MEMORANDUM CH2M HILL
TO: Interdisciplinary Team
FROM: Stan Nuffer
DATE: June 19, 1986
SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study
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.
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.
LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
MINUTES OF INTERDISCIPLINE TEAM MEETING
June 10, 1986
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
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.
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
prepared by local councils of governments and other agencies
who are charged with the task of preparing proj'ections of
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
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.
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.
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.
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.