1
50
3
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/3c945095792013b8da27c949b0787ab4.pdf
b80044718ade4f85617d1f58a5c80346
PDF Text
Text
1.
GENERAL SUMJ1ARY
Major' impact on both environmental and visual quality of c anyon.
2.
Project contradicts national energy concern.
3.
80-9 ~fo
4.
"Waste poses a major engineering problem. II (Project Engineer)
"It'll never be worth as much as we've put into it already."
(Project Engineer)
5.
of project requires cutting.
(Remark by Project Engineer)
TRAFFIC GROWTH FACTORS
1. UDOT uses an unrealistic exponential model.
2. A linear growth model better fits daily traffic data.
3. Linear model forecasts lower traffic levels than UOOT's projection :
4. Traffic data used by UDOT are limited to one busy section of the
highway, yet are used to describe whole road.
5.
Need for highway re-alignment not documented by current data.
SAFETY FACTORS
1. Suggested danger of Logan Canyon "Section 111" is not .supported by
current data.
2. A major discrepancy exists between accident rate data and traffic
volume.
3. 1977
accident r a te figured by Utah Highway Patrol does not agree
with UDOT report.
4. Statistical significance of accident data used is suspect.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
1. Numerous spills would encroach into Logan River from planned fills
2. Silt deposits in river would destroy trout habitat and breeding
cycle.
.
.
3. Loss of riverside vegetation, needed by trout for low light intensi
4. Creation of any culverts would impair spawning success of trout.
5.
Loss of vegetative barrier lessens quality of f.ishing experience.
6. Major visual impact would result from the cuts planned, especially
the two major cuts at the. Temple Fork area, which would be, by
Project Engineer Gary Lindley's report, 75;\'and as much as 150'
across.
deep _
�I.Critique of Traffic Forecasts
The UDOr projects future traffic levels in the section of canyon
highway under discussion with a model which assumes expoQential grovth
at 4% per year.
Based on the UDOT's average daily traffic data (ADT)
for Right Hand Fork, a linear traffic growth model fits the data nearly
perfectly (r 2 = 0.975).
Such a linear model forecasts lower traffic
levels in the future than the seemingly unrealistic expon e ntial model.
Average daily traffic at lZLght Hand Fork after widening of lower canyon:
Year
ADT
2225
2300
2450
70
71
72
73
74
75
Linear model
Number of vehicles/day - -3817 + (86.43 x year)
2500
2550
2670
~
We were unable to obtain ADT's from the UDOT for 76,77, or 78; they were
said to not be available.
The ADT's reported for Right Hand Fork are actually for the Logan
River Bridge just below the section of road in question.
Between this
bridge and the narrowed roadway is the junction with the Right Hand
.
Fork road, which leads to a youth camp, Forest Service campground, and
major hunting and snowmobiling grounds.
Our observations on a July
weekend afternoon (high volume) suggest that about
5~
of the traffic
at the bridge actually comes or goes on this other road.
The ADT
projections should be scaled down 5:t from those based on ' traffic at
the bridge.
In the projections of the UDOT, the Design Hourly Volume (DHV) is
.
not a constant ratio of the Peak Hourly Volume (PHV). varying from
1.22 to 1.40, depending on the year.
This needs to be explained.
j
�Critique, p. 2
In summa,ry, we recorrrrnend that the Federal Highway Administration
not grant permission for this project before the need for it is first
documented via realistic traffic projections.
These should embody all
recent ADT's (after lower canyon was , widened) and a realistic growth
model which takes into account the projected availability of fuel for
1
I
motor vehicles.
Projections for the highway section in question should
be 57. less than those at Logan River Bridge.
A constant ratio of DHV
to PHV should be used, and its absolute value justified.
1
1
These
considerations could well postpone the time at which the capacitj of
'1
,
the existing alignment (including a new surface on it) would become
I
inadequate.
i
\
I
r
i
I
1
i
1
j
�]T .
/
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN LOGAN CANYON,
1970-77
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDT) has concluded the unimproved sections of the Logan Canyon highway are especially dan gerous. This
conclusion has b~en advanced as one of the major reasons for undertak i ng
an improvement project for section 3 and part of section 4. This conclusion
is not supported by an analysis of the currently availabl~ data. Complete data for the period (70-78) has been requested from UDT but not
yet received. The UDT decision is based on data published in the report,
"Preliminary Proposals and Alternatives. SR-13 (US-89) Logan to Garden
City," District one Office, Utah Department of Transportation, February, 1977, and some recent updates (included as inserts for the report).
In addition, an independent studY) "Accident Statistics, Logan Canyon and
Rich County, 1976-77" by Utah Highway Patrolman L.D. Langford, has been
made available(included). The following analysis is based on these reports.
I.
Errors and Discrepencies
·1. There is a major discrepenci between the accident rate data presented in the UDT report, graph p. 39 insert, and the traffic volume data) dt-athT- 2
p. 2Z.
Using the accident rate of 6.1 accidents/million miles for section
3 for the period 1970-77 (graph, p.39 insert) and the length of section
3 (5.1 miles) the average daily traffic (ADT) may be calculated, given the
total number of accidents in this section (120):
AOT = l2Q x 10 6/ 6.1 x 365 x 7 = 150"9.5 VPO (vehicles per day).
From table T-2 of the UOT rep6rt (p.28) ADT for section 3 varies from
2225 VPD (1970) to 2888 VPD 1977 festimated from 1975 by adding 4% increase·
per year, as suggested by the UDT). Clearly, the 1509.5 VPD figure does
not agree with the data of Table T-2. If, instead of 1509.5 VPO, an aver~
age figure for the period of 2549 VPD~ an accident rate for section 3
may be calculated:
Accident rate = 120 x 10 6/ 2549 x 365 x 7 x 5.1 = 3.61 accidents/million miles.
This accident rate, 3.61, is lower than the Utah State average for the same
period (3.9, as seen on the graph on p. 39 insert). Therefore, either the
data of table T-2 is wrong, or the accident rates used by UDT "" in the graph
ofp.39 insert are grossly inflated. !f the accident rate for section 3
is, in fact, 3.61, this section : is not
dangerous. Since this section has
the highest rate, when similar calculations are made for the other sections
it appears the Logan Canyon highway is much safer than most roads in Utah.
2. The accident rate for 1977 calculated from the La ngford study is
not in agreement with that reported for the same year in the UOT graph (p.39
insert). The Langford report covers a slightly longer section (Zone II) (8.27
miles) and the data must be corrected slightly for this; this correction, however, has no significant effect on the result. Using the Langford data for ·
Zone II (Right Fork to Cattle Gaurd above Ricks Springs), the accident rate
may be calculated (Langford report, p. 16):
accident rate = 4.84 x 10 6/ 365 x 2797.6 (ADT) =4.74 accidents/million miles:
Clearly, this is considerably lower than tile 7.2' value used by UOT (graph p.39
insert), and gives considerable support to the calculation in 1. above.
�/
,/
,/
Again, this rate (which is the high est for any Zone of Logan Canyon in the
Langford report) indicates Logan Canyon highway is relatively safe.
II. Doubtful and Er roneous Conclusions
1. Using the data of UDT graph, p.39 insert, for accident rates for
various sections of the Canyon, the question must be asked whether this
distribution is si gnificant or is it, in fact, si m
ply due to random variation.
This question may be answered by a relatively si m
ple statistical test, the
chi squared test for nonnal distribution in a set of data. If there are
no differences betw
een sections with respect to accident rates, then all
should have the same, or the average for all sections:
x: ~'xi/n , xi: accident rate for each ,section, n= number Qf sections(7).
x = 4.107 accidents/million miles
{/?~
ch i sq ua re (7\ )
/
= (( x.
1
-
2
X-) /
n- 1
= 3.390
Using a chi sqare table at 6 degrees of freedom, the critical values of
chi square are 2.20 at 90 % and3.45 at 75%. The calculated value for the
data (3.390) indicates the probability of this distribution being random
is between 75 and 90%. In other words, the distribution of the graph on
p. 39, UOT report indicates there is only a probability of 10-25% of the
apparent differences in accident rates for the various sections being
real. The conclusion therefore, that section 3 is significantly more
dangerous than section 1 or 2 (already improved) is not valid. To base
a decision to improve this section on such unlikely probabilities
is , at the very least, highly questionable. '
2. On p. 40 of the UOT report, it is stated a definite relationship
exists between volume of traffic and accident experience. This may be
tested statistically by plotting the data of the table on p.23 of the
report (traffic volume by month) against the data of of the table on
p. 41 (accidents by month). It is assumed the traffic volume data distributions
for 74-75 are the same as for 71-75 (since all data are normalized to
percentage distributions by month, this assumption seems highly teasona~le): Thi~ plot sh~uld.be a . straight line, and the coef!icient of determlnatlon, r , for thlS llne, lS a meas~re of the correlatlon that does
in fact exist between the two variables. This calculation from the
UOT data gives:
2
;
,
r = O. 37 .
2
2
For a 1/1 correlation, r : 1.00, and for no correlation, r : O. Anything less than about 0.9 is statistically suspect.
The actual value,
0.37, is indicative of a very poor correlation at best. The conclusion
that traffic volume and accident rates are correlated m
ust be regarded
as quite unlikely. Since this conclusion is used by uor to justify
the project ( wider highway = less congestion by spreading out the
traffic of high volume' periods ' = fewer accidents), it app ears UOT is
grasping at straws in a desparate attempt to rationalize the constr~ction.
A better conclusion would be that the safest time to travel the canyon
is during periods of high volume.
J
�/
/
TIle same calculation may be made from the data for 1976-77 from
the Langford Report, normalized to percent (Langford Report, p.12), assuming
the traffic volume distribution used in the UOT report applies to 1976-77.
The result is:
r2 = 0.32
Again, a poor correlation between traffic volume and accident frequency '
is found.
These results may reflect the fact that road condition in Winter, particularly in the upper canyon (section 3) is more important than traffic
volume, a factor not considered in the UOT report.
III. Types of Accidents
No data is yet available from UOT with respect to typ e of accident
in each section. For 1976~77 from the Langford Report, 33% of the accidents in Zone II (section 3 and part of section 4) resulted in personal
injury (PI), while 41 % of the accidents in Zone I (sections 1 and 2, improved) resulted in personal injury. This suggests the severity of the
accidents in the new sections 1 and 2 is greater than in sections 3 and
4, but more data over a longer period is needed to confirm this.
With respect to fatalities and deaths from accidents, the data
are (see insert to UOT report):
1970-77
sections 1 and 2
sections 3 and 4
Fatalities
5
4
Deaths
8
4
In view of the small numbers, no statistical conclusions may be drawn; with
respect to fatalities and deaths, however, there is no evidence to indicate
the improved sections 1 and 2 are any safer than the unimproved sections
3 and 4.
IV. Causes of Accidents
The single most improtant cause of accidents is speed- traveling too
fast for conditions:
UOT report (insert) 1970-77
47%
Langford report 1976-77
63%
While the improved sections 1 and 2 were originally designed for 40mph
they are signed for 50 mph. This may account for the higher PI accident
rate and number of deaths in .the improved sections.
V. Further Analysis
UOT officials have promised a complete set of accident sta~istics (available on computer printout) will be furnished shortly. These statistics, covering the period 1970 - 77 will be analyzed with respect to accident rates,
type of accidents, road conditions, and other pertinent factors, and the results will be made available as soon as possible,
�, /
/
_III.
EFFECTS OF ROAD [3UILD IriG ON THE LOGAN RIVER
Utah Departm
ent of Transportation personnel have stated that t hey
plan to keep the Logan Canyon road as close as possible to the river
tom i n i III i ze the s i ze
0
fro a d cut s .
This \" ill pro ha b1y res u1tin
numerous fills encroaching on the river bank and spillinj into the
river.
These fills contribute silt to the l' iver via runoff during
r a ins to rill s, and bye r 0 s ion
0
f the s lop e b'y the r i ve r its elf.
Bot h
types are evident on fills created by previous construction at lower
elevations in the canyon.
Silt in streams creates several problems for the
followin~
.re.asons.
In general, the larger the size of a particle of soil or rock, ' the hiQher
the velocity of water flow required to transport it downstream.
Conversely, small particles can be transported by relatively low
velocities (see lower curve in FiQure 1).
If a silt-sized particle
is deposited, because of passing into a region of low velocity or
because of bein9 added to the stream during a period of low flow, it
will not be picked up again without a velocity of flow above the lower
line.
If the particle, with others
~hich
were deposited with
i~
in position so as to becom consolidated, it will take a much
e
velocity to dislodge it (see upper curve in Figure 1).
remains
hi~her
As can be . .
seen the . finest silt and clay materials require rather high velocities
to dislodge and transport them once they becom consolidated.
e
rlonnally in this region the heaviest runoff, and thus m
ost
erosion, occurs during the spring.
Strea ms ap;Jear discolored because
of the heavy silt load, hut stream velocities are also
hi~h
because of
�/
- 2./
./
/"
the extra volume of water.
Under these conditions silt is nlost apt to
be transported downstrRam until · velocity of water flow decreases in a
reservoir or marsh.
The key to
minimum · ~tream
damage
d~e · to
the high transport capability of swiftly flowinQ water.
silt is
Ourin~
summer
and fall volume of stream flO\.; is low, velocity of flO\y is m.inimum for
the year, and thus transport capability is low.
This is also the
season of ·low erosion potential, with fully leaved trees, shrubs, and
. grass
interce~ting
rainfall, and a layer of leaf litter protecting the
soil surface in natural or undisturbed areas.
Summer storms may cause
a small increase in stream volume, but do not add large quantities of
silt.
Streams remain quite clear.
Large road cuts tend to be prone to erosion.
vegetative cover sparse.
Raindrops from summer storms have a high
probability of striking the soil
washing them downhill.
constructio~
Slopes are steep and
surface~
dis10dging particles and
Erosion from such areas can
besever~.
Road
or any other activity which produces large expanses of
bare earth changes the
norn~l
pattern of erosion and transoort of silt.
The change adds silt to streams at the worst rossible time, during
low flow periods.
Large, relatively bare slopes \'t'hich result from the t'l'pe of
construction being proposed are the source of too much silt to be ·.
intercepted and retained by a narrow strip of vegetated land between
road and river.
If large fills are necessary a broad zone should be
left between road and river, but this forces the road into the
mountainside, creating additional problems.
~1 uc h
oft he bot tom
0
f t r 0ut s t rea n1 sis 9r a vel 0r s ton e s .
Invertebrates, upon which the fish feed, reside not only upon the
u~per
�- ~./
/
/
/
sur f c1 ceo f the bot t 0 flJ but we 11 dis t rib ute din the s pc1 c e s bet \., eens ton e s
/
to depths of several inches.
Young fish, shortly c1fter hatching, \- ill
,
seek shel ter beneath and betvleen stones on the bottom.
Fish eg0s are
deposited in shallow nests scooped into gravel bottoms,.and covered
wi th gra ve 1 from ups tream.
~~ here
s i 1t has been de[)os i ted the spaces
between stones are filled, greatly decreasing the supply of food for
trout.
Hiding and resting places for small fish are also decreased.
Silt in gravel decreases the flow of water through the gravel.
Trout
eggs require a constant supply of oxygen, available only, from flowing
water.
r-lo,rtalities of 95-100 percent are to be expected ',..,hen water
flow through gravel is impeded by silt deposits.
As pointed ,out above '
silt deposited during summer may become consolidated, resisting -removal
by all but the highest velocity of flow.
Such high velocities are
not nonn?lly found prior to brown trout sra\'ming season ' in the fall.
Another effect of fills encroaching into the river is the
destruction of pools.
Trout require areas of low velocity flows for
resting, and pools next to the stream bank are particularly desirable.
Such ' pools are frequently filled in when road fills encroach on a
river.
A rarticularly damagin9 effect of fill encroachment is the
elimination of vegetation which han9s over the river.
provides shade, especially in areas of low velocity
trout can rest.
This vegetation
c u rrents~
where
Brown trout require low li]ht intensities a~d slow
currents for resting areas. ' In shallow rivers, such as the Logan, "
low light intensities are usually found along 'banks \<lith abundant,
vegetation
hangin~
over the water.
Elimination of such vegetation
will 9reatly decrease the numbe,r of brown trout inhabiting
th~
area.
�There is a
~rorosal
to
chan~ e
the location of the road ' in the
vicinity of Logan Cave by cutting into the mountainside
~cross
the
river from the present road, crossing the river for a very short
distance, and returning to the old roadbed.
oblique
by
crossin~
~nstalling
This will
r~quire
an
of the river . . If such a crossing is accolilplished
a culvert, such a long tunnel may create an impediment
to fish movement during spavming seasons.
Finally, denuding the area between the stream and road
to or very nearly to the river creates an undesirable
fishermen~
by
conditio~
fillin0
i .
for
,
• >
One of the reasons for fishing is to get away from the
hustle and bustle of the working 0orld, and seek solitude and quiet.
.. ..... i'
•
Without a vegetative barrier between the river and the road, fishermen
are exposed to the sight and sound of passing traffic.
This converts
fishing from an experience in the wild, to a noisy session next to
the highway.
From the standpoint of erosive slopes, siltation of the river and
scenic considerations, a wide roadbed ,is not acceptable in this canyon.
•
/ r
~
~
:" '~"~\~~;'::i~"
I
�
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/94">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/94</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.
Checksum
2286995413
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
6105925 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
Critiques on Logan Canyon construction
Description
An account of the resource
Critiques on Logan Canyon construction with a general summary, critique of traffic forecast, traffic accidents in Logan Canyon from 1970-77, effects of road building on Logan River, and an explanation of how the erosive slopes, siltation of the river and scenic considerations make a wide roadben unacceptable in Logan Canyon.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Fishery resources
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
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)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1970-1979
20th century
1980-1989
1990-1999
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, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</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
MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_4.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/29c1ce1bb4d8bc100dc55ebaf64a3c79.pdf
ce52b0bb393e198c280965c16979b615
PDF Text
Text
William Helm
977 Hillcrest
Logan UT
84321
��~~(}~~/~
~/~~~lrI
• -
. ~.
~-/~~~~~J~
'~r-~a-<t-~~~ ~
Urv-<-
r~' iJf ~~ ~
~ d-. ~) t~ -z:;L. ~ c..:~ ~r-
~ ~ -z;L~ ~" ~ ~ L-T
Iv'-
~~;t;Lc:
,
~~~.~
~r-"Z~f~~' ~
~
~~J~)~A_
Y? -:;;t~t'~~ . .M-~
~~
.-t&
~r~~J~
~
"
"<-
~/~ .~~
~~~~'~7-
~~~~""-~
p~ Wx.J
~~---f~
r
~J~~~ . ~
~~
Y~
~~(~.~~~ ~
r
~
/t~C/~ ___ vI-. ~~ ~~
-t;;
.~/(~.J~,,_
()
I
~
::;:;::;-
~-
~~~
~- - -- -~~ /
-7
~~i~ '~
~_ ~~~<n.aLo~~~d-J
~
a.
.
~ -c;;k~· if~~~
~~~-/~~?0'n
���
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/77">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/77</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, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000.
Checksum
1695586601
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1647714 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
Correspondence from William Helm discouraging certain changes to the Logan River
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from William Helm to Rudy Lukez discouraging certain changes to the Logan River for the benefit of the local fish, plant, and animal life.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Helm, William
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Aquatic resources--Utah--Logan River
Fishery resources
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1987-01-19
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (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, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9
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/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</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 Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890.
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
MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_5.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/fdfdcd6adf7f36a2e9205361ffb82882.pdf
d42231376f93baac56bc0501b4903008
PDF Text
Text
LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89
AQUATIC RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Prepared for
Utah Department of Transportation
Prepared by
CH2M HILL
Salt Lake City, Utah
March 1987
�CONTENTS
Introduction
Methods
Existing Conditions
Aquatic Habitat
Fisheries Biology
Impacts
Middle Canyon
Upper Canyon
Rich County
.:W· :n=
Mitigation
Middle Canyon
Upper Canyon
Rich County
.::'
References
.::'
"~ ::::
.::
..
...
.::;;;::::::::.
TABLES
': :::::::::::::.
1
Mean
Mouth
River at the
2
Water
Mouth
River at the
~It·
~~
Data for the Logan
3
River and Ife:aver./ Cteek
o;"" ;;i"~'ent
4
Comparison
Optimum Habitat for
Regional Trout Streams
5
Logan River Gamefish Life History Periodicity
Data
6
Logan River Angling Data
7
Estimated Past, Present, and Future Expenditures
by Anglers on the Logan River
BOT538/027
ii
�INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum describes existing conditions,
potential impacts, and possible mitigation measures for aquatic
resources affected by proposed improvements to the Logan
Canyon Road between Logan and Garden City, Utah.
Logan Can-
yon is located ln the Wasatch-Cache National Forest in north
central Utah.
An important component of this scenic canyon
is the Logan River, which originates in southeastern Idaho
and flows south through Logan Canyon to
~; t: ~:;t~:~nfluence
wi th
~~~~~~~~:;~~~;~~~~~~::~~~~P;~:~~::,~,;~~~~;~rf~!!:;:;~~:;~;;;
tions, and realigning the
ro~a:;::::;::::::::~he:; : p~.:6:p:osed modifications
mile~ii\.d;;t:: :~;~: i: : L~:~~:~ River (Right Hand
creek-:: : Co.Df~1~ :~~i{~;~r):: : : :~~d about 3.2 miles of
could affect about 15. 4
Fork to the Beaver
cutoff
Figure 1.
BOT538/025
1
yes
�,...
~,..----~--=-=======~.,....,.--
III1
.DOUBL E TOP
9,872
Sfee~
:E
o
:>
z
<t
a:
o
:E
W w
1- . :E
m...J
UCl) CX)<t
CI)
~ .
-C)
I-
Z
«_
:J..J
~
o c..
~I
IU
~w
a:« ~~
w CI) :> a:
°0
>CI)
_ W
z:>
00
a: U i~
_Za: <ta:
~~
CI)«:J u~
0 Z I.... _
CI) <t<t
=,"
.~O
LA. ..J
:~j~~~..V·~;~M T GOG
~1"'··~· ~$..
'In:ll\~~,,·
<tz
«~ I~
U'/c9
'"
>-U
w
,,=>
a: g~
9,700
·~:\';MT. MAGOG
;,W:::~
9,756
"-
31
31
~
TOny Grove
)
\
~e
..
~
~,,\/~
1
TONY GROVE
RANGER SCHOOL
CACHE~
~\~ ~
o
-"70 0' es
g
,~
.----- .
TEMPLE PK.
" ~"v.~. '4>
l~ ,\\I"~:"\.
I
31
~:::f
9 1 0-:)9
Co
~.. ""C:
~/" J~I~~i'
PARALLEL
NORTH
6
6
MUD FLAT G,S . I
~
®
t
<::>
I ~
~ ' -"
/9~.,.
_
1--
r
r
I
~
LODGE
CAMP_
GROUND
~.
~AY~~
%NATIONAL~
~~~;~
o
M
u..
to
....
N
en
�METHODS
Aquatic resources present in the proposed project area were
described and assessed based on a review of pertinent scientific literature, interviews with fish and wildlife agency
personnel and other knowledgeable persons, and a site visit.
Much of the Logan River and Beaver Creek aquatic resource
data are more than 15 years old.
However, this was not a
problem in describing existing conditions
s~~~e
the project
C. ~ti~b;~ Road was widened
1952 (Dunham, 1963).
Data presenteqit~~;1h~;; ;~ 9::9-thered within
adj acent to project area boundarie: § ;:~ ~i;:~;: :' NU~'~ ;1;;:6fi~ $. fisheries
area has changed little since the Logan
in
or
studies conducted downstream of
T~!~;~~/;~;~;~i ; were""" tf6:t
referenced
in this assessment since they were·"" w~'l'i.i:/~utside the project
are a .
""""'\",,,:::,,::),
Potential impacts
determined based
on the nature and
for the three
Rich County),
public
prQ.]:e 'e ;t ;:. ·:~;t3~·t~i.on~::;':;';(Middle
: tf:~fu:: : i' s, ; ~ri; iE~~~ ;i;~!d concerns
scoPin~;~ ~i ~ir9.ces~il~ ;l and
enh; ~;~d~~ent
identified during the
from comments provided by the
Interdisciplina·i;y.;;~;: .;S ~t.,Jl~Y:/Team.
mi tigation and
Canyon, Upper Canyon,
Where possible, conceptual
measures have been identified
that would minimize or offset potential project impacts associated with the various improvement alternatives.
BOT538/025
3
�EXISTING CONDITIONS
AQUATIC HABITAT
DISCHARGE
The Logan River and Beaver ' Creek watersheds are located in
the Bear River Mountains, primarily at elevations above
5,000 feet.
Their annual discharges and flQ!wi:: periodicities
., $: h: ~~~ack and snowTheir peak discharges typicallY :i~:;'~:dti~::'i ~ip. the spring,
base flow condi tions can occu~:/~:~~: ing ':'£h,;"'itil,ate summer,
are strongly influenced by variations in
melt.
while
durilffi5f:: :;~ih~:/~iinter '~ : : : :~'nder
d
:::dm::: ::::::. flow for the i ':;~:~;;:i;;:;~~;:/:t the mouth of
when the snowpack is low, or
Logan Canyon is about
24,O::; :;e :1J.bidi:,·:if:~~:{ : : p~r
extremely
second (cfs), while
f,;t: b:~ : : : ~; t. =:Ibp. od1t ;\S35 cfs (Kappesser, 1983).
dischar~~~f:'; ;t~O~!::; tb.:.~: !~;!ii b'gan River at the mouth of
are.: : :p;:t:~; s :~,'~:t:~.J; ;t~ ,j..n "~:~ble 1. These values provide
it reaches bankfull
Mean monthly
Logan Canyon
:::::P:~::~::~,:~,:~~~;g~i~'::~:::::::~:;o:::::::~:::n :;:~:~~::e
a third-order
stre'~ht:::::~hat has a moderately steep gradient
(1.9 percent average grade).
It is rated a Class II - High
Priority waterway on the Utah Department of Wildlife Resources'
(UDWR) Unique Streams List.
The Logan River has not been
proposed or determined to be a wild and scenic river.
4
�Table 1
MEAN MONTHLY FLOWS (cfs) FOR THE LOGAN RIVER
AT THE MOUTH OF LOGAN CANYON
(Gage 10109000)
Water
Year
---
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
170
148
67
134
100
131
96
197
247
228
165
158
126
75
126
107
123
96
175
213
211
156
141
113
77
97
110
89
157
186
182
125
125
105
72
103
101
104
84
141
159
161
123
120
97
75
96
99
99
98
131
147
143
205
128
94
127
104
106
100
256
109
309
187
289
146
535
676
131
131
823
579
541
"d::~29
678 "::/~:::}1'30
308/" :~( 362
255
86
395
191
345
155
170
73
181
136
176
105
260
337
333
170
316
140
65
153
106
153
90
209
246
253
169
267
Mean
153
142
126
205
168
Source:
III
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~"",;:~~'~ i'i " ~:}~:' ~ ~~
~n , : ;,:~:;"':,!5, ::':~,~: :,:i!'~H
759
381
U.S. Geological
:::i:::~:~~~:~:,~:;,:;:;ii~~!~~~:~,~?i;:~::::~::::~:::~::s::::::gh
along the
prd':d';~d p;;~j:~~c~:::i: "reach
~: ~inl:thlf:","/i ~" ,n~ Right Hand
availab~!~~h:: ":f~:~ " any of these
Fork, Rick I
data are
are Beaver Creek, Temple
S
Fork.
No specific flow
tributaries.
WATER QUALITY
Data for the Logan River (see Table 2)
indicate that it is a
cold water system (maximum temperatures less than 20°C) with
good to excellent water quali ty.
Overall, the river has
excellent dissolved oxygen concentrations (6.9 to 9.8 mg/L) ,
low turbidity and suspended solids levels, and relatively
low nutrient levels.
Results of a bedload transport study
conducted by Kappesser in 1983 indicate that suspended sediment levels and turbidities can be expected to increase at
5
�Table 2
WATER QUALITY DATA FOR THE LOGAN RIVER
AT THE MOUTH OF LOGAN CANYON
Sample Data
Parameter
10/1/BO
12/2/80
3/31/81
Temperature (OC)
2.0
7.5
9.4
4.8
0.7
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
9.0
~i il"~ ~ : ; \",:.
6.9
9.B
Specific Conductivity (umhos/cm)
310
345
pH (units)
8.2
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
Total Cations (mg/L)
Total Alkalinity as CaC0
Turbidi ty (.NTU)
3
192
146
204
16~!i/:
66
0.05
14~::,::;'i:;;:"·· .:\:. 144
156
0.5
6.2
206
166
13.6
4.0
8.7
8.7
8.1
5
0.05
69
0.06
56
0.05
1.5
174
148
188
158
3.0
9,/l:::::.
172
179
184
:)'
.::F
TDS @ 1BOoC (mg/L)
8.1
55
0.02
(mg/L)
3
(mg/L)
8.2
9.8
270
363
5
... -.,
72
Total Phosphorous (mg/L)
Total Hardness as CaC0
5
325
8/4/81
8.7
8.4
3.0
6/2/81
0.5
2 .0
':::.
.
·:\;;"<:;[7:..1
196
162
...
T.O.C. (mg/L)
C.O.D. (mg/L)
Total Anions (mg/L)
1.0
1.8
...
3.2
20
15
15
15
143
100
11B
107
Nitrate as N (mg/L)
0.25
0.20
0.25
0.21
Nitrite as N (mg/L)
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
SOURCE:
1~:.2?,;/":;,: ~~~i:i::;':;': ': ;} 1~: .15
o•05 .:;,;:'.
0 . 05
Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, Salt Lake City, Utah.
BOT538/028
2. 7
0 . 05
1.0
15
107
0.25
0.05
412
9.0
12/2/81
210
B.3
�flow
~ates
greater than 240 cfs_
The only water quality
param: ter 'that could potentially present a problem to aquatic
e
life
~n
the Logan River is pH.
prote~tion
1986) :.
Acceptable pH levels for the
of freshwater life range from 6.5 to 9.0 (EPA,
There are two instances in the available data (Table 2)
where, Logan River pH levels reached or exceeded the upper
limit:
9.3 on May 8, 1980, and 9.0 on August 4, 1981.
No water quality data are available for Beaver Creek.
the geology and land use practices in the
B~~yer
However,
Creek water-
shed are similar to the rest of the Logan.:iiii~;~V:i~r basin.
fore, Beaver Creek's water quali ty is
e
1
:::A::: :::D :A:: Logan River .
0
pt'~bi ~; ly.
": :" :!;': .: '.: ,'i.:'~;." ,:. '
There-
similar to
""""""';::":,::,;'"
:::::"::;:::::::::.
:~~~i :~o:: :::a:~:o:::n~::~,:~'~~~,~,~~:~;;~~':'e::~::d a::l ::ea::ail-
qe:~;t:~;e.," ~~l! , :th:~y ;i; ;p.ISO consume vegetable
matter (seeds, algae ;ii::;",Ji tp':: ~;i (~:: : :: :.;,: Te,~fi ~strial invertebrates (grasshoppers, ' ants, b~:~ti le.: ~:; >;i;i ;c~~ms ·; :':; ; ~ 'tc.) can be an important
food source dUJi.d~;~; t~t:: :th;;; ; ; ~;;£.:i.:~1g, summer, and fall, when they
fall into the·;1i;~.~~?r f~~!b~; v~:~etation (especially overhanging
riparian brush ·:;~h4;; ; ~.+=~.~ ;~) along rivers, lakes, and streams.
Aquatic invertebr~; t.; ~~;/:·(maYflies, caddis flies , dragonflies,
larvae.
To a lesser
etc.) are an important fish food source all year, but especially during the winter when terrestrial food sources are
lacking.
No quantitative data on aquatic invertebrates are available
for the Logan River or Beaver Creek.
However, good water
quality and numerous riffle areas in the river and creek
(typi¢ally productive aquatic invertebrate areas)
t
-
suggest
that ~quatic invertebrate densities could be relatively high_ ,
Limit$d observations by UDWR (1972; 1974) 'indicate that the
relat+ve densities of Logan River aquatic invertebrates in
7
�the project reach are about 70 percent caddisflies (Trichoptera),
20 percent stoneflies (Plecoptera), and 10 percent mayflies
and midges
(Ephemeroptera and Diptera).
Because it is similar
to the Logan River, the relative densities of the Beaver
Creek aquatic invertebrate community could be expected to be
similar.
No data are available on terrestrial invertebrates (that are
potential fish food sources) along the project reach.
Aquatic invertebrates typically feed on
eta ti 0 n
( leave s, t wig s, etc.), car i on
etc. ), and other invertebrates.
::~;::~a~e::~~
a.l:g: ~~;i~
decaying veg-
C~if~'~ Q:: : :f ;i.:.s h ,
No .,! (f~f:' ·
bird s ,
a;;~ ; ~;:.~\r,p.ilable
on
sources for aquatiS::;::'~'~'~:,~:~,ebra~~~)"~Sing the
FISH HABITAT
in the Logan Can-
An aquatic habitat
yon between DeWitt
Hand Fork cOnflU~JlCe;;1 ;,.·'~;fi4: :iif 'h e
':; ~;~ :aver
3. 4 miles
Beaver Creek (Adams, 1966). The
inventory
above:: : :~:fi'~::; :m.~iit~~~ ~: ~:;f,;:
was ':!i;~¢rh~ fo i~~J~i~~
Habita~::i i;A:~: ~~ ~ y:!:~fi=l
collected at ': ~i li ~'~:f :~e
the Right
Mountain turnoff, about
u. S. Forest Service Region
4
Aquatic
procedures.
Physical habitat data
were
intervals along the study reach.
Using data on five component categories for a stream (pool
measure, pool structure, stream bottom, stream environment,
and bank stability) percent optimum fish habitat was estimated for each study site.
The five component categories
were rated from 0 to 1, with a rating of 1 representing optimal conditions.
The five ratings were summed (see Total
Points in Table 3), then divided by 5 (the maximum number of
total points)
conditions.
if all component categories exhibited optimal
The result was expressed as percent optimum
fish habitat for each study site.
8
�Table 3
PERCENT OPTIMUM HABITAT DATA FOR THE LOGAN RIVER
(RIGHT HAND FORK TO BEAVER CREEK) AND
BEAVER CREEK (MOUTH TO BEAVER MOUNTAIN TURNOFF)
Approximate
Location
Station
Number
U-S
U-6
U-7
U-8
U-9
U-10
U-11
U-12
U-13
U-14
U-15
Right Hand Fork Confluence
China Row Campground
Approx. 1 mile above China Row
Near Logan Cave
Approx. 1 mile above Logan Cave
Just above Lower Bridge
Just below Upper Bridge
Just above Temple Fork
Just above Rick's Spring
Near Bear Hollow Creek
Approx. 1 mile below Forestry
Field Sta.
At Forestry Field Station
Just above Tony Grove
Just above Red Banks Camp
Near mouth of Beaver Creek
~pprox. 1 mile above Beaver
Creek
Near Beaver Mountain Turnoff
Average
Width
Average
Depth
(ft)
(ft)
43.4
.:::.. 1.30
Percent
Riffle
89.4
Percent
Pool
10.6
U-21
PROPOSED PROJECT REACH AVERAGES
SOURCE:
Adams, 1966
BOT538/030
0.22
Pool
Structure
0.04
Stream
Bottom
0.67
'i~ll"1i: :" : :' :~~~;<i : ;il1;!]i",)i :~:! f11 fi!
..
;::~. .
0.92
0.88
0.89
0.68
0.76
0.50
0.52
88.7
94.9
16.84
1543.7
15:::
34.3
0.99
90.8
9.2
0.27
0.00
0.03
97.3
97.0
11.5
15.7
O~!O
J)Ci~\,.
11. 3::::"
Bank
Stability
Total
Points
Percent
Optimum
1.00
0.80
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
2.70
2.31
2.44
2.12
2.14
2.47
2.04
2.12
2.38
2.37
54
46
49
42
43
49
41
42
48
47
0.40
0.59
0.35
0.40
0.42
0.72
0.79
0.85
0.62
0.80
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.90
1.00
2.72
2.48
2.33
1.98
2.28
54
50
47
40
46
O. 71
0.72
0.62
1.00
0.80
2.65
2.22
53
44
12.35
1.6.• 4.0 ...
0.72
0.96
1:!1
-:: .
0.38
38.0
44.4
32.0
39.5
28.9
Stream
Environment
0.77
0.76
0.75
0.61
0.52
0.75
0.70
0.76
0.81
0.80
i~i~i~: i : : i:; ; "i:'~;Sii: :n ~U ~: ~~ ~:~! ~: ~~
583.6
U-16
U-17
U-18
U-19
U-20
Pool
Measure
0 .-21
~T::.
00::.
:::~:: ,: 'i: i ,: : i;i~i:i:": :":i: :i : :::
0.18
0.04
0.42
3~.75 ... ~ 95
2.34
47%
�~he
inventory results presented in Table 3 are only for the
sections of the Logan River and Beaver Creek that could po~entially
tions.
~he
be influenced by the proposed highway modifica-
Data indicate that the average stream width is 34.3 feet,
average depth is 0.99 feet, and the riffle-to-pool ratio
is 9:1.
The average percent optimum fish habitat in the
project reach is 47 percent, the best study site was 54 percent, while the poorest was 40 percent.
Three study sites
in the project reach (U-5, U-15, U-20) were considered to be
above average in quality when compared to
o ~~r
.iF'
':::
study sites
(Adams, 1966).
The project reach percent
with other regional trout
on physical habitat data,
reach of the Logan River is
trout stream .
.:::: :::::::: ..
·:": ';: ;: .l.~.i T~:· :a ~..I·:e\:.. ;4:;~ i:.
l.:1::- ~
CaMP ARI sON:::..dE.... EJ(CENW::~~:6PT IMUM HAB I TAT
P:
.:;:'::
.;/:::',;::::::'
FOR R;Edfor~fAL·:;;;T:R'OUT STREAMS
~!~~p~;;;;:r:'::~': ;: : ;: ,: : : :';i" ':~ :" "':;!;;;:g ~~:~~e
A
Fifth Water
·::ii:i:,;""::·
Diamond Fork
McCoy Creek
Sixth Water
Currant Creek
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
West Fork Duchesne
Taft Creek
North Fork Duchesne
Hades Creek
Logan River and Beaver
Creek (proposed
: project area)
Source:
Utah
Utah
Idaho
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Utah
Nevada
Utah
Utah
Utah
Adams, 1966.
10
8
22
23
15
21
8
40
22
7
36
10
34.3
Percent of
Optimum Habitat
64
62
51
49
49
48
46
44
41 .
40
37
33
25
47
�The Logan River and Beaver Creek generally lack good quality
pools
(Adams, 1966).
Overhanging vegetation, such as brush
and trees, is an important fish habitat component for the
Logan River (Brown, 1935; Dunham, 1963; Adams, 1966; Helm,
1986).
A fish habitat utilization study was conducted using
four Logan River sites between Chokecherry Campground (about
1.5 miles below Right Hand Fork) and 0.5 miles above Brachiopod Picnic Area (near Cottonwood Picnic Area) by the UDWR
in 1973.
Their results indicated that more trout used areas
where bankside vegetation was present than
tation was al ter e d.
There were 46 to 64
trout captured in areas where the
not al tered.
a~e as
pe: ~:¢ :~:nt
where vegemore brown
ripar ,i!~ :~ : : ; ~~:g: ~tation
was
. Jn8:~;~ :· c~:'f:t;'£.q:?lt trout
;/M'~ti~t.a:!4.n wh i:t:e ~fish were
Also, 32 to 68 percent
were captured in unal tered areas.
captured in equal numbers in al ter:~ :d ;: : ~ :h~:: : ~nal tered areas.
Size frequency data for
captured in 1970 and
River indicate these
ad u 1 tho I ding are a s
brown'i ;::i~;;::; ';~:;'~; ':~;untain
1971:: :; :from : \;l~; a:t.;t:~:~:~ :~
~:¢ :¢,:~ :t :i~l§.. ~~ ~ i!~ e
areas of the Logan
as juvenile rearing and
ib.;r::!; : l?::9t!b: ; ;: ~~:~~~~I:~ s ( He 1m, 19 8 6).
f:r:Pni:: : :a :l~~~:.~: ~:.. ar~: ~: ~ indicate these
tend to suppor 1;:: : t.;~ : ~ : ~ : : ; ~J~~:~ :i ;s ~;i~: (mostly juvenile or
groups of broJh;:::!~~ !!i7put ' :~ n:~ m~untain whitefish.
frequency data
There are few
whitefish
d:~;~':;:;'::;: ';~:~wning
Si z e
locations
mostly adul t)
habitat availability and qual-
ity in the Logan River and Beaver Creek.
Unpublished field
data (UDWR, 1972; 1974) from three sites along the project
reach (Franklin Basin Bridge, Utah State Forestry Field Station Bridge, Brachiopod Picnic Area)
indicate that Logan
River substrate is primarily boulders (37 to 78 percent) and
rubble (10 to 55 percent).
The three sites surveyed had
only 1 to 15 percent gravel.
Small tributaries along the project reach, such as China Row
Creek and Rick's Spring, are reported to be essential for
11
�fish spawning (Roberts, 1977).
Us~ng
only stream gradient
(no other data are available) as a ' criterion for identifying
potential tributary spawning areas : (gradients less than
2.5 percent could be spawnable), only Right Hand Fork, lower
Blind Hollow Creek, Temple Fork, and lower White Pine Creek
could provide some spawnable habitat.
Other tributaries
along the project reach have gradients exceeding 4 percent.
However, all project reach tributaries probably contribute
gravel to the system and could have spawnable areas where
they join the Logan River or Beaver Creek.
"",/ii;i'iiiii:,i:i:::::,,
Frs HERr E BOLOG~!;:' 'i/'''''iiiiii:i:::'': '!i
Sr
:::Hp::::::Sreach supports
populations of brown
(Salmo clarki), and
nait~'~:~i;:~;~ :~; ~:;~dUCing gamefish
tro\J;:t : : ;: ~sailrr:6.:/'r: ~: tE'~) cutthroat trout
mqu:~t:~: l~~ji ,~h flt~;tish (Prosopiurn williarnsoni)
I
.
catchabl ~i;: ;:;s!ii ~ ~:/:J:;:~::::;:t.Jl:/~ O-inch) rainbow trout
(Salmo gairdneri),: : : ~e:r :E:' : ; : §:t._d ,=~e~:: : : i~1rOUghOUt the Logan River
and were not b¥:f::~:~:~: ~:~:i:::;:_:£~<i?:, '::i ~~ ~iroduce in the river.
However,
several rainba~jb.;p.tth;:~~lt hybrids were reported in electro-
Until 1982,
shocking
1 9 7. 1) •
surve;:q;;;d~:~;~: : : ~9ii :lected
by Utah State Uni versi ty (Gosse,
'::~~~~;::://:'
Rainbow trout stocking data are limited.
For the entire
Logan River (including downstream impoundments), an average
of 30,860 rainbows were planted in 1962, 1963, and 1964
1966).
(Adams,
Between 1969 and 1974, an average of 15,000 rainbows
were planted in the project reach of the Logan River at Brachiopod Picnic Area (UDWR, 1974).
No information is available
on the current status of rainbow trput in the Logan River.
The only rough _
fish species reportea for the Logan River is
the mottled sculpin (Cottus
bairdi)~
12
�LIFE HISTORY
Life history periodicity data for the three species of naturally reproducing gamefish found in the Logan River are presented in Table 5.
Rainbow trout reproduction in the Logan
River is probably limited.
Logan River brown trout and moun-
tain whitefish are fall spawners.
Egg incubation occurs
through the winter, and the fry emerge in the early spring.
Cutthroat trout spawn in the spring, egg incubation occurs
through the summer, and the fry emerge in
~:pi~>
fall.
Brown
trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whit~ftfh all reach
~::::~ :::U~~:~s:::n~a~9~;~~Oduce 'i:~:::,; ,' ~: ,': ;:~:: "'4'i;: ~~::S, of age
T a!~ 1~:: : :?:; : i: : : : :;: : . ·: : ::~:~~\:;::::>
LOGAN RIVER GAMEFISH LIFEh fI.I"S'l.lORY::::J?ERIODICITY DATA
... . ..
"',\:\,,':::',;rr,,;rr" "";;" """
.:::/.f:::::;;:::;::::~ji~
." .::
Brown Trout
~~~w~;~~ba t o~:: :": ~:" :i;, , , , , : :, ,": : ":,: :, : : ,gi'~~~: ~=~ ~~~~ er
i
::::::::~,;;:,;~,~~:~':j' :,'t ' ' '; ' :' '>' .~:~~:~~=~:~::~: ~
Spawning
' ::~ ~ ~ ~iii::::::;://:'
Nay-June
Egg incubation
Fry
Juvenile
Adult
May-August
August-January
January-December
January-December
Mountain Whitefish
October-November
October-March
January-June
January-December
January-December
Spawning
Egg Incubation
Fry
Juvenile
Adult
13
�DISTRIBUTION
Gamefish occur throughout the project reach.
The section
downstream from Temple Fork supports primarily brown trout,
while the section above Temple Fork supports primarily cutthroat trout (UDWR, 1972; 1974).
Mountain whitefish occur
in relatively equal numbers throughout the project reach.
No information is available on the status of rainbow trout
in the project reach.
2
sinee18.
9
No rainbows have
be~p!;;~;I~tocked
there
"",i"::i;","':,::i'::::",:i;;:':i,, \\,,
::~::::C:iSh population densi ty d~;;~"': ;~~")~ac~:'::'i" for the
nd
~:~ ::r:~:e:r::: ::::::i~:e ::~i;i;LJ~i;;~;:,i~'?':r: ::W:h :h:
:::u
bankside vegetation is
lJ:l1;ct':1;te;~J!/~~:~~: ~: ~
than altered (UDWR,
on
.:H:::::::::::::;::::: ..
per mile of stream) were
near the project reach near
pass
electroshock~1~1~ :/~ampling
Estimates were based on multipleresults.
It was estimated
that the Logan River supported 460 to 920 brown trout per
mile.
It was also estimated that the river supported 692 to
1,454 fish per mile of all trout species:
rainbow.
brown, cutthroat,
Increased fishing pressure and the termination of
the rainbow trout stocking program in 1982 have probably
resulted in reduced fish densities today.
POPULATION STRUCTURE
The Logan River supports naturally reproducing populations
of brown trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish.
14
�Past fish sampling data indicate that fry,
juveniles, and
adults of these three species use the river (Adams, 1966;
Gosse, 1971; UDWR, 1972; 1974).
Total length data for game-
fish collected in 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1974 (UDWR, 1972;
1974; Helm, 1986) were compared to growth data from areas
similar to north central Utah to estimate fish age (Scott
and Crossman, 1973; Carlander, 1969).
These comparisons
indicated that in the early 1970s the Logan River supported
the following age ranges of fish:
1- to 5-year-old brown
trout, 1- to 9-year-old mountain whi tefish,
;i~qd
.:::::' .:::::'
1- to 5-year-
old cutthroat trout.
Most trout and whitefish
apparently occurs
River above Third
Beaver Creek, Temple Fork,
loW~:r ;i : : :B.iJ.:.i~d:: ~: B6llkIOW
in
Creek, and
trout
are
River tributaries
and no substantial lakes
or any of its tributaries
Condition
facto~;:" ":;I:~;;;: ;: ::;:e developed using fish
length and
weight data to determine the relative "robustness" or "well
being" of fish populations.
These factors can be used to
compare the well being of fish populations from different
habitats or fish populations using the same habitat at different times.
Condition factor differences suggest habitat
quality differences (higher K values suggest better quality
habitats) .
No recent data are available on trout growth or condition
factors in the Logan River or Beaver Creek.
However, condi-
tion factors were developed for various length ranges of
15
�brown trout from the Logan River by Sigler (1952) and by
Gosse (1971).
The 1952 values were 1.83 for fish 0 to 199 rom,
1.73 for fish 200 to 275 rom, and 1.64 for fish 276 to 350 rom.
In 1971, the K factors were 1.82 for fish 0 to 199 rom, 1.50
for fish 200 to 275 rom, and 1.59 for fish 276 to 350 mm.
These K factors indicate that the condition of brown trout
in the Logan River changed little from 1952 to 1971.
This
suggests that the quality of brown trout habitat along the
Logan River also changed little between 1952 and 1971.
Because the Logan River has not changed app~i~ ~iably since
1971, current K factors are probably simi::f:~l:: :'to 1971 and
:::2p::::::. mortality factors for"'{~~~:': '~::" :':~:;:~:: fiSh in the
project area are probably severe
~:ri~;i :~;~~ental
condi tions f
predation, and angling.
Of tih~tse: ~ : . m'~ :b~: ~: l J ty caused by exposure to severe environmental :i!¢..d~d:±;; :i: 6 n~.: : : 't~OVl flows, floods,
anchor ice, etc.) is proba:b,)'y
:i~ti;~;~: :;:{~:~ d;~ng
cause of fish losses
to
area.
are also
known
only 4 inches
(Scott and
1·6;h~.:; 1 J~a::;:E{
and juvenile fish.
Brown trout
been reported to prey on other trout
crossm~: rl;:/ i i :~973).
Because of its location and
excellent accessibility, the Logan River has long been an
important fishing stream.
Fishing pressure on the river has
steadily increased since angling data were first collected
in 1950.
From 1962 to 1965, an average of 30,860 catchable
rainbow trout were released into the Logan River.
It was
estimated that 80 percent of these fish were caught (Adams,
1966).
In the absence of the rainbow trout stocking program
and increasing fishing pressure, angling could be an important
mortality factor for trout and whitefish populations in the
project reach.
16
�ANGLING
The Logan River is near a major population center in northern
Utah, supports a good gamefish population, and has excellent
accessibility.
For these reasons it has long been an impor-
tant angling stream.
Fishing pressure on the river has in-
creased steadily since 1950, while catch rates have remained
about the same.
The number of angler-days spent on the Logan
River doubled between 1950 and 1982.
Fishing pressure increases
are expected to continue through the 1990s . ;ii!i!:;;~Angling data
for the entire Logan River are
surnrnarizedi:i : f:~t::~able
. .:1i i i!:"::;::i:i :~ l i;:~ :i :l ; : ; : .
6.
LOGAN
Year
1948
1950
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1982
1985
1990
Angler
Days
Catch Rate
(fish/hour)
0.61
a
26,684
42,801
(11,599)c,e
(15,045)c
a For entire Logan River, including impoundments.
b UDWR creel census data and regression analysis
(r
=
0.87).
cApproximate number of fish caught in project reach. Assumes
47 percent of total fish harvested were caught between DeWitt
Springs and Beaver Creek (Adams, 1966).
dStocked rainbow trout only.
fish were harvested.
Assumes 80 percent of stocked
eRainbow trout only.
17
�Creel census data for 1962, 1963, and 1964 indicate that
47 percent of the fish harvested from the Logan River were
caught between DeWitt Springs, about 4.7 miles downstream
from the project reach, and Beaver Creek (Adams, 1966).
Creel census data were also collected along the Logan River
from First Dam to Temple Fork in 1982 (UDWR).
In the 1982
study, the river was divided into seven sections.
A section
from Right Hand Fork to Temple Fork covered the lower third
of the project reach.
With the exception of the section
from Second to Third Dams, where no anglers;:iw:~re observed,
the Right Hand Fork to Temple Fork sectio.p:::;:;~~i~ the least
used.
fi$.)1:f;ri9.;:.: ; b~ tween First
pet,;!'l'~:~f;; u~;i!;;~::'; 't>~e reach
Of the 1,002 people observed
Dam and Temple Fork, only 8 (0. 8
from Right Hand Fork to Temple Fo +.;J(~::(/· l\J1g). ing ~a:s observed
thr~tq:~;;: ; ~ri:~ust;
:; and;: ; :~u;:~; s~ t; >~~i~: . The
in this section from February
however, fish
were caught only during July
anglers in
this
trout
(160 rainbows,
rate of
0.5 fish/hour.
were the First
of the anglers
MANAGEMENT
The Logan
River'; ; S: :':~;;;~;::d
as a Class I I - High Priority water-
way on the Utah Unique Stream List.
Because of its location,
accessibility, and popularity among regional anglers, it was
largely managed as a "put-and-take" rainbow trout fishery
from the 1940s to 1982.
During this period, thousands (an
average of 30,860 in the early 1960s) of catchable size (8to 10-inch) rainbow trout were stocked in response to the
heavy fishing pressure the river supported.
In 1982, the
rainbow trout stocking program was terminated above Third
Darn.
The upper section of the Logan River, including the
project reach of the Logan River and Beaver Creek, is now
managed for naturally reproducing trout and whitefish.
18
�Fish habitat management in the Logan River and Beaver Creek
has primarily focused on maintaining existing conditions.
Studies (UDWR, 1973; Helm, 1986) have shown that the loss or
alteration of bankside vegetation is detrimental to trout
habitat quality in the Logan River.
Current management strat-
egies concern lirniting or eliminating future riparian vegetation damage resulting from encroachment or other actions.
No programs currently exist to enhance or improve fish habitat in the Logan River or Beaver Creek.
:::r::::l::::O::formation suggests t4i~:i!: ;~'::;:;;;"\~PtentiallY
producti9:tt:i;~iiqn:g: the " : ~f;~ject reach,
a good fishery currently exi~i:b~~~.:~:::/~:h: ~lude (in order of
importance) the general /~b: Se.:p.~~;: : Oti.:\qpali ty pool habi-
limiting further gamefish
where
their
tat, historical habi tat quali ~iy' i ;;~: e:~;;:~:d: a:tii :6 'n, limi ted avail-
::~ ~~ t~ a::o:~a ~~:yd: :,~::~~:~~":'~,~:!:~:j: ,~, ; dri~'' '~ng1 pre s ·
ing sure
Percent optimum
4~:h'I't:a.t ·::ey·atl.uations
of the project reach
~:d~:::: ::::t,~:i!~::~~'~r:'::::::b~~ :~:h r:::o:~bi:::e~::~ity
the evaluations
':; ~l;~:di: : ~{~diicate
generally lacking
1966).
ii h : i i ~~e
that quali ty pool habitat is
Logan River and Beaver Creek (Adams,
The absence of quality pool habitat, which provides
important adult holding and juvenile rearing areas, could be
limiting further trout production in the project reach.
Studies were conducted along the Logan River (UDWR, 1973;
Helm, 1986) to determine the effect of bankside vegetation
alterations on trout and whitefish densities.
Study results
indicated that overhanging vegetation is a very important
component of Logan River trout habitat quality.
Road encroach-
ments and other riparian vegetation alterations made in the
19
�1930s and 1950s continued to affect local trout habitat quality and use during the early 1970s.
little effect on mountain whitefish.
The alterations had .
The habitat quality
reductions that occurred in the 1930s and 1950s could still
be limiting further trout production in the Logan River and
Beaver Creek today.
Data on stream gradients (moderately steep) and substrate
composition (primarily boulders and rubble with little gravel)
along the project reach suggest that quali ~,:;r!!'~;iypawning areas
could be I imi ting further trout productio:p"':' =*t1 the Log an River
and Beaver Creek.
Also, only four triqp't at;i '@.s,:. in the proj-
::tS:::::l:a::rg:::~:n:: :~:::f~:~:~::~,~~;::g~'~G:~~~,ns that may
~::r:~~~i::: ~:!:~ :!:~:n~S P;',:;~;;;;~~i,;t~:::r~r::~O::::us
fo~: : : :t;:h,~ 16~iEt~::>Eb:i ::d of the project reach
(Right Hand Fork to T.~fu;:fe::\~p:~k· ')i il: ~;ndicate that this section
was not heavily utiII;~:~d; ; ::/~~;~~:; : :~ ;:l!: ~~ople were observed fishing
there during all .: : $:f : : : :1: 9 : ~ ' '2: , ;' · :l!~;: : . Th~: i '~ data suggest that angling
results
(UDWR, 1982)
t
::::::::o:h::~,:~;::~;::j:~::'~'::::~ti:~w~~:~ ~i::c::::o:h:n r::::
stOC~::{;h~: " ! !p.,t6:g~am was ended above Third
angling p;~~~~re in the project reach is
bow trout
Dam in 1982,
current
completely
supported by naturally reproducing brown trout, cutthroat
trout, and mountain whitefish populations.
Therefore, angling
could cause a reduction in trout and whitefish production
along the project reach by removing more naturally reproducing fish from the area than in past years.
RECREATIONAL VALUE
The Logan River has been classified by the Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources as a Class II - High Priority Stream and
has been placed on the agency's Unique Streams List.
20
These
�actions by the UDWR reflect the Logan River's unique fishery
and aquatic habitat as well as the stream's ability to sustain high quality, wild populations of salmonids.
At the
present time the Logan River above the impoundments is managed' as a wild trout fishery.
A self-sustaining trout fish-
ery has numerous and relatively narrow habitat requirements
at various life stages; consequently, the fishery is sensitive to any degradation or alteration of water quality and
stream morphology.
Fishing pressure is also a key factor in
maintaining a wild trout population, and
managed appropr ia tely .
Throughout the state of Utah there
stream miles classified as Class
Logan River is also unique in
anqI~ ng
must be
./iiiiiii:://:'
api(': ;~:' : '~ i::;:~~" " 'JlUmber
Ii!!'ii~t.:/:~I/ii:t ishe;il i~:~.
tha~::i i ii ~: : i i;~'/~oth
of
The
a high priori ty
and an urban fishery.
Consubstantial.
in Table 7
future number
of
rise in fishing days
reflects the po~: ~ :~;ti' 6:~ /'increase in Cache County and metropbli tan Logan Ci ty'::ii6tV, 'r the last 35 years.
;
In addition to the river's accessibility to a large number
of anglers, it serves as a natural laboratory for Utah State
University.
The Logan River is used to train students in
fish and wildlife, hydrology, forestry, archaeology, geology,
engineering, and environmental field techniques.
Numerous
studies, theses, and dissertations have been carried out
using the river's environmental features.
21
�ECONOMIC VALUE
Although fishing pressure is heavy on the Logan River, excellent catches have been made
to 36 pounds).
(such as brown trout weighing up
The mystique of "big trout" combined with
the opportunity to catch the bag limit make the Logan River
a preferred fishery for anglers.
As such, the river gener-
ates a substantial amount of spending by anglers and is a
valuable economic asset both to the state of Utah and Cache
Valley.
:;:~: :n::::~yt:: :::~' t~:e::::~ ::;,¢~)~h::;:~" !;i:~;tt:: ::::~
.:~Pu.t'il1~(::;the
became a million-dollar fishery.
shown in the Table, more than $68
': ~il'tid'~'
Based QP '::\t h:e. ..
Logan River anglers.
~{; :v.~: i : 'l $
40 ~'year
period
will be spent by
length of 30 miles I
~:1i i~ll~~.: 8 : ;: : ::;f;6;r; : : :l~ :~{~ h mi leo f s tr e am .
Historical creel census .dat:9.- i' ~ ~l 1b:~f: ~;: : ; i:hat over 47 percent
of the fish harvested ./€i:;:e:;:; ;-e;kJ:~n·\b~J:ween DeWi tt Springs and
abou t
$ 3 0 , 00 0 was expend ed i
.the mouth of Beaver ~~'~:~.::.:'.:<:.:.:': :.: :;.": ":.,., : ,': ,;'.';':; ""'"
.:::::::;:::::::::::::::;::.
.:/:::':::;:::/::::::::;;:::;::.
':~:. .......
..
":::. .g:
':;:\'. ':~11~':::T ab 1 e
7
ESTIMATED.:. Pb.ST, PE.ESENT, AND FUTURE EXPENDITURES
·::l\SY:\l.\NGLERS ON THE LOGAN RIVER
Year
1950
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1982
1985
1990
Cost/Day
Ang~'~'~,: ,;·~;s
26,684
42,801
51,206
a
48,219
a
52,227
a
56,235
53,748
a
60,244
a
64,252
$
b
2.99
b
6.81
12.55
b
22.10
b
31.67
b
41.22
45.04
50.78
b
60.34
a UDWR creel census data and regression analysis
b UDWR annual cost factor and regression analysis
22
Expenditure
$
79,785
291,475
642,635
1,065,640
1,654,029
2,318,007
2,420,810
3,059,190
3,876,966
(r=0.87)
(r=O.73)
�Another economid factor is the investment value by .the state
of Utah.
From 1960 through 1980, the UDWR annually · stocked
the Logan River with brown and rainbow trout.
An average of
36,612 trout were stocked each year at an estimated investment of $732,000 (based on an average cost of $l/fish over
20 years).
Additional investment value has been made by the
UDWR and the Forest Service as labor and expenses for management and study programs.
BOT538/024
23
�REFERENCES
Abbey, L.A.
1974.
Memorandum to L. Jester concerning the
Logan Canyon highway route environmental analysis.
Utah
State Department of Highways.
Adams, J.K.
1966.
Memorandum to B. Reese concerning aquatic
habitat quality in Logan Canyon.
Contains the results of an
aquatic habitat inventory and percent
optiIl1~nxl!:
lations for the Logan River from Dewitt
habi tat calcu-
$P~~~gs
to the Beaver
;;;;;~::~:~;~:::: ~ ~;;:;~:;;:t;;:;~~~;;;h;;~~:::~;:;;l:;;;;::~
s
U
.: :\~~~!!;::::::>
er i es •
Car lander , . K.
Fishery Biology.
1969.
Iowa State
on Fisheries Habitat
Dunham, D.
of Past and
P~6ppsed
U . S. Fore s t
s~;£~:~~:~: ;; ;,;: ~:~;~~n,
Construction in Logan Canyon.
~j.9)lway
Utah.
Envirpnmental Protection Agency.
for water.
EPA 440/5-86-001.
1986.
Quality criteria
u.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
Gosse, J.
1971.
Logan River Fish Survey.
Utah State Univer-
sity, College of Natural Resources, Logan, Utah.
Helm, W.
1986.
Letter to C. Forsgren (CH2M HILL) containing
unpublished fish electroshocking data for altered and unaltered sections of the Logan River from 1970 and 1971.
Utah
State University, College of Natural Resources, Logan, Utah.
24
�Utah Department of Wildlife Resources.
Results for the Logan River.
1982.
Creel Census
Northern Regional Office.
BOT538/025
26
�:/:::::::::;::::::::::::::...
'i : ", : i;: , ~: : : ,: : : ;i : ': li:" : : ":'i
'::11111:,/::'
�
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/62">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/62</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, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000.
Checksum
4214344492
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
16407692 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
Aquatic resources technical memorandum, Logan Canyon
Description
An account of the resource
Aquatic resources technical memorandum prepared for Utah Deparment of Transportation detailing the existing conditions of the aquatic habitat, fisheries biology, water quality, the impacts and mitigation in the Middle and Upper Canyons and Rich County, and references.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Aquatic resources--Utah--Logan River
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Fishery resources
Logan River (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1987-03
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Rich County (Utah)
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, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 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/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</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 Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890.
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
MSS148VIIIB27_Fd4_010.pdf
Highway 89;