MEMORANDUM CH2M HILL
TO: Interdisciplinary Team
FROM: Stan Nuffer
DATE: August 6, 1987
RE: Logan Canyon Environmental Study
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
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.
+ Generally favorable
o Insignificant or none
x Severely unfavorable
LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
ID TEAM MEETING MINUTES
July 31, 1987
ITEM 1--REVIEW OF MINUTES
Stan Nuffer/CH2M HILL
Arlo Waddups/Valley Engineering
Rudy Lukez/Sierra Club
Tom Lyon/Utah Wilderness Association
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
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
o Scenic values
o Safety and traffic flow
o Ecological considerations--river, riparian areas,
threatened and endangered species
o Regional economics
o Compliance with existing plans, specifically the
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.
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.
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.
HIGHWAY CHARACTERISTICS USED IN
LEVEL OF SERVICE DETERMINATIONS
LOWER TWIN BRIDGE
CAPACITY ANALYSIS SECTIONS
LOGAN CANYON STUDY
VISUAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMO
RECEIVED CH2M HILL / 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 much of the total riparian zone would be affected
in this alternative? 50%? 75%? For alternative D, 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 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 widen-ing
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
VQO f 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). No indication is given,
however, as to how this impasse 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
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.
Jack T. Spence
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.