1
50
1
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/bbc336c4d786ce0afeeab578fa822d63.pdf
d7d1fd3e2fee41b388b1906bbdcba57f
PDF Text
Text
..--- --------- -------- -- -- - - --- --- - -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- ----- --- --- --- ------ -- - -- -- - --- ------- - - - - -------- - - -- .-.
- - - -____T
__T -.7"
. . .r .... __T....,.
•
----
--- ---
A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION
Vol. 1 No.1
March 1, 1995
LCC IS FORMED
If the Utah Depart"Until UDOT has lived up to the
ment of Transportati on
has its way, the na tural
law of the land and provided
beauty of Logan Canyon
truthful analysis and documentaas we know it may soon
be just a picture on a
tion, we (LCC) will be persistent
postcard. Instead of a
in our demands for justice,"
serene mountain byway,
- Kevin Kobe, LCC President
U.S. Highway 89 will be
a high-speed traffic corri dor Hned by scarred hill - spectacular scenery.
and along the Dugway to
We believe that the
sides, reta ining walls,
stem erosion problems.
and c1earzones. UOOT
recent compromise made • Vague wording about
would like to begin work beh¥een Citizens for the
how c1earzones will be
as early as this summer.
Protection of Logan
treated , with c1earzone
Canyon and UOOT is
That's why we have
a reas compri sing up to
unacceptab le. It is merely 22 feet on either side of
formed the Logan
Canyon Coa lition. LCC is a slightly watered down
the road, and the
removal of "su bstantial
version of the Preferred
mad e up of "old timers"
Alternative.
haza rds" within the midwho have been involved
The extent of the con- dle canyon.
with the Logan Canyon/
UDOT issue almost from struction planned will
• Revegetation of mature
the beginning, as well as
still necessitate 15-20
trees and shrubs that
newcomers who advoyears of work, and will
"could require 30 to 50
completely change the
years or might never
ca te a common sense
ambiance of the canyon.
occur aga in."
approach to road
Some of our priority
• A potentially devastatimprovement-one that
ing impact on cutthroat
combines safety, efficien- concerns are:
and brown trout popula . Eight curve cuts
cy and environmental
planned for the middle
tions due to extensive
sensitivity. LCC is dediriprap nea r the bridges,
canyon, along with
cated to keeping Logan
retaining walls in some
River a wild, free flowing UOOT's suggestion that
locations, and permanent
use of cement retaining
river, preserving wildlife
walls would be appropri- problems with sedimenhabitat, and protecting
tation near
ate in the middle canyon
Logan Canyon's
steep curve cuts.
-Two-hundred year-old
Douglas Fir at the summit replaced by a mini mum of 47 feet of pave.
ment, a nd realignment
that will necessitate filling a small side canyon
with debris.
• Extensive widening,
with half of the middle
canyon widened from 26
feet to 34 feet, and the
remaining 24 miles
widened to 40-47 feet to
accomodate higher
design speeds.
• No specifics as far as
mitigation plans, with a
vague promise to use
UOOT's "best management practices."
LCC has pledged its
resources towards pursuring every available
legal op tion. If we pursue litigation, we will
need your support.
Volunteers are needed .
Money will also be needed-litigati on is very
costl y. Please plan on
donating generously!
This is our last opportunity for action.
�LCC Prepares for Forest Appeal
In its effort to per-
suade UDOT to take
another look at the
Conservationist's
Altema tive, the Logan
Canyon Coalition is
working hard in preparation for the Forest
Appeal.
After the recent
approval of the Record
of Decision (ROD) by
both UOOT and the
Federal Highway
Administration, the
last phase of the
process currently rests
with the Forest Service.
This agency's approval
is widely expected, followed by a 45-day
comment period for
public input. Lee
plans to exercise its
legal right by appea ling the Forest Service's
decision.
The Forest Service
is required by the
Wasatch-Cache Forest
Plan to retain the aesthetic and environmental qualities of the
canyon. The Plan will
need to be revised due
to excessive impacts
which would result
from the Preferred
Alternative. A Forest
Plan revision will
require public input as
manda ted by the
NEPA process. Lee
Logan Canyon
Coalition plans to exercise its legal right by
appealing the Forest
Service's decision.
will base its appea l on
the expected Forest
Service decision and
key concerns not adequately addressed by
the FEIS.
as federally threatened or endangered
species. Neither the
Forest Service nor
UDOT have s urveyed
to identify the presence or absence of
these species.
These points include
the following:
1) UOOT has never
clearly demonstrated
the purpose and need
for the project, as
required by NEPA.
4) UOOT's analysis of
the safety data is
admittedly flawed .
5) UOOT has more
flexibility in AASHTO highway design
recommendations
than it acknowledges.
2) The Logan River is
among the top 5% of
all stream fisheries in
the state, yet the FEIS
seriously underestimates the impact to
fisheries.
6) The canyon is the
number one tourist
attraction in the
Bridgerland area, yet
the FEIS fails to
address long-term
negative economic
impacts resulting from
20 years of construction and loss of scenic
values.
3) There are several
species which may
occur in the canyon.
These species are
either listed as sensitive by the Forest
Service or are candi
dates for classification
2
1) The Forest Service
plan mandates retention of the canyon's
visual and aesthetic
qualities. Under the
Preferred Alternative
this mandate would
be violated.
These and other
concerns represent a
legitimate foundation
on which to base our
appeal. If you have
any additional concerns which warrant
consideration, please
contact Lee ASAP.
Thank you.
�=-= = ------- _ _ _ _ '=-"'I'"
-
:--
Economic Benefits or Disaster?
Utah's wide geographical diversity and
expansive open spaces
have filled a void in a
time when many of o ur
wild places are rap idly
falling prey to u rban and
economic sprawl. This is
resulting in a boom in
tourism.
Tourism revenues for
Cache and Rich Cou nties
alone amounted to well
over $64 million in 1993.
This success can be pa rtly attributed to p romotional efforts by the
Cache Chamber of
Commerce, which recognizes Logan Canyon as
the number one attraction in Bridgerland. The
Chamber's 1994 Cache
Valley Utah publica tio n
mentions Logan Canyon
no less than 20 times in
the firs t nine pages.
In addition, the
Bridgerland Travel
Region recently received
a $436,000 federal grant
to promote Logan
Canyon and educate visitors about its characteristics. Clearly the canyon
has a wide base of support and aCknowledgement in terms of value
to the region.
"We look at it as a
real asset to the community," says Marty Spicer,
real estate broker fo r
Coldwell Banker.
But will the canyon
lose its d raw as it undergoes 15 to 20 years of
construction, destructio n, and transformation
of its natural character?
How many moto rists
will p refer the Idaho
route to Yellowstone versus waiting in d usty
traffic for heavy equipment to pass? Will pe0ple still want to d rive to
Garden City to view
Bear Lake and enjoy a
raspberry shake?
Mo re importantly,
will the increase in con-
gestion and traffic
speeds after completion
of construction have a
d etri mental effect on the
canyon's appeal? The
stark reality may be yes!
But still the FEIS provides no assessment of
negative economic
impacts resulting fro m
the highway project. We
need more proof, not
vagueness and ambig ui-
Volunteers Needed
1- Research for Forest
Service Appeal
2- Networking
3- Fundraising
4- Education
5- Mailings
6- Letter writing
7- Events
8- Media relations
9- Passing the word
10- Lega l assistance
11- SLC contacts
12- HELP!
ty.
These are all legitimate concerns which
need to be add ressed
without prej udice and
assumptions. Wha t may
look like a road to economic boom may
become a path to economic disaster.
Equipment Needed
1- Offi ce space
2- Voice mail
3- FAX machine
4- Copier
5- Postage stamps
6- Copy paper
1- Envelopes
8- MONEY'
r------------------------,
YES! I
THE
WANT TO JOIN
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subSCription to CANYON WIND
$20.00 Annual Membership
I would like to contribute an additional
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
Lots more
I would like to volunteer.
I'm broke! Here's five bucks.
Name ______________________________
Street ______________________________
City _ _ _ _ State _ _ _ Zip_ _
Phone
* _____________
_
Plnse make check payable and mail to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box 1674
L ________
________ .J
�,..----------,,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
. -.. -=...... . ...... ., .....
_
. . . __
Iii. _ _
.... Iii. iiaiii . . . . . . _iii
--------
c: «»
.&. L
:J: 'T :J:
«»
:N'
,
,
,
,
L __________ ..I
Wor k l n . f o r th . Pr o te " ti .n of Lo. a " C . " yo "
USU Boxll1674
Logan,
Utah 84322-0199
'='
Recycled
Recycle
�...-- ----.-.--
iiiii_iii_ iiiiiiiiiia.
.,. __,. _.T____,. ....r ... __,......
.---- -- - - - --- -- - -- ---- -- - - --- -- - - --- -- -- - --- - - - - ---- - - ----- - ----- - - - -- -- --- -- - -- - -- -- - --- - - - -- ---A NEWS B ULLET I N FROM LO G AN CANYON COALITION
Vol. 1 No.2
A ugust 1, 1995
USFS Abandons Logan Canyon
LCC Appeal Denied
The Loga n Canyon
Coal itio n (LeC) recent ly
appealed the Forest
Service's decision to
allow the Uta h
Department of
Transporta tion (UDOT)
to construct its "modified" Prefer red
"This unfortunat e decision by
the Forest Seroice has left us
with only one
alternative . .. litigation"
- Tom Lyotl , LCC
A lternative in Logan
Canyon. We were joined
in our appeal by the
Utah Rivers
Co nservation Co uncil.
OUT ex tensive ap pea l
was 187 pages long, and
cove red a ll aspects of
UOOT's proposal. V\e
arg ued that UDOT has
not demonstrated the
purpose and need fo r its
construction p roject, and
that they have not ade-
quately disclosed the
environmenta l impacts of
their project. In June the
Forest Service denied o ur
ap peal.
Comments agai nst
our appeal, and in favor
of UOOT's project, were
submitted to the Forest
Service by UDOT, the
Cache Chamber o f
Co mmerce, a nd Citizens
for the Protection of
Loga n Canyon. The letter
from the chamber
emphasized the value of
Logan Canyon as a major
trucking ro ute.
It is remarkab le that,
given the many poin ts
we raise in ou r appeal,
the Fo rest Service up held
none of them. Their
review of our appea l is
brief and superficia l,
with inad equate respo nses to critical issues.
Without due consid eration, the Forest Service
has ru bber-stamped
implementaton of an
unnecessa ri ly ex pensive
and destruc tive h ighway
p roject.
The Forest Service is
in fact responsi ble fo r
ensuring tha t p urpose
and need fo r construction have been demonstra ted. They are also
responsib le fo r ens uring
that enviro nmenta l
impacts have been adequately assessed, incl uding d amge to scenery,
fis heries, wildli fe, wet1 nds, and the potentia 1
a
Wi ld a nd Scenic status of
the river. This responsibility is cl ea rly stated in
the Wasatch-Cache Forest
Plan and in federal law.
In shirking its responsibility for Logan Canyon,
the Forest Service is v iolating its mand ate and
acting iIIega ll):
LCC is cu rrently ga thering fund s for our lega l
d efense of Logan
Canyon. All co ntributio ns are welco me a nd
w ill be used for legal
costs. All who are interested in helping in ou r
effort to save Loga n
Can yon are invited to
contact us.
A pp eal H igh lig h ts
LCe's appen l is avni/able in the Lognn City
Library nnd USU's Merrill
Library.
(1) UDOT's highway
sa fety analysis utilizes
arti ficially infla ted and
manipulated traffi c volumes, inconsistent with
UOOT's own traffic
(continued nexl " age)
�Appeal ("", Unu"')
counts, in an attempt to
make the previously
widened portion of the
road, the Lower Canyon,
appear safer than the
unwidened sections.
UDOT's proposed construction will in fact
make the highway less
safe.
(2) The difference in
average travel time
between UOOT's
Preferred Alternative and
the Conservationists'
Alternative is, by
UDOT's admi ssio n, less
than 10 minutes! We
question the much
grea ter cost and enviro nmental impact of the
Preferred Alternative
given such a minimal
difference in travel time.
(3) In its highway
design for the Upper
Canyon, UDOT is not
taking advantage of the
fl exibility in road design
allowed by AASHTO
(American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials).
Throughout the canyon,
UDOT has designed the
highway in an arbitrary
and capricious fashi on,
with little environmental
sensitivity.
(4) The Forest Service
has agreed that the segment of the Logan River
from Lower Twin Bridge
to Beaver Creek might
possess mo re "outstandingly remarkable values"
than any other river in
the Wasatch-Ca che
Forest. The Forest
Service has agreed that
this segment should be
reevaluated. for protected
Wild and Scenic River
status. We are concerned
that construction of
UOOr's Preferred
Alternative will degrade
this river segment
enough that its classification will be lowered. It
may no longer qualify
for Wild and Scenic status.
(5) There is no scientific justification whatsoever for UOOT's claims
that trout pop ulations in
Logan River will be
reduced only 4 to 8%,
and that the effects of
increased sedimentation
in the river will be "relatively minor and short
term." UDOT's claims
represen t uneducated
"guesstimates" of fi sheries impacts because of
the lack of adequate data .
(6) The WasatchCache Forest Plan mandates that negative economic impacts of highway construction be
eva luated. This has not
been done.
(7) The Forest
Servi ce's assessments of
impacts to sensi tive
species often rest on
inadequate surveys and
bald assertions that are
either patently false or in
need of substantiation.
(8) Vi sual quality in
Logan Canyon will be
impaired in a manner
inconsistent with guid elines contained in the
Fo rest Service's Logan
Canyo n Scenic Byway
Corrido r Management
Plan. USFS management
policy for Logan Canyon
is inconsistent from document to document.
(9) In its selectio n of
specially-protected 4(f)
properties, pursuant to
the Department of
Transportation Act, the
Forest Service has acted
in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. No rationale is provided for why
some sites were selected
while others of equal
recreational value were
not.
We Request:
Logan
Canyon Coalition
is not trying to stop
all construction in
Logan Canyon.
(1) There must be
honest and straightforward NEPA d ocumentation of the need for, and
the environmental and
economic impacts of, any
proposed highway constructio n. UooT has not
provided this. UDOT
has in fact admitted that
their safety data is
"garbage" and that it
"may be problematic."
(2) The construction
proposal should be
scaled down so as to proteet the sensitive areas of
the canyon and river,
particularly throug h the
upper Midd le Canyon,
Beaver Creek, and the
summit.
(3) UDOT has never
fairly eva luated the
Conservationist's
Alternative.
This Alternative should
be honestly and straightforwardly reconsidered .
2
The Conservationists'
Alternative is far less
expensive and environmentally destructive,
while improving safety
and level of service of the
highway.
(4) The Forest Service
must reevaluate the eligible segment of the Logan
River, from Lower Twin
Bridge to Beaver Creek,
for protected Wild and
Scenic River status,
befo re constructio n is
allowed. Thi s request is
in compliance with 5(d)
planning requirements of
the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act .
�August ] , ]995
Lee Fundraiser a Success
By Kevin Kobe
The Logan Can yon
Coali tion would like to
thank all those who were
involved with our
fund rai ser weekend with
Rick Bass and Terry
Tempest William s. \Ilk
would specificall y like to
thank The Grapevine
Restaurant, Slanting Rain
Graphic Design, A Book
Store, the Utah Rivers
Conservation Council
and Director Zacha ry
Frankel, Scott Smith
Photography, mu sicians
Nadene Steinhoff, Chris
Carlson and Joe Farmer,
and of course, nationally
renown authors Rick
Bass and Terry Tempest
Williams. Rick was kind
enough to travel from
northern Montana. O ur
thanks also goes to the
many vo lunteers who
spent countless hours
working to make the
weekend a success, espe-
dally Don Hickman and
Dan Miller.
For those who couldn't make the weekend
events, which were May
11-14, here is a rundown.
Rick Bass spoke in Salt
Lake City at the
University of Utah Fine
Arts Auditorium sponsored by the Utah Rivers
Conservation Council.
Rick spoke about the signifi cance of Logan
Canyon and the absurdity of the current UOOT
highway proposal.
Following Rick, the audience clapped and sang to
the music of Nadene
Steinhoff, Chris Carlson
and Joe Farmer.
Despi te the rain and
unseasonably cool
weather, Rick Bass and
Tom Lyon jo ined some
LCC board members o n a
field trip up Logan
Canyon on Saturday
where film makers were
doing a documentary on
the canyon. This documentary will be shown
on the local cable channel. Rick also managed
to squeeze in time to
speak with local high
school students and to do
a radiO interview.
But the night everyone was wa iting for was
Sa turday night, May 13,
when over 300 people
packed the Eccles
Conference Center.
Longtime canyon advocate Tom Lyon emceed
the event with inspiring
introductions and words
of wisdom. Rick Bass
was humorous but eloquent as he talked about
his years in Logan. Two
Logan Canyon so ngs
from Nadene Steinhoff
and friends hit home,
especially "U.S. 89 Blues"
in which the crowd
erupted with hand clapping, si ngi ng and shouting. Terry Tempest
Williams brought the
evening full circle with
words to motivate people
into action. She recognized Tom Lyon for hi s
efforts, which range from
teaching to advocating.
She recalled conversations with environme nta l
activists that continue to
provide inspiration for
her work. The night
ended with a raffle, great
homemade cooki es and
refreshments, book signings, and a T-shirt and
book sale.
Sunday morning the
Grapevine Restaurant
lived up to its reputation
for excellence at ou r
fund raiser brunch. Chef
Bill Oblock o utdid himself at the sold -out event,
and LCC vol unteers
worked hand in hand
with the gracious staff of
the restaurant to make
the brunch successful. It
was a "stay as long as
you want" kind of morning .
.
130 Nonh 100 East
Logan UT 84321
753-9089
100% for Logan Canyon
�The History of a Highway
Editors note:
This information was
compiled by Nadene Steinhoff
and Steve Flint.
---1959---
Chamber of Commerce.
The State Department of
Fish and Game launched
a formal protest against
the plan. Their protest
was later modified.
ject. The Forest Service
insisted on additional
modifications. UOOT
abandoned the project
for the time being, hoping the Chamber of
Commerce and construction interests would continue the fight for public
support.
1960---
The Utah Department
Bulldozers began
of Transportation
work. The first section
(UDOT) completed
called for widening of
"improvement" plans for the road, passing lanes
the first section of the 39- and stream channelizamile highway from
tion. Construction was
Logan to Bear Lake.
completed up to the
Engineering standards of Malibu Campground.
the time dictated that the
1961
route be as straight and
Plans to reconstruct
direct as possible. It was the section from Malibu
also felt that it was too
Campground to Right
expensive to avoid the
Hand Fork were
Logan River. At that
released. After seeing
time, most highway
the destruction in the
departments didn't feel
first phase, the public
justified spending public was much more responmoney to protect aesthet- sive, writing a barrage of
ic values or environmen- letters to the editor and
tal resources.
to UDOT.
During the first
The Forest Service
phase, Logan residents
and the Utah State
were silent. Public hear- University (USU) College
ings were poorly attendof Natural Resources
ed" except by supporters
issued position stateof the project such as the ments opposing the pro-
calling for extensive
straightening and eightfoot shoulders.
An article in National
Parks magazine condemned previous construction in the canyon
and the new design proposal.
1970 - - -
- - - - 1963 - - - -
Twelve USU professors formed the
zine advocated protecNorthern Utah
tion of the canyon in an
Environmental Advisory
Committee. The group,
article.
---1968--led by fisheries biologist
UOOT decided to
William Helm, was conaccept the Forest Service
cerned about additional
requirements, and came
impacts. At their suggesback to finish the first
tion, UOOT incorporated
phase, but when the bull- an Environmental
dozers moved in it
Steering Committee,
looked like the same "cut gave scenic consideraand fill" job. The intitions higher priority, and
brought a landscape
mate, gently winding
road under arching trees . architect onto the project.
became a fast, wide
UOOT still lacked
asphalt highway.
permission from the
1969--Forest Service, but
A public hearing was
attempted to rush the
held for road reconstruc- project through before
they lost available fundtion from Right Hand
ing.
Fork to Ricks Spring,
National Parks maga-
Adventure 1
Sports
4
�August 1, 1995
Their assertions that
the project was necessary
for hig hway effici ency
and safety were refu ted
by the USU co mmittee,
which claimed that the
safety data was inadequate.
- - - 1971 - - -
The USU co mmittee
succeeded in d elayi ng
the project, ci ting the
need for more information on traffic, tourism
and fisheri es. There was
discussion of the need
fo r an Environme ntal
Impact Statement (EIS)
under the new Na tional
Environmental Pol icy
Act (NEPAl.
UDOT presented a
second proposal. This
was also co nsid ered
u nacceptable by the USU
g roup. The plan called
for extensive cu rve cutti ng through the middle
canyon, elimination o f
picnic and campground
areas, and retaining
walls al ong large sections of the river.
The Forest Service
1987
The Interdisciplinary Team was dis solved by UDOT officials, who were
uncomfortable with public input.
issued an Enviro nmental
Analysis Report on the
project, outlining 20
requirements UDOT
must comply with .
In the face of strong
public o ppositi on a nd
new Forest Service
req uirements, UDOT
scrapped their plans.
They shifted thei r focu s,
and funds to Provo
Canyon.
- - - 1974 - - -
UDOT set up a trai ler
in Logan Canyon and
Ga rden City to distribute
informatio n about their
eventual plans.
1976 - - -
UOOT issued a Route
Analysis Statement, indicating a need for reconstructio n. It included
eight different alternatives. UDOT's recom-
mended action included
shoulders a nd passing
lanes in the middle
canyon, and correctio n of
"substand ard" curves.
Sharp publiC criticism
was directed at UDOT,
wi th Bridgerland
Audubo n Society,
Ci tizens for the
Protection of Logan
Canyon (CPLC), and the
Cache Sierra Club questioning UOOT's stati stical analysis. UDOT
pushed ahead. Analysi s
was begun for an (E IS).
- - - 1979 - --
UOOT presented
their latest proposal for
reconstruction of the
road from Right Hand
Fork to Ricks Spring.
They claimed that the
massive p roject would
require minimal enviro n-
mental ana lysis, saying
that a less d etailed
Environmental Analysis
would be sufficient,
rather than an EIS.
CPLC, a group that
had begun in opposition
to development plans in
Stump Hollow, revived
to fight the road d evelopment. Gunn McKay,
Rep . for Utah's Di strict 1,
went to bat for preservation of the ca nyon.
Tom Lyon and Dianne
Siegfreid visited w ith
regional Federal
Highway Admini stration
(FHWA) offi cials in
Denver to press the
argument that the project
required more ex tensive
analysis. The FHWA
agreed and informed
UDOT that it must prepare an EIS in accordance with new NEPA
requirements.
UDOT was not financially prepa red to take
on a full-b lown environmental analYSiS, and
retrea ted . Between 1980
(continued nat page)
�History
(,on lin,"')
and 1986, UDOT made
periodic visits to Logan
offering modifi cations,
but community activists
still believed the plans
were too excessive.
- - - 1986 - - -
Funding for an EIS
was authorized . CH2M
Hill was hired to do the
analysis.
An Interdiscip lina ry
(10) Team began meeting. Env ironmental
interests were re presented by Steve Fl int, Bill
Helm, Rudy Lukez, Tom
Lyon and Jack Spence.
- - - 1981 - - -
before UDOT dissolved
the group.
Action Force.
- - - 1990 - - -
Steve, Bruce and
Shawn Swaner began
meeting.. again, with
UDOT to forge a compromise and avert lega l
action.
Steve and Bruce felt the
need to move on. A new
steering committee was
appointed fo r CPLC. The
new steeri ng committee
held additional meetings
with UODT.
Audubon magazine
gave coverage to the controversy in a feature article by nationall y re nown
autho r Rick Bass.
- - - 1994 - - -
UOOT issued their
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS).
Letters in the OEIS ran 21
in favor of the Modified
Standard, similar to the
Preferred Alternative, as
opposed to 309 in favo r
of the Conservationists'
Alternative.
- - - 1991 - - -
Steve a nd Bruce continued to amass technical
experti se on the project.
They hired enviro nm ental lawyer Jeff Appel.
Jeff's co rrespondence
with UDOT bro ught a
more conciliatory stance.
Negotiations began.
A public relations
effort was begun, with
ten thousand brochures
sent by local activists.
- - - 1995 - - -
UOOT released its
Reco rd of Decision
(ROD) favo ri ng the
"mod ified" Preferred
Alternative. CPLC and
UOOT declared the ROD
a compromise. A new
highway design advisory
team was formed, with
CPLC rep resentation .
Logan Canyon
Scoping meetings
held by UOOT drew 400
citizens, with many
attendees leaving due to
lack of room. Project
planners received 200 let- - - 1992 - ters from an aroused
Nadene Steinhoff and
public.
The 10 Team was dis- other volu nteers organized a Hands Across
solved by UOOT offiThe Canyon rally. The
cials, who were uncomevent, attended by over
fo rtable with public
400 people, was covered
input.
by regional and state
Area citizens submitmedia.
ted the Conservatio nists'
The following week,
Alternative, a proposa l
calling for wider bridges, UOOT approached
Bridgerland Audubon
reconstruction of cu lwith a proposal for
verts, three passi ng lanes
renewed negotiations.
in the Upper Canyon,
1993
paved parking areas,
UDOT released their
road rea lignment at the
Lower Twin Bridge, slow Final Enviro nme ntal
Impact Statement (FEIS).
vehicle turnouts, raised
Hundreds of letters were
road beds in nood areas,
sent protesting the excesimproved intersectio ns
sive plans. Petitions
and increased signage.
were sent by the
- - - 1989
Audubon Society,
Steve Flint and Bruce
Business People for the
Pendery were appointed
Canyon, CPLC, the
to a Citizen's Advi so ry
Cache Sierra Club, and
Team formed by UDOT.
the Loga n Environmental
Two meetings were held
6
Coalition (LCC), spearheaded by Kevin Kobe,
was formed to seek further modifications
through the Forest
Service appeal process.
The Forest Service
released their ROD supporting UOOT.
LCC and the Utah
Rivers Conserva tion
Council submitted a 187page appeal to the Forest
Service. The appea 1 was
researched and authored
by a dozen people, and
edited by Gordo n
Steinhoff. Requested
relief included adequate
NEPA documentation,
and further protection
for the Middle Canyon,
Beaver Creek and the
s ummit.
The Forest Service
denied LCe's appea l,
refUSing to add ress critical issues.
Logan Canyon
Coalition is curren tly
making plans to take
legal action.
�Au g u s t 1 , 199 5
Westwater Canyon
Run the Rapids with LCC
It's true Logan
Canyon CoaJition membershi p can be fun. We
don' t believe in all work
and no play.
Frida y, August 18
th rough Sunday, Aug ust
20, we will r un the
Westwater section of the
Colorado River, locatednorth of Moab.
O Uf
fea rless Lee
leader /p resident, Kevin
Kobe, has said that
Westwater has "some of
the best w hite water in
the state." Kevi n and
his sister Bri dget are
organizing the trip.
Kevin feels that Lee
shou ld be more than a
group that works together, but can be a grou p
that "has a fee li ng of
commun ity and fri ends hi p."
A WORLD
Or: A RT A tJD
Lee plans to fl oat
willing to make the
drive, please let us know
when you register. On
receipt of your registration fee, a confirmation
will be sent which will
incl ud e the date, time
and location of the pretrip meeting.
All participants will
be asked to help in meal
and camp preparation,
and, of course, everyone
needs to know how to
swim!
Westwater early
Saturday morning, set
up camp', and hike and
exp lo re the side canyons
around the campsite.
Sunday the rapids
should be rambunctio us.
The cost is $30 for
LCC members and $50
for non-members (making thi s a perfect time to
join!). The trip will be
limited to 20 individuals,
and oars are being fill ed
rapidly. The cost
includes food o n the
river, the permit and
g roup equipment. It
does not include transportation, food for the
trip to and fro m the
river or personal gear.
Ca r pooling w ill be
arranged during a planning meeting. If you are
Registration:
Please send you r registration money to Logan
Canyo n Coa lition, USU
Box #1674, Loga n, UT
84322-0199.
ComcTlo tJ
IUIAl:
vcents
7SS·S497
11·6
7
Volunteers
Needed
1- Networking
2- Fundraising
3- Education
4- Mailings
5- Letter writing
6- Events
7- Media relations
8- Passing the word
9- SLC contacts
10- HELP!
Equipment
Needed
1- Offi ce space
2- Voice mail
3- FAX machine
4- Copier
5- Postage stamps
6- MONEY!
�r------------------------,
YES! I
THE
WANT TO JOIN
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots more
o I would like to voulnteer.
o Here's $12.00 for a great T-Shirt.
o I'm broke! Here's five bucks.
Name,__________________________________
5Ireel_______________________________
City _ _ __
_ _ _Zip _ _ __
Phone#'_ _ _ __
PlUM make check payable and mail to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
U5U Box *1674
L ________________________ J
Logan, UT 84322-0199
LCC T-SHIRTS - 512.00 (three colod
m.. Re;rcled
BULK RATE
u.s. POSTJlGe
Paid
COA.LJl:TJl:ON
Workl", fo r Ih'
of Lo,a" Ca n yo n
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
"""'" UT
I'tnrril N'JJJ
�- -- -- -- --- --------.- --- ----- -- - ------ - --- --- ----- - - - - - -- - -- ---- - --- - --.-. - - - - - - - .,. --.aT __ -.-.w--.aT
•
-- ----- ----------
---
-------
___ ..- -.----.aT ____
- - -- - - ----
A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION
August 1, 1996
Vol. 1 No.3
FEI S Violated
UDOT Unveils Plans
The Utah Depa rtment
of Transportation
(UOOT) has u nveiled its
d esign plans for Bu rnt
and Lower Twin Bridges
in Logan Canyon. With
these plans, UOOT is
already in v iolation of its
Final Envirorunental
Impact Statement (PElS)
and its Record of
Decision. UOOT is now
planning extensive
w idening, cuts into the
mountainsides, and
retaining wa lls that were
not disclosed in these
environmenta l documents. The brid ges and
app roaches to the
bridges have not been
d esigned in an environmentally-sensitive fashion. A strong response
has been sent to UOOT
by our attorney, Kate
Zimmerman.
UOOT is now applying for the construction
permits it needs from the
state Division of Water
Rights and the Corps of
Engineers. The Logan
Canyon Coalitio n (LCq
will submit comments to
these agencies and to the
Design changes at this late date,
after opportunities for public
input have closed, is a v iolation of
the letter and the spirit of the
National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
- Lee Altornty, Kau ZinrmernuHI
Environmental Protection Agency. We are asking for a less d amaging
construction proposal,
one that allows for needed highway improvemen ts w hile p rotecting
the canyon's scenic and
environmenta l resou rces.
We continue to raise
funds for the lega l action
we believe is inevitable.
The Record of
Decision sta tes that
"design and posted
speeds wiJI be 35 miles
per hour" in the upper
middle canyon (from
Lower Twin Bridge to
above Ricks Spring). Yet,
at the bridge d esign
workshop in February,
Rod Terry, UDOT project
manager, ind ica ted tha t
the brid ges and
approaches in this area
have been designed for
40 miles per ho ur.
Apparent ly, driv ing time
throug h the canyon has
been a major factor in
the perceived need to
reconstruct the high way,
even thoug h estima ted
savings in travel time are
quite minimal. "Changing design speeds at this
late date, after opportunities fo r p ublic input
have closed, is a v iolation o f both the letter
and spiri t of the National
Environmenta l Policy
Act," Zimmerman said.
Des ig n plans show
Burnt Bridge being
w idened on the downstrea m side. Cuts into
the mo unta inside up to
750 feet long are now
planned both upstream
and downstream from
the bridge. Two retaining walls of 200 fee t long
wiJI be anchored in
riparian areas near the
bridge. Three more
retaining walls, one up
to 400 feet long, are
planned fo r the mountainside below the
bridge. These cuts and
retaining walls are for
the sake of widening the
highway on either side
of the bridge fro m 26 feet
to 34 feet. These d esign
features and their
impacts on the scenery
and adjacent fishery
were not disclosed in the
FEIS. In that document,
UDOT assured us that
the highway in this part
of the canyon would not
be w idened .
Visual impacts w iJI be
significant. Burnt Bridge
is s urrounded by riparian vegetation and
u pland plant communities that have received a
visual sensitivity ranking
(contilwed /lext page)
�Violates ("";.,,,,)
of 6 and 7 by the Forest
Service, indicating that
the roadside in this a rea
cannot absorb alte rations
and still appear as na tur-
allandscape. The affected maple-shrub community on the cut hillsides
will take 10-15 years to
re-establish, while a ffected juniper and Doug las
fir communi ties will take
more than 20 years to reestablish. Some wetlands
and riparian vegeta tion
will be permanently lost.
UOOT has pledged to
color and texture the
extensive retaining walls,
but retaining walls will
still look like retaining
walls, appearing unnatural. Exposed rock faces
will still look like
exposed rock faces, damaging the scenic beauty
of this area.
Lee believes these
impacts are unnecessary.
The bridge could be
tapered into the existing
highway in a shorter distance, eliminating the
need for much of the
wid ening and the accompanying cuts and retaining waUs.
At Lower Twin
Brid ge, mountainsides
will be cut up to 600 fee t
on either side of the
bridge in order to widen
the highway from 26 feet
to 38 feet. A retaining
wall of 200 feet long is
planned above the
bridge. This retaining
wall and cuts above the
bridge were no t disclosed in the FEIS.
UOOT has yet to show a
purpose and need for allY
high way widening in
this middle section of
Logan Canyon. They
have adm itted that their
an accurate d escription
of planned construction
and a better idea of its
impacts. Surely at this
stage of the FEIS, UOOT
cou ld have surveyed the
relevant features of the
can yon, such as the location of wetlands, and
applied appropriate
design standard s in
to provide an accurate
description of construction and assessment of
impacts. Preliminary
plans for Upper Twin
Brid ge show a cut into
the mountainside of
approximately 15 to 24
feet deep and 760 feet
long. This cu t and its
impacts were not disclosed in the FEIS. We
believe that with a fair
assessment of the environmental impacts of the
elltire highway project,
considered as a w hole, a
less damaging construction alternative would be
more a ttractive.
Such an integrated
assessment should be
given in a Supplemental
Environmentallmpact
Statement for the entire
canyon highway project.
There shouJd also be an
honest demonstration of
the purpose and need for
any construction in
Logan Canyon.
" LCC has g rave concerns about both the
need for UOOT's proposal and its impacts on the
special values of the
canyon. These concerns
are only made worse by
UOOT's violations of its
FE IS and its failure to
g ive the public full
opportunity to participate in this decision and
to comment on
potential environmenta l
consequences,"
Zimmennan stated.
traffic and safety d ata is
"garbage" and "problematic."
lmmediately downstream of this bridge is
crucial brown trout
spawning habitat. LCC
is concerned w ith the
impact construction and
the resulting erosion will
have on this fishery. The
Logan River fishery is
currently ranked in the
top 5% of stream fisheries in the sta te. UOOT
has not supplied adequate information on
sedimentation or on trout
mortality. At both
bridges, there will be
increased erosion into the
rive r during and after
construction until ground
cover can be re-established. Increased sediments can smother trout
eggs, clog gills, and kill
the aquatic insects upon
w hich trout feed . UOOT
admits, "Additional loss
of fish habitat could
potentially occur from
riverbank disturbances
and introduction of sediments into the Logan
River as a result of heavy
machinery and activities
associated with bridge
construction."
LCC has suggested
replacing Lower Twin
Brid ge wi th a wider and
sa fer bridge on a new
alignment, while maintaining current highway
wid th . This would eliminate much cutting into
the mo untainsides and
protect this va luab le fish ery. UOOT has refused.
We are concerned
with UOOT's method of
segmenting its Logan
Can yon Highway proposa l into smaller projects in w hich, well after
the FE IS and Record of
Decision, we fin al1y get
2
�1 , 19 96
Allglls t
Logan River, Wild and Scenic
by Drew Parkin
The recent appeal of the
Forest Service decision to
allow highway expansion
in Logan Canyon quesHoned, among other
things, the resuJ ts of a
Forest Service study
regarding wild and scenic
rivers. For many of you,
the idea of a wild and
scenic river evokes images
of the Sa lmon River in
Idaho or the Rogue River
in Oregon . What d oes this
have to do with the Logan
River? A lot.
The Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act requires federal
land management agendes to include w ild and
scenic river evaluations as
part of their normal decision-making processes. In
the case of the Forest
Service, this means that
forest plans must specifically consider wild and
scenic river eligibil ity. It
also means that any
Environmental Impact
Statement that involves
river resource must
address this issue. Further
- and this is the important part - once the
Forest Service identifies a
river as being eligible, it
must, in adherence wi th
its own ad ministrative
directives, manage the
river "in a manner consisten t with the purposes of
the Act, and such that the
outstand ing remarkable
values which make it eHgible for inclusion are not
dim inished to the poin t
where eligibility is negated. In no event should the
free-flowing characteristics of the river be modified."
In response to a threatened lawsuit, the Forest
Service some 10 years ago
set out to identify potentially eligible wild and
scenic rivers. Individual
forests were entrusted
with this and many
responded admirably.
Unfortunately, wild and
scenic evaluations have
never been high on the list
for forest managers in
Utah . That is, not until the
controversy over the
proposal to widen the
roadway through Logan
Canyon. Pressu red by citizens concerned about the
highway proposal, the
Wasa tch-Cache National
Forest undertook a yearlong river study and, in
November 1993, released
its inventory.
The inventory started
by identifying 37 streams
that forest planners
deemed wor thy of being
s tudied. Nex t, the larger
s treams on that list,
including the Logan River,
were subdivided into
"segments." In all, the
Forest Service study considered 59 stream segments. Of these, 18 segments were rejected
out-of-hand as being
insignificant. Beaver
Creek was one of these.
An ad d itional 11 segments
were rejected for not being
free-flowing. These
included s treams tha t had
been s ubjected to water
w ithdrawals, channeHzation or other degradation .
All of the Logan downs tream of Temple Fork
was rejected for this reason. This left 30 segments
that were actually included in the study.
The inventory considered nine separate
resource fea tures. The idea
was to determine the significance of each stream
with regard to each
resource feature. A stream
could be ra ted as ei ther (1)
typical, (2) Significant a t a
statewide level, or
(3) significant at what the
Forest Service termed a
"provincial" level (an area
comprising all of the
Rocky Mountains). A rating of 3 for any given
resource feature would
q ualify a stream segmen t
for wild and scenic river
(conthwed next page)
DID YOU KNOW?
A b ridge o r a city street must
h ave 12 lanes to accommod ate
40,000 automobiles per hour.
1 lane is necessary to
40,000
bicycles
per
hou r.
To elimin ate the need for Midd le
East oil, U.S. commuters w ould
need to b icycle to w ork only 1.25 times each week.
Equating calories to gasoline, the number of miles per
gallon that could be tra veled b y the ave rage cyclist is
3,000.
ook
130 Nort h 100 EaSI
Logan UT 8432 I
753-9089
PL EASE RI DE YOUR B I KE.
SU NR:ISE C VC LE R:V
138 NORTH 100 EAST LOGAN, UTAH 84321
801 -753-3294 M ONOAY - SATURDAY 10:00 A.M. - 6:00
100% fo r L ogan Canyo n
P.M.
3
�Wild
(COlltinlled)
designation. The result?
Of the original 59 s tream
segments, only one - the
Stillwater Fork of the Bear
River - was found eligible based on the rating for
its scenic features. No
other stream received a 3,
and all were therefore
rejected, including the
Logan River.
I was stunned when I
heard the findings. Based
on severa l years of professional experience with
wild,and scenic rivers,
and having detailed
knowledge of the Logan
River, it was my judgment
that the Logan River not
only met but exceeded eligibility requirements.
After pouring over the
report, I concluded that
the study team's basic
assumptions were wrong
and applying these
assumptions greatly
skewed the findin gs. The
decision to use "p rovi ncial" significance as the
cu t-off for eligibility was
the most pervasive error.
The Forest Serv ice Manual
itself d irects that
"statewide" significance is
an appropriate measure
for judging wild and
scenic status. Several
national forests have used
it as the basis of their decisions, and it is accepted
practice for National Park
Service and BLM planners
as well.
Had the WasatchCache used "statewide"
significance as the threshold, the Logan River
would have been included
easily. If anything, I
believe the ratings for the
Logan River are low. I
question the ratin gs for
wildlife, water recreation
and, especially, scenery.
Even if the Forest Service
ratings are correct, it is
obvious the Logan River is
an extremely important
resource with "statewide"
significance. [n five of the
nine categories, the river
received a s tatewide Significance rating. No other
stream had more than
two. The Logan River was
rated as the most significant stream in the
Wasatch-Cache National
Forest for five of the nine
resource categories. Again,
no other stream could
claim more than two. The
conclusion is inescapable.
The Forest Service report
absolutely confirms that,
when compared to other
streams on the forest, the
Logan River is the crown
jewel and is most certainly
eligible for national wild
and scenic river status.
(Drew Parkin is a river policy
conslilfant in Cambridge, Mass.,
alld serves Off the board of dirf"Ctors of till" Pacific RivtrS
COlllleil. HI" prf"Violls/y mallaged
wild and scenic riuer programs
for tire Na tiollal Park Service. He
is a Ilative of Utah and Sptllt severa/ seaSOIIS workillgJor tire
Forest Service ill Logan Canyon.)
USFS data on the Logan River
between Temple Fork and White Pine Creek.
Logan River rating
St.ltewide s ignifiu nce
Highest rating in forut
Typical
reso urces
Wildlife
Rating compared to other
Wasatch..cache streams
Rated in top 5
Rated in top 5
Geology/Hydrology
Statewide significance
Highest rating in forest
Rated in to p 10
Scenery
Water
Typical
Highest rating in forest
Statewide significance
Rated in top 10
Fisheries
Statewide Significance
Tied for highest rating in forest
Ecology
St.ltewide sig nifican ce
Tied for high est rating in forest
This information was taken directly from tile report.
Adventure,
Sports
_.
.
W l ft ....... tho
-_
"""".ft,..r.._'
......
in4<.o""
h . ....
-
......,
• _ _ ;u.. "';. ••
... ....'-ft.. " ...
... •.
. . ...... 1".4 t •
4
�- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - ---- -- ---------- - ------- ------ww
Augllst 1, 1996
Canyon News Briefs
by Tim Wagner
Utah citizens lost a serious battle
recently when U.s. District Judge Tena
Campbell ruled in favor of the Utah
Deparhnent of Transportation's
(UDOT) plans for further widening of
U.s. 189 through Provo Canyon.
The Provo River Coalition filed suit
February 29 seeking a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary
injunction to prevent further environmental destruction. Because UDOT
had made significant design changes
since the origina l plans were drafted in
1989, the group argued that NEPA
required a supplemental environmental impact statement. Judge CampbeiJ
saw things differently.
"Plaintiffs have so far failed to
come forward with any evidence for
significant environmental effects arising out of the project as currently
planned," Campbell wrote. The judge
said an agency is not required to supplement an environmental-impact
statement every time new information
is found. At the same time she
acknowledged the design changes
included a new road alignment, additional concrete retaining waiJs, and the
creation of a dirt haul road. Inside
sources say that Campbell's concern
for the environment was a cover-up
for more important matters: the economy and jobs. With a $34 million price
tag for two miles of highway, is it any
wonder?
A bit of irony is that UDOT's plans
for the next phase of the project have
been scrapped due to lack of funding.
Alan Meecham, director of UDOT's
Region Three said, "I've got about five
years left (before retirement) and I'd
like to see some work completed in the
canyon before I'm gone."
In the past there was much talk
about UDOT becoming more trustworthy and willing to compromise. Facts
behind the case give the true p icture of
UDOT. This is not an agency as concerned about public transportation, the
environment, and highway safety as
they are about funding massive,
unnecessary highways.
. LCC now has a great public education and awareness tool for Logan
Canyon. With some tremendous pholos by photographer Scott Smith, LCC
has created a fantastic slide show presentation.
It debuted at a well attended
potluck in February on the USU campus and has since been shown to several groups. The presentation lasts
twenty minutes and is easy to fit into a
variety of public gatherings. If you
know a group that would like to see
the show, contact one of the officers.
• LCC would like to thank the outpouring of support we have re«!ived
from our fundraising letter. The money
($3,155) will help us proceed with our
upcoming UDOT battle. The majority
of our support comes from Cache
Valley, but there are many canyon
lovers across the country. Enthusiasm,
support and love for the canyon is evident by the following:
- "Please accept my donation of $25 to
help save Logan Canyon . I'm not sure
how you traced me down here in
Maine, but I'm sure glad you did.
Thanks."
- "As I will soon be moving and wish
to keep up with these canyon issues,
please add my permanent address to
your mailing list."
- "Thanks again and keep up the good
work. See you in the canyon."
- "Long live Logan Canyon."
- "GOOD LUCK! Just wanted you to
know I was impressed with the professional presentation of the latest
brochure and letter. You articulated
your objections to the project in a
straightforward, no nonsense manner
and 1 appreciated the compromises
tha t you see are necessary. Take Care.
"Coffee with a Cause"
Logan
Blend
• regular· organic · decaffeinated · Night and Day
ra i n@intele.nel 801 .75 J . 05'J
$1.00 is donaled 10 Lee for OV8lYpoond sokJ.
5
�SLOWDOWN
WE MOVE TOO FAST
by Kevin 1. Kobe
On December 3,1995,
members of the Logan
Canyon Coalition drove
from Logan to Garden City.
OUf objective was to assess
the quality and uniformity
of advisory and regulatory
signs. We documen ted our
assessments and addressed
our concerns to Dyke
leFevre, Region One
Director, Utah Deparbnent
of Transportation (UIXJ1).
Our fi rst question to Mr.
leFevre addressed the
inconsistent u se of advisory
speed signs on curves. We
expected to see an advisory
speed sign on any curve
which has a design speed
below the posted speed.
This was the case only from
the summit of Logan
Canyon to Garden City.
There is a 40 mph posted
speed limit. There are also
in both th e uphill and
downhill lanes signs indica ting an approaching
cu rve and an advisory
speed. Most of these curves
have arrows ("chevrons")
around them.
The Middle p art of
Logan Canyon has not one
curve with a posted advisory speed. According to the
1987 Technical
Memorandum, this part of
the canyon has many more
curves than Rich County
that are below the posted
speed.
LCe's question was
quite simple: Why hasn ' t
UOOT posted advisory
speed signs on these
curves?
Mr. leFevre explained
how each curve is "unique
in its capability of sustaining a reasonable speed
through the curve section.
Because of the construction,
maintenance, and natural
ground settlement through
each curve, each one will
drive differently than originally anticipated or
designed. Some curves, as
much as 10 MPH below the
posted speed, are s till able
to reasonably allow travel
through the curves at the
pos ted speed."
"We have been anticipating a project through this
canyon fo r a considerable
length of time and may
have neglected reviewing
each o f the curves below
the posted s peed limit.;;
" I have talked to our
Region Traffic Engineer and
he has indicated that since
we have a completed environmental report and we
know what is going to happen, especially through the
middle canyon, that he will
review the curve signing
and advisory speeds and
make recommendations to
better inform the traveling
public."
To date, UOOT has
fai led to install any advisory speed signs in the
Middle and Upper canyon.
A related LCC ques tion
asked how accident surveys
can be done in the midd le
LCC T-SHIRTS - 512.00 4th"" colorl
canyon if the curves in
question are n ot signed
properly? We did not get a
response. Perhaps UOOT
can't come up with good
accident and traffic da ta.
(So there is no reason for
the project.)
We also documented the
lack of signs warning o f
wildlife crossings. The only
wildlife sign in the entire
project area is located within the Garden City limits.
UOOT documented in the
FEIS that moto rists collide
with animals at least twice
as often in the Midd le and
Upper parts of Logan
Canyon as on the Rich
County side.
Mr. LeFevre's answer:
'' In talking with the
Fores t Service, there does
not appear to be any location that has a prominence
o f animal collisions and
that placing the signs at the
beginning of the canyon is
probably just as effective as
having signs throughout
the canyon . The wildlife
warning signs h ave little
effect on driver behavior
and would be more of a
visual impact in the canyon
than it would provide for
motoris ts behavior." (And
massive construction won't
have a visua l impact?)
To further make our
po int, there was not a concern over vehicle/snowmobile collisions anywhere in
the FEIS, and yet there is a
sign pos ted in the Upper
canyon that reads,
"Snowmobile Crossing:
Next 9 Miles". Why worry
about snowmobiles, and
ignore w ild life?
LCC also asked why
there aren't " Pedestrian
Crossing" signs where
many people are crossing
the road, such as Logan
Cave, Blind Ho llow, Ricks
Spring (which is s till a
planned passing zone) and
Bunchgrass C reek?
Mr. LeFevre indica ted
that " A lot of these socalled pull-outs were created by individuals using
them with disregard for
safety to themselves and
the traveling motorists and
have not been an official
designated turn-out."
With the lack of signs
warning motoris ts of pedestrians, animals, and curves
one begins to worry about
UOOTs mission. Is UOOT
really concerned about our
safety?
�Augllst ] , ]9 96
Lee adds ,fun
to activism
'96 SUMMER FUNDRAISERS
The summer heat and
good 01' fashioned ice
cream combined to pro·
duce a fin ancial bonanza
for the Coali tion at
KRCL's Day In The Park
in Salt Lake City on June
8. Through the efforts of
dedicated LCC member
Dan Miller and a few
other volunteers, over
$600 was raised in a sin·
gle afternoon as festival
geers lined up to pay
$2.00 for a Ben & Jerry's
ice cream bar.
Thanks to Dan and
some good connections,
the hot weather treats
were entirely donated by
the socially·conscious ice
cream manufacturer.
"For awhile we were
the most pop ular booth
there," said Dan. It
shou ld also be noted that
many people stopped by
A WORLD
O.
all members and staff of
bo th band s who d onated
their time and talents,
THANK YOU! THANK
YOU l Please get out and
support these guys .
They' re worth it.
This event was special
for two reasons. One, the
amphitheater was per·
fect. This venue is beauti·
fut yet unused and in
need of some repairs.
Maybe we could do a
fund raiser for the theater
itself. Secondly, Jerry
Joseph, lead singer and
guitarist for the Jack
Mormons, spent a good
deal of time livi ng in
Cache Valley. Thus, it
was like returning home
for him.
They want to come
back as soon as possible,
so what do you say?
just to receive some free
information and sign up
on our roster list. Way to
go Dan!
•••••••••••• ••••••
The Coalition would
like to thank all who
attended our fundraiser
concert with Euphio
Project and the Jack
Mormons on June 6.
Capping the last day of
finals and a beautiful
summer evening,. over
200 people came out to
enjoy live music on
USU's amphitheater on
Old Main Hill. The event
raised nearly $800
towards protecting
Logan Canyon.
We would especially
like to thank the Baugh
Motel for co·sponsoring
the event. Of course, to
EJ)GINGWE$T
2"1'1 SW Sl'lll'!. (; \11111' S I
P OIIIl \'11, OJ{ 'Ii21<l
Logan Canyon Your Destination?
T ComCTIOtJ
CLOnmJG &
- Backpacking - Skiing · Climbing · H iking
. Snowshoeing - Sightseeing
"Ccents
117 North Mai n 5t • Logan, Utah, 84321 • 801 -753-1541
7
�r-----------------------,
YES ! I WANT TO J OIN THE
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I wo uld like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots m ore
o I wo uld like to voluntee r.
o Here's $12.00 for a grea t T-Shirt.
p/lIs SJ shippillg
o I'm broke! Here's five bu cks.
o Please add my nam e to your mailing li st.
H
PRINTING CO.
D
Name ____________________________
5treet____________________________
City__________5tate_
Phone#
_ _.Zip _______
Em ail ____________
Plene rn,lk, check p,lyablt MI d mai l to:
43
LOGA N ,
100
W EST
UT A H
8 4321
TEL .80 1 .752, 0 3 1 1
FAX
Logan Canyon Coalition
SOU TH
80 1 .753.3 1 61
USU Box N1674
Logan, UT 84322-0199
L _______________________
We ask for your continued support at this time, as we
prepare for the legal challenge we believe is inevitable.
Our ability to mount a legal battle depends upon the
moral and financial support of canyon lovers such as
yourself. PLEASE consider a generous donation to save
Logan Canyon and Logan River.
• - ._-=.. ..
..
__ __
... _iii
... _ . . .iii ___ iii
na . . . . . __ . . . . . . . . .
- --- - - -- -- - -
C:O.A.L:J:T:J:ON'
, AI'rR.() .
yl- ' bE J'f',() 'W
BULK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
&, ' <
A fv1.
I
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
Tom &Jan Lyon
655 canyon Road
Logan
ur
8432 1
I
I
,
LOGAN. UT
PERMIT 50
-
tI' Please relfew your
membership today
�- ---_ -- --------
-....... -- --- - -..... --- -------..
---- -- - -- ---- - -- - - - - ----- - - - -- -- - - - -- ---- ---- -- -- --- - - ----------- --- ---- - - - - -- - --- - ------__T
• • _ _ _ _T
_ • • _____T
•
_
----
A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION
Vol. 2 No. 4
Summer 1997
Stop Wo rk Order Lifted
LCC Files Suit
On Ma rch 19 the
Logan Canyon Coalltion
(Lee) filed a complaint
in U.s. District Court
against the Utah
Department of
Transpo rtation (UOOT)
and the Forest Service.
We requested the cou rt to
order a halt to construction at Lower Twin
Bridge in Logan Canyon
until our concerns over
the bridge could be
resolved. The judge s uggested UOOT s top construction. UOOT complied .
We reached an agreement w ith UOOT that
has aUowed us to w ithdraw our request for a
halt to cons truction.
Lee recognizes the need
to replace the bridges,
and work is now proceeding. UDOT has conceded some important
points:
-They ha ve agreed that
in the future they will
not argue for the need to
widen the highway
above Lower Twin
Bridge simply because
they have w idened the
"An improvement to the road
and consequent increase
in operating speed
would expectedly increase the
accident occurrences."
- from a 1974 interna l UOOT memo
highway at the bridge.
Lee was concerned that
widening at the bridge
sets an engineering
precedent to widen the
highway aU the way up
the canyon.
- UDOT has also agreed
to remove the old Lower
Twin Bridge in the most
environmentally sensitive fashion. They ha ve
agreed to present a written plan for removing the
old bridge, with a djscussion of the environmental safeguards they will
employ, and to consider
LCe's comments on their
plan.
Finally, UOOT has
agreed to consider Lee's
comments on their water
quality monitoring plan
and mitigation efforts for
the project. Lee is s uggesting more frequent
moni to ring during construction. We are recommending that for any
future construction better
baseline da ta is ga thered
prior to constructio n.
Unfortunately, for the
present project base line
da ta goes back only to
September, making
impossible adequate
comparison with past
parameter va lues. We
are recommending as
well that for future construction more complete
monitoring be done of
sedimentation due to
construction.
Our lawsuit has
already enabled LCC to
help make highway construction less environmentally destructive.
Lee is grateful to our
attorney, Ray mond Scott
Berry, for his excellent
work on behalf of Logan
Canyon. Scott has put
many hours into lea rning
the details of our case.
His advice has been
invaluable. We are in
good legal hands.
Expertise and ad vice has
been donated from professionals and environmental organizations
across the country. We
are especially g rateful to
Drew Parkin, Jack
Griffith, Steve Flint, Bob
Morris, and Pete Frost
for their expertise and
dedica tion.
Lawsuit Highlights
Our lawsuit still
stands and will be heard
by the court in a few
months. We will explore
the following issues in
court:
-In an internal 1974
memo conceming the
Logan Canyon highway,
(COl/Jill/nod Il!!xl
page)
�Wild and Scenic Rivers
system. The Forest
Service has not followed
UOOT stated, "an
these procedures in the
improvement to the road
case of Logan River.
and consequent increase
in operating speed would ThE:Y should not be
allowing losses to the
expected ly increase the
scenery, the fishery, the
accident occurrences."
water quality and other
Here UOOT is admitting
canyon resources that
what we should know by
will come with UOOT's
common sense.
Widening and straighten- proposal until the evaluation procedure is propering this ca nyon highway,
wi th an increase in traffic ly ca rried out. We have
documented the fai lures
speed, wi ll lead to a less
of the Forest Service to
safe highway. There will
abide by its own regulastill be curves in the road,
limited sight distance and tions.
- The Forest Service is
steep inclines. Especially
mandated by federal law
in the ice and snow of
to generate a list of recrewinter we should not
ation areas in Logan
have traffic hurtling
Canyon that are to
through the canyon at
receive special protection
speeds that are not safe.
from construction
By 1993 UDOT changed
impacts. The Forest
its mind and presented a
Service presented 17 sites,
safety argument for its
most of which are small
proposa l. They promote
parking lots. This meathe myth that thei r proger list was generated
posed construction w ill
with absolutely no ratiolead to a safer highway.
nale for why they chose
Their traffic and accident
data ha ve obviously been these sites and why they
manipulated to make the have ignored other
important recreation
case they wish to make.
a reas. For aU we know,
-In their 1974 memo
the Forest Service threw
UDOT admitted, "The
darts at a map to generonly conclusion w hich
ate its list. LCC has doccan be drawn, therefore,
umented 63 addjtiona l
is that even the most
recreation areas that the
minima l improvemen t to
Forest Service should
the existing highway
have included in its list,
would have severe
areas that are used for
adverse impact on the
picnicking, fishin g, kaycanyon water resources."
acking, rock climbing,
Yet, now UOOT c.I aims
either no impact or mini- etc. The Forest Service's
Management Plan for
mal impact to the fishery
Logan Canyon lists recreand to water quality.
ation as the primary use
They must be thinking
of the canyon. We will
tha t a mirac.le will occur.
explore in court the arbiTheir estimations are
trary and capricious manbased on fantasy, not
ner in which the Forest
good science, which is a
Service has behaved in its
violation of federal law.
evaluation of recreation.
- The Forest Service
- The Forest Service is
has la id out a proced ure
a lso mandated by fed era l
fo r eva luating rivers for
law to account for
inclusion in the national
Lawsui t
impacts of construction
upon its sensitive species,
including Bonneville
Cutthroa t Trout. The
Forest Service's conclusion of no impacts is
based upon no surveys at
all or upon surveys that
are inadequate. The
Forest Serv ice makes bald
assertions that are totally
mysterious, such as "flora l species have been mitigated for." No explanation of this claim is provided. Other assertions
are pa tently false, Stich as
"no fauna l sensitive
species were found withthe proposed project
dIsturbance area,"" a claim
contradicted by information known to the F(1rest
Service about Bonneville
Cutthroa t Trout.
UDOT's highway proposal will result in a
highway that is less sa fe.
It is far more expensive
than is needed, and it is
far too damaging to the
fishery, the scenery, water
quality and other
resources. It threa tens
recreation, the primary
use of the canyon.
UDOT's hi.hwav PI"OPO'Sal is also
porkbarrel project for the
sake of bringing taxpayer
dol lars through the
UOOT burea ucracy. Our
own Conservationists'
Alternative fea tures sensible highway improvements such as bridge
replacement, some passing and turning lanes,
while it protects valuable
canyon resources.
Our lawsuit is essential if we are to save
Logan Canyon from
UOOT's appetite for
asphalt. Our stand has
already made a difference.
(,0,,1i,,""')
""'g'''"
2
�Summer 1997
The Ultimate Impact
Roads Facilitate People
By Tim Wagner
Over the course of the
last eighteen months, I've
had the opportunity to
speak on behalf of LCC to
several groups. After presenting some history and
current facts surrounding
the Logan Canyon issue, I
usually find myself drifting towards what I see as
the biggest threat. That is,
people.
While we are aU rightfully concemed about the
many various fonns of
environmental dcgradation resulting from fifteen
to twenty years of construction, I honestly
believe that a new and
"improved" U.S. Highway
89 through Logan Canyon
will facilitate a tremendous amount of development, and the result, the
"ultimate impact."
Try to project your
thoughts to the fall of
2017. It's a beautiful afternoon and you and your
granddaughter have
decided to go fishing in
Logan Canyon. UOOT
contractors are putting the
finishing touches on
shoulders and drainage
facilities. A new widened
stretch of asphalt lays
before you, extending aU
the way to the summit
and down to Garden City.
Semi-trucks careen by
at 60 miles per hour, making deliveries to a convenience store that has been
located at FrankUn Basin
for the last ten years. Up
the road, adjacent to the
Beaver Mountain tumoff,
lies a brand new restaurant and hotel complex.
The facility occupies over
40 acres with a giant parking lot, sending roadg'rime into Beaver Creek.
Farther up, a new
snowmobile/ ATV dealershjp has located along
with a fast-food franchise.
Because of the increase in
tuming traffic, UOOT has
now started construction
on another widened intersection, forcing massive
cuts into the slope.
Throughout the upper
section of the canyon, residential construction is
booming, along with severa! higher density developments. At times, traffic
is so congested that it continues to back up, with
increasing accidents.
Your fishing trip tums
into a nightmare because
every place you try to
stop is packed with
anglers. Many are out-ofstaters staying at the new
hotel
reading about
the wonderful fishing and
sight-seeing opporhmities
in Logan Canyon, courtesy of Chamber-sponsored national advertising.
Frus trated, you decide
to take a short hike to
view the fall colors. That
too is aborted when you
realize that every trailhead is jammed with vehicles. So much for quality
outdoor recreation.
Sound surreal? It
shouldn't. If you've spent
anytime at aLi in Logan
DID YOU KNOW?
A bridge OC" cily stTftt must
12
10
40.000 aulomobilal pet' hou,. Only 1
U n«eIINl)'
to KIC01I\mOd.;ole 40)100 bicydes pet' hour.
To
the need fo, Middle
oil, US. commuleT\l wou ld nHd lu b iqde 10 work only t.2S times eKh week.
Eql1.Jling
10 guoli ,"" the
n"moo of milal pe' pilon thOIIt rould
boP: lnIveled by the Ivenoge cyclist ;53)100.
PLEASE RI DE YOUR BIKE.
138 NoRTH 100 EAST loG.t.N, UIAH 84321
80 1-753-3294 MoN.- SAl. 10:00 A.M.- 6 :00I!M.
•---.-.--.---
GRAPEVINE
I
tiTa,.aIT
.
3
Canyon in the past years,
you know we are already
seeing the first inklings of
such a scenario. This is a
real situation that can and
will occur, if allowed .
This is why we are seeing some of the major
environmental groups
starting to tackle the issue
of uncontrolled development. Just this past spring
the Sierra Club initiated a
national campaign entitJed "ChaUenge to
SprawL"
According to the club,
" ... nothing threatens our
air, water, and wild places
more than sprawl." Right
up front, the club proclaims the campaign starts
with stopping inappropriate roads and d evelopments. Sound familiar?
One point they take
issue with is the myth that
development results in
increased tax revenues.
The cost of infrastructure
alone needed to meet the
demands of such develop(cont inued /lext page)
�PEOPLE
(con/itwed)
men!, including highways,
sewers, water, electricity,
and communications,
often exceed the long term
revenue.
These are a ll items subsid ized by you, the taxpaye r. And who reaps the
most benefits? The developer and the summer
h ome owner who are
enabled to build in the
canyon beca use they do
not pay the true expense.
Add in the future costs of
decreased air and water
quality, traffic congestion,
and an overall decline in
the quality of life for residents and the price tag
goes through the roof.
Another way to look at
it comes from the n atio na l
organization, The Trust for
Public Land. It recently
cited research showing
how zoning and other
government regulations
actually encourage development into many of our
open spaces. There again,
government investment
(by the taxpayer) into
infrastructu re serves to
boost land va lues, making
them much more attractive
for development.
Is there anyone who
bel ieves that private and
state owned land values in
Logan Canyon will
decrease once the new
" modified preferred alter·
native" is in place?
It all comes back to one
central point. Build it and
they w ill come. This is an
a rgument that can' t be disputed, even by LCe's
staunchest opponents. Yet
it is this, what I refer to as
the "ultimate impacl," that
has not been addressed in
the Environmenta l Impact
Statemen t nor in a ny other
serious d iscussions.
This is the very issue
that helped the Illinois
chapter of the Sierra Club
successfully stop a m ajor
interstate highway expansion. In the ruling the
judge stated, "Highways
create demand for travel
and expansion by their
very existence." Because
the final EIS d id not
include the "necessary
studies," the court felt the
public and other government agencies were not
informed of all the consequences.
Roads precede developmenl. It is a simple idea
and one you will hear
more of n o matter w here
you live. Not that highway
expansion and development is necessarily bad.
-_
_-_.
_
'- .....
. ' -'
.. , • •• "
But there are right ways
and wrong ways and
right places and wrong
places. Logan Canyon is
the wrong place.
And this is why I firmIy believe we need to elevate the discuss ion of this
project beyond the hjghway itself. Whenever we
have the opportunity to
talk with the general public about LCe's position,
we must include the
issues of people and
development. For many,
the topics of bridge
w idths, fishery impacts,
endangered plants, and
wild and scenic rivers are
too abstract.
But ask that person
Log"" Canyon Postcards
GmT'a y"f
Stu d io 404 l'hOlograph y.
Alan Hu u li s
...
i ...g..
3-xS- $,SO f
usu
16701
Utah 1W322"()I9'.I
Adventure,
Sports
o f •••
.
...... ...
......,,, ......
-
4
how they will feel w hen
their favorite fishing hole
or ski or s nowmobile trail
is too crowded, forcing
them to go elsewhere, and
you may find a n ew ally.
Preventing the " ultimate impact" in Logan
Canyon is a lifelong commitment. Achieving reasonable highway sa fety
improvements in lieu of a
massive pork-barrel project is just one incremental
step, but the first step. If
you would like to help or
would like more information about this issue,
please feel free to call me
at 755-0286. Get involved
now.
.:.
EDWARD AUEY
, ...,ItA;, 0' II
I'NII 111.10 ANII 1 ••_
IIII"'N; TO.
LCC POSTCARDS
USU 101C_ I,","
LO;AN. UTAN "111- 01"
�Slimmer 1997
Canyon News Briefs
(Tlte follawillg is reprillled from a letter to
tlte editor of tlte Utall Slate University
All/11m; Magazine.)
the shot-crete is for added stabili ty and is falling off in sheets
as we stand looking ... Shotcrete on this type of canyon
First Provo Canyon, now
material is like putting a band- Provo Callyoll Coalilion
Logan. Soon there will be nothaid on a gushing artery ... The
ing left, only p eople racing
recent slide triggered the
from one spot to another trying County political and business lead- Coalition's worst fears, fears
to find a happiness which can
ers are begitmiug to question the that a four-lane road just won' t
only be found in slowly savorenviront1lel1tal alld finallcial costs work through a narrow area
ing the bea uti es God created.
wi th unstable rock.
of the Provo Cal1yon fiasco, and
are protestil1g tile priority given to
Gilda Sims, class oj 1940,
the cal/yon road at the expense of Looking at this raw, powerful,
currently residing ill Eval1ston,
more Jzeavily traveled roads.)
exposed scar, boulders tumble
Wyomitlg
down as we speak. They
" ... I can hardly stand to be here appear out of nowhere, crash... I am prone to letting out a
ing down, hitting the barrier of
primal scream of anger as I
concrete and wire fencing
(Tlte followillg was sent fr01l1
pass daily the monster dump
UDOT has constructed in an
friends in Provo WilD are watching trucks hauling away the
attempt to protect motorists
tlte last of tlteir cat/yol/ behlg
innards of the can yon.
once the canyon is opened. It
devoured by dynamite, bulldozers
seems as if someone is up there,
and asphalt. Almost-vertical culs We are all looking at the same
hurling down the rocks in
in file cal/yoll walls Itave caused
thing. A massive cut in the
anger. It is driving the engimassive slides, flattellil1g a twocanyon wall--70 feet high and
neers crazy ... Further up the
tOil pickup and closing tlte
300 feet long--that wi ll eventuroad, a waterfall of black mud
highway. Tlte fOllr-laue highway, ally make room for two more
flo ws from an area scraped by a
costing $20 million per mile, is in lanes of de-curved roadway.
bulldozer.
its Jilwl phase. U DOT begal/ tile The first length of the canyon
rec0115tructioll ill the lIIid-1980s
face has been drilled with
We are frustrated, worried and
with a promise to tile enviro1JlIlell- twenty foot spikes and covered sick at heart over what they
tal community tltat tlte road wou ld with shot-crete. The drilling is
have done to our canyon."
be limited to two lmies. Utah
an attempt to stabilize the face;
" Coffee with a Cause"
• regular· organic · decaffelnaled • Night and Day
11.00;'
to LCC Ior..-ery pound sold.
"We are sick at heart over
w hat they h ave done
to our canyon."
�Recreation Threatened
By Kevin f. Kobe
nificance, or enjoyment
of Commerce).
During my recent s ki
trip from Logan Canyon
to Teton Pass, Wyoming,
I saw only two canyons
throughout the entire
300 mile stretch that did
not have s nowmobile
tracks. It made me realize how current highway
plans fo r Logan Canyon
will further threaten
human-powered recreation.
How? Most of the
recreation resources in
Logan Canyon were le ft
out of the highway documents (the FEIS, DElS,
and ROD). This opinion
is s upported by the fac t
that only 17 sites were
lis ted as recrea tion si tes
under Section 4(f) of the
Department of
Transportation Act of
1996.
The Final
Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) states
that, " Recreation has
been designated as the
primary use in Logan
Canyon according to the
Wasa tch-Cache National
Forest Land and
Resource Management
Plan. Developed and
undeveloped recreation
lands occur along the
hig hway within the
National Forest. .. "
The entire stretch of
Logan Canyon IS USED
FOR OUTDOOR
RECREATION and is
promoted as s uch (note
the many brochures pro-
duced by the C hamber
o f an UIban park where
Recently, Logan
Canyon Coalition (LCq
inventoried an additiona l 63 sites a long the project area that were not
listed in any of the documents. Most of these
sites provide access for
picnicking, fishing,
climbing, kayaking, bird
watching, sig ht-seeing
and parking for winter
activities.
Many of the sites will
be adversely affected by
the proposed highway
project. These include
direct impacts to the
recrea tion resource, such
as elintina ting access
parking lots, and indirect impacts such as
noise and safety.
According to the FEIS
(p. 6-4), " indirect
impacts include exceeding ambient noise criteria, reduction in access,
visual impacts, vibratio n, and ecological
intrusion. Substantial
impairment occurs only
when the protected
activities, features, or
attributes of the resource
are substantially diminished." The FEIS d efin es
protected activities and
features as, " ... performances at an outdoor
amphitheater, sleeping
in the sleeping area of a
ca mpground, enjoyment
o f a historic site where a
quie t setting is a generalIy recognized fea ture o r
a ttribute of the site's sig-
serenity and quiet are
significant
Based on the above
criteria, all 63 sites, as
well as the entire stretch
of Logan Canyon, will
s uffer "substantially
diminished " recreational
resou rces due to the current hig hway project.
Many o f the activities in
Logan Canyon occur in
areas "where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature o r attribute
of the site's sig nificance ... " These areas
will be affected by an
in crease in traffic no ise
levels as a result of:
faster speeds, additional
passing lanes (d ue to
vehicle acceleration),
and braking noises.
Another indirect
impact concerns safety
for recreationists; vehid es entering and exiting
recreation sites along a
faster highway w ill be
more dangerous.
Additionally, different trends in recreation
have occur red in Logan
Canyon since the FEIS
was written. Activities
that have grown in popularity and have not
been considered in any
documents include backcountry snowboarding,
boating, fly fishing,
climbing alo ng the rock
cliffs adjacent to the
highway, and recrea tional and professional
cycling.
In conclusion, the list
of 4(f) sites in the FEIS
lacks professional and
scientific integrity. It
falls short of recognizing
the recreation resource
in Logan Canyon a nd
new recrea tio n trends. It
also does not provide
enough information conceming all of the recreational pursuits occurring within any onc of
the 17 4(f) sites in Logan
Canyon.
----.
28 Fed!llIIItft. Lopn. lit 84321
(101) 7Ss-olS7
F Ine
&
rw-k
l I f _ ..............,........"
I.CC T-SHiIl:TS - 51 2.00 (3 rob)
6
7Ss.8657
Moo......., · s,."....t
"'"'
�-- - -- 'iE
-- - i --"Ei
Slimmer 199 7
Speak Now, Speak Often
Make Your Voice Heard
G overnment Officials
Letters to the Editor
What to Do
Governor Mike Leavitt
The Herald Journal
State Capitol Building
Salt Lake Ci ty, UT 84114
Ph# 801-538-1000
Fax: 801-538- 1528
75 West 300 North
Logan, UT 8432 1
Phil 801-752-2121
Fax: 801·753-6642
Please write and urge
ou r government officials
and the public to re-evaluate UOOT's plans and to
consider the more fi sca lly
prudent "Conserva tionis ts'
Alternative" that s till
addresses the need s o f
highway safety and Logan
Canyon . It is not a "do
nothing" proposal.
Be s ure to include your
full name, address, s ignature (except e-mail) and
daytime phone number.
Keep your letter short and
to the point. Write about
your personal experiences
in the canyon and use facts
to s upport your a rguments.
e-mail:
govemori?Jemail .state.u Lus
e-mail: hjleUeri?Jhjnews.com
The SaIt Lake Tribune
Rep. Jim Hansen
U.S. House of Representati\'cs
Washington D.C. 205 15
Phil \-202-225-0453
Fax: 1-202-225-5857
Rodney Terry
Project Manager, UOOT
Ave.
PO Box 12580
Ogden, UT 844 12
Phil 801-399-592 1, ext30S
169 North Wan
Fax: 801-399-5926
liz Schuppert
District Ranger
USFS, Logan District
1500 East Highway 89
Logan, UT 84321
Phil 801 -755-3620
Fax: 80 1-755-3639
Public Forum
PO Box 867
Salt La ke City, UT 84110
Fax: 801·237·2022
Deseret News
Readers' Forum
PO Box 1257
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Fax: 801·237-2121
e-mail: Letters@d esnews.com
The Standard-Examiner
PO Box 951
Ogden, UT 84402-{)951
Phlf 800-234-5505
Phil 801-625-4222
Fax: 801-6254508
e-mail : Letters@standard.ne t
Thank you for
your h e lp !
L()(H, Hilt Oil! 'E\\ \\EII I'\(a. \I:
AW ORLD
(!omCTION
CLOTHING &
Logan Canyon Your Destination?
- Silckpil cking - Skiing -Climbing -Hi king
- Snowshoeing - Sightseeing
Accents
57 SOOT\I lWw • locwI UT 1?4g21
753·3497
htll': I/\"'\\o/l11"rinl'rol'nl11 / ilo o
l
!JON·SAT 11·6
117 North Meln 81
7
�r-----------------------,
YES! I
THE
WANT TO JOIN
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subscription to CANYON WI ND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lois more
o I would like to volunteer.
o Here's 512.00 for a g reat T-shirt.
o I' m broke! Here's five bucks.
o Please add my name to your mailing list.
pl"JSJ51!ippi"g
Name____________________________
PRINTING (0.
5 Ireel____________________________
Cily _ _ _ _ _ _Slale_ _ _. ip _____
Z
Email_ __ _ ___
P h one#
43
SOUT H
100
LOGAN , UTAH
WEST
84321
TEL . 801.752.031 1
make ch«k payable ilnd m ol;1 to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box #1674
L _______________________
Logan, UT 84322·0199
FA X 80 1 . 753 . 316 1
Please consider a donation to LCe. All donations will be
used for the protection of Logan Canyon.
LCC wants to thank the hundreds of individuals, businesses
and foundations who have contributed time, money and
expertise towards the legal defense of Logan Canyon. Your
generous support is appreciated.
.. ..
Wi
!!!!
...... - ............
__ __ .iii . . __ ... .iii _.:;;;;; ___ •
--=- -=-=
==--=
=
-
-== =
=
-=-=- - -
COA.L:J:T:J:ON
BULK RATE
U.s. POSTAGE
Paid
lDgall, IJT
Pe.",;t N"SO
Wor k i n s f or t h e P ro t ec t ion o f
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
." Please Rellew YOllr
Membersllip Today
�----...-.. -- -------...- -------- -----_.....
--- -- --- -- - ----- ---.-------.- .
- ------ - - --- -----
- ---- - - - - ---- - - -- ---- - - ------- - - - -- -- -- - - --- ----- --- - --- -- - - -- -__-.- __ T _ _ _ _-.-
- --- - - -- A
---
--
-------- - -------
N E W S B U L LE TI N FR OM L OGAN CAN YO N COALI T IO N
Vol. 2 No.5
Spril1g 1998
Bass and Parkin to Headline
Logan River Summit
Have you ever seen
an o fficia l Wil d and
Scenic rive r? Have you
ever wonde red i f the
Logan Rive r possesses
such qua lities? And
ha ve you ever wondered why Utah currently has no rivers that
a re being studied fo r
possible incl usion in the
Wild and Scenic system,
let alone a river with the
officia l designation?
Answers to these
questions and more will
be presented at the
" Logan Ri ve r SummitA Confluence of Ideas/'
Saturday May 16, 1998,
from 8:30 to 4:30 at the
Beaver Mountain Ski
Lodge in Logan
Can yon. Fea tured guest
speakers addreSSing the
w ild and scenic issue
w ilJ be nationalJy
known river policy
ex pe rt Drew Par kin and
Utah Rivers Council
director Zach Frankel.
Have you ever wondered w hy
Utah currently has no rivers
that are being studied for
possible inclusion in the Wild
and Scenic system?
Parkin's expe rtise
includes directing wild
and scen ic rivers programs for the National
Park Service. Currently
he consul ts with many
river orga niza tions,
add ressin g a variety of
rive r issues. Parki n also
serves on the board of
di rectors for the Pacific
Rivers Council A native
o f Utah, he now lives in
Cambrid ge,
Massachusetts.
Zach Frankel sta rted
the Utah Rivers Cou ncil
approxim a te ly five
yea rs ago a nd has
become well known
around the state for his
knowledge of Utah
rivers and the man y
threa ts to their wa tershed s.
A lso speaking on
beha lf of ri ver ecosystems will be na ti ona lly
known author Rick
Bass, who w ill bring his
own style of passion for
our na tura l world. He is
widely loved by
Am erican readers. As a
forme r res ident of
Logan, Utah a nd a USU
alumni , Bass often
spea ks of his intimate
relationship with Logan
Canyon and the Logan
Ri ver.
"Sustainable
Watersheds" w ill be the
theme of an afternoon
panel di sc ussion , CO I11p lete w ith a ques tion
and answer period.
Partic ipants include
John Ca rter with Willow
Creek Ecology who will
address riparian and
wa tershed issues,
Wendy Fisher with U tah
Ope n Land s who will
educa te attendees on
such th ings as conservation easemen ts, Wes
Johnson, president of
Utah's Trout Unlimited
who will talk of the
importance of aquatic
protections, and Mike
Timmons, USU landscape arch itectural professor, who will discuss
visual aesthetic issues.
Acting as panel moderator will be Logan 's
own KUSU program
director Lee Aus tin.
It should be noted
that this conference is
(col1lill!u'd 01/ pagt' 4)
�Bridge Fight Averted
On September 8, 1997
potentia l impacts by ceas- bridge up after it has col·
ing construction during
the Logan Canyon
lapsed into the river?
Coalition sent II letter to
the spa\vning season.
.15 there an envi ronmenTom Twedt of BioWest
UDOT's Sto rm Water
tally less damaging
with questions concernPollution Prevention Plan method of bridge
ing the Utah Department clearly stated,
removal? Since UDOT
of Transportation's
"Cons truction activities
plans to crane the new
wi ll be scheduled to
(UDOT) constructi on
bridge into place, it
avoid period s of aquatic
plans for the fall.
seems that they could
BioWes t is the env ironlife cycles (spawning,
crane pieces of the old
men ta l consultant on the
etc.)." Suddenly UDOr
bridge Qu t w i thout droptwo brid ges project in
annou nced that it was
ping it into the ri verbed.
Logan Canyon.
Surpris ingly, the
Our main conidea of demolishing
After LCC's threa t of alt illj uctioll, the old brid ge durcern was over the
pOSSibility that
UDOY {l l mOItIlCe ri there would be ing spawning seaUDOTwould
son, just upstream of
11 0 bridge demolitioll dur;lIg the
demolis h the o ld
a documented
Brow n Trout fall spawning seaso". brown trout spawnLower Twin
Bridge in the fall. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ing area, was su pd uri ng brown
ported by the Utah
trout spawning season.
considering construction
Division of Wildlife
UDOT's Reevaluation of
and bridge demolition
Resources.
the llucc Bridges Project
during the spaw ing seaOur attorney,
son.
for Logan Canyon conRaymond Scott Berry,
tains a good discuss io n of
We were concerned
faxed a memo to UDOT's
the brown trout spawnthat UDOT wou ld use
attorneys, stating our
ing area immedia tely
explosives to blast ou t
in tention to file for an
the brid ge su pports,
downstrea m of Lower
injunction on all b ridge
Tw in Bridge and the
a llow ing the bridge to
construction and demolipotenti al im pacts of
fall into the riverbed.
tion during the spawn ing
increased sediments
They wou ld then drag
season. At the CAT
u pon the eggs a nd fr y of
the b ridge out o f the
(Cooperating Adv isory
riverbed wi th tractors.
spawning trout.
Team) meeting of
According to U
There would be massive
,e
Sep tember 24, UDOT
a mounts o f sediment
Reeva luation, "The
announced there wou ld
be no bridge demolition
Logan River dmvnstrea m introduced in to the ri ver
during the fa ll. They
of Lower Twin Bridge has as the bridge sank into
agreed that all constructhe riverbanks and was
been used as a spaw ning
tion activity in the fall
site by brown trout. ...
dragged out. The loss to
would be li mited to work
riparian areas wou ld be
sedi ments released into
considerable.
on the deck of the bridge,
the Logan Rive r by conh igh above the ri ver.
s truction activities in la te
Our
There would be no work
su mmer, fa ll , and winter
questions included:
in the river or o n the
could suffocate eggs and
- Precisely how much
riverbanks. We believe
fry, which are expected to sed imen t will be in trothis decision by UDOT
be present in this spaw n- duced into the river?
- Exactly how wi ll the old helped to protec t spawning area from about
ing b rO\'vn trou t in Logan
October through March." bridge be removed?
Rive r.
UDOT had previously
- Wha t w ill be the
agreed to minimize
impacts of cu tting th e
2
�-- - -------- =- - - -= - -
=
-
'=
-
:-=..:: '::'
--
--
= :-=.:
- --=-=
=
=::
= :':.: ==
..=..-=..=..=-.=
Sprillg 199 8
An Expert Speaks O u t
UDOT's Confused Data
By LCC Stnff
mates or on how accurate their estimates are.
more than o ne accid ent
per ye<lr, " there is only
one site in the entire
canyon with more than 2
The Logan Ca nyon
Coalition asked Dr.
Everett C. Carte r, of the
Transportation Studies
Cen ter of the University
o f Maryland, to exam ine
the Utah Department of
Transportation's (UOOT)
traffic and accident data .
In his report, Dr. Carter
states, "There is d efiniteIy some confusion concerning acciden ts and
traffic volumes in Loga n
Canyon."
Dr. Carter no tes that
the method UDOT used
to estimate traffic fl ows
in Logan Ca nyon " resu.lted in errors." UDOT
used only one counter at
o ne location in the
ca nyon to count vehicles,
and they then used these
counts to estim ate traffic
volumes in nil sections of
the cn nyon. No information is provid ed on how
they calculated their esti-
Here is one exa mple
of error. In the hig her
accidents pe r yea r." He
states. "One o r two acci-
section of the middle
dents/year is not
ca nyon, and in the uppe r
ca nyon, the estimated
traffic vo lumes that
UDOT used to calculate
acciden t rates declined
in the years 1986 - 1990
compared to 1980 - 1985.
Yet the estimated tra ffi c
volumes in the lower
ca nyon, and in the lower
sectio n of the middle
canyon, show a 7%
increase in 1986 - 1990
VS. 1980 -1985. Why
would traffic volumes
increase in the lower secHons of the canyon in
1986 - 1990 and yet
d ec line in the upper sections? There is no expla nation of this discrepan-
unu sually hi gh"! In
o the r words, the Logan
Ca nyon hig hway is not
an especially dangerous
hig hway.
Special Report 214
from the na tional
Trans portation Resea rch
Boa rd (1987) indicates
tha t the benefit of w idening beyond 34 feet is
"q uite lim ited." Dr.
Ca rter states, "Thus a 34
ft. paved section, especiall y in lig ht of the env iro nmen ta l impact,
should be the upper limi t
in Logn n Cn nyon .... "
UooT is planning a 40
foot hi ghway width
above Beaver MOu.ntnLn,
in s pite of the greater
expense and environmental impact o f this
cy.
Dr. Carter observes
that w hil e there are 9
si tes in the canyon \v ith
DID YOU KNOW?
A bridgt' or .. cit y J tTfl't mu st h .. "c 12
Joint'S to ..
4lJ,000 .. utomobil cs pCt hour. Only I I.. nt' iJ nc.:cssuy
to
40,000 bieyclcs pcr hour.
To
thl' nccd for Middl c Eas t
oi l, U.S. commuters would nced to biercit' to work o nl y l.25 tim cs
wl't'k.
u lo riH to
thc
numbcr of milt'S
could
bf tr'''flcd by th f aYf ragc (yelisl i, 3.000.
.
'IY
• :;-
' 1W..1
PLEASE RIDE YOUR BIKE.
138 NOI»H 100 EASl lOGAN. UrN! 84321
801 -753-3294 MQN.- SAl. 10:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.
G ,,
-_.- ...
--_--
PEVJNE
...
3
:
.......
width, and in spite of
this Specia l Report.
Another report UDOT
apparently ignored,
" Low Cost Methods for
Improving Traffic
Operations on Two-Lane
Roads," wa s published
by the Federal Highwa y
Administra tion in 1987.
This report discusses
low-cost but effecti ve
highway improvements
s uch as slow-vehicle
turnouts and better signing. These improvements have been part of
LCe's propo5<'11 for many
years.
Dr. Carter concludes,
'' In summary, I a m convinced that there is reasonable doubt that a fu ll
scnle/mnjor improvement of the entire
Ca nyon is justified."
.:.
�RIVER
(,,,,lim,"')
be ing underwritte n
th roug h the generos ity
of the ational Ri vers
Coa liti on, w hich is
mad e up of the
America n Ca noe
Assoc., Ameri ca n
Rivers, A meri ca n
Whitewate r Affili a tion,
Na tio nal Wildli fe
Fede ration, Ri ver
Management Society,
Rive r Ne two rk, Sie rra
C lub, and The
Wilde rness Soci ety.
Loca l co-spo nso rs
includ e the Citi zens for
the Protection o f Loga n
Ca nyon and
Brid ge rl and Audubo n.
The ir support is commend able!
Cost for the enti re
day, incl uding a conti ne nta l breakfast and
lu nch, includes $10 for
adu lts and $7.50 for students. Early reg istra tion
is encou raged as seating
is limited to 150 people.
See the enclosed insert
(Uta h mailing o nly) for
m o re info rmatio n. Or
call at 435 / 755-0286.
Why Are Wetlands Important?
Wetlands are important for
ma ny reasons:
Wetlands prevent nooding by hold ing wa ter much
like a sponge. By doing so,
wetlands help keep river
levels norma l and filter and
pu rify the s urface wa ter.
Wetlands accept wa ter
d uring sto rms and w henever water levels arc high.
When wa ter levels are low,
wetland s slowly release
water.
Wetlands also release
vegetative matter into
rivers, which helps feed fis h
in the rivers. Wetlands help
to counter balance the
human effect on rivers by
rej uvenating them and surrounding ecosystems.
Ma ny anima ls that live in
other habitats use wetlands
for migra tion or reprod uction. Fo r example. herons
nest in la rge old trees, bu t
need sha llow areas in order
to wad e for fi sh and aquatic
life. Am ph ibians often for<lgc in upland areas but
return to the water to mate
and reproduce.
Wetlands must not be
thoug ht o f as a unique and
independent habitat. They
arc vital to the survival of
many ecosystems and
......
---...
,.,
,
wild life in genera l.
Unl ike most oth er habita ts, wetlands directly
improve other ceo-systems.
Becausc of its many clea nsing bmefits. wetlands have
been compnred to kid neys.
The analogy is correct, wetlands and kid neys help
con tro l water flow and
cleanse the flow o f liquids
within a system.
Eros ion Contro l
Looking at pictures o f
delt"s, o ne cn n tell that
rivers d eposit" lo t o f mud .
Mud is top soil that has
eroded and w"shed away.
Emergents (plan ts firmly
rooted in the muddy bottom bu t with stalks tha t rise
high above the wa te r su rface) a re able to radica lly
slow the flow o f water. As a
result, they counter the erosive fo rces o f mov ing wa ter
along la kes and ri vers. and
in rolli ng agricultura l landscapes. Erosion control
effo rts in "qua tic areas
often incl ude the planting
of wetlands plants.
Wate r Purifica tion
Wetlands also clean thc
watcr by filtering o ut sedimentation and d ecomposing vegetable ma tter.
Wetlands pla nts help
Adventure,
Sports
-"'-
_.
, _ "_ _ n
..... ......,.
.......
,
4
convert nitrates and other
life-givi ng chemica ls. Soil
thai is inundated with
water is largely oxygen
free, and the microbes and
bacteria in upla nd soils
depend on oxygen to su rvive. TIle activ ity of such
bacteria is centra l to the
breakdown of n utrients into
fo rms usable by the rest of
the bio tic comm unity.
Some wetland s plants
actua lly pi pe oxygen dow n
into their roots, to provide
to special bacteria. Others,
as in peat moss, build up
huge, "a rtificial" g round
areas on wh ich bacteria can
work. Still others, such as
many noating leaf plan ts,
have d ispensed with the
use o f bacteria altogether
and ex tract needed nutrients from the water itsel f.
The ability o f wetlands
to recycle n utrients ma kes
them critical in the overa ll
fun ctioning of the ea rth . No
other ecosystem is as prod uctive nor as un ique in
this conversion process. In
some p laces, in fa ct.
artificial wetlands were
d eveloped solely fo r the
pu rpose o f water purification.
�_ ---------- --------- .. - ------- - - -= - -==
=
=
===
= "": =
:-=..:: '::"
=:-::.:
:-=..::
S p r ill g 19 98
Canyon News Briefs
LCC LAWSUIT UPDATE
Logan Canyon Coa li tion's
lawsuit against UDOT and
the Forest Service is still in
place. We are now compiling
a list of docu ments we will
req uest from these ngencies
during the d iscove ry phase
of the lawsuit.
We are inte rested in
obtai ning copies of UDOT's
calcula tions of tra ffic flow in
Logan Canyon, for examp le.
Based on traffic counts a t a
si ngle loca tion, UDOT has
esti ma ted traffic flow in a ll
sections of the ca nyon highway. Yet there are serious
d iscrepa ncies in UOOT's estimations.
We wi ll request copies of
the surveys the Forest Service
has condu cted on sensitive
species in Logan Canyon.
The Forest Service has
cl aimed there will be "no
impact" of constructi on upon
et
these species. Y it appea rs
tha t for severa l of these
species the surveys have
been inadequa te, if they exist
at aU .
The documents we obtain
through d iscovery will help
LCC sa ve Logan Canyon from
ulU1ecessarily expensive and
destructi ve highway construction.
Deb Eshelman a CPA and
her daughter Amy Casa massa
come on boa rd as LCe's new
Co-Treasurers. Amy's work
w ill apply towards an adva nce
placemen t science cred it fo m
Jac k Green's Logan High class.
Welcome on boa rd.
Canyon Wind Ed itor Dan
Miller w ill be returning to
Cache Va lley to become more
active in LCC projects. He has
been living in Ogden, Utah
and Oregon as his wife pursued her ca reer. Welcome back
Dan .
• Uuknowu impact 0 11 trollt popllia tiolls.
UDOT's estimate is all IIlIeducated guess based
011 il/adeqllate data. COllstrllctiol/ ill the lower
cal/yoH reduced tlw trOll t populations ill sOllie
areas by 80%.
"Coffee with a Cause"
• regular '
$1 .00 is dona rBd ro LCC
Nigh1and Oay
ro.-"""'Y pound sold.
Logan Canyon Coalition is
up and running on the World
Wide Web. Check out our
homepage at:
http://www.logancanyon.org
�Home Canyon
by To m LyO
l1
Comi ng back from a
long trip east, we'd just
dri ven a few hundred
treeless mi les on a hot
and sunny da y. Most of
the last hours had been
in the mined and p um meled landscape of
south west Wyom ing, a
scene tha t hurts to look
a t. We climbed up fro m
Bea r Llke in third
gear- getting close
now, thirty-odd miles to
Logan- a nd then, over
the summ it, started to
s lip d own into the fold s
o f the hills, steeper a nd
closer on the sides as
we wen t, a nd the trees
aga in, the co mpan ionab le river soon to be
alongsid e. We
g limpsed a good-sized
bull moose moving o ff
through the w illows
along Bea ver Cree k. A
certa in sce nt came in on
the window-wind , a
secret fragrance mad e
up of w illow a nd sage,
toba cco bush, fir a nd
cottonwood, river
water, lime rock in the
sun, Loga n Canyon dirt
". we were ho me now.
When we fi rst s tarted tryin g to p rotec t th e
ca nyon from hi ghway
d rea ms, we had the
id ea that public-works
po li cy was p retty much
a rational process. You
sat d ow n w ith the highway d epartm ent a nd
the Fo rest Service, and
you entered the
canyon 's beauty a nd
re la tive intactness in to
the mi x, and the peop le's love for it, the fishing, the skiing, the hiking, the peace a nd quiet
and s lowness of it, th e
way it stood for a
w hole diffe ren t life.
You always men tioned
w ha t w as sadly true,
that Loga n Ca nyon was
the last of its kind of
pl ace in Uta h.
It was disappointing
that none of this ever
go t across to the highway department. Not
in all these yea rs. It
was as if you were talking a n en tirely d ifferent
language. But w hat
was rea lly stunning was
that the Forest Service
did n' t ca re ei the r. The
Forest Serv ice b lew off
its own Forest Plan, a
documen t supposedly
having the force of law,
in orde r to support the
h ighway d rea m. The
Forest Service should
have been the natural
a ll y of the ca nyon.
Instead, in the end, they
a nswered a d eta iled ,
187-page a ppea l (wh ich
a mo unted to the
Env ironme nta l Impa ct
Statement tha t should
have been d one by
those h ired to d o it)
w ith a page and a half
of bureaucratic dismissa l.
So w ha t we have
lea rned is tha t we are
on o ur ow n, and we
have to be tough a nd
pe rsistent if we wa nt to
be heard- if we wa nt
the canyon to be hea rd .
We can' t just expect
people to be rationa l,
and we can ' t assume
tha t everyone loves the
canyon more than they
love the h ighway
drea m. (Probably a lot
o f people think we can
have the o ld, good
ca nyon and a big hig hway through it.) This
w ho le time has been a
kind of edu ca tion in
realism. That's the
politica l part. In the
hea rt part, it's mad e us
th ink about w hat we
rea ll y va lue, firmed us
down to the home
things.
POSSESSfONS
28 FaSuai A l.ogan.lJI'. 84321
vt.
.......
'7:'.
(IIOU 755-0851
FIne l ob .. « o ,
Logall Ca lly o ll Post cards
Co u'!t'Syof
S tud io 404 rh o tog r.- phy,
Alan Hu es ti s
, ...,,,
J-. 5· s.5O I 4· , 6- S.75
USU nod
log.1n. Ulah 84322.{l L
99
a
M .. t dphy , ,, .. L N e rd ,
' d l 011, a H('f b ,
Pon(A1U>:I 0#
EDWARD Aaa EV
1[ NO t l t .50 IINO $l .oo
lee
USU 8 0l( .
L OCOIIN. U TilI!
Lee T·StliRfli· 512.00 (3 mlor)
'011.-0,,,
6
755-8657
�------== = ==
=
S p ri n g 1 9 9 8
Speak Now, Speak Oftell
Make Your Voice Heard
G overnment Officials
Letters to the Editor
What to Do
Governor Mike Leav itt
State Capitol Building
5.111 La ke City, UT 84114
Th e Herald Journa l
75 West 300 North
Logan, UT84321
Ph# 801-538-1000
Fax: 801-538-1528
e-mail:
governor@email.sta le.u t. us
Ph# 801-752-2121
Fax: 801-753-6642
Please w rite and urge
our government officials
and the public to re-evalua te UOOT's plans and to
consider the more fisca lly
prudent "Conservationists'
Alternative" that s ti ll
add resses the needs of
h ighway safety and Logan
Canyon. It is not a "do
nothi ng" proposa l.
Be su re to include your
fuJI name, address, signature (except e-mail) and
d ay time phone number.
Keep your letter short and
to the point. Write about
you r personal experiences
in the canyon and usc fac ts
to s upport your argumen ts.
Rep. Jim Hansen
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515
Ph# 1-202-225-0453
Fax: 1-202-225-5857
Rod ney Terry
Project Manager, UOOT
169 North Wall Ave.
PO Box 12580
Ogden, UT 84412
Ph# 801-399-5921, ext3Q5
Fax: 801-399-5926
Brian Ferebee
District Ranger
USFS, Logan District
1500 East H ighway 89
Logan, UT 84321
Ph# 801-755-3620
Fax: 801-755-3639
e-mail: hjletter@hjncws.com
The Salt Lake Tribu ne
Public Forum
PO Box 867
$.1[t L.1ke City, UT 84110
Fax: 801-237-2022
Deseret News
Readers' Forum
PO Box 1257
Salt Lake Ci ty, UT 84110
Fax: 801-237-212 1
e-mail: Letters@desnews.com
The Standard-Exam iner
PO Box 951
Ogden, UT 84402-095 1
Ph# 800-234-5505
Ph# 801-6254222
Fax: 801-625-4508
('-mai[: Letters®Standard.net
LOOK FOR O[' R :>IE\\
AW
ORLD
Or
Tha n k you for
yo u r h e l p!
"Ell PA(a: AT:
Logan Ca nyon You r Destin ation?
&
- Backpa ckin g . S kii ng -Climbing -Hiking
- Snows hoein g . S ig htseei ng
Accent5
57
IANN • loGANUT l?4 g21
117 North Main SI
7
�r-----------------------,
YES! I
WANT TO
JDIN THE
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and rece ive a s ubscription to CANYON W1ND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots more
o I would like to volunteer.
o Here's $12.00 for a great T-s hirt.
o I' m broke! Here's five bucks.
o Please add m y name to your mailing list.
p/IIs SJ shippillK
Name _______________________________
H
RA
PRINTING
LD
(0.
5Ireel._____________________________
Cily_ _ _ _ _ _ Slale'____ Zip, _____
Email _____________
Phone#
Please
check p" Y.l ble and mail to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box #1674
L _______________________
Logan, UT 84322-0199
43
SOUTH
LOGAN ,
10 0
UTAH
WEST
84321
TEL .43 5 .752. 0311
FA X 435 .753.3 161
Please consider a donation to LCC. All donations will be used for the protection of
Logan Can yon. LCC wants to tha nk the hW1dred s of individuals, businesses a nd
fOW1dations who have contributed tin1e, money and expertise towa rds the lega l
d efense of Logan Canyon. Your generous support is appreciated.
BU LK RATE
U.S. I'OSTAGE
Paid
COAL:l:T:l:O:N'
Work ing for th .. P rotection of L og.n Canyon
Logtl1r. UT
N"SO
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
II' Plea se Renew
YOllr
Melllbership Today
�A NEWS B ULLETIN FR OM L OGAN C ANYON C OALITION
Vol. 3 No.1
Sum mer 1999
Logan River is Eligible for
Wild & Scenic Designation
In January the Wasatch-Cache National al value of this river segment. Concerning recreForest released its draft Rivers Eligibility Study. ation, "highly scenic pristine rivers/ corridors are
This study reports that Beaver Creek and a twen- of higher value" (draft Eligibility Study). The
ty mile-long segment of the Logan River are eligi- Forest Service is mandated to protect the scenery,
ble for Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. The recreation, and other outstandingly remarkable
Logan River segment has been found to have five, values of rivers eligible for Wild and Scenic desmore than any other river in the forest, outstand- ignation.
ingly remarkable values including scenery, fishUDOT is planning cuts into the mountaineries, recreation, ecology, and geology I hydrolo- side at Upper Twin Bridge that will be vertical or
gy. The Logan River is truly the jewel of the "as vertical as possible." This was not evaluated
Wasatch-Cache National - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - in the FE IS or In
Forest.
UDOT's Record of
We believe that the
Decision. We still do
of
not know how extenUtah
Depa rtment
the Logan as Utah's first
Transportation's (UDOT's)
sive these cuts will be.
Wild and Scenic River
nex t phase of highway
Vertical rock cu ts will
construction w ill harm ___...._______________ not revegetate and will
these values. We are asking that a Supplemental harm the natural appearance and hence the
Environmental Impact Statement be required for scenery and recreational value of this river corrithis highway project.
dar.
Recent design p lans show tha t UooT is
We a re concerned that construction
planning to build approximately 2,275 feet of impacts on Wild and Scenic values are not being
retaining wa lls adjacent to the Logan River seg- evaluated properly. There was no detailed evalument eligible for designation. These wa lls were ation of impacts in either the Final Environmental
not evaluated in the FEIS for this project or in Impact Statement or in the Record of Decision.
UooT's Record of Decision. Seventy-five percent UooT intends to evaluate the impacts of the next
of these walls will be "basket walls," which are phase of construction in a Reevalua tion document.
wire baskets filled with rocks. These walls are not This entirely ignores the impacts of the remaining
attractive in a na tu ral setting. They will not highway project.
appear natura l and will harm the scenery of this
UDOT and the Forest Service are segmentriver segment. They will also harm the recreation- ing this project in their evaluation of impacts
Leave a True Legacy
�Wild & Scenic ("...".."d)
which is a violation of Forest
Service policy and the National
Environm en tal
Policy
Act
(NEPA). From recent design
plans, the next phase of construction covers on ly about
three and a half miles of highway. UOOT is planning an additional approximate ly thirteen
and a half miles of highway
const ruction that will potentially impact Wild and Scenic values, from the Dugway to the
canyon summit.
The danger of segmenting this
project is that once the next
phase of construction is underway, UOOT will be committed
to its larger highway project
with uneva luated and potentially damaging impacts to the
Wild and Scenic va lues of these
rivers. Issues that should be
addressed include: what will be
the ex tent of the required retaining wa lls and vertical cuts as
construction is extended into
th e remaining upper Midd le
Canyon? Will we see a miniDugway a long Uppe r Twin
Bridge and Temp le Fork? In
short, how ugly is this going to
get? According to Forest Service
policy, "Groups of actions,
when added together, may have
collective or cumulative impacts
which are Significant.
Consideration must be given to
the incremental effects of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable related future actions of the
Forest Service, as well as those
of other agencies and individuals."
We have requested that a supplemental
Environmental
Impact Statement (SE IS) be
required for this highway project in which the entire project
is evaluated with respect to the
Wild and Scenic va lues of these
rivers. Forest Service policy
requires that there be an SEIS
whenever there are "significant
new circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns .... " Surely the fact
that the Logan River segment
and Beaver Creek ha ve been
found eligib le for Wild and
Scenic designation is significant
new information. in an SEIS the
purpose and need for a ll
planned construction should be
clearly demonstrated . While we
agree that some highway
r'OSSESS'ONS
28 Federal Ave. Logan, Uf. 84321
Home Accessories,
CoUectibles,
Jewelry,
Gifts
755-0857
2
improvements are needed, such
as replacing the worn bridges,
UOOT has never demonstrated
the purpose and need for their
extensive proposal.
We agree with this statement
by Drew Parkin, an expert on
Wild and Scenic Rivers policy, " .
. . designation as a wild and
scenic river will not preclude
improvement to the highway. It
would, however, require that
UDOT take special precautions,
both in design and construction,
to ensure that the road does not
alter flow regimes, that important
natural
and
scenic
resources are preserved, and
that short-term disruptions to
the river are minimized. Even if
this costs a little more, it would
result in a superior project that
multiple
meets
long-term
needs."
& A«t'ssones
M f'taphyslcdl N t'ed ..
E..
Oil s & HNbs
11
755-8657
Toys thaL
capt.ure a
child's
ima8inaLion!
14bN l OO[
I.
".
... A ....,nu.,O lo9 .. n
UT
•
·
Moon
Toys
*
*
75 HlO'5 5
�- -- -- Summer 19 99
Dear Logan City Council:
CANYON LOVERS
My wife and I lived in Logan from 1955, when we came as college stud ents,
until just last yea r. We raised three sons in Logan, and Logan will always be
our heart's country. We absorbed Cache Valley. The silhouette of the mountains, east up the canyon and west across the valley, is still the horizon line
of O UT life.
I wou ldn't mention this background if I didn't think a great many people
share such feelings. Few things go as deep as the sense of home.
Unfortunately, sometimes the deepest values get taken for granted. We're all
very busy. We can even forget to think about the abso lute beauty and purity
of Logan River, coming down the canyon and through the town. Su rely
there can't be many towns anywhere in the world that can say: a wild, clean
river comes down ou t of the mountains to us; there is no one, no town,
upstream.
I think about Logan River a lot these days. Our irrigation and drinking
wa ter here in coastal California is sparse; it comes a long way, and it has
been used several times. There is no way, with all the engineering capability
in the world, we could create the kind of situation Logan has.
So, speaking from deep care for Logan and from the knowledge of how easy
it is to lose natura l resources, and how hard it is to get them back, I respect-
fully urge the Council to endorse Logan River as a Wild and Scenic River.
Logan is lifeblood. Please protect it.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Lyon
_ , eo-.-. soo .....
PLEASE RIDE
YOUR BIKE
W EB SITE D eSIGN, D eVELOPMENT,
H OSTING, AND P ROMOTION SERVICES
http://zmorlner.com
Info@zmoriner.com
435-755-6595
138 Norm'i 100 EAsT
lOGAN. UtAH 84321
4351753-3294
MoN. - SM.
10:00 .... 1.4 . - 6:00 P.M.
G
PEVINE
II
3
-_
---
,t
l
*" U__l_ '
• ll
... .... ....,
we
Dan Miller
Jaynan Chancellor
Deb Eshelman
Gordon Steinhoff
Derek Staab
Graham Hunter
Kevin Kobe
Tim Wagner
John Carter
Amanda Th immes
Mark Lunt
Bridgett Kobe
Creed Clayton
Carolyn StOnge
Brooke Bigelow
Jim Vandygriff
Coalition
Supporters
-R ick Bass
-Terry Tempest
Williams
oRobert Redford
-C.L. Rawlins
-Sierra Club
-Utah Rive rs Council
-Tom Lyon
-National Rive rs
Coalition
-Maki Foundation
�Canyon News Briefs
Sincere Gratitude
Members of the Logan Canyon
Coalition wou ld like to wholehea rtedly thank Dan Miller for all he has
done for the orgaruza tion . Dan has
lead Lee during his year as president with tremendous energy and
insight. Under his leadership several important adva nces have been
made for Lee including a commitment to getting the Logan River
designated as Utah 's first Wild and
Scenic river.
Dan continues to be active in
Lee, and we are always grateful for
his common sense and unwavering
support. Tha nks Dan, and we wish
you the best w ith your ex tra ti me!
Lee Board of Directors
LOOKING AH E AD
Fall Fundraiser
Lee is proud
to announce its fall
fundraiser: Jerry Joseph and the Jack
Mormons. They will be playing in
the Amphitheatre on Old Main Hill,
USU campus on September 3rd at
7:00 PM . Tickets will be $7 for nonstudents and $5 fo r students.
Giardia Run
Thursday, September 9th at 5:49
PM. Meet at the HPER on the USU
camp us and run to the White Owl.
$15 includes a T-shirt; $10 without.
This year 's theme: Y2K!!
Get Inspired!
Announcing the first annua l " Art
from the River" celebration. Send
your artistic entries inspired by
Logan River (painting, d rawing,
pottery, writing, textiles, or music)
to Brooke Bigelow, 1371 E. 900 N.,
Loga n, Utah 84321. All entries will
be honored at the River Festiva l on
September 18th and special recognition will be given to outstanding
entires in each of three categories:
children 3 to 5 years old; children 6
to 12 years old; and children 13 and
over. Be sure to include your name,
phone number, and age with your
ent ry.
Christmas Auction
With the completion of Dan's
term as preSident, managing and
governing responsibilities for LCC
are being handled through a temporary board of directors. A permanent board will be installed by vote
at the next Lee general meeting in
January. Any LCC member interested in being on the board of directors
should attend bimonthly meetings,
the fi rst and third Tuesday of the
month at 7:30 at Merlin Olsen
Central Park (100 South 200 East).
Logan River Festival
The second annual Logan River
Festival will be at First Dam from
noon to 3 PM on Saturday,
September 18th. Bring your kids,
neighbors. and friends and come
enjoy the Logan River. There w ill be
games, canoe rides, art activities
and displays, and vendors. (For
more informa ti on or to get in volved,
contact Jaynan Chancellor at 7532553.)
Adventure
Sports
4
It's not too early to be thinking
about the LCC Christmas auction.
Watch fo r fur ther details. In the
meanwhile, gather those donations
or services suitable for auction, and
continue the gift by donating your
"classy junque" to be treasured by
someone else for a recycled
Christmas. For more information or
to store donations, contact Jaynan
Chancellor at 753-2553 or Brooke
Bigelow at 753-5682. Thanks for
your generous contribution!
�Summer 1999
Memo To: Brian Dixon, Bridgerland Audubon, Chris Wilson, Cache Anglers, Kathy Gilbert, Citizens For
Protection of Logan Canyon, Dick Carter, High Uintahs Preservation Council, Jon Marvel. Idaho Watersheds
Project, Dan Miller, Logan Canyon Coalition, Ron Younger, Utah Chapter Sierra Club, Barrie Gilbert, Utah
Wildlands Heritage
From: John Carter, Willow Creek Ecology
Re: Logan Canyon/Logan River Protection Zone
I am writing this as a result of the many issues and activities involving Logan Canyon/Logan River, includ ing the
recent land swap, ongoing highway construction, increasing recreational use, second home development, logging
and continued livestock grazing all affecting wildlife, habitat, water quality and aesthetics. Those of us who love
Logan Canyon and all it symbolizes, and the reluctance of the Fores t Service to effec t progressive change as evidenced by the recent rejection of our appeal of the Bear Hodges project show us we ca nnot depend on science or
logic alone. It also shows us that we need community support and unity among ourselves with SOfl)e common
goals and objectives.
To this e nd , I am s uggesting the Logan Canyon/Logan River Protection Zone that recognizes the high quality of
the scenic and wildli fe attributes of the Logan River Watershed, and urges protection. Because of the many sensitive species or habitats recogni zed by the Forest Service as exis ting in the Logan Canyon area and are threatened,
as a group we should demand protection of these watersheds, elimination of livestock grazing and other destructive forest practices and that a p roper value be placed on the natural attributes of the Canyon.
Because of the Bonneville Cutthroa t Trout a nd its potential listing as endangered, Willow Creek Ecology expanded
its monitoring of the Logan River and its tributaries at the end of 1998. We are collecting samples at up to 20 locations, docume nting s ilt loadings, fecal coliform pollution and other general water quality parameters. We are also
assembling a data base of Logan River stud ies of water quality, fisheries, invertebrates, habitat and hydrology.
Our initia l purpose is to comment to the Fish and Wildlife Service in support of listing since a large portion of
Bonneville Cu tthroat Trout populations in Utah exists in the Logan River. Many factors threaten its continued existence including habitat alteration and whirling disease.
I think it is important that we discuss how to combine our efforts and concerns into an effective strategy, gai n public support and pressure the Forest Service and other public entities toward our chosen goals. We saw how iIIinformed the City of Logan was on Wild and Scenic River Status. I think we should use quality of life, economics
and watershed health as driving factors in gaining public support for protection. After all, the watersheds above
Sa lt Lake City are worthy of protection for a variety of reasons, why not here?
�Leave A True Legacy
The Logan as Utah's First Wild and Scenic River
We the undersigned hereby declare oui' support for segments of the Logan River to be designated as Utah 's first Wild
and Scenic River under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as long as that designation doesn't
interlere with traditional uses now enjoyed by the public.
Signature
Print name
Street
City
Siale
Zip
-------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+----t------------ ;
•
z
•
.;
•
•
"
•
,
-------------------------f-------------------------+------------------------+----------------------f----t------------ "
i
-------------------------t-------------------------t------------------------+---------------------1----1------------ 2
•
•
RETURN CO M P l ET E O P ETITIO N S TO THE LOG A N CA N YON COALITION. USU BOX. fl6H . LOGAN. U TAH U 322·01 99
�NOT LATER
WRITE NOW!
Wild and Scenic
Bernie We ingardt
The Wild and Scen ic Rivers Act of
1968 is unique among environmental
Jaws in the world because of its p oten tial
to protect free-nowing rivers and riversections. Yet less than one percent o f the
nation 's total river m iles is included in
the National Wild and Scen ic Rivers
System, and NOT ONE o f Utah 's beautiful rivers has th is outstanding d is tinction.
In 1998 the 30th anniversary of the
Wild an d Scenic Act was celebrated
across the nation. Lee is hoping to
extend thai celebration to Utah before
another 30 yea rs passes with the designation o f the Logan River as Wild and
Scenic. Pub lic support is crucial to m a king th is happen. Show your su pport by
encouraging policy-m a kers to leave a
true legacy in Uta h and recomme nd th e
Logan Ri ver as the firs t Uta h river
inducted into the N a tio na l Wild a nd
Scenic Rivers Syste m .
T h a nk yo u for
your h e l p!
T he Salt l ak e Tri bune
Wasatch-Cache Nationa l Forest
8230 Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City. Utah 84138
Public Forum
PO Box 867
Salt Lake City, UT 841 10
Fax:
Bria n Fe re bee
District Ranger
U5FS, Logan District
1500 East Highway 89
Logan, UT 84321
Ph# 435-755-3620
Fax: 435-755-3639
Desere t New s
Readers' Forum
PO Box 1257
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Fax: 801-237-2121
e-mail: Letters@desnews.com
Logan City Counci l
255 North Main, Logan
UT,84321
The S ta ndard-Examiner
PO Box 951
Ogden, UT 84402-0951
Phil 800-234-5505
Ph# 801--6254222
Alan D. Allred
Karen S. Borg
John L. Harder
e-mail: Lelters@standard.net
Ja nice Pearce
Stephen C. Thompson
Mayor Douglas E. Thompson
Lette rs t o the Edit or
The H e rald Journ al
75 West 300 North
Logan, UT 84321
Ph# 435-752-2121
Fax: 435-753-6642
e-mai l: hjletter@hjnews.com
A WORLD
Logan Canyon Your Destination?
&
-BlCkpildc.in g oS ki ing - C lim b ing oHiking
oSno ws hotin g oSightstt in g
Accents
57 Sourn MAIN • locAII Uni'49 21
753·3497
7
�r--------------------,
J WANT TO JOIN THE
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
LOGAN RIVER
and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND
SCENIC RIVER
YES!
""""
UTAH'S Uri. WILD aad
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $JO $40 $50 Lots more
o I would like to volunteer.
o Here's $12.00 for a great T-shirt.
o I' m broke! Here's five bucks.
o Please add my name to your mailing list.
,llUllu.;,.,;",
LEAVE A
LEGACY
n
•• LOG"_ AI UrAl" 'Ian WItD "_D IC'_IC a",.
Name ________________________________
Streetl ________________________________
City, ______:State
Phone'
Zip, _______
E-mail _____________
Plun ..... ke check
Support the Logan River
and null to,
include shipping
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box'1614
L _____
Order these new Wild and Scenic bumper
stickers for the Logan River. A $2.00
donation for each sticker will
_____
Please consider a donation to Lee. All donations will be used for the protection of Logan
Canyon. Lee wants to thank the hundreds of individuals, businesses, and founda tions who have
contributed time, money, and expertise towards the legal defense of Logan Canyon.
Your generous support is appreciated.
.... ...................
Wi
!!
=-=--
. . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ • •;:.... _ .
-
- ---
!!'
--= =
-
BULK RATE
US POSTAGE
- -
Paid
CO.4.L:J:T:J:ON
Loga", UT
Pnm,' N° 39
WorkIng f o r Ih e Prolullo n of l oga n Canyon
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
.,t
Please Renew Your
Membership Today
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Image Height
3335
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
2607
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/716">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/716</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
300
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
Grayscale
Checksum
2464155604
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
LCC newletter, "Canyon Wind"
Description
An account of the resource
Newsletters updating the events of Logan Canyon Coalition including but not limited to the formation of LCC, denial of appeal, violations of FEIS, lifting of the stop work order, and the eligibility of Logan River for wild and scenic designation.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kobe, Kevin
Lyon, Tom
Wagner, Tim
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Wilderness areas
Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Newsletters
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Logan Canyon Coalition
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 8
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd8
Highway 89;