1
50
5
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/fa672d65e76caf9ce2d084aff995456b.pdf
5e5fc2d36374c29656e02963ef263214
PDF Text
Text
655 Canyon Road
Logan, UT 84321
August 22, 1994
Mr. Dave Berg
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Dear Mr. Berg,
As a charter member of Citizens for the Protection of Logan
Canyon and a longtime activist on the Logan CanyonlU.S. 89 question,
I have recently had the opportunity to study the preliminary draft of
the Record of Decision. I write now to tell you that in my opinion,
the ROD manifests the same errors and oversights, and the same
fundamental mispapprehension, that so unfortunately characterized
the DEIS and the PElS.
The basic problem with the ROD is that the purpose and need
for the project have simply not been established. The traffic-flow
projections and th~ safety argument are still being based on deeply
flawed data. The ROD admits problems with the data but goes right
on to assume the essential correctness of all assumptions flowing
from the faulty statistics. Without rigorously collecting and checking
traffic flow data over a period of time, maintaining consistent check
points, how can UDOT make any believable projections of flow for the
future, and how can UDOT present any accident-rate analysis at all?
The fact is that there is no traffic problem in Logan Canyon,
and no particular safety problem other than the slow deterioration of
three bridges.
The ROD skims over this huge and glaring hole in the project's
rationale. It then proceeds to handle the comments, questions, and
opposition of the public with what must be called pure arrogance. To
the very serious objection that no study was ever done on people's
values and perceptions concerning the Canyon, the ROD devotes only
eight dismissive words. To the often-proposed idea of using turnouts
instead of passing lanes, the ROD has no substantive response at all .
To the detailed and specific critiques of UDOT's traffic and safety
numbers, critiques offered by several highly qualified scientists, the
response is simply that UDOT used standard and professional
methods of analysis. This is not a response.
To the concept that
•
•
•
�Logan Canyon is as much a destination as a route of travel to
somewhere else, and thus should be treated in a special way, the ROD
simply says the canyon is both a destination and a route, and then
goes ahead to treat it as a route only.
I believe an objective observer must conclude that UDOT has
never truly considered the objections to this project. They only
conducted an EIS when forced to. They hired a consulting firm that,
to judge by the evidence, gave them what they wanted--a green
light. They absolutely ignored overwhelming public opinion against
their "preferred alternative" and in favor of the Conservationists'
Alternative.
They continue to use, and possibly abuse, flawed basic
data in order to justify their project. The conclusion appears
inescapable: UDOT wants to build this project, and will let nothing
stand in their way.
If I may offer a suggestion: Issue a ROD on the three bridges
(these have never been a point of contention), and then, while the
bridges are being rebuilt, conduct a genuine Environmental Impact
Statement process and issue a Supplemental EIS on the remainder of
the project.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Lyon
�February 10, 1989
Dale Bosworth
Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National Forest
125 South State St.
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111
Dear Dale:
I regret I was unable to attend the meeting concerning the
Logan Canyon Highway Project on February 3. Unfortunately, it was
necessary for me to be out of Logan.
I have read the latest (Jan. 20th) version of the Agency Alternative for the project, and I am greatly concerned. I do not wish to analize it in detail here, but only to give you some general comments:
1. This is basically the high speed alternative in the preliminary
DEIS. We appear to be just about where we were over two years (and
endless amounts of time and energy) ago.
2. The middle section of the Canyon has been reduced to only 4 milesfrom Right Fork to lower Twin Bridge; we regard the middle section as
the entire distance from Right Fork to Ricks Springs. This redesignation,
with the attendent upgrading of the road to a 35 mph design (probably
50 mph signing) from Twin Bridge to Ricks Springs is unacceptable, since
the consequent environmental damage will be severe.
3. The high speed design of the upper section will result in unacceptable environmental impacts, particularly in the Beaver Creek and
Summit sections.
4. There are several safety concerns vlith respect to the placement
of passing lanes, especially in the Dugway and near the Limber Pine
turnout.
5. The implementation of this alternative requires 45 (!) ammendments to the Forest Plan, surely a new worlds record for any forest
plan involving a single project. The cumulative effect of this large
number of ammendments is such that a major change in The Plan will
be required - a revision, with everything that implies. Attempts to
get by with an ammendment will certainly be appealed.
6. The Agency Alternative has little detail, making analysis of
its impacts by citizens not throughly acquainted with both the area and
the previous history almost impossible. If it appears as such in the
EIS, the EIS will be challenged as not meeting NEPA criteria.
7. The cover letter sent with the alternative, bearing the signatures of the three agency engineers, attempts to disclaim the alternative as a "preferred" alternative. This is, to say the least, disingeneous. Any alternative that is endorsed by a Forest Service rep-
�presentative is clearly destined to become the "preferred alternative."
I wish to repeat something live said in previous meetings with you: we
accepted the Forest Plan on the assumption it was to be taken seriously
by you. It states, e.g., that liThe road will not be raised to a higher
standard than existing." (Chapter 6, p. 236). Other places in the plan
are clear about maintining the scenic quality of the highway (VQO classification, e.g.). You have recently designated the highway as a "Scenic
Byway". If the Plan had proposed the kinds of changes found in the Agency
Alternative, it certainly would have been appealed. To abandon the Plan
now, under pressure from UDOT and FHWA, is to break faith with the environmental community and reduce Forest Service credibility to a new low.
Stn+:erely,
•
.--,
-7
Jack T. Spence
Dept. of Chemistry
Utah State University
Logan, Ut 84322
cc: Dave Baumgartner
Tom Lyon
Dick Carter UWA
Steve Flint
Bruce Pendery Bridgerland Audubon
Rudy Lukez Utah Chapter, Sierra Club
,
�tate 0
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EH. Findlay
.
Director
G Sturzenegger, P .
ene
.E
Assistant Director
H. H. Richardson,P .
.E
North Wall Avenue
POB 2747
. . ox
Ogden. Utah 84404
169
SamuelJ. Tay r
lo
Chai rman
W eSW
ayn . inters
Vice Chai r man
JamesG. Larkin
February 2, 19MaunCox
Tdd G. Weston
o
Elva H. Anderson
Secretary
Disl.ri cl Directo r
To Whom It May Concern:
The attached document is an alternative for improvements to SR-89 in Logan
Canyon. Elements of the alternative have been carefully examined by
representatives of the UOOT, FHWA, and USFS. This document should not be
considered as a preferred alternative, nor as completely addressing impacts of
the suggested elements, but as one alternative of many possible alternatives.
If the environmental impact on an element by element, and total element basis
is acceptable, as analyzed in the environmental impact statement, then the
elements of this alternative should be pursued. This alternative will be
included in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Various groups may wish to meet with agency representatives to discuss this or
other improvement concepts. Arrangements can be made by contacting Lynn
Zollinger at 399-5921.
Sincerely yours,
Richard Harris, P.E.
USFS, Forest Engineer
LRZljw/0924J
an equal opportunity employer
n Silver, P.E.
, Area Engineer
n R. Zo lnger, P. E.
Preconstruction Engineer, 0-1
�655 Canyon Road
Logan, tIT 94321
January 17, 1989
Dave BaUTIBa:r tner, District Ran er
U ..
Fores t Service
860 N. 1200 r: .
Logan, UT 84321
J
.
Dear Dave:
Stew Flint provided Ire vlith a ooPY of tJ'1e "agency alternative"
on the Logan Canyon Jigrrway, and. I presume you might t:e interested in
having ccmnents on it.
The dOC1..ltmnt represent:.S no significant change frQ"ll tJDOT' ~' 1979
p lans for Logan ('",,'lIlyon. It reflects absolutely none of the I.D. team' s
input, delivered in bA16nty-two meetings, each of several hoUrs' duration.
It reflects no environrrental consciotl."3ness at all, but i s Jasically an
en1]iI1eering statement. It makes the old, thoroughly discredited ar<Jl!frent
ti'.at flattening curves (t.l)ereby increasing speeds) is sorreh<:Hl going to
inprove safety. In sum, this document tal<.es us back to s qu8le one in
the whole process. It a.:OlJI1t'3 to a declaration of \iar against the canyon
and against the p...~ple defending it.
'!'he rrost g laring p rocedural flat., in this OoCllInf'..nt is that it offers
onl y vague inforrration on just ",hat cons truction is contemplated, in
s:pecific places. It defers consideration of specific construction plans
until a later hearing--later than the hearings for the DElS. If I am not
mistaken, this is not )EPA Folicy.
This dccurrent calls for 49 amendments to the Forest Plan. vJhy not be
straightforward about it and say that the Forest Plan, as it applies to
logan Canyon, is totally irreleva.1'1t? The cumulative effect-s of 49
J:nPJ1ts surely add up to a revised Forest Plal1.
It seem..g apparent that the
Forest Service has in eff~"Ct ded.ded that Logan canyon i s in fact !'lot any
kind of a special scenic resource i so let's revise the Pla."'1 to reflect the
actual assessment of the Forest Service.
"
The re-channeling of Eeaver Creek is an enviro11l:!'ental outrage, and I
believe it itlill be seen this TNay by sportsnan's groups as vlell as by anyone
generallv concerned \vl. th the environi11E:mt. The extraordinary number and
- passing lanes in the upl?6r canyon ".,ill silt~)ly invite high spgeds,
of
t..'1u~ reducing safety.
rrh.e three engineers ~'lho drew up t..'1is doCUi1Ent do
not appear to realize that flOv within a system cannot be faster t.~an its
l
slCY.Nest single point ~ their p lans for Logan Canyon vlOuld have areas of
very high speeds suddenly funneling dO'VTI to areas of lo,..er speeds. This
could be calaITlitous.
I will save deta:i..led <::x::lII'!.rent~ on each mile or tenth of a mile for a
future opportunity. \ t present I will only Sllnmarize by saying that the
ph1.1of'"ophy behind this "agency alt.emative" is only too clear. vf uat dis"
tresses me alrrost equally with the contemplated envirol1I'l'ental destruct.i.on
is the Forest Service's apparent acquiescence in it.
~
c mcere1y,
·
Thomas J. Lyon
•
•
�.
./
. - ~ ..-v't.?.
:r
~
f~
A'-
:-z.- :...<-,...<
.
./4 ~
-
(
•
<
�f
R-234
RECEIVED
MAr 29
emoran um·
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC1N'987
.CH2 M HII.J..
DATE: May
TO
. Those listed Below
•
19,~~7
r:
._0'
FROM
: R. James NaegI '
.-, "1!; lnee f
Location and Enviro~ ental Studies
,
I
\
SUBJECT: Logan Canyon,
u.s.-84
J
I
Study
Biological Assessment
•
Atta ~ hed
is a copy of the Biological Assessment done by
Stanley L. Welsh, Endangered Plant Studies, Inc., of Orem
Utah.
The Maguire Primrose found in the project vicinity is
the object of the Biological Assessment.
If you have questions or comments, please contact John Neil
of our office at 965-4227.
Thank you for your cooperation.
RJN/JNeil/ps
Attachment
cc:
~~
Robert Ruesink, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Daniel Dake, FHWA
s.tan.. Nuffer, CH2M Hill
Eduardo Norat, UDOT
John Neil, UDOT
•
•
�•
•
ENDANGERED PLANT STUDIES, INC.
129 North 1000 East
Orem, Utah 84057
(80n 225-7085
18 May 1987
James R. Naegle, P.E.
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
~lr.
d,I}'
..
Utah Department TranlpOnallori
location & Environ. Sludies
This report is in response to your letter of 5 May 1987 delivered to EPS
Dear Mr. Naegle:
•
MAY 1 9 1987
from the Utah Department of Transportation on 7 May 1987 regarding a
biological assessment of a segment of the highway in Logan Canyon
' (Project No. 1371163, FO; Authority No. 5988).
An on-site survey was conducted during the period May 11-12 on a segment
of the Logan Canyon highway adjacent to and east of the Wood Camp
Trailer Park to the vicinity of milepost 385, a distance of
approximately 1000 feet, and for another 1000 feet east of there to
assure coverage of a second population of of Maguire primrose (no. 5 of
the attached map).
Prior to the on-site survey a literature review was undertaken.
Specific references were sought concerning present knowledge of the
distribution of Primula maguirei, a species listed as threatened under
stipulations of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Literature reviewed included status reports by Welsh in 1979 and the
Utah Native Plant Society (Padgett 1987). The latter report is
sUlmnarized in an Apri 1 1987 report to the Utah Department of
Transportation by CH2M Hill, which was made available by your office.
The Maguire primrose is apparently a calciphile, restricted to Laketown
and Fish Haven dolomite formations. It js likewise a mesophyte, growing
where moisture is available at least through the flowering period, which
apparently is from early April to after mid-May. Plants in more arid
and exposed sites flower first, followed later by those of the more
protected and shaded areas.
Proposed highway modifications, alternatives 81, C1, and D1, were
considered. All are essentially within the area of concern for a
principal population (designated in reports as population 4) of the
Maguire primrose. The plant occurs on outcrops of limestone south of
the highway, beginning at a point approximately 700 feet west of
milepost 385 and extending east to a point approximately 350 feet west
of that milepost. The population, estimated to contain 176 clumps of
•
Maguire primrose (Padgett 1987), occurs in small aggregations on exposed
boulderlike outcrops at the west edge of the population. The initial ,
ano
(westernmost) occurrences are about 40 to 50 f'eet above the h
about that same d
~
roa
er.
rd
•
�•
•
the limestone is exposed as a cliff-forming unit and the population is
largest in the area where it is most exposed to ~h.f= li i,gb!.Jay, • ..aO u.L ,550...
_
Q.
feet west of milepost 38.5 - At that most developed and deeply shaded
__
exposure the plants occur in profusion, beginning at a point estimated
at about 30 feet above the existing road. Eastward the exposure trends
upward in elevation and the population follows that exposure to perhaps
a hundred feet above the roadway.
The second population in close proximity to the proposed modification
(population 5) begins some 400 or 500 feet to the east of the east end
of the area of concern. The plants are more remote from the highway and
the plants are more scattered. There does not seem to be any potential
impact of the present proposal on that population.
Three other plants were noted in the CH2M Hill report indicated above.
They are Erigeron cronQuistii, Musineon lineare, and Penstemon
compactus. All are currently cited as Category 2 plants in the Federal
Register, indicating that they are possible candidates for future
listing processes. Of these species only MusineQn was noted within the
proposed construction site. The species is a corrnllon component of the
limestone cliffs plant couullunities in Logan Canyon. It is growing with
the Maguire primrose at the population 4 site. The proposed action is
not thought to constitute a significant threat to the Musineon or t o the
other category 2 species.
•
•
Two concerns were stated in the CH2M Hill report for the Maguire
primrose, especially at population 4. Other populations (2, 3, and 6 )
known for the species are considered by me to be too remote from the
construction site as to be threatened by the proposed action. The
concerns involve cold air drainage down Logan Canyon, and the moderating
effect of canyon bottom vegetation on adjacent cliffs serving to buffer
the existing populations of Maguire primrose. To these can be added a
third concern -- dust from construction activities. Dust might overlay
stigmas thus providing competition for pollination and reduced seed set.
err?
tu( 'Concern
I
number one, cold air drainage, does not seem to be significant.
The draina e of cold air is expected to continue atGUt- as i n th e pasf ,
regardless of highway modifications. The second concern is probably
more lmportar.t, but, it s 0 rd be 0 ed, that the best developed part of
the population of Maguire primrose at pop~lation 4 is on the most
=7
exposed portion of the cliff system (i.e., there is little or n~
~
screening ve etetation betwe
e 0 ulation....and-the road). _However,
in pow of action all possible care should be given to preventiOn of
wholesale removal of the remaining screening vegetation. Only that part
of the canyon bottom vegetation apsolutely in the way of_construction
should be removed. The third concern, dust, can be mitigated by waiting
until the flowering period is over prior to corrmencement of construction
activities, i.e., construction should commence no earlier than June.
" -- - - --
The nearest approach of the construction is at the bend of the road at
the westernmost edge of the population 4 site. It is understood that as
•
much as 10 feet of the toe of the ridge might have to be removed to
allow proper alignment of the roadway. This sho~ld cause no problem to
the PQ,Qulation if the rockwork is
dertaken I-lith s~re. Blasting shou l d
be kept at a minimum and proper barriers constructed as to prevent
•
�uphill scattering of debris.
--
--
If the recommendations cited above are followed there should be minimal
or no 'mpiilc-t- to- the_Magui re primrose PQpulation 4. The other
populations will not be adversely affected.
,
With best regards,
Sincerely yours,
.
,
•
4 -
P '
I
I
' ;, " ~I J'
"
,
.
r.
•
I{.
;'
I
,
I
'/
. ,
f • ;
t
.
'.
.
'
,
r
..,
I
,
,
'
.,:
(I
,, .... :.,.~. L
,\
Stanley- L/ Welsh
,
President
I
�•
) /
"
}
II
'
"
('
/· " I
t
·
.vv" ... . .. .
J
·
.
'0 '"
... ,
-~
r. '"
--
~
"r
CONTOUR INTERVAL .11) . - ....
~-
..
._.I
•
"J ',
.'
..
., ", , : , .'
,
, I
\ ..
, ..
' :. .'-~
'.
,\
.
•
I '\
I . ,.
I
(
'
-...
~
.
(,
' .-
,
,'\ ..
.,
\': ':1 . '
", ...
:
.. "...
.'-../. ,.
.....
j
'.
-.
.
,
,
\
o ·
, , .\. ... . ,. ,~'-..J-.-'
.".
.
,
,
•
\
.
.. "
..
\
~
;
.'
..
,
.
,
,
\
,
'
,
,
,
'
..I
.,
/- -
: -~- . -.:\"---./ . ..- ...... _.. .. ..:.. :.:, ., ,' . ;..
•• ' . , ' . . ~ ... ; t
.,
,
,
I
-,
'
-- .
" ,
,
,-
"
•
':---:.----;'--.
".
",
,
•
.
"'
"
I
,
,
" ,--.:....- /', : . ,-""
.. ..
,
,
~
. ...
:',
'
. '..
'.
..
'--'
'
'
,,
, ',
•,
,
,
•
,
•
,
,
:I
. ,
.. ,
,
"...
, ,
"
..
I
I
_ "' .
(
, ..
,
-
,
'
47'30"
r
, ,
.
,
-
.,
)
I
'-/]
,
•
'
,
."
.
'
'"
.' i',
,
,I
,
: ,
I
..
,.
. , ,. ..,,
,
,
'
'
• ..
•
: j
I
,
- ,,-:, .~
I. ·, .
I
I
-
.....
• ..J' :".
. . .-'-
•
'" ( ;. , (.
', I {''''
!,,
:
,
,,
,,
.
)
)I
\
.
L··
(
.
,
,
~
'
6997
,;
(
\
\
•
,
,
... - '.
,
,
~
-.
..
~ - .. ::' ,'
1.., ",--"_ ~ 600
,
,
'" .
,
_
.
..
-. .
.-
.
...
...
'. . .'.
.,
.
- '
- .-.
'--" '!
\-',
'
'
,
. '
61
... -'../ •
)
-'
,
,
,
.'
,./
._-
.,
•
-
•
,, ,
;;,......I
,
( :'
\
"
. r
---
)'J
_.
./
i
"-....
,
-,,-,
.
,
,
•
....
r"
,
-"
,
,
'
"
,
,
;, .
,
••
.I
,
,,
.
.,
, ..
I,
,
,
.
.
.
I
-
..
-..
'
•
.
•,
,
,
,•
I
•,
,
-
~--:I
,
,
,,
"
..
,
• ,
,
,
,
~
.
.
{
I
I
I
•
\\
,
,
I
. ,(
.
'
;
,
\
'
,,
,
• I
f
;
,
~
•
'
') ', \ .' ,'----'
I .
•
\
"
• • I
'
o
\
•
"
.
"
,
,
. .\.., . .
.
,
--
-
-.
( Ii
"), ~ \
"
! '
\i
,'
..
, I •
; · · ·.I·;~
1; r--/\ ~\."
','\
, . ,'\
,
•
• 'I ,'
.
,f ,
,,
•
'
'
"
,
-..., ..
' I '
•
"
•
~-A
.
\i', ~\\ 'i, .
,
,
,
"'
'"
..
,, ,
6761
"
•
"
.
..•,•,
,
,
I '
Portion of the Mount Elmer 7.5
minute quajrangle map s~owing
the approximate boundaries of
populations 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
'~25
"
�45 ~~ - 400 W
Logan, UT S4321
24 .January, 1989
Dear Dave,
Since we last t<11ked, Lynn Zollineer has g iven us the oppor tunity
to reviJe the conservationist's proposal. We have decided to take
advBn tage of tLi s oH)ortuni ty. 'Nhi Ie we do not plan 8 Y1.y maj or change s
in our plan of a year and a half ago, this will p€rmit us to
rc: sp~nd once again wi th our cOIJ.Jerns over UDO'l" s al-'parent preferred
a 1 terYla ti ve. We can a Iso update t h e few 10ca ti ons w!lere thin["s
have eh8.nged.
As I m enti~n ed last week, the a gency altel~ative seems to be the
D alter~ ative fer all except 4 miles. We share your concerns ttat
the environm
ental analysis w!lich we have seen is weak. The desires
of UDCT to put much of this (eg. rubble disI)osal) off un. til the
"design hearings" is particularly worri some.
We will be in touch when we produce this reviseo draft. If UDCT
would be willing to meet with us now we can once again try to
expl.ain our concerns.
Sincere1..y,
/U~ 2-:-e~:r
Steve Flint
•
Copies: Tom 1,";on /
"
Jacij:kSpence
B'ruce Pendery
•
P. S. It is also disappointing to note that, despite the national
recognition which the Forest Service has given to the scenic
qualities of Logan Canyon, UDOT has put off all ~ention of
turnouts until the design hearings. I worry thc:.t "Sight distance
and tapers" will be difficult to include, so we will end up
with no turnouts.
•
I
~"'7
A- ~I /~,;f
•
tAlloT ~ ~ /tz~7"
~ v~~h /tI-evr'd~ ~v
,
'
e- ,
�1/20/69
Dear Dave:
T
--In gene ral t his plan ." t ··l'l""".:.'
,
on l"2Jrunirl.g
'I''':>
~ "-"_'
;:) . ' L
c' 0'
the f ollowing COrnme!lt.s :
Al tenlat.i ve " I
.!.n responee
tJS
.I J ,-,
;:~L~l-'E: r}l i ,gJ-l\-lay
"
a
sim
ply cannot t olerate
appealing ,
,
im
pacts
t.:ll.. :3E:
;
- - 1• o·
'-IF-
-
"'I
.-
-;:.rodl.lctive
.I..
.... . ,-
o
, .
, - ·-r l· +·
'· . ' ''' J· '' . ~ ·'__ , .L J. 1 0'
' ,_", n.:
,- ",, .i'='- ~
A1 t.'<:: J. , .'.,. ,' .J.. 'of" r:..
-L
,
...J...
.,1 .1 "'_'
,
, .,
.
4
..
.
..
· '.
h\
HY
,J:=~ ..
... . ......... u"-I
_
.
+ ":\ ~ .!:0- ........:. . ..l..=T,
............ ' ~ " .
~...
l.I 1-=-1
,
- ,. ..
Llc'
.• ' .... 1,..)
\I
..L.-J
... ...... ~-,
+,-:.'"
..
'. 1
'
.J,..~
_
_ ... _ r
1-,
'_' 1... t-: 4..I,.- t,J. ..i. .,../.
._'J. ... _' '. ,_ . ..
~
,
,
-
.
--)=-'T ",""1
..L ~.l ).".1 .'
l.l l
T
J,.- ~
.. -
•
.
'-\..- ....
,
-1: I
,
"
.
-. J..
\.,
,~
-
~ ': 7 ..:.....:~
I _~ . I • ' ,. ' . ' •
- ~
r-f ':. +
..,.
y
..... _
,
.
11
-.
.-. "'1 -- ..
'-} i. .1 i
-,.
~
.··.·.... iJCi f., 1
::. _
1._ .L.
t•
•
_ ' _
r ·.:..:....
... .1 '_';' \. ... .... .L , _-;
I
_ , ,,,, - '- '
.... , . r" 1
1 f_••........ -',
J,..
' \I .....
T,c
1.!.
I
,- "" .i.- -_·ct
C:.;.;-)"'jJ-, "· l
II
~ ~ -. -~
'-- 1
D" . -,. -, ..
-i t::::' -' +'
t_, OJ
-: n~
' - - ' .0.,::)
: .~
-
) . ; , ..... I
1 •• ."
"
~
•.:;. ;J.,dJC·,1 lttt::l
,_~
..... ........t:.;,-......
..
• ', - ' '-'
--.. .
'
" » .... .:,
1_' J l ..... .~
," c
' _'J..
(~lc:ar l)r
,
,,,-). , - ~.
:.. <>
thE::
·' i.Jill
0
.. . ···.l,_ 7,- ...···'::; t 'I"'-Tu
. ....
.
' . t'_ Y; J .L...:
' ..s.." ' _.
....,C J.. 1 •
J.."" .. ,-,\.-.
\ -,
.-. "....
;_, I..' ~ '_-,
'
- '
t .........
"..",
- . . . .... ._' -' ,
'
( - . ;:)
~, -
.
....... ~
...
-.
••
' - ;'
-.
-'
,
'-').':'1'V ';. ', - ,.\ ,
U
,
~
.- -
,,;:. C ~' : ,--" ~
'_' _'" J. • .,n _ , ,
_ ... _ "
-
-'
~ ... .
...........
• r-.;.)
~
..... ~ l
'.
·
1 ~ .J.
y, ,- , ... .
....
1·i ~ •., J..' .-'l'
' L -:'i
11
,
.... ~.l. l.. " - ' .....\....&..
-
\. ' ... J. _ '
J.
~
.
1. ~ . ·· -,' -'- r. ,... .
'-
-"- }-1,:>
1..'
_,
j
"
.
,
~'l '~ Yr ,_,
..::..
J. . ..
-;:,' :n1 l \ ::V ~ .:: 2..(~;1
J..
~
i ...: .-: ,, - ' hil l
,
lS
-; l ...... _
_ IT.Jt);-~. (' :
-
I 1"
,
t.t=. E..t
, " -'
J..
,
1
.](.u1d
. . . .J.J ..... " ." .....
........" . . .. ,.. .._-1...• ........, J,"''..,1'... +--" 1
.
,_ .... .,i.
'.
.::.
J.._,
1..' -,,'.
'_ ...
....
, ~
'
~
~ ........... _ .....
J"'; . ] r ,..........
o
~
....... , ....- 'T'1
"::'1 : ...... . ':"'1 ...
the.
3. r(~
_
.. ".- ..
J,
111 'f'-,/'
_
env i~om;)E::n t
....P- .Im- 111
.,:1
~-! .::..
""1 .,
-
, :
.
C'::-tnyon; an
,
3110
~
°ql, ,=<<l .... . one ,
1
_'
ot._ pe
bsck t.o
.
__..-c '
• 1 ~ ,.
-. '
;
, 1
"-
-
'''' u ':. .. ",;;..
_'
-" ,..,..
: ~
;. --
-
ll.l\_·' • .u "\"
~
.. . ... ..:,;., • • ' . ' "! .... ~-"~,,
J,. ...... . _ •• •
I
~
rl
_..' -...
. ,
-
l '"' .,.") ,.
,
.... .........:..- J. I.' )
"
T'_ - .., ...
, J
c "'- ...
1,, .' ' 1-' 1.A... 11 _.,:. ,-.• _'
",", ~"'~":
_ ~,
plan .
~
OI
.; -+,.... ~
1
,, ~
\ .-1 '_'
~..,\ ..::. ~ 1 - ,. ,,;'
..... ... . ' ._ J..
.
'=- ' r
'. '. J..
" ,-' .. .,.
.....
t:::
,
.)' '-J" ' _ . .,\...•.=-,
- , ,_
,j. J .
\
Cl"" . .. V
_ -1"..
,-.,- . .
~- " -
.
o
...
cr~~ ,r. ~
\_ I~ _. _ J '. _ ' _
..
,
11.
"\"~ " I_. - . .-1
t,(_~
l' I _+- - .... \_" ...'_' L. ~
,
.:tj, J.
(
"
,
,
• .L.
t..-' ~\
_, ~_,
l.~t l' ,:;0 ,'-'', l .0::: '"
.::.
11',!, ,_. ,
~ r ,.,.
t 'l..L,)... ~"'....~ ,="
o-I
,
l fl
,
,
... .......... t....: ,.." (_.,-~ •
,.. .... ...-'
.L.b ....
to
,
'-'1' - .~ .- ._ '-,
.
.1:-; '_. i:" C:11 .L
- :.. .'" I.,
! I J '_ ..Y
~
.- .1.., . .J... .~'ir
"- .~ "'J[1""'! _
.
-;.. ::. y- _ . -.:'" .•.. . .-.
,: ...
.. . :_. '(" ...., 1 .-,'_" .. ,_ . ..l....
.
"
t.o
.)
"
r
1
. ...r->.......
-- _ .
· .j· ~ ; J. ·" }1
1 .. .!," -....
C.. C .':'c.. .l...L
;. '
.....-. ..... 'I;
will
.,t '. '
.t:" ._ .-
,
,
~ ,,,,,
-' ,' 0 1 -.i.. '1." i -- ''
..--, '''' '''
-5
. .....:
I
' .J.
L ·
•
- '\ ., 0::- . . ... .
l.-:' _ ..., t. ... ~y .-:.
-
,
"
-)
,_ .L
T
-"-
�•
January 22, 1988
Editor, The Herald Journal
75 W 300 N
Logan, Utah 84321
Dear Sir:
As a member of the 10 team responsible for preparation of technical information for the Logan Canyon highway project EIS, I am
appalled at the recent decision by UDOT to pursue the maximum development alternative.
•
If this alternative is implemented, most of the canyon from
Right Fork to Ricks Springs (as well as major sections of the upper canyon) will be severely affected. Much of the free running
river will be channeled within retaining walls, the river bed itself will be altered, the riparian zone (on which the wildlife
depends) will be destroyed, the fishing and water quality will
be degraded, the river will disappear beneath cantilever structures,
the lovely riv~rside rock ledges will by dynamited, huge cuts
.
in the hillsides will be made, thousands of cubic yards of fill
will be dumped into side canyons, large amounts of conifer forest
and other vegetation will be bulldozed and Logan Canyon as we
now know it will be gone forever.
UDOT has made this decision in spite of the overwhelming public opposition to this alternative expressed in the scoping meetings, in spite of a legally binding Forest Service Plan which designates Logan Canyon as a scenic highway and prohibits the destruction consequent to the project, and in spite of the best efforts
of environmental representatives on the 10 team in endless meetings over more than two years to achieve a reasonable compromise
which protects the canyon and also allows necessary improvements.
In fact, the UDOT decision prepresents a no compromise position,
essentially identical to their position in 1980. In short, UDOT.
in their incredible arrogance, has listened to no one and has
learned nothing. Two years or work and over $600,000 of taxpayers
money have been wasted. Preservation of the scenic beauty and the
environmental quality of Logan Canyon is of no apparent concern
to this public agency.
Many people have asked me what they can do to protect the canyon. Telephone calls and letters to James Naegle, Utah Department
of Transportation, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, 84119
protesting the decision, and to Dave Baumgartner, U.S. Forest Service, 860 N 1200 E, Logan supporting the Forest Service Plan are
needed. Later, there will be an opportunity for both oral and
written comments when the DEIS is released. Additional information may be obtained by calling 753-8548. Only a concerned
citizenry can preserve Logan Canyon from the mindless destruction planned for it by UDOT.
Jack T. Spence
361 Blvd
Logan, Ut 84321
-
�January 11, 1988
Mr. James Naegle
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 So. 2700 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
Dear Jim:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning my efforts in the
Logan Canyon DEIS study.
•
While I appreciate your comments, I find them inconsistent with
your actions. After spending the better part of two years attending meetings, reading documents, checking calculations, etc., I consider it an insult not to be provided with a copy of the preliminary
DEIS. It cost us (Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Utah Wilderness
Association) $20.00 to duplicate the Forest Service copy, which I
understand was made available to us only reluctantly and at the insistence of the Forest Service. So much for the good faith of UDOT.
I also wish to make some comments on the role of the 10 team
in this study. It was agreed early on that all technical memos
would be approved by the team. This has not been done. It was
my understanding the DEIS would be approved by the team. This is
clearly not to be done. Finally, it was also my understanding the
10 team would make recommendations concerning a preferred alternative. Again, this is clearly not to be done. I regard this as
a breach of faith by both UDOT and CH2M Hill.
The preliminary DEIS has several major problems:
1.The Spot Improvement Alternative must be considered as encompassing all 35 spot improvements. It is a violation of NEPA
requirements to present a shopping list, with UDOT selecting some
number of improvements from the list at a later date.
2.In view of this, there is no environmentally acceptable
alternative in the preliminary DEIS except No Action.
3.NEPA requirements have not been met with respect to a range
of alternatives. The Spot Improvement alternative with all 35
projects at the level described is essentially the same as Alternative C.
Unless our alternative (now in the Appendix), or a reasonably
similar alternative, is included as a legitimate alternative, we
will oppose all alternatives except No Action, or request that the
DEIS be rejected as not meeting NEPA requirements. Legal action
with respect to this request may also be pursued.
I regret the culmination of two years of effort has resulted
in this situation. The environmental representatives on the 10.
team have repeatedly tried to convince UDOT and CH2M Hill that
�their concerns need serious attention. It is clear we have failed.
and the present situation must be regarded as adversary.
Sincerely,
/;"1, ~--:
, ??
"
;
/
cc:Dale Bosworth
Dave Baumgartner
Lynn Zo 11 i nger
Stan Nuffer
UWA
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Steve Flint, Audubon Society
.
, I?;/ .
C
/ Jack T. Spence
v'
361 Blvd.
Logan, Ut 84321
�• •
I Izens
o
or
oan
rh.J ()
Wilson
e
~ £ //-J
Lcs+ -f,~ r
•
·ro ec Ion
_an on
r.
Tc, /k.e..A f a J.. ~ ~ ~
21 September, 1987
ret ... -eJfe.-/ 1-4 f-€>e-J;
From: Steve Flint ~~-k .'5!/{ -;f: <
He: ~gan Canyon highway project
·~ e ...,
F..nclosed are the ~errestrial Resources Technical Memorandum and
the biological assessment for Primula maguirei. This biological
assessment is referred to in the tech. memo as "Welsh 1987".
One of the most glaring faults of this tech. memo is the failure
to adequately discuss the disposal of waste material. Table 2 (p. 21)
lists a few locations (but does not address impacts), but does not
admit that these locations will only accolnodate a small portion of
the waste which the action alternatives will generate. CH2MHill's
refusal to discuss site-specific impacts contributes to this problem.
Table 1 (p. 18) shows the high percentage of the riparian zone
which would be impacted. Most of this impact would be retaining walls
at the edge of tl1e river, destroying all vegetation on one side of
the stream.
This document downplays the impacts on P. maguirei. One of our
concerns, which is not mentioned in this document, is the proposed
location of & slow vehicle turnout adjacent to population 4. We believe
this location is unacceptable as it would remove too much vegetation.
In addi tion, there is a "collection" danger: the primrose is attractive
1IIlhl?n it blooms in the sprine:. We fear people may not know of its
status and attempt to remove plants for their gardens. A related
problem is the display of papulation locations in Figure 1 (p. 8) •
We believe this is proprietary information which should not be included
in a document such a3 this which is available to the public. Much of it
is not even necessary for this study: populations 2 and 6 are outside
the study area, and population 3 is across the river from the highway.
The biological assessment dismisses the impacts to the primrose
by speculating on its physiologival performance. It should be pointed
out that nothing is known about the species' physiology; all the
speculation is based on its habitat. In addition, while the author
(Welsh) has considerable experience in taxonomy, I do not believe he
has much background in physiology.
Other tech. memos will follow shortly.
Note: Despite the fact CH2MHill had provided UDOT with a
draft of the EIS, they have not produced a final
version of the Terrestrial Resources tech. memo.
This June '37 version is the most recent draft.
p.o. box 3580 logan, ut 84321
Of
•
�• •
-
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
P. O. Box 3451, Logan, Utah 84323 - 3451
April 5, 1995
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon on
Thursday, March 30, 1995, filed a lawsuit against
Cache County and its County Council for not complying with the laws of the State of
Utah and the ordinances of Cache County when they issued a Special Permit to the
Westons permitting their sign in Wellsville Canyon. As an organization and as
individuals, CPLC has a long-standing interest in Cache County and its canyons. It is the
sentiment of the organization that permitting the sign, in direct violation of state and
county laws, set a dangerous precedent for Logan Canyon, as well as for all of the
canyons in the county.
Business signs are presently prohibited in Forest/Recreation Zones under the current
County Land Use Ordinances. Application for a Special Permit for the sign was first
submitted to the Cache County Planning Commission, which unanimously recommended
against the proposed sign because it was not in keeping with the Forest/Recreation Zone.
The Planning Commission suggested an alternative more in keeping with the Zone. The
County Council, which in the Ordinances has reserved to itself the final decision, granted
a Special Permit for the sign, which, in the meantime, had already been erected by the
Westons without a permit.
By filing this lawsuit, CPLC hopes to make certain that all county agencies follow legal
procedures when making decisions about public lands, including all canyons within
Forest/Recreation Zones.
CPLC could use your help in defraying the expenses of this lawsuit. If you have not sent
in your membership dues, please take this opportunity to do so. Or, if you are already a
member of CPLC, please consider making an additional contribution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------please print legibly
CPLC MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
Name
Address
City
State
Zip
Phone: Hom e_ _ _ _Work_ _ __
Areas of Expertise/ Willingness to Volunteer___________________________________
Regular Member ($10)
Student Member ($5)-:--_
I wish to make an additional contribution of: $10
$25
$50_ $100_
Other
-Send to: CPLC, P.O. Box 3451, Logan, UT 84323-3451
-----------------------------
•
�-, ,
,
•
Citizens for the Protection
of Logan Canyon
P.O. Box 3501
Logan, UT 84323
October 27, 1994
Mr. David W. Berg P.E.
Chief Environmental Engineer
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Dear Mr. Berg:
With our thanks to you personally for your willingness to hear our
case, and our appreciation for being included in the process of
modifying the Logan Canyon ROD, we wish to communicate our
provisional and conditional approval of the revised ROD. Specifically,
this approval refers to agreements between UDOT and representatives
of CPLC, arrived at in meetings taking place from December, 1993,
through October, 1994, as to what the final Logan Canyon ROD should
contain. We understand and accept the "quid pro quo" nature of those
negotiations, and the following represents the present CPLC position.
General Issues of Utmost Concern to CPLC:
With the exception of the need for replacing bridges, CPLC is not
persuaded that the project's overall purpose and need have been
demonstrated.
(2) CPLC remains concerned with the accuracy and statistical reliability
of both traffic-flow and safety data collected by UDOT. Before CPLC
could agree to any accident-dependent curve-flattening (for example,
curve #5 in Section 1a), the organization, as part of the CAT team, would
need to study the data being presented.
(3) CPLC restates its deep concern for the protection of any and all
wetlands and riparian areas along the project route, and its concern for
the longterm disposition of these sites.
(4) CPLC restates its deep concern for the intactness of the visual and
aesthetic resources of Logan Canyon, and restates its support of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest's Forest Plan of 1985, which states that
there shall be no degradation of the Canyon's visual resource.
(1)
�•
•
CPLCIUDOT
October 27, 1994
p. 2
(5) CPLC strongly supports the hiring of an independent consultant, to
be actively engaged in the design and construction phases of the project,
and to have site-specific stop-work powers during construction. CPLC
strongly supports the preparation of a detailed monitoring plan by
UDOT, which will spell out the qualifications, independence, and range of
specific powers of the consultant and the consultant's team, and will
detail the frequency and length of time of on-site inspections.
Point-by-Point Discussion:
[The following are specific issues of demonstrated concern to CPLC
members. Other issues may arise during the project's design phase.]
Roadway Widths
(1) CPLC understands that the roadway width from the beginning
of Section 1a to Lower Twin Bridge will be 26', and the roadway width
from Lower Twin Bridge to the end of Section 1b will be 34'.
(2) CPLC understands that the roadway width in the Lower
Upper Canyon -- specifically, from the cattle guard at Milepost 391.6 to
the Beaver Mountain turnoff -- will be 34'.
(3) CPLC remains concerned with the projected 40' roadway
width from Beaver Mountain turnoff to the Bear Lake Overlook.
A.
B.
Alignment
(1) CPLC continues to question the need for realignment of curves
in the project.
(2) CPLC strongly supports the present alignment for Curve #5 in
Section 1a.
(3) CPLC supports the proposed northern alignment for Curve #85.
Passing Lanes
(1) CPLC supports the use of slow-vehicle turnouts as preferable
to passing lanes, specifically through Section 2. CPLC remains concerned
with the number, location, and length of passing lanes proposed by
UDOT in Section 2.
C.
D. Bridges
CPLC understands that bridge replacement will the first
construction undertaken in the project.
(1)
�'.
0 '
•
,
.
••
CPLCIUDOT
October 27, 1994
p. 3
E.
Riprap and Retaining Walls
(1) CPLC strongly supports minimizing all uses of riprap and
retaining walls. Natural banks should be retained wherever possible.
F.
Location of the Batch Plant
(1) CPLC recognizes the complexity of environmental trade-offs
involved in the location of a batch plant for each specific phase of the
overall project. However, CPLC strongly supports the use of one batch
plant, located at the state equipment sheds, for all phases of the project.
G. Future Activity of CPLC
(1) CPLC looks forward to participating on the CAT team during
the design and construction phases.
(2) CPLC reserves its normal constitutional right to seek legal
redress in the event of noncompliance with the revised ROD, violation of
environmental law, or noncompliance with the 1985 Wasatch-Cache
Forest Plan.
. ..
Sincerely,
The Steering Committee
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Mark Bowen
Katherine Gilbert
Nathan Hult
Lauren Keller
Ronald Lanner
Thomas Lyon
Paul Packer
Gordon Steinhoff
---
-
----------
Sean Swaner
Christine Hult
�.'
.'
Citizens for the Protection
of Logan Canyon
P.O. Box 3501
Logan, UT 84323
October 27, 1994
Mr. David W. Berg P.E.
Chief Environmental Engineer
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Dear Mr. Berg:
With our thanks to you personally for your willingness to hear our
case, and our appreciation for being included in the process of
modifying the Logan Canyon ROD, we wish to communicate our
provisional and conditional approval of the revised ROD. Specifically,
this approval refers to agreements between UDOT and representatives
of CPLC, arrived at in meetings taking place from December, 1993,
through October, 1994, as to what the final Logan Canyon ROD should
contain. We understand and accept the "quid pro quo" nature of those
negotiations, and the following represents the present CPLC position.
General Issues of Utmost Concern to CPLC:
With the exception of the need for replacing bridges, CPLC is not
persuaded that the project's overall purpose and need have been
demonstrated.
(2) CPLC remains concerned with the accuracy and statistical reliability
of both traffic-flow and safety data collected by UDOT. Before CPLC
could agree to any accident-dependent curve-flattening (for example,
curve #5 in Section la), the organization, as part of the CAT team, would
need to study the data being presented.
(3) CPLC restates its deep concern for the protection of any and all
wetlands and riparian areas along the project route, and its concern for
the longterm disposition of these sites.
(4) CPLC restates its deep concern for the intactness of the visual and
aesthetic resources of Logan Canyon, and restates its support of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest's Forest Plan of 1985, which states that
there shall be no degradation of the Canyon's visual resource.
(1)
�CPLClUDOT
October 27, 1994
p. 2
(5) CPLC strongly supports the hiring of an independent consultant, to
be actively engaged in the design and construction phases of the project,
and to have site-specific stop-work powers during construction. CPLC
strongly supports the preparation of a detailed monitoring plan by
UDOT, which will spell out the qualifications, independence, and range of
specific powers of the consultant and the consultant's team, and will
detail the frequency and length of time of on-site inspections.
Point-by-Point Discussion:
[The following are specific issues of demonstrated concern to CPLC
members. Other issues may arise during the project's design phase.]
Roadway Widths
(1) CPLC understands that the roadway width from the beginning
of Section 1a to Lower Twin Bridge will be 26', and the roadway width
from Lower Twin Bridge to the end of Section 1 b will be 34'.
(2) CPLC understands that the roadway width in the Lower
Upper Canyon -- specifically, from the cattle guard at Milepost 391.6 to
the Beaver Mountain turnoff -- will be 34'.
(3) CPLC remains concerned with the projected 40' roadway
width from Beaver Mountain turnoff to the Bear Lake Overlook.
A.
.
-
-
Alignment
(1) CPLC continues to question the need for realignment of curves
in the project.
(2) CPLC strongly supports the present alignment for Curve #5 in
Section 1a.
(3) CPLC supports the proposed northern alignment for Curve #85.
B.
C.
Passing Lanes
(1) CPLC supports the use of slow-vehicle turnouts as preferable
to passing lanes, specifically through Section 2. CPLC remains concerned
with the number, location, and length of passing lanes proposed by
UDOT in Section 2.
D. Bridges
CPLC understands that bridge replacement will the first
construction undertaken in the project.
(1)
�•
CPLCIUDOT
October 27, 1994
p. 3
E.
Riprap and Retaining Walls
(1) CPLC strongly supports minimizing all uses of riprap and
retaining walls. Natural banks should be retained wherever possible.
F.
Location of the Batch Plant
(1) CPLC recognizes the complexity of environmental trade-offs
involved in the location of a batch plant for each specific phase of the
overall project. However, CPLC strongly supports the use of one batch
plant, located at the state equipment sheds, for all phases of the project.
G. Future Activity of CPLC
(1) CPLC looks forward to participating on the CAT team during
the design and construction phases.
(2) CPLC reserves its normal constitutional right to seek legal
redress in the event of noncompliance with the revised ROD, violation of
environmental law, or noncompliance with the 1985 Wasatch-Cache
Forest Plan.
. -Sincerely,
The Steering Committee
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Mark Bowen
Katherine Gilbert
Nathan Hult
Lauren Keller
Ronald Lanner
Thomas Lyon
Paul Packer
Gordon Steinhoff
-- --------Sean Swaner
--
Christine Hult
�[DRAFT]
Citizens for the Protection
of Logan Canyon
P.O. Box 3501
Logan, UT 84323
October 20, 1994
Mr. David W. Berg P.E.
Chief Environmental Engineer
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Dear Mr. Berg:
With our thanks to you personally for your willingness to hear our
case, and our appreciation for being included in the process of
modifying the Logan Canyon ROD, we wish to communicate our
provisional and conditional approval of the revised ROD. Specifically,
this approval refers to agreements between UDOT and representatives
of CPLC, arrived at in meetings taking place from December, 1993,
through October, 1994, as to what the final Logan Canyon ROD should
contain. We understand and accept the "quid pro quo" nature of those
negotiations, and the following represents the present CPLC position.
General Issues of Utmost Concern to CPLC:
CPLC is not persuaded that the project's overall purpose and need
have been demonstrated.
(2) CPLC remains concerned with the accuracy and statistical reliability
of both traffic-flow and safety data collected by UDOT. Before CPLC
could agree to any accident-dependent curveMflattening (for example,
IS iff ~edicni: 1a), the organization, as part of the CAT team, would
Hud "' "tidy the data being presented.
(~, ClYte testates its deep concern for the protection of any and all
\f,t1flnd8 tiiid riparian areas along the project route, and its concern for
th' imtgtefm disp()jition of these sites.
(4) CftLC restat~s its deep concern for the intactness of the visual and
ae~thede res911tc~~ of Logan Canyon, and restates its support of the
Wa§a·t~h-Ca£he National Foreses Forest Plan of 1985, which states that
there shall b~ no degradation of the Canyon's visual resource.
(5) CPLC stroftlly iiUppOtts the hiring of an independent consultant, to
be ~eHv"l)' enga86td ifi the design and construction phases of the project,
iUld to tUlve ~ite"specific stop .. work powers during construction.
(1)
�CPLC/UDOT
October 20, 1994
p.2
Point-by-Point Discussion:
[The following are specific issues of demonstrated concern to CPLC
members. Other issues may arise during the project's design phase.]
A.
Roadway Widths
(1) CPLC understands that the roadway width from the beginning
of Section 1a to Lower Twin Bridge will be 26', and the roadway width
from Lower Twin Bridge to the end of Section 1b will be 34'.
(2) CPLC understands that the roadway width in the Lower
Upper Canyon -- specifically, from the cattle guard at Milepost 391.6 to
the Beaver Mountain turnoff -- will be 34'.
(3) CPLC remains concerned with the projected 40' roadway
width from Beaver Mountain turnoff to the Bear Lake Overlook.
B.
Alignment
(1) CPLC strongly supports the present alignment for Curve #5 in
Section 1a.
(2) CPLC supports the proposed northern alignment for Curve
#85.
(3) CPLC continues to question the need for realignment of curves
in the project.
C.
Passing Lanes
(1) CPLC supports the use of slow-vehicle turnouts as preferable
to passing lanes, specifically through Section 2. CPLC remains concerned
with the number, location, and length of passing lanes proposed by
UDOT in Section 2.
D.
Riprap and Retaining Walls
(1) CPLC strongly supports minimizing all uses of riprap and
retaining walls. Natural banks should be retained wherever possible.
E.
Location of the Batch Plant
"
.
(1) CPLC recognizes the complexity of environmental trade-offs
involved in "the location of a batch plant for each specific phase of the
overall project. However, CPLC strongly supports the use of one batch
plant, located at the state equipment sheds, for all phases of the project.
�CPLCIUDOT
October 20, 1994
p. 3
F. Future Activity of CPLC
(1) CPLC looks forward to participating on the CAT team during
the design and construction phases.
(2) CPLC reserves its normal constitutional right to seek legal
redress in the event of noncompliance with the revised ROD, violation of
environmental law, or noncompliance with the 1985 Wasatch-Cache
Forest Plan.
[signed]
�Peter W. Karp
•
Forest Supervlsor
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Mr. Karp,
We are writing to you to request a rev iew of a previous
decision by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Recently, you
ammended the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource
Ma¢hagement Plan to provide interim protection to the Stillwater
Fork for possible inclusion in the nation's Wild And Scenic River
System.
It is our opinion that both we and your River Inventory Team
believe that at least one river segment on the Cache National
Forest, and probably two, should be eligible as a "recreational"
river under the national Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. These
segments are the Logan River (Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Ck.)
and the Right Hand Fo rk of the Lo gan River. There is currently a
proposed improvement of u.S. 89 by the Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT). The proposed improvement might harm the
river's flee-flowing nature. Therefore it is important to
consider the Logan River (Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek) now,
before said construction takes place.
We have evaluated this segment o f the Logan and found it is
free-flowing and outstandingly remarkable (see attached
documents). Your wild and Scenic River Inventory Team appears to
agree with us on the latter point. Co nsult Appendix D of the
recently amended Forest Plan. You will find that the
Identification Team ( IDT) found this segment might possess
outstandingly remarkable characterists in five (5) categories.
The IDT found the Stillwater Fork, which you set aside for
interim protection, might possess o utstandingly r e markable
characteristics in o nly one catego ry.
The problem may be that the IDT did not conside r the segment
free from roads because the Scenic Byway, U.S. 89, parallels the
river along this segment. However, we would call your attention
to the section of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for assessing
the free-flowing nature of a recreational river, it states,
"roads may parallel the river for much of its length as long as
much of the road is unobtrusive or well-screened."
We request that you and your Identification Team reconsider
this segment of the Logan. We would prefer assessments of the
Logan from the source to Beaver Ck., Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver
Ck., the Right Hand Fork of the Logan R., and Beaver Ck. (source
to Logan R.). We believe all of these segments may qualify as
recreational rivers under the nati o nal Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act.
Sincerely,
Citizens for the
Protection of
Logan Canyon
�655 Canyon Road
Logan, UT 84321
June 23, 1987
Mr. Stan "luffer
CH M I-'ill
2
Box 8748
Boise, ID 83707
•
Dear Stan:
First, thank you for this opportunity to comment on the drafts
of the technical memoranda and alternatives for the Logan Canyon DEIS.
I consider this a genuine opportunity to (possibly) save a great deal
of many people's time and energy.
If the DEIS reflects these memoranda,
in content and bias, I think I can assure you there will be an extremely
strong public protest.
As was mentioned yesterday at the meeting in Brigham City, the chief
problem with the memoranda, with the exception of the one on aquatic
resources~ is their very obvious bias toward a major road project.
For
example, the socioeconomic memo devotes many pages to the dependence of
Rich County upon Logan for various goods and services. The clear thesis
of this document is that an "improved" road through Logan Canyon is vital
to Rich County':s continued life and to its future development--at one point
even industrial development is mentioned as a future possibility for Rich
County, on the assumption that an "improved" Logan Canyon highway would
make such a thing possible. The fact is that Rich County exists and has
existed without serious hindrance caused by the two-minutes-slower Logan
Canyon highway of the present. The assumption that some kind of industrial
development would be good for Rich County is rank speculation, and judging
from the experience of ' places like Evanston and Rock Springs, is untrue.
But to set this kind of chamber-of-commerce dreaminess forth as a real
item of probability, in a technical memo, is nonsense.
It is also highly biased. We are all aware of the number and strength
of the comments given at the Logan scoping meeting. But these comments DO
NOT APPEAR IN ANY FORM AND ARE NOT REFERENCED ANYWHERE in the documents
supplied so far. They have been completely ignored. The memo on visual
resources is a strange effort to quantify perception and aesthetics, and
results only in fragmenting and obfuscating the real situation into a bunch
of numbers. The fact is that the natural appearance of Logan Canyon is,
along with the ecological health of the river, the absolute primary matter
in hand. I can assure you that perception and the aesthetic sense are not
satisfied by numbers--they are based in an entirely different mode of
awareness.
This brings me to what may be the central problem in documents of this
nature. They attempt to state qualitative issues in quantitative terms.
A wise man once said that to do this is like judging the "Mona Lisa" by
weighing the paint. In the present documents, it is blithely stated that
if native trout are killed by construction, well then we can plant some
�Stan Nu ffer
June 23, 1987
page 2
hatchery rainbows "to supplement angler catch rates," [po 38] and everything
will presumably be all right. But this is not so. There is a very great and
widely perceived difference between fishing for wild trout and fishing for
stocked trout; as a matter of fact, this very difference is the basis for the
Logan River's attractiveness as a qual tty trout stream. And it is a primary
reason for the Logan River's being a "million-dollar" fishery. This difference
between quality and quantity cannot be mitigated. It is a basic fact of
existence.
In the same way, you cannot mitigate a road-cut across a hillside. It is
simply there, and it destroys the wholeness of the scene which arouses the
qualitative sense of beauty. This is what the people in the Logan scoping
meeting were trying to say, one after the other. The issues are beauty and
wholeness. You can't fragment these things into a bunch of numbers and expect
people to be satisfied, just as you can't substitute a flabby hatchery fish,
raised on food pellets and habituated to a looming human figure bringing food,
for a wild and wary trout in a natural stream.
The documents presented so far clearly indicate that none of the alternatives
preserves Logan Canyon. "Spot Improvements" was supported by a number of
people at the Logan meeting, including mysel f; but now "Spot Improvements" has
ballooned into a major realignment of the highway in several crucial and
environmentally sensitive sections, and cannot be supported any longer. It
is decidely misleading, and even deceptive, to place "Spot Improvements" next
to "No Action," because it is emphatically not the second-least-damaging
alternative.
.
The documents presented so far are biased individually and in the
aggregate. For just one example, "Aquatic Resources" mentions millions of
dollars being spent on the Logan River by fishermen, but this money somehow
does not appear in the socioeconomic memo. Why not? (If we get down to arguing
dollars and cents, which again is not the central issue here, I wonder if all
the alleged Rich County dependence on Logan amounts to a sum comparable to that
spent by Logan River fishermen.)
For another example, which appears again and
again throughout the documents, it is alleged that the present highway is unsafe
and that flatter curves and higher speeds would be safer. No documentation for
this assumption is ever presented, and my conclusion is that if there were any
such documentation in existence, it would have been brought forward very
prominently by now. I doubt that a wider, faster, flatter-curved road is any
safer than a narrow, slow, curvy one. People adjust their speed to the circumstances. Logan Canyon is a canyon; it cannot be made into something other than
a canyon. If there is a road in it, it will need to be a narrow and winding
road and people will have to drive at slower speeds on it. That's IF the
intactness and beauty of the canyon are to be saved.
I realize that your firm has spent a good deal of time and work on this
matter, and so I hesitate to say the following. But it is clear that the entire
set of documents needs to be redone and written without bias. The "Alternatives"
chapter is so biased as to be for all intents and purposes worthless; it too
needs to be entirely redone. "Spot Imp IOvements" in particular is a travesty.
Sincerely yours,
rhvmAA
Thomas J. Lyon
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1745">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1745</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Checksum
1031935434
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
15438123 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Various correspondence from the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, 1987-1994
Description
An account of the resource
Various corresponence from the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, 1987-1994. Most cover the topics of the agency alternative improvement suggestions, the biological assessment of Logan Canyon, and the endangered plant study from Utah State University.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lyon, Thomas J.
Spence, Jack T.
Harris, Richard
Silver, Duncan
Zollinger, Lynn
Flint, Stephan D.
Naegle, R. James
Pendery, Bruce
Welsh, Stanley L.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Berg, David
Bosworth, Dale
Baumgartner, David
Lyon, Thomas J.
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Naegle, James
Karp, Peter W.
Wilson, Wes
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Administrative records
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1980-1989
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, MSS 314, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the finding aid for this collection at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd1.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/9df15fee1b62048a0db38c6f5a5ee6b4.pdf
1a18d841f44852d756943df04bf3fd33
PDF Text
Text
LOGAN CANYON PUBLIC MEETING
November 3, 1986
COMMENTS FOLLOWING CH2M HILL PRESENTATION:
(
With that information we are here to listen, so we would invite you
to make your comments. We are recording the meeting so we would
like you to identify who you are for our record. This is not a formal hearing, we are here to get ·your input. We want to know
what your concerns are, what you see as the issues and we invite
you to star~. You can address your comments to the consulting
team, the Highway Dept, so let's be brave and lead off.
Bryce Nielson: . 1 was wondering what the original decision or
reason was to have three alternative routes come from the summit
down. What is the specific problems associated with the existing
route?
Stan: Well, as you know, there are several hairpin curves on that
alignment. We will be looking at that alignment, we are not discarding it, but we are saying, Is there another way? There is some
unstable ground in that alignment that the Highway Dept. has had to
deal with over the years. And it is now being built up along this
portion of the road. We were just asked by the Highway Dept. to
look at the ~ossibilities, to review the whole route. If therp is
not a better way, we'll find out, if there is, maybe it is worth
looking at· in more detail.
Price: I have a question for Commissioner Weston. What
kind of priority is. the Highway Department assigning to this
project?
Todd Weston: Well, very low. I've got to answer that honestly.
The problem we are in with money right now, we can't separate funds
from the north part, south part, or Wasatch Front and with the
problems we've got on the Wasatch Front right now, funding for this
project is considerably down the road a ways. That is as honest an
answer as I can give you. It is not a high priority. If we had
all this decid.ed today, ~t wouldn't be the most high priority, JoJut
it is something we have to go through, irregardless. It is still a
long ways down the road.
.,.. . /
I'm Brian Stringham 'and I've been travelling that road for a long
time, and that is a deplorable situation to have seven 18 foot
bridges on ~ US highway. That ~s uncalled for. This is 1986.
That road was started back in ~he late 20's and finished up in
1932, and there has been little improvement on that road except for
th~ lowe~ end that was improved 20 years ago.
But, I travel that
road as much ~S anyLody in this room for a lot of years ana the~ is
one of the biggest beefs I've got when I talk to anybody, that
lousy road that we have to travel on. So if we can do something
with those bridges, and I'm glad this summer that they finally put
in a few guard rails, but half of the places they put guard rails
in they didn't need them. Up the street here there is about 600
feet of guard rail that drops over 10 feet. A mile· above that
where you come around the curve where you need it and it drops 100
feet or 150 feet, there is no guard rail. Now why is that? I think
what has happened is that the contractor come up here and missed
the place where he was suppose to put it. Those are some of the
7
�·
,
gripes I've got. , We've got to change those bridges. I've drive a
big truck down there and I go down there and a woman was coming up
in a big car and she stopped in the middle of the bridge and I was
coming down at 40 miles an hour and she was just petrified, and
finally we worked it out so we got through, but I was afraid I was
going to push her off into the river. These 18 foot bridges have
got to be changed and we are not going to accept anything. less.
That's the main thing I'm unhappy with, those lousy bridges we've
got.
I'm Alan Harri~on, Director of Bear Lake Regional Commission. Ken
Brown, County Commission Chairman of Rich County asked me to read a
statement.
"Having watched traffic increase for the past ten years, I
feel the canyon road should definitely be improved. Minimum
improvement should include three lane passing such as in the
lower canyon. Tourist flow to and from Bear Lake is important
to our economy and Logan Canyon is a problem. Safety is a
real COllcern, and anyone who travels the road regularly w')uld
agree that it is becoming more and more cumbersome and time
consuming. I feel no more studies are necessary and we should
commence with construction.
Stan:
Would you please give us a copy of that?
Alan Harrison:
Yes sir.
Paul Webb: I understand that this study has ' been in progress since
June of this year. One question is how much longer is the study
going to continue and the other question is, if this is a low priority on the UDOT budget, what is the time frame for any kind 0::
improvements rather it be the status quo approach or the whole ball
of wax?
Stan: We will be completing our work in June of next year. We
were given a year to do the ,study, and we are about halfway through
with our efforts right now. As far &s the priority listing, there
is a number of funding programs that the state has ' access to,
things such as the br~dge repla~ement, maybe, could be a different
priority than improving the whole road. I'll. let the UDOT answer
that more fully.
~.,,-
UDOT: If we 10 any work at all in the canyon, it will have to ~e
documented quite well from an environmental approach, that is to
justify the expenditure of fedelal funds on this project, and that
it will not harm the environment. One purpose of this study is to
identify various ways in which projects may be staged in the
canyon. It is our opinion that the structures are an important
issue and should be addressed as soon as possible. ~ut even if we
had the money right now to replace the structures, we couldn't do
it until we complete the _environmental study that is underway now.
So the first step in this process is to evaluate the alternatives
and to also evaluate them on an environmental basis to justify the
8
�,
(
,
expenditure of funds, and then funds could be awarded. Portions of
this project will go sooner 'than other parts. But if we are going
to do any work at all we must complete this long process.
Question: Who has the final say, the UDOT or the environmentalists?
UDOT: Both. What we are doing through this environmental study is
coming to a mutual understanding as to what we can realistically do
in the canyon.
Question: Okay my other question is, environmentally, which is
more important, to lose a life, even if an ambulance has to go
through any kind of weather through this canyon, which is more
impor~~nt saving the environment or saving a life?
Lynn Zollinger: Those questions are hard to answer.
(There was an
uproar in the crowd). Let me say what we intend to do is to design
a facility that will be the best facility we can build within the
constraints we are given. And it is not going to be a super route
or 60 mph he~e ...
Comment: I'll bet if you ask any person in this room which is more
important they would say it is a person's life.
Question: I'm a citizen here in town. Didn't you have funds
approved for the entire Logan Canyon before the environmentalists
shot it down? Isn't that why the improvements were shut down
before?
Lynn Zollinger: There was a construction scheduled to begin at
Right Fork and continue to Ricks Spring. That was following
closely on the heels of the one completed on up to Right Hand Fork.
In the early seventies is when that was slated to go to construction and the funds werp. completed and I believe we were almost
ryady to advertise. Then the environmental issues surfaced and the
momentum at that time was stopped to this date.
Comment: I can't believe with all the rocks and trees we've got
around here there is anything so particular in that canyon.
Lynn Zollinger: There is, bel~eve me. . There are very many issues
that are sensitive from an environmental standpoint.
Question: !~:>w mar.Y lawsuits do we have to file to get this
standard road improved?
Lynn Zollinger:
. .-/
s"o-
I can't answer that.
Question: What has 'happened to all those funds that they have from
the 5% tax in the whole U.S., there was supposed to be 60 million
dollars in the State of Utah to take care of substandard roads,
such as bridges. This was going to make employment, upgrade the
roads in the secondary and third grade roads in the whole u.S. and
9
�-(
(
each state was going to get their share.
any of the pie back, did we?
I don't think we even got
Commissioner Weston:· I thought I was in a friendly area here.
I
think in all fairness, · and I know your concerns, I travel that road
quite often myself, and I know that there are some things that
ought to be done, and I don't think there is anybody that doesn't
agree with that. How far to go is the problem. We know that we
have to replace some bridges. We've got some bridges up there that
are too narrow and besides that they are structurally unsound, so
that if we don't do something pretty quick, we may have to do something more drastic. As far as why we have to do these studies, I
think I have the same position you have. I was County Commissioner
in Cache County for seve~al years, and we went through several
exercises trying to make improvements up the canyon and we never
could satisfy enough people on what we needed to do and to get
enough unity in what to do in order to have the federal government
release funds.
NOw, that is a pure and honest statement. We have
some bridge replacement right now. These funds rollover and each
year and what funds aren't used rollover to another year.
Th~
priority for our funds in Logan Canyon may be better next year than
this year, we don't know. We know that highway funds are badly
depleted right now. We are at least 40 million dollars behind our
funding of state highways right now. We actually got far enough
along in the last year- to program points for Logan Canyon on three
bridges, two of them are close to being funded, and we decided that
we needed to go through the necessary requirements to get the
·federal dollars. Remember that 95% of the money that wo~ld be
spent on this canyon is coming out of Washington. I appreciate
that it is your money, but it still has to be released by the
Federal Highway Dept. and when we requested to move ahead with
just the tridges we were told there would be no money given to us
by Federal Highways ~ntil a complete and indepth environmental
study fo~ the whole canyon was complete. So, that's why these
peopile are hired. ·1 sat on the commission over there and we had
$500,000 allocated one year to go from Right Hand Fork to Ricks
Spring, which would have in those days, built the thing.
But we
couldn't move. We didn't have our homework done. Of course, I
wasn't in the highways then, but I was on the county commission and
I sat in the position you are in - frustration wondering why can't
we go. Well, it is even more complicated now than it was then.
We've got a terrible shortage of money for highways. We've got
SOhle ter.;:ible problems. This isn't the only bad strotch ooC highway
we hdve in Utah.
I've been over a lot of it in ~~e la!c year and · I
want to tell you this is not· the worse stretch of road.
It is
maybe, from your standpoint becc..use you have to travel it, but if
you go from across the state you'll find many roads in pretty bad
shape. We are doing the best we can with the money we have. As
soon as the environmental study is complete, then we will go back
to the federal government and say, "Here's our plans, here is what
we can justify from a reasonable standpoint, here is what the
people think we need, and here is what we can do with the dollars
we've got, and not impact the canyon to the point that we are
foolish, and yet build a road that we need and will supply our
10
�(
needs to the year 2010 and if we can hit that happy medium, then
we'll get approval. Of course, we've got to work with the Fo~est
Service. They own the land. You people need to understand that.
Comment:
They work for the people.
Todd Weston:
Yes, but they administrate it.
Dave Baumgarner:
land.
(
,
Forest Service doesn't own the land it is public
Todd Weston: You people own the land, but the forest ser,ice
administrates it. ' And we are going to build improvements to that
highway. When I say "improvements" I sometimes get a gun pointed
at my throat.
Some people consider that anything we do up there is
not improving. You need to know we have a lot of people that feel
that way.
I'm not saying that they are right, or that you are
right.
I know that somewhere in the middle we are going to find
some mutual ground that we can satisfy our needs with and that is
what we are ~rying to do. There are some places up in that ca~yon
that I don't want to see destroyed and I've got the same concerns
you have, but we are going to do the best job we can. We've got
make sure that it meets with their plans in their management
process for the canyon. Dave Baumgarner is charge with his office
to see that anything that is done in · that canyon is the proper
thing to do for what the people need and want .
.
Question:
I enjoy driving through the canyon as much as anybody
else does at anytime of the year. I really enjoy it.
I don't
think anybody in this room would like to see the beauty of that
canyon destroyed.
It would be ludicrous on our part to assume
that.
It is a great calling card for us to bring people over here.
However, when you drive through it and you realize how o~d the road
is an~_ the fact that a lot of improvements can be made, , ~. hen wilCn .
' you've got to go through all these agencies you are talking abol1t
and all the red tape and bureaucracy you are talking about, I don't
see why these entities, public and environmental, forest service, '
can not sit down and give a little bit so that this road can be
improved whereby the flow of traffic will be safer for all
concerned going both ways. NOW, the last two years there have been
a great flow of traffic throug~ the canyon. The truck traffic flow
has increased considerable from Millers over there. And · that is
fi~e, we"d like to see them come over here, but when you gpt in
c~rtain places in that road, those trucks take up 3/4s of the highway and that leaves you with very little. As far as arguing about
the road, we need the road and ~e deserve the road. And we need to
have all the.s e entities sIt down and say, "Alright, these are the
pr~blems, 'but let's get on with the program.
Let's find out what
has to be done, let's take and ~ive a little.
(
.. ,./
11
�(
Sheldon: I appreciate all your concerns, they are great. Wet~lked earlier about the length of our study.
I think it might be
appropriate to answer why it-takes a year to do the study. We are
trying to do the study correctly. If you read your newspaper you
can see what happened in Provo Canyon.
I'm not saying that will
happen here, but, by gosh, we are going to do everything we can to
keep that from happening. But there are some lawsuits in Provo
that have been filed against UDOT and we do want to make sure that
we take time to get everything documented well enough, · so that when
our recommendations are accepted, or UDOT makes the recommendation
and they and the Fore's t Service agree, we've got the proper framework to support any potential lawsuit that might come down. That
takes time and I apologize for that.
Question:
I have a question for Mr. Baumgarner. I think everybody
has preconceived notions about this entity out there called an
environmentalist, that they are instantly going to battle with the
residents over here. Since you are with the Forest Service and you
are going to represent the federal government's interest and proba- .
bly a lot of the biological and ecological interest in the can~on,
I'm interested in your comments as to do you really think the envi~
ronmentalists and the citizens are that far apart?
/
Dave Baumgarner: No, they are not. I don't have an answer any
different than that. There are some legitimate concerns on both
sides. But other than argue about statistical data that justifies,
or unjustifies the project, when it comes right down to it, the
issues aren't really that strong. Almost down to the point of talking about a specific corner as to whether or not for a fishery or
an environmental issue, there aren't very many serious issues about
bridges. If we had this to do allover again, to be quite frank,
and the state had the money to build bridges without having to qo
to the federal government for funds, we would categorically exclude
brid~~~.
What that means in our process is that with a half page
d~cision signed by my boss, the project would not have to go
through the entire environmental process on the specific bridge
replacement. In talking about individual corners, we are almost in
the same box, but not quite, depending on the issue on the specific
corner. From the Forest Service perspective, we are a lot closer
than people realize. However, there are some processes involved
that are giving us some troubl~, timewise.
St ~ ~:
S! ~eldon : why don't you identify where we go from herp with
t:le public involvement process.
Sheldon: This meeting was really only intended as a public information meeting. Certain:y to solicit your comment, but this is
just the first of several opportunities that will come up over this
whole period of this study for people to have input. This is an
information meeting; we are just getting started. As we get into
the environmental assessment we will have what we call a Scoping
Meeting where we identify issues. We'll go from there with public
hearings and you will have plenty of opportunity to speak up and
frankly, I think it is great, and please keep doing it.
12
�Bill Peterson: I am questioning your statistics on your growth
rate. We've been in a down trend in our economy in this area, but
in the last year there have been a number of major projects express
interest in building motels and hotels here and 'I think that your
2% growth rate is going to be way short of the actual growth rate
of the traffic on the highway. I think we will get that 2% just
from our locals. If there is any other increase, it will go way
over that.
Stan: We shar~ that concern. Cliff Forsgren did that study for us
and it was reviewed very carefully by UDOT and by the interdisciplinary team we work with on a fairly regular basis. Cliff, why
don't you cover the background on that.
Cliff: The approach to putting together projections requires a
great deal of knowledge, experience and skill, and computers and
everything else and when you are done? Frankly, we look at it from
a couple of different perspectives. We look at it from what has
occurred over the past 10 or 12 years as long as we have the cata
from a counter station. We also took the State of Utah's projection for economic growth in northern Utah and we came up with
numbers that were very close to the same. From the standpoint of
those of us that were preparing this projections, 2% is a bit
uncomfortable. But based on the information we had, it was difficult to come up with anything higher. Believe me, I tried. Looking at the average daily flow in the summer in one year you may
have a significant increase from one year to the next, but the next
year then it will drop off some, and it averages out. If someone
could give us some data or some information that would show that it
needs to be higher, but based on what we have got, that's all we
could justify.
Ted wilson:
Doesn't I-IS plan to finished off further past
Tremo~ton?
UDOT:
That is correct.
Ted Wilson:
into Logan?
Are they planning to improve the Valley View highway
UDOT: We haven't got any engineering done on Valley View.
o~ our hJpe list.
It is
Ted Wilson: At present, I'm sure everybody would agree that the
canyon is beautiful, but we wou ..d also becoming a deterrent to
traffic coming this way. An improved highway may bring as many as
10% higher flow rate almost immediately. People are getting scared
of Logan Canyon. It is getting bad. The shoulders are horrible.
They washed out really bad this last year. People don't like to
travel it once they have seen it. If they want to get some place,
they·are starting to go around. Other communities are advertising
to draw the traffic away from Logan to Soda Springs, to Randolph,
that type of thing. As for looking to the past, we have had a
13
�(
falling off of percentage and that 2% may look that way, but if you
have an improved highway, business wise and traffic flow wise, I
think you'll see a tremendous higher use, and especially if 1-15 is
finished and good access to Logan, to Tremonton. We still are the
major route to Jackson Hole and Yellowstone areas, but Logan Canyon
is a mess.
Question: I have a couple of questions for Mr. Weston. First, how
much do you project it will cost to fix the existing substandard
bridges and how much did it cost to hire CH2M Hill?
Westo~~
I'll turn those questions . over to the engineers; they've
got the exact figures.
Lynn Zollinger: The cost to build a structure cost about $45.00
per square foot. The new bridges I expect will be 40' wide, give
or take a few feet, and the length is about 150'. That is a
preliminary guess, so whatever 40 times 45 times 150 would be the
structure cost.
Question:
How many substandard bridges?
Todd Weston:
.I
/
Seven.
Lynn Zollinger: Some are longer than others, like at Tony Grove
where they are relatively short span, but others sucn as Lower Twin
Bridge and Burnt Bridge and Red Bank Bridge that are considerably
larger. So the way I look at it, there are four major structures
and at least three minor structures.
Question:
What about hiring a construction firm for a year?
Lynn Zollinger: The fe~ for hiring the consultants is around
$50(\.1)00. It is a very expeasive study. I . think it shows the
UDOT'::; commitment to solve the problems at Logan Canyon.
Kathy Webb: If you have two other options here you are thinking
about for alternate routes through the canyon, how realistic is it
that you are going to do something with the existing canyon? Are
you plauning on doing any funding anyway?
Stan:
~~a thy
Yes, that's all part of the study.
Webb:
And the other two options are
Stan: The other two options are only from the summit to G.lrden
City, so they don't rea_Iy impact the canyon at all.
Kathy Webb: The other question I have is I have to know what the
logic· is behind the passing lane at Ricks Springs. I just have to
know that. That is the craziest passing lane I have ever been on!
Is that what it is? (Lots of laughter)
Lynn, do you want to handle that?
14
�(
Lynn.: There was a passing lane built at Ricks Springs. That was
done as a desperation move. There is no other term for it, by the
UDOT to provide some improvement in the canyon. (more laughter).
In a lot of ways we had our hands tied as to spending money to make
improvements in Logan Canyon. One group says improve it, do this,
do that, and the other group says you can't do anything without the
appropriate studies. And I guess the best .way to look at ·the passing lane is that while it did offer some relief and some improvement for that section, is that we wanted to make an improvement and
go out and do something. ·
Question:
meetings.
You mentioned here tonight that there will be other
Where are they going to be?
Stan: We will have another Scoping Meeting when we get very
specific about what are the alternatives we are going to be looking
at. There will be one of those held in Logan and one held here in
this valley.
Question: Another question I have is how much weight does this
meeting we are having here hold? Is Logan going to be able to
override us . again?
Stan: ' I don't know if that is ' a fair assessment. There are a lot
of people in Logan that feel the same as you do. But they are
unfortunately, the silent majority. So we are going to make these
studies and identify some alternatives and there will be reports
produced that will show what the benefits and non-benefits of each
alternative are. The final result of this will be the recommended
alternative, but the agencies will select, those being the UDOT and
the Forest Service. They will select the recommended alternative
and a hearing will be held that will discuss that.
Paul Webb: I think it was commissioner Weston that mentioned that
our project was a low priority project. I assume he W·: l,S talking
about expenditure of money. I would like to know whose list we are
on. Is that the UDOT's priority list and how will this study
affect that priority?
Todd Weston: Paul, I guess I've got to say that everyboGy -is on a
low priority until we get more money. We just have some many
projects ahead of us that we ~re ju .~t putting out fires, is what we
are doing. We know that if we don't do some~hing ~;n 1-15 within the
next three years, we are going to have a big parking lot between
Brigham -:ity and Salt I·ake, and I'm talking about that lit ~rally.
And we are talking about a major part of the population living in
that part of the state. We have to put things in the perspective.
I think our preconstruction engineer put it as well as I can. We
are going to do what we can. See, there are different funds; there
are bridge funds that are ready to go. We had some that were ready
to go, but we were stopped by Federal Highways to do any bridgework
until we completed this exercise we are going through now. Had
Dave Baumgarner and I been able to sit down together as the Forest
15
�Service and UDOT we probably could have built those bridges and had
Federal Highway release the dollars, and they probably will now.
But in defense of the environmental study with CH2M Hill, why we
are hiring these people, is that we are hiring to gain some time.
We simply do not have staff to put them on this project and do· it
in the time frame we are trying to do and get on with the construction. They are hired to do the job we didn't have staff to do it
in the time frame we need.
Question: I remember going to a meeting several years ago with the
UDOT and talking about a problem we had in Laketown Canyon. That
priority was very low, and then suddenly it jumped up to where it
was partially completed. You mentioned that ·95% of the funds can't
be approved until this study is done. If this study is done to
their satisfaction and application is made and they approve 95%
funding, what chance do we have to have that priority jump?
Todd Weston: Of course, after that is done we have to go to preconstruction plans. You know, we could start on some bridges
rather rapidly. But you see, when you start on some bridges, well,
take the bridge at the bottom of the dugway, a tall bridge, an
expensive structure, needs to be widened. Now, when you widen it,
do you just widen the bridge, or do you go down .stream a ways and
take that big sharp curve off from it and make a decent curve at
the bottom of it? One thing leads to another to where -you start
impacting further down the road. So we've got to do it in an
orderly fashion, and frankly, I'm glad we are doing it this way
because once and for all, we will have a document in our hands that
says, "This is what we can reasonably do. to improve the canyon."
Now, well you say the environmentalists stopped the other projects.
Well, maybe yes, and maybe no, maybe we didn't have our homework
done. We just got two lawsuits slapped on us on Provo Canyon,
which is a similar project, with more traffic and more people, bu~
sim;1ar. We got slapped with two lawsuits, and neither one of them
are €:nvironmentalists, typical qualified environmentalist groups
' like the Sierra Club, and others. They were not recog~ized as
environmentalists g:roups. The person who stopped us was an economics professor at BYU. He is the one that filed the suit. I
don't know if he has any other money behind him or not, but he is
the one who stopped us. And he stopped us because he sain they
didn't need the type or road we were putting through tha~ canyon.
Pure and simple. And the judge decided he had better hear more
about it and ·so there is an j.njunction on it. That is the kind of
problem we run into.
Comment: I appreciate all that you have to go through, but I still
wonder if that low priority is all we are going to get.
)
Todd Weston: -'Well, I guess we are a little bit like a squeaky
wheel. If the demand is there strong enough and we can justify it
then we are going to move faster where we can. But when I say
16
�(
Logan Canyon has low priority, I've got to say it has low priority
compared to 1-15, it has low priority compared to probably a dozen
other projects in District 1 and we are only one District in the
state.
Don Huffener: You mentioned the squeaky wheel.
I was at the meeting you had in Logan, too and you mentioned it again here, that in
the summertime is the big volume of traffic and 80% of that traffic
is through traffic all the way through the canyon. Most of those
people never get heard because they are not from Logan or here, so
Todd Weston:
Don Huffener:
picked it up.
I think we have some better figures than that.
Well, I stopped down at Valley Engineering and
Todd Weston to CH2M Hill:
Is that your statement?
Sheldon: The people who start through the canyon, 80% go all the
way through the canyon rather th~n stop in the canyon to recreate.
,
Don Huffener: So the majority of the people who use the canyon
aren't getting a hearing on this. The other thing is at the other
meeting your spokesperson said that the ID committee was unanimous
in their desire to keep Logan Canyon .as a destination. Your
spokeswoman said that. I'm sure I am right. So, the pass through
traffic, how much consideration are they getting? That was a
statement from your office.
Stan Nuffer:
I think she might have been misunderstood.
COffirr;ent:
She was implying that they want to make Logan Canyon a
and recreational :area, where people come into the
canyon, recreate and then go home.
de~~ination
Cliff: That is the desire of many people to make it that way.
I
guess the way to answer that is that you really have two views, and
I don't see anything that is going to keep both of these from being
answered.
John Murphy: When I first cam~ to tr~ valley about 15 years ago I
was looking for a place to buy some suppli~s and I soon found
another route to Ogden and on through. Going on a dirt road in the
south ena of the valley down there, which is called
Canyon, which is 500 feet lower than your Logan Pass; it doesn't
have any environmental problems, there is no river to fight, you
can go down into Ogden and · it is 15 minutes longer than using your
superhighway through Logan Canyon •. So if the people in Logan are
so upset about the environmental impact of us people who live and
drive the canyon, rather than those that stop and turn around and
go home, why don't they build us a road into Ogden? We could get
to Ogden in the same time it takes to get to Logan. Re-route
17
�Highway 89 up through Cottonwood, up through the flats up there, no
river, basic road is facing south, so the sun does most of the
clearing for you rather than snow plowing; it goes to the area of
Monte Cristo, we can go on down there and get our supplies, route
the tourists through there, and Logan can have their canyon and go
up there and recreate and turn around and go home.
(Applause)
My name is Ernest Henry, with the Bridgerland Audobon Society in
Logan, and I would like to second what was mentioned earlier.
Environmental groups aren't out to stop everything and anything,
but we do have distinct and definite concerns about Logan Canyon.
That is why I am here tonight. There is nothing I'd rather be
doing that be home tonight, but I'm here because I'm very concerned
about the quality of the environment in Logan Canyon. So, we will
work with you, and compromise, but I do have one concern. Something that has been repeatedly stated and stated here tonight and
often times stated in the paper and that is that a big impediment
to your economic development and the economic development of Bear
Lake is the Logan Canyon road, that if it was somehow improved, the
economy would be better. That may be true, I don't know, but one
thing I have yet to see is any facts on that.
Comment: MOVE OVER HERE. Try driving the canyon twice a week and
you would change your mind.
.~
UDOT:
I'd like to make a comment on the alternate route. We have
looked at it and an alternate route would cost about 1.2 to 2
million per mile. We don't have that kind of money right now. We
do feel that two decades from now that will be a realistic alternative to look at. Right now the money we have available is to
improve the facility we have built. I hope you are right about the
environmental situation. When we get there I'm afraid there might
be more problems that we anticipate, but alternate ro~tes have been
lQ~l~~d at but at this time we don't feel the availability of funds
makes it a viable alternate. We need to be upgrading what we have
here.
Comment: Just one comment about alternate routes. Someone must be
sniffing glue if they tried an alternate route through Hodges
Canyon. It is almost impossible to get through. You would never
see a snow plow out. So the studies you are doing on alternate
routes are not very well done. The other route that original
pioneers used which is pretty ,:"lose ' : 0 your yellow route is a much
better route. NOw, I talked to some of the old timers who worked on
the route that we've got now and they said those crazy guys from
Salt Lake City don't know how to build a road, but since tht.~y are
paying us, we'll build it anyhow. The y~llow route does look like
it is . ~ better route.
.j
UDOT: The yellow route is the principal route at this point, but
we did indicate to the consultant that we wanted to look at some
alternatives. We they took some geotechnical data and they have
indicated that the green route is not desirable, but that the
yellow one is, again we are going to have to look at that when it
�comes time to getting the property and alignment, which will be in
the latter stages of the whole study. But we will probably be
working with the county people and if we can establish that that is
a desirable route, and the local people are in agreement, then we
will work with the county commission in reserving the rights of way
so we don't have to come in unprepared. But that is the principal
route at this time.
CH2M Hill:
Comment:
my eyes.
We share your conclusions about the green route.
Do you?
I saw what you were doing and I couldn't believe
Comment: I was wondering, the lower part of the canyon that has
been improved, was there any data before so that you can compare
the impact that it has had on the lower route so you might have
some information to apply to the higher route? Is that being
considered?
Stan: We have looked at all the data we can get. Unfortunately,
the safety data, the basis has changed, so it is kind of hard to
draw conclusions. We just have to go along with what is nationally
accepted approaches to these kinds of problems.
/
Barry Negus: One. concern I have is if you change to an alternate
route on the lower portion here, what are the people going to do?
What is going to happen to the existing road there now and what is
going to have to be done for the people that are living along that
route to get out in the winter?
Lynn Zollinger: If we realign the highway to another locations, it
doesn't mean the other one will be clos~d, we'd probably say we
would turn it over to Rich County to maintain and plow.
Comment:
Don't do
~~at.
(laughter)
Lynn Zollinger: The UDOT is not likely to maintain two routes.
disposition of the old route would have to be resolved.
The
Comment: I would like to ask the gentleman from the Audobon
Society if he is a native of the area, is hea student at ~he
college, do you live in Logan as a temporary position the~e, what
is your impact personally on improvements in the canyon or is this
just an assignment you have f::.-:>m thE: college or Audobon Society?
... .,-
Ernest Henry: No, I was born in Cincinna~i, Ohio; my parents moved
to Albuqu~rque in 1969. I got a bachelors degree from Colc.rado
State in Wildlife Biology in 1979. I lJoved to Logan to attend
graduate school and I have a masters degree in Range Science there
and I now work with the USDA in the agricultural research service
doing research in alfalfa growth and I am a member of the Audobon
Society because it is something I believe -in and am interested in •
So, anyway, I live and work in Logan right now and I intend to stay
there for the foreseeable future.
19
�Comment:
What do you think about the problems on the road?
Ernest Henry: I think there are two major environmental problems I
see with road construction. One is the river itself, water quality, quantity, diverting it, changing it from something that is
rather free flowing with biological integrity to something that is
riprapped and has little biologica~ integrity, and also I think the
scenic value of the canyon is important. If your only interest is
in economic development, I don't think you can deny that something
that is going to bring people to this area is the scenic quality of
Logan Canyon. It is an important aspect to this area. It is a
recreational resource, granted more in Logan's favor than in Bear
Lake's favor. But it is a recreational resource of significance
and that shouldn't be overlooked.
Comment: I'm just glad to know a transplant from the Sierra Club
in Oklahoma.
Comment: I don't think it matters wher~ we are from, but I think
the thing that this gentleman is stating and what the residents
from this side of the hill are willing to work with them. We don't
want to change the whole canyon. We think there are improvements
that can and should be made and as a community we all feel that
way.
Comment: We all love the canyon.
We don't want it spoiled.
We do.
We want it preserved.
Comment: And I think we are all saying the same thing allover
again. We want quality, but we also want some improvements and I
think it is possible to work with them if we can just get on with
it. Let's work together and get it done.
Richard Mills: Have you as the state studied the other road coming
in from Salt Lake and Evanston in the summer as far as ~oad
counters?
Stan Nuffer:
proposed?
Are you talking about the existing highway or those
Richard Mills: The existing highway. You have a traffic study,
right? You have two counters .. one Q....)ing north and one coming into
Garden C.ity. : . .ave they done anything coming in from Evan~.~on UF
over Laketown Canyon?
Stan Nuffer: We are somewhat familia~ with the state procedures.
They have permanent traffic counters allover the state.
UDOT: We no longer have a permanent counter in Laketown Canyon,
but they do annual studies. Sometimes they vary from a week or a
day. But because of lesser volumes they don't go to the expense of
a full time permanent counter there, but they use statistic projection methods to get a short count and project it. to a longer count.
20
�Stan Nuffer: They have a guide that is called "Traffic on Utah
Highways that is published biannually that lists all this traffic
information and I'm sure you could get a copy of that.
Richard Mills: My point is if you would study that information you
would probably f.ind out that as people get more scared of Logan
Canyon, they are probably coming around the other way. A good
share of the people that come in are from Salt Lake and Ogden.
Stan Nuffer: I don't know if you can draw tha~ kind of conclusion
from the data that is there, but it could be looked at.
Joe West: I'm wondering how bad the lower end of the canyon looks
now. I remember when that was rebuilt; realigned and they were
fighting on that, and that was what stopped them from going on up
into the canyon. I'd be interested in knowing how that looks 'now
that the growth is back up. I can see that when construction goes
on you are going to have a problem for a year or two, but growth
comes back. I heard one man say that th~t was the first time he
went down Logan Canyon and saw anything but the yellow line. You
know, before the rest of this canyon gets built, the lower end of
the canyon is going to be obsolete.
J
stan: We hope to get at least the same standard throughout the
whole canyon. Beyond that, if traffic continues to increase, there
might need to be alternate routes looked at to take some of the
pressure.
Joe West: I'd like to ask the Audobon Society how the lower end of
the canyon looks to him.
Ernest Henry: My general reaction is that it doesn't look that
bad. Nevertheles~ . I don't think you, call just say, "Okay, there it
t worked." We don't want to take any chances. I guarantee you that.
We arc not out just to slow things up but we want it to stay a
recreational resource second to none. I'd like to make another
comment and this is strictly factual. As I mentioned I lived in
Colorado for a while and if you think this battle over a road was
somethin<3', Glenwood was an a\'lesome battle. That was on interstate
70 that went on for years and years and years. And they finally
worked something out. I think Ch2M Hill would do well to look at
some of the approaches that we~e use~ there.
Stan Nuffer:
We were involved in that process.
Jim Naegle: Two months ago we visited Glenwood Canyon, and we
built the Interstate 15 through the
River by St. George at
$1,000,000 per mile and we thought that was a great cost for building a road. The 12 miles of Glenwood Canyon now cost 14 million to
put a bike path through, and 235 million dollars to build the road
and it is because of tradeoffs with the envizonmental organizations. I want to add just this. That UDOT is more environmentally
sensitive than we have ever been as a Highway Department; some of
21
�it from need and some of it from desire. The lower part of the
canyon wasn't as environmentally sensitive as the middle portion of
the canyon. We are intent on building a facility that will accommodate as much as possible. We are willing to make tradeoffs. We
are looking for tradeoffs with the environmental people, the forest
service and the Highway Dept. We want to get in and build the best
highway with the least amount of impact that can be done. And we
will be keeping you people appraised as to our progress on that,
but we need your input and your support as to how you feel and that
is why we appreciate your 'coming tonight. It is our intent to
build something that will serve us as best as possible and to minimize the impacts. ~hat's the tradeoffs we are looking for.
Cliff: Maybe as a summary comment, we can still have more questions, but I would carry it a step further than what Jim said.
Other than the time that it takes to complete the study, which I
'would agree with is intolerable from your perspective, but other
than. the time I'm not pessimistic as to how this will turn out. In
fact I'm rather optimistic as Dave Baumgarner and others have
stated that we are going to be able ~o f~nd some common ground that
satisfies the environmental needs and still gives you a good road
through the canyon that you all deserve. So, I wouldn't be pessimistic about it, but I would be careful to take the time to make
your presence known, even if it takes going to Logan to do it. We
need toe input and we need a balanced input.
J
Comment: I'm been on a committee representing this area for a number of years when we first started these studies, and I know when
we got the information on this study we requested you come here and
we do appreciate your coming here because it is cumbersome to
travel that road in the wintertime. We want you to know we do
appreciate your coming here and we hope you appreciate the impact
the canyon has on the people on this side of the mountain. There
are a lot of peop'~ from Bear Lake County . that have some concerns.
We . would strongly ·~ncourage you to continue to hold some meetings
over here and not to look at sheer numbers, but you are talking
about real users and real business people, not an organized group
by any means like you might find in Logan, because I listened to
them and I've seen their tables etc. but please continue to come
over here and keep us informed. I would suggest you may even
explore the idea of holding a meeting in Salt Lake City, because
that affects a lot of those people Don Huffener was talking about
that travel through here const::!.ntly ~. nd a majority of those people
are in ~he ' Wa3atch Front.
CH2M Hill: We spoke with them today and they let it be kno\7n that
they expect to see us.
Comment: Good. Also you might consider that the next time you
have a meeting in here if you hold it on a summer night and a
Friday night you'll get some of those same types of people and
you'll get a good cross section •.
Stan Nuffer:
That is a good idea, thank you.
22
I
�I'm Cliff Brown and I'm a member of the town council in Laketown
and I just think that the beauty of the canyon is out of this world
at time, nobody disagrees with that. I'm also an EMT and I've
driven the ambulance through there through all kinds of weather. I
think we need to keep in mind that that road is our lifeline to the
outside world. We are up here isolate otherwise. There are a
couple of other places we can travel, but this is our main
lifeline, between here and Logan and I think that is what we need
to keep in mind.
Question: Are there any preliminary plans as far as re-routing the
existing road in places?
Do you have any plans there at all?
Stan Nuffer: We are just getting started in that ·process. We want
to get your input first and then we will get into that process.
(
)
Comment: As you drive through the canyon, in reference to the gentleman's comments about riprapping the river, as I drive through
the canyon I see very few places where th0se kinds of places are
going to exist and where the road possibly could be moved completely away from the river and actually add to the quality of the
river instead of pushing the snow (I'm sure you are concerned about
the salts that come off into the river and environmentally impact
it that way.) But just driving through and seeing where some
improvements can be made I don't see where there is that much that
will impact the river, just by doing a few minor things.
Comments: Along . with your accident statistics have you ever
thought about having almosts? You should request people to send in
and report how many times they have "almost" been wiped out. (lots
of laughter)
.
Comment:
That wOllld affect
aL~ost everyL~J.y,
wouldn't it?
Commen~:
Gale Larson went up there traffic counting and almost got
hit himself.
Comment: If any of you would like to write your comments I've got
some busin=ss cards here that you can pick up on your way out.
Stan Nuffer: If we have no more comments, some of you who felt to
shy to speak in public, we'll be here for a while. Come up and
look a~ the raps and drawings. : Is there anyone else that: want'"'d to
make a comment?
Comment: I'm John Hansen, and I don't think it has been brought up
that
We all do a lot of business on
the other side of the hill and I'm very much concerned about the
safety and while we talk a lot about the environment, but I wonder,
since when do we place a higher value on plant and animal life than
we do on human life? That is what has crossed my mind quite a bit.
It looks to me like we are here tonight as a community to express
this.
23
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/71">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/71</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000.
Checksum
1803649205
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
14577551 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Comments on the Logan Canyon CH2M HILL presentation
Description
An account of the resource
Answers to questions from the public about proposed changes to Logan Canyon.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Nielson, Bryce
Weston, Todd
Stringham, Brian
Harrison, Alan
Webb, Paul
Zollinger, Lynn
Peterson, William
Wilson, Ted
Webb, Kathy
Huffner, Don
Murphy, John
Henry, Ernest
Negus, Barry
Mills, Richard
West, Joesph
Brown, Cliff
Hansen, John
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Baumgartner, David
Utah. Department of Transportation
CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah)
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1986-11-03
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1980-1989
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 10
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS148VIIIB27_Fd10_Page_2.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/607f9e0aa669bbf32ba04003c3770414.pdf
1abebd82dd16fa4cfb0e4eac1cd71a88
PDF Text
Text
LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MINUTES OF INTERDISCIPLINE TEAM MEETING
June 10, 1986
(
ATTENDANCE:
Lynn Zollinger - UDOT
Jim Naegle - UDOT
John Ne ~ l - UDOT
Gale Larson - Valley Engineering
Rudy Lukez - Cache Group Sierra Club
Todd G. Weston - UDOT
Al Stilley - Northern Engineering & Testing
Dave Baumgartner - USFS-Logan
Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL
Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL
Duncan Silver - FHWA
Howard Richardson - UDOT
Sheldon Barker - CH2M HILL
Tom Haislip - CH2M HILL
John D'Amico - CH2M HILL
Frank Grover - USFS-SLC
Steve Flint - Bridgerland Audobon Association
Stan Nuffer called the meeting to order and asked members of
the group to introduce themselves. Following the introductions, some of the members were asked to briefly describe
their views of the project and its objectives.
Jim Naegle indicated that UDOT wants a thorough investigation
and has no preconceived idea as to what, if anything, should
be done in the canyon. He expressed appreciation for the
interest of the environmental community and the public in
general. He also wants members of the 1.0. Team to have
full input into all phases of the project. The most serious
problems in the canyon presently are narrow and obsolete
bridges which are in need of repair or replacement.
Lynn Zollinger explained that UDOT has a responsibility to
the traveling public to provide safe, efficient transportation.
UDOT wants to satisfy the needs of the traveling
public and the environmental community. He expects an openminded study with adequate input from all of the interested
public.
Dave Baumgartner said that the rules of the environmental
"ball game" have changed since the '70's. A successful
study is dependant upon public support and understanding.
This project will be a challenging one and standard
solutions will probably not work in every instance.
I
1
�(
Todd Weston stated that he does not have any notion that
there will ever be a freeway or a 4-lane highway through the
canyon. He feels that there are more problems in the canyon
than old bridges and the study must address those problems
without being locked into one concept. He does expect ideas
to improve transportation can be implemented.
Rudy Lukez stated that there are many personal feelings about
the canyon and that some people will be upset if there is a
large construction project in it. The canyon is an environmentally sensitive area and there is a need for careful study
and analysis before any work can begin. The environmental
community desires to be kept informed. Rudy also expressed
concern that meetings held during the day may be difficult
for those who work elsewhere to attend.
Steve Flint stated that there were many people who questioned
the transportation needs in the canyon.
Stan Nuffer then explained the I.D. Team and the role of
each I.D. Team member. The I.D. Team is to function as the
group which reviews scope, data, methodology and conclusions
of the study and determines whether each stage of the study
adequately addresses the 'critical issues and meets the objectives of the study.
Gale Larson said that Valley Engineering's office in Logan
will be the local contact point and someone will be available
for questions at least 10 hours per week. Valley Engineering
will also perform the field surveys and traffic counts.
Some traffic counts were conducted during the ski season in
order to have the information available for the study this
summer. Gale expects to work closely with Sheldon Barker
with the public involvement task work.
Stan Nuffer then introduced the Scope of Work, as included
in the consulting agreement between UDOT and CH2M HILL, and
led the discussion on the tasks outlined in the agreement.
Task 1 - ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS
The discussion covered the major areas of potential need
covered in the agreement; safety, maintenance, substandard
geometrics, and congestion.
If areas with substandard geometrics are identified, options to correct the problems will
be identified, these may include road re-alignment. During
the discussion of congestion, Rudy Lukez asked what was
meant by levels of service c,d,e. Stan Nuffer gave a brief
description and said that detailed descriptions will be provided to members of the I.D. Team in a Technical Memo. Rudy
Lukez also asked how traffic projections were determined.
Stan Nuffer said that UDOT uses projections of population
2
�(
prepared by local councils of governments and other agencies
who are charged with the task of preparing proiections of
that type.
TASK 2 - LOCATION STUDIES
The study area will include the roadway between Right Hand
Fork and Garden City. The alternatives listed in the contract scope will be evaluated as well as others identified
during the course of the study. New roadway alignments may
also be considered from the summit to Garden City. John
Neal asked what the termini of the project were. FHWA must
approve the termini in order for the project to be eligible
for funding. Lynn Zollinger said that Logan City to Garden
City had been proposed to the FWHA and he expects approval
shortly. Since Logan to Right Hand Fork has already been
improved there would be no action considered on that stretch
of road. Tom Haislip said that the development of the alternatives will be one of the biggest phases of the project.
Mapping was also discussed.
Existing mapping available
through UDOT will be used on the project wherever possible,
however adequate mapping is · not available over the entire
route. As the mapping is completed, maps will be made
available to members of the 1.0. Team.
TASK 3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS
(
The extent of the geotechnical investigations will be determined as alternatives are developed.
It is expected that
they will be needed primarily in areas where re-alignment is
considered.
Dave Baumgartner expressed concern about the role of the
I.D. ream in this study.
If the team is to be advisory
only, he does not think a satisfactory solution to identified problems can be found.
To be successful, the I.D. Team
should have a role in establishing study criteria and in
formulating recommendations. Other team members expressed
their views on the subject, and expressed their belief that
the 1.0. Team would function in a manner that would lead to
a successful resolution of the transportation problems identified in the study.
TASK4 - PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
Sheldon Barker said that CH2M HILL would make three promises
in the public involvement program; (1) to be a good listener,
(2) to get input from all interested individuals and groups
and to treat each with respect, 3) when the report is prepared, it would contain no surprises because everyone had
been involved in the process.
3
�.
(
(
The scoping process was also discussed.
It will include the
development of the project objective, holding informationai
meetings to educate the public, meetings with small groups
as well as large, preparation of a video tape, and maintaining a project office in Logan where interested parties could
come to obtain information on the project. Rudy Lukez suggested that information also be made available at the USU
Library and the Logan Public Library so that it would be
available during evening hours. Sheldon Barker said that
the suggestion was a good one and it will be implemented.
There was considerable discussion on the number and scheduling of meetings. Rudy Lukez did not feel that a lot of
meetings was necessarily a good thing. He used as an example
the recent meetings held by the Division of Water Resources
on the proposal to build a dam on the Bear River. Meetings
should be proceeded by 2 or 3 weeks of media coverage and
should be well prepared. Rudy was also not certain if there
would be any value to meeting with small groups because it
would not' give people with differing views an opportunity to
hear the opinions of others. Sheldon Barker indicated that
the different views would come out in the larger public
meetings and that meeting with small groups would give the
project team the opportunity to better prepare for the larger
meetings. Rudy Lukez said that fall would be the best time
to hold the scoping meetings because more people would be
able to attend.
(
. TASK 5 - COORDINATION
Tom Haislip discussed the 1.0. Team and its organization and
the need to have each member involved.
TASK 6 - ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESS~lENT
Tom Haislip said that the 1.0. Team would playa key role in
the project by providing input and direction to the study
team. Tom also asked for help from the environmental community.
If there were any data or studies that are available
and not in UDOT files, they may be of great help in the study.
Rudy Lukez said that there was a study underway at USU investigating the impact that high speed traffic has on deer.
Tom Haislip indicated that field studies were not planned
because there is extensive information available. Tom also
explained that it is intended that Technical Memos be prepared presenting in detail the findings of each phase of the
study. After the 1.0. Team has reviewed, discussed, and
revised the Technical Memos, the information would be summarized and placed in the report.
4
�(
There was more discussion on the role of the 1.0. Team.
Dave Baumgartner again expressed his concern that 1.0. Team
members be in a position to do more than simply review conclusions and give their comments. Stan Nuffer said that
study data, methodology, and conclusions would all be presented to the I.D. Team and discussed before incorporating
anything into the report. Tom Haislip said that CH2M HILL's
job would be to the "doers" who would gather information,
review data and prepare Technical Memos for the I.D. Team.
The I.D. Team would then review and discuss the memos and
hopefully resolve any differences. Dave Baumgartner said
that it may be necessary for superiors in each agency to
resolve conflicts if they could not be handled on the I.D.
Team level. He also indicated that the whole process would
work much better if each alternative developed offered a
real solution to the problems so that the alternative evaluation would be believable.
Todd Weston pointed out that the Forest Service, UDOT, and
rHWA must all agree to whatever solutions are presented in
the report.
If any of the three agencies disagree with the
findings, the project will never be completed.
(
In discussions at the end of the meeting, there was no agreement as to when the first public information meeting should
be held, or what purpose it should serve. After further
discussion, it was decided that the date of the first meeting
should be set after the next I.D. Team meeting.
It was recommended that a feature article on "the project be prepared
for the Logan paper. This should be published prior to the
Logan public information meeting.
The next meeting will be held on Monday June 23, at
7:00 p.m. at District 1 headquarters in Ogden.
SLC73/39
(
5
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/59">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/59</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000.
Checksum
2735761469
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
3942259 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Environmental assessment minutes of interdiscipline team meeting, June 10, 1986
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes from the environmental assessment meeting of the interdisciplinary meeting including a summary of the scope of work, analysis of transportation needs, location studies, geotechnical investigations, public and agency involvement, agency coordination, and environmental assessment.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Naegle, Jim
Zollinger, Lynn
Baumgartner, David
Weston, Todd
Lukez, Rudy
Flint, Steve
Larson, Gale
Neal, John
Barker, Sheldon
Haislip, Thomas
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1986-06-10
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1980-1989
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_Page_4.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/fe40f9168446c8d40313a03df21de24b.pdf
9aaca0cff5cf93cd5df13adfe8c971d3
PDF Text
Text
oR161ttAL
2
3
4
5
6
..
"
o
...
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
7
City Hall
145 West Center
Garden City, Utah
~
I[
o
IL
8
9
-000-
10
Presiding:
Todd ~~eston
state Highway Commissioner
Utah Depar tm ent of
,..
TI'8.nsportation
Conducting:
stanton S. Nuffer
11
12
13
Project Manager
14
15
16
17
, 18
<
U
19
o
Z
UI
\oJ
I[
IL
20
~
UI
\oJ
~
o
«
z
"
21
22
\oJ
D..
23
24
25
CH2M Hill
�I N D E X
2
3
Statement by Mr. Dee Johnson
6
5
Statement by Mr. Barry Negus
7
6
Statement by Mr. Val Peterson
8
7
Statement by Mr. Bryce Nielson
10
8
Statement by Mr. Ted Seeholtzer
13
9
Statement by Mr. Bryce Stringham
19
10
Statement by Mr. John Flannery
20
11
Statement by Mr. George Preston
23
12
Statement by Mr. Russ Currel
25
13
Statement by Mr. OWen Wahlstrom
26
14
Statement by Mr. Paul Webb
27
15
Statement by Mr. Bill Peterson
28
16
Statement by Ms. Cathy Webb
29
17
Statement by Mr. Ray Elliott
32
18
Statement by Mr. Lynn Hillsman
35
19
Statement by Mr. Don Huffner
36
20
Statement by Mr. Todd Weston of UDOT
38
21
Statement by Mr. Jess Anderson
42
22
Statement by Mr. Howard Richardson
43
23
'of
Statement by Mr. Ken Brown
4
ell
0
3
3
..
Statement by Mr. Otto Mattson
Statement by Mr. Dave Baumgartner
45
~
II:
0
Ii.
III
~
1'1
C7I
<
u
0
z
II)
'"
II:
Ii.
~
II)
'"
~
"0
0(
z
"
III
Q.
24
-000-
25
)
i.
�GARDEN CITY, UTAH, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1987, 7:00 P.M.
2
-000-
MR. WESTON:
3
Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to
w~'re
4
begin this meeting.
5
County, in Garden City.
6
for the use of this room, this facility.
1
here tonight on behalf of three agencies and a lot of other
8
interested people.
9
Commissioner of the Utah Department of Transportation,
10
happy to be over here in Rich
We thank the Garden City officials
We welcome you
My name is Todd Weston.
I'm the
representing this part of the state.
11
We're here tonight to further our discussions
12
that we started with some information meetings some time
13
ago in this same room.
14
tonight.
15
had one in Logan last night and another one this morning
16
in Logan, and this will complete the scoping process of
11
the study that we're entering into on Logan Canyon.
This is called a scoping meeting
It's the third of three that we are holding.
We
The meeting will be conducted by the people from
18
19
CH2M Hill, who are the consultants employed by the Department
20
of Transportation to make the study in Logan Canyon.
(Further comments by Mr. Weston.
21
Introductions
22
of officials present were made.
Further comments by
23
Mr. Weston.
24
were projected upon the wall, and Mr. Barker gave a
25
narration.
Comments by Mr. Sheldon Barker.
Colored slides
Mr. Nuffer continued the narration of the
2.
�)
slides.
Further comments by Mr. Weston.)
2
MR. WESTON:
3
followed by Ken Brown.
4
We will first have
MR. OTTO MATTSON:
Ott~
Mattson,
Gentlemen, after all these
5
6
route on a main artery, the highway system.
9
o
Our economic growth is severely hampered by the fourth-class
8
III
to be deprived of an adequate means of travel to and from?
7
.,
studies, these surveys, the discussions, do we still have
future is not to continue to be deprived because of a few
N
~
a:
...
o
10
We hope our
we feel know nothing of our protective situation.
We all love beauty, but we also love Twentieth
11
12
13
situations, transportation, livestock, construction, goods .
14
1-15 is an artery.
15
not least, recreation, the Wasatch Front's playground.
16
.J
Century progress.
economic growth now depends on the travel of these routes.
<
our future.
o
Last but
Our
Build, and remove the change for
We hope you will consider that.
MR. NUFFER:
19
U
It's a Yellowstone route.
Our views:
17
18
In our situation we have medical
Thank you.
Ken Brown.
Then we'll
Z
til
101
20
a:
t..
have Dee Johnson.
...:
til
101
MR. KEN BROWN:
21
~
Good evening, ladies and
o
«
22
gentlemen.
23
to see you, a good number of people here in attendance.
24
It shows good support, whether you're in favor or not in
25
z
"
I appreciate being here tonight, and it's good
favor.
101
CL
)
3.
�)
The newsman from Channel 2 gave me a title of
2
being outspoken.
3
in there to indicate that.
4
But on the news, I didn't put- anything
So I'm a little disappointed.
As everyone knows, the Logan Canyon road
5
improvement issue has been one of a lot of controversy,
6
and I think that's probably unfortunate.
7
bit about the road.
8
been improved in Logan Canyon, as you know, is a very narrow
9
road, difficult to pass, problems for good flow of traffic.
Just a little
In my opinion, the area that hasn't
10
The bridges are a disaster, in my opinion, a real hazard
11
to traffic.
12
With respect to the study--and somebody correct
13
me if I'm wrong--I understand that this is the fourth study
14
--is that right, Todd?
15
)
MR. WESTON:
16
17
, 18
Well, I've been involved in three.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fourth.
MR. BROWN:
That's a real concern to me.
going into the fourth study of this area.
We're
What are we going
19
to gain from the fourth study that we couldn't have gained
20
in the first, second, or third?
21
in my opinion.
22
The improvements.
So I think that's a waste,
I look for a design, improved
23
road, such as that in the lower portion of the canyon, or
24
that which has been improved.
25
essential for the flow of traffic.
The passing lanes are
New bridges need to
)
4.
�)
be built, in my opinion.
2
It's been my understanding that there has been
3
some proposal of a four lane system in Logan Canyon.
4
totally opposed to anything of that nature.
5
and it wouldn't be cost-effective.
6
Traveling in the canyon.
I'm
It isn't needed,
I have spent most of
II>
7
my life in Rich County.
8
of times, a lot of miles, a lot of different years, going
9
"
o
to college and Utah State University.
N
I've traveled the canyon a lot
~
II:
o
...
I think I have a
10
pretty good feel for how the road was prior to improvement
11
as now.
Going through the canyon
12
now, and especially
13
the improved section, I can't see where you can tell there
14
was any disturbance carried out.
15
affect the beauty
16
there now, how can you tell, as I said, anything was ever
17
done?
418
<:
u
o
I don't think it will
once it's restored.
As you drive through
From a business standpoint or an economic
19
development, it's essential and critical.
We know that
20
all businesses are struggling.
21
money, from the county standpoint, as well as from a grant
22
aspect, to the economic development in the Bear Lake region,
23
and we need to be able to get people to and
24
the Cache Valley area, as well.
z
UI
LoI
II:
...
We are putting money, public
~
UI
LoI
~
o
«
z
"
'"
a..
25
from~
I think
As I said, I'm very much opposed to a fourth
5.
�study coming forth of this issue, and I am very much in
2
favor of a road improvement in the portion of the highway
3
where the improved area ends in Garden City.
4
entire route needs improvement.
MR. NUFFER:
5
6
I think the
Thank you.
Dee Johnson.
Then we'll have Barry
Negus.
MR. DEE JOHNSON:
7
Good evening, ladies and
8
gentlemen.
I appreciate the opportunity to comment.
9
I
don't want to be repetitious of what's been said.
I represent Rich County as a Commissioner and
10
11
12
)
as a citizen also.
I sit in the middle.
Mr. Francis was
at the Logan meeting, and you've heard from Commissioner
13
Brown.
14
the other one is the other.
15
way to be would be to get in the middle of the road of those
16
two, and by so doing I sort of am an eternal optimist.
And one of them is just as bullheaded one way as
So I have decided the best
I don't think there is anything that can't be
17
18
done if all people concerned try to make it happen.
As
19
long as there's dialogue and study, then things like that
20
can happen.
It's been mentioned that the entire economy,
21
22
of course, on this side of the hill depends on that road.
23
It is a major artery.
24
certainly fraternized by our people on this side of the
25
hill.
I think Cache County's economy is
You know, babies are born over there, and they will
6.
�)
always be born over there, and I'd like to see the road
2
improved and the environment withheld to a point that these
3
babies that's being born today and those that are going
4
to be born in 10, 15 years, can enjoy it.
I see a situation where we have a present road
5
6
standard of approximately 25 feet.
To get a standard or
7
a modified standard, we need to have about
8
I just can't help but think we can't add another 10 feet
9
in places where it's needed and still keep the environment
io feet, and
10
so that it's protected, scenic.
There has to be a way,
11
and there will be a way if we're all willing to work towards
12
it.
If we go with Plan A, and we simply say no action
13
14
taken, then we haven't helped everyone concerned.
We've
15
only helped one particular element, that being the element
16
who said, nBy doing anything, we disturb the environment."
17
If we go to the extreme and take alternatives
18
D or E, then we haven't maintained the environment as it
19
needs to be.
20
a road that can service the needs now and in the future.
21
We all have to work together.
22
the time.
III
N
....
f
''"'
"
<
u
Somewhere we have to get in the middle, get
o
z
I/)
101
a::
IL
...:
I/)
101
~
I think we can.
I appreciate
'0
«
z
"
Thank you.
101
11.
23
MR. BARRY NEGUS:
I agree well with everything
24
that's been said so far, and I think there is a definite
25
need for an improvement on the road.
I think I can say
', )
7.
�most of the people travel on that road at least once a week,
~nd
2
3
to make it a little better and to help things out, not only
4
for us over here, - but for anybody else that wants to travel
5
the road.
6
think there are ways it can be done to keep the scenics
7
there and still make a good road and help everyone out.
8
12. ·
if not two or three times.
Thank you.
And with the scenic beauty and everything, I
MR. NUFFER:
9
10
it does need to be improved
Thank you, Barry.
Next we'll have
Val Peterson, followed by Bryce Nielson.
MR. VAL .PETERSON:
11
~ntothe
I would like to have read
12
position that was taken by the Cache Chamber of Commerce
14
board of directors on the 15th of October in 1986 relative
15
to the Logan Canyon road study.
such a study, which may eventually provide clearance to
17
much needed road improvements in the Logan Canyon.
18
our understanding that the study focuses primarily on the
19
stretch of canyon road between Right Fork and Garden City.
20
~
13
16
)
or recorded
official record of this meeting a
This is basically the unimproved section of the canyon road.
We are pleased to support
It is
As a Chamber of Commerce we recognize that our
21
22
neighbors to the north in Idaho and Wyoming as well as Utah
23
depend on the canyon, Logan Canyon corridor, to provide
24
transportation access to services found in Logan and Cache
25
County.
Their patronage to our businesses are encouraged,
.)
8.
�)
welcomed, and appreciated.
To these outlying communities,
2
this access is critical and fulfills a great need, a
3
lifeline, if you will, to much needed services and goods
4
not found in their areas.
5
Bear Lake is one of the largest bodies of clean
6
7
Salt Lake, and other Utah areas.
9
III
facilities for not only local needs, but those of Ogden,
8
.,
o
...
fresh waters found in Utah.
This area provides recreational
area, as well as the canyon itself, attracts out of state
::E
a:
o
IL
10
The beauty of the lake
tourists, especially in the summer months.
We think that the upper reaches of the Logan
11
12
Canyon Road should be made safer and more usable by upgrading
13
to an acceptable modern day standard as much as possible;
14
specificall~
15
bridges widened, curves made less sharp, sight distance
16
lengthened, and areas widened.
passing lanes installed, turning lanes built,
It is recognized that environmental consideration
17
III
...
N
'"
f
18
must be taken into account and in some cases allowed to
19
govern the situation.
20
attraction of the canyon is its uniqueness in its natural
21
setting.
22
uncontrolled road construction in Logan Canyon.
III
<
u
ci
It is agreed that the charm and
Z
..,
1/1
a:
IL
~
..,
1/1
~
We do not want nor do we propose to support
0
<{
z
"
..,
0.
23
It is reassuring to know that an interdisciplinary
24
study team has been formed to guide the development of the
25
study currently underway.
This team is made up not only
9.
�of economists, biologists, engineers, UDOT, Federal Highway
2
Administration representatives, U. S. Forest Service
3
personnel, but the environmental community as well.
4
should provide a well balanced technical steering group
5
for recommended improvements.
This
Economical developments and the well being of
6
7
our existing businesses and those that may come into Cache
8
County is the basis of the Chamber of Commerce.
9
important for a Chamber of Commerce to help build a better
It is also
10
11
the economic and social stability of our valley.
12
an opportunity for us to get behind this effort to do
13
something about the Logan Canyon Road and to work together
14
to improve our northern access from Logan to Garden City.
15
)
community by encouraging people to work together to improve
Thank you.
..
16
17
18
MR. NUFFER:
Thank you.
Mr. Nielson.
This is
And after
the Mayor, we will have Ted Seeholtzer.
MR. BRYCE NIELSON:
I appreciate the opportunity
19
to speak tonight.
I look at the Logan Canyon Road from
20
various points of view.
21
up and live in Logan and to utilize the canyon from a
22
recreational point of view.
23
to live for a good number of years in Rich County and use
24
the canyon as a main artery towards the livelihood that
25
we require; doctors, stores, that type of stuff.
I've had the opportunity to grow
I've also had the opportunity
)
10.
�!
.
I have also have had the opportunity to be a
2
fisheries biologist and a "environmentalist," you might
3
say.
4
the mayor of Garden City, and been able to see many of the
5
concerns that citizens of the area have about travel,
6
tourism, businesses, the life blood of communities.
I have also been on the other side of the coin · as
about
I feel this gives me a good overview of the
7
8
problem on the Logan Canyon road.
I feel that I can't really
9
state what alternatives I'm in favor of or opposed to.
10
11
13
appeal.
is extremely important to me, since I transport my family,
15
my loved ones, through the canyon, and my friends travel
16
through the canyon.
17
to say which is more important that one or the other.
18
<
throughout the canyon, its scenic values, its esthetic
14
u
both the fishery environment and the other environments
12
)
Obviously, the environment is extremely important to me,
think they're both extremely important.
19
o
But on the same hand, the safety of the canyon
So it's very difficult for me as one
I
I don't think speed is an issue in the canyon,
Z
III
III
20
can you go around a corner?
22
many minutes can you save?
23
with most of the people in Rich County.
24
an issue with many people.
25
...
and I constantly hear this brought up as speed.
21
a::
very much in favor of improvement of bridges.
How fast
How many miles an hour, how
I don't think that's an issue
I don't think it's
Safety is an issue, and I'm
I'm very
)
11.
�much in favor of improvement of passing lanes, so that
2
individuals who are impatient, want to get on down the road,
3
will not take hazardous actions that may affect the safety
4
of myself or people that I know and that I think a lot of.
I think that it's important that the canyon is
5
6
improved for the tourist industry in Garden City and the
7
Bear Lake area.
8
about in many of these meetings is the fact that you talk
9 '
about loads through the canyon, people, numbers of cars;
You know, one thing that's not been talked
10
but nobody has really talked about the amount of people
11
that go through Evanston, other routes to the area, primarily
12
to avoid the canyon.
13
utilize this exceptional resource .
.J
I'd like to see more of these people
One other thing that I'm probably not--well,
14
15
I'm not in favor of--is any realignment of the Rich County
16
side.
17
and boats and semi's labor up and down the hill.
18
I also can see the scars of the old road that existed in
19
the thirties, and I don't want to see additional scars in
20
that beautiful area.
21
of the valley here and many of the tourists who come through
22
thoroughly enjoy seeing deer, moose, and associated wildlife
23
in that area.
24
25
I live on that alignment.
I see the cars and trucks
However,
I know that many of the residents
I think with some minor changes I can be very
happy with the route as it exists at present.
12.
�On the economic side, I don't want to see citizens
2
of Rich County be unduly taxed to maintain a road that they
3
would abandon if in fact they actually did abandon the road
4
or the alignment was changed so that it was our
5
responsibility as taxpayers to maintain the road that exists
6
right now.
Above and beyond all, and in quick summary, I
7
8
would like to see more of us get together, both the
9
"environmentalists," "the users of the canyon," and the
10
politicians and look together to see the type of ending
11
that I think we can all be proud of.
12
)
MR. NUFFER:
13
MR. TED SEEHOLTZER:
14
15
Thank you.
Ted.
It's hell to get old,isn't
it?
My name is Ted Seeholtzer.
I'm affiliated with
16
17
Travel Council for 11 years.
18
<
u
Beaver Mountain ski area.
Bridgerland Tourist Council, which includes Rich County
19
and Cache County.
20
Some of them sit a little sideways from time to time, but
21
basically I'm straight down the middle type of a guy.
a
I'm a past member of the Utah
I am now chairman of the
So I can speak with two or three hats.
z
\II
101
a:
...
...:
\II
101
~
o
'"
"
Z
22
I have been accused of being a special interest
101
IL
23 ·individual regarding the canyon.
Perhaps I am to a point,
24
but I'm here to tell you one thing, whether or not I'm
25
associated with Beaver Mountain, if I thought for one minute
13.
�that canyon was going to be uprooted, I would be completely
2
on the other side of the fence.
So I do have some very,
3
very strong concerns about the canyon and what ought to
4
happen to it and the condition it ought to be in hopefully
5
when we get some work done on it.
Just to throw a few insights to you regarding
6
7
the area and traffic patterns that we have there, on a day
8
that Beaver Mountain has 1,200 skiers, that develops into
9
roughly 440 cars at 2.7 persons per car, which is a good
10
average.
It's pretty much a set number by all the resorts
11
in Utah-Colorado areas.·
We have that happen any number of times during
12
)
2.7 is a pretty good figure.
13
the winter.
14
Day and some of these type things that we get upwards of
15
1,300, 1,400, 1,500 people.
16
of 1,200 to 440 cars, if those people were to leave the
17
resort in an orderly fashion in a two-hour period, every
18
27 seconds an automobile would hit that road.
19
within an hour period, every 13.5 seconds an automobile
20
hits that highway.
21
Of course, we have some peak days.
President's
But as an average weekend crowd
If they leave
So we know that that road cannot be developed
22
to handle total peak traffic.
The 24th of July, Labor Day,
23
Fourth of July type crowds.
24
considered when that road is designed that those types of
25
traffics are possible on it, and consideration should be
But it certainly ought to be
14.
�"
given to that.
We're noticing a great deal more traffic coming
2
3
4
We need those people in this area for their tax dollars,
6
the tourism industry, probably the easier industry to
7
attract.
8
water systems, and that for them.
9
(II
resort.
5
"
o
'"
from the Soda Springs, the Wyoming country in to use the
your tax dollars.
This side of the mountain needs some help also.
We are not asked to build schools; cess pools,
~
II::
i
10
11
They don'tccme out of
All they do is add to the coffers of
the cities and counties where they visit.
There are a few misconceptions that probably
12
have been handed out in the last 30 to 60 days concerning
13
the study that ought to be discussed just a little bit.
14
If you remember, the information was put up here on the
15
board regarding Logan Canyon as a designated scenic highway.
16
It · has been designated only in the Forest Land Use Plan.
17
It has not been registered in the Congressional Record at
18
this point in time.
19
that people think it is now in the record.
20
Forest Use Plan, not in the Congressional Record.
III
N
,..
1'1
0>
<
U
o
I think that's a point of confusion
Only in the
Z
VI
III
II::
'"-
21
It's been suggested that we use wider stripes,
22 ·
brighter paint, to mark the canyon with.
23
But, you know, it's rather difficult to see it in the winter
24
when it's covered with snow.
25
That's great.
It doesn't show up too good.
They talk about better
.ighway
atrol, law
)
15.
�I.
enforcement on speed down through the lower end, the lower
2
section of the project.
I hope the heck they don't throw
3
the whistle at me when I'm on the way down, because there
4
is no place off of there.
5
for you and me to pull off if we're in trouble.
6
those things really need to be taken. care of.
There are very, very few places
Some of
True, there could be some destruGtion to the
7
8
river. In places they have to build ret.a'ining walls.
9
question.
It is a Class 2 fishery river.
No
But keep in mind
10
11
and it will always be a put and take river as long as the
12
)
it has been a put and take river for the last 10 to 12 years,
fishing pressure is there.
13
it is possibly not a rating of a Class 2 river at this time.
14
So we have to consider .that
We're been told that it will kill the algae in
15
the river if they work along the banks.
16
grow back next year.
17
have to be disturbed somewhat, providing we do not have
18
to maintain too many retaining walls.
19
So some of that stuff may have to be sacrificed for the
20
interim period, but it will return.
21
True.
It will come back.
But it will
The bushes may
Those will come back.
Talk about campground destruction.
Some of the
22
campgrounds will be eliminated.
Two campgrounds are involved
23
in that lower section of the road.
24
other is the one at Cottonwood.
25
been blocked out for the last five or six · years by the
One is China Row.
The
The one at Cottonwood has
16.
�"
Forest Service.
It is no longer in use at this time.
The
2
3
of the corridor of the trees.
6
granted.
7
GO
have an extremely difficult time getting back on because
5
o
You have . a difficult time getting off the road, and you
4
.,
one at China Row shouldn't be, as it's far too dangerous.
point .
It is a beautiful place,
But it is also a very dangerous place at that
N
~
II:
Logan Cave, a very definite problem area, probably
8
o
...
9
10
the most controversial area in Logan Canyon.
question about it.
Beautiful place.
Agreed.
No
But it can be solved.
The last four or five years, UDOT has had to
11
12
more fill in later on, nor push it into the river, which
has been done the last two or three years . . I think that
17
problem could be handled very easily without a lot of
18
U
it, and it's set.
16
o
road.
15
<
13
14
)
haul fill in there to keep the river from coming over the
destruction to it.
19
portion of the canyon--probably the one phenomenon in all
20
of Logan Canyon.
Why don't we elevate the road?
No problem.
Cantilever out over
We don't have to haul any
And heaven's knows, I don't want that
Z
1/1
W
II:
...
One thing that hasn't been discussed here a great
21
22
deal is the amount of snow that falls in Logan Canyon from
23
the Forks to, say, Sunrise Campground on this side of the
24
canyon.
25
there's somewhere between 300 and 500 inches of snowfall
The records we've kept over the last years shows
17.
�1/
within that area.
,
The 500 inches would fall from Tony Grove
2
over the top into Sunrise.
Have you ever considered the
3
size of bar pit that you need to put that much snow in?
4
Sure, some of it can be blown away, but a
5
lot of it also blows back on.
6
ask the gentlemen who drive the plow trucks through there,
7
they will tell you -that 100 inches could blow in one night
8
that they have to push off, not only that that falls.
I'm sure if you were to
So we do need some bar pit room.
9
We do need
10
some shoulders for those in trouble to get off and to make
11
the road safer and less narrow in the winter time when there
12
is an awful .lot of snow falling.
My recommendation would be on the improvement
13
14
15
estimation an excellent job on the bottom end of the road,
16
they have used awfully good judgment to improve that road.
17
f
of the road to let the UDOT people, who have done in my
It is not unsightly.
18
place, but that was necessary for a passing lane.
19
you did not have the one passing lane along by Brown's
20
Rolloff, you would only have the passing lane from Malibu
21
area until you hit the dugway, and that is too far for people
22
who need to get through the canyon.
True, they got into the river in one
And if
I thank you very much for your time, and I
23
24
appreciate the privilege of speaking to you tonight.
25
Thank
you.
18.
�..
MR. NUFFER:
2
Bryce Stringham.
Then we'll have
John Flannery.
3
MR. BRYCE STRINGHAM:
I'm Bryce Stringham.
I've
4
5
It was about eight years before that that I was a part-time
6
resident.
7
that canyon any more than I have in the last '28 years, and
8
I put in quite a lot of input in the last meeting we had
9
~
III
o
been a resident here for all the time for about 20 years.
here, and I kind of protested about that road, and I'm sure
I don't think there is anybody that has traveled
Of
I
II:
o
...
10
11
that's been covered many times.
The concern I have on this is changing the route
12
13
'he's for keeping it on the route it's going.
14
go along with that to a point, that if we've got to change
15
that route, that we change it on the face here because of
16
the scenic values, because of the people who are already
17
)
on this side of the hill.
I think, as Bryce has said, that
there who need to serve in part.
18
need to change the road, let's keep it near where it is,
19
and let's come out where we're at.
I essentially
,~
In other words, if we
ill
N
,...
t'I
01
<:
u
o
We have to look at the
Z
til
W
II:
...
W economic part of it, too.
21
Now, if they're going to change the route down
22
Hodges Canyon, they've got to buy more property, they've
23
got to ·change the route.
24
maybe using some of the old route they had, or whatever.
25
I don't know what . the study is.
That costs a lot more money than
But I'd be violently against
19.
�II
changing any other route but essentially the route we've
2
got.
Now, with some variations and like that would
3
4
be fine, but to change a whole new route that's the thing
5
that I'm opposed to.
Thank you.
6
MR. NUFFER:
John Flannery.
7
MR. JOHN FLANNERY:
Thank you for the opportunity.
8
Can you hear me in back?
I'm a writer, not a speaker.
9
So
I'm going to read what I have for all here.
First of all, I have no financial interests in
10
11
any way in Logan Canyon or Logan or Rich .county.
This is
12
not in opposition to what has been said or to the idea of
13
improving the road we have.
14
it as a note of caution.
I would prefer to think of
When I came to Utah to work for the State 32
15
16
years ago, it was Parley's Canyon that said:
11
good place.
18
two-lane road going into Salt Lake City is marvelous.
19
gone.
This is beauty."
"This is a
That small stream by the
It's
Provo Canyon was a quiet meander from Provo to
20
21
Heber Valley, with a few scattered mostly summer homes.
22
Excellent brown trout fishing and shade.
23
and winding.
24
gone.
25
The road was slow
It was a place of tranquility.
And it is
The road from Ogden to Huntsville is less exciting
)
20.
�perhaps.
2
homes.
3
13.
k~
Steeper, a little bit.
Narrower.
Not too many
That, too, is gone.
One canyon remains, admittedly butchered in part,
4
riprapped in part, but maintaining its uniqueness.
5
Logan Canyon, as you all know.
As a sometimes travel writer and photographer,
6
.,
That's
7
I find that will attract and appeal to both the veteran
9
o
my concerns are the esthetics of an area.
8
III
What is it that
traveler and the first-time or once in a lifetime voyager?
N
10
11
I have visited and worked in a lot of states and a lot of
12
countries, flown over quite a few of them too.
13
..J
Without going into a travel log, I would like to say that
of these have been visually diminished by the straight
14
ribbons of cement and blacktop we equate with progress and
15
call development.
Too many
Less than a month ago in Hawaii, I had the
16
17
privilege of driving a road called the Road of a Hundred
18
Bridges, and it runs down across the back of Maui to the
19
tiny town of Hana.
20
is 20 miles an hour.
21
And at many, many bridges you have to stop, yield to oncoming
22
traffic.
· 23
There are 23 miles.
The top speed limit
You often have to go 10 miles an hour.
These are one-way bridges.
And you'd be glad
that you're in a Japanese car and not an American car when
24
you do try to cross those.
Still, it's an unforgettable
25
drive of leisure and beauty, with enough ·pullouts to
21.
�)
encourage dawdling and savoring a unique place on earth.
2
The Hawaiians don't lament those 23 miles of beauty, and
3
that leisurely drive makes people come allover the world
4
who care about scenic beauty.
5
of the tourist industry.
6
It's the backbone of some
I submit that Logan Canyon and its river are
7
similarly unique.
Certainly there is nothing like this
8
canyon and the Logan River left in . Utah.
It's butchery, and it could happen.
9
It will
10
diminish its ability to draw the many people who come to
11
savor what we have.
Injuring this canyon will diminish Utah's full
12
13
house of attractions.
Its damage could and will reduce
14
the value of what is a gateway to your beautiful valley
15
and perhaps wipe out travelers' enthusiasm for the total
16
experience of the drive from the Wasatch Front communities
17
to Bear Lake.
Minutes saved will never repay posterity for
18
19
the measured damage that may be done to the unique canyon
20
we have.
Thank you for listening.
21
I know you're not
22
sympathetic to some of the things I've said.
23
this is not opposition.
24
you.
25
MR. NUFFER:
As I said,
It's a word of caution.
Thank you.
Thank
Well, those are
~ll
)
22.
_. ____ .. _ .. _.... ..... .. _. . .... . _.................. . . . . . _ . . . . ....... ....... _... ...... .... , ... ... ....... .\.\.. _,"\ H'"
... .
.
.?
.
• • _ .' .. r .. r .... ' ..... ·. _-•• , • • -·.""\ ' ..... ·--; .... _l
�II
the ones that signed the list that indicated they would
2
wish to speak.
3
home at 10 after 8:00, now, do we?
4
Some said maybe.
We don't all want to go
I hope the setup here hasn't intimidated anyone.
5
This looks kind of official, but we would certainly invite
6
you to come up.
7
if there is anybody that's changed their mind about talking
8
--if you said no here, I don't care.
We sincerely want to have your input.
MR. GEORGE PRESTON:
9
So
Come on up.
My name is George Preston.
10
11
of residency, but not newcomer in the sense of being over
12
here and enjoying the place, and I have a very deep sense
13
of feeling towards the responsibility that we each have
14
)
I guess I'm a newcomer to this county, newcomer in the sense
towards this community.
15
16
Club and have thought as Mr. Flannery thinks, we would still
17
have a double width wagon track through the canyon.
18
<
u
If our forefathers had been members of the Sierra
would be totally cut off from any sort of civilization;
19
and as far as any economy, there would be none.
20
there is now.
o
We
Less than
z
I/)
LoI
a:
IL
~
I/)
LoI
~
I have listened to five hours of meetings.
21
I
o
«
z
"
22
have listened to both sides, pro, con, all the way from
23
Alternative A to Alternative D.
LoI
IL
With that in mind, I drove through the canyon
24
25
today.
As I drove through, I convinced one person, and
23.
�that was myself, that this road can be improved, it can
2
be widened, passing lanes can be made.
All of this can
3
be done with the gentlemen that are here and available as
4
experts, without compromising the esthetic beauty of the
5
canyon, without compromising fish, wildlife, with hardly
6
any· compromise to the ecology, because we can do it.
7
looking at the alternatives, and driving through the canyon,
8
Alternative C category, improvements can be made in the
9
first lower portion.
In
The C category can be made in the
10
upper portion.
11
down into Garden City, significant improvements can be made.
Two of the worst corners in the entire canyon
.12
)
· 13
And, of course, from the top of the canyon
can be eliminated.
We all know what's happened on those
14
corners.
We all know of the accidents.
There is no reason
15
to maintain a ·hazard like that in which it affects me and
16
potentially you, because those that have gone before us
17 .
on those corners, they're gone.
Who is next in the future?
18
When the economy of Cache County was sorely in
19
need of a highway leading into Logan, so that Logan could
20
say, "We need that highway to boost the economy," it was
21
given to Logan.
22
road and those modifications, compatible with the ecology,
23
to boost this economy."
Rich County is now saying:
24
Please give it to us.
25
MR. NUFFER:
"We need that
Is there anyone else here?
Yes, sir.
)
24.
�II
MR. RUSS CURREL:
My name is Russ Currel.
As
2
3
I came together.
5
...
I do speak for myself today.
4
n
--
I look over this group, I recognize nearly everyone here.
in Logan, Cache County, when that statement was made.
6
do support the statement of the Chamber of Commerce.
I did come over.
Val and
I was president of the Chamber of Commerce
I
I would like to make some comments of my own.
7
8
I do own property in Bear Lake and property in Cache Valley .
9
I was born in Bear Lake county, and I don't think there
10
11
My family, as we were talking about taking a posi t ·ion here--
12
)
is anyone here that enjoys Logan Canyon anymore than I do.
I have five children, and without exception, all five said,
13
"Dad, please don't take a position to destroy the canyon."
And I said, "I think you know me better than
14
15
that."
But one thing I do take a position on, and that
16
17
is the safety of the canyon.
I don't know what you would
18
do to the canyon.
19
getting from here to Logan very much.
20
are a lot of things there that need to be done for the safety
21
of the canyon.
II)
N
"
en
1'1
<:
u
o
I don't think you'd speed up the time
But I do know there
Z
III
101
a:
...
I think I would be about B plus position on the
22
23
map, where I think there are a lot of those things, B, that
24
need to be done.
25
C.
Most of those things, and even some in
And I really feel they can be done without really being
25.
�a hazard to the ecology or to the wildlife.
2
I don't fish.
Never fished in my life.
But
3
I think there are ways that we can handle the river where
4
we're not going to be a detriment to that.
I would hope that we all get together, and I
5
6
think the mayor over here stated it best.
7
together and work hard on this, I think we can overcome
8
the problems that are here and really accomplish what we
9
want to accomplish.
Thank you.
MR. OWEN WAHLSTROM:
10
If we all get
My name is OWen Wahlstrom.
11
12
know how to express my feelings to you; but this winter
13
in the canyon, we were going through the canyon to Logan.
14
It was snowing so hard I had to stop and get the ice off
15
my windshield at Twin Bridges.
16
I watched three snow plows go across that bridge with their
17
blade jammed into the guardrail to miss a car coming the
18
other way. They were all three sliding.
19
)
I'm a resident here.
feet between them.
My family is from this area.
I don't
While we were stopped there,
There wasn't six
I definitely agree that the bridges have got
20
21
to be widened.
22
you'd call a modern day miracle.
23
wide body cars.
24
make it.
25
Somehow they missed the car.
It was what
One of those big full,
And we didn't think they were going to
If we don't do something, and if we go completely
)
26.
�with the esthetics, are we going to make up a road like
2
is going through Glacier National Park, where all trucks
3 are prohibited and large motorhomes are prohibited?
4
It
will eventually come to that if the traffic keeps up.
I, too, enjoy the canyon; but I do think some
5
6
7
there are probably lawsuits against the State in that canyon .
8
We're going to pay one way or the other.
9
..,
CII
o
.,.
improvements have to be made.
happening in there.
I don't know.
I imagine
~
a:
o
...
Accidents keep
It's been stated here, it's a
10
11
-
substandard road.
are many areas in there where if somebody wants to raise
. 12
problems for
I'm not an attorney, but I'm sure there
it can easily be done .
anybody,
I also rely on the economy over here very much.
13
14
I don't want this to be a two-bit tourist trap, but I think
15
we can accommodate more people than we're getting.
16
you.
17
18
<
u
MR. NUFFER:
MR. PAUL WEBB:
19
o
Thank
Yes, sir.
Can I just stand here?
is like driving through Logan Canyon.
The trip
(Laughter.)
Z
\II
20
W
a:
I/..
..:
\II
21
w
~
o
«
I just had a few thoughts I want to say.
taking any alternative--
22
MR. NUFFER:
23
z
"
MR. WEBB:
III
IL
By
Could you give your name?
Paul Webb.
I am a resident here in
24
Garden City.
By taking any alternative less than a major
25
resurfacing modification, we're only going to reduce the
)
27.
�Il
time between conflicts between people and also reduce the
2
time between disturbances of the environment.
We must
3
remember at this point in time we consider the canyon a
4
beautiful place, where wildlife thrives and brightens our
5
lives.
6
was butchered, and it has recovered.
7
the butchery.
8
can be improved and provide transportation to people.
9
we're doing the job, let's do it right.
But remember, at some time in the past the canyon
And it's beautiful.
10
MR. NUFFER:
11
MR. BILL PETERSON:
We are looking at
With caution, the canyon
While
Yes, sir.
Bill Peterson, Garden City.
12
13
20 years.
14
surveys and signs and studies go on in the canyon.
15
think it's time we get past the looking and the studying
16
)
I've been a resident of Garden City and the area for about
and do something to improve the canyon.
17
For 15 of those 20 years I think there have been
I'm in the real estate business.
.1 really
I have numerous
18
people coming through the canyon stopping in the office,
19
many of them upset.
20
21
22
23
24
25
"That's a beautiful canyon, but I would never
drive over it again."
I mean, I'm not kidding you.
That's what a number
of people say.
It's dangerous.
want to go over it.
It's beautiful.
But they don't
I really think even the first section
)
28.
�down towards Logan is out of date.
i
We've got you gentlemen
2
3
than your 1 to 2 percent you've predicted.
4
of major developments, at least
5
are major.
6
•
o
coming up here.
Our growth rate is going to be much more
every year.
tw~
We have a number
that will be here that
And we have building permits.
We're growing
7
I think if you go and improve to meet what you
8
had in the lower part of the canyon, as Paul said, you're
9
III
wasting your time.
III
~
a:
o
...
We should plan · now to have the facilities
10
for the future.
11
Canyon is not going to do us in 10 years from now.
MR. NUFFER:
12
)
13
That section in the first part of Logan
Thank .you.
Is there anyone else?
Ye s, rna' am.
MS. CATHY WEBB:
14
My name is Cathy Webb.
I'd
15
16
view.
17
to and from Logan probably at least once a week.
18
<
u
like to make .some comments from a woman's standpoint of
even more than that.
19
o
z
VI
....
a:
Everyone of us ladies - here in this community travels
Maybe
I'd like all of you executives and officials
20
that are in this room tonight to know that I have spoken
21
to each and everyone of you several times.
22
didn't get past Paul's ears.
23
And I've gone through that canyon a million times, and I've
24
remodeled it a dozen times.
25
...
to see what . would happen if somebody dug away some dirt
However, it
It didn't get past the car.
I've checked out the mountains
)
29.
�and some shrubs.
I've put up fence along the dugway for
2
years, so that the rocks wouldn't bounce down on the road.
3
I just know I'm going to get hit by a boulder on the dugway
4
one of these years.
I just know it.
On top of the car.
I've taken four little children, tiny little
5
6
babies to the doctors, the hospitals, the groceries.
I
7
have spent probably a minimum of $500 a month, ·and that
8
probably is a minimum, over in Cache Valley.
I appreciate the comments of the Chamber of
9
10
Commerce.
We like to feel appreciated over here and the
11
fact that we do put a lot of money into Cache . Valley . .
I would also like to make a comment that last
12
13
year in August I packed up my car, took my 15-year-old
14
daughter at 10 o'clock at night.
15
My husband had already left.
16
with just my daughter and me, 10 o'clock at night.
.>
We were moving to Logan.
And I started out the journey
I climbed up the summit.
17
I had a car behind
18
me.
19
to get in front of me.
20
to the point that I had to pass him again.
21
him.
22
tell, I had a carload of screwballs following me.
23
I let him pass through Tony Grove, or through Beaver,
He slowed down.
And then he continued to tail me.
He slowed down
So I passed
As near as I could
Needless to say I was scared to death by the
24
time I got to Logan, because, you see, we passed no other
25
cars on the way.
There was no moon.
It wasn't bright.
)
30.
�')
There were no reflectors.
I couldn't tell if there was
2
a place for me to pullout on the road.
3
my tail.
4
on going.
5
But I couldn't tell.
I wanted him off
I had no choice but to keep
At that point, I told my daughter, "Hand me a
6
7
GI
o
traveling through the canyon, put a man's hat on, it will
8
•
..
baseball cap," because I had always read if you're a woman
protect you.
~
I[
o
a..
9
We're driving down the road, and I am scared
10
11
this hat on, and we went that way through the rest of the
12
canyon with these guys tailing me, turning their lights
13
off, harassing me through the canyon, and I not being able
14
to get off the road to make them pass me, until we got onto
15
the new part of the road again.
16
bugger, you go ahead, and I'll find somebody, and I ' l l get
17
)
to death.
"Hand me a hat."
I tucked my hair up and put
your number."
And then I thought:
"You
18
19
to the point, once we got to the turnoff, that he had to
20
pass.
21
<
u
And he had to pass me, because I slowed' down '
was my greeting into Cache Valley to be a resident there.
o
z
\I)
LII
I[
IL.
And that's the way we went on into Logan, and that
..:
\I)
LII
~
o
«
z
"
22
LII
Well, we lived there for nine months and then
CL
23
24
25
we ended up moving back to Garden City.
May I say to those of you that are here and
representing the environment, you'll find no one that
)
31.
�\
appreciat.e s the esthetic beauty of Cache Valley and of the
2
mountains more than those of us who choose .to live in them.
3
We talk about the drives.
4
single time we go through Logan, because every time you
5
go through Logan Canyon you see something different.
6
We talk about the beauty every
Improving that road is not going to change what
7
we see when we go through that canyon.
8
to say.
That's all I have
9
Oh, I do have one other comment.
10
who is in Logan, calls Logan Canyon a paved cow trail.
11
MR. NUFFER:
Thank you.
12
MR. RAY ELLIOTT:
My dentist,
Anyone else?
Yes.
My name is Ray Elliott.
I
13
know most of you here.
Some of you may know us from being
14
here in the summer.
15
So I wanted to speak just a little bit concerning all of
16
the interests involved.
I have interests here in Bear Lake.
This seems to be quite a polarizing issue.
17
I
'18
went to the meeting last night in Logan.
The meeting was
19
heavily represented there last night by environmental
20
interes~s,
21
towards development of the road.
22
different motives, different personal interests, some of
23
them personal, some of them environmental, some of them
24
concerned with safety.
25
from people who have specific monetary concerns in the canyon
and the interests seemed to be more slanted
Everyone seems to have
Some interests are monetary, either
)
32.
�I,
or on either side of the canyon, to see improvement made.
2
I feel that we really need to be responsible to
3
4
we need to be careful to protect the things that we all
7
.,
to be made in the canyon.
6
flII
improvement.
5
o
the future, both for the environment and safety and
feel are important.
....
But in making those improvements,
There is going to be increased traffic.
8
9
Improvements that are going to be made need
If we
want to see increased use here in Bear Lake, we need to
10
decide who we're trying to attract.
11
Lake is attracting tourists, we need to be careful.
12
we want the tourists to get through on a faster highway,
13
or do we want to attract people who are there to enjoy the
14
scenery?
15
If the economy of Bear
There are gives and takes there.
Do
In trying to
16
attract more people, if they declare
17
route and list it in the Federal Registry, you may attract
18
more tourists; but in doing so, you're going to have to
19
accommodate more people in that canyon, and the roads are
20
going to have to be improved.
21
both ways.
22
th~
highway a scenic
There are going to be trades
If we decide over here--and I have interests
23
here that I need--I would like to see tourist trade increase,
24
but I'm not sure that faster roads or scenic highway, either
25
one, there's a question that exists there.
Which is going .
)
33.
�to be in the best interests of Rich County in attracting
2
3
tourists?
We need to be careful that this type of forum
4
that we have in getting public opinion does not leave the
5
engineering firm, CH2M Hill, UDOT, with the impression that
6
what they have seen either in support of widening the road
7
or in support of saving the environment and doing nothing--
8
they're going to be left with an impression there, and then
9
they're going to take that
10
info~mation
home and decide what
they will do with it and do what they will.
11
the two groups is because each group feels that one group
13
is trying to take advantage of the other group or that the
14
concerns of the environmentalists will be totally served by
15
whomever is going to make the decision, or the concerns
16
of improvements in the road are going to be served over
17
)
Now, some of the polarities that exist between
12
14.
the environment.
18
I have a suggestion that I'm not sure what could
19
be done there to insure that both sides are served; and
20
I feel that there is a middle ground that could be achieved
21
without destroying the environment and without changing
22
the canyon, and still improving the road.
23
responsible to the improvements that need to be made.
24
25
.
We have to be
I mean, I've driven a pregnant wife at 2 o'clock
in the morning over that highway from Bear Lake to Logan,
)
34.
�with labor pains and two minutes apart, and I know the
2
anxiety that accompanies that.
3
So there are safety concerns that we need to
4
5
forum like this leaves people with a few notions that they
7
will go ba.ck and, . again, as I said, do what they will.
8
there could be a committee put together of interest groups
9
.,
o
...
same time, I really love and appreciate that canyon.
6
III
be .concerned with, that we really need to address.
that each have their own interests that could be used as
At the
A
If
~
I[
o
"-
.
10
11
environmentalists, the Sierra Club may have a representative
12
at that meeting, the Rich Tourist Council should have a
13
representative on that advisory committee.
14
perhaps there should be a way to insure that everyone's
15
)
checks and balances for whatever is going to be done, the
interest there is served, and I feel that they can be.
16
17
MR. NUFFER:
18
<
u
That's all I had to say.
MR. LYNN HILLSMAN:
I think that
Thank you.
Yes, sir.
My name is Lynn Hillsman,
19
and I have one thing that's just a little bit different
20
than most people.
21
of others.
22
the middle of the road, and there are major problems with
23
the subgrade.
24
up the road just to even maintain it.
25
improvement and still try to maintain it?
o
Z
\/I
101
I[
"-
I drove that canyon today, like a bunch
...:
\/I
101
~
(;
«
z
"
a.
101
To my idea, there is water coming up through
To redo this, you're going to have to tear
So why not do some
\
)
35.
�But with the subgrade and the drainage the way
2
it is, there's something drastic has to be done with that
3
road to keep it to where you can drive on it.
4
you're doing it, do it right.
5
That's all I have to say.
6
MR. NUFFER:
7
MR. DON HUFFNER:
So while
Yes, sir.
I'm Don Huffner.
I wasn't
8
going to say anything tonight, but Ray reminded me of
9
something that happened to me.
I used to be on the Highway
10
Patrol.
11
in Logan Canyon, it was probably me that gave them to you.
12
In fact, 20 years ago if any of you got tickets
Ray said that he has driven Logan Canyon with
an expectant wife.
14
somebody else's expectant wife, and it's no easier when
15
it's somebody else's wife.
16
)
13
trying to tell the father how to deliver that baby.
17
Well, I've driven Logan Canyon with
It's hard to drive that canyon
I've got some recommendations here, or at least
18
things, as I look at the presentation and look
19
a little more specific
20
maybe Alternative C was all right.
21
looked at it, and Alternative D, they have changed the road
22
just below Ricks Spring and cut out an area there that in
23
my opinion, my experience, it is quite a bad area.
24
made a lot of other improvements here, too.
25
like the difference between C and D is this cut just below
On
at the maps
the first section I thought that
But then the more I
They
But this looked
)
36.
�1
,
)
1
Ricks Spring that eliminates an area where the banks are
2
very steep and in the winter time the sun never gets down
3
to the road--well, seldom gets down to the road--not because
4
of clouds, but because of the mountains shading it.
5
quite a dangerous area in my opinion.
Now, Alternative C I believe would be fine other
6
7
That's
than that.
On the next section, on Section 2, I thought
8
' 9
10
they would like to see the road brought right up to snuff,
11
put a brand new road in there, because in 15 or 20 years
12
)
Alternative B was satisfactory.
NOW, some have said that
we're going to need it, or maybe even sooner.
13
possible.
That's
But ' economically speaking, I don't know that--
14
15
I'm afraid we're going to choke the horse if we try to feed
16
it that much and that we need to be realistic on our needs
17
now.
18
<:
u
We've got other areas, other routes of getting
19
in and out of the valley.
20
too, to develop those along with this.
21
summer people that have cabins here on the lake that come
22
from Salt Lake, well over half of them--well over half of
23
o
I think we need to work on those,
them--from the Salt Lake area come through Evanston already.
Z
III
III
It:
IL
24
25
Already of the
Now, as more people learn of the Evanston route,
there will probably be more and more people come that way.
,. )
37.
�')
And that's not all bad to have several accesses into our
2
area.
The last section, again, there are some very
3
4
bad curves there, and I think that they need to be looked at.
I think Alternative D would be the one that I
5
6
would recommend.
It eliminates the bad curves without
7
realigning the road drastically, and I think we could get
8
along with that.
Thank you.
MR. NUFFER:
9
Is there anyone else here that would
10
care to testify?
11
want to that changed their mind?
Now is your chance.
Well, with that, do any of the UDOT people want
12
13
Anyone that came thinking they didn't
to say anything in closing?
MR. 'WESTON:
14
I was ready to go at 10 after 8: 00,
15
but since we've talked some more, let me make one thought
16
or two in conclusion.
17
through our previous meetings that Logan Canyon itself means
18
different things to different people.
19
all going to agree upon what Logan Canyon means to us.
20
think we've found out that it's a very sensitive area.
I think 'we've found out tonight and
I don't think we're
I
I think we already know that the Forest Service
21
22
desires to keep it a scenic highway, and I think that's
23
fine.
24
25
I think that can be done.
I think we need to remember a few things, and
I think I need to answer a question of Commissioner Brown's.
)
38.
�I think it deserves an answer.
That is, what's to be gained
2
3
study.
I don't think we've lost anything by
three times.
6
that this better be the last study before we do something
7
CIO
And I've told you previously that this is my third
5
.
asked.
4
o
...
by an additional study?
I think that's the question he
in Logan Canyon .
study~ng
it
But I do think that the time has come now
l:
II:
I say that from the standpoint that we now have
8
o
"-
9
-got some structures up there in the canyon that have got
10
to be repaired or replaced quite drastically.
I can see
11
some problems if we don't repair those bridges; and if we
12
try to do it on the existing alignment, on the existing
13
bridge, we're going to have to build a route around those
14
bridges for the traffic to go through that may be more
15
detrimental to - the highway than some of the things we're
16
talking about.
I just want to say this much, that we have got
17
18
19
do something on the bridges is quite obvious to most of
20
you here.
21
of our study.
22
Transportation is not flush
23
the Legislature recently passed a 5 cent gas tax increase,
24
the needs that we have, I've got to say in all honesty that
25
<:
u
to do something on the bridges. - The reason we've got to
5 cents more gas tax is a drop in the bucket to our needs.
o
z
II)
101
II:
...
What we do over and beyond that is the purpose
But I do know this.
The Department of
with dollars.
Even though
)
39.
�We have to rely on the federal highway people
2
to help us fund primary road systems.
Logan Canyon Highway,
3
Highway 89, is more than just a road for Cache County.
4
more than just a road for Rich County.
5
federal highway; and as long as we're going to have a primary
6
federal highway going through that canyon, we've got to
7
keep it up to certain standards.
It's
It's a primary
8
Now, if the time comes that there are enough
9
feelings that that shouldn't be a primary highway, then
10
I guess we'll address that at that time; but it presently
11
is, and we're required and obligated in our responsibility
12
to the highway system of the State of Utah' to do certain
13
things on that highway to make it reasonably safe and usable
14
for the traveling public.
15
to do it.
16
it's our judgment as a Department of Transportation, that
17
there will be no money spent up there, even on bridges,
18
until we complete an environmental impact study in depth,
19
like we're doing now, and there will be a chance to have
20
you come to a hearing on our draft environmental impact
21
study, which will be ready sometime this fall, hopefully;
22
and at that time you can make the decision, help us make
23
the decision, on what we're going to do with Logan Canyon.
24
But I do know that the study has got to be done.
25
We need federal highway dollars
The federal highways, I can tell you now, and
When I first came on the Commission, ·1 was the
)
40.
�\
i
first one to go to the rest of the Commissioners and say,
2
"Why are we spending half a million dollars up there to
3
study something we already know?"
4
statement as Commissioner Brown made.
You know, the same
5
6
.,
I since have become a little older and a little
wiser, and I know that we've got to complete this document
. 7
and consider every option and consider everybody's feelings
8
and examine every portion of it and now do anything in that
9
ell
o
canyon until we're satisfied that we're doing the right
III
~
II:
o
...
10
thing.
11
to release any money and Dave Baumgartner and the Forest
12
Service are not going to support us if we don't do the job
13
And I know the federal highway people are not going
-and do it right.
14
Now, that's the reason for the study.
You have an opportunity to give us input.
You
15
16
consulting team up until April 6.
17
has the address you can mail those to, if you have things
18
<
u
will have written comments that can be written to our
to say that you didn't say tonight.
19
if you want to get your name on the record, you send that
20
in to the people and express yourself.
o
You have - a handout that
Even if it's repetitive,
Z
III
W
II:
...
I don't think numbers are going to be things
21
22
that make the determination.
I don't think numbers ever
23
was the determining decision-making process in any valid
24
decision.
25
good solid concrete suggestions on what you think we ought
But we do want your input, and we want to have
41.
�to do.
Thank you.
MR. NUFFER:
2
3
Jess, did you have a follow-up on
that?
MR. JESS ANDERSON:
4
I just have a question.
Can
5
you do anything with the area around Logan Cave?
6
make that parking or something?
7
in a snowstorm in the middle of the night, and there's not
8
much room on that corner.
That's what these experts are going
MR. NUFFER:
That's one of the areas we're going
to tell us.
11
12
You come through there
MR. WESTON:
9
10
Can you
to take a good close look at.
A VOICE:
13
Just on the time frame fot the
14
environmental impact study, how long does that need to
15
proceed?
MR. NUFFER:
16
Well, if all things go reasonably
17
well, we hope to complete the draft environmental impact
18
statement this summer, which will give you the environmental
19
datq to accompany these alternatives that we have identified
where.
21
One more question.
22
A VOICE:
I'm a little uncomfortable with the
23
monologue type input.
I feel a little better with the more
24
dialogue type input.
25
says something, another person says something, and it's
What's been happening is one person
)
42.
�tough for both parties to get together.
What my question
2
is, ultimately who makes the decision, and how is that
3
decision going to be made on what is actually done in the
4
canyon?
5
6
'"
III
o
7
MR. NUFFER:
Does Howard or Todd care to answer
that question?
MR. HOWARD RICHARDSON:
This draft environmental
N
~
II:
8
impact statement will contain an inventory of all of the
9
o
"-
resources and the values that all parties have identified
10
in the canyon; and a recommended design will be recommended
11
or proposed, considering all of those things; and where
12
impacts or problems are perceived to take place, mitigations
13
and recommendations will be supplied in the environmental
14
impact statement containing what will happen.
15
There will be a public hearing that will be held
16
17
<
o
on that proposal and on those recommendations and on the
18
U
that will contain the comments of people who wish to comment
proposed mitigation.
19
U. S. Forest Service and the Federal Highway Administration
20
will make a determination of whether the environmental issues
21
and safety issues have been properly addressed and whether
22
that represents a reasonable and proper and prudent solution
23
to the problem at hand.
After that has been heard, then the
Z
VI
101
II:
"-
..:
VI
101
~
o
0{
I!)
Z
101
II.
24
25
So the agencies, the sponsoring agencies are
the ones who will make the final decision.
It will be made
43.
�only after a tremendous amount of input, of which these
2
meetings last night and tonight are only a part of.
MR. ELLIOTT:
3
Another question.
Is there a
4
possibLlity of having a citizens' advisory to that decision?
5
Has that been done?
MR. RICHARDSON:
6
Well, I don't think that's--it's
7
possible to have that done on an informal basis.
8
would be simply a measure to help structure and make sure
9
that the problems are identified and the concerns were
10
properly put into the environmental document.
MR. ELLIOTT:
11
12
But that
Could you take that into
consideration?
MR. RICHARDSON:
13
Yes, I'm sure that will be taken
14
into consideration.
15
that.
16
meeting for several months, there has been 12 to 15 meetings
17
by the interdisciplinary team.
18
of varied interests of the resources and the values in the
19
canyon.
20
place.
21
22
23
On the
The team and I were thinking about
interd~sciplinary , team
that has now been
That represents a composite
So there already is a type of that thing taking
Yes, there is.
MR. ELLIOTT:
Is there any way of getting a record
of what transpires next?
MR. RICHARDSON:
Well, those minutes are public
24
information, and minutes have been kept of all of those
25
meetings, and CH2M Hill are the guardians of those things.
,)
44.
�~)
They manufacture them and make them and circulate them for
2
each of the meetings, so that everybody knows what was done
3
last time, and they are reviewed and approved and discussed.
4
And, yes, those things are not secret.
5
for everybody who wants to look at them.
6
III
o
7
MR. NUFFER:
8
.,
.
MR. ELLIOTT:
MR. DAVE BAUMGARTNER:
9
They are available
Thank you.
Dave Baumgartner.
As a suggestion to us
all--and I haven't talked to Howard nor to Stan nor the
10
CM2H folks about this, the original design of that
11
environmental study is unique, and it really didn't operate
12
like we had thought it was going to at . the beginning.
13
had invited some members of the environmental community
14
to sit on that, because they had the major concerns with
15
the program.
We
16
17
o
needs that legitimately ought to be done on the highway.
18
<
u
I think most people recognize that there were
'And our thought in the beginning was to bring in those people
19
who had adverse views to that and help us work through the
20
process, so that that would go a little bit smoother.
Z
'II
W
II:
...
~
'II
W
~
21
But it's changed a little bit in its organization.
o
0(
z
"
22
I would suggest to us who were on that team that we do what
23
he suggests and invite a responsible member from either
24
this side of the hill or however we want to do that, in
25
order to provide that balance that not only he, but several
W
IL
45.
�others have suggested.
I think we ought to consider that.
2
That's more of a statement to these guys than the crowd,
3
but I think it's a legitimate thing to bring up.
4
MR. NUFFER:
5
(At 8:43 p.m., Wednesday, March 4, 1987, the .
6
7
Thank you.
meeting ended.)
-000-
8
9
10
11
12
)
13
14
15
16
17
18
.1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
)
46.
�r - - - - - - - - - - - -- ------- - -..-_
.
C L
! -~
r
'T' I
2
3
State of Utah
county of Salt Lake
5
I, Ronald r . Llul.1.;;trd, 01 0 here!.. '.' certify that I ,un
a certified shorthand reporter in ano [or the ~~t() te of Utal'lt
7
8
proceedings, and that tlLi : ;
9
correct record of said proceedinqs.
10
11
Dated a t
of
12
()~r~
Sal t
Lr -· ll l~i cr..i.pt
L.'1J:(~
C ity,
..i. :.~
,l
Lull,
true,
Utah,
tlnd
day
1986.
(R~&.~..2__
13
'~ '.
!lon.:lld F .
14
IIubbilrd
-
7.30 LTudCJ(~ J1.ui lc1in'J
Salt L ~lk.C City, Utah
(301) 355-1611
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
::-)
L___ _
�. . .- ....'
()
LOGAN · CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SeOPING MEETTNGS
.
3« 1987
~o§aD
Utah
4, 1981 - Gar-en city, Ut~
March
~rch
)
\~
/V2)
�,
I
LOGAN·CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING -MEETTNGS
I
March 3, 1987 - Logan, Utah
March 4, 1987 - Garden City, Utah
NAME
REPRESENTING
r/\~
t>-Av
DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK?
j!cJ~
}
r.
I
�LOGAN · CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING
. . - "\
1
I
~
\
....J
.
~NGS
March 3, 1987 - Logan, Utah
March 4, 1987 - Garden ' City, Utah
I
;
NAME
REPRESENTING
DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK?
�••
I
LOGAN · CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS
March 3, 1987 - Logan, Utah
March 4, 19~7 - Garden City, Utah
DO YOU WISH TO
-
).
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/55">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/55</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000.
Checksum
372804673
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
29603450 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Public scoping meeting for the Logan Canyon environmental study
Description
An account of the resource
Transcript from the public scoping meeting for the Logan Canyon environmental study held at City Hall in Garden City, Utah on March 10, 1986 where several spoke and answered questions.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hubbard, Ronald F.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Mattson, Otto
Brown, Ken
Johnson, Dee
Negus, Barry
Peterson, Val
Nielson, Bryce
Seeholtzer, Ted
Stringham, Bryce
Flannery, John
Preston, George
Currel, Russ
Wahlstrom, Owen
Webb, Cathy
Elliot, Ray
Hillsman, Lynn
Huffner, Don
Weston, Todd
Anderson, Jess
Richardson, Howard
Baumgartner, David
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Logan Canyon (Utah)--History
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1986-03-10
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Garden City (Utah)
United States
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1980-1989
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 11
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS148VIIIB27_Fd11_Page_1.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/32d7a78c324a05b6b4bc5e35ae4a4e75.pdf
29c46baab7806eda681d280e2e244f2b
PDF Text
Text
DRAFT #1
LOGAN CANYON
Minutes of ID Team Meeting
July 14, 1986
Attendance
Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL
Alan Steger - FHWA
Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL
Jim Naegle - UDOT
Lynn Zollinger - UDOT
Gayle Larson - Valley Engineering
Todd Weston - UDOT
John Neil - UDOT
Clark Ostergaard - USFS
Dave Baumgartner - USFS
Rudy Lukez - Sierra Club
Carolyn Martineau - UDOT
Jack Spence - Sierra Club
Ken Riddle - UDOT
ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES
The minutes of the last meeting were reviewed.
There was
some discussion on the roll of the ID team.
Jack Spence
asked whether or not the ID team would recommend a preferred
alternative to the cooperating agencies. After some
discussion it was decided to modify the role statement of
the ID team to include a recommendation of the preferred
alternatives.
Dave Baumgartner " asked whether the ID team was going to be
part of the evaluations or just provide review.
Stan Nuffer
explained that the Forest Service which has staff and expertise is environmental areas would be directly involved in
the gathering and evaluation of data.
They would also assist
in identifying areas where more data is required and assist
in the identification of impacts and mitigation measures.
During the discussion of the Public Involvement Program,
Dave Baumgartner asked when the scoping meetings were going
to be held.
Stan Nuffer explained that the purpose of the
public information meetings was to give the public the opportunity to develop more informed opinions and also for the
project team to gather information which would be used to
identify the key issues.
The official scoping meetings
would then be held to obtain from the public more clearly
defined concerns and key issues.
A ~~
a suitable
SLC79/16
__
e mailing list were received from
The press release had been turned
ffairs Department who would put it
prior to release.
~_~-
1
�DRAFT #1
ITEM 2 - TRAFFIC COUNTING AND FORECASTING
The discussion of traffic counting and forecasting centered
around information on the subject which had been mailed to
team members prior to the meeting. There will be manual
counts which will serve two purposes, the first is to provide
classification information and the second is to provide additional information on the distribution of flow within the
canyon. Four or five counts in the canyon should provide
some useable data on the traffic flow.
\
(
There will be two coverage stations from which counts will
be taken.
The FHWA Traffic Counting Manual recommends manual
counts at coverage stations 2 to 4 times per year.
There
was some discussion of the need to make manual counts on
days that were representative of the general traffic flow
for that period of the year. Rudy Lukez asked for the daily
summary of traffic flow at the permanent station for the
month of February, 1986 in order to see whether the February
count represented "typical" February traffic. Rud al
asked for traffic flow data on other roads in Cache CQUDty
i l o ther Utah Canyon roads if possible. Jack Spence disnd
c ussed~ he- importance of conducting manu al counts on representative days in order to obtain data that would be
statistically sound.
The schedule and location of the proposed summer traffic
counts was presented and discussed. Four summer dates,
July 29, August 2, August 13 and August 16 were proposed and
approved.
Three locations, Right Hand Fork, Tony Grove
Intersection and Beaver Mountain Intersection were proposed.
The Sinks turnoff near the summit was substituted for the
Beaver Mountain intersection and the 3 sites approved.
Cliff Forsgren said that standard methods of preparing traftfic forecasts do not adequately address the impact of a significant recreation area on " rural system. For this reason
a
2 methods of preparing the forecast were presented and discussed.
The first method assumed full development around
Bear Lake with traffic increasing in some proportion to the
increase in cabins and condominiums .. Using this method and
data collected in 1981, an increase in traffic of nearly
300 percent could be expected by the year 1990. This method
was not recommended for use in this study, due to the volatile and speculative nature of many of these recreational
developments.
The second method uses past trends as a means of forecasting
future ADT.
Using data for the past 5 years this method
would provide a significantly lower estimate of future traffic flow.
An average annual increase of approximately
3 percent was predicted. This method was generally viewed
SLC79/16
2
�DRAFT . #1
(
as a better approach because there were more factors influencing traffic in the Canyon than just Bear Lake. Jack
Spence said that he thought recreational traffic had
increased close to 6 percent per year in recent years.
Clark Ostergaard indicated that the Forest Service had
experienced about a 5 percent per year increase in
campground usage.
It was decided that a past trends approach would be used,
but that a longer period of data was needed. Permanent station records as far back as available will be used.
The
past trends approach would also be checked against economic
trends and forecasts.
ITEM 3 - OUTLINE OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ANALYSIS
A brief outline of the transportation needs analysis was
presented. This outline was present primarily for information and there was little discussion on it.
SLC79/16
SLC79/16
3
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/48">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/48</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000.
Checksum
236039513
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
2002586 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Minutes from Interdisciplinary Team meeting, July 14, 1986
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes from the interdisciplinary team meeting with a review of minutes, traffic counting and forecasting, and an outline of transportation needs analysis.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Ostergard, Clark
Forsgren, Clifford
Spence, Jack
Lukez, Rudy
Baumgartner, David
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Logan Canyon Study
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1986-07-14
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1980-1989
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_Page_3.pdf
Highway 89;