1 50 47 https://highway89.org/files/original/c0836952b4784e44f7f851bdc330fbaf.pdf 6f806d2fe0aee220e103a14b6ed8a4ef PDF Text Text After reading local newspaper reports of the 1987 Logan Canyon Highway scoping meetings, I noticed assumptions were made on the part of some groups that the majority of local residents were opposed to any extensive modifications to the highway. In talking with a number of Logan City residents, I received conflicting reports and strong indications that many Logan City voters did not agree with those assumptions and that the scoping meetings were not a true barometer of local feelings. In fact, some felt that the scoping meetings reflected a stacked deck in favor of the opposing viewpoint. At the urging of a number of local residents, I decided to find out for myself by conducting a telephone opinion survey of Logan City voters who voted in the 1987 elections. draft of the ques~ionnaire Although it wasn't intended to be mailed out, the first was sent by Cache County Chamber of Commerce leaders to chamber members and returns were tabulated and results presented to that organization. After the questionnaire was criticized by the local newspaper(particularly one writer) as being biased, I contacted a former Utah State University Sociology Professor, Dr. William DeHart, who had considerable experience with survey questions and format, to review the questionnaire and assist me in eliminating or reducing possible bias. I spent a number of sessions with him in fine tuning the questionnaire before I conducted the telephone opinion survey. I also discussed the questionnaire with Dr. Steven Daniels, formerly of the Department of Forestry at USU, who offered some valuable suggestions. It seemed ironic to me that the local newspaper should accuse me of bias when they, themselves are guilty of incredible one-sided, biased reporting on the highway issue. I guess one should always first identify the color of the snake in the grass before striding too far. After obtaining a list of Logan City residents who voted in the 1987 elections, I randomly sampled 208 voters by personally telephoning them and asking the survey questions. I chose to personally telephone participants to reduce bias and to ensure consistency. I did not solicit any additional responses although many expressed appreciation for the contact and offered additional opinions. Of those who offered additional opinions, I asked if they had attended any of the Logan Canyon Highway scoping meetings. affirmative. Their reasons for not attending ranged from "I don't like to argue" to "a lack of time" or "conflict in schedule". would listen anyway". syndrome". Not one answered in the Some were concerned that "no one I consider this a clear example of "the silent majority In retrospect, they have only themselves to blame if the opposing viewpoint receives credibility. My feeling is that this group of people does not write letters to the editor, tends to avoid controversy and does not like to attend meetings, yet many have strong opinions about important issues and appear to exercise their voting privilege. Perhaps that's why politicians who consistently campaign door-to-door and contact this group of people tend to get elected. �-2Some of the more often expressed comments included: * I would like to see the road widened to include shoulders so that a vehicle could be stopped completely off the road in the event of an emergency(flat tire, stalled vehicle, etc.). This is especially a problem in the middle section of the canyon between Right Hand Fork and Ricks Springs where shoulders are extremely narrow or nonexistent. To increase enforcement of the current speed limit would create a safety hazard unless shoulders were widened to permit a vehicle to stop completely off the road. * Straightening some curves in the middle section of the canyon would not necessarily increase speed but would contribute to a more even speed and flow of traffic. * As important as the environment is, there are other issues of equal or greater importance including highway safety, snow removal, access to recreation areas (Beaver Mountain, Jackson Hole, Yellowstone Park, Bear Lake, etc.), maximum utilization of the canyon, emergency vehicle and hospital access for Bear Lake Valley residents, and economic development potential by providing Bear Lake Valley residents and beyond better access to local merchants. * There have been enough studies of Logan Canyon Highway. The money spent could be better utilized in making needed modifications. According to UDOT engineers, there have been two environmental studies of the highway since 1975 modifications were completed. Approximately $50,000 was funded in 1978 to conduct an environmental assessment to continue modifications from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Springs. The current study, started in 1986, is a full environmental impact statement and has cost approximately $620,000 to this point. Recently, an additional $86,000 was appropriated to finish the study. More money will have to be allocated to publish the final document. It's interesting to note that the reconstruction of a two-lane highway based on 1975 dollars would cost about $500,000/mile and about $l,OOO,OOO/mile using 1988 dollars. These figures are according to the March 88 issue of Engineering News Record(ENR). According to UDOT, the Summer average daily traffic(ADT)in the canyon is about 3500 vehicles and peaks at about 500 vehicles per hour. The Winter ADT is about 1800 vehicles. * I'm tired of a few pseudoexperts using strong-arm tactics to impose their will upon the majority. We have the organization and the structure in-place in the form of unOT and their consultants to consider all issues including the environment and highway safety and design. Let's use the existing structure and rely on the real experts who are being paid out of tax dollars and get out of their way so they can do their job. I took the time to examine the background and expertise of the UDOT personnel assigned to the Logan Canyon Highway project. Everyone of them have significant training and experience in environmental planning and highway safety and design. * Acceleration and deceleration lanes would be useful at major campgrounds and access roads such as Spring Hollow, Malibu/Guinavah, Temple Fork, Right Hand Fork, Wood Camp, etc. * All you need to do is drive Logan Canyon and you're immediately brought to the reality of the hazards and of taking your life in your own hands. * Let's fix the highway so it's safe to drive and quit worrying about having to transplant a few flowers and trees. While a four-lane highway through Logan Canyon is neither appropriate nor necessary, extensive modifications are needed. �-3- * Although a minority, Cache Valley groups opposed to highway modifications are a well organized and extremely vocal coalition. They are living proof that the squeeky wheel gets the grease. But in the same vein, let's not forget that the empty wagon rattles the most. I approached the CPA firm of Hancey, Jones and Wright and asked if they would compile the statistical information for the survey. They offered to do that as a public service and are here today to make the presentation to the Municipal Council. I also contacted Dan Jones who explained that he samples about 6% in his opinion polls with excellent results. I sampled about 6% of the population in my opinion survey. With that report, I'd like to ask Gary Jones and Carl Law of Hancey, Jones and Wright to give the summary report of the survey. � 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/1">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1</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 1216771242 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1872988 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 Report on Highway 89 Description An account of the resource A three page typed report investigating the popular opinion of the proposed changes in Logan Canyon on Highway 89. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Duersch, Fred, Jr. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Public Lands--Utah--Logan Canyon Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Logan (Utah) Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 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 45 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/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 MSS133Bx45Fd8_Item 3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/8e54cde9a729b8bcbee7bbf269c14697.pdf 78fd32fdb85006ad28f271c80d121feb PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING November 3, 1986 ( Attendance " : Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren,CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Clark Ostergarrd, USFS Dave Baumgartner, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Duncan Silver, FHWA John Neil, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Jim Naegle, UDOT Steve Flint, Audubon Assoc. Jack Spence, Sierra Club Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club Wendell Anderson - Visitor Willis Tingey - Visitor Item 1 - Review of Minutes ( Stan Nuffer lead the discussion on the minutes of the last team meeting. The only item brought up related to the Safety Tech memo. Jack Spence suggested that it would be better to state that some locations along the highway had higher than average accident rates rather than higher than expected accident rates, since there was really no way of determining expected accident rates. Jack also had a suggestion on Table 10. If the level of confidence was going to be included as part of the table, there should be some explanation of what it meant. Steve Flint asked that the number of fatalities be included on Table 8, along with the number of fatal accidents. There was no other discussion on the minutes of the previous meeting. Item 2 - Discussion of Alternate Routes (to Logan Canyon) John Neil reported on his study of alternate routes from Logan to Bear Lake. He had invited Mr. Wendell Anderson and Mr. Willis Tingey to report on a study that they had made on the possibility of a route through Blacksmith Fork Canyon. The study was conducted at the request of former Governor Clyde. It was pointed out that a route from Logan to Sage Junction through Blacksmith Fork Canyon was 8 to 10 miles shorter and the maximum elevation was 500 feet lower than the existing route through Logan Canyon. Both Mr. Anderson and Mr. Tingey felt that Logan Canyon would not be able to handle all of the traffic that it would be asked to handle and that an alternate route should be considered. 1 �John Neil reported that UDOT planners had told him that the simplest way to develop an alternate route would be to develop some additional recreational areas that needed the access. The construction cost of an alternate route was estimated at $1.5 to $2.0 million per mile. Lynn Zollinger agreed that Logan Canyon will not be able to carryall of the traffic that will ultimately travel between Bear Lake and the Wasatch Front. However it has not been determined how much more, if any, traffic Logan Canyon can handle before the impacts become unacceptable. Lynn suggested that there not be any more consideration of alternate routes, at least until it has been determined that there will be need for more capacity than Logan Canyon can carry. Jack Spence agreed with Lynn, there did not seem to be the need for additional capacity at the present and that study of alternate routes was not warranted. If it was determined that there was major action of the same scale required in Logan Canyon then the examination of alternate routes would be warranted. Other discussion about the Blacksmith Fork alternate involved possible environmental problems with the River, Hardware Ranch and the lack of room in Left Hand Fork. It was decided that this discussion would be summarized for the record in a memo and action to be taken at the next meeting. ( Item 3 - Discussion of Goals and Objectives Tech Memo Stan Nuffer lead the discussion of the overall goals and objectives that had been presented in a draft technical memorandum at the last ID team meeting. The first topic · was the minimum speed that the "baseline" alternative would be designed for. There was some question about a 35 mph mini, mum in the lower part of the canyon. Fred LaBar said that a 40 mph minimum speed had been considered before in that section and had been found to be acceptable. Jim Naegle asked if the modified standard section had been used in the previous study. Some thought that it had but none were certain. Duncan Silver suggested that copies of the 1979 proposal and analysis be distributed to members of the ID team so that the team had an opportunity to review the past work and decide whether the past study was still valid. This approach would be better than just rubber stamping a study that most on the team were not familiar with. It was also suggested that the AASHTO recommended minimums be included in the table on page 3 of the memo. Rudy Lukes asked where there would be minimum speeds greater than 40 mgh. Stan Nuffer said that in some areas the posted speed is currently 55 mph and that he thought we could maintain that speed in those areas. 2 �( There was also some discussion on what "minimum" meant. Some expressed concern that the minimum set now would be absolute regardless of other consequences. Stan explained that in order to establish roadway features (curves, etc.) minimum speeds needed to be set. If the impacts of designing a roadway for one "minimum" are unacceptable then a new "minimum" speed would be required. Minimum speeds are not meant to be fixed at the beginning of the study and then not redefined if needed. The technical memo illustrated standard sections and modified standard sections for 40 mph. It was suggested that sections for 35 and 55 mph also be included. Steve Flint expressed concern that delineators would make parking areas unuseable. Duncan Silver said that the need for parking should be evaluated and planned for where needed. Rudy Lukes wondered if the dugway was really a good place to consider a climbing lane. Duncan Silver said that there should be an inventory of the needs for climbing lanes before looking at possible locations. To conduct the inventory the team should: 1. Establish criteria for the selection of possible locations. 2. Identify those sections which may meet the criteria. 3. Identify the possible environmental constraints at those sites. Slow vehicle turnouts were also discussed. Lynn Zollinger indicated that the turnouts need to be placed where those using the turnouts will have a good view of the roadway in order to safely get out of and back into the traffic. The final item on the goals and objectives memo was a suggestion to add a section on the need for recreational parking. Fred LaBar said that the Forest Service could help identify where recreational parking was needed. Item 4 - Alternate Alignments from the Summit to Garden City Stan Nuffer said that the Archeologist was preparing an alternate alignments survey. 3 �- Item 5 - Preview of Garden City Public Meeting Presentation ( Cliff Forsgren previewed the slide presentation which was to be used to introduce the project to those who attended the meeting in Garden City. SLC-STN/03 4 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/7">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/7</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 773442565 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2464336 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from November 3, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from November 3, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, discussion of alternate routes to Logan Canyon, discussion of goals and objectives tech memo, alternate alignments from the summit to Garden City, and a preview of Garden City public meeting presentation. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource LaBar, Fred Ostergard, Clark Baumgartner, Dave Larson, Gale Silver, Duncan Neil, John Zollinger, Lynn Naegle, Jim Flint, Steve Spence, Jack Lukez, Rudy Anderson, Wendell Tingey, Willis Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roads--Design and construction Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-11-03 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd2_Page_12.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/8ca5b92e3b38014f4d3d3345e7729f9e.pdf f50cd3b91e60d1c467a1a3c951d44d32 PDF Text Text f ' MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: August 7, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The fourth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on July 28, 1986, at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review. Also enclosed is a draft traffic forecast technical memorandum. The next meeting will be held on August 11, 1986, at 7 p.m., also at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of July 28 meeting 2. Preview of draft traffic forecast technical memorandum 3. Review of manual traffic counts taken on July 19 and August 2 4. Review of draft maintenance technical memorandum 5. Review of accident data Future ' meeting schedule: August 25 September 8 September 22 October 6 BOC4/085 SLC82/d.201 ( 3 p.m. , 3 p.m. , 7 p.m. , 3 p.m. , District District District District office office office office � 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/10">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/10</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 1523339101 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 462950 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 Cover letter for August 7, 1986 minutes Description An account of the resource A cover letter from Stan Nuffer to the Interdisciplinary Team summarizing the minutes from the previous meeting and the schedule for subsequent meetings. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-08-07 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_16.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/b970ed308bcc7e4a95a0522e3180277b.pdf 486468370315d658c3d043b6e3b7cf25 PDF Text Text MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: February 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The Sixteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on January 26, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on Monday, February 17, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of January 26 meeting. 2. Outline of public presentation for scoping meetings to be held March 3 and 4. 3. Revi~w 4. Continued discussion of alternatives. of notice of int~nt, legal notice, letter to agencies, and fact sheet. Future meeting schedule: March 9 March 30 April 20 SLC91/d.ll0l - 3:00 p.m., Brigham City Hall - 3:00 p.m., District Office - 7:00 p.m., District Office �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING :January 27; 1987 Attendance: Sheldon Barker, CH2M HILL Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Tom Haislip, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Clark Ostergaard, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Duncan Silver, FHWA Jim Naegle, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Howard Richardson, UDOT Steve Flint, Audobon Assoc. Bill Helm, Item 1 - Review of Minutes There were no conunents on the minutes of the previous meeting. Steve Flint expressed concern over the traffic forecast and felt that an exponential forecast is not statistically supportable from the traffic data for the Logan Canyon stations shown in the ·technical memorandum. He was also concerned that level of service projections based on that growth rate would be misleading. He suggested a time series analysis and using data as far back as available. Stan Nuffer reviewed the methods and assumptions used when the technical memorandum was presented and accepted by the I.D. Team in August 1986. In the original analysis, we had looked at a number of areas to forecast growth including traffic data for a number of highways including stations on u.S. 89 outside of the Canyon. Also data from regional economic and local land use forecasting was used, which forecast a growth rate in the 2 percent range. All of these sources of data were used to arrive at the proposed rate. Concern has been expressed that the 2 percent rate was too low when compared against projections made by UDOT in the past. After considerable discussion, a motion was passed with one negative vote to retain at 2 percent (l.9S) experimental growth rate. Stan agreed to look at what effect differences in the projected ADT would have in capacity determinations. Steve also suggested that Section 2 be broken into two subsections, for capacity analysis which will be considered. The assumption for one percent buses in the traffic needs to be supported by data or dropped. Lynn Zollinger suggested we check with Idaho and Wyoming on what projections they are using. 1 �Duncan Silver a.sked what process will be used in determining visual impacts, and if there are any rules or guidelines that can be followed. Clark Ostergaard said that the existing analysis shows what is · there and what should be preserved. Each area will have to be handled on a case-by-case basis for each of the alternatives. Mitigation measures may be possible in some areas. Due to the length of discussion on the above items, agenda items 2 and 3 were passed over. Items 2 and 3 Time was not available to review in the meeting. bers encouraged to read the material. Team mem- Item 4 - Continued Discussion of Alternatives Stan distributed a revised copy of the component and alternative development matrix showing the elimination of some alternates and modification of components in other. After considerable discussion the following alternates were agreed upon: Middle Canyon Alt Alt Alt Alt 1 2 3 4 No build Spot improvements Widen along existing alignment Widen and improve align to 40 mph with advising 35 mph design where necessary Upper Canyon Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 4 No build Spot improvements Widen and improve existing alignment to 60 mph with lower advisory design speed where necessary Rich County Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 4 Alt 6 No build Spot improvements Widen and improve existing alignment to 40 mph with lower advisory design speed where necessary New north alignment with 40 mph basic but look at 50 mph if possible Spot improvements should be defined by location and improvement. 2 �Fred LaBar was skeptical that a uniform 40 mph design in the middle Canyon would ever be acceptable to the Forest Service. SLC-STN/03 3 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/11">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/11</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 2279681717 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2032325 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from January 26, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource A memo from Stan Nuffer detailing the minutes from the Interdisciplinary Team meeting from January 26, 1987. Reviewed previous meeting's minutes and discussed alternatives. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1905-06-09 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 1 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd1_Page_11.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/f58ea00558b0fdddfb2b0744c5cee141.pdf 041f793de58a725edf01b37f4d6568aa PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON STUDY INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM Study Team Members Phone Office/Home Mailing Address Stan Nuffer CH2M HILL (801) 363-0200 (208) 375-4710 P.O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah Commission Representative Todd Weston Utah Dept. of Trans. (80l) 752-6625 (801) 752-5442 285 Temple View Drive Logan, Utah 84321 Highway Preconstruction Engineer Lynn Zollinger Utah Dept. of Trans. (801) 399-5921 P.O. Box 2747 Ogden, Utah 84404 Environmental Engineer John Neil Utah Dept. of Trans. (801) 965-4227 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Stan Nuffer CH2M HILL (801) 363-0200 (208) 375-4710 P.O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Recreation Fred Labar USFS, Logan (801) 753-2772 P.O. Box 448 Logan, Utah 84321 Geotechnical Allan Stilley North. Engr. & Test. (801) 298-9314 P.O. Box 281 North Salt Lake, Utah Sheldon Barker CH2M HILL (801) 363-0200 . Representat1ve a 0 f t h e Environmental Community Jack Spence Sierra Club (801) 750-1626 P.O. Box 3580 ~ogan, Utah 84321 Landscape Architecture Clark Ostergaard Wasatch/Cache N.F. (801) 524-5030 125 South State Salt Lake City, Utah Fisheries Biologist Mark Shaw Wasatch/Cache N.F. (801) 524-5030 125 South State Salt Lake City, Utah Ex-Officio Duncan Silver FHWA (801) 524-5141 Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 11563 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147 Team Leader Transportation Planning Public Involvement P.O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 84054 84101 �aAlternate Environmental Cornmun~ty Representatives Sierra Club Rudy Lukez (801) 863-3702 (801) 753-5568 Utah Wilderness Association Torn Lyon (801) 750-1603 Bridgerland Audubon Assoc. StevF! Flint Unattached Bill Helm Other Key Members of Consultant Team Principal in Charge (801) 752-2667 -"- John D'Amico (303 ) 771-0900 ~~fV\ \ l\..'...:. Environmental Torn Haislip \::\4,~M Environmental Planning (801) 363-0200 \;ll'-.L Mark Hill C\~).fV\ \~ '\.L (801) 363-0200 Margaret Johnson (801) 363-0200 \:: 1:\").1'V\ P.O. Box 3580 Logan, Utah 84321 Bl\..L P. O. Box 22508 Denver, Colorado 80222 P. O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 P. O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 P. O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 P.O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Cliff Forsgren U' LL (801) 363-0200 Gale Larson Valley Engineering Inc. (801) 753-0153 168 North 100 East Logan, Utah 84321 Walt Jones North. Engr. & Test. (801) 298-9314 P. O. Box 281 North Salt Lake, Utah Jim Kuenzli (801) 298-9314 C'~~JV\ Geotechnical '-~~N\.. ~'LL- Hydraulics BOT538/002 Arlo Waddups Valley Engineering Inc. (801) 753-0153 P.o. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah 168 North 100 East Logan, Utah 84321 84054 84101 � 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/12">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/12</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 3930385018 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1015325 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Logan Canyon Study interdisciplinary team Description An account of the resource A list of the interdisciplinary team for the Logan Canyon study. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970-1989 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, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 1 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd1_Item_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/35879ca4c8baffe03362f2eac3da7293.pdf 1eff64f0d7c823f37dd8eea6894b8f52 PDF Text Text AGENDA ( US 89 - LOGAN CANYON PUBLIC MEETING #1 Tuesday, September 23, 7:30 p.m. Logan City Hall Utah Department of Transportation CH2M HILL - Consulting Engineer 1. Welcome - Introduction of Participants 2. Project Background - Purpose of Meeting 3. Presentation of Transportation Needs Data and Findings a. Existing Roadway Conditions b. Safety c. Maintenance d. Traffic Characteristics e. Roadway Capacity f. Conclusions 4. Environmental Concerns - Preliminary Findings 5. Public Questions and Answers 6. Future Tasks and Public Involvement Opportunities �CHMHILL MEHORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: October 1, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The eighth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on September 22, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden. The next meeting will be held on October 6, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be as follows: 1. 2• 3. ( 4. Review minutes of September 2 2 meeting. Review of Public Information meeting and comments received since the meeting. Review material prepared by Clark Ostergard describing the important visual considerations in the Canyon. Discuss possible public meeting in Garden City area. Future meeting schedule: October 6 October 20 November 3 November ]7 SLC-STAN/07 3 p.m. , 3 p.m. , 7 p.m. , 3 p.m. , District Office Brigham City Hall District Office District Office �CHMHlll MEMORANDUM ( TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: October 28, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The tenth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on October 20, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the Brigham City Hall. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on November 3, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the U.S. Forest Service's Logan Ranger District office in Logan, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of October 20 meeting. 2. Report on study of alternatives to Logan Canyon for through traffic - , John Neil, UDOT. 3. Continue discussion of goals and objectives for component and alternative development. Criteria for design speed and typical section enclosed in draft Technical Memorandum. 4. Outline of criteria for development of slow-moving vehicle turnouts and climbing lanes. Criteria enclosed in draft Technical Memorandum. 5. Status report on development of alternate alignments from Bear Lake 'S ummit to Garden City. 6. Review presentation for the Graden City public information meeting, to be held at 7:30 p.m. November 3. 7. Catered dinner will be brought in at 5:30 p.m. to enable timely departure to Garden City at 6:00 p.m. Future meeting schedule: November 17 December 8 December 22 January 11 SLC-STAN/07 7 3 3 3 p.m., p.m., p.m., p.m., District Office District Office Brigham City Hall District Office �CHMHlll MEMORANDUM ( TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: November 12, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The eleventh Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on November 3, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the U.S. Forest Service Logan Ranger District Office in Logan, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on November 17, 1986 at 7 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. 2. ( Review minutes of November 3 meeting. Discussion and action on alternatives to Logan Canyon for through traffic. Memorandum enclosed. 3. Discussion of issues and concerns resulting from the public involvement program. Draft Technical Memorandum enclosed. 4. Outline of schedule for completing the scoping process. 5. Review of inventory of existing roadside parking areas. 6. Areas within Canyon meeting criteria for climbing lanes. 7. Introduction of layouts of component for widening and improving the existing alignment from Right Fork to Ricks Spring. Future meeting schedule: December 8 December 22 January 11 January 25 SLC-STAN/07 3 3 3 7 p.m., p.m., p.m., p.m., District Office Brigham City Hall District Office District Office �INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING December 8, 1986 ADDITIONAL DATA FOR AGENDA ITEMS AGENDA ITEM NO.: 2. Public Involvement - Transcript of public comments received at the Logan meeting on September 23 and the Garden City Meeting on November 3. Copies of written comments received to date since September 23. Copies of summaries of written and verbal comments. 4. Copies of revised "Landscape Management" for roadsides in Logan Canyon. SLC90/09 ( ( ) �CNMHlll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: December 18, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The Thirteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on December 8, 1986 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on December 22, 1986 at 3:00 p.m. at the Brigham City Hall, Brigham City, Utah. agenda will be as follows: The 1. Review minutes of December 8 meeting. ·2. Follow up discussion of visual impacts in the middle canyon 3. Fred LaBar presentation of the recreation plan. 4. Mark Hill presentation of a summary outline of acquatic resources. 5. Tom Haislip review schedule for completing the environmental technical memorandum. Future meeting schedule: . January 12 January 26 February 9 February 23 SLC91/d.1101 - 3:00 7:00 3:00 3:00 p.m., p.m., p.m., p.m., District Office District Office District Office Brigham City Hall �/ AGENDA - LOGAN CANYON STUDY INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY TEAM MEETING NO. 3 - OGDEN, UTAH July 14, 1986 - 3:00 p.m. 1. Review minutes of June 23, meeting. a. Revised outline of role of Interdisciplinary Team b. Revised outline of Public Involvement Plan 2. Discussion of traffic counting and forecasting. 3. Outline of transportation needs analysis. SLC77/59a ( �l MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: July 24, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The third interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on July 14, 1986 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review. The next meeting will be held on July 28, at 3:00 p.m. also at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be as follows: Review minutes of July 14, meeting. ,/ Traffic count data at various permanent stations. Presentation of proposed traffic forecasts. Discussion of highway capacity and level of service determination. Review of accident data. Update on status of Base Map preparation. Future Meeting Schedule: - August 11 August 25 September 8 September 22 SLC77/59a 7:00 3:00 3:00 7:00 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. District District District District Office office office office �MEMORANDUM ( TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: August 7, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The fourth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on July 28, 1986, at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review. Also enclosed is a draft traffic forecast technical memorandum. The next meeting will be held on August 11, 1986, at 7 p.m., also at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be as follows: Review minutes of July 28 meeting Preview of draft traffic forecast technical memorandum Review of manual traffic counts taken on July 19 and August 2 ~~ Review of draft maintenance technical memorandum ~ Review of accident data Future meeting schedule: August 25 September 8 September 22 October 6 BOC4/085 SLC82/d.201 3 p.m. , 3 p.m. , 7 p.m. , 3 p. m. , District District District District office office office office �MEMORANDUM ( TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: August 21, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The fifth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on August 11, 1986 at 7 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. The next meeting will be held on August 25, 1986, at 3 p.m., also at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be as follows: 1. 2. ( Review minutes of August 11 meeting Continued discussion of draft traffic forecast technical memorandum 3. Review of manual traffic counts 4. Review of existing roadway design features Future meeting schedule: September 8 September 22 October 6 October 20 SLC82/d.201 3 7 3 3 p.m., p.m., p.m., p.m., District District District Disctict office office office Office �MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: September 4, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The Sixth Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on August 25, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. The next meeting will be held on September 8, 1986, at 3 p.m., at the Brigham City Hall, 20 North Main Street. The agenda will be as follows: 1. 2. ( Review minutes of August 25 meeting Review of traffic accident data 3. Set date for first. general public information meeting. Review of presentation format and discussion of issues Future meeting schedule: September 22 October 6 October 20 November 3 SLC82/d.201 7 p.m. , 3 p.m. , 3 p.m. , 7 p.m. , District District Disctict District Office Office Office Office �MEMORANDUM ( TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: November 26, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The Twelfth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on November 17, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on December 8, 1986 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of November 17 meeting. 2. Continued discussion of issues and concerns resulting from the public involvement program. 3. Discussion of schedule for completing the scoping process. 4. Update of visual classification by Clark Ostergaard, USFS. 5. Introduction of layouts of component for widening and improving the existing alignment from Ricks Spring to Garden City. NOTE: Preview at 2:30 p.m. of a computer simulation technique for depicting topographic modifications by John Ellsworth, Landscape Architect at USU. All those interested are invited to attend. Future meeting schedule: December 22 January 12 January 26 February 9 BOC3/106 SLC91/d.ll0l - 3:00 3:00 7:00 3:00 p.m., p.m., p.m., p.m., Brigham City Hall District Office District Office District Office �OfMHlll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: September 17, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The seventh Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on September 8, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the Brigham City Hall in Brigham City, Utah. Enclosed are the meeting minutes for your review. Also enclosed are draft technical memorandums on traffic characteristics and traffic capacity. Please review these memorandums prior to the meeting because we will have a lot of material to cover. The next meeting will be held on September 22, 1986 at 3 p.m. at the UDOT District office. The agenda will be · as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Review minutes of September 8 meeting. Discussion of traffic characteristics memorandum. Discussion of traffic capacity memorandum. Review and discussion of presentation for the first public information meeting scheduled for September 23, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. at the Logan City Hall. Discuss possible public information meeting in Garden City. Future meeting schedule: October 6 October 20 November 3 November 17 SLC-STAN/07 3 p.m. , District Office 3 p.m. , Brigham City Hall 3 p.m. , District Office 3 p.m. , District Office � 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/19">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/19</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 370649004 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 5982366 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Agenda and memorandums, July - December 1986 Description An account of the resource Ten memorandum cover pages from Stan Nuffer summarizing the minutes from the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th Interdisciplinary Team meetings. Also three agendas for public meeting No. 1 in Logan City Hall, additional data for agenda, and agenda meeting No. 3 in Ogden, Utah. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah)--History Logan Canyon Study Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Utah Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-09-23 1986-09-22 1986-10-20 1986-11-03 1986-12-08 1986-07-14 1986-07-28 1986-08-11 1986-08-25 1986-11-17 1986-09-08 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Logan (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Weber 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_18.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/c418c82adb9c84052cf8bd4121c949a0.pdf 029b4dc1e74a22b4cdf6c6d6b5a3fc40 PDF Text Text MEMORANDUH TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: March 5, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The seventeenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on February 17, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on Monday, March 9, 1987 at 3:00 p.m . . at the Brigham City Hall in Brigham City, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of February 17 meeting. 2. Additional discussion on the Maguire Primrose by John L. England. 3. Discuss results of scoping meetings. 4. Discussion of possible Interdisciplinary Team membership expansion. 5. Discuss possible day-long work session in Canyon as next Interdisciplinary Team meeting. 6. Continued discussion of traffic projections. Future meeting schedule: March 30 April 20 SLC-STN/26 - 3:00 p.m., District Office (see item 5 above) - 7:00 p.m., District Office � 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/25">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/25</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 3364022553 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 471311 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 Cover letter for the minutes from February 17, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource A memo from Stan Nuffer detailing the minutes from the Interdisciplinary Team meeting from February 17, 1987. (See also Item 13 in folder). Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-03-05 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 1 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd1_Page_12.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/7907d0f640645118daad16ec547eb14c.pdf a70f5e36308c093cec084cfb9500c651 PDF Text Text CHMHlll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: July 22, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.FO The 23rd Interdisciplinary Team meeting was held on June 22, 1987, at 1:30 p.m. at the Brigham City Hall in Brigham City, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. Also enclosed for review is the following: o Public and Agency Involvement Technical Memorandum including issues and concerns from scoping process o Technical Memoranda, Chapters 1 through 8--final draft, incorporating suggested changes from previous revie\v o Road user benefit/cost comparison--first draft, Chapter 9--bound with Chapters 1 through 8 o Spot Improvement memorandum The next meeting will be held on Friday July 31, at 1:30 p.m. at the UDOT district office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follo\vs: 1. Review minutes of May 18 and June 22 meetings. minutes 2. Visual Resources Technical Memorandum. 3. Issues and Concerns Technical Memorandum. 4. Spot improvements alternative discussion, including accident report summary for Logan Cave. Fifty minutes 5. Chapter 9, Road User Benefit--Costs Comparison. minutes 6. Supplement to the Noise Technical Memorandum. Neil--Ten minutes BOT600/026 Ten Fifty minutes Fifty minutes Thirty John �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ID TEAM MEETING MINUTES June 22, 1987 ATTENDANCE: Steve Flint, Audubon Society Rudy Lukes, Sierra Club Fred LaBar, USFS Torn Lyon, Utah Wilderness Association Bill Helm, Unattached Jim Naegle, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Lynn Foster, CH2M HILL Larry Martin, CH2M HILL ITEM l--REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes of the May 18 meeting were not reviewed. GENERAL DISCUSSION The first item of business discussed was a memorandum to the ID Team from "Conservation Representatives" appearing under the letterhead of the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon. The memorandum was requested to be entered into the minutes of the meeting and was discussed at length as follo~vs : 1. Issues Identification--The main concern was that a list of issues, concerns, or alternatives developed from the scoping process has not yet been presented to the ID Team. Response--Summaries of the two scoping meetings and a partial summary of the written comments have been distributed previously. A tabular summary of the scoping meetings and written responses was distributed during the meeting; it will be used to provide a technical memorandum summarizing the scoping process. 2. Chapter 8, Alternatives--The main concern was that the various alternatives presented in Chapter 8 are not properly analyzed with regard to possible impacts and mitigations as presented in other technical memoranda and reports. 2 �Response--Chapter 8 as submitted was 'a description of the alternatives, and was not intended to be the complete presentation of impacts and mitigation. Any environmental conclusions included in the chapter were very general and it was agreed in the later detailed discussion of Chapter 8 to delete the summary sections, and let Chapter 8 stand as a description of the alternatives only. 3. Organization of Material From CH2M HILL--The main concern was how the technical memorandums and reports are to be used in an EIS. Response--From the beginning of the study, the T.M.s have been used as a means to organize and document the data and findings in a logical manner. The organization of the T.M.s has generally followed the outline presented at the December 22, 1986, ID meeting, and are to be used as resources for preparation of the DEIS. Since the T.M.s as a whole are much more voluminous than can be accommodated in a DEIS, the information is to be summarized, rearranged, and edited into the DEIS. A preliminary outline of the DEIS was shown on the blackboard by Larry Martin. The essential elements of that outline will be included in the format for the DEIS as follows: CONTENTS SUMMARY 1. PURPOSE AND NEED Project Purpose Project Need 2. ALTERNATIVES Introduction Alternatives Considered Alternatives Developed for Further Consideration Comparison of Alternatives 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Regional Setting Land Use Transportation Environment Socioeconomics 3 �4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION Socioeconomic Land Use Recreation Transportation Visual Air Quality Noise Botanical Resources/Wildlife Aquatic Resources/Water Quality Historic and Archaeological Energy Hydrology Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses of Man's Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 5. DRAFT 4(f) STATEMENT 6. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AVAILABILITY, DISTRIBUTION, AND PREPARERS Contacts Regarding This Draft Environmental Impact Statement Review of the DEIS Availability of the DEIS DEIS Distribution List of Preparers 7. PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Public Information Interdisciplinary Team Agency Consultations and Involvement Scoping Meetings 8. REFERENCES 9. INDEX 4. Study Timetable--The main concern was that the evaluation of alternatives based on impactsi mitigation and issues is being pushed through. Response--It appears that this concern was due largely to the misconception by some ID Team members that Chapter 8 of the transportation plan T.M.s represented the alternative analysis which as explained above, it does not. The ID Team will have the opportunity to review the sections of the DEIS outlined above. 4 �5. Spot Improvements Alternative--The main concern was the the spot improvements alternatives was expanded to include more actions. Response--The spot improvements outlined in Chapter 8 responded to the comments received in the scoping process from a wide range of perspectives, and need to be considered at this point in the study. Each spot improvement will be evaluated on its own merits, along with the environmental consequences, after which the preferred group of spot improvements will be selected. ITEM 2--DISCUSSION OF CHAPTER 8 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Detailed discussion of Chapter 8, the Alternatives Technical Memorandum, resulted in a number of wording changes that were suggested and will be incorporated into the chapter. The most significant suggestion was to eliminate value judgements and conclusions from this chapter and leave it as a description of the alternatives only. It was also suggested to take out the references to level of service and discuss them in a separate section. ITEM 3--AIR QUALITY TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM John Neil briefly reviewed the Air Quality Technical Memorandum. The only comment was on the basis for the average running speed used in Table 2. The low average running speeds were used because they are considered the worst case. Using these criteria showed no significant air quality problem. ITEM 4--LAND USE AND RECREATION TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM A number of suggestions on wording clarifications and corrections to maps and figures were made. ITEM 5--S0CIOECONOMIC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM General comment that some sections seemed biased toward the Rich County needs. More mention of the Cache County/Logan users socioeconomic use of the Canyon needs to be made. ITEM 6--TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Limited time was available for discussion of this memorandum. Reference to Oak Brush and Pinion juniper need to be removed. ITEM 7--AQUATIC RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM General comment was that this Technical Memorandum was in good shape. Suggested eliminating reference to China Row Creek and Ricks Spring as spawning tributaries. Bunch Grass 5 �Creek and White Pine Creek are considered spawning tributaries and should be mentioned. The value of fishing needs to be included in the Socioeconomic Technical Memorandum. ITEM 8--VISUAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Time was not available for discussion. BOT600/026 6 � 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/26">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/26</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 1403276816 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3234983 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from June 22, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from June 22, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting from Stan Nuffer detailing the agenda from the 23rd ID Team meeting at Brigham City Hall. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-07-22 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Box Elder County (Utah) Brigham City (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_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/bbf0d71e5132596fd42578b67cb1e24d.pdf f57b44481f407785533347499fd586b8 PDF Text Text ~UHMARY FACT SnEET nIGHWAY U.S. 89 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY NOVEMBER 1986 Utah Department of Transportation (UOOT) CII2M IIILL Engineering Consultants INTRODUCTION UDOT has contracted with CH2M HILL for a study of US-89 in Logan Canyon. The objective of the study is to evaluate transportation needs, develop improvement alternatives and to conduct an environmental evaluation of the alternative concepts . Findings of each step of this study will be reported to the public through a public involvement program, of which this fact sheet is a part. Previously circulated information about this study is available at the Logan Public Library, Utah State University Library and Valley Engineering in Logan; U.S. Forest Service in Ogden; and CH2M HILL and UOOT offices in Salt Lake City. The purpose of this fact sheet is to report the preliminary findings of the first task of the study. A report on the preliminary identification of public concerns/issues regarding potential improvements to U.S. Highway 89 in Logan Canyon from Right Hand Fork east to Garden City is also included. Questions about the following information or the project in general may also be directed to Gale Larson, Valley Engineering, in Logan at 753-0153 or Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL, in Salt Lake City at 363-0200. Additionally, ~anual counts were taken at several points within the canyon during 1986 to provide .ore detailed characteristics of the traffic flow. Table 1 ahows the annual average vehicles per day (AnT) and su~er average vehicles per day on the road. Figure 1 shows the distribution of traffic during the year, and Figure 2 shows the distribution during the week. Table 1 TRAFFIC VOLUME U.S. 89 LOGAN CANYON (CARD CUARD STATION) RECORDED The first task of the study, the determination of transportation needs on Highway 89 through the canyon, was to identify existing roadway conditions; examine accident records for the road; identify maintenance problems; identify traffic volumes and characteristics; project future volumes; and determine road capacity. The conclusions drawn from analyzing this information include the location and nature of specific highway safety hazards; the capability of the existing road to carry present and future traffic volumes; and what problems exist that may keep the highway from functioning at a reasonable operational level. This information will be the basis for the second task of the study, the development of alternative improvements, if improvements are found to be needed. Su~r ~:")J 2798 )022 )140 34(11 3400 )180 1)67 1927. 1907. JROG 1013 1007 18<10 17<0 1773 1980 1981 1902 •• 1984~. 1985 . AOT (Vehicles Per O<1l') 1774 155S IG80 1973 197<1 197 5 1976 1977 1978 19:'~ REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION NEEDS . Annual AnT (Vehicles ~'cr Oa1':) Year )276 3424 )406 )503 )5)6 •• June. July and Augu sc Adjusted to reflect difference in t~affic between C.Jrd Guard Station where counter was originally installed and the present location west of Garden City. The station was moved in August of 1963. 1983 date!. ...·as not used . Station moved to new location in 1983 ana oata is from two locatior.s. EXISTING ROADWAY CONDITIONS Design conditions of the road that affect traffic flow include cross-section elements, roadway curvature, roadway gradient, and the width of and access to the highway rightof-way. These are generally referred to as roadway geometrics. Data for cross-section elements show the road section between Right Fork and Tony Grove as being well below standard in terms of width of traffic lanes, shoulders, surfacing slopes, and ditches. The other sections, while below standard, are not as seriously so. Roadway curvature results in limited visibility and reduced speeds. The curves of each road section were categorized by their recommended speed. The section from Right Fork to Tony Grove ranked highest in the number of curves and in their severity, followed by the section from the Cache-Rich County line to Garden City. Gradient describes how fast a highway climbs or descends in elevation. The section from Tony Grove to Garden City has gradients of 6 to 7 percent over 31 percent of its distance. The majority of the road from Logan to Tony Grove has gradients from 0 to 3 percent. 2' .9 r--- 20 15 '" 12 . 0 0 t0 ~ - 10 - .., .., C 8 .2 ,.--- 0 SAFETY ANALYSIS 10 . 5 a.. The highway has been examined to identify specific locations, or general conditions which may be contributing to traffic accidents in the Canyon. To do this, the consultant examined the number, type and location of accidents in the study section from 1980 thrugh 1985. The hgihway was divided into 374 sections of 0.10 mile each. The average number of accidents per year for each section were then computed. Those sections with significantly higher than average accident rates (accidents/ year) are being considered for safety related improvements. There are 16 sections in this category. ~.o 5 I--- l .6 0 1.6 F l.a ~ l .4 ~ M A M A S 0 N l .S ~ 0 Month of Yeac MAINTENANCE FACTORS Keeping the road open in winter is the single greatest maintenance problem faced in Logan Canyon. In the narrower parts of the canyon, there is nowhere to push the snow but into the river. Where snow can be plowed to only one side of the road, plows must move across both traffic lanes. This creates a potential safety hazard, particularly when coupled with low visibility due to curves and snow. Winds and steep slopes in the canyon also create maintenance problems with drifting and slides. Some flooding along the road occurs occasionally during spring runoff. TRAFFIC VOLUMES, CHARACTERISTICS, AND PROJECTIONS Traffic volumes for Logan Canyon were obtain ed from the permanent counting station located at Card Ranger ~tation from 1974 to 1983, and just west of Garden City from 1983 on. FIGURE U.S. 89 LOGAN CANYON PERCENT OF AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC OY MONTI! 1984'-1985 These figures show that the road is heavily travelled in summer (53.1 percent of the total from June through August) and on weekends (53 percent of the total on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays). This indicates orientation of the road to recreational traffic. �20 .".' , • •1 r--- t-- 15 S . - r Count s 'l.8 r--- 0 " ,) t- O 1-29 ~r--- r--- 1\Je8. ~ '2 . 0 ~ 2:..2~ 2iJ!! ~ 8 - 13 Wed . 8 - 16 Sat ~ ~ ~ ~ RIght Fork Road (W) 25)4 5)l1 2144 2881 5306 56'4 Right fork Ro.d (E) 2389 5081 2581 7110 S035 SJJ1 Tony Grove Road (W) 2221 4896 2485 2609 4193 5081 Tony Grove Road (E) 2130 4666 2317 2496 4588 4863 S.... lt - Slnks Road (II) 10 2014 4445 2217 2391 4261 45 23 4351 2239 2351 4148 4391 2225 ~ 4187 4448 C C> U ~ a.. 5 - s.-lt - :Hnks Road (E) o 1991 Pe.,...nent Sta ti on ~-S-U-H--~M-O-H--+--T-U~€-4~W-€-O--~-r-"U--+--F-n-'~--S-A-T~ (e) (e) (e) (e) 105 24 hr as percent of 16 hr Oay of Week Permanent station as percent of Right Fork (W) ["IGUHE 2 89 LOGI\N CANYOtl PERCENT OF AVERAGE DI\ILY TRAFFIC OY DAY 1984-1985 U. S. Data collected from manual counts at the Right Fork intersection, Tony Grove intersection, Reaver Mountain intersection, and Summit (Sinks Road), showed: o Composition of the traffic by vehicle type (car, light truck, heavy truck) 79 (a) (w) Indicates total traffic on west leg of intersection (E) Indicates total traffic on east leg of intersection 24-hour counts for the manual count stations were computed using the ratio of the 24-hour to the IO-hour counts at the permanent station . (c ) The permanent counter west of Garden City was not operating on 7-29 and 8-2 . (b) Distribution of traffic by direction of travel (east/west) o 81 Variance in traffic volume between Right Fork and Garden City, o 106 Table 2 shows the variation in traffic volume over the entire project route. It can be seen that in winter, counts at the permanent station near the east end of the route were less than half the volumes at the west end of the route (34 percent and 44 percent). This indicates that there is/are substantial traffic generators (origins/destinations) within the canyon - Beaver Mountain ski area, cross-country skiing, snow mobiling and other winter recreation destinations. The summer volumes also show lower volumes on the east end than on the west end of the route, (81 percent and 79 percent). Since the summer time east end volumes are closer to west end volumes than in winter, this suggests that recreation within the canyon is less of a traffic generator in summer than in winter. Most summer traffic in the Canyon is through traffic. Table 3 gives the percentage composition of tra!fic by vehicle type at three counting stations. Passenger cars and light trucks can be grouped together since their operation is similar. The relatively high percentage of recreation vehicles and trucks combined have significant consequences for a two-lane road with many locations of limited sightdistance for passing and considerable road gradient (see Roadway Conditions). TalJle) U.S. 89 r.ocAN CMYON TRAFFIC COMPOSITION (Percent) Hid Week Pass'enger Car r.i9ht: Truck, Van G Wheel Truck lIeavy Truck Recreat:ional Veh. Table 2 U.S. 89 LOGAN CANYON TRAFFIC VOLUME VARIATION Wint~r Right: t-'ork 52 J3 ~ GI~ OVC Sun.... it: , ~ 52 30 5S 30 1 2 12 S) S8 29 .S .5 12 51 )0 .S _S 12 1 ) 11 I) 56 56 )0 .S )1 12 Weekend Counts 2-22 ::;aturda:i 2-25 Tuesda:i hr(a) ~E. 24 ]0 hr Passengec Car Li9ht Truck, Van G Wheel Truck lIeavy Truck Recreat:ional Veh. 11 _5 .5 12 •S 13 24 hr Right Fork Road (W) (a) 1176 ] 541 848 1111 (a) 1170 ]533 83] ]089 ]041 1364 712 932 55R 731 382 500 530 ~ Right Fork Road (E) Beilver Mountain Road (W) Beaver Mountain Roarl fE) Permanent Stilt ion .-!Qi :!4 hr as percent of 10 hr Permanent ~tation of Right Fork {WI ~ 131 ] 3] 34 44 as percent Because of economic and other considerations, highways are normally not designed to accommodate the highest hours of traffic volume during the year, which .ay happen infrequently, but instead are designed for a lower volume hour that occurs .ore often. UDOT nor.ally uses the 30th highest hourly volume for the design hour volume (DIN). As is shown in Figure J, the 30th highest volume hour for this study road segment is consistent with hourly volumes immediately above and below it, so little would be gained by choosing a different hourly volume for the DIiV. The 30th highest hourly volume, about 14 percent of the average summer traffic, will therefore he used as the hourly volume for which any improvements will be designed. �30,-------~r_------_r--------~--------r_------_y------__, CAPACITY ANALYSIS ". Highway capacity analysis is the estimation of the maximum amount of traffic that can be carried by a given length of highway at various operational qualities. Six categories of road operational quality are defined as Levels of Service (LOS) "A" through "F", "A" being the best operational conditions, F being the worst. Criteria for levels of service address the freedom to move along a roadway without interference from other vehicles. Once estimated; these road capacities can be compared with existing and projected traffic volumes to determine the current and future ability of the road to carry the traffic. 2S The methodology used to analyze the traffic capacity of U.S. 89 through the canyon is published in the Transportation Research Board report, "Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209." A "general terrain" methodology, which is based .a ·+----------jl -------~------~ -------~ .--------_I-------___l Table 4 CAPACITY .AT EACtI LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR LOGAN CANYON PRESENT ROAOWAY CONDITIONS 0~--------~--------+--------1---------_I -------_4--------~ 10 30 .0 o GO 20 50 '~ighest Hours of the Year lEGEND o Level of Service or .JUNE. ""UlY AHO AUCUSf fHAF"ee Segment 1 Maximum Vehicles Per lIour Segment Segment 2 3 .AVI[AAGE a A FIGURE ) HIGHEST SOURLY VOWMES AS PERCENT OF SU~~~R AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC 53 68 n 191 174 165 267 C '010 I I I ~ < Q V V / V Y I I I 538 461 1508 1152 10~6 on average terrain, geOMetrics and traffic conditions, vas applied to the highway study aection. For conditions above or below the average of these elements, the capacity was increased or decreased. Under ideal operational conditions, capacity for a two-lane road is 2,800 vehicles per hour (vph). The results of the analysis are given in Table 4. YEAR It~O 306 629 E Various techniques are used to project future traffic volumes. All techniques rely on certain assumptions to provide the basis of the forecast. This study selected a past trends technique, which assumes that the trend established by past changes in traffic volume will generally continue into the future. Forecasts prepared using this method show an increase in summer traffic volume of approximately 2 percent. The summer ADT in the year 2010 is projected to be approximately 5800, a 75 percent increase over the present. Figure 4 shows that these figures compare very favorably to projections based on the current baseline population projections for the Wasatch Front and Bear River areas developed by the State of Utah. These areas are projected to experience population increases averaging 1.95 percent compounded annually. Using a projected annual growth rate of 1.95 percent, the ADT in Logan Canyon at the Card Guard Station would increase from 3,276 vehicles per day in 1980 to 5,847 vehicles per day in 2010. A summer ADT of 5,800 will therefore be used as the projected ADT for this study. 386 D U.S. 89 LOGAN CANYON By comparing these capacities with the selected design hour volume (DIN) based on present summer traffic volumes of between 370 and 425 vehicles per hour (vph) and a OHV based on projected summer traffic volumes of 545 to 627 vph, it can be seen in Table 5 that the road is currently operating during the summer at Level of Service D. By 2005, summer operational conditions will have deteriorated in all segments of the road to Level of Service E. This means that the road is currently over its capacity to carry its traffic without substantial delays occurring 75 percent or more of the time. With future traffic volumes, delays on the road can be expected more than 75 percent of the time. CONCLUSIONS ABOUT TRANSPORTATION NEEDS An examination of highway characteristics for the study section of road suggests that the high number of curves resulting in limited visibility, which prevents passing, and substandard lane and shoulder widths are the greatest cause of the capacity problem. The large proportion of recreational vehicles and other slower vehicles of the total traffic volume is also a significant contributor to the problem that may increase in the future. If it is desirable to accommodate present and projected vehicle loads in Logan Canyon through the year 2010 at a level of service higher than "OW or WE," it will be necessary to improve problem areas of the roadway in some manner. This can best be accomplished by increasing passing opportunities and widening traffic lanes and shoulders, thus helping to prevent the formation of vehicle platoons and allowing traffic to move more freely through the canyon. I I lEGENO ECONOMIC' POPUlAT ION ,IIENO 9"5EO FOAEC"ST nGURE 4 PAST TAENO 8"S£ 0 fOil£C"Sl US - 59 PAST TREND VS ECONOMC AND POPULATlO~ ADT FORECAST Specific methods of achieving these improvements will be developed in the next step of the study, the development of improvement alternatives. �Table :; LEVEL or SERVICE AT PROJECTED DESIGN HOUR VOLUMES (OHVl PR.ESENT ROAOW~Y CONDITION 1990 1985 Segment 2000 1995 2010 2005 OHV LOS OHV LOS ~ LOS OHV LOS OHV ~ OHV LOS 425 0 469 0 S17 0 569 0 627 O-E 690 t 389 0 428 0 472 0 519 0 S72 630 E )70 ~ 0 408 0 <449 0 495 545 600 PRELIMINARY REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS On August 26, the environmental and engineering staff of CH2M HILL working on the Logan Canyon project toured the Highway 89 study section with representatives of various local enviro~ntal groups and the U.S. Forest Service. The purpose of the tour was for the engineering consultant to gain a preliminary understanding of what environmental issues and concerns need to be considered in the development of improvement plans for the canyon. The following s\l~ary of the findings is preliminary because other opportunit1es for public input regardi.ng environmental ~oncerns will occur prior to the selection of the preferred ~mprovement alternatives and prior to the environmental analysis of the project. Nevertheless, it is important for the consultant to be aware, prior to any development of improvement alternatives, what are considered to be the most important and sensitive environmental resources of the canyon. During the tour, it was suggested by some present that the Canyon should be treated as a recreational corridor (a destination) rather than as a transportation link (a conduit for traffic). Recreational use of the corridor should be given priority over transportation use whenever a decision involving trade-offs is to be made in the study. Recreational use . d~a~s with visual resources, fishery habitat, recreational fac11~t1es, vegetation, and possibly other environmental elements. It was also pointed out that a special ambience exists in the lower part of the study route (Right Fork to below Lower Twin Bridge), created by the narrm" canyon walls, sheer rock cliffs, and tree canopy. Although the existing highway has been constructed through the canyon, other signs of human alteration are minimal. A number of specific elements that contribute to this overall ambience were identified. o Visual - . concern regarding road cuts and fills; destruct~on of focal points and existing fields of v~ew; introduction of artificial features; imposit10n of human alterations upon a relatively natura). setting o Recreation - protection of campgrounds, picnic areas and features of interest (springs, caves, etc.); provision of necessary facilities at interest points (parking, restrooms, etc.); bicycle safety; protection of fisheries • o River Protection - as a visual element; as a water body; as fishery habitat; as a recreational resource The tour progressed through the canyon from Logan to Bear Lake viewpoint w~t~ stops a~ong the way to address specific concerns ~t sens~t1ve locat~ons where road improvements were proposed 1n the past. The area from Right Fork to Tony Grove, the summit, and the Bear Lake viewpoint are the locations on the route that are most sensitive. Concern was cited that slopes in the lower canyon are so steep that cuts for the purpose of road widening can result in serious slope instability and slides. Avalanches can also be a problem in winter. Installation of guardrails in some places on the road has decreased site distance, cutting utilization of the few good passing locations. In other locations, their installation has eliminated views of the river. As additional concerns and issues relating to possible road improvements in the canyon become identified, they will be reported in project fact sheets, press releases, and public meetings. � 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/27">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/27</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 2338513696 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2776373 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 Summary fact sheet Highway 89, 1986 Description An account of the resource Four page fact sheet of the Logan Canyon Study from November 1986 by Utah Department of Transportation and CH2M HILL summarizing the area's transportation needs, roadway conditions, safety, and maintenance. Also included are graphs and tables detailing the percent of daily traffic, and current and projected service level capacities. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Utah Department of Transportation CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) United States Highway 89 Utah Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Roads--Design and construction Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Utah Department of Transportation CH2M HILL Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1905-06-08 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 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 MSS133Bx10Fd6_Item_5.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/b6b02807fd9c8b69467ca7c15d49c978.pdf 5e1973b65d6dae49dbd6e6c9d8d76b24 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING November 17, 1986 ( Attendance: Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Clark Ostergarrd, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Duncan Silver, FHWA John Neil, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Jim Naegle, UDOT Steve Flint, Audubon Assoc. Item 1 - Review of Minutes Two typographical errors were identified and Mark Shaw pointed out that he was in attendance at the last meeting, but was left off of the attendance list for the minutes. Item 2 - Alternate Route Technical Memo John Neil led the discussion of this item. There was some confusion about how the alternatives were defined. The text did not agree with the figure. It was determined that the most logical alternative was a combination of Alternate A and Alternate B. If an alternate route through Blacksmith Fork Canyon were to be considered, a route from Hyrum to Laketown through Hardware Ranch and Cottonwood Canyon would appear to have the most promise. It was agreed that the study of alternate routes should be postponed until the fu~l transportation potential of Logan Canyon (consistent with environmental constraints) was developed. John Neil made the motion to accept the memo, with the alterations made in the meeting, and its recommendations. Gale Larson seconded the motion and the voting was unanimous. John will modify the memo to reflect the teams comments. Item 3 - Public Involvement Summary Memorandum Cliff Forsgren led the discussion of the memo which had been prepared to summarize the public involvement program to date. Ducan Silver suggested that the verbal comments received during public meetings be summarized also. Stan Nuffer asked what sort of documentation the Forest Service would need in order to be satisfied that there had been adequate public participation. Fred LaBar said that the results of the scoping meetings would be required before the Forest Service 1 �( could do much to evaluate the progress of a public participation program. Clark Ostergarrd suggested that there be some provision in the memo to identify those comments directed towards preserving threatened and endangered species and maintaining the River. Duncan Silver pointed out that there were not a lot of differences in some of the column headings, for example the two columns dealing with traffic flow ("Flow is Problem" and "Improve Flow") and the two columns dealing with safety. He also suggested showing the total number of responses in each column. Item 4 - Public Involvement/Scoping Meetings Duncan Silver asked for a status report on the technical memorandums which have been prepared to date. The status report should indicate if they have been finaled and approved. This report will be prepared for the next meeting. John Neil asked if a notice of intent was required for a scoping meeting. If a notice of intent is required, it should be prepared as soon as possible if a meeting is to be held in early January. Stan will report to the team at the next meeting on what the legal requirements are for notification of a scoping meeting. Jim Naegle suggested holding the information sheet on "Issues and Concerns" until after the scoping meetings. Steve Flint pointed out some items that needed attention on the fact sheet that had already been mailed. Table 1 needed some clarification on how averages were determined during periods when the counter was not in service and Table 2 had a mislabled footnote. Steve was also concerned that some people would not understand that a level of service D or E was not for low or even average flow conditions, but represented some percentage of time when flows were above the projected average. More explanation of this concept will be included in the next fact sheet. Item 5 - Review of Existing Roadside Parking Stan Nuffer presented an inventory of existing roadside parking areas. The parking areas were identified by milepost and included both planned parking and "\vide spots" which appeared to have been used for parking. This list of parking areas was compiled in the summer and mayor may not represent winter parking patterns. Fred LaBar said that the Forest Service has an inventory of winter parking areas which he will provide to the team members. 2 �( Clark Ostergarrd said that it would be important to know whether the parking areas were near the recreational feature and which side of the road, relative to the River, they were on. There are also areas that the Forest Service considers problem areas and would just as soon not have parking nearby. When alternates are developed, the information on location of existing parking and need for planned parking will be used to define the alternates. ITEM 5 - Areas Meeting Criteria For Climbing Lanes Stan Nuffer presented the results of an analysis of the need for climbing lanes in the Canyon. AASHTO standards were used as the evaluation criteria. If AASHTO standards are met, there would be a climbing lane the entire length of the Canyon. There was some discussion on the improvement in LOS that might be expected with the placement of new climbing lanes. Lynn Zollinger asked if there was anything in the standards that addresseed the distance between the lanes. Jim Naegle indicated that he thought that was dictated by the conditions at the particular site. ( Duncan Silver pointed out that climbing lanes are used to improve the LOS and minimize speed reduction on upgrades. If a climbing lane were constructed, the LOS would be raised to C in that particular stretch of road. However, when the end of the lane was reached, the LOS would go back to D or E. It does not appear that the capacity problem can be solved for the entire Canyon and that minimizing the speed reduction where possible should be the priority. Stan will prepare a speed profile for the Canyon. It was concluded that the team members do not believe that LOS C can be attained through the entire Canyon. If it were possible to construct a climbing lane everywhere the climbing lane criteria were met, LOS C would be possible, however there are places where a third lane is unacceptable. ITEM 7 - Introduction of Layout of Roadway Widening and Alignment Improvement Component Stan Nuffer discussed the widening and straightening component that will eventually be used, along with other components, to define alternatives. Lynn Zollinger asked if the requirements for vertical sight distance had been checked. Stan indicated that it was underway. SLC-STN/03 3 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/30">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/30</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2880054969 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2120731 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from November 17, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from November 17, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, alternate route technical memo, public involvement summary memorandum, public involvement/scoping meeting, review of existing roadside parking, areas meeting critera for climbing lanes, and introduction of layout of roadway widening and alignment improvement component. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource LaBar, Fred Ostergard, Clark Larson, Gale Silver, Duncan Neil, John Zollinger, Lynn Naegle, Jim Flint, Steve Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Roads--Design and construction Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-11-17 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd2_Page_13.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/b70b1b90e4e6ed0124697f11015190fd.pdf 65229b81282586e3e93b3018b7c6645d PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON Minutes of ID Team Meeting July 28, 1986 Attendance: Clark Ostergaard - USFS Fred LaBar - USFS Todd Weston - UDOT Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL John D'Amico - CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Bill Helm - Unattached Rudy Lukez - Sierra Club Howard Richardson - UDOT John Neil - UDOT ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes were reviewed. There was some confusion about the sources of additional names for the mailing list which were listed in the minutes. It was noted that Fred LaBar and Bill Helm had mailed names and not turned them in at the last meeting. There was no other discussion on the minutes. ITEM 2 - TFAFFIC COUNT DATA The sources of traffic data were discussed. Permanent stations on US 89-91 at Webster Junction, on US 89 at Card Guard Station in Logan Canyon (later moved to Garden City), and on US 89 north of Garden City are being used in the preparation of the traffic forecast. ITEM 3 - PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED TPAFFIC FORECAST A past trends based forecast had been prepared using a least squares best fit linear function. This approach produced an annual increase in ADT which was less than one percent, a rate which was felt to be low. The Utah State, Office of Planning and Budget was prepared its forecast of economic and population growth through the year 2010. The overall rate of population increase for northern Utah was approximately 2 percent. If traffic in Logan Canyon were to increase at the same rate as the population, the summer ADT in Logan Canyon would reach approximately 6,000 vehicles per day in 2,010. Supporting data for this forecast is available and will be presented at the next ID Team (Team) meeting. There was also some Qlscussion on the traffic classification counts. The summer counts will begin on July 29, 1987. The counts will include a classification for recreational vehicles and record turning movements. �ITEM 4 - DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATION The roadway will be evaluated on the basis of the level of service which is possible at a given traffic volume. The Transportation Research Board describes a procedure for establishing levels of service (A through E) for rural roads. Copies of portions of the procedure description were distributed to team members to help them become familiar with the level of service concept. There was some discussion on which level of service would be planned for in the Canyon. UDOT would like to plan for a "C" level, but the actual level of service used will be determined by the Team. ITEM 5 - REVIEW OF ACCIDENT DATA The accident data for 6 years (1980 - 1985) has been tabulated using a UDOT computer program. The UDOT program was used because the program performs the types of analysis required for roadways and the accident data base was already on the UDOT computer. The computer runs had only recently been completed and there had not been sufficient time to review the results. Hopefully this will be completed by the next meeting. ITEM 6 - UPDATE ON STATUS OF BASE MAP PREPARATION ( An example of the base maps was shown to the of the set will be available, when they have to Team members who wish to have one. Clark requested a set to get started on the visual Team. Copies been completed, Ostergaard survey. MISCELLANEOUS The approved forest plan has a section on Logan Canyon which may be of · interest to Team members. Clark Ostergaard will bring a number of copies of that section to the next meeting. SLC81/11 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/33">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/33</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2452721948 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1269187 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from July 28, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from July 28, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, traffic count data, presentation of proposed traffic forecast, highway capacity and level of service determination, review of accident data, and an update on status of base map preparation. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Ostergard, Clark LaBar, Fred Weston, Todd D'Amico, John Helm, Bill Lukez, Rudy Richardson, Howard Neil, John Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Utah Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-07-28 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 20th century 1980-1989 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 1 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd1_Page_16.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/0d9d39033a34a89061062edbbfce32ae.pdf 499a8339e30a7783450d7680bded936d PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON Minutes of ID Team Meeting July 28, 1986 Attendance: Clark Ostergaard - USFS Fred LaBar - USFS Todd Weston - UDOT Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL John D'Amico - CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Bill Helm - Unattached Rudy Lukez - Sierra Club Howard Richardson - UDOT John Neil - UDOT ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes were reviewed. There was some confusion about the sources of additional names for the mailing list which were listed in the minutes. It was noted that Fred LaBar and Bill Helm had mailed names and not turned them in at the last meeting. There was no other discussion on the minutes. ITEM 2 - TFAFFIC COUNT DATA ( The sources of traffic data were discussed. Permanent stations on US 89-91 at Webster Junction, on US 89 at Card Guard Station in Logan Canyon (later moved to Garden City), and on US 89 north of Garden City are being used in the preparation of the traffic forecast. ITEM 3 - PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED TRAFFIC FORECAST A past trends based forecast had been prepared using a least squares best fit linear function. This approach produced an annual increase in ADT which was less than one percent, a rate which was felt to be low. The Utah State, Office of Planning and Budget was prepared its forecast of economic and population growth through the year 2010. The overall rate of population increase for northern Utah was approximately 2 percent. If traffic in Logan Canyon were to increase at the same rate as the population, the summer ADT in Logan Canyon would reach approximately 6,000 vehicles per day in 2,010. Supporting data for this forecast is available and will be presented at the next ID Team (Team) meeting. There was also some discussion on the traffic classification counts. The summer counts will begin on July 29, 1987. The counts will include a classification for recreational vehicles and record turning movements. �r ( ITEM 4 - DISCUSSION OF HIGHWAY CAPACITY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATION The roadway will be evaluated on the basis of the level of service which is possible at a given traffic volume. The Transportation Research Board describes a procedure for establishing levels of service (A through E) for rural roads. Copies of portions of the procedure description were distributed to team members to help them become familiar with the level of service concept. There was some discussion on which level of service would be planned for in the Canyon. UDOT would like to plan for a "C" level, but the actual level of service used will be determined by the Team. ITEM 5 - REVIEW OF ACCIDENT DATA The accident data for 6 years (1980 - 1985) has been tabulated using a UDOT computer program. The UDOT program was used because the program performs the types of analysis required for roadways and the accident data base was already on the UDOT computer. The computer runs had only recently been completed and there had not been sufficient time to review the results. Hopefully this will be completed by the next meeting. ITEM 6 - UPDATE ON STATUS OF BASE MAP PREPARATION An example of the base maps was shown to the of the set will be available, when they have to Team members who wish to have one. Clark requested a set to get started on the visual Team. Copies been completed, Ostergaard survey. MISCELLANEOUS The approved forest plan has a section on Logan Canyon which t may be of interest to Team members. Clark Ostergaard will bring a number of copies of that section to the next meeting. SLC8I/II � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/34">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/34</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 3001645539 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1261682 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from July 28, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from July 28, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review minutes, traffic count data, presentation of proposed traffic forecast, discussion of highway capacity and level of service determination, review of accident data, and update on status of base map preparation. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Ostergard, Clark LaBar, Fred Weston, Todd D'Amico, John Helm, Bill Lukez, Rudy Richardson, Howard Neil, John Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-07-28 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd2_Page_17.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/ad2dfd06c834dcc5b681696fb5778063.pdf bf8eab2799e6cee5305789a759dd6897 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING August 11, 1986 Attendance: Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Jack Spence, Cache Group Sierra Club Steve Flint, Bridgerland Audobon Society Rudy Lukez, Cache Group Sierra Club Duncan Silver, FHWA Todd Weston, UDOT John Neil, UDOT Jim Naegle, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Howard Richardson, UDOT Fred Labar, USFS Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Item 1 - Review of Minutes A new name was added to the mailing list: Randy Nielsen, Utah Wildlife Federation 160 Layton Drive Salt Lake City, Utah 84115 (draft copy of the study only) Item i-Review of Draft Traffic Tech Memo The draft of the traffic forecast technical memorandum was discussed. Those committee members who had received the memo had not had sufficient time to thoroughly review the information it contained so the discussion was fairly general. Jack Spence thought that all of the data points needed to be plotted and that the standard deviation and correlation coefficient should be shown also. Duncan Silver asked about the design hour volume (DHV) and the directional split of the traffic. If the DHV and directional split are to be addressed in the capacity/level of service analysis, it should be stated in this technical memorandum so that readers would know where to find that information. Duncan also suggested plotting the 100 highest hour volumes to see if 30th highest hour (which is presently being used by UDOT), is the best one to use as the basis for the DHV. Written comments on the draft memorandum were requested by the next meeting. 1 �( Todd Weston asked if it would be possible to get the information out sooner so that team members had a chance to review it. Item 3 - Review of Manual Traffic Counts Gale Larson reported on the manual traffic counts taken on July 19 and August 2. Summaries of the counts were given to team members for their review. Item 4 - Review of Maintenance Information ( Cliff Forsgren presented a summary of the evaluation of the maintenance in the Canyon. The largest maintenance related problem in the Canyon is snow removal. Portions of the Canyon are narrow with steep walls and the river is adjacent to the road. The roadway in those areas has no shoulder and there is nowhere to store or place the snow. Present practice is to plow all of the snow to one side of the road and into the river. This procedure requires plows to move snow across the traffic lanes. There was some discussion about the desirability of this practice. Duncan Silver said that there should be two criteria used in evaluating these procedures; 1) how is the public served and 2) how safe is the procedure. Howard Richardson told a bit about the procedures and about the District's "bare road" snow removal policy. Jack Spence asked how many times per year snowplows would be moving snow across traffic lanes. The number will vary depending upon the number of snow storms. Sometimes a snow blower will be used to keep the road clear also. Snow plow operators consider the present practice unsafe. Howard Richardson invited any team members who would be interested in a first hand evaluation to come and ride on one of the plows this winter. Jack Spence asked how many accidents have been caused by this procedure? It was not known if there had been any. The options for alleviating the snow removal problems would be to construct wider shoulders. Flooding of the road was also discussed. Finding and disposing of suitable berm material is the biggest problem associated with protecting the road during high runoff. Fred LaBar said that anchor ice above Ricks Springs had been responsible for flooding a number of years ago and that anchor ice is a continuing problem in the river. Todd Weston asked if plowing snow into the river could contribute to the buildup of anchor ice. Fred did not know for sure but thought that it might. S Item % - Review of Accident Data John Neil reported that the Safety Section had not released the accident analysis runs yet. Jack Spence indicated that the accident data needed to be analyzed for as many years as 2 �possible if Silver said that number severity of it was to be a meaningful evaluation. Duncan that a goal should be statistical reliance and of accidents was not as important as the accidents. SLC82/07 3 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/35">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/35</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2183608344 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1709828 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from August 11, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from August 11, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Randy Nielsen's name added to mailing list. Review of minutes, draft traffic tech memo, manual traffic counts, maintenance information, and accident data. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Larson, Gale Spence, Jack Flint, Steve Lukez, Rudy Silver, Duncan Weston, Todd Neil, John Naegle, Jim Zollinger, Lynn Richardson, Howard LaBar, Fred Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-08-11 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd2_Page_6.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/8c7802b4b465e2dc379c5e8134bfc556.pdf f70633a612840f52f4efdbf0277a4051 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY Minutes of ID Team Meeting February 17, 1987 ATTENDANCE: Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Todd Weston, UDOT Commissioner Jack Spence, Sierra Club Steve Flint, Utah Audobon Society Duncan Silver, FHWA Fred LaBar, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Brian Dixon, BP~G Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES During the review of the minutes of the previous meeting, Stan Nuffer reported that the State of Wyoming is using a growth rate of 3.7 percent per year west of Sage Junction. Jack Spence reported that there had been some statistical tests run on the past trends method of forecasting future traffic volumes and that, from a past trends perspective, it may be better to project a linear growth 2ate than an exponential. Jack's reasoning was that the r value was higher using a linear model. , Duncan Silver suggested that it might be better to present a range of future traffic volumes with a corresponding range of consequences. Steve Flint asked for the r2 values for the past trends , calculations for the other counting stations observed during the study (north of Garden City for example). It was decided that a summary of all assumptions made to forecast further traffic and to estimate the traffic volume capacity at each level of service would be prepared. This information would allow the ID Team to see how sensitive the LOS determination is to the various factors which could have an influence. During the discussion of the basic alternative categories that were presented at the January 27 meeting, Jack Spence and Steve Flint both objected to including an alternative with a 40 mph design speed, that would widen and change the alignment in the middle Canyon section. Jack and Steve both felt that a 40 mph alternative had been examined and declared unacceptable by the Forest Service and that there was no point in considering it. Duncan Silver pointed out that the study team cannot assume to ignore established standards without some study. Duncan agreed that if the Forest Service has some specific information that would help the team to determine a 40 mph road is not feasible in the middle Canyon, then further study might not be necessary. �MEETING NOTES Page 2 ITEM 2 - OUTLINE OF PUBLIC PRESENTATION FOR SCOPING MEETINGS During the discussion of the presentation the question of advisory speeds versus design speeds arose. Jack Spence wanted to know what the difference was. Stan Nuffer explained that even though a road might have an overall design speed of 40 mph, individual curves could have design speeds of less than 40 mph. In cases where the design speed at a particular location is less than the overall roadway design speed an advisory speed sign is posted. Advising speed signs are black on yellow and are posted with a curve warning sign. Duncan asked for a list of the "spot" improvements. Stan indicated that there had only been a general list prepared and that they would be defined after the scoping meetings (a general list was reviewed in the draft fact sheet). ITEM 3 - REVIEW OF NOTICE OF INTENT, LEGAL NOTICE, LETTER TO AGENCIES, AND FACT SHEET During the review of the fact sheet, Duncan Silver advised the team that not studying an alternative that included current highway standards would significantly delay the approvals 9f any study. Duncan did say that it might be appropriate to state that current standards were given consideration and not examined in detail for the following reasons: (the reasons are then listed). Duncan also suggested that a technical memo on use of a modified standard be developed. Jack Spence pointed out that in the upper Canyon section there were some areas where the road is near the Beaver Creek and widening will be very difficult. Todd Weston asked if there was any information on how much traffic an improved roadway would attract. Stan Nuffer responded that general information was available but each project has its own unique characteristics. SLC-STN/25 � 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/36">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/36</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 3028432301 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1370202 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 Feburary 17, 1987 meeting Description An account of the resource The minutes from the February 17, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting (See also Item 12 in folder). Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Utah Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-02-17 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 1 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd1_Page_13.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/4038b7921c9612c213b6165be6f65f44.pdf e4730b7646d6b520ab44b840022ec1c5 PDF Text Text 'i ClOd HIll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: June 19, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.AO Your attendance and participation in the first Interdisciplinary Team meeting held on June 10, 1986 was appreciated. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review, and an agenda for the next meeting on June 23, at 2:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. We look forward to seeing you there. BOC5/025 slc76/d.101 �AGENDA - LOGAN CANYON STUDY INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY TEAM MEETING NO. 2 - OGDEN, UTAH JUNE 23, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. 1. Review minutes of June 10, meeting. 2. Discussion of role of interdisciplinary team. 3. Discussion of Level of Documentation required by NEPA for environmental studies. 4. Public involvement program outline. 5. Schedule of interdisciplinary team meetings. BOC5/026 slc76/d.102 �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT MINUTES OF INTERDISCIPLINE TEAM MEETING June 10, 1986 ATTENDANCE: Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Jim Naegle - UDOT John Neal - UDOT Gale Larson - Valley Engineering Rudy Lukez - Cache Group Sierra Club Todd G. Weston - UDOT Al Stilley - Northern Engineering & Testing Dave Baumgartner - USFS-Logan Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Duncan Silver - FHWA Howard Richardson - UDOT Sheldon Barker - CH2M HILL Tom Haislip - CH2M HILL John D'Amico - CH2M HILL Frank Grover - USFS-SLC Steve Flint - Bridgerland Audobon Association Stan Nuffer called the meeting to order and asked members of the group to introduce themselves. Following the introductions, some of the members were asked to briefly describe their views of the project and its objectives. Jim Naegle indicated that UDOT wants a thorough investigation and has no preconceived idea as to what, if anything, should be done in the canyon. He expressed appreciation for the interest of the environmental cowmunity and the public in general. He also wants members of the I.D. Team to have full input into all phases of the project. The most serious problems in the canyon presently are narrow and obsolete bridges which are in need of repair or replacement. Lynn Zollinger explained that UDOT has a responsibility to the traveling public to provide safe, efficient transportation. UDOT wants to satisfy the needs of the traveling public and the environmental community. He expects an openminded study with adequate input from all of the interested public. Dave Baumgartner said that the rules of the environmental "ball game" have changed since the '70's. A successful study is dependant upon public support and understanding. This project will be a challenging one and standard solutions will probably not work in every instance. 1 �Todd Weston stated that he does not have any notion that there will ever be a freeway or a 4-lane highway through the canyon. He feels that there are more problems in the canyon than old bridges and the study must address those problems without being locked into one concept. He does expect ideas to improve transportation can be implemented. Rudy Lukez stated that there are many personal feelings about the canyon and that some people will be upset if there is a large construction project in it. The canyon is an environmentally sensitive area and there is a need for careful study and analysis before any work can begin. The environmental community desires to be kept informed. Rudy also expressed concern that meetings held during the day may be difficult for those who work elsewhere to attend. Steve Flint stated that there were many people who questioned the transportation needs in the canyon. Stan Nuffer then explained the I.D. Team and the role of each I.D. Team member. The I.D. Team is to function as the group which reviews scope, data, methodology and conclusions of the study and determines whether each stage of the study adequately addresses the critical issues and meets the objectives of the study. Gale Larson said that Valley Engineering's office in Logan will be the local contact point and someone will be available for questions at least 10 hours per week. Valley Engineering will also perform the field surveys and traffic counts. Some traffic counts were conducted during the ski season in order to have the information available for the study this summer. Gale expects to work closely with Sheldon Barker with the public involvement task work. Stan Nuffer then introduced the Scope of Work, as included in the consulting agreement between UDOT and CH2M HILL, and led the discussion on the tasks outlined in the agreement. Task 1 - ANALYSIS OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS The discussion covered the major areas of potential need covered in the agreement; safety, maintenance, substandard geometrics, and congestion. If areas with substandard geometries are identified, options to correct the problems will be identified, these may include road re-alignment. During the discussion of congestion, Rudy Lukez asked what was meant by levels of service c,d,e. Stan Nuffer gave a brief description and said that detailed descriptions will be provided to members of the I.D. Team in a Technical Memo. Rudy Lukez also asked how traffic projections were determined. Stan Nuffer said that UDOT uses projections of population 2 �prepared by local councils of governments and other agencies who are charged with the task of preparing proj'ections of that type. TASK 2 - LOCATION STUDIES The study area will include the roadway between Right Hand Fork and Garden City. The alternatives listed in the contract scope will be evaluated as well as others identified during the course of the study. New roadway alignments may also be considered from the summit to Garden City. John Neal asked what the termini of the project were. FHWA must approve the termini in order for the project to be eligible for funding. Lynn Zollinger said that Logan City to Garden City had been proposed to the FWHA and he expects approval shortly. Since Logan to Right Hand Fork has already been improved there would be no action considered on that stretch of road. Tom Haislip said that the development of the alternatives will be one of the biggest phases of the project. Mapping was also discussed. Existing mapping available through UDOT will be used on the project wherever possible, however adequate mapping is not available over the entire route. As the mapping is completed, maps will be made available to members of the I.D. Team. TASK 3 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS The extent of the geotechnical investigations will be determined as alternatives are developed. It is expected that they will be needed primarily in areas where re-alignment is considered. Dave Baumgartner expressed concern about the role of the I.D. Team in this study. If the team is to be advisory only, he does not think a satisfactory solution to identified problems can be found. To be successful, the I.D. Team should have a role in establishing study criteria and in formulating recommendations. Other team members expressed their views on the subject, and expressed their belief that the I.D. Team would function in a manner that would lead to a successful resolution of the transportation problems identified in the study. TASK4 - PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT Sheldon Barker said that CH2M HILL would make three promises in the public involvement program; (1) to be a good listener, (2) to get input from all interested individuals and groups and to treat each with respect, 3) when the report is prepared, it would contain no surprises because everyone had been involved in the process. 3 �The scoping process was also discussed. It will include the development of the project objective, holding informationai meetings to educate the public, meetings with small groups as well as large, preparation of a video tape, and maintaining a project office in Logan where interested parties could come to obtain information on the project. Rudy Lukez suggested that information also be made available at the USU Library and the Logan Public Library so that it would be available during evening hours. Sheldon Barker said that the suggestion was a good one and it will be implemented. There was considerable discussion on the number and scheduling of meetings. Rudy Lukez did not feel that a lot of meetings was necessarily a good thing. He used as an example the recent meetings held by the Division of Water Resources on the proposal to build a dam on the Bear River. Meetings should be proceeded by 2 or 3 weeks of media coverage and should be well prepared. Rudy was also not certain if there would be any value to meeting with small groups because it would not give people with differing views an opportunity to hear the opinions of others. Sheldon Barker indicated that the different views would come out in the larger public meetings and that meeting with small groups would give the project team the opportunity to better prepare for the larger meetings. Rudy Lukez said that fall would be the best time to hold the scoping meetings because more -people would be able to attend. TASK 5 - COORDINATION Tom Haislip discussed the I.D. Team and its organization and the need to have each member involved. TASK 6 - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSl-lENT Tom Haislip said that the I.D. Team would playa key role in the project by providing input and direction to the study team. Tom also asked for help from the environmental community. If there were any data or studies that are available and not in UDOT files, they may be of great help in the study. Rudy Lukez said that there was a study underway at USU investigating the impact that high speed traffic has on deer. Tom Haislip indicated that field studies were not planned because there is extensive information available. Tom also explained that it is intended that Technical Memos be prepared presenting in detail the findings of each phase of the study. After the I.D. Team has reviewed, discussed, and revised the Technical Memos, the information would be summarized and placed in the report. 4 �There was more discussion on the role of the I.D. Team. Dave Baumgartner again expressed his concern that I.D. Team members be in a position to do more than simply review conclusions and give their comments. Stan Nuffer said that study data, methodology, and conclusions would all be presented to the I.D. Team and discussed before incorporating anything into the report. Tom Haislip said that CH2M HILL's job would be to the "doers" who would gather information, review data and prepare Technical Memos for the I.D. Team. The I.D. Team would then review and discuss the memos and hopefully resolve any differences. Dave Baumgartner said that it may be necessary for superiors in each agency to resolve conflicts if they could not be handled on the I.D. Team level. He also indicated that the whole process would work much better if each alternative developed offered a real solution to the problems so that the alternative evaluation would be believable. Todd Weston pointed out that the Forest Service, UDOT, and FHWA must all agree to whatever solutions are presented in the report. If any of the three agencies disagree with the findings, the project will never be completed. In discussions at the end of the meeting, there was no agreement as to when the first public information meeting should be held, or what purpose it should serve. After further discussion, it was decided that the date of the first meeting should be set after the next I.D. Team meeting. It was recommended that a feature article on the project be prepared for the Logan paper. This should be published prior to the Logan public information meeting. The next meeting will be held on Monday June 23, at 7:00 p.m. at District 1 headquarters in Ogden. SLC73/39 5 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/40">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/40</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 46884717 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 4338797 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from June 10, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource A memo from Stan Nuffer detailing the minutes from the Interdisciplinary Team meeting from June 10, 1986. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Zollinger, Lynn Naegle, Jim Neal, John Larson, Gale Lukez, Rudy Weston, Todd Stilley, Al Baumgartner, Dave Silver, Duncan Richardson, Howard Barker, Sheldon Haislip, Tom D'Amico, John Grover, Frank Flint, Steve Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-06-19 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 1 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd1_Page_8.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/915af361a8c48ff09aa639eb706c566e.pdf 1de2ef4eaf6e9e963be28c17bf74447e PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING October 20, 1986 Attendance: Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren,CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Duncan Silver, FHWA John Neil, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club Al Stilley, Northern Engineering Item 1 - Review of Minutes Stan Nuffer led the discussion of the minutes of the previous ID team meeting. Rudy Lukez referred to the questions on the 1930's traffic data that had been discussed during the last ID team meeting. Rudy said that his interest in the data was curiosity only and he did not think that it would be of any value in the present work. ( Duncan Silver asked for some clarification of the visual criteria. He also felt that there should be some discussion on how the criteria , were developed and used. Clark Ostergaard, who prepared the information on visual criteria, was not present and the question was deferred until the next meeting. Rudy Lukez asked Fred LaBar if the Forest Service wanted to have more camping spaces in the Canyon? Fred said that there is a proposed group camping site in the Beaver Creek area. The camp site will hold between 200 and 300 campers. If the money was available, the site would be constructed as soon as they could get someone on site to build it. Fred also said that the Beaver Mountain Ski Area had plans to increase their camping sites. Lynn Zollinger asked if there was information available on the expected increase in camping and skiing. Fred said that he would get the information for Lynn. Duncan Silver asked if the increase in skiing would impact the DHV. Since skiing occurs during the low traffic volume period, there would be no impact on the DHV. There was also some discussion of the possibility of electric power reaching some private land in Stump Hollow and Utah State University's plans to expand some University facilities in the Canyon. 1 �Item 2 - Discussion of Safety Analysis Technical Memo ( The Safety Analysis Technical Memo was discussed. Duncan Silver asked if it would be necessary to look at individual sites if the entire road was brought up to standard. Cliff Forsgren answered that in most cases it would probably not be necessary to look at individual sites'. Duncan then suggested that individual sites be given a detailed examination only if spot improvements were considered in a given area. Item 3 - Study Goals and Objectives Stan Nuffer introduced the subject and led the discussion. A handout listing goals and objectives for component and alternative development was distributed. This included illustrations of existing, standard and modified standard cross sections. An outline of possible alternate components was also distributed. Duncan Silver was not certain how the environmental constraints would fit into the development of alternates. It was pointed out that the visual criteria was nearly completed and the environmental constraints would be developed concurrently with the component and alternative development. ( There was a lot of discussion on how alternates should be developed and what the overall goal should be. It was pointed out that if significant improvements were to be constructed, the goal would be to achieve a level of service C for the year 2010, realizing that it would probably not be possible in every case. Duncan Silver suggested that a "standard" roadway be designed, with LOS C throughout the Canyon. Where that was not environmentally possible, alternates could be developed to improve the road as much as possible without damaging the environment. Stan Nuffer suggested that the "modified standard" which was used in the lower part of the canyon be used to prepare a • "baseline" alternate. Duncan Silver pointed out that the modified standard did not allow the drainage and other maintenance features needed to protect the road base. Lynn Zollinger said that UDOT would accept the modified standard in order to maintain continuity along the roadway. Rudy Lukez made a motion that CH2M HILL develop a baseline alternate using the modified standard. Duncan Silver wanted to be certain that UDOT understood that using a modified standard meant sacrificing maintenance standards which might impact the road. He also said that the decision to use a modified standard as the baseline must be well documented. Dismissing highway standards without adequately addressing them can be challenged just as easily as dismissing environmental problems without adequate study. 2 �( There was also some discussion of the design speed. Stan Nuffer suggested a minimum design speed of 40 mph except in the first 7 or 8 miles where Fred LaBar said the Forest Service has already evaluated a 40 mph speed limit and found it unacceptable. It was finally determined that a modified standard section, with a design speed of between 35 and .40 mph, depending upon conditions within the Canyon, be used as the baseline alternate. Item 4 - Discussion of Geotechnical Investigations Al Stilley, from Northern Engineering and Testing, gave a report on the geologic mapping and the drilling program which was just getting underway on the alternative alignments from Bear Lake Summit to Garden City. Areas along the existing alignment where improvements could be made will also be investigated. Item 5 - Alternate Routes to Logan Canyon John Neil reported that he had been given the assignment to look at alternate routes to Logan Canyon. John said that he was just beginning his study. Rudy Lukez suggested that John contact a Mr. Wendall Anderson in Logan. Mr. Anderson is apparently familiar with some previous studies investigating a route through Blacksmith Fork Canyon ( The next meeting will be held at the Ranger District office in Logan at 3:00 p.m., prior to the public meeting in Garden City at 7:00 p.m. SLC-STN/03 3 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/41">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/41</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1272711171 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2030189 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from October 20, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from October 20, 1986 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, discussion of satety analysis technical memo, study of goals and objectives, discussion of geotechnical investigations, and alternate routes to Logan Canyon. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource LaBar, Fred Larson, Gale Silver, Duncan Neil, John Zollinger, Lynn Lukez, Rudy Stilley, Al Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-10-22 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 2 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd2_Page_11.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/ddc3fc4d5a3433a18034865c40721cac.pdf 2056a87832e0d0170f0edffef4b89c8d PDF Text Text MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: January 21, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The Fifteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on January 5, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. The next meeting will be held on Monday, January 26, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of January 5 meeting. 2. Outline of public presentation for scoping meetings to be held March 3 and 4. 3. Review of notice of scoping meeting. 4. Continued discussion of alternatives. t Future ~eeting schedule: January 26 February 17 March 9 March 30 SLC91/d.ll0l - 7:00 3:00 3:00 3:00 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. , , , , District Office District Office Brigham City Hall District Office �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING January 5, 1987 Attendance: John Neil - UDOT Howard Richardson - UDOT Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Fred LaBar - USFS Clark Ostergaard - USFS Jack Spence - Sierra Club Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL Duncan Silver - FHWA Mark Shaw - USFS Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Gale Larson - Valley Engineers Steve Flint - Audobon Society ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES Jack Spence commented that if a 50 mph (AASHTO Standard) alternative on a new alignment was to be considered in the Canyon, then an alternative route such as Blacksmith Fork should also be included in the study. After considerable discussion, it was concluded that a 50 mph alternate on a new alignment would be feasible only on the Rich County section. The previous technical memorandum would serve as the basis for no further consideration of that option. The scheduling of the scoping meeting was discussed and due to conflicting schedules and the need to allow an adequate review period, the scoping meetings were shifted to March 3 and 4, with the tentative schedule as follows: Logan Scoping Meeting, March 3, 7:00 p.m. Government Agencies - Logan, March 4, 10:00 a.m. Garden City Scoping Meeting, March 4, 7:00 p.m. A draft of the notice of intent was circulated and comments on the wording received. ITEM 2 - ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION There was some discussion about how the alternatives would be defined and potential impacts evaluated. Howard Richardson pointed out that the highway, as it is now, is adequate for some disciplines and not for others. The objective of the I. D. Team is to do the best we can to meet the needs of all, realizing that no one is going to get everything they want. Howard also indicated that the official design speed for the previously improved lower Canyon was 40 mph. Any curves that do not meet the 40 mph criteria are then posted with a lower advisory speed. SLC-STAN/17 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/46">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/46</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1169439087 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1134591 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer, January 21, 1987 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer with the minutes from the January 5, 1987 meeting attached and time and location for the next meeting, and schedule. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Spence, Jack Richardson, Howard Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-01-21 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_008.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/32d7a78c324a05b6b4bc5e35ae4a4e75.pdf 29c46baab7806eda681d280e2e244f2b PDF Text Text DRAFT #1 LOGAN CANYON Minutes of ID Team Meeting July 14, 1986 Attendance Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL Alan Steger - FHWA Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL Jim Naegle - UDOT Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Gayle Larson - Valley Engineering Todd Weston - UDOT John Neil - UDOT Clark Ostergaard - USFS Dave Baumgartner - USFS Rudy Lukez - Sierra Club Carolyn Martineau - UDOT Jack Spence - Sierra Club Ken Riddle - UDOT ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes of the last meeting were reviewed. There was some discussion on the roll of the ID team. Jack Spence asked whether or not the ID team would recommend a preferred alternative to the cooperating agencies. After some discussion it was decided to modify the role statement of the ID team to include a recommendation of the preferred alternatives. Dave Baumgartner " asked whether the ID team was going to be part of the evaluations or just provide review. Stan Nuffer explained that the Forest Service which has staff and expertise is environmental areas would be directly involved in the gathering and evaluation of data. They would also assist in identifying areas where more data is required and assist in the identification of impacts and mitigation measures. During the discussion of the Public Involvement Program, Dave Baumgartner asked when the scoping meetings were going to be held. Stan Nuffer explained that the purpose of the public information meetings was to give the public the opportunity to develop more informed opinions and also for the project team to gather information which would be used to identify the key issues. The official scoping meetings would then be held to obtain from the public more clearly defined concerns and key issues. A ~~ a suitable SLC79/16 __ e mailing list were received from The press release had been turned ffairs Department who would put it prior to release. ~_~- 1 �DRAFT #1 ITEM 2 - TRAFFIC COUNTING AND FORECASTING The discussion of traffic counting and forecasting centered around information on the subject which had been mailed to team members prior to the meeting. There will be manual counts which will serve two purposes, the first is to provide classification information and the second is to provide additional information on the distribution of flow within the canyon. Four or five counts in the canyon should provide some useable data on the traffic flow. \ ( There will be two coverage stations from which counts will be taken. The FHWA Traffic Counting Manual recommends manual counts at coverage stations 2 to 4 times per year. There was some discussion of the need to make manual counts on days that were representative of the general traffic flow for that period of the year. Rudy Lukez asked for the daily summary of traffic flow at the permanent station for the month of February, 1986 in order to see whether the February count represented "typical" February traffic. Rud al asked for traffic flow data on other roads in Cache CQUDty i l o ther Utah Canyon roads if possible. Jack Spence disnd c ussed~ he- importance of conducting manu al counts on representative days in order to obtain data that would be statistically sound. The schedule and location of the proposed summer traffic counts was presented and discussed. Four summer dates, July 29, August 2, August 13 and August 16 were proposed and approved. Three locations, Right Hand Fork, Tony Grove Intersection and Beaver Mountain Intersection were proposed. The Sinks turnoff near the summit was substituted for the Beaver Mountain intersection and the 3 sites approved. Cliff Forsgren said that standard methods of preparing traftfic forecasts do not adequately address the impact of a significant recreation area on " rural system. For this reason a 2 methods of preparing the forecast were presented and discussed. The first method assumed full development around Bear Lake with traffic increasing in some proportion to the increase in cabins and condominiums .. Using this method and data collected in 1981, an increase in traffic of nearly 300 percent could be expected by the year 1990. This method was not recommended for use in this study, due to the volatile and speculative nature of many of these recreational developments. The second method uses past trends as a means of forecasting future ADT. Using data for the past 5 years this method would provide a significantly lower estimate of future traffic flow. An average annual increase of approximately 3 percent was predicted. This method was generally viewed SLC79/16 2 �DRAFT . #1 ( as a better approach because there were more factors influencing traffic in the Canyon than just Bear Lake. Jack Spence said that he thought recreational traffic had increased close to 6 percent per year in recent years. Clark Ostergaard indicated that the Forest Service had experienced about a 5 percent per year increase in campground usage. It was decided that a past trends approach would be used, but that a longer period of data was needed. Permanent station records as far back as available will be used. The past trends approach would also be checked against economic trends and forecasts. ITEM 3 - OUTLINE OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ANALYSIS A brief outline of the transportation needs analysis was presented. This outline was present primarily for information and there was little discussion on it. SLC79/16 SLC79/16 3 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/48">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/48</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 236039513 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2002586 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from Interdisciplinary Team meeting, July 14, 1986 Description An account of the resource Minutes from the interdisciplinary team meeting with a review of minutes, traffic counting and forecasting, and an outline of transportation needs analysis. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Ostergard, Clark Forsgren, Clifford Spence, Jack Lukez, Rudy Baumgartner, David Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-07-14 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_Page_3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/5b25c2d4dbbafcfd2de687a447f3ccdd.pdf 167add3900d8bfb8b3ccef92e331985d 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 Cache Chamber of Commerce letter, 1987 PDF Text Text CACHE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. Todd G. Weston Board of Commmissioners Utah Department of Transportation 285 Temple View Drive Logan, Utah 84321 Dear Todd: The Cache Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors met on January 7, 1987, for a special meeting and made a resolution wherein it unanimously voted to approve the following priorities for local highway improvements. 1. Four-lane highway from Logan to Freeway at Brigham City; 2. Highway upgrade from Smithfield to the Idaho State line; 3. Widening of the Valley View highway; and 4. The Logan Canyon highway project. Representatives from Logan City and the Cache County Mayors Association were present at this meeting and indicated they would go back to their respective organizations for their views. Copies of letters from those organizations are enclosed herewith. We appreciate your interest in behalf of Cache County with respect to highway improvements, and if we can be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Paula O. Bell Executive Director Encl. (2) 52 West 200 North, Logan, Utah 84321 - (801) 752-2161 "CA$H IN ON CACHE" � 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/50">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/50</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 3487515341 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 551134 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 Cache Chamber of Commerce highway improvements approval Description An account of the resource The Cache Chamber of Commerce voted to approve four local highway improvements. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bell, Paula O. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-01-07 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/ce14ddcc14199fc8f19712cb8a148039.pdf c4faf9002cc30e3115224e2f250799ca PDF Text Text Sa fety Highway safety in Logan Canyon has been a concern of previous highway projects, and has been raised in the current project. Safety for any highway involves two major issues: (i) accident rates and (ii) severity of accidents. UDOT has provided data for the period 19801985 (6 years) for accident rates in the canyon. These rates were compared with the accident rate for Rural Arterial Federal Highways in Utah (the standard), and stattistical analysis indicated 3 or 4 sections ~ the highway (of 13 sections) had accident rates significantly higher than those of the standard. The other sections of the canyon had rates insignificantly differerent or significantly lower than the standard. Subsequent analysis of the UDOT rates, however, revealed many were in error, casting serious doubt on the validity of the data. This also cast doubt on the validity of the standard: if many of the calculated accident rates for Logan Canyon are wrong, what about the reliability of the standard, presumably arrived at by the same methods? Requests for UDOT data upon which these c~lculations are based were made, but no data has been furnished. In order to make meaningful comparisons of accident rates, Logan Canyon should be compared with similar canyon highways, such as Sardine Canyon, Ogden Canyon, Little Cottonwood Canyon, Provo Canyon and Spanish Fork Canyon. No such comparisons have been made by UDOT or CH2M, and the necessary data 'has not been provided. Faced with this serious question concerning accident rates, CH2M chose instead to compare total accidents over a 6 year period (1980-85) for 0.1 mile sections of the canyon with the average for 0.1 mile sections to determine the location of the highest accident numbers. This has led to identification of 16 0.1 mile sections (out of 374 0.1 mile sections total) as having significantly higher numbers of accidents .(4 or more accidents in 6 years, 80 % conficdence level) than the average 0.1 mile section. Such results would occur for any highway, and it is important to note none of these 16 sections had accident numbers greatly in excess of the expected number. Many sections of the highway, by the same analysis, have significantly lower numbers of accidents. At this point, there are no data to support a conclusion that Logan Canyon has a significantly higher accident rate than any comparable highway in Utah. With respect to severity of accidents, by far the most common accident is sliding off the road in Winter, involving only one car. Deaths and serious injury have been rar~, and the numbers are too low for any valid statistical analysis. As many deaths have occurred in the lower improved sections (mouth to Right Fork) as on the ~ of the highway from Right Fork to Beaver Mountain turn off. 5ec7JOns As the CH2M report concludes, the chances of being involved in a serious accident in Logan Canyon are small at any time. Safety is not a current issue in Logan Canyon and, in the absence of valid supporting data, cannot be used as a justification for major highway modifications. � 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/57">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/57</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 3097680673 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1133965 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 Graphs of Traffic Flow Description An account of the resource Bar and dot graphs showing the summer daily traffic at the highest hourly volumes (1979, 1982, 1984, 1985), the average daily traffic by day and by month from 1984-1985. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1984 1985 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_019.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/f18498c1149acf10feaf0aae8d1a8076.pdf 780f698a8ddc4ba224f5dd1855202e25 PDF Text Text � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/60">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/60</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 2186952952 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 40242993 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 Grid map of Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Grid map of Logan Canyon, scale 1 inch. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Christensen, Leon Subject The topic of the resource Cartography--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Maps Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_6.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/45567e2889d98a2ba23bf38e0fc70b2f.pdf 1d8561f0241bc01d3905d1777a88f03a PDF Text Text CNMHIIl MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: April 15, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.DO The nineteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on March 30, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at UDOT District Office in Odgen, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. Also attached for review is the Technical Memorandum on the existing conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum. The next meeting will be held on Monday, April 20, 1987 at 7:00 p.m .. at the U.S. Forest Service District Office in Logan, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of March 30 meeting. 2. Final discussion of traffic projections. 3. Discuss summaries of scoping meeting testimony (to be distributed at the meeting) . 4. Discussion on Chapter 7 - components of roadway improvement. 5. Discussion of the existing conditions portions of the aquatic resources, recreation/land use and socio-economic technical memorandums. 6. Outline for day-long work session session in Canyon on Tuesday, April 21, starting at 7:30 a.m. Future meeting schedule: May 4 May 18 BOT538/043 - 3:00 p.m., District Office - 3:00 p.m., Brigham City �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TE~l MEETING March 30, 1987 Attendance: Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Arlo Waddops, Valley Engineering Duncan Silver, FHWA Bruce Brotherson, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT John Neil, UDOT Howard Richardson, UDOT Steve Flint, Audobon Assoc. Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club Bill Helm Item 1 - Review of Minutes Minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed and approved, with some minor changes. Item 2 - Scoping Meeting Summaries Copies of the meeting transcripts were distributed. Team members were informed that copies of the written comments will be distributed after April 6. It was reported that the Cache County ~ouncil is going to request an extension of time to comment. Stan Nuffer indicated that the objective is to obtain as much input as possible and that comments will be given consideration even if they are received after the deadline. Hopefully, there will not be too many so that the summary can be prepared and some decisions made on the ' major issues. Item 3 - Discussion of Alternatives C1, D1, D2, and D3 There was a discussion about these alternatives in preparation for a trip to the Canyon. Duncan Silver asked how the impacts of a 35 MPH alternative would be evaluated and compared to a 40 MPH alternative. The impacts would depend upon the amount of additional area affected due to flattening Visual impacts would be evaluated using the USFS system that was described by Clark Ostergaard. Steve Flint wanted to be sure that the accident data on the 16 sites that have higher than average accident occurrences was available when the team went into the Canyon. He also 1 �asked if it would be possible to consider spot improvements that were outside the project boundaries. There is a location approximately 0.7 miles west of Right Fork that might be suitable for a slow vehicle turnout. In preparation for the meeting in the Canyon, some sections will be staked to show the construction limits of the alternatives . . Project maps at a scale of 1" = 200' were distributed and locations to be staked identified. Valley Engineering will survey and place stakes at those locations a few days prior to the I.D. Team meeting. Item 4 - Aquatic Resources and Recreation/Land Use Technical Memos Copies of the aquatic resources and recreation/land use technical memos were distributed to the I.D. Team members. There will be some discussion on these after team members have had a chance to review them. Item 6 - Continued Discussion of Traffic Projections Cliff Forsgren distributed some additional information on traffic projections. A range of future traffic flows were developed using traffic volumes and northern Utah populations from 1940 to the present. The team members were asked to review and give their comments. Duncan Silver indicated that he felt that there was no real benefit in continuing to rework future traffic projections. The road cannot meet todays needs, even with a modified standard and he could see no benefit in spending more time working to precisely determine future volumes. Item 7 - Comments on Chapter 7 Due to the length of the meeting, discussion was postponed to a future date. BOX18/D.1401 2 " � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/63">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/63</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 782905033 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1696924 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from March 30, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from March 30, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Attendance, review of minutes, scoping meeting summaries, discussion of alternatives C1, D1, D2, and D3, aquatic resources and recreation/land use technical memos, and continued discussion of traffic projections. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Silver, Duncan Ostergard, Clark Flint, Steve Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Aquatic resources--Utah--Logan River Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-04-15 1987-03-30 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 4 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd4_Page_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/051632ff6e154cc43de6d32204759671.pdf 64700169ced87d90f3558986e3f6f0d8 PDF Text Text . Q ~ t~ ted States epartment of Agriculture Forest Service Logan Ranger District 860 N. 1200 E. Logan, UT 84321 Reply to: 2300 Date: October 4, 1988 Steve Flint 45 North 400 West Logan, Utah 84321 Dear Steve: Since Logan Canyon Highway became part ot the National Forest Scenic Byway Program, not much new water has gone under the bridge. To be honest, I am not sure what the designation means. 1 We have a title, but not much else yet; it seems as if we get to chart our own course. W are willing to do that, but to e date we haven't had time to do much. I have heard the State plans to include t~e designation on their maps. ; own idea is to tell the story with appropriate signs, improve the condition of our campgrounds and picnic grounds so they complement our visitors experience, and set esthetic and other standards for the highway by more clearly defining the standards and guidelines contained in the Forest Plan. ' I see a very carefully managed highway, designed to enhance the esthetic quality of the canyon, and perhaps an information station or two. M~ If we do get to chart our own course, then I would like to organize a small committee of interested, participative citizens to help us define the standards." I'll keep you posted. ~inCerelY' _ ~ Xlb MawmJ} J DAVE BAUMGARTNER District Ranger Caring for the Land and Serving People FS-6200-28(7 -82) � 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/64">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/64</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 1226344580 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 668303 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 Proposal from Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon proposal for modifications of Logan Canyon emphasizing the protection of the canyon's scenic beauty and recreational uses. Subject The topic of the resource Natural resources conservation areas Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Cache County, Utah, United States) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_015.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/67bfed02120d7b5ae8bc992c802a873c.pdf f6cfc455b4e57f71be4c96544230e2fc PDF Text Text FINAL MINUTES INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM FIELD TRIP APRIL 21, 1987 Attendance: Jim Naegle, UDOT John Neil, UDOT Howard Richardson, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Richard Harris, USFS Clark Ostergaard, USFS Duncan Silver FHWA Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Arlo Waddups, Valley Engineers Jack Spence, Sierra Club Steve Flint, Audubon Bill Helm Tom Lyon John Ellsworth The team met at 8:00 a.m. at the Forest Service District Ranger's office. Transportation for the field trip was in two vans provided by UDOT. Weather conditions for the trip were ideal. The primary purpose of the trip was to get an idea of the magnitude of the changes that would be required for Alternates C and D. Some spot improvement locations (slow vehicle turnouts) were observed but generally the "no action" and "spot improvement" alternatives were not the subject of this trip. Stop No.1 was at Lower Canyon M.P • .382.8 to consider the possibility of a slow vehicle turnout prior to the beginning of the study area. A slow vehicle turnout in this location would be marginal due to the curvature in the roadway and the limited sight distance back along the roadway. Stop No.2 was at M.P. 384.0, or curve No.5 which is the first sharp curve encountered in the study section. Valley Engineering had previously marked the location of the centerline and the limit of the cut for both a 35 and 40 mph design. Red and white flagging marked the 35 mph centerline, yellow marked the 40 mph centerline, blue marked the 35 mph cut slope, and orange marked the 40 mph cut slope. The cut slopes had been staked for a 1/4:1 (horizontal to vertical) which assumed a rock cut. Both the 35 and 40 mph design results in the removal of the existing vegetation which would be nearly impossible to re-establish on a 1/4:1 slope. Stop No.3 was at China Row, M.P. 385.35 and curve No.7. China Row is the location of a picnic area and also the tree canopy over the roadway formed primarily by black willows. The trees immediately adjacent to the road would be removed by any roadway widening or alignment improvement. The black willows are advanced in age and no secondary or replacement growth is apparent. If the canopy effect is to be maintained, I �replacement growth should be started that would conform to whatever aljgnment is selected. Because of the existing limited size of the picnic area, the Forest Service would like to discourage its use. Curve No. 7 immediately upstream from China Row was marked for both 35 and 40 mph designs and a 1-1/2:1 cut slope. Stop No.4 was at Logan Cave, M.P. 386.3 or curve No. 22. Any flattening of the curve to achieve 35 or 40 mph design speed would result in encroachment into the river. The existing channel is already confined with haphazard unattractive riprap protecting the roadway. Several options for flattening the curve were discussed including the following: 1. Place the roadway on a bridge-type structure that would cantilever out over the river. The structure would extend out to about the center of the channel and would apply only to the 35 mph design. The roadway profile would have to be considerably higher than the existing roadway to provide hydraulic clearance beneath the cantilevers that would support the structure girders. Clark Ostergaard showed an artist's rendering of what the cantilever structure may look like. 2. - Move the channel of the river by cutting into the bank opposite the roadway. This would require a channel change up to 500 feet in length for the 35 mph design speed and up to 600 feet for the 40 mph design speed. A retaining wall along the roadway would be included for both design speeds. 3. Retain the existing river channel and construct a bridge over the river for the roadway. This would require a structure up to 400-feet-Iong for the 35 mph design speed and ssO-feet-Iong for the 40 mph design speed. The bridge would extend out to the center of the existing channel for the 35 mph design. For the 40 mph design the bridge would essentially cover the channel for about 300 feet. In both cases the roadway profile would be at least 4 feet higher than the existing roadway profile to provide for hydraulic clearance under the structure. 4. Switch the locations of the river and the roadway by constructing bridges at each end of the roadway curve. Due to the skew angle at which the roadway would cross the river, each of the bridges would be up to 200 feet in length. The bridges could be shortened by reducing the crossing skew angle by making some fairly sharp bends in the river at the structures. 2 �5. Horizontal alignment change downstream from Logan Canyon. This would require a cut into the hillside. It was agreed that additional studies be done in this area to better define the options. The Forest Service would like to discourage parking immediately adjacent to the cave and provide parking near Cottonwood Creek. Stop No. 5 was at Cottonwood Creek and curve No. 24 at M.P. 386.45. The narrow structure should be replaced. At curve No. 24, the relative impacts of both the 35 and 40 mph designs were discussed. Both would result in considerable excavation into the hillside with the difference being in the amount of cut. An additional option identified in the field was to cut through the ridge that separates the Logan River and Cottonwood Creek drainages which would probably involve no more earthwork than the other options. It was suggested that it should be evaluated. Stop No.6 was at M.P. 387.1 at curve No. 29. Both the 35 and 40 mph alignments were staked. The hillside at this location is less vegetated and has no unusual or distinguishing features. Little difference is evident between the 30 and 40 mph designs. The field inspection showed that it would be desirable to have the 40 mph design align with the tangent to the west to eliminate the reverse curve. Stop No.7 was at M.P. 387.6 just below the lower twin bridge. It was concluded that the existing alignment be followed to eliminate the need for additional fill, and if possible to flatten the existing man-made rock fill slope so that it could be revegetated. Stop No.8 was at M.P. 387.9 just above the lower twin bridge in the dugway. Replacement of the lower twin bridge was discussed and an option is to replace the bridge with a structure on a new alignment upstream of the existing bridge. This would require a new cut through the hill next to the existing cut, which could be filled and shaped to a naturally appearing contour with material from the new cut. At the other abutment it would be desirable to flatten the fill slopes resulting in encroachment into the flats at the base of the fill. In the dugway itself, the development of a climbing land was discussed which would require either a retaining wall on the downhill side or cutting further into the hillside. Clark Ostergaard showed an artist's rendering of how a rock-faced retaining wall may appear. Cutting into the hillside in the lower portion of the -dugway may require retaining walls or other stabilization, because the slope is less stable than the upper portion of the dugway where the existing rock cuts 3 �appear stable. The most feasible solution may be a combination of widening the rock cut in the upper portion of the dug~ay and constructing a retaining wall in the lower portion ·of the dugway. Stop No.9 was at M~P. 388.4 at the upper twin bridge. The most feasible location for replacement of the upper twin bridge would be downstream and as close to the existing bridge as possible to avoid the riparian areas of the river. Stop No. 10 was at M.P. 389.9 at Ricks Spring. There was some discussion about shifting the alignment of the road as close to the river as possible to permit parking to be consolidated on the same side of the road as the spring. Stop No. 11 was at M.P. 393.8 at Tony Grove Creek. The existing narrow structure would need to be replaced. The roadway in this section could be widened to provide for a passing lane with essentially all of the widening being done on the roadside away from the river. Stop No. 12 was at the M.P. 396.9 at the lower Beaver Creek Bridge near the Franklin Basin Road intersection. The existing narrow structure would need to be replaced on the existing alignment. The Franklin Road intersection would also be improved. Stop No. 13 was at M.P. 397.7 along Beaver Creek. Due to the relatively narrow area between Beaver Creek and the hillside, it appeared to be difficult to develop a climbing lane along Beaver Creek from just above the Franklin Road intersection to just below the Beaver Mountain Road intersection. Stop No. 14 was at M.P. 405.1 or Curve No. 85. Both the 35 and 40 mph designs would result in considerable new fill. The existing fill would need to be removed and used to restore the cuts on either side of the fill to a more natural contour. Another alignment was also discussed. Stop No. 15 was at the Bear Lake Overlook at M.P. 405.8. The location of Alternative G-3 was pointed out, particularly the area where the deep cut through the ridge below the lookout would be located. The problem of flattening the hairpin curves beyond 35 mph which would result in too steep of a grade. Stop No. 16 was back down the Canyon at the Burnt Bridge at M.P. 385.7. The options for replacement of this bridge were discussed. The consensus was that the bridge should be replaced at the present location with a temporary bridge located downstream to carry traffic during construction. 4 �Stop No. 17 was at M.P. 384.8 in the area just above Wood Camp campground where ·the McGuire Primrose is located. The Primrose was not yet readily apparent but the known locations were pointed out extending westerly down the rock outcrop to within about 40 feet of the existing road. Any proposed road improvements should avoid this area. SLC-STN/d.502 5 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/65">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/65</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 24101711 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3347494 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 Logan Canyon field trip Description An account of the resource Minutes from Interdisciplinary Team field trip on April 21, 1987 where the primary purpose was to get an idea of the magnitude of the changes required, spot improvements were observed but were not the subject of this trip. Subject The topic of the resource Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-04-21 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) United States 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_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/cd6efe244de617807eba980ea5ae5f21.pdf 8f09d4bab7e3fc9d96f44c6f84ee8e8b PDF Text Text MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Study Team Members FROM: Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL DATE: June 22, 1987 RE: Public Comments on the Proposed Logan Canyon Road Project PROJECT: B21163.GO Comments received at the public scoping meetings in Logan and Garden City during March 1987 are summarized in the attachments. Separate sheets are presented for each public meeting site and date. Written comments that were submitted following the public scoping meetings are summarized in two additional attachments (one for individual responses, one for group and governmental agency responses). These comments form the basis for completing a portion of Section 7 of the DEIS (Public and Agency Involvement). Please contact me if you have any questions. SLC-STN1/02 �encourage. exoect positive .f~ect dlscourage. ex~ct negative effect neutral. exoect no su~nif' • . or 1· 5t inq .ef·fect a ......-a~ .. ~ CANVON E.I.S. SCOPING MEETI ....G NU. 1 MRCH 3 • . - _______ z~ _ _=_a_K __ ~ __ ~--------------------~-~~---~--~--- _________ ~ ________________________ ~p----~-&------------------1987 l:OGAN. UTAH __ma____ 1<:1 II II II I " . _ .......H.L DESlU. II ACTIlJN f4...TERtIIATlVES Trno~t_ A/~t" 11-R~F~IC C~II--~.-------.--~-------- EX~'ANOED I.~t;rloesl ~ .----.--------.----.------.--~--.-------.-------II-------.-------.-------.--------.------.-------.--------11 I_===.-~""""=""""""==""=== I I "'=========== I I ===_ ===£"',."::,,.O:=-""=_-==OZE===="",.== .... =====O:==;.=..O: .....O:=s ....O:====c'= ======= I I __.. ~.. ~cc== .. =========.. ="' .... ===== .. =""=="'.. -====== .. "Marqar-et Pett is I I IICindy II I I Geor"e W. P .... est.:.n I I 1, IRichard Ca",oar,ellall I Johr. D •.Je .... sch I I IE .... i c Hash i I 1 John Pau 1 Reeus I i I Cor.rad Pete.'soY. I I IBetty Bc.el<.e.' II IT i M Dav is I I IRudy Lukez II I Ke"i~s ISteve Flint IClyde Hoth IBlair Francis IBruce Brotherson IDa'vid Buys IAI ice Stoke s I Nancy Warne.' I Mi ke Jabl.::)y,sk. i • I Ka,·er. Kroah I IToM Lye.n I I Shawn St arks I I L. C. Demars IIRussel1 Goodwin liKen Theis I Mary I Bedir.t;JField-Srn i th IScott Smith IDougl.AS Brin9hurst I I I I ? e __ c _____________________________________________ -------------------------------------------~----~-- IHEtiLIGNMNnWiOe;"IU H PHMorovel sP£EO.. II EXD@Ct Slonlfacant POSITIVE OR NEGETIVE IMPACTS Fro. Action Alternatives II WANT sco.:.E 0: sruUy TO I'klRC:: FULLY COVtR: - . It I Saeed I blans ______ " I iScer.ic I Nec. I I No I &t"09 t I "& ILoaanl thch I .. I LiMit I 1-----. - - - - - I 19ii;! IFiora &ltOOar.a Soec Scenic I H2O I Rivr Ecol Mult IA11-Vr IE_rg I ECOnoMY I EconQ!llY I I TouriSM I Tt"afficlScenic I &lcks...tn I Enoar.g ICost vs!" Pub! i c l I' 15oo ., \ I IHiwavl River I IAct:1 Reo.llirnorl(;l iMO Lr.1 Lan. I Coo I Laroes' t:.r.frc . Lower I Ralsel. 1 GaMeIHaoi tat ''':·'ar.1: " Ar.l 1 Dearad IO .... allFishing IUse ISafetYI Trar.s I Rich Col Cache C I 11Moacts I .. L 0 51 Rat ings Ifork Car. I I Benefit Hiuopc..... t ' I / . "~OMM~""TS 11------.-~--II---.~--.----.~--- ---I~----.----IFull . · NAME ________ I I .. II'" I I II I I I I I I ' I I I I I I'" Refe.· .... ed I I I I I I i I I; I'" ... - I I II II I II ... I " II ... ... ... ... I ... I I I I ? ,, ... II II ... II II II ? ... ? ? ? ? ? ... ... ... I· I ' II II ... - II I' , I I' . f. ? 2 I' II Cost/BeneFit ~> ! _ 1.. - I 1/ i/ +t?- . -~ Study needed ~! ~. \ with D : I D ,, t ! I' II II ... 3 ~ ). i: , , stacewide cc·,.,oarisol'"••=.f needs :; 4 · I' I' 2 I' , i' I· II 2) I I II II + II ... II II II II II ... I' II II II ... " , I II 1 II ... Ii II II II ' ;I , I , I , I ... ... i i , I II II II II I I· '11 II ... II II II II ... II II II ... ... ... Ii I' ,, II II ... , I " II II II .... II I I II It II II II II ... I I I I i I II ... ; , , ; I ! II : I I I I I I I I I I I II II II II ... ... I _. I II ? ... ... ... ... ... ... ... I II ... ... 1f If · I II , I , I I II i I ... ... . II II ... I ... I'" I I I i I ... I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ? I' II ... I I I I I I , I II I I ,. I I ======""====~"""",.,==== .. ="'=====:===,::-o:;: .. ====:o:=== .. = ........ ~=c==="" I , I I .- 1 -, II I I I I II t I ... I I ' -I I I I I'" I I I'" I I I to oreviously stated c.:once .... r.s and ey,dc"'ce'(fe.r.ts I I IRoy Hugie II i I ICrai'l Pil'",der IMonte Freeman I' II I Er i c Hansoy, II ICraig CaUDO , I IRon Ryel Ii IJiM Frankenfield II 1M. P. Co.:ove.' IRichard K. Winte.'sll I Bruce Pendery I I lOon Cundy II IDean F. Peterson II IDarrel1 Kunzler II IMay Coover II I Joyce Anders o n II I B r uce Bucbee II I I , II i I II II II II ' i I II II I I S~c. ""-_s'"'z= ........ ",_ce .. ';'_===_",,, •• ,,,,,,,===== -f- q 3) I j Olve Dreference to bicycle I.tses. �r:-' -8S 'LOGAN CANYOfIf E. I.~. 1P1ING MEETING - WAITTE;N R£SPONCES •__.-'_____________ . , ' '" " . . :' + , " , ' , , :, - , ' • , , ' , , , ? - .ft~~. I ------------It------___ 1----.-------.---------__ .________ ~.--------.----.------.~----.-------.---~---II-~-----.-------.--~----.-------~.------.-------.---~-.--" 18iq .IF.1or. . . . .:.¥.d.nq SO~i:&ceniC~~ ' i~ivr EcoIMu.t -'AI1-Yt", 'C:_ruIECOf'tOM¥.EconoMVII Touri ... ITr.ff'c'SC.ni~ , . 11Hck~tnIEno.r.qICOst v.," Puol lcl I & A" 11D.ur.d IQuAllf'isninQ IUse c ____ ___ :________________________ ' IS.fet,,·, Tr.r•• , Afch ColC.cne CII I - - - -____________ ______________________ & I IMPacts' &' L 0 SIR.I; ir.t;JsIFork C .... ISoec. Il<enefit ISUODO."t ,I •• :1 ~ , \ \ , Raise •_____ ______ R____ "Hiw.y I River' I,Act I Real ' ,hlor c ______ Lr. I Can. I Co. c _ c ____ c ____ I SI;t;'l DeS 'Lower __ ___ I 'Gi...e IHabi t'.t I;:>lant c _ c s ICI ifllb __ ________ I Lenes 'E.nfrc __ ~ ' encour.qe. eMa.ct oo.~tiv• • t~ect di.co~":-.D. . . . . . pect .... Q.t~v• • ffect . . nautr., . . . . o.ct roo stQn~t'. or ta.tl.n!tl --~-------------~---~---.-~------~-----------------------------------------------------------------------~-~-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.---------~----------IINAT'L OESUi. II ACTION ALTERIllATIVES I wEf.lLIGNMNTlWid.nIU H ~11"'Drovel SPEE:.O £ II t::Mpect SiQnl flc.nt ~S ITIVE O~ NEG€TIVE IflWACTS FroM Action Altern.tiv.s' , t I , IoIAIIIT ElCPAfIoQtD ~'Or-' SrUUY TO' rwRc: FlJl..LY COVt::R. I: ~~S 11--'----.-----II-,-.------.----.--------I-----.----IFull I Saeed I Sipns ITRAFFIC CAPI \\ IIScenicl Rec. IINo I Brag I~DOt I Trnout &ILog.nl Richl ~ ILi_it'l &Ior 1----. -----I t.,-1. Allen - ' , irwee P-.nderv ~ ~R ~ c_ccc~_=c_= I 1/ I I , ' I'" I + I I I , Wri1:ten resoonce duolicates statement or ser.teo at' Scooinq l'Ieetina I , I I I I " ~ I .,_2C~&&C~_=_=_c==~_.~. I I' ._.e ____ e___________________________ s~ I ' , I I I , II " II i II II ' I I I I I I I a~ I I , 1\ : I :: 'I I i : II II II I I ,' I 11 1I I 1 II I ' I , I I i I I I II I I I I I I II I I I I I! ; // II I, , I , 1 II II 0 I I i 1i ; I " " I I I I : I! -I 1i ! ! ; 1i II II II 11 II I I II i I /1 , I : I I II I. I I II II Ii II ; I : ; : I t I. I . ~ I 'I i I . :,' L "' ( : l 1 I' t I t' (' a ....... ~ a ,... .. i I a �, ts-'89 1:...OGAM cANYON E. I. S.- + SCOPING MEETING NO.2 ' ~ ---------~-------~----~-- _______ r - -____ =~~~ __________________c MARCH 4. 1987 - , LOGAN_ UT~ " II : I " " COMMENTS \\ IINAT'L ~SICi. II -ocnlJrf ALTERNATIVES IfCE~IGNI'INrIWloenIU H PII.orovel ___ ~ ____ ~ __________ c ___ c __ ~ SPEE.D .. 'II Expect exoect positive .~~ect exoect negatiye e~fect eKoect no signi~. or la.tinG_ .f~Wc~ encour.ge. ~iscour.pe_ ___________________________________ ~ ______________________________________ a a . ___ ~~ __________________________ _ ? SiQn~hcan:...~;TIYE OR NEGETive II'IPACTS FroM Acti~n AlternatiYes • I -neutral. '-'ANT I:JePANDED 'SCOPE Or"" sruuY TO ...<lAl:: fULLY _ COVERs I 11------.-----"---.----.:~--.--------,-----_----IFuJl I~ORedl Siuns 'TRAFFIC CAP"----.-------.-------______ - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - . - - - - - . - - 1 I l~er.lcIR~. IINo tliroplSPOt I Trnout "ILoganl R1C",1 ~ IL1Mit' &/~r 1-----. -----IIB1Q IFlora &IEnclanu &:J~SceniCIH20 I Rlyr E:.co'l'Iult IAl ,I-:'trIE_rg I EConoMY 'ECOnoMY' • TouriSM' Tr.~flcIScenlc f~lcksM~nlE.no.naleo.t vs'" Pubilcl .:---~--.ac_-~~~c::~::::=~~!:::::~~~~~::~~~:::!~!~::c~:!c::::~_~~~!~::::~~:~~~~!:::::~~::::~::!::::~:::!~::~~::~:!:::c~~~:~~:::~!~~:~~~!:~~::=~~:==~~:~::~~~::::~~!~=~:~~:~:~::!:::~::~~::~~=~~~::!:::~~~~:=~::!~~:c~~::~!!!~~~::.: • I Georue- Preston I I IIRobOt Fothet-inl;maf'lll I I Bryan Booth I I 1 I Richard De r-,t or. I j I I Bt-llce K i r.Q If I -I Newe 1 Da i nes , f I I Ted Wi Isor-, , I I I Gc.rdc.r. Lowe II ? I I I II I I I I II I + I + , f • ,- I , I ,+ I, I I I I II 'f I.. I + + " II f + J.,~ , .;.. v be issuinQ wt'itten recomrner.o a t i or.s 0/ - II I .. -f't \ - I , 1 -} +- I I + II I ..... / L/ .f~ i- ---i .:. i / " (/ ~ // () .J. , II I ' I I. + I I + I I Lache Countv G.=.v't wi 11 I + I I II I I + I I . II II I I , I 2 ..,111 enec.uraIJe sahle fron4 r/layors ar,eI ci ty _ cour-.ei Is I , + f ' I , I ? , I 1) f l l l actlc·r-, a1ter-r-.atives will ~.; '.! ./ 2) flll action alternatives will ,- 0 c/ I " ." ( ( ( ( i, -. I I I I t i l , _ , I II II II II + t-eouit-e State Engineer's clearar-.ce fc·t' ar-.y wc.rk c.n the river. reouire Bureau of water- Pc.llution Cc.ntrol cleat'ance. + ~\ + o II II o �$ LOGAN _ _ £.1.6.. INS MEETING NO. 3 ~. 1987 GARDEN -CITY. UTAH _ ___________________ I I " ~ + ~---~--------------------- _______ ~ ____ ~---------~--------~-------~---~----~na~----------~-------~----------------------~--------~ encour.qe • • M~ ~Itive effect discour.ge. exoect ne9ative .ftect neutr.1. exoecC no .aDni~. or la.tinQ .ffect ________ ? .~ ___ ~~----------------------------- IINATtL DESII3. II ACTION ALTERNATIVES IREf.LIGNMNTIWide"IU H PllMOrovel SPEEO & II Expect SiDnificant ITIVE OR NEGETIVE II'tPACTS FrOM Action Alte~tiv_ ... WANT ~X~D ~ OF ,srUlJY TO I'klRc FUi...t..YCOYER. - II , , 'CQI'IMENTS II--!--. IFull iSoeedl Sign, ITRAFFIC CAP I 1 - - . - - - - - - . - - - - - - - :-.----. - - . -...:----. - - - . ------. - - - . - - - - - . - - -- 1 1 - -- - . '-----~. - - - - - - . - ...- - - - . - - - - . - - - , - - . --,-~. --I, ' ' ' IISCanicIHec. llNo IBrdglSootlTrnout &lLoganlRichl ~ ILiMitl &/ar 1---.-----IIBig IFlora &IEnaan~ 5 ISceniclH20 IRivr Ecol"ultIAll-VrIE~~r9IECOnoMyIEconoMyIITouri5MITr.~~icISCenic l&lck~Mthlcnd.n~ICo.t vsl~ Publici I " " IIHi ....v I River. tAct I RepillMDrlCI iMb Lnl Can.' Co. IL.na.Uin1'rcIS~ripesILowerl R.i~eIIGa_l~bitat IPleant & .... 1 I Degrad I Queal IFishin" IUse ISa~etvl Trans I Rich Co'-Cache en IMoaCtsl& L 0 51 Rat inoslFork' Canl5oec. IBena~it ISupoort U ---.11--. --. -:----. .--,--. - - lOtto Mattson IKl'!'n Brown IDee Johnso .... I Barrv Ne,,'.ls IVaI Petersc..... IBryce Nielso .... ITed Seeholtzer IEcryce Stringham I John Fla .... nery lGeorge ~resto .... IRuss Currel lOwen Wahlstrom IPaul Webb IEcil1 Peterson ICathy Webb IRay Elliott f Lynr. Hi 11 sma .... lOon Huffner ' .. .. .. .. .. + f. + I II II A. v- 0 ... ... I II II II II II II II II I .. + + ? ? .1 II ... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? II II II II I I II . .. .. ... II II II II II ? It t I + ... + II II + ...... ,r: ;,-' .... t ·~· I ~" o I o c· . .· 6 - d \ , ----- ---- ~--- ( (, ------------------_. I ,1 : �) ) . ) ) ) \~ \ I I ~3 y. ~ I .r l/?- . -tZ .3 <~ 1-1'5 /-1- { -; 7- . . . .-::.... j I i ~ 2 (r)... I . . . .3 \ u ·r").... ~~ -fJ..1.t(/!-tJ,'). ~4; ' '- H '.. I· ( " ", I I!;~ I'. . ') . . (" j). --ll \ A ;;/10 I 2\ I l'1-"}7 I I ,:) i h 3 I I ~ ~I - r; t= positive effect ~ 3 r • did,,,,., "~,,,I neg.1i ,..if.ct .\ \.r I l' ,l \ ' :UDit! pt;bilC;; ;;5cenic;Rec. ;Brdg:Spot;Trnout ';Logan:Rich ;' > :Floril. Spec ;Scenic;H20 :Rivr ECC';I\Ult:lll-vriECerglECOnCIY;ECOnOIY;;TOuris.;Traffic:scenic ;Slcksmth:Endang:Cost vs;,; :!Hillay :Ri'/er: :Ad:Repl:hlpr-:Clia:b Ln: Can.: Co.:Lanes:Enfrc:Stripes:lower:Raise::Salle:Habitat\Plant ft AnI :llegrad:Qual:Fishlng :Use lilfetY!1rans/Rich Co:Cache c::rapacts:L L S:Ratings:Fork etc:Sllec. :Benefit:Sapport :: ::==================: :============: :================================================================: ~======================= ==========================T=====;:=====~===============: : ======================================================::: : ::Karla Allen" :: ! :: : !: : + : +: : : : : :::: I! :! : r -+! ! : :: ! : : : ::: : ! Brilce Pennery :: : :: : !: :: l : : : i !~ !: :: : :: ;?: :! : : : : +: ;: II :: ) I - ' ~f I l~-:z.' ~.h I ~ ( ~ en[()~rage, e~pect 1 ( r I ,\ ~~;;;~~~:~~~~~f~f~~~~:~~ J~~ ~~~~~~~:~~~t~~,~~;;~~:~:l;;;;;;;{:L~ic;~:;:::~!~~~1~~~~~~:~~ i;~~;:i;;f,~;~~:~~~;~'i~~:~~t;~m~;t:::i::=~~~f~~~~~;j;:~~~~~:~:~~1~~~:~~~~~:~mt:=~ C~~!'!ENT5 i~~~s ;-~-~-:----~;;Bi9 ~~Endang LJ5-89 LDSAN CANYON E.I.S. SCDPING ""WIS - 'R ITTE. RESPCOCES ) 1" \ D ~s I ~> I \\ NAME \\ ! : ! Eerdon LO)l :: : : Robert Eri ckson " : !llennis Pi=per " " : !Da:liel Horton " : : J. Steven Larsen :: : !Wil SOIl Wahi stroll " : :Doug S?ence II ., : : E. H. Berry : :Eric Hash " ! : T Wi 1son 01 ::Til Davis ! : Don Hancey " : : 6eorge Roohr : :Don Huefner I. : :Pilul Johnson : :Eldon Stubhs : !Keith Stubbs : !Rcss Wilson : :!'!i ke Lockhart : !!!ar jorie !lizard : :C. 5harpsteen + : !Anne Jones : : Boyd Bradford : :Larry Jardine : :C. Val Grant :: Ja:tes Frankenfield:: : :Richard Calpanella:: : : Lilrri ssa Pl!tko :: : : : Stephl!n Boyd : : D. Brent Jensen : :Julia Sold : :Sandy Borthwick : : Alan Carpenter + : !Karri Sli th : :Frank Salisbury : IPatricia Sordon : : Jaaes WilsDn : : Kathy lIebb : :John Spic:Heaan ':: .. : :IIargaret Pi ersall :: ! :Allen Stokes I: -n : :IIax Lyon : :Nancy lIillius ' II I II .. + ., II II I I " II ., .. .. ., I. . I. II II II " II II II II II II II II II II II II II !! t ,. II II II II ., II ., .. ., ., II II I I II II II II II I I .. .. + ,. II .. .. II '1 I. + II + II II ., ? II " II II " II II + .. : :Sadfi! Hanson II " ., .. II II II .. II II II " + II II .. I I II I I " II II II II " " " II II II II " II II ? . II " " II II " II II II I "I :+/- II II II II II II II II II II II .. :+/- ? +/+/- .. ? II II • I II II I ?I+ I ' " II - I , II II .. + II II I I +/- ' 1 .. I .. II II II I. II II II :: .. II II .. II I II : :Russ Lirson II " II I • +/+/+ II .. II .. I. ? II II II II II :: II I ) II II " " I + " II II I! ! I + ,. " II II II ., + + .. II " :~ :: .. " II I. " I. II II II II II II " II II .. II I. .1 I I " II :i " II II II II II ) + II II ) + II II II :: II I I II I. ) II II .. II II .. II :! II II " II II ) !: -+ II II ) + :: (14) II I L II II + II II :: :: :: I I ' 1 .. :: ? II II ? 1/- :. : .. 1 II II - II " II (15) II II I I , .. I · I : II \ : .. :: :: ' .;~ : J'~ l: --~ II It -/ - . I �'::: ..::::.J :' ' "."'~'''''_''''''''''''''''...,__....... . ..... . . . .....";.; . ....'...(.'."..:.":''';.'' . ..~ ........ ~ . ) " ) II II ., II II .1 ., .. ., II :Seorgie Leighton II I. : Steve Ryder ., II II II II II II .. ., ) l :Bonnie Hallin ) ) .J ) .) II II II II II II .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ., :: Ann Spring : :Eric Rexstad : l Di ane Behl : l Jehn Nicholson : : Daria Wighhan : l Ri chard Perkes : :Sylvia ilight=an : :Paul ilighhan : l Bruce Bugbee II II " II ) .) + " II ., II .. : l Cathy Welsh I. II I I : : lIayne Padgett :'l J. R.Allred : : Margaret Petti 5 :: + l l 11. Bedingfiel dSlith: : l : Jerry Jayne :: : l Ri chard Cazpanell a: l : : IIi II i am Boy 1e l: :: Al ice StoKes :: : : !Ireta Satterwai te :: II l : Dave Burkhard I. II :: J. Kent Hartin : lilendell Anderson ., II : ~J. lIaidl!r II I. : l Alice Lindahl I. : : Ll yn DwelUs :! II + +/- " II II II II " I I " " +/- " : " " II " " :: + II II II ? +/- + I. .. " II " :: II II II ., ., .. .. ., II ? II ., " " .. :: + " I" + - ::- I ? + n I · +/- ,. ,. + II I (113) II II' I I . ., , " II II .. " .. I " II ., II II I I + " I. II II , I I II I. II II II II II II I ' :: + II II " " " .. II , II II II II .. .. .. .. I. II I. II I. II I. (15) I ". II + II II I • " II +I? II .. II + I I " ., .. .. .. .. ... .. I. II (t!4) I' .. ., i .. .-' II II II I • 'l'J\ I I I I . .J " !I I. II ., ., " I II II " ., II .. .. " II II II I. II II II II ,. I. II I. " II I • I ". I I .. ., ., .., . II + II I. .. II II ., ., (1m II I' " +/- (113) II I • + . .., !I II I I :! + ., ~: .. .. .. ... .. .. ., + II II II I . II + ., " II ., II II " " II II II II II II " ., ., ., + II II II II II II '1 " +/- II II II " " II I "I II II II I' + II II :: I I II I. II ., ., " ,. ., + II II ., .. ,. I I I I + II : :Rebert CaldlieH : l Char Ies Carpenter l : James Ri chards : : El don Drake : : Ri chard !'Ii chaud l :Charles Salzberg l l Lucy Jordan : : Mar jori e Lelli s : :Ron Hinkley l l Lei h Shultz " II ., II II '1 ., + .. .. (tb) II I. I. " II II II I' II II I I II (to) I I II II ) : (46): .. II II II " II II II l : Ronal d Lanner l lililliam Furlong ) +1- ., ., II II : :Ken Theis ::Eric Johnson +,\'i: " " '1 II I' I. : (t6) l II + I I II .. II I. II .. .. ., " "I I ., " .. ., .. '1 II II II II II + II II II I. '1 II II .. .1 .. .. .. (is) II II I I " " II I I II II I II ., II I. r I " " I I '1 + " " ., " '"t' •...... /l .. >." II I. .. + II I. •••• , ..... ~)~ ••••• ,., • • • II +/- :: II II oJ · II II I. ., .~. II ?I- ., " : : Karen Leach . II '1 " II II : : Mark Hashovsky l :Danald Sanda l: Roni PeKins : : Judy !'Ioff att I -"" " II II II .. : : Sarth Bar ker + I , "' I' '1I ' '1 " II : : Bryan Booth ) " .. .. IBetsy Neely :Lee Hiller : :Anon. ) " " II I' " I • ....... .... , - . ,- -' ' i ' \ II I. I. II ~, II : Terry Hall ) . - -' - -' - ! .. .. .. +f- : Jose~h Weston ~ ' - \ i i +1- II I . : Karen Sanz .11 ez :ThaClas BakI er -, (IW illS) I. ., ., ., ., II ' .. II �) ) : :!1adeline Mazursh : : Des:lOnd Anders:);) ! : Jales Haefner : : Rebert Niel son : : Cl a~ke Cam~bel! : :t!e~d2l1 Morse ! :Craia Caupp ::£. A. Soeker : : Jan Yaung ., " " " " " " " " " " " " : + " " " " " " f/- :+ I "I " " " " " I + " .., ] 1 . , : .,: ~ . .'~'. ,. . } m6 ) " I I ., II " II II " " " , . II II II I I " " II " ., !I " II ed!1catior.~ etc. t2l rllpro.es $ liabihty for safety of eller. trans. personnel 13l Modify cross-drai nage structures to allow -Ii sh passage into vi abl e side streams t4l Re=edial mitigation in tOKer canyon (beloll Right Fork> IS) McSui res Pri IIfOSe ibl Highly detailed specifics in the final LI.S. m Fer.ce or bar livestock grazing in canyon (conflicts tr1ith vehicle traHid tBl Expect no illpacts IIi thir. Agency jurisdiction II " " " ., " " " " II 1 Upgrades a vital link for gov't services, . , ,. I I II ., " " " ~ I; " " .~ I, ,. II " " !, +1- " 19) Cor.cern e;! Ki th wetland d!' l ini ation/mi tigatio:\ ptan clearances E ~ p"ct no i~voJveite;)t of ~i3tin!1al Natural La;;d:arks, b:: t need more details #11) /1i tigat ion :;:easures suggested - olant salt-resista:1t .eg. 112) Int2rfe r!!~[e ~i th a~uders ~ear Bear La ke SlJui t; affects on groundwa.ter recharge i13) Study p r2fere~:::e5 ·to bi~y::les ! _r.d closure of Logan Ca:lyon b motor v"hides 114) Close ~ D to tr~d traffic ute t15) Statew; d<? crior i ty - Cocpare IIi t h other canyon roads. U6) Re::ledii I :;ti tigaticn fer Logar, River - restore past highway-related channelization. I HM II II �() 5 ) ) f, "t - (0 <:r AIJ (!.J...~ Y<J /J £" L S . . . . • _ + ~!:"~,.~OCQ.1 ..,~~~t P¢ S; +; v ~ "'_!.~ c-14., . , .. . " ~~~~~~~J~~~~~~~~~~~§~¥~~~~~~~~ :--.----I--'-----1~---.----:FUl1 \\ COtl!!EHTS : :-----.---: :Spe!d: Signs :TRAFFIC CAP: :---.----j-------.------. ---.------.----.----.:----:------.-------, ,-------·-------·r------!-------·-----·---·----·--, \\ : :Scenic :Rec. : :No' :erdg:Spot !Trnout I: Logiln :Rich: 4 :Lili t: "or :---.--:--: :Big :FIon rr:Endang Spec :Scenic: H2O :Ri vr Eco:lM t:All-Yr !Elerg !EconoIlY: EconolY! :Touri ~.:Traffic}Scenic ~Blds.th:Endang : east vs:t PubliC: ItA~E \\ ::Hiuy :River::Act:Repl:lllpr:Clilb Ln: Ciln.: Co.:Lilnes!Enfrc:Stripes:Lolfl!f'lRai51!::Sale:Habitat}Phnt rr AnI !Oegrad:l2ual!fishing !Use lS~fety:Trans:Rich Co:Cache C!lIlpad!l:z. L 0 ~:RatingslFort etc:Spl!e. !Bl!nl!fit:Support : ::==================: :==========: : ======================================================: : ==~================= ===============':===================================: : ======~===::====r=======================~==========' ::n PRIVATE SRmJPS, ASSOCIATl!l~5, ETC. ! f 2+ : :!..ugan High :! !: !2f! b+ bf 9+ 1+ B+ 3+ 1+ 3+ 2+ 3+ :: 1+ " II 4I I School Students :: !: 1-: 4313121- " 47" (36 letters) 3? 1? 2? " 1?: 3? 1? I? I? :: 2? ., II I, , (13) : :A:er Fisheries Soc:: + , " II + + : :Friends Bear Lake :: + " +~ ;; +/::c. Prot. Logan Can:: + + " "I tl I II + +/: :Suui t Cycli sts " ? ? II +/+ : : eri dgr la~d Auduhon:: + ., " " :: :: :: ., .. .. ., ,. ., If .. It II " ., .. If ) ) ) ) ) J ) ) " " .. .. .. II .> .. .. .. ,. .. .. " " II ::+1 + " , "' ,. ," ~ + + I (m .. .. .. " " " " " .. " .. + + + + I . " " + + .1 i. :: + + + ? -~ + + " STATE II FEDERAl SDVER~ME~TS, : :ut.SLllildlife Res:: : :Ut.St.Lands It For.:! ::Ut.Off.Mang't Bdgt:: : :U. S. Bureau of Ree:: {tlB : :U.S. ArlY - C.O,E.:: ::Nat'l Park Service:: ::Fish z. IUdlife Ser:: : :Farlers HOII! Admin:: (IB) ,. " II " " II " II " II : ,. ,. .. ., " " " " -(131 :(m: ;(11): : <121: " " Upgrades a vi tal link for gllv·t services, education, etc. hproves S liability for safety of Her. trans. personnel lIodify cross-drain~ge structures to alllMl fish pilssage into viilbll! side streams Reledial litigation in lower canyon (bdow Right Forkl . ItcSuires Prilrose ~ " " " " " .. " :. II II II II II II " II II II " " " "I I II " " (19) : mOl (15) " " II II " II ,. " " " " " " " " .. II II II It + " " " " II + II II II , .' I. II It II , ,. :: " " II " " " II + + + ., " II . " II AGENCIES, SERV!CE DISTRICTS, ETC. h ., + II ., " " + I. II " " " " " II .. .. '"" ., + II It " " " + ? ? :Ull! + + +/? ? ? + + II II " " " , " II II 19) Concern ed lIith wl!tland deliniation/litigation plan clearances 110) till 1121 113) Expect !litigat Interf Study p no i nvol velent of National N~tural landurks, but nel!d lore details ion lI!~sures suggested - plant salt-resishnt veg. rence .ith aquifers near Bear Lake SUlli t; affects on groundllater recharge references to bicycles, and closure of Logan Canyon to lIotor vehicles I _ '1. !' J i ) ) 161 Highly "debited specifics in the fin.} E.I.S. I7J Flnee. or bar livestock gruing in canyon !conflicts with vehieh traffic) . 181 .Expect no i.pacts within Ac]rncy jllri'di~ion ',' ~:. . II II " " ) ) " II + ~ !~ ? II II II " " " " II + • , , II II tl . " II ,. 111 121 13) 141 151 + " ., <tIl :: II I ". II II {Ill (111 ? " I • " + :! II " II ? ? " " I. ~ .. ,. II II :: II " I • II " " ::ff LOCAL SOYERNMENTS, AGENCIES, SERVICE DISTRICTS, ETC. : :Hyrul Ci ty Mayor : :Fur Lake Co. COI=:: : :Rich County COli. :: : !Bear lake S.S.D. :: : :Sarden City !!ayor :: : :Rich Co. SheriH I I ! : Hyde Park llayor : :a.R.A.S. : :logan "ayor :: ::Logan City Council:: : :Sci thfield !layer :: : :Ri ver H2ights !'Iayr:: ::C.of C.- Bear Lake:: ::C. of C. - Cache Co. :: : : Cache Co. Cound 1 :: : :Logan Hospital :: : :Bl!ar River R.C.1f D:: II " " " II IW C1OS. r out. to trud traffic 1151 Sht",. dl priority - Colpare with other canyon roads. U61 Reletlil 1 Ii tigation for Logan River - restor! past highway-related channeli zation. .~I .;. ..1 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/66">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/66</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 1085875997 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7576656 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 Summary of public scoping meetings in Logan and Garden City Description An account of the resource Summary of the comments received from the public scoping meetings in Logan and Garden City in March 1987 concerning the proposed Logan Canyon Road project. Legend deliniates + as improvements encouraged, - as improvements discouraged, and ? as neutral expecting no signficant or lasting effect. Graphs are broken down between individuals and groups. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Roadside Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-03 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Garden City (Utah) Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 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_006.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/0b9488c88e01aa2a27762ee383469a7e.pdf 2339a53ab2d0cca68b18ec4a5f95d6ac PDF Text Text INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING F~bruary~, 1987 17 Additional Data for Agenda Items Agenda Item No: 2. Distribution of Revised Outline for Scoping Meeting 3. Distribution of copy of Notice of Intent from January 23, 1987 Federal Register Distribution of Legal Notice of Scoping Meeting sent to media. Distribution of letter sent to agencies Distribution of draft of fact sheet Distribution of Revised Matrix of Component and Alternative Development Dated February, 1987. SLC-STAN/14 1 �LOWER CANYON SECTION 1-MIDDLE CANYON SECTION 2-UPPER CANYON SECTION 3-RICH COUNTY LOGAN CITY TO RIGHT FORK M.P. 374.62 TO M.P. 383.47 8.85 MILES RIGHT FORK TO 1.8 MILES ABOV E RICKS SPRING M.P. 383.47 TO M.P. 391.60 8.13 MILES R 0 A D WAY ST A. 482 + 00 TO 920 +·00 1.8 MILES ABOV E RICKS SPRING TO BEAR LAKE SLNMIT M.P. 391.60 TO M.P. 404.75 13.15 MILES ROADWAY STA. 920+00 TO 1690+00 BEAR LAKE SUMMIT TO GARDEN CITY M.P. 404.75 TO M.P. 411.78 7.03 MILES ROADWAY STA. 1690+00 TO 2068+00 .... C Ol E C CJ)CJ) W c= ..... S2 c:x: c:x: z c:x: CJ) () COMPONENTS a: W ..... c.~ Ol'O.~ Ol .... en ..C Ol o W - Q)- 0 OOl >c .,... Ol a.E EC -.2> .c:x:. '0< . C zcuCJ) c: c.S W Ol"- ~ ~~ c:x: ~w ..... 'O.~ .....J .- X C\I c:x: en :::J:2 ~'3 W .... co ..... en C\I W .... C Ol ~ a.E EC w -.~ co E W o La. .c:x:. '0< . E c: c.~ W Ol"..... 'O.~ .....J .- X Ol > ..... c:x: 0 c:x: z .sz z c: cu- a: ..... . ~ 0 .....J CU:::J c:x: ~a en >c W ..... .....J c:x: +-' o a. en E Ol > o ra. E ..o C ZCUCJ) c.. c:x: ~. W (J) Q)- ~c C")L-Ol o c.E EC W -.2> C") C") C") W LL.c .... c W :.: Ol o C).c ... .c:x:. '0< . .....zE w"5c: o Ol .~ (J) E c:x: C C z ~ CJ) z a: ~ .~ a:Ol= wzC:X: w O l < C ZCUCJ) c: c.S W Q)..... 'O.~ .....J .- X ..... z ..... .....J c:x: ~w .....J c:x: c:x: CROSS SECTION ELEMENTS - No Widening (Maintain Existing Surface) .--~------~----~I~~---~--=---+------+------~--. -Widening-Standard (40' Pavement> ~------------~~----~------~------+------+------~----~~-----+------~----~~- Widening-Modified Std (34' Pavement) - C lim b in 9 La n e s (S eIe c ted Are as ) -Climbing Lanes (All Possible Areas) ~------------i~----~------~------~----_+------~----~~----_+------~----~~-= --+-----~------~~------+-----~~----~--~--_+---.~_+---.--~~~.--~ · . • • • ROADWAY CURVATURE (ALIGNMENT) - Retain Existing Alignment -Improve Alignment (Selected Areas) -Improve Alignment (35 MPH) -Improve Alignment (40 MPH) -Improve Alignment (60 MPH) - New Alignment (40 MPH) -New Alignment (50 MPH) ROADWAY GRADIENT - Retain Existing Gradient - Adjust/Raise Gradient (Selected Areas) -Improve Gradient (35 MPH) -Improve Gradient (40 MPH) -Improve Gradient (60 MPH) - New Gradient (40 MPH) - New Gradient (50 MPH) MAJOR BRIDGES - Repair Existing Structures - Replace on Existing Alignment - Replace on New Alignment MISCELLANEOUS ROADWAY FEATURES - Retain Signing and Markings -Improve Signing and Markings - Slow Vechicle Turnouts -Retain Existing Recreational Turnouts - Provide New Recreational Turnouts (1) SOME CURVES HAVE AN ADVISORY SPEED OF LESS THAN THE MINIMUM SHOWN. •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~------------i~~L-~-------~------~----_+------~----~r_~--_+------+_----_+------~------r_----~t-------~----~------~------~----_+----~~----~ • • • ~------------~~----~------~------~----_+------+_----~r_----_+------~----~~----~------+_----~I~----~------+-----~------~--- • • • • j • • • • • (1) • • (1) .(1) -• • (1) • • • • • • • --- • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • (1) -- • • (1) • • • • • : • • FIGURE • • • • • COMPONENT AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT LOGAN CAN ·YON STUDY FEBRUARY 1987 c'::¥.U:mf �.OUTLINE FOR SCOPING MEETING PRESENTATION MARCH 3, 4, 1987 u.S. 89 - LOGAN CANYON EIS REVISED FEBRUARY 16, 1987 I. Introduction A. Welcome to UDOT-FHWA-USFS Scoping Meeting on U.S. 89 Logan Canyon EIS - Tod Weston B. Introduction of speaker (others?) C. Purpose of meeting - formal scoping meeting in accordance with NEPA - NEPA requires scoping meeting to be held after publishing notice of intent, before preparing EIS 1. 2. Obtain input on issues that · should be considered in the EIS and suggestions for project alternatives 3. D. Share results of study to present, project alternatives developed Answer questions on the alternatives and the EIS process UDOT contracted with CH2M HILL to carry out three major study efforts 1. 2. Development of transportation plan (alternatives) 3. E. Analysis of traffic constraints and needs Preparation of environmental document (EIS) Previous public information meetings have been held from which input will be used for scoping EIS, along with this input; this meeting will 1. Quickly recap results of study to present 2. Review goals and objectives 3. Explain project alternatives developed to the present 4. Receive comments and suggestions, perhaps more specific to alternatives 1 .. J �II. Project Setting A. Relation of U.S. 89 to Region B. Most of project area lies within Cache National Forest, therefore, USFS and FHWA are cooperating agencies on EIS III. Study Findings A. Logan Canyon is scenic and recreational resource designated by the USFS as a scenic highway B. U.S. 89 serves traffic 1. Utilizing canyon for recreation 2. From regional communities accessing the regional trade center of Logan or recreational opportunities around Bear Lake 3. Through traffic from the accessing recreational areas of Yellowstone and Teton National Parks c. Resources of canyon and population increase will increase the traffic volume on U.S. 89 in future D. U.S. 89 classified as a "rural minor arterial" E. Classifications carry standards to be met; U.S. 89 does not presently conform to standards of a rural minor arterial F. Cross-section elements of road are significantly substandard throughout most of project area; gradient and curves add to problems G. Commence existing, standard, and modified standard, typical sections H. Frequency of accidents is significantly greater in 16 areas than the average for the Canyon I. Explain level of service - quality measure of operating conditions J. At present volumes, road falls into Level of Service D K. By 2000, the level of service will drop to E in some places, by 2005 will generally be E throughout project area Results of traffic needs study presented at previous meetings; fact sheet is available L. 2 ... j �IV. Goals and Objectives A. Primary opjective of study is to achieve balance between transportation needs and scenic and recreational resources of canyon B. Transportation needs - rural minor arterial standards 1. Achieve a level of service C wherever possible in the Canyon through year 2010 a. b. Widen and improve alignment Provide climbing lanes 2. 3. Improve safety in any identified hazardous areas 4. Improve roadside turnouts and parking areas 5. Improve major intersections 6. C. Replace substandard bridges and drainage structures Keep highway guardrails to a minimum consistent with public safety Scenic and aesthetic values - recreation and water quality are resources ~hich require greatest protection 1. Manage corridor as a scenic highway 2. Avoid Logan River channel changes and protect the riparian edge 3. Mitigate any encroachment damage to fisheries and wildlife habitat 4. Minimize cut and fill slopes 5. Landscape disturbed areas to restore aesthetics, including abandoned road sections 6. Control runoff on cut and fill slopes to minimize erosion and protect water quality 7. Protect existing and potential recreation sites, and provide suitable access 8. Dispose of surplus material in designated areas 3 .J �v. Alternatives Development A. Study area can be divided into three sections based on terrain and road design characteristics 1. Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring ') L. • 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit 3. Bear Lake Summit to Garden City B. Different alternatives are appropriate to each section C. Alternatives not yet final; may be increased/ decreased as a result of input from scoping meetings D. Alternatives generally cover wide range of options to provide good comparison of pros and cons of each E. Sect.ion 1 - Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Springs 1. 2. Spot improvements - replace bridges; slow vehicle turnouts; recreational turnouts and parking; signing and marking improvements 3. Widen along existing alignment - widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches, raise grade in potential flood areas, plus other spot improvements 4. F. No action - maintain existing road Widen and improve existing alignment to design speed of 35 mph to 40 mph - improve (straighten) alignment; passing lanes; particularly in areas of sustained grades; improvements listed in 2 and 3 Section 2 - 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake -Summit 1. No action - maintain existing road 2. Widen and improve existing alignment to design speed of 55 to 60 mph, widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches, improve (straighten) alignment, provide passing lanes, particularly in areas of steep grades; raise grade in potential flood areas; bridge replacement; signing and marking improvements 4 �G. Section 3 - Bear Lake Summit to Garden City 1. 2. Construct road along new alignment to north 4. IV. Widen and improve along existing alignment to design speed of 40 to 50 mph - widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches; improve (straighten) alignment; provide passing lanes, particularly in areas of steep grades, raise grade in potential flood areas; bridge replacement; signing and marking improvements 3. H. No action - maintain existing road Construct road along new alignment to south Use of an alternate canyon for new road for through traffic such as Blacksmith Fork has been suggested as an alternative by many in the past. Has been determined economically infeasible. Therefore, must do best we can to balance local recreation/ through traffic needs on existing U.S. 89 Procedures to Submit Comments 1. Sign up 2. Step to microphone 3. Give name, representing what group 4. Want to give everyone chance to speak before allowing anyone second opportunity 5. Not looking for whether you favor project or not, but what issues should be examined in ErS, or other alternatives or mitigation that should be considered 6. Written comments will be accepted through Monday, April 6. Address is on hand-out at back of room. SLC94/d.ll0l 5 - j �LIST OF SLIDES TO ACCOMPANY PRESENTATION AT SCOPING MEETINGS MARCH 3, 4, 1987 LOGAN CANYON EIS REVISED FEBRUARY 16, 1987 Slide No 1. US-89 - Logan Canyon Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Meeting Utah Department of Transportation in cooperation with United States Forest Service and Federal Highway Administration Consultant: CH2M HILL 2. Purpose of Scoping Meeting o o o o o o Comply with National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Review study approach Review public involvement program Review results of study Review alternatives developed to date Obtain input on alternatives 3• Vicinity Map ( Figure 1 - T.M . .) 4• Site Map (Figure 2 - T.M.) 5. Function of US-fr9 through Logan Canyon o o o o o o 6. Designation by USFS as a scenic highway Recreational access within canyon Regional recreational traffic Regional business and service Serves interstate through traffic Classification "Rural Minor Arterial" Roadway Characteristics o o o o Substandard cross-section Low design/travel speed Low level of service - delays Traffic volumes will increase 7. Typical Sections (Figure) 8. Goals and Objectives o SLC-STN/18 Transportation needs 1 �Level of service C in year 2010 Replace drainage structures Imp" ove hazardous areas r Improve turnouts and parking Improve major intersections Minimize guardrailing consistent with safety 9. Goals and Objectives o Scenic and Aesthetic Values Manage as a scenic highway Protect river and riparian edge Mitigate damage to wildlife habitat Minimize cut and fill scopes Landscape disturbed areas Control runoff Protect water quality Protect recreation sites and access Surplus material disposal 10. Study Area - Three Sections Section 1 2 3 Description Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit Bear Lake Summit to Garden City 11. Site Map (Showing three sections) 12. Alternative Categories A. B. C. D. E. 13. No action Spot improvements Widen along existing alignment Widen and improve existing alignment New alignment (Section 3) Alternatives A. No Action (Sections 1, 2, and 3) Maintain Existing Road 14. Alternatives B. Spot Improvements (Sections 1, 2, and 3) Replace bridges Slow vehicle turnouts Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements SLC-STN/18 2 �15. Alternatives C. Widen Along Existing Alignment (Section 1) Widen lanes and shoulders Widen ditches - improve drainage Replace bridges Climbing lanes Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements 16. Typical Sections - Widening on Existing Alignment (Figure) 17. Alternatives o. Widen and Improve existing alignment (Section 1, 2, and 3) Improve alignment - Section 1 35 - 40 Section 2 55 - 60 Section 3 35 - 40 Widen lanes and shoulders Widen ditches - improve drainage Replace bridges Climbing lanes Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements 18. Cross Sections - Widening and Improving Alignment 19. Alternatives (Section .3) E. F. New north alignment G. 20. New north alignment New south alignment Alternatives Summary Alternative Categories A. B. C. o. E. F. G. Section 1 (Middle Canyon) No Action Spot Improvements Widen Exist. Road Widen and Improve: 35-40 mph 40-50 mph 55-60 mph New North Alignment New North Alignment New South Alignment SLC-STN/18 Al Bl Cl Section 2 (Upper Canyon) A2 B2 Section 3 (Rich County) A3 B3 01 03 02 E3 F3 G3 3 �(Notes Slides 21 . - 31 to be made from Figures) 21. Alternative B1 - Middle Canyon Spot Improvements 22. Alternative C1 - Middle Canyon Widen Existing Alignment 23. Alternative D1 - Middle Canyon Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 24. Alternative B2 - Upper Canyon (lower Half) Spot Improvements 25. Alternative B2 - Upper Canyon (upper Half) Spot Improvements 26. Alternative D2 - Upper Canyon (lower half) Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 27. Alternative D2 - Upper Canyon (upper half) Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 28. Alternative B3 - Rich County Spot Improvements 29. Alternative D3 - Rich County Widen and Improve Existing Alignment 30. Alternative E3, F3 Rich County New North Alignment 31. Alternative G3 - Rich County New South Alignment 31. SLC-STN/18 Alternative Summary (repeat of slide 19) 4 �L/s/ (7/ jJn;;/ #1eck~ r.4t/ reee<:C/-ed 0- :: C-e;P[1 of ~ ~,6 6/ /<fF7 .£ ep( ~#ce ' LOGAN CANYON PROJECI MAILING LIST MEDIA Organization ~ Logan Herald Journal ~ Contact Phone Cache Citizen v' Lake Tribune - Sa-If f4k Tl,bu~ (80l.) 752-2121 75 West 300 North Logan, Utah 84321 485 North Main Logan, Utah 84321 Uinta (Evanston) County Herald (bi-weekly: Wednesday and Friday) v - Salt ~ Tim Vitale - Address - Mel Baldwin (307) 789-6560 (801) 237-2045 Utah State University The Statesman (Lc7~~) P.O. Box 867 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 (801) 750-1759 C h Y;J j~nJR-1.f~"­ P.O. Box B Evanston, Wyoming 82930 UMC 0165 Utah State University Logan, Utah 84322 Salt Lake Deseret News Joe Bauman (801) 237-2150 P.O. Box 1257 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 Ogden Standard-Examiner City Editor (801) 394-7711 455 23rd Str. Ogden, Utah 84402 Box Elder News and Journal (801) 723-3471 55 South 100 West Brigham City, Utah 84302 V Bear Lake Gazette (208) 847-3077 484 Washington Str. Montpelier, Idaho 83254 ~ The News Examiner (208) 847-0552 847 Washington Str. P. O. Box 278 Hontpelier, Idaho 83254 KSL Television Channel 5 (801) 237-2500 145 Social Hall Ave. Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 KTVX Television Channel 4 (801) 972-1776 1760 S. Fremont Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 KUTV Television Channel 2 (801) 973-3000 2185 S. 3600 W. West Valley City, Utah 84120 KVNU Radio (801) 752-5141 1350 N. 200 W. Logan, Utah 84321 KVEZ Radio (801) 753-8210 26.00 North Main Logan, Utah 84321 (801) 750-3143 University Hill Utah State University Logan, Utah 84321 (801) 752-1390 810 West 200 North Logan, Utah 84321 (801) 750-5018 606 North 500 East Logan, Utah 84321 j,/ - ~ ( KUSU Radio Therese Stamm Editor Lee Austin KBLQ Radio Salt Lake Tribune (Local Correspondent) SLC-STAN/BIG Chris Jorgensen 5 �_ _ l ~:£~ lillI' _ . Enginee~s . Planners ' Economists Scientists February 6, 1987 B21163.DO Logan Herald Journal 75 West 300 North Logan, Utah 84321 Attention: Legal Advertising Enclosed please find a Notice of Public Meeting. We would like this notice to appear in the next possible issue of your paper. Please invoice us fo~ the cost of the advertisement and send and Affidavit of Publication to my attention at the address shown below. Sincerely, Sandy Leonard Office Administrator . SLC94/46 t Enclosure CH2M HILL Utah Area Office Associated Plaza. Suite 500. 349 South 200 East P.o. Box 2218. Salt Lake City. Utah 84101 801 .363.0200 �NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS US-89 Logan Canyon The Federal Highway Administration (FHW~), U. S. Forest Service (USFS), and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) will jointly hold public scoping meetings for the Environ~ental Impact Statement (ElS) being prepared f9r U.s. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon in Cache and Rich Counties, Utah, on March 3, at 7:00 p.m. at the Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium, 45 East 200 North in Logan, and on March 4, at 7:00 p.m. in Garden City Hall. A meeting for governmental agencies and public officials will be held March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in the Logan City Hall. The general public, interest groups, and governmental agency personnel are invited to attend to provide input regarding their concerns about impacts of road improvements on the environment of the Canyon and issues which should be addressed. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. UDOT has contracted with CH2M HILL, an environmental engineering consulting firm in Salt Lake City, to analyze transportation needs in Logan Canyon, develop alternative plans for improvements, and evaluate the impact of those plans on the environment in an ElS. The FHWA and the USFS will be cooperating agencies on the EIS, which will -be developed in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . NEPA requires that a scoping process take place prior to the conduct . of an ElS. It is the purpose . of the scoping meetings to determine ' from the interested community what are perceived to be the sensitive resources of the project area and what environmental factors should be studied most closely in the ElS. Several public meetings discussing the project have been held previously. Other scoping meetings will be held as determined necessary, and information on time and place will be provided through the local news media. Public meetings will also be held when the draft EIS is completed to obtain comments on its contents. The proposed action would improve US-89 through Logan Canyon from Right Fork about 9 miles east of Logan, to Garden City, a distance of approximately 28 miles. This road passes through the -Wasatch-Cache National Forest, which provides scenic and recreational resources. Portions of the highway are a narrow two-lane road with numerous curves and considerable gradient. The highway is traveled by a significant number of recreational and other large vehicles, which, along the the road constraints, often results in delays of traffic. Improvements to be considered include widening of the roadway and shoulders, flattening of curves, replacing and widening of bridges, adjustment of road gradient, improvement of signing, provision of additional recreational turn- �... " outs, and/or constructing a new road along a new alignment is selected areas, etc. The project area can be divided into three sections based on the design characteristics of the road. These sections are: 1. Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Springs, 2. 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit, and 3. Bear Lake Summit to Garden City (Rich County). Different alternatives might be selected for each of the road sections. Alternatives currently being considered for the project include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. No action Spot improvements Widening along the existing alignment Widening and improving the existing alignment Constructing the road along a new alignment in the Rich County section A fact sheet providing information about the project will be available at Valley Engineering, in Logan; Utah State University Library; Garden City Hall; the U. S. Forest Service, Ogden; and CH2M HILL, Salt Lake City; approximately 3 weeks prior to the scheduled meetings. Written comments or questions will be accepted through Monday, April 6. These should be directed to: Stanton Nuffer or Clifford Forsgren P.O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah (801) 363-0200 SLC60/72 84110 �_ 1~:ft~ ,",,, _ Engineers Planners Economists Scientists c;orJy o f LErrG~ S:£/\/T TO 77 OFP/ce.S, February 13, 1987 B21163.DO Economic Development Administration Denver Region Office of the Director 909 17th Street Denver, Colorado 80202 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Federal Highway Administration, u.s. Forest Service, and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) will jointly hold an agency scoping meeting for the environmental impact statement (ElS) being .prepared for U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon (Summit and Rich Counties, Utah). ' The meeting will be on March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in Logan City Hall, Logan, Utah. Agency personnel are invited to attend . and provide input regarding major issues that should be examined in theEIS and concerns about impacts of road improvements. Public scoping meetings will be held on March 3, 7:00 p.m., at the Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium, 45 East 200 North in Logan, and on March 4 at 7:00 p.m. in Garden City Hall. You are also welcome to attend these meetings. UDOT has contracted with CH2M HILL, an environmental engineering consulting f~rm in Salt Lake City, to analyze · transportation needs in Logan Canyon, develop alternative plans ' for improvements,' and evaluate the impact of those plans on the environment in anEIS. The Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Forest Service will be cooperating agencies on the ElS, which will be developed in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Several public meetings discussing the project have been held. Notification of other scoping meetings will be . provided ·through the local news media. Meetings will also be held when the draft ElS is completed to obtain comments on its contents. The proposed action would improve U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon from Right Fork, about 9 miles east of Logan, to Garden City, a distance of approximately 28 miles. This road passes through the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, which provides scenic and recreational resources. Portions of the highway are a CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lone, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 Soft Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East p.o. Box 2218, Soft Lake City, Utah 84101 208.345.5310 801.363.0200 �Page 2 February 13, 1987 B21163.DO narrow two-lane road with numerous curves and considerable gradient. The highway is travelled by a significant number of recreational and other large vehicles, which, along with the road constraints, often results in traffic delays. Improvements to be considered include widening of the roadway and shoulders, flattening of curves, replacing and widening of bridges, adjustment of road gradient, improvement of signing, provision of additional recreational turn-outs, provision of climbing lanes, and constructing a new road along a new alignment in selected areas. The project area can be divided into three sections based on the design characteristics of the road. These sections are: 1) Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring; 2)1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit; 3) Bear Lake Summit to Garden City. Different alternatives might be selected for each of the road sections. Alternatives currently being considered for the project include: 1) no action; . 2) spot improvements; 3) widening along the existing alignment; 4) widening and improving the existing alignment; 5) constructing the road along a new alignment. A fact sheet providing information about the project will be sent to you in the next few days. Written comments will be accepted through Monday, April 6. These should be addressed to: James Naegle Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, utah 84119 We request that you advise us at the above address by March 1, whether your office will participate in the scoping process. Questions may be directed to James Naegle, telephone (801)965-4160, or CH2M HILL, telephone (801)363-0200. Stanton Project Manager BOC5/026 �lh,j LOGAN CANYON US-89 FACT SHEET TENTATIVE ALTERNATIVES FOR THE EIS L + - .s7{o~"f-, '" ~ "' L -:J .ec. -' f' ~ f) . r r, 1f - ~P,S (if This fact sheet is the third in a series that has been developed to inform the interested public on the progress of The previous fact sheets outlined the scope of the study and reported the result of the transportation needs and traffic volume projections. This fact sheet outlines the tentative alternatives that are under study and provides the means for the public to evaluate the progress of the study and comment on important environmental issues and other possible alternatives at the project scoping meetings on March 3 and 4. The development of alternative plans for the improvement of U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon is dependent on the identification of feasible improvements. "Improvements" refers to separate actions that can be taken to improve the road, such as widening, straightening, providing slow car pull-offs, etc. "Alternatives" are "combinations of improve- ments proposed to be applied in specific locations that would result in a certain level of improvement of the road. ~hese alternatives and others that may be suggested in the scheduled scoping meetings may be evaluated for environmental impacts in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A preferred alternative will be selected in conjunc- tion with preparation of the draft EIS. In the case of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, feasible improvements have generally been defined as (1) actions that will correct problems identified in the previous transportation needs study; (2) actions that will result in a reason- able cost to benefit; and (3) actions that will not result 1 ./ ; l f-of- C),u~ e5 n,.it A fk h.Nf". February 1987 the Logan Canyon Study. I �in extreme environmental impacts. u.s. under study for application to o Improvements that are 89 include: " Widening of the roadway, shoulders, recovery areas and ditches to normal UDOT standard for minor arterials in mountainoHs terrain, or to a modified (narrower) standard that would be less disturbing to the environment of the canyon. o Widening the roadway to provide passing lanes in all possible or selected areas. o Improving the alignment (straightening curves) and the road gradient (degree of slope) to increase the minimum design speeds. o Developing all new road alignments and gradients to 40 mph or 50 mph minimum design speeds. o Repairing existing major bridges. o Replacing major bridges. o Replacement of small drainage structures. o Developing slow vehicle turnouts. o Improvement of signing and pavement markings. o Providing recreational parking. Each of these possible improvements was considered in terms of the opportunities and constraints posed by the existing road and Logan Canyon. 2 �It has become obvious during the study of transportation needs that the roadway consi~ts of several sub-sections :. based on 'the physical characteristics of the terrain. These sections, as shown in Figure 1, are: o Section 1. Middle Canyon - Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring o Section 2. Upper Canyon - 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit o Section 3. Rich County - Bear Lake Summit to Garden City In the analysis of improvements, certain improvements were identified as more appropriate to certain sections of the road than others. As a result, separate sets of alterna- tives were developed for each of the three road sections. These are summarized in the following table. TENTATIVE ALTERNATIVES US-89 - LOGAN CANYON Alternative Designation Alternative Categories A. B. C. D. No Action Spot Improvements Widen Existing Road Widen and Improve Existing Road E. New North Alignment F. New South Alignment G. New South Alignment Section 1 (Middle Canyon) Section 2 (Upper Canyon) Section 3 (Rich County) Al B1 Cl A2 B2 A3 B3 Dl D2 D3 E3 F3 G3 3 �The alternatives proposed for each section of the project area are descr,ibed below: Section 1. Middle Canyon The Middle Canyon is environmentally the most sensitive section of the project road. The narrow canyon floor, confined by steep slopes and the Logan River, limit the road improvements that can be made without substantial affect on visual quality and other attributes. The range of alternatives considered for this section is therefore limited to more conservative improvements that would provide somewhat limited benefits to travelers, but that would protect the environmental qualities appreciated here. AI. No Action - Routine maintenance including resurfacing would ' be continued. Repair of bridges where possible and improved signing and marking would be made. , Geometric constraints (road width) and winding alignment would continue to result in a low level (D-E) of service (LOS) on the highway. B1. Spot improvements - Turning lanes at intersections, slow vehicle turnouts where space is currently available, bridge replacement in existing locations, and improved signing would be carried out in this alternative. Most geometric constraints and alignment problems would continue to exist, and the overall level of service would therefore be unchanged. C1. Widening along existing alignment - The current road would be widened to a standard that is modified from UDOT's normal standard for a minor arterial in mountainous terrain. Figure 2 compares these two standards 4 �and the existing roadway width. lanes would be provid~d Additionally, . climbing in selected areas (specifically in the Dugway between lower and upper twin bridges); gradient will be adjusted in selected areas, bridges would be replaced on the existing or new alignment, depending on each situation, signing and marking would be improved and new recreational parking provided. This alternative would widen the roadway and provide limited improvement to geometrics, but most alignment problems would remain. Improvements to the roadway width would improve the level of service to LOS C through 1995, when it would drop to LOS D through 2010. 1D. Widening and improving the existing alignment - In addition to the widening and other improvements included in Alternative 1C, this ' alternative would improve ·the entire alignment of this section of roadway to . a 35 to 40 mph minimum design speed. This would be the same design speed as the improved section of the highway below Right Fork, which is designed to 40 mph standards with a few curves at a lower speed. The more extreme curves on the road would be softened to achieve this design speed. Up to 18 curves of the 51 curves ·would be modified to attain the 35 mph design speed. An additional 12 of the 51 curves would be corrected to attain a 40 mph design speed. Geometric and curvature problems would be improved with this alternative to raise the level of service to LOS C until the year 1995 when it would drop to LOS D through 2010. Alternatives that would improve this section to a higher level ·of service have not been included at this time because resulting environmental impacts appear to be unacceptable to most people. 5 �Section 2. Upper Canyon While environmental quality is still considerable and important in this section, it does not limit possible improvements to the highway as much as in the Middle Canyon. A smaller range of proposed alternatives are therefore necessary for this section. A2. No Action - The No Action alternative for this road section would be the same as described for Section 1. B2. Spot Improvements - This alternative would include installation of turning lanes at major intersections, straightening of selected curves, installation of slow vehicle turnouts, provision of new recreational parking, replacement of bridges on the existing or new alignment, depending on the specific conditions, and improvement of signing and pavement marking. Most alignment constraints will not be improved by this alternative, and thus level of service will not be improved. D2. Isolated problems will be corrected. Widen and improve existing alignment - Widening of the road to UDOT standard for a minor arterial road in mountainous terrain would be done for the entire length of this section (see Figure 2). Climbing lanes would be provided in all possible areas (upper portions of this section). The alignment and gradient would be improved to 50 or 60 mph minimum design speed. of the 20 curves would be modified. Up to 7 Bridges would be replaced on the existing or an altered alignment, depending on each case. Improved signing and marking and additional recreation parking will be provided. By correcting most geometric and alignment problems, this alternative would maintain the level of service on the road at Level D through 2010. 6 �Section 3. Rich County This section is relatively free of environmental constraints to road improvement. The Sunrise campground and Bear Lake viewpoint near the summit are important features to be protected. The existing road is below standard in width, has a number of curves that lower the minimum design speed to 25 mph, and has a steep gradient that also lowers the travel speed. Since environmental constraints are not particularly limiting here, alternatives that would correct only portions of the problems identified are not seen to be worthwhile. A3. No Action - The No Action alternative for this section would be the same as for Sections 1 and 2. B3. Spot Improvements - This alternative would include installation of turning lanes at major intersections, straightening of selected curves, installation of slow vehicle turnouts, provision of new recreational parking, and improvement of signing and pavement markings. Most alignment constraints will not be improved by this alternative, and thus level of service will not be improved. D3. Isolated problems will be corrected. Widen and Improve the Existing Alignment - The entire route would be widened to UDOT standards for a minor arterial in mountainous terrain (Figure 1). A passing lane would be constructed for the entire length. The horizontal and vertical alignment would be straightened to a minimum design speed of 35 to 40 mph. Up to 11 of the 34 curves would be modified to the 35 mph design speed. An additional 16 of the 34 curves would be modi- fied to the 40 mph design speed. Signing and marking would be improved, and additional recreational parking provided. 7 �- New alignment to the north of the E3. New Alignment F3. identified, and a new road existing road road would be " constructed. Road width would be based on the UDOT standard for minor arterials in mountainous terrain (Figure 2). A climbing lane would be provided for the entire length of the route. Alignment and gradient would allow a minimum design speed of 40 to 50 mph. Signing and marking would be improved, and recreational parking provided as needed. G3. New Alignment - A new alignment to the south of the existing road for a portion of the route would be identified and a new road constructed. A possible route that would leave the existing road below the Bear Lake overlook and rejoin the existing road just below the residential area has been identified. Alignment and gradient has been identified that would allow a minimum design speed of 40 to 50 mph. Signing and marking would be improved and recreational parking provided as needed. These alternatives plus any other feasible alternatives resulting from the scoping meetings on March 3 and 4 may be evaluated and compared in the environmental impact statement for the project. Graphic illustrations of the specific location of proposed curve improvements, new alignments, etc., will be presented at the scoping meetings. may be directed to James Naegle, UDOT (801)965~4160 Clifford Forsgren, CH2M HILL (801)363-0200. BOT538/017 SLC95/d.201 8 Questions or to �"'-./. '.---./ BEAVER MOUNTAIN LOGAN CANYON SECTION 3 RICKS SP-RING UPPER TWIN BRIDGE LOWER TWIN BRIDGE CHINA ROW -~...J- -""---....~ RIGHT FORK CARD RANGER STATION FIGURE 1 STUDY S. CTIONS E LOGAN CANYON STUDY �.~ t: (1) 5:1 SLOPE I·VARI:sJ· 5'+ 29' MIN 55 MPH 23' TO 25' 24' MIN 50 MPH · 18' MIN 40 MPH ~~-------.. I 16 ' MIN 35 MPH ~ (2) SLOPE VARIES 1 0: 1 TO 5: 1 (A) EXISTING 24-29 ' 55 MPH 20 -24' 50 MPH 15 -18' 40 MPH 13-16' 35 MPH 40' (2') 12' 12' ~~--~~--------~~--------~~----~ ~~ RECOVERY AREA __________________________________________________~10~:1~ .-<\-? ~~ (' (8) STANDARD 0...0 (HOURLY VOLUME OV ER 250) - """ -- RECOVERY AREA _6' MIN 1100. CUT DITCH _5' .... -, -- -- 34' 12' -- -?~ ~ ?'~ - ~ ...... RECOVERY AREA - - _1100. 12' -- _5'_ ~ S· "\ ~ 70:7 (C) MODIFIED STANDARD FIGURE 2 \ J ~ CYl TYPICAL SECTIONS _______________________________________________________________________________ LOGAN CANYON STUDY L.::"~.WI" • '- � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/67">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/67</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 3469863492 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 16261148 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Information about Logan Canyon, February 1987 Description An account of the resource Outline for scoping meeting presentation, list of slides and the print media that received legal notice, findings from the Logan Canyon study, goals and objectives of the study, alternatives for development, notice of public scoping meetings (and letter to media), tentative alternatives to improvements, map of sections to be studied, typical sections of existing, standard, and modified standard conditions in Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-02-17 1987-03-03 1987-03-04 1987-02-16 1987-02-12 1987-02-06 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Rich County (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_Page_6.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/70a9a4b6cf23afc5955b9386167e1234.pdf 28d88e031483fc49eb9991e60095e9cf PDF Text Text INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING January 26, 1987 Additional Data for Agenda Items Agenda Item No: 2. Distribution of Revised Environmental Report Schedule Distribution of Outline for Scoping Meeting Distribution of Final Draft of Notice of Intent Sent to FHWA. 3. Distribution of Draft of Legal Notice of Seoping Meeting 4. Distribution of Selected Crossections Showing Effect of 35 to 40 mph Design Speed . in the Lower Canyon. Distribution of Figure Showing Retaining Wall Conceptual Plan. Distribution of Revised Matrix of Component and Alternative Development Dated January 26, 1987. SLC-STAN/14 1 �z u.s. 89 LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SCHEDULE (Revised January 26, 1987) Task Due Date Notice of Intent for EIS to FHWA January 8, 1987 Scoping Meeting Legal Notices to Media January 28, 1987 Preliminary Alternatives Technical Memo February 2, 1987 Official Notices to Government Agencies Inviting Participation in Scoping Meetings February 2; 1987 News Release to Media February 9, 1987 Fact Sheet to Media and Complete Mailing List February la, 1987 Scoping Meeting - Logan March. 3, 1987 Scoping Meeting - Logan and Garden City March 4, 1987 Technical Memo Drafts (to UDOT & ID Team) March 23, 1987 Complete Review of Tech Memos April 20, 1987 Preliminary Draft EIS (To UDOT & ID Team) April 27, 1987 Complete Review of Preliminary Draft EIS May 26, 1987 Draft EIS Submittal to UDOT for distribution to FHWA & USFS SLC-STN/16a June 8, 1987 1 �OUTLINE FOR SCOPING MEETING U.S. 89 - LOGAN CANYON EIS I. Introduction A. Welcome to UDOT-FHWA-USFS Scoping Meeting on U.S. 89 Logan Canyon EIS B. Introduction of speaker (others?) C. Purpose of meeting - formal scoping meeting in accordance with NEPA - NEPA requires scoping meeting to be held after publishing notice o f intent, before preparing EIS 1. 2. Obtain input on issues that should be considered in the EIS and suggestions for project alternatives 3. ' D. - Share results of study to present, project alternatives developed Answer questions on the alternatives and the EIS process UDOT contracted with CH2M HILL to carry out three major study efforts 1. 2. Development of transportation plan (alternatives) 3. E. Analysis of traffic constraints and needs Preparation of environmental document (EIS) Previous public information meetings have been held from which input will be used for scoping EIS, along with this input; this meeting will 1. 2. Explain project alternatives developed to the present 3. II. Quickly recap results of study to present Receive comments and suggestions, perhaps more specific to alternatives Project Setting and Objectives A. Relation of U.S. 89 to Region 1 �1. Most of project area lies within Cache National Forest, therefore, USFS and FHWA are cooperating agencies on EIS 2. Logan Canyon is scenic and recreational resource 3. U.S. 89 serves traffic a. Utilizing canyon for recreation b. From regional communities accessing the regional trade center of Logan or recreational opportunities around Bear Lake c. Through traffic "from the accessing recreational areas of Yellowstone and Teton National Parks 4. U.s. 89 classified as a "rural minor arterial" 5. · Classifications carry standards to be ·met; U.S. 89 does not presently conform to standards of a rural minor arterial 6. Primary objective of study is to achieve compromise between "rural minor arterial" standards and scenic and recreational resources of canyon a. Resources of canyon and population increase will increase the traffic volume on U.S. 89 in future b. Cross-section elements of road are significantly substandard throughout most of project area; gradient and curves add to problems c. Frequency of accidents is significantly greater in 16 areas than the average for the Canyon d. Explain level of service - quality measure of operating conditions e. At present volumes, road falls into Level of Service D f. By 2000, the level of service will drop to E in some places, by 2005 will generally be E throughout project area 2 �7. Results of traffic needs study presented at previous meetings; fact sheet is available III. Alternatives Development A. Study area can be . divided into three sections based on terrain and road design characteristics 1. Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring 2. 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit 3. Bear Lake Summit to Garden City B. Different alternatives are appropriate to each section C. Alternatives not yet final; may be increased/ decreased as a result of input from scoping meetings D. Alternatives generally cover wide range of options to provide good comparison of pros and cons of each E. Section 1 - ·Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Springs 1. 2. Spot improvements - replace bridges; slow vehicle turnouts; recreational turnouts and parking; signing and marking improvements 3. Widen along existing alignment - widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches, raise grade in potential flood areas, plus other spot improvements 4. F. No action - maintain existing road Widen and improve existing alignment to design speed of 35 mph to 40 mph - improve (straighten) alignment; passing lanes; particularly in areas of sustained grades; improvements listed in 2 and 3 Section 2 - 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit 1. No action - maintain existing road 3 �2. G. Widen and improve existing alignment to design speed of 55 to 60 mph, widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches, improve (straighten) alignment, provide passing lanes, particularly in areas of steep grades; raise grade in potential flood areas; bridge replacement; signing and marking improvements Section 3 - Bear Lake Summit to Garden City 1. 2. IV. Widen and improve along existing alignment to design speed of 35 to 40 mph - widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches; improve (straighten) alignment; provide passing lanes, particularly in areas of steep grades, raise grade in potential flood areas; bridge replacement; signing and marking improvements 3. H. No action - maintain existing road Construct road along new alignment to north Use of alternate canyon for new road for through traffic has been suggested as alternative by many in the past. Has been determined economically infeasible. Therefore, must do best we can to balance local recreation/through traffic needs on existing U.S. 89 Procedures to Submit Comments 1. Sign up 2. Step to microphone 3. Give name, representing what group 4. Want to give everyone chance · to speak before allowing anyone second opportunity 5. Not looking for whether you favor project or not, but what issues should be examined in ErS, or other alternatives or mitigation that should be considered 6. vlri tten comments will be accepted through Monday, April 6. Address is on hand-out at back of room. - - - - ----- SLC94/d.ll0l 4 �LIST OF FIGURES FOR SLIDE PRESENTATION FOR SCOPING MEETING Slide No 1. US-89 - Logan Canyon Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Meeting Utah Department of Transportation In cooperation with United States Forest Service and Federal Highway Administration Consultant: CH2M HILL 2• Purpose of Scoping Meeting o o o o o o Comply with National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Review study approach Review public involvement program Review results of study Review alternatives developed to date Obtain input on additional alternatives 3. Vicinity Map ( Figure 1 - T.M.) 4• Site Map (Figure 2 - T.M.) 5. Function of US-89 through Logan Canyon o o o o o 6. Roadway Characteristics o o o o 7. 1 2 3 SLC-STN/18 Substandard cross-section Low design/travel speed Low level of service - delays Traffic volumes will increase Study Area - Three Sections Section 8• Recreational access within canyon Regional recreational traffic Regional business and service Serves interstate through traffic Classification "Rural Minor Arterial" Description Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit Bear Lake Summit to Garden City Site Map (Showing three sections) 1 �Alternatives 9. No Action Maintain Existing Road Alternatives 10. Spot Improvements Replace bridges Slow vehicle turnouts Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements Alternatives 11. Widen Along Existing Alignment Widen lanes and shoulders Widen ditches - improve drainage Replace bridges Climbing lanes Recreational turnouts and ' parking Signing and pavement marking improvements Alternatives l2~ Widen and Improve existing alignment Improve alignment - 35-40 mph Improve alignment - 55-60 mph Widen lanes and shoulders Widen ditches - improve drainage Replace bridges Climbing lanes Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements . Alternatives Summary 13. Section 1 (Middle Canyon) No Action Spot Improvements Widen Exist. Road Widen and Improve: 35-40 mph 55-60 mph New Alignment SLC-STN/18 X X X Section 2 (Upper Canyon) X Section 3 (Rich County) X X X X X X 2 �s-e~1 6:; L./dClT F#~~ OA/ ~ec /3~ hna/ ro (49] ()-22) //,Ia// DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -Federal Highway Administration ENVIRor~ENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; CACHE AND RICH COUNTIES, U1AH AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) , DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that at this time it is the St3ternent (LIS) for to prepare an Environmental Impact intenf~ ~ proposed a highway project in _ r".:lrhD / ':I ~r~ ....... - , , ...... , . -- - , . ... .,..<!~ Counties, Utah. the If study and analysis conclude that all appropriate FHWA/UDOT criteria for a Finding of No Significant Impact are met then the document may be converted from an EIS to a FONSI. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Duncan Silver, u.S. Department. of . , Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, P.O. Box 1J563, Salt Lake City, . Utah Baumgartner, U.S. Telephone 84147, Department of Agriculture, North 1200 East, Logan, Utah James Naegle, West, (801) 84321, 524-5143, Utah 84119, uave Forest Service, 860 Telephone (801) 753-2772, or Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, or Telephone 4501 (801) So~th L700 965-416C. or Howard Richardson, Utah Department of Transportation, District One Office, P.q. Box 2747, Ogden, Utah SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 84404, Telephone (801) 399-5921. The proposed action would improve U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, Utah, from Right Fork, about 9 miles east of Logan, to Garden City, a distance of approximately 28 mjles. This road passes through the Wasatch-:-Cache National Forest, provides scenic and recreational resources. which Portions of the highway are a narrow two-lane road with numerous gradient. The highway is umber of �-' -' r ecreation(Jl and other large vehicles, which, along with the road constrain~:ten r~n delays of traffic .. Improvements to be considered include widening of the roadway and shoulders; flattening of curves, gradient, replacing and widening of improvement bridges, signing, adjustment of provision of road additional recreational turn-outs, and/or constructing a new road along a new alignment in selected areas, . ~tc. ~ ~ The project"" can be divided intG three sectioi,S 1 characteristics. These sections are: above Ricks Spring; (2) Bear Summit; (1) ba~eu Widen ~nd alignment. I 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Lake spot improvements; ~01J . H.-5 ueslgr Right Fork to 1.8 miles Summit to Garden (3) Alternatives City. currently being consi.dered for the project include: (2) on (1) no action; widen along existing alignment; . .improve existing alignment; (5) (4) Construct road along new Different alternatives might be selected for each of the road sections. Several . public meetings discussing the project have already been held. Formal scoping meetings for the public will be held on March 3, at 7:00 p.m. at the Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium ! 45 East 200 North in Logan, and on March 4, at 7:00 p.m.- in Garden City Hall. A meeting for governmental agencies and public officials will be held March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in the Logan City Hall. other scoping meetings will be held as determined necessary, . . and information on S II:: 1 . . time and place will be provided through the local news media. _ . .to-........---. j..c ......~~-.J"a ~. A,...".:" . ....... J..... ._ ~.. ..... KI~~-. :.~~~~ ........~,... . ......... _fo: ..... ... =.. ....:!:J" "...~ . --"..... ~J'r.~-~•. --..I.-..:. -...., ..'"Io- ~ ~ _ • _ To ensure that the full range of issues related to this" proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. questions concerning the proposed action and Comments or the EIS should be �directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. r / J. /' . ~ i , { "_ J ! ~ J! ; (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance High\'!ClY Research Planning and Construction. Cir(~ ular Program Number 20.205, The provisions of OM8 No. A-95 regarding state and local clearinghouse review of Federal ana federally assistea programs and projects apply to this program.) Issued on: · "!"~aniel Dake Division Administrator Salt Lake City, Utah 1. �NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS US-89 Logan Canyon The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U. S. Forest Service (USFS), and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) will jointly hold public scoping meetings for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon in Cache and Rich Counties, Utah, on March 3, at 7:00 p.m. at the Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium, 45 East 200 North in Logan, and on March 4, at 7:00 p.m. in Garden City Hall. A meeting for governmental agencies and public officials will be held March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in the Logan City Hall. The general public, interest groups, and governmental agency personnel are invited to attend to provide input regarding their concerns about impacts of road improvements on the environment of the Canyon and issues which should be addressed. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. UDOT has contracted with CH2M HILL, an environmental engineering consulting firm in Salt Lake City, to analyze · transportation needs in Logan Canyon, develop alternative plans for improvements, and evaluate the impact · of those plans on the environment in an EIS. The FHWA and the USFS will be cooperating agencies on the EIS, which will · be developed in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . NEPA requires that a scoping process take place prior to the conduct of an EIS. It is the purpose of the scoping meetings to de·t ermine from the interested communi ty what are perceived to be the sensitive resources of the pr6ject area and what environmental factors should be studied most closely in the EIS. Several public meetings discussing the project have been held . previously. Other scoping meetings will be held a~ determined necessary, and information on time and place will be provided through the local news media. Public meetings will also be held when the draft EIS is completed to obtain comments on its contents. The proposed action would improve US-89 through Logan Canyon from Right Fork about 9 miles east of Logan, to Garden City, a distance of approximately 28 miles. This road passes through the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, which provides scenic and recreational resources. Portions· of the highway are a narrow two-lane road with numerous curves and considerable gradient. The highway is traveled by .a significant number of recreational and other large vehicles, which, along the the road constraints, often results in delays of traffic. Improvements to be considered include widening of the roadway and shoulders, flattening of curves, replacing and widening of bridges, adjustment of road gradient, improvement of signing, provision of additional recreational turn- �.---...... ".--... ESD ".- ..-/ EXJJT .tt40 3s ,/' /' ---- ~ ~ , ,/ / /' / -- ---... - - ---,. ':./ "l/ . .~ ( i ; /' ( -;0/'(;" ) .\~ -J / \ C; ,"c I' I 5320 I ,/ 1111 ~ /' 1 I I 1 II en C CD t... m n -i 1 I'" I 1\\ S50 ~ ~ 0 1 ~ ). ~ ~ f. . .·o ~ I I 5':2& 0 1 1 I "'0 JJ o t... ~ -i 2 P (" I '" en J: m m -< 1 I Z P I 1 I -i N . ~\ I I 'f) \ ~ CD 0 I I 1 ~ ~ '" ~ I i .~ N '\J ~ I II I I '01 ~ d 0 I 1 I 1 1 �·1111 kW5 I I I I I 'II I I I ,I -- -- 1 I 1 . ---- 1 1/6)" .Jf LYI I " I I jV III .I I I I I I I <; 3] / 1 l' ,1111/ , I~ .I / 1 h' I III III ." r--------- / (/) co :0 I I I o m m t.. ~ -I -I Z Z -< P I P ~I Cu '\;: (4 f, y I, U ~\(;2.0 ,. y. ~ ) ~/ I ~I I I I ~ i &oO ;F I ~ I I I I I I 0 I I •~ I I I :I ,I I I �~. en C ;£ OJ '- m () -1 I 1 1\\ I" I~ I~ 1 (LID) ~ I~ I 'Yb '+ ! A-------=----=~--_+ C /1d"1/1 d /to,/, I ~ I~ c3s7 I I 1 1 I ..... - - -- - -"" - --- - -,-- I " en ;0 I o m '- m m -1 () 5'tYO -1 Z -=- . l AI/ It\ ~ Wa/I ('3 ~) ~ \ ~ ~ CO W ~ ~ p OJ -< I Z I P I I I I~I I I I ~ , I I 1 I I 0 1 I .. m ~ I I I ., I 1 1 1 1 �1I11 en C CD t... m (") ~ 1 ~ 1<.\ ~ ... ~I - -- 1 ~ ~ ~ I 1 I I 1 I I I " ;0 en I CD m ~ I -< 2 ~ I " \ ~ ~I ~ ~I I I I I 0 "Tl I I I I I I • I I I I I I I 0 ~ m �1111 U) c 1 " eX'lsr , ·1 I 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 t.... m (") -1 1 1 , OJ 1 I I 1 1 1 I~ I~ 1 (,\ ~ 1 1 1 1 [\ I 1 , I ! 1 . I 1 , I ~ ~ ~ ~ , I I I 1 1 I 1 I -0 )'. U) OJ t.... m n -1 z 9 :c ~ -< I I JJ 0 1 ~i ~ ---- / L ,-"- 1-1 - 1 I , , , I i . 0 l> -1 m �~ 1111 I I I 351,yo -- --'--... - - --- ...... 1 en co c... I (") c 1 -1 $XI.Jr : I £ tt : 57 2 D I 1 I 1 I --- m I I 1 I I~ I~ IG\ ~ 1 1 , I , 1 5 700 I 1 1 1\ \ 1 --- -=-- 1 I , II \. ~ 1 I . ; ,' ' ~ , /\ I ' '< ~ 1 , I ,~ 1 I I I , I I I , I ,~ I , I '\ , , \ s ~(, o ' 1 I / I \ "'0 JJ " 1 2 m (") -; ---\J\~ ~ ~ ~ OJ ~ ~ ~ ~ z 9 en OJ ~ -; I o I -< I I ~: II I I I I 1 I I 0 • :> -1 m <: I 'I ~ 1 It r C/ I 1 I �"~ ,.-.,.. r-----. 1111 I I I I 35~~6 I £y/Jr £. ~ I S' 7~O I I I ~. I ! I I ?q(; I I I I I I I I /' / / J / I I / I -- ./ &~/U/7 tCb'c;// ~ <':'-79-0 I ! I I S 70 t:" ./ / IJ lJ I 1 1 I I 1 I t.... m -l I I~ I· I~ IG\ :~ I 1 1 1 I I 1 ! ! I I I I I~ i~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I ! I I 1 CJ) I I I OJ -< () -l I o ." ! I I I I m y -;- I("L ~~t? f ~L.C(::5 @ -1 z ~ ~ "'"6 ~' ~ /' "'- -. " ,/ L1 / S~~ O / -/ \t7 ~ r G\ V1 "! / ./ I OJ () m m 0 ..,r / I I OJ c I- / ./ /" I .~ ~ () //{=26' r/~V ~ 8 "-1 " ~ t ~ ~ ~ .. 0 I I ~! I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I ! . I 0 }> -l m I ! I I I I d I ,! ~ J �1111 , < I I , , 2: ~ ~ ~ : ~ l~ _ I' .------ -------- - : I I I ~ I I" , ~ : : ~ I , , , , i' /-- / , , / , I , I I I I I I , I I I I / I I I , I , I ""0 JJ 0 I- m (') ~ C/) I m m OJ ,-< I~ iI I I I o z 9 ! I I I I I I II _----~-----i---___!/'. I ~) r 'J", ...J \S) W ~ :ti I .~ ~ .. 0 l> ~ m �GUARD RAIL CONCRETE RETAINING WALL EXISTING PLANT GROWTH TO BE RETAINED AND PROTECTED C PLANTINGS REQUIRED ---....- TOPSOIL REQUIRED l' - 6" "'"""----, A / EXCAVATION LINE (APPROXJ ( RIVER FIGURE RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPING CONCEPTUAL PLAN LOGAN CANYON STUDY ,.::tlum., �(1) 5:1 SLOPE 29' MIN 55 MPH 23' TO 2S' S'+ 24' MIN 50 MPH 18' MIN 40 MPH 16' MIN 35 MPH (2) SLOPE VARIES 1 0: 1 TO 5: 1 (A) EXISTING 24-29' 55 MPH 20 -24' 50 MPH 15 -18' 40 MPH 13 -16' 35 MPH 40' ( 2') 12' 12' ~~--~~--------~~--------~~----~ ~~ RECOVERY AREA ____________________________________________________ '0~:, ~ ~-y -<-~ <' -y~ (B) STANDARD ~ ~~ 0..-0 (HOURLY VOLUME OVER 250> - - ..... - - RECOVERY AREA _6' MIN_ CUT DITCH --_S'_ 34' 12' -~ ~ ~ RECOVERY AREA - ..... 12' - -- _S'_ ~ 5' "\ ~ 10:1 (C) MODIFIED STANDARD FIGURE 1 TYPICAL SECTIONS LOGAN CANYON STUDY �11' MIN 17' 17' 2' MIN RETAINING STRUCTURE/GUARD RAIL POSSIBLY REQUIRED. MODIFIED STANDARD (CENTERED ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT) 17' 5' MIN OFFSET 17' 10' MIN-(40 MPH, 10:1) 8' MIN-( 35 MPH, 10: 1) EXISTING RETAIN RIVERBANK MODIFIED STANDARD (NEW CENTERLINE OFFSET AWAY FROM RIVER) ,;r FIGURE 2 TYPICAL SECTIONS WIDENING ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT :::f,~cn'. LOGAN CANYON STUDY � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/68">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/68</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 221797090 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 10632364 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Additional data for agenda items from January 26, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Additional data for agenda items from January 26, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting includes an environmental report schedule, outline for scoping meeting, list of figures for slide presentation for scoping meeting, environmental impact statement for Cache and Rich counties, notice of public scoping meetings, mulitple diagrams (for speed limits), figure of retaining wall and landscaping conceptual plan, figure of typical sections, and widening on existing alignment. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Utah. Department of Transportation Dake, Daniel Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-01-26 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_11.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/8ce4c5180b73097b145f0fd547c9d7a4.pdf caabb2b949352f8947a4764bb1422296 PDF Text Text /, / CIOAHILL ME. ORANDUM M TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: July 9, 1986 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROEJCT: B21163.AO Your attendance and participation in the second Interdisciplinary Team meeting held on June 23, 1986 was appreciated. Enclosed are minutes of the meeting for your review, and an agenda for the next meeting on July 14, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden. We look forward to seeing you there. SLC77/59a � 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/69">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/69</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 1776426114 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 418004 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 July 9, 1986 Description An account of the resource Memorandum July 9, 1986 from Stan Nuffer thanking participants for their attendance with attached minutes and agenda review. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-07-09 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 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_Page_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/2af4e42beaecdeaf61c9374e230e3eef.pdf 7beae6f3d27e14514fcaba6889b8de7a PDF Text Text ClfMHILl MEMORANDUM c.. TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: June 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: ~kev(~~( t2/~ UQA) B21163.FO The following items are submitted for your review in preparation for the next Interdisciplinary Team meeting scheduled for June 22 at 1:30 p.m. in Brigham City. Your support and cooperation are appreciated. We realize the agenda for the meeting is a very ambitious one. 1. Minutes of May 18 meeting (page 2 was missing from the June 4 mailing) Alternatives Technical Memorandum (Chapter 8) 3. Air Quality Technical Memorandum 4. Land Use and Recreation Technical Memorandum 5. Terrestrial Resources Technical Memorandum 6. Aquatic Resources Technical Memorandum 7. Biological Assessment by Stanley L. Welsh The Socia-Economic and Visual Resources Technical Memoranda ......... will be sent as soon as possible. BOT538/063 �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY ID TEAM MEETING MINUTES May 18, 1987 ATTENDANCE: Jack Spence, Sierra Club Clark Ostergaard~ USFS Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Don Duff, USFS Bill Helm, Unattached John Neil, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Duncan Silver, FHWA Gale Larson, Valley Engineering Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Margaret Johnson, CH2M HILL Sheldon Barker, CH2M HILL ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES The minutes of the May 4 meeting were reviewed. ITEM 2 - DISCUSSION OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PORTION OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Margaret Johnson led the discussion of the socio-economic technical memorandum. Margaret ' distributed an updated draft of the memorandum which addressed the vlri tten comments received from Steve Flint. Jack Spence had a number of additional comments which were discussed. One of the primary items to come out of the discussion was the need to provide information on driving times, using alternate routes, from various locations on the Wasatch Front to Bear Lake. This is not information that is generally available. It was suggested that the "Friends of Bear Lake" a property owners association with many members in Weber, Davis, and Salt Lake Counties be contacted to see if they could provide some information. The Friends of Bear Lake may also be able to provide information on the number of recreational homes in the area which are owned by people along the Wasatch Front. ITEM 3 - REVIEW OF THE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING NOISE John Neil led the discussion. The memorandum focused primarily on picnic and camping areas. John indicated that the only problem area would be at China Rowand that it would be impossible to mitigate above 40 mph because the picnic area SLCI02/32.1 �l MEETING NOTES Page 2 was so close to the road. He also expressed an interest in locating areas of the river near the road where there might be some fishing. The memorandum does not address fisherman, because John does not know specifically where they are likely to be. It is also not known if the background noise from the river is great enough to· muffle roadway noises. There was some discussion of dispersed recreation (hiking, crosscountry skiing, etc). Jack Spence was not sure that it had been addressed. Duncan Silver pointed out that there were enough sites evaluated and enough information presented to allow someone to estimate the noise level at a particular location where someone might be hiking or skiing. ITEM 4 - REVIEW OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PORTION OF THE TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANQUM Jack Spence indicated that bald eagles used Logan Canyon (as well as Blacksmith Fork) and that he had seen Peregrine Falcons in Tab Hollow. It was also reported that Stan Welch from the BYU Herbarium had been in the Canyon and had located two additional sites with Maquire Primrose. He will finish his report within the next 2 or 3 weeks. Mr. Welch has indicated to UDOT that his primary concern would be during construction. Increased dust during the pollination season could cause problems. More detailed information will be in his report. ITEM 5 - TRAFFIC FORECASTS Cliff Forsgren and Jack Spence will review the traffic projections and Cliff will report at the next meeting. OTHER ITEMS OF DISCUSSION Duncan Silver asked for a list of uncompleted items. There have been a number of things discussed in meetings and no record kept ot their completion. (Note: the list will be distributed at the next ID Team meeting) . Duncan Silver also told the ID Team that FHWA was going to require FHWA visual resource criteria be used in the study. A copy of the criteria had been provided to UDOT. BOX16/D.501 2 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/74">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/74</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 1390690475 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1732213 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 May 18, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Minutes from May 18, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting. Review of minutes, discussion of the existing conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum, review of the technical memorandum addressing noise, review of the existing conditions portion of the terrestrial resources technical memorandum, traffic forecasts, and other items of discussion. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Johnson, Margaret Spence, Jack Neil, John Silver, Duncan Welch, Stan Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-06-11 1987-05-18 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Cache County, Utah, United States) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 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_004.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/d26a45e111cadfb3aa723fa60e3fb68d.pdf 197389592bf6f59a17ff7e001ad0f11d PDF Text Text BEAR LAKE SINKS" BRIDGES ~~ Jt LOGAN RIVER BRIDGE I ~ ~ GROVE CREEK BRIDGE / __ LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY STUDY ~ BEIRDNEAU BEGIN STUDY PEAK RIGHT FORK MT. LOGAN J~N ·87 J . P.R . �CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON Scoping Hearing Schedule Loglln March 3 7 pm Mountain Fuel Supp l y Aud 1.tOl- llIlII 45 East 200 North Garden City March 4 7 pm Garden City Hall Building BEAR LAKE _ __ ~\l'» 'tl..J . TONY GROVE ~ ~ D~I\'(" BRIDGE Q) tIl~ Q) Q) > Q) . Q) ~ Q) .. P:::O ~ Q) ,a ~ o LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY STUDY BEGIN STUDY . ~- -.- -- -RIGHT rORI< QS ~~ ~~ AA ~~ ,abO p...-I QS til ~ Q) bO'tl o +J 0 ~ bO cO 0 U~ J~"" J .P.' . �CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon is a citizens' group of volunteers and non-profit organizations working toward longterm protection of Logan Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildlife habitat , recreational opportunities and naturalness. The Jardine Juniper is CPLC's symbol. Located high above Yood Camp recreation area, this ancient but beautiful tree represents Logan Canyon's recreational diversity and unsurpassed scenery . CPLC's proposal for Logan Canyon o The protection of Logan Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildl i fe hab i tat, rare plants, recreational sites and naturalness must be a prime concern . a An Environmental Impact Statement (ErS) must be prepared fa l ' <t ny sig n ificant road modification proposals to protect Logan Canyon ' s natural surroundings from haphazard road modifications . Travel speeds between Right Hand Fork and R i ck's Sp r ing should o remain as currently posted . This area is very scenic and too se nsi ti v e 1. 0 PlIl"lII l. t any 'significant roadwuy 1II0dific ll tioll!> . o Bridges which cannot meet struc~ural safety requirements should be replaced when possible. These bridges should be two lanes wide only . Min 0 r a 1 t era t ion s t 0 b rid g a a p pro a c h e S w0 U ] d h 0 il C C e p t: iI h 1 l~ . o Turning lanes at Tony Grove Recreation Area and Beuvut' Area may be constructed to facilitate turning traffic . MUUlIt H l Il Sk i Parking araas should be built near Temple Fork Road and Cottonwood o Canyon (near Logan Cave) to improve traffic flow and safety . o Additional warning signs should be placed along the highway telling motorists about bicycle traffic, . pulloffs and pedestrian travel. o The road should be resurfaced and restriped where required . This will improve through traffic travel and nighttime safety t hroughou t I.Ogllll Canyon. c 1 1m bin g ( pas s 1 n g ) 1 a n a ~hould be built uL the J)lI~way (1H.:L Wl·l'1I and Upper twin bridge~). A eli IU b 1. n g 1 Lill cwo u 1 d a f f (: C t <I V l : ry sc e nic area by requiring lBaj or cut and fill operation~ with unsightly reti1ining walls . o N0 l t OW C 1' o No road modifications should alter the Logan River's watercours e Alterations could since the river is a major recreational resource . destroy important streambanks. o No new roads or major changes to the existing road should be constructed from the Bear Lake Summit to the Bea r Lak e Ov er look . Thi~ ItlglawllY section is in II very populLlr LInd s(:l~ lIle 1~ \~l! I'Ull t 1011 ~ 1I· l ~ a . o Congress should de.signate Logan Canyon Highway as Ut a h's first National Scenic Highway. This designation would recognize Logan Canyon as a scenic and recreational jewel similar to units in our National Park System . Logan River above Third Dam should be considered for National o Recreational River designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act . This federal designation will protect the river's quality for all future generations. � 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/83">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/83</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 627818694 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1745890 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 Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon handout Description An account of the resource Illustrative map of Logan Canyon from Garden City to Logan with a description of the purpose of Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon. Also included are alternate suggestions and requests about the construction and proposed improvements in Logan Canyon road, Highway 89. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Reeves, John Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource O'Keefe, Jane Subject The topic of the resource Cartography--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon (Utah) Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_4.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/84e13aa7f5231266363be775d4310513.pdf e27eb81a8fed17486d8afcf60b27ae49 PDF Text Text · {. - 9 November 17, 1986 INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING Additional Data for Agenda Items Agenda Item No. 4. Public involvement - scoping process status report 5. Existing roadside parking - draft technical memorandum 6. Areas within Canyon meeting criteria for climbing lanes - supplement to design criteria technical memorandum Revised typical sections - Figures 1, 2, and 3 7. Copy of US Forest Service evaluation of the 1979 UDOT construction proposal. Note the reference to the nega- tive effects of the 12°30 curvaure (40 mph) transmittal letter. 1 in the �,r I I •• I ,I' I / November 17, 1986 ! LOGAN CANYON PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT - SCOPING PROCESS , . STATUS REPORT Concurrently with the development of the transportation needs, the environmental analysis and the transportation plan a continuing public involvement 1. effort is underway. This public involvement effort is part of the scoping process and consists of interdisciplinary team meetings, public information meetings, small group discussions, meetings with government agencies, media coverage, and distribution of written information to a mailing list of interested individuals and agencies. In addition, the consultant team has maintained a local informational office in Logan, Utah at t~e offices of Valley Engineering Inc. Through this scoping process, the issues and concerns of the public regarding Logan Canyon are being identified, and have been summarized in a memorandum circulated to the Interdisciplinary Tea~ dated November 11, 1986. The highlights of this public involvement effort to date are summarized below: Date Group Subject June 10 ID Team Scope and schedule of study. June 23 ID Team Role of ID Team, public involvement program July 8 Cache Chamber of Commerce In discussion of UDOT's plans for Cache Valley, the Logan Canyon Study was mentioned Commissioner Todd Weston. �/1 / /1 ( July 14 10 Team Traffic counting and forecasting, outline transportation needs analysis. July 25 Mailing List Fact Sheet Detailed outline of public involvement program. July 28 10 Team Traffic data, proposed forecasts, highway capacity and level of service. August 1 News Release Brief outline of study objectives and public involvement. August 11 10 Team Traffic forecast tech memo. Maintenance tech memo. August 25 10 Team Traffic forecast tech memo existing roadway conditions tech memo. August 26 Environmental Representatives and US Forest Service Field trip into Logan Canyon to identify areas of environmental concern. September 8 10 Team Safety analysis tech memo. Outline public information meeting. ,( I I ( September 15 Bear River · Resources Conservation and Development Outlined study objectives and obtained public input. September 22 10 Team · Traffic characteristics tech memo. Traffic capacity discussion. September 23 Local Government Officials Outlined study objectives and obtained input. September 23 . Public Informa- Presented findings of tion Meeting, October 6 transportation studies and Logan, Utah obtained public input. ID Team Discussion of public information meeting. Visual considerations by Clark Ostergaard - USFS. �" October 3 ID Team Discussion of safety analysis tech memo. Study goals and objectives for component and alternative development. November 3 S Discussed need for public information meeting in Garden City. October 20 7F Garden City Council 1D Team Alternate routes for through traffic. Discussion of goals and objectives tech memo. Alternate alignments from Summit to Garden City. November 3 Public Information Meeting Garden City, Ute Presented findings of transportation studies. Obtained public input. November 5 State of Utah Natural Resources Outlined alternative routes from Summit to Garden City. November 8 Cache Valley Mayors Assoc. Provided update of the study and received input. November 10 Mailing list Fact Sheet Detailed outline of traffic characteristics and transportation needs. I le This public involvement process will be continued through • the corning weeks with meetings planned with the Cache Cham- ber of Commerce, local service clubs and environmental groups. Formal scoping meetings should be planned for mid January in both Logan City and Rich County. Also technical memorandums will continue to be developed by the Interdisciplinary Team and fact sheets will be sent to the mailing list. gested schedule for these activities is attached • . I SLC-STN/12 The sug- �. . SUBJECT-.t06AN_ ~MYJ:!.~..Jr(Lp-y- __ By_S..sJ.L __ __ oATE1/L~ ,c -- /-JL./('JJ,L~ .I'N(2f)L Vt:Me.# ~_ - - - - - - - - - - -_______ ;f YEA~ H(JNr# WEEK sr/fJ2r/,v~ SHEET NO. _ _ _ OF _ _ _ _ PROJECT 1986 N()\/ 12 19 __ _ _ 1987 Oll't: 2.5 ~ 7 "I 21 I?I- I~ ACr.lv/ry No.8 2//.,3, _ .JAN 4/ II 18 125' F€8 JVfAJ2 8 IS 22 t29 S /2- 8 IS 22 I I A~~ 2G rI s: • t//fc. reAM ~ MEEr/A/6S" ~Nr: e< !2 Ll. 22 ~ !.J:. ~ u :I- -.- I I 01 i n: rRAAlJ"()RTATIDA/ ~f )./G~t7.s-FNr I ; I-- fHT; I ISSUeS I ~. I I I I COM:£8Vf I i (TECH. #5#tJ) ( I I I I I :rSSa£:f I f C41\1~ERAL5 ( FAcr -S#E~r) I I I i I I I I I ! ; I ! ( t:Acr S#~&T) I I ! ~<JM 4JA./eIV,S I I I I i I ~ I I i i' i : I j I 1 I I I t I I j r't./duc .:rA./F. HTlts Stllt//ee ! I I I I i ,GNU/~A/,4IENTAL I I I i , i , ; I I i I I I I I I i I I I I ! : i i t I I I ! I ! I I I I I I ~~IlS ~NAHd. (J,&." C4'A:"AI1 I 1 I I : I I i i ·S~()"1)'/6 ,4f£GT/~~.s I ! ; ! ~At:1At/~A/r IJE"E~()i4 I I I I • ! I I I I I I I I �d 1M I /1 I l November 17, 1986 DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM LOGAN CANYON ROADSIDE PARKING II ~l d A survey of existing roadside parking areas was made and is tabulated in Table 1. This summary includes the areas that E are currently being used by the public for all purposes in- Ie cluding recreational and emergency stopping. f. areas are no more than a wide shoulder with just enough room tt for a vehicle to get out of the traveled way while others Some of the are spacious enough to allow vehicles to be safely parked well off the shoulder. The impact of roadway improvements on these roadside parking areas will depend on the characteristics of the improvement. Spot improvements would have little effect, and some parking areas would be enhanced. Widening along the existing align- ment would eliminate many of the narrower areas that consist , mostly of a widened shoulder. Widening and improving the existing alignment would also eliminate many of the existing areas, but would in some cases provide a substantial area for parking development. For example, where a sharp curve is flattened, the abandoned area of the existing roadway could be developed. Partial roadside parking surveys were conducted during August on two weekend days in the afternoon and the results are summarized in· Table 2. The more complete count taken on August 30 shows at least 90 vehicles using the roadside parking and campground areas. SLC-STN/13 �I "l~ t~ ~ .• I' . I I / / I /' / Table 1 EXISTING ROADS I DE PARKING AREAS Station ,...ce R v COf cor ti ' tr 485+00 493+00 514+00 525+00 552+00 577+00 589+00 604+00 625+00 636+00 647+00 645+00 673+00 685+00 697+00 706+00 718+00 744+00 775+00 793+00 797+00 806+00 821+00 824+00 865+00 890+00 925+00 951+00 1077+00 1120+00 1135+00 1160+00 1231+00 1283+00 1290+00 1296+00 1302+00 1467+00 1498+00 1504+00 1519+00 1541+00 SLC-STN/13 Approximate Mile Post I 383.5 383.66 384.13 384.4 384.8 385.3 385.5 385.8 386.2 386.4 386.6 386.6 387.1 387.4 387.45 387.6 387.84 388.38 389.0 389.34 389.4 389.59 389.87 389.91 390.63 391.05 391.68 392.02 394.3 395.17 395.44 395.9 397.25 398.26 398.39 398.51 398.62 400.51 401. '401.09 401.40 401.91 Side of Road Left Left Right Right Right Right Left Right Right Right Right Left Left Right Left Right Left Right & Left Right Left Right Right Left & Right Right Right Right Right Left Right Left Left Right Right Left Right Left Right Right Right Right Right Right Approximately Length 300' 200' 600' 400' 300' 100' 200' 200' 100' 100' 400' 100' 200' 100' 100' 300' 300' 100' 250' 300' 200' 100' 250' 150' 100' 200' 100' 200' 200' 100' 200' 100' 100' 400' 100' 200' 100' 200' 400' 400' 400' 200' �Table 1 (Continued) Station Approximate Mile Post Side of Road Approximately Length I 1554+00 1622+00 1651+00 1715+00 1727+00 1743+00 1762+00 1785+00 179·7+00 1813+00 1857+00 1884+00 1952+00 1961+00 SLC-STN/13 SLC-STN/13 402.13 403.40 403.96 405.17 405.40 405.70 406.04 406.44 406.66 407.02 407.8 408.34 409.58 409.77 Right Right Right Left Right Right Right Right Right Left Left Left Right Right 300' 100' 200' 300' 200' 300' 200' 300' 400' 100' 400' 100' 200' 100' ~t �Table 2 ROADSIDE AND CAMPGROUND PARKING UTILIZATION Mile Pose ~ 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 DescriEtion of Area Right Fork Road Area Camping Spot Wood Camp Campground Logan Cave Area Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Ricks Spring Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Forestry Station Area Red Banks C.G. & Tony Grove Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Aug. 16 P.M. (Sat) 3 2 16 3 1 6 12 1 4 1 7 5 3 2 6 ( a) 16 30 Sinks Area Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area 2 1 1 1 2 (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) SLC-STN/13 SLC-STN/13 hi 3 3 1 --.l& 48 (a) Not counted 2 2 Roadside Parking Area Roadside Parking Area Abandoned Mountain Road Aug. 30 P.M. (Sat) 89 �I I d 17, 1986 AREAS WITHIN CANYON MEETING CRITERIA FOR CLIMBING LANES II, In applying the AASHTO conditions listed above, the followI • ing criteria taken from the traffic characteristics technical memorandum were used. Design Year 2010 Design Hourly Volume (DHV) 630 Recreational Vehicles (Percent) 12 Trucks (Percent) 3 Directional Split (Percent) 60/40 Each of the AASHTO conditions should be checked to justify the consideration of a climbing lane. 1. Upgrade traffic flow rate 630 x .60 = 378> 200 vph. Condition is met for entire route 2. Upgrade truck flow rate The highway capacity manual (HCM) in Table 8-6 indicates that in mountainous terrain, a recreational vehicle is equivalent to about 0.5 trucks. Equivalent trucks 12 • 2 + 3 630 x .60 x .09 = = 34 > 20 vph Conditibn is met for entire route 2 9 percent �~vember 17, 1986 3. Level of service and speed reduction determination. f r Level of Service In the traffic capacity evaluation draft technical memorandum, it was reported that level of service E will occur by the years shown below. Section Year Right Fork to 1.5 miles above Ricks Spring (MP 391) 2000 1.5 miles above Ricks Spring to Beaver Mountain (MP 400) 2005 Beaver Mountain (MP 400) to Garden City 2010 Level of Service E condition is met for entire route The foregoing analysis indicates that all of the criteria suggested by AASHTO is met for consideration of climbing lanes along the entire route from Right Fork to 1.5 miles above Ricks Spring. The most critical area is in the vicin- ity of the lower twin bridge and the Dugway. In this area the grade is steeper than in the rest of the section, for a , distance of about 4500 feet the upgrade varies from 3.35 to 5.85 percent. · From 1.5 miles above Ricks Spring to the Beaver Mountain turn-off, there is more passing opportunity and the need for climbing lanes is less critical. From Beaver Mountain to Garden City, climbing lanes should be considerea wherever there is opportunity to place them. SLC-STAN/14 3 �(1) 5:1 SLOPE: 29' MIN 55 MPH 24' MIN 50 MPH 18' MIN 40 MPH 16' MIN 35 MPH , (2) SLOPE VARlES10:1 TO 5:1 EXISTING 24 -29' 55 MPH 20 -24' 50 MPH 15 -18' 40 MPH 13 -16' 35 MPH 40' (1') RECOVER AREA ~~ (2') 12' 12' ~~~~~--~~~~&---~~--~~~~ RECOVERY AREA ______________________________________________~~70~:7~ .-(\-y ~~ -y~ (' STANDARD ~ (HOURLY VOLUME OVER 250> <'{<' ~ {<' RECOVERY AREA 34' 12' 12' V..q i:"/l. 1i/..qS l. 8 l.S MODIFIED STANDARD 1.. 0 I:JS FIGURE 1 TYPICAL SECTIONS LOG AN CANYON STUDY �----- ~--------------------------------------------------------------------------~ 11' MIN 17' 17' 2' MIN RETAINING STRUCTURE/GUARD RAIL POSSIBLY REOURED. MODIFIED STANDARD (CENTERED ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT) 17' 17' NEW 10' MIN"':(40 MPH, 10:1) 8' MIN-(35 MPH, 10:1) EXISTING RETAIN RIVERBANK MODIFIED STANDARD (NEW CENTERLINE OFFSET AWAY FROM RIVER) FIGURE 2 TYPICAL SECTIONS ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT WIDENING;;;r LOGAN CANYON STUDY C'::ft~I:"" t il I �FIC LANE TRAFFIC LANE SHOULDER SHOULDER . MODIFIED 'STANDARD WITH CLIMBING LANE RECOVERY AR.EA" 12' 12' 12' _0 TRAFFIC LANE TRAFFIC LANE CLIMBING LANE SHOULDER SHOULDER MODIFIED STANDARD WITH CLIMBING LANE (STEEP HILLSIDE SECTION) Note: Where climbing lane extends onto a structure, the should , r width will be increased 2 feet. e (1) See figure 1, (2) Recovery area includes climbing lane with total width dictated by drainage and slope stability needs. FIGURE 3 TYPICAL CLIMBING LANE SECTIONS LOGAN CANYON STUDY �III I . II UNITED STATES DEPARTM£NT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE Wasatch National Forest 8226 Federal Bldg., 125 So. State Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 1950 November 26, 1979 r Mr. D. M. LeFevre, P.E. Preconstruction Engineer Utah Department of Transportation 128 17th Street, Box 309 Ogden, Utah 84402 ,l L Dear Mr. LeFevre, We have reviewed and evaluated your more recent alternative proposals for Section 3 of the Logan Canyon Highway as requested by Gary Lindley. Our evaluation is contained in the attached report. ) The report was prepared by a team and is for your use in preparation of your Environmental Analysis Report. This report describes those constraints which are necessary to protect the Scenic, Recreation, and Fisheries values which are so important to Logan Canyon and are considered the minimum necessary to meet the direction provided by our 1971 Environmental Analysis Report. The negative effects of the 12 0 30' degree of curvature alignment are too severe and are considered unacceptable. Our recommended alignment is described in the attached evaluation. 'If you have any .q uestions or would like to discuss this, we would be happy to meet with you. Sincerely, CHANDLER P. ST. JOHN Forest Supervisor U·f AH DEf f. OF T~ Enclosure ) OISTRlC.I JI .. ...' . .' . ..... ~ . �r Logan Canyon Highway Evaluation of Section 3 October lS-18, 1979 I y Logan Canyon is one of the major scenic routes in the state and this , requires an extra effort to maintain and/or enhance the scenic values ,that now exist in the canyon. Integration with the order of the macro-e~viron­ ment is very important in the overall location of the highway, but' its , .. effect on the public' is by no means immediate or obvious. The public,' however, is directly aware of embankments, bridges, planting and a ,multitude of other de's ign details that the road-user can see from the window of the car. The follOWIng list will aid in achievement of the ' goal to provide ' for a safe travel way and yet protect the macro-environment. 1. 2." '" The landscape design should be an integral part of the highway desig'n ' and not an after thought to hide construction scars with cosmetic treatment. The AASHO Policy on G~ometric Design states that "a uniform slope through a cut or fill section often results in ' a formal or stilted appearance. This can be softened by flattening the slopes on the ends where cut or fill is light, and gradually steepening it toward the controlling maximum slope on the heavier portion of the cut or fill." Complex variation of cross-sections 'suggested it is difficult to achieve, ,if one works merely with cross-sections. For any refined sculpturing of the land masses, plans with horizontal contours have to be used. 3. _ The relationship between speed and focusing distance, angle of vision and amount of foreground detail is important in the driver's ability to enjoy the scenic values of the canyon. As a general rule "the slower one travels the more can, be seen." 4• The existing rock features in the canyon are of utmost importanc'e . Every effort should be taken to avoid ' such features however, when rock out crops are encountered, they should be blasted in such a way as to appear natural. s. Special structures may be required to satisfy environmental engineering and aesthetic constraints. As the project progresses special designs for bridges, retaining walls and sidehill structures to meet these needs must be developed. ) . , The Evaluation Team consisted of: ). John Nielsen - Forest Engineer Neil Hunsaker - Forest Planner Jim Elsea - Hydrologist Jim Cole - Wildlife Biologist Mark Shaw - F~sheries Biologist Clark Ostergaard - Landscape Architect • " • • ' ,'P" ·-. 'r . " I �I t I This evaluation was limited to Section 3 as described above because of insufficient resource data from Station 865 to Ricks Springs to conduct a meaningful evafuation. It is not our intent that the project should end at this point station 865, but to indicate that any evaluaticn and agreement 'on that segment of the project will be .delayed until the following information is furnished. A~ Soils data which indica~ed erosion hazard, fertility or ability to be revegetated, and' mass stability. B. Geologic data from core drilling along the proposed route to determine structure, distance to bedrock, angle of .repose, etc. c. A proposed road D. A plan view of the estimated location 'of top of cut slopes and toe of fill slopes in relation to ' the proposed center- profile~ line~ 11 ) from Right Hand Fork (Sta. 605) to Curve at the Through Cut abo'v e the Dugw~y at Twin Bridges (Sta. 860). This evaluation was conducted without adquate information about the structural" details for the retainer walls, jersey barriers, curb and gutter, culver.t energy dissipator~, etc. These should be furnished as soon as possible. ' To save time we have based our evaluation on an estimation of what they will look like. When the details are received _we will review them . to insure our evaluation is still valid. To conduct an e~aluation of .this n~ture it was necessary to establish certain' criteria. These are listed below and any deviation from them will require a . reevaluation . . . 'I " • ".: " ." " '., ; .' I ' �111 1 . i .:1 ., . .' . .. . . I I ./ , . " : ',: .: ... . ' . 3 1. f A two lane road with the following cross sectional configuration would be used from Station 610 to Station 835. 51' MAY-AM-fUM I~' M~X. 15' MAX. ) ) 2. 3. Removal of vegetation would be limited to the construction area. The construction area limits would be 5 feet above the top , of a ~ut slope and the toe of fill slopes. 4. ) A three lane road may be necessary on the up hill grade between the Twin Bridges. , This would be accomplished by adding an 11' climbing ~ane " to the above cross sectional' configuration. The principle purpose for retainer walls is to ke e p road fill out of the riparian vegetation and the stream. and only in rare cases is it necessary to keep the river away from the road fill. The construction techniques which have the minimum impact on riparian vegetation will be used. . If 'no other comments are made concerning curb and gutter and retainer walls, they shouid be considered acceptable. ," �4 5. The Special and Functional Consideration and Recommendation contained in the 1971 Environmental Analysis report are still required. 6. Top soil will be stockpiled for respreading ovei cut and fill slopes and other disturbed areas. 2. 3. ) 14° alignment reflects a design speed of 35 m.p.h. and is shown as the office revision on the same plans as the 18° alignment. 7 . f(() ( . . The 12°)0' alignment reflects Nm.p.h. design speed and is shown on plans F-021~1(4Yat a scale of 1" = 200'. This alignment was also shown on the I" = 100' scale plans in ' red pencil and located on the ground with yellow flagging. " Station 605 to 625 - All '3 alignments are the same and are satisfactory. Curve #30 is 12° and #31 is 10°. Special revegetation, slope shaping and landscape measure will be required on the cut bank associated with curve 1/30 to mitigate visual impacts.• . Station 625-630 - Two curves are preferred. They are Off. Rev. #32 (14°) and Off. Rev. #33 (14°) with coordinate points as shown on the plans. The 12°30' alignment near Station #630 severely encroaches on the stream bank. ,The two 14° curves keep the road further away from the creek. ' Station 630-637 - The 18° ' alignment would result in somewhat less visual impact than the 14° or 12°30'. The difference in effects on the visual resource is not deemed significant and, therefore, the. curve data for Off. Rev. 1134(14°) is acceptable. The cut bank on the ' inside of this curve will require special revegetation, slope shaping and landscaping measures. ) �, 5 Station 637-641 - All 3 alignments are the same and are acceptable. Fisherman parking should be designed and constr'u cted in the wide spot between the road and the river. / . Station ' 641-648 - Curve 1135 should be the 12° curve to avoid impacts on the stream which would be associated with the 9° curVe. Station 648-656 - This tangent should go to the Off. Rev. #36 coordinate point (N512,321.925;El,016,652.124) · at Sta. P.l.654 and use the 14° curve. Fisherman parking should be developed be. tween the road and. the river at Station 649. The spring near the hill 'at Sta. 651 should be protected in its natural condition~ The 18° curve is preferred here but the 14° curve is ~ acceptable. The 12°30' curve creates . u~acceptable impacts on the visual resource. The existing China Row Picnic area east of the road may have to be aband.oned because it will be too small for use. Station 656-662 - The impacts of the 12°30' alignment on the river are too severe. Use : a 14° curve with coordinat'e point N512,803.924, /' El,01.7,206.904. This will help reduce the impact on Wood Camp. A turnaround loop ~ill have to be designed and constructed in the north end of Wood Camp because of the elimination of part of the Campground road. Station 662-672 - Use .12° curve with coordinate point N513,771.978, El,017,277,993. reasons are same · as Station ~56-662. ) Station 672-680 - Centerline to be as dictated ' by next curve coordinate point. Station 680-685 Use 12° curve at 018,713.259. . c~ordinate · point N514,OOO.429,El, , Station 685-689 - Use 14° curve at coordinate point N514,329.967,El, 019,035'.966. This is necessary to avoid impac~s on the visual resource and protect the Rock Feature •.· ! Station 689-706 ~ The reverse curv~ alignment should be used to reduce impacts on the river and ,on the mountain, which would be caused by the other alignments. Using this will necessitate the reevaluation of the amount of retainer wall needed. Curve data for this section is shown in the chart below. ! Stations ' 689-692 , 693-696 696-700 700-706 ) ,. i i Deg~~ 14° 14° ' 9° 3° Curve II 41 42 43 44 Tan8e~t Coordinate Point N514,389,996,El,OI9,422.989 N514,651.927,El,OI9,714.915 N514,772.032,El,020~083.101 N515,149.968,Er,020,500~394 / I �'T~_ .... _ __ _ _ _ ••• _ _ -~ -~ __"_ '" ___ J . __ ....____.... _ ..• . ~ __ . ___ ~=:-.-=_ ~ i ~ '__...... -...._ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .~ -r- , '_ ~ - ····1 Station 706-716 - Use tangent coordinate points N515,532.192,E1,021, 086.164 'and ' a 9° or 10° curve. This will result in the least impact on the river and ·may require less re~ainer wall. The impact on the hill at Station 716 with the 12°30' alignment is tooseverea~d will cause visual degradation~ I " __ _ Station 716-724 - The 10° curve with either set of tangent coordinate ' points is satisfactory. ./ Station 724-730 - The alignment as established . by the coordinate points is good. The hill on the cut side is rock ledge with stable soils Use rock rip rap instead of retainer wall on the river side of the road. Where soil pockets exist in the .c ut, they . should be sloped back and revegetated or retainer wall of log cribbing or rock dry wall construction used. 1 ../ S~ation 130~7~7 - . Use 5°30' curve with either coordinate point shown I on the plans. Station 737-743 - Curve data for 1148 :or Off. Rev. #46 is acceptable. , / Station 743-748 '- The inside slopes of this curve are stable 1edgerock and g~ave1 soils. Relocate P.l. points #49 and Off. Rev. #47 or use a flatter curve which will relocate the center line approxima'tely 20" west of the 14° or 18° alignment. The reason for this ~s to protect the riparian habitat. ) Station 748-757 - The 12°30' curve would cause excessive impact on the river • . The P.I. should be relocated 15' to 30' north along the tangent line leading to coordinate point 1150 and then use a 14° /" curve. This change should allow the curve to fallon about the same location as the' 18° curve and reduce the impact on the river. It should also reduce the amount of retaining structure. The retaining structure should be of Rock Rip Rap and not a concrete wall. Retaining wall should be used on the north edge of the road below Logan cave. The waterfall feature should be designed to enhance the fall rather than hide it. --. Station 757-775 - Develop parking at Station 761 and provide safe highway crossing to Logan Cave. At Station 768 use the 14° curve at ~ coordinate point 11519,422.325,El,024,005.507. Use a through cut. The access to the summer horne at Station 773 is to be maintained. Some fisherman parking should be developed on the old road bed. . i I Station 775-780 :- Use 5° curve· and .P.l. point described for Off. Rev. curve 1151. , Station 780':'785 curve 852. ) ... -..~- ~ -.- - .... i Use 14° curve and P.l. c90rdinate data for Off. Rev. ~. �__ _ -~-------~---' l ' ':'_~ __J~:. . : ..,_ ,1,/ I vl 7 " St~tion 785-792 - , Use 14° curve and coordinate point for Off. Rev. curve #~3~ , . Station 792-800 ",- Use 14° ~uIye and coordinate point N521,589.423, El,025,811.651. The abandoned road s~ould be dev~loped as fisherman parking and as a waste disposal area with the appropriate Landscape Design and trea tment. "The 12 °30' alignment is a much greater impact on the visual resource. I Station· 800-807 - Use 14° curve and P.I. c06rdinate point N522,483, 530, .El,025,765.054. Remove the old concrete :wh-ich is presently being used for Rip ·Rap. A retainer wall will be needed 'on this curve. It should be placed at the existing water's edge. Station 807-815 - Use curve and coordinate point from Off. R~v. #56. Station .815-825 - Use Off. Rev. #57 which is ~ 9° curve and coordinate point N523,184.736,El,027,495.885. · . The old road between the creek and the road is to be 'p~ssable to vehicles when cons truction is complete~ Use retainer walls as :' appropriate to accomplish. Station 825-835 '- Use 14° curve and P.l. at · coordinate point N522,946, ' 908,Ei",028,185.936. The 12°30' : a1ignment causes a severe impact ' on the cut side. v/ Station 838-847 .- Avoid cutting into the hillside along this section. The hillsides are unstable and seepages can be expected in the cut area~ The existing 'cut slopes are to be stabilized using rock, drywall-type construction, log cribbing or half brid'ge may be acceptable on the fill sides. Fill slopes shall not be allowed to reach the stream. Station 847-855 - The proposed center line should be held near the outside edge of the existing paving to avoid cutting into the hillside which ·has the potential to unravel long distance up the slope. The same ' type of stabilization on the fill slope as above. Station 855-865 - This curve should be a 14° curve using the P.l. at / N525,362.~18, El,027,858.246. The outside of the curve between Station 860 and 865 can be used as waste disposal. The limits of the area used will be established on site. Station 865 to R. ck' s Spring will be evalu'a ted when the addi tional i data is fu r nished. ) . '-- -,- -_.,.-..... -. . .If ~- J .. " . OJ .I �.', - I ' .0 ' : "I Plans Required The following plans will be required before construction begins. 1. I' 2. A Water Quality Management Plan will be developed by U DOT for approval by the Forest Service. This plan will include; a) Monitoring standards, frequency, intensity and qualifi- cations of monitoring personnel. b) Measures to be used during construction to maintain the existing water quality standard. c) Turbidity and other standards which will be met during construction. Macroinvertebeate analysis should be utilized before, during and after construction. An Erosion Control, Revegetation, Landscaping- plan will be prepared by the state and approved by the Forest Service prior to contruction. This plan will include plant species, location, quantity and quality. It will specify erosion control tech,niques such as cribbing, jute netting, etc. by location. It will -discuss the handling of slope blending, rock features, etc. The following is offered as an aid and guide in developing a , landscape p I an. I ·1 I I I Before construction "begins- the shaping and revegetation of disposal or waste sites must be designed and planned to assure a natural appearance occurs in these areas. Several waste disposal sites were evaluated. They are: 1. Gus Lind Flat. 2. Wood Camp Hollow (See November IB, 1976 Analysis by Clark Ostergaard, attached). 3. Flat on outside curve above Ricks Spring. -4. On hil (below lower Twin Bridges (north of road). impacts are severe at this site. 5. Across from Preston Valley Picnic Area upstream from the waste area used in construction of the lower portions of the road. It is in full view of Highway. 6. - Twin Creek Corrals, which is 3 miles up canyon from Ricks Spring. The disposal could be completely screened from the Highway and a road exists. Visual The Twin Creek Corrals site appears to be the most favorable site at this time and U DOT should consider the economics of using this site. An Environmental Analysis will be the basis for selecting the site to be- used. ) I_ I � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/87">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/87</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 1969191173 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 13386944 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 Status report, November 17, 1986, and correspondence from Chandler St. John, November 26, 1979 Description An account of the resource Interdisciplinary team meeting additional data for agenda items including scoping process status report for public involvement, draft memorandum for existing roadside parking, technical memorandum of the areas within the canyon that meet criteria for climbing lanes, and a copy of the US Forest Service evaluation of the 1979 UDOT construction proposal. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource St. John, Chandler P. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-11-17 1979-11-26 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_009.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/967fe14489bf83f439ded681318c2c1c.pdf 8616dafff82f5e2e2ae38aacf0d5796c PDF Text Text LOGAN .CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING March 9, 1987 Attendance: Gale Larson - Valley Engineering Clark Ostergarrd, USFS John Neil, UDOT Larry England, USFWS Jim Naegle, UDOT Duncan Silver, FHWA Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Fred LaBar, USFS Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Steve Flint, Audobon Society Jack Spence, Sierra Club Howard Richardson, UDOT ITEM 1 - REVIEW OF MINUTES There was only one correction to the minutes of the previous \ meeting. Jack Spence had pointed out that a linear model of 1 0 the past trends traffic projection might be preferable to an exponential model because the standard deviation of the extrapolation was better in the linear model, not the r2 value as reported. ITEM 2 - JOHN L. ENGLAND, U. S. FTSH AND vlILDLIFE ' SERVICE COMMENTS John L. England (Larry) discussed the ~laguire Primrose and the FWS interest in Logan Canyon. In summary his comments inpluded: o The latest status report on the Maguire Primrose prepared by the Utah Native Plant Society is probably as good a source of current information as there is presently available. o The FWS has requested to be a cooperating agency in this study. o The Maguire Primrose exists only in the lower end of Logan Canyon, from Wood Camp to the mouth of the Canyon and it is currently on the "threatened" species list. A threatened species receives the same protection, under law, as does an endangered species. 1 I I~vf 7 c �MEETING NOTES Page 2 o It is possible that some of the alternatives could impact one or more known populations. o It will be necessary to prepare a biological assessment for FWS review. o The Maguire Primrose is apparently sensitive to temperature increases and soil type. Some types of improvements could alter cold air drainage pattern or remove trees that presently provide shelter. o The only population of Maguire Primrose the FWS is concerned about (based upon present alternatives) is near Wood Camp. o The basic alternative descriptions include a turnout near Wood Camp. Larry indicated that it might be better to consider some widening at that point and eliminate the turnout in order to keep the traffic moving and away from a sensitive population. o He would recommend preserving as much vegetation as possible. Steve Flint asked about two other species that had been listed in a letter to CH2M HILL. Larry indicated that there were two species presently under review in the Canyon. Stan Nuffer asked if there were guidlines for preparing biological assessments. Larry named some people who had prepared these assessments. They were Stanley Welsh, a botany professor at BYU and Leila Shultz, the Intermountain Herbarium Curator. ITEM 3 - DISCUSS RESULTS OF SCOPING MEETINGS Stan asked members of the ID Team to give their impressions of the scoping meetings that were held on March 3 and 4. o Duncan Silver felt that after the comment period there should be a "roundtable" meeting with government agencies. He did not feel that those representing agencies gave all of the input that they could or should. Overall Duncan did not feel that there were any new issues or alternatives brought out. o Lynn Zollinger did not feel that there were any new issues brought out, but he would like to review a copy of the transcript to be sure. 2 �, MEETING NOTES Page 3 a Jim Naegle feit that there were some alternatives brought out during the meetings but felt that they were probably covered in the general alternative descriptions. o Howard Richardson wondered if there was some value in one comment about getting a "true cross-section" of opinion from area citizens. After some discussion about the value (and purpose of) polls, it was decided that the purpose of scoping meetings were not to "take a vote" but to be sure the full range of issues and possible alternatives were addressed in the study. Those who are interested will generally make their views known. a Fred LaBar did not think that there were any new alternatives brought up in the meetings. However, he did pOlnt out that alternative routes had been brought up in two of the meetings and that a scientific survey (opinion) should be addressed in the EIS. Fred also asked if it was true that it is the law in Utah that slow moving vehicles with traffic behind them must pull off. Duncan Silver said that it is now the law in Utah and that he is , o'n a committee wi th UDOT that is working on a system to provide better advance warning of passing lanes and turnouts. There should be some information available in time to include in the report. '0 Clark Ostergarrd pointed out that the Citizens for the Preservation of Logan Canyon (CPLC) had presented eight specific recommendations for spot improvements and requested that they be given consideration in the study. The eight recommendationsappear to be included in the general list of spot improvements already identified. Steve Flint felt that it was important that people understand that each spot improvement is to be considered on its own merits and that it is not an "all or nothing" alternative. If this is the approach, the CPLC recommendations would be considered along with other spot improvements and the best would be included in the final "spot improvement" alternative. Clark also pointed out that some people had suggested that the highway be planned and designed as a "scenic highway". There was some discussion about standards for scenic highways. Jack Spence 3 �MEETING NOTES Page 4 asked if there is a separate standard for scenic highways. Duncan Silver indicated that there were none. "Standards" for a given scenic road have more or less evolved and generally just address the local situation. Using National Park Service standards was also discussed. Duncan Silver pointed out that truck routes have been designated throughout the US. This was mandated by Congress because of the number of states ~ that had placed limitations on through roads, that -C ~~~)r~eJ was adversely attecting interstate commerce. US-89 through Logan Canyon has apparently been designated /~ I as a truck route. Continued use of the Canyon by ---- ~ truck traffic should be addressed in the study. 0 o Jim Naegle pointed out that a "standard" for Logan Canyon will have to be one that will fit the conditions and still allow the traffic to flow as smoothly as possible. o Lynn Zollinger said that any "standard" less than the modified one may not give enough added capacity to the roadway to make it worthwhile. Any proposed "standard" for the Canyon should be evaluated on its ability to improve the flow of traffic as well as its impact on the environment. Lynn also asked if anyone was anticipating an increase in traffic because of the scenic highway designation. Stan pointed out that other states are being contacted in an effort to determine what, if any, impact a scenic highway designation might have on traffic volumes. Lynn also pointed out that UDOT has been approached by the local cattleman's association about the possibility of fencing the road in the area where cattle range. There is concern about the number of animals killed on the road. A fencing project would require both Forest Service and private participation. o Jack Spence indicated that some hunters had expressed concern to him that an increase in speed might also increase the number of deer killed on the road. Howard Richardson said that the experience of UDOT has been that, besides speed, it is important to keep the vegetation back away from the road so that motorists can better see deer as they approach the road. 4 �MEETING NOTES Page 5 o Steve Flint observed that there were still some people who did not understand the purpose of the scoping meetings and some still believed that a 4-lane roadway alternative was being considered. Steve also restated the need to have a mechanism for sorting out spot improvements and evaluating their impacts individually. o There was some general discussion on the notification of government agencies. Duncan suggested that a copy of the letter which was sent to agencies be attached to the minutes of this meeting when it is mailed to team members. ITEM 4 - EXPANSION OF THE l.D.TEAM Stan Nuffer told the team that there had been some suggestions made during the scoping meetings that interests from Rich County be included on the 1.0. Team. -The Mayor of Logan had also expressed some interest about having a broader representation on the team. After some discussion it was concluded that the team was primarily dealing with technical issues and that the "technical interests" were represented. - Fred LaBar thought that the biggest problem in Rich County was the lack of information. There · is n~ local newspaper and most people do not take the Herald Journal so there is no local vehicle for getting information out. It was decided to invite both the. Rich County people and Logan people to attend I. D. Team meetings t .O see how they operate, but there was not much to be gained by adding additional members to the team. There will be a work meeting with the Logan City Council (tentatively scheduled for March 19) and any team member who can attend is encourqged to do so. ITEM 5 - DAY-LONG SESSION IN THE CANYON TO DEFINE ALTERNATIVES There was some discussion on the value of spending some time in the Canyon and defining the alternatives on the ground. Most team members were supportive of the idea but felt that some time was needed to study what had been done on large scale maps. Stan will have the information put on 1"=200' maps and copies made for the next meeting. A session in the Canyon will be scheduled at that time. ITEM 6 - TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS There was some brief discussion on the traffic projections. Cliff Forsgren said that calculations, assumptions and methodologies for projecting traffic and estimating highway capacity were being double checked and more information would be forthcoming. SLC-STN/33 5 ·1 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/90">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/90</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 175515707 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3520186 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Minutes from March 9, 1987 Interdisciplinary team meeting Description An account of the resource Review from previous meetings' minutes, discussion of Maguire Primrose and FWS interest in Logan Canyon, discussion of the results of the scoping meetings, expansion of I.D. team, discussion on the value of spending time in Logan Canyon to define alternatives, and discussion of traffic projections. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Spence, Jack England, Larry Flint, Steve Nuffer, Stanton S. Silver, Duncan Zollinger, Lynn Naegle, Jim Richardson, Howard Ostergard, Clark LaBar, Fred Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Natural resources conservation areas Plant ecology--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-03-09 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_007.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/7033bc914d7c6d6166f9a6211f0a0168.pdf 80110a75dc351fac007ee34f45363b6f PDF Text Text Utah Wilderness Association 455 East 400 South #306/Salt Lake City,UT 84111/(801)359-1337 8 Febr'uary 198,' Mr. Desmond Anderson 107 South 300 East Logan, Utah 84321 Dear Mr. Anderson: Thanks for your note concerning our involvement in the Logan Canyon fray. I'm so r r y t hat you ha ~) e ape r c e p t ion t hat UIAA i s not ~) i go r 0 \J sly i n \) 0 1 ve din the f i gh t tom a i n t a i nth e e xis tin ~J qua 1 i t y 0 fLo g a n Can yon. l' m not sur e ~I} her' e you get such a perception. Although am playing a 1 imited role in Logan Canyon (it is a matter of time and an abundance of issues!), UWA has played a substantive role. Of course, there are many ways to get involved in an issue. Because we bel ieve the best way to show the values of Logan Canyon will come from Cache Valley folks, we have supported the t.l}ork of CPLC. At the same time Tom Lyon is a long time Ut~A board member and speaks frequently for UWA. Jack Spence has also represented Ul~A on Logan c an yon i ssu es over the ye ar' s. Within the last couple of weeks both Jack Spence and Steve Fl int asked me for suggestions and input on a number of issues relating to Forest Service decision making within the context of the Logan Canyon project. I was then able to organize a meeting with the key Cache Valley environmental ists and the tJ a sat c h - Ca c heN a t ion a 1 For est S tJ per vis 0 r, De put y For est Sup e r I,i i 50 r, ·f 0 res t planner and the District ranger. We met for about two hours in a very positive, productive and successful meeting. T his i s the so r' t 0 f r' ole we 1 ike top 1 a yin t his kin d (I -( ani S f-· U i? The r' e will be one ~lJay to st op the denigration of Logan Canyon- '-publ ic support for maintaining the canyon basically as is and opposition to major alterations. No magic! 1 know Tom Lyon, J a c k Spen ceo r S t eve F1 i n t will ve r i f you r' dee p con c e r' nan d involvement for the issue. I urge you to contact them to clarify any other concerns about UWA's involvement in Logan Canyon. I doubt a week goes by when Jack Spence does not have me on the phone discussing where we go next. And we are deeply supportive and appreciative of his efforts (and yours). We rely on this kind of help. 1 must admit that I'm frustrated with your allegations, but understand your deep passion for Logan Canyon. I hold such feel ings also. I 1 ive in Hyrum and was a student at USU in the late 60~s and early 70 s and have always considered Logan Canyon a remarkable place. Although 1 hope you will consider joining UWA, I'm taking the time to r@spond in this much detail not to recruit you as a member, but clarify a misconception and show you, hopefully, there are many models for involvement in issues. Please understand that there are J �1 i lerally dozens o·f "Looar C~. n yo n ,=-" through o ut Utah and Ut'''f~ jl:; slretched 1 i HI its de ali n 9 ',oJ i t h tho s e i =sue ~. . l~ e TTl a i n t a ina l;J a rye)' e t (I . being too provincii3.1. bey (I n d i rTf a 9 i rI a b 1 p. 1< E: e p /' (I U Pa !:. =. i (I n h i 9 han d ere d i b 1 e and Bes t, , ;/ / ' (~ I / '" I' I, ' I Lti, v 'v () I eke a r· t e r· Coordinator ~ - cc: Lyon, Flint, Spence t\l e rn a >' ~!J i n ~ � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/123">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/123</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 2497487395 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1278207 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Fern Shepard to Clinton Topham, April 20, 1989 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Fern Shepard to Clinton Topham requesting a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and for the days for comment to be extended to 120 rather than 30 days. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Shepard, Fern L. Subject The topic of the resource Environmental policy Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1989-04-20 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 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, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Series III Box 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_12.pdf Highway 89; 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/a214eeb3fe8da8da6f011ef4564e3299.pdf 91beae2dfab4c217bcf28d077d40cc3a PDF Text Text .. ., 1 ,,~ - ~" • .' ~ I ~ ~~nited States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Wasatch-Cache National Forest 8230 Federal Building 125 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84138 Reply to: 1950 Date: May 28, 1987 Mr. Daniel Dake Division Administrator, Federal Highway Administration PO Box 11563 Salt Lake City, Utah 84147 Dear Mr. Dake: Within the past month there has been a considerable amount of discussion concerning several subjects related to the environmental analysis being prepared for the proposed Logan Canyon Highway project. This letter documents the Forest Service position concerning those subjects. As we both agreed at our April 1, meeting, it is very desirable for us to concur on a preferred alternative. However, the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, which is a document required by law, provides direction which must be followed until it is amended or revised. This does not mean that the environmental analysis process for Logan Canyon Highway should not address alternatives outside the standards and guides of the Forest Plan. We must remember, however that if the alternative selected in this process does not comply with Forest Plan direction, the Forest Plan will have to be amended prior to Forest Service concurrence with the decision. If the preferred alternative requires a Forest Plan amendment, we will expect this current environmental analysis process to provide the appropriate analysis and NEPA documentation to support that amendment. Regional Forester, Stan Tixier is the responsible official for the Forest Service and will approve the Decision Notice or Record of Decision. However, as Forest Supervisor of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest I will be responsible for insuring that the NEPA process and documentation is adequate to support the Forest Service decision. I also have responsibility for recommending Forest Plan amendments or revisions to' the Regional Forester. If the final decision requires an amendment to the Forest Plan, the Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement under preparation must contain documentation of the analysis necessary to make that recommendation. If it doesn't, the Forest Service will have to take the time at a later date to conduct a separate analysis and prepare the appropriate NEPA documents. We sincerely hope that one document will be adequate. At an April ·30 meeting, Rudy Lukez and other concerned citizens expressed some confusion as to the role and position the Forest Service is taking on the ID team which is conducting the environmental analysis for the Logan Canyon Highway project. The following should help clarify that situation. Fred LaBar, Clark FS·S200·28(1·S2 ) �Ostergaard, and Don Duff (Don replaced Mark Shaw) are members of the ID team from the Forest Service. Fred LaBar is the official Forest Service spokesperson on the team and also obtains information from Forest Service technical people for the ID team. Clark Ostergaard and Don Duff are working members of the ID team, they provide technical information but are not the official Forest Service spokesperson. Fred is responsible for insuring that all alternatives are equally treated and consequences and issues are addressed. During the development of the EIS, Fred may call upon Logan District staff as well as staff from the Forest Supervisor's Office such as the Forest Engineer. These people are a resource through Fred to the Logan Canyon ID team. The Forest Service supports an objective analysis of the Logan Canyon highway issue. The NEPA process provides necessary analysis and data whereby good decisions can be made. Therefore, we will not make a decision nor determine our position until the analysis is completed including adequate public involvement. Sincerely, · )tt4/1~ DALE BOSWORTH FOREST SUPERVISOR cc UDOT Clark 0 Don D Rudy Lukez - Iom-F-l-inn- _~ / i t: 1-- ;. ~ j::._ J T Dave Baumgartner Regional Office . ~'\ -- , I y:- ---'" 1 r ,-I 1 "' i I ') " /L-~7 ~ ' - • I / -' / '-" , / j • ) 0" ..: . -:I ! If 1\ I / 1 FS.S200-28(7 -82) ~ � 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/128">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/128</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 2860084452 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 897680 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Dick Carter to Dave Baumgartner, May 27, 1988 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dick Carter to Dave Baumgartner, expressign concern over the maintaining the existing values of Logan Canyon and coming to a reasonable solution for all agencies involved. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Carter, Dick Subject The topic of the resource Environmental policy Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Utah Wilderness Association Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1988-05-27 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 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, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Series III Box 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_15.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/1cc4b0efa26655b55b2a55e4a4536545.pdf 5ddff13abebeb599a71d39a66f4058eb PDF Text Text { I I Logan Canyon Highway For the second time in nine years. the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is proposing an expansion and reduction of curves to the 6.7~ile stretch of U.S. Highway 89 from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Spring in Logan Canyon. Envtronmental groups and concerned citizens, including the Sierra Club, the Bridgerland Audubon Society, Citizens for · the Protection of Logan Canyon and others, view this expansion as highly unfavorable and as a threat to the beauty and quality of the Logan Canyon Recreation Area. ! General Summary i i * Major impact on both environmental ~nd visual quality of canyon. * Project contradicts national energy ;concern. * S0-90 percent of the project reqUir t s cutting into existing banks and vegetated areas. ! * "Waste poses a major engineering prcbblem.rt (Quote from project engineer) Traffic Growth Factors * * UDOT uses an unrealistic expontential model. A linear growth model better fits daily traffic data. * data used by UnoT are limited to one busy section of the highway, yet are used to describe the whole road. Need for highway re-alignment not documented by current data. * Traffic Safety Factors * * * * Suggested danger of Logan Canyon "Section III" is not supported by current data. A major discrepancy exists between accident rate data and traffic volume. 1977 accident rate figured by the Utah Highway Patrol does not agree with UDOT report. Statistical significance of accident data used is suspect. Environmental Factors * Numerous spills would encroach into Logan River from planned fills. * Silt deposits in the river would destroy trout habitat and breeding cycle. * Loss of riverside vegetation needed by trout for low light intensity. * Creation of any culverts would impair spawning success of trout. * Loss of vegetative barriers lessens the quality of fishing experience. * Major visual impacts would result from the cuts planned, especially the two major cuts at the Temple Fork area, which would be, according to the engineer's report, 75 feet deep and as much as 150 feet across. " IT'LL NEVER BE WORTH AS MUCH AS WE'VE PUT INTO IT (the project) ALREADy.1I --Gary Lindley, project engineer. �'. IMPORTANT ADDRESSES i Mr. Les Abbey, Environmental Engineer Utah Department of Transportation 128 17th Street Ogden, Utah 84404 To demonstrate this is a controversial issue you should send copies to those throughout the decision-making process: Mr. George Bohn Federal Highway Administration Federal Building 125 So. State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Mr. David Watt Federal Highway Administration, Region 8 P.O. 25426 Denver, Colorado 80225 Mr. William Geise Environmental Protection Agency Suite 900 1890 Li nco 1n Denver, Colorado POINTS TO STRESS Question need for major reconstruction as planned. Proposal has major impact on both environmental and scenic qualities of canyon. Need for an enVironmental impact statement to thoroughly analyze impacts and alternatives. Ask that the EPA become a cooperating agency in the project analysis of the Logan Canyon Highway. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/130">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/130</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 442219902 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1157096 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Concern about Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Detailing the concerns, particularly from environmental groups, of the expansion and reduction of curves in Logan Canyon including a general summary, traffic growth factors, safety factors, and environmental factors. Important addresses and questions to be addressed should this project continue are noted. Subject The topic of the resource Environmental policy Traffic engineering Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_6.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/77ecd551111f18eb119817b06804e9e2.pdf 13b732e50386e9f72b6dddebe48f0766 PDF Text Text FACT SHEET '".. ................... ......•..... : :- ;...... , .......... ... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Logan Canyon US-89 Tentative Alternatives for the EIS February 1987 Prepared by CH2M HILL in significant environmental impacts. Improvements that are under study for application to U.S. 89 include: INTRODUCTION This fact sheet is the third in a series to inform the public on the progress of the Logan Canyon study. The previous fact sheets outlined the scope of the study and reported the result of the transportation needs and traffic volume projections. This fact sheet outlines the tentative alternatives that are under study. It also provides the means for the public to evaluate the progress of the study and comment on important environmental issues and other possible alternatives at the project scoping meetings on March 3 and 4. Widening the roadway, shoulders, recovery areas, and ditches to normal Utah Department of Transportation (UooT) standards for minor arterials in mountainous terrain, or to a modified (narrower) standard that would be less disturbing to the environment of the canyon Widening the roadway to provide passing lanes in all possible or selected areas Improving the alignment (straightening curves) and the road gradient (degree of slope) to increase the minimum design speeds IMPROVEMENTS/ AL TERNATIVES The development of alternative plans for the improvement of U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon is dependent on the identification of feasible improvements. "Improvements" refers to separate actions that can be taken to improve the road, such as widening, straightening, "Alternatives" are providing slow car pull-offs, etc. combinations of improvements proposed to be applied in specific locations that would result in a certain level of improvement of the road. These alternatives and others that may be suggested in the scheduled scoping meetings may be evaluated for environmental impacts in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A preferred alternative will be selected in conjunction with preparation of the draft EIS. In the case of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, feasible improvements have generally been defined as (1) actions that will correct problems identified in the previous transportation needs study; (2) actions that will result in a reasonable cost to benefit; and (3) actions that will not result Developing all new road alignments and gradients (Rich County) to 40 mph or 50 mph minimum design speeds Repairing existing major bridges Replacing major bridges Replacing small drainage structures Developing slow vehicle turnouts Improving signing and pavement markings Providing recreational parking Each of these possible improvements was considered in terms of the opportunities and constraints posed by the existing road and Logan Canyon. Page 1 Continued on Page 2 �Continued/rom Page 1 It has become obvious during the study of transportation needs that the roadway consists of several sub-sections based on the physical characteristics of the terrain. These sections, as shown in Figure 1, are: Section L Middle Canyon--Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Springs Section 2. Upper Canyon--I.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit Section 3. Rich County--Bear Lake Summit to Garden City In the analysis of improvements, certain improvements were identified as more appropriate to certain sections of the road than others. As a result, separate sets of alternatives were developed for each of the three road sections. These are summarized in Table 1. PROPOSED AL TERNATIVES the road improvements that can be made without substantial effect on visual quality and other attributes. The range of alternatives considered for this section is therefore limited to more conservative improvements that provide limited benefits to travelers, but that would protect the environmental qualities that are currently appreciated in this section. AI. No Action--Existing routine maintenance including resurfacing would be continued. Repair of bridges and improved signing and marking would be made. Geometric constraints (road width) and winding alignment would remain. B1. Spot Improvements--Would include one or a combination of the following: turning lanes at intersections; slow vehicle turnouts; parking improvements and selected curve modifications where space is currently available; bridge replacement in existing locations or on new alignment; climbing lanes; and improved signing. Most geometric and alignment constraints would continue to exist. C1. Widening along existing alignment--The current road would be widened to a standard that is narrower than UDOT's standard for a minor arterial in mountainous terrain. Figure 2 compares these two standards and the Section 1. Middle Canyon The Middle Canyon is environmentally the most sensitive section of the project road. The narrow canyon floor, confined by steep slopes and the Logan River, limits Continued on Page 3 TABLE 1 TENTATIVE ALTERNATIVES US-89 LOGAN CANYON Alternative Designation Alternative Categories. Section I (Middle Canyon) Section 2 (Upper Canyon) Section 3 (Rich County) Al BI A2 B2 A3 B3 D2 D3 NoAction Spot Iniprovements Widen Existing Road Widen and Improve Existing Road E. New North Alignment F. New North Alignment G. New South Alignment A. B. C. D. CI DI E3 F3 G3 Page 2 �Continued/rom Page 2 a number of curves that lower the design speed to 25 mph, and has a steep gradient that also lowers the travel speed. existing roadway width. Additionally, climbing lanes would be provided in selected areas (specifically in the Dugway between lower and upper twin bridges); gradient would be adjusted in selected areas; bridges would be replaced on the existing or new alignment, depending on each situation; and signing and marking would be improved and new recreational parking provided. This alternative would widen the roadway and provide limited improvement to geometrics, but alignment constraings would remain. Dl. Widening and improving the existing alignment--In addition to the widening and other improvements included in Alternative C1, this would improve the entire alignment of this section of roadway to a 35 to 40 mph minimum design speed. (This would be the same design speed as the improved section of the highway below Right Fork, which is designed to 40 mph standards with a few curves at a lower speed.) Section 2. Upper Canyon While the environmental quality is still considerable and important in this section, it does not limit possible improvements to the highway as much as in the Middle Canyon. A smaller range of proposed alternatives are therefore necessary for this section. A3. No Action--The No Action alternative for this section would be the same as for Sections 1 and 2. B3. Spot Improvements--The Spot Improvements alternative for this road section would be the same as described for road Sections 1 and 2. D3. Widen and Improve the Existing Alignment--The entire route would be widened to UDOT standards for a minor arterial in mountainous terrain (Figure 1). Climbing lanes would be constructed for a majority of the length. The horizontal and vertical alignment would be straightened to a minimum design speed of 35 to 40 mph. Signing and marking would be improved, and additional recreational parking provided. E3. F3. New Alignment--Two new alignments to the north of the existing road have been identified. One of these would be selected for a new route in this section. Road width would be based on UDOT standards for minor arterials in mountainous terrain (Figure 2). A climbing lane would be provided for the entire length of the route. Alignment and gradient would allow a minimum design speed of 40 to 50 mph. Signing and marking would be improved, and recreational parking provided as needed. 03. New Alignment--A new alignment to the south of the existing road for a portion of the route would be selected. This route would exit the existing road below the Bear Lake overlook and rejoin the existing road just below the residential area. Alignment and gradient have been identified that would a minimum design speed of 40 to 50 mph. Signing and marking would be improved, and recreational parking provided as needed. A2. No Action--The No Action alternative for this road section would be the same as described for Section 1. B2. Spot Improvements--The Spot Improvements alternative for this road section would be the same as described for road Section 1. D2. Widen and improve existing align men t--Widening of the road and bridges to UDOT standards for a minor arterial road in mountianous terrain would be done for the entire length of this section subject to environmental constraints (see Figure 2). Climbing lanes would be provided in all possible areas (mainly in the upper portions of this section). The alignment and gradient would be improved to 50 or 60 mph design speed. Improved signing and marking and additional recreation parking will be provided. Section 3. Rich County These alternatives plus any other feasible alternatives resulting from the scoping meetings on March 3 and 4 may be evaluated and compared in the EIS for the project. Graphic illustrations of the specific location of proposed curve improvements, new alignments, etc., will be presented at the scoping meetings. Questions may be directed to James Naegle, UDOT (801) 965-4160 or to Clifford Forsgren, CH2M HILL (801) 363-0200. This section has fewer environmental constraints to road improvement. The Sunrise campground and Bear Lake viewpoint near the summit are important features to be protected. The existing road is below standard in width, has Page 3 �BEAVER MOUNTAIN END TUDY ~GARDEN CITY LOGAN CANYON SECTION 3 LOWER TWIN BRIDGE WOOD CAMP. ~Q (j-'\'O ~t; '\j , BEGIN STUDY RIGHT FORK Figure 1 STUDY SECTIONS C1I 5:1 SlOPE 29' MIN 55 MPH 24 ' MIN 50 MPH 111' MIN 40 MPH urMIN 35 MPH (2) SLOPE VARlES10:1 TO 5:1 (A) EXISTING 24-29' 55 MPH 20 -24' 50 MPH 15 -1" 40 MPH 13-11' 35 MPH 40' (1') RECOVER AREA (2') 8' 12' ~~~~~--~--~~ 8' __--~~__~r-~~ RE-C-O-V-E-R-ly~ AREA (B) STANDARD (HOURLY VOLUME OVER 250) RECOVERY AREA 34 ' 5' 12' 12' 5' .~--:....-.----.....;..------.:....--~S:, (C) MODIFIED STANDARD Figure 2 TYPICAL SECTIONS � 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/131">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/131</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 4129502700 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 2917852 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 Fact sheet for Logan Canyon, Feburary 1987 Description An account of the resource Fact sheet for Logan Canyon prepared by CH2M Hill on Feburary 1987 explaining the reasons for improvements, and the proposed alternatives for each section including maps and graphs. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Forsgren, Clifford Naegle, James Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-02 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 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 26.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/cee3f8d274ffdcbdb0ab055786c20581.pdf c49801def68598979a19782e7748505b PDF Text Text February 10, 1989 Dale Bosworth Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National Forest 125 South State St. Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111 Dear Dale: I regret I was unable to attend the meeting concerning the Logan Canyon Highway Project on February 3. Unfortunately, it was necessary for me to be out of Logan. I have read the latest (Jan. 20th) version of the Agency Alternative for the project, and I am greatiy concerned. I do not wish to analize it in detail here, but only to give you some general comments: 1. This is basically the high speed alternative in the preliminary DEIS. We appear to be just about where we were over two years (and endless amounts of time and energy) ago. 2. The middle section of the Canyon has been reduced to only 4 milesfrom Right Fork to lower Twin Bridge; we regard the middle section as the entire distance from Right Fork to Ricks Springs. This redesignation, with the attendent upgrading of the road to a 35 mph design (probably 50 mph signing) from Twin Bridge to Ricks Springs is unacceptable, since the consequent environmental damage will be severe. 3. The high speed design of the upper section will result in unacceptable environmental impacts, particularly in the Beaver Creek and Summit sections. 4. There are several safety concerns v/ith respect to the placement of passing lanes, especially in the Dugway and near the Limber Pine turnout. 5. The implementation of this alternative requires 45 (!) ammendments to the Forest Plan, surely a new worlds record for any forest plan involving a single project. The cumulative effect of this large number of ammendments is such that a major change in The Plan will be required - a revision, with everything that implies. Attempts to get by with an ammendment will certainly be appealed. 6. The Agency Alternative has little detail, making analysis of its impacts by citizens not throughly acquainted with both the area and the previous history almost impossible. I f it appears as such in the EIS, the EIS will be challenged as not meeting NEPA criteria. 7. The cover letter sent with the alternative, bearing the signatures of the three agency engineers, attempts to disclaim the alternative as a IIpreferred alternative. This is, to say the least, disingeneous. Any alternative that is endorsed by a Forest Service repll �presentative is clearly destined to become the "preferred alternative." I wish to repeat something live said in previous meetings with you: we accepted the Forest Plan on the assumption it was to be taken seriously by you. It states, e.g., that liThe road will not be raised to a higher standard than existing." (Chapter 6, p. 236). Other places in the plan are clear about maintining the scenic quality of the highway (VQO classification, e.g.). You have recently designated the highway as a "Scenic Byway". If the Plan had proposed the kinds of changes found in the Agency Alternative, it certainly would have been appealed. To abandon the Plan now, under pressure from UDOT and FHWA, is to break faith with the environmental community and reduce Forest Service credibility to a new low. Stm.:ere 1y, ,i J , cc: Dave Baumgartner Tom Lyon Dick Carter UWA Steve Flint Bruce Pendery Bridgerland Audubon Rudy Lukez Utah Chapter, Sierra Club / " c· ~- /-/7 t """'-7Z ,"" C . ~ /. rb--' ,-6~'./?. L~ - f. ~ / /'.J.:~ I ~/ . '7 -" Jack T. Spence Dept. of Chemistry Utah State University Logan, ut 84322 -c:-"'<: _ r: _. � 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/132">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/132</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 528995643 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 7675796 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Jack Spence to R. James Naegle, February 1, 1991 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Jack Spence to R. James Naegle identifying the problems with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Spence, Jack T. Subject The topic of the resource Environmental policy Logan Canyon (Utah) Natural resources conservation areas Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1991-02-01 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Item Series III Box 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_11.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/f32f578e5e6eca387efbd76ce89383ea.pdf 5f1e9d542b70799a77daa30b950a16ca PDF Text Text SIERRA CLUB Utah Chapter 93 East 1st South LOGan, Utah S4J21 :ove~ber 21 , -979 (801) 75;-09?-7 ARCHES NATL. PARK by Karen Vendell JoJo Jones ~ierra Club Leader ational Transport~tion rtE : Jear Co~~ittee Proposed Road Construction Activities, Looan Canyon, Jtah . ~·lrs . J one s : ·ohn Heywood has asked me to send Gn:ormation to yoa concerning t~e current status 0: the l..06&n Canyon nigh~'iay Project i.YJ. Nor thern Utah . Please fi..rld the follo·t ling in.ior:lC:. tion enclosed: 1. 2. J. 4. 5• Letter Letter Letter Letter Letter to to to to to Gary Lindley; ;·1 .J. ~io~ert3 ; Vern Haore ; Georbe ,01 • 3oh..11 ; and DMVid ·..·E.tt . In sli.rnmary it i:lc.y be sai -i thc.t the ;>ro:note rs of the project are trY;.:1g to aVOlJ. an and :neaningful public input. rre e nc~osures a~e de si6ned ~o 00tain bad<6roll..'1d inforr:1atio:1 to for:;e an J1viro:1."7lental ~tater:1ent . ·..;e ~ave been to_ . several :,imes , that an Environ.i1ental Statement ·.'lill ;nean the deaths 0-"' t~e project ; 1:';-1 '. 5 ~3 of course our 60&1. ~nviron~ental ~tatement I ~'/ill continue to sen additiona l inforr:1c.tion 2.S it beco:nes B. V"E.i able in th2 ::. t ·'.._'e ; I ','[ Quld sU6~est that you ;>repare c. pla ce in you filin6 syste:n for' t ..e Logan Cc.nyon project . :"' I can provide additional inform.: tion pLease ':Trit e or phone . Your s~oestions '. il l be 0 a~? reciated. ~:e15t ~?a .~ Brian 3e.::rd cc: John :fey.iood drant Calkin ~ith en c~ osu res Crai6 nayle with enclo sures Anthony rtucke l with enclosues � 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/136">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/136</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 1599850016 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 502325 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Brian Beard to JoJo Jones, November 21, 1979 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Brian Beard to JoJo Jones stating the intent to demand an Environmental Statement be produced in regards to the Logan Canyon project. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Beard, Brian Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Vendell, Karen Subject The topic of the resource Government agencies Environmental policy Logan Canyon (Utah) Sierra Club. Utah Chapter Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979-11-21 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_15.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/078e07287337d2621252a91cb831907f.pdf 9f0780c9f4582a1c49a9cf7d95ee33f0 PDF Text Text MEETING NOTICE ( ~ public meeting regarding the improvement study for U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon will be held Monday Novem- ~ighway ber 3, at 7:30 p.m. in Garden City Hall in Garden City, Utah. The Utah Department of Transportation and its engi- neering consultant for the project, CH2M HILL, will present the data and findings from the first task of this study and the determination of transportation needs for the segment of the highway between Right Fork and Garden City. Preliminary findings of public concerns and environmental issues regarding road improvements in the Canyon and alternative alignments from the Bear Lake Summit to Garden City will also be reported. Questions and comments will be entertained. A fact sheet is being prepared for the public on the project mailing list. This meeting will cover essentially the same areas that were covered in the public meeting held on · September 23 at the Logan City Hall. Contact: Cliff Forsgren CH2M HILL 363-0200 SLC88/06 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/144">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/144</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 4101962281 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 497416 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Meeting notice for November 3 Description An account of the resource Meeting notice for November 3 at City Hall in Garden City Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Garden City (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 6 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 19.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/b802cef09ef26f323bd5b87260984606.pdf 9bdce05e4b3a77f9761b852c19652c25 PDF Text Text / U.S. DEPARTMENl OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHW AY ADMINISTRATION REGION EIGHT OCT • · 1978 5 I N REPL Y REFER TO: HED-08 Mr. Thomas J. Lyon 655 Canyon Road Logan, Utah 84321 Dear Mr. Lyon: Thank you for the information provided at our August 20 meeting in support of your position on the proposed Logan County Project. A copy of this will be sent to Division Administrator George Bohn. We recognize your concerns on the traffic and safety analyses.. and the overall environmental impacts of this proposal. As we indicated to you, the assignment of this project to a Category ~ III Classification (nonmajor action) will be ree~aluated following additional environmental studies and public involvement. By copy of this letter, I am requesting our Division Office to keep . you informed of subsequent developn~nts on the the project. 4 Thank you for your interest in the hi ghway program. Si ncerely, cZ#~ ~ ~ -/ Daniel Watt Regional Federal Highway Administrator � 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/147">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/147</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 4061730475 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 594560 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Daniel Watt to Thomas Lyon, October 5, 1979 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Daniel Watt to Thomas Lyon, October 5, 1979 acknowledging concerns about traffic and safety analyses and the classification of Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Watt, Daniel Subject The topic of the resource Traffic engineering Environmental policy Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979-10-05 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_20.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/6e640579d9935024a7c82173bb63b30f.pdf 2a212dab91711c6e28a9254fd6d7eaf6 PDF Text Text transportation news Contact: Kim Morris 965-4390 August 1, 1986 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE STUDY PLANNED FOR LOGAN CANYON US 89 in Logan Canyon is suffering from old age. Bridges and road surfaces have deteriorated to the point that major repairs are needed. The Utah Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the United States Forest Service, commissioned the consulting firm of CH2M Hill to help develop a plan to address the present and future needs of the road through the canyon. The study, which began in early June, will analyze transportation needs, conduct location studies and prepare an environmental analysis of potential improvements. Similar studies have been done in the past, but none which go to the extent of this analysis. The current study differs from previous efforts in that neither the project alternatives nor the preferred alternative have been defined. Results of the study will aid in selecting a highway plan for the canyon. Use of a third party consultant is expected to add credibility and objectivity to the project. 1 UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (more) 4501 South 2700 West 109 Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Phone 965-4104 �A public involvement plan has also been included to provide an opportunity for improved two-way communication during the study. CH2M - Hill plans to use news releases, fact sheets, town meetings and group meetings to explain the various project alternatives and to hear concerns of citizens. According to L. Sheldon Barker, Utah area manager of CH2M Hill, the study should be completed in the summer of 1987. # KB/jj # # 109 1 ( � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/156">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/156</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 3137156444 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 884010 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 UDOT transportation news for study of Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource UDOT transportation news for study of Logan Canyon and the public involvement meeting to be held to better improve the canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Morris, Kim Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Barker, Sheldon Subject The topic of the resource United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Utah. Department of Transportation Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-08-01 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 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 21.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/6f05335e76d97b4c65650df77b6ecd1a.pdf b7f5ed30584e80515047302111f5f8be PDF Text Text August 12, 1994 Mr. Dave Berg Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Dear Dave: Enclosed are the responses of Bruce Pendery, Steve Flint, and Shawn Swaner to the working copy of the Logan Canyon Highway Record of Decision (ROD) that you provided us with. We thank you for the opportunity to review the ROD before it is signed. Sincerely, Bruce Pendery cc: Nathan Hult Jeff Appel EPA Denver Office EPA Washington Office FHWA Region Office FHWA Washington Office �COMMENTS OF BRUCE PENDERY REASONS WHY A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS) SHOULD BE PREPARED The extreme deficiencies in the Logan Canyon Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS and FEIS) that indicate an SEIS should be prepared have been brought to your attention previously (see letters from EPA, Haley and Stolebarger, and Appel and Mattsson, among others, submitted in response to the DEIS and FEIS). More particularly, the letter from Appel and Mattsson (see Appendix B of the ROD) pointed out that this whole process has been "out of sync" with what NEPA requires since the DEIS was essentially a scoping document, the FEIS functioned as DEIS, and so forth. This is not a matter of quibbling over details. At the core of the NEPA process is a policy that decisions significantly affecting the human environment will not be made arbitrarily and capriciously, and will be made with opportunities for informed public participation. By placing the whole NEPA process with regard to Logan Canyon out of sync, UDOT has violated those fundamental principles, thus the need for an SEIS. Safety provides a major illustration for this contention. Safety is a purpose and need identified for this project (see ROD, FEIS, DEIS). to the project. It is not a peripheral concern, it is central It is not a stretch to say that for many people the whole Logan Canyon project boils down to weighing environmental impacts of the project versus safety impacts. 1 Yet �the safety data which are used to support and rationalize the safety purpose and need (and the attendant preferred alternative) have been and continue to be seriously in error. As early as a 1986 public hearing, UDOT attempted to present incorrect safety data to the public as a justification for the project, despite knowing the data were flawed. Environmentalists were forced to point this error out at the public hearing so as to get UDOT not to use it. And even at this late date in the process, the safety data in the FEIS has had to be recalculated for presentation in the ROD because once again environmentalists pointed out the obvious flaws plaguing the data presented in the FEIS (see Bridgerland Audubon Society, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, and Ron Lanner letters in ROD Appendix B). Thus, the safety data in the ROD is new information that has never been presented to the public (see Appendix A of the ROD as well as the ROD itself which have large sections devoted to explaining what went wrong with the safety analysis in the FEIS). Moreover, and most shockingly, the safety data in the ROD are still wrong, as the letter from Steve Flint, contained herein, points out. So at this almost terminal date in the NEPA process we still have flawed data being used to support a major purpose and need for the Logan Canyon Project. And the significance of this is that informed public participation in this process cannot take place. All the hundreds of people who commented on the DEIS and FEIS were presented with safety information that was wrong, as 2 �the need to correct this information in the ROD demonstrates. And the ROD--even if the safety data in it were now correct--will not be seen by the vast majority of people who are concerned about this project. ROD's--almost by definition--are not intended to be vehicles for public participation. Thus, the significance of UDOT's out of sync approach to the NEPA process becomes clear: not only is the process out of sync, but with each step up the NEPA ladder toward project approval fewer and fewer people are able to review the project, and those who previously reviewed the project were presented with incorrect data purporting to support UDOT's preferred alternative. Therefore, an SEIS is needed not only because the data presented have been repeatedly wrong in the past, but also because each time UDOT presents the "corrected" data, fewer people are able to participate in the evaluating the decision the data supposedly supports. UDOT tries to avoid the need for preparing an SEIS, with its attendant wide-ranging public participation, by stating that certain individuals have been closely involved in the development of the modified preferred alternative (see, e.g., ROD Appendix B page 39, but this same statement appears in numerous other places in the ROD). But involving five individuals (Bruce Pendery, Shawn Swaner, Steve Flint, Nathan Hult, Jeff Appel) in this process--while greatly appreciated and we believe productive-simply cannot substitute for full-scale public involvement in an SEIS process. As has become clear recently, public sentiment 3 �regarding this project is simply too diverse and widespread to believe that the above five people adequately provide for "public involvement" when a basic purpose and need for the project has never been adequately presented to the public. While we are viewed as knowledgeable about this project in the environmental community and to some extent are considered leaders, we simply cannot and do not represent the concerns of the hundreds--perhaps thousands--of people concerned about Logan Canyon. If UDOT wants informed public participation in this NEPA process it must provide for that via and SEIS. In addition to the fact informed public participation has been hampered, UDOT's modified preferred alternative is a arbitrary and capricious decision. The DEIS, FEIS, and ROD all make much of the fact safety will be improved if the preferred alternative is implemented., But what basis can there be for that assertion when the information it is based on has been flawed since at least 1986 and continues to be flawed? I have largely exhausted the topic of why an SEIS is needed. However, I will point out that the same analysis applies to 4(f) sites and to wildlife. The 4(f) documentation in the FEIS was also wrong in a number of instances and a has had to be corrected (see ROD Appendix A, 4(f) Map section, as well as the ROD itself). Likewise, UDOT presented essentially no information in the FEIS about the numerous sensitive species in Logan Canyon (see ROD Appendix B pages 28 and 35). The ROD contains some information on these species (see ROD Appendix A, USFS Biological 4 �Assessment). Thus, just as for safety, informed public participation could not take place in regard to these critical issues because the information was wrong or absent. Moreover, simply presenting the information in the largely nonpublic ROD phase of the NEPA process does not correct the problem. CURRENT LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFIED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY Repeatedly in the ROD UDOT states that consensus has been reached with the environmental community with regards to the modified preferred alternative. That is an incorrect statement, which we have made clear to UDOT. Not only is it incorrect, it makes it more unlikely compromise will be reached because those most opposed to the project would deeply resent UDOT unilaterally announcing that consensus exists. Let me be clear. discussions with UDOT. Since last December we have had a several The tone of those meetings has been constructive and positive. I personally want that process to continue because I believe compromise is preferable to confrontation. However, it is my opinion that a fully acceptable compromise has not been reached yet. Let me explain why. As the modified preferred alternative stands, conservationists would get most of what they want in 14% of the canyon (road stays on current width and alignment between mileposts 383.5 to 387.5, although there could be some curve cuts we don't believe are necessary). UDOT gets everything it wants 5 �in 42% of the canyon (full u.s. highway standard between mileposts 399.8 to 411.8, with almost 8 miles of that 12 miles having a passing lane). Neither UDOT or conservationists get exactly what they want in 43% of the project area (mileposts 387.5 to 399.8). At a meeting in early July Dave Berg asked me how far along toward compromise we were. Based on the above considerations, I said I thought we were 75% of the way there. about where we still stand. I believe that's Seventy-five percent of a potential compromise does not equal compromise, let alone consensus. Moreover, as we found out at a meeting we convened in July there is a significant group of conservationists in Cache Valley who believe we are not even seventy-five percent of the way toward compromise. This information was conveyed to UDOT in a timely manner. To summarize, I believe that a generally acceptable compromise is possible, but it can only be reached by continued hard work seeking to narrow the differences that still exist, not by premature and unilateral statements that consensus has been reached. RESPONSE TO BRIDGERLAND AUDUBON LETTER (APPENDIX B PAGE 16) The Bridgerland Audubon Society (BAS) provided extensive comments on the FEIS. I was the author of that letter, although I no longer hold an official position with BAS. Unfortunately, I believe most of the concerns that were raised in the BAS letter were dismissed with conclusory statements using circular 6 �reasoning. While UDOT may feel it has adequately addressed this letter, I hope the FHWA and EPA will make an independent assessment of these concerns and how well UDOT has responded to them. What follows are items related to the BAS letter that I feel are particularly significant. It is not nearly an exhaustive list. 1. Since AASHTO allows for design exceptions, they are not genuinely standards. Thus, the "written-in-stone" portrayal UDOT has given to the public over the years is incorrect. Moreover, UDOT still fails to state what legal authority AASHTO has, perhaps because it has no legal authority (Appendix B, page 17). 2. On Appendix B page 25 it is stated that treatment of clear zones has been more clearly defined in the ROD. Even if true, this is yet another case of not presenting the public with correct (or clear) information until the public is largely no longer part of the process. prepare an SEIS. That is, its yet another reason to Moreover, BAS Table 3 was correct, what was wrong was that UDOT had failed to explain what "typical improved area" means in its FEIS, thus defeating informed public participation. 3. On Appendix B page 27, UDOT indicates that recreation isn't emphasized in Logan Canyon, and that it isn't a recreation area. That analysis ignores the Forest Service signs welcoming visitors to the "Logan Canyon Recreation Area," it ignores the Forest Service's attempts to get highway enhancement funds to show off Logan Canyon's many recreational attractions, it ignores 7 �the brown (i.e., recreational) FHWA or UDOT signs pointing the way to Logan Canyon, it ignores the clear direction in the Forest plan that Logan Canyon will be managed primarily for recreation. Under UDOT's constrained analysis, the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (also managed by the Forest Service) would not be a recreation area because its not absolutely only used for recreation (grazing is allowed in some areas). I prefer the more pragmatic duck test: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc., it is a duck. area. Under that test Logan Canyon is a recreation And neither UDOT or the Forest Service can reinterpret the law in an inappropriately constrained way--and the law makes it clear that when the managing agency designates an area a recreation area in its plans, that area must be treated as a 4(f) area. 4. On Appendix B page 28 UDOT frets about having to concern itself with "hundreds" of species. Only 27 species were asked about, and now with the public largely removed from this process something has finally been said about them (see Appendix A, USFS Biological Assessment). Moreover, not only does the Forest Service have to do a biological assessment before a decision document is signed, it must do the assessment before the decision is made which certainly has not been the case here. 5. UDOT says on Appendix B page 29 only a Forest Plan Amendment will be required, not a revision. However, conservationists have long contended a much more significant revision will be required. Revisions are required when the basic 8 �output of goods and services from a forest are altered. I believe the modified preferred alternative will meet that test by transforming Logan Canyon into yet another Wasatch-Cache National Forest high-speed conduit, rather than the singular peaceful and quiet ride in a major canyon that it currently is. In fact, Logan Canyon's beauty is not only of forest-wide singularity, it is of national significance, as a soon-to-be-released national article will demonstrate. 6. Some pages are duplicated incorrectly beginning on about Appendix B page 29 to 31. 7. While the Forest Service has evaluated the Logan River for Wild and Scenic status (Appendix B pages 29 to 31), it has also said that new information could cause a reevaluation. Such information was recently provided by Mr. Drew Parkin who is one of the nation's premier experts on wild and scenic rivers. He concluded most of the Logan River within the highway project area qualifies as a recreational river. to the Forest Service. His report has been submitted UDOT should more fully consider the ramifications of such a designation, and not just state that there will be no effect due to the project. 8. Appendix B page 32 indicates it would be speculative to worry about land use changes if the land exchange occurs. The land exchange will occur because authorizing legislation has been passed by Congress and signed by the President. And to compare Forest Service land use policy with Utah State Lands Board policy is like comparing night and day (I'll leave it to you to decide 9 �which is the benighted agency). There will be changes in land management and it is disingenuous to ignore that fact. In particular, the need for "laydown" fencing should be reconsidered because it is unlikely there will be cows to keep off the highway. 9. On Appendix B page 33 UDOT responds improperly to the 4(f) issues that are raised. As indicated above, all of Logan Canyon is a recreation area, its not a few parking sites. Moreover, the reason for selecting the 4(f) sites was not to protect parking, but rather to protect aesthetics, hiking, and exploration. These are the protected features or activities (see Appendix B page 34). Furthermore, not only is the conservationists' alternative feasible and prudent, it also does not produce any genuinely unusual situations precluding its selection. And when a feasible and prudent alternative fails to meet transportation needs, the needs must be reassessed, which UDOT has not done. Failure to meet transportation needs does not mean an alternative automatically causes an unusual situation precluding its selection. 10. The concerns raised on Appendix B page 35 are indeed specific to the Logan Canyon Highway project since these species occur nowhere else, and failure to address the question runs contrary to Eugene Kleckley's (FHWA) written assurance that all of our concerns would be addressed. 11. Over the years UDOT has repeatedly refused to consider 10 �slow vehicle turnouts as an alternative to passing lanes. However, these are a practicable alternative to the passing lanes contemplated between mileposts 391.6 to about milepost 396.5 that would avoid wetlands impacts (see Appendix B page 36 and ROD pages 32 to 34). As we have often pointed out to UDOT, slow vehicle turnouts are successfully used in several states. And UDOT has told us that they have the statutory authority to use slow vehicle turnouts. Therefore, they must be used in preference to passing lanes where wetlands impacts will occur. Additionally, while UDOT partially responded to BAS's concerns on Appendix B page 36 by reducing the road width to 34feet between mileposts 391.6 and 399.8, this response was incomplete. UDOT fails to point out why it does not plan to leave roadway width at 26-feet in section 1b of the canyon (mileposts 387.5 to 391.6). If 26-feet is a practicable alternative in section 1a (mileposts 383.5 to 387.5), why is that not practicable in section 1b, where the canyon is virtually as narrow and wetlands/riparian impacts likely as great? Furthermore, UDOT dismisses BAS's concerns about wetlands mitigation in sections 1a and 1b by saying "the commentor . . . felt" (ROD page 33)there was a poor likelihood of revegetation success. However, it was not a matter that I poor likelihood of success. "felt" there was a Rather, I cited recent scientific - iterature--produced by scientists working for the very agency l whose land will be impacted (the Forest Service)--stating there is a poor likelihood revegetation will be successful in areas 11 �such as sections 1a and 1b (see Appendix B page 37). If the scientific literature that I cited is somehow flawed UDOT should cite "better" information. That's how science works. demands the use of good science. And NEPA Until then, it appears UDOT has no scientific basis for claiming it can reclaim the kinds of wetlands that exist in sections 1a and lb. Finally, UDOT still feels simply stating best management practices will be used is sufficient to meet water quality mandates (Appendix B page 37, see also ROD page 32). otherwise. The law is Moreover, UDOT has failed to adequately coordinate with the Utah Division of Water Rights (see Appendix B page 6) which feels UDOT has likely understated the water quality impacts of the project. Thus, UDOT is too vague about how it will mitigate water quality impacts and has likely underestimated those impacts, yet UDOT wants approval to proceed with this project. That is not how NEPA intends environmental review to proceed. 12. An inability to do a "before and after" (ie, cumulative) comparison of wetlands and aesthetic impacts in the already-widened section of Logan Canyon with the project area would be unfortunate (Appendix B page 38). However, I believe that if future aesthetic conditions of the road can be predicted in the project area, past conditions in the already-widened ' section can also be estimated. For example, there are certainly many old photos of the canyon that could be used for aesthetic comparisons, and many of the old wetlands have left "footprints" 12 �of their existence. While not an ideal scientific situation, to simply state that no useful cumulative comparisons can be made between the project area and the lower canyon overstates the situation. UDOT says the Forest Service feels the presentation of visual quality data was more meaningful when presented in a way unlike that in the rest of the FEIS (Appendix B page 38). Why did UDOT let the Forest Service dictate this approach when BAS-and several others--made it clear in their comments on the DEIS that this was not a more illuminating approach? MAJOR FLAWS APPARENT IN THE ROD What follows are additional major flaws that I perceive in the ROD. 1. Again, this is not an exhaustive list. On page 40 of the ROD UDOT mistakenly thinks only an irreversible commitment of resources can invoke NEPA relative to 4(f) designation. Actually the test is whether designating a 4(f) site is a Federal action significantly affecting the human environment. The selection--or more importantly, lack of selection--of 4(f) sites in Logan Canyon meets that test and certainly warranted at least a FONSI or an EA. 2. On page 18 of the ROD UDOT says the Forest Service will issue a transportation easement not the special use permit described in the FEIS. What is the significance of that change? If one of these involves the Forest Service conveying a property right while the other is merely a license, this is a significant 13 �change, and the public has not had a chance to comment or be involved in this decision. 3. As I have discussed in several of our meetings, the exact location and size of staging areas must be spelled out. This is a major project impact that has not been previously addressed. 4. I have already mentioned the tendency towards unwarranted conclusory statements in regards to how the BAS letter was addressed. That same problem is particularly evident in the defensive discussion on purpose and need on pages 27 to 29 of the ROD. As I said above, the safety data were wrong in the FEIS, are still wrong, and question begging rhetoric does not alleviate that problem. Likewise, the discussions related to traffic volume predictions, the associated level of service, the utility of SR 14 as a comparison to u.S. Highway 89, and AASHTO standards are mostly just defensive and conclusory. 5. On Appendix A page 7 there is a critical UDOT memorandum. First, under the logic developed in this memorandum, there is little or no safety rationale for the 40-feet wide road UDOT still proposes in much of the canyon. All of the remaining proposed 40-feet wide highway could just as well be 34-feet wide. UDOT should strongly consider this fact as a means of reaching a generally acceptable compromise in the canyon. However there is also a very disturbing remark made in this memo. It is stated: "[A]nd given the fact that we would be able to proceed with the construction of the project . . ." if the 14 �road width is reduced to 34-feet, going to five foot shoulders is acceptable. Did UDOT decide to go to a 34-feet width instead of a 40-feet between mileposts 391.6 to 399.8 because of its goodfaith discussions with conservationists or because EPA and/or the Corps of Engineers told UDOT they would not get a 404 permit if they did not make this change? The sentence quoted above certainly implies that someone was holding a very big stick over UDOT's head, and frankly I doubt that it was conservationists. 6. The letters from the EPA and the Utah Division of Water Rights on Appendix B pages 1 to 6 are a must read. In essence, not only has UDOT failed to insure an approved wetlands permit is acquired before the project is authorized, it has also put off significant input on water quality impacts until the as yet nonexistent design phase. We mentioned earlier how UDOT has marginalized the public's ability to participate in this process by its out of sync NEPA process. It appears UDOT is doing the same with expert agencies that should have input to this project prior to its approval, not after. A SUGGESTION FOR COMPROMISE Many of my comments in this letter have been critical of UDOT's approach to the Logan Canyon project. That's because I feel the ROD is as flawed a decision document as were the DEIS and FEIS. However, in the spirit of compromise let me offer a suggested approach. When the final ROD is issued it should only approve 15 �construction of the bridges, namely Burnt Bridge, and Upper and Lower Twin Bridges. These are the "scary" bridges in many people's opinion, and as I understand it the ones that are in need of replacement due to their age. UDOT apparently has funding to reconstruct these bridges and UDOT has indicated that replacing these bridges would take about two years. During that two year period an SEIS could be prepared for the remainder of the project, wherein the public and concerned agencies are given a full opportunity to participate before a decision is made and when it can still have a major effect. Many of the major flaws that I have pointed out in this letter and my letters submitted on behalf of BAS regarding the FEIS and DEIS could be corrected in this process. The numerous other flaws pointed out by other commentors could also be addressed. The EPA's deep concern regarding segmenting a project (see Appendix B pages 1 to 4) might be addressed. Additionally, the constructive and positive discussions UDOT has had with conservationists could continue in a effort to narrow remaining differences. In any event, UDOT does not have funding for nonhridge portions of the project yet, so taking a couple of more years to "get it right" should not be a major problem for UDOT fiscally. You will note that I did not include the Red Banks, Franklin Basin, or Amazon Hollow structures/bridges in this proposal. There is simply too much controversy associated with them (due to their extreme width and wetlands impacts) to expect that they would meet with general acceptance, unlike the three bridges 16 �mentioned above. Moreover, as far as I know, the only "problem" with these bridges is that they are not as wide as UDOT would like. However, they do not seem to be as narrow as the bridges mentioned above (they certainly are not "scary"), and they are not nearing the end of their useful life so far as I know. Thank you for this opportunity to provide these comments on the ROD, and I hope that UDOT and the FHWA will consider this compromise proposal so that a generally acceptable compromise might be reached for the Logan Canyon project. Sincerely, Bruce Pendery 755 Canyon Rd. Logan, Utah 84321 17 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/159">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/159</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Checksum 3787997956 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 10610610 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Bruce Pendery to Dave Berg, August 12, 1994 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Bruce Pendery to Dave Berg stating the reasons why a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) should be prepared, explaining that flawed data and lack of public involvement have made the current EIS unusable. Suggests a compromise in which the three "scary" bridges be modified as UDOT has stated while the SEIS is prepared. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Pendery, Bruce Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Natural resources conservation areas Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1994-08-12 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 10 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd10_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/c820729cd20e24154407dab2a040c450.pdf f0da73e259e64a0cc0dd405108bdc581 PDF Text Text • RECORD OF DECISION US Highway 89 Right Fork in Logan Canyon to Garden City Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Cache and Rich Counties, Utah A. DECISION The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) concurs with the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) in its selection of the Preferred Alternative as modified in this Record of Decision (ROD) for improvements to US Highway 89 (US-89) between Right Fork, milepost (mp) 383.47, and State Road 30, mp 411.75 , in Garden City . The modified Preferred Alrernative is described in Section B below. The modified Preferred Alternative is as presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) with the following modifications made as a result of input received on the FEIS and subsequent meetings and field reviews in order to further minimize harm to wetland/riparian habitat, visual resources and Section 4(0 resources : • The Lower Middle Canyon section has been extended 500 reet to mp 387.57 to better fit the surrounding terrain. The roadway begins to move further away from the river at this location. • Conso lidation of parking for Section 4(f) Site 6 , Ricks Spring, has been e liminated. This eliminates the left turn lane and retaining wall adjacent to the river. A shorter retaining wall set back from the river may still be required just south of the site. • Section 4(f) Site 13 , Winter Access Parking, will be reestablished at a lower elevation so that • Relocation of the Limber Pine Trailhead has been eliminated . • The detour at Burnt Bridge has been eliminated and widening will occur on the upstream side. This reduces the impact on riparian habitat. • For the first eight miles of the Upper Canyon (from mp 391.6 to Beaver Mountain road intersection), the previously proposed roadway width of 40 feet has been reduced to 34 feet. This reduces the impact on wetland and riparian areas , For areas with passing lanes through this eight miles, the previously proposed roadway width of 47 feet has been reduced to 44 feet. • • • The left turn lane at Temple Fork has been eliminated. Minimum roadway improvements at this site include a 34' section on US·89 and an improved vertical grade approach of Temple Fork road. Other improvements , such as an uphill right turn lane and an improved horiwntal angle of approach of Temple Fork Road , are secondary improvements which will only be constructed if they do not impact the river or require a substantial retaining wall . access can be maintained. US·89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Page 1 Section A: Decision �The above modifications are within the scope of the FE IS and their implementation will reduce the impacts from that presented in the FEIS . Therefore , the modifications are not of a nature that would require a Supplemental EIS . • I The purpose of and need for this project is to improve safety and the traffic carrying capacity of US89 from Right Fork in Logan Canyon to State Road 30 in Garden City. Safety will be improved by correcting existing substandard geometries , unsafe conditions. and deteriorated structures. The capacity of the highway will be increased to meet existing and projected traffic demands for a 20year planning horizon . Due to funding restraints , this project will be implemented through the development of several smaller projects. The first includes the urgent bridge upgrading and replacements. Other improvements in the canyon that will be implemented as runding becomes available. The selection of the modified Preferred Alternative was based on substantial input received by various federal and state agencies, local governments and the public , evaluation of technical repons , the Environmental Impact Statement, and further analysis and coordination made during development of this ROD . The sensitivity of the environment played an important role in the development of the modified Preferred Alternative. Numerous compromises to current highway standards (as recommended by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO) were incorporated because impacts on the aquatic , wetland , riparian and visual environment would have been too great, and in some cases constructability was cost-prohibitive. Other actions taken into consideration in making this decision includes the recent nomination of US89 through Logan Canyon for inclusion on the National Highway System. This would change the classification of the highway from a minor arterial to a principal arterial. Though Congressional approval is pending , consideration has been given to how this would affect the decision being made for this project. Since the roadway already serves as a US Hiehway and Was desienated as s uch in accordance with previous luis.ation. the determination has been made that this action would not chanee the use or the hiehway. In this regard, the decision is made that if US-89 through Logan Canyon is included in the National Highway System, this designation will not affect the selection, or subsequent design, of the modified Preferred Alternative identified in this ROD. e • US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994) Page 2 Section A: Decision �• B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Eight project alternatives , ranging from preserving the existing roadway to a standard AASHTO design , were considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). These include: • • • • • • • • • Standard Arterial Alternative Rich County North Alignment Alternative Rich County South Alignment Alternative Modified Standard Alternative Composite Alternative Spot Improvements Alternative Conservationists' Alternative No Action Alternative Alternate corridors were evaluated and included redesignation of Idaho State Highway 36 from Preston to Ovid , Idaho , and construction of a new highway through Blacksmith Fork Canyon. Because the distance between Logan and Wasatch Front communities and the Bear Lake area is shorter thrQugh Logan Canyon than through these other routes , most traffic would still tend to use US-89. The need to correct existing safety hazards/deficiencies , replace deteriorated bridges and pavement, and increase traffic carrying capacity would still be necessary . Environmental impacts and construction costs to improve the existing highway would be considerably less than for a new route . Furthermore, traffic volume on such a route would not justify a new road . Therefore, alternate corridors were not advanced into the EIS . The FEIS presented four project alternatives . These include: • • • • Preferred Alternative No Action Alternative Standard Arterial Alternative Conservationists' Alternative The Preferred Alternative as modified in this ROD is the environmentally preferred alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment while meeting the purpose and need . The modified Preferred Alternative was se lected because it offered the best balance berween the transportation needs of the corridor with the sensitive environmental restraints of the canyon. The other alternatives do not achieve this balance: The Standard Arterial Alternative is not sensitive to the environment; and , the Conservationists' and No Action Alternatives do not meet the purpose and need for the project. The Preferred Alternative, as modified, is supponed by federal and state agencies , and alllocaJ government entities. The Preferred Alternative, as presented in the FEIS , met opposition from much of the public. Several meetings and fie ld reviews with key individuals during development of this ROD has led to resolving many of the concerns and reaching a consensus on the modifications made . • The following is a detailed description of the four alternatives carried into the FEIS. The modifications to the Preferred Alternative identified in Section A, above, have been included in its US-89 Througb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October (3, 1994) Considered Page 3 Section B: Alternatives �• description : Prererred Alternative (As Modified) The modified Preferred Alternative was developed to balance the transportation needs of the corridor with the impacts to the canyo n environment. The critical environmental restraints dictated that numerous compromises to AASHTO Design Standards were necessary . These compromises allowed environmental impacts to be minimized while controlling construction costs. Middle Canyon Due to the potential for impact to the threatened species, the Maguire Primrose and other substantial impacts on aquatic , wetland/riparian, and visual environment, the modified Preferred Alternative throughout this section proposes a substantial relaxation bf AASHTO Design Standards (which recommends a 4O-foot width throughout , plus several pasSing lanes) . Beginning at Right Fork (mp 383.47), the first four miles (lower Middle Canyon section) will maintain the existing roadway width of 26 feet. Present design speed and posted speed wi ll remain unchanged . Burnt Bridge (mp 385 .5) will be rep laced with a new structure 34-foot wide to allow for pedestrian use . Burnt Bridge will be constructed in stages, with widening occurring on the upstream side. The detour presented in the FEIS has been eliminated. The roadway wi ll be e levated at mp 386.2 (Logan Cave) and at mp 386.6 to eliminate a flooding potential, and a parking area will be constructed for Logan Cave visitors at mp 386.3. Curb and/or gutter through this section will be considered during design to help define the roadway and control debris rolling onto the highway . Curve 5 at mp 384.and curve 29 at mp 387 will be flattened if a 3-year accident analysis , at the time of construction, shows a concentration of accidents at either location in excess of the expected accident rate . In the year 2010, a Level of Service (LOS) "DIE" would be expected for this four mile section . In the remainder of the Middle Canyon section (from mp 387.57 to mp 391.6) the canyon begins to open up but is still somewhat restrictive. The roadway will be widened to a 34-foot width (two 12foot wide travel lanes and two 5-foot wide shoulders) through this section. Design and posted speeds will be 35 miles per hour (mph) . The 34 foot roadway width will serve as a transition between the 26 and 40 root roadway sections. Lower and Upper Twin Bridges (mp 387 .7 and 388.76, respectively) will be replaced with 38-foot wide structures on new alignment and the structure at Ricks Spring (mp 389.8) will be replaced on the same alignment. The previously proposed consolidation of parking for Section 4(f) Site 6, Ricks Spring, has been eliminated . Intersection improvements at Temple Fork (mp 389.2) include the 34' section on US-89 and an improved vertical grade approach of Temple Fork road . Other improvements , such as an uphill right turn lane and an improved horizontal angle of approach at Temple Fork Road are secondary improvements which will only be constructed if they do not impact the river or require a substantial retaining wall . The left turning lane previously proposed at Temple Fork has been eliminated. Six curves will be flattened through the Upper Middle Canyon. These include curve #33, 37, 39, 40, 43 , and 45. The roadway wi ll be raised about 2 feet from mp 390.2 to mp 391.1 to eliminate a flooding potential. In the year 2010, a LOS "0" would be expected for this section. US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of Oclober 13, 1994) Considered Page 4 Seclion B: AJlemalives e • �• Upper Canyon The Upper Canyon begins at mp 391.6 and continues to the Bear Lake Summit. The first eight miles of this section begins at the cattleguard at mp 391.6 and ends at SR-243 (Beaver Mountain Road Intersection) . The previously proposed roadway width of 40 feet through this first eight miles has been reduced to 34 feel as a result of input received on the FEIS . This 34-foot width provides for two 12-foot wide travel lanes and two 5-fool wide shoulders}. Passing/climbing lanes will be provided from mp 391.6 to mp 393.3 and from mp 394.9 to mp 396.5. Where passing lanes are provided , the previously proposed roadway width of 47 feet has been reduced to 44 feet (two 12-fool wide travel lanes, one 12-foot wide passing lane, one 5-foot shoulder and one 3-foot shoulder on the • passing lane side). Intersection improvements will be made at Tony Grove (mp 393.7), Red Banks Campground (mp 394.5), and Franklin Basin Road (mp 397.01) . Bridges wi ll be replaced on original alignment. Red Banks Bridge will be 38 feet wide unless tapers for the turn lanes into the campground run onto the bridge. The first Beaver Creek: Structure at Franklin Basin Road (mp 396.9) will be at least 52 feet wide to accommodate the Franklin Basin Intersection, and the Beaver Creek Structure at mp 397.5 will be 38 feet wide. Intersection improvements will be made at Beaver Mountain Road (mp 399.75) . The culvert that serves the Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and surrounding drainage areas will be widened to accommodate the widened transitions for the Beaver Mountain intersection. A width of 22 feet from the shoulder line to headwall on each side is required to avoid the need for guardrail protection. The total width would be at least 68 feet unless guardrail protection is selected during the design phase. Retaining wall s will be constructed between Beaver Creek and the roadway at mp 398.1 , mp 398.3, mp 398.6, and mp 398.9 to reduce impacts on the creek and adjacent wetlands . "Lay_downK type fencing will be provided in open range areas from about mp 391.6 to mp 397.2 along both sides of the roadway . Beyond the first eight miles, from the intersection with SR-243 (mp 399.75) and continuing to the Bear Lake Summit, the roadway will be widened to 40 feet (two 12-foot wide travel lanes and two 8-foot wide shoulders) . Passing/climbing lanes will be provided from mp 399.8 to mp 403 .0 , and from mp 404.6 continuing throughout the next section and ending at mp 410.6 . Where these passing/climbing lanes are provided, a 47-foot width (two 12-foot wide travel lanes, one 12-foot wide passing lane , one 8-foot shoulder, and one 3 foot shoulder on the passing lane side) will be required . Intersection improvements will be made at UDOT Maintenance Station (mp 402.38), and Forest Service Access Road (mp 404.75). The Winter Access Parking at mp 402. 1 will be re-established at a lower elevation so access can be provided. The design speed will be 50 mph throughout the Upper Canyon. Curves 69 , 70, 71, 76, and 80 will be flattened . In the year 2010, a LOS "C/O" would be expected throughout the Upper Canyon. Rich County Section • From the Bear Lake Summit to Bridgerland Subdivision (mp 404.75 to mp 409.4) the highway will be widened to 47 feet in order to accommodate a passing lane. (This would allow two 12-foot wide travel lanes, a 12-foot wide passing lane , one 8-fool shoulder, and one 3-foot shoulder on the passing lane side). The design speed will be 40 mph . On the Limberpine trailhead side, improvements will be restricted to be within 23 feet of the edge of the existing roadway. A delineation between the rOadway and parking area will be provided wilhin this 23 foot strip. The previously proposed US-89 Through Loaan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Considered Page 5 Section B: Alternatives �relocation of the trailhead and parking area has been dropped. Curves 85 , 88, 89, 92 , 94, 95 , 98, 101, and 102 will be flattened and curves 103, 104. and 105 will be flattened into a single curve , dependent upon relocation of alignment from Curve 105 to Curve 109. e From Bridgerland Subdivision to Garden City the highway width will be 40 feet (47 feet in passing lane areas), and the design speed will be 50 mph. Curves 109- 112, and 116 will be flattened, and access at mp 410.6 will be relocated. The climbing lane from the previous section will end at mp 410.6. In the year 2010, a LOS "0 " would be expected for the entire Rich County section. Intersection improvements will be made at the Sunrise Campground (mp 405 ,5) whi ch will also provjde access for the Bear Lake View Area, The intersection with SR-30 will be redesjgned with left and right-turn lanes. cyrb. gutter and sidewalk on US-89 and SR-3Q in the vicinity of this intersection. Intersection improvements will also be made at the access to the Brjdgerlaod Subdivjsion Cmp 409.4), A new intersection providing access to the BridgerJaod Subdivision will be constructed . This access will provide safer ingress and egress to the subdjvision. Intersection improvements to other existing and proposed subdivision accesses will be considered based on use requirements, roadway widening possibilities. and other engineering factors, No Action Alternative This alternative does not include any action to alter the width or location of the existing highway , although considerable construction activity would be necessary to conduct normal road maintenance, Such construction would include pavement replacement, replacement of structural elements on bridges and eventual bridge replacement , and improved signage, The existing roadway width of 26 feet would be maintained . In the year 2010, a LOS "DIE" would be expected for the Middle Canyon, LOS ~ D ~ for the Upper Canyon, and LOS "E" for the Rich County section, • This alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative and was not selected because it does not meet the purpose and need of the project, Traffic carrying capacity would not be increased to meet the projected traffic volume, Safety hazards and inadequate opportunities for passing slow moving vehicles would not be corrected. This alternative is opposed by local governments and most of the public, Standard Arterial Alternative This alternative would maximize traffic capacity and safety by widening and improving the existing alignment of the highway to current AASHTO standards for a minor anerial road. The roadway wou ld include two 12-foot wide lanes and two 8-foot wide shoulders for a paved width of 40 feet. A third 12-foot wide climbing lane would be constructed along approximately 7,7 miles of the route . The shoulder width would be reduced to 3 feet on the climbing lane side, resulting in a paved width of 47 feet. Recovery areas , sloping gradually from the roadway to the natural grade, would result in a typical improved area of 66-98 feet. Bridges and drainage structures would be replaced , several on new alignments to straighten existing curves. Intersection improvements would also occur. This alternative would provide the best Level of Service. In the year 2010, a LOS "0" wou ld be expected for the Middle Canyon, LOS "C/O" for the Upper Canyon, and LOS "D" for the Rich County section. US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13 , 1994) Considered Page 6 Section B: Alternatives • �• This alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative and was not selected because of the potential impact to the threatened Maguire primrose , substantial impacts to aquatic , riparian , and visual environments, and cost. This alternative would also impact the most Section 4(f) resources. This alternative is opposed by several government agencies and much of the public. Conservationists' Alternative The Conservationists' Alternative provides for improvements at various locations where there would be minimal environmental impacts. This alternative includes improved signing, bridge replacement, slow vehicle turnouts, some climbing lanes, and provides for paving and winter snow plowing of several parking areas. The existing roadway width of 26 feet would be maintained and the pavement would be replaced. Where climbing lanes are provided, the roadway width would be 43 feet. New bridges would be constructed to a 28-foot width, with Lower and Upper Twin Bridges being rep laced on new alignment. Tony Grove Intersection would be improved. Travelers would be advised of safety deficiencies by increasing the number of signs at selected locations. • • This alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative and was not selected because it does not meet the purpose and need or the project. This alternative rails to adequately address safety and capacity needs . It would be an incremental improvement over the No Action Alternative by providing limited roadway improvements at selected locations. However, this alternative would fail to increase traffic-carrying capacity to meet projected traffic volumes , and would not eliminate many safety hazards. Bridges proposed to be 28 feet wide would be below AASHTO standards , causing continued hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians as well as vehicles. Only one intersection would be improved, resulting in unresolved safety concerns at several intersections such as Temple Fork, Red Banks Campground, and others. Additional signs to advise of substandard curves and other safety deficiencies is not adequate to provide long-term benefits as traffic volumes increase and would represent a constant liability situation. Only three climbing lanes , each approximately a half-mile long, would be provided. Climbing lanes would not be provided in the Rich County Section of the road. In the year 2010, a LOS "DIE" would be expected for the Middle Canyon, LOS "0" for the Upper Canyon , and LOS ME" for the Rich County section. This alternative is opposed by local governments, but had strong support from much of the public. US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Considered Page 7 Section B: AJtematives �C. SECTION 4(F) Section 4(f) applies to publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, wi ldl ife/waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site of National , State, or local significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, refuge or site. The Forest Service has determined that 15 recreation areas qualify as Section 4(f) resources within the project area. In addition, the State Historic Preservation Office has identified two historic sites. These 17 Section 4(f) resources are described in the Section 4(f) Statement (included in the FEIS). Constructive use of a Section 4(0 resource results when there is a substantial impairment caused by secondary impacts. There w ill be no substantial impairment caused by secondary impacts , therefore, constructive use of Section 4(0 resources will not occur. Changes to the Section 4(t) Evaluation , as a result of comments received on the FEIS, are addressed be low. The modified Preferred Alternative will impact three Section 4(t) resources. Alternatives considered to avoid Section 4(f) resources include: the No Action Alternative , which does not impact any Section 4(f) resource ; and the Conservationists' Alternative, which impacts one Section 4(f) resource . The Standard Arterial Alternative has a greater impact to Section 4(f) resources, impacting eight sites. These alternatives are described in the FEIS and in Section B, above. In addition to these alternatives, a site specific minor alignment adjustment was considered for avoiding each site. This minor alignment adjustment was presented in the Section 4(f) Statement and is summarized below for each impacted site. Revised Table 6-4 Swnmary of Section 4(f) Properties Used for Each Alternative • Alternative S ite Features Prererred No Action Soandard Arterial Conservationists' (Modified) No. I Fisherman's Access Parking at Righi Fork No No y" No 2 Woodcamp Campground No No y" No 4 Parking for Logan Cave No No y" No 6 Ricks Spring and Parking y" No y" No 7 Dispersed Recreation Parking No No y" No 12 Winter Access Parking Area at Beaver Mountain y" No y" y" 13 Winter Access Parking y" No y", No '15 Limber Pine Trailhead No No No No 3 0 8 I Total Section 4(0 Resources Used @ Alternative US-89 Througb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October lJ , 1994) 4(0 Page 8 Section C: Section • �• *The boundaries of this site have been corrected, because of this it will not be used by any alternative. The No Action , Conservationjsts', and Standard Arterial Alternatives are not feasible and prudent alternatives for reasons stated in Section B above . The site specific minor alignment adjustments are not feasible and prudent alternatives for reasons stated below under each impacted site. A combination of alternatives is not feasible and prudent because it would result in an inconsistent roadway, with unacceptable safety hazards and a reduced Level of Service. Based upon the above considerations , there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of Section 4(f) properties by the modified Preferred Alternative. The modified Preferred Alternative includes aJl possible planning to minimize harm . The basis for the above conclusions is explained below for each site. The three sites impacted by the modified Preferred Alternative include: Site 6 - Ricks Spring and Parking; Site 12 - Winter Access Parking Area at Beaver Mountain Road ; and Site 13 - Winter Access Parking. Each of these sites is used for parking. This use will continue after implementation of the modified Preferred Alternative. Since these sites are on USFS lands and managed by that agency , improvements will be completed consistent with USFS recommendations . Ricks Spring and Parking - Site 6 (mp 389.9) • In the FEISt the Preferred Alternative proposed that parking at this site be consolidated on one side to eliminate pedestrians crossing the roadway . This consolidation was dropped from the Preferred Alternative after a field review with the USFS on August 18. 1993 . At that time, it was determined that even if all parking was placed on one side, people would still park on both sides, and the remaining parking would not allow easy use of the site by recreational vehicles. In addition, the left turn lane to allow north-bound traffic access would require a retaining wall be placed adjacent to the river . A five foot strip on both sides of this site is required adjacent to the roadway to provide for the shoulder. Though the size of the site will be reduced , the modified Preferred Alternative would not reduce the amount of parking ability at this site. The use of this Section 4(0 property has been coordinated with and is supported by the USFS because the modified Preferred Alternative improves safety at this site as much as possible without requiring the retaining wall adjacent to the river. A shorter retaining wall, set back from the river's edge , may still be required just downstream from the site. Alternatives considered to avoid this site include the No Action and Conservationists' Alternative which do not address the safety concerns and are not feasible and prudent for reasons previously stated. Since the site is adjacent to Ricks Springs on one side and the Logan River on the other, there are no minor alignment adjustments that would avoid this site without direct impacts on Ricks Spring or the Logan River. • Measures to minimize harm at this site include consideration of pedestrian safety during design . The passing ability at this location will be eliminated and signing will be provided to warn motorists of pedestrian use at the Spring. Visibility at this location will be improved because of the 5-foot shoulders and replacement of the existing narrow bridge. Curbing of this site will also be considered US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) 4(Q Page 9 Section C: Section �• during design to better identify parking limits. Winter Access Parking at Beaver Mountain Road· Site 12 (mp 399.8) A 20 foot strip is required from this site to accommodate improvements to the intersection of US-89 and Beaver Mountain Road (SR-243). The parking area will be expanded to the northeast so that there will be no loss of parking. The use of this Section 4(f) property has been coordinated with and is supported by the USFS because this alternative will improve vehicle safety at the intersection of US-89 and Beaver Mountain Road, which accesses Beaver Mountain Ski Area. Alternatives considered to avoid this site include the No Action Alternative and a minor alignment adjustment. The Conservationists' and Standard Arterial Alternatives would also impact this site. The No Action Alternative would not provide intersection improvements and is not a feasible or prudent alternative for other reasons stated in Section B. The minor alignment adjustment requires that the road be widened only on the south side of the existing US-89. This adjustment was not se lected because it would require a an approximate to-foot fill and impact the natural drainage for the Amazon Hollow area , Measures to minimize harm include extending the remaining parking area to include at least as much parking as presently ex ists and paving the entire parking area to enhance use. Winter Access Parking - Site 13 (mp 402.1) This site is adjacent to a curve proposed to have the vertical and horizontal alignment improved . There is a difference in elevation of about 12 feet which would eliminate access to this site. However , this site will be reestablished at a lower elevation so that access can be maintained and the site will continue to provide at least as much parking as currently exists. The use of this Section 4(f) property has been coordinated with and is supported by the USFS because the modified Preferred Alternative corrects the deficiencies of the adjacent curve. e Alternatives considered to avoid this site include the No Action and Conservationists' Alternative and a minor alignment adjustment. The Standard Arterial Alternative would also impact this site. The No Action and Conservationists' Alternatives would not improve the vertical and horizontal alignment of this curve and are not a feasible or prudent alternative for other reasons stated in Section B. The minor alignment adjustment would require that the road be moved further away from the site so that access at the current elevation could be maintained. This would require additional cutting into the hillside and was not selected because it would further impact visual resources to a greater extent. Measures to minimize harm include reestablishing the parking site at a lower elevation so that access will be maintained . The site sits on a mound and lowering the elevation will result in approximately 1000 cubic yds of excess material and a small amount of upland vegetation will be eliminated by reestablishing this site. Limber Pine Trailhead - Site IS (mp 404.81) US-89 Througb Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13 , 1994) 4(1) Page 10 Section C: Section • �• The FEIS Slated that the Preferred Alternative would impact this site. Because of a correction lO the boundaries of this site, the modified Preferred Alternative will not impact this site. The FEIS shows the parking area at this site to be 60 X 300 feet and adjacent to the roadway . It also states that a 24foot strip would be required for the modified Preferred and Standard Arterial Alternatives. During the August 18, 1993 field review held with the USFS , an approximate 23-foot strip prior to the parking area was identified. This 23 feet consists of a 15 foot shoulder and an 8 foot curbed/vegetated median. The parking area was measured to be approximately 75 X 200 feet (see revised map in the Appendix). The USFS stated that the boundary for the Section 4(0 resource includes only the 75 X 200 foot area beyond the median . However, delineation of the parking area from the roadway would need to be maintained in order to avoid impacts to this site. All improvements on the trailhead side will be accomplished within 23 feet of the edge of the roadway , and a delineation will be provided within this 23-foot area in accordance with USFS recommendations. Relocation of the trailhead and parking has been dropped from the Preferred Alternative. The same would apply for the Standard Arterial Alternative. Therefore, there would be no impact to Site 15 by any of the alternatives . • • US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) 4(1) Page 11 Section C: Section �D. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM Throughout development of the Preferred Alternative, and subsequent modifications , consideration has been given to avoiding and minimizing harm to sensitive resources . Protection of the river and surrounding wetland /riparian edge, avoidance of a threatened species , avoidance and minimizing harm to wetland/ riparian habitat, visual , and section 4(f) resources of the canyon played an important role in its development and selection. As a result, minimal construction will occur in the ecologically sensitive Middle Section of the canyon , bridges will c1ear·span the river . retaining walls will be used to limit encroachment into sensitive areas. and treatment of clearzones will be mod ified from AASHTO recommendations. Since the FEIS , the Preferred Alternative has been modified (see Section A of this ROD) to further reduce these impacts. All practicable measures to avoid impacts and minimize environmental harm have been incorporated into the decis ion made in this ROD based on the conceptual level of design utilized in the [IS process . Emphasis will continue to be made throughout detailed design and construction to further avoid impacts and minimize harm to environmental resources. Horizontal and vertical alignments will be manipulated to provide a M best fit M design . Interested government agencies , local governments , the environmental community and the community at large will continue to be involved as part of a Cooperating Advisory Team (CAT) . This team will participate in the development or all &Soecls of desien and in the resolution of unforeseen environmental problems that arise durine construction and post construction. This team will be developed as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FHW A, UDOT and the USFS . Details regarding the fonnation and operation of this team can be found in the MOU (see Appendix) and is summarized in Section E of this ROD. In addition to the measures taken to avoid impacts and minimize harm, opportunities ror enhancement will be considered, as appropriate. Application ror runding or enhancement projects would be made as provided for in the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (JSTEA). • • Clearzone Considerations Impacts will be minimized by the treatment of c1earzones. Clearzones will be handled by relaxing AASHTO Standards (which recommends removal of hazards within the clearzone area, or protection of those that cannot be removed). The design of clearzones will focus on preservation of aesthetic and ecological features to the extent possible while considering safety. Safety hazards within the c1earzone area will be considered for protection, removal , or no action. The prime directive will be to minimize impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat adjacent to the roadway without jeopardizing safety. Considerable emphasis will be given to protection or no action, and removal of hazards caused by natural conditions will be kept to a minimum . The clearzone area begins at the outside edge of the traffic lane and is 18 feet wide at 25, 35, or 40 mph and 22 feet wide at 50 mph . However, the intent is not to clear a swath 18-22 feet wide adjacent to the travel lane . No clearzone area will be provided in the first four miles or the middle canyon, however, substantial hazards within this area will be considered for protection. US-89 Througb Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994) Page 12 HanD Section D: Measures to Minimize • �e Design Considerations Through the various meetings and fi eld rev iews held during development of mis ROD , a limited number of site specific areas were identified where design considerations were of panicular interest. The following list is not intended to be all inclus ive, but representative of considerations which will be made during design . Aesthetic impacts at many of these locations was also of concern. These impacts will be minimized in accordance with the revegetation plan. This plan will include the use of native plant species; slope rounding and warping of land form impacts; aging rock faces which contrast with older cuts; removing abandoned roadways and restoring them to blend with surrounding contours. • • • Curves 5 & 29 - Accident studies will be handled by reviewing the current three year accident period at time of construction. The number, type, cause and severity of accidents will be reviewed to determine if correction of geometric deficiencies could alleviate accidents. The UDOT Dynamic Quicklisting and officer's individual accident reports will be the source of this information. Aesthetic impacts will be reduced by manipulating the horizontal andlor vertical alignment, and by moving away fro m the river . LoWer Twin Bridge - The total width of cut will be based on the roadway width requirement combined with the angle of repose of the existing material. • Dugway - Widening at this location will be on the cut side to avoid disturbance of the downhill slope. Only the minimum cut required for necessary widening will be constructed . The width of additional cut will be a maximum of 8 feet. • Upper Twin Bridge - The alignment shift will be based on the minimum amount necessary to allow a new bridge to be constructed while allowing traffic to utilize the existing structure . One or two way traffic control configurations for construction will be considered . • Temple Fork - Minimum roadway improvements at this site include a 34' section on US-89 and an improved vertical grade approach of Temple Fork road . Other improvements such as an uphill right tum lane and an improved horizontal angle of approach of Temple Fork road are secondary improvements which will not be constructed if they impact the river or require a substantial retaining wall. Environmental impacts and construction costs will be weighed against the benefits gained. • Passing Lanes in Lower Upper Canyon of Section 2 - The location of passing lanes in the first eight mi les of the Upper Canyon will be evaluated further during detailed design to assess additional measures to avoid or minimize harm to wetlands. The evaluation will address leaving the lanes in the location described herein , or combining and relocating into a single section. Passing lane(s) in this section are a necessary safety improvement and the decision will be based upon minimizing the impact to the environment (L e .• wetlands, visual) relative to the safety benefit of this improvement. Emphasis will be to shift the alignment away from the river. US-89 1brougb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Hann Page 13 Section D: Measures to Minimize �• Beaver Creek, Franklin Basin Bridge - Horizontal and vertical alignments will be modified to obtain a H best fit alignment relative to the sensitive environmental features . The reduction in the proposed roadway width to 34' also minimizes riparian impacts. Retaining walls andlor guardrail sections are anticipated and will be utilized to reduce or avoid impact to sensitive areas. Specific locations for these treatments will be identified in the detailed H • roadway design process. • Culvert at Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and Surrounding Drainage Area - The impact to wetlands at the Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and surrounding drainage area as a result of roadway widening for the Beaver Mountain turning Janes will be further evaluated during detailed design. This may include shortening the turn lane storage bay lengths and/or utilization of guardrail to shorten the culvert. • Tony Grove, Beaver Mountain, Franklin Basin Intersections - Improvements at these intersections in the form of left and right turning lanes are a necessary safety improvement. Except for the Franklin Basin Intersection, sensitive environmental features will likely not be heavily impacted. The uses of retaining wall and guardrail will be considered in reducing or avoiding impacts. Again, a "best fit " design will be implemented. Remaining impacts will be minimized with mitigative efforts. • Passing Lane Above Beaver Mountain Turnoff - The alignment shift at curves 69, 70, and 71 will be subjected to a best fit design analysis including exceptions to design standards. Realignment around the mature forest will be the design objective. The degree of cut or fill in obtaining the necessary roadway width is not yet known , but will be determined in the detailed design process. * Curve 85, and the Mature Forest near Limber Pine - The footprint of the roadway is affected by design speed (curve flattening) , nominal roadway width, and climbing lane. The use of retaining walls and/or guardrails to limit the extent of fills will be considered . These activities could reduce the extent of the fill by 40-100 feet, whereas eliminating the climbing lane would only gain an additional 7 feet. The use of a structure has also been considered but will not likely be advanced due to potential icing problems at this location. Realignment options at this location may exist and will be evaluated during design . Ending the passing lane on an uphill section would not meet design standards and is not desirable because of the potential safety conflict. Slower moving vehicles would be required to merge into a faster stream of traffic. The abandoned road and existing fill would be removed and the ground restored to blend with the surrounding contours. * Old Road from the Limber Pine Summit to Garden City - Sections of the existing alignment abandoned due to realignments or curve flatlenings will be handled in accordance with the revegetation plan. Abandoned roadway sections will be removed and the ground restored to blend with surrounding contours. In some cases the old road would be necessary for local access and will remain in use. • Section Ib Crom Rick Springs to Section 2 - The alignment will be shifted away from the adjacent riparian habitat and the river. It will be adjusted to obtain a "best fit" design. US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994) Page 14 Hann Section D: Measures to Minimize • • �• Retaining walls will be considered where needed to avoid or reduce impacts. • Impacts from Mitigation - The first priority will be to reduce the amount of impact through design . Secondly . mitigative areas will be closely evaluated and selected based on potential for success, as well as consideration to impacts caused by construction of the mitigative areas. The Forest Service and the Corps of Engineers will be working with UDOT to ensure that a balance between visual concerns and the need for wetland mitigation in advance of highway construction is achieved. As design is advanced , possible locations where mitigation can be accomplished on site may be identified (i.e. possible strips of wetland adjacent to the roadway in the lower Upper Canyon). In some cases, mitigation areas may be selected that are not as visible from the road. Land Use The modified Preferred Alternative will improve accessibility to various land uses within the area . Forest Service Plan • • A revegetation plan will be developed by UDOT and approved by the USFS during design of individual projects to ensure that areas of high visual quality and critical habitat are avoided, where practicable, and that disturbed areas are appropriately revegetated . • A construction/post-construction monitoring plan will be developed and implemented by UOOT and approved by the USFS during design of individual projects in order to identify sensitive areas where monitoring is needed . These areas and types of monitoring required will be identified in the project plans and specifications for each project. • • Amendment of the Forest Plan for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is required under the administrative procedures of the US FS for impacts to visual quality and reduction of the habitat condition index. Best Management Practices will be implemented to control erosion, thereby meeting the water and soils management directive of the Forest Plan. Detailed Best Management Practices will be developed during design for each project. Cache County Plan • UOOT's Best Management Practices will be used to minimize water quality degradation, minimize vegetative removal , and minimize cut and fill . This complies with requirements of the Cache County Plan which specifies that destruction of natural vegetation be minimized. cut and fill operations be minimized to reduce runoff and erosion , while providing for appropriate public roads. Rich County Plan • No measures to minimize harm are required . US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994) Hann Page IS Section D: Measures to Minimize �Social Impacts Measures to . minimize harm are required to address access concerns of the various users . • Access to Existing and Proposed Subdivisions .. A new intersection providing access to the Bridgerland Subdivision will be constructed . This access will provide safer ingress and egress to the subdivision. • Access at mp 410.6 in Garden City would be relocated by closing the present access and providing a new access from another public street, if possible. If the access cannot be closed, then it would be relocated to an improved location , providing the best design possible. A combination with access at mp 410.7 may be practicable. The access at mp 410.7 would be considered accord ing to the same criteria as the access at my 410.6. • Intersection improvements to other existing and proposed subdivision accesses will be considered based on use requirements, roadway widening possibilities, and other engineering factors. Garden City will be involved in identiCying these requirements. Access to Recreation Within the Canyon • Accessibility will be improved by providing intersection improvements , eliminating or mitigating hazards , and improving the Level of Service. • Present parking turnouts will be improved and new turnouts will be placed in recognition of any eliminated rumouts. Additional turnouts which attain at least two parking stalls with adequate sight distance will also be considered. Exact locations will be determined during design and in conjunction with USFS recommendations. • Relocation • The acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended . • Acquisition of publicly-owned lands will be undertaken in accordance with the regulations of each land management agency . • Grazing activities regulated by the USFS and the State of Utah will not be affected . However. fencing along the highway from just below Tony Grove to Franklin Basin will be considered to reduce the number of cattle· vehicle accidents. EmploymentlEconomics • The canyon will remain open during construction to minimize employment/economic impacts related to road closure. A traffic control plan will be developed during design phase. Temporary short·term closures to through traffic are expected. Local access to US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (DJ'ft of October 13. 1994) Page 16 Hann Section D: Measures to Minimize • �• recreation traffic is expected to be maintained. Joint Development • Coordination has been made and will continue to be made with the USFS to develop a highway which meets , to the extent possible, the goals of both UOOT and the USFS . Pedestrians and Bicyclists • • A wider roadway with shoulders is being provided through much of the project. Paving of parking areas will discourage the use of non·designated parking locations which are hazardous to vehicle-passengers who SlOP and leave their vehicle and to bicyclists who may encounter vehicles quickly turning onto or off of the roadway . Burnt Bridge will be constructed to a 34-foot width to allow safer pedestrian and bicyclist use. Water Quality Impacts • • Sedimentation and siltation control during the construction phase will include application of Best Management Practices. UDOT's Standard Temporary Erosion Control plans will be implemented during construction. • During construction, the surface area of erodible soils that are exposed at anyone time will be limited . • Temporary pollution/erosion control provisions will be coordinated with permanent soil erosion control measures to assure maximum attainable erosion control. The use of detailed erosion control plan sheets will be considered that include locations of erosion control facilities. These locations would then be subject to field evaluation. Permits UDOT will coordinate development of permit applications with the various agencies so that their recommendations can be integrated into roadway design. Construction of the project will require the following permits: Stream Alteration Permit • • A Stream Alteration Permit is required by the State Engineer's Office, Utah Division of Water Rights for bridge and culvert replacement. This does not involve channelization or relocation of the stream, but would involve riprap . Section 404 Permit US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Hann Page 17 Section 0: Measures to Minimize �• A Section 404 Permit to discharge dredge or fill materials into a water of the United States is required by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) where construction activities impact jurisdictional wetlands . • Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit • Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit will be required for any project which disturbs more than 5 acres of surface area during construction. The UPDES General Storm Water Discharge Permit issued to UDOT by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality will apply. As part of the requirements of this permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention (SWPP) plan will be developed and incorporated in the final design plans. Also a Notice of Intent (NOI) form shall also be submitted to Utah Division of Water Quality prior to construction of the project. For any project disturbing less than 5 acres, the UPDES General Storm Water Discharge Permit will not apply . However, UOOT's standard plans for temporary erosion and sediment control will be implemented during construction to alleviate any potential erosion or sediment. Right-of-Way/Special Use Permit • The FEIS states that a Right-of-Way/Special Use Permit is required from the USFS , Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The USFS has recently advised UOOT that Forest Service policy requires issuance of a transportation easement, rather than a special use permit. This decision will be made in the USFS Record of Decision. Wetlands and Botanical Resources • A wetland mitigation plan will be developed during the design phase under the guidelines of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 as administered by the COE. Additional opportunities to avoid or minimize wetland impacts will be identified throughout design . Replacement of eliminated wetlands will be in-kind , based on functional value . The first priority will be to reduce the amount of impact through design. Secondly, mitigative areas will be closely evaluated and selected based on potential for success, as well as consideration of impacts caused by construction of the mitigative areas . • Advance mitigation will be developed with the first project and considered on future projects so that impacts can be mitigated prior to being impacted, where practicable. The acreage , sites , and design of the wetland mitigation sites, and advance mitigation, will continue to be coordinated with and agreed to by the COE and the USFS during design , so that visual and wetland concerns can be balanced. • Construction document specifications will limit encroachment into wetlands and riparian areas to that required for construction. On site inspections in accordance with the construction monitoring plan will ensure compliance with these provisions. • Construction work zones will be delineated through the use of fencing in sensitive areas to ensure contractor compliance with environmental limits of operations. • US-89 Through Logan Hann Canyo~, ROD (Draft of October 13 , 1994) Page 18 Section D: Measures to Minimize • �• The construction/post construction monitoring plan will require that qualified UDOT representative(s), acceptable [0 the COE, will be in charge of assisting designers and the project engineer in designing and constructing the wetland mitigation areas . Upon completion of the project, the representative(s) will also monitor the mitigation sites once a year for three years. This includes taking photographs and sending them with a brief progress report to the COE each year . At the end of the three years, if the wetland mitigation areas have not developed to the satisfaction of the CDE, then through consultation with the COE, appropriate steps will be taken by UDOT to fulfill Section 404 permit requirements for the project. • A revegetation plan will be developed and implemented to revegetate disturbed areas. The revegetation plan will be developed with the assistance of USFS and other CAT team members. • Burnt Bridge will be constructed in stages, with widening occurring on the upstream side , eliminating the detour presented in the FEIS. • In addition to the reduced width presented in the FEIS for the Middle Canyon , the previously proposed roadway width of 40' for the fir st eight miles of the Upper Canyon Section has been reduced to 34' to further minimize impacts on wetlands. • Location of passing lanes in the first eight miles of the Upper Canyon will be evaluated further during detailed design to assess additional measures to avoid or minimize harm to wetland s caused by these passing lanes . The evaluation will address leaving the lanes in the location described herein, or combining and relocating into a single section. Safety considerations will also play a role in the final placement. • Impact to wetlands at Amazon Hollow , Stump Hollow and surrounding drainage area as a result of roadway widening for the Beaver Mountain turning lanes will be further evaluated during detailed des ign . This may include shonening the turn lane storage bay lengths and/or utilizing guardrail to shorten the culvert. • • • Requirements identified in the Section 404 Permit will be complied with. Water Body Modifications and Wildlir. Impacts • • Clear span bridges will be used rather than in-river pier suppons to minimize water body modifications. • • Additional animal crossing signs will be provided in high conflict locations in consultation with Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). The amount and necessity of riprap required for erosion control at bridges will be evaluated on a case by case basis during final design . Riprap will be used only where required to stabilize the streambank. Riprap will not exceed 100 feet along both banks up- and downstream from each new bridge. Since riprap will not be required at each of these locations, US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Page 19 H"m Seclion D: Measures to Minimize �the actual use of riprap will be minimal. • Construction activities in watercourses will be minimized to the extent possible. Construction work zones will be delineated to ensure contractor compliance. • Existing river and creek hydraulics will be maintained by avoiding the encroachment of any required riprap into channels. Impacts to wildlife will be minimized by limiting , to the extent practical , vegetative and riparian habitat clearing. • Highway bridges will be elevated with no part of the bridge suppan systems being placed in the river . Bridge spans will allow for animal runway in cases where this feature is currently provided. • • The following mitigation measures emphasize protection or replacement of vegetative cover for fisheries . These mitigation measures apply 10 the Logan River and Beaver Creek, and will also apply to their tributaries that are important to adult and juvenile fish , as determined by UDWR and USFS. Construction activities near the river will occur during the drier, low-flow month s of the year to the extent practicable . Clear-span bridges rather than in-river pier suppons will be constructed. Culvens will be designed to allow fish passage. Heavy equipment wil l be kept out of the channel during all construction phases to the extent practicable. Unavoidable in-channel activities will be scheduled in coordination with the USFS and UDWR to minimize impacts during critical fisheries periods. Such activities will be brief and local . • Temporary dikes and sediment basins will be constructed during bridge and structure replacement to prevent turbid runoff and any accidental spills of fuels , lubricants, chemicals, or sewage (from portable sanitary facilities) from entering the river , creek, or tributaries . Construction activities will be limited to areas within construction work zones, as delineated through the use of fencing , to minimize habitat losses. All work will be conducted from the inland side of the highway where possible to avoid in-channel activities and minimize riparian habitat and riverbank disturbance. Existing river and creek hydraulics will be maintained by avoiding the encroachment of required riprap into the channels. The free-nowing nature of the river will be maintained. Fill slopes will not be steeper than 2: I to promote bank stability and reclamation . US-89 Through Logan Canyoo, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Hann Page 20 Section 0 : Measures to Minimize • �• Drainage ditches and sediment basins will be located in accordance with the detailed Best Management Practices to minimize erosion and to prevent eroded material from being washed toward the river. Runoff along the river-side of the curb and gutter in the Middle Canyon section will be directed toward the inland side of the highway. where practicable, to minimize the discharge to the river of materials that accumulate on the highway. A band of riparian habitat will be maintained along the river and creek wherever possible to provide overhanging cover for fish and to filter surface runoff. Larger mature trees and their root systems will be protected where it does not conflict with vehicles and passenger safe£}'o Prior to the start of the next wet season. disturbed areas , where possible, will be stabilized, reseeded , and revegetated. Riprap and debris generated during future highway and shoulder maintenance would not be indiscriminately placed along the river banks. • • Mitigation measures described above are intended to minimize impacts on water quality and fisheries . The following will also be accomplished to ensure success of mitigation measures: Fishery studies will be conducted for individual projects which have the potential tQ impact fisheries. Prior tQ construction. available UDWR fisheries studies will be assessed and if necessary updated to provide baseline data to determine project impacts to fisheries . Post construction fishery studies will be conducted . If study results show additional mitigation measures are warranted as a result of project activities. mitigation directed at wild fish stocks will be carried out under the direction of USES and UDWR biologists as exp lained in the FEIS on pg 5-6, Floodplain Impacts • Bridges will c1earspan watercourses in order to minimize floodplain encroachment. Excess fill material will not be placed in the floodway. • Bridge and culvert openings will be sized so that floodplain elevations will not be increased . • Construction activities will be in compliance with Executive Order 11988 to reduce the risk of flood Josses; to minimize the impact of floods on human health, safety and welfare; and to restore and preserve the national and beneficial values served by floodplains. Threatened and Endangered Species • The Middle Canyon contains habitat for the Primyla maguirei (threatened species). The USF&WS has stated that the Preferred Alternative will have no effect on this species. In order to minimize US·89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Harm Page 21 Section 0: Measures to Minimize �potential impacts , the recommendations of Welsh (1987) and the USF&WS will be followed . These recommendations include: • Construction activities from Wood Camp Intersection to mp 385.0 will be restricted to a corridor width of less than 40 feet. • Changes in the geomorphology of Logan Canyon will be limited to the extent practical. • Removal of canyon bottom tree groves will be limited . • Dust suppression measures will be used during construction activities. Construction in the area near populations will be undertaken no earlier than June to avoid potential dust impacts during the flowering period (April-May) , • e Blasting in the Middle Canyon will be avoided whenever possible. Barriers preventing scattering of blast debris on these populations will be provided if blasting is necessary . Visual Impacts • A revegetation plan will be developed during design and coordinated with the USFS to minimize harm to visual resources . This plan will be implemented in the project plans and specifications for each project. This plan will include use of native plant species. Mitigation of landform impacts will be accomplished by slope rounding and warping to make cuts, fills , and ditch edges appear more natural . Rock faces, contrasting with older cuts, will be aged with treatments. In places where the current alignment is abandoned, the roadway will be removed and the ground restored to blend with surrounding contours. The plan will identify seed mixes compatible with local plant communities. • Levels of visual quality adjacent to the roadway of 0, 1 and 2 will be raised to level 3, except when a more appropriate direction is determined by the USFS. • The acreage , sites and design of advance mitigation will be agreed to by the USFS during design so that visual and wetland concerns can be balanced . • • Steel beam guardrail will be the hazard protection device encouraged for use. The use of A588 rusting steel, natural finish material for the guardrail for aesthetic purposes will be considered . Construction Impacts Blasting • A Special Provisiol'} will be included in the project plans to ensure blasting will be controlled to inhibit rock materials from being projected away from the blast area, and removing only designated material . US-89 Through Logan Canyon . ROD (Draft of October 13,1994) Page 22 Hann Section 0 : Measures to Minimize • �• • • If any critical wildlife periods are identified by UDWR during des ign , these will be given consideration , and if appropriate , timing of blasting will be limited. Blasting in the Middle Canyon will be avo ided whenever possible. Barriers preventing blast debris onto Maguire primrose populations will be provided if blasting is necessary . Spoil • Environme ntal clearance will be obtained on the d isposal site, prior to disposal of excess material . • Excess materials that are not used in roadway construction or restoratio n of the borrow area near Bear Lake Summit, will be disposed of in locations determined on a case-by-case basis by the CAT team and approved by USFS . Excess materials may be utilized in the canyon, stock piled for future use, or transported out of the canyon. Air Quality • • Dust suppression measures will be implemented during construction . These measures will include water sprinkling, speed limits on haul road , and use of environmentally safe stabilization chemicals. Noise • The construction contractor will be required to comply with UDOT Specification No . 104. 16 (formerly 107.24) "Noise and Vibration Contro l". Traffic Congestion , Detours and Safety • A detailed traffic control plan will be developed during the design phase to minimize traffic congestion; provide for construction detours and short·term road closures; and address vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle safety. Toxic Material Control • A spill control plan for motor fuels, oil, grease and chemicals will be developed during the design phase. This plan will address measures to minimize accidental releases of toxic materials to the environment and measures to respond to and clean up spilled material. Historic and Archeological Preservation • UOOT Standard Specification No . 104. 15 (formerly 107 .23) , "Discovery Propenies" will be included in all contracts to protect unknown historic and archeological resources . • Hazardous Waste US·89 Through Logan CanYOD, ROD (DOlft of October 13, 1994) Page 23 H.m> SectioD 0 : Measures 10 Minimize �• If evidence of Hazardous Waste is found during construction the Department of Enviro nmental Quality will be consulted and appropriate mitigation measures will be implemented. • Staging Areas • Construction staging sites will be identified and coordinated through the CAT team during design . They will be kept out of aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitat and other sensitive visual areas. • Environmental clearance on construction staging sites will be obtained during design and the contractor will be limited to the use of staging areas identified in the project construction plans. • Staging sites will be approved by the USFS. Batch Plant Locations • The traffic, safety, reneation. and air quality impacts associated with hauling material rrom the city versus setting up a batch plant in the canyon will be identified on a project by project basis in design. The affect of these impacts on both the canyon environment and the city environment will be considered. The assessment will include impacts on the Lower Canyon and compatibility with future projects. The most suitable location will be identified in the prgject specifications. The contractor will be required to conduct his batch plant operations in accordance with these specifications and will comply wilh Utah Air Conservation Regulations identified in UDOr SDeciflcatio,. 10Z21. EnvirQnmenl4l Protection. • Limits of Operation • Construction work zones will be delineated through the use of fencing in sensitive areas to ensure contractor compliance with environmental limits of operations. Section 4(0 • All improvements to Section 4(f) resources will be done in accordance with USFS recommendations. • Site 6 (Ricks Spring and Parking , mp 389.9) - Pedestrian safety will be considered to the extent possible during design . This consideration includes the elimination of passing ability at this location and improved signing. Curbing of this site will also be considered. • Site 12 (Winter Access Parking Area at Beaver Mountain Road, mp 399.8) - Remaining parking area will be extended to include at least as much parking as presently exists, and the entire parking area will be paved to enhance use. US-89 Througb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Page 24 Hann Section 0 : Measures to Minimize • �• • Site 13 (Winter Access Parking , mp 402. 1) - This site will be reestabli shed at a lower elevation to maintain access. .. Site 15 (Limber Pine Trailhead, mp 404.81) - All improvements on the trailhead side will be accomp lished with in 23 feet of the edge of the roadway , and a delineation will be provided within this 23 foot area. • • US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Hann Page 25 Section D: Measures to Minimize �E. MONITORING OR ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM Monitoring and enforcement of the above proposed measures to minimize harm will be accomplished • in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between UDOT. FHWA. and USFS . This MOU is included in the Appendix of this ROD . It identifies how the individual projects will be se lected , identified and managed , and how coordination will be accomplished. The MOU takes each project through design , construction, and post-construction periods. It commits to the development of a revegetation plan, wetland mitigation plan, and a construction/post-construction monitoring plan, and commits to the development of a Cooperating Advisory Team (CAD which consists of various agencies and individuals. This team will provide recommendations of regulatory and permit requirements , input on enhancement opportunities , mitigative treatments and overall content of the design of the project, with final decisions being UDOT's responsibility. The CAT team will be involved throughout the development of all aspects of design. including review of aljgnment oPtions and other design features. During construction and post construction. the CAT team will be coordinated with to reso lve ynforeseen environmental problems to ensure that mitigative efforts are successfu l. Mitigation measures listed in Section 0 above will be incorporated in the contract , plans , and specifications and will be monitored in accordance with the construction/post-construction monitoring plan. The monitoring plan will be developed during design of the individual projects and will include all monitoring commitments made within this ROD, as well as any monitoring required to comply with specific permits. Enforcement of the contract provisions and monitoring of the project is the responsibility of the se lected UDOT Project Manager and UDOT Environmental Engineer , as outlined in the MOU . An independent environmental consultant will be ytilized . The envirOnmental consultant will assisl the • froieer Manager co ensure CQ17Wliance with envirOnmental commitments and mitigation measures. Periodic meetings will be held with the contractor's workforce to advise of sensitive areas . The UDOT Design, Structures, Right-of-Way and Environmental Divisions are responsible to ensure that the measures to minimize harm , listed in Section D above , are incorporated into the plans and right-of-way acquisition activities. The Utah Division of FHW A is respons ible for administering the Federal-Aid Highway Program in Utah and makes period ic inspections of all phases of highway design and construction to assure compliance with federal requirements including NEPA . US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft October 13. 1994) Enforcement Page 26 SectioD E; Monitoring or • �• Logan Canyon Documents UDOT Documents US-89 Logan canyon Preferred Alternative (circa 1992-93). Brochure outlining Preferred Alternative as outlined in FEIS. March 4, 1994 Letter from Dave Berg to Jeff Appel. Conlinnation of compromise elements. July 13, 1994 Letter from Lorraine Richards to CPLC and other agencies. Brief summary of ROD, request for agency input Preliminary Record of Decision July 15, 1994. Cover letter Reoord of Decision Appendix A Traffic Data. agency oorrespondence, MOU. Appendix B Agency Comments, Government Comments, Public Comments. Curve 85 Maps, Cross Sections aod CutIFili Summary • CPLC Documents Logan Canyon: Summarizing Two "Alternatives" Map and brief summary of Consen'ationi st and UDOT Preferred Alternatives. Logan Canyon, Make it Safe, Keep is Beautiful Brochure from 1993 Cache County Fair. Response to Dave Berg letter (March 4, 1994), Jeff Appel. June 28, 1994 Memo from Pendery to Berg outlining hotspots and requesting additional information from UDOT. Response to Preliminary Record of Decision. Bruce Pendery. Steve Rint, Shawn Swaner, August 12, 1994. Memorandum: Time for Filing Lawsuit under NEPA, Appel & Mansson, • August 16, 1994. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Image Height 3363 Image Width Image Width in pixels 2636 Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/393">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/393</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 300 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example Grayscale Checksum 187114229 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Record of decision, October 13, 1994 Description An account of the resource Record of decision for US Highway 89 stating that the Federal Highway Administration agrees with the Utah Department of Transportaion in its selection of the Preferred Alternative. Subject The topic of the resource Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Roads--Design and construction Traffic engineering United States Highway 89 Logan Canyon (Utah) Environmental policy Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 10/13/94 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 15 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS314Bx1Fd15 Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/3d6ff3d966f70a9c28eb6a7ce384ba69.pdf 000bb71612f5c5ec22029533e7d37362 PDF Text Text ~- .. - EDUCATION CAMPAIGN Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, Cache Anglers, Logan Canyon Coalition, Bridgerland Audubon Society, Willow Creek Ecology Land Management in Logan Canyon W e, in Cache Valley, are extremely for tunate to have Logan Canyon and surrounding public lands in our backyard. While there are some private and state lands in the Canyon, most is federal land . It is owned by yo u, the citizen. As an owner, yo u have the responsibility to be aware of past, present and proposed activities that can affect the long-term health of this land for future generations. The purpose of this publication is to bring these issues to you and help you become involved. . -- - p J CII .. - Cache Anglers U fCCKOG' ~ ,-, S everal public interest organizations are involved in protecting Logan Canyon. For 30 years Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC), and la ter Logan Canyon Coalition (LCC), have worked to protect the canyon from excessive and costly highway construction. The mission of Bridgerland Audubon Society, a Cache Valley institution, is to conserve, enhance, an d enjoy the na tural environment with special emphasis on birds and their habitats for the benefit and education of humanity and for the biological d iversity of the earth. Willow Creek Ecology is an organization devoted to better management of p ublic lands th rough scientific research, ed ucation and d irect action. Cache Ang lers is an organization dedica ted to the protection and promotion of local fisher ies and their habitats. ~<> BOII/u'vi lle ell IIIrroof • The Logan River is a quality source of life. "Your present localion is designed to you for a refuge, a place of rest; therefore see to it that ye pollute 110t your inheritance, for if you do, you might expect that the judgement of heaven will be poured out upon you." - Brigham Young �.M LOGAN CANYON -D EDUCATION CAMPAIGN Highway Construction Proposed improvements of Highway 89 have been the most visible issue in Logan Canyon for a long time. Although conservation gro ups wanted to protect the canyon from excessive highway construction, they also recognized the need for improvements, such as bridge replacements. Two bridges (Burnt and Lower Twin) have been replaced . The next construction project is the section between Franklin Basin and Tony Grove, including the replacem ent of Upper Twin Bridge. This is a sensitive area since the Logan River is very d ose to the highway. Protection of the river w ill be a crudal concern. Accident statistics for the last three years in this area indicate that 70% of the collisions are animal impacts and the remainder are cars off the road or car swipes with no fatalities, showing that speed is a major factor in canyon accidents. A wider and straighter highway will enc01.lrage drivers to increase speeds, resulting in a more dangerous highway. While highway construction remains a very important issue, it is time to broaden our concern to other issues that impact the canyon and its watershed . What are these issues impacting the natural beauty of Logan Canyon? Wild and Scenic Logan River The Logan River has recently been found eligible by the Forest Service for Wild and Scenic classification. Parts that are eligible are a six mile section from the Idaho stateline to the Beaver Creek confluence and a 20 mile section from the Beaver Creek confluence to Third Dam. A suitability study is next; and following that, an act of Congress to make the designation official. This process will be long and likely contentious; particularly in a state with an unsympathetic congressional delegation and many opponents who have and will make fa lse claims and accusations. The Wild and Scenic Act is an excellent way to protect a river in its natural state and its current form of management. It still allow s for private property rights, hunting and fishing, and other activities that will not harm its remarkable qualities. Certain restrictions do apply that must be spelled out ~n a negotiated management plan. Hundreds of communities across the nation have benefited from such designations. The Logan City Council has been asked to support the Wild and Scenic designation, and we hope they will recognize what an ...... OW' river is to our community. - - LOGAN RIVER ---- WIW&SCENIC .... ,-- ~- , t The Federal-State Land Swap In January, 1999 the long-debated land swap between the State of Utah and the federal government became official. The State of Utah became the owner of apprOximatel y 3(XX) acres near Beaver Mountain and became the landlord for the Beaver Mountain Ski Resort. Since the mission for the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) is to provide income to the public school system, they could sell the land to the highest bidder. Their mandate is to manage lands for thei r "highest and best use." This swap has raised concerns among a number of groups. Bddgerland Audubon, Logan Canyon Coalition (LCC) and Citizens for the Protection of Logan Ca nyon (CPLC), the Great Western Trail Association, Backcountry Horsemen, Cache Valley High Markers and the owners of Beaver Creek Lodge cooperated to form the Beaver Creek Land Alliance. Their primary interest is preserving the scenic vistas and maintaining public access. Although there are county zoning regulations for private lands, SITLA can override local zoning regulations and develop land according to its agenda. ........ 5<_.-. Could tile land around Beaver MO llrlta;n be developed Wit/I cOlldomi"iums a1ld mufti-millio1l dollar IIomes ? YE S! Motorized Recreation In recent years the dramatic rise and ind iscriminate use of motori zed recreation, ind uding ATV's and snowmobiles, has resulted in tremendous impacts. Wildlife and Forest Serv ice enforcement personnel are overwhelmed with countless incidents of new "ghost" roads being forged, vand alized gates, hillsides being denuded, stream banks destroyed, and illegal travel in wilderness areas. Often it is a small per.:entage of users who are the violators. But as the total number of off-road vehicles increases, more impacts are guaranteed and the threa t to w ildlife increases. While such vehicles are valid and legal forms of recreation, there will come a time when the Forest Service w ill need to restrict their access. �LOGAN CANYON'" EDUCATION CAMPAIGN -0Erosion due to lack of vegetative cover from grazing i1l tile North Rich Callie Allotment. Impacts i1lclllde ground cover reduced to 23%, 1055 of soilllll tri~ ell ts vital to plan t Viability, and tile tra mpli1lg of springs arid small stream chari nels to the pairlt where they no longer exist. These problems are serial/sly compoll rlded by tile irrespollsible lise of ORV's over these lands. - - Livestock Grazin g Seventy-two thousand acres of Logan Canyon are divided into 25 allobnents for grazing sheep and cattle. Some areas are being overgrazed and stream banks in riparian areas are being trampled, resulting in increased sediment, loss of aquatic life, and the loss of stream side tree/shrub canopies. This results in warmer water temperatures and loss of fish habitat. Watershed d egradation by livestock has been documented on forest lands in Spawn Creek in the Temple Fork drainage. During the summer of 1997, Spawn Creek had four times the allow~ able count of fecal coliform, at precisely the same time as These bacteria are indi~ ~_ _ cators of disease.causing organisms for-such diseases Allotments near tospirosis. Another example is the Little Bear Sheep and summit. Impacts include ground cover reduced to 23%, loss of soil nutrients vital to plant v i a ~ biIi ty, and the tramp ling of springs and small stream channels to the point where they no longer exist. A loss of diverse ground covers results in the decline of wild life such as snowshoe hare and grouse. This fu rther results in a decline of animals that prey on small mammals, such as the goshawk. In fac t, goshawk numbers have decreased so significantly that it has been listed as a sensitive species, wi th several attempts since the ea rl y 90's to list it as endangered. The Forest Service has recen tly undertaken a project to provide a managemen t d irection that maintains or restores fu nctioning forested habitats for this bi rd . National Forests are OUT watersheds, the source of three- fourths of our d rinking water in the West. A growing sector of the public is demand ing a return to pristine mountain streams ra ther than streams and meadows tra mpled into mud and littered with cow manure. Improved care and proper management are imperative for the l ong~ t e rm health of our forests. Not onl y is g raz~ ing degrad ing o ur public lands when improperly managed, but it also heav il y subsidized by the you, the taxpayer. For every $3 in profit made by the permitee, taxpayers contribu te $4 in subsidies; hence, ano ther reason for needed reforms. - Grolllld cover after grazi/lg. Ground COl'tr witllout grazing. Logging The Bear Hodges Ana lysis project includes plans by the Forest Service to log nearly 3.5 million board feet of timber near the summit of Logan Canyon. This tree harvesting project in both the T. W. Daniels Forest (USU) and Wasatch·Cache National Forest, is an attempt to "restore" the spruce-fir forest to an iII-defined "historic" condition through si lviculture tech niques. Si lvicultu re is the practice of growing and cutting timber. Managi ng pine ba rk beetle infestation by logging this stand of old trees is also a component of this project. It is a doubtful practice, one that has fail ed to control beetle infestations on most other forests; and it is often used as a rationalization for timber harvests. It also ignores the larger his~ to ric role that pine ba rk beetles play in the ecosystem. Dead and d ecay~ ing trees provide necessa ry wildlife habitat and nutrients for new forest growth . There is a larger concern that trees in the Bear Hodges area are a remnant old g row th fo rest, one that sho uld be preserved for the sake of biological d iversity. ClearC/lt ill Bear Hodges area tllat liaS /l ot regt!1lerated ill 30 years. �LOGAN CANYON, EDUCATION CAMPAIGN "Destroying the last wild places ... is like tearing the last pages from the Bible." - Robert F. Kennedy - Updating the Forest Management Plan The Forest Service is currently in the process of revising its forest management plan. This will provide direction for forest management for the next 10-20 years. The new plan will focus on ecosystem management, a form of management that considers all the impacts on the long-term sustainability of the forest, and one that could possibly conflict with the current "multiple-use" concept of permitting logging, grazing, mining, and all types of recreational activities. Resolving these issues in a way that reflects more than special interests will require public input throughout the development of a new forest plan. Citizens must be part of this process if they want healthy forest lands for future generations. Input from grassroots organizations must move forward. If you care and want to know more about these issues, send us your name and address on the form below. We will inform you when there are crucial issues where citizen input is essential. Your name will remain confidential. If the Forest Service knows there is broad support in the community, they will be more likely to act in the broad public interests, rather than special interests. Only through citizen action, with the help of experts in OUf community, can we lobby for meaningful change in forest management. YES! I'd like to help support the Logan Canyon Education Campaign "The last word ir/ ignorance is the person who says of an on;mal "what good;s it ?" if the land mechanism as a whole ;s good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not ... who but a fool would discard seemingly lIseless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of inte/- Tour contributions 10 directly to contlnulaa education proJects lor savlne: Lopn Canyon. H~IT 's a In ded,,'tJb~ (Ullnbution Name' __________________ a Add ress ________________ o S<rnl _ _ _ rop i ~ of t hi~ newsle tter to rcdistnbutc City, Stilte, Zip ____________ a ru t ~ on you r ~mo, 1 Itst a r UI me on tt.;, mo iling ItSt for: ligent tinkering." a - Aida Leopold E-mail _______________ Contribution S ____________ Logan Canyon Education Campaign P.O. Bt))o; 6001 North Log.In, Utah 84341-6001 BndgerlMldAudubon a Cad'" Anglers a C'lIlt'llS for the 1 '1'01(,(,lIen of a a Los-m Canyon I",,*,n Canyon C"ahtiOIl AU t.... lIbm·c �r .-----------------------------------------------, ~ CANYON VIEWS Volu.me 2 Citizen fo r the Protection of Logan Canyon December, 1996 VIEWFROM THE CHAIR By LAUREN KEL LER C PLC continues to broaden its scope in our quest to protect the beauty and d iversity o f Logan Canyon. The Winter Recreati on Group. invo lving skiers, snowmobilers and other agencies, will be meeting again after a summer break. The first phase of the road design and construction, specifically the bridges, will be und er way th is spring. Cattle and sheep grazing in the Canyon is being studied. The Scenic Byways are in the final design phase and, of course, we arc always in need of fund s. One of our many concerns regarding to Logan Canyon is the shared ski and snowmobile use of trai ls and back country. For the past year we have been working with the Chamber of Comm erce, the Cache Vall ey Hi gh Markers (a Snowmobi le Club), and the Forest Servi ce. One of the objectives of thi s gro up is to submit a proposal to the Forest Service which would restrict the use of snowmobiles in some areas. The group is also looking for ways to Improve trai l etiquette, safety, parking, public awareness of motori zed restrictions and wilderness boundari es, and interaction between skiers and I n this issu,.e... S HARED USE FOR S KJER S AND SNOWMOBILERS . . . . . . . . . . . . .. BRIDGE CONSTR UCTION BEGINS IN THE S PRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VOL UNTEERS ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MEMBER S HIP . ........ . ... • ... . .... 2 2 3 3 snowmobiles. C PLC would al so like· to improve communication between ski ers and the Forest Service, so we are hosting a "meet the Forest Service Ski Day" . On Dec. 26, from 9 am through 12 noon, we wi ll be at the Tony Grove parking lot with hot chocolate. The Forest Service will be there, ready to li sten to any of your ideas and concerns. It is important that we let them know there are a Jot o f sk iers in Cache Valley and that there are a lot of ski ers who use Logan Canyon. Also, along thi s theme, we would like to encourage skiers of all levels to keep a ski log for the winter. We need to know the date, the location, the length of the ski, number o f people, and any comments. For example: Jan . 3 - Temple Fo rk - 4 persons - 3hrs. - enj oyed the qui et. Only one person in the group should record the data. This informati on will greatly help us in determining where people ski and when and how to best make recommendation to the Forest Service abo ut the travel plan . Thi s is very important infomlat ion so at the end of your ski season pl ease send us your log. As we come to the end o f the fi rst year being members of the CAT (Cooperati ve Advisory Team Team advising UDOT on road construction and bridge design) we feel we have chosen the best way to effect changes in the future construction of the Canyon. There were certainly fru strating times, and you may recall reading the article in the paper this last fall about our unhappiness with specifi c changes in the bridges design. However, UDOT continues to make concessions, many as a result of that article. We feel good about the designs for Burnt and Lower Twin bridges. We would have liked to have changed the railing design, but compromises from both sides were needed . As a result of o ur experiences on the CAT Team, we are even more aware of how important it is to have experts on our side. We would like to thank Palri ca Ho uston for her expertise in structural engineering and bridge design. Her "? �2 CANYON VIEWS continued contributions wi ll help us in the many phases ahead. CPLC plans to take an active role in the comi ng year in Rangeland Health and the Forest Management Plan issue. We have felt very good about our relationship with the Forest Service and our input into the Scenic BY'vays Proj ect. I went on many field trips with the Fo rest Service to visit specifi c sites and di scuss proposed action. I felt the Forest Service was open to alternatives and ideas which would upgrade services and decrease any visual impacts the project might have on the beauty of the Canyon. The proj ect will begin this next summer. As yo u can see, C PLC is involved in many different and important efforts to protect Logan Canyon. To stay infonned and involved requires long hours on the part of many individuals. We have been fortunate to have people who are willing to give their time and their expertise to help advance the purpose of OUI organization. Aside from time and know ledge, we need money. We need funds to send out newsletters, pay for legal advice, hold meetings, and so on. We are a tax exempt organi zation and have a 50 1 © (3) status. If you have not renewed your membership, please show your support for the protection of Logan Canyon and do so. Any additional contributi ons would be very much appreciated. Our focu s on Logan Canyon is specific; however, the issues related to the Canyon are very broad. If you have concerns about any aspect of the Canyon please feel free to let us know. SHARED USE FOR SKIERS AND SNOWMOBILERS BY LAUREN KELLER With the shortage of snow in the lower elevations last winter, there was a vyi ng between skiers and snowmobilers for trail head parking and trail use. Because of this situation, along with the potential of opening up trail head parking in the Temple Fork area through the development of the Sceni c Byways project, a Winter Recreat ion group was started. The purpose of the group was to see if skiers and snowmobilers cou ld put together a proposal for the Forest SeTVice to amend the current Travel Plan. Last October we called for a meeting of interested ski ers to vo ice their opinion and concerns about the shared use of Logan Canyon with snowmobil ers. The feeling from the meeting was that skiers would like more areas in which to ski without the no ise and pol lution associated with snowmobiles. Skiers would also li ke the areas that are off limits to snowmobil es to be better patrolled. During the winter, CPLC met with Cache Vall ey High Markers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Forest SeTVice. Some areas of concern were identified: Solitude for skiers seeking a nonmotorized experience, adequate parking, plowing of parking areas for skiers, e.g. Wood Camp, vo lunteers to patrol and disperse informat ion, signs to indi cate motori zed use restrictions, impacts on wi ld life, and enforcement of the ex isting travel pl an. There are two specifi c things you can do to help us. First, as mentioned eariler, keep a sk i log for thi s winter. We need to know where you were skiing, the date, how many hours and any comments you wou ld li ke to make. Also indi cate what level of skier you are, beginning, intermediate, advanced . Please make sure only one person in your group records the data. Then at the end of your ski season, please send it to us. The other thing that would be very he lpful is if you could attend our ski outing with the Forest Service. We are trying to get skiers of all levels to come and meet the Rangers in our district and tell them about your concerns and ideas regarding winter recreat ion use in Cache Valley. Also j ust come fo r fun and to bum off any excess holiday treats. The more ski ers the Forest Service sees are interested in Logan Canyon the better. Dec 26th, 9 am at Tony Grove parking area. We will be there through 12 noon, so come anytime. �3 CANYON VIEWS BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS IN THE SPRING BY SHA WN SWANER It is our relationship with UDOT personnel that has been the largest factor in our success. UDOT engineers have responded positively to public input and recommendation from the CAT Team. There is still much to be wary concerning to how well the contractor wi ll follow the guidelines set forth in the Record of Decision, by the Forest Service and by the CAT Team, during bridge construction. Cooperati on and compromise is new for both sides of the tabl e. If we can work through thi s process with the end result being sa fe bridges and relatively little di sturbance to a beautiful canyon, then we wi ll be successful. If we are not successful, then we will have other options open to us for the future phases of the road construction project. It is certainly worth giving the process a chance. As March draws closer and the im age of bu lldozers in Logan Canyon grows increasingly vivid , I am left wondering ifCPLC has chosen the right path. Maybe it is not too late to dusl off the monkey-wrench or chain myse lf to a road grader. However, on careful consideration, I think CPLC has chosen the onl y reali stic course of action. By working with UDOT, we have assisted in the development of plans that will result in the least amo unt of environm ental impact and will decrease the severity of the unavoidable impacts associated with road construction . To understand how this has com e about, I must first explain the philosophy behi nd our approach to UDOT, the result of our As always we are looking for people who would work over the last year, and our concerns and like to help either with the newsletter, sk i and predictions for the fut ure. snowmob il e group, our annual meeting and other In Apri l of 1994, I was privileged to meet wi th miscellaneous stuff. If you are interested and have Governor Leavitt and discuss concerns about the even a couple of hours, let us know, 752-0706. Canyon project. The intent of the meeting was to Lauren Keller. present the Governor with a petition opposing the Canyon constnlcti on project. The result of that contact was a meeting with UDOT Admini stration whi ch took place the followin g month. I met with We do not send o ut membership renewal notices a dozen o f UDOT' s senior management and those as we do not have the fund s or the time. So we are directly involved with the Logan Canyon Project. At thi s meeting was laid the groundwork for the co unting on you to renew you membership at thi s expansion of a working agreement between the US time. We have continued to keep the cost as low as Forest Service and UDOT which allowed for citi zen possible so that many people are able to receive the invo lvement in the design process of the Canyon newsletter. In order to cover expenses other than the project. The result of all of this was the creation of newsletter, we count on additional contributions. We the CAT (Cooperating Advisory Team) which would do have a tax exempt status with the IRS. We have input in the design phases of the project. Also appreciate your support. from this meeting I learned three things of value. Membership form First, large scale public involvement can be futil e if $25 _$50 $10 Member leuel Other not properly directed; second, the groundwork was laid for d irect involvement with UDOT through the Name _________________ CAT Team; and third, it was possible to established Address_ _ _ _ _-,--_ _ _=-___ a non-confrontational relationship with key UDOT City, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,State_ _Zip, _ _ __ personnel. Phone_---,..,-,-,,--_ _-,---Yes, 1 would like to uolunteer_ _ _ _ _ __ VOLUNTEERS MEMBERSHIP �Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon P.O. Box 3608 Logan, Ulah 84323 · 3608 Vlrqlnl8 Parter 41S0lJth4lJOEast Logan Ur 8432 1 BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID Pennit Ng 39 Logan. Utah �• • CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYO~ NEWSLETTER Dear "citizens", Your presence and enthusiasm at Utesday's meeting i s a welcome and encouraging indication that we can have a major impact on the outcome of the zoning change meetings. We have put together some suggestions for i mmedi ate action: PETITIONS Please take them to your neighborhoods and/ or places of work as soon as possible. As you will note, we have decided to encompass opposition to both Stump Hollow zoning chan ge as well as the Right Hand Fork zoning change. Return them by mail ' or hand to either Ann Schimpf Lee Rentz 715 N 3 E Logan 753-0512 or 459 N 1 E Logan 753-5076 or bring them to the October 14 meeting of the Cache Planning and Zoning Commission and deli ver them to Ann. I f you need additi ana1 pet it ion forms or the "Stump Hollow Development?1I summary sheet, please contact Ann or Lee. Eighty-one of you signed up to receive a petition. If each obtains 25 signatures, we will hear 2,026 voices in Cache County. Fifty signatures would add up to 4.052 recommendations! Please do not hesitate to cal l one of us to clear up any confusion about the issues which may arise. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR A letter to the Herald Journal is a powerful message which potentially reaches about 10,000 readers--and the paper will print everyone. Write to them at 75 West 3 North, Logan. If you have been shy to write on previous issues. now is an excellent and critical time to break your s ilence. ATTEND THE CACHE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON OCTOBER 14 The decision on zone change requests for Right Hand Fork will be made at that time. The Stump Hollow decision has been postponed until the November meeting. Watch the legal notices in the newspaper on Sunday, October 10 to find out the place and time of the Right Hand Fork discussion. It will begin sometime between 2pm and 5pm. The Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon will run ads in the newspaper and spots on the radio encouraging everyone to attend. We feel that although the structures under consideration at Right Hand Fork do not present the negative economic and environmental threat that the Stump Hollow plans do, the precedent of a zoning change is the basic key which will allow roadside development. Because of this, attendance at the October meeting is just as important as your presence at the November meeting. Please speak up at ' the meeting. We need the strongest impact possible. WRITE OR CALL YOUR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONERS Let your feelings be known directly to them before the meeting. If you know any of them, great, but contact them even if you have never met. Russ Kearl, chairman Oon G. Williams Aaron P. Leishman Ray Hugie 258 South Main Logan, UT 84321 Granville E. Barlow 140 West Center Lewiston, UT 84320 258-2652 10th North 376 East Smithfield, UT 84335 563-5604 E. Jay Christopherson 585 South Main ! .. Providence, UT 84332 752-5453 319 East 1st North Box 242 Wellsville, UT 84339 Logan, UT 84321 245-3323 752-2008 Cyrus M. McKell 1336 East 1700 North North Logan, UT 84321 753-1556 �• • 2 WRITE OR CALL YOUR COUNTY PLANNER R ck Johnson i 179 North Main Logan, UT 84321 752-8327 WRITE OR CALL YOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ma ri on 01 sen Ted Ka rren 8640 South 200 West 1656 East 1140 North Logan, UT 84321 752-7834 Paradise. UT 245-3309 Robert Chambers 331 East 50 North Smithfield, UT 563-6151 POSI TION STATEMENT The position statement committee met on Thursday night to formalize the statement to be presented to the Cache County Pl anning and Zon ing Commission on beha lf of the Citizens to Protect L n Canyon. If you would l ike to read the statement. please oga call An n at 753-0512. ENLIST YOUR FRIENDS More petitions and nStump H ollow Development?!! summary sheets may be obta ined from Ann or Lee. We wi ll be glad to add many more names to the mailing li st. ADVERTISEMENT We particularly need to get the word to the smaller towns in Cache Valley. If you are willing to post IIStump Hollow Deve l opment" sheets in fa r corners and/or travel for petit i on s i gni ng , please ca ll (aga in ) An n or Lee to get more materia l s . NEWSLETTER Another will be sent as soon as there i s news to share. YES, WE NEED CONTRI8UTIONS ! We wou l d apprec i ate any dona ti ons you could gi ve to help our public ity effort (ma iling cos t s . printing cos ts, radio ti me, and Xerox; ng cos t s al l add up! ) ill accept cac h or check L Re ntz, t he chairperson of the Media Committee, w ee donations at: 459 North 1st East Logan, UT 84321 Make checks payabl e to: Lee Rentz (C iti zens for the Protecti on of Logan Ca nyon) STEER ING COMMITTEE Ann Sc himpf 715 North 3rd East Logan, Utah 753-0512 Lee Rentz 459 North 1st East Logan, Utah 753-5076 ,, - Alice Lindahl 48 Mar i ndale Logan, Utah 753-1248 �• A PETITION OPPOSING ZONING CHANGES IN LOGAN CANYON We, as citizens of Cache County. recommend that t he request for a change from zone designation FR-40 (forest recreation) to pun (planned unit devel opment) at Stump Hollow be denied. We further recommend that the land at Right Hand Fork in Logan Canyon remain an FR-40 lone. We feel that these de velopments would i mpose costs on the vast majority of Cache residents which would greatly outweigh the benefits to a few people . A f ev/ of t he issues are: 1. The cos t of county services provided for Stump Ho ll ow \'1Qu l d not be met by its own residents (through ta xes) for 15-20 years, so ta xpayers l'Iou ld have t o bear the burden. 2. Water and sewage problems at Stump Hollow have not been adequately eva luated and they pose a threat to the watershed. 3. A zoning change would set a precedent and open the rest of the canyon to development. 4. Cache County residents would lose a very valuable and much loved recreational land if the canyon is developed for commercial purposes. Fi shermen, snowmobilers, hikers, hunters, cross - country sk iers, picnickers, touri st s, rock hounds, and photographers enjoy l ogan Canyon in its present state . We want to secure these mounta in lands for the futu re . NAME STREET ADDRESS TOWN PHONE �• NAME • STREET ADDRESS TOWN CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTTOIl O LOGAN CANYON F PHONE �• • STUMP HOLLOW DEVELOPMENT ? A private owner plans to erect condominiums. cabins, a restaurant. gas station, and motel on 477 acres in Stump Hol l ow. To do this, he has to get a recommendation for rezoning from FR-40 (forest recreation) to PUD (planned unit development) from the Cache County Pl anning and Zoning Commission. Negative Consequences of the Devel opment • A possible contamination of downstream waters because of soi l inadequate for septic tanks . • Acc'ording to Pau l Woodbury (Utah Di vis i on of Wildlife Resources). this land i s now summer range fo r el k. deer, moose, grouse, and snowshoe hare. There woul d obvious ly be a negat i ve effect upon these and other anima l s on both the private and surround i ng Forest Service lands. • Stump Holl ow now prov i des a year-round m x of hikers, snowmobilers, hunte r s, and i cross - country skiers with recreational opportunities. The development wou l d make Stump Hol l ow undes i rab l e fo r these forms of recreation. • Logan Canyon has remained an excepti ona lly beautiful wild place . The pressures for urbanization threaten the very natural qualities that the developer uses as his strongest sel l ing point. • According to Cache County Planner, Rick Johnson, the county's taxpayers woul d have to subsidize the developme nt for at l east 15-20 years before taxes from the project met the ser vi ces rendered. Right Hand Fork Homes? Anot her pri vate l andowner wants his land rezoned from FR-40 to allow bui l ding several cabins and homes near the highway at Right Hand Fork. Where Will It Stop? A zon i ng change here . another one there ... Pretty soon, the worl d begi ns . l ooking the same whet her you ' re i n Los Angel es, Detroit . or Logan Canyon . Development everywhere . . . merely to make a few bucks . Let ' s not all ow these proposed devel opments t o set a precedent for others. Keep Logan Canyon green! What You Can Do! Sign the pet i tion ! Write a l etter to the ed i tor: The Hera l d Journal 75 West 3rd Nor t h Logan , Utah 84321 Write a letter of protest to the county planner : Rick Johnson Cache County Pl anner 179 North Main Logan, Utah 84321 Attend the critica l publ i c hearings when they come up. for the Protection . of �• • .1 , , >, ". , ~ ,1 f ) �I C'J7Cf.:< 76J..~~r THE 1 LOGAN CANYON BULLETIN CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON JANUARY 1991 The Question of Logan Canyon ... is not as big as acid rain, or ozone depletion, to be sure-but it might be an indicator. It can tell us how sincere we are, and how thorough, in our '90s leaning toward the land. Here is a deep . beautiful and winding canyon. gradually shallowing as it ascends into an open country of high meadows and ridge-top forests. For decades now this canyon has held a fairly mooest two-lane road that winds eastward from Logan with the lay of the land. eventually crests a 78oo-fool summit of the Wasatch Range, and then drops swiftly in switchbacks to Bear Lake. The whole forty miles, in any season, is a treat to the eye, because this is one of the few Wasatch Front river canyons where the road has not become the dominant feature of the landscape. It still looks like respected country . -- Tom Lyon Logan Canyon: Here and Now For the last thirty years there has been a drive to punch a wider, straighter, faster highway through Logan Canyon. In 1961 , five miles of the lower canyon were "improved"; in 1968, six more-up to the Right Hand Fork. But then came the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, and the road straighteners no longer ha ve a perfectly free hand. Now they have to justify their plans, and di scuss alternatives, and now we too have a say in what happens. Under the requirements of NEPA, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has been researching the environmental impacts of different construction plans. After several years and the expenditure of over three quarters of a million dollars, they've come up with a draft study that doesn't specify a "preferred alternative." Unfortunately, their study, in the view of many, has been marked by slipshod procedures, insufficient data, and lack of consideration for the environment. Now it is up to those of us who care about the beauty and intactness of Logan Canyon to come forward and make a stand. Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon have made their own study of the canyon and have prepared the Conservationists' Alternative, which is incl uded in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). We urge you to give the Conservationists' Alternative your careful examination, to write a letter, and to make a statement at the public meeting on the DEIS. You can make a difference! �The Conservationists' Alternative The goal of this alternative is a highway that fits into Logan Canyon with minimal ecological disturbance and maximum safety, rather than a hi ghway that moves the greatest number of people through the canyon at the highest rale of speed. The Conservationists' Alternative meets this goal , but it is not a do-nothing al ternative. Current roadway width and alignment wou ld be maintained throughout the canyon. with the following exceptions: Bridges and culverts re placed and widened to 28 feet, with all but Lower Twin Bridges kept on the existing alignment. • Turning lanes constructed at Tony Grove Recreation Area and Beaver Mountain Ski Area. • Climbing lanes constructed above Red Banks Campground, below the state sheds, and in the Sinks area, but not at the Dugway. • Increased traffic law enforcement. • Slow vehicle turnouts and multipurpose parking constructed at several locations. • Roadbed raised near Logan Cave and in several other locations to avoid spring fl ooding. WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS ALTERNATIVE What Can You Do to Help Protect Logan Canyon? Support the Conservationists' Alternative. Write a letter expressing your concerns. Speak out at the public meetiog in Logan. Writing a Letter is as Easy as One, Two, Three First: Introduce yourself. Mention why you are concerned about Logan Canyon and experiences you have had there. Second: Support the Conservationists' Alternative. Also point out problems in the DEIS. You can refer to the above lists for details, or write to us for more infonnation. Third: Put your return address on the lener, sign it, and date it. Send your letter to : James Naegle Utah Dept. of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84 11 9 To get a copy of the DEIS, call: James Naegle (80 I) 965-4 160 Letters must be mailed by February 1, 1991. Letter-writing workshops will be held at A Book Store, 130 North 100 East, Logan 7:00 p.m., on Thursday, Jamlary 3; Monday, January 7; and Thursday, January 10. Despite what some say, the road builders do "count votes." So speak out! �Other Alternatives Considered in the DEIS After careful study, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon concluded that these alternatives would compromise safery, destroy the canyon's un ique e nvironment, or both. These alternatives include: • "Standard Arterial" - The widest. straightest. highest- speed alternative. With wide shoulders and "recovery areas" adjacent to the road. well over twice as much land wou ld be disturbed as at present. Large cuts would scar hillsides. and the road would intrude into the river. • "Mod ified Standa rd " - Identical to the Standard Arterial, except the roadway width would be somewhat less in the narrow and scenic middle section of Logan Canyon. There would be fewer cuts than under the Standard Arterial . • " Composite Alte rn ati ve l1 - A combination of the Standard and Mexlified Alternatives. It is a late addition to the list of alternatives and retain s many severe environ mental impacts, such as a climbing lane at the Dugway. It would also have more adverse effec ts on streams in the upper pan of the canyon. • "S pot Improvement" - Road width would not c hange; however, hillsides would be cut to straighten curves, and climbing and turning lanes would be built in environmentally sensitive areas. • " No Action " - NEPA requires agencies to consider this alternative in a DE IS. There are legitimate construction needs in Logan Canyon. however, so conservationi sts have not supponed this alternative. Shaded area shows one of the highway cuts proposed under several of the alternatives. Unfortunately, these alterna ti ves and the DEIS itselr have some serious flaws, incl udin g: • Disturbance of the river and loss of riparian habitats are not adequately addressed. • Impacts on wildlife, especially fish. nongame species, and the threatened Maguire's Primrose, are weakly treated. • Disposal of rubble. many thousands of cubic yards under some alternatives, is ignored . • Greater accident frequency or severity is possible with increased speeds under some al tern atives; this possibility is not addressed. • Site-specific impacts are addressed vaguely; mitigation is put off until the "design ph ase" which is some unspecified time in the future. • Worst-case traffic projections are used to justify major modifications to the highway . yet Logan Canyon is often only lightly travelled. • The safety record for Logan Canyon is not compared with similar mountain road s; yet safety is a major concern and is the rationale for some construction. • Logan Canyon is nationally renowned fo r its scenery, and has been designated a Scenic Byway, yet th is prominence is not di scussed. Logan Canyon Cannot Speak for Itself But you can speak for Logan Canyon. A public hea ring on Logan Canyon is scheduled for T uesday, J anua ry IS, 1991. at the Mt. Loga n Middle School Auditorium, 875 N. 200 East, Logan . If you pla n to speak, you will need to a rri ve ea rly to sign up ir required. The points that apply to letter writing also apply to your spoken comment. It is likely that thetime allotted to each speaker will be about fiv e minutes. so plea se prepare your comments accordingly. If you can both speak at the hearin g and write a lener. do both. Even ir you do not pla n to spea k, please attend the hea ring to show your sup po rt fo r Logan Canyon. Printed on recycled paper Photos by Scott T. Smith �11 Improvement makes strai ght roads; but the crooked roads, without improvement, are roads or genius." •. William Blake LOGAN CANYON is at risk. LOGAN CANYON needs you . ..... '- ., P.O. 80. 3501 Logan, Ulah 84321 \ �I • LOGAN CANYON NEWSLETTER November 8 , 1976 UPDATE : NO l'IElI \'Ie etil l Citizens for the Protection of Logan. Canyon NE~'IS dol'] 1 t know ...:hen the Plenn inA; Z. CPLC lIoiJ:;ETIilG CPLC held a meeting on I;ov. 4 to discus:; plans tor the future o f our group. ~. - ' C WE PAsS {\ CPIJC V ol. I. No.3 ...,-............-:- ON STUMP HCLLQ\" and Zonin g Com ~lssi o n will be asked to make a dec ie1o~ on th i s im~ortont · 1ssue. Unfortunately , we may not have t hat information un til one week b~rore the P ~ Z meeting it self . night Hand Fork zonin R -- requea t - ~e in the 8a~e cnte~ory. NOV. . The followin g ~ene r al plan s of action ra .;ulte d : _ 1. ' Fini.sh off the petition drive with • Durst- of activity next- week:~nd (Hov, 13), ~' have 2,100 a1gnaturea, ~d-..)uI~bl_. th a t nu~ b cr , In e n effort to re a c h t h j ~ ~o~l , CPLC members will man Ret1tion booths 8 t ma ny 3i t ea around tb,, ' valley . on S l;\t llrd ~y . No·r . 1 3 . U.S . U. will host <l booth from Nev. 10 until 12th. You can help by collecting all thane petiti ons yo u ha ve posted and by pre senting' the i s ~u~ to-you-r---rt~~h-bo-p.hee Ii 1 r youo-l.~.~,,~.it-----I no t already cfo ne s o. t;ven if your sheeta h a'l,,' e only a f#!w n tl !'!l .l!'"SOn t ?!.efft--let t hem be counted I ~ E!..ECTl orr RESULTS The Nov, 2 election t" esu l t~ l",ere h o t.h positive en d ne ltrt tive in t heir pot'ential Petition s will be due in b y Mo nday, Nov. 1 5 . effects on CPLC ~oals . Bo'b Char.fb'J r s .....6%1- , 2. Hold onto petition s ignature s until the actual ? & Z m eetin g and Commission meeting ar e h eld. ,. Have ~ doo r-to-do or s~~atur~ campllip:n wh en we kn ow for nu re the actual date of the relev 3nt P & Z me r. tin~ . Th is, hope tully, wil l ale r t re~~den ts e~ain , 4. Turn jn cu r :; i r;n e d r.o :;it ion ntlltp. ment t o t he t;;Jche COlllmis r. ionl'!t"n on l'lbout November 15. 5. Nin l'! CPLC ~embe r a volunte l'!.p. rl t o serve aD a pe rmanent Itovernin" bo;,,;r d. l'hc y wil~ ensur~ th."t tht'! structure and proll;::-e85 of CPLC wi l l no t be lo s t if we hBve 9 lon~ wait for the " s t ump Holl ow" r:teetinl';. t~ } 4- ye ~r Cnche C o mm i s~ion pos t, vo tes. 7h is is stronp;e a t ~o~d-~he ~ tllte~ le nt against de velopmen 't by 429 h as ma de the of any candida t " in Logan Canyon, .1' . HOy f" heurer won the 2- year poet ae eOMmiasionot-r---+b,v'}. al3 voter.) .-- Ria po~\ ition hn ~.; b~l'!n o n(> of non - c:>mmitt. l on ; Sturn,!) lIol 1ow. It i G d i ff icult to say how ~r. l' i'I~~.Hd--l. e-l\-n. --!m- t·h~1-" ... ue . Our I :rl~ ..' tr.'it cl('ct i ~' n lor'1~ ' \.11\ [ : ; ;" rl' , ~' O:::! , I dcfe"t • . lIe \" ''''0 '-I1 11in,.; to i ntl'o;iU <: f) l e p;islation which would allow p',H'c h ass ot the l.;:r.d. It would ha7.e 'bsen ad.:i6 d . tl'•.a-n, to Cache Natio nal Fore~t. STUJ.IPER- STICXERS FINAL PETITICN DRIVE Plea5e turn in your peti.ttons t o Lee or Ann by Uovembcr 15, Hondar_ H!.~ht now we , ,. \'/e ' ve ordered 400 :TIors . They will be avniVtble a t Mount ai n ~!an on North Main ~ n d at the Harmoniou s Living Cen t e r at . U.S.U. for 501l . �~' G li .;t:~~ ·,.,:.t:.. _t:." _h.:-. - ,,_ t:;.ack c;.~ ~ r:.:: l~~'j'i..,: .. '.', ""' . . ,- .. .. l:--:""",}t. ~ _.:..!~'" ,r.:~'::, ," .)"'·~ !JO )~~ :,,~~ ........... _ _ ,,'r. i:!. ~ . ::. ~ e"(."gv ft,," :..;:. l .. '-' . ::\'. "f" :I\:.2 ',,of t~H: 't::"!:..E- ',ro c:-_ ~t ~~~. ';'-:ll.l~.~ ~ :1~:::t -: ri8'~lt ~c!{""·.< t~@ rl l'l.~ ·· ---~ ·j :"'::: ~-:.:.OH'; : !l! -!ix::.J "2; a n d /~n i nr. met: ti't$' .al-~ B r.Lc1.i,e~ Ian J. n~~ A udubon Sj >;! :- n --------- 5..ut VOl! , w ,,,,,,-~,, C -- ' o" ~~_ l:e!"G · .,c.l. .- .... ~,'~'­ ,.f: :1'~ .. 6"'.F T :-:-illIr.g ". f' '" ' .. 1._1 ~. rl ci& rg~ v':: ~t._ ~["J; , :.t.lrf' t o t~e E~r 9.1tj ~~t (ill::' :.r \': :,:,i t~ you r commissiun: r.5. 50 . 0') ?3.2~ E"c.til ;,(> '!" S'a".k€;r s < _nnct.ve. ·,,-.;n- fr l./::• .::!£): a.n d n~i "·:.'~·'··t._ '~"'c~'r>:; .. . :.":J:i. -' f ;.=-';u~ ..... con.:;:-._.. J. { r r;'i.~.1... -,- 50 . 0:; ': h :. ,~ '+ 1.48 '~'H /J li< Prin ting 35. 54 7:",=-C ., £!J. p ~ }_ it:.s 19. 4D 77. 78 f or your he lp, a ll of :--ou . 'Ne 1.1.0 .. :lU:nbe r abc\;;t 140 menw erlh }ee.~:J! :i.. ('!(;I') t. S. :';!'Vl6J.~ r E: r b.ds . h):'t;L tU2 Nove~b ~ r 77 .50 mnpe.r s t i'!lte rs 3251. 70 EY.PE!;:s~:; CFJ/i 11 :-,5 priIl t e d : 2 2 00 Stump Holle ..... fl y e:~ 6 90 I,e w5L; t te r t.tl N e'lfslettp.~· )00 Dumper #2 St ic ke r ~ :rany fl O.f.terB .:ll"d 2 newspa p er a ds in t he Herula L ou::. W.:: ~an a ntici p ate ('li E"::' $100 . 00 i1io rc if al l t he o lj I!r.d !1~\01 St\.~ m ;-e: 'It:'cb,rs sd l. Tr. i a Ilw ne y wil l ~e UQed .{)t:' r a r o !:l.n C ne ~~ s 'pape:r spo ts ':.0 t,'.l;lrt E e7f: :,y one to t.'1 e df'. t.e of t n e F eo( ~ Dleetin~ ~- ~fJ1£ • ...... - ~ J 15 petiti ~o I')"' iea~]ine. D';::)R TO WOR Lal: r y liye has take !, tn~ pt~c. CJ.(';11 tilt'r .. :.!.' . ;t. i n ~~l! s'l!lle a ~l"! ... \_\ 0-'.:.l':: gcn er. !:.i!lg .:l l.:lrg e: n'.;ttI!n~: or !>i&ni.:.u' !> i:i ", active app r oach ;:'0 peti~!(hlit"Z t·crt.;.......I.': ::l';!sE:::t''Iez a c~o;pliIl:e:l.:: Co Ol;! is .1n e:(<--;;~] ~t.i:: others to £0 110\01 , 575 FE- titj ons 500 YOU , •• , - .- . GOVtRllHi G 30.l\!ID He bb1 (1 ta.nn e r 753-001 3 .Oo \' id "A. . Ad a:n3 A '£ELEPHON E TREE h')'6 Lt"<':r. for:ne€.! !;,) ;:,Hl;: l.il1 b e [Iot::.r LI.::<i U) "i;":>:1...... , ..1·1jtr.ing Urj;t-~.,:: CQ::l<;!s up, C~i.r; m er.lb~ r s Lie Rer.tz !i ~.a N 1 !. l>ct: ~ n, UT [)4 32l MI n Schimpf ·7'.5 N 3 ,. " Alice !,1ndahl :"-!S Ms.rinriale 753-1248 l,vgan, UT 753-1476 La:-ry E. Ny~ 245- 3010 \ol~ndy H. Pal o..... 563-3488 J~r. y ou~s 753-;278 i:tlte Packard ~~i! ~ 753-}806 M Shult z . 752 -5447 J·.' hn .L ;;cn.'..Ilt t• . 752-5447 ·t1.<3.ney l~!.u=d' rS2 - j917 A~r.. Schl.n.pf ·\ li("~ !..lr:.dahl ]':3-03 12: 753- J 2!. S 'Lee Rentz 753-5076 SI U KPER 'JTUMP Il JU.O\l VROG.RESS REPORT ! A no tice a ppeared i n cAe Herald Jerurl"l ul No vember] saying t h e re "Will !H! .a pr(\e;n:~H r cpor t (HI Stump ll ollo',J and Rtght Na.n;d l'-t'ri<:. at tj,e N';'QWIlbe r 11 m ~eti ns o ( t he P & z. -:.omrr..t s ~I'J:l (at 41:00 [I -m .) . hccordin.s t(l RId, Jchn'~o!l . Cou n ty Phl.nne r _ he ;.:Hl h'il p.r-t!£oet,tircg t il l! ~ ol'r E: :Jponden ce he ha s [" ec cis~d f:-co;ll die de.,Felopcrs concern ing tli'ese- lWO propos. ·ts pl~s a l l relevant. ncwspaper S I.'!; app e ar~d., Lee Rent.z w~U meet:ing ,' fee l < �, \ -If Turn In ;:>et ltl ons by Monday. tlover.lber 15 * \;C!Y ;..h : he news med i a fo:", new cleve lcrments .-----, BULK RAT-E J ~' DGERlAtID AUDU60N SOC ! ElY ~ Ov Box 3501 { ~c·~n . IJT 84321 postage I '.:J LOCI·.11 c~ PERK IT # ~lerrl.ll L1 brar7 Learning Resow:<:ea P:rograa utah Stat. Univ. UMC :JO LoG"J! . l1I' 84322 l 1 ! Par d ¥ ; " . �Logan Canyon at Risk The time has come to speak out for the preservation of Logan Canyon and Logan River. Two public seoping hearings concerning the future of U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon will be held locally in early March. The first hearing is set for Mar ch 3 at 7 p.m. in the Mountain Fuel Supply Building in Logan. The second hearing will be held March 4 at 7 p.m. at the City Hall in Garden City, Utah. The hearings are required by federal Jaw as part of the process being undertaken by the Utah Department of Transporation (UDOT) and the Denver-based engineering consuhanls, CR2M Hill. to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS ) th at could recommend a larger and faster highway through Log an Canyon. Developing a list of alternatives for the Logan Canyon highway is integral to the EIS process . The final list of alternatives will not be com· piled until after receiving public comment, which includes the comments given at the scoping hearings. "It's Important that people who love Logan Canyon for its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities attend these meet· ings and speak out, " said Jack Spence, a longtime northern Utah conservationist. "Without lots of comments from concerned citizens, the highway engineers will build without regard to the area's natural environment," Spence said. Study cost over $500,000 The current highway scoping hearings are a pa rt of CH2M Hill's $500,000 study contract with UDOT. The contract reo quires t he engineering firm to develop a transportation plan for Logan Canyon 's highw ay through the year 2010. Previous studies have been undertaken to explore major highway construction in Logan Canyon. The most recent study ended in 1980 after local citizens expressed their concern for the canyon. Another highway study in 1971 met a similar fate . "Local residents should at· tend the hearings to explain Scoping Hearin g Schedule Logan March 3 7 p.m. Mountain Fuel Supply Co. Auditorium, 45 E. 200 North. Garden City March 4 Garden City Hall. 7 p.m. Persons planning to speak at the hearing will be asked to register as they enter the building. Before public comments are taken, UDOT and CH2M Hill will make a brief presentation. Comm ents will be heard before discussion is opened . For persons unable to attend the hearing, written comments will be accepted by April 6, 1987 at : Mr. Clifford Forsgren , Project Manager CH2M Hill/ Salt Lake City OUice P .O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 phone : (801) 363-{l2QO how they enjoy Logan Canyon as it is today," said Rudy Lukez, chair of the Sierra Club's Cache Group. "We do not want to sacrifice Logan Canyon so that a few people can travel from Logan to Bear Lake a few minutes faster," Lukez said. One of Logan Canyon's most scenic and fragile sections is from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Spring (see map page 3). This See Risk on page 2. Memories travel the can yon By C. L. Rawlin s This much is certain : They were married the 28th of June, 1911, and left Logan for a honeymoon at Bear Lake. He drove the team and ~he probably indulged in raptures over the canyon greenery and imposing limestone walls. She may have slapped, daintly, at a mosquito as they passed into the brief, cool shadow of cottonwoods. My grandfather would have pointed out the smokemarked overhang where teamsters hauling stone for the Temple camped a generation before. The road left the main canyon where it narrowed and climbed the Right Fork to Willow Canyon. Alter descending the Temple Fork , they stopped - as we always did on later trips at Ricks Springs for a brillia ntly cold cupful, which Grandfather would have fetched with self·concious courtliness. Where they camped, I don' t know ; a meadow would be chosen, with grazing for the team and a level sleeping spot within the sound of water. Journeys then , when the desirability of automobiles was still hotly debated, were often reckoned not in miles , but in nights CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON P.O. Box 3580 l oga n. Utah 8432 1 (801l1152-9 102 ,S6H9OfI (e l SCOff T. Sm ittl Winter solitude in Logan Canyon spent out, under the sky. The hill-and-meadowscapes below Beaver Mountain were green then as now , with balsamroot and mule·ear daisies yellowing the slopes. Past the mountain, the road followed - and still follows for those with patience - Beaver Creek In a gradual climb north to the summit. Roads showed the sensitivity to slope and contour that comes when bodies - horse or human - do the work of traveling. Huge cuts and fills were too costly in those sa me terms . Alter frequent halts to rest the horses, they reached the summit : occasion for a picnic and savoring the hard·won view . The descent to St. Charles is steep and my grandfather cam e from a family having much to do with wagons; he checked the brake before laking the grade. The return took them a good. two days. Retelling, my grandmother never complained of the heat, dust, jolts, or slow pace. That there was a road at all seemed sufficient miracle. The canyon , she often said, had never been more beautiful. C.L. Rawlins wr ites, T eaches wr l T iJ and wor ks on field stUdies of acid ln' deposlt1on In The Win d River Ran ge i n Wvom i ng. Bulk Rate- U.S. Postage PAI D Logan, Utah Perm it No. 104 �2 CITIZENS FOR TIlE PROTECT1ON OF LOGAN CANYON _ rEDURARY 1987 CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON On March 3 and 4, you will have the opportunity to present your views on Logan Canyon and its highway . Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon have prepared the following list of recommendations for the study . We urge you to attend the March scoping meeting and support CPLC's position. _ Protection of Logan Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildlife habitat, rare plants, recreation sites and naturalness must be a prime concern. _ An Environmentlllmpad Statement (EIS ) must be prepared for any significant road modification proposals to protect Logan Canyon's natural surroun· dings from haphazard modifications . - Travel speeds between Right Hand Fork and Rick's Spring should remain as currently posted . This area is very scenic and too sensitive to permit any significant roadway modifications. - Bridges which cannot meet structural safety requirements should be replaced when possible. These bridges should be two lanes wide only. Minor alterations to bridge approaches would be acceptable. - Turning lines at Tony Grove Recreation Area and Beaver Mountain Ski Area may be constructed to The Logan Canyon Bulletin is published by Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon - a citizens group of volunteers and non-profit organizations working toward long-term protection of Loga n Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and naturalness . The Jardine Juniper is CPLC's symbol. Located high above Wood Camp recreation area, this ancient and beautiful tree represents Logan Canyon's recreational diversity and unsurpassed scenery. Every few years, the utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) begins a study of Logan Canyon's highway, U.S. 89. The last study in 1979 and 1980 was left uncompleted after highway expansion proponents found strong local opposition to proposed roadway modifications. Since June, 1986, UDOT and Denver-based engineering consultants, CH2M Hill, have been spending over $500,000 to prepare yet another analysis of the roadway. Perhaps one of the Rocky Mountain's most scenic roadways, Logan Canyon's highway provides many people with access to numerous U.S. Forest Service campgrounds and picnic areas, fishing sites , and snowmobiling and skiing trailheads. Throughout the four seasons, a visitor to Logan Canyon can find beauty through these many recreational opportunities or simply by taking the drive from Logan to Bear Lake . The new UDOT study is moving toward the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and this could be the first step toward major alterations in the Canyon . Before an EIS is prepared, public scoping meetings must be held and citizens must be given a chance to present either written or oral testimony on the study areas . facilitate turning traffic . _ Parklng areas should be built near Temple Fork Road and Cottonwood Canyon (near Logan Cave) to improve traffic flow and safety. _ Additional warning signs should be placed along the highway telling motorists about bicycle traffic, pulloffs and pedestrian travel. _ The road should be resurfaced and restriped where required. This will improve through traffic travel and nighttime safety throughout Logan Canyon. _ No cUmbing (passing) lane should be built at the Dugway (between Lower and Upper Twin ~ridges) . A dim bing lane would affeel a very scemc area hy requiring major cut and fill operations with unsighUy retaining walls. _ No rold modifications should alter the Logan River's watercourse since the river is a major recreational resource. Alterations could destroy im· portant streambanks. _ No new roads or major changes to the existing road should be constructed from the Bear Lake Summit to the Bear Lake Overlook. This highway section is in a very popular and scenic recreation area . ation sites, the U.S. Forest Service decided in the 1984 Wasatch·Cache National Forest Continued. from page 1 Plan to "mana~e Logan Canyon section contains important fish as a scenic highway." Forest and wildlife habitat along with plans are approved and implemented only after a lengthy spectacular cliff formations. " Modifications to the highway public review process. - even with simple widening could have disastrous effects on the river's fish population," said Bill Helm, a fisheries and wildlife professor at Utah State University. Logan Canyon provides ac" The Logan River is very unique since it is a Class II cess to many Forest Service waterway," Helm said. "This recreational sites. More than 30 means that trout can easily campgrounds and picnic sites grow to large sizes and exist in are located along the roadway. Most of the road is located large populations. along Forest Service property " But, the river is fragile and could easily be damaged, " in the Wasatch-Cache National Helm said. " You just cannot Forest. "If sections of the canyon are mitigate everything ." widened to permit increased traffic speeds and wider turns, then some of the forest's cam· ping and picniC sites could become less enjoyable," said Bruce Pendery, chair of the In addition to taking traffic Bridgerland Audubon Society's counts and predicting future Conservation Committee. traffic volumes, the current To help promote long-term study includes a scenery in- protection for Logan Canyon's ventory of Logan Canyon. The scenery, fish and wildlife study was completed by the habitat, and recreational opWasatch-Cache National Forest portunities, Citizens for the Service's landscape architect, Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC) has been reorganized. Clark Ostergard. Ostergard's study shows that CPLC was instrumental in sections of Logan Canyon, stopping major highway particularly from the Right modifications in 1919-1980. "CPLC's purpose is to proBand Fork to Ricks Springs, cannot have si~nificant road vide a common base for aU modifications Without damag- Individuals and organizations ing irreplaceable scenic views . who care about Logan Canyon's Because of Logan Canyon's future ," said Pendery. "CPLC supports a variety of beauty and its popular recre- Risk Recrea ti on Sites Canyon very scen ic small projects for the highway, " Pendery said. "These include several road modifications, such as turning lanes, replacement of unsafe bridges and several new parking areas." Perhaps CPLC's most interesting proposal involves designation of Logan Canyon as a National Scenic Highway . "While National Scenic Highway designation does not guarantee absolute long-term protection of Logan Canyon, it would increase the public's awareness that we have a national treasure in our backyard," Lukez said. DeSignation of U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon as a National Scenic Highway would require action by the U.S. Congress. Cit izens urged to partiCipate The March 3 and 4 hearings will be the best chance for local citizens to inOuence the highway'S design . "And without the voices of those who love the canyon for what it is today," Lukez said, " those who want a larger highway Soon may have their way." If people cannot attend or speak at a hearing, written comments will be accepted unW April 6. Comments should be sent to Mr. Clifford Forsgren, Project Engineer" CH2M Hill/ SaIt Lake City Office, P.O. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101. - Congress should designate Logan Canyon Highway as Utah's first National Scenic Highway. This designation would recognize Logan Canyon as a scenic and recreational jewel similar to other attractions in our National Park System. - Logan River above Third Dam should be considered for National Recreation al River designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This federal designation will protect the river's quality for all future generations. For more information, please write to Citizens fo r the Protection of Logan Canyon, P .O. Box 3580, Logan, utah 84321. Phone 801/152-9102 or 563-6908 (evenings) . Funding for the Logan Canyon Bulletin is provided by numerous individuals in northern Utah. We welcome your support. Contributor's to TM L.ogan Canyon BulleTin InclUde northern Utllh residents Steve Flint, Rudy L.ukez, Bill Hel m, Jllck Spence, Bruce Pendery-, C.L.. Rlwllns, Tom L.yon, Dllne Browning, Dennis Will Ind Seon T. Smlltt (photogrlphy ), Jlne O' Keefe (Irtwork, copyr ig hted ) Ind John ReeVH (clrtography). Traffic data weak By Steve Flint Highway modifications often are justified by using estimates of future traffic patterns based on past traffic trends. However. when Duduating gas prices and changing travel patterns are considered, traffic flow predictions can be an uncertain adventure at best. The Utah Department of Transportation (uDOT) and engineering consultants, CH2M Hill, are using past traffic trends for Logan Canyon predictions. This information does not establish reliable traffic trends for the canyon. Even the consultants are not completely confident about the available traffic data . In a draft technical report, CB2M Hill reports: "Data point scatter and (the) short period of record make(s) it difficult to forecast future (traffic) volumes with any degree of confidence." If traffic data is reviewed on an annual basis, there is no suggestion of an increase in traffic through the canyon. Over the past 13 years, the annual traffic Dow has fluctuated a bit from year to year without any pattern of increase. However, summer traffic during June, July and August shows a different pattern. There is more traffic in the canyon during these months and, for the past few years, traffic has been increasing slightly during these three summer months. Based on past trends of traffic and population change, the most substantial prediction of summer traHic growth is 1.95 percent per year. The presumed need for major highway modifications is driven by this projected increase . During past studies, UDOT has greaUy oVerestimated future traffic predictions. A review of the 1971 and 1979 Logan Canyon highway studies shows that UDOT's official predictions for 1985 traffic rates were 30 to 55 percent above what eventua lly occurred. The current UDOT /CH2M Hill Logan Canyon Study is using an exponential model to predict future traffic patterns. This model soUers from the same mistakes made in previous studies when summer traffic was analyzed . A more realistic model uses linear growth that predicts a smaller increase in summer traffic. This means that acceptable traffic now levels without major highway modifications are possible in the year 2010. Sleye Fllnl Is II member of 1M Brldgerland Audubon SocieTy's Cons.enlllT lon Commllll!@. Hetin beenreviewlngUDOT 's Tralf1cdlllslnceJuIY1 9116. �FEBRUARY 191r7 - Accident data incomplete By Jack Spence Safety is important for everyone who travels on a roadway . For any highway. safety involves two major Issues - accident rates and accident severity. Yet, accurate accident rates in Logan Canyon cannot be determined because both the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and consultants. CH2M Hill. have refused to complete any comparative studies. This is hard to understand because with its mountainous terrain Utah has many highways comparable to U.S. 89, which runs through Logan Canyon. A comparison of accident rates and severity levels in Logan Canyon with data from Ogden, Little Cottonwood, Provo and Spanish Fork canyons would make sense. ~ITIZENS FOR TIlE PR0TECl10N OF LOCiAN CANYON 3 Logan Canyon Accident Survey T,,"of Accident Speeding a Problem . The collected Utah Highway Patrol information (see box) shows that most accidents are caused by going too fast. And, because of increased speeds, major road improve- ments could increase some ac- cident rates. Safety Studied Twice During the study of accidents in Logan Canyon, two different reviews were completed. First. using data collected by UDOT from 1980 to 1985, engineering consultants CH2M Hill concluded that four of 13 highway sections had accident rates higher than the standard safety guidelines. However, these conclusions were challenged when errors were found in UDOT's rates. When corrected data could not be produced, CH2M Hill decided to use another safety com pari- son method. The second method divided Car runs off ttIe ro.td 56% Driver speeding 46% Car hits an animal Logan Canyon into one-tenth1N Other Improper driving 25" Head·on comslon 12% Driver not looking 23"mile sections. CH2M Hill then Hit car In Intersection .,. Road snow· or la· covered 23'J(, found that 16 of the 374. onRear'end another car ~ Driving under the Influence 10% e-tenth-mile sections had acci2% Driving left of center line ' " 0 ....' dent counts higher than the Driver asleep or III '" highway's average. Vehicle defective 4% Even though 16 sections had Note : The total "cause of accld~ts" is greater than 100 percent higher than average counts, bKause a single acci~nt could have multiple causes. none of these sections were greatly In excess of many of the • Source : Utah Highway Patrol accident reports, 1980· 1985. _ _ _ _,.,jl value. in addition, the average ___________________ remaining 358 sections have a 3) Lower speeds on tight in a serious accident in Logan low number of accidents. corners, especially near ice and Canyon are small at any time. Since there is an absence of animal hazards Safety Alternatives 4) Improved highway sur- valid supporting data , safety Even though road construc- faces and brighter roadway cannot be used to justify major tion is usually considered the striping highway modifications. best way to improve highway 5) Improved road crowns to safety , other alternatives do increase water runoffs from the exist. highway J ac k SpenCt , a wt ll·known constrv.· These include : lion IS! in norlnern Utah, nel ptd organ ll t 1) Better speed enforcement an d ltad CP LC In 1919. Ht has rtll ltwtd Chances Are Small UOOT 's Logan C,!"! von safe lv dal, si nct by the UHP 2) Better advisory signing The chances of being involved Julv, 1986. Fishing threatened By Bill Helm AS it flows through Logan Canyon , the Logan River provides many opportunities for recreation in a natural and scenic setting. A popular four-season activity along Logan River is fishing . The river is one of only a few Class II trout stream s in Utah . Class II trout streams provide good fish habitat. This lets trout grow quickly to a large size. Road construction activities in Logan Canyon already have damaged the river's fish habitats . Channel straightening and elimination of streambank vegetation have decreased the number of trout from 50 to 90 percent in some locations. Class U Defined To be ranked a Class II trout strum in Utah, a waterway must have many slow and quiet resting and hiding areas with adequate plant cover . This lets fish rest while being shielded from potential enemies. Feeding areas must be nearby with moderate flowing water. Class II waterways also require spawning habitats with medium-sized gravel bottoms in an area of moderate river currenL The bottom must be stable with little or no silt. . ",. Changes Could Hurt Trout Major changes to Logan Canyon's highway could damage the Class II fisheries . If the river is straightened , water speeds could increase beyond tolerable levels for trout. Placing fill on a streambank ' or removing streamside vegetation would eliminate resting and hiding cover. Streamside trees, shrubs, and grass provide food for insects. which trout eat, as well as providing hiding cover fo r trout. Streamside vegetation is valuable for many other reasons as well. It slows overland water runoff while trapping silt. This keeps the river clean for increased and healthier trout populations. Streamside vegetation also screens anglers [rom the highway while providing a wilder and more natural outdoor experience . This vegetation allows passing sights and sounds to be muted or even eliminated . While important for fish and fishermen alike, streamside vegetation provides habitat for birds and mammals who live along rivers. It also anchors streambanks. This minimizes bank erosion and stream bed shifting. LOGA N CANYON HIGHWAY m,,,, STUDY Changes Add Up " T. "LitUe" changes throughout the river soon add up to one "big" change. Minor modifications between Logan Canyon's highway and the river could invariably damage the entire Class n trout fishery . l oeAN .'" .' Bill Helm Is a proltsSOt' 01 IiSh t r its a ll(! wil dllft at Ut,h Sla tt Un illersitv. Ht hn <Kl illtly supporttd pr oted ion 01 Loga n Ca nvon a ll(! its r illtr lor ma!"!y vtars . �4 CITIZENS fOR 11-IE PROTEcnON OF l.OO AN CANYON _ FEBURARY 1987 Logan Canyon By Tom Lyon The significance of the Logan Canyon struggle, as I see it, is that it means we are waking up to some implications of the 20th century. Now that is a pretty tall order for a controversy over a highway . But it was nol so long ago (1968, to be precise ) that a six-mile section of the canyon was reamed and dynamited for what is called highway improvements - that was the section from Dewitt Springs to Right Hand Fork with almost no oPPOsition. In 1961, the lower section was similarly manhandled for the same reason, with even less comment. Now we are waking up, and we are taking a stand that has some powerful implications. We are, I think, starting to see Logan Canyon for what it actually is. We are seeing it, in its beauty and naturalness, as a place to be in, not go through. This is a significant change, amounting possibly to the beginning of a whole different orientation. As Americans, we have always been going somewhere else, always looking over the shoulder of what is around us, never quite being where we are. Now we seem to be settling in, some percentage of us , getting ready to live in place. The world is filling up fast, and perhaps finally we are seeing the well-known handwriting on the wall. We ought to - it is all in capital letters. The beauty is that in staying put for a while, we can begin to fee l the inward sense of place, so that for example the way the sun hits the Wellsvilles on winter mornings, of the way the Logan River looks and sounds, charging down the canyon in spring, becomes an unspoken part of consciousness and nol just views. The allegia nce is natural, literally natural. Suddenly it seems perfectly absurd, something out of a different world, to cut and fill Logan Canyon so that tra vellers between Los Angeles and Yellowstone (or between somewhere else and somewhere else, hut always travellers ) can save possibly two minutes of driving time. That different world is where the money and speed are. It is where " what's happening" is happening . It is that world that sends the three-piece suit brigade to Logan, Utah, all the way fro m Seattle or Denver or even New York to testify against wilderness for Mount Naomi, and that has cut and scraped. the hills by Bear Lake and put second homes sticking up everywhere, and that makes each one of us, possibly, wonder at some time if it wouldn't be nice to have a passing lane on the Dugway between Twin Bridges. That is the world of no place, of placeiessness, of AWatershed Tree ca nopies create roadway tunnels along parts of Logan Canyon. always going somewhere and never anywhere, at taking the landscape around you and converting it into something else, perferahly money , with as little delay as possible. (Then you can take the money and go somewhere else.) That world has had its way for a long time. But it runs on unconsciousness, and now not everyone is asleep. Too late for the San Fernando Valley, and too late for the hills of Bear Lake; but maybe we are still in time for Logan Canyon. There is already a road in it, a paved one even, and it is definitely not the Logan Canyon that the mountain man Warren Ferris saw in 1826 - there were grizzly and big horns then. But as they say, you start from where you are, and this is where we are. -:::----:;-_-:-_ _ ....,._ _-:(Tom Lyon is a professor of English at Utah State University. He has been involved (or several years in the movement to protect Logan Canyon.) Logan Canyon Needs Defenders No t striving. unresistilJg. )'ieltlilJg II o .'er t'om es Flowing lo wer tluJII ils tribu taries It ret'eives a ll illlo itself Fulfilling its purpose silnlll)' II makes n o da i", . F r o m L Ull 1'".. VO ICE YOUR SUPPORT FOR LOGAN CANYON'S FUTURE AT THE MARCH PUBLIC HEARINGS : CITIZENS FO R THE MARCH 3, 7 p.m ., MOUNTAIN FUEL AUDITORI UM , LOGAN PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON MAR CH 4, 7 p.m ., CITY HALL, GARDEN CITY P.O. Bo)( 3SBO Logan , UTah 84321 (801 )1752-9102 ,56H908 (e l � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Image Height 4540 Image Width Image Width in pixels 3438 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/422">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/422</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 300 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 1350707157 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 CPLC Newletters, 1976-1996 Description An account of the resource CPLC Newletters from 1976-1996 (incomplete) discussing the need for the protection of Logan Canyon and examination of the Conservatives' Alternative. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Wilderness areas Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Newsletters Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 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/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS314Bx1Fd4 Highway 89;