the damage was done to DNR property and
not to private property. Trespassing
had not been a problem, although some littering did occur.
A study
called The Impacts of Rail-Trails, conducted by the National Park
Service Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program in cooperation with
Pennsylvania State University, looked at the effects of three trails on the
communities around them. The trails
were the Heritage Trail in Iowa, the St. Mark’s Trail in Florida, and the
Lafayette/Moraga Trail in California. The
study found that most adjacent property owners believed that the trails had no
effect or a positive effect on their property values, and real estate
professionals surveyed came to the same conclusion.
In fact, 53% of the California property owners stated that the
trail had increased their resale prices.
Between
93% and 100% of landowners along all three trails reported that since the trail
had opened, they had experienced the same level or a decrease in problems such
as burglary, vandalism, animal harassment, dog manure, people asking to use the
phone or bathroom, and trespassing. Up
to 38% of landowners reported an increase in other problems such as loss of
privacy, noise from the trail, and illegal motor vehicle use, yet about half
the owners in Florida and California stated that they were “very satisfied”
with the trail anyway, and less than 5% had a more negative attitude about
living near the trail than they had initially.
A
national survey in 1994 of more than 2,300 prospective homebuyers found that
about 75% considered walking and biking paths a very important or extremely
important feature in their decision to buy.
They were the fourth most popular attraction, after low traffic, quiet
streets, and natural open space. Even
first-time homebuyers will pay an additional $10,000 for a master planned
community offering a town center, sidewalks, and walking and biking paths.
In Ogden, Utah, the area along the
Ogden River used to be frequented by transients and plagued by crime, including
vice and perversion of an unspeakable kind. After the Ogden River Parkway
was built there, all of that changed. The area has been cleaned up and is
now a popular place for families and individuals to walk, jog, rollerblade, or
enjoy the athletic fields and other facilities along the route. On a
sunny weekend, the crowds of people out enjoying the trail are tremendous, and
it is popular with a significant number of walkers every day of the year, even
in winter. Most importantly, the kinds of crime formerly found there have
completely disappeared.
On the Bonneville Shoreline Trail
east of the city, the residents of a condominium project at the top of 29th
Street were concerned about the vacant area to the east of them. It was
being used as a hangout by teenagers and vandals, who used to get drunk, light
fires, and carry on all night long. The Ogden Trails Network took this
area and turned it into a trailhead, with parking for 50 cars, gates at the
entrance, and fences and boulder walls to keep vehicles from going on up into
the foothills. This trailhead is now used by people in the neighborhood
and other law-abiding citizens, and the troublemakers have been driven
out. Almost every parking space is filled in good weather, and local
residents have been so pleased with the improvements that one of them
volunteered to be in charge of shutting the gates at night.
At the mouth of Ogden Canyon, a
private landowner was experiencing problems with vandals and ATV riders
trespassing on the land. The Ogden Trails Network built a trail
connection there, and in 1999 the landowner wrote, "During this last year
we have allowed the creation of the [trail], which connects our strategic
location to the world famous Indian Trail atop beautiful Ogden Canyon.
The [trail] has done wonders for our site. Incidences of vagrancy and
petty crimes have dropped entirely. We could not be more pleased with how
the trail system has enhanced our property!"
As of November 1, 2001, Jay Hudson
of the Ogden Trails Network reports: "Lt. Dan Greenhall of the Ogden
Police states that there have been no incidents on the Ogden River or Weber
River Parkways this year and none on the Ogden Trails Network. We had a
series of auto break-ins a couple of years ago at the trailheads of the Ogden
Trails Network, but they caught the man. There have been the occasional
graffiti problems but that is it. I can tell you that we have minimal
problems on the Ogden Trails Network. Usually it is trash, a broken fence
or a large rock moved out of position at the trailhead. There is little
damage to the trails after you get 100 yards or more from the trailhead."
In summary, experiences with the
trails in Ogden have confirmed what people in other parts of the nation have
discovered: Trails do not increase crime; they almost always REDUCE
it. A well designed trail system is
like having an extra neighborhood watch that puts the friendly eyes and ears of
community residents in circulation. One
can conclude with confidence that the trail system in Ogden has had an overall
benefit to every neighborhood it serves.
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">
Appendix D: Utah Limitation of Landowner Liability
Statute
CHAPTER 14
LIMITATION OF LANDOWNER LIABILITY—PUBLIC RECREATION
Section
57-14-1
Legislative purpose
57-14-2
Definitions
57-14-3
Owner owes no duty of care or duty to give warning—Exceptions
57-14-4
Owner’s permitting another to use land without charge—Effect
57-14-5
Land leased to state or political subdivision for recreational purposes
57-14-6
Liability not limited where willful or malicious conduct involved or admission fee charged
57-14-7
Person using land of another not relieved from duty to exercise care
57-14-1. Legislative purpose.
The purpose of this act is to encourage public and private owners of land to make land and
water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting the
owners’ liability toward persons entering the land and water areas for those
purposes.
57-14-2. Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
(1)
“Land” means any land within the territorial limits of the state of Utah and includes roads,
water, water courses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or
equipment when attached to the realty.
(2) “Owner” includes the possessor of any interest in the land, whether public or private land, a
tenant, a lessor, a lessee, and an occupant or person in control of the
premises.
(3) “Recreational purpose” includes, but is not limited to, any of the following or any combination
thereof: hunting, fishing, swimming, skiing, snowshoeing, camping, picnicking, hiking, studying nature, waterskiing,
engaging in water sports, using boats, mountain biking, using off-highway
vehicles or recreational vehicles, and viewing or enjoying historical,
archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites.
(4) “Charge” means the admission price or fee asked in return for permission to enter or go upon the land.
(5) “Person” includes any person, regardless of age, maturity, or experience, who enters upon or uses land for recreational purposes.
57-14-3. Owner owes no duty of care or duty to give warning—Exceptions.
Except as provide
in Subsections 57-14-6(1) and (2), an owner of land owes no duty of care to
keep the premises safe for entry or use by any person entering or using the
premises for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of a dangerous
condition, use, structure, or activity on those premises to that person.
57-14-4. Owner’s permitting another to use land
without charge—Effect.
Except as provided in Subsection 57-14-6(1), an owner of land who either directly or indirectly
invites or permits without charge or for a nominal fee of not more than $1 per
year any person to use the land for any recreational purpose does not thereby:
(1) make any representation or extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose;
(2) confer upon the person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed;
(3)
assumeresponsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property
caused by an act or omission of the person or any other person who enters upon
the land; or
(4) owe any duty to curtail the owner’s use of his land during its use for recreational purposes.
57-14-5. Land leased to state or political
subdivision for recreational purposes.
Unless otherwise
agreed in writing, Sections 57-14-3 and 57-14-4 are applicable to the duties
and liability of an owner of land leased to the state or any subdivision of the
state for recreational purposes.
57-14-6. Liability not limited where willful or malicious conduct involved or admission fee charged.
(1) Nothing in this act shall limit any liability which otherwise exists for:
(a) willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity;
(b) deliberate, willful, or malicious injury to persons or property; or
(c) an injury suffered where the owner of land charges a person to enter or go on the land or
use the land for any recreational purpose, except if the land is leased to the
state or a subdivision of the state, any consideration received by the owner
for the lease is not a charge within the meaning of this section.
(2) Any person who hunts upon a cooperative wildlife management unit, as authorized by Title 23,
Chapter 23, Cooperative Wildlife Management Units, is not considered to have
paid a fee within the meaning of this section.
(3)
Owners of a dam
or reservoir who allow recreational use of the dam or reservoir and its
surrounding area and do not themselves charge a fee for that use, are
considered not to have charged for that use within the meaning of Subsection
(1)(c) even if the user pays a fee to the Division of Parks and Recreation for
the use of the services and facilities at that dam or reservoir.
57-14-7. Person using land of another not relieved
from duty to exercise care.
This chapter may
not be construed to relieve any person, using the land of another for
recreational purposes, from any obligation which the person may have in the
absence of this act to exercise care in use of the land and in activities
thereon, or from the legal consequences of failure to employ care.
10.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:EN-US;
mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">
Appendix E: Definitions
The following definitions were
adapted from the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Guide to the Development of Bicycle Facilities and used by the
Ogden Valley Master Plan Steering Committee in the preparation of the Plan:
Bike lane:
A portion of a roadway that has been designated for bicycles by
striping, signing, and pavement markings.
Also called a Class II Bikeway.
Bike path:
A paved trail for pedestrians, skaters, bicyclists, and other
non-motorized users. Also called a
shared use path or Class I Bikeway.
Bike route:
A roadway designated by signage as a recommended route for
bicycles. Also called a signed shared
roadway or Class III Bikeway.
Bikeway:
Any route designated for bicycles, including bike routes, bike lanes,
and bike paths.
Bridle path:
An unpaved pathway designated especially for horses.
Non-motorized use:
Use by pedestrians, bicycles, horses, skates, scooters, skis,
snowshoes, and any type of conveyance for persons with disabilities, but not
by mopeds, “push bikes,” motorized bicycles, motorized scooters, or
snowmobiles.
Pathway:
A route intended for non-motorized use, including trails, side paths,
bridle paths, bike paths, and bike lanes.
Right-of-way:
The strip of property owned by a county or other entity for
roadway or pathway use.
Right of way:
The right of one vehicle or pedestrian to proceed in a lawful
manner in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian.
Roadway:
The portion of a road, street, or highway, including the shoulders,
intended for motor vehicle use.
Rumble strips:
A textured or grooved pavement sometimes used on or along
shoulders of highways to alert
motorists who stray onto the shoulder.
Shared roadway:
A roadway open to and appropriate for pedestrian and bicycle use
as well as motor vehicle travel.
Side path:
A pathway, usually paved, that parallels a roadway and is intended for
pedestrians. It serves the same
function as a sidewalk but does not have curb and gutter associated with it.
Trail:
A pathway located in a park, forest, open space, or other natural area
and separated from any roadways by open space, landscaping, or a barrier.
font-family:"Times New Roman"
mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language:
EN-US;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">
Appendix F: References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO), 1999. Guide for
the Development of Bicycle Facilities.
AASHTO, 444 N. Capitol St. NW, Washington, DC
20001. (202)
624-5800. www.aashto.org
American Lives and InterCommunications, Inc, 1994. 1994 Shopper and Homeowner Study: Community Features Home Buyers Pay For. American Lives, 2512 Filbert St., San
Francisco, CA 94123. (415) 921-1946.
Ogden Valley General Plan, as Adopted by the Weber
County Board of County Commissioners, 1996.
yes"> Weber County Commission, 2380 Washington Blvd., Ogden, UT 84401.
Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and the Association of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals, 1998.
Improving Conditions for Bicycling and Walking: A Best Practices Report. Prepared for the Federal highway
Administration.
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance, National Park
Service, 1991. Economic Impacts of
Protecting Rivers, Trails, and Greenway Corridors:
A Resource Book, 2nd Edition.
Seattle Engineering Department, Office for Planning,
1987. Evaluation of the Burke-Gilman
Trail’s Effect on Property Values and Crime.
The San Miguel County Trails Council, 1992. Telluride Region Pathways Initiatives. With Norwood Ranger District, U.S. Forest
Service; Bureau of Land Management; National Park Service.
Trails and Wildlife Task Force, 1998. Planning Trails with Wildlife in Mind. Colorado State Parks/Hellmund Associates,
2840 S. Kearney St., Denver, CO
80222. (303) 759-3735. phellmund@aol.com
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program, and Pennsylvania State
University, 1992. The Impacts of
Rail-Trails: A Study of Users and
Nearby Property Owners from Three Trails.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration, 1995. Bicycle
Safety-Related Research Synthesis.
Research and Development, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, 6300
Georgetown Pike, McLean, VA 22101-2296.
Weber County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 26 of the
Revised Ordinances of Weber County, Utah, 1985).
Publication current as of ordinance 2001-2, 1/10/01. Weber County Planning Commission, 2380
Washington Blvd., Suite 240, Ogden, UT
84401. (801) 399-8791.
Wheaton, Bob, 1994.
“Sheriffs Report Crime Not a Problem on Trail,” Traverse City
Record-Eagle. Traverse City, MI
