Brian's copy November 26, 1979 Mr. D. M. LeFevre, P.E.
Preconstruction Engineer
Utah Department of Transportation
128 17th Street, Box 309
Ogden, Utah . 84402
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 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 questions or would like to discuss this, we would be
happy to meet with you.
Sincerely,
CHANDLER P. ST. JOHN
CHANDLER P. ST. JOHN
Forest Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: · Logan District With Report
Files With Report
NHunsaker:1m
Logan Canyon Highway
Evaluation of Section 3 1/
October 15-18, 1979
Logan Canyon is one of the major scenic routes in the state and this requires
an extra effort to maintain and/or enhance the scenic values that
now exist in the canyon. Integration with the order of the macro-environment
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 design 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. The landscape design should be an integral part of the highway
design and not an after thought to hide construction scars
with cosmetic treatment.
2. The AASHO Policy on Geometric Design states that "a uniform
slope through a cut or fill section often results in a formalar
stilted appearance. This can be softened by flattening
the slopes on the ends where cut or fill is light and gradually
steepening it toward the controlling maximum slope on
the heavier portion of the cut or fill." Complex variation
of cross-sections suggested it is difficult to achieve, if
one works merely with cross-sections. For any refined sculpturing
of the land masses plans with horizontal contours
have to be used.
3. The relationship between speed and focusing distance, angle
of vision and amount of foreground detail is important in the
driver's ability to enjoy the scenic values of the canyon.
As a general rule tithe slower one travels the more can be seen."
4. The existing rock features in the canyon are of utmost importance.
Every effort should be taken to avoid such features
however, when rock out crops are encountered, they should be
blasted in such a way as to appear natural.
S. Special structures may be required to satisfy environmental
engineering and aesthetic constraints. As the project progresses
special designs for bridges, retaining walls and sidehill
structures to meet these needs must be developed.
The Evaluation Team consisted of:
John Nielsen - Forest Engineer
Neil Hunsaker - Forest Planner
Jim Elsea - Hydrologist
Jim Cole - Wildlife Biologist
Mark Shaw - Fisheries Biologist
Clark Ostergaard - Landscape Architect
2
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 evaluatinn. It is not our intent that the project should
end at this point station 865, but to indicate that any evaluation and
agreement on that segment of the project will be delayed until the
following information is furnished.
A. Soils data which indicated erosion hazard, fertility or ability
to be revegetated, and mass stability.
B. Geologic data from core drilling along the proposed route to
determine structure, distance to bedrock, angle of repose, etc.
C. A proposed road profile.
D. A plan view of the estimated location of top of cut slopes
and toe of fill slopes in relation to the proposed centerline.
from Right Hand Fork (Sta. 605) to Curve at the Through, Cut
above the Dugway at Twin Bridges (Sta. 860).
This evaluation was conducted without adquate information about the
structural details for the retainer walls, jersey barriers, curb and
gutter, culvert energy dissipators, etc. These should be furnished
as soon as possible. To save time we have based our evaluation on
an estimation of what they will look like. When the details are received
we will review them to insure our evaluation is still valid.
To conduct an evaluation of this nature it was necessary to establish
certain criteria. These are listed below and any deviation from them
will require a reevaluation.
3
1. A two lane road with the following cross sectional configuration
would be used from Station 610 to Station 835.
[Diagram of two lane road]
2. A three lane road may be necessary on the up hill grade between
the Twin Bridges. This would be accomplished by adding an 11'
climbing lane to the above cross sectional configuration.
3. Removal of vegetation would be limited to the construction
area. The construction area limits would be 5 feet above
the top of a cut slope and the toe of fill slopes.
4. The principle purpose for retainer walls is to keep road
fill out of the riparian vegetation and the stream, and
only in rare cases is it necessary to keep the river away
from the road fill. The construction techniques which have
the minimum impact on riparian vegetation ,nIl be used.
If no other comments are made concerning curb and gutter and
retainer walls, they should be considered acceptable.
4
5. The Special and Functional Considera tion and Recommendation
contained in the 1971 Environmental Analysis report are still
required.
6. Top soil will be stockpiled for respreading over cut and fill
slopes and other disturbed areas.
This evaluation compared three road alignments which will be
referred to as 18°, 14° and 12°30' alignments. These degrees
refer to the maximum degree of curvature used in each of the
three alignments.
1. The 18° alignment reflects a design speed of 30 m.p.h.
and is shown on sheet 5 through 11 of plans F-021-1(4.)
at a scale of 1" = 100'.
2. 14° alignment reflects a design speed of 35 m.p.h. and
is shown as the office revision on the same plans as
the 18° alignment.
3. The 12 0 30' alignment reflects a 35 m.p.h. design speed
and is shown on plans F-021-1 (4) at a scale of 1" = 200'.
This alignment was also shown on the 1" = lOOt scale plans
in red pencil and located on the ground with yellow flagging.
Station 605 to 625 - All 3 alignments are the same and are satisfactory.
Curve #30 is 12° and #31 is 10°. Special revegetation, slope shaping
and landscape measure will be required on the cut bank associated
with curve #30 to mitigate visual impacts.
Station 625-630 - Two curves are preferred. They are Off. Rev.
1132 (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. #34(14°) is acceptable. The cut
bank o~ the inside of this curve will require special revegetation,
slope shaping and landscaping measures.
5
Station 637-641 - All 3 alignments are the same and are acceptable.
Fisherman parking should be designed and constructed in the wide
spot between the road and the river.
Station 641-648 - Curve #35 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.1.654 and
use the 14° curve. Fisherman parking should be developed between the road and the river a t Station 649. The spring near
the hill at Sta. 651 should be protected in its natural condition.
The 18° curve is preferred here but the 14° curve is
acceptable. The 12°30' curve creates unacceptable impacts on
the visual resource. The existing China Row Picnic area east
of the ro ad may have to be abandoned because it will be too
small for use.
Station 656-662 - The impacts of the 12°30' alignment on the river are
too severe. Use a 14° curve with coordinate point N512,803.924,
E1,017,206.904. This will help reduce the impact on Wood Camp.
A turn around loop will have to be designed and constructed in .
the north end of Wood Camp because of the elimination of part of
the Campground road.
Station 662-672 - Use .12° curve with coordinate point N513,771.978,
E1,017,277,993. reasons are same as Station 656-662.
Station 672-680 - Centerline to be as dictated by next curve coordinate
point.
Station 680-685 - Use 12° curve at coordinate point N514,000.429,E1,
018,713.259.
Station 685-689 - Use 14° curve at coordinate point N514,329.967,E1,
019,035.966. This is necessary to avoid impacts on the visual
resource and protect the Rock Feature.
Station 689-706 - The reverse curve aiignment should be used to
reduce impacts on the river and on the mountain, which would be
caused by the other alignments. Using this will necessitate the
reevaluation of the amount of retainer wall needed. Curve data for
this section is shown in the chart below.
Stations Degree Curve # Tangent Coordinate Point
689-692 14° 41 N514,389,996,E1,019,422.989
693-696 14° 42 N514,651.927,El,019,714.915
696-700 9° 43 N514,772.032,El,020,083.101
700-706 3° 44 N515,149.968,El,020,500.394
6
Station 706-716 - Use tangent coordinate points N5l5,532.192,E1,021,
086.164 and a 9° or 10° curve. This will result in the least
impact on the river and may require less re tainer 'vall. The
impact on the hill at Station 716 with the 12°30' alignment is
too severe and will cause visual degradation
Station 716-724 - The 10° curve with either set of tangent coordinate
points is satisfactory.
Station 724-730 - The alignment as established by the coordinate points
is good. The hill on the cut side is rock ledge with stable soils
Use rock rip rap instead of retainer wall on the river side of the
road. Where soil pockets exist in the cut, they should be sloped
back and revegetated or retainer wall of log cribbing or rock dry
wall construction used.
Station 730-737 - Use 5°30' curve with either coordinate point shown
on the plans.
Station 737-743 Curve data for #48 or Off. Rev. #46 is acceptable.
Station 743-748 The inside slopes of this curve are stable ledgerock
and gravel soils. Relocate P.1. points #49 and Off. Rev. #47
or use a flatter curve which will relocate the center line approximately
20' west of the 14° or 18° alignment. The reason for this
is to protect the riparian habitat.
Station 748-757 - The 12°30' curve would cause excessive impact on the
river. The P.I. should be relocated 15' to 30' north along the
tangent line leading to coordinate point #50 and then use a 14°
curve. This change should allow the curve to fallon about the
same location- as the 18° curve and reduce the impact on the river.
It should also reduce the amount of retaining structure. The
retaining structure should be of Rock Rip Rap and not a concrete
wall. Retaining wall should be used on the north edge of the
road below Logan cave·. The waterfall feature should be designed
to enhance the fall rather than hide it.
Station 757-775 - Develop parking at Station 761 and provide safe highway
crossing to Logan Cave. At Station 768 use the 14° curve at
coordinate point #519,422.325,E1,024,005.507. Use a through cut.
The access to the summer home at Station 773 is to be maintained.
Some fisherman parking should be developed on the old road bed.
Station 775-780 - Use 5° curve and P.I. point described for Off. Rev.
curve #51.
Station 780-785 - Use 14° curve and P.I. coordinate data for Off. Rev.
curve #52.
7
Station 785-792 - Use 14° curve and coordinate point for Off. Rev.
curve #53.
Station 792-800 - Use 14° curve and coordinate point N521,589.423,
E1,025,811.651. The abandoned road should be developed as
fisherman parking and as a waste disposal area with the appropriate
Landscape Design and treatment. The 12°30' alignment is
a much greater impact on the visual resource.
Station 800-807 - Use 14° curve and P.I. coordinate point N522,483, 530,
E1,025,765.054. Remove the old concrete which is presently being
used for Rip Rap. A retainer wall will be needed on this curve.
It should be placed at the existing water's edge.
Station 807-815 Use curve and coordinate point from Off. Rev. #56.
Station 815-825 - Use Off. Rev. #57 which is a 9° curve and coordinate
point N523,184.736,E1,027,495.885. The old road between the
creek and the road is to be passable to vehicles when construction
is complete. Use retainer walls as appropriate to accomplish.
Station 825-835 - Use 14° curve and P.I. at coordinate point N522,946,
908,E1,028,185.936. The 12°30' alignment causes a severe impact
on the cut side.
Station 838-847 - Avoid cutting into the hillside along this section.
The hillsides are unstable and seepages can be expected in the
cut area. The existing cut slopes are to be stabilized using
rock, drywall-type construction, log cribbing or half bridge may
be acceptable on the fill sides. Fill slopes shall not be allowed
to reach the stream.
Station 847-855 - The proposed center line should be held near the
outside edge of the existing paving to avoid cutting into the
hillside ·which has the potential to unravel long distance up
the slope. The same type of stabilization on the fill slope
as above.
Station 855-865 - This curve should be a 14° curve using the P.I. at
N525,362.518, E1,027,858.246. 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 Rick's Spring will be evaluated when the additional
data is furnished.
8
Plans Required
The following plans will be required before construction begins.
1. A Water Quality Management Plan will be developed by UDOT
for approval by the Forest Service. This plan will include;
a) Monitoring standards, frequency, intensity and qualifications
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.
2. An Erosion Control, Revegetation, Landscaping plan will be prepared
by the state and approved by the Forest Service prior to
contruction. This plan will include plant species, location,
quantity and quality. It will specify erosion control techniques
such as cribbing, jute netting, etc. by location. It
will discuss the handling of slope blending, rock features, etc.
The following is offered as an aid and guide in developing a
landscape plan.
Before construction begins the shaping and revegetation of disposal or
waste sites must be designed and planned to assure a natural appearance
occurs in these areas. Several waste disposal sites were evaluated.
They are:
1. Gus Lind Flat.
2. Wood Camp Hollow (See November 18, 1976 Analysis by Clark
Ostergaard, attached).
3. Flat on outside curve above Ricks Spring.
4. On hill below lower Twin Bridges (north of road). Visual
impacts are severe at this site .
5. Across from Preston Valley Picnic Area upstream from the
waste area used in construction of the river 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.
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 selectirig
the site to be used ? Segmentation ?
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL
Environmental Analysis Report for Old Juniper Trailhead D-7
Prepared by Clark Ostergaard
Date Nov 18, 1976
The proposed new trailhead for Old Juniper should have a capacity large
enough to serve the high country around Mt. Elmer. An estimated 20
vehicles should be able to park at the trailhead. Because of the size I needed for such a facility, only four possible sites exist within the Wood Camp Hollow area. These possible sites are shown on the attached
map. The new trailhead should also provide for resource protection
by controlling ORV use that presently exists in the drainage.
The following is an evaluation of ·each of the four possible sites:
1. This site is located at the mouth of Wood Camp Hollow and is
presently being used as a trailhead. If this site is the final
location, additional parking space will be needed. Additional
space could be gained by one of two possible ways.
a. Fill the area south of the existing lot next to the stream.
This could be accomplished by using the site as a waste
area for the highway department when they are working on
the Logan Canyon Highway. The main advantage to this would
be little cost to the Forest Service and no cutting of the
hillside at the site would be required. The main disadvantage
would be the covering of a small grassy area next to
the stream.
b. The area west of the existing lot could be leveled by
cutting the hillside, making the lot longer. The main
advantage to this would be total control of the activity.
It could be done force account or by contract.The main
disadvantage would be exposure of raw cut banks that would
be a problem to revegetate.
Other advantages of site #1 is the closeness to Logan Canyon
Highway requiring only a short distance of road. It would also
be a good location to control (barrier) ORV's.
2. This site is located on a flat where right-hand fork intersects
Wood Camp Hollow. The greatest advantage to development of this
site is its size and level topography, thus requiring only a
small amount of grading. The main disadvantages of the site are:
a. The site is open making control of ORV's more costly and
difficult.
b. One-half mile would have to be rebuilt to get to the site.
3. This site is located at the point where the old existing road
fords the stream.
The main advantage to the site is that it is closer to Old
Juniper and the high country. The disadvantages are the mile
of new road needed to get to the site and the lack of natural
topography large enough for the needed parking lot) thus requiring
large cuts and fills. Control of ORV's would be a problem along
the access road to this site because of the distance and areas of
open country.
4. This site is located at the beginning of the Old Juniper Trail
and at the end of the old existing road. This location is the
closest possible site to Old Juniper. The problem with the
site is the 10%+ slope and lack of space to put in a suitable
parking lot without having to do a great deal of site disturbance.
Distance again from Logan Canyon (about 2 miles) is a disadvantage
as well as ORV control along the access.
It is recommended that site #1 be developed filling the area south
of the existing parking lot for the needed expansion.
The reconstruction period should be limited to a minimum of contract time to minimize construction safety hazarads and inconvenience to the public and to facilitate prompt stabilization of cut and fill slopes.
There will be a need to develop a work road to the proposed waste area site. The location and maintenance would require that adequate consideration be given to soil stability anad aesthetic values.
Fire
Logan Canyon is a potentially dangerous fire hazard area because of the dense foliage on the valley floor and the abrupt slope on each side of
the canyon. Road construction process will generate additional risk from equipment operations, slash burning, cigarette smokers, warming fires, blasting, etc. This will require the contractor ta develop and practice an intensive fire prevention and presuppression program with his people. Fire resistant plant species to stabilize cut and fill slopes will reduce the fire danger in the canyon subsequent to construction.
The use of a chipper to dispose of leaves and branches and stockpiling tree trunks for campground use would reduce fire risk considerably, and at the same time avoid air pollutian from burning green slash.
If there should be any burning operations, they should be coordinated with fire danger and pollution indexes to minimize pollution hazards.
Burning operations must also conform to the approved project fire prevention and presuppression plan .
Special and Functional Considerations
1. The stepping slope method or some similar method of construction may be best suited to stabilizing some of the longer cuts such as will be made in Stations 678, 689, 681, and 703.
2. Streambank vegetation may be preserved by leaving it intact rather than clearing and then carefully placing riprap to avoid destruction of trees and brush or by using gabions between a strip of vegetation on the river edge and under the outside edge of the highway.
3. Keep silt damage to a minimum pursuant to the work of construction of bridge footings and supporting structures. The river diversion dam should be made by placing coarse clean rock into the stream initially and backing with finer materials to develop the degree or tightness needed. When the diversion dam is removed the finer materials should be removed first followed by removal of coarse rock and restoration of normal river channel and stream flow. Water heavily ladened with mud, silt, or cement should not be pumped from the work area directly into the river but should be settled or filtered out first.
4. A Forest Officer should be assigned to the hlghway construction project to insure resource protection and that proper interpretation and coordination is obtained throughout the entire construction period.
5. The Forest Offlcer in charge will be notified at least a day in advance of construction equipment that is to be put to work in the river preparing for bridge footings, etc.
6. Responsibility must be fixed between the Forest Service and the Utah State Highway Department for the continued maintenance and cleanup of road sections left intact for access or recreation fisherman and photographer parking.
7. Blasting procedures that slip rock down must be used to avoid offsite destruction. This would prevent rock and debris from falling into the river, damage to trees and vegetation, and avoid long periods of traffic tie-up.
8. Hauling of waste materials over the Wood Camp Bridge must conformto load limits prescribed by the Forest Officer in charge.
9. Pioneering of the road right-of-way clearing should begin at the lower slope state elevations where possible or particularly in the vicinity of road Stations 678, 689, 681, and 703. This will give the project engineer and Forest Officer in charge an opportunity to determine whether subsurface leagerock will be encountered which will make it possible to avoid longer and higher slop cuts and vegetation removal.
10. Special Use Permits will be issued for construction related activities outside the road right-of-way .
11. Steep and high slope cuts can be reduced by constructing with curb and gutter sections instead of using regular ditch widths.
12. The State Highway Department will reinburse the Forest Service for cost of relocation and development of two recreation units lost by
highway construction in the China Row picnic site.
B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects
It is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment of Logan Canyon as a result of the proposed highway improvment project.
The most significant long-term effect of the project will be an impairment of natural beauty resulting from the road cuts on the mountainside. The encroachment onto the river will be less significant, and will consist of limited streamside vegetatIon removal and the installation of bridge columns.
Potential impacts have been significantly reduced by a decade of interdisciplinary environmental studies and planning. There have also been many reviews that have resulted in changes and refinements of the road design.
Recommendations
1. Approve tte project subject to the functional considerations and the following recommendations .
2. Control adverse disturbance to water quality, soil, vegetation and aesthetic values.
3. Control runoff on cut and fill slopes and road surface to minimize erosion and silting of Logan River.
4. Take prompt action to stabilize soil and restore ground cover on disturbed areas.
5. Control noxious weeds on cut and fill slopes and disturbed areas until desirable ground cover is adequate to do the job.
6. Remove the topsoil, stockpile and replace topsoil on disturbed areas suitable for revegetation.
7. Take prompt action to stabilize material in fissures and narrow draws between vertical ledgerock outcrops and above slope cuts.
8. Provide satisfactory measures to curb erosion at the inlets and outlets of culverts and around bridge footings.
9. Design and install drainage structures to handle peak flows.
10. Disturb no ground surface outside of clearing stake limit without prior approval of the forest officer in charge.
11. Provide adequate drainage to minimize damage from sloughing or mud flows encountered in the construction at spring and bog areas.
12. Protect natural stream velocities and flow during construction processes.
13.. Provide protection of existing and potential recreation sites from undue construction impacts.
14. Regulate construction activities and impacts to facilitate public recreation use.
15. Maintain suitable access during and following construction to special use areas, fisherman and photographer turnouts, and recreation sites.
16. Avoid Logan River channel changes.
17. Landscape disturbed areas to restore aesthetics.
18. Mark trees to be preserved bordering the highway clearing limits where they are not safety hazards und it is possible to work the equipment around them.
19. Properly dispose of stumps, slash, and debris created by construction activities.
20. Cut trees taken out to 8-foot lengths or shorter then stockpile at designated sites for use in campgrounds.
21. Develop roadside turnouts and parking areas in the vicinity of highway survey stations 609, 618, 666, 675, 698, 706, 713, 725, 755, 761, 763, 769, 770, 793, 796, 802, 809, 810, 821, 835·
22. Preserve the China Row Spring and provide roadside turnout space for two automobiles.
23. Design suitable access into the new highway at the followling locations:
a. Right Fork Road Junction
b. Wood Camp Recreation Site
c. Logan Cave Parking
d. Cottonwood Canyon Recreation Site
e. Brachiopod Summer Recreation Residence Area
f. Twin Bridges Recreation Site
24. Have contractor provide adequate waste and garbage disposal for project personnel and construction activities.
25. Treat abandoned road sections by sculpturing and revegetating to restore to a near natural condition.
26. Cut stumps to the ground surface where visible from the highway and areas of public use.
27. Provide for access from the Cottonwood Parking Area to the Logan Canyon Cave.
28.. Treat roadway to keep dust settled both day and night during the construction period.
29.. Keep construction noises to a minimum in the vicinity of recreation and special use sites.
30. Keep air pollution from construction activities within limits or prescribed environmental quality controls.
31. Mitigate encroachment damage to fisheries habitat.
32. Mitigate the impact to wlildlife and wildlife habitat.
33.. Keep oil, grease, and chemicals originating from construction and maintenance activities and operations out of Logan River.
34. Protect tree overhang without creating a road hazard.
35. Keep construction equipment work in the river to an absolute minimum.
36. Protect and replace signs and other improvements disturbed by the construction activities.
37. Construct all cut and fill slopes subj ect to erosion 2:1 or flatter where topographic conditions permit.
38. Protect or reference legal land markers.
39. Locate and utilize work camp areas, equipment, and supply yards to protect aesthetics and to avoid conflict with public activity and resource values.
40. Remove surplus material from road cuts and deposit it at the waste site designated.
41. Provide for public safety in location, design and construction operation.
42. Properly sign to protect and inform the public.
43. Provide well managed detours for public convenience and Forest Service administration.
44. Confine construction and restoration activities to a minimum contract time.
45. Construction equipment, crusher and mixing plant must be equipped with effective mufflers, spark arrestors, screens and filters.
46. Locate and develop work roads and access which fully provide for soil stability and aesthetic values.
47. Protect resource values from increased fire hazards during construction.
48. Revegetate disturbed areas with perennial plants to minimize fire hazards.
49. Protect residual vegetation where burning right-of-way slash and debris cannot be avoided.
50. Coordinate burning operations with the burning and pollution indexes.
51. Keep highway guardrailing to a minimum consistent with public safety.
52. Keep storage and stockpiling of construction materials within the road right-of-way.
53. Along riprapped sections replant willows or other suitable species which are not particularly attractive to grazing by big game.
