1
50
5
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/bceaadcb2460eb208583666e08888437.pdf
05bae2309f7fe2934085b02054d0c079
PDF Text
Text
UTAH
STATE
EXTENSION
IN
UNIVERSITY
SERVICES
COOPERATION WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AND U . S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICUl TURE
t pril 4, 1962 .
cony
Mr . James Garner Deane ,
4200 Cathedral Avenue, N.
Washington 16, D. C.
It!
w
. ,
De r Mr . Denne:
Thank you for your letter of r arch 20 . Please excuse
my d lay but I ha ve been in the field . Our pamphlet was
stimulated bV he Logan Canyon road improvement project but it
was intended to have broader implications .
uite obviously,
there was a direct connection and a direc im act .
There was no public resistance to the first strip of the
construction work. Th ~ re was concern by the fish and Gar e
Department , the Forest ~ ervice and this Univer sity . The publ c
could not be stimulated until construction actually beg8n .
During the one-year period of construction and during the planning
stages of the second phase, the public did gXP es~ conce rn through
the pre~s and resolutions from private organiz a tions . Frankly. the
public reaction was lead by professional 0 sons inter ested in land
use .
It is difficult at this point to mako an appraisal but I think
it is fair to sa y that the attitude of highway plannors has and 1s
changing .
Perhaps not as far as we ltlDuld like, but progress 1s noted .
The design for Logan Canvon is being modified and there ore cartaln .
other evidences that more consideration will be given to ~th8r
resourceS . This change in attitudes, however, will not take the
place of adequate legislati on • .
Dr . Theral R. Black of our Department of ' ociology rec nt1y
dellv red a paper entitled 'Tho Impact of Highways Upon oCiety's
Spacial Living rrangements with Special Emphasis to Utah's W
awatch
Front Count! 8 . II Thio is a fine and internstlng presentation . r"'ay
I suggest that you request a copy?
I hope th s answers you questions .
of when your book is complete .
I would
lik~
Sincerely,
Jack H. Berryman
Wildlife Spec! list
JH8 : jwt
to be advised
�
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/1751">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1751</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
2277270978
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
771053 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 for Jack Berryman to James Deans, April 4, 1962
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence for Jack Berryman to James Deans, April 4, 1962 about the public opinion of the highway construction in Logan Canyon.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Berryman, Jack H.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Deans, James Garner
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Wilderness areas
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Washington D.C.
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1960-1969
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, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files
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
14717Bx8Fd20_Item 44.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/bbc336c4d786ce0afeeab578fa822d63.pdf
d7d1fd3e2fee41b388b1906bbdcba57f
PDF Text
Text
..--- --------- -------- -- -- - - --- --- - -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- ----- --- --- --- ------ -- - -- -- - --- ------- - - - - -------- - - -- .-.
- - - -____T
__T -.7"
. . .r .... __T....,.
•
----
--- ---
A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION
Vol. 1 No.1
March 1, 1995
LCC IS FORMED
If the Utah Depart"Until UDOT has lived up to the
ment of Transportati on
has its way, the na tural
law of the land and provided
beauty of Logan Canyon
truthful analysis and documentaas we know it may soon
be just a picture on a
tion, we (LCC) will be persistent
postcard. Instead of a
in our demands for justice,"
serene mountain byway,
- Kevin Kobe, LCC President
U.S. Highway 89 will be
a high-speed traffic corri dor Hned by scarred hill - spectacular scenery.
and along the Dugway to
We believe that the
sides, reta ining walls,
stem erosion problems.
and c1earzones. UOOT
recent compromise made • Vague wording about
would like to begin work beh¥een Citizens for the
how c1earzones will be
as early as this summer.
Protection of Logan
treated , with c1earzone
Canyon and UOOT is
That's why we have
a reas compri sing up to
unacceptab le. It is merely 22 feet on either side of
formed the Logan
Canyon Coa lition. LCC is a slightly watered down
the road, and the
removal of "su bstantial
version of the Preferred
mad e up of "old timers"
Alternative.
haza rds" within the midwho have been involved
The extent of the con- dle canyon.
with the Logan Canyon/
UDOT issue almost from struction planned will
• Revegetation of mature
the beginning, as well as
still necessitate 15-20
trees and shrubs that
newcomers who advoyears of work, and will
"could require 30 to 50
completely change the
years or might never
ca te a common sense
ambiance of the canyon.
occur aga in."
approach to road
Some of our priority
• A potentially devastatimprovement-one that
ing impact on cutthroat
combines safety, efficien- concerns are:
and brown trout popula . Eight curve cuts
cy and environmental
planned for the middle
tions due to extensive
sensitivity. LCC is dediriprap nea r the bridges,
canyon, along with
cated to keeping Logan
retaining walls in some
River a wild, free flowing UOOT's suggestion that
locations, and permanent
use of cement retaining
river, preserving wildlife
walls would be appropri- problems with sedimenhabitat, and protecting
tation near
ate in the middle canyon
Logan Canyon's
steep curve cuts.
-Two-hundred year-old
Douglas Fir at the summit replaced by a mini mum of 47 feet of pave.
ment, a nd realignment
that will necessitate filling a small side canyon
with debris.
• Extensive widening,
with half of the middle
canyon widened from 26
feet to 34 feet, and the
remaining 24 miles
widened to 40-47 feet to
accomodate higher
design speeds.
• No specifics as far as
mitigation plans, with a
vague promise to use
UOOT's "best management practices."
LCC has pledged its
resources towards pursuring every available
legal op tion. If we pursue litigation, we will
need your support.
Volunteers are needed .
Money will also be needed-litigati on is very
costl y. Please plan on
donating generously!
This is our last opportunity for action.
�LCC Prepares for Forest Appeal
In its effort to per-
suade UDOT to take
another look at the
Conservationist's
Altema tive, the Logan
Canyon Coalition is
working hard in preparation for the Forest
Appeal.
After the recent
approval of the Record
of Decision (ROD) by
both UOOT and the
Federal Highway
Administration, the
last phase of the
process currently rests
with the Forest Service.
This agency's approval
is widely expected, followed by a 45-day
comment period for
public input. Lee
plans to exercise its
legal right by appea ling the Forest Service's
decision.
The Forest Service
is required by the
Wasatch-Cache Forest
Plan to retain the aesthetic and environmental qualities of the
canyon. The Plan will
need to be revised due
to excessive impacts
which would result
from the Preferred
Alternative. A Forest
Plan revision will
require public input as
manda ted by the
NEPA process. Lee
Logan Canyon
Coalition plans to exercise its legal right by
appealing the Forest
Service's decision.
will base its appea l on
the expected Forest
Service decision and
key concerns not adequately addressed by
the FEIS.
as federally threatened or endangered
species. Neither the
Forest Service nor
UDOT have s urveyed
to identify the presence or absence of
these species.
These points include
the following:
1) UOOT has never
clearly demonstrated
the purpose and need
for the project, as
required by NEPA.
4) UOOT's analysis of
the safety data is
admittedly flawed .
5) UOOT has more
flexibility in AASHTO highway design
recommendations
than it acknowledges.
2) The Logan River is
among the top 5% of
all stream fisheries in
the state, yet the FEIS
seriously underestimates the impact to
fisheries.
6) The canyon is the
number one tourist
attraction in the
Bridgerland area, yet
the FEIS fails to
address long-term
negative economic
impacts resulting from
20 years of construction and loss of scenic
values.
3) There are several
species which may
occur in the canyon.
These species are
either listed as sensitive by the Forest
Service or are candi
dates for classification
2
1) The Forest Service
plan mandates retention of the canyon's
visual and aesthetic
qualities. Under the
Preferred Alternative
this mandate would
be violated.
These and other
concerns represent a
legitimate foundation
on which to base our
appeal. If you have
any additional concerns which warrant
consideration, please
contact Lee ASAP.
Thank you.
�=-= = ------- _ _ _ _ '=-"'I'"
-
:--
Economic Benefits or Disaster?
Utah's wide geographical diversity and
expansive open spaces
have filled a void in a
time when many of o ur
wild places are rap idly
falling prey to u rban and
economic sprawl. This is
resulting in a boom in
tourism.
Tourism revenues for
Cache and Rich Cou nties
alone amounted to well
over $64 million in 1993.
This success can be pa rtly attributed to p romotional efforts by the
Cache Chamber of
Commerce, which recognizes Logan Canyon as
the number one attraction in Bridgerland. The
Chamber's 1994 Cache
Valley Utah publica tio n
mentions Logan Canyon
no less than 20 times in
the firs t nine pages.
In addition, the
Bridgerland Travel
Region recently received
a $436,000 federal grant
to promote Logan
Canyon and educate visitors about its characteristics. Clearly the canyon
has a wide base of support and aCknowledgement in terms of value
to the region.
"We look at it as a
real asset to the community," says Marty Spicer,
real estate broker fo r
Coldwell Banker.
But will the canyon
lose its d raw as it undergoes 15 to 20 years of
construction, destructio n, and transformation
of its natural character?
How many moto rists
will p refer the Idaho
route to Yellowstone versus waiting in d usty
traffic for heavy equipment to pass? Will pe0ple still want to d rive to
Garden City to view
Bear Lake and enjoy a
raspberry shake?
Mo re importantly,
will the increase in con-
gestion and traffic
speeds after completion
of construction have a
d etri mental effect on the
canyon's appeal? The
stark reality may be yes!
But still the FEIS provides no assessment of
negative economic
impacts resulting fro m
the highway project. We
need more proof, not
vagueness and ambig ui-
Volunteers Needed
1- Research for Forest
Service Appeal
2- Networking
3- Fundraising
4- Education
5- Mailings
6- Letter writing
7- Events
8- Media relations
9- Passing the word
10- Lega l assistance
11- SLC contacts
12- HELP!
ty.
These are all legitimate concerns which
need to be add ressed
without prej udice and
assumptions. Wha t may
look like a road to economic boom may
become a path to economic disaster.
Equipment Needed
1- Offi ce space
2- Voice mail
3- FAX machine
4- Copier
5- Postage stamps
6- Copy paper
1- Envelopes
8- MONEY'
r------------------------,
YES! I
THE
WANT TO JOIN
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subSCription to CANYON WIND
$20.00 Annual Membership
I would like to contribute an additional
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
Lots more
I would like to volunteer.
I'm broke! Here's five bucks.
Name ______________________________
Street ______________________________
City _ _ _ _ State _ _ _ Zip_ _
Phone
* _____________
_
Plnse make check payable and mail to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box 1674
L ________
________ .J
�,..----------,,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
. -.. -=...... . ...... ., .....
_
. . . __
Iii. _ _
.... Iii. iiaiii . . . . . . _iii
--------
c: «»
.&. L
:J: 'T :J:
«»
:N'
,
,
,
,
L __________ ..I
Wor k l n . f o r th . Pr o te " ti .n of Lo. a " C . " yo "
USU Boxll1674
Logan,
Utah 84322-0199
'='
Recycled
Recycle
�...-- ----.-.--
iiiii_iii_ iiiiiiiiiia.
.,. __,. _.T____,. ....r ... __,......
.---- -- - - - --- -- - -- ---- -- - - --- -- - - --- -- -- - --- - - - - ---- - - ----- - ----- - - - -- -- --- -- - -- - -- -- - --- - - - -- ---A NEWS B ULLET I N FROM LO G AN CANYON COALITION
Vol. 1 No.2
A ugust 1, 1995
USFS Abandons Logan Canyon
LCC Appeal Denied
The Loga n Canyon
Coal itio n (LeC) recent ly
appealed the Forest
Service's decision to
allow the Uta h
Department of
Transporta tion (UDOT)
to construct its "modified" Prefer red
"This unfortunat e decision by
the Forest Seroice has left us
with only one
alternative . .. litigation"
- Tom Lyotl , LCC
A lternative in Logan
Canyon. We were joined
in our appeal by the
Utah Rivers
Co nservation Co uncil.
OUT ex tensive ap pea l
was 187 pages long, and
cove red a ll aspects of
UOOT's proposal. V\e
arg ued that UDOT has
not demonstrated the
purpose and need fo r its
construction p roject, and
that they have not ade-
quately disclosed the
environmenta l impacts of
their project. In June the
Forest Service denied o ur
ap peal.
Comments agai nst
our appeal, and in favor
of UOOT's project, were
submitted to the Forest
Service by UDOT, the
Cache Chamber o f
Co mmerce, a nd Citizens
for the Protection of
Loga n Canyon. The letter
from the chamber
emphasized the value of
Logan Canyon as a major
trucking ro ute.
It is remarkab le that,
given the many poin ts
we raise in ou r appeal,
the Fo rest Service up held
none of them. Their
review of our appea l is
brief and superficia l,
with inad equate respo nses to critical issues.
Without due consid eration, the Forest Service
has ru bber-stamped
implementaton of an
unnecessa ri ly ex pensive
and destruc tive h ighway
p roject.
The Forest Service is
in fact responsi ble fo r
ensuring tha t p urpose
and need fo r construction have been demonstra ted. They are also
responsib le fo r ens uring
that enviro nmenta l
impacts have been adequately assessed, incl uding d amge to scenery,
fis heries, wildli fe, wet1 nds, and the potentia 1
a
Wi ld a nd Scenic status of
the river. This responsibility is cl ea rly stated in
the Wasatch-Cache Forest
Plan and in federal law.
In shirking its responsibility for Logan Canyon,
the Forest Service is v iolating its mand ate and
acting iIIega ll):
LCC is cu rrently ga thering fund s for our lega l
d efense of Logan
Canyon. All co ntributio ns are welco me a nd
w ill be used for legal
costs. All who are interested in helping in ou r
effort to save Loga n
Can yon are invited to
contact us.
A pp eal H igh lig h ts
LCe's appen l is avni/able in the Lognn City
Library nnd USU's Merrill
Library.
(1) UDOT's highway
sa fety analysis utilizes
arti ficially infla ted and
manipulated traffi c volumes, inconsistent with
UOOT's own traffic
(continued nexl " age)
�Appeal ("", Unu"')
counts, in an attempt to
make the previously
widened portion of the
road, the Lower Canyon,
appear safer than the
unwidened sections.
UDOT's proposed construction will in fact
make the highway less
safe.
(2) The difference in
average travel time
between UOOT's
Preferred Alternative and
the Conservationists'
Alternative is, by
UDOT's admi ssio n, less
than 10 minutes! We
question the much
grea ter cost and enviro nmental impact of the
Preferred Alternative
given such a minimal
difference in travel time.
(3) In its highway
design for the Upper
Canyon, UDOT is not
taking advantage of the
fl exibility in road design
allowed by AASHTO
(American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials).
Throughout the canyon,
UDOT has designed the
highway in an arbitrary
and capricious fashi on,
with little environmental
sensitivity.
(4) The Forest Service
has agreed that the segment of the Logan River
from Lower Twin Bridge
to Beaver Creek might
possess mo re "outstandingly remarkable values"
than any other river in
the Wasatch-Ca che
Forest. The Forest
Service has agreed that
this segment should be
reevaluated. for protected
Wild and Scenic River
status. We are concerned
that construction of
UOOr's Preferred
Alternative will degrade
this river segment
enough that its classification will be lowered. It
may no longer qualify
for Wild and Scenic status.
(5) There is no scientific justification whatsoever for UOOT's claims
that trout pop ulations in
Logan River will be
reduced only 4 to 8%,
and that the effects of
increased sedimentation
in the river will be "relatively minor and short
term." UDOT's claims
represen t uneducated
"guesstimates" of fi sheries impacts because of
the lack of adequate data .
(6) The WasatchCache Forest Plan mandates that negative economic impacts of highway construction be
eva luated. This has not
been done.
(7) The Forest
Servi ce's assessments of
impacts to sensi tive
species often rest on
inadequate surveys and
bald assertions that are
either patently false or in
need of substantiation.
(8) Vi sual quality in
Logan Canyon will be
impaired in a manner
inconsistent with guid elines contained in the
Fo rest Service's Logan
Canyo n Scenic Byway
Corrido r Management
Plan. USFS management
policy for Logan Canyon
is inconsistent from document to document.
(9) In its selectio n of
specially-protected 4(f)
properties, pursuant to
the Department of
Transportation Act, the
Forest Service has acted
in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. No rationale is provided for why
some sites were selected
while others of equal
recreational value were
not.
We Request:
Logan
Canyon Coalition
is not trying to stop
all construction in
Logan Canyon.
(1) There must be
honest and straightforward NEPA d ocumentation of the need for, and
the environmental and
economic impacts of, any
proposed highway constructio n. UooT has not
provided this. UDOT
has in fact admitted that
their safety data is
"garbage" and that it
"may be problematic."
(2) The construction
proposal should be
scaled down so as to proteet the sensitive areas of
the canyon and river,
particularly throug h the
upper Midd le Canyon,
Beaver Creek, and the
summit.
(3) UDOT has never
fairly eva luated the
Conservationist's
Alternative.
This Alternative should
be honestly and straightforwardly reconsidered .
2
The Conservationists'
Alternative is far less
expensive and environmentally destructive,
while improving safety
and level of service of the
highway.
(4) The Forest Service
must reevaluate the eligible segment of the Logan
River, from Lower Twin
Bridge to Beaver Creek,
for protected Wild and
Scenic River status,
befo re constructio n is
allowed. Thi s request is
in compliance with 5(d)
planning requirements of
the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act .
�August ] , ]995
Lee Fundraiser a Success
By Kevin Kobe
The Logan Can yon
Coali tion would like to
thank all those who were
involved with our
fund rai ser weekend with
Rick Bass and Terry
Tempest William s. \Ilk
would specificall y like to
thank The Grapevine
Restaurant, Slanting Rain
Graphic Design, A Book
Store, the Utah Rivers
Conservation Council
and Director Zacha ry
Frankel, Scott Smith
Photography, mu sicians
Nadene Steinhoff, Chris
Carlson and Joe Farmer,
and of course, nationally
renown authors Rick
Bass and Terry Tempest
Williams. Rick was kind
enough to travel from
northern Montana. O ur
thanks also goes to the
many vo lunteers who
spent countless hours
working to make the
weekend a success, espe-
dally Don Hickman and
Dan Miller.
For those who couldn't make the weekend
events, which were May
11-14, here is a rundown.
Rick Bass spoke in Salt
Lake City at the
University of Utah Fine
Arts Auditorium sponsored by the Utah Rivers
Conservation Council.
Rick spoke about the signifi cance of Logan
Canyon and the absurdity of the current UOOT
highway proposal.
Following Rick, the audience clapped and sang to
the music of Nadene
Steinhoff, Chris Carlson
and Joe Farmer.
Despi te the rain and
unseasonably cool
weather, Rick Bass and
Tom Lyon jo ined some
LCC board members o n a
field trip up Logan
Canyon on Saturday
where film makers were
doing a documentary on
the canyon. This documentary will be shown
on the local cable channel. Rick also managed
to squeeze in time to
speak with local high
school students and to do
a radiO interview.
But the night everyone was wa iting for was
Sa turday night, May 13,
when over 300 people
packed the Eccles
Conference Center.
Longtime canyon advocate Tom Lyon emceed
the event with inspiring
introductions and words
of wisdom. Rick Bass
was humorous but eloquent as he talked about
his years in Logan. Two
Logan Canyon so ngs
from Nadene Steinhoff
and friends hit home,
especially "U.S. 89 Blues"
in which the crowd
erupted with hand clapping, si ngi ng and shouting. Terry Tempest
Williams brought the
evening full circle with
words to motivate people
into action. She recognized Tom Lyon for hi s
efforts, which range from
teaching to advocating.
She recalled conversations with environme nta l
activists that continue to
provide inspiration for
her work. The night
ended with a raffle, great
homemade cooki es and
refreshments, book signings, and a T-shirt and
book sale.
Sunday morning the
Grapevine Restaurant
lived up to its reputation
for excellence at ou r
fund raiser brunch. Chef
Bill Oblock o utdid himself at the sold -out event,
and LCC vol unteers
worked hand in hand
with the gracious staff of
the restaurant to make
the brunch successful. It
was a "stay as long as
you want" kind of morning .
.
130 Nonh 100 East
Logan UT 84321
753-9089
100% for Logan Canyon
�The History of a Highway
Editors note:
This information was
compiled by Nadene Steinhoff
and Steve Flint.
---1959---
Chamber of Commerce.
The State Department of
Fish and Game launched
a formal protest against
the plan. Their protest
was later modified.
ject. The Forest Service
insisted on additional
modifications. UOOT
abandoned the project
for the time being, hoping the Chamber of
Commerce and construction interests would continue the fight for public
support.
1960---
The Utah Department
Bulldozers began
of Transportation
work. The first section
(UDOT) completed
called for widening of
"improvement" plans for the road, passing lanes
the first section of the 39- and stream channelizamile highway from
tion. Construction was
Logan to Bear Lake.
completed up to the
Engineering standards of Malibu Campground.
the time dictated that the
1961
route be as straight and
Plans to reconstruct
direct as possible. It was the section from Malibu
also felt that it was too
Campground to Right
expensive to avoid the
Hand Fork were
Logan River. At that
released. After seeing
time, most highway
the destruction in the
departments didn't feel
first phase, the public
justified spending public was much more responmoney to protect aesthet- sive, writing a barrage of
ic values or environmen- letters to the editor and
tal resources.
to UDOT.
During the first
The Forest Service
phase, Logan residents
and the Utah State
were silent. Public hear- University (USU) College
ings were poorly attendof Natural Resources
ed" except by supporters
issued position stateof the project such as the ments opposing the pro-
calling for extensive
straightening and eightfoot shoulders.
An article in National
Parks magazine condemned previous construction in the canyon
and the new design proposal.
1970 - - -
- - - - 1963 - - - -
Twelve USU professors formed the
zine advocated protecNorthern Utah
tion of the canyon in an
Environmental Advisory
Committee. The group,
article.
---1968--led by fisheries biologist
UOOT decided to
William Helm, was conaccept the Forest Service
cerned about additional
requirements, and came
impacts. At their suggesback to finish the first
tion, UOOT incorporated
phase, but when the bull- an Environmental
dozers moved in it
Steering Committee,
looked like the same "cut gave scenic consideraand fill" job. The intitions higher priority, and
brought a landscape
mate, gently winding
road under arching trees . architect onto the project.
became a fast, wide
UOOT still lacked
asphalt highway.
permission from the
1969--Forest Service, but
A public hearing was
attempted to rush the
held for road reconstruc- project through before
they lost available fundtion from Right Hand
ing.
Fork to Ricks Spring,
National Parks maga-
Adventure 1
Sports
4
�August 1, 1995
Their assertions that
the project was necessary
for hig hway effici ency
and safety were refu ted
by the USU co mmittee,
which claimed that the
safety data was inadequate.
- - - 1971 - - -
The USU co mmittee
succeeded in d elayi ng
the project, ci ting the
need for more information on traffic, tourism
and fisheri es. There was
discussion of the need
fo r an Environme ntal
Impact Statement (EIS)
under the new Na tional
Environmental Pol icy
Act (NEPAl.
UDOT presented a
second proposal. This
was also co nsid ered
u nacceptable by the USU
g roup. The plan called
for extensive cu rve cutti ng through the middle
canyon, elimination o f
picnic and campground
areas, and retaining
walls al ong large sections of the river.
The Forest Service
1987
The Interdisciplinary Team was dis solved by UDOT officials, who were
uncomfortable with public input.
issued an Enviro nmental
Analysis Report on the
project, outlining 20
requirements UDOT
must comply with .
In the face of strong
public o ppositi on a nd
new Forest Service
req uirements, UDOT
scrapped their plans.
They shifted thei r focu s,
and funds to Provo
Canyon.
- - - 1974 - - -
UDOT set up a trai ler
in Logan Canyon and
Ga rden City to distribute
informatio n about their
eventual plans.
1976 - - -
UOOT issued a Route
Analysis Statement, indicating a need for reconstructio n. It included
eight different alternatives. UDOT's recom-
mended action included
shoulders a nd passing
lanes in the middle
canyon, and correctio n of
"substand ard" curves.
Sharp publiC criticism
was directed at UDOT,
wi th Bridgerland
Audubo n Society,
Ci tizens for the
Protection of Logan
Canyon (CPLC), and the
Cache Sierra Club questioning UOOT's stati stical analysis. UDOT
pushed ahead. Analysi s
was begun for an (E IS).
- - - 1979 - --
UOOT presented
their latest proposal for
reconstruction of the
road from Right Hand
Fork to Ricks Spring.
They claimed that the
massive p roject would
require minimal enviro n-
mental ana lysis, saying
that a less d etailed
Environmental Analysis
would be sufficient,
rather than an EIS.
CPLC, a group that
had begun in opposition
to development plans in
Stump Hollow, revived
to fight the road d evelopment. Gunn McKay,
Rep . for Utah's Di strict 1,
went to bat for preservation of the ca nyon.
Tom Lyon and Dianne
Siegfreid visited w ith
regional Federal
Highway Admini stration
(FHWA) offi cials in
Denver to press the
argument that the project
required more ex tensive
analysis. The FHWA
agreed and informed
UDOT that it must prepare an EIS in accordance with new NEPA
requirements.
UDOT was not financially prepa red to take
on a full-b lown environmental analYSiS, and
retrea ted . Between 1980
(continued nat page)
�History
(,on lin,"')
and 1986, UDOT made
periodic visits to Logan
offering modifi cations,
but community activists
still believed the plans
were too excessive.
- - - 1986 - - -
Funding for an EIS
was authorized . CH2M
Hill was hired to do the
analysis.
An Interdiscip lina ry
(10) Team began meeting. Env ironmental
interests were re presented by Steve Fl int, Bill
Helm, Rudy Lukez, Tom
Lyon and Jack Spence.
- - - 1981 - - -
before UDOT dissolved
the group.
Action Force.
- - - 1990 - - -
Steve, Bruce and
Shawn Swaner began
meeting.. again, with
UDOT to forge a compromise and avert lega l
action.
Steve and Bruce felt the
need to move on. A new
steering committee was
appointed fo r CPLC. The
new steeri ng committee
held additional meetings
with UODT.
Audubon magazine
gave coverage to the controversy in a feature article by nationall y re nown
autho r Rick Bass.
- - - 1994 - - -
UOOT issued their
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS).
Letters in the OEIS ran 21
in favor of the Modified
Standard, similar to the
Preferred Alternative, as
opposed to 309 in favo r
of the Conservationists'
Alternative.
- - - 1991 - - -
Steve a nd Bruce continued to amass technical
experti se on the project.
They hired enviro nm ental lawyer Jeff Appel.
Jeff's co rrespondence
with UDOT bro ught a
more conciliatory stance.
Negotiations began.
A public relations
effort was begun, with
ten thousand brochures
sent by local activists.
- - - 1995 - - -
UOOT released its
Reco rd of Decision
(ROD) favo ri ng the
"mod ified" Preferred
Alternative. CPLC and
UOOT declared the ROD
a compromise. A new
highway design advisory
team was formed, with
CPLC rep resentation .
Logan Canyon
Scoping meetings
held by UOOT drew 400
citizens, with many
attendees leaving due to
lack of room. Project
planners received 200 let- - - 1992 - ters from an aroused
Nadene Steinhoff and
public.
The 10 Team was dis- other volu nteers organized a Hands Across
solved by UOOT offiThe Canyon rally. The
cials, who were uncomevent, attended by over
fo rtable with public
400 people, was covered
input.
by regional and state
Area citizens submitmedia.
ted the Conservatio nists'
The following week,
Alternative, a proposa l
calling for wider bridges, UOOT approached
Bridgerland Audubon
reconstruction of cu lwith a proposal for
verts, three passi ng lanes
renewed negotiations.
in the Upper Canyon,
1993
paved parking areas,
UDOT released their
road rea lignment at the
Lower Twin Bridge, slow Final Enviro nme ntal
Impact Statement (FEIS).
vehicle turnouts, raised
Hundreds of letters were
road beds in nood areas,
sent protesting the excesimproved intersectio ns
sive plans. Petitions
and increased signage.
were sent by the
- - - 1989
Audubon Society,
Steve Flint and Bruce
Business People for the
Pendery were appointed
Canyon, CPLC, the
to a Citizen's Advi so ry
Cache Sierra Club, and
Team formed by UDOT.
the Loga n Environmental
Two meetings were held
6
Coalition (LCC), spearheaded by Kevin Kobe,
was formed to seek further modifications
through the Forest
Service appeal process.
The Forest Service
released their ROD supporting UOOT.
LCC and the Utah
Rivers Conserva tion
Council submitted a 187page appeal to the Forest
Service. The appea 1 was
researched and authored
by a dozen people, and
edited by Gordo n
Steinhoff. Requested
relief included adequate
NEPA documentation,
and further protection
for the Middle Canyon,
Beaver Creek and the
s ummit.
The Forest Service
denied LCe's appea l,
refUSing to add ress critical issues.
Logan Canyon
Coalition is curren tly
making plans to take
legal action.
�Au g u s t 1 , 199 5
Westwater Canyon
Run the Rapids with LCC
It's true Logan
Canyon CoaJition membershi p can be fun. We
don' t believe in all work
and no play.
Frida y, August 18
th rough Sunday, Aug ust
20, we will r un the
Westwater section of the
Colorado River, locatednorth of Moab.
O Uf
fea rless Lee
leader /p resident, Kevin
Kobe, has said that
Westwater has "some of
the best w hite water in
the state." Kevi n and
his sister Bri dget are
organizing the trip.
Kevin feels that Lee
shou ld be more than a
group that works together, but can be a grou p
that "has a fee li ng of
commun ity and fri ends hi p."
A WORLD
Or: A RT A tJD
Lee plans to fl oat
willing to make the
drive, please let us know
when you register. On
receipt of your registration fee, a confirmation
will be sent which will
incl ud e the date, time
and location of the pretrip meeting.
All participants will
be asked to help in meal
and camp preparation,
and, of course, everyone
needs to know how to
swim!
Westwater early
Saturday morning, set
up camp', and hike and
exp lo re the side canyons
around the campsite.
Sunday the rapids
should be rambunctio us.
The cost is $30 for
LCC members and $50
for non-members (making thi s a perfect time to
join!). The trip will be
limited to 20 individuals,
and oars are being fill ed
rapidly. The cost
includes food o n the
river, the permit and
g roup equipment. It
does not include transportation, food for the
trip to and fro m the
river or personal gear.
Ca r pooling w ill be
arranged during a planning meeting. If you are
Registration:
Please send you r registration money to Logan
Canyo n Coa lition, USU
Box #1674, Loga n, UT
84322-0199.
ComcTlo tJ
IUIAl:
vcents
7SS·S497
11·6
7
Volunteers
Needed
1- Networking
2- Fundraising
3- Education
4- Mailings
5- Letter writing
6- Events
7- Media relations
8- Passing the word
9- SLC contacts
10- HELP!
Equipment
Needed
1- Offi ce space
2- Voice mail
3- FAX machine
4- Copier
5- Postage stamps
6- MONEY!
�r------------------------,
YES! I
THE
WANT TO JOIN
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots more
o I would like to voulnteer.
o Here's $12.00 for a great T-Shirt.
o I'm broke! Here's five bucks.
Name,__________________________________
5Ireel_______________________________
City _ _ __
_ _ _Zip _ _ __
Phone#'_ _ _ __
PlUM make check payable and mail to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
U5U Box *1674
L ________________________ J
Logan, UT 84322-0199
LCC T-SHIRTS - 512.00 (three colod
m.. Re;rcled
BULK RATE
u.s. POSTJlGe
Paid
COA.LJl:TJl:ON
Workl", fo r Ih'
of Lo,a" Ca n yo n
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
"""'" UT
I'tnrril N'JJJ
�- -- -- -- --- --------.- --- ----- -- - ------ - --- --- ----- - - - - - -- - -- ---- - --- - --.-. - - - - - - - .,. --.aT __ -.-.w--.aT
•
-- ----- ----------
---
-------
___ ..- -.----.aT ____
- - -- - - ----
A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION
August 1, 1996
Vol. 1 No.3
FEI S Violated
UDOT Unveils Plans
The Utah Depa rtment
of Transportation
(UOOT) has u nveiled its
d esign plans for Bu rnt
and Lower Twin Bridges
in Logan Canyon. With
these plans, UOOT is
already in v iolation of its
Final Envirorunental
Impact Statement (PElS)
and its Record of
Decision. UOOT is now
planning extensive
w idening, cuts into the
mountainsides, and
retaining wa lls that were
not disclosed in these
environmenta l documents. The brid ges and
app roaches to the
bridges have not been
d esigned in an environmentally-sensitive fashion. A strong response
has been sent to UOOT
by our attorney, Kate
Zimmerman.
UOOT is now applying for the construction
permits it needs from the
state Division of Water
Rights and the Corps of
Engineers. The Logan
Canyon Coalitio n (LCq
will submit comments to
these agencies and to the
Design changes at this late date,
after opportunities for public
input have closed, is a v iolation of
the letter and the spirit of the
National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
- Lee Altornty, Kau ZinrmernuHI
Environmental Protection Agency. We are asking for a less d amaging
construction proposal,
one that allows for needed highway improvemen ts w hile p rotecting
the canyon's scenic and
environmenta l resou rces.
We continue to raise
funds for the lega l action
we believe is inevitable.
The Record of
Decision sta tes that
"design and posted
speeds wiJI be 35 miles
per hour" in the upper
middle canyon (from
Lower Twin Bridge to
above Ricks Spring). Yet,
at the bridge d esign
workshop in February,
Rod Terry, UDOT project
manager, ind ica ted tha t
the brid ges and
approaches in this area
have been designed for
40 miles per ho ur.
Apparent ly, driv ing time
throug h the canyon has
been a major factor in
the perceived need to
reconstruct the high way,
even thoug h estima ted
savings in travel time are
quite minimal. "Changing design speeds at this
late date, after opportunities fo r p ublic input
have closed, is a v iolation o f both the letter
and spiri t of the National
Environmenta l Policy
Act," Zimmerman said.
Des ig n plans show
Burnt Bridge being
w idened on the downstrea m side. Cuts into
the mo unta inside up to
750 feet long are now
planned both upstream
and downstream from
the bridge. Two retaining walls of 200 fee t long
wiJI be anchored in
riparian areas near the
bridge. Three more
retaining walls, one up
to 400 feet long, are
planned fo r the mountainside below the
bridge. These cuts and
retaining walls are for
the sake of widening the
highway on either side
of the bridge fro m 26 feet
to 34 feet. These d esign
features and their
impacts on the scenery
and adjacent fishery
were not disclosed in the
FEIS. In that document,
UDOT assured us that
the highway in this part
of the canyon would not
be w idened .
Visual impacts w iJI be
significant. Burnt Bridge
is s urrounded by riparian vegetation and
u pland plant communities that have received a
visual sensitivity ranking
(contilwed /lext page)
�Violates ("";.,,,,)
of 6 and 7 by the Forest
Service, indicating that
the roadside in this a rea
cannot absorb alte rations
and still appear as na tur-
allandscape. The affected maple-shrub community on the cut hillsides
will take 10-15 years to
re-establish, while a ffected juniper and Doug las
fir communi ties will take
more than 20 years to reestablish. Some wetlands
and riparian vegeta tion
will be permanently lost.
UOOT has pledged to
color and texture the
extensive retaining walls,
but retaining walls will
still look like retaining
walls, appearing unnatural. Exposed rock faces
will still look like
exposed rock faces, damaging the scenic beauty
of this area.
Lee believes these
impacts are unnecessary.
The bridge could be
tapered into the existing
highway in a shorter distance, eliminating the
need for much of the
wid ening and the accompanying cuts and retaining waUs.
At Lower Twin
Brid ge, mountainsides
will be cut up to 600 fee t
on either side of the
bridge in order to widen
the highway from 26 feet
to 38 feet. A retaining
wall of 200 feet long is
planned above the
bridge. This retaining
wall and cuts above the
bridge were no t disclosed in the FEIS.
UOOT has yet to show a
purpose and need for allY
high way widening in
this middle section of
Logan Canyon. They
have adm itted that their
an accurate d escription
of planned construction
and a better idea of its
impacts. Surely at this
stage of the FEIS, UOOT
cou ld have surveyed the
relevant features of the
can yon, such as the location of wetlands, and
applied appropriate
design standard s in
to provide an accurate
description of construction and assessment of
impacts. Preliminary
plans for Upper Twin
Brid ge show a cut into
the mountainside of
approximately 15 to 24
feet deep and 760 feet
long. This cu t and its
impacts were not disclosed in the FEIS. We
believe that with a fair
assessment of the environmental impacts of the
elltire highway project,
considered as a w hole, a
less damaging construction alternative would be
more a ttractive.
Such an integrated
assessment should be
given in a Supplemental
Environmentallmpact
Statement for the entire
canyon highway project.
There shouJd also be an
honest demonstration of
the purpose and need for
any construction in
Logan Canyon.
" LCC has g rave concerns about both the
need for UOOT's proposal and its impacts on the
special values of the
canyon. These concerns
are only made worse by
UOOT's violations of its
FE IS and its failure to
g ive the public full
opportunity to participate in this decision and
to comment on
potential environmenta l
consequences,"
Zimmennan stated.
traffic and safety d ata is
"garbage" and "problematic."
lmmediately downstream of this bridge is
crucial brown trout
spawning habitat. LCC
is concerned w ith the
impact construction and
the resulting erosion will
have on this fishery. The
Logan River fishery is
currently ranked in the
top 5% of stream fisheries in the sta te. UOOT
has not supplied adequate information on
sedimentation or on trout
mortality. At both
bridges, there will be
increased erosion into the
rive r during and after
construction until ground
cover can be re-established. Increased sediments can smother trout
eggs, clog gills, and kill
the aquatic insects upon
w hich trout feed . UOOT
admits, "Additional loss
of fish habitat could
potentially occur from
riverbank disturbances
and introduction of sediments into the Logan
River as a result of heavy
machinery and activities
associated with bridge
construction."
LCC has suggested
replacing Lower Twin
Brid ge wi th a wider and
sa fer bridge on a new
alignment, while maintaining current highway
wid th . This would eliminate much cutting into
the mo untainsides and
protect this va luab le fish ery. UOOT has refused.
We are concerned
with UOOT's method of
segmenting its Logan
Can yon Highway proposa l into smaller projects in w hich, well after
the FE IS and Record of
Decision, we fin al1y get
2
�1 , 19 96
Allglls t
Logan River, Wild and Scenic
by Drew Parkin
The recent appeal of the
Forest Service decision to
allow highway expansion
in Logan Canyon quesHoned, among other
things, the resuJ ts of a
Forest Service study
regarding wild and scenic
rivers. For many of you,
the idea of a wild and
scenic river evokes images
of the Sa lmon River in
Idaho or the Rogue River
in Oregon . What d oes this
have to do with the Logan
River? A lot.
The Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act requires federal
land management agendes to include w ild and
scenic river evaluations as
part of their normal decision-making processes. In
the case of the Forest
Service, this means that
forest plans must specifically consider wild and
scenic river eligibil ity. It
also means that any
Environmental Impact
Statement that involves
river resource must
address this issue. Further
- and this is the important part - once the
Forest Service identifies a
river as being eligible, it
must, in adherence wi th
its own ad ministrative
directives, manage the
river "in a manner consisten t with the purposes of
the Act, and such that the
outstand ing remarkable
values which make it eHgible for inclusion are not
dim inished to the poin t
where eligibility is negated. In no event should the
free-flowing characteristics of the river be modified."
In response to a threatened lawsuit, the Forest
Service some 10 years ago
set out to identify potentially eligible wild and
scenic rivers. Individual
forests were entrusted
with this and many
responded admirably.
Unfortunately, wild and
scenic evaluations have
never been high on the list
for forest managers in
Utah . That is, not until the
controversy over the
proposal to widen the
roadway through Logan
Canyon. Pressu red by citizens concerned about the
highway proposal, the
Wasa tch-Cache National
Forest undertook a yearlong river study and, in
November 1993, released
its inventory.
The inventory started
by identifying 37 streams
that forest planners
deemed wor thy of being
s tudied. Nex t, the larger
s treams on that list,
including the Logan River,
were subdivided into
"segments." In all, the
Forest Service study considered 59 stream segments. Of these, 18 segments were rejected
out-of-hand as being
insignificant. Beaver
Creek was one of these.
An ad d itional 11 segments
were rejected for not being
free-flowing. These
included s treams tha t had
been s ubjected to water
w ithdrawals, channeHzation or other degradation .
All of the Logan downs tream of Temple Fork
was rejected for this reason. This left 30 segments
that were actually included in the study.
The inventory considered nine separate
resource fea tures. The idea
was to determine the significance of each stream
with regard to each
resource feature. A stream
could be ra ted as ei ther (1)
typical, (2) Significant a t a
statewide level, or
(3) significant at what the
Forest Service termed a
"provincial" level (an area
comprising all of the
Rocky Mountains). A rating of 3 for any given
resource feature would
q ualify a stream segmen t
for wild and scenic river
(conthwed next page)
DID YOU KNOW?
A b ridge o r a city street must
h ave 12 lanes to accommod ate
40,000 automobiles per hour.
1 lane is necessary to
40,000
bicycles
per
hou r.
To elimin ate the need for Midd le
East oil, U.S. commuters w ould
need to b icycle to w ork only 1.25 times each week.
Equating calories to gasoline, the number of miles per
gallon that could be tra veled b y the ave rage cyclist is
3,000.
ook
130 Nort h 100 EaSI
Logan UT 8432 I
753-9089
PL EASE RI DE YOUR B I KE.
SU NR:ISE C VC LE R:V
138 NORTH 100 EAST LOGAN, UTAH 84321
801 -753-3294 M ONOAY - SATURDAY 10:00 A.M. - 6:00
100% fo r L ogan Canyo n
P.M.
3
�Wild
(COlltinlled)
designation. The result?
Of the original 59 s tream
segments, only one - the
Stillwater Fork of the Bear
River - was found eligible based on the rating for
its scenic features. No
other stream received a 3,
and all were therefore
rejected, including the
Logan River.
I was stunned when I
heard the findings. Based
on severa l years of professional experience with
wild,and scenic rivers,
and having detailed
knowledge of the Logan
River, it was my judgment
that the Logan River not
only met but exceeded eligibility requirements.
After pouring over the
report, I concluded that
the study team's basic
assumptions were wrong
and applying these
assumptions greatly
skewed the findin gs. The
decision to use "p rovi ncial" significance as the
cu t-off for eligibility was
the most pervasive error.
The Forest Serv ice Manual
itself d irects that
"statewide" significance is
an appropriate measure
for judging wild and
scenic status. Several
national forests have used
it as the basis of their decisions, and it is accepted
practice for National Park
Service and BLM planners
as well.
Had the WasatchCache used "statewide"
significance as the threshold, the Logan River
would have been included
easily. If anything, I
believe the ratings for the
Logan River are low. I
question the ratin gs for
wildlife, water recreation
and, especially, scenery.
Even if the Forest Service
ratings are correct, it is
obvious the Logan River is
an extremely important
resource with "statewide"
significance. [n five of the
nine categories, the river
received a s tatewide Significance rating. No other
stream had more than
two. The Logan River was
rated as the most significant stream in the
Wasatch-Cache National
Forest for five of the nine
resource categories. Again,
no other stream could
claim more than two. The
conclusion is inescapable.
The Forest Service report
absolutely confirms that,
when compared to other
streams on the forest, the
Logan River is the crown
jewel and is most certainly
eligible for national wild
and scenic river status.
(Drew Parkin is a river policy
conslilfant in Cambridge, Mass.,
alld serves Off the board of dirf"Ctors of till" Pacific RivtrS
COlllleil. HI" prf"Violls/y mallaged
wild and scenic riuer programs
for tire Na tiollal Park Service. He
is a Ilative of Utah and Sptllt severa/ seaSOIIS workillgJor tire
Forest Service ill Logan Canyon.)
USFS data on the Logan River
between Temple Fork and White Pine Creek.
Logan River rating
St.ltewide s ignifiu nce
Highest rating in forut
Typical
reso urces
Wildlife
Rating compared to other
Wasatch..cache streams
Rated in top 5
Rated in top 5
Geology/Hydrology
Statewide significance
Highest rating in forest
Rated in to p 10
Scenery
Water
Typical
Highest rating in forest
Statewide significance
Rated in top 10
Fisheries
Statewide Significance
Tied for highest rating in forest
Ecology
St.ltewide sig nifican ce
Tied for high est rating in forest
This information was taken directly from tile report.
Adventure,
Sports
_.
.
W l ft ....... tho
-_
"""".ft,..r.._'
......
in4<.o""
h . ....
-
......,
• _ _ ;u.. "';. ••
... ....'-ft.. " ...
... •.
. . ...... 1".4 t •
4
�- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - ---- -- ---------- - ------- ------ww
Augllst 1, 1996
Canyon News Briefs
by Tim Wagner
Utah citizens lost a serious battle
recently when U.s. District Judge Tena
Campbell ruled in favor of the Utah
Deparhnent of Transportation's
(UDOT) plans for further widening of
U.s. 189 through Provo Canyon.
The Provo River Coalition filed suit
February 29 seeking a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary
injunction to prevent further environmental destruction. Because UDOT
had made significant design changes
since the origina l plans were drafted in
1989, the group argued that NEPA
required a supplemental environmental impact statement. Judge CampbeiJ
saw things differently.
"Plaintiffs have so far failed to
come forward with any evidence for
significant environmental effects arising out of the project as currently
planned," Campbell wrote. The judge
said an agency is not required to supplement an environmental-impact
statement every time new information
is found. At the same time she
acknowledged the design changes
included a new road alignment, additional concrete retaining waiJs, and the
creation of a dirt haul road. Inside
sources say that Campbell's concern
for the environment was a cover-up
for more important matters: the economy and jobs. With a $34 million price
tag for two miles of highway, is it any
wonder?
A bit of irony is that UDOT's plans
for the next phase of the project have
been scrapped due to lack of funding.
Alan Meecham, director of UDOT's
Region Three said, "I've got about five
years left (before retirement) and I'd
like to see some work completed in the
canyon before I'm gone."
In the past there was much talk
about UDOT becoming more trustworthy and willing to compromise. Facts
behind the case give the true p icture of
UDOT. This is not an agency as concerned about public transportation, the
environment, and highway safety as
they are about funding massive,
unnecessary highways.
. LCC now has a great public education and awareness tool for Logan
Canyon. With some tremendous pholos by photographer Scott Smith, LCC
has created a fantastic slide show presentation.
It debuted at a well attended
potluck in February on the USU campus and has since been shown to several groups. The presentation lasts
twenty minutes and is easy to fit into a
variety of public gatherings. If you
know a group that would like to see
the show, contact one of the officers.
• LCC would like to thank the outpouring of support we have re«!ived
from our fundraising letter. The money
($3,155) will help us proceed with our
upcoming UDOT battle. The majority
of our support comes from Cache
Valley, but there are many canyon
lovers across the country. Enthusiasm,
support and love for the canyon is evident by the following:
- "Please accept my donation of $25 to
help save Logan Canyon . I'm not sure
how you traced me down here in
Maine, but I'm sure glad you did.
Thanks."
- "As I will soon be moving and wish
to keep up with these canyon issues,
please add my permanent address to
your mailing list."
- "Thanks again and keep up the good
work. See you in the canyon."
- "Long live Logan Canyon."
- "GOOD LUCK! Just wanted you to
know I was impressed with the professional presentation of the latest
brochure and letter. You articulated
your objections to the project in a
straightforward, no nonsense manner
and 1 appreciated the compromises
tha t you see are necessary. Take Care.
"Coffee with a Cause"
Logan
Blend
• regular· organic · decaffeinated · Night and Day
ra i n@intele.nel 801 .75 J . 05'J
$1.00 is donaled 10 Lee for OV8lYpoond sokJ.
5
�SLOWDOWN
WE MOVE TOO FAST
by Kevin 1. Kobe
On December 3,1995,
members of the Logan
Canyon Coalition drove
from Logan to Garden City.
OUf objective was to assess
the quality and uniformity
of advisory and regulatory
signs. We documen ted our
assessments and addressed
our concerns to Dyke
leFevre, Region One
Director, Utah Deparbnent
of Transportation (UIXJ1).
Our fi rst question to Mr.
leFevre addressed the
inconsistent u se of advisory
speed signs on curves. We
expected to see an advisory
speed sign on any curve
which has a design speed
below the posted speed.
This was the case only from
the summit of Logan
Canyon to Garden City.
There is a 40 mph posted
speed limit. There are also
in both th e uphill and
downhill lanes signs indica ting an approaching
cu rve and an advisory
speed. Most of these curves
have arrows ("chevrons")
around them.
The Middle p art of
Logan Canyon has not one
curve with a posted advisory speed. According to the
1987 Technical
Memorandum, this part of
the canyon has many more
curves than Rich County
that are below the posted
speed.
LCe's question was
quite simple: Why hasn ' t
UOOT posted advisory
speed signs on these
curves?
Mr. leFevre explained
how each curve is "unique
in its capability of sustaining a reasonable speed
through the curve section.
Because of the construction,
maintenance, and natural
ground settlement through
each curve, each one will
drive differently than originally anticipated or
designed. Some curves, as
much as 10 MPH below the
posted speed, are s till able
to reasonably allow travel
through the curves at the
pos ted speed."
"We have been anticipating a project through this
canyon fo r a considerable
length of time and may
have neglected reviewing
each o f the curves below
the posted s peed limit.;;
" I have talked to our
Region Traffic Engineer and
he has indicated that since
we have a completed environmental report and we
know what is going to happen, especially through the
middle canyon, that he will
review the curve signing
and advisory speeds and
make recommendations to
better inform the traveling
public."
To date, UOOT has
fai led to install any advisory speed signs in the
Middle and Upper canyon.
A related LCC ques tion
asked how accident surveys
can be done in the midd le
LCC T-SHIRTS - 512.00 4th"" colorl
canyon if the curves in
question are n ot signed
properly? We did not get a
response. Perhaps UOOT
can't come up with good
accident and traffic da ta.
(So there is no reason for
the project.)
We also documented the
lack of signs warning o f
wildlife crossings. The only
wildlife sign in the entire
project area is located within the Garden City limits.
UOOT documented in the
FEIS that moto rists collide
with animals at least twice
as often in the Midd le and
Upper parts of Logan
Canyon as on the Rich
County side.
Mr. LeFevre's answer:
'' In talking with the
Fores t Service, there does
not appear to be any location that has a prominence
o f animal collisions and
that placing the signs at the
beginning of the canyon is
probably just as effective as
having signs throughout
the canyon . The wildlife
warning signs h ave little
effect on driver behavior
and would be more of a
visual impact in the canyon
than it would provide for
motoris ts behavior." (And
massive construction won't
have a visua l impact?)
To further make our
po int, there was not a concern over vehicle/snowmobile collisions anywhere in
the FEIS, and yet there is a
sign pos ted in the Upper
canyon that reads,
"Snowmobile Crossing:
Next 9 Miles". Why worry
about snowmobiles, and
ignore w ild life?
LCC also asked why
there aren't " Pedestrian
Crossing" signs where
many people are crossing
the road, such as Logan
Cave, Blind Ho llow, Ricks
Spring (which is s till a
planned passing zone) and
Bunchgrass C reek?
Mr. LeFevre indica ted
that " A lot of these socalled pull-outs were created by individuals using
them with disregard for
safety to themselves and
the traveling motorists and
have not been an official
designated turn-out."
With the lack of signs
warning motoris ts of pedestrians, animals, and curves
one begins to worry about
UOOTs mission. Is UOOT
really concerned about our
safety?
�Augllst ] , ]9 96
Lee adds ,fun
to activism
'96 SUMMER FUNDRAISERS
The summer heat and
good 01' fashioned ice
cream combined to pro·
duce a fin ancial bonanza
for the Coali tion at
KRCL's Day In The Park
in Salt Lake City on June
8. Through the efforts of
dedicated LCC member
Dan Miller and a few
other volunteers, over
$600 was raised in a sin·
gle afternoon as festival
geers lined up to pay
$2.00 for a Ben & Jerry's
ice cream bar.
Thanks to Dan and
some good connections,
the hot weather treats
were entirely donated by
the socially·conscious ice
cream manufacturer.
"For awhile we were
the most pop ular booth
there," said Dan. It
shou ld also be noted that
many people stopped by
A WORLD
O.
all members and staff of
bo th band s who d onated
their time and talents,
THANK YOU! THANK
YOU l Please get out and
support these guys .
They' re worth it.
This event was special
for two reasons. One, the
amphitheater was per·
fect. This venue is beauti·
fut yet unused and in
need of some repairs.
Maybe we could do a
fund raiser for the theater
itself. Secondly, Jerry
Joseph, lead singer and
guitarist for the Jack
Mormons, spent a good
deal of time livi ng in
Cache Valley. Thus, it
was like returning home
for him.
They want to come
back as soon as possible,
so what do you say?
just to receive some free
information and sign up
on our roster list. Way to
go Dan!
•••••••••••• ••••••
The Coalition would
like to thank all who
attended our fundraiser
concert with Euphio
Project and the Jack
Mormons on June 6.
Capping the last day of
finals and a beautiful
summer evening,. over
200 people came out to
enjoy live music on
USU's amphitheater on
Old Main Hill. The event
raised nearly $800
towards protecting
Logan Canyon.
We would especially
like to thank the Baugh
Motel for co·sponsoring
the event. Of course, to
EJ)GINGWE$T
2"1'1 SW Sl'lll'!. (; \11111' S I
P OIIIl \'11, OJ{ 'Ii21<l
Logan Canyon Your Destination?
T ComCTIOtJ
CLOnmJG &
- Backpacking - Skiing · Climbing · H iking
. Snowshoeing - Sightseeing
"Ccents
117 North Mai n 5t • Logan, Utah, 84321 • 801 -753-1541
7
�r-----------------------,
YES ! I WANT TO J OIN THE
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I wo uld like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots m ore
o I wo uld like to voluntee r.
o Here's $12.00 for a grea t T-Shirt.
p/lIs SJ shippillg
o I'm broke! Here's five bu cks.
o Please add my nam e to your mailing li st.
H
PRINTING CO.
D
Name ____________________________
5treet____________________________
City__________5tate_
Phone#
_ _.Zip _______
Em ail ____________
Plene rn,lk, check p,lyablt MI d mai l to:
43
LOGA N ,
100
W EST
UT A H
8 4321
TEL .80 1 .752, 0 3 1 1
FAX
Logan Canyon Coalition
SOU TH
80 1 .753.3 1 61
USU Box N1674
Logan, UT 84322-0199
L _______________________
We ask for your continued support at this time, as we
prepare for the legal challenge we believe is inevitable.
Our ability to mount a legal battle depends upon the
moral and financial support of canyon lovers such as
yourself. PLEASE consider a generous donation to save
Logan Canyon and Logan River.
• - ._-=.. ..
..
__ __
... _iii
... _ . . .iii ___ iii
na . . . . . __ . . . . . . . . .
- --- - - -- -- - -
C:O.A.L:J:T:J:ON'
, AI'rR.() .
yl- ' bE J'f',() 'W
BULK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
&, ' <
A fv1.
I
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
Tom &Jan Lyon
655 canyon Road
Logan
ur
8432 1
I
I
,
LOGAN. UT
PERMIT 50
-
tI' Please relfew your
membership today
�- ---_ -- --------
-....... -- --- - -..... --- -------..
---- -- - -- ---- - -- - - - - ----- - - - -- -- - - - -- ---- ---- -- -- --- - - ----------- --- ---- - - - - -- - --- - ------__T
• • _ _ _ _T
_ • • _____T
•
_
----
A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION
Vol. 2 No. 4
Summer 1997
Stop Wo rk Order Lifted
LCC Files Suit
On Ma rch 19 the
Logan Canyon Coalltion
(Lee) filed a complaint
in U.s. District Court
against the Utah
Department of
Transpo rtation (UOOT)
and the Forest Service.
We requested the cou rt to
order a halt to construction at Lower Twin
Bridge in Logan Canyon
until our concerns over
the bridge could be
resolved. The judge s uggested UOOT s top construction. UOOT complied .
We reached an agreement w ith UOOT that
has aUowed us to w ithdraw our request for a
halt to cons truction.
Lee recognizes the need
to replace the bridges,
and work is now proceeding. UDOT has conceded some important
points:
-They ha ve agreed that
in the future they will
not argue for the need to
widen the highway
above Lower Twin
Bridge simply because
they have w idened the
"An improvement to the road
and consequent increase
in operating speed
would expectedly increase the
accident occurrences."
- from a 1974 interna l UOOT memo
highway at the bridge.
Lee was concerned that
widening at the bridge
sets an engineering
precedent to widen the
highway aU the way up
the canyon.
- UDOT has also agreed
to remove the old Lower
Twin Bridge in the most
environmentally sensitive fashion. They ha ve
agreed to present a written plan for removing the
old bridge, with a djscussion of the environmental safeguards they will
employ, and to consider
LCe's comments on their
plan.
Finally, UOOT has
agreed to consider Lee's
comments on their water
quality monitoring plan
and mitigation efforts for
the project. Lee is s uggesting more frequent
moni to ring during construction. We are recommending that for any
future construction better
baseline da ta is ga thered
prior to constructio n.
Unfortunately, for the
present project base line
da ta goes back only to
September, making
impossible adequate
comparison with past
parameter va lues. We
are recommending as
well that for future construction more complete
monitoring be done of
sedimentation due to
construction.
Our lawsuit has
already enabled LCC to
help make highway construction less environmentally destructive.
Lee is grateful to our
attorney, Ray mond Scott
Berry, for his excellent
work on behalf of Logan
Canyon. Scott has put
many hours into lea rning
the details of our case.
His advice has been
invaluable. We are in
good legal hands.
Expertise and ad vice has
been donated from professionals and environmental organizations
across the country. We
are especially g rateful to
Drew Parkin, Jack
Griffith, Steve Flint, Bob
Morris, and Pete Frost
for their expertise and
dedica tion.
Lawsuit Highlights
Our lawsuit still
stands and will be heard
by the court in a few
months. We will explore
the following issues in
court:
-In an internal 1974
memo conceming the
Logan Canyon highway,
(COl/Jill/nod Il!!xl
page)
�Wild and Scenic Rivers
system. The Forest
Service has not followed
UOOT stated, "an
these procedures in the
improvement to the road
case of Logan River.
and consequent increase
in operating speed would ThE:Y should not be
allowing losses to the
expected ly increase the
scenery, the fishery, the
accident occurrences."
water quality and other
Here UOOT is admitting
canyon resources that
what we should know by
will come with UOOT's
common sense.
Widening and straighten- proposal until the evaluation procedure is propering this ca nyon highway,
wi th an increase in traffic ly ca rried out. We have
documented the fai lures
speed, wi ll lead to a less
of the Forest Service to
safe highway. There will
abide by its own regulastill be curves in the road,
limited sight distance and tions.
- The Forest Service is
steep inclines. Especially
mandated by federal law
in the ice and snow of
to generate a list of recrewinter we should not
ation areas in Logan
have traffic hurtling
Canyon that are to
through the canyon at
receive special protection
speeds that are not safe.
from construction
By 1993 UDOT changed
impacts. The Forest
its mind and presented a
Service presented 17 sites,
safety argument for its
most of which are small
proposa l. They promote
parking lots. This meathe myth that thei r proger list was generated
posed construction w ill
with absolutely no ratiolead to a safer highway.
nale for why they chose
Their traffic and accident
data ha ve obviously been these sites and why they
manipulated to make the have ignored other
important recreation
case they wish to make.
a reas. For aU we know,
-In their 1974 memo
the Forest Service threw
UDOT admitted, "The
darts at a map to generonly conclusion w hich
ate its list. LCC has doccan be drawn, therefore,
umented 63 addjtiona l
is that even the most
recreation areas that the
minima l improvemen t to
Forest Service should
the existing highway
have included in its list,
would have severe
areas that are used for
adverse impact on the
picnicking, fishin g, kaycanyon water resources."
acking, rock climbing,
Yet, now UOOT c.I aims
either no impact or mini- etc. The Forest Service's
Management Plan for
mal impact to the fishery
Logan Canyon lists recreand to water quality.
ation as the primary use
They must be thinking
of the canyon. We will
tha t a mirac.le will occur.
explore in court the arbiTheir estimations are
trary and capricious manbased on fantasy, not
ner in which the Forest
good science, which is a
Service has behaved in its
violation of federal law.
evaluation of recreation.
- The Forest Service
- The Forest Service is
has la id out a proced ure
a lso mandated by fed era l
fo r eva luating rivers for
law to account for
inclusion in the national
Lawsui t
impacts of construction
upon its sensitive species,
including Bonneville
Cutthroa t Trout. The
Forest Service's conclusion of no impacts is
based upon no surveys at
all or upon surveys that
are inadequate. The
Forest Serv ice makes bald
assertions that are totally
mysterious, such as "flora l species have been mitigated for." No explanation of this claim is provided. Other assertions
are pa tently false, Stich as
"no fauna l sensitive
species were found withthe proposed project
dIsturbance area,"" a claim
contradicted by information known to the F(1rest
Service about Bonneville
Cutthroa t Trout.
UDOT's highway proposal will result in a
highway that is less sa fe.
It is far more expensive
than is needed, and it is
far too damaging to the
fishery, the scenery, water
quality and other
resources. It threa tens
recreation, the primary
use of the canyon.
UDOT's hi.hwav PI"OPO'Sal is also
porkbarrel project for the
sake of bringing taxpayer
dol lars through the
UOOT burea ucracy. Our
own Conservationists'
Alternative fea tures sensible highway improvements such as bridge
replacement, some passing and turning lanes,
while it protects valuable
canyon resources.
Our lawsuit is essential if we are to save
Logan Canyon from
UOOT's appetite for
asphalt. Our stand has
already made a difference.
(,0,,1i,,""')
""'g'''"
2
�Summer 1997
The Ultimate Impact
Roads Facilitate People
By Tim Wagner
Over the course of the
last eighteen months, I've
had the opportunity to
speak on behalf of LCC to
several groups. After presenting some history and
current facts surrounding
the Logan Canyon issue, I
usually find myself drifting towards what I see as
the biggest threat. That is,
people.
While we are aU rightfully concemed about the
many various fonns of
environmental dcgradation resulting from fifteen
to twenty years of construction, I honestly
believe that a new and
"improved" U.S. Highway
89 through Logan Canyon
will facilitate a tremendous amount of development, and the result, the
"ultimate impact."
Try to project your
thoughts to the fall of
2017. It's a beautiful afternoon and you and your
granddaughter have
decided to go fishing in
Logan Canyon. UOOT
contractors are putting the
finishing touches on
shoulders and drainage
facilities. A new widened
stretch of asphalt lays
before you, extending aU
the way to the summit
and down to Garden City.
Semi-trucks careen by
at 60 miles per hour, making deliveries to a convenience store that has been
located at FrankUn Basin
for the last ten years. Up
the road, adjacent to the
Beaver Mountain tumoff,
lies a brand new restaurant and hotel complex.
The facility occupies over
40 acres with a giant parking lot, sending roadg'rime into Beaver Creek.
Farther up, a new
snowmobile/ ATV dealershjp has located along
with a fast-food franchise.
Because of the increase in
tuming traffic, UOOT has
now started construction
on another widened intersection, forcing massive
cuts into the slope.
Throughout the upper
section of the canyon, residential construction is
booming, along with severa! higher density developments. At times, traffic
is so congested that it continues to back up, with
increasing accidents.
Your fishing trip tums
into a nightmare because
every place you try to
stop is packed with
anglers. Many are out-ofstaters staying at the new
hotel
reading about
the wonderful fishing and
sight-seeing opporhmities
in Logan Canyon, courtesy of Chamber-sponsored national advertising.
Frus trated, you decide
to take a short hike to
view the fall colors. That
too is aborted when you
realize that every trailhead is jammed with vehicles. So much for quality
outdoor recreation.
Sound surreal? It
shouldn't. If you've spent
anytime at aLi in Logan
DID YOU KNOW?
A bridge OC" cily stTftt must
12
10
40.000 aulomobilal pet' hou,. Only 1
U n«eIINl)'
to KIC01I\mOd.;ole 40)100 bicydes pet' hour.
To
the need fo, Middle
oil, US. commuleT\l wou ld nHd lu b iqde 10 work only t.2S times eKh week.
Eql1.Jling
10 guoli ,"" the
n"moo of milal pe' pilon thOIIt rould
boP: lnIveled by the Ivenoge cyclist ;53)100.
PLEASE RI DE YOUR BIKE.
138 NoRTH 100 EAST loG.t.N, UIAH 84321
80 1-753-3294 MoN.- SAl. 10:00 A.M.- 6 :00I!M.
•---.-.--.---
GRAPEVINE
I
tiTa,.aIT
.
3
Canyon in the past years,
you know we are already
seeing the first inklings of
such a scenario. This is a
real situation that can and
will occur, if allowed .
This is why we are seeing some of the major
environmental groups
starting to tackle the issue
of uncontrolled development. Just this past spring
the Sierra Club initiated a
national campaign entitJed "ChaUenge to
SprawL"
According to the club,
" ... nothing threatens our
air, water, and wild places
more than sprawl." Right
up front, the club proclaims the campaign starts
with stopping inappropriate roads and d evelopments. Sound familiar?
One point they take
issue with is the myth that
development results in
increased tax revenues.
The cost of infrastructure
alone needed to meet the
demands of such develop(cont inued /lext page)
�PEOPLE
(con/itwed)
men!, including highways,
sewers, water, electricity,
and communications,
often exceed the long term
revenue.
These are a ll items subsid ized by you, the taxpaye r. And who reaps the
most benefits? The developer and the summer
h ome owner who are
enabled to build in the
canyon beca use they do
not pay the true expense.
Add in the future costs of
decreased air and water
quality, traffic congestion,
and an overall decline in
the quality of life for residents and the price tag
goes through the roof.
Another way to look at
it comes from the n atio na l
organization, The Trust for
Public Land. It recently
cited research showing
how zoning and other
government regulations
actually encourage development into many of our
open spaces. There again,
government investment
(by the taxpayer) into
infrastructu re serves to
boost land va lues, making
them much more attractive
for development.
Is there anyone who
bel ieves that private and
state owned land values in
Logan Canyon will
decrease once the new
" modified preferred alter·
native" is in place?
It all comes back to one
central point. Build it and
they w ill come. This is an
a rgument that can' t be disputed, even by LCe's
staunchest opponents. Yet
it is this, what I refer to as
the "ultimate impacl," that
has not been addressed in
the Environmenta l Impact
Statemen t nor in a ny other
serious d iscussions.
This is the very issue
that helped the Illinois
chapter of the Sierra Club
successfully stop a m ajor
interstate highway expansion. In the ruling the
judge stated, "Highways
create demand for travel
and expansion by their
very existence." Because
the final EIS d id not
include the "necessary
studies," the court felt the
public and other government agencies were not
informed of all the consequences.
Roads precede developmenl. It is a simple idea
and one you will hear
more of n o matter w here
you live. Not that highway
expansion and development is necessarily bad.
-_
_-_.
_
'- .....
. ' -'
.. , • •• "
But there are right ways
and wrong ways and
right places and wrong
places. Logan Canyon is
the wrong place.
And this is why I firmIy believe we need to elevate the discuss ion of this
project beyond the hjghway itself. Whenever we
have the opportunity to
talk with the general public about LCe's position,
we must include the
issues of people and
development. For many,
the topics of bridge
w idths, fishery impacts,
endangered plants, and
wild and scenic rivers are
too abstract.
But ask that person
Log"" Canyon Postcards
GmT'a y"f
Stu d io 404 l'hOlograph y.
Alan Hu u li s
...
i ...g..
3-xS- $,SO f
usu
16701
Utah 1W322"()I9'.I
Adventure,
Sports
o f •••
.
...... ...
......,,, ......
-
4
how they will feel w hen
their favorite fishing hole
or ski or s nowmobile trail
is too crowded, forcing
them to go elsewhere, and
you may find a n ew ally.
Preventing the " ultimate impact" in Logan
Canyon is a lifelong commitment. Achieving reasonable highway sa fety
improvements in lieu of a
massive pork-barrel project is just one incremental
step, but the first step. If
you would like to help or
would like more information about this issue,
please feel free to call me
at 755-0286. Get involved
now.
.:.
EDWARD AUEY
, ...,ItA;, 0' II
I'NII 111.10 ANII 1 ••_
IIII"'N; TO.
LCC POSTCARDS
USU 101C_ I,","
LO;AN. UTAN "111- 01"
�Slimmer 1997
Canyon News Briefs
(Tlte follawillg is reprillled from a letter to
tlte editor of tlte Utall Slate University
All/11m; Magazine.)
the shot-crete is for added stabili ty and is falling off in sheets
as we stand looking ... Shotcrete on this type of canyon
First Provo Canyon, now
material is like putting a band- Provo Callyoll Coalilion
Logan. Soon there will be nothaid on a gushing artery ... The
ing left, only p eople racing
recent slide triggered the
from one spot to another trying County political and business lead- Coalition's worst fears, fears
to find a happiness which can
ers are begitmiug to question the that a four-lane road just won' t
only be found in slowly savorenviront1lel1tal alld finallcial costs work through a narrow area
ing the bea uti es God created.
wi th unstable rock.
of the Provo Cal1yon fiasco, and
are protestil1g tile priority given to
Gilda Sims, class oj 1940,
the cal/yon road at the expense of Looking at this raw, powerful,
currently residing ill Eval1ston,
more Jzeavily traveled roads.)
exposed scar, boulders tumble
Wyomitlg
down as we speak. They
" ... I can hardly stand to be here appear out of nowhere, crash... I am prone to letting out a
ing down, hitting the barrier of
primal scream of anger as I
concrete and wire fencing
(Tlte followillg was sent fr01l1
pass daily the monster dump
UDOT has constructed in an
friends in Provo WilD are watching trucks hauling away the
attempt to protect motorists
tlte last of tlteir cat/yol/ behlg
innards of the can yon.
once the canyon is opened. It
devoured by dynamite, bulldozers
seems as if someone is up there,
and asphalt. Almost-vertical culs We are all looking at the same
hurling down the rocks in
in file cal/yoll walls Itave caused
thing. A massive cut in the
anger. It is driving the engimassive slides, flattellil1g a twocanyon wall--70 feet high and
neers crazy ... Further up the
tOil pickup and closing tlte
300 feet long--that wi ll eventuroad, a waterfall of black mud
highway. Tlte fOllr-laue highway, ally make room for two more
flo ws from an area scraped by a
costing $20 million per mile, is in lanes of de-curved roadway.
bulldozer.
its Jilwl phase. U DOT begal/ tile The first length of the canyon
rec0115tructioll ill the lIIid-1980s
face has been drilled with
We are frustrated, worried and
with a promise to tile enviro1JlIlell- twenty foot spikes and covered sick at heart over what they
tal community tltat tlte road wou ld with shot-crete. The drilling is
have done to our canyon."
be limited to two lmies. Utah
an attempt to stabilize the face;
" Coffee with a Cause"
• regular· organic · decaffelnaled • Night and Day
11.00;'
to LCC Ior..-ery pound sold.
"We are sick at heart over
w hat they h ave done
to our canyon."
�Recreation Threatened
By Kevin f. Kobe
nificance, or enjoyment
of Commerce).
During my recent s ki
trip from Logan Canyon
to Teton Pass, Wyoming,
I saw only two canyons
throughout the entire
300 mile stretch that did
not have s nowmobile
tracks. It made me realize how current highway
plans fo r Logan Canyon
will further threaten
human-powered recreation.
How? Most of the
recreation resources in
Logan Canyon were le ft
out of the highway documents (the FEIS, DElS,
and ROD). This opinion
is s upported by the fac t
that only 17 sites were
lis ted as recrea tion si tes
under Section 4(f) of the
Department of
Transportation Act of
1996.
The Final
Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) states
that, " Recreation has
been designated as the
primary use in Logan
Canyon according to the
Wasa tch-Cache National
Forest Land and
Resource Management
Plan. Developed and
undeveloped recreation
lands occur along the
hig hway within the
National Forest. .. "
The entire stretch of
Logan Canyon IS USED
FOR OUTDOOR
RECREATION and is
promoted as s uch (note
the many brochures pro-
duced by the C hamber
o f an UIban park where
Recently, Logan
Canyon Coalition (LCq
inventoried an additiona l 63 sites a long the project area that were not
listed in any of the documents. Most of these
sites provide access for
picnicking, fishing,
climbing, kayaking, bird
watching, sig ht-seeing
and parking for winter
activities.
Many of the sites will
be adversely affected by
the proposed highway
project. These include
direct impacts to the
recrea tion resource, such
as elintina ting access
parking lots, and indirect impacts such as
noise and safety.
According to the FEIS
(p. 6-4), " indirect
impacts include exceeding ambient noise criteria, reduction in access,
visual impacts, vibratio n, and ecological
intrusion. Substantial
impairment occurs only
when the protected
activities, features, or
attributes of the resource
are substantially diminished." The FEIS d efin es
protected activities and
features as, " ... performances at an outdoor
amphitheater, sleeping
in the sleeping area of a
ca mpground, enjoyment
o f a historic site where a
quie t setting is a generalIy recognized fea ture o r
a ttribute of the site's sig-
serenity and quiet are
significant
Based on the above
criteria, all 63 sites, as
well as the entire stretch
of Logan Canyon, will
s uffer "substantially
diminished " recreational
resou rces due to the current hig hway project.
Many o f the activities in
Logan Canyon occur in
areas "where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature o r attribute
of the site's sig nificance ... " These areas
will be affected by an
in crease in traffic no ise
levels as a result of:
faster speeds, additional
passing lanes (d ue to
vehicle acceleration),
and braking noises.
Another indirect
impact concerns safety
for recreationists; vehid es entering and exiting
recreation sites along a
faster highway w ill be
more dangerous.
Additionally, different trends in recreation
have occur red in Logan
Canyon since the FEIS
was written. Activities
that have grown in popularity and have not
been considered in any
documents include backcountry snowboarding,
boating, fly fishing,
climbing alo ng the rock
cliffs adjacent to the
highway, and recrea tional and professional
cycling.
In conclusion, the list
of 4(f) sites in the FEIS
lacks professional and
scientific integrity. It
falls short of recognizing
the recreation resource
in Logan Canyon a nd
new recrea tio n trends. It
also does not provide
enough information conceming all of the recreational pursuits occurring within any onc of
the 17 4(f) sites in Logan
Canyon.
----.
28 Fed!llIIItft. Lopn. lit 84321
(101) 7Ss-olS7
F Ine
&
rw-k
l I f _ ..............,........"
I.CC T-SHiIl:TS - 51 2.00 (3 rob)
6
7Ss.8657
Moo......., · s,."....t
"'"'
�-- - -- 'iE
-- - i --"Ei
Slimmer 199 7
Speak Now, Speak Often
Make Your Voice Heard
G overnment Officials
Letters to the Editor
What to Do
Governor Mike Leavitt
The Herald Journal
State Capitol Building
Salt Lake Ci ty, UT 84114
Ph# 801-538-1000
Fax: 801-538- 1528
75 West 300 North
Logan, UT 8432 1
Phil 801-752-2121
Fax: 801·753-6642
Please write and urge
ou r government officials
and the public to re-evaluate UOOT's plans and to
consider the more fi sca lly
prudent "Conserva tionis ts'
Alternative" that s till
addresses the need s o f
highway safety and Logan
Canyon . It is not a "do
nothing" proposal.
Be s ure to include your
full name, address, s ignature (except e-mail) and
daytime phone number.
Keep your letter short and
to the point. Write about
your personal experiences
in the canyon and use facts
to s upport your a rguments.
e-mail:
govemori?Jemail .state.u Lus
e-mail: hjleUeri?Jhjnews.com
The SaIt Lake Tribune
Rep. Jim Hansen
U.S. House of Representati\'cs
Washington D.C. 205 15
Phil \-202-225-0453
Fax: 1-202-225-5857
Rodney Terry
Project Manager, UOOT
Ave.
PO Box 12580
Ogden, UT 844 12
Phil 801-399-592 1, ext30S
169 North Wan
Fax: 801-399-5926
liz Schuppert
District Ranger
USFS, Logan District
1500 East Highway 89
Logan, UT 84321
Phil 801 -755-3620
Fax: 80 1-755-3639
Public Forum
PO Box 867
Salt La ke City, UT 84110
Fax: 801·237·2022
Deseret News
Readers' Forum
PO Box 1257
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Fax: 801·237-2121
e-mail: Letters@d esnews.com
The Standard-Examiner
PO Box 951
Ogden, UT 84402-{)951
Phlf 800-234-5505
Phil 801-625-4222
Fax: 801-6254508
e-mail : Letters@standard.ne t
Thank you for
your h e lp !
L()(H, Hilt Oil! 'E\\ \\EII I'\(a. \I:
AW ORLD
(!omCTION
CLOTHING &
Logan Canyon Your Destination?
- Silckpil cking - Skiing -Climbing -Hi king
- Snowshoeing - Sightseeing
Accents
57 SOOT\I lWw • locwI UT 1?4g21
753·3497
htll': I/\"'\\o/l11"rinl'rol'nl11 / ilo o
l
!JON·SAT 11·6
117 North Meln 81
7
�r-----------------------,
YES! I
THE
WANT TO JOIN
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subscription to CANYON WI ND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lois more
o I would like to volunteer.
o Here's 512.00 for a g reat T-shirt.
o I' m broke! Here's five bucks.
o Please add my name to your mailing list.
pl"JSJ51!ippi"g
Name____________________________
PRINTING (0.
5 Ireel____________________________
Cily _ _ _ _ _ _Slale_ _ _. ip _____
Z
Email_ __ _ ___
P h one#
43
SOUT H
100
LOGAN , UTAH
WEST
84321
TEL . 801.752.031 1
make ch«k payable ilnd m ol;1 to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box #1674
L _______________________
Logan, UT 84322·0199
FA X 80 1 . 753 . 316 1
Please consider a donation to LCe. All donations will be
used for the protection of Logan Canyon.
LCC wants to thank the hundreds of individuals, businesses
and foundations who have contributed time, money and
expertise towards the legal defense of Logan Canyon. Your
generous support is appreciated.
.. ..
Wi
!!!!
...... - ............
__ __ .iii . . __ ... .iii _.:;;;;; ___ •
--=- -=-=
==--=
=
-
-== =
=
-=-=- - -
COA.L:J:T:J:ON
BULK RATE
U.s. POSTAGE
Paid
lDgall, IJT
Pe.",;t N"SO
Wor k i n s f or t h e P ro t ec t ion o f
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
." Please Rellew YOllr
Membersllip Today
�----...-.. -- -------...- -------- -----_.....
--- -- --- -- - ----- ---.-------.- .
- ------ - - --- -----
- ---- - - - - ---- - - -- ---- - - ------- - - - -- -- -- - - --- ----- --- - --- -- - - -- -__-.- __ T _ _ _ _-.-
- --- - - -- A
---
--
-------- - -------
N E W S B U L LE TI N FR OM L OGAN CAN YO N COALI T IO N
Vol. 2 No.5
Spril1g 1998
Bass and Parkin to Headline
Logan River Summit
Have you ever seen
an o fficia l Wil d and
Scenic rive r? Have you
ever wonde red i f the
Logan Rive r possesses
such qua lities? And
ha ve you ever wondered why Utah currently has no rivers that
a re being studied fo r
possible incl usion in the
Wild and Scenic system,
let alone a river with the
officia l designation?
Answers to these
questions and more will
be presented at the
" Logan Ri ve r SummitA Confluence of Ideas/'
Saturday May 16, 1998,
from 8:30 to 4:30 at the
Beaver Mountain Ski
Lodge in Logan
Can yon. Fea tured guest
speakers addreSSing the
w ild and scenic issue
w ilJ be nationalJy
known river policy
ex pe rt Drew Par kin and
Utah Rivers Council
director Zach Frankel.
Have you ever wondered w hy
Utah currently has no rivers
that are being studied for
possible inclusion in the Wild
and Scenic system?
Parkin's expe rtise
includes directing wild
and scen ic rivers programs for the National
Park Service. Currently
he consul ts with many
river orga niza tions,
add ressin g a variety of
rive r issues. Parki n also
serves on the board of
di rectors for the Pacific
Rivers Council A native
o f Utah, he now lives in
Cambrid ge,
Massachusetts.
Zach Frankel sta rted
the Utah Rivers Cou ncil
approxim a te ly five
yea rs ago a nd has
become well known
around the state for his
knowledge of Utah
rivers and the man y
threa ts to their wa tershed s.
A lso speaking on
beha lf of ri ver ecosystems will be na ti ona lly
known author Rick
Bass, who w ill bring his
own style of passion for
our na tura l world. He is
widely loved by
Am erican readers. As a
forme r res ident of
Logan, Utah a nd a USU
alumni , Bass often
spea ks of his intimate
relationship with Logan
Canyon and the Logan
Ri ver.
"Sustainable
Watersheds" w ill be the
theme of an afternoon
panel di sc ussion , CO I11p lete w ith a ques tion
and answer period.
Partic ipants include
John Ca rter with Willow
Creek Ecology who will
address riparian and
wa tershed issues,
Wendy Fisher with U tah
Ope n Land s who will
educa te attendees on
such th ings as conservation easemen ts, Wes
Johnson, president of
Utah's Trout Unlimited
who will talk of the
importance of aquatic
protections, and Mike
Timmons, USU landscape arch itectural professor, who will discuss
visual aesthetic issues.
Acting as panel moderator will be Logan 's
own KUSU program
director Lee Aus tin.
It should be noted
that this conference is
(col1lill!u'd 01/ pagt' 4)
�Bridge Fight Averted
On September 8, 1997
potentia l impacts by ceas- bridge up after it has col·
ing construction during
the Logan Canyon
lapsed into the river?
Coalition sent II letter to
the spa\vning season.
.15 there an envi ronmenTom Twedt of BioWest
UDOT's Sto rm Water
tally less damaging
with questions concernPollution Prevention Plan method of bridge
ing the Utah Department clearly stated,
removal? Since UDOT
of Transportation's
"Cons truction activities
plans to crane the new
wi ll be scheduled to
(UDOT) constructi on
bridge into place, it
avoid period s of aquatic
plans for the fall.
seems that they could
BioWes t is the env ironlife cycles (spawning,
crane pieces of the old
men ta l consultant on the
etc.)." Suddenly UDOr
bridge Qu t w i thout droptwo brid ges project in
annou nced that it was
ping it into the ri verbed.
Logan Canyon.
Surpris ingly, the
Our main conidea of demolishing
After LCC's threa t of alt illj uctioll, the old brid ge durcern was over the
pOSSibility that
UDOY {l l mOItIlCe ri there would be ing spawning seaUDOTwould
son, just upstream of
11 0 bridge demolitioll dur;lIg the
demolis h the o ld
a documented
Brow n Trout fall spawning seaso". brown trout spawnLower Twin
Bridge in the fall. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ing area, was su pd uri ng brown
ported by the Utah
trout spawning season.
considering construction
Division of Wildlife
UDOT's Reevaluation of
and bridge demolition
Resources.
the llucc Bridges Project
during the spaw ing seaOur attorney,
son.
for Logan Canyon conRaymond Scott Berry,
tains a good discuss io n of
We were concerned
faxed a memo to UDOT's
the brown trout spawnthat UDOT wou ld use
attorneys, stating our
ing area immedia tely
explosives to blast ou t
in tention to file for an
the brid ge su pports,
downstrea m of Lower
injunction on all b ridge
Tw in Bridge and the
a llow ing the bridge to
construction and demolipotenti al im pacts of
fall into the riverbed.
tion during the spawn ing
increased sediments
They wou ld then drag
season. At the CAT
u pon the eggs a nd fr y of
the b ridge out o f the
(Cooperating Adv isory
riverbed wi th tractors.
spawning trout.
Team) meeting of
According to U
There would be massive
,e
Sep tember 24, UDOT
a mounts o f sediment
Reeva luation, "The
announced there wou ld
be no bridge demolition
Logan River dmvnstrea m introduced in to the ri ver
during the fa ll. They
of Lower Twin Bridge has as the bridge sank into
agreed that all constructhe riverbanks and was
been used as a spaw ning
tion activity in the fall
site by brown trout. ...
dragged out. The loss to
would be li mited to work
riparian areas wou ld be
sedi ments released into
considerable.
on the deck of the bridge,
the Logan Rive r by conh igh above the ri ver.
s truction activities in la te
Our
There would be no work
su mmer, fa ll , and winter
questions included:
in the river or o n the
could suffocate eggs and
- Precisely how much
riverbanks. We believe
fry, which are expected to sed imen t will be in trothis decision by UDOT
be present in this spaw n- duced into the river?
- Exactly how wi ll the old helped to protec t spawning area from about
ing b rO\'vn trou t in Logan
October through March." bridge be removed?
Rive r.
UDOT had previously
- Wha t w ill be the
agreed to minimize
impacts of cu tting th e
2
�-- - -------- =- - - -= - -
=
-
'=
-
:-=..:: '::'
--
--
= :-=.:
- --=-=
=
=::
= :':.: ==
..=..-=..=..=-.=
Sprillg 199 8
An Expert Speaks O u t
UDOT's Confused Data
By LCC Stnff
mates or on how accurate their estimates are.
more than o ne accid ent
per ye<lr, " there is only
one site in the entire
canyon with more than 2
The Logan Ca nyon
Coalition asked Dr.
Everett C. Carte r, of the
Transportation Studies
Cen ter of the University
o f Maryland, to exam ine
the Utah Department of
Transportation's (UOOT)
traffic and accident data .
In his report, Dr. Carter
states, "There is d efiniteIy some confusion concerning acciden ts and
traffic volumes in Loga n
Canyon."
Dr. Carter no tes that
the method UDOT used
to estimate traffic fl ows
in Logan Ca nyon " resu.lted in errors." UDOT
used only one counter at
o ne location in the
ca nyon to count vehicles,
and they then used these
counts to estim ate traffic
volumes in nil sections of
the cn nyon. No information is provid ed on how
they calculated their esti-
Here is one exa mple
of error. In the hig her
accidents pe r yea r." He
states. "One o r two acci-
section of the middle
dents/year is not
ca nyon, and in the uppe r
ca nyon, the estimated
traffic vo lumes that
UDOT used to calculate
acciden t rates declined
in the years 1986 - 1990
compared to 1980 - 1985.
Yet the estimated tra ffi c
volumes in the lower
ca nyon, and in the lower
sectio n of the middle
canyon, show a 7%
increase in 1986 - 1990
VS. 1980 -1985. Why
would traffic volumes
increase in the lower secHons of the canyon in
1986 - 1990 and yet
d ec line in the upper sections? There is no expla nation of this discrepan-
unu sually hi gh"! In
o the r words, the Logan
Ca nyon hig hway is not
an especially dangerous
hig hway.
Special Report 214
from the na tional
Trans portation Resea rch
Boa rd (1987) indicates
tha t the benefit of w idening beyond 34 feet is
"q uite lim ited." Dr.
Ca rter states, "Thus a 34
ft. paved section, especiall y in lig ht of the env iro nmen ta l impact,
should be the upper limi t
in Logn n Cn nyon .... "
UooT is planning a 40
foot hi ghway width
above Beaver MOu.ntnLn,
in s pite of the greater
expense and environmental impact o f this
cy.
Dr. Carter observes
that w hil e there are 9
si tes in the canyon \v ith
DID YOU KNOW?
A bridgt' or .. cit y J tTfl't mu st h .. "c 12
Joint'S to ..
4lJ,000 .. utomobil cs pCt hour. Only I I.. nt' iJ nc.:cssuy
to
40,000 bieyclcs pcr hour.
To
thl' nccd for Middl c Eas t
oi l, U.S. commuters would nced to biercit' to work o nl y l.25 tim cs
wl't'k.
u lo riH to
thc
numbcr of milt'S
could
bf tr'''flcd by th f aYf ragc (yelisl i, 3.000.
.
'IY
• :;-
' 1W..1
PLEASE RIDE YOUR BIKE.
138 NOI»H 100 EASl lOGAN. UrN! 84321
801 -753-3294 MQN.- SAl. 10:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.
G ,,
-_.- ...
--_--
PEVJNE
...
3
:
.......
width, and in spite of
this Specia l Report.
Another report UDOT
apparently ignored,
" Low Cost Methods for
Improving Traffic
Operations on Two-Lane
Roads," wa s published
by the Federal Highwa y
Administra tion in 1987.
This report discusses
low-cost but effecti ve
highway improvements
s uch as slow-vehicle
turnouts and better signing. These improvements have been part of
LCe's propo5<'11 for many
years.
Dr. Carter concludes,
'' In summary, I a m convinced that there is reasonable doubt that a fu ll
scnle/mnjor improvement of the entire
Ca nyon is justified."
.:.
�RIVER
(,,,,lim,"')
be ing underwritte n
th roug h the generos ity
of the ational Ri vers
Coa liti on, w hich is
mad e up of the
America n Ca noe
Assoc., Ameri ca n
Rivers, A meri ca n
Whitewate r Affili a tion,
Na tio nal Wildli fe
Fede ration, Ri ver
Management Society,
Rive r Ne two rk, Sie rra
C lub, and The
Wilde rness Soci ety.
Loca l co-spo nso rs
includ e the Citi zens for
the Protection o f Loga n
Ca nyon and
Brid ge rl and Audubo n.
The ir support is commend able!
Cost for the enti re
day, incl uding a conti ne nta l breakfast and
lu nch, includes $10 for
adu lts and $7.50 for students. Early reg istra tion
is encou raged as seating
is limited to 150 people.
See the enclosed insert
(Uta h mailing o nly) for
m o re info rmatio n. Or
call at 435 / 755-0286.
Why Are Wetlands Important?
Wetlands are important for
ma ny reasons:
Wetlands prevent nooding by hold ing wa ter much
like a sponge. By doing so,
wetlands help keep river
levels norma l and filter and
pu rify the s urface wa ter.
Wetlands accept wa ter
d uring sto rms and w henever water levels arc high.
When wa ter levels are low,
wetland s slowly release
water.
Wetlands also release
vegetative matter into
rivers, which helps feed fis h
in the rivers. Wetlands help
to counter balance the
human effect on rivers by
rej uvenating them and surrounding ecosystems.
Ma ny anima ls that live in
other habitats use wetlands
for migra tion or reprod uction. Fo r example. herons
nest in la rge old trees, bu t
need sha llow areas in order
to wad e for fi sh and aquatic
life. Am ph ibians often for<lgc in upland areas but
return to the water to mate
and reproduce.
Wetlands must not be
thoug ht o f as a unique and
independent habitat. They
arc vital to the survival of
many ecosystems and
......
---...
,.,
,
wild life in genera l.
Unl ike most oth er habita ts, wetlands directly
improve other ceo-systems.
Becausc of its many clea nsing bmefits. wetlands have
been compnred to kid neys.
The analogy is correct, wetlands and kid neys help
con tro l water flow and
cleanse the flow o f liquids
within a system.
Eros ion Contro l
Looking at pictures o f
delt"s, o ne cn n tell that
rivers d eposit" lo t o f mud .
Mud is top soil that has
eroded and w"shed away.
Emergents (plan ts firmly
rooted in the muddy bottom bu t with stalks tha t rise
high above the wa te r su rface) a re able to radica lly
slow the flow o f water. As a
result, they counter the erosive fo rces o f mov ing wa ter
along la kes and ri vers. and
in rolli ng agricultura l landscapes. Erosion control
effo rts in "qua tic areas
often incl ude the planting
of wetlands plants.
Wate r Purifica tion
Wetlands also clean thc
watcr by filtering o ut sedimentation and d ecomposing vegetable ma tter.
Wetlands pla nts help
Adventure,
Sports
-"'-
_.
, _ "_ _ n
..... ......,.
.......
,
4
convert nitrates and other
life-givi ng chemica ls. Soil
thai is inundated with
water is largely oxygen
free, and the microbes and
bacteria in upla nd soils
depend on oxygen to su rvive. TIle activ ity of such
bacteria is centra l to the
breakdown of n utrients into
fo rms usable by the rest of
the bio tic comm unity.
Some wetland s plants
actua lly pi pe oxygen dow n
into their roots, to provide
to special bacteria. Others,
as in peat moss, build up
huge, "a rtificial" g round
areas on wh ich bacteria can
work. Still others, such as
many noating leaf plan ts,
have d ispensed with the
use o f bacteria altogether
and ex tract needed nutrients from the water itsel f.
The ability o f wetlands
to recycle n utrients ma kes
them critical in the overa ll
fun ctioning of the ea rth . No
other ecosystem is as prod uctive nor as un ique in
this conversion process. In
some p laces, in fa ct.
artificial wetlands were
d eveloped solely fo r the
pu rpose o f water purification.
�_ ---------- --------- .. - ------- - - -= - -==
=
=
===
= "": =
:-=..:: '::"
=:-::.:
:-=..::
S p r ill g 19 98
Canyon News Briefs
LCC LAWSUIT UPDATE
Logan Canyon Coa li tion's
lawsuit against UDOT and
the Forest Service is still in
place. We are now compiling
a list of docu ments we will
req uest from these ngencies
during the d iscove ry phase
of the lawsuit.
We are inte rested in
obtai ning copies of UDOT's
calcula tions of tra ffic flow in
Logan Canyon, for examp le.
Based on traffic counts a t a
si ngle loca tion, UDOT has
esti ma ted traffic flow in a ll
sections of the ca nyon highway. Yet there are serious
d iscrepa ncies in UOOT's estimations.
We wi ll request copies of
the surveys the Forest Service
has condu cted on sensitive
species in Logan Canyon.
The Forest Service has
cl aimed there will be "no
impact" of constructi on upon
et
these species. Y it appea rs
tha t for severa l of these
species the surveys have
been inadequa te, if they exist
at aU .
The documents we obtain
through d iscovery will help
LCC sa ve Logan Canyon from
ulU1ecessarily expensive and
destructi ve highway construction.
Deb Eshelman a CPA and
her daughter Amy Casa massa
come on boa rd as LCe's new
Co-Treasurers. Amy's work
w ill apply towards an adva nce
placemen t science cred it fo m
Jac k Green's Logan High class.
Welcome on boa rd.
Canyon Wind Ed itor Dan
Miller w ill be returning to
Cache Va lley to become more
active in LCC projects. He has
been living in Ogden, Utah
and Oregon as his wife pursued her ca reer. Welcome back
Dan .
• Uuknowu impact 0 11 trollt popllia tiolls.
UDOT's estimate is all IIlIeducated guess based
011 il/adeqllate data. COllstrllctiol/ ill the lower
cal/yoH reduced tlw trOll t populations ill sOllie
areas by 80%.
"Coffee with a Cause"
• regular '
$1 .00 is dona rBd ro LCC
Nigh1and Oay
ro.-"""'Y pound sold.
Logan Canyon Coalition is
up and running on the World
Wide Web. Check out our
homepage at:
http://www.logancanyon.org
�Home Canyon
by To m LyO
l1
Comi ng back from a
long trip east, we'd just
dri ven a few hundred
treeless mi les on a hot
and sunny da y. Most of
the last hours had been
in the mined and p um meled landscape of
south west Wyom ing, a
scene tha t hurts to look
a t. We climbed up fro m
Bea r Llke in third
gear- getting close
now, thirty-odd miles to
Logan- a nd then, over
the summ it, started to
s lip d own into the fold s
o f the hills, steeper a nd
closer on the sides as
we wen t, a nd the trees
aga in, the co mpan ionab le river soon to be
alongsid e. We
g limpsed a good-sized
bull moose moving o ff
through the w illows
along Bea ver Cree k. A
certa in sce nt came in on
the window-wind , a
secret fragrance mad e
up of w illow a nd sage,
toba cco bush, fir a nd
cottonwood, river
water, lime rock in the
sun, Loga n Canyon dirt
". we were ho me now.
When we fi rst s tarted tryin g to p rotec t th e
ca nyon from hi ghway
d rea ms, we had the
id ea that public-works
po li cy was p retty much
a rational process. You
sat d ow n w ith the highway d epartm ent a nd
the Fo rest Service, and
you entered the
canyon 's beauty a nd
re la tive intactness in to
the mi x, and the peop le's love for it, the fishing, the skiing, the hiking, the peace a nd quiet
and s lowness of it, th e
way it stood for a
w hole diffe ren t life.
You always men tioned
w ha t w as sadly true,
that Loga n Ca nyon was
the last of its kind of
pl ace in Uta h.
It was disappointing
that none of this ever
go t across to the highway department. Not
in all these yea rs. It
was as if you were talking a n en tirely d ifferent
language. But w hat
was rea lly stunning was
that the Forest Service
did n' t ca re ei the r. The
Forest Serv ice b lew off
its own Forest Plan, a
documen t supposedly
having the force of law,
in orde r to support the
h ighway d rea m. The
Forest Service should
have been the natural
a ll y of the ca nyon.
Instead, in the end, they
a nswered a d eta iled ,
187-page a ppea l (wh ich
a mo unted to the
Env ironme nta l Impa ct
Statement tha t should
have been d one by
those h ired to d o it)
w ith a page and a half
of bureaucratic dismissa l.
So w ha t we have
lea rned is tha t we are
on o ur ow n, and we
have to be tough a nd
pe rsistent if we wa nt to
be heard- if we wa nt
the canyon to be hea rd .
We can' t just expect
people to be rationa l,
and we can ' t assume
tha t everyone loves the
canyon more than they
love the h ighway
drea m. (Probably a lot
o f people think we can
have the o ld, good
ca nyon and a big hig hway through it.) This
w ho le time has been a
kind of edu ca tion in
realism. That's the
politica l part. In the
hea rt part, it's mad e us
th ink about w hat we
rea ll y va lue, firmed us
down to the home
things.
POSSESSfONS
28 FaSuai A l.ogan.lJI'. 84321
vt.
.......
'7:'.
(IIOU 755-0851
FIne l ob .. « o ,
Logall Ca lly o ll Post cards
Co u'!t'Syof
S tud io 404 rh o tog r.- phy,
Alan Hu es ti s
, ...,,,
J-. 5· s.5O I 4· , 6- S.75
USU nod
log.1n. Ulah 84322.{l L
99
a
M .. t dphy , ,, .. L N e rd ,
' d l 011, a H('f b ,
Pon(A1U>:I 0#
EDWARD Aaa EV
1[ NO t l t .50 IINO $l .oo
lee
USU 8 0l( .
L OCOIIN. U TilI!
Lee T·StliRfli· 512.00 (3 mlor)
'011.-0,,,
6
755-8657
�------== = ==
=
S p ri n g 1 9 9 8
Speak Now, Speak Oftell
Make Your Voice Heard
G overnment Officials
Letters to the Editor
What to Do
Governor Mike Leav itt
State Capitol Building
5.111 La ke City, UT 84114
Th e Herald Journa l
75 West 300 North
Logan, UT84321
Ph# 801-538-1000
Fax: 801-538-1528
e-mail:
governor@email.sta le.u t. us
Ph# 801-752-2121
Fax: 801-753-6642
Please w rite and urge
our government officials
and the public to re-evalua te UOOT's plans and to
consider the more fisca lly
prudent "Conservationists'
Alternative" that s ti ll
add resses the needs of
h ighway safety and Logan
Canyon. It is not a "do
nothi ng" proposa l.
Be su re to include your
fuJI name, address, signature (except e-mail) and
d ay time phone number.
Keep your letter short and
to the point. Write about
you r personal experiences
in the canyon and usc fac ts
to s upport your argumen ts.
Rep. Jim Hansen
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515
Ph# 1-202-225-0453
Fax: 1-202-225-5857
Rod ney Terry
Project Manager, UOOT
169 North Wall Ave.
PO Box 12580
Ogden, UT 84412
Ph# 801-399-5921, ext3Q5
Fax: 801-399-5926
Brian Ferebee
District Ranger
USFS, Logan District
1500 East H ighway 89
Logan, UT 84321
Ph# 801-755-3620
Fax: 801-755-3639
e-mail: hjletter@hjncws.com
The Salt Lake Tribu ne
Public Forum
PO Box 867
$.1[t L.1ke City, UT 84110
Fax: 801-237-2022
Deseret News
Readers' Forum
PO Box 1257
Salt Lake Ci ty, UT 84110
Fax: 801-237-212 1
e-mail: Letters@desnews.com
The Standard-Exam iner
PO Box 951
Ogden, UT 84402-095 1
Ph# 800-234-5505
Ph# 801-6254222
Fax: 801-625-4508
('-mai[: Letters®Standard.net
LOOK FOR O[' R :>IE\\
AW
ORLD
Or
Tha n k you for
yo u r h e l p!
"Ell PA(a: AT:
Logan Ca nyon You r Destin ation?
&
- Backpa ckin g . S kii ng -Climbing -Hiking
- Snows hoein g . S ig htseei ng
Accent5
57
IANN • loGANUT l?4 g21
117 North Main SI
7
�r-----------------------,
YES! I
WANT TO
JDIN THE
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and rece ive a s ubscription to CANYON W1ND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots more
o I would like to volunteer.
o Here's $12.00 for a great T-s hirt.
o I' m broke! Here's five bucks.
o Please add m y name to your mailing list.
p/IIs SJ shippillK
Name _______________________________
H
RA
PRINTING
LD
(0.
5Ireel._____________________________
Cily_ _ _ _ _ _ Slale'____ Zip, _____
Email _____________
Phone#
Please
check p" Y.l ble and mail to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box #1674
L _______________________
Logan, UT 84322-0199
43
SOUTH
LOGAN ,
10 0
UTAH
WEST
84321
TEL .43 5 .752. 0311
FA X 435 .753.3 161
Please consider a donation to LCC. All donations will be used for the protection of
Logan Can yon. LCC wants to tha nk the hW1dred s of individuals, businesses a nd
fOW1dations who have contributed tin1e, money and expertise towa rds the lega l
d efense of Logan Canyon. Your generous support is appreciated.
BU LK RATE
U.S. I'OSTAGE
Paid
COAL:l:T:l:O:N'
Work ing for th .. P rotection of L og.n Canyon
Logtl1r. UT
N"SO
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
II' Plea se Renew
YOllr
Melllbership Today
�A NEWS B ULLETIN FR OM L OGAN C ANYON C OALITION
Vol. 3 No.1
Sum mer 1999
Logan River is Eligible for
Wild & Scenic Designation
In January the Wasatch-Cache National al value of this river segment. Concerning recreForest released its draft Rivers Eligibility Study. ation, "highly scenic pristine rivers/ corridors are
This study reports that Beaver Creek and a twen- of higher value" (draft Eligibility Study). The
ty mile-long segment of the Logan River are eligi- Forest Service is mandated to protect the scenery,
ble for Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. The recreation, and other outstandingly remarkable
Logan River segment has been found to have five, values of rivers eligible for Wild and Scenic desmore than any other river in the forest, outstand- ignation.
ingly remarkable values including scenery, fishUDOT is planning cuts into the mountaineries, recreation, ecology, and geology I hydrolo- side at Upper Twin Bridge that will be vertical or
gy. The Logan River is truly the jewel of the "as vertical as possible." This was not evaluated
Wasatch-Cache National - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - in the FE IS or In
Forest.
UDOT's Record of
We believe that the
Decision. We still do
of
not know how extenUtah
Depa rtment
the Logan as Utah's first
Transportation's (UDOT's)
sive these cuts will be.
Wild and Scenic River
nex t phase of highway
Vertical rock cu ts will
construction w ill harm ___...._______________ not revegetate and will
these values. We are asking that a Supplemental harm the natural appearance and hence the
Environmental Impact Statement be required for scenery and recreational value of this river corrithis highway project.
dar.
Recent design p lans show tha t UooT is
We a re concerned that construction
planning to build approximately 2,275 feet of impacts on Wild and Scenic values are not being
retaining wa lls adjacent to the Logan River seg- evaluated properly. There was no detailed evalument eligible for designation. These wa lls were ation of impacts in either the Final Environmental
not evaluated in the FEIS for this project or in Impact Statement or in the Record of Decision.
UooT's Record of Decision. Seventy-five percent UooT intends to evaluate the impacts of the next
of these walls will be "basket walls," which are phase of construction in a Reevalua tion document.
wire baskets filled with rocks. These walls are not This entirely ignores the impacts of the remaining
attractive in a na tu ral setting. They will not highway project.
appear natura l and will harm the scenery of this
UDOT and the Forest Service are segmentriver segment. They will also harm the recreation- ing this project in their evaluation of impacts
Leave a True Legacy
�Wild & Scenic ("...".."d)
which is a violation of Forest
Service policy and the National
Environm en tal
Policy
Act
(NEPA). From recent design
plans, the next phase of construction covers on ly about
three and a half miles of highway. UOOT is planning an additional approximate ly thirteen
and a half miles of highway
const ruction that will potentially impact Wild and Scenic values, from the Dugway to the
canyon summit.
The danger of segmenting this
project is that once the next
phase of construction is underway, UOOT will be committed
to its larger highway project
with uneva luated and potentially damaging impacts to the
Wild and Scenic va lues of these
rivers. Issues that should be
addressed include: what will be
the ex tent of the required retaining wa lls and vertical cuts as
construction is extended into
th e remaining upper Midd le
Canyon? Will we see a miniDugway a long Uppe r Twin
Bridge and Temp le Fork? In
short, how ugly is this going to
get? According to Forest Service
policy, "Groups of actions,
when added together, may have
collective or cumulative impacts
which are Significant.
Consideration must be given to
the incremental effects of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable related future actions of the
Forest Service, as well as those
of other agencies and individuals."
We have requested that a supplemental
Environmental
Impact Statement (SE IS) be
required for this highway project in which the entire project
is evaluated with respect to the
Wild and Scenic va lues of these
rivers. Forest Service policy
requires that there be an SEIS
whenever there are "significant
new circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns .... " Surely the fact
that the Logan River segment
and Beaver Creek ha ve been
found eligib le for Wild and
Scenic designation is significant
new information. in an SEIS the
purpose and need for a ll
planned construction should be
clearly demonstrated . While we
agree that some highway
r'OSSESS'ONS
28 Federal Ave. Logan, Uf. 84321
Home Accessories,
CoUectibles,
Jewelry,
Gifts
755-0857
2
improvements are needed, such
as replacing the worn bridges,
UOOT has never demonstrated
the purpose and need for their
extensive proposal.
We agree with this statement
by Drew Parkin, an expert on
Wild and Scenic Rivers policy, " .
. . designation as a wild and
scenic river will not preclude
improvement to the highway. It
would, however, require that
UDOT take special precautions,
both in design and construction,
to ensure that the road does not
alter flow regimes, that important
natural
and
scenic
resources are preserved, and
that short-term disruptions to
the river are minimized. Even if
this costs a little more, it would
result in a superior project that
multiple
meets
long-term
needs."
& A«t'ssones
M f'taphyslcdl N t'ed ..
E..
Oil s & HNbs
11
755-8657
Toys thaL
capt.ure a
child's
ima8inaLion!
14bN l OO[
I.
".
... A ....,nu.,O lo9 .. n
UT
•
·
Moon
Toys
*
*
75 HlO'5 5
�- -- -- Summer 19 99
Dear Logan City Council:
CANYON LOVERS
My wife and I lived in Logan from 1955, when we came as college stud ents,
until just last yea r. We raised three sons in Logan, and Logan will always be
our heart's country. We absorbed Cache Valley. The silhouette of the mountains, east up the canyon and west across the valley, is still the horizon line
of O UT life.
I wou ldn't mention this background if I didn't think a great many people
share such feelings. Few things go as deep as the sense of home.
Unfortunately, sometimes the deepest values get taken for granted. We're all
very busy. We can even forget to think about the abso lute beauty and purity
of Logan River, coming down the canyon and through the town. Su rely
there can't be many towns anywhere in the world that can say: a wild, clean
river comes down ou t of the mountains to us; there is no one, no town,
upstream.
I think about Logan River a lot these days. Our irrigation and drinking
wa ter here in coastal California is sparse; it comes a long way, and it has
been used several times. There is no way, with all the engineering capability
in the world, we could create the kind of situation Logan has.
So, speaking from deep care for Logan and from the knowledge of how easy
it is to lose natura l resources, and how hard it is to get them back, I respect-
fully urge the Council to endorse Logan River as a Wild and Scenic River.
Logan is lifeblood. Please protect it.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Lyon
_ , eo-.-. soo .....
PLEASE RIDE
YOUR BIKE
W EB SITE D eSIGN, D eVELOPMENT,
H OSTING, AND P ROMOTION SERVICES
http://zmorlner.com
Info@zmoriner.com
435-755-6595
138 Norm'i 100 EAsT
lOGAN. UtAH 84321
4351753-3294
MoN. - SM.
10:00 .... 1.4 . - 6:00 P.M.
G
PEVINE
II
3
-_
---
,t
l
*" U__l_ '
• ll
... .... ....,
we
Dan Miller
Jaynan Chancellor
Deb Eshelman
Gordon Steinhoff
Derek Staab
Graham Hunter
Kevin Kobe
Tim Wagner
John Carter
Amanda Th immes
Mark Lunt
Bridgett Kobe
Creed Clayton
Carolyn StOnge
Brooke Bigelow
Jim Vandygriff
Coalition
Supporters
-R ick Bass
-Terry Tempest
Williams
oRobert Redford
-C.L. Rawlins
-Sierra Club
-Utah Rive rs Council
-Tom Lyon
-National Rive rs
Coalition
-Maki Foundation
�Canyon News Briefs
Sincere Gratitude
Members of the Logan Canyon
Coalition wou ld like to wholehea rtedly thank Dan Miller for all he has
done for the orgaruza tion . Dan has
lead Lee during his year as president with tremendous energy and
insight. Under his leadership several important adva nces have been
made for Lee including a commitment to getting the Logan River
designated as Utah 's first Wild and
Scenic river.
Dan continues to be active in
Lee, and we are always grateful for
his common sense and unwavering
support. Tha nks Dan, and we wish
you the best w ith your ex tra ti me!
Lee Board of Directors
LOOKING AH E AD
Fall Fundraiser
Lee is proud
to announce its fall
fundraiser: Jerry Joseph and the Jack
Mormons. They will be playing in
the Amphitheatre on Old Main Hill,
USU campus on September 3rd at
7:00 PM . Tickets will be $7 for nonstudents and $5 fo r students.
Giardia Run
Thursday, September 9th at 5:49
PM. Meet at the HPER on the USU
camp us and run to the White Owl.
$15 includes a T-shirt; $10 without.
This year 's theme: Y2K!!
Get Inspired!
Announcing the first annua l " Art
from the River" celebration. Send
your artistic entries inspired by
Logan River (painting, d rawing,
pottery, writing, textiles, or music)
to Brooke Bigelow, 1371 E. 900 N.,
Loga n, Utah 84321. All entries will
be honored at the River Festiva l on
September 18th and special recognition will be given to outstanding
entires in each of three categories:
children 3 to 5 years old; children 6
to 12 years old; and children 13 and
over. Be sure to include your name,
phone number, and age with your
ent ry.
Christmas Auction
With the completion of Dan's
term as preSident, managing and
governing responsibilities for LCC
are being handled through a temporary board of directors. A permanent board will be installed by vote
at the next Lee general meeting in
January. Any LCC member interested in being on the board of directors
should attend bimonthly meetings,
the fi rst and third Tuesday of the
month at 7:30 at Merlin Olsen
Central Park (100 South 200 East).
Logan River Festival
The second annual Logan River
Festival will be at First Dam from
noon to 3 PM on Saturday,
September 18th. Bring your kids,
neighbors. and friends and come
enjoy the Logan River. There w ill be
games, canoe rides, art activities
and displays, and vendors. (For
more informa ti on or to get in volved,
contact Jaynan Chancellor at 7532553.)
Adventure
Sports
4
It's not too early to be thinking
about the LCC Christmas auction.
Watch fo r fur ther details. In the
meanwhile, gather those donations
or services suitable for auction, and
continue the gift by donating your
"classy junque" to be treasured by
someone else for a recycled
Christmas. For more information or
to store donations, contact Jaynan
Chancellor at 753-2553 or Brooke
Bigelow at 753-5682. Thanks for
your generous contribution!
�Summer 1999
Memo To: Brian Dixon, Bridgerland Audubon, Chris Wilson, Cache Anglers, Kathy Gilbert, Citizens For
Protection of Logan Canyon, Dick Carter, High Uintahs Preservation Council, Jon Marvel. Idaho Watersheds
Project, Dan Miller, Logan Canyon Coalition, Ron Younger, Utah Chapter Sierra Club, Barrie Gilbert, Utah
Wildlands Heritage
From: John Carter, Willow Creek Ecology
Re: Logan Canyon/Logan River Protection Zone
I am writing this as a result of the many issues and activities involving Logan Canyon/Logan River, includ ing the
recent land swap, ongoing highway construction, increasing recreational use, second home development, logging
and continued livestock grazing all affecting wildlife, habitat, water quality and aesthetics. Those of us who love
Logan Canyon and all it symbolizes, and the reluctance of the Fores t Service to effec t progressive change as evidenced by the recent rejection of our appeal of the Bear Hodges project show us we ca nnot depend on science or
logic alone. It also shows us that we need community support and unity among ourselves with SOfl)e common
goals and objectives.
To this e nd , I am s uggesting the Logan Canyon/Logan River Protection Zone that recognizes the high quality of
the scenic and wildli fe attributes of the Logan River Watershed, and urges protection. Because of the many sensitive species or habitats recogni zed by the Forest Service as exis ting in the Logan Canyon area and are threatened,
as a group we should demand protection of these watersheds, elimination of livestock grazing and other destructive forest practices and that a p roper value be placed on the natural attributes of the Canyon.
Because of the Bonneville Cutthroa t Trout a nd its potential listing as endangered, Willow Creek Ecology expanded
its monitoring of the Logan River and its tributaries at the end of 1998. We are collecting samples at up to 20 locations, docume nting s ilt loadings, fecal coliform pollution and other general water quality parameters. We are also
assembling a data base of Logan River stud ies of water quality, fisheries, invertebrates, habitat and hydrology.
Our initia l purpose is to comment to the Fish and Wildlife Service in support of listing since a large portion of
Bonneville Cu tthroat Trout populations in Utah exists in the Logan River. Many factors threaten its continued existence including habitat alteration and whirling disease.
I think it is important that we discuss how to combine our efforts and concerns into an effective strategy, gai n public support and pressure the Forest Service and other public entities toward our chosen goals. We saw how iIIinformed the City of Logan was on Wild and Scenic River Status. I think we should use quality of life, economics
and watershed health as driving factors in gaining public support for protection. After all, the watersheds above
Sa lt Lake City are worthy of protection for a variety of reasons, why not here?
�Leave A True Legacy
The Logan as Utah's First Wild and Scenic River
We the undersigned hereby declare oui' support for segments of the Logan River to be designated as Utah 's first Wild
and Scenic River under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as long as that designation doesn't
interlere with traditional uses now enjoyed by the public.
Signature
Print name
Street
City
Siale
Zip
-------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+----t------------ ;
•
z
•
.;
•
•
"
•
,
-------------------------f-------------------------+------------------------+----------------------f----t------------ "
i
-------------------------t-------------------------t------------------------+---------------------1----1------------ 2
•
•
RETURN CO M P l ET E O P ETITIO N S TO THE LOG A N CA N YON COALITION. USU BOX. fl6H . LOGAN. U TAH U 322·01 99
�NOT LATER
WRITE NOW!
Wild and Scenic
Bernie We ingardt
The Wild and Scen ic Rivers Act of
1968 is unique among environmental
Jaws in the world because of its p oten tial
to protect free-nowing rivers and riversections. Yet less than one percent o f the
nation 's total river m iles is included in
the National Wild and Scen ic Rivers
System, and NOT ONE o f Utah 's beautiful rivers has th is outstanding d is tinction.
In 1998 the 30th anniversary of the
Wild an d Scenic Act was celebrated
across the nation. Lee is hoping to
extend thai celebration to Utah before
another 30 yea rs passes with the designation o f the Logan River as Wild and
Scenic. Pub lic support is crucial to m a king th is happen. Show your su pport by
encouraging policy-m a kers to leave a
true legacy in Uta h and recomme nd th e
Logan Ri ver as the firs t Uta h river
inducted into the N a tio na l Wild a nd
Scenic Rivers Syste m .
T h a nk yo u for
your h e l p!
T he Salt l ak e Tri bune
Wasatch-Cache Nationa l Forest
8230 Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City. Utah 84138
Public Forum
PO Box 867
Salt Lake City, UT 841 10
Fax:
Bria n Fe re bee
District Ranger
U5FS, Logan District
1500 East Highway 89
Logan, UT 84321
Ph# 435-755-3620
Fax: 435-755-3639
Desere t New s
Readers' Forum
PO Box 1257
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Fax: 801-237-2121
e-mail: Letters@desnews.com
Logan City Counci l
255 North Main, Logan
UT,84321
The S ta ndard-Examiner
PO Box 951
Ogden, UT 84402-0951
Phil 800-234-5505
Ph# 801--6254222
Alan D. Allred
Karen S. Borg
John L. Harder
e-mail: Lelters@standard.net
Ja nice Pearce
Stephen C. Thompson
Mayor Douglas E. Thompson
Lette rs t o the Edit or
The H e rald Journ al
75 West 300 North
Logan, UT 84321
Ph# 435-752-2121
Fax: 435-753-6642
e-mai l: hjletter@hjnews.com
A WORLD
Logan Canyon Your Destination?
&
-BlCkpildc.in g oS ki ing - C lim b ing oHiking
oSno ws hotin g oSightstt in g
Accents
57 Sourn MAIN • locAII Uni'49 21
753·3497
7
�r--------------------,
J WANT TO JOIN THE
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
LOGAN RIVER
and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND
SCENIC RIVER
YES!
""""
UTAH'S Uri. WILD aad
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $JO $40 $50 Lots more
o I would like to volunteer.
o Here's $12.00 for a great T-shirt.
o I' m broke! Here's five bucks.
o Please add my name to your mailing list.
,llUllu.;,.,;",
LEAVE A
LEGACY
n
•• LOG"_ AI UrAl" 'Ian WItD "_D IC'_IC a",.
Name ________________________________
Streetl ________________________________
City, ______:State
Phone'
Zip, _______
E-mail _____________
Plun ..... ke check
Support the Logan River
and null to,
include shipping
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box'1614
L _____
Order these new Wild and Scenic bumper
stickers for the Logan River. A $2.00
donation for each sticker will
_____
Please consider a donation to Lee. All donations will be used for the protection of Logan
Canyon. Lee wants to thank the hundreds of individuals, businesses, and founda tions who have
contributed time, money, and expertise towards the legal defense of Logan Canyon.
Your generous support is appreciated.
.... ...................
Wi
!!
=-=--
. . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ • •;:.... _ .
-
- ---
!!'
--= =
-
BULK RATE
US POSTAGE
- -
Paid
CO.4.L:J:T:J:ON
Loga", UT
Pnm,' N° 39
WorkIng f o r Ih e Prolullo n of l oga n Canyon
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
.,t
Please Renew Your
Membership Today
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Image Height
3335
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
2607
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/716">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/716</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
300
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
Grayscale
Checksum
2464155604
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
LCC newletter, "Canyon Wind"
Description
An account of the resource
Newsletters updating the events of Logan Canyon Coalition including but not limited to the formation of LCC, denial of appeal, violations of FEIS, lifting of the stop work order, and the eligibility of Logan River for wild and scenic designation.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kobe, Kevin
Lyon, Tom
Wagner, Tim
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Wilderness areas
Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Newsletters
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Logan Canyon Coalition
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 8
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd8
Highway 89;
-
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/415f48abe08315e4ffa42d169e5ade23.pdf
b0be94581294d8140a002916c1081152
PDF Text
Text
LOGAN CANYON SCENIC BYWAY
A Portrait in Time
A Guide to Interpretive Services
Chip Sibbernsen
Recreation Manager
Logan Ranger District
860 North 1200 East
Logan, Utah 84321
{801} 753-2772
Clemson Class of 1991
May 6, 1992--Review Copy
This paper was prepared as a student project in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the Professional
Development for Outdoor Recreation Management Program
at Clemson University. It in no way reflects USDA
Forest Service policy nor are the opinions expressed
those of anyone other than the author.
�ABSTRACT
Author:
Chip Sibbernsen
Recreation Manager
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Logan Ranger District
Logan, Utah 84321
(801) 753-2772
Title:
"Logan Canyon Scenic Byway: A Guide to Interpretive Services"
Abstract: The overall objective of this paper is to describe the methods that
were used to develop an interpretive guide for the Logan Canyon
Scenic Byway. Included are statements of purpose and need, a
literature review, a statement of methodology, the interpretive
guide, a summary statement, and a list of recommendations. The
interpretive guide includes an introduction and sections on
interpretive vision, project goals and objectives, an interpretive
resources inventory, the major theme development, visitor analysis,
major site and program development, and implementation and
operations. It concludes with a section on monitoring and
evaluation. Included are detailed descriptions of 19 interpretive
sites and an array of interpretive goods and services.
Keywords: Scenic Byway, Interpretive Plan, Interpretive Services
i
�TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abs tract ..•..........•.•................•.................•...... i
Execu ti ve Summary .......•...•...............•...•.•........•..•.• ii
Acknowledgements .•....•.•...•••..........•.......•.......•...•.. iii
I. Introduction ................................................... 1
A. Purpose and Need ....••...•••....•........•.•.....•.•..•.•. 1
B. Relationship to Forest Plan .•....••••.•••.•.....•••.•••••• 2
C. Relationship to Other Scenic Byways .........•.•••••••••.•• 2
II. Literature Review ••......••••.••••••..•......••.........•.....• 2
III. Methods ...•....•...•.••................•..............••..•...• 4
A. The Process ...............•.••..•••......................• 5
B • The Team .•..•••.........•••••.............•.••••....•.•.•• 5
IV. The Interpretive Guide ...••.•...••.......••.....•..•.....•.•••• 6
A. In troduc tion .............................................. 6
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
1. Historical Background ........•...........••.••••••••• 6
2. Scenic Byway Designation •...•...•..•........•..•••••• 6
3. Regional Setting ...••••.•••.••.•.•••.••.••••.•••••••• 6
4. Physical Setting .................................... l0
a. Lower section ..••••••••••••.•.••...•..•••••••.• 10
b. Middle section •••••••••••.•..•.••.•••.••.•••••• 10
c. Upper section .......•..•.•....••...•..•...••••• 11
d. Bear Lake slope ••.••••••••.•..•••..•••••.•••••• 11
5. Recreation Opportunities •••••••••..••.•••••••..••••• 11
6. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum •....••••.•.••...•••• 12
Interpretive Vision and Project Goals and Objectives ••••• 13
1. Overall Interpretive Vision .•......•...•.••....••.•• 13
2. Goals and Objectives .•••...••••.••.•..••..•••.• 14
a. Goals .•......•....•.........•....•.••..... 14
b • Ob j ec ti ves •••..•.•..•....•••••••.•.•.••••• 15
Interpretive Resources Inventory •..........•........•.•.• 15
1. Major Site Identification ••......•••••••..•••...••.• 17
2. Selection Criteria ..••...•..•.......•.••...•.....•.. 17
3. Major Programs and Services ............•.........•.. 19
Theme Development ...........................•.........•.. 20
Visitor Analysis .....•......•.•..................•..•••.. 20
1. UDOT Data ....•......•...•.••••..........•...••.•.••• 20
2. Other Studies .......•..•••.........•••••.....•....•. 21
3. Logan Ranger District Data •........•........•...•..• 21
4. People With Disabili ties .•.........•..•......•...•.. 23
5. Motorcoach Tours .•.••.....•...........••.........•.• 23
Major Site and Program Development ................•••...• 23
1. Typical Site Plans ......................•......•.... 24
2. Displays and Orientation Sites .....••....•..••.••••. 24
3. Adventure Side Trip Trailheads ...................•.. 24
Major Site and Program Development ..........•...........• 28
1. Lady Bird Overlook and District Office ............•• 28
2. Hydro II Park/Second Dam ...........................• 30
3. Lake Bonneville. Si te ......................•......•.. 32
4. Dewitt Springs .............•....•.........•......•.. 33
5 . Riverside Nature Trail ..........................•... 35
6. Logan Wind Caves Trailhead .........•.....•..••.••.•• 37
7. Guinavah Amphitheater ....•................•......•.. 39
8. Guinavah-Malibu Campground Orientation Site ......•.. 41
�9. Fucoidal Quartzite ...••..........•......•........... 43
10. Jardine . Juniper Trailhead ..........•.....•.......... 44
11. Ricks Springs •••.............•..........•.•....•.... 46
12. Tony Grove Orientation Site .......•......•.........• 48
13. Tony Grove Ranger Station ..................••......• 50
14. Tony Grove Lake Nature Trail ........................ 52
15. Franklin Basin ...........•......................•... 54
16. Beaver Junction .............•.•.....•......•.......• 56
17. Limber Pine Children's Nature Trail ...•....••••••.•. 58
18. Bear Lake Overlook •••••••••••...•.......••..•••••... 60
19. Garden City Visitors Center •••.••••••.•.....••••••.. 63
20. Proposed Brochures, Programs, and Other Services ••.• 65
H. Implementation and Operations .•••....•••••••••..•••••...• 67
I. Monitoring and Evaluation ••.•.•.••..••.•.•••...•••..••... 67
J. Partnership Opportunities •.•.•.•••••••••••••••••....•••.• 72
V. Summary ••.••••••.•.•..•.••••..•••..•.••....•..••••••......•.•• 72
VI. Recommendations ............................................... 73
VII. Literature Cited .•......•.•.....•..••••..••••...••...••••.••.• 75
VIII. Appendix ....••.•.•..•••.........•..••••.••..•......•.......... 77
LIST OF MAPS
Number
Page
1
2
Regional Map ...................................... 7
Vicini ty Map ...................................... 8
3
4
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Map ••••••••••••••••••••• 9
Potential Interpretive Site Inventory Map •••••••. 16
Proposed Interpretive Sites Map •.•.••..••.••..•.• 26
5
LIST OF CHARTS
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
Annual Traffic Flow by Month .........•..••.•••.... 22
Traffic Flow by Day of Week •......••.••.....•.•..• 22
Traffic Flow by Hour of Day ........•...•.......... 22
Average Daily Traffic ........•.••••••.•....•....•. 22
Selection Factors for Visiting Northern Utah ...... 22
Percent of Resident and Out-of-State Visitors ..... 22
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
2
3
4
5
Major Site Evaluation Data Table .................. 18
Existing and Proposed Programs .................... 20
Summary of Interpretive Services and Facilities ... 27
Evaluation and Monitoring Matrix .................. 67
Cost Estimates and Implementation Schedule ........ 69
�EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title:
"Logan Canyon Scenic Byway: A Guide to Interpretive Services"
Author:
Chip Sibbernsen
Recreation Manager
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Logan Ranger District
Logan, Utah 84321
(801) 753-2772
Summary:
Logan Canyon has been described as one of the most beautiful
canyons in northern Utah. It has been renowned for its scenic
beauty. since;· the · days of the early Mormon pioneers. .The area
was ·home to the Shoshoni Indians, was described by the mountain
men who trapped beaver in the area in the 1820's, and was
settled by the Mormon pioneers in the 1850's. It is the route
of choice for literally hundreds of thousands of summer and
winter recreationists traveling between Salt Lake City and the
Jackson Hole and Yellowstone country of northwest Wyoming.
·0
The Logan Canyon highway (US 89) was designated a Scenic Byway
by the Chief of the Forest Service in the spring of 1989 and by
the State of Utah in April, 1990. The 41-mile route runs
between the city of Logan on the west and the Utah-Idaho border
at Bear Lake on the east. It was one of the first routes
designated a Scenic Byway in the National Forest System. The
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway has received strong and continuous
support from local communities and interest groups in both Cache
and Rich Counties since its inception.
Traffic volumes vary seasonally, with approximately 50 percent
of the total annual traffic volume of 670,000 vehicles occurring
during the months of June, July, and August. Organized
motorcoach tours represent the largest untapped tourism market
in the area. The Cache-Rich Tourist Council estimates that more
than 3,000 motorcoach tours pass through the Byway each year on
their way to either Salt Lake City or the Yellowstone-Jackson
Hole area. Numerous tourism studies conducted in this area have
concluded that the most popular .recreational pursuits are
visiting historical sites and viewing scenery (driving for
pleasure). These same studies have also concluded that the most
popular attractions in the area are the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest, Logan Canyon, and Bear Lake.
The Scenic Byway enhancements and interpretive services proposed
in this paper are important to the economic health of Cache and
Rich Counties because of the positive effect they will have on
tourism and quality of life. Tourism is a vital part of the
economy in both counties, and the array of interpretive services
and enhancements proposed for the Byway will have a profound
effect on tourism in both. Over the next decade Rich County
will be looking to tourism as its primary source of growth.
ii
�Agriculture and government activity have plateaued, and the
potential for tourism growth in the Bear Lake area is very
promlslng. Although Cache County's economy is more diverse,
tourism is regarded as an important growth area. The new
enhancements proposed in this paper will encourage
recreationists from the Wasatch Front, who make up the largest
component of tourists to the area, to stay longer and use the
canyon's amenities more often.
Cache Valley is currently receiving strong interest from
businesses located across the country that are interested in
expanding or relocating in the area. One of their prime
considerations in looking to Cache Valley is the high marks the
area gets for the quality of life its residents enjoy. The
Scenic Byway will improve the utility of the canyon's recreation
resources, encourage further economic development, and improve
the retention of existing businesses and their employees.
Over the years the Forest Service, local environmental groups,
and the Cache-Rich Tourist Council have developed a number of
interpretive sites, brochures, and video tapes that feature
different aspects of the Scenic Byway experience. Prior to this
paper, however, a master interpretive guide for the Byway was
not available, and no attention paid to an interpretive theme,
standardization of signing, or site selection. Currently, none
of the existing interpretive sites are considered to be finished
products. In some cases the interpretive message is incomplete
or inaccurate; in other instances the sites are in need of a
restroom, improved parking, or designed trail systems. None of
the existing sites are accessible to people with disabilities.
Community involvement in forest projects is a tradition on the
Logan Ranger District, and a number of partners are on record in
support of the development of interpretive sites along the
Byway. The Utah Department of Transportation, Cache County,
Rich County, the Bear River Association of Governments, the city
of Logan, and Garden City have pledged their help in assisting
the ranger district in obtaining additional partners for
donations of volunteer time, resources, equipment, and money.
Additionally, the Cache County Council has expressed a
willingness to consider funding some of the proposed projects
using receipts it generates from its restaurant tax.
�ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to acknowledge those folks that without whose help and support
completion of this paper would not have been possible. Clark Ostergaard,
Erich Roeber, and Jane O'keefe for their help and suggestions on graphics
and design. John Balph for his expert guidance on editing and formatting
the text. Bill Thompson for having the patience he has to see this
through. Doug Thompson and the rest of the team for their input and
review. And most of all Colin, Erik and Evelyn for being there.
·i i i
�I. Introduction. Logan Canyon has been described as one of the most
beautiful canyons in northern Utah. The 41 mile long Logan Canyon Highway
(US 89) was designated a Scenic Byway by the Chief of the Forest Service
in the spring of 1989. The Governor of Utah officially designated it a
Scenic Byway in April, 1990. It was one of the first routes designated so
in the national forest system. The Logan Canyon Scenic Byway is located
primarily on lands administered by the Logan Ranger District,
Wasatch-Cache National Forest. It connects the city of Logan, Utah, on
the west to the winter and summer recreation mecca of Bear Lake on the
east.
The mountains along the Wasatch Front have become Utah's playground,
making the Wasatch-Cache one of America's most traveled national forests.
A 1992 survey (A & A Research) conducted on the forest showed that 72
percent of the Wasatch Front residents visited the forest at least once in
the past year. Of that group 98 percent enjoyed the scenic drives. This
study confirms other national studies that show that the single most
popular recreational use of people traveling across the national forests
is driving for pleasure. The Byway offers the visitors outstanding summer
and fall scenery as they- traverse a canyon with nearly vertical limestone
walls that tower almost a mile above the canyon floor. The area is rich
in cultural history, ranging from the Shoshoni Indians who once lived
here, to stories about the mountain men who roamed these hills and valleys
in the 1830's looking for adventure and trapping beaver along the banks of
the Bear River, to the Mormon pioneers who settled Cache Valley in the
1850's. The historic Tony Grove Ranger Station (circa 1907) provides a
snapshot into what life was like in the early days of the Forest Service.
The main access point to the Mount Naomi Wilderness (and numerous other
side adventures) is just off the roadw~y.
The objective of this paper is to describe the method that was used to
.d evelop the in terpreti ve guide for the Byway.
A. Purpose and Need.
1. The purpose of this project is twofold:
a. To gather information on the art of interpretation and the
elements that go into interpretive planning.
b. To prepare an interpretive guide for the Logan Canyon
Scenic Byway that will describe interpretive project
development along the Byway.
2. The project is needed for several reasons.
a. The 1986 report of the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors focused attention on the growing use of America's
public lands for recreation. In response to this report
the Forest Service initiated the National Recreation
Strategy, which includes the National Forest Scenic Byway
Program.
This interpretive guide sets in motion the Chief's
direction for showcasing the outstanding scenery, diverse
natural resources, and rich cultural history associated
with the Byway.
-1 -
�b. Another aspect of the National Recreation Strategy is the
establishment of partnerships to provide better customer
service and expand recreation opportunities on the national
forests. This guide is needed to serve as a source
document to market partnership opportunities to local and
regional businesses and service organizations.
c. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1990 (ISTEA) is a potent source of funding for the
development of interpretive services and other enhancements
along Scenic Byways. This guide is needed to assist land
managers in generating proposals to compete for the
estimated $10-14 million dollars annually available under
ISTEA.
B. Relationship to the Forest Plan. The Byway is contained in the Logan
Canyon Management Area (Area 13) of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan (1986). The Forest Plan does not
identify any goals ·or objectives specific to interpretation.- The
emphasis for this ··area, however, is to manage the Logan Canyon
highway as a scenic byway.
C. Relationship to Other Scenic Byways. The Caribou-Bear Lake Scenic
Byway meets the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway at the Utah-Idaho border.
It was designated a Scenic Byway in 1991 as a part of the Idaho
Scenic Byway package and is approximately 110 miles long. The
Caribou-Bear Lake Byway follows US 89 from its terminus at the
Utah-Idaho border to Montpelier, Idaho. From there it joins US 30 to
Soda Springs where it joins SR 34 and continues north to the Grays
Lake National Wildlife Refuge. From Grays Lake the Byway continues
on SR 34 and heads east where it crosses the Caribou National Forest
and follows Tincup Creek to the point where it intersects US 89 near
Freedom, Idaho.
II. Literature Review. To begin at the beginning, Webster's Third New
International Dictionary defines interpretation as " ••• the act of or
result of interpreting as an explanation of what is not immediately plain
or explicit or unmistakable." At its most basic level that is exactly
what it is--explaining something that is not immediately obvious.
A. Ham (1992) defines environmental interpretation as the art of
translating the technical language of natural science or related
fields into terms and ideas that people who are not scientists can
readily understand. Freeman Tilden (1957), who is generally
considered to be the father of contemporary environmental
interpretation, defined interpretation as " ••• an educational activity
which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of
original objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media
rather than simply to communicate factual information." To be
interpretive Tilden felt the communication process should be
predicated on the following six basic principles, which are as valid
today as they were 35 years ago.
1. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being
displayed or described to something within the personality or
experience of the visitor will be sterile.
-2-
�2. Information as such is not interpretation. Interpretation is
revelation based upon information. All interpretation includes
information, but they are two entirely different things.
3. Interpretation is an art which combines many arts, whether the
materials are scientific, historical, or archeological.
is in some degree teachable.
Any art
4. The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction but
provocation.
5. Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part,
and must address itself to the whole man rather than to any
aspect.
6. Interpretation addressed to children {for instance, up to the
age of 12} should not be a dilution of the presentation to
adults but should follow a fundamentally different approach.
be at its best, it will require a separate program.
To
B. Regnier, Gross, and Zimmerman {1992} describe three broad goals of
interpretation as they apply to the agency, the visitor, and the
site. The goals of interpretation from an agency's point of view
should be to enhance the public's image of the agency and to
encourage and nurture public participation in management activities.
The goal of interpretation as it relates to visitors should be to
provide recreation, heighten awareness and understanding of their
natural and cultural environment, and inspire and add perspective to
their lives. Finally, the goal of interpretation as it relates to a
site should lead to responsible use of the site.
They go on to identify two characteristics of interpretation: it is
based on the site and it offers firsthand experiences with the site.
Interpretation should serve the visitor.
C. Central to effective interpretation is the development of the theme.
Tilden stated, "The story's the thing." He felt interpretation
should have the elements or qualities of a story. The theme is the
plot of the story. Presentations that do not have themes often leave
the visitor wondering, "So what?"
Ham states that when interpretation has a theme it has a message,
which he refers to as thematic interpretation. When communication is
not thematic is will seem unorganized, difficult to follow, and will
be less meaningful to the audience. The theme is the string that
holds the necklace of pearls together {Veverka, personal
communication}. Lewis {1983} summarizes the characteristics of a
good theme as
1. Stated as short, simple, complete sentences.
2. Containing only one idea.
3. Revealing the overall purpose of the presentation.
4. Being specific.
5. Interestingly worded (if possible using active verbs).
-3-
�D. Assess the audience. Understanding who the visitors are is a key
element in interpretive planning. The more that is known about where
they are coming from, their ages, how they are traveling, where they
are going, and what their expectations are, the more focused the
interpretive plan. Cordell (1992) believes that people today have a
need for greater place attachment and interest in learning. In a
study conducted at the Northeast Trek Wildlife Park, Ham found that
visitors preferred (in order of importance) sensory involvement,
humor, and new information presented in an understandable format.
Wildesen (1991) reported similar findings. She found that visitors
basically want to see something (new), learn something (new), and do
something (new). Regnier, Gross, and Zimmerman caution that there is
no "general" audience to which all interpretation techniques apply.
Each audience has unique characteristics and special needs.
Audiences that may have special needs include children, older adults,
foreign visitors, minorities, the visually impaired, the hearing
impaired, those in wheelchairs, and families with young children.
E. An often overlooked facet of interpretive planning is answering the
question "So what?" Interpretive evaluation is a way to determine
qualities, identify strengths and weaknesses, and answer questions
about effectiveness, all with an eye for improvement (USDA-FS,
1992).
There are many different approaches to evaluation. Quantitative
techniques involve numbers and in some cases statistical analysis of
those numbers. Qualitative methods involve verbal descriptions and
impressions. In the interpretive master plan developed for the
Forestry Discovery Center at the Cradle of Forestry Center two
approaches to evaluation are recommended--formative evaluation and
postevaluation. The formative evaluation consists primarily of
focus-group interviews and observation to provide direction for the
planning process. The postevaluation is used to determine whether or
not the exhibits and programs have achieved their design and content
objectives.
While there are many techniques to choose from, the "Handbook for
Evaluating Interpretive Services" (USDA-FS, 1992) recommends
considering the following principles:
1. Evaluations should not be bothersome to visitors. People come
to the national forests to enjoy themselves. The evaluation of
their experiences should not have a negative impact on those
experiences.
2. No evaluation should be conducted unless it is going to be
used. Evaluations cost time and money. If conducted they
should be used to improve the interpretive services being
offered.
3. Generally, an interpreter should not administer or supervise an
evaluation of his or her own program.
III. Methods. The following is the step-by-step process that was used in the
development of the interpretive guide for the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway.
The process is based in part on information gathered from Jerry Coutant
-4-
�(1991). Dick Ostergaard (1990). John Veverka (1993). and the 2390 section
of the Forest Service Manual.
A. The Process
1. The process begins with an overview of the Byway that includes a
description of the regional setting. physical setting. and
recreation opportunities.
2. With the introduction in place. the next step is to determine
the interpretive objectives for the Byway. They should reflect
a mix of resource characteristics. management desires. and
visitor needs and wishes.
3. Once the objectives are determined an initial inventory of all
cultural and physical resources is conducted. The initial
inventory will then be evaluated against a set of criteria to
determine which are significant and most ripe for
interpretation.
4. With - the objectives determined and the inventory of significant
interpretive resources completed. the next step is to bring the
visitor into the mix. This provides insight into how best to
communicate with different markets and user groups.
5. The next step is to develop a central theme that will become the
focal point of the interpretive services provided along the
Byway. With the theme in hand, interpretive subjects, site
objectives, interpretive program objectives, and recommended
media are identified for each significant site.
6. Sections on implementation and operations, monitoring and
evaluation, and partnership opportunities comprise the remainder
of the interpretive plan.
7. It should be noted that planning is a dynamic process and that
objectives and media needs can change over time. For this
reason a working copy of the interpretive plan should be kept in
a three-ring binder so that the site plans can be updated or
changed as needed.
B. The Team. A steering committee was assembled to provide input and
oversight in all phases of the development of the guide. The
committee members were selected on the basis of area of expertise and
to ensure that local communities and agencies were represented. The
steering committee members are listed as follows:
Phil Johnson, USDA-FS, R-4 interpretive specialist.
Tom Hagen. USDA-FS. R-4 landscape architect {retired}.
Clark Ostergaard. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. landscape architect.
Lee Skabelund. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. information specialist.
Carl Johnson. Utah State University, professor emeritus.
A.J. Simmonds. Utah State University. curator of special collections.
John Wood. Utah State University. professor emeritus.
Doug Thompson. director. Cache-Rich Tourist Council.
Lynn Zollinger, Utah Department of Transportation. project engineer.
Chip Sibbernsen. Logan Ranger District. recreation manager.
-5-
�IV. The Interpretive Guide.
A. Introduction.
1. Historical Background. Logan Canyon has been described as one
of the most beautiful canyons in Utah. It has been renowned for
its scenic beauty since the days of the early Mormon pioneers.
The area was home to the Shoshoni Indians, was first described
by the mountain men who trapped beaver in the area in the
1820's, and was settled by the Mormon pioneers in the 1850's.
It is the route of choice for literally hundreds of thousands of
summer and winter recreationists traveling between Salt Lake
City and the Jackson Hole and Yellowstone country of northwest
Wyoming (see Map 1).
2. Scenic Byway Designation. The Logan Canyon highway (US 89) was
designated a Scenic Byway by the Chief of the Forest Service in
the spring of 1989 and by the State of Utah in April of 1990.
It was one of -the first routes designated a National Forest
Scenic Byway in the System. The partners in this effort to
obtain designation represent all sectors. From the Federal came
the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Federal Highway Administration. Utah contributed its Department
of Transportation, Department of Natural Resources, Association
of Governments, Association of Counties, League of Cities and
Towns, Farm Bureau, and Travel Council. The Scenic Byway has
received strong and continuous support from local communities
and interest groups in both Cache and Rich County since its
inception.
3. Regional setting. The 41-mile Logan Canyon Scenic Byway (US 89)
is situated in the northeast corner of the Utah panhandle (see
Map 2) and runs from the city of Logan to Bear Lake. The Byway
is located in Cache and Rich Counties, which have populations of
approximately 76,000 and 2,400 respectively.
a. About 75 percent (29 miles) of the Byway is located in the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest (see Map 3). The remainder
is spread over a combination of State and private
ownerships. The economy of Cache County is diverse, with
major employment provided by the manufacturing, trade,
government, and university sectors. The Rich County
economy is rural and is heavily dependent on agriculture
and -government.
b. Employment and population are expected to remain stable in
Rich County through the year 2000. Cache County, on the
other hand, is expected to experience significant growth,
with the population projected to nearly double by the year
2010 and employment to increase by 60 percent.
c. Logan is the largest city in the three-county region of
northeastern Utah and southeastern Idaho and is the center
of economic, cultural, health care, educational, and
government activity. On the eastern end of the Scenic
Byway, Bear Lake is an increasingly important recreation
area for residents within and outside the region.
-6~
�MObtana
-----wy;- 1fti"--..
John
REGIONAL MAP
Map 1
7
�I
Byvvay Location
I
City
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
Cedar
City
~
VICINITY MAP
Map 2
8
�Frankl in
- - -IDAHO
UTAH
ony Grove Lake
Smithfield
Cache
Hyde Par
. National
Forest
LOGAN CANYON SCENIC BYWAY
Map 3
-9-
�4. Physical setting.
From its mouth on the east edge of the city
of Logan, the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway winds over almost
40 miles of largely undeveloped landscape as it traverses the
Bear River Range. The Bear River Mountains, which are sometimes
considered to be an extension of the Wasatch Range, are
characterized by steep, sometimes nearly vertical limestone
walls on the west, rolling plateau country across the top, and
moderate open slopes as they descend to Bear Lake on the east.
For the purpose of description the Byway can be divided into
four sections: lower, middle, upper, and Bear Lake slope.
a. Lower section. The lower section is about 9 miles long and
runs from the mouth of Logan Canyon to the Right Hand Fork
road. This section contains a majority of the developed
recreation sites in the canyon along with a number of
hiking opportunities.
The adventurous at heart can hike the Wind Caves or the
Crimson and Spring Hollow trails to perches high above the
canyon floor, which offer them spectacular views of the
Mount Naomi Wilderness and surrounding area. The
self-guided Riverside Nature Trail, which links the Spring
Hollow and Guinavah-Malibu Campgrounds, is perfect for
families. Side trips to the back country for hiking,
mountain bike riding, horseback riding, cross-country
skiing, and snowmobiling are easily accessible from the
Right Hand Fork road.
Natural features encountered along this section of the
Byway include the Logan River and the nearly vertical
limestone walls that line the drive. The canyon bottoms
are wooded with deciduous hardwoods and brush. The trees
and brush include big-tooth maple, aspen, willow, box
elder, mountain mahogany, rock mountain maple, cottonwood,
birch, alder, and chokecherry. At the higher elevations
juniper, Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and
subalpine fir are common. This unique blend of conifer and
hardwood vegetation provides a brilliant mix of fall color
that annually attracts many visitors to the area. Spring
and summer offer a display of wildflowers that is quite
spectacular.
b. Middle section. This section, which runs from the Right
Hand· Fork road to Ricks Springs, is about 7 miles long. It
is steep and narrow, with the roadway closely paralleling
the Logan River. The roadway narrows to a width of 26 feet
and has a number of narrow, winding turns.
The dominant features of this section include the river,
the nearly vertical limestone walls that rise almost 3,000
feet above the roadway, lush vegetation along the river,
and the mix of conifer and hardwood on the drier
south-facing slopes.
Developed recreation opportunities are available at the
Wood Camp and Lodge Campgrounds. This section also
contains the Wood Camp trailhead, which gives nonmotorized
access to the popular Jardine Juniper Tree and the Mount
-10 -
�Naomi Wilderness. Side trips to the back country are
available on the Temple Fork and Bubble Springs roads.
Recreation opportunities include hiking, mountain bike
riding, horseback riding, snowmobiling, and cross-country
skiing. This section also provides access to Logan Cave
and Old Ephraims Grave.
c. Upper section. This section runs from Ricks Springs to the
Bear Lake summit and is about 15 miles in length. The
roadway opens up to a width of about 40 feet in this
section and has relatively long, open stretches with
beautiful views of the surrounding mountains.
The scenery found along the upper section is completely
different but no less spectacular than what the visitor has
experienced to this point. The landscape typically focuses
on the middleground and background. It is characterized by
mountainous terrain and large, expansive groves of aspen,
which make a sharp contrast to adjoining stands of Douglas
fir, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine.
Recreation opportunities in this section include three
developed campgrounds, the Tony Grove Lake area, the
historic Tony Grove Ranger Station, the USU summer field
station, the Franklin Basin area, the Beaver Mountain Ski
Area, and the Sink Hollow cross-country ski area. Side
trips to the back country are available on the Franklin
Basin and Beaver Creek roads. Outstanding fishing
opportunities are found on the Logan River and Beaver
Creek.
d. The Bear Lake slope. This section runs from the Bear Lake
summit to Garden City and is about 6 miles long. The
roadway narrows in this section as it makes its way down
nearly 1,700 vertical feet to the shores of Bear Lake.
Here the visitor is offered expansive views of the valley
and the breathtaking turquoise waters of the lake. The
dominant recreation features of this section of the Byway
are the Sunrise Campground, the Bear Lake Overlook, and
Bear Lake.
5. Recreation opportunities.
The Logan Canyon Scenic Byway offers
the visitor a diverse blend of developed and dispersed
recreation opportunities. The Forest Service administers
12 developed campgrounds, 2 picnic areas, 84 summer homes, and
3 organizational camps. In addition to these facilities the
Forest Service, city of Logan, and the Division of Wildlife
Resources are in the process of constructing a barrier-free
picnic area with boardwalks and fishing piers at the site of the
Hydro II Park/Second Dam in the lower section of the canyon.
The Scenic Byway also provides access to the Beaver Mountain Ski
Area, the Utah State University Forestry Camp, the Utah State
University Management Institute, and the Tony Grove Ranger
Station, which was placed on the National Register of Historic
Places in 1992.
Summer and winter dispersed recreation opportunities accessible
from the Byway are almost limitless. The State of Utah and the
-11-
�Forest Service jointly administer three large winter sports
trailheads that serve cross-country skiers and snowmobilers.
These trailheads provide access to over 150 miles of outstanding
snowmobile trail. The Forest Service also grooms 9 miles of
cross-country ski trail at Beaver Basin near the Beaver Mountain
Ski Area. Summer recreation opportunities include trout fishing
on the Logan River and hiking and mountain biking over more than
100 miles of trail accessible from the Byway.
Points of outstanding cultural and historical significance
include the Lady Bird Park Overlook, Dewitt Springs, Wood Camp
Hollow, Logan Cave, Ricks Springs, Franklin Basin, the Temple
Fork Mill site, the Tony Grove Ranger Station, Old Ephraims
Grave, and the Amazon Hollow Mining District.
The Scenic Byway also offers many outstanding interpretive
opportunities. These include three self-guided nature trails, a
number of geological sites, Wood Camp Hollow, the Logan Wind
Caves, the Jardine -Juniper Tree, Ricks Springs, the Sinks area,
the Limber Pine Tree, and Bear Lake.
6. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.
The Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum (ROS) is a land classification system used by Forest
Service managers as a management tool to
a) classify land areas and settings for their potential
to provide outdoor recreation opportunities,
b) give outdoor recreation managers a more solid footing
and objective perspective towards multiple-use land
management decisions involving areas of land with
other resource values: i.e., timber, range, and
wildlife habitat, and
c) mitigate impacts upon outdoor recreation settings by
incompatible recreation uses or other reource uses.
The Forest Plan classified the Logan Canyon Highway corridor as
"roaded natural." Areas classified as roaded natural are
usually, as a minimum, corridors along roads traveled by
recreation visitors and are managed to retain their natural
character. Often these roaded natural settings act as screens
for more intensive resource management practices such as timber
harvesting outside the roaded natural corridor. The ROS
classification for an area acts as a guide for recreation use
and development of trails and facilities (Bacon).
In the interpretive plan developed for the Tony Grove Ranger
Station Butkus and Reiter point out that the presence of the
parking area, the ranger station compound, and the Lewis M.
Turner Campground suggests a change from roaded natural to
rural.
The observations they have made can be applied to the Canyon in
general. The evidence of man-made development is significant
particularly in the lower segment of the canyon. High daily
traffic volumes coupled with the presence of hardened
campgrounds, recreation residences, two power plants, private
homes, and a restaurant also suggests ammending the current
classifaction of roaded natural to rural (Ostergaard, 1993).
-12-
�Additionally, the rural classification will provide a greater
range of options for interpretive services and recreation
opportunities along the Byway.
B. Interpretive Vision and Project Goals and Objectives
1. Overall interpretive vision.
a. Interpretive projects, sites, and programs used along the
Logan Scenic Byway will enhance the quality and broaden the
scope of the visitor's experience. Visitors will receive a
scenic, provocative, and educational experience they will
not forget. Interpretation will serve a variety of
customers including the resident population, tourists
traveling between the Wasatch Front and the greater
Yellowstone area, organized motorcoach tours, participants
in Logan city's summer resident program, visitors using
forest recreational facilities, and area youth.
b. Improved interpretation along the Byway is not intended to
attract -larger numbers of visitors but to increase the
quality and length of their stay. Visitors will return to
revisit these experiences, which will stimulate the
surrounding economies in Cache and Rich Counties.
c. Visitors will know what kind of information is available
and where to find it. The Lady Bird and Bear Lake
Overlooks will serve as portals to the Scenic Byway.
d. Visitors will be able to view exhibits and displays that
provide information on things to see and do as they travel
between Logan and Bear Lake. They will be able to stop by
the Garden City Visitor Center, the Logan Chamber of
Commerce, or the Forest Service office to obtain a tour
guide {brochure or audio tape} that will provide a
milepost-by-milepost reference to the sights and sounds
found along the Byway. A souvenir video will also be
available at these offices. The guide will also provide
information on things to see and do on side roads off the
Byway.
e. Visitors will be able to safely stop and visit exhibits and
displays along the way that provide insight into the area's
rich cultural history, outstanding scenery, uniqu~ geology,
abundant wildlife and fish populations, precious water
resources, and diverse mix of vegetation types. They will
acquire an appreciation of the diversity of its resources
and the complexities of land management decision-making.
f. Visitors will be able to participate in a number of
interpretive programs either individually or in a group.
Those wishing to do so can take one of three self-guided
nature hikes. Evening programs that deal with a wide
variety of natural resource topics will be presented at the
Tony Grove Campground and the Guinavah Amphitheater.
Visitors will be able to stop at the Tony Grove Guard
Station to see what life in the Forest Service was like in
Logan Canyon between 1907 and 1940.
-13-
�g. Environmental education will be highly visible. Two
publications--one for children and one for adults--that are
keyed to Byway interpretive sites will be available in
local bookstores and through interpretive association
outlets. Logan city and the Cache, Box Elder, and Rich
County school districts will regularly make use of the
facilities available to them along the Byway to provide
hands-on environmental education experiences for primaryand secondary-level students. The Limber Pine Children's
Nature Trail and its companion teacher's guide will be a
benchmark example of a trail designed specifically for
elementary students.
h. Signing along the Scenic Byway will be consistent in
materials, style, mounting, and colors. Major recreation
sites will be signed with the appropriate "family of
shapes" signs and appropriate recreation symbols.
i. All interpretive sites will meet the full intent and
direction of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Consultants from the USU Center for People with
Disabilities, Options for Independence, and the Sunshine
Terrace Adult Day Center will be involved in every phase of
design and layout to ensure that these sites are both
convenient and fully accessible to everyone.
2. Goals and objectives. The purpose of this interpretive guide is
divided into two general categories: goals of management and
objectives for visitors.
a. Goals of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Interpretive Guide.
1) Promote a deepening visitor understanding and
appreciation of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway corridor
while enhancing enjoyment and encouraging appropriate
use of the sites.
2) Encourage exploration of the area beyond the Scenic
Byway.
3) Encourage creative thinking, contemplation, and
introspection.
4) Provide visitors with an understanding and
appreciation of the role of the Forest Service and the
State Department of Lands in northern Utah.
5) Welcome visitors and orient them to facilities and
services that are dynamic enough to keep customers
coming throughout the year.
6) Provide a variety of interpretive facilities and
services and attractions of the area.
7) Provide accurate information about resources, issues,
and land management policies in the area.
-14-
�8) Provide safe interpretation that interests all age
levels, ability levels, and learning methods.
9) Make as much of the interpretation as possible
available to people with physical disabilities or
limitations with barrier-free design and special
features.
10) Involve partners extensively in all aspects of the
development of the Scenic Byway.
b. Objectives of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Guide.
majority of our visitors will
A
1) develop an understanding and appreciation of the Logan
Canyon Scenic Byway,
2) experience an enhanced enjoyment of the sites and
sounds found along the Byway,
3) gain an appreciation of the rich history of the
peoples and cultures that inhabited and eventually
developed Cache Valley and the Bear Lake area,
4) learn about the powerful forces that shaped the Bear
River Mountains and surrounding valleys,
5) gain an appreciation of the unique plants and animals
found along the Byway,
6) increase their understanding of the appropriate use of
public facilities and resources,
7) acquire a greater understanding and appreciation of
the role and mission of the Forest Service and State
Departmen t of Lands, and
8) feel welcome and know how to find facilities and
interpretive services that are interesting enough to
keep them coming back.
9) All of our visitors will experience a safe and
barrier-free array of interpretive services that
. interests people of all age, ability, and education
levels.
10) A majority will recognize the contribution of
partnerships and volunteers in the design and
implementation of facilities found along the Byway.
c.
Interpretive Resources Inventory. This section deals with the
identification of all potential sites and programs for which
interpretation or interpretive services are being considered. It
also includes a map (see Map 4) identifying the location of each
site. Once the sites were inventoried the important ones were
-15-
�Franklin
- - -IDAHO
UTAH
Smithfield
Hyde
" National
Forest
Logan
POTENTIAL INTERPRETIVE SITE INVENTORY
Map 4
-16-
�identified through a screening process described by Ostergaard (1990).
1. Major site identification. Thirty-one sites are identified in
the Major Site Evaluation Table (see Table 1). Each has been
assigned a site number, a site name, and a letter indicating the
type of site it is. The codes for the interpretive site
categories (Veverka, 1986) include the following:
B: Biological sites (waterfowl nesting areas, sensitive species,
unique ecological zones, etc.).
F: Facility sites (interpretive trails and trailside exhibits;
would be used to identify existing and proposed sites and
facilities).
G: Geological sites (evidence of glaciation, caves, faults,
springs, etc.).
H: Historical, cultural, and archeological sites (log cabins,
historic buildings, sites of historical events, etc.).
0: Orientation sites (existing or recommended information
centers, bulletin boards, kiosks, directional signs for
interpretive services and facilities, etc.).
2. Selection criteria for major sites and programs. Once the
initial inventory of all potential sites was compiled, each site
was tested against the following list of selection criteria:
a. Interpretive relevance.
1} Does it offer a significant interpretive message?
2} Does the interpretive story fit with a significant
resource?
3} Does it complement or conflict with other sites?
4} Can the message(s} be projected successfully by a sign
or other interpretive means?
5} Is the message unique?
Is there a story or just
information?
6} Does it complement the total Byway experience and
image?
b. Physical development feasibility.
1) Is there adequate room for a facility in this
location?
2} Will the site be safe in regard to access and egress?
3} Can other facilities be added to the existing site?
4} Does the scenery merit a stop?
-17-
�TABLE
SITE #
I
r-'
(X)
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 '
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1.
SITE
Logan Canyon Highway (US89)
Lady Bird Park / Logan RD Office
River Trail
Hydro Park II/Second Dam
Bridger Campground
Lake Bonneville Site
Dewitt Spri ngs Day-use Area
Spri ng Hollow Campgrou nd
Riverside Nature Trail
Recreation Residence Tracts
Logan Wind Caves Trail
Gu i navah-Mal ibu Campgrou nd
Guinavah Amphitheater
Fucoidal Quartzite
Preston Valley Campground
Wood Camp Campground
Jardine Juniper Trailhead
Logan Cave
Ricks Spri ngs
Tony Grove Turnoff
Tony Grove Recreational Site
Tony Grove Lake Nature Trail
Tony Grove Lake Campground
Red Banks Campground
Franklin Basin
Beaver Junction
Beaver Mountain Ski Area
Sinks Parking Area
Limber Pine Nature Trail
Bear Lake Overlook
Garden City Visitors Center
MAJOR SIrE EVALUATION DATA
SITE
TYPE
HF
G H OF
OF
H BF
F
GF
GH F
F
BF
F
GF
OF
HF
GF
F
F
BHF
GB
HGF
0
HF
GF
F
F
HF
H 0 F
F
GO
BGF
H 0 F
BHO
STArns
RELEVANCE
FEASIBILITY
ApPEAL
DECISION
N/A
New
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
New
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
New
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
High
High
Low
High
Low
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Low
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
High
High
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
High
Low
Low
High
High
Moderate
Low
High
High
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Low
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Develop
Develop
No Action
Develop
No Action
Removal
Develop
No Action
Develop
No Action
Develop
Develop
Develop
Removal
No Action
No Action
Develop
Defer
Develop
Develop
Develop
Develop
No Action
No Action
Develop
Develop
No Action
No Action
Develop
Develop
Develop
�5} Are there any obvious construction problems?
6) If it will require snow removal, is there a place to
store snow?
7} Will the site require construction of acceleration and
deceleration lanes?
8) What is its proximity to the last interpretive
pullout?
c. Scenic appeal and setting.
a} What is the variety of the landform?
b} What is the view? Can it be improved by
landscaping?
c} Will the change of season feature a different
view?
d} Does the site provide access to other recreation
activities?
e} Are there any variable factors evident such as
motion, light, season, or distance?
As might be expected, individual sites readily fell out once
they were tested against the selection criteria (see Table 1).
The recreation residences and a majority of the campgrounds fell
out because the steering committee felt they lacked relevance.
Interestingly, two existing interpretive sites, the Lake
Bonneville Shoreline and Fucoidal Quartzite, also fell out
because the steering committee felt they lacked relevance. In
other instances, as Ostergaard notes, the situation is not as
obvious. Ricks Springs, for example, rated very high for
relevance but was rated poor because it lacks acceleration and
deceleration lanes. Working with the Department of
Transportation engineers on design features, the committee
determined that the final site design can provide the public
with a safe and enjoyable experience, and so the site was
retained. Another site that rates high for relevance and appeal
but low for feasibility is Logan Cave. This extremely popular
spot is visited about 30,000 times per year, but there is no
safe parking within a quarter-mile of the cave entrance.
3. Major programs and services.
In addition to physical sites, a
number of existing and proposed brochures, maps, and programs
that pertain to the interpretation of the Byway are identified
in Table 2.
-19-
�TABLE 2. EXISTING AND PROPOSED
BROCHURES, MAps, GUIDES AND PROGRAMS
PROJECT
Existing
Bridgerland Visitors' Guide
Bridgerland Snowmobile Trails Guide
Bridgerland Hiking Trails Guide
Bridgerland Biking Trails Guide
Bridgerland-20 Exciting Rides on Road and Trail
Logan Ranger District Climbing Guide
Logan Canyon-A Guide Book
Bridgerland Snowmobiling Video
Bridgerland Mountain Biking Video
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Audio Tape
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Video Tape
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Sidetrip Adventures
Scenic Byway Restaurant Placemats
Proposed
x
x
x
.x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D. Theme Development.
Once the major sites and programs are identified the next step in the
interpretive planning process is to develop a main theme or themes.
The use of a focused theme helps to direct the energies of
interpretive services to better explain to visitors the specific
stories that the Byway may present.
The uniqueness of Logan Canyon is the diversity of its natural
resources and their relation to the needs of the people who have
lived here. The area is rich in lore about the mountain men and
Mormon pioneers and the hardships they faced living here and settling
the area. Interpretation of the canyon provides us with the
opportunity to enlighten visitors with insights to life here in the
past, compared to what it is like today, and pose the open-ended
question "What would you like it to be like for your children?"
The central theme that has been developed for the interpretation of
the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway is
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
E. Visitor Analysis. A visitor analysis is an important aspect of the
interpretive planning process as it gives the planners a better idea
of how best to communicate with different user groups. While there
is no comprehensive visitor analysis available for the area, there
are several studies that when pieced together provide useful
information.
1. Data collected in 1990 by the Utah Department of Transportation
clearly shows that traffic volumes on the Byway vary
seasonally. Approximately 50 percent of the total annual
traffic volume occurs during the months of June, July, and
August. Approximately 70 percent of the annual traffic volume
-20-
�occurs from May through September (Figure 1). Weekend traffic
is nearly double the weekday traffic (Figure 2), and the highest
hourly traffic occurs between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. (Figure 3).
During peak summer traffic approximately 80 percent of the
traffic using the Byway passes entirely through the canyon, and
the other 20 percent remains within the canyon pursuing various
recreational activities. In the winter 35 to 40 percent of the
traffic passes through, while the remainder remains in the
canyon.
Traffic counter stations show an average of 3,878 vehicles per
day during the the peak period of June, July, and August.
During the remainder of the year the Scenic Byway averages 1,869
vehicles per day (Figure 4). Over the next 20 years summertime
traffic is projected to increase between 33 and 46 percent.
2. A number of other studies that have been conducted over the
years have ·concluded :.the most popular recreational pursuits of
people visiting Cache and Box Elder Counties are visiting
historical sites and viewing scenery. Cooper (1989) found the
main reasons for traveling to northern Utah were to take
advantage of outdoor recreation opportunities. The same study
found the most highly rated selection factor for a visit to
northern Utah was its scenic beauty. Visiting historical sites
was ranked ninth, but its position of 3.1 out of 5 indicates its
relative importance (Figure 5). Cooper also found that visitors
to the area, regardless of their place of residence, ranked Bear
Lake, Logan Canyon, and the Cache National Forest as the most
popular destination spots. The same study also found that when
visitors were asked to rank their likelihood to participate in
organized or guided activities the highest-rated programs were
visiting historical attractions. The second most popular guided
program dealt with viewing scenery. Guided hikes ranked 6th of
21 activities. The same study also found that 72 percent of the
individuals sampled ranked enjoying a campfire as their number
one evening activity.
Demographic information was not as readily available as the
information on user preferences. Cooper (1989) found that 34
percent of the visitors were traveling with one other adult.
The largest percentage of out-of-state visitors were from
California (15 percent) followed by Idaho (7.5 percent).
Fifty-two· percent of the visitors sampled were traveling by car,
motorcoach, or motorcycle while 44 percent were traveling with
camping equipment or self-contained recreational vehicles.
Seventy-six percent were married and had attended some college
and almost half were between the ages of 31 and 50. The average
yearly income was reported to be between $20,000 and $40,000 per
year. A study prepared by the the Utah Travel Council indicated
that approximately 33 percent of the out-of-state visitors make
over $40,000.
3. Data collected at developed sites in Logan Canyon during the
1992 field season shows 87 percent of our visitors are from
Utah, and 98 percent of those are within a 100-mile drive of
Logan. Forty-nine percent were traveling by car, with the
-21-
�20
20
~
-1 8.1
~
n3
.-
lS
n3
.-
t2
-0
.c
Q)
15.8
~
lS
12 .8
t2
10.5
'0
...
10
1 10 .9
11.3
~
10
-
12 .0
c
Q)
U
U
L..
L..
Q)
S
0...
0
Q)
0...
3.6
0
A M J J A S
Month of Year
J
S
Figure 1. Annual traffic flow by month
S
M
T
W
T
Day of Week
F
S
Figure 2. Traffic flow by day of week
RECORDED TRAFFIC VOLUME
10
YEAR
-_1"'"1"'",,""
~I"'"
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1000
,..
~:--
-
1-1Iooo~
1-1
0
12
SUMMER ADT
(vehicles
per day)
(vehicles
per day)
1,774
1,558
1,680
1,767
1,922
1,902
1,806
1,813
1,887
1,848
1,740
1,773
1,769
1,875
1,846
1,861
1,869
2,793
2,798
3,022
3,140
3,461
3,400
· 3,180
3,276
3,424
3,406
3,503
3,536
3,795
3,735
3,605
3,822
3,878
Iloo
.-
~8
2
4
6
ANNUAlADT
2
4
A.M.
6
8
10
I
12
P.M.
Hour of Day
Figure 3. Traffic flow by hour of day
Figure 4. Average dally traffic: .
June, July l!.t. August
4.4
Scenic beauty
Friend ly people ~---------------------------~
Value for money ~-------------------d
Rest & relaxation ~-------------------Accommodations
Camping
Water sports ~---------------.
Good cuisine
~---------------~--~
87%
Historical sites
Resident
visitors
Wildli fe/bi rding
Entertainment
~--------------,.I
Religious si tes/events
t----~
Availability of alcoho l
2
3
4
S
Figure 5. Selection factors for
visiting northern Utah
Figure 6. Percent resident and
out-of-state visitors
- 22 -
�difference travelling with camping equipment or self-contained
recreational vehicles. Out-of-state campers were most
represented by residents of California (37 percent) followed by
Washington (16 percent), Idaho (13 percent), Arizona
(7 percent), and Wyoming (7 percent).
a. Recreation Inventory Management data compiled by the Forest
Service for the 1992 fiscal year estimates recreational
activities in the Scenic Byway corridor to be 538,285
visitor-days. Forest Service data also shows that
automobile travel and viewing scenery are the two most
popular pursuits on the Scenic Byway.
b. Estimated annual visits to the more popular sites along the
Byway provide a picture of the amount of use that is
presently occurring.
Estimated
Visits per Year
Table 2
Logan Canyon campgrounds
Logan Canyon day use sites
Organizational camps
Summer homes
Winter sports
Bear Lake Overlook
Nature trails
Fucoidal Quartzite
Logan Cave
Jardine Juniper
Ricks Springs
Automobile trips
126,600
75,100
11,800
14,780
58,440
88,300
56,525
15,500
23,750
6,600
79,000
666,750
4. Another segment of our local population that has been in the
past overlooked is people with disabilities. Although the
canyon is used and enjoyed by locals and people from across the
state of Utah and the nation not one site is presently
accessible to people with disabilities. There are approximately
8,000 people in Cache County and unknown numbers of people from
outside the county who have disabilities, or whose advancing
years have left them with physical frailties, Alzheimer disease,
or other age-related disabilities (Roth, 1993). This segment of
the population represents nearly 10 percent of our local
population that is presently denied access to the outdoor
recreation opportunities in Logan Canyon.
5. Although there are no firm numbers the Cache-Rich Tourist
Council estimates that up to 3,000 organized motorcoach tours
pass through Logan Canyon each summer either on their way to
Salt Lake City or the Jackson Hole and Yellowstone areas.
Because a majority of these tours pass through the canyon
without stopping it is thought they represent the single largest
untapped source of tourism dollars for the area.
F. Major Site and Program Development.
1. This section contains a complete, detailed package of
information for each interpretive site and program proposed for
-23-
�development. Information includes site name, type, location,
number, interpretive resources, site description, and
interpretive significance. Also included is information on
interpretive themes, site objectives, interpretive program
objectives, interpretive modes, cost estimates, justification
statement, and miscellaneous comments.
Also included is a map (see Map 5) and a summary table of
interpretive services and facilities (see Table 3) for each of
the 20 sites proposed for development along the Byway.
Wherever possible, standard designs for Scenic Byway displays,
orientation sites, and adventure side trips will be the norm.
Design features and estimated costs include the following:
2. Scenic Byway displays and orientation sites will be barrier-free
and similar in construction materials, style, and design.
Display structures will be constructed of native limestone rock
and will normally contain three anodized aluminum panels.. Sign
. faces will normally include graphic artwork or photographs and
text. The Logan Ranger District will facilitate gathering
detailed background information for development of each story
line. Artwork, narratives, design, layout, and fabrication will
be contracted out to a professional interpretive design shop.
The estimated turnkey cost for each three-panel
interpretive display and orientation site includes the
following:
Sign fabrication
$750
Mounting hardware
150
Text development
200
200
Graphic artwork
Packing and shipping
150
Support structure
1,250
Total $2,700
TYPICAL INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY
3. Adventure side trip trailhead bulletin boards will use either
the district standard one-panel or the two-panel design. Each
panel is a 4x4-foot sheet of 5/8-inch high-density plywood
-24-
�supported by two 6x6-inch pressure-treated timbers. The entire
structure is painted dark brown. The sign faces are reverse
silk-screened onto 3x2-foot sheets of 8-mil Lexan with a matte
finish. Each sign will normally include graphics and text. The
background color is tan, and the text and graphics are dark
brown. The Logan District will facilitate text and camera-ready
artwork. Fabrication will be contracted out to a professional
sign shop.
The estimated turnkey cost for the standard single-panel
bulletin board includes the following:
Sign fabrication
Design services
Graphic artwork
Support structure and installation
Total
$250
150
150
250
$800
The estimated turnkey cost for the standard two-panel
bulletin board includes the following:
Sign fabrication
$500
Design services
300
Graphic artwork
300
Support structure and installation
370
Total $1,470
-25-
�Franklin
---IDAHO
UTAH
@
ony Grove Lakt!
Smithfield
Cache
Hyde Par
. National
Forest
PROPOSED INTERPRETIVE SITES
Map 5
-26-
�Table 3. Summary of Interpretive Services and Facilities
Site
#
Site
1
2
Riverside Nature Trail
6
I
Dewitt Springs
5
N
Lake Bon nevi lie Site
4
-....J
Hydro" / Second Dam
3
I
Lady Bird / LRD Headquarters
Logan Wind Caves Trailhead
7
Guinavah Amphitheater
8
Guinavah-Malibu Orientation
9
Fucoidal Quartzite
10 Jardine Juniper Trailhead
11
Ricks Spring
12 Tony Grove Turn-off Orientation
13 Tony Grove Ranger Station
14 Tony Grove Lake Nature Trail
15 Franklin Basin
16 Beaver Ju nction
17 Limber Pine Children's Nature Trail
18 Bear Lake Overlook
19 Garden City Visitor Center
• •
•
••
•
••
• • • • •
•
• •••
•
•
•
• •
• • •
•
•
• • •
•
•
• •
•
• •
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • • •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
• • •
•
• •••••
•
• •
• •
• • •
•
•
•
•
• • •
•
•
• • •
• •••
•
•
• •••
• • •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
Partially
�SITE: LADY BIRD PARK, LOGAN RANGER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS
Type: Scenic Byway Display and Orientation Site
Site number
Location
1
New or Existing - - - - New
Milepost 374.5
Major Interpretive Resources
Seasonal Accessibility
Year-round
Historical, Geological, Orientation, and Facility
Site Description: Site is proposed location of the new Logan Ranger District
office and includes an outstanding overlook of Cache Valley. Will serve as
west portal to the Byway and will include a small Wasatch Interpretive
Association retail outlet. Site also includes parking for 35 vehicles, room
for RV's and motorcoaches, and public restroom. All facilities will be
barrier-free.
Interpretive Significance: Site will be focal point for forest visitors.
Exhibits here can make visitors aware of the recreational and interpretive
opportunities available to them in the area.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. There have been three broad eras of land use associated with the
settlement of the North American continent: exploitation,
conservation, and stewardship.
B. The story of humans in Cache Valley is the story of three distinct
cultures--the Shoshoni, the mountain men, and the Mormon pioneers.
C. There were powerful forces that shaped the foothills and mountains of
the Bear River Range.
D. ttWelcome to the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway!tt There are lots of
interesting and exciting things to see and explore on your journey
through Logan Canyon.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, barrier-free place to stop, use the
restroom, get a drink of water, and enjoy the view.
B. Develop interpretive media for
1. the stewardship and conservation story,
2. information on the recreational and interpretive opportunities
on and off the Scenic Byway,
3. describing the forces that shaped lake terraces visible from the
viewing deck, and
4. telling the story of the people who have lived here before.
C. Create outdoor display for visitor orientation to the district and
its many recreational and educational opportunities.
D. Maintain and enhance the visual quality of the site.
E. Ample parking to accommodate RV's and motorcoaches.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will gain an understanding and a historical
perspective of the peoples and cultures that inhabited Cache Valley.
-28-
�B. The visitors will gain insight into the powerful forces that shaped
the foothills of the Great Basin.
C. They will leave with an understanding of what the Scenic Byway
program is about. They will also know there is a diverse array of
recreational and educational opportunities that lie ahead to the east
and know there are many things to see and do in Logan and the
surrounding area.
D. The visitors will recognize that America has entered a new area of
land stewardship and will have a sense of what it may mean to them.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach signing.
B. One three-panel orientation site display.
C. Three three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive displays.
1. Cultural, historical.
2. Lakeshore terraces.
3. Land stewardship and conservation (bookend display with Bear
Lake Overlook).
D. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
E. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates.
A. Approach signing
B. Orientation site display
C. Three 3-panel anodized aluminum interpretive displays
$200
2,700
8,100
$11,000
VI. Justification. The site is a key stop because it serves as the west
portal to the Scenic Byway, the Logan Ranger District headquarters, and
.the east gateway to Logan and the surrounding area. For these three
reasons it is a critical spot for the dissemination of information on
district resources and interpretive services.
VII. Conunents.
A. For the reasons above it is crucial that site development be
state-of-the-art and reflective of the very best we can do,
integrating interpretive services and site design.
B. This site is the west portal to the Byway and will serve as a bookend
site to the Bear Lake Overlook.
C. Given this site will in all likelihood be the location of the new
Logan Ranger District headquarters, it is an excellent location to
give visitors an overview of the mission and objectives of the Forest
Service. This can be accomplished using interpretive panels inside
the new building in the mini visitor center.
D. Cultural and historical story development will be provided by
A.J. Simmonds, curator of the USU historical archives. Additional
source material is available in "The History of the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest." Geological information is available in "Geologic
Tours of Northern Utah" and in an unpublished manuscript on the
geology of Logan Canyon by Robert Oaks available at the Logan
District office. The story of land stewardship and conservation is
contained in "The Next Era of Land Stewardship and Conservation-Breaking New Ground" series. Background on the National Scenic Byway
program will be provided by the Forest Service.
-29 --
�SITE: HYDRO II PARK/SECOND DAM
Type: Byway Exhibit
Site number - - 2
Location
New or Existing - - - - - - New
Milepost 376.3
Seasonal Accessibility
April-November
Major Interpretive Resources Historical, Biological, Hydroelectric, and Facility
Site Description: Site contains a major hydroelectric station owned by Logan
city and administered by the Forest Service under special use permit. Is also
site of a major partnership effort between FS, Logan city, and state agencies to
develop a day use site and flat-water fishing opportunity. Facilities include
barrier-free parking, restroom, picnic sites, trail system, and fishing piers.
Site plans also include construction of a footbridge spanning the Logan River
that ties into the Lower River Trail.
Interpretive Significance: This is a unique opportunity to interpret the use and
development of hydroelectric power in Logan Canyon and its importance to the
city of Logan. Site also offers the opportunity to deliver message regarding
individual responsibility to care for public resources. Site is also excellent
opportunity to discuss the native fisheries of the Logan River and how the
fishery is managed today. Also excellent spot to discuss threatened and
endangered plants.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. For nearly 100 years man has been dependent on the harnessed energy of
the Logan River and the hydroelectric power it has provided the city
of Logan.
B. This facility is the result of a number of agencies and citizens
getting together to make it happen, and it belongs to all of us.
Please help to keep it cared for and clean.
C. Many plants and animals, some of which are very rare, are also
dependent on the river and the cool, moist habitat it provides.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, barrier-free interpretive
experience.
B. Develop interpretive media for
1. the hydroelectric story,
2. the good steward story, and
3. the story of the rare plants and animals that depend on the
river.
III.
Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with an
understanding of the tie between the power of the river's energy and
how it is used to create the electricity that lights their homes.
-30-
�B. They will appreciate the fact that this state-of-the-art facility is
the result of a number of agencies and citizens working in partnership
to make it happen.
C. They will come away with a better understanding of the plants and
animals that inhabit the lower stretches of the Logan River. They
will recognize the importance of the Threatened and Endangered Species
Act.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach signing.
B. Highway pullout with one three-panel anodized aluminum Byway display.
The display will be located at the highway-level viewing deck.
C. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
E. Include site on restaurant place mats.
D. Develop cooperative arrangement with Logan city to offer occasional
conducted tours (by appointment) of the hydro plant operation.
V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signs
One three-panel anodized aluminum byway display
Viewing deck
Footbridge across the Logan River
$200
2,700
3,500
85.000
$87.700
VI. Justification. The Hydro II Park/Second Dam is site of a major partnership
between Logan city, the Forest Service, Division of Wildlife Resources, USU
LAEP. USU CPD. and the Department of Transportation to develop a
state-of-the-art day use recreation facility. Site is also location of a
1240-kilovolt hydroelectric power generation facility. This is a very
picturesque location and is the showcase developed recreation site in lower
Logan Canyon.
VII. Comments.
A. Explore partnership with Logan city for joint submittal to
nonmotorized trail program for construction of bridge.
B. All NEPA work has been completed.
C. Coordinate with UDOT on obtaining ISTEA enhancement dollars for
motorcoach parking area.
D. Source material for development of the story of hydroelectric power at
the site will be provided by the Logan City Light Department. Source
material for story development on threatened and endangered species
will be provided by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
-31-
�SITE: LAKE BONNEVILLE SITE
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site number
Location
New or Existing
~
Milepost 378.1
Major Interpretive Resources
Seasonal Accessibility
__
Existing
April-November
______________________________
~G~e~o_l~o~gyL-~an~d F~a~c_i_l_i~t~y
Site Description: This is an existing site that contains a routed redwood sign
and gravel pullout. Is located immediately adjacent to highway and poses a
significant safety hazard.
Interpretive Significance: Site marks highest level of ancient Lake Bonneville.
Terraces marking location are visible from the site.
I. Interpretive Theme. Existing interpretation is not related to Byway
theme. It more or less serves to point out some Lake Bonneville trivia.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Because this site only rated moderate to low in site evaluation test,
recommendation is to remove it and reclaim the site.
B. Geological significance can be covered in self-guided auto tour and
can be depicted on restaurant place mats.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives. A majority of visitors using the
self-guided auto tour will have an appreciation for the size of Lake
Bonneville.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
B. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimate.
Removal of existing sign and site reclamation: $1,500.
VI. Justification. The site presents significant safety hazards to visitors
and should be removed and reclaimed.
VII. Comments.
A. Include cost estimate for removal and site reclamation.
B. Source material for development of auto tours can be found in the
"History of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest," the "Geologic Tours of
Northern Utah," and Robert Oaks's unpublished manuscript on the
geology of Logan Canyon.
-32-
�SITE: DEWITT SPRINGS
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site number - - 4
Location
New or Existing - - - - New
Seasonal Accessibility
Milepost 378.7
Major Interpretive Resources
April-November
Geological, Historical, and Facility
Site Description: This is a new interpretive site that is located adjacent to an
existing day use site. It is located just off the Byway and offers outstanding
views of the China Wall formation and the Logan Wind Cave formation.
Interpretive Significance: Site is located on a fault zone that created cracks
in the substrate, allowing water to collect. The springs are the major culinary
source of water for the city of Logan.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. The residents of the city of Logan are dependent on the quality water
the canyon provides at Dewitt Springs.
B. Geologic faulting near this spot is the reason the Dewitt Springs came
to be.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, barrier-free interpretive
experience.
B. Geological and historical significance can be developed at new display
built on small knoll above the highway.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will have an understanding that the faulting
that occurred here is the reason the springs exist, which provide
water for the city of Logan.
B. The visitors will appreciate the dependence the residents of Logan
have for the water that is provided in canyon.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signing.
One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates.
A. Approach signing
B. One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display
C. Trail system and viewing deck
-33-
$200
2,700
2,600
$5,500
�VI. Justification. This site provides an outstanding view of the China Wall
and the Logan Wind Caves. It is also located virtually on top of the fault
line that created Dewitt Springs, which supplies water to the city of
Logan.
VII. Couunents.
A. Coordinate with UDOT on obtaining ISTEA enhancement dollars for
motorcoach parking area.
B. Source material for story deveiopment available through A.J. Simmonds,
curator of the USU historical archives. Additional material available
in "Geologic Tours of Northern Utah."
-34-
�SITE: RIVERSIDE NATURE TRAIL
Type: Adventure Side Trip
Site Number
Location
5
New or Existing
-=----
Milepost 378.5
Major Interpretive Resources
Seasonal Accessibility
New
April-November
Biological and Facility
Site Description: Site is a self-guided nature trail that runs along the Logan
River between the Spring Hollow and Guinavah-Malibu Campgrounds. It is
approximately 1.5 miles long and takes about an hour to hike.
Interpretive Significance: This is a unique opportunity to interpret the
riparian ecosystem associated with the Logan River.
I. Interpretive Theme. The Logan River is a "ribbon of life" that provides
man and wildlife with the precious gift of water.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe and esthetic interpretive experience
along the Logan River.
B. Develop trailhead displays at both Spring Hollow and Guinavah-Malibu
Campgrounds.
C. Develop interpretive signing for 12-15 sites along trail.
D. Develop approach signing.
E. Develop internal campground signing directing visitor to appropriate
trailhead.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with an
understanding that riparian areas in arid environments such as we have
in Utah are rare and need to be protected.
B. The visitors will see examples (graphic and pictorial) of
relationships that exist within riparian areas.
C. They will take the challenge and answer the question of what they can
do to protect these fragile environments.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach and directional signing.
One two-panel side trip bulletin board.
Trail signs will be llx17-inch, 8-mil Lexan with a matte finish.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
E. Include site on restaurant place mats.
F. Guided evening hikes.
-35-
�V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
F.
G.
Approach signing
One two-panel side trip bulletin board
Graphic artwork and fabrication of 15 interpretive signs
Design and fabrication of 15 1/4-inch steel posts
Installation of steel posts and signs
$200
1,470
1,500
1,500
1,500
$6,170
VI. Justification.
The Riverside Nature Trail is an extremely popular feature
linking the Spring Hollow and Guinavah-Malibu Campgrounds. Existing
interpretive services include a free pamphlet that interprets sites
identified by a numbered wooden post. Redoing the trail using the "ribbon
of life" theme is an opportunity to greatly enhance the interpretive
experience for the visitor.
VII. Comments.
A. Interpretive services for · this -trail have been designed and are
scheduled for installation during the 1993 summer field season.
B. Because of terrain -it is not physically possible to make this trail
barrier-free.
-36 -
�SITE: LOGAN WIND CAVES TRAIumAD
Type: Adventure Side Trip
Site Number
Location
6
New or Existing:
Seasonal Accessibility
Milepost 379.5
Major Interpretive Resources
Geological and
New
April-November
Facility
------~----------------~--------------------------
Site Description: Site is located directly across the highway from the entrance
to the Guinavah-Malibu Campground. The trailhead provides off-highway parking
for 15 vehicles. Trail is popular with visitors camping at the 40-unit
campground and is also a popular destination day hike for individuals from
Logan.
Interpretive Significance: This trail leads to an interesting geological
formation called the Logan Wind Caves.
I. Interpretive Theme.
A. The "caves" are actually a triple arch formed by the solution of
limestone through a chemical weathering process.
B. The trail can be hot and dry, and hikers need to carry extra water for
their comfort.
C. The hike takes about 2 hours round trip, and hikers should plan
accordingly.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe and esthetic setting before they begin
their hike.
B. Provide visitors with the information they will need to maximize the
experience of their outing.
III.
Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with an
understanding of how the "caves" were actually formed.
B. The visitors will receive information on proper trail etiquette.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach signing.
B. Standard district two-panel bulletin board with Lexan signing.
C. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
D. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates.
A. Approach signing
B. Standard two-panel plywood bulletin board
C. Pave parking area (2,000 sq.ft.)
-37-
$200
1,470
2,000
$3,670
�VI. Justification. The Logan Wind Caves trail is a favorite spring and fall
hike. Many people start the hike with inadequate water and no real idea
how steep the trail is or how long it will take them to complete.
Trailhead information will improve the hike for many people.
VII. Comments. Because of terrain it is not physically possible to make this
trail barrier-free.
-38 -
�SITE: GUINAVAH AMPHITHEATER
Type: Orientation Site
Site Number
Location
New or Existing
~
Milepost 379.5
Seasonal Accessibility
Existing
------=-
April-November
Major Interpretive Resources _H_i_s_t_o_r_i_c_a_l______
and F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y___________________________
Site Description: Site is located at the east end of the Guinavah-Malibu
Campground. The CCC-era, limestone-and-timber amphitheater has a capacity of
350 people and is used extensively by the district for evening programs that
treat a wide variety of natural resource topics. Site is also used by the
public on a reservation basis for weddings, family reunions, and church
services. Because of its age it is need of significant renovation.
Interpretive Significance: :The CCC construction era provides a colorful look at
the early development of the forest resources- and recreation sites.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
The CCC provided a wide range of construction and conservation work
for the Forest and was a important work program during the depression
era.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, and barrier-free facility.
B. Remodel and repair the amphitheater to provide barrier-free access,
modern lighting system, and state-of-the-art audiovisual equipment.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives. Visitors will learn what the role of the
CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) was during the 1930's and '40's.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach and directional signing.
B. Develop and install an imbedded fiberglass interpretive panel between
parking area and amphitheater on the walkway.
C. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
D. Include site on restaurant place mats.
E. Continue evening programs.
V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Approach signing
One three-panel Scenic Byway interpretive display
Improve accessibility
Replace electrical system
Add audiovisual system
Remodel dressing rooms
-39-
$200
2,700
1,000
7,500
5,000
4,000
$19,700
�V. Justification. The Guinavah Amphitheater is a hidden gem on the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest. It is an outstanding example of the quality
work accomplished by the CCC. The evening programs presented during the
summer camping season are a tradition.
VI. Comments. Source material for development of CCC story can be obtained in
the ttHistory of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. tt
-40-
�SITE: GUINAVAH-MALIBU CAMPGROUND
Type: Orientation Site
Site Number- 8 Location
New/Existing:
MP 379.5
Major Interpretive Resources:
Seasonal Accessibility
New
April - November
Orientation, Facility
Site Description: Guinavah-Malibu Campground is an extremely popular lower
canyon destination facility that is ideally suited of an orientation site.
Interpretive Significance: -To provide visitors with an overview of the
District, it's interpretive theme, and recreational/educational opportunities
availble here.
I. Interpretive Theme. "Welcome to the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway!" There
are lots of interesting and exciting things to see and explore on your
journey through Logan Canyon.
II. Site Objectives. To develop an orientation display near the entrance to
the Guinavah-Malibu Campground.
III~
Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will learn of the Scenic Byway interpretive
theme, and recreation/educational opportunities on the district.
B. A majority of new (first time) visitors will take advantage of the
self-guiding auto brochure.
C. First time visitors will be suprised at all of the educational
opportunities the district has to offer, and be encouraged to return
and experience some of them.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach and directional signing
B. One three-panel orientation site display.
1. Forest and Scenic Byway maps with a "you are here" notation.
2. Photos of some of the main recreational or educational sites
with a brief text.
3. Interpretation of the Scenic Byway interpretive theme.
4. Interpretation of any "seasonal" attractions or events and any
associated management concerns (OHV use, fire danger, hunter
safety, etc.).
V. Cost Estimates.
A. Approach signing
B. Orientation site display
$
-41-
200
2,700
2,900
�VI. Justification. The orientation area provides a opportunity for forest
visitors to learn of all the opportunites available along the Byway and on
the District. Many visitors will probably be unaware of these
opportunities, and this will provide their first contact with the
Forest/District.
VII. Comments. Location of orientation site should be coordinated with
campground concessionaire.
-42-
�SITE: FUCOIDAL QUARTZITE
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site Number ______
9
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 378.1
Major Interpretive Resources
Seasonal Accessibility
Existing
April-November
~G=e=o=l=o~gy~~an==d~~F~a=c=i=l=i~t~y
____________________________
Site Description: This is an existing site that contains a routed redwood sign
and gravel pullout. Is located immediately adjacent to highway and poses a
significant safety hazard. It is a popular trailhead for local rock climbers
and rapellers.
Interpretive Significance: Interpretive sign tells the story of fossilized worm
burrows evident in large chunk of "out of place" rock. Site also includes a
standard one-panel plywood bulletin board with map and information on district
climbing policy.
I. Interpretive Theme. Existing interpretation is not related to Byway
theme. It more or less serves to point out a surface phenomenon found on
a nearby chunk of rock.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Because this site only rated moderate to low in site evaluation test
recommendation is to remove it and reclaim the site.
B. Geological significance can be covered in self-guided auto tour and
can be depicted on restaurant place mats.
C. Informational bulletin board will be retained.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives. A majority of visitors using the
self-guided auto tour will learn that rock from the Swan Peak formation
was used as building stone for many structures in Logan, including the
Logan Temple and Tabernacle.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
B. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimate.
Removal of existing sign and site reclamation:
$1,500
VI. Justification. The site presents significant safety hazards to visitors
and should be removed and reclaimed.
VII. Comments. Source material for development of the auto tours can be found
in the "History of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest," the "Geologic Tours
of Northern Utah," and Robert Oaks's unpublished manuscript on the geology
of Logan Canyon.
-43-
�SITE: JARDINE JUNIPER TRAILHEAD
Type: Adventure Side Trip
Site Number - - 10
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 384.6
Major Interpretive Resources
Existing
Seasonal Accessibility
May-November
Biological, Historical, and Facility
Site Description: Site is located approximately 1/4 mile north of Wood Camp
Campground on FR 012. Facility includes a gravel parking area and horse
unloading ramp.
Interpretive Significance: This trail provides access to the Mount Naomi
Wilderness and the Jardine Juniper tree. Wood Camp Hollow was a major source
of raw materials for railroad ties between 1869 to 1885.
I. Interpretive Theme.
A. The Jardine Juniper tree is a 1,500-year-old Rocky Mountain juniper.
B. The trail can be hot and dry, and hikers need to carry extra water
for their comfort.
C. The hike is 10 miles long round trip, and hikers should plan on 4.5
to 5 hours to complete the trip.
D. Chinese railroad workers and pioneers removed many trees from this
area between 1869 and 1885 that were used to bring the railroad to
Cache Valley.
II. Site Objectives
A. Provide visitors with a safe and esthetic setting before they begin
their hike.
B. Provide visitors with the information they will need to maximize the
experience of their outing.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with an
understanding that the Jardine Juniper is very old and needs to be
treated with care and respect.
B. The visitors will receive information on proper trail etiquette.
C. They will find accurate information on trail length, elevation gain,
and average hiking time.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A. Approach signing.
B. Standard one-panel bulletin board with Lexan signing for
interpretation of hike and Jardine Juniper.
C. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
-44-
�D. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates
A. Approach signing
B. Standard one-panel plywood bulletin board
$200
800
$1,000
VI. Justification. The Wood Camp Hollow trail to the Jardine Juniper is an
extremely popular day hike. It can be very hot and dry during the heat of
the summer and catches many people unprepared. Additionally, many people
are not aware of the role the Chinese laborers played in the history of
the settlement of the valley.
VII. Comments. Because of terrain it is not physically possible to make this
trail barrier-free.
-45-
�SITE: RICKS SPRINGS
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site Number - 11 Location
New or Existing
Seasonal Accessibility
Milepost 389.9
Major Interpretive Resources
Existing
April-November
Historical, Geological, and Facility
Site Description: This site is a popular midcanyon stop that features a cavern,
spring, trail, bridge, and parking areas on both sides of the highway.
Interpretive Significance:' The site is _named after Thomas A. Ricks, who, under
the direct supervision of Brigham Young, mapped the route to Bear Lake in
1865. The water from the spring has been collected by locals for years, but in
the early 1980's it was determined at least a portion of the water was from the
Logan River and very likely contains giardia.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. Thomas Ricks first described this site in 1865 while he was mapping
the route to Bear Lake.
B. These springs are similar to the Dewitt Springs and are the result of
geological faulting.
C. The water coming out of the cavern contains river water and is not
safe to drink. In all likelihood it contains giardia, which can
cause severe intestinal problems.
II. Site Objectives. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, barrier-free
interpretive experience.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with some
insight into 'what it must have been like here in upper Logan Canyon
in 1865.
B. The visitors will see examples (graphic and pictorial) of locals
coming to Ricks Springs to gather the water.
C. They recognize that giardia is a very unpleasant microorganism, and
the water is no longer safe to drink.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach signing.
B. One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display with
information on
1. the life and times of Thomas Ricks,
2. the popularity of the "spring" water, and
3. giardia.
-46-
�C. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
D. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signs
One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display
Trail and bridge improvements
Landscaping
$200
2,000
3,500
1,000
$6,700
VI. Justification.
Ricks Springs is a very popular site. Current use is
estimated to be approximately 40,000 visits per year. There are no
interpretive services available at the site at this time. Need exists to
inform visitors that the water is not safe to drink. Ricks' story is
notable in that his survey party was acting under the direct orders of
Brigham Young.
VII. Comments .
A. Source documents for development of story lines include "Geologic
Tours of Northern Utah," the unpublished manuscript of Robert Oaks on
the geology of Logan Canyon, and the "History of the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest."
B. Safety is an issue at this site. Final decision will be based on
recommendations contained in Logan Canyon environmental impact
statement.
-47-
�SITE: TONY GROVE ORIENTATION SITE
Type: Orientation Site
Site Number - - 12
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 393.8
Major Interpretive Resources
New
------
Seasonal Accessibility
May-November
Orientation
Site Description: This site is located at the junction of the Byway and the
Tony Grove road. It is the access point to the Tony Grove recreation area, the
Lewis Turner Campground, and the Tony Grove Ranger Station and is ideally
sui ted for an orientation. display •.
Interpretive Significance: To provide visitors with an overview of the
district, the interpretive theme for the Byway, and recreational and
educational opportunities available on the district and forest.
I. In terpretive Theme. "Welcome to the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway!"
To
provide an overview of recreational and educational opportunities on the
Logan Ranger District.
II. Site Objectives. To develop an orientation display at the junction of the
Byway and the Tony Grove road.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will learn of the Scenic Byway interpretive
theme and recreational and educational opportunities on the district.
B. First-time visitors will be surprised at all of the educational
opportunities the district has to offer and be encouraged to return
and experience some of them.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach and directional signing.
B. One three panel orientation site display. The information provided
would include:
1. Forest and Scenic Byway maps with a "You are here" notation.
2. Photos of some of the main recreational or educational sites
with a brief text.
3. Interpretation of the Scenic Byway interpretive theme.
4. Interpretation of any "seasonal" attractions or events and any
associated management concerns (OHV use, fire danger, hunter
safety, etc.).
V. Cost Estimates.
A. Approach signing
B. One three-panel orientation site display
-48-
$200
2,700
$2,900
�V. Justification. The orientation area provides an opportunity for forest
visitors to learn of all the opportunites available along the Byway and on
the district. Many visitors will probably be unaware of these
opportunities, and this will provide their first contact with the forest
and district.
VI. Comments.
-49-
�SITE: TONY GROVE RANGER STATION
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site Number
Location
13
New or Existing
---=-
Milepost 393.8
Existing
Seasonal Accessibility
June-October
Major Interpretive Resources __
H_i_s_t_o_r_i_c_a_l_and__
__ F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y
__________________________
Site Description: This site is located just west of the junction of the Byway
and the Tony Grove road. The compound consists of a number of existing
facilities including the ranger station, a barn, a wheel house (used to
generate electricity for the compound) and a storage shed. The ranger station
is a log cabin structure built in 1907 and the other structures in the compound
a wood-framed buildings erected in the 1930's. The compound was recently
included on the National Register of Historic Places.
Interpretive Significance: Since its first construction in 1907, the compound
has been in continuous use by the Forest Service first as back-country ranger
station and living quarters for patrolling rangers, a tree nursery during the
1930's, a Civilian Conservation Corps Camp in the 1930's, a site for collection
of winter snow data from the 1950's to the 1970's and is currently being used
as an administrative site and housing Forest Service recreation guards. The
compound is inclosed by a rail fence.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. Life on a backcountry ranger station in 1907 could be a lonely
existence but it was also one full of high adventure.
B. The mission of the Forest Service, "Caring for the Land and Serving
People", is much more than cutting trees.
C. Ecosystems and the natural environment. There is a need for balance
and sustainability in our natural environment and man is the
principle role player.
II. Site Objectives
A. To provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, and barrier-free facility.
B. To provide visitors with an entertaining and thought provoking
opportunity to stroll through a turn-of the century ranger station
compound.
C. To restore the site and facilities to what they were in 1907.
D. Prepare a self-guided tour and brochure for the compound.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives
A. A majority of visitors will learn what the mission on the Forest
Service is today versus what it was in 1907.
-50-
�B. A majority of visitors will get a taste of the isolation and
adventure opportunities the district has to offer and be encouraged
to return and experience some of them.
C. Visitors will gain an appreciation of the complexities involved in
managing ecosystems so they are harmonious within themselves yet
provide a sustainable flow of goods and services.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
D.
E.
F.
V.
Approach and directional signing.
Three three-panel interpretive displays.
Six station self-guided trail.
Barrier-free hardened trail.
Barrier-free access to cabin.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
Include site on restaurant place mats.
Brochure explaining history of the coumpound.
Cost Estimates
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Approach signing
Three three-panel orientation display
Six station self-guided trail
Pave trail system (6'x950')
Barrier-free access to cabin
$200
8,100
6,000
9,000
2,500
$25,800
VI. Justification. The Tony Grove Ranger Station offers a truely unique
opportunity to interpret the historical operations of the Forest Service
while at the same location providing visitors insight. into the modern day
Forest Service.d women who gave so much of their lives constructing the
highway.
VII. Comments
A. Two similar interpretive facilities exist in relative proximity to
- the Tony Grove Ranger Station. The visitor seeking a turn of the
century historical perspective at either the Jensen Historical Farm
or the Temple Mill Site may wish to take the opportunity to
experience how a Forest Service ranger station functioned during the
same period.
B. This particular site is an excellent candidate for ISTEA funding
under the Cultural and Historic Resources Protection section.
C. Source material for story line development is available in the
"History of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest," in "The Forest
Service: A Study in Public Land Management," by Glen Robinson, and in
"The Next Era of Land Stewardship and Conservation--Breaking New
Ground" series.
-51-
�SITE: TONY GROVE LAKE NATURE TRAIL
Type: Adventure Side Trip
Site number - 14 Location
New or Existing
Milepost 393.8
Seasonal Accessibility
Existing
July-October
Major Interpretive Resources _G_e_o_l_o=g_i_c_a_l_an_d__
F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y______________
Site Description: This site is located 7 miles east of the junction of the
Byway and the Tony Grove road. -- The . Tony .Grove Lake complex is the heart of the
summer developed and dispersed recreation programs. The site comprises a
39-unit campground, a day use flat-water . fishing opportunity, and a major
trailhead leading to the Mount Naoimi Wilderness and the White Pine Lake area.
The existing self-guided nature trail is about 1 mile long and circles the
lake. It consists of 15 stations which are marked on the ground with wooden
posts. A free interpretive brochure is available at the trailhead. The trail
tread is in poor condition, and much of it needs to be reconstructed.
Interpretive Significance: This beautiful cirque basin is an excellent
opportunity to interpret the geomorphology of the area. Visitors can see
evidence of glacial activity as well as the effects of weathering on the
lim~stone rock that dominates the landscape.
I. Interpretive Themes
A. Change! This mountain landscape looks stable, but it has seen many
changes.
1. Some of these changes took place in geologic time, long before
humans first appeared; others are still in progress.
2. Some occurred over millions of years: others occurred in just a
few hours.
3. Man has long been a visitor here and has also brought about some
of the change we see today.
II. Site Objectives
A. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, and at least partially
barrier-free interpretive experience.
B. Erect a trailhead display at the day use area.
C. Provide interpretive signing for 12-15 sites along trail.
D. Construct viewing deck and interpretive signing for Tony Grove Lake.
E. Replace existing restroom with 2-unit, barrier-free, flush unit.
F. Reconstruct existing trail to provide barrier-free facility.
-52-
�III.
Interpretive Program Objectives
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this experience with an
understanding that change in nature is a continuous process.
B. The visitors will see examples (graphic and pictoral) of the forces
(geological and human) that shaped the Tony Basin.
C. They will take the challenge and answer the question of what they can
do to protect these fragile environments.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A. Approach and directional signing.
B. Standard two-panel bulletin board.
C. Trail signs will be 11x17-inch Lexan mounted on plywood and bolted to
steel signposts.
D. One three-panel'-anodized aluminum display.
E. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
F. Include site on resturant placemats.
G. Guided evening hikes.
V. Cost Estimates
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Approach signing
Standard two-panel bulletin board
Graphic artwork and fabrication of 15 interpretive signs
Design and fabrication of 15 1/4-inch steel posts
Delivery and installation of steel posts and signs
One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display
Viewing deck
Two-unit restroom
Reconstruct trail
$200
1,470
1,500
1,500
1,500
2,700
3,000
29,000
20,000
$60,870
VI. Justification. The Tony Grove Lake area is the flagship of the district's
developed recreation area. The Tony Grove Nature Trail is also an
extremely popular trail. Existing interpretive services include a free
pamphlet that interprets sites identified by numbered wooden posts.
Reconstructing the trail and interpreting the theme of "change" is an
outstanding-opportunity to enhance the interpretive experience for the
visitor.
VII. Conunents.
A. Interpretive services for this trail will be designed and are
scheduled for installation during the 1993-94 summer field season.
B. The trail around the lake is the best opportunity on the district to
create a barrier-free outdoor interpretive experience. The trail
will need to be surveyed to determine the practicality of and extent
of barrier-free access.
C. Source documents for development of story lines include "Geologic
Tours of Northern Utah," the unpublished manuscript of Robert Oaks on
the geology of Logan Canyon, and the "History of the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest.
-53-
�SITE: FRANKLIN BASIN
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site Number
Location
15
New or Existing
----=:::..-
Milepost 397.0
Existing
Seasonal Accessibility
Year-round
Major Interpretive Resources _H_i_s_t_o_r_i_c_an_d__
F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y
______________
Site Description: This site looks into a township that consists of both private
land and land adminsistered by the Utah Department of Lands. Franklin Basin is
a popular dispersed recreation area in the summer and a popular snowmobiling
and cross-country skiing area in the winter. ' A groomed snowmobile trail
running from Monte Cristo to Soda Springs, Idaho, also runs through the area.
Facilities include a parking area and restroom.
Interpretive Significance: The Franklin Basin area is approximately 28,000
acres in size and is the headwaters of the Logan River. Revenues generated
from mineral extraction, grazing, and timber management go to the Utah School
Trust. An interpretive site here is a good opportunity to present the idea of
multiple-use lands managed by the State going to fund the State's school
system.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. The lands of the upper Logan River watershed have in the past
provided many products.
B. The School Trust lands were set up to provide an uninterrupted source
of revenue for the schools of Utah.
C. At one time a steam-driven sawmill operated along the banks of the
Logan River.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, barrier-free interpretive
experience.
B. Replace existing restroom with a two-unit, sweet-smelling vault
toilet.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with some
insight (graphic and pictorial) into the timber and mineral
extraction activities that have taken place here in the past.
B. They will come away with a good feeling on the role of School Trust
lands.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
-54-
�A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signs.
One three-panel anodized aluninum interpretive display.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signs
One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display
Landscaping
Replace existing restroom
$200
2,700
1,000
25,000
$28,900
VI. Justification. The Franklin Basin area is an extremely popular summer,
fall, and winter dispersed recreation ' area. Many people are unaware of
the mission of the Department of Lands and the mandate for the management
of these lands.
VII. COIIIIIents.
A. Source documents for development of story lines include "Geologic
Tours of Northern Utah," the unpublished manuscript of Robert Oaks on
the geology of Logan Canyon, and the "History of the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest." Additional information on the history of the
School Trust lands can be obtained from the Utah Department of
Lands.
B. Development of this site will depend on outcome of the proposed land
exchange between the Forest Service and the Department of Lands.
C. Site plan should provide for separation between snow storage areas
and location of interpretive display.
-55-
�SITE: BEAVER JUNCTION
Type: Scenic Byway Display and Orientation Site
Site number - - - 16
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 399.7
Major Interpretive Resources
New
------
Seasonal Accessibility
May-October
Historic, Orientation, and Facility
Site Description: The location of this proposed site is at the turnoff to the
Beaver Mountain Ski Area. The point has more than 85,000 visitors pass by on
their way to participate in various winter sports activities. It is also
located approximately. 1/4 mile west of the Beaver Creek Lodge, which is an
outfitter and guide 'operation offering lodging, horseback trips, and snowmobile
trips.
Interpretive Significance: Beaver Junction has great potential for an
interpretive site, picnic area, and trailhead for the Great Western Trail. It
is the best site available to tell the story of the history of the Logan Canyon
highway.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. Scenic Byway
1. The development of the Logan Canyon highway can be summed up as
"The shortest distance between two points is not necessarily a
straight line."
2. The road, which was originally a toll road, was begun in 1862
and is still being worked on today.
B. Orientation: To provide an overview of recreational and educational
opportunities on the Logan Ranger District.
II. Site Objectives
A. To provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, and barrier-free facility.
B. To provide visitors with a pleasant roadside picnic area that
includes picnic tables, restroom, interpretive opportunity, and
orientation information.
C. Provide directional signing for the Great Western Trail.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives
A. A majority of visitors will learn of the Scenic Byway interpretive
theme and recreation and educational opportunities on the district.
B. First-time visitors will be suprised at all of the educational
opportunities the district has to offer and be encouraged to return
and experience some of them.
-56-
�C. Visitors will gain an appreciation for the enormous human effort that
was involved in constructing the road between Logan and Bear Lake
that so many today take for granted.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Approach and directional signing.
One three-panel orientation site display.
One three-panel interpretive display.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Approach signing
One three-panel orientation display .
One three-panel interpretive display
Pave parking area (18,000 sq. ft.)
Steps and trail system (5x800 feet)
Two-unit vault restroom
Five picnic tables
Landscaping
Great Western Trail signing
$200
2,700
2,700
18,000
10,500
25,000
3,500
1,000
1,000
$64,600
VI. Justification. The Beaver Junction site is an excellent opportunity to
combine an upper canyon picnic site with an interpretive opportunity.
This site is the best chance to interpret the contribution of the men and
women who gave so much of their lives constructing the highway.
VII. Comments
A. This site can double as a snowmobile trailhead in the winter months.
Final design should include input from UDOT to ensure snow removal is
possible.
B. Source documents for story development include the "History of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest," an unpublished manuscript by John K.
Wood entitled "Roads and Trails of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest," and another unpublished manuscript by B.J. Yonce entitled
"Transportation and Road Development in Logan Canyon."
-57-
�SITE: LIMBER PINE CHILDREN'S NATURE TRAIL
Type: Adventure Side Trip
Site number ---=-17
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 404.9
Seasonal Accessibility
Existing
June-October
Major Interpretive Resources __
B_i_o_l_o~g~i_c_a_l_an_d_F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y
______________
Site Description: The site, located at an elevation of 7800 feet, is a
self-guided nature trail located on the divide between the Logan River drainage
and Bear Lake. The trail is laid out in a loop configuration, is approximately
1 mile long, and takes about an hour to hike.
Interpretive Significance: The trail leads to a limber pine tree that is
actually five or six trees that have grown together and is about 560 years
old. The trail winds through mixed conifer forest and aspen and sagebrush
groves. It is an excellent location to develop story lines dealing with
various ecosystem relationships.
I. Interpretive Themes. The theme of this trail is "connections." When you
try to change any single thing, you find it hitched to everything else in
the universe.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe and esthetic interpretive experience
along the Bear Lake Summit.
B. Create a trailhead display.
C. Erect interpretive signing for 12-15 sites along trail.
D. Add approach signing.
E. Provide a two-unit vault restroom.
III.
Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. Develop a children's nature trail for the fourth-grade level.
Esthetics, layout, and attractive signing will, however, make it a
very pleasurable experience for children of all ages.
B. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with an
understanding that everything they see in nature is connected to
something else.
C. A majority of visitors will see examples (graphic and pictorial) of
relationships that exist between the plants, animals, and earth
within and between several different plant communities.
D. A majority of visitors will see examples of how careless acts can
leave their mark on the land.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach and directional signing.
Standard one panel bulletin board
Trail signs will be 11x17-inch, 8-mil Lexan with a matte finish.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
-58-
�E. Include site on restaurant place mats.
F. Guided evening hikes.
V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
F.
G.
H.
Approach signing
Standard one-panel bulletin board
Graphic artwork and fabrication of 15 interpretive signs
Design and fabrication of 15 1/4-inch steel posts
Installation of steel posts and signs
Two-unit vault restroom
$200
800
1,500
1,500
1,500
25,000
$30,500
VI. Justification. The Limber Pine Nature Trail has been a very popular hike
for visitors since its inception in the late 1960's. Existing
interpretive " services "; "
include: a free pamphlet that interprets sites
;
identified by "numbered wooden posts. Redesigning the trail and making it
more thematic is an opportuni" to greatly enhance the interpretive
ty
experience for the young visitor. Both the Cache and Logan school
districts will be using the trail for fall field trips.
VII. Cooments.
A. Interpretive services for this trail have been designed and are
scheduled for installation during the 1993 summer field season.
B. Because of terrain it is not physically possible to make this trail
barrier-free.
-59-
�SITE: BEAR LAKE OVERLOOK
Type: Scenic Byway Display and Orientation Site
Site Number - 18 Location
New or Existing
Milepost 405.7
Major Interpretive Resources
Seasonal Accessibility
New
-----
April-November
Historical, Geological, Orientation, Biological,
and Facility
Site Description: The site is a popular stop for visitors traveling the Byway.
It offers a panoramic ·view of the stunning aquamarine waters of Bear Lake and
of the surrounding area.
This site is in many ways similar to the Lady Bird Overlook (Site 1). It is
the east portal to Logan Canyon for travelers heading toward Logan and is the
west portal to the Bear Lake area for travelers heading to Jackson Hole and
Yellowstone and other points east.
The existing facility consists of an asphalt parking area and a wildlife
interpretive display provided by the Bear Lake Regional Commission. The site
has no sanitary facilities and is only partially accessible.
Interpretive Significance: 1992 Recreation Information Management data
estimates 82,000 people annually visit the Bear Lake Overlook. Site and its
spectacular view make it ideally suited for an orientation display and
interpretive displays telling the stories of the area's rich history, the
unique geology and fish of Bear Lake, and the three eras of exploitation,
conservation, and stewardship.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon is a portrait in time."
A. There have been three broad eras of land use associated with the
settlement of the North American continent: exploitation,
conservation, and stewardship.
2. The history of Bear Lake is full of colorful stories about the
mountain men who rendezvoused here in 1826 and '27 and the settlers
who passed through the area on their way west along the Oregon Trail.
3. Earthquake activity 8,000 years ago created the conditions that give
the lake its color and provide habitat for four species of fish found
nowhere else in the world.
4. "Welcome to the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway!" There are lots of
interesting and exciting things to see and explore on your journey
through Logan Canyon.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, barrier-free place to stop, use the
restroom, get a drink of water, have a picnic, and enjoy the view.
B. Create interpretive media for
-60-
�1. the stewardship and conservation story,
2. information on the recreational and interpretive opportunities
on and off the Scenic Byway,
3. describing the events that give the lake its color and unique
populations of fish, and
4. telling the story of the mountain men and settlers heading west
on the Oregon Trail.
.
C. Make an outdoor display for visitor orientation to the district and
its many recreational and educational opportunities.
D. Maintain and enhance the visual quality of the site.
E. Ample parking to accommodate RV's and motorcoaches.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors .will recognize America has entered a new era
of land stewardship and· will have·. a sense of what it may mean to
them. They will also be introduced to concepts created in programs
like Take Pride in Utah, Leave No Trace, and Tread Lightly. Visitors
will understand why it is important now more than ever that we be
wise stewards of out public lands.
B. Visitors will gain an understanding and historical perspective of the
mountain men and settlers.
C. They will learn about the powerful earthquake that occurred 8,000
years ago and isolated Bear Lake from the Bear River.
D. They will leave with an understanding of what the Scenic Byway
program is about. They will also know there is a diverse array of
recreation and educational opportunities that lie ahead to the east,
know there are many things to see and do in Logan and the surrounding
area.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A. Approach signing.
B. One three-panel orientation site display.
C. Three three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive displays:
1. Historical.
2. Geological and wildlife.
3. Land stewardship and conservation (bookend display with Lady
Bird Overlook).
D. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
E. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V.
Cost Estimates
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Approach signing
Orientation site display
Three 3-panel anodized aluminum interp displays
Paved path (6'x520')
Paved Parking (34,000 sq. ft.)
4-unit restroom
Picnic tables (4@ $700 each)
Picnic Shelters (4@ $2,000 each)
Water System
Landscaping
-61-
$200
2,700
8,100
7,800
34,000
35,000
2,800
8,000
20,000
3,000
$121,600
�VI. Justification. The site is a key stop because of the use it is currently
receiving and because it is the east portal to the Scenic Byway.
VII. Comments.
A. For the reasons above it is crucial that site development be state-of
the-art and reflective of the very best we can do, integrating
interpretive services and site design.
B. This site is the east portal to the Byway and will serve as a bookend
site to the Lady Bird Overlook.
C. Cultural and historical story development will be provided by A.J.
Simmonds, curator of the USU historical archives. Additional source
material is available in the "History of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest." Geological information is available in "Geologic Tours of
Northern Utah" and in an unpublished manuscript on the geology of
Logan Canyon by Robert Oaks available at the Logan District office.
The story of land stewardship and conservation is contained in "The
Next Era of Land Stewardship and Conservation--Breaking New Ground"
series. Background on the National Scenic Byway program will be
provided by the Forest Service.
-62-
�SITE: GARDEN CITY VISITOR CENTER
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site Number ---=:...-19
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 411.7
Seasonal Accessibility
Existing
April-November
Major Interpretive Resources _H_i_s_t_o_r_i_c_a_l_an_d__
F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y
_________________________
Site Description: The Visitor Center consists of two small log buildings
located at the intersection of US 89 and SR 30. The center is staffed by
volunteers who assist visitors and hand out printed material on the area. The
center has no restroom facilities or water. The land .is . privately owned and
leased to the Bear Lake ·Regional ·Commission. The term of the lease is not
fixed.
Interpretive Significance: The center receives approximately 20,000 visitors
per year between May 15 and September 15. It is the logical choice of location
to provide information on the history of Garden City and information on things
to see and do while visiting Bear Lake.
I. Interpretive Themes. Discover Bear Lake! The communities surrounding
Bear Lake provide services to meet your every recreational need.
II. Site Objectives. Provide visitors with a central location to receive
information. and ask questions on things to see and do in the area.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will be able to easily identify the Visitor
Center and know it is the place to go to get their questions
answered.
B. They will appreciate the ease and convenience of using the
facilities.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signing.
One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cos t Es tima tes
A. Approach signing
B. One three-panel anodized aluminum interp display
$200
2,700
$2,900
V. Justification. This site is a logical location for a visitor center.
lack of a termable lease is a valid consideration.
VI. Comments.
-63-
The
�A. Coordinate with UDOT on obtaining ISTEA enhancement dollars for site
improvements and possible outright purchase.
B. Source material for story development available through A.J.
Simmonds, curator of the USU historical archives. Additional
material available in the "History of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest" and through the Bear Lake Regional Commission.
-64-
�20. Proposed Brochures, Programs, and Other Services.
a. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway brochure. This full-color
brochure would provide a mile-by-mile interpretation of the
sights and sounds encountered between the Lady Bird
Overlook and Garden City at the terminus of the Byway at
Bear Lake. I t would include a map of the Byway and
capsulated information on the cultural history, geology,
plants and animals, camping opportunities, trails,
interpretive opportunities, and lodging. Half-toned photos
or line drawings of common wildlife, vegetation. and area
attractions would be included. The brochure would be
available at no charge through campground hosts, and at
select locations in Logan, Garden City, and throughout the
region. Cost detail:
Contract production (10,000 copies)
$7,500
b. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway audiotape. This project would be
an audio version of the brochure described above. It would
be paced by average vehicle speed for different sections in
the canyon and would feature a nationally known narrator.
The tape would be distributed at local chambers of
commerce, Forest Service offices, area bookstores, and
through tour bus companies operating routes through the
canyon. Cost detail:
Contract production
Reproduction (500 copies)
$10,000
500
$10.500
c. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway videotape. This project is a
30-minute souvenir videotape of the sites and sounds
encountered along the Byway. Like the audiotape it would
feature a nationally known narrator. The video would
portray the unique beauty of the canyon and the seasonal
variations in color and texture. The tape could be used as
a marketing tool for the area and by people wishing to have
a visual image of their experience. Cost detail:
Contract production
Reproduction (500 copies)
$20,000
750
$20,750
d. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Adventure Side Trips. This
project would consist of a free brochure that would provide
written descriptions and directions to popular drives and
hikes into the Logan Ranger District back country.
Marketing and distribution would be the same as described
for the auto tours. Cost detail:
Contract production (lO,OOO)
-65-
$7,500
�E. Service industry personnel training. Contract development
of training package for service industry personnel in Cache
County and the north end of Rich County. Objective would
be to emphasize the tourism aspects of customer service.
Objective would be to provide training and materials so
government and private sector employees would be able to
anticipate and meet the expectations of customers visiting
the area. Cost detail:
Contract development
(to be determined)
F. Restaurant place mats. Develop a restaurant place mat that
would feature a stylized map of the Byway and surrounding
communities. Popular stops, trails, and roads along the
Byway would be identified, and visitors would be encouraged
to go out and explore. Cost detail:
Contract production (20,000 copies)
$4,000
G. Scenic Byway interpretive sign prints and note cards.
Produce artist's prints of the most popular interpretive
signs. Prints and note cards would be sold at local retail
outlets and interpretive association outlets. Cost detail:
Contract production
(to be determined)
-66-
�H. Implementation and operations. Table 5 contains a summary of
recommended interpretive services and media, including budget
estimates. The blocks for the fiscal year in which each should
be implemented have not been completed. Pending final review
and approval the steering committee, district personnel, and
forest recreation staff will meet to prioritize and schedule
implementation of the approved projects.
For the various budget estimates for interpretive services or
media, the costs reflect the estimated cost for that product if
it were contracted out. These costs do not reflect other budget
items that might be associated with each product or service,
such as travel expenses, shipping costs, etc.
I. Monitoring : and :.Evaluation. The following matrix of recommended
methods for monitoring and evaluating interpretive services are
taken from ttA Handbook For Evaluating Interpretive Services"
(USDA Forest Service, 1992).
TABLE
4.
EVALUATION AND MONITORING TECHNIQUE MATRIX
Objectives
Type of
Interpretive
Service .
Enjoyment
Learning
Behavior
PERSONAL
Group interview
Group interview
Observation
Guided walks, talks, etc.
Response card
NON-PERSONAL
Group interview
Seli-guided activities,
exhibits, etc.
Group interview
Observation
Response card
Readability
analysis
WRITTEN TEXTS
Publications, exhibit
and sign texts
Group interview
Group interview
The following is a brief description of the evaluation
techniques included in the above table.
1. Response card technique: A method in which individuals
report what they learned from an interpretive service
they have experienced. This approach is
quantitative. Visitors can be randomly selected to
receive the cards, which allows their responses to be
generalized to other visitors who receive the same
interpretive service.
2. Group interview: A qualitative technique that uses
group discussion and interaction to gather opinions
and feelings. The value of group interaction is that
visitors are prompted to voice ideas they may not be
able to articulate on their own. In addition, they
-67-
�can elaborate on those ideas, providing greater depth
of information.
3. Observation:
An unobtrusive way to collect information
about visitor behavior in response to interpretive
messages. As with the response card technique, this
is a quantitative method. Visitors to be observed are
randomly selected, allowing generalization.
4. Readability analysis: A numerical system for
determining the readability of texts, like brochures
and sign texts. Here the assumption is made that if
an interpretive text is to be enjoyed, it must be easy
and interesting to read. This is quantitative
approach that does not rely on visitor input, -and it
is recommended it be used in conjunction with a
technique like the group interview.
-68-
�TABLE
5.
LOGAN CANYON SCENIC BYWAY· INTERPRETIVE SERVICES
COST ESTIMATES AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Site # Project
1
Lady Bird / LRD Headquarters
Approach signs
Ori entation display
Hi storical display
Geological display
Stewardship display
Cost
Estimate
$ 200
2,700
2,700
2,700
-..UQQ
$11 ,000
2
Hydro II/Second Dam
Approach signs
Hydroelectric di"splay
Viewing deck
Logan River bridge
$ 200
2,700
3,500
JiS....QQQ.
$91,400
I
'"
3
Lake Bonneville
Remove and recl aim
4
Dewitt Springs
Approach si~ns
Geologica I ispl ay
Tr<li l syst l~ m/v iew <l n ~<I
\.0
I
5
Riverside N ature Trail
Approach signs
Two-panel bulletin board
15 station interpretive signs
6
Loga n Wind Caves
Approach signs
Two-panel bulletin board
Pave parking area [2000 sq.ft. J
7
Guinavah Amphitheater
Approach signs
Historical display
Barrier-free access
Replace electrical system
Add audiovisual system
Remodel dressings rooms
$ 200
2,700
5, 500
~
$ 200
1,450
4 SOD
r6,i7o
$ 200
1,470
2,000
$ 3,670
$ 200
2,700
5,000
7,500
5,000
4 000
$24',000
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Comments
�TABLE
Site #
Project
8
Guinavah-Malibu Orientation Site
Approach signing
Orientation display
9
Fucoidal Quartzite
Remove and reclaim
10
Jardine Juniper Trailhead
Approach signs
One-panel bulletin board
11
Ricks'Spring
Approach Signs
Historical/biological display
Trail/bridge improvements
Landscaping
I
~
o
I
Cost
Estimate
$
200
2,700
$ 2,900
$ 1,500
200
800
$ 1,000
$
$
200
2,700
3,500
--LQQQ
$ 7,400
12
Tony Grove Orientation Site
Approach signs
Orientation display
13
Tony Grove Ranger Station
Approach signs
FS Mission display
Historical display
Ecosystem display
6-station self-guided trail
Barrier-free trail (6' x 950')
Barrier-free access to cabin
14
Tony Grove Lake Nature Trail
Approach signs
Two-panel bulletin board
15-station self-guided trail
Lake display
Viewing deck
Two-unit restroom
Reconstruct trail
$ 200
2700
$ 2;900
$
200
2,700
2,700
2,700
6,000
9,000
2,500
$25 ,800
$ 200
1,470
4,500
2,700
3,000
29,000
..2rulQQ.
$60,870
5
1995
(continued)
1996
1997
1998
1999
Comments
�TABLE
Site # Project
Cost
Estimate
15
Franklin Basin
Approach signs
Historica l display
Landscaping
Replace restroom
16
Beaver Junction
Approach signs
Orientation display
Highway development display
Pave parking 118,000 sq.ft.]
Steps/trail system (5' x 800')
Two-unit vault restroom
Five picnic tables
Landscaping
Great Western Trail signs
17
Limber Pine Children's Trail
Approach signs
One-panel bulletin board
15-station trai I
Two-unit vault restroom
18
Bea r Lake Overlook
Approach signs
Orientation display
Historica l display
Geological/wildlife display
Stewardship display
Trail system (6' x 520')
Paved parking 118,000 sq.ft.]
Four-unit restroom
Four picnic tables ($700 each)
Four picnic shelters ($2000 each)
Water system upgrade
Landscaping
19
Gard en City Visitor Center
Approach signs
Historical display
$ 200
2,700
2,700
18,000
10,500
25,000
3,500
1,000
-.LQQQ.
$64600
I
-...j
r'
I
$ 200
2,700
2,700
2,700
2,700
7,800
34,000
35,000
2,800
8,000
20,000
3,000
$121,600
$ 200
2700
$ l,900
20
Brochures, Programs, Other Services
Scenic Byway Brochure
Scenic Byway Audiotape
Scenic Byway Videotape
Adventure Side Trip Brochure
Restau rant Pl acemats
Prints and Note Cards
1995
$ 200
2,700
1,000
25,000
$28 900
$ 200
800
4,500
25,000
$30,500
$ 7,500
$10,500
$20,750
$ 7,500
$ 4,000
$ TBD
5
-
(continued)
1996
1997
1998
1999
Comments
�J. Partnership Opportunities.
Community involvement in forest
projects is a tradition on the Logan Ranger District. The
district has received state and national recognition through the
"Take Pride in Utah" and the "Take Pride in America" programs
for the partnerships it has organized each of the last 3 years.
These partnerships have involved local business, government,
youth groups, families, and individuals, whose combined efforts
have been valued at over $350,000 per year. A number of
partners are on record in support of the development of
interpretive sites along the Logan Canyon highway. They include
the Cache-Rich Tourist Council, the Bridgerland Travel Region,
the Utah Department of Transportation, Cache County, Rich
County, the Bear River Association of Governments, the city of
Logan, and Garden City. We are certain that similar
accomplishmen ts"" will continue when the energy "these volunteers
possess is marshaled into interpretive site development along
the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway.
v.
Summary
Tourism is a vital part of the economy in both Cache and Rich
Counties. Over the next decade Rich County looks to tourism as its
primary growth area. Agriculture and government activity have
plateaued, and the potential for tourism growth is promising. While
Cache's diverse economy is not dependent on tourism, it is regarded
as an important segment for growth in the economy (Thompson, 1993).
The proposed projects will have a profound impact on tourism in the
two counties. The new interpretive services proposed for the Byway
will encourage recreationists from the Wasatch Front, the largest
component of tourists to the area, to stay longer and use the Byway's
resources more often.
The 3,000-plus bus tours passing through the Byway represent the
largest untapped potential tourism market for the area. " Almost all
are destined for Salt Lake City or the Yellowstone and "
Jackson
areas. The improved pullouts, interpretive displays, and day use
recreation facilities will undoubtedly induce more of the bus tours
to stop and enjoy the facilities in Logan Canyon. If the tours take
more time on " the Byway they are more likely to stay overnight in area
motels, eat in area restaurants, and shop in area stores. Bus tours
on the average spend $7,000 per day (Thompson). Even a marginal
increase in the time buses stay in the area will likely have a
substantial effect.
Quality of life is one of the prime considerations, if not the
highest, as businesses look for areas for expansion or relocation.
Cache County particularly is experiencing strong interest from
businesses across the nation. One of the strongest components of the
area's quality-of-life mix is the easy and quick access to excellent
outdoor recreation opportunities, Logan Canyon being the most highly
regarded. Anything done to improve the utility of the canyon's
resources will encourage further economic development and improve
retention of existing businesses and employees.
-72-
�VI. Recommendations
A number of tasks, most of which deal with implementation, remain:
A. NEPA. The National Environmental Policy Act mandates federal
agencies analyze and disclose the effects of any actions they
undertake. The only project identified in this interpretive guide
that is NEPA sufficient is the Hydro II Park/Second Dam. The
interpretive displays planned for the Lady Bird Park/Logan Ranger
District Headquarters and the Garden City Visitors Center are not
located on national forest system land and do not require NEPA
compliance. The remainder of the projects described in this guide
will require : NEPA compliance.
B. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum -Classification. The forest plan
classified the entire Logan Canyon Highway corridor as roaded
natural. The evidence of man-made development is significant
particularly in the lower segment of the canyon. High daily traffic
volumes coupled with the presence of hardened campgrounds, recreation
residences, two power plants, private homes, and a restaurant suggest
ammending the current classification to rural. The rural
classification more realistically reflects the existing level of
development and land modification in the lower canyon and offers the
opportunity to develop a more diverse array of managment
opportunities. This situation was also identified by Butkus and
Rieder for the upper canyon in the vicinity of the Tony Grove Ranger
Station.
C. Intermodal Surface Transportation Effeciency Act of 1991. ISTEA
represents a new model for transportation in America. It is more
comprehensive than past highway bills, and focuses considerable
emphasis on state-wide and metropolitan planning, rural development,
scenic beauty and landscaping, scenic byways, tourism, bicycles and
pedestrian facilities, preservation of historic and cultural areas,
and prevention of adverse effects on water quality, air quality and
wetlands. ISTEA requires an intergrated approach by the states,
involving local governments, publics, and the Forest Service to
realize its full potential. The time to act on ISTEA is NOW! Using
this guide as a platform, the district, Utah Department of
Transportation, the Cache-Rich Tourist Council, local government and
local citizens groups should begin organizing to formulate plans and
projects that meet the intent of ISTEA.
D. Prioritize and Schedule. The district, planning team, and SO
specialists will need to meet to craft a strategy to fund the various
projects described in the interpretive guide. Among the criteria to
be used in this process are timing and site availability, partnership
development, ISTEA funding opportunities for scenic byways and
enhancements, State of Utah Motorized and Non-motorized Trail
programs, and scenic byway devlopment projects sponsored by the
Wasatch-Cache. Once projects are prioritized it will become possible
to encorporate those that are most appropriately funded by the Forest
Service into the outyear budgeting process.
-73-
�E. Volunteers and Partnerships. Continue to nurture and develop a
strong and diverse cadre of volunteers to assist in development and
implementation on individual site developments. Working with the
local chamber of commerce develop a marketing strategy for the Byway
that can be used to enlist the financial support of local and
regional businesses. Developing partnerships with the motor coach
tour companies operating on the Byway should be aggressively
explored.
-74-
�VII. Literature Cited
A&A Research. 1992. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Communications Planning
Workbook. Kalispell, Montana.
Bacon, Richard. 1991. Clemson University Outdoor Recreation Short
Course. Clemson, South Carolina. Personal communication.
Butkus, Michael. 1993. Director, Institute for the Study of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Personal
communication.
Cooper, Elizabeth J. 1989. Characteristics of Recreation Visitors in the
Bridgerland Area. Master of Science thesis. Utah State University,
Logan, Utah.
Cordell, Ken H. 1991. Keeping Recreation Management on Top in
anlnformation Age. Clemson University Outdoor Recreation Shortcourse.
Clemson, North Carolina.
Coutant, Gerald J. 1991. Interpretive Planning. Clemson University
Outdoor Recreation Shortcourse. Clemson, South Carolina.
Ham, Sam H. 1992. Environmental Interpretation--A Practical Guide for
People With Big Ideas and Small Budgets. Golden, Colorado. North
American Press.
Lewis, William J.
1983.
Identifying a Theme.
The Interpreter, 14 {1}:
i.
Morgan, Susan K. 1992. Geologic Tours of Northern Utah.
Utah. Utah Geological Survey.
Salt Lake City,
Moses, Dennis J. 1971. Transportation and Road Development in Logan
Canyon. Unpublished manuscript. Logan Ranger District office, Logan,
Utah.
Ostergaard, Clark. 1993. Supervisory Landscape Architect, Wasatch-Cache
National Forest. _Salt Lake City, Utah. Personal communication.
Ostergaard, Richard. 1990. A Development and Interpretive Guide for the
San Juan Skyway--A National Forest Scenic Byway. Durango, Colorado.
Peterson, Charles S., and Linda E. Speth. 1980. The History of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Utah State University Press. Logan, Utah.
President's Commission. 1987. The report of the President's Commission
on Americans Outdoors. Washington, D.C.
Regnier, Kathleen, Michael Gross, and Ron Zimmerman. 1992. The
Interpreter's Guidebook: Techniques for Programs and Presentations.
Stevens Point, Wisconsin. UW-SP Foundation Press, Inc.
Reiter, Douglas, and Michael Butkus. 1993. Tony Grove Ranger Station
Interpretive Plan. Institute for the Study of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism. Utah State University. Logan, Utah.
-75-
�Roth, Helen. 1993. Director, Northern Utah Options for Independence.
Personal communication. Logan, Utah.
Sample, Alaric V. 1991. Land Stewardship in the Next Era of Conservation
--Breaking New Ground series. Pinchot Instute of Conservation, Gray
Towers Press. Medford, Pennsylvania.
Thompson, Douglas. 1993. Director Cache-Rich Chamber of Commerce and
Tourist Council. Logan, Utah.
Tilden, Freeman. 1957. Interpreting Our Heritage.
Carolina. University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, North
USDA Forest· Service. 1986. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City,
Utah.
Utah Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
1993. U.S. Highway 89--Logan Canyon Highway, Cache and Rich Counties,
Utah. Final environmental impact statement.
Utah Travel Council. 1987. Utah Tourism Study: Executive Summary.
Lake City Convention and Visitors Bureau. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Salt
Veverka, John A., Sandra A. Poneleit, and David E. Traweek. 1986.
Standardized Planning Forms for the Development of Interpretive Planning
Documents. John Veverka and Associates.
Veverka, John A. 1993.
Veverka and Associates.
Interpretive Master Planning Training.
Ogden, Utah. Personal communication.
John
Wildesen, Leslie E. 1991. Heritagemania: What's Out There to Interpret,
Anyway? Presented at Third Global Congress, Heritage Interpretation
International. Honolulu, Hawaii.
Wood, John K. 1991. Roads and Trails of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest. Unpublished manuscript. Logan Ranger District office. Logan,
Utah.
-76-
�Appendix 1
-77-
�Partners and Supporters
Local Government
Contact
Phone
Bear River Association of Governments
Cache County
Garden City
Logan City
Rich County
Jay Aguillar
Seth Allen
Bryce Nelson
Russell Fjeldsted
Dee Johnson
752-7242
752-5935
946-2901
750-9803
946-3210
Utah State University
Contact
Phone
Administrative Affairs
Center for People with Disabilities
College of Education
Conference and Institute Division
Developmental Center for Handicapped
Persons
Geology Department
Historical Archives
C.Wayne Smith
Marvin Fifield
Izar Martinez
Dallas Holmes
750-1146
750-1981
750-1437
750-1690
Sebastian Striefel
Robert Oaks
A.J. Simmonds
750-1985
750-3283
750-2661
Utah State Government
Contact
Phone
Utah Department of Lands
Utah Department of Transportation
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Craig Pettigrew
Lynn Zollinger
Bruce Anderson
752-8701
752-5733
479-5143
Organizations
Contact
Phone
Boy Scouts of America
Cache-Rich Tourist Council
Capitol Arts Alliance
Mountain Land Travel Region
Options for Independence
Neil Butterfield
Doug Thompson
Ralph Hoskins
Darrell Cook
Helen Roth
752-4278
752-2161
753-6518
377-2262
753-5353
Businesses
Contact
Phone
Beaver Creek, Inc.
Beaver Mountain, Inc.
Central Valley Machine
Coca-Cola Company of Logan
Comfort Inn
Creekside Home Health Care
First Security
Harold Dance Brokerage
LarWest International Engineering
Moore Business Communication Services
Murdock Travel Management
Pepperidge Farm
RVA Realtors
Scientific Advertising and Design, Inc.
Sonic Cable Television of Utah
WESCOR
ZCMI
Brian Lundahl
Ted Seeholtzer
Audre Wursten
Dave Harrison
H.Randall Weston
Bonnie James
Robert Saunders
Harold Dance
Gale Larson
Craig Peterson
Frank Stewart
David Van Laar
Russell Anderson
Steve Murdock
Randall Lee
Reed Crockett
Rodney Pack
753-1707
753-0921
752-0934
752-3033
752-9141
753-8833
752-0912
752-8484
753-0169
752-2093
753-2544
258-2491
753-4670
752-4730
752-9731
753-2725
750-7500
�
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/122">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/122</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
294219305
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
52917777 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
A portrait in time: A guide to interpretive services of Logan Canyon Scenic Byway
Description
An account of the resource
The overall objective of this paper is to describe the methods that were used to develop an interpretive guide for the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway. Included are statements of purpose and need, a literature review, a statement of methodology, the interpretive guide, a summary statement, and a list of recommendations. The interpretive guide includes an introduction and sections on interpretive vision, project goals and objectives, an interpretive resources inventory, the major theme development, visitor analysis, major site and program development, and implementation and operations. It concludes with a section on monitoring and evaluation. Included are detailed descriptions of 19 interpretive sites and an array of interpretive goods and services.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Sibbernsen, Chip
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)--History
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Wilderness areas
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Student projects
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1992-05-06
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Logan (Cache County, Utah, United States)
Bear Lake (Rich County, Utah, United States)
Rich County (Utah)
Garden City (Rich County, Utah, United States)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Series III Box 6 Item 10
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/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</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
MSS200_Forest Ser_Item 10.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/523faf9a93af3eb93bcb17beb21022b3.pdf
f47e63aa91e8caae6bcb28ecc74052e2
PDF Text
Text
MAY 1986
· THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION
~BLM
I
~
"l
Your testi ony is
crucial to the future
of Utah wild lands
Utah wilderness supporters will get their
first opportunity to comment on the Bureau
of Land Management's statewide draft
environmental impact statement May 7 in
Vernal and three other communities as the
public hearings on the document begin.
The agency will cram 16 public hearings
into five days in May, ending with two in
Salt Lake City on May 15 (see full schedule
in box below).
)
\
Is tt worth your time to speak at one or
more of the hearings? Absolutely ... if you
care about protecting Utah's outstanding
desert and canyon wildlands. Maggie Fox,
Southwest regional representative for the
Sierra Club, calls testimony at the hearings
~the most important conservation activity
you can undertake this year. ~
"If you have time for only one conservation commitment this year, the wilderness
hearings should be it," she added.
The BLM is required by law to hold
public hearings on the wilderness proposal
embodied in its massive draft environmental
continued to page 8
Hearing schedule
(Unless otherwise noted. all hearing begin at 7 p.m.)
May 7, 1986
Tooele
Tooele County Courthouse
Commissioners' Chambers. Third Floor
47 South Main Street
Kane County Courthouse
70 North Main Street
Moab
Grand County Community Center
(Old Legion Building)
500 East lOON orth
Ogden
Roland Perry Choral Room
Browning Performing Arts Center
Weber State College
3750 Harrison Blvd.
Cedar City
BLM District Office
1579 North Main Street
Loa
Community Center
One block west of the courthouse
Price
Carbon County Courthouse
200 East Main Street
Logan
Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium
45 East 200 North
St. George
Washmgton County Administrative BUIlding
197 East Tabernacle
Delta
HIgh School Auditorium
50 South 300 North
Castledale
(2 pm and 7 pm)
High School Auditorium
Kanab
May 15, 1986
High School Lunchroom
70 North First West
Monticello
May 14, 1986
Utah County Building, Courtroom 310
51 South University Ave.
Escalante
May 13, 1986
BLM District Office, Conference Room
170 South 500 East
Provo
May 8, 1986
Vernal
Emery County Courthouse
Salt Lake City
The Salt Palace
Suite E
100 South West 1 emple
tliin'Wirrorri;-tl'-H'.i&r.rlai:V 10
pari
proposal. There are over 100 miles of canyons such as this one in the White Canyon
complex. Narrow, winding canyons cut through the same formation [hat occurs in
adjacent Natural Bridges Natural Park. The BLM dropped most of the White Canyon
complex in the inventory and is recommending none of [he remainder for wilderness.
v\yc~WJJ~f:O~~Ml~'~~t~Qh'~"~
wi~
Faced
an appeal by the Utah
Wilderness Coalition, the Utah Bureau of
Land Management has agreed to restore
the original boundary of the Mt. Ellen-Blue
Hills Wilderness Study Area and to undertake "reasonable" reclamation efforts to
restore an area illegally chained on the
mountain.
Jim Catlin, conservation chairman for
the Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club, who
wrvte the appeal on behalf of the Coalition.
heralded the decision as a major victory for
Utah conservationists. "It was especially
good to win this one because of the way Mt.
Ellen has been treated throughout the
wilderness study process." said Catlin. "The
treatment of Mt. Ellen may stand as the
worst violation of interim management
policy on BLM wildlands anywhere in the
country. In addition to the chaining. the
Bureau has allowed the Exxon drill rig and
its six miles of new road. a trespass road
near Mt. Ellen's summit, and a reservoir
within the wilderness study area. And much
of the land on Mt. Ellen that enjoys
wilderness study status is only there because
of conservationists' appeals."
The chaining occurred in 1984 when the
bureau contracted for the removal of pinyon
juniper forest on Mt. Ellen's western slopes
in the Henry Mountains of central Utah.
Two bulldozers linked by heavy chain
ripped through the forest. 300 acres of it
within the published boundary of the
8L726-acre wilderness study area (WSA).
continued to page 3
�2
THE UTAH" lOER ESS COALIT ION
MAY 1
UWC wilderness and Utah's parks
parts of a whole
b} Terri Martin
The l tah \\ ildernel>~ Coalition's 5
million-acre "ilderne!lll proposal renecb
another theme: enhancement and protection
of l tah's national parks. By designating
orne I.e) areas adjacent to the parks a~
"ilderness the l ' \\ C proposals "ould
remedy the arbitrariness of important park
boundaries and better protect the natural
and scenic \alues of ecOS) stems and vie,,sheds integral to our parks.
Ho\\ often have you thought. as you
gaJed across Utah's canyon country. that
mmt of southern Utah could have been set
aside as one huge national park? That many
other state. almost any chunk of this "ordinar)" BLM land would probablj be a
national park?
Bndges l'.atlonal Monument. Too often, of
course. those arbitrar) boundaries disregarded Imponant park-quality values on
adjacent lands.
The result? Areas with outstanding scenic,
hIstone and natural values were excluded
from Utah's parks and remain vulnerable.
And many of those adjacent areas possess
high wilderness values as well.
The BLM wilderness review gives us
another chance to speak out for protection
of areas like these before it is too late.
Some key wilderness areas adjacent to
our parks include the following:
Zion
UWC wilderness proposals abut Zion
National Park on all sides. Protection of
these areas would enhance the park's ecological, recreation and scenic values.
Southern Utah's canyon country is clearly
Id
wor class" - a unique and unparalleled
Iand cape. And while pieces of this superlame regIOn have been preserved as national
Parunuweap Canyon
parks, crucial areas integral to the parks
Parunuweap is increasingly popular for
its superlative hiking opportunities. The
were excluded in drawing their boundaries.
Unfortunately, the boundaries of our
UWCs Parunuweap proposal includes the
natIonal parks were too often the result of
upper half of Parunuweap Canyon, a deep
arbitrary political compromises or timid
canyon carved by the East Fork of the
vision. Crucial areas were sometimes exVirgin River through Navajo sandstone.
c1uded because of specUlation about potenThe lower portion of Parunuweap Canyon
tial resource conflicts - fear that inclusion
lies within the park, and protection of the
WIthin a park would lock up the land,
upper Parunuweap is critical to the longbarnng possible future development. Other
term preservation of park water quality and
park boundaries were drawn narrowly to
recreational values.
protect only specific scenic features _ the
The BLM Wilderness DEIS admits that
pmnacles at Bryce, the Waterpocket Fold at
~scenic values here are equivalent to those
Capitol Reef, the rock ~bridges" at Natural
present in the national park." The BLM calls
}-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
I can't BEAR
to be without
my UWC T-Shirt!!
-
the hike through Parunuweap "superlauve
backpacking quality."
The Washington County Water Conservancy District. however. has proposed a
35,000-acre reservoir on the East Fork
within the Parunuweap WSA. The dam
would be located near Zion's boundary and
back water up to 3 to 4 miles into the heart of
the Parunuweap wilderness proposal.
pines and salmon colored spIres that are in
the national park
Box Canyon forms an integral road less
unit with Bryce Canyon. The unit contains
many of the unique erosional features found
in the park itself.
Canaan Mountain
Capitol Reef National Park was set aside
primarily to protect the Waterpocket Fold
- a 60-mile-long uplift of sandstone cliffs
with highly colored sedimentary formations.
Protection of and in the UWCs wilderness
proposals next to Capitol Reef would greatly
enhance park values by assuring protection
of scenic views, adjacent watersheds and
roadless areas.
Immediately south of - and contiguous
to - Zion National Park, Canaan Mountain
is a spectacular plateau towering 2000 feet
above the surrounding desert. I ts rugged
slickrock plateau top is broken with pinnacles, cones, scours and natural arches and is
partially covered with scattered stands of
ponderosa pine and Douglas fir. Canaan
Mountain offers impressive panoramic views
of Zion National Park, the Pine Valley
Mountains (designated forest wilderness),
and the Pink Cliffs.
Bryce
UWC is proposing wilderness designation
for 3 areas which would enhance the natural,
scenic and recreational values of Bryce
Canyon. BLM dropped all of these areas
during its inventory process.
Squaw and Willis Creek
Visitors to Bryce Canyon's popular overlooks view the pinyon-juniper covered
benchlands of the UWCs 21,OOO-acre Squaw
and Willis Creek proposal when they look
beyond the park's famed pinnacles and
spires. Wilderness protection of this area
would help assure protection of Bryce's
scenic viewshed. Similarly, protection of the
area's slickrock canyons and pinyon-juniper
bench lands would significantly expand hiking and camping opportunities available to
Bryce visitors. Conservationists also promote
the expansion of the park to include the
narrow strip of Forest Service lands which
lie between Bryce and the Squaw-Willis
Creek area.
Capitol Reef
Mt. Pennel
The UWCs 143,OOO-acre Mt. Pennel
proposal abuts Capitol Reefs eastern boundary for around 15 miles and comprises a
major portion of the scenic panorama viewed
by visitors to the park's impressive Strike
Valley overlook. Wilderness protection
would help to assure that coal strip mining
--once proposed for Swap Mesa and Cave
Flat - does not occur and scar this vista
with the sights of industrial development.
The BLM has recommended none of its
74,300-acre WSA for wilderness.
Fremont Gorge
The rolling benches and sandstone cliffs
in the UWCs l8,OOO-acre Fremont Gorge
wilderness proposal are a natural continuation of geologic features in Capitol Reef
National park. The area also includes many
deep, narrow canyons which drain into the
Fremont River as well as four miles of the
Fremont River Gorge itself. Colorful rock
walls and seasonal waterfalls create high
quality day hiking opportunities convenient
to the Capitol Reef campground.
Colt Mesa
The UWCs 24,OOO-acre Colt Mesa proposal includes Deep Point, a small heartshaped mesa which extends westward from
East-or-Bryce and Box Canyon
the south end of Capitol Reefs Waterpocket
East-of-Bryce is a small -- 887 acres F old. The mesa provides a bird's eye view of
but logical extension of Bryce Canyon
the park's amazing geologic features . It was
National Park, located northwest of Tropic.
probably only excluded from the park itself
It features the same towering ponderosa •
because of the congressional preference for
straight-line boundaries.
continued to page 7
THE UTAH
WILDERNESS
COALITION
Legend on Reverse: 5 Million Acres of BLM Wilderness!
100% Cotton
Color: Sand
o XL (4648)
0 L (42-44)
0 M (38-40)
0 S (34-36)
$11-50 (Includes postage and handling)
·ame ___________________________________________________________
ddr~s
______________________________________________________
Clly ________________________________ State ____________ Zip ________
Make Check To:
Utah Wilderness Coalition
P.O . Box 11446
alt Lake City, Utah 84147
Proceeds help save Utah's BLM wildlands
The Ulah Wilderness News is a publication of the Utah Wilderness Coalition - 18
com.ervation organizations united in support of a proposal to designate 5 million acres of Utah
BLM. wilderness: The News will appear once each month during the comment period on the
BLM s draft envIronmental Impact statement and as often thereafter as needed in pursuit of the
Coalition's goal.
or information. contact the Utah Wilderness Coalition, P.O. Box 11446, Salt Lake City, Utah,
84147. or phone 801-363-9621.
Escalante Wilderness Commitee
Wasatch Mountain Club
Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Utntah Mountain Club
Slickrock Country Council
The WIlderness Sociely
Sierra Club
National Parks and Conservation
As>ociation
hiends of the Eanh
Defenders of Wildlife
Four Corners' Wilderness Workshop
Friends of the River. Colorado Plaleau
Arizona Wilderness Coalition
Colorado Environmental Coalition
Arizona Whitewater Association
Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association
New Mexico BLM Wilderness Coalition
Desen Tonoise Council
(supporting wilderness designation in
Joshua Tree and Beaver Dam Wash Areas)
rundtng for The Coah(lon Ne ....1 I~ provided in pan by RecreatIonal Equipment Inc. (REI). 1124
Brtckyard Road . Salt Lake City. tah 84106
�MAY 1986
Utahns oppose Burr Trail boondoggle
by Kris Dangerfield
In a whirlwind of activity in Washington
April 7-10, Utah conservationists lobbied
against Sen. Jake Garn's plans to pave the
Burr Trail, a 66-mile dirt road from Boulder,
Utah, to Bull Frog Marina on the shores of
Lake Powell.
The week-long lobbying effort culminated
in testimony before Sen. Malcolm Wallop's
Public Lands Subcommittee. Proponents of
the bill claim that paving 9.5 miles of the
road and gravelling the rest as Sen. Garn
proposes would substantially increase tourism in the area and would link all five Utah
national parks with the Lake Powell ferry
boat system in the Glen Canyon National
Recreation area.
Utah conservationists disagree, opposing
the bill over these critical major points:
• The paving plan would damage the
outstanding scenic, recreational and
wilderness values of the area which draw
The descent into Long Canyon along the
Burr Trail, one ofseveral places that various
proposals call for paving. Utah conservationists favor a minimum improvement
alternative at a fraction of the cost of
paving.
people who want to preserve the rural
character of the road and its somewhat
different "get away from it all experience;"
• Paving and gravelling are unnecessary.
The Burr Trail is now a graded, twowheel-<irive road easily driven in passenger cars; the road is passable year-round
except for 10 or so days a year during
periods of heavy rain or snow. Plus, there
are paved, highly scenic alternative routes
to Bull Frog, the new Boulder Mountain
road among them;
• The Burr Trail cannot be paved without
altering the existing horizontal and vertical alignment. To accommodate tour
buses, as the Gam bill provides, the road
would have to be widened from its
present 12 to 16 feet to 24 to 30 feet.
Major cuts and fills would be required in
the scenic and sensitive switchbacks portion of the road through the Waterpocket
Fold in Capitol Reef National Park;
• The costs of paving and gravelling, as
well as an estimated $435,000 for annual
maintenance and operation afterwards,
are excessive and unjustifiable, particularly in the face of the Gramm-Rudman
deficit reduction act which is already
taking its toll on established Utah parks.
Those budget cuts have forced reductions
in staff, services and operating hours for
Utah parks and visitor centers;
• Despite the fact that supporters of the bill
claim that only a handful of environmentalists is blocking the bill, the facts
show that a majority of people in Utah
oppose paving the Burr Trail. The Deseret
News/ KSL poll showed that 53 percent
of those polled who knew of the Burr
Trail opposed paving it. And editorials in
Utah's three major daily newspapers
have spoken against paving; and,
• There are serious flaws in the bill as
drafted. The legislation does not address
the original concerns - many also cited
by the National Park Service - the
conservationists raised in their opposition
to paving. Among them are cultural
resources, habitat for the endangered
peregrine falcon, the existence of two
wilderness study areas adjacent to the
road, the long-term impact of roadside
development on the seven state sections
that adjoin the road, the use of the road
for commercial hauling and increased use
of the backcountry with no increased
protection.
Much of the bill's intent would be accomplished not through the language of the bill
itself but through a contract between the
National Park Service and the State of
Utah. That contract exists now only in draft
form and some of the major provisions have
not been drafted at all. Among them is a
so-called "reverter clause" that would give
the road back to the State of Utah if the
Park Service C:id not maintain it.
One of the most troubling features of the
contract approach, according to Maggie
Fox of the Sierra Club, is the fact that if the
Congress passes a Garn bill incorporating a
contract that may not yet exist, the public is
denied any opportunity to participate in the
process.
The Utah group voiced precisely those
concerns in visits with National Park Service
Director William Penn Mott after the Senate
hearings. Mott firmly reiterated his view that
the road must follow the existing alignment
and meet other standards he set out in his
proposal of last fall or, "We won't sign the
contract."
Conservationists told the subcommittee
that the Park Service estimates the true cost
of doing what Sen. Gam wants done on the
Burr Trail will be around $16.4 million.
(That compares to the present annual
operating budget for Utah's 13 existing park
system units of only $11 million.)
Sen. Gam's bill would authorize the
expenditure of $7.7 million the Congress
conditionally approved late last year, leaving
the fiscally strapped State of Utah to come
up with roughly another $6 million in
addition to the $3.1 million it has already
scraped together for the Burr Trail paving
scheme.
The Utah conservationists also visited a
number of senators and representatives to
explain their views on the Burr Trail issue
and to seek help in defeating the measure.
The testimony and the personal meetings
Burr Trail story used
without author's okay
The article on the Burr Trail in our
April issue was written by Ruth Frear,
Salt Lake City, for Sierra Magazine. It
was used. due to a misunderstanding,
without her permission.
We apologize to Ms. Frear for any
inconvenience we may have caused her
and thank her for her understanding in
this matter.
accomplished two very important things,
said Del Smith, Springdale, associate director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
(SUWA).
"First, the extensive conflicts with the
language in the bill and the draft contract,
the environmental costs and the real costs to
the people of Utah were added to the Senate
record. Second, our testimony and our
discussions give to members of Congress
who are serious about balanced budgets and
environmental common sense a stronger
footing from which to oppose the measure."
Others involved in the hearings were Clive
Kincaid, Boulder, Utah, director ofSUW A;
Dale Dockstader, Rockville; Christine
Swanson, Boulder and Salt Lake City; Clay
Puckett, Orem; and Tom Messenger, Arlington, Va., a frequent visitor to Utah.
Also, Terri Martin, Salt Lake City, Rocky
Mountain Regional Representative for the
National Parks and Conservation Assn.;
Darrell Knuffke, Denver, and Regional
Director for The Wilderness Society; and
Maggie Fox, Southwest Regional Representative for the Sierra Club.
Kris Dangerfield is ajournalist who lives
in Springdale. She also testified in the Burr
Trail hearing.
THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION
BlM backs off -
Mt. Ellen win • • •
continued from cover
Chaining is a common practice on public
lands as a way to allegedly increase grazing
for domestic livestock. Such activities,
though, are illegal under the BLM's Interim
Management Policy (I M P), regulations that
are meant to ensure that the agency manages
wilderness study lands in ways that do not
impair their wilderness values.
After conservationists, including members of the Utah Wilderness Coalition,
protested the action, the agency announced
in August 1985 that it was modifying the
WSA boundary to remove the bulldozed
area, suggesting that it was only correcting a
"clerical error~ and that the ravaged land
was never part of the WSA.
The Coalition appealed both the chaining
and the boundary change to the Interior
Board of Land Appeals (IBLA), asking that
the 300 chained acres be reclaimed and
restored to the WSA. The IBLA notified
Catlin on April 17 that it has dismissed the
case because the BLM has agreed to the
Coalition's requests.
DISCOVER
THE BEST OF UTAH IN
THE UTAH GEOGRAPHIC SERIES
BEAUTIFUL COLOR BOOKS ABOUT UTAH...
Canyon country, mountain ranges, skiing, wildlife, rivers, deserts,
pioneer trails and people-all are featured as separate titles i? t?e new Utah
Geographic Series! Each title contains 120 pages of authontatlve text and
approximately 175 color photographs by the West's finest photographers.
UTAH CANYON COUNTRY, the first volume in the series, is now
available. Written by Moab author F.A. Barnes with a foreword by Ted Wilson, UTAH
CANYON COUNTRY is a comprehenSive portrayal of the unparalleled country of
southeastern Utah.
Proceeds help save Utah's BLM wildlands
........................................................... :
: TO ORDER UTAH CANYON COUNTR Y,
: send $14.95 plus 51.80 for sales tax and postage (S\6.75 per book)
to:
Utah Wilderness Coalition
P.O . Box 11446. Suit Lake City. Uta h 84147
Address
. "
Zip
: ~'~"',... .. , . . ..... . , ... ... SLue , . . . ...... .. . .. . .. . .. ... ....... ..
. ..
.
3
�4
THE UTAH WILDER NESS CO ALI TION
MAY 1986
In Defense of Five Million Acres
The Coalition's Proposal in Brief
In this issue we summarize our wilderness proposals in the Zion-H ot
Desert, Cedar Mesa, and Canyonlands regions of Utah. We give a synopsis
of each area's status, the relationship to nearby wilderness lands such as
national parks, a description of some of the remarkable features, an~ t~e
BLM's rationale for its recommendation. This is the third part of the senes m
Utah WiJderne5S News describing the Coalition's 141-area, five-million-acre
BLM wilderness proposal.
(Note: Map areas in black are BLM's recommendation; grey areas are the
UWCs proposal.)
Cougar Canyon
Zion and Hot Desert ' The BLM gives no reasons for their
nonwilderness recommendations in their EIS.
(Mojave) Region
Why! Perhaps because their proposal is so
Southwestern Utah i'i a mosaic of diversity:
the upper Sonoran desert meets the Great
Basin and the canyonlands of Utah's Colorado Plateau. Here, ponderosa forests nest in
coral pink sand dunes. Clear mountain
streams descend through rugged cougar
country. Many of the important wilderness
candidates are logical parts of Utah's most
vi'iited National Park, Zion.
Bear Trap
ZIO N and HOT D ESERT R E GION
Existing
WSA
Unit Na me
Beartrap Canyon
Beaver Dam Wash
Black Ridge
Canaan Mountain
Cottonwood Canyon
Cougar Canyon & Doc's Pass
Deep Creek
Goose Creek Canyon
J os hua Tree Nat. Area
La Verkin Creek Canyon
Moquith Mountain
;-'; orth Fork Virgin River
Orderville Ca nyon
Parunuweap Canyon
Red M ountain
Red Butte
S hunesburg
Spring Ca nyon
Taylor Creek Canyon
T he Watchma n
Ka na b Creek
Totals
40
0
0
53,600
11 ,330
23,768
3,320
89
1,040
567
14,830
1.040
1,750
30.800
18,250
804
0
4,433
35
600
0
166,296
Ut a h
W ild ern ess
Coalition
P ro posal
BLM
D E IS
Pro posal
40
0
0
32,800
9,853
0
3,320
89
0
567
0
1,040
1,750
14,100
17,450
804
0
4,433
35
600
0
86,881
40
38,221
12,500
62,400
11 ,000
28,600
7,070
89
13,500
567
14,830
1,040
1,750
30,800
18,000
804
80
4,433
35
160
25,750
271,669
ZION & MOJAVE DESERT
REGION
T he head of Bear Trap Canyon just lies
outside of the Kolob part of Zion National
Park. Secretary Watt dropped this area from
wilderness study, but legal action by members
of the Utah Wilderness Coalition forced the
BLM to reinstate it. This small40-acre area is
now supported by the BLM for wilderness
designation. Deeply incised and capped with
pine forests, Bear Trap Canyon warrants a
visit.
Beaver Dam Wash
This large 38,22I-acre area laps into
Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. A large part of
the desert tortoise popUlation depends on the
Beaver Dam Slopes which form most of this
wilderness proposal. Brigham Young University conducts scientific studies and education
programs within this area. BLM dropped
this area from wilderness study without
publicly giving any reason. The Coalition
proposal deletes the few developments in this
area; no known conflicts block wilderness
designation.
Black Ridge
La Verkin Creek exits from the Kolob part
of Zion National Park through this road less
area - a popular route into the park. The
black volcanic mesa to the west of LaVerkin
Creek forms the rugged Black Ridge. Incredibly, the BLM dropped this area from
wilderness review, claiming that neither hiking
the ridgetop nor sightseeing and photography
of the scenic geological features such as the
adjacent Zion National Park "are individually
of outstanding quality."
Canaan Mountain
L aVer kin Creek
LOCATION MAP
T ay lor
Can y o n
Spr in g
Ca n yon
Red
Mounta in
Black
Ridg
Cre ek
. Virgin River
rderville C.
--
Cottonwood Canyon
S hu nesburg
Joshua T r e
N at ural A rea
Cr e ek
Long protected from off-road vehicle use,
Canaan Mountain abuts the southwest side
of Zion National Park and the north side of
Colorado City, Utah. The masthead of the
Utah Wilderness News is an 1872 drawing of
this mountain by W .H. Holmes from Dutton's classic Tertiary History of the Grand
Canyon District. Although BLM supports
the core for wilderness, sigrtificant parts of
the cliff base, including those just south of
Rockville at the mouth of Zion Canyon, are
not recommended. Access is limited to just a
few routes to the top. The views of the
Arizona Strip and Zion Park from this area
are superlative.
Pa runuweap
C ana an
M oun tain
Public comments ('ount! BLM now supports this area for wilderness designation
because of your comments. Exposed Navajo
Sandstone canyons lie northeast of St.
George, Utah on the south slopes of the Pine
Valley Mountains. Hiking access via the Red
Cliffs Recreation Area is popular. Drilling
wells for water poses a conflict with a few
acres on the south side of the area. Protection
of sensitive wildlife species including the gila
monster and chuckwalla make wilderness
designation needed. Several thousand acres
of adjacent National Forest road less lands
need consideration in the DEIS.
hard to defend: witness Cougar Canyon,
where clear streams flow into Nevada's
Beaver Dam State Park. BLM states that the
area has "extremely narrow and dense
riparian zones that are practically inaccessible." Earlier, BLM argued the area was too
rugged to be a wilderness area! No conflicts
exist in this area. The Coalition proposal
includes the Forest Service part of this area
near Pine Park on the north, a good starting
point for hikes.
Deep Creek
Hiking up the one of Zion's deeper canyons, you reach the unmarked boundary of
the National Park and wonder why the park
doesn't continue for another ten miles? Access
from outside Zion is from the Lava Point
area northeast of the park. The BLM proposal includes only the lower half of Deep
Creek: the upper half was dropped in order
to put in a developed mechanized recreation
facility. The Coalition proposal includes that
upper part of the canyon to preclude such
unwarranted uses.
Goose Creek Canyon
Tucked against a comer of Zion National
Park, this 89-acre area is recommended by
BLM for wilderness designation. To their
credit, the BLM is also trying to acquire
nearby land on Kolob Creek. Goose Creek
Canyon was dropped by Secretary Watt
from wilderness study but was reinstated by
our legal efforts. BLM states, "Mountain lion
activity in the vicinity is heavy. The Utah
Division of Wildlife Resources considers
mountain lion herd 58 (which includes this
WSA) as the state's best kill record for
cougar hunting."
Joshua Tree Natural Area
You won't fmd Joshua Tree Natural Area
or the surrounding 12,460-acre roadless area
mentioned in the Utah DEIS. The BLM
recommended against wilderness for this
area without environmental review or a
chance for the public to comment. In addition to one of the most remarkable Joshua
tree communities, this area is critical habitat
for the desert tortoise. The BLM dropped a
majority of the area from wilderness study by
exaggerating the sigrtificance of a few impacts
on the edge of the area The Coalition redrew
the boundary excluding those impacts.
LaVerkin Creek Canyon
One of the special canyons in the Kolob
(northeast) section of Zion National Park is
upper LaVerkin Creek. The BLM recommends adding 1.5 miles of the upper canyon
to the Zion Park wilderness proposal. Douglas fIr, white fIr, aspen and juniper grace the
tops of the nearly vertical 900-foot-high
canyon walls.
Moquith Mountain
West of Kanab, Utah, and southwest of
Zion National Park, Moquith Mountain
abuts Coral Pink Sand Dunes State Reserve.
Several deep canyons incise the Verrnillion
Cliffs offering hanging gardens and archeological ruins. The most amazing value is the
pockets of ponderosa pine nested in sand
dunes, a unique biologic community containing endangered plants. The BLM recommends nonwilderness, leaving the area open
to jeeps and motorbikes.
�MAY 1986 TH E UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION
CANYONLANDS REGION
Existing
WSA
Unit Name
heir
ns.
I so
Ion,
aa's
Ithe
hse
ces-
t~~
~
mg
n
0
12,635
0
54,290
22,030
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,870
59,300
Beaver Creek
Behind the Rocks
Hunter Canyon
Black Ridge
Butler Wash
Fisher Towers
Goldbar Canyon
Goose Neck, NOIth &
South
Granite Creek
Hatch Wash
Harts Point
Indian Creek
Labyrinth Canyon &
Horseshoe Canyon
Duma Point
Spring Canyon Point
Hell & Roaring Canyon
Lost Spring Canyon
Mill Creek
Negro Bill Canyon
Six Shooter Peaks
Little Bridger Jack
Bridger Jack Mesa
Shaffer Canyon
Westwater Canyon
Utah
Wilderness
Coalition
Proposal
BLM
DEIS
Proposal
25,500
20,000
3,800
52,290
25,780
13,300
8,790
5,800
4,400
7,920
13,800
42,000
26,920
135,420
0
12,635
0
*
24,190
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,870
56,500
Adjacent areas
3,880
9,780
7,620
5,290
0
31,160
212,855
3,880
0
0
5,290
11,600
14,570
13,500
32,640
Adjacent areas
2,800
31,160
481,990
0
26,000
135,365
ch
al
by
Red Mountain
Sandwiched between Snow Canyon State
Park and Gunlock State Beach, Red Mountain offers hunting, backpacking, and horseback riding for the St. George area, six miles
to the southwest. In 1984 the BLM recommended non wilderness for this study area.
They now recommend wilderness - largely
because of effective public testimony.
Shunesburg
Totals
itat
Red Butte
Locals call it ~the most beautiful drive in
North America~ - the road from Virgin.
Utah, that crosses the middle of Zion heading
north to the Upper Kolob Plateau. Its beauty
owes partly to Red Butte - a 2,OOO-foothigh sandstone massif abutting the park east
of LaVerkin Creek. Supported by BLM for
wilderness, this is another example of legislators drawing straight lines for a park boundary, ignoring the pleading of the land.
Secretary Watt dropped this area and - you
guessed it - we sued and won.
CANYONLANDS REGION
Goldbar
Canyon
-Black Ridge
Westwater
Canyon
ranite Creek
Hikers exiting Zion National Park in the
Parunuweap canyon pass the vertical cliffs of
this area, just north of the Virgin River. The
BLM ignored the presence of the adjacent
National Park and dropped this area from
wilderness study. This is another logical
extension of Zion's wild country.
Spring Canyon
Visitors to Zion notice the deep-red sandstone canyons just north of the Kolob
Canyon turnoff from 1-15 to the northern
part of Zion. This is Spring Canyon - rival
to the Kolob area itself. Secretary Watt
dropped this area from study but members
of the Coalition sued, reinstating the study.
Now the BLM recommends wilderness partly a result of the lawsuit but also because
of public comment.
Kanab Creek
Bill Canyon
--"nill Creek
the Rocks
(>-----+--.\-1 a t c h
Wash
Neck
ew
Six Shoote
Peaks
Bridger
Point
Monticello
o
ob
is
LOCATION MAP
North Fork Virgin River
of
The North Fork of the Virgin River flows
into the northeast corner of Zion National
Park and is clearly of park caliber, yet was
excluded by the ruler-straight boundary.
Many hikers walk this canyon unaware of
the mistake the boundary makers made.
BLM supports wilderness for this area - but
only as a result of strong public support.
Orderville Canyon
oen
The classic Virgin Narrows hike through
Zion National Park begins by passing
through this canyon east of the park. The
area includes several important side canyons:
Esplin Gulch, Englestead Hollow, Walker
Gulch, and Birch Hollow. Initially, the BLM
recommended nonwilderness but as a result
of your comments, the BLM reversed itself
and recommended wilderness. This area is a
logical component of Zion National Park.
Parunuweap Canyon
East of Zion National Park, this area is the
scene of one of the most protracted wilderness battles in the state. The BLM tried to
drop all this area from wilderness review and
lost. Then they recommended nonwilderness,
but changed their recommendation thanks
to your comments. Local government proposes dewatering Parunuweap - a classic
"wet narrows" hike - with a dam. At this
time the BLM recommends wilderness for
much of the area, but excludes the forestcovered top of the White Cliffs and scenic
Elephant Cove, and Harris Mountain.
streams offer excellent hikes with a spectacular white sandstone backdrop. The Coalition's 25,750-acre proposal includes unimpacted lands the BLM dropped from wilderness study. The Allen-Warner Valley Energy
Project, now dead, proposed a coal slurry
pipeline across this area.
The Watchman
Zion is the fIfth most visited National Park
in the country. The fIrst impression most
visitors have of the park is The Watchman,
the huge buttress just above Springdale that
is partly on BLM land. The BLM recommends wilderness for a portion of the cliff;
the Coalition includes the natural lands
down to the river. Another "Watt drop~ that
is being studied only because of conservationists' legal vigilance.
Canyonlands Region
slickrock maze
The Green, Colorado and Dolores Rivers
all meet in Utah's Canyonlands. Abutting
these rivers are numerous BLM side canyons with wilderness equal to those found in
Canyonlands and Arches National Parks.
Beaver Creek
East of Moab, the Dolores River crosses
the Colorado state line passing Beaver Creek.
A l3-mile crystal-clear stream flows down
the thousand foot deep canyon. This area
includes the wild and scenic river proposal
for the Dolores River in Utah including
numerous side canyons down to Ridge
Canyon. The BLM dropped this area from
wilderness inventory, claiming that impacts
high on the edges of the road less area
impacted the core. The Coalition proposal
excludes those impacts, protecting a major
portion of the Dolores River in Utah.
Taylor Creek Canyon
This logical extension of the park's
northern wilderness flows into the Kolob
Canyon area. The BLM proposes wilderness
- but only after conservationists appealed
yet another ~Watt drop.~
North of Kanab, Utah, the White Cliffs
wrap around the headwaters of Kanab
Creek. Several deep canyons with clear
Behind the Rocks
and Hunter Canyon
Just west of Moab, an 1,800-foot cliff
announces the edge of the multifluted petrifIed sand dunes in Behind the Rocks. The
BLM supports wilderness designation for
much of the area, excluding the northern tip
near the Colorado River Portal and the
western third including Hunter Canyon.
continued to page 6
CEDAR MESA REGION
Existing
WSA
Unit Name
Arch Canyon
Comb Ridge
Cheese Box Canyon &
Deer Canyon
Cross Canyon
Dark Canyon &
Beef Basin
Sweet Alice Canyon
Fable Valley
Bowdie Canyon Plateau
Youngs Canyon
Lower Horse Flats
Black Steer Canyon
Fish Creek
Fortknocker Canyon
Grand Gulch
Gravel & Long Canyon
Harmony Flat
Mancos Mesa
Mule Canyon
Nokai Dome &
Mikes Canyon
Road Canyon
Sheep Canyon
Squaw & Papoose Canyon
0
0
15,410
12,000
68,030
Utah
Wilderness
Coalition
Proposal
8,800
14,460
25,000
Adjoining area
12,000
119,300
BLM
DEIS
Proposal
0
0
0
*
68,030
Adjoining areas
46,440
0
105,520
0
0
51,440
5,990
0
Totals
*Arcas being studied by the Colorado BLM
5
65,000
7,680
136.120
37,200
10,470
108,700
5,900
80,000
35,220
0
105,520
0
0
46,120
5,990
0
52,420
0
6,580
363,830
52,000
4.500
6,580
693,710
45,720
0
*
306,600
�6
THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION
MAY 1986
dropped this area from wilderness study
using the presence of a few impacts to
exclude a larger natural area.
continued from page 5
Congressman Hansen, R-UT, has proposed
that these two canyons be added to Canyonlands National Park.
Shaffer Canyon
LOCATION MAP
Dark Canyon
Sheep Canyon
CEDAR MESA
REGION
N.P.
Wash
ravel & Long Canyon
Squaw & Papoo e
Glen
Canyon
Box
Canyon
N.R.A.
-----Mule Canyon
omb Ridge
ish & Owl
Canyons
Road Canyon
Cross Cany
Flat
Recognizing the significance of Pritchett
Canyon to ORV users and mountain bicycles, the Coalition has excluded this canyon from its proposal. Rather than consider
land exchange, the BLM excluded the Hunter Canyon portion of this area from wilderness study because of the presence of state
lands.
Black Ridge
Stretching from Westwater to Colorado
National Monument along the Colorado
River, Black Ridge is recommended for
wilderness designation by the Colorado
BLM. This area is not discussed in the Utah
BLM wilderness DEIS.
Butler Wash
Again, praise for public comments: the
BLM added several hundred acres to this
wilderness study area to enlarge the agency's
wilderness recommendation. Located on the
south side of Canyonlands National Park,
this wilderness proposal matches the quality
of the adjoining park.
Fisher Towers
One of the best known geologic formations in southern Utah, the Fisher Towers is
well-known for rock climbing. Unknown to
many is the pristine 5·rnile Waring Canyon
which begins just behind the Towers and
drains into the Dolores River. This area,
located south of the Dewey Bridge on the
Colorado River, was dropped from study by
the BLM with the claim that ~the natural
character of the unit has been compromised."
The Coalition proposal excludes the peripheral impacts and includes the imposing
towers, cliffs, and Waring Canyon with its
stream.
These impacts were used by the BLM as
reasons to drop a larger natural area from
wilderness study.
Goose Neck, North and South
Many float trips down the Colorado
begin near Pyramid Butte. The first 13 miles
wind through the Gooseneck road less area.
This 600-foot-deep canyon is a logical extension of Canyonlands National Park. River
users question the BLM's assertion that
~Iandforms in the unit consist of open flats"
and lack wilderness solitude and recreation.
The BLM dropped this area from wilderness study.
Granite Creek
North and east of the Dolores River
crossing the Colorado state line, Granite
Creek offers impressive hikes along lush
green-lined streams. The BLM dropped this
area from wilderness study, arguing that
wildlife habitat does not offer significant
wilderness values. Again the BLM claimed
the hundred-foot-deep canyon lacked adequate topographic screening for solitude.
Hatch Wash
East of Canyonlands National Park and
west of the LaSal Junction on U.S. 163,
Hatch Wash carries the major sources for
Kane Springs Creek. Impressive 500-foot
cliffs like those of Canyonlands line the wash
as side canyons join this natural area. By
drawing a boundary including the natural
canyons and excluding the impacted mesa
tops, the Coalition developed a sizable
wilderness proposal. The BLM used these
boundary impacts to conclude the canyon
was impacted and not deserving of wilderness study.
Goldbar Canyon
Hart Point
The north side of the Colorado River
Portal west of Moab, Utah, has several
excellent short day hikes. Two examples
include a trail beginning at the portal itself,
ascending the cliff beside the Colorado. A
second hike begins near Bootleg Canyon
and leads to Little Rainbow Ridge. The
Coalition boundary excludes any wilderness
impacts from the potash rail line and roads.
Newspaper Rock abuts the Hart Point
cliff face which runs for nearly 20 miles.
Originally proposed as part of Canyonlands
National Park, Hart Point and Draw are
logical components of this park. Views from
the point catch Six Shooter Peaks and
DaVIS Canyon. For a sampler hike, explore
Bobby's Hole behind Wind Whistle Rock,
six miles west of U.S. 163. The BLM
Indian Creek
Abutting Canyonlands just west and north
of the Needles District in the Park, Indian
Creek has some of the area's most remarkable Indian ruins. The numerous canyons
are the east bank of the Colorado River's
equivalent of the Maze. The BLM moved
the boundary, excluding two-thirds of the
qualifying natural area from its wilderness
proposal. Most of Indian Creek was excluded. A rarely visited area, excellent hikes
start where the Hurrah Pass road crosses
Indian Creek.
Labyrinth Canyon
After leaving the Book Cliffs, the Green
River flows south, entering Labryinth Canyon and eventually Canyonlands National
Park - one of the few rivers on which you
can canoe for several days in deep slickrock
canyons without rapids. The BLM dropped
most of Labyrinth Canyon from wilderness
study leaving only Horseshoe Canyon in its
recommendation. River travellers cannot
understand how the west bank is wilderness
while the BLM claims the equally natural
east bank ~clearly and obviously lacks
wilderness characteristics."
Lost Spring Canyon
Behind Arches National Park are some
wonderful canyons rarely visited. The
National Park Service has openly campaigned to have these canyons protected and perhaps added to the park. Secretary
Watt dropped this area, but our lawsuit
forced the BLM to reinstate the study area.
Now the BLM recommends wilderness for
about one-fourth of the deserving area.
Mill Creek
Mill Creek flows through the center of
Moab after leaving a BLM wilderness study
area. This is one of Utah's finest canyons,
with petroglyphs, swimming pools, numerous drops, and trees covering the perennial
stream. BLM dropped this area in the
inventory and we got it reinstated though
administrative appeals. Now the BLM says
this area is unsuitable. (This is an area for
which Grand County opposed wilderness
designation using a county bulldozer to
plow a lOO-yard track near the area boundary. The BLM capitulated to this political
threat and recommends nonwilderness.)
Negro Bill Canyon
A bout 2.5 miles east of Moab along Utah
128, Negro Bill Canyon Creek flows out of
its deep canyon to meet the Colorado River.
Grand County staged a second demonstration against wilderness here, reconstructing a road up the canyon. Under conservationists' pressure, the BLM sued the county
for trespass. The suit was settled when the
county agreed to stop bulldozing the canyon
while the BLM agreed to drop the area from
wilderness recommendation. Our administrative a ppeal of that decision was the first
in the country to restore wilderness to the
study process. Today the BLM continues
recommending nonwilderness.
Six Shooter Peak
Two impressive canyons, separated by
Bridger Jack Mesa (a relict plant community), Little Bridger Jack and Six Shooter
Peaks abut the Needles District in Canyonlands National Park. Only the top of Bridger
Jack Mesa (a sixth of the area) is being
recommended for wilderness. To assist the
Department of Energy in siting high-level
nuclear wastes next to Canyonlands. the
BLM dropped Davis and Lavender Canyons
from the wilderness review. The BLM incorrectly claimed that these areas lack
wilderness-grade solitude and recreation.
The northeastern corner of Canyonlands
National Park and Dead Horse State Park
are sep?rated by the BLM roadless area
called Shaffer Canyon. Totally ignoring the
magnificent view this canyon gives park
visitors, the BLM astonishingly found, ~the
irregular configuration of the unit which
wraps about the state park would severely
limit opportunities for solitude." This area is
a clear choice as an addition to the national
park.
Westwater Canyon
The Colorado River first travels through
Utah in this ca:nyon, strongly favored by
river runners. The BLM supports wilderness
designation for a majority of the area. The
BLM recommends nonwilderness on the
southern area in order to encourage off-road
vehicle use.
Cedar Mesa,
Land of the Anasazi
The most important evidence of walled
Utah's ancient peoples lies in the Cedar
Mesa region - an unmatched reference
collection for understanding early Americans. Unless key parts of Cedar Mesa are
designated wilderness, new roads will expand
vehicle access - and expand the range of
the "pothunters" that destroy priceless
archaeological sites.
Arch Canyon
West of Comb Ridge, just north of Utah
95, Arch Canyon contains cottonwoodlined creeks that tumble from the Abajo
Mountains to the north. Despite a 63-1
record of public comment in favor of wilder-
ness study, the BLM dropped the area claiming that State-owned land somehow
"divided" this natural area. (In similar areas
where the BLM supported wilderness, State
land was not a problem.)
Comb Ridge
One of the most memorable views in
driving Utah 95 is crossing Comb Ridge, a
dramatic, uplifted reef 15 miles long and
over 1,000 feet high. The BLM dropped this
area in the initial inventory, concluding that
the area "clearly and obviously lacked
. wilderness character." Citing a few impacts
on the edge of the area, the BLM claimed
the area was ~heavily impacted by human
activities."
Cheesebox and Deer Canyons
These serpentine canyons flow into White
Canyon, which parallels Utah 95 north of
Natural Bridges National Monument. The
BLM opposes wilderness for Cheese box
and is not even studying the roadless areas
surrounding the Monument - Harmony
Flat and Deer Canyon. Their claim of
significant human impacts is exaggerated,
given the very real wilderness values of the
area.
Cross Canyon
About four miles north of Cutthroat
Castle in Hovenweep National Monument,
Cross Canyon lies mostly in Colorado and is
being studied by the BLM in that state.
Utah's portion contains badland formations
next to a pinyon-juniper forest.
Dark Canyon
Only half of the BLM land in this popular
backpacking area is proposed for wilderness. A BLM wilderness recommendation is
needed to complement designated National
Forest wilderness in the upper canyon and
recommended Park Service wilderness in
contin ued to page 8
�MAY 1986
THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION
7
Parks and wilderness • • •
continued
from
page 2
Red Desert
Arches
Abutting Capitol Reef for several miles
on its northeast border is the UWCs 28,800acre Red DeseI1 proposal. This area includes
an unusual and colorful basin of deep pink
badlands and fluted mud columns. Protection of this area would enhance the scenic
and recreational experience of visitors to
Capitol Reefs North District, as the park
access road forms the Red Desert boundary
for several miles.
Abutting Arches' northeast boundary,
Lost Spring Canyon offers diverse hiking
opportunities in conjunction with Arches
National Park. The unit includes the upper
reaches of Arches' Salt Wash and the entire
Lost Spring Canyon system. The area is
characterized by deeply eroded side canyons
and colorful rock formations, including fins,
domes and several arches.
Canyonlands
Natural Bridges
Canyonlands National Park lies within a
large, cliff-edged basin of highly eroded
slickrock formations - canyons, buttes,
spires and needles. The original proposed
park boundary would have included this
entire basin - rim-to-rim - from the
Orange Cliffs on the east to the Hatch Point
Cliffs on the west. This proposal was whittled
down until only a heart-shaped portion of
the Canyonlands basin was established as a
national park. The UWCs wilderness proposals adjacent to Canyonlands would help
provide needed protection to deserving lands
excluded from park protection.
Six-Shooter Peaks
The UWCs Six-Shooter Peaks 32,640acre proposal would protect the lower ends
of Lavender and Davis Canyons (the upper
ends are in Canyonlands National Park) as
well as Bridger Jack Mesa. Scenically and
geographically, this area is an inseparable
part of Canyonlands National Park. Protection of this area has become particularly
critical because of the U.S. Department of
Energy's consideration of Davis and Lavender Canyons for high-level nuclear waste
disposal.
Indian Creek
Fourteen miles of Indian Creek Canyon
- a narrow, twisting canyon draining into
Canyonlands National Park and the Colorado River - would be protected in UWCs
26,920-acre Indian Creek proposal. Indian
creek is a major feature in the Canyonlands
basin west of the park. When viewed from
BLM's Needles Overlook, it is frequently
perceived as part of Canyonlands National
Park.
The Canyon offers an unforgettable hiking
experience because of unusual rock formations and rich color combinations in the
rock. Wilderness designation would also
enhance protection of the many Indian rock
art sites amateur archeologists have documented.
Shaffer Canyon and
the Goosenecks
Just north of Indian Creek are these two
units the BLM dropped during its inventory
process.
The UWC's 2,800-acre Schaffer Canyon
proposal lies directly below Deadhorse Point
and would protect the Point's scenic breaks
as wilderness.
The Colorado River winds back and
forth through the U WC's 1O,200-acre
Goosenecks proposal. Boaters in Canyonland's Cataract Canyon float through this
stretch of river on their way into the park.
Butler Wash
Abutting the park on the south, UWCs
25,780-acre Butler Wash proposal includes
the upper end of Salt Creek, a major canyon
and hiking corridor in Canyonland's Needles
District. Hikers seeking remoteness and
solitude in the Needles frequently make the
Butler Wash area their destination. The
BLM recommends 24,190 acres of wilderness for Butler Wash.
Lost Spring Canyon
Natural Bridges National Monument is
literally surrounded by UWCs wilderness
proposals - and for good reason. This
small monument was set aside primarily to
protect 3 natural rock bridges, but it is
surrounded by outstanding wilderness lands.
These wildlands are part of what the
UWC calls the "White Canyon Complex"
- a series of canyons dissecting the Cedar
Mesa plateau and draining into the White
River. With its maze of deeply incised
canyons and pinyon-juniper covered benchlands, the White Canyon Complex includes
tens of miles of outstanding hiking and
backpacking opportunities. Designation of
the White Canyon Complex would make
Natural Bridges National Monument the
heart of one of the most impressive wilderness complexes in southern Utah.
Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area
Geographically, the Glen Canyon NRA
forms the heart of the UWCs 5-million-acre
wilderness proposal. The NRA itself is not
included in the proposal because it is under
national Park Service jurisdiction. UWC
wilderness areas abut virtually the entire
perimeter of the NRA, one of the nation's
largest. Thirteen UWC wilderness proposals
adjoin NPS-recommended wilderness within
the NRA.
Although Glen Canyon NRA was established primarily to administer the recreational values of Lake Powell, it includes
- and abuts - some of the most remote,
pristine and impressive wilderness in the
state.
The NRA contains, for example, the
lower stretches of the Escalante River Canyons, and abuts the UWCs North Escalante
Canyons wilderness proposal. The UWCs
Lillie Egypt, Scorpion, Dance Hall Rock
and Sooner Bench proposals all would
protect the upper ends of canyons draining
into the NRA's portion of the Escalante
Canyon.
The Coalition's French Spring/ Happy
Canyon-Dirt)' Devil and Fiddler Butte proposals meet the western boundary of, and
are natural extensions of, the wild and
remote Orange Cliffs section of Glen Canyon NRA.
The San Juan Arm of Glen Canyon
NRA forms the southern boundary for
UWCs Nokai Dome, Castle Creek, Mike's
Canyon, and Grand Gulch/ Johns/ Slickrock
Canyon wilderness proposals. These areas
would protect the deeply incised narrow
canyons draining Cedar Mesa's pinyonjuniper covered plateau lands which flow
into the San Juan River. Protection of these
areas in conjunction with the San Juan
River would form an outstanding river and
canyon wilderness.
Terri Martin lives in Salt Lake City and is
the Rocky Mountain Regional Representatives/or the National Parks and Conservation Association.
This spectacular spot in Parunuweap Canyon is the site 0/ a proposed site 0/ a dam the
Washington County Water Conservancy District would like to build within the
Parunuweap Wilderness Study Area. Wilderness designation would protect it.
Photo copyright Ray Wheeler
Help UWC
New Books To Focus
On Utah
Ulah Canyon Countfr. the first volume
in the new Utah Geographic Series, will be
released April 14. Written by Moab author
Fran Barnes, with a foreword by Ted
Wilson, former Mayor of Salt Lake City,
Utah Canl'on Country contains 120 pages
of text, maps, and charts and nearly 200
color photographs of southeastern Utah.
Rick Reese, President of the Salt Lake
City - based Utah Geographic Series, Inc.
said that his company is unique in that it
will publish more than a dozen books which
focus exclusively on Utah. Each title in the
series will contain 120 pages of text, maps,
charts, and a large number of color photographs. The beautifully illustrated series will
portray in words and photographs the
unique diversity of Utah ... its astounding
landforms, abundant wildlife, colorful history and vigorous people.
Other titles currently in production or
planning include Utah Ski Country, Ulah
Wildlands, Pioneer Trails, The Wasatch
Front, Utah Wildlife, Ulah's Great Basin.
and Ulah Mountain Ranges.
Utah Call1'on CountrI' has sections on
natural hist~ry, human ' history. national
parks and special areas, and recreational
opportunities in southeastcrn Utah. The
informative text is supplemented by the
work of more than three dozen photographers including John Telford. Tom Til\.
David Muench, Rod Millar. Paul Logsdon,
Tom Bean, John George, JeffGnass, Larry
Ulrich and Pat O'Hara.
In his foreword to Utah Call1'on Country,
Wilson writes:
The Utah Geographic Series is a
celebration of all that is Utah: its vast
space, its matchless beauty, its absolutely unique diversity and its peopie . . . Utahns and visitors alike will
welcome the knowledge and understanding this series brings. The
accompanying sensitivity to and
appreciation of our special province
of the West will make it a better place
for all of us.
Ulah Canyon Country is being sold
through the Utah Wilderness Coalition (see
ad, page 3) and the proceeds from the sale of
each book will go directly to the Coalition.
Send $14.95 plus $1.80 for sales tax and
postage ($16.75 total for each book) to the
Utah Wilderness Coalition, P.O. Box 11446,
Salt Lake City, Utah 84147.
The Utah Geographic Series guarantees
your money back if you are not pleased
with their books.
�8
THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION
MAY 1986 _ __ __ __
BlM Hearings
continued from cover
impact statement. But the agency is not
going out of its way to make it easy for
conservationists to register their comments
either through the hearing schedule or
the hearing procedure, said Darrell Knuffke,
Central Rockies Regional Director for The
Wilderness Society.
Signing up to testify is easy enough: the
bureau will have sign-up cards available at
each hearing location starting one hour
before the hearing. Individuals who want to
testify need only fill out a card. Jim Catlin.
Utah Chapter Sierra Club, said the latest
information from the BLM indicates that
people will be permitted to speak in the
following order: elected officials will go
first. followed by governmental representatives, organizations and companies. The
_ _ __
_ __
_ _ __
_ _ _ __
general public comes last. Catlin said that
the bureau has told him the individual signup cards will be shuffled after they are
collected and individuals called in the resulting order. There will be no first-come, firstserved order.
Catlin has asked the agency to at least
announce the final order of witnesses so
people will know when their turn is likely to
come. So far, though, the BLM has made
no such commitment. All speakers will be
under the same time limit, probably from
three to five minutes - not long, but long
enough to enter persuasive comments into
the hearing record.
It is impossible to detail in three or five
minutes all the areas you support for
wilderness protection or all the reasons why
you support them. By stating your support
for the Utah Wilderness Coalition's 5 million
acre proposal. you go on record as opposed
Five million acres of
Utah wildlands
_ _ __ __ __
_ __
_ __
_ __
to the BLM's small recommendation and
you amplify the need to support many areas
in addition to the ones you specifically
In writing your testimony, it is important
to stress the personal aspects - who you
are, what you do, how and why you use
wilderness. Other points to cover include:
support for specific BLM areas you
know personally;
- support for the Coalition's 5 million acre
proposal;
- brief discussion of your wilderness
experiences on Utah's public lands and
why they are important to you;
- a recognition that we need not - and
cannot afford to - choose between the
equally important directions of economic
development and wilderness protection.
We can have both if we plan carefully.
I n Defense of • • •
continued from page 6
the lower canyon. Most of this huge natural
area is BLM land, but they would slice off its
edges with exaggerated claims of impacts in
Beef Basin, Youngs Canyon, and Fable
Valley, The BLM understated wilderness
values in Sweet Alice Canyon which abuts
the Forest Service road less area, Ruin Canyon, More than 60,000 acres should be
added to the BLM recommendation.
Fish Creek
Located south of Utah 95, west of Comb
Ridge and southeast of Natural Bridges
Natural Monument, Fish and Owl Creek
are popular backpacking areas. BLM supports wilderness designation for the canyon
bottoms and mesas on the west but not on
the east. The BLM plans expensive bulldozing of the forest and reseeding for cattle
- money better spent on less sensitive areas,
One of the most important canyons missing
from wilderness study is lower Mule Canyon
which Utah 95 crosses in its middle.
Fortknocker Canyon
FaclOr .. BUlle in Ihe Mudd .. Creek Vnil. PhOIO by Eldon Briand
THAT'S WHAT THE UTAH WILDERNESS COALITION IS FIGHTING
TO PROTECT WITH WILDERNESS DESIGNATION. We need your
moral, political and financial help to save that land from destructive
development and the BLM's poor stewardship.
Just before White Canyon flows into
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, it is
joined by F ortknocker and several unnamed
side canyons, Access is from Utah 95. The
area has nearly 20 miles of deeply entrenched
white sandstone canyons, The BLM dropped
this area with claims of impacts that "caused
this unit to lose its natural character." The
Coalition redrafted the unit boundary to
exclude the mere 10 percent of the area that
has significant impacts.
Yes. I want to help the grassroots and national organizations fighting for 5
million acres of wilderness on the Colorado Plateau. Enclosed is my donation.
0$15
o $25
o $35
o $50
0$150
0$250
Name
Address _________________________________________________
City, State, Zip _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Make Check To:
Utah Wilderness Coalition
P.O. Box 11446
Salt Lake City, Utah 84147
Members of Ihe Vlah Wilderness Coalilion are: The Escalame Wilderness Com millee,
The WasQ[ch Moumain Club, Ihe Sowhern V/ah Wilderness Alliance, Ihe Slick Rock Coumrl'
Couneil, The Wilderness Societ)", The V/ah Chapler Sierra Club, The NQ[ional Parks and
Conservalion Assorialion, Friends oflhe Eanh. Defenders of Wildlife, Four Corners Wilderness
Workshop, Friends oflhe River - Colorado Plaleau, The Ari=ona Wilderness Coalilion, The
Colorado Environmel1lal Coalilion, The Arizona WhilewQ[er AssociQ[ion, The Ne\'{}da Ow door
Recrealion Associalion, The New Mexico BLM Wilderness Coalillon, and The Deserl Tonoise
Counul (suppomng Ihe Joshua Tree and Beaver Dalll unils).
I
""""""""""""""'1"'1
Grand Gulch
One of the biggest - and most popular
- road less areas in Utah, Grand Gulch
meanders 53 miles over a straight-line distance of 21 miles, BLM divided this single
road less area into many smaller parts, just as
they did with Dark Canyon. Unlike Dark
Canyon, they only dropped one: Steer
Gulch. The rest were joined as they should
have been with the Grand Gulch Primitive
Area, Numerous natural arches, rincons,
and pinnacles line the Gulch and its side
canyons: Bullet, Kane, Polly's, Collins, Step,
and Pine.
Gravel & Long Canyons
The most prominent sandstone tower
between Hite and Natural Bridges along
Utah 95 is Jacobs Chair, sadly scarred by
uranium exploration. Alongside this tower
are two magnificent unimpacted canyons:
Gravel on the east and Long on the west,
both flowing into White Canyon. The BLM
used mining impacts - which totaled a
mere 1,800 acres - as reason to delete the
remaining 37,200-acre road less area. The
Coalition's proposal simply excludes the
impacted area.
_ __
_
_
_ _ _ __
_ _ __
_ _ __ ,
Harmony Flats
The south side of Natural Bridges
National Monument is bordered by Harmony Flats, The name is a misnomer, since
a deep canyon and several tributaries fill the
area. The BLM dropped this area in the
initial wilderness review, leaving the door
open for yet another proposed roadside
tourist attraction.
Mancos Mesa
Scene of one of the ftrst confrontations
with the BLM over protection of wilderness
study areas, Mancos Mesa has a stormy
history, Just after Congress passed legislation
requiring a BLM wilderness review, Gulf
Minerals punched in almost 30 miles of new
roads for uranium exploration in the middle
of Mancos Mesa. The BLM granted access
under the condition that the roads be
reclaimed. Now the BLM has relented,
recommending nonwilderness for the impacted area. Our proposal differs from the
BLM's by including all of Moqui Canyon
on the southern part of the area, The BLM
ignored the pristine perennial stream and
canyon,
Mule Canyon
Just north of Utah 95, a few miles from
the turnoff to Natural Bridges, is Mule
Canyon Ruins - a reconstructed Anasazi
village that borders the Mule Canyon
Wilderness Study Area, BLM recommends
wilderness for this area, which offers excellent day hikes through "Class A scenery
characterized by smooth red sandstone and
contrasting ponderosa pine and Douglas
ftr."
Nokai Dome
This huge area lies south of Utah 263 to
Halls Crossing, north of the Sanjuan River,
and west of the river takeout at Clay Hills.
The historic Mormon Trail crosses the
western portion. Numerous canyons drain
into the San Juan River. The BLM cut the
80,OOO-acre area into ftve pieces, citing impacts, and then dropped them all. The
impacts occupy less than a square mile in a
road less area three times larger than Salt
Lake City,
Road Canyon
Road Canyon is north of Mexican Hat,
Utah, east of Grand Gulch, and south of
Fish & Owl Canyons. In 1984, the BLM
proposed half the area for wilderness. Now
the BLM has enlarged its proposal, adding
the cliffs that face the Valley of the Gods on
the southern part of the area. The Coalition
proposal includes the rugged canyons that
reach Comb Wash in the east, outside the
BLM study area. Lime Creek and Road
Canyon are favored hiking areas,
Sheep Canyon
Abutting a National Park Service wilderness proposal in Glen Canyon National
Recreation Area, Sheep Canyon represents
a logical extension of the NRA wilderness
proposaL The area is west of Dark Canyon;
Sheep Canyon reaches the Colorado River
at Mille Crag Bend. The BLM said that the
few impacts near the edge of the road less
area affected "the entire unit" and "caused a
significant loss of natural character.~ The
facts argue otherwise; the Coalition's 4,500
acre proposal simply excludes those few
impacts.
Squaw & Papoose Canyons
The Colorado BLM is taking the lead in
studying this area east of Blanding and north
of Hovenweep National Monument. This
area abuts Cross Canyon Wilderness Study
Area just to the south.
�
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/52">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/52</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
3289444056
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7032201 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
Utah Wilderness News, May 1986
Description
An account of the resource
A publication of the Utah Wilderness Coalition published in May 1986. Summary of wilderness in Zion-Hot Desert, Cedar Mesa, and Canyonlands regions of Utah, giving a synopsis of each area's status, the relationship to nearby wilderness lands such as national parks, a description of remarkable features, and the Bureau of Land Management's rationale for recommendations. Also includes a hearing schedule to discuss the future of Utah's wild lands.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Martin, Terri
Dangerfield, Chris
Subject
The topic of the resource
Natural resources conservation areas
Wilderness areas
Utah Wilderness Coalition
Wilderness conservation
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Press releases
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Utah Wilderness Coalition
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1986-05
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Zion National Park (Utah)
Bryce Canyon National Park (Utah)
Capitol Reef National Park (Utah)
Arches National Park (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 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_8.pdf
Highway 89;