Representatives from the Utah Department of Transportation informed the Heber City Council on Tuesday that they are considering redesigning the controversial Heber Valley bypass in line with some suggestions given by Wasatch County’s elected officials.
The new highway will divert through traffic from Heber City Main Street. UDOT’s preferred route, Alternative B, cuts through the North Fields — a freshwater wetland area that has been used as farmland for generations — between Potters Lane and 900 North instead of keeping traffic on U.S. 40 between the two roads as Alternative A does.
UDOT’s announcement of its preferred route in January sparked division among residents that sprouted into protests during the 60-day public comment period, which ended in March.
During that period, the Wasatch County Council wrote a letter asking that the bypass be shifted east, as close to U.S. 40 as possible, to protect the North Fields.
The letter said the realignment would prevent bisecting existing farmlands and better align with the county’s goals of preserving open space and establishing conservation easements in the North Fields.
It also argued that the realignment would better protect groundwater. The entire project area for both route alternatives is in the contributing area to the Heber Valley Aquifer, which is part of the most protected aquifer class in Utah for its pristine water quality.
UDOT has maintained that significant groundwater contamination will not occur because mitigation measures will be included in the design and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The County Council, meanwhile, believed realigning Alternative B closer to U.S. 40 would pose the least risk to the aquifer because U.S. 40 already has mitigation measures in place.
The County Council’s letter was also signed by the Midway City Council, Charleston Mayor Doug Clements, Sen. Ronald Winterton, Rep. Mike Kohler and all members of the Heber City Council except Mike Johnston and Sid Ostergaard.
UDOT is considering “potentially shifting the North Field alignment a little bit further to the east,” said project manager Craig Hancock. They haven’t yet determined exactly how much further east that would be.
UDOT Senior Environmental Program Manager Naomi Kisen said if the bypass was “shifted all the way to close where (U.S.) 40 is,” it would perform “rather similarly” to Alternative A, which has slower travel times than Alternative B on U.S. 189, U.S. 40 and Main Street.
“Every change we make does affect our travel time. It also affects the traffic volumes that we’re pulling. It’s about trying to find that happy place, where you’re not losing too much of the performance, but you’re also kind of avoiding the impacts that you’re trying to avoid,” Kisen added.
UDOT is implementing another design change in response to a letter sent by the City Council during the public comment period. That letter focused on local impacts, traffic and safety concerns identified by city engineer Russ Funk.
The proposed bypass design would require pedestrians and cyclists traveling on trails to take a half-mile detour to cross the Midway Lane interchange. Funk was concerned that those unwilling to take the detour would jaywalk, increasing the potential for traffic accidents.
“We’ve added in a sidewalk through that interchange, with ped(estrian) crossings across the ramps that’ll be coming in,” Hancock said. “We’ve also added in a bike lane in the shoulder of the road as well, so anybody who wants to just ride a bike through, they can do that.”
Additionally, UDOT will address the foremost of the City Council’s concerns identified in its letter.
The raised bypass connection between the western bypass and U.S. 40, leaving the city to the southeast, runs along 1300 South in a developed area surrounded by homes and businesses. The City Council asked that the elevated roadway be shifted south into undeveloped land to minimize impacts to residents.
“We’re just evaluating it right now but just wanted to let you know that we are going to take a look at that,” Hancock said.
Heber City Mayor Heidi Franco called the potential bypass redesigns the “best news (she) could have heard.” City Councilor Yvonne Barney agreed.
“I know a lot of the citizens are concerned, and I think there were some who felt that it was a lost cause. And they were being told by many sources that, ‘You can’t argue with UDOT. UDOT won’t listen to you, so why even bother?’” Barney told Hancock and Kisen. “I’ve always appreciated the two of you because you’ve always been very respectful and considerate of the fact that we know our citizens here are very … sensitive about the changes that are coming forward.”
UDOT plans to release its final environmental impact statement, including its final route, by the end of the year. That document will also include UDOT’s responses to questions and concerns raised in the over 700 public comments received.
Then, UDOT will submit a record of decision to the Federal Highway Association and begin determining funding sources for the $760.5 million project — a price tag Kisen has acknowledged could increase by the project’s horizon year of 2050.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will not formally weigh in on UDOT’s plan to mitigate groundwater contamination until UDOT applies for a Section 404 permit during the design phase.
That’s also when UDOT will come up with a plan to protect at least 2 acres of wetlands, canals, ditches and perennial streams for every acre impacted — which is 54 in Alternative B’s current design. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will also approve or deny that plan.