1 50 9 https://highway89.org/files/original/18a671942273c903cff34bf4901f3f6d.pdf b08d06f3d0f26743c0364751834e77a3 PDF Text Text CHMHlll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: May 15, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.FO The twenty-first Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on April 20, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review, as well as the corrected minutes for the April 21 field trip. The next meeting will be held on Monday, May 18, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of May 4 meeting. Ten minutes. 2. Dis~ussion 3. Review of the noise technical memorandum by John Neil, which was distributed with the previous meeting announcement. Twenty minutes. 4. Review of the existing condition portion of the Terrestrial Resources Technical memorandum that was distributed at the previous meeting. Twenty-five minutes. 5. Wrap-up discussion of traffic projections. minutes. of the existing conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum. Sixty minutes. Five Future meeting schedule: June 8 June 22 - 3:00 p.m., Bugham City - 3:00 p.m., District Office NOTE: Since we have been having difficulty getting through our meeting agendas, it is hoped that we can adhere to the time limits shown. SLC-STAN/d.601 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/127">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/127</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 3661776395 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 538217 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer, May 15, 1987 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer to the Interdisciplinary team with the agenda for the next meeting on May 18, 1987. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M Hill Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-05-15 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 13.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/f0be29538f634e213c75e8b903ea2c8b.pdf e774099549098bc4488a943fa80f3ff5 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Prepared for Utah Department of Transportation Prepared by CH2M HILL Salt Lake City, Utah March 1987 BOT538/031 �CONTENTS Introduction Me·thods Existing Conditions Recreation Grazing Mining Logging Other Uses Planning and Zoning Impacts Middle Canyon Upper Canyon Rich County Mitigation Middle Canyon Upper Canyon Rich County References Access and Appendix - BOT538/032 ii �INTRODUCTION This technical memorandum describes existing conditions, potential impacts, and possible mitigation measures for land uses affected by proposed improvements to U.s. Highway 89 Logan Canyon between Right Fork and Garden City, Utah. The proposed project involves road improvements through various alternatives, such as replacing bridges, introdu~ing g lanes, developing parking areas, modifying ~rttersections, :::r::::::::: 2:h: r:::. 28 -mile prOj~t';:i; : ~:::~';~:: " d~ f cacJ#'~ : 'l:~: ~. ;firi~pnal way 89 lies wi thin the Wasatch ure 1). Land use in this area is l'i~~.'i"~~~· passing u. s. High- ; 'cii'est (Fig- to uses permi tted wh.'IG: h : ;':'~:!lc::fuJ;@ ;~ ~, recrea tion, Ii vestock grazing, logging, and m{~. li~'~;f~;; ·: : : : :Re: ; ; i: ~ation is the primary use of the Logan Ca.pY'd'n ::. a;~ ~:J<;::::,;'/~: ~'~eral stretches of the highway north of Tony .:, :G'~;6';=~';l i ~a$.~:~ ~ ~l :~brough private lands. The by the U. S. Forest Service, ~::::a~::~:~:~~,;~:;:~~:~~:;'!.~~'or~l:~~:'~';~~~::~~::~ ::::::;=!::Chl t own~:dll f.;;: l; ~~cep~ and the G~£.4:~h:: ':P:{:~y privately Forest mile west of town. one small section of the National public cemetery located one-half '::1;;:;::/,::' BOT538/020 1 �E B L A R A /( E ... ..... ....... . . . . . ..... . ...... ......... . .... .... . .......... .... . . . . . . . . .. . •• • .00 . . . , '--- . ,;/~:1@',(1, ", ", " CAe H E ". v i" EL rJ [ 9, c 09 ..!Jo + B21163.FO ~; //.////{/ , <> \ c SCALE IN MILES o . \. _ ~.' '," 2 3 r::::: :d U. S. FOREST SERVICE LAND PRIVATE LAND Figure 1 LAND OWNERSHIP U.S. 89 - LOGAN CANYON LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM �METHODS Land uses in and near the proposed project area were described based on a review of available literature and data, observation of the project area, and conversations with agency personnel and other knowledgeable persons. Potential land use impacts were identified based on the type of improvement alternatives (including the no-action alternative) that have been proposed for the three proj ect sections,;;:JMiddle Canyon, Upper Canyon, Rich County) from issues anq;:;;:,s:p;ricerns identi- fied during the public scoping process, .:,il~q:.·:::fil;om comments :~::i~::~:~;::~ ;~:~::::~~P:::::~:,~~~~~:~;~~':'~::~:::~:::Si­ :~:~:~:t~:::~ts associated wi ~\';': :::;: ,":'~:~:;:~:'~S improvement BOT 5 3 8 / 0 2 0 "<: ': ~!':" :'".: .:; .:'; :"'.:"' : ",: ",:" :; " , : , .:::::::::::::::::::;:::::::::;. ' ' :' ' ';';':' '::':::',:::::::;:;::::It:'::):"'''''''" 3 �EXISTING CONDITIONS RECREATION The Wasatch-Cache National Forest receives the greatest recreational use of all National Forests in the nation. In 1981, the entire Forest received 6,730,000 visitor days of recreational use. Logan Canyon recreational use in 1981 was visitor days, or about perc~pt of that for the entire Forest. The Wasatch-Cache NatJ¢~i~;i Forest Plan emphasizes the use of Logan Canyon for pe9r;~i:~ft.:ion. shows recreational use in Logan Table 1 the pre- sent. ~:::::t:O::1 b:p i::;:: ~i ;~;:~;";~:~~;~on include camping, :::::::: : sight.~~:; :1h~:;;! ... bii~.yi¢.ling, hunting, and picnicking. Winter recr:~;~E; ~; qri'~1:: : :~: p~~6~tuni ties are downhill and cross-country ski.t.,ng: j: : : : ; ;riQ:~~bi· :i :i ;~g, snowshoeing, and sledding. Summer homes ar; ~: : : i: b: ~: 'ci~':~; d l: ·:1 h:;.'::the lower canyon outside of the project area. ':ii;;W.l!f!j).e m~c~ o~ the recreational use in the canyon is desti~'d! t,lhQ,~:{y~e use (people go into the canyon for recreational p~}p6~es, then return home), recreational fishing, hiking, use is also associated with people passing through the canyon with some other ultimate destination. Since u.S. 89 is a popular route to several of the national parks, travelers to the parks often stop in the canyon for travel breaks. Geological features such as Logan Cave and Ricks Spring are points of interest to travelers. The fall color of deciduous trees and shrubs in the canyon also attracts many sightseers. A study of traffic volume variation in the canyon from February through August 1986 (see Table 2) 4 indicated that during �Table 2 TRAFFIC VOLUME VARIATION February - August 1986 Saturday - February 22 10 hr Right Fork Road (W) Right Fork Road (E) Beaver Mountain Road (W) Beaver Mountain Road (E) Permanent Station 24 hr 10 hr 24 hr 1,176 1,170 1,041 558 404 Winter Counts Tuesday - February 25 1,541 1,533 1,364 731 530 848 831 712 382 375 1 , 111 1,089 932 500 492 24 hr as percent of 10 hr 131 131 Permanent Station as Percent of Right Fork (W) 34 44 ~~~;a~9- S:~;;~~Y2- ", ;' i: ':~~;;LSummer Counts Right Fork Road (W) Right Fork Road (E) Tony Grove Road (W) Tony Grove Road (E) Summit-Sinks Road (W) Summit-Sinks Road (E) Permanent Station 24 hr as percent of 16 hr Permanent Station as Percent of Right Fork (W) 16 hr 2,534 2,389 2,221 2,130 2,014 1,991 * 24 hr 16 hr 24.:::¥i'; :/:;:: ~.~. hr * ·24.: . ~Ji;: 16 hr 24 hr 2,881 2,710 2,609 2,496 2,391 2,351 2,330 5,317 5,087 ti :;': : ":.':~ '.:"'~ F.: .~; : '":;"': :' : ; :, :;i , )i Saturday August 16 5,306 5,035 4,793 4,588 4,267 4,148 4,187 5,624 5,337 5,081 4,863 4,523 4,397 4,448 106 1:: 79 ..:::;::::::::::::::. ::::pe:;n::~:::::e~~~~1~:;;~;~f;:~~;i~:: ::t~::::::::~::~ July 29 and Augus t 2. 24-hour counts for tti:~ ;;:~~riGal count stations were computed using the ratio of the 24-hour to the 10-hOli:r:' counts at the permanent station. BOT538/033 �winter weekdays, slightly over 50 percent of the traffic on u.s. 89 enters the canyon for destination purposes, mainly recreation. the traffic On winter weekends, slightly over 60 percent of ~tays in the canyon. The percentage of destina- tion traffic is much lower in summer. In summer, only about 20 percent of the weekday traffic and 30 percent of the weekend traffic into the canyon stays within the canyon. However, since traffic volume is 4 to 5 times greater in summer than winter, actual numbers of destination users of the canyon is greater in summer than winter . ,,, __ :::. There are a large number of developed ties within areas, 11 summer These facilities and s~ii:~J~: s ;~ campgrounds are heavily used campgroJ~d;~: : : ::::t: thi.~; : : : Ehe proj ect area. shows the locati.ofl:::.. of : ~! t-~c~~:~ :t :i :~nal facilities and Tables 3, 4, and 5. the most Figure 2 po i n t S 0 f inter est i Tony LakEi?::::";!fng.. n": '::,:,:';'~'~?::::~,:~;:~: ib~:;': Table 6 shows 1989::::::r:e:Q:x:-e:~t.l:o.n vIsitor days in the canyon by type of acti vi t;y:~:::;:/:::c: ~m;;;if1~;; ;: ~:~ the dominant acti vi ty in the canyon, compri-:~ ;i..ri9: :. 2 7 .~i ~ercent of total canyon use. Auto travel is second:; :; a,t::; ; ;4:6:; ~::4/ percent, al though this does not distinguish recrea~~~~~ travel from other travel. Recreation cabin use is the third most popular activity, comprising 9.8 percent of the total. Downhill skiing ranks fourth, picnicking fifth, and fishing sixth. Some bicycling occurs in the canyon, although most of this activity is confined to the lower canyon area close to Logan and Utah State University. Little pedestrian activity occurs along the highway because of its narrowness. Walking along the road does occur near points of interest where parking is not immediately available. 6 �I P1CKLEVILLE F'()P.1 0 6 TONY GROVE ~~KEAREA ) Ii Figure 2 LOGAN CANYON RECREATION FACILITIES B21163.FO LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM �Table 3 LOGAN CANYON CAMPGROUNDS AND PICNIC AREAS CAMPGROUNDS Name Number of Sites Water Toilets Sunrise Red Banks Lewis M. Turner Tony Lake Wood £amp Lodge b Preston galley GUinavgh Malibu b Lower SBring Hollow Bridger 30 12 10 39 8 10 10 32 16 14 12 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x PICNIC AREAS AND GROUP DAY USE AREAS (BY RESERVATION) Twin Bridges Cottonwood China Row b Cho~cherry Card Bro~s Roll-off Nook b Beirdneau b Lower Spring Hollowb Middle Spring Hollwb Upper §pring Hollow Dewitt 5 None None x x x None x 4 bLocated Source: U.S. BOT538/021 On Tony Lake Hiking trail 2 miles from U.S. 89 Adjacent to G6e.oava C.G. .,::,;::"'",,;::'" ," N/A N/A N/A 11,240 4,720 4,100 12,900 8,360 4,570 5,550 17,500 13,600 3,000 4,060 .""" '\""',,' x 6 2 4 3 2 3 x x 180 x x 1,240 1,440 1,420 320 145 120 .,," ~':";"::"::"" 9 "i:::: ','...'.,!,!.: ',C: ",.i,':'.,. ./ :. "::·:;:::H::::::~· . . .. a One Other Features 1986 Visitor a Use Days ... 0::;;:::;::: for 190 people for 90 people for 135 people 500 1,400 320 �Table 4 LOGAN RANGER DISTRICT a SUMMER HOMES USE Location Gus Lind Flat Bierdneau Valhalla Birch Glen Number of Units 1975 Visitor Days b 1986 Visitor Days 5 1,400 2,100 11 3,100 5,950 3 900 800 26 7,500 6,700 Browns Roll Off 12 Card Canyon 12 5,700 4 1,800 12 6,700 The Junipers 3 900 Hailstone 1 Brachiopod 2 Pine Bluff Chokecherry TOTALS 3,500 8,000 .:::;W· .;;I~: .:::' " ':::::: : 300 .. 400 :ii~~~~;.'\;:/;:::::/:::::::::::::.·· /" ",: : : : ,:;:, :, ;": : ~: i !:?!;: :"i': : ; :i :i ': ~ 6 ,400 9 3 ,350 a AII summer homes .;~r.~ :::·in ·::'l -pw$,,r c~pyon outside of proj ect area. bone visitor per ·'~~i;; ; ~~ual~iili ~i~ h~~rs Source: U. S. Fores'~i""~;:~:~'~(' BOT538j023 of use. b �Table 5 LOGAN RANGER DISTRICT POINTS OF INTEREST 1975 Visits Name 1975 Visitor Days 1986 , , a Vlsltor Days Ricks Spring 51,100 1,400 2,330 Fucoidal Quartzite 25,500 400 370 1,000 500 2,220 Old Juniper (5-1/2 mile hike) b Malibu Scout Lodge , , 1,450 b Arnerlcan Legl0n Post 1,000 b St. Ann's Retreat 1,840 b Cache E. Cache Logan Stakes Corp 14,770 Beaver Mountain 29,790 Logan Cave 810 Tony Grove Memorial Ranger Station 125 Bear Lake Overlook 1,850 Limber Pine Trail Limber Pine Cache 2,130 Clubs 1,190 Sinks 3,930 Tony Lake Trail 4,960 a One visitor day equals 12 hours of use. b OutSl e of proJect area. 'd ' BOT538/024 �Table 6 LOGAN CANYON RECREATION USE BY ACTIVITY Recreation Visitor Days Activity Percent of -Total Viewing Scenery Viewing Activities (Spectator) 3,100 500 0.8 0.1 Automobile Travel Motorcycle and Scooter Travel Ice and Snow Craft Travel Train and Bus Touring 106,800 3,200 2,000,);,,:. 3 , ~J}6':,/l~; 26.4 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.0 ~i;~i!:::~:a:::n:i tS 'i :; ," 'i:; ,: ": ~ :;I~ji:': : ': ; : :," > f .:;~;;;:. Canoeing 300 Other Wa tercr aft ;i(:··::;;::;::::::~;:::;;:;:::::: : .. ·:;;;;;;;\::;;;;;;i~ 0 0 ~~:v~~~:~s Sports "i j;j j;: "i'i":'; ";" ' ' ':' :' : :;' :i' ~': ; ~~ d :::i:: a::a:a P :.l;:. :·~., :~ ter lay "i:,,::::,.'.::. ::.:.::::'.:.':'::.'i,:";!:::::,::"" ",;\;;), .:;;;;,,::::;11:" .. . ;;;;;;;: ;;;;r::t,;~~"";h: : : : ': "': ')j'; " "')' ::: 300 1.8 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.8 ;; :;;; 25,800 17,500 4.5 8.4 6.4 4.3 6,000 8,900 1.5 2.2 Picnicking 24,100 6.0 Recreation Cabin Use 39,800 9.8 Skiing, Downhill Snow Play Cross-Country Skiing, Snowshoeing 28,200 1,500 3,300 7.0 0.4 0.8 Hunting, Big Game Hunting, Upland Birds 22,400 800 5.5 0.2 Camping, Trailer Camping, Tent .:;;;;;;;;;//:. Organization Camping, General Day Organization Camping, Night �Table 6 (Continued) LOGAN CANYON RECREATION USE BY ACTIVITY Activity Recreation Visitor Days Nature Study, Wildlife, Birds, Fish Nature Study, Hobby, Education Mountain Climbing Gathering Forest Products 3,500 1,200 100 1,000 100;;:::;::. Viewing Interpretative Exhibits Attending Talks and Programs Touring, Guided Touring, Unguided Walking, Guided Walking, Unguided Viewing Interpretative Signs General Information Source: U • S. BOT538/034 Fore s t ':::::::;::::::.. ':::4~;~)P 0 0 serV~;~~:; : ; : : ; : ':; " ;IL:;" ;'f: ; ':;: ;i:! ':"',; ,; : : ,;: , """""":":;,:,,::;,':,,;;;,,:";;',,;;,,;;,/;, ,;::::::;",,;;,::::,,::::::;,:::::::::,::::;,;,,;;!: """ """;;;:;:;,:'::,,"':,,:'i"" 0.9 0.3 0.0 0.2 0 .'0 0.9 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.2 0.1 !!;::" TOTAL Percent of Total 100.0 �Beaver Mountain Recreation Area is a private concession within the Forest that provides downhill and cross-country skiing and other winter recreation pursuits. The area has 16 runs and three ski lifts; two of the lifts were installed in 1985. A fourth lift is to be constructed when financially feasible. The area includes a day lodge, but no overnight accommodations. Sweetwater Resort in Garden City provides overnight lodging and eating facilities for Beaver Mountain visitors. User figures at Beaver Mountain for the current and two past seasons are given in Table 7. .: ::" ":::. ." ",;,'/', ':::::;::,:"i(:::,,,, Tab I e 7 .:",/':::,');;;;;!:' BEAVER MO UNTAIN RECREAT'I ON"\US E Season ~~ri~~~::';;'f Skier Days 1984-85 1985-86 1986-87 .... ':',:::;:;::,:' Season 75,665 61,422 15,000+ .;;::- .:::F Because of the .:!~~~ :;::~: !:: :::. ::; .:; narrow~;~;~:i,:; ;!~: t":'L'O~~~/ Canyon and the highway, :::~~:gw~:::t~:~;:~~;S~i~i;1~'~:;:C~;::~ :::::~:l~~C~~i :~:s m!::le located. The some places. ~: ~i6.~i"" 9f p.~Jking The ";'J\:~f,~;~dix constrains recreational use in lists parking opportunities through- out the Forest secti6~ of the project road. A survey of actual parking use in the canyon was made by the Forest Service on two Saturdays in August 1986. The findings were 48 cars parked on August 16, and 89 cars parked on August 30. Garden City, at the eastern terminus of the project road section, is one of several more developed recreational areas around Bear Lake. on the lake. Bear Lake State Park has three facilities The oldest of the three, the marina, is located just north of Garden City. about a dozen camp sites. It has slips for 150 boats and Rendezvous Beach, about 9 miles 13 �south of Garden City at the southeast end of the lake, has about 230 campsites. Cisco Beach, on the east side of the lake, has only pit restrooms, and was closed in November 1986 until more adequate restroom facilities can be installed (Chavez, 1987). given in Table 8. User figures for Bear Lake State Park are These facilities, particularly the marina and Rendezvous Beach, are heavily used in summer. The two areas are usually totally reserved for summer weekends early in the year. Camping spaces are open only from May through October, al though the marina is open all Parks and Recreation expects to upgrade i ties in the future as funding ye gi';;~; Utah State C; .i;~;~~;;: · Beach facil- become:"",,~~a"i'JI;,i~'~,: . .:::::w· .:::::::' '::;;\:..::~;;;:~ Year 1970 1975 1980 1985 1986 Source: Utah Department of Parks and Recreation (Chavez, 1987). The other major recreation facility at Garden City is the Sweetwater Resort, a private development constructed in the 1970s. Planned to include more than 7,000 acres of land, it comprises a marina, golf course, stables, swimming pool, tennis courts, approximately 150 condominiums, two restaurants, and a convention center. No new units have been con- structed since about 1981 (Call, 1987), and the development 14 �has just been reorganized following Chapter 11 proceedings (Francis, 1987). Construction has begun recently on a hotel- restaurant complex in Garden City to accommodate conferences. Other recreational areas exist north of Garden City in Bear Lake County, Idaho, and to the south in Pickelville and Laketown, Utah. Lake. A few facilities exist on the east side of Bear However, the road along the east side is unpaved, and a large part of the land ownership is public. The other large private resort on the lake/:<:~:~: ar Lake West ~:s:~:~::::n::::~::c::::: : :e:::~~;~~:~;;~:~;;;~~~'~~~~n:::::· ' planned for the development. Figurett t::.J:· . .hows the location of $ recreation facili ties and comrllftin:'it:ie~::t: ::h~:: : :tEear Lake. concentration on develon Bear west shore. Lake is GRAZING Six grazing section of the Forest. are located within the Logan Canyon Total animal unit months (AUMs) pro- vided by these allotments are 6,978 for cattle and 3,800 for sheep. A breakdown of AUMs by allotment is given in Table 9. 15 �- To Montpeli er Fish \-'\ovefl Creek ~ Fish Haven--- Bear Lake West Bear Lake Trailer Court b Cisco Beach Sweetwater Beach Sweetwater Marina ~ "0 8 ~ Highway Rest Stop - - - - u BEAR LAKE To Evanston Figure 3 BEAR LAKE RECREATION SITES B21163.FO LOGAN CANYON u.s. HIGHWAY 89 ', LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM �Table 9 LOGAN CANYON GRAZING ALLOTMENTS Allotment Logan Canyon Beaver Mountain Blind Hollow Cottonwood Little Bear Swan Peak Date of Use June July July July June July 11 to Oct. 5 1 to Sept. 5 1 to Sept. 30 1 to Sept. 30 20 to Sept. 30 1 to Sept. 20 AUMs Type of Livestock 6,978 520 920 880 990 490 Cattle Sheep Sheep Sheep Sheep Sheep TarAL Source: U.S. Forest Service, 1986 .::;,,:::,,;,,/:':,,,:::::' Each of the sheep allotments h q,§ on~~~\ip"e' f~i ttee. 16 permitees for the cattle al;i;~~e=ni~;: ..·::'('ki::I ler, There are 1987). Live- al'~L:i!o'i::>~;~: :; ;iiilotments, except cottonWb:~4::~ \i: F'd~i': ~ ~:hese allotments, livestock stock is hauled by truck to Blind Hollow and on foot from these corrals to the '::~iiii;:;/'::::' Forest Service records show 30 mining claims in existence within the Logan Ranger District. Within the Logan Canyon Management Area, mining leases are given only under the condition of no surface occupancy. Leases in this area are for metaliferous materials, oil and gas, and common materials (gravel, clay, sand). area. No mines are currently active in this No drilling for oil or gas has occurred in the Logan Ranger District, only geophysical exploration (LaBar, 1987). 17 �LOGGING About 2,900 acres in the Logan Ranger District are suitable for logging. There is currently no active logging for lum- ber production on the Logan (west) side of the summit, al- though a small commercial firewood operation is removing logs from that area. ing in the Logan area. No lumber mills are currently operatIn the past, commercial logging occurred in areas just west and south of Bear Lake Summit. Logging trucks traveled Sinks Road to U. S . .::~!~) then east ;;;: s;:;::;;:;O::~:!t~~:r:::~Y;'{'~ ':'!'~:~'~' : ~~:':;'''::t s:~:: of logs are taken out over back roads ' : : 't~:: : ~~f~dowville in Rich County, then to Afton, WY:::;~!,~:i,;~::,"':'j,~:~:~)g. No residences, either;i:;,:;~,:~~'!'~', :" 6,~;:/~ermanent, exist within :::i~:o::~:t s::,~~~~::,~:,~;: ,:~!:~';:~;:':::~e~;r:::~d ~:::: ::a~:::~ inS e c t ion s 2 ~::~: ~ ~~~~h:: .3 6 Jf .ll: T 14 N, R4E in Cache cou~'t~::;'::'::,,:::':,,//' R3 E , and Sec t ion 1 7 0 f T 14N , Utah State University maintains a forest research station approximately one-half mile south of the Tony Grove Guard Station. A Utah Department of Transportation road mainte- nance shop is located near Willow Springs, approximately 2 miles west of Bear Lake Summit. Nearly all lands adjacent to u.S. 89 in Rich County are privately owned. Most of this land up to about one mile from Garden City is undeveloped because of steep slopes. However, Bridgerland Village a subdivision, containing about 53 residences, lies adjacent to the highway less than one mile east 18 �of the Cache/Rich County line. Sweetwater Resort lands lie just to the southeast of this subdivision. A gravel pit occurs within 200 feet of the highway east of the summit. Another gravel pit is within one-half mile of the highway near Mile post 411, almost to Garden City. The eastern terminus of the project highway is the community of Garden City. Land uses within this community include several recreational campgrounds; two motels; Sweetwater Resort; a portion of Bear Lake State Park; two grocery stores; several service businesses; and a number of private .::d::~ sidences, both ;;;;;:;;;r;;::;;;~~;:;:;~~;~v:::::~:~'~i;:~~;~:'~~~~~:~ ~:::~C- ce.mete' i y!: : :~ ·(~ agricul tural lands are classified as prime agric~:r;~::t: a: l.:;.. ~:d: ~;:~l ~ : . The Despain soil, through which the highW~:~h\~·i:gh.~;:.O:;f =; ~ay passes, has a capabili ty classificatiqrt:: : :9.::f : !~l ,3S· : ~\.:!l<!~h~ ···;hatcher soil, further Just east of the Garden Ci ty ::::1t::s:o::, t~: ~~:!;:~~,~:,~, :;:;,~~;~;,: ~a::o~: ~::~g:::: :~j:~e ::::r::n:h:oP:;~:~:::~:~'~~i':~::~:p:~S ,R:::r:O:::Y~o nat~o::a:: ural gas lines ne'~ :E l;: .:l!t4.e:::::·proj ect section of road currently under study in Loga~:::i ~anyon. There are, however, both over- head and underground power and phone lines in existence. Utah Power & Light Company lines originate at the · Garden City substation, about one mile west of the Garden City Junction. Overhead primary lines run east toward Garden City, then south-southwest. They eventually serve the Bridgerland Village subdivision, as well as a laser tracking station, by way of underground conduit. 19 �" =_ : .~9'> .: I- ....._~'I-......--..;;;.;;.;.~~-..:.. U ... Z IJJ o •••••••••• I i==~~· = = ~ < c.!' .2 Figure 4 RICH COUNTY LAND USE SCALE IN FEET B21163.FO 1000 o 1000 2000 3000 LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM C.:MCO" iiliiiii �Even though rural overhead telephone lines now run about a half-mile west from the Garden City Junction, there is a strong possibility that most or all of this system will be removed in the near future. Telephone facilities that serve the Bridgerland Village subdivision originate just south of Garden City Junction and are entirely underground west and southwest of that point. Power and telephone conduits are located 2 feet below the surface, and both cross under u.s. 89 at different locations . .... .... Once within the Bridgerland Village subdiv~i\~ri, much of the power-telephone conduits run together. i~~~~$e of inadequate mapping, the location of much Of.:: : : ~~:i: ~ :;i i" s.~:B qJvision' S underground secondary is uncert ain,;::,::::,~":;,,::,,::":::,::::;),""""""':';'" Two overhead telephone lines c;pq §.s U ":S" ~ ·:'S,,,9 a few hundred :::: ::U:hU::h t::p~:::~tC~;y;;~~:!~;!:~~~~nT~:a~i:::n~:::nce shop located about one J~1'~Ci~;;: ;~~S1~\i: ~i f;:· Bear Lake Summi t. On :::e:~::~~:::;!:i;:::i~~~;=i;~'i':i~~::::O::o:::;~:d~~:::~:: of these utili t~'~'~;:~:': : ~~~~!ING AND ZONING Current zoning through the Logan Canyon area in Cache County is FR40 (Forest Recreation - 40-acre minimum lot size). Cabins, but not permanent residences, can be constructed on parcels of 40 acres or more. The County plans for Forest recreational uses to continue here, although no land use plan has been adopted (Greenhalgh, 1978). The Forest Ser- vice's plan for the Logan Canyon Management Area (U.S. Forest Service, 1985) provides the following policies for land use: 21 �Transmission Feeder L ine \ ~\ \ \ \ \ ·Garden Clly 'r_ 0!bstation . I r ~- - --- - - - I_ I /~ _ . __ J I. /J /~. ~~~~~~~~~~~ , ~ I ' J •.!'o.V . , i If' . ,~ .." .. " /" ---- GARDEN CITY B E AR ... "-'-i ,h h" :_ :1 II :t y <' Loser TracKing Station I __ L_ ___ __ - - ~_, I,! , ".. , . / ..-1 / I I I , I I I Summ it . ;:~ ~; ;:. •••••••• SECONQAi~i~::;::/: UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY OVERHEAD PRIMARY AND UTAH POWER & LIGHT COMPANY UNDERGROUND PRIMARY AND SECq~OARY MOUNTAIN BELL OVERHEAD RURAL TOLL LINES .. MOUNTAIN BELL UNDERGROUND RURAL LINES PRIVATE SERVICE STATION LINE (UDOT) "::. ·'\;;iF Figure 5 UTILITY LOCATIONS U.S. 89 - RICH COUNTY B21163.FO LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 LAND USE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM L A K E �Recreation: ties. The emphasis is to protect scenic quali- A broad spectrum of year-round developed and dispersed recreation opportunities will be provided. Developed recreation will be emphasized. Ski Area Development: Work with permittees of the Bea- ver Mountain Ski Area to protect the natural beauty of the area, improve existing facilities, and plan future expansion. Off-Road Vehicles: ::a:: e a::o:~ailS Wildlife: I res~:t'i:~' f'ed Vehicles are except over-sn~;,: [:~~h~,~:,~,:, Manage fish and to existing traveling wJ~~;i:;:~':"'h'abi :':':': ;~rograms to comp lemen t outdoor rec req,e'j:'€im . ""''!;"",,;;,::'::,::::';;' resources to complement Watershed: existing water quality. preserve unique natural, geo- logical, and""'Q.i;$"t qrical features. suppression Minerals: r;~~~~ se Make an appropriate on all wildfires. Issue "lease with no surface occupancy" only. Regulate mineral development to protect the recreational and scenic qualities of the area. Lands: Acquire land or easements as necessary to main- tain the scenic values of the canyon. 23 �Transportation: Logan Canyon Highway upgrading and maintenance will consider public safety needs, the protection of visual qualities, and other resource values and uses. o Public access in ihe canyon will be provided with adequate ingress, egress, pull offs, and parking opportunities. o Provide adequate parking and acces$.:;::. at: Spring, Brachiopod Park, Limber Cave • o .: ;f{~ri~, Ricks and Logan "" "" ::;;,::'::"/""',,:::,':::'\,\,,, P~'~~~~m~nt :'~"",~'ransporta­ Recommend that the Utah tion place signs warning' :; ; m~;€6:; ii'~ts of livestock and wildlife eros s i~9'S"" ,,,,,,,,"ii'\""':':i:':)" o Work with to manage Logan Canyon. springs, and streams o as salt and herbicides. o cooper·~;t~;;;;;~;f;~rt· the Department of Transportation to provide ~ci;1titi~1 assistance in the annual disposal of roadside slough and rubble. Planning for the Bear Lake region calls for development of conference center and accompanying recreational facilities. The Bear Lake Regional Plan identifies resource opportunities and constraints and suggests where development should and should not occur. on this plan. Zoning for the lakeside area is based The area in proximity to the lake is desig- nated for '' 'beachfront development." All development pro- posals must be reviewed and approved by the County Planning and Zoning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. 24 �Zoning also is designated in this area for specific types of land use (residential, commercial, etc.). the zoning near the project section of Figure 6 shows u.s. 89 (to be pro- vided by the Bear Lake Regional Commission) . A number of plans for subdivisions (presumably second home) and other recreational facilities are currently underway in Rich County and Garden City. Whether actual development will occur is questionable, however. Table 10 shows the number of building permi ts and the value of Jl!iq,nstruction since 1980. Construction activity decrea$~i 4/iii"n the early ::::::::::::::::e:::: :::1:: 6:~:r':;~~;:; :~~::::::':~~:: :~:::~::d ~:reg;S :i;: :gJld:;i: iu;~:~; ~:: Leg i s 1 at i on was Legisli~.f;~:f: ~: :; : fh;a ;;; :; :~ill help to impleA,: ; po.J.:"ti;6.ri;/~:~t:: ;~h~ state fuel tax on win ter r ec re a t ion a 1 oppo rt un i passed by the 1987 Utah ment such development. motor vehicles will b~/::~:i'~:~ :p. ]Lt.9. :;~~!~ Utah Department of Parks im~'t;:~'V;efu~;fi; t i;: .i6~~ :;li; ~ecreational opportunities vehi,G; I'e:s: : i; s.·~i ah<;a.s ~: ~owmobiles. This is estimated and Recreation for for off-road to be about $ 2 .?i d'::;O:~:~:: : : §~;;~t..~~~~e. Lake Area will:; i it1n~id~ive : Ii s ~me Logan Canyon and the Bear benefi t ""''''''''''":;,:':,,;;,;:,',,,/''' BOT538/020 25 from this measure. �Insert Figure 6 26 �Table 10 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY RICH COUNTY AND GARDEN CITY Rich County Garden City Year Construction Value Number of Permits 1980 $3,515,000 76 1981 1,896,000 67 1982 1,039,000 43 1983 1,490,000 34 1984 1,649,000 46 1985 780,000 30 1986 550,000 30 *To be provided by Garden BOT538/029 Construction Value * Number of Permits * �REFERENCES Andrews, Wade H. and William C. Dunaway. November 1, 1975. Social Effects of Changes in Uses of Bear Lake, An Interstate Body of Water. Institute for Social Science Research and Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Call, Norm. Rich County Building Official. March 20, 1987. Personal communication. ::~::::~' L~::~~' Ut::~ChP~::o~:~7 ~O~~:{'8::~'~:;:~;~~,~ervation Francis, Blair. Rich County March 19, 1987. Personal commi~:;::ii~~i" :' wo~:':~'~ comm.ulti:cat i;d:n ·~ : ': : : Greenhalgh, Lorine. f, Utah. February 27, 1987. Gyllenskog, Lee. Bear Lake Office. March 20, LaB ar, Fred . :";" ~':;':,: ,:~~,~J~,l' s erv ice , Logan, Utah. V ious ar pe~sonal communl.ca ti;QflS . Miller, Stan. 1987. U.S. Forest Service, Logan, Utah. Personal communication. Peterson, William. March 19, 1987. Thomas, Craig. 1987. February 27, Bear Lake Realty, Garden City, Utah. Personal communication. Bear Lake Regional Commission. Personal communication. 28 March 20, �u.s. Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Ogden, Utah. Utah Department of Transportation. Utility inventories pre- pared for an earlier proposed improvement to U.S. 89 Logan Canyon. BOT538/020 .::0 .."""", ':: ~i';\:~i,: ,;,:~":;i~:':':~:' ' ': :':,: ; :, , , , , " " , , , , : ~',: ,: ,: ": : i: !i:; : "!: ': ;, "i:: '::"::i;;,::,,,,:,:::;,:::::;':;:;)""):, 29 '::,::::', """,)' ��Appendix . EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post Access Road 1 483+50 383.48 x 2 485+00 383.5 X 3 493+00 383.66 X 4 514+00 384.13 5 516+00 384.13 6 589+00 384.3 7 524+00 384.35 8 525+00 384.35 X 9 540+00 384.6 X 10 552+00 384.8 11 577+00 385.3 12 589+00 385.5 Could be lost with relocation of bridge Day use LWAC? 13 604+00 385.8 Day use LWAC? 14 625+00 386.2 Day use area Side of Road Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Season of Year Right (R) / S Left (L) 300'/300 S &W Parking Area Description/Activity Right Fork Road L 200'/ S R 150' /0 S Day use & snowmobilers - cross highway Will likely be lost with alignments charge Obliterate S China Row Picnic Area, cross highway to Logan River Day use .::;:F '·:::::. China Row Combine with Location No. 5 Wood Camp CG Bridge X-C Skiing L !~ X L ..::::. S &W o ;1:::':::;';;;/;"::;;;;;/"';':::;::;:::1' Lost with alignment change? (LWAC?) LWAC? �Appendix EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post 1 483+50 383.48 2 485+00 383.5 3 493+00 383.66 514+00 5 Season of Year / S 300'/300 S &W X 4 Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Left (L) X Side of Road Right (R) Plan Location Number Access Road Parking Area x L 200'/ R 150' /0 S 516+00 384.13 L S 6 589+00 384.3 R S 7 524+00 384.35 8 525+00 384.35 X 9 540+00 384.6 X 10 552+00 384.8 11 577+00 385.3 12 589+00 385.5 X 13 604+00 385.8 X 14 625+00 386.2 o Right Fork Road S 384.13 .:;;::' '::::\:. China Row Combine with Location No. 5 Wood Camp CG Bridge X-C Ski ing S .::~r .1r L S &W ..:::;:;:;:;::'::::::. : '(:d"'; ~:': : :':", ',~.!. l l' l::~ ~~ j ;.:;::.:':'::.,:;;:;:.i:.: . · .:::E: W ":::::::. S <';',:;:"",/""',;"" '" f""""",j, Lost with alignment change? (LWAC?) LWAC? Could be lost with relocation of bridge Day use LWAC ? S :";':"/: ~": ':" ': ':"': ;~~:;:"'): ":, ;:" "\" :" ~ Day use & snowmobilers - cross highway Will likely be lost with alignments charge Obliterate China Row Picnic Area, cross highway to Logan River Day use S X Description/Activity Day use UJAC? w Day use area �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Access Road Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Season of Year Description/Activity R / S Day use parking for Logan Cave. L 150'/ S &W R Parking Area Side of Road / S Additional Logan car parking desired Day use combined with Location No. 15 Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post 15 636+00 386.4 16 638+00 386.4 17 638+00 386.4 18 645+00 386.6 L 100'/0 S 19 647+00 386.6 R 200'/ S 20 649+00 386.65 R / S Day use - will likely be enlarged with alignment change. Bractiopod Rec. Resids 21 673+00 387.1 200' /0 S LWAC? 22 675+00 387.1 200' / S 23 685+00 387.4 100'/0 S Day use - will likely be enlarbed with alignment change. LWAC? 24 698+00 387.5 150'/ S LWAC? 25 704+00 387.6 S Obliterate. 26 706+00 387.6 S 27 716+00 387.9 Day use UIAC? New parking on old alignment. Obliterate. 28 718+00 387.9 X X X o o X o S X S &W L .)",)"""" .... i:':::'::'/"""""';W Could be lost with relocation of bridge - new parking on old alignment. �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Parking Area Side of Road 388.4 X L 100'/200 S Day use 744+00 388.4 o R 100' /0 S LWAC? 31 747+00 388.5 L / S Obliterate 32 749+00 388.5 L / S Obliterate 33 775+00 389.0 34 790+00 389.3 35 793+00 389.4 36 796+00 389.4 37 806+00 389.7 821+00 38 Rick Springs 38 . 821+00 Rick Springs 824+00 39 389.9 389.95 X 40 827+00 390.0 o 41 832+00 390.1 Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post 29 743+00 30 Access Road Season of Year Description/Activity Should be enlarged with alignment change. Temple Fork Road. Need to develop into snowmobile parking and road to Temple Fork fill area. Will be lost with alignment change. Will enlarge with alignment change. Day use 389.9 o �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Access Road Parking Area Side of Road Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post 42 836+00 390.2 43 865+00 390.6 0 R 100' /0 S 44 876+00 390.8 o R 100'/0 S 45 890+00 391.05 46 905+00 391.5 47 925+00 391. 7 48 936+00 392.0 49 946+00 392.15 o 50 949+00 392.2 o Season of Year R X Day use S "(: 1:";: :" ;: : :;! ~: ~" ,: ,;:':,"', ~ ~ ~: ~ : s Description/Activity Day use cattle guard - fill area Day use w Eliminate vehicle access to river Day use X-C skiing parking / Obliterate / S Obliterate /200 L S S Need to develop parking adjacent to highway fill area Twin Creek Road .•::HE::;:::!·' '::::::. 51 955+00 392.4 X 52 958+00 392.45 X 53 960+00 392.5 o S Obliterate 54 976+00 392.8 o S Obliterate 55 999+00 393.2 X .://,::::::(:. S S &W R ... ";""';;,""" .::' ... '" "":;?,, Dispersed use area USU Field Service �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post Access Road Parking Area Side of Road Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Season of Year Description/Activity 56 1015+00 393.5 0 R / S 57 1031+00 393.85 X L / S & W 58 1049+00 393.95 o L / S Tony Grove Lake Road Winter Park Obliterate 59 1070+00 394.3 R / S Fishing & day use 60 1070+00 394.3 L / S Bunchgrass Road is closed 61 1077+00 394.4 250' /440 S &W 62 1094+00 394.8 / S Red Banks CG 63 1106+00 395.0 200'/ S Day use 64 1112+00 395.1 X S Day use - fishing & camping 65 1119+00 395.3 X S Access to private land 66 1112+00 395.3 X 66A 1135+00 395.4 x 66B 1160+00 395.9 o 66C t~~5~t5o 396.2 X L 66D t~ijI~t5o 396.5 X R 67 1215+00 297.0 X 68 1231+00 397.3 X 200} /200+ .:::tiW ··:::!::::. S &W S & W L 200/200 'i;~ : ,~: ',i~~:~'~~f: Day use & X-C skiing Day use - fishing & winter parking, fill area Day use - fishing & winter parking, fill area Access to private land S 200 R Obliterate Access to private land 11 Access to Franklin Basin Road Day use - fishing & snowmobile area �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post Access Road Parking Area Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Side of Road 69 1244+00 397.5 70 1249+00 397.6 o L 1290+00 398.4 o R 1296+00 398.5 L 100' /0 73 1321+00 399.0 L 200'/0 74 1341+00 399.5 L 75 1414+00 399.6 R 76 1426+00 399.8 X 77 1428+00 399.8 X Day use - fishing access 100' /0 72 Description/Activity 100' /0 71 Season of Year L X S S &W Day use, fishing and skiing ·· .:/': )1' L ..::::. parking is off hy . ::,:::,;,:,:::';';~:::~" :::;li: "';" "~":",:, :":':': :,:'i',",;'; ':/ ' 78 1442+00 400.0 X 79 1455+00 400.3 X 80 1467+00 400.5 o 81 1475+00 400.6 X 82 1485+00 400.8 X 83 1498+00 401.0 X 84 1502+50 401.1 85 1506+00 401.2 ? Access to private land S & R w ::: :"'i",: ~,:; ,: " : ,"~'~!~;j!~: :", :,; :, " ', , :, : : X Day use, fishing access S X S 45 W Access parking off UT 243 not US-89. day use & winter parking. Skiers & snowmobilers cross. Access to private land, highway to use Stump Hollow area. Access to private land, highwya to use Stump Hollow area. Used mainly as a turnout o:,:;,:~:,::,:,"""""" \'::i : w Used mainly as a turnout fill area Used mainly as a turnout fill area Access to private land S &W Main use is snow storage 700' �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Plan Location Number Approximate Station Approximate Mile Post Access Road Parking Area Side of Road Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Season of Year Description/Activity Access to North Amazon 86 1508+50 401.3 87 1519+00 401.5 88 1541+00 401.9 Used mainly as a turnout 89 1554+00 402.1 90 1567+00 402.3 Day use, winter parking, crosscountry skiing. Access to State land 91 1567+50 402.3 Access to State mtce. shed 92 1590+00 402.9 Access to Swan Flat 93 1613+00 403.2 94 1625+00 403.4 95 1650+00 404.0 96 1691+00 404.5 97 1697+00 404.9 Day use parking, fill area, could be enlarged. Day use w/vault toilet, snowmobile parking Access to Sinks Rd, day usewinter parking, could be enlarged Limber Pine Reststop, nature trail. 98 1699+00 404.9 Hunting access 99 1713+00 405.1 100 1715+00 405.17 X L X R S 700 1/700 S & W Used mainly as a turnout �Appendix (Continued) EXISTING AND PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS AND PARKING AREAS Approximate Length Exist/Desirable Plan Location Number Approximate Station 101 1727+00 405.4 102 1735+00 405.6 X R S Access to Sunrise CG 103 1740+50 405.76 X R S 104 1742+00 405.7 R 200'/200 S &W Access to spring & pump, house Sunrise CG Day use - cross-country skiing 105 1745+00 405.8 R 300' S &W 106 1762+00 406.04 R 200'/0 Observation point, Bear Lake Overlook, could be enlarged. Snow storage 107 1781+00 406.4 108 1785+00 406.44 300' /0 Snow storage 109 1800+00 406.66 400'/0 Snow storage Approximate Mile Post Parking Area Side of Road o Access Road R R .. :::: :;:~:::;!;:~.:::: =::. 110 X S W 406.66 111 0 1803+00 1817+00 407.1 Needed Not Needed Summer Winter SLC-STN/30a BOTs38/D.2 t Season of Year 100' /0 S X X Description/Activity Hunter access Turnout day use, fill area, could be enlarged. �� 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/80">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/80</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 4262296060 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 22600494 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 Land use technical memorandum (Draft), March 1987 Description An account of the resource Logan Canyon U.S. Highway 89 land use technical memorandum detailing the existing conditions, impacts, and mitigation, with references and appendix. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-03 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 4 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd4_009.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/81f4e852e7621c3d6cd8626113b682ab.pdf 3a8bb70c3be61ebe0bae8080f28042d9 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PUBLIC MEETING LOGAN, UTAH ../ " September 23, 1986 COMMENTS FOLLOWING CH2M HILL PRESENTATION: Question: I just wanted to ask why is this study limited to that segment you showed. Margaret Johnson: That was defined by the UDOT. like to elaborate on that? Stan, would you s. Nuffer: That is correct, we are referring to the section from Right Fork on over the hill to Garden City, and for a basis of comparison, the lower level of the canyon as well for certain types of analysis as to what were the effects of some of the improvements. Does that answer your question? Question: Is it because this portion seems to have the greatest concentration of problems? " ' S. Nuffer: As Commissioner Weston explained, there are certain things that need to be done in that canyon, such as the bridge replacement, and there are some identified areas that could be improved so it was necessary to conduct an environmental study. So the opinion was tp look at the canyon as a whole so we can address the problem once and for all so the~e things can be done as the arise. s. Barker: The portion of the canyon below Right Hand Fork has already had improvement projects. So we wanted to focus our atten. tion on the other area that has not been improved. Question: I was interested in your overlays. Do you also have overlays of the traffic patterns for the last 20 years? s. Nuffer: We don't have an overlay for that. Question: How does that compare with your projected trend? What is the trend for the last 20 years? Is there an upward trend in the same fashion? s. Nuffer: The trend that we have projected there reflects about a 2% annual growth rate. This is a very conservative growth rate. Much less than has been used in the past. Rudy Lukez: I just wanted to point out a couple of things I mentioned in a discussion concerning this meeting, and also why the public may wish to disregard this information. One thing in particular is the safety data. Last week we had a chance to look at �( / the data and the conservationists reviewed it and we came up with some serious flaws in it. At that time we asked that the safety data not be discussed at this meeting. That was essentially going to be our agreement for tonight, that the safety data that had been collected and analyzed to this point was not correct. And so it would not be proper at this point for anybody to make any conclusions or to draw any conclusions from that safety data until it is better analyzed and better reviewed. c. Forsgren: What Rudy is saying is basically correct. We have not completed the analysis. We are looking at the accidents. We are looking at the locations on the road that accidents may occur in clusters, but we have not gotten to the point where we can draw conclusions. The study done by UDOT several years ago identified places in the canyon where we might look to do some improvements. Their objective was different than ours. We are looking at a different type of situation from a different perspective. So the message we wanted to convey tonight relative to safety is that these are the things that we are looking at. Question: Based on what? You just said you don't have data to look at and that is the third time you've said it. C. Forsgren: All we are prepared to say is that at some places in the road there have been more accidents in the past six years than in other places. Whether that is significant or not, we haven't determined. That is all we can say at this point. We have some data that we had reason to believe was reliable, but in looking at it closer, we now question it. The only thing we are saying now is that we are looking at these things and when we are satisfied that our conclusions are correct, then we will come out and say these are our conclusions. And until we can say that, we are not prepared to do so. That is, in essence, what we hope to convey tonight. The only thing I can say for certain, and it is · just simply there are places where there have been more accidents. Whether that means anything, we don't know. We can't say that and we are no~ going to. And I appreciate Rudy bringing this up, because we do not want to convey the wrong impressions. R. Lukez: It might be worthwhile to mention that when accidents are counted it includes everything from someone getting killed on the one extreme to somebody running off the ditch because of carelessness or going to fast around a corner on an icy road in the middle of a blizzard. So you do get quite a range of accidents so there is a corresponding severity index for that. C. Forsgren: I apologize if we have created some confusion on that and if you want to jump on somebody, you can jump on me. At this point all we want to tell you is what we are doing and not what we have concluded, because we have really not concluded anything. Page 2 of 16 �R Lukez: The only thing we wanted to make sure was pointed out tonight was that the data which has been used to this point to make projections out to the year 2010 is not good data, that the data is very scattered and there are a lot of conclusions you could draw from it. Using straight linear techniques such as they used tonight you are able to come up with the corresponding numbers that they have and from there they are able to draw upon that data and come up with various conclusions for the current levels of service that are defined by the government from A to F. ( c. Forsgren: We might point out that the numbers we are talking about are summer numbers. .' R. Lukez: Yes, that is correct. It is important to realize that we are talking about summer numbers used in traffic flows and projections for the future - that is through the three summer months and that is heavily weighted by the data from the 4th of July Weekend, the 24th of July Weekend and by Labor Day and from Memorial Day and several other scattered weekends. So you are looking at trends that are very representative of major recreational highways where people are going to recreate for the weekend. They are going to another recreational destination and because of the way the numbers are sort of skewed, especially along those holiday weekends, those peak periods when everybody in the world is travelling, it helps to determine the various design hourly volume rates and then you can get those levels of services that some are very scary, no doubt, in the 'E' range. In this case, I believe we are shooting for an ideal level of "C" service when doing the mathematical analysis. So I think those are things to really keep in mind - the safety data is not complete and no conclusions should be drawn from it at all, and the 1.9% figure is all based on statistical data which is not very good data. When you start building statistical correlations you don't come out very well. Also, the 1.9% figure is a very low number. I keep hearing from UDOT time and time again, "Gee, we like to see 4% or 6% as a growth rate in order to design new highways." So that's another thing to keep in mind, it is very low, and depending upon how you interpret those numbers you can come to many different conclusions, and when you are talking about levels of service and you are hearing "D" or "E" level of service keep in mind that it is based on busy summer weekends, and only during those summer weekends. C. Forsgren: One thing that hasn't been decided yet is the level of service that we want to achieve. That is one of the purposes of these meetings, is to try and establish what is it we want. Do we want "A" or are we willing to live with "B" or "D" or something in between. This may be a little confusing to you, but one of the objectives is to find out what are we going to live with up there, or what do we want to have in the way of services. - Is it alright the way it is, can we live with the delays which we are experiencing, or can we live with something substantially more in terms of delays, or do we want those eliminated. We are focusing our atten- Page 3 of 16 �( ./ tion on June, July and August. These are the months volume, and we are selecting a design hour volume in ing a number and saying this is what we are going to handle. It is a number that represents a fairly high traffic and is also fairly representative. of the most terms of picktry and degree of Comment: This is more of an answer for the data that was used for the traffic flow. It started in 1973 and went through 85. 1983 was deleted because there were problems with the counter. That gives you the number of years that were used. As far as the someplace between 60 and 70% for the variation. R Lukez: The R square value is very important in any way you represent this data. I guess also, as a matter of interest, I uncovered some data yesterday which goes back to 1937 for the canyon. So there is now complete data available going back to 1937. Question: (Ronald Laneer) Yes, I realize that your analysis is not complete but I've looked at Graph No.3, the safety graph, and I have compared some of the results with an accident analysis that I did a long time ago in 1971 using the first four years of data that was put on UDOT's computer and, therefore, was uniform. And there are some things that I became aware of as a result of that analysis that agrees with this safety analysis, but there are also things that seriously conflict with you. The one place we agree is that the most common kind of accident is running off the road. Something very illogical is that you are not looking at the relationship of running off the road with seeing the road. The Logan Canyon Highway is more visible than it has ever been. It has quite a few yellow center lines, white curb lines and warning signs and reflectors that have just gone up in the last couple of years. There has been a great change. We also have very good surface on now. During most of the 1970s and until two or three years ago the road was a shambles and I've heard several people say that maintenance was purposely left "undone so the road would get so bad that the highway department would have to go totally through it. " 'I.~ But the point is that the road , that you are analyzing now that is so bright and so visible has not been that way during the period for most of these accidents that you are analyzing. And I also agree with your data that show most of the running off the road accidents are cars going down hill. I think that if you will look at visibility conditions, what time of day, you'll find that a disproportionate number of those happen at night, many during the winter time. The road has not been visible. The highway department used to begin the Logan Canyon Road at the intersection of 4th North and Main and during the 40 year period looking at 399 accidents between that intersection and Garden City, 47% of them took place between Main Street and USU campus. So just to give you an idea of the rather low magnitude of the accident problem in terms of accident numbers in Logan Canyon. Rather or not that is exactly true, I don't know, but it might indicate that if you had $10,000 Page 4 of 16 �( / to spend some turn stoplights at that intersection would do a lot more good than in Logan Canyon. One thing you don't seem to have done is to compare accident rates by month or accident numbers by month. In 1971 I found that at looking at a couple of hundred accidents that the numbers by month were relatively the same. There is almost no difference from month to month, even though the traffic volume for July is more than 12 times the volume for February. Which means at that time you were 12 time safer to be on the highway in July. You are making assumptions I think that there is some relationship between safety and the highway and some mathematical flow principle that you are seeing traffic on the highway being similar to liquids flowing through a pipe and the idea is that if you can keep the flow smooth and at an equal rate that will be safer. The low number of accidents during the peak periods of summer, I think belies that. And another thing that is not being done is to select out not the sections only, but the most serious accidents, the ones that result in fatalities or just injuries or just those which an ambulance had to be called out for which are separately accounted for on the UDOT computer, and find what common factor you can find for those most serious accidents, rather than just looking at the accidents pretty much quantatively regardless of where they happen. Certainly, that is important but the seriousness of the accidents is as important as the number of accidents, especially since the majority are running off the road and colliding with the bank or rocks. It was not mentioned that the accidents usually result in a little bit of property damage but no physical injuries . .f Don Hueffner: I'm from Rich County and I've got two questions and I want to ask them both. One is first that about 1/3 of this road you are talking about is located in Rich County and hearing you talk about the people who are on this committee I did not hear of anyone who is representing us. Maybe someone was · asked I don't know about. My next question is that so far most of what has been said is that Logan Canyon should be used as a destination instead of transportation. If that is the case, and that'd be fine with me except that 80% of the people that use it who wouldn't be taken care of. In other words, would it be possible to funnel that 80% through Cottonwood Canyon and to Ogden rather than through 'Logan Canyon? Is that being considered? Sheldon Barker: The I.D. Team was not really created to try and get geographic representation. As I went through the list what we were trying to do was to get technical specialties, fisheries biologist, landscape architect. We were not trying to get geographic representation. That was not the goal. Really, outside of the Forest Service, the consultants and UDOT the only groups on there are the environmental groups with their technical input. Page 5 of 16 �( / D. Hueffner: Can I make a comment? Out situation over there is a little different than Cache County because so much of our business relies on what is done over the canyon. And so some of this technical data and some of the things which we may do will have quite an impact on these projections. Also, what you decide will have a great impact upon us. s. Barker: We certainly want to solicit your input. And in addition to the meeting we are having here tonight we are in the process of arranging a meeting in Rich County so you don't have to travel all the way to Logan so you can as a group be represented. r M. Johnson: I would like to say one other thing and that is that in completing the environmental analysis at what ever analysis it is done, the plans that you may have for a convention center or what ever other development you may have for the Bear Lake area will be entered into the impacts of the road as well as the needs for the road. So those concepts are not being brushed aside simply by some lower percentages for growth in the future. These percentages for growth, someone said are very low, and that is true, they are very conservative, but in the current economic conditions, I think that is very realistic. If conditions change, then yes, things have to be evaluated again, and if Bear Lake area starts developing, if Rich County starts developing, then the projections we have need to be reevaluated. But, growth will not be discounted in the environmental impact analysis. He had another question: The question about finding another throughway of routing the traffic that now occurs in Logan Canyon through some other route. Would someone with UDOT like to answer that? Jim Naegle: Any viable alternative would be looked at. The first observation we have is that it is not one that comes forward as a benefit at this time. Two decades from now that may not be true, but at this time we do not see immediately that an alternate route .separate from the canyon is going to be the answer. However, it will not be discounted, it will be looked at, but at this point our concentration is on the canyon. We are pretty well going to stay with the canyon with the money we have. Question: I get the impression that the major concern between and safety is the environmental impact on the canyon. My question is there seems to be a lot of concern about the reliability of the data. My question is have their been environmental studies done on impact of the road as it exists now and how reliable is that data? What specific species have been impacted by the road since I don't know when, and over what time frame, so forth? M. Johnson: I think you would call that a post audit assessment. I certainly can't answer that question, whether there has been one done I think UDOT would have to answer that one. Page 6 of 16 �/ UDOT: There are a lot of things that can be considered. What has been done in the past is not the main issue. The thing we are most concerned about is if there are changes made how will they impact it? And we want to impact it the least possible to get what is required or recommended, so we don't spend our time in evaluating what has happened we are really looking forward and want to make sure that things are not impacted that shouldn't be impacted. So we are looking forward and not back at what has been done, only as it comes into play and what we might be able to learn from it. If w~ find something that has been impacted, it will certainly be a lesson to us as to how to handle the impacts of the future or in changes in what we might recommend. M. Johnson: One slight comment on that, and that is that NEPA is to identify what impacts are going to occur from a project so that everyone is aware, to provide information and then incorporate public input to make decisions about what projects should be constructed and which ones shouldn't. And as stated at the beginning our job is to balance the various interests, and certainly there are a lot of them, especially in this case. ( , Richard Bean: I am a Logan Business man and my. name is Richard Bean. There are four canyons between here and Yellowstone and it seems to me that a study of this canyon in relation to the other three that come to mind would be useful because the end destination of a lot of vehicles that use this canyon is Jackson or Yellowstone. Maybe not in the depth that you are going to study this one but in the relative traffic flows, you might want to look into that. CH2M HILL: So there is no mistake will you identify those canyons? R. Bean: I drive them every year but I don't remember the names. Snake River Canyon down from Hobach to Alpine, Canyon out of Montpelier, and then there is another little canyon by Star Valley. S .' Barker: I appreciate the clarification because I thought you were talking about alternates to this canyon instead you are talking about ones that complement this canyon. R. Bean: A lot of people who use this canyon use those others and my feeling is that all of those other canyons have better traffic lows than this one. So I think that should be looked at. Wendell Anderson: I would like to make a comment along the same line. From Main and Center in Logan to Sage Junction if you went over Blacksmith Fork it would be ten miles shorter than it is here, It would 500 feet lower in elevation than going through Logan Canyon and there certainly would not be all of the bridges you have to build. I think that should be considered. Page 7 of 16 �Question: I have a question here and as for improving roads for safety, that is not a decision you are ready to make at this time. Other things that you might want to improve the road for, maybe to save time, how much time is saved? Another thing mentioned was the where road kills (animal kills) occur, and they occur more at the top of the mountain and if that area of the road is improved won't the road kills increase at a much faster rate? You have projections for many other things M. Johnson: Let me state from the beginning that never in the presentation that I made did I mean to infer that improvements should be justified on the basis of the accidents, because as I said our analysis is not completed yet. What I said was UDOT's 1982 study indicates certain things and in locating the accidents that have occurred on the highway, which have nothing to do with the number crunching, it appears that some sections have more accidents than others. That is a very obvious conclusion that you can draw. But we are not trying to justify improvements now or at any time on the basis of the information on accidents that we have now. In any environmental analysis that is done something such as road/animal kills would certainly be evaluated. That is a factor that would certainly need to be considered. So I certainly don't mean to brush that off, but that is not the point where we are at now so that will be done before any improvement is constructed or made. C. Forsgren: We haven't recommended any conclusions based on safety. In fact, I don't know that we've really said that the road needs to be improved. I think what we are saying is that if we want to do some things then we need to make some changes. But I don't know that the decision has been made that we want to do those things. It may be perfectly acceptable as it is. If that is the case, we will go ahead and fix the bridges. Question: What is the time savings by making improvements? C. Forsgren: It depends on what improvements we make, and there is quite a range. We are not here to tell you what we think we ought to do. We are here to learn. Do you want something done? Is it acceptable? We can make certain things to make minor improvements. We can do more things to make bigger changes. Question: I was just asking why I might benefit from have it improved. Will I be able to drive from here to Garden City quicker, and if so how much quicker will that be? M. Johnson: That is another thing that will be considered in an environmental analysis - the time factor, the benefit is an impact that will be examined. Page 8 of 16 �( C. Forsgren: We haven't got that far but I can tell you some things in general. It is not a proposal, it is just sitting around wondering what if we did this, what would it mean in terms of level of service. If we were to go into the canyon right now we are looking at about 11 foot traffic lanes and foot shoulder areas. If we were to make those 12 foot lanes and 4 foot shoulder areas then you reduce the percent of time people would be delayed from 75 to less than 60. That may give you a feel for it. Question: How long would it take to go Logan to Garden City in an average day? C. Forsgren: We haven't figured that yet. Comment: I've done some calculations and if you could drive to Logan from Garden City it would take about 55 minutes to get there. If you changed that road to 50 miles an hour for the whole way, which I think is quite optimistic, it would take approximately 38 minutes for a 17 minute saving. Wendell Anderson: I just want to make one suggestion in terms of terminology here. There has been talk about any change as improvement. You might talk about change rather than improvement, or if you want another word that is loaded use bulldoze rather than improvement. M. Johnson: Improvement is common terminology. offended you. I am sorry if that Comment: My name is Ted Seeholzer from Beaver Mountain Ski area and I'm the last person that wants to see Logan Canyon become a four lane highway, but we do need some work done on it very soon. There are some damn serious places in that canyon and I've had family members who have been injured because of severe turns, and I'm sure a lot of you have. I have some other concerns other than that and I'm associated with the visitor business and have been for quite a few years. Right now the Utah Travel Council, and Bridgerland Travel Association along with people from Garden City are trying to really promote the visitor business in Cache County, Logan Canyon, Garden City, Montpelier, Jackson Hole because Jackson Hole is a drawing card. Every kid wants to go to Jackson and be a cowboy and dad wants to go and get drunk. So we are really promoting the visitor route through this valley. If you think the business industry isn't viable, it comes to somewhere between $34 million and $36 million a year in taxes. That is money that you and I don't pay. And it is damn important to have a good travelable road that these people can go on. Not at 65 miles per hour but a road that those that need to get around can get around. 3% truck load in my estimation is a very heavy truck load. Those people slow up traffic. All of us are not Sunday drivers. I make 200 trips a year through that canyon and I'll promise you one thing: You have to go at 3:00 in the morning, if you don't want to be slowed down you can't get around traffic. I realize in our projections we have picked peak holidays, but in my case in the winter, you can pick Page 9 of 16 �/ President's day and I'll promise you there is bumper to bumper cars from the mouth of Logan Canyon. And that is a dangerous time of year, the highways are slick, some people don't use good judgment, but we have to allow for those types of drivers. You and I can not drive every car. We can not make John, Jane, and Jim drive with intelligence. I think that it is up to this organization to use good judgment in helping those type of drivers navigate I just want a good road for those who are good drivers, for those who need to hurry a little bit and its very important that we help the business industry in this valley. Question: Who started this whole process? The last I heard UDOT was basically out of money. Would you explain the procedure? M. Johnson: I'll certainly let UDOT respond to that. Let me say that economic assessment of the environmental assessment determines how much a tradeoff of improvements versus the possible economic benefits that may occur. UDOT: The question on economics is certainly an important one. What this team is going to do is to develop a transportation plan for the canyon. When that is completed and the environmental assessments are done and accepted no matter what that plan may be, then UDOT will look at that and designated it as to what should go first and what can wait. Certainly parts of it ought to be done as soon as possible and other parts may be able to wait. But any action we do take will be part of an overall and published plan so the public knows where we are going from this point. It may take one year to complete this plan or some other unspecified time frame. Comment: My name is Russ Goodwin and if I could just follow that thought up somewhat I would propose to UDOT that a much more pressing need exists for a good four-lane road into Cache Valley from the Interstate. Looking at improvements through the Logan Canyon are a bit premature, in my opinion. We need to be looking at this type of road into Cache Valley. UDOT: The purpose of the UDOT is to consider the conditions of all state routes, and there are plans being made to widen the roadway from Brigham City to Logan to possibly 4-lanes. There is a study being completed and some decisions will be made soon. Question: My name is of Laketown over in Bear Lake and I don't know if I talk for them but that is who I am here with. And I'm going to chastise the group because they said they met with town officials this morning and we didn't know about it and we may not be very big but we think we are important. The other thing, in comment, as we look at the environmental study, and I'm sure you do this, and I'd like the environmentalists to remember that humans are a part of our environment. I work on an ambulance out of Rich County and have done for six years, and if you want to have a real experience, do CPR on somebody on the 4th of July coming through Page 10 of 16 �Logan Canyon. The people we work on are usually from Cache Valley or down on the Wasatch Front. And it is a tremendous challenge coming through those bends being very surprised when some tourist stops when they see the red light down in that lower section and there is no where to go. So we have to come to a quick stop, begin doing whatever we were doing again, working on the patients. Our own families livelihoods rely totally on Cache Valley. If you look at the economic money, most of us in those communities up and down Bear Lake make at least one trip a week into Cache Valley, to grocery shop, to see doctors, to buy tires, buy farm machinery, implements. Our livelihood relies on Logan Canyon and so most of us we don't get to drive maybe as much as Mr. Seeholzer, but darn near as much. And we are interested, we were excited as we read that there were studies going forward to improve, whether it takes a little bulldozing or not, to improve that canyon to get us into the valley easier. We don't want to slow down those that like to see the canyon, but after you have seen it as much as most of us do, we don't pay that much attention to it, we want to get here get our business done and get back home to our families. And that is important and I hope that the UDOT will come in and solicit our governments help, and also our people's comments because I think you'll find the people of Bear Lake love their environment, they live over there in no man's land because they like to be away from people and because they enjoy that country surrounding. It is not a great economic place to be, or looking for a future for your children, but we are working on that. We do enjoy the environment, but we need to have some of these facilities for our use as well. ( And I would like to see bicycling taken into consideration. I've about ran over I don't know how many bicyclers coming down the canyon. They go slow around a bend. They need a lane. I'd like to put them somewhere over on the hill and give them a nice little two way path to ride on. That is really becoming a concern of mine. That's our feeling and I hope you'll use it. John Wise from the Herald Journal: I'd like to know why a separate meeting was held for the local officials prior to this meeting and no announcement was made available to the local press here. M. Johnson: I think the comments that were discussed in the meeting were about the various users of the highway. The people that use the highway for recreational purposes, the people who use it for regional transportation coming from Bear Lake Valley to Logan and one other group. The purpose of it was to try to establish what their feelings were as to the priorities for the canyon. CH2M Hill: That is a loaded question, but let me try and answer it. Maybe we were somewhat naive, but what we are trying to do is to get all the people we can. There was no intent to limit the people. The point is that we are in no way trying to limit the input. We are trying to get as much input as we can. In some ways Page 11 of 16 �it was easier to attend a meeting at 4:00, there was a little different type of people there. We are going to have a whole series of public meetings. Our intent was never to exclude anybody and if the media would like to be invited, that is fine too. Call it oversight, whatever, we were trying to get all the input we can. M. Johnson: One thing I might also add is that at the meeting this afternoon there were a great variety of opinions expressed just as there have been tonight. It was not one sided towards any interest group. Question: I would just like to know how much money UDOT is paying CH2M Hill to do this study. How much is it costing and how many manhours or people hours does that involve? UDOT: It is correct that UDOT did hire a consultant to take an objective look at the study and we are paying them money to do it. They don't work for free. The contract amount is in the range of $500,000.00. It is by no means inexpensive. Question: Would that be for this year? UDOT: That covers the term of the study and we mentioned that the study should be completed in June approximately of next year. Question: How long has the study been going on? UDOT: We initiated this about June of 1986. So it will be approximately one year. As far as manpower estimates, they have been completed but I can't quote what they are. They were submitted by the consultant. R. Laneer: I would just like to suggest that one of the groups that you consult that doesn't often get consulted be the highway patrol. I've talked to some of them and they have their own points off view on increasing speeds on Logan Canyon and other highways. And what they have told me is that even though they are a part of state government, they don't normally get consulted. So I think the local highway patrolmen who have had experience in Logan Canyon would be valuable. ( Comments: My name is Lewis Polk from Montpelier which, of course, is on the other side of the state boundary. But we in Idaho also have a great investment in the 89 project. It is my opinion and it has been for a number of years that Highway 89 needs a tremendous amount of work. It is a safety problem. I'm in the type of business where I get a report card on that highway almost every day. Some of the travelling people coming through from back east or wherever as they stop in Montpelier (and I am in the hotel business, I have two properties in Montpelier), the kind of report stating, "My Hell! Where are the guard rails?" or "My Hell!, Where is the asphalt?" or any number of combinations and some worse than what I just used. It is my opinion that something really does need to be done with Highway 89. It is in a serious condition. And I'm Page 12 of 16 �./ not saying that Idaho is in great shape either. I'm here just to see what happens here because I would like to go to Idaho and say "Hey, we have a problem too." Wyoming has taken the challenge and Wyoming has improved their highway and it is already proved to be a significant savings factor in human life in the work that Wyoming has complete. I also served for the last three years in the Idaho Travel Council so I have a little bit of travel background in me, about 15 years in the lodging business. I just completed a year as the Chairman of the Idaho Travel Council. Travel figures and travel peaks are not declining, they are increasing. So the caps that CH2M Hill has come up with I think are conservative. 2% to me seems to be a little conservative. I hope it is conservative. In these states we seem to be economically impacted and travel seems to be one of our saving factors. I would like to see us begin to invest in our futures, both Utah and Idaho and develop these highways and improve these highways, make them safer, maintain the traffic patterns that we have and do a better job. Logan Canyon is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. It is. a beautiful canyon. I don't want anything to happen to Logan Canyon simply because the comments about the canyon are how wonderful and how marvelous and how unique! It does have environmental impact on anybody who comes through it. Everyone enjoys it. But nobody enjoys it when their family and friends are being marred or are injured or even killed in those canyons. So that's my interest in coming to this meeting and I wanted to let you know I am out of state, but we do share an economic bond here with Highway 89 and we need to do something desperately with it. / One other comment, in the hotel business in Montpelier, questions have come up to how this study was done and what is being asked. And I remember just getting into the hotel business with my father years and years ago and CH2M Hill was around then and doing studies at that point in time, and about two years ago I had a chance to sit in on a review of a study program with power utility company and heard some of the praises for CH2M Hill. They are a reputable 'company and the state did hire someone with the proper background to come in and make an objective analysis of this kind of a project. The other part of this is that the level of service and capacity have been talked about a little bit. The level of service is not up to par and the capacity is not either. If it is now it certainly can't be for future growth of what I think Bear Lake is going to need, what Jackson Hole and Yellowstone, and what Utah is going to need. Utah has more national parks than any other state, I believe. You are going to have more travel, you are going to have more traffic. Prepare yourselves so it is not a problem for you. Get ready for it now, if it is not already a start of being too late. ( Question: (Comments regarding Logan Canyon becoming too much like Ogden Canyon, Provo Canyon and Weber Canyon) Page 13 of 16 -::1 �( Question: I've heard a lot of talk about the actual traffic flow, I guess my question is to the people of UDOT, and that is why isn't there more encouragement of the use of pullovers for slow moving vehicles. I'm thinking particularly of some canyons that are a lot like Logan Canyon in Idaho in Payette Canyon and the Salmon River Canyon where there are a lot of pullovers like there are here but a quarter of a mile before the pullover it says "Please use slow moving vehicle pullover coming up." Every time I'm in a traffic jam up there I always wonder why Utah doesn't do that. I know they probably don't have a law to make it illegal to stack up cars like a lot of western states do, but I think a lot more could be done in the use of pullovers. I think they unjam traffic a lot better even than a third lane does. So I would like to ask them why there isn't more encouragement for the use of that kind of thing. S. Nuffer: I think what you have identified is one of the alternatives that we will be looking at. Question: It seems less expensive than other alternatives. S. Nuffer: We've had experience with some of these kinds of things with mixed results. This would need to be coupled with enforcement. Question: There are a lot of timid drivers who won't just pull off into one when they see one. They need the warning that it is coming up. M Johnson: I heard an interesting comment in regard to the proposal this afternoon. This was also raised at the earlier meeting that was referred to by the press. One problem is that if people pullout, they have a problem getting back into the line of traffic. Now I'm not saying that is insurmountable, but all of us if we are driving in a canyon, for Pete's Sake let someone back in if they have pulled out to let traffic move on. Comment: Usually they are quite clumped up. back into the traffic is a problem. I don't think getting M. Johnson: Any other ideas as far as alternatives that might be considered? As we have said we have no preconceived ideas of what should be done in Logan Canyon. We have identified what we think are problems, but as far solving those problems, that remains open to the next task of study. R. Laneer: Just a point of view, accidents and safety on the highway shouldn't be looked at as strictly an engineering problem. It is a behavioral problem. Accidents take place because people respond in certain ways to the hazards or conditions of the road, especially regarding such things as pullouts and passing lanes and so on. And I don't think engineers are competent to predict the Page 14 of 16 �( behavior of people. I don't see you strengthening your team by having anybody on it who is competent on how people behave on the road. And I think engineering solutions and problems of that kind are never going to get down to be bottom of it. M. Johnson: Thank you. looking for a job? That is an interesting point. Are you Question: I would like to know how many highway projects CH2M Hill has worked on. CH2M Hill: They are so numerous I could stay here all night and flick them off. M. Johnson: I know we are presently working on one in the Boise office and just completing the Broadway-Chinden connector which connects the freeway into downtown Boise - 40 to 50 million dollar project. Interestingly, the project engineer on that project previously completed a major viaduct system in the San Francisco Bay area and this was a project that involved not the same types of environment we are dealing with here, but a very sensitive urban environment. Consideration for impact and mitigation measures had to be incorporated into the project, so the company has had a great deal of experience dealing with sensitive highway projects. R. Lukez: It might be better to explain how many projects you have worked on similar to Logan Canyon. (At this point a brochure was presented to Rudy Lukez.) R. Lukez: I'd just like to add a couple of things. A couple of times during the discussion the term environmental analysis has been used. For those of you who aren't familiar with the NEPA process from 1970, that decision hasn't been made yet to do an environmental assessment or an environmental analysis. There may • even be an environmental impact statement done later on down the road. As an ID team that still has to be decided upon - exactly what the final is going to be. I personally prefer the term environmental study because it doesn't have any technical connection to it yet. The other thing is a couple of people mentioned during this time they are concerned about people getting killed on the highway and I'm sure everybody will agree that we don't want to see anybody get killed, but we have had very few people get killed over the highway the past number of years and it turns out that one of the most recent deaths on the highway now is being arraigned in one of the local courts as a murder charge. Question: How many deaths have occurred in Logan Canyon? Page 15 of 16 �R. Lukez: I think the number of deaths is very low, perhaps 5 or 6. An interesting comparison was done during the 1979 activities of safety. It showed that the most dangerous part of the highway was the section that was improved up to Right Hand Fork, by a considerable amount, and that afterwards, the highway was much safer and a lot of the highway patrolmen that were interviewed during those studies said that it was primarily because people are a little more careful when they know there is an unimproved highway ahead and that they won't speed up and pass people at those times. ( M. Johnson: Since we haven't completed the analysis I don't think we should draw any conclusions, second, I think it is very important that we provide you with the findings that we ultimately come up with. We do have a mailing list for the project and we will be sending out the information to the people on our mailing list. I would like to mention our other public involvement attempts that you can use to get information or make comments on the project. Valley Engineering is our subcontractor and we try to make information available to Gale Larson of Valley Engineering. We have produced fact sheets, summaries of the project and given them to Valley Engineering, libraries, UDOT and CH2M Hill. We are also trying to find a location to spread the material in Rich County area. Any of you who have stated that you are from that area tonight you might just let me know what would be a good location to place information about the project in the future. / I want to say we are going to have additional meetings; we have tentatively talked about a meeting in the Rich County area. I think there have been some comments made tonight that will make us further evaluate that possibility. The next step that we have is development of alternatives. And I assure that those alternatives will be very wide in scope. I mean we are not going to come up with just ideas for bulldozing Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. Most of all, I want to say that all of your input is appreciated. I don't care if you are arguing with our figures or not. As has been stated in a local newspaper it is the questions that keeps us honest and I can assure that we at CH2M Hill are very concerned about our integrity and our credibility as our information goes. If you have a question, please let us know. Jim Naegle: Let me make one comment. UDOT went through an extensive process in selecting a consultant and we are very satisfied with the competency of CH2M HIll. Meeting was adjourned. Page 16 of 16 ~( . � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/75">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/75</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1075484573 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 13737972 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Logan Canyon Environmental Study Description An account of the resource The transcript of a public meeting held to answer questions concerning the devleopment of the Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Utah. Department of Transportation Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Johnson, Margaret Barker, Sheldon. Lukez, Rudy Laneer, Ronald Huffner, Don Naegle, Jim Bean, R. Anderson, Wendell Seeholzer, Ted Goodwin, Russ Wise, John Polk, Lewis Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Utah Department of Transportation Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-09-23 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 10.pdf Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd10_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/002e1b75bcad0d6da7a2dc2e7b4f612a.pdf 1d19cf63268fadc4fef8d6710015baf4 PDF Text Text _ l~:ff~l:lI" _ Engineers Planners Economists Scientists July 25, 1986 B21163.DO Utah John 4570 Bear Legislative Delegation Holmgren W. 5400 N. River City, Utah 84301 The Utah Depar t ment of Transportation (UDOT) has contracted with CH2M HILL to conduct a study of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. An important part of this work is a public involvement program to inform interested groups and individuals about the study and to obtain citizen input. Your name has been included on our mailing list to receive information. Enclosed is a copy of our first publication, a study introduction. This is intended to explain what the study will entail, why it is being done, and the schedule. The public involvement plan is also described. Please review this and pass it on to others who may be interested. In the future you will receive similar publications and meeting notices regarding the study. Questions concerning the study are encouraged and should be direc t ed to me or Sheldon Barker at CH2M HILL in Salt Lake City (801) 363-0200 or to Gale Larson at Valley Engineering, Inc. in Logan (801) 753-0153. Thank you for your interest and participation. ~e~ Stanton S. Nuffer Project Manager SLC79/d.401 Enclosures CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lane, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 Salt Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East P.o. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 208.345.5310 801 .363.0200 � 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/45">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/45</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 2931222100 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 576226 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 Holmgren correspondence on the Highway 89 study Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Stanton S. Nuffer to John Holmgren of the Utah Legislative Delegation detailing the intent of the study by CH2M HILL and the Utah Department of Transportation on Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-07-25 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Bear River City (Utah) Utah United States Box Elder 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 133 Box 10 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669</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 MSS133Bx10_Item_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/f1ce3e4408575aec26f738701925906a.pdf a41a39509bdd9a32c42ef0a39c914199 PDF Text Text MEETING NOTICE A public meeting regarding the u.s. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon improvement study will be held Tuesday, September 23, at 7:30 p.m. in Logan City Hall. The Utah Department of Transportation and its engineering consultant for the project , CH2M HILL, will present the data and findings from the first task of this study, the determination of transportation needs for the segment of the highway between Right Fork and Garden City. Preliminary findings of public concerns and environmental issues regarding road improvements in ' the canyon will also be reported. and comments will be entertained. Questions A fact sheet is being prepared for the public on the project mailing list. Contact: Cliff Forsgren or Margaret Johnson CH2M HILL 363-0200 � 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/43">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/43</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 2100321693 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 392203 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Logan City Hall Highway 89 meeting notice Description An account of the resource Notice for a public meeting regarding Highway 89 improvements in Logan Canyon, 1980s. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Johnson, Margaret Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon--History Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Press releases Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah Logan Canyon (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, Senator John P. Holmgren papers, 1985-1989, COLL MSS 133 Box 10 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669</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 MSS133Bx10_Item_3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/427a20f2239b956265550f2ab74f2c44.pdf 4dfd848d38115792fe33006f6e5810b4 PDF Text Text ClfMHlll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DA'rE: July 22, 1987 RE: Spot Improvements PROJECT: B21163.FO Attached is a listing of the potential spot improvements that have been identified through the scoping process. These will be discussed at the upcoming ID Team Meeting on July 31 (Agenda Item No.4). Each of the spot improvements will be discussed and evaluated for positive, negative, or insignificant impacts in each of the following areas. Transportation Level of Service Travel Speeds Emergency Services Right-of-Way Estimated Cost Energy Socioeconomics Relocation/Community Disruption Community Facilities and Services Safety Land Use Recreation Air Quality Noise Visual Quality Water Quality Hydrology Natural Resources Threatened or Endangered Species Vegetation and Wildlife Fish and Aquatic Habitat Historic and Archaeologic Resources BOT600/031 �Table 2-4 POTEN'l'IAL SPOT IMPROVEMENTS--MIDDLE CANYON Spot Improvement Mile Post Potential Action Existing Condition Bridge/Structure Replacement a Burnt Bridge Cottonwood Cree k 385.7 386.5 98.5' long, 21.5' width a 15.0 long, 25.5' width Lower Twin Bridge Upper Twin Bridge Rick's Spring 387.7 388.4 389 . 9 180.0' long, 21.5' width a ll5.0 long, 21.5' width 16.0' long, 22.0' width Above Right Fork 384.0 Exst crv--25°, 229' radius Logan Cove 386.3 Exst crv--26°, 220' radius Cottonwood Above Cottonwood 386.5 386.6 Limited parking Exst crv--23° , 249' radius Above Cottonwood 387.1 Exst crv--23°, 249' radius Below Lower Twin Br. 387.7 Exst crv- -23°, 249 ' radius Top of Dugway 388.2 Exst crv--19°, 302 ' radius Above Upper 'I'win Br. 388.7 Exst crv- - 200, 286 ' radius Rick's Spring 389.9 Parking both sides highway a New 28' New 28' river New 28' New 28' New 28' river wide bridge on existing alignment wide struct. --Slight shift toward wide bridge--New alignment upstream wide bridge--New alignment downstream wide structure--Slight shift toward Roadway Alignment Climbing Lan e (dugway) Slow Vehi c le - 388.3 22 ' pavement width Flatten curve to 15°, 382' radius, 30' lateral cut Flatten curve to 15°, 382' radius, 30' lateral cut Shift roadway up to 12' toward river Flatten curve to 19°, 302' radius, 30' lateral cut Flatten curve to 15°, 382' radius, 35' lateral cut Flatten in connection with bridge realignment Flatten curve to 12°, 477' radius, 90 ' lateral cut Flatten curve to 15°, 302' radius , 40' lateral cut Shift rdway up to 15' twrd river to consolidate parking . 34' pavement width , 3,500 ' long climbing lane 384.8 - 384.95 387.85 - 388.0 390.65 - 390.8 22' pavement width 22 ' pavement width 22' pavement width 34' pavement width, 400' long, 195' tapers 34' pavement width, 400' long , 195' tapers 34' pavement width, 400 ' long, 195 ' tap e rs 387.6 Turnout Above Wood Camp Abo ve Lo we r Twin Brb Above Ri c k's Spring �Table 2-4 (continued) POTENTIAL SPOrr IMPROVEMENTS--HIDDLE CANYON Spot Improvement Mile Post Existing Condition Potential Action Intersection Improvements Right Fork Road 383.5 Wood Campground 384.6 Temple Fork Road 389.15 Recreational Parking 386.5 Skewed intersection Provide 100' taper, improve angle Standard Approach 275' and 375' deceleration lanes, ISO' and 250' tapers Skewed intersection Provide 200' taper improve approach grade Picnic area--160', north improve parking on north side of highway of . highway with alignment shift Recreational Parking Cottonwood/Logan Cave 386.5 Ricks Spring 389.9 Small Drainage Structures Signing/Marking 383.5-391. 6 383.5 - 391.6 aExisting width is distance between parapets. Picnic Area--160', north of highway; Park on both Improve parking on north side of highway with alignment shift toward river Parking on both sides highway Improve parking on north side of highway with alignment shift toward river 50± years old Replace as warranted Current UDOT/MUTCD Stdandard According to MUTCD Clear distance reduced by 1.0± by recent installation of steel guard rail. bwould not be considered if dugway climbing lane is selected. BOT597/029 �Table 2-5 POTENTIAL SPOT IMPROVEMENTS--UPPER CANYON Spot Improvement Mile Post Existing Condition Potential Action Bridge/Structure Replacement Tony Grove Creek Red Banks Bridge Beaver Creek Bridge Beaver Creek Street Amazon Hollow Street 393.8 394.6 396.9 397.5 399.3 a 15' long , 25.5 ' width a 45 ' long, 24.0' width a 32 ' long , 25.5 ' width a 15 ' long 2 5.5' width a 6' long 25.5' width New New New New New 28 ' 28' 28' 28' 28' wide wide wide wide wide structure bridge on bridge on structure structure on existing alignment existing alingment existing alignment on existing alignment on existing alignment Roadway Alignment Below north sink 402.1 - 402.3 Below middle sink 403.9 - 404.1 Existing curve 10°, 573 ' radius Existing curve 10°, 573' ra d ius Flatten curve to 5.5°, 1 , 042 ' radius Flatten curve to 5.5°, 1,042' radius Climbing Lanes Above Red Banks Above Beaver Mountain Below Summit 394.5 - 396.5 400.0 - 402.1 403.4 - 404.7 22' pavement width 22' pavement width 22 ' pavement width 34' pavement width 8,500' long climbing lane 34' pavement width 11 , 000' long climbing lane 34' pavement width 6,800' long climbing lane 15° skew " T " intersection 90° " T " intersection Poorly defined intersection 35° skew "T" intersection Provide Provide Provide Provide lalles Intersection Improvements Tony Grove Road Red Banks Campground Franklin Basin R~ad Beaver Mountain Road 393.5 394.8 397.0 399.7 deceleration lanes and tapers deceleration lanes and tapers deceleration lanes and tapers 90° intersection with deceleration Small Drainage Structures 391.6 - 404.75 50 ± years old Replace as warranted Signing/Markings 391. 6 - 404. 75 Current UDOT/ MUTCD standard According to M UTCD aExisting width is distance between parapets . BOT597/030 Clear distance reduced by 1.0 ' ± by recent installation of steel guardrails. �Table 2-6 POTENTIAL SPOT IMPROVEMENTS--RICH COUNTY Spot Improvement Mile Post Existing Condition Potential Action Roadway Alignment Existing curve 27.3°, 209' radius Existing curve 28.5°, 201' radius Flatten curve--15°, 382' radius 407.4 - 408.0 409.6 - 410.6 22' pavement width 22' pavement width 34' pavement width, 3,000' long climbing lane 34' pavement width, 5,300' long climbing lane 406.0 - 406.1 22' pavement width 34' pavement width, 400' long, 195' tapers Above subdivision 407.85 Below subdivision 409.55 Flatten curve--15°, 382' radius Climbing Lanes Above subdivision Below subdivision Slow Vehicle Turnout Below overlook Intersection Improvements Sunrise Compound Scenic Overlook 405.6 405.7 20° skew "T" intersection 2 skewed approaches Subdivision Access 408.8 10° skew "T" intersection Subdivision Access 409.0 Poorly defined "T" intersection Provide deceleration lanes and tapers Define approaches and provide driv e way and parking markings Provide 90° intersection with decelera tion lanes Provide 90 0 intersection with deceleration lanes Small Drainage Structures 404.75 - 411. 78 50 ± yeras old Replace as warranted Signing/Markings 404.75 - 411. 78 Current UDOT/MUTCD standards According to MUTCD Unstable, wet slide area Grading and udnerdrain installation Slide Area 407.2 - 407.3 BOT597/031 j � 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/28">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/28</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 2778659942 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2241248 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 Spot improvements list from July 22, 1987 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer to the Interdisciplinary Team on July 22, 1987 with an attached list of the potential spot improvements, mile posts, exisiting conditions and potential actions. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah)--History Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-07-22 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 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_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/f1b99e446ebd4a29ef8effa3a88c7e01.pdf e61f1f7142d5f498b55a3a09701ce4de PDF Text Text ClfMHlll. MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: August 6, 1987 RE: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.FO The 24th Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on July 31, 1987, at 1:30 p.m. at the UDOT district office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. Also enclosed for review is the following: o Corrected Figure 6-1 and Table 6-1 to be inserted as pages 6-8 and 6-9 in Chapter 6 Traffic Capacity Technical Memorandum. o Written comments on the Visual Technical Memorandum from Jack Spence. In the July 31 Id . ..-. Team Meeting, copies of Table 4 showing an initial evaluation of impacts of spot improve~ent alternatives were circulated. The Id. team members were invited to make their own evaluation and respond in writing by August 14. An additional category "X" was suggested to cover more severe impacts. Therefore in responding, please use the following categories. + o x BOT600/037 Generally favorable Insignificant or none Moderately unfavorable Severely unfavorable �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ID TEAM MEETING MINUTES July 31, 1987 ATTENDANCE Todd Weston/UDOT Howard Richardson/UDOT Lynn Zollinger/UDOT Jim Naegle/UDOT John Neil/UDOT Dave Baumgartner/USFS Clark Ostergaard/USFS Larry England/USF&WS Stan Nuffer/CH2M HILL Arlo Waddups/Valley Engineering Rudy Lukez/Sierra Club Steve Flint/Audubon Tom Lyon/Utah Wilderness Association Bill Helm/Unattached Duncan Silver/FHWA ITEM 1--REVIEW OF MINUTES May 18, 1987, minutes approved as distributed. June 22, 1987, minutes approved with one correction: Item 4, page 5 to mention conflict with existing forest plan. Duncan Silver requested that a complete summary file of minutes be circulated. ITEM 3--DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT (ISSUES AND CONCERNS) TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM This item was moved up on the agenda because we wanted Clark Ostergaard to arrive before we discussed Item 2. The reference to environmental groups in the second paragraph, page 2, is to be dropped. The Corps of Engineers needs to be involved in the delineation of wetlands. Additional documentation of emergency medical service was requested. A section on endangered species needs to be added to USF&WS list of concerns. The summary of Logan city comments should differentiate between mayor's and city council members' statements. Issues need to be identified independent of source. Summaries from Cache County, BRAG, and Chamber of Commerce need to be included in the agency responses. The forest plan needs to be 'clearly recognized. Any conflicts with it that exist in the alternatives should be identified. After considerable discussion, it was concluded that the issues and concerns should be grouped into five broad categories: o Scenic values o Safety and traffic flow o Ecological considerations--river, riparian areas, threatened and endangered species 1 �o Regional economics o Compliance with existing plans, specifically the forest plan Additional specific concerns that were mentioned in the scoping process included pedestrian traffic, recreation parking, bicyclists, road cross sections, economic impacts in Rich County, Rich County road maintenance, and mitigation difficulties. The issues discussion should possibly be moved to the front of the document. ITEM 2--VISUAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM FHWA versus USFS classification systems discussed. The FHWA system applies credit to improvements. The document adequately met the needs of both systems. The various alternatives need to address retention and document which visual categories can be mitigated. The impact on the affected areas must be put into perspective by identifying the number of acres total in each category out to an arbitrary line (30 feet from the roadway). Copy of Jack Spence's written comments is to be circulated to the team. ITEM 4--SPOT IMPROVEMENTS Raising of the road grade in selected areas needs to be included as a spot improvement. Stage construction may be a means for mitigation. Copies of Table 4, which shows a summary of positive, negative, or insignificant impacts of the spot improvements, was circulated. The table is a start toward identifying impacts; the team will respond in writing in 2 weeks with their own evaluation. A suggestion was made to mark with an "X" those impacts that cannot be mitigated. The . possible development of a second spot improvement alternative that is more limited in scope was discussed. We decided to go ahead with the evaluation of the full list and then see if it would be advisable to include more than one spot improvement alternative in the DEIS. Larry England reviewed the Macquire primrose biological assessment provided by Dr. Stanley Welsh. He indicated that the USF&WS does not completely concur with Welsh's conclusions. Other sites (outside the project area) have experienced a significant decline, apparently due to climatic conditions. The USF&WS would not like to see a passing lane in the area, but road widening would be acceptable. England would like to work with others involved in the process so a jeopardy opinion could be avoided. 2 �ITEM 5--ROAD USER BENEFIT AND COST COMPARISON The cost comparison memorandum was discussed briefly. A request was made for more information on cost background, and for an example of how the cost benefits were obtained. ADDITIONAL ITEMS An accident analysis for Logan Cave area and mile post 384 was circulated. The predominant accident type involved vehicles running off the road. Sketches of the various concepts for flattening the curve at Logan Cave were circulated. The sketches illustrate the concepts outlined in the Technical Memorandum Chapter 8, pages 8-9 and 8-10. Steve Flint pointed out a discrepancy in Figure 6-1 and Table 6-1 of the traffic capacity Technical Memorandum. Corrections will be circulated. Time of a future meeting was left open pending assessment of responses to the spot improvements evaluation, and additional comments on the technical memoranda. BOT606/008 3 �Table 6-1 HIGHWAY CHARACTERISTICS USED IN LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATIONS Traffic Direct Distrib ComEosition RVs Trucks (%) (% ) Percent Terrain Type Section MileEosts Length (mi) I 383.47 to 391.60 8.13 60/40 1 12.2 Rolling 83 11.0 1.0 2a 391.60 to 399.70 8.10 60/40 1 12.2 Rolling 61 11.50 1.5 2b 399.70 to 404.75 5.05 60/40 1 12.2 Mountain 56 11.50 1.5 3 404.75 to 411.78 7.03 60/40 1 12.2 Mountain 66 11.5 1.5 BOT606/009 0\ I ex> No Passing Lane Width --- Shoulder Width �BEAVER RICKS SPRING: LOWER TWIN BRIDGE LOGAN CAVE WOOD CAMP ~ CHINA ROW RIGHT FORK RANGER STATION FIGURE 6-1 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SJ~CTIONS BRIDGE LOGAN CANYON STUDY �,. \ RECEIVED VISUAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMO . : .. ,i~ '. "..J~-' . . . wl CH2M HJLl / SLC 1. An important consideration with respect to the extent of various impacts is the relative amount of area affected. This is particu- larly critical for riparian areas (visual sensitivity rating 6 or 7). For example, in alternative Cl, the total riparian area affected is estimated at 9.5 acres. This calculates to be a strip approxi- mately 9 feet wide for the entire middle section of the canyon, and agrees closely with the amount of riparian area affected by addition of a strip 8.5 feet wide to the highway (modified standard). Since the middle section is very narrow, all land between the road and the river is riparian (U.S.F.S. standard is anything less than 100 fee t ) . How mu c h in this alternative? 0 f the tot aIr i par ian z 0 new 0 u 1 d .b e a f f e c ted 50%? 75%? For alternative 0, 40 mph, it must approach 100%, since this calculates to be a strip 13.5 feet wide for the entire section. In order to evaluate the impact, an esti- mate .of the amount (%) of total riparian zone destroyed in each alternative needs to be given. 2. The t maps showing the area to be affected are somewhat misleading, since they indicate, e.g., riparian zone only exists where the R/7(6) symbol occurs. In fact, in the middle canyon, the entire area between the road and the river is riparian zone, and any widening of the road will affect it for the entire length of the section. This should be clarified for Cl, 01 alternatives. 3. No accounts is taken of the impact on visual resources for those using the canyon but not driving. Campers, fisherman, hikers, etc, not on the road may have their visual resources adversely affected �· \ by the various alternatives, but in a different manner than drivers. How is this to be evaluated? 4. Page 6. Evaluation Criteria. It is stated: "Roadsides with a 3-5 rating can absorb alternations, but will require major mitigation (retaining walls, bridges, etc)." It is hard to understand how a retaining wall or a bridge can mitigate the loss of naturalness. 5. The memo indicates all alterations in areas with a 6 or 7 sen- sitivity index (which includes all riparian zones) cannot meet the f. /\ VQO or Retention, which is required by the Forest Plan. These amount to a considerable amount of the total area affected, particularly in the middle canyon (35% for Cl; 34% for 01, 35 mph; 35% for 01, 40 mph), as well as parts of the upper canyon (Franklin Basin road to Beaver Mountain Road, Summit). however, as to how this C impas~ No indication is given, is to be solved. Clearly, this will require a revision of the Forest Plan for these alternatives, since such a large part of the total area will be affected. The implica- tions of this must be spelled out in the OEIS. This is a critical omission. t 6. The spot Improvement Alternative (B) appears to include all spot alternatives in the form originally proposed. There is no such alter- natives, since the number and extent of each improvement must be agreed upon. It must be made clear this alternative includes all spot improve- ments at the maximum level for each, and the final alternative will be for fewer and smaller improvements. As it now stands, there is little to differentiate Bl from Cl in the sections affected: the only difference is in the width of the road between improvements. ~o// (// � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/16">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/16</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2872464200 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 4315904 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from July 31, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from the 24th Interdisciplinary Team meeting on July 31, 1987 at UDOT district office in Ogden, Utah. Also included is a corrected Figure 6-1 for Traffic Capacity Technical Memorandum and labeled map, and written comments on Visual Technical Memorandum from Jack Spence which includes a section on spot improvements. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource England, Larry Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-08-06 1987-07-31 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd2_Page_3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/0f9a25b85877ee921aad39990f04bca7.pdf a41a39509bdd9a32c42ef0a39c914199 PDF Text Text MEETING NOTICE A public meeting regarding the u.s. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon improvement study will be held Tuesday, September 23, at 7:30 p.m. in Logan City Hall. The Utah Department of Transportation and its engineering consultant for the project , CH2M HILL, will present the data and findings from the first task of this study, the determination of transportation needs for the segment of the highway between Right Fork and Garden City. Preliminary findings of public concerns and environmental issues regarding road improvements in ' the canyon will also be reported. and comments will be entertained. Questions A fact sheet is being prepared for the public on the project mailing list. Contact: Cliff Forsgren or Margaret Johnson CH2M HILL 363-0200 � 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/43">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/43</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 2100321693 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 392203 Bytes Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound MEETING NOTICE A public meeting regarding the u.s. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon improvement study will be held Tuesday, September 23, at 7:30 p.m. in Logan City Hall. The Utah Department of Transportation and its engineering consultant for the project , CH2M HILL, will present the data and findings from the first task of this study, the determinaå_tion of transportation needs for the segment of the highway between Right Fork and Garden City. Preliminary findings of public concerns and environmental issues regarding road improvements in 'the canyon will also be reported. Questions and comments will be entertained. A fact sheet is being prepared for the public on the project mailing list. Contact: Cliff Forsgren or Margaret Johnson CH2M HILL 363-0200 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 Highway 89 improvement study meeting notice (2 of 2) Description An account of the resource Notice for a public meeting regarding Highway 89 improvements in Logan Canyon, 1980's Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Forsgren, Cliff Johnson, Margaret Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--History Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon--History Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Press releases Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985-1989 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Cache County, Utah, United States) Utah United States United States Highway 89 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, COLL MSS 133 Box 10, Folder 7 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/xv07669">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669</a> Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives 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 USU_MSS133Bx10_Item_3.pdf Highway 89 Improvement studies Meeting Notice Press release https://highway89.org/files/original/dfa981976f28267ccfd6ffa5232880e7.pdf 38b8834b8a8561e4a00bc75849639670 PDF Text Text MEETING NOTICE ~ public meeting regarding the improvement study for U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon will be held Monday Novem- ~ighway ber 3, at 7:30 p.m. in Garden City Hall in Garden City, Utah. The Utah Department of Transportation and its engi- neering consultant for the project, CH2M HILL, will present the data and findings from the first task of this study and the determination of transportation needs for the segment of the highway between Right Fork and Garden City. Preliminary findings of public concerns and environmental issues regarding road improvements in the Canyon and alternative alignments from the Bear Lake Summit to Garden City will also be reported. Questions and comments will be entertained. A fact sheet is being prepared for the public on the project mailing list. This meeting will cover essentially the same areas that were covered in the public meeting held on September 23 at the Logan City Hall. Contact: Cliff Forsgren CH2M HILL 363-0200 SLC88/06 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/2">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/2</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 3666797796 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 448226 Bytes Transcription Any written text transcribed from a sound MEETING NOTICE ~ public meeting regarding the improvement study for U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon will be held Monday November 3, at 7:30 p.m. in Garden City Hall in Garden City, Utah. The Utah Department of Transportation and its engiå_neering consultant for the project, CH2M HILL, will present the data and findings from the first task of this study and the determination of transportation needs for the segment of the highway between Right Fork and Garden City. Preliminary findings of public concerns and environmental issues regarding road improvements in the Canyon and alternative alignå_ments from the Bear Lake Summit to Garden City will also be reported. Questions and comments will be entertained. A fact sheet is being prepared for the public on the project mailing list. This meeting will cover essentially the same areas that were covered in the public meeting held on September 23 at the Logan City Hall. Contact: Cliff Forsgren CH2M HILL 363-0200 SLC88/06 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 Highway 89 improvement study meeting notice (1 of 2) Description An account of the resource Notice for a public meeting regarding Highway 89 improvements in Logan Canyon, 1980's Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Forsgren, Cliff Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah)--History Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon--History Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Press releases Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1985-1989 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Cache County, Utah, United States) Utah United States United States Highway 89 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, COLL MSS 133 Box 10, Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv07669</a> Rights Holder A person or organization owning or managing rights over the resource. Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives 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 USU_MSS133Bx10_Item_1.pdf Highway 89 Improvement studies Meeting Notice Press release