1
50
41
-
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/6ce507029c5d7f8245640e032d555159.pdf
fe19697ab8da4b567523cfc4a859cad3
PDF Text
Text
I
I
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC U LTURE
FOREST SERVICE
I NTERMOUNTAIN REGION
ADDRESS REPLY TO
REGIONAL FORESTER
FOREST SERVICE BUILDI N G
AND REFER TO
OGDEN , UTAH
December
4, 1961
J . Whitney Floyd, Dean
College of Forest, Range and
Wildlife Management
Utah state University
Logan, Utah
_Dear Dean Floyd:
I appreciated receiving your open letter of November 25 addressed to the
principals responsible for the collection of data, the establishment of
position, and the related decisions for the .Logan Canyon Highway construction project.
That letter should be helpful in clarifying the understanding of the concerned agencies about the position of the College of Forest, Range and
Wildlife Management of Utah state University . We in the Forest Service
have at no time interpreted the statement of the College committee as
being relat ed to or influencing our decision in the administration of
national forest lands in Logan Canyon. You properly point out that this
would be outside the prerogative of the University. However, the basic
principles set forth in the University statement establish sound land
management objectives; objectives which the Forest Service has sought-in Logan Canyon and elsewhere for many years .
We understand the sincerity of your efforts to encourage agreement among
the agencies concerned so that the project can move forward . This is our
interest. However, the question at issue involves determination and definition of what you have referred to as "a satisfactory design, adequate
financing, with minimum damage to the natural resources affected." Use
of cost as a measure of needed work is convenient . The basic road construction cost for this highway, without consideration of resource values, is
$ 360,000 . The total additional cost for essentially full resource protection without consideration of economic factors is 552 , 000. The State
Highway Department has agreed to resource protection work amounting to
about $100,000 over and above the basic cost . Our studies indicate that
additional work, estimated to cost a further $127,000, is needed to meet
"minimum damage" requirements .
�This is the situation that has been described as an "impasse . " We hope
this is not the case . However , I must fully discharge my responsibility
for administration of the national forests in the Intermountain Region .
I cannot , in the absence of facts to the contrar.y , agree to a proposal
set at a level below that which meets the "minimum II resource protection
need .
We look forward to further discussions with State Highway Department
officials , especially with regard to the total project and the costs involved from the end of the present constraction t o Garden City .
Sincerely yours ,
~VERS~
Regional Forester
cc:
Gov. Geo D. Clyde
W Jay Garrett , Cache Chamber of Commerce
.
Pres . Dar.yl Chase , Utah State University
Mr. C. Taylor Burton , Director , Utah State Dept . of Highways
Mr. Harold S. Crane, Director , Utah State Dept . of Fish and Game
Mr. Grant E. Meyer , Division Engineer, Bureau of Public Roads
�
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/1743">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1743</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
199481223
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1132328 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
Correspondence from Floyd Iverson to J. Whitney Floyd, December 4, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Floyd Iverson to J. Whitney Floyd, December 4, 1961 in response to the related decisions for Logan Canyon Highway construction project.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Iverson, Floyd
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Ogden (Utah)
Weber County (Utah)
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1960-1969
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, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files
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
14717Bx8Fd20_Item 41.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/48c2d3ff0b4bc974e359d0c041d99fe6.pdf
f2be8d23559be5f5901d72a334c16183
PDF Text
Text
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
INTERMOUNTAIN
REGION
ADDR E SS REPLY TO
REGIONAL FORESTER
FOREST SERVICE BUILDIN G
AND REFER TO
OGDEN, UTAH
November 28, 1961
Whitney Floyd, Dean
College of Forest, Range and
Wildlife Management
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
J
0
Dear Whit:
Because of your interest in the protection of the multiple resources of the
national forests, we are enclosing a position statement and clipsheet of
news items and editorial comment that we believe will be of interest to you.
The Logan Canyon Highway construction project in Utah raises an important
and basic issue that involves these resources on the Cache National Forest.
Logan Canyon is known throughout America as a major scenic attraction. The
beauty of Logan River and the fine trout fishing and recreation it provides
have similar renown.
The Forest Service recognizes the significant contribution to resource
protection that the highway engineers have made through modification of the
original design for this project . However, after very careful study by
qualified individuals representing a number of different profeSSions, we
have determined that additional changes are needed to meet minimum requirements for protection of scenic and fisheries valueso The decision has
therefore been made to insist that these modifications be incorporated in
the highway design as a condition for the issuance of a permit for highway
construction through these national forest lands.
Our purpose in furnishing this information to you is to insure full recognition of the basic issues at stake in this case. Among public land managers
and conservationists throughout the country there is growing awareness of the
adverse resource and scenic impacts of highway construction. Especially is
this the case when the approach has typically reflected a philosophy of single
rather than multiple use. The basic conflict is brought to focus in Logan
Canyon.
�Whether the threat be from road construction, as in this case, excessive
livestock use, big game numbers beyond the capacity of the range to support,
or fire, the end result is the same. Deterioration of the vegetation, loss
of soil and destruction of mountain streams is too great a price to pay.
Under a sound multiple-use approach the resources of Logan Canyon can be
protected.
The Logan Canyon Highway should be improved to meet present day traffic
requirements on this section of the Federal aid primary system in Utah.
(Fbr this project the proportionate cost share is 18% Federal and 22% State
funds.) Improvement, however, cannot be allowed to result in resource impacts
that can reasonably be avoided. An informed public, alert to the need for
protection of the basic resources of public lands, will not allow this to
happen - - - in Logan Canyon, or elsewhere in America.
Sincerely yours,
E. M. BACON
Assistant Regional Fbrester
Division of Information
and Education
-2-
�
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/1738">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1738</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
213426992
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1198108 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
Correspondence from Bill Bacon to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Bill Bacon to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961 about the Logan Canyon Highway.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bacon, E. M.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1960-1969
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, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files
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
14717Bx8Fd20_Item 42.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/b5b861e3dc1f189c8a8a1cd8b2fb7ddc.pdf
c31671bdc641b28e08834119d5ba70d5
PDF Text
Text
June 21 , 1961 .
Dr. O. Preston Robertson, General
o Beret News ,
l3 Richards ~ tre8t ,
Salt Lake City , Utah.
anagar,
Dear Dr . Robertson:
e certainly want to thank the 'Oasaret ' ews' for the attention
that has been focused on the road bu1lding activities in logan Canyon
through Hack Miller's column .
Those of us here at the College recognize the need for road
improvement but we are alst) keenly aware of the value of our sceniC ,
recreational and fishery resources and the need to proteot these
resources now for the future . Obviously we must have adequate and
safe highways, but these must be designed to prevent damage to outdoor
resources . This , of course, costs additional money, requires public
SUp' }
ort, and close cooperation between the various agencies involved .
Considerable progress is evident .
W~ think the fD
eseret News ' has performed a public service by
rocusing public attention on this aspect
land use . W certainly
e
appreCiate your interest.
0'
Sln. erel y .
c
J . Whitney rloyd , Dean
College of Forest , Range and
Wildlife Management .
jwt
�
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/1725">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1725</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
667538851
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
658782 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
Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to D. Robertson, June 21, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Dean J. Whitney Floyd, College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management, to General Manager D. Robertson, Deseret News, on June 21, 1961 about the road improvement.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Robertson, D.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Salt Lake City (Utah)
Salt Lake County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1960-1969
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, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files
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
14717Bx8Fd20_Item 28.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/a9223971dd6ac5ea2402d09145aca7b4.pdf
4ac6542617bf576c971131c12ab149d4
PDF Text
Text
('
(
UTAH
STATE
UNIVERSITY
DARYL CHASE, PRESIDENT
LOGAN,
UTAH
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
August 10, 1961
W. H. BENNETT , DEAN
J. Whitney Floyd, Dean
College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management
Campus
Dear Dean Floyd:
I have read the statement on Road Construction and Resource Use prepared
by your College Committee on Road Construction with considerable interest.
This statement is well prepared and shows the results of considerable
thought and effort. I commend the committee members for the thorough job
that has been done.
I have some reservations about recommendation five on page 12 which recommends that local community organizations be developed to consider all
matters relating to resource use. In my opinion we are already overorganized and a lot of time is spent in trying to coordinate things, but
coordination might be taken care of as a matter of course if things were
on a simpler basis. I think we should work through the existing organizations and endeavor to create a greater awareness and consciousness of
the importance of resource use.
I also feel that recommendation number five is too broad and could lead to
organizations giving consideration to many diverse and unrelated aspects
of resource use. Perhaps the wording of recommendation five could be .
modified to mention specific things in keeping with the title and content
of the statement.
Once again I desire to commend the committee for the thorough, excellent
job that has been done. It certainly points out problems and conditions
that are important enough to warrant the best planning that can be done.
It is written in such a way that I think very few people could take
exception to any part of it.
Very truly yours,
Dean
WHB/cm
p.
s.
The word "stronger" in the second sentence of the second paragraph
(first complete paragraph) seems to be out of place. I am wondering
if the word should be "weaker" rather than "stronger."
�
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/1724">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1724</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
55088275
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
713068 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
Correspondence from W. H. Bennett to J. Whitney Floyd, August 10, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from W. H. Bennett to J. Whitney Floyd, August 10, 1961discussing the Road Construction and Resource Use statement prepared by the College Committee.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bennett, W. H.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roadside Improvement--Utah
Traffic engineering
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1960-1969
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, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files
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
14717Bx8Fd20_Item 24.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/a934d3bad6364950f7331bc78480c392.pdf
871fdea5b3f4ccc480593ce8fcc87ae3
PDF Text
Text
(
UTAH
STATE
EXTENSION
UNIVERSITY
SERVICE
IN COOPERATION WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND U . S. D EPA RT MEN T 0 FAG RIC U LT U R E
LO GAN, U TA H
September 26, 1961
Dean J. Whitney Floyd
Campus
Dear Dean Floyd:
I enjoyed reading the fourth rought draft of the
statement on Road Construction and Resource Use, prepared
by the faculty of the College of Forest, Range and wildlife
Management, which you were kind enough to send to me. This
statement is well written. It contains some very interesting points which are usually overlooked by the common
ordinary citizen.
I donUt believe I have any suggestions for improving
this manuscript.
VlV trUl'A~
~
"'"~
Carl Frischknecht, Director
Extension Services
Utah State University
CF:lm
�
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/1721">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1721</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
1547336671
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
573317 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
Correspondence from Carl Frischknecht to J. Whitney Floyd, September 26, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Carl Frischknecht to J. Whitney Floyd, September 26, 1961. Utah State University.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Frischknecht, Carl
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Traffic engineering
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1960-1969
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, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files
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
14717Bx8Fd20_Item 23.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/f60a585dc3427d2fc3c3789394a221a6.pdf
74b4971cea023d20773fdcbd75a26d36
PDF Text
Text
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK
IN
AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS
STATE OF UTAH
UTAH STATE U N IVERSITY
u.
EXTENSION SERVICE
AND
S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
COOPERATING
1
LOGAN. UTAH
•
�-his 1
R suIt
our in
t 1
•
v ry
J ek • Hft.....
ildlife
ajs
ces
• i.ni 11
-ill R vl y
Ernest
J.
itt n.-e
hit
. loyd
'ltll"l"l'!D
�
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/1717">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1717</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
3958087757
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1259136 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
Correspondence from Jack Berryman to Louis Clapper, December 1, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Jack Berryman to Louis Clapper, December 1, 1961
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Berryman, Jack H.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Clapper, Louis S.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Washington D.C.
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1960-1969
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, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files
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
14717Bx8Fd20_Item 13.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/898de099972f9ee73d955e4d6de527a2.pdf
dbe6db992c4fe7c0606facd3d7a3e61d
PDF Text
Text
This letter also sent to:
Mr. Harold Crane
Mr. Taylor Burton
Nov mber 1, 1961
Mr . Ployd Iverson, Regional For
t r
U. S. Poreat S rvic
For st Servic
Oejd n, ut h
D
Building
r Mr. Iv reon,
As you know we have had
Colleg eommitt
r paring
t
nt on r d con truetion and r soure u i prompt
in part by th diff rene 8 of opinion cone rninq the Log n
Canyon construction work. Th t tat mant ia now c pl t
and a oopy i
ttached.
t
w
t
pUblie tion ith illustration. It ill
ditorial eh n
, but in 88 nc th
t t the same. It i8 bing ubmitted in this
ill b in your h nd a8 800n a po
b a.
Sine rely your ,
/
I
J. Whitn y
loyd, D
Coll 9 of Foreat, Rang ,
and Wildlif Man8g
nt
JWF: p
Attachm nt
/
�
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/1711">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1711</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
2964981624
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
574080 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
Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Floyd Iverson, November 1, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd , College of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Management, to Floyd Iverson, Regional Forester, on November 1, 1961.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Iverson, Floyd
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Traffic engineering
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Ogden (Utah)
Weber County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1960-1969
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, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files
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
14717Bx8Fd20_Item 20.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/3a87dcc7b46d9417e9c56ba205716273.pdf
9633d0943f4322f9e12ec56bfde23d0e
PDF Text
Text
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK
IN
AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS
STATE OF UTAH
EXTENSION SERVICE
UTAH STATE U N IVERSITY
u.
AND
S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
COOPERATING
December 1, lC)Sl
LOGAN. UTAH
Rio rd H. tro , Executive Vic Pre 1d nt
Sport ish1ng In titute
Bond Building
abington 5, D ~ c.
r Dick:
ill recall that we
d so eorN pondence
liar
1th the Logan Canyon
d controversy. One
ou.tgrowtb of this controversy
a ppo1ntment of a College
committe to pre r
-ta te nt of principle on the br - d
aspects "'_f high Y p~nn1ng. s ~l toed to r ourc
•
Iou
in connection
o copie of the print
r port are at cbed /I' Typed
'c opies re released earlier lJ. st month to the gencies
involved and the ll'Ajor ne spapers ~re in Utah • . The s t
nt sparked ve'r'3 11vely interest,. s indio t
by the
t chad olips pre r.ed by the Forest Service .
ttent.1on
8 turther £ OCU ed by the Fore t S rvic '
retus 1 t · issue
permit until the canyon reaourc
re adeq tel.y proteo"'"oo.
Stat 19h y
rtnent i no ' ravia 1ng p ns for the
entire forty- mile road.
In pite of the fact that our at tement W 5 stimul ted
Logan Canyon
l.ogan C nyon ill re in the oe 1 point,
~ re primarily intere ted, at thi time , in the national
1mpl1c t10ns and in creating t vorable 011
tor leg1.
.. t1ve nd adnu..nistra.tlve processes to permit m()~e ooord1nted high y planning. It 1 our hope t t the ta tenant
will eontr1bute to a better unar tand:i.ng ot on , of' tile nnnrcomplexiti of high y planning.
e ould like to ~ ve our
terial vie d in thi light .
by
Individual copies of the t tement
Y'
writing to
ten10n Service, U h S te Un!
U h.
1
, rr
e
obtained by
ratty, Logan,
Inc1q.en1;AUY, the spec1f10 study on the sfore 8~ after
at 01 hJ.gh: y construction on flshery re ourc a ;.,. st.ill
�underway .
ment .
This is separate ·a nd apart fr-om the attached stateill not e available for some time.
Results
YOU!"
1nteres t is· very lWch a pprec ia. ted.
Sinoerely.
Jack H.
·rryman
WUdlife Specialist
" " .....I ........
IL
eet Dean J .
JJ:IB:Js
it~ Flo)'d
�
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/1709">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1709</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
116771947
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1214058 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
Correspondence from Jack Berryman to Richard Stroud, December 1, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Jack H. Berryman to Richard H. Stroud, December 1, 1961 concerning Logan Canyon Road and highway planning.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Berryman, Jack H.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Stroud, Richard H,
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Roads--Design and construction
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Washington D.C.
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1960-1969
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, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files
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
14717Bx8Fd20_Item 12.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/385d377331c33ea43512c198e2475ab2.pdf
611ecc2e72b9b26640096e17bbc1a669
PDF Text
Text
2 , 1
u
Co
o r
�Pr sid n ' Daryl Ch •
norm 1 coat ot
d for coord!
pped-up •
r
pon,s1bl
bo rd.
o
tob
25, 1 61
th r
I
r
S£loAI~,,&t
1rin
of a
�
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/1708">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1708</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
2773615479
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1264495 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
Memorandum from J. Whitney Floyd to Daryl Chase, October 25, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Memorandum from J. Whitney Floyd, Dean, to President Daryl Chase, October 25, 1961
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Chase, Daryl
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Traffic engineering
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1960-1969
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, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files
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
14717Bx8Fd20_Item 21.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/c820729cd20e24154407dab2a040c450.pdf
f0da73e259e64a0cc0dd405108bdc581
PDF Text
Text
•
RECORD OF DECISION
US Highway 89
Right Fork in Logan Canyon to Garden City
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
Cache and Rich Counties, Utah
A. DECISION
The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) concurs with the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT) in its selection of the Preferred Alternative as modified in this Record of Decision (ROD)
for improvements to US Highway 89 (US-89) between Right Fork, milepost (mp) 383.47, and State
Road 30, mp 411.75 , in Garden City . The modified Preferred Alrernative is described in Section
B below. The modified Preferred Alternative is as presented in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) with the following modifications made as a result of input received on the FEIS
and subsequent meetings and field reviews in order to further minimize harm to wetland/riparian
habitat, visual resources and Section 4(0 resources :
•
The Lower Middle Canyon section has been extended 500 reet to mp 387.57 to better fit
the surrounding terrain. The roadway begins to move further away from the river at
this location.
•
Conso lidation of parking for Section 4(f) Site 6 , Ricks Spring, has been e liminated. This
eliminates the left turn lane and retaining wall adjacent to the river. A shorter retaining wall
set back from the river may still be required just south of the site.
•
Section 4(f) Site 13 , Winter Access Parking, will be reestablished at a lower elevation so that
•
Relocation of the Limber Pine Trailhead has been eliminated .
•
The detour at Burnt Bridge has been eliminated and widening will occur on the upstream
side. This reduces the impact on riparian habitat.
•
For the first eight miles of the Upper Canyon (from mp 391.6 to Beaver Mountain road
intersection), the previously proposed roadway width of 40 feet has been reduced to 34 feet.
This reduces the impact on wetland and riparian areas , For areas with passing lanes through
this eight miles, the previously proposed roadway width of 47 feet has been reduced to 44
feet.
•
•
•
The left turn lane at Temple Fork has been eliminated. Minimum roadway improvements
at this site include a 34' section on US·89 and an improved vertical grade approach of
Temple Fork road. Other improvements , such as an uphill right turn lane and an improved
horiwntal angle of approach of Temple Fork Road , are secondary improvements which will
only be constructed if they do not impact the river or require a substantial retaining wall .
access can be maintained.
US·89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Page 1
Section A: Decision
�The above modifications are within the scope of the FE IS and their implementation will reduce the
impacts from that presented in the FEIS . Therefore , the modifications are not of a nature that would
require a Supplemental EIS .
•
I
The purpose of and need for this project is to improve safety and the traffic carrying capacity of US89 from Right Fork in Logan Canyon to State Road 30 in Garden City. Safety will be improved by
correcting existing substandard geometries , unsafe conditions. and deteriorated structures. The
capacity of the highway will be increased to meet existing and projected traffic demands for a 20year planning horizon . Due to funding restraints , this project will be implemented through the
development of several smaller projects.
The first includes the urgent bridge upgrading and
replacements. Other improvements in the canyon that will be implemented as runding becomes
available.
The selection of the modified Preferred Alternative was based on substantial input received by
various federal and state agencies, local governments and the public , evaluation of technical repons ,
the Environmental Impact Statement, and further analysis and coordination made during development
of this ROD . The sensitivity of the environment played an important role in the development of the
modified Preferred Alternative.
Numerous compromises to current highway standards (as
recommended by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO) were incorporated because impacts on the aquatic , wetland , riparian and visual
environment would have been too great, and in some cases constructability was cost-prohibitive.
Other actions taken into consideration in making this decision includes the recent nomination of US89 through Logan Canyon for inclusion on the National Highway System. This would change the
classification of the highway from a minor arterial to a principal arterial. Though Congressional
approval is pending , consideration has been given to how this would affect the decision being made
for this project. Since the roadway already serves as a US Hiehway and Was desienated as s uch
in accordance with previous luis.ation. the determination has been made that this action would
not chanee the use or the hiehway. In this regard, the decision is made that if US-89 through
Logan Canyon is included in the National Highway System, this designation will not affect the
selection, or subsequent design, of the modified Preferred Alternative identified in this ROD.
e
•
US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994)
Page 2
Section A: Decision
�•
B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Eight project alternatives , ranging from preserving the existing roadway to a standard AASHTO
design , were considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). These include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Standard Arterial Alternative
Rich County North Alignment Alternative
Rich County South Alignment Alternative
Modified Standard Alternative
Composite Alternative
Spot Improvements Alternative
Conservationists' Alternative
No Action Alternative
Alternate corridors were evaluated and included redesignation of Idaho State Highway 36 from
Preston to Ovid , Idaho , and construction of a new highway through Blacksmith Fork Canyon.
Because the distance between Logan and Wasatch Front communities and the Bear Lake area is
shorter thrQugh Logan Canyon than through these other routes , most traffic would still tend to use
US-89. The need to correct existing safety hazards/deficiencies , replace deteriorated bridges and
pavement, and increase traffic carrying capacity would still be necessary . Environmental impacts
and construction costs to improve the existing highway would be considerably less than for a new
route . Furthermore, traffic volume on such a route would not justify a new road . Therefore,
alternate corridors were not advanced into the EIS .
The FEIS presented four project alternatives . These include:
•
•
•
•
Preferred Alternative
No Action Alternative
Standard Arterial Alternative
Conservationists' Alternative
The Preferred Alternative as modified in this ROD is the environmentally preferred alternative that
causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment while meeting the purpose and
need . The modified Preferred Alternative was se lected because it offered the best balance berween
the transportation needs of the corridor with the sensitive environmental restraints of the canyon.
The other alternatives do not achieve this balance: The Standard Arterial Alternative is not sensitive
to the environment; and , the Conservationists' and No Action Alternatives do not meet the purpose
and need for the project. The Preferred Alternative, as modified, is supponed by federal and state
agencies , and alllocaJ government entities. The Preferred Alternative, as presented in the FEIS , met
opposition from much of the public. Several meetings and fie ld reviews with key individuals during
development of this ROD has led to resolving many of the concerns and reaching a consensus on the
modifications made .
•
The following is a detailed description of the four alternatives carried into the FEIS. The
modifications to the Preferred Alternative identified in Section A, above, have been included in its
US-89 Througb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October (3, 1994)
Considered
Page 3
Section B: Alternatives
�•
description :
Prererred Alternative (As Modified)
The modified Preferred Alternative was developed to balance the transportation needs of the corridor
with the impacts to the canyo n environment. The critical environmental restraints dictated that
numerous compromises to AASHTO Design Standards were necessary . These compromises allowed
environmental impacts to be minimized while controlling construction costs.
Middle Canyon
Due to the potential for impact to the threatened species, the Maguire Primrose and other substantial
impacts on aquatic , wetland/riparian, and visual environment, the modified Preferred Alternative
throughout this section proposes a substantial relaxation bf AASHTO Design Standards (which
recommends a 4O-foot width throughout , plus several pasSing lanes) .
Beginning at Right Fork (mp 383.47), the first four miles (lower Middle Canyon section) will
maintain the existing roadway width of 26 feet. Present design speed and posted speed wi ll remain
unchanged . Burnt Bridge (mp 385 .5) will be rep laced with a new structure 34-foot wide to allow
for pedestrian use . Burnt Bridge will be constructed in stages, with widening occurring on the
upstream side. The detour presented in the FEIS has been eliminated. The roadway wi ll be e levated
at mp 386.2 (Logan Cave) and at mp 386.6 to eliminate a flooding potential, and a parking area will
be constructed for Logan Cave visitors at mp 386.3. Curb and/or gutter through this section will
be considered during design to help define the roadway and control debris rolling onto the highway .
Curve 5 at mp 384.and curve 29 at mp 387 will be flattened if a 3-year accident analysis , at the time
of construction, shows a concentration of accidents at either location in excess of the expected
accident rate . In the year 2010, a Level of Service (LOS) "DIE" would be expected for this four
mile section .
In the remainder of the Middle Canyon section (from mp 387.57 to mp 391.6) the canyon begins to
open up but is still somewhat restrictive. The roadway will be widened to a 34-foot width (two 12foot wide travel lanes and two 5-foot wide shoulders) through this section. Design and posted speeds
will be 35 miles per hour (mph) . The 34 foot roadway width will serve as a transition between the
26 and 40 root roadway sections. Lower and Upper Twin Bridges (mp 387 .7 and 388.76,
respectively) will be replaced with 38-foot wide structures on new alignment and the structure at
Ricks Spring (mp 389.8) will be replaced on the same alignment. The previously proposed
consolidation of parking for Section 4(f) Site 6, Ricks Spring, has been eliminated . Intersection
improvements at Temple Fork (mp 389.2) include the 34' section on US-89 and an improved vertical
grade approach of Temple Fork road . Other improvements , such as an uphill right turn lane and
an improved horizontal angle of approach at Temple Fork Road are secondary improvements which
will only be constructed if they do not impact the river or require a substantial retaining wall . The
left turning lane previously proposed at Temple Fork has been eliminated. Six curves will be
flattened through the Upper Middle Canyon. These include curve #33, 37, 39, 40, 43 , and 45. The
roadway wi ll be raised about 2 feet from mp 390.2 to mp 391.1 to eliminate a flooding potential.
In the year 2010, a LOS "0" would be expected for this section.
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of Oclober 13, 1994)
Considered
Page 4
Seclion B: AJlemalives
e
•
�•
Upper Canyon
The Upper Canyon begins at mp 391.6 and continues to the Bear Lake Summit. The first eight miles
of this section begins at the cattleguard at mp 391.6 and ends at SR-243 (Beaver Mountain Road
Intersection) . The previously proposed roadway width of 40 feet through this first eight miles has
been reduced to 34 feel as a result of input received on the FEIS . This 34-foot width provides for
two 12-foot wide travel lanes and two 5-fool wide shoulders}. Passing/climbing lanes will be
provided from mp 391.6 to mp 393.3 and from mp 394.9 to mp 396.5. Where passing lanes are
provided , the previously proposed roadway width of 47 feet has been reduced to 44 feet (two 12-fool
wide travel lanes, one 12-foot wide passing lane, one 5-foot shoulder and one 3-foot shoulder on the
•
passing lane side). Intersection improvements will be made at Tony Grove (mp 393.7), Red Banks
Campground (mp 394.5), and Franklin Basin Road (mp 397.01) . Bridges wi ll be replaced on
original alignment. Red Banks Bridge will be 38 feet wide unless tapers for the turn lanes into the
campground run onto the bridge. The first Beaver Creek: Structure at Franklin Basin Road (mp
396.9) will be at least 52 feet wide to accommodate the Franklin Basin Intersection, and the Beaver
Creek Structure at mp 397.5 will be 38 feet wide. Intersection improvements will be made at Beaver
Mountain Road (mp 399.75) . The culvert that serves the Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and
surrounding drainage areas will be widened to accommodate the widened transitions for the Beaver
Mountain intersection. A width of 22 feet from the shoulder line to headwall on each side is
required to avoid the need for guardrail protection. The total width would be at least 68 feet unless
guardrail protection is selected during the design phase. Retaining wall s will be constructed
between Beaver Creek and the roadway at mp 398.1 , mp 398.3, mp 398.6, and mp 398.9 to reduce
impacts on the creek and adjacent wetlands . "Lay_downK type fencing will be provided in open
range areas from about mp 391.6 to mp 397.2 along both sides of the roadway .
Beyond the first eight miles, from the intersection with SR-243 (mp 399.75) and continuing to the
Bear Lake Summit, the roadway will be widened to 40 feet (two 12-foot wide travel lanes and two
8-foot wide shoulders) . Passing/climbing lanes will be provided from mp 399.8 to mp 403 .0 , and
from mp 404.6 continuing throughout the next section and ending at mp 410.6 . Where these
passing/climbing lanes are provided, a 47-foot width (two 12-foot wide travel lanes, one 12-foot wide
passing lane , one 8-foot shoulder, and one 3 foot shoulder on the passing lane side) will be required .
Intersection improvements will be made at UDOT Maintenance Station (mp 402.38), and Forest
Service Access Road (mp 404.75). The Winter Access Parking at mp 402. 1 will be re-established
at a lower elevation so access can be provided.
The design speed will be 50 mph throughout the Upper Canyon. Curves 69 , 70, 71, 76, and 80 will
be flattened . In the year 2010, a LOS "C/O" would be expected throughout the Upper Canyon.
Rich County Section
•
From the Bear Lake Summit to Bridgerland Subdivision (mp 404.75 to mp 409.4) the highway will
be widened to 47 feet in order to accommodate a passing lane. (This would allow two 12-foot wide
travel lanes, a 12-foot wide passing lane , one 8-fool shoulder, and one 3-foot shoulder on the passing
lane side). The design speed will be 40 mph . On the Limberpine trailhead side, improvements will
be restricted to be within 23 feet of the edge of the existing roadway. A delineation between the
rOadway and parking area will be provided wilhin this 23 foot strip. The previously proposed
US-89 Through Loaan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Considered
Page 5
Section B: Alternatives
�relocation of the trailhead and parking area has been dropped. Curves 85 , 88, 89, 92 , 94, 95 , 98,
101, and 102 will be flattened and curves 103, 104. and 105 will be flattened into a single curve ,
dependent upon relocation of alignment from Curve 105 to Curve 109.
e
From Bridgerland Subdivision to Garden City the highway width will be 40 feet (47 feet in passing
lane areas), and the design speed will be 50 mph. Curves 109- 112, and 116 will be flattened, and
access at mp 410.6 will be relocated. The climbing lane from the previous section will end at mp
410.6. In the year 2010, a LOS "0 " would be expected for the entire Rich County section.
Intersection improvements will be made at the Sunrise Campground (mp 405 ,5) whi ch will also
provjde access for the Bear Lake View Area, The intersection with SR-30 will be redesjgned with
left and right-turn lanes. cyrb. gutter and sidewalk on US-89 and SR-3Q in the vicinity of this
intersection. Intersection improvements will also be made at the access to the Brjdgerlaod
Subdivjsion Cmp 409.4), A new intersection providing access to the BridgerJaod Subdivision will
be constructed . This access will provide safer ingress and egress to the subdjvision. Intersection
improvements to other existing and proposed subdivision accesses will be considered based on use
requirements, roadway widening possibilities. and other engineering factors,
No Action Alternative
This alternative does not include any action to alter the width or location of the existing highway ,
although considerable construction activity would be necessary to conduct normal road maintenance,
Such construction would include pavement replacement, replacement of structural elements on
bridges and eventual bridge replacement , and improved signage, The existing roadway width of 26
feet would be maintained . In the year 2010, a LOS "DIE" would be expected for the Middle
Canyon, LOS ~ D ~ for the Upper Canyon, and LOS "E" for the Rich County section,
•
This alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative and was not selected because it does not
meet the purpose and need of the project, Traffic carrying capacity would not be increased to meet
the projected traffic volume, Safety hazards and inadequate opportunities for passing slow moving
vehicles would not be corrected. This alternative is opposed by local governments and most of the
public,
Standard Arterial Alternative
This alternative would maximize traffic capacity and safety by widening and improving the existing
alignment of the highway to current AASHTO standards for a minor anerial road. The roadway
wou ld include two 12-foot wide lanes and two 8-foot wide shoulders for a paved width of 40 feet.
A third 12-foot wide climbing lane would be constructed along approximately 7,7 miles of the route .
The shoulder width would be reduced to 3 feet on the climbing lane side, resulting in a paved width
of 47 feet. Recovery areas , sloping gradually from the roadway to the natural grade, would result
in a typical improved area of 66-98 feet. Bridges and drainage structures would be replaced , several
on new alignments to straighten existing curves. Intersection improvements would also occur. This
alternative would provide the best Level of Service. In the year 2010, a LOS "0" wou ld be
expected for the Middle Canyon, LOS "C/O" for the Upper Canyon, and LOS "D" for the Rich
County section.
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13 , 1994)
Considered
Page 6
Section B: Alternatives
•
�•
This alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative and was not selected because of the potential
impact to the threatened Maguire primrose , substantial impacts to aquatic , riparian , and visual
environments, and cost. This alternative would also impact the most Section 4(f) resources. This
alternative is opposed by several government agencies and much of the public.
Conservationists' Alternative
The Conservationists' Alternative provides for improvements at various locations where there would
be minimal environmental impacts. This alternative includes improved signing, bridge replacement,
slow vehicle turnouts, some climbing lanes, and provides for paving and winter snow plowing of
several parking areas. The existing roadway width of 26 feet would be maintained and the pavement
would be replaced. Where climbing lanes are provided, the roadway width would be 43 feet. New
bridges would be constructed to a 28-foot width, with Lower and Upper Twin Bridges being rep laced
on new alignment. Tony Grove Intersection would be improved. Travelers would be advised of
safety deficiencies by increasing the number of signs at selected locations.
•
•
This alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative and was not selected because it does not
meet the purpose and need or the project. This alternative rails to adequately address safety and
capacity needs . It would be an incremental improvement over the No Action Alternative by
providing limited roadway improvements at selected locations. However, this alternative would fail
to increase traffic-carrying capacity to meet projected traffic volumes , and would not eliminate many
safety hazards. Bridges proposed to be 28 feet wide would be below AASHTO standards , causing
continued hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians as well as vehicles. Only one
intersection would be improved, resulting in unresolved safety concerns at several intersections such
as Temple Fork, Red Banks Campground, and others. Additional signs to advise of substandard
curves and other safety deficiencies is not adequate to provide long-term benefits as traffic volumes
increase and would represent a constant liability situation. Only three climbing lanes , each
approximately a half-mile long, would be provided. Climbing lanes would not be provided in the
Rich County Section of the road. In the year 2010, a LOS "DIE" would be expected for the Middle
Canyon, LOS "0" for the Upper Canyon , and LOS ME" for the Rich County section. This
alternative is opposed by local governments, but had strong support from much of the public.
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Considered
Page 7
Section B: AJtematives
�C. SECTION 4(F)
Section 4(f) applies to publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, wi ldl ife/waterfowl
refuge, or land of a historic site of National , State, or local significance as determined by the
officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, refuge or site. The Forest Service has
determined that 15 recreation areas qualify as Section 4(f) resources within the project area. In
addition, the State Historic Preservation Office has identified two historic sites. These 17 Section
4(f) resources are described in the Section 4(f) Statement (included in the FEIS).
Constructive use of a Section 4(0 resource results when there is a substantial impairment caused by
secondary impacts. There w ill be no substantial impairment caused by secondary impacts , therefore,
constructive use of Section 4(0 resources will not occur.
Changes to the Section 4(t) Evaluation , as a result of comments received on the FEIS, are addressed
be low. The modified Preferred Alternative will impact three Section 4(t) resources. Alternatives
considered to avoid Section 4(f) resources include: the No Action Alternative , which does not impact
any Section 4(f) resource ; and the Conservationists' Alternative, which impacts one Section 4(f)
resource . The Standard Arterial Alternative has a greater impact to Section 4(f) resources, impacting
eight sites. These alternatives are described in the FEIS and in Section B, above. In addition to
these alternatives, a site specific minor alignment adjustment was considered for avoiding each site.
This minor alignment adjustment was presented in the Section 4(f) Statement and is summarized
below for each impacted site.
Revised Table 6-4
Swnmary of Section 4(f) Properties Used for Each Alternative
•
Alternative
S ite
Features
Prererred
No
Action
Soandard
Arterial
Conservationists'
(Modified)
No.
I
Fisherman's Access Parking at Righi
Fork
No
No
y"
No
2
Woodcamp Campground
No
No
y"
No
4
Parking for Logan Cave
No
No
y"
No
6
Ricks Spring and Parking
y"
No
y"
No
7
Dispersed Recreation Parking
No
No
y"
No
12
Winter Access Parking Area at
Beaver Mountain
y"
No
y"
y"
13
Winter Access Parking
y"
No
y",
No
'15
Limber Pine Trailhead
No
No
No
No
3
0
8
I
Total Section 4(0 Resources Used
@ Alternative
US-89 Througb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October lJ , 1994)
4(0
Page 8
Section C: Section
•
�•
*The boundaries of this site have been corrected, because of this it will not be used by any alternative.
The No Action , Conservationjsts', and Standard Arterial Alternatives are not feasible and prudent
alternatives for reasons stated in Section B above . The site specific minor alignment adjustments are
not feasible and prudent alternatives for reasons stated below under each impacted site. A
combination of alternatives is not feasible and prudent because it would result in an inconsistent
roadway, with unacceptable safety hazards and a reduced Level of Service.
Based upon the above considerations , there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of Section
4(f) properties by the modified Preferred Alternative. The modified Preferred Alternative includes
aJl possible planning to minimize harm . The basis for the above conclusions is explained below for
each site.
The three sites impacted by the modified Preferred Alternative include: Site 6 - Ricks Spring and
Parking; Site 12 - Winter Access Parking Area at Beaver Mountain Road ; and Site 13 - Winter
Access Parking. Each of these sites is used for parking. This use will continue after implementation
of the modified Preferred Alternative. Since these sites are on USFS lands and managed by that
agency , improvements will be completed consistent with USFS recommendations .
Ricks Spring and Parking - Site 6 (mp 389.9)
•
In the FEISt the Preferred Alternative proposed that parking at this site be consolidated on one side
to eliminate pedestrians crossing the roadway . This consolidation was dropped from the Preferred
Alternative after a field review with the USFS on August 18. 1993 . At that time, it was determined
that even if all parking was placed on one side, people would still park on both sides, and the
remaining parking would not allow easy use of the site by recreational vehicles. In addition, the left
turn lane to allow north-bound traffic access would require a retaining wall be placed adjacent to the
river .
A five foot strip on both sides of this site is required adjacent to the roadway to provide for the
shoulder. Though the size of the site will be reduced , the modified Preferred Alternative would not
reduce the amount of parking ability at this site. The use of this Section 4(0 property has been
coordinated with and is supported by the USFS because the modified Preferred Alternative improves
safety at this site as much as possible without requiring the retaining wall adjacent to the river. A
shorter retaining wall, set back from the river's edge , may still be required just downstream from
the site.
Alternatives considered to avoid this site include the No Action and Conservationists' Alternative
which do not address the safety concerns and are not feasible and prudent for reasons previously
stated. Since the site is adjacent to Ricks Springs on one side and the Logan River on the other,
there are no minor alignment adjustments that would avoid this site without direct impacts on Ricks
Spring or the Logan River.
•
Measures to minimize harm at this site include consideration of pedestrian safety during design . The
passing ability at this location will be eliminated and signing will be provided to warn motorists of
pedestrian use at the Spring. Visibility at this location will be improved because of the 5-foot
shoulders and replacement of the existing narrow bridge. Curbing of this site will also be considered
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
4(Q
Page 9
Section C: Section
�•
during design to better identify parking limits.
Winter Access Parking at Beaver Mountain Road· Site 12 (mp 399.8)
A 20 foot strip is required from this site to accommodate improvements to the intersection of US-89
and Beaver Mountain Road (SR-243). The parking area will be expanded to the northeast so that
there will be no loss of parking. The use of this Section 4(f) property has been coordinated with and
is supported by the USFS because this alternative will improve vehicle safety at the intersection of
US-89 and Beaver Mountain Road, which accesses Beaver Mountain Ski Area.
Alternatives considered to avoid this site include the No Action Alternative and a minor alignment
adjustment. The Conservationists' and Standard Arterial Alternatives would also impact this site.
The No Action Alternative would not provide intersection improvements and is not a feasible or
prudent alternative for other reasons stated in Section B. The minor alignment adjustment requires
that the road be widened only on the south side of the existing US-89. This adjustment was not
se lected because it would require a an approximate to-foot fill and impact the natural drainage for
the Amazon Hollow area ,
Measures to minimize harm include extending the remaining parking area to include at least as much
parking as presently ex ists and paving the entire parking area to enhance use.
Winter Access Parking - Site 13 (mp 402.1)
This site is adjacent to a curve proposed to have the vertical and horizontal alignment improved .
There is a difference in elevation of about 12 feet which would eliminate access to this site.
However , this site will be reestablished at a lower elevation so that access can be maintained and the
site will continue to provide at least as much parking as currently exists. The use of this Section 4(f)
property has been coordinated with and is supported by the USFS because the modified Preferred
Alternative corrects the deficiencies of the adjacent curve.
e
Alternatives considered to avoid this site include the No Action and Conservationists' Alternative
and a minor alignment adjustment. The Standard Arterial Alternative would also impact this site.
The No Action and Conservationists' Alternatives would not improve the vertical and horizontal
alignment of this curve and are not a feasible or prudent alternative for other reasons stated in
Section B. The minor alignment adjustment would require that the road be moved further away from
the site so that access at the current elevation could be maintained. This would require additional
cutting into the hillside and was not selected because it would further impact visual resources to a
greater extent.
Measures to minimize harm include reestablishing the parking site at a lower elevation so that access
will be maintained . The site sits on a mound and lowering the elevation will result in approximately
1000 cubic yds of excess material and a small amount of upland vegetation will be eliminated by
reestablishing this site.
Limber Pine Trailhead - Site IS (mp 404.81)
US-89 Througb Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13 , 1994)
4(1)
Page 10
Section C: Section
•
�•
The FEIS Slated that the Preferred Alternative would impact this site. Because of a correction lO the
boundaries of this site, the modified Preferred Alternative will not impact this site. The FEIS shows
the parking area at this site to be 60 X 300 feet and adjacent to the roadway . It also states that a 24foot strip would be required for the modified Preferred and Standard Arterial Alternatives. During
the August 18, 1993 field review held with the USFS , an approximate 23-foot strip prior to the
parking area was identified. This 23 feet consists of a 15 foot shoulder and an 8 foot
curbed/vegetated median. The parking area was measured to be approximately 75 X 200 feet (see
revised map in the Appendix). The USFS stated that the boundary for the Section 4(0 resource
includes only the 75 X 200 foot area beyond the median . However, delineation of the parking area
from the roadway would need to be maintained in order to avoid impacts to this site. All
improvements on the trailhead side will be accomplished within 23 feet of the edge of the roadway ,
and a delineation will be provided within this 23-foot area in accordance with USFS
recommendations. Relocation of the trailhead and parking has been dropped from the Preferred
Alternative. The same would apply for the Standard Arterial Alternative. Therefore, there would
be no impact to Site 15 by any of the alternatives .
•
•
US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
4(1)
Page 11
Section C: Section
�D. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
Throughout development of the Preferred Alternative, and subsequent modifications , consideration
has been given to avoiding and minimizing harm to sensitive resources . Protection of the river and
surrounding wetland /riparian edge, avoidance of a threatened species , avoidance and minimizing
harm to wetland/ riparian habitat, visual , and section 4(f) resources of the canyon played an important
role in its development and selection. As a result, minimal construction will occur in the
ecologically sensitive Middle Section of the canyon , bridges will c1ear·span the river . retaining walls
will be used to limit encroachment into sensitive areas. and treatment of clearzones will be mod ified
from AASHTO recommendations. Since the FEIS , the Preferred Alternative has been modified (see
Section A of this ROD) to further reduce these impacts.
All practicable measures to avoid impacts and minimize environmental harm have been incorporated
into the decis ion made in this ROD based on the conceptual level of design utilized in the [IS
process . Emphasis will continue to be made throughout detailed design and construction to further
avoid impacts and minimize harm to environmental resources. Horizontal and vertical alignments
will be manipulated to provide a M
best fit M design . Interested government agencies , local
governments , the environmental community and the community at large will continue to be involved
as part of a Cooperating Advisory Team (CAT) . This team will participate in the development
or all &Soecls of desien and in the resolution of unforeseen environmental problems that arise
durine construction and post construction. This team will be developed as outlined in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FHW A, UDOT and the USFS . Details
regarding the fonnation and operation of this team can be found in the MOU (see Appendix) and is
summarized in Section E of this ROD.
In addition to the measures taken to avoid impacts and minimize harm, opportunities ror
enhancement will be considered, as appropriate. Application ror runding or enhancement
projects would be made as provided for in the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (JSTEA).
•
•
Clearzone Considerations
Impacts will be minimized by the treatment of c1earzones. Clearzones will be handled by relaxing
AASHTO Standards (which recommends removal of hazards within the clearzone area, or protection
of those that cannot be removed). The design of clearzones will focus on preservation of aesthetic
and ecological features to the extent possible while considering safety. Safety hazards within the
c1earzone area will be considered for protection, removal , or no action. The prime directive will
be to minimize impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat adjacent to the roadway without jeopardizing
safety. Considerable emphasis will be given to protection or no action, and removal of hazards
caused by natural conditions will be kept to a minimum . The clearzone area begins at the outside
edge of the traffic lane and is 18 feet wide at 25, 35, or 40 mph and 22 feet wide at 50 mph .
However, the intent is not to clear a swath 18-22 feet wide adjacent to the travel lane . No clearzone
area will be provided in the first four miles or the middle canyon, however, substantial hazards
within this area will be considered for protection.
US-89 Througb Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994) Page 12
HanD
Section D: Measures to Minimize
•
�e
Design Considerations
Through the various meetings and fi eld rev iews held during development of mis ROD , a limited
number of site specific areas were identified where design considerations were of panicular interest.
The following list is not intended to be all inclus ive, but representative of considerations which will
be made during design . Aesthetic impacts at many of these locations was also of concern. These
impacts will be minimized in accordance with the revegetation plan. This plan will include the
use of native plant species; slope rounding and warping of land form impacts; aging rock faces
which contrast with older cuts; removing abandoned roadways and restoring them to blend with
surrounding contours.
•
•
•
Curves 5 & 29 - Accident studies will be handled by reviewing the current three year
accident period at time of construction. The number, type, cause and severity of accidents
will be reviewed to determine if correction of geometric deficiencies could alleviate
accidents. The UDOT Dynamic Quicklisting and officer's individual accident reports will
be the source of this information. Aesthetic impacts will be reduced by manipulating the
horizontal andlor vertical alignment, and by moving away fro m the river .
LoWer Twin Bridge - The total width of cut will be based on the roadway width requirement
combined with the angle of repose of the existing material.
•
Dugway - Widening at this location will be on the cut side to avoid disturbance of the
downhill slope. Only the minimum cut required for necessary widening will be constructed .
The width of additional cut will be a maximum of 8 feet.
•
Upper Twin Bridge - The alignment shift will be based on the minimum amount necessary
to allow a new bridge to be constructed while allowing traffic to utilize the existing structure .
One or two way traffic control configurations for construction will be considered .
•
Temple Fork - Minimum roadway improvements at this site include a 34' section on US-89
and an improved vertical grade approach of Temple Fork road . Other improvements such
as an uphill right tum lane and an improved horizontal angle of approach of Temple Fork
road are secondary improvements which will not be constructed if they impact the river or
require a substantial retaining wall. Environmental impacts and construction costs will be
weighed against the benefits gained.
•
Passing Lanes in Lower Upper Canyon of Section 2 - The location of passing lanes in the
first eight mi les of the Upper Canyon will be evaluated further during detailed design to
assess additional measures to avoid or minimize harm to wetlands. The evaluation will
address leaving the lanes in the location described herein , or combining and relocating into
a single section. Passing lane(s) in this section are a necessary safety improvement and the
decision will be based upon minimizing the impact to the environment (L e .• wetlands, visual)
relative to the safety benefit of this improvement. Emphasis will be to shift the alignment
away from the river.
US-89 1brougb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Hann
Page 13
Section D: Measures to Minimize
�•
Beaver Creek, Franklin Basin Bridge - Horizontal and vertical alignments will be modified
to obtain a H
best fit alignment relative to the sensitive environmental features . The
reduction in the proposed roadway width to 34' also minimizes riparian impacts. Retaining
walls andlor guardrail sections are anticipated and will be utilized to reduce or avoid impact
to sensitive areas. Specific locations for these treatments will be identified in the detailed
H
•
roadway design process.
•
Culvert at Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and Surrounding Drainage Area - The impact
to wetlands at the Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and surrounding drainage area as a
result of roadway widening for the Beaver Mountain turning Janes will be further evaluated
during detailed design. This may include shortening the turn lane storage bay lengths and/or
utilization of guardrail to shorten the culvert.
•
Tony Grove, Beaver Mountain, Franklin Basin Intersections - Improvements at these
intersections in the form of left and right turning lanes are a necessary safety improvement.
Except for the Franklin Basin Intersection, sensitive environmental features will likely not
be heavily impacted. The uses of retaining wall and guardrail will be considered in reducing
or avoiding impacts. Again, a "best fit " design will be implemented. Remaining impacts
will be minimized with mitigative efforts.
•
Passing Lane Above Beaver Mountain Turnoff - The alignment shift at curves 69, 70, and
71 will be subjected to a best fit design analysis including exceptions to design standards.
Realignment around the mature forest will be the design objective. The degree of cut or fill
in obtaining the necessary roadway width is not yet known , but will be determined in the
detailed design process.
*
Curve 85, and the Mature Forest near Limber Pine - The footprint of the roadway is
affected by design speed (curve flattening) , nominal roadway width, and climbing lane. The
use of retaining walls and/or guardrails to limit the extent of fills will be considered . These
activities could reduce the extent of the fill by 40-100 feet, whereas eliminating the climbing
lane would only gain an additional 7 feet. The use of a structure has also been considered
but will not likely be advanced due to potential icing problems at this location. Realignment
options at this location may exist and will be evaluated during design . Ending the passing
lane on an uphill section would not meet design standards and is not desirable because of
the potential safety conflict. Slower moving vehicles would be required to merge into a
faster stream of traffic. The abandoned road and existing fill would be removed and the
ground restored to blend with the surrounding contours.
*
Old Road from the Limber Pine Summit to Garden City - Sections of the existing alignment
abandoned due to realignments or curve flatlenings will be handled in accordance with the
revegetation plan. Abandoned roadway sections will be removed and the ground restored to
blend with surrounding contours. In some cases the old road would be necessary for local
access and will remain in use.
•
Section Ib Crom Rick Springs to Section 2 - The alignment will be shifted away from the
adjacent riparian habitat and the river. It will be adjusted to obtain a "best fit" design.
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994) Page 14
Hann
Section D: Measures to Minimize
•
•
�•
Retaining walls will be considered where needed to avoid or reduce impacts.
•
Impacts from Mitigation - The first priority will be to reduce the amount of impact through
design . Secondly . mitigative areas will be closely evaluated and selected based on potential
for success, as well as consideration to impacts caused by construction of the mitigative
areas. The Forest Service and the Corps of Engineers will be working with UDOT to ensure
that a balance between visual concerns and the need for wetland mitigation in advance of
highway construction is achieved. As design is advanced , possible locations where mitigation
can be accomplished on site may be identified (i.e. possible strips of wetland adjacent to the
roadway in the lower Upper Canyon). In some cases, mitigation areas may be selected that
are not as visible from the road.
Land Use
The modified Preferred Alternative will improve accessibility to various land uses within the area .
Forest Service Plan
•
•
A revegetation plan will be developed by UDOT and approved by the USFS during design
of individual projects to ensure that areas of high visual quality and critical habitat are
avoided, where practicable, and that disturbed areas are appropriately revegetated .
•
A construction/post-construction monitoring plan will be developed and implemented by
UOOT and approved by the USFS during design of individual projects in order to identify
sensitive areas where monitoring is needed . These areas and types of monitoring required
will be identified in the project plans and specifications for each project.
•
•
Amendment of the Forest Plan for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is required under the
administrative procedures of the US FS for impacts to visual quality and reduction of the
habitat condition index.
Best Management Practices will be implemented to control erosion, thereby meeting the
water and soils management directive of the Forest Plan. Detailed Best Management
Practices will be developed during design for each project.
Cache County Plan
•
UOOT's Best Management Practices will be used to minimize water quality degradation,
minimize vegetative removal , and minimize cut and fill . This complies with requirements
of the Cache County Plan which specifies that destruction of natural vegetation be minimized.
cut and fill operations be minimized to reduce runoff and erosion , while providing for
appropriate public roads.
Rich County Plan
•
No measures to minimize harm are required .
US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994)
Hann
Page IS
Section D: Measures to Minimize
�Social Impacts
Measures to . minimize harm are required to address access concerns of the various users .
•
Access to Existing and Proposed Subdivisions
..
A new intersection providing access to the Bridgerland Subdivision will be constructed . This
access will provide safer ingress and egress to the subdivision.
•
Access at mp 410.6 in Garden City would be relocated by closing the present access and
providing a new access from another public street, if possible. If the access cannot be
closed, then it would be relocated to an improved location , providing the best design
possible. A combination with access at mp 410.7 may be practicable. The access at mp
410.7 would be considered accord ing to the same criteria as the access at my 410.6.
•
Intersection improvements to other existing and proposed subdivision accesses will be
considered based on use requirements, roadway widening possibilities, and other engineering
factors. Garden City will be involved in identiCying these requirements.
Access to Recreation Within the Canyon
•
Accessibility will be improved by providing intersection improvements , eliminating or
mitigating hazards , and improving the Level of Service.
•
Present parking turnouts will be improved and new turnouts will be placed in recognition of
any eliminated rumouts. Additional turnouts which attain at least two parking stalls with
adequate sight distance will also be considered. Exact locations will be determined during
design and in conjunction with USFS recommendations.
•
Relocation
•
The acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended .
•
Acquisition of publicly-owned lands will be undertaken in accordance with the regulations
of each land management agency .
•
Grazing activities regulated by the USFS and the State of Utah will not be affected .
However. fencing along the highway from just below Tony Grove to Franklin Basin will be
considered to reduce the number of cattle· vehicle accidents.
EmploymentlEconomics
•
The canyon will remain open during construction to minimize employment/economic impacts
related to road closure. A traffic control plan will be developed during design phase.
Temporary short·term closures to through traffic are expected. Local access to
US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (DJ'ft of October 13. 1994) Page 16
Hann
Section D: Measures to Minimize
•
�•
recreation traffic is expected to be maintained.
Joint Development
•
Coordination has been made and will continue to be made with the USFS to develop a
highway which meets , to the extent possible, the goals of both UOOT and the USFS .
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
•
•
A wider roadway with shoulders is being provided through much of the project. Paving of
parking areas will discourage the use of non·designated parking locations which are
hazardous to vehicle-passengers who SlOP and leave their vehicle and to bicyclists who may
encounter vehicles quickly turning onto or off of the roadway .
Burnt Bridge will be constructed to a 34-foot width to allow safer pedestrian and bicyclist
use.
Water Quality Impacts
•
•
Sedimentation and siltation control during the construction phase will include application of
Best Management Practices. UDOT's Standard Temporary Erosion Control plans will be
implemented during construction.
•
During construction, the surface area of erodible soils that are exposed at anyone time will
be limited .
•
Temporary pollution/erosion control provisions will be coordinated with permanent soil
erosion control measures to assure maximum attainable erosion control. The use of detailed
erosion control plan sheets will be considered that include locations of erosion control
facilities. These locations would then be subject to field evaluation.
Permits
UDOT will coordinate development of permit applications with the various agencies so that their
recommendations can be integrated into roadway design. Construction of the project will require
the following permits:
Stream Alteration Permit
•
•
A Stream Alteration Permit is required by the State Engineer's Office, Utah Division of
Water Rights for bridge and culvert replacement. This does not involve channelization or
relocation of the stream, but would involve riprap .
Section 404 Permit
US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Hann
Page 17
Section 0: Measures to Minimize
�•
A Section 404 Permit to discharge dredge or fill materials into a water of the United States
is required by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) where construction activities impact
jurisdictional wetlands .
•
Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit
•
Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit will be required for any project which
disturbs more than 5 acres of surface area during construction. The UPDES General Storm
Water Discharge Permit issued to UDOT by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
will apply. As part of the requirements of this permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention
(SWPP) plan will be developed and incorporated in the final design plans. Also a Notice of
Intent (NOI) form shall also be submitted to Utah Division of Water Quality prior to
construction of the project. For any project disturbing less than 5 acres, the UPDES General
Storm Water Discharge Permit will not apply . However, UOOT's standard plans for
temporary erosion and sediment control will be implemented during construction to alleviate
any potential erosion or sediment.
Right-of-Way/Special Use Permit
•
The FEIS states that a Right-of-Way/Special Use Permit is required from the USFS ,
Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The USFS has recently advised UOOT that Forest Service
policy requires issuance of a transportation easement, rather than a special use permit. This
decision will be made in the USFS Record of Decision.
Wetlands and Botanical Resources
•
A wetland mitigation plan will be developed during the design phase under the guidelines of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 as administered by the COE.
Additional opportunities to avoid or minimize wetland impacts will be identified throughout
design . Replacement of eliminated wetlands will be in-kind , based on functional value . The
first priority will be to reduce the amount of impact through design. Secondly, mitigative
areas will be closely evaluated and selected based on potential for success, as well as
consideration of impacts caused by construction of the mitigative areas .
•
Advance mitigation will be developed with the first project and considered on future projects
so that impacts can be mitigated prior to being impacted, where practicable. The acreage ,
sites , and design of the wetland mitigation sites, and advance mitigation, will continue to be
coordinated with and agreed to by the COE and the USFS during design , so that visual and
wetland concerns can be balanced.
•
Construction document specifications will limit encroachment into wetlands and riparian areas
to that required for construction. On site inspections in accordance with the construction
monitoring plan will ensure compliance with these provisions.
•
Construction work zones will be delineated through the use of fencing in sensitive areas to
ensure contractor compliance with environmental limits of operations.
•
US-89 Through Logan
Hann
Canyo~,
ROD (Draft of October 13 , 1994) Page 18
Section D: Measures to Minimize
•
�•
The construction/post construction monitoring plan will require that qualified UDOT
representative(s), acceptable [0 the COE, will be in charge of assisting designers and the
project engineer in designing and constructing the wetland mitigation areas . Upon
completion of the project, the representative(s) will also monitor the mitigation sites once a
year for three years. This includes taking photographs and sending them with a brief
progress report to the COE each year . At the end of the three years, if the wetland
mitigation areas have not developed to the satisfaction of the CDE, then through consultation
with the COE, appropriate steps will be taken by UDOT to fulfill Section 404 permit
requirements for the project.
•
A revegetation plan will be developed and implemented to revegetate disturbed areas. The
revegetation plan will be developed with the assistance of USFS and other CAT team
members.
•
Burnt Bridge will be constructed in stages, with widening occurring on the upstream side ,
eliminating the detour presented in the FEIS.
•
In addition to the reduced width presented in the FEIS for the Middle Canyon , the previously
proposed roadway width of 40' for the fir st eight miles of the Upper Canyon Section has
been reduced to 34' to further minimize impacts on wetlands.
•
Location of passing lanes in the first eight miles of the Upper Canyon will be evaluated
further during detailed design to assess additional measures to avoid or minimize harm to
wetland s caused by these passing lanes . The evaluation will address leaving the lanes in the
location described herein, or combining and relocating into a single section. Safety
considerations will also play a role in the final placement.
•
Impact to wetlands at Amazon Hollow , Stump Hollow and surrounding drainage area as
a result of roadway widening for the Beaver Mountain turning lanes will be further evaluated
during detailed des ign . This may include shonening the turn lane storage bay lengths and/or
utilizing guardrail to shorten the culvert.
•
•
•
Requirements identified in the Section 404 Permit will be complied with.
Water Body Modifications and Wildlir. Impacts
•
•
Clear span bridges will be used rather than in-river pier suppons to minimize water body
modifications.
•
•
Additional animal crossing signs will be provided in high conflict locations in consultation
with Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR).
The amount and necessity of riprap required for erosion control at bridges will be evaluated
on a case by case basis during final design . Riprap will be used only where required to
stabilize the streambank. Riprap will not exceed 100 feet along both banks up- and downstream from each new bridge. Since riprap will not be required at each of these locations,
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Page 19
H"m
Seclion D: Measures to Minimize
�the actual use of riprap will be minimal.
•
Construction activities in watercourses will be minimized to the extent possible.
Construction work zones will be delineated to ensure contractor compliance.
•
Existing river and creek hydraulics will be maintained by avoiding the encroachment of any
required riprap into channels. Impacts to wildlife will be minimized by limiting , to the extent
practical , vegetative and riparian habitat clearing.
•
Highway bridges will be elevated with no part of the bridge suppan systems being placed in
the river . Bridge spans will allow for animal runway in cases where this feature is currently
provided.
•
•
The following mitigation measures emphasize protection or replacement of vegetative cover
for fisheries . These mitigation measures apply 10 the Logan River and Beaver Creek, and
will also apply to their tributaries that are important to adult and juvenile fish , as determined
by UDWR and USFS.
Construction activities near the river will occur during the drier, low-flow month s of
the year to the extent practicable .
Clear-span bridges rather than in-river pier suppons will be constructed. Culvens
will be designed to allow fish passage. Heavy equipment wil l be kept out of the
channel during all construction phases to the extent practicable.
Unavoidable in-channel activities will be scheduled in coordination with the USFS
and UDWR to minimize impacts during critical fisheries periods. Such activities will
be brief and local .
•
Temporary dikes and sediment basins will be constructed during bridge and structure
replacement to prevent turbid runoff and any accidental spills of fuels , lubricants,
chemicals, or sewage (from portable sanitary facilities) from entering the river , creek,
or tributaries .
Construction activities will be limited to areas within construction work zones, as
delineated through the use of fencing , to minimize habitat losses.
All work will be conducted from the inland side of the highway where possible to
avoid in-channel activities and minimize riparian habitat and riverbank disturbance.
Existing river and creek hydraulics will be maintained by avoiding the encroachment
of required riprap into the channels. The free-nowing nature of the river will be
maintained.
Fill slopes will not be steeper than 2: I to promote bank stability and reclamation .
US-89 Through Logan Canyoo, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Hann
Page 20
Section 0 : Measures to Minimize
•
�•
Drainage ditches and sediment basins will be located in accordance with the detailed
Best Management Practices to minimize erosion and to prevent eroded material
from being washed toward the river.
Runoff along the river-side of the curb and gutter in the Middle Canyon section will
be directed toward the inland side of the highway. where practicable, to minimize the
discharge to the river of materials that accumulate on the highway.
A band of riparian habitat will be maintained along the river and creek wherever
possible to provide overhanging cover for fish and to filter surface runoff.
Larger mature trees and their root systems will be protected where it does not conflict
with vehicles and passenger safe£}'o
Prior to the start of the next wet season. disturbed areas , where possible, will be
stabilized, reseeded , and revegetated.
Riprap and debris generated during future highway and shoulder maintenance would
not be indiscriminately placed along the river banks.
•
•
Mitigation measures described above are intended to minimize impacts on water quality and
fisheries . The following will also be accomplished to ensure success of mitigation measures:
Fishery studies will be conducted for individual projects which have the potential tQ
impact fisheries. Prior tQ construction. available UDWR fisheries studies will be
assessed and if necessary updated to provide baseline data to determine project
impacts to fisheries . Post construction fishery studies will be conducted . If study
results show additional mitigation measures are warranted as a result of project
activities. mitigation directed at wild fish stocks will be carried out under the
direction of USES and UDWR biologists as exp lained in the FEIS on pg 5-6,
Floodplain Impacts
•
Bridges will c1earspan watercourses in order to minimize floodplain encroachment. Excess
fill material will not be placed in the floodway.
•
Bridge and culvert openings will be sized so that floodplain elevations will not be increased .
•
Construction activities will be in compliance with Executive Order 11988 to reduce the risk
of flood Josses; to minimize the impact of floods on human health, safety and welfare; and
to restore and preserve the national and beneficial values served by floodplains.
Threatened and Endangered Species
•
The Middle Canyon contains habitat for the Primyla maguirei (threatened species). The USF&WS
has stated that the Preferred Alternative will have no effect on this species. In order to minimize
US·89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Harm
Page 21
Section 0: Measures to Minimize
�potential impacts , the recommendations of Welsh (1987) and the USF&WS will be followed . These
recommendations include:
•
Construction activities from Wood Camp Intersection to mp 385.0 will be restricted to a
corridor width of less than 40 feet.
•
Changes in the geomorphology of Logan Canyon will be limited to the extent practical.
•
Removal of canyon bottom tree groves will be limited .
•
Dust suppression measures will be used during construction activities. Construction in the
area near populations will be undertaken no earlier than June to avoid potential dust impacts
during the flowering period (April-May) ,
•
e
Blasting in the Middle Canyon will be avoided whenever possible. Barriers preventing
scattering of blast debris on these populations will be provided if blasting is necessary .
Visual Impacts
•
A revegetation plan will be developed during design and coordinated with the USFS to
minimize harm to visual resources . This plan will be implemented in the project plans and
specifications for each project. This plan will include use of native plant species. Mitigation
of landform impacts will be accomplished by slope rounding and warping to make cuts, fills ,
and ditch edges appear more natural . Rock faces, contrasting with older cuts, will be aged
with treatments. In places where the current alignment is abandoned, the roadway will be
removed and the ground restored to blend with surrounding contours. The plan will identify
seed mixes compatible with local plant communities.
•
Levels of visual quality adjacent to the roadway of 0, 1 and 2 will be raised to level 3,
except when a more appropriate direction is determined by the USFS.
•
The acreage , sites and design of advance mitigation will be agreed to by the USFS during
design so that visual and wetland concerns can be balanced .
•
•
Steel beam guardrail will be the hazard protection device encouraged for use. The use of
A588 rusting steel, natural finish material for the guardrail for aesthetic purposes will be
considered .
Construction Impacts
Blasting
•
A Special Provisiol'} will be included in the project plans to ensure blasting will be controlled
to inhibit rock materials from being projected away from the blast area, and removing only
designated material .
US-89 Through Logan Canyon . ROD (Draft of October 13,1994) Page 22
Hann
Section 0 : Measures to Minimize
•
�•
•
•
If any critical wildlife periods are identified by UDWR during des ign , these will be given
consideration , and if appropriate , timing of blasting will be limited.
Blasting in the Middle Canyon will be avo ided whenever possible. Barriers preventing blast
debris onto Maguire primrose populations will be provided if blasting is necessary .
Spoil
•
Environme ntal clearance will be obtained on the d isposal site, prior to disposal of excess
material .
•
Excess materials that are not used in roadway construction or restoratio n of the borrow area
near Bear Lake Summit, will be disposed of in locations determined on a case-by-case
basis by the CAT team and approved by USFS . Excess materials may be utilized in the
canyon, stock piled for future use, or transported out of the canyon.
Air Quality
•
•
Dust suppression measures will be implemented during construction . These measures will
include water sprinkling, speed limits on haul road , and use of environmentally safe
stabilization chemicals.
Noise
•
The construction contractor will be required to comply with UDOT Specification No . 104. 16
(formerly 107.24) "Noise and Vibration Contro l".
Traffic Congestion , Detours and Safety
•
A detailed traffic control plan will be developed during the design phase to minimize traffic
congestion; provide for construction detours and short·term road closures; and address
vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle safety.
Toxic Material Control
•
A spill control plan for motor fuels, oil, grease and chemicals will be developed during the
design phase. This plan will address measures to minimize accidental releases of toxic
materials to the environment and measures to respond to and clean up spilled material.
Historic and Archeological Preservation
•
UOOT Standard Specification No . 104. 15 (formerly 107 .23) , "Discovery Propenies" will
be included in all contracts to protect unknown historic and archeological resources .
•
Hazardous Waste
US·89 Through Logan CanYOD, ROD (DOlft of October 13, 1994) Page 23
H.m>
SectioD 0 : Measures 10 Minimize
�•
If evidence of Hazardous Waste is found during construction the Department of
Enviro nmental Quality will be consulted and appropriate mitigation measures will be
implemented.
•
Staging Areas
•
Construction staging sites will be identified and coordinated through the CAT team during
design . They will be kept out of aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitat and other sensitive
visual areas.
•
Environmental clearance on construction staging sites will be obtained during design and the
contractor will be limited to the use of staging areas identified in the project construction
plans.
•
Staging sites will be approved by the USFS.
Batch Plant Locations
•
The traffic, safety, reneation. and air quality impacts associated with hauling material
rrom the city versus setting up a batch plant in the canyon will be identified on a
project by project basis in design. The affect of these impacts on both the canyon
environment and the city environment will be considered. The assessment will include
impacts on the Lower Canyon and compatibility with future projects. The most suitable
location will be identified in the prgject specifications. The contractor will be required
to conduct his batch plant operations in accordance with these specifications and will
comply wilh Utah Air Conservation Regulations identified in UDOr SDeciflcatio,. 10Z21.
EnvirQnmenl4l Protection.
•
Limits of Operation
•
Construction work zones will be delineated through the use of fencing in sensitive areas
to ensure contractor compliance with environmental limits of operations.
Section 4(0
•
All improvements to Section 4(f) resources will be done in accordance with USFS
recommendations.
•
Site 6 (Ricks Spring and Parking , mp 389.9) - Pedestrian safety will be considered to the
extent possible during design . This consideration includes the elimination of passing ability
at this location and improved signing. Curbing of this site will also be considered.
•
Site 12 (Winter Access Parking Area at Beaver Mountain Road, mp 399.8) - Remaining
parking area will be extended to include at least as much parking as presently exists, and the
entire parking area will be paved to enhance use.
US-89 Througb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Page 24
Hann
Section 0 : Measures to Minimize
•
�•
•
Site 13 (Winter Access Parking , mp 402. 1) - This site will be reestabli shed at a lower
elevation to maintain access.
..
Site 15 (Limber Pine Trailhead, mp 404.81) - All improvements on the trailhead side will
be accomp lished with in 23 feet of the edge of the roadway , and a delineation will be
provided within this 23 foot area.
•
•
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Hann
Page 25
Section D: Measures to Minimize
�E. MONITORING OR ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Monitoring
and enforcement of the above proposed measures to minimize harm will be accomplished
•
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between UDOT. FHWA. and USFS .
This MOU is included in the Appendix of this ROD . It identifies how the individual projects will
be se lected , identified and managed , and how coordination will be accomplished. The MOU takes
each project through design , construction, and post-construction periods. It commits to the
development of a revegetation plan, wetland mitigation plan, and a construction/post-construction
monitoring plan, and commits to the development of a Cooperating Advisory Team (CAD which
consists of various agencies and individuals. This team will provide recommendations of regulatory
and permit requirements , input on enhancement opportunities , mitigative treatments and overall
content of the design of the project, with final decisions being UDOT's responsibility. The CAT
team will be involved throughout the development of all aspects of design. including review of
aljgnment oPtions and other design features. During construction and post construction. the CAT
team will be coordinated with to reso lve ynforeseen environmental problems to ensure that mitigative
efforts are successfu l.
Mitigation measures listed in Section 0 above will be incorporated in the contract , plans , and
specifications and will be monitored in accordance with the construction/post-construction monitoring
plan. The monitoring plan will be developed during design of the individual projects and will
include all monitoring commitments made within this ROD, as well as any monitoring required to
comply with specific permits.
Enforcement of the contract provisions and monitoring of the project is the responsibility of the
se lected UDOT Project Manager and UDOT Environmental Engineer , as outlined in the MOU . An
independent environmental consultant will be ytilized . The envirOnmental consultant will assisl the
•
froieer Manager co ensure CQ17Wliance with envirOnmental commitments and mitigation measures.
Periodic meetings will be held with the contractor's workforce to advise of sensitive areas .
The UDOT Design, Structures, Right-of-Way and Environmental Divisions are responsible to ensure
that the measures to minimize harm , listed in Section D above , are incorporated into the plans and
right-of-way acquisition activities.
The Utah Division of FHW A is respons ible for administering the Federal-Aid Highway Program in
Utah and makes period ic inspections of all phases of highway design and construction to assure
compliance with federal requirements including NEPA .
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft October 13. 1994)
Enforcement
Page 26
SectioD E; Monitoring or
•
�•
Logan Canyon Documents
UDOT Documents
US-89 Logan canyon Preferred Alternative (circa 1992-93).
Brochure outlining Preferred Alternative as outlined in FEIS.
March 4, 1994 Letter from Dave Berg to Jeff Appel.
Conlinnation of compromise elements.
July 13, 1994 Letter from Lorraine Richards to CPLC and other agencies.
Brief summary of ROD, request for agency input
Preliminary Record of Decision July 15, 1994.
Cover letter
Reoord of Decision
Appendix A
Traffic Data. agency oorrespondence, MOU.
Appendix B
Agency Comments, Government Comments, Public Comments.
Curve 85 Maps, Cross Sections aod CutIFili Summary
•
CPLC Documents
Logan Canyon: Summarizing Two "Alternatives"
Map and brief summary of Consen'ationi st and UDOT Preferred
Alternatives.
Logan Canyon, Make it Safe, Keep is Beautiful
Brochure from 1993 Cache County Fair.
Response to Dave Berg letter (March 4, 1994), Jeff Appel.
June 28, 1994 Memo from Pendery to Berg outlining hotspots and requesting additional
information from UDOT.
Response to Preliminary Record of Decision. Bruce Pendery. Steve Rint, Shawn Swaner,
August 12, 1994.
Memorandum: Time for Filing Lawsuit under NEPA, Appel & Mansson,
•
August 16, 1994.
�
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.
Image Height
3363
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
2636
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/393">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/393</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.
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
300
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
Grayscale
Checksum
187114229
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
Record of decision, October 13, 1994
Description
An account of the resource
Record of decision for US Highway 89 stating that the Federal Highway Administration agrees with the Utah Department of Transportaion in its selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Roads--Design and construction
Traffic engineering
United States Highway 89
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Environmental policy
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
10/13/94
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
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, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 15
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/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/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
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd15
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/6f05335e76d97b4c65650df77b6ecd1a.pdf
b7f5ed30584e80515047302111f5f8be
PDF Text
Text
August 12, 1994
Mr. Dave Berg
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
Dear Dave:
Enclosed are the responses of Bruce Pendery, Steve Flint,
and Shawn Swaner to the working copy of the Logan Canyon Highway
Record of Decision (ROD) that you provided us with. We thank you
for the opportunity to review the ROD before it is signed.
Sincerely,
Bruce Pendery
cc: Nathan Hult
Jeff Appel
EPA Denver Office
EPA Washington Office
FHWA Region Office
FHWA Washington Office
�COMMENTS OF BRUCE PENDERY
REASONS WHY A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS)
SHOULD BE PREPARED
The extreme deficiencies in the Logan Canyon Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS and FEIS) that indicate an
SEIS should be prepared have been brought to your attention
previously (see letters from EPA, Haley and Stolebarger, and
Appel and Mattsson, among others, submitted in response to the
DEIS and FEIS).
More particularly, the letter from Appel and
Mattsson (see Appendix B of the ROD) pointed out that this whole
process has been "out of sync" with what NEPA requires since the
DEIS was essentially a scoping document, the FEIS functioned as
DEIS, and so forth.
This is not a matter of quibbling over details.
At the core
of the NEPA process is a policy that decisions significantly
affecting the human environment will not be made arbitrarily and
capriciously, and will be made with opportunities for informed
public participation.
By placing the whole NEPA process with
regard to Logan Canyon out of sync, UDOT has violated those
fundamental principles, thus the need for an SEIS.
Safety provides a major illustration for this contention.
Safety is a purpose and need identified for this project (see
ROD, FEIS, DEIS).
to the project.
It is not a peripheral concern, it is central
It is not a stretch to say that for many people
the whole Logan Canyon project boils down to weighing
environmental impacts of the project versus safety impacts.
1
Yet
�the safety data which are used to support and rationalize the
safety purpose and need (and the attendant preferred alternative)
have been and continue to be seriously in error.
As early as a 1986 public hearing, UDOT attempted to present
incorrect safety data to the public as a justification for the
project, despite knowing the data were flawed.
Environmentalists
were forced to point this error out at the public hearing so as
to get UDOT not to use it.
And even at this late date in the
process, the safety data in the FEIS has had to be recalculated
for presentation in the ROD because once again environmentalists
pointed out the obvious flaws plaguing the data presented in the
FEIS (see Bridgerland Audubon Society, Citizens for the
Protection of Logan Canyon, and Ron Lanner letters in ROD
Appendix B).
Thus, the safety data in the ROD is new information
that has never been presented to the public (see Appendix A of
the ROD as well as the ROD itself which have large sections
devoted to explaining what went wrong with the safety analysis in
the FEIS).
Moreover, and most shockingly, the safety data in the
ROD are still wrong, as the letter from Steve Flint, contained
herein, points out.
So at this almost terminal date in the NEPA process we still
have flawed data being used to support a major purpose and need
for the Logan Canyon Project.
And the significance of this is
that informed public participation in this process cannot take
place.
All the hundreds of people who commented on the DEIS and
FEIS were presented with safety information that was wrong, as
2
�the need to correct this information in the ROD demonstrates.
And the ROD--even if the safety data in it were now correct--will
not be seen by the vast majority of people who are concerned
about this project.
ROD's--almost by definition--are not
intended to be vehicles for public participation.
Thus, the
significance of UDOT's out of sync approach to the NEPA process
becomes clear: not only is the process out of sync, but with each
step up the NEPA ladder toward project approval fewer and fewer
people are able to review the project, and those who previously
reviewed the project were presented with incorrect data
purporting to support UDOT's preferred alternative.
Therefore,
an SEIS is needed not only because the data presented have been
repeatedly wrong in the past, but also because each time UDOT
presents the "corrected" data, fewer people are able to
participate in the evaluating the decision the data supposedly
supports.
UDOT tries to avoid the need for preparing an SEIS, with its
attendant wide-ranging public participation, by stating that
certain individuals have been closely involved in the development
of the modified preferred alternative (see, e.g., ROD Appendix B
page 39, but this same statement appears in numerous other places
in the ROD).
But involving five individuals (Bruce Pendery,
Shawn Swaner, Steve Flint, Nathan Hult, Jeff Appel) in this
process--while greatly appreciated and we believe productive-simply cannot substitute for full-scale public involvement in an
SEIS process.
As has become clear recently, public sentiment
3
�regarding this project is simply too diverse and widespread to
believe that the above five people adequately provide for "public
involvement" when a basic purpose and need for the project has
never been adequately presented to the public.
While we are
viewed as knowledgeable about this project in the environmental
community and to some extent are considered leaders, we simply
cannot and do not represent the concerns of the hundreds--perhaps
thousands--of people concerned about Logan Canyon.
If UDOT wants
informed public participation in this NEPA process it must
provide for that via and SEIS.
In addition to the fact informed public participation has
been hampered, UDOT's modified preferred alternative is a
arbitrary and capricious decision.
The DEIS, FEIS, and ROD all
make much of the fact safety will be improved if the preferred
alternative is implemented.,
But what basis can there be for that
assertion when the information it is based on has been flawed
since at least 1986 and continues to be flawed?
I have largely exhausted the topic of why an SEIS is needed.
However, I will point out that the same analysis applies to 4(f)
sites and to wildlife.
The 4(f) documentation in the FEIS was
also wrong in a number of instances and a has had to be corrected
(see ROD Appendix A, 4(f) Map section, as well as the ROD
itself).
Likewise, UDOT presented essentially no information in
the FEIS about the numerous sensitive species in Logan Canyon
(see ROD Appendix B pages 28 and 35).
The ROD contains some
information on these species (see ROD Appendix A, USFS Biological
4
�Assessment).
Thus, just as for safety, informed public
participation could not take place in regard to these critical
issues because the information was wrong or absent.
Moreover,
simply presenting the information in the largely nonpublic ROD
phase of the NEPA process does not correct the problem.
CURRENT LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFIED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY
Repeatedly in the ROD UDOT states that consensus has been
reached with the environmental community with regards to the
modified preferred alternative.
That is an incorrect statement,
which we have made clear to UDOT.
Not only is it incorrect, it
makes it more unlikely compromise will be reached because those
most opposed to the project would deeply resent UDOT unilaterally
announcing that consensus exists.
Let me be clear.
discussions with UDOT.
Since last December we have had a several
The tone of those meetings has been
constructive and positive.
I personally want that process to
continue because I believe compromise is preferable to
confrontation.
However, it is my opinion that a fully acceptable
compromise has not been reached yet.
Let me explain why.
As the modified preferred alternative stands,
conservationists would get most of what they want in 14% of the
canyon (road stays on current width and alignment between
mileposts 383.5 to 387.5, although there could be some curve cuts
we don't believe are necessary).
UDOT gets everything it wants
5
�in 42% of the canyon (full
u.s.
highway standard between
mileposts 399.8 to 411.8, with almost 8 miles of that 12 miles
having a passing lane).
Neither UDOT or conservationists get
exactly what they want in 43% of the project area (mileposts
387.5 to 399.8).
At a meeting in early July Dave Berg asked me how far along
toward compromise we were.
Based on the above considerations, I
said I thought we were 75% of the way there.
about where we still stand.
I believe that's
Seventy-five percent of a potential
compromise does not equal compromise, let alone consensus.
Moreover, as we found out at a meeting we convened in July there
is a significant group of conservationists in Cache Valley who
believe we are not even seventy-five percent of the way toward
compromise. This information was conveyed to UDOT in a timely
manner.
To summarize, I believe that a generally acceptable
compromise is possible, but it can only be reached by continued
hard work seeking to narrow the differences that still exist, not
by premature and unilateral statements that consensus has been
reached.
RESPONSE TO BRIDGERLAND AUDUBON LETTER (APPENDIX B PAGE 16)
The Bridgerland Audubon Society (BAS) provided extensive
comments on the FEIS.
I was the author of that letter, although
I no longer hold an official position with BAS.
Unfortunately, I
believe most of the concerns that were raised in the BAS letter
were dismissed with conclusory statements using circular
6
�reasoning.
While UDOT may feel it has adequately addressed this
letter, I hope the FHWA and EPA will make an independent
assessment of these concerns and how well UDOT has responded to
them.
What follows are items related to the BAS letter that I
feel are particularly significant.
It is not nearly an
exhaustive list.
1.
Since AASHTO allows for design exceptions, they are not
genuinely standards.
Thus, the "written-in-stone" portrayal UDOT
has given to the public over the years is incorrect.
Moreover,
UDOT still fails to state what legal authority AASHTO has,
perhaps because it has no legal authority (Appendix B, page 17).
2.
On Appendix B page 25 it is stated that treatment of
clear zones has been more clearly defined in the ROD.
Even if
true, this is yet another case of not presenting the public with
correct (or clear) information until the public is largely no
longer part of the process.
prepare an SEIS.
That is, its yet another reason to
Moreover, BAS Table 3 was correct, what was
wrong was that UDOT had failed to explain what "typical improved
area" means in its FEIS, thus defeating informed public
participation.
3.
On Appendix B page 27, UDOT indicates that recreation
isn't emphasized in Logan Canyon, and that it isn't a recreation
area.
That analysis ignores the Forest Service signs welcoming
visitors to the "Logan Canyon Recreation Area," it ignores the
Forest Service's attempts to get highway enhancement funds to
show off Logan Canyon's many recreational attractions, it ignores
7
�the brown (i.e., recreational) FHWA or UDOT signs pointing the
way to Logan Canyon, it ignores the clear direction in the Forest
plan that Logan Canyon will be managed primarily for recreation.
Under UDOT's constrained analysis, the Sawtooth National
Recreation Area (also managed by the Forest Service) would not be
a recreation area because its not absolutely only used for
recreation (grazing is allowed in some areas).
I prefer the more
pragmatic duck test: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
etc., it is a duck.
area.
Under that test Logan Canyon is a recreation
And neither UDOT or the Forest Service can reinterpret the
law in an inappropriately constrained way--and the law makes it
clear that when the managing agency designates an area a
recreation area in its plans, that area must be treated as a 4(f)
area.
4.
On Appendix B page 28 UDOT frets about having to
concern itself with "hundreds" of species.
Only 27 species were
asked about, and now with the public largely removed from this
process something has finally been said about them (see Appendix
A, USFS Biological Assessment).
Moreover, not only does the
Forest Service have to do a biological assessment before a
decision document is signed, it must do the assessment before the
decision is made which certainly has not been the case here.
5.
UDOT says on Appendix B page 29 only a Forest Plan
Amendment will be required, not a revision.
However,
conservationists have long contended a much more significant
revision will be required.
Revisions are required when the basic
8
�output of goods and services from a forest are altered.
I
believe the modified preferred alternative will meet that test by
transforming Logan Canyon into yet another Wasatch-Cache National
Forest high-speed conduit, rather than the singular peaceful and
quiet ride in a major canyon that it currently is.
In fact,
Logan Canyon's beauty is not only of forest-wide singularity, it
is of national significance, as a soon-to-be-released national
article will demonstrate.
6.
Some pages are duplicated incorrectly beginning on
about Appendix B page 29 to 31.
7.
While the Forest Service has evaluated the Logan River
for Wild and Scenic status (Appendix B pages 29 to 31), it has
also said that new information could cause a reevaluation.
Such
information was recently provided by Mr. Drew Parkin who is one
of the nation's premier experts on wild and scenic rivers.
He
concluded most of the Logan River within the highway project area
qualifies as a recreational river.
to the Forest Service.
His report has been submitted
UDOT should more fully consider the
ramifications of such a designation, and not just state that
there will be no effect due to the project.
8.
Appendix B page 32 indicates it would be speculative to
worry about land use changes if the land exchange occurs.
The
land exchange will occur because authorizing legislation has been
passed by Congress and signed by the President.
And to compare
Forest Service land use policy with Utah State Lands Board policy
is like comparing night and day (I'll leave it to you to decide
9
�which is the benighted agency).
There will be changes in land
management and it is disingenuous to ignore that fact.
In
particular, the need for "laydown" fencing should be reconsidered
because it is unlikely there will be cows to keep off the
highway.
9.
On Appendix B page 33 UDOT responds improperly to the
4(f) issues that are raised.
As indicated above, all of Logan
Canyon is a recreation area, its not a few parking sites.
Moreover, the reason for selecting the 4(f) sites was not to
protect parking, but rather to protect aesthetics, hiking, and
exploration.
These are the protected features or activities (see
Appendix B page 34).
Furthermore, not only is the conservationists' alternative
feasible and prudent, it also does not produce any genuinely
unusual situations precluding its selection.
And when a feasible
and prudent alternative fails to meet transportation needs, the
needs must be reassessed, which UDOT has not done.
Failure to
meet transportation needs does not mean an alternative
automatically causes an unusual situation precluding its
selection.
10.
The concerns raised on Appendix B page 35 are indeed
specific to the Logan Canyon Highway project since these species
occur nowhere else, and failure to address the question runs
contrary to Eugene Kleckley's (FHWA) written assurance that all
of our concerns would be addressed.
11.
Over the years UDOT has repeatedly refused to consider
10
�slow vehicle turnouts as an alternative to passing lanes.
However, these are a practicable alternative to the passing lanes
contemplated between mileposts 391.6 to about milepost 396.5 that
would avoid wetlands impacts (see Appendix B page 36 and ROD
pages 32 to 34).
As we have often pointed out to UDOT, slow
vehicle turnouts are successfully used in several states.
And
UDOT has told us that they have the statutory authority to use
slow vehicle turnouts.
Therefore, they must be used in
preference to passing lanes where wetlands impacts will occur.
Additionally, while UDOT partially responded to BAS's
concerns on Appendix B page 36 by reducing the road width to 34feet between mileposts 391.6 and 399.8, this response was
incomplete.
UDOT fails to point out why it does not plan to
leave roadway width at 26-feet in section 1b of the canyon
(mileposts 387.5 to 391.6).
If 26-feet is a practicable
alternative in section 1a (mileposts 383.5 to 387.5), why is that
not practicable in section 1b, where the canyon is virtually as
narrow and wetlands/riparian impacts likely as great?
Furthermore, UDOT dismisses BAS's concerns about wetlands
mitigation in sections 1a and 1b by saying "the commentor . . .
felt" (ROD page 33)there was a poor likelihood of revegetation
success.
However, it was not a matter that I
poor likelihood of success.
"felt" there was a
Rather, I cited recent scientific
- iterature--produced by scientists working for the very agency
l
whose land will be impacted (the Forest Service)--stating there
is a poor likelihood revegetation will be successful in areas
11
�such as sections 1a and 1b (see Appendix B page 37).
If the
scientific literature that I cited is somehow flawed UDOT should
cite "better" information.
That's how science works.
demands the use of good science.
And NEPA
Until then, it appears UDOT has
no scientific basis for claiming it can reclaim the kinds of
wetlands that exist in sections 1a and lb.
Finally, UDOT still feels simply stating best management
practices will be used is sufficient to meet water quality
mandates (Appendix B page 37, see also ROD page 32).
otherwise.
The law is
Moreover, UDOT has failed to adequately coordinate
with the Utah Division of Water Rights (see Appendix B page 6)
which feels UDOT has likely understated the water quality impacts
of the project.
Thus, UDOT is too vague about how it will
mitigate water quality impacts and has likely underestimated
those impacts, yet UDOT wants approval to proceed with this
project.
That is not how NEPA intends environmental review to
proceed.
12.
An inability to do a "before and after" (ie,
cumulative) comparison of wetlands and aesthetic impacts in the
already-widened section of Logan Canyon with the project area
would be unfortunate (Appendix B page 38).
However, I believe
that if future aesthetic conditions of the road can be predicted
in the project area, past conditions in the already-widened
' section can also be estimated.
For example, there are certainly
many old photos of the canyon that could be used for aesthetic
comparisons, and many of the old wetlands have left "footprints"
12
�of their existence.
While not an ideal scientific situation, to
simply state that no useful cumulative comparisons can be made
between the project area and the lower canyon overstates the
situation.
UDOT says the Forest Service feels the presentation of
visual quality data was more meaningful when presented in a way
unlike that in the rest of the FEIS (Appendix B page 38).
Why
did UDOT let the Forest Service dictate this approach when BAS-and several others--made it clear in their comments on the DEIS
that this was not a more illuminating approach?
MAJOR FLAWS APPARENT IN THE ROD
What follows are additional major flaws that I perceive in
the ROD.
1.
Again, this is not an exhaustive list.
On page 40 of the ROD UDOT mistakenly thinks only an
irreversible commitment of resources can invoke NEPA relative to
4(f) designation.
Actually the test is whether designating a
4(f) site is a Federal action significantly affecting the human
environment.
The selection--or more importantly, lack of
selection--of 4(f) sites in Logan Canyon meets that test and
certainly warranted at least a FONSI or an EA.
2.
On page 18 of the ROD UDOT says the Forest Service will
issue a transportation easement not the special use permit
described in the FEIS.
What is the significance of that change?
If one of these involves the Forest Service conveying a property
right while the other is merely a license, this is a significant
13
�change, and the public has not had a chance to comment or be
involved in this decision.
3.
As I have discussed in several of our meetings, the
exact location and size of staging areas must be spelled out.
This is a major project impact that has not been previously
addressed.
4.
I have already mentioned the tendency towards
unwarranted conclusory statements in regards to how the BAS
letter was addressed.
That same problem is particularly evident
in the defensive discussion on purpose and need on pages 27 to 29
of the ROD.
As I said above, the safety data were wrong in the
FEIS, are still wrong, and question begging rhetoric does not
alleviate that problem.
Likewise, the discussions related to
traffic volume predictions, the associated level of service, the
utility of SR 14 as a comparison to u.S. Highway 89, and AASHTO
standards are mostly just defensive and conclusory.
5.
On Appendix A page 7 there is a critical UDOT
memorandum.
First, under the logic developed in this memorandum,
there is little or no safety rationale for the 40-feet wide road
UDOT still proposes in much of the canyon.
All of the remaining
proposed 40-feet wide highway could just as well be 34-feet wide.
UDOT should strongly consider this fact as a means of reaching a
generally acceptable compromise in the canyon.
However there is also a very disturbing remark made in this
memo.
It is stated: "[A]nd given the fact that we would be able
to proceed with the construction of the project . . ." if the
14
�road width is reduced to 34-feet, going to five foot shoulders is
acceptable.
Did UDOT decide to go to a 34-feet width instead of
a 40-feet between mileposts 391.6 to 399.8 because of its goodfaith discussions with conservationists or because EPA and/or the
Corps of Engineers told UDOT they would not get a 404 permit if
they did not make this change?
The sentence quoted above
certainly implies that someone was holding a very big stick over
UDOT's head, and frankly I doubt that it was conservationists.
6.
The letters from the EPA and the Utah Division of Water
Rights on Appendix B pages 1 to 6 are a must read.
In essence,
not only has UDOT failed to insure an approved wetlands permit is
acquired before the project is authorized, it has also put off
significant input on water quality impacts until the as yet
nonexistent design phase.
We mentioned earlier how UDOT has
marginalized the public's ability to participate in this process
by its out of sync NEPA process.
It appears UDOT is doing the
same with expert agencies that should have input to this project
prior to its approval, not after.
A SUGGESTION FOR COMPROMISE
Many of my comments in this letter have been critical of
UDOT's approach to the Logan Canyon project.
That's because I
feel the ROD is as flawed a decision document as were the DEIS
and FEIS.
However, in the spirit of compromise let me offer a
suggested approach.
When the final ROD is issued it should only approve
15
�construction of the bridges, namely Burnt Bridge, and Upper and
Lower Twin Bridges.
These are the "scary" bridges in many
people's opinion, and as I understand it the ones that are in
need of replacement due to their age.
UDOT apparently has
funding to reconstruct these bridges and UDOT has indicated that
replacing these bridges would take about two years.
During that two year period an SEIS could be prepared for
the remainder of the project, wherein the public and concerned
agencies are given a full opportunity to participate before a
decision is made and when it can still have a major effect.
Many
of the major flaws that I have pointed out in this letter and my
letters submitted on behalf of BAS regarding the FEIS and DEIS
could be corrected in this process.
The numerous other flaws
pointed out by other commentors could also be addressed.
The
EPA's deep concern regarding segmenting a project (see Appendix B
pages 1 to 4) might be addressed.
Additionally, the constructive
and positive discussions UDOT has had with conservationists could
continue in a effort to narrow remaining differences.
In any
event, UDOT does not have funding for nonhridge portions of the
project yet, so taking a couple of more years to "get it right"
should not be a major problem for UDOT fiscally.
You will note that I did not include the Red Banks, Franklin
Basin, or Amazon Hollow structures/bridges in this proposal.
There is simply too much controversy associated with them (due to
their extreme width and wetlands impacts) to expect that they
would meet with general acceptance, unlike the three bridges
16
�mentioned above.
Moreover, as far as I know, the only "problem"
with these bridges is that they are not as wide as UDOT would
like.
However, they do not seem to be as narrow as the bridges
mentioned above (they certainly are not "scary"), and they are
not nearing the end of their useful life so far as I know.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide these comments on
the ROD, and I hope that UDOT and the FHWA will consider this
compromise proposal so that a generally acceptable compromise
might be reached for the Logan Canyon project.
Sincerely,
Bruce Pendery
755 Canyon Rd.
Logan, Utah 84321
17
�
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/159">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/159</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.
Checksum
3787997956
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
10610610 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
Correspondence from Bruce Pendery to Dave Berg, August 12, 1994
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Bruce Pendery to Dave Berg stating the reasons why a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) should be prepared, explaining that flawed data and lack of public involvement have made the current EIS unusable. Suggests a compromise in which the three "scary" bridges be modified as UDOT has stated while the SEIS is prepared.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Pendery, Bruce
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Natural resources conservation areas
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon Study
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1994-08-12
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
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, 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 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
MSS148VIIIB28_Fd10_Page_1.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/2450d6fe4614645d30d1695b96b69090.pdf
e1d6c57af142bec0820a55d2858a7cf3
PDF Text
Text
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
Logan Ranger District
P.O. Box 448
Logan, Utah 84321
7750
December 20, 1979
Ms. Marta Tollerup
P.O. Box 3561
Logan, Utah 84321
L
Dear Ms. Tollerup:
Your letter of November 24, 1979 on the realignment of the Logan
Canyon Highway has been referred to our office by the Branch Chief
of Recreation.
In reply to your questions:
There would be changes in the China Row picnic site, Woodcamp
campground, Cottonwood picnic site, Twin Bridges campground, and
two summer recreation residences. All of these facilities could
be affected by road construction in one way or another.
According to the Environmental Analysis Re port for the Third
~hase of Construction of th e Logan Can y on Hi ghway the following
recommendations were made :
22.
Pres e rve the Ch i na Row Sprin g and provide roadside
turn-out sp a c e fo r t wo automobiles.
23.
Desi gn suitabl e a cc e s s int o th e new hi ghway at the
followin g locations:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Ri ght Fork Road Junc t i on
W o dcamp Re c r e ation Site
o
Lo gan Cave Parking
Co tt onwood Ca n yo n Re crea tion Site
Brach iopod Summe r Re cre ation Area
Twi n Brid ge s Re creation Sit e
The Logan Cave p a rkin g and the Cottonwood Canyon Recreation Site
parking can b e combined into one parkin g area.
Attached are copies of three page s covering Recreation and Aesthetics
out of the En v ironmental Analysis Report on the Logan Canyon Highway.
I would like t o call your attention to the list of turn-outs and
parking ar e as for use by people fishing, bird watching, etc. These
p o pular pull-outs wo uld b e preserved if at all possible.
6200- 11 (1 /69)
;.
..
.:.........A
'-
�Possible uses of excess cut material from the proposed Third
Phase Highway Improvement program may be similar to previous
phases or hauled out of the canyon. We have looked at and are
still looking at possible beneficial uses should the road work
be undertaken.
The Cowley Canyon road could benefit from additional material to
improve the driving surface as well as to lift the road above the
drainage channel and improve water quality. There may also be
a similar opportunity for improvement to the Temple Fork road.
There may also be an opportunity to utilize clean rock to stabilize
stream channels in Logan Canyon and side drainages. Perhaps the
fisheries of Logan River, Right Fork, and Temple Fork could be
impro v e d with appropriat ely designed structures utilizing clean
rock.
There may be other uses as well, but environmental assessments of each would be necessary before any undertaking. The
same with any actual waste sites selected.
Some waste disposal
sites looked at to date include the Twin Bridges, both the upper
and lower end; the Woodcamp area; the draw immediately below. the
lower bridge at Twin Bridges; and the bench at the present site
of the Logan Cattle Allotment corral. There has been no definite
selection as yet and there would be an environmental assessment
made to determine if there is an appropriate waste site.
Attached is a copy of the past ten year's recreational use
Logan Canyon.
These figures represent the visitor day use
the boundaries of the canyon. The definition of a visitor
is one individual for a period of 12 hours or some type of
combination.
in
within
day
similar
If you have any questions on the above information or any other question
pertaining to this subject, please call the of f ice or feel free to stop \
in and look at the Environmental An a lysis Report.
Sincerely,
~?7Zj ; ): 0 _
1'_ -vv~ )
M. J. Roberts
District Forest Ranger
Attachments
f~'---::'
l.:
'
~'
,
..
�-20-
Recreation and Aesthettcs
Oltdoor life is a fundamental part of the A!l'lerican tradition. There
is a des:Lre in most people for opportunities to have direct contact
with nature and the outdoor elements.
Logan Canyon is fa!l'led for its natural beauty and scenic features.
Major attractions are the beautiful Logan River winding down canyon
through lush green vegetation of the spring and SUll:ner and the
brilliant flaming colors of the fall season . There are magnificient
scenes of rugged mountains rising abruptly from the canyon bottom
that is barely wide enough to accommodate the river and the canyon
highway. And there are picturesque rock outcrops into which are
growing evergreen and mountain shrubbery. A good variety of wildlife
abounds in the canyon and can often be seen by !l'lotorists travelling
into the canyon. Deer and elk winter at lower elevations and ~ny
sightseers make the trip into the canyon to watch these an i ~ls
browsing and !l'loving about i n their natural habitat. SOlIe water fowl
can be seen propagating young in the !l'lore still waters of Logan R.iver.
The geology of Logan Canyon is very interesting because of the variety
of natural features such as Ricks Spring, the Arches or Wind Caves,
the China Wall, which is an exposed li~estone fault, the Logan Cave
and the Brachiopod Rock. Dlring a drive through Logan Canyon one
passes by an ancient aquarium of fossilized plant and anill8.1 life.
Land forms are present that give evidence of the once present Lake
Bonneville. Still growing after more than 3,200 years on a rocky
crag overlooking Logan Canyon is the great Rocky Mountain Juniper,
Jardine. People living in New York, Los Angeles, and other parts
of the country have telephoned the Logan Ranger's Office to inquire
~~
of the turning of fall colors so they can properly time a trip to
see the canyon in its most vivid colors.
~,
Recreation values are very high in Logan Canyon. The canyon is
within one and one-half hours driving ti~e fro:n the State Capitol
and is used extensively by Utah people as well as by vacationeers
fro~ all parts of the country.
The recreatton Use continues to
increase each year as more and more people travel to the canyon.
Approximately 336,000 visits were made to the recreation areas in
Logan Canyon during 1969, most of which were campers and picnickers.
In addition to these visits, :TIany people enjoyed fishing, hunting,
sightseeing, swi:n~ing, skiing, hiking, cycling, nature study,
photography, horseback riding, berry picktng, -and use of SU~!11er hO!11es
located in the canyon. Highway 89 through the canyon has beco!!le a
popular route for tourists travelli.ng to other National Forests and
National Parks such as the Yellowstone and Teton area ·. Logan Canyon
is -well-known for ' i ts natural beauty. It is es·p ecially beautiful
i n the fall when leaves are changing color.
There are 26 developed forest recreation sites in Logan Can,yon, 8S
suamer cabins on National Forest land and 7 on private land in the
canyon, L~ organi ·z at ion camps, one major developed winter sports area,
and 2 lodges, one of which is on private land. Even with this nU!l'lber
of developed recreation sites, there still are not nearly enough to
~eet public demands and it is eSsential that encroachl1ent onto
f$;'.'1I~'
~}('
~;.
,~.-
"
��3.
Station 666 • Across from Wood
4.
Station 675 - Above Wood
5.
Station 698 - Bend below Burnt Bridge
6.
Station 706
7.
Station 718 - Approaching Burnt Bridge
8.
Station 725 - Above Burnt Br1.dge
9.
Station 755 - Logan Cave
Ca~p
Ca~p
10.
Station 761 - Cottonwood (South)
11.
Station 763 -
12.
Station 709 - Below Brachiopod (North)
13.
Station 770 - (South) Below Brachiopod
14.
Station 793 - (North) Bend above Brachiopod
15.
Station 796 - (South) Bend above Brachiopod
16.
Station 802 - Bend below Twin Bridges
17.
Station 809 - (North) Just below 'I\Jln Bridges
18.
Station 810
19.
Station 821 - Cut just below Twin Bridges
20.
Station 835 - Twin Bridges
~uth
Cotton\lood
(South) Just below Twin Bridges
Durtng construction, access roads should be kept open to recreation sites
including summer recreation residences and adequate and safe access to
these sites must be developed in conjunction with the high\lay i~rove~ent
project.
~
Narrow bands of vegetation presently separa.te the highway fro~ recreation
sites and residences. Roa.d construction will remove 'portions of this
vegetative screen and every effort should be :nade to protect or restore
the screening. Abandoned road sections should be obliterated, and revegetated to restore as near to natural conditions as practical.
The aesthetic value will be subjected to intensive change by the rightof-way cleartqg. Careful attention must be given to this operation to
preserve individual trees and shrubs on the fringe of the clearing boundary.
Tree stUT.pS should be cut as near ground surface as possible where stumps
are not taken out c~mpletely. Trees taken out with the right-or-way
clearing can best ~ disposed of by chipping the branches and cutting the
trunk into lengths of 8 feet or less and stockpiling for campground use .
.
-
~
�Recreation Use- Logan Canyon Management Composite
Year
1969
Visitor-Day Use
1000)
208. 7
Recreation Visitor
(x 1000)
ex
1970
220.0
1971
228.2
1972
264.4
1973
295.3
1974
308.5
1975
210.3
249.8
1976
317.6
270.6
1977
357.7
266.3
1978
37 L 4
••
300.1
1979
398.8
334.1
I
1
~
I
I
I
,
!
1
i
"/
II
12/19/79
' \"
F.R.L.
�
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/155">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/155</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.
Checksum
1052141489
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
4283387 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
Correspondence from M.J. Roberts to Marta Tollerup, December 20, 1979
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from M.J. Roberts to Marta Tollerup discussing the changes to China Row picnic site, Woodcamp campground, Cottonwood picnic site, Twin Bridges campground, and two summer recreation residences including the aspects of recreation and aesthetics of these locations.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Roberts, M.J.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Outdoor recreation
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Administrative records
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
United States. Forest Service
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1979-12-20
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1970-1979
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 28 Folder 8
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 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
MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_7.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/77dd7248dd4fa4f87ab9f7f396ce142e.pdf
ef59b7645c14485578e793688379013c
PDF Text
Text
October 14, 1986
- LOGAN CANYON STUDY COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION
As a result of the development of the technical memorandums,
public input, and the preliminary environmental data gathering phase, a range of possible improvements within Logan
Canyon have been identified. These possible improvements
(components) are listed below in order of increasing levels
of improvement starting with maintaining the State's goal
(do nothing) up to widening and improving the existing
alignment.
In the next phase of the study, these components will be
developed and studied and will ultimately form the basis for
the development of alternatives.
1.
Maintain Status Quo No change to surface width
Resurfacing as required
Signing and pavement marking improvements
2.
Spot Improvements No basic change to surface width
Resurfacing as required
Bridge and structure replacement (existing
locations)
Slow vehicle turnouts
Recreational turnouts and parking
Signing and pavement marking improvements
3.
Widening Along Existing Alignment
Widen lanes
Widen shoulders and ditches
Bridge and structure replacement (existing
locations)
Slow vehicle turnouts
Recreational_ turnouts and parking
Raise grade in potential flooding areas
Signing and pavement marking improvements
4.
Widening and Improving the Existing Alignment
Widen lanes
Widen shoulders and ditches
Improve alignment
Bridge and structure replacement (improved
alignment for both, Lower Twin and Upper Twin
bridges)
Passing lanes particularly in areas of sustained
steep grades
Recreational turnouts and parking
Raise grade in potential flooding areas
Signing and pavement marking improvements
5.
Bear Lake Summit to Garden City
New routing north of the existing alignment
New routing south of the existing alignment
;,
-
~-x.s's.-h·l\~ o\'~1\ rl\eJ\1- ~j,J)1'
.....J
<-l
b
SLC-STN/08
1
\
'V~e\N
�
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/145">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/145</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.
Checksum
2663750795
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
665382 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
Logan Canyon Study component (improvement) identification, October 14, 1986
Description
An account of the resource
A list of possible improvements to Logan Canyon.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
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
1986-10-14
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (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 29 Folder 6
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 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
MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 15.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/078e07287337d2621252a91cb831907f.pdf
9f0780c9f4582a1c49a9cf7d95ee33f0
PDF Text
Text
MEETING NOTICE
(
~
public meeting regarding the improvement study for U.S.
89 through Logan Canyon will be held Monday Novem-
~ighway
ber 3, at 7:30 p.m. in Garden City Hall in Garden City,
Utah.
The Utah Department of Transportation and its engi-
neering consultant for the project, CH2M HILL, will present
the data and findings from the first task of this study and
the determination of transportation needs for the segment of
the highway between Right Fork and Garden City.
Preliminary
findings of public concerns and environmental issues regarding road improvements in the Canyon and alternative alignments from the Bear Lake Summit to Garden City will also be
reported.
Questions and comments will be entertained.
A
fact sheet is being prepared for the public on the project
mailing list.
This meeting will cover essentially the same
areas that were covered in the public meeting held on ·
September 23 at the Logan City Hall.
Contact:
Cliff Forsgren
CH2M HILL
363-0200
SLC88/06
�
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/144">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/144</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.
Checksum
4101962281
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
497416 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
Meeting notice for November 3
Description
An account of the resource
Meeting notice for November 3 at City Hall in Garden City
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Forsgren, Clifford
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Roads--Design and construction
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
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Garden City (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1970-1979
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, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6
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 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
MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 19.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/fb41ad30abe11643f41965e8c7d6e86c.pdf
60a80ad5e63041eb896ef0419a73e715
PDF Text
Text
AGENDA
US 89 - LOGAN CANYON PUBLIC MEETING #1
(
Tuesday, September 23, 7:30 P.M. Logan City Hall
utah Department of ~ransportation
CH2M HILL - Consulting Engineer
1.
Welcome - Project Background _ Purpose of Meeting
0
N+eS+(J
2. --Introduction of Participants
3.
Presentation of Transportation Needs Data and Findings
A. Existing Roadway Conditions
B. Safety
C. Maintenance
D. Traffic Characteristics
E. Roadway Capacity
F. Conclusions
4.
Environmental Concerns - Preliminary Findings
5.
Public Questions and Answers
6.
Future Tasks and Public Involvement Opportunities
�
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/135">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/135</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.
Checksum
3414916046
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
384107 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
Agenda for September 23 public meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Agenda for September 23 public meeting at Logan City Hall
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
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1970-1979
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, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6
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 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
MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 18.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/1cc4b0efa26655b55b2a55e4a4536545.pdf
5ddff13abebeb599a71d39a66f4058eb
PDF Text
Text
{
I
I
Logan Canyon Highway
For the second time in nine years. the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT) is proposing an expansion and reduction of curves to the 6.7~ile
stretch of U.S. Highway 89 from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Spring in Logan Canyon.
Envtronmental groups and concerned citizens, including the Sierra Club, the
Bridgerland Audubon Society, Citizens for · the Protection of Logan Canyon and
others, view this expansion as highly unfavorable and as a threat to the
beauty and quality of the Logan Canyon Recreation Area.
!
General Summary
i
i
* Major impact on both environmental ~nd visual quality of canyon.
* Project contradicts national energy ;concern.
* S0-90 percent of the project reqUir t s cutting into existing banks and
vegetated areas.
!
* "Waste poses a major engineering prcbblem.rt (Quote from project engineer)
Traffic Growth Factors
*
*
UDOT uses an unrealistic expontential model.
A linear growth model better fits daily traffic data.
*
data used by UnoT are limited to one busy section of the highway,
yet are used to describe the whole road.
Need for highway re-alignment not documented by current data.
* Traffic
Safety Factors
*
*
*
*
Suggested danger of Logan Canyon "Section III" is not supported by current
data.
A major discrepancy exists between accident rate data and traffic volume.
1977 accident rate figured by the Utah Highway Patrol does not agree with
UDOT report.
Statistical significance of accident data used is suspect.
Environmental Factors
* Numerous spills would encroach into Logan River from planned fills.
* Silt deposits in the river would destroy trout habitat and breeding cycle.
* Loss of riverside vegetation needed by trout for low light intensity.
* Creation of any culverts would impair spawning success of trout.
* Loss of vegetative barriers lessens the quality of fishing experience.
* Major visual impacts would result from the cuts planned, especially the
two major cuts at the Temple Fork area, which would be, according to the
engineer's report, 75 feet deep and as much as 150 feet across.
" IT'LL NEVER BE WORTH AS MUCH AS WE'VE PUT INTO IT (the project) ALREADy.1I
--Gary Lindley, project engineer.
�'. IMPORTANT ADDRESSES
i
Mr. Les Abbey, Environmental Engineer
Utah Department of Transportation
128 17th Street
Ogden, Utah 84404
To demonstrate this is a controversial issue you should send copies
to those throughout the decision-making process:
Mr. George Bohn
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Building
125 So. State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Mr. David Watt
Federal Highway Administration, Region 8
P.O. 25426
Denver, Colorado 80225
Mr. William Geise
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 900
1890 Li nco 1n
Denver, Colorado
POINTS TO STRESS
Question need for major reconstruction as planned.
Proposal has major impact on both environmental and scenic
qualities of canyon.
Need for an enVironmental impact statement to thoroughly analyze
impacts and alternatives.
Ask that the EPA become a cooperating agency in the project
analysis of the Logan Canyon Highway.
�
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/130">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/130</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.
Checksum
442219902
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1157096 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
Concern about Logan Canyon
Description
An account of the resource
Detailing the concerns, particularly from environmental groups, of the expansion and reduction of curves in Logan Canyon including a general summary, traffic growth factors, safety factors, and environmental factors. Important addresses and questions to be addressed should this project continue are noted.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Environmental policy
Traffic engineering
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
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1970-1979
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, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8
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 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
MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_6.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/18a671942273c903cff34bf4901f3f6d.pdf
b08d06f3d0f26743c0364751834e77a3
PDF Text
Text
CHMHlll
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Interdisciplinary Team
FROM:
Stan Nuffer
DATE:
May 15, 1987
SUBJECT:
Logan Canyon Environmental Study
PROJECT:
B21163.FO
The twenty-first Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on
April 20, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in
Ogden, Utah.
Enclosed are the minutes for your review, as
well as the corrected minutes for the April 21 field trip.
The next meeting will be held on Monday, May 18, 1987, at
3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden, Utah. The
agenda will be as follows:
1.
Review minutes of May 4 meeting.
Ten minutes.
2.
Dis~ussion
3.
Review of the noise technical memorandum by John Neil,
which was distributed with the previous meeting
announcement. Twenty minutes.
4.
Review of the existing condition portion of the
Terrestrial Resources Technical memorandum that was
distributed at the previous meeting. Twenty-five
minutes.
5.
Wrap-up discussion of traffic projections.
minutes.
of the existing conditions portion of the
socio-economic technical memorandum. Sixty minutes.
Five
Future meeting schedule:
June 8
June 22
- 3:00 p.m., Bugham City
- 3:00 p.m., District Office
NOTE:
Since we have been having difficulty getting through
our meeting agendas, it is hoped that we can adhere to the
time limits shown.
SLC-STAN/d.601
�
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/127">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/127</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.
Checksum
3661776395
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
538217 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
Memorandum from Stan Nuffer, May 15, 1987
Description
An account of the resource
Memorandum from Stan Nuffer to the Interdisciplinary team with the agenda for the next meeting on May 18, 1987.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Logan Canyon Study
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
CH2M Hill
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1987-05-15
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Ogden (Utah)
Weber County (Utah)
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (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 29 Folder 6
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 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
MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 13.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/424d0a3caf74f075aa29f1258fdfaee7.pdf
fdd7ccb5b1897669795551f7529073b2
PDF Text
Text
Utah Wilderness
-. . . . . . . ~ Association
.
455 East 400 South · ,306/Salt Lake City,UT 84111/(801)359-1337
Uran Department ot Transporrotlon
4501 S. 2700 V.I.
Sal t Lake Ci tv. Utah 84119
Dear Mr. ZhllCk: '
\..fe have long been conGerned about the future development UDOT plans for the widening of Hwy.
89 In Logan Canyon. And wnlle It seems that tew it anv at our comments have e ver been taken Into
consideratlon In the oasr. we cannor be remISS In contInuing to tell yOU that the degradatIon of the
natural beauty H) Logan Canyon IS unacceptable. We offer the follm..ying pOInts that \:"Ie feel can be
accommodated by the conStructIon work y.;hlle preservIng the Integrity of the canyon that means so
much to so many folks fIndlng beauty ands solace in ItS verdant summer magic. its wonderful trails.
Its winter austerity and its scenlC UnIqUeneSS recommended nearly 15 years ago by a district ranger
and Logan users.
Under the current plan or development. wlldlife habitat and fisheries will suffer. Cut and fill will
adversel v affect ll'later QualltY. fisherIes and ungulate canyon migratlon patterns. Nearly 100 acres of
deer and moose v-llnter range (!"Iould be destroyed. ThIS seems so contradictory given the \--Iork on
habItat pro.lects bv others In the valley who are trYlng to rehabilitate deer and elk WInter range. Just
as DOT destroys it .
.~ SIte where material cut from the roadSIdes Will be depOSIted has as vet not be identified. ""'his is
Just one area I,..yhere NEP~. YVas skirted in order to obtaln approval of the EIS. Statlng mItIgatIon will
occur does not guarantee It. There.' lS too long a hlstorv of the agency buIlding then abandonIng a
prO Ject e xcept ror snow removal and line painnn9. NeIther of those actIVltleS provide for damage
guaranteed to Impact wildlife and fish for the comIng ·,Iears. The (l'Iildlife portion of the EIS is
woeiully Hladeouate. And the bottom llne IS that Increased tunding and proviSIon of more routes for
Utah Hignwav Patrolmen In rhe canyon could really solve the speeding problems and e i lminate driver
error that has been blamed for a need In canyon road Irlldening. Build It "faster ,1 and t hus they will
drive !
SoeGliicallv. oea ver and trout wIll surfer tcllO(,·'llng constructlon at the retaInIng t'Jalls. It is
:
estImateo that ~lstl populatIons v-lould be reduce;:; UP to 705~ i---,lnen n parIan vege tanon IS re moved In
the ::'N O ;'rHle S or that dama.ge or'·o .lecred by the E IS. RlP-rap :;annot crovide the ecologIcal subst Itute
tnar llv e plants and soi l s and F over can ror healtnv fISh populanons. ThIS IS part of the nearlv 20
acres or: 'r"-ietlanas ana ripanan . habltat tha. t y..lO uld be coll ecn v e~ v destroyed. ,.qnd in a tIme when
i1um ans are supposedlv 2Hare or these losses and "CrY InC ·1:0 act upon past errors. such damage IS
CallOl.iS a na Lnccnr::eIvabl e.
.
.
~[ <:O[J5~2 . :ri e~:e IS S Ue S 'ost J:cu(;n the :::urt:3.Ge. The!::e . .::tr·e r.tle r eC09nlz ed unpacts. Be l/ond the
orOiJle ms Hlt!l t h e process ln .Q ene raL th e .:as ua l 013;:=9 2ro ot pub lic Inout bv so manv who ha ve
,
(~onr.; : J · _I ;:ec Sl n J~?;p ; '/ Tn ~ :~ ; s p [ i !) r r I p orn&::r r,.-, n[~ :::.r ~ r· easonab l ~ ("onServatlonists ' aitern,:ttive 'r~hICn
tne utan \rhld er ~e~~ .;;s~~~~· t~o~ :; "\ih;len e"';rr~;; l ~ ;=~;orts. UDOT'"' ~~st go back to the dr aY·l lng bocrd
ana !.;'/ :::J f"1 21·:e rtHs c oro )ec r trli.H T.rle t;once nsus Clr users wlll find legitimate. It is too lmpor~ant to
100% Recycled Unbleached Paper
�sluff ott as angrv resldents. dlsgruntled (r'llldlite supporters and obstructIonlst polltlCS. There lS only
one Logan Canvon. And we want to preserve the beautv. the wlldness and the essence ot 11:5 grandeur
tor all who en.Joy It. No one comes to See-a road till or a great retalning wall. It is the water. the
trees. the wildlife. the autumn leaves at slo~-J speed that make Logan Canyon a-gem of Utah.
·The EIS misses the mark. Yet agaIn v-Ie ur ge YOU .to -take t:"lese comments- and the Incredible number
YOU recelved that express slmllar OPPosItIon to sUGh ma.Jor alterIng ot the canYon- lnto serIOUS
conslderatlon.
Please keep us on the maIling list to -receIve all related documents on the Logan Canyon pro.)ect.
-
-
Slncerely.
Margaret Pett1s
Board Member.
AprIL 27. 1993
-
�
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/124">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/124</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.
Checksum
2968122756
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1230712 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
Correspondence from Margaret Pettis to Craig Zwick, April 27, 1993
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Margaret Pettis to Craig Zwick requesting to be kept informed on the proposed changes of Logan Canyon and expressing concerns about widening the road and increasing the speed limit.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Pettis, Margaret
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Environmental policy
Traffic engineering
Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-04-27
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
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, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Series III Box 6
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/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</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
MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_3.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/8148dc9272f7c5996af098e5011de3fd.pdf
7497dde5fb4fce4dea18e9f0a3bc4ab5
PDF Text
Text
~
77;;lC)
November 26, 1979
D. M. LeFevre,P.E.
PreconstTIlction Engineer
Utah Department of Transportation
128 17th Street, Box 309
Ogden, Utah . 84402
~~.
Dear Mr. LeFevre,
tie have reviewed and evaluated your more recent alternative proposals
for Section 3 of the Logan Canyon Highway as requested by GarY Lindley.
Our evaluation is contained in the attached report.
TIle report was prepared by a team and is for your use in preparation
of your Environmental Analysis Report. This report describes those
c9nstraints whicl1 are necessary to protect the Scenic, Recreation, and
Fisheries values which are so important to Logan Canyon and are con':" sidered the minimum necessary to meet the direction provided byotlr 1971
Environmental Analysis .Report.
TIle negative effects of the 120 30' degree of curvature alignment are
too severe and are considered unacceptable.
is described in the attached evaluation.
Our recommended alignment
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this, we would be
happy to meet with you.
Sincerely,
CHANDLER P. .ST. · JCHf~
CHANDLER P. ST. JOHN
Forest Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: · Logan District With Report
Files With Report v
NHunsaker:lm
�Logan Canyon Highwa y 1/
Evaluation of Section 3
October 15-18~ 1979
Logan Canyon is one of the major scenic routes in the state and this requires an extra effort to maintain and/or enhance the scenic values that
now exist in the canyon.
Integration with the order of the macro-enviro"nment is very important in the overall location of the high\Va y~ but its
effect on the public is by no means immediate or obvious. The public,
however, is directly aware of embankments, bridges, planting and a multitude of other design details that the road-user can see from t" e \o:indmv
h
of the car. The following list will aid in achievement of the goal to
provide for a safe travel way and yet protect the macro-environment.
1.
"2.
The landscape design should be an integral part of the highway
design and not an after thought to hide construction scars
with cosmetic treatment.
The AASHO Policy on Geometric Design states that "a uniform
slope through a cut or fill section often results in a formalar stilted appearance. This can be softened by flattening
the slopes on the ends where cut or fill is light ' ""and gradually steepening it toward the controlling maximum slope on
the heavier portion of the cut or fill." Complex variation "
of cross-sections suggested it is difficult to "achieve, if
one works merely with cross-sections. For any refined sculpturing of the land masses~ plans with horizontal contours
have to be used.
3.
The relationship between speed and focusing distance, angle
of vision and amount of foreground detail is important in the
driver's ability to enjoy the scenic values of the canyon.
As a general rule tithe slower one travels the more can be seen:" "
4.
The existing rock features in the canyon are of utmost importance. Every effort should be taken to avoid such features
however, when rock out crops are encountered, they should be
blasted in such a way as to appear natural.
S.
Special structures may be required to satisfy environmental
engineering and aesthetic constraints. As the project progresses special designs for bridges, retaining walls and sidehill structures to meet these needs must be developed.
The Evaluation Team consisted of:
John Nielsen - Forest Engineer
Neil Hunsaker - Forest Planner
Jim Elsea - Hydrologist
Jim Cole - Wildlife Biologist
Mark Shruv - Fisheries Biologist
Clark Ostergaard - Landscape Architect
�2
Th~s
evaluation was limited to Section 3 as described above because of
insufficient resource data from Station 865 to Ricks Springs to conduct
a meaningful evaluatinn. It is not our intent that the project should
end at this point station 865, but to indicate that any evaluation and
agreement on that segment of the project will be delayed until the
follo\ving information is furnished.
A.
Soils data \"hich indicated erosion hazard, fertility or ability
to be revegetated, and mass stability.
B.
Geologic data from core drilling along the proposed route to
determine structure, distance to bedrock, angle of repose, etc.
c.
A proposed Toad profile.
D.
A plan view of the estimated location of top of cut slope~
and toe of fill slopes in relation to the proposed centerline.
from Right Hand Fork (Sta. 605) to Curve at the Through , Cut
above the Dugway at Twin Bridges (Sta. 860).
This evaluation was conducted \vithout adquate information about the
structural details for the retainer walls, jersey barriers, curb and
gutter, culvert energy dissipators, etc. These should be furnished .
as soon as possible. To save time we have based our evaluation on
an estimation of what they will look like. When the details are received we \vill review them to insure our evaluation is still valid.
To conduct an evaluation of this nature it was necessary to establish
certain criteria. These are listed below and any deviation from them
will require a reevaluation.
�3
1.
A two lane road with the following cross sectional configuration would be used from Station 610 to Station 835.
51' MA'XAMIUM
,~' MITX.
24'
15' MAX~
2.
A three lane road may be necessary on the up hill grade between
the Twin Bridges. This would be accomplished by adding an 11'
climbing lane to the above cross sectional configuration~
3.
Removal of vegetation would be limited to the construction
area. The construction area limits would be 5 feet above
the top of a cut slope and the toe of fill slopes.
4.
The principle purpose for retainer walls is to keep road
fill out of the riparian vegetation and the stream, and
only in rare cases is it necessary to keep the river away
from the road fill. The construction techniques which have
the minimum impact on riparian vegetation ,nIl be used.
If no other comments are made concerning curb and gutter and
retainer walls, they should be considered acceptable. .
I
�4
5.
The Special and Functional Considera tion and Recomr.lenda tion
contained in the 1971 Environmental An a lysis report are still
required.
6.
Top ·soil will be stockpiled for respreading over cut and fill
slopes and other disturbed areas.
This evaluation compared three road alignments which will be
referred to as 18°, 14° and 12°30' alignments. These degrees
refer to the maximum degree of curvature used in each of the
three alignments.
1.
The 18° alignment reflects a design speed of 30 m.p~h.
and is shown on sheet 5 through 11 of plans F-021-1(4.)
at a scale of 1" = 100'.
2.
14° alignment reflects a design speed of 35 m.p.h. · and
is sho"tffi as the office revision on the same plans as
the 18° alignment.
3.
The 12 0 30' alignment reflects a 35 m.p.h. design speed
and is sho"tffi on plans F-021-1 (4) at a scale of 111 = 200'.
This alignment was also shown on the 1" = lOOt scale plans
in red pencil and located on the ground with yellow flagging.
Station 605 to 625 - All 3 alignments are the same and are satisfactory.
Curve #30 is 12° and #31 is 10°. Special revegetation, slope shaping and landscape measure '''ill be required on the cut bank associated with curve #30 to mitigate visual impacts.
Station 625-630 - T\"o curves are preferred. They are Off. Rev.
1132 (14°) and Off. Rev. 1133 (14.°) with coordinate points as
shown on the plans. The 12°30' alignment near Station #630
severely encroaches on the stream bank. The two 14° curves
keep the road further away from the creek.
Station 630-637 - The 18 0 alignment would result in somewhat less
visual impact than the 14° rir 12°30'. The difference in effects
on the visual resource is not deemed significant and, therefore,
the curve data for Off. Rev. #34(14°) is acceptable. The cut
bank o~ the inside of this curve will require special revegetation,
slope shaping and landscaping measures.
�5
Station 637-641 - All 3 alignments are the same and are acceptable.
Fisherm parking should be designed and constructed in the wide
an
spot between the road and the river.
Station 641-648 - Curve #35 should be the 12° curve to avoid impacts
on the stream ~vhich would be associated wi th the 9° curve.
Station 648-656 - This tangent should go to the Off. Rev. #36 coordinate point (N512,321.925;El,016,652.124) at Sta. P.i.654 and
use the 14° curve. Fisherman parking should be developed bet,.,een the road and the river a t Station 649. The spring near
the hill at Sta. 651 should be protected in its natural condition. The 18° curve is preferred here but the 14° curve is
acceptable. The 12°30' curve creates unacceptable impacts on .
the visual resource. The ex isting China Row Picnic area east
of the ro ad may have to be abandoned because it will be too
small for use.
Station 656-662 - The impacts of the 12°30' alignment on the . river are
too severe. Use a 14° curve with coordinate point N512,803.924,
E1,017,206.904. This will help reduce the impact on \~ood Camp.
A turn around loop will have to be designed and constructed in .
the north end of Wood Camp because of the elimination of part of
the Campground road.
Station 662-672 - Use .12° curve with coordinate point N513,771.978,
E1,017,277,993. reasons are same as Station 656-662.
Station 672-680 - Centerline to be as dictated by next curve coordinate
point • .
Station 680-685 - Use 12° curve at coordinate point N514,000.429,E1,
018,713.259.
Station 685-689 - Use 14° curve at coordinate point N514,329.967,E1,
019,035.966. This is necessary to avoid impacts on the visual
resource and protect the Rock Feature.
Station 689-706 - The reverse curve aiignment should be used to
reduce impacts on the river and on the mountain, which would be
caused by the other alignments. Using this will necessitate the
reevaluation of the amount of retainer wall needed. Curve data for
this section is shown in the chart below.
Stations
689-692
693-696
696-700
700-706
De~~
14°
14 o ·
9°
3°
Curve fl
41
42
43
44
Tan~ent Coordinat e Point
N514,389,996,E1,019,422.989
N514,651.927,El,019,714.915
N514,772.032,El,020,083.101
N515,149.968,El,020,500.394
�6
Station 706-716 - Use tangent coordinate points N5l5,532.192,E1,021,
086.164 and a 9° or 10° curve. This will result in the least
impact on the river and may require less re tainer 'vall. The
impact on the hill at Station 716 with the 12°30' alignment is
too severe and will cause visual degradation • .
Station 716-724 - The 10° curve with either set of tangent coordinate
points is satisfactory.
Station 724-730 - The alignment as established by the coordinate points
is good . . The hill on the cut side is rock ledge with stable soils
Use rock rip rap instead of retainer wall on the river side of the
road. tv~ere soil pockets exist in the cut, they should be sloped
back and revegetated or retainer wall of log cribbing or rock dry
wall construction used.
Station 730-737 - Use 5°30' curve with either coordinate point shown
on the plans.
Station 737-743
Curve data for #48 or Off. Rev. #46 is . acceptable.
Station 743-748
The inside slopes of this curve are stable ledgerock
and gravel soils. Relocate P.1. points #49 and Off. Rev. #47
or use a flatter curve which will relocate the center 'line approximately 20' west of the 14° or 18° alignment.
The reason for this
is to protect the riparian habitat.
Station 748-757 - The 12°30' curve would cause excessive impact on the
river. The P.I. should be relocated 15' to 30' north along the
tangent line leading to coordinate point #50 and then use a 14°
curve. This change should allow the curve to fallon about the
same location- as the 18° curve and reduce the impact on the river.
It should also reduce the amount of retaining structure. The
retaining structure should be of Rock Rip Rap and not a concrete
wall. Retaining wall should be used on the north edge of the
road below Logan cave·. The waterfall feature should be designed
to enhance the fall rather than hide it.
Station 757-775 - Develop parking at Station 761 and provide safe highway crossing to Logan Cave. At Station 768 use the 14° curve at
coordinate point If519,422.325,El,024,005.507.
Use a through cut.
The access to the summer home at Station 773 is to be maintained.
Some fisherman parking should be developed on the old road bed.
Station 775-780 - Use 50 curve and P.I. point described for Off. Rev.
curve 1151.
Station 780-785 - Use 14° curve and P.I. coordinate data for Off. Rev.
curve #52.
�7
Station 785-792 - Use 14° curve and coordinate point for Off. Rev.
curve tl53.
St.ation 792-800 - Use 14° curve and coordinate point N521,589.423,
El,025,811.651. The abandoned road should be developed as
fisherman parking and as a waste disposal area with the appropriate Landscape Design and treatment. The 12°30' alignment is
a much greater impact on the visual resource.
Station 800-807 - Use 14° curve and P.I. coordinate point N522,483, 530,
El,025,765.054. Remove the old concrete which is presently being
used for Rip Rap. A retainer wall will be needed on this curve.
It should be placed at the existing water's edge.
Station 807-815
Use curve and coordinate point from Off. Rev. #56.
Station 815-825 - Use Off. Rev. li57 ,.,hich is a 9° curve and coordinate
point N523,184.736,E1,027,495.885. The old road between the
creek and the road is to be passable to vehicles ,.,hen construction
is complete. Use retainer walls as appropriate to ~ccomplish.
Station 825-835 - Use 14° curve and P.I. at coordinate point N522,946,
908,El,028,185.936. The 12°30' alignment causes a severe impact
on the cut side.
Station 838-847 - Avoid cutting into the hillside along this section.
The hillsides are unstable and seepages can be expected in the
cut area. The existing cut slopes are to be stabilized using
. rock, drywall-type construction, log cribbing or half bridge may
be acceptable on the fill sides. Fill slopes shall not be allowed
to reach the stream.
Station 847-855 - The proposed center line should be held near the
outside edge of the existing paving to avoid cutting into the
hillside ·which has the potential to unravel long distance up
the slope. The same type of stabilization on the fill slope
as above.
Station 855-865 - This curve should be a 14° curve using the P.I. at
N525,362.518, El,027,858.246. The outside of the curve betl"een
Station 860 and 865 can be used as waste disposal. The limits
of the area used will be established on site.
Station 865 to Rick's Spring will be evaluated ·,.,hen the additional
data is furnished.
�-
I
.
8
Plans Required
The following plans will be required before construction begins.
A Water Quality Management Plan will be developed by U DOT
for approval by the Forest Service. This plan will include;
a) ~!oni toring standards, frequency, intensi ty and qual ifications of monitoring personnel. b) ~Ieasures to be used during
construction to maintain the existing water quality standard.
c) Turbidity and other standards which will be met during con- .
struction. ~lacroinvertebeate analysis should be utilized
before, during and after construction .
. . 2.
An Erosion Control, Revegetation, Landscaping plan will be prepared by the state and approved by the Forest Service prior to
contruction. This ' plan will include plant species, location,
quantity and quality. It will specify erosion control techniques such as cribbing, jute netting, etc. by location. It
will discuss the handling of slope blending, rock features, etc.
The following is offered as an aid and guide in developing a
landscape plan.
Before construction begins the shaping and revegetation of disposal or
waste sites must be designed and planned to assure a natural appearance
occurs in these areas. Several waste disposal sit e s were evaluated.
They are:
1.
2.
Flat on outside curve above Ricks Spring.
4.
.
Wood Camp HollO\v (See November 18, 1976 Analysis by Clark
Ostergaard, attached).
3.
.
Gus Lind Flat.
On hill below lower Twin Bridges (north of road).
impacts are severe at this site .
s.
Across from Preston Valley Picnic Area upstream from the
waste area used in construction of the io\ver portions of
the road. It is in full view of Highway .
6.
Twin Creek Corrals, which is 3 miles up canyon from Ricks
Spring. The disposal could be completely screened from
the Highway and a road exists.
Visual
The T\vin Creek Corrals site appears to be the most favorable site
at this time and U DOT should consider the economics of using this
site. An Environmental Analysis will be the basis for selectirig
the site to be used .. ~ ___
t- ._" ~
>
+_
.~~"~
�·'
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL
..
Environmental Analysis Report
for
0-7
Old juniper Trailhead
,
Da te
_-LlA~lo~\,,--r~[BIo·., .L...:.-:~/-=-q~..:........:6=-_ _
·
.r'
1. _ _ _ __
�The proposed ne\"1 trailhead for Old Juniper should have a capacity large
enough to serve the high country around Mt. Elmer. An estimated 20
vehicles should be able to park at the trailhead. Because of the size
needed for such a :facility, only four possible sites exist within the
Wood Camp ~ollow area. These possible sites are shown on the attached
map . The new trailhead should also provide for resource protection
by controlling ORV use that presently exists in the drainage.
I
•
The following is an evaluation of ·each of the four possible sites:
1•
This site is located at the mouth of Wood Camp Hollov/ and is
presently being used as a trailhead. If this site is the final
location, additional parking space will be needed. Additional
space could be gained by one of two possible ways.
a.
Fill the are~ south of the existing lot next to the stream.
This could be accompl ished by using the site as a waste .
area for the highway department when they are working on
the Logan Canyon High\vay. The main advantage to this \'JQuld
be little cost to the Forest Service and no cutting of the
hillside at the site would be required. The main disadvantage would be the covering of a small grassy area next to
the stream.
b.
Th~
area west of the existing lot could be leveled by
cutting the hillside, making the lot .10nger. The main
advantage to ihis would be total control of the activity.
It could be done force account or by contract . . The main
disadvantage would be exposure ~f raw cut banks that would
. be a problem to revegetate.
Other advantages of site #1 is the closeness to Logan Canyon
Highway requiring only a short distance of road. It would also
be a good location to control (barrier) ORVis.
2.
This site is located on a flat where ~ right-hand fork intersects
Wood Camp Hollow. The greatest advantage to development of this
site is its size and level topography, thus requiring only a
small amount of grading. The main disadvantages of the site are:
a.
b.
3.
The site is open making control of ORV's more costly and
difficult.
One-half mile would have to be rebuilt to get to the site.
This site is located at the point where the old eiisting road
fords the stream.
The main advantage to the site is that it is closer to Old
Juniper and the high country. The disadvantages are the mile
of new road needed to get to the site ~nd the lack of natural
I.
t'
I
�topography large enough for the needed parking lot) thus requiring
large cuts and fills. Control of ORVIs would be a ~roblem along
the access road to this site"because of the distance and ~rcas of
open country.
4.
This site is located at the beginning of the Old Juniper Trail
and at the end of the old existing road. This location is the
closest possible site to Old Juniper. The problem with the
site is the 10%+ slope ·and lack of space to put in a suitable
parking lot without having · to do a great deal of site disturbance.
Distance again from Logan Canyon (about 2 miles) is a disadvantage as well as ORV control along the access.
It is recommended that site #1 be developed filljn~ the area south
of the existing parking lot for the needed .expansion.
I· .
��,
rEconstr~ctLon
The
tix~
to
ppbl~C"
period should be li~ ~ted to a ~ini~u D of contract
construction safety hazar~s and inconvenLence to the
and to fac:j. lita°l:e proJIpt stabiliza tJ.on 02 c.ut and fill Elopes.
~iniDize
T~1e!:'e
,... ill be a ne2G to 0.cvelo·p a wori:" road to the pr:::>;;>oseeJ ~..:aste area
Ei te.
ThE lo~ation and llaintEnancE 'Would l'Eql! .,..re that adc:quat2 can·stcJeratlO:l bE given to sa::;.l stability and aesthetIc valuEs.
l"irE
Logan Cflnyon is a potent tally dangerous fi.re hazard area because of the
dense fol!.age on the valley floor ane the 80rl1pt slope on each side of
thE canyon. Road conE!-crr'. ction process ~ol J.ll generate additional risl::
iran EquJ.p~!l~nt operations} slash burning, cJogarettE sJlol{ers, 'tolarlling
fires} blasting) etc. This will require the contractor ta develop and
prectice an intensive f1re prevent10n and presuppression progran Yith
h.i.S people.
Fire resis-cailt plant species to Eta~)ilize CL~t and fill
slOPeS '\-nll rEduce the lire danger in thE canyon subsequent to constru~tion _
The use of a chipper to d5.spose o.f leaves ano. branches and stockpiling
o
tTEE trunks fo:r callpgrounc1 use ,",auld rec~uce fire risk cons idErably >
and at the sa~e ti~e avoid air pollutian fro~ burn~ng green slash.
If there should be. any burning operations> they should b~ coordinated
with fire danger' and poll!. tion indexes to Jlini~ize pollL!t Lon hazards.
;
BurnIng operations must also confor~ to th2 a~praved project f~re
prevent :.on and presup-press:!..oll plan .
Special and Functional Considerations
1.
The stcpp5.ng slope !I1ethoc1 or soJ}e sl:nila:i.~ :nethod of constrl~. ction
TJay be best suited to sta;)ilizing SO:lle of the longer cuts sllch as
will be :nade In Stations 6r-(8) 689> 681, Dne 703 ..
2.
StreaTlqank vEgetation aiay be preserved b::- leaving It intact rather ·
than clearIng and then carefully placing riprap to avoid destruction
of trees and brush or by using gabions between a strip of vegetation
on the river edge and un0er the outs ide edge of the high-Hay.
0
3.
Keep silt da=nage to a 31inLnu:n pursuant to the worl~ of construct:Lon
01: br iQge footings anc1 support1ng Etruci.:ures. · The river diverslon
oall should be !I1ade by plac.tng coarse clEan rock :i.nto the strea:n
initially and bac~::ing "\-lith .finer l1C!tc:!" ::.als to develop the degree or
tightness needed. When the divers10~ da=n is r€~ovedl the finer
llate:;~ials . hould be re'l1ovec1 first follo:..Jec. by re.lloval of' coarse
s
rock and restoration of nor~al rl..ver channel and strea31 1'101;01. llat~r
heavily ladened with ~ud, silt, or CEll-2ilt sho~~lc1 not be pn.nped £"1'011
the "Worl.· arEa dil· ectl~r into the r:.i. ver bl~t shoL!ld be settled or
filtered out first.
~.
A Forest Offl.cer should be assigneD to the hlghway c~llstr~ction
project to insure resource protect~o a21 ane that p:-coper lntErp:-o
e"tatl.on
and coor{"iination j. E obtained thrC>l!gho~.~t th2 ent5re construction
pEriod.
�5.
. "
The FOl'cst Offlcer in charge ,\-1111 be notj.f ieQ at least a day in
advance of CQnstrL~ct.LOn equip:nent that ts te> be pL1t te>
river preparing for bridge f03tin3s) etc.
"/or1~
t!1 thE
6.
Rf'spons5.btlit:,· !IE~st oe ~~ixeG betuE2n the For-est S::-rVl.CE and the
·
Utah Sta'~e H'.gh'<lay Th.: 9artxent for the c0nt .i.nL~ed ~naintenanC:E anC!
cleanL!p of road sEctions left tntact far access or rEcreatLon
fishEl~:nen and phatogra~)hEi' parki.ng.
7
Blast~~ng procedures that slip rocl~ uo\Vn :I1L1st De used to avoi.d
offsite destr~~ction.
This Hould prevent rocl~ and dEbris fron
falling into the riVEr, c1ana.ge to trees and vegetatj.o~, and avoi.d
long periods of traff':o.c tie··up.
8.
Hauling o.r waste J1.ater}.als over the Hood Ca:np Bridge :nust conf'oI':l1
to load lillits -prescri.bec by the Fcn-est Officer in charge.
>
Pione~r:i.ng
ai' the road r::'ght-of-way clearing should begin at the
lower slope stal:e elEvations ",here :)()ss:i.ble or partl.cularly in the
vlc:lnity of road S'tations bT8> 63-·; ; 6~·:1, anel 703. This 'E.ll g~ve
the pre>ject engineer and Forest OffiC:Er in charge an oP?artL!nity
to deter~ine whether subsl.!Tface leager~c~ will be encountered
'Wh~ch 'Hill :oake it possible to avoid longEr and higher ~l()pe ct~ts
and vegetati()n re~oval.
.
.
~ 10.
Special Use PErllits will be isstled foJ.~ (;onstl'uction
ivities outslde the road right-of··'-lay .
TelC!t~·c~
act--
. 11.
12.
B.
Steep and high slope (:uts can b~ rEc1L:C:ECl by constructing "lith curu
and gutter sections instead of us~tig reZl.!lar d1tch widths.
The State Hightolay Depart:nent will rei]l~.)t,:rse the Forest Service for
cost of relocation and develop~ent of tW3 recreation units lost by
high~.,ay construct :'.on tn. the China RO'·l picnj.c site ~
Unavoidable Adverse
Environ~ental
Effects
It is reasonable to antici:2ate a cUJ1ulatively · s:;_gnLfican't i:npact on the
envj.ron~ent
of
llent project.
L~gan
Canyon as a
re~ult
of thE proposed highT" ay illproV'e-
The ~ost significant 10ng~t€rll effect of the pro~ie(:t ',1 ill be an i:npair··
:CEnt of natl~ral beauty resulting rroll the l 'oad (;U-CS on thE l10unta inside.
The encroach~ent onto the river will be less significant, and w~ll
consist of l;.!nited strea.:nside vegetatIon re:11oval and the 5.nstallation
0:::- br5.dge colu:nns.
t:.~:: ":"I·'':!·'!':: \~i4'.L, t:!~.J;~!;·-:::
. P:)tential illpacts have Deen significantly rEc1uced by a decade o:~'
l.i1terc1isciplinar~! envil'on~(}ental stud:t.es anc~ planning.
There have also
been .11any reVie\lS that haVe resulted :In changes and re·fine~ents of the
road design.
�Reco~tr,endations
.
r
o"
1.
Approve tte project subject to the functional considerations and
the folloyl ine rc:co~n:nendations .
. 2. . Control adverse disturbance to ",lateY quality) soil, vegetat ion and
aesthetic values.
3.
Control runoff on cut and fill slopes and
erosion and silting of Logan River.
4.
Take Pl'OTpt action to stabilize soil and restore ground cover on
disturbed areas.
5.
Control noxious 'Heeds on cut and fill slopes and disturbed areas
until desirable ground cover is adequate to do the job . .
6.
Rerr.ove the topsoil) stockpile and replace topsoil on disturbed
areas suitable f'or revegetation.
7.
Take
pro~pt
ro~d
surface to
~ini~ize
action to stabilize material in fissures and narrol'I'
dra'-ls between ver~ical ledgerock outcrors and above slope cuts ..
8.
Provide satisfactory ~neasures to curb erosion at the inlets and
outlets of culverts and around bridge footings.
9.
Design and install drainage structures to handle peak flows.
10.
11.
Disturb no ground surface outside of c· earing stake lillit \-lithout
l
pripr approval of the forest officer in charge.
Provide adequate drainage to ~nn~JllZe c1a~ge frb~n sloughing or :nud
encountered in the construction at spring and bog areas.
f1o~vs
flo~'l '
12.
Protect natural strea.ll veloei ties anCi
processes.
during constr1,lction
13..
Provide protection of existing and potential recreation sites f'ro:a
undue construct ion i!llpact s ..
14.
Regulate construction activities and i~pacts to facilitate public
recreation use.
15 . .
}'~intain
16.
Avoid Logan River channel changes.
17.
Landscape disturbed areas to restore aesthetics.
18.
l.ark trees to be preserved bordering the highYlay clearing li:ni ts
where they are not safety hazards und it is possible to work the
Equip~ent around the~.
suitable access during and follo~" ing construction to special.
use areas, fisher:nan and photographer turnouts, and recrea-tion sites.
�,.
..
.'
"
-.)0 ~
19.
Properly dispose of stu:'}ps, slash, and debris created by construction
activities.
20.
Cut trees taken out to 8-foot lengths or shorter the n s tockpile at
designated sites for use in ca~pgrounds.
21.
Develop roadside turnouts and parking areas in the vicinity of highway survey stations 609, 618, 666)675,69 8 , 706} 713) 725) 755, 761~
763} 769, 770, 793, 796} 802, 809, 810, 821, 835·
22.
Preserve the Cilina ROH Spring and provide roadside turnout space
for two auto~obiles.
23.
Design suitable access into the neH
high~"ay
at the follovling locations:
b.
\{ood
·c.
Ca~p
CottonHood Canyon Recreation
Site
Brachiopod SUJ11::er Recreation
Residence Area
f.
Right Fork Road Junction
d.
e.
a.
~\lin
Recreation Site
Logan Cave Parking
Bridges Re'creation Site
24.
Have contractor provide adequate llaste and garbage disposal . for pro-.
ject personnel and construction activities.
25..
Treat abandonEG road sections by scul,~:rc uring and revegetating to
restore to a near natural condition.
26.
Cut stu~ps to the ground surface llhere visible i'rom the highHay and
areas of public use.
27.
Frovide for access
Canyon Cave.
28..
Treat road~" ay to keep dust settled both day and night during the
construction period.
29..
Keep construction noises to a
and special use sites.
30.
Keep air pollution fro~ construction activities within
prescribed environ~ental quality controls.
31.
futigate
32.
lflitigate the i:npact to '-lildlife and Ylildlife habitat.
33..
Keep oil) grease, and chemicals originat ing fro!1l construct ion and
~aintenance activities and operations out of LDgan River.
34..
P-.cotect tree overhang without creat ing a road hazard ..
:fro~the
encroach~ent
CottonHood Parking Area to the Logan
~iniT.u~
in the vicinity of recreation
li~its
or
daTage to fisheries habitat.
�.. -
•
I
.,
, 5. "
3
..
Keep
construction equipJ2ent llork in the river to an absolute !JinLnu:n.
I ,.
f
t ':
,36.
Protect and replac e signs and other
construction activities.
il1prove~ents
disturbed by the
~
i
i
i ;
3'T.
Construct all cut and fill slopes s ubj ect to erosion 2:1 or flatter
yhere topographic conditions permit.
38.
Protect or reference legal land Tarkers.
39 .
Locate and utilize 'Hort caT.p areas, equip:nent, and supply yards to
protect aesthetics and to avoid conflict 1-1ith pub~ic activity and
reSO'.lrcc -,,"8.1ue s .
40.
Re move surplus ~aterial froll road cuts and deposit it at the 'Haste
site designated.
I
41.
7.~.covide
h·2 .
Properly sign to protect and inforJl the public.
1~3.
Provide well . :nanaged detours for public convenience and Forest
Service ad~inistration.
1~!~.
Confine construction and restoration activities to a
tiT.E.
45.
Construction equip~entJ crusher and ~lxlng plant must be equipped
with- effective mufflers, spark arrestors) screens and filters.
46.
Locate and develop 'Hork roads and access "lhich fully provide for
soil stability and aesthetic values.
l~7.
Protect resource values fro~ increased fire hazards during construction.
h8.
Revegetate disturbed areas with perennial plants to ~inimize fire
hazards.
49.
Protect residual vegetation vlhere burning right-of-way slash and
debris cannot be avoided.
50.
Coordinate burning operations with the burning and pollution indexes.
51.
Keep high",ay guardrailing to a
52.
Keep storage and stockpiling of construction
road ri ght-of -",'lay •
53.
for public ss.fety in location) design and construction
operation.
~inLnu~
!nini~uJ1
contract
consistent vTith public safety.
~aterials
within the
Along riprapped sections replant r,illo"\'ls or other suitable species
are not particularly attractive to grazing by big ga~e.
~lhich
,
r~
i
!
I
�
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/119">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/119</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.
Checksum
3857338435
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
11332816 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
Evaluation of preconstruction and environmental analysis
Description
An account of the resource
Evaluation of preconstruction of Logan Canyon including diagrams of the suggested widening of lanes and a detailed list of stations and their modifications. Also included is an environmental analysis report for Old Juniper Trailhead by Clark Ostergard.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
St. John, Chandler P.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Ostergard, Clark
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
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
1979-09-26
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Ogden (Utah)
Utah
Weber County (Utah)
United States
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1970-1979
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 28 Folder 8
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 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
MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_21.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/9710fabda5665b3df4d423b98a3e1e87.pdf
70e1979b8a2689acef3615c61f6639ab
PDF Text
Text
October 20, 1986
DISUCSSION OUTLINE
LOGAN CANYON STUDY COMPONENT IDENTI-FICATION '
(
As a result of the development of the technical memorandums,
public input,- and the preliminary environmental data gathering phase, a range of possible improvements within Logan
Canyon have been identified. These possible improvements
(components) are listed below in order of increasing levels
of improvement starting with maintaining the status quo up
to widening and improving the existing alignment.
In the next phase of the study (Task 2), these components
will be developed and studied and will ultimately form the
basis for the development of alternatives.
1.
Maintain Status Quo - (No Build)
No change to surface width
Resurfacing as required
Signing and pavement marking improvements
2.
Spot Improvements No basic change to surface width
Resurfacing as required
Bridge and structure replacement (existing
locations)
Slow vehicle turnouts
Recreational turnouts and parking
Signing and pavement marking improvements
3.
Widening Along Existing Alignment
Widen lanes
Widen shoulders and ditches
Bridge and structure replacement (existing
locations)
Slow vehicle turnouts
Recreational turnouts and parking
Raise grade in potential flooding areas
Signing and pavement marking improvements
(
Widening and Improving the E~isting Alignment
Widen lanes
Widen shoulders and ditches
Improve alignment
Bridge and structure replacement (improved
alignment for Burnt, Lower Twin and Upper Twin
bridges)
Passing lanes particularly in areas of sustained
steep grades
Recreational turnouts and parking
Raise grade in potential flooding areas Signing and pavement marking improvements
(
1
�October 20, 1986
5.
(
Bear Lake Summit . to Garden City
New routing north of the existing alignment
New routing south of the existing alignment
SLC-STN/08
(
(
2
�
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/108">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/108</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.
Checksum
1496964602
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
932683 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
Logan Canyon Study component (improvement) identification, October 20, 1986
Description
An account of the resource
A list of possbile improvements to Logan Canyon including Bear Lake Summit to Garden City.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
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
1986-10-20
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (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 29 Folder 6
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 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
MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 17.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/4aab167326a2e50dddcd0f4d3d124809.pdf
021b884f7183484b21362be3640c017f
PDF Text
Text
LANDSCAPE MANAGEMEHT FOR ROADSIDES
IN LOGAR CANYON
The management direction for the visual resource in Logan Canyon is provided in
the Wasatch-Cache National Forest "Land and Resource Management Plan." The
plan calls for the canyon to be managed for a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of
Retention. Retention allows man-made activities to occur which are not
visually evident. This objective guides the extent of activities which can
occur in the canyon. With this in mind, the roadway from Right Fork to Ricks
Springs was evaluated to determine the most sensit~ve visual areas. The
evaluation was based on possible changes of the existing visual 'condition on
both sides of the existing highway.
The capacity for the roadside to absorb alternation without losing its visual
character is critical. Therefore, developed criterior to identify capacity for
rating VQO' if road construction occurs. The criteria were then applied to
determine an agg~egate value for sensitivity and capability to meet objectives.
The following premises were used to develop the evaluation criteria:
PREMISES
Retention of roadside visual character
Any widening of the existing highway will require cut and/or filIon
the edge of the roadway.
Cuts will have a greater visual impact than fills.
Existing cuts and fills with dense vegetati on (trees and brush) will
be more difficult to restore than cuts and fi lls with little or no
vegetation.
The larger the cuts, the greater the visual impact.
Alteration of non-vegetated slopes and raw rock outcrops will not have
a major change on the visual character of a 2iven area.
Existing vegetation between the edge of the :~ ighway and river is
classified as riparian (see Forest Plan, page 4-32) and should not be
disturbed. The vegetation provides an impor t:.ant aesthetic unity viith
the river as well as providing important Wi ld life habitat.
Non-vegetated areas between the road and riv er (rip-rap) are in the
riparian zone. These areas are not as visually important as vegetated
riparian areas
EVALUATI01L ~BITERIA
The evaluation is based on the assumption that alterations may occur on either
side of the existing road surface. The capacity for the roadside to absorb
�these alterations depends on steepness of cuts, type of vegetation, and
proximity to the Logan River.
A numerical and color system is used to represent the most sensitive visual
areas. The higher the number and darker the color, the more sensitive the
area.
Roadsides with a 0-2 rating can absorb alterations related to road improvement
and still meet Retention VQO.
f
Roadsides with a 3~ rating can absorb alterations but will require major
mitigation (retaining walls, bridges, etc.) to meet Retention VQO.
Roadsides with a ~ rating cannot absorb alterations and still meet Retention,
due to the high sensitive landscape character.
�
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/105">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/105</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.
Checksum
825709449
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1068527 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
Landscape management for roadsides in Logan Canyon
Description
An account of the resource
Evaluation of criteria for making changes to Logan Canyon according to a Visual Quality Objective and the ability for the landscape to absorb man-made alterations without losing the visual character of the Canyon.
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
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1970-1979
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, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6
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 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
MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 10.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/bbda7abb9beb439a9bca613a17110918.pdf
183d90065d65b401b008aca5e1719868
PDF Text
Text
TRAFFIC IN GOGAn C NYON - Is i t increasing?
The answer depends on the time of year.
If you talk about the entire year, there is no suggestion of
an increase in traffic %xk through the canyon. Over the past 13
years, the annual traffic flow has fluctuated a bit from year to
year, but without any pattern of increase.
Slli~er traffic (June, July, and August) is a different situation .
There is more traffic in the canyon during these months, and
it is increasing slightly from year to year. Based on past trends
o£ traffic and estimates of~pulation growth, the most optimistic
predictions of summer traffic growth do not exceed 2 percent per
year.
.~
�
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/88">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/88</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
4712046
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
401396 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
Traffic in Logan Canyon
Description
An account of the resource
Paper attempts to answer the question of traffic increase in Logan Canyon.
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
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
Logan Canyon (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 9
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_Fd9_Page_12.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/6f955bf7e2d5232ceaff24de6b058560.pdf
ff4c94fa95182f831fde328ba39e3f5f
PDF Text
Text
CHMHlll
l~EMORANDUM
TO:
Interdisciplinary Team
FROt>1 :
Stan Nuffer
DATE:
April 29, 1987
SUBJECT:
Logan Canyon Environmental Study
PROJECT:
B21163.FO
The twentieth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on
April 20, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. at the Forest Service District
office in Logan, Utah. This meeting was followed by a daylong field trip in the canyon on April 21. Enclosed are the
minutes for your review. Also attached 'for review is the
Technical Memorandum on noise prepared by John Neil of UDOT.
The next meeting will be held on Monday, May 4, 1987, at
3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden, Utah. The
agenda will be as follows:
1.
Review minutes of April 20 and 21 meetings.
2.
Discussion of the existing conditions portion of the
socio-economic technical memorandum.
3.
Discussion on spot improvement alternative.
4.
Review of the noise technical memorandum by John Neil.
5.
Wrap-up discussion of traffic projections.
Future meeting schedule:
May 27
June 27
SLC99/d.1901
- 3:00 p.m., District Office
- 3:00 p.m., Brigham City
�LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
April 20, 1987
Attendance:
Arlo Waddops- Valley Engineering
Howard Richardson - UDOT
Lynn Zollinger - UDOT
Duncan Silver - FHWA
Clark Ostergarrd - USFS
Fred LaBar - USFS
Mark Shaw - USFS
John Wise, Herald Journal
Steve Flint - Audobon Society
Jack Spence - Utah Wilderness Society
Bill Helm Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL
Stan Nuffer, CH2M .HILL
ITEM 2 - REVIEW OF TRAFFIC FORECASTS
Cliff Forsgren reviewed a memo he had prepared that dis- .
cussed . forecast traffic volumes using annual data from 1940
through 1985 and population data for the same period. Two
forecasting methods were discussed, the "past trends" and
"population correlation" methods. Jack Spence indicated,
that based upon the data he had seen, a linear function describing past trends was. probably as good as we were going
to get using that method. He suggested that population and
traffic be compared to see what kind of correlation, if any,
could be established.
If there is a reasonable correlation
between population and traffic volume, the forecast will be
used with past trends forecast to establish a range that
future traffic is expected to fall within. Cliff will prepare some correlation comparisons for the team to consider.
ITEM 3 - REVIEW OF SCOPING COMMENTS
Stan Nuffer distributed summaries of the comments made at
the scoping meetings and a partial summary of the written
comments received. Duncan Silver pointed out that the number
of people who commented on a specific issue was not as important as the fact that the issue was raised. For that
reason, the most important part of the summary was the table
column headings that named the issues raised. Jack Spence
pointed out that big game was an issue that had been raised
1
�MINUTES
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM FIELD TRIP
APRIL 21, 1987
Attendance:
Jim Naegle, UDOT
John Neil, UDOT
Howard Richardson, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Fred LaBar, USFS
Mark Shaw, USFS
Richard Harris, USFS
Duncan Silver FHWA
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL
Arlo Waddups, Valley Engineers
Jack Spence, Sierra Club
Steve Flint, Audubon
Bill Helm
Tom Lyon
John Ellsworth
The team met at 8:00 a.m. at the F.S. District Ranger's office.
Transportation for the field trip was in two vans provided
by UDOT. Weather conditions for the trip were ideal.
Stop No.1 was at Lower Canyon M.P. 382.8 to consider the
possibility of a slow vehicle turnout prior to the beginning
of the study area. A slow vehicle turnout in this location
would be marginal due to the curvature in the roadway and
the limited s~ght distance back along the roadway.
Stop No.2 was at M.P. 384.0, or curve No.5 which is the
first sharp curve encountered in the study section. Valley
Engineering had previously marked the location of the centerline and the limit of the cut for both a 35 and 40 mph design.
Red and white flagging marked the 35 mph centerline, yellow
marked the 40 mph centerline, blue marked the 35 mph cut
slope, and orange marked the 40 mph cut slope. The cut
slopes had been staked for a 1/4:1 (horizontal to vertical)
which assumed a rock cut. Both the 35 and 40 mph design
results in the removal of the ' existing vegetation which
would be difficult to re-establish on a 1/4:1 slope. A
flatter slope could be considered to allow more
revegetation.
Stop No.3 was at China Row, M.P. 385.35 and curve No.7.
China Row is the location of a picnic area and also the tree
canopy over the roadway formed primarily be black willows.
The trees immediately adjacent to the road would be removed
by any roadway widening or alignment improvement and would
also be more greatly impacted by the 40 mph than the 35 mph
design.
The black willows are advanced in age and no secondary or replacement growth is apparent.
If the canopy effect
is to be maintained, replacement growth should be started
that would conform to whatever alignment is selected. Because
of the existing limited size of the picnic area, the Forest
1
�Service would like to discourage its use. Curve No. 7 immediately upstream from China Row was marked for both 35 and
40 mph designs and a 1-1/2:1 cut slope. There was a difference of opinion regarding the relative significance of the
visual impact between the 35 and 40 mph designs.
Stop No.4 was at Logan Cave, M.P. 386.3 or curve No. 22.
Any flattening of the curve to achieve 35 or 40 mph design
speed would result in encroachment into the river. The existing channel is already confined with haphazard unattractive riprap protecting the roadway. Several options for
flattening the curve was discussed including the following:
1.
Place the roadway on a bridge-type structure that
would cantilever out over the river. The structure
would extend out to about the center of the channel
and would apply only to the 35 mph design. The
roadway profile would have to be considerably higher
than the existing roadway to provide hydraulic
clearance beneath the cantilevers that would support
the structure girders.· Clark Ostergaard showed an
artists rendering of what the cantilever structure
would look like.
2.
Move the channel of the river by cutting into the
bank opposite the roadway. This would require a
channel change up to 500 feet in length for the
35 mph design speed and up to 600 feet for the
40 mph ·design speed. A retaining wall along the
roadway would be included£or both design speeds.
3.
Retain the existing river channel and construct a
bridge over the river for the roadway. This would
require a structure up to 400 feet long for the
35 mph design speed and 550 feet long for the 40 mph
design speed. The bridge would extend out to the
center of the existing channel for the 35 mph
design. For the 40 mph design the bridge would
essentially cover the channel ~or about 300 feet.
In both cases the roadway profile would be at
least 4 feet higher than the existing roadway
profile to provide for hydraulic clearance under
the structure.
4.
Switch the locations of the river and the roadway
by constructing bridges at each end of the roadway
curve. Due to the skew angle at which the roadway
would cross the river, each of the bridges would
be up to 200 feet in length. The bridges could be
shortened by reducing the crossing skew angle by
making some fairly sharp bends in the river at the
structures.
2
�The advantages and disadvantages of each of the four options
was discussed, but no clear consensus was reached.
It was
agreed that additional studies should be done in this area
to better define the options described above. The Forest
Service would like to discourage parking immediately adjacent
to the cave and provide parking near Cottonwood Creek.
Stop No.5 was - at Cottonwood Creek and curve No. 24 at
M.P. 386.45. The narrow structure should be replaced. At
curve No. 24, the relative impacts of both the 35 and 40 mph
designs were discussed. Both would result in considerable
excavation into the hillside with the difference being in
the amount of cut. An additional option identified in the
field was to cut through the ridge that separates the Logan
River and Cottonwood Creek drainages which would probably
involve no more earthwork than the other options. It was
agreed that it should be evaluated.
Stop No.6 was at M.P. 387.1 at curve No. 29. Both the 35
and 40 mph alignments were staked. The Hillside at this
location is less vegetated and has no unusual or distinguishing features.
Little difference is evident between the
30 and 40 mph designs.
The field inspection showed that it
would be des~rable to have the 40 mph design align with the
tangent to the west to eliminate the reverse curve.
Stop No. 7 wa~ at M.P. 387.6 just below the lower twin bridge.
It was concluded that the existing alignment should be followed to eliminate the need for additional fill, and if possible to flatten the existing man-made rock fill slope so
that it could be revegetated.
Stop No.8 was at M.P. 387.9 just above the lower twin bridge
in the dugway.
Replacement of -the lower twin bridge was
discussed and consensus was reached that the best option is
to replace the bridge with a structure on new alignment upstream of the existing bridge. This would require a new cut
through the hill next to the existing cut, which could be
filled and shaped to a naturally appearing contour with material from the new cut. At the other abutment it would be
desirable to flatten the fill slop- s, which would result in
e
encroachment into the flats at the base of the fill.
In the dugway itself, the development of a climbing land was
discussed which would require either a retaining wall on the
downhill side or cutting further into the hillside. Clark
Ostergaard showed an artists rendering of how a retaining
wall would appear. Cutting into the hillside in the lower
portion of the dugway does not appear feasible because the
slope is less stable than the upper portion of the dugway
where the existing rock cuts appear stable. The most feasible solution may be a combination of widening the rock cut
3
-I
�in the upper portion of the dugway and constructing a
retaining wall in the lower portion of the dugway.
Stop No. 9 was at M.P. 388.4 at the upper twin bridge. The
most feasible location for replacement of the upper twin
bridge would be down stream and as close to the existing
bridge as possible to avoid the riparian areas of the river.
The new bridge location would result in less shading of the
structure which should alleviate some of the icing problems
experienced by the existing structure.
Stop No. 10 was at M.P. 389.9 at Ricks Spring. There appeared to be consensus in shifting the alignment of the road
as close to the river as possible to permit parking to be
consolidated on the same side of the road as the spring.
Stop No. 11 was at M.P. 393.8 at Tony Grove Creek. The existing narrow structure would need to be replaced. The roadway in this section could be widened to provide for a continuous climbing lane with essentially all of the widening
being done on the roadside away from .the river.
Stop No. 12 was at the M.P. 396.9 at the lower Beaver Creek
bridge near the Franklin Basin Road intersection. The existing narrow structure would need · to be replaced on the
existing alignment. The Franklin Road intersection would
also be improved.
Stop No. 13 was at M.P. 397.7 along Beaver Creek. DUe to
the relatively narrow area between Beaver Creek and the hillside, it appeared to be difficult to develop a continuous
climbing lane along Beaver Creek from just above the Franklin
Road intersection to just below the Beaver Mountain Road
intersection. Also the modified typical section should be
considered for this 2.5 mile section.
Stop No. 14 was at M.P. 405.1 or Curve No. 85. Both the 35 ·
and 40 mph designs would result in considerable new fill.
The existing fill would need to be removed and used to restore the cuts on either side of the fill to a more natural
contour.
Stop No. 15 was at the Bear Lake Overlook at M.P. 405.8.
The location of Alternative G-3 was pointed out, particularly
the area where the deep cut through the ridge below the lookout would be located.
Stop No. 16 was back down the canyon at the Burnt Bridge at
M.P. 385.7. The options for replacement of this bridge were
discussed with the consensus being that the bridge should be
replaced at the present location with a temporary bridge
located downstream to carry traffic during construction.
4
�Stop No. 17 was at M.P. 384.8 in the area just abbve Wood
Camp campground where the McGuire Primrose is located. The
plant was not yet readily apparent but the known locations
were pointed out which extend westerly down the rock outcrop
to within about 40 feet of the existing road. Any proposed
road improvements should avoid this area. The potential
location for a slow vehicle turnout at 389.9 should be far
enough upstream to not adversely affect this area.
SLC99/d.1902
5
�LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
* * * N0 I S E * * *
Prepared By
John D.A. Neil, P.E.
UDOT
April 1987
�LOGAN CANYON
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
* * * NOISE * * *
Introduction
Acoustical
Environment.
Logan
Canyon's
acoustical
environment has three parts - natural, human and mechanical.
sounds come from birds and other (usually small) denizens of the
rushing water, wind, and rustling leaves o~ trees. Human sounds
canyon include .conversation, laughter and play, to name a few.
(sound)
Natural
forest,
in the
These first two parts of the acoustical environment together can be
called background' noise, background sounds, or just simply the
background. Whether or not the background is "noise" (unwanted sound) is
according to one's own likes and dislikes.
Intruding into this background is a third part of the acoustical
environment, namely noise from machinery. Included in this category for
Logan Canyon are such things as highway vehicles , off-road recreational
vehicles, , overhead aircraft (usually high altitude and not a very
signi ficant part' of the soundscape), temporary construction acti vi ties
and small power generators.
Sources of intruding noise studied in this report are restricted to
those sources under some ' jurisdiction of the Utah . Department of
Transportation - namely, highway traffic and highway construction.
Animals.
It is common to assume for environmental reports that
animals are not harmed, stressed, or annoyed any more than are humans by
highway traffic noise and construction noise related to highway
improvements. This same assumption is made here.
Related to the above assumption is another - that animals are · as
adaptable to intruding ' noise as are humans. To date, no experience of
this author suggests the contrary.
Scope of Study. No generally accepted research findings seem to be
available that contradict the two assumptions just made. Consequently,
the major task of this report is simplified to accomplish the following:
to understand and mInImIze noise impacts of highway improvement
alternatives affecting people using Logan Canyon.
Methodology
This noise study is consistent with Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) procedures and standards contained in its Federal-Aid Highway
Program Manual, Vol. 7, Chapter 7, Section 3 (FHPM 7-7-3), 1982 revision.
�, I
Traffic noise calculations and predictions are based - upon FHWA's
Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Nomographs.
Noise levels used in this report are in terms of "Leq," representing
"equivalent" (average) noise levels. Leq is a commonly used indicator of
general human sensitivity to traffic noise.
Spr. p (~h
interference is
particular ly vulnerable to noise, and speech relates well to the Leq
parameter.
Land Use and Sensitivity to Noise
Classification. The FHWA has classified human sensitivity to traffic
noise into the following broad outdoor land use or activity categories,
and has set a corresponding upper noise limit (or standard) for each
category. These upper limits are used as criteria to determine when
measures need to be considered to reduce noise.
Table 1:
Activity
Category
FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria
Leq
Criteria
Sensitivty
Examples of
Activities
A
High
57
Outdoor theater
B
tvloderate
67
Residences,
libraries, parks,
picnic and recreation areas
C
Low
72
Shopping mall,
Service Station
o
None
Undeveloped land
.In the following table is a general catalog of land uses adjacent to
US-89 through Logan Canyon. Land uses, quantities and percentages shown
are estimates only; they are not intended to show an exact description of
current usage, since change is expected as development continues in the
canyon.
Also shown in the table are corresponding FHWA activity
categories and noise level criteria.
2
�Table 2:
Section 1:
Logan Canyon Land Use & Sensitivity to Noise
Right Hand Fork to Twin Creek
(Est.)
(MP~
383 . 5 to 391.6)
% (est.) of
FHWA
Activity
Leq
Criteria
AdJacent Land
97.1
Categor~
2
1.3
B
67
Designated picnic
areas
2
1.2
B
67
Scenic turnouts,
parking
2
0.4
C
72
Land Use
Undeveloped U.S.
forest land
Quantit~
Designated campgrounds
D
100%
Section 2:
Twin Creek to Summit
(MP~
391.6 to 404.8)
96.6
Undeveloped u.s.
forest land
D
Designated campgrounds
2
1.4
B
67
Cabins (seasonal
homes)
13
1.2
B
67
4
0.8
B
67
Homes
100%
Section 3:
Summit to Garden City (MP+ 404.8 to 411.8)
Undeveloped -private/
local land
59.0
D
Undeveloped u.S.
forest land
33.9
D
Designated campgrounds
I
2.0
B
67
Designated picnic
areas
1
1.4
B
67
3
�,/
• I
Section 3 Continued
Cabins (seasonal
homes)
10
1.4
8
67
Commercial
3
1.1
C
72
Cemetery
1
0.5
8
67
Scenic turnouts,
rest area, parking
2
0.4
C
72
Homes, contiguous
ranch land
4
0.3
8
67
100%
Sensti ve Oevelopments. Acti vi ty category "8" developments are the
land uses most likely to be sensitive to noise in Logan Canyon.
Therefore, the remainder of this report only discusses " these "8'~
activities.
Table 3 identi fies many speci fic developments near enough to the
highway to be noise sensitive. It is possible that more sites have been
developed than are included on the list, and it is very likely that more
si tes will yet be developed. The noise criteria already discussed and
the noise p~edyctions found later in this report may be generally
applied. Consequently, it is hoped that architects and users of new
developments utilize the results of this report to aid them in the design
of new homes and recreation facilities in Logan Canyon.
Sites likely to be impacted. From Table 3, only two sites are likely
to have some detrimental noise impact, resulting from changes in highway
alignment. "These are both in Section 1:
*
*
China Row Campground
Lower Twin Bridge Picnic Area
Before studying these special sites, traffic noise in general will be
analyzed.
Traffic Noise in Logan Canyon Generally
Affect of Level of Service and Volume. The combination of traffic
volume and speed that give the most noise for Logan Canyon is not likely
to occur during "the peak traffic hour, when the road is utilized to near
capacity (or "Level 0 f Service E"). Instead, the worst noise situation
usually occurs during periods of "Level of Service C" (LOS-C), which
implies a situation of substantial traffic volume without severe
restriction of speed and maneuverability.
4
"
�~\
Table 3:
Section
M.P.
Developments Likely to be Sensitive to Traffic Noise,
and/or Construction Noise
L/R
Vicinit:i
Oescri~tion
Dist.+ to
Exist.-Hw:i CL
Dist.+ to
Altern-:- CL's
Impact by
Change in
Alignment
Disbenefit
No change
Benefit
Uncertain
1
384.4
384.6
386.7
387.8
R
L
R
L
China Row
Wood Camp
Cottonwood Canyon
Lower Twin, Bridge
Pic"nic Area (1 site)
Campground (10 sites)
2 cabins ,
Picnic Area (6 sites)
70
90
110
160
60
90
115-200
135
2
393.2
393. 8
394.8
396.1
396.6
396.9
401.0
402.4
R
L
L
R
R
L
R
L
USU Forestry Station
Tony Grove
Red Banks
Rigby Hollow
Brash Canyon
Franklin Basin
Amazon Hollow
';Jillow Spring
Cabins (seasonal)
Home (guard station)
Campground (16 units)
Cabin
3 cabins
Cabin
2 cabins
UOOT tvlaint. c,amp
750
470
160
210
120
1,450
170
600
750
475
160
210
120
1,450
170
600
3
405.1
405.8
408.0
408.2
408.3
408.4
409.1
409.1
410.5
411.1
411.1
411.7
411.7
R
R
R
L
700
430
500
130-800
250
170
350
520
420
230
200
100
170
900
630
600
125-800
250-310
170
350-900
520-1,000
420
230
200
100
170
Ul
R
L
L
L
R
L
R
R
R
Summit
' Summit
Bridgerland Village
Bridger land Village
Bridger land Village
Bridgerland Village
Bridgerland Village
Bridgerland Village
S. of Garden City
Garden City Canyon
S. of Garden City
Garden City
Gard'en City
Sunrise Campground
Sunrise Picnic area
Cabin
5 cabins
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
Cabin
Ranch home
Ranch home
Cemetery
Home
Home
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
change
change
change
change
change
change
change
change
Benefit
Benefit
Benefit
No change
Benefit
No change
Benefit
Benefit
No change
No change
No change
No change
No change
i
1
!
I
1
!
!
I
�Intui ti vely, this assertion seems reasonable when one recalls these
two facts (assuming a road of fixed capacity): (1) that traffic volumes
exceeding LOS-C cause congestion with a corresponding decrease in average
vehicle speed; and (2) that noise is related to both volume and speed.
It follows that a gain in noise from more vehicles is compensated by a
noise loss from speed reduction. Thus, the maximum volume at LOS-C (also
called the maximum service flow C· or MSF -C) typically gives the worst
noise scenario.
If improvements are made to increase the capacity of the road, then
the MSF-C and corresponding maximum noise level also increase. However,
it would take a doubling of volume to increase noise only 3 decibels (a
barely noticeable increase).
MSF-C values for the three sections in Logan Canyon have been
documented in CH2M Hill's _U_S_-8~9~,__L_o~g~a_n~_C_a_n~y~o_n__~S_t_u_d~y_:~__
T_e_ch_n_l_·c_a l
__
Memorandum (Draft, December 1986), pp. 6-12 and 6-17.
They are as
follows:
Table 4:
Maximum Service Flow C (vph)
Section 1
Existing conditions
Maximum improvements*
Section 2
Section 3
386
· 532
Roadway Geometrics
306
412
267
412
*(Include: 4' shoulders, 12' lane width, increased passing.)
Affect of Vehicle Type.
The summer average weekday traffic
composi tion includes approximately 84% passenger cats and light trucks
(IT), according to the CH2M Hill study previously cited, p. 5-15. This
is the least noisy class of vehicles (on a per vehicle basis).
Recreational vehicles (RV) and medium trucks (MT) are similar enough
acoustically to be combined; these represent 13% of the traffic mix. The
noise emission level of an average MT is about 11 decibels higher than
the average car.
The remaining 3% of the vehicles are heavy trucks (HT); they are the
noisiest class because they are typically diesel powered.
In the proportions indicated, the MT class as a whole contributes
slightly more noise than ei ther the HT · or automobile class. This fact
may have significance in the discussion of noise abatement.
Table 5 uses the traffic composition just described to portion the
MSF-C traffic volumes from Table 4 into flow rates per vehicle type.
6
�,--_..-
_
.. .
Table 5:
Traffic
Mi~
for Maximum Service Flow C (vph)
Section 1
Existing
Conditions
Maximum
Improvements
Cars & LT
MT & RV
HT
324
50
12
447
69
16
257
40
9
346
54
12
224
35
8
346
54
12
Section 2
Cars & LT
MT & RV
HT
Section 3
Cars & LT
MT & RV
HT
(LT = Light Trucks, MT
Recreational Vehicles.)
=
Medium Trucks,
HT
=
Heavy trucks,
RV
=
Affect of Speed. Noise is related to vehicle speed; and average
vehicle speed is related to highway design (affecting level of service),
vehicle type, and gradient. Table 6 (on the following page) gives the
estimated average speeds for these three parameters.
Although the effects of speed on traffic noise are somewhat different
for various vehicle types, approximate general effects may be condensed
into the following rule of thumb for Logan Canyon:
for each 5 mph
increment of average speed increase, the overall average noise level will
increase about 2 decibels.
Affect of Gradient.
Climbing a' grade takes extra power, and a
byproduct of power is noise. Published research findings have shown that
at normal highway speeds, only heavy trucks have a signi ficantly higher
noise level on grades. F:HWA' s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
(FHWA-RD-77-l08) suggests the following HT adjustments for uphill grades:
Add dB
0
+2
+3
+5
Grade
0-2%
3-4%
5-6%
7+%
The FHWA makes no adjustment for downgrade direction. However, heavy
trucks frequently use engine brakes, particularly on the steep grades in
7
�Logan Canyon.
Engine brake noise can vary considerably because of
variations in engine and muffler design, load, speed, and driver.
Consequently, the noise emission level for downhill trucks is not as
predictable as is noise for uphill trucks.
For simplicity in this
report, it is assumed that heavy trucks in both directions emit noise
that increase with gradient, according to the FHWA values given above.
Table 6:
Estimated Bidirectional Average Upgrade Speed for MSF-C
Section 1
Cars/LT
Generally 2% average grade
35 mph (or less) existing design, no passing
35 mph design improvements
40 mph design option
45 mph design option
50 mph design option
Twin Bridges locality, 5.5% average grade
35 mph (or less) existing design, no passing
35 mph design improvements
40 mph design, option, climbing lane
45 mph design option, climbing lane
50 mph design option, climbing lane
MT/RV
HT
39
39
39
39
39
39
41
43
45
41
43
45
41
43
45
30
30
35
35
37
30
30
30
31
32
39
41
43
45
39
Section 2
Generally 2% average grade
55 mph existing design
60 mph design option
Beaver
MP-404
50
55
60
49
Mtn. Road to UDOT Maint. Camp and
to Summit, 4-7% grade
mph existing design
mph design option
mph design option
49
49
51
51
51
32
47
32
40
42
32
34
35
30
35
35
37
30
30
30
31
32
49
Section 3
Generally steep (to 7% grade)
35 mph (or less) existing design, no passing
35 mph design improvements, ample passing
40 mph design option
45 mph design option
50 mph design option
30
39
41
43
45
39
Affect of Road Widening. Adding shoulders or widening traffic lanes
symmetrically in both directions from the centerline of the Logan Canyon
highway will not significantly change the noise level heard by a receiver
who is farther than 25 feet from the centerline.
8
�However, adding a passing lane to one side of the roadway will shift
the noise in the direction of the passing lane. For receivers at a
distance of 50 feet or less from the highway centerline, a passing lane
(nearest the receiver) can add nearly 1 decibel to the overall Leq. This
noise effect · rapidly diminishes at increasing distances from the
highway. At 100 feet there is essentially no noise increase.
According to Table 3, only one site is close enough to be affected by
noise from a passing lane - China Row Campground. However, no passing
lane is proposed for the vicinity of China Row; therefore road widening
has no significant effect on noise for this project.
Noise Level Predictions. Traffic noise is related to the distance
that a receiver is from the highway, as shown by the following chart.
Affects of Level of Service, vehicle type, speed and gradient (previously
discussed) are included in the approximate generalizations on the chart.
Sound decays at a predictably uniform rate with increasing distance. For
Logan Canyon vicinity the rate is estimated to be about 4.5 dB loss for
each doubling of distance.
Unimproved road sections one and three are described best by Line C
on the chart. Line C intersects the 67 dbA standard at a distance of 40
feet from the centerline. Any human activities farther than 40 feet will
likely not exceed the standard if the ·adjacent road section does not
exceed a 35 mph design.
Although Section Two (unimproved) is a high speed design, other
factors in general reduce the noise to that of Line B. Any improvements
to Section Two will likely increase noise to Line A. Line A receivers
need to be at least 75 feet away from the centerline in order to minimize
speech interference.
General Noise Impacts
There are three criteria that determine the severity of noise
impact: absolute level, relative increase, and fluctuation. All three
are interrelated.
Absolute Level.
Interference with speech is the basis for the
standard or criterion level of 67 dBA. This criterion affects many human ·
activities in the canyon.
China Row campground is near enough to the highway to be impacted· by
highway noise, especially if some highway improvement alternatives bring
traffic somewhat closer to the campground.
All other developments seem to be at sufficient distance (greater
than 75 feet) to not be seriously impacted by the average traffic noise
level.
9
�_10.!....:! •
...!.~~~..j,
. ..! ....) .......
"J ..... _o....L." .. _ '"""-_ ... .. ·_ .............
~_ v_
. . . ...
~ -..J
.......... ' - ' .....
~
.
.
..
. . .......
~
••••#
. __ •
•
-
-
.
-
•• - - - - . _ _ - - , . . _
_ _ _ _ _ _•_ _ _- . -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
.~---- - - .._-_
~
~
II",,,.,,,.
I,'·· ...... '.~
'IF ··11·'
II
( " 'h / ...)
.",.il iI
·I.
Line A
Line B
Lin e C
50
40
35
to
I
:t.~. ~.
to 60 mp h d e sign a lternatives.
mph des i gn alter na t i ves.
mph d e sign a lternatives or posted speed restricted
40 mph or le ss.
~
,.Q
ro
tJ1
60
Q)
H
rl
Q)
:>
Q)
H
Q)
50
til
-.-;
0
z
40
100
Distance to Highway
10
1,000
CenterliI ~ e
(ft)
�Relative Increase in Noise. Long term residents would be more likely
to notice a traffic noise increase resulting from a highway improvement
than would seasonal residents, campers and other recreation oriented
users of Logan Canyon. However, any change in traffic noise level in the
vicinity of permanently occupied homes is not likely to be noticed by the
residents.
Many cabin .dwellers at Bridger land Village (Section 3) may notice a
drop in traffic noise, if the alignment is shifted from its present
location.
Generally, cabin dwellers will benefit acoustically from
either of the two most feasible alternative alignments (F-3 to the north
of the village, or G-3 to the south).
Fluctuation. Although the level of noise is higher in daytime than
nighttime because of higher daytime use and daytime traffic in the
canyon, heavy truck noise is more noticeable at night. This phenomenon
is in part because there are less cars to partially mask the peak noise
levels of the trucks. Consequently, the difference between highest noise
peaks and background level are much more in contrast and therefore,
noticeable at night.
This type of noise impact will generally affect residents and campers
more than day-use recreationalists. So the people to benefit most are
the ones who ' can be farthest from the traffic.
Again, Bridgerland
Village is a beneficiary of a change in highway alignment.
Special Problem Sites
China Row Campground. A shift in alignment of about 10. feet closer
to the campground is one option being considered for highway improvement.
From the noise prediction chart on the preceding page, it can be seen
that shortening the distanc~ to the highway centerline fro~ 70 feet to 60
feet will increase the noise level about 1 decibel to 64.5 dbA on Line C~
·If highway improvements also ' cause the noise to raise from Line C to
Line B (40 mph design), then the Leq will increase 2 additional decibels
to approximately 66.5 dBA.
Any highway improvements to a higher design speed than 40 mph (Line
A) would have to consider noise abatement at this camp site.
Lower Twin Bridge Picnic Area. A shift in alignment of approximately
25 or 30 feet closer to the picnic area is being considered as part of a
new bridge and roadway alignment.
From the noise prediction chart on the preceding page, it can be seen
that shortening the distance to the highway center line from 160 feet to
130 feet will normally (at grade) increase the noise level nearly 1.5
decibels from 58 to about 59.5 decibels on Line C.
However, the picnic area is at least 30 feet below the grade line of
the highway. Thus, the picnic area is in an · acoustical shadow zone,
causing an approximate 7.5 db reduction of the Leq on the existing
alignment to about 50.5 dBA.
11
�Neglecting any vertical change in alignment, the horizontal shi ft
will cause more of an acoustic shadow. The result would be a Leq of 59.5
. - 9 (shadow) dB = 50.5 dBA approximately, which is the same Leq as for
the existing alignment.
Thus, the Lower Twin Bridge Picnic Area will not be seriously
impacted by tra ffic noise from any of the proposed improvements. Even
with a change to Line A (worst noise situation), the predicted Leq will
not exceed 63 dBA, which is below the 67 dBA standard.
In summary of noise impacts, . only China Row Campground may need to
consider noise abatement, and this will be only in the case of greater
than 40 mph design.
Noise Abatement
Noise abatement will not need to be planned into the project design
for any location, regardless of the highway improvement options under
consideration, with one possible exception. China Row picnic area (one
table) will need noise abatement consideration for a design speed of over
40 mph.
The feasibility of physical noise . protection (wall or berm) at China
Row is poor. A noise wall or berm would crowd the already very small
picnic site, and would be likely out of character with the surrounding
trees.
The most effective noise control is speed control at this location.
Therefore, it is recommended that the d~sign speed not exceed 40 mph at
this location.
Construction Noise
Construction is likely to occur on a piecemeal si te-speci fic basis,
beginning with bridge replacements and detour roads. Perhaps as early as
summer of 1988 if funds are available, a specific site improvement could
get underway.
Acoustically, there is an advantage of this pattern of construction.
People can still use the canyon in general for its diversified recreation
and avoid noise from specific sites under construction.
Construction · noise will probably be quite localized for two reasons.
Sloped terrain and canyon walls will reflect the sound vertically and
away from sensitive activities. · A few sites do have vertical cuts
through rock which tend to channel sound horizontally; however, these
sites are only found occasionally in the canyon, and fairly restricted to
Section One.
The second reason why construction noise will probably be very
localized is that there is an adequate amount of shielding from
vegetation and natural topographic features to impede sound transmission.
12
�Equipment used for construction will be very diversified to meet the
needs of the various types of construction acti vi ties and in various
types of terrain~ Explosives and rock drills are expected to be used in
various places. Standard precautions will be implemented to protect
people from shock _waves and noise.
All construction activities are subject to UDOT amended standard
speci fication Iil07. 25' "Noise and Vibration Control."
Summary
Noise Abatement will not need to be planned into the project design
for any location, regardless of the highway improvement options under
consideration, with one possible exception. China Row picnic area will
need noise abatement consideration for a design speed of over 40 mph.
Because of the impracticality of physical noise barriers at China
Row, it is recommended that the design speed not exceed 40 mph at this
location.
No serious noise problem is expected from construction activities.
13
�TYPICAL SOURCES
Gunfire (to mark8man)
NOISE
LEVEL
(dBA)
HU~IAN
RESPONSE
CONVERSATIONAL
RELATIONSHIPS
at 3 feet
140
Painfully loud
Noise loudness or intensity is measured in
units called decibels, abbreviated dB or db.
It is logarithmically based, so 10 decibels
increase in sound intensity level means 10
times the acoustic energy from the source(s).
I-bwever, human ears perceive the increase 0 f
10 db as a doubling of loudness.
The db scale covers the range of human
hearing from 0 (the bottom limit of hearing
ability for an average person with good
hearing) to 130 (when sound energy causes pain
to the ears).
The following table relates
noise levels associated with typical noise
sources.
Typical
human
response
and
conversational problems are also given.
Just as the human eye sees the color
yellow best because it is in the center of the
visible spectrum, so the human ear hears
sounds better that are in the center of the
human audio range of musical notes or pitches.
Consequently" a weighting scale has been
devised, and is internationally used in many
sound measurements that tries to take this
unequal human pitch perception into account.
It is called the "A-weighted decibel scale"
abbreviated "dbA," "dBA" or sometimes "dB(A)."
130
120
,
Di8cotbeque
Auto Horn (3')
Hearin/Z Damage (leu than
IS min/day exposure)
110
100
Hearing Damage
(l-hr/day exposure)
90
Rearing Damage
(S-brs/day exposure)
SO
Food Blender
Annoying
Sbouting
Heavy Truck (50')
Very Loud
Car 40 mph (20')
70
Telepbone Use Difficult
Railt'd Voice
Normal Voice
Office
60
Low Voice
Ligbt Auto Traffic (100')
50
Quiet
Whisper
40
All sound measurements and predictions in
this report use the standardized dBA.
Very Soft Wbisper
Library
30
Broadc8Stin/! Studio
Very Quiet
20
10
0
Just Audible
Thre~hold
of Hearing
�APPENDIX TO LOGAN CANYON NOISE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
* * *
* * *
SPEED ANALYSIS
This
Appendix
is
to determine approximate vehicle speeds
throughout thp canyon for various scenarios.
The results are for
use in Table 6 (on page 8) of the ·oise Technical Memorandum.
Advisory
speed signs
for
specific curves are ignored for
thee noise analysis.
Average speed for sections of roarlway under
LeveJ of Service C maximum flow is the target of thjs Appendix.
highl-lay can
he
Each
of
the
three
main
sections
of
a nontypical
subclassified into a
typical
gradient type and
gradient type as follows:
a.
h .
Section 1:
Mountainous terrain
Generally 2% average grade.
T\,J i 11 B rid g e s ] 0 C 8.1 i t .Y 5. 5 % (a. p pro x . ) a v e rag e g r ad P.
1
•
Sectio~:
Nostly roll ing terra in
some mounta inous
Generally 2% average grade.
Beaver Mtn. Road to UDOT Maintenance Camp, and MP-404 to
summit· 1 4 -7% grade (4.5% average)
1
a.
h.
a.
b.
Section 3-:
Mountainous terrain
Generally steep, to 7% (5.5% avg.).
Base of mountain to Garden City, 2% average grade, restricted
speed.
This is a relatively short section and can be
jgnored.
Existing Conditions
Since passing
lanes
are not
provided anywhere in Logan
Canyon above Right Hand Fork, it follows that cars must fall into
gueues behind heavy trucks and slow recreational vehiclesa (RV's)
on uphill
gradients.
Since heavy
trucks (HT)
are the slowest
class of vehicles on uphill grades, HT speed also is the limiting
factor for all other vehicles on uphill grades.
The AASHTO Green Book" (A Po 1 icv.~~1.~Geo~.~ r ic___~ s ig_ of.
n
Highways and
St.reets, 1984, p. 255) sho\.;rs that. H1' on long grades
steeper than 2% will travel about 20 mph.
1/
For downhill and on grades less than 2%, it is
assumed that
all vehicles can go the speed consistent with level of service C,
as det.ermpned by TAble 8-] and footnot.e b of the Hi d"hwav~aci ty
f"] a !!.y a 1 ~ T R B S .~ cia l_y e J2 0 r t , #: 2 0 9, p . 8 - 5 :
�Cars/LT
Section 1
3f> mph de9, j gn
MT/RV
50 mph design opt>ion
8 .
39
41
43
45
41
43
45
3f> mph design
39
35
41
35
~~ 7
39
improvements
40 mph design option
45 mph desjgn opt, j on
b.
improvement,s
40 mph design opt. ion
45 mph design opt. i on
50 mph design option
Se c tion
43
45
39
HT
39
41
4 :i
.:If>
30
30
31
32
OJ
L.,
a.
60 mph design option .
b.
55 mph design option
60 mph design opt. ion
51
51
49
40
42
34
35
39
41
43
45
35
35
37
39
47
Sect/ - -- -- - - - - ion :3
35
40
45
50
mph design opt. ion
mph def i gn option
s
mph design option
mph design option
30
30
31
32
Conclusion and Summary
For acousticaJ evaluation,
speed
nf
vehicle
classes have
been calculated
at JJoS-C
condi~jons for various riesign options .
These speeds are compiled int.o Table 6 (p. 8) of the Technical
Memorandum for Noise.
�Design Speed
Level
nO
55
52
50
50
4:1
48
46
40
35
44
40*
30
35*
Rolling
Mountainous
51
-1-9
49
,~ 'I
47
45
43
43
40
35*
:39
45
-ll
:35*
*
Hi"I C 's
Average speed has been c hanged from
directions given
1n
t.han
footnote b
i n order to not exceed the design speed by more
5 mph.
Average speed of both directions of traffic for each section
or
subsectjon
of
roadway
is sufficiently accurate to estimate
noise levels.
Co nsequently, the didirectional average speeds for
pxisting conditions are calculated to be as follows:
Sect jon 1
a
b
39
30
Section 2
a
49
b
32
Sect jon 3
all
30
It
is
assumed
for
the
noise
study
that all
design
jmprovemen t options
will include
at least
som e li mited passing
opportunities in all sections of the c anyon .
Co nsequently, heavy
trucks
no
long e r
"'Tould
Ijmit
the
speerJ
of
fast.er vehicles
totally .
The
AASHTO Green Book,
p.
258 shows that for long steep
RV's (and medium trucks as s umed) cannot maintain
a speed
greater than 40 mph.
grades~
In t he
following table,
as done for existing co nditions, a
hidirec tjo na] average speed is
estimatpd
for
the
given de s ign
speeds .
Medium trucks and recreational vehicles are assumeed to
have speeds betwee n those o f cars an d heavy trucks .
�
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/84">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/84</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
2337523283
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
14625351 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
Memorandum from Stan Nuffer, April 29, 1987
Description
An account of the resource
Memorandum from Stan Nuffer with the review of traffic forecasts, scoping comments, dates for meetings, technical memorandum on noise and speed analysis.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Neil, John D.A.
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Forsgren, Clifford
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Silver, Duncan
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Roads--Design and construction
Traffic engineering
Logan Canyon Environmental Study
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Correspondence
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah)
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1987-04-20
1987-04-29
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Utah
United States
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (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 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_010.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/5757de09169711c4476077122b1db8f5.pdf
e4b6c1773a14d30046916ba8acdeb1aa
PDF Text
Text
Cache Group
Utah Chapter • Sierra Club
Post Office Box 3580 • Losan, Utah 84321
16 June 1986
Lynn Zolinger
Utah Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 2747
Ogden, UT 84404
Dear Mr. Zolinger:
The SierTI1 Club is concerned a.bout the numerous new reflectors and posts
that 'Here pla.ced along the lower portion of Laga.n canyon Highwa.y (U.8. 89)
during thp Utah Dep:trtment of Tra.nsporta.tion's recent maintenance operation.
\<J e fee L tha.t these closely spaced markers a.re very unsightly.
They detract
from the 03.nyon's scenic surroundings bern.use of their eye leve 1 height for long
distan ceE on both sides of the roa.d.
The Sierra Club believes that Logan Canyon's roadway must be trea.ted as a
unique highwa.y whenever any road project is undertaken, including maintenance
work. Concerns a.bout the canyon's visual a.sthetics and physical environment
mus t ta ke }re ce~e over Federa.l and State highway standards.
~
'
f
_
~/
,re 1 /.. ,; ,~ (.
.
0
'
/ '
Rudy Lukez, Cha.ir
CC I
Da.ve Ba.umga,rtner, US JiB- Loga,n
S ta.n Nuffer, Cli2M Hill
.:I!'l, "
,"'
,
I
I
I
. . . To explore,
enJoy
and protect
th~
I
I
I
wild places of the earth ...
�
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/78">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/78</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
1445853590
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
612427 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
Correspondence from Sierra Club, June 16, 1986
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Rudy Lukez, of the Cache Group Sierra Club, to Lynn Zollinger, of Utah Deparment of Transportation, about the reflectors and posts placed in the lower portion of Logan Canyon.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lukez, Rudy
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1986-06-16
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Ogden (Utah)
Weber County (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 9
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_Fd9_Page_3.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/0c0b2d2c8bc833c97a5eebf18654ab54.pdf
83d7f6aa1a42fcc9ed7800e9ff7cd6f6
PDF Text
Text
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 anal ize 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 ~/ith 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. I f 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 IIpreferred alternative. This is, to say the least, disingeneous. Any alternative that is endorsed by a Forest Service repll
�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 "Scen ic
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.
Stw.:erely,
.
/
/'
.'
,--.
/" .,
'~
__;.~;,c,/7 / . · 6'---7,vz(? 1.;7 ~CJ;"
<-
!' ~~.
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
-
-
�
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/70">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/70</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
1842063740
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1095044 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
Correspondence from Jack Spence to Dale Bosworth, February 10, 1989
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Jack Spence to Dale Bosworth stating that the Forest Plan needs to be taken seriously in consideration of the modifications proposed about Logan Canyon.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Spence, Jack T.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon
Roads--Design and construction
Traffic engineering
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1989-02-10
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (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 9
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_Fd9_017.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/70a9a4b6cf23afc5955b9386167e1234.pdf
28d88e031483fc49eb9991e60095e9cf
PDF Text
Text
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING
January 26, 1987
Additional Data for Agenda Items
Agenda Item No:
2.
Distribution of Revised Environmental Report Schedule
Distribution of Outline for Scoping Meeting
Distribution of Final Draft of Notice of Intent Sent to
FHWA.
3.
Distribution of Draft of Legal Notice of Seoping Meeting
4.
Distribution of Selected Crossections Showing Effect of
35 to 40 mph Design Speed . in the Lower Canyon.
Distribution of Figure Showing Retaining Wall Conceptual
Plan.
Distribution of Revised Matrix of Component and Alternative
Development Dated January 26, 1987.
SLC-STAN/14
1
�z
u.s.
89 LOGAN CANYON
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SCHEDULE
(Revised January 26, 1987)
Task
Due Date
Notice of Intent for EIS to FHWA
January 8, 1987
Scoping Meeting Legal Notices
to Media
January 28, 1987
Preliminary Alternatives Technical Memo
February 2, 1987
Official Notices to Government Agencies
Inviting Participation in Scoping
Meetings
February 2; 1987
News Release to Media
February 9, 1987
Fact Sheet to Media and Complete
Mailing List
February la, 1987
Scoping Meeting
- Logan
March. 3, 1987
Scoping Meeting
- Logan and Garden City
March 4, 1987
Technical Memo Drafts
(to UDOT & ID Team)
March 23, 1987
Complete Review of Tech Memos
April 20, 1987
Preliminary Draft EIS (To UDOT & ID Team)
April 27, 1987
Complete Review of Preliminary Draft EIS
May 26, 1987
Draft EIS Submittal to UDOT for
distribution to FHWA & USFS
SLC-STN/16a
June 8, 1987
1
�OUTLINE FOR SCOPING MEETING
U.S. 89 - LOGAN CANYON EIS
I.
Introduction
A.
Welcome to UDOT-FHWA-USFS Scoping Meeting on
U.S. 89 Logan Canyon EIS
B.
Introduction of speaker (others?)
C.
Purpose of meeting - formal scoping meeting in
accordance with NEPA - NEPA requires scoping
meeting to be held after publishing notice o f
intent, before preparing EIS
1.
2.
Obtain input on issues that should be considered in the EIS and suggestions for
project alternatives
3. '
D. -
Share results of study to present, project
alternatives developed
Answer questions on the alternatives and the
EIS process
UDOT contracted with CH2M HILL to carry out three
major study efforts
1.
2.
Development of transportation plan
(alternatives)
3.
E.
Analysis of traffic constraints and needs
Preparation of environmental document (EIS)
Previous public information meetings have been
held from which input will be used for scoping
EIS, along with this input; this meeting will
1.
2.
Explain project alternatives developed to the
present
3.
II.
Quickly recap results of study to present
Receive comments and suggestions, perhaps
more specific to alternatives
Project Setting and Objectives
A.
Relation of U.S. 89 to Region
1
�1.
Most of project area lies within Cache
National Forest, therefore, USFS and FHWA are
cooperating agencies on EIS
2.
Logan Canyon is scenic and recreational
resource
3.
U.S. 89 serves traffic
a.
Utilizing canyon for recreation
b.
From regional communities accessing the
regional trade center of Logan or recreational opportunities around Bear Lake
c.
Through traffic "from the accessing
recreational areas of Yellowstone and
Teton National Parks
4.
U.s. 89 classified as a "rural minor
arterial"
5. ·
Classifications carry standards to be ·met;
U.S. 89 does not presently conform to standards of a rural minor arterial
6.
Primary objective of study is to achieve compromise between "rural minor arterial" standards and scenic and recreational resources
of canyon
a.
Resources of canyon and population
increase will increase the traffic
volume on U.S. 89 in future
b.
Cross-section elements of road are significantly substandard throughout most
of project area; gradient and curves add
to problems
c.
Frequency of accidents is significantly
greater in 16 areas than the average for
the Canyon
d.
Explain level of service - quality measure of operating conditions
e.
At present volumes, road falls into
Level of Service D
f.
By 2000, the level of service will drop
to E in some places, by 2005 will
generally be E throughout project area
2
�7.
Results of traffic needs study presented at
previous meetings; fact sheet is available
III. Alternatives Development
A.
Study area can be . divided into three sections
based on terrain and road design characteristics
1.
Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring
2.
1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake
Summit
3.
Bear Lake Summit to Garden City
B.
Different alternatives are appropriate to each
section
C.
Alternatives not yet final; may be increased/
decreased as a result of input from scoping meetings
D.
Alternatives generally cover wide range of options
to provide good comparison of pros and cons of
each
E.
Section 1 - ·Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks
Springs
1.
2.
Spot improvements - replace bridges; slow
vehicle turnouts; recreational turnouts and
parking; signing and marking improvements
3.
Widen along existing alignment - widen lanes,
shoulders, and ditches, raise grade in potential flood areas, plus other spot improvements
4.
F.
No action - maintain existing road
Widen and improve existing alignment to
design speed of 35 mph to 40 mph - improve
(straighten) alignment; passing lanes;
particularly in areas of sustained grades;
improvements listed in 2 and 3
Section 2 - 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear
Lake Summit
1.
No action - maintain existing road
3
�2.
G.
Widen and improve existing alignment to design
speed of 55 to 60 mph, widen lanes, shoulders,
and ditches, improve (straighten) alignment,
provide passing lanes, particularly in areas
of steep grades; raise grade in potential
flood areas; bridge replacement; signing and
marking improvements
Section 3 - Bear Lake Summit to Garden City
1.
2.
IV.
Widen and improve along existing alignment to
design speed of 35 to 40 mph - widen lanes,
shoulders, and ditches; improve (straighten)
alignment; provide passing lanes, particularly
in areas of steep grades, raise grade in
potential flood areas; bridge replacement;
signing and marking improvements
3.
H.
No action - maintain existing road
Construct road along new alignment to north
Use of alternate canyon for new road for through
traffic has been suggested as alternative by many
in the past. Has been determined economically
infeasible. Therefore, must do best we can to
balance local recreation/through traffic needs on
existing U.S. 89
Procedures to Submit Comments
1.
Sign up
2.
Step to microphone
3.
Give name, representing what group
4.
Want to give everyone chance · to speak before
allowing anyone second opportunity
5.
Not looking for whether you favor project or
not, but what issues should be examined in
ErS, or other alternatives or mitigation that
should be considered
6.
vlri tten comments will be accepted through
Monday, April 6. Address is on hand-out at
back of room.
- - - - -----
SLC94/d.ll0l
4
�LIST OF FIGURES FOR SLIDE PRESENTATION FOR SCOPING MEETING
Slide No
1.
US-89 - Logan Canyon
Environmental Impact Statement
Scoping Meeting
Utah Department of Transportation
In cooperation with United States Forest
Service and Federal Highway Administration
Consultant: CH2M HILL
2•
Purpose of Scoping Meeting
o
o
o
o
o
o
Comply with National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA)
Review study approach
Review public involvement program
Review results of study
Review alternatives developed to date
Obtain input on additional alternatives
3.
Vicinity Map ( Figure 1 - T.M.)
4•
Site Map (Figure 2 - T.M.)
5.
Function of US-89 through Logan Canyon
o
o
o
o
o
6.
Roadway Characteristics
o
o
o
o
7.
1
2
3
SLC-STN/18
Substandard cross-section
Low design/travel speed
Low level of service - delays
Traffic volumes will increase
Study Area - Three Sections
Section
8•
Recreational access within canyon
Regional recreational traffic
Regional business and service
Serves interstate through traffic
Classification "Rural Minor Arterial"
Description
Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring
1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit
Bear Lake Summit to Garden City
Site Map (Showing three sections)
1
�Alternatives
9.
No Action
Maintain Existing Road
Alternatives
10.
Spot Improvements
Replace bridges
Slow vehicle turnouts
Recreational turnouts and parking
Signing and pavement marking improvements
Alternatives
11.
Widen Along Existing Alignment
Widen lanes and shoulders
Widen ditches - improve drainage
Replace bridges
Climbing lanes
Recreational turnouts and ' parking
Signing and pavement marking improvements
Alternatives
l2~
Widen and Improve existing alignment
Improve alignment - 35-40 mph
Improve alignment - 55-60 mph
Widen lanes and shoulders
Widen ditches - improve drainage
Replace bridges
Climbing lanes
Recreational turnouts and parking
Signing and pavement marking improvements
. Alternatives Summary
13.
Section 1
(Middle Canyon)
No Action
Spot Improvements
Widen Exist. Road
Widen and Improve:
35-40 mph
55-60 mph
New Alignment
SLC-STN/18
X
X
X
Section 2
(Upper Canyon)
X
Section 3
(Rich County)
X
X
X
X
X
X
2
�s-e~1 6:; L./dClT
F#~~ OA/ ~ec /3~
hna/
ro
(49] ()-22)
//,Ia//
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -Federal Highway Administration
ENVIRor~ENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT; CACHE AND RICH COUNTIES, U1AH
AGENCY:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) , DOT.
ACTION:
Notice of intent.
SUMMARY:
The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that
at this time it is the
St3ternent
(LIS)
for
to prepare an Environmental Impact
intenf~
~
proposed
a
highway
project
in
_
r".:lrhD / ':I ~r~
....... - , , ...... , . -- - ,
.
... .,..<!~
Counties,
Utah.
the
If
study
and
analysis
conclude
that
all
appropriate FHWA/UDOT criteria for a Finding of No Significant Impact
are met then the document may be converted from an EIS to a FONSI.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Duncan Silver, u.S. Department. of
. ,
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, P.O. Box 1J563, Salt
Lake
City, . Utah
Baumgartner,
U.S.
Telephone
84147,
Department of Agriculture,
North 1200 East, Logan, Utah
James Naegle,
West,
(801)
84321,
524-5143,
Utah
84119,
uave
Forest Service,
860
Telephone (801) 753-2772, or
Utah Department of Transportation,
Salt Lake City,
or
Telephone
4501
(801)
So~th
L700
965-416C.
or
Howard Richardson, Utah Department of Transportation, District One
Office, P.q. Box 2747, Ogden, Utah
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
84404, Telephone (801) 399-5921.
The proposed action would improve U.S.
Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, Utah, from Right Fork, about 9 miles
east of Logan, to Garden City, a distance of approximately 28 mjles.
This road passes through the Wasatch-:-Cache National Forest,
provides scenic and recreational resources.
which
Portions of the highway
are a narrow two-lane road with numerous
gradient.
The highway
is
umber of
�-'
-'
r ecreation(Jl and other large vehicles, which, along with the road
constrain~:ten r~n
delays of traffic .. Improvements to be
considered include widening of the roadway and shoulders; flattening
of
curves,
gradient,
replacing
and
widening
of
improvement
bridges,
signing,
adjustment
of
provision
of
road
additional
recreational turn-outs, and/or constructing a new road along a new
alignment in selected areas, . ~tc.
~
~
The project"" can be divided intG three sectioi,S
1
characteristics.
These sections are:
above Ricks Spring;
(2)
Bear
Summit;
(1)
ba~eu
Widen
~nd
alignment.
I
1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake
Lake
spot improvements;
~01J .
H.-5 ueslgr
Right Fork to 1.8 miles
Summit
to
Garden
(3)
Alternatives
City.
currently being consi.dered for the project include:
(2)
on
(1)
no action;
widen along existing alignment;
. .improve existing alignment;
(5)
(4)
Construct road along new
Different alternatives might be selected for each of the
road sections.
Several . public meetings discussing the project have already been
held.
Formal scoping meetings for the public will be held on March
3, at 7:00 p.m. at the Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium ! 45 East 200
North in Logan, and on March 4, at 7:00 p.m.- in Garden City Hall.
A
meeting for governmental agencies and public officials will be held
March 4,
at
10:00 a.m.
in
the
Logan City
Hall.
other scoping
meetings will be held as determined necessary, . . and information on
S II:: 1 . .
time and place will be provided through the local news media.
_
. .to-........---. j..c ......~~-.J"a ~. A,...".:"
.
....... J.....
._
~..
..... KI~~-. :.~~~~ ........~,...
. ......... _fo:
..... ... =.. ....:!:J"
"...~ .
--"..... ~J'r.~-~•. --..I.-..:.
-...., ..'"Io- ~ ~ _
•
_
To ensure that the full range of issues related to this" proposed
action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments
and suggestions are invited from all interested parties.
questions concerning
the
proposed action and
Comments or
the EIS should be
�directed to the FHWA at the address provided above.
r
/
J.
/' . ~
i
,
{
"_ J
!
~
J!
;
(Catalog
of
Federal
Domestic
Assistance
High\'!ClY Research Planning and Construction.
Cir(~ ular
Program
Number
20.205,
The provisions of OM8
No. A-95 regarding state and local clearinghouse review of
Federal ana federally assistea programs and projects apply to this
program.)
Issued on:
· "!"~aniel
Dake
Division Administrator
Salt Lake City, Utah
1.
�NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS
US-89 Logan Canyon
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U. S. Forest Service (USFS), and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
will jointly hold public scoping meetings for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon in Cache and Rich Counties, Utah,
on March 3, at 7:00 p.m. at the Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium, 45 East 200 North in Logan, and on March 4, at 7:00
p.m. in Garden City Hall. A meeting for governmental agencies
and public officials will be held March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in
the Logan City Hall.
The general public, interest groups,
and governmental agency personnel are invited to attend to
provide input regarding their concerns about impacts of road
improvements on the environment of the Canyon and issues
which should be addressed. Comments and suggestions are
invited from all interested parties.
UDOT has contracted with CH2M HILL, an environmental engineering consulting firm in Salt Lake City, to analyze · transportation needs in Logan Canyon, develop alternative plans
for improvements, and evaluate the impact · of those plans on
the environment in an EIS.
The FHWA and the USFS will be
cooperating agencies on the EIS, which will · be developed in
conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) .
NEPA requires that a scoping process take place prior to the
conduct of an EIS.
It is the purpose of the scoping meetings
to de·t ermine from the interested communi ty what are perceived
to be the sensitive resources of the pr6ject area and what
environmental factors should be studied most closely in the
EIS.
Several public meetings discussing the project have
been held . previously.
Other scoping meetings will be held
a~ determined necessary, and information on time and place
will be provided through the local news media. Public meetings will also be held when the draft EIS is completed to
obtain comments on its contents.
The proposed action would improve US-89 through Logan Canyon
from Right Fork about 9 miles east of Logan, to Garden City,
a distance of approximately 28 miles.
This road passes
through the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, which provides
scenic and recreational resources. Portions· of the highway
are a narrow two-lane road with numerous curves and considerable gradient. The highway is traveled by .a significant
number of recreational and other large vehicles, which,
along the the road constraints, often results in delays of
traffic.
Improvements to be considered include widening of
the roadway and shoulders, flattening of curves, replacing
and widening of bridges, adjustment of road gradient, improvement of signing, provision of additional recreational turn-
�.---......
".--...
ESD
".-
..-/
EXJJT
.tt40
3s
,/'
/'
----
~
~
, ,/
/
/'
/
--
---... -
-
---,.
':./ "l/ .
.~ ( i
;
/'
( -;0/'(;" )
.\~
-J
/
\ C;
,"c
I' I
5320
I
,/
1111
~
/'
1
I
I
1
II
en
C
CD
t...
m
n
-i
1
I'"
I 1\\
S50
~
~
0
1
~ ).
~
~
f. . .·o
~
I
I
5':2& 0
1
1
I
"'0
JJ
o
t...
~
-i
2
P
(" I
'"
en
J:
m
m
-<
1
I
Z
P I
1
I
-i
N
. ~\ I I
'f) \ ~
CD
0
I
I
1
~
~
'"
~ I i .~
N
'\J
~
I
II
I I
'01
~
d
0
I
1
I
1
1
�·1111
kW5
I I
I I
I 'II
I I
I
,I
-- --
1
I
1 .
----
1
1/6)" .Jf
LYI
I
" I
I
jV
III
.I I I
I I I
I
<; 3]
/
1
l'
,1111/
, I~
.I
/
1
h'
I
III
III
."
r--------- /
(/)
co
:0
I
I
I
o m
m
t..
~ -I
-I
Z
Z
-<
P I
P ~I
Cu '\;:
(4 f, y I, U ~\(;2.0 ,. y.
~
)
~/
I ~I
I I I
~
i &oO ;F
I ~ I
I I I
I I 0
I I •~
I I I
:I
,I
I
I
�~.
en
C
;£
OJ
'-
m
()
-1
I
1
1\\
I"
I~
I~
1
(LID)
~
I~
I
'Yb '+
!
A-------=----=~--_+
C /1d"1/1 d /to,/,
I
~
I~
c3s7
I
I
1
1
I
.....
-
- --
-
-""
-
---
- -,--
I
" en
;0
I
o m
'- m
m -1
()
5'tYO
-1
Z
-=- .
l
AI/
It\
~
Wa/I
('3 ~)
~
\
~ ~
CO
W
~
~
p
OJ
-<
I
Z I
P I
I
I I~I
I I I
~ ,
I
I 1
I
I 0
1
I .. m
~
I I I
.,
I
1
1
1
1
�1I11
en
C
CD
t...
m
(")
~
1
~
1<.\
~
...
~I
- --
1
~
~
~
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
"
;0
en
I
CD
m
~
I
-<
2 ~ I
"
\
~ ~I
~ ~I
I
I
I
I
0
"Tl
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
~
m
�1111
U)
c
1
"
eX'lsr
,
·1
I
1
1
1
.1
1
1
1
t....
m
(")
-1
1
1
,
OJ
1
I
I
1
1
1
I~
I~
1
(,\
~
1
1
1
1
[\
I
1
,
I
!
1
.
I
1
,
I
~
~
~
~
,
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
-0
)'.
U)
OJ
t....
m
n
-1
z
9
:c
~
-<
I
I
JJ
0
1
~i
~
----
/
L
,-"-
1-1 -
1
I ,
, ,
I i
.
0
l>
-1
m
�~
1111
I
I
I
351,yo
--
--'--...
- - ---
......
1
en
co
c...
I
(")
c
1
-1
$XI.Jr : I
£
tt :
57 2 D
I
1
I
1
I
---
m
I
I
1
I
I~
I~
IG\
~
1
1
,
I
,
1
5 700
I
1
1
1\
\
1
---
-=--
1
I
,
II
\.
~
1
I
. ; ,'
'
~
,
/\
I
'
'<
~
1
,
I
,~
1
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
,
I
,~
I
,
I
'\
,
,
\ s ~(, o
'
1
I
/
I
\
"'0
JJ
"
1
2
m
(")
-;
---\J\~ ~
~
~
OJ
~
~
~
~
z
9
en
OJ
~
-;
I
o
I
-<
I
I
~:
II
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
0
•
:>
-1
m
<:
I
'I
~
1
It
r
C/
I
1
I
�"~
,.-.,..
r-----.
1111
I
I
I
I
35~~6
I
£y/Jr
£.
~
I
S' 7~O
I
I
I
~.
I
!
I
I
?q(;
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/'
/
/
J
/
I
I
/
I
--
./
&~/U/7 tCb'c;// ~
<':'-79-0
I
!
I
I
S 70 t:"
./
/
IJ
lJ
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
t....
m
-l
I
I~
I·
I~
IG\
:~
I
1
1
1
I
I
1
!
!
I
I
I
I
I~
i~
~
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
1
CJ)
I
I
I
OJ
-<
()
-l
I
o
."
!
I
I
I
I
m
y
-;-
I("L
~~t? f
~L.C(::5
@
-1
z
~
~
"'"6
~'
~
/'
"'-
-.
"
,/
L1
/
S~~ O
/
-/ \t7
~
r
G\ V1
"!
/
./
I
OJ
()
m
m
0
..,r
/
I
I
OJ
c
I-
/
./
/"
I
.~
~
()
//{=26' r/~V
~
8
"-1
"
~
t
~
~
~ ..
0
I
I
~!
I
I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
.
I
0
}>
-l
m
I
!
I
I
I
I
d
I
,!
~
J
�1111
,
<
I
I
,
,
2:
~
~
~
: ~
l~
_ I'
.------ --------
-
: I
I
I
~
I
I"
,
~
: : ~ I
, ,
, , i'
/--
/
, ,
/
,
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
,
I
,
I
""0
JJ
0
I-
m
(')
~
C/)
I
m
m
OJ
,-<
I~ iI
I
I
I
o
z
9
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
_----~-----i---___!/'.
I
~)
r
'J",
...J
\S)
W
~
:ti
I
.~
~
..
0
l>
~
m
�GUARD RAIL
CONCRETE
RETAINING WALL
EXISTING PLANT GROWTH
TO BE RETAINED AND
PROTECTED
C
PLANTINGS REQUIRED ---....-
TOPSOIL REQUIRED
l' - 6"
"'"""----,
A
/
EXCAVATION LINE
(APPROXJ
(
RIVER
FIGURE
RETAINING WALL AND
LANDSCAPING CONCEPTUAL PLAN
LOGAN CANYON STUDY
,.::tlum.,
�(1) 5:1 SLOPE
29' MIN 55 MPH
23' TO 2S'
S'+
24' MIN 50 MPH
18' MIN 40 MPH
16' MIN 35 MPH
(2) SLOPE VARIES 1 0: 1 TO 5: 1
(A)
EXISTING
24-29' 55 MPH
20 -24' 50 MPH
15 -18'
40 MPH
13 -16'
35 MPH
40'
( 2')
12'
12'
~~--~~--------~~--------~~----~
~~
RECOVERY
AREA
____________________________________________________
'0~:,
~
~-y
-<-~
<' -y~
(B) STANDARD
~ ~~
0..-0
(HOURLY VOLUME OVER 250>
-
-
.....
-
- RECOVERY AREA _6' MIN_
CUT
DITCH
--_S'_
34'
12'
-~
~
~
RECOVERY AREA -
.....
12'
- -- _S'_
~
5' "\
~
10:1
(C) MODIFIED STANDARD
FIGURE 1
TYPICAL SECTIONS
LOGAN CANYON STUDY
�11' MIN
17'
17'
2' MIN
RETAINING STRUCTURE/GUARD
RAIL POSSIBLY REQUIRED.
MODIFIED STANDARD
(CENTERED ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT)
17'
5'
MIN
OFFSET
17'
10' MIN-(40 MPH, 10:1)
8' MIN-( 35 MPH, 10: 1)
EXISTING
RETAIN RIVERBANK
MODIFIED STANDARD
(NEW CENTERLINE OFFSET AWAY
FROM RIVER)
,;r
FIGURE 2
TYPICAL SECTIONS WIDENING
ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT
:::f,~cn'.
LOGAN CANYON STUDY
�
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/68">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/68</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
221797090
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
10632364 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
Additional data for agenda items from January 26, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Additional data for agenda items from January 26, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting includes an environmental report schedule, outline for scoping meeting, list of figures for slide presentation for scoping meeting, environmental impact statement for Cache and Rich counties, notice of public scoping meetings, mulitple diagrams (for speed limits), figure of retaining wall and landscaping conceptual plan, figure of typical sections, and widening on existing alignment.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah)
Utah. Department of Transportation
Dake, Daniel
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Roads--Design and construction
United States Highway 89
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
1987-01-26
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (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 Folder 9
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_Fd9_Page_11.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/0b9488c88e01aa2a27762ee383469a7e.pdf
2339a53ab2d0cca68b18ec4a5f95d6ac
PDF Text
Text
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING
F~bruary~,
1987
17
Additional Data for Agenda Items
Agenda Item No:
2.
Distribution of Revised Outline for Scoping Meeting
3.
Distribution of copy of Notice of Intent from
January 23, 1987 Federal Register
Distribution of Legal Notice of Scoping Meeting sent to
media.
Distribution of letter sent to agencies
Distribution of draft of fact sheet
Distribution of Revised Matrix of Component and Alternative
Development Dated February, 1987.
SLC-STAN/14
1
�LOWER
CANYON
SECTION 1-MIDDLE CANYON
SECTION 2-UPPER CANYON
SECTION 3-RICH COUNTY
LOGAN CITY TO
RIGHT FORK
M.P. 374.62 TO
M.P. 383.47
8.85 MILES
RIGHT FORK TO 1.8 MILES ABOV E RICKS SPRING
M.P. 383.47 TO M.P. 391.60
8.13 MILES
R 0 A D WAY ST A. 482 + 00 TO 920 +·00
1.8 MILES ABOV E RICKS SPRING TO BEAR LAKE SLNMIT
M.P. 391.60 TO M.P. 404.75
13.15 MILES
ROADWAY STA. 920+00 TO 1690+00
BEAR LAKE SUMMIT TO GARDEN CITY
M.P. 404.75 TO M.P. 411.78
7.03 MILES
ROADWAY STA. 1690+00 TO 2068+00
....
C
Ol
E
C
CJ)CJ)
W c=
..... S2 c:x:
c:x:
z c:x: CJ)
()
COMPONENTS
a:
W
.....
c.~
Ol'O.~
Ol ....
en
..C
Ol
o
W
-
Q)-
0
OOl
>c
.,...
Ol
a.E
EC
-.2>
.c:x:. '0<
. C
zcuCJ)
c: c.S
W
Ol"-
~ ~~ c:x:
~w
..... 'O.~
.....J .- X
C\I
c:x:
en :::J:2
~'3
W .... co
..... en
C\I
W ....
C
Ol
~ a.E
EC
w -.~
co
E
W
o
La.
.c:x:. '0<
.
E
c: c.~
W Ol"..... 'O.~
.....J .- X
Ol
>
.....
c:x:
0
c:x:
z .sz z
c: cu- a:
..... . ~ 0
.....J CU:::J
c:x: ~a
en
>c
W
.....
.....J
c:x:
+-'
o
a.
en
E
Ol
>
o
ra.
E
..o
C
ZCUCJ)
c..
c:x: ~. W
(J)
Q)-
~c
C")L-Ol
o c.E
EC
W -.2>
C")
C")
C")
W
LL.c ....
c
W :.: Ol
o
C).c ...
.c:x:. '0<
.
.....zE
w"5c:
o Ol
.~
(J) E
c:x:
C
C
z ~ CJ) z
a: ~ .~
a:Ol=
wzC:X: w O l <
C
ZCUCJ)
c: c.S
W Q)..... 'O.~
.....J .- X
..... z
.....
.....J
c:x: ~w
.....J
c:x:
c:x:
CROSS SECTION ELEMENTS
- No Widening (Maintain Existing Surface)
.--~------~----~I~~---~--=---+------+------~--.
-Widening-Standard (40' Pavement>
~------------~~----~------~------+------+------~----~~-----+------~----~~- Widening-Modified Std (34' Pavement)
- C lim b in 9 La n e s (S eIe c ted Are as )
-Climbing Lanes (All Possible Areas)
~------------i~----~------~------~----_+------~----~~----_+------~----~~-= --+-----~------~~------+-----~~----~--~--_+---.~_+---.--~~~.--~
·
.
•
•
•
ROADWAY CURVATURE (ALIGNMENT)
- Retain Existing Alignment
-Improve Alignment (Selected Areas)
-Improve Alignment (35 MPH)
-Improve Alignment (40 MPH)
-Improve Alignment (60 MPH)
- New Alignment (40 MPH)
-New Alignment (50 MPH)
ROADWAY GRADIENT
- Retain Existing Gradient
- Adjust/Raise Gradient (Selected Areas)
-Improve Gradient (35 MPH)
-Improve Gradient (40 MPH)
-Improve Gradient (60 MPH)
- New Gradient (40 MPH)
- New Gradient (50 MPH)
MAJOR BRIDGES
- Repair Existing Structures
- Replace on Existing Alignment
- Replace on New Alignment
MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY FEATURES
- Retain Signing and Markings
-Improve Signing and Markings
- Slow Vechicle Turnouts
-Retain Existing Recreational Turnouts
- Provide New Recreational Turnouts
(1) SOME CURVES HAVE AN ADVISORY
SPEED OF LESS THAN THE MINIMUM
SHOWN.
••
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
~------------i~~L-~-------~------~----_+------~----~r_~--_+------+_----_+------~------r_----~t-------~----~------~------~----_+----~~----~
•
•
•
~------------~~----~------~------~----_+------+_----~r_----_+------~----~~----~------+_----~I~----~------+-----~------~---
•
•
•
•
j
•
•
•
•
•
(1)
•
•
(1)
.(1)
-•
• (1)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
---
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(1)
--
•
•
(1)
•
•
•
•
•
:
•
•
FIGURE
•
•
•
•
•
COMPONENT AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
LOGAN CAN ·YON STUDY FEBRUARY 1987
c'::¥.U:mf
�.OUTLINE FOR SCOPING MEETING PRESENTATION
MARCH 3, 4, 1987
u.S. 89 - LOGAN CANYON EIS
REVISED FEBRUARY 16, 1987
I.
Introduction
A.
Welcome to UDOT-FHWA-USFS Scoping Meeting on
U.S. 89 Logan Canyon EIS - Tod Weston
B.
Introduction of speaker (others?)
C.
Purpose of meeting - formal scoping meeting in
accordance with NEPA - NEPA requires scoping
meeting to be held after publishing notice of
intent, before preparing EIS
1.
2.
Obtain input on issues that · should be considered in the EIS and suggestions for
project alternatives
3.
D.
Share results of study to present, project
alternatives developed
Answer questions on the alternatives and the
EIS process
UDOT contracted with CH2M HILL to carry out three
major study efforts
1.
2.
Development of transportation plan (alternatives)
3.
E.
Analysis of traffic constraints and needs
Preparation of environmental document (EIS)
Previous public information meetings have been
held from which input will be used for scoping
EIS, along with this input; this meeting will
1.
Quickly recap results of study to present
2.
Review goals and objectives
3.
Explain project alternatives developed to the
present
4.
Receive comments and suggestions, perhaps
more specific to alternatives
1
.. J
�II.
Project Setting
A.
Relation of U.S. 89 to Region
B.
Most of project area lies within Cache National
Forest, therefore, USFS and FHWA are cooperating
agencies on EIS
III. Study Findings
A.
Logan Canyon is scenic and recreational resource
designated by the USFS as a scenic highway
B.
U.S. 89 serves traffic
1.
Utilizing canyon for recreation
2.
From regional communities accessing the
regional trade center of Logan or recreational
opportunities around Bear Lake
3.
Through traffic from the accessing recreational areas of Yellowstone and Teton
National Parks
c.
Resources of canyon and population increase will
increase the traffic volume on U.S. 89 in future
D.
U.S. 89 classified as a "rural minor arterial"
E.
Classifications carry standards to be met; U.S. 89
does not presently conform to standards of a rural
minor arterial
F.
Cross-section elements of road are significantly
substandard throughout most of project area;
gradient and curves add to problems
G.
Commence existing, standard, and modified standard,
typical sections
H.
Frequency of accidents is significantly greater in
16 areas than the average for the Canyon
I.
Explain level of service - quality measure of
operating conditions
J.
At present volumes, road falls into Level of
Service D
K.
By 2000, the level of service will drop to E in
some places, by 2005 will generally be E throughout
project area
Results of traffic needs study presented at previous
meetings; fact sheet is available
L.
2
... j
�IV.
Goals and Objectives
A.
Primary opjective of study is to achieve balance
between transportation needs and scenic and
recreational resources of canyon
B.
Transportation needs - rural minor arterial
standards
1.
Achieve a level of service C wherever possible
in the Canyon through year 2010
a.
b.
Widen and improve alignment
Provide climbing lanes
2.
3.
Improve safety in any identified hazardous
areas
4.
Improve roadside turnouts and parking areas
5.
Improve major intersections
6.
C.
Replace substandard bridges and drainage
structures
Keep highway guardrails to a minimum consistent with public safety
Scenic and aesthetic values - recreation and water
quality are resources ~hich require greatest
protection
1.
Manage corridor as a scenic highway
2.
Avoid Logan River channel changes and protect
the riparian edge
3.
Mitigate any encroachment damage to fisheries
and wildlife habitat
4.
Minimize cut and fill slopes
5.
Landscape disturbed areas to restore
aesthetics, including abandoned road sections
6.
Control runoff on cut and fill slopes to
minimize erosion and protect water quality
7.
Protect existing and potential recreation
sites, and provide suitable access
8.
Dispose of surplus material in designated
areas
3
.J
�v.
Alternatives Development
A.
Study area can be divided into three sections
based on terrain and road design characteristics
1.
Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring
')
L. •
1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake
Summit
3.
Bear Lake Summit to Garden City
B.
Different alternatives are appropriate to each
section
C.
Alternatives not yet final; may be increased/
decreased as a result of input from scoping meetings
D.
Alternatives generally cover wide range of options
to provide good comparison of pros and cons of
each
E.
Sect.ion 1 - Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks
Springs
1.
2.
Spot improvements - replace bridges; slow
vehicle turnouts; recreational turnouts and
parking; signing and marking improvements
3.
Widen along existing alignment - widen lanes,
shoulders, and ditches, raise grade in potential flood areas, plus other spot improvements
4.
F.
No action - maintain existing road
Widen and improve existing alignment to design
speed of 35 mph to 40 mph - improve (straighten)
alignment; passing lanes; particularly in
areas of sustained grades; improvements listed
in 2 and 3
Section 2 - 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear
Lake -Summit
1.
No action - maintain existing road
2.
Widen and improve existing alignment to design
speed of 55 to 60 mph, widen lanes, shoulders,
and ditches, improve (straighten) alignment,
provide passing lanes, particularly in areas
of steep grades; raise grade in potential
flood areas; bridge replacement; signing and
marking improvements
4
�G.
Section 3 - Bear Lake Summit to Garden City
1.
2.
Construct road along new alignment to north
4.
IV.
Widen and improve along existing alignment to
design speed of 40 to 50 mph - widen lanes,
shoulders, and ditches; improve (straighten)
alignment; provide passing lanes, particularly
in areas of steep grades, raise grade in potential flood areas; bridge replacement;
signing and marking improvements
3.
H.
No action - maintain existing road
Construct road along new alignment to south
Use of an alternate canyon for new road for through
traffic such as Blacksmith Fork has been suggested
as an alternative by many in the past. Has been
determined economically infeasible. Therefore,
must do best we can to balance local recreation/
through traffic needs on existing U.S. 89
Procedures to Submit Comments
1.
Sign up
2.
Step to microphone
3.
Give name, representing what group
4.
Want to give everyone chance to speak before
allowing anyone second opportunity
5.
Not looking for whether you favor project or
not, but what issues should be examined in
ErS, or other alternatives or mitigation that
should be considered
6.
Written comments will be accepted through
Monday, April 6. Address is on hand-out at
back of room.
SLC94/d.ll0l
5
- j
�LIST OF SLIDES TO ACCOMPANY
PRESENTATION AT SCOPING MEETINGS
MARCH 3, 4, 1987 LOGAN CANYON EIS
REVISED FEBRUARY 16, 1987
Slide No
1.
US-89 - Logan Canyon
Environmental Impact Statement
Scoping Meeting
Utah Department of Transportation
in cooperation with United States Forest
Service and Federal Highway Administration
Consultant: CH2M HILL
2.
Purpose of Scoping Meeting
o
o
o
o
o
o
Comply with National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA)
Review study approach
Review public involvement program
Review results of study
Review alternatives developed to date
Obtain input on alternatives
3•
Vicinity Map ( Figure 1 - T.M . .)
4•
Site Map (Figure 2 - T.M.)
5.
Function of US-fr9 through Logan Canyon
o
o
o
o
o
o
6.
Designation by USFS as a scenic highway
Recreational access within canyon
Regional recreational traffic
Regional business and service
Serves interstate through traffic
Classification "Rural Minor Arterial"
Roadway Characteristics
o
o
o
o
Substandard cross-section
Low design/travel speed
Low level of service - delays
Traffic volumes will increase
7.
Typical Sections (Figure)
8.
Goals and Objectives
o
SLC-STN/18
Transportation needs
1
�Level of service C in year 2010
Replace drainage structures
Imp" ove hazardous areas
r
Improve turnouts and parking
Improve major intersections
Minimize guardrailing consistent with safety
9.
Goals and Objectives
o
Scenic and Aesthetic Values
Manage as a scenic highway
Protect river and riparian edge
Mitigate damage to wildlife habitat
Minimize cut and fill scopes
Landscape disturbed areas
Control runoff
Protect water quality
Protect recreation sites and access
Surplus material disposal
10.
Study Area - Three Sections
Section
1
2
3
Description
Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring
1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit
Bear Lake Summit to Garden City
11.
Site Map (Showing three sections)
12.
Alternative Categories
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
13.
No action
Spot improvements
Widen along existing alignment
Widen and improve existing alignment
New alignment (Section 3)
Alternatives
A.
No Action (Sections 1, 2, and 3)
Maintain Existing Road
14.
Alternatives
B.
Spot Improvements (Sections 1, 2, and 3)
Replace bridges
Slow vehicle turnouts
Recreational turnouts and parking
Signing and pavement marking improvements
SLC-STN/18
2
�15.
Alternatives
C.
Widen Along Existing Alignment (Section 1)
Widen lanes and shoulders
Widen ditches - improve drainage
Replace bridges
Climbing lanes
Recreational turnouts and parking
Signing and pavement marking improvements
16.
Typical Sections - Widening on Existing
Alignment (Figure)
17.
Alternatives
o.
Widen and Improve existing alignment
(Section 1, 2, and 3)
Improve alignment - Section 1 35 - 40
Section 2 55 - 60
Section 3 35 - 40
Widen lanes and shoulders
Widen ditches - improve drainage
Replace bridges
Climbing lanes
Recreational turnouts and parking
Signing and pavement marking improvements
18.
Cross Sections - Widening and Improving Alignment
19.
Alternatives (Section .3)
E.
F.
New north alignment
G.
20.
New north alignment
New south alignment
Alternatives Summary
Alternative
Categories
A.
B.
C.
o.
E.
F.
G.
Section 1
(Middle Canyon)
No Action
Spot Improvements
Widen Exist. Road
Widen and Improve:
35-40 mph
40-50 mph
55-60 mph
New North Alignment
New North Alignment
New South Alignment
SLC-STN/18
Al
Bl
Cl
Section 2
(Upper Canyon)
A2
B2
Section 3
(Rich County)
A3
B3
01
03
02
E3
F3
G3
3
�(Notes Slides 21 . - 31 to be made from Figures)
21.
Alternative B1 - Middle Canyon
Spot Improvements
22.
Alternative C1 - Middle Canyon
Widen Existing Alignment
23.
Alternative D1 - Middle Canyon
Widen and Improve Existing Alignment
24.
Alternative B2 - Upper Canyon (lower Half)
Spot Improvements
25.
Alternative B2 - Upper Canyon (upper Half)
Spot Improvements
26.
Alternative D2 - Upper Canyon (lower half)
Widen and Improve Existing Alignment
27.
Alternative D2 - Upper Canyon (upper half)
Widen and Improve Existing Alignment
28.
Alternative B3 - Rich County
Spot Improvements
29.
Alternative D3 - Rich County
Widen and Improve Existing Alignment
30.
Alternative E3, F3 Rich County
New North Alignment
31.
Alternative G3 - Rich County
New South Alignment
31.
SLC-STN/18
Alternative Summary (repeat of slide 19)
4
�L/s/ (7/ jJn;;/ #1eck~ r.4t/ reee<:C/-ed 0-
:: C-e;P[1 of ~ ~,6 6/ /<fF7 .£ ep( ~#ce '
LOGAN CANYON PROJECI
MAILING LIST
MEDIA
Organization
~
Logan Herald Journal
~
Contact
Phone
Cache Citizen
v'
Lake Tribune -
Sa-If f4k
Tl,bu~
(80l.) 752-2121
75 West 300 North
Logan, Utah 84321
485 North Main
Logan, Utah 84321
Uinta (Evanston) County
Herald (bi-weekly:
Wednesday and Friday)
v - Salt
~
Tim Vitale -
Address
-
Mel Baldwin
(307) 789-6560
(801) 237-2045
Utah State University
The Statesman
(Lc7~~)
P.O. Box 867
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
(801) 750-1759
C h Y;J j~nJR-1.f~"
P.O. Box B
Evanston, Wyoming
82930
UMC 0165
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
Salt Lake Deseret News
Joe Bauman
(801) 237-2150
P.O. Box 1257
Salt Lake City, Utah
84110
Ogden Standard-Examiner
City Editor
(801) 394-7711
455 23rd Str.
Ogden, Utah 84402
Box Elder News and Journal
(801) 723-3471
55 South 100 West
Brigham City, Utah
84302
V
Bear Lake Gazette
(208) 847-3077
484 Washington Str.
Montpelier, Idaho 83254
~
The News Examiner
(208) 847-0552
847 Washington Str.
P. O. Box 278
Hontpelier, Idaho 83254
KSL Television Channel 5
(801) 237-2500
145 Social Hall Ave.
Salt Lake City, Utah
84111
KTVX Television Channel 4
(801) 972-1776
1760 S. Fremont Dr.
Salt Lake City, Utah
84104
KUTV Television Channel 2
(801) 973-3000
2185 S. 3600 W.
West Valley City, Utah
84120
KVNU Radio
(801) 752-5141
1350 N. 200 W.
Logan, Utah 84321
KVEZ Radio
(801) 753-8210
26.00 North Main
Logan, Utah 84321
(801) 750-3143
University Hill
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84321
(801) 752-1390
810 West 200 North
Logan, Utah 84321
(801) 750-5018
606 North 500 East
Logan, Utah 84321
j,/
- ~
(
KUSU Radio
Therese Stamm
Editor
Lee Austin
KBLQ Radio
Salt Lake Tribune
(Local Correspondent)
SLC-STAN/BIG
Chris Jorgensen
5
�_
_
l ~:£~ lillI'
_
. Enginee~s
. Planners '
Economists
Scientists
February 6, 1987
B21163.DO
Logan Herald Journal
75 West 300 North
Logan, Utah 84321
Attention:
Legal Advertising
Enclosed please find a Notice of Public Meeting. We would
like this notice to appear in the next possible issue of
your paper.
Please invoice us fo~ the cost of the advertisement and send
and Affidavit of Publication to my attention at the address
shown below.
Sincerely,
Sandy Leonard
Office Administrator
. SLC94/46
t
Enclosure
CH2M HILL
Utah Area Office Associated Plaza. Suite 500. 349 South 200 East
P.o. Box 2218. Salt Lake City. Utah 84101
801 .363.0200
�NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS
US-89 Logan Canyon
The Federal Highway Administration (FHW~), U. S. Forest Service (USFS), and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)
will jointly hold public scoping meetings for the Environ~ental Impact Statement (ElS) being prepared f9r U.s. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon in Cache and Rich Counties, Utah,
on March 3, at 7:00 p.m. at the Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium, 45 East 200 North in Logan, and on March 4, at 7:00
p.m. in Garden City Hall. A meeting for governmental agencies
and public officials will be held March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in
the Logan City Hall. The general public, interest groups,
and governmental agency personnel are invited to attend to
provide input regarding their concerns about impacts of road
improvements on the environment of the Canyon and issues
which should be addressed. Comments and suggestions are
invited from all interested parties.
UDOT has contracted with CH2M HILL, an environmental engineering consulting firm in Salt Lake City, to analyze transportation needs in Logan Canyon, develop alternative plans
for improvements, and evaluate the impact of those plans on
the environment in an ElS. The FHWA and the USFS will be
cooperating agencies on the EIS, which will -be developed in
conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) .
NEPA requires that a scoping process take place prior to the
conduct . of an ElS. It is the purpose . of the scoping meetings
to determine ' from the interested community what are perceived
to be the sensitive resources of the project area and what
environmental factors should be studied most closely in the
ElS.
Several public meetings discussing the project have
been held previously. Other scoping meetings will be held
as determined necessary, and information on time and place
will be provided through the local news media. Public meetings will also be held when the draft EIS is completed to
obtain comments on its contents.
The proposed action would improve US-89 through Logan Canyon
from Right Fork about 9 miles east of Logan, to Garden City,
a distance of approximately 28 miles.
This road passes
through the -Wasatch-Cache National Forest, which provides
scenic and recreational resources. Portions of the highway
are a narrow two-lane road with numerous curves and considerable gradient. The highway is traveled by a significant
number of recreational and other large vehicles, which,
along the the road constraints, often results in delays of
traffic.
Improvements to be considered include widening of
the roadway and shoulders, flattening of curves, replacing
and widening of bridges, adjustment of road gradient, improvement of signing, provision of additional recreational turn-
�...
"
outs, and/or constructing a new road along a new alignment
is selected areas, etc.
The project area can be divided into three sections based on
the design characteristics of the road. These sections are:
1.
Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Springs,
2.
1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit,
and
3.
Bear Lake Summit to Garden City (Rich County).
Different alternatives might be selected for each of the
road sections. Alternatives currently being considered for
the project include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
No action
Spot improvements
Widening along the existing alignment
Widening and improving the existing alignment
Constructing the road along a new alignment in the
Rich County section
A fact sheet providing information about the project will be
available at Valley Engineering, in Logan; Utah State
University Library; Garden City Hall; the U. S. Forest
Service, Ogden; and CH2M HILL, Salt Lake City; approximately
3 weeks prior to the scheduled meetings. Written comments
or questions will be accepted through Monday, April 6.
These should be directed to:
Stanton Nuffer or
Clifford Forsgren
P.O. Box 2218
Salt Lake City, Utah
(801) 363-0200
SLC60/72
84110
�_
1~:ft~ ,",,,
_
Engineers
Planners
Economists
Scientists
c;orJy o f LErrG~ S:£/\/T
TO 77 OFP/ce.S,
February 13, 1987
B21163.DO
Economic Development Administration
Denver Region
Office of the Director
909 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Federal Highway Administration, u.s. Forest Service, and Utah Department
of Transportation (UDOT) will jointly hold an agency scoping meeting for the
environmental impact statement (ElS) being .prepared for U.S. 89 through Logan
Canyon (Summit and Rich Counties, Utah). ' The meeting will be on March 4, at
10:00 a.m. in Logan City Hall, Logan, Utah. Agency personnel are invited
to attend . and provide input regarding major issues that should be examined
in theEIS and concerns about impacts of road improvements. Public scoping
meetings will be held on March 3, 7:00 p.m., at the Mountain Fuel Supply
Auditorium, 45 East 200 North in Logan, and on March 4 at 7:00 p.m. in Garden
City Hall. You are also welcome to attend these meetings.
UDOT has contracted with CH2M HILL, an environmental engineering consulting
f~rm in Salt Lake City, to analyze · transportation needs in Logan Canyon,
develop alternative plans ' for improvements,' and evaluate the impact of those
plans on the environment in anEIS. The Federal Highway Administration and
the U.S. Forest Service will be cooperating agencies on the ElS, which will
be developed in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Several public meetings discussing the project have been held. Notification
of other scoping meetings will be . provided ·through the local news media.
Meetings will also be held when the draft ElS is completed to obtain comments
on its contents.
The proposed action would improve U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon from Right
Fork, about 9 miles east of Logan, to Garden City, a distance of approximately
28 miles. This road passes through the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, which
provides scenic and recreational resources. Portions of the highway are a
CH2M HILL
Intermountain Region
Boise 700 Clearwater Lone, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707
Soft Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East
p.o. Box 2218, Soft Lake City, Utah 84101
208.345.5310
801.363.0200
�Page 2
February 13, 1987
B21163.DO
narrow two-lane road with numerous curves and considerable gradient. The
highway is travelled by a significant number of recreational and other large
vehicles, which, along with the road constraints, often results in traffic
delays. Improvements to be considered include widening of the roadway and
shoulders, flattening of curves, replacing and widening of bridges, adjustment
of road gradient, improvement of signing, provision of additional recreational
turn-outs, provision of climbing lanes, and constructing a new road along a new
alignment in selected areas.
The project area can be divided into three sections based on the design characteristics of the road. These sections are: 1) Right Fork to 1.8 miles above
Ricks Spring; 2)1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit; 3) Bear Lake
Summit to Garden City. Different alternatives might be selected for each of
the road sections. Alternatives currently being considered for the project
include: 1) no action; . 2) spot improvements; 3) widening along the existing
alignment; 4) widening and improving the existing alignment; 5) constructing
the road along a new alignment.
A fact sheet providing information about the project will be sent to you in the
next few days. Written comments will be accepted through Monday, April 6.
These should be addressed to:
James Naegle
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, utah 84119
We request that you advise us at the above address by March 1, whether your
office will participate in the scoping process.
Questions may be directed to James Naegle, telephone (801)965-4160, or
CH2M HILL, telephone (801)363-0200.
Stanton
Project Manager
BOC5/026
�lh,j
LOGAN CANYON US-89 FACT SHEET
TENTATIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE EIS
L
+ - .s7{o~"f-, '" ~
"'
L
-:J .ec. -'
f'
~
f) .
r
r,
1f - ~P,S
(if
This fact sheet is the third in a series that has been
developed to inform the interested public on the progress of
The previous fact sheets outlined
the scope of the study and reported the result of the transportation needs and traffic volume projections.
This fact
sheet outlines the tentative alternatives that are under
study and provides the means for the public to evaluate the
progress of the study and comment on important environmental
issues and other possible alternatives at the project scoping meetings on March 3 and 4.
The development of alternative plans for the improvement of
U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon is dependent on the
identification of feasible improvements.
"Improvements"
refers to separate actions that can be taken to improve the
road, such as widening, straightening, providing slow car
pull-offs, etc.
"Alternatives" are "combinations of improve-
ments proposed to be applied in specific locations that
would result in a certain level of improvement of the road.
~hese
alternatives and others that may be suggested in the
scheduled scoping meetings may be evaluated for environmental impacts in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS).
A preferred alternative will be selected in conjunc-
tion with preparation of the draft EIS.
In the case of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, feasible
improvements have generally been defined as (1) actions that
will correct problems identified in the previous transportation needs study;
(2) actions that will result in a reason-
able cost to benefit; and (3) actions that will not result
1
./
;
l f-of- C),u~ e5
n,.it A fk h.Nf".
February 1987
the Logan Canyon Study.
I
�in extreme environmental impacts.
u.s.
under study for application to
o
Improvements that are
89 include: "
Widening of the roadway, shoulders, recovery areas
and ditches to normal UDOT standard for minor
arterials in mountainoHs terrain, or to a modified
(narrower) standard that would be less disturbing
to the environment of the canyon.
o
Widening the roadway to provide passing lanes in
all possible or selected areas.
o
Improving the alignment (straightening curves) and
the road gradient (degree of slope) to increase
the minimum design speeds.
o
Developing all new road alignments and gradients
to 40 mph or 50 mph minimum design speeds.
o
Repairing existing major bridges.
o
Replacing major bridges.
o
Replacement of small drainage structures.
o
Developing slow vehicle turnouts.
o
Improvement of signing and pavement markings.
o
Providing recreational parking.
Each of these possible improvements was considered in terms
of the opportunities and constraints posed by the existing
road and Logan Canyon.
2
�It has become obvious during the study of transportation
needs that the roadway
consi~ts
of several sub-sections :.
based on 'the physical characteristics of the terrain.
These
sections, as shown in Figure 1, are:
o
Section 1.
Middle Canyon - Right Fork to 1.8 miles
above Ricks Spring
o
Section 2.
Upper Canyon - 1.8 miles above Ricks
Spring to Bear Lake Summit
o
Section 3.
Rich County - Bear Lake Summit to Garden
City
In the analysis of improvements, certain improvements were
identified as more appropriate to certain sections of the
road than others.
As a result, separate sets of alterna-
tives were developed for each of the three road sections.
These are summarized in the following table.
TENTATIVE ALTERNATIVES
US-89 - LOGAN CANYON
Alternative Designation
Alternative
Categories
A.
B.
C.
D.
No Action
Spot Improvements
Widen Existing Road
Widen and Improve
Existing Road
E. New North Alignment
F. New South Alignment
G. New South Alignment
Section 1
(Middle
Canyon)
Section 2
(Upper
Canyon)
Section 3
(Rich
County)
Al
B1
Cl
A2
B2
A3
B3
Dl
D2
D3
E3
F3
G3
3
�The alternatives proposed for each section of the project
area are descr,ibed below:
Section 1.
Middle Canyon
The Middle Canyon is environmentally the most sensitive section of the project road.
The narrow canyon floor, confined
by steep slopes and the Logan River, limit the road improvements that can be made without substantial affect on visual
quality and other attributes.
The range of alternatives
considered for this section is therefore limited to more
conservative improvements that would provide somewhat limited
benefits to travelers, but that would protect the environmental qualities appreciated here.
AI.
No Action - Routine maintenance including resurfacing
would ' be continued.
Repair of bridges where possible
and improved signing and marking would be made. , Geometric constraints (road width) and winding alignment
would continue to result in a low level (D-E) of service (LOS) on the highway.
B1.
Spot improvements - Turning lanes at intersections,
slow vehicle turnouts where space is currently available, bridge replacement in existing locations, and
improved signing would be carried out in this alternative.
Most geometric constraints and alignment
problems would continue to exist, and the overall level
of service would therefore be unchanged.
C1.
Widening along existing alignment - The current road
would be widened to a standard that is modified from
UDOT's normal standard for a minor arterial in mountainous terrain.
Figure 2 compares these two standards
4
�and the existing roadway width.
lanes would be
provid~d
Additionally, . climbing
in selected areas (specifically
in the Dugway between lower and upper twin bridges);
gradient will be adjusted in selected areas, bridges
would be replaced on the existing or new alignment,
depending on each situation, signing and marking would
be improved and new recreational parking provided.
This alternative would widen the roadway and provide
limited improvement to geometrics, but most alignment
problems would remain.
Improvements to the roadway
width would improve the level of service to LOS C
through 1995, when it would drop to LOS D through 2010.
1D.
Widening and improving the existing alignment - In
addition to the widening and other improvements included
in Alternative 1C, this ' alternative would improve ·the
entire alignment of this section of roadway to . a 35 to
40 mph minimum design speed.
This would be the same
design speed as the improved section of the highway
below Right Fork, which is designed to 40 mph standards
with a few curves at a lower speed.
The more extreme
curves on the road would be softened to achieve this
design speed.
Up to 18 curves of the 51 curves ·would
be modified to attain the 35 mph design speed.
An
additional 12 of the 51 curves would be corrected to
attain a 40 mph design speed.
Geometric and curvature
problems would be improved with this alternative to
raise the level of service to LOS C until the year 1995
when it would drop to LOS D through 2010.
Alternatives that would improve this section to a higher
level ·of service have not been included at this time because
resulting environmental impacts appear to be unacceptable to
most people.
5
�Section 2.
Upper Canyon
While environmental quality is still considerable and important in this section, it does not limit possible improvements to the highway as much as in the Middle Canyon.
A
smaller range of proposed alternatives are therefore necessary for this section.
A2.
No Action - The No Action alternative for this road
section would be the same as described for Section 1.
B2.
Spot Improvements - This alternative would include
installation of turning lanes at major intersections,
straightening of selected curves, installation of slow
vehicle turnouts, provision of new recreational parking, replacement of bridges on the existing or new
alignment, depending on the specific conditions, and
improvement of signing and pavement marking.
Most
alignment constraints will not be improved by this
alternative, and thus level of service will not be
improved.
D2.
Isolated problems will be corrected.
Widen and improve existing alignment - Widening of the
road to UDOT standard for a minor arterial road in
mountainous terrain would be done for the entire length
of this section (see Figure 2).
Climbing lanes would
be provided in all possible areas (upper portions of
this section).
The alignment and gradient would be
improved to 50 or 60 mph minimum design speed.
of the 20 curves would be modified.
Up to 7
Bridges would be
replaced on the existing or an altered alignment,
depending on each case.
Improved signing and marking
and additional recreation parking will be provided.
By
correcting most geometric and alignment problems, this
alternative would maintain the level of service on the
road at Level D through 2010.
6
�Section 3.
Rich County
This section is relatively free of environmental constraints
to road improvement.
The Sunrise campground and Bear Lake
viewpoint near the summit are important features to be protected.
The existing road is below standard in width, has a
number of curves that lower the minimum design speed to
25 mph, and has a steep gradient that also lowers the travel
speed.
Since environmental constraints are not particularly
limiting here, alternatives that would correct only portions
of the problems identified are not seen to be worthwhile.
A3.
No Action - The No Action alternative for this section
would be the same as for Sections 1 and 2.
B3.
Spot Improvements - This alternative would include
installation of turning lanes at major intersections,
straightening of selected curves, installation of slow
vehicle turnouts, provision of new recreational parking, and improvement of signing and pavement markings.
Most alignment constraints will not be improved by this
alternative, and thus level of service will not be
improved.
D3.
Isolated problems will be corrected.
Widen and Improve the Existing Alignment - The entire
route would be widened to UDOT standards for a minor
arterial in mountainous terrain (Figure 1).
A passing
lane would be constructed for the entire length.
The
horizontal and vertical alignment would be straightened
to a minimum design speed of 35 to 40 mph.
Up to 11 of
the 34 curves would be modified to the 35 mph design
speed.
An additional 16 of the 34 curves would be modi-
fied to the 40 mph design speed.
Signing and marking
would be improved, and additional recreational parking
provided.
7
�-
New alignment to the north of the
E3.
New Alignment
F3.
identified, and a new road
existing road road would be "
constructed.
Road width would be based on the UDOT
standard for minor arterials in mountainous terrain
(Figure 2).
A climbing lane would be provided for the
entire length of the route.
Alignment and gradient
would allow a minimum design speed of 40 to 50 mph.
Signing and marking would be improved, and recreational
parking provided as needed.
G3.
New Alignment - A new alignment to the south of the
existing road for a portion of the route would be identified and a new road constructed.
A possible route
that would leave the existing road below the Bear Lake
overlook and rejoin the existing road just below the
residential area has been identified.
Alignment and
gradient has been identified that would allow a minimum
design speed of 40 to 50 mph.
Signing and marking
would be improved and recreational parking provided as
needed.
These alternatives plus any other feasible alternatives
resulting from the scoping meetings on March 3 and 4 may be
evaluated and compared in the environmental impact statement
for the project.
Graphic illustrations of the specific
location of proposed curve improvements, new alignments,
etc., will be presented at the scoping meetings.
may be directed to James Naegle, UDOT
(801)965~4160
Clifford Forsgren, CH2M HILL (801)363-0200.
BOT538/017
SLC95/d.201
8
Questions
or to
�"'-./.
'.---./
BEAVER MOUNTAIN
LOGAN
CANYON
SECTION 3
RICKS SP-RING
UPPER TWIN BRIDGE
LOWER TWIN BRIDGE
CHINA ROW
-~...J-
-""---....~
RIGHT FORK
CARD RANGER STATION
FIGURE 1
STUDY S. CTIONS
E
LOGAN CANYON STUDY
�.~
t:
(1) 5:1 SLOPE
I·VARI:sJ·
5'+
29' MIN 55 MPH
23' TO 25'
24' MIN 50 MPH ·
18' MIN 40 MPH
~~-------..
I
16 ' MIN 35 MPH
~
(2) SLOPE VARIES 1 0: 1 TO 5: 1
(A)
EXISTING
24-29 ' 55 MPH
20 -24' 50 MPH
15 -18' 40 MPH
13-16' 35 MPH
40'
(2')
12'
12'
~~--~~--------~~--------~~----~
~~
RECOVERY
AREA
__________________________________________________~10~:1~
.-<\-?
~~
('
(8) STANDARD
0...0
(HOURLY VOLUME OV ER 250)
-
"""
-- RECOVERY AREA _6' MIN 1100.
CUT DITCH
_5' ....
-,
--
--
34'
12'
--
-?~
~ ?'~
-
~
......
RECOVERY AREA -
-
_1100.
12'
-- _5'_
~
S· "\
~
70:7
(C) MODIFIED STANDARD
FIGURE 2
\ J ~
CYl
TYPICAL SECTIONS
_______________________________________________________________________________
LOGAN CANYON STUDY
L.::"~.WI"
• '-
�
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/67">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/67</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
3469863492
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
16261148 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
Information about Logan Canyon, February 1987
Description
An account of the resource
Outline for scoping meeting presentation, list of slides and the print media that received legal notice, findings from the Logan Canyon study, goals and objectives of the study, alternatives for development, notice of public scoping meetings (and letter to media), tentative alternatives to improvements, map of sections to be studied, typical sections of existing, standard, and modified standard conditions in Logan Canyon.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Roads--Design and construction
Logan Canyon Study
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah)
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1987-02-17
1987-03-03
1987-03-04
1987-02-16
1987-02-12
1987-02-06
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Utah
United States
Rich County (Utah)
Cache County (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 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_6.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/45567e2889d98a2ba23bf38e0fc70b2f.pdf
1d8561f0241bc01d3905d1777a88f03a
PDF Text
Text
CNMHIIl
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Interdisciplinary Team
FROM:
Stan Nuffer
DATE:
April 15, 1987
SUBJECT:
Logan Canyon Environmental Study
PROJECT:
B21163.DO
The nineteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on
March 30, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at UDOT District Office in Odgen,
Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. Also attached for review is the Technical Memorandum on the existing
conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum.
The next meeting will be held on Monday, April 20, 1987 at
7:00 p.m .. at the U.S. Forest Service District Office in Logan,
Utah. The agenda will be as follows:
1.
Review minutes of March 30 meeting.
2.
Final discussion of traffic projections.
3.
Discuss summaries of scoping meeting testimony (to be
distributed at the meeting) .
4.
Discussion on Chapter 7 - components of roadway
improvement.
5.
Discussion of the existing conditions portions of the
aquatic resources, recreation/land use and socio-economic
technical memorandums.
6.
Outline for day-long work session session in Canyon on
Tuesday, April 21, starting at 7:30 a.m.
Future meeting schedule:
May 4
May 18
BOT538/043
- 3:00 p.m., District Office
- 3:00 p.m., Brigham City
�LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
MINUTES OF ID TE~l MEETING
March 30, 1987
Attendance:
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Mark Shaw, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Arlo Waddops, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
Bruce Brotherson, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
John Neil, UDOT
Howard Richardson, UDOT
Steve Flint, Audobon Assoc.
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Bill Helm
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
Minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed and approved,
with some minor changes.
Item 2
- Scoping Meeting Summaries
Copies of the meeting transcripts were distributed. Team
members were informed that copies of the written comments
will be distributed after April 6. It was reported that the
Cache County ~ouncil is going to request an extension of
time to comment. Stan Nuffer indicated that the objective
is to obtain as much input as possible and that comments
will be given consideration even if they are received after
the deadline. Hopefully, there will not be too many so that
the summary can be prepared and some decisions made on the
' major issues.
Item 3 - Discussion of Alternatives C1, D1, D2, and D3
There was a discussion about these alternatives in preparation for a trip to the Canyon. Duncan Silver asked how the
impacts of a 35 MPH alternative would be evaluated and compared to a 40 MPH alternative. The impacts would depend
upon the amount of additional area affected due to flattening
Visual impacts would be evaluated using the USFS system that
was described by Clark Ostergaard.
Steve Flint wanted to be sure that the accident data on the
16 sites that have higher than average accident occurrences
was available when the team went into the Canyon. He also
1
�asked if it would be possible to consider spot improvements
that were outside the project boundaries. There is a location approximately 0.7 miles west of Right Fork that might
be suitable for a slow vehicle turnout.
In preparation for the meeting in the Canyon, some sections
will be staked to show the construction limits of the alternatives . . Project maps at a scale of 1" = 200' were distributed and locations to be staked identified. Valley
Engineering will survey and place stakes at those locations
a few days prior to the I.D. Team meeting.
Item 4 - Aquatic Resources and Recreation/Land Use Technical
Memos
Copies of the aquatic resources and recreation/land use
technical memos were distributed to the I.D. Team members.
There will be some discussion on these after team members
have had a chance to review them.
Item 6 - Continued Discussion of Traffic Projections
Cliff Forsgren distributed some additional information on
traffic projections. A range of future traffic flows were
developed using traffic volumes and northern Utah populations
from 1940 to the present. The team members were asked to
review and give their comments.
Duncan Silver indicated that he felt that there was no real
benefit in continuing to rework future traffic projections.
The road cannot meet todays needs, even with a modified
standard and he could see no benefit in spending more time
working to precisely determine future volumes.
Item 7 - Comments on Chapter 7
Due to the length of the meeting, discussion was postponed
to a future date.
BOX18/D.1401
2
"
�
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/63">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/63</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
782905033
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1696924 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 March 30, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes from March 30, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Attendance, review of minutes, scoping meeting summaries, discussion of alternatives C1, D1, D2, and D3, aquatic resources and recreation/land use technical memos, and continued discussion of traffic projections.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Silver, Duncan
Ostergard, Clark
Flint, Steve
Forsgren, Clifford
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roads--Design and construction
United States Highway 89
Aquatic resources--Utah--Logan River
Traffic engineering
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
1987-04-15
1987-03-30
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Utah
United States
Cache County (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 4
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_Fd4_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/5688c1527a10b08fdc7ae74859ab4e67.pdf
48f4239b4d264ffbeddeafcfd6fa3f30
PDF Text
Text
����
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/51">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/51</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
1884105563
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
138787088 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
Canyon Courier, April 1980
Description
An account of the resource
A newspaper entitled Canyon Courier based in Hungry Horse, Montana with articles that discuss the safety and economy of proposed changes to United States Highway 2, making it a four-lane highway instead of two. Also a legal update on the Canyon Coalition suit stating the inadequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement. Blasting in the BOB relates to an area in Montana dedicated to Bob Marshall who was an advocate for Montanan wilderness where companies are requesting to use seismic exploration for gas and oil. Road Crisis discusses the rising gas prices and the shift toward rehabilitating existing roads instead of building new roads.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Skrotzki, Mark A.A.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Arcel, Jeff (cartoonist)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roads--Design and construction
Traffic engineering
United States Highway 2
Montana Wilderness Association
Blasting in the Bob
Wilderness preservation
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Newspaper
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Canyon Courier
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1980-04
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Hungry Horse (Montana)
Flathead County (Montana)
Montana
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 9
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_Fd9_Page_7.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/915af361a8c48ff09aa639eb706c566e.pdf
1de2ef4eaf6e9e963be28c17bf74447e
PDF Text
Text
LOGAN CANYON
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
October 20, 1986
Attendance:
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Cliff Forsgren,CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
John Neil, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Al Stilley, Northern Engineering
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
Stan Nuffer led the discussion of the minutes of the previous ID team meeting. Rudy Lukez referred to the questions
on the 1930's traffic data that had been discussed during
the last ID team meeting. Rudy said that his interest in
the data was curiosity only and he did not think that it
would be of any value in the present work.
(
Duncan Silver asked for some clarification of the visual
criteria. He also felt that there should be some discussion
on how the criteria , were developed and used. Clark Ostergaard,
who prepared the information on visual criteria, was not
present and the question was deferred until the next
meeting.
Rudy Lukez asked Fred LaBar if the Forest Service wanted to
have more camping spaces in the Canyon? Fred said that
there is a proposed group camping site in the Beaver Creek
area.
The camp site will hold between 200 and 300 campers.
If the money was available, the site would be constructed as
soon as they could get someone on site to build it. Fred
also said that the Beaver Mountain Ski Area had plans to
increase their camping sites. Lynn Zollinger asked if there
was information available on the expected increase in
camping and skiing. Fred said that he would get the
information for Lynn.
Duncan Silver asked if the increase in skiing would impact
the DHV. Since skiing occurs during the low traffic volume
period, there would be no impact on the DHV.
There was also some discussion of the possibility of electric power reaching some private land in Stump Hollow and
Utah State University's plans to expand some University facilities in the Canyon.
1
�Item 2 - Discussion of Safety Analysis Technical Memo
(
The Safety Analysis Technical Memo was discussed. Duncan
Silver asked if it would be necessary to look at individual
sites if the entire road was brought up to standard. Cliff
Forsgren answered that in most cases it would probably not
be necessary to look at individual sites'. Duncan then suggested that individual sites be given a detailed examination
only if spot improvements were considered in a given area.
Item 3 - Study Goals and Objectives
Stan Nuffer introduced the subject and led the discussion.
A handout listing goals and objectives for component and
alternative development was distributed. This included
illustrations of existing, standard and modified standard
cross sections. An outline of possible alternate components
was also distributed. Duncan Silver was not certain how the
environmental constraints would fit into the development of
alternates. It was pointed out that the visual criteria was
nearly completed and the environmental constraints would be
developed concurrently with the component and alternative
development.
(
There was a lot of discussion on how alternates should be
developed and what the overall goal should be.
It was pointed
out that if significant improvements were to be constructed,
the goal would be to achieve a level of service C for the
year 2010, realizing that it would probably not be possible
in every case. Duncan Silver suggested that a "standard"
roadway be designed, with LOS C throughout the Canyon. Where
that was not environmentally possible, alternates could be
developed to improve the road as much as possible without
damaging the environment.
Stan Nuffer suggested that the "modified standard" which was
used in the lower part of the canyon be used to prepare a
• "baseline" alternate. Duncan Silver pointed out that the
modified standard did not allow the drainage and other maintenance features needed to protect the road base. Lynn
Zollinger said that UDOT would accept the modified standard
in order to maintain continuity along the roadway. Rudy
Lukez made a motion that CH2M HILL develop a baseline alternate using the modified standard. Duncan Silver wanted
to be certain that UDOT understood that using a modified
standard meant sacrificing maintenance standards which might
impact the road. He also said that the decision to use a
modified standard as the baseline must be well documented.
Dismissing highway standards without adequately addressing
them can be challenged just as easily as dismissing environmental problems without adequate study.
2
�(
There was also some discussion of the design speed. Stan
Nuffer suggested a minimum design speed of 40 mph except in
the first 7 or 8 miles where Fred LaBar said the Forest Service has already evaluated a 40 mph speed limit and found it
unacceptable.
It was finally determined that a modified
standard section, with a design speed of between 35 and
.40 mph, depending upon conditions within the Canyon, be used
as the baseline alternate.
Item 4 - Discussion of Geotechnical Investigations
Al Stilley, from Northern Engineering and Testing, gave a
report on the geologic mapping and the drilling program
which was just getting underway on the alternative
alignments from Bear Lake Summit to Garden City. Areas
along the existing alignment where improvements could be
made will also be investigated.
Item 5 - Alternate Routes to Logan Canyon
John Neil reported that he had been given the assignment to
look at alternate routes to Logan Canyon. John said that he
was just beginning his study. Rudy Lukez suggested that
John contact a Mr. Wendall Anderson in Logan. Mr. Anderson
is apparently familiar with some previous studies
investigating a route through Blacksmith Fork Canyon
(
The next meeting will be held at the Ranger District office
in Logan at 3:00 p.m., prior to the public meeting in Garden
City at 7:00 p.m.
SLC-STN/03
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/41">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/41</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
1272711171
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
2030189 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 October 20, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes from October 20, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, discussion of satety analysis technical memo, study of goals and objectives, discussion of geotechnical investigations, and alternate routes to Logan Canyon.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
LaBar, Fred
Larson, Gale
Silver, Duncan
Neil, John
Zollinger, Lynn
Lukez, Rudy
Stilley, Al
Forsgren, Clifford
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Traffic engineering
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
1986-10-22
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Utah
United States
Cache County (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 2
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_Fd2_Page_11.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/ad2dfd06c834dcc5b681696fb5778063.pdf
bf8eab2799e6cee5305789a759dd6897
PDF Text
Text
LOGAN CANYON
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
August 11, 1986
Attendance:
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Jack Spence, Cache Group Sierra Club
Steve Flint, Bridgerland Audobon Society
Rudy Lukez, Cache Group Sierra Club
Duncan Silver, FHWA
Todd Weston, UDOT
John Neil, UDOT
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Howard Richardson, UDOT
Fred Labar, USFS
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
A new name was added to the mailing list:
Randy Nielsen, Utah Wildlife Federation
160 Layton Drive
Salt Lake City, Utah 84115
(draft copy of the study only)
Item i-Review of Draft Traffic Tech Memo
The draft of the traffic forecast technical memorandum was
discussed.
Those committee members who had received the
memo had not had sufficient time to thoroughly review the
information it contained so the discussion was fairly
general.
Jack Spence thought that all of the data points needed to be
plotted and that the standard deviation and correlation coefficient should be shown also. Duncan Silver asked about
the design hour volume (DHV) and the directional split of
the traffic.
If the DHV and directional split are to be addressed in the capacity/level of service analysis, it should
be stated in this technical memorandum so that readers would
know where to find that information. Duncan also suggested
plotting the 100 highest hour volumes to see if 30th highest
hour (which is presently being used by UDOT), is the best
one to use as the basis for the DHV. Written comments on
the draft memorandum were requested by the next meeting.
1
�(
Todd Weston asked if it would be possible to get the information out sooner so that team members had a chance to
review it.
Item 3 - Review of Manual Traffic Counts
Gale Larson reported on the manual traffic counts taken on
July 19 and August 2. Summaries of the counts were given to
team members for their review.
Item 4 - Review of Maintenance Information
(
Cliff Forsgren presented a summary of the evaluation of the
maintenance in the Canyon. The largest maintenance related
problem in the Canyon is snow removal. Portions of the Canyon are narrow with steep walls and the river is adjacent to
the road. The roadway in those areas has no shoulder and
there is nowhere to store or place the snow. Present practice is to plow all of the snow to one side of the road and
into the river. This procedure requires plows to move snow
across the traffic lanes. There was some discussion about
the desirability of this practice. Duncan Silver said that
there should be two criteria used in evaluating these procedures; 1) how is the public served and 2) how safe is the
procedure. Howard Richardson told a bit about the procedures and about the District's "bare road" snow removal
policy. Jack Spence asked how many times per year snowplows
would be moving snow across traffic lanes. The number will
vary depending upon the number of snow storms. Sometimes a
snow blower will be used to keep the road clear also. Snow
plow operators consider the present practice unsafe. Howard
Richardson invited any team members who would be interested
in a first hand evaluation to come and ride on one of the
plows this winter. Jack Spence asked how many accidents
have been caused by this procedure? It was not known if
there had been any. The options for alleviating the snow
removal problems would be to construct wider shoulders.
Flooding of the road was also discussed. Finding and disposing of suitable berm material is the biggest problem associated with protecting the road during high runoff. Fred
LaBar said that anchor ice above Ricks Springs had been responsible for flooding a number of years ago and that anchor
ice is a continuing problem in the river. Todd Weston asked
if plowing snow into the river could contribute to the buildup of anchor ice. Fred did not know for sure but thought
that it might.
S
Item % - Review of Accident Data
John Neil reported that the Safety Section had not released
the accident analysis runs yet. Jack Spence indicated that
the accident data needed to be analyzed for as many years as
2
�possible if
Silver said
that number
severity of
it was to be a meaningful evaluation. Duncan
that a goal should be statistical reliance and
of accidents was not as important as the
accidents.
SLC82/07
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/35">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/35</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
2183608344
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1709828 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 August 11, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes from August 11, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Randy Nielsen's name added to mailing list. Review of minutes, draft traffic tech memo, manual traffic counts, maintenance information, and accident data.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Larson, Gale
Spence, Jack
Flint, Steve
Lukez, Rudy
Silver, Duncan
Weston, Todd
Neil, John
Naegle, Jim
Zollinger, Lynn
Richardson, Howard
LaBar, Fred
Forsgren, Clifford
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Traffic engineering
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
1986-08-11
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (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 2
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_Fd2_Page_6.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/0d9d39033a34a89061062edbbfce32ae.pdf
499a8339e30a7783450d7680bded936d
PDF Text
Text
LOGAN CANYON
Minutes of ID Team Meeting
July 28, 1986
Attendance:
Clark Ostergaard - USFS
Fred LaBar - USFS
Todd Weston - UDOT
Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL
John D'Amico - CH2M HILL
Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL
Bill Helm - Unattached
Rudy Lukez - Sierra Club
Howard Richardson - UDOT
John Neil - UDOT
ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES
The minutes were reviewed. There was some confusion about
the sources of additional names for the mailing list which
were listed in the minutes.
It was noted that Fred LaBar
and Bill Helm had mailed names and not turned them in at the
last meeting.
There was no other discussion on the minutes.
ITEM 2 - TFAFFIC COUNT DATA
(
The sources of traffic data were discussed. Permanent
stations on US 89-91 at Webster Junction, on US 89 at Card
Guard Station in Logan Canyon (later moved to Garden City),
and on US 89 north of Garden City are being used in the
preparation of the traffic forecast.
ITEM 3 - PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC FORECAST
A past trends based forecast had been prepared using a least
squares best fit linear function.
This approach produced an
annual increase in ADT which was less than one percent, a
rate which was felt to be low.
The Utah State, Office of
Planning and Budget was prepared its forecast of economic
and population growth through the year 2010. The overall
rate of population increase for northern Utah was approximately 2 percent.
If traffic in Logan Canyon were to increase at the same rate as the population, the summer ADT in
Logan Canyon would reach approximately 6,000 vehicles per
day in 2,010. Supporting data for this forecast is available
and will be presented at the next ID Team (Team) meeting.
There was also some discussion on the traffic classification
counts. The summer counts will begin on July 29, 1987. The
counts will include a classification for recreational vehicles
and record turning movements.
�r
(
ITEM 4 - DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE
DETERMINATION
The roadway will be evaluated on the basis of the level of
service which is possible at a given traffic volume. The
Transportation Research Board describes a procedure for establishing levels of service (A through E) for rural roads.
Copies of portions of the procedure description were distributed to team members to help them become familiar with
the level of service concept. There was some discussion on
which level of service would be planned for in the Canyon.
UDOT would like to plan for a "C" level, but the actual level
of service used will be determined by the Team.
ITEM 5 - REVIEW OF ACCIDENT DATA
The accident data for 6 years (1980 - 1985) has been
tabulated using a UDOT computer program. The UDOT program
was used because the program performs the types of analysis
required for roadways and the accident data base was already
on the UDOT computer.
The computer runs had only recently
been completed and there had not been sufficient time to
review the results.
Hopefully this will be completed by the
next meeting.
ITEM 6 - UPDATE ON STATUS OF BASE MAP PREPARATION
An example of the base maps was shown to the
of the set will be available, when they have
to Team members who wish to have one. Clark
requested a set to get started on the visual
Team. Copies
been completed,
Ostergaard
survey.
MISCELLANEOUS
The approved forest plan has a section on Logan Canyon which
t may be of interest to Team members.
Clark Ostergaard will
bring a number of copies of that section to the next meeting.
SLC8I/II
�
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/34">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/34</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
3001645539
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1261682 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 July 28, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes from July 28, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review minutes, traffic count data, presentation of proposed traffic forecast, discussion of highway capacity and level of service determination, review of accident data, and update on status of base map preparation.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Ostergard, Clark
LaBar, Fred
Weston, Todd
D'Amico, John
Helm, Bill
Lukez, Rudy
Richardson, Howard
Neil, John
Forsgren, Clifford
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
United States Highway 89
Traffic engineering
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
1986-07-28
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Utah
United States
Cache County (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 2
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_Fd2_Page_17.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/f13f06a5b943c3b5bf6d961eb5d18aa5.pdf
f8032597e018b401ba8d9f52e38b6e54
PDF Text
Text
MEMORANDUM
TO: ID TEAM MEMBERS
DATE:
March 30,1987
FROM: Cliff Forsgren
SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Traffic Forecasts
Over the past several months there have been a number of
iterations made in attempting to establish a reasonable
forecast of traffic through the year 2010.
Exponential and
linear models and population trends have been used.
with varying results.
Each
Until now all estimates of future
traffic flow have been developed using fairly recent data ,
, (1973 to 1985).
Attempts to use past trends as a basis for
predicting future traffic volume's have not been completely
satisfactory.
The wide scatter in the data has resulted
numbers that are difficult to Justify from a statistical
standpoint.
Estimating future traffic volumes based upon
proJected population trends is often considered to be a more
acceptable
method~
after a relationship between population
increase and traffic flow has been established.
The State Office of Planning and Budget has provided us
with the most recent (still unofficial) population forecasts
for Northern Utah (attachment 1).
They have also provided
population data, by county, from 1940 through 1985
<attachment 2).
Using this data we have tabulated the
�population trend for northern Utah <attachment 3).
John Neil
has also gone through the UOOT archives and obtained annual
traffic data in Logan Canyon from 1937 through 1985
<attachment 4).
Prior to 1973 when the permanent counter was
installed at Card Guard Station r
apparently based upon 7
day~
traffic volumes were
24 hour counts taken quarterly.
The annual ADT in the Middle Canyon (assumed at Card Guard
Station) has been tabulated and a linear plot fit to the
points <attachment 5).
Using the long term population trend and the long term
traffic trend a relationship was established between the two
<attachment 6) and future traffic volumes estimated in each
section o£ the Canyon
(attachment 7).
Past IO team discussions have indicated that it might be
preferable to show a spread in the proJected traffic volume
rather than trying to settle on a single number.
We should
compare this information with the forecasts prepared using
the more recent data to determine which will give us the more
reliable range o£ proJected tra££ic volumes.
�ATTACHMENT 1
�· -
_. . ..
~
'
- '.'
- -- - -
RECEiVED
MAR 051987
~ROVlS10HAL
MULTI-COUNTY PLANNING DISTRICT AND COUNTY PROJECTIONS
BASCO ON UPED-JANUARY 1981
CH2M HILL I SLC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------YEAR
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
ANte
1990-201
--------------------------------------_._----_.. _----- ------.--~---.---------------------.---
BEM RIVER
BOX [LOrR
CACHE
RICH
NASATOf fRONT
DAVIS
t()RG~
SALT lM[
TOOElE
WEBER
KlUNTAlffLAAO
SUffllT
UTAH
WASATCH
CENTRAl
JUAB
HULMO
PIUT[
SANPETE
SEVIER
WAYNE
SOUTlf~EST
BEAVER
GARfiELD
IRQ,.
uta
WASHINGTON
UJNTAtI BASIN
DAGGETT
OUClIESUE
UINTAH
SOUTHEAST
CARBON
EMERY
GRANO
SAN
JUAlf
113.000
38.700
72.000
2.300
1.169.000
202.000
5.900
]6].000
30.300
163.600
285.()OO
13.200
262.100
9.]00
53.700
5,000
10.400
1.500
17.100
11.500
2.200
]8,600
5.600
4.300
21,800
5.200
41.700
39.300
700
13.900
24.700
55,300
24.000
12.200
6,900
12.200
120.000
40,700
76.900
2.400
1.288.000
.241.300
6,500
832.900
32,700
114.600
293.000
13,800
269.200
10,000
56.200
5.000
10,900
1,500
17,700
18,800 .
2,300
63.300
5.500
4,300
23.100
5,500
44.900
41,200
700
14.500
25.000
55.700
24.300
12.000
7.400
12.000
125.000
41,900
80.]00
2.400
1.377 .000
273.400
1.000
878.100
34.600 .
183.900
291.000
14.100
272.800
10,100
57.500
5.000
11,200
1,500
1'.BOO
19.700
2.300
88,600
5.500
4.300
24.500
5,700
48,600
43.200
700
15.100
21,400
5S.40a
24.300
11.800
1,400
11,900
135.000
44.800
81.600
2.600
1.51'1.000
298.~00
6.200
967.600
38.400
201,200
320,000
15.500
293.40()
11.100
61~1~'0
5,200
12.100
1.600
18.800
21.500
2.500
91.800
5.800
4.600
21.100
6,300
54.000
48.200
800
16,500
30.900
59,800
26.800
12.600
7.900
12.500
151.000
49.700
98.600
2.700
1.686.000
330,OO()
9.600
1.000.300
43.100
223.000
365.000
18.100
334.000
12,900
67,200
5.400
13,200
1.800
20.100
23.900
2.800
110,200
6,400
5.000
30.600
7.000
61,200
55.300
800
18.700
35.800
66.600
30.500
13.700
8.800
13.600
1.46\
1.26%
1.58%
O.CO%
1.85%
2.48\
2.46%
1.73%
1.18%
1.55\
1.24\
1.59\
1.22%
1.44\
2.500.000*
1.68's
1~!3%
0.39\
1.20%
0.92%
0.81\
1.57%
1.21%
1.70%
0.67.%
0.76\
1.71%
1.50%
1.94%
1.72'
0.67%
1.49\
1.87%
0.93%
t.2l%
0.58%
1.22%
0.54%
--------_ .. -_._-----------------------------------------------------_._.---------------------
STATE TOTAL
1,191,000·
1.940.000-
2.045.000"
2.235.000·
-Totals may not add due to rounding
SOURCE: Data Resources Section. State Office of Planning &Budget
NOTE: These projections ar~ provisional 'n nature. subject to revis1on.
An update of these projections Is done yearly tn Jd~uarl.
Please contact the Data Resources Section for future updates.
�ATTACHMENT · 2
�.f '
:
TABLE 14
ESTIMATED UTAH POPULATION BY COUNTY,
1940 - 1970
19~0
----
-----
--~
1942
1943
----
1944
--.-
1945
----
1946
----
Beaver
Box Elder
Cache
Carbon
Daggett
4,908
1~, 980
29,900
18,700
600
5,100
18,400
30,100
17,800
700
4,600
18,200
30,000
18,100
600
3,900
18,300
29,200
19,100
400
4,000
18,300
28,400
21,000
400
4,200
18,200
28,200
22,600
400
4,500
18,700
Davis
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield
Grand
15,500
8,700
7,000
5,300
2,200
16,80J
8,900
6,900
5,000
2,000
18,400
8,000
6,600
4,800
2,100
23,80)
7,600
6,000
4,300
2,000
24,700
7,600
5,600
3,900
2,000
8,400
7,400
2,60.0
9,700
2,600
8,300
7,100
2,500
9,100
2,600
8,100
6,400
2,500
8,800
2,700
7,700
5,700
2,400
9',300
3,000
2,200
2,080
213,700
4,600
15,900
2,200
2,30J
213,900
4,600
15 , 300
2,000
2,000
232,200
4,600
14,200
Sevier
SummIt
Tooele
Uintah
Utah
12,300
8,600
8,800
10,000
56,900
11,800
8,500
9,300
9,500
56,300
Wasatch
Washington
Wayne
Weber
5,800
9,200
2,300
57,100
552,000
~~L
__
Iron
Juab
Kane
Millard
Morgan
Piute
Rich
Salt Lake
San Juan
Sanpete
19~1
~
1947
...
~
... .-I...-I
.-.
1948
... ...
~~
-
1949
22,100
400
4,600
19,600
31,000
20,700
300
4,500
19,700
32,500
22,700
300
4,600
20,200
33,500
24,000
300
24,000
7,300
5,300
4,00J
2,100
27,300
7,600
5,200
4,100
2,100'
27,500
7,600
5,200
4,00J
2,000
29,000
7,500
5,600
3,800
1,900
29,600
7,908 .
5,800
4,000
2,0::)0
7,500
5,600
2,200
9,608
2,700
7,300
5,500
2,100
9,800
2,500
8,500
5,900
2,300
9,400
2,500
9,000
5,800
2,300
8,700
2,500
9,000
6,000
2,100
8,600
2,400
9,500
6,000
2,000
1,900.
257,200
4 , 600
13,500
2,000
2,000
238,000
4,300
13,50J
1,800
1,900
226,000
3,500
13,00J
1,800
1,700
259,300
3,700
14,000
1,900
1,400
252,400
3,808
13,80J
2,000
1,300
257,400
3,700
14,008
2,000
1,608
265,000
4,900
13,900
11,300
8,300
14,300
9,300
55,900
10,400
7,700
30,900
8,200
64,700
10,000
7,000
19,700
7,400
68,200
10,300
6,200
20,900
7,400
63,900
11,400
6,600
13,800
8,800
71,300
11,700
6,900
13,100
9,600
75,800
12,300
7,000
14,400
10,300
78,000
12,300
6,800
14,900
10,500
79,000
5,800
9,700
2,400
58,100
5,800
5,600
2,10J
63,700
5,800
8,60J
1,900
79,900
5,600
8,10J
2,000
73,400
5,300
8,300
1,900
75,200
5,800
8,700
1,900
78,400
5,900
8,700
1,700
78,500
5,700
8,700
1,900
80,700
. 5,800
9,800
2,100
81,"100
551,000
575,000
631,000
605,000
591,000
638,000
636,000
653,000
671,000
30~200
2~300
8",900
2,500
.....
State Total
~
�_J _I
_ _J _I _J _I _I -,
I
/
~
TABLE 14 (Continued)
ESTIMATED POPULATION OF UTAH BY COUNTY.
1970
1940
April 1, 1950
1950
Census
~~~----
1951
---
1952
---4,500
1953
1954
---- .- ---
.-!.~~~--
1956
----
_1957 __
4,300
20,000
34',90a
22,500
400
4,300
34,900
22,400
400
3,700
5,000
52,700
7,500
5,700
3,700
5,200
56,600
7,300
5,600
3,600
5,600
60,400
7,300
5,600
3,600
6,000
10,100
5,300
2,400
8,800
2,600
10,300
5,200
2,400
8,700
2,700
10,300
5,000
2,500
8,500
2,700
10,400
4,900
2,700
8,200
2,700
10,600
4,700
2,700
8,000
2,700
1,700
1,700
312,200
5,000
12,500
1,700
1,700
330,200
6,000
12,300
1,700
1,700
343,200
6,900
12,000
1,600
1,70:)
352,100
7,800
11,400
1,500
1,700
362,100
8,600
11,000
1,500
1,700
373,600
9,300
11,000
11,300
6,300
18,000
10,300
87,600
11,100
6,10:)
18,000
10,300
89,500
11,200
6,100
18,100
10,600
93,000
11,100
6,000
18,200
10,900
97,000
10,700
5,900
18,000
10,900
100,00:)
10,600
5,800
17,900
11,100
101,700
10,500
5,400
9,600
2,000
91,500
5,300
9,700
2,000
93,000
5,400
10,000
2,000
96,500
5,400
10,200
2,000
100,100
5,400
10,200
1,900
102,000
5,300
10,200
1,80:)
n7,00~
5,400
9,600
2,100
89,60:)
10~,200
: 5,300
10,400
1,7:00
107,800
705,000
724,000
739,000
750,000
783,000
809,000
826,000
845,000
870,00~
4,400
4,300
19,900
19,600
33,800
34,50·
0
22,900 . 22,80~
400
400
43,100
7,600
5,700
3,600
2,400
45,800
7,600
5,700
3,700
4,000
·~9,
2,800
2,000
41,300
7,800
5,800
3,700
2,100
2,500
9,700
5,800
2,300
9,200
2,500
9,700
5,600
2,300
9,100
2,600
9,800
5,500
2,300
9,000
2,600
9,900
5,400
2,300
8,800
2,600
1,911
1,673
274,895
5,315
13,891
•
1,900
1,700
279,000
5,300
13,800
1,900
1,700
285,600
5,100
13,400
1,800
1,700
295,500
5,000
12,900
1,800
1,700
305,000
5,000
12,500
Sevier
Summit
Tooele
Uintah
Utah
12,072
6,745
14,636
10,300
81,912
12,000
6,700
15,000
10,300
83,000
11,700
6,500
16,100
10,000
83,000
11,500
6,400
18,000
10,200
85,700
Wasatch
Washington
Wayne
Weber
5,574
9,835
2,205
83,319
5,500
9,800
2,200
85,000
5,400
9,700)
2,100
State Total
688,862
696,000
Davis
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield
Grand
Iron
Juab
Kane
Millard
Morgan
Piute
Rich
Salt Lake
San Juan
Sanpete
4,856
19,734
A 33 ,536
24,901
364
4,800
19,800
33,600
40~
4,600
19,800
33,500
24,400
400
30,867
8,134
6,304
4,141
1,903
31,200
8,100
6,300
4,100
1,900
34,600
8,000
6,100
4,000
2,000
38,400
7,900
9,642
5,981
2,299
9,387
2,519
9,700
5,900
2,300
24,80~
9,30~
4,30~
4,300
22,300
35,000
22,0'00
50·:)
4,400
19,700
33,700
23,000
400
Beaver
Box Elder
Cache
Carbon
Daggett
1959
1958
--- ---
19,70~
33,600
23,100
400
5,90~
000
7,600
5,70~
20,90~
23,800
35,400
21,80~
1,0:)0
5,70~
17,900
11,300
104,300
~
00
�- --
-.
--
-.,
-
-
~
-.
-.
----
-
TABLE 14 (Continued)
ESTIMATED POPULATION OF UTAH BY COUNTY,
1940 - 1970
April 1
1960
Census
-------
1950
---
Beaver
Box Elder
Cache
Carbon
Daggett
4,331
25,051
35,788
21,135
1,164
4,300
25,50)
36,10)
21,20)
1,20)
4,30J
28,90J
37,40J
20,40J
1,30)
Davis
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield
Grand
64,760
7,179
5,546
3,577
6,345
55,60::>
7,200
5,50J
3,50)
6,400
Iron
Juab
Kane
10,795
4,597
2,667
7,856
2,837
Piute
Rich
Salt Lake
San Juan
Sanpete
1962
----
1956
1967
1968
28,0)0
40,000
17,30J
700
4,100
27,OJJ
40,200
16,90)
600
4,000
26,40::>
40 ,600
16,80)
600
4,0:>0
27,20J
41,20::>
16,400
60J
3,90J
27,600
41,80::>
16,10::>
600
3,800
28,129
42,331
15,647
666
82,OJO
6,700
5,400
3,400
7,500
86,0»)
6,50D
5,400
3,400
6,90)
91,OJO
6,50::>
5,300
3,300
6,600
93,OJO
6,70)
5,20D
3,100
6,"lOD
95,00::>
7,0)0
5,20::>
3,10J
6,80J
97,OJO
7,100
5,100
3,10J
6,80)
99,028
7,299
5,137
3,157
6,688
10,700
4,600
2,70)
7,500
3,000
10,600
4,600
2,600
7,30)
3,000
10,700
4,600
2,60J
7,10)
3,20J
11,OJO
4,400
2,400
7,00)
3,30J
11,300
4,400
2,40J
7,OJO
3,400
11,600
4,400
2,400
7,000
3,500
11,900
4,500
2,40J
7,00:>
3,800
12,177
4,574
2,421
6,988
3,983
1,500
1,700
411,800
7,900
11,OJO
1,400
1,700
423,10)
7,600
10,9JO
1,40J
1,60)
429,800
7,80J
10,800
1,400
1,600
436,000
7,900
10,700
1,30)
1,600
443,0)0
8,50)
10,600
1,300
1,600
447,OJJ
8,90J
10,700
1,300
1,(0)
449,0)0
8,900
10,800
1,300
1,600
455,00J
9,300
10,900
1,164
1,615
458,607
9,606
10,976
10,500
5,700
19,100
12,400
112,200
10,400
5,600
20,50J
12,80::>
113,60)
10,100
5,60)
21,30)
13,00)
114,500
9,90J
5,600
21,300
12,80)
114,80)
9,800
5,700
21,000
12,80J
119,000
9,60J
5,80:>
21,000
12,600
124,60)
9,600
5,80)
21,600
12,50J
126,00C>
9,80)
5,9JO
21,800
12,40)
128,0:>0
9,900
5,900
21,600
12,40J
134,600
10·,103
5,879
21,545
- 12,684
137,776
5,3 ') 0
10,400
1,700
112,100
5,40)
10,500
1,700
117,000
5,400
10,400
1,700
118,600
5,40J
10,300
1,700
119,30)
5,600
10,400
1,600
119,700
5,600
10,600
1,600
120,80)
5,700
11,000
1,600
122,500
5,80)
11,600
1,500
123,500
5,800
12,300
1,500
124,500
5,80)
13,0::»
1,500
125,50)
5,863
13,669
1,483
126,278
90J,OJO
936,000
958,000
974,000
978,000
991,000
1,009,000
1,019,00)
1,029,000
1,047,0::>0
1,059,273
----
------
-1965
--
38,700
19,70::>
1,50:>
4,200
31,3-)0
39,40::>
18,700
1,700
4,100
29,500
39,700
17,700
80:>
70,10J
7,200
5,500
3,500
8,10)
75,600
7,100
5,400
3,500
9,000
80,00J
7,000
5,400
3,400
8,50J
10,9JO
4,500
2,700
7,90)
2,8GO
11,200
4,500
2,70)
8,100
3~OOO
11,200
4,500
2,700
7,80J
3,000
1,436
1,685
383,035
9,040
11,053
1,40)
1,70)
387,800
8,90J
11,100
1,500
1,700
402,300
8,700
11,10J
Sevier
Sum:nit
Tooele
Uintah
Utah
10,565
5,673
17,868
11,582
106,991
10,600
5,700
18,000
11,70)
103,300
Wasatch
Washington
Wayne
~-1eber
5,308
10,271
1,728
110,744
State Total
890,627
__ ~~l!~_
~Ii11ard
~organ
Source:
1951
-----
4,300
31,10~
1963
1964
4,10~
1
Utah Department of Employment Security.
Note: Detail may not add to totals because of rounding.
.1 / The State Population estimates were obtained fro~ the Bureau of the Census P-25 Series.
1959
------
April 1
1970
Census
~
�STATE
a:
UT&!
, J ~t~
.r
POPUlATION BY aunY
ft"ISI
1970-1t8S
COONTY
Beaver
Box Elder
Cache
Carbon
Daggett
Davis
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield
Grand
Iron
Juab
Kane
Hi llard
Horgan
Piute
Rich
Salt Lake
San Juan
Sanpete
Sevier
SLflTTli t
Tooele
Uintah
Utah
Wasatch
washington
wayne
Weber
1910
3,850
2S,150
42,550
15,150
650
99,600
7,400
5,150
3,150
6,600
12,300
4,600
2,450
7,050
4,050
1,150
1,600
461,500
9,700
11 ,000
10, 150
5,900
21,600
12,BOO
139,300
5,950
13,900
1,450
126,100
1911
3,850
28,450
43:150
16,650
650
107,BOO
8,500
5,600
3,100
6,550
13,300
4,600
2,800
7, 150
4,050
1,150
1,550
467,300
·9,600
11,250
10,850
6,400
21,700
14, 100
151,000
6,350
15, 100
1,500
127,100
1972
3,850
28,BOO
44,050
17,200
600
113,300
9,900
6,100
3,100
6,500
14,050
4,700
2,950
7,350
4,050
1,150
1,550
477, 100
9,850
11,400
11,350
6,900
21,800
15,250
160,400
'6,650
16, 150
1,450
127,600
1913
3,850
29,200
45,350
17 ,550
600
116,600
11,000
6,700
3,050
6,450
14,200
4,800
3, 150
7,400
4,200
1,200
1,550
491,800
10,050
11,850
11,150
1,050
22, 150
16,050
166, 100
6,100
17 ,600
1,500
129,500
1914
3,950
29, 100
46,850
17 ,900
700
119,900
11,550
6,800
3, 100
6,500
14,500
5,000
3,250
7,500
4,350
1,200
1,650
504,500
10,350
11,900
11,950
7,300
22,650
16,950
111, 100
6,650
lB,150
1,550
130, 100
1975
3,900
29,900
48,100
18,150
800
123,900
11,500
7,600
3,200
6,900
14,950
4,950
3,350
7,900
4,350
1,250
1,700
521,200
10,700
12, 150
12,550
7,500
23, 150
17 ,350
176,800
7,000
19,000
1,600
131,900
1976
4,000
30,100
50, 100
19,450
750
128, 100
11, 150
8,850
3,250
7,300
15,500
5,050
3,500
7,950
4,500
1,200
1,700
539,400
10,750
12,500
13,050
7,850
23,550
17 ,500
184,700
7,200
20,250
1,650
131,200
1977
4,150
30,800
51,700
20, 150
700
133,20q
11,400
' 9,700
3,350
7,650
16,000
5, 150
3,750
8,050
4,600
1,200
1,850
556,000
11 ,350
13,050
13,400
8,450
24,250
18,450
193,700
7,550
21,550
1,700
133, 100
(s~'1
1978
1979
4,200
4,350
31,500 32,350
53,200 54,800
20,750 21,350
750
750
134,900 ,142,400
11,600 ' ' 11,850
10,300 11 ,000
3,350
3,450
8, 100
7,950
16,650 17 ,050
5',250
5,400
3,850
3,800
8,250
8,550
4,600
4,800
1,250
1,250
1,800
2,050
576,600 599, 100
11,800 12, 150
13,650 14,050
14,000 14,450
9,500
8,950
24,850 25,450
19,000 19,800
203, 100 211 ,500
8,000
7,850
23,050 25,000
1,900
1,800
138,800 141,900
1980
4,400
33,500
57,700\
22,400
750
148,000
12,700
11,600
3,700
8,250
17 ,500
5,550
4,050
9,050
4,950
1,350
2, 150
625,000
12,400
14,800
14,900
10,400
26,200
20,700
220,000
8,650
26,400
1,950
145,000
1981
4,600
34,000
59,800
23,100
850
153,000
13, 100
12, 100
3,700
8,400
17 ,900
5,600
4,050
9,600
5,050
1,400
2,250
639,000
12,700
15,400
15,200
10,900
26;800
21,900
228,000
8,900
27,700
2,000
148,000
1982
4,650
34,700
62,000
24,700
850
158,000
13,700
13,000
3,750
8,100
18,300
5,700
4,150
10,400
5,200
1,350
2,400
654,000
12,600
16, 100
15,500
11,300
27, 100
24,300
235,000
8,750
29,400
2,000
151,000
1983
5,000
35,300
64,500
24,500
750
162,000
14,400
13, 100
3,950
7,950
18,900
5,900
4,350
11,400
5,250
,1,450
2,300
667,000
13,000
16,900
15,800
11,800
27,300
25,300
242,000
9,050
30,700
2, 150
154,000
1984
5, 150
35,800
65,600
23,700
750
-166,000
14,800
12,400
3,950
7,650
19,300
6, 150
4,500
13,500
' 5,350
1,500
2,150
678,000
12,800
17 ,000
16, 100
12,200
28,200
24,500
247,000
9,200
32,600
2,150
155,000
19SsP
5,050
36,600
66,700
23,400
700
171,000
14,700
11,800
4,050
7,050
19,400
6,250
4,700
14,200
5,450
l,55CJ
2,100
690,000
12,500
16, Of"
16
12 " uv
28,300
24,000
251,000
9,200
35~ 700
2,100
156,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEl
1,066
1, 101
1,135
1, 169
1,197
1,234
1,272
1,316
1,364
1,416
1,474
1,515
1,558
1,596
1,62,3
1,649
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 in thousands
P pre l1ffii nary
Source: Utah Population Estimates Committee
1/86
�Utah Population Estimates by County
--f
County
July 1
1980
July 1
1981
1980-81
% Growth
July 1
1982
1981·82
% Growth
July 1
1983
1982·83
./. Growth
July 1
1984
1983·84
% Growth
July 1
1985
1984·85
% Growth
July 1
1988
1985·88
% Growth
4,400
33,500
57,700
22,400
750
148,000
12,700
11 ,600
3,700
8,250
17,500
5,550
4,050
9,050
4,950
1,350
2,150
4.55%
1.49 %
3.64%
3.13%
13.33%
3.38%
3.15%
4.31%
0.00%
1.82%
2.29%
0.90%
0.00%
6.08 %
2.02 %
3.70 %
4.65%
2.24%
2.42 %
4.05%
2.01 %
4.81 %
2.29 %
5.80 %
3.64 %
2.89 %
4.92 %
2.56 %
2.07 %
4,650
34,700
62,000
24,700
850
158,000
13,700
13,000
3,750
12,400
14,800
14,900
10,400
26,200
20,700
220,000
8,650
26,400
1,950
145,000
4,600
34,000
59,800
23,100
850
153,000
13,100
12,100
3,700
8,400
17,900
5,600
4,050
9,600
5,050
1,400
2,250
639,000
12,700
15,400
15,200
10,900
26,800
21 ,900
228,000
8,900
27,700
2,000
148,000
18,300
5,700
4,150
10,400
5,200
1,350
2,400
654,000
12,600
16,100
15,500
11 ,300
27,100
24,300
235,000
8,750
29,400
2,000
151 ,000
1.09%
2.06 %
3.68%
6.93%
0.00 %
3.27%
4.58%
7.44%
1.35%
-3.57%
2.23%
1.79%
2.47 %
8.33 %
2.97%
-3.57%
6.67 %
2.35 %
-0.79%
4.55 %
1.97 %
3.67 %
1.12%
10.96 %
3.07%
-1 .69 %
6.14 %
0.00 %
2.03 %
5,000
35,300
64,500
24,500
750
162,000
14,400
13,100
3,950
7,950
18,900
5,900
4,350
11 ,400
5,250
1,450
2,300
667,000
13,000
16,900
15,800
11 ,800
27,300
25,300
242,000
9,050
30,700
2,1 50
154,000
7.53%
1.73%
4.03%
-0.81 %
-11 .76%
2.53%
5.11 %
0.77%
5.33%
-1 .85%
3.28%
3.51%
4.82%
9.62%
0.96%
7.41%
-4.17%
1.99%
3.17%
4.97 %
1.94%
4.42 %
0.74 %
4.12%
2.98 %
3.43%
4.42 %
7.50%
1.99 %
5,150
35,800
65,600
23,700
750
166,000
14,800
12,400
3,950
7,650
19,300
6,150
4,500
13,500
5,350
1,500
2,1 50
678,000
12,800
17,000
16,100
12,200
28,200
24,500
247,000
9,200
32,600
2,150
155,000
3.00%
1.42%
1.71 %
-3.27%
0.00%
2.47%
2.78%
-5.34%
0.00%
-3.77%
2.12%
4.24 %
3.45 %
18.42%
1.90%
3.45 %
-6.52%
1.65%
-1 .54 %
0.59 %
1.90%
3.39 %
3.30 %
-3.16 %
2.07 %
1.66%
6.19 %
0.00 %
0.65 %
5,050
36,600
66,700
23,400
700
170,000
14,700
11,800
4,050
7,050
19,400
6,250
4,700
14,200
5,450
1,550
2,100
689,000
12,500
16,900
16,200
12,400
28,300
24,000
250,000
9,200
35,700
2,1 00
155,000
-1.94%
2.23%
1.68%
-1.27%
-6.67%
2.41%
-0.68%
-4.84%
2.53%
-7.84%
0.52%
1.63%
4.44%
5.19%
1.87 %
3.33 %
-2.33 %
1.62%
-2.34%
-0.59 %
0.62 %
1.64%
0.35 %
-2.04 %
1.21 %
0.00 %
9.51 %
-2.33 %
0.00 %
4,950
37,300
67,800
23,000
700
175,000
14,300
11 ,800
4,050
6,850
19,500
5,800
4,800
13,600
5,500
1,550
2,050
698,000
12,700
16,500
15,800
12,700
28,100
23,000
253,000
9,450
39,1 00
2,100
157,000
-1.98%
1.91 %
1.65%
-1 .71%
0.00%
2.94%
-2.72 %
0.00%
0.00%
-2.84%
0.52%
-7.20%
2.13%
-4.23%
0.92%
0.00%
-2.38%
1.31 %
1.60%
- 2.37 %
-2.47%
2.42 %
-0.71 %
-4.17%
1.20 %
2.72 %
9.52 %
0.00 %
1.29%
1,474,000
1,515,000
2.78 %
1,558,000
1,596,000
2.44%
1,623,000
1.69 %
1,645,000
1. 36 %
1,666,000
1.28 %
\
Beaver
Box Elder
Cache
Carbon
Daggett
Davis
Duchesne
Emery
Garfield
Grand
Iron
Juab
Kane Millard
Morgan
Piute
Rich
Salt Lake
San Juan
Sanpete
Sevier
Summit
Tooele
Uintah
Utah
Wasatch
Washington
Wayne
Weber
State Tota l
625 ,000
8 ,~ 00
2.84 %
Source: Utah Populat ion Estimates Comm ittee and the
Utah Office of Plann ing and Budget , Data Resources Section
n>
C-
eo
CO
rn
n
0
~
0
3
tr
l'
CD
"a
..
..
0
0
:z-
CD
C)
0
c
..
..
CD
~
0
�ATTACHrVlENT 3
�1-940 -TI-lR()t.JGH 'j'98.5,
1-94(}
1'9 A·-,;,
:
1'9 5(}
19 E))
1'965
'1'970
1- 8C'
9
�NORTHERN UTAH POPULATION -
YEAR
1940
194 1
1942
1943
1944
1 945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1 (35Q~
1 95 1
1 95i:::
1 953
1 '354
1355
CALCULATED
POPULATION
280722
298983
317244
3 35505
353765
372Ql27
390288
408549
425810
44507 1
46333c:
1940 THROUGH 1985
ACTUAL
POPULATION
348500
i ;. G7800
't8 i 593
49985'15:1 B i i 5
535375
52L~e1!Z10
554637
5493et1Z(
56'3800
1'356
572898
1957
5'3 1 i59
~58500!Zi
1958
609'+~~0
6025Q~0
1959
1 9SIZ\
6;:;~ 7682
6i.~:'~3Q'0
E'+961Z10
67 9 500
71
21100121
'71 9 1 QIQ:
1 /36 1
6 45943
6G42tZI4
1 ~)62
682465
1963
71ZIQi726
1 964
1'3 65
7 1 8987
7.37248
755509
1966
11367
77377tZl
726600
73660Q'
749600
757 t 01Z(
7638lZIIZI
i 9tSB
79f:03 1
:i. '3 E/3
8 1 '2129 2
773'31Z~ ej
i'J70
:1. 971
828~S53
785750
846814
865075
Bib 1 ili.Wt
81825tZ'
84Ql3~:50
B5911Z10
1975
1 976
1977
883336
9015 '3 7
9 1 f3858
938119
908650
956381Zi
'33~S501Z1
1378
'374641
1 97{S
1'380
i 138 1
9929Qi2
1011163
1 1Z12{3424
1047686
1 iL'l65947
965250
1 QH 2 O::i QI
Zi
1 9~ 2
1973
1 '374
1 9B E~
1 '383
1'384
1084208
1 '3 85
1 102469
884~~eI 0
i 0425 0 tt~
i lZi67ge,Qi
103'+'+00-
1 1 17650
1136100
:l 153 1 5121
�ATTACHMENT 4
�I J 'I lJ-
+69
4-Cf7
L5'7
338
579
Lf-7tJ
2-82
7>
8/
�-- - --
-- - .. i,--- .-- -- - . -
i
A-P I i
cC7~-yu..;lec/ Q~ "Q~/C-.s
-f-r cc /.....-..._ ·
f-r.a f!';. c ,r-e ceo r ct> ,zy 5 ~ I;~.e> /u ('"1'/ /( s )
(2 ~ ~IJ ~fr/{i~j'/#',/ prk )
.Cl('e
:1''''" r p1 a" e".T
I
t
t~5-8~
:A/2_
are-sf PTAS : u3-0:3bZ
i ;" ('17~ -
I
I
I:.
'
77
17-030~
frf{S
/7'
~30'f~-3bZ
7~
L7
I
V - 'l
G&orcJ Sf« . it:? =<'
09-87 / N
/fPr
G
er elr-'
'?
C~r-c~
L Z«--,
[/7
of'- G<u-/en
/77b /f-J) T
i9
zz
dPI
/'37S-
1'-1-6-1
1767
/2.32/680
19 2 2 .
k
1?77
/7' 7b
. 177;Co.
Ie cch Ie . ~ r 9' 76
/77b
It-vy rf
27r
I
!
I
J
!
I
!
,:..ef
i
r:x I/O' ~
ra+r'c.5;
2737
j7;/1 fer!,O'/a
I,..~r.
~{s e_
e '-'v
c c- C-< ~~ !:;.
. Cc-c-< , ,,
f~ r
/238
/2.
/2 '31
/2 13
20
:
""',::;:,.. ....
f1
17GB
/768
/7£7
/Cf7{
j.
/
-/J
C>
.:
�ATTACHMENT 5
�1-94(}
1"9 4~>
1-:3.:;.;:)
1"9 ~~~:,
1-9 5-0
1'~1 F.!S
1J 7 0
1-:3 75
1~J J))
1': 385
1'9 -90
1- '95
9
2.0C() 2.C·f:)5 20 10
�LOGAN CANYON TRAFFIC
~
ADT FORECAST AT CARD GUARD STATION
MEASURED
STATION VOL
YEAR
1 (:'::lIte,
1 '3Lj·5
1950:i 95'+
CACULATED
STAT VOLUME
338
363
295
557
538
230. 77
225. 28
714
~~20.
71ZttZl
854
217. 9£1
217 " 38
<..1
215. 8"~
2i 5. ':;. -;.
215. 87
2151: 45
215 .. 0'9
21 it. 76
21 Lr• 43
1955
77t7.)
88(3
19~5C
788
924
1957
1 :l91Zi
1216
'36121
l'3!:.iB
1959
1960
i961
i962
1953
196 L,.
1965
t 35£-:1
1 '367
19E..8
J. !369
1970
1'37i
i "37r~
1973
1974
1975
1976
1 977
i '37 E3
1'379
:t980
19131
1982
196~3
1984
1985
i986
1'387
1988
11:389
i ':391Z1
11:39 i
i
99i~:
1 r::393
1991.11935
1996
1937
]./398
1999
20tZ1tZi
2001
2002
STANDARD
DEVIATION
li:::61Z1
1285
1 i:::5iZi
12Ael
140tll
i.:~;Bet
142i7.J
:L4 L1-5
15e~ Q)
1lZ1Qtet
i 041Zl
i Ql51Z1
:!,1l!5Q!
1i:::30
12QHZl
156tL
1
... 661ZI
17C8
J. 92~S
190121
1 8el:-i
i8 i S
1890
1 841Zl
i 9tZl0
1750
17':35
995
1. 031Z1
1055
i :t01ZI
.( -t.t::'
1 ... -.J...1
1 i 7ei
1205
80
~J'-1
21 it ..
~~5
lc:4Qi
E: 1 Lt·. tZl"7
213r. 1:34
l;::~T::;
........ ,l. ,-.' •
~=; ·t
-;~
85
E~1~3u
Ymax
Yrl1i 1'".
752.
919.
llZtS7 ..
1222.
1256.
1290.
b~
77c~.
C::- '.., ·-,
35
....
'= 1 ~"
,- '
c';;;:
135'3. w...1
1393 .. 95
14;:::8. 44
'4
.i ,.J ...:J
r.::.
II
16 7c~ .
1707.
1742.
l777.
1 812.
1486
15E.: 1
1::: i 4.
21 Lj.
214.
2i5.
3 !2\
i £V+8. 36
5'+
B;=:
1 8B3~
.'-, .\ __ '
C.L c I.
53
1627
1562
iE/37
i
73E~
:t7S7
1B02
1837
1 872
1907
1 ':34~::
1978
EiZJ13
201.t8
212183
21 i8
;~~
153
~::: 15 .. 95
216. Lr3
c~ 1 6a r:34
217. 50
2i8t; 1 iZ~
2i 8. 75
'= ~
l
a
44
;:::2121 c 18
22Qi 95
' - .I. ..I"
iC
.::-'=, '\
L....L-j. .:a
'=I'="::~
L-L-L-
li
'::'-='7
J-.~,--'.
78
6 "f'
55
22't. 49
225. L~B
226.,
227.
228.
229.
n
51
:::;7
58
8 '-'
Co
12(0
E~329
.=,-:; .=, ..
I.....\-JL...
2E~
2354
i.:::399
2434
i.::: 469
25Qi4
2539
2~3.3. 4B
234. 77
236. lIZI
237. '+6
238. 85
240. 28
i~188
2i~23
2258
2~:::'34
2:"3 :t
li.~ i
J .t
12
.31
58
93
67
:L '3 i '3. il-5
1955 .. 1'='
11. 991Zl. t)b
2026. 68
20C2. 58
50
3
8el"?" 9 1
843. 40
878 .. 74
313. '33
349 . 17
984. 2E..
1567" i5
16el;~ • III 2
15.2;6" 97
2i
16
I
1463 .. 00
~.::.c=
'I..JL-~c
1451
1555
i591
t=~
.....1
14·97.
i
80
98
8i
213" b 1
213a 86
c~ i 3 M' 3E.,
w
157. 48
340 ..
485. 75
521. 87
557. 90
5 ~3~3. 86
529. 74
t= 1:"_655. ~ JJ
71211. 28
736. 93
131 1
1345
1.381
1 Lj·16
1
Lj. • ... 1
-27. 31
8E..
i 1
06
7tZl
ltZii'3" 28
-=, .:;
1054·. 1..-1-
108'3. 08
'1
..l.
1 I.....\-J •
,=,~
BS
1 158 .. 56
1 193. 18
1227 .. 72
1262. '3
1295. 58
i 3300 as
'j
oJ.
c:"c.-
..;;) ...J
1355 ..
l~
E:134.: 60
3
2 i 7et. 7 .
2205. 93
2i~43. 2Qi
1399.
i 4.33.
i 457.
151211.
28
2~~79. ...1 .....:
., C'7t::;'
... w-...J..J~
i~eI98"
J:::"t:::"
2315. 97
2 . :52 • 47
2
~:::3bg.
el3
;:::4·25. t=J5
2Lj·62. .37
2499. 1 '-I'
L...
·N-'..J .. 98
'-',
c. C'7 '-'.• 88
oJ
c
250':3. 8E
2EJ46. 89
2684 .. tlt 121
27i~ 1 • i6
2758. 3 '3
2735. 67
·:::c:.::7~
o,j
I
2B~33"
02
28712t. 43
2907. 89
2945. 41
36
37
3::'
17
1568. ac:
1602 . E7
1.636 .. 211
i 669 .. 8 :3
1. 7Q13. \.oJ
i 736. 83
oJ .....;
7:~
.J
1770 .. 2QI
1803. 50
1836.
1869 ..
1 9tZI3oo
i 936.
1 36 rS.
21ZoZ11 •
2034.
2067.
2100.
2133.
74
91
0 .::.
'-'
0E
Qilt
136
82
63
37
06
�LOGAN CANYON TRAFFIC - ADT FORECAST AT CARD GUARD STATION
MEASURED
STATION VOL
YEAR
i~Q103
CACULATED
STRT VOLUME
STANDARD
DEVIATION
~:::41.75
2'38~=::.
243. i:::4
30E~ lll
2007
2574
260'::1
;:::545
258QI
2715
20el8
2750
2 49. 5 i t
2009
i:::785
~:::5
i:::01tZl
2820
252.85
2004
c:QI 0~5
c~0elb
Ymax
i=:4L~.
77
24·fJ. 33
_
n
19
Yrnin
'39
.. 62
.3lZi5B. 2; 1
3IZl9E;.04
3133.84
3171.58
2 i 65. 6 '3
21 '::)8.27
c~3E:8 . elL,:
c~361Z1
n
3 E.,
�ATTACHMENT 6
"
�LOGAN CANYON TRAFFIC FORECAST SUMMARY
MEASURED
POPULATION
YEAR
1 '34121
1985
PREDICTED
POPULATION
348500
l1el2469
PREDIC TED
IYIE ASU RED
ADT (§i CARD
ADT
1~
CRRD
28072;::
338
3 63
i153150
1795
1342
PERCENT INCREASE
-
!'r1easut"'ed
- Pt--ed i ct ed
c~
- 431.
16. 35'1-
e/ 7!~
434·. 9'3'/:.
31ei.781-
TRAFFIC I~CREASE/POPULATION INCREASE
Measured
1.99
Predicted
1.. 40
F ORECAST TRAFF I C AT CARD GUARD STATION
BASED UPON LINEAR MODE L OF 1940 @ Card Guard Station
Ave of stations in Canyon
1985
BASED UPON POPULATION INCREASE OF
Measured raatio 1.99*.59 =
1 795* ( 1 + i. 1 74 1 ) ..-
59~
Predicted ratio 1.4*.59 =
i795*(i+0 .. 826) -
ADT
2821Z1
27'3fl
PER UTAH PLANN ING OFFI CE
1. 17 Ld
3SHZii:::.5095 AD T
0.825
3277 .. 6 7
~~D T
�ATTACHMENT 7
�AGENDA
INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY TEAM
JUNE- la, 1986
1.
Introduction
2.
Review Scope of Work
General
Task 1
Task 2
Task 3
Task 4
Task 5
Task 6
Task 7
Analysis of Transportation Needs
Location Studies
Geotechnical Considerations
Public and Agency Involvement
Coordination
Environmental Assessment
Documents
I
3.
Schedule for Completion of Study
4.
Interdisciplinary Team Schedule of Meetings
5.
Public Information
Time
Place
~eeting
~U--7~ !,vj~ _
Ir<.
b4Af-
BOT538/003
r:A~
#V'v{ce
r
(~
1-/0"" If
"
l.,
h..J
/-(7 "VA/,
,!LCU', '0>.,
i:"'J
flike ;r'17-;
5: C
A,'lf
! bll'
4H
,'n ",.,( I/I?VI-, ~ It"
CH~M
!l1'11
t
�
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/29">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/29</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
37604280
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
12145346 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
Logan Traffic Forecasts
Description
An account of the resource
Memorandum to the Interdisciplinary Team members on the subject of traffic forecasts through 2010. Also includes population forecasts estimated for all the counties in Utah from 1940 to 1970, and specific county projections from 1970 to 1985
a graph of Northern Utah's calculated and actual population
handwritten tables of traffic on Utah highways specifically Logan Canyon's average daily traffic and the projected from 1940 to 2010. In addition, the agenda from the June 10, 1986 meeting is included with handwritten notes in the margins.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Forsgren, Clifford
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
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
1987-03-30
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1980-1989
1990-1999
2000-2009
2010-2019
20th century
21st 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 2
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_Fd2_Page_4.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/7ba5d8e56942ce2bc6748d0f4999af36.pdf
f8f988b7c6bd7835782959df60bd35a4
PDF Text
Text
LOGAN CANYON STUDY
INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING
July 31, 1987
UDOT District Office
Additional data for agenda items:
Item 4
Accident data summary for curve at
MP 384 and Logan Cave area. Also
alternative details Logan Cave area.
Misc.
Rideability--definition and also
Priority Listings.
Misc.
Listing of ID team requests and
responses.
�1111 '
H
/(.~
L06/!-A/
IJI1-r£
--· ~p-/IJo
(11'21-1
.l ··1J
~
Elf.) T
/'-/0 ~
L
/'-/C) .
7-0 '3> y 7
5"L.;
I/?u/P
!
J/J/::l!0--:1
53
Si/ 2G/fl . 51(
OZf'!:J~
?o~q-1
l uv ' So
/0// 2/!i
1/22/12-
57
.G)7~/Y
92
. 5?
:Ii / si l l-
3/0<-!/KL
(;'jo?/? Z.
6 l it? / r:f 2.
/1/17/?L
/1/
f?/P2
Y // 2/J-3
r
71, 9 / I ./-')
f /
7/7 7 /
g3
1/2f/cf i
J/ pr;/ -;~. V
57
~g •
. (; /
& 2-
0 .3
/9)03
3S!7'L
1/1"1-/ t<J ~
~"1' ~~
U~6"~1 Cb~
0,,/ /-f
cV
300 ' UJ
Uqc::?u ~
W
2 -0
6j
;" ",-
'Z3s-eV
2G,]J-3
? /1 ~
1 5' I{
/
7
GP /
G3SY7
-6"9~·-· -- .. -.~_. OPJo d
7(
;;?6r()
~C7/A
I
~I
_
-~ V
IE'
1
V:~W c~'pe.
'&rpvt
1'::- ~q~
/
J
&u-e-
~~ c~
E
?u
/ 000 '
6'1',
0C?~ ~0<2
/06 '( OJ
/aJ '
(00 '
/sv.
A:.)
/ ooc) u.J
(0
r
S R 7 j --. 397 to ~*
katJ?c/
~oo-C>
3bSy('
__. L2/1-~_ L-/n-J.£,_~
/2 ! 27fFY
c:.o 0 ~~~
~
//6 IjGcJ
6e;
~b
Ct:1~
~~
.
;:5JO~'11 /~)pu d .r;, Ir.
6t4,~k/.oK/d d fi.,/J%
so
? ] CS7
2~/?J
Ojeo3
0 7/?~
OY3 '7o
! fYI S-
/-tIL,E
,4::Jr
a I ~9C?/A
S'6
1/;; /
;?E,:1~ ill£tJ
()
c/ (' ;tTl ~;',--1
000 / oJ
:20G~?
/ a::; ,
5)
/-l k? E A
/ coo'aJ LOJa~ wU''C.
2]0S(;,
ob6/cY/
c~ uE
I;'L~;<10 /2 T F
tltJo )
5/
3cft.c o - 367,00
;:;?csr
1
(J.-I
/ -~
(.AI
J
,-:'l 1.--.
r,o,)
(~
cov--e-
/"'. ~
e-c:vv...'--Lt
,.'
_.· /!b ?l-!/ ~ ~-&/ H;£" S;2, zC/J
~.
~ --------------~ -
�•
I :
~
,' 4 : . ..
. ...
. . .
.
.
�~.
-~/f' T£
cl/J/1
~tJfiN;;
;Z/('1/fO
:21:2//PtJ
1/211JI
/13.~/S'/
I !.JI/
cfl
1/3/ /cf/
;2/;2I/PI
;/:;0(6/
ric; /JI
()~/~S2-
23
05729
a 170g
£(
o 2cf6 (
5
G
02/9CJ
C ,27''12-
·7
~
Cf
/()
(J'/8'PF
65'3cf20;02-';-
l03:;3
22 hYS-
//5/;;/
1/
/2:
13
Y/!S/J' 2-
1,/
132/'6
7/21/cf-'/
21/11.//:;-/
5/23/ fL
7//2/J-Z'1/2 <)/cr; i71oz/f3
8Io5/~5
i !lzl?;
/(J I/o /~J
RE~o/~rG.iJ
L eYe./! Tl OA/
L(tJoT
/\/6,
A/a
25:;11
..y~1
H
7~O
I
a)
E .
~~/1 E
/,0/1 E
/ £.
/00 ' E
0 . .5 w
/~770
15 C ()
I-~
I
~
~2H
/1(
E
co
/()()()'uJ
/7
:29r1/
30oo'/J
1/2 'H, /..~
If
/7
Ifot(]
IlL
2 ZfO
7
U,tj23
1/777
2-0
2/
,.
11 £
I/Cf 11
~1: Fo;;Zk
FOI'2 K..
£ . ;2 /
:llfSD
Ie,
E,
;2VOO I fi:
~~/1
j:::.
Y'Cf/f ;C
1/2 17 OJ
~ESCR /,£J T/ol\../
.
.
~
....~!
I
a,s- 11
1(/;c(SG
IS:
-lill
/1-cC/IOE/\/T.
,t;!T ICC ~ ;-<
ahoJcOMP
;:2/12fC..
/2r
FOI2.K
a/c~/d c.c?IJf1I1J4.
~T FO~K
;2 T FC) I'Z- K
CC/cod C (/1;4(;<1.
U/(J ~c!,~YI'1to.
t2t
;!;--
J
a/6. &~ o/./ U~~N...
E,L!. Skidded ;k~·d
OM
,j
I
(£/~C{ 6c<J ·
/2r rOtZ.,-<::'
.lPr /OI<!.K
aT
?
,27 ~3&''I
Foyk
Fr;J/k
(2T /~Oyk'
4r /Uk
/2r /OJ/I<:.
~ C4t«~
1
,It; ;: ~'/
£ JfCj
F, d 4q"" (/11 Cc,;rV'e '
":
;E,G , 41/1 c7// GctJ'V"e· .... 1
() 3?Y t:u,6, Rcr~ 0# ~1--t/~. /Y1Ja
(J .3;:t/
to· tJ , Lb", elf C-qf~
:
;1-00 OJ 3?-/
{jJ. r:5, kk ~ 0/1 CC< ~
i
,/0 E 3?Y r-;t$. )!!b{'f 011 cor(/€- .
/.F)
/0/
E 3Ry
2
£ 3PY
o / 3,)?-1
.~
all E gcfY
o
ss)£ 3cfl-/
/ £- ..3cfY
. e)/
'/=
,r)O
&
3ft(
']de;
01
cf/ CC(U/'-e. .
aI. 11, ~vr ol-f ;:hod.
GP,;J
;f'~Y1
W 6, ~V1 cY/;L C~rt/'€-
6A_ 4'-'1 0;// (C(~ .
�.----
1111C/l
C
co
~
m
('")
~
c/lz'l1
No.
;:22-
23
~i'
2:;~6
,/\/0 .
/ J /73
//21S
1·?OGr
3;S-17
3537(J
2-J!
-Yb SS2
77
?OC/f-UCA/
/011 cuob;d C6~¢
/0317 E
~1- rC~~
f"' o IE
w
R.! T ;::ark
-
".4 c-C/CE A//
A:;Jr
R6"~PT£t/ '
t ICJC r
I/JP"A.JJ
-I
REi4:J~TE(j
/-(10£
OES~/2/p:J77(7N
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
.--_i. .-
I
1/2/1£
~T ro~k
I )CrO' E
,R!,r !::-c,v~
7"caJ £" J2T
1//0 /-1 C;U
/ 0 0 ' /--:::- ~T
I'
I
I
I
J
I
I
~yk-
ctt--Ur :4
30
31
I CO'
350 £
32-
33
w
G 'l--(
S
1
3c(
I
3S
oS5.3 7
055 3c
P
- -3 -7 "'-- -" -'. a~ ? 7 f
.
./
-. '.~-
3 ~ ,.
.
7 J G VJ
h
I
I
KPj /S;'tc
~
5YY
ct "'~
I
I
I
~
I
I
~w
I
I
It 11, 3?f .
E
3P«
/ 11 E t?r-
/ 3} o
I
/-c yk
:
~~
!
1
I
C/l
::r:
~-I
I
co
-<
I
I
I
1(" I
I I
~ I
I I
I\" I
I I
o
l>
-I
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
�\S'
c:;
.'
'J
""(
C)
\J
/
.
>
,
-
..
-
:
.
.
..
--;;.
J
_
," •
•
,
•
:........ ~ .~~..
("- ' ,
: .. .
..
...
~
.
. ... . ..
-. .
:
c : --,
..
.
..., ............
--..
--:-:'. "O.,J ~... ' ~. .'-:-.lZ:
- "'")
�Log~n
Canyon -
ID Team Requests
REQUEST
BY
D{~TE
ITEM
F~EQUESTED
6/10/86
6/23/86
REQUEST
TO
COMPLETE
b
Ra La
,leam
..
- Chajd
}.~
-CAd1~ ~ 2/ (
SaN.
Team
E:" N.
S .. Bu
Fot-ecast da·t~~.
~< met. hodol og·/
Mailing list
;.~
R.L.
DuS ..
J S.
Sampling methodology
SuN.
S.N ..
R.L.
T.Hn
LOS description
Maps of proj. area
Public info placed
in Logan & USU lib
Field Studies & data
Team
,.,
- Ibe/~
- Cf,c;/J ~
R
C . Fa
'lJ);r-c/s·
ftP'f,j'1<
t/d/1
~c
I
~
...
-
0
C1!4;d
7/14/86
2/86 daily traffic
@ Garden City
R .. L.
CuFa
,.,
7/28/86
Population data
Detail maps - visual
Team
C.O.
C.F.
SaN"
~.~
- cho;tJ
.......
- UIj'Ut//
Daylnight accidents
Accident quick list
D.. S ..
S .. F"
C C"
C.F.
9/22/86
Gen.
D.. S.
Team
I·,
10/6/86
Letter to UDOT -
.] . S.
S.F.
C.F"
t/e vba/
D.S"
c.o .
UIJc-tal
9/8/86
desc.
of envir.
?)cci dent data
10/20/86 Visual
dev ..
11/3/86
criteria
~,: use
1979 alternatives
& USFS evaluation
Criteria for climb.
..
t
.
;<
j.~
-
clt~p,
r
;;1
3
I I
Ff/fcJ . 1',./1,
1&1'·
r/1.
I
D. S ..
lane
11/17/86 Speed profile for canyon
Requirements for vertical
si ght di st<~I.nce
D.
s.
Team
1
"7
L-.L.a
U.SuF.S.
. ..
S.N ..
~.~
"-I
.'i.
;.{
r·
Wn
S.N ..
~
i?ebt'u(e
ekc;p, 7
c)c?~, ·
7
/lI1S)/TO
D.S.
C.F .
S~N.
D.S.
U.S.F.S .
~<
Parking area mapping
FHWA/UDOT EIS documents
12/8186
Tec,m
SaN.
'"'.
TeC'.m
.]. N ..
Comments on notice
scoping mt.g
E:. N.
Team
~.~
/!'ecc>ud
Break section 2 into subsect.ions for cap. calc.
Forecast increases for
S.F.
S. N.
~.~
C~o,t1,
Scorecard of tech memos
Review of Pub. Mtg.
t.ranscript
12/22/86 Parking area standards
(if
1/15/87
Team
~.~ :£,S.!uE S
Tn
cH1Y)
~p~
t"Jf
1/26/87
3
�Logan Canyon -
ID Team Requests
REQUEST
BY
D(~TE
F<EDUESTED
ITEI"1
Ida.
2/17/87
& Wyo. in area
L.Z.
Range of future traffic
DaSa
REQUEST
TO
COMPLETE
S.N~
I
I;
I
I
I
r - -.
i -I
I
r- -,
• •
t
- . --
~--
-'
..
-
"
~
,,-
-..........
-
�Volume II
PRIORITY LISTINGS
District 1
1986
Research and Development Unit
Utah Department of Transportation
�INTRODUCTION
Volume II of the state-wide pavement survey prioritizes highway
sections from the worst to the best for ride, cracking, rutting, structural
adequacy, friction index and an overall condition rating.
These priority listings are intended as a tool to be used in the
selection and programming of rehabilitation and maintenance activities.
Where data concerning the condition of a specific section is needed,
reference should be made to the Detailed Data Sheets in Volume I.
Final rehabilitation decisions obviously should not be made strictly
on the basis of these listings.
More detailed analysis should be done to
accurately select a rehabilitation strategy.
More frequent deflection
testing (every 0.1 mile) should be requested where appropriate, and a more
detailed distress analysis may be necessary.
The following discussions outline the intended use of each printout,
• and provides an example of each.
�RIDEABILITY RANKINGS
Title:
AVERAGE RI
Description:
Sections are prioritized (from worst to best) by the
average of the Rideability Indexes*(RI) measured for
each mile.
(Figure lA)
Use:
The sections near the top of this listing are the
poorest riding sections based on average values.
Title:
MINIMUM RI
Description:
Sections are prioritized by the mlnlmum RI value
measured within the section.
(Figure lB)
Use:
Identifies sections containing a shortt poor riding
area that needs correction t but may be adequate based
on the Average RI listing.
Title:
RI FAILURES
Description:
Lists sections where the RI has reached th Terminal
Serviceability Index (TSI).
(Figure 1C)
Use:
These sections have reached the minimum allowable
rideabilitYt and should be considered for improvement.
*Note:
RI Range
Pavement Ride
4.4 to 5.0
3.6 to 4.3
2.B to 3.5
1.9 to 2.7
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Below 1.9
�F'l;wtE lA
~1t.L1I9
&u ui
Av~(
11 ptA
'-'u.A.t
r -------.,I
I
$~ry
0"
Sc.c.Li.D"
(_Ix'
~~
/
,
STATE
IIID£R
ROUTE
eOUNTY
1
2
!6
51
31
11
S
60
51
4
S
107
37
11
.71
1.46
1.46
.46
2.13
.77
4.38
.77
.42
,
11
57
51
51
51
57
60
7
204
I
t
37
39
39
10
!
/
.86
P4V~
I
~A~ =- RlP! .!."EE~
"'
,
lt84
r.------~
LENGTH
,
I
L ~1!:rJ.cl ~._!.... .J
It~g
IEGINNING
TtRMINI
JeT SR-Z04 LEFT 40 ST
SR-168
SR-l10
SR-126
SR-26 RIVERDALE
SR-26 WALL AVE.
CAJW. IIIOGE 0 378
CONN ROAD SR-204 SR-3tE
JCT SR-89 US-89 WASHBOUL
"
011.1~"" Sc..c..t.wn
\,
.00
.00
.00
.00
5.19
S.t8
6.40
£ID
INDEX
YEAR
JeT SR-It US-It WASH IOU
WEIER DAVIS CO LINE
WEIER DAVIS CO LINE
WEST 'OINT WEST LIMITS
LOCAL STl££T RIGHT
JeT SR-16B
4TH ST RIGHT
JeT SR-98 RIGHT
JeT SR-a9 US-89
1000 EAST STREET LErT
3.04
4.43
.77
JeT
JeT
JeT
JCT
JCT
Pu~"\
ENDING ,
TtRMINI
START
CAMA1. IIIOGE D 378
T~
3.75
S.19
2.23
.46
2.73
.77
4.38
6.66
6.40
7'56
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
/
am:i
su..tU:ln
•
FIGURE lB
j
~-------'"
I
MU~ ~I
ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
STAT[
ROUTE
I
1984
I
LJ
~U!. !~E]~!X:
LDJ.slric1.!o~
PGllUlUIol .su..t4.on
j
,
S~ry
I
PUt
COUNTY
LENGTH
57
3
3
3
57
57
3
4.38
1.22
1.02
9.53
2.66
1.46
10.03
2.73
204
83
83
30
19
60
30
37
107
11
11
37
11
.46
1.46
BEGINNING
TtIMINI
.00
11.42
24.~
8.74
352.47
.77
64.63
.00
.00
4.43
n.w:
. . &iIlg
au r.d
AalU49l III
I
~ Sc.c.Li.D"
1
•
CltDE'R
1
2
3
4Tli ST RIGHT
ROAD TO THIOKOL
ON OFT Wf'S SR-84
ROAD TV RELAY STATION
JCT SR-235 RIGHT
WEBER DAVIS CO. LINE
JCT SR-42
LOCAL STREET RIGHT
WEST 'OINT WEST LIMITS
WEIER DAVIS CO LINE
,
INDEX
END
4.38
24.64
31.66
18.27
355.13
2.23
74.66
.46
5.89
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
84
lC
1984
I
u
LD
!.s!! ~t_N~ _1.J
TSI
COUNTl
LENGTli
107
11
60
51
57
.46
1.46
.71
%6
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
2.73
1
:R~~!E":i£
STATE
ROUTE
YEAR
r-------,I
I
S-Ury
,,,,
ptA
~Mk.th.
ENDING
TERMINI
START
JCT SR-26 WALL AVE .
THIOKOL CHECKING STAT.
ROAD TO THIOKOL
OWl SPRING ROAD RIGHT
25TH ST CROSSING
JCT SR-168
ROAD RIGHT TO KELTON
JCT SR-126
JCT SR-l10
t.tMl IRIOGE 0 378
,'" ,""...... S<.<t<cn
IEGINNING
TtRMINI
JCT SR-110
JeT sa-168
JeT sa-2~ LEFT 40 ST
START
.00
.17
3.04
ENDING
TERMINI
,
£NO
RI
YEAR
1.2
1.2
1.2
VEST 'OINT WEST LIMITS
.46
WEIER DAVIS CO. LIME
2.23
JCT sa-It US-89 WASH ILV 3.75
TSI
2.0
2.0
2.0
84
84
/
.kItv~~1J
1151 I Fl4DfA Pu~g n
TuaUt4L
J..au
84
�DISTRESS RANKING
Title:
DISTRESS ANALYSIS
Description:
Sections are prioritized by the distress index, which is
based on cracking, and patching. * (Figure 2)
Use:
The sections at the top of this listing are highly
distressed, and are in need of rehabilitation or maintenance.
*Note -
Distress Index
where C
p
= 5.0 - 0.13
= cracking per 1 ,000 square feet
= patching per 1,000 square feet
FIGURE
1
1
a.oER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
•
,
10
(4Ild
j
STATE
r
IOJTE
COlJfTl
LEHm
35
4S
. 30
68
036
111
ID
106
10
68
181
OS9
224
_l
35
43
11
43
15
15
15
43
~
2
I DISTRESS _ _ _ I
L- _ _ _ MAl'rsIS.J
EHDIIIG
TERI'IINI
\. BEGINNING
10. 12
7. 0.
4 . !JO
1.58
5. 16
2.25
. 56
1.26
"j22
-'
TE~I"I
2400 II RT TO 1-15
TOOEL.E -JUQ CO. L" .
JCT SR~
[)C)RV INT .
lOOISO . CII)SSIMG
WYOf'IING STATE LIN[
4100 so RT
2100 SO . CII)S51MG
JCT SR-173 5300 SO.
8TH 5T LEfT
START
62 . 80
6: lS
.00
179 . 62
5.58
198 . 76
52 . 25
4.60
319.65
14 . 98
,
Pu CIt..i.pti..o n \
S LAKE m DAVIS LINE
MILlICAD CROSSING
RD AI rifT TO HERCULES
CASTlE ROCK I"C .
1000 IIORTIl
WAHSATCH IWTERCHANGE
JCT SR-171 I-I"G
1700 SO . CIOS51N6
JCT SR-266 4SOO SO .
llTIl ST LEn
"-
PtA P4w.an.t ~tc.:ti..o tt
,
END
I "DE x
63 . 10
17 .07
7.()il
.3
Z. 4
'''.52
7. 16
193 . 60
SoC . 50
5 . 16
320.91
15.2q
)
YEAR
76
2. 6
2.9
2.9
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
2.9
78
Z.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
�ruT DEPTH
~K1 NG
Ti t le :
AVERAGE RUT DEPTH
Description:
Sections are prioritized by the average rut depth
measured at each milepost using a five foot straight ed ge. (Fi gure 3A)
Use:
The sections averaging more than 0.4 or 0.5 inches
should be investigated for correction.
Title:
MAXIMUM RUT DEPTH
De s crip t ion:
Sections are prioritized by the maximllTl rut depth
measured at any milepost within the section. (Figure 38)
Use:
Any site with a measurement of more than 0.7 or
0.8 inches should be investigated for correction.
F'l&URE 3A
i41llLUlg
b~
r----- ..,I
I
S....ary
on
I
4v~£ ~
%>tpth
PtA P4VUItAt Se.c,..t.u,rt
/
1984
I
4v~£ Rut Oe.pth (~cJJ.u )
Pu P4.LI~ Su.LuJrt
.'\
L °1sE"!:t_H~...!..J
r
-----~
~V.!:'}~ !E!T~
l
STATE
ORDER
eOUKTY
ROUTE
LENGTH
1
30
3
2
142
193
5
11.29
4.42
11
2.96
3
BEGINNING
TERMINI
UOING
TERJilIHI
START
18.27
.00
2.64
ROAD TV RELAY STATION
JeT SR-23 NEWTON
LOCAl ROAD
FIIiIllE 31
lAftt.Utg b
I
MIL.Wut JW.t Pe.pt.h
J
.0El
1
2
1
4
STAT!
lOUTE
eoum
30
5
3
101
1
11
239
.
1984
-- - ----
1.06
11.29
'.01
3.49
JeT SR-91 1400 MORTH
I,GAO TV RELAY STATION
"&I[ CI££I lIT.
JeT SR-127
84
'\
~
LENGilt
84
84
~ ~ P~ft (WILu)
Pu P4.LIc.~ S~I\
:
c: ______
r;w RuT DEPTH'
IEGIMNlNG
lIRMINI
.56
.50
.SO
29.56
4.42
S.60
YEAR
.
LDhtr1ct Mo. 1 J
'" "'uut Su.W "
L
ROAD LEFT
lOAD RIIiHT
JeT SR-89 2100 £AST
r---- ---,,
I
s.-try
uJ on
RUT
DEPTH
END
START
.00
18.27
ZO.29
4.14
UDING
TERMINI
JeT SR-237
lOAD LEn'
MOWEll lIT.
JeT $1-37
[liD
1.06
%9.56
26.30
1.23
RUT
DEPTH
1.00
.70
.60
.60
YEAR
84
84
84
84
�STRUCTURAL RANKING
Title:
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
Description:
Sections are prioritized by the structural index* which
is related to the number of years remaining prior to
fatigue failure. (Figure 4)
Use:
The sections with structural indexes below 2.0 are very
near fatigue failure, or have already cracked in the
wheel paths. Preventive rehabilitation could prevent
the development of fatigue cracking if it has not
occurred.
*Note -
The structural index is based on years to fatigue failure
as follows:
Structural
Index
Years to
Failure
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
>10
8-10
6-7
5
4
3
2
1
1 .5
1 .0
o
FIGURE
4
r---~y--...,
I
L --------JI
DISTRICT *I . 2
1978
11Mu
,
STATE
OIDU
1
2
3
~
CoUAtJj
IIWJtbVl
laM
I
,
IOITE
auT't'
LEHnI
10
3S
4 . 27
"
JS
.H
Z24
U
4
10
JS
'.37
10.4S
5
015
11
2.30
6
7
015
015
• "
11
11
•• 3
131
JS
11
1.JS
9
10
JO
43
8. 30
"
I dvLt.i. tiCJUi..D n
"uU
.Il
••
\
rs~~~~~J
I£IiJ.ING
TEII1I1U
[llDJItG
.. IWP5
llnt ST U"
n ..lIu
STUT
l1S.ts
I£lil .. S--116
JCT 1-10
fIld.U&g T~
Pu CAoipt,um )
5'.37
lS . 2O
IllcUx PVl P4101Ute,,....t
s£c..U.cn)
/
./
[lID
INDEI
TEAR
78
JeT sa-l. II. TtWl£
5'. 66
JCT 1-10
21 . 57
1.0
1.0
1.0
1-10 JlERC£S 1If1n. 1-15
120.22
78
78
Me 10 CXIIC .. LME
l05.SO
Hlinl sa-l.
l1S.ts
1.5
78
STIIUCT\II£ own sa-Il
317 . 56
31t . •
1.5
78
'ACES LANE
600 *I . IIfTtROWlG£
JCT 51-116 .. . TOftE
JCT 51-169 AT 5Tlt IIf[ST
Sl·SlMIT CXl. Lt.
320 . 79
600 *I. IITtIOWMiE
600 Il10 . IIfTt ItOWIIiC
'AIi£S LME
P4uc.NI\.t Sf.d.i.Dn
~-Mi.Lu
319 . •
5'.66
.22
U9.33
319 . •
1.5
78
ml."
1.5
78
'1 . 01
1.5
78
AT ZIID WEST
.sa
1.5
STlUCT . OYER S.C . JCi .
147 . 63
2.0
78
7@
1000 on.
JCT
"
SI-1C~
)
�SURFACE FRICTION R4NKINGS
. Title:
FRICTION AVERAGE
Description:
Sections are prioritized by the average friction index
measured at each milepost. (Figure SA)
Use:
Pavements that are identified with a friction number below
35 should be programmed for a surface seal, and "Slippery
When Wet" signs should be posted until the work can be done.
Friction numbers between 35 and 45 are considered to be
marginal, and above 45 are generally adequate. Pavements
with significant rutting can cause hydroplaning during wet
weather, which could compound skidding problems when combined
with a low friction number.
Title:
FRICTION MINIMUM
Description:
Sections are prioritized by the mlnlmum friction index
measured within the section. (Figure 5B)
Use:
Identifies sections containing a short, slippery area
that needs correction, but may be adequate based on the
Friction Average listing.
�FIGURE
I
VrAAg£
,
OlD(R
STAn
II)UT[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
.,
.,
.,
10
80
10
8
9
10
!O
1
A
LTJ!!L'!.Y.2:A
.!!.:... _________ ..J
/
CNm
,
Avvuzgt S
kg.cJuWLg r--- - - -:--, fAtWtg TtMW.
~,!I.f!~~Y.L~..J Du~rl
}
,W
,
4S
4S
4S
43
45
45
4S
45
45
45
10
10
10
5
LOUin.
S. DS
11 . 97
11.12
IEGIIilING
Tu,n"1
IUIftSTER I"TEROWtG£
10 x ell. VERT
VTN4-N[VA~ STATE LINE
STltUCT OYIR om RD .
E8 ()I ~ ItE ST ARE.A
STRUCT OY£R SR-138
TOOELE - SAl T LA~E co L
STRUCT OYII1 SIt-138
JeT -SR-)t
PI'- 35
9."
2. 16
5. 08
.10
6. "
10 . 23
).~
£JIOI ItG
n"'I"1
STUT
88 . 11
11.12
.00
157 . 53
101 . 10
83 .65
101 . "
83 .6S
..
~
lS ·ECJ
l.Ad.u PM P411UtiJ1.t
,
Stc.ti..orl}
,
[ltD
"-
42 .
45 .
46 .
"7 . 63
98 . 94
88 . 71
101 .1 0
76 . 66
88 . 71
38 . 58
STRUCTURE OVER r -2"
1tMf€ Sn R lIfT! RCHANG£
;MYII.EO ~DI'" CROSS
YEAR
83 . 65
23 . 17
11.12
STRUCT OY£R SR-l38
UAY£L£D ~DIAN e.ass
lOX Cll. Y£IfT
STRUCT OY£R $. C. JCl
JCl-36
IUIftSnR INTrItCHAAG£
EI ()I ...,. ~ST UEA
lJU(X
48 .
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
49 .
50 .
51.
51.
S2 .
53.
/
FIGURE
58
,---,
I SlM'RY I
I
1918
I
lJ~TL~~..J
f
I 'Tl4E Lorn OFMSEmo; Win7"mGIVrHl
FlU CT IOtt READ I *> 1S IC)TltE CORD( 0 . A SIIW.I.
I SECTION SUCH AS A 'ATCH COULD IE THE
I
~ 8~td
Oil IIW.J'L4J9IUn
Sti.d I ILd.u PM
P4vUliAt
Ls.!2"E!!, ~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ --1
\~"
aulR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
•
9
10
B£4.cJuWLg a.M. f~
.Ji. · JtpC~U
[rim);
_______ ..J
~"l"-;l
STATE
IOUTE
CDlJm
10
10
4)
9.08
U
'.lD
4S
.5
45
•5
45
43
.5
45
11.23
11 . 97
S.QB
11.12
II)
II)
10
II)
10
10
10
~
i
Rou.t£
1~~1l
LOIiTl4
6."
9."
S. CII
'.M
,J
.'1 IIU NG
Tt ...INI
STAIfT
1.... 52
131.13
CASTLE ROCX INC .
CXl. LJII[
St-~IT
15.00
"'-35
,
[1I)1*>
Tt ... INI
lOX ClLYUT
'~STtR ImROtMGE
UTAH-IOADA STATt Lt.
ST'IUCTUR[ OVER f-%l.
STU::i DYE R CIITY RD.
STIUCl OYER SI-1l1
STltOCT OYER sa- 138
11.12
• . 71
.00
76.66
157.53
13. 65
13 . 65
IWtSA TO. I IfTE ItCHANG£
STRUCT OY£R S. C. JCT.
&UYEL£O ~DIAN cas
GaAYELED ~DIAII c.:J5S
STlUCT OYER SR- 138
10 I Cll. YE 1fT
STCRT OYER SR- 118
STlUCT OYER S. C. JCl
IUlKSTtR ImltOWlCi[
ST1tUCTUR{ ovra F-Z" ~
' - - kg.cJuWLg <Wi &1tUAg /
TtMW. Ou t:Ai.:p:ti..D n
,J
[ltD
193 . 60
'.'.63
23 . 77
23 . 77
13 . 65
11.12
83 . 65
141 . 63
• . 71
76.66
'
IIWEX
YEAR
21 .
27 .
27 .
32.
33 .
33 .
78
18
18
78
18
35 .
36 .
39 .
39 ,
78
78
18
78
78
\
~WPlS
I n.d.u Pu P4V
Stc:,.t.U,n
�OVERALL RANKI NG
Title:
FINAL
Description:
Sections are prioritized by the Final Index* which is related
to the structural index, the distress index and the average
R.I. The final index is weighted more heavily toward the
structural index where high truck traffic exists. and weights
theR.!. value roore heavily where a high ADT (see definitions)
is present. (Figure 6)
Use :
This listing basically identifies the worst overall sections.
It also can be used to obtain a genera' indication of the
type of rehabilitation (or maintenance) activity which may
be needed, since the technique selected should correct all
of the existing deficiencies. The final index is intended for
prioritization only, and should not be used in any other way
since it does not represent any single pavement condition.
*Note -
Final Index
where
SU~~RY
TABLE
= F,(STRUCT) + F2 (DISTR) + F3 (R.I.)
= truck traffic weighting factor
F,
= distress weighting factor
F2
= average daily traffic (ADT) weighting
F3
STRUCT = structural index
DISTR = distress index
R. I .
= average Ride Index
FIGURE
ruw.
STlUCT • STIOCTUI( Hal
DIS
,
RD...u
•T......:M
,/~~~
'I[CI.I'"
am
$I .
ullm
1
l5
•
35
'"
1.62
2
10
~.27
II
171
%%4
2.ZS
sa·'.
. . so IT
1
l5
~
»
5
6
7
C3
U
U
IMO
a
43
l5
10
I
10
",3
C~W'LtJj
10
61
10
• AW[UIi[ FllCTIOIC
RI
IIDEX
~ g.i.M.iAg 4ILd f~
Iadu
/
,
..
DISTRICT 110 . 2
or
FlICT
FOR
• DIST1I[SS llDEX
RI
'AVE~n EYAL~Tl(Jj
"" F'
6
S,""RY TMLE
Of
PwltUJj
~ 84.6e.
3.SO
6.37
S.07
4.90
5. 16
.lD
}.lD
1
factor
flu.....:pw .. "'"
LlXAT1(Jj
START
)·15 STltUCT
10.10
115.95
I[CI"
l200 WEST
11114 ST U"
JeT . sa-IO
EDT In .
.".00'" STAT[ lUI[
2400 "IT TO 1·IS
SL,·SlJI(lT CD. lUI[
P4vtJ11tA.t Sf.C..tUJ 1\
-
SZ .ZS
'.10
15.20
•00
17'. 62
1• . 76
62.10
U9 . 33
EIIOIII' ,
LOCATION
JCT $1- 71 700 £
1-10 ~_S WIne 1-15
JCT $1·171 I-lac
• 1-15 STM
JCi 1-10
SlIIUT -WSATCM CD. UI .
WTLE II)Cl IliC .
tWCSAT04 ImRCHMG£
S LAl[ en DaVIS LIII:
STI\rT OYER S. C. JeT.
FJ.M.l I n.d.u
~---~-~
Av
p" P4vUIeAt I CALCII..AT[D STe.JCT\IW.. II SW I
I DISTUSS. RI. NeD
St.e.U.oll\ L_~!.,CT.2.~~XES ..J /
1\
~
FIlIAL
EID
I1IDU
STIUCT
DIS~ RI
11 . 72
1.8
2.0
3.6
120.22
2.1
2. 1
2.2
1.0
2.S
2.5
1.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
5. 0
2. 0
3.l
M.SO
10.10
21 . 57
S.07
114 . 52
193. 10
63.10
"7 . 63
~~~~
2.3
2.]
2.3
2.4
2.~
2.5
1
Z.,
].]
3.9
3.1
2. 6
2. 6
.]
3.3
AvtJ&4ge.
1.8
3.0
3.0
2. 7
3. 0
2. 9
3. 0
2.1
3. 0
3. 3
,
FlICT
Tit
TEST
69 . 0
72 . 0
65.0
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
69 . 0
70.0
78
63 . 0
69.0
\Av~e
Ride.
I nde. x
78
�*-*-.-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-.-*-*
•
•
•
•
•
•
F'tHAL $U"''''ART TARLE
"
•
.
•
•
•
•
.
OF
PAVE"'ENT EVALUAT ION
SHUCT
DISTRICT
.
RJ
.. I'lPE U.O EX
FRtCT
•
•
•
•
FOR
STRUCTURAL INDEX
rlJ5
• AVERAGE FRICTION
PI STRE 55 IHDEX
._* .•. *.* ••.••• _•• *.e.*.*•
. •• *••• *.*.*.** •••• *** •• ** ••
. :;..
..c
;i
". r- ' ~
"
i·
RANK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
c~n
57
51
11
3
5
33
~
5
51
9
5
"10 ' 5
11
Ii
12 57
57
13
14 11
~
1S
11> 11
,3
17
1R
19
20
21
n
2,
24
SR.
19
204
109
84
89
89
89
79
89
142
89
39
89
3
S7
J1
, U2
193
84
30
84
60
--4
89
29
84
:3
3
11
~
~O
2«;
~1
26
57
5
211
r;
60
60
?1
11'15
.29
1
13
~O
Z?
34
. ~
~4
i!7
. :7, 1
LENTH
.58
1.02
. 1.15
3.13
5.00
7.03
11.29
1.16
2.96
Z .16
6.06
1.08
.82 •
1.46
.55
.64
6.01
8.74
4.39
4.66
6.01
2.66
6.81
3.39
.77
1.46
3.21
5.76
1 .51
6.81
3.B
8.77
.46
.71
"4
3
VI
107
126
~~
~7
134
9.65
3~
57
po
4.48
~?
3
7~
11
8EGINNING
LOCATION
EliDING
----------------------
STRUCT. OVER REEVE S AV
4TH. ST. RIGHT
JC T. S.R. 126 LATTON
HOWE LL lin.
.HT. S.R. 243
CACHE UC" CO. LINE
ENT. TO PRESTON VALL
JCT. S • It • B9
JCT. S.R, 91 LOGAN
ROAD lEFT
CItE£!( BRIDGE
JCT SR20] HARR I S:>N
JC T. S.A. 204 WALL AV.
CANAL BR IDGE D 371\
ROAD RIGHT
JCT. SR 126 CLEARFIELD
BLUE CREEK INT.
HE VA DA STATE LINE
END CONC RETE
WEAE R DAVJS co. LINE
HOWE II INT.
2STH. ST. CROSSI'4G
STRUCTURE OVER S .11 • "'6
SA30 WEST TRE""ONTON
JC T. S .R • 7.6 RIVERDALE
JeT. S.R. 1M
HIGH CRF. EIC CA~fYOIl
J CT. S.R. 101
200 SOUTH
PEHRSON 1 r, T •
nEGl'l SINGLE L.UI I,
R0"D LErT
J CT. S.R. 110
BOX EUE R WEUF. R CO.
JeT. SR '' 1 II: ANE~' VI Lt. r.
ROAD TO HAP.RI~VILLf.
E.,
START
...
~OCATION
--_ .. - ---------------------2.42
JCT. S.R. 89
4.38
,00
26.30
3Q9.75
404.75
:SIJ2.40
3.00
:512.04
15.12
393.6<J
7.72
356.06
4.43
4.42
.00
20.2?
.00
15.Q()
2.23
u,. :' 1
~52.47
103.26
'}0.49
.1)0
."r~
41.99
4. 0 7
1 • ~ fl
9fJo4!i
3I'1.UJ
2? .56
.00
ZO.7{
.(1(1
~5A.~G
JCT, s.q. 1\9
GENTl LE ST.
fJEljlN SHH.LE LAN[
CACHE RICH CO. LINE
JCT. S.R. 30-89 LEft
CREEK BRIDGE
JCT. S.R. Z03
LOGAN EAST LI "'1 TS
JeT.SR 91 RICH~OND
JeT. S.R. 243
ROAD RIGHT
ROA D TO HARRISVlLLE
"ERER DAVIS CO Llf4E
CENTER STRFEr
J CT. S.R. 15
HOWElL INT.
OWL SPRING P.OAI) RIGHT
"~lIE tRf.[k INT.
JCT. S.R. 89 UIHTAH
nlUE CREE I( INT.
JCT. S.R. B5 PIGHT
PEHRSO'4 INT.
JeT SR 13
JeT. S • R• 168
WEf'tER D'Vl~ co. LINE
UTAI1 1 Do\t! 0 STATE L I NI:
JC T. 5.'1. ()1
S.P 69 HGHT
S TP UCTU !I r OVER S.R. 66
H(\.,rELL IN T •
P(\'D rlll)(\Y p.ANeli UFT
~r.c: T PO tN T WEST LIMITS
JCT. S • It. Fl9
r.ANEL fl!llOf,[
nor q.P EJ< wll1 ~ P cn,
END
------3.00
5.40
1.35
30.03
404.15
411.78
393.69
4.16
375.00
11.25
399.75
8.80
356.88
5.@9
4.97
.64
26.30
8.74
20.29
6.89
20.29
35S.1J
Q6.45
93.88
.77
2.23
45.20
10.73
2.81
103.26
26.30
38.33
.46
21 .44
9.65
361.36
FINAL
INDEX
.9
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.1
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
Z .1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.J
2.4
2.4
Z.4
Z.4
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
• CALCULATED STRUCTURAL, •
Rl. AND
• DISTRESS, INDEX·S
•
FRICTION
•
•
••••••••••••• ****.*** •••••••• * •• *.
YR
• STRUCT DIS RI
•
FRICT TEST •
*
-------------*
*---.-------------- •••• 86 •
• 1.5 1.0 2.0
• 1.0 1.D 2.6 •••• 86 •
• 3.0 1.0 1.1 *••• 86 •
2.0
• 2.0 1.4 2.2 .* •• 86 •
86
• 2.0 1.0 2.7 •••• 86 •
1.4 2.5
•••• 86 •
• 2.S
1.2 2.9
•••• PIll •
•
1.0 1.7
••••
• 4.5
•
, .6 2.3
•••• 86 •
• 3.5
2.4
•••• 86
• 3.0 1.8 3.1
1.0
• ••• 86 •
• 3.0
2.6 3.1
2.0
•••• 86 •
• 3.5
1.0 2.6
•••• 86 •
• 5.0
86
1.0 1.9
• 4.5 1.0 2.4 •••• ft. •
•••• 86 •
•
3.8 2.4
• •••
• 1.5
2.5 2.5
•••• 86 •
• 3.0
5.0
1.0 2.1
•••• 86 •
• 4.0
1.3 2.4
•••• 86
• 5.0
* •••
86 •
1.4 2.0
• 4.0
86
1.0 Z.4
•••• 86 •
•
5.0
1.4 2.1
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
4.0
2.5 .
5.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
1.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
1.0
2.6
1.0
2.0
1.9
1.6
4.7
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.7
2.6
2.3
1.0
1.6
2.2
1.0
• •••
••••
2.8
,.0
2.2
2.8
••••
** ••
3.3
1.6
1.1
2.1
2.3
• •••
.* ••
••••
57.0
2.8
••••
••••
.* ••
••••
" -'"- -
86
86
86
f6
86
86 .
86
86
t6
••••
.* ••
52.0
~.5
..
86
86
._-
~~
86
86
86
---
--
~-~~~--
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
�PAVE"ENT EVALUATION fOR STATf ROUTE
89 SECTION
fRO" JCT. S.R. 91 LOGAN
"ilEPOST 312.04
"ATERIAL COVER AGGREGATE BITU". SRJ : ~f (CABS)
YEARLY INCREASE IN 18K LOADS
5.0 I
85
SU8 SECTION 0
TO lOGAN EAST ll"ITS
"AINTENANCE SHED 136
PRf.SfNT 18k lOADS
.
CACHE (OUNTY (5)
"HErOST 315.00
1.0. NO. 1157
140700.
DISTRICT 1
fAP-21
lENGTH
2.96
JUNCTIONAL CLASS 14 ..
T.S.I.
2.5
a---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
.. DYNAHUT SU""ARY AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS .. .
•
• • tYNAn T lEST DATA .. .
f(
DAlE 9/16/86 HR 7 "IN 15
NO. Of TESTS 3
57.
59.10. SURfACE
TE "PE RA TURE S: AIR
55.00 " PAVE"ENT
LAST REVISION 04-20-19~Z
LANE fBl
WNL PATH OSWft
f: 1.216
EG.TH.
SNR5
SPD
SNR4
SNR3
SNRl
D"t
OUTLIERS
"EAN
STD.DEV.
VARJANCE
TCN)
READIN'S
I'IIP ]7]
"P 374
"P 375
.... ....
••••
••••
.54
.20
.04
1.14
.31
.09
.01
1.12
.111
.04
.00
1.07
.12
.02
.00
1.00
.68
.62
.32
.34
.38
.21
.19
.ll
.14
.1l
.14
.09
•
•
•
•
•
..... ...... ......
·
·
...... ...... ·
•
•
.09
.01
.00
1.15
46.6
6.0
H.l
7.3
4.1
16.8
.08
.11
.08
40.1
46.5
52.1
4.1
5.9
11.9
•
•
.. AI
"IN
AVE
EG.1H.
11.9
4.1
1.3
0"0
.316
.685
.541
SCI
.105
.31.8
.232
BCI
.011
.032
.025
181( lOADS
TO FUURE
1.3573"001
3.0195+004
8.2550"005
'IT J
14
0
5
3.17 IN(HES
OVEltLAY REGUIRED fOR 10. YEARS ADDITIONAL lifE IS
AVER AGE SCI .. B( I INDICATE PAVE"ENT AND SU8'RADE STRONG.
JJ PRESENT TRENDS CONll NUE. THE STRUC TURAl NEE os ARE
HIGH AND HiE ROAD WILL PROBABl' lA S T fROI'II TWO TO JIVE YE US.
SCIREQ-
.27
BC IREG
.07
EQTRElia
8.H
DEQTHe
4.51
..
..
·
..
•
..
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
•• UefA.ILIH SU""AU AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS
•
•• RIll A81L ITT DATA ••
...
... ... ... .... ...
... ... ...
RI: AVEUU 2.1
"INI"U" 1.1
"AII"U" 2.8
•
•
• BASED ON RIDEABILITY THE PAVE"ENT IS (ONS !DUE D TO BE IN
••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••
• VE RY ftOOR CONDITION
•••
••• •••
••• ••• ••• •••
•••
••• ••• ••• ••• ••• • ••
•
•
e ______________________________________________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .
• • D!SUESS DATA AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS • •
DATE
NO. TESTS ]
"ft 373 314 ] ·1 5
RI 1.1 Z .8 Z.Z
40 40 50
"'PH
TRANS
CR~(I{S
o.
o.
""
"ft
..
31'
314
"ft 315
AVERA6f
6.
LONS
CRACKS
o.
o.
o.
o.
"AI'
CRAUS
1000.
1000.
o.
ALLl6ATOR
CRACKS
o.
o.
O.
o.
Sit IN
PATCH
O.
o.
O.
o.
9/11/86
DEEP
PATCH
O.
o.
o.
CRACK
Ol'ENING
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.3
CRACI
ABRASION
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.3
ClACK
"UILT
].0
3.0
4.0
3.1
SURF ACE
WEAR
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.3
WEATHfRING
3.0
3.0
4.0
3.3
POPOUTS
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
BlEEDIN,
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.3
RUT
DEPTH
.20
.20
.10
•
•
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
2.
•
•
661.
O.
.17
• SUlfACf fRICTION TEST DATA. •
•
• • SURfACE fRICTION SU""ARY ANO AVERAGE CONDITIONS • •
THfRf IS NO "U"ETER DATA AVAILABLE
fOJ THIS SECTION.
NO rJICTION EVALUATION WAS "ADf •
�PAYE"ENT EVALUATION fOR STATE ROUTE
89 SECTION
,RO" LOGAN EAST LI"ITS
"ILEPOST 315.00
"ATERIAL COVER AG6REGATE BITU". SR'ACE (CABS)
YEARLY INCREASE IN 18K LOADS
5.0 I
.
.
86
SUB SECTION 0
CACHE COUNTy (5)
TO ENT. TO PRESTON VALLET .. lLEPOST 382.40
"AINTENANCE SHED 136
1.0. NO. 1258
PRESENT 18K LOADS
30165.
DISTRICT 1
rAP-21
LENGTH
7.40
fUNCTIONAL CLASS
T.S.I. 2.5
..
6 •
6---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
DATA •
DYNAFLEeT SUP'lP'lARY AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS . ..
• DYNA'LECT
TEST
DAlE 9116/86 Hit 7 .HN 30
NO. Of TESTS 7
H"PERATURES: UR 59.10. SURFACE 55.00. PAVE"ENT 57.
LAST REVISION 04-20-1982
LANE EBL
""L .. ATH OS .. "
Iz 1.945
EQ.TH.
SPD
SNR4
SNR5
UR2
SNR3
D"D
OUTlIERS
.nAN
STD.DEV.
VAR lANCE
T(H)
READINGS
376
••••
.45
.31
.06
.00
1.99
.32
.27
.32
.45
.37
.29
.29
"
.....
377
37S
.. P 379
",
",
....
...... ...... .... . .....
.22
.06
.00
1.75
.14
.05
.00
1.71
.09
.04
.00
1.55
.07
.03
.00
1.51
50.l
6.0
35.9
.20
.11
.19
.11
.26
.20
.21
.13
.07
.11
.22
.os
.07
.03
.04
.12
.09
.07
.07
50.0
39.5
44.8
55.1
55.3
52.2
54.]
.04
.06
.15
.11
.08
.09
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
·
...... ·
•
10.1
J.O
9.2
10.4
4.8
7.5
10.4
12.0
12.2
13 .5
•
"AX
"IN
AVE
EQ.TH.
13.5
4.8
10.1
D"D
.274
.453
.n1
BCI
• 011
.0]2
.020
SCI
.084
.141
.114
18K LOADS
TO FAIURE
2.7130.001
7.0809·004
5.31:59·006
flU
17
2
15
OVER LA' REQUIRED fOR 10. YEUS ADDIT IOMAL LifE IS
.00 INCHES
AVERAGE SC I
BCI INDICATE PAVE"ENT AND SUBGRADE STRONG.
If PRESENT TREND S CONTINUE. THE STRUCTURAL HEEDS ARE
LOW AND THE ROAD "ILL PROBABLY LAST OVER TEN HARS •
•
SCIREQ=
.42
BC IREI
.10
EITREQ
&
6.40
DEITH-
1.08
..
..
..
·
·
•
•
•
•
..
•
..
•
... RIIEABILITY SUNNARY AND AVERAGE CONIITIONS ••
•• !t . . EABIlITY DUA ••
•
DATE 9111/86 •
NO. TESTS 7
RI: AVERAGE 3.5
NINI"U" 2.6
"AXINU" 4.3
379
..
", ]16 377 378 1.3 380 381 182 ••• ••• •••
• BASED ON RIDEABlllTY THE PAVE"ENT IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN
I A I R C ON. I , I ON
RI 3.5 2.7 2.6
3.9 4.3 1.9
•
"PH 50
•
6-----------------------------------------------------_____________________________________________________________________________..
t
• • DISTRESS DATA AND AVERAGE CONDI liONS • •
380
381
"P 382
.18
.13
.14
..... .... .....
.... .. .... .... ... ....
~
",
TIANS
CRAUS
LONS
CRACKS
o.
1.
o.
o.
o.
"A'
CRACKS
o.
o.
ALLIGATOR
CRACKS
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
SK IN
PATCH
DEEP
PATCH
CRACK
OPE NI Nii
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.4
CRACk
ABRASION
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.4
CRACK
"Ull T
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.4
SURFACE
WEAR
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
WEAJHERING
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
POPOUTS
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
BLEEDIN'
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
RUT
DEPTH
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
"P 379
PI, 380
o.
o.
o.
o.
NP 381
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
•
382
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
"
AVERAGE
2.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
6-----------------------------------------------------____________________________________________________________________________ .
376
377
".. 178
N'
·
..
2.
4.
6.
2.
• • SURfACE fl.CTION TEST lATA
•
. . . SUR'ACE FRICTION SU"NAR' AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS • •
THERE IS NO "U"ETER DATA AVAILABLE
fOR THIS SECTION.
NO fRICTION EVALUATION "as "ADE.
�,AVE"ENT EVALUATION rOR STATE ROUTE
89 SECTION
fRO" ENT. TO PRESTON VALLEY "ILEPOST 18l.40
"ATERIAL COVER AGGREGATE SITU". SRfACE (CABS)
YEARLY INCREASE IN 18K LOADS
5.0 I
..
.
87
• 'YNAfLU 1 TEST DATA
DATE 9/16/86 HR 7 "IN 45
NO. or lESTS 11
1 (II"E ItA lURE S: AIR 41.20. SURfACE 55.00. 'AVEPUNl 48.
lAST REVISION 04-20-19Rl
LANE EBl
"Hl PA1H OS,,,
f=
OUTLIERS
"EAN
SlD.IEV.
VARIANCE
UN)
It( ADINGS
38]
384
"p 385
"p 386
"p 381
181
"P 389
390
"P 391
PIP 392
"P 391
SNR2
",
",
.86
.31
.11
1.72
SNR3
SNR4
SNR5
••••
....
",
",
•
..
•
1.125
D"'
.64
.31
.11
.02
.44
.18
.09
.01
2.18
.33
.12
.08
.01
2.77
.10
.06
.08
.08
.10
.11
.08
.01
.01
.15
.15
.51
.2l
.05
1.58
.54
.5]
.50
.51
.16
.76
1.46
1.49
l.47
.11
.19
.18
.10
.29
.10
.39
.52
.44
.a2
.a3
.52
.56
.aa
.74
.85
1.22
.l3
.3]
.24
.]5
.39
.34
.14
.64
.12
.12
.15
.19
.13
.13
.16
.21
.21
.44
.H
SPD
ECI.1H.
.....
·
•
..... ..... ·
•
.....
CACHE COUNTY (5)
"lL[POST 19J.69
1.0. NO. 1259
29610.
SUB SEC110N a
TO CR(EK BRIDGE
"AJHTENANCE SHED 116
PRfS(NT 18K LOADS
45.1
5.4
29.4
5.0
1.4
2.0
41.3
44.0
45.8
41.5
48.6
41.6
31.2
31.8
50.5
47.]
55.0
4.6
5.5
6.3
6.4
5 .8
4.2
2.5
2.6
6.4
5.2
5.7
•
•
•
•
"AX
''IIN
AVE
DISTRICl 1
FAP-21
LEN'l"
11.29
FUNCTIONAL CLASS
T.S.I. 1.5
DYNAFlECT SUI''''''AA Y AND AVERAGE COND J TJ ON S
ECI.1H.
6.4
2.5
5.0
0"'0
.496
1 .488
.858
SCI
.194
.653
8CI
.OJ6
.109
.058
.:526
6.
..
18K LOADS
TO fA lURE
J.9625+005
1.9448+003
. 9.7941·004
TITF
9
0
1
OVULAY REQUIRED fOR 10. YEARS ADDITIONAL LHE IS 2.14 INCHES
AVERAGE SC J • BCI INOlC ATE PAVE"ENT AND SU8GRADE STRONG.
If 'RESENT TRENOS CONTINUE. THE STRUCTURAL NEE OS ARE
HIGH AND THE ROAD "ILL PROBA8L Y LAST fRO" TWO TO fI VE HARS.
SCIRECI-
.42
BCIREQ
.10
EaTREGz
6.35
DEQ1H~
·
·
·
·
·
3.62
•
•
•
•
•
•
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
RIDlA8Ill" tATA ••
•
•• IltEABIllTY SU""ARy ANt AVERAGE CONtlTIONS ••
NO. TESTS 11
DATE 9/11/86
", 111 384 115 3a6 317 381 319 ]90 391 192 ]93 ••••••
'1 4.6 3.0 3.0 2.] 2.1 2.0 2.6 2.4 2.9 3.3 3.2 ••• •••
"PH • SO 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 55 55 ••••••
TRANS
CRAUS
PI,.
]I]
O.
",
384
o.
"p 385
O.
"P
"P
386
387
188
389
390
391
J92
393
O.
O.
LON'
(RUleS
"Ar
CRAUS
O.
o.
o.
O.
O.
133.
1000.
a33.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
•
•
RI: AVERAGE 2.9
"INI"U" 2.0
PlAXI"U" 4.6
BASED ON RIDEA81LITY lHE 'AVE"ENT IS (ONSIOERED 10 BE IN
POOR CONDIlION
• • DISTRESS DATA AND AYE RAGE CONOI II ONS
CRAtl(
ALL! GATOR SKIN
DHP
tRAU
CRACK
PA1CH PATCH OPE NI N6
ABRASION "UILT
ClACKS
O.
O.
o. 5.0
5.0
5.0
167.
o.
o.
Z.O
2.0
Z.O
o.
o.
o. 3.0
3.0
3.0
161.
O.
O.
2.0
2.0
2.0
1000.
o.
o. 2.0
2.0
2.0
o. 2.0
1000.
O.
2.0
2.0
O.
O.
O.
3.0
3.0
3.0
o.
o.
o. ].0
3.0
3.0
1000.
O.
O.
5.0
5.0
5.0
o.
1000.
o. 5.0
5.0
5.0
o.
O.
3.0
o.
3.0
3.0
212.
182.
O•
J.2
3.2
1.2
SURfACE
WEAR
4.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.5
4.0
3.0
J.O
VEATHERING
4.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
'OPOU1S
5.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
Bl ([0ING
4.0
3.0
].0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.6
RUl
DEPTH
.10
.10
.20
.20
.20
.20
.10
.10
.10
.10
.10
.15
•
•
•
z.o
3.0
",
661.
3.0
5.0
"P
833.
5.0
3.0
"P
o.
O.
4.5
5.0
",
o.
o.
4.0
5.0
"P
o.
o. 1000.
J.O
5.0
",
AVERAGE
O.
O.
470.
LO
4.5
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
• SURfACE fRICTION TEST tATA
• SURfACE 'RICTION SU"'"ART AND AVERA()E CONDJlIONS .
.
O.
O.
O.
O.
O.
.
.
THERE IS NO PIU"f TE R DATA AVAIlABl E
fOR THIS SECTION.
NO fA IC TJ ON EVALUAlION WAS "'AD( •
.
�PAYEPIENT EYALUATION '0. STATE ROUTE
89
SECTION
CACHE COUNTY (H
SUB SECTION 0
e8
DISTRICT 1
FAP-l1
PH LE pon 399.75
10 JCT. S.R. 241
LENGTH
6.06
"0" CR(EK BRIDGE
PlILEPOST 393.69
SHED 136
1.0. NO. 1260
CLASS 6 •
.UTU IAL COVE. A5'.E6Al E IUTU". SRf : K E (C ABS)
PRESENT 18K LOADS
29610.
YEARLY INC.EAS( IN 18K LOADS
5.0 I
T.S.I.
2.5
•_____________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------6
~AIN1ENAN(E
.
• DYNA'lUT TEST DATA • •
DAlE
9116186 H. 8 "IN 13
NO. 0' TESTS 6
50.00. PAVE"ENT 45.
43 .20. SURf ACE
TE"'EltATUUS: AU
LAST REVISION 04-20-1982
WHL PATH OSWP
LA"E fBL
F: 1.809
SPD
ECI.TH.
SNR5
SM.3
S".4
S".l
D"D
•
•
OUll nItS
"fAN
STD.DEV.
VARIANCE
••••
2.64
1.24
.76
.58
1.85
1.58
.19
.62
1.71
2.34
.91
.75
.56
..... .....
1.82
.56
.65
.42
1.93
2.01
.68
.69
.48
1.92
5.4
1.2
1.4
55.8
11.3
126.6
..... .....
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
*
•
·
FU~CTIONAL
•
.
"AI
PlIN
AVE
DTNAFLECl SU,","'ARY AND AVE RAGE CONDITIONS
EU.TH.
6.4
3.6
5.4
D"O
.714
2.961
1.H6
SCI
.l19
.529
.340
BCI
.065
.194
.118
..
18K LOADS
TO FAIURE
3.9287·005
1.4013·004
1.4391·005
·
·
•
·
"•
•
YITf
9
0
OVERLAY REtUUEO fOR 10. TURS AUITIONAL LIfE IS 2.14 INCHfS
AVERAGE SC I
BCI INDICATE SUB'RAU WEAl. PAVEPIENT PlAR'INAl
If PRESENT TRENDS CONlINUE. THE SlRUCTURAL NEEDS ARE
THL ROAD WILL PROBAlll T LASl 'RO" TWO TO fiVE TE ARS •
HI6H AND
•
1.90
RE AU .. 61
SCIREQa
.42 BClIEt
46.4
3.6
.10 Eca'.Ea- 6 .. 35
D(ClTH- 4.22
PIP 394 1.66
1.14
.66
.31
.25
•
PI, 195 1.7S
6.0
1.42
.86
.14
63.5
1.11
6.4
1.82
75.2
.. P 396 2.97
2.34
2.01
2.64
•
]91
6.4
.17
.55
.36
.. 23
.11
51.2
•
PI, 398
49.0
5.4
.39
.90
.62
.25
.18
_______________________________________________________ - - - 4.4 _____________________________________________________________________ •
--e
49.5
399 1.]9
1.04
.61
.36
.23
•
*
UN)
",
",
•
••
•
.UEAIlln, .ATA ••
NO. TESTS 6
"p 394 395 396 397 198 399
'1 ].0 2.1 3.5 3.6 2.1 2.9
•
.. PH 55
... ... ...
... •••
DATE
••• ••• ••• •••
••• •• ••• ••• •••
9/11186
•
•
•
•
••
UDEABILITY SU .... A.' ANt AVEIA6E CONt 11 IONS ••
AVEUU 3.1
"A.I"U" 3 .6
"INI"U" 2.1
BASED ON RU(ABlll " 'HE PAVEPlEN' IS CONS IDE REO TO BE IN
fA IR CONDI liON
II:
•
•
•
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
• • DISTRESS DATA ANI AVERAGE CO"Dlll0NS • •
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
",
o.
o.
o.
o.
o.
•____________________ _______
.. P ]94
"P ]95
]96
391
.. P 398
PIP 399
AVERAGE
.. ,.
·
•
~
• •
.. AP
ClACKS
333.
LON'
[RACKS
'.A"S
(''''CK S
SU.fACE
SIC
)III
PATCH
~67.
o.
o.
, UClION TEST OAlA
'Nfl(
o.
DEE'
PATCH
CUCk
OPE NI Nli
2.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
].0
CRACk
ABUSION
2.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
CUCI
"UIL T
2.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
SUR' ACE
"EA.
2.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
"EATHE.IN6
2.0
5.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
POPOUTS
3.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.2
IJLHDINIi
2.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.5
RUT
DEPTH
.20
.00
.00
.20
.20
.20
•
•
o.
o.
o.
o•
661.
o.
3B.
o.
83].
o.
o•
167.
83].
o.
o.
161.
444.
.n
lU.
333.
o.
_______________________________________________________________________________ --------------------6
o.
.~
AlLl'ATOR
CUUS
1000.
1000.
• •
•
• •
IS .. 0 "U"ElE R DATA AVAILABLE
fOR THIS SECTION_
NO fR J( liON EVALUATION WAS PIA IE •
SUItf ACE f RIC liON SU""ARY AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS
.•
�~AVE"ENT (VALUATION fOIt STATE ROUTE
B9 SECTION
fRO" JCT. S.R. 243
"ILEPOST 399.75
"ATERIAL COVER AGGREGATE 8ITU". SRrAC[ ((A9S)
'EARL' INCIEASE IN 18K LOADS
5.0 I
89
SUB SECllON 0
CACHE COUNTY (S)
CACHE Rl(H CO. LINE
"ILEPOSl 404.75
"AINT[~ANCE SHED 136
1.0. NO. 1261
PRESENT 18K LOADS
21735.
TO
DIS1RICT 1
fAP-11
LENGTH
5.00
fUNCTIONAl (lASS
T.5.1. 1.5
6 •
A---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
• • D1NAILEtT Sm.",AR' AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS • •
• • UNAflUT TEST DATA • •
•
•
•
•
•
•
.AU 9116/B6 HR 8 "IN 30
NO. Of TESTS 5
TE "PE ItATURE S: AU 41.20. SURf ACE 50.00. PAVE"ENT 45.
LAST REVISION 04-20-1982
LANE E B,l
"HL PATH OS""
fe: 1.64B
EG.TH.
SPO
SNRS
SNI3
SNlt2
S""4
D"'
••••
••••
• •••
••••
.... ..... .....
.n
..... .....
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
"A.
"IN
AVE
EG.1H.
6.6
2.5
4.5
D"D
.451
1.600
.864
SCI
.181
.477
.289
8CI
.013
.155
.067
UK LOADS
TO FAIUR[
4.6622*005
1.1531·003
4.9292*004
YlTf
10
0
1
·
·
·
•
•
.10
.35
•
•
.01
.12
1.21
1.56
•
3.9
48.3
SCIREG.46 8CUEG
.11
.40
.11 EGTRE8 a
6.02
2.91
1.60
1.12
.25
DE8TH•
",
.74
.55
.14
51.2
6.6
.35
.21
•
49.0
.19
5.2
.97
.66
.41
.27
39.0
4.0
.os
.04
.45
.26
.11
•
.0]
.57
H.5
2.5
.28
.10
.05
•
•
6-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------________________________________________ .
•• RI.EABllIT, SU""AIt' AN. AVE"AGE (ONDITIONS ••
•
•• U.U8JlJTT .ATA ••
9/11186
DATE
NO. TUTS
5
II: AYE RAGE 2.1
"INI"U" 2.2
"A.I"U" 3.3
•
.... 2.8 2.7 402 2.8 3.3 ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• • ••
403 404
400 401
•
• BASED ON RIDEABILIT' THE PAVE"ENT IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN
RI
2.2
••• ••• ••• •••
•••
• POOR CONDI110N
A
•
• _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ •
"'H 55
• DISTRESS DAIA AND AVfRAU CONDITIONS • •
LO,.,
TIIANS
ALLIGATOR SK IN
DEEP
CUU
CRACK
CRACK SURFACE "EATH- .. OP- lILEEDRUl
•
PATCH PATCH OPENING ABRASION "UIl T WEAR
DE,.1H
(RING
OUTS
CRAUS ClACKS CRAns CR"CKS
IN'
.... 401 O.
400
o.
O.
667.
313.
o.
O.
2.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
.20
2.0
2.0
2.0
O.
667.
313.
O.
O.
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
.10
3.0
•
•
" 402
D.
O.
o. 2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
667.
313.
O.
.10
" 403 O.
o.
o. 2.0
2.0
4.0
3.0
O.
833.
167.
2.0
2.0
2.0
.'0 •
"~
404
O.
o. 1000.
o. 3.0
O.
O.
3.0
.20
3.0
2.5
2.5
5.0
3.0
•
AVERAtiE
o.
167.
o.
213.
o.
o. 2.2
2.2
2.1
.16
2.2
2.1
4.2
3.0
•
OUTlURS
"EA.
S TD.t EV.
YAUANCE
TU)
READINtiS
400
"P 401
"P 402
"~ 40J
"P 404
.a6
.45
.21
1.62
• 5'
.34
.25
.06
1.50
.20
.15
.02
1.J7
"" ..
44.4
7.3
52.7
4.5
1.5
2.4
OVERLA, IE.UUE. fOIt 10 • nus A.DITIONAL LifE IS 3.10 INCHES
AVERAGE SC I
8CI INDICATE PAVE"ENT AND SU8GltADE STRONG •
If 'RESENT TRENDS CONTINUE. THE SUUCTUUL NEEDS ARE
HIGH AND THE ROAD "ILL PR08ABLY LASt fRO" T"O 10 fIVE 'EAIIS.
•
... ... ...
... ...
.
..
..
....
·
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
• • SU"FACE fltlCTION TEST tAlA. •
•
• • SURJACE fRICTION SU""A", AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS • •
THEltE IS NO "U"ETER DATA AVAILABLE
FOR THIS SECTION.
NO FRICTION EVALUAllON "AS "ADr.
.'
•
�•
SUB SECTION 0
RICH COUNTY (J3)
DISTRICl 1
JAP-11
PAVEMENT EVALUATION '01 STATE ROUTE
89 SEC1ION 90
10 JCT. S.R. 30-89 LEJl
"Jl[POST 411.78
LENGTH
1.03
.. ILEPOST 404.75
,RO .. CACHE II(H CO. LINE
"AIN1ENANCE SHED 1J1
I.D. NO. 1270
6 •
JUNCTIONAL CLASS
~ATEIIAL
COVEl A"IE'ATf 811U". SIJACE «(ABS)
PRESENT 18K LOADS
21735.
1.S.I. 2.5
,rARLY INCIEASE IN 18K LOADS
5.0 I
_____________________________________________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _____________________ e
•
.
.
• tnA'LUT lEST DATA •
.AIE 9/16/86 HR 8 "'IN 45
NO. Of TESTS 7
TE MPE IA lURE S: All'
41.20. SUIHACE 50.00. PAVE"'ENl 45.
LASl REI I S I ON 04-20-1982
LANE E8L
""L PAIH OSWP
JK 1.945
Eet.TH.
SNR4
SU5
SPD
0 .. 0
SNI2
SNI3
OUILlEltS
"EAN
SYt.DEV.
VAil ANCE
TOO
READINGS
405
406
407
"''' 408
.. P
"P 409
IItP 410
411
• •••
••••
1.]0
.5]
.28
1.89
1.63
1.26
1.65
.88
.85
1.28
2.31
.88
• •••
1.02
1.23
.57
.48
.94
1.59
.41
....
",
"'''
.90
.42
.18
••••
....
.16
.20
.04
1.43
.76
.19
.]1
.25
.15
.02
1 .42
.53
.58
.29
.08
1.4]
.40
.39
.08
.04
.25
.22
.52
.15
.08
.6]
.99
.37
.58
.27
.)7
.35
.22
•••••
.....
•
•
•
•
•
·
•
•
..... ..... ·
•
48.4
7.2
51.7
59.6
52.4
42.9
37.0
51.5
47.1
47.9
4.5
1.2
1.4
6.4
4.5
4.2
3.0
5.0
:5.1
5.:5
.. AI
"'IN
AVE
.
"HULECT SU .. "'ARY AND AVERAGE COND I liONS
EI.IH.
6.4
1.0
4.5
0 .. 0
.851
2.309
1.301
SCI
.245
.122
.402
8CI
.019
.232
.112
..
18K LOADS
TO fA lUtE
4.0191·005
5.3011.003
5.164:5+004
UTI
10
0
2
OVEILAY REQUIRE. fOR 10. TEARS ADDITIONAL LIfE IS
2.n INCHES
AVEII AGE SC I
aCI INDICATE SU8GRADE WEA K • D"'D OK.
If PRESENT lRENDS CONTINUE. lHE STRUClURAL NEEDS ARE
HIGH AND THE ROAD WILL PROBABL' LAST FRO'" TWO TO fiVE YEAIS.
•
SCI REG-
.46
BC UEet
.11
EeTIEet&
6.02
DEQIHz
:5.29
•
,.
•
•
•
•
•
•
·
·
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
..
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
•• RIDUBILlTY SU""AI' AND AVEun CONDJTIONS
•• Itl tE AB IlITY 'ATA ••
•
... ... ••• ...
... ... ... •
•
... • •• ••• •••
. ,"
•
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.•
.•
• .
•
NO. lESTS
7
"''' 405 406 407 408 409 410 411
RI 2.5 2.t 2.1 3.1 2.9 2.6 2.5
55 40 40 40 40 40 40
'IA"S
CRAUS
•
.. P 405
.. II 406
.. P 407
"'P 408
409
410
"P 411
AVf lUGE
o.
o.
o.
LO'"
ClUCKS
D.
o.
O.
O.
"AP
CRAUS
1000.
1000.
1000.
••• •••
••• •••
••• ••• • ••
DATE
9/11186
•
•
III: AVERAGE 2.8
"AXI .. U" J .1
"JHJ"u" 2.5
BASED ON RIDUBILITY THE PAVE"[NT IS CONSIDERED TO BE IN
POOII CONDl1l0N
DISTRESS DATA AND AVE IAGE CONDllJONS
CRACk
CRACk
cun
SIKlN
ALLI'ATOR
DfE"
CRACkS
PATCH PATCH OPENING
ABRASION "UILT
o. 2.0
2.5
D.
o.
2.5
D.
o.
O.
2.0
2.5
2.5
o.
o.
O.
2.5
2.5
2.0
1000.
O.
O.
5.0
5.0
5.0
o.
o.
o. 3.0
3.0
3.0
o•
O.
3.0
3.0
D.
3.0
o.
o. 3.0
o.
3.0
3.0
:5 .1
].1
o.
14:5.
o. 2.9
SUlfACE
WEAl
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
].0
3.0
3.0
2.9
WEATH£RING
2.0
2.0
2.0
PO"OUTS
5.0 ·
5.0
5.0
5.0
8LEEDING
3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
J.J
RUl
DEPTH
.10
.10
.10
.00
.10
.10
•
•
O.
s.o
].0
s.o
o.
161.
""
o.
o.
250.
J.O
5.0
•
"
o.
o. 1000.
.20
3.0
5.0
o.
.10
D.
631.
2.9
5.0
6-----------------------------------------------------____________________________________________________________________________ .
·
..
D.
D.
• • SUlfACE 'IICIION lEST 'AlA. •
• • SURfACE fllICTION SU .... ARY AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS. •
THflE IS NO "U"'ETER DATA AVAJLABLE
fO. '"JS SECTION.
NO fRICTION [VALUATION WAS "ADE.
�~AYf"ENT
EVALUATION fOR STATE ROUTE
89 SECTION
FRO" JCT. S.R. 30-89 LEFT
"ILEPOST 411.78
"ATERIAL COVER A"REGATE BITU". SRFACE (CABS)
YEARLY INCREASE IN 18K LOADS
5.0 I
91
SUB SECTION 0
RICH COUNTY (33)
TO UTAH IDAHO STATE LIN[
"ILEPOST 415.84
"AINTENANCE SHED 1J1
].0. NO. 1271
PRrSENT 18k LOADS
26880.
DISTRICT 1
fAP-12
LENGTH
4.06
FUNCTIONAl (LASS
T.S.I. 2.5
6 •
•_____________________________________________________ --------------------------------------________________ ----------------------6
..
•
•
•
•
• • "NAIlECT TEST DATA
DAlE 9116/86 HR 9 III IN 5
NO. OF TESTS 4
TE "PE RA TURE S: AU 41.10. SURrACE 50.00. PAVEIIIENT 46.
LAST REVISION 04-20-1982
LANE NBL
WHL PATH OSW~
for 1.454
EQ .TH.
SPD
SNR5
s ... l
SNU
SHRl
D"'
OUTLIERS
"EAN
51 D.DEV.
VARIANCE
T(!If)
READIN'S
IIIP 412
.. P 413
IIIP 414
"P 415
••••
••••
••••
.38
.OJ
.12
• 01
1.12
.ll
.51
.11
.05
1.34
1.42
.65
.68
1.12
.11
.50
.42
.11
.54
.11
.n
.25
.54
.31
..
•
.... .... ..... ..... •
·
•
..... ..... ••
.26
.09
.01
1.26
.18
.07
.01
1.29
50.1
5.3
28.6
6.2
1.1
2.8
.25
.14
.11
.26
.18
.09
.26
.20
56.1
44.0
52.6
49.3
8.1
5.0
5.5
5.6
•
IIIAX
'IlN
AVE
D'INAFLECT SU""ARY AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS
EQ.IH.
8.7
5.0
6.2
01110
.655
1.ll1
.831
SCI
.151
.J27
.264
BCI
.050
.101
.072
..
18l LOADS
TO HIURE
2.1858+006
9.1058+004
3.1975+005
'I I l
r
13
3
9
·
·
·
·
·
OVERLAT RE QU IRED fOR 10. YEARS ADDITIONAL LIFE ]S 1.18 INCHFS
AVERAGE SC I • BC I INDICATE PAVEIIIENT AND SUBGRADE STRONG.
IF PRE SE NT TRENDS CONTINUE • THE STRUCTURAL NEE DS ARE
"ODE RA T£ AND THE ROAD WILL PROBABLY LAST rROIII SIX TO TEN YEARS.·
SCIREQ'"
.44
BC UEG
.10
EGTREQ-
6.25
DEGTH=
5.01
•
..
..
••
... ... ... ... •••
••• •••
•
...
•••
•• ••• . ...
•
•
.. • •• ... •
• ••
*---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*
.------------------------------------------------------~--------------------------------------------------------------------------*
•
•• IUffABlln, .AlA ••
TESTS 4
,,~ 412 413 414 415 ••• ••• •••
JJ 2.5 2.3 1.1 2.2 ••• ••• ••• •
"PH 40 50 50 50 ••• ••• ••• •••
"0.
•
•
fltANS
CRAUS
..
.. P 412
~ 413
IIIP 414
III~ 415
AYfltA'f
o.
O.
O.
o.
o.
lON5
(ltACKS
o.
O.
o.
O.
o.
"AP
CRACKS
o.
o.
o.
O.
o.
DATE
9/11/86
RIDEABIlITT SU .... ART AND AVERAGE COND 11 IONS
RI: AVERAGE 2.5
"IN IIIIUIII 2.2
"AXI"UIII 3 .1
BASED ON RIDEA8JLI TY THE PAVEIIIENT )S CONSIDERED TO DE IN
POOR CONDIlION
• • DISTRE SS DATA AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS • •
DEEP
CRACK
CRACK
CRACK
Atll 'A TOR SK IN
CItAUS
PATCH PAICH OPENING ABRASION "UILT
o.
o.
o. 5.0
5.0
5.0
o.
o. 5.0
o.
5.0
5.0
o.
o.
o. 5.0
5.0
5.0
o.
O.
5.0
o. 5.0
5.0
O.
o.
o. 5.0
5.0
5.0
SURUCE
VEAR
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
VEATHERING
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
POPOUTS
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
BlEE DING
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
RUT
DEPTH
.20
.20
.20
.10
.11
•
·
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
•
•
• • SURfACE fRICTION TEST 'ATA • •
• • SURfACE FRICTION SUIII"AR' AND AVERAGE CONDITIONS • •
THERE IS NO IIIUIIIETER DATA AVAILABLE
FOR THIS SECTION.
NO FRICTION EVALUAlION VAS "ADf.
�
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/24">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/24</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
3009435652
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
15710629 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
Data from July 31, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Additional data including accident data summary and analysis with topical maps highlighting the most accident prone routes along the canyon
a definition of rideability with an in-depth look at rut depth ranking, distress ranking, structural ranking, surface friction ranking and overall ranking
property listings
ID Team requests and responses
and a final summary table to identify the worst overall sections. Includes accident analysis for Logan Cave, Beaver Mountain, Right Fork, and China Row.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Utah. Department of Transportation
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Utah. Department of Transportation
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1987-07-31
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (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 1
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_Fd1_Page_18.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/851e91620b9c3bbf3d51ce77f805d748.pdf
40d1e76dd05e8c4b86582fa13941bcf2
PDF Text
Text
LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
December 8, 1986
(
Attendance:
Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Clark Ostergaard, USFS
Mark Shaw, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
John Neil, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Jack Spence, Sierra Club
Item I - Review of Minutes
Stan Nuffer conducted a revi~w of the minutes of the previous meeting.
Items that were not included in the minutes
and should have been were:
o
Item 5. The Forest Service is going to provide
the team members with a copy of the _
parking and
recreation master plan . .
o
Item 6. The first time "LOS" is used, it should '
be proceeded by Level of __
Service.
o
Item 6. The last sentence was changed to more
accurately reflect the fact that much of the Canyon
will not accommodate a climbing lane.
(
In addition to the corrections, Duncan Silver clarified his
request .for a status report on the Technical Memorandums.
What he had in mind was a "scorecard" which simply listed
the subject and status (draft, received, approved, final). Jack Spence also asked for some clarification from the
Forest Service on their desire to reduce parking in some
areas of the Canyon. Fred LaBar indicated that there was a
need to maintain adequate parking for fishing and other
recreational purposes, but some types of parking, (hunters
for example) need to be better controlled.
Item 2 - Discussion of Issues and Concerns
Copies of written comments received to date were distributed
as were copies of the transcripts of the two public meetings.
Cliff Forsgren explained the way the comments are being tabulated. There is some difficulty in tabulating the verbal
1
�(
comments received at the public meetings because not all
speakers identified themselves.
It is possible that some
persons, who were not identified, spoke up at more than one
time and those views were tabulated on each occasion. Another difficulty is the best way to handle questions from
people who did not express a view.
The 1.0. Team members
were asked to review the transcripts and tabulations and
make any suggestions they might have.
Item 3 - Discussion of Schedule for Completion of the Scoping
Process
Stan Nuffer explained that the scoping requirements are different for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) than for
an Environmental Assessment (EA). There is a lengthy notification process for an EIS. Stan suggested that, if the
I.D. Team felt that an EIS would ultimately be required, the
EIS scoping process should be started.
Duncan Silver did not feel that there was enough environmental information available to make any kind of preliminary
determination on the need for an EIS. Clark Ostergaard indicated that he would like to know if there was critical
spawning habitat in the River that might be impacted by some
alternatives. Jack Spence pointed out that in maintaining
the Forest Service visual standards, the· improvements that
were possible may not be significant enough to require an
EIS. After considerable discussion it was decided that the
environmental inventories describing
the affected environment need to be reviewed in a manner
similar to the previous, techn~cal ,~~morandums. ~fter there
memorandums have been reviewed, a determination of the
appropriate scoping process could be made.
During the discussion, Duncan Silver also indicated that
tFHWA would probably review the final document (EA of EIS) as
if it were as EIS. Jim Naegle said that information would
be helpful to UDOT because it appeared that there would be 'a
. lengthy review period regardless of the type of final report.
Item 4 - Update of Final Visual Classification
Clark Ostergaard presented some updated information on visual
classifications in the Canyon. He brought his latest mapping
effort that showed the visual classifications between Right
Fork and Ricks Springs. Duncan Silver asked if the visual
retention criteria allowed for "upgrades" in one area to
offset "downgrades" in another. For example, if as a result
of the roadway improvements, a portion of road that had a
classification of 2 was raised to 3, would it be possible at
another location to allow a 5 before construction to be a 4
after.
Clark was not sure how to address that and would
have an answer for the next meeting.
2
�(
Item 5 - Layouts for Component Widening and Alignment Improv.ement from Ricks Springs to Garden City
Stan Nuffer reviewed the plan and profile of the widening
and alignment improvement component from Ricks Springs to
Garden City. Much of this component has a climbing lane.
Lynn Zollinger said that if a climbing lane were to be constructed, intersections would also require special
attention.
NOTE: Prior to the beginning of the meeting John Ellsworth
from Utah State University made a presentation of a computer
simulation technique for depicting topographic modifications.
SLC-STN/03
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/18">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/18</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
1780284587
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1806274 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 December 8, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes from December 8, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, discussion of issues and concerns, discussion of schedule for completion of the scoping process, update of final visual classification, and layouts for component widening and alignment improvement from Ricks Springs to Garden City.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
LaBar, Fred
Ostergard, Clark
Shaw, Mark
Larson, Gale
Silver, Duncan
Neil, John
Zollinger, Lynn
Naegle, Jim
Lukez, Rudy
Spence, Jack
Ellsworth, John
Forsgren, Clifford
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
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
1986-12-08
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Utah
United States
Cache County (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 2
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_Fd2_Page_14.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/1ae6806e3de179f10bbc0234fa823820.pdf
6ac516f039a32c7a923789718bf06c86
PDF Text
Text
LOGAN CANYON
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
August 25, 1986
Attendance:
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Duncan Silver, FHWA
Fred LaBar, USFS
Steve Flint, Audobon Society
Jack Spence, Sierra Club
Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
John Neil, UDOT
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Rudy Lukez, Cache Group Sierra Club
Howard Richardson, UDOT
Todd Weston, UDOT
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
Duncan Silver suggested that there be no more discussion on
roadway maintenance and that the tech memo be written so
that the team could go on to other items. Lynn Zollinger
indicated that the material placed along the river was not
bladed into the river but rather bladed to the side to
establish a roadway shoulder.
There was no other discussion on the minutes.
Item 2 - Draft Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum
Steve Flint presented written comments on the draft memorandum and a copy was presented to each team member present.
Jack Spence indicated that he had tried several methods to
, try and establish a trend using annual and non-summer ADT's
and found that the scatter of the points was too great to
draw any conclusions. From a statistical standpoint a correlation was not found.
However, given the data available,
he could not recommend an approach which would be any better
than those described in the memo.
Duncan Silver felt that the methodology used was adequate
and that the written comments received should be incorporated
into the memo and this portion of the study concluded. There
was agreement on use of the 2 percent compounded growth for
making traffic projections.
(
There was some discussion on how and when the design hour
volume would be e?tablished. Cliff Forsgren explained that
it was planned to select the design hour volume as part of
the capacity evaluation. The 100 highest hour volumes for
1
�several of the past years are being plotted and will be available _ by the next meeting. -- The design hour volume will be
determined at that time.
Item 3 - Review of Manual Traffic Counts
Stan Nuffer reviewed the manual traffic count data.
The
manual counts have been completed and the data will now be
reduced.
Duncan Silver asked how a traffic profile would be
developed through the Canyon. Stan explained that the data
from the permanent station and the manual counts would be
correlated to establish a profile and directional split
through the Canyon. Stan pointed out that the hourly directional split appears to follow an urban distribution.
Item 4 - Review of Existing Roadway Features
Stan Nuffer distributed illustrations of typical road crosssections at mile posts through the Canyon and explained that
this information would be used to establish capacity and
level of service.
The discussion focused primarily on the design speed and how
and when it would be established.
Stan Nuffer indicated
that it would be desirable to keep the speed as uniform as
possible through the Canyon, but that may not be possible.
It was explained that the design speed is usually a function
of lane width and horizontal and vertical alignment.
Lynn Zollinger asked when the alternate routes from the Summit
to Garden C~ty would be considered.- Stan Nuffer explained
that it would occur during the alternative development task
which was yet to come. The 1 inch = 500 feet mapping will
not be available until mid September.
General Discussion
Jack Spence expressed some concern ab6ut whether or not
there would be enough information available to hold the
first public involvement meeting in early September.
It was
decided that since the first meeting had not been officially
scheduled to wait until the information was available to
schedule the public involvement meeting.
The next ID Team meeting will held in Brigham City.
SLC76/07
2
�
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/17">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/17</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
1462470818
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1345956 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 August 25, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes from August 25, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, draft traffic forecast technical memorandum, manual traffic counts, existing roadway features, and general discussion.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Silver, Duncan
LaBar, Fred
Flint, Steve
Spence, Jack
Larson, Gale
Neil, John
Naegle, Jim
Zollinger, Lynn
Lukez, Rudy
Richardson, Howard
Weston, Todd
Forsgren, Clifford
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
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
1986-08-25
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (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 2
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_Fd2_Page_7.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/f1b99e446ebd4a29ef8effa3a88c7e01.pdf
e61f1f7142d5f498b55a3a09701ce4de
PDF Text
Text
ClfMHlll.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Interdisciplinary Team
FROM:
Stan Nuffer
DATE:
August 6, 1987
RE:
Logan Canyon Environmental Study
PROJECT:
B21163.FO
The 24th Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on July 31,
1987, at 1:30 p.m. at the UDOT district office in Ogden,
Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. Also
enclosed for review is the following:
o
Corrected Figure 6-1 and Table 6-1 to be inserted
as pages 6-8 and 6-9 in Chapter 6 Traffic Capacity
Technical Memorandum.
o
Written comments on the Visual Technical Memorandum
from Jack Spence.
In the July 31 Id . ..-. Team Meeting, copies of Table 4 showing
an initial evaluation of impacts of spot improve~ent alternatives were circulated. The Id.
team members were invited to make their own evaluation and respond in writing by
August 14. An additional category "X" was suggested to
cover more severe impacts. Therefore in responding, please
use the following categories.
+
o
x
BOT600/037
Generally favorable
Insignificant or none
Moderately unfavorable
Severely unfavorable
�LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
ID TEAM MEETING MINUTES
July 31, 1987
ATTENDANCE
Todd Weston/UDOT
Howard Richardson/UDOT
Lynn Zollinger/UDOT
Jim Naegle/UDOT
John Neil/UDOT
Dave Baumgartner/USFS
Clark Ostergaard/USFS
Larry England/USF&WS
Stan Nuffer/CH2M HILL
Arlo Waddups/Valley Engineering
Rudy Lukez/Sierra Club
Steve Flint/Audubon
Tom Lyon/Utah Wilderness Association
Bill Helm/Unattached
Duncan Silver/FHWA
ITEM 1--REVIEW OF MINUTES
May 18, 1987, minutes approved as distributed. June 22,
1987, minutes approved with one correction: Item 4, page 5
to mention conflict with existing forest plan. Duncan
Silver requested that a complete summary file of minutes be
circulated.
ITEM 3--DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT (ISSUES
AND CONCERNS) TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
This item was moved up on the agenda because we wanted Clark
Ostergaard to arrive before we discussed Item 2. The reference to environmental groups in the second paragraph,
page 2, is to be dropped. The Corps of Engineers needs to
be involved in the delineation of wetlands. Additional
documentation of emergency medical service was requested. A
section on endangered species needs to be added to USF&WS
list of concerns. The summary of Logan city comments should
differentiate between mayor's and city council members'
statements.
Issues need to be identified independent of
source. Summaries from Cache County, BRAG, and Chamber of
Commerce need to be included in the agency responses.
The forest plan needs to be 'clearly recognized. Any conflicts with it that exist in the alternatives should be
identified. After considerable discussion, it was concluded
that the issues and concerns should be grouped into five
broad categories:
o
Scenic values
o
Safety and traffic flow
o
Ecological considerations--river, riparian areas,
threatened and endangered species
1
�o
Regional economics
o
Compliance with existing plans, specifically the
forest plan
Additional specific concerns that were mentioned in the
scoping process included pedestrian traffic, recreation
parking, bicyclists, road cross sections, economic impacts
in Rich County, Rich County road maintenance, and mitigation
difficulties. The issues discussion should possibly be
moved to the front of the document.
ITEM 2--VISUAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
FHWA versus USFS classification systems discussed. The FHWA
system applies credit to improvements. The document adequately met the needs of both systems. The various alternatives need to address retention and document which visual
categories can be mitigated. The impact on the affected
areas must be put into perspective by identifying the number
of acres total in each category out to an arbitrary line
(30 feet from the roadway). Copy of Jack Spence's written
comments is to be circulated to the team.
ITEM 4--SPOT IMPROVEMENTS
Raising of the road grade in selected areas needs to be
included as a spot improvement. Stage construction may be a
means for mitigation. Copies of Table 4, which shows a summary of positive, negative, or insignificant impacts of the
spot improvements, was circulated. The table is a start
toward identifying impacts; the team will respond in writing
in 2 weeks with their own evaluation. A suggestion was made
to mark with an "X" those impacts that cannot be mitigated.
The . possible development of a second spot improvement alternative that is more limited in scope was discussed. We
decided to go ahead with the evaluation of the full list and
then see if it would be advisable to include more than one
spot improvement alternative in the DEIS.
Larry England reviewed the Macquire primrose biological
assessment provided by Dr. Stanley Welsh. He indicated that
the USF&WS does not completely concur with Welsh's conclusions. Other sites (outside the project area) have experienced a significant decline, apparently due to climatic
conditions. The USF&WS would not like to see a passing lane
in the area, but road widening would be acceptable. England
would like to work with others involved in the process so a
jeopardy opinion could be avoided.
2
�ITEM 5--ROAD USER BENEFIT AND COST COMPARISON
The cost comparison memorandum was discussed briefly. A
request was made for more information on cost background,
and for an example of how the cost benefits were obtained.
ADDITIONAL ITEMS
An accident analysis for Logan Cave area and mile post 384
was circulated. The predominant accident type involved
vehicles running off the road.
Sketches of the various concepts for flattening the curve at
Logan Cave were circulated. The sketches illustrate the
concepts outlined in the Technical Memorandum Chapter 8,
pages 8-9 and 8-10.
Steve Flint pointed out a discrepancy in Figure 6-1 and
Table 6-1 of the traffic capacity Technical Memorandum.
Corrections will be circulated.
Time of a future meeting was left open pending assessment of
responses to the spot improvements evaluation, and additional
comments on the technical memoranda.
BOT606/008
3
�Table 6-1
HIGHWAY CHARACTERISTICS USED IN
LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATIONS
Traffic
Direct
Distrib
ComEosition
RVs
Trucks
(%)
(% )
Percent
Terrain
Type
Section
MileEosts
Length
(mi)
I
383.47 to 391.60
8.13
60/40
1
12.2
Rolling
83
11.0
1.0
2a
391.60 to 399.70
8.10
60/40
1
12.2
Rolling
61
11.50
1.5
2b
399.70 to 404.75
5.05
60/40
1
12.2
Mountain
56
11.50
1.5
3
404.75 to 411.78
7.03
60/40
1
12.2
Mountain
66
11.5
1.5
BOT606/009
0\
I
ex>
No
Passing
Lane
Width
---
Shoulder
Width
�BEAVER
RICKS SPRING:
LOWER TWIN BRIDGE
LOGAN CAVE
WOOD CAMP
~
CHINA ROW
RIGHT FORK
RANGER STATION
FIGURE 6-1 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SJ~CTIONS
BRIDGE
LOGAN CANYON STUDY
�,.
\
RECEIVED
VISUAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMO
. : .. ,i~ '. "..J~-'
.
. . wl
CH2M HJLl / SLC
1. An important consideration with respect to the extent of various
impacts is the relative amount of area affected.
This is particu-
larly critical for riparian areas (visual sensitivity rating 6 or 7).
For example, in alternative Cl, the total riparian area affected
is estimated at 9.5 acres.
This calculates to be a strip approxi-
mately 9 feet wide for the entire middle section of the canyon, and
agrees closely with the amount of riparian area affected by addition
of a strip 8.5 feet wide to the highway (modified standard).
Since
the middle section is very narrow, all land between the road and
the river is riparian (U.S.F.S. standard is anything less than
100 fee t ) .
How mu c h
in this alternative?
0
f the tot aIr i par ian z 0 new 0 u 1 d .b e a f f e c ted
50%?
75%?
For alternative 0, 40 mph, it must
approach 100%, since this calculates to be a strip 13.5 feet wide
for the entire section.
In order to evaluate the impact, an esti-
mate .of the amount (%) of total riparian zone destroyed in each
alternative needs to be given.
2.
The t maps showing the area to be affected are somewhat misleading,
since they indicate, e.g., riparian zone only exists where the
R/7(6)
symbol occurs.
In fact, in the middle canyon, the entire
area between the road and the river is riparian zone, and any widening of the road will affect it for the entire length of the section.
This should be clarified for Cl, 01 alternatives.
3.
No accounts is taken of the impact on visual resources for those
using the canyon but not driving.
Campers, fisherman, hikers, etc,
not on the road may have their visual resources adversely affected
�·
\
by the various alternatives, but in a different manner than drivers.
How is this to be evaluated?
4.
Page 6.
Evaluation Criteria.
It is stated: "Roadsides with
a 3-5 rating can absorb alternations, but will require major mitigation (retaining walls, bridges, etc)." It is hard to understand
how a retaining wall or a bridge can mitigate the loss of naturalness.
5.
The memo indicates all alterations in areas with a 6 or 7 sen-
sitivity index (which includes all riparian zones) cannot meet the
f.
/\
VQO or Retention, which is required by the Forest Plan.
These
amount to a considerable amount of the total area affected, particularly in the middle canyon (35% for Cl; 34% for 01, 35 mph; 35% for
01, 40 mph), as well as parts of the upper canyon (Franklin Basin
road to Beaver Mountain Road, Summit).
however, as to how this
C
impas~
No indication is given,
is to be solved.
Clearly, this will
require a revision of the Forest Plan for these alternatives, since
such a large part of the total area will be affected.
The implica-
tions of this must be spelled out in the OEIS. This is a critical
omission.
t
6.
The spot Improvement Alternative (B) appears to include all spot
alternatives in the form originally proposed.
There is no such alter-
natives, since the number and extent of each improvement must be agreed
upon.
It must be made clear this alternative includes all spot improve-
ments at the maximum level for each, and the final alternative will
be for fewer and smaller improvements.
As it now stands, there is
little to differentiate Bl from Cl in the sections affected: the only
difference is in the width of the road between improvements.
~o//
(//
�
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/16">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/16</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
2872464200
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
4315904 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 July 31, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes from the 24th Interdisciplinary Team meeting on July 31, 1987 at UDOT district office in Ogden, Utah. Also included is a corrected Figure 6-1 for Traffic Capacity Technical Memorandum and labeled map, and written comments on Visual Technical Memorandum from Jack Spence which includes a section on spot improvements.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
England, Larry
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Traffic engineering
Logan Canyon Study
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
CH2M HILL
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1987-08-06
1987-07-31
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (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 2
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_Fd2_Page_3.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/88b5488d478636205e8ce14e01579f45.pdf
19011acafaa7164f953244e00c6aff32
PDF Text
Text
L0~AN CANYON
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
September 22, 1986
(
Attendance:
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
John D'Amico, CH~M HILL
Cliff Forsgren,CH2M HILL
Duncan Silver, FHWA
Fred LaBar, USFS
Mark Shaw, USFS
Clark Ostergard, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
John Neil, UDOT
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Howard Richardson, UDOT
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
Cliff Forsgren indicated that there had been some inconsistencies discovered in the accident rate calculations and
that it would be better to hold off on presenting any information to the public until the questions were answered.
(
Item 2 - Traffic Characteristics
Stan Nuffer lead the discussion of the Traffic Characteristics
Technical Memorandum. During the discussion Rudy Lukez questioned the statement about the winter traffic count representing a "background" traffic flow. After some discussion,
Duncan Silver wondered if the issues of background flow was
really relevant to the study. Duncan asked that it be made
clearer in the memorandum which flows were winter, which
were summer and which were annual.
It was concluded in the memorandum that the Design Hourly
Volume (DHV) would be 14 percent of the average daily summer
traffic.
It was also noted that the 14 percent figure tracks
very closely with other recreational roads.
Item 3 - Traffic Capacity
Cliff Forsgren presented the results of the traffic capacity
analysis.
It was pointed out that the primary purpose of
the analysis was to try to describe the conditions that
exist in the Canyon under various traffic volumes. To do
this, a Level of Service approach was used. Levels of
service from A to E were examined. It was determined that
all sections of the road offer a level of service D at the
present time and that by the year 2010 level E would be
1
�experienced in most of the Canyon. Rudy Lukez asked if level
of service D was really undesireable. Cliff indicated that
a desired level of service would need to be established as a
goal and that this had not been done. Before alternatives
can be developed this must be accomplished.
Item 4 - Miscellaneous
Duncan Silver felt that there needed to be a list developed
of general environmental factors.
This should be completed
before the development of alternatives begins. Stan Nuffer
indicated that the environmental team is gathering information and there should be some basic understanding before
serious alternative development began.
SLC-STN/03
(
2
�
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/5">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/5</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
3868173708
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1034056 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 September 22, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes from September 22, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, traffic characteristics, traffic capacity, and general environmental factors.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
D'Amico, John
Silver, Duncan
LaBar, Fred
Shaw, Mark
Ostergard, Clark
Larson, Gale
Neil, John
Naegle, Jim
Richardson, Howard
Lukez, Rudy
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Forsgren, Clifford
Subject
The topic of the resource
Signs and signboards
Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
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
1986-09-22
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (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 2
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_Fd2_Page_9.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/390efa1c5562c962da6d806f7c42bb38.pdf
c806fc53a5620551340cf52392a9c7e7
PDF Text
Text
- LOGAN CANYON
MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
September 8, 1986
(
Attendance:
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Cliff Forsgren,CH2M HILL
Duncan Silver, FHWA
Fred LaBar, USFS
Mark Shaw, USFS
Clark Ostergard, USFS
Steve Flint, Audobon Society
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
John Neil, UDOT
Jim Naegle, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Bill Helm
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
Duncan Silver suggested that the presentation of the roadway
width data could be clearer. It is possible that someone
could interpret it to mean an l8-foot pavement width, which
is not the case.
Item 2 - Draft Traffic Forecast Technical Memorandum
A draft of the safety technical memorandum was distributed
and Cliff Forsgren briefly explained the memorandum. The
fundamental conclusion stated in the memorandum is that
there are accidents occurring in Logan Canyon at a greater
rate than the' average for similar roads in the state, but
that the accidents are not generally serious.
In the memorandum, it is recommended that during the alternative development portion of the study, safety related alternatives be
considered at locations identified.
Lynn Zollinger suggested that the original accident reports
should be reviewed in order to better define the location
and cause of the accidents. Duncan Silver suggested that it
was probably not necessary to go into greater detail except
for specific improvements.
Duncan asked that a day/night breakdown of accidents be included in the memorandum. Bill Helm thought that it would
be helpful to expand Table 6 to include the number of each
type of accident (severity 1 through 5). Duncan also pointed
out that roadway improvements to not often reduce the number
of acci~e~ts, but will reduce the severity.
1
�(
-Steve Flint asked what effect the latest safety improvements
had on the accident rate. Duncan pointed out that since the
safety project had been completed within the past few months,
it -would not be possible to estimate the impact, with any
degree of confidence, for 3 or 4 years. There was some discussion about the chevrons which had been placed to mark one
particularly sharp curve, and whether they had improved the
safety of that curve. No one was certain when the chevrons
were installed so that question could not be answered at
the meeting.
Duncan also suggested that something be said about the number
of accidents which may be occurring during peak traffic periods.
Steve Flint asked for copies of the "quick list".
Cliff will see that he gets copies.
Item 3 - Review of Manual Traffic Counts
The date of the first public information meeting was set for
September 23, 1986. Duncan Silver suggested that we should
take the opportunity at the meeting to ask questions. "
"How
long does it take you to get through the Canyon now?" "How
much faster do you want to get through the Canyon?" "What
are you willing to give up to get through that fast?"
Bill Helm said that it might be helpful if there was an opportunity to discuss the types of improvements that might be
necessary to upgrade the road or eliminate some problems.
The public would then have an idea of what might happen if
some types of improvements were implemented.
The next ID team meeting was scheduled for September 22,
1986 at 3:00 p.m. at the District Office in Ogden.
SLC-STN/03
(
2
�
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/4">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/4</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
3185562639
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1217099 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 September 8, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes from September 8, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, draft traffic forecast technical memorandum, and manual traffic counts.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Silver, Duncan
LaBar, Fred
Shaw, Mark
Ostergard, Clark
Flint, Steve
Larson, Gale
Neil, John
Naegle, Jim
Zollinger, Lynn
Helm, Bill
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Forsgren, Clifford
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
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
1986-09-08
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (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 2
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_Fd2_Page_8.pdf
Highway 89;