MEMORANDUM CH2M HILL
TO: Interdisciplinary Team
FROM: Stan Nuffer
DATE: April 15, 1987
SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study
The nineteenth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on
March 30, 1987 at 3:00 p.m. at UDOT District Office in Odgen,
Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. Also attached
for review is the Technical Memorandum on the existing
conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum.
The next meeting will be held on Monday, April 20, 1987 at
7:00 p.m at the U.S. Forest Service District Office in Logan,
Utah. The agenda will be as follows:
1. Review minutes of March 30 meeting.
2. Final discussion of traffic projections.
3. Discuss summaries of scoping meeting testimony (to be
distributed at the meeting) .
4. Discussion on Chapter 7 - components of roadway
5. Discussion of the existing conditions portions of the
aquatic resources, recreation/land use and socio-economic
6. Outline for day-long work session session in Canyon on
Tuesday, April 21, starting at 7:30 a.m.
Future meeting schedule:
May 4 - 3:00 p.m., District Office
May 18 - 3:00 p.m., Brigham City
LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
MINUTES OF ID TE~l MEETING
March 30, 1987
Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL
Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL
Fred LaBar, USFS
Mark Shaw, USFS
Gale Larson, Valley Engineering
Arlo Waddops, Valley Engineering
Duncan Silver, FHWA
Bruce Brotherson, UDOT
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT
John Neil, UDOT
Howard Richardson, UDOT
Steve Flint, Audobon Assoc.
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Item 1 - Review of Minutes
Minutes of the previous meeting were reviewed and approved,
with some minor changes.
Item 2 - Scoping Meeting Summaries
Copies of the meeting transcripts were distributed. Team
members were informed that copies of the written comments
will be distributed after April 6. It was reported that the
Cache County ~ouncil is going to request an extension of
time to comment. Stan Nuffer indicated that the objective
is to obtain as much input as possible and that comments
will be given consideration even if they are received after
the deadline. Hopefully, there will not be too many so that
the summary can be prepared and some decisions made on the
Item 3 - Discussion of Alternatives C1, D1, D2, and D3
There was a discussion about these alternatives in preparation
for a trip to the Canyon. Duncan Silver asked how the
impacts of a 35 MPH alternative would be evaluated and compared
to a 40 MPH alternative. The impacts would depend
upon the amount of additional area affected due to flattening
Visual impacts would be evaluated using the USFS system that
was described by Clark Ostergaard.
Steve Flint wanted to be sure that the accident data on the
16 sites that have higher than average accident occurrences
was available when the team went into the Canyon. He also
asked if it would be possible to consider spot improvements
that were outside the project boundaries. There is a location
approximately 0.7 miles west of Right Fork that might
be suitable for a slow vehicle turnout.
In preparation for the meeting in the Canyon, some sections
will be staked to show the construction limits of the alternatives
Project maps at a scale of 1" = 200' were distributed
and locations to be staked identified. Valley
Engineering will survey and place stakes at those locations
a few days prior to the I.D. Team meeting.
Item 4 - Aquatic Resources and Recreation/Land Use Technical
Copies of the aquatic resources and recreation/land use "
technical memos were distributed to the I.D. Team members.
There will be some discussion on these after team members
have had a chance to review them.
Item 6 - Continued Discussion of Traffic Projections
Cliff Forsgren distributed some additional information on
traffic projections. A range of future traffic flows were
developed using traffic volumes and northern Utah populations
from 1940 to the present. The team members were asked to
review and give their comments.
Duncan Silver indicated that he felt that there was no real
benefit in continuing to rework future traffic projections.
The road cannot meet todays needs, even with a modified
standard and he could see no benefit in spending more time
working to precisely determine future volumes.
Item 7 - Comments on Chapter 7
Due to the length of the meeting, discussion was postponed
to a future date.
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.