Heber Valley bypass open house draws around 200 residents

The number of people weaving in and out of a small Wasatch County High School lecture hall to provide their public comments was just one traffic concern raised at the Utah Department of Transportation’s open house for the Heber Valley bypass.

A stenographer recorded 37 verbal public comments on Tuesday, most asking that UDOT reconsider its preferred Alternative B, which cuts through the North Fields between Potters Lane and 900 North. 

Alternative B is estimated at $760.5 million, but UDOT Senior Environmental Program Manager Naomi Kisen acknowledged that costs could increase by the project’s horizon year of 2050. The state has not determined funding sources for the bypass.

The transportation project’s purpose is to divert through traffic off of Heber City’s Main Street, improving regional and local mobility on U.S. 40 while improving opportunities for nonmotorized transportation downtown.

Some pleaded that UDOT choose Alternative A, which would keep traffic on U.S. 40 until 900 North instead. Others suggested UDOT come up with a third alternative. Many asked whether a bypass was really necessary.

“Did anybody have trouble getting here on Main Street tonight?” community member Mark Blosil asked a group of Wasatch County residents gathered around a map of the proposed route. The answer, in his opinion, was no.

“It’s not a traffic problem. It’s a habit problem,” added resident Stephanie Wilcox. “I came from Southern California. You knew, at certain times of day, you don’t go this way. You don’t go that way.”

Community member Laurie Gagan chimed in, “You can’t tell me somebody can’t leave their house five minutes early.” 

Several people paraphrased a quote from UDOT Executive Director Carlos Braceras, who, at an October 2024 County Council meeting, said 25% of Main Street congestion is caused by through traffic.

“The only people who benefit from this bypass are people who don’t live here,” commented resident Todd Hicken. “Why are we spending a billion dollars on someone that we don’t even know?”

Residents who spoke offered creative solutions to Main Street’s traffic problems, ranging from improving public transportation to fining truckers driving on Main Street during the daytime to hiring Elon Musk’s Boring Company to dig tunnels under the city.

Heber City Mayor Heidi Franco and several other commenters argued the bypass may not effectively divert diesel trucks off of Main Street because there is no way to require that they use the bypass instead. Besides, Main Street provides the opportunity to fill up on gas or grab a bite to eat. 

But community member David Nelson, who was one of only a handful who spoke in favor of Alternative B, said he believed a trucker would take the bypass route for the time savings. 

UDOT estimates travel time on the bypass from S.R. 32 to U.S. 189 to be six minutes and 15 seconds. Travel time from S.R. 32 to U.S. 40 is estimated to be six minutes and 55 seconds. Both times are about four minutes quicker than UDOT’s estimated travel time on Main Street from S.R. 32 to the intersection of U.S. 189 and U.S. 40.

Nelson also thought trucks taking the bypass route would improve air quality in downtown because they would no longer be idling at traffic lights on Main Street as they traveled through the city.

But many residents were more concerned about water quality, raising concerns that development of the bypass could discharge pollutants into a vital source of drinking water in Wasatch County.

Both bypass alternatives are located above the Heber Valley Aquifer, which is classified as Class 1A. Groundwater from such an aquifer has very few pollutants, with concentrations of total dissolved solids below 500 milligrams per liter. 

Utah State Code states that Class 1A groundwater “will be protected to the maximum extent feasible from degradation” and provides additional guidelines around preventing the discharge of pollutants into the groundwater. 

Appendix 2F of UDOT’s draft environmental impact statement for the Heber Valley Bypass details how UDOT plans to comply with the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) requirement that “no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem.”

UDOT claims that through avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, including controlling erosion and sediment, maintaining hydrologic connectivity, restoring temporary impacts and providing compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts, “discharges from either alternative would not cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the United States.”

UDOT Project Manager Craig Hancock said, “It’s a concern that we protect the water aquifers, and when we design our projects, we do look at mitigating that and making sure that those contaminants don’t reach into the groundwater.”

He added that some of the specific mitigations will be addressed when the project moves to the design phase.

Constructing either bypass alternative will require a Section 404 permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Alternative B impacts 54 acres of canals, ditches, perennial streams and wetlands in the marshy North Fields. UDOT has promised to protect at least two acres for every acre impacted. 

UDOT Region Three Communications Director Wyatt Woolley clarified UDOT will not develop a specific mitigation plan until the project moves into the design phase.

“This could include restoring or enhancing wetlands, preserving existing wetlands or purchasing credits from approved mitigation banks, depending on availability and site sustainability. Any mitigation plan would be coordinated with potential willing landowners and submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for review and final approval,” Woolley said.

UDOT also promised to prevent any further transportation access in the wetland area by not issuing permits to anyone seeking to create additional road access.

But resident Christian Heimburger was skeptical that UDOT could fend developers off from the North Fields in perpetuity.

“Businesses, especially gas stations, fast food restaurants and hotels will flock to the interchanges,” he said. “By building a bypass in a largely undeveloped area, the state is, unwittingly or not, building a powerful magnet for new development.”

Many described that undeveloped area as sacred.

Mimi Nuelle from Northfield Stables listed the wildlife she’d seen while riding her steed in the area: bald eagles, deer, moose, foxes and sandhill cranes.

Farmer Robert Hicken owns 25 acres in the North Fields, and the bypass will run straight through his land if Alternative B is built. He read his family’s Homestead Land Grant, signed by President Ulysses S. Grant in 1862. 

The travel times on bypass Alternative B are all about a minute faster than Alternative A. Hicken pleaded, “Let’s not sell our soul for 60 seconds.”

At the end of the night, many residents questioned whether their public comments would make a difference. 

“UDOT seems to think, since they work for the state, they can do whatever they want. This is our community. We built this town,” said an impassioned Dennis Van Leeuwin. “What upsets me is it doesn’t matter what any of you say. If you think the comments tonight are going to change UDOT’s mind, you’re mistaken.”

Wilcox offered a different perspective. She’s involved in Can’t Bypass the Truth, a citizens’ group opposing Alternative B, with members from conservation groups like Preserve Midway, Friends of Heber Valley and Utah Open Lands. 

“Nothing is ever a done deal,” Wilcox said. “That’s what everybody has to learn.”

The public open house was the sole opportunity to provide in-person comments before the 90-day comment period ends March 9. Comments can still be made via the website hebervalleyeis.udot.utah.gov, phone at 801-210-0498, email at [email protected] or mail addressed to “Heber Valley Corridor EIS c/o HDR” at 2825 E. Cottonwood Parkway #200, Cottonwood Heights, UT 84121.

Woolley explained comments that are likely to influence the final decision would need to include the identification of factual errors or areas where analysis needs to be corrected or refined, previously unidentified impacts to important environmental, cultural or community resources or well-supported ideas to modify an existing alternative or propose a new alternative that better meets the project’s purpose and need and that was not evaluated in earlier stages.

Following the public comment period, UDOT will respond to all public comments in its final environmental impact statement.