1 50 11 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; https://highway89.org/files/original/fe40f9168446c8d40313a03df21de24b.pdf 9aaca0cff5cf93cd5df13adfe8c971d3 PDF Text Text oR161ttAL 2 3 4 5 6 .. " o ... PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 7 City Hall 145 West Center Garden City, Utah ~ I[ o IL 8 9 -000- 10 Presiding: Todd ~~eston state Highway Commissioner Utah Depar tm ent of ,.. TI'8.nsportation Conducting: stanton S. Nuffer 11 12 13 Project Manager 14 15 16 17 , 18 < U 19 o Z UI \oJ I[ IL 20 ~ UI \oJ ~ o « z " 21 22 \oJ D.. 23 24 25 CH2M Hill �I N D E X 2 3 Statement by Mr. Dee Johnson 6 5 Statement by Mr. Barry Negus 7 6 Statement by Mr. Val Peterson 8 7 Statement by Mr. Bryce Nielson 10 8 Statement by Mr. Ted Seeholtzer 13 9 Statement by Mr. Bryce Stringham 19 10 Statement by Mr. John Flannery 20 11 Statement by Mr. George Preston 23 12 Statement by Mr. Russ Currel 25 13 Statement by Mr. OWen Wahlstrom 26 14 Statement by Mr. Paul Webb 27 15 Statement by Mr. Bill Peterson 28 16 Statement by Ms. Cathy Webb 29 17 Statement by Mr. Ray Elliott 32 18 Statement by Mr. Lynn Hillsman 35 19 Statement by Mr. Don Huffner 36 20 Statement by Mr. Todd Weston of UDOT 38 21 Statement by Mr. Jess Anderson 42 22 Statement by Mr. Howard Richardson 43 23 'of Statement by Mr. Ken Brown 4 ell 0 3 3 .. Statement by Mr. Otto Mattson Statement by Mr. Dave Baumgartner 45 ~ II: 0 Ii. III ~ 1'1 C7I < u 0 z II) '" II: Ii. ~ II) '" ~ "0 0( z " III Q. 24 -000- 25 ) i. �GARDEN CITY, UTAH, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1987, 7:00 P.M. 2 -000- MR. WESTON: 3 Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to w~'re 4 begin this meeting. 5 County, in Garden City. 6 for the use of this room, this facility. 1 here tonight on behalf of three agencies and a lot of other 8 interested people. 9 Commissioner of the Utah Department of Transportation, 10 happy to be over here in Rich We thank the Garden City officials We welcome you My name is Todd Weston. I'm the representing this part of the state. 11 We're here tonight to further our discussions 12 that we started with some information meetings some time 13 ago in this same room. 14 tonight. 15 had one in Logan last night and another one this morning 16 in Logan, and this will complete the scoping process of 11 the study that we're entering into on Logan Canyon. This is called a scoping meeting It's the third of three that we are holding. We The meeting will be conducted by the people from 18 19 CH2M Hill, who are the consultants employed by the Department 20 of Transportation to make the study in Logan Canyon. (Further comments by Mr. Weston. 21 Introductions 22 of officials present were made. Further comments by 23 Mr. Weston. 24 were projected upon the wall, and Mr. Barker gave a 25 narration. Comments by Mr. Sheldon Barker. Colored slides Mr. Nuffer continued the narration of the 2. �) slides. Further comments by Mr. Weston.) 2 MR. WESTON: 3 followed by Ken Brown. 4 We will first have MR. OTTO MATTSON: Ott~ Mattson, Gentlemen, after all these 5 6 route on a main artery, the highway system. 9 o Our economic growth is severely hampered by the fourth-class 8 III to be deprived of an adequate means of travel to and from? 7 ., studies, these surveys, the discussions, do we still have future is not to continue to be deprived because of a few N ~ a: ... o 10 We hope our we feel know nothing of our protective situation. We all love beauty, but we also love Twentieth 11 12 13 situations, transportation, livestock, construction, goods . 14 1-15 is an artery. 15 not least, recreation, the Wasatch Front's playground. 16 .J Century progress. economic growth now depends on the travel of these routes. < our future. o Last but Our Build, and remove the change for We hope you will consider that. MR. NUFFER: 19 U It's a Yellowstone route. Our views: 17 18 In our situation we have medical Thank you. Ken Brown. Then we'll Z til 101 20 a: t.. have Dee Johnson. ...: til 101 MR. KEN BROWN: 21 ~ Good evening, ladies and o « 22 gentlemen. 23 to see you, a good number of people here in attendance. 24 It shows good support, whether you're in favor or not in 25 z " I appreciate being here tonight, and it's good favor. 101 CL ) 3. �) The newsman from Channel 2 gave me a title of 2 being outspoken. 3 in there to indicate that. 4 But on the news, I didn't put- anything So I'm a little disappointed. As everyone knows, the Logan Canyon road 5 improvement issue has been one of a lot of controversy, 6 and I think that's probably unfortunate. 7 bit about the road. 8 been improved in Logan Canyon, as you know, is a very narrow 9 road, difficult to pass, problems for good flow of traffic. Just a little In my opinion, the area that hasn't 10 The bridges are a disaster, in my opinion, a real hazard 11 to traffic. 12 With respect to the study--and somebody correct 13 me if I'm wrong--I understand that this is the fourth study 14 --is that right, Todd? 15 ) MR. WESTON: 16 17 , 18 Well, I've been involved in three. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fourth. MR. BROWN: That's a real concern to me. going into the fourth study of this area. We're What are we going 19 to gain from the fourth study that we couldn't have gained 20 in the first, second, or third? 21 in my opinion. 22 The improvements. So I think that's a waste, I look for a design, improved 23 road, such as that in the lower portion of the canyon, or 24 that which has been improved. 25 essential for the flow of traffic. The passing lanes are New bridges need to ) 4. �) be built, in my opinion. 2 It's been my understanding that there has been 3 some proposal of a four lane system in Logan Canyon. 4 totally opposed to anything of that nature. 5 and it wouldn't be cost-effective. 6 Traveling in the canyon. I'm It isn't needed, I have spent most of II> 7 my life in Rich County. 8 of times, a lot of miles, a lot of different years, going 9 " o to college and Utah State University. N I've traveled the canyon a lot ~ II: o ... I think I have a 10 pretty good feel for how the road was prior to improvement 11 as now. Going through the canyon 12 now, and especially 13 the improved section, I can't see where you can tell there 14 was any disturbance carried out. 15 affect the beauty 16 there now, how can you tell, as I said, anything was ever 17 done? 418 <: u o I don't think it will once it's restored. As you drive through From a business standpoint or an economic 19 development, it's essential and critical. We know that 20 all businesses are struggling. 21 money, from the county standpoint, as well as from a grant 22 aspect, to the economic development in the Bear Lake region, 23 and we need to be able to get people to and 24 the Cache Valley area, as well. z UI LoI II: ... We are putting money, public ~ UI LoI ~ o « z " '" a.. 25 from~ I think As I said, I'm very much opposed to a fourth 5. �study coming forth of this issue, and I am very much in 2 favor of a road improvement in the portion of the highway 3 where the improved area ends in Garden City. 4 entire route needs improvement. MR. NUFFER: 5 6 I think the Thank you. Dee Johnson. Then we'll have Barry Negus. MR. DEE JOHNSON: 7 Good evening, ladies and 8 gentlemen. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. 9 I don't want to be repetitious of what's been said. I represent Rich County as a Commissioner and 10 11 12 ) as a citizen also. I sit in the middle. Mr. Francis was at the Logan meeting, and you've heard from Commissioner 13 Brown. 14 the other one is the other. 15 way to be would be to get in the middle of the road of those 16 two, and by so doing I sort of am an eternal optimist. And one of them is just as bullheaded one way as So I have decided the best I don't think there is anything that can't be 17 18 done if all people concerned try to make it happen. As 19 long as there's dialogue and study, then things like that 20 can happen. It's been mentioned that the entire economy, 21 22 of course, on this side of the hill depends on that road. 23 It is a major artery. 24 certainly fraternized by our people on this side of the 25 hill. I think Cache County's economy is You know, babies are born over there, and they will 6. �) always be born over there, and I'd like to see the road 2 improved and the environment withheld to a point that these 3 babies that's being born today and those that are going 4 to be born in 10, 15 years, can enjoy it. I see a situation where we have a present road 5 6 standard of approximately 25 feet. To get a standard or 7 a modified standard, we need to have about 8 I just can't help but think we can't add another 10 feet 9 in places where it's needed and still keep the environment io feet, and 10 so that it's protected, scenic. There has to be a way, 11 and there will be a way if we're all willing to work towards 12 it. If we go with Plan A, and we simply say no action 13 14 taken, then we haven't helped everyone concerned. We've 15 only helped one particular element, that being the element 16 who said, nBy doing anything, we disturb the environment." 17 If we go to the extreme and take alternatives 18 D or E, then we haven't maintained the environment as it 19 needs to be. 20 a road that can service the needs now and in the future. 21 We all have to work together. 22 the time. III N .... f ''"' " < u Somewhere we have to get in the middle, get o z I/) 101 a:: IL ...: I/) 101 ~ I think we can. I appreciate '0 « z " Thank you. 101 11. 23 MR. BARRY NEGUS: I agree well with everything 24 that's been said so far, and I think there is a definite 25 need for an improvement on the road. I think I can say ', ) 7. �most of the people travel on that road at least once a week, ~nd 2 3 to make it a little better and to help things out, not only 4 for us over here, - but for anybody else that wants to travel 5 the road. 6 think there are ways it can be done to keep the scenics 7 there and still make a good road and help everyone out. 8 12. · if not two or three times. Thank you. And with the scenic beauty and everything, I MR. NUFFER: 9 10 it does need to be improved Thank you, Barry. Next we'll have Val Peterson, followed by Bryce Nielson. MR. VAL .PETERSON: 11 ~ntothe I would like to have read 12 position that was taken by the Cache Chamber of Commerce 14 board of directors on the 15th of October in 1986 relative 15 to the Logan Canyon road study. such a study, which may eventually provide clearance to 17 much needed road improvements in the Logan Canyon. 18 our understanding that the study focuses primarily on the 19 stretch of canyon road between Right Fork and Garden City. 20 ~ 13 16 ) or recorded official record of this meeting a This is basically the unimproved section of the canyon road. We are pleased to support It is As a Chamber of Commerce we recognize that our 21 22 neighbors to the north in Idaho and Wyoming as well as Utah 23 depend on the canyon, Logan Canyon corridor, to provide 24 transportation access to services found in Logan and Cache 25 County. Their patronage to our businesses are encouraged, .) 8. �) welcomed, and appreciated. To these outlying communities, 2 this access is critical and fulfills a great need, a 3 lifeline, if you will, to much needed services and goods 4 not found in their areas. 5 Bear Lake is one of the largest bodies of clean 6 7 Salt Lake, and other Utah areas. 9 III facilities for not only local needs, but those of Ogden, 8 ., o ... fresh waters found in Utah. This area provides recreational area, as well as the canyon itself, attracts out of state ::E a: o IL 10 The beauty of the lake tourists, especially in the summer months. We think that the upper reaches of the Logan 11 12 Canyon Road should be made safer and more usable by upgrading 13 to an acceptable modern day standard as much as possible; 14 specificall~ 15 bridges widened, curves made less sharp, sight distance 16 lengthened, and areas widened. passing lanes installed, turning lanes built, It is recognized that environmental consideration 17 III ... N '" f 18 must be taken into account and in some cases allowed to 19 govern the situation. 20 attraction of the canyon is its uniqueness in its natural 21 setting. 22 uncontrolled road construction in Logan Canyon. III < u ci It is agreed that the charm and Z .., 1/1 a: IL ~ .., 1/1 ~ We do not want nor do we propose to support 0 <{ z " .., 0. 23 It is reassuring to know that an interdisciplinary 24 study team has been formed to guide the development of the 25 study currently underway. This team is made up not only 9. �of economists, biologists, engineers, UDOT, Federal Highway 2 Administration representatives, U. S. Forest Service 3 personnel, but the environmental community as well. 4 should provide a well balanced technical steering group 5 for recommended improvements. This Economical developments and the well being of 6 7 our existing businesses and those that may come into Cache 8 County is the basis of the Chamber of Commerce. 9 important for a Chamber of Commerce to help build a better It is also 10 11 the economic and social stability of our valley. 12 an opportunity for us to get behind this effort to do 13 something about the Logan Canyon Road and to work together 14 to improve our northern access from Logan to Garden City. 15 ) community by encouraging people to work together to improve Thank you. .. 16 17 18 MR. NUFFER: Thank you. Mr. Nielson. This is And after the Mayor, we will have Ted Seeholtzer. MR. BRYCE NIELSON: I appreciate the opportunity 19 to speak tonight. I look at the Logan Canyon Road from 20 various points of view. 21 up and live in Logan and to utilize the canyon from a 22 recreational point of view. 23 to live for a good number of years in Rich County and use 24 the canyon as a main artery towards the livelihood that 25 we require; doctors, stores, that type of stuff. I've had the opportunity to grow I've also had the opportunity ) 10. �! . I have also have had the opportunity to be a 2 fisheries biologist and a "environmentalist," you might 3 say. 4 the mayor of Garden City, and been able to see many of the 5 concerns that citizens of the area have about travel, 6 tourism, businesses, the life blood of communities. I have also been on the other side of the coin · as about I feel this gives me a good overview of the 7 8 problem on the Logan Canyon road. I feel that I can't really 9 state what alternatives I'm in favor of or opposed to. 10 11 13 appeal. is extremely important to me, since I transport my family, 15 my loved ones, through the canyon, and my friends travel 16 through the canyon. 17 to say which is more important that one or the other. 18 < throughout the canyon, its scenic values, its esthetic 14 u both the fishery environment and the other environments 12 ) Obviously, the environment is extremely important to me, think they're both extremely important. 19 o But on the same hand, the safety of the canyon So it's very difficult for me as one I I don't think speed is an issue in the canyon, Z III III 20 can you go around a corner? 22 many minutes can you save? 23 with most of the people in Rich County. 24 an issue with many people. 25 ... and I constantly hear this brought up as speed. 21 a:: very much in favor of improvement of bridges. How fast How many miles an hour, how I don't think that's an issue I don't think it's Safety is an issue, and I'm I'm very ) 11. �much in favor of improvement of passing lanes, so that 2 individuals who are impatient, want to get on down the road, 3 will not take hazardous actions that may affect the safety 4 of myself or people that I know and that I think a lot of. I think that it's important that the canyon is 5 6 improved for the tourist industry in Garden City and the 7 Bear Lake area. 8 about in many of these meetings is the fact that you talk 9 ' about loads through the canyon, people, numbers of cars; You know, one thing that's not been talked 10 but nobody has really talked about the amount of people 11 that go through Evanston, other routes to the area, primarily 12 to avoid the canyon. 13 utilize this exceptional resource . .J I'd like to see more of these people One other thing that I'm probably not--well, 14 15 I'm not in favor of--is any realignment of the Rich County 16 side. 17 and boats and semi's labor up and down the hill. 18 I also can see the scars of the old road that existed in 19 the thirties, and I don't want to see additional scars in 20 that beautiful area. 21 of the valley here and many of the tourists who come through 22 thoroughly enjoy seeing deer, moose, and associated wildlife 23 in that area. 24 25 I live on that alignment. I see the cars and trucks However, I know that many of the residents I think with some minor changes I can be very happy with the route as it exists at present. 12. �On the economic side, I don't want to see citizens 2 of Rich County be unduly taxed to maintain a road that they 3 would abandon if in fact they actually did abandon the road 4 or the alignment was changed so that it was our 5 responsibility as taxpayers to maintain the road that exists 6 right now. Above and beyond all, and in quick summary, I 7 8 would like to see more of us get together, both the 9 "environmentalists," "the users of the canyon," and the 10 politicians and look together to see the type of ending 11 that I think we can all be proud of. 12 ) MR. NUFFER: 13 MR. TED SEEHOLTZER: 14 15 Thank you. Ted. It's hell to get old,isn't it? My name is Ted Seeholtzer. I'm affiliated with 16 17 Travel Council for 11 years. 18 < u Beaver Mountain ski area. Bridgerland Tourist Council, which includes Rich County 19 and Cache County. 20 Some of them sit a little sideways from time to time, but 21 basically I'm straight down the middle type of a guy. a I'm a past member of the Utah I am now chairman of the So I can speak with two or three hats. z \II 101 a: ... ...: \II 101 ~ o '" " Z 22 I have been accused of being a special interest 101 IL 23 ·individual regarding the canyon. Perhaps I am to a point, 24 but I'm here to tell you one thing, whether or not I'm 25 associated with Beaver Mountain, if I thought for one minute 13. �that canyon was going to be uprooted, I would be completely 2 on the other side of the fence. So I do have some very, 3 very strong concerns about the canyon and what ought to 4 happen to it and the condition it ought to be in hopefully 5 when we get some work done on it. Just to throw a few insights to you regarding 6 7 the area and traffic patterns that we have there, on a day 8 that Beaver Mountain has 1,200 skiers, that develops into 9 roughly 440 cars at 2.7 persons per car, which is a good 10 average. It's pretty much a set number by all the resorts 11 in Utah-Colorado areas.· We have that happen any number of times during 12 ) 2.7 is a pretty good figure. 13 the winter. 14 Day and some of these type things that we get upwards of 15 1,300, 1,400, 1,500 people. 16 of 1,200 to 440 cars, if those people were to leave the 17 resort in an orderly fashion in a two-hour period, every 18 27 seconds an automobile would hit that road. 19 within an hour period, every 13.5 seconds an automobile 20 hits that highway. 21 Of course, we have some peak days. President's But as an average weekend crowd If they leave So we know that that road cannot be developed 22 to handle total peak traffic. The 24th of July, Labor Day, 23 Fourth of July type crowds. 24 considered when that road is designed that those types of 25 traffics are possible on it, and consideration should be But it certainly ought to be 14. �" given to that. We're noticing a great deal more traffic coming 2 3 4 We need those people in this area for their tax dollars, 6 the tourism industry, probably the easier industry to 7 attract. 8 water systems, and that for them. 9 (II resort. 5 " o '" from the Soda Springs, the Wyoming country in to use the your tax dollars. This side of the mountain needs some help also. We are not asked to build schools; cess pools, ~ II:: i 10 11 They don'tccme out of All they do is add to the coffers of the cities and counties where they visit. There are a few misconceptions that probably 12 have been handed out in the last 30 to 60 days concerning 13 the study that ought to be discussed just a little bit. 14 If you remember, the information was put up here on the 15 board regarding Logan Canyon as a designated scenic highway. 16 It · has been designated only in the Forest Land Use Plan. 17 It has not been registered in the Congressional Record at 18 this point in time. 19 that people think it is now in the record. 20 Forest Use Plan, not in the Congressional Record. III N ,.. 1'1 0> < U o I think that's a point of confusion Only in the Z VI III II:: '"- 21 It's been suggested that we use wider stripes, 22 · brighter paint, to mark the canyon with. 23 But, you know, it's rather difficult to see it in the winter 24 when it's covered with snow. 25 That's great. It doesn't show up too good. They talk about better .ighway atrol, law ) 15. �I. enforcement on speed down through the lower end, the lower 2 section of the project. I hope the heck they don't throw 3 the whistle at me when I'm on the way down, because there 4 is no place off of there. 5 for you and me to pull off if we're in trouble. 6 those things really need to be taken. care of. There are very, very few places Some of True, there could be some destruGtion to the 7 8 river. In places they have to build ret.a'ining walls. 9 question. It is a Class 2 fishery river. No But keep in mind 10 11 and it will always be a put and take river as long as the 12 ) it has been a put and take river for the last 10 to 12 years, fishing pressure is there. 13 it is possibly not a rating of a Class 2 river at this time. 14 So we have to consider .that We're been told that it will kill the algae in 15 the river if they work along the banks. 16 grow back next year. 17 have to be disturbed somewhat, providing we do not have 18 to maintain too many retaining walls. 19 So some of that stuff may have to be sacrificed for the 20 interim period, but it will return. 21 True. It will come back. But it will The bushes may Those will come back. Talk about campground destruction. Some of the 22 campgrounds will be eliminated. Two campgrounds are involved 23 in that lower section of the road. 24 other is the one at Cottonwood. 25 been blocked out for the last five or six · years by the One is China Row. The The one at Cottonwood has 16. �" Forest Service. It is no longer in use at this time. The 2 3 of the corridor of the trees. 6 granted. 7 GO have an extremely difficult time getting back on because 5 o You have . a difficult time getting off the road, and you 4 ., one at China Row shouldn't be, as it's far too dangerous. point . It is a beautiful place, But it is also a very dangerous place at that N ~ II: Logan Cave, a very definite problem area, probably 8 o ... 9 10 the most controversial area in Logan Canyon. question about it. Beautiful place. Agreed. No But it can be solved. The last four or five years, UDOT has had to 11 12 more fill in later on, nor push it into the river, which has been done the last two or three years . . I think that 17 problem could be handled very easily without a lot of 18 U it, and it's set. 16 o road. 15 < 13 14 ) haul fill in there to keep the river from coming over the destruction to it. 19 portion of the canyon--probably the one phenomenon in all 20 of Logan Canyon. Why don't we elevate the road? No problem. Cantilever out over We don't have to haul any And heaven's knows, I don't want that Z 1/1 W II: ... One thing that hasn't been discussed here a great 21 22 deal is the amount of snow that falls in Logan Canyon from 23 the Forks to, say, Sunrise Campground on this side of the 24 canyon. 25 there's somewhere between 300 and 500 inches of snowfall The records we've kept over the last years shows 17. �1/ within that area. , The 500 inches would fall from Tony Grove 2 over the top into Sunrise. Have you ever considered the 3 size of bar pit that you need to put that much snow in? 4 Sure, some of it can be blown away, but a 5 lot of it also blows back on. 6 ask the gentlemen who drive the plow trucks through there, 7 they will tell you -that 100 inches could blow in one night 8 that they have to push off, not only that that falls. I'm sure if you were to So we do need some bar pit room. 9 We do need 10 some shoulders for those in trouble to get off and to make 11 the road safer and less narrow in the winter time when there 12 is an awful .lot of snow falling. My recommendation would be on the improvement 13 14 15 estimation an excellent job on the bottom end of the road, 16 they have used awfully good judgment to improve that road. 17 f of the road to let the UDOT people, who have done in my It is not unsightly. 18 place, but that was necessary for a passing lane. 19 you did not have the one passing lane along by Brown's 20 Rolloff, you would only have the passing lane from Malibu 21 area until you hit the dugway, and that is too far for people 22 who need to get through the canyon. True, they got into the river in one And if I thank you very much for your time, and I 23 24 appreciate the privilege of speaking to you tonight. 25 Thank you. 18. �.. MR. NUFFER: 2 Bryce Stringham. Then we'll have John Flannery. 3 MR. BRYCE STRINGHAM: I'm Bryce Stringham. I've 4 5 It was about eight years before that that I was a part-time 6 resident. 7 that canyon any more than I have in the last '28 years, and 8 I put in quite a lot of input in the last meeting we had 9 ~ III o been a resident here for all the time for about 20 years. here, and I kind of protested about that road, and I'm sure I don't think there is anybody that has traveled Of I II: o ... 10 11 that's been covered many times. The concern I have on this is changing the route 12 13 'he's for keeping it on the route it's going. 14 go along with that to a point, that if we've got to change 15 that route, that we change it on the face here because of 16 the scenic values, because of the people who are already 17 ) on this side of the hill. I think, as Bryce has said, that there who need to serve in part. 18 need to change the road, let's keep it near where it is, 19 and let's come out where we're at. I essentially ,~ In other words, if we ill N ,... t'I 01 <: u o We have to look at the Z til W II: ... W economic part of it, too. 21 Now, if they're going to change the route down 22 Hodges Canyon, they've got to buy more property, they've 23 got to ·change the route. 24 maybe using some of the old route they had, or whatever. 25 I don't know what . the study is. That costs a lot more money than But I'd be violently against 19. �II changing any other route but essentially the route we've 2 got. Now, with some variations and like that would 3 4 be fine, but to change a whole new route that's the thing 5 that I'm opposed to. Thank you. 6 MR. NUFFER: John Flannery. 7 MR. JOHN FLANNERY: Thank you for the opportunity. 8 Can you hear me in back? I'm a writer, not a speaker. 9 So I'm going to read what I have for all here. First of all, I have no financial interests in 10 11 any way in Logan Canyon or Logan or Rich .county. This is 12 not in opposition to what has been said or to the idea of 13 improving the road we have. 14 it as a note of caution. I would prefer to think of When I came to Utah to work for the State 32 15 16 years ago, it was Parley's Canyon that said: 11 good place. 18 two-lane road going into Salt Lake City is marvelous. 19 gone. This is beauty." "This is a That small stream by the It's Provo Canyon was a quiet meander from Provo to 20 21 Heber Valley, with a few scattered mostly summer homes. 22 Excellent brown trout fishing and shade. 23 and winding. 24 gone. 25 The road was slow It was a place of tranquility. And it is The road from Ogden to Huntsville is less exciting ) 20. �perhaps. 2 homes. 3 13. k~ Steeper, a little bit. Narrower. Not too many That, too, is gone. One canyon remains, admittedly butchered in part, 4 riprapped in part, but maintaining its uniqueness. 5 Logan Canyon, as you all know. As a sometimes travel writer and photographer, 6 ., That's 7 I find that will attract and appeal to both the veteran 9 o my concerns are the esthetics of an area. 8 III What is it that traveler and the first-time or once in a lifetime voyager? N 10 11 I have visited and worked in a lot of states and a lot of 12 countries, flown over quite a few of them too. 13 ..J Without going into a travel log, I would like to say that of these have been visually diminished by the straight 14 ribbons of cement and blacktop we equate with progress and 15 call development. Too many Less than a month ago in Hawaii, I had the 16 17 privilege of driving a road called the Road of a Hundred 18 Bridges, and it runs down across the back of Maui to the 19 tiny town of Hana. 20 is 20 miles an hour. 21 And at many, many bridges you have to stop, yield to oncoming 22 traffic. · 23 There are 23 miles. The top speed limit You often have to go 10 miles an hour. These are one-way bridges. And you'd be glad that you're in a Japanese car and not an American car when 24 you do try to cross those. Still, it's an unforgettable 25 drive of leisure and beauty, with enough ·pullouts to 21. �) encourage dawdling and savoring a unique place on earth. 2 The Hawaiians don't lament those 23 miles of beauty, and 3 that leisurely drive makes people come allover the world 4 who care about scenic beauty. 5 of the tourist industry. 6 It's the backbone of some I submit that Logan Canyon and its river are 7 similarly unique. Certainly there is nothing like this 8 canyon and the Logan River left in . Utah. It's butchery, and it could happen. 9 It will 10 diminish its ability to draw the many people who come to 11 savor what we have. Injuring this canyon will diminish Utah's full 12 13 house of attractions. Its damage could and will reduce 14 the value of what is a gateway to your beautiful valley 15 and perhaps wipe out travelers' enthusiasm for the total 16 experience of the drive from the Wasatch Front communities 17 to Bear Lake. Minutes saved will never repay posterity for 18 19 the measured damage that may be done to the unique canyon 20 we have. Thank you for listening. 21 I know you're not 22 sympathetic to some of the things I've said. 23 this is not opposition. 24 you. 25 MR. NUFFER: As I said, It's a word of caution. Thank you. Thank Well, those are ~ll ) 22. _. ____ .. _ .. _.... ..... .. _. . .... . _.................. . . . . . _ . . . . ....... ....... _... ...... .... , ... ... ....... .\.\.. _,"\ H'" ... . . .? . • • _ .' .. r .. r .... ' ..... ·. _-•• , • • -·.""\ ' ..... ·--; .... _l �II the ones that signed the list that indicated they would 2 wish to speak. 3 home at 10 after 8:00, now, do we? 4 Some said maybe. We don't all want to go I hope the setup here hasn't intimidated anyone. 5 This looks kind of official, but we would certainly invite 6 you to come up. 7 if there is anybody that's changed their mind about talking 8 --if you said no here, I don't care. We sincerely want to have your input. MR. GEORGE PRESTON: 9 So Come on up. My name is George Preston. 10 11 of residency, but not newcomer in the sense of being over 12 here and enjoying the place, and I have a very deep sense 13 of feeling towards the responsibility that we each have 14 ) I guess I'm a newcomer to this county, newcomer in the sense towards this community. 15 16 Club and have thought as Mr. Flannery thinks, we would still 17 have a double width wagon track through the canyon. 18 < u If our forefathers had been members of the Sierra would be totally cut off from any sort of civilization; 19 and as far as any economy, there would be none. 20 there is now. o We Less than z I/) LoI a: IL ~ I/) LoI ~ I have listened to five hours of meetings. 21 I o « z " 22 have listened to both sides, pro, con, all the way from 23 Alternative A to Alternative D. LoI IL With that in mind, I drove through the canyon 24 25 today. As I drove through, I convinced one person, and 23. �that was myself, that this road can be improved, it can 2 be widened, passing lanes can be made. All of this can 3 be done with the gentlemen that are here and available as 4 experts, without compromising the esthetic beauty of the 5 canyon, without compromising fish, wildlife, with hardly 6 any· compromise to the ecology, because we can do it. 7 looking at the alternatives, and driving through the canyon, 8 Alternative C category, improvements can be made in the 9 first lower portion. In The C category can be made in the 10 upper portion. 11 down into Garden City, significant improvements can be made. Two of the worst corners in the entire canyon .12 ) · 13 And, of course, from the top of the canyon can be eliminated. We all know what's happened on those 14 corners. We all know of the accidents. There is no reason 15 to maintain a ·hazard like that in which it affects me and 16 potentially you, because those that have gone before us 17 . on those corners, they're gone. Who is next in the future? 18 When the economy of Cache County was sorely in 19 need of a highway leading into Logan, so that Logan could 20 say, "We need that highway to boost the economy," it was 21 given to Logan. 22 road and those modifications, compatible with the ecology, 23 to boost this economy." Rich County is now saying: 24 Please give it to us. 25 MR. NUFFER: "We need that Is there anyone else here? Yes, sir. ) 24. �II MR. RUSS CURREL: My name is Russ Currel. As 2 3 I came together. 5 ... I do speak for myself today. 4 n -- I look over this group, I recognize nearly everyone here. in Logan, Cache County, when that statement was made. 6 do support the statement of the Chamber of Commerce. I did come over. Val and I was president of the Chamber of Commerce I I would like to make some comments of my own. 7 8 I do own property in Bear Lake and property in Cache Valley . 9 I was born in Bear Lake county, and I don't think there 10 11 My family, as we were talking about taking a posi t ·ion here-- 12 ) is anyone here that enjoys Logan Canyon anymore than I do. I have five children, and without exception, all five said, 13 "Dad, please don't take a position to destroy the canyon." And I said, "I think you know me better than 14 15 that." But one thing I do take a position on, and that 16 17 is the safety of the canyon. I don't know what you would 18 do to the canyon. 19 getting from here to Logan very much. 20 are a lot of things there that need to be done for the safety 21 of the canyon. II) N " en 1'1 <: u o I don't think you'd speed up the time But I do know there Z III 101 a: ... I think I would be about B plus position on the 22 23 map, where I think there are a lot of those things, B, that 24 need to be done. 25 C. Most of those things, and even some in And I really feel they can be done without really being 25. �a hazard to the ecology or to the wildlife. 2 I don't fish. Never fished in my life. But 3 I think there are ways that we can handle the river where 4 we're not going to be a detriment to that. I would hope that we all get together, and I 5 6 think the mayor over here stated it best. 7 together and work hard on this, I think we can overcome 8 the problems that are here and really accomplish what we 9 want to accomplish. Thank you. MR. OWEN WAHLSTROM: 10 If we all get My name is OWen Wahlstrom. 11 12 know how to express my feelings to you; but this winter 13 in the canyon, we were going through the canyon to Logan. 14 It was snowing so hard I had to stop and get the ice off 15 my windshield at Twin Bridges. 16 I watched three snow plows go across that bridge with their 17 blade jammed into the guardrail to miss a car coming the 18 other way. They were all three sliding. 19 ) I'm a resident here. feet between them. My family is from this area. I don't While we were stopped there, There wasn't six I definitely agree that the bridges have got 20 21 to be widened. 22 you'd call a modern day miracle. 23 wide body cars. 24 make it. 25 Somehow they missed the car. It was what One of those big full, And we didn't think they were going to If we don't do something, and if we go completely ) 26. �with the esthetics, are we going to make up a road like 2 is going through Glacier National Park, where all trucks 3 are prohibited and large motorhomes are prohibited? 4 It will eventually come to that if the traffic keeps up. I, too, enjoy the canyon; but I do think some 5 6 7 there are probably lawsuits against the State in that canyon . 8 We're going to pay one way or the other. 9 .., CII o .,. improvements have to be made. happening in there. I don't know. I imagine ~ a: o ... Accidents keep It's been stated here, it's a 10 11 - substandard road. are many areas in there where if somebody wants to raise . 12 problems for I'm not an attorney, but I'm sure there it can easily be done . anybody, I also rely on the economy over here very much. 13 14 I don't want this to be a two-bit tourist trap, but I think 15 we can accommodate more people than we're getting. 16 you. 17 18 < u MR. NUFFER: MR. PAUL WEBB: 19 o Thank Yes, sir. Can I just stand here? is like driving through Logan Canyon. The trip (Laughter.) Z \II 20 W a: I/.. ..: \II 21 w ~ o « I just had a few thoughts I want to say. taking any alternative-- 22 MR. NUFFER: 23 z " MR. WEBB: III IL By Could you give your name? Paul Webb. I am a resident here in 24 Garden City. By taking any alternative less than a major 25 resurfacing modification, we're only going to reduce the ) 27. �Il time between conflicts between people and also reduce the 2 time between disturbances of the environment. We must 3 remember at this point in time we consider the canyon a 4 beautiful place, where wildlife thrives and brightens our 5 lives. 6 was butchered, and it has recovered. 7 the butchery. 8 can be improved and provide transportation to people. 9 we're doing the job, let's do it right. But remember, at some time in the past the canyon And it's beautiful. 10 MR. NUFFER: 11 MR. BILL PETERSON: We are looking at With caution, the canyon While Yes, sir. Bill Peterson, Garden City. 12 13 20 years. 14 surveys and signs and studies go on in the canyon. 15 think it's time we get past the looking and the studying 16 ) I've been a resident of Garden City and the area for about and do something to improve the canyon. 17 For 15 of those 20 years I think there have been I'm in the real estate business. .1 really I have numerous 18 people coming through the canyon stopping in the office, 19 many of them upset. 20 21 22 23 24 25 "That's a beautiful canyon, but I would never drive over it again." I mean, I'm not kidding you. That's what a number of people say. It's dangerous. want to go over it. It's beautiful. But they don't I really think even the first section ) 28. �down towards Logan is out of date. i We've got you gentlemen 2 3 than your 1 to 2 percent you've predicted. 4 of major developments, at least 5 are major. 6 • o coming up here. Our growth rate is going to be much more every year. tw~ We have a number that will be here that And we have building permits. We're growing 7 I think if you go and improve to meet what you 8 had in the lower part of the canyon, as Paul said, you're 9 III wasting your time. III ~ a: o ... We should plan · now to have the facilities 10 for the future. 11 Canyon is not going to do us in 10 years from now. MR. NUFFER: 12 ) 13 That section in the first part of Logan Thank .you. Is there anyone else? Ye s, rna' am. MS. CATHY WEBB: 14 My name is Cathy Webb. I'd 15 16 view. 17 to and from Logan probably at least once a week. 18 < u like to make .some comments from a woman's standpoint of even more than that. 19 o z VI .... a: Everyone of us ladies - here in this community travels Maybe I'd like all of you executives and officials 20 that are in this room tonight to know that I have spoken 21 to each and everyone of you several times. 22 didn't get past Paul's ears. 23 And I've gone through that canyon a million times, and I've 24 remodeled it a dozen times. 25 ... to see what . would happen if somebody dug away some dirt However, it It didn't get past the car. I've checked out the mountains ) 29. �and some shrubs. I've put up fence along the dugway for 2 years, so that the rocks wouldn't bounce down on the road. 3 I just know I'm going to get hit by a boulder on the dugway 4 one of these years. I just know it. On top of the car. I've taken four little children, tiny little 5 6 babies to the doctors, the hospitals, the groceries. I 7 have spent probably a minimum of $500 a month, ·and that 8 probably is a minimum, over in Cache Valley. I appreciate the comments of the Chamber of 9 10 Commerce. We like to feel appreciated over here and the 11 fact that we do put a lot of money into Cache . Valley . . I would also like to make a comment that last 12 13 year in August I packed up my car, took my 15-year-old 14 daughter at 10 o'clock at night. 15 My husband had already left. 16 with just my daughter and me, 10 o'clock at night. .> We were moving to Logan. And I started out the journey I climbed up the summit. 17 I had a car behind 18 me. 19 to get in front of me. 20 to the point that I had to pass him again. 21 him. 22 tell, I had a carload of screwballs following me. 23 I let him pass through Tony Grove, or through Beaver, He slowed down. And then he continued to tail me. He slowed down So I passed As near as I could Needless to say I was scared to death by the 24 time I got to Logan, because, you see, we passed no other 25 cars on the way. There was no moon. It wasn't bright. ) 30. �') There were no reflectors. I couldn't tell if there was 2 a place for me to pullout on the road. 3 my tail. 4 on going. 5 But I couldn't tell. I wanted him off I had no choice but to keep At that point, I told my daughter, "Hand me a 6 7 GI o traveling through the canyon, put a man's hat on, it will 8 • .. baseball cap," because I had always read if you're a woman protect you. ~ I[ o a.. 9 We're driving down the road, and I am scared 10 11 this hat on, and we went that way through the rest of the 12 canyon with these guys tailing me, turning their lights 13 off, harassing me through the canyon, and I not being able 14 to get off the road to make them pass me, until we got onto 15 the new part of the road again. 16 bugger, you go ahead, and I'll find somebody, and I ' l l get 17 ) to death. "Hand me a hat." I tucked my hair up and put your number." And then I thought: "You 18 19 to the point, once we got to the turnoff, that he had to 20 pass. 21 < u And he had to pass me, because I slowed' down ' was my greeting into Cache Valley to be a resident there. o z \I) LII I[ IL. And that's the way we went on into Logan, and that ..: \I) LII ~ o « z " 22 LII Well, we lived there for nine months and then CL 23 24 25 we ended up moving back to Garden City. May I say to those of you that are here and representing the environment, you'll find no one that ) 31. �\ appreciat.e s the esthetic beauty of Cache Valley and of the 2 mountains more than those of us who choose .to live in them. 3 We talk about the drives. 4 single time we go through Logan, because every time you 5 go through Logan Canyon you see something different. 6 We talk about the beauty every Improving that road is not going to change what 7 we see when we go through that canyon. 8 to say. That's all I have 9 Oh, I do have one other comment. 10 who is in Logan, calls Logan Canyon a paved cow trail. 11 MR. NUFFER: Thank you. 12 MR. RAY ELLIOTT: My dentist, Anyone else? Yes. My name is Ray Elliott. I 13 know most of you here. Some of you may know us from being 14 here in the summer. 15 So I wanted to speak just a little bit concerning all of 16 the interests involved. I have interests here in Bear Lake. This seems to be quite a polarizing issue. 17 I '18 went to the meeting last night in Logan. The meeting was 19 heavily represented there last night by environmental 20 interes~s, 21 towards development of the road. 22 different motives, different personal interests, some of 23 them personal, some of them environmental, some of them 24 concerned with safety. 25 from people who have specific monetary concerns in the canyon and the interests seemed to be more slanted Everyone seems to have Some interests are monetary, either ) 32. �I, or on either side of the canyon, to see improvement made. 2 I feel that we really need to be responsible to 3 4 we need to be careful to protect the things that we all 7 ., to be made in the canyon. 6 flII improvement. 5 o the future, both for the environment and safety and feel are important. .... But in making those improvements, There is going to be increased traffic. 8 9 Improvements that are going to be made need If we want to see increased use here in Bear Lake, we need to 10 decide who we're trying to attract. 11 Lake is attracting tourists, we need to be careful. 12 we want the tourists to get through on a faster highway, 13 or do we want to attract people who are there to enjoy the 14 scenery? 15 If the economy of Bear There are gives and takes there. Do In trying to 16 attract more people, if they declare 17 route and list it in the Federal Registry, you may attract 18 more tourists; but in doing so, you're going to have to 19 accommodate more people in that canyon, and the roads are 20 going to have to be improved. 21 both ways. 22 th~ highway a scenic There are going to be trades If we decide over here--and I have interests 23 here that I need--I would like to see tourist trade increase, 24 but I'm not sure that faster roads or scenic highway, either 25 one, there's a question that exists there. Which is going . ) 33. �to be in the best interests of Rich County in attracting 2 3 tourists? We need to be careful that this type of forum 4 that we have in getting public opinion does not leave the 5 engineering firm, CH2M Hill, UDOT, with the impression that 6 what they have seen either in support of widening the road 7 or in support of saving the environment and doing nothing-- 8 they're going to be left with an impression there, and then 9 they're going to take that 10 info~mation home and decide what they will do with it and do what they will. 11 the two groups is because each group feels that one group 13 is trying to take advantage of the other group or that the 14 concerns of the environmentalists will be totally served by 15 whomever is going to make the decision, or the concerns 16 of improvements in the road are going to be served over 17 ) Now, some of the polarities that exist between 12 14. the environment. 18 I have a suggestion that I'm not sure what could 19 be done there to insure that both sides are served; and 20 I feel that there is a middle ground that could be achieved 21 without destroying the environment and without changing 22 the canyon, and still improving the road. 23 responsible to the improvements that need to be made. 24 25 . We have to be I mean, I've driven a pregnant wife at 2 o'clock in the morning over that highway from Bear Lake to Logan, ) 34. �with labor pains and two minutes apart, and I know the 2 anxiety that accompanies that. 3 So there are safety concerns that we need to 4 5 forum like this leaves people with a few notions that they 7 will go ba.ck and, . again, as I said, do what they will. 8 there could be a committee put together of interest groups 9 ., o ... same time, I really love and appreciate that canyon. 6 III be .concerned with, that we really need to address. that each have their own interests that could be used as At the A If ~ I[ o "- . 10 11 environmentalists, the Sierra Club may have a representative 12 at that meeting, the Rich Tourist Council should have a 13 representative on that advisory committee. 14 perhaps there should be a way to insure that everyone's 15 ) checks and balances for whatever is going to be done, the interest there is served, and I feel that they can be. 16 17 MR. NUFFER: 18 < u That's all I had to say. MR. LYNN HILLSMAN: I think that Thank you. Yes, sir. My name is Lynn Hillsman, 19 and I have one thing that's just a little bit different 20 than most people. 21 of others. 22 the middle of the road, and there are major problems with 23 the subgrade. 24 up the road just to even maintain it. 25 improvement and still try to maintain it? o Z \/I 101 I[ "- I drove that canyon today, like a bunch ...: \/I 101 ~ (; « z " a. 101 To my idea, there is water coming up through To redo this, you're going to have to tear So why not do some \ ) 35. �But with the subgrade and the drainage the way 2 it is, there's something drastic has to be done with that 3 road to keep it to where you can drive on it. 4 you're doing it, do it right. 5 That's all I have to say. 6 MR. NUFFER: 7 MR. DON HUFFNER: So while Yes, sir. I'm Don Huffner. I wasn't 8 going to say anything tonight, but Ray reminded me of 9 something that happened to me. I used to be on the Highway 10 Patrol. 11 in Logan Canyon, it was probably me that gave them to you. 12 In fact, 20 years ago if any of you got tickets Ray said that he has driven Logan Canyon with an expectant wife. 14 somebody else's expectant wife, and it's no easier when 15 it's somebody else's wife. 16 ) 13 trying to tell the father how to deliver that baby. 17 Well, I've driven Logan Canyon with It's hard to drive that canyon I've got some recommendations here, or at least 18 things, as I look at the presentation and look 19 a little more specific 20 maybe Alternative C was all right. 21 looked at it, and Alternative D, they have changed the road 22 just below Ricks Spring and cut out an area there that in 23 my opinion, my experience, it is quite a bad area. 24 made a lot of other improvements here, too. 25 like the difference between C and D is this cut just below On at the maps the first section I thought that But then the more I They But this looked ) 36. �1 , ) 1 Ricks Spring that eliminates an area where the banks are 2 very steep and in the winter time the sun never gets down 3 to the road--well, seldom gets down to the road--not because 4 of clouds, but because of the mountains shading it. 5 quite a dangerous area in my opinion. Now, Alternative C I believe would be fine other 6 7 That's than that. On the next section, on Section 2, I thought 8 ' 9 10 they would like to see the road brought right up to snuff, 11 put a brand new road in there, because in 15 or 20 years 12 ) Alternative B was satisfactory. NOW, some have said that we're going to need it, or maybe even sooner. 13 possible. That's But ' economically speaking, I don't know that-- 14 15 I'm afraid we're going to choke the horse if we try to feed 16 it that much and that we need to be realistic on our needs 17 now. 18 <: u We've got other areas, other routes of getting 19 in and out of the valley. 20 too, to develop those along with this. 21 summer people that have cabins here on the lake that come 22 from Salt Lake, well over half of them--well over half of 23 o I think we need to work on those, them--from the Salt Lake area come through Evanston already. Z III III It: IL 24 25 Already of the Now, as more people learn of the Evanston route, there will probably be more and more people come that way. ,. ) 37. �') And that's not all bad to have several accesses into our 2 area. The last section, again, there are some very 3 4 bad curves there, and I think that they need to be looked at. I think Alternative D would be the one that I 5 6 would recommend. It eliminates the bad curves without 7 realigning the road drastically, and I think we could get 8 along with that. Thank you. MR. NUFFER: 9 Is there anyone else here that would 10 care to testify? 11 want to that changed their mind? Now is your chance. Well, with that, do any of the UDOT people want 12 13 Anyone that came thinking they didn't to say anything in closing? MR. 'WESTON: 14 I was ready to go at 10 after 8: 00, 15 but since we've talked some more, let me make one thought 16 or two in conclusion. 17 through our previous meetings that Logan Canyon itself means 18 different things to different people. 19 all going to agree upon what Logan Canyon means to us. 20 think we've found out that it's a very sensitive area. I think 'we've found out tonight and I don't think we're I I think we already know that the Forest Service 21 22 desires to keep it a scenic highway, and I think that's 23 fine. 24 25 I think that can be done. I think we need to remember a few things, and I think I need to answer a question of Commissioner Brown's. ) 38. �I think it deserves an answer. That is, what's to be gained 2 3 study. I don't think we've lost anything by three times. 6 that this better be the last study before we do something 7 CIO And I've told you previously that this is my third 5 . asked. 4 o ... by an additional study? I think that's the question he in Logan Canyon . study~ng it But I do think that the time has come now l: II: I say that from the standpoint that we now have 8 o "- 9 -got some structures up there in the canyon that have got 10 to be repaired or replaced quite drastically. I can see 11 some problems if we don't repair those bridges; and if we 12 try to do it on the existing alignment, on the existing 13 bridge, we're going to have to build a route around those 14 bridges for the traffic to go through that may be more 15 detrimental to - the highway than some of the things we're 16 talking about. I just want to say this much, that we have got 17 18 19 do something on the bridges is quite obvious to most of 20 you here. 21 of our study. 22 Transportation is not flush 23 the Legislature recently passed a 5 cent gas tax increase, 24 the needs that we have, I've got to say in all honesty that 25 <: u to do something on the bridges. - The reason we've got to 5 cents more gas tax is a drop in the bucket to our needs. o z II) 101 II: ... What we do over and beyond that is the purpose But I do know this. The Department of with dollars. Even though ) 39. �We have to rely on the federal highway people 2 to help us fund primary road systems. Logan Canyon Highway, 3 Highway 89, is more than just a road for Cache County. 4 more than just a road for Rich County. 5 federal highway; and as long as we're going to have a primary 6 federal highway going through that canyon, we've got to 7 keep it up to certain standards. It's It's a primary 8 Now, if the time comes that there are enough 9 feelings that that shouldn't be a primary highway, then 10 I guess we'll address that at that time; but it presently 11 is, and we're required and obligated in our responsibility 12 to the highway system of the State of Utah' to do certain 13 things on that highway to make it reasonably safe and usable 14 for the traveling public. 15 to do it. 16 it's our judgment as a Department of Transportation, that 17 there will be no money spent up there, even on bridges, 18 until we complete an environmental impact study in depth, 19 like we're doing now, and there will be a chance to have 20 you come to a hearing on our draft environmental impact 21 study, which will be ready sometime this fall, hopefully; 22 and at that time you can make the decision, help us make 23 the decision, on what we're going to do with Logan Canyon. 24 But I do know that the study has got to be done. 25 We need federal highway dollars The federal highways, I can tell you now, and When I first came on the Commission, ·1 was the ) 40. �\ i first one to go to the rest of the Commissioners and say, 2 "Why are we spending half a million dollars up there to 3 study something we already know?" 4 statement as Commissioner Brown made. You know, the same 5 6 ., I since have become a little older and a little wiser, and I know that we've got to complete this document . 7 and consider every option and consider everybody's feelings 8 and examine every portion of it and now do anything in that 9 ell o canyon until we're satisfied that we're doing the right III ~ II: o ... 10 thing. 11 to release any money and Dave Baumgartner and the Forest 12 Service are not going to support us if we don't do the job 13 And I know the federal highway people are not going -and do it right. 14 Now, that's the reason for the study. You have an opportunity to give us input. You 15 16 consulting team up until April 6. 17 has the address you can mail those to, if you have things 18 < u will have written comments that can be written to our to say that you didn't say tonight. 19 if you want to get your name on the record, you send that 20 in to the people and express yourself. o You have - a handout that Even if it's repetitive, Z III W II: ... I don't think numbers are going to be things 21 22 that make the determination. I don't think numbers ever 23 was the determining decision-making process in any valid 24 decision. 25 good solid concrete suggestions on what you think we ought But we do want your input, and we want to have 41. �to do. Thank you. MR. NUFFER: 2 3 Jess, did you have a follow-up on that? MR. JESS ANDERSON: 4 I just have a question. Can 5 you do anything with the area around Logan Cave? 6 make that parking or something? 7 in a snowstorm in the middle of the night, and there's not 8 much room on that corner. That's what these experts are going MR. NUFFER: That's one of the areas we're going to tell us. 11 12 You come through there MR. WESTON: 9 10 Can you to take a good close look at. A VOICE: 13 Just on the time frame fot the 14 environmental impact study, how long does that need to 15 proceed? MR. NUFFER: 16 Well, if all things go reasonably 17 well, we hope to complete the draft environmental impact 18 statement this summer, which will give you the environmental 19 datq to accompany these alternatives that we have identified where. 21 One more question. 22 A VOICE: I'm a little uncomfortable with the 23 monologue type input. I feel a little better with the more 24 dialogue type input. 25 says something, another person says something, and it's What's been happening is one person ) 42. �tough for both parties to get together. What my question 2 is, ultimately who makes the decision, and how is that 3 decision going to be made on what is actually done in the 4 canyon? 5 6 '" III o 7 MR. NUFFER: Does Howard or Todd care to answer that question? MR. HOWARD RICHARDSON: This draft environmental N ~ II: 8 impact statement will contain an inventory of all of the 9 o "- resources and the values that all parties have identified 10 in the canyon; and a recommended design will be recommended 11 or proposed, considering all of those things; and where 12 impacts or problems are perceived to take place, mitigations 13 and recommendations will be supplied in the environmental 14 impact statement containing what will happen. 15 There will be a public hearing that will be held 16 17 < o on that proposal and on those recommendations and on the 18 U that will contain the comments of people who wish to comment proposed mitigation. 19 U. S. Forest Service and the Federal Highway Administration 20 will make a determination of whether the environmental issues 21 and safety issues have been properly addressed and whether 22 that represents a reasonable and proper and prudent solution 23 to the problem at hand. After that has been heard, then the Z VI 101 II: "- ..: VI 101 ~ o 0{ I!) Z 101 II. 24 25 So the agencies, the sponsoring agencies are the ones who will make the final decision. It will be made 43. �only after a tremendous amount of input, of which these 2 meetings last night and tonight are only a part of. MR. ELLIOTT: 3 Another question. Is there a 4 possibLlity of having a citizens' advisory to that decision? 5 Has that been done? MR. RICHARDSON: 6 Well, I don't think that's--it's 7 possible to have that done on an informal basis. 8 would be simply a measure to help structure and make sure 9 that the problems are identified and the concerns were 10 properly put into the environmental document. MR. ELLIOTT: 11 12 But that Could you take that into consideration? MR. RICHARDSON: 13 Yes, I'm sure that will be taken 14 into consideration. 15 that. 16 meeting for several months, there has been 12 to 15 meetings 17 by the interdisciplinary team. 18 of varied interests of the resources and the values in the 19 canyon. 20 place. 21 22 23 On the The team and I were thinking about interd~sciplinary , team that has now been That represents a composite So there already is a type of that thing taking Yes, there is. MR. ELLIOTT: Is there any way of getting a record of what transpires next? MR. RICHARDSON: Well, those minutes are public 24 information, and minutes have been kept of all of those 25 meetings, and CH2M Hill are the guardians of those things. ,) 44. �~) They manufacture them and make them and circulate them for 2 each of the meetings, so that everybody knows what was done 3 last time, and they are reviewed and approved and discussed. 4 And, yes, those things are not secret. 5 for everybody who wants to look at them. 6 III o 7 MR. NUFFER: 8 ., . MR. ELLIOTT: MR. DAVE BAUMGARTNER: 9 They are available Thank you. Dave Baumgartner. As a suggestion to us all--and I haven't talked to Howard nor to Stan nor the 10 CM2H folks about this, the original design of that 11 environmental study is unique, and it really didn't operate 12 like we had thought it was going to at . the beginning. 13 had invited some members of the environmental community 14 to sit on that, because they had the major concerns with 15 the program. We 16 17 o needs that legitimately ought to be done on the highway. 18 < u I think most people recognize that there were 'And our thought in the beginning was to bring in those people 19 who had adverse views to that and help us work through the 20 process, so that that would go a little bit smoother. Z 'II W II: ... ~ 'II W ~ 21 But it's changed a little bit in its organization. o 0( z " 22 I would suggest to us who were on that team that we do what 23 he suggests and invite a responsible member from either 24 this side of the hill or however we want to do that, in 25 order to provide that balance that not only he, but several W IL 45. �others have suggested. I think we ought to consider that. 2 That's more of a statement to these guys than the crowd, 3 but I think it's a legitimate thing to bring up. 4 MR. NUFFER: 5 (At 8:43 p.m., Wednesday, March 4, 1987, the . 6 7 Thank you. meeting ended.) -000- 8 9 10 11 12 ) 13 14 15 16 17 18 .1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ) 46. �r - - - - - - - - - - - -- ------- - -..-_ . C L ! -~ r 'T' I 2 3 State of Utah county of Salt Lake 5 I, Ronald r . Llul.1.;;trd, 01 0 here!.. '.' certify that I ,un a certified shorthand reporter in ano [or the ~~t() te of Utal'lt 7 8 proceedings, and that tlLi : ; 9 correct record of said proceedinqs. 10 11 Dated a t of 12 ()~r~ Sal t Lr -· ll l~i cr..i.pt L.'1J:(~ C ity, ..i. :.~ ,l Lull, true, Utah, tlnd day 1986. (R~&.~..2__ 13 '~ '. !lon.:lld F . 14 IIubbilrd - 7.30 LTudCJ(~ J1.ui lc1in'J Salt L ~lk.C City, Utah (301) 355-1611 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ::-) L___ _ �. . .- ....' () LOGAN · CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SeOPING MEETTNGS . 3« 1987 ~o§aD Utah 4, 1981 - Gar-en city, Ut~ March ~rch ) \~ /V2) �, I LOGAN·CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING -MEETTNGS I March 3, 1987 - Logan, Utah March 4, 1987 - Garden City, Utah NAME REPRESENTING r/\~ t>-Av DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? j!cJ~ } r. I �LOGAN · CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING . . - "\ 1 I ~ \ ....J . ~NGS March 3, 1987 - Logan, Utah March 4, 1987 - Garden ' City, Utah I ; NAME REPRESENTING DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK? �•• I LOGAN · CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS March 3, 1987 - Logan, Utah March 4, 19~7 - Garden City, Utah DO YOU WISH TO - ). � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/55">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/55</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 372804673 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 29603450 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Public scoping meeting for the Logan Canyon environmental study Description An account of the resource Transcript from the public scoping meeting for the Logan Canyon environmental study held at City Hall in Garden City, Utah on March 10, 1986 where several spoke and answered questions. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Hubbard, Ronald F. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Mattson, Otto Brown, Ken Johnson, Dee Negus, Barry Peterson, Val Nielson, Bryce Seeholtzer, Ted Stringham, Bryce Flannery, John Preston, George Currel, Russ Wahlstrom, Owen Webb, Cathy Elliot, Ray Hillsman, Lynn Huffner, Don Weston, Todd Anderson, Jess Richardson, Howard Baumgartner, David Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah)--History Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-03-10 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Garden City (Utah) United States Rich County (Utah) Utah Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 11 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd11_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/ddc3fc4d5a3433a18034865c40721cac.pdf 2056a87832e0d0170f0edffef4b89c8d PDF Text Text MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: January 21, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The Fifteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on January 5, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on Monday, January 26, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of January 5 meeting. 2. Outline of public presentation for scoping meetings to be held March 3 and 4. 3. Review of notice of scoping meeting. 4. Continued discussion of alternatives. t Future ~eeting schedule: January 26 February 17 March 9 March 30 SLC91/d.ll0l - 7:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. , , , , District Office District Office Brigham City Hall District Office �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING January 5, 1987 Attendance: John Neil - UDOT Howard Richardson - UDOT Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Fred LaBar - USFS Clark Ostergaard - USFS Jack Spence - Sierra Club Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL Duncan Silver - FHWA Mark Shaw - USFS Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Gale Larson - Valley Engineers Steve Flint - Audobon Society ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES Jack Spence commented that if a 50 mph (AASHTO Standard) alternative on a new alignment was to be considered in the Canyon, then an alternative route such as Blacksmith Fork should also be included in the study. After considerable discussion, it was concluded that a 50 mph alternate on a new alignment would be feasible only on the Rich County section. The previous technical memorandum would serve as the basis for no further consideration of that option. The scheduling of the scoping meeting was discussed and due to conflicting schedules and the need to allow an adequate review period, the scoping meetings were shifted to March 3 and 4, with the tentative schedule as follows: Logan Scoping Meeting, March 3, 7:00 p.m. Government Agencies - Logan, March 4, 10:00 a.m. Garden City Scoping Meeting, March 4, 7:00 p.m. A draft of the notice of intent was circulated and comments on the wording received. ITEM 2 - ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION There was some discussion about how the alternatives would be defined and potential impacts evaluated. Howard Richardson pointed out that the highway, as it is now, is adequate for some disciplines and not for others. The objective of the I. D. Team is to do the best we can to meet the needs of all, realizing that no one is going to get everything they want. Howard also indicated that the official design speed for the previously improved lower Canyon was 40 mph. Any curves that do not meet the 40 mph criteria are then posted with a lower advisory speed. SLC-STAN/17 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/46">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/46</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 1169439087 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1134591 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer, January 21, 1987 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer with the minutes from the January 5, 1987 meeting attached and time and location for the next meeting, and schedule. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Spence, Jack Richardson, Howard Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction Roadside improvement--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 1987-01-21 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 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_008.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/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/0d9d39033a34a89061062edbbfce32ae.pdf 499a8339e30a7783450d7680bded936d PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON Minutes of ID Team Meeting July 28, 1986 Attendance: Clark Ostergaard - USFS Fred LaBar - USFS Todd Weston - UDOT Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL John D'Amico - CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Bill Helm - Unattached Rudy Lukez - Sierra Club Howard Richardson - UDOT John Neil - UDOT ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes were reviewed. There was some confusion about the sources of additional names for the mailing list which were listed in the minutes. It was noted that Fred LaBar and Bill Helm had mailed names and not turned them in at the last meeting. There was no other discussion on the minutes. ITEM 2 - TFAFFIC COUNT DATA ( The sources of traffic data were discussed. Permanent stations on US 89-91 at Webster Junction, on US 89 at Card Guard Station in Logan Canyon (later moved to Garden City), and on US 89 north of Garden City are being used in the preparation of the traffic forecast. ITEM 3 - PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC FORECAST A past trends based forecast had been prepared using a least squares best fit linear function. This approach produced an annual increase in ADT which was less than one percent, a rate which was felt to be low. The Utah State, Office of Planning and Budget was prepared its forecast of economic and population growth through the year 2010. The overall rate of population increase for northern Utah was approximately 2 percent. If traffic in Logan Canyon were to increase at the same rate as the population, the summer ADT in Logan Canyon would reach approximately 6,000 vehicles per day in 2,010. Supporting data for this forecast is available and will be presented at the next ID Team (Team) meeting. There was also some discussion on the traffic classification counts. The summer counts will begin on July 29, 1987. The counts will include a classification for recreational vehicles and record turning movements. �r ( ITEM 4 - DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATION The roadway will be evaluated on the basis of the level of service which is possible at a given traffic volume. The Transportation Research Board describes a procedure for establishing levels of service (A through E) for rural roads. Copies of portions of the procedure description were distributed to team members to help them become familiar with the level of service concept. There was some discussion on which level of service would be planned for in the Canyon. UDOT would like to plan for a "C" level, but the actual level of service used will be determined by the Team. ITEM 5 - REVIEW OF ACCIDENT DATA The accident data for 6 years (1980 - 1985) has been tabulated using a UDOT computer program. The UDOT program was used because the program performs the types of analysis required for roadways and the accident data base was already on the UDOT computer. The computer runs had only recently been completed and there had not been sufficient time to review the results. Hopefully this will be completed by the next meeting. ITEM 6 - UPDATE ON STATUS OF BASE MAP PREPARATION An example of the base maps was shown to the of the set will be available, when they have to Team members who wish to have one. Clark requested a set to get started on the visual Team. Copies been completed, Ostergaard survey. MISCELLANEOUS The approved forest plan has a section on Logan Canyon which t may be of interest to Team members. Clark Ostergaard will bring a number of copies of that section to the next meeting. SLC8I/II � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/34">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/34</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 3001645539 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1261682 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from July 28, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from July 28, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review minutes, traffic count data, presentation of proposed traffic forecast, discussion of highway capacity and level of service determination, review of accident data, and update on status of base map preparation. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Ostergard, Clark LaBar, Fred Weston, Todd D'Amico, John Helm, Bill Lukez, Rudy Richardson, Howard Neil, John Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-07-28 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd2_Page_17.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/b70b1b90e4e6ed0124697f11015190fd.pdf 65229b81282586e3e93b3018b7c6645d PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON Minutes of ID Team Meeting July 28, 1986 Attendance: Clark Ostergaard - USFS Fred LaBar - USFS Todd Weston - UDOT Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL John D'Amico - CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Bill Helm - Unattached Rudy Lukez - Sierra Club Howard Richardson - UDOT John Neil - UDOT ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes were reviewed. There was some confusion about the sources of additional names for the mailing list which were listed in the minutes. It was noted that Fred LaBar and Bill Helm had mailed names and not turned them in at the last meeting. There was no other discussion on the minutes. ITEM 2 - TFAFFIC COUNT DATA The sources of traffic data were discussed. Permanent stations on US 89-91 at Webster Junction, on US 89 at Card Guard Station in Logan Canyon (later moved to Garden City), and on US 89 north of Garden City are being used in the preparation of the traffic forecast. ITEM 3 - PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED TPAFFIC FORECAST A past trends based forecast had been prepared using a least squares best fit linear function. This approach produced an annual increase in ADT which was less than one percent, a rate which was felt to be low. The Utah State, Office of Planning and Budget was prepared its forecast of economic and population growth through the year 2010. The overall rate of population increase for northern Utah was approximately 2 percent. If traffic in Logan Canyon were to increase at the same rate as the population, the summer ADT in Logan Canyon would reach approximately 6,000 vehicles per day in 2,010. Supporting data for this forecast is available and will be presented at the next ID Team (Team) meeting. There was also some Qlscussion on the traffic classification counts. The summer counts will begin on July 29, 1987. The counts will include a classification for recreational vehicles and record turning movements. �ITEM 4 - DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATION The roadway will be evaluated on the basis of the level of service which is possible at a given traffic volume. The Transportation Research Board describes a procedure for establishing levels of service (A through E) for rural roads. Copies of portions of the procedure description were distributed to team members to help them become familiar with the level of service concept. There was some discussion on which level of service would be planned for in the Canyon. UDOT would like to plan for a "C" level, but the actual level of service used will be determined by the Team. ITEM 5 - REVIEW OF ACCIDENT DATA The accident data for 6 years (1980 - 1985) has been tabulated using a UDOT computer program. The UDOT program was used because the program performs the types of analysis required for roadways and the accident data base was already on the UDOT computer. The computer runs had only recently been completed and there had not been sufficient time to review the results. Hopefully this will be completed by the next meeting. ITEM 6 - UPDATE ON STATUS OF BASE MAP PREPARATION ( An example of the base maps was shown to the of the set will be available, when they have to Team members who wish to have one. Clark requested a set to get started on the visual Team. Copies been completed, Ostergaard survey. MISCELLANEOUS The approved forest plan has a section on Logan Canyon which may be of · interest to Team members. Clark Ostergaard will bring a number of copies of that section to the next meeting. SLC81/11 � 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/33">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/33</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 2452721948 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1269187 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from July 28, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from July 28, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, traffic count data, presentation of proposed traffic forecast, highway capacity and level of service determination, review of accident data, and an update on status of base map preparation. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Ostergard, Clark LaBar, Fred Weston, Todd D'Amico, John Helm, Bill Lukez, Rudy Richardson, Howard Neil, John Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Utah Roadside Improvement--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 1986-07-28 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 20th century 1980-1989 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_16.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/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/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/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;