LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
MINUTES OF INTERDISCIPLINE TEAM MEETING
June 23, 1986
Attending: Tom Haislip - CH2M HILL
Sheldon Barker - CH2M HILL
Gale Larson - Valley Engineering
Lynn Zollinger - UDOT
Bill Helm - Interested Party
Jack Spence - Cache Group Sierra Club
Rudy Lukez - Cache Group Sierra Club
Steve Flint - Bridgerland Audobon Association
John Neil - UDOT
Cliff Forsgren - CH2M HILL
Jim Naegle - UDOT
Stan Nuffer - CH2M HILL
Clark Ostergard - USFS
Mark Shaw - USFS
Fred LaBar - USFS
Duncan Silver - FHWA
Howard Richardson - UDOT
ITEM 1 - Discussion of Minutes
Stan Nuffer called the meeting to order and asked if anyone
had comments on the minutes of the last meeting. There was
a question raised about the review function of the ID Team
which was described in the minutes. The role of the ID Team
was an agenda item for this meeting and discussion of the
function was postponed until later in the meeting. There
was no further discussion of the minutes.
ITEM 2 - Discussion of Role of Interdisciplinary Team
A statement of the role of the interdisciplinary team
was distributed and discussed. The major functions
1. Provide management input -
2. Provide technical input -
CH2M HILL will provide the primary input and
the USFS would provide the technical input on
environmental items. Other team members
would add input as the need or opportunity
3. Review technical memoranda and draft Environmental
The team members will review the technical
memoranda and will also review the draft
4. Level of environmental action determinationRudy
Lukez asked if this means that a decision
will be made during the study on what
the proposed project will be. He also wanted
to know who would make the decision. It was
explained that the final decision on what
project, if any, will be proposed will be
made by the three cooperating agencies, UDOT,
USFS and FHWA. Prior to the decision on a
project however, a decision must be made on
the class of environmental action (EA or EIS) .
Jack Spence was not sure who would make the
recommendation on the class of environmental
action to the cooperating agencies. It was
determined that the ID Team would make the
Modifications to the statement of the role of the team
were made. The revised statement is attached to these
ITEM 3 - Level of Documentation Required by NEPA for
NEPA requirements for environmental studies were reviewed
and discussed. A handout taken from the UDOT publication,
Procedures for Project Development, described the basic categories.
ITEM 4 - Public Involvement Program Outline
Ap outline of the Public Involvement Program had previously
been sent to ID Team members and was discussed at length.
The principle topics of discussion were:
1. . The terms "project" and "study" were both used in
the outline. To be consistent "study" should be
used throughout when describing the ongoing activity.
This will help to alleviate any fears of those who
equate Ifproject" with actual construction.
Jack Spence wanted to know what the rational for
the study was. Lynn Zollinger explained that whenever
UDOT went into Logan Canyon, people asked the
question If What is going to happen next?" After
this study is complete UDOT can point to a plan
which will address the transportation needs in the
Canyon through the year 2010.
3. The press release was discussed and Rudy Lukez
suggested that the ID Team be described in it.
John Neil stated that UDOT's community relations
department would release the information as soon
as it was prepared.
4. During the discussion of Milestone 2, it was recommended
that the word "improvements ll be replaced
with "action" so that both repair and improvements
would be covered. Rudy Lukez asked where traffic
forecasts would be used and how they would be
developed. It was explained that the permanent
traffic counter at Garden City, and spot traffic
counts, would be used to establish the present
tra f fic load in the Canyon. Population projections
prepared by agencies having that responsibility
would then be used to project traffic
volume ahead to the year 2010. It was explained
that there had already been spot traffic counts
taken at two locations, on 2 different days this
past winter and that more would be taken this summer.
Jack Spence was not sure that the data
gathered would be sufficient. He said that one of
the problems with past studies was the lack of
reliable traffic data from which to project future
traffic flow. Jack asked to see the methodology
and data when it was available. Rudy Lukez asked
if sampling was an accepted means of gathering
current traffic flow data. Duncan Silver answered
that it was, provided the sample size was large
enough and the sampling techniques were acceptable.
He also suggested that the ID Team evaluate
the sampling techniques. Stan Nuffer said that
information on the methodology and sampling techniques
would be ready for the next ID Team meeting.
Rudy Lukez asked if they could be prepared far
enough in advance to allow the team members a
chance to review the information before the next
meeting. Duncan Silver restated his belief that
the key issue on this · item was the methodology
used to gather the present traffic flow data.
Duncan also wanted to know why a 2-day 10-hour
sample period was selected, a period of this type
would be acceptable for traffic classification but
probably not for counts. Stan Nuffer said that
information on the methodology and sampling techniques
would be available before the next meeting.
5. Jack Spence expressed concern about having too
many meetings during the summer vlhen many of the
USU students and facility are out of town. Sheldon
Barker indicated that the schedule of meetings was
flexible and that something could probably be worked
6. During the discussion of Milestone 3, Jack Spence
asked if the Public Involvement Program was designed
to meet the requirements for an EIS in case
there was a need for one. Tom Haislip explained
that the program was designed with an EIS in mind.
Sheldon Barker also asked the team members for
names of persons or organizations who should be
added to the mailing list. Anyone who has a suggestion
should either give Sheldon the information
after the meeting or mail it to him.
ITEM 5 - Schedule of Interdisciplinary Team Meetings
Stan Nuffer presented a schedule of team meetings through
September. It was suggested that 3:00 p.m. would be a better
time for some team members than 10:00 a.m. It was agreed
that all meetings scheduled for 10:00 a.m. would be held at
3:00 p.m. instead.
Before the meeting adjourned, Duncan Silver again stated
that he felt the traffic data must be good enough to satisfy
the group before the study proceeded too much farther. Jim
Naegle stated that standard accepted methods were used during
the gathering of data.
The next scheduled meeting is 3:00 p.m., July 14, 1986, in
the District office in Ogden.
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.