S.R. 14 Corridor Study

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...... 1

Chapter 1.0 Identification of Transportation Corridor Study Area...... 3

1.1 Corridor Description...... 3

1.2 Environmental, Cultural, and Historical Locations within the Corridor...... 4

1.3 Historical Perspective of the Corridor...... 5

1.4 Population and Employment ...... 5

Chapter 2.0 Analysis of Existing Conditions...... 6

2.1 Analysis Area Summary...... 6

2.1.A Land Use Patterns...... 6

2.1.B Traffic Patterns/Characteristics ...... 7

2.1.C Environmental...... 13

2.1.D Utilities...... 20

2.1.E Right‐of‐Way ...... 20

2.1.F Safety...... 20

2.1.G Geometric Design ...... 28

2.1.H Structures ...... 28

2.1.I Maintenance ...... 29

2.1.J Pavement Condition ...... 36

2.1.K Alternative Modes and Efficient Intermodal Transfer...... 40

2.1.L Access Management ...... 40

2.1.M Relevant Studies ...... 41

Chapter 3.0 Future Conditions Forecast...... 42

3.1 Analysis Area...... 42

3.1.A Land Use Plans, Future Population and Employment ...... 42

3.1.B Travel Demand Growth...... 42

3.1.C Present and Future Mobility Needs...... 43

Chapter 4.0 Corridor‐Wide Recommendations ...... 43

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 1 – S.R. 14 Corridor Study Area...... 4

Figure 2 – S.R. 14 Seasonal Traffic Fluctuation ...... 7

Figure 3 – S.R. 14 Historical Traffic Volume...... 8

Figure 4 – Truck Restriction Sign for S.R. 148 at west end of S.R. 14 ...... 9

Figure 5 – Snow Tires and Chains Requirement Sign at west end of S.R. 14...... 10

Figure 6 – Flashing Warning Sign for Semi‐trucks at west end of S.R. 14...... 10

Figure 7 – Curve and Grade Warning Sign for Semi‐trucks at east end of S.R. 14...... 11

Figure 8 – Warning Sign for Semi‐trucks on northbound U.S. 89 near S.R. 14...... 11

Figure 9 – Truck Turn‐around Area at the west end of S.R. 14...... 12

Figure 10 – Semi‐truck making delivery at Duck Creek Village...... 12

Figure 11 – Watershed Restoration Focus Areas Near S.R. 14 ...... 14

Figure 12 – Study Area Wetlands...... 15

Figure 13 – Rural Crash Locations on S.R. 14 2008‐2010...... 22

Figure 14 – Wild Animal Crashes on Rural S.R. 14 2008‐2010...... 23

Figure 15 – Rural Multi‐Vehicle Crash Locations on S.R. 14 2008‐2010 ...... 24

Figure 16 – Truck/RV Crashes by Year on Rural S.R. 14 2006‐2010...... 25

Figure 17 – Truck/RV Crash Locations on Rural S.R. 14 2006‐2010...... 27

Figure 18 – Roadway Uphill from Runaway Crash Cluster (Approx MP 8.85) ...... 27

Figure 19 – Old Sign Still in Place, Eastbound Near Milepost 6.3 ...... 30

Figure 20 – Vegetation Obscuring Sign, Eastbound Near Milepost 12.7...... 31

Figure 21 – Broken Attachment, Sign Upside Down, Eastbound Near Milepost 13.3...... 31

Figure 22 – S.R. 14 Sign Bent, Eastbound near Milepost 18.2...... 32

Figure 23 – Leaning Sign, Westbound Near Milepost 38.6...... 32

Figure 24 – Snow Tire Sign Color Inconsistencies...... 33

Figure 25 – Truck Turn‐around Sign Color Inconsistencies...... 33

Figure 26 – Damaged Guardrail near Navajo Lake, Looking East at Milepost 24.2 ...... 34

Figure 27 – Damaged Guardrail near Navajo Lake, Looking West at Milepost 24.2 ...... 34

Figure 28 – Damaged Guardrail near Navajo Lake, Looking South at Milepost 24.2 ...... 35

Figure 29 – Damaged Guardrail, Looking West at Milepost 40.4 ...... 35

Figure 30 – Damaged Guardrail, Looking West at Milepost 40.7 ...... 36

Figure 31 – New Pavement Overlay with Center Rumple Strip at Milepost 0.5...... 37

Figure 32 – New pavement Overlay without Permanent Marking at Milepost 40.8 ...... 37

Figure 33 – Restore 14 Reconstruction Efforts ...... 38

Figure 34 – S.R. 14 Historical and Future Traffic Volume ...... 43

Table 1 – S.R. 14 Corridor Characteristics...... 4

Table 2 – Population in Iron and Kane Counties...... 5

Table 3 – Employment in Iron and Kane Counties...... 6

Table 4 – Land Use Characteristics ...... 7

Table 5 – Utah’s Federally Listed Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) and Candidate (C) Species for Iron County...... 16

Table 6 – Utah’s Federally Listed Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) and Candidate (C) Species for Kane County...... 16

Table 7 – Utah’s State Listed Species for Iron County ...... 17

Table 8 – Utah’s State Listed Species for Kane County...... 18

Table 9 – Historic Building Search along the S.R 14 Corridor in Iron County...... 19

Table 10 – Historic Building Search along the S.R 14 Corridor in Kane County ...... 19

Table 11 – Potential Hazardous Waste Sites ...... 19

Table 12 – Right‐of‐way Width on S.R. 14 ...... 20

Table 13 – Crashes along S.R. 14 2008‐2010 ...... 21

Table 14 – Rural Crashes Manner of Collision 2008‐2010 ...... 23

Table 15 – Rural Crash Severity 2008‐2010 ...... 25

Table 16 – Truck/RV Crash Information on Rural S.R. 14 2006‐2010 ...... 26

Table 17 – S.R. 14 Acceleration and Deceleration Lane Inventory...... 28

Table 18 – UDOT Structures Inventory on S.R. 14 ...... 29

Table 19 – Inventory of Signing Issues...... 30

Table 20 – Pavement Condition...... 39

Table 21 – Rule R930‐6 State Highway Access Management Standards...... 41

Table 22 – Access Management Categories within Study Area...... 41

Table 23 – Future Population in Iron and Kane Counties ...... 42

Table 24 – Future Employment in Iron and Kane Counties ...... 42

State Route 14 Corridor Study

Executive Summary

The Utah Department of Transportation’s (UDOT) objective of corridor studies is to develop a best-practice management strategy of the overall statewide transportation system through data collection and analysis of individual corridors.

State Route 14 (S.R. 14) was built in 1912 and became part of the state highway system in 1953. The S.R. 14 Corridor Study begins at milepost (MP) 0.0 at the junction of Main Street or state Route 130 (S.R. 130) and Center Street in Cedar City and extends south-easterly to Long Valley Junction and ends at MP 41.0 at U.S. Highway 89 (U.S. 89). S.R. 14 is a UDOT Class 2 roadway designated as one of Utah’s Scenic Byways, the Markaguant High Plateau Scenic Byway which travels through Cedar Canyon and into the Dixie National Forest. A Class 2 roadway has less than 2,000 Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT). According to UDOT’s Highway Reference Report S.R. 14 is classified as an urban minor arterial from MP 0.0 to 1.86 and a rural minor arterial from MP 1.87 to 41.0. From Main Street to 580 East it is a two way roadway with a center turn lane to facilitate traffic turning left and right without impeding the flow of traffic in the general purpose lanes. East of 580 East, it is primarily a two lane roadway. The 40 mile road, which travels through Iron and Kane Counties, experiences grades up to eight percent and climbs from 5,600 feet to 9,000 feet at the summit.

Based on the study, the following recommendations are provided for the S.R. 14 corridor.

Signs – Conduct the repair/replacement measures needed to address the signing issues identified in Table 19. Resolve the sign color inconsistencies of truck advisory/restriction signs on either end of S.R. 14 (see Figures 24 and 25). Consider installing a truck warning sign on southbound U.S. 89 near the S.R. 14 junction to complement the sign currently in place in the northbound direction (see Figure 8).

Guardrails – Repair the guardrails at MP 24.2, 40.4, and 40.7 (see Figures 26 - 30). The guardrail near Navajo Reservoir (MP 24.2) should receive priority since it has the most extensive damage - approximately 150 feet.

Roadway Surface Condition – In addition to the ongoing maintenance of pavement, shoulders on S.R. 14 can be widened. For example, most portions of rural S.R. 14 feature minimal or no paved shoulders. Improving shoulders throughout the corridor can yield several benefits, including increased snow storage, and more room for bicyclists, and allowance for vehicles to safely pull over without impeding the through lanes.

Intersection Acceleration/Deceleration Lanes – While several major intersections on S.R. 14 do feature some acceleration/deceleration lanes (See Table 17), consideration should be give to installing acceleration/deceleration lanes at the following intersections as well:

• Movie Ranch Drive (MP 30.46) • Strawberry Point Road (MP 33.0) • Swains Creek Road (MP 35.11)

Page 1 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Acceleration and deceleration lanes can help improve safety by preventing crashes related to the speed differential of through vehicles and vehicles turning on and off S.R. 14. If implemented, acceleration and deceleration lanes should be designed according to standards and volume thresholds in UDOT Standard Drawing DD 13A.

Truck Restrictions – Continue to restrict/discourage heavy truck travel along S.R. 14. Crash history reveals that heavy trucks can often have difficulty navigating the roadway, particularly given the steep grades. For example, six of the 14 heavy truck crashes in the past five years included a runaway heavy vehicle. While crash analysis shows a clustering of runaway truck crashes on the western portion of S.R. 14, the steep and narrow terrain may make construction of a runaway escape ramp infeasible or prohibitively expensive. In essence, the current restrictions and advisories are valid.

Bicycle Treatments – As a Level 1 UDOT Bicycle Priority Route, future S.R. 14 projects should include measures to better accommodate bicycle travel. Such roadway accommodations may include widening the shoulder and/or signage for motorists to be aware of bicyclists.

The study area is contained in the map below.

Page 2 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Chapter 1.0 Identification of Transportation Corridor Study Area

The Utah Department of Transportation’s (UDOT) objective for corridor studies is to develop a best-practice management strategy of the overall statewide transportation system through data collection and analysis of the individual corridors. Corridor studies investigate conditions of a route and develop possible transportation solutions. They provide an opportunity for UDOT and local government(s) to discuss the corridor and how the corridor does or does not serve their interests or plans. This process may identify strategies in which the corridor can best serve both state and local government interests. Corridor plans are developed from the studies and identify which possible improvements may be needed to improve Utah’s transportation system in the future. Corridor plans are the map for UDOT to identify, evaluate, and set priorities for the corridor transportation system. They provide information to develop regional and statewide long- range transportation plans for the 20 plus year horizon which, in turn, provide projects to short- range transportation improvement programs for a six year planning horizon.

Corridor planning is UDOT’s program for managing its transportation systems, i.e. the state- administered portion of the overall network, for the long-range plan horizon, and for establishing a vision of corridor needs beyond that timeframe. Each corridor study area includes the transportation corridor – the geographic area that influences its performance – in addition to the transportation systems and facilities that make up the corridor.

UDOT has developed and is continuing to refine a statewide highway project prioritization system. A number of factors and issues contribute to a project’s priority including those related to safety criteria, capacity, pavement management, and bridge sufficiency. This system is used to determine which projects should receive priority status and to assist in establishing a system- wide needs list and long-range plan. Individual corridor plans are one of UDOT’s main methods to define corridor and systems needs. The proposed projects identified by corridor studies may be primarily focused on preservation, safety, system management, and/or mobility.

1.1 Corridor Description

Page 3 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 1 – S.R. 14 Corridor Study Area

Table 1 – S.R. 14 Corridor Characteristics

Milepost Milepost Roadway Commercial Residential Segment Begin End Classification Land Uses Land Uses Urban Minor 1 0.0 1.86 Arterial Medium Medium Rural Minor 2 1.87 41.0 Arterial Low Low Source: UDOT Functional Class KMZ file

1.2 Environmental, Cultural, and Historical Locations within the Corridor

The S.R.14 Corridor is a scenic route with many recreational and scenic opportunities. The Cedar City Brian Head Tourism Bureau describes the byway as cutting through Cedar City’s red hills, then crossing through a thick maple and scrub oak forest. S.R. 14 then climbs through a narrow canyon looking into the Ashdown Gorge Wilderness area with sheer cliffs towering on both sides. Approximately 12 miles up Cedar Canyon is the Southern Utah University Mountain

Page 4 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Center followed by the Wood’s Ranch Recreation Area. Upon entering the Dixie National Forest there is a sand-cut amphitheater similar to Cedar Breaks National Monument. The road twists and turns through an aspen and pine forest, hugging the edge of the Markagunt Plateau. Approximately a mile after the summit, S.R. 14 meets up with the state Route 148 (S.R. 148) junction, which leads to Cedar Breaks National Monument. As S.R.14 continues east, there are ancient lava fields and layers of volcanic rock. Around a sharp bend, the Navajo Lake overlook is just ahead and continuing east, there is Duck Creek Pond and Duck Creek Village. Continuing along the byway is the turnoff for Mammoth Creek Road, which junctions at scenic byway state Route 143 (S.R. 143) to the north. Finally, S.R.14 descends into Long Valley, twisting and turning through scrub oak and maple and ends at the junction of U.S. 89.

There are a number of locations for recreation and scenic views along the S.R. 14 Corridor:

• Cedar Canyon Walking Trail • Coal Creek Trail • Kolob Reservoir Scenic Backway • Woods Ranch Picnic Area and Kids Pond • Zion Overlook • Bristlecone Walking Trail • Cedar Breaks National Monument • Navajo Lake Overlook • Navajo Lake: fishing, hiking, biking and camping area. The trailhead to the Virgin River Rim and Cascade Falls is nearby as well as the Ice Caves • Duck Creek Reservoir/Aspen Mirror Lake • Duck Creek Village • Mammoth Creek Road and Mammoth Cave • Strawberry Point Overlook

1.3 Historical Perspective of the Corridor

S.R. 14 primarily connects Interstate 15 (I-15) in the west to U.S. 89 in eastern Utah. In October 2011, a landslide destroyed a section of roadway from MP 7.5 to MP 10 in Iron County which forced the closure of S.R. 14 until repairs can be made by the end of 2012.

1.4 Population and Employment

S.R. 14 traverses through Iron and Kane Counties. Iron County experienced double the growth rate that Kane County experienced from 2001 to 2010.

Table 2 – Population in Iron and Kane Counties

Year Iron County 10 Year Increase Kane County 10 Year Increase 2000 33,779 6,046 2010 46,163 36.66% 7,125 17.85% 2000 and 2010 Source: Census Brief: Cities and Counties of Utah Prepared by Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB), Demographic and Economic Analysis (DEA) Division July 2011

Page 5 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Employment opportunities along S.R. 14 are limited. Most of the employment opportunities are in Iron County in the Cedar City area according to the State of Utah Department of Workforce Services. There are two large employers (500 to 1,500 Employees) in the area: the Iron County School District and Southern Utah University, including the Mountain Conference Center on S.R. 14. Medium sized employers (250 to 499 Employees) include Convergys, an inbound call service center, Super Wal-Mart, Valley View Medical Center and State and Federal government services among other employers. Small employers (100 to 249 Employees) include State Bank of Southern Utah, Lin’s Supermarket and Grocery Store, AmPac, Inc., WECCO, Solid Rocket Propellants and others. There are numerous very small employers such as retail, restaurants and local businesses in the Cedar City area.

In Kane County, Kanab is the location with the largest population center. Many jobs in Kane County are associated with the recreation industry and are along U.S. 89 such as Mt. Carmel and Glendale. Mt. Carmel is at the eastern entrance to Zion National Park and the entrance to Grand Staircase National Monument is in downtown Glendale. The only town along S.R. 14 in Kane County is Duck Creek Village located approximately 30 miles east of Cedar City in the Dixie National Forest at the base of Cedar Mountain. It offers year-round recreational activities such as fishing, snow based activities such as snowmobiling and cross county skiing as well as hiking. Cedar Breaks National Monument and other national parks and monuments are located within easy driving distances of Kane County. The table below shows the employment in Iron and Kane Counties.

Table 3 – Employment in Iron and Kane Counties

Year Iron County 9 Year Increase Kane County 9 Year Increase 2001 19,387 3,800 2010 27,470 41.69% 5,011 31.87% Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Projections Baseline 2008 Employment by Area

Chapter 2.0 Analysis of Existing Conditions

The existing conditions analysis summarizes the existing land use patterns, traffic patterns/characteristics, environmental, utilities, right-of-way, safety, geometric design, structures, maintenance, pavement condition, alternative modes and efficient intermodal transfer, access management strategies, and other relevant studies.

2.1 Analysis Area Summary

The analysis area is from MP 0.0 in Cedar City at the intersection of Center Street and Main Street to MP 41.0 at the intersection of S.R.14 and U.S. 89.

2.1.A Land Use Patterns

The initial section of the S.R. 14 corridor is entirely located with the Cedar City Urban area represented by a number of retail, business and residential dwellings along with a school, East Elementary, and a park, East Canyon Park. East of the last residential street within the Cedar

Page 6 State Route 14 Corridor Study

City urban area (approximately 850 East) S.R. 14 traverses natural open space and national forest with several commercial buildings along the corridor, such as local restaurants Milt’s Stage Shop and Rusty’s Ranch House that are just east of Right Hand Canyon Road on S.R. 14. Southern Utah University has a 6,000 seat conference center that is situated on a 2,800 acre ranch as well as Sheepherders Cabin both approximately 12 miles up S.R. 14. There are a number of cabins and lodges that are used for recreational purposes. On average, over 90% of the land in this corridor is national forest or natural open space.

Table 4 – Land Use Characteristics

Segment Commercial Residential Retail Schools Urban S.R. 14 Yes Yes Yes Yes Rural S.R. 14 Yes Yes Yes No

2.1.B Traffic Patterns/Characteristics

S.R. 14 is primarily a recreational traffic corridor. The major traffic generators along the corridor are Duck Creek Village, Navajo Lake, the Southern Utah University conference center, various campgrounds, restaurants and recreational uses along the corridor, such as trailheads. Cedar Breaks National Monument and the resort community of Brian Head also can be accessed from S.R. 14 via S.R. 148. Throughout the year, weekend average daily traffic volumes (Saturday- Sunday) consistently remain higher than weekday average daily volumes (Monday-Friday). Additionally, S.R. 14 exhibits a strong seasonal flow with peak flows occurring during summer months. During the month of July, in particular, the average daily traffic volume reaches nearly twice the annual average volume. In contrast, winter month traffic volumes can be less than half the annual average (see figure below).

Figure 2 – S.R. 14 Seasonal Traffic Fluctuation

200% 180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% PercentAADT of 40% 20% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month

Source: UDOT Automated Traffic Recorder 382

Page 7 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Over the last 20 years, S.R. 14 has exhibited a 50 percent increase in traffic. Although there has some fluctuation in recent years, the corridor has yielded an average annual growth rate of 2.4 percent during this time. The figure below displays the historical growth patterns on S.R. 14.

Figure 3 – S.R. 14 Historical Traffic Volume

1,600

1,400

1,200

1,000 2.4% Annual 800 Growth Rate

600

400 AADT (vehicles day)per 200

0 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Year

Source: Traffic on Utah Highways 2010, UDOT

Raw truck traffic percentages from UDOT show 20 percent of the traffic composition is made of single-unit and multi-unit truck/trailers. However, previous analysis has shown that this truck percentage is likely mostly comprised of RVs, trailer-towing RVs, trailer-towing pickups, and camper-towing pickups. (See S.R. 14 and S.R. 143 Traffic Count Summary Memo DRAFT, October 2011) The true percentage of single-unit and particularly multi-unit trucks is expected to be far lower than the 20 percent implied by UDOT, data especially given the truck restrictions/advisories currently in place along the corridor, as discussed in the following section.

Truck Advisories/Restrictions – In response to steep grades and tight curves on S.R. 14, S.R. 148 and S.R. 143, UDOT has implemented a series of truck restrictions and advisories. First, vehicles over 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight are not allowed on S.R 148. Second, snow tires or chains are required for travel on S.R. 14 from November 1 to March 31. Third, semi-trucks are discouraged, but not restricted, from using S.R. 14 as a through route.

To assist in communicating the truck restrictions and advisories, multiple signs are posted at either end of the S.R. 14 corridor and also northbound on U.S. 89 near the junction with S.R. 14. Advance information is also provided to semi-truck drivers at the Point of Entry on U.S. 89 near Kanab, Utah. Additionally, for those trucks who mistakenly turn onto S.R. 14, a truck turn- around area is provided at either end of S.R. 14.

Truck restrictions and advisories largely appear effective at discouraging semi-truck usage on S.R. 14. Video observation of traffic flow on S.R. 14 conducted during Labor Day weekend

Page 8 State Route 14 Corridor Study

2011, recorded no multi-unit trucks and almost no single-unit trucks, as documented in S.R. 14 and S.R. 143 Traffic Count Summary Memo DRAFT, October 2011. Despite the posted warnings and advisories, a small portion of semi-truck traffic continues to use S.R. 14. Some of this traffic consists of vehicles making deliveries to Duck Creek Village. However, crash data reveals that some truck traffic attempts to use S.R. 14 as a through route from U.S. 89 to Cedar City.

Figure 4 – Truck Restriction Sign for S.R. 148 at west end of S.R. 14

Page 9 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 5 – Snow Tires and Chains Requirement Sign at west end of S.R. 14

Figure 6 – Flashing Warning Sign for Semi-trucks at west end of S.R. 14

Page 10 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 7 – Curve and Grade Warning Sign for Semi-trucks at east end of S.R. 14

Figure 8 – Warning Sign for Semi-trucks on northbound U.S. 89 near S.R. 14

Page 11 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 9 – Truck Turn-around Area at the west end of S.R. 14

Figure 10 – Semi-truck making delivery at Duck Creek Village

Page 12 State Route 14 Corridor Study

2.1.C Environmental

The following contains screening level information regarding various environmental topics. As transportation improvement projects are identified, in-depth environmental studies may need to be completed to determine impacts of projects.

Economic – The economic impact of road closures can affect commerce and recreation. UDOT has secured Federal emergency funds to repair S.R. 14 from the destructive landslide that occurred in October 2011. The completion of the Restore 14 Project is expected December 2012. Being able to open the roadway in the evenings has provided access from the west to the businesses and recreation at Duck Creek Village, Navajo Lake, and the Cedar Breaks National Monument.

Air Quality – Iron and Kane counties are not listed as non-attainment or maintenance areas for air quality.

Noise – There are residential and commercial uses close to the corridor. As traffic volumes increase along the corridor, noise concerns may develop which may require noise studies.

Water Quality – There are two watershed restoration focus areas within the study area along the S.R.14 corridor: Cedar/Beaver and Sevier River. The Division of Water Quality’s October 2010 Draft Integrated Report was used in this report preparation to determine any water quality issues along S.R.14.

The Cedar/Beaver Watershed is made up of various streams: Beaver, Coal, Shoal and Pinto Creek. The Coal Creek drainage basin has no known water quality issues. Beaver, Shoal and Pinto Creek are all somewhat small in size. Pinto Creek and Newcastle Reservoir are new listings for 2010 on the 303d Impaired Streams and Lakes Requiring a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analysis, but it is a low priority for that analysis. Pinto Creek’s use is listed as a cold water fishery and is impaired as a result of benthic‐macroinvertebrate in the stream. For the Newcastle Reservoir, a freshwater lake that is a cold water fishery, it is impaired by the temperature of the water as well as the detection of mercury in the fish tissue.

The Sevier River Watershed is made up of some major streams: Sevier and San Pitch River, Otter and Salina Creek and the East Fork Sevier River. The Sevier drainage basin is fed by Duck and Mammoth Creek and, has in the past been monitored for E-coli as a result of human activity, septic tank leakage from Duck Creek Village and the surrounding area as well as stock watering. In the past, Duck Creek Village studied whether to incorporate as a municipality and create a sewer district that would connect with the Dixie National Forest’s campground facilities and be treated at a sewer lagoon east of Mammoth Road. The sewer service district would serve the individuals living and recreating in Duck Creek Village and surrounding areas. New listings for impaired streams and lakes in 2010 include the East Fork Sevier, Sevier River, Parowan Creek, Navajo Lake, Piute Reservoir and Koosharem Reservoir. Navajo Lake, within the Dixie National Forest boundaries, is a recreation area located approximately 25 miles east of Cedar City atop Cedar Mountain which is impaired by oxygen, dissolved (2006 assessment) and pH (2010 assessment) levels. The cause of the impairment relates to grazing in the riparian

Page 13 State Route 14 Corridor Study or shoreline zones, managed pasture grazing, rangeland grazing and other recreational pollution sources. Mercury has been detected in fish tissue in the East Fork of the Sevier River.

Figure 11 – Watershed Restoration Focus Areas Near S.R. 14

Source: Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2012

After leaving Dixie National Forest at approximately MP 39, the upper portion of the east Fork Virgin River drainage basin begins. Sevier River tributaries from Long Canal to Mammoth Creek confluence in the Garfield County area contain phosphorus which is a pollutant of concern that has impaired its use as a cold water fishery. Mammoth Creek in Garfield County contains phosphorus as a pollutant of concern as well and has impaired the beneficial use of the creek as a cold water fishery. Implementation strategies have been identified to restore the creek to a non-impaired condition as a Class 3a cold water fishery. It is anticipated that the temperature of the water has increased such that it will be considered impairment to the cold water fishery classification in the future and implementation strategies will be needed to reduce the temperature of the rivers and tributaries.

Wetlands – There are wetlands adjacent to S.R.14 at several locations. The following figure shows the wetlands in the S.R.14 corridor.

Page 14 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 12 – Study Area Wetlands

Source: National Wetland Inventory, 2012

Wildlife – The Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy identifies top ten key habitats in Utah. A number of these habitats can be found along S.R. 14. The Lowland Riparian Habitat is important to the Yellow-billed Cuckoo which is on Utah’s Federal Listed Threatened and Endangered and Candidate Species list for Iron County. The Mountain Riparian Habitat is above 5,500 feet in elevation. Utah’s Bonneville cutthroat trout, which is part of the Mountain Riparian Wildlife, is threatened by a variety of human activities in the streams and lakes surrounding S.R. 14. Utah’s Shrubsteppe Habitat comprises over 13 percent of Utah’s surface including areas in Iron and Kane counties. The most common plant of the shrubsteppe habitat is Sagebrush and a candidate species of Utah’s Federal Listed Threatened, Endangered and Candidate Species includes the Greater sage-grouse which calls this habitat home. Cedar Mountain and the surrounding area of the Mountain Shrub Habitat provide homes for many species of wildlife. The Flowing-Water Habitat supports plant and animals that live in the many streams, freshwater lakes and reservoirs surrounding S.R. 14. Mercury has been found in fish tissue in various streams and rivers in the area. Sediments and pollution from unknown sources including improper grazing practices and human activities can cause microscopic plants to grow rapidly and prevent sunlight reaching life underwater. Wet

Page 15 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Meadows Habitat can be found near S.R. 14 because of the elevation of the area. Wet Meadows support a large number of wildlife such as the many toads listed on Utah’s Threatened or Endangered Species which rely on the Wet Meadow Habitat for survival. Grasslands are critical habitat for approximately 22 species in need of conservation according to the Utah Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation. These small mammals include several species of prairie dogs. The Aspen Forest Habitat occurs at elevations of 5,600 and above. Woodpeckers and owls can be found in aspens as well as other species that live on the forest floor.

Threatened or Endangered Species (Federal) – The following two tables contain Utah’s Federally Listed Threatened and Endangered and Candidate Species for Iron and Kane counties. The animals and plants listed below are found in each county, but may not be specific for the S.R.14 corridor. Further study will be needed to determine which threatened, endangered or candidate species impact the S.R.14 corridor specifically.

Table 5 – Utah’s Federally Listed Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) and Candidate (C) Species for Iron County

Common Name Scientific Name Status Least Chub Iotichthys phlegethontis C Greater Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus C Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus C Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida T Utah Prairie-dog Cynomys parvidens T Brown Bear Ursus arctos T Extirpated Source: State of Utah, Division of Wildlife Resources, March 29, 2011

Table 6 – Utah’s Federally Listed Threatened (T) and Endangered (E) and Candidate (C) Species for Kane County

Common Name Scientific Name Status Welsh's Milkweed Asclepias welshii T Kodachrome Bladderpod Lesquerella tumulosa E Siler Pincushion Cactus Pediocactus sileri T Jones Cycladenia Cycladenia humilis var jonesii T Kanab Ambersnail Oxyloma kanabense E Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle Cicindela limbata albissima C Humpback Chub Gila cypha E Bonytail Gila elegans E Greater Sage-grouse Centrocercus urophasianus C Mexican Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis lucida T Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax trailli extimus E Utah Prairie-dog Cynomys parvidens T Source: State of Utah, Division of Wildlife Resources, March 29, 2011

Page 16 State Route 14 Corridor Study

The following two tables contain Utah’s State Listed Species for Iron and Kane counties. The animals and plants listed below are found in each county, but may not be specific for the S.R.14 corridor. Further study will be needed to determine which species impact the S.R.14 corridor specifically.

Disclaimer: This list was compiled using known species occurrences and species observations from the Utah Natural Heritage Program’s Biodiversity Tracking and Conservation System (BIOTICS); other species of special concern likely occur in Utah Counties. This list includes both current and historic records. (Last updated on March 29, 2011)

Table 7 – Utah’s State Listed Species for Iron County

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Arizona Toad Bufo Microscaphus SPC Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Leucocephalus SPC Black Swift Cypseloides Niger SPC Bonneville Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus ClarkII Utah CS Brian Head Mountainsnail Oreohelix Parawanensis SPC Burrowing Owl Athene Cunicularia SPC Dark Kangaroo Mouse Microdipodops Megacephalus SPC Ferruginous Hawk Buteo Regalis SPC Fringed Myotis Myotis Thysanodes SPC Kit Fox Vulpes Macrotis SPC Least Chub Iotichthys Phlegethontis CS Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes Lewis SPC Long-Billed Curlew Numenius Americanus SPC Northern Goshawk Accipiter Gentilis CS Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus Idahoensis SPC Short-Eared Owl Asio Flammeus SPC Southern Leatherside Chub Lepidomeda Aliciae SPC Spotted Bat Euderma Maculatum SPC Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides Tridactylus SPC Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus Townsendii SPC Key: SPC=Wildlife Species of Concern, CS=Species receiving special management under a conservation agreement in order to preclude the need for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act Source: State of Utah Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Conservation Data Center (March 2011).

Page 17 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Table 8 – Utah’s State Listed Species for Kane County

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Allen's Big-Eared Bat Idionycteris Phyllotis SPC American White Pelican Pelecanus Erythrorhynchos SPC Arizona Toad Bufo Microscaphus SPC Bald Eagle Haliaeetus Leucocephalus SPC Big Free-Tailed Bat Nyctinomops Macrotis SPC Bluehead Sucker Catostomus Discobolus CS Bonneveille Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus ClarkII Utah CS Burrowing Owl Athene Cunicularia SPC Common Chuckwalla Sauromalus Ater SPC Desert Night Lizard Xantusia Vigilis SPC Desert Sucker Catostomus ClarkII SPC Ferruginous Hawk Buteo Regalis SPC Flannelmouth Sucker Catostomus Latipinnis CS Fringed Myotis Myotis Thysanodes SPC Great Plains Toad Bufo Cognatus SPC Kit Fox Vulpes Macrotis SPC Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes Lewis SPC Northern Goshawk Accipiter Gentilis CS Roundtail Chub Gila Robusta CS Southern Leatherside Chub Lepidomeda Aliciae SPC Spotted Bat Euderma Maculatum SPC Three-Toed Woodpecker Picoides Tridactylus SPC Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus TownsendII SPC Virgin Spinedace Lepidomeda Mollispinis CS Western Toad Bufo Boreas SPC Key: SPC=Wildlife Species of Concern, CS=Species receiving special management under a conservation agreement in order to preclude the need for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act Source: State of Utah Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Utah Conservation Data Center (March 2011).

Flood Plain – There are no known flood plains associated with the S.R.14 corridor.

Wild and Scenic Rivers – According to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, there are no rivers surrounding S.R. 14 that are classified as Wild and Scenic Rivers.

Historic and Archeological Preservation – The table below lists known historic resources within the S.R. 14 corridor as listed in the Utah State Historic Preservation Office Historic Building database.

Page 18 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Table 9 – Historic Building Search along the S.R 14 Corridor in Iron County

Eligibility for the National Register of Property Name Historic Places Duck Creek Campground Not Listed Cedar Breaks Visitor Center National Register Listed Cedar Breaks Caretaker's Cabin National Register Listed Coal Creek Bridge (OC 170) (demolished) Not Listed Source: Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Public Viewer at historicbuildings.utah.gov

Table 10 – Historic Building Search along the S.R 14 Corridor in Kane County

Eligibility for the National Register of Property Name Historic Places Duck Creek Ranger Station Not Listed Harris Flat Ranger Station Not Listed Swains Creek Culvert, Long Valley Junction Not Listed Recreational Residence (sj-465) Not Listed Source: Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Public Viewer at historicbuildings.utah.gov

Fossil Preservation – No known fossil preservation is being conducted along the S.R. 14 corridor.

Hazardous Waste Sites – There are seven potential hazardous waste sites on or near the S.R. 14 corridor that have been identified. They are included in the table below.

Table 11 – Potential Hazardous Waste Sites

Location Potential Type Owner 100 East Center Street ATV/Battery Store D & P Performance S.R. 14/S.R. 148 Underground Tank State Fuel Network Duck Creek Underground Tank USDA Forest Service Duck Creek Underground Tank Meadow View Store Duck Creek Underground Tank Movie Ranch Store Duck Creek Underground Tank Loose Wheels Service S.R. 14/U.S. 89 Underground Tank Tod’s Country Store Source: Utah Automated Geographic Reference Center, 2012 and Utah Department of Environmental Quality

Visual Impacts – S.R. 14 is a Utah Scenic Byway that has many opportunities for panoramic views while hiking, fishing, driving the Cedar Canyon or looking at scenery from a designated view area. At the summit of Cedar Canyon, individuals can view the Kolob Terrace area as well as towers and buttes of Zion National Park in the distance.

Prime and Unique Farmland – According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), there is no prime or unique farmland along the S.R. 14 corridor.

Section 4(f) Properties – The United State Department of Transportation’s Section 4(f) requirement (49 USC 303) states that federal funds may not be approved for projects that use

Page 19 State Route 14 Corridor Study land from a significant publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or any significant historical site. Exceptions may be permitted if it is determined that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from such properties and the actions include all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use. The following list includes possible Section 4(f) designations:

• Dixie National Forest (recreation area) • Cedar Breaks Visitor Center (on National Register of Historic Places) • Cedar Breaks Caretaker’s Cabin (on National Register of Historic Places)

Section 6(f) Properties – The purpose of Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act is to preserve, develop and assure the quality and quantity of outdoor parks and recreation areas and refuges for present and future generations. A future National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) environmental study would need to be completed to determine if Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act applies if a major project were proposed for S.R. 14.

2.1.D Utilities

Because of the rural nature of the S.R. 14 corridor, standard utilities common to an urban environment such as communication, natural gas, power, sewer and water lines do not impact much of this corridor. There are electrical transmission lines that provide power along S.R. 14 as well as overhead lighting at the parking lots of Rusty’s Ranch House Restaurant and Milt’s Stage Shop Restaurant. Along Center Street, just east of Main Street, decorative street lamps are used for street lighting in the central business district. At the eastern edge of the central business district, standard street lights are used for lighting.

2.1.E Right-of-Way

Right-of-way width varies between 100 feet to 400 feet on the S.R. 14 corridor as referenced in the Cedar Breaks Corridor Study in 2002 by UDOT. Road widening, shoulder modification and clear zone improvement projects may require the purchase of additional right-of-way depending on the location.

Table 12 – Right-of-way Width on S.R. 14

Milepost Segment Width 0.0 to 3.0 Unknown 3.0 to 18.2 100 feet to 400 feet 18.2 to 22.6 400 feet 22.6 to 40.99 200 feet to 400 feet Source: Cedar Breaks Corridor Study, 2002

2.1.F Safety

The following safety statistics were gathered for the study area to help summarize roadway safety conditions:

• Crash Rate • Severe Crash Rate Page 20 State Route 14 Corridor Study

The Crash Rate is a calculation that normalizes the number of crashes on a road segment against the segment length and traffic volume. Crash rates are typically expressed in units of crashes per year per hundred million vehicle-miles. The Severe Crash Rate also normalizes crashes against length and volume, but only considers "severe crashes" (incapacitating injury and fatal crashes combined). Severe crash rates are expressed in units of severe crashes per hundred million vehicle-miles. Both crash rates and severe crash rates were obtained for the three most recent years of available data (2008-2010). The rates were compared against the statewide average rates for similar road segments according to volume and functional type.

The table below summarizes the crash data and rates along S.R. 14. With the exception of MP 1.86 to 4.95, all rural portions of S.R. 14 exhibit crash rates higher than their corresponding statewide average crash rate. In particular, the section of S.R. 14 between Cedar Breaks and Duck Creek yields crash rates above 3.0 crashes per million vehicle-miles. This section of roadway features consistently high elevations and the most turnoffs for camping and other recreational areas of the S.R 14 corridor.

Severe crashes occur relatively infrequently on S.R. 14 except for the section of roadway between the Kolob Reservoir turnoff and Cedar Breaks, in which five severe crashes are recorded. This section of roadway features the steepest grades and a notably tight set of switchbacks near MP 13.

Table 13 – Crashes along S.R. 14 2008-2010

Crashes Actual Rate Average Rate3 Functional Severe Severe Segment Milepost Crash Crash Class Total Severe 1 Crash Crash Rate 2 Rate Rate Rate Urban Minor Urban S.R. 14 0.0 to 1.85 Arterial 14 1 2.84 20.3 3.36 9.1 Rural S.R. 14 (Outside Rural Minor 1.86 to 41.0 Cedar City to U.S. 89) Arterial 139 6 2.68 11.6 1.90 10.9 Outside Cedar City to 1.86 to 4.95 Kolob Turnoff 11 0 1.48 0.0 1.90 10.9 Kolob Turnoff to Cedar 4.96 to Breaks 18.16 56 5 2.43 21.7 1.90 10.9 Cedar Breaks to Navajo 18.17 to Rural Minor Lake 25.70 Arterial 26 1 3.72 14.3 1.90 10.9 Navajo Lake to Duck 25.71 to Creek 31.50 23 0 4.20 0.0 1.90 10.9 31.51 to Duck Creek to U.S. 89 41.0 23 0 2.56 0.0 1.90 10.9

All S.R 14 0.0 to 41.0 (Multiple) 153 7 2.69 12.31 n/a n/a Source: UDOT Traffic and Safety Division 1. Crashes per million vehicle-miles 2. Severe crashes per hundred million vehicle-miles 3. Based on 2006-2010 statewide average rates per functional class and AADT

Page 21 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 13 – Rural Crash Locations on S.R. 14 2008-2010

Source: UDOT Traffic and Safety Division

Manner of Collision – The manner of collision was examined for crashes occurring on the rural portions of S.R. 14 for 2008-2010. The manner of collision evaluation omitted the short urban area of S.R. 14 (MP 0.0 to 1.85) due to the increased complexity of factors contributing to crashes on urban roadways. The table below provides the manner of collision summary. As can be seen, the most common type of crash is a single-vehicle crash. Approximately one-third (36 crashes) of these crashes involve wild animal hits. The rest of the single-vehicle crashes may be expected to be related to drivers failing to navigate the steep, windy roadway, especially in winter or adverse weather conditions.

Page 22 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Table 14 – Rural Crashes Manner of Collision 2008-2010

Manner of Collision Number Percent Angle 10 7.2 Front-to-rear 8 5.8 Head-on 3 2.2 Sideswipe (same direction) 1 0.7 Sideswipe (opposite direction) 5 3.6 Parked Vehicle 2 1.4 Rear to Side 1 0.7 Single Vehicle 109 78.4 Total 139 100 Source: UDOT Traffic and Safety Division

Figure 14 – Wild Animal Crashes on Rural S.R. 14 2008-2010

While multi-vehicle crashes account for less than 25 percent of all crashes, a few observations can be drawn. For example, most of the angle crashes (8 of 10) occur on the eastern portion of the corridor (see next figure). This portion of S.R. 14 includes turnoffs to Navajo Lake, Duck Creek Village, and other access to campgrounds and recreational areas. It is anticipated that the higher occurrence of angle crashes on the eastern side of S.R. 14 is related to increased numbers of vehicles turning on and off the roadway. Additionally, several multi-vehicle crashes

Page 23 State Route 14 Corridor Study are clustered around the turnoff to Cedar Breaks National Monument (S.R. 148), suggesting the increased traffic at the turnoff contributes to more crashes.

Figure 15 – Rural Multi-Vehicle Crash Locations on S.R. 14 2008-2010

Source: UDOT Traffic and Safety Division

Crash Severity – Crash severity is organized into five categories with the highest two categories (Incapacitating injury and Fatal) being classified as severe crashes. As mentioned previously, five of the six severe crashes on the rural portion of S.R. 14 occur between the turnoff to Kolob Reservoir (MP 4.96) and the Cedar Breaks turnoff (MP 18.16). A closer examination reveals that three of these severe crashes are clustered around the sharp switchbacks at approximately MP 13. The lone fatality on S.R. 14 occurred on a steep section of roadway near MP 8.4 in which a truck's brakes failed.

Page 24 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Table 15 – Rural Crash Severity 2008-2010

Manner of Collision Number Percent No Injury 95 68.4 Possible Injury 12 8.6 Non-incapacitating Injury 26 18.7 Incapacitating Injury 5 3.6 Fatal 1 0.7 Total 139 100 Source: UDOT Traffic and Safety Division

Heavy Vehicle Crashes – Crashes involving trucks/RVs were examined on S.R. 14 to provide a context for the heavy truck restrictions/advisories currently in place on the corridor. Because truck/RV crashes have a relatively low occurrence on S.R. 14, the analysis time period was expanded to include two additional years (2006, 2007). The figure below shows the occurrence of truck/RV crashes over time. As shown in Figure 16, truck/RV crash frequency in 2006 is double what has occurred in the four years since. It is unknown whether this drop in crashes related to the onset of truck restrictions, an increase in advance notice or enforcement of restrictions, or unusually severe/mild winters for some years.

Figure 16 – Truck/RV Crashes by Year on Rural S.R. 14 2006-2010

2 Truck/RV Crashes Truck/RV

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Year

Source: UDOT Traffic and Safety Division

Brake failure has a significant role in truck/RV crashes on S.R. 14. Of the 14 truck/RV crashes between 2006 and 2010, six involved runaway vehicles. The runaway vehicle crashes exhibit strong clustering patterns. Four of the crashes occurred within 0.2 miles of MP 8.4 and the remaining two at MP 34.5 and MP 35.6. The terrain around MP 8.4 features two sharp, narrow curves immediately following a straight, but steady downhill section. Most likely, runaway vehicles' brakes fail somewhere uphill of the crash locations, but drivers are able to remain on the roadway due to the relative straightness. Once they reach the sharp curves at MP 8.4, the

Page 25 State Route 14 Corridor Study drivers are no longer able to stay on the road. The following table and figure summarize the truck/RV crash locations.

Given the strong clustering pattern of runaway crashes around MP 8.4, the area was examined during a field visit in an attempt to locate a candidate site for a possible runaway escape ramp. Ideally, a runaway escape ramp candidate site would meet certain criteria. First, the site should be located some distance uphill from the known crash cluster. A runaway escape ramp downhill from the known crash cluster would provide little benefit since vehicles are running off the road before reaching that point. Similarly, a runaway escape ramp too far uphill would also be of diminished benefit since drivers may not yet be aware of any brake trouble. Second, the escape ramp should be able to fit on the same side of the road as the downhill lane of travel. Otherwise, runaway vehicles would have to cross the oncoming lane of travel to reach the escape ramp. Third, the escape ramp should have sufficient length to allow a runaway truck to come to a stop given the grade of the ramp and the surfacing material (see A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011, published by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials). In conclusion, the narrow and steep terrain in the vicinity of MP 8.4, as well as the presence of Coal Creek, leave little opportunity for installation of an escape ramp. Such a ramp would likely require extensive cut and fill through rock cliffs and possibly soil retaining walls, which could render the ramp infeasible or prohibitively expensive.

Table 16 – Truck/RV Crash Information on Rural S.R. 14 2006-2010

Crash Milepost Year Truck/RV Runaway Crash 8.4 2006 Truck Yes 8.4 2008 RV Yes 8.4 2008 Truck Yes 8.6 2009 Truck Yes 10.4 2007 Truck No 12.9 2007 Truck No 27.2 2010 Truck No 31.1 2006 Truck No 31.4 2010 Truck No 34.2 2006 Truck No 34.5 2006 Truck Yes 35.1 2006 RV No 35.6 2006 Truck Yes 39.2 2008 Truck No Source: UDOT Traffic and Safety Division

Page 26 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 17 – Truck/RV Crash Locations on Rural S.R. 14 2006-2010

Source: UDOT Traffic and Safety Division

Figure 18 – Roadway Uphill from Runaway Crash Cluster (Approx MP 8.85)

Page 27 State Route 14 Corridor Study

2.1.G Geometric Design

Within Cedar City, S.R. 14 features many components of an urban roadway, including on-street parking, sidewalks, curb and gutter, and crosswalks. Between Main Street (S.R. 130) and 100 East, S.R. 14 has a five-lane cross-section comprised of two travel lanes in each direction and a two-way left-turn lane. East of 100 East, S.R. 14 quickly transitions to a three-lane cross section with one travel lane in each direction and a two-way left-turn lane. The roadway maintains this cross section up to the mouth of Cedar Canyon where it narrows to two lanes in each direction. Paved shoulders in this section typically range from 0 feet to 2 feet in width. With the exception of an eastbound passing lane and a few turn lanes at key accesses, this cross section continues all the way to the corridor terminus at U.S. 89.

Prior to the October 2011 landslide, S.R. 14 featured an eastbound passing lane from approximately MP 7.2 to MP 8.0. While this section of roadway was destroyed by the landslide, the passing lane does appear to be a component of the reconstruction plan.

Various access points and turn-offs along S.R. 14 feature acceleration and deceleration lanes. The following table summarizes these locations.

Table 17 – S.R. 14 Acceleration and Deceleration Lane Inventory

Access Milepost Acceleration Lanes Deceleration Lanes Eastbound Left Turn S.R. 148 18.17 Left Turn to Eastbound Westbound Right Turn

Navajo Lake Turnoff 25.70 Westbound Left Turn Eastbound Left Turn Duck Creek Campground 28.11 Westbound Left Turn

Duck Creek Village 30.04 Left Turn to Eastbound Eastbound Left Turn Eastbound Left Turn Mammoth Creek Road 31.43 Westbound Left Turn

2.1.H Structures

There are six structures along the S.R.14 corridor. The chart below provides information about the structure design, location and type, along with year built and other relevant information:

Page 28 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Table 18 – UDOT Structures Inventory on S.R. 14

Type (steel or concrete, Structure arch, box) and Design or Year Historic or Culturally Geographic Number Structure Description Milepost Type of Construction Built Significant? Feature Pre-stressed Concrete Bridge not eligible for Stringer/Multi-beam or National Register of Historic OF542 Coal Creek Bridge 0.413 Girder 1988 Places Coal Creek Steel Stringer/Multi-beam Historical significance is not OC275 Salt Creek Bridge 2.043 or Girder 1950 determinable at this time Salt Creek Rocky Rocky Canyon Wash Steel Stringer/Multi-beam Historical significance is not Canyon OC276 Bridge 3.482 or Girder 1950 determinable at this time Wash Bridge not eligible for National Register of Historic Maple OE2409 Maple Creek Bridge 5.7 Concrete Culvert 1996 Places Creek Pre-stressed Concrete Bridge not eligible for with mixed types approach National Register of Historic OF553 Coal Creek Bridge 6.986 spans 1991 Places Coal Creek Bridge not eligible for Concrete Frame (except National Register of Historic Swain's OE2523 Swain's Creek Bridge 34.902 frame culverts) 2004 Places Creek Source: UDOT Structures Inventory

2.1.I Maintenance

An interview with UDOT Region 4 maintenance personnel was conducted in early 2012 to determine the current S.R. 14 maintenance issues. There are several ongoing maintenance issues along S.R. 14. There have been landslides prior to the current October 8, 2011 incident in the area below MP 10 as well as around MP 17. Water from Coal Creek has been flowing under the S.R. 14 roadway at approximately MP 9.9. At approximately MP 12.5 in the Wood’s Ranch area there have been maintenance problems with frost heave on the roadway. State Route 14 is a Level 2 road, which means it has less than 2,000 vehicles per day, and so its current maintenance plan is a chip seal treatment approximately every 10 years. The last chip seal treatment occurred along S.R. 14 from 2005-2008.

There are three galvanized steel culverts that have failed between MP 14 and MP 15. Failure has occurred because of rusting and joint separation among other issues. It should be noted that culverts that are smaller than 20 feet are maintained by the UDOT Region 4 Cedar City Maintenance Crew.

In addition to coordination with UDOT maintenance personnel, a field visit was conducted in July 2012. As a result of the field visit, the following issues were observed:

Signs – Several damaged signs were observed on S.R. 14 during the July 2012 field visit. Many of the damaged signs were bent around the support post or pole. The pattern suggests the damage is the result of the signs being hit by plowed snow. Other observed issues include signs being obscured by vegetation, signs out of place due to apparent unfinished construction work, or old signs not being removed. The table below summarizes the observed sign maintenance issues.

Page 29 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Table 19 – Inventory of Signing Issues

Sign Approximate Direction Issue Milepost Sign replaced, but old sign not taken Curve Warning 6.3 EB down Curve Warning 12.7 EB Vegetation obscuring sign Curve Warning 13.3 EB Broken attachment - sign upside down 40 mph Curve Warning 10.9 WB Bent sign S.R. 14 25.9 EB Bent sign ATV Crossing 28.3 EB Bent sign Share the Road 29.1 EB Bent sign Chevron 39.9 EB Vegetation obscuring sign U.S. 89 sign (southbound Right Lane Must Turn U.S. 89 near Right S.R. 14 Yield junction) SB Bent sign Sign down (may be construction Chevron 40 WB related) Sign down (may be construction Milepost 39 WB related) Motor Vehicle Sign leaning backward Restriction Area 38.6 WB S.R. 14 18.2 EB & WB Bent signs

Figure 19 – Old Sign Still in Place, Eastbound Near Milepost 6.3

Page 30 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 20 – Vegetation Obscuring Sign, Eastbound Near Milepost 12.7

Figure 21 – Broken Attachment, Sign Upside Down, Eastbound Near Milepost 13.3

Page 31 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 22 – S.R. 14 Sign Bent, Eastbound near Milepost 18.2

Figure 23 – Leaning Sign, Westbound Near Milepost 38.6

Page 32 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Various truck advisory/restriction signs are in place on S.R. 14 and a few sign coloring inconsistencies have been identified between similar signs at either end of the corridor. For example, the snow tires sign on the west end of the corridor uses the white background of a "regulatory" sign whereas the snow tires sign on the east end uses the yellow background of a "warning" sign. Similarly, the truck turn-around sign on the west end of the corridor utilizes the green background of an "information" sign while the truck-turn around sign on the east end of the corridor is on a white background sign. These inconsistencies in sign colors may be a result of signs being phased in at different times along the corridor and/or updates to standards in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.

Figure 24 – Snow Tire Sign Color Inconsistencies

Figure 25 – Truck Turn-around Sign Color Inconsistencies

Guardrails – Several instances of damaged guardrails were observed on the S.R. 14 corridor. The most significant damage was evident at the eastbound guardrail at approximately MP 24.2 near Navajo Lake. Approximately 150 feet of the guardrail was damaged and in need of repair or replacement. Two other instances of damage were evident on westbound guardrails at approximately MP 40.4 and 40.7. In both cases the attenuator was not fully attached to the wood support posts.

Page 33 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 26 – Damaged Guardrail near Navajo Lake, Looking East at Milepost 24.2

Figure 27 – Damaged Guardrail near Navajo Lake, Looking West at Milepost 24.2

Page 34 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 28 – Damaged Guardrail near Navajo Lake, Looking South at Milepost 24.2

Figure 29 – Damaged Guardrail, Looking West at Milepost 40.4

Page 35 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 30 – Damaged Guardrail, Looking West at Milepost 40.7

2.1.J Pavement Condition

The current condition of the roadway varies from segment to segment. A new pavement overlay was recently placed on S.R. 14 from MP 0.0 at S.R. 130 to approximately MP 3.0. The new overlay section also features a new center rumble strip starting at approximately MP 0.5. A second set of overlays have been placed at approximately MP 37.4 to 38.3 and again at MP 40.4 to 40.8. This work appears to be ongoing since neither area currently features permanent lane markings and guardrails.

The Restore 14 project began in March 2012 to repair portions of the corridor damaged during landslide events of late 2011. As part of the Restore 14 project, sections of roadway are being re-constructed/repaired from MP 7.5 to 8.2, at MP 10.0 and at MP 16.9. The section from MP 7.5 to 8.2 will reinstate the passing lane that was destroyed in the landslide.

Table 20 summarizes the results of the most recent distress and pavement conditions tests on S.R. 14. It should be noted that these results precede the recent improvements mentioned above so pavement condition is expected to be better in than the tests indicate in many places.

Page 36 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 31 – New Pavement Overlay with Center Rumple Strip at Milepost 0.5

Figure 32 – New pavement Overlay without Permanent Marking at Milepost 40.8

Page 37 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Figure 33 – Restore 14 Reconstruction Efforts

Page 38 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Table 20 – Pavement Condition

Last Overall Env WP Last Last Major Begin/End Surface Cond. Ride Rut Crack Crack Skid Seal Seal Treat Last Major Milepost Description Length Area AADT Index Index Index Index Index No. Year Type Year Treatment Center Street - Chip Main Street to Seal Structural 0-0.6 600 East 0.6 2.96 2,745 68.86 66.51 85.22 45.88 77.83 35.38 2003 Coat 1989 Overlay Chip 600 East to Seal Structural 0.6-2.86 Rusty's 2.26 4.98 2,547 85.64 76.07 83.85 84.38 98.26 59.13 2006 Coat 1989 Overlay Chip Rusty's to Seal Structural 2.86-12.32 Wood's Ranch 9.46 23.42 926 83.6 71.95 83.89 80.88 97.65 66.3 2006 Coat 2000 Overlay Chip Wood's Ranch Seal Structural 12.32-18 to S.R. 148 5.68 15.19 856 85.15 69.83 84.54 89.28 96.96 68.46 2010 Coat 1985 Overlay S.R. 148 to Chip Iron/Kane Seal 18-22.83 County Line 4.83 8 856 83.8 62.16 81.02 92.23 99.8 70.33 2010 Coat Iron/Kane County Line to Chip Mammoth Creek Seal 22.83-31.37 Road 8.54 17.71 850 85.41 71.75 85.45 86.52 97.9 64.03 2010 Coat 1966 Reconstruction Chip Mammoth Creek Seal 31.37-41.0 Road to U.S. 89 9.63 19.81 850 69.29 54.49 75.14 68.54 79 69.18 2006 Coat 1966 Reconstruction Pavement Conditions Table Key Good >80 >45 Fair 50-80 35-40 Poor <50 <35 Source: UDOT Region 4, January 2012

Page 39 State Route 14 Corridor Study

2.1.K Alternative Modes and Efficient Intermodal Transfer

S.R. 14 has been identified by the UDOT Bicycle Priority Routes Project as a Level 1 priority. A Level 1 priority means that it is an important transportation project to complete so that roadway accommodations can improve safety for bicyclists. Such roadway accommodations may include widening the shoulder or signage for motorists to be aware of bicyclists, among other treatments.

2.1.L Access Management

UDOT Administrative Rule R930-6, Accommodation of Utilities and the Control and Protection of State Highway Rights of Way, establishes the access management policies for state roads. According to R930-6, access on S.R. 14 falls into three access categories on S.R. 14:

• Category 6, Regional Urban – From the beginning of S.R. 14 at S.R. 130 (Main Street in Cedar City) and ends where the speed limit changes 1180 feet east of 400 East • Category 3, System Priority Urban – Beginning at 1180 feet east of 400 East to the Cedar City Urban Boundary at MP 2.86 • Category 4, Regional Rural – From the Cedar City Urban Boundary at MP 2.87 to the termini of S.R. 14 at U.S. 89 at Long Valley Junction

It should be noted that there are no traffic signals along S.R. 14 within the Study Area except for the one traffic signal at the intersection of S.R. 14 and Main Street in downtown Cedar City. To date, UDOT has strived to maintain access management standards along S.R. 14. Access management standards were adopted with pre-existing deficiencies. The Administrative Rule requires permission for access from UDOT which may be triggered by new development and/or access modification requests. Pre-existing deficiencies are not affected by the rule unless or until development is proposed which triggers UDOT approval.

In the future, any proposed traffic signals will need to be compliant with the signal standards of the appropriate UDOT Access Management Category. Existing driveways are certainly difficult to eliminate in order to achieve compliance, but future driveways, especially on S.R. 14, should be tightly controlled. A high percentage of accidents typically occur at these conflict points, so managing access to these roadways enhances safety. Many driveways and street intersections create confusion for through traffic and can decrease the capacity of the main road, S.R. 14.

Page 40 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Table 21 – Rule R930-6 State Highway Access Management Standards

Category Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Interchange to Crossroad Signal Street Access Access Spacing (feet) Spacing Spacing Spacing st st (feet) (feet) (feet) to 1 R-in to 1 from last R- R-out Intersection in R-out A B C

1 I Interstate/Freeway Standards Apply 2 S-R 5,280 1,000 1,000 1,320 1,320 1,320 No Un-signalized 3 S-U 2,640 Access Permitted 1,320 1,320 1,320 4 R-R 2,640 660 500 660 1,320 500 5 R-PU 2,640 660 350 660 1,320 500 6 R-U 1,320 350 200 500 1320 500 7 C-R 1,320 300 150 8 C-U 1,320 300 150 9 O 1,320 300 150 Not Applicable Source: UDOT Administrative Rule R930-6, January 2006 Edition

Table 22 – Access Management Categories within Study Area

Access Management Beginning Ending Category MP MP Description 6 0 0.595 Within Cedar City Limits 3 0.595 2.873 Cedar City Urban Boundary 4 2.873 40.995 Termini of S.R. 14 at U.S. 89 Source: UDOT Administrative Rule R930-6, January 2006 Edition

2.1.M Relevant Studies

A previous study of S.R. 14 was completed in May 2002 as part of the state roads in the Cedar Breaks Area: S.R. 143, S.R. 14 and S.R. 148. The purpose of that study was to better understand transportation corridors that access Dixie National Forest and Cedar Breaks National Monument and the traffic between I-15 and U.S. 89.

Page 41 State Route 14 Corridor Study

Chapter 3.0 Future Conditions Forecast

In this section, future conditions for land use, population, travel demand, and mobility needs will be discussed to show potential growth and its impacts on road conditions

3.1 Analysis Area

The analysis area is from MP 0.0 at the intersection of S.R. 130 and S.R. 14 in Cedar City and ends at the intersection of U.S. 89 and S.R. 14 in Long Valley Junction.

3.1.A Land Use Plans, Future Population and Employment

Future land use along this corridor will continue to include residential, educational, recreational and commercial land uses. Land use patterns do not change quickly and most of this corridor is located in rural and mountainous areas and is not privately owned.

S.R. 14 traverses through Iron and Kane Counties. According to the state population projections shown in the following table, population is expected to continue growing at a rapid pace. Kane County grows at a slower rate than Iron County because of its rural nature.

Table 23 – Future Population in Iron and Kane Counties

Year Iron County 10 Year Increase Kane County 10 Year Increase 2010 46,163 7,125 2020 68,315 47.99% 8,746 22.75% 2030 87,644 28.29% 10,394 18.84% 2040 110,257 25.80% 12,034 15.78% 2000 and 2010 Source: Census Brief: Cities and Counties of Utah Prepared by Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB), Demographic and Economic Analysis (DEA) Division July 2011 2020, 2030 and 2040 Estimates Source: GOPB, DEA Utah Population Estimates Committee (UPEC) Population by Area

Employment follows a similar trend as population within Iron and Kane Counties and is expected to increase as shown in the table below.

Table 24 – Future Employment in Iron and Kane Counties

Year Iron County 10 Year Increase Kane County 10 Year Increase 2010 27,470 5,011 2020 37,391 36.12% 6,028 20.30% 2030 46,920 25.48% 6,986 15.89% 2040 58,035 23.69% 8,133 16.42% Source: Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, Demographic and Economic Projections Baseline 2008 Employment by Area

3.1.B Travel Demand Growth

The S.R. 14 corridor has experienced some growth over the past several years. Applying the 2.4 percent historical annual growth rate over the next 20 years results in an AADT of approximately 2,000 vehicles per day in 2030. This represents a 60 percent increase in volume

Page 42 State Route 14 Corridor Study from 2010 levels, however, these volumes remain well below levels that would result in a daily congestion concern on the corridor. Figure 35 illustrates the projected traffic volumes.

Figure 34 – S.R. 14 Historical and Future Traffic Volume

2,500

2,000

1,500 2.4% Annual Growth Rate 1,000

AADT (vehicles perday) 500

0 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year

3.1.C Present and Future Mobility Needs

The present and future mobility needs of the corridor are largely related to automobile traffic. A discussion could be held with the UDOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Planner to work towards a strategy to improve the roadway for bicycle traffic. Additionally, UDOT and representatives from the Dixie National Forest and Duck Creek Village could meet to establish the different strategic plans each of them have that impact S.R. 14.

Chapter 4.0 Corridor-Wide Recommendations

The following recommendations are provided for the S.R. 14 corridor.

Page 43 State Route 14 Corridor Study

• Movie Ranch Drive (MP 30.46) • Strawberry Point Road (MP 33.0) • Swains Creek Road (MP 35.11)

Acceleration and deceleration lanes can help improve safety by preventing crashes related to speed differential of through vehicles and vehicles turning on and off S.R. 14. If implemented, acceleration and deceleration lanes should be designed according to standards and volume thresholds in UDOT Standard Drawing DD 13A.

Page 44