MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING
October 20, 1986
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Cliff Forsgren,CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
John Neil, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Al Stilley, Northern Engineering
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
Stan Nuffer led the discussion of the minutes of the previous
ID team meeting. Rudy Lukez referred to the questions
on the 1930's traffic data that had been discussed during
the last ID team meeting. Rudy said that his interest in
the data was curiosity only and he did not think that it
would be of any value in the present work.
Duncan Silver asked for some clarification of the visual
criteria. He also felt that there should be some discussion
on how the criteria ,were developed and used. Clark Ostergaard,
who prepared the information on visual criteria, was not
present and the question was deferred until the next
Rudy Lukez asked Fred LaBar if the Forest Service wanted to
have more camping spaces in the Canyon? Fred said that
there is a proposed group camping site in the Beaver Creek
area. The camp site will hold between 200 and 300 campers.
If the money was available, the site would be constructed as
soon as they could get someone on site to build it. Fred
also said that the Beaver Mountain Ski Area had plans to
increase their camping sites. Lynn Zollinger asked if there
was information available on the expected increase in
camping and skiing. Fred said that he would get the
information for Lynn.
Duncan Silver asked if the increase in skiing would impact
the DHV. Since skiing occurs during the low traffic volume
period, there would be no impact on the DHV.
There was also some discussion of the possibility of electric
power reaching some private land in Stump Hollow and
Utah State University's plans to expand some University facilities
in the Canyon.
Item 2 - Discussion of Safety Analysis Technical Memo
The Safety Analysis Technical Memo was discussed. Duncan
Silver asked if it would be necessary to look at individual
sites if the entire road was brought up to standard. Cliff
Forsgren answered that in most cases it would probably not
be necessary to look at individual sites'. Duncan then suggested
that individual sites be given a detailed examination
only if spot improvements were considered in a given area.
Item 3 - Study Goals and Objectives
Stan Nuffer introduced the subject and led the discussion.
A handout listing goals and objectives for component and
alternative development was distributed. This included
illustrations of existing, standard and modified standard
cross sections. An outline of possible alternate components
was also distributed. Duncan Silver was not certain how the
environmental constraints would fit into the development of
alternates. It was pointed out that the visual criteria was
nearly completed and the environmental constraints would be
developed concurrently with the component and alternative
There was a lot of discussion on how alternates should be
developed and what the overall goal should be. It was pointed
out that if significant improvements were to be constructed,
the goal would be to achieve a level of service C for the
year 2010, realizing that it would probably not be possible
in every case. Duncan Silver suggested that a "standard"
roadway be designed, with LOS C throughout the Canyon. Where
that was not environmentally possible, alternates could be
developed to improve the road as much as possible without
damaging the environment.
Stan Nuffer suggested that the "modified standard" which was
used in the lower part of the canyon be used to prepare a
• "baseline" alternate. Duncan Silver pointed out that the
modified standard did not allow the drainage and other maintenance
features needed to protect the road base. Lynn
Zollinger said that UDOT would accept the modified standard
in order to maintain continuity along the roadway. Rudy
Lukez made a motion that CH2M HILL develop a baseline alternate
using the modified standard. Duncan Silver wanted
to be certain that UDOT understood that using a modified
standard meant sacrificing maintenance standards which might
impact the road. He also said that the decision to use a
modified standard as the baseline must be well documented.
Dismissing highway standards without adequately addressing
them can be challenged just as easily as dismissing environmental
problems without adequate study.
There was also some discussion of the design speed. Stan
Nuffer suggested a minimum design speed of 40 mph except in
the first 7 or 8 miles where Fred LaBar said the Forest Service
has already evaluated a 40 mph speed limit and found it
unacceptable. It was finally determined that a modified
standard section, with a design speed of between 35 and
.40 mph, depending upon conditions within the Canyon, be used
as the baseline alternate.
Item 4 - Discussion of Geotechnical Investigations
Al Stilley, from Northern Engineering and Testing, gave a
report on the geologic mapping and the drilling program
which was just getting underway on the alternative
alignments from Bear Lake Summit to Garden City. Areas
along the existing alignment where improvements could be
made will also be investigated.
Item 5 - Alternate Routes to Logan Canyon
John Neil reported that he had been given the assignment to
look at alternate routes to Logan Canyon. John said that he
was just beginning his study. Rudy Lukez suggested that
John contact a Mr. Wendall Anderson in Logan. Mr. Anderson
is apparently familiar with some previous studies
investigating a route through Blacksmith Fork Canyon
The next meeting will be held at the Ranger District office
in Logan at 3:00 p.m., prior to the public meeting in Garden
City at 7:00 p.m.
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.