PROJECT UPDATE

We published the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Jan. 7, 2026 This report identifies our preferred alternative. To view the Draft EIS, click here.

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY AND COMPARISON

UDOT has identified Alternative B as the preferred alternative primarily because it would perform best with respect to the overall purpose of the project.

Alternative A: primary advantages and disadvantages

The primary advantages for Alternative A are fewer impacts to resources in the north fields, primarily wetlands and farmland. Alternative A also has fewer noise impacts, mainly to planned developments in the North Village.

The primary disadvantages of Alternative A are that it does not perform as well from a transportation perspective and would result in more impacts to homes and businesses.

Alternative B: primary advantages and disadvantages

Alternative B would provide the best performance with respect to the purpose of the project:

• Best regional mobility (faster travel time, shorter travel path)
• Best local mobility (fewer failing intersections and shorter queues on Main Street)
• Best performance with respect to Heber City’s vision for its historic town center (more likely to attract regional traffic away from Main Street).

Other transportation considerations were also evaluated in identifying the preferred alternative. Alternative B would provide the following additional benefits:

• More consistent with the master-planned North Village local road network
• More efficient combination of road functional classifications and less out-of-direction travel
• Provides an alternate route in case of an emergency on north US-40 between Potter Lane/College Way and 900 North
• Substantially fewer residential and business relocations compared to Alternative A.

The primary disadvantages of Alternative B are greater impacts to wetlands and farmland in the north fields. 

North Fields Impact Mitigation

Both alternatives A and B would require wetland mitigation. Mitigation ratios typically begin at two to one (2:1), where two acres of mitigation are provided for every acre impacted, and increase from there depending on various factors. Once designated, wetland mitigation sites have the potential to limit sprawl based on where they are located because they are protected in perpetuity and cannot be developed. 

Throughout the study, UDOT has heard from the public and local government officials that they desire to protect the north fields. In response, and as a commitment to the community, UDOT will prioritize establishing a mitigation site in the North Fields with either alternative. 

Alternatives A and B would be limited-access facilities under UDOT’s jurisdiction; there would be no access allowed beyond the interchanges and ramps identified in the Draft EIS. This includes the extension through the North Fields for Alternative B. UDOT is committed to no additional interchanges between Potter Lane or College Way and SR-113 being built in the North Fields with Alternative B. This lack of access would reduce the potential for induced development.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

JAN. 9 TO MARCH 9, 2026

We are asking for comments on the Draft EIS, specific to:

• The analysis of the potential impacts
• The proposed mitigation of potential impacts
• The preferred alternative

How to comment:

• Court reporter at public hearing
• Comment form at public hearing
• Email: hebervalleyeis@utah.gov
• Website: hebervalleyeis.udot.utah.gov
• Voicemail: 801-210-0498
• Written letter (mailed or hand delivered):
  Heber Valley Corridor EIS
  c/o HDR
  2825 E Cottonwood Parkway # 200
  Cottonwood Heights, UT 84121

What to include in comments:

• Clearly identify the issue or resource you’re concerned about.
• Reference specific sections or topics in the Draft EIS.
• Include data, citations, observations, or personal experiences that support your comment.
• Comments are more impactful when they are solution-oriented.
• Comments may also be in the form of a question, in addition to statements.

How comments are used:

• Public comments submitted during the public comment period are not considered a vote.
• Comments are one input among many that we will use to make final updates and decisions regarding the project.
• Comments will be used to consider things that may have been overlooked, such as property or environmental impacts.
• Comments on the Draft EIS will receive a response in the Final EIS.

PUBLIC MEETINGS

JAN. 27, 6-7:30 p.m.: VIRTUAL MEETING AND Q&A

• Held on Zoom 
• Presentation followed by question and answer session with team
• Not accepting formal comments 

JAN. 28, 5:30-8:30 p.m.: OPEN HOUSE AND HEARING

• Review study materials and speak with study team members in an open house format. Comments made at the open house are not considered formal comments unless they are provided to a court reporter or a written comment on provided forms.
• UDOT’s ROW agents will be available at the open house to answer questions between 5:30 and 8:30 p.m.
• Presentation followed by public hearing, comments limited to 3 minutes per speaker.
• Sign up in advance to make a formal comment.

WHAT’S NEXT?

After reviewing public input, we expect to release the Final EIS and Record of Decision by summer 2026.