ORIGINAL
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY City Hall 145 West Center Garden City, Utah
Presiding: Todd Weston State Highway Commissioner Utah Department of Transportation
Conducting: Stanton S. Nuffer Project Manager CH2M HILL
INDEX 2 Statement by Mr. Otto Mattson 3
3 Statement by Mr. Ken Brown 3
4 Statement by Mr. Dee Johnson 6
5 Statement by Mr. Barry Negus 7
6 Statement by Mr. Val Peterson 8
7 Statement by Mr. Bryce Nielson 10
8 Statement by Mr. Ted Seeholtzer 13
9 Statement by Mr. Bryce Stringham 19
10 Statement by Mr. John Flannery 20
11 Statement by Mr. George Preston 23
12 Statement by Mr. Russ Currel 25
13 Statement by Mr. OWen Wahlstrom 26
14 Statement by Mr. Paul Webb 27
15 Statement by Mr. Bill Peterson 28
16 Statement by Ms. Cathy Webb 29
17 Statement by Mr. Ray Elliott 32
18 Statement by Mr. Lynn Hillsman 35
19 Statement by Mr. Don Huffner 36
20 Statement by Mr. Todd Weston of UDOT 38
21 Statement by Mr. Jess Anderson 42
22 Statement by Mr. Howard Richardson 43
23 Statement by Mr. Dave Baumgartner 45
24 -000-
GARDEN CITY, UTAH, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 1987, 7:00 P.M.
-000-
MR. WESTON: Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to
begin this meeting. w~'re happy to be over here in Rich
County, in Garden City. We thank the Garden City officials
for the use of this room, this facility. We welcome you
here tonight on behalf of three agencies and a lot of other
interested people. My name is Todd Weston. I'm the
Commissioner of the Utah Department of Transportation,
representing this part of the state. We're here tonight to further our discussions
that we started with some information meetings some time
ago in this same room. This is called a scoping meeting
tonight. It's the third of three that we are holding. We
had one in Logan last night and another one this morning
in Logan, and this will complete the scoping process of
the study that we're entering into on Logan Canyon.
The meeting will be conducted by the people from
CH2M Hill, who are the consultants employed by the Department
of Transportation to make the study in Logan Canyon.
(Further comments by Mr. Weston. Introductions
of officials present were made. Further comments by
Mr. Weston. Comments by Mr. Sheldon Barker. Colored slides
were projected upon the wall, and Mr. Barker gave a
narration. Mr. Nuffer continued the narration of the
2.
slides. Further comments by Mr. Weston.) MR. WESTON: We will first have Ott~ Mattson,
followed by Ken Brown.
MR. OTTO MATTSON: Gentlemen, after all these
studies, these surveys, the discussions, do we still have
to be deprived of an adequate means of travel to and from?
Our economic growth is severely hampered by the fourth-class
route on a main artery, the highway system. We hope our
future is not to continue to be deprived because of a few
we feel know nothing of our protective situation.
We all love beauty, but we also love Twentieth
Century progress. In our situation we have medical
situations, transportation, livestock, construction, goods .
I-15 is an artery. It's a Yellowstone route. Last but
not least, recreation, the Wasatch Front's playground. Our
economic growth now depends on the travel of these routes.
Our views: Build, and remove the change for
our future. We hope you will consider that.
MR. NUFFER: Thank you. Ken Brown. Then we'll
have Dee Johnson.
MR. KEN BROWN: Good evening, ladies and
gentlemen. I appreciate being here tonight, and it's good
to see you, a good number of people here in attendance.
It shows good support, whether you're in favor or not in
favor.
3.
The newsman from Channel 2 gave me a title of
being outspoken. But on the news, I didn't put anything
in there to indicate that. So I'm a little disappointed.
As everyone knows, the Logan Canyon road
improvement issue has been one of a lot of controversy,
and I think that's probably unfortunate. Just a little
bit about the road. In my opinion, the area that hasn't
been improved in Logan Canyon, as you know, is a very narrow
road, difficult to pass, problems for good flow of traffic.
The bridges are a disaster, in my opinion, a real hazard
to traffic.
With respect to the study--and somebody correct
me if I'm wrong--I understand that this is the fourth study
--is that right, Todd?
MR. WESTON: Well, I've been involved in three.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a fourth.
MR. BROWN: That's a real concern to me. We're
going into the fourth study of this area. What are we going
to gain from the fourth study that we couldn't have gained
in the first, second, or third? So I think that's a waste,
in my opinion.
The improvements. I look for a design, improved
road, such as that in the lower portion of the canyon, or
that which has been improved. The passing lanes are
essential for the flow of traffic. New bridges need to
4.
be built, in my opinion.
It's been my understanding that there has been
some proposal of a four lane system in Logan Canyon. I'm
totally opposed to anything of that nature. It isn't needed,
and it wouldn't be cost-effective.
Traveling in the canyon. I have spent most of
my life in Rich County. I've traveled the canyon a lot
of times, a lot of miles, a lot of different years, going
to college and Utah State University. I think I have a
pretty good feel for how the road was prior to improvement
as now.
Going through the canyon now, and especially
the improved section, I can't see where you can tell there
was any disturbance carried out. I don't think it will
affect the beauty once it's restored. As you drive through
there now, how can you tell, as I said, anything was ever
done?
From a business standpoint or an economic
development, it's essential and critical. We know that
all businesses are struggling. We are putting money, public
money, from the county standpoint, as well as from a grant
aspect, to the economic development in the Bear Lake region,
and we need to be able to get people to and from~ I think
the Cache Valley area, as well.
As I said, I'm very much opposed to a fourth
5.
study coming forth of this issue, and I am very much in
favor of a road improvement in the portion of the highway
where the improved area ends in Garden City. I think the
entire route needs improvement. Thank you.
MR. NUFFER: Dee Johnson. Then we'll have Barry
Negus.
MR. DEE JOHNSON: Good evening, ladies and
gentlemen. I appreciate the opportunity to comment. I
don't want to be repetitious of what's been said.
I represent Rich County as a Commissioner and
as a citizen also. I sit in the middle. Mr. Francis was
at the Logan meeting, and you've heard from Commissioner
Brown. And one of them is just as bullheaded one way as
the other one is the other. So I have decided the best
way to be would be to get in the middle of the road of those
two, and by so doing I sort of am an eternal optimist.
I don't think there is anything that can't be
done if all people concerned try to make it happen. As
long as there's dialogue and study, then things like that
can happen.
It's been mentioned that the entire economy,
of course, on this side of the hill depends on that road.
It is a major artery. I think Cache County's economy is
certainly fraternized by our people on this side of the
hill. You know, babies are born over there, and they will
6.
always be born over there, and I'd like to see the road
improved and the environment withheld to a point that these
babies that's being born today and those that are going
to be born in 10, 15 years, can enjoy it.
I see a situation where we have a present road
standard of approximately 25 feet. To get a standard or
a modified standard, we need to have about io feet, and
I just can't help but think we can't add another 10 feet
in places where it's needed and still keep the environment
so that it's protected, scenic. There has to be a way,
and there will be a way if we're all willing to work towards
it.
If we go with Plan A, and we simply say no action
taken, then we haven't helped everyone concerned. We've
only helped one particular element, that being the element
who said, nBy doing anything, we disturb the environment."
If we go to the extreme and take alternatives
D or E, then we haven't maintained the environment as it
needs to be. Somewhere we have to get in the middle, get
a road that can service the needs now and in the future.
We all have to work together. I think we can. I appreciate
the time. Thank you.
MR. BARRY NEGUS: I agree well with everything
that's been said so far, and I think there is a definite
need for an improvement on the road. I think I can say
7.
most of the people travel on that road at least once a week,
if not two or three times. ~nd it does need to be improved
to make it a little better and to help things out, not only
for us over here, - but for anybody else that wants to travel
the road. And with the scenic beauty and everything, I
think there are ways it can be done to keep the scenics
there and still make a good road and help everyone out.
Thank you.
MR. NUFFER: Thank you, Barry. Next we'll have
Val Peterson, followed by Bryce Nielson.
MR. VAL PETERSON: I would like to have read
or recorded ~ntothe official record of this meeting a
position that was taken by the Cache Chamber of Commerce
board of directors on the 15th of October in 1986 relative
to the Logan Canyon road study. We are pleased to support
such a study, which may eventually provide clearance to
much needed road improvements in the Logan Canyon. It is
our understanding that the study focuses primarily on the
stretch of canyon road between Right Fork and Garden City.
This is basically the unimproved section of the canyon road.
As a Chamber of Commerce we recognize that our
neighbors to the north in Idaho and Wyoming as well as Utah
depend on the canyon, Logan Canyon corridor, to provide
transportation access to services found in Logan and Cache
County. Their patronage to our businesses are encouraged,
8.
welcomed, and appreciated. To these outlying communities,
this access is critical and fulfills a great need, a
lifeline, if you will, to much needed services and goods
not found in their areas.
Bear Lake is one of the largest bodies of clean
fresh waters found in Utah. This area provides recreational
facilities for not only local needs, but those of Ogden,
Salt Lake, and other Utah areas. The beauty of the lake
area, as well as the canyon itself, attracts out of state
tourists, especially in the summer months.
We think that the upper reaches of the Logan
Canyon Road should be made safer and more usable by upgrading
to an acceptable modern day standard as much as possible;
specifically passing lanes installed, turning lanes built,
bridges widened, curves made less sharp, sight distance
lengthened, and areas widened.
It is recognized that environmental consideration
must be taken into account and in some cases allowed to
govern the situation. It is agreed that the charm and
attraction of the canyon is its uniqueness in its natural
setting. We do not want nor do we propose to support
uncontrolled road construction in Logan Canyon.
It is reassuring to know that an interdisciplinary
study team has been formed to guide the development of the
study currently underway. This team is made up not only
9.
of economists, biologists, engineers, UDOT, Federal Highway
Administration representatives, U. S. Forest Service
personnel, but the environmental community as well. This
should provide a well balanced technical steering group
for recommended improvements.
Economical developments and the well being of
our existing businesses and those that may come into Cache
County is the basis of the Chamber of Commerce. It is also
important for a Chamber of Commerce to help build a better
community by encouraging people to work together to improve
the economic and social stability of our valley. This is
an opportunity for us to get behind this effort to do
something about the Logan Canyon Road and to work together
to improve our northern access from Logan to Garden City.
Thank you.
MR. NUFFER: Thank you. Mr. Nielson. And after
the Mayor, we will have Ted Seeholtzer.
MR. BRYCE NIELSON: I appreciate the opportunity
to speak tonight. I look at the Logan Canyon Road from
various points of view. I've had the opportunity to grow
up and live in Logan and to utilize the canyon from a
recreational point of view. I've also had the opportunity
to live for a good number of years in Rich County and use
the canyon as a main artery towards the livelihood that
we require; doctors, stores, that type of stuff.
10.
I have also have had the opportunity to be a
fisheries biologist and a "environmentalist," you might
say. I have also been on the other side of the coin · as
the mayor of Garden City, and been able to see many of the
concerns that citizens of the area have about travel, about
tourism, businesses, the life blood of communities.
I feel this gives me a good overview of the
problem on the Logan Canyon road. I feel that I can't really
state what alternatives I'm in favor of or opposed to.
Obviously, the environment is extremely important to me,
both the fishery environment and the other environments
throughout the canyon, its scenic values, its esthetic
appeal. But on the same hand, the safety of the canyon
is extremely important to me, since I transport my family,
my loved ones, through the canyon, and my friends travel
through the canyon. So it's very difficult for me as one
to say which is more important that one or the other. I
think they're both extremely important.
I don't think speed is an issue in the canyon,
and I constantly hear this brought up as speed. How fast
can you go around a corner? How many miles an hour, how
many minutes can you save? I don't think that's an issue
with most of the people in Rich County. I don't think it's
an issue with many people. Safety is an issue, and I'm
very much in favor of improvement of bridges. I'm very
11.
much in favor of improvement of passing lanes, so that
individuals who are impatient, want to get on down the road,
will not take hazardous actions that may affect the safety
of myself or people that I know and that I think a lot of.
I think that it's important that the canyon is
improved for the tourist industry in Garden City and the
Bear Lake area. You know, one thing that's not been talked
about in many of these meetings is the fact that you talk
about loads through the canyon, people, numbers of cars;
but nobody has really talked about the amount of people
that go through Evanston, other routes to the area, primarily
to avoid the canyon. I'd like to see more of these people
utilize this exceptional resource .
One other thing that I'm probably not--well,
I'm not in favor of--is any realignment of the Rich County
side. I live on that alignment. I see the cars and trucks
and boats and semi's labor up and down the hill. However,
I also can see the scars of the old road that existed in
the thirties, and I don't want to see additional scars in
that beautiful area. I know that many of the residents
of the valley here and many of the tourists who come through
thoroughly enjoy seeing deer, moose, and associated wildlife
in that area.
I think with some minor changes I can be very
happy with the route as it exists at present.
12.
On the economic side, I don't want to see citizens
of Rich County be unduly taxed to maintain a road that they
would abandon if in fact they actually did abandon the road
or the alignment was changed so that it was our
responsibility as taxpayers to maintain the road that exists
right now.
Above and beyond all, and in quick summary, I
would like to see more of us get together, both the
"environmentalists," "the users of the canyon," and the
politicians and look together to see the type of ending
that I think we can all be proud of. Thank you.
MR. NUFFER: Ted.
MR. TED SEEHOLTZER: It's hell to get old,isn't
it?
My name is Ted Seeholtzer. I'm affiliated with
Beaver Mountain ski area. I'm a past member of the Utah
Travel Council for 11 years. I am now chairman of the
Bridgerland Tourist Council, which includes Rich County
and Cache County. So I can speak with two or three hats.
Some of them sit a little sideways from time to time, but
basically I'm straight down the middle type of a guy.
I have been accused of being a special interest
individual regarding the canyon. Perhaps I am to a point,
but I'm here to tell you one thing, whether or not I'm
associated with Beaver Mountain, if I thought for one minute
13.
that canyon was going to be uprooted, I would be completely
on the other side of the fence. So I do have some very,
very strong concerns about the canyon and what ought to
happen to it and the condition it ought to be in hopefully
when we get some work done on it.
Just to throw a few insights to you regarding
the area and traffic patterns that we have there, on a day
that Beaver Mountain has 1,200 skiers, that develops into
roughly 440 cars at 2.7 persons per car, which is a good
average. It's pretty much a set number by all the resorts
in Utah-Colorado areas.· 2.7 is a pretty good figure.
We have that happen any number of times during
the winter. Of course, we have some peak days. President's
Day and some of these type things that we get upwards of
1,300, 1,400, 1,500 people. But as an average weekend crowd
of 1,200 to 440 cars, if those people were to leave the
resort in an orderly fashion in a two-hour period, every
27 seconds an automobile would hit that road. If they leave
within an hour period, every 13.5 seconds an automobile
hits that highway.
So we know that that road cannot be developed
to handle total peak traffic. The 24th of July, Labor Day,
Fourth of July type crowds. But it certainly ought to be
considered when that road is designed that those types of
traffics are possible on it, and consideration should be
14.
given to that.
We're noticing a great deal more traffic coming
from the Soda Springs, the Wyoming country in to use the
resort. This side of the mountain needs some help also.
We need those people in this area for their tax dollars,
the tourism industry, probably the easier industry to
attract. We are not asked to build schools; cess pools,
water systems, and that for them. They don'tccme out of
your tax dollars. All they do is add to the coffers of
the cities and counties where they visit.
There are a few misconceptions that probably
have been handed out in the last 30 to 60 days concerning
the study that ought to be discussed just a little bit.
If you remember, the information was put up here on the
board regarding Logan Canyon as a designated scenic highway.
It has been designated only in the Forest Land Use Plan.
It has not been registered in the Congressional Record at
this point in time. I think that's a point of confusion
that people think it is now in the record. Only in the
Forest Use Plan, not in the Congressional Record.
It's been suggested that we use wider stripes,
brighter paint, to mark the canyon with. That's great.
But, you know, it's rather difficult to see it in the winter
when it's covered with snow. It doesn't show up too good.
They talk about better .ighway atrol, law
15.
enforcement on speed down through the lower end, the lower
section of the project. I hope the heck they don't throw
the whistle at me when I'm on the way down, because there
is no place off of there. There are very, very few places
for you and me to pull off if we're in trouble. Some of
those things really need to be taken. care of.
True, there could be some destruGtion to the
river. In places they have to build ret.a'ining walls. No
question. It is a Class 2 fishery river. But keep in mind
it has been a put and take river for the last 10 to 12 years,
and it will always be a put and take river as long as the
fishing pressure is there. So we have to consider .that
it is possibly not a rating of a Class 2 river at this time.
We're been told that it will kill the algae in
the river if they work along the banks. True. But it will
grow back next year. It will come back. The bushes may
have to be disturbed somewhat, providing we do not have
to maintain too many retaining walls. Those will come back.
So some of that stuff may have to be sacrificed for the
interim period, but it will return.
Talk about campground destruction. Some of the
campgrounds will be eliminated. Two campgrounds are involved
in that lower section of the road. One is China Row. The
other is the one at Cottonwood. The one at Cottonwood has
been blocked out for the last five or six ·years by the
16.
Forest Service. It is no longer in use at this time. The
one at China Row shouldn't be, as it's far too dangerous.
You have . a difficult time getting off the road, and you
have an extremely difficult time getting back on because
of the corridor of the trees. It is a beautiful place,
granted. But it is also a very dangerous place at that
point .
Logan Cave, a very definite problem area, probably
the most controversial area in Logan Canyon. Agreed. No
question about it. Beautiful place. But it can be solved.
The last four or five years, UDOT has had to
haul fill in there to keep the river from coming over the
road. Why don't we elevate the road? Cantilever out over
it, and it's set. No problem. We don't have to haul any
more fill in later on, nor push it into the river, which
has been done the last two or three years . . I think that
problem could be handled very easily without a lot of
destruction to it. And heaven's knows, I don't want that
portion of the canyon--probably the one phenomenon in all
of Logan Canyon.
One thing that hasn't been discussed here a great
deal is the amount of snow that falls in Logan Canyon from
the Forks to, say, Sunrise Campground on this side of the
canyon. The records we've kept over the last years shows
there's somewhere between 300 and 500 inches of snowfall
17.
within that area. The 500 inches would fall from Tony Grove
over the top into Sunrise. Have you ever considered the
size of bar pit that you need to put that much snow in?
Sure, some of it can be blown away, but a
lot of it also blows back on. I'm sure if you were to
ask the gentlemen who drive the plow trucks through there,
they will tell you -that 100 inches could blow in one night
that they have to push off, not only that that falls.
So we do need some bar pit room. We do need
some shoulders for those in trouble to get off and to make
the road safer and less narrow in the winter time when there
is an awful .lot of snow falling.
My recommendation would be on the improvement
of the road to let the UDOT people, who have done in my
estimation an excellent job on the bottom end of the road,
they have used awfully good judgment to improve that road.
It is not unsightly. True, they got into the river in one
place, but that was necessary for a passing lane. And if
you did not have the one passing lane along by Brown's
Rolloff, you would only have the passing lane from Malibu
area until you hit the dugway, and that is too far for people
who need to get through the canyon.
I thank you very much for your time, and I
appreciate the privilege of speaking to you tonight. Thank
you.
18.
MR. NUFFER: Bryce Stringham. Then we'll have
John Flannery.
MR. BRYCE STRINGHAM: I'm Bryce Stringham. I've
been a resident here for all the time for about 20 years.
It was about eight years before that that I was a part-time
resident. I don't think there is anybody that has traveled
that canyon any more than I have in the last '28 years, and
I put in quite a lot of input in the last meeting we had
here, and I kind of protested about that road, and I'm sure
that's been covered many times.
The concern I have on this is changing the route
on this side of the hill. I think, as Bryce has said, that
he's for keeping it on the route it's going. I essentially
go along with that to a point, that if we've got to change
that route, that we change it on the face here because of
the scenic values, because of the people who are already
there who need to serve in part. In other words, if we
need to change the road, let's keep it near where it is,
and let's come out where we're at. We have to look at the
economic part of it, too.
Now, if they're going to change the route down
Hodges Canyon, they've got to buy more property, they've
got to change the route. That costs a lot more money than
maybe using some of the old route they had, or whatever.
I don't know what .the study is. But I'd be violently against
19.
changing any other route but essentially the route we've
got.
Now, with some variations and like that would
be fine, but to change a whole new route that's the thing
that I'm opposed to. Thank you.
MR. NUFFER: John Flannery.
MR. JOHN FLANNERY: Thank you for the opportunity.
Can you hear me in back? I'm a writer, not a speaker. So
I'm going to read what I have for all here.
First of all, I have no financial interests in
any way in Logan Canyon or Logan or Rich .county. This is
not in opposition to what has been said or to the idea of
improving the road we have. I would prefer to think of
it as a note of caution.
When I came to Utah to work for the State 32
years ago, it was Parley's Canyon that said: "This is a
good place. This is beauty." That small stream by the
two-lane road going into Salt Lake City is marvelous. It's
gone.
Provo Canyon was a quiet meander from Provo to
Heber Valley, with a few scattered mostly summer homes.
Excellent brown trout fishing and shade. The road was slow
and winding. It was a place of tranquility. And it is
gone.
The road from Ogden to Huntsville is less exciting
20.
perhaps. Steeper, a little bit. Narrower. Not too many
homes. That, too, is gone.
One canyon remains, admittedly butchered in part,
riprapped in part, but maintaining its uniqueness. That's
Logan Canyon, as you all know.
As a sometimes travel writer and photographer,
my concerns are the esthetics of an area. What is it that
I find that will attract and appeal to both the veteran
traveler and the first-time or once in a lifetime voyager?
Without going into a travel log, I would like to say that
I have visited and worked in a lot of states and a lot of
countries, flown over quite a few of them too. Too many
of these have been visually diminished by the straight
ribbons of cement and blacktop we equate with progress and
call development.
Less than a month ago in Hawaii, I had the
privilege of driving a road called the Road of a Hundred
Bridges, and it runs down across the back of Maui to the
tiny town of Hana. There are 23 miles. The top speed limit
is 20 miles an hour. You often have to go 10 miles an hour.
And at many, many bridges you have to stop, yield to oncoming
traffic. These are one-way bridges. And you'd be glad
that you're in a Japanese car and not an American car when
you do try to cross those. Still, it's an unforgettable
drive of leisure and beauty, with enough ·pullouts to
21.
encourage dawdling and savoring a unique place on earth.
The Hawaiians don't lament those 23 miles of beauty, and
that leisurely drive makes people come allover the world
who care about scenic beauty. It's the backbone of some
of the tourist industry.
I submit that Logan Canyon and its river are
similarly unique. Certainly there is nothing like this
canyon and the Logan River left in. Utah.
It's butchery, and it could happen. It will
diminish its ability to draw the many people who come to
savor what we have.
Injuring this canyon will diminish Utah's full
house of attractions. Its damage could and will reduce
the value of what is a gateway to your beautiful valley
and perhaps wipe out travelers' enthusiasm for the total
experience of the drive from the Wasatch Front communities
to Bear Lake.
Minutes saved will never repay posterity for
the measured damage that may be done to the unique canyon
we have.
Thank you for listening. I know you're not
sympathetic to some of the things I've said. As I said,
this is not opposition. It's a word of caution. Thank
you.
MR. NUFFER: Thank you. Well, those are ~ll
22.
the ones that signed the list that indicated they would
wish to speak. Some said maybe. We don't all want to go
home at 10 after 8:00, now, do we?
I hope the setup here hasn't intimidated anyone.
This looks kind of official, but we would certainly invite
you to come up. We sincerely want to have your input. So
if there is anybody that's changed their mind about talking
--if you said no here, I don't care. Come on up.
MR. GEORGE PRESTON: My name is George Preston.
I guess I'm a newcomer to this county, newcomer in the sense
of residency, but not newcomer in the sense of being over
here and enjoying the place, and I have a very deep sense
of feeling towards the responsibility that we each have
towards this community.
If our forefathers had been members of the Sierra
Club and have thought as Mr. Flannery thinks, we would still
have a double width wagon track through the canyon. We
would be totally cut off from any sort of civilization;
and as far as any economy, there would be none. Less than
there is now.
I have listened to five hours of meetings. I
have listened to both sides, pro, con, all the way from
Alternative A to Alternative D.
With that in mind, I drove through the canyon
today. As I drove through, I convinced one person, and
23.
that was myself, that this road can be improved, it can
be widened, passing lanes can be made. All of this can
be done with the gentlemen that are here and available as
experts, without compromising the esthetic beauty of the
canyon, without compromising fish, wildlife, with hardly
any compromise to the ecology, because we can do it. In
looking at the alternatives, and driving through the canyon,
Alternative C category, improvements can be made in the
first lower portion. The C category can be made in the
upper portion. And, of course, from the top of the canyon
down into Garden City, significant improvements can be made.
Two of the worst corners in the entire canyon
can be eliminated. We all know what's happened on those
corners. We all know of the accidents. There is no reason
to maintain a ·hazard like that in which it affects me and
potentially you, because those that have gone before us
on those corners, they're gone. Who is next in the future?
When the economy of Cache County was sorely in
need of a highway leading into Logan, so that Logan could
say, "We need that highway to boost the economy," it was
given to Logan. Rich County is now saying: "We need that
road and those modifications, compatible with the ecology,
to boost this economy."
Please give it to us.
MR. NUFFER: Is there anyone else here? Yes, sir.
24.
MR. RUSS CURREL: My name is Russ Currel. As
I look over this group, I recognize nearly everyone here.
I do speak for myself today. I did come over. Val and
I came together. I was president of the Chamber of Commerce
in Logan, Cache County, when that statement was made. I
do support the statement of the Chamber of Commerce.
I would like to make some comments of my own.
I do own property in Bear Lake and property in Cache Valley .
I was born in Bear Lake county, and I don't think there
is anyone here that enjoys Logan Canyon anymore than I do.
My family, as we were talking about taking a posi t ·ion here--
I have five children, and without exception, all five said,
"Dad, please don't take a position to destroy the canyon."
And I said, "I think you know me better than
that."
But one thing I do take a position on, and that
is the safety of the canyon. I don't know what you would
do to the canyon. I don't think you'd speed up the time
getting from here to Logan very much. But I do know there
are a lot of things there that need to be done for the safety
of the canyon.
I think I would be about B plus position on the
map, where I think there are a lot of those things, B, that
need to be done. Most of those things, and even some in
C. And I really feel they can be done without really being
25.
a hazard to the ecology or to the wildlife.
I don't fish. Never fished in my life. But
I think there are ways that we can handle the river where
we're not going to be a detriment to that.
I would hope that we all get together, and I
think the mayor over here stated it best. If we all get
together and work hard on this, I think we can overcome
the problems that are here and really accomplish what we
want to accomplish. Thank you.
MR. OWEN WAHLSTROM: My name is OWen Wahlstrom.
I'm a resident here. My family is from this area. I don't
know how to express my feelings to you; but this winter
in the canyon, we were going through the canyon to Logan.
It was snowing so hard I had to stop and get the ice off
my windshield at Twin Bridges. While we were stopped there,
I watched three snow plows go across that bridge with their
blade jammed into the guardrail to miss a car coming the
other way. They were all three sliding.
feet between them.
There wasn't six
I definitely agree that the bridges have got
to be widened. Somehow they missed the car. It was what
you'd call a modern day miracle. One of those big full,
wide body cars. And we didn't think they were going to
make it.
If we don't do something, and if we go completely
26.
with the esthetics, are we going to make up a road like
is going through Glacier National Park, where all trucks
are prohibited and large motorhomes are prohibited? It
will eventually come to that if the traffic keeps up.
I, too, enjoy the canyon; but I do think some
improvements have to be made. I don't know. I imagine
there are probably lawsuits against the State in that canyon .
We're going to pay one way or the other. Accidents keep
happening in there. It's been stated here, it's a
substandard road. I'm not an attorney, but I'm sure there
are many areas in there where if somebody wants to raise
problems for anybody, it can easily be done .
I also rely on the economy over here very much.
I don't want this to be a two-bit tourist trap, but I think
we can accommodate more people than we're getting. Thank
you.
MR. NUFFER: Yes, sir.
MR. PAUL WEBB: Can I just stand here? The trip
is like driving through Logan Canyon. (Laughter.)
I just had a few thoughts I want to say. By
taking any alternative--
MR. NUFFER: Could you give your name?
MR. WEBB: Paul Webb. I am a resident here in
Garden City. By taking any alternative less than a major
resurfacing modification, we're only going to reduce the
27.
time between conflicts between people and also reduce the
time between disturbances of the environment. We must
remember at this point in time we consider the canyon a
beautiful place, where wildlife thrives and brightens our
lives. But remember, at some time in the past the canyon
was butchered, and it has recovered. We are looking at
the butchery. And it's beautiful. With caution, the canyon
can be improved and provide transportation to people. While
we're doing the job, let's do it right.
I've been
20 years.
MR. NUFFER: Yes, sir.
MR. BILL PETERSON: Bill Peterson, Garden City.
a resident of Garden City and the area for about
For 15 of those 20 years I think there have been
surveys and signs and studies go on in the canyon. I really
think it's time we get past the looking and the studying
and do something to improve the canyon.
I'm in the real estate business. I have numerous
people coming through the canyon stopping in the office,
many of them upset.
"That's a beautiful canyon, but I would never
drive over it again."
I mean, I'm not kidding you. That's what a number
of people say.
It's dangerous. It's beautiful. But they don't
want to go over it. I really think even the first section
28.
down towards Logan is out of date. We've got you gentlemen
coming up here. Our growth rate is going to be much more
than your 1 to 2 percent you've predicted. We have a number
of major developments, at least tw~ that will be here that
are major. And we have building permits. We're growing
every year.
I think if you go and improve to meet what you
had in the lower part of the canyon, as Paul said, you're
wasting your time. We should plan ·now to have the facilities
for the future. That section in the first part of Logan
Canyon is not going to do us in 10 years from now.
MR. NUFFER: Thank .you. Is there anyone else?
Ye s, rna' am.
MS. CATHY WEBB: My name is Cathy Webb. I'd
like to make .some comments from a woman's standpoint of
view. Everyone of us ladies- here in this community travels
to and from Logan probably at least once a week. Maybe
even more than that.
I'd like all of you executives and officials
that are in this room tonight to know that I have spoken
to each and everyone of you several times. However, it
didn't get past Paul's ears. It didn't get past the car.
And I've gone through that canyon a million times, and I've
remodeled it a dozen times. I've checked out the mountains
to see what . would happen if somebody dug away some dirt
29.
and some shrubs. I've put up fence along the dugway for
years, so that the rocks wouldn't bounce down on the road.
I just know I'm going to get hit by a boulder on the dugway
one of these years. I just know it. On top of the car.
I've taken four little children, tiny little
babies to the doctors, the hospitals, the groceries. I
have spent probably a minimum of $500 a month, ·and that
probably is a minimum, over in Cache Valley.
I appreciate the comments of the Chamber of
Commerce. We like to feel appreciated over here and the
fact that we do put a lot of money into Cache . Valley . .
I would also like to make a comment that last
year in August I packed up my car, took my 15-year-old
daughter at 10 o'clock at night. We were moving to Logan.
My husband had already left. And I started out the journey
with just my daughter and me, 10 o'clock at night.
I climbed up the summit. I had a car behind
me. I let him pass through Tony Grove, or through Beaver,
to get in front of me. He slowed down. He slowed down
to the point that I had to pass him again. So I passed
him. And then he continued to tail me. As near as I could
tell, I had a carload of screwballs following me.
Needless to say I was scared to death by the
time I got to Logan, because, you see, we passed no other
cars on the way. There was no moon. It wasn't bright.
30.
There were no reflectors. I couldn't tell if there was
a place for me to pullout on the road. I wanted him off
my tail. But I couldn't tell. I had no choice but to keep
on going.
At that point, I told my daughter, "Hand me a
baseball cap," because I had always read if you're a woman
traveling through the canyon, put a man's hat on, it will
protect you.
We're driving down the road, and I am scared
to death. "Hand me a hat." I tucked my hair up and put
this hat on, and we went that way through the rest of the
canyon with these guys tailing me, turning their lights
off, harassing me through the canyon, and I not being able
to get off the road to make them pass me, until we got onto
the new part of the road again. And then I thought: "You
bugger, you go ahead, and I'll find somebody, and I'll get
your number."
And he had to pass me, because I slowed' down '
to the point, once we got to the turnoff, that he had to
pass. And that's the way we went on into Logan, and that
was my greeting into Cache Valley to be a resident there.
Well, we lived there for nine months and then
we ended up moving back to Garden City.
May I say to those of you that are here and
representing the environment, you'll find no one that
31.
appreciat.es the esthetic beauty of Cache Valley and of the
mountains more than those of us who choose .to live in them.
We talk about the drives. We talk about the beauty every
single time we go through Logan, because every time you
go through Logan Canyon you see something different.
Improving that road is not going to change what
we see when we go through that canyon. That's all I have
to say.
Oh, I do have one other comment. My dentist,
who is in Logan, calls Logan Canyon a paved cow trail.
MR. NUFFER: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes.
MR. RAY ELLIOTT: My name is Ray Elliott. I
know most of you here. Some of you may know us from being
here in the summer. I have interests here in Bear Lake.
So I wanted to speak just a little bit concerning all of
the interests involved.
This seems to be quite a polarizing issue. I
went to the meeting last night in Logan. The meeting was
heavily represented there last night by environmental
interest, and the interests seemed to be more slanted
towards development of the road. Everyone seems to have
different motives, different personal interests, some of
them personal, some of them environmental, some of them
concerned with safety. Some interests are monetary, either
from people who have specific monetary concerns in the canyon
32.
or on either side of the canyon, to see improvement made.
I feel that we really need to be responsible to
the future, both for the environment and safety and
improvement. Improvements that are going to be made need
to be made in the canyon. But in making those improvements,
we need to be careful to protect the things that we all
feel are important.
There is going to be increased traffic. If we
want to see increased use here in Bear Lake, we need to
decide who we're trying to attract. If the economy of Bear
Lake is attracting tourists, we need to be careful. Do
we want the tourists to get through on a faster highway,
or do we want to attract people who are there to enjoy the
scenery?
There are gives and takes there. In trying to
attract more people, if they declare th~ highway a scenic
route and list it in the Federal Registry, you may attract
more tourists; but in doing so, you're going to have to
accommodate more people in that canyon, and the roads are
going to have to be improved. There are going to be trades
both ways.
If we decide over here--and I have interests
here that I need--I would like to see tourist trade increase,
but I'm not sure that faster roads or scenic highway, either
one, there's a question that exists there. Which is going .
33.
to be in the best interests of Rich County in attracting
tourists?
We need to be careful that this type of forum
that we have in getting public opinion does not leave the
engineering firm, CH2M HILL, UDOT, with the impression that
what they have seen either in support of widening the road
or in support of saving the environment and doing nothing-they're
going to be left with an impression there, and then
they're going to take that info~mation home and decide what
they will do with it and do what they will.
Now, some of the polarities that exist between
the two groups is because each group feels that one group
is trying to take advantage of the other group or that the
concerns of the environmentalists will be totally served by
whomever is going to make the decision, or the concerns
of improvements in the road are going to be served over
the environment.
I have a suggestion that I'm not sure what could
be done there to insure that both sides are served; and
I feel that there is a middle ground that could be achieved
without destroying the environment and without changing
the canyon, and still improving the road. We have to be
responsible to the improvements that need to be made.
I mean, I've driven a pregnant wife at 2 o'clock
in the morning over that highway from Bear Lake to Logan,
34.
with labor pains and two minutes apart, and I know the
anxiety that accompanies that.
So there are safety concerns that we need to
be .concerned with, that we really need to address. At the
same time, I really love and appreciate that canyon. A
forum like this leaves people with a few notions that they
will go ba.ck and, . again, as I said, do what they will. If
there could be a committee put together of interest groups
that each have their own interests that could be used as
checks and balances for whatever is going to be done, the
environmentalists, the Sierra Club may have a representative
at that meeting, the Rich Tourist Council should have a
representative on that advisory committee. I think that
perhaps there should be a way to insure that everyone's
interest there is served, and I feel that they can be.
That's all I had to say. Thank you.
MR. NUFFER: Yes, sir.
MR. LYNN HILLSMAN: My name is Lynn Hillsman,
and I have one thing that's just a little bit different
than most people. I drove that canyon today, like a bunch
of others. To my idea, there is water coming up through
the middle of the road, and there are major problems with
the subgrade. To redo this, you're going to have to tear
up the road just to even maintain it. So why not do some
improvement and still try to maintain it?
35.
But with the subgrade and the drainage the way
it is, there's something drastic has to be done with that
road to keep it to where you can drive on it. So while
you're doing it, do it right.
That's all I have to say.
MR. NUFFER: Yes, sir.
MR. DON HUFFNER: I'm Don Huffner. I wasn't
going to say anything tonight, but Ray reminded me of
something that happened to me. I used to be on the Highway
Patrol. In fact, 20 years ago if any of you got tickets
in Logan Canyon, it was probably me that gave them to you.
Ray said that he has driven Logan Canyon with
an expectant wife. Well, I've driven Logan Canyon with
somebody else's expectant wife, and it's no easier when
it's somebody else's wife. It's hard to drive that canyon
trying to tell the father how to deliver that baby.
I've got some recommendations here, or at least
things, as I look at the presentation and look at the maps
a little more specific On the first section I thought that
maybe Alternative C was all right. But then the more I
looked at it, and Alternative D, they have changed the road
just below Ricks Spring and cut out an area there that in
my opinion, my experience, it is quite a bad area. They
made a lot of other improvements here, too. But this looked
like the difference between C and D is this cut just below
36.
Ricks Spring that eliminates an area where the banks are
very steep and in the winter time the sun never gets down
to the road--well, seldom gets down to the road--not because
of clouds, but because of the mountains shading it. That's
quite a dangerous area in my opinion.
Now, Alternative C I believe would be fine other
than that.
On the next section, on Section 2, I thought
Alternative B was satisfactory. NOW, some have said that
they would like to see the road brought right up to snuff,
put a brand new road in there, because in 15 or 20 years
we're going to need it, or maybe even sooner. That's
possible.
But 'economically speaking, I don't know that--
I'm afraid we're going to choke the horse if we try to feed
it that much and that we need to be realistic on our needs
now.
We've got other areas, other routes of getting
in and out of the valley. I think we need to work on those,
too, to develop those along with this. Already of the
summer people that have cabins here on the lake that come
from Salt Lake, well over half of them--well over half of
them--from the Salt Lake area come through Evanston already.
Now, as more people learn of the Evanston route,
there will probably be more and more people come that way.
37.
And that's not all bad to have several accesses into our
area.
bad curves
The last section, again, there are some very
there, and I think that they need to be looked at.
I think Alternative D would be the one that I
would recommend. It eliminates the bad curves without
realigning the road drastically, and I think we could get
along with that. Thank you.
MR. NUFFER: Is there anyone else here that would
care to testify? Anyone that came thinking they didn't
want to that changed their mind? Now is your chance.
Well, with that, do any of the UDOT people want
to say anything in closing?
MR. 'WESTON: I was ready to go at 10 after 8: 00,
but since we've talked some more, let me make one thought
or two in conclusion. I think 'we've found out tonight and
through our previous meetings that Logan Canyon itself means
different things to different people. I don't think we're
all going to agree upon what Logan Canyon means to us. I
think we've found out that it's a very sensitive area.
I think we already know that the Forest Service
desires to keep it a scenic highway, and I think that's
fine. I think that can be done.
I think we need to remember a few things, and
I think I need to answer a question of Commissioner Brown's.
38.
I think it deserves an answer. That is, what's to be gained
by an additional study? I think that's the question he
asked. And I've told you previously that this is my third
study. I don't think we've lost anything by study~ng it
three times. But I do think that the time has come now
that this better be the last study before we do something
in Logan Canyon .
I say that from the standpoint that we now have
got some structures up there in the canyon that have got
to be repaired or replaced quite drastically. I can see
some problems if we don't repair those bridges; and if we
try to do it on the existing alignment, on the existing
bridge, we're going to have to build a route around those
bridges for the traffic to go through that may be more
detrimental to the highway than some of the things we're
talking about.
I just want to say this much, that we have got
to do something on the bridges. - The reason we've got to
do something on the bridges is quite obvious to most of
you here. What we do over and beyond that is the purpose
of our study. But I do know this. The Department of
Transportation is not flush with dollars. Even though
the Legislature recently passed a 5 cent gas tax increase,
the needs that we have, I've got to say in all honesty that
5 cents more gas tax is a drop in the bucket to our needs.
39.
We have to rely on the federal highway people
to help us fund primary road systems. Logan Canyon Highway,
Highway 89, is more than just a road for Cache County. It's
more than just a road for Rich County. It's a primary
federal highway; and as long as we're going to have a primary
federal highway going through that canyon, we've got to
keep it up to certain standards.
Now, if the time comes that there are enough
feelings that that shouldn't be a primary highway, then
I guess we'll address that at that time; but it presently
is, and we're required and obligated in our responsibility
to the highway system of the State of Utah' to do certain
things on that highway to make it reasonably safe and usable
for the traveling public. We need federal highway dollars
to do it. The federal highways, I can tell you now, and
it's our judgment as a Department of Transportation, that
there will be no money spent up there, even on bridges,
until we complete an environmental impact study in depth,
like we're doing now, and there will be a chance to have
you come to a hearing on our draft environmental impact
study, which will be ready sometime this fall, hopefully;
and at that time you can make the decision, help us make
the decision, on what we're going to do with Logan Canyon.
But I do know that the study has got to be done.
When I first came on the Commission, I was the
40.
first one to go to the rest of the Commissioners and say,
"Why are we spending half a million dollars up there to
study something we already know?" You know, the same
statement as Commissioner Brown made.
I since have become a little older and a little
wiser, and I know that we've got to complete this document
and consider every option and consider everybody's feelings
and examine every portion of it and now do anything in that
canyon until we're satisfied that we're doing the right
thing. And I know the federal highway people are not going
to release any money and Dave Baumgartner and the Forest
Service are not going to support us if we don't do the job
and do it right. Now, that's the reason for the study.
You have an opportunity to give us input. You
will have written comments that can be written to our
consulting team up until April 6. You have -a handout that
has the address you can mail those to, if you have things
to say that you didn't say tonight. Even if it's repetitive,
if you want to get your name on the record, you send that
in to the people and express yourself.
I don't think numbers are going to be things
that make the determination. I don't think numbers ever
was the determining decision-making process in any valid
decision. But we do want your input, and we want to have
good solid concrete suggestions on what you think we ought
41.
to do. Thank you.
MR. NUFFER: Jess, did you have a follow-up on
that?
MR. JESS ANDERSON: I just have a question. Can
you do anything with the area around Logan Cave? Can you
make that parking or something? You come through there
in a snowstorm in the middle of the night, and there's not
much room on that corner.
MR. WESTON: That's what these experts are going
to tell us.
MR. NUFFER: That's one of the areas we're going
to take a good close look at.
A VOICE: Just on the time frame for the
environmental impact study, how long does that need to
proceed?
MR. NUFFER: Well, if all things go reasonably
well, we hope to complete the draft environmental impact
statement this summer, which will give you the environmental
data to accompany these alternatives that we have identified
where.
One more question.
A VOICE: I'm a little uncomfortable with the
monologue type input. I feel a little better with the more
dialogue type input. What's been happening is one person
says something, another person says something, and it's
42.
tough for both parties to get together. What my question
is, ultimately who makes the decision, and how is that
decision going to be made on what is actually done in the
canyon?
MR. NUFFER: Does Howard or Todd care to answer
that question?
MR. HOWARD RICHARDSON: This draft environmental
impact statement will contain an inventory of all of the
resources and the values that all parties have identified
in the canyon; and a recommended design will be recommended
or proposed, considering all of those things; and where
impacts or problems are perceived to take place, mitigations
and recommendations will be supplied in the environmental
impact statement containing what will happen.
There will be a public hearing that will be held
that will contain the comments of people who wish to comment
on that proposal and on those recommendations and on the
proposed mitigation. After that has been heard, then the
U. S. Forest Service and the Federal Highway Administration
will make a determination of whether the environmental issues
and safety issues have been properly addressed and whether
that represents a reasonable and proper and prudent solution
to the problem at hand.
So the agencies, the sponsoring agencies are
the ones who will make the final decision. It will be made
43.
only after a tremendous amount of input, of which these
meetings last night and tonight are only a part of.
MR. ELLIOTT: Another question. Is there a
possibLlity of having a citizens' advisory to that decision?
Has that been done?
MR. RICHARDSON: Well, I don't think that's--it's
possible to have that done on an informal basis. But that
would be simply a measure to help structure and make sure
that the problems are identified and the concerns were
properly put into the environmental document.
MR. ELLIOTT: Could you take that into
consideration?
MR. RICHARDSON: Yes, I'm sure that will be taken
into consideration. The team and I were thinking about
that. On the interd~sciplinary , team that has now been
meeting for several months, there has been 12 to 15 meetings
by the interdisciplinary team. That represents a composite
of varied interests of the resources and the values in the
canyon. So there already is a type of that thing taking
place. Yes, there is.
MR. ELLIOTT: Is there any way of getting a record
of what transpires next?
MR. RICHARDSON: Well, those minutes are public
information, and minutes have been kept of all of those
meetings, and CH2M Hill are the guardians of those things.
44.
They manufacture them and make them and circulate them for
each of the meetings, so that everybody knows what was done
last time, and they are reviewed and approved and discussed.
And, yes, those things are not secret. They are available
for everybody who wants to look at them.
MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you.
MR. NUFFER: Dave Baumgartner.
MR. DAVE BAUMGARTNER: As a suggestion to us
all--and I haven't talked to Howard nor to Stan nor the
CM2H folks about this, the original design of that
environmental study is unique, and it really didn't operate
like we had thought it was going to at .the beginning. We
had invited some members of the environmental community
to sit on that, because they had the major concerns with
the program.
I think most people recognize that there were
needs that legitimately ought to be done on the highway.
And our thought in the beginning was to bring in those people
who had adverse views to that and help us work through the
process, so that that would go a little bit smoother.
But it's changed a little bit in its organization.
I would suggest to us who were on that team that we do what
he suggests and invite a responsible member from either
this side of the hill or however we want to do that, in
order to provide that balance that not only he, but several
45.
others have suggested. I think we ought to consider that.
That's more of a statement to these guys than the crowd,
but I think it's a legitimate thing to bring up.
MR. NUFFER: Thank you.
(At 8:43 p.m., Wednesday, March 4, 1987, the .
meeting ended.)
State of Utah
County of Salt Lake
I, Ronald P. Hubbard do hereby certify that I am
a certified shorthand reporter in and for the State of Utah, License No. 32; that I reported in shorthad the foregoing proceedings, and that this transcript is a full, true, and correct record of said proceedings. Dated at Salt Lake City Utah, this 10th day of March 1986.
Ronald P. Hubbard
230 Judge Building Salt Lake City, Utah
(301) 355-1611
LOGAN · CANYON STUDY - PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS
March 4, 1981 - Garden City, Utah
NAME REPRESENTING DO YOU WISH TO SPEAK?
