BEAR RIVER ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS [BRAG]
Box Elder, Cache, Rich Counties
CHAIRMAN
Jay A. Monson
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Roger C. Jones
Dear Rudy,
Enclosed are the two documents you requested:
1. My analysis of the Logan Canyon improvement issue for use by the BRAG Governing Board in commenting for the scoping meetings; and
2. Comments in letter form from the Board.
Please note that Cindy Yurth's article in the Herald Journal was incorrect. The Board did not "suggest" improvements. Rather, they asked UDOT to consider the entire range of improvements. They wish to see what the impacts of the alternatives will be before endorsing one or another alternative.
Also be aware that Jack Spence has made several comments on my analysis.
Specifically, he thinks:
1. I understated the role which the Forest Service will play;
2. no mention was made that some people want the highway designated as a national scenic highway;
3. the USFS will not allow a 40 mph highway;
4. I was not clear that most of the traffic occurs only in summer;
5. it is wrong to be concerned with safety issues for which there is no data (such as whether bicyclists are deterred from using the highway by a "feeling" of danger);
6. Figure 2 is improper since it does not show that most of the accidents occur in only a few spots.
Suffice it to say that Jack and I disagree on several of these points, which I would be happy to discuss with you at your convenience.
I do think the BRAG Governing Board is taking a responsible position on this issue. . They want all of the suggested alternatives analyzed because they have constituents who come from both extremes on these issues. Once the draft EIS is developed and CH2H Hill presents the results in a meaningful way, I think the Board will adopt a reasonable and responsible position.
James Naegle
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
March 17, 1987
Dear Mr. Naegle,
On behalf of the Governing Board of the Bear River Association of Governments, I would like to comment on the scope of the environmental analysis being undertaken for the proposed improvements to State Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. As you may know, BRAG is charged with reviewing projects being undertaken in northern Utah which may affect more than one community. As such, we feel it our responsibility to ensure that all of the interests of our citizens are represented, and therefore offer these comments.
The highway through Logan Canyon serves our citizens as both a recreational resource and a major arterial. Rich and Cache Counties rely on many of the same attributes. The canyon is itself a scenic resource for those driving through, and also provides access to more active forms of recreation such as fishing, hunting, hiking, skiing, etc., as well as access to the recreation resources around Bear Lake. These resources benefit our citizens directly, but also attract tourism, on which we rely for part of our local economy. Logan Canyon is also a critical link for almost 10,000 residents from around Bear Lake (from Utah, Idaho and Wyoming) to the amenities and necessities offered by Cache Valley (such as access to emergency health care). Hence, we feel our citizens want to preserve the aesthetic value of the canyon, but not so much that the transportation capabilities deteriorate to unsafe or seriously inconvenient levels. We recognize that, as the population naturally increases,
the demands on the highway will increase, and we should attempt to foresee this demand and compromise between the need to preserve a pristine environment and the desire for maximum convenience.
It is difficult, however, to favor a particular alternative without knowing the probable impact of our choices. We therefore wish to make the
following requests:
1. Please proceed as rapidly as possible to repair or replace those bridges in the canyon which are deteriorating or are narrower than the existing roadway.
2. In the middle section of the canyon between Right Hand Fork and Ricks Springs, please consider an alternatives which increase the design speed from the existing minimum of 25 mph to 35 or 40 mph.
March 17, 1987
Page 2
3. In the section between Ricks Springs and the summit of the canyon, please consider alternatives which would increase design speeds to 60 mph.
4. In the section between the summit of the canyon and Garden City, please consider alternatives which increase the design speeds to either 40 or 50 mph, but which use the existing alignment as much as possible.
5. Please consider turnouts at frequent intervals and changes in highway patrol policies which would ensure that slow moving vehicles would allow trailing vehicles to pass. Please consider passing lanes where the canyon allows but which do not require severe cuts.
Finally, please analyze the impacts to the aesthetic and ecological character of the highway necessary to achieve these improvements to driving safety and convenience and inform us in a way which allows us to determine how severe the impacts might be. We will then be much more able to tell you which compromises would serve our citizens the best.
We look forward to your timely report.
Yours truly,
Jay A. Monson
Chairman
Bear River Association of Governments
LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY PROJECT
STATUS AND ISSUES
Prepared for Elected Officials in the Bear River Region
February 18, 1987
Bryan Dixon
The proposed improvements to state Route 89 through Logan Canyon have generated substantial controversy. However, those "for improvements" and those "against improvements" may agree more than f irst appears. Most residents in Cache and Rich Counties would probably favor some improvements to the highway. The road is very narrow in places, and several bridges are obviously deteriorating. The fundamental disagreements concern the extent of work which should be undertaken. Neither opponents nor proponents wish to see the beauty of the canyon marred by thoughtless construction, neither want decisions thrust upon them, yet both want safety and convenience. Whether one considers the canyon primarily as a recreational resource or a transportation corridor is perhaps the main determinant of one's support for major improvements. The process of public review requisite in any federally supported highway project provides opportunities for individual opinions, prejudices and wishes to influence what will eventually be done. There will be a separate public hearing for local elected officials to provide input, in order to ensure that a broad constituency - not just the most vocal - is heard. Indeed, the fact that everyone should have the same opportunity to influence the project is one of the privileges and treasures of American society. This analysis is intended to summarize the status and major issues surrounding the project, and encourage the informed debate necessary for the public interest to be fairly articulated.
Introduction to the Federal Environmental Review Process
Part of the review required of any major federal project is that the
impacts on the environment be considered. The intent is primarily to prevent
agencies from ignoring those impacts. However noble, the environmental review
process (as indeed could any process) has been abused in the past to stall
projects, despite reasonable opportunities for public input. In the case of
Logan Canyon, the decision whether to do an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has not yet been made. Although the Utah
Department of Transportation has conducted a number of analyses so far, the
period for constructive public input is just beginning. There will be a public
hearing for elected officials Wednesday, March 4, 1987 at 10:00 a.m. in the
Logan City Hall, 255 North Main, Logan. Hearings for the general public are
scheduled at 7:00 p.m. on March 3 in the Mountain Fuel Auditorium and at 7:00
p.m. on March 4 in the Garden City Hall.
History of the Project
(See the attached map for geographical references.)
1961 Road widened and straightened from mouth of Logan Canyon to Dewitt
Springs.
1968 Redesign work from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Springs completed.
1969 Road widened and straightened from Dewitt Springs to Right Hand Fork.
1969 National Environmental Policy Act enacted, requiring that all "major
federal projects having a significant impact on the environment" draft a
statement descr i bing t he envi ronment a l impacts and poss ible ways to
mitigate t hose impacts.
1972 Federa l Highway Administration (FHWA) determi ned that a f our l ane hi ghway
through Logan Canyon would require an EIS.
1979 Project from Right Hand Fork to Garden City down-si zed f rom f our l ane
hi ghway to lane widening from 22 feet t o 34 feet; i ncrease from 35 mph t o
40 mph design speed. FHWA r eclassified the project t o requ ire only an EA.
1980 Environmental analysis suspended while guidelines relating to ErS's were
amended.
1986 Project resumed, environmental analyses continued.
The Environmenta l Review Process For Logan Canyon
The principal concern of the proponents is the schedule. They believe the
road should be improved, and are frustrated by the possibility of endless
delays caused by meaningless reviews. In fact, Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT) officials have estimated that if an EIS is deemed
necessary the schedule could take one extra year. The delay is due primarily
to the increased time for review by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA )
in Washington - as opposed to only regional FHWA review required for an EA.
UDOT fully intends to do some work on the canyon road, however. In
anticipation of the possibility of significant impacts, UDOT has approached the
project as if it would require an EIS, with public input, environmental
analyses and intensive review at the level required by an EIS. If possible,
they wish to limit FHWA review to an EA.
The decision whether to require an EIS will be made by the FHWA after some
prelimi nary work is completed. UDOT will narrow the range of desired
alternatives by soliciting public input (in scoping meetings in March). They
will then complete enough design work on a few alternatives to determine the
scale of the environmental impacts of each. These, together with a "preferred
alternative" will be reported in a "preliminary" Draft Environmental Impact
statement. This preliminary DEIS will be distributed for public comment.
The results of this DEIS will determine the depth of subsequent review.
If the environmental impacts are not significant or can be mitigated, the FHWA
may decide that an Environmental Assessment would suffice. If so, the DEIS
will be published as the Final Environmental Assessment and the final design
work will be completed, and construction begun.
If, after the preliminary DEIS is completed, the FHWA believes that the
project is too controversial or the impacts are significant or cannot be
entirely mitigated, they may require the completion of an EIS. In this case,
the public comments on the preliminary Draft Ers will be incorporated into a
final Draft EIS. The final Draft EIS will be reviewed by not only the regional
FHWA, but also by the Washington, D.C. office. (It is this latter process
which could add up to a year to the project.) After FHWA review is completed,
the Final ErS, together with the chosen alternative, and an explanation as to
how the public's comments have been addressed will be published. Final design
work will be completed and construction will follow.
2
UDOT officials have estimated the time necessary for the environmental
review. They estimate t hat the preliminary Draft Ers could be completed by
summer of 1987. If the impacts are not judged significant or can be mitigated,
the EA will be published, final design work could begin in September 1987, with
construction beginning in spring of 1988. If an EIS is judged to be necessary,
the Draft EIS could be submitted to FHWA in July 1987 , with a fina l decision on
an alternative in early summer of 1988. Design work could then be completed i n
fall 1988, and construction could begin in spring 1989.
Alternatives Being Considered
UDOT believes that some work is inevitable. In fact, the "no action"
alternative includes repair or replacement of four bridges. These four bridges
include Burnt Bridge, Lower and Upper Twin Bridge, and the Logan River Bridge
(Red Banks Bridge at mile 394.5). Whether more extensive alternatives will be
pursued depends primarily on whether the public wants grEater design speeds,
increased parking capacity, and passing lanes.
Because different sections have different degrees of sensitivity,
preliminary alternatives ' have been outlined for each section (note that a four
lane highway is no longer being considered):
Section I: Right Hand Fork to Ricks Springs
A. No action (includes bridge repair/replacement)
B. spot improvements such as turnouts, parking, minor realignments,
perhaps a climbing lane between Lower and Upper Twin bridges
C. Widening along existing alignment and spot improvements
D. Widening and new alignments with spot improvements to increase design
speeds to 35-40 mph
Section 2: Ricks Springs to Summit of Canyon
A. No action (includes bridge repair/replacement)
B. spot improvements such as turnouts, parking, minor realignments, ,and
climbing lanes along existing alignments
D. Widening and new alignments with spot improvements to increase design
speeds to 50-60 mph
Section 3: Summit of Canyon to Garden City
A. No action (includes bridge repair/replacement)
B. spot improvements such as turnouts, parking, minor realignments, and
climbing lanes along existing alignment
D. Widening existing alignments with spot improvements to increase
design speeds to 35-40 mph
E/F. Widening along one of two new alignments north of existing highway to
increase design speeds to 40-50 mph (existing road to be maintained
by Rich County)
G. Widening along new alignment south of existing highway to increase
design speeds to 40-50 mph (existing road to be maintained by Rich
County)
Justification for Improvements
A major point of debate is whether to increase design speeds by
straightening curves and widening the road. Important factors include: 1)
public safety, 2} convenience, and 3) environmental degradation.
3
UDOT and CH2M Hill (the firm hired to write the DEIS) have assembled data
on accidents and traffic volumes in Logan Canyon. However, the data are not
conclusive because of i ncomp l ete records, l imited number of data collection
points, and l ack of similar data comparing Logan Canyon with other canyons.
(That is, given that accidents occur, how serious is the problem?) Figure 1
was produced from data published by UDOT and CH2M Hill and shows average number
of accidents per mile during 1980-35 for each of the 13 sections designated
f rom Logan to Garden City. If the data are reliable, the sections between
Right Hand Fork and Ricks Springs are clearly the most hazardous, as evidenced
by a much higher than average number of accidents per mile. Figure 2 breaks
down the accidents in each section by type. The major type of accident in
almost every section of the canyon is simply running off the road. This cause
greatly exceeds other causes in the Right Hand Fork-Ricks Springs sections.
Hitting other vehicles occurs primarily at intersections such as Franklin Basin
(Section 2c). Hitting animals is the major cause only in Sections 2a and 2b,
where the road is relatively straight and open, but where there is also open
range. (Data on the type of animal struck was not available.)
The calculations of ' accidents per mile are not entirely reliable because
the only traffic counter in the canyon was at the Card Guard Station in
"Section Ob" (moved in 1982 to west of Garden City). It is unknown, for
example, how many motorists from Logan turn around before reaching Garden City.
Some have concluded that there are not in fact many serious accidents - there
were only five fatalities and 86 incapacitating injuries between 1980 and 1985,
out of almost 4 million trips in the canyon. The rest of the 512 accidents
involved property damage or minor injuries. However, "danger" is the
possibility of accident. There is no way to know what price this exacts on the
mental well-being of drivers, bicyclists, or pedestrians. There is certainly
some value in reducing this danger. And, even though no data are available, it
seems intuitive that many may avoid sections of Logan Canyon during certain
times or seasons simply due to the threat of accident.
A factor not measured is public convenience. While Cache County residents
may use Logan Canyon primarily for recreation, some residents in Rich County
depend on the road for access to medical, retail and other services not found
in Rich County. For them, Logan Canyon may represent more of a barrier to the
essentials of life than an avenue to recreation, especially during winter.
Lacking good data either on comparable seriousness of accidents or
perceived inconvenience, UDOT has tried to determine what improvements should
be made based on the desired "level of service" (a partially subjective scale
of driving convenience) and projections of traffic volumes. These could then
be compared to standards used by traffic engineers. If valid, it may be
possible to base construction alternatives on a rational model of service
quality desired by drivers. They have attempted to project traffic volumes to
the year 2010 by extrapolating from historical data. Unfortunately, not only
are there inadequate traffic counts, but the period to be forecast is several
times longer than the period over which data has been collected, making
oxtrapolat · ons en'QUS at best. Moreover/ there is disagreement about what
kind of funct i on would best fit the data. UDOT suggests an exponential
extrapolation, but assumes an upward sloping curve, and offers no theoretical
4
reason why that curve is better than some other curve (such as an exponential
curve with an exponent less than one which would imply that traffic volumes
would approach some upper limit, or asymptote).
In the end, UDOT has concluded that the level of service is already very
low during the summer (presently "D"), with sUbstantial delays due to the
volume of traffic and the numbers of recreational vehicles. (See Table 1 for
descriptions of Levels of Service.) Any of the population and traffic
projections with any of the viable road improvement alternatives preclude the
best levels of service. In an effort to maintain a level with only
"noticeable ... passing impediments" during normal traffic flows, and delays no
more than 60\ of the time during heavy flows (i.e. "C"), UDOT believes it will
be necessary to widen lanes and shoulders, and provide turnouts and passing
lanes to enable autos to pass recreational vehicles in the summer. The crucial
question is where would such improvements be acceptable in the canyon.
Although these needs could be met with improvements to Logan Canyon, there
is also value in preserving the beauty of the Canyon, part of which comes from
a narrow, confined corridor. Unfortunately, changes to the road such as
excessive bank cuts, lane widening or passing lanes (in some places) might
reduce scenic vistas and destroy a feeling of seclusion created by vegetation
and steep rock walls close to the road. The tight twisting nature of the road
might help some people forget the hectic pace of life left in the city.
Campers and hikers near the road would certainly not appreciate greater road
noise from higher speeds. Fishermen wish to leave the river unchanneled and
free, making for better trout habitat. Some have mentioned an endangered plant
in the canyon (though it is still unclear it road changes would in fact
threaten the plant).
Summary
The ideal alternative is clearly a compromise between the additional
safety and inconvenience of a major widening, and the desire to preserve
interesting vistas and drives. Since the data on traffic projections and
levels of service are inexact at best, the decision will depend heavily on
public input during the Draft Environmental Impact Statement phase. In
closing, however, it should be noted that the real delays may come when funding
for construction is sought.
Elected officials concerned about the road improvements are encouraged to
contact the staff at BRAG for a information on the studies and alternatives.
Detailed information on alternatives to be considered is just now emerging.
BRAG staff could present a statement at the public hearings. In preparation,
BRAG staff could arrange a tour of the canyon scheduled for Tuesday, March 3,
to allow elected officials to meet UDOT and U.S. Forest Service officials and
discuss particular highway sections of concern. BRAG staff would like input
from officials about how their constituents might weigh the needs for safety
and convenience and how sensitive they would be to changes in the canyon near
the road. Elected officials may be the only source of input by the
unrepresented public. For more information please contact Bryan Dixon at 752-
7242.
5
REFERENCES
This report was based on personal contacts with the following:
Lynn Zollinger, Assistant District Engineer, Utah Department of Transportation
Duncan Silver, Federal Highway Administration, Salt Lake City
Todd Weston, member of UDOT Transportation Committee and Interdisciplinary Team
Gale Larsen, Valley Engineering, as local consultant for public input and
traffic analyses in the canyon
Stan Nuffer and Cliff Forsgren, CH2M Hill, as engineering consultants
Dave Baumgartner and Fred Labar, U.S. Forest Service, Logan District of
Wasatch- Cache Forest
Jack Spence, Rudy Lukez, "and Steve Flint, environmental representatives on
Interdisciplinary Team, and representing "Citizens for the Protection of Logan
Canyon"
and the following documents:
Draft Traffic Forecast, August, 1986, (auth~r not indicated)
CH2M Hill, Draft US-89 Logan Canyon study, Technical Memoranda, December, 1986
Various maps
