1
50
1083
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/3dbc601e5e2abca8667cd716575d042d.pdf
0669fae822a03f00a08bb1292c284cdb
PDF Text
Text
�JACKSON LAKE LODGE
GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK
WYOMING
Built on the heights overlooking the
sparkling waters of Jackson Lake in
which are mirrored the rugged peaks of
the Teton Range, this new and modern
lodge offers every accommodation to
the visitor.
C7274
~
Kodachrome Reproduction by Mike Roberts for
Intermountain TouristSupply, Inc., Salt Lake Cityl, Utah
�
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/1852">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1852</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2203
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3415
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
3553772539
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
8290656 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
Jackson Lake Lodge postcard, ca. 1950
Description
An account of the resource
Jackson Lake Lodge, Grand Teton National Park, postcard, ca. 1950.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Roberts, Michael
Subject
The topic of the resource
Grand Teton National Park (Agency : U.S.)
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Intermountain Tourist Supply, Inc.
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Grand Teton National Park (Wyoming)
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1950-1959
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 030
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_030
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/d78cd3d19e547dc8fc9eb8647fd14b1c.pdf
304d0c583945c845a546ea798f1fab3f
PDF Text
Text
\ .
• 1.
.
,:
,':' :'.-~ -'.' .
..' t-'I!'.....~-~
~.,...~. ,
;....,< -.z' . ~'-.J..,_
'"'a
. "
.~
THU MB PAINT POTS. YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL.. PARte
�TH I S S PA CE FO R WR I T I N G
I
R 57475
I PC)ST
I' ll\,· I
I
THIS SIDf I S FOR HI E ADDR ESS
S t Ar-1P HI r'l:
I
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.
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/1849">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1849</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2215
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3473
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
3369825524
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7107759 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
Thumb Paint pots postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Thumb Paint pots postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 023
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_023
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/6daf12bc4927d8b9d7a4075e0ed68459.pdf
c11752e388631996cb6e8ef6bee4b872
PDF Text
Text
�THIS SPAC E FOR WRI T ING
I
R'S7479
I ,J()ST
( j\'~ I)
PI A G io
ST AMP H E Rb
T HIS SI DE IS FOR THE AD DR ESS
-
---~---~---
- ~~~-
~
oom 'lJros.Cc.
'Ilmneapot.
.----
-
-
------- --~~-
�
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/1846">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1846</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> 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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2215
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3473
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
517458559
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7134208 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
Bears at Lake Hotel postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Bears at Lake Hotel postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright by Gifford by N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 024
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_024
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/eff5bf8ebf3a2b00bbbb0cffbf93752d.pdf
9ea14f7be9df59eb785d8f9804f9ffb9
PDF Text
Text
�THIS SPACE FOR
WRIT:N~
c /-\ I~ I)
Pi ,\, , I
S 1 Af'~
- MI S SIDE I" FORHIF ADDRESS
p
rl f f > 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.
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/1843">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1843</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2180
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3461
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
1900655051
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
6630733 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
Pulpit Terrace postcard, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Pulpit Terrace, Mammoth Hot Springs postcard, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 027
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_027
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/9bc44959efc03070e0f04f3525275904.pdf
f3964bc2e6471110b1dcf16ab51bcb8a
PDF Text
Text
�----
------- ---------------------~--.---
FOST CARD.
<;
:r
!
.~
...:
TH1S ~PAr
.
::.
d-' (
~
~.:::
--
J
I~
vi
)
I
).>
l ' l "CH
C ;"~""r
i l",
l! ()\\ "L.--Thi"
i'!- II} ru r
Hhsin.
pprtlt'lIlar
,,;'·iuliJhllt·~
dill-ij.
I t.~
AI,nll:!
tht"
IHVIIt'!! \'rc:lt..ioll
... t·lf·nwlll"~·t
rim
,-ol1,r alJd it:- 1111101;1
"urhwt' ilol "toR Ul ifu ] 1\1 Io.u l. upo"
1\ ith
1:11
I:'l~~.'·
.I~i:ale"
I
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1840">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1840</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2203
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3392
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
1122761413
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7873904 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
Punch Bowl postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1908
Description
An account of the resource
Punch Bowl postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1908. Written on and signed on the back. Includes stamp of George Washington.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Scheuber Drug Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1900-1909
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 032
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_032
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/02a3d4de8c4f6bbc97ff1f36e07409cc.pdf
cbc156ba698446110c4a7f1f4ebb69dd
PDF Text
Text
FISHING CONE. YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL.. PARK.
�TH I :; SPAC E FOR wRITING
\
R-S746 ~
(' /\\\1)
PI ACE.
.s TAMP HERI
~HIS S I DE IS FOR THE ADDRESS
�
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/1837">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1837</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2215
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3473
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
3378010002
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
6351544 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
Fishing Cone postcard, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Fishing Cone postcard, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1912. Souvenir folder.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 025
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_025
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/5de2d2259d82163dab3c4ce5dacc0268.pdf
ac50bc34df1618483d5aa30f6a32fbf6
PDF Text
Text
JUPITER TERRACE, MAMMOTH HOT SPRINGS, YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK.
�THIS SPAC E FOR W R ITING
R-57474
Pi /\('j
; H15 SIDE I~ FOR THE A DD R E5S
�
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/1834">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1834</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2180
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3461
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
2062426444
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7954051 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
Jupiter Terrace postcard, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Jupiter Terrace, Mammoth Hot Springs postcard, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright by Gifford for N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 028
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_028
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/2d07a2954e2f3f897695b2f903234446.pdf
d5552638d446d47068af58f93764ff48
PDF Text
Text
GARDINER RIVER AND EAGLPS NEST ROCK .. YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK.
�THIS SPAGE FOR W HIToN:;
R-57443
I )(J~ ' I '
( j\l~l)
Pi 1\ "I
S
-niS SID E I;, FOR 1 HF ADDR ESS
I A/"l P 'IF it t
�
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/1831">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1831</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2215
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3726
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
2143470266
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7143923 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
Gardiner River and Eagle's nest rock postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Gardiner River and Eagle's nest rock postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 029
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_029
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/4c28ccb1b23f5710680474127c6f6ec6.pdf
af74b398f2d1ed431fd1259f563ba9cb
PDF Text
Text
�T H I S S PAC E FO R WR IT IN G
R-5?453
POST
CAt~J)
PI
" (, c.
Sl AMP HFR ~
T HI S SI DE 15 FOR THE ADDRES S
~
'iJlocm'iJros.Cc.
~
�
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/1828">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1828</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> 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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
3357
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
2215
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
1336794519
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7725472 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
Minute Man Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Minute man Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 026
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_026
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/422dd21677a7e32cc6831c898d6b8ac9.pdf
9f5165c6b615077ea8e248af4f035831
PDF Text
Text
NO. 214.
GRAND CANYON HOTEL LOUNGE STAIRCASE-YELLOWSTONE PARK.
HAYNES-PHOTO.
�R-64136
POST CARD
Il
i
MES:;; A G[
ADDRESS.
StWIlP Here]
I
1(
I
fore ign. 2c
J
L
Domes!"
I
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1825">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1825</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2180
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3450
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
4159601567
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7109346 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
Grand Canyon hotel postcard, lounge staircase, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920
Description
An account of the resource
Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Grand Canyon hotel, lounge staircase, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 214. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Haynes, Frank J.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Haynes, Jack Ellis
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Hotels
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Haynes, St. Paul
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1920-1929
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 011
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_011
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/765933856618bfd3ade9580c6a64c2b0.pdf
e9414fe72ba786185d4505dec40f3dd5
PDF Text
Text
t.,OOKt .. G INTO BATH TUB GEYSER. YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK.
�THIS SPACE FOR WRIT I NG
R-S7454
POST
CARD
T H I S SIDf I S FOR THE ADDRESS
~
'l3loom 'l3ros.Co.
~
�
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/1822">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1822</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: https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2203
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3450
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
4216707756
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7316428 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
Bath Tub Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Looking into Bath Tub Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 020
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_020
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/18002c7fc56285f6f1c7f2bc71eb6925.pdf
12dc99cd08e596c37ff53407d08f8537
PDF Text
Text
�\
T H IS SPAC E FO R WR ITING
R-S7 439
,
P()ST C/\
r
I~ I) I
,HIS SIDE IS FORTHf ADDRESS.
I
Pl AC r
S_TAM~H.'ERf
.
_
_...•
�
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/1819">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1819</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: https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2215
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3496
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
3853277220
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
6978127 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
Giant and Indicator Geysers postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Giant and Indicator Geysers postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 017
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031 Box 1 WY 017
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/351f1dabe131f9e26552b997dff525eb.pdf
cba2348b6dd780630f136889a059ed6f
PDF Text
Text
13058.
GRAND CANYON HOTEL EN-TRANCE, YELLOW$rONE PARK.
HAYNES·PHOTO.
�R-54935
POST CARD
[Stamp He re]
Domestic, Jc
MESSAGE .
ADDRESS .
foreign, 2c
�
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/1816">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1816</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: https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2250
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3450
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
4131655724
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
6001746 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
Grand Canyon Hotel entrance postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920
Description
An account of the resource
Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Grand Canyon Hotel Entrance, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 13058. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Haynes, Frank J.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Haynes, Jack Ellis
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Hotels
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Haynes, St. Paul
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1920-1929
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 014
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_014
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/5af092d0a9e9d053378684a81c36ef6a.pdf
6d588ec4a1ac2baa74487961e42e74bd
PDF Text
Text
MAMMOTH HOTEL .
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK .
�FOR CORRESPONDENCE
I
MAMMOTH HOTEL.
One of the most remarkable features
connected with this wonderful park Is
the number of modern and eommOdlOUSl
Inns and hotels found here for the· bene-'
fit of the visitors. This beautiful hotel
at Mammoth has in its foreground.
three hundred feet high. the wonderful.
many-colored and bea.utlfully-formed
Hot Springs Terrace which belong In
the list of the water made wonders of
the Park.
o
o
I
'i
r
I
I
POSTCARD
ADDRESS
OOM£;STIC:
ONE CENT
STAMP
FOREIGN;
TWOCENTS
�
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/1813">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1813</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2203
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3415
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
3793091121
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
5344332 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
Mammoth hotel postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920
Description
An account of the resource
Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Mammoth hotel, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 4300. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Hotels
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1920-1929
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 016
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_016
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/c718b882ea528c973e518b1b9c9022f5.pdf
0f20af89d9545106de7ee2c0e92dfbf1
PDF Text
Text
MORNIN G GLOR.Y POOL" YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK .
�THIS SP ACE FOR WRITING
R-57 444
( j\I~l)
"
,"c
.<;I AMPhfP.L
-'1 1:) SI DE 10; FO R T HE AD DR ESS
1
I
.. J
�
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/1810">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1810</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2238
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3450
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
2970164729
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7050140 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
Morning Glory pool postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Morning Glory pool postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 021
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_021
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/8918b15a0a6ea8b6f0b8bed0e0811af7.pdf
12cc7a4ff51282ba29db0634ab7527c7
PDF Text
Text
�POST CARD
[Stamp Here]
Domestic, Ie
MESSAGE .
ADDRESS.
foreign , 2c
�
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/1807">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1807</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2226
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3450
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
3050897246
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
6851702 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
Mammoth Hot Springs postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920
Description
An account of the resource
Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Mammoth Hot Springs, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 10072. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Haynes, Frank J.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Haynes, Jack Ellis
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Haynes, St. Paul
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1920-1929
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 012
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_012
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/35bc0fe88daed31dd5e1e0c860abc561.pdf
4fac842e8adf8e39e9241e9c1b2a2d86
PDF Text
Text
�R-&41!8
POST CARD
[Sta mp Here]
Domestic, Ie
MESSAGE.
ADDRESS .
foreign, 2c
�
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/1804">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1804</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
3415
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
2261
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
2685697134
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
6227738 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
Golden Gate Canyon postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920
Description
An account of the resource
Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Golden Gate Canyon, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 10079. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Haynes, Frank J.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Haynes, Jack Ellis
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Haynes, St. Paul
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1920-1929
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 013
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_013
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/0e652634b9bedccfd86a91150c87426c.pdf
d4f7a4fabbed4eef57447da28be4c41c
PDF Text
Text
~,
~
NO. 'SO.
LAKE HOTEL COLONIAL~YELLOWSTONE PARK.
HA YNES-PHOTO
�R-64124
POST CARD
[Stamp He re]
Domestic, 1c
MESSAGE.
ADDRESS .
fo reign, 2c
�
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/1801">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1801</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2215
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3426
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
889619075
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
5780244 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
Lake Hotel Colonial postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920
Description
An account of the resource
Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Lake Hotel Colonial, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 180. Haynes, St. Paul offical photographer Yellowstone National Park.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Haynes, Frank J.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Haynes, Jack Ellis
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Hotels
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Haynes, St. Paul
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1920-1929
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 008
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_008
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/b1c6d6dcc5c70e02b7dce3e3c4db4304.pdf
ab1ad5491dd83fca1bfcdc3be96841c5
PDF Text
Text
NO. 212.
GRAND CANYON HOTEL LOUNGE FROM OFFICE-YELLOWSTONE PARK.
HAVNES-PHOTO
�R-64135
POST CARD
MESSA GE.
ADDRE SS.
�
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/1798">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1798</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2203
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3461
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
758086981
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7293060 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
Grand Canyon Hotel postcard, lounge from office, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1920
Description
An account of the resource
Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Grand Canyon hotel, lounge from office, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 212. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Haynes, Frank J.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Haynes, Jack Ellis
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Hotels
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Haynes, St. Paul
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1920-1929
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 010
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_010
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/d2caeaaed93721ac7744d62c6f136d0d.pdf
f87f3ffb19e071faa16a025ac16fd207
PDF Text
Text
�THIS SPliCE FOR WRIlING
R-S7463
POST
T H I S SIDE IS FOR THE ADDRESS
~
0/oom 2iro.s.io.
~
�
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/1795">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1795</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: https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2203
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3461
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
55912363
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7085515 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
Jewel Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, ca. 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Jewel Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 018
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_018
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/335f5d64c7cad057cf9e2b2a33210f3a.pdf
5e65a8de1ee653b35c5b316f19485d19
PDF Text
Text
�r
I
II
1
.I
I
A
(
A
o
cor.
~~
iE,
A~
c
~
A
0
�
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/1792">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1792</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
3357
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
2180
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
2766062598
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1566976 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
RPP of unidentified Preston Idaho young woman playing trombone, ca. 1910
Description
An account of the resource
Real picture postcard of an unidentified young woman playing trombone, from Preston, Idaho, ca. 1910.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Music
Postcards
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Preston (Idaho)
Franklin County (Idaho)
Idaho
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 ID 016
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1ID_016
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/fd58b8a865d3f836673ff6e21685191b.pdf
3e27b4a9750112c436c67f2e71d1d7a8
PDF Text
Text
NO.122.
MORNING GLORY SPRING. Y ELLOWSTONE PAFPO( .
�POST CARD
[S tamp He re]
Dorneslic , Ie
MESSAGE.
ADDRE SS.
fore ign , 2c
. (
(
-'>
�
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/1789">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1789</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2238
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3426
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
4205183069
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7125714 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
Morning Glory Spring postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920
Description
An account of the resource
Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Morning Glory Spring, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 122. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Haynes, Frank J.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Haynes, Jack Ellis
Subject
The topic of the resource
Tourism
Yellowstone National Park
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Haynes, St. Paul
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1920-1929
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 009
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_009
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/1172eca9f986a83e533e6780b5075764.pdf
7a0e2a00110e0a919f12c29abbd111c6
PDF Text
Text
13065.
OLD FAITHFUL. INN-YELLOWSTONE PARK.
HAYNES-PriOTO.
�Pt-641
20
POST CARD
[Stamp Here]
Domestic, \c
MESSAGE.
ADDRE SS
foreign, 2c
�
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/1786">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1786</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2250
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3461
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
2337135783
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
5693177 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
Old Faithful Inn postcard, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920
Description
An account of the resource
Hand-colored tinted photograph postcard of Old Faithful Inn, Yellowstone Park, ca. 1920. Number 13085. Haynes, St. Paul official photographer of Yellowstone National Park.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Haynes, Frank J.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Haynes, Jack Ellis
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Hotels
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Haynes, St. Paul
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1920-1929
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 015
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_015
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/b728824e3d6a69c73c72ce0f36009609.pdf
d8e3ccb2c62befa5460261a705cc1b23
PDF Text
Text
�T H IS SPAC E FO R WRITING
R'57476
C;\I~D
PI A GE
hER\-
I
_____. _
1
_~ T AMP
,-'1I S SI DE I ~, FOR THf ADDRES S
�
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/1783">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1783</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2203
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3450
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
2148043154
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7051329 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
Dome Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912
Description
An account of the resource
Dome Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 019
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_019
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/a8ad0f1fe1e076715d72b2d0aac4f0fb.pdf
98e7b4e127c5e963013869ed2709d50e
PDF Text
Text
�lHI S SPACE FO R WAiliN G
R-57458
POST
C!\l~J)
PI A(f-.
S I
r HIS SI Df
~
,oom ?Jro.s.Co.
'lUil1f(1opo/i
I~
FO R TH E ADDR ES S
A~ lP
HFR f-
�
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/1780">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1780</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2215
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3473
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
339526045
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7694793 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
Sponge Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912
Description
An account of the resource
The Sponge Geyser postcard, Yellowstone National Park, 1912. Souvenir folder. Copyright N.P.R.R. Co.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Yellowstone National Park
Tourism
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Bloom Brothers Company
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 WY 022
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1WY_022
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/760e54695e7ce31c2730ae0fae91ef71.pdf
b001c96027ade715d7fa8edd24805b52
PDF Text
Text
�o
,
:3
POST eARD
1"S~
)
.
-<
,;
z
�
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/1777">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1777</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2215
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3438
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
2623561619
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
4476200 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
Aerial postcard of Montpelier, Idaho, 1908
Description
An account of the resource
Aerial real picture postcard of Montpeiler, Idaho. Written from Anna to her brother William Greaves.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Greaves, William C.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Postcards
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Montpelier (Idaho)
Bear Lake County (Idaho)
Idaho
United States
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1900-1909
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 ID 015
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1ID_015
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/2f1d8a4972e2b19f1b5b364378746c4d.pdf
0e20a5fc1c35535491da3a2face3b3e0
PDF Text
Text
OF
Ot'f.IOfi
~i,qfre
191811
1~~~6
�PLACE
P(~TAG£
CORRESPONDENCE
~.
NAME AND ADDRESS
' SIA,"P
HERE
�
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/1774">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1774</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2192
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3426
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
3912403006
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
2346832 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
RPP of Preston First Ward Chorus Girls, 1913
Description
An account of the resource
Real Picture Postcard of Preston First Ward Chorus Girls, Champions of Oneida Stake, 1913. Four unidentified women.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Music
Postcards
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Preston (Idaho)
Franklin County (Idaho)
Idaho
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1910-1919
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 ID 004
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1ID_004
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/a06b82c72b85fd7d7b40ac5fa59e88e8.pdf
4e8a109b375643088193b5957de26ba1
PDF Text
Text
The Falls in Winter. Montpelier Canon, Montpelier, Idaho
��
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/1768">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1768</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> 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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
3346
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
2192
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
392464432
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
4656974 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
The Fall in Winter, Montpelier Canon, Montpelier, Idaho, 1909
Description
An account of the resource
The Fall in Winter, Montpelier Canon, Montpelier, Idaho, 1909. Signed and inscribed on the back from Anna to William.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Greaves, William C.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Postcards
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Montpelier (Idaho)
Bear Lake County (Idaho)
Idaho
United States
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1900-1909
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 ID 014
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1ID_014
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/a3383fdb6003d97b55d3efce03c9fdba.pdf
a8a7a7092eb5561e0957ee56bb69ecdf
PDF Text
Text
�CHAPEL Of THE HOLY CROSS
Sedona, Arizona
Home of the Spiritual Life Institute
Memorial to
Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig
PLACE
STAMP
HERE
~
.<::
0.
;-.
'"
.s
o
.<::
0..
.,
'"
0.
0.
o
'"
'iii
z
Photograph by Neil Koppes
56329
POST CARD
�
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/1765">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1765</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
3403
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
2215
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
3403756945
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7716571 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
Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona, Arizona, interior window view, postcard
Description
An account of the resource
Photograph postcard of the Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona Arizona, Home of the Spiritual Life Institute, Memorial to Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Koppes, Neil
Subject
The topic of the resource
Church buildings
United States Highway 89
Postcards
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Neil Koppes Photography
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Sedona (Arizona)
Coconino County (Arizona)
Arizona
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1950-1959
1960-1969
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 AZ 009
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1AZ_009
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/5eb578c8e74bf5cc791709adc3e7c8d9.pdf
8eea520138b98d735380ba1556c78b0e
PDF Text
Text
�CHAPEL OF THE HOLY CROSS
Sedona, Arizona
Hom e of the Spiritual Life In stitute
Memorial to
Marguerite an d Luci en Brunswig
PLACE
STAMP
HERE
POST CARD
z
'"
Photograph by Neil Koppes
51329
�
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/1762">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1762</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
3392
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
2226
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
556574912
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7655745 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
Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona, Arizona, interior view, postcard
Description
An account of the resource
Photograph postcard of the Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona Arizona, Home of the Spiritual Life Institute, Memorial to Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Koppes, Neil
Subject
The topic of the resource
Church buildings
United States Highway 89
Postcards
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Neil Koppes Photography
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Sedona (Arizona)
Coconino County (Arizona)
Arizona
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1950-1959
1960-1969
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 AZ 008
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1AZ_008
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/0136abd11528120deff86fa23446bf5c.pdf
c9d6fd6e7db3caf0ecb26047b8d0435d
PDF Text
Text
�CHAPEL OF THE HOLY CROSS
Sedona, Arizona
Home of the Spiritual Life Institute
Memorial to
Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig
PLACE
STAMP
HERE
POST CARD
'"
0.
'"
0.
o
'"
z
'"
Photograph by Neil Koppes
52329
�
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/1759">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1759</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> 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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2203
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3415
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
538865105
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
8166519 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
Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona, Arizona, exterior back view, postcard
Description
An account of the resource
Photograph postcard of the Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona Arizona, Home of the Spiritual Life Institute, Memorial to Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Koppes, Neil
Subject
The topic of the resource
Church buildings
United States Highway 89
Postcards
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Neil Koppes Photography
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Sedona (Arizona)
Coconino County (Arizona)
Arizona
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1950-1959
1960-1969
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 AZ 007
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1AZ_007
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/b4885cb7df20b07b79a6e9db0c9e1749.pdf
e3b3d546309f408aedd7aade291efc6d
PDF Text
Text
�CHAPEL OF THE HOLY CROSS
Sedona, Arizona
Home of the Spiritual Life Institute
Memorial to
Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig
PLACE
STAMP
HERE
POST CARD
~
<U
0.
0.
o
""
.a;
z
Photograph by Neil Koppes
55329
�
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/1756">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1756</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
Height
Height of digital item in pixels
2215
Width
Width of digital item in pixels
3403
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
600
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
RGB
Checksum
2917244521
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
9204349 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
Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona, Arizona, exterior front view, postcard
Description
An account of the resource
Photograph postcard of the Chapel of the Holy Cross, Sedona Arizona, Home of the Spiritual Life Institute, Memorial to Marguerite and Lucien Brunswig.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Koppes, Neil
Subject
The topic of the resource
Church buildings
United States Highway 89
Postcards
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Photographic postcards
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Neil Koppes Photography
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Sedona (Arizona)
Coconino County (Arizona)
Arizona
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1950-1959
1960-1969
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, Postcard Collection, P0031, Box 1 AZ 006
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Finding aid for this collection can be found at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv12420</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
Image
StillImage
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
P0031_Bx1AZ_006
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/7937ea3697c26966a32256201f29800f.pdf
230ee6fbd762f75f34dd9218cf42899e
PDF Text
Text
•
WE NEED YOUR HELP
We anticipate needing increased community
support. Please let us add your name to our
mailing list:
Name:
CITIZENS FOR A SAFE AND
SCENIC CANYON
Citizens for a
. Safe and Scenic Canyon
OUR EARTHLY TRUST:
WE
SUPPORT MAKING
LOGAN CANYON SAFE
• WIDENED BRIDGES
• MORE PULLOUTS
Address:
LOGAN
CANYON
• CLIMBINGrruRNING LANES
Phone:
• PARKING AREAS
MAKE IT SAFE
• MORE SIGNS
• BEITER MAINTENANCE
Please accept the enclosed donation: .
$5
$10
$20
$
I can help with
-----
WE
SUPPORT KEEPING
LOGAN CANYON BEAUTIFUL
• RESPONSIBLE IMPROVEMENTS
IN LOGAN CANYON
• PRESERVING ONE OF THE LAST,
BEST PLACES IN UTAH
Please return this form
and any donation to:
CSSC, Box 3501, Logan
Citizens for a Safe and
Scenic Canyon/CPLC
P.O. Box 3501, LOGAN, UT 84321
KEEP IT BEAUTIFUL
�.
11-- FOR A SAFE
CITIZENS
·
.
AND SCENIC CANYON
WHAT IS CSSC?
COMMON QUESTIONS
Citizens for a Safe and Scenic Canyon (fonnerly
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon) is
an organization that is dedicated to providing a
safe highway through Logan Canyon while still
preserving its scenic beauty. We support making
the canyon safe by replacing and widening
bridges; constructing more pullouts for slow
drivers; adding several climbing lanes, turning
lanes, and parking areas; and putting in more and
better signage in the canyon . .
• Does CSSC advocate a total hands-otT
approach to Logan Canyon?
WHAT IS THE HISTORY?
NO! There is a real possibility that a wider road
with faster speeds will in fact increase both the
number and severity of accidents in the canyon.
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.
Under new federal regulations, UDOT
was required to research the environmental impacts of their construction plans. After a sevenyear study, they have come up with their "preferred alternative." Unfortunately, their study,
in the view of many, has been marked by slipshod
procedures, insufficient and incorrect data, and
lack of consideration for the environment.
Citizens for the Protection ·of Logan
Canyon conducted their own study and prepared
the Conservationists' Alternative, a road construction plan that proposes a safe canyon without
destroying its scenic beauty.
NO! We favor a gradual, go-slow approach to
working on the highway, beginning with the
replacement of dangerous, deteriorating bridges.
• Is the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT) "preferred" alternative safer?
• Will the savings in travel time significantly
benefit the neighboring communities?
NO! By their own figures, the "preferred alternative" will only reduce travel time from 48 to 43
minutes. It would take a lifetime of these 5minute savings to equal the 15-20 years of delays
and disruptions caused by this massive project.
• Will an improved highway promote economic development in Cache Valley?
NO! The disruption to the canyon will hurt
tourism, Cache Valley'S major economic asset.
WHAT DO THEY WANT?
Utah Department of Transportation wants to
obtain federal funds for a massive highway
project to tum the Logan Canyon road into a
commercial highway, at a cost to the public of
over $35 million dollars (CSSC's alternative
would cost $15 million)! UDOT predicts that the
project will take at least 10 years to complete,
with the real possibility that it will take as long as
15 to 20 years.
We only have to look at the destruction,
delays, and devastation to Sardine (Wellsville)
Canyon to get an inkling of what this project
In
would really be like in our backyard.
UDOT's plan, the road would be re-routed, on
average, once every three-quarters of a mile
throughout the length of the canyon. Huge cuts
are planned to achieve a straighter alignment and
substantially increased road width.
This massive project will be devastating
to the scenic beauty of Logan Canyon. Roadside
plants and forests will be replaced by unsightly
gashes on hillsides. In .the lower "improved"
section of the canyon, barren slopes have not revegetated yet, though the cuts were made 20 to 30
years ago.
Extra-wide shoulders (clear zones) of
22 feet will destroy the forest on each side of the
road, cutting a wide swath through the cottonwood, riverbirch and box elder trees that line the
river canyon. The river itselfwill be intruded on,
lined by 2,000 feet of "riprap" (chunks of rock
and cement). Logan River's wild and scenic
qualities will be destroyed.
�•
LOGAN c!ANYON:
Summarizing Two "Alternatives"
US-89 LOGAN CANYON
Accompanying this map is a table
comparing key goals of two alternatives
regarding the "development" of Logan
Canyon. These goals are listed by
canyon section.
o
2
•
�Alternative #1
UDOT Plan of Action
•
•
Alternative #2
ConseNationist Plan of Action
Go relatively light on the canyon between Right Hand Fork
and Lower Twin Bridge (4 miles). The road would be left at
its current width and alignment, but curb and gutter would be
added and several curves will be flattened. Burnt Bridge would
be widened to 34 feet, requiring river bank modification. The
road near Cottonwood Creek culvert would be raised 2 feet to
protect the road from occasional damage due to flooding .
I
Essentially leave the canyon between Right Hand Fork and
Lower Twin Bridge (4 miles) as it is presently. Improve signs
signaling advisory speeds and curve warnings. The road would
be left at its current width and alignment. Burnt Bridge would
be widened to 28 feet. The road near Cottonwood Creek
culvert would be widened to 28 feet and raised 1.5 feet to
protect the road from occasional damage due to flooding.
Substantially widen the road from Lower Twin Bridge to just
above Rick Springs (4 miles) from current 26 feet to 40-46
feet. Six curves would be cut and major parking areas would
be built at Temple Fork and Rick Springs. Upper and Lower
Twin Bridges would be moved upstream from their present
position and widened to 38 feet.
2
Move Upper and Lower Twin Bridges towards river to lessen
curve and widen to 28 feet, locating a slow vehicle turnout
where the present road cut goes through. Improved signs
signaling curves and intersection at Temple Fork. Widen road
at Ricks Springs to 28 feet, maintaining existing parking. Add
signs warning of pedestrian crossings.
Drastically widen the road from above Rick Springs to the
Rich County line (13 miles) . TAe road would be widened
from 26 to 47 feet for half the distance (6.5 miles) to allow for
passing lanes, with the remainder widened to 40 feet. Nearly
ten feet will be cut into the vertical rock face located after the
Beaver Creek area (milepost 399.1). There would be five curve
cuts and major construction at the Franklin Basin, Tony Grove,
Red Banks campground and Beaver Mountain turnoffs.
3
Add three climbing lanes and provide a 90 degree
intersection and deceleration lane to Beaver Mountain Road.
Improve intersection at Tony Grove. Replace the Tony Grove
Creek Bridge, Red Banks Bridge, Beaver Creek Bridge, Beaver
Creek Structure, and Amazon Hollow Structure without curve
cuts and widen to 28 feet. Provide signs and approaches at
the Bear Lake Overlook.
4
Improve signs on advisory speeds and curve warnings.
Provide active maintainance for the road. The road would
be left at its current width and alignment.
Essentially build a new road from the Rich County line to
Garden City (7 miles). There would be a continuous
passing lane from near Garden City to the Cache County line
(47 foot width) , 19 curve cuts, and substantial additional
construction.
I
2
3
4
Information cited: US Highway 89 Final Environmental Impact Statement.
�•
June 28, 1994
To: Dave Berg
From: Bruce Pendery
Re: Follow-up to last week's meeting
Enclosed are the "hot spots" we would appreciate receiving
narratives on.
I forgot to get a copy of the letter we sent out
to some of our selected supporters, but will get that to you
ASAP.
I know time may be a problem, but if its possible to get the
narratives to me by July 11 it would be helpful (address: 755
Canyon Rd., Logan, 84321). We will be having what should be our
last outreach program that evening, and the narrative would be
useful. We will be talking (probably via letter)to additional
people (ie, the vast majority of our supporters) after July II,
but that will be more to explain what we've been doing rather
than to get input on what we're doing.
•
•
I will call late this week or next to discuss a couple of things
with you.
I would like to find where we stand with getting a
copy of the ROD. That's critical to us.
I would also like to
discuss how the Forest Service feels about just amending relative
to the bridges, as well as a few other things .
�•
HOT SPOTS
Curve #5 MP 384 and Curve # 29 MP 387. How will the accident
studies be handled and what efforts will be made to reduce the
aesthetic impacts of these cuts while also avoiding the river?
Lower Twin Bridge, The Dugway, Upper Twin Bridge. What efforts
will be made to minimize the size of cuts and associated
aesthetic impacts? What efforts will be made to minimize any
alignment shift to Upper Twin Bridge? How will the cuts along
the Dugway be handled to minimize aesthetic impacts and the size
of the cut?
Temple Fork. Describe how the decision process will work
relative to whether a "short" up-canyon turning lane is possible.
How will impacts to the river and aesthetics be minimized,
considering also the need to "straighten" the angle at which the
Forest Road intersects the highway.
Passing Lanes in the lower Upper Canyon of Section Two (see your
letter of 3/4\94, item 3). Elaborate as much as you can on how,
when, where, if, etc. the decision to put in these passing lanes
will be made.
Beaver Creek, Franklin Basin Bridge, Amazon Hollow Bridge.
Elaborate as much as you can on what efforts will be made to
minimize riparian impacts. Especially describe any anticipated
retaining walls or intrusions on the rivers.
•
Tonv Grove, Beaver Mountain, and Franklin Basin Intersections.
Elaborate as much as you can on what efforts will be made to
minimize the magnitude and/or impacts of these activities.
Passinq Lane Above Beaver Mountain turnoff, especially as it
relates to the old-growth forest and curves 69, 70, and 71. To
what degree can impacts on the forest be minimized; has an
alignment shift been approved? How will aesthetic impacts of
this climbing lane be minimized, especially to what degree will
the climbing lane involve cutting into the hill as opposed to
filling?
Curve 85 Old Growth Forest near Limber Pine. What options exist
to minimize impacts to this area, and particularly can the
passing lane be ended a little sooner--say near the Sunrise
Campground? Be as specific as possible. As I mentioned, this is
a critical site to many people and we will need to discuss it
fully at our next meeting.
How will the old road from the Limber Pine Summit to Garden City
be Handled? That is, people want to know if old sections of road
in areas where a new alignment is created will simply be
abandoned, or will the pavement be torn up and the soil
revegetated?
•
.
�•
•
•
Portion of Section 1b Above Ricks Springs. Describe as fully as
possible how impacts to riparian habitats will be avoided in this
area.
Mitioation. Discuss each of the following a fully as possible:
-What is laydown fencing contemplated in the Tony Grove area
and is it really needed, especially since the Forest Service will
soon own the land and possibly reduces livestock numbers
-Many people are concerned that mitigation is simply another
big construction project with nearly as many impacts as the
construction project prompting the mitigation. How do you
respond to this, and what can be done to alleviate this concern?
-How will rip-rap at bridges be minimized or better yet
avoided altogether.
-To what degree will contractors and especially equipment
operators be given training to ensure they minimize the impacts
their machines can have.
-Could UDOT include the following publication as the basis
for its construction:
"National Cooperative Research Report 221.
Transportation Research Board. Erosion Control During Highway
Construction. Manual on Principles and Practices" 1980. AASHTO
and FHWA sponsored. Or is there a more up-to-date publication
UDOT would specifically use as a guide?
-To what extent will not only native vegetation be used, but
an attempt be made to mimic existing plant communities.
-To what degree will followup be made to ensure mitigation
actually works, and to what degree will UDOT "do what it takes"
to make mitigation work? Especially consider vegetation.
-How will excess rubble be handled.
-How will staging areas be handled .
�•
August 9 , 1994
Mr. Dave Berg
UDOT
Salt Lake City UT
Dear Mr Berg,
These comments are by no means encyclopedic; a brief review
of only scattered sections of these documents revealed so many
problems that I have not even been able to do a through reading
of it. While there is much progress that has been made since last
December, there is still much to be disappointed about in these
documents.
•
The purpose and need section of the ROD (Appendix A)
is
again one of the most flawed" sections of this document.
This appendix presents the first description on how traffic
flows for accident rates were calculated (this information was
never presented in the Technical memorandums); thus this is the
first opportunity for comment (and literally no more than 5
members of the public have had access to this new information).
As we discussed in our August 1 meeting, there are fundamental
problems with the data and the methodology which call into
question whether any accident rate data should be presented in
the EIS or ROD.
•
1.
Traffic flows in the "improved" section (mp 374.64-378)
are artificially inflated by the inclusion of the
14,000 AADT adjacent to Utah State University (outside
�•
Flint comment s
of th e canyon and outside of the lIimproved ll section
mention ed above). This hig h AADT is used in the
weight ed average for this section, thus the accident
rate is ar tificially redu ced . The true accident rate
for this lIimproved" section is likely 3 or 4 times
higher th an what your document shows.
2. The mp 37 8 - 383.3 section had the counter in it
orig i na lly and traffic flow presented in the FEIS is
adjuste d to this location even though the counter is
currently located in Rich county. This is stated on
•
page 3 of the Appendix A, and you agreed that it was
correct. Thus the traffic flow to be used in
calculating accident rates in this section is near 1800
rath e r than over 3000. Simply saying that the AADT is
3000 in the Utah Road Files (Appen dix A p. 3) does not
make it correct. Again, the true accident rate in this
improved section is much higher than that shown in
AppendixA.
3. The ta ble on page 5 of Appendix A has a similar problem:
The true traffic flow is much lower than shown in the
table, thus the fatality rate for the Lower Canyon is
much higher than shown and may be the highest in the
•
Canyon.
2
�Flint comments
3
4. As we dis c ussed in our August 1 meet i ng, there are
•
fortunatel y so few fat alities th a t their distri bu tion
may be s omewhat random. A better perspective on
acciden t severity may be gained by examining the injury
accident rate.
5. An attempt is made on p. 2 of the Appendix to justify
using lower traffic flo ws in recent years to calculate
accident rates even thou g h it is claimed elsewhere that
traf fic is increasing. Rather than dispute this point
by point, let us look at your flow data. In recent
years you have traffic increasing in the Lower Canyon
and decreasing in much of the rest of the canyon. Thus
what you are saying here is that the fundamental
characte~
•
of vehicle use of this roadway has changed;
most of the traffic only drives up into the Lower
Canyon and then turns around and goes back out. How do
you explain this? Isn't it readily apparent that this
oddity is caused by your inflation of the traffic flows
for the Lower Canyon?
To justify conclusions, as in #1 above, we are told that
"standard methods" are used, that they are "accurate" and based
on "professional methods"
(all on p. 3), yet saying this does not
make an incorrect analysis right . this type of pontificating
should be stricken from the ROD; the methods of analysis should
•
�•
Flint comments
4
be able to stand up on their own.
Appendi x p. 2: Here a claim is made that a signing project
was done in '86. A review of the public comments (Lanner letter
page 9-74 of FEI S) suggests th a t the signing was completed in '83
rather than ' 8 6. From personal recollection (since '86 was the
year the EIS started), all I remember happening in '86 was that a
contractor was hired to replace delineators. They were placed
blindly according to some "standard", consequently most de-facto
turnouts were blocked until some unfortunate drivers ran over the
things. Cou ld you provide more details on the signing project?
•
Specifically, check the year a nd describe the project .
We have never received an explanation why the expected
accident rate is higher for the "improved" sections (Table 1-2).
If "improvement" raises the expectation of accidents, then we
don't want t o do it.
I am disappointed that there is still confusion on 4(f) site
#7. Perhaps this confusion would not have occurred if the public
was allowed some input into the 4(f) site selection process.
Appendix A h a s site 7 at 391.6, the ROD (p. 5) says the passing
lane starts a t 391.6. A passing lane should not start at a
heavily used recreational turnout such as this; one can foresee
•
safety problems as different up-canyon vehicles simultaneously
try to pass and make left turns.
�Flint comments
The biological assessme nt in Ap pendix A lists Dr a ba maguirei
as "known onl y f rom Bo x Eld er a nd Heber c ounties" yet Shaw (1989,
Vascu la r Plant s o f Northern Utah) also l i s ts it in Cache County.
Can you ac c o u n t for this d is c re pancy ? Al so, why is there no
mention o f t he newly describe d spec i es of Viola that we mentioned
in earlier cor respondence? It a ppea r s en d emic to Logan Canyon.
In the ROD itself (p. 4) sta tes that the Upper Middle Canyon
will serve a s a transition reg ion to the 40' pavement width of
the Upper Canyon. Note that, wi th the reduction of the pavement
in the Ton y Gr ove flats and Beaver Cr eek areas to 34', this logic
is no longe r v alid.
The RO D (p. 7) states th a t the Conservationists' Alternative
•
would provide 28' wide bridges. As I explained last year at the
transportation commission me et i ng, we initially selected 28'
because your e ngineers selected i t for the spot improvement
alternative. I spent a conside r able amount of time at that
commission meeting explaining that we had no problem with wider
bridges. Did I take a day off work to drive to Salt Lake city for
this meeting and accomplish nothing? Were all the commissioners
and your staff asleep?
The ROD on page 7 also neglects to mention that we proposed
(from the very beginning) that the Beaver Mountain intersection
be improved, along with a right turn lane at Right Fork. Thus the
•
�•
Flint comments
6
Conservatio n ists' Alternat ive prop o s e s 3 intersection
improvement s ye t you only credit us wi th one. You talk of
"unresol v e d s a fety concerns a t Red Ba nks Campground yet we h a ve
never seen an y documentation o f this.
In short, you are trying
to make our al ternative appea r to be vir tually "no action".
We
expressed th es e concerns befo re (s e page 6 0 of Appendix B) and
you put mo re effort into den y ing our concerns than in correcting
the problem.
Appendi x B continues the on g oing i g noring of concerns which
has plagued this EIS since its inception. As an example, on p57,
I spelled out i n great detail how re a listic alternative routes
~
should be considered (the world does not focus on Garden City as
its ultimate destination, as you imply). For this effort, I am
greeted with non-response #4. So was John Carter on p. 79.
Or
look again at my letter at response #3. I asked why the response
PI02 was not reflected in the text of the EIS. This is a valid
question an d i t was ignored. You did th e damage - decision makers
that read the text of the FEIS will not get the information that
was in PI02. How do you make up for this? Or look at John
Sigler's letter. Whoever wrote response #6 doesn't seem to have a
clue how citations are used in technical documents. Or look at
how the det a iled comments of Kate Boyes were ignored with an 8
word non-r esponse .
•
In summary, the problems which we have pointed out before
�Flint comments
still persi st . Rather than point out eac h one in great detail,
let me suggest you go back to the comments submitted throughout
the past 8 ye ars and provide an analysis
rather than a defensive posture.
from an objective
That would go a long way toward
building the trust that is needed for this project to succeed.
Sincerely,
Steve Flint
•
•
�0 -1 :
~ -I FTl
FF'Clll
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Bruce pendery
FROM:
Appel & Mattsson
DATE:
August 16, 1994
RE:
Time for Filing Lawsuit under NEPA
Introduction
You asked that we determine whether there
limitations
for
f:'ling
a
claim 1
NEPA
to
a
~s
assist
statute of
your
group
in
determining when and if to bring a lawsuit.
The
•
short:
ar.swer
contain a statute
be brought.
See
also,
contain
question
your
Jones v. Gordon, 621 F. S upp.
Sierra
a
club
Oua~ity
( "NEPA and the NFY'A
v.
Penfold,
statute
II
~o~~rts
of
10
(D. Alaska 1985) .
2.20
1307,
1315
(9th
limitat~on.~ );
Citizens
for
do not set
II )
II
Jones, supra, at p. 10.
rout~nely
See also, Park
Inc. v. U. S . Department of Agriculture,
817 F . 2d 609,617 ; lOth Cir . 1987)
•
not
have relied upon the doct.rine of laches to
Coun t y Resource Council,
have
857
'"7,
[National Forest Management Act]
bar stale (NEPA] s·,:i ts .
actions
NEPA does
v. U.S., 731 F . Supp . 970, 992 (D.Colo. 1989)
forth a stat.ute of limitations.
However,
that
NEPA nor the APA [Administrative Procedure Act]
specif~c
Environmental
is
c: limitations (or time limit) by which suit must
("Neithe~
Cir.1988)
to
(lltimelir.ess challenges to NEPA
involved analysis under
the doctrine of
If claims are brought under other st:atutes or laws,
statutes of li mitat:ion may be different..
the
�FF'()fl
0 -1 : 2 -1 F'f"1
11_1
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Bruce pendery
FROM:
Appel & Mattsson
DATE:
August 16, 1994
RE:
Time for Filing Lawsuit under NEPA
Introduction
You asked that we determine whether ther e
limitations
for
f:'ling
NEPA claim 1
a
to
a
~s
assist
statute of
your
group
NEPA
does
in
determining when and if to bring a lawsuit.
The
•
shor'c
ar.swer
contain a statute
be brought.
See
also,
contain
question
your
c= limitations
Sierra
a
Club
that
not
Penfold,
857
'7,
10
(D. Alaska 1985) .
P.20
1307,
1315
(9th
NEPA nor the APA [Administrative Procedure Act]
specif:'c
Environmental
v.
is
(or time limit ) by which suit must
Jones v. Gordon, 621 F . S u pp.
("Neithe~
Cir .1988)
to
Oua~ity
statute
of
limitat:on.");
Citizens
for
v. U.S., 731 F.Supp . 970, 992 (D.Colo. 1989)
( "NEPA and the NF:VA [National Forest Management Act]
do not set
forth a statute of limitations.")
However,
"co~~rts
have relied upon the doct.rine of laches to
bar stale (NEPA] s ', :i ts. "
County Resource Council,
Jones, supra, at p. 10.
Inc . v. U. S . Department of Agriculture,
817 F . 2d 609,617 i lOth Cir. 1987)
•
actions
have
See also, Park
(lltimelir.es6 challenges to NEPA
rout:"nely involved analysis under
the doctrine of
If claims are brought under other st.atutes or laws ,
statutes of l i mitation may be different.
the
�laches . " )
which,
Laches is defined as neglect t o assert a right or claim
taken
together
with
the
lapse
of
time
and
circumstances causes prejudice to the adverse party.
other
~
Black's Law
Dictionarv.
Laches
According
environmental
to
courts
that
have
addressed
the
issue,
act i.on may be barred by the equi table de fense
an
of
laches if "(1) there has been unreasonable delay in bringing suit,
and (2) the party asserting the defense has been prejudiced by the
delay. "
Citizens for Environmental Quality v . U.S.,
970,
(D.Colo . 1989)
687
992
F.2d 1324,
Colorado
1338
District
731 F.Supp.
(citing Jicarilla Apache Tribe v. Andrus,
(lOth Cir.
Court
In Citizens,
1982).
held
that
there
had
supra,
been
the
neither
unreasonable delay nor sufficient prejudice for the doctrine of
laches
to apply.
The court
determined
that
the
case
had been
brought within a "reasonable time after application of regulations
at
issue
in
case"
rd. ac 993.
government.
Inc. v. U.
[the]
S.
and
there
was
no
prejudice
to
•
the
See also, Park County Resource Council,
DeDartment of Agriculture,
817 F.2d 609,
617
(10th
Cir. 1987).
Courts have concluded that "(l ) aches must be invoked sparingly
environm~ntal
in
~he
cases because ordinarily the plaintiff will not be
only victim of alleged environmental damage .
A less grudging
application of the doctrine might defeat Congress's environmental
pol icy . "
Park Cou::ty Resource Council, Inc. v. U. S. Department of
Agriculture,
817
F.2d
609,
617
2
(10th
Cir .
1987)
(citing
•
�Preservation Coalition, In c. v. Pierce, 66 7 F.2d 851, 854 (9th Cir.
1982).
However, there are instances whe n cou rts h ave precluded NEPA
c laims under the doctrine o f laches .
Andrus,
687 F.2d 132 4 ,
1338
In Jicarilla
(lOth Cir.
1982 ) ,
Apac~e
Tribe v.
the Tenth Circuit
Cou rt of Appeals held that there had been an unreasonable delay by
the Jicarilla Apache Tribe in aSSerting its NEPA claim.
1 13 8.
1d.
at
The Tribe brought suit in April 1976 to contest four lease
sa l es that took place between April
1 9 70
and September
1972.
rd.
This was found to be an unreasonable delay.
The Court also found that the delay in bringing suit resulted
1.n
prejudice to the lessees:
[T]he delay resulted in prejudice to the lessee defendants.
Because they had no notice that anything was amiss with their
Jicarilla leases until the institution of this sui~, they have
invested wel l over $12 million in lease in the fo~m of bonus
payments,
rentals,
administrat i ve overhead costs,
plus
exploration, d~illing and production costs. Were ~hey to lose
their leases ; much of that investment would be lost, not to
mention the :OS5 of future profits based on investments
already made .
•
rd. at 1339.
v.
Hodel,
679
See also, National Parks
F . Supp.
49,
54
&
(D.D.C.
Conservation
1987)
~.ssociation
( laches
bars
the
act io n)
A
similar argument may be made
c itiz ens wait too
~ong
by
to bring suit.
UDOT
You
co"trac':ors if the
mentioned
that
your
group may want to monitor the project and then bring suit if the
project does not meet with your expectations.
UDCT, the
•
.::ontra.:: to~s
The risk is that
and/or the Federa l Highway Adminis:ration may
claim un reasonab le delay and prejudice .
3
�In e v aluating whether to bring suit,
t here are other issues
yo u r group should consider including the pro c ess for bringing suit
and
defenses
available
to
the
defendants
including
standing.
•
ripeness, exhaustion of administrative remedies and mootness .
The Complaint
The
typical
NEPA case begins
wi th
the
Plaint iff
f i 1 ing a
Complaint in federal court seeking both declaratory and injunctive
relief.
The Complaint gener31ly names the various federal agencies
and officials, state officials responsible for actions alleged to
violate
NEPA
as defendants.
Law of Environmental
Protect ion.
§9.01[3)[b).
In
U.S.
NEPA
at:orney represents the federal agency .
Plaintiffs
process.
may
cases. either the Department of Justice or the local
to move
for
an
injunction
Id.
It
1.S
common for
in order to speed. up
the
However, if the Plaintiff loses the injunction, the case
become
moot
9 . 01 (3] [b] (ivJ .
Slnce
It
the
project
will
be
built.
at
•
if orten advisable to consolidate injunction
hearing and. hearing on the merits for that l'eason.
Id.
Venue
Plaintiff can bring suit.
where cause of action arose,
( 3)
(1)
where defendant
resides,
(2)
when real property involved, where
it is si:uated. or (4) where plaintiff resides if real property is
not in"·cl ved.
28 U.S.C.A.
51391(e)
In this case,
suit would be
brought in the Federal District Court for the State of Utah .
4
•
�•
Standing
To bring a NEPA suit, your group (and its members) must have
standing.
To prove standing, members of y our group must show:
(1)
injury in fact and (2) that his/her interests are within the zone
of
interests
intended
to
be
protected
by
the
constitutional provisions on which the claim is based."
Garrett,
971 F.2d 936,
942
statute
or
Specter v.
(3rd Cir . 1992 ) .
Environmental as well as economic interests allow a plaintiff
to meet the threshold requirement allowing him / her to bring suit as
long
as
injury
Complaint
must
is
particularized
state
that
to
those
Plaintiff
plaintiffs.
uses
and
environmental amenity alleged to be threatened .
is an organization,
•
~,
enJOYS
The
the
If the Plaintiff
its members must allege personal threat.
Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972).
See
But see, Lujan
v. National Wildlif= Federation, 110 S . Ct . 3177 (1990)
(the:r-e must
be an injury in fact and a connection of plaintiff to it.)
Ripeness
A procedural defense often raised by agencies
is not ripe.
This doctrine is generally used to
being brought too early in the process.
1S
pr~vent
that a case
suits from
Ripeness should not be an
1ssue 1n your case.
According
to
40
C . F.R.
§1500.3,
a
lawsuit
should
not
be
brought before a final EIS--"judicial review of agency compliance
with these regulations
[should]
n0t occur befo:r-e any agency has
filed the final EIS or has made a final finding cf no significant
•
impact when such a
finding will result
5
in action affecting the
�enviro nment
injury."
or
P,D';"
T[I
FF'IJr"
IJ8- 1 '=.-1 :<:'14 O.:J : 26Pr']
ta~es
action
that
will
result
in
•
irrepar~ble
See als8, Sierra Club v. MOLTon, 514 F.Supp . 856 (1975 )
(generally challenges to individual pro jects under NEPA can only be
brough t after fina: agency approval of the project ) ; Environmental
Rights Coalition v . Austin, 780 F.Supp. 5844
Ind. 1991)
(S.D.
(EA
not completed therefore case not ripe. )
Inapplicability of NEPA
~lother
NEPA
does
defe~se
raised by defendants sued under NEPA is that
apply.
not
§9. 01 [3J [bJ [viJ [ El
Law
of
En'Ji ronmental
Protection,
Although this defense is rarely successful, it
is a factor to be considered .
Any lawsuit brought by your group '
must state specific violations of law and / or statute.
•
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Government
agencies
have
also
used
the
defense
that
a
plaintiff has fai:ed to exhaust his / her administrative remedies,
but Courts have been reluctant to penalize Plaintiffs for tardily
bringing to an agency's attention what
have known from
Council
v.
i~s
own studies.
See
~he
agency itself should
~.,
Pari-: County Resourc,,=
U. S . . Gepartment of Agriculture, 817 F.2d 609, 619 (10 th
Cir . 1987 )
Mootness
Anot.her de:e::.se used in NEPA cases is mootness.
A
moot when "iz nc :onger presents a justiciable controversy
l.SSUeS
invol vea
Dicticnarv.
If
~ave
:~e
become
academic
or
UDOT project gets toe far
- ..
,
-
...
'::'.u.l. .....
1S
bQca~se
Black's
dead ."
alo~g,
cas~
:'-aw
your group may
of
:-:1OC: ::ess
.
•
�•
Conclusion
In determining when and if to bring a NEPA claim. your group
must weigh competing factors.
If your group decides to bring suit and does not want risk
being
dismissed
based
on
the
doctrine
of
laches,
the
safest
approach is to file suit before the project begins and before bids
are requested .
costly
and
The downside of this approach is that litigation
time
consuming
adversary to UDOT.
any other
filing
suit
you
become
an
agency or person) has violated NEPA or other
regulat~ons
The other
by
Your group would have to prove how UDOT (anci
appropri~te
applicable
and
lS
opt~on
or law.
is to monitor the
fi~st
phase of the
projec~
and to bring suit later if the project does not meet with your
•
approval and expectations.
may find that
the defendants
the~e
The risk in cioing this is that a court
has been unreasonable delay and prejudice
and will
dismiss
your
lawsuit.
The
benef i
~
lD.
waiting is that you may determine a lawsui: is not necessary.
In either case,
if a lawsuit is filed. members of your
gro~p
must be able to show that the violation or action personally
adversely impacts them.
a~d
Without standing. your group's claims wil:
be dismissed.
The third opt ~on is to come to an
~gree;-;'1en~
wi th UDOT (and an:'
other relevant c;.ger.cl.es or pel'sons) by '. . . hich your group would be
allowed to monitor and have some control v'ller the project.
ment ioned that UDeT wants
•
This may be
advisa~le
YOU1-
You
gl-oup to delay bringing a lawsu':'t. .
as long as your
7
gro~p
receives a benefit and
�not lose the right to bring suit in the future.
This is an o ve~view of some factors to consider in making your
decision.
Have yC'...ir group think them over carefully.
have
this,
done
... e
can discuss
the matter
further
and
Once you
jointly
•
determine which ap~~oach is best .
•
•
8
"
-
�,
\
August 12, 1994
Mr. Dave Berg
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
Dear Dave:
Enclosed are the responses of Bruce Pendery, Steve Flint,
and Shawn Swaner to the working copy of the Logan Canyon Highway
Record of Decision (ROD) that you provided us with. We thank you
for the opportunity to review the ROD before it is signed.
Sincerely,
Bruce Pendery
cc: Nathan Hult
Jeff Appel
EPA Denver Office
EPA Washington Office
FHWA Region Office
FHWA Washington Office
�"
COMMENTS OF BRUCE PENDERY
REASONS WHY A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (SEIS)
SHOULD BE PREPARED
The extreme deficiencies in the Logan Canyon Draft and Final
Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS and FEIS) that indicate an
SEIS should be prepared have been brought to your attention
previously (see letters from EPA, Haley and Stolebarger, and
Appel and Mattsson, among others, submitted in response to the
DEIS and FEIS).
More particularly, the letter from Appel and
Mattsson (see Appendix B of the ROD) pointed out that this whole
process has been "out of sync" with what NEPA requires since the
DEIS was essentially a scoping document, the FEIS functioned as
DEIS, and so forth.
This is not a matter of quibbling over details.
At the core
of the NEPA process is a policy that decisions significantly
affecting the human environment will not be made arbitrarily and
capriciously, and will be made with opportunities for informed
public participation.
By placing the whole NEPA process with
regard to Logan Canyon out of sync, UDOT has violated those
fundamental principles, thus the need for an SEIS.
Safety provides a major illustration for this contention.
Safety is a purpose and need identified for this project (see
ROD, FEIS, DEIS).
to the project.
It is not a peripheral concern, it is central
It is not a stretch to say that for many people
the whole Logan Canyon project boils down to weighing
environmental impacts of the project versus safety impacts.
1
Yet
�'.
, ~
the safety data which are used to support and rationalize the
safety purpose and need (and the attendant preferred alternative)
have been and continue to be seriously in error.
As early as a 1986 public hearing, UDOT attempted to present
incorrect safety data to the public as a justification for the
project, despite knowing the data were flawed.
Environmentalists
were forced to point this error out at the public hearing so as
to get UDOT not to use it.
And even at this late date in the
process, the safety data in the FEIS has had to be recalculated
for presentation in the ROD because once again environmentalists
pointed out the obvious flaws plaguing the data presented in the
FEIS (see Bridgerland Audubon Society, Citizens for the
Protection of Logan Canyon, and Ron Lanner letters in ROD
Appendix B).
Thus, the safety data in the ROD is new information
that has never been presented to the public (see Appendix A of
the ROD as well as the ROD itself which have large sections
devoted to explaining what went wrong with the safety analysis in
the FEIS).
Moreover, and most shockingly, the safety data in the
ROD are still wrong, as the letter from Steve Flint, contained
herein, points out.
So at this almost terminal date in the NEPA process we still
have flawed data being used to support a major purpose and need
for the Logan Canyon Project.
And the significance of this is
that informed public participation in this process cannot take
place.
All the hundreds of people who commented on the DEIS and
FEIS were presented with safety information that was wrong, as
2
�the need to correct this information in the ROD demonstrates.
And the ROD--even if the safety data in it were now correct--will
not be seen by the vast majority of people who are concerned
about this project.
ROD's--almost by definition--are not
intended to be vehicles for public participation.
Thus, the
significance of UDOT's out of sync approach to the NEPA process
becomes clear: not only is the process out of sync, but with each
step up the NEPA ladder toward project approval fewer and fewer
people are able to review the project, and those who previously
reviewed the project were presented with incorrect data
purporting to support UDOT's preferred alternative.
Therefore,
an SEIS is needed not only because the data presented have been
repeatedly wrong in the past, but also because each time UDOT
presents the "corrected" data, fewer people are able to
participate in the evaluating the decision the data supposedly
supports.
UDOT tries to avoid the need for preparing an SEIS, with its
attendant wide-ranging public participation, by stating that
certain individuals have been closely involved in the development
of the modified preferred alternative (see, e.g., ROD Appendix B
page 39, but this same statement appears in numerous other places
in the ROD).
But involving five individuals (Bruce Pendery,
Shawn Swaner, Steve Flint, Nathan Hult, Jeff Appel) in this
process--while greatly appreciated and we believe productive-simply cannot substitute for full-scale public involvement in an
SEIS process.
As has become clear recently, public sentiment
3
�regarding this project is simply too diverse and widespread to
believe that the above five people adequately provide for "public
involvement" when a basic purpose and need for the project has
never been adequately presented to the public.
While we are
viewed as knowledgeable about this project in the environmental
community and to some extent are considered leaders, we simply
cannot and do not represent the concerns of the hundreds--perhaps
thousands--of people concerned about Logan Canyon.
If UDOT wants
informed public participation in this NEPA process it must
provide for that via and SEIS.
In addition to the fact informed public participation has
been hampered, UDOT's modified preferred alternative is a
arbitrary and capricious decision.
The DEIS, FEIS, and ROD all
make much of the fact safety will be improved if the preferred
alternative is implemented.
But what basis can there be for that
assertion when the information it is based on has been flawed
since at least 1986 and continues to be flawed?
I have largely exhausted the topic of why an SEIS is needed.
However, I will point out that the same analysis applies to 4(f)
sites and to wildlife.
The 4(f) documentation in the FEIS was
also wrong in a number of instances and a has had to be corrected
(see ROD Appendix A, 4(f) Map section, as well as the ROD
itself).
Likewise, UDOT presented essentially no information in
the FEIS about the numerous sensitive species in Logan Canyon
(see ROD Appendix B pages 28 and 35).
The ROD contains some
information on these species (see ROD Appendix A, USFS Biological
4
�Assessment).
Thus, just as for safety, informed public
participation could not take place in regard to these critical
issues because the information was wrong or absent.
Moreover,
simply presenting the information in the largely nonpublic ROD
phase of the NEPA process does not correct the problem.
CURRENT LEVEL OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE MODIFIED PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY
Repeatedly in the ROD UDOT states that consensus has been
reached with the environmental community with regards to the
modified preferred alternative.
That is an incorrect statement,
which we have made clear to UDOT.
Not only is it incorrect, it
makes it more unlikely compromise will be reached because those
most opposed to the project would deeply resent UDOT unilaterally
announcing that consensus exists.
Let me be clear.
discussions with UDOT.
Since last December we have had a several
The tone of those meetings has been
constructive and positive.
I personally want that process to
continue because I believe compromise is preferable to
confrontation.
However, it is my opinion that a fully acceptable
compromise has not been reached yet.
Let me explain why.
As the modified preferred alternative stands,
conservationists would get most of what they want in 14% of the
canyon (road stays on current width and alignment between
mileposts 383.5 to 387.5, although there could be some curve cuts
we don't believe are necessary).
UDOT gets everything it wants
5
�.
t
in 42% of the canyon (full U.S. highway standard between
mileposts 399.8 to 411.8, with almost 8 miles of that 12 miles
having a passing lane).
Neither UDOT or conservationists get
exactly what they want in 43% of the project area (mileposts
387.5 to 399.8).
At a meeting in early July Dave Berg asked me how far along
toward compromise we were.
Based on the above considerations, I
said I thought we were 75% of the way there.
about where we still stand.
I believe that's
Seventy-five percent of a potential
compromise does not equal compromise, let alone consensus.
Moreover, as we found out at a meeting we convened in July there
is a significant group of conservationists in Cache Valley who
believe we are not even seventy-five percent of the way toward
compromise. This information was conveyed to UDOT in a timely
manner.
To summarize, I believe that a generally acceptable
compromise is possible, but it can only be reached by continued
hard work seeking to narrow the differences that still exist, not
by premature and unilateral statements that consensus has been
reached.
RESPONSE TO BRIDGERLAND AUDUBON LETTER (APPENDIX B PAGE 16)
The Bridgerland Audubon Society (BAS) provided extensive
comments on the FEIS.
I was the author of that letter, although
I no longer hold an official position with BAS.
Unfortunately, I
believe most of the concerns that were raised in the BAS letter
were dismissed with conclusory statements using circular
6
�.,
reasoning.
While UDOT may feel it has adequately addressed this
letter, I hope the FHWA and EPA will make an independent
assessment of these concerns and how well UDOT has responded to
them.
What follows are items related to the BAS letter that I
feel are particularly significant.
It is not nearly an
exhaustive list.
1.
Since AASHTO allows for design exceptions, they are not
genuinely standards.
Thus, the "written-in-stone" portrayal UDOT
has given to the public over the years is incorrect.
Moreover,
UDOT still fails to state what legal authority AASHTO has,
perhaps because it has no legal authority (Appendix B, page 17).
2.
On Appendix B page 25 it is stated that treatment of
clear zones has been more clearly defined in the ROD.
Even if
true, this is yet another case of not presenting the public with
correct (or clear) information until the public is largely no
longer part of the process.
prepare an SEIS.
That is, its yet another reason to
Moreover, BAS Table 3 was correct, what was
wrong was that UDOT had failed to explain what "typical improved
area" means in its FEIS, thus defeating informed public
participation.
3.
On Appendix B page 27, UDOT indicates that recreation
isn't emphasized in Logan Canyon, and that it isn't a recreation
area.
That analysis ignores the Forest Service signs welcoming
visitors to the "Logan Canyon Recreation Area," it ignores the
Forest Service's attempts to get highway enhancement funds to
show off Logan Canyon's many recreational attractions, it ignores
7
�. \;
the brown (i.e., recreational) FHWA or UDOT signs pointing the
way to Logan Canyon, it ignores the clear direction in the Forest
plan that Logan Canyon will be managed primarily for recreation.
Under UDOT's constrained analysis, the Sawtooth National
Recreation Area (also managed by the Forest Service) would not be
a recreation area because its not absolutely only used for
recreation (grazing is allowed in some areas).
I prefer the more
pragmatic duck test: if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,
etc., it is a duck.
area.
Under that test Logan Canyon is a recreation
And neither UDOT or the Forest Service can reinterpret the
law in an inappropriately constrained way--and the law makes it
clear that when the managing agency designates an area a
recreation area in its plans, that area must be treated as a 4(f)
area.
4.
On Appendix B page 28 UDOT frets about having to
concern itself with "hundreds" of species.
Only 27 species were
asked about, and now with the public largely removed from this
process something has finally been said about them (see Appendix
A, USFS Biological Assessment).
Moreover, not only does the
Forest Service have to do a biological assessment before a
decision document is signed, it must do the assessment before the
decision is made which certainly has not been the case here.
5.
UDOT says on Appendix B page 29 only a Forest Plan
Amendment will be required, not a revision.
However,
conservationists have long contended a much more significant
revision will be required.
Revisions are required when the basic
8
�output of goods and services from a forest are altered.
I
believe the modified preferred alternative will meet that test by
transforming Logan Canyon into yet another Wasatch-Cache National
Forest high-speed conduit, rather than the singular peaceful and
quiet ride in a major canyon that it currently is.
In fact,
Logan Canyon's beauty is not only of forest-wide singularity, it
is of national significance, as a soon-to-be-released national
article will demonstrate.
6.
Some pages are duplicated incorrectly beginning on
about Appendix B page 29 to 31.
7.
While the Forest Service has evaluated the Logan River
for Wild and Scenic status (Appendix B pages 29 to 31), it has
also said that new information could cause a reevaluation.
Such
information was recently provided by Mr. Drew Parkin who is one
of the nation's premier experts on wild and scenic rivers.
He
concluded most of the Logan River within the highway project area
qualifies as a recreational river.
to the Forest Service.
His report has been submitted
UDOT should more fully consider the
ramifications of such a designation, and not just state that
there will be no effect due to the project.
8.
Appendix B page 32 indicates it would be speculative to
worry about land use changes if the land exchange occurs.
The
land exchange will occur because authorizing legislation has been
passed by Congress and signed by the President.
And to compare
Forest Service land use policy with Utah State Lands Board policy
is like comparing night and day (I'll leave it to you to decide
9
�,
.
which is the benighted agency).
There will be changes in land
management and it is disingenuous to ignore that fact.
In
particular, the need for " laydown" fencing should be reconsidered
because it is unlikely there will be cows to keep off the
highway.
9.
On Appendix B page 33 UDOT responds improperly to the
4(f) issues that are raised.
As indicated above, all of Logan
Canyon is a recreation area, its not a few parking sites.
Moreover, the reason for selecting the 4(f) sites was not to
protect parking, but rather to protect aesthetics, hiking, and
exploration.
These are the protected features or activities (see
Appendix B page 34).
Furthermore, not only is the conservationists' alternative
feasible and prudent, it also does not produce any genuinely
unusual situations precluding its selection.
And when a feasible
and prudent alternative fails to meet transportation needs, the
needs must be reassessed, which UDOT has not done.
Failure to
meet transportation needs does not mean an alternative
automatically causes an unusual situation precluding its
selection.
10.
The concerns raised on Appendix B page 35 are indeed
specific to the Logan Canyon Highway project since these species
occur nowhere else, and failure to address the question runs
contrary to Eugene Kleckley's (FHWA) written assurance that all
of our concerns would be addressed.
11.
Over the years UDOT has repeatedly refused to consider
10
�,.
slow vehicle turnouts as an alternative to passing lanes.
However, these are a practicable alternative to the passing lanes
contemplated between mileposts 391.6 to about milepost 396.5 that
would avoid wetlands impacts (see Appendix B page 36 and ROD
pages 32 to 34).
As we have often pointed out to UDOT, slow
vehicle turnouts are successfully used in several states.
And
UDOT has told us that they have the statutory authority to use
slow vehicle turnouts.
Therefore, they must be used in
preference to passing lanes where wetlands impacts will occur.
Additionally, while UDOT partially responded to BAS's
concerns on Appendix B page 36 by reducing the road width to 34feet between mileposts 391.6 and 399.8, this response was
incomplete.
UDOT fails to point out why it does not plan to
leave roadway width at 26-feet in section 1b of the canyon
(mileposts 387.5 to 391.6).
If 26-feet is a practicable
alternative in section 1a (mileposts 383.5 to 387.5), why is that
not practicable in section 1b, where the canyon is virtually as
narrow and wetlands/riparian impacts likely as great?
Furthermore, UDOT dismisses BAS's concerns about wetlands
mitigation in sections 1a and 1b by saying "the commentor .
. .
felt" (ROD page 33)there was a poor likelihood of revegetation
success.
However, it was not a matter that I "felt" there was a
poor likelihood of success.
Rather, I cited recent scientific
literature--produced by scientists working for the very agency
whose land will be impacted (the Forest Service)--stating there
is a poor likelihood revegetation will be successful in areas
11
�such as sections 1a and 1b (see Appendix B page 37).
If the
scientific literature that I cited is somehow flawed UDOT should
cite "better" information.
That's how science works.
demands the use of good science.
And NEPA
Until then, it appears UDOT has
no scientific basis for claiming it can reclaim the kinds of
wetlands that exist in sections 1a and lb.
Finally, UDOT still feels simply stating best management
practices will be used is sufficient to meet water quality
mandates (Appendix B page 37, see also ROD page 32).
otherwise.
The law is
Moreover, UDOT has failed to adequately coordinate
with the Utah Division of Water Rights (see Appendix B page 6)
which feels UDOT has likely understated the water quality impacts
of the project.
Thus, UDOT is too vague about how it will
mitigate water quality impacts and has likely underestimated
those impacts, yet UDOT wants approval to proceed with this
project.
That is not how NEPA intends environmental review to
proceed.
12.
An inability to do a "before and after" (ie,
cumulative) comparison of wetlands and aesthetic impacts in the
already-widened section of Logan Canyon with the project area
would be unfortunate (Appendix B page 38).
However, I believe
that if future aesthetic conditions of the road can be predicted
in the project area, past conditions in the already-widened
section can also be estimated.
For example, there are certainly
many old photos of the canyon that could be used for aesthetic
comparisons, and many of the old wetlands have left "footprints"
12
�of their existence.
While not an ideal scientific situation, to
simply state that no useful cumulative comparisons can be made
between the project area and the lower canyon overstates the
situation.
UDOT says the Forest Service feels the presentation of
visual quality data was more meaningful when presented in a way
unlike that in the rest of the FEIS (Appendix B page 38).
Why
did UDOT let the Forest Service dictate this approach when BAS-and several others--made it clear in their comments on the DEIS
that this was not a more illuminating approach?
MAJOR FLAWS APPARENT IN THE ROD
What follows are additional major flaws that I perceive in
the ROD.
1.
Again, this is not an exhaustive list.
On page 40 of the ROD UDOT mistakenly thinks only an
irreversible commitment of resources can invoke NEPA relative to
4(f) designation.
Actually the test is whether designating a
4(f) site is a Federal action significantly affecting the human
environment.
The selection--or more importantly, lack of
selection--of 4(f) sites in Logan Canyon meets that test and
certainly warranted at least a FONSI or an EA.
2.
On page 18 of the ROD UDOT says the Forest Service will
issue a transportation easement not the special use permit
described in the FEIS.
What is the significance of that change?
If one of these involves the Forest Service conveying a property
right while the other is merely a license, this is a significant
13
�.
"
change, and the public has not had a chance to comment or be
involved in this decision.
3.
As I have discussed in several of our meetings, the
exact location and size of staging areas must be spelled out.
This is a major project impact that has not been previously
addressed.
4.
I have already mentioned the tendency towards
unwarranted conclusory statements in regards to how the BAS
letter was addressed.
That same problem is particularly evident
in the defensive discussion on purpose and need on pages 27 to 29
of the ROD.
As I said above, the safety data were wrong in the
FEIS, are still wrong, and question begging rhetoric does not
alleviate that problem.
Likewise, the discussions related to
traffic volume predictions, the associated level of service, the
utility of SR 14 as a comparison to u.S. Highway 89, and AASHTO
standards are mostly just defensive and conclusory.
5.
On Appendix A page 7 there is a critical UDOT
memorandum.
First, under the logic developed in this memorandum,
there is little or no safety rationale for the 40-feet wide road
UDOT still proposes in much of the canyon.
All of the remaining
proposed 40-feet wide highway could just as well be 34-feet wide.
UDOT should strongly consider this fact as a means of reaching a
generally acceptable compromise in the canyon.
However there is also a very disturbing remark made in this
memo.
It is stated: n[A]nd given the fact that we would be able
to proceed with the construction of the project .
14
. . n if the
�f
road width is reduced to 34-feet, going to five foot shoulders is
acceptable.
Did UDOT decide to go to a 34-feet width instead of
a 40-feet between mileposts 391.6 to 399.8 because of its goodfaith discussions with conservationists or because EPA and/or the
Corps of Engineers told UDOT they would not get a 404 permit if
they did not make this change?
The sentence quoted above
certainly implies that someone was holding a very big stick over
UDOT's head, and frankly I doubt that it was conservationists.
6.
The letters from the EPA and the Utah Division of Water
Rights on Appendix B pages 1 to 6 are a must read.
In essence,
not only has UDOT failed to insure an approved wetlands permit is
acquired before the project is authorized, it has also put off
significant input on water quality impacts until the as yet
nonexistent design phase.
We mentioned earlier how UDOT has
marginalized the public's ability to participate in this process
by its out of sync NEPA process.
It appears UDOT is doing the
same with expert agencies that should have input to this project
prior to its approval, not after.
A SUGGESTION FOR COMPROMISE
Many of my comments in this letter have been critical of
UDOT's approach to the Logan Canyon project.
That's because I
feel the ROD is as flawed a decision document as were the DEIS
and FEIS.
However, in the spirit of compromise let me offer a
suggested approach.
When the final ROD is issued it should only approve
15
�construction of the bridges, namely Burnt Bridge, and Upper and
Lower Twin Bridges.
These are the "scary" bridges in many
people's opinion, and as I understand it the ones that are in
need of replacement due to their age.
UDOT apparently has
funding to reconstruct these bridges and UDOT has indicated that
replacing these bridges would take about two years.
During that two year period an SEIS could be prepared for
the remainder of the project, wherein the public and concerned
agencies are given a full opportunity to participate before a
decision is made and when it can still have a major effect.
Many
of the major flaws that I have pointed out in this letter and my
letters submitted on behalf of BAS regarding the FEIS and DEIS
could be corrected in this process.
The numerous other flaws
pointed out by other commentors could also be addressed.
The
EPA's deep concern regarding segmenting a project (see Appendix B
pages 1 to 4) might be addressed.
Additionally, the constructive
and positive discussions UDOT has had with conservationists could
continue in a effort to narrow remaining differences.
In any
event, UDOT does not have funding for nonbridge portions of the
project yet, so taking a couple of more years to "get it right"
should not be a major problem for UDOT fiscally.
You will note that I did not include the Red Banks, Franklin
Basin, or Amazon Hollow structures/bridges in this proposal.
There is simply too much controversy associated with them (due to
their extreme width and wetlands impacts) to expect that they
would meet with general acceptance, unlike the three bridges
16
�"
mentioned above.
Moreover, as far as I know, the only "problem"
with these bridges is that they are not as wide as UDOT would
like.
However, they do not seem to be as narrow as the bridges
mentioned above (they certainly are not "scary"), and they are
not nearing the end of their useful life so far as I know.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide these comments on
the ROD, and I hope that UDOT and the FHWA will consider this
compromise proposal so that a generally acceptable compromise
might be reached for the Logan Canyon project.
Sincerely,
~8~~
Bruce Pendery
755 Canyon Rd.
Logan, Utah 84321
17
�...
Shawn Swaner
USU Box 1625
Logan, Utah 84322-0199
August 10, 1994
Mr. David Berg
UDOT Environmental Division
4501 S 2700 W
Salt Lake City UT 84119
Dear Mr. Berg,
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the preparation of the Logan
Canyon Record of Decision and have several comments on the draft copy of
that document.
I have many concerns about waiting until the design phase to resolve
controversial issues. As we discussed on the August 3 field review, the
RoD is a legally binding document that must be adhered to in design.
However, verbal and informally written commitments could be overlooked
or omitted from final design for a variety of reasons. For the sake of
reaching compromise, I would like to see the RoD become a more formal
record of what is to be done and provide binding guidelines for the design
phase.
The following comments are areas that I feel need more
comprehensive coverage to ensure concerns resolved prior to the
submission of the RoD are not "lost" over time.
Dugway
During the August 3 field trip, there was discussion concerning the width
of the cut at the Dugway . To widen the width of the cut from 4 feet to 12
feet would cause considerable additional aesthetic impacts in this area.
It could result in design changes to the roadway width and number of lanes
in this area. The width of cut and method for making the cut should be
covered in the RoD.
Cost considerations should be evaluated now, rather
than during design.
�,
Lower Twin Bridge
The proposed sloping of the south cut at Lower Twin Bridge would most
likely provide better revegetation and possibly less of and aesthetic
impact.
The removal of the existing bridge support structure should be more
Impact reducing measures such as sawcutting versus
thoroughly covered.
jackhammering are very important considerations and should be written
into the RoD. Also, guidelines should be established for the disposal of
the old bridge.
Temple Fork
The amount of variables at Temple Fork cause for a great amount of
concern. I am grateful for the elimination of the left turn lane. I also feel
that realigning the intersection will provide greater safety. However, the
close proximity of the river and adjoining riparian habitat make it a
sensitive portion of the project. I am concerned about the adding of an
uphill deceleration and turn lane.
Although the additional width will be
cut into the hillside, I urge that extreme care be taken to ensure minimal
construction and post construction impacts on the river and riparian
habitat. Concerns have been raised about the threat of siltation due to
runoff during construction. There are also concerns to aesthetics of this
area.
Once again, clarification of how these issues are to be dealt with
would be justified in the RoD.
Beaver Creek
The Beaver Creek corridor is similar to the lower middle canyon in
narrowness and close proximity of riparian and wetland habitat. Language
similar to that used to describe the Lower Middle Canyon should be used
here. Specific areas of concern are the use of clear zones, total roadway
width in areas to be contained by retaining waifs, and use and type of
protective guardrail.
Specific attention should be given to that habitat of
this section as it has unique terrain that is not conducive to clear zones
within proposed clear zone areas.
�•
Amazon Hollow Bridge
This is an area raised in early 1994 during a field review.
At that time it
was indicated that impacts to the wetlands adjacent to this bridge could
most likely be avoided. Considering that the actual intersection will be
moved farther east, away from the bridge, and that a shorter taper could
be employed, this should be possible. It would seem that a consultation of
maps should answer whether this is possible, or whether it would require
a design exemption. If it requires a design exemption, then that must be
included in the RoD, if it does not then it should be indicated that the
wetlands will be avoided, as Federal agencies have directed. If UDaT does
not feel that avoiding these wetlands is possible, then that should be
made clear so that we can Inform our constituents.
Curves 69, 70, 71
and adjacent forest.
After numerous discussions on passing lanes, I agree that the addition of a
passing lane to the 40 foot roadway section would result in only the
addition roadway width of 7 feet. However, if this additional width
causes a substantially higher road base width or a wider fill, then that
should be the primary focus regarding impacts. Therefore, relating to
these curves, the addition of seven feet of width could cause severe
impacts to habitat and aesthetics by the inclusion of fills. Please
evaluate whether retaining walls could be used to limit the amount of
sliver fills down the steep slope of these curves. Also indicate the safety
device to be used along this section of the road . A five foot shoulder
would nearly double the amount of cut and fill necessary, has UDaT
included the in it's impact evaluation?
Curve 85 Forest Impacts
Impacts to the forest habitat surrounding curve 85 are of prime concern to
CPLC. Several alternatives have been proposed by both UDaT and CPLC.
CPLC has a two fold concern in this area, and no proposed alternative
adequately resolves these concerns. The first and primary concern relates
to the elimination of trees in this area due to curve realignment and
roadway widening . The aesthetics of travelling through this area are a
unique experience in the canyon and as such are of concern. The widening
of the road and the implementation of wider shoulders and safety features
would eliminate the close proximity of these trees, resulting in the lose
�•
of the aesthetic value.
I realize that curve 85 has a high degree of curvature (23 degrees) and the
problem of icing during winter months makes this curve a safety concern .
The proposed alternatives all offer varying degrees of satisfaction for
CPLC various impacts to safety and environment.
I offer the following
comments on the proposed alternatives for this section.
Ending the passing lane above Sunrise Campground
This would reduce the amount of aesthetic impacts to this area but
would not accomplish much unless the curve was maintained on its
present alignment. I realize that safety standards would preclude
the use of this option.
ReRouting of Road from Summit to approx. MP
This is a dramatic change from previous plans and a such I have very
little information on its impacts and also on how the body of CPLC
regards it. I am initially in favor of this proposal, as I indicated on
the August 3 field review, however, we must more thoroughly
examine all aspects of this proposal before myself or CPLC can
formally accept this proposal.
Impacts to habitat should be evaluated, as well as the manner of and
amount of cut and fiJI that would be necessary to accommodate the
roadway. Also, work must be done to show how the realigned portion
would reacquire the original road .
I feel this is a matter of prime concern that must be dealt with in
the RoD. If UDOT wishes to proceed with design changes outlined in
the FEIS, then that should be make clear. This is not an issue that
can be left until final design.
Old Road on Garden City side of ProJect
The draft RoD is suitable regarding removal and revegetation of abandoned
road . However, can the RoD include a statement that no abandoned road
will be left intact above the Garden City Limits?
�•
Impacts
from
Mitigation
CPLC has raised concerns about the impacts from mitigation. These
concerns could be allayed if we could review a mitigation plan from a
similar project. Also, what guidelines are followed, are they published
and if so in what publication. Review of mitigation plans and procedures
should show that those procedures are acceptable and not as impacting as
we believe, if in fact they are not.
Land Use
What is the duration of the planned construction/pose-construction
monitoring plan? Will they have the necessary budget and staff to
revegetate or fix areas of mitigation and revegetation that fail?
What will be the role and extent of communication with agencies other
than the Forest Service? Should not more agencies be included in roles
greater than that of the CAT team?
What Best Management Guidelines will be used in Rich County, which has
now guidelines of its own?
Social
Impacts
While a majority of social impacts, notably those relating to Garden City
residents are outside our primary area of concern, the impacts to
recreation and access in the canyon are of interest.
Despite categorizing
sites in the canyon into 4(f) sites, the canyon as a whole must not be
overlooked as a recreation area. Logan Canyon is a recreation area,
regardless of its designation. There are many more sites beside the
designated 4(f) sites that fit the same criteria. The close proximity of
the canyon's 4(f) sites indicate that the whole canyon is a contiguous
recreation site and as such should be treated as such.
The recreation
value of the canyon is not just a sum of available parking areas and
turnouts. Social impacts are not only loss of these parking areas, but also
the degradation of the canyon natural resources.
�\
•
Water
Quality
Impacts
Siltation of the rivers and streams both during and after construction of
an area of high concern. What guidelines will be used to ensure long term
avoidance of siltation due to road runoff. Plans have been made for the
first four miles of the project, but not much has been said of the rest of
the project. Is there an AASHTO guide for this?
Wetlands and Botanical Resources
As mentioned previously, impacts which can obviously be avoided should
be listed in the RoD. As the actual design may take place several years
into the future, and concerns discussed prior to the release of the RoD
could be overlooked. My inclination (and not necessarily that of CPLC) is
that concessions resulting in less impacts to wetlands and riparian
habitat are of prime interest, and that my emphasis is on these
concessions, rather than concerns in the upper canyon and on the Garden
City side. Hence, wetlands in the Lower Upper Canyon, and the Beaver
Creek corridor are of deep interest. Avoidance of impacts in these areas
are much more important than many other concerns and should be given
thorough coverage.
Water Body Impacts and Wildlife Impacts
What studies are used to justify that
impact wildlife migration?
lay down fencing will not adversely
What measures will be taken to minimize the likely increase of animal
vehicle collisions due to higher vehicle speed?
Regarding clear span bridges, what guidelines will be followed to
minimize construction impacts to the river from the close proximity of
the spans, noting that those spans will not be in the river, but in very
close proximity. Does the erosion control plans mentioned in the RoD also
cover bridge construction?
Is there enough information about fisheries in the canyon to adequately
determine what mitigative measures will be undertaken? Why not do a
study prior to construction to determine the current state of fisheries?
�•
Construction
Impacts
Please include information regarding the potential air quality
bituminous processing plant. What permits would be required
Should these permits not be included in the RoD? Can a plant
the canyon if the impacts of such a plant where not covered in
prior?
impacts of a
for this?
be built in
the FEIS or
Construction detours could represent an additional substantial impact.
What will be done to minimize the use of detours, where will detours be
prohibited, who has final decision over use and location of detours?
Another impact that has been previously overlooked is staging areas. The
construction of staging areas on sites previously mapped as untouched
create a new impact that was undocumented in the environmental
documentation.
Comments on the FEIS
Overall, I feel that UDOT's handling of public comments has been very poor
and is a major contributor to current feelings of mistrust towards UDOT
from CPLC members and the public. Better handling of comments could
have greatly improved relations and led to better cooperation on this
project.
The dismissal of concerns and comments is certainly realistic, but
dismissal without adequate explanation is unacceptable to the
commentator. The replies to comments in the FEIS and the RoD indicate
that UDOT has little regard for the publics input and if it was evaluated at
all, no mention of how those suggestions where incorporated or dismissed
was given .
Regarding
consensus
CPLC and
consensus
process to
not.
the statement in the last sentence of page 29 of the draft RoD,
has not yet been met. Representatives from FHWA, Garden City,
within UDOT have expressed concerns that would indicate that
has not been reached. It is damaging to the consensus building
declare that consensus has been reached when in fact it has
�Traffic and
Safety Data
In the August 1 meeting, UDOT stated that accident and traffic data was
"garbage." It would seem that if improving safety and level of service
were the intent of the project, then accurate data would be required to
justify that purpose and need. Since the traffic and safety data is
inaccurate, it would seem that purpose and need should be altered to
include only level of service and substandard design.
Conclusion
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the development of the
Record of Decision. As a representative of CPLC, I look forward to
continued communication on the many issues surrounding the Logan Canyon
project.
Sincerely,
GP,'-/
s:'.....,g....uz
Shawn Swaner
�
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/1753">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1753</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
3391297476
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
18774812 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
Various papers commenting on the Logan Canyon construction project, 1994
Description
An account of the resource
Various papers commenting on the Logan Canyon construction project, 1994. Included: Citizens for a Safe and Scenic Logan Canyon summary of UDOT plan of action and Conservationist plan of action, time filing lawsuit under NEPA, and comments on Logan Canyon project from Bruce Pendery.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Pendery, Bruce
Flint, Stephan D.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Berg, David
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Correspondence
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, MSS 314, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the finding aid for this collection at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd5.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/44186100bae44ec54de6b2fd8e6ae351.pdf
919eb952a79f67e37e2cbbb839d5930e
PDF Text
Text
Dec rob r 2, 1961
Dr. Daryl Chase , President
Utah state University
Campus
D
r Presi ent Ch. s :
ttached are fifte
copi s of our printed list tement on Road Construction ~nd Resource Use". We suggest
th..l.t copies be for rd d with your card to the Utah
congressional del gation--Senators Moss and Bennett, nd
epresentatives King and Pet rson. Also to S cr tary
' of Commerc Luther Hodg s , Secretary of griculture
Oe ville Freeman, and Secretary of the Interior stewart
Ud 11.
I
m today transmitting copies to bure u chiefs
within these dgencies.
Sincerely yours,
J. Whitney Floyd, Dean
College of For st , Range ,
and Wildlife Management
JHB:ep
Attachm nts-lS
�
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/1752">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1752</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
1379519837
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
556179 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Daryl Chase, December 2, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Daryl Chase, December 2, 1961 discussing the Statement on Road Construction and Resouce Use and its dissemination to the Utah congressional delegation.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Chase, Daryl
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
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 5.pdf
-
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/6f6c0e97fba6e59f7904091c75888862.pdf
d7a2d7e787119890ac2a9c3d2ab387a6
PDF Text
Text
December 1 , 1961
Mr. S . G. M rryman, Man ger
Timber and Western Lands
Northern Pacific Railway Co .,
Seattle , Washington
Dear Mr. Merryman:
Attached is a statem nt hieh I hope you will find of
interest-- contribution of th College and th Extension
Services to ard bett r land us , pecifically dS it r lates
o rOdd construction .
It is our hope that it will contribute to a b tt r und rstanding of one of the many complexities of highway planning_
Sincerely yours,
J. Whitn y Floyd , Dedn
College of Forest , ange,
and Wildlif Mansq m nt
JHBsep
e enclosure
�
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/1750">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1750</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
446329421
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
551691 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to S. G. Merryman, December 1, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd, Dean College of Forest, Range, and Wildlife, to S. G. Merryman, Northern Pacific Railway Co., on December 1, 1961 about the Road Construction and Resource Use statement.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Merryman, S. G.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Seattle (Washington)
King County (Washington)
Washington
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 8.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/2e888296eca409e02326889d21e36640.pdf
0ef547ce94e904223ead108032730516
PDF Text
Text
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK
IN
AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS
STATE OF UTAH
EXTENSION SERVIC E
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
u.
AND
LOGAN. UTAH
S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
COOPERATING
M E M 0
To:
M
rs. -ladys Harrison
Fro~:
Mr . Jeck H. 8·
rr~an
\G...
J.\ttochcd Ejr~ t wo copi s of Road Constr uct· on c . d
ResDur c8 ~se , a contrlbutiofiCif £he Ext ens i on--
S_tvic
~
and th _ Cn lege of Forest,
R3ng~ ,
nd
'ildl if 8 r·1a n ngem~nt , ,lubIluhnd joi ntly F~S Exten-
sion Circuler 297; olso as no . 3 in
entanninl Oiemo d Jubilse Geri~sD
th~ L ~nd
Gr8nt
Thio is th G ctement that fi ttr a ct ed 80 much newspaper pub lici ty hen rol l~sed in typed arm in
sarlV No vember.
It i s a vaila Ie for dintributio n through the publicat iuns room of ,he Extens i on :-erv · C8S in -- he
Agricultu r ~ l ScienCES Building.
JH8:js
~
cc: Dean J . ~hit n ~v Fl oyd
Dean Culms8e
�
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/1749">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1749</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
3736303556
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
537183 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
Memorandum from Jack Berryman to Gladys Harrison, No Date
Description
An account of the resource
Memorandum from Jack Berryman to Gladys Harrison about copies of the Road Construction and Resource Use statement.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Berryman, Jack H.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Harrison, Gladys
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
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 6.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/42c9ee243341c20effea01d43d00362c.pdf
9949b0181a1da1a66dd22d1086f04bec
PDF Text
Text
DATE:
[tee.
TIME:
7 :00 - 9:00 PM
1994
PERSONS PRESENT:
Lauren keller, Ka~ny Gilb ert, Shawn
Swaner, M
ark Bowen, Nathan ~uit, Dianne Sigirled,
Gordon SteInhoff, Merv Coover
1. Shawn discussed t ne upcomIng Transportati on CommIssion MeetIng on
Dec. 15 in Salt Lake City. He agreed to be the spokesperson for CPLC at
tne mee~lng. He was asked by UDOI ~o present our position. Todd
Weston, a memoer 0+ tne Transportation Commiss Ion naG presented hIS
preference for tne Preferreo AlternatIve at tne Cache County CounCI l
meetIng on Dec. 13. weston wan~ed the council's support for the
Preferred Altern ative to ensure federa l nighway fundIng . The counCI l
vo~ed (S-2! for the modified ROD as negotIated bv CPLC w I~h UDO I In
order ~o get tne project mOVIng.
2. KeVIn kobe, Dan MI ll er, Lil l lane Bowen oresented the Dositlon of t ne
Logan Canyon Coai ltion. Their POS I tion was to coooerate fully wlth CPLC
ana no~ to JepOrdlz e ~he bargainIng POSItIon of CPLC. They dIG no~ wan~
to stop th e project but WISneG ~o pursue other Issues such as a tores~
service appeal when ~he Forest SerVIce Issued a modIfIed forest plan In
oraer for tne road construction to Oegln. Thev would I Ik e to get more
compromIses from UDOT . They left the meeting after tne i r presentatIon.
Laure n ied the discussion ior Incorporation. The fo l lOWIng were
agt-'ee,j upon:
a. we would Incoporate as a non-p r ofIt, educatIonal organization .
O. the board would conSlS~ of 9 members.
c. board terms would be staggered witn 2 year terms.
d. aC~lng offlcers were e lected as out! lned by the procedure In tne Nay.
17tn mInutes. ChaIr - Shawn Swan er, Vice-Ch aIr - Lauren Kei Jer,
S e cre~ary - ~a~hy GI l bert
e. ~he meetIng was adjourned before all the Items for lncorooration were
dIscussed. It was agreed ~o complete thIS bUSi ness at the Jan. j 9~
meeting.
4.
1'1EE;TING i~AfL?C:HfDU_LEQ.. £OR.;.. JAN. 12,_J. 1 9j AT 7:00 f'i"l . H
I
The agenda will Include:
"t"f..IE NEXT BOARD
kATHY'S hOUSE.
a. the remainIng items for IncorporatIon.
b . selectIon of the CAT team member.
c. plannIng for general memoershlp mee~lng.
�
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/1748">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1748</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
1280167987
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
367618 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
Minutes of the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, December 15, 1994
Description
An account of the resource
Minutes of the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, December 15, 1994
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Swaner, Shawn
Kobe, Kevin
Miller, Dan
Bowen, Lilliane
Keller, Lauren
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Gilbert, Kathy
Bowen, Mark
Hult, Nathan
Sigfried, Dianne
Steinhoff, Gordon
Coover, Merv
Subject
The topic of the resource
Minutes and proceedings
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Department of Transportation--Utah
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Agendas (administrative records)
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, MSS 314, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the finding aid for this collection at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd3.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/803d1968e2d6911e6f55128c3093bd97.pdf
2fbb8450935b3d55b155feb525d1fbdc
PDF Text
Text
November 21 , 1961
Mrs. K thryn H. Young
Triple H Ranch
Stanley , Idaho
Dear Mrs. Young:
Thank you for your lett r r questing a copy of th
-tudy
made by our Univ rsit st ff on he imp ct of hi wa
on
natural r so reese
the pr sent tlme this is in h hands of th print cs
• A s on as copi s are availabl w
ill be
glad to s nd you one. It should b in a very short time.
A
to be pub · ish
incerely your ,
Eunice Peters n , S cretary
o the Dean
ep
,.t
�November 14, 1961
Dean J. Whitney Floyd
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
Dear Mr . Floyd:
A recent editorial in The Salt Lake Tribune dis·
cussed your study and report on the damage being
done by highway builders.
Since some of us in this area are very much interested in this same problem----both on our own
lands and on Forest Service lands, I would like
to obtain a copy of the report.
May I have a copy, and may I quote you?
Sin erely,
It
-U
Kathryn H
Triple H Ranch
Stanley, Idaho
e
�
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/1747">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1747</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
2728535830
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1045967 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Correspondence from Eunice Peterson to Kathryn Young, November 21, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Eunice Peterson, Secretary to the Dean, to Kathryn Young, Triple H Ranch, November 21, 1961 abot the study on impact of highways on natural resources.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Peterson, Eunice
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Young, Kathryn H.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Stanley (Idaho)
Custer County (Idaho)
Idaho
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 9.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/01723bfef9f895dc5d9636bbf030460d.pdf
e456f8d9505df07bbf3d18156a7be93b
PDF Text
Text
I
i
Logan Canyon HighwJy
For the second time in nine years, the Utah Department of Transportation
(UnOT) is proposing an expansion and reduction of curves to the 6.7-mile
stretch of U.S. Highway 89 from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Spring in Logan Canyon.
Environmental groups and concerned citizens, including the Sierra Club, the
Bridgerland Audubon Society , Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon and
o thers, view this expansion as highly unfavorable a nd as a threat to the
beauty and quality of the Logan Canyon Recreation Area.
General Summary
*
Major impact
011
both environmental '\lnd visual quality of canyon.
* Project cont radict s national energy , concern.
* 80-90 percent of the project requi r ~ s cutting into e~isting banks and
vegetated areas.
!
* "Waste poses a major engineering pr~ blem." (Quote from project engineer)
Traffic Growth Factors
*
*
*
*
UDOT uses an unrealistic expontential model.
A linear growth model better fits daily traffic data.
Traffic data used by UnOT are limited to one busy section of the highway,
yet are used to describe the whole road.
Need for highway re-al ignment not documented by current data.
Safety Factors
*
*
*
*
Suggested danger of Logan Canyon "Section III" is not supported by current
data.
A major discrepancy exist s between accident rate data and traffic volume.
1977 accident rate figured by the Utah Highway Patrol does not agree with
unOT report.
Statistical significance of acciden t data used is suspect.
Environmental Factors
* Numerous spills would encroach into Logan River from planned fills.
* Silt deposits in the river would 4estroy trout habitat and breeding cycle.
* Loss of riverside vegetation needed by trout for 100/ light intensity.
* Creation of any culverts would impair spa't<.>ning success of trout.
* Los s of vegetative barriers lessens the quality of fishing experience.
* Major visual impacts \"ould result from the cuts pla nned, especially the
two major cuts at the Temple Fork area, which lI.T()uld be, according to the
engineer's r eport, 75 feet deep and as much as 150 feet across.
II
IT'LL NEVER BE WORTH AS MUCH AS WE'VE PUT I NTO IT (the project) ALREADY."
--Gary Lindley, project engineer.
�January 20, 1989
SR-89, Logan Canyon
~9.~_IJ.£1_.~J:te r..n.~.:t:..t.~.~.
Meetings, discussions and field trips between representatives of the Forest
Service, Federal Highway Administration and UDOT have led to an agency
alternative proposal. Impact upon aquatic, riparian and visual resources were
considered as well as highway needs concerning safety, capacity, passing
opportunities, structure conditions and roadllJay alignment.
The following elements of the agency alternative proposal were selected, based
upon needs. Impacts were held essentially to visual resources except for the
Beaver Canyon area of Section 2. Visual, riparian and aquatic resources are
of great value. Visual resources are considered to be more readily mitigated
with proven techniques, to the extent that restoration can be achieved . The
effect and success of visual resource mitigation is relatively simple to
demonstrate, as compared to the mitigation of aquatic or riparian areas . The
erosive capability of water at high-flow volumes can quickly damage the best
of mitigative techniques in the aquatic or riparian environment . The Forest
Service anticipates that some elements of the agency alternative will alt~r
resources to the extent of non- compliance with the Wasatch- Cache Forest Plan
and will require that the plan be amended.
Elements of the agency alternative were selected from among the various
alternatives, as prepared by UDOT's consultant and suggestions recommended by
UDOT, FHWA and USFS. Each element is intended to stand on its own merits with
regard to capacity, safety, nationally recognized standards, principals of
good engineering practice, impact upon the environment, highway maintenance,
and user's of canyon resources. Use of the map supplement, alter'native "0" as
prepared by UDOT's consultant will be useful in locating the various elements
of the agency alternative in relation to canyon topography, Each element is
identified by milepost, generally to the nearest one- tenth mile. This
location identification is only intended to be a general locator and may not
specifically identify the location of any selected improvement,
Various curves throughout the project corridor are selected for flattening
(longer radius). This flattening is expressed in degree of curve according to
standard engineering practice. The degree of curvature stated for each
affected curve is only approximate, and may change slightly during the
detailed design process because of local topographic or geologic constraints,
related alignments, or other factors.
Visual, riparian and acquatics were considered to be the areas of most
significant impact in the canyon environment; and the elements of the agency
alternative were selected in an effort to minimize the impact upon these
resources. Impacts upon wetlands are created by some elements of the agency
alternative. Wetland impacts are considered to be mitigatable accor'ding to
the following schedule, if the wetland area cannot be completely avoided:
(1)
(2)
Adjust highway alignment or location,
Consider retaining walls in terms of economics and affects, and
(3)
Consume wetland in element construction and replace in accordance
with Army Corps of Engineers' requirements.
�-2--
The following elements of the agency alternative are recommended by the
three-~ember committee to the lead and cooperative agencies:
A clear zone requirement is associated with the improvement alternatives
listed below, according to the schedule: 35 mph - 18 feet; 40 mph - 18 feet;
50 mph - 22 feet. This dimension is measured from the
tr'affic lane/shoulder line to a hazard (rock, tree, slope, etc.). Any hazard
lying within this distance should either be removed or protected by barrier
(guardrail). Although many items (trees, rocks, etc.) are located near enough
to the roadway to warrant protection, only the most severe and extreme hazar'ds
will be protected. Severe hazards are defined where a serious accident could
occur if a vehicle left the roadway, i.e., the Dugway area. The clear zone
dimension also affects guardrail length and flare rate in connection with
protecting bridge parapet walls. Guardrail will be the preferred barrier type
for this project. Other acceptable barrier types may be considered if their
impact is more favorable than conventional guardrail. Guardrail placement
will be carefully evaluated in respect to hazard type, canyon environment,
design speed and other site conditions. If a specific hazard warrants
protection, roadway embankments may require extension to provide adequate
space for guardrai I plac~~ment .
Various parcels of right--of-way are required to construct the below listed
widenings, curve flattenings, realignments, intersection improvements or other
features. On National Forest lands the UDOT will obtain a Department of
Transportation easement to all parcels required to contain the roadway and cut
and fill slopes according to provisions of the Highway Act of 1958. Title to
private properties will be requested through regular right-of-way
proceedings. Parcels no longer required for right-of.!-way will not be retained
by the UDOT.
Vertical alignment throughout the project corridor is generally adequate for
the intended design speeds. All roadway sections throughout the project
corridor are intended to be reconstructed to meet the strength requirements of
a twenty-year design period. This pavement reconstruction is intended to
apply to all areas even if no widening, realignment, or curve flattening is
intended. The pavement reconstruction oper'ation is to provide adequate
strength while leaving essentially unaffected present pavement elevation.
Techniques, such as in place recycling or total pavement excavation, may be
utilized. All pipe culverts will be replaced . Drainage ar'eas will be
evaluated to determine pipe culvert diameters, Some additional culverts may
be requ ired.
All project sections will be subject to highway signing and delineation
upgrade, Feature signing for campgrounds and other points of interest may be
included, Curves will be signed as appropriate with advisot~y speeds.
Culver'ts will be marked with delineators for identification. Milepost and
destination signing will be provided. Highway delineators will be installed
in an acceptable manner in consultation with the Forest Service and the
Federal Highway Administration.
�-3Traffic control during construction periods will be provided so that at least
one-lane of traffic for alternating one-way traffic is available at all
times. Traffic will be returned t6 the normal two- lane, two -~ay operation to
the extent possible during no construction periods. Under no conditions will
the contractor be allowed to prevent traffic flow in the canyon for extended
periods. Time of construction of selected operations will be scheduled to
allow for maximum protection of the environment, such as periods of fish
spawning or other sensitive events. However, sufficient time and opportunity
must be available to the contractor to build the improvements following good
construction practice.
Consideration will be given to constructing cut or fill slopes entirely on one
side of the present roadway. Generall~, the preferable area of distu r bance
will be the side away from the river, wetland or toward the area which can
absorb disturbance with the least impact. Cut and fill areas will be
constructed as flat as practicable in accordance with good engineering
practice. In all disturbed areas topsoil and native plantings will be
restored according to good landscaping practice.
1.
Section lA: Project beginning (Milepost 383.47, Right Hand Fork) to M.P.
387.47, length 4.0 miles. This section is referred to as the "parkway".
Present design speed and posted speed will remain unchanged; roadway
width 26 feet (existing width). Maximum degree of curve - 26 0 . Curves
showing high-accident location will be flattened to a degree similar to
adjoining curves if it is concluded that flattening can be achieved
without severe environment al impact. Clear zone requirement - 18 feet .
No features outside existing roadway will be disturbed, except as
provided below. Sections of the roadway having design speeds lower than
the present speed limit will be appropriately signed.
a.
Flattening of Curve #5 at Milepost 384 from 25 0 to
15 0 . The curve is the site of an unusually
high-accident r·ate. Flattening the curve wi 11 move the
alignment away from the river. Excavated material will
be disposed of in an acceptable manner. New cut slopes
will be contoured, topsoiled and revegetated. Accidents
at this location typically involve vehicles leaving thE!
roadway due to excessive speed for the curve . Records
show approximately equal numbers of up- canyon vehicle
accidents as down-canyon vehicle accidents. A speed
which is apparently safe for down- canyon (as well as for
up canyon) vehicles is too great, in some cases, to
safely negotiate this curve. Therefore, flattening the
curve should lead to a reduction of accidents rather than
encour'aging faster trave ling sp~~eds. An amendment to the
Forest Plan for visual resources will be required
�-4-
b.
China Row Picnic Area (Milepost 394.4). Accor'ding to
Forest Service recommendations, this area will not be
maintained as a picnic ground, and access fl~om the
highway will not be provided.
c.
Replace Burnt Bridge (Milepost 385.5) with a new single
span structure on the same alignment. Structure width
shall be 30 feet (four feet wider than the approaching
roadway). A detour is required as the present bridge
must be entirely r'emoved before a new structure can be
constructed. A detour and temporary bridge will be
placed i~nediately downstream of the present bridge.
Vegetation removal and river bank modification are
required. The temporary bridge will be single-span,
creating minimal impact upon the river. The detour will
allow two-way traHic at a 15 mph design speed if extreme
excavation and grading are not required. otherwise, a
single lane between with adequate traffic control devices
will be provided. Following construction, all contours
and vegetation will be re-established. An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
This element also impacts the riparian and acquatic
environments. Appropriate changes to the Forest plan
will be necessary.
d.
A grade increase of three feet will be constructed at
Logan Cave (Milepost 386.2) for a length of 1,000 feet.
The grade elevation wi 11 allow the roadway to move toward
the mountain several feet and help to somewhat flatten
Curve 22 (26 0 ). The river bank will be protected with
large ripr'ap and revegetated as appropriate. An
amendment to the Forest plan for work on the river bank
will be necessary. Separate walkway and pedestrian
facilities to Logan Cave will not be a part of the
proposed alternative at the request of the Forest Service.
e.
Replace Cottonwood Creek culvert (Milepost 386.4) on the
same alignment. A detour is not required as the new
culvert can be placed one-half at a time. An amendment
to the Forest Plan for visual resources will be required.
�-5-
f.
Raise roadway elevation in the area of Milepost 386.6 for
500 feet to a maximum amount of 18 inches. This action
is to eliminate occasional flooding of the roadway
created during freezing conditions of the river or other
high-water events. An amendment to the Fore8t Plan for
visual resources will be required.
Other features of the parkway section are as follows:
a.
Parking turnouts will be placed wherever possible to
attain at least three parking stalls with adequate sight
distance and tapers. Exact locations will be determined
during final design and in conjunction with Fore8t
Service recommendations.
b.
Habitat of endangered or protected species in this
section wil l not be affected by this proposal ..
c.
Placement of concrete curb and gutter, or gutter only,
along one or both sides of the roadway in portions of the
entire length of the parkway section. Curb and gutter
placement will be a subject of final design and the
location will be evaluated and care fully considered with
respect to impacts on the following highway factors:
1.
Roadside drainage channels.
2.
Maintenance operations, including snowplowing, removal of
talus (waste) material, and other activities (sweeping,
painting, etc.)
3.
Protection of roadside hazards.
4.
Access requirements.
d. Certain effects may occur if curb and gutter is c6nstructed as
li sted be low: .
1.
Delineation of roadside edge, and vegetation could grow
to the curb.
2.
Control of access. Vehicles could only park off the
roadway in des ignated areas and access campgrounds in
selected locations.
�-6-·
3.
Wider Roadway. Approximately 1 to 2 feet could be gained
by placing the curb and gutter in the present gravel
shoulder. This is necessary to provide an equivalent
lane width due to the proximity of the curb and gutter.
Some minor fill may be required to create grade to
maintain a constant roadway width.
4.
Roadway drainage. Discharge from curb and gutter catch
basins into wetland areas will be preferred over direct
discharge into the river. Good outfall design will be
required.
2.
Section 18: Construction of a 34-foot roadway section
(except as modified by a passing lane) from Milepost
387.47
to end of Middle Canyon Section, Milepost 391.6. Length
- 4.13 miles. Design speed 35 mph, maximum degree of
curve - 15 0 30'. Clear zone requirement - 18 feet.
Milepost 387.47 marks the beginning of a transition from
the 26-foot of Section iA width to a 40-foot roadway of
section 2. For down canyon traffic section 18 will
prepare drivers after leaving the 50 mph design speed of
section 2 for the 35 mph Parkway section (section 1A).
Traffic moving in both directions will travel a variable
width roadway through the heavily vegetated and very
scenic area of section iA to the less vegetated terrain
of section 2 or visa versa. Section 18 limits were
defined as an area which could absorb more impact of
roadway widening with less negative affect than section
1A. However, a 40-foot section with 50 mph design speed
would cause impacts greater than could be tolerated in
this section. An amendment to the Forest plan will be
required on all widened areas on National Forest Lands
with respect to visual and wetland resources.
Features of this section include the following:
a. Flatten Curve #33 (Milepost 387.7) to 80 by removing
rock material and creating a new cut. The existing
roadway cut can be partially backfilled and
revegetated when the new alignment is put in
service. This curve together with site (b) below are
high-accident locations . An amendment to the Forest
plan for visual resources will be required.
�-7-
b. Replace Lower Twin Bridge (Milepost 387.76) on new
alignment immediately upstream of the present bridge
clearspanning the river. The present bridge will
remain in service until the new structure is
completed. The new structure will be 47 feet wide to
provide for a passing lane as described below. The
present structure will be removed when the new
structure is placed in service. An amendment to the
Forest plan will be required in respect to visual,
aquatic and riparian resources.
c. Construct a passing lane from Milepost 387.5 to
Milepost 388.4, including transitions to and from the
new 34 foot roadway width. This section is through
the "Dugway" section. Roadway width will consist of
three 12-foot lanes, one 5-foot downhill shoulder and
one 2-foot uphill shoulder for a total width of 43
feet of paved width. ~etaining walls are required.
Walls will be aesthetically compatible with the canyon
topography and of a variable height. Wall locations
may be entirely uphill or entirely downhill of the
present roadway, or a combination of both, as deemed
appropriate, from an engineering and geotechnical
analysis. Impact upon the acquatic or riparian
environment will not be permitted. An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
d. Flatten Curve #35 (Milepost 388.11) from 16 0 to
15°-30' for a 35 mph design speed, which requires a
very minor realignment.
e. Flatten Curve #37 (Milepost 388.5) from 19 0 to
15°-30' by creating a new excavation into the
mountain. Design, construction and mitigation will be
similar to Curve #33. An amendment to the Forest plan
for visual resource~ will be required.
f. Replace Upper Twin Bridge (Milepost 388.76) on new
alignment immediately downstream of, and 10 feet higher
than, the existing bridge. This site is a
high-accident location. The present bridge and roadway
will serve as a one-lane detour during construction.
Embankment mat~rial used to obtain an elevation
increase and abutment footing will be placed onto the
down canyon lane and retained from spilling onto the
up--canyon lane by a concrete barrier 30" high. Thi s
concept provides the following:
�-8-
1. Minimum shift of roadway alignment.
2. Attainment of higher structure elevation,
improving wintertime maintenance.
3. Accommodation of traffic through the work zone.
4. No realignment or filling into the river channel.
When the new alignment is completed, the
remaining unused roadway will be backfilled,
regraded, and revegetated to an original
condition. Most, if not all, of the present
structure will be removed, dependant on any
portions being required to support new
embankment materials.
Some tree removal downstream of the present
structure will be required. Tree removal will
be held to a minimum and a retaining wall will
be constructed if substantial tree savings can
be realized. An amendment to the Forest plan
will be required with respect to the visual,
aquatic and riparian environment.
g. Flatten Curves #39 and #40 (Milepost 388.8) to 15 0 .
Curve #39 may be flattened to less than 15 0 ,
depending on how the realignment of Upper Twin Bridge
is designed. An amendment to the Forest plan for
visual resources will be required.
h. Temple Fork Intersection (Milepost 389.2). Improve
Temple Fork Road intersection by n~grading access road
to a maximum grade of 2%. This intersection will be
modified to provide maximum safety of access.
i. Temple Fork Parking Area (Milepost 389.3). Construct a
parking area at Temple Fork between the roadway as
realigned in (j) below and the Logan River. The
parking area wi 11 be made as large as possible in
accordance with Forest Service recommendations and
safety of access, without encroaching upon the roadway
or the river. An amendment to the Forest plan for
visual resources will be required.
j. Flatten Curve #43 (Milepost 389.4) from 20 0 to
150 . This realignment will move into the area of
shade near Milepost 389.3 (down canyon side of
highway). The widening or realignment will not affect,
or move closer to, the river. An amendment to the
Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
�-9-
k. Rick Springs Area (Milepost 389.8) - Roadway width of
34 feet will be constructed and the Ricks Springs
structure replaced. An al igrllnent shi f't toward, but not
impacting the river or riparian area is recommended.
Parking areas will be provided. Material will be
removed and/or retaining walls constr~cted in
accordance with good design practice to provide a
maximum parking area. All improvements will be
consistent with USFS reco~nendations. This area is
recorded as a high-accident location. . An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
1. Flatten Curve #45 (Milepost 390.1) from 16 0 to
15 0 • Maintain existing passing lane from Milepost
390.1 to 390.7 except for the addition of paved
shoulders. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual
resources will be required.
m. Raise roadway elevation in the area of Milepost 390.2
and Milepost 391.1 to a maximum of 18 inches to
eliminate occasional flooding of the
roadway created during freezing conditions of the river
or other high-water events . An amendment to the Forest
plan for visual resources will be required.
n. The remaining distance to the end of Section One
(to Milepost 391.6, or 1.5 miles) will continue to be
upgraded to the 34-foot r'oadway width and 35 mph design
speed on the present roadway alignment. Areas of soil
excavation and backfill are required, and will be
mitigated as described in l.a above. An amendment to
the Forest plan will be required with respect to
visual, and wetland environments .
3.
Section 2: Construction of a 4o-foot paved roadway width,
except as modified by passing lanes, and 50 mph design speed
from the beginning of Section 2 (Milepost 391.6) to the Bear
Lake SUl1lmit (Milepost 404 . .,5). 13.15 miles. Maximum degree of
curve is 6 0 45'. Clear zone requirement - 22 feet.
Milepost 391.9 to 392.0 is a high accident area. In locations
where the stream channels are placed in a curvert or otherwise
affected, fish passage through the affected segment will be a
design consideration . An amendment to the Forest plan will be
required on widened areas on National Forest Lands with
respect to visual and wetland environments.
�-10-
a. Construct passing lane from Milepost 391 . 6 to Milepost
393.3, including pavement width tapers, length 1.7
miles. Pavement width will be as in (g) below. An
amendment to the Forest plan will be required with
respect to visual and wetland environments.
b. Construct fencin9 in open range area from the cattle
guard near Milepost 391.6 to the Franklin Basin area
near Milepost 397.2 along both sides of the roadway.
Fence type will be of a double-steel post and barb wire
of a design which can be laid down during non-~razing
seasons. The fence is laid down by the cattlemen's
association to prevent damage due to snow. The fence
may be located a distance from the highway to avoid
visual detection.
c. Tony Grove intersection (Milepost 393.7 - Provide left
turn deceleration and storage lane for up-canyon turns
into Tony Grove area.
An amendment to the Forest plan
for visual resources will be required.
d. Replace Tony Grove Creek culvert (Milepost 393.8) on
original alignment. This is a high- accident location.
New crossing will be 4 feet wider than the approach
roadway or 44 feet. Appropriate guar'drai I prot~~ction
will be provided. An amendment to the Forest Plan will
be required with respect to visual, aquatic and
riparian environments.
e. Bunch Grass Creek Culvert (milepost 394.2). Check
culvert for hydl~aulic capacity and structural
condition. Provide a culvert which will meet the
requirement for fish passage. An amendment to the
Forest plan will be required with respect to the
visual, aquatic and "riparian environment.
f. Replace Red Banks Bridge (Milepost 394.5) on original
alignment. Structure width will be 44 feet unless
tapers for campground widening run onto bridge.
creating need for additional width . Guardrail with
appropriate flare rate is required. A detour for
traffic and a temporary bridge are necessary. The
detour (for tl..,o-way traffic) will be located just
downstream of the present crossing. After the new
structure is completed the temporary bridge and detour
will be removed and the detour alignment restored to
original conditions. An amendment to the Forest plan
will be required with respect to the visual, aquatic
and riparian environment.
�-11-
g. Red Banks Campground (Milepost 394.6). Improve
campground intersection as in (c) above. An amendment
to the Forest plan for visual resource s will be
required.
h. Begin climbing lane at Milepost 394.9. End climbing
lane at Milepost 396.5, 1.6 miles. Roadway width wi ll
consist of three 12-foot traffic lanes, one 8-foot
shoulder (downhill lane) and one 3-foot shoulder
(up-canyon direction) Total width is 47 feet.
Milepost 394.91 to 395.00 is a high- accident location.
An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources
will be required on National Forest land.
i. Replace Beaver Creek Structure at Franklin Basin Road
(Milepost 396.9) on original alignment. Pavement width
transitions will affect total structure width,
requiring a minimum width of 58 feet. Guardrail with
appropriate flare rate is required.
j. Franklin Basin Intersection (Milepost 397.0). Improve
this intersection as in (c) . above . This is a
high- accident location . The area from Milepost 397.0
to 399.0 is referred to as Beaver Canyon.
k. Replace Beaver Creek Structure (Milepost 397.5)
Replace on same alignment . New structure width is 44
feet. Guardrail with appropriate flare rate is
required.
1. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 398.1). Relocate 300
feet of creek to up-canyon (easterly) side of highway
in original channel as present channel is required for
roadway widening. New locations will lengthen the
channel and reduce gradient . . Two crossings of the
highway will be required. Concrete box culverts or
other suitable culvert type will be used. An amendment
to the Forest plan will be required on National Forest
land with respect to the visual, aquatic and riparian
environment.
m. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 398.3). Relocate 700
feet of creek to up- canyon (easterly) side of highway
in original channel. Conditions are the same as (1)
above. An amendment to Forest plan will be required
with respect to the visual, aquatic and riparian
environment.
�-12n. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 398.6). Roadway
widening will be placed on the up-··canyon (easterly)
side of the present roadway to the extent limited by
the nearby canyon topography. If sufficient widening
cannot be obtained, a portion of Beaver Creek will be
placed in a culvert and/or relocated to the west to
obtain roadway width. A design consideration will be
for fish passage through the culvert. A maximum length
of 400 feet of channel could be affected. An amendment
to the Forest plan will be required with respect to the
visual, aquatic and riparian environment.
o. Rechannel Beaver Creek (Milepost 39B.9). Relocate 500
feet of creek to up-canyon (easterly) side of highway.
Conditions are the same as in (1) above. An amendment
to the Forest plan will be required with respect to the
visual, aquatic and riparian environment.
p. Replace Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and surrounding
area drainage box culvert (Milepost 399.6). Widen box
culvert to accommodate wider roadway and pavement
transitions for the Beaver Mountain road intersection.
An additional width of 20 feet from the shoulder lane
to the headwall on each side is required to avoid
guardrail protection. Generally a better approach is
to eliminate a hazard rather than provide protection.
An amendment to the Forest plan will be required with
respect to the visual and wetland environment.
q. Realign and channelize SR- 243 (Beaver Mountain ' Road)
intersection (Milepost 399.75). This is a
high-accident location. Realign 150 feet of SR-243 to
create a conventional right-angled intersection.
Provide left lane deceler'ation and storage lane with
appropriate tapers. Total length of SR-89 affected is
1500 feet. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual
resources will be required.
r. Begin climbing lane at Milepost 400. An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required
on National Forest lands.
s. Realign through Curve #69 and #70 (Milepost 400 to
400.5). Realign 2700 feet of roadway a maximulll of 1.50
feet from the present alignment to attain 50 mph design
speed curves. The portion of the present roadway
removed from service will be obliterated, topsoiled and
reseeded with natural vegetation. An amendment to the
Forest Plan for visual resources will be required on
National Forest lands .
...
�-13t. Flatten Curve #71 from 80 to 60 30' (Milepost
400.6) to attain design speed. Highway widening f~om
Milepost 400 to 402 will be obtained by removing rock
material on the up-canyon (noy·therly) side of the
present roadway.
u. Flatten Curve #76 (Milepost 402.2) from 10 0 to 60
30' to attain design speed. An elevation decrease of
at least 4 feet is required to achieve sight distance.
The present 1,500 feet vertical curve will be increased
to 2,600 feet. An amendment to the Forest plan for
visual resources will be required.
v. Highway widening from Milepost 402.5 to Milepost 404.7
will be obtained by filling the down canyon (westerly)
side of the present roadway. An amendment to the
Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
w. Flatten Curve #80 (Milepost 404) from 100 to 60 30'
to attain design speed. An amendment to the Forest
plan for visual resour~es will be required .
x. End uphill passing lane from Garden City at Milepost
404.6. End uphill passing lane from Beaver Mountain at
Milepost 404.9. Between Milepost 404.6 and 404.9 the
maximum roadway width will cDnsist of two 12-foot
traffic lanes, two 12-foot climbing lanes, and two
3-foot shoulders; total pavement width of 54 feet.
Width transitions are included . An amendment to the
Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
4.
Section 3A: Bear Lake Summit to Bridgerland Subdivision
intersection (Milepost 404.75 to 409.4) 4.6 miles. Design
speed 40 mph, maximum degree of curve 11 0 15', nominal
roadway width 40 feet, two 12-foot traffic lanes, two
8-foot shoulders. Roadway width with passing lane - 47
feet (three 12-foot traffic lanes, one 8-foot shoulder and
one 3-foot shoulder). This section will have a continuous
uphill passing lane. Clear zone requirement - 18 feet
measured from the traffic line/shoulder line to nearest
roadside hazard. Elements of Section 3 are as follows:
An amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will
be required on widened areas on National Forest lands.
a. Limber Pine Trail Head (Milepost 404.8). Provide
single access into parking area. No other specific
roadway improvements. Internal modifications will be
constructed as recommended by the Forest Service. An
amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will
be requ ired.
�-14--
b. Flatten Curve #85 (Milepost 405.1) from 23 0 to
110. This action will move the centerline 80 feet
and require a new fill secti6n. The existing roadway
alignment will be removed and original contour
elevations and vegetation restored. Tree and brush
removal will be held to a minimum amount, and fill
slopes constructed to a slope rate acceptable for
revegetation . Retaining walls will be considered in
view of economics and tree savings. An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required .
c. Curve #86 (Milepost 405 . 2). Retain present alignment.
Roadway widening will be constructed on the downhill
slope. Tree removal is required. Retaining walls will
be considered as in (b) above. An amendment to the
Forest plan for visual resources will be required.
d. Sunrise Campground (Milepost 405.5). Provide single
access into campground without specific roadway
modifications. A left-turn lane from Garden City is
not proposed and would require more roadwa.y width in
addition to the passing lane of 4 above and be of
questionable value. An amendment to the Forest plan
for visual resources will be required.
e. Bear Lake View area (Milepost 405.5). Provide single
access to view area in Curve #88, located to obtain the
best sight distance possible. No specific roadway
modifications for the access will be provided. Regrade
(raise elevation), enlarge and relandscape view area
according to Forest Service recommendations . An
amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will
be required.
f . Flatten Curve #88 (Milepost 405.7) from 18 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline shift of about
200 feet with accompanying earthwork (excavation)
required. The present alignment will be removed and
regraded to provide improved access for (e) above. An
amendment to the Forest plan for visual resources will
be required.
g. Flatten Curve #89 (Milepost 405.9) from 20 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline shift of about 50
feet is required with accompanying earthwork (fill)
required. The present alignment will be removed and
original contours and vegetation restored upon
completion. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual
resources will be required.
�-15-
h. Flatten Curve #92 (Milepost 406.2) from 20 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed . A .centerline alignment shift
of about 70 feet with accompanying earthwork (fill) is
required. The present alignment will be removed and
original contours and vegetation restored upon
completion. An amendment to the Forest plan for visual
resources will be required.
i. Flatten Curve #94 (Milepost 406.9) from 16 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift
of about 340 feet with accompanying earthwork (some cut
and fill) is required. The present alignment will be
removed and original contours and vegetation restored
upon completion. An amendment to the Forest plan for
visual resources will be required.
j.
Flatten Curve #95 (Milepost 407.2) from 20° to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift
of about 60 feet with accompanying earthwork (fill) is
required. The present alignment will be removed and
original contours and vegetation restored upon
completion . An amendment to the Forest plan for visual
resources will be required.
k. Stabilize landslide area (Milepost 407.5) . An existing
unstable landmass will be stabilized by application of
appropriate geotechnical techniques. An amendment to
the Forest plan for visual resources will be required
on National Forest land .
1. Flatten Curve #98 (Milepost 407 . 9) from 27 0 17' to
11 0 to attain design speed. This area is a
high- accident location . A centerline alignment shift
of about 670 feet with accompanying earthwork
(excavation) is required. Roadway gradient steepens to
about 10% in this area as a result of the curve
realignment. The present alignment will be removed and
original contours and vegetation restored upon
completion .
m. Highway widening from Milepost 408 to Milepost 408.7
will be obtained by excavating into the downhill
(westerly) s ide of the pY'esent roadway . Guardrai 1
protection on the uphill direction will be considered.
n. Flatten Curve #101 (Milepost 408.3) from 23 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift
of about 30 feet with accompanying earthwork (fill) is
required. Portions of the present alignment will be
removed and original conto~rs and vegetation restored
upon completion.
�-16o . Flatten Curve #102 (Milepost 408.5) from 14 0 to 11 0
to attain design speed. A centerline alignment shift
of about 20 feet with accompanying earthwork
(excavation) is required.
p. Close access to Bridgerland Subdivision (Milepost
408.6) All subdivision access shall be provided as
described in (r) below.
q . Flatten Curve #103, 104 and 105 (Milepost 408.8) to a
single 11 0 foot curve or flatter, depending on the
alignment shift of (r) below . Earthwork quantities
appear to be minimal.
r. Relocate alignment from C~rve #105 to Curve #109
(Milepost 409.4). Also , construct an intersection for
the Bridgerline Subdivision with additional pavement
widening for protected left and right- turn movements ..
This is a high-accident location. The present
alignment will be removed and restored to original
contour and vegetation.
5.
Section 38: Bridgerland Subdivision to Garden City (Milepost
409.4 to 411.75) . Increase design speed to 50 mph, maximum
degree of curve 6 0 45', roadway width - 40' (47 feet in
passing lane areas.) Clear zone - 22 feet. This alignment
will follow an alignment similar to 63 as prepared by the
consultant. Roadway widening in this section will consist of
approximately equal amounts of cut and fill areas. Guardrail
protection will be considered on the downhill side of the
roadway.
a. Flatten Curve #109 from 80 to 6 0 (Milepost 409 . 7)
to attain design speed . Some excavation will be
required.
b. Flatten Curve #110 (Milepost 409.8) from 100 to 60
to attain design speed. Some fill will be required .
c. Flatten Curve #111 (Milepost 410.0) from 12 0 to 60
to attain design speed. Excavation is required.
d. Flatten Curve #112 (Milepost 410.1) from 12 0 to 6 0
to attain design speed. Embankment will be required .
e. Relocate access at Milepost 410.6 by closing present
access and providing a new access from another public
street, if possible. If the access cannot be closed,
then relocate to an improved location, providing the
�•
-17best design possible. A combination with the access at
Milepost 410.7 may be practicable. The access at
Milepost 410.7 will be considered according to the same
criteria as the access at Milepost 410.6.
f.
Begin uphill climbing line at Milepost 410.6.
g. Flatten Curve #116 (Milepost 411.2) from aO to 60
to attain design speed.
h. Redesign access at Milepost 411.2 to attain the best
design possible.
i . Redesign end of project intersection with SR-30 at
Milepost 411.75. Left and right-turn lanes will be
provided.
0169W
�ADDITIONS 'ID CONSERVATIONISTS' ALTERNATIVE FUR U. S. 89, FEBRUARY, 1989
The Conservationists' Alternative of August, 1987 was designed to be
in agreerrent with the folla.ving staterrent rmde in the Forest Plan for the
Wasatch-cache National Forest:
standard than exis ting . "
"The road will not be raised to a higher
This has always been the Conservationis ts' position,
and will rermin so.
The Conservationists' Alternative was designed to solve specific problems
wi th minimal environrrental irrpact.
The Agency Al ternati ve set forth in
LTanuary, 1989, except where it appears to spare 4 miles of the M
iddle Canyon,
represents nothing nore than adherence to arbitrary standards, without regard
for consequences, whether they be environmental (the proposed channelization
of Beaver Creek, for exarrple) or related to safety (the proposed 10% grade
in the Rich County section, for exanple).
The Agency Alternative atterrpts to
raise a facade of improved safety while in rea lity pronoting high speed travel.
The Conservationists' Alternative has enphasized that the entire route between
Garden City and Logan should be considered as a unit; thus it stresses the
safety value of keeping highway speeds as consistent as possible.
Alternative says to drivers, in effect, "Speed up."
The Agency
But the consequences of
high-speed traffic entering the Middle Canyon are i gnored.
In keeping with the overall philosophy of the 1987 Conservationists'
Alternative, we propose the following changes for evaluation:
1.
Logan Cave:
raise roadbed and nove road away from the river,
as per Agency Alternative
2.
Mileposts 386.6, 390.2, 391.1:
Agency Alternative.
of fill.]
raise roadbed as described in
[Contingent on availability
�Adell tions to Conservationists'
Alternative for U.S. 89 -- p. 2
These changes are proposed for evaluation in the DEIS; this evaluation
will determine whether they will be included in the final al ternati ve we
present to the public.
The follOtJing corrections need to be entered in our 1987 draft:
When
treating areas in the Upper Canyon (turning lanes, for exarrple), the reference
should be to "B2" rather than "Bl."
When treating areas on the Rich County
side, the reference should be "B3" rather than nOBl."
RICH COUNTY SECTION:
The Conservationists' Alternative for the Rich County portion of the route
is as follOtJs:
Maintain the present alignrrent.
Irrprove signing at the Bear Lake Overlook and at milepost 407.9.
The rationale for the Conservationists' Alternative in this portion of the
route is as follc:ws:
safety, aesthetics, and erosion control.
The Agency
Alternative proposes a high-speed design, thus creating an impetus for unsafe,
high speeds over the rerrainder of the route.
The Agency Alternative proposes
radical grades, as high as 10%, which constitute an obvious safety hazard.
The Agency Alternative would leave a rrass of scars over the hillside involved,
and would create numerous highly erosive cuts.
The Conservationists' Alterna-
tive contains none of t.l1ese flaws and works toward inproved safety by inproved
signing at areas of potential danger.
�\
February 14, 1989
Jack, Steve, Bruce:
I propose that we add something like the enclosed to our Environrrentalists'
Alternative on US 89. v-7hat do you think?
�[DRAFT]
Environrrentalists' Alternative for
u.s.
89, Logan canyon:
Rich County section
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------v propose that the alignrrent of U. S. 89 between Garden City and the
ve
surrmit of Logan Canyon be kept exactly as it is, and that signing be improved for the scenic turnout near Sunrise campground and the turnout at
M
ilepost 407.9. Improved signing at 407.9 will make the area safer; relocating the highway 670 feet away on a 10% grade, as the "Agency Alternative" proposes, would increase the danger in this area very considerably.
Keeping the same alignrrent for the Rich County section, and improving
the signing at points where traffic enters the highway (such as noted above),
will help keep speeds rrore uniform throughout the Garden City-to-Logan route,
thus improving the safety of the road. Altering the alignrrent on the Rich
county section will increase the speed there, thus decreasing the safety, and
will have the added negative effect of creating an inconsistency in speed over
the whole route. 1iIe consider a high speed highway on the Rich County section
to be an unfortunate impetus for higher speeds in the rest of the route. The
proposed steepness of the "Agency Alternative" is also a safety hazard, particularly in winter.
Keeping the same alignrrent for the
the line on the aesthetic damage on the
naintain erosion rates at their present
leave a nass of scars over the hillside
Rich County section would help hold
east side of the rrountain, and v;ould
level. The "Agency Alternative" v;ould
and would create highly erosive cuts.
�-- - - - --
To~
, I ..., ",..+~
J~
,
"",&,
+I..~ ~
c... ill ";,,. s....,
Jt.
..
)
'~f",7.c./ -I• ....... ~.~..
(.....~ .Iy/.;1-~rl~-'4r;I
h.".,'yll. ~*,II>'
14(),r -h
,.t
c'fif'1
0+- -It,;,. .ff#"...-I"'~.
1-4 ..... -t.u ,,+ s......i?
--
�Conservationists' Alternative for the Logan Canyon Road
between Right Fork and Garden City
(submitted to UDOT February, 1989)
This alternative is designed to solve specific problems with
minimal environmental impact. This is in contrast to the Agency
Alternative,
where the main
goal
is to increase the highway
design speed on all
except the 4 miles
between Right
Fork and
Lower Twin Bridge. To make a
point-by-point comparison of this
alternative with the Agency Alternative, you may obtain a copy of
the Agency Alternative from:
LynY"1 Zoll i n~1et~
Utah Department of Transportation
PO Box i.:::7L~7
Ogden, Utah 84404
399-5'3i:::1
Add additicn'"lal
war~Y"liY"l g sigY"1
such as "Nar~r~ow WiY"ldiY"lg Road Next 7
Miles". Tht~oughout
the eY"ltit~e
t~oute ptlt
up specific cI.wve
signs with advisory speeds where needed.
jC:ldd s i ~V'IS
fol'~ S i del'~oads
such c.'.\s
"R i ~~ht Fot~k 1 / L~ mil e".
signs will be needed at Wood Camp, Temple Fork, etc.
Cr,~
a 100' paved tapel'~
i l"lt 0 Right FCIl'~k.
fc,l'~
-±-lCIst .::i l l
u p-caY"IYOl'"1
tl'~affic
Simi
lal'~
wishiY"lg
Plow parking area in the winter.
Pave
downcanyon
pt~eseY"d;
from
bridge,
si gY"ls.
Replace Burnt Bridge on
spal"l bl'~ i d ge.
I~a
i se
present alignment
wi th 28'
wide c 1 ei:\'r~-
3' for 1000'; this removes an erratic bend
t~oad bed
away from the
from the road and allows the road to be moved
river. Contingent on availability of fill.
Prohibit parking on curve.
CONSERVATIONISTS'
ALTERNATIVE
1
�For cave access, pave two parking
areas immediately downcanyon
from Cottonwood
Creek: one
150' x
20' on
the river side,
arlothEn~ 100'
x 35' (taper~irlg
to 20') at the locatiorl of old
Cottonwood Creek road. Plow in winter.
A/1-',,(
/
Fot~est
vetl uY·lteer~
Serv i ce
groups
f '
j
"5.
con s truct
t o cave
(erd:;r~ arlce.
Replace structure on pres ent alignment with 28'
Raise roadbed
approx. 18" for 500'
on availability of fill).
wide structure.
to avoid flooding
(contingent
Replace bridge with
wide
bridge immediately
upstream from present bridge. This involves a new cut at the
downcanyon edge of the
bridge.
Rubble could
be
used to
provide a slow-vehicle turnout downcanyon of the bridge.
Provide recreational parking at upcanyon edge of the bridge.
Notj£=
Her~e
the A~]erlcy Altet~rlative pr~ oposes a 3
larle br~ idge, a
climbing lane nearly a mile long,
and the
beginning of the
wider, straighter, higher design speed highway.
Replace
\.'Ji th
wide clear - span bridge immed i ately
downstream of present bridge.
Sigrl "NO PASSING".
Replace structure on present alignment with 28'
Raise
r~oadbed
appr~ox.
18"
to
avoid
availability of fill.
CONSERVAT I ONISTS'
ALTERNATIVE
2
wide structure.
floodirlg.
�mp
3'32
Pave multipurpose turnout on side opposite river,
~9te:
plow in winter.
Hel"~e
the A~~eYlcy
Alte?t~native iYlcr~eases the l"~oad width even
more, increases the design speed, and begins to add frequent
pass i Ylg 1 aYles.
Add turning lanes.
Replace structure on present alignment with 28'
wide structure.
Replace str ucture on present alignment with 28'
wide structure .
Pave multipurpose turnout on river side of road;
Replace
bl"~idge
i.~
pt~eseYlt
1 i gnmeyd;
plow in winter .
with 28'
wide clear-span
bl"~idge.
Construct climbing lane from milepost 3'35 to cattleguard.
Replace bridge on
bl°~ i d geM
pr-o
esent
aliqnment
with
wide
clear~-span
Replace structure on present alignment with 28'
wide structure.
Replace structure on present alignment with 28'
wide structure.
~§?a y..§?l"~
Mc~!::.!ni
ai
1"1
I Ylt er~sec"!! i 01"1
(fI1 P
3'3'3. 75)
Add turning lanes.
CONSERVATIONISTS'
ALTERNATIVE
3
�Construct climbing
lane from milepost 401.5
fill) to mp 402.1.
(above Amazon Hollow
Construct climbing lane from 404.1 to short of Sinks Road.
Ret air, pl"~ese'(",t alignment; add
improved
signing
t '-n~r,e:.ut s.
Place cli mbing
lane sections
t '-n~ r, o ut s only where cutti n g
would
not
p . .~oblems.
Not~.:
c'-n~ve!:-3 a · d
....
slol-'J-vehicle
cause el"~osie:.r,
fe:'l"~
Ol"~
Hel"~e
the Ager,cy Altel"~r,ative emphasized speed by l'~ealignir,g
curve s and steepening the gradient to
up to
10~.
They also
plan a
conti nuous climbing
lane .
Initially we took no
position on modifications to this section because much of it
is not
on National
Forest land. However, the potential for
ma ssive erosion
problems
from
the miles of excavation
proposed in the Agency
Alternative forced
us to take this
new pe:.!:; it ion.
50
CONSERVATIONISTS'
ALTERNATIVE
fl, 'J
4
�If
Conservationists' Spot Improvement Alternative for Sections 1 and 2,
Logan Canyon
August, 1987
we
consider the most important issues involved here to be safety,
scenic values, and ecological integrity.
Our alternative is based on
the premise that rrodifications which alone or in the aggregate VX)uld
appreciably increase traffic speed in the Middle Canyon must be avoided.
we
relieve that increased speed in this section would be likely to lead
to more (and more serious) accidents.
The construction involved in
increasing the traffic speed would seriously disrupt the scenic values
for which this canyon is nationally k.n<:Mn, and VX)uld seriously degrade
the ecological integrity of the canyon, particularly in the riparian
zone.
Our goal is a highway that fits into Logan Canyon with minimal
ecological disturbance and maximum safety, rather than a highway that
purports to move the greatest number of people through the area at the
highest rate of speed.
Consistent with this emphasis, we strongly recommend enforcement of
speed limits and substantial improvements in signing as an important part
of our proposal.
As a corollary, changes in the roadway in the Upper
Canyon should not re so drastic as to encourage high speeds in that area
and thus a possible difficulty of driver adjustment to the lONer speeds of
the Middle Canyon.
we
have identified several gravel turnouts which should
re paved, and plowed oonsistently in winter, to aid the Utah Highway Patrol
in pulling over speeders and to aid in the passage of the occasional
emergency vehicle.
�LOCATION
RATION
ALE
PP0P0SFD AcrION
IMPAcrS AND PROBLEMS WITH
REJEX:TED ALTERNATIVES
Right Hand Fork
100' taper from bridge;
sign: "Right Fork 1/4"
safety
curve at 384.0
preliminary sign:
winding road next 7 mi.";
advisory speed sign;
specific curve ootation
(no change in alignment)
safety
visual sensitivity;
erosion into river;
spoil disposal
safety
visual sensitivity (6);
inpacts on river
Haguire Primrose
threat to threatened
species
W
ood Camp turoout sign: "Wood Camp 1/4";
and
plow parking area in
winter
Camp,
slow veh. turnout
00
change
downstream of
Burnt Bridge
pave present gravel
turnout; plow in winter
Burnt Bridge
widen to 28' on same
alignment; clear span
structural integrity
sign: "dangerous curve";
sign: "no parking"
sign: advisory speed;
no alignment change
safety
Logan Cave
Cottonwood area:
(a) structure
law enfo rcement;
vista; parking distressed
vehicles
not applicable
not applicable
visual sensitivity;
damage to river
safety
widen to 28' on sarre
alignment
damage to river;
visual sensitivity (7)
!
(b) parking
pave bNo areas: one on
visitor access to cave
river side downstream \
from structure, 150' X ~O;
one on rrountain side at (Old
Cottonwood road, 100' X 5',
tapering downstream to
100' X 20'. Plow in
winter.
Forest Service and volunteer groups construct
trail to cave entrance.
above Cottonwood
no alignment change;
replace 20 mph advisory
sign
(386.6)
safety
damage to river;
spoil disposal;
visual sensitivity
----------~-+_------------- ----~ ·-·----- ll__·-----------~----- -------+-------------
above Cottonwood
(387.1)
no alignment change
safety (avoid
speed)
erosion from loose
ma.terial
�PROPOSED AcrION
LCCATION
beloW Lower Twir
Bridge;
Lower Twin
Bridge
R<TIONALE
M
ove roadway wax. 20'
toward river before cun Ie
begins; widen existing
cut so alignment meets
new bridge parallel to
present bridge.
28' width; no pier in
river
I
IMPAcrS AND PROBW1S v,lITH
ALTERNATIVES
~D
I
I
replacement of bridge
wi th least environmental damage, consis- l
tent with safety
visual impacts;
excessive spoil
I
I
I
place downstream of
above Lower Twin
Bridge--slow veh. bridge, where present
road goes through cut
turnout
less cutting; rrore sight
distance
visual impacts;
excessive spoil
-----------------;------------------------+---------------------------~-------------------------
Dugway climbing l:me
N Change
o
prevent excessive speed
damage to river;
damage to visual
quality
- ---------------_._---- --------------+-----------------+----------------- --top of Dugway
1'-0 Change
prevent excessive speed
damage to visual
quality; excessive
spoil
_ --+------ - --+- - - - - - t - -- -- -
--Upper -TWin
Bridge
widen to 28' on new
structural integrity;
alignment immediately
safety
downstream of present
bridge. No pier in rive
~_.....-_-==____:::::__;_t_--- ---------- - - - - --r-.---- - .--------'--------f.---------------- - above Upper TwiI
Bridge (387.7)
damage to visual
no change in alignment
safety
1
quali ty ; excessive
add signs: curve; icy
road
spoil
I
I .
I
Temple Fork
intersection
advance signing:
Fork 1/4"
Ricks Spring are,,:
(a) bridge
28' on sane alignment
(b) alignment
(c) parking
~
"TemPl~
add sign: "N Passing"
o
maintain as is (both
sides); add signs:
"Ricks Spring 1/4"
"Pedestrian Crossing"
safety
safety
safety
safety
vehicles crossing traffic
lanes to park
______________~~-_--------------------1-.------.----------------- .-----------------------
"Table 2-5," B-1:
bridges and struct ~es
28'
maintain uniformity of
bridge widths
alignments:
1:elow North Sink
no change
safety
encourages excessive
speed
below M
iddle Sin '-
:00
change
safety
encourages excessive
speed
�PROPOSED Ac:r:'ION
lOCATION
RAT IO}1ALE
JMPACTS AND PROBLEMS WITH
REJECTED ALTERNATIVES
"Table 2-5,"
continued:
Intersections:
~a) Tony Grove
as in B-1
(b) Red Banks
00
(c) Franklin Basin
(d) Beaver
change
insufficient traffic
no change
no need (wide enough as
is)
as in B-1
i
safety
would necessitate 3-lane
bridge over Beaver Creek
Climbing Lanes:
(a) Red Banks tp
near Franklin
Basin road
(b) Stump
Add climbing lane
from m.p. 395 to
cattle guard
Add climbing lane
from just above Amazon
Hollow fill (401.5) to
402.1.
Hnlln17
to maintenance
shed
(c) to surmnit
Add climbing lane from
404.1 to short of Sink::
Road
I
safety; minimize cut;
safeguard river and
riparian zone
Safety problems with
high-speed traffic
approaching both Red
Banks and Franklin Basin
turooffs; damage to
river and riparian zone
safety; minimize cut
visual quality damage
safety; minimize cut
excessive spoil; danger
at snowmobile parking
area
Note: Passing lane
;t end short of surmnit, and
there must be .::l", ~'.::lte signing, regarding the
transition back tp 2-lane road, to safeguard
the Limber Pine 'I~ail turooff.
Signs: "Sinks Roa~ 1/4"; "Limber Pine Trail 1,114"
Table 2-6:
Sunrise
LLLP:JLuLnd
OVerlook
00
change
safety
2 skewed approaches as
in B-1 (sign & stripe)
multipurt=Ose
parking:
(a) m.p. 392
pave; plow in winter
(on side opp. river)
safety
(b) Bunchgrass
pave; plow in winter
(on river side of road)
safety
added sign:
below Ricks
Spring
"Narrow winding road
next 7 mi."
safety
driver confusion
possible
�...
-....
TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN LOGAN CANYON
AN ANALYSIS
The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) asserts the Logan Canyon
highway is dangerous, with a significantly higher accident rate than an
average Utah highway. This assertion is used as a reason for undertaking
highway reconstruction and realignment in the section of the canyon between Right Fork and Ricks Spri'ngs . This assertion, however, i~ in fact
not supported by traffic accident and traffic volume data supplled by UDOT,
Division of Safety and office of the Engineer for Transportation, respectively. This is analyzed in the following discussion .
Data. The number of traffic accidents for any period is easy to obtain and is quite accurate (it comes directly from investigating officers
reports). Accident rates, however, are reported on the basis of each million miles of vehicle travel (MVT) and require good estimates of the average daily traffic (ADT) in a particular section of the highway. There is
only one perm
anent counter in the canyon, located at Card Guard Station,
located approximately at mile post 10 in the canyon. Values of ADT for
other sections, which differ considerably, are estimated on the basis of
temporarary counters, spot checks and extrapolations from the permanent
counter (UDOT, e.g., made a check of relative volumes of traffic in the
canyon at various locations for one week in June, 1976. Many of their conclusions are based on this inadequate sample). As a result, there is considerable uncertainty (error) in the numbers, an uncertainty that may invalidate in some cases the conclusions based on the data. This caveat must be
kept in mind at all times when examining the data.
Accident Rates. UDOT has divided the canyon into 7 sections, and reports accident rates for each section as found in table 1 for the 7 year
period, 1971-77 inclusive (data from update to "Preliminary Proposals
and A
lternati ves SR-13 (U. S. 89) Logan to Garden City, UDOT, 1977", provided by Gary Lindley, Project Engineer):
Table 1 UDOT Accident Rates
1971-77
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Section
Logan City to Dewitt Campground
Dewitt Campground to Right Fork
Right Fork to Upper Twin Bridges
Upper Twin Bridges to Tony Grove
Tony Grove to Beaver Mtn. Road
Beawer Mtn. Road to Summit
Summit to Garden City
distance
4.8 miles
4.3 miles
5.1 miles
5.3 miles
6.1 miles
5.1 miles
7.0 miles
average
State average, 1971-77, all highways,
Accident Rate per MVT
3.40
2.90
6.10
5.80
3.40
2.15
5.00 .
4.1T + 1.52
3.85
It thus appears sections 3 and 4 (the proposed project includes all of
section 3 and part of section 4) have a significantly higher accident rate
than the state average, and that the distribution of rates is biased towards
higher values in these sections.
�Our analysis of the data, based on the best ADT figures and a
number of consultations with the UDOT Engineer for Transportation, gives
lower values for the accident rates in all sections of the canyon for the
6 year period, 1973-78 (table 2):
Table 2 Accident Rates in Logan Canyon, 1973-78
Section
Accident Rate per MVT
l.
1.99
2.
1.64
3.
4.98
4.
5.61
5.
2.60
6.
2.97
7.
5.28
3.56+1.64
average
3.85State average
It can be seen the average accident rate in Logan Canyon is slightly
lower than the State average. Sections 3 and 4 appear to be higher. This
difference, however, is not significant statistically for section 3, as
determined by a standard statistical test ( t test, 6 year average vs. state
average, 90% (or higher) confidence level), while the difference for section
4 is just barely significant at the 90% confidence level, but not significant at higher levels. It may therefore be concluded section 3 is not
significantly more dangerous than the average Utah highway , while the evidence for section 4 is inconclusive.
Another statistical test that may be applied measures the significance
of a distribution, in this case accident rates by section, vs . an expected
frequency if all sections have equal rates. The results of this test (chisquared test)show the distribution of both tables 1 and 2 have a probability
between 60-75% of being random: that is, the apparent difference in accident
rates by section for the whole canyon has a 60-75% probability of being due
to random statistical fluctuation, and not to any real bias in favor of high
rates for sections 3 and 4. This test supports the conclusion that the Logan
Highway is, in fact, no more dangerous than an average Utah highway .
Fatal Accidents. In the period 1971-78 inclusive (8 years) there were
26 fatal accidents in Logan Canyon, distributed as follows (table 3):
Table 3 Fatal Accidents
Section
Number
Death Rate per MVT
. 174
1
8
.030
2
1
.1A4
3
4
1
. 042
4
5
0
.232
6
4
.339
7
8
Death rates were calculated in the same way as for accident rates in table
2. Combining the death rates for sections 1 and 2 (improved sections) and 3
and 4 (propesed project) gives identical values , 0.105 MVT . Drawing conclusions from such small numbers of data is statistically suspect ; the death rates
�for the improved and proposed project sections do suggest that improvement
of the highway (sections 1 and 2) does not improve the death rate (sections
3 and 4). If these numbers have any significance, they indicate improving
the highway from a 35 mph speed to a 50 mph speed, the relative speed
limits on the improved and proposed project sections, has no effect on
the death rate. Similar results can be anticipated for sections 3 and 4
if the project is undertaken. Again, any argument based on death rates
for the two sections as support for the project is invalid.
Conclusions. The results of this analysis of all available data are
clear. Logan Canyon highway is not more dangerous than the average Utah
highway, assertions to the contrary by UDOTnotwithstanding. Considering
the highway is a winding mountainous road, often covered with snow and
ice during Winter months in the upper sections, the accident rate is surprisingly low . It would be of interest to compare Logan Canyon with similar highways (Sardine Canyon, Soldier Summit, Little Cottonwood Canyon,
e.g.) with respect to accident rates. Similar arguments used by UDOT based
on Logan Canyon highway death rates are equally false: improvement of
the highway has no effect on death rates. The proposed construction
project for sections 3 and 4 cannot be justified as an improvement in
safety of a dangerous highway.
�Accidents and Traffic Volume in Logan Canyon
UDOT asserts a definite relationship exists between the accident rate
and volume of traffic in Logan Canyon . Since the volume of traffic becomes
quite large on a few weekends in Summer , it is argued by UDOT the highway
needs improvement to prevent excessive accident rates during these periods .
This assertion may be tested statistically by plotting accident rates by
month vs. traffic volume per month (data from UDOT report "Preliminary
Proposals and Alternatives, SR 13 (U.S . 89) Logan t~ Garden City , 19771~,
p. 23 and p. 41). The coefficient for this plot , r , is a measure of
the cor elation be ween accident rates and traffic volume . Such a plot
gives r 2 = 0. 37 (r 2 = 1.00 for a 1:1 correlation , and 0 for no correlation;
values less than 0.90 are suspect). Clearly, no significant correlation
exists between accident rates and traffic volume in Logan Canyon , and
such an argument cannot be used by UDOT to justify the project.
/
"
�TRAFFIC FORECASTS FOR LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY
UDOT assumes an exponetial growth rate of 4% annually for traffic
volume in Logan Canyon. This growth rate is used as an argument to justify the proposed highway improvement project in sections 3 and 4 (Right
Fork to Ricks Springs) of the canyon. An analysis by Dave Schimpf based
on UDOT average daily volumes of traffic (ADT) indicates the growth is
better expressed by a linear relationship than the exponential relationship used by UDOT, at least through 1975. This gives a significantly lower
prediction for traffic volumes than the exponential model .
More importantly, however, recent data for 1975-79 indicate
traffic volume peaked in 1977, and has in fact declined in both 1978
and through July, 1979 (last data). Clearly, the effects of fuel prices
and potential shortages have not been taken into account by UDOT (table 4):
Table 4 Changes in ADT, 1978-79
Date
2.4 % decrease from December, 1977
December, 1978
July, 1979
3.0 % decrease from July, 1978
data from Card Guard Station, Logan Canyon.
Clearly, in contradiction to the forecasts of UDOT, traffic volume
in Logan Canyon has decreased significantly in the last 2 years. If this
trend continues, and considering the world petroleum situation this appears
probable, future use of the highway will be less than at present, and any
argument seeking to justify construction of the proposed project on the basis
of projected increases in volume of traffic is invalid.
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1746">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1746</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Checksum
1370614751
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
15008196 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Alternatives to proposed Logan Canyon construction
Description
An account of the resource
Several alternatives to the proposed construction in Logan Canyon including: concern over the expansion and curve reduction in Logan Canyon, Agency Alternative, Additions to Conservationists' alternative for US 89, Environmentalists' alternative, Conservationists' alternative for Logan Canyon Road between Right Fork and Garden City, Conservationists' spot improvement alternative, traffic accidents in Logan Canyon, and the traffic forecast for Logan Canyon Highway.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1980-1989
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, MSS 314, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the finding aid for this collection at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd2.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/fa672d65e76caf9ce2d084aff995456b.pdf
5e5fc2d36374c29656e02963ef263214
PDF Text
Text
655 Canyon Road
Logan, UT 84321
August 22, 1994
Mr. Dave Berg
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Dear Mr. Berg,
As a charter member of Citizens for the Protection of Logan
Canyon and a longtime activist on the Logan CanyonlU.S. 89 question,
I have recently had the opportunity to study the preliminary draft of
the Record of Decision. I write now to tell you that in my opinion,
the ROD manifests the same errors and oversights, and the same
fundamental mispapprehension, that so unfortunately characterized
the DEIS and the PElS.
The basic problem with the ROD is that the purpose and need
for the project have simply not been established. The traffic-flow
projections and th~ safety argument are still being based on deeply
flawed data. The ROD admits problems with the data but goes right
on to assume the essential correctness of all assumptions flowing
from the faulty statistics. Without rigorously collecting and checking
traffic flow data over a period of time, maintaining consistent check
points, how can UDOT make any believable projections of flow for the
future, and how can UDOT present any accident-rate analysis at all?
The fact is that there is no traffic problem in Logan Canyon,
and no particular safety problem other than the slow deterioration of
three bridges.
The ROD skims over this huge and glaring hole in the project's
rationale. It then proceeds to handle the comments, questions, and
opposition of the public with what must be called pure arrogance. To
the very serious objection that no study was ever done on people's
values and perceptions concerning the Canyon, the ROD devotes only
eight dismissive words. To the often-proposed idea of using turnouts
instead of passing lanes, the ROD has no substantive response at all .
To the detailed and specific critiques of UDOT's traffic and safety
numbers, critiques offered by several highly qualified scientists, the
response is simply that UDOT used standard and professional
methods of analysis. This is not a response.
To the concept that
•
•
•
�Logan Canyon is as much a destination as a route of travel to
somewhere else, and thus should be treated in a special way, the ROD
simply says the canyon is both a destination and a route, and then
goes ahead to treat it as a route only.
I believe an objective observer must conclude that UDOT has
never truly considered the objections to this project. They only
conducted an EIS when forced to. They hired a consulting firm that,
to judge by the evidence, gave them what they wanted--a green
light. They absolutely ignored overwhelming public opinion against
their "preferred alternative" and in favor of the Conservationists'
Alternative.
They continue to use, and possibly abuse, flawed basic
data in order to justify their project. The conclusion appears
inescapable: UDOT wants to build this project, and will let nothing
stand in their way.
If I may offer a suggestion: Issue a ROD on the three bridges
(these have never been a point of contention), and then, while the
bridges are being rebuilt, conduct a genuine Environmental Impact
Statement process and issue a Supplemental EIS on the remainder of
the project.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Lyon
�February 10, 1989
Dale Bosworth
Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National Forest
125 South State St.
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84111
Dear Dale:
I regret I was unable to attend the meeting concerning the
Logan Canyon Highway Project on February 3. Unfortunately, it was
necessary for me to be out of Logan.
I have read the latest (Jan. 20th) version of the Agency Alternative for the project, and I am greatly concerned. I do not wish to analize it in detail here, but only to give you some general comments:
1. This is basically the high speed alternative in the preliminary
DEIS. We appear to be just about where we were over two years (and
endless amounts of time and energy) ago.
2. The middle section of the Canyon has been reduced to only 4 milesfrom Right Fork to lower Twin Bridge; we regard the middle section as
the entire distance from Right Fork to Ricks Springs. This redesignation,
with the attendent upgrading of the road to a 35 mph design (probably
50 mph signing) from Twin Bridge to Ricks Springs is unacceptable, since
the consequent environmental damage will be severe.
3. The high speed design of the upper section will result in unacceptable environmental impacts, particularly in the Beaver Creek and
Summit sections.
4. There are several safety concerns vlith respect to the placement
of passing lanes, especially in the Dugway and near the Limber Pine
turnout.
5. The implementation of this alternative requires 45 (!) ammendments to the Forest Plan, surely a new worlds record for any forest
plan involving a single project. The cumulative effect of this large
number of ammendments is such that a major change in The Plan will
be required - a revision, with everything that implies. Attempts to
get by with an ammendment will certainly be appealed.
6. The Agency Alternative has little detail, making analysis of
its impacts by citizens not throughly acquainted with both the area and
the previous history almost impossible. If it appears as such in the
EIS, the EIS will be challenged as not meeting NEPA criteria.
7. The cover letter sent with the alternative, bearing the signatures of the three agency engineers, attempts to disclaim the alternative as a "preferred" alternative. This is, to say the least, disingeneous. Any alternative that is endorsed by a Forest Service rep-
�presentative is clearly destined to become the "preferred alternative."
I wish to repeat something live said in previous meetings with you: we
accepted the Forest Plan on the assumption it was to be taken seriously
by you. It states, e.g., that liThe road will not be raised to a higher
standard than existing." (Chapter 6, p. 236). Other places in the plan
are clear about maintining the scenic quality of the highway (VQO classification, e.g.). You have recently designated the highway as a "Scenic
Byway". If the Plan had proposed the kinds of changes found in the Agency
Alternative, it certainly would have been appealed. To abandon the Plan
now, under pressure from UDOT and FHWA, is to break faith with the environmental community and reduce Forest Service credibility to a new low.
Stn+:erely,
•
.--,
-7
Jack T. Spence
Dept. of Chemistry
Utah State University
Logan, Ut 84322
cc: Dave Baumgartner
Tom Lyon
Dick Carter UWA
Steve Flint
Bruce Pendery Bridgerland Audubon
Rudy Lukez Utah Chapter, Sierra Club
,
�tate 0
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
EH. Findlay
.
Director
G Sturzenegger, P .
ene
.E
Assistant Director
H. H. Richardson,P .
.E
North Wall Avenue
POB 2747
. . ox
Ogden. Utah 84404
169
SamuelJ. Tay r
lo
Chai rman
W eSW
ayn . inters
Vice Chai r man
JamesG. Larkin
February 2, 19MaunCox
Tdd G. Weston
o
Elva H. Anderson
Secretary
Disl.ri cl Directo r
To Whom It May Concern:
The attached document is an alternative for improvements to SR-89 in Logan
Canyon. Elements of the alternative have been carefully examined by
representatives of the UOOT, FHWA, and USFS. This document should not be
considered as a preferred alternative, nor as completely addressing impacts of
the suggested elements, but as one alternative of many possible alternatives.
If the environmental impact on an element by element, and total element basis
is acceptable, as analyzed in the environmental impact statement, then the
elements of this alternative should be pursued. This alternative will be
included in the Environmental Impact Statement.
Various groups may wish to meet with agency representatives to discuss this or
other improvement concepts. Arrangements can be made by contacting Lynn
Zollinger at 399-5921.
Sincerely yours,
Richard Harris, P.E.
USFS, Forest Engineer
LRZljw/0924J
an equal opportunity employer
n Silver, P.E.
, Area Engineer
n R. Zo lnger, P. E.
Preconstruction Engineer, 0-1
�655 Canyon Road
Logan, tIT 94321
January 17, 1989
Dave BaUTIBa:r tner, District Ran er
U ..
Fores t Service
860 N. 1200 r: .
Logan, UT 84321
J
.
Dear Dave:
Stew Flint provided Ire vlith a ooPY of tJ'1e "agency alternative"
on the Logan Canyon Jigrrway, and. I presume you might t:e interested in
having ccmnents on it.
The dOC1..ltmnt represent:.S no significant change frQ"ll tJDOT' ~' 1979
p lans for Logan ('",,'lIlyon. It reflects absolutely none of the I.D. team' s
input, delivered in bA16nty-two meetings, each of several hoUrs' duration.
It reflects no environrrental consciotl."3ness at all, but i s Jasically an
en1]iI1eering statement. It makes the old, thoroughly discredited ar<Jl!frent
ti'.at flattening curves (t.l)ereby increasing speeds) is sorreh<:Hl going to
inprove safety. In sum, this document tal<.es us back to s qu8le one in
the whole process. It a.:OlJI1t'3 to a declaration of \iar against the canyon
and against the p...~ple defending it.
'!'he rrost g laring p rocedural flat., in this OoCllInf'..nt is that it offers
onl y vague inforrration on just ",hat cons truction is contemplated, in
s:pecific places. It defers consideration of specific construction plans
until a later hearing--later than the hearings for the DElS. If I am not
mistaken, this is not )EPA Folicy.
This dccurrent calls for 49 amendments to the Forest Plan. vJhy not be
straightforward about it and say that the Forest Plan, as it applies to
logan Canyon, is totally irreleva.1'1t? The cumulative effect-s of 49
J:nPJ1ts surely add up to a revised Forest Plal1.
It seem..g apparent that the
Forest Service has in eff~"Ct ded.ded that Logan canyon i s in fact !'lot any
kind of a special scenic resource i so let's revise the Pla."'1 to reflect the
actual assessment of the Forest Service.
"
The re-channeling of Eeaver Creek is an enviro11l:!'ental outrage, and I
believe it itlill be seen this TNay by sportsnan's groups as vlell as by anyone
generallv concerned \vl. th the environi11E:mt. The extraordinary number and
- passing lanes in the upl?6r canyon ".,ill silt~)ly invite high spgeds,
of
t..'1u~ reducing safety.
rrh.e three engineers ~'lho drew up t..'1is doCUi1Ent do
not appear to realize that flOv within a system cannot be faster t.~an its
l
slCY.Nest single point ~ their p lans for Logan Canyon vlOuld have areas of
very high speeds suddenly funneling dO'VTI to areas of lo,..er speeds. This
could be calaITlitous.
I will save deta:i..led <::x::lII'!.rent~ on each mile or tenth of a mile for a
future opportunity. \ t present I will only Sllnmarize by saying that the
ph1.1of'"ophy behind this "agency alt.emative" is only too clear. vf uat dis"
tresses me alrrost equally with the contemplated envirol1I'l'ental destruct.i.on
is the Forest Service's apparent acquiescence in it.
~
c mcere1y,
·
Thomas J. Lyon
•
•
�.
./
. - ~ ..-v't.?.
:r
~
f~
A'-
:-z.- :...<-,...<
.
./4 ~
-
(
•
<
�f
R-234
RECEIVED
MAr 29
emoran um·
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIC1N'987
.CH2 M HII.J..
DATE: May
TO
. Those listed Below
•
19,~~7
r:
._0'
FROM
: R. James NaegI '
.-, "1!; lnee f
Location and Enviro~ ental Studies
,
I
\
SUBJECT: Logan Canyon,
u.s.-84
J
I
Study
Biological Assessment
•
Atta ~ hed
is a copy of the Biological Assessment done by
Stanley L. Welsh, Endangered Plant Studies, Inc., of Orem
Utah.
The Maguire Primrose found in the project vicinity is
the object of the Biological Assessment.
If you have questions or comments, please contact John Neil
of our office at 965-4227.
Thank you for your cooperation.
RJN/JNeil/ps
Attachment
cc:
~~
Robert Ruesink, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Daniel Dake, FHWA
s.tan.. Nuffer, CH2M Hill
Eduardo Norat, UDOT
John Neil, UDOT
•
•
�•
•
ENDANGERED PLANT STUDIES, INC.
129 North 1000 East
Orem, Utah 84057
(80n 225-7085
18 May 1987
James R. Naegle, P.E.
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
~lr.
d,I}'
..
Utah Department TranlpOnallori
location & Environ. Sludies
This report is in response to your letter of 5 May 1987 delivered to EPS
Dear Mr. Naegle:
•
MAY 1 9 1987
from the Utah Department of Transportation on 7 May 1987 regarding a
biological assessment of a segment of the highway in Logan Canyon
' (Project No. 1371163, FO; Authority No. 5988).
An on-site survey was conducted during the period May 11-12 on a segment
of the Logan Canyon highway adjacent to and east of the Wood Camp
Trailer Park to the vicinity of milepost 385, a distance of
approximately 1000 feet, and for another 1000 feet east of there to
assure coverage of a second population of of Maguire primrose (no. 5 of
the attached map).
Prior to the on-site survey a literature review was undertaken.
Specific references were sought concerning present knowledge of the
distribution of Primula maguirei, a species listed as threatened under
stipulations of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Literature reviewed included status reports by Welsh in 1979 and the
Utah Native Plant Society (Padgett 1987). The latter report is
sUlmnarized in an Apri 1 1987 report to the Utah Department of
Transportation by CH2M Hill, which was made available by your office.
The Maguire primrose is apparently a calciphile, restricted to Laketown
and Fish Haven dolomite formations. It js likewise a mesophyte, growing
where moisture is available at least through the flowering period, which
apparently is from early April to after mid-May. Plants in more arid
and exposed sites flower first, followed later by those of the more
protected and shaded areas.
Proposed highway modifications, alternatives 81, C1, and D1, were
considered. All are essentially within the area of concern for a
principal population (designated in reports as population 4) of the
Maguire primrose. The plant occurs on outcrops of limestone south of
the highway, beginning at a point approximately 700 feet west of
milepost 385 and extending east to a point approximately 350 feet west
of that milepost. The population, estimated to contain 176 clumps of
•
Maguire primrose (Padgett 1987), occurs in small aggregations on exposed
boulderlike outcrops at the west edge of the population. The initial ,
ano
(westernmost) occurrences are about 40 to 50 f'eet above the h
about that same d
~
roa
er.
rd
•
�•
•
the limestone is exposed as a cliff-forming unit and the population is
largest in the area where it is most exposed to ~h.f= li i,gb!.Jay, • ..aO u.L ,550...
_
Q.
feet west of milepost 38.5 - At that most developed and deeply shaded
__
exposure the plants occur in profusion, beginning at a point estimated
at about 30 feet above the existing road. Eastward the exposure trends
upward in elevation and the population follows that exposure to perhaps
a hundred feet above the roadway.
The second population in close proximity to the proposed modification
(population 5) begins some 400 or 500 feet to the east of the east end
of the area of concern. The plants are more remote from the highway and
the plants are more scattered. There does not seem to be any potential
impact of the present proposal on that population.
Three other plants were noted in the CH2M Hill report indicated above.
They are Erigeron cronQuistii, Musineon lineare, and Penstemon
compactus. All are currently cited as Category 2 plants in the Federal
Register, indicating that they are possible candidates for future
listing processes. Of these species only MusineQn was noted within the
proposed construction site. The species is a corrnllon component of the
limestone cliffs plant couullunities in Logan Canyon. It is growing with
the Maguire primrose at the population 4 site. The proposed action is
not thought to constitute a significant threat to the Musineon or t o the
other category 2 species.
•
•
Two concerns were stated in the CH2M Hill report for the Maguire
primrose, especially at population 4. Other populations (2, 3, and 6 )
known for the species are considered by me to be too remote from the
construction site as to be threatened by the proposed action. The
concerns involve cold air drainage down Logan Canyon, and the moderating
effect of canyon bottom vegetation on adjacent cliffs serving to buffer
the existing populations of Maguire primrose. To these can be added a
third concern -- dust from construction activities. Dust might overlay
stigmas thus providing competition for pollination and reduced seed set.
err?
tu( 'Concern
I
number one, cold air drainage, does not seem to be significant.
The draina e of cold air is expected to continue atGUt- as i n th e pasf ,
regardless of highway modifications. The second concern is probably
more lmportar.t, but, it s 0 rd be 0 ed, that the best developed part of
the population of Maguire primrose at pop~lation 4 is on the most
=7
exposed portion of the cliff system (i.e., there is little or n~
~
screening ve etetation betwe
e 0 ulation....and-the road). _However,
in pow of action all possible care should be given to preventiOn of
wholesale removal of the remaining screening vegetation. Only that part
of the canyon bottom vegetation apsolutely in the way of_construction
should be removed. The third concern, dust, can be mitigated by waiting
until the flowering period is over prior to corrmencement of construction
activities, i.e., construction should commence no earlier than June.
" -- - - --
The nearest approach of the construction is at the bend of the road at
the westernmost edge of the population 4 site. It is understood that as
•
much as 10 feet of the toe of the ridge might have to be removed to
allow proper alignment of the roadway. This sho~ld cause no problem to
the PQ,Qulation if the rockwork is
dertaken I-lith s~re. Blasting shou l d
be kept at a minimum and proper barriers constructed as to prevent
•
�uphill scattering of debris.
--
--
If the recommendations cited above are followed there should be minimal
or no 'mpiilc-t- to- the_Magui re primrose PQpulation 4. The other
populations will not be adversely affected.
,
With best regards,
Sincerely yours,
.
,
•
4 -
P '
I
I
' ;, " ~I J'
"
,
.
r.
•
I{.
;'
I
,
I
'/
. ,
f • ;
t
.
'.
.
'
,
r
..,
I
,
,
'
.,:
(I
,, .... :.,.~. L
,\
Stanley- L/ Welsh
,
President
I
�•
) /
"
}
II
'
"
('
/· " I
t
·
.vv" ... . .. .
J
·
.
'0 '"
... ,
-~
r. '"
--
~
"r
CONTOUR INTERVAL .11) . - ....
~-
..
._.I
•
"J ',
.'
..
., ", , : , .'
,
, I
\ ..
, ..
' :. .'-~
'.
,\
.
•
I '\
I . ,.
I
(
'
-...
~
.
(,
' .-
,
,'\ ..
.,
\': ':1 . '
", ...
:
.. "...
.'-../. ,.
.....
j
'.
-.
.
,
,
\
o ·
, , .\. ... . ,. ,~'-..J-.-'
.".
.
,
,
•
\
.
.. "
..
\
~
;
.'
..
,
.
,
,
\
,
'
,
,
,
'
..I
.,
/- -
: -~- . -.:\"---./ . ..- ...... _.. .. ..:.. :.:, ., ,' . ;..
•• ' . , ' . . ~ ... ; t
.,
,
,
I
-,
'
-- .
" ,
,
,-
"
•
':---:.----;'--.
".
",
,
•
.
"'
"
I
,
,
" ,--.:....- /', : . ,-""
.. ..
,
,
~
. ...
:',
'
. '..
'.
..
'--'
'
'
,,
, ',
•,
,
,
•
,
•
,
,
:I
. ,
.. ,
,
"...
, ,
"
..
I
I
_ "' .
(
, ..
,
-
,
'
47'30"
r
, ,
.
,
-
.,
)
I
'-/]
,
•
'
,
."
.
'
'"
.' i',
,
,I
,
: ,
I
..
,.
. , ,. ..,,
,
,
'
'
• ..
•
: j
I
,
- ,,-:, .~
I. ·, .
I
I
-
.....
• ..J' :".
. . .-'-
•
'" ( ;. , (.
', I {''''
!,,
:
,
,,
,,
.
)
)I
\
.
L··
(
.
,
,
~
'
6997
,;
(
\
\
•
,
,
... - '.
,
,
~
-.
..
~ - .. ::' ,'
1.., ",--"_ ~ 600
,
,
'" .
,
_
.
..
-. .
.-
.
...
...
'. . .'.
.,
.
- '
- .-.
'--" '!
\-',
'
'
,
. '
61
... -'../ •
)
-'
,
,
,
.'
,./
._-
.,
•
-
•
,, ,
;;,......I
,
( :'
\
"
. r
---
)'J
_.
./
i
"-....
,
-,,-,
.
,
,
•
....
r"
,
-"
,
,
'
"
,
,
;, .
,
••
.I
,
,,
.
.,
, ..
I,
,
,
.
.
.
I
-
..
-..
'
•
.
•,
,
,
,•
I
•,
,
-
~--:I
,
,
,,
"
..
,
• ,
,
,
,
~
.
.
{
I
I
I
•
\\
,
,
I
. ,(
.
'
;
,
\
'
,,
,
• I
f
;
,
~
•
'
') ', \ .' ,'----'
I .
•
\
"
• • I
'
o
\
•
"
.
"
,
,
. .\.., . .
.
,
--
-
-.
( Ii
"), ~ \
"
! '
\i
,'
..
, I •
; · · ·.I·;~
1; r--/\ ~\."
','\
, . ,'\
,
•
• 'I ,'
.
,f ,
,,
•
'
'
"
,
-..., ..
' I '
•
"
•
~-A
.
\i', ~\\ 'i, .
,
,
,
"'
'"
..
,, ,
6761
"
•
"
.
..•,•,
,
,
I '
Portion of the Mount Elmer 7.5
minute quajrangle map s~owing
the approximate boundaries of
populations 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
'~25
"
�45 ~~ - 400 W
Logan, UT S4321
24 .January, 1989
Dear Dave,
Since we last t<11ked, Lynn Zollineer has g iven us the oppor tunity
to reviJe the conservationist's proposal. We have decided to take
advBn tage of tLi s oH)ortuni ty. 'Nhi Ie we do not plan 8 Y1.y maj or change s
in our plan of a year and a half ago, this will p€rmit us to
rc: sp~nd once again wi th our cOIJ.Jerns over UDO'l" s al-'parent preferred
a 1 terYla ti ve. We can a Iso update t h e few 10ca ti ons w!lere thin["s
have eh8.nged.
As I m enti~n ed last week, the a gency altel~ative seems to be the
D alter~ ative fer all except 4 miles. We share your concerns ttat
the environm
ental analysis w!lich we have seen is weak. The desires
of UDCT to put much of this (eg. rubble disI)osal) off un. til the
"design hearings" is particularly worri some.
We will be in touch when we produce this reviseo draft. If UDCT
would be willing to meet with us now we can once again try to
expl.ain our concerns.
Sincere1..y,
/U~ 2-:-e~:r
Steve Flint
•
Copies: Tom 1,";on /
"
Jacij:kSpence
B'ruce Pendery
•
P. S. It is also disappointing to note that, despite the national
recognition which the Forest Service has given to the scenic
qualities of Logan Canyon, UDOT has put off all ~ention of
turnouts until the design hearings. I worry thc:.t "Sight distance
and tapers" will be difficult to include, so we will end up
with no turnouts.
•
I
~"'7
A- ~I /~,;f
•
tAlloT ~ ~ /tz~7"
~ v~~h /tI-evr'd~ ~v
,
'
e- ,
�1/20/69
Dear Dave:
T
--In gene ral t his plan ." t ··l'l""".:.'
,
on l"2Jrunirl.g
'I''':>
~ "-"_'
;:) . ' L
c' 0'
the f ollowing COrnme!lt.s :
Al tenlat.i ve " I
.!.n responee
tJS
.I J ,-,
;:~L~l-'E: r}l i ,gJ-l\-lay
"
a
sim
ply cannot t olerate
appealing ,
,
im
pacts
t.:ll.. :3E:
;
- - 1• o·
'-IF-
-
"'I
.-
-;:.rodl.lctive
.I..
.... . ,-
o
, .
, - ·-r l· +·
'· . ' ''' J· '' . ~ ·'__ , .L J. 1 0'
' ,_", n.:
,- ",, .i'='- ~
A1 t.'<:: J. , .'.,. ,' .J.. 'of" r:..
-L
,
...J...
.,1 .1 "'_'
,
, .,
.
4
..
.
..
· '.
h\
HY
,J:=~ ..
... . ......... u"-I
_
.
+ ":\ ~ .!:0- ........:. . ..l..=T,
............ ' ~ " .
~...
l.I 1-=-1
,
- ,. ..
Llc'
.• ' .... 1,..)
\I
..L.-J
... ...... ~-,
+,-:.'"
..
'. 1
'
.J,..~
_
_ ... _ r
1-,
'_' 1... t-: 4..I,.- t,J. ..i. .,../.
._'J. ... _' '. ,_ . ..
~
,
,
-
.
--)=-'T ",""1
..L ~.l ).".1 .'
l.l l
T
J,.- ~
.. -
•
.
'-\..- ....
,
-1: I
,
"
.
-. J..
\.,
,~
-
~ ': 7 ..:.....:~
I _~ . I • ' ,. ' . ' •
- ~
r-f ':. +
..,.
y
..... _
,
.
11
-.
.-. "'1 -- ..
'-} i. .1 i
-,.
~
.··.·.... iJCi f., 1
::. _
1._ .L.
t•
•
_ ' _
r ·.:..:....
... .1 '_';' \. ... .... .L , _-;
I
_ , ,,,, - '- '
.... , . r" 1
1 f_••........ -',
J,..
' \I .....
T,c
1.!.
I
,- "" .i.- -_·ct
C:.;.;-)"'jJ-, "· l
II
~ ~ -. -~
'-- 1
D" . -,. -, ..
-i t::::' -' +'
t_, OJ
-: n~
' - - ' .0.,::)
: .~
-
) . ; , ..... I
1 •• ."
"
~
•.:;. ;J.,dJC·,1 lttt::l
,_~
..... ........t:.;,-......
..
• ', - ' '-'
--.. .
'
" » .... .:,
1_' J l ..... .~
," c
' _'J..
(~lc:ar l)r
,
,,,-). , - ~.
:.. <>
thE::
·' i.Jill
0
.. . ···.l,_ 7,- ...···'::; t 'I"'-Tu
. ....
.
' . t'_ Y; J .L...:
' ..s.." ' _.
....,C J.. 1 •
J.."" .. ,-,\.-.
\ -,
.-. "....
;_, I..' ~ '_-,
'
- '
t .........
"..",
- . . . .... ._' -' ,
'
( - . ;:)
~, -
.
....... ~
...
-.
••
' - ;'
-.
-'
,
'-').':'1'V ';. ', - ,.\ ,
U
,
~
.- -
,,;:. C ~' : ,--" ~
'_' _'" J. • .,n _ , ,
_ ... _ "
-
-'
~ ... .
...........
• r-.;.)
~
..... ~ l
'.
·
1 ~ .J.
y, ,- , ... .
....
1·i ~ •., J..' .-'l'
' L -:'i
11
,
.... ~.l. l.. " - ' .....\....&..
-
\. ' ... J. _ '
J.
~
.
1. ~ . ·· -,' -'- r. ,... .
'-
-"- }-1,:>
1..'
_,
j
"
.
,
~'l '~ Yr ,_,
..::..
J. . ..
-;:,' :n1 l \ ::V ~ .:: 2..(~;1
J..
~
i ...: .-: ,, - ' hil l
,
lS
-; l ...... _
_ IT.Jt);-~. (' :
-
I 1"
,
t.t=. E..t
, " -'
J..
,
1
.](.u1d
. . . .J.J ..... " ." .....
........" . . .. ,.. .._-1...• ........, J,"''..,1'... +--" 1
.
,_ .... .,i.
'.
.::.
J.._,
1..' -,,'.
'_ ...
....
, ~
'
~
~ ........... _ .....
J"'; . ] r ,..........
o
~
....... , ....- 'T'1
"::'1 : ...... . ':"'1 ...
the.
3. r(~
_
.. ".- ..
J,
111 'f'-,/'
_
env i~om;)E::n t
....P- .Im- 111
.,:1
~-! .::..
""1 .,
-
, :
.
C'::-tnyon; an
,
3110
~
°ql, ,=<<l .... . one ,
1
_'
ot._ pe
bsck t.o
.
__..-c '
• 1 ~ ,.
-. '
;
, 1
"-
-
'''' u ':. .. ",;;..
_'
-" ,..,..
: ~
;. --
-
ll.l\_·' • .u "\"
~
.. . ... ..:,;., • • ' . ' "! .... ~-"~,,
J,. ...... . _ •• •
I
~
rl
_..' -...
. ,
-
l '"' .,.") ,.
,
.... .........:..- J. I.' )
"
T'_ - .., ...
, J
c "'- ...
1,, .' ' 1-' 1.A... 11 _.,:. ,-.• _'
",", ~"'~":
_ ~,
plan .
~
OI
.; -+,.... ~
1
,, ~
\ .-1 '_'
~..,\ ..::. ~ 1 - ,. ,,;'
..... ... . ' ._ J..
.
'=- ' r
'. '. J..
" ,-' .. .,.
.....
t:::
,
.)' '-J" ' _ . .,\...•.=-,
- , ,_
,j. J .
\
Cl"" . .. V
_ -1"..
,-.,- . .
~- " -
.
o
...
cr~~ ,r. ~
\_ I~ _. _ J '. _ ' _
..
,
11.
"\"~ " I_. - . .-1
t,(_~
l' I _+- - .... \_" ...'_' L. ~
,
.:tj, J.
(
"
,
,
• .L.
t..-' ~\
_, ~_,
l.~t l' ,:;0 ,'-'', l .0::: '"
.::.
11',!, ,_. ,
~ r ,.,.
t 'l..L,)... ~"'....~ ,="
o-I
,
l fl
,
,
... .......... t....: ,.." (_.,-~ •
,.. .... ...-'
.L.b ....
to
,
'-'1' - .~ .- ._ '-,
.
.1:-; '_. i:" C:11 .L
- :.. .'" I.,
! I J '_ ..Y
~
.- .1.., . .J... .~'ir
"- .~ "'J[1""'! _
.
-;.. ::. y- _ . -.:'" .•.. . .-.
,: ...
.. . :_. '(" ...., 1 .-,'_" .. ,_ . ..l....
.
"
t.o
.)
"
r
1
. ...r->.......
-- _ .
· .j· ~ ; J. ·" }1
1 .. .!," -....
C.. C .':'c.. .l...L
;. '
.....-. ..... 'I;
will
.,t '. '
.t:" ._ .-
,
,
~ ,,,,,
-' ,' 0 1 -.i.. '1." i -- ''
..--, '''' '''
-5
. .....:
I
' .J.
L ·
•
- '\ ., 0::- . . ... .
l.-:' _ ..., t. ... ~y .-:.
-
,
"
-)
,_ .L
T
-"-
�•
January 22, 1988
Editor, The Herald Journal
75 W 300 N
Logan, Utah 84321
Dear Sir:
As a member of the 10 team responsible for preparation of technical information for the Logan Canyon highway project EIS, I am
appalled at the recent decision by UDOT to pursue the maximum development alternative.
•
If this alternative is implemented, most of the canyon from
Right Fork to Ricks Springs (as well as major sections of the upper canyon) will be severely affected. Much of the free running
river will be channeled within retaining walls, the river bed itself will be altered, the riparian zone (on which the wildlife
depends) will be destroyed, the fishing and water quality will
be degraded, the river will disappear beneath cantilever structures,
the lovely riv~rside rock ledges will by dynamited, huge cuts
.
in the hillsides will be made, thousands of cubic yards of fill
will be dumped into side canyons, large amounts of conifer forest
and other vegetation will be bulldozed and Logan Canyon as we
now know it will be gone forever.
UDOT has made this decision in spite of the overwhelming public opposition to this alternative expressed in the scoping meetings, in spite of a legally binding Forest Service Plan which designates Logan Canyon as a scenic highway and prohibits the destruction consequent to the project, and in spite of the best efforts
of environmental representatives on the 10 team in endless meetings over more than two years to achieve a reasonable compromise
which protects the canyon and also allows necessary improvements.
In fact, the UDOT decision prepresents a no compromise position,
essentially identical to their position in 1980. In short, UDOT.
in their incredible arrogance, has listened to no one and has
learned nothing. Two years or work and over $600,000 of taxpayers
money have been wasted. Preservation of the scenic beauty and the
environmental quality of Logan Canyon is of no apparent concern
to this public agency.
Many people have asked me what they can do to protect the canyon. Telephone calls and letters to James Naegle, Utah Department
of Transportation, 4501 South 2700 West, Salt Lake City, 84119
protesting the decision, and to Dave Baumgartner, U.S. Forest Service, 860 N 1200 E, Logan supporting the Forest Service Plan are
needed. Later, there will be an opportunity for both oral and
written comments when the DEIS is released. Additional information may be obtained by calling 753-8548. Only a concerned
citizenry can preserve Logan Canyon from the mindless destruction planned for it by UDOT.
Jack T. Spence
361 Blvd
Logan, Ut 84321
-
�January 11, 1988
Mr. James Naegle
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 So. 2700 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
Dear Jim:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning my efforts in the
Logan Canyon DEIS study.
•
While I appreciate your comments, I find them inconsistent with
your actions. After spending the better part of two years attending meetings, reading documents, checking calculations, etc., I consider it an insult not to be provided with a copy of the preliminary
DEIS. It cost us (Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Utah Wilderness
Association) $20.00 to duplicate the Forest Service copy, which I
understand was made available to us only reluctantly and at the insistence of the Forest Service. So much for the good faith of UDOT.
I also wish to make some comments on the role of the 10 team
in this study. It was agreed early on that all technical memos
would be approved by the team. This has not been done. It was
my understanding the DEIS would be approved by the team. This is
clearly not to be done. Finally, it was also my understanding the
10 team would make recommendations concerning a preferred alternative. Again, this is clearly not to be done. I regard this as
a breach of faith by both UDOT and CH2M Hill.
The preliminary DEIS has several major problems:
1.The Spot Improvement Alternative must be considered as encompassing all 35 spot improvements. It is a violation of NEPA
requirements to present a shopping list, with UDOT selecting some
number of improvements from the list at a later date.
2.In view of this, there is no environmentally acceptable
alternative in the preliminary DEIS except No Action.
3.NEPA requirements have not been met with respect to a range
of alternatives. The Spot Improvement alternative with all 35
projects at the level described is essentially the same as Alternative C.
Unless our alternative (now in the Appendix), or a reasonably
similar alternative, is included as a legitimate alternative, we
will oppose all alternatives except No Action, or request that the
DEIS be rejected as not meeting NEPA requirements. Legal action
with respect to this request may also be pursued.
I regret the culmination of two years of effort has resulted
in this situation. The environmental representatives on the 10.
team have repeatedly tried to convince UDOT and CH2M Hill that
�their concerns need serious attention. It is clear we have failed.
and the present situation must be regarded as adversary.
Sincerely,
/;"1, ~--:
, ??
"
;
/
cc:Dale Bosworth
Dave Baumgartner
Lynn Zo 11 i nger
Stan Nuffer
UWA
Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club
Steve Flint, Audubon Society
.
, I?;/ .
C
/ Jack T. Spence
v'
361 Blvd.
Logan, Ut 84321
�• •
I Izens
o
or
oan
rh.J ()
Wilson
e
~ £ //-J
Lcs+ -f,~ r
•
·ro ec Ion
_an on
r.
Tc, /k.e..A f a J.. ~ ~ ~
21 September, 1987
ret ... -eJfe.-/ 1-4 f-€>e-J;
From: Steve Flint ~~-k .'5!/{ -;f: <
He: ~gan Canyon highway project
·~ e ...,
F..nclosed are the ~errestrial Resources Technical Memorandum and
the biological assessment for Primula maguirei. This biological
assessment is referred to in the tech. memo as "Welsh 1987".
One of the most glaring faults of this tech. memo is the failure
to adequately discuss the disposal of waste material. Table 2 (p. 21)
lists a few locations (but does not address impacts), but does not
admit that these locations will only accolnodate a small portion of
the waste which the action alternatives will generate. CH2MHill's
refusal to discuss site-specific impacts contributes to this problem.
Table 1 (p. 18) shows the high percentage of the riparian zone
which would be impacted. Most of this impact would be retaining walls
at the edge of tl1e river, destroying all vegetation on one side of
the stream.
This document downplays the impacts on P. maguirei. One of our
concerns, which is not mentioned in this document, is the proposed
location of & slow vehicle turnout adjacent to population 4. We believe
this location is unacceptable as it would remove too much vegetation.
In addi tion, there is a "collection" danger: the primrose is attractive
1IIlhl?n it blooms in the sprine:. We fear people may not know of its
status and attempt to remove plants for their gardens. A related
problem is the display of papulation locations in Figure 1 (p. 8) •
We believe this is proprietary information which should not be included
in a document such a3 this which is available to the public. Much of it
is not even necessary for this study: populations 2 and 6 are outside
the study area, and population 3 is across the river from the highway.
The biological assessment dismisses the impacts to the primrose
by speculating on its physiologival performance. It should be pointed
out that nothing is known about the species' physiology; all the
speculation is based on its habitat. In addition, while the author
(Welsh) has considerable experience in taxonomy, I do not believe he
has much background in physiology.
Other tech. memos will follow shortly.
Note: Despite the fact CH2MHill had provided UDOT with a
draft of the EIS, they have not produced a final
version of the Terrestrial Resources tech. memo.
This June '37 version is the most recent draft.
p.o. box 3580 logan, ut 84321
Of
•
�• •
-
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
P. O. Box 3451, Logan, Utah 84323 - 3451
April 5, 1995
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon on
Thursday, March 30, 1995, filed a lawsuit against
Cache County and its County Council for not complying with the laws of the State of
Utah and the ordinances of Cache County when they issued a Special Permit to the
Westons permitting their sign in Wellsville Canyon. As an organization and as
individuals, CPLC has a long-standing interest in Cache County and its canyons. It is the
sentiment of the organization that permitting the sign, in direct violation of state and
county laws, set a dangerous precedent for Logan Canyon, as well as for all of the
canyons in the county.
Business signs are presently prohibited in Forest/Recreation Zones under the current
County Land Use Ordinances. Application for a Special Permit for the sign was first
submitted to the Cache County Planning Commission, which unanimously recommended
against the proposed sign because it was not in keeping with the Forest/Recreation Zone.
The Planning Commission suggested an alternative more in keeping with the Zone. The
County Council, which in the Ordinances has reserved to itself the final decision, granted
a Special Permit for the sign, which, in the meantime, had already been erected by the
Westons without a permit.
By filing this lawsuit, CPLC hopes to make certain that all county agencies follow legal
procedures when making decisions about public lands, including all canyons within
Forest/Recreation Zones.
CPLC could use your help in defraying the expenses of this lawsuit. If you have not sent
in your membership dues, please take this opportunity to do so. Or, if you are already a
member of CPLC, please consider making an additional contribution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------please print legibly
CPLC MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION
Name
Address
City
State
Zip
Phone: Hom e_ _ _ _Work_ _ __
Areas of Expertise/ Willingness to Volunteer___________________________________
Regular Member ($10)
Student Member ($5)-:--_
I wish to make an additional contribution of: $10
$25
$50_ $100_
Other
-Send to: CPLC, P.O. Box 3451, Logan, UT 84323-3451
-----------------------------
•
�-, ,
,
•
Citizens for the Protection
of Logan Canyon
P.O. Box 3501
Logan, UT 84323
October 27, 1994
Mr. David W. Berg P.E.
Chief Environmental Engineer
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Dear Mr. Berg:
With our thanks to you personally for your willingness to hear our
case, and our appreciation for being included in the process of
modifying the Logan Canyon ROD, we wish to communicate our
provisional and conditional approval of the revised ROD. Specifically,
this approval refers to agreements between UDOT and representatives
of CPLC, arrived at in meetings taking place from December, 1993,
through October, 1994, as to what the final Logan Canyon ROD should
contain. We understand and accept the "quid pro quo" nature of those
negotiations, and the following represents the present CPLC position.
General Issues of Utmost Concern to CPLC:
With the exception of the need for replacing bridges, CPLC is not
persuaded that the project's overall purpose and need have been
demonstrated.
(2) CPLC remains concerned with the accuracy and statistical reliability
of both traffic-flow and safety data collected by UDOT. Before CPLC
could agree to any accident-dependent curve-flattening (for example,
curve #5 in Section 1a), the organization, as part of the CAT team, would
need to study the data being presented.
(3) CPLC restates its deep concern for the protection of any and all
wetlands and riparian areas along the project route, and its concern for
the longterm disposition of these sites.
(4) CPLC restates its deep concern for the intactness of the visual and
aesthetic resources of Logan Canyon, and restates its support of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest's Forest Plan of 1985, which states that
there shall be no degradation of the Canyon's visual resource.
(1)
�•
•
CPLCIUDOT
October 27, 1994
p. 2
(5) CPLC strongly supports the hiring of an independent consultant, to
be actively engaged in the design and construction phases of the project,
and to have site-specific stop-work powers during construction. CPLC
strongly supports the preparation of a detailed monitoring plan by
UDOT, which will spell out the qualifications, independence, and range of
specific powers of the consultant and the consultant's team, and will
detail the frequency and length of time of on-site inspections.
Point-by-Point Discussion:
[The following are specific issues of demonstrated concern to CPLC
members. Other issues may arise during the project's design phase.]
Roadway Widths
(1) CPLC understands that the roadway width from the beginning
of Section 1a to Lower Twin Bridge will be 26', and the roadway width
from Lower Twin Bridge to the end of Section 1b will be 34'.
(2) CPLC understands that the roadway width in the Lower
Upper Canyon -- specifically, from the cattle guard at Milepost 391.6 to
the Beaver Mountain turnoff -- will be 34'.
(3) CPLC remains concerned with the projected 40' roadway
width from Beaver Mountain turnoff to the Bear Lake Overlook.
A.
B.
Alignment
(1) CPLC continues to question the need for realignment of curves
in the project.
(2) CPLC strongly supports the present alignment for Curve #5 in
Section 1a.
(3) CPLC supports the proposed northern alignment for Curve #85.
Passing Lanes
(1) CPLC supports the use of slow-vehicle turnouts as preferable
to passing lanes, specifically through Section 2. CPLC remains concerned
with the number, location, and length of passing lanes proposed by
UDOT in Section 2.
C.
D. Bridges
CPLC understands that bridge replacement will the first
construction undertaken in the project.
(1)
�'.
0 '
•
,
.
••
CPLCIUDOT
October 27, 1994
p. 3
E.
Riprap and Retaining Walls
(1) CPLC strongly supports minimizing all uses of riprap and
retaining walls. Natural banks should be retained wherever possible.
F.
Location of the Batch Plant
(1) CPLC recognizes the complexity of environmental trade-offs
involved in the location of a batch plant for each specific phase of the
overall project. However, CPLC strongly supports the use of one batch
plant, located at the state equipment sheds, for all phases of the project.
G. Future Activity of CPLC
(1) CPLC looks forward to participating on the CAT team during
the design and construction phases.
(2) CPLC reserves its normal constitutional right to seek legal
redress in the event of noncompliance with the revised ROD, violation of
environmental law, or noncompliance with the 1985 Wasatch-Cache
Forest Plan.
. ..
Sincerely,
The Steering Committee
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Mark Bowen
Katherine Gilbert
Nathan Hult
Lauren Keller
Ronald Lanner
Thomas Lyon
Paul Packer
Gordon Steinhoff
---
-
----------
Sean Swaner
Christine Hult
�.'
.'
Citizens for the Protection
of Logan Canyon
P.O. Box 3501
Logan, UT 84323
October 27, 1994
Mr. David W. Berg P.E.
Chief Environmental Engineer
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Dear Mr. Berg:
With our thanks to you personally for your willingness to hear our
case, and our appreciation for being included in the process of
modifying the Logan Canyon ROD, we wish to communicate our
provisional and conditional approval of the revised ROD. Specifically,
this approval refers to agreements between UDOT and representatives
of CPLC, arrived at in meetings taking place from December, 1993,
through October, 1994, as to what the final Logan Canyon ROD should
contain. We understand and accept the "quid pro quo" nature of those
negotiations, and the following represents the present CPLC position.
General Issues of Utmost Concern to CPLC:
With the exception of the need for replacing bridges, CPLC is not
persuaded that the project's overall purpose and need have been
demonstrated.
(2) CPLC remains concerned with the accuracy and statistical reliability
of both traffic-flow and safety data collected by UDOT. Before CPLC
could agree to any accident-dependent curve-flattening (for example,
curve #5 in Section la), the organization, as part of the CAT team, would
need to study the data being presented.
(3) CPLC restates its deep concern for the protection of any and all
wetlands and riparian areas along the project route, and its concern for
the longterm disposition of these sites.
(4) CPLC restates its deep concern for the intactness of the visual and
aesthetic resources of Logan Canyon, and restates its support of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest's Forest Plan of 1985, which states that
there shall be no degradation of the Canyon's visual resource.
(1)
�CPLClUDOT
October 27, 1994
p. 2
(5) CPLC strongly supports the hiring of an independent consultant, to
be actively engaged in the design and construction phases of the project,
and to have site-specific stop-work powers during construction. CPLC
strongly supports the preparation of a detailed monitoring plan by
UDOT, which will spell out the qualifications, independence, and range of
specific powers of the consultant and the consultant's team, and will
detail the frequency and length of time of on-site inspections.
Point-by-Point Discussion:
[The following are specific issues of demonstrated concern to CPLC
members. Other issues may arise during the project's design phase.]
Roadway Widths
(1) CPLC understands that the roadway width from the beginning
of Section 1a to Lower Twin Bridge will be 26', and the roadway width
from Lower Twin Bridge to the end of Section 1 b will be 34'.
(2) CPLC understands that the roadway width in the Lower
Upper Canyon -- specifically, from the cattle guard at Milepost 391.6 to
the Beaver Mountain turnoff -- will be 34'.
(3) CPLC remains concerned with the projected 40' roadway
width from Beaver Mountain turnoff to the Bear Lake Overlook.
A.
.
-
-
Alignment
(1) CPLC continues to question the need for realignment of curves
in the project.
(2) CPLC strongly supports the present alignment for Curve #5 in
Section 1a.
(3) CPLC supports the proposed northern alignment for Curve #85.
B.
C.
Passing Lanes
(1) CPLC supports the use of slow-vehicle turnouts as preferable
to passing lanes, specifically through Section 2. CPLC remains concerned
with the number, location, and length of passing lanes proposed by
UDOT in Section 2.
D. Bridges
CPLC understands that bridge replacement will the first
construction undertaken in the project.
(1)
�•
CPLCIUDOT
October 27, 1994
p. 3
E.
Riprap and Retaining Walls
(1) CPLC strongly supports minimizing all uses of riprap and
retaining walls. Natural banks should be retained wherever possible.
F.
Location of the Batch Plant
(1) CPLC recognizes the complexity of environmental trade-offs
involved in the location of a batch plant for each specific phase of the
overall project. However, CPLC strongly supports the use of one batch
plant, located at the state equipment sheds, for all phases of the project.
G. Future Activity of CPLC
(1) CPLC looks forward to participating on the CAT team during
the design and construction phases.
(2) CPLC reserves its normal constitutional right to seek legal
redress in the event of noncompliance with the revised ROD, violation of
environmental law, or noncompliance with the 1985 Wasatch-Cache
Forest Plan.
. -Sincerely,
The Steering Committee
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Mark Bowen
Katherine Gilbert
Nathan Hult
Lauren Keller
Ronald Lanner
Thomas Lyon
Paul Packer
Gordon Steinhoff
-- --------Sean Swaner
--
Christine Hult
�[DRAFT]
Citizens for the Protection
of Logan Canyon
P.O. Box 3501
Logan, UT 84323
October 20, 1994
Mr. David W. Berg P.E.
Chief Environmental Engineer
Utah Department of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
Dear Mr. Berg:
With our thanks to you personally for your willingness to hear our
case, and our appreciation for being included in the process of
modifying the Logan Canyon ROD, we wish to communicate our
provisional and conditional approval of the revised ROD. Specifically,
this approval refers to agreements between UDOT and representatives
of CPLC, arrived at in meetings taking place from December, 1993,
through October, 1994, as to what the final Logan Canyon ROD should
contain. We understand and accept the "quid pro quo" nature of those
negotiations, and the following represents the present CPLC position.
General Issues of Utmost Concern to CPLC:
CPLC is not persuaded that the project's overall purpose and need
have been demonstrated.
(2) CPLC remains concerned with the accuracy and statistical reliability
of both traffic-flow and safety data collected by UDOT. Before CPLC
could agree to any accident-dependent curveMflattening (for example,
IS iff ~edicni: 1a), the organization, as part of the CAT team, would
Hud "' "tidy the data being presented.
(~, ClYte testates its deep concern for the protection of any and all
\f,t1flnd8 tiiid riparian areas along the project route, and its concern for
th' imtgtefm disp()jition of these sites.
(4) CftLC restat~s its deep concern for the intactness of the visual and
ae~thede res911tc~~ of Logan Canyon, and restates its support of the
Wa§a·t~h-Ca£he National Foreses Forest Plan of 1985, which states that
there shall b~ no degradation of the Canyon's visual resource.
(5) CPLC stroftlly iiUppOtts the hiring of an independent consultant, to
be ~eHv"l)' enga86td ifi the design and construction phases of the project,
iUld to tUlve ~ite"specific stop .. work powers during construction.
(1)
�CPLC/UDOT
October 20, 1994
p.2
Point-by-Point Discussion:
[The following are specific issues of demonstrated concern to CPLC
members. Other issues may arise during the project's design phase.]
A.
Roadway Widths
(1) CPLC understands that the roadway width from the beginning
of Section 1a to Lower Twin Bridge will be 26', and the roadway width
from Lower Twin Bridge to the end of Section 1b will be 34'.
(2) CPLC understands that the roadway width in the Lower
Upper Canyon -- specifically, from the cattle guard at Milepost 391.6 to
the Beaver Mountain turnoff -- will be 34'.
(3) CPLC remains concerned with the projected 40' roadway
width from Beaver Mountain turnoff to the Bear Lake Overlook.
B.
Alignment
(1) CPLC strongly supports the present alignment for Curve #5 in
Section 1a.
(2) CPLC supports the proposed northern alignment for Curve
#85.
(3) CPLC continues to question the need for realignment of curves
in the project.
C.
Passing Lanes
(1) CPLC supports the use of slow-vehicle turnouts as preferable
to passing lanes, specifically through Section 2. CPLC remains concerned
with the number, location, and length of passing lanes proposed by
UDOT in Section 2.
D.
Riprap and Retaining Walls
(1) CPLC strongly supports minimizing all uses of riprap and
retaining walls. Natural banks should be retained wherever possible.
E.
Location of the Batch Plant
"
.
(1) CPLC recognizes the complexity of environmental trade-offs
involved in "the location of a batch plant for each specific phase of the
overall project. However, CPLC strongly supports the use of one batch
plant, located at the state equipment sheds, for all phases of the project.
�CPLCIUDOT
October 20, 1994
p. 3
F. Future Activity of CPLC
(1) CPLC looks forward to participating on the CAT team during
the design and construction phases.
(2) CPLC reserves its normal constitutional right to seek legal
redress in the event of noncompliance with the revised ROD, violation of
environmental law, or noncompliance with the 1985 Wasatch-Cache
Forest Plan.
[signed]
�Peter W. Karp
•
Forest Supervlsor
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Mr. Karp,
We are writing to you to request a rev iew of a previous
decision by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Recently, you
ammended the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource
Ma¢hagement Plan to provide interim protection to the Stillwater
Fork for possible inclusion in the nation's Wild And Scenic River
System.
It is our opinion that both we and your River Inventory Team
believe that at least one river segment on the Cache National
Forest, and probably two, should be eligible as a "recreational"
river under the national Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. These
segments are the Logan River (Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Ck.)
and the Right Hand Fo rk of the Lo gan River. There is currently a
proposed improvement of u.S. 89 by the Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT). The proposed improvement might harm the
river's flee-flowing nature. Therefore it is important to
consider the Logan River (Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek) now,
before said construction takes place.
We have evaluated this segment o f the Logan and found it is
free-flowing and outstandingly remarkable (see attached
documents). Your wild and Scenic River Inventory Team appears to
agree with us on the latter point. Co nsult Appendix D of the
recently amended Forest Plan. You will find that the
Identification Team ( IDT) found this segment might possess
outstandingly remarkable characterists in five (5) categories.
The IDT found the Stillwater Fork, which you set aside for
interim protection, might possess o utstandingly r e markable
characteristics in o nly one catego ry.
The problem may be that the IDT did not conside r the segment
free from roads because the Scenic Byway, U.S. 89, parallels the
river along this segment. However, we would call your attention
to the section of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act for assessing
the free-flowing nature of a recreational river, it states,
"roads may parallel the river for much of its length as long as
much of the road is unobtrusive or well-screened."
We request that you and your Identification Team reconsider
this segment of the Logan. We would prefer assessments of the
Logan from the source to Beaver Ck., Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver
Ck., the Right Hand Fork of the Logan R., and Beaver Ck. (source
to Logan R.). We believe all of these segments may qualify as
recreational rivers under the nati o nal Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act.
Sincerely,
Citizens for the
Protection of
Logan Canyon
�655 Canyon Road
Logan, UT 84321
June 23, 1987
Mr. Stan "luffer
CH M I-'ill
2
Box 8748
Boise, ID 83707
•
Dear Stan:
First, thank you for this opportunity to comment on the drafts
of the technical memoranda and alternatives for the Logan Canyon DEIS.
I consider this a genuine opportunity to (possibly) save a great deal
of many people's time and energy.
If the DEIS reflects these memoranda,
in content and bias, I think I can assure you there will be an extremely
strong public protest.
As was mentioned yesterday at the meeting in Brigham City, the chief
problem with the memoranda, with the exception of the one on aquatic
resources~ is their very obvious bias toward a major road project.
For
example, the socioeconomic memo devotes many pages to the dependence of
Rich County upon Logan for various goods and services. The clear thesis
of this document is that an "improved" road through Logan Canyon is vital
to Rich County':s continued life and to its future development--at one point
even industrial development is mentioned as a future possibility for Rich
County, on the assumption that an "improved" Logan Canyon highway would
make such a thing possible. The fact is that Rich County exists and has
existed without serious hindrance caused by the two-minutes-slower Logan
Canyon highway of the present. The assumption that some kind of industrial
development would be good for Rich County is rank speculation, and judging
from the experience of ' places like Evanston and Rock Springs, is untrue.
But to set this kind of chamber-of-commerce dreaminess forth as a real
item of probability, in a technical memo, is nonsense.
It is also highly biased. We are all aware of the number and strength
of the comments given at the Logan scoping meeting. But these comments DO
NOT APPEAR IN ANY FORM AND ARE NOT REFERENCED ANYWHERE in the documents
supplied so far. They have been completely ignored. The memo on visual
resources is a strange effort to quantify perception and aesthetics, and
results only in fragmenting and obfuscating the real situation into a bunch
of numbers. The fact is that the natural appearance of Logan Canyon is,
along with the ecological health of the river, the absolute primary matter
in hand. I can assure you that perception and the aesthetic sense are not
satisfied by numbers--they are based in an entirely different mode of
awareness.
This brings me to what may be the central problem in documents of this
nature. They attempt to state qualitative issues in quantitative terms.
A wise man once said that to do this is like judging the "Mona Lisa" by
weighing the paint. In the present documents, it is blithely stated that
if native trout are killed by construction, well then we can plant some
�Stan Nu ffer
June 23, 1987
page 2
hatchery rainbows "to supplement angler catch rates," [po 38] and everything
will presumably be all right. But this is not so. There is a very great and
widely perceived difference between fishing for wild trout and fishing for
stocked trout; as a matter of fact, this very difference is the basis for the
Logan River's attractiveness as a qual tty trout stream. And it is a primary
reason for the Logan River's being a "million-dollar" fishery. This difference
between quality and quantity cannot be mitigated. It is a basic fact of
existence.
In the same way, you cannot mitigate a road-cut across a hillside. It is
simply there, and it destroys the wholeness of the scene which arouses the
qualitative sense of beauty. This is what the people in the Logan scoping
meeting were trying to say, one after the other. The issues are beauty and
wholeness. You can't fragment these things into a bunch of numbers and expect
people to be satisfied, just as you can't substitute a flabby hatchery fish,
raised on food pellets and habituated to a looming human figure bringing food,
for a wild and wary trout in a natural stream.
The documents presented so far clearly indicate that none of the alternatives
preserves Logan Canyon. "Spot Improvements" was supported by a number of
people at the Logan meeting, including mysel f; but now "Spot Improvements" has
ballooned into a major realignment of the highway in several crucial and
environmentally sensitive sections, and cannot be supported any longer. It
is decidely misleading, and even deceptive, to place "Spot Improvements" next
to "No Action," because it is emphatically not the second-least-damaging
alternative.
.
The documents presented so far are biased individually and in the
aggregate. For just one example, "Aquatic Resources" mentions millions of
dollars being spent on the Logan River by fishermen, but this money somehow
does not appear in the socioeconomic memo. Why not? (If we get down to arguing
dollars and cents, which again is not the central issue here, I wonder if all
the alleged Rich County dependence on Logan amounts to a sum comparable to that
spent by Logan River fishermen.)
For another example, which appears again and
again throughout the documents, it is alleged that the present highway is unsafe
and that flatter curves and higher speeds would be safer. No documentation for
this assumption is ever presented, and my conclusion is that if there were any
such documentation in existence, it would have been brought forward very
prominently by now. I doubt that a wider, faster, flatter-curved road is any
safer than a narrow, slow, curvy one. People adjust their speed to the circumstances. Logan Canyon is a canyon; it cannot be made into something other than
a canyon. If there is a road in it, it will need to be a narrow and winding
road and people will have to drive at slower speeds on it. That's IF the
intactness and beauty of the canyon are to be saved.
I realize that your firm has spent a good deal of time and work on this
matter, and so I hesitate to say the following. But it is clear that the entire
set of documents needs to be redone and written without bias. The "Alternatives"
chapter is so biased as to be for all intents and purposes worthless; it too
needs to be entirely redone. "Spot Imp IOvements" in particular is a travesty.
Sincerely yours,
rhvmAA
Thomas J. Lyon
�
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/1745">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1745</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
1031935434
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
15438123 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
Various correspondence from the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, 1987-1994
Description
An account of the resource
Various corresponence from the Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, 1987-1994. Most cover the topics of the agency alternative improvement suggestions, the biological assessment of Logan Canyon, and the endangered plant study from Utah State University.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lyon, Thomas J.
Spence, Jack T.
Harris, Richard
Silver, Duncan
Zollinger, Lynn
Flint, Stephan D.
Naegle, R. James
Pendery, Bruce
Welsh, Stanley L.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Berg, David
Bosworth, Dale
Baumgartner, David
Lyon, Thomas J.
Nuffer, Stanton S.
Naegle, James
Karp, Peter W.
Wilson, Wes
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Administrative records
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
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, MSS 314, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the finding aid for this collection at: <a href="http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd1.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/7383165b036484ed20f5c27d08763a2a.pdf
df869c95e0b0697e34cf2d2c71b3970a
PDF Text
Text
Decernb r 2, 1961
Mr. loyd Iverson
R gional Forester
U. S. For st service
For st Servic Building
Ogd n, Utah
Dear Mr.
v rson.
Attach d is a print d copy of our st tement on
Construction ZLnd R oure Us
Except for minor
editorial corrections it is th same d the dr ft released arlier.
ItRoad
tI.
It is our hop that it will contribute to d b tter
under t nding of one of th many · complexiti s of highway
planning_
Sine rely yours,
#
JHB,ep
Attachment
J. Whitney Floyd, Dean
College of Forest, ange ,
and Wildlife anaqem nt
I
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1744">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1744</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
2558615927
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
547556 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Floyd Iverson, December 2, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Floyd Iverson, December 2, 1961 about the Road Construction and Resouce Use statement.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Iverson, Floyd
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Ogden (Utah)
Weber County (Utah)
Utah
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 7.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/6ce507029c5d7f8245640e032d555159.pdf
fe19697ab8da4b567523cfc4a859cad3
PDF Text
Text
I
I
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC U LTURE
FOREST SERVICE
I NTERMOUNTAIN REGION
ADDRESS REPLY TO
REGIONAL FORESTER
FOREST SERVICE BUILDI N G
AND REFER TO
OGDEN , UTAH
December
4, 1961
J . Whitney Floyd, Dean
College of Forest, Range and
Wildlife Management
Utah state University
Logan, Utah
_Dear Dean Floyd:
I appreciated receiving your open letter of November 25 addressed to the
principals responsible for the collection of data, the establishment of
position, and the related decisions for the .Logan Canyon Highway construction project.
That letter should be helpful in clarifying the understanding of the concerned agencies about the position of the College of Forest, Range and
Wildlife Management of Utah state University . We in the Forest Service
have at no time interpreted the statement of the College committee as
being relat ed to or influencing our decision in the administration of
national forest lands in Logan Canyon. You properly point out that this
would be outside the prerogative of the University. However, the basic
principles set forth in the University statement establish sound land
management objectives; objectives which the Forest Service has sought-in Logan Canyon and elsewhere for many years .
We understand the sincerity of your efforts to encourage agreement among
the agencies concerned so that the project can move forward . This is our
interest. However, the question at issue involves determination and definition of what you have referred to as "a satisfactory design, adequate
financing, with minimum damage to the natural resources affected." Use
of cost as a measure of needed work is convenient . The basic road construction cost for this highway, without consideration of resource values, is
$ 360,000 . The total additional cost for essentially full resource protection without consideration of economic factors is 552 , 000. The State
Highway Department has agreed to resource protection work amounting to
about $100,000 over and above the basic cost . Our studies indicate that
additional work, estimated to cost a further $127,000, is needed to meet
"minimum damage" requirements .
�This is the situation that has been described as an "impasse . " We hope
this is not the case . However , I must fully discharge my responsibility
for administration of the national forests in the Intermountain Region .
I cannot , in the absence of facts to the contrar.y , agree to a proposal
set at a level below that which meets the "minimum II resource protection
need .
We look forward to further discussions with State Highway Department
officials , especially with regard to the total project and the costs involved from the end of the present constraction t o Garden City .
Sincerely yours ,
~VERS~
Regional Forester
cc:
Gov. Geo D. Clyde
W Jay Garrett , Cache Chamber of Commerce
.
Pres . Dar.yl Chase , Utah State University
Mr. C. Taylor Burton , Director , Utah State Dept . of Highways
Mr. Harold S. Crane, Director , Utah State Dept . of Fish and Game
Mr. Grant E. Meyer , Division Engineer, Bureau of Public Roads
�
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/1743">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1743</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
199481223
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1132328 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Correspondence from Floyd Iverson to J. Whitney Floyd, December 4, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Floyd Iverson to J. Whitney Floyd, December 4, 1961 in response to the related decisions for Logan Canyon Highway construction project.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Iverson, Floyd
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Utah
United States
Ogden (Utah)
Weber County (Utah)
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 41.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/594fce30b8a3833c6ba7b464252d5ad6.pdf
b10342cc2c18507266d2f4fd4d12b8dc
PDF Text
Text
2 ; 1
r. C.
part
ar
I apprec
your letter d critique of ovem r 21
on a Conetr\lctio
- esou.rc Use. pp rently t
critioism of
ay admini tr tion.
0
our state
constru.
In
in the Lo
s~
nth re
Gran
sa
appl1
on ..
due -
ent .
�th prlnc1pl that the co t
protect
major eaources
normal 008
o road co tructi.on. I bellev the ar constructive and 80\Ul(1
t
co
end.ation does DOt imply a diversion of fun • Prevalent
philosophy 1. one of eoODOmy i Bbi hway use tf fun.
contend that
,n.D·~ay
ra ar not a 8
public. Collectively. they are t
peopl
who deriv a living. or eaaur t fro
. ource affec
by highway. "the
n fits to Q carmot be considered at the expen of t other. TIler
adeqUa proc
e t 1nclu
the courts. to protect prl
1Dtereat.
blie
intere8ts-- tural reaour "'-00 DOt enjoy similar protection.
reasons, the recomm ndatton
that t e coa of rotecUng re ources
.. oW be conald red a normal co t of hlghway conatrucUo.n.
I quite agree that our probl
sunderstandi.
iV1OU81, t
we are all inter. d in
1 r ¥ highway Y tem, with full conalde tlo of
all i
at t lncludln tutur resource use. It re
my hope that our statement furthers that abn.
Yours inc , ly,
Daryl
Pre
co: Governor George •
yde
'W~1nlJ
1dent
�
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/1742">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1742</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
382544874
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1326990 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Correspondence from Daryl Chase to C. Taylor Burton, November 25, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Daryl Chase to C. Taylor Burton, November 25, 1961. Response to the Road Constuction and Resource Use statement.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Chase, Daryl
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Burton, C. Taylor
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside Improvement--Utah
Logan (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Salt Lake City (Utah)
Salt Lake County (Utah)
Utah
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 38.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/238851ed4552ba90b978209440bd6208.pdf
dd6b2b7a7c204654ab81735005c4cdde
PDF Text
Text
(
The Forest Service PositionOp The Logan Canyon Highway
The Forest Service is deeply concerned with the protection of the tmportant
resources and uses in Logan Canyon.
Logan Canyon
i~
well recognized as one of the
choice recreation attractions in the Intermountain West.
It is widely known and
many people enjoy the fishing, cgmping, picnicking, and scenic -beauty of this
colorful area.
Many years ago Logan Canyon was accepted as a highway route between Logan
and Garden City--a
di~tance
of some 40 miles.
The original route through the
canyon was built prior to establishment · of the national forest.
Recognition of
the need for a better highway led to Forest Service approval of plans for the
State to construct the highway that now exists between the two points.
t~e pr~ry
Much of
road system throughout the national forests represents stmilarly
,
successful cooperative efforts between the Forest Servic·e and State and local
agencies.
Present and projected traffic indicates the need for reconstructing the road
to higher standards.
Trends in traffic, however, are paralleled by trends in use
and enjoyment of the canyon's recreational assets.
New highway construction in
this ltmited area poses serious conflict with the stregm, streamside vegetation,
and recreational values.
In 1959 approval to reconstruct the 4.2-mile section above Logan was granted
by the Forest Service with the realization that tpere would be same
on other public values in the canyon.
high-speed highway.
ma~or
impacts
The section now completed is a very fine,
However, the impact on the resource values has been great.
even though a yearlong permanent stream was not involved for same distance in this
section.
Wide clearing for the right-of-way has eliminated much vegetation that
contributed to scenic values and to sdil ;s tabilization along the river.
The river
�channel is practically a canal in same places, and fish habitat value has deteriorated.
The new highway, on the other hand, affords the traveler a better view
of the canyon walls.
The State Department of Highways' request for a per.mit to build the second
4.2-mile section of the new highway is of great concern to many interested people
and to the Forest Service because particularly
serio~s
~pacts
are involved.
Accordingly, Forest Service Administrators met last March out on-the-ground with
-
-
repres.entatives of the State Department of .Highways, the State Fish and Game
Department and the Bureau of Public Roads.
During this field review specific
measures to avoid the impact on the stream and streamside vegetation in a number
of places were discussed.
Again in June, . the groups represented at the March meeting and a representative of Utah State University met in Logan.
was discussed and then reviewed in the field.
lessen some of the
~pacts
The redesign of the proposed highway
The redesign included measures to
at an additional cost of about $100,000.
included shifting a l200-foot section of the roadway to save trees
These measures
an~
otper
vegetation in front of Guinavah Forest Camp; installing two culverts and a high ..
water bypass; and reducing streambank changes on channel encroachments throughout
the project by approximately 4560 feet.
The redesign, however, did not include
the additional measures discussed in the March field meeting which we believe are
reasonable considering ·the long-ter.m public benefits involved.
These measures
would cost an additional $126,925 and would el~inate several severe adverse
effects on the stream channel and bordering vegetation.
The Forest Service has made clear that the measures in question do not provide
for complete protection of the stream channel and recreation values in the critical
4.2-mile section of the highway under consideration.
-2-
A review of the situation
�shows that the Forest Service has accepted many
~pacts
on other values in the
i nt erest of constructing a good highway at reasonable cost.
the loss of
~portant
streamside vegetation for same 8,400 feet due to channel
encroachment and channel changes.
There are two major channel changes that i nvolve
the construction of same 900 feet of new channel.
we have accepted.
There will still be
These are among the
~pacts
which
A general engineering review of the cost 'of fully protecting
the 8,400 feet of streamside vegetation and avoiding the .ne:ed for the 900 feet of
new channel could, conservatively, raise the estimated construction cost by an
additional $325,000.
That portion of the highway route upstream from the 4.2-miles under cons i derat i on to approximately' Ricks Spring will also be difficult to coordinate with other
resources and uses.
This portion will likewise be expensive to copstruct.
The
route fram Ricks Spring to Garden City is in terrain that lends itself to easier
location, less conflict with resource values and lower construction costs.
The
present proposed new const.r uction and that portion on to Ricks Spring is the most
difficult part of the route to coordinate.
To do an acceptable job of coordi nation
in the best public interest will necessitate higher costs.
The additional cost of
$126,925 for the 4.2-mile section presently under consideration does not seem
excessive when considered as a portion of the 40-mile route from Logan to Garden
City.
The expenditure of these additional funds will help in preserving the i nherent
natural and near-natural aquatic environment of Logan River.
The Forest Service feels that the expenditure of these monies will
min ~i z e
adverse effects upon existing favorable fish pabitat by avoiding 1,210 feet of
channel .
Encroachments
pool structure, damage to
on the stream in these areas would result in loss of
na~ural
streambeds, and elilnination of desirabl e
-3-
�streamside vegetation.
In another location a 10-foot setback would save valuable
streambank vegetation and
el~inate
an additional 385 feet of channel encroachment.
The vegetation which exists along this total of 1,595 feet of streambank provides
much needed overstory stream cover and shade; it provides terrestrial insects and
other organisms to the water for trout food; it also provides streambank stabilization, and roots and branches that extend into the stream provide protective
cover and resting areas.
A recent fish habitat survey of this very popular and heavily-used fishing
stream by Forest Service technicians shows there are a
numb~r
of good pools and
numerous smaller pools formed by boulders, rock outcroppings, and streambank
vegetation within the proposed road construction areas.
Any encroachment on the
stream channel, removal of streamside vegetation or increased gradient resulting
in higher water velocity will cause shifts in streambed materials and adversely
affect the natural channel and the desirable pools that are now presento
Dr. C. J. D. Brown, a nationally recognized
~uthority
on trout streams,
made a very detailed study of Logan River in 1935 while a biologist with the
Uo So Bureau of Fisheries.
He reported that, "Probably the most undesirab le
physical condition existihgin the main Logan River from the point of view of
fisheries is the almost complete absence of good pools.
The Logan River has but ·
one or two good pools per mile, while the Blacksmiths Fork stream has 40 to 500
As already mentioned, the absence is a natural result of a steep gradient
flow of high velocity."
are generally good.
a~d
a
Dr. Brown also said, "Shade and cover in the Logan River
In many of the sections, it is very dense and affords an
excellent hideout for fish.
Those plants along the banks and the brushfalls in
the water should be carefully guarded."
We believe ' this' appraisal reflects present
day conditions.
-4-
�(
Dr. Brown's report emphasizes the suitability of the water of Logan River for
several species of trout, the abundance of
deficiency in good natural pools.
a~ilable
natural food, but a definite
The need, therefore, to protect as many as
possible of the pools that are present, both large and small, is essential to
-
maintaining suitable conditions for trout whether they are produced in the stream
itself or are hatchery reared.
In addition to the prevention of dwmage to the stream habitat for its
fisheries value, there is much public interest in preserving the natural
setting and aesthetics of this beautiful stream and canyon.
To do this will
require all feasible measures to maintain to the extent possible the natural
stream channel with its pools and riffles and native stream-bordering vegetation.
The concern of the Forest Service on this matter is shared by others.
recent report by a qtah State University group
~oncerning
The
the need to program
and finance resource protection in highway construction projects is an example.
That this will add to per mile construction costs is undeniable.
We believe the
costs entailed to accomplish this are both reasonable and justifiable.
Our decisions in matters of this kind must be based on the concept of
multiple use and sustained yield.
The authority for this goes back to the
Organic Act of June 4, 1897, and to the Multiple Use and Sustained Yield legislation enacted June 12, 1960.
The latter, Public Law 86-517, directs that
tangible as well as intangible values must be weighed and considered in management of national forest lands.
It is mandatory that Forest Service administrators
coordinate uses on these lands, exercising their best judgment in authorizing any
single use so that coordination is effected to the fullest practicable extent in
the best interest of all the American people.
-5-
�National forest administrators share everyone's interest in the construction
of a good highway at reasonable cost.
At the same
t~e,
the Forest Service is
charged with a major responsibility for coordinating highway construct.i on on'
national forest lands with other
~portant
values.
A highway in Logan Canyon
designed with obvious consideration for the locality's outstanding roadside and
stream values will be an endUring source of satisfaction.
FLOYD IVERSON
Regional Forester
Ogden, Utah -.
November 22, 1961
-6-
�
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/1741">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1741</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
1087038698
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
3963769 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
Forest Service Position on the Logan Canyon Highway
Description
An account of the resource
Six page essay regarding the Forest Service Position on the Logan Canyon Highway.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Iverson, Floyd
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Essays
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Ogden (Utah)
Weber County (Utah)
Utah
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 43.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/730c7ff3565bebe05f635dc8649be823.pdf
a1bf1c740a1843b8a72b0a2392ae6f00
PDF Text
Text
Whitney Floyd
MEXORANDUM TO:
Dean J.
FROM:
Jack H. Berryman
DATE:
November 28, 1961
SUBJECT:
statement on Road Construction' and Resource Use
I would not want to see this College or University embarrassed. In that
spirit I recommend we do not delete the reference to Logan Canyon in the introductory section as has been suggested. For the record, these are my reasons:
1. The statement has been released with the explanation that it
would be printed with only minor editorial change. It is in the
hands of the press and agencies. It must have been duplicated
and circulated widely J as we have requests from allover the
country. It is now in page proof.
2. The reference to Logan Canyon has been quoted widely. Its
deletion would be noticed immediately and interpreted as a back
down. This would reflect adversely upon the University, damage
the cause we wish to serve and undermine the position of the
U. S. Forest Service.
3. The sentence is true. Damage was done. This can be authenticated. The Logan Can.ron road did stimulate our project. It
is the focal point and in future years will give added meaning
to the statement.
4.
Our supporters -- the state press (in fact everyone but the
Highway Department and the Cache Chamber) would be keenly disappointed i f they learned we yielded on this point.
,. We have already deleted every other reference to utah and
corrected an acreage figure that was misleading. We have assured
the ' Governor, the Chamber, the agenCies and the press that we favor
completion of the project.
6.
The passage referred to is introductory.
can only mean that we hit tlpay dirt".
The keen interest
There are other good reasons. Suffice it to say, I think we are not being
unreasonable. To modify the sentence might well be our undoing. I am fearful
a change would be used against us in the press.
�
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/1740">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1740</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
2811633907
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
808119 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
Memorandum from Jack Berryman to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Memorandum from Jack Berryman to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961. Notes on changes to the Road Construction and Resource Use statement.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Berryman, Jack H.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
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 40.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/a40a5469ae54d18b64fe4f27a077fda6.pdf
3c61b4c07b8fbf68533b46b9a7e13747
PDF Text
Text
(
WHAT SHOULD WE BUY WITH THE HIGHWAY USER ' S DOLLAR?
What should we buy with the highway user ' s dollar ?
u***
road buil d i ng
is an important activity, having far-reaching impacts upon people a nd resourc e
use."l
This is a statement which I personally endorse , and which I am s ure
expresses the opinion of the citizens of this State, not only as ev id e nc ed by
the creation of a State Road Commission in 1909, but also as evidenc ed by a c ts
of the Territorial Government in highway matters practically from the instant
of c olon ization by our pioneers.
It is also an opinion, which I am
sure ~
is
not unique to this State , nor is it recent in origin, as evidenced by national
legislation in the highway field, the most notable being the creation of the
Bureau of Public Roads and the continued interest of our elected
representa~
tives in good highways by the continued enactment of : Federal-aid to highways
1egis1ation o
I can concur with the statement that the College of Forest, Range and
Wildlife Management has a keen interest and responsibility
i~
the philosophy
of land and resource use, but I cannot and will not accept the inference in
your Committee's report that the Utah State Road Commission, and its Highway
. Department, has no interest except in the engineering concepts of highway
design and construction, and has made no
effor~
to determine economy and
social needs in the location and design of our State highways.
last five years, we have
spent ' ~lmost
thre~
million dollars
During t he
($2,821 ~ 910 . 00 )
through our Research Department, in-. cooperation with the U. S . Bureau of Public
Roads, and have sought the assistance of several consulting engi neering firms
of national reputation, as well as the University of Utah and the Utah St a t e
1Dary1 Chase , President , Utah State University
�(
- 2 -
University, in studying social and economic needs for the improvement to
existing highways and the location of new highways.
direct expenditures of the State Highway Department.
This represents only
It does not include the
cost to national organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences ,
National Research Council, Highway Research Board, Automotive Safety Foundation,
American Association of State Highway Officials, and the Bureau of Public
for special studies on the national level.
Roads ~
These studies, as well as numerous
studies by other states and private engineering groups, findings of which where
applicable~
are being used as guides in our own highway policies.
It must be remembered that the State Road Commission and its operational
arm, the State Highway· Department, were created by acts of the State
~~gislature
and charged with certain responsibilities relating to highway matters.
As
such, its primary responsibility is to all of the citizens of this State and
is not limited to the small interests of special groups.
that the Commission has a
clos~d
This is not to infer
mind to the opinions and recommendations of
any economic, social, or geographical representation; but, in the final
analysis, it must be
re ,~ognized
that the Commission action is a matter of
judgement bas,e d .on the studies which have been made, in which such suggestions
must be evalu?ted in terms of maximizing road-user benefits and minimizing
road-user cost.
That such judgement is not arbitrary or capricious is borne
out by the amount 'of money spent on research to develop facts upon which
sensible decisions may be made for the orderly development of roads
and highways in the State of Utah.
on the type of generalities as
3
streets~
These studies are factual and not based
e~emplified
in the statement that
"')h'd c
the
new Federal Highway program alone requires 30 acres per mile of highwayo
will consume the equivalent of 11,000 Utah farms of 160 acres each."
It
It is
a matter of simple arithmetic, assuming that each mile of the Federal-aid
�- 3 -
Interstate System did take out of production 30 acres of land , that this
would be the equivalent of only 175 of Utah farms of 160 acres each, not
11,000 farms.
As a matter of fact, over one-third (328.4 miles) of this
highway is being built on the existing location.
Also, as a matter of fact,
many miles of this highway being built ' on the 605.2 miles of new loc a t ion are
being constructed on land which is not productive farm land or even grazing
land-~at
least I haven't seen much vegetation on the Salt Flats between Wendover
and Knolls.
The 1959 farm census indicates a total of 16,543 crop land units
of all sizes in the 29 Utah
routes.
Counties~
- There are 16 counties with interstate
The crop land units of all classes for these counties account for
10 , 637 units of the State total of
1,.2J~ , ?19 /w~
I
.
It, therefore , appears tha t
a deliberate attempt to mislead has been made in the Committee's report.
Less
than 10 per cent of the Interstate mileage on new location affects in any
degree productive farm acreage.
acres per
mi1e~
the t otal
a~reage
Assuming the 10 per cent to t .a 1 did c onsume 30
affected would be only
1 ~ 800
acres.
Using
the Committee's figure of 160 acres per unit, this would resul t in only 11.25
units rather than the
11 ~ 000 ~tated. .
If I wanted to generalize instead of
waiting for the factual da t a which will be developed from the American Fork
Impact Study being researched by There1 R.
~lack,
Department of Sociol ogy, and
Vernon Lo Israe1sen , Department of Economics, of the Utah St a t e
University ~
which I am confident will substantiate the generality , I could say that the
resulting economic benefits to the farm units
adjacen ~
to the Intersta t e
System, by providing greater utility from the improved transportation fa c ili t y,
will far outweigh any social-economic loss occasioned by tJe withd r awal of
such a meager productive acreage.
The me t hod by which the bes t of several
possible locations for highway improvements is determined , the Benefit-Cost
Ratio, assures that the minimum in land value compatab1e with highway se r vice
�(
- 4 and construction costs will be selected for final route location.
By inference the Highway Department is blamed in your Committee's report
for the roadside or fringe type of development that has, in some instances
in the past, followed the construction of a highway, especially on new
locations.
This is not a new problem to the Road
was recognized a long time ago.
Commission~
and its existence
It was a problem that was also recognized by
the State Legislature with the enactment of the Limited Access
permits the Highway Department to limit or control access.
Law~
which
For obvious economic
reasons such action has usually been limited to construction on new location.
The Highway Department never has had authority to zone or restrict land-use
on private land.
Actually, adequate legislation is already provided for local
government sqch as the cities and
count~es~
to provide such control by zoning
ordinances.
Such a statement as "These frequently become the sites for
junkyards~
shoddy developments, and other land~wasting areas" can only be refuted in
general, becc;tuse "frequen t ly" it is hardly measurabo
le
mile, one per 10
miles~
one per 100
~iles? :' O~~
0
Does !it mean one per
unfamiliar with Utah's high-
ways would receive the impression that our more than 6,000 miles of State
highways
~re
lined from State bqrder to State border with these conditions.
This is h~rdly ' a fact~ but even , if it were, it is beyond the legal ability
of the State Highway Department to control.
I agree that "BasicallY3 highways serve a strictly utilitarian
their function is to get people o nd materials
a
fr~m
one , place to
purpose-~
another~'t'~('~'(',"
and I adm:i t, in fact, I am proud of the progress : that has been made in this
State in providing highways to serve this basic need, but I believe the
responsibility of the Road Commission is first to provide for this basic need
and then to consider aesthetic values in terms of cost.
In the past it has
�- 5 -
been proven that Utah has not had sufficient funds to even adequately supply
these basic needs, let alone provide for aesthetic values with construction
dollars.
However, I would like to point out that when the funds are available,
as in the case of the Interstate System , that due consideration has been given
to landscaping and rest
areas~
and selection of highway loca ti on where extra
cost would not be excessive, that would preserve the natural beauty as far as
possible--for example, the ' Interstate location through Silver Creek Canyon
where the design provides for minimizing the cuts and fills by letting the
creek itself be the traffic barrier rather than a four - lane shelf with an
artificial median.
The accusation has been made , and I quote, "Rarely has the impact upon
I
land-use and human population distributions received adequate attention."
Of
courses I don ! t know just what measure this Committee had in mind when they
said "Adequate".
Surely , t hey must be aware that the Utah Sta t e University
had been employed to make an impact study on the effect of the Interstate
Highway in American Fork and that this study was designed to serve as a model
to mea sure such impact on the 19 urban areas of similar popula ti on size.
Perhaps they can be excused , because the Road Commission does not seek publicity
through
sensa t ionalism~
for not knowing the Road Commission has spent about a
half million dollars, in cooperation with the local planning agencies of Salt
Lake City and County, Davis County, and Bountiful ' in which economic and social
factors~
in terms of
land-use~
are a major part of this research project , or
that work has already been initiated to carry this same field of research into
North Davis and Weber Count i es and is planned for the Utah County area o
The
total area under study inc l ud es approximately 75 per cent of the population of
this State.
Also, our work program for the period July
l ~
through 1962
initiates the beginning phase of a St ate -wide Transportation Study in the
�(
- 6 -
economic--including land-use--and social factors with relation to the total network of highways without reference to administrative system, to be coupled with
a fiscal study to be related to over-all highway needs.
Perhaps it is redundant to comment again about the accusation that "the
Highway Department has in effect become the land-use planning
without personnel competent in the many
~sp~cts
of land-use."
agency~
generally
I again wish to
emphasize that land-use planning is not a responsibility of the State Highway
Department, but at the present time is the prerogative of the local governmental
agencies; I also wish to emphasize again that the study of land-use, both
existing and planned, is a part of the State Highway Department's field of
investigation, and that advice and cooperati'on of the local planning agencies
are sought not only informally but py fQ~mal contracts in many instances.
In the field of highway literature reports replete ,with research studies
and information in this field are constantly being used ' as reference material
by the Highway Department, and are also available for the information and
instruction of your Committee o
I am including a bibliography of some of the
more recent and more important reports in this field.
Many of the criticisms containeq in the Committee's report are so
vague and of such a general nature that they hardly warrant item by item
attention.
Such statements as "these frequently have an adverse effect,1t
"this may spread," "many engineers," (highway engineers?)
are examples of
what I have in mind.
Basically, I believe that our problem is one of misunderstanding rather
than disagreement.
Without question, all of the items ,mentioned in your
Committee's report merit consideration, but in the final analysis, the
cost ~
in terms of highway user ,'s dollars, of providing all of the remedies recommended
by your Committee must be evaluated in terms of the existing and potential
highway needs, and economic and social loss to society resulting from long
�(
(
- 7 -
delay in providing needed highway construction compared to the loss which may
result by not complying with recommendations in your special and limited field
of interesto
The Highway Department is the custodian for the highway user's
tax dollars to the extent that the Legislature has seen fit to make this
source of revenue available to it, and its primary responsibility is c learly
defined in the State Code.
In the final ' analysis, what your Commit t ee advocates
is the diversion of the highway user's tax dollar to non-highway use and the
assurance that such diversion will take place by the creation of a dictatorial
group separate and distinct from the highway engineering field with powers to
arbitrarily dictate and enforce such diversion o
At the same t ime we recognize
the needs" and desires of the segments of socie ty which may be benefit ted or
adversely affec t e d by highway improvements and construc tion.
However ~
we
firmly believe that t he proc edures are already established for hearing and
considering the objections ,a nd recommendations of these groups, bu t we still
maintain that we have
dec isions
that~
right. in the field of highway matters t o make those
th~
in ou r op i nion 9 and as directed by St ate
legislatiori ~
be~ t
serve the public good .
nt
I would like to make an addi tional comme_ or two to reply to each one
of the four recommenda t ion s of y pur Committee:
(1 )
We are already making use of the special t alen t s of Utah ' s universi-
ties, and we
Highway
believe ~
Departmen t~
c onsidering the amount of money available to the Sta t e
t ha t we have an exc ellent research program; for reasons of
flexibili t y an over - all highway research program should r ema.in under t he
jurisdiction of the St a t e Highway Depar t ment o
(2 )
There is
alrea~y
Federal and
S t at~ legislatioh~
requiring coordin =
,
ation of certain agencies.
Perhaps more is
needed ~
bu t in any event , there
must be some authority resp onsible for making final decisions o
I can ' t ~elp
�(
- 8 -
but wonder how the Board of Regents and the University administrators would
react to a suggestion that all of their decisions would be subject to review
and confirmation including the final decision for funding and expenditure of
the University's educational dollars by self-selected groups with little
knowledge of academic problems and procedures who might have some interes t
in the research and graduates.
(3)
We believe that the authority to review and reject highway design
proposals can best be accomplished under the presently established Road
Commission and Highway Department, just as we believe that the ' aims of the
College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management of the Utah St ate University
can best be served by personnel who have the education, training, and experience
in this specialized field
(4)
o
Legislative recognition of this recommendation is the prerogative
of the duly elected representatives of the people, but if such legislation
were enacted, would be the responsibility of the. State Highway -Department.
�(
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1 0 Arizona Highway Department, "Economic Impact o'f the Proposed Interstate
Program in the Phoenix Area, 1957.
2 0 Better Roads, "Planning Is Essential for Orderly Development, July 1961, pp . 28 .
3.
California Highways and Public Works, "Planning" Volumn 39, November-December,
1960, Numbers 11 and 12, page 40 .
4.
Colorado Department of Highways, "Economic · Impact Study '1, Planning and
Research Division, October 1958 .
5 0 Harrison, ·J oseph ·W. ) Highway Ee01:lOmi:-sc-, ·J'ffieon-omi-c · E-ff·eets ef-:. · Limi ted Aecess
Highway and By-pass, University of Virginia, 1956 .
6.
Highway Research Board, Special Report No . ·28, "Economic Impact of Highway
Improvement, Publication 541 . 1957 - :S~ssion I - The impact of Highway
Improvement on Land Val, es . .- Session II - Impac t of ..Highway Improvement
u
on Land Use .
7*
Highway Research Boa17d, I'Fo.r e.castin;g. f<;lr
7 6,6 .
8.
Highway Research Board, "Highway and Economic · Development", Bulletin 227,
~ublication 687, 1959 ~
.Hi$hw~ys",
Bulletin 257, Publication
9 0 Highway Research Board, "Highway Needs .a nd Programming Priori tie- ,
s"
Bulletin 249, Publication 7.38, t960 .
10 .
Highway Research Board, Highway Needs StlJdy, 1957, Bulletin No . 158,
Publication 497 .
11.
Highway Research_~oard, "HigJ::lway Needs ' StudieS. - 1958", Bulletin No . 194
Publication 620 . _
12 .
Highway Research Board,
13
Highway Rese a rch Board, "Highway Planning", Bulletin No . 31, 1950 0
;
"H~.ghway
Planning II , Bulletin No . 17 , 1948 .
I
0
1·4 .
Highway Research Board, "Highway Planning and Urban Development", Bulletin
64, Publication 249 0
15 .
Levin, David R, "The Highway Interchange and Its Adjacent Land Use",
1960 Proceedings, Institute · of Traffic Engineers, Department No . 6, pp . 232 .
l6 ~
Lovoca, Phyllis, "New Roads Proving An Economic Boon", Highwa:r Highlights,
November-December 1960, page ; i2 '~
17 0 Highway Research Board, "Roadside Development - 1957", Publication 496 .
18 .
Highway Research Board, "Roadside Development", Bibliography No . 26,
Annotated, 1960 .
�I
I
(
19.
Highway Research Board, "Some Economic · Effects of Highway Improvement ft ,
Bulletin 67, Publication 256, 1953.
20.
Highway Research Board, "Some Evaluations of Highway Improvement Impacts",
Bulletin No. 268, Publication 801.
21.
Stanhayen, William H., "Highway Interchanges and Land Use Controls",
Highway and Land Administration, Chief Laws, Research Project.
22.
Stewart, C. L., "Farm Land Values as Affected by ' Road Type and Distance",
Journal of Farm Economics, 1936, page 724 to 735.
23.
Taylor, Maurice C., "The Beneficiaries of Highways and Their Responsibility "
Associate Professor, Agricultural Experimental Experiment State, Montana
State College, Bozeman, Montana.
24.
Taylor, Maurice C., and Infanger, Carl ton A., "Benefi ts From Highway
Development - User and Non-uset!', Department of Agricul ture and Economics
and Rural Sociology, Montana State College, Bozeman, Montana.
25.
Zettel, Richard M., "Effect of Limited Access Highway on Property and
Business Values", Institute .of Transportation and Traffic Engineering,
University of California, 1953.
This bibliography represents only a very minor portion of the research projects and studies that have been conducted in this field that are available for
reference.
�
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/1739">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1739</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
1811700847
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
6645141 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
What should we buy with the highway user's dollar?
Description
An account of the resource
Essay detailing the importance of road building. Includes bibliography.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Chase, Daryl
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Essays
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1960-1969
1970-1979
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 37.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/48c2d3ff0b4bc974e359d0c041d99fe6.pdf
f2be8d23559be5f5901d72a334c16183
PDF Text
Text
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
INTERMOUNTAIN
REGION
ADDR E SS REPLY TO
REGIONAL FORESTER
FOREST SERVICE BUILDIN G
AND REFER TO
OGDEN, UTAH
November 28, 1961
Whitney Floyd, Dean
College of Forest, Range and
Wildlife Management
Utah State University
Logan, Utah
J
0
Dear Whit:
Because of your interest in the protection of the multiple resources of the
national forests, we are enclosing a position statement and clipsheet of
news items and editorial comment that we believe will be of interest to you.
The Logan Canyon Highway construction project in Utah raises an important
and basic issue that involves these resources on the Cache National Forest.
Logan Canyon is known throughout America as a major scenic attraction. The
beauty of Logan River and the fine trout fishing and recreation it provides
have similar renown.
The Forest Service recognizes the significant contribution to resource
protection that the highway engineers have made through modification of the
original design for this project . However, after very careful study by
qualified individuals representing a number of different profeSSions, we
have determined that additional changes are needed to meet minimum requirements for protection of scenic and fisheries valueso The decision has
therefore been made to insist that these modifications be incorporated in
the highway design as a condition for the issuance of a permit for highway
construction through these national forest lands.
Our purpose in furnishing this information to you is to insure full recognition of the basic issues at stake in this case. Among public land managers
and conservationists throughout the country there is growing awareness of the
adverse resource and scenic impacts of highway construction. Especially is
this the case when the approach has typically reflected a philosophy of single
rather than multiple use. The basic conflict is brought to focus in Logan
Canyon.
�Whether the threat be from road construction, as in this case, excessive
livestock use, big game numbers beyond the capacity of the range to support,
or fire, the end result is the same. Deterioration of the vegetation, loss
of soil and destruction of mountain streams is too great a price to pay.
Under a sound multiple-use approach the resources of Logan Canyon can be
protected.
The Logan Canyon Highway should be improved to meet present day traffic
requirements on this section of the Federal aid primary system in Utah.
(Fbr this project the proportionate cost share is 18% Federal and 22% State
funds.) Improvement, however, cannot be allowed to result in resource impacts
that can reasonably be avoided. An informed public, alert to the need for
protection of the basic resources of public lands, will not allow this to
happen - - - in Logan Canyon, or elsewhere in America.
Sincerely yours,
E. M. BACON
Assistant Regional Fbrester
Division of Information
and Education
-2-
�
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/1738">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1738</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
213426992
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1198108 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Correspondence from Bill Bacon to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Bill Bacon to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961 about the Logan Canyon Highway.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Bacon, E. M.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
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 42.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/9aa1280be89237a13f9591db6dd2d875.pdf
a408900cd28142b60b49fe0e04150b56
PDF Text
Text
Jan
ry 24 , 1962
Mr. John B. F k , C ' airm n
State oad Commission
300 West Pr ton Stre t
Baltimore ,
ryland
Dear Mr _
nk-
At .th r q st of Mr . Ern st A. V ughn of he
ryla
stat Gam and Inland Fish Commi si n we dr s n ing you
copy of our bulletin entitl
IIR d Construction and
esource Us
II
We hop
it will b
of int r est to you.
Sincerely yours ,
J. Whitn y F oyd , D an
College of For st, Range ,.
and wildlife anag m nt
ep
�
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/1737">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1737</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
35046581
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
525981 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to John Funk, January 24, 1962
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to John Funk, January 24, 1962 regarding the Road Construction and Resource Use statement.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Funk, John B.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Baltimore (Maryland)
Maryland
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 4.pdf
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/333431b145713a118e251437bf624e46.pdf
c2b98e11075f7615db0446dbe27a9e5b
PDF Text
Text
November 25, 1961
OPEN LETTER TO :
Mr. C. Taylor Burton , Director, Utah State De pt. of Highways
Mr. Harold S. Crane, Direct or, Utah State Dept . of Fish and Game
Mr. Floyd Iverson, Regional Fore 3ter, U. • Forest Service
f~r. Gran t E. Meyers, Division Engineer, Bureau of Public Roads
The College of Forest , Range and W
ildlife Management of Utah State
University recently issued a statement on Road Construction and Resource
Use. The statement has been closely associated with the road controversy
in Logan Canyon. As a consequence , the committee responsible for its
preparation has been asked by the Cache Chamber of Commerce to intercede
in an effort to bring an end to an apparent impasse among the agencies
involved.
The statement and all previous actions of the committee have dealt
with principles of broad application - - Lagan Canyon and elsewhere_ The
Lagan Canyon controversy existed long before the statement was issued.
The committee assumes full responsibility for proposing an d supporting
principles of good land use. It cannot, however , involve itself in administrative decisions nor assume responsibility for those decisions
Obviously , the road in Logan Canyon should be completed. W
hether
it is completed, and the nature of construction is the responsibility of
the agencies involved . Completion" satisfactory to all concerned, would
be of credit to those agencies and of benefit to the greatest number of
Utah ' s citizens
We feel the only way we can intercede is to express the hope that
the agencies legally charged with responSibility in these matters will
find a solution -- a satisfactory design ., adequate finanCing, with minimum
damage to the natural resourc es affected
The Committee :
Jack H. Berryman , Chairman
J. Whitney Floyd
Arthur D. Smith
John M Newhold
.
Frank W Kearns
.
cc - Gov. Geo . D. Clyde
w J~y Gar rett, Chacha Chamber of Commerce
.
Pres . Daryl Chase
For the Committee
Very truly yours~
J. Whitney Floyd , Dean
�
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/1736">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1736</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
1499353227
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
759405 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
Open Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd, November 25, 1961
Description
An account of the resource
Open letter to C. Taylor Burton, Harold S. Crane, Floyd Iverson, and Grant Meyers referencing the College of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Management of Utah State University and the Road Construction and Resources Use statement.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Floyd, J. Whitney
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Burton, C. Taylor
Iverson, Floyd
Crane, Harold S.
Meyers, Grant E.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Highway 89
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
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 39.pdf