1 50 14 https://highway89.org/files/original/81f4e852e7621c3d6cd8626113b682ab.pdf 3a8bb70c3be61ebe0bae8080f28042d9 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PUBLIC MEETING LOGAN, UTAH ../ " September 23, 1986 COMMENTS FOLLOWING CH2M HILL PRESENTATION: Question: I just wanted to ask why is this study limited to that segment you showed. Margaret Johnson: That was defined by the UDOT. like to elaborate on that? Stan, would you s. Nuffer: That is correct, we are referring to the section from Right Fork on over the hill to Garden City, and for a basis of comparison, the lower level of the canyon as well for certain types of analysis as to what were the effects of some of the improvements. Does that answer your question? Question: Is it because this portion seems to have the greatest concentration of problems? " ' S. Nuffer: As Commissioner Weston explained, there are certain things that need to be done in that canyon, such as the bridge replacement, and there are some identified areas that could be improved so it was necessary to conduct an environmental study. So the opinion was tp look at the canyon as a whole so we can address the problem once and for all so the~e things can be done as the arise. s. Barker: The portion of the canyon below Right Hand Fork has already had improvement projects. So we wanted to focus our atten. tion on the other area that has not been improved. Question: I was interested in your overlays. Do you also have overlays of the traffic patterns for the last 20 years? s. Nuffer: We don't have an overlay for that. Question: How does that compare with your projected trend? What is the trend for the last 20 years? Is there an upward trend in the same fashion? s. Nuffer: The trend that we have projected there reflects about a 2% annual growth rate. This is a very conservative growth rate. Much less than has been used in the past. Rudy Lukez: I just wanted to point out a couple of things I mentioned in a discussion concerning this meeting, and also why the public may wish to disregard this information. One thing in particular is the safety data. Last week we had a chance to look at �( / the data and the conservationists reviewed it and we came up with some serious flaws in it. At that time we asked that the safety data not be discussed at this meeting. That was essentially going to be our agreement for tonight, that the safety data that had been collected and analyzed to this point was not correct. And so it would not be proper at this point for anybody to make any conclusions or to draw any conclusions from that safety data until it is better analyzed and better reviewed. c. Forsgren: What Rudy is saying is basically correct. We have not completed the analysis. We are looking at the accidents. We are looking at the locations on the road that accidents may occur in clusters, but we have not gotten to the point where we can draw conclusions. The study done by UDOT several years ago identified places in the canyon where we might look to do some improvements. Their objective was different than ours. We are looking at a different type of situation from a different perspective. So the message we wanted to convey tonight relative to safety is that these are the things that we are looking at. Question: Based on what? You just said you don't have data to look at and that is the third time you've said it. C. Forsgren: All we are prepared to say is that at some places in the road there have been more accidents in the past six years than in other places. Whether that is significant or not, we haven't determined. That is all we can say at this point. We have some data that we had reason to believe was reliable, but in looking at it closer, we now question it. The only thing we are saying now is that we are looking at these things and when we are satisfied that our conclusions are correct, then we will come out and say these are our conclusions. And until we can say that, we are not prepared to do so. That is, in essence, what we hope to convey tonight. The only thing I can say for certain, and it is · just simply there are places where there have been more accidents. Whether that means anything, we don't know. We can't say that and we are no~ going to. And I appreciate Rudy bringing this up, because we do not want to convey the wrong impressions. R. Lukez: It might be worthwhile to mention that when accidents are counted it includes everything from someone getting killed on the one extreme to somebody running off the ditch because of carelessness or going to fast around a corner on an icy road in the middle of a blizzard. So you do get quite a range of accidents so there is a corresponding severity index for that. C. Forsgren: I apologize if we have created some confusion on that and if you want to jump on somebody, you can jump on me. At this point all we want to tell you is what we are doing and not what we have concluded, because we have really not concluded anything. Page 2 of 16 �R Lukez: The only thing we wanted to make sure was pointed out tonight was that the data which has been used to this point to make projections out to the year 2010 is not good data, that the data is very scattered and there are a lot of conclusions you could draw from it. Using straight linear techniques such as they used tonight you are able to come up with the corresponding numbers that they have and from there they are able to draw upon that data and come up with various conclusions for the current levels of service that are defined by the government from A to F. ( c. Forsgren: We might point out that the numbers we are talking about are summer numbers. .' R. Lukez: Yes, that is correct. It is important to realize that we are talking about summer numbers used in traffic flows and projections for the future - that is through the three summer months and that is heavily weighted by the data from the 4th of July Weekend, the 24th of July Weekend and by Labor Day and from Memorial Day and several other scattered weekends. So you are looking at trends that are very representative of major recreational highways where people are going to recreate for the weekend. They are going to another recreational destination and because of the way the numbers are sort of skewed, especially along those holiday weekends, those peak periods when everybody in the world is travelling, it helps to determine the various design hourly volume rates and then you can get those levels of services that some are very scary, no doubt, in the 'E' range. In this case, I believe we are shooting for an ideal level of "C" service when doing the mathematical analysis. So I think those are things to really keep in mind - the safety data is not complete and no conclusions should be drawn from it at all, and the 1.9% figure is all based on statistical data which is not very good data. When you start building statistical correlations you don't come out very well. Also, the 1.9% figure is a very low number. I keep hearing from UDOT time and time again, "Gee, we like to see 4% or 6% as a growth rate in order to design new highways." So that's another thing to keep in mind, it is very low, and depending upon how you interpret those numbers you can come to many different conclusions, and when you are talking about levels of service and you are hearing "D" or "E" level of service keep in mind that it is based on busy summer weekends, and only during those summer weekends. C. Forsgren: One thing that hasn't been decided yet is the level of service that we want to achieve. That is one of the purposes of these meetings, is to try and establish what is it we want. Do we want "A" or are we willing to live with "B" or "D" or something in between. This may be a little confusing to you, but one of the objectives is to find out what are we going to live with up there, or what do we want to have in the way of services. - Is it alright the way it is, can we live with the delays which we are experiencing, or can we live with something substantially more in terms of delays, or do we want those eliminated. We are focusing our atten- Page 3 of 16 �( ./ tion on June, July and August. These are the months volume, and we are selecting a design hour volume in ing a number and saying this is what we are going to handle. It is a number that represents a fairly high traffic and is also fairly representative. of the most terms of picktry and degree of Comment: This is more of an answer for the data that was used for the traffic flow. It started in 1973 and went through 85. 1983 was deleted because there were problems with the counter. That gives you the number of years that were used. As far as the someplace between 60 and 70% for the variation. R Lukez: The R square value is very important in any way you represent this data. I guess also, as a matter of interest, I uncovered some data yesterday which goes back to 1937 for the canyon. So there is now complete data available going back to 1937. Question: (Ronald Laneer) Yes, I realize that your analysis is not complete but I've looked at Graph No.3, the safety graph, and I have compared some of the results with an accident analysis that I did a long time ago in 1971 using the first four years of data that was put on UDOT's computer and, therefore, was uniform. And there are some things that I became aware of as a result of that analysis that agrees with this safety analysis, but there are also things that seriously conflict with you. The one place we agree is that the most common kind of accident is running off the road. Something very illogical is that you are not looking at the relationship of running off the road with seeing the road. The Logan Canyon Highway is more visible than it has ever been. It has quite a few yellow center lines, white curb lines and warning signs and reflectors that have just gone up in the last couple of years. There has been a great change. We also have very good surface on now. During most of the 1970s and until two or three years ago the road was a shambles and I've heard several people say that maintenance was purposely left "undone so the road would get so bad that the highway department would have to go totally through it. " 'I.~ But the point is that the road , that you are analyzing now that is so bright and so visible has not been that way during the period for most of these accidents that you are analyzing. And I also agree with your data that show most of the running off the road accidents are cars going down hill. I think that if you will look at visibility conditions, what time of day, you'll find that a disproportionate number of those happen at night, many during the winter time. The road has not been visible. The highway department used to begin the Logan Canyon Road at the intersection of 4th North and Main and during the 40 year period looking at 399 accidents between that intersection and Garden City, 47% of them took place between Main Street and USU campus. So just to give you an idea of the rather low magnitude of the accident problem in terms of accident numbers in Logan Canyon. Rather or not that is exactly true, I don't know, but it might indicate that if you had $10,000 Page 4 of 16 �( / to spend some turn stoplights at that intersection would do a lot more good than in Logan Canyon. One thing you don't seem to have done is to compare accident rates by month or accident numbers by month. In 1971 I found that at looking at a couple of hundred accidents that the numbers by month were relatively the same. There is almost no difference from month to month, even though the traffic volume for July is more than 12 times the volume for February. Which means at that time you were 12 time safer to be on the highway in July. You are making assumptions I think that there is some relationship between safety and the highway and some mathematical flow principle that you are seeing traffic on the highway being similar to liquids flowing through a pipe and the idea is that if you can keep the flow smooth and at an equal rate that will be safer. The low number of accidents during the peak periods of summer, I think belies that. And another thing that is not being done is to select out not the sections only, but the most serious accidents, the ones that result in fatalities or just injuries or just those which an ambulance had to be called out for which are separately accounted for on the UDOT computer, and find what common factor you can find for those most serious accidents, rather than just looking at the accidents pretty much quantatively regardless of where they happen. Certainly, that is important but the seriousness of the accidents is as important as the number of accidents, especially since the majority are running off the road and colliding with the bank or rocks. It was not mentioned that the accidents usually result in a little bit of property damage but no physical injuries . .f Don Hueffner: I'm from Rich County and I've got two questions and I want to ask them both. One is first that about 1/3 of this road you are talking about is located in Rich County and hearing you talk about the people who are on this committee I did not hear of anyone who is representing us. Maybe someone was · asked I don't know about. My next question is that so far most of what has been said is that Logan Canyon should be used as a destination instead of transportation. If that is the case, and that'd be fine with me except that 80% of the people that use it who wouldn't be taken care of. In other words, would it be possible to funnel that 80% through Cottonwood Canyon and to Ogden rather than through 'Logan Canyon? Is that being considered? Sheldon Barker: The I.D. Team was not really created to try and get geographic representation. As I went through the list what we were trying to do was to get technical specialties, fisheries biologist, landscape architect. We were not trying to get geographic representation. That was not the goal. Really, outside of the Forest Service, the consultants and UDOT the only groups on there are the environmental groups with their technical input. Page 5 of 16 �( / D. Hueffner: Can I make a comment? Out situation over there is a little different than Cache County because so much of our business relies on what is done over the canyon. And so some of this technical data and some of the things which we may do will have quite an impact on these projections. Also, what you decide will have a great impact upon us. s. Barker: We certainly want to solicit your input. And in addition to the meeting we are having here tonight we are in the process of arranging a meeting in Rich County so you don't have to travel all the way to Logan so you can as a group be represented. r M. Johnson: I would like to say one other thing and that is that in completing the environmental analysis at what ever analysis it is done, the plans that you may have for a convention center or what ever other development you may have for the Bear Lake area will be entered into the impacts of the road as well as the needs for the road. So those concepts are not being brushed aside simply by some lower percentages for growth in the future. These percentages for growth, someone said are very low, and that is true, they are very conservative, but in the current economic conditions, I think that is very realistic. If conditions change, then yes, things have to be evaluated again, and if Bear Lake area starts developing, if Rich County starts developing, then the projections we have need to be reevaluated. But, growth will not be discounted in the environmental impact analysis. He had another question: The question about finding another throughway of routing the traffic that now occurs in Logan Canyon through some other route. Would someone with UDOT like to answer that? Jim Naegle: Any viable alternative would be looked at. The first observation we have is that it is not one that comes forward as a benefit at this time. Two decades from now that may not be true, but at this time we do not see immediately that an alternate route .separate from the canyon is going to be the answer. However, it will not be discounted, it will be looked at, but at this point our concentration is on the canyon. We are pretty well going to stay with the canyon with the money we have. Question: I get the impression that the major concern between and safety is the environmental impact on the canyon. My question is there seems to be a lot of concern about the reliability of the data. My question is have their been environmental studies done on impact of the road as it exists now and how reliable is that data? What specific species have been impacted by the road since I don't know when, and over what time frame, so forth? M. Johnson: I think you would call that a post audit assessment. I certainly can't answer that question, whether there has been one done I think UDOT would have to answer that one. Page 6 of 16 �/ UDOT: There are a lot of things that can be considered. What has been done in the past is not the main issue. The thing we are most concerned about is if there are changes made how will they impact it? And we want to impact it the least possible to get what is required or recommended, so we don't spend our time in evaluating what has happened we are really looking forward and want to make sure that things are not impacted that shouldn't be impacted. So we are looking forward and not back at what has been done, only as it comes into play and what we might be able to learn from it. If w~ find something that has been impacted, it will certainly be a lesson to us as to how to handle the impacts of the future or in changes in what we might recommend. M. Johnson: One slight comment on that, and that is that NEPA is to identify what impacts are going to occur from a project so that everyone is aware, to provide information and then incorporate public input to make decisions about what projects should be constructed and which ones shouldn't. And as stated at the beginning our job is to balance the various interests, and certainly there are a lot of them, especially in this case. ( , Richard Bean: I am a Logan Business man and my. name is Richard Bean. There are four canyons between here and Yellowstone and it seems to me that a study of this canyon in relation to the other three that come to mind would be useful because the end destination of a lot of vehicles that use this canyon is Jackson or Yellowstone. Maybe not in the depth that you are going to study this one but in the relative traffic flows, you might want to look into that. CH2M HILL: So there is no mistake will you identify those canyons? R. Bean: I drive them every year but I don't remember the names. Snake River Canyon down from Hobach to Alpine, Canyon out of Montpelier, and then there is another little canyon by Star Valley. S .' Barker: I appreciate the clarification because I thought you were talking about alternates to this canyon instead you are talking about ones that complement this canyon. R. Bean: A lot of people who use this canyon use those others and my feeling is that all of those other canyons have better traffic lows than this one. So I think that should be looked at. Wendell Anderson: I would like to make a comment along the same line. From Main and Center in Logan to Sage Junction if you went over Blacksmith Fork it would be ten miles shorter than it is here, It would 500 feet lower in elevation than going through Logan Canyon and there certainly would not be all of the bridges you have to build. I think that should be considered. Page 7 of 16 �Question: I have a question here and as for improving roads for safety, that is not a decision you are ready to make at this time. Other things that you might want to improve the road for, maybe to save time, how much time is saved? Another thing mentioned was the where road kills (animal kills) occur, and they occur more at the top of the mountain and if that area of the road is improved won't the road kills increase at a much faster rate? You have projections for many other things M. Johnson: Let me state from the beginning that never in the presentation that I made did I mean to infer that improvements should be justified on the basis of the accidents, because as I said our analysis is not completed yet. What I said was UDOT's 1982 study indicates certain things and in locating the accidents that have occurred on the highway, which have nothing to do with the number crunching, it appears that some sections have more accidents than others. That is a very obvious conclusion that you can draw. But we are not trying to justify improvements now or at any time on the basis of the information on accidents that we have now. In any environmental analysis that is done something such as road/animal kills would certainly be evaluated. That is a factor that would certainly need to be considered. So I certainly don't mean to brush that off, but that is not the point where we are at now so that will be done before any improvement is constructed or made. C. Forsgren: We haven't recommended any conclusions based on safety. In fact, I don't know that we've really said that the road needs to be improved. I think what we are saying is that if we want to do some things then we need to make some changes. But I don't know that the decision has been made that we want to do those things. It may be perfectly acceptable as it is. If that is the case, we will go ahead and fix the bridges. Question: What is the time savings by making improvements? C. Forsgren: It depends on what improvements we make, and there is quite a range. We are not here to tell you what we think we ought to do. We are here to learn. Do you want something done? Is it acceptable? We can make certain things to make minor improvements. We can do more things to make bigger changes. Question: I was just asking why I might benefit from have it improved. Will I be able to drive from here to Garden City quicker, and if so how much quicker will that be? M. Johnson: That is another thing that will be considered in an environmental analysis - the time factor, the benefit is an impact that will be examined. Page 8 of 16 �( C. Forsgren: We haven't got that far but I can tell you some things in general. It is not a proposal, it is just sitting around wondering what if we did this, what would it mean in terms of level of service. If we were to go into the canyon right now we are looking at about 11 foot traffic lanes and foot shoulder areas. If we were to make those 12 foot lanes and 4 foot shoulder areas then you reduce the percent of time people would be delayed from 75 to less than 60. That may give you a feel for it. Question: How long would it take to go Logan to Garden City in an average day? C. Forsgren: We haven't figured that yet. Comment: I've done some calculations and if you could drive to Logan from Garden City it would take about 55 minutes to get there. If you changed that road to 50 miles an hour for the whole way, which I think is quite optimistic, it would take approximately 38 minutes for a 17 minute saving. Wendell Anderson: I just want to make one suggestion in terms of terminology here. There has been talk about any change as improvement. You might talk about change rather than improvement, or if you want another word that is loaded use bulldoze rather than improvement. M. Johnson: Improvement is common terminology. offended you. I am sorry if that Comment: My name is Ted Seeholzer from Beaver Mountain Ski area and I'm the last person that wants to see Logan Canyon become a four lane highway, but we do need some work done on it very soon. There are some damn serious places in that canyon and I've had family members who have been injured because of severe turns, and I'm sure a lot of you have. I have some other concerns other than that and I'm associated with the visitor business and have been for quite a few years. Right now the Utah Travel Council, and Bridgerland Travel Association along with people from Garden City are trying to really promote the visitor business in Cache County, Logan Canyon, Garden City, Montpelier, Jackson Hole because Jackson Hole is a drawing card. Every kid wants to go to Jackson and be a cowboy and dad wants to go and get drunk. So we are really promoting the visitor route through this valley. If you think the business industry isn't viable, it comes to somewhere between $34 million and $36 million a year in taxes. That is money that you and I don't pay. And it is damn important to have a good travelable road that these people can go on. Not at 65 miles per hour but a road that those that need to get around can get around. 3% truck load in my estimation is a very heavy truck load. Those people slow up traffic. All of us are not Sunday drivers. I make 200 trips a year through that canyon and I'll promise you one thing: You have to go at 3:00 in the morning, if you don't want to be slowed down you can't get around traffic. I realize in our projections we have picked peak holidays, but in my case in the winter, you can pick Page 9 of 16 �/ President's day and I'll promise you there is bumper to bumper cars from the mouth of Logan Canyon. And that is a dangerous time of year, the highways are slick, some people don't use good judgment, but we have to allow for those types of drivers. You and I can not drive every car. We can not make John, Jane, and Jim drive with intelligence. I think that it is up to this organization to use good judgment in helping those type of drivers navigate I just want a good road for those who are good drivers, for those who need to hurry a little bit and its very important that we help the business industry in this valley. Question: Who started this whole process? The last I heard UDOT was basically out of money. Would you explain the procedure? M. Johnson: I'll certainly let UDOT respond to that. Let me say that economic assessment of the environmental assessment determines how much a tradeoff of improvements versus the possible economic benefits that may occur. UDOT: The question on economics is certainly an important one. What this team is going to do is to develop a transportation plan for the canyon. When that is completed and the environmental assessments are done and accepted no matter what that plan may be, then UDOT will look at that and designated it as to what should go first and what can wait. Certainly parts of it ought to be done as soon as possible and other parts may be able to wait. But any action we do take will be part of an overall and published plan so the public knows where we are going from this point. It may take one year to complete this plan or some other unspecified time frame. Comment: My name is Russ Goodwin and if I could just follow that thought up somewhat I would propose to UDOT that a much more pressing need exists for a good four-lane road into Cache Valley from the Interstate. Looking at improvements through the Logan Canyon are a bit premature, in my opinion. We need to be looking at this type of road into Cache Valley. UDOT: The purpose of the UDOT is to consider the conditions of all state routes, and there are plans being made to widen the roadway from Brigham City to Logan to possibly 4-lanes. There is a study being completed and some decisions will be made soon. Question: My name is of Laketown over in Bear Lake and I don't know if I talk for them but that is who I am here with. And I'm going to chastise the group because they said they met with town officials this morning and we didn't know about it and we may not be very big but we think we are important. The other thing, in comment, as we look at the environmental study, and I'm sure you do this, and I'd like the environmentalists to remember that humans are a part of our environment. I work on an ambulance out of Rich County and have done for six years, and if you want to have a real experience, do CPR on somebody on the 4th of July coming through Page 10 of 16 �Logan Canyon. The people we work on are usually from Cache Valley or down on the Wasatch Front. And it is a tremendous challenge coming through those bends being very surprised when some tourist stops when they see the red light down in that lower section and there is no where to go. So we have to come to a quick stop, begin doing whatever we were doing again, working on the patients. Our own families livelihoods rely totally on Cache Valley. If you look at the economic money, most of us in those communities up and down Bear Lake make at least one trip a week into Cache Valley, to grocery shop, to see doctors, to buy tires, buy farm machinery, implements. Our livelihood relies on Logan Canyon and so most of us we don't get to drive maybe as much as Mr. Seeholzer, but darn near as much. And we are interested, we were excited as we read that there were studies going forward to improve, whether it takes a little bulldozing or not, to improve that canyon to get us into the valley easier. We don't want to slow down those that like to see the canyon, but after you have seen it as much as most of us do, we don't pay that much attention to it, we want to get here get our business done and get back home to our families. And that is important and I hope that the UDOT will come in and solicit our governments help, and also our people's comments because I think you'll find the people of Bear Lake love their environment, they live over there in no man's land because they like to be away from people and because they enjoy that country surrounding. It is not a great economic place to be, or looking for a future for your children, but we are working on that. We do enjoy the environment, but we need to have some of these facilities for our use as well. ( And I would like to see bicycling taken into consideration. I've about ran over I don't know how many bicyclers coming down the canyon. They go slow around a bend. They need a lane. I'd like to put them somewhere over on the hill and give them a nice little two way path to ride on. That is really becoming a concern of mine. That's our feeling and I hope you'll use it. John Wise from the Herald Journal: I'd like to know why a separate meeting was held for the local officials prior to this meeting and no announcement was made available to the local press here. M. Johnson: I think the comments that were discussed in the meeting were about the various users of the highway. The people that use the highway for recreational purposes, the people who use it for regional transportation coming from Bear Lake Valley to Logan and one other group. The purpose of it was to try to establish what their feelings were as to the priorities for the canyon. CH2M Hill: That is a loaded question, but let me try and answer it. Maybe we were somewhat naive, but what we are trying to do is to get all the people we can. There was no intent to limit the people. The point is that we are in no way trying to limit the input. We are trying to get as much input as we can. In some ways Page 11 of 16 �it was easier to attend a meeting at 4:00, there was a little different type of people there. We are going to have a whole series of public meetings. Our intent was never to exclude anybody and if the media would like to be invited, that is fine too. Call it oversight, whatever, we were trying to get all the input we can. M. Johnson: One thing I might also add is that at the meeting this afternoon there were a great variety of opinions expressed just as there have been tonight. It was not one sided towards any interest group. Question: I would just like to know how much money UDOT is paying CH2M Hill to do this study. How much is it costing and how many manhours or people hours does that involve? UDOT: It is correct that UDOT did hire a consultant to take an objective look at the study and we are paying them money to do it. They don't work for free. The contract amount is in the range of $500,000.00. It is by no means inexpensive. Question: Would that be for this year? UDOT: That covers the term of the study and we mentioned that the study should be completed in June approximately of next year. Question: How long has the study been going on? UDOT: We initiated this about June of 1986. So it will be approximately one year. As far as manpower estimates, they have been completed but I can't quote what they are. They were submitted by the consultant. R. Laneer: I would just like to suggest that one of the groups that you consult that doesn't often get consulted be the highway patrol. I've talked to some of them and they have their own points off view on increasing speeds on Logan Canyon and other highways. And what they have told me is that even though they are a part of state government, they don't normally get consulted. So I think the local highway patrolmen who have had experience in Logan Canyon would be valuable. ( Comments: My name is Lewis Polk from Montpelier which, of course, is on the other side of the state boundary. But we in Idaho also have a great investment in the 89 project. It is my opinion and it has been for a number of years that Highway 89 needs a tremendous amount of work. It is a safety problem. I'm in the type of business where I get a report card on that highway almost every day. Some of the travelling people coming through from back east or wherever as they stop in Montpelier (and I am in the hotel business, I have two properties in Montpelier), the kind of report stating, "My Hell! Where are the guard rails?" or "My Hell!, Where is the asphalt?" or any number of combinations and some worse than what I just used. It is my opinion that something really does need to be done with Highway 89. It is in a serious condition. And I'm Page 12 of 16 �./ not saying that Idaho is in great shape either. I'm here just to see what happens here because I would like to go to Idaho and say "Hey, we have a problem too." Wyoming has taken the challenge and Wyoming has improved their highway and it is already proved to be a significant savings factor in human life in the work that Wyoming has complete. I also served for the last three years in the Idaho Travel Council so I have a little bit of travel background in me, about 15 years in the lodging business. I just completed a year as the Chairman of the Idaho Travel Council. Travel figures and travel peaks are not declining, they are increasing. So the caps that CH2M Hill has come up with I think are conservative. 2% to me seems to be a little conservative. I hope it is conservative. In these states we seem to be economically impacted and travel seems to be one of our saving factors. I would like to see us begin to invest in our futures, both Utah and Idaho and develop these highways and improve these highways, make them safer, maintain the traffic patterns that we have and do a better job. Logan Canyon is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. It is. a beautiful canyon. I don't want anything to happen to Logan Canyon simply because the comments about the canyon are how wonderful and how marvelous and how unique! It does have environmental impact on anybody who comes through it. Everyone enjoys it. But nobody enjoys it when their family and friends are being marred or are injured or even killed in those canyons. So that's my interest in coming to this meeting and I wanted to let you know I am out of state, but we do share an economic bond here with Highway 89 and we need to do something desperately with it. / One other comment, in the hotel business in Montpelier, questions have come up to how this study was done and what is being asked. And I remember just getting into the hotel business with my father years and years ago and CH2M Hill was around then and doing studies at that point in time, and about two years ago I had a chance to sit in on a review of a study program with power utility company and heard some of the praises for CH2M Hill. They are a reputable 'company and the state did hire someone with the proper background to come in and make an objective analysis of this kind of a project. The other part of this is that the level of service and capacity have been talked about a little bit. The level of service is not up to par and the capacity is not either. If it is now it certainly can't be for future growth of what I think Bear Lake is going to need, what Jackson Hole and Yellowstone, and what Utah is going to need. Utah has more national parks than any other state, I believe. You are going to have more travel, you are going to have more traffic. Prepare yourselves so it is not a problem for you. Get ready for it now, if it is not already a start of being too late. ( Question: (Comments regarding Logan Canyon becoming too much like Ogden Canyon, Provo Canyon and Weber Canyon) Page 13 of 16 -::1 �( Question: I've heard a lot of talk about the actual traffic flow, I guess my question is to the people of UDOT, and that is why isn't there more encouragement of the use of pullovers for slow moving vehicles. I'm thinking particularly of some canyons that are a lot like Logan Canyon in Idaho in Payette Canyon and the Salmon River Canyon where there are a lot of pullovers like there are here but a quarter of a mile before the pullover it says "Please use slow moving vehicle pullover coming up." Every time I'm in a traffic jam up there I always wonder why Utah doesn't do that. I know they probably don't have a law to make it illegal to stack up cars like a lot of western states do, but I think a lot more could be done in the use of pullovers. I think they unjam traffic a lot better even than a third lane does. So I would like to ask them why there isn't more encouragement for the use of that kind of thing. S. Nuffer: I think what you have identified is one of the alternatives that we will be looking at. Question: It seems less expensive than other alternatives. S. Nuffer: We've had experience with some of these kinds of things with mixed results. This would need to be coupled with enforcement. Question: There are a lot of timid drivers who won't just pull off into one when they see one. They need the warning that it is coming up. M Johnson: I heard an interesting comment in regard to the proposal this afternoon. This was also raised at the earlier meeting that was referred to by the press. One problem is that if people pullout, they have a problem getting back into the line of traffic. Now I'm not saying that is insurmountable, but all of us if we are driving in a canyon, for Pete's Sake let someone back in if they have pulled out to let traffic move on. Comment: Usually they are quite clumped up. back into the traffic is a problem. I don't think getting M. Johnson: Any other ideas as far as alternatives that might be considered? As we have said we have no preconceived ideas of what should be done in Logan Canyon. We have identified what we think are problems, but as far solving those problems, that remains open to the next task of study. R. Laneer: Just a point of view, accidents and safety on the highway shouldn't be looked at as strictly an engineering problem. It is a behavioral problem. Accidents take place because people respond in certain ways to the hazards or conditions of the road, especially regarding such things as pullouts and passing lanes and so on. And I don't think engineers are competent to predict the Page 14 of 16 �( behavior of people. I don't see you strengthening your team by having anybody on it who is competent on how people behave on the road. And I think engineering solutions and problems of that kind are never going to get down to be bottom of it. M. Johnson: Thank you. looking for a job? That is an interesting point. Are you Question: I would like to know how many highway projects CH2M Hill has worked on. CH2M Hill: They are so numerous I could stay here all night and flick them off. M. Johnson: I know we are presently working on one in the Boise office and just completing the Broadway-Chinden connector which connects the freeway into downtown Boise - 40 to 50 million dollar project. Interestingly, the project engineer on that project previously completed a major viaduct system in the San Francisco Bay area and this was a project that involved not the same types of environment we are dealing with here, but a very sensitive urban environment. Consideration for impact and mitigation measures had to be incorporated into the project, so the company has had a great deal of experience dealing with sensitive highway projects. R. Lukez: It might be better to explain how many projects you have worked on similar to Logan Canyon. (At this point a brochure was presented to Rudy Lukez.) R. Lukez: I'd just like to add a couple of things. A couple of times during the discussion the term environmental analysis has been used. For those of you who aren't familiar with the NEPA process from 1970, that decision hasn't been made yet to do an environmental assessment or an environmental analysis. There may • even be an environmental impact statement done later on down the road. As an ID team that still has to be decided upon - exactly what the final is going to be. I personally prefer the term environmental study because it doesn't have any technical connection to it yet. The other thing is a couple of people mentioned during this time they are concerned about people getting killed on the highway and I'm sure everybody will agree that we don't want to see anybody get killed, but we have had very few people get killed over the highway the past number of years and it turns out that one of the most recent deaths on the highway now is being arraigned in one of the local courts as a murder charge. Question: How many deaths have occurred in Logan Canyon? Page 15 of 16 �R. Lukez: I think the number of deaths is very low, perhaps 5 or 6. An interesting comparison was done during the 1979 activities of safety. It showed that the most dangerous part of the highway was the section that was improved up to Right Hand Fork, by a considerable amount, and that afterwards, the highway was much safer and a lot of the highway patrolmen that were interviewed during those studies said that it was primarily because people are a little more careful when they know there is an unimproved highway ahead and that they won't speed up and pass people at those times. ( M. Johnson: Since we haven't completed the analysis I don't think we should draw any conclusions, second, I think it is very important that we provide you with the findings that we ultimately come up with. We do have a mailing list for the project and we will be sending out the information to the people on our mailing list. I would like to mention our other public involvement attempts that you can use to get information or make comments on the project. Valley Engineering is our subcontractor and we try to make information available to Gale Larson of Valley Engineering. We have produced fact sheets, summaries of the project and given them to Valley Engineering, libraries, UDOT and CH2M Hill. We are also trying to find a location to spread the material in Rich County area. Any of you who have stated that you are from that area tonight you might just let me know what would be a good location to place information about the project in the future. / I want to say we are going to have additional meetings; we have tentatively talked about a meeting in the Rich County area. I think there have been some comments made tonight that will make us further evaluate that possibility. The next step that we have is development of alternatives. And I assure that those alternatives will be very wide in scope. I mean we are not going to come up with just ideas for bulldozing Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. Most of all, I want to say that all of your input is appreciated. I don't care if you are arguing with our figures or not. As has been stated in a local newspaper it is the questions that keeps us honest and I can assure that we at CH2M Hill are very concerned about our integrity and our credibility as our information goes. If you have a question, please let us know. Jim Naegle: Let me make one comment. UDOT went through an extensive process in selecting a consultant and we are very satisfied with the competency of CH2M HIll. Meeting was adjourned. Page 16 of 16 ~( . � 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/75">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/75</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 1075484573 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 13737972 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 Environmental Study Description An account of the resource The transcript of a public meeting held to answer questions concerning the devleopment of the Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Utah. Department of Transportation Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Johnson, Margaret Barker, Sheldon. Lukez, Rudy Laneer, Ronald Huffner, Don Naegle, Jim Bean, R. Anderson, Wendell Seeholzer, Ted Goodwin, Russ Wise, John Polk, Lewis Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Utah Department of Transportation Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-09-23 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (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 10.pdf Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd10_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/4038b7921c9612c213b6165be6f65f44.pdf e4730b7646d6b520ab44b840022ec1c5 PDF Text Text 'i ClOd HIll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: June 19, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.AO Your attendance and participation in the first Interdisciplinary Team meeting held on June 10, 1986 was appreciated. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review, and an agenda for the next meeting on June 23, at 2:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. We look forward to seeing you there. BOC5/025 slc76/d.101 �AGENDA - LOGAN CANYON STUDY INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY TEAM MEETING NO. 2 - OGDEN, UTAH JUNE 23, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. 1. Review minutes of June 10, meeting. 2. Discussion of role of interdisciplinary team. 3. Discussion of Level of Documentation required by NEPA for environmental studies. 4. Public involvement program outline. 5. Schedule of interdisciplinary team meetings. BOC5/026 slc76/d.102 �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MINUTES OF INTERDISCIPLINE TEAM MEETING June 10, 1986 ATTENDANCE: Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Jim Naegle - UDOT John Neal - 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 cowmunity and the public in general. He also wants members of the I.D. 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. 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 geometries 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 proj'ections 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 I.D. 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. Team 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 I.D. 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 I.D. Team and its organization and the need to have each member involved. TASK 6 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSl-lENT Tom Haislip said that the I.D. 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 I.D. 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 I.D. Team. Dave Baumgartner again expressed his concern that I.D. 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 FHWA 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/40">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/40</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 46884717 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 4338797 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 June 10, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource A memo from Stan Nuffer detailing the minutes from the Interdisciplinary Team meeting from June 10, 1986. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Zollinger, Lynn Naegle, Jim Neal, John Larson, Gale Lukez, Rudy Weston, Todd Stilley, Al Baumgartner, Dave Silver, Duncan Richardson, Howard Barker, Sheldon Haislip, Tom D'Amico, John Grover, Frank Flint, Steve Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon 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 1986-06-19 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Logan Canyon (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_8.pdf Highway 89; https://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; https://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; https://highway89.org/files/original/8e54cde9a729b8bcbee7bbf269c14697.pdf 78fd32fdb85006ad28f271c80d121feb PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING November 3, 1986 ( Attendance " : Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren,CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Clark Ostergarrd, USFS Dave Baumgartner, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Duncan Silver, FHWA John Neil, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Jim Naegle, UDOT Steve Flint, Audubon Assoc. Jack Spence, Sierra Club Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club Wendell Anderson - Visitor Willis Tingey - Visitor Item 1 - Review of Minutes ( Stan Nuffer lead the discussion on the minutes of the last team meeting. The only item brought up related to the Safety Tech memo. Jack Spence suggested that it would be better to state that some locations along the highway had higher than average accident rates rather than higher than expected accident rates, since there was really no way of determining expected accident rates. Jack also had a suggestion on Table 10. If the level of confidence was going to be included as part of the table, there should be some explanation of what it meant. Steve Flint asked that the number of fatalities be included on Table 8, along with the number of fatal accidents. There was no other discussion on the minutes of the previous meeting. Item 2 - Discussion of Alternate Routes (to Logan Canyon) John Neil reported on his study of alternate routes from Logan to Bear Lake. He had invited Mr. Wendell Anderson and Mr. Willis Tingey to report on a study that they had made on the possibility of a route through Blacksmith Fork Canyon. The study was conducted at the request of former Governor Clyde. It was pointed out that a route from Logan to Sage Junction through Blacksmith Fork Canyon was 8 to 10 miles shorter and the maximum elevation was 500 feet lower than the existing route through Logan Canyon. Both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Tingey felt that Logan Canyon would not be able to handle all of the traffic that it would be asked to handle and that an alternate route should be considered. 1 �John Neil reported that UDOT planners had told him that the simplest way to develop an alternate route would be to develop some additional recreational areas that needed the access. The construction cost of an alternate route was estimated at $1.5 to $2.0 million per mile. Lynn Zollinger agreed that Logan Canyon will not be able to carryall of the traffic that will ultimately travel between Bear Lake and the Wasatch Front. However it has not been determined how much more, if any, traffic Logan Canyon can handle before the impacts become unacceptable. Lynn suggested that there not be any more consideration of alternate routes, at least until it has been determined that there will be need for more capacity than Logan Canyon can carry. Jack Spence agreed with Lynn, there did not seem to be the need for additional capacity at the present and that study of alternate routes was not warranted. If it was determined that there was major action of the same scale required in Logan Canyon then the examination of alternate routes would be warranted. Other discussion about the Blacksmith Fork alternate involved possible environmental problems with the River, Hardware Ranch and the lack of room in Left Hand Fork. It was decided that this discussion would be summarized for the record in a memo and action to be taken at the next meeting. ( Item 3 - Discussion of Goals and Objectives Tech Memo Stan Nuffer lead the discussion of the overall goals and objectives that had been presented in a draft technical memorandum at the last ID team meeting. The first topic · was the minimum speed that the "baseline" alternative would be designed for. There was some question about a 35 mph mini, mum in the lower part of the canyon. Fred LaBar said that a 40 mph minimum speed had been considered before in that section and had been found to be acceptable. Jim Naegle asked if the modified standard section had been used in the previous study. Some thought that it had but none were certain. Duncan Silver suggested that copies of the 1979 proposal and analysis be distributed to members of the ID team so that the team had an opportunity to review the past work and decide whether the past study was still valid. This approach would be better than just rubber stamping a study that most on the team were not familiar with. It was also suggested that the AASHTO recommended minimums be included in the table on page 3 of the memo. Rudy Lukes asked where there would be minimum speeds greater than 40 mgh. Stan Nuffer said that in some areas the posted speed is currently 55 mph and that he thought we could maintain that speed in those areas. 2 �( There was also some discussion on what "minimum" meant. Some expressed concern that the minimum set now would be absolute regardless of other consequences. Stan explained that in order to establish roadway features (curves, etc.) minimum speeds needed to be set. If the impacts of designing a roadway for one "minimum" are unacceptable then a new "minimum" speed would be required. Minimum speeds are not meant to be fixed at the beginning of the study and then not redefined if needed. The technical memo illustrated standard sections and modified standard sections for 40 mph. It was suggested that sections for 35 and 55 mph also be included. Steve Flint expressed concern that delineators would make parking areas unuseable. Duncan Silver said that the need for parking should be evaluated and planned for where needed. Rudy Lukes wondered if the dugway was really a good place to consider a climbing lane. Duncan Silver said that there should be an inventory of the needs for climbing lanes before looking at possible locations. To conduct the inventory the team should: 1. Establish criteria for the selection of possible locations. 2. Identify those sections which may meet the criteria. 3. Identify the possible environmental constraints at those sites. Slow vehicle turnouts were also discussed. Lynn Zollinger indicated that the turnouts need to be placed where those using the turnouts will have a good view of the roadway in order to safely get out of and back into the traffic. The final item on the goals and objectives memo was a suggestion to add a section on the need for recreational parking. Fred LaBar said that the Forest Service could help identify where recreational parking was needed. Item 4 - Alternate Alignments from the Summit to Garden City Stan Nuffer said that the Archeologist was preparing an alternate alignments survey. 3 �- Item 5 - Preview of Garden City Public Meeting Presentation ( Cliff Forsgren previewed the slide presentation which was to be used to introduce the project to those who attended the meeting in Garden City. SLC-STN/03 4 � 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/7">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/7</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 773442565 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2464336 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 November 3, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from November 3, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, discussion of alternate routes to Logan Canyon, discussion of goals and objectives tech memo, alternate alignments from the summit to Garden City, and a preview of Garden City public meeting presentation. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource LaBar, Fred Ostergard, Clark Baumgartner, Dave Larson, Gale Silver, Duncan Neil, John Zollinger, Lynn Naegle, Jim Flint, Steve Spence, Jack Lukez, Rudy Anderson, Wendell Tingey, Willis Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 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 1986-11-03 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_12.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/8f968d60cdc9d53a78511f0453e5060c.pdf 17519abc26a00f45a2595f956e6385f6 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY . MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING January 27, 1987 ( Attendance: Sheldon Barker, CH2M HILL Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Torn Haislip, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Clark Ostergaard, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Duncan Silver, FHWA Jim Naegle, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Howard Richardson, UDOT Steve Flint, Audobon Assoc. Bill Helm, Item 1 - Review of Minutes There were no cornnlents on the minutes of the previous meeting. ( Steve Flint expressed concern over the traffic forecast and felt that an exponential forecast is not statistically supportable from the traffic data for the Logan Canyon stations shown in the technical memorandum. He was also concerned that level of service projections based on that growth rate would be misleading. He suggested a time series analysis and using data as far back as available. Stan Nuffer reviewed the methods and assumptions used when the technical memorandum was presented and accepted by the I.D. Team in August 1986. In the original analysis, we had looked at a number of areas to forecast growth including traffic data for a number of highways including stations on U.S. 89 outside of the Canyon. Also data from regional economic and local land use forecasting was used, which forecast a growth rate in the 2 percent range. All of these sources of data were used to arrive at the proposed rate. Concern has been expressed that the 2 percent rate was too low when compared against projections made by UDOT in the past. After considerable discussion, a motion was passed with one negative vote to retain at 2 percent (1.95) experimental growth rate. Stan agreed to look at what effect differences in the projected ADT would have in capacity determinations. Steve also suggested that Section 2 be broken into two subsections, for capacity analysis which will be considered. The assumption for one percent buses in the traffic needs to be supported by data or dropped. Lynn Zollinger suggested we check with Idaho and Wyoming on what projections they are using. 1 �( Duncan Silver asked what process will be used in determining visual impacts, and if there are any rules or guidelines that can be followed. Clark Qstergaard ·said that the · existing analysis shows what is there and what should be preserv~d. Each area will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis for each of the alternatives. Mitigation measures may be possible in some areas. Due to the length of discussion on the above items, agenda items 2 and 3 were passed over. Items 2 and 3 Time was not available to review in the meeting. bers encouraged to read the material. Team mem- Item 4 - Continued Discussion of Alternatives Stan distributed a revised copy of the component and alternative development matrix showing the elimination of some alternates and modification of components in other. After considerable discussion the following alternates were agreed upon: Middle Canyon ( Alt Alt Alt Alt 1 2 3 4 No build Spot improvements Widen along existing alignment Widen and. improve align to 40 mph with advising 35 mph design where necessary Upper Canyon Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 4 No build Spot improvements Widen and improve existing alignment to 60 mph with lower advisory design speed where necessary Rich County Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 6 No build Spot improvements Widen and improve existing alignment to 40 mph with lower advisory design speed where necessary New north alignment with 40 mph basic but look at 50 mph if possible Spot improvements should be defined by location and improvement. ( 2 �( Fred LaBar was skeptical that a uniform 40 mph design in the middle Canyon would ever be acceptable to the Forest Service. SLC-STN/03i ( 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/9">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/9</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 2858595943 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1585773 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 January 27, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from January 27, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes and continued discussion on alternatives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Barker, Sheldon Haislip, Tom LaBar, Fred Shaw, Mark Ostergard, Clark Larson, Gale Silver, Duncan Naegle, Jim Zollinger, Lynn Richardson, Howard Flint, Steve Helm, Bill Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah) 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 1987-01-27 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_15.pdf Highway 89; https://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; https://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; https://highway89.org/files/original/b3ecb49ba327f0abb2eca7980b40ab59.pdf f68aac7adf92ffd6535e610eee796306 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF INTERDISCIPLINE TEAM MEETING June 23, 1986 Attending: Torn Haislip - CH2M HILL Sheldon Barker - CH2M HILL Gale Larson - Valley Engineering Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Bill Helm - Interested Party Jack Spence - Cache Group Sierra Club Rudy Lukez - Cache Group Sierra Club Steve Flint - Bridgerland Audobon Association John Neil - UDOT Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Jim Naegle - UDOT Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL Clark Ostergard - USFS Mark Shaw - USFS Fred LaBar - USFS Duncan Silver - FHWA Howard Richardson - UDOT ( ITEM 1 - Discussion of Minutes Stan Nuffer called the meeting to order and asked if anyone had comments on the minutes of the last meeting. There was a question raised about the review function of the ID Team which was described in the minutes. The role of the ID Team was an agenda item for this meeting and discussion of the function was postponed until later in the meeting. There was no further discussion of the minutes. ITEM 2 - Discussion of Role of Interdisciplinary Team A statement of the role of the interdisciplinary team was distributed and discussed. The major functions were: 1 ...I... • 2. ') ..J • Provide management input Provide technical input CH2M HILL will provide the primary input and the USFS would provide the technical input on environmental items. Other team members would add input as the need or opportunity arose. Review technical memoranda and draft Environmental Report - �4. The team members will review the technical memoranda and will also review the draft environmental report. Level of environmental action determinationRudy Lukez asked if this means that a decision will be made during the study on what the proposed project will be. He also wanted to know who would make the decision. It was explained that the final decision on what project, if any, will be proposed will be made by the three cooperating agencies, UDOT, USFS and FHWA. Prior to the decision on a project however, a decision must be made on the class of environmental action (EA or EIS) . Jack Spence was not sure who would make the recommendation on the class of environmental action to the cooperating agencies. It was determined that the ID Team would make the recommendation. Modifications to the statement of the role of the team were made. The revised statement is attached to these minutes. ITEM 3 - Level of Documentation Required by NEPA for Environmental Studies ( NEPA requirements for environmental studies were reviewed and discussed. A handout taken from the UDOT publication, Procedures for Project Development, described the basic categories. ITEM 4 - Public Involvement Program Outline Ap outline of the Public Involvement Program had previously been sent to ID Team members and was discussed at length. The principle topics of discussion were: 1. . The terms "projectlf and "study" were both used in the outline. To be consistent "study" should be used throughout when describing the ongoing activity. This will help to alleviate any fears of those who equate Ifproject" with actual construction. ?. Jack Spence wanted to know what the rational for the study was. Lynn Zollinger explained that whenever UDOT went into Logan Canyon, people asked the question If What is going to happen next?" After this study is complete UDOT can point to a plan which will address the transportation needs in the Canyon through the year 201rr. �3. The press release was discussed and Rudy Lukez suggested that the ID Team be described in it. John Neil stated that UDOT's community relations department would release the information as soon as it was prepared. 4. During the discussion of Milestone 2, it was recommended that the word "improvements be replaced with "action" so that both repair and improvements would be covered. Rudy Lukez asked where traffic forecasts would be used and how they would be developed. It was explained that the permanent traffic counter at Garden City, and spot traffic counts, would be used to establish the present tra f fic load in the Canyon. Population projections prepared by agencies having that responsibility would then be used to project traffic volume ahead to the year 2010. It was explained that there had already been spot traffic counts taken at two locations, on 2 different days this past winter and that more would be taken this summer. Jack Spence was not sure that the data gathered would be sufficient. He said that one of the problems with past studies was the lack of reliable traffic data from which to project future traffic flow. Jack asked to see the methodology and data when it was available. Rudy Lukez asked if sampling was an accepted means of gathering current traffic flow data. Duncan Silver answered that it was, provided the sample size was large enough and the sampling techniques were acceptable. He also suggested that the ID Team evaluate the sampling techniques. Stan Nuffer said that information on the methodology and sampling techniques would be ready for the next ID Team meeting. Rudy Lukez asked if they could be prepared far enough in advance to allow the team members a chance to review the information before the next meeting. Duncan Silver restated his belief that the key issue on this · item was the methodology used to gather the present traffic flow data. Duncan also wanted to know why a 2-day 10-hour sample period was selected, a period of this type would be acceptable for traffic classification but probably not for counts. Stan Nuffer said that information on the methodology and sampling techniques would be available before the next meeting. ll 5. Jack Spence expressed concern about having too many meetings during the summer vlhen many of the USU students and facility are out of town. Sheldon Barker indicated that the schedule of meetings was �flexible and that something could probably be worked out. 6. During the discussion of Milestone 3, Jack Spence asked if the Public Involvement Program was designed to meet the requirements for an EIS in case there was a need for one. Tom Haislip explained that the program was designed with an EIS in mind. Sheldon Barker also asked the team members for names of persons or organizations who should be added to the mailing list. Anyone who has a suggestion should either give Sheldon the information after the meeting or mail it to him. ITEM 5 - Schedule of Interdisciplinary Team Meetings Stan Nuffer presented a schedule of team meetings through September. It was suggested that 3:00 p.m. would be a better time for some team members than 10:00 a.m. It was agreed that all meetings scheduled for 10:00 a.m. would be held at 3:00 p.m. instead. Before the meeting adjourned, Duncan Silver again stated that he felt the traffic data must be good enough to satisfy the group before the study proceeded too much farther. Jim Naegle stated that standard accepted methods were used during the gathering of data. The next scheduled meeting is 3:00 p.m., July 14, 1986, in the District office in Ogden. SLC77/59 � 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/21">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/21</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 4097134252 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2578459 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 of June 23, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes of June 23, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, discussion of role of Interdisciplinary Team, level of documentation required, public involvement program outline, and the schedule. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Haislip, Tom Barker, Sheldon Larson, Gale Zollinger, Lynn Helm, Bill Spence, Jack Lukez, Rudy Flint, Steve Neil, John Naegle, Jim Nuffer, Stan Ostergard, Clark Shaw, Mark LaBar, Fred Sliver, Duncan Richardson, Howard Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 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 1986-06-23 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 MSS148 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_5.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/b6b02807fd9c8b69467ca7c15d49c978.pdf 5e1973b65d6dae49dbd6e6c9d8d76b24 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING November 17, 1986 ( Attendance: Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Clark Ostergarrd, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Duncan Silver, FHWA John Neil, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Jim Naegle, UDOT Steve Flint, Audubon Assoc. Item 1 - Review of Minutes Two typographical errors were identified and Mark Shaw pointed out that he was in attendance at the last meeting, but was left off of the attendance list for the minutes. Item 2 - Alternate Route Technical Memo John Neil led the discussion of this item. There was some confusion about how the alternatives were defined. The text did not agree with the figure. It was determined that the most logical alternative was a combination of Alternate A and Alternate B. If an alternate route through Blacksmith Fork Canyon were to be considered, a route from Hyrum to Laketown through Hardware Ranch and Cottonwood Canyon would appear to have the most promise. It was agreed that the study of alternate routes should be postponed until the fu~l transportation potential of Logan Canyon (consistent with environmental constraints) was developed. John Neil made the motion to accept the memo, with the alterations made in the meeting, and its recommendations. Gale Larson seconded the motion and the voting was unanimous. John will modify the memo to reflect the teams comments. Item 3 - Public Involvement Summary Memorandum Cliff Forsgren led the discussion of the memo which had been prepared to summarize the public involvement program to date. Ducan Silver suggested that the verbal comments received during public meetings be summarized also. Stan Nuffer asked what sort of documentation the Forest Service would need in order to be satisfied that there had been adequate public participation. Fred LaBar said that the results of the scoping meetings would be required before the Forest Service 1 �( could do much to evaluate the progress of a public participation program. Clark Ostergarrd suggested that there be some provision in the memo to identify those comments directed towards preserving threatened and endangered species and maintaining the River. Duncan Silver pointed out that there were not a lot of differences in some of the column headings, for example the two columns dealing with traffic flow ("Flow is Problem" and "Improve Flow") and the two columns dealing with safety. He also suggested showing the total number of responses in each column. Item 4 - Public Involvement/Scoping Meetings Duncan Silver asked for a status report on the technical memorandums which have been prepared to date. The status report should indicate if they have been finaled and approved. This report will be prepared for the next meeting. John Neil asked if a notice of intent was required for a scoping meeting. If a notice of intent is required, it should be prepared as soon as possible if a meeting is to be held in early January. Stan will report to the team at the next meeting on what the legal requirements are for notification of a scoping meeting. Jim Naegle suggested holding the information sheet on "Issues and Concerns" until after the scoping meetings. Steve Flint pointed out some items that needed attention on the fact sheet that had already been mailed. Table 1 needed some clarification on how averages were determined during periods when the counter was not in service and Table 2 had a mislabled footnote. Steve was also concerned that some people would not understand that a level of service D or E was not for low or even average flow conditions, but represented some percentage of time when flows were above the projected average. More explanation of this concept will be included in the next fact sheet. Item 5 - Review of Existing Roadside Parking Stan Nuffer presented an inventory of existing roadside parking areas. The parking areas were identified by milepost and included both planned parking and "\vide spots" which appeared to have been used for parking. This list of parking areas was compiled in the summer and mayor may not represent winter parking patterns. Fred LaBar said that the Forest Service has an inventory of winter parking areas which he will provide to the team members. 2 �( Clark Ostergarrd said that it would be important to know whether the parking areas were near the recreational feature and which side of the road, relative to the River, they were on. There are also areas that the Forest Service considers problem areas and would just as soon not have parking nearby. When alternates are developed, the information on location of existing parking and need for planned parking will be used to define the alternates. ITEM 5 - Areas Meeting Criteria For Climbing Lanes Stan Nuffer presented the results of an analysis of the need for climbing lanes in the Canyon. AASHTO standards were used as the evaluation criteria. If AASHTO standards are met, there would be a climbing lane the entire length of the Canyon. There was some discussion on the improvement in LOS that might be expected with the placement of new climbing lanes. Lynn Zollinger asked if there was anything in the standards that addresseed the distance between the lanes. Jim Naegle indicated that he thought that was dictated by the conditions at the particular site. ( Duncan Silver pointed out that climbing lanes are used to improve the LOS and minimize speed reduction on upgrades. If a climbing lane were constructed, the LOS would be raised to C in that particular stretch of road. However, when the end of the lane was reached, the LOS would go back to D or E. It does not appear that the capacity problem can be solved for the entire Canyon and that minimizing the speed reduction where possible should be the priority. Stan will prepare a speed profile for the Canyon. It was concluded that the team members do not believe that LOS C can be attained through the entire Canyon. If it were possible to construct a climbing lane everywhere the climbing lane criteria were met, LOS C would be possible, however there are places where a third lane is unacceptable. ITEM 7 - Introduction of Layout of Roadway Widening and Alignment Improvement Component Stan Nuffer discussed the widening and straightening component that will eventually be used, along with other components, to define alternatives. Lynn Zollinger asked if the requirements for vertical sight distance had been checked. Stan indicated that it was underway. 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/30">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/30</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 2880054969 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2120731 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 November 17, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from November 17, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, alternate route technical memo, public involvement summary memorandum, public involvement/scoping meeting, review of existing roadside parking, areas meeting critera for climbing lanes, and introduction of layout of roadway widening and alignment improvement component. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource LaBar, Fred Ostergard, Clark Larson, Gale Silver, Duncan Neil, John Zollinger, Lynn Naegle, Jim Flint, Steve Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon 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 1986-11-17 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_13.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/3a2f16f3b6d2bdb2f7da522edaa0ea2d.pdf 7456444ca1c08c0520ab5cb10e4d946d PDF Text Text '" LOGAN CANYON MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING October 6, 1986 Attendance: Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL John D'Amico, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren,CH2M HILL Sherril Pitkin, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Clark Ostergard, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Neal Stoeger, FHWA . John Neil, UDOT Jim Naegle, UDOT Bruce Swenson, UDOT Jack Spence Steve Flint Item 1 - Review of Minutes Steve Flint asked that in all tech memo's and minutes, traffic volumes be stated as either winter, summer or annual. Item 2 - Review of Public Information Meeting f Stan Nuffer led the discussion on the public information meeting. Steve Flint pointed out that the distance from Garden City to Montelier, Idaho was 31 miles and the distance between Logan and " Garden City is 40 plus miles. Steve also indicated that he had spoken with people in the emergency room at the Logan Hospital and they said that there were medical services available in Montpelier and that the decision _to come to Logan for medical treatment was a personal one. Steve was concerned that there may have been ~ arl impression created at the meeting that there were no medical services in Montpelier. Noone at the meeting was certain just what services were available in Montpelier~ It was generally concluded that since Logan is a regional medical facility and has a greater range of services and specialists than the other communities in the general area, Logan would be a more desireable place to go for medical attention. 1 There was also a question about an increase in RV traffic in the Canyon. RV traffic is expected to increase at the same rate as the overall traffic volume. There has been nothing to indicate that the percentage of RV traffic will increase. 1 �( Jim Naegel mentioned that during the public meeting Rudy Lukez had said that he had traffic flow data dating back to the 1930's. Jim wondered why that information had not been brought to the ID Team and if Rudy wanted it considered as part of this study. No one in attendance was certain what Rudy wanted to do with the data. There was some discussion on the problem with the accident rate calculations obtained from UDOT. Jack Spence and Steve Flint expressed concern that the safety analysis may not be as good as it might be because of uncertain data. After some discussion it was decided that a letter would be written to the appropriate UDOT officials pointing out the calculation problems and the fear that there may be problems with the data itself. Cliff Forsgren will write the letter. Further discussion of safety led to the conclusion that those O.Ol-mile highway sections which appeared to have a greater number of accidents/year (at 80 percent confidence) than the average for the Canyon would be included in the alternative development phase. If during the alternative development phase it was determined that more information was needed on a specific site, the original accident reports for that site would be examined. Item 3 - Visual Considerations Presentation by Clark Ostergard Clark Ostergard made a presentation which explained the Forest Services' approach to classifying visual aspects and impacts of a proposed project. In addition to a written presentation, there were slides illustrating the important features of the visual classification system. Clark also had some references on designing and/or mitigating visual impacts on scenic highways. Clark has also taken the time to classify the roadway between Right Hand Fork and Ricks Springs. This information • will be extremely helpful as alternatives are developed and evaluated. Fred LaBar also discussed the Forest Plan, in particular Logan Canyon. Fred pointed out the provision for classifica~ tion of the highway in Logan Canyon as a "scenic highway". f:l John D' Amico asked if the "scenic highway" designation would ~ t-A~f'/ . increase traffic in the Canyon. Fred said that it might, · v"( t#.JJ especially if the Forest Service could increase its camping J ~~\~ facilities. \5'" Item 4 - Garden City Meeting Gale Larson said that there was a lot of interest in a meeting in Garden City. A meeting was scheduled for Monday, ' November 3, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in Garden City. 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/32">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/32</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 2200061202 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1440976 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 6, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from October 6, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, public information meeting, and visual considerations presentation by Clark Ostergard, Garden City meeting. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource D'Amico, John Pitkin, Sherril LaBar, Fred Shaw, Mark Ostergard, Clark Larson, Gale Stoeger, Neal Neil, John Naegle, Jim Swenson, Bruce Spence, Jack Flint, Steve Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) 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 1986-10-06 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_10.pdf Highway 89; https://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; https://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; https://highway89.org/files/original/967fe14489bf83f439ded681318c2c1c.pdf 8616dafff82f5e2e2ae38aacf0d5796c PDF Text Text LOGAN .CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING March 9, 1987 Attendance: Gale Larson - Valley Engineering Clark Ostergarrd, USFS John Neil, UDOT Larry England, USFWS Jim Naegle, UDOT Duncan Silver, FHWA Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Steve Flint, Audobon Society Jack Spence, Sierra Club Howard Richardson, UDOT ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES There was only one correction to the minutes of the previous \ meeting. Jack Spence had pointed out that a linear model of 1 0 the past trends traffic projection might be preferable to an exponential model because the standard deviation of the extrapolation was better in the linear model, not the r2 value as reported. ITEM 2 - JOHN L. ENGLAND, U. S. FTSH AND vlILDLIFE ' SERVICE COMMENTS John L. England (Larry) discussed the ~laguire Primrose and the FWS interest in Logan Canyon. In summary his comments inpluded: o The latest status report on the Maguire Primrose prepared by the Utah Native Plant Society is probably as good a source of current information as there is presently available. o The FWS has requested to be a cooperating agency in this study. o The Maguire Primrose exists only in the lower end of Logan Canyon, from Wood Camp to the mouth of the Canyon and it is currently on the "threatened" species list. A threatened species receives the same protection, under law, as does an endangered species. 1 I I~vf 7 c �MEETING NOTES Page 2 o It is possible that some of the alternatives could impact one or more known populations. o It will be necessary to prepare a biological assessment for FWS review. o The Maguire Primrose is apparently sensitive to temperature increases and soil type. Some types of improvements could alter cold air drainage pattern or remove trees that presently provide shelter. o The only population of Maguire Primrose the FWS is concerned about (based upon present alternatives) is near Wood Camp. o The basic alternative descriptions include a turnout near Wood Camp. Larry indicated that it might be better to consider some widening at that point and eliminate the turnout in order to keep the traffic moving and away from a sensitive population. o He would recommend preserving as much vegetation as possible. Steve Flint asked about two other species that had been listed in a letter to CH2M HILL. Larry indicated that there were two species presently under review in the Canyon. Stan Nuffer asked if there were guidlines for preparing biological assessments. Larry named some people who had prepared these assessments. They were Stanley Welsh, a botany professor at BYU and Leila Shultz, the Intermountain Herbarium Curator. ITEM 3 - DISCUSS RESULTS OF SCOPING MEETINGS Stan asked members of the ID Team to give their impressions of the scoping meetings that were held on March 3 and 4. o Duncan Silver felt that after the comment period there should be a "roundtable" meeting with government agencies. He did not feel that those representing agencies gave all of the input that they could or should. Overall Duncan did not feel that there were any new issues or alternatives brought out. o Lynn Zollinger did not feel that there were any new issues brought out, but he would like to review a copy of the transcript to be sure. 2 �, MEETING NOTES Page 3 a Jim Naegle feit that there were some alternatives brought out during the meetings but felt that they were probably covered in the general alternative descriptions. o Howard Richardson wondered if there was some value in one comment about getting a "true cross-section" of opinion from area citizens. After some discussion about the value (and purpose of) polls, it was decided that the purpose of scoping meetings were not to "take a vote" but to be sure the full range of issues and possible alternatives were addressed in the study. Those who are interested will generally make their views known. a Fred LaBar did not think that there were any new alternatives brought up in the meetings. However, he did pOlnt out that alternative routes had been brought up in two of the meetings and that a scientific survey (opinion) should be addressed in the EIS. Fred also asked if it was true that it is the law in Utah that slow moving vehicles with traffic behind them must pull off. Duncan Silver said that it is now the law in Utah and that he is , o'n a committee wi th UDOT that is working on a system to provide better advance warning of passing lanes and turnouts. There should be some information available in time to include in the report. '0 Clark Ostergarrd pointed out that the Citizens for the Preservation of Logan Canyon (CPLC) had presented eight specific recommendations for spot improvements and requested that they be given consideration in the study. The eight recommendationsappear to be included in the general list of spot improvements already identified. Steve Flint felt that it was important that people understand that each spot improvement is to be considered on its own merits and that it is not an "all or nothing" alternative. If this is the approach, the CPLC recommendations would be considered along with other spot improvements and the best would be included in the final "spot improvement" alternative. Clark also pointed out that some people had suggested that the highway be planned and designed as a "scenic highway". There was some discussion about standards for scenic highways. Jack Spence 3 �MEETING NOTES Page 4 asked if there is a separate standard for scenic highways. Duncan Silver indicated that there were none. "Standards" for a given scenic road have more or less evolved and generally just address the local situation. Using National Park Service standards was also discussed. Duncan Silver pointed out that truck routes have been designated throughout the US. This was mandated by Congress because of the number of states ~ that had placed limitations on through roads, that -C ~~~)r~eJ was adversely attecting interstate commerce. US-89 through Logan Canyon has apparently been designated /~ I as a truck route. Continued use of the Canyon by ---- ~ truck traffic should be addressed in the study. 0 o Jim Naegle pointed out that a "standard" for Logan Canyon will have to be one that will fit the conditions and still allow the traffic to flow as smoothly as possible. o Lynn Zollinger said that any "standard" less than the modified one may not give enough added capacity to the roadway to make it worthwhile. Any proposed "standard" for the Canyon should be evaluated on its ability to improve the flow of traffic as well as its impact on the environment. Lynn also asked if anyone was anticipating an increase in traffic because of the scenic highway designation. Stan pointed out that other states are being contacted in an effort to determine what, if any, impact a scenic highway designation might have on traffic volumes. Lynn also pointed out that UDOT has been approached by the local cattleman's association about the possibility of fencing the road in the area where cattle range. There is concern about the number of animals killed on the road. A fencing project would require both Forest Service and private participation. o Jack Spence indicated that some hunters had expressed concern to him that an increase in speed might also increase the number of deer killed on the road. Howard Richardson said that the experience of UDOT has been that, besides speed, it is important to keep the vegetation back away from the road so that motorists can better see deer as they approach the road. 4 �MEETING NOTES Page 5 o Steve Flint observed that there were still some people who did not understand the purpose of the scoping meetings and some still believed that a 4-lane roadway alternative was being considered. Steve also restated the need to have a mechanism for sorting out spot improvements and evaluating their impacts individually. o There was some general discussion on the notification of government agencies. Duncan suggested that a copy of the letter which was sent to agencies be attached to the minutes of this meeting when it is mailed to team members. ITEM 4 - EXPANSION OF THE l.D.TEAM Stan Nuffer told the team that there had been some suggestions made during the scoping meetings that interests from Rich County be included on the 1.0. Team. -The Mayor of Logan had also expressed some interest about having a broader representation on the team. After some discussion it was concluded that the team was primarily dealing with technical issues and that the "technical interests" were represented. - Fred LaBar thought that the biggest problem in Rich County was the lack of information. There · is n~ local newspaper and most people do not take the Herald Journal so there is no local vehicle for getting information out. It was decided to invite both the. Rich County people and Logan people to attend I. D. Team meetings t .O see how they operate, but there was not much to be gained by adding additional members to the team. There will be a work meeting with the Logan City Council (tentatively scheduled for March 19) and any team member who can attend is encourqged to do so. ITEM 5 - DAY-LONG SESSION IN THE CANYON TO DEFINE ALTERNATIVES There was some discussion on the value of spending some time in the Canyon and defining the alternatives on the ground. Most team members were supportive of the idea but felt that some time was needed to study what had been done on large scale maps. Stan will have the information put on 1"=200' maps and copies made for the next meeting. A session in the Canyon will be scheduled at that time. ITEM 6 - TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS There was some brief discussion on the traffic projections. Cliff Forsgren said that calculations, assumptions and methodologies for projecting traffic and estimating highway capacity were being double checked and more information would be forthcoming. SLC-STN/33 5 ·1 � 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/90">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/90</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 175515707 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3520186 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 9, 1987 Interdisciplinary team meeting Description An account of the resource Review from previous meetings' minutes, discussion of Maguire Primrose and FWS interest in Logan Canyon, discussion of the results of the scoping meetings, expansion of I.D. team, discussion on the value of spending time in Logan Canyon to define alternatives, and discussion of traffic projections. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Spence, Jack England, Larry Flint, Steve Nuffer, Stanton S. Silver, Duncan Zollinger, Lynn Naegle, Jim Richardson, Howard Ostergard, Clark LaBar, Fred Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Natural resources conservation areas Plant ecology--Utah--Logan Canyon 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 1987-03-09 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (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 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_007.pdf Highway 89;