Utah Transportation Commission
December 16, 1994
Salt Lake City, Utah

The regular meeting of the Utah Transportation Commission, held at 4501 South 2700 West in Salt Lake City, was called to order at 9:07 a.m. by Commission Chairman Glen E. Brown. He recognized Don Steinke from the Federal Highway Administration and welcomed all those in attendance.

Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Larkin made a motion to approve the minutes of the Transportation Commission Meeting held on November 4, 1994 in Farmington, it was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and passed unanimously.

Retirement Awards
Duane Christensen, Region 2, 36 Years - "Chris" was presented to the Commission by Gene Sturzenegger to receive his retirement award after more than 36 years of distinguished service. Gene noted Chris is well known throughout the department and is held in high esteem and affection. He has held various positions during his career, and most recently served as Region 2 Construction Engineer. His leadership of the seven regional project crews has been exceptional.

Probably his most notable accomplishment, though, was during his assignment as a project engineer and the large, complicated projects for which he was responsible to construct the southeast quadrant of I-215. He spent many years and did an outstanding job shepherding the completion of that controversial section of the interstate system.

Gene expressed his personal regard and congratulations to Chris. Commissioner Clyde expressed the appreciation and congratulations of the Transportation Commission to Chris and presented his retirement certificate. He stated he had known Chris for many years and he was a fine man who had always displayed ethical behavior, honesty and integrity.

Chris thanked everyone and said it had been a great career. He would miss all the friends he had made, but he and his wife planned to enjoy his retirement.

L. Archie Hamilton, Region 4, Price District, 35 Years - Chairman Brown noted Archie Hamilton was unable to attend Commission Meeting to receive his retirement award for 35 years of service.


Commendation of Executive Director W. Craig Zwick
Chairman Brown congratulated UDOT Executive Director Craig Zwick for being named "Construction Person of the Year in Utah" by Intermountain Contractor magazine. It is a notable accomplishment and the Commission concurs in that well-deserved recognition; his efforts on behalf of the department and the citizens of Utah is very much appreciated.

Outstanding Highway Project
Chairman Brown also noted UDOT's Lehi Interchange project was recognized as "Outstanding Highway Project" in Intermountain Contractor Best of 1994 issue. The reconstruction of that interchange involved the demolition and reconstruction of two bridges plus resurfacing of a long stretch of I-15. It was completed 70 days early thanks to cooperation, night paving and a superb job of traffic control.

Chairman Brown expressed praise for the fine work being done by the Department, and all those involved with the project deserve recognition.

25-Year AASHTO Awards
Executive Director Zwick and Deputy Director Clint Topham presented 25 Year AASHTO Awards and AASHTO pins to Gerald O. Barrett, Wade B. Betenson, and David G. Blake; other recipients not in attendance were N. Ross Christensen, L. Archie Hamilton, and E. Dan Julio.

Director Zwick explained employees who have achieved division head status for 25 years receive this recognition from AASHTO, although they may have more than 25 years of service in the Department.

Director Zwick said our employees exemplify the statement on the award certificate: "The American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials, appreciative of the benefits accruing to the public from the accumulated and continuous experience of those who make the public service their life work, and desirous of recording its appreciation of such long and faithful service by its members, hereby extends to the employee, after the twenty-fifth year of meritorious public service, these congratulations and good wishes for a long and happy continuance in this chosen field of work."

Resolution
US-89 through Logan Canyon - Modifications to Preferred Alternative
Chairman Brown explained a resolution dealing with US-89 through Logan Canyon and modifications to the Preferred Alternative was before the Commission for consideration.

Kim Schvaneveldt said staff was requesting Commission support of the location and design features of the modified preferred alternative described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and subsequently modified by the resolution. He read the resolution in its entirety, which detailed the modifications.

Commissioner Weston said he wanted to clarify some points about his feelings and his position. He stated he has not been satisfied with the plans for the Temple Fork area and intersection since the beginning. He would have preferred relocating the intersection by making a cut through the area and realigning the Temple Fork road to eliminate a sharp curve and have it intersect the main highway at a safe right angle, and still stay away from the river.

He continued that in the proposed modifications we are giving up a left turn lane at Temple Fork--a down-canyon turn lane--which doesn't bother him a great deal because most of the traffic which turns at Temple Fork is coming up-canyon. What is a major concern to him is whether or not we will be able to construct a right turn lane at that intersection. The wording in the resolution makes a right turn lane conditional. He read the proposed modification in the resolution, ". . . Other improvements, such as an uphill right turn lane and an improved horizontal angle of approach of Temple Fork Road, are secondary improvements which will only be constructed if they do not impact the river or require a substantial retaining wall."

He feels a right turn lane at Temple Fork is critical to Logan Canyon. Looking twenty years to the future, which this EIS addresses, Temple Fork connects two canyons and we need better access than is currently there. Commissioner Weston asked staff specifically if a right turn lane could be constructed under those restrictions, without impacting the river or requiring a substantial retaining wall.

Kim Schvaneveldt replied staff believes it can be done and will be done; they agree with Commissioner Weston that it does need a right turn lane. Dave Berg commented that from preliminary investigations it would appear that going into the hill to provide enough width for a right turn lane is feasible and will be do-able without impacting the river or riparian area.

Commissioner Weston asked Lynn Zollinger his opinion on the situation. Lynn stated staff has looked at the site and, although they haven't done detailed design, the investigation made so far leads them to believe a right turn lane can be constructed, although he doesn't know what length it will be, as well as substantial intersection improvements without encroaching upon the river. He said he didn't know the exact definition of "a substantial retaining wall," but a retaining wall will be required, although he didn't think it would require one that would be difficult to construct, expensive, or particularly high to solve the problem.

Chairman Brown suggested the very last part of the statement be deleted to read: ". . . Other improvements, such as an uphill right turn lane and an improved horizontal angle of approach of Temple Fork Road are secondary improvements." The wording "which will only be constructed if they do not impact the river or require a substantial retaining wall" would be deleted. He said if staff feels they can construct the right turn lane, why reference it with restrictions in the resolution. The statement of "impact the river" is hard to define. Everyone defines "impact" differently.

Commissioner Weston said the reason he brought up the issue is because he wants staff to justify their recommendation for the modifications. He acknowledged the environmentalists' concern for the river and stated he also didn't want to impact it any more than absolutely necessary. He wanted to know if staff felt we could construct a right turn lane, and Kim Schvaneveldt replied it was not 100 percent determined that we can.

Commissioner Lewis said he was also concerned about the many definitions which could be applied to the terms "substantial" and "impact." It invites an argument. He thinks the Commission has a clear indication of the design approach which will be taken and he thinks they can express approval of that approach without necessarily putting in words which invite argument.

Commissioner Clyde said the resolution makes reference to impacting the river, but doesn't reference impact to the hillside. He feels that is going to be an impact for which they will be strongly criticized. He said he wasn't satisfied with the wording, and feels "substantial" can be defined more clearly by more definite on-the-ground appraisals. He has reservations about the wording in the resolution; it's too open-ended and leaves it open to criticism.

Chairman Brown invited comments from anyone interested in the Logan Canyon issue. He wanted to make sure everyone had all the information they desired and all their questions were answered. He noted the Commission members felt they had a good understanding of the issue, but if there were things anyone in the audience would like more fully addressed, they should ask.

Mr. Doug Thompson, President of the Cache Chamber of Commerce in Logan, said they have a real concern for this highway. Not only from the obvious context of being in Logan, but they also manage the Cache-Rich Tourist Council, the Bridgerland Travel Region, which also has responsibility for tourist promotion in the Bear Lake area.

They are vitally concerned this roadway be done in such a way that it will improve traffic flow, but also not disturb any scenic values of the canyon, and frankly think the resolution before the Commission does that fairly well. He said they've had some concerns that the scope of the project may have been cut back too far, but in talking with truckers, emergency vehicle operators, etc. they feel what is proposed can be lived with and is sufficient. The Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has approved the project as it was understood.

Mr. Thompson said he had one concern, and that is he had not heard about any of the additional language concerning the Temple Fork improvements until this very meeting. He thought they had been as proactive as possible to know what was going on with the project, and the reference to the Temple Fork area was of great concern to them because the improvement of the Temple Fork intersection was one of their highest priorities. It is a vital link for cattle, hunters, and cross country skiers and snowmobilers in the winter.

Mr. Thompson said as they develop their recreation plans for Logan Canyon, Temple Fork is a very vital place to access, and without having the improvements at that intersection it is not safe. If the improvements are conditional he would be very concerned. That intersection needs to be improved with as great a concern as possible. He agreed with Chairman Brown's suggestion that the conditional language at the end of the paragraph be deleted. He feels we have adequate controls over the concerns being mentioned with the Citizens Advisory Team (CAT). As long as that group is intact they can watch over the actual construction.

He continued that in general they feel UDOT has bent over backwards to try to work with all the groups involved. He can say without question that the majority, if not the entire group, of elected officials who deal with this project are in favor of going forward. He doesn't know specifically of any elected official who is not in favor of the project.

Mr. Thompson noted that a couple of the County Council people voted against the proposed modifications this past week, and he thinks it was because they felt the project had been cut back too far, but he stressed that the County Council did approve the proposed modifications. He thinks there is broad based support for the project and he urged that it proceed, but with the hope that the language about Temple Fork in the resolution be cut as suggested by Chairman Brown.

Commissioner Weston asked for clarification from Mr. Thompson. What the Commission is considering is a modification to the preferred alternative and he asked Mr. Thompson if he was saying he had never seen the resolution detailing those modifications before. Mr. Thompson said they had heard the items discussed in pretty good detail and knew about the proposed modifications, except they had never actually seen the resolution, and had never heard the specific language or were aware of the conditional aspects of the improvement to Temple Fork intersection.

Commissioner Weston said the Commission was told all groups had been contacted with this information and he was concerned if they hadn't been included. Mr. Thompson said their group had worked hard and he had thought they had been included in the loop. Commissioner Weston thanked him for his comments.

Mr. Shawn Swaner, Acting Chairman of the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC), said he had had a substantial amount of input. It was very generous on the part of UDOT and the Commission in seeing the resolution before them come about. He would like to address several issues relating to that.

He thinks the Commission is aware, and CPLC is aware, that this resolution is a painful compromise on both sides. UDOT and the Transportation Commission and CPLC have had to come from a polarized attitude toward each other in the past couple of years toward a middle ground, and that has not been comfortable or easy to do. He thinks the work which has gone into the resolution by the UDOT staff says much to the citizens of Utah and to other environmental groups that grievances and disagreements over proposed activities can be resolved without having to take them to court and without having to get nasty about it.

He strongly encouraged the Commission to accept the resolution as a compromise agreement, and it will allow work to go forward in the Canyon and it will say to other concerned people in the state that UDOT and the Transportation Commission are not the public enemy they are perhaps sometimes perceived to be and that we can work together and work out a change.

Mr. Swaner said he has been involved in meeting with UDOT officials over the past year, and CPLC had a perhaps extreme position when they first came into this. They didn't get all the points they raised; there were still dozens of issues which they wanted to see added to the resolution which they conceded. Likewise, he thinks there were some issues which UDOT would have liked added.

Concerning the issue on Temple Fork, he said they have been on site and have talked with representatives of the Forest Service and with UDOT engineers, and it is going to be a tight squeeze to get a right turn lane in there. He told Commissioner Weston that he would argue that if a right turn lane is mandated the only thing that would do would cause more scrutiny of that area. If they are allowed to go in with the CAT team and with the Transportation Commission and UDOT engineers and look over the site on a site-by-site basis and work out the plan in the design phase that is best suited for that area, then they can see a right turn lane go in there. A great amount of effort has gone into this Record of Decision. Even though this document is only a few pages long, hundreds of hours of work have gone into it. A substantial change to this effort could necessitate an entire new amount of work.

Commissioner Weston asked Mr. Swaner if he felt the suggested deletion of phrasing about Temple Fork was a substantial change. Mr. Swaner said he thinks it is because the actual nature of what is going to happen at Temple Fork could vary. You could have a very small right turn lane which could fit it without substantially impacting the river, or if we mandate a turning lane without mandating the nature of the turn lane we could have a full AASHTO standard turn lane for that design speed which would have significant impacts on the river. Commissioner Weston said his concern is that it be a safe turn lane, not that it specifically be an AASHTO standard.

Mr. Swaner continued that CPLC members and citizens of Cache Valley have for many, many years had very strong and very vocal opposition to this. When he joined the organization several years ago they were anticipating and preparing for a very nasty legal battle. CPLC is no longer on that course. They have been convinced, in talking with UDOT officials, with Director Zwick and with others, that they can have a good role in the design phase through the CAT team as outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding [contained in the Appendix of the Record of Decision], and they look forward to participating in this project as design and construction proceeds.

He said there have been concerns expressed that there may be other actions taken to hinder, delay or stop this project going forward. What he would ask is that the Transportation Commission send the message to CPLC and to the Citizens of Cache Valley that work is going to go forward and the Citizens, through their seats on the CAT team, are going to have a strong and productive input into what actually happens in the canyon. He thinks Temple Fork is a very good example of how the CAT team, with members of the Forest Service, and other agencies who have oversight of the resources of that area, will have their input and determine what actually happens so that a safe turn lane can be constructed and that we can meet the safety needs of the motoring public.

Dave Berg explained the Memorandum of Understanding is basically an agreement between UDOT, FHWA, and U. S. Forest Service as to how an oversight team is going to be developed to review the design and construction of the project.

Chairman Brown asked Mr. Swaner how he would define "impact." Mr. Swaner replied the working definitions which they have used in negotiations would be considered significant sedimentation to the river, or encroachment on the riparian habitat which is alongside the river at this particular site, or any intrusions which would impede the flow of the river as it is now. In this location the road is above the river and there is a very steep grade going down into the river. There is loose material on the side of the road adjacent to the river, and there is a riparian band down below. In on-site visits it appeared a small retaining wall could be constructed near the river and that would not necessitate any encroachment on the river or any significant damage to the riparian habitat below, and by cutting into the hillside it will allow for expansion of the highway. After spending numerous hours on this site, he personally doesn't see why that could not be done.

Commissioner Weston referred to Mr. Swaner's comment about cutting into the hillside--and he noted that neither Mr. Swaner nor himself were engineers--but did that mean Mr. Swaner recognized that to make a safe turn at Temple Fork that it is possible we will have to cut into the hillside. Mr. Swaner affirmed he understood that, and he thinks that with the hill not being a steep hill it could very easily be done without a significant impact. Commissioner Weston asked if the hillside material was mostly rock and would be stable, and was not loose material that would move easily and create a slide area. Kim Schvaneveldt commented it looked pretty stable. Lynn Zollinger said we didn't know for a fact if it was rock, although it appears to be.

Mr. Swaner said he would like to make a point that by leaving in the language about "impact to the river and a substantial retaining wall," doesn't say that it's not necessarily going to happen; it just provides guidelines the designers, engineers, and CAT team will take into consideration. If that language is removed there will be increased concern that a turn lane will actually be put in with impact to the river. Mr. Swaner said he would ask, even if the Commission ends up mandating that there be a right turn lane, that the language be left in so that whatever is done there will not impact the river; that is their primary concern.

Commissioner Clyde asked Mr. Swaner if their concern then is not with the hillside. Mr. Swaner replied it is a concern, but a much lesser concern than the river.

Chairman Brown said Mr. Swaner had referenced a Memorandum of Understanding, negotiations, litigation, and discussion. He asked Mr. Swaner if they are to understand that if the Commission adopts this resolution that we will not see any litigation in the future from CPLC. Mr. Swaner said he will not go so far as to guarantee that no litigation will come forward. As the agreements they worked out were carried forward, and if the intent in which they were worked out is maintained, then CPLC has no desire to pursue any litigation of any sort. CPLC is doing this with the understanding that the CAT team will be taken seriously, that their input will be valued and listened to, and that CPLC will have a role on that CAT team; that is the intent under which these negotiations have gone forward. As long as that intent is carried forward in design, then there will be no litigation.

Chairman Brown asked who the members of the CAT team will be. Dave Berg read from the Memorandum of Understanding that: "The CAT will consist of cooperating agencies and local representation. The U. S. Forest Service, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah State Lands and Forestry, and Utah State Engineer's Office will each be invited to have one representative on the team. Local representation will be appointed by UDOT's Executive Staff and Commission. Rich County, Cache County, Logan City and Garden City governments, the environmental community, and the community at large will each be invited to have one representative on this team."

Chairman Brown asked if it takes a unanimous decision, a majority of the group, or can any one member determine if someone's concerns are not being considered and can cry foul and say they are no longer a party to the agreement. Do they operate as an organized entity that they negotiate and discuss an issue. Dave Berg responded that the final decision on design matters will be UDOT's, with input from members of the CAT team. Lynn Zollinger said the CAT team was devised to officially take input from the various entities that have concern relative to the project. UDOT will consider their input and make a decision relative to the project advancement. What UDOT is confined to is within the Record of Decision and we cannot exceed its bounds. We will listen to all of the input, but nonetheless a decision relative to the project advancement remains with UDOT.

Chairman Brown stated that "exceeding the bounds" was a very broad term, like "significant" and "impact." That still leaves some point to someone's judgment, and everyone judges differently, which means someone can say we've violated the bounds. Lynn agreed that remains a possibility.

Commissioner Clyde said it gives him great concern when he hears the Department of Transportation and the Transportation Commission depicted as "public enemies," as Mr. Swaner had commented. He asked Mr. Swaner if he knew of any group or individual that is planning to oppose even the compromises which are being proposed. Mr. Swaner replied there have been individuals who have expressed a dissatisfaction with the compromise which has been worked out, citing it as not being conservative enough. Those individuals have the option of doing whatever they will as citizens. He said he did not know of any organization that is formally organized to oppose this compromise.

Commissioner Weston complimented Mr. Swaner for the work he had done to help make this communication easier, because we have come a long way. He said there are many people in Cache Valley who thinks he (Commissioner Weston) has caved in too far even on the Preferred Alternative. Commissioner Weston said he had lived in Logan all his life, and the people in Cache Valley respect Logan Canyon; it's not just the CPLC group, there are many other people who do not want the river disturbed. It's a beautiful river and there are some beautiful areas in the canyon.

He said when he was on the Cache County Commission in 1964 they decided when we did something with that canyon that the first four miles ought to have special treatment. When this last go-round came to the forefront UDOT decided we were going to essentially leave that first four miles alone, and we have pretty much kept to that commitment in our Preferred Alternative. Mr. Swaner agreed they had kept to that commitment.

Commissioner Weston continued that we took a big step in compromise in Logan Canyon when we did that because he knows others who would have pushed for a standard design regardless of the area. We've had some trucking people and others who drive through that canyon regularly who are not happy with that. Commissioner Weston said he has had criticism from both sides. He has tried to be a friend to Logan Canyon because he loves the area also. He has told those people that if we make that lower four-mile section a type of parkway, because it is an area that is special to the people of this area, and that we reduce the speed limit so it is safe to go through there on that narrow road, we can live with it. We made that determination long ago and he thinks that was a great compromise. He has been criticized for making that compromise by many people in the Valley.

Commissioner Weston said Mr. Swaner cannot speak for everyone, and he was a little discouraged that Steve Flint's name wasn't signed to the letter from CPLC. Mr. Swaner replied that Mr. Flint is a part of their group, but he is no longer active in the group's leadership. Commissioner Weston said Mr. Flint has been quoted in the newspaper. He asked Mr. Swaner if he knew Mr. Flint's position on this issue. Mr. Swaner said he wouldn't speak for Mr. Flint, but he would cite his involvement in the evolution of this. Mr. Flint played a role, along with Mr. Swaner and Bruce Pendery, as one of the three people from CPLC that met with Lynn Zollinger, Dave Berg and others at UDOT to work out our differences. He thinks that Mr. Flint's participation and concurrence with this compromise as it has evolved is the best statement we have of his feelings. The letter CPLC submitted to UDOT and the Commission was only signed by the CPLC Board of Directors, of which Mr. Flint is not a member.

There was some discussion about anyone being able to file a lawsuit against this project, and Mr. Swaner said that CPLC is a large organization that has a good standing in the community. Anyone can file a lawsuit for just a very nominal fee, but filing a lawsuit is only the first step in a very lengthy process and CPLC has the ability to carry a lawsuit through to completion, but CPLC is not intending to do that. There is no other organization of which he is aware that intends to file a lawsuit, or would even have the capability of doing so if they desired.

Mr. Swaner commented that the Department and Commission has come a long way from the original position, and he, likewise, feels he has brought CPLC a long way from their original position. When he joined CPLC his first job was helping investigate ways to derail this plan through various other government agencies. CPLC is no longer pursuing motives like that. They have come a long, long way, and there are people who have expressed dissatisfaction with them in the amount of compromise and the amount they are willing to give on this road. It is a two-way process and he thinks the resolution before the Commission represents a liveable, if not a happy, medium. Commissioner Weston commented UDOT had come a long way too.

Commissioner Weston said this latest resolution seems to not compromise much; it's pretty much one-sided. All the issues in there are issues that change the Preferred Alternative, which the Commission has already gone on record of supporting. Mr. Swaner said it is hard to balance what has happened. All of the changes have come from the original Preferred Alternative, but all he can say is that he has an extensive list of things they wanted, but compromised on; it is two-sided. He thinks the resolution is a workable plan that CPLC will live with and that it seems the UDOT engineers can live with, and a plan that allows construction to go forward after 30 years of talking about it.

Commissioner Weston commented he has been perceived by the environmental community as being anti-environmental, but he perceives himself to be an environmentalist.

Mr. Swaner said he has met with many of the Commissioners and UDOT staff and it has been good to interact with them and to hear what they have had to say. He appreciates that UDOT has listened to what CPLC has to say and he sincerely hopes this dialogue can continue into the future.

Chairman Brown asked Mr. Swaner if they support the retaining wall on the hillside at Temple Fork in order to accommodate a right turn lane. Mr. Swaner replied the way they had originally conceived it, and which he finds acceptable, is to have a short MSE retaining wall running right adjacent to the road. Because there is a slope down below and the retaining wall would be above it to hold the road and the road material from going into the river, and that would be acceptable. It would actually be desirable as the current roadway is actually sliding and eroding into the river now. That was indicated as desirable at their on-site visits.

Chairman Brown asked Mr. Swaner if their group wanted to see the road built. Mr. Swaner affirmed they did; changes need to be made. He lives in Logan and tries to make it up the canyon at least once a week, and there is construction work which very obviously needs to go forward. They want to see work done to the road.

Commissioner Weston asked if their position was still that they don't want to see passing lanes, but they'd rather have slow vehicle turnouts. Mr. Swaner said they have seen slow vehicle turnouts effectively used in other states. UDOT has indicated they are not commonly used in this state, but they are a very good alternative when a passing lane would have severe encroachments on wetlands areas. From looking at the area where these slow vehicle turnouts have been proposed he thinks he will defer to other agencies, such as the Corps of Engineers on this, and that they may be a viable option to limit wetlands impact. He said CPLC has signed off on a tentative passing lane in this area, although they would like to see turnouts considered. He wants to make that distinction. Commissioner Weston asked Mr. Swaner if CPLC has recognized that UDOT intends to pursue the course of a passing lane. Mr. Swaner said as they have talked to Lynn Zollinger and Dave Berg, the actual location, the milepost markers at the beginning and end, have not formally been designated and they hope to have input on where it actually will be located.

Commissioner Clyde said we now have a definition of a retaining wall--an MSE wall, as stated by Mr. Swaner. He asked Lynn Zollinger if he thinks it can be done that way. Lynn said possibly. Commissioner Clyde said a retaining wall requires a footing and goes into the river, and an MSE wall doesn't. Lynn said that remains for a final design; he thinks an MSE wall is possible.

Chairman Brown thanked Mr. Swaner for his comments, and he invited other to comment.

Mayor Ralph H. Haycock of Hyrum City said he is also the President of the Cache Mayors' Association. The Cache Mayors' Association represents 19 communities in Cache Valley and a s this issue came up it was startling to him to know how many of the mayors had not been contacted and knew nothing of the things which were happening, so they put together a short meeting last Tuesday and 16 of the 19 mayors were there. He said they appreciated Commissioner Weston and Lynn Zollinger for coming up and giving them a one hour video review of what was taking place. He read a letter over his signature, which he felt expressed the feelings at that meeting and said the letter had been reviewed by some of the mayors, but he would have a follow-up document which all the mayors would sign. He read:

"I have reviewed the Record of Decision and then, together with several Mayors from Cache County, met on Tuesday, December 13, with Todd Weston and Lynn Zollinger to discuss the road improvements described therein.

"We, as a group of Cache Valley Mayors, feel that in comparing the Record of Decision with the highway improvements outlined in the document entitled 'US-89, Logan Canyon Preferred Alternative,' several compromises have been made to satisfy some dubious environmental issues.

"We question some of these compromises for a number of reasons. Traffic safety, for example, is a primary concern for us. As the highway along certain sections is widened and improved, the speed of traffic will increase as well. Other sections, according to the plan, will remain narrow, falling victim to some of these compromises, thereby creating bottlenecks and safety hazards that did not exist before the road improvements were made.

"Although most Mayors of Cache Valley seem willing to accept the road improvement plan as outlined in the Record of Decision, we urge the Utah Transportation Commission to neither consider nor accept any further compromises in the road improvements proposed for Logan Canyon.

"I think I speak for most members of the Cache Mayors' Association when I say that we are all environmentalists. But we are also sensitive to our sacred responsibilities to enhance and protect human life in addition to the environment.

"Let us not abandon further reason in this matter by yielding to heightened pressure applied in the special interests of those whose sole purpose is to drive this project by the whip of preposterous compromise at the expense of human safety."

Mayor Haycock said he has not been involved in this issue as long as some of the engineers, but that was the feeling of the Cache Mayors' Association.

Commissioner Weston said he had never met Mayor Haycock until that meeting. In the recent Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization (CMPO) meeting Commissioner Weston said he had a chance to quiz some of the mayors who sit on that Planning Organization. He asked them some hard questions about Logan Canyon, and particularly the modifications being proposed in the resolution. There seemed to be a lack of understanding between them, and that is why he called Mr. Zollinger at that time because he had perceived the mayors had been in the loop, but it appeared this was something they had missed out on.

He said he had pointed a few fingers at UDOT staff, because he felt perhaps they had not made enough communication with all those interested. He said he and Mr. Zollinger got together and agreed they ought to show the mayors what was proposed, with the idea that the Commission was neutral on the issue of the modifications and they wanted to get the mayors' position on the issue and have them tell the Commission what they wanted. That was why he asked for the meeting with the Cache Mayors' Association.

Mayor Haycock agreed Commissioner Weston had presented a neutral position at the meeting. He also complimented Lynn Zollinger because he knows there has been much negotiation and work which has gone into this, and they appreciate that. They are just concerned about public safety.

Chairman Brown thanked Mayor Haycock for his comments and observations.

Mayor Bryce Nielson of Garden City said he is also a fisheries biologist and has worked for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources in that capacity for 25 years. He also owns a home in Logan Canyon along the sections which are going to be improved. He has been very closely aligned with the particular project since its inception. There haves been many things done on the project and many things stated which he has found very difficult to keep quiet about, especially environmental things. He said he has spent time with electro-shockers in the river, and making wetlands determinations is part of his job. He has represented the citizens of Garden City for nearly ten years as mayor. Four and one-half miles of this particular road is going to go into the city limits of Garden City, so they've been very concerned about what has been going on.

It's interesting to note that the majority of the controversy has ended at the Rich/Cache County line at the summit of Logan Canyon. He said he had hoped one of the commissioners from Rich County would have been in attendance at this meeting, but they are not. He said, however, he did have an opportunity to discuss with them the proposed modifications to the Preferred Alternative in the resolution. He said their primary concern about Logan Canyon is safety; speed is not the concern. There are concerns about the road being narrower than preferred above Rick Springs, but they are willing to make a compromise. The road needs to be improved. He knows from personal experience the kind and amount of traffic which travels Logan Canyon. He said perhaps the citizens of Rich County look at Logan Canyon a little differently, but they love it as much as anyone else.

He said he believes the things he has seen in the environmental impact statement--and he is familiar with EIS documents--in terms of impacts on our riparian zones, aquatic resources, fisheries, big game habitat, etc. can be done without having significant impacts on those particular resources.

Mayor Nielson said he would like to give his support to the modifications being proposed, but he would agree strongly with Mayor Haycock in the fact that if we do make this compromise that it is the final compromise, and that we don't go any further. He thinks we have bent over backwards in this particular situation to preserve a unique resource. It is going to be tough for Garden City and Rich County during construction; their businesses are going to suffer, but they are willing to make the sacrifice for the best for the future for the many thousands, if not millions, of motorists who will travel through Logan Canyon after twenty years.

Commissioner Weston asked Mayor Nielson for clarification about his statement: Was he saying he favored the modifications to the Preferred Alternative as stated in the resolution? Mayor Nielson affirmed he favored the amendment to the Preferred Alternative. He continued that he agreed with Commissioner Weston's comments regarding Temple Fork. He has looked at the site and at the riparian zones, and the tourism.

Commissioner Weston said he thought Mayor Nielson was pretty much an environmentalist, and Mayor Nielson said very much so. Commissioner Weston continued he just wanted to be clear if Mayor Nielson had been talking about favoring the Preferred Alternative, or the modifications to the Preferred Alternative as proposed in the resolution. Mayor Nielson said they were happy with the Preferred Alternative, but are prepared to support the amendments to the Preferred Alternative. Commissioner Weston asked him if he was speaking for Garden City and not the Rich County Commission. Mayor Nielson replied that after his meeting with the Rich County Commissioners discussing this issue, they felt that they could throw up roadblocks, but in the best public interest decided to go with the proposed modifications. But, he said they are very, very concerned with any other compromises in the future. Commissioner Weston said what the Rich County Commission has said to him is let's just get something done. Mayor Nielson agreed that was their feeling.

Chairman Brown thanked Mayor Nielson for his comments.

Director Zwick said he would like to commend, on behalf of the Department, the interactive dialogue which has taken place. He thanked Lynn Zollinger, Dave Berg, and Lorraine Richards for their steadiness and willingness to listen through the entire process, and said they have represented the Department very well.

Commissioner Clyde said his experience in Logan Canyon started in 1930 as a young boy when he accompanied his father on a construction project to build the road from the summit down to Garden City, and again in 1935 when the section near Tony's Grove was reconstructed. He noted that things which were done then are not compatible with what we consider to be good environmental policies now. He represented the contracting industry on the UDOT Environmental Council, so he is aware of some of these things, and he supports good environmental considerations. He said he has a fondness for Logan Canyon, but also has a recognition for the need of a transportation system which addresses the needs of the system, and he thinks these things can be worked out. He thinks we should keep this well in mind. He said he appreciates and applauds the things which have been said here today, although he may not agree with everything. He appreciates Mr. Swaner's position because he is dedicated to being sure things are done right. He thinks progress is being made and he supports what Mayor Nielson from Garden City said that we need to get on with the project.

Commissioner Weston said he has had some concern about the narrowing of the highway from Beaver Mountain Ski Area down to the cattleguard at milepost 391. He has been aware of a very sensitive area, especially along Beaver Creek, and we recognized early on that there is a riparian area there which is very sensitive. He said he felt we could move into the mountain with some type of retaining wall and stay away from the riparian area and still maintain our width there. He felt that, of all parts of the canyon where we've got a chance to put a decent, safe passing lane is in the straight area from the cattleguard up to Franklin Basin turnoff, and there is one proposed there. He doesn't know exactly the length it will be. Of all the places in Logan Canyon that is one place where we can pass a little bit safely right now, in fact that is where most of the passing is done.

He continued he was concerned about reducing the width of that for two reasons: One is that by reducing it do we have a chance to put the passing lane in. The second issue is safety. He asked staff to illustrate the road width and how it relates to the number of lanes and their width, shoulder width, and what we lose by reducing from 40 feet down to 34 feet. Lynn Zollinger replied that in any case each traffic lane is 12 feet wide, even in the case of a passing lane, whether we are talking about the 34-foot width or the 40-foot width. He illustrated on the blackboard the difference in the lane configurations with the different highway widths. The 34-foot width will have two 12-foot lanes with a five-foot paved shoulder on each side. The areas with a passing lane will have three 12-foot lanes with a five-foot shoulder on the downhill side and a three-foot shoulder on the uphill side, making a total paved width of 44 feet. The compromise we are making is in the shoulder width which is being reduced from eight feet to five feet on both sides, except in the area where there is a passing lane the shoulder on the uphill (or passing lane) side will be reduced to three feet.

Commissioner Weston asked Lynn to address the safety aspect of that. He thought someone in the department issued some statement on that particular section regarding safety. Lynn replied that before department staff proposed that we substitute the 34-foot section for the 40-foot we asked the Division of Safety what the difference is in terms of safety.

Mack Christensen from the Safety Division asked if the Commission had a copy of a January 13, 1994 letter from Safety, and it was indicated it was contained in the ROD. Mack explained essentially what Safety did was go back and research some studies which had been conducted and there are mixed results. The indication is there is definite safety benefit with a five-foot shoulder. Any time you reduce from the eight-foot standard there is some compromise from safety.

Commissioner Weston wanted to know how much of a compromise; you can't pull off the highway with a five-foot shoulder. Mack said as he understood it there would still be gravel shoulders beyond the five-foot paved shoulder to allow motorists room to pull off the road; what we are compromising is in the paved portion of the shoulder. It's questionable as to how much safety we are compromising by reducing the shoulder width. There is some justification to indicate that we should not reduce anything below a five-foot shoulder. Mack said one of the studies they looked at in particular evaluated a section of road that had 24 feet plus two-foot shoulders, and the indication in that was that the most cost effective widening project would be to go with five-foot shoulders rather than an eight-foot shoulder. That study indicated you get the majority of the safety benefit in that first five feet of shoulder.

So, based on the review and the indication that this could make the difference between either building the road or not building the road, the Safety Division supported the shoulder reduction. Commissioner Weston said whether or not we build the road is not the issue; the issue is safety. Mack replied Safety's concern is that there are some safety issues in the canyon right now that are being left unaddressed, and that is what their concern is. They really feel we need to get on with the project because we need to have some safety improvements in the canyon and they didn't feel we were giving up as much safety by reducing down to a five-foot shoulder with what we would gain by being able to proceed with the project and do the widening through there. They felt they were gaining much more in safety than by what we were compromising. Commissioner Weston said he didn't think anyone would argue the point that anything we did up there would be better than what we've got as far as safety because we don't have a very safe road there.

Chairman Brown asked Don Steinke from FHWA if he would share his perspective on the issue. Mr. Steinke replied he appreciated the public involvement process the many people have spoken to so far. It seems now, after several years, and hundreds of thousands of dollars we are down to a few fine points. On the resolution and proposed changes itself the two items that concern him most is the issue of narrowing the part of the Upper Canyon from 40 to 34 feet, and the issue concerning the Temple Fork area. He thinks we need to keep in mind that this section of road has been proposed to be on the National Highway System, and he does see Congress eventually passing that system. Speaking in terms of the National Highway System, from a safety standpoint and a traffic operation standpoint the reduction of the width and possible elimination of a left or right turn lane, in his opinion, could have an impact on the safety of this roadway.

Relative from going from 40 to 34 feet, he has been in discussions before and he thought they were discussing a 36 or 38-foot width, and he really doesn't think the impact on the wetlands will be that great a difference. There will be people that will disagree on how great that impact is, but he thought the impact is only an acre or two.

Looking at the entire project as a whole, we have made many compromises on the riparian areas, wetlands, etc. He believes that a greater width in the Upper Canyon area would serve the traveling public very well, although he knows the compromise resolution is to 34 feet, he would like to see something a little bit greater.

Also, concerning the right and left turn lanes at Temple Fork, as the traffic grows in that area he thinks having those turn lanes would be very appropriate. Speaking in terms of the National Highway System he believes where we can get some extra width we should.

Regarding some of the nebulous wording in the resolution, he is not precisely aware of what is in the Memorandum of Understanding, but if we could use that process through the design and construction phase to guide us on this project, he would suggest we use that rather than retain some nebulous wording that may leave us open at a later date to criticism or judgment.

He said, in summary he would like us to get as much width in lanes wherever possible, still working with the groups involved, and also utilizing the design and construction committees to guide us as we proceed on the project.

Lynn Zollinger said he would like to point out that relative to the dimensions, that is to the edge of paving, and from the edge of paving down to the existing terrain there is an additional area on about a 6:1 slope that would also be suitable to pull off the road. Commissioner Clyde agreed a car could negotiate a 6:1 slope. Lynn continued that the only area where you could not pull off is where guardrail may exist, and in that case with a five-foot shoulder you would be right up against the guardrail section; you would be very close to coming over the white line on the edge of the road in a guardrailed section. Commissioner Weston asked if we do need guardrail from the preliminary investigation. Lynn replied there will be sections of guardrail, particularly where retaining walls are placed up above. Commissioner Weston said he was talking about from Franklin Basin down. Lynn said from Franklin Basin down he didn't expect any guardrail except for Red Banks Bridge and Tony's Grove, but above Franklin Basin there will be some guardrail.

Commissioner Lewis said his understanding is that the AASHTO standard is the 40 foot road, which is why we started there. He needs input from the engineers and from Safety Division to justify deviating from the AASHTO standard; it seems we start to incur some liability problems, or at least a potential for them, when we deviate from the standard. He needs some assurance and the record needs to reflect what our engineers and Safety people feel about that reduction, or even something in between the 34 and the 40-foot width.

Lynn replied the reason staff suggested 34 feet was based on the lower canyon section which is already 34 feet, and they proposed to extend that. Commissioner Lewis said but on the 34-foot section in the lower part most of that is posted at a lower speed, isn't it? Lynn agreed that was correct, although some of it is posted at 50 MPH.

Mack Christensen said he needs to make it clear that the Division of Safety really feels there is some compromise in safety. They would much rather stay with the eight-foot shoulder. They feel it is a better solution, but they feel also that it's better to build the project than not build the project. If the difference between the five-foot shoulder and the eight-foot shoulder means the difference in building the project or not, they support the five foot because they don't feel the compromise in safety for that three foot difference is that significant. They feel the best safety benefit is in the first five feet of shoulder as evidenced by the reviews they did. Beyond the five feet there is some safety benefit, without question, but it's not as significant as the five foot shoulder.

Commissioner Lewis asked Mack if he was saying he was comfortable in deviating from the AASHTO standards because of the small amount that extra three feet proportionately represents. Mack said he didn't know that they were comfortable with that. What he is saying is he thinks it's better to build the project than not build a project, and if we have to compromise somewhat, that is probably the best compromise we can make. What gives him the biggest concern was the possibility of shifting the location of a passing lane. He really feels the passing lane needs to start at the first part of that tangent section. We need to get the passing lane in as quickly as possible after the curved section below because there are going to be cars which are backed up and will be anxious to pass, so we need to start that passing lane as soon as possible.

Commissioner Lewis continued that he has some problems justifying deviating from the safety standards which are long developed and long proven and he has discomfort with that. He would feel better if we even went to a 38-foot roadway as opposed to going to 34 feet; any extra margin of safety seems to be more than justified and it seems we really have to consider that carefully.

Concerning the Temple Fork situation, he read some substitute language which he was prepared to propose, and he wanted the others to think about it. He suggested the last sentence in the paragraph referring to Temple Fork read as follows: "Other improvements, such as an uphill right turn lane and an improved horizontal angle of approach of Temple Fork Road, are secondary improvements, the design and construction of which are to be done in a manner calculated to minimize impact on the river."

He said he didn't know that it changed the substance, but he thinks it changes the presumption. He is uncomfortable with the language which says it will "only be constructed" if there is no impact. He thinks it is clear that if we are going to build the turn lane we have to do it as a matter of safety and he thinks his suggested substitute language allows for everyone to have the right kind of input and is a commitment to minimize impact on the river, but he won't vote for language which says it will "only be constructed."

Chairman Brown said when they get to the motions they will certainly consider Commissioner Lewis' suggestion. He asked Commissioner Larkin if he would like to add anything, and he did not.

Chairman Brown said he doesn't understand the comments from people that this project will not proceed based on the three-foot argument on the width; that we are or are not going to build this road hinging on the width of the roadway. These are preferences and discussions, but he, for one, doesn't believe that is what is going to decide whether this road will be built or not. Someone may take a legal action and try to block the project on that premise, but it certainly won't be the position of the Commission to say we are not going to proceed because we can't solve that issue.

He continued that he is also concerned about the width. He said the point he would like to make is that we are making a long-term commitment with some very difficult resources of the citizens. To him the safety issue is a big issue. Why do we want to narrow the road? From his perspective he cannot see when we are going to make a multi-million dollar commitment why we are wanting to narrow the road; that is not balanced right.

He said the next thing the Commission will be hearing is that this is a recreation canyon and we will have to try to figure out how to get the bicycles on the road with the vehicles. We will be asked why we didn't consider the bikes because they are an important component of the experience in that canyon. Right now we are trying statewide to get enough width on our corridors to accommodate both the motoring public and the recreational bicyclists. He predicted that we will be doing the same thing in this canyon, yet we are discussing narrowing this road's width.

He feels that if the resolution is turned down it doesn't mean we are not committed and we are not going ahead with a Logan Canyon project. He stated we are going ahead with it; the Commission has already adopted that, it is just what parameters we are advancing it with. We are not all going to be able to agree on what they are, but at some point we are going to make a decision. He said he didn't want anyone to think that the Commission is not committed to Logan Canyon independent of whether the resolution passes or not. The Commission's intention is to build the road in Logan Canyon and they want to do it responsibly and he thinks they are going through a responsible process. You cannot ignore some of these components on the width. He thinks we are trading off the wrong thing.

Commissioner Weston asked Director Zwick for his comments. Director Zwick replied the process by which we've brought groups together has been clearly done on what we felt was an open dialogue where there was good discussion. We've trusted our group which has brought forward the resolution under consider. We didn't want that to be fully expanded and have additional input; we thought the group of three--Lynn Zollinger, Dave Berg and Lorraine Richards--would do that adequately. We've had conversations along the way with Jeff Appel who speaks for the environmental community frequently, and he thinks in Mr. Appel's opinion we have dealt responsibly with this. Mr. Swaner has been close to Mr. Appel and others as they have brought forward their own position and we are aware they have made some compromises on their side. We respect the decisions brought forward in this resolution. Dave, Lynn, and Lorraine have looked at it closely and he believes it is the right thing to do, and the recommendation from executive staff would be that we advance the project based on the language contained in the resolution.

Commissioner Lewis made a motion to adopt the resolution with the following modifications:

1. Modify the language in the last sentence of the paragraph concerning Temple Fork, as he suggested earlier, to read: "Other improvements, such as an uphill right turn lane and an improved horizontal angle of approach of Temple Fork Road, are secondary improvements, the design and construction of which are to be done in a manner calculated to minimize impact on the river."

2. Delete the entire paragraph referencing narrowing the roadway of the Upper Canyon area from 40 to 34 feet.

Commissioner Lewis continued that both of those are very strong safety matters for him. Commissioner Clyde seconded the motion. Commissioner Weston requested of Chairman Brown that the motion be divided and Chairman Brown affirmed when they vote he will divide the issues.

Commissioner Clyde said his discussion on the width is that he feels it important that we not compromise where compromise is not necessary. He honestly believes that the lower section where the encroachment to the river is more severe and where the riparian challenge is more severe that he can support the width. Where there is adequate room to address the needs in manners which are well established he has great concern about compromising the width.

Dave Berg asked to make a point and Chairman Brown stated the motion was before the Commission, and technically it is really a Commission discussion at this point, but he allowed Dave to comment.

Dave Berg said he wanted to make a point that as part of the Corps of Engineers Section 404 permitting process all practical and reasonable methods must be taken to avoid impacts to wetlands. That was the basis for the reduction of the roadway width from 40 to 34 feet. We were impacting wetlands, and if we had a feasible and prudent alternative to avoid those wetlands the Corps says we will do that. Dave said the Corps will not compromise the safety of a transportation facility as part of their avoidance alternatives, however, in the presentation of this resolution we have as much as said, as a staff, that we feel the safety considerations are not so great that reducing the roadway width is not a viable or practical alternative. He feels if we go to the Corps of Engineers and ask them for a 404 permit, chances are that they will tell us to reduce the roadway width to the 34 feet we proposed earlier, and that is, by law, something they can do, and they can stop this project by not allowing us to get a 404 permit. That is an option we need to take into consideration.

Commissioner Lewis said he assumed Dave and staff had discussed this particular issue with the Corps, and he asked if the Corps had given some indication that they would require a narrowing of the AASHTO standard? Mr. Berg replied that the Corps was extremely pleased that we are reducing the roadway width to avoid impacts to the wetlands and riparian areas there. Commissioner Lewis asked if the Corps had indicated they would block the project or fail to give a 404 permit if we stayed with the normal AASHTO standards. Mr. Berg replied that the Corps would not make us compromise safety to avoid a wetlands, but UDOT staff put forth in this resolution that they felt the reduction in the roadway width would not compromise the safety of the facility.

Commissioner Lewis said he would like to pursue that issue, because he understood from comments that it did compromise safety, but the amount of the effect was far less on the outer three feet of the shoulder. Mr. Berg replied that was correct. He said from the information Mack Christensen supplied there is a significant reduction in accidents from zero to five feet in shoulder width, but the curve on reduction of accidents flattens quite a bit when you go from five feet to six, seven and eight feet. While eight feet is an optimum and a very nice standard to shoot for, the five foot shoulder is a good compromise when the cost and other factors which go into the selection of the roadway width are considered.

Commissioner Lewis asked Mr. Berg, if the Commission decided to approve the narrowing of the road, if he felt staff could not defend the 40-foot width on the basis of safety. He said he was not looking at the statistics and the numbers as much as he is looking at people and safety; sometimes just saving a few accidents is very valuable. Commissioner Lewis continued that if staff felt they couldn't defend a 40-foot width under the circumstances he would like to know that, because he had a different impression from the basis that it is our AASHTO standard by which we normally would operate, and there should be something pretty powerful to overcome that safety standard.

Mr. Berg replied that it is an interesting flip-flop. First we were saying that we can go to 34 feet and defend that, and now we are saying let's go to 40 feet and defend that. Commissioner Lewis said the Commission has to make the decision, and staff has given their recommendation, but if the Commission is uncomfortable without that extra margin of width there, he said he was asking if it was untenable; does it put staff in a position where they can't defend the 40-foot width. Mr. Berg replied that he thinks it may. From his experience working with the Corps, he thinks they may say that we proposed this width once, so do it; if we could justify doing it at one time they will say it is a position we should take now.

Commissioner Clyde said our original position was 40 feet; that is the only position the Commission has to defend. Staff's position may be different, but the Commission position is not whether or not we defend 34 feet, if we approve the 40 foot. Commissioner Clyde said his concern is if the Corps of Engineers is telling us that between safety and wetlands, wetlands takes precedence. Mr. Berg restated that the Corps will not make us do something which they feel is detrimental to the safety of the facility, but he knows they will ask the question that staff proposed the 34-foot width once, so why don't you do it now. Commissioner Clyde stressed the Commission has not proposed that width, and Mr. Berg agreed it was staff's proposal.

Mr. Steinke said, in defense of UDOT staff, that the Federal Highway Administration has said they would accept the 34-foot width, although it makes them very uncomfortable to do so in the matter of safety issues. He restated they would accept the 34-foot width, although they would like to see a greater width. He said the 47-foot width versus the 44-foot width doesn't bother him quite as much as the 40-foot width versus the 34-foot width.

Commissioner Weston stated we do plan to put p assing lanes through there, so that is a given; if you put passing lanes in, that is what you end up with. He said he feels he has been persuaded, knowing that we are putting three lanes in there, that the highway is not impacted that greatly by reducing it to 34 feet. He said that is a flip-flop from what he has felt before, but he didn't think he was changing his position on that issue, but from the standpoint that knowing we are putting three lanes in there he doesn't see that it compromises our position on safety that greatly.

Commissioner Lewis summed up his motion. He felt there had been good discussion. Concerning the proposed change in highway width, as he has reviewed the materials and information he is uncomfortable moving off the safety standard in this part of the project where he thinks the wider width can be handled; in the lower sections of the project he sees the necessity of narrowing. Concerning the second part of his motion as to the change in language concerning the Temple Fork area, he feels that change is a fairly small change which simply indicates that we go ahead and do the best we can; it doesn't say that we don't go ahead if we can't do it. He believes the involvement of all the groups under the Memorandum of Understanding will provide adequate input and checks on that area. He wanted it on record that, even as sponsor of this language, he is concerned that we not only be safe there, but where we have a chance to stay out of the river, we do so as best we can.

Commissioner Weston said he was very concerned about keeping this highway designated to be on the National Highway System, mainly because of funding. He feels that the National Highway System, if passed by Congress, is going to take the place of the Primary System, and he doesn't want to see Logan Canyon come off that system for funding reasons.

Commissioner Weston said he understood from Mr. Steinke's comments that he was also concerned about narrowing that section and keeping it on the National Highway System; was that correct? Or does he think that is something which can be overcome? Mr. Steinke responded that the point he was making about the National Highway System is that it will become a system of roads that will generally include the interstate systems and major primary routes. In the interest of safety and trying to provide a consistent product throughout the United States on the National Highway System, he thinks it is the responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration to try to achieve the highest possible standard. There are going to be compromises in the Logan Canyon route, and SR-9 in Zion's Canyon is also designated to be on the National Highway System, and he can't see a high-type roadway going through there either. He said we need to maintain the highest possible standard we have and he feels an obligation to try to do that; wherever we can do that we should. He thinks the Upper Canyon section of Logan Canyon is an area where we can try to approach a desirable standard. In the Middle Canyon area he thinks there is room for compromise and we have compromised.

Commissioner Weston asked Mr. Steinke if it was not fatal, then to narrow the road. Mr. Steinke said in his mind it was not fatal to Logan Canyon. He thinks we can compromise and still keep it on the system.

Chairman Brown explained he would take a roll call vote on the motion, and there had been a request to divide the motion. The first part of the motion is to delete the next to last paragraph on page 1, concerning narrowing the roadway width for the first eight miles of Upper Canyon. An "aye" vote would delete that paragraph from the resolution; a "nay" vote would retain the paragraph in the resolution.

The Commissioners voted as follows: Commissioner Clyde voted nay, Commissioner Larkin voted nay, Commissioner Lewis voted aye, Commissioner Weston voted nay, and Chairman Brown voted aye.

Chairman Brown summarized that the first part of the motion failed and the paragraph on the reduction of the roadway width would remain as part of the resolution.

The second part of the motion is to change the language in the last sentence on page 1 concerning the Temple Fork area to read: "Other improvements, such as an uphill right turn lane and an improved horizontal angle of approach of Temple Fork Road, are secondary improvements, the design and construction of which are to be done in a manner calculated to minimize impact on the river." An "aye" vote would change the language; a "nay" vote would leave the language as proposed by staff.

The Commissioners voted as follows: Commissioner Clyde voted aye, Commissioner Larkin voted aye, Commissioner Lewis voted aye, Commissioner Weston voted aye, and Chairman Brown voted aye.

Chairman Brown continued the last motion will be the adoption of the resolution with the retention of the paragraph concerning roadway width, and the modification of the language concerning the Temple Fork area.

The Commission voted as follows: Commissioner Clyde voted aye, Commissioner Larkin voted aye, Commissioner Lewis voted nay, Commissioner Weston voted aye, and Chairman Brown voted nay. The motion carried with a vote of three to two, and the resolution, as amended, was adopted by the Transportation Commission as follows:

R E S O L U T I O N
US Highway 89
Right Fork in Logan Canyon to Garden City
Cache and Rich Counties, Utah
Project No. *F-021(7)

WHEREAS, in accordance with State and Federal laws, a public hearing was held January 15, 1991 to discuss the location, design and environmental effects of the reconstruction of US Highway 89 from Right Fork in Logan Canyon to Garden City, in Cache and Rich counties, and

WHEREAS, location, design, and environmental aspects of the project were discussed at the hearing, and

WHEREAS, as a result of concerns expressed by the public at the public hearing, a Preferred Alternative was developed and adopted by resolution dated January 24, 1992, and the proposed width of Burnt Bridge was subsequently modified by resolution dated August 21, 1992, and

WHEREAS, the environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative were addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and

WHEREAS, as a result of comments received on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, the following modifications have been made to the Preferred Alternative:

• The Lower Middle Canyon section has been extended 500 feet to mp 387.57 to better fit the surrounding terrain. The roadway begins to move further away from the river at this location.
  
• Consolidation of parking for Section 4(f) Site 6, Ricks Spring, has been eliminated. This eliminates the left turn lane and retaining wall adjacent to the river. A shorter retaining wall set back from the river may still be required just south of the site.
  
• Section 4(f) Site 13, Winter Access Parking, will be reestablished at a lower elevation so that access can be maintained.
  
• Relocation of the Limber Pine Trailhead has been eliminated.
  
• The detour at Burnt Bridge has been eliminated and widening will occur on the upstream side. This reduces the impact on riparian habitat.
  
• For the first eight miles of the Upper Canyon (from mp 391.6 to Beaver Mountain road intersection), the previously proposed roadway width of 40 feet has been reduced to 34 feet. This reduces the impact on wetland and riparian areas. For areas with passing lanes through this eight miles, the previously proposed roadway width of 47 feet has been reduced to 44 feet.
  
• The left turn lane at Temple Fork has been eliminated. Minimum roadway improvements at this site include a 34' section on US-89 and an improved vertical grade approach of Temple Fork road. Other improvements, such as an uphill right turn lane and an improved horizontal angle of approach of Temple Fork Road, are secondary improvements, the design and construction of which are to be done in a manner calculated to minimize impact on the river.

WHEREAS, the above modifications further minimize harm to wetland/riparian habitat, visual resources and Section 4(f) properties, and the Utah Transportation Commission has considered all other comments and the social, economic, environmental and other effects of the proposed project,

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Utah Transportation Commission concurs and supports the location and design features of the modified Preferred Alternative, which is as described in the FEIS and subsequently modified in this resolution.

DATED on this 16th day of December, 1994.

UTAH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
/s/ Todd G. Weston, Vice Chairman
/s/ James G. Larkin, Commissioner
/s/ Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
ATTEST:
/s/ Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary

Chairman Brown called a short break.

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Dave Miles explained there had been a bit of a delay this year on the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) process and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process because of some air quality concerns, which have now been mostly resolved. Several things were being presented to the Commission for their consideration and approval: TIPs from the three MPOs, the Planning Process Certification for the MPOs, and the STIP which needed Commission approval for submittal to the Federal Highway Administration. A separate resolution was presented for each.

Cache MPO 1995 Transportation Improvement Program
Richard Manser explained the Commission had a copy of the Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization TIP, on which the CMPO had taken action and adopted. Richard indicated the Planning Process Certification for the Cache area still needed to be done. It was not prepared for the Commission at this time so they would bring that back for approval at a future meeting; it was not critical at this time.

Commissioner Weston moved to approve the CMPO TIP as presented, it was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and passed unanimously that:

Approval of Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization 1995 Transportation Improvement Program for inclusion in the 1995 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.

MAG 1995 Transportation Improvement Program and Planning Process Certification
Kathy McMullen of Mountainland Association of Governments stated their TIP was approved by their Executive Council and recommended by the Physical Planning Committee. It is currently comprised totally of grandfathered or exempt projects (exempt from air conformity requirements).

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the MAG TIP, it was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously that:

Approval of Mountainland Association of Governments 1995 Transportation Improvement Program for inclusion in the 1995 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.

Commissioner Clyde made a motion to approve the MAG Planning Process Certification, it was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and passed unanimously that:

Approval of Mountainland Association of Governments Urban Transportation Planning Process Certification for their 1995 Transportation Improvement Program.

WFRC 1995 Transportation Improvement Program and Planning Process Certification
Mr. Jon Nepstad was present to address the TIP and Doug Hattery the Planning Process for Wasatch Front Regional Council. Mr. Nepstad explained their TIP also consisted only of projects which have been grandfathered or are exempt. There was a November 24 deadline to meet as far as getting things grandfathered and he recognized and commended staff from FHWA and UDOT, the consultant community and the project sponsors for getting the work done to get the projects grandfathered and through the NEPA process.

He did hand out a list of the projects which did not get grandfathered so were not included in their TIP, and he said they hoped to have the window of opportunity to get those projects back into the TIP by summer. Commissioner Clyde noted there was one glaring project which did not get grandfathered, and that was US-89 Mountain Road. Mr. Nepstad agreed and noted the only projects which did not make it were in Salt Lake and Davis Counties; Weber County projects were shown to conform.

Commissioner Lewis also commended the efforts and cooperation of the many, many people who were involved with getting these projects through the process. This work will make a great difference for the many people who use our roads. Chairman Brown asked the WFRC representatives to please express the thanks and sentiments of the Commission to all those involved.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the WFRC TIP, it was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and it passed unanimously that:

Approval of Wasatch Front Regional Council 1995 Transportation Improvement Program for inclusion in the 1995 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the WFRC Planning Process Certification, it was seconded by Commissioner Weston and passed unanimously that:

Approval of Wasatch Front Regional Council Urban Transportation Planning Process Certification for their 1995 Transportation Improvement Program.

1995 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
Chairman Brown indicated the Commission would now consider approval of the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, which would include the TIPs from the MPOs which they had just approved. He asked if there were any changes relative to state projects on the STIP.

Bob Hulick explained the Commission previously took action on the STIP when they gave staff authorization to advertise it for public comments. Since that time there have been a number of changes from what the Commission approved previously. Bob noted all those changes were listed on a separate sheet and consisted mostly of projects which have been advertised, and so deleted, or projects which have moved from one year to another because it was determined they could not be ready and advertised in the 1995 year; there were no new projects currently included in this STIP.

Bob continued that during the public comment period we did receive a verbal request from the Navajo Nation to add four projects to the STIP. Bob asked them to submit a written request, which they did and which actually was received after the cutoff period. That letter, from Ralph Bennett of the Navajo Nation, lists the four projects and is included in the agenda packet. Bob has requested the Navajo Nation to provide maps and additional information, but so far has received nothing else. He noted these projects would use Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funds, and if any participating funds are involved that would come from the Navajo Nation. The projects must be included in our STIP in order for them to expend the funds, and he requested that the Commission act on whether or not to include those four projects in this STIP.

Commissioner Lewis moved to include the four projects from the Navajo Nation in the 1995 STIP as requested. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and it passed unanimously that:

Approval to add the following four projects to the 1995 Statewide Transportation Improvement Project as requested by the Navajo Nation: Monument Valley Vendor Village and Visitor Center, Monument Valley Tribal Park Road, Redlands Viewpoint Enhancement, and Four Corner Visitor Center.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the 1995-1999 STIP as presented, and including the four Navajo Nation projects. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously that:

Approval of 1995-1999 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program with the addition of the following four Navajo Nation projects: Monument Valley Vendor Village and Visitor Center, Monument Valley Tribal Park Road, Redlands Viewpoint Enhancement, and Four Corner Visitor Center.

Resolutions
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, WFRC Element, MAG Element, and CMPO Element
George Thompson explained the new ISTEA Act of 1991 brought about many Transportation Improvement project changes in the way we program them. Now that the Commission has approved the TIPs and the Planning Process Certification for WFRC, MAG, and the CMPO, as well as the STIP, he had additional resolutions for the Commission to approve which ties all these elements together.

Clint commented that a few years ago the Commission just approved the STIP, but with the advent of ISTEA and the other regulations, there are several other technical things which the Commission has to certify or address. In an attempt to cover all those federal requirements at once, staff has tried to bring it all together in the form of these resolutions.

The four resolutions have to do with the WFRC, MAG and CMPO elements and indicate their TIPs are included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), identifies the funding sources, that the STIP has been advertised with reasonable opportunity to comment, and that the ISTEA requires that the Governor or his designee must approve the TIP by inclusion directly or by reference in the STIP. The resolutions also address the certification of the planning process and conformance with the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The STIP resolution, besides inclusion of the MPO elements, also includes the rural and small urban elements.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the resolution for the Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization element of the 1995 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, it was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the resolution for the Mountainland Association of Governments element of the 1995 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, it was seconded by Commission Clyde and passed unanimously.

Commissioner Lewis moved to adopt the resolution for the Wasatch Front Regional Council element of the 1995 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, it was seconded by Commissioner Weston and passed unanimously.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the resolution for the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, FY-1995-1999, it was seconded by Commissioner Larkin and passed unanimously.

Commissioner Lewis indicated that Director Zwick had raised a technical question as to whether or not we should have included reference to the 20-year plans in these resolutions. He asked if staff could double check that and if anything needed to be done about it, bring it to the next Commission Meeting. Director Zwick affirmed they would do that.

Planning and Programming - Increase in Funding
Sevier River Bridge South of Marysvale (Elbow Ranch Bridge)
John Njord explained staff was requesting a $70,000 increase for a Sevier River Bridge replacement project in Piute County, located about 4.5 miles south of Marysvale. It is a rural bridge which serves Elbow Ranch and a few residences near the ranch.

A detour will have to be constructed while the bridge is being replaced. The increased costs are associated some rather large pipes which will be used in the detour to allow the Sevier River to flow through, and the rather extensive detour which will have to be constructed in order to maintain access for the ranch and the residences with bus service and farm equipment.

Chairman Brown asked specifically what type of detour was being constructed for this increased cost. Mr. Njord explained it is a dirt detour with large pipe culverts for the river to flow through, and includes the cost to construct and remove the detour and culverts; it is not a long-term benefit. If the detour is not constructed the road and access to the ranch and residences would be closed.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the additional funding as requested, it was seconded by Commissioner Clyde and approved unanimously that:

Increase of $70,000 in Bridge Replacement Funds approved for Project BRO-LC31(3), Bridge Over Sevier River, 4.5 Miles South of Marysvale (Elbow Ranch Bridge), added to the $187,500 previously approved, for a total project cost of $257,500.

Planning and Programming - Airport Improvement Projects
Panguitch City Airport
Beaver City Airport
Phil Ashbaker explained there were two airport projects for the Commission's consideration; both are in the capital improvement program and upon Commission approval will receive Federal Aviation Administration grants.

The first project is at the Panguitch Municipal Airport to rehabilitate and extend the runway; construct a water well; relocate the beacon, wind sock, and Precision Approach Path Indicating (PAPI) System; construct a tiedown apron and a partial parallel taxiway with lights and signing; do some airport fencing; and pave the airport entrance road from the airport boundary to the parking area. It is a total project cost of $2,249,000 of which $101,880 would be State funds. The project is recommended to the Commission by the Aeronautical Committee.

Commissioner Larkin made a motion to approve the project as requested, it was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and passed unanimously that:

Approval of Panguitch City Airport project to rehabilitate and extend the runway; construct a water well; relocate beacon, wind sock and PAPI System; construct tiedown apron and partial parallel taxiway with lights and signing; airport fencing; and pave airport entrance road, for a total project cost of $2,249,000 - Federal $2,045,240, State and Local $101,880 each.

Mr. Ashbaker continued that the second project is at the Beaver Municipal Airport. He noted the Commission had previously approved a project for a complete runway rehabilitation at this airport, which has been completed. This is a subsequent project to take care of the apron and the stub taxiway rehabilitation. They are actually relocating the apron and rebuilding it, constructing a new electrical vault, some lighting on the apron, installing a PAPI System, and a runway lighting control unit. It has a total project cost of $254,200 of which $11,515 would be State funds, and is also recommended by the Aeronautical Committee.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the project, it was seconded by Commission Larkin and passed unanimously that:

Approval of Beaver City Airport project to remove, relocate and replace the existing taxiway and apron, construct a new electric vault, apron security lighting, installation of a PAPI System, and a runway lighting control unit, for a total project cost of $254,200 - Federal $231,170, State and Local $11,515 each.

Planning and Programming - Right-of-Way Hardship Acquisition
I-15 Corridor, 4375 South 300 West
Dave Miles explained staff was requesting $225,000 for a hardship acquisition case along the I-15 Corridor. Region 2 submitted a request as part of the I-15 Corridor project where one of the early action projects will be to relocate the frontage roads in the area of 4500 South. A map indicates where the relocated frontage road will go right through the middle of the Croxford property. They would like to sell their property but are having difficulty doing so because of our plans. Staff recommends purchasing the property as a hardship case. UDOT's Right of Way staff appraised the property at $225,000 for 2.232 acres.

There was additional discussion about "hardship" cases, the appraisal amount, and the fact that the project is far enough along to legally utilize funds. Clint indicated our practices call for the appraisal to be based on comparable sales in the area, and State funds will be utilized to purchase the property.

Commissioner Lewis moved to approve the hardship purchase of the described property for an amount up to $225,000. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Larkin, and carried with an affirmative vote by Commissioner Clyde; Chairman Brown voted nay, and Commissioner Weston was absent for the vote.

Approval of State Funds for hardship acquisition of Parcel 270:T, Project Number SR-15-7( )304, I-15 Corridor, located at 4375 South 300 West, Salt Lake City, from owners Dale and Wilma Croxford, in an amount up to $225,000.

Planning and Programming - Traffic Signal Model Study
Dave Kinnecom of Traffic and Safety requested Commission approval for the expenditure of $25,000 of State signal funds for a Traffic Signal Model Study.

He explained Traffic and Safety is now working on some signal coordination projects, and some of our most difficult problems are at interstate diamond interchanges, such as 5300 South and 4500 South, etc. The normal procedures used to analyze signal problems don't work very well is these very complex situations.

They would like to use a model which has been developed by the Federal Highway Administration that is somewhat complex and staff feels they need some assistance and training in getting started using the model.

Mr. Kinnecom explained we own a copy of the software, but the $25,000 would employ a consultant to assist and train our staff to use the model in the future. He said staff understands the basics of the model, but to apply it to the very complex problems we want to address will require assistance and training.

Clint Topham pointed out that at the spring programming meeting the Commission had recommended that $3 million be spent on traffic signals this year. Traffic and Safety Division requests and recommends that $25,000 of that money be spent on this model, which is somewhat different than buying signal hardware, so staff felt the Commission should consider the matter. Clint also asked if the Commission would like staff to continue bringing these kinds of issues to their attention in the future, or if department staff feels it is closely enough related to signals should they approve it without bringing it back to the Commission.

Chairman Brown indicated he personally would like these special kinds of issues brought to the Commission's attention.

There was additional discussion about the model, about how the $25,000 amount was determined, and how soon we would see benefits from this expenditure. Mr. Kinnecom replied he made an estimate of cost based on how many hours of work would be involved and how much training would be required. He felt it would take approximately six months to get results from the training.

Commissioner Clyde moved to approve the expenditure as requested, it was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and passed unanimously that:

Approval to expend $25,000 of State Signal Funds for a Traffic Signal Model Study.

Enhancements Advisory Committee - Appointment of New Committee Member
John Quick explained he had a couple of matters to discuss with the Commission concerning the Enhancements Advisory Committee.

The first matter involved the appointment of a new Committee member; six members of the Enhancements Advisory Committee are appointed by the Commission. Ms. Betsy Tipps was going to serve for two years, representing the archaeological and historical area, but resigned a few months ago because of the time required and a conflict in her schedule. John proposed to replace her with Mr. Duncan Metcalfe whose resume was included in the agenda packet for the Commission's consideration. Mr. Metcalfe's name was proposed by the same group who had nominated Ms. Tipps. He is a professional anthropologist at the Archaeological Center at the University of Utah. John added he would be coming back to the Commission in a few months to appoint three other new Committee members for next year.

Commissioner Larkin moved to approve the appointment of Mr. Metcalfe as recommended. It was seconded by Commissioner Lewis and passed unanimously that:

Approval of appointment of Mr. Duncan Metcalfe to replace Ms. Betsy Tipps on the Enhancements Advisory Committee, representing archaeological and historical.

Modification of Enhancements Advisory Committee Procedure
John continued that the second item has to do with some financial considerations on the Enhancement Program. The agenda packets contained an accounting sheet which indicates a possible lapse of $3,517,265 in Enhancements Funds at the end of FY-1995 if those monies are not expended or obligated.

John explained how this possible lapse of funds has happened and some possible suggestions of what we could do to prevent that. He illustrated how a typical Enhancements project progresses, and noted there were many costs the sponsors were not aware of, so the project ends up costing much more than the anticipated 20% matching funds, so some sponsors are discouraged and are not proceeding with their process to get their project through.

Under our current program the sponsor is responsible for all the design costs. We have made that an ineligible cost which is a choice we made as a state; under the federal regulations design costs would be eligible. It also takes about $15,000 for UDOT to review and manage the projects which is an ineligible cost, construction engineering is the same. UDOT monitors the construction and that is estimated to be about $5,000, which is another surprise cost to the sponsor.

John said another big factor is that it takes about two years to develop one of these projects; we had hoped when the project was awarded the sponsors would be able to start the next year, but through the design review, the environmental review, and the processing of the project it is taking about two years, so there is also a two-year inflation construction cost of about 7%. In our current program we are saying they are responsible for all those additional costs, and that we will not increase the amount of the award, so they end up paying about 50% rather than what they anticipated as being 20%.

Another problem is our review process. Some sponsors have some of their design done and their environmental work ready, and have submitted that to us to review, but we were unable to review it because we didn't have a STIP approved yet, so we didn't have a project set up that we could charge our time to, so some of these cities are waiting for us to start the review.

John had some recommendations, which had been discussed with the Enhancements Advisory Committee, for how to alleviate or solve some of the problems and concerns. There is a desire to allow the design costs to be included in the process, which would certainly help the sponsors and also reduce that money which is in jeopardy of lapsing.

The second recommendation is to authorize the Enhancements Advisory Committee to increase the awards. Currently our policy is that projects can go over 25% without coming back to the Commission. In order to save a lot of time bringing them back to the Commission on many small projects, he is proposing that the percentage or the amount be increased so the Committee can do that without having to bring it back to the Commission.

Commissioner Lewis asked if there were any legal difficulties in any of the things John was proposing, and in delegating those actions to the Committee. John replied it is his understanding there is not.

John continued the third suggestion is to have an Enhancements project for the Department to cover the administration and general review of projects. That would help our processing of the applications so UDOT staff could start an immediate review of the projects. Once a project was set up then charges would go against that particular project and FHWA would not allow us to use this fund for that. But, FHWA has agreed that we can set up a general account to do our administrative work and running of the program. That would give us an early start on those projects.

John summarized the accommodation of those three suggestions would help encourage the sponsors to get their projects bid this summer and utilize some of those funds.

On the design costs, they still feel that philosophically it is a good idea to use the Enhancements funds for "brick and mortar" an d not have a lot of design projects on the shelf, so he suggested we just do that on a trial basis in order to utilize those funds which are in jeopardy.

There was discussion about the suggestions, about the sponsors' expectations of the cost of the projects and the reality of the actual expense to them which was causing people not to even bother with the projects. It was noted that because these sponsors are utilizing federal dollars they are required to comply with all federal regulations, including Davis-Bacon wages, etc., although there are a few exceptions.

The Commission indicated we need to do a better job of explaining the process to the sponsors so they do know exactly what to expect, and so they are not surprised with increased costs. John indicated we are trying to do a better job in our workshops with the potential sponsors to better educate them and go through a typical example of a project and what costs they would be responsible for, etc.

Chairman Brown said he had many questions on this issue and felt it needed further discussion before he would ask for a vote from the Commission, and the other Commissioners agreed. He indicated action on it would be deferred to the next Commission Meeting.

Action deferred on suggested changes to Procedures for Enhancements Advisory Committee to next Commission Meeting.

Update on Provo Canyon, Upper Falls to Wildwood
Clint explained a memo to him from Alan Mecham was included in the agenda packet which explained a situation in Provo Canyon which needs Commission attention. We purchased a trailer park in Provo Canyon where we expected to waste the soil from the tunnel excavation on the Upper Falls to Wildwood section, and there has been some concern raised about that. But it has also been found that we are going to need additional material when we do the next project up the canyon, from Wildwood to Deer Creek.

This excess material could be transported up to the next project site, and it could be transported much cheaper on a separate haul road, would alleviate the traffic problems associated with hauling on the existing highway, and preserve the value of the trailer park. It would require constructing the separate haul road along the new alignment of the highway from Wildwood to Deer Creek at an estimated cost of $10 million which would be applied toward the next project.

Commissioner Weston asked how we know the next project is going to need this material if it hasn't been designed yet and Clint replied the project is in the environmental stage and enough design has been done to know we will need it.

Clint continued that if the Commission decides to approve doing this, the current project, from Upper Falls to Wildwood, is estimated at $34 million and this would raise it to $44 million and that will affect the program and puts us back into the same position that was discussed earlier this summer where it has a big affect on the program. A $44 million project does not fit into our yearly apportionment.

Clint said we are about $4 million underprogrammed in the three-year program, and if the Commission decided to do that they would be taking $6 million from projects which are already approved in the STIP and we would need to work through which projects could be deferred.

Clint indicated this was information for the Commission's consideration, and he was not even certain there was a firm staff recommendation to the Commission of whether to go that way or not because they had not had time to fully determine which projects it would affect in the program. However, an answer does need to be determined on the matter very soon because the consultant is at a critical point. Clint said right now they would basically like the Commission's reaction on whether staff should pursue the issue further.

Commissioner Clyde asked when the Upper Falls to Wildwood project was planned to go, and was told in the fall of 1995, with FY-1996 funds.

Alan Mecham commented that they brought this information to the Commission on the spur of the moment, and they have not really had time as a staff to do a value engineering analysis of this proposal. However, what forced this forward were negative comments they got at the public hearing about filling in the trailer park with the disposal material. Also, as Centennial Engineering was doing the next project up the canyon, they have advanced their plans quite rapidly and have told Region 3 that if there was a way to get that disposal material to the upper project, they have enough design work done that they can use it. In fact they are planning to have to over-excavate above the dam in order to get enough material to build the bulkhead at the dam. The critical thing is that Centennial needs to have some direction whether to pursue this course as an addition to the Parsons Brinckerhoff tunnel project. That grading and drainage project for the haul road on Centennial's project (Wildwood to Deer Creek) would have to be done at the same time and preferably with the same contractor as the tunnels (Upper Falls to Wildwood).

Commissioner Weston questioned if moving that material up the canyon changed our position in the EIS because we would be doing something we didn't say we would do. Alan replied it did not because we did say we were going to build the road and the bulkhead and buttress the dam, but we would just be using this material to do that.

Commissioner Clyde said it seems to him it would still be less expensive to consider alternatives for the material at the lower end of the project than to haul it up to the upper project, except then we have to over-excavate the borrow to buttress the dam. He asked what the $10 million would include and was told it would build the haul road. He asked how much of that haul road would be incorporated into the new project and won't be lost. Alan Mecham replied all of it would be incorporated into the new project, but there would be about a $2 million additional haul cost. Commissioner Clyde concluded that would about offset the cost of buying the additional property for the over-excavation. Alan also said he was not sure how much of the $2 million would be recouped by selling the trailer park if we don't fill it with the waste material; he felt it would be part of the $2 million, but not all of it.

Ahmad Jaber stressed Region 3 believes we need to incorporate this work on the haul road into the work on the lower project if possible, which should be ready to advertise early in August. He said they are aiming to have a Plan In Hand Meeting in February, and even though the funding will be after October 1 in 1995, they think it is possible the job could go to construction earlier if they can get advance construction funding. If the Commission decides to include the haul road work in this project it will require the additional funding.

Chairman Brown indicated they would defer action on the matter to the next Commission Meeting and indicated staff should be ready to make a recommendation to them at that time with an explanation of how it will affect the program.

Next Commission Meeting

The next Commission Meeting was scheduled for 9:00 a.m. on Friday, January 13, 1995 in Salt Lake City.

The meeting adjourned at 12:40 p.m.

The following Commissioners, staff members and others were in attendance:

Glen E. Brown, Chairman
Todd G. Weston, Vice Chairman
James G. Larkin, Commissioner
Ted D. Lewis, Commissioner
Hal M. Clyde, Commissioner
Shirley J. Iverson, Commission Secretary
W. Craig Zwick, Executive Director
Clinton D. Topham, Deputy Director
David K. Miles, Program Development Engineer
Doug Anderson, Engineer for Planning
George Thompson, Engineer for Programming
John Quick, Planning & Programming
Bob Hulick, Planning & Programming
John Njord, Program Development
Kim Schvaneveldt, Project Development Engineer
Sheldon W. McConkie, Operations Engineer
Tom Smith, Construction Engineer
Kent Hansen, Director, Community Relations
Kevin Beckstrom, Community Relations
Andrea Packer, Community Relations
Phillip N. Ashbaker, Director of Aeronautics
Stephen C. Reitz, Internal Auditor
David G. Blake, Planning
Wade B. Betenson, Research
Gerald O. Barrett, Materials Engineer
Dave Berg, Environmental Engineer
Lorraine Richards, Environmental Section
Mack Christensen, Traffic & Safety
Dave Kinnecom, Traffic & Safety
Dyke M. LeFevre, Region 1 Director
Lynn Zollinger, Region 1 Preconstruction Engineer
Gene Sturzenegger, Region 2 Director
Duane Christensen, Region 2 Retiree
Margaret Christensen, spouse
Alan W. Mecham, Region 3 Director
Ahmad Jaber, Region 3 Preconstruction Engineer
Dale Peterson, Region 4 Director
Donald P. Steinke, Division Administrator, FHWA
Richelle Suzuki, Federal Highway Administration
Reed Reeve, Utah Motor Transport Association
Marda Dillree, Utah House of Representatives
Bill Thompson, U. S. Forest Service
Ralph Haycock, Mayor of Hyrum City/President, Cache Mayors' Association
Jay Hudson, Ogden City
Bryce Nielson, Mayor of Garden City
Doug Thompson, President, Cache Chamber of Commerce
Tom Twedt, BIO/West - Logan
Kathy McMullen, Mountainland Association of Governments
Doug Hattery, Wasatch Front Regional Council
Will Jefferies, Wasatch Front Regional Council
Jon Nepstad, Wasatch Front Regional Council
Lauren Keller, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC)
Shawn Swaner, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC)
Kevin Kobe, Cache County Citizen
Mark Lunt
Don Baker, Ogden Standard Examiner
Brian Bowent, The Cache Citizen
Theresa DeFranzo, Logan Herald Journal
Dan Miller, Logan Herald Journal