1
50
2
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/3d6ff3d966f70a9c28eb6a7ce384ba69.pdf
000bb71612f5c5ec22029533e7d37362
PDF Text
Text
~-
.. -
EDUCATION CAMPAIGN
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, Cache Anglers,
Logan Canyon Coalition, Bridgerland Audubon Society,
Willow Creek Ecology
Land Management in Logan Canyon
W e, in Cache Valley, are extremely for tunate to
have Logan Canyon and surrounding public lands in
our backyard. While there are some private and state
lands in the Canyon, most is federal land . It is owned
by yo u, the citizen.
As an owner, yo u have the responsibility to be
aware of past, present and proposed activities that can
affect the long-term health of this land for future generations. The purpose of this publication is to bring
these issues to you and help you become involved.
.
-- - p
J
CII ..
-
Cache Anglers
U
fCCKOG' ~
,-,
S everal public interest organizations are involved
in protecting Logan Canyon.
For 30 years Citizens for the Protection of Logan
Canyon (CPLC), and la ter Logan Canyon Coalition
(LCC), have worked to protect the canyon from
excessive and costly highway construction.
The mission of Bridgerland Audubon Society, a
Cache Valley institution, is to conserve, enhance, an d
enjoy the na tural environment with special emphasis
on birds and their habitats for the benefit and education of humanity and for the biological d iversity of
the earth.
Willow Creek Ecology is an organization devoted
to better management of p ublic lands th rough scientific research, ed ucation and d irect action.
Cache Ang lers is an organization dedica ted to the
protection and promotion of local fisher ies and
their habitats.
~<>
BOII/u'vi lle ell IIIrroof
•
The Logan River is a quality source of life.
"Your present localion is designed to
you for a refuge, a place of rest; therefore see to it that ye pollute 110t your
inheritance, for if you do, you might
expect that the judgement of heaven
will be poured out upon you."
- Brigham Young
�.M LOGAN CANYON
-D
EDUCATION CAMPAIGN
Highway Construction
Proposed improvements of Highway 89 have been the most visible issue in Logan
Canyon for a long time. Although conservation gro ups wanted to protect the canyon
from excessive highway construction, they also recognized the need for improvements, such as bridge replacements. Two bridges (Burnt and Lower Twin) have been
replaced . The next construction project is the section between Franklin Basin and
Tony Grove, including the replacem ent of Upper Twin Bridge. This is a sensitive area
since the Logan River is very d ose to the highway. Protection of the river w ill be a crudal concern. Accident statistics for the last three years in this area indicate that 70%
of the collisions are animal impacts and the remainder are cars off the road or car
swipes with no fatalities, showing that speed is a major factor in canyon accidents. A
wider and straighter highway will enc01.lrage drivers to increase speeds, resulting in a
more dangerous highway. While highway construction remains a very important
issue, it is time to broaden our concern to other issues that impact the canyon and its
watershed . What are these issues impacting the natural beauty of Logan Canyon?
Wild and Scenic Logan River
The Logan River has recently been found eligible by the Forest Service for Wild and
Scenic classification. Parts that are eligible are a six mile section from the Idaho stateline to the Beaver Creek confluence and a 20 mile section from the Beaver Creek confluence to Third Dam. A suitability study is next; and following that, an act of
Congress to make the designation official. This process will be long and likely contentious; particularly in a state with an unsympathetic congressional delegation and
many opponents who have and will make fa lse claims and accusations. The Wild and
Scenic Act is an excellent way to protect a river in its natural state and its current form
of management. It still allow s for private property rights, hunting and fishing, and
other activities that will not harm its remarkable qualities. Certain restrictions do
apply that must be spelled out ~n a negotiated management plan. Hundreds of communities across the nation have benefited from such designations. The Logan City
Council has been asked to support the Wild and Scenic designation, and we hope they
will recognize what an ...... OW' river is to our community.
-
-
LOGAN RIVER
----
WIW&SCENIC
....
,--
~-
,
t
The Federal-State Land Swap
In January, 1999 the long-debated land swap between the State of Utah and
the federal government became official. The State of Utah became the owner of
apprOximatel y 3(XX) acres near Beaver Mountain and became the landlord for the
Beaver Mountain Ski Resort. Since the mission for the School and Institutional Trust
Lands Administration (SITLA) is to provide income to the public school system, they
could sell the land to the highest bidder. Their mandate is to manage lands for thei r
"highest and best use." This swap has raised concerns among a number of groups.
Bddgerland Audubon, Logan Canyon Coalition (LCC) and Citizens for the Protection
of Logan Ca nyon (CPLC), the Great Western Trail Association, Backcountry
Horsemen, Cache Valley High Markers and the owners of Beaver Creek Lodge cooperated to form the Beaver Creek Land Alliance. Their primary interest is preserving
the scenic vistas and maintaining public access. Although there are county zoning regulations for private lands, SITLA can override local zoning regulations and develop
land according to its agenda.
........ 5<_.-.
Could tile land around Beaver MO
llrlta;n be developed Wit/I cOlldomi"iums a1ld mufti-millio1l dollar IIomes ? YE S!
Motorized Recreation
In recent years the dramatic rise and ind iscriminate use of motori zed recreation, ind uding ATV's and snowmobiles, has resulted in tremendous impacts. Wildlife and Forest Serv ice enforcement personnel are overwhelmed with countless incidents of new "ghost" roads being
forged, vand alized gates, hillsides being denuded, stream banks destroyed, and illegal travel in wilderness areas. Often it is a small per.:entage of users who are the violators. But as the total number of off-road vehicles increases, more impacts are guaranteed and the threa t to
w ildlife increases. While such vehicles are valid and legal forms of recreation, there will come a time when the Forest Service w ill need to
restrict their access.
�LOGAN CANYON'"
EDUCATION CAMPAIGN -0Erosion due to lack of vegetative cover from grazing i1l tile
North Rich Callie Allotment.
Impacts i1lclllde ground cover
reduced to 23%, 1055 of soilllll tri~
ell ts vital to plan t Viability, and
tile tra mpli1lg of springs arid
small stream chari nels to the
pairlt where they no longer exist.
These problems are serial/sly
compoll rlded by tile irrespollsible
lise of ORV's over these lands.
-
-
Livestock Grazin g
Seventy-two thousand acres of Logan Canyon are divided into 25 allobnents for grazing
sheep and cattle. Some areas are being overgrazed and stream banks in riparian areas are being
trampled, resulting in increased sediment, loss of aquatic life, and the loss of stream side
tree/shrub canopies. This results in warmer water temperatures and loss of fish habitat.
Watershed d egradation by livestock has been documented on forest lands in Spawn Creek in
the Temple Fork drainage. During the summer of 1997, Spawn Creek had four times the allow~
able count of fecal coliform, at precisely the same time as
These bacteria are indi~
~_ _ cators of disease.causing organisms for-such diseases
Allotments near
tospirosis. Another example is the Little Bear Sheep and
summit. Impacts include ground cover reduced to 23%, loss of soil nutrients vital to plant v i a ~
biIi ty, and the tramp ling of springs and small stream channels to the point where they no longer
exist.
A loss of diverse ground covers results in the decline of wild life such as snowshoe hare and
grouse. This fu rther results in a decline of animals that prey on small mammals, such as the
goshawk. In fac t, goshawk numbers have decreased so significantly that it has been listed as a
sensitive species, wi th several attempts since the ea rl y 90's to list it as endangered. The Forest
Service has recen tly undertaken a project to provide a managemen t d irection that maintains or
restores fu nctioning forested habitats for this bi rd .
National Forests are OUT watersheds, the source of three- fourths of our d rinking water in the
West. A growing sector of the public is demand ing a return to pristine mountain streams ra ther
than streams and meadows tra mpled into mud and littered with cow manure. Improved care
and proper management are imperative for the l ong~ t e rm health of our forests. Not onl y is g raz~
ing degrad ing o ur public lands when improperly managed, but it also heav il y subsidized by
the you, the taxpayer. For every $3 in profit made by the permitee, taxpayers contribu te $4 in
subsidies; hence, ano ther reason for needed reforms.
-
Grolllld cover after grazi/lg.
Ground COl'tr witllout grazing.
Logging
The Bear Hodges Ana lysis project includes plans by the Forest Service
to log nearly 3.5 million board feet of timber near the summit of Logan
Canyon. This tree harvesting project in both the T. W. Daniels Forest
(USU) and Wasatch·Cache National Forest, is an attempt to "restore" the
spruce-fir forest to an iII-defined "historic" condition through si lviculture
tech niques. Si lvicultu re is the practice of growing and cutting timber.
Managi ng pine ba rk beetle infestation by logging this stand of old trees
is also a component of this project. It is a doubtful practice, one that has
fail ed to control beetle infestations on most other forests; and it is often
used as a rationalization for timber harvests. It also ignores the larger his~
to ric role that pine ba rk beetles play in the ecosystem. Dead and d ecay~
ing trees provide necessa ry wildlife habitat and nutrients for new forest
growth . There is a larger concern that trees in the Bear Hodges area are
a remnant old g row th fo rest, one that sho uld be preserved for the sake of
biological d iversity.
ClearC/lt ill Bear Hodges area tllat liaS /l ot regt!1lerated ill 30 years.
�LOGAN CANYON,
EDUCATION CAMPAIGN
"Destroying the last wild
places ... is like tearing the
last pages from the Bible."
- Robert F. Kennedy
-
Updating the Forest Management Plan
The Forest Service is currently in the process of revising its forest management plan. This will provide direction for forest management for the next 10-20 years. The
new plan will focus on ecosystem management, a form
of management that considers all the impacts on the
long-term sustainability of the forest, and one that could
possibly conflict with the current "multiple-use" concept
of permitting logging, grazing, mining, and all types of
recreational activities. Resolving these issues in a way
that reflects more than special interests will require public input throughout the development of a new forest
plan. Citizens must be part of this process if they want
healthy forest lands for future generations.
Input from grassroots organizations must move forward. If you care and want to know more about these
issues, send us your name and address on the form
below.
We will inform you when there are crucial issues
where citizen input is essential. Your name will remain
confidential. If the Forest Service knows there is broad
support in the community, they will be more likely to
act in the broad public interests, rather than special
interests. Only through citizen action, with the help of
experts in OUf community, can we lobby for meaningful change in forest management.
YES! I'd like to help support the
Logan Canyon Education Campaign
"The last word ir/ ignorance is the person who says
of an on;mal "what good;s it ?" if the land mechanism as a whole ;s good, then every part is good,
whether we understand it or not ... who but a fool
would discard seemingly lIseless parts? To keep
every cog and wheel is the first precaution of inte/-
Tour contributions 10 directly to contlnulaa education
proJects lor savlne: Lopn Canyon.
H~IT 's a In ded,,'tJb~
(Ullnbution
Name' __________________
a
Add ress ________________
o
S<rnl _ _ _ rop i ~ of t hi~
newsle tter to rcdistnbutc
City, Stilte, Zip ____________
a
ru t ~ on you r ~mo, 1 Itst
a
r UI me on tt.;, mo iling ItSt for:
ligent tinkering."
a
- Aida Leopold
E-mail _______________
Contribution S ____________
Logan Canyon Education Campaign
P.O. Bt))o; 6001 North Log.In, Utah 84341-6001
BndgerlMldAudubon
a
Cad'" Anglers
a
C'lIlt'llS for the 1
'1'01(,(,lIen
of
a
a
Los-m Canyon
I",,*,n Canyon C"ahtiOIl
AU t.... lIbm·c
�r
.-----------------------------------------------, ~
CANYON VIEWS
Volu.me 2
Citizen fo r the Protection of Logan Canyon
December, 1996
VIEWFROM
THE CHAIR
By LAUREN KEL LER
C PLC continues to broaden its scope in our quest
to protect the beauty and d iversity o f Logan Canyon.
The Winter Recreati on Group. invo lving skiers,
snowmobilers and other agencies, will be meeting
again after a summer break. The first phase of the
road design and construction, specifically the
bridges, will be und er way th is spring. Cattle and
sheep grazing in the Canyon is being studied. The
Scenic Byways are in the final design phase and, of
course, we arc always in need of fund s.
One of our many concerns regarding to Logan
Canyon is the shared ski and snowmobile use of
trai ls and back country. For the past year we have
been working with the Chamber of Comm erce, the
Cache Vall ey Hi gh Markers (a Snowmobi le Club),
and the Forest Servi ce. One of the objectives of thi s
gro up is to submit a proposal to the Forest Service
which would restrict the use of snowmobiles in some
areas. The group is also looking for ways to
Improve trai l etiquette, safety, parking, public
awareness of motori zed restrictions and wilderness
boundari es, and interaction between skiers and
I n this issu,.e...
S HARED USE FOR S KJER S AND
SNOWMOBILERS . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
BRIDGE CONSTR UCTION BEGINS IN
THE S PRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
VOL UNTEERS ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MEMBER S HIP . ........ . ... • ... . ....
2
2
3
3
snowmobiles. C PLC would al so like· to improve
communication between ski ers and the Forest
Service, so we are hosting a "meet the Forest Service
Ski Day" . On Dec. 26, from 9 am through 12 noon,
we wi ll be at the Tony Grove parking lot with hot
chocolate. The Forest Service will be there, ready to
li sten to any of your ideas and concerns. It is
important that we let them know there are a Jot o f
sk iers in Cache Valley and that there are a lot of
ski ers who use Logan Canyon.
Also, along thi s theme, we would like to
encourage skiers of all levels to keep a ski log for the
winter. We need to know the date, the location, the
length of the ski, number o f people, and any
comments. For example: Jan . 3 - Temple Fo rk - 4
persons - 3hrs. - enj oyed the qui et. Only one person in
the group should record the data. This informati on
will greatly help us in determining where people ski
and when and how to best make recommendation to
the Forest Service abo ut the travel plan . Thi s is very
important infomlat ion so at the end of your ski season
pl ease send us your log.
As we come to the end o f the fi rst year being
members of the CAT (Cooperati ve Advisory Team
Team advising UDOT on road construction and
bridge design) we feel we have chosen the best way
to effect changes in the future construction of the
Canyon. There were certainly fru strating times, and
you may recall reading the article in the paper this last
fall about our unhappiness with specifi c changes in
the bridges design. However, UDOT continues to
make concessions, many as a result of that article.
We feel good about the designs for Burnt and Lower
Twin bridges. We would have liked to have changed
the railing design, but compromises from both sides
were needed . As a result of o ur experiences on the
CAT Team, we are even more aware of how
important it is to have experts on our side. We would
like to thank Palri ca Ho uston for her expertise in
structural engineering and bridge design. Her
"?
�2 CANYON VIEWS
continued contributions wi ll help us in the many
phases ahead.
CPLC plans to take an active role in the comi ng
year in Rangeland Health and the Forest
Management Plan issue.
We have felt very good about our relationship
with the Forest Service and our input into the Scenic
BY'vays Proj ect. I went on many field trips with the
Fo rest Service to visit specifi c sites and di scuss
proposed action. I felt the Forest Service was open
to alternatives and ideas which would upgrade
services and decrease any visual impacts the project
might have on the beauty of the Canyon. The proj ect
will begin this next summer.
As yo u can see, C PLC is involved in many
different and important efforts to protect Logan
Canyon. To stay infonned and involved requires
long hours on the part of many individuals. We have
been fortunate to have people who are willing to
give their time and their expertise to help advance
the purpose of OUI organization. Aside from time
and know ledge, we need money. We need funds to
send out newsletters, pay for legal advice, hold
meetings, and so on. We are a tax exempt
organi zation and have a 50 1 © (3) status. If you
have not renewed your membership, please show
your support for the protection of Logan Canyon and
do so. Any additional contributi ons would be very
much appreciated.
Our focu s on Logan Canyon is specific;
however, the issues related to the Canyon are very
broad. If you have concerns about any aspect of the
Canyon please feel free to let us know.
SHARED USE FOR SKIERS
AND SNOWMOBILERS
BY LAUREN KELLER
With the shortage of snow in the lower
elevations last winter, there was a vyi ng between
skiers and snowmobilers for trail head parking and
trail use. Because of this situation, along with the
potential of opening up trail head parking in the
Temple Fork area through the development of the
Sceni c Byways project, a Winter Recreat ion group
was started. The purpose of the group was to see if
skiers and snowmobilers cou ld put together a
proposal for the Forest SeTVice to amend the current
Travel Plan.
Last October we called for a meeting of interested
ski ers to vo ice their opinion and concerns about the
shared use of Logan Canyon with snowmobil ers. The
feeling from the meeting was that skiers would like
more areas in which to ski without the no ise and
pol lution associated with snowmobiles. Skiers would
also li ke the areas that are off limits to snowmobil es
to be better patrolled.
During the winter, CPLC met with Cache Vall ey
High Markers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the
Forest SeTVice. Some areas of concern were
identified: Solitude for skiers seeking a nonmotorized experience, adequate parking, plowing of
parking areas for skiers, e.g. Wood Camp, vo lunteers
to patrol and disperse informat ion, signs to indi cate
motori zed use restrictions, impacts on wi ld life, and
enforcement of the ex isting travel pl an.
There are two specifi c things you can do to help
us. First, as mentioned eariler, keep a sk i log for thi s
winter. We need to know where you were skiing, the
date, how many hours and any comments you wou ld
li ke to make. Also indi cate what level of skier you
are, beginning, intermediate, advanced . Please make
sure only one person in your group records the data.
Then at the end of your ski season, please send it to
us. The other thing that would be very he lpful is if
you could attend our ski outing with the Forest
Service. We are trying to get skiers of all levels to
come and meet the Rangers in our district and tell
them about your concerns and ideas regarding winter
recreat ion use in Cache Valley. Also j ust come fo r
fun and to bum off any excess holiday treats. The
more ski ers the Forest Service sees are interested in
Logan Canyon the better. Dec 26th, 9 am at Tony
Grove parking area. We will be there through 12
noon, so come anytime.
�3 CANYON VIEWS
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
BEGINS IN THE SPRING
BY SHA WN SWANER
It is our relationship with UDOT personnel that
has been the largest factor in our success. UDOT
engineers have responded positively to public input
and recommendation from the CAT Team. There is
still much to be wary concerning to how well the
contractor wi ll follow the guidelines set forth in the
Record of Decision, by the Forest Service and by the
CAT Team, during bridge construction. Cooperati on
and compromise is new for both sides of the tabl e. If
we can work through thi s process with the end result
being sa fe bridges and relatively little di sturbance to
a beautiful canyon, then we wi ll be successful. If we
are not successful, then we will have other options
open to us for the future phases of the road
construction project. It is certainly worth giving the
process a chance.
As March draws closer and the im age of
bu lldozers in Logan Canyon grows increasingly
vivid , I am left wondering ifCPLC has chosen the
right path. Maybe it is not too late to dusl off the
monkey-wrench or chain myse lf to a road grader.
However, on careful consideration, I think CPLC
has chosen the onl y reali stic course of action. By
working with UDOT, we have assisted in the
development of plans that will result in the least
amo unt of environm ental impact and will decrease
the severity of the unavoidable impacts associated
with road construction . To understand how this has
com e about, I must first explain the philosophy
behi nd our approach to UDOT, the result of our
As always we are looking for people who would
work over the last year, and our concerns and
like to help either with the newsletter, sk i and
predictions for the fut ure.
snowmob il e group, our annual meeting and other
In Apri l of 1994, I was privileged to meet wi th
miscellaneous stuff. If you are interested and have
Governor Leavitt and discuss concerns about the
even a couple of hours, let us know, 752-0706.
Canyon project. The intent of the meeting was to
Lauren Keller.
present the Governor with a petition opposing the
Canyon constnlcti on project. The result of that
contact was a meeting with UDOT Admini stration
whi ch took place the followin g month. I met with
We do not send o ut membership renewal notices
a dozen o f UDOT' s senior management and those
as we do not have the fund s or the time. So we are
directly involved with the Logan Canyon Project. At
thi s meeting was laid the groundwork for the co unting on you to renew you membership at thi s
expansion of a working agreement between the US time. We have continued to keep the cost as low as
Forest Service and UDOT which allowed for citi zen possible so that many people are able to receive the
invo lvement in the design process of the Canyon newsletter. In order to cover expenses other than the
project. The result of all of this was the creation of newsletter, we count on additional contributions. We
the CAT (Cooperating Advisory Team) which would do have a tax exempt status with the IRS. We
have input in the design phases of the project. Also appreciate your support.
from this meeting I learned three things of value.
Membership form
First, large scale public involvement can be futil e if
$25 _$50
$10 Member leuel
Other
not properly directed; second, the groundwork was
laid for d irect involvement with UDOT through the Name _________________
CAT Team; and third, it was possible to established Address_ _ _ _ _-,--_ _ _=-___
a non-confrontational relationship with key UDOT City, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,State_ _Zip, _ _ __
personnel.
Phone_---,..,-,-,,--_ _-,---Yes, 1 would like to uolunteer_ _ _ _ _ __
VOLUNTEERS
MEMBERSHIP
�Citizens for the Protection
of Logan Canyon
P.O. Box 3608
Logan, Ulah 84323 · 3608
Vlrqlnl8 Parter
41S0lJth4lJOEast
Logan Ur 8432 1
BULK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
Pennit Ng 39
Logan. Utah
�•
•
CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN
CANYO~
NEWSLETTER
Dear "citizens",
Your presence and enthusiasm at Utesday's meeting i s a welcome and encouraging
indication that we can have a major impact on the outcome of the zoning change
meetings. We have put together some suggestions for i mmedi ate action:
PETITIONS
Please take them to your neighborhoods and/ or places of work as soon as possible.
As you will note, we have decided to encompass opposition to both Stump Hollow zoning
chan ge as well as the Right Hand Fork zoning change. Return them by mail ' or hand to
either
Ann Schimpf
Lee Rentz
715 N 3 E
Logan 753-0512
or
459 N 1 E
Logan 753-5076
or bring them to the October 14 meeting of the Cache Planning and Zoning Commission
and deli ver them to Ann. I f you need additi ana1 pet it ion forms or the "Stump Hollow
Development?1I summary sheet, please contact Ann or Lee.
Eighty-one of you signed up to receive a petition. If each obtains 25 signatures,
we will hear 2,026 voices in Cache County. Fifty signatures would add up to 4.052
recommendations! Please do not hesitate to cal l one of us to clear up any confusion
about the issues which may arise.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
A letter to the Herald Journal is a powerful message which potentially reaches about
10,000 readers--and the paper will print everyone.
Write to them at 75 West 3 North,
Logan. If you have been shy to write on previous issues. now is an excellent and
critical time to break your s ilence.
ATTEND THE CACHE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON OCTOBER 14
The decision on zone change requests for Right Hand Fork will be made at that time.
The Stump Hollow decision has been postponed until the November meeting. Watch the
legal notices in the newspaper on Sunday, October 10 to find out the place and time
of the Right Hand Fork discussion.
It will begin sometime between 2pm and 5pm.
The
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon will run ads in the newspaper and spots on
the radio encouraging everyone to attend. We feel that although the structures under
consideration at Right Hand Fork do not present the negative economic and environmental
threat that the Stump Hollow plans do, the precedent of a zoning change is the basic
key which will allow roadside development. Because of this, attendance at the
October meeting is just as important as your presence at the November meeting.
Please speak up at ' the meeting.
We need the strongest impact possible.
WRITE OR CALL YOUR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONERS
Let your feelings be known directly to them before the meeting. If you know any of
them, great, but contact them even if you have never met.
Russ Kearl, chairman
Oon G. Williams
Aaron P. Leishman
Ray Hugie
258 South Main
Logan, UT 84321
Granville E. Barlow
140 West Center
Lewiston, UT 84320
258-2652
10th North 376 East
Smithfield, UT 84335
563-5604
E. Jay Christopherson
585 South Main !
..
Providence, UT 84332
752-5453
319 East 1st North
Box 242
Wellsville, UT 84339 Logan, UT 84321
245-3323
752-2008
Cyrus M. McKell
1336 East 1700 North
North Logan, UT 84321
753-1556
�•
•
2
WRITE OR CALL YOUR COUNTY PLANNER
R ck Johnson
i
179 North Main
Logan, UT 84321
752-8327
WRITE OR CALL YOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Ma ri on 01 sen
Ted Ka rren
8640 South 200 West
1656 East 1140 North
Logan, UT 84321
752-7834
Paradise. UT
245-3309
Robert Chambers
331 East 50 North
Smithfield, UT
563-6151
POSI TION STATEMENT
The position statement committee met on Thursday night to formalize the statement
to be presented to the Cache County Pl anning and Zon ing Commission on beha lf of the
Citizens to Protect L n Canyon. If you would l ike to read the statement. please
oga
call An n at 753-0512.
ENLIST YOUR FRIENDS
More petitions and nStump H
ollow Development?!! summary sheets may be obta ined from
Ann or Lee. We wi ll be glad to add many more names to the mailing li st.
ADVERTISEMENT
We particularly need to get the word to the smaller towns in Cache Valley.
If you
are willing to post IIStump Hollow Deve l opment" sheets in fa r corners and/or travel
for petit i on s i gni ng , please ca ll (aga in ) An n or Lee to get more materia l s .
NEWSLETTER
Another will be sent as soon as there i s news to share.
YES, WE NEED CONTRI8UTIONS !
We wou l d apprec i ate any dona ti ons you could gi ve to help our public ity effort
(ma iling cos t s . printing cos ts, radio ti me, and Xerox; ng cos t s al l add up! )
ill accept cac h or check
L Re ntz, t he chairperson of the Media Committee, w
ee
donations at:
459 North 1st East
Logan, UT 84321
Make checks payabl e to:
Lee Rentz (C iti zens for the Protecti on of Logan Ca nyon)
STEER ING COMMITTEE
Ann Sc himpf
715 North 3rd East
Logan, Utah
753-0512
Lee Rentz
459 North 1st East
Logan, Utah
753-5076
,, -
Alice Lindahl
48 Mar i ndale
Logan, Utah
753-1248
�•
A PETITION OPPOSING ZONING CHANGES IN LOGAN CANYON
We, as citizens of Cache County. recommend that t he request for a change from zone
designation FR-40 (forest recreation) to pun (planned unit devel opment) at Stump Hollow
be denied. We further recommend that the land at Right Hand Fork in Logan Canyon remain
an FR-40 lone. We feel that these de velopments would i mpose costs on the vast majority
of Cache residents which would greatly outweigh the benefits to a few people .
A f ev/ of t he issues are:
1. The cos t of county services provided for Stump Ho ll ow \'1Qu l d not be met by its own
residents (through ta xes) for 15-20 years, so ta xpayers l'Iou ld have t o bear the burden.
2.
Water and sewage problems at Stump Hollow have not been adequately eva luated and they
pose a threat to the watershed.
3. A zoning change would set a precedent and open the rest of the canyon to development.
4. Cache County residents would lose a very valuable and much loved recreational land
if the canyon is developed for commercial purposes. Fi shermen, snowmobilers, hikers,
hunters, cross - country sk iers, picnickers, touri st s, rock hounds, and photographers
enjoy l ogan Canyon in its present state .
We want to secure these mounta in lands for the futu re .
NAME
STREET ADDRESS
TOWN
PHONE
�•
NAME
•
STREET ADDRESS
TOWN
CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTTOIl O LOGAN CANYON
F
PHONE
�•
•
STUMP HOLLOW
DEVELOPMENT ?
A private owner plans to erect condominiums. cabins, a restaurant. gas station, and
motel on 477 acres in Stump Hol l ow. To do this, he has to get a recommendation for
rezoning from FR-40 (forest recreation) to PUD (planned unit development) from the
Cache County Pl anning and Zoning Commission.
Negative Consequences of the Devel opment
• A possible contamination of downstream waters because of soi l inadequate for
septic tanks .
•
Acc'ording to Pau l Woodbury (Utah Di vis i on of Wildlife Resources). this land i s
now summer range fo r el k. deer, moose, grouse, and snowshoe hare. There woul d
obvious ly be a negat i ve effect upon these and other anima l s on both the private
and surround i ng Forest Service lands.
• Stump Holl ow now prov i des a year-round m x of hikers, snowmobilers, hunte r s, and
i
cross - country skiers with recreational opportunities. The development wou l d make
Stump Hol l ow undes i rab l e fo r these forms of recreation.
• Logan Canyon has remained an excepti ona lly beautiful wild place . The pressures
for urbanization threaten the very natural qualities that the developer uses as
his strongest sel l ing point.
• According to Cache County Planner, Rick Johnson, the county's taxpayers woul d
have to subsidize the developme nt for at l east 15-20 years before taxes from
the project met the ser vi ces rendered.
Right Hand Fork Homes?
Anot her pri vate l andowner wants his land rezoned from FR-40 to allow bui l ding
several cabins and homes near the highway at Right Hand Fork.
Where Will It Stop?
A zon i ng change here . another one there ... Pretty soon, the worl d begi ns .
l ooking the same whet her you ' re i n Los Angel es, Detroit . or Logan Canyon .
Development everywhere . . . merely to make a few bucks . Let ' s not all ow
these proposed devel opments t o set a precedent for others. Keep Logan
Canyon green!
What You Can Do!
Sign the pet i tion !
Write a l etter to the ed i tor:
The Hera l d Journal
75 West 3rd Nor t h
Logan , Utah 84321
Write a letter of protest to the county planner :
Rick Johnson
Cache County Pl anner
179 North Main
Logan, Utah 84321
Attend the critica l publ i c hearings when they
come up.
for the Protection . of
�•
•
.1
,
, >,
".
,
~
,1 f
)
�I
C'J7Cf.:< 76J..~~r
THE
1
LOGAN
CANYON
BULLETIN
CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON
JANUARY 1991
The Question of Logan Canyon
... is not as big as acid rain, or ozone depletion, to be sure-but it
might be an indicator. It can tell us how sincere we are, and how
thorough, in our '90s leaning toward the land. Here is a deep .
beautiful and winding canyon. gradually shallowing as it ascends
into an open country of high meadows and ridge-top forests. For
decades now this canyon has held a fairly mooest two-lane road
that winds eastward from Logan with the lay of the land.
eventually crests a 78oo-fool summit of the Wasatch Range, and
then drops swiftly in switchbacks to Bear Lake. The whole forty
miles, in any season, is a treat to the eye, because this is one of the
few Wasatch Front river canyons where the road has not become
the dominant feature of the landscape.
It still looks like respected country .
-- Tom Lyon
Logan Canyon: Here and Now
For the last thirty years there has been a drive to punch a wider,
straighter, faster highway through Logan Canyon. In 1961 , five miles of
the lower canyon were "improved"; in 1968, six more-up to the Right
Hand Fork. But then came the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) in 1970, and the road straighteners no longer ha ve a perfectly
free hand. Now they have to justify their plans, and di scuss alternatives,
and now we too have a say in what happens.
Under the requirements of NEPA, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has been researching the environmental impacts of different
construction plans. After several years and the expenditure of over three
quarters of a million dollars, they've come up with a draft study that
doesn't specify a "preferred alternative." Unfortunately, their study, in the
view of many, has been marked by slipshod procedures, insufficient data,
and lack of consideration for the environment.
Now it is up to those of us who care about the beauty and intactness of
Logan Canyon to come forward and make a stand. Citizens for the
Protection of Logan Canyon have made their own study of the canyon
and have prepared the Conservationists' Alternative, which is incl uded in
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
We urge you to give the Conservationists' Alternative your careful
examination, to write a letter, and to make a statement at the public
meeting on the DEIS. You can make a difference!
�The Conservationists' Alternative
The goal of this alternative is a highway that fits into Logan Canyon with
minimal ecological disturbance and maximum safety, rather than a hi ghway
that moves the greatest number of people through the canyon at the highest
rale of speed. The Conservationists' Alternative meets this goal , but it is not a
do-nothing al ternative. Current roadway width and alignment wou ld be
maintained throughout the canyon. with the following exceptions:
Bridges and culverts re placed and widened to 28 feet, with all but
Lower Twin Bridges kept on the existing alignment.
• Turning lanes constructed at Tony Grove Recreation Area and Beaver
Mountain Ski Area.
• Climbing lanes constructed above Red Banks Campground, below the
state sheds, and in the Sinks area, but not at the Dugway.
• Increased traffic law enforcement.
• Slow vehicle turnouts and multipurpose parking constructed at several
locations.
• Roadbed raised near Logan Cave and in several other locations to avoid
spring fl ooding.
WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS ALTERNATIVE
What Can You Do to Help Protect Logan Canyon?
Support the Conservationists' Alternative.
Write a letter expressing your concerns.
Speak out at the public meetiog in Logan.
Writing a Letter is as Easy as One, Two, Three
First: Introduce yourself. Mention why you are concerned about Logan Canyon and
experiences you have had there.
Second: Support the Conservationists' Alternative. Also point out problems in the
DEIS. You can refer to the above lists for details, or write to us for more
infonnation.
Third: Put your return address on the lener, sign it, and date it.
Send your letter to :
James Naegle
Utah Dept. of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84 11 9
To get a copy of the DEIS, call:
James Naegle
(80 I) 965-4 160
Letters must be mailed by February 1, 1991.
Letter-writing workshops will be held at A Book Store, 130 North 100 East, Logan
7:00 p.m., on Thursday, Jamlary 3; Monday, January 7; and Thursday, January 10.
Despite what some say, the road builders do "count votes." So speak out!
�Other Alternatives Considered in the DEIS
After careful study, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon concluded that
these alternatives would compromise safery, destroy the canyon's un ique
e nvironment, or both. These alternatives include:
• "Standard Arterial" - The widest. straightest. highest- speed alternative.
With wide shoulders and "recovery areas" adjacent to the road. well over twice as
much land wou ld be disturbed as at present. Large cuts would scar hillsides. and
the road would intrude into the river.
• "Mod ified Standa rd " - Identical to the Standard Arterial, except the roadway width would be somewhat less in the narrow and scenic middle section of
Logan Canyon. There would be fewer cuts than under the Standard Arterial .
• " Composite Alte rn ati ve l1 - A combination of the Standard and Mexlified
Alternatives. It is a late addition to the list of alternatives and retain s many severe
environ mental impacts, such as a climbing lane at the Dugway. It would also have
more adverse effec ts on streams in the upper pan of the canyon.
• "S pot Improvement" - Road width would not c hange; however, hillsides
would be cut to straighten curves, and climbing and turning lanes would be built
in environmentally sensitive areas.
• " No Action " - NEPA requires agencies to consider this alternative in a
DE IS. There are legitimate construction needs in Logan Canyon. however, so
conservationi sts have not supponed this alternative.
Shaded area shows one of the
highway cuts proposed under
several of the alternatives.
Unfortunately, these alterna ti ves and the DEIS itselr have some serious flaws, incl udin g:
• Disturbance of the river and loss of riparian habitats are not adequately addressed.
• Impacts on wildlife, especially fish. nongame species, and the threatened Maguire's Primrose, are weakly treated.
• Disposal of rubble. many thousands of cubic yards under some alternatives, is ignored .
• Greater accident frequency or severity is possible with increased speeds under some al tern atives; this
possibility is not addressed.
• Site-specific impacts are addressed vaguely; mitigation is put off until the "design ph ase" which is some
unspecified time in the future.
• Worst-case traffic projections are used to justify major modifications to the highway . yet Logan Canyon is
often only lightly travelled.
• The safety record for Logan Canyon is not compared with similar mountain road s; yet safety is a major
concern and is the rationale for some construction.
• Logan Canyon is nationally renowned fo r its scenery, and has been designated a Scenic Byway, yet th is
prominence is not di scussed.
Logan Canyon Cannot Speak for Itself
But you can speak for Logan Canyon.
A public hea ring on Logan Canyon is scheduled for T uesday, J anua ry IS, 1991. at the
Mt. Loga n Middle School Auditorium, 875 N. 200 East, Logan .
If you pla n to speak, you will need to a rri ve ea rly to sign up ir required.
The points that apply to letter writing also apply to your spoken comment. It is likely that
thetime allotted to each speaker will be about fiv e minutes. so plea se prepare your
comments accordingly. If you can both speak at the hearin g and write a lener. do both.
Even ir you do not pla n to spea k, please attend the hea ring to show your sup po rt fo r
Logan Canyon.
Printed on recycled paper
Photos by Scott T. Smith
�11
Improvement makes strai ght roads; but the crooked roads, without improvement, are roads or genius."
•. William Blake
LOGAN CANYON is at risk. LOGAN CANYON needs you .
..... '-
.,
P.O. 80. 3501
Logan, Ulah 84321
\
�I
•
LOGAN
CANYON
NEWSLETTER
November 8 , 1976
UPDATE :
NO l'IElI
\'Ie etil l
Citizens for the Protection
of Logan. Canyon
NE~'IS
dol'] 1 t know ...:hen the Plenn inA;
Z. CPLC lIoiJ:;ETIilG
CPLC held a meeting on I;ov. 4 to discus:;
plans tor the future o f our group.
~.
- '
C
WE PAsS {\
CPIJC
V
ol. I. No.3
...,-............-:-
ON STUMP HCLLQ\"
and Zonin g Com ~lssi o n will be asked to make
a dec ie1o~ on th i s im~ortont · 1ssue. Unfortunately , we may not have t hat information un til one week b~rore the P ~ Z
meeting it self . night Hand Fork zonin R
-- requea t - ~e in the 8a~e cnte~ory.
NOV.
.
The
followin g ~ene r al plan s of action ra .;ulte d :
_ 1. ' Fini.sh off the petition drive with
• Durst- of activity next- week:~nd (Hov, 13),
~'
have 2,100 a1gnaturea, ~d-..)uI~bl_.
th a t nu~ b cr ,
In e n effort to re a c h t h j ~
~o~l , CPLC members will man Ret1tion
booths 8 t ma ny 3i t ea around tb,, ' valley .
on S l;\t llrd ~y . No·r . 1 3 . U.S . U. will host
<l booth from Nev. 10 until 12th.
You
can help by collecting all thane petiti ons
yo u ha ve posted and by pre senting' the
i s ~u~ to-you-r---rt~~h-bo-p.hee Ii 1 r youo-l.~.~,,~.it-----I
no t already cfo ne s o. t;ven if your sheeta
h a'l,,' e only a f#!w n tl !'!l .l!'"SOn t ?!.efft--let t hem
be counted I
~
E!..ECTl orr RESULTS
The Nov, 2 election t" esu l t~ l",ere h o t.h
positive en d ne ltrt tive in t heir pot'ential
Petition s will be due in b y Mo nday, Nov. 1 5 . effects on CPLC ~oals . Bo'b Char.fb'J r s .....6%1-
,
2. Hold onto petition s ignature s until
the actual ? & Z m
eetin g and Commission
meeting ar e h eld.
,. Have ~ doo r-to-do or s~~atur~ campllip:n wh en we kn ow for nu re the actual date
of the relev 3nt P & Z me r. tin~ . Th is, hope tully, wil l ale r t re~~den ts e~ain ,
4. Turn jn cu r :; i r;n e d r.o :;it ion ntlltp. ment t o t he t;;Jche COlllmis r. ionl'!t"n on l'lbout
November 15.
5. Nin l'! CPLC ~embe r a volunte l'!.p. rl t o
serve aD a pe rmanent Itovernin" bo;,,;r d.
l'hc y
wil~ ensur~ th."t tht'! structure and proll;::-e85
of CPLC wi l l no t be lo s t if we hBve 9 lon~
wait for the " s t ump Holl ow" r:teetinl';.
t~ } 4- ye ~r Cnche C o mm i s~ion pos t,
vo tes.
7h is is
stronp;e a t
~o~d-~he
~ tllte~ le nt
against de velopmen 't
by 429
h as ma de the
of any candida t "
in Logan Canyon,
.1' . HOy f" heurer won the 2- year poet ae
eOMmiasionot-r---+b,v'}. al3 voter.) .-- Ria po~\ ition hn ~.; b~l'!n o n(> of non - c:>mmitt. l on
;
Sturn,!) lIol 1ow. It i G d i ff icult to say
how ~r. l' i'I~~.Hd--l. e-l\-n. --!m- t·h~1-" ... ue .
Our I :rl~ ..' tr.'it cl('ct i ~' n lor'1~ ' \.11\ [ : ; ;" rl' , ~' O:::! , I
dcfe"t • . lIe \" ''''0 '-I1 11in,.; to i ntl'o;iU <: f)
l e p;islation which would allow p',H'c h ass ot
the l.;:r.d. It would ha7.e 'bsen ad.:i6 d . tl'•.a-n,
to Cache Natio nal Fore~t.
STUJ.IPER- STICXERS
FINAL PETITICN DRIVE
Plea5e turn in your peti.ttons t o Lee or
Ann by Uovembcr 15, Hondar_ H!.~ht now we
,
,.
\'/e ' ve ordered 400 :TIors . They will be
avniVtble a t Mount ai n ~!an on North Main
~ n d at the Harmoniou s Living Cen t e r at
. U.S.U. for 501l .
�~' G
li
.;t:~~
·,.,:.t:..
_t:."
_h.:-. - ,,_
t:;.ack c;.~
~ r:.:: l~~'j'i..,:
..
'.', ""'
.
. ,- ..
..
l:--:""",}t.
~
_.:..!~'"
,r.:~'::,
,"
.)"'·~ !JO )~~
:,,~~ ........... _ _
,,'r. i:!. ~ .
::. ~
e"(."gv ft,,"
:..;:. l .. '-'
. ::\'. "f" :I\:.2
',,of
t~H:
't::"!:..E-
',ro c:-_
~t
~~~. ';'-:ll.l~.~ ~ :1~:::t -: ri8'~lt ~c!{""·.< t~@ rl l'l.~ ··
---~
·j :"'::: ~-:.:.OH'; :
!l! -!ix::.J
"2; a n d /~n i nr. met: ti't$'
.al-~
B r.Lc1.i,e~
Ian J.
n~~
A
udubon
Sj >;! :- n
---------
5..ut
VOl!
, w ,,,,,,-~,,
C
--
' o"
~~_
l:e!"G
· .,c.l.
.-
....
~,'~'
,.f:
:1'~
.. 6"'.F
T
:-:-illIr.g
". f'
'" ' .. 1._1 ~. rl ci& rg~ v':: ~t._ ~["J; ,
:.t.lrf' t o t~e E~r 9.1tj ~~t (ill::'
:.r \': :,:,i t~ you r commissiun: r.5.
50 . 0')
?3.2~
E"c.til ;,(> '!" S'a".k€;r s
<
_nnct.ve.
·,,-.;n- fr l./::• .::!£): a.n d n~i "·:.'~·'··t._
'~"'c~'r>:;
.. .
:.":J:i. -' f ;.=-';u~ ..... con.:;:-._.. J. { r r;'i.~.1...
-,-
50 . 0:;
': h :.
,~
'+ 1.48
'~'H /J li<
Prin ting
35. 54
7:",=-C ., £!J. p ~ }_ it:.s
19. 4D
77. 78
f or your he lp, a ll of :--ou . 'Ne 1.1.0 ..
:lU:nbe r abc\;;t 140 menw erlh }ee.~:J! :i..
('!(;I') t. S.
:';!'Vl6J.~ r E: r
b.ds .
h):'t;L
tU2 Nove~b ~ r
77 .50
mnpe.r s t i'!lte rs
3251. 70
EY.PE!;:s~:;
CFJ/i 11 :-,5 priIl t e d :
2 2 00 Stump Holle .....
fl y e:~
6 90 I,e w5L; t te r t.tl
N e'lfslettp.~·
)00 Dumper
#2
St ic ke r ~
:rany fl O.f.terB
.:ll"d 2 newspa p er a ds in t he Herula L ou::.
W.:: ~an a ntici p ate ('li E"::' $100 . 00
i1io rc if al l t he o lj I!r.d !1~\01 St\.~ m ;-e:
'It:'cb,rs sd l. Tr. i a Ilw ne y wil l ~e UQed
.{)t:' r a r o !:l.n C ne ~~ s 'pape:r spo ts ':.0 t,'.l;lrt
E
e7f: :,y one to t.'1 e df'. t.e of t n e F eo( ~ Dleetin~
~-
~fJ1£
•
...... - ~ J
15
petiti ~o
I')"'
iea~]ine.
D';::)R TO WOR
Lal: r y liye has take !, tn~ pt~c. CJ.(';11 tilt'r ..
:.!.' . ;t. i n ~~l! s'l!lle a ~l"! ... \_\ 0-'.:.l':: gcn er. !:.i!lg .:l l.:lrg e: n'.;ttI!n~: or !>i&ni.:.u' !>
i:i ", active app r oach ;:'0 peti~!(hlit"Z t·crt.;.......I.':
::l';!sE:::t''Iez a c~o;pliIl:e:l.::
Co Ol;!
is .1n e:(<--;;~]
~t.i::
others to £0 110\01 ,
575 FE- titj ons
500
YOU , ••
,
- .- .
GOVtRllHi G 30.l\!ID
He bb1 (1 ta.nn e r
753-001 3
.Oo \' id "A. . Ad a:n3
A '£ELEPHON E TREE h')'6 Lt"<':r. for:ne€.! !;,) ;:,Hl;:
l.il1 b e [Iot::.r LI.::<i U) "i;":>:1...... ,
..1·1jtr.ing Urj;t-~.,:: CQ::l<;!s up,
C~i.r; m er.lb~ r s
Lie Rer.tz
!i ~.a N 1 !.
l>ct: ~ n, UT [)4 32l
MI n Schimpf
·7'.5 N 3
,.
"
Alice !,1ndahl
:"-!S Ms.rinriale
753-1248
l,vgan, UT
753-1476
La:-ry E. Ny~ 245- 3010
\ol~ndy H. Pal o..... 563-3488
J~r. y ou~s
753-;278
i:tlte Packard
~~i! ~
753-}806
M Shult z
.
752 -5447
J·.' hn .L ;;cn.'..Ilt t• . 752-5447
·t1.<3.ney l~!.u=d'
rS2 - j917
A~r..
Schl.n.pf
·\ li("~ !..lr:.dahl
]':3-03 12:
753- J 2!. S
'Lee Rentz
753-5076
SI U
KPER
'JTUMP Il JU.O\l VROG.RESS REPORT
!
A no tice a ppeared i n cAe Herald Jerurl"l ul
No vember] saying t h e re "Will !H! .a pr(\e;n:~H
r cpor t (HI Stump ll ollo',J and Rtght Na.n;d l'-t'ri<:.
at tj,e N';'QWIlbe r 11 m ~eti ns o ( t he P & z.
-:.omrr..t s ~I'J:l (at 41:00 [I -m .) .
hccordin.s t(l RId,
Jchn'~o!l . Cou n ty Phl.nne r _ he ;.:Hl h'il p.r-t!£oet,tircg
t il l! ~ ol'r E: :Jponden ce he ha s [" ec cis~d f:-co;ll die
de.,Felopcrs concern ing tli'ese- lWO propos. ·ts
pl~s a l l relevant. ncwspaper S I.'!;
app e ar~d.,
Lee Rent.z w~U
meet:ing ,'
fee l
<
�,
\
-If
Turn In ;:>et ltl ons by Monday. tlover.lber 15
*
\;C!Y ;..h : he news med i a fo:", new cleve lcrments
.-----,
BULK RAT-E
J ~'
DGERlAtID AUDU60N SOC ! ElY
~ Ov Box 3501
{ ~c·~n . IJT 84321
postage
I
'.:J
LOCI·.11 c~
PERK IT #
~lerrl.ll
L1 brar7
Learning
Resow:<:ea P:rograa
utah Stat. Univ. UMC :JO
LoG"J! . l1I' 84322
l
1
!
Par d
¥
;
"
.
�Logan Canyon at Risk
The time has come to speak
out for the preservation of
Logan Canyon and Logan
River.
Two public seoping hearings
concerning the future of U.S.
Highway 89 through Logan
Canyon will be held locally in
early March. The first hearing
is set for Mar ch 3 at 7 p.m. in
the Mountain Fuel Supply
Building in Logan. The second
hearing will be held March 4 at
7 p.m. at the City Hall in
Garden City, Utah.
The hearings are required by
federal Jaw
as part of the
process being undertaken by
the Utah
Department of
Transporation (UDOT) and the
Denver-based
engineering
consuhanls, CR2M Hill. to
prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS ) th at
could recommend a larger and
faster highway through Log an
Canyon.
Developing
a
list
of
alternatives for the Logan Canyon highway is integral to the
EIS process . The final list of
alternatives will not be com·
piled until after receiving public
comment, which includes the
comments given at the scoping
hearings.
"It's Important that people
who love Logan Canyon for its
scenic beauty and recreational
opportunities attend these meet·
ings and speak out, " said Jack
Spence, a longtime northern
Utah conservationist.
"Without lots of comments
from concerned citizens, the
highway engineers will build
without regard to the area's
natural environment," Spence
said.
Study cost over
$500,000
The current highway scoping
hearings are a pa rt of CH2M
Hill's $500,000 study contract
with UDOT. The contract reo
quires t he engineering firm to
develop a transportation plan
for Logan Canyon 's highw ay
through the year 2010.
Previous studies have been
undertaken to explore major
highway construction in Logan
Canyon. The most recent study
ended in 1980 after local citizens
expressed their concern for the
canyon.
Another highway study in 1971
met a similar fate .
"Local residents should at·
tend the hearings to explain
Scoping Hearin g Schedule
Logan
March 3
7 p.m.
Mountain Fuel Supply Co. Auditorium,
45 E. 200 North.
Garden City March 4
Garden City Hall.
7 p.m.
Persons planning to speak at the hearing
will be asked to register as they enter the
building. Before public comments are taken,
UDOT and CH2M Hill will make a brief
presentation. Comm ents will be heard before
discussion is opened .
For persons unable to attend the hearing,
written comments will be accepted by April
6, 1987 at :
Mr. Clifford Forsgren , Project Manager
CH2M Hill/ Salt Lake City OUice
P .O. Box 2218
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101
phone : (801) 363-{l2QO
how they enjoy Logan Canyon
as it is today," said Rudy
Lukez, chair of the Sierra
Club's Cache Group.
"We do not want to sacrifice
Logan Canyon so that a few
people can travel from Logan to
Bear Lake a few minutes
faster," Lukez said.
One of Logan Canyon's most
scenic and fragile sections is
from Right Hand Fork to Ricks
Spring (see map page 3). This
See Risk on page 2.
Memories travel the can yon
By C. L. Rawlin s
This much is certain : They were married the 28th of
June, 1911, and left Logan for a honeymoon at Bear
Lake. He drove the team and ~he probably indulged in
raptures over the canyon greenery and imposing
limestone walls. She may have slapped, daintly, at a
mosquito as they passed into the brief, cool shadow of
cottonwoods.
My grandfather would have pointed out the smokemarked overhang where teamsters hauling stone for the
Temple camped a generation before. The road left the
main canyon where it narrowed and climbed the Right
Fork to Willow Canyon. Alter descending the Temple
Fork , they stopped - as we always did on later trips at Ricks Springs for a brillia ntly cold cupful, which
Grandfather would have fetched with self·concious
courtliness.
Where they camped, I don' t know ; a meadow would
be chosen, with grazing for the team and a level
sleeping spot within the sound of water. Journeys then ,
when the desirability of automobiles was still hotly
debated, were often reckoned not in miles , but in nights
CITIZENS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON
P.O. Box 3580
l oga n. Utah 8432 1
(801l1152-9 102 ,S6H9OfI (e l
SCOff T. Sm ittl
Winter solitude in Logan Canyon
spent out, under the sky.
The hill-and-meadowscapes below Beaver Mountain
were green then as now , with balsamroot and mule·ear
daisies yellowing the slopes. Past the mountain, the
road followed - and still follows for those with patience
- Beaver Creek In a gradual climb north to the summit.
Roads showed the sensitivity to slope and contour that
comes when bodies - horse or human - do the work of
traveling. Huge cuts and fills were too costly in those
sa me terms .
Alter frequent halts to rest the horses, they reached
the summit : occasion for a picnic and savoring the
hard·won view . The descent to St. Charles is steep and
my grandfather cam e from a family having much to do
with wagons; he checked the brake before laking the
grade.
The return took them a good. two days. Retelling, my
grandmother never complained of the heat, dust, jolts,
or slow pace. That there was a road at all seemed
sufficient miracle. The canyon , she often said, had
never been more beautiful.
C.L. Rawlins wr ites, T
eaches wr l T iJ and wor ks on field stUdies of acid
ln'
deposlt1on In The Win d River Ran ge i n Wvom i ng.
Bulk Rate-
U.S. Postage
PAI D
Logan, Utah
Perm it No. 104
�2 CITIZENS FOR TIlE PROTECT1ON OF LOGAN CANYON _ rEDURARY 1987
CITIZENS
FOR THE
PROTECTION
OF
LOGAN
CANYON
On March 3 and 4, you will have the opportunity to
present your views on Logan Canyon and its highway .
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon have
prepared the following list of recommendations for the
study . We urge you to attend the March scoping
meeting and support CPLC's position.
_ Protection of Logan Canyon's scenic beauty, fish
and wildlife habitat, rare plants, recreation sites and
naturalness must be a prime concern.
_ An Environmentlllmpad Statement (EIS ) must
be prepared for any significant road modification
proposals to protect Logan Canyon's natural surroun·
dings from haphazard modifications .
- Travel speeds between Right Hand Fork and
Rick's Spring should remain as currently posted . This
area is very scenic and too sensitive to permit any
significant roadway modifications.
- Bridges which cannot meet structural safety
requirements should be replaced when possible. These
bridges should be two lanes wide only. Minor
alterations to bridge approaches would be acceptable.
- Turning lines at Tony Grove Recreation Area
and Beaver Mountain Ski Area may be constructed to
The Logan Canyon Bulletin is published by Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon - a citizens
group of volunteers and non-profit organizations working toward long-term protection of Loga n
Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and naturalness .
The Jardine Juniper is CPLC's symbol. Located high above Wood Camp recreation area, this ancient
and beautiful tree represents Logan Canyon's recreational diversity and unsurpassed scenery.
Every few years, the utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) begins a study of Logan Canyon's
highway, U.S. 89. The last study in 1979 and 1980 was left uncompleted after highway expansion
proponents found strong local opposition to proposed roadway modifications. Since June, 1986, UDOT
and Denver-based engineering consultants, CH2M Hill, have been spending over $500,000 to prepare yet
another analysis of the roadway.
Perhaps one of the Rocky Mountain's most scenic roadways, Logan Canyon's highway provides many
people with access to numerous U.S. Forest Service campgrounds and picnic areas, fishing sites , and
snowmobiling and skiing trailheads. Throughout the four seasons, a visitor to Logan Canyon can find
beauty through these many recreational opportunities or simply by taking the drive from Logan to
Bear Lake .
The new UDOT study is moving toward the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) and this could be the first step toward major alterations in the Canyon . Before an EIS is
prepared, public scoping meetings must be held and citizens must be given a chance to present either
written or oral testimony on the study areas .
facilitate turning traffic .
_ Parklng areas should be built near Temple Fork
Road and Cottonwood Canyon (near Logan Cave) to
improve traffic flow and safety.
_ Additional warning signs should be placed along
the highway telling motorists about bicycle traffic,
pulloffs and pedestrian travel.
_ The road should be resurfaced and restriped
where required. This will improve through traffic
travel and nighttime safety throughout Logan Canyon.
_ No cUmbing (passing) lane should be built at the
Dugway (between Lower and Upper Twin ~ridges) . A
dim bing lane would affeel a very scemc area hy
requiring major cut and fill operations with unsighUy
retaining walls.
_ No rold modifications should alter the Logan
River's watercourse since the river is a major
recreational resource. Alterations could destroy im·
portant streambanks.
_ No new roads or major changes to the existing
road should be constructed from the Bear Lake
Summit to the Bear Lake Overlook. This highway
section is in a very popular and scenic recreation
area .
ation sites, the U.S. Forest
Service decided in the 1984
Wasatch·Cache National Forest
Continued. from page 1
Plan to "mana~e Logan Canyon
section contains important fish as a scenic highway." Forest
and wildlife habitat along with plans are approved and implemented only after a lengthy
spectacular cliff formations.
" Modifications to the highway public review process.
- even with simple widening could have disastrous effects on
the river's fish population,"
said Bill Helm, a fisheries and
wildlife professor at Utah State
University.
Logan Canyon provides ac" The Logan River is very
unique since it is a Class II cess to many Forest Service
waterway," Helm said. "This recreational sites. More than 30
means that trout can easily campgrounds and picnic sites
grow to large sizes and exist in are located along the roadway.
Most of the road is located
large populations.
along Forest Service property
" But, the river is fragile and
could easily be damaged, " in the Wasatch-Cache National
Helm said. " You just cannot Forest.
"If sections of the canyon are
mitigate everything ."
widened to permit increased
traffic speeds and wider turns,
then some of the forest's cam·
ping and picniC sites could
become less enjoyable," said
Bruce Pendery, chair of the
In addition to taking traffic Bridgerland Audubon Society's
counts and predicting future Conservation Committee.
traffic volumes, the current
To help promote long-term
study includes a scenery in- protection for Logan Canyon's
ventory of Logan Canyon. The scenery, fish and wildlife
study was completed by the habitat, and recreational opWasatch-Cache National Forest portunities, Citizens for the
Service's landscape architect, Protection of Logan Canyon
(CPLC) has been reorganized.
Clark Ostergard.
Ostergard's study shows that CPLC was instrumental in
sections of Logan Canyon, stopping
major
highway
particularly from the Right modifications in 1919-1980.
"CPLC's purpose is to proBand Fork to Ricks Springs,
cannot have si~nificant road vide a common base for aU
modifications Without damag- Individuals and organizations
ing irreplaceable scenic views .
who care about Logan Canyon's
Because of Logan Canyon's future ," said Pendery.
"CPLC supports a variety of
beauty and its popular recre-
Risk
Recrea ti on
Sites
Canyon
very scen ic
small
projects
for
the
highway, "
Pendery
said.
"These include several road
modifications, such as turning
lanes, replacement of unsafe
bridges and several new parking areas."
Perhaps CPLC's most interesting proposal involves designation of Logan Canyon as a
National Scenic Highway .
"While
National
Scenic
Highway designation does not
guarantee absolute long-term
protection of Logan Canyon, it
would increase the public's
awareness that we have a
national treasure in our
backyard," Lukez said.
DeSignation of U.S. 89 through
Logan Canyon as a National
Scenic Highway would require
action by the U.S. Congress.
Cit izens urged
to partiCipate
The March 3 and 4 hearings
will be the best chance for local
citizens to inOuence the
highway'S design .
"And without the voices of
those who love the canyon for
what it is today," Lukez said,
" those who want a larger
highway Soon may have their
way."
If people cannot attend or
speak at a hearing, written
comments will be accepted unW
April 6. Comments should be
sent to Mr. Clifford Forsgren,
Project
Engineer"
CH2M
Hill/ SaIt Lake City Office, P.O.
Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah
84101.
- Congress should designate Logan Canyon
Highway as Utah's first National Scenic Highway.
This designation would recognize Logan Canyon as a
scenic and recreational jewel similar to other
attractions in our National Park System.
- Logan River above Third Dam should be
considered for National Recreation al River
designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
This federal designation will protect the river's quality
for all future generations.
For more information, please write to Citizens fo r
the Protection of Logan Canyon, P .O. Box 3580, Logan,
utah 84321. Phone 801/152-9102 or 563-6908 (evenings) .
Funding for the Logan Canyon Bulletin is provided by
numerous individuals in northern Utah. We welcome
your support.
Contributor's to TM L.ogan Canyon BulleTin InclUde northern Utllh
residents Steve Flint, Rudy L.ukez, Bill Hel m, Jllck Spence, Bruce
Pendery-, C.L.. Rlwllns, Tom L.yon, Dllne Browning, Dennis Will Ind
Seon T. Smlltt (photogrlphy ), Jlne O' Keefe (Irtwork, copyr ig hted )
Ind John ReeVH (clrtography).
Traffic data weak
By Steve Flint
Highway modifications often are justified by using estimates
of future traffic patterns based on past traffic trends. However.
when Duduating gas prices and changing travel patterns are
considered, traffic flow predictions can be an uncertain
adventure at best.
The Utah Department of Transportation (uDOT) and
engineering consultants, CH2M Hill, are using past traffic
trends for Logan Canyon predictions. This information does not
establish reliable traffic trends for the canyon.
Even the consultants are not completely confident about the
available traffic data . In a draft technical report, CB2M Hill
reports:
"Data point scatter and (the) short period of record make(s)
it difficult to forecast future (traffic) volumes with any degree
of confidence."
If traffic data is reviewed on an annual basis, there is no
suggestion of an increase in traffic through the canyon. Over the
past 13 years, the annual traffic Dow has fluctuated a bit from
year to year without any pattern of increase.
However, summer traffic during June, July and August shows
a different pattern. There is more traffic in the canyon during
these months and, for the past few years, traffic has been
increasing slightly during these three summer months. Based on
past trends of traffic and population change, the most
substantial prediction of summer traHic growth is 1.95 percent
per year.
The presumed need for major highway modifications is driven
by this projected increase .
During past studies, UDOT has greaUy oVerestimated future
traffic predictions. A review of the 1971 and 1979 Logan Canyon
highway studies shows that UDOT's official predictions for 1985
traffic rates were 30 to 55 percent above what eventua lly
occurred.
The current UDOT /CH2M Hill Logan Canyon Study is using an
exponential model to predict future traffic patterns. This model
soUers from the same mistakes made in previous studies when
summer traffic was analyzed .
A more realistic model uses linear growth that predicts a
smaller increase in summer traffic. This means that acceptable
traffic now levels without major highway modifications are
possible in the year 2010.
Sleye Fllnl Is II member of 1M Brldgerland Audubon SocieTy's Cons.enlllT
lon
Commllll!@. Hetin beenreviewlngUDOT 's Tralf1cdlllslnceJuIY1 9116.
�FEBRUARY 191r7 -
Accident data incomplete
By Jack Spence
Safety is important for
everyone who travels on a
roadway . For any highway.
safety involves two major
Issues - accident rates and
accident severity.
Yet, accurate accident rates
in Logan Canyon cannot be
determined because both the
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and consultants.
CH2M Hill. have refused to
complete
any
comparative
studies.
This is hard to understand
because with its mountainous
terrain
Utah
has
many
highways comparable to U.S.
89, which runs through Logan
Canyon. A comparison of accident rates and severity levels in
Logan Canyon with data from
Ogden,
Little
Cottonwood,
Provo and Spanish Fork canyons would make sense.
~ITIZENS
FOR TIlE PR0TECl10N OF LOCiAN CANYON 3
Logan Canyon Accident Survey
T,,"of Accident
Speeding a Problem .
The collected Utah Highway
Patrol information (see box)
shows that most accidents are
caused by going too fast.
And, because of increased
speeds, major road improve-
ments could increase some ac-
cident rates.
Safety Studied Twice
During the study of accidents
in Logan Canyon, two different
reviews were completed.
First. using data collected by
UDOT from 1980 to 1985,
engineering consultants CH2M
Hill concluded that four of 13
highway sections had accident
rates higher than the standard
safety guidelines.
However, these conclusions
were challenged when errors
were found in UDOT's rates.
When corrected data could not
be produced, CH2M Hill decided
to use another safety com pari-
son method.
The second method divided
Car runs off ttIe ro.td
56% Driver speeding
46%
Car hits an animal
Logan Canyon into one-tenth1N Other Improper driving
25"
Head·on comslon
12% Driver not looking
23"mile sections. CH2M Hill then
Hit car In Intersection
.,. Road snow· or la· covered 23'J(,
found that 16 of the 374. onRear'end another car
~ Driving under the Influence 10%
e-tenth-mile sections had acci2% Driving left of center line ' "
0 ....'
dent counts higher than the
Driver asleep or III
'"
highway's average.
Vehicle defective
4%
Even though 16 sections had
Note : The total "cause of accld~ts" is greater than 100 percent
higher than average counts,
bKause a single acci~nt could have multiple causes.
none of these sections were
greatly In excess of many of the • Source : Utah Highway Patrol accident reports, 1980· 1985. _ _ _ _,.,jl
value. in addition, the average
___________________
remaining 358 sections have a
3) Lower speeds on tight in a serious accident in Logan
low number of accidents.
corners, especially near ice and Canyon are small at any time.
Since there is an absence of
animal hazards
Safety Alternatives
4) Improved highway sur- valid supporting data , safety
Even though road construc- faces and brighter roadway cannot be used to justify major
tion is usually considered the striping
highway modifications.
best way to improve highway
5) Improved road crowns to
safety , other alternatives do increase water runoffs from the
exist.
highway
J ac k SpenCt , a wt ll·known constrv.·
These include :
lion IS! in norlnern Utah, nel ptd organ ll t
1) Better speed enforcement
an d ltad CP LC In 1919. Ht has rtll ltwtd
Chances Are Small
UOOT 's Logan C,!"! von safe lv dal, si nct
by the UHP
2) Better advisory signing
The chances of being involved Julv, 1986.
Fishing threatened
By Bill Helm
AS it flows through Logan Canyon , the Logan River provides many
opportunities for recreation in a natural and scenic setting. A
popular four-season activity along Logan River is fishing .
The river is one of only a few Class II trout stream s in Utah . Class
II trout streams provide good fish habitat. This lets trout grow
quickly to a large size.
Road construction activities in Logan Canyon already have
damaged the river's fish habitats . Channel straightening and
elimination of streambank vegetation have decreased the number of
trout from 50 to 90 percent in some locations.
Class U Defined
To be ranked a Class II trout strum in Utah, a waterway must
have many slow and quiet resting and hiding areas with adequate
plant cover . This lets fish rest while being shielded from potential
enemies. Feeding areas must be nearby with moderate flowing
water.
Class II waterways also require spawning habitats with
medium-sized gravel bottoms in an area of moderate river currenL
The bottom must be stable with little or no silt.
.
",.
Changes Could Hurt Trout
Major changes to Logan Canyon's highway could damage the
Class II fisheries . If the river is straightened , water speeds could
increase beyond tolerable levels for trout. Placing fill on a
streambank ' or removing streamside vegetation would eliminate
resting and hiding cover. Streamside trees, shrubs, and grass
provide food for insects. which trout eat, as well as providing hiding
cover fo r trout.
Streamside vegetation is valuable for many other reasons as well.
It slows overland water runoff while trapping silt. This keeps the
river clean for increased and healthier trout populations.
Streamside vegetation also screens anglers [rom the highway
while providing a wilder and more natural outdoor experience . This
vegetation allows passing sights and sounds to be muted or even
eliminated .
While important for fish and fishermen alike, streamside
vegetation provides habitat for birds and mammals who live along
rivers. It also anchors streambanks. This minimizes bank erosion
and stream bed shifting.
LOGA N
CANYON
HIGHWAY
m,,,,
STUDY
Changes Add Up
" T.
"LitUe" changes throughout the river soon add up to one "big"
change. Minor modifications between Logan Canyon's highway and
the river could invariably damage the entire Class n trout fishery .
l oeAN
.'"
.'
Bill Helm Is a proltsSOt' 01 IiSh t r its a ll(! wil dllft at Ut,h Sla tt Un illersitv. Ht hn
<Kl illtly supporttd pr oted ion 01 Loga n Ca nvon a ll(! its r illtr lor ma!"!y vtars .
�4 CITIZENS fOR 11-IE PROTEcnON OF l.OO AN CANYON _ FEBURARY 1987
Logan Canyon
By Tom Lyon
The significance of the Logan
Canyon struggle, as I see it, is
that it means we are waking up
to some implications of the 20th
century. Now that is a pretty
tall order for a controversy over
a highway . But it was nol so
long ago (1968, to be precise )
that a six-mile section of the
canyon was reamed and dynamited for what is called
highway improvements - that
was the section from Dewitt
Springs to Right Hand Fork with almost no oPPOsition. In
1961, the lower section was
similarly manhandled for the
same reason, with even less
comment. Now we are waking
up, and we are taking a stand
that has some powerful implications.
We are, I think, starting to
see Logan Canyon for what it
actually is. We are seeing it, in
its beauty and naturalness, as a
place to be in, not go through.
This is a significant change,
amounting possibly to the
beginning of a whole different
orientation. As Americans, we
have always been going somewhere else, always looking over
the shoulder of what is around
us, never quite being where we
are. Now we seem to be settling
in, some percentage of us ,
getting ready to live in place.
The world is filling up fast, and
perhaps finally we are seeing
the well-known handwriting on
the wall. We ought to - it is all
in capital letters.
The beauty is that in staying
put for a while, we can begin to
fee l the inward sense of place,
so that for example the way the
sun hits the Wellsvilles on
winter mornings, of the way the
Logan River looks and sounds,
charging down the canyon in
spring, becomes an unspoken
part of consciousness and nol
just views. The allegia nce is
natural, literally natural. Suddenly it seems perfectly absurd,
something out of a different
world, to cut and fill Logan
Canyon so that tra vellers between Los Angeles and Yellowstone (or between somewhere else and somewhere else,
hut always travellers ) can save
possibly two minutes of driving
time.
That different world is where
the money and speed are. It is
where " what's happening" is
happening . It is that world that
sends the three-piece suit
brigade to Logan, Utah, all the
way fro m Seattle or Denver or
even New York to testify
against wilderness for Mount
Naomi, and that has cut and
scraped. the hills by Bear Lake
and put second homes sticking
up everywhere, and that makes
each one of us, possibly, wonder
at some time if it wouldn't be
nice to have a passing lane on
the Dugway between Twin
Bridges. That is the world of no
place, of placeiessness, of
AWatershed
Tree ca nopies create roadway tunnels along parts of Logan Canyon.
always going somewhere and
never anywhere, at taking the
landscape around you and
converting it into something
else, perferahly money , with as
little delay as possible. (Then
you can take the money and go
somewhere else.)
That world has had its way
for a long time. But it runs on
unconsciousness, and now not
everyone is asleep. Too late for
the San Fernando Valley, and
too late for the hills of Bear
Lake; but maybe we are still in
time for Logan Canyon. There
is already a road in it, a paved
one even, and it is definitely not
the Logan Canyon that the
mountain man Warren Ferris
saw in 1826 - there were grizzly
and big horns then. But as they
say, you start from where you
are, and this is where we are.
-:::----:;-_-:-_ _ ....,._ _-:(Tom Lyon is a professor of
English at Utah State University. He has been involved (or
several years in the movement
to protect Logan Canyon.)
Logan Canyon Needs Defenders
No t striving. unresistilJg. )'ieltlilJg
II o .'er t'om es
Flowing lo wer tluJII ils tribu taries
It ret'eives a ll illlo itself
Fulfilling its purpose silnlll)'
II makes n o da i", .
F r o m L Ull
1'"..
VO ICE YOUR SUPPORT FOR LOGAN CANYON'S FUTURE AT THE MARCH PUBLIC
HEARINGS :
CITIZENS FO R THE
MARCH 3, 7 p.m ., MOUNTAIN FUEL AUDITORI UM , LOGAN
PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON
MAR CH 4, 7 p.m ., CITY HALL, GARDEN CITY
P.O. Bo)( 3SBO
Logan , UTah 84321
(801 )1752-9102 ,56H908 (e l
�
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
4540
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
3438
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/422">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/422</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
RGB
Checksum
1350707157
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
CPLC Newletters, 1976-1996
Description
An account of the resource
CPLC Newletters from 1976-1996 (incomplete) discussing the need for the protection of Logan Canyon and examination of the Conservatives' Alternative.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Wilderness areas
Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon Study
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Newsletters
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1970-1979
1980-1989
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 4
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
MSS314Bx1Fd4
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/01723bfef9f895dc5d9636bbf030460d.pdf
e456f8d9505df07bbf3d18156a7be93b
PDF Text
Text
I
i
Logan Canyon HighwJy
For the second time in nine years, the Utah Department of Transportation
(UnOT) is proposing an expansion and reduction of curves to the 6.7-mile
stretch of U.S. Highway 89 from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Spring in Logan Canyon.
Environmental groups and concerned citizens, including the Sierra Club, the
Bridgerland Audubon Society , Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon and
o thers, view this expansion as highly unfavorable a nd as a threat to the
beauty and quality of the Logan Canyon Recreation Area.
General Summary
*
Major impact
011
both environmental '\lnd visual quality of canyon.
* Project cont radict s national energy , concern.
* 80-90 percent of the project requi r ~ s cutting into e~isting banks and
vegetated areas.
!
* "Waste poses a major engineering pr~ blem." (Quote from project engineer)
Traffic Growth Factors
*
*
*
*
UDOT uses an unrealistic expontential model.
A linear growth model better fits daily traffic data.
Traffic data used by UnOT are limited to one busy section of the highway,
yet are used to describe the whole road.
Need for highway re-al ignment not documented by current data.
Safety Factors
*
*
*
*
Suggested danger of Logan Canyon "Section III" is not supported by current
data.
A major discrepancy exist s between accident rate data and traffic volume.
1977 accident rate figured by the Utah Highway Patrol does not agree with
unOT report.
Statistical significance of acciden t data used is suspect.
Environmental Factors
* Numerous spills would encroach into Logan River from planned fills.
* Silt deposits in the river would 4estroy trout habitat and breeding cycle.
* Loss of riverside vegetation needed by trout for 100/ light intensity.
* Creation of any culverts would impair spa't<.>ning success of trout.
* Los s of vegetative barriers lessens the quality of fishing experience.
* Major visual impacts \"ould result from the cuts pla nned, especially the
two major cuts at the Temple Fork area, which lI.T()uld be, according to the
engineer's r eport, 75 feet deep and as much as 150 feet across.
II
IT'LL NEVER BE WORTH AS MUCH AS WE'VE PUT I NTO IT (the project) ALREADY."
--Gary Lindley, project engineer.
�January 20, 1989
SR-89, Logan Canyon
~9.~_IJ.£1_.~J:te r..n.~.:t:..t.~.~.
Meetings, discussions and field trips between representatives of the Forest
Service, Federal Highway Administration and UDOT have led to an agency
alternative proposal. Impact upon aquatic, riparian and visual resources were
considered as well as highway needs concerning safety, capacity, passing
opportunities, structure conditions and roadllJay alignment.
The following elements of the agency alternative proposal were selected, based
upon needs. Impacts were held essentially to visual resources except for the
Beaver Canyon area of Section 2. Visual, riparian and aquatic resources are
of great value. Visual resources are considered to be more readily mitigated
with proven techniques, to the extent that restoration can be achieved . The
effect and success of visual resource mitigation is relatively simple to
demonstrate, as compared to the mitigation of aquatic or riparian areas . The
erosive capability of water at high-flow volumes can quickly damage the best
of mitigative techniques in the aquatic or riparian environment . The Forest
Service anticipates that some elements of the agency alternative will alt~r
resources to the extent of non- compliance with the Wasatch- Cache Forest Plan
and will require that the plan be amended.
Elements of the agency alternative were selected from among the various
alternatives, as prepared by UDOT's consultant and suggestions recommended by
UDOT, FHWA and USFS. Each element is intended to stand on its own merits with
regard to capacity, safety, nationally recognized standards, principals of
good engineering practice, impact upon the environment, highway maintenance,
and user's of canyon resources. Use of the map supplement, alter'native "0" as
prepared by UDOT's consultant will be useful in locating the various elements
of the agency alternative in relation to canyon topography, Each element is
identified by milepost, generally to the nearest one- tenth mile. This
location identification is only intended to be a general locator and may not
specifically identify the location of any selected improvement,
Various curves throughout the project corridor are selected for flattening
(longer radius). This flattening is expressed in degree of curve according to
standard engineering practice. The degree of curvature stated for each
affected curve is only approximate, and may change slightly during the
detailed design process because of local topographic or geologic constraints,
related alignments, or other factors.
Visual, riparian and acquatics were considered to be the areas of most
significant impact in the canyon environment; and the elements of the agency
alternative were selected in an effort to minimize the impact upon these
resources. Impacts upon wetlands are created by some elements of the agency
alternative. Wetland impacts are considered to be mitigatable accor'ding to
the following schedule, if the wetland area cannot be completely avoided:
(1)
(2)
Adjust highway alignment or location,
Consider retaining walls in terms of economics and affects, and
(3)
Consume wetland in element construction and replace in accordance
with Army Corps of Engineers' requirements.
�-2--
The following elements of the agency alternative are recommended by the
three-~ember committee to the lead and cooperative agencies:
A clear zone requirement is associated with the improvement alternatives
listed below, according to the schedule: 35 mph - 18 feet; 40 mph - 18 feet;
50 mph - 22 feet. This dimension is measured from the
tr'affic lane/shoulder line to a hazard (rock, tree, slope, etc.). Any hazard
lying within this distance should either be removed or protected by barrier
(guardrail). Although many items (trees, rocks, etc.) are located near enough
to the roadway to warrant protection, only the most severe and extreme hazar'ds
will be protected. Severe hazards are defined where a serious accident could
occur if a vehicle left the roadway, i.e., the Dugway area. The clear zone
dimension also affects guardrail length and flare rate in connection with
protecting bridge parapet walls. Guardrail will be the preferred barrier type
for this project. Other acceptable barrier types may be considered if their
impact is more favorable than conventional guardrail. Guardrail placement
will be carefully evaluated in respect to hazard type, canyon environment,
design speed and other site conditions. If a specific hazard warrants
protection, roadway embankments may require extension to provide adequate
space for guardrai I plac~~ment .
Various parcels of right--of-way are required to construct the below listed
widenings, curve flattenings, realignments, intersection improvements or other
features. On National Forest lands the UDOT will obtain a Department of
Transportation easement to all parcels required to contain the roadway and cut
and fill slopes according to provisions of the Highway Act of 1958. Title to
private properties will be requested through regular right-of-way
proceedings. Parcels no longer required for right-of.!-way will not be retained
by the UDOT.
Vertical alignment throughout the project corridor is generally adequate for
the intended design speeds. All roadway sections throughout the project
corridor are intended to be reconstructed to meet the strength requirements of
a twenty-year design period. This pavement reconstruction is intended to
apply to all areas even if no widening, realignment, or curve flattening is
intended. The pavement reconstruction oper'ation is to provide adequate
strength while leaving essentially unaffected present pavement elevation.
Techniques, such as in place recycling or total pavement excavation, may be
utilized. All pipe culverts will be replaced . Drainage ar'eas will be
evaluated to determine pipe culvert diameters, Some additional culverts may
be requ ired.
All project sections will be subject to highway signing and delineation
upgrade, Feature signing for campgrounds and other points of interest may be
included, Curves will be signed as appropriate with advisot~y speeds.
Culver'ts will be marked with delineators for identification. Milepost and
destination signing will be provided. Highway delineators will be installed
in an acceptable manner in consultation with the Forest Service and the
Federal Highway Administration.
�-3Traffic control during construction periods will be provided so that at least
one-lane of traffic for alternating one-way traffic is available at all
times. Traffic will be returned t6 the normal two- lane, two -~ay operation to
the extent possible during no construction periods. Under no conditions will
the contractor be allowed to prevent traffic flow in the canyon for extended
periods. Time of construction of selected operations will be scheduled to
allow for maximum protection of the environment, such as periods of fish
spawning or other sensitive events. However, sufficient time and opportunity
must be available to the contractor to build the improvements following good
construction practice.
Consideration will be given to constructing cut or fill slopes entirely on one
side of the present roadway. Generall~, the preferable area of distu r bance
will be the side away from the river, wetland or toward the area which can
absorb disturbance with the least impact. Cut and fill areas will be
constructed as flat as practicable in accordance with good engineering
practice. In all disturbed areas topsoil and native plantings will be
restored according to good landscaping practice.
1.
Section lA: Project beginning (Milepost 383.47, Right Hand Fork) to M.P.
387.47, length 4.0 miles. This section is referred to as the "parkway".
Present design speed and posted speed will remain unchanged; roadway
width 26 feet (existing width). Maximum degree of curve - 26 0 . Curves
showing high-accident location will be flattened to a degree similar to
adjoining curves if it is concluded that flattening can be achieved
without severe environment al impact. Clear zone requirement - 18 feet .
No features outside existing roadway will be disturbed, except as
provided below. Sections of the roadway having design speeds lower than
the present speed limit will be appropriately signed.
a.
Flattening of Curve #5 at Milepost 384 from 25 0 to
15 0 . The curve is the site of an unusually
high-accident r·ate. Flattening the curve wi 11 move the
alignment away from the river. Excavated material will
be disposed of in an acceptable manner. New cut slopes
will be contoured, topsoiled and revegetated. Accidents
at this location typically involve vehicles leaving thE!
roadway due to excessive speed for the curve . Records
show approximately equal numbers of up- canyon vehicle
accidents as down-canyon vehicle accidents. A speed
which is apparently safe for down- canyon (as well as for
up canyon) vehicles is too great, in some cases, to
safely negotiate this curve. Therefore, flattening the
curve should lead to a reduction of accidents rather than
encour'aging faster trave ling sp~~eds. An amendment to the
Forest Plan for visual resources will be required
�-4-
b.
China Row Picnic Area (Milepost 394.4). Accor'ding to
Forest Service recommendations, this area will not be
maintained as a picnic ground, and access fl~om the
highway will not be provided.
c.
Replace Burnt Bridge (Milepost 385.5) with a new single
span structure on the same alignment. Structure width
shall be 30 feet (four feet wider than the approaching
roadway). A detour is required as the present bridge
must be entirely r'emoved before a new structure can be
constructed. A detour and temporary bridge will be
placed i~nediately downstream of the present bridge.
Vegetation removal and river bank modification are
required. The temporary bridge will be single-span,
creating minimal impact upon the river. The detour will
allow two-way traHic at a 15 mph design speed if extreme
excavation and grading are not required. otherwise, a
single lane between with adequate traffic control devices
will be provided. Following construction, all contours
and vegetation will be re-established. An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
This element also impacts the riparian and acquatic
environments. Appropriate changes to the Forest plan
will be necessary.
d.
A grade increase of three feet will be constructed at
Logan Cave (Milepost 386.2) for a length of 1,000 feet.
The grade elevation wi 11 allow the roadway to move toward
the mountain several feet and help to somewhat flatten
Curve 22 (26 0 ). The river bank will be protected with
large ripr'ap and revegetated as appropriate. An
amendment to the Forest plan for work on the river bank
will be necessary. Separate walkway and pedestrian
facilities to Logan Cave will not be a part of the
proposed alternative at the request of the Forest Service.
e.
Replace Cottonwood Creek culvert (Milepost 386.4) on the
same alignment. A detour is not required as the new
culvert can be placed one-half at a time. An amendment
to the Forest Plan for visual resources will be required.
�-5-
f.
Raise roadway elevation in the area of Milepost 386.6 for
500 feet to a maximum amount of 18 inches. This action
is to eliminate occasional flooding of the roadway
created during freezing conditions of the river or other
high-water events. An amendment to the Fore8t Plan for
visual resources will be required.
Other features of the parkway section are as follows:
a.
Parking turnouts will be placed wherever possible to
attain at least three parking stalls with adequate sight
distance and tapers. Exact locations will be determined
during final design and in conjunction with Fore8t
Service recommendations.
b.
Habitat of endangered or protected species in this
section wil l not be affected by this proposal ..
c.
Placement of concrete curb and gutter, or gutter only,
along one or both sides of the roadway in portions of the
entire length of the parkway section. Curb and gutter
placement will be a subject of final design and the
location will be evaluated and care fully considered with
respect to impacts on the following highway factors:
1.
Roadside drainage channels.
2.
Maintenance operations, including snowplowing, removal of
talus (waste) material, and other activities (sweeping,
painting, etc.)
3.
Protection of roadside hazards.
4.
Access requirements.
d. Certain effects may occur if curb and gutter is c6nstructed as
li sted be low: .
1.
Delineation of roadside edge, and vegetation could grow
to the curb.
2.
Control of access. Vehicles could only park off the
roadway in des ignated areas and access campgrounds in
selected locations.
�-6-·
3.
Wider Roadway. Approximately 1 to 2 feet could be gained
by placing the curb and gutter in the present gravel
shoulder. This is necessary to provide an equivalent
lane width due to the proximity of the curb and gutter.
Some minor fill may be required to create grade to
maintain a constant roadway width.
4.
Roadway drainage. Discharge from curb and gutter catch
basins into wetland areas will be preferred over direct
discharge into the river. Good outfall design will be
required.
2.
Section 18: Construction of a 34-foot roadway section
(except as modified by a passing lane) from Milepost
387.47
to end of Middle Canyon Section, Milepost 391.6. Length
- 4.13 miles. Design speed 35 mph, maximum degree of
curve - 15 0 30'. Clear zone requirement - 18 feet.
Milepost 387.47 marks the beginning of a transition from
the 26-foot of Section iA width to a 40-foot roadway of
section 2. For down canyon traffic section 18 will
prepare drivers after leaving the 50 mph design speed of
section 2 for the 35 mph Parkway section (section 1A).
Traffic moving in both directions will travel a variable
width roadway through the heavily vegetated and very
scenic area of section iA to the less vegetated terrain
of section 2 or visa versa. Section 18 limits were
defined as an area which could absorb more impact of
roadway widening with less negative affect than section
1A. However, a 40-foot section with 50 mph design speed
would cause impacts greater than could be tolerated in
this section. An amendment to the Forest plan will be
required on all widened areas on National Forest Lands
with respect to visual and wetland resources.
Features of this section include the following:
a. Flatten Curve #33 (Milepost 387.7) to 80 by removing
rock material and creating a new cut. The existing
roadway cut can be partially backfilled and
revegetated when the new alignment is put in
service. This curve together with site (b) below are
high-accident locations . An amendment to the Forest
plan for visual resources will be required.
�-7-
b. Replace Lower Twin Bridge (Milepost 387.76) on new
alignment immediately upstream of the present bridge
clearspanning the river. The present bridge will
remain in service until the new structure is
completed. The new structure will be 47 feet wide to
provide for a passing lane as described below. The
present structure will be removed when the new
structure is placed in service. An amendment to the
Forest plan will be required in respect to visual,
aquatic and riparian resources.
c. Construct a passing lane from Milepost 387.5 to
Milepost 388.4, including transitions to and from the
new 34 foot roadway width. This section is through
the "Dugway" section. Roadway width will consist of
three 12-foot lanes, one 5-foot downhill shoulder and
one 2-foot uphill shoulder for a total width of 43
feet of paved width. ~etaining walls are required.
Walls will be aesthetically compatible with the canyon
topography and of a variable height. Wall locations
may be entirely uphill or entirely downhill of the
present roadway, or a combination of both, as deemed
appropriate, from an engineering and geotechnical
analysis. Impact upon the acquatic or riparian
environment will not be permitted. An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
d. Flatten Curve #35 (Milepost 388.11) from 16 0 to
15°-30' for a 35 mph design speed, which requires a
very minor realignment.
e. Flatten Curve #37 (Milepost 388.5) from 19 0 to
15°-30' by creating a new excavation into the
mountain. Design, construction and mitigation will be
similar to Curve #33. An amendment to the Forest plan
for visual resource~ will be required.
f. Replace Upper Twin Bridge (Milepost 388.76) on new
alignment immediately downstream of, and 10 feet higher
than, the existing bridge. This site is a
high-accident location. The present bridge and roadway
will serve as a one-lane detour during construction.
Embankment mat~rial used to obtain an elevation
increase and abutment footing will be placed onto the
down canyon lane and retained from spilling onto the
up--canyon lane by a concrete barrier 30" high. Thi s
concept provides the following:
�-8-
1. Minimum shift of roadway alignment.
2. Attainment of higher structure elevation,
improving wintertime maintenance.
3. Accommodation of traffic through the work zone.
4. No realignment or filling into the river channel.
When the new alignment is completed, the
remaining unused roadway will be backfilled,
regraded, and revegetated to an original
condition. Most, if not all, of the present
structure will be removed, dependant on any
portions being required to support new
embankment materials.
Some tree removal downstream of the present
structure will be required. Tree removal will
be held to a minimum and a retaining wall will
be constructed if substantial tree savings can
be realized. An amendment to the Forest plan
will be required with respect to the visual,
aquatic and riparian environment.
g. Flatten Curves #39 and #40 (Milepost 388.8) to 15 0 .
Curve #39 may be flattened to less than 15 0 ,
depending on how the realignment of Upper Twin Bridge
is designed. An amendment to the Forest plan for
visual resources will be required.
h. Temple Fork Intersection (Milepost 389.2). Improve
Temple Fork Road intersection by n~grading access road
to a maximum grade of 2%. This intersection will be
modified to provide maximum safety of access.
i. Temple Fork Parking Area (Milepost 389.3). Construct a
parking area at Temple Fork between the roadway as
realigned in (j) below and the Logan River. The
parking area wi 11 be made as large as possible in
accordance with Forest Service recommendations and
safety of access, without encroaching upon the roadway
or the river. An amendment to the Forest plan for
visual resources will be required.
j. Flatten Curve #43 (Milepost 389.4) from 20 0 to
150 . This realignment will move into the area of
shade near Milepost 389.3 (down canyon side of
highway). The widening or realignment will not affect,
or move closer to, the river. An amendment to the
Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
�-9-
k. Rick Springs Area (Milepost 389.8) - Roadway width of
34 feet will be constructed and the Ricks Springs
structure replaced. An al igrllnent shi f't toward, but not
impacting the river or riparian area is recommended.
Parking areas will be provided. Material will be
removed and/or retaining walls constr~cted in
accordance with good design practice to provide a
maximum parking area. All improvements will be
consistent with USFS reco~nendations. This area is
recorded as a high-accident location. . An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
1. Flatten Curve #45 (Milepost 390.1) from 16 0 to
15 0 • Maintain existing passing lane from Milepost
390.1 to 390.7 except for the addition of paved
shoulders. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual
resources will be required.
m. Raise roadway elevation in the area of Milepost 390.2
and Milepost 391.1 to a maximum of 18 inches to
eliminate occasional flooding of the
roadway created during freezing conditions of the river
or other high-water events . An amendment to the Forest
plan for visual resources will be required.
n. The remaining distance to the end of Section One
(to Milepost 391.6, or 1.5 miles) will continue to be
upgraded to the 34-foot r'oadway width and 35 mph design
speed on the present roadway alignment. Areas of soil
excavation and backfill are required, and will be
mitigated as described in l.a above. An amendment to
the Forest plan will be required with respect to
visual, and wetland environments .
3.
Section 2: Construction of a 4o-foot paved roadway width,
except as modified by passing lanes, and 50 mph design speed
from the beginning of Section 2 (Milepost 391.6) to the Bear
Lake SUl1lmit (Milepost 404 . .,5). 13.15 miles. Maximum degree of
curve is 6 0 45'. Clear zone requirement - 22 feet.
Milepost 391.9 to 392.0 is a high accident area. In locations
where the stream channels are placed in a curvert or otherwise
affected, fish passage through the affected segment will be a
design consideration . An amendment to the Forest plan will be
required on widened areas on National Forest Lands with
respect to visual and wetland environments.
�-10-
a. Construct passing lane from Milepost 391 . 6 to Milepost
393.3, including pavement width tapers, length 1.7
miles. Pavement width will be as in (g) below. An
amendment to the Forest plan will be required with
respect to visual and wetland environments.
b. Construct fencin9 in open range area from the cattle
guard near Milepost 391.6 to the Franklin Basin area
near Milepost 397.2 along both sides of the roadway.
Fence type will be of a double-steel post and barb wire
of a design which can be laid down during non-~razing
seasons. The fence is laid down by the cattlemen's
association to prevent damage due to snow. The fence
may be located a distance from the highway to avoid
visual detection.
c. Tony Grove intersection (Milepost 393.7 - Provide left
turn deceleration and storage lane for up-canyon turns
into Tony Grove area.
An amendment to the Forest plan
for visual resources will be required.
d. Replace Tony Grove Creek culvert (Milepost 393.8) on
original alignment. This is a high- accident location.
New crossing will be 4 feet wider than the approach
roadway or 44 feet. Appropriate guar'drai I prot~~ction
will be provided. An amendment to the Forest Plan will
be required with respect to visual, aquatic and
riparian environments.
e. Bunch Grass Creek Culvert (milepost 394.2). Check
culvert for hydl~aulic capacity and structural
condition. Provide a culvert which will meet the
requirement for fish passage. An amendment to the
Forest plan will be required with respect to the
visual, aquatic and "riparian environment.
f. Replace Red Banks Bridge (Milepost 394.5) on original
alignment. Structure width will be 44 feet unless
tapers for campground widening run onto bridge.
creating need for additional width . Guardrail with
appropriate flare rate is required. A detour for
traffic and a temporary bridge are necessary. The
detour (for tl..,o-way traffic) will be located just
downstream of the present crossing. After the new
structure is completed the temporary bridge and detour
will be removed and the detour alignment restored to
original conditions. An amendment to the Forest plan
will be required with respect to the visual, aquatic
and riparian environment.
�-11-
g. Red Banks Campground (Milepost 394.6). Improve
campground intersection as in (c) above. An amendment
to the Forest plan for visual resource s will be
required.
h. Begin climbing lane at Milepost 394.9. End climbing
lane at Milepost 396.5, 1.6 miles. Roadway width wi ll
consist of three 12-foot traffic lanes, one 8-foot
shoulder (downhill lane) and one 3-foot shoulder
(up-canyon direction) Total width is 47 feet.
Milepost 394.91 to 395.00 is a high- accident location.
An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources
will be required on National Forest land.
i. Replace Beaver Creek Structure at Franklin Basin Road
(Milepost 396.9) on original alignment. Pavement width
transitions will affect total structure width,
requiring a minimum width of 58 feet. Guardrail with
appropriate flare rate is required.
j. Franklin Basin Intersection (Milepost 397.0). Improve
this intersection as in (c) . above . This is a
high- accident location . The area from Milepost 397.0
to 399.0 is referred to as Beaver Canyon.
k. Replace Beaver Creek Structure (Milepost 397.5)
Replace on same alignment . New structure width is 44
feet. Guardrail with appropriate flare rate is
required.
1. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 398.1). Relocate 300
feet of creek to up-canyon (easterly) side of highway
in original channel as present channel is required for
roadway widening. New locations will lengthen the
channel and reduce gradient . . Two crossings of the
highway will be required. Concrete box culverts or
other suitable culvert type will be used. An amendment
to the Forest plan will be required on National Forest
land with respect to the visual, aquatic and riparian
environment.
m. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 398.3). Relocate 700
feet of creek to up- canyon (easterly) side of highway
in original channel. Conditions are the same as (1)
above. An amendment to Forest plan will be required
with respect to the visual, aquatic and riparian
environment.
�-12n. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 398.6). Roadway
widening will be placed on the up-··canyon (easterly)
side of the present roadway to the extent limited by
the nearby canyon topography. If sufficient widening
cannot be obtained, a portion of Beaver Creek will be
placed in a culvert and/or relocated to the west to
obtain roadway width. A design consideration will be
for fish passage through the culvert. A maximum length
of 400 feet of channel could be affected. An amendment
to the Forest plan will be required with respect to the
visual, aquatic and riparian environment.
o. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 39B.9). Relocate 500
feet of creek to up-canyon (easterly) side of highway.
Conditions are the same as in (1) above. An amendment
to the Forest plan will be required with respect to the
visual, aquatic and riparian environment.
p. Replace Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and surrounding
area drainage box culvert (Milepost 399.6). Widen box
culvert to accommodate wider roadway and pavement
transitions for the Beaver Mountain road intersection.
An additional width of 20 feet from the shoulder lane
to the headwall on each side is required to avoid
guardrail protection. Generally a better approach is
to eliminate a hazard rather than provide protection.
An amendment to the Forest plan will be required with
respect to the visual and wetland environment.
q. Realign and channelize SR- 243 (Beaver Mountain ' Road)
intersection (Milepost 399.75). This is a
high-accident location. Realign 150 feet of SR-243 to
create a conventional right-angled intersection.
Provide left lane deceler'ation and storage lane with
appropriate tapers. Total length of SR-89 affected is
1500 feet. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual
resources will be required.
r. Begin climbing lane at Milepost 400. An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required
on National Forest lands.
s. Realign through Curve #69 and #70 (Milepost 400 to
400.5). Realign 2700 feet of roadway a maximulll of 1.50
feet from the present alignment to attain 50 mph design
speed curves. The portion of the present roadway
removed from service will be obliterated, topsoiled and
reseeded with natural vegetation. An amendment to the
Forest Plan for visual resources will be required on
National Forest lands .
...
�-13t. Flatten Curve #71 from 80 to 60 30' (Milepost
400.6) to attain design speed. Highway widening f~om
Milepost 400 to 402 will be obtained by removing rock
material on the up-canyon (noy·therly) side of the
present roadway.
u. Flatten Curve #76 (Milepost 402.2) from 10 0 to 60
30' to attain design speed. An elevation decrease of
at least 4 feet is required to achieve sight distance.
The present 1,500 feet vertical curve will be increased
to 2,600 feet. An amendment to the Forest plan for
visual resources will be required.
v. Highway widening from Milepost 402.5 to Milepost 404.7
will be obtained by filling the down canyon (westerly)
side of the present roadway. An amendment to the
Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
w. Flatten Curve #80 (Milepost 404) from 100 to 60 30'
to attain design speed. An amendment to the Forest
plan for visual resour~es will be required .
x. End uphill passing lane from Garden City at Milepost
404.6. End uphill passing lane from Beaver Mountain at
Milepost 404.9. Between Milepost 404.6 and 404.9 the
maximum roadway width will cDnsist of two 12-foot
traffic lanes, two 12-foot climbing lanes, and two
3-foot shoulders; total pavement width of 54 feet.
Width transitions are included . An amendment to the
Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
4.
Section 3A: Bear Lake Summit to Bridgerland Subdivision
intersection (Milepost 404.75 to 409.4) 4.6 miles. Design
speed 40 mph, maximum degree of curve 11 0 15', nominal
roadway width 40 feet, two 12-foot traffic lanes, two
8-foot shoulders. Roadway width with passing lane - 47
feet (three 12-foot traffic lanes, one 8-foot shoulder and
one 3-foot shoulder). This section will have a continuous
uphill passing lane. Clear zone requirement - 18 feet
measured from the traffic line/shoulder line to nearest
roadside hazard. Elements of Section 3 are as follows:
An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will
be required on widened areas on National Forest lands.
a. Limber Pine Trail Head (Milepost 404.8). Provide
single access into parking area. No other specific
roadway improvements. Internal modifications will be
constructed as recommended by the Forest Service. An
amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will
be requ ired.
�-14--
b. Flatten Curve #85 (Milepost 405.1) from 23 0 to
110. This action will move the centerline 80 feet
and require a new fill secti6n. The existing roadway
alignment will be removed and original contour
elevations and vegetation restored. Tree and brush
removal will be held to a minimum amount, and fill
slopes constructed to a slope rate acceptable for
revegetation . Retaining walls will be considered in
view of economics and tree savings. An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required .
c. Curve #86 (Milepost 405 . 2). Retain present alignment.
Roadway widening will be constructed on the downhill
slope. Tree removal is required. Retaining walls will
be considered as in (b) above. An amendment to the
Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
d. Sunrise Campground (Milepost 405.5). Provide single
access into campground without specific roadway
modifications. A left-turn lane from Garden City is
not proposed and would require more roadwa.y width in
addition to the passing lane of 4 above and be of
questionable value. An amendment to the Forest plan
for visual resources will be required.
e. Bear Lake View area (Milepost 405.5). Provide single
access to view area in Curve #88, located to obtain the
best sight distance possible. No specific roadway
modifications for the access will be provided. Regrade
(raise elevation), enlarge and relandscape view area
according to Forest Service recommendations . An
amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will
be required.
f . Flatten Curve #88 (Milepost 405.7) from 18 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline shift of about
200 feet with accompanying earthwork (excavation)
required. The present alignment will be removed and
regraded to provide improved access for (e) above. An
amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will
be required.
g. Flatten Curve #89 (Milepost 405.9) from 20 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline shift of about 50
feet is required with accompanying earthwork (fill)
required. The present alignment will be removed and
original contours and vegetation restored upon
completion. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual
resources will be required.
�-15-
h. Flatten Curve #92 (Milepost 406.2) from 20 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed . A .centerline alignment shift
of about 70 feet with accompanying earthwork (fill) is
required. The present alignment will be removed and
original contours and vegetation restored upon
completion. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual
resources will be required.
i. Flatten Curve #94 (Milepost 406.9) from 16 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift
of about 340 feet with accompanying earthwork (some cut
and fill) is required. The present alignment will be
removed and original contours and vegetation restored
upon completion. An amendment to the Forest plan for
visual resources will be required.
j.
Flatten Curve #95 (Milepost 407.2) from 20° to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift
of about 60 feet with accompanying earthwork (fill) is
required. The present alignment will be removed and
original contours and vegetation restored upon
completion . An amendment to the Forest plan for visual
resources will be required.
k. Stabilize landslide area (Milepost 407.5) . An existing
unstable landmass will be stabilized by application of
appropriate geotechnical techniques. An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required
on National Forest land .
1. Flatten Curve #98 (Milepost 407 . 9) from 27 0 17' to
11 0 to attain design speed. This area is a
high- accident location . A centerline alignment shift
of about 670 feet with accompanying earthwork
(excavation) is required. Roadway gradient steepens to
about 10% in this area as a result of the curve
realignment. The present alignment will be removed and
original contours and vegetation restored upon
completion .
m. Highway widening from Milepost 408 to Milepost 408.7
will be obtained by excavating into the downhill
(westerly) s ide of the pY'esent roadway . Guardrai 1
protection on the uphill direction will be considered.
n. Flatten Curve #101 (Milepost 408.3) from 23 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift
of about 30 feet with accompanying earthwork (fill) is
required. Portions of the present alignment will be
removed and original conto~rs and vegetation restored
upon completion.
�-16o . Flatten Curve #102 (Milepost 408.5) from 14 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift
of about 20 feet with accompanying earthwork
(excavation) is required.
p. Close access to Bridgerland Subdivision (Milepost
408.6) All subdivision access shall be provided as
described in (r) below.
q . Flatten Curve #103, 104 and 105 (Milepost 408.8) to a
single 11 0 foot curve or flatter, depending on the
alignment shift of (r) below . Earthwork quantities
appear to be minimal.
r. Relocate alignment from C~rve #105 to Curve #109
(Milepost 409.4). Also , construct an intersection for
the Bridgerline Subdivision with additional pavement
widening for protected left and right- turn movements ..
This is a high-accident location. The present
alignment will be removed and restored to original
contour and vegetation.
5.
Section 38: Bridgerland Subdivision to Garden City (Milepost
409.4 to 411.75) . Increase design speed to 50 mph, maximum
degree of curve 6 0 45', roadway width - 40' (47 feet in
passing lane areas.) Clear zone - 22 feet. This alignment
will follow an alignment similar to 63 as prepared by the
consultant. Roadway widening in this section will consist of
approximately equal amounts of cut and fill areas. Guardrail
protection will be considered on the downhill side of the
roadway.
a. Flatten Curve #109 from 80 to 6 0 (Milepost 409 . 7)
to attain design speed . Some excavation will be
required.
b. Flatten Curve #110 (Milepost 409.8) from 100 to 60
to attain design speed. Some fill will be required .
c. Flatten Curve #111 (Milepost 410.0) from 12 0 to 60
to attain design speed. Excavation is required.
d. Flatten Curve #112 (Milepost 410.1) from 12 0 to 6 0
to attain design speed. Embankment will be required .
e. Relocate access at Milepost 410.6 by closing present
access and providing a new access from another public
street, if possible. If the access cannot be closed,
then relocate to an improved location, providing the
�•
-17best design possible. A combination with the access at
Milepost 410.7 may be practicable. The access at
Milepost 410.7 will be considered according to the same
criteria as the access at Milepost 410.6.
f.
Begin uphill climbing line at Milepost 410.6.
g. Flatten Curve #116 (Milepost 411.2) from aO to 60
to attain design speed.
h. Redesign access at Milepost 411.2 to attain the best
design possible.
i . Redesign end of project intersection with SR-30 at
Milepost 411.75. Left and right-turn lanes will be
provided.
0169W
�ADDITIONS 'ID CONSERVATIONISTS' ALTERNATIVE FUR U. S. 89, FEBRUARY, 1989
The Conservationists' Alternative of August, 1987 was designed to be
in agreerrent with the folla.ving staterrent rmde in the Forest Plan for the
Wasatch-cache National Forest:
standard than exis ting . "
"The road will not be raised to a higher
This has always been the Conservationis ts' position,
and will rermin so.
The Conservationists' Alternative was designed to solve specific problems
wi th minimal environrrental irrpact.
The Agency Al ternati ve set forth in
LTanuary, 1989, except where it appears to spare 4 miles of the M
iddle Canyon,
represents nothing nore than adherence to arbitrary standards, without regard
for consequences, whether they be environmental (the proposed channelization
of Beaver Creek, for exarrple) or related to safety (the proposed 10% grade
in the Rich County section, for exanple).
The Agency Alternative atterrpts to
raise a facade of improved safety while in rea lity pronoting high speed travel.
The Conservationists' Alternative has enphasized that the entire route between
Garden City and Logan should be considered as a unit; thus it stresses the
safety value of keeping highway speeds as consistent as possible.
Alternative says to drivers, in effect, "Speed up."
The Agency
But the consequences of
high-speed traffic entering the Middle Canyon are i gnored.
In keeping with the overall philosophy of the 1987 Conservationists'
Alternative, we propose the following changes for evaluation:
1.
Logan Cave:
raise roadbed and nove road away from the river,
as per Agency Alternative
2.
Mileposts 386.6, 390.2, 391.1:
Agency Alternative.
of fill.]
raise roadbed as described in
[Contingent on availability
�Adell tions to Conservationists'
Alternative for U.S. 89 -- p. 2
These changes are proposed for evaluation in the DEIS; this evaluation
will determine whether they will be included in the final al ternati ve we
present to the public.
The follOtJing corrections need to be entered in our 1987 draft:
When
treating areas in the Upper Canyon (turning lanes, for exarrple), the reference
should be to "B2" rather than "Bl."
When treating areas on the Rich County
side, the reference should be "B3" rather than nOBl."
RICH COUNTY SECTION:
The Conservationists' Alternative for the Rich County portion of the route
is as follOtJs:
Maintain the present alignrrent.
Irrprove signing at the Bear Lake Overlook and at milepost 407.9.
The rationale for the Conservationists' Alternative in this portion of the
route is as follc:ws:
safety, aesthetics, and erosion control.
The Agency
Alternative proposes a high-speed design, thus creating an impetus for unsafe,
high speeds over the rerrainder of the route.
The Agency Alternative proposes
radical grades, as high as 10%, which constitute an obvious safety hazard.
The Agency Alternative would leave a rrass of scars over the hillside involved,
and would create numerous highly erosive cuts.
The Conservationists' Alterna-
tive contains none of t.l1ese flaws and works toward inproved safety by inproved
signing at areas of potential danger.
�\
February 14, 1989
Jack, Steve, Bruce:
I propose that we add something like the enclosed to our Environrrentalists'
Alternative on US 89. v-7hat do you think?
�[DRAFT]
Environrrentalists' Alternative for
u.s.
89, Logan canyon:
Rich County section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------v propose that the alignrrent of U. S. 89 between Garden City and the
ve
surrmit of Logan Canyon be kept exactly as it is, and that signing be improved for the scenic turnout near Sunrise campground and the turnout at
M
ilepost 407.9. Improved signing at 407.9 will make the area safer; relocating the highway 670 feet away on a 10% grade, as the "Agency Alternative" proposes, would increase the danger in this area very considerably.
Keeping the same alignrrent for the Rich County section, and improving
the signing at points where traffic enters the highway (such as noted above),
will help keep speeds rrore uniform throughout the Garden City-to-Logan route,
thus improving the safety of the road. Altering the alignrrent on the Rich
county section will increase the speed there, thus decreasing the safety, and
will have the added negative effect of creating an inconsistency in speed over
the whole route. 1iIe consider a high speed highway on the Rich County section
to be an unfortunate impetus for higher speeds in the rest of the route. The
proposed steepness of the "Agency Alternative" is also a safety hazard, particularly in winter.
Keeping the same alignrrent for the
the line on the aesthetic damage on the
naintain erosion rates at their present
leave a nass of scars over the hillside
Rich County section would help hold
east side of the rrountain, and v;ould
level. The "Agency Alternative" v;ould
and would create highly erosive cuts.
�-- - - - --
To~
, I ..., ",..+~
J~
,
"",&,
+I..~ ~
c... ill ";,,. s....,
Jt.
..
)
'~f",7.c./ -I• ....... ~.~..
(.....~ .Iy/.;1-~rl~-'4r;I
h.".,'yll. ~*,II>'
14(),r -h
,.t
c'fif'1
0+- -It,;,. .ff#"...-I"'~.
1-4 ..... -t.u ,,+ s......i?
--
�Conservationists' Alternative for the Logan Canyon Road
between Right Fork and Garden City
(submitted to UDOT February, 1989)
This alternative is designed to solve specific problems with
minimal environmental impact. This is in contrast to the Agency
Alternative,
where the main
goal
is to increase the highway
design speed on all
except the 4 miles
between Right
Fork and
Lower Twin Bridge. To make a
point-by-point comparison of this
alternative with the Agency Alternative, you may obtain a copy of
the Agency Alternative from:
LynY"1 Zoll i n~1et~
Utah Department of Transportation
PO Box i.:::7L~7
Ogden, Utah 84404
399-5'3i:::1
Add additicn'"lal
war~Y"liY"l g sigY"1
such as "Nar~r~ow WiY"ldiY"lg Road Next 7
Miles". Tht~oughout
the eY"ltit~e
t~oute ptlt
up specific cI.wve
signs with advisory speeds where needed.
jC:ldd s i ~V'IS
fol'~ S i del'~oads
such c.'.\s
"R i ~~ht Fot~k 1 / L~ mil e".
signs will be needed at Wood Camp, Temple Fork, etc.
Cr,~
a 100' paved tapel'~
i l"lt 0 Right FCIl'~k.
fc,l'~
-±-lCIst .::i l l
u p-caY"IYOl'"1
tl'~affic
Simi
lal'~
wishiY"lg
Plow parking area in the winter.
Pave
downcanyon
pt~eseY"d;
from
bridge,
si gY"ls.
Replace Burnt Bridge on
spal"l bl'~ i d ge.
I~a
i se
present alignment
wi th 28'
wide c 1 ei:\'r~-
3' for 1000'; this removes an erratic bend
t~oad bed
away from the
from the road and allows the road to be moved
river. Contingent on availability of fill.
Prohibit parking on curve.
CONSERVATIONISTS'
ALTERNATIVE
1
�For cave access, pave two parking
areas immediately downcanyon
from Cottonwood
Creek: one
150' x
20' on
the river side,
arlothEn~ 100'
x 35' (taper~irlg
to 20') at the locatiorl of old
Cottonwood Creek road. Plow in winter.
A/1-',,(
/
Fot~est
vetl uY·lteer~
Serv i ce
groups
f '
j
"5.
con s truct
t o cave
(erd:;r~ arlce.
Replace structure on pres ent alignment with 28'
Raise roadbed
approx. 18" for 500'
on availability of fill).
wide structure.
to avoid flooding
(contingent
Replace bridge with
wide
bridge immediately
upstream from present bridge. This involves a new cut at the
downcanyon edge of the
bridge.
Rubble could
be
used to
provide a slow-vehicle turnout downcanyon of the bridge.
Provide recreational parking at upcanyon edge of the bridge.
Notj£=
Her~e
the A~]erlcy Altet~rlative pr~ oposes a 3
larle br~ idge, a
climbing lane nearly a mile long,
and the
beginning of the
wider, straighter, higher design speed highway.
Replace
\.'Ji th
wide clear - span bridge immed i ately
downstream of present bridge.
Sigrl "NO PASSING".
Replace structure on present alignment with 28'
Raise
r~oadbed
appr~ox.
18"
to
avoid
availability of fill.
CONSERVAT I ONISTS'
ALTERNATIVE
2
wide structure.
floodirlg.
�mp
3'32
Pave multipurpose turnout on side opposite river,
~9te:
plow in winter.
Hel"~e
the A~~eYlcy
Alte?t~native iYlcr~eases the l"~oad width even
more, increases the design speed, and begins to add frequent
pass i Ylg 1 aYles.
Add turning lanes.
Replace structure on present alignment with 28'
wide structure.
Replace str ucture on present alignment with 28'
wide structure .
Pave multipurpose turnout on river side of road;
Replace
bl"~idge
i.~
pt~eseYlt
1 i gnmeyd;
plow in winter .
with 28'
wide clear-span
bl"~idge.
Construct climbing lane from milepost 3'35 to cattleguard.
Replace bridge on
bl°~ i d geM
pr-o
esent
aliqnment
with
wide
clear~-span
Replace structure on present alignment with 28'
wide structure.
Replace structure on present alignment with 28'
wide structure.
~§?a y..§?l"~
Mc~!::.!ni
ai
1"1
I Ylt er~sec"!! i 01"1
(fI1 P
3'3'3. 75)
Add turning lanes.
CONSERVATIONISTS'
ALTERNATIVE
3
�Construct climbing
lane from milepost 401.5
fill) to mp 402.1.
(above Amazon Hollow
Construct climbing lane from 404.1 to short of Sinks Road.
Ret air, pl"~ese'(",t alignment; add
improved
signing
t '-n~r,e:.ut s.
Place cli mbing
lane sections
t '-n~ r, o ut s only where cutti n g
would
not
p . .~oblems.
Not~.:
c'-n~ve!:-3 a · d
....
slol-'J-vehicle
cause el"~osie:.r,
fe:'l"~
Ol"~
Hel"~e
the Ager,cy Altel"~r,ative emphasized speed by l'~ealignir,g
curve s and steepening the gradient to
up to
10~.
They also
plan a
conti nuous climbing
lane .
Initially we took no
position on modifications to this section because much of it
is not
on National
Forest land. However, the potential for
ma ssive erosion
problems
from
the miles of excavation
proposed in the Agency
Alternative forced
us to take this
new pe:.!:; it ion.
50
CONSERVATIONISTS'
ALTERNATIVE
fl, 'J
4
�If
Conservationists' Spot Improvement Alternative for Sections 1 and 2,
Logan Canyon
August, 1987
we
consider the most important issues involved here to be safety,
scenic values, and ecological integrity.
Our alternative is based on
the premise that rrodifications which alone or in the aggregate VX)uld
appreciably increase traffic speed in the Middle Canyon must be avoided.
we
relieve that increased speed in this section would be likely to lead
to more (and more serious) accidents.
The construction involved in
increasing the traffic speed would seriously disrupt the scenic values
for which this canyon is nationally k.n<:Mn, and VX)uld seriously degrade
the ecological integrity of the canyon, particularly in the riparian
zone.
Our goal is a highway that fits into Logan Canyon with minimal
ecological disturbance and maximum safety, rather than a highway that
purports to move the greatest number of people through the area at the
highest rate of speed.
Consistent with this emphasis, we strongly recommend enforcement of
speed limits and substantial improvements in signing as an important part
of our proposal.
As a corollary, changes in the roadway in the Upper
Canyon should not re so drastic as to encourage high speeds in that area
and thus a possible difficulty of driver adjustment to the lONer speeds of
the Middle Canyon.
we
have identified several gravel turnouts which should
re paved, and plowed oonsistently in winter, to aid the Utah Highway Patrol
in pulling over speeders and to aid in the passage of the occasional
emergency vehicle.
�LOCATION
RATION
ALE
PP0P0SFD AcrION
IMPAcrS AND PROBLEMS WITH
REJEX:TED ALTERNATIVES
Right Hand Fork
100' taper from bridge;
sign: "Right Fork 1/4"
safety
curve at 384.0
preliminary sign:
winding road next 7 mi.";
advisory speed sign;
specific curve ootation
(no change in alignment)
safety
visual sensitivity;
erosion into river;
spoil disposal
safety
visual sensitivity (6);
inpacts on river
Haguire Primrose
threat to threatened
species
W
ood Camp turoout sign: "Wood Camp 1/4";
and
plow parking area in
winter
Camp,
slow veh. turnout
00
change
downstream of
Burnt Bridge
pave present gravel
turnout; plow in winter
Burnt Bridge
widen to 28' on same
alignment; clear span
structural integrity
sign: "dangerous curve";
sign: "no parking"
sign: advisory speed;
no alignment change
safety
Logan Cave
Cottonwood area:
(a) structure
law enfo rcement;
vista; parking distressed
vehicles
not applicable
not applicable
visual sensitivity;
damage to river
safety
widen to 28' on sarre
alignment
damage to river;
visual sensitivity (7)
!
(b) parking
pave bNo areas: one on
visitor access to cave
river side downstream \
from structure, 150' X ~O;
one on rrountain side at (Old
Cottonwood road, 100' X 5',
tapering downstream to
100' X 20'. Plow in
winter.
Forest Service and volunteer groups construct
trail to cave entrance.
above Cottonwood
no alignment change;
replace 20 mph advisory
sign
(386.6)
safety
damage to river;
spoil disposal;
visual sensitivity
----------~-+_------------- ----~ ·-·----- ll__·-----------~----- -------+-------------
above Cottonwood
(387.1)
no alignment change
safety (avoid
speed)
erosion from loose
ma.terial
�PROPOSED AcrION
LCCATION
beloW Lower Twir
Bridge;
Lower Twin
Bridge
R<TIONALE
M
ove roadway wax. 20'
toward river before cun Ie
begins; widen existing
cut so alignment meets
new bridge parallel to
present bridge.
28' width; no pier in
river
I
IMPAcrS AND PROBW1S v,lITH
ALTERNATIVES
~D
I
I
replacement of bridge
wi th least environmental damage, consis- l
tent with safety
visual impacts;
excessive spoil
I
I
I
place downstream of
above Lower Twin
Bridge--slow veh. bridge, where present
road goes through cut
turnout
less cutting; rrore sight
distance
visual impacts;
excessive spoil
-----------------;------------------------+---------------------------~-------------------------
Dugway climbing l:me
N Change
o
prevent excessive speed
damage to river;
damage to visual
quality
- ---------------_._---- --------------+-----------------+----------------- --top of Dugway
1'-0 Change
prevent excessive speed
damage to visual
quality; excessive
spoil
_ --+------ - --+- - - - - - t - -- -- -
--Upper -TWin
Bridge
widen to 28' on new
structural integrity;
alignment immediately
safety
downstream of present
bridge. No pier in rive
~_.....-_-==____:::::__;_t_--- ---------- - - - - --r-.---- - .--------'--------f.---------------- - above Upper TwiI
Bridge (387.7)
damage to visual
no change in alignment
safety
1
quali ty ; excessive
add signs: curve; icy
road
spoil
I
I .
I
Temple Fork
intersection
advance signing:
Fork 1/4"
Ricks Spring are,,:
(a) bridge
28' on sane alignment
(b) alignment
(c) parking
~
"TemPl~
add sign: "N Passing"
o
maintain as is (both
sides); add signs:
"Ricks Spring 1/4"
"Pedestrian Crossing"
safety
safety
safety
safety
vehicles crossing traffic
lanes to park
______________~~-_--------------------1-.------.----------------- .-----------------------
"Table 2-5," B-1:
bridges and struct ~es
28'
maintain uniformity of
bridge widths
alignments:
1:elow North Sink
no change
safety
encourages excessive
speed
below M
iddle Sin '-
:00
change
safety
encourages excessive
speed
�PROPOSED Ac:r:'ION
lOCATION
RAT IO}1ALE
JMPACTS AND PROBLEMS WITH
REJECTED ALTERNATIVES
"Table 2-5,"
continued:
Intersections:
~a) Tony Grove
as in B-1
(b) Red Banks
00
(c) Franklin Basin
(d) Beaver
change
insufficient traffic
no change
no need (wide enough as
is)
as in B-1
i
safety
would necessitate 3-lane
bridge over Beaver Creek
Climbing Lanes:
(a) Red Banks tp
near Franklin
Basin road
(b) Stump
Add climbing lane
from m.p. 395 to
cattle guard
Add climbing lane
from just above Amazon
Hollow fill (401.5) to
402.1.
Hnlln17
to maintenance
shed
(c) to surmnit
Add climbing lane from
404.1 to short of Sink::
Road
I
safety; minimize cut;
safeguard river and
riparian zone
Safety problems with
high-speed traffic
approaching both Red
Banks and Franklin Basin
turooffs; damage to
river and riparian zone
safety; minimize cut
visual quality damage
safety; minimize cut
excessive spoil; danger
at snowmobile parking
area
Note: Passing lane
;t end short of surmnit, and
there must be .::l", ~'.::lte signing, regarding the
transition back tp 2-lane road, to safeguard
the Limber Pine 'I~ail turooff.
Signs: "Sinks Roa~ 1/4"; "Limber Pine Trail 1,114"
Table 2-6:
Sunrise
LLLP:JLuLnd
OVerlook
00
change
safety
2 skewed approaches as
in B-1 (sign & stripe)
multipurt=Ose
parking:
(a) m.p. 392
pave; plow in winter
(on side opp. river)
safety
(b) Bunchgrass
pave; plow in winter
(on river side of road)
safety
added sign:
below Ricks
Spring
"Narrow winding road
next 7 mi."
safety
driver confusion
possible
�...
-....
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN LOGAN CANYON
AN ANALYSIS
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) asserts the Logan Canyon
highway is dangerous, with a significantly higher accident rate than an
average Utah highway. This assertion is used as a reason for undertaking
highway reconstruction and realignment in the section of the canyon between Right Fork and Ricks Spri'ngs . This assertion, however, i~ in fact
not supported by traffic accident and traffic volume data supplled by UDOT,
Division of Safety and office of the Engineer for Transportation, respectively. This is analyzed in the following discussion .
Data. The number of traffic accidents for any period is easy to obtain and is quite accurate (it comes directly from investigating officers
reports). Accident rates, however, are reported on the basis of each million miles of vehicle travel (MVT) and require good estimates of the average daily traffic (ADT) in a particular section of the highway. There is
only one perm
anent counter in the canyon, located at Card Guard Station,
located approximately at mile post 10 in the canyon. Values of ADT for
other sections, which differ considerably, are estimated on the basis of
temporarary counters, spot checks and extrapolations from the permanent
counter (UDOT, e.g., made a check of relative volumes of traffic in the
canyon at various locations for one week in June, 1976. Many of their conclusions are based on this inadequate sample). As a result, there is considerable uncertainty (error) in the numbers, an uncertainty that may invalidate in some cases the conclusions based on the data. This caveat must be
kept in mind at all times when examining the data.
Accident Rates. UDOT has divided the canyon into 7 sections, and reports accident rates for each section as found in table 1 for the 7 year
period, 1971-77 inclusive (data from update to "Preliminary Proposals
and A
lternati ves SR-13 (U. S. 89) Logan to Garden City, UDOT, 1977", provided by Gary Lindley, Project Engineer):
Table 1 UDOT Accident Rates
1971-77
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Section
Logan City to Dewitt Campground
Dewitt Campground to Right Fork
Right Fork to Upper Twin Bridges
Upper Twin Bridges to Tony Grove
Tony Grove to Beaver Mtn. Road
Beawer Mtn. Road to Summit
Summit to Garden City
distance
4.8 miles
4.3 miles
5.1 miles
5.3 miles
6.1 miles
5.1 miles
7.0 miles
average
State average, 1971-77, all highways,
Accident Rate per MVT
3.40
2.90
6.10
5.80
3.40
2.15
5.00 .
4.1T + 1.52
3.85
It thus appears sections 3 and 4 (the proposed project includes all of
section 3 and part of section 4) have a significantly higher accident rate
than the state average, and that the distribution of rates is biased towards
higher values in these sections.
�Our analysis of the data, based on the best ADT figures and a
number of consultations with the UDOT Engineer for Transportation, gives
lower values for the accident rates in all sections of the canyon for the
6 year period, 1973-78 (table 2):
Table 2 Accident Rates in Logan Canyon, 1973-78
Section
Accident Rate per MVT
l.
1.99
2.
1.64
3.
4.98
4.
5.61
5.
2.60
6.
2.97
7.
5.28
3.56+1.64
average
3.85State average
It can be seen the average accident rate in Logan Canyon is slightly
lower than the State average. Sections 3 and 4 appear to be higher. This
difference, however, is not significant statistically for section 3, as
determined by a standard statistical test ( t test, 6 year average vs. state
average, 90% (or higher) confidence level), while the difference for section
4 is just barely significant at the 90% confidence level, but not significant at higher levels. It may therefore be concluded section 3 is not
significantly more dangerous than the average Utah highway , while the evidence for section 4 is inconclusive.
Another statistical test that may be applied measures the significance
of a distribution, in this case accident rates by section, vs . an expected
frequency if all sections have equal rates. The results of this test (chisquared test)show the distribution of both tables 1 and 2 have a probability
between 60-75% of being random: that is, the apparent difference in accident
rates by section for the whole canyon has a 60-75% probability of being due
to random statistical fluctuation, and not to any real bias in favor of high
rates for sections 3 and 4. This test supports the conclusion that the Logan
Highway is, in fact, no more dangerous than an average Utah highway .
Fatal Accidents. In the period 1971-78 inclusive (8 years) there were
26 fatal accidents in Logan Canyon, distributed as follows (table 3):
Table 3 Fatal Accidents
Section
Number
Death Rate per MVT
. 174
1
8
.030
2
1
.1A4
3
4
1
. 042
4
5
0
.232
6
4
.339
7
8
Death rates were calculated in the same way as for accident rates in table
2. Combining the death rates for sections 1 and 2 (improved sections) and 3
and 4 (propesed project) gives identical values , 0.105 MVT . Drawing conclusions from such small numbers of data is statistically suspect ; the death rates
�for the improved and proposed project sections do suggest that improvement
of the highway (sections 1 and 2) does not improve the death rate (sections
3 and 4). If these numbers have any significance, they indicate improving
the highway from a 35 mph speed to a 50 mph speed, the relative speed
limits on the improved and proposed project sections, has no effect on
the death rate. Similar results can be anticipated for sections 3 and 4
if the project is undertaken. Again, any argument based on death rates
for the two sections as support for the project is invalid.
Conclusions. The results of this analysis of all available data are
clear. Logan Canyon highway is not more dangerous than the average Utah
highway, assertions to the contrary by UDOTnotwithstanding. Considering
the highway is a winding mountainous road, often covered with snow and
ice during Winter months in the upper sections, the accident rate is surprisingly low . It would be of interest to compare Logan Canyon with similar highways (Sardine Canyon, Soldier Summit, Little Cottonwood Canyon,
e.g.) with respect to accident rates. Similar arguments used by UDOT based
on Logan Canyon highway death rates are equally false: improvement of
the highway has no effect on death rates. The proposed construction
project for sections 3 and 4 cannot be justified as an improvement in
safety of a dangerous highway.
�Accidents and Traffic Volume in Logan Canyon
UDOT asserts a definite relationship exists between the accident rate
and volume of traffic in Logan Canyon . Since the volume of traffic becomes
quite large on a few weekends in Summer , it is argued by UDOT the highway
needs improvement to prevent excessive accident rates during these periods .
This assertion may be tested statistically by plotting accident rates by
month vs. traffic volume per month (data from UDOT report "Preliminary
Proposals and Alternatives, SR 13 (U.S . 89) Logan t~ Garden City , 19771~,
p. 23 and p. 41). The coefficient for this plot , r , is a measure of
the cor elation be ween accident rates and traffic volume . Such a plot
gives r 2 = 0. 37 (r 2 = 1.00 for a 1:1 correlation , and 0 for no correlation;
values less than 0.90 are suspect). Clearly, no significant correlation
exists between accident rates and traffic volume in Logan Canyon , and
such an argument cannot be used by UDOT to justify the project.
/
"
�TRAFFIC FORECASTS FOR LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY
UDOT assumes an exponetial growth rate of 4% annually for traffic
volume in Logan Canyon. This growth rate is used as an argument to justify the proposed highway improvement project in sections 3 and 4 (Right
Fork to Ricks Springs) of the canyon. An analysis by Dave Schimpf based
on UDOT average daily volumes of traffic (ADT) indicates the growth is
better expressed by a linear relationship than the exponential relationship used by UDOT, at least through 1975. This gives a significantly lower
prediction for traffic volumes than the exponential model .
More importantly, however, recent data for 1975-79 indicate
traffic volume peaked in 1977, and has in fact declined in both 1978
and through July, 1979 (last data). Clearly, the effects of fuel prices
and potential shortages have not been taken into account by UDOT (table 4):
Table 4 Changes in ADT, 1978-79
Date
2.4 % decrease from December, 1977
December, 1978
July, 1979
3.0 % decrease from July, 1978
data from Card Guard Station, Logan Canyon.
Clearly, in contradiction to the forecasts of UDOT, traffic volume
in Logan Canyon has decreased significantly in the last 2 years. If this
trend continues, and considering the world petroleum situation this appears
probable, future use of the highway will be less than at present, and any
argument seeking to justify construction of the proposed project on the basis
of projected increases in volume of traffic is invalid.
�
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.
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/1746">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1746</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>
Checksum
1370614751
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
15008196 Bytes
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
Alternatives to proposed Logan Canyon construction
Description
An account of the resource
Several alternatives to the proposed construction in Logan Canyon including: concern over the expansion and curve reduction in Logan Canyon, Agency Alternative, Additions to Conservationists' alternative for US 89, Environmentalists' alternative, Conservationists' alternative for Logan Canyon Road between Right Fork and Garden City, Conservationists' spot improvement alternative, traffic accidents in Logan Canyon, and the traffic forecast for Logan Canyon Highway.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1980-1989
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, MSS 314, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the finding aid for this collection at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/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
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd2.pdf