1
50
26
-
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/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/a6f8eba6dfcdab936c4b8e8f44d9b7f2.jpg
3f5ff29336a140711e2a0d679ac310f4
Still Image
A static visual representation. Examples include paintings, drawings, graphic designs, plans and maps. Recommended best practice is to assign the type Text to images of textual materials.
Where else is this found?
Give the URL for the item, if it is in another respository (like CONTENTdm)
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/256">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/256</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, 8-bit RGB, at 600 dpi. Archival file is uncompressed TIFF (600 dpi)
display file is JPEG2000
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2011-11-02
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
Scenic view of Wood Camp Hollow, Logan Canyon, Utah
Description
An account of the resource
Scenic view of Wood Camp Hollow, Logan Canyon. Black and white photograph (3.5 x 5 in)
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Daniel, Theodore W.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Wood Camp Hollow (Logan Canyon, Utah)--Photographs
Landscape photography--Utah--Wood Camp (Logan Canyon)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Black and white photographs
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Wood Camp Hollow (Utah)
Logan Canyon (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, Ted W. Daniel Photograph Collection, 1892-1997, P0373 02:23:04
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
Inventory for the Ted W. Daniel photograph collection can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv25793">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv25793</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Ted W. Daniel Photograph Collection, 1892-1997, P0373
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
P037322304bw
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
1990
Date Modified
Date on which the resource was changed.
1905-06-12
Is Version Of
A related resource of which the described resource is a version, edition, or adaptation. Changes in version imply substantive changes in content rather than differences in format.
Logan Canyon Reflections
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/91e61dc0555f897d10dba4364baaf240.pdf
4eec5595213a1f9f35fd24924957e33f
PDF Text
Text
HIGHWAY 89 MEETING:
Update:
4/12/90
* JVH is testifying on April 26th to the
Appropriations Committee
- we will push for whatever the consensus is
from local elected officials
- work with UDOT to come up with the proposal
*
Easier to get money for interstate, but will
seek demonstration money otherwise
*
Generally, particularly on highway projects, the
authorization process is waived - if you have
appropriations fund the project, you don't need
authorization
*****************************************
state's top priority is improvements on Highway 89. But, they
don't have the money to do it.
Seeking federal funds could be a
way around it.
If the state puts up stoplights in anticipation of an
expressway, development could occur at those intersec tions, making
an expressway more unlikely.
Alternatives:
1. Freeway (part of interstate system) - $120 mil. federal
funds.
2. Expressway - $85 mil.
3. If no federal funds, try special appropriations from state
in yearly budgets.
Findlay's Recommendations:
1. Best chance - freeway.
may be opposed.
But Federal Highway Administration
2. Next best - expressway.
3. He does not recommend traffic signals. Safety considerations
and development around lights make it least desirab le.
�Problems:
Farmington:
- Freeway could kill Foxglove Shopping Center.
- Farmington doesn't want to put a monkey wrench
into progress of freeway or expressway if they
don't have to.
- Is there a way to go for expressway money first,
then try for interstate funds?
- Can the Farmington Junction interchange come south
to mitigate business losses?
Fruit Heights:
- Citizens not sure about freeway concept.
education could change that.
More
Actions:
*
There was a consensus to use appropriated state funds for the
EIS instead of lights at 2nd north in Fruit Heights.
*
Farmington will try to get together with road engineers
(including Sen. Craig Petersen)
*
Gene Findlay will be back in touch later to see which
alternative we should pursue.
�Highway 89 Meeting:
3/22/90
Among those attending:
Robert DeBoer, Wasatch Regional Council
Craig Peterson, state Senate
Sam Taylor, Chairman - Transportation Commission
Mayor Layton, Layton city
Bob Dibblee, Senator Garn
Dave Porter, Senator Hatch
Mayor of Syracuse
Gene Findlay, UDOT
****************
Transportation Commission comments:
*
*
*
*
*
*
Feels comfortable with limited expressway.
Would like to see federal demonstration project
money pursued.
Concerned with residential encroachment on highway.
Agreed to sign letter with Transportation Commission's
endorsement of the project.
Timing for project:
- 18-24 months for EIS study
- 1 year design period
Would be agreeable to designate money to start
implementation of EIS to speed timing. (Total EIS
would cost around $500,000)
What is happening with cut across HAFB?
�Highway 89 study
The study recommends an expressway-type
access for the Hwy. 89 corridor.
design
wi th
limi ted
Alternatives:
A.
NO ACTION
* will not accomodate the forecast traffic volumes when
the surrounding area is completely urbanized
B.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM MANAGEMENT
* no major investment, low cost improvements to the
existing roadway system to improve flow including:
-
improved acceleration/deceleration lanes
standardized median treatment
channelized movements at intersections
climbing lanes
selected access closure
* will not solve all the problems identified with the
existing roadway
C.
FREEWAY DESIGN ALTERNATIVE
* three to four lanes in each direction
* full interchanges approx. every two miles between 1-15
and 1-84, grade separated crossings
* cross traffic required to use interchanges, ramps
will need two lanes
* redesign of the 1-84 interchange
D.* LIMITED ACCESS EXPRESSWAY DESIGN WITH INTERCHANGES
* varies from Freeway Design by permitting right-in/rightout access to US 89 at selected cross streets
* two-way frontage roads
* three through lanes in each direction and two to three
lanes on cross streets
* also assumes redesign of the 1-84 interchange
E.
LIMITED ACCESS EXPRESSWAY DESIGN WITH SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
* modifies the above by the use of signals at 12 major
cross streets. Right-in/right-out access permitted at
selected streets, but no left turns or cross movements
are permitted except at the signalized intersections.
�* D. is the recommended study alternative. "This limited access
expressway design would have limi ted impact on the existing
frontage road system and adjacent street network and woul provide
a high level of service and safety while permitting expressway
speeds
would have minimal adverse impact on the adj acent
communities."
�
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/1705">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1705</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
3803785234
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
2321976 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
Highway 89 meeting minutes, March 22, 1990 and April 12, 1990
Description
An account of the resource
Highway 89 meeting minutes, March 22, 1990 and April 12, 1990 discussing the possible solutions to the problems faced by Farmington and Fruit Heights with the current U. S. Highway 89.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Findlay, Gene
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roads--Design and construction
Roads Improvement--Utah
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1990-03-22
1990-04-12
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Farmington (Utah)
Davis 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, Papers of Congressman James V. Hansen, 1970-2003, COLL MSS 351 Series I Box 85
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138</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
MSS351SerIBx85_Item_5.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/b3d77f928b392c419f19e10c8cf60e28.pdf
a141affb023f955461494ecabc4f4f5b
PDF Text
Text
TESTIMONY OF REP. JAMES V. HANSEN
BEFORE THE TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMITTEE
OF THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
APRIL 26, 1990
Mr. Chairman, in addition to my oral presentation
before the committee, I appreciate the opportunity I have to
submit this written statement for the committee record.
On behalf of the constituents of the First District
of Utah I am asking along with leaders from the state of Utah
for $85,000,000 for the completion of upgrading
u.s.
89
to a
limited access expressway design.
The reasons that we have come before the committee
to seek funding for
u.s.
89, between Burke Lane in
Farmington, Utah, and Harrison Boulevard in Weber County,
utah, are that the highway is excessively dangerous, the
volume of traffic is too large for the size of the highway,
and the local and state governments simply can/t afford to
pay for the upgrade of
u.s.
89.
U.S. 89 is located along the Wasatch Front in the
north-central part of Utah.
It functions as a transportation
link between Salt Lake city, Ogden, Hill Air Force Base, and
the surrounding area.
traffic.
I~
is a
It serves both local and commuter
designa~ed
route connecting Interstates 84
and 15 and is one of the only two north/south routes through
Weber and north Davis Counties.
As a young boy growing up in the area, I remember
riding my bicycle up this road.
The area was little more
�than fruit orchards and rural farm land.
since that time,
the area surrounding the road has developed into one of
Utah's fastest growinq population centers.
Traffic has
increased along the corridor approximately 135 percent since
This traffic increase has resulted from both an
1970.
increase in commuter traffic on
u.s.
89 and increased local
traffic traveling on and across the corridor.
OVer twenty years ago, the emerging safety and
conqestion problems of u.s.
89 were recognized, and the state
of utah petitioned for federal money to develop the road
an interstate.
that
into
The application was not approved because, at
time, the population and the traffic volumes on the road
did not meet Federal Highway Administration standards.
Since the recognition of the problem in the 1960 / s,
the population and traffic volumes have increased to make
u.s.
89 one of the most dangerous roads in the state.
Before
being elected to Congress, I served as an independent
insurance agent in the area, and
u.s.
paid the most out to those injured on
89 was always where I
u.s.
89.
I can/t begin
to enumerate on the number of deaths and serious accidents I
bad to attend to alonq this twelve mile stretch of road.
As
I speak to my constituents at home and in conversing with my
neighbors, I don't know of anyone who has not had a personal
friend or ' relative injured or killed because of U.S. 89.
To outline the situation,
u.s.
89 divides the
communities of Farmington, Fruit Heights, Kaysville, and
Layton.
The portions of these cities surrounding the highway
�are completely residential.
Over 125 streets and private
drives have access to the highway.
Presently, we have cars
turning left on and off of the road, and, with no controlled
access, you can ima9ine the safety implications.
While the
number of accidents are not abnormal for this type of road,
the heavy congestion and cross traffic have caused the number
of fatalities to be more than four times the normal rate.
To add to the problem, the highway is a major
connection route for trucks and automobile traffic between
Interstate 84 and Interstate 15.
There exists an alternate
route to using Interstate 84, but the severe 6% grades that
exist on I-80 through Parley's Canyon make using 1-84 the
logical route.
problem.
Heavy truck use has been a major safety
Requiring a truck going 55 mph to stop for a car
turninq left onto the highway is an obvious threat to
safety.
At the expense of over $100,000, a study was
conducted to find a solution to the problem.
The wasatch
Front Regional Council and the Utah Department of
Transportation initiated the
u.s.
89 Corridor study in
response to the operational and safety issues of the
Corridor.
The study included a comprehensive analysis of the
existing and future travel demands along
u.s.
89 and
concluded that the best solution is a limited access
expressway design.
Throughout the course of the study, local and state
opinion has been sought.
I am happy to say that at every
�level we have received support for the limited access
All local leaders responsible for cities
expressway design.
along the corridor have signed a petition of support.
In
addition, Governor Norman Bangerter, Senator Orrin Hatch, and
Senator 3ake Garn have expressed their strong support for the
highway_
According to other additional studies that have
been conducted, the cost for the federal government to solve
the problem by establishing an interstate would cost upwards
of
$l~O,OOO,ooo.
The estimated cost for the limited access
expressway design is $85,000,000.
Presently, the state of
Utah simply lacks the ability to fund the highway.
The Utah
State Department of Transportation estimates that given its
present level of funding, it would take well over 15 years to
finish the projeet.
The safety and congestion problems
continue to mount, and, if we do not move quickly, we will be
faced with further loss of life.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would like to
reiterate my support for the effort of the state of Utah to
obtain $85 million to upgrade U.S. 89 in utah.
The safety
and congestion problems have become enormous and with a
growing population the situation will only get worse.
you again for permitting this testimony.
Thank
�
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/1704">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1704</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
957591067
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
2238173 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
Testimony of Representative James V. Hansen before the transportation subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, April 26, 1990
Description
An account of the resource
Testimony of Representative James V. Hansen before the transportation subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, April 26, 1990, requesting funding for US 89 to alleviate the traffic congestion in more rural areas along the highway.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hansen, James V.
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roads Improvement--Utah
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1990-04-26
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.
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, Papers of Congressman James V. Hansen, 1970-2003, COLL MSS 351 Series I Box 85
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138</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
MSS351SerIBx85_Item_4.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/a3440fd76ae443b84495ffd7e8ea6a02.pdf
6ed807dc8dd185f886f381bad84c6c68
PDF Text
Text
I -
7
/
TESTIMONY OF CONGRESSMAN JAMES V. HANSEN
BEFORE THE TRANSPORTATION SUBCOMMITTEE
OF
THE
HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE
May 6, 1993
Chairman Carr
l
distinguished members of the Subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity I have to appear
Subcommittee.
b~fore
the
On behalf of the constituents of the First
District of Utah I am asking along with leaders from the state
of Utah for $73,600,000 for the continuation of completion of
upgrading U.S.
89 and $3,600,000 for the completion of a new
interchange on Interstate 15 (1-15).
The U.s. Highway B9 route extends approximately 12
mil~s
between the cities of Farmington and ogden.
Not only
does it provide the principal lihk between major Interstates
and these cities, but it is the main lina of transportation
between many smaller communities und their markets and
suppliers.
AdditionallYI
it is a principal connection between
a major Air FOrce installation, Hill Air Force Base, and the
rest of the country.
Last year Congress appropriated $2,400,000 to
continue conducting initial studies and engineering.
Th~
$2,400,000 is an initial portion of a larger, multi-year
appropriation initially requested by myself,
former Senator
�Jake Garn and Senator Orrin Hatch.
This project has been authorized through the Highway
Reauthorization Bill but for far less than is neQded to
complete the project.
The reasons that I have come before the
Committee to seek continued funding for U.S. 89, ·are that the
concerns with the highway continue to mUltiply as the highway
is excessively dangerous, the volume of traffic is too large
fer the size of the highway, and the local and state
governments simply cannot afford to pay for the upgrade of U.S.
89.
I am also asking that the committee appropriate
$3/000/000 for the completion of a new interchange on 1-15 at
Forest st. in Brigham City, utah.
Spending for the project has
been authorized at a level of $3,600,000 in the Highway
Reauthorization Bill.
Th~
proposed site of the interchange is located west
of Brigham City, Utah.
This is the present location of Morton
International and the future location of a visitor center for
the United states Department of the Interiorfs Bear River Bird
Refuge.
Morton International is a
automotive safety products.
larg~
manufacturer of
At present, there is no direct
off-ramp providing access from 1-15 to the Morton International
�facility-
Being the largest manufacturer of automotive air
bags, Morton
Brigham
ci~y
Internatic~al
is pro j ecting dra matic growth at the
site over the next four years.
Travelers tc the Morton Internat i onal facility must
presently access the p l ant by exiting 1-15 approximatel y 3
miles south of the plant or approximately J mi les to the north
of t h e
p~ant
and
n ecess~~ a tas
he avy
to travel by way of busy streets to
International facility.
~~ ~ c k s
re~ch
e~= ou t2
to
t~ e
p:ant
t h e Morton
Reduction of congest i on and increased
safety are utmost in t h e planning of the
ne ~v
i n terchange.
Additionally, the United States Department of
Interior Bear River Bird Refuge is planning to locate it's
visitor center at the site of the interchange.
The visitor
center is expected to draw in excess of 50 0 ,000 visitors per
year, or 170,000 vehicles.
Due to safety and logistic
concerns, construction of a new intersect i on is vital to the
viability of the visitol center.
Again,
I would like to reiterate my support for the
effort of the State of Utah to obtain $73 / 000,000 to complete
upgrade of U.S. Highway 89 and $3,600,000 to construct a new
interchange on 1-15.
As growth continues in these areas the
safety and logistic concerns will only continue to mount.
�
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/1703">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1703</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
213621140
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1502235 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
Testimony of Congressman James V. Hansen before the transportation subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, May 6, 1993
Description
An account of the resource
Testimony of Congressman James V. Hansen before the transportation subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee stating the reasons for funding to improve the interchange of I-15/US 89, with special mention of the Morton International Facility.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hansen, James V.
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roads Improvement--Utah
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
5/6/93
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.
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, Papers of Congressman James V. Hansen, 1970-2003, COLL MSS 351 Series I Box 85
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138</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
MSS351SerIBx85_Item_2.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/c3ca9fd105d86db452f8516460ed13ee.pdf
12d481c3427c3adff4de5d86236d4564
PDF Text
Text
Mark N. Tuttle
~
Fe~rY 16,
1958 N. Kingston Road
Farmington, Utah 84025
(801) 451-2025
1990
Representative James Hansen
1017 Federal Building
324 25th Street
Ogden, Utah 84401
Dear Representative Hansen,
I was very disappointed to read about your support for conversion of
Highway 89, not only your support for making it into an expressway, but even
worse, an interstate. I attended many of the public meetings on this issue over
the last two years and can not believe for one minute that you would support
either of these proposals as a representation of the will of the people. It is
obvious to everyone that attended these public meetings that the residence of the
area do not want another 1-15 in their backyard. Nor do we need one.
I have written Mayor Arbuckle to congratulate him on his opposition, the
thought of sacrificing the USU gardens in Farmington in favor of acres of asphalt
and concrete is tragic.
I hope that the time will corne when the battle-cry of
"economic development" will not longer justify every travesty of nature and
unnecessary public expense that is proposed, especially when the proposal will
destroy the economics of a community and the lifestyle that we bought our homes
to enjoy.
supporter
�
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/1701">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1701</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
2013803911
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
649179 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 Mark N. Tuttle to James Hansen, April 16, 1990
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Mark N. Tuttle to James Hansen, April 16, 1990, expressing Tuttle's disappointment in Hansen's support of the conversion of Highway 89.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Tuttle, Mark N.
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Logan (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
4/16/90
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Farmington (Utah)
Davis County (Utah)
Ogden (Utah)
Weber 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, Papers of Congressman James V. Hansen, 1970-2003, COLL MSS 351 Series I Box 85
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138</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
MSS351SerIBx85_Item_8.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/01e9005914f4b49b6a75080ba71b51e8.pdf
3f35021061494b504ab19aaaa08b27ba
PDF Text
Text
npr
l::L<)O
6 ~ S3
~l 0 .
00 1 P. 0 1
Kenley
'1 ~
It I, , S I) \ I
Utah's N,w Voice!orth, 90's
.c".c 1\,,\/ l~rNJ
~I/u(h
TELECOPY COVER SHEET
HfIjJ/1 I Ij.I, L /tilt IIIIJUI
,IHJII.'PI/"",I.l
D&te t
_'1_"_1~_n_ _
PLEASE DELIVBR-tO.
Name (s)
Firm:
~"""
I
I/q .-,S, ""
--------------------------------------------------
Tcalecopy Nwnbert
Tolophone
FROM~
~umbor:
/c.; ENL eY:
Tranami'8ion sent
NUMBER
or
PAGES
~~{)tV$(jI!L€:
by!
~.A---J
~~ l
---------------------------------INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: ~ page.
~uJtuu-=uLIII;
tit
4.-t
,e;~n;c J~ /,;"1... ,. -I1J°'" Iw .f./,ts C'P"$'2'S-.rAol21"\ IISI"1P.
/¢- -II- e/,' t:A,,'; f!,,, e Ir;;.r IJ I-e.s ~ ,.(' / ... +4r "'" .. ,. I ( J, u 1-
~~1"
k
k"" f.AJ
ate v~
+"~
"I:ec? ~.,tv ~ ; /- 't -1-0
�,
,:-; I' \ I.
I·~
,(11,4 l\ ..., J~ ,'Util I"
It~I""IIH', l/ftfH 1I~/urliQ Monorabl~ James V. Harusen '
("OI)l~~·I4.1.f
242.1. ,.Rayburn House 'Of£ico Building
Wa",hl.n9ton,
.4Jwrhll_,
Dear
1:).
c.
' 20515
Repr~sentative Hansen~
I
·notice4
yoU
are
8chedule~
'l'ran~po%:'tiLt1on l\PPJ:'opri.~1onJ:
to
testify
r~tlltl::''JCf,
Subc:oomrni t'ttfll4' t;_,
upgrade Highway
89.
However, I am also
authorization or ,informal approval has been
appropriation by the authorizing committee -A~
'rranEportation.
apprQpriati~nc
whQro no
~rQU
know
th&
Hcu~~
p~ior autho=izA~ion haa
lIurpriat!cl tu 1ecu:n th~L yuu. u'lu
I was
the chance to request authorization at
~V
the pub.l.le worK.S COTNnl.t. tee tor
.~ee1-al 'DroicotG, '
bafora
aware
r\,1nr~ 1 \'uJ'
the
1
('I
that no
given for this
~ublio Works and
I"t"r"h , h~ t
1
rttll?S:
be$n Qiven.
uuL
~Gl.A~ d.~VQU~Q"'~
the recant
memoors
v!
hearin;s held
ot aonqress w1'th
'"
will be another opportunity.
On April
18, the Surface TranZipcrtation Suboornmi ttee has scheduled a'nether
FcrtunAt~ly,
~here
:.1,,'..1. ~ cu",l.h~. 1z;s Liol\
~ppn~~'~~~~y ~Q p~Q~cnt
hea.:d.n9'.
I
"U.'iJgc3~
our Oictriot'g nQodc and
I have roaaarehed and
it .a . : 8uqgestion.
pr~pare~
you
roquoct'.
~n
eOnQ.rn8~
a statement for you.
I , offe~
You will notice that I have cx~anded the , request to include
Authorization for funding to restore the cauaeway to Anta~Opc
1.Qlanf1 ,
,~;a~'ntlt'"
Tn' ~nn
~
unrAitl i, ,,~d
oem. ~oth
(\S
~n
environmental resource and a tourist attraction. The reoommended
statement underscores , its importance to northern Utah .
• OO.U'':.
of
oth.~ e~I'I~T-:l"HJ
r'l"t-in,Aitip.F:, nur
1!l'tBte has bocn
uuble to fund repair of the causeway. The opportunity to obtain
federal ' help hall ;one unnoticed. I 'br'inq it to your attention,
~oge~her w!~~ ~ ~1~n of ~gtion, with tho hc~. that
oongr~s5icnal
aqenda ' beinq pursued
part of the
District.
~
(.
(•
~
(~
I(
I,
s
S
__
w.
for
~an m.d~ j t
the first
~lQ
•
�
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/1699">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1699</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
3141764156
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1127053 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 Kenley Brunsdale to James Hansen, April 12, 1990
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Kenley Brunsdale to James Hansen, April 12, 1990, requesting the Congressman gain authorization prior to testifing before a subcommittee.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Brunsdale, Kenley
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roads Improvement--Utah
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
4/12/90
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Farmington (Utah)
Davis 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, Papers of Congressman James V. Hansen, 1970-2003, COLL MSS 351 Series I Box 85
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138</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
MSS351SerIBx85_Item_6.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/ba1945118e4348d825c089bacc96fdf9.pdf
33894449f839afde1847ac4121c35df7
PDF Text
Text
PROJECT CONFERENCE RECORD
1 7
project:
U5-89, Farmington to South Ogden
Place:
Date:
December 29, 1993
8031
Farmington city Hall Conference Room
No. :
. Time:
9:00 am
Attending:
Brooks Carter, Corps
Jeanette Gallihugh, Corps
Max Forbush, Farmington City
Greg Bell, Farmington City
Earl Kemp, Farmington city
Marda Dillree, st. Rep.
Joel Hall, Versar
Lindi Gregory, Versar
Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Dist. 1
Denis stuhff, UDOT Dist. 1
Dave Berg, UDOT Environmental
Congressman Jim Hansen
Peter Jenks, aide
Aaron Richards, property owner
Craig Peterson, Versar
Subjects Discussed:
Following introductions, Craig Peterson, Versar, explained the
purpose of the meeting was to select an access option from 115/US-89 for the west Farmington area.
Access is needed to
reduce future congestion through Farmington and along 600 West .
Wasatch Front Regional Council projects 30,000 daily vehicle
trips in this area within 15 years. All traffic from the west
Farmington area must currently pass through Farmington City, with
much of it passing through the Clark Lane Historic Homes District
and travelling in front of a junior high school and near an
elementary school. The road will be built and maintained by the
state. A handout showing the three options was passed around and
the pros and cons of each option was explained. The reason for
the variety of options is avoidance of wetlands.
Two of the
options tie into Clark Lane at 1100 West, while the third option
ties into Clark Lane east of 1100 West.
Wetlands Discussion -
Brooks Carter, us Army Corps of Engineers (COE) , took a few
minutes to explain the regulations concerning wetlands.
First,
you must look to avoid wetlands if at all possible and
practicable.
If you cannot avoid wetlands, then you must
minimize the impacts in the most practicable manner.
Finally,
you mitigate by creating new wetlands to replace the lost and
impacted wetlands. Currently, the COE does not prefer anyone
option.
If one option which impacts more wetlands then another
option is selected, then UDOT and Farmington must prove to the
COE, by providing safety standards, traffic projection, and air
quality information, along with City planning information, that
option is the most practicable option.
1
�Aaron Richards, a resident of the area where the access road
would be located, stated that his fields are wet because they
have been farmed and irrigated, not because they are wetlands.
There are some drains through the fields and he pointed out their
locations. He is not happy about his fields being called
jurisdictional wetlands.
Congressman Jim Hansen explained in general terms problems that
have arisen with the Threatened and Endangered Species Act and
Wetlands under the Clean Water Act. He stated that both these
acts will be in for some congressional changes during 1994
because they create a land "taking" without offering just
compensation. Mr. Hansen feels that economic impacts need to be
weighed along with biological impacts.
Marda Dillree, state Representative for Farmington, expressed her
belief that wetlands are taking economic value from Davis County
because of the costs involved to identify and avoid or mitigate.
Farmington city Transportation Master Plan Issues Mayor-elect Bell explained the importance of the Burke Lane
access to Farmington's transportation master plan. Access over
1-15 between Farmington and the developing west Farmington area
is limited to two streets - Clark Lane and Glover Lane.
Connections between Clark Lane and Glover Lane on the west side
of 1-15 is also limited to two streets - 650 West and 1525 West .
The City's master plan calls for the development of something
like a loop system around Farmington to improve traffic
circulation and emergency response times.
The streets involved
in this would be 1100 West, Clark Lane, Glover Lane, and Main
Street/US-89. The Burke Lane access needs to tie into this loop
to take west side traffic away from schools.
Burke Lane Access Options option "A" is the original access proposal.
It is the most
direct access to Clark Lane and 1100 West, with one long, gentle
curve. However, it impacts over seven acres of wetlands. Option
"B" has been dropped from further study because it does not
provide reasonable access to the projected growth area in the
west Farmington area.
Option "c" has two curves and impacts less
than one acre of wetlands, but it does not tie into Clark Lane at
1100 West. option "C" creates two intersections which will
decrease safety and increase air pollution problems.
Option "D"
is a compromise between options "A" and "C".
It is estimated to
impact approximately four acres of wetlands by snaking around
them before tying into Clark Lane at 1100 West.
2
�Closinq Comments Versar will provide the COE with user costs and safety ratings
for options "A," "C," and "D".
Farmington City will provide the
COE with a copy of the City's Comprehensive Master Plan.
The COE
will use this additional information, along with the wetland
impacts information, to determine which option is a "practicable
permitting" option for the Burke Lane access.
3
�
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/1698">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1698</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
2915598555
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1859226 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
Versar project conference record for US-89, Farmington to South Ogden
Description
An account of the resource
Versar project conference record for US-89, Farmington to South Ogden, suggesting an access option from I-15/US 89 for the west Farmington area with a discussion on the wetlands, transportation master plan issues, and Burke Lane access options.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Peterson, Craig
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roads Improvement--Utah
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Versar, Inc.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
12/29/93
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Farmington (Utah)
Davis 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, Papers of Congressman James V. Hansen, 1970-2003, COLL MSS 351 Series I Box 85
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138</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
MSS351SerIBx85_Item_1.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/16180115e3ea0972917a8fa66a0fd35f.pdf
cfb6abcde4b8b1cf329403a3536eec31
PDF Text
Text
APR 9
199u
SUITE 100, 420 WEST 1500 SOUTH , BOUNTIFUL, UTAH 84010
PHONE OGDEN 773-5559 • PHONE SALT LAKE 292-4469 • FAX 292-5095
KELLY H. GUBLER, M.D., Chairman
WILBUR R. JEFFERIES, Executive Director
Kelly H. Gubler, M.D.
Chairman
Commissioner
Tooele County
Bart Barker
Vice-Chairman
Commissioner
Salt Lake County
April 3, 1990
James W. Davis
Mayor, South Salt Lake
Robert H. DeBoer
Councilman, Ogden
Palmer DePaulis
Mayor, Salt Lake City
A. Stephen Dirks
Commissioner
Weber County
A. Bruce Dursteler
Mr. Peter Jenks
Congressman James Hansen's Office
1017 Federal Building
324 25th Street
Ogden, Utah 84401
Dear Mr. Jenks:
Mayor, North Ogden
Charles Hoffman
Mayor, Draper
James Layton
Mayor, Layton
Enclosed is a package of information concerning the US-89 corridor from
Farmington to Ogden as was discussed at the March 22, 1990, meeting at the
Utah Department of Transportation. We would like you to make this information
available to the appropriate person on Congressman Hansen's staff. Thank you
for your help in this matter.
William H. Levitt
Mayor. Alta
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Robert Linnell
Mayor, Bountiful
Jeff D. London
Commissioner
Morgan County
Blaine Nelson
Mayor, Fruit Heights
Sincerely,
!lla~
Transportation Engineer
Larry Smith
Mayor, Sandy
Scott Sneddon
Mayor, Ogden
D. Michael Stewart
Commissioner
Salt Lake County
DH/pmb
Enc.
�SUITE 100 ,420 WEST 1500 SOUTH, BOU NTIFUL, UTAH 84010
PHONE OGDEN 773 -5559 • PHONE SALT LAKE 292-4469 • FAX 292 -5095
KELLY H. GUBLER, M.D., Chairman
WILBUR R, JEFFERIES, Executive Director
Kelly H. Gub ler, M.D.
Chairman
Commissioner
Tooele County
Bart Barker
Vice-Chairman
Commissioner
Salt Lake County
April 5, 1990
James W. Davis
Mayor. South Salt Lake
Mayor, Salt Lake City
The Honorable James V. Hansen
United States Congressman
2421 Rayburn Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
A. Stephe n Dirks
Dear Congressman Hansen:
Robert H. DeBoer
Council man, Ogden
Palmer DePau lis
Commissioner
Weber County
A. Bruce Du rsteler
Mayor, North Ogden
Charles Hoffman
Mayor, Draper
The Wasatch Front Regional Council as the Metropolitan Planning Organization
(MPO) for the Salt Lake and Ogden Areas has a significant interest in the US-89
corridor in Davis and Weber Counties. As Chairman of the Regional Council's
Transportation Coordinating Committee (Trans Com), I am interested in pursuing
improvements in the corridor as soon as possible.
James Layton
Mayor, Layton
William H. Levitt
Mayor, Alta
Robert Linnell
Mayor, Bountiful
Jeff D. London
Commi SSioner
Morgan County
The Utah Department of Transportation and cities and counties along US-89 from
1-15 in Farmington to Harrison Boulevard in Ogden have been studying the
corridor for several years. Their studies have identified improvements needed
to promote safety and better traffic flow in the corridor. Last year, a consultant
study of the corridor recommended that a limited-access expressway with
interchanges at several locations is the best alternative for meeting the needs
on US-89. The recommendations of the study have been endorsed by all cities
and counties along the corridor and by the State Transportation Commission.
Blaine Ne lson
Mayor, Fruit Heights
Larry Sm ith
Mayor, Sandy
Scott Sneddon
UDOT has begun environmental and design work for an interchange at SR-193
(Hill Field Road) and US-89. Construction is planned for 1992. However,
funding for the remaining sections of the corridor has not been identified. A
combination of state and federal funds will be required to complete the project.
Mayor, Ogden
D. Mic hael Stewa rt
Commissioner
Salt Lake County
We would appreciate your support in pursuing funding options for the corridor.
I am enclosing some information which will be helpful to you. Included are
copies of:
1)
A petition Signed by Davis County majors and legislators requesting
Congressional support for US-89
2)
A letter of support from Weber County officials
�April 5, 1990
Page two
If you need more information or have any questions, please call Doug Hattery at the Regional
Council offices or call me at (801) 626-6013. We would be also glad to meet with you or any
of your staff to further discuss this issue.
Thank you for your support.
RHD/DH/pmb
Enclosures
�PET I T ION
Representative James Hansen
Rayburn Building Room 2421
Washington, D.C. 20515
TO:
WREREAS" -the . ~.ighway
8-9 . -co ·~r ·:'dor be·tween - E'a' fm~rtgton ' jun'c tfon--'a nd -Jso'~th "
~orth/south
:We!;Jer- i5 used' extensi"'"ely by
Lake city.
and .
.
commute'rs
from ogden to Salt
. whEREAS;. A re~ently completed stu~y accepted
by the affected enti ties
that Highway 89. ,should , be developed as an e~pr_esswa¥ and
:.t1$ve1.opment alen~ the eotridor ~eriausly jeopardizes the implementation
of that cdhcept, and
" !hdic~~es
.
,· ~hEREAS;
usage of Bignway 89 in
this area
,has increased vastly over the
by ~e year 2000, and
last severa1 years and is expected to double
kBEREAS; the fatal accident rate is far above
the typical rate, and
WHEREAS, ' Highwat 89 serves as a vital link to Rill Air Force Base,
'NOW t , THEREFORE the Mayors and Legislators' who represe'nt the ci tizens who
reside in communities adjacent to. Highway 89 in Davis county
respecefully request that our senators and congressmen make application
for federal funding to make the much needed improvements on Highway 89
~b · b~ dispensed to the Utah Department of Transportation in the usual
way.
. .
..
..
~a1;~d _, thi.s_ 2.Sth day_of,. .£ebruaqr,,-,1.990._
. ~ ....., '
-:. ~ .• ::.. : -"-"''' '' - ~ "--.' ~.:~.:.~ .. .: .. : ~ .. · ',i .. · ·.... ~~ . • . : ..; . •.. . "
.
~:·
: "
.. . .
"
•
.
'
. .
R.ex Bouchar
South Weber City MaYQr
Robert
• Arbuckle
Farmington City Mayor
~,
Represent~ti~r Bain
FrUit Heights City Mayor
~ri!-
:.... ~~t.~_ ii~· -
.'
Kaysville ·Ci ty Mayor
~~meele
.---". -
~~~-!?~
- ·Repr,esenta.ilv.,e~ _F.,~ ,~_kl .in Knowlton . _ ,: _ ~ . _.
�:\tIE\lBERS
Farr We\{
Ilarri ~ \ · dlt:
1I11fltwilk
:-.Jort h O gtkn
O!!t.icn
Plain C i t\'
Pka~ant View
Ri\crdak
Deve/opn7en / Services Di vision
~Veher A rea Council of Governlncnfs
AprilS, 1990
Roy
South Og(Jen
Uintah
Washington Terrace
Weber Count y
Weber Co. School Di stri ct
Weber State C o llege
Ogden City School Di str ict
Robert DeBoer, Chai rman
Transcomm
Wasatch Front Regional Council
420 W. 1500 S., Suite 200
Bountiful or 84010
Dear Mr. DeBoer:
The U~89 Corridor from Farmington to Ogden is very important to
the elected officials and citizens of Weber County. It is one of only
two corridors linking the Ogden Area with Salt Lake City. It services
such major traffic generators as Hill Air Force Base and
Weber State College. Maintaining the ability of U~89 to serve these
needs is critical to the continued growth of Davis and Weber Counties.
OJer the J;ast few years, several studies of the corridor have been
conducted. Last year, a consultant hired by the Utah Department of
Transportation and the cities and counties in the corridor recommended
that U~89 be upgraded to a limited-access expressway with interchanges
at several locations. Such an expr.essway would increase the safety in
the corridor while maintaining traffic flow at a high level of service.
The Wet:er Area Council of Governments has tmanimously supported the
recanmendations for developing U~89 as an expressway. We would like
to ask for your support in pursuing the expressway alternative and in
obtaining funding for making the improvements. Your help would be very
much app~eciated.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
David Andersen, Chairman
t..~>/'
Weber Area Council of Goverrnnents
DA:BD/ss
2510 Washington BIrd., 151 Floor Ben Lomond Pla::.a • Ogden. Urah 84401 • Phone (801) 399-8791
�
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/1697">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1697</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
2767000582
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
2874525 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
Correspondences concerning funding for Highway 89, Farmington to South Ogden
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondences petitioning Congressman Hansen for federal funding for Highway 89, Farmington to South Ogden, forming an expressway, and expressing the need for improvements.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hattery, Doug
DeBoer, Robert H.
Anderson, David
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roads Improvement--Utah
United States Highway 89
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1990-04-03
1990-04-05
1990-02-28
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Farmington (Utah)
Davis County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Ogden (Utah)
Weber County (Utah)
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, Papers of Congressman James V. Hansen, 1970-2003, COLL MSS 351 Series I Box 85
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138</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
MSS351SerIBx85_Item_7.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/c90973e8fb2580cd20e98c1ed5b579e6.pdf
adf9eefa08bf3c405ae04e02f20e2733
PDF Text
Text
SEP 1 5 1
912
Historic beginnings
ROBERT
W. ARBUCKLE
Mayor
PATRICIA
City Manager
GARY E. ELLIOTT
C. PARSELL
L. HANK SEMADENI
Council Members
JAMES
DONA SCHARP
Recorder/ Finance Officer
LYNE'ITE BINGHAM
Treasurer
N. ACHTER
GREGORY S BELL
MAX FORBUSH
130 North Main
P. O. Box F
Farmington, Utah 84025
Telephone (801) 451-2383
September 11, 1992
Congressman James V. Hansen
324 25th Street
Ogden, Utah 84401
Dear Congressman Hansen,
The City Council appreciated your attendance at our Council
meeting and the input you contributed towards resolving some of
the anticipated impacts of the proposed U.S. 89 Corridor Project.
As a community we support the project, contingent on UDOT meeting
Farmington's essential needs listed as priority items 1 thru 4
on the attached "U.S. 89 Corridor Improvement Impacts" document.
We are writing this letter to request your assistance in securing
these four prerequisites as a condition of support of the
project. We support the notion of drafting these prerequisites
in the scope of the project to adequately define the negative
impacts the U.S. 89 project creates on Farmington City.
Included on the referenced list are other impacts of
community concern. We believe that most of these items will be
resolved during the E.I.S. and design process. However, items 2,
3, & 4 are not currently in the scope of the project and our
priority #1 is of utmost concern. The City wants all of the
items to be included in the review process of the project, but
items 1 thru 4 should be prerequisite to funding.
As you know, the Council and I are concerned that this
project is constructed so that we maintain the economic viability
of the -commercial zone located on U.S. 89 in north Farmington.
Item No. 1 best addresses this concern.
Intended improvements in
harmony with proposed road Gross-sections would allow the
community to maintain the at-grade intersection until the level
of service dictates additional improvements. This community
concern could be addressed by phasing of the project with this
intersection completed in the last phase, or by delaying
construction at this intersection until the commercial viability
of the new development is not controlled by visibility and access
criteria.
�Congressman James V. Hansen
September 11, 1992
Page 2
Your help in resolving items No. 1 thru 4 is appreciated.
Inclusion of these items as outlined should not negatively impact
our neighboring community, but will significantly improve the
impact on Farmington.
If the timing or phasing of the Shepard
Lane intersection can be addressed by providing interim TSM
improvements; all safety, traffic flow, and planning issues can
still be provided by this project without local conflicts.
If
additional clarification would be helpful, please feel free to
contact us.
Successful resolution of these issues, without a destructive
influence of this process, remains our goal. Your leadership and
your efforts to provide the funding to date and in the future are
appreciated.
Robert W. Arbuckle
Mayor
RWA/EK/ml
�FARMINGTON CITY IMPACTS
u.S. 89 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS
1.
UDOT should be requested to allow the continued operation of
the at-grade signalized intersection as the level of service
(LOS), and capacity remain favorable.
Interim TSM improvements, including additional lanes for high demand
movements, should be programmed to assure an acceptable
LOS for the next 10 to 20 years.
If, in the future, UDOT
desires to design and install a Single Point Urban
Interchange (SPUI), the following elements should be
considered:
A.
Safe pedestrian access from the west side of U.S. 89
across the SPUI to existing commercial and residential
activities on the east side.
B.
Consider design alternatives producing the least
associated impacts to abutting property including, but
not limited to, minimizing the height of SPUI structure
by some minimal lowering of Shepard Lane, alternate
treatments and analysis of which road should actually
be elevated, and noise mitigation strategies for
elevated structures/highways.
C.
The northbound off-ramp at Shepard Lane should be
provided with "stop" control for eastbound motorists
proceeding past Knowlton Elementary School.
2.
The City of Farmington is negatively impacted by improved
development of U.S. 89 if the project development does not
include improvements through the connection to I-IS. The
intersections of the improved U.S. 89 and existing I-IS
occurs at Burke Lane. The improved u.S. 89 will exacerbate
the existing problems at this intersection. Re-establishment of Burke Lane with improvements to the intersection
of the two major highways is necessary to mitigate the
impact of this project and should be included in the
proposed project scope instead of delaying this portion of
the U.S. 89 improvements. Separation of community areas
created by limited access highway construction could also
be mitigated with this approach.
3.
UDOT should carefully assess the drainage and wetland
mitigation measures associated with the EIS process. The
entire area from Farmington Junction to I-IS/Burke Lane
should be included. The design mitigation alternatives
analysis should include a detention/retention basin near
the I-IS/Burke Lane interchange.
(Small pockets of wetlands should be traded for one large enhanced wetland area.)
�This will also resolve a past problem created by Federal
Highway construction.
4.
Noise abatement alternatives should be examined through the
entire corridor from Farmington Junction to Burke Lane.
U.S. 89 improvements combined with the increased traffic
projected on this road system will significantly increase
noise (above current allowable Federal regulated levels) in
the northwest portion of Farmington. This area currently
exceeds allowable levels due to the past construction of
1-15 without any noise abatement facilities, anticipated
road elevation increases between Cherry Hill and Burke Lane
will also increase this problem. Maintaining the commercial
viability of this area would dictate that construction of
sound walls through this area would not be acceptable to the
community to mitigate noise pollution. Since a significant
portion of the residential development in the community is
sandwiched between 1-15 and U.S. 89 in this location, the
increased noise level combined with the unacceptable levels
generated by 1-15 would have a significant negative
environmental impact on the existing homeowners. Mitigation
of this problem could be accomplished by construction of
sound walls along 1-15 to significantly decrease existing
background noise. Farmington believes that this approach
should be included in the proposed project scope. The
negative visual impacts of this project could also be
reduced with this approach.
5.
Request that UDOT use aesthetic design and materials for
retaining walls along on-off ramps at Shepard Lane.
6.
UDOT should analyze and consider the elimination of the
east frontage road from Fruit Heights to Farmington and
route traffic to the west side frontage road, to avoid
impacts to Main Street.
7.
Request that UDOT consider mitigation of adverse impact
to access from the Knowlton Elementary School on Shepard
Lane. The impacts to be assessed include, but are not
limited to, sidewalks, drop-off zones, circulation, and
access.
8.
Due to the adverse impacts to access of abutting property
resulting from the proposed expressway design of U.S. 89,
UDOT should complete the proposed frontage and access
roads as shown in their alternative drawings. Specifically,
however, the access road as illustrated in Alternative 2,
Drawing No.2 (Attachment B), should be redesigned to
extend southeastward and connect with Burke Lane to the
south.
9.
SR 272 should be widened and improved ~~th pedestrian
facilities on the west side from Farmington Junction to
Shepard Lane.
�10.
The northbound off-ramp at Shepard Lane should have stop
control for eastbound motorists proceeding east past
Knowlton Elementary School.
11.
The alignment of 1875 North and SR 272 (Main Street) at
Farmington Junction should be designed to establish a more
direct route between the two east-west connections. Design
alternatives for the interchange including impacts for Main
Street over versus under options should be presented to
Farmington City for review and comment.
12.
UDOT should include provisions for pedestrian, bicycle, and
equestrian facilities compatible with Farmington's Master
Plan at Farmington Junction and Shepard Lane.
13.
UDOT should examine and provide for pedestrian access to the
Smith's Shopping Center from the west side of u.S. 89 at
Shepard Lane.
14.
A second access from Main Street into the Smith's property
as well as replacement parking should be provided to replace
the lost driveway from u.S. 89 and any lost parking
resulting from the widening and raising of u.S. 89.
15.
Economic impacts resulting from loss of current access
during construction and their mitigation should be addressed
in the ElS.
16.
UDOT's ElS should include any impacts resulting from
placement of fill material near Shepard Lane on ground
already having a high water table.
�
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/1696">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1696</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
3859913501
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
3457821 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 Robert Arbuckle to Congressman James Hansen, September 11, 1992
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Robert Arbuckle to Congressman James Hansen, thanking Congressman Hansen for his participation in the plans for the US 89 corridor project. Also included is a list of concerns about the project.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Arbuckle, Robert W.
Subject
The topic of the resource
United States Highway 89
Roads Improvement--Utah
Roads--Design and construction
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Farmington City Corporation
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
9/11/92
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Farmington (Utah)
Davis 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, Papers of Congressman James V. Hansen, 1970-2003, COLL MSS 351 Series I Box 85
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv82138</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
MSS351SerIBx85_Item_3.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/bbc336c4d786ce0afeeab578fa822d63.pdf
d7d1fd3e2fee41b388b1906bbdcba57f
PDF Text
Text
..--- --------- -------- -- -- - - --- --- - -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- ----- --- --- --- ------ -- - -- -- - --- ------- - - - - -------- - - -- .-.
- - - -____T
__T -.7"
. . .r .... __T....,.
•
----
--- ---
A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION
Vol. 1 No.1
March 1, 1995
LCC IS FORMED
If the Utah Depart"Until UDOT has lived up to the
ment of Transportati on
has its way, the na tural
law of the land and provided
beauty of Logan Canyon
truthful analysis and documentaas we know it may soon
be just a picture on a
tion, we (LCC) will be persistent
postcard. Instead of a
in our demands for justice,"
serene mountain byway,
- Kevin Kobe, LCC President
U.S. Highway 89 will be
a high-speed traffic corri dor Hned by scarred hill - spectacular scenery.
and along the Dugway to
We believe that the
sides, reta ining walls,
stem erosion problems.
and c1earzones. UOOT
recent compromise made • Vague wording about
would like to begin work beh¥een Citizens for the
how c1earzones will be
as early as this summer.
Protection of Logan
treated , with c1earzone
Canyon and UOOT is
That's why we have
a reas compri sing up to
unacceptab le. It is merely 22 feet on either side of
formed the Logan
Canyon Coa lition. LCC is a slightly watered down
the road, and the
removal of "su bstantial
version of the Preferred
mad e up of "old timers"
Alternative.
haza rds" within the midwho have been involved
The extent of the con- dle canyon.
with the Logan Canyon/
UDOT issue almost from struction planned will
• Revegetation of mature
the beginning, as well as
still necessitate 15-20
trees and shrubs that
newcomers who advoyears of work, and will
"could require 30 to 50
completely change the
years or might never
ca te a common sense
ambiance of the canyon.
occur aga in."
approach to road
Some of our priority
• A potentially devastatimprovement-one that
ing impact on cutthroat
combines safety, efficien- concerns are:
and brown trout popula . Eight curve cuts
cy and environmental
planned for the middle
tions due to extensive
sensitivity. LCC is dediriprap nea r the bridges,
canyon, along with
cated to keeping Logan
retaining walls in some
River a wild, free flowing UOOT's suggestion that
locations, and permanent
use of cement retaining
river, preserving wildlife
walls would be appropri- problems with sedimenhabitat, and protecting
tation near
ate in the middle canyon
Logan Canyon's
steep curve cuts.
-Two-hundred year-old
Douglas Fir at the summit replaced by a mini mum of 47 feet of pave.
ment, a nd realignment
that will necessitate filling a small side canyon
with debris.
• Extensive widening,
with half of the middle
canyon widened from 26
feet to 34 feet, and the
remaining 24 miles
widened to 40-47 feet to
accomodate higher
design speeds.
• No specifics as far as
mitigation plans, with a
vague promise to use
UOOT's "best management practices."
LCC has pledged its
resources towards pursuring every available
legal op tion. If we pursue litigation, we will
need your support.
Volunteers are needed .
Money will also be needed-litigati on is very
costl y. Please plan on
donating generously!
This is our last opportunity for action.
�LCC Prepares for Forest Appeal
In its effort to per-
suade UDOT to take
another look at the
Conservationist's
Altema tive, the Logan
Canyon Coalition is
working hard in preparation for the Forest
Appeal.
After the recent
approval of the Record
of Decision (ROD) by
both UOOT and the
Federal Highway
Administration, the
last phase of the
process currently rests
with the Forest Service.
This agency's approval
is widely expected, followed by a 45-day
comment period for
public input. Lee
plans to exercise its
legal right by appea ling the Forest Service's
decision.
The Forest Service
is required by the
Wasatch-Cache Forest
Plan to retain the aesthetic and environmental qualities of the
canyon. The Plan will
need to be revised due
to excessive impacts
which would result
from the Preferred
Alternative. A Forest
Plan revision will
require public input as
manda ted by the
NEPA process. Lee
Logan Canyon
Coalition plans to exercise its legal right by
appealing the Forest
Service's decision.
will base its appea l on
the expected Forest
Service decision and
key concerns not adequately addressed by
the FEIS.
as federally threatened or endangered
species. Neither the
Forest Service nor
UDOT have s urveyed
to identify the presence or absence of
these species.
These points include
the following:
1) UOOT has never
clearly demonstrated
the purpose and need
for the project, as
required by NEPA.
4) UOOT's analysis of
the safety data is
admittedly flawed .
5) UOOT has more
flexibility in AASHTO highway design
recommendations
than it acknowledges.
2) The Logan River is
among the top 5% of
all stream fisheries in
the state, yet the FEIS
seriously underestimates the impact to
fisheries.
6) The canyon is the
number one tourist
attraction in the
Bridgerland area, yet
the FEIS fails to
address long-term
negative economic
impacts resulting from
20 years of construction and loss of scenic
values.
3) There are several
species which may
occur in the canyon.
These species are
either listed as sensitive by the Forest
Service or are candi
dates for classification
2
1) The Forest Service
plan mandates retention of the canyon's
visual and aesthetic
qualities. Under the
Preferred Alternative
this mandate would
be violated.
These and other
concerns represent a
legitimate foundation
on which to base our
appeal. If you have
any additional concerns which warrant
consideration, please
contact Lee ASAP.
Thank you.
�=-= = ------- _ _ _ _ '=-"'I'"
-
:--
Economic Benefits or Disaster?
Utah's wide geographical diversity and
expansive open spaces
have filled a void in a
time when many of o ur
wild places are rap idly
falling prey to u rban and
economic sprawl. This is
resulting in a boom in
tourism.
Tourism revenues for
Cache and Rich Cou nties
alone amounted to well
over $64 million in 1993.
This success can be pa rtly attributed to p romotional efforts by the
Cache Chamber of
Commerce, which recognizes Logan Canyon as
the number one attraction in Bridgerland. The
Chamber's 1994 Cache
Valley Utah publica tio n
mentions Logan Canyon
no less than 20 times in
the firs t nine pages.
In addition, the
Bridgerland Travel
Region recently received
a $436,000 federal grant
to promote Logan
Canyon and educate visitors about its characteristics. Clearly the canyon
has a wide base of support and aCknowledgement in terms of value
to the region.
"We look at it as a
real asset to the community," says Marty Spicer,
real estate broker fo r
Coldwell Banker.
But will the canyon
lose its d raw as it undergoes 15 to 20 years of
construction, destructio n, and transformation
of its natural character?
How many moto rists
will p refer the Idaho
route to Yellowstone versus waiting in d usty
traffic for heavy equipment to pass? Will pe0ple still want to d rive to
Garden City to view
Bear Lake and enjoy a
raspberry shake?
Mo re importantly,
will the increase in con-
gestion and traffic
speeds after completion
of construction have a
d etri mental effect on the
canyon's appeal? The
stark reality may be yes!
But still the FEIS provides no assessment of
negative economic
impacts resulting fro m
the highway project. We
need more proof, not
vagueness and ambig ui-
Volunteers Needed
1- Research for Forest
Service Appeal
2- Networking
3- Fundraising
4- Education
5- Mailings
6- Letter writing
7- Events
8- Media relations
9- Passing the word
10- Lega l assistance
11- SLC contacts
12- HELP!
ty.
These are all legitimate concerns which
need to be add ressed
without prej udice and
assumptions. Wha t may
look like a road to economic boom may
become a path to economic disaster.
Equipment Needed
1- Offi ce space
2- Voice mail
3- FAX machine
4- Copier
5- Postage stamps
6- Copy paper
1- Envelopes
8- MONEY'
r------------------------,
YES! I
THE
WANT TO JOIN
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subSCription to CANYON WIND
$20.00 Annual Membership
I would like to contribute an additional
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
Lots more
I would like to volunteer.
I'm broke! Here's five bucks.
Name ______________________________
Street ______________________________
City _ _ _ _ State _ _ _ Zip_ _
Phone
* _____________
_
Plnse make check payable and mail to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box 1674
L ________
________ .J
�,..----------,,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
. -.. -=...... . ...... ., .....
_
. . . __
Iii. _ _
.... Iii. iiaiii . . . . . . _iii
--------
c: «»
.&. L
:J: 'T :J:
«»
:N'
,
,
,
,
L __________ ..I
Wor k l n . f o r th . Pr o te " ti .n of Lo. a " C . " yo "
USU Boxll1674
Logan,
Utah 84322-0199
'='
Recycled
Recycle
�...-- ----.-.--
iiiii_iii_ iiiiiiiiiia.
.,. __,. _.T____,. ....r ... __,......
.---- -- - - - --- -- - -- ---- -- - - --- -- - - --- -- -- - --- - - - - ---- - - ----- - ----- - - - -- -- --- -- - -- - -- -- - --- - - - -- ---A NEWS B ULLET I N FROM LO G AN CANYON COALITION
Vol. 1 No.2
A ugust 1, 1995
USFS Abandons Logan Canyon
LCC Appeal Denied
The Loga n Canyon
Coal itio n (LeC) recent ly
appealed the Forest
Service's decision to
allow the Uta h
Department of
Transporta tion (UDOT)
to construct its "modified" Prefer red
"This unfortunat e decision by
the Forest Seroice has left us
with only one
alternative . .. litigation"
- Tom Lyotl , LCC
A lternative in Logan
Canyon. We were joined
in our appeal by the
Utah Rivers
Co nservation Co uncil.
OUT ex tensive ap pea l
was 187 pages long, and
cove red a ll aspects of
UOOT's proposal. V\e
arg ued that UDOT has
not demonstrated the
purpose and need fo r its
construction p roject, and
that they have not ade-
quately disclosed the
environmenta l impacts of
their project. In June the
Forest Service denied o ur
ap peal.
Comments agai nst
our appeal, and in favor
of UOOT's project, were
submitted to the Forest
Service by UDOT, the
Cache Chamber o f
Co mmerce, a nd Citizens
for the Protection of
Loga n Canyon. The letter
from the chamber
emphasized the value of
Logan Canyon as a major
trucking ro ute.
It is remarkab le that,
given the many poin ts
we raise in ou r appeal,
the Fo rest Service up held
none of them. Their
review of our appea l is
brief and superficia l,
with inad equate respo nses to critical issues.
Without due consid eration, the Forest Service
has ru bber-stamped
implementaton of an
unnecessa ri ly ex pensive
and destruc tive h ighway
p roject.
The Forest Service is
in fact responsi ble fo r
ensuring tha t p urpose
and need fo r construction have been demonstra ted. They are also
responsib le fo r ens uring
that enviro nmenta l
impacts have been adequately assessed, incl uding d amge to scenery,
fis heries, wildli fe, wet1 nds, and the potentia 1
a
Wi ld a nd Scenic status of
the river. This responsibility is cl ea rly stated in
the Wasatch-Cache Forest
Plan and in federal law.
In shirking its responsibility for Logan Canyon,
the Forest Service is v iolating its mand ate and
acting iIIega ll):
LCC is cu rrently ga thering fund s for our lega l
d efense of Logan
Canyon. All co ntributio ns are welco me a nd
w ill be used for legal
costs. All who are interested in helping in ou r
effort to save Loga n
Can yon are invited to
contact us.
A pp eal H igh lig h ts
LCe's appen l is avni/able in the Lognn City
Library nnd USU's Merrill
Library.
(1) UDOT's highway
sa fety analysis utilizes
arti ficially infla ted and
manipulated traffi c volumes, inconsistent with
UOOT's own traffic
(continued nexl " age)
�Appeal ("", Unu"')
counts, in an attempt to
make the previously
widened portion of the
road, the Lower Canyon,
appear safer than the
unwidened sections.
UDOT's proposed construction will in fact
make the highway less
safe.
(2) The difference in
average travel time
between UOOT's
Preferred Alternative and
the Conservationists'
Alternative is, by
UDOT's admi ssio n, less
than 10 minutes! We
question the much
grea ter cost and enviro nmental impact of the
Preferred Alternative
given such a minimal
difference in travel time.
(3) In its highway
design for the Upper
Canyon, UDOT is not
taking advantage of the
fl exibility in road design
allowed by AASHTO
(American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials).
Throughout the canyon,
UDOT has designed the
highway in an arbitrary
and capricious fashi on,
with little environmental
sensitivity.
(4) The Forest Service
has agreed that the segment of the Logan River
from Lower Twin Bridge
to Beaver Creek might
possess mo re "outstandingly remarkable values"
than any other river in
the Wasatch-Ca che
Forest. The Forest
Service has agreed that
this segment should be
reevaluated. for protected
Wild and Scenic River
status. We are concerned
that construction of
UOOr's Preferred
Alternative will degrade
this river segment
enough that its classification will be lowered. It
may no longer qualify
for Wild and Scenic status.
(5) There is no scientific justification whatsoever for UOOT's claims
that trout pop ulations in
Logan River will be
reduced only 4 to 8%,
and that the effects of
increased sedimentation
in the river will be "relatively minor and short
term." UDOT's claims
represen t uneducated
"guesstimates" of fi sheries impacts because of
the lack of adequate data .
(6) The WasatchCache Forest Plan mandates that negative economic impacts of highway construction be
eva luated. This has not
been done.
(7) The Forest
Servi ce's assessments of
impacts to sensi tive
species often rest on
inadequate surveys and
bald assertions that are
either patently false or in
need of substantiation.
(8) Vi sual quality in
Logan Canyon will be
impaired in a manner
inconsistent with guid elines contained in the
Fo rest Service's Logan
Canyo n Scenic Byway
Corrido r Management
Plan. USFS management
policy for Logan Canyon
is inconsistent from document to document.
(9) In its selectio n of
specially-protected 4(f)
properties, pursuant to
the Department of
Transportation Act, the
Forest Service has acted
in an arbitrary and capricious fashion. No rationale is provided for why
some sites were selected
while others of equal
recreational value were
not.
We Request:
Logan
Canyon Coalition
is not trying to stop
all construction in
Logan Canyon.
(1) There must be
honest and straightforward NEPA d ocumentation of the need for, and
the environmental and
economic impacts of, any
proposed highway constructio n. UooT has not
provided this. UDOT
has in fact admitted that
their safety data is
"garbage" and that it
"may be problematic."
(2) The construction
proposal should be
scaled down so as to proteet the sensitive areas of
the canyon and river,
particularly throug h the
upper Midd le Canyon,
Beaver Creek, and the
summit.
(3) UDOT has never
fairly eva luated the
Conservationist's
Alternative.
This Alternative should
be honestly and straightforwardly reconsidered .
2
The Conservationists'
Alternative is far less
expensive and environmentally destructive,
while improving safety
and level of service of the
highway.
(4) The Forest Service
must reevaluate the eligible segment of the Logan
River, from Lower Twin
Bridge to Beaver Creek,
for protected Wild and
Scenic River status,
befo re constructio n is
allowed. Thi s request is
in compliance with 5(d)
planning requirements of
the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act .
�August ] , ]995
Lee Fundraiser a Success
By Kevin Kobe
The Logan Can yon
Coali tion would like to
thank all those who were
involved with our
fund rai ser weekend with
Rick Bass and Terry
Tempest William s. \Ilk
would specificall y like to
thank The Grapevine
Restaurant, Slanting Rain
Graphic Design, A Book
Store, the Utah Rivers
Conservation Council
and Director Zacha ry
Frankel, Scott Smith
Photography, mu sicians
Nadene Steinhoff, Chris
Carlson and Joe Farmer,
and of course, nationally
renown authors Rick
Bass and Terry Tempest
Williams. Rick was kind
enough to travel from
northern Montana. O ur
thanks also goes to the
many vo lunteers who
spent countless hours
working to make the
weekend a success, espe-
dally Don Hickman and
Dan Miller.
For those who couldn't make the weekend
events, which were May
11-14, here is a rundown.
Rick Bass spoke in Salt
Lake City at the
University of Utah Fine
Arts Auditorium sponsored by the Utah Rivers
Conservation Council.
Rick spoke about the signifi cance of Logan
Canyon and the absurdity of the current UOOT
highway proposal.
Following Rick, the audience clapped and sang to
the music of Nadene
Steinhoff, Chris Carlson
and Joe Farmer.
Despi te the rain and
unseasonably cool
weather, Rick Bass and
Tom Lyon jo ined some
LCC board members o n a
field trip up Logan
Canyon on Saturday
where film makers were
doing a documentary on
the canyon. This documentary will be shown
on the local cable channel. Rick also managed
to squeeze in time to
speak with local high
school students and to do
a radiO interview.
But the night everyone was wa iting for was
Sa turday night, May 13,
when over 300 people
packed the Eccles
Conference Center.
Longtime canyon advocate Tom Lyon emceed
the event with inspiring
introductions and words
of wisdom. Rick Bass
was humorous but eloquent as he talked about
his years in Logan. Two
Logan Canyon so ngs
from Nadene Steinhoff
and friends hit home,
especially "U.S. 89 Blues"
in which the crowd
erupted with hand clapping, si ngi ng and shouting. Terry Tempest
Williams brought the
evening full circle with
words to motivate people
into action. She recognized Tom Lyon for hi s
efforts, which range from
teaching to advocating.
She recalled conversations with environme nta l
activists that continue to
provide inspiration for
her work. The night
ended with a raffle, great
homemade cooki es and
refreshments, book signings, and a T-shirt and
book sale.
Sunday morning the
Grapevine Restaurant
lived up to its reputation
for excellence at ou r
fund raiser brunch. Chef
Bill Oblock o utdid himself at the sold -out event,
and LCC vol unteers
worked hand in hand
with the gracious staff of
the restaurant to make
the brunch successful. It
was a "stay as long as
you want" kind of morning .
.
130 Nonh 100 East
Logan UT 84321
753-9089
100% for Logan Canyon
�The History of a Highway
Editors note:
This information was
compiled by Nadene Steinhoff
and Steve Flint.
---1959---
Chamber of Commerce.
The State Department of
Fish and Game launched
a formal protest against
the plan. Their protest
was later modified.
ject. The Forest Service
insisted on additional
modifications. UOOT
abandoned the project
for the time being, hoping the Chamber of
Commerce and construction interests would continue the fight for public
support.
1960---
The Utah Department
Bulldozers began
of Transportation
work. The first section
(UDOT) completed
called for widening of
"improvement" plans for the road, passing lanes
the first section of the 39- and stream channelizamile highway from
tion. Construction was
Logan to Bear Lake.
completed up to the
Engineering standards of Malibu Campground.
the time dictated that the
1961
route be as straight and
Plans to reconstruct
direct as possible. It was the section from Malibu
also felt that it was too
Campground to Right
expensive to avoid the
Hand Fork were
Logan River. At that
released. After seeing
time, most highway
the destruction in the
departments didn't feel
first phase, the public
justified spending public was much more responmoney to protect aesthet- sive, writing a barrage of
ic values or environmen- letters to the editor and
tal resources.
to UDOT.
During the first
The Forest Service
phase, Logan residents
and the Utah State
were silent. Public hear- University (USU) College
ings were poorly attendof Natural Resources
ed" except by supporters
issued position stateof the project such as the ments opposing the pro-
calling for extensive
straightening and eightfoot shoulders.
An article in National
Parks magazine condemned previous construction in the canyon
and the new design proposal.
1970 - - -
- - - - 1963 - - - -
Twelve USU professors formed the
zine advocated protecNorthern Utah
tion of the canyon in an
Environmental Advisory
Committee. The group,
article.
---1968--led by fisheries biologist
UOOT decided to
William Helm, was conaccept the Forest Service
cerned about additional
requirements, and came
impacts. At their suggesback to finish the first
tion, UOOT incorporated
phase, but when the bull- an Environmental
dozers moved in it
Steering Committee,
looked like the same "cut gave scenic consideraand fill" job. The intitions higher priority, and
brought a landscape
mate, gently winding
road under arching trees . architect onto the project.
became a fast, wide
UOOT still lacked
asphalt highway.
permission from the
1969--Forest Service, but
A public hearing was
attempted to rush the
held for road reconstruc- project through before
they lost available fundtion from Right Hand
ing.
Fork to Ricks Spring,
National Parks maga-
Adventure 1
Sports
4
�August 1, 1995
Their assertions that
the project was necessary
for hig hway effici ency
and safety were refu ted
by the USU co mmittee,
which claimed that the
safety data was inadequate.
- - - 1971 - - -
The USU co mmittee
succeeded in d elayi ng
the project, ci ting the
need for more information on traffic, tourism
and fisheri es. There was
discussion of the need
fo r an Environme ntal
Impact Statement (EIS)
under the new Na tional
Environmental Pol icy
Act (NEPAl.
UDOT presented a
second proposal. This
was also co nsid ered
u nacceptable by the USU
g roup. The plan called
for extensive cu rve cutti ng through the middle
canyon, elimination o f
picnic and campground
areas, and retaining
walls al ong large sections of the river.
The Forest Service
1987
The Interdisciplinary Team was dis solved by UDOT officials, who were
uncomfortable with public input.
issued an Enviro nmental
Analysis Report on the
project, outlining 20
requirements UDOT
must comply with .
In the face of strong
public o ppositi on a nd
new Forest Service
req uirements, UDOT
scrapped their plans.
They shifted thei r focu s,
and funds to Provo
Canyon.
- - - 1974 - - -
UDOT set up a trai ler
in Logan Canyon and
Ga rden City to distribute
informatio n about their
eventual plans.
1976 - - -
UOOT issued a Route
Analysis Statement, indicating a need for reconstructio n. It included
eight different alternatives. UDOT's recom-
mended action included
shoulders a nd passing
lanes in the middle
canyon, and correctio n of
"substand ard" curves.
Sharp publiC criticism
was directed at UDOT,
wi th Bridgerland
Audubo n Society,
Ci tizens for the
Protection of Logan
Canyon (CPLC), and the
Cache Sierra Club questioning UOOT's stati stical analysis. UDOT
pushed ahead. Analysi s
was begun for an (E IS).
- - - 1979 - --
UOOT presented
their latest proposal for
reconstruction of the
road from Right Hand
Fork to Ricks Spring.
They claimed that the
massive p roject would
require minimal enviro n-
mental ana lysis, saying
that a less d etailed
Environmental Analysis
would be sufficient,
rather than an EIS.
CPLC, a group that
had begun in opposition
to development plans in
Stump Hollow, revived
to fight the road d evelopment. Gunn McKay,
Rep . for Utah's Di strict 1,
went to bat for preservation of the ca nyon.
Tom Lyon and Dianne
Siegfreid visited w ith
regional Federal
Highway Admini stration
(FHWA) offi cials in
Denver to press the
argument that the project
required more ex tensive
analysis. The FHWA
agreed and informed
UDOT that it must prepare an EIS in accordance with new NEPA
requirements.
UDOT was not financially prepa red to take
on a full-b lown environmental analYSiS, and
retrea ted . Between 1980
(continued nat page)
�History
(,on lin,"')
and 1986, UDOT made
periodic visits to Logan
offering modifi cations,
but community activists
still believed the plans
were too excessive.
- - - 1986 - - -
Funding for an EIS
was authorized . CH2M
Hill was hired to do the
analysis.
An Interdiscip lina ry
(10) Team began meeting. Env ironmental
interests were re presented by Steve Fl int, Bill
Helm, Rudy Lukez, Tom
Lyon and Jack Spence.
- - - 1981 - - -
before UDOT dissolved
the group.
Action Force.
- - - 1990 - - -
Steve, Bruce and
Shawn Swaner began
meeting.. again, with
UDOT to forge a compromise and avert lega l
action.
Steve and Bruce felt the
need to move on. A new
steering committee was
appointed fo r CPLC. The
new steeri ng committee
held additional meetings
with UODT.
Audubon magazine
gave coverage to the controversy in a feature article by nationall y re nown
autho r Rick Bass.
- - - 1994 - - -
UOOT issued their
Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DEIS).
Letters in the OEIS ran 21
in favor of the Modified
Standard, similar to the
Preferred Alternative, as
opposed to 309 in favo r
of the Conservationists'
Alternative.
- - - 1991 - - -
Steve a nd Bruce continued to amass technical
experti se on the project.
They hired enviro nm ental lawyer Jeff Appel.
Jeff's co rrespondence
with UDOT bro ught a
more conciliatory stance.
Negotiations began.
A public relations
effort was begun, with
ten thousand brochures
sent by local activists.
- - - 1995 - - -
UOOT released its
Reco rd of Decision
(ROD) favo ri ng the
"mod ified" Preferred
Alternative. CPLC and
UOOT declared the ROD
a compromise. A new
highway design advisory
team was formed, with
CPLC rep resentation .
Logan Canyon
Scoping meetings
held by UOOT drew 400
citizens, with many
attendees leaving due to
lack of room. Project
planners received 200 let- - - 1992 - ters from an aroused
Nadene Steinhoff and
public.
The 10 Team was dis- other volu nteers organized a Hands Across
solved by UOOT offiThe Canyon rally. The
cials, who were uncomevent, attended by over
fo rtable with public
400 people, was covered
input.
by regional and state
Area citizens submitmedia.
ted the Conservatio nists'
The following week,
Alternative, a proposa l
calling for wider bridges, UOOT approached
Bridgerland Audubon
reconstruction of cu lwith a proposal for
verts, three passi ng lanes
renewed negotiations.
in the Upper Canyon,
1993
paved parking areas,
UDOT released their
road rea lignment at the
Lower Twin Bridge, slow Final Enviro nme ntal
Impact Statement (FEIS).
vehicle turnouts, raised
Hundreds of letters were
road beds in nood areas,
sent protesting the excesimproved intersectio ns
sive plans. Petitions
and increased signage.
were sent by the
- - - 1989
Audubon Society,
Steve Flint and Bruce
Business People for the
Pendery were appointed
Canyon, CPLC, the
to a Citizen's Advi so ry
Cache Sierra Club, and
Team formed by UDOT.
the Loga n Environmental
Two meetings were held
6
Coalition (LCC), spearheaded by Kevin Kobe,
was formed to seek further modifications
through the Forest
Service appeal process.
The Forest Service
released their ROD supporting UOOT.
LCC and the Utah
Rivers Conserva tion
Council submitted a 187page appeal to the Forest
Service. The appea 1 was
researched and authored
by a dozen people, and
edited by Gordo n
Steinhoff. Requested
relief included adequate
NEPA documentation,
and further protection
for the Middle Canyon,
Beaver Creek and the
s ummit.
The Forest Service
denied LCe's appea l,
refUSing to add ress critical issues.
Logan Canyon
Coalition is curren tly
making plans to take
legal action.
�Au g u s t 1 , 199 5
Westwater Canyon
Run the Rapids with LCC
It's true Logan
Canyon CoaJition membershi p can be fun. We
don' t believe in all work
and no play.
Frida y, August 18
th rough Sunday, Aug ust
20, we will r un the
Westwater section of the
Colorado River, locatednorth of Moab.
O Uf
fea rless Lee
leader /p resident, Kevin
Kobe, has said that
Westwater has "some of
the best w hite water in
the state." Kevi n and
his sister Bri dget are
organizing the trip.
Kevin feels that Lee
shou ld be more than a
group that works together, but can be a grou p
that "has a fee li ng of
commun ity and fri ends hi p."
A WORLD
Or: A RT A tJD
Lee plans to fl oat
willing to make the
drive, please let us know
when you register. On
receipt of your registration fee, a confirmation
will be sent which will
incl ud e the date, time
and location of the pretrip meeting.
All participants will
be asked to help in meal
and camp preparation,
and, of course, everyone
needs to know how to
swim!
Westwater early
Saturday morning, set
up camp', and hike and
exp lo re the side canyons
around the campsite.
Sunday the rapids
should be rambunctio us.
The cost is $30 for
LCC members and $50
for non-members (making thi s a perfect time to
join!). The trip will be
limited to 20 individuals,
and oars are being fill ed
rapidly. The cost
includes food o n the
river, the permit and
g roup equipment. It
does not include transportation, food for the
trip to and fro m the
river or personal gear.
Ca r pooling w ill be
arranged during a planning meeting. If you are
Registration:
Please send you r registration money to Logan
Canyo n Coa lition, USU
Box #1674, Loga n, UT
84322-0199.
ComcTlo tJ
IUIAl:
vcents
7SS·S497
11·6
7
Volunteers
Needed
1- Networking
2- Fundraising
3- Education
4- Mailings
5- Letter writing
6- Events
7- Media relations
8- Passing the word
9- SLC contacts
10- HELP!
Equipment
Needed
1- Offi ce space
2- Voice mail
3- FAX machine
4- Copier
5- Postage stamps
6- MONEY!
�r------------------------,
YES! I
THE
WANT TO JOIN
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots more
o I would like to voulnteer.
o Here's $12.00 for a great T-Shirt.
o I'm broke! Here's five bucks.
Name,__________________________________
5Ireel_______________________________
City _ _ __
_ _ _Zip _ _ __
Phone#'_ _ _ __
PlUM make check payable and mail to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
U5U Box *1674
L ________________________ J
Logan, UT 84322-0199
LCC T-SHIRTS - 512.00 (three colod
m.. Re;rcled
BULK RATE
u.s. POSTJlGe
Paid
COA.LJl:TJl:ON
Workl", fo r Ih'
of Lo,a" Ca n yo n
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
"""'" UT
I'tnrril N'JJJ
�- -- -- -- --- --------.- --- ----- -- - ------ - --- --- ----- - - - - - -- - -- ---- - --- - --.-. - - - - - - - .,. --.aT __ -.-.w--.aT
•
-- ----- ----------
---
-------
___ ..- -.----.aT ____
- - -- - - ----
A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION
August 1, 1996
Vol. 1 No.3
FEI S Violated
UDOT Unveils Plans
The Utah Depa rtment
of Transportation
(UOOT) has u nveiled its
d esign plans for Bu rnt
and Lower Twin Bridges
in Logan Canyon. With
these plans, UOOT is
already in v iolation of its
Final Envirorunental
Impact Statement (PElS)
and its Record of
Decision. UOOT is now
planning extensive
w idening, cuts into the
mountainsides, and
retaining wa lls that were
not disclosed in these
environmenta l documents. The brid ges and
app roaches to the
bridges have not been
d esigned in an environmentally-sensitive fashion. A strong response
has been sent to UOOT
by our attorney, Kate
Zimmerman.
UOOT is now applying for the construction
permits it needs from the
state Division of Water
Rights and the Corps of
Engineers. The Logan
Canyon Coalitio n (LCq
will submit comments to
these agencies and to the
Design changes at this late date,
after opportunities for public
input have closed, is a v iolation of
the letter and the spirit of the
National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
- Lee Altornty, Kau ZinrmernuHI
Environmental Protection Agency. We are asking for a less d amaging
construction proposal,
one that allows for needed highway improvemen ts w hile p rotecting
the canyon's scenic and
environmenta l resou rces.
We continue to raise
funds for the lega l action
we believe is inevitable.
The Record of
Decision sta tes that
"design and posted
speeds wiJI be 35 miles
per hour" in the upper
middle canyon (from
Lower Twin Bridge to
above Ricks Spring). Yet,
at the bridge d esign
workshop in February,
Rod Terry, UDOT project
manager, ind ica ted tha t
the brid ges and
approaches in this area
have been designed for
40 miles per ho ur.
Apparent ly, driv ing time
throug h the canyon has
been a major factor in
the perceived need to
reconstruct the high way,
even thoug h estima ted
savings in travel time are
quite minimal. "Changing design speeds at this
late date, after opportunities fo r p ublic input
have closed, is a v iolation o f both the letter
and spiri t of the National
Environmenta l Policy
Act," Zimmerman said.
Des ig n plans show
Burnt Bridge being
w idened on the downstrea m side. Cuts into
the mo unta inside up to
750 feet long are now
planned both upstream
and downstream from
the bridge. Two retaining walls of 200 fee t long
wiJI be anchored in
riparian areas near the
bridge. Three more
retaining walls, one up
to 400 feet long, are
planned fo r the mountainside below the
bridge. These cuts and
retaining walls are for
the sake of widening the
highway on either side
of the bridge fro m 26 feet
to 34 feet. These d esign
features and their
impacts on the scenery
and adjacent fishery
were not disclosed in the
FEIS. In that document,
UDOT assured us that
the highway in this part
of the canyon would not
be w idened .
Visual impacts w iJI be
significant. Burnt Bridge
is s urrounded by riparian vegetation and
u pland plant communities that have received a
visual sensitivity ranking
(contilwed /lext page)
�Violates ("";.,,,,)
of 6 and 7 by the Forest
Service, indicating that
the roadside in this a rea
cannot absorb alte rations
and still appear as na tur-
allandscape. The affected maple-shrub community on the cut hillsides
will take 10-15 years to
re-establish, while a ffected juniper and Doug las
fir communi ties will take
more than 20 years to reestablish. Some wetlands
and riparian vegeta tion
will be permanently lost.
UOOT has pledged to
color and texture the
extensive retaining walls,
but retaining walls will
still look like retaining
walls, appearing unnatural. Exposed rock faces
will still look like
exposed rock faces, damaging the scenic beauty
of this area.
Lee believes these
impacts are unnecessary.
The bridge could be
tapered into the existing
highway in a shorter distance, eliminating the
need for much of the
wid ening and the accompanying cuts and retaining waUs.
At Lower Twin
Brid ge, mountainsides
will be cut up to 600 fee t
on either side of the
bridge in order to widen
the highway from 26 feet
to 38 feet. A retaining
wall of 200 feet long is
planned above the
bridge. This retaining
wall and cuts above the
bridge were no t disclosed in the FEIS.
UOOT has yet to show a
purpose and need for allY
high way widening in
this middle section of
Logan Canyon. They
have adm itted that their
an accurate d escription
of planned construction
and a better idea of its
impacts. Surely at this
stage of the FEIS, UOOT
cou ld have surveyed the
relevant features of the
can yon, such as the location of wetlands, and
applied appropriate
design standard s in
to provide an accurate
description of construction and assessment of
impacts. Preliminary
plans for Upper Twin
Brid ge show a cut into
the mountainside of
approximately 15 to 24
feet deep and 760 feet
long. This cu t and its
impacts were not disclosed in the FEIS. We
believe that with a fair
assessment of the environmental impacts of the
elltire highway project,
considered as a w hole, a
less damaging construction alternative would be
more a ttractive.
Such an integrated
assessment should be
given in a Supplemental
Environmentallmpact
Statement for the entire
canyon highway project.
There shouJd also be an
honest demonstration of
the purpose and need for
any construction in
Logan Canyon.
" LCC has g rave concerns about both the
need for UOOT's proposal and its impacts on the
special values of the
canyon. These concerns
are only made worse by
UOOT's violations of its
FE IS and its failure to
g ive the public full
opportunity to participate in this decision and
to comment on
potential environmenta l
consequences,"
Zimmennan stated.
traffic and safety d ata is
"garbage" and "problematic."
lmmediately downstream of this bridge is
crucial brown trout
spawning habitat. LCC
is concerned w ith the
impact construction and
the resulting erosion will
have on this fishery. The
Logan River fishery is
currently ranked in the
top 5% of stream fisheries in the sta te. UOOT
has not supplied adequate information on
sedimentation or on trout
mortality. At both
bridges, there will be
increased erosion into the
rive r during and after
construction until ground
cover can be re-established. Increased sediments can smother trout
eggs, clog gills, and kill
the aquatic insects upon
w hich trout feed . UOOT
admits, "Additional loss
of fish habitat could
potentially occur from
riverbank disturbances
and introduction of sediments into the Logan
River as a result of heavy
machinery and activities
associated with bridge
construction."
LCC has suggested
replacing Lower Twin
Brid ge wi th a wider and
sa fer bridge on a new
alignment, while maintaining current highway
wid th . This would eliminate much cutting into
the mo untainsides and
protect this va luab le fish ery. UOOT has refused.
We are concerned
with UOOT's method of
segmenting its Logan
Can yon Highway proposa l into smaller projects in w hich, well after
the FE IS and Record of
Decision, we fin al1y get
2
�1 , 19 96
Allglls t
Logan River, Wild and Scenic
by Drew Parkin
The recent appeal of the
Forest Service decision to
allow highway expansion
in Logan Canyon quesHoned, among other
things, the resuJ ts of a
Forest Service study
regarding wild and scenic
rivers. For many of you,
the idea of a wild and
scenic river evokes images
of the Sa lmon River in
Idaho or the Rogue River
in Oregon . What d oes this
have to do with the Logan
River? A lot.
The Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act requires federal
land management agendes to include w ild and
scenic river evaluations as
part of their normal decision-making processes. In
the case of the Forest
Service, this means that
forest plans must specifically consider wild and
scenic river eligibil ity. It
also means that any
Environmental Impact
Statement that involves
river resource must
address this issue. Further
- and this is the important part - once the
Forest Service identifies a
river as being eligible, it
must, in adherence wi th
its own ad ministrative
directives, manage the
river "in a manner consisten t with the purposes of
the Act, and such that the
outstand ing remarkable
values which make it eHgible for inclusion are not
dim inished to the poin t
where eligibility is negated. In no event should the
free-flowing characteristics of the river be modified."
In response to a threatened lawsuit, the Forest
Service some 10 years ago
set out to identify potentially eligible wild and
scenic rivers. Individual
forests were entrusted
with this and many
responded admirably.
Unfortunately, wild and
scenic evaluations have
never been high on the list
for forest managers in
Utah . That is, not until the
controversy over the
proposal to widen the
roadway through Logan
Canyon. Pressu red by citizens concerned about the
highway proposal, the
Wasa tch-Cache National
Forest undertook a yearlong river study and, in
November 1993, released
its inventory.
The inventory started
by identifying 37 streams
that forest planners
deemed wor thy of being
s tudied. Nex t, the larger
s treams on that list,
including the Logan River,
were subdivided into
"segments." In all, the
Forest Service study considered 59 stream segments. Of these, 18 segments were rejected
out-of-hand as being
insignificant. Beaver
Creek was one of these.
An ad d itional 11 segments
were rejected for not being
free-flowing. These
included s treams tha t had
been s ubjected to water
w ithdrawals, channeHzation or other degradation .
All of the Logan downs tream of Temple Fork
was rejected for this reason. This left 30 segments
that were actually included in the study.
The inventory considered nine separate
resource fea tures. The idea
was to determine the significance of each stream
with regard to each
resource feature. A stream
could be ra ted as ei ther (1)
typical, (2) Significant a t a
statewide level, or
(3) significant at what the
Forest Service termed a
"provincial" level (an area
comprising all of the
Rocky Mountains). A rating of 3 for any given
resource feature would
q ualify a stream segmen t
for wild and scenic river
(conthwed next page)
DID YOU KNOW?
A b ridge o r a city street must
h ave 12 lanes to accommod ate
40,000 automobiles per hour.
1 lane is necessary to
40,000
bicycles
per
hou r.
To elimin ate the need for Midd le
East oil, U.S. commuters w ould
need to b icycle to w ork only 1.25 times each week.
Equating calories to gasoline, the number of miles per
gallon that could be tra veled b y the ave rage cyclist is
3,000.
ook
130 Nort h 100 EaSI
Logan UT 8432 I
753-9089
PL EASE RI DE YOUR B I KE.
SU NR:ISE C VC LE R:V
138 NORTH 100 EAST LOGAN, UTAH 84321
801 -753-3294 M ONOAY - SATURDAY 10:00 A.M. - 6:00
100% fo r L ogan Canyo n
P.M.
3
�Wild
(COlltinlled)
designation. The result?
Of the original 59 s tream
segments, only one - the
Stillwater Fork of the Bear
River - was found eligible based on the rating for
its scenic features. No
other stream received a 3,
and all were therefore
rejected, including the
Logan River.
I was stunned when I
heard the findings. Based
on severa l years of professional experience with
wild,and scenic rivers,
and having detailed
knowledge of the Logan
River, it was my judgment
that the Logan River not
only met but exceeded eligibility requirements.
After pouring over the
report, I concluded that
the study team's basic
assumptions were wrong
and applying these
assumptions greatly
skewed the findin gs. The
decision to use "p rovi ncial" significance as the
cu t-off for eligibility was
the most pervasive error.
The Forest Serv ice Manual
itself d irects that
"statewide" significance is
an appropriate measure
for judging wild and
scenic status. Several
national forests have used
it as the basis of their decisions, and it is accepted
practice for National Park
Service and BLM planners
as well.
Had the WasatchCache used "statewide"
significance as the threshold, the Logan River
would have been included
easily. If anything, I
believe the ratings for the
Logan River are low. I
question the ratin gs for
wildlife, water recreation
and, especially, scenery.
Even if the Forest Service
ratings are correct, it is
obvious the Logan River is
an extremely important
resource with "statewide"
significance. [n five of the
nine categories, the river
received a s tatewide Significance rating. No other
stream had more than
two. The Logan River was
rated as the most significant stream in the
Wasatch-Cache National
Forest for five of the nine
resource categories. Again,
no other stream could
claim more than two. The
conclusion is inescapable.
The Forest Service report
absolutely confirms that,
when compared to other
streams on the forest, the
Logan River is the crown
jewel and is most certainly
eligible for national wild
and scenic river status.
(Drew Parkin is a river policy
conslilfant in Cambridge, Mass.,
alld serves Off the board of dirf"Ctors of till" Pacific RivtrS
COlllleil. HI" prf"Violls/y mallaged
wild and scenic riuer programs
for tire Na tiollal Park Service. He
is a Ilative of Utah and Sptllt severa/ seaSOIIS workillgJor tire
Forest Service ill Logan Canyon.)
USFS data on the Logan River
between Temple Fork and White Pine Creek.
Logan River rating
St.ltewide s ignifiu nce
Highest rating in forut
Typical
reso urces
Wildlife
Rating compared to other
Wasatch..cache streams
Rated in top 5
Rated in top 5
Geology/Hydrology
Statewide significance
Highest rating in forest
Rated in to p 10
Scenery
Water
Typical
Highest rating in forest
Statewide significance
Rated in top 10
Fisheries
Statewide Significance
Tied for highest rating in forest
Ecology
St.ltewide sig nifican ce
Tied for high est rating in forest
This information was taken directly from tile report.
Adventure,
Sports
_.
.
W l ft ....... tho
-_
"""".ft,..r.._'
......
in4<.o""
h . ....
-
......,
• _ _ ;u.. "';. ••
... ....'-ft.. " ...
... •.
. . ...... 1".4 t •
4
�- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - ---- -- ---------- - ------- ------ww
Augllst 1, 1996
Canyon News Briefs
by Tim Wagner
Utah citizens lost a serious battle
recently when U.s. District Judge Tena
Campbell ruled in favor of the Utah
Deparhnent of Transportation's
(UDOT) plans for further widening of
U.s. 189 through Provo Canyon.
The Provo River Coalition filed suit
February 29 seeking a temporary
restraining order and a preliminary
injunction to prevent further environmental destruction. Because UDOT
had made significant design changes
since the origina l plans were drafted in
1989, the group argued that NEPA
required a supplemental environmental impact statement. Judge CampbeiJ
saw things differently.
"Plaintiffs have so far failed to
come forward with any evidence for
significant environmental effects arising out of the project as currently
planned," Campbell wrote. The judge
said an agency is not required to supplement an environmental-impact
statement every time new information
is found. At the same time she
acknowledged the design changes
included a new road alignment, additional concrete retaining waiJs, and the
creation of a dirt haul road. Inside
sources say that Campbell's concern
for the environment was a cover-up
for more important matters: the economy and jobs. With a $34 million price
tag for two miles of highway, is it any
wonder?
A bit of irony is that UDOT's plans
for the next phase of the project have
been scrapped due to lack of funding.
Alan Meecham, director of UDOT's
Region Three said, "I've got about five
years left (before retirement) and I'd
like to see some work completed in the
canyon before I'm gone."
In the past there was much talk
about UDOT becoming more trustworthy and willing to compromise. Facts
behind the case give the true p icture of
UDOT. This is not an agency as concerned about public transportation, the
environment, and highway safety as
they are about funding massive,
unnecessary highways.
. LCC now has a great public education and awareness tool for Logan
Canyon. With some tremendous pholos by photographer Scott Smith, LCC
has created a fantastic slide show presentation.
It debuted at a well attended
potluck in February on the USU campus and has since been shown to several groups. The presentation lasts
twenty minutes and is easy to fit into a
variety of public gatherings. If you
know a group that would like to see
the show, contact one of the officers.
• LCC would like to thank the outpouring of support we have re«!ived
from our fundraising letter. The money
($3,155) will help us proceed with our
upcoming UDOT battle. The majority
of our support comes from Cache
Valley, but there are many canyon
lovers across the country. Enthusiasm,
support and love for the canyon is evident by the following:
- "Please accept my donation of $25 to
help save Logan Canyon . I'm not sure
how you traced me down here in
Maine, but I'm sure glad you did.
Thanks."
- "As I will soon be moving and wish
to keep up with these canyon issues,
please add my permanent address to
your mailing list."
- "Thanks again and keep up the good
work. See you in the canyon."
- "Long live Logan Canyon."
- "GOOD LUCK! Just wanted you to
know I was impressed with the professional presentation of the latest
brochure and letter. You articulated
your objections to the project in a
straightforward, no nonsense manner
and 1 appreciated the compromises
tha t you see are necessary. Take Care.
"Coffee with a Cause"
Logan
Blend
• regular· organic · decaffeinated · Night and Day
ra i n@intele.nel 801 .75 J . 05'J
$1.00 is donaled 10 Lee for OV8lYpoond sokJ.
5
�SLOWDOWN
WE MOVE TOO FAST
by Kevin 1. Kobe
On December 3,1995,
members of the Logan
Canyon Coalition drove
from Logan to Garden City.
OUf objective was to assess
the quality and uniformity
of advisory and regulatory
signs. We documen ted our
assessments and addressed
our concerns to Dyke
leFevre, Region One
Director, Utah Deparbnent
of Transportation (UIXJ1).
Our fi rst question to Mr.
leFevre addressed the
inconsistent u se of advisory
speed signs on curves. We
expected to see an advisory
speed sign on any curve
which has a design speed
below the posted speed.
This was the case only from
the summit of Logan
Canyon to Garden City.
There is a 40 mph posted
speed limit. There are also
in both th e uphill and
downhill lanes signs indica ting an approaching
cu rve and an advisory
speed. Most of these curves
have arrows ("chevrons")
around them.
The Middle p art of
Logan Canyon has not one
curve with a posted advisory speed. According to the
1987 Technical
Memorandum, this part of
the canyon has many more
curves than Rich County
that are below the posted
speed.
LCe's question was
quite simple: Why hasn ' t
UOOT posted advisory
speed signs on these
curves?
Mr. leFevre explained
how each curve is "unique
in its capability of sustaining a reasonable speed
through the curve section.
Because of the construction,
maintenance, and natural
ground settlement through
each curve, each one will
drive differently than originally anticipated or
designed. Some curves, as
much as 10 MPH below the
posted speed, are s till able
to reasonably allow travel
through the curves at the
pos ted speed."
"We have been anticipating a project through this
canyon fo r a considerable
length of time and may
have neglected reviewing
each o f the curves below
the posted s peed limit.;;
" I have talked to our
Region Traffic Engineer and
he has indicated that since
we have a completed environmental report and we
know what is going to happen, especially through the
middle canyon, that he will
review the curve signing
and advisory speeds and
make recommendations to
better inform the traveling
public."
To date, UOOT has
fai led to install any advisory speed signs in the
Middle and Upper canyon.
A related LCC ques tion
asked how accident surveys
can be done in the midd le
LCC T-SHIRTS - 512.00 4th"" colorl
canyon if the curves in
question are n ot signed
properly? We did not get a
response. Perhaps UOOT
can't come up with good
accident and traffic da ta.
(So there is no reason for
the project.)
We also documented the
lack of signs warning o f
wildlife crossings. The only
wildlife sign in the entire
project area is located within the Garden City limits.
UOOT documented in the
FEIS that moto rists collide
with animals at least twice
as often in the Midd le and
Upper parts of Logan
Canyon as on the Rich
County side.
Mr. LeFevre's answer:
'' In talking with the
Fores t Service, there does
not appear to be any location that has a prominence
o f animal collisions and
that placing the signs at the
beginning of the canyon is
probably just as effective as
having signs throughout
the canyon . The wildlife
warning signs h ave little
effect on driver behavior
and would be more of a
visual impact in the canyon
than it would provide for
motoris ts behavior." (And
massive construction won't
have a visua l impact?)
To further make our
po int, there was not a concern over vehicle/snowmobile collisions anywhere in
the FEIS, and yet there is a
sign pos ted in the Upper
canyon that reads,
"Snowmobile Crossing:
Next 9 Miles". Why worry
about snowmobiles, and
ignore w ild life?
LCC also asked why
there aren't " Pedestrian
Crossing" signs where
many people are crossing
the road, such as Logan
Cave, Blind Ho llow, Ricks
Spring (which is s till a
planned passing zone) and
Bunchgrass C reek?
Mr. LeFevre indica ted
that " A lot of these socalled pull-outs were created by individuals using
them with disregard for
safety to themselves and
the traveling motorists and
have not been an official
designated turn-out."
With the lack of signs
warning motoris ts of pedestrians, animals, and curves
one begins to worry about
UOOTs mission. Is UOOT
really concerned about our
safety?
�Augllst ] , ]9 96
Lee adds ,fun
to activism
'96 SUMMER FUNDRAISERS
The summer heat and
good 01' fashioned ice
cream combined to pro·
duce a fin ancial bonanza
for the Coali tion at
KRCL's Day In The Park
in Salt Lake City on June
8. Through the efforts of
dedicated LCC member
Dan Miller and a few
other volunteers, over
$600 was raised in a sin·
gle afternoon as festival
geers lined up to pay
$2.00 for a Ben & Jerry's
ice cream bar.
Thanks to Dan and
some good connections,
the hot weather treats
were entirely donated by
the socially·conscious ice
cream manufacturer.
"For awhile we were
the most pop ular booth
there," said Dan. It
shou ld also be noted that
many people stopped by
A WORLD
O.
all members and staff of
bo th band s who d onated
their time and talents,
THANK YOU! THANK
YOU l Please get out and
support these guys .
They' re worth it.
This event was special
for two reasons. One, the
amphitheater was per·
fect. This venue is beauti·
fut yet unused and in
need of some repairs.
Maybe we could do a
fund raiser for the theater
itself. Secondly, Jerry
Joseph, lead singer and
guitarist for the Jack
Mormons, spent a good
deal of time livi ng in
Cache Valley. Thus, it
was like returning home
for him.
They want to come
back as soon as possible,
so what do you say?
just to receive some free
information and sign up
on our roster list. Way to
go Dan!
•••••••••••• ••••••
The Coalition would
like to thank all who
attended our fundraiser
concert with Euphio
Project and the Jack
Mormons on June 6.
Capping the last day of
finals and a beautiful
summer evening,. over
200 people came out to
enjoy live music on
USU's amphitheater on
Old Main Hill. The event
raised nearly $800
towards protecting
Logan Canyon.
We would especially
like to thank the Baugh
Motel for co·sponsoring
the event. Of course, to
EJ)GINGWE$T
2"1'1 SW Sl'lll'!. (; \11111' S I
P OIIIl \'11, OJ{ 'Ii21<l
Logan Canyon Your Destination?
T ComCTIOtJ
CLOnmJG &
- Backpacking - Skiing · Climbing · H iking
. Snowshoeing - Sightseeing
"Ccents
117 North Mai n 5t • Logan, Utah, 84321 • 801 -753-1541
7
�r-----------------------,
YES ! I WANT TO J OIN THE
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I wo uld like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots m ore
o I wo uld like to voluntee r.
o Here's $12.00 for a grea t T-Shirt.
p/lIs SJ shippillg
o I'm broke! Here's five bu cks.
o Please add my nam e to your mailing li st.
H
PRINTING CO.
D
Name ____________________________
5treet____________________________
City__________5tate_
Phone#
_ _.Zip _______
Em ail ____________
Plene rn,lk, check p,lyablt MI d mai l to:
43
LOGA N ,
100
W EST
UT A H
8 4321
TEL .80 1 .752, 0 3 1 1
FAX
Logan Canyon Coalition
SOU TH
80 1 .753.3 1 61
USU Box N1674
Logan, UT 84322-0199
L _______________________
We ask for your continued support at this time, as we
prepare for the legal challenge we believe is inevitable.
Our ability to mount a legal battle depends upon the
moral and financial support of canyon lovers such as
yourself. PLEASE consider a generous donation to save
Logan Canyon and Logan River.
• - ._-=.. ..
..
__ __
... _iii
... _ . . .iii ___ iii
na . . . . . __ . . . . . . . . .
- --- - - -- -- - -
C:O.A.L:J:T:J:ON'
, AI'rR.() .
yl- ' bE J'f',() 'W
BULK RATE
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
&, ' <
A fv1.
I
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
Tom &Jan Lyon
655 canyon Road
Logan
ur
8432 1
I
I
,
LOGAN. UT
PERMIT 50
-
tI' Please relfew your
membership today
�- ---_ -- --------
-....... -- --- - -..... --- -------..
---- -- - -- ---- - -- - - - - ----- - - - -- -- - - - -- ---- ---- -- -- --- - - ----------- --- ---- - - - - -- - --- - ------__T
• • _ _ _ _T
_ • • _____T
•
_
----
A NEWS BULLETIN FROM LOGAN CANYON COALITION
Vol. 2 No. 4
Summer 1997
Stop Wo rk Order Lifted
LCC Files Suit
On Ma rch 19 the
Logan Canyon Coalltion
(Lee) filed a complaint
in U.s. District Court
against the Utah
Department of
Transpo rtation (UOOT)
and the Forest Service.
We requested the cou rt to
order a halt to construction at Lower Twin
Bridge in Logan Canyon
until our concerns over
the bridge could be
resolved. The judge s uggested UOOT s top construction. UOOT complied .
We reached an agreement w ith UOOT that
has aUowed us to w ithdraw our request for a
halt to cons truction.
Lee recognizes the need
to replace the bridges,
and work is now proceeding. UDOT has conceded some important
points:
-They ha ve agreed that
in the future they will
not argue for the need to
widen the highway
above Lower Twin
Bridge simply because
they have w idened the
"An improvement to the road
and consequent increase
in operating speed
would expectedly increase the
accident occurrences."
- from a 1974 interna l UOOT memo
highway at the bridge.
Lee was concerned that
widening at the bridge
sets an engineering
precedent to widen the
highway aU the way up
the canyon.
- UDOT has also agreed
to remove the old Lower
Twin Bridge in the most
environmentally sensitive fashion. They ha ve
agreed to present a written plan for removing the
old bridge, with a djscussion of the environmental safeguards they will
employ, and to consider
LCe's comments on their
plan.
Finally, UOOT has
agreed to consider Lee's
comments on their water
quality monitoring plan
and mitigation efforts for
the project. Lee is s uggesting more frequent
moni to ring during construction. We are recommending that for any
future construction better
baseline da ta is ga thered
prior to constructio n.
Unfortunately, for the
present project base line
da ta goes back only to
September, making
impossible adequate
comparison with past
parameter va lues. We
are recommending as
well that for future construction more complete
monitoring be done of
sedimentation due to
construction.
Our lawsuit has
already enabled LCC to
help make highway construction less environmentally destructive.
Lee is grateful to our
attorney, Ray mond Scott
Berry, for his excellent
work on behalf of Logan
Canyon. Scott has put
many hours into lea rning
the details of our case.
His advice has been
invaluable. We are in
good legal hands.
Expertise and ad vice has
been donated from professionals and environmental organizations
across the country. We
are especially g rateful to
Drew Parkin, Jack
Griffith, Steve Flint, Bob
Morris, and Pete Frost
for their expertise and
dedica tion.
Lawsuit Highlights
Our lawsuit still
stands and will be heard
by the court in a few
months. We will explore
the following issues in
court:
-In an internal 1974
memo conceming the
Logan Canyon highway,
(COl/Jill/nod Il!!xl
page)
�Wild and Scenic Rivers
system. The Forest
Service has not followed
UOOT stated, "an
these procedures in the
improvement to the road
case of Logan River.
and consequent increase
in operating speed would ThE:Y should not be
allowing losses to the
expected ly increase the
scenery, the fishery, the
accident occurrences."
water quality and other
Here UOOT is admitting
canyon resources that
what we should know by
will come with UOOT's
common sense.
Widening and straighten- proposal until the evaluation procedure is propering this ca nyon highway,
wi th an increase in traffic ly ca rried out. We have
documented the fai lures
speed, wi ll lead to a less
of the Forest Service to
safe highway. There will
abide by its own regulastill be curves in the road,
limited sight distance and tions.
- The Forest Service is
steep inclines. Especially
mandated by federal law
in the ice and snow of
to generate a list of recrewinter we should not
ation areas in Logan
have traffic hurtling
Canyon that are to
through the canyon at
receive special protection
speeds that are not safe.
from construction
By 1993 UDOT changed
impacts. The Forest
its mind and presented a
Service presented 17 sites,
safety argument for its
most of which are small
proposa l. They promote
parking lots. This meathe myth that thei r proger list was generated
posed construction w ill
with absolutely no ratiolead to a safer highway.
nale for why they chose
Their traffic and accident
data ha ve obviously been these sites and why they
manipulated to make the have ignored other
important recreation
case they wish to make.
a reas. For aU we know,
-In their 1974 memo
the Forest Service threw
UDOT admitted, "The
darts at a map to generonly conclusion w hich
ate its list. LCC has doccan be drawn, therefore,
umented 63 addjtiona l
is that even the most
recreation areas that the
minima l improvemen t to
Forest Service should
the existing highway
have included in its list,
would have severe
areas that are used for
adverse impact on the
picnicking, fishin g, kaycanyon water resources."
acking, rock climbing,
Yet, now UOOT c.I aims
either no impact or mini- etc. The Forest Service's
Management Plan for
mal impact to the fishery
Logan Canyon lists recreand to water quality.
ation as the primary use
They must be thinking
of the canyon. We will
tha t a mirac.le will occur.
explore in court the arbiTheir estimations are
trary and capricious manbased on fantasy, not
ner in which the Forest
good science, which is a
Service has behaved in its
violation of federal law.
evaluation of recreation.
- The Forest Service
- The Forest Service is
has la id out a proced ure
a lso mandated by fed era l
fo r eva luating rivers for
law to account for
inclusion in the national
Lawsui t
impacts of construction
upon its sensitive species,
including Bonneville
Cutthroa t Trout. The
Forest Service's conclusion of no impacts is
based upon no surveys at
all or upon surveys that
are inadequate. The
Forest Serv ice makes bald
assertions that are totally
mysterious, such as "flora l species have been mitigated for." No explanation of this claim is provided. Other assertions
are pa tently false, Stich as
"no fauna l sensitive
species were found withthe proposed project
dIsturbance area,"" a claim
contradicted by information known to the F(1rest
Service about Bonneville
Cutthroa t Trout.
UDOT's highway proposal will result in a
highway that is less sa fe.
It is far more expensive
than is needed, and it is
far too damaging to the
fishery, the scenery, water
quality and other
resources. It threa tens
recreation, the primary
use of the canyon.
UDOT's hi.hwav PI"OPO'Sal is also
porkbarrel project for the
sake of bringing taxpayer
dol lars through the
UOOT burea ucracy. Our
own Conservationists'
Alternative fea tures sensible highway improvements such as bridge
replacement, some passing and turning lanes,
while it protects valuable
canyon resources.
Our lawsuit is essential if we are to save
Logan Canyon from
UOOT's appetite for
asphalt. Our stand has
already made a difference.
(,0,,1i,,""')
""'g'''"
2
�Summer 1997
The Ultimate Impact
Roads Facilitate People
By Tim Wagner
Over the course of the
last eighteen months, I've
had the opportunity to
speak on behalf of LCC to
several groups. After presenting some history and
current facts surrounding
the Logan Canyon issue, I
usually find myself drifting towards what I see as
the biggest threat. That is,
people.
While we are aU rightfully concemed about the
many various fonns of
environmental dcgradation resulting from fifteen
to twenty years of construction, I honestly
believe that a new and
"improved" U.S. Highway
89 through Logan Canyon
will facilitate a tremendous amount of development, and the result, the
"ultimate impact."
Try to project your
thoughts to the fall of
2017. It's a beautiful afternoon and you and your
granddaughter have
decided to go fishing in
Logan Canyon. UOOT
contractors are putting the
finishing touches on
shoulders and drainage
facilities. A new widened
stretch of asphalt lays
before you, extending aU
the way to the summit
and down to Garden City.
Semi-trucks careen by
at 60 miles per hour, making deliveries to a convenience store that has been
located at FrankUn Basin
for the last ten years. Up
the road, adjacent to the
Beaver Mountain tumoff,
lies a brand new restaurant and hotel complex.
The facility occupies over
40 acres with a giant parking lot, sending roadg'rime into Beaver Creek.
Farther up, a new
snowmobile/ ATV dealershjp has located along
with a fast-food franchise.
Because of the increase in
tuming traffic, UOOT has
now started construction
on another widened intersection, forcing massive
cuts into the slope.
Throughout the upper
section of the canyon, residential construction is
booming, along with severa! higher density developments. At times, traffic
is so congested that it continues to back up, with
increasing accidents.
Your fishing trip tums
into a nightmare because
every place you try to
stop is packed with
anglers. Many are out-ofstaters staying at the new
hotel
reading about
the wonderful fishing and
sight-seeing opporhmities
in Logan Canyon, courtesy of Chamber-sponsored national advertising.
Frus trated, you decide
to take a short hike to
view the fall colors. That
too is aborted when you
realize that every trailhead is jammed with vehicles. So much for quality
outdoor recreation.
Sound surreal? It
shouldn't. If you've spent
anytime at aLi in Logan
DID YOU KNOW?
A bridge OC" cily stTftt must
12
10
40.000 aulomobilal pet' hou,. Only 1
U n«eIINl)'
to KIC01I\mOd.;ole 40)100 bicydes pet' hour.
To
the need fo, Middle
oil, US. commuleT\l wou ld nHd lu b iqde 10 work only t.2S times eKh week.
Eql1.Jling
10 guoli ,"" the
n"moo of milal pe' pilon thOIIt rould
boP: lnIveled by the Ivenoge cyclist ;53)100.
PLEASE RI DE YOUR BIKE.
138 NoRTH 100 EAST loG.t.N, UIAH 84321
80 1-753-3294 MoN.- SAl. 10:00 A.M.- 6 :00I!M.
•---.-.--.---
GRAPEVINE
I
tiTa,.aIT
.
3
Canyon in the past years,
you know we are already
seeing the first inklings of
such a scenario. This is a
real situation that can and
will occur, if allowed .
This is why we are seeing some of the major
environmental groups
starting to tackle the issue
of uncontrolled development. Just this past spring
the Sierra Club initiated a
national campaign entitJed "ChaUenge to
SprawL"
According to the club,
" ... nothing threatens our
air, water, and wild places
more than sprawl." Right
up front, the club proclaims the campaign starts
with stopping inappropriate roads and d evelopments. Sound familiar?
One point they take
issue with is the myth that
development results in
increased tax revenues.
The cost of infrastructure
alone needed to meet the
demands of such develop(cont inued /lext page)
�PEOPLE
(con/itwed)
men!, including highways,
sewers, water, electricity,
and communications,
often exceed the long term
revenue.
These are a ll items subsid ized by you, the taxpaye r. And who reaps the
most benefits? The developer and the summer
h ome owner who are
enabled to build in the
canyon beca use they do
not pay the true expense.
Add in the future costs of
decreased air and water
quality, traffic congestion,
and an overall decline in
the quality of life for residents and the price tag
goes through the roof.
Another way to look at
it comes from the n atio na l
organization, The Trust for
Public Land. It recently
cited research showing
how zoning and other
government regulations
actually encourage development into many of our
open spaces. There again,
government investment
(by the taxpayer) into
infrastructu re serves to
boost land va lues, making
them much more attractive
for development.
Is there anyone who
bel ieves that private and
state owned land values in
Logan Canyon will
decrease once the new
" modified preferred alter·
native" is in place?
It all comes back to one
central point. Build it and
they w ill come. This is an
a rgument that can' t be disputed, even by LCe's
staunchest opponents. Yet
it is this, what I refer to as
the "ultimate impacl," that
has not been addressed in
the Environmenta l Impact
Statemen t nor in a ny other
serious d iscussions.
This is the very issue
that helped the Illinois
chapter of the Sierra Club
successfully stop a m ajor
interstate highway expansion. In the ruling the
judge stated, "Highways
create demand for travel
and expansion by their
very existence." Because
the final EIS d id not
include the "necessary
studies," the court felt the
public and other government agencies were not
informed of all the consequences.
Roads precede developmenl. It is a simple idea
and one you will hear
more of n o matter w here
you live. Not that highway
expansion and development is necessarily bad.
-_
_-_.
_
'- .....
. ' -'
.. , • •• "
But there are right ways
and wrong ways and
right places and wrong
places. Logan Canyon is
the wrong place.
And this is why I firmIy believe we need to elevate the discuss ion of this
project beyond the hjghway itself. Whenever we
have the opportunity to
talk with the general public about LCe's position,
we must include the
issues of people and
development. For many,
the topics of bridge
w idths, fishery impacts,
endangered plants, and
wild and scenic rivers are
too abstract.
But ask that person
Log"" Canyon Postcards
GmT'a y"f
Stu d io 404 l'hOlograph y.
Alan Hu u li s
...
i ...g..
3-xS- $,SO f
usu
16701
Utah 1W322"()I9'.I
Adventure,
Sports
o f •••
.
...... ...
......,,, ......
-
4
how they will feel w hen
their favorite fishing hole
or ski or s nowmobile trail
is too crowded, forcing
them to go elsewhere, and
you may find a n ew ally.
Preventing the " ultimate impact" in Logan
Canyon is a lifelong commitment. Achieving reasonable highway sa fety
improvements in lieu of a
massive pork-barrel project is just one incremental
step, but the first step. If
you would like to help or
would like more information about this issue,
please feel free to call me
at 755-0286. Get involved
now.
.:.
EDWARD AUEY
, ...,ItA;, 0' II
I'NII 111.10 ANII 1 ••_
IIII"'N; TO.
LCC POSTCARDS
USU 101C_ I,","
LO;AN. UTAN "111- 01"
�Slimmer 1997
Canyon News Briefs
(Tlte follawillg is reprillled from a letter to
tlte editor of tlte Utall Slate University
All/11m; Magazine.)
the shot-crete is for added stabili ty and is falling off in sheets
as we stand looking ... Shotcrete on this type of canyon
First Provo Canyon, now
material is like putting a band- Provo Callyoll Coalilion
Logan. Soon there will be nothaid on a gushing artery ... The
ing left, only p eople racing
recent slide triggered the
from one spot to another trying County political and business lead- Coalition's worst fears, fears
to find a happiness which can
ers are begitmiug to question the that a four-lane road just won' t
only be found in slowly savorenviront1lel1tal alld finallcial costs work through a narrow area
ing the bea uti es God created.
wi th unstable rock.
of the Provo Cal1yon fiasco, and
are protestil1g tile priority given to
Gilda Sims, class oj 1940,
the cal/yon road at the expense of Looking at this raw, powerful,
currently residing ill Eval1ston,
more Jzeavily traveled roads.)
exposed scar, boulders tumble
Wyomitlg
down as we speak. They
" ... I can hardly stand to be here appear out of nowhere, crash... I am prone to letting out a
ing down, hitting the barrier of
primal scream of anger as I
concrete and wire fencing
(Tlte followillg was sent fr01l1
pass daily the monster dump
UDOT has constructed in an
friends in Provo WilD are watching trucks hauling away the
attempt to protect motorists
tlte last of tlteir cat/yol/ behlg
innards of the can yon.
once the canyon is opened. It
devoured by dynamite, bulldozers
seems as if someone is up there,
and asphalt. Almost-vertical culs We are all looking at the same
hurling down the rocks in
in file cal/yoll walls Itave caused
thing. A massive cut in the
anger. It is driving the engimassive slides, flattellil1g a twocanyon wall--70 feet high and
neers crazy ... Further up the
tOil pickup and closing tlte
300 feet long--that wi ll eventuroad, a waterfall of black mud
highway. Tlte fOllr-laue highway, ally make room for two more
flo ws from an area scraped by a
costing $20 million per mile, is in lanes of de-curved roadway.
bulldozer.
its Jilwl phase. U DOT begal/ tile The first length of the canyon
rec0115tructioll ill the lIIid-1980s
face has been drilled with
We are frustrated, worried and
with a promise to tile enviro1JlIlell- twenty foot spikes and covered sick at heart over what they
tal community tltat tlte road wou ld with shot-crete. The drilling is
have done to our canyon."
be limited to two lmies. Utah
an attempt to stabilize the face;
" Coffee with a Cause"
• regular· organic · decaffelnaled • Night and Day
11.00;'
to LCC Ior..-ery pound sold.
"We are sick at heart over
w hat they h ave done
to our canyon."
�Recreation Threatened
By Kevin f. Kobe
nificance, or enjoyment
of Commerce).
During my recent s ki
trip from Logan Canyon
to Teton Pass, Wyoming,
I saw only two canyons
throughout the entire
300 mile stretch that did
not have s nowmobile
tracks. It made me realize how current highway
plans fo r Logan Canyon
will further threaten
human-powered recreation.
How? Most of the
recreation resources in
Logan Canyon were le ft
out of the highway documents (the FEIS, DElS,
and ROD). This opinion
is s upported by the fac t
that only 17 sites were
lis ted as recrea tion si tes
under Section 4(f) of the
Department of
Transportation Act of
1996.
The Final
Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) states
that, " Recreation has
been designated as the
primary use in Logan
Canyon according to the
Wasa tch-Cache National
Forest Land and
Resource Management
Plan. Developed and
undeveloped recreation
lands occur along the
hig hway within the
National Forest. .. "
The entire stretch of
Logan Canyon IS USED
FOR OUTDOOR
RECREATION and is
promoted as s uch (note
the many brochures pro-
duced by the C hamber
o f an UIban park where
Recently, Logan
Canyon Coalition (LCq
inventoried an additiona l 63 sites a long the project area that were not
listed in any of the documents. Most of these
sites provide access for
picnicking, fishing,
climbing, kayaking, bird
watching, sig ht-seeing
and parking for winter
activities.
Many of the sites will
be adversely affected by
the proposed highway
project. These include
direct impacts to the
recrea tion resource, such
as elintina ting access
parking lots, and indirect impacts such as
noise and safety.
According to the FEIS
(p. 6-4), " indirect
impacts include exceeding ambient noise criteria, reduction in access,
visual impacts, vibratio n, and ecological
intrusion. Substantial
impairment occurs only
when the protected
activities, features, or
attributes of the resource
are substantially diminished." The FEIS d efin es
protected activities and
features as, " ... performances at an outdoor
amphitheater, sleeping
in the sleeping area of a
ca mpground, enjoyment
o f a historic site where a
quie t setting is a generalIy recognized fea ture o r
a ttribute of the site's sig-
serenity and quiet are
significant
Based on the above
criteria, all 63 sites, as
well as the entire stretch
of Logan Canyon, will
s uffer "substantially
diminished " recreational
resou rces due to the current hig hway project.
Many o f the activities in
Logan Canyon occur in
areas "where a quiet setting is a generally recognized feature o r attribute
of the site's sig nificance ... " These areas
will be affected by an
in crease in traffic no ise
levels as a result of:
faster speeds, additional
passing lanes (d ue to
vehicle acceleration),
and braking noises.
Another indirect
impact concerns safety
for recreationists; vehid es entering and exiting
recreation sites along a
faster highway w ill be
more dangerous.
Additionally, different trends in recreation
have occur red in Logan
Canyon since the FEIS
was written. Activities
that have grown in popularity and have not
been considered in any
documents include backcountry snowboarding,
boating, fly fishing,
climbing alo ng the rock
cliffs adjacent to the
highway, and recrea tional and professional
cycling.
In conclusion, the list
of 4(f) sites in the FEIS
lacks professional and
scientific integrity. It
falls short of recognizing
the recreation resource
in Logan Canyon a nd
new recrea tio n trends. It
also does not provide
enough information conceming all of the recreational pursuits occurring within any onc of
the 17 4(f) sites in Logan
Canyon.
----.
28 Fed!llIIItft. Lopn. lit 84321
(101) 7Ss-olS7
F Ine
&
rw-k
l I f _ ..............,........"
I.CC T-SHiIl:TS - 51 2.00 (3 rob)
6
7Ss.8657
Moo......., · s,."....t
"'"'
�-- - -- 'iE
-- - i --"Ei
Slimmer 199 7
Speak Now, Speak Often
Make Your Voice Heard
G overnment Officials
Letters to the Editor
What to Do
Governor Mike Leavitt
The Herald Journal
State Capitol Building
Salt Lake Ci ty, UT 84114
Ph# 801-538-1000
Fax: 801-538- 1528
75 West 300 North
Logan, UT 8432 1
Phil 801-752-2121
Fax: 801·753-6642
Please write and urge
ou r government officials
and the public to re-evaluate UOOT's plans and to
consider the more fi sca lly
prudent "Conserva tionis ts'
Alternative" that s till
addresses the need s o f
highway safety and Logan
Canyon . It is not a "do
nothing" proposal.
Be s ure to include your
full name, address, s ignature (except e-mail) and
daytime phone number.
Keep your letter short and
to the point. Write about
your personal experiences
in the canyon and use facts
to s upport your a rguments.
e-mail:
govemori?Jemail .state.u Lus
e-mail: hjleUeri?Jhjnews.com
The SaIt Lake Tribune
Rep. Jim Hansen
U.S. House of Representati\'cs
Washington D.C. 205 15
Phil \-202-225-0453
Fax: 1-202-225-5857
Rodney Terry
Project Manager, UOOT
Ave.
PO Box 12580
Ogden, UT 844 12
Phil 801-399-592 1, ext30S
169 North Wan
Fax: 801-399-5926
liz Schuppert
District Ranger
USFS, Logan District
1500 East Highway 89
Logan, UT 84321
Phil 801 -755-3620
Fax: 80 1-755-3639
Public Forum
PO Box 867
Salt La ke City, UT 84110
Fax: 801·237·2022
Deseret News
Readers' Forum
PO Box 1257
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Fax: 801·237-2121
e-mail: Letters@d esnews.com
The Standard-Examiner
PO Box 951
Ogden, UT 84402-{)951
Phlf 800-234-5505
Phil 801-625-4222
Fax: 801-6254508
e-mail : Letters@standard.ne t
Thank you for
your h e lp !
L()(H, Hilt Oil! 'E\\ \\EII I'\(a. \I:
AW ORLD
(!omCTION
CLOTHING &
Logan Canyon Your Destination?
- Silckpil cking - Skiing -Climbing -Hi king
- Snowshoeing - Sightseeing
Accents
57 SOOT\I lWw • locwI UT 1?4g21
753·3497
htll': I/\"'\\o/l11"rinl'rol'nl11 / ilo o
l
!JON·SAT 11·6
117 North Meln 81
7
�r-----------------------,
YES! I
THE
WANT TO JOIN
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and receive a subscription to CANYON WI ND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lois more
o I would like to volunteer.
o Here's 512.00 for a g reat T-shirt.
o I' m broke! Here's five bucks.
o Please add my name to your mailing list.
pl"JSJ51!ippi"g
Name____________________________
PRINTING (0.
5 Ireel____________________________
Cily _ _ _ _ _ _Slale_ _ _. ip _____
Z
Email_ __ _ ___
P h one#
43
SOUT H
100
LOGAN , UTAH
WEST
84321
TEL . 801.752.031 1
make ch«k payable ilnd m ol;1 to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box #1674
L _______________________
Logan, UT 84322·0199
FA X 80 1 . 753 . 316 1
Please consider a donation to LCe. All donations will be
used for the protection of Logan Canyon.
LCC wants to thank the hundreds of individuals, businesses
and foundations who have contributed time, money and
expertise towards the legal defense of Logan Canyon. Your
generous support is appreciated.
.. ..
Wi
!!!!
...... - ............
__ __ .iii . . __ ... .iii _.:;;;;; ___ •
--=- -=-=
==--=
=
-
-== =
=
-=-=- - -
COA.L:J:T:J:ON
BULK RATE
U.s. POSTAGE
Paid
lDgall, IJT
Pe.",;t N"SO
Wor k i n s f or t h e P ro t ec t ion o f
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
." Please Rellew YOllr
Membersllip Today
�----...-.. -- -------...- -------- -----_.....
--- -- --- -- - ----- ---.-------.- .
- ------ - - --- -----
- ---- - - - - ---- - - -- ---- - - ------- - - - -- -- -- - - --- ----- --- - --- -- - - -- -__-.- __ T _ _ _ _-.-
- --- - - -- A
---
--
-------- - -------
N E W S B U L LE TI N FR OM L OGAN CAN YO N COALI T IO N
Vol. 2 No.5
Spril1g 1998
Bass and Parkin to Headline
Logan River Summit
Have you ever seen
an o fficia l Wil d and
Scenic rive r? Have you
ever wonde red i f the
Logan Rive r possesses
such qua lities? And
ha ve you ever wondered why Utah currently has no rivers that
a re being studied fo r
possible incl usion in the
Wild and Scenic system,
let alone a river with the
officia l designation?
Answers to these
questions and more will
be presented at the
" Logan Ri ve r SummitA Confluence of Ideas/'
Saturday May 16, 1998,
from 8:30 to 4:30 at the
Beaver Mountain Ski
Lodge in Logan
Can yon. Fea tured guest
speakers addreSSing the
w ild and scenic issue
w ilJ be nationalJy
known river policy
ex pe rt Drew Par kin and
Utah Rivers Council
director Zach Frankel.
Have you ever wondered w hy
Utah currently has no rivers
that are being studied for
possible inclusion in the Wild
and Scenic system?
Parkin's expe rtise
includes directing wild
and scen ic rivers programs for the National
Park Service. Currently
he consul ts with many
river orga niza tions,
add ressin g a variety of
rive r issues. Parki n also
serves on the board of
di rectors for the Pacific
Rivers Council A native
o f Utah, he now lives in
Cambrid ge,
Massachusetts.
Zach Frankel sta rted
the Utah Rivers Cou ncil
approxim a te ly five
yea rs ago a nd has
become well known
around the state for his
knowledge of Utah
rivers and the man y
threa ts to their wa tershed s.
A lso speaking on
beha lf of ri ver ecosystems will be na ti ona lly
known author Rick
Bass, who w ill bring his
own style of passion for
our na tura l world. He is
widely loved by
Am erican readers. As a
forme r res ident of
Logan, Utah a nd a USU
alumni , Bass often
spea ks of his intimate
relationship with Logan
Canyon and the Logan
Ri ver.
"Sustainable
Watersheds" w ill be the
theme of an afternoon
panel di sc ussion , CO I11p lete w ith a ques tion
and answer period.
Partic ipants include
John Ca rter with Willow
Creek Ecology who will
address riparian and
wa tershed issues,
Wendy Fisher with U tah
Ope n Land s who will
educa te attendees on
such th ings as conservation easemen ts, Wes
Johnson, president of
Utah's Trout Unlimited
who will talk of the
importance of aquatic
protections, and Mike
Timmons, USU landscape arch itectural professor, who will discuss
visual aesthetic issues.
Acting as panel moderator will be Logan 's
own KUSU program
director Lee Aus tin.
It should be noted
that this conference is
(col1lill!u'd 01/ pagt' 4)
�Bridge Fight Averted
On September 8, 1997
potentia l impacts by ceas- bridge up after it has col·
ing construction during
the Logan Canyon
lapsed into the river?
Coalition sent II letter to
the spa\vning season.
.15 there an envi ronmenTom Twedt of BioWest
UDOT's Sto rm Water
tally less damaging
with questions concernPollution Prevention Plan method of bridge
ing the Utah Department clearly stated,
removal? Since UDOT
of Transportation's
"Cons truction activities
plans to crane the new
wi ll be scheduled to
(UDOT) constructi on
bridge into place, it
avoid period s of aquatic
plans for the fall.
seems that they could
BioWes t is the env ironlife cycles (spawning,
crane pieces of the old
men ta l consultant on the
etc.)." Suddenly UDOr
bridge Qu t w i thout droptwo brid ges project in
annou nced that it was
ping it into the ri verbed.
Logan Canyon.
Surpris ingly, the
Our main conidea of demolishing
After LCC's threa t of alt illj uctioll, the old brid ge durcern was over the
pOSSibility that
UDOY {l l mOItIlCe ri there would be ing spawning seaUDOTwould
son, just upstream of
11 0 bridge demolitioll dur;lIg the
demolis h the o ld
a documented
Brow n Trout fall spawning seaso". brown trout spawnLower Twin
Bridge in the fall. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ing area, was su pd uri ng brown
ported by the Utah
trout spawning season.
considering construction
Division of Wildlife
UDOT's Reevaluation of
and bridge demolition
Resources.
the llucc Bridges Project
during the spaw ing seaOur attorney,
son.
for Logan Canyon conRaymond Scott Berry,
tains a good discuss io n of
We were concerned
faxed a memo to UDOT's
the brown trout spawnthat UDOT wou ld use
attorneys, stating our
ing area immedia tely
explosives to blast ou t
in tention to file for an
the brid ge su pports,
downstrea m of Lower
injunction on all b ridge
Tw in Bridge and the
a llow ing the bridge to
construction and demolipotenti al im pacts of
fall into the riverbed.
tion during the spawn ing
increased sediments
They wou ld then drag
season. At the CAT
u pon the eggs a nd fr y of
the b ridge out o f the
(Cooperating Adv isory
riverbed wi th tractors.
spawning trout.
Team) meeting of
According to U
There would be massive
,e
Sep tember 24, UDOT
a mounts o f sediment
Reeva luation, "The
announced there wou ld
be no bridge demolition
Logan River dmvnstrea m introduced in to the ri ver
during the fa ll. They
of Lower Twin Bridge has as the bridge sank into
agreed that all constructhe riverbanks and was
been used as a spaw ning
tion activity in the fall
site by brown trout. ...
dragged out. The loss to
would be li mited to work
riparian areas wou ld be
sedi ments released into
considerable.
on the deck of the bridge,
the Logan Rive r by conh igh above the ri ver.
s truction activities in la te
Our
There would be no work
su mmer, fa ll , and winter
questions included:
in the river or o n the
could suffocate eggs and
- Precisely how much
riverbanks. We believe
fry, which are expected to sed imen t will be in trothis decision by UDOT
be present in this spaw n- duced into the river?
- Exactly how wi ll the old helped to protec t spawning area from about
ing b rO\'vn trou t in Logan
October through March." bridge be removed?
Rive r.
UDOT had previously
- Wha t w ill be the
agreed to minimize
impacts of cu tting th e
2
�-- - -------- =- - - -= - -
=
-
'=
-
:-=..:: '::'
--
--
= :-=.:
- --=-=
=
=::
= :':.: ==
..=..-=..=..=-.=
Sprillg 199 8
An Expert Speaks O u t
UDOT's Confused Data
By LCC Stnff
mates or on how accurate their estimates are.
more than o ne accid ent
per ye<lr, " there is only
one site in the entire
canyon with more than 2
The Logan Ca nyon
Coalition asked Dr.
Everett C. Carte r, of the
Transportation Studies
Cen ter of the University
o f Maryland, to exam ine
the Utah Department of
Transportation's (UOOT)
traffic and accident data .
In his report, Dr. Carter
states, "There is d efiniteIy some confusion concerning acciden ts and
traffic volumes in Loga n
Canyon."
Dr. Carter no tes that
the method UDOT used
to estimate traffic fl ows
in Logan Ca nyon " resu.lted in errors." UDOT
used only one counter at
o ne location in the
ca nyon to count vehicles,
and they then used these
counts to estim ate traffic
volumes in nil sections of
the cn nyon. No information is provid ed on how
they calculated their esti-
Here is one exa mple
of error. In the hig her
accidents pe r yea r." He
states. "One o r two acci-
section of the middle
dents/year is not
ca nyon, and in the uppe r
ca nyon, the estimated
traffic vo lumes that
UDOT used to calculate
acciden t rates declined
in the years 1986 - 1990
compared to 1980 - 1985.
Yet the estimated tra ffi c
volumes in the lower
ca nyon, and in the lower
sectio n of the middle
canyon, show a 7%
increase in 1986 - 1990
VS. 1980 -1985. Why
would traffic volumes
increase in the lower secHons of the canyon in
1986 - 1990 and yet
d ec line in the upper sections? There is no expla nation of this discrepan-
unu sually hi gh"! In
o the r words, the Logan
Ca nyon hig hway is not
an especially dangerous
hig hway.
Special Report 214
from the na tional
Trans portation Resea rch
Boa rd (1987) indicates
tha t the benefit of w idening beyond 34 feet is
"q uite lim ited." Dr.
Ca rter states, "Thus a 34
ft. paved section, especiall y in lig ht of the env iro nmen ta l impact,
should be the upper limi t
in Logn n Cn nyon .... "
UooT is planning a 40
foot hi ghway width
above Beaver MOu.ntnLn,
in s pite of the greater
expense and environmental impact o f this
cy.
Dr. Carter observes
that w hil e there are 9
si tes in the canyon \v ith
DID YOU KNOW?
A bridgt' or .. cit y J tTfl't mu st h .. "c 12
Joint'S to ..
4lJ,000 .. utomobil cs pCt hour. Only I I.. nt' iJ nc.:cssuy
to
40,000 bieyclcs pcr hour.
To
thl' nccd for Middl c Eas t
oi l, U.S. commuters would nced to biercit' to work o nl y l.25 tim cs
wl't'k.
u lo riH to
thc
numbcr of milt'S
could
bf tr'''flcd by th f aYf ragc (yelisl i, 3.000.
.
'IY
• :;-
' 1W..1
PLEASE RIDE YOUR BIKE.
138 NOI»H 100 EASl lOGAN. UrN! 84321
801 -753-3294 MQN.- SAl. 10:00 A.M. - 6:00 P.M.
G ,,
-_.- ...
--_--
PEVJNE
...
3
:
.......
width, and in spite of
this Specia l Report.
Another report UDOT
apparently ignored,
" Low Cost Methods for
Improving Traffic
Operations on Two-Lane
Roads," wa s published
by the Federal Highwa y
Administra tion in 1987.
This report discusses
low-cost but effecti ve
highway improvements
s uch as slow-vehicle
turnouts and better signing. These improvements have been part of
LCe's propo5<'11 for many
years.
Dr. Carter concludes,
'' In summary, I a m convinced that there is reasonable doubt that a fu ll
scnle/mnjor improvement of the entire
Ca nyon is justified."
.:.
�RIVER
(,,,,lim,"')
be ing underwritte n
th roug h the generos ity
of the ational Ri vers
Coa liti on, w hich is
mad e up of the
America n Ca noe
Assoc., Ameri ca n
Rivers, A meri ca n
Whitewate r Affili a tion,
Na tio nal Wildli fe
Fede ration, Ri ver
Management Society,
Rive r Ne two rk, Sie rra
C lub, and The
Wilde rness Soci ety.
Loca l co-spo nso rs
includ e the Citi zens for
the Protection o f Loga n
Ca nyon and
Brid ge rl and Audubo n.
The ir support is commend able!
Cost for the enti re
day, incl uding a conti ne nta l breakfast and
lu nch, includes $10 for
adu lts and $7.50 for students. Early reg istra tion
is encou raged as seating
is limited to 150 people.
See the enclosed insert
(Uta h mailing o nly) for
m o re info rmatio n. Or
call at 435 / 755-0286.
Why Are Wetlands Important?
Wetlands are important for
ma ny reasons:
Wetlands prevent nooding by hold ing wa ter much
like a sponge. By doing so,
wetlands help keep river
levels norma l and filter and
pu rify the s urface wa ter.
Wetlands accept wa ter
d uring sto rms and w henever water levels arc high.
When wa ter levels are low,
wetland s slowly release
water.
Wetlands also release
vegetative matter into
rivers, which helps feed fis h
in the rivers. Wetlands help
to counter balance the
human effect on rivers by
rej uvenating them and surrounding ecosystems.
Ma ny anima ls that live in
other habitats use wetlands
for migra tion or reprod uction. Fo r example. herons
nest in la rge old trees, bu t
need sha llow areas in order
to wad e for fi sh and aquatic
life. Am ph ibians often for<lgc in upland areas but
return to the water to mate
and reproduce.
Wetlands must not be
thoug ht o f as a unique and
independent habitat. They
arc vital to the survival of
many ecosystems and
......
---...
,.,
,
wild life in genera l.
Unl ike most oth er habita ts, wetlands directly
improve other ceo-systems.
Becausc of its many clea nsing bmefits. wetlands have
been compnred to kid neys.
The analogy is correct, wetlands and kid neys help
con tro l water flow and
cleanse the flow o f liquids
within a system.
Eros ion Contro l
Looking at pictures o f
delt"s, o ne cn n tell that
rivers d eposit" lo t o f mud .
Mud is top soil that has
eroded and w"shed away.
Emergents (plan ts firmly
rooted in the muddy bottom bu t with stalks tha t rise
high above the wa te r su rface) a re able to radica lly
slow the flow o f water. As a
result, they counter the erosive fo rces o f mov ing wa ter
along la kes and ri vers. and
in rolli ng agricultura l landscapes. Erosion control
effo rts in "qua tic areas
often incl ude the planting
of wetlands plants.
Wate r Purifica tion
Wetlands also clean thc
watcr by filtering o ut sedimentation and d ecomposing vegetable ma tter.
Wetlands pla nts help
Adventure,
Sports
-"'-
_.
, _ "_ _ n
..... ......,.
.......
,
4
convert nitrates and other
life-givi ng chemica ls. Soil
thai is inundated with
water is largely oxygen
free, and the microbes and
bacteria in upla nd soils
depend on oxygen to su rvive. TIle activ ity of such
bacteria is centra l to the
breakdown of n utrients into
fo rms usable by the rest of
the bio tic comm unity.
Some wetland s plants
actua lly pi pe oxygen dow n
into their roots, to provide
to special bacteria. Others,
as in peat moss, build up
huge, "a rtificial" g round
areas on wh ich bacteria can
work. Still others, such as
many noating leaf plan ts,
have d ispensed with the
use o f bacteria altogether
and ex tract needed nutrients from the water itsel f.
The ability o f wetlands
to recycle n utrients ma kes
them critical in the overa ll
fun ctioning of the ea rth . No
other ecosystem is as prod uctive nor as un ique in
this conversion process. In
some p laces, in fa ct.
artificial wetlands were
d eveloped solely fo r the
pu rpose o f water purification.
�_ ---------- --------- .. - ------- - - -= - -==
=
=
===
= "": =
:-=..:: '::"
=:-::.:
:-=..::
S p r ill g 19 98
Canyon News Briefs
LCC LAWSUIT UPDATE
Logan Canyon Coa li tion's
lawsuit against UDOT and
the Forest Service is still in
place. We are now compiling
a list of docu ments we will
req uest from these ngencies
during the d iscove ry phase
of the lawsuit.
We are inte rested in
obtai ning copies of UDOT's
calcula tions of tra ffic flow in
Logan Canyon, for examp le.
Based on traffic counts a t a
si ngle loca tion, UDOT has
esti ma ted traffic flow in a ll
sections of the ca nyon highway. Yet there are serious
d iscrepa ncies in UOOT's estimations.
We wi ll request copies of
the surveys the Forest Service
has condu cted on sensitive
species in Logan Canyon.
The Forest Service has
cl aimed there will be "no
impact" of constructi on upon
et
these species. Y it appea rs
tha t for severa l of these
species the surveys have
been inadequa te, if they exist
at aU .
The documents we obtain
through d iscovery will help
LCC sa ve Logan Canyon from
ulU1ecessarily expensive and
destructi ve highway construction.
Deb Eshelman a CPA and
her daughter Amy Casa massa
come on boa rd as LCe's new
Co-Treasurers. Amy's work
w ill apply towards an adva nce
placemen t science cred it fo m
Jac k Green's Logan High class.
Welcome on boa rd.
Canyon Wind Ed itor Dan
Miller w ill be returning to
Cache Va lley to become more
active in LCC projects. He has
been living in Ogden, Utah
and Oregon as his wife pursued her ca reer. Welcome back
Dan .
• Uuknowu impact 0 11 trollt popllia tiolls.
UDOT's estimate is all IIlIeducated guess based
011 il/adeqllate data. COllstrllctiol/ ill the lower
cal/yoH reduced tlw trOll t populations ill sOllie
areas by 80%.
"Coffee with a Cause"
• regular '
$1 .00 is dona rBd ro LCC
Nigh1and Oay
ro.-"""'Y pound sold.
Logan Canyon Coalition is
up and running on the World
Wide Web. Check out our
homepage at:
http://www.logancanyon.org
�Home Canyon
by To m LyO
l1
Comi ng back from a
long trip east, we'd just
dri ven a few hundred
treeless mi les on a hot
and sunny da y. Most of
the last hours had been
in the mined and p um meled landscape of
south west Wyom ing, a
scene tha t hurts to look
a t. We climbed up fro m
Bea r Llke in third
gear- getting close
now, thirty-odd miles to
Logan- a nd then, over
the summ it, started to
s lip d own into the fold s
o f the hills, steeper a nd
closer on the sides as
we wen t, a nd the trees
aga in, the co mpan ionab le river soon to be
alongsid e. We
g limpsed a good-sized
bull moose moving o ff
through the w illows
along Bea ver Cree k. A
certa in sce nt came in on
the window-wind , a
secret fragrance mad e
up of w illow a nd sage,
toba cco bush, fir a nd
cottonwood, river
water, lime rock in the
sun, Loga n Canyon dirt
". we were ho me now.
When we fi rst s tarted tryin g to p rotec t th e
ca nyon from hi ghway
d rea ms, we had the
id ea that public-works
po li cy was p retty much
a rational process. You
sat d ow n w ith the highway d epartm ent a nd
the Fo rest Service, and
you entered the
canyon 's beauty a nd
re la tive intactness in to
the mi x, and the peop le's love for it, the fishing, the skiing, the hiking, the peace a nd quiet
and s lowness of it, th e
way it stood for a
w hole diffe ren t life.
You always men tioned
w ha t w as sadly true,
that Loga n Ca nyon was
the last of its kind of
pl ace in Uta h.
It was disappointing
that none of this ever
go t across to the highway department. Not
in all these yea rs. It
was as if you were talking a n en tirely d ifferent
language. But w hat
was rea lly stunning was
that the Forest Service
did n' t ca re ei the r. The
Forest Serv ice b lew off
its own Forest Plan, a
documen t supposedly
having the force of law,
in orde r to support the
h ighway d rea m. The
Forest Service should
have been the natural
a ll y of the ca nyon.
Instead, in the end, they
a nswered a d eta iled ,
187-page a ppea l (wh ich
a mo unted to the
Env ironme nta l Impa ct
Statement tha t should
have been d one by
those h ired to d o it)
w ith a page and a half
of bureaucratic dismissa l.
So w ha t we have
lea rned is tha t we are
on o ur ow n, and we
have to be tough a nd
pe rsistent if we wa nt to
be heard- if we wa nt
the canyon to be hea rd .
We can' t just expect
people to be rationa l,
and we can ' t assume
tha t everyone loves the
canyon more than they
love the h ighway
drea m. (Probably a lot
o f people think we can
have the o ld, good
ca nyon and a big hig hway through it.) This
w ho le time has been a
kind of edu ca tion in
realism. That's the
politica l part. In the
hea rt part, it's mad e us
th ink about w hat we
rea ll y va lue, firmed us
down to the home
things.
POSSESSfONS
28 FaSuai A l.ogan.lJI'. 84321
vt.
.......
'7:'.
(IIOU 755-0851
FIne l ob .. « o ,
Logall Ca lly o ll Post cards
Co u'!t'Syof
S tud io 404 rh o tog r.- phy,
Alan Hu es ti s
, ...,,,
J-. 5· s.5O I 4· , 6- S.75
USU nod
log.1n. Ulah 84322.{l L
99
a
M .. t dphy , ,, .. L N e rd ,
' d l 011, a H('f b ,
Pon(A1U>:I 0#
EDWARD Aaa EV
1[ NO t l t .50 IINO $l .oo
lee
USU 8 0l( .
L OCOIIN. U TilI!
Lee T·StliRfli· 512.00 (3 mlor)
'011.-0,,,
6
755-8657
�------== = ==
=
S p ri n g 1 9 9 8
Speak Now, Speak Oftell
Make Your Voice Heard
G overnment Officials
Letters to the Editor
What to Do
Governor Mike Leav itt
State Capitol Building
5.111 La ke City, UT 84114
Th e Herald Journa l
75 West 300 North
Logan, UT84321
Ph# 801-538-1000
Fax: 801-538-1528
e-mail:
governor@email.sta le.u t. us
Ph# 801-752-2121
Fax: 801-753-6642
Please w rite and urge
our government officials
and the public to re-evalua te UOOT's plans and to
consider the more fisca lly
prudent "Conservationists'
Alternative" that s ti ll
add resses the needs of
h ighway safety and Logan
Canyon. It is not a "do
nothi ng" proposa l.
Be su re to include your
fuJI name, address, signature (except e-mail) and
d ay time phone number.
Keep your letter short and
to the point. Write about
you r personal experiences
in the canyon and usc fac ts
to s upport your argumen ts.
Rep. Jim Hansen
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington D.C. 20515
Ph# 1-202-225-0453
Fax: 1-202-225-5857
Rod ney Terry
Project Manager, UOOT
169 North Wall Ave.
PO Box 12580
Ogden, UT 84412
Ph# 801-399-5921, ext3Q5
Fax: 801-399-5926
Brian Ferebee
District Ranger
USFS, Logan District
1500 East H ighway 89
Logan, UT 84321
Ph# 801-755-3620
Fax: 801-755-3639
e-mail: hjletter@hjncws.com
The Salt Lake Tribu ne
Public Forum
PO Box 867
$.1[t L.1ke City, UT 84110
Fax: 801-237-2022
Deseret News
Readers' Forum
PO Box 1257
Salt Lake Ci ty, UT 84110
Fax: 801-237-212 1
e-mail: Letters@desnews.com
The Standard-Exam iner
PO Box 951
Ogden, UT 84402-095 1
Ph# 800-234-5505
Ph# 801-6254222
Fax: 801-625-4508
('-mai[: Letters®Standard.net
LOOK FOR O[' R :>IE\\
AW
ORLD
Or
Tha n k you for
yo u r h e l p!
"Ell PA(a: AT:
Logan Ca nyon You r Destin ation?
&
- Backpa ckin g . S kii ng -Climbing -Hiking
- Snows hoein g . S ig htseei ng
Accent5
57
IANN • loGANUT l?4 g21
117 North Main SI
7
�r-----------------------,
YES! I
WANT TO
JDIN THE
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
and rece ive a s ubscription to CANYON W1ND
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $30 $40 $50 Lots more
o I would like to volunteer.
o Here's $12.00 for a great T-s hirt.
o I' m broke! Here's five bucks.
o Please add m y name to your mailing list.
p/IIs SJ shippillK
Name _______________________________
H
RA
PRINTING
LD
(0.
5Ireel._____________________________
Cily_ _ _ _ _ _ Slale'____ Zip, _____
Email _____________
Phone#
Please
check p" Y.l ble and mail to:
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box #1674
L _______________________
Logan, UT 84322-0199
43
SOUTH
LOGAN ,
10 0
UTAH
WEST
84321
TEL .43 5 .752. 0311
FA X 435 .753.3 161
Please consider a donation to LCC. All donations will be used for the protection of
Logan Can yon. LCC wants to tha nk the hW1dred s of individuals, businesses a nd
fOW1dations who have contributed tin1e, money and expertise towa rds the lega l
d efense of Logan Canyon. Your generous support is appreciated.
BU LK RATE
U.S. I'OSTAGE
Paid
COAL:l:T:l:O:N'
Work ing for th .. P rotection of L og.n Canyon
Logtl1r. UT
N"SO
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
II' Plea se Renew
YOllr
Melllbership Today
�A NEWS B ULLETIN FR OM L OGAN C ANYON C OALITION
Vol. 3 No.1
Sum mer 1999
Logan River is Eligible for
Wild & Scenic Designation
In January the Wasatch-Cache National al value of this river segment. Concerning recreForest released its draft Rivers Eligibility Study. ation, "highly scenic pristine rivers/ corridors are
This study reports that Beaver Creek and a twen- of higher value" (draft Eligibility Study). The
ty mile-long segment of the Logan River are eligi- Forest Service is mandated to protect the scenery,
ble for Wild and Scenic Rivers designation. The recreation, and other outstandingly remarkable
Logan River segment has been found to have five, values of rivers eligible for Wild and Scenic desmore than any other river in the forest, outstand- ignation.
ingly remarkable values including scenery, fishUDOT is planning cuts into the mountaineries, recreation, ecology, and geology I hydrolo- side at Upper Twin Bridge that will be vertical or
gy. The Logan River is truly the jewel of the "as vertical as possible." This was not evaluated
Wasatch-Cache National - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - in the FE IS or In
Forest.
UDOT's Record of
We believe that the
Decision. We still do
of
not know how extenUtah
Depa rtment
the Logan as Utah's first
Transportation's (UDOT's)
sive these cuts will be.
Wild and Scenic River
nex t phase of highway
Vertical rock cu ts will
construction w ill harm ___...._______________ not revegetate and will
these values. We are asking that a Supplemental harm the natural appearance and hence the
Environmental Impact Statement be required for scenery and recreational value of this river corrithis highway project.
dar.
Recent design p lans show tha t UooT is
We a re concerned that construction
planning to build approximately 2,275 feet of impacts on Wild and Scenic values are not being
retaining wa lls adjacent to the Logan River seg- evaluated properly. There was no detailed evalument eligible for designation. These wa lls were ation of impacts in either the Final Environmental
not evaluated in the FEIS for this project or in Impact Statement or in the Record of Decision.
UooT's Record of Decision. Seventy-five percent UooT intends to evaluate the impacts of the next
of these walls will be "basket walls," which are phase of construction in a Reevalua tion document.
wire baskets filled with rocks. These walls are not This entirely ignores the impacts of the remaining
attractive in a na tu ral setting. They will not highway project.
appear natura l and will harm the scenery of this
UDOT and the Forest Service are segmentriver segment. They will also harm the recreation- ing this project in their evaluation of impacts
Leave a True Legacy
�Wild & Scenic ("...".."d)
which is a violation of Forest
Service policy and the National
Environm en tal
Policy
Act
(NEPA). From recent design
plans, the next phase of construction covers on ly about
three and a half miles of highway. UOOT is planning an additional approximate ly thirteen
and a half miles of highway
const ruction that will potentially impact Wild and Scenic values, from the Dugway to the
canyon summit.
The danger of segmenting this
project is that once the next
phase of construction is underway, UOOT will be committed
to its larger highway project
with uneva luated and potentially damaging impacts to the
Wild and Scenic va lues of these
rivers. Issues that should be
addressed include: what will be
the ex tent of the required retaining wa lls and vertical cuts as
construction is extended into
th e remaining upper Midd le
Canyon? Will we see a miniDugway a long Uppe r Twin
Bridge and Temp le Fork? In
short, how ugly is this going to
get? According to Forest Service
policy, "Groups of actions,
when added together, may have
collective or cumulative impacts
which are Significant.
Consideration must be given to
the incremental effects of past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable related future actions of the
Forest Service, as well as those
of other agencies and individuals."
We have requested that a supplemental
Environmental
Impact Statement (SE IS) be
required for this highway project in which the entire project
is evaluated with respect to the
Wild and Scenic va lues of these
rivers. Forest Service policy
requires that there be an SEIS
whenever there are "significant
new circumstances or information relevant to environmental
concerns .... " Surely the fact
that the Logan River segment
and Beaver Creek ha ve been
found eligib le for Wild and
Scenic designation is significant
new information. in an SEIS the
purpose and need for a ll
planned construction should be
clearly demonstrated . While we
agree that some highway
r'OSSESS'ONS
28 Federal Ave. Logan, Uf. 84321
Home Accessories,
CoUectibles,
Jewelry,
Gifts
755-0857
2
improvements are needed, such
as replacing the worn bridges,
UOOT has never demonstrated
the purpose and need for their
extensive proposal.
We agree with this statement
by Drew Parkin, an expert on
Wild and Scenic Rivers policy, " .
. . designation as a wild and
scenic river will not preclude
improvement to the highway. It
would, however, require that
UDOT take special precautions,
both in design and construction,
to ensure that the road does not
alter flow regimes, that important
natural
and
scenic
resources are preserved, and
that short-term disruptions to
the river are minimized. Even if
this costs a little more, it would
result in a superior project that
multiple
meets
long-term
needs."
& A«t'ssones
M f'taphyslcdl N t'ed ..
E..
Oil s & HNbs
11
755-8657
Toys thaL
capt.ure a
child's
ima8inaLion!
14bN l OO[
I.
".
... A ....,nu.,O lo9 .. n
UT
•
·
Moon
Toys
*
*
75 HlO'5 5
�- -- -- Summer 19 99
Dear Logan City Council:
CANYON LOVERS
My wife and I lived in Logan from 1955, when we came as college stud ents,
until just last yea r. We raised three sons in Logan, and Logan will always be
our heart's country. We absorbed Cache Valley. The silhouette of the mountains, east up the canyon and west across the valley, is still the horizon line
of O UT life.
I wou ldn't mention this background if I didn't think a great many people
share such feelings. Few things go as deep as the sense of home.
Unfortunately, sometimes the deepest values get taken for granted. We're all
very busy. We can even forget to think about the abso lute beauty and purity
of Logan River, coming down the canyon and through the town. Su rely
there can't be many towns anywhere in the world that can say: a wild, clean
river comes down ou t of the mountains to us; there is no one, no town,
upstream.
I think about Logan River a lot these days. Our irrigation and drinking
wa ter here in coastal California is sparse; it comes a long way, and it has
been used several times. There is no way, with all the engineering capability
in the world, we could create the kind of situation Logan has.
So, speaking from deep care for Logan and from the knowledge of how easy
it is to lose natura l resources, and how hard it is to get them back, I respect-
fully urge the Council to endorse Logan River as a Wild and Scenic River.
Logan is lifeblood. Please protect it.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Lyon
_ , eo-.-. soo .....
PLEASE RIDE
YOUR BIKE
W EB SITE D eSIGN, D eVELOPMENT,
H OSTING, AND P ROMOTION SERVICES
http://zmorlner.com
Info@zmoriner.com
435-755-6595
138 Norm'i 100 EAsT
lOGAN. UtAH 84321
4351753-3294
MoN. - SM.
10:00 .... 1.4 . - 6:00 P.M.
G
PEVINE
II
3
-_
---
,t
l
*" U__l_ '
• ll
... .... ....,
we
Dan Miller
Jaynan Chancellor
Deb Eshelman
Gordon Steinhoff
Derek Staab
Graham Hunter
Kevin Kobe
Tim Wagner
John Carter
Amanda Th immes
Mark Lunt
Bridgett Kobe
Creed Clayton
Carolyn StOnge
Brooke Bigelow
Jim Vandygriff
Coalition
Supporters
-R ick Bass
-Terry Tempest
Williams
oRobert Redford
-C.L. Rawlins
-Sierra Club
-Utah Rive rs Council
-Tom Lyon
-National Rive rs
Coalition
-Maki Foundation
�Canyon News Briefs
Sincere Gratitude
Members of the Logan Canyon
Coalition wou ld like to wholehea rtedly thank Dan Miller for all he has
done for the orgaruza tion . Dan has
lead Lee during his year as president with tremendous energy and
insight. Under his leadership several important adva nces have been
made for Lee including a commitment to getting the Logan River
designated as Utah 's first Wild and
Scenic river.
Dan continues to be active in
Lee, and we are always grateful for
his common sense and unwavering
support. Tha nks Dan, and we wish
you the best w ith your ex tra ti me!
Lee Board of Directors
LOOKING AH E AD
Fall Fundraiser
Lee is proud
to announce its fall
fundraiser: Jerry Joseph and the Jack
Mormons. They will be playing in
the Amphitheatre on Old Main Hill,
USU campus on September 3rd at
7:00 PM . Tickets will be $7 for nonstudents and $5 fo r students.
Giardia Run
Thursday, September 9th at 5:49
PM. Meet at the HPER on the USU
camp us and run to the White Owl.
$15 includes a T-shirt; $10 without.
This year 's theme: Y2K!!
Get Inspired!
Announcing the first annua l " Art
from the River" celebration. Send
your artistic entries inspired by
Logan River (painting, d rawing,
pottery, writing, textiles, or music)
to Brooke Bigelow, 1371 E. 900 N.,
Loga n, Utah 84321. All entries will
be honored at the River Festiva l on
September 18th and special recognition will be given to outstanding
entires in each of three categories:
children 3 to 5 years old; children 6
to 12 years old; and children 13 and
over. Be sure to include your name,
phone number, and age with your
ent ry.
Christmas Auction
With the completion of Dan's
term as preSident, managing and
governing responsibilities for LCC
are being handled through a temporary board of directors. A permanent board will be installed by vote
at the next Lee general meeting in
January. Any LCC member interested in being on the board of directors
should attend bimonthly meetings,
the fi rst and third Tuesday of the
month at 7:30 at Merlin Olsen
Central Park (100 South 200 East).
Logan River Festival
The second annual Logan River
Festival will be at First Dam from
noon to 3 PM on Saturday,
September 18th. Bring your kids,
neighbors. and friends and come
enjoy the Logan River. There w ill be
games, canoe rides, art activities
and displays, and vendors. (For
more informa ti on or to get in volved,
contact Jaynan Chancellor at 7532553.)
Adventure
Sports
4
It's not too early to be thinking
about the LCC Christmas auction.
Watch fo r fur ther details. In the
meanwhile, gather those donations
or services suitable for auction, and
continue the gift by donating your
"classy junque" to be treasured by
someone else for a recycled
Christmas. For more information or
to store donations, contact Jaynan
Chancellor at 753-2553 or Brooke
Bigelow at 753-5682. Thanks for
your generous contribution!
�Summer 1999
Memo To: Brian Dixon, Bridgerland Audubon, Chris Wilson, Cache Anglers, Kathy Gilbert, Citizens For
Protection of Logan Canyon, Dick Carter, High Uintahs Preservation Council, Jon Marvel. Idaho Watersheds
Project, Dan Miller, Logan Canyon Coalition, Ron Younger, Utah Chapter Sierra Club, Barrie Gilbert, Utah
Wildlands Heritage
From: John Carter, Willow Creek Ecology
Re: Logan Canyon/Logan River Protection Zone
I am writing this as a result of the many issues and activities involving Logan Canyon/Logan River, includ ing the
recent land swap, ongoing highway construction, increasing recreational use, second home development, logging
and continued livestock grazing all affecting wildlife, habitat, water quality and aesthetics. Those of us who love
Logan Canyon and all it symbolizes, and the reluctance of the Fores t Service to effec t progressive change as evidenced by the recent rejection of our appeal of the Bear Hodges project show us we ca nnot depend on science or
logic alone. It also shows us that we need community support and unity among ourselves with SOfl)e common
goals and objectives.
To this e nd , I am s uggesting the Logan Canyon/Logan River Protection Zone that recognizes the high quality of
the scenic and wildli fe attributes of the Logan River Watershed, and urges protection. Because of the many sensitive species or habitats recogni zed by the Forest Service as exis ting in the Logan Canyon area and are threatened,
as a group we should demand protection of these watersheds, elimination of livestock grazing and other destructive forest practices and that a p roper value be placed on the natural attributes of the Canyon.
Because of the Bonneville Cutthroa t Trout a nd its potential listing as endangered, Willow Creek Ecology expanded
its monitoring of the Logan River and its tributaries at the end of 1998. We are collecting samples at up to 20 locations, docume nting s ilt loadings, fecal coliform pollution and other general water quality parameters. We are also
assembling a data base of Logan River stud ies of water quality, fisheries, invertebrates, habitat and hydrology.
Our initia l purpose is to comment to the Fish and Wildlife Service in support of listing since a large portion of
Bonneville Cu tthroat Trout populations in Utah exists in the Logan River. Many factors threaten its continued existence including habitat alteration and whirling disease.
I think it is important that we discuss how to combine our efforts and concerns into an effective strategy, gai n public support and pressure the Forest Service and other public entities toward our chosen goals. We saw how iIIinformed the City of Logan was on Wild and Scenic River Status. I think we should use quality of life, economics
and watershed health as driving factors in gaining public support for protection. After all, the watersheds above
Sa lt Lake City are worthy of protection for a variety of reasons, why not here?
�Leave A True Legacy
The Logan as Utah's First Wild and Scenic River
We the undersigned hereby declare oui' support for segments of the Logan River to be designated as Utah 's first Wild
and Scenic River under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as long as that designation doesn't
interlere with traditional uses now enjoyed by the public.
Signature
Print name
Street
City
Siale
Zip
-------------------------+-------------------------+------------------------+---------------------+----t------------ ;
•
z
•
.;
•
•
"
•
,
-------------------------f-------------------------+------------------------+----------------------f----t------------ "
i
-------------------------t-------------------------t------------------------+---------------------1----1------------ 2
•
•
RETURN CO M P l ET E O P ETITIO N S TO THE LOG A N CA N YON COALITION. USU BOX. fl6H . LOGAN. U TAH U 322·01 99
�NOT LATER
WRITE NOW!
Wild and Scenic
Bernie We ingardt
The Wild and Scen ic Rivers Act of
1968 is unique among environmental
Jaws in the world because of its p oten tial
to protect free-nowing rivers and riversections. Yet less than one percent o f the
nation 's total river m iles is included in
the National Wild and Scen ic Rivers
System, and NOT ONE o f Utah 's beautiful rivers has th is outstanding d is tinction.
In 1998 the 30th anniversary of the
Wild an d Scenic Act was celebrated
across the nation. Lee is hoping to
extend thai celebration to Utah before
another 30 yea rs passes with the designation o f the Logan River as Wild and
Scenic. Pub lic support is crucial to m a king th is happen. Show your su pport by
encouraging policy-m a kers to leave a
true legacy in Uta h and recomme nd th e
Logan Ri ver as the firs t Uta h river
inducted into the N a tio na l Wild a nd
Scenic Rivers Syste m .
T h a nk yo u for
your h e l p!
T he Salt l ak e Tri bune
Wasatch-Cache Nationa l Forest
8230 Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City. Utah 84138
Public Forum
PO Box 867
Salt Lake City, UT 841 10
Fax:
Bria n Fe re bee
District Ranger
U5FS, Logan District
1500 East Highway 89
Logan, UT 84321
Ph# 435-755-3620
Fax: 435-755-3639
Desere t New s
Readers' Forum
PO Box 1257
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Fax: 801-237-2121
e-mail: Letters@desnews.com
Logan City Counci l
255 North Main, Logan
UT,84321
The S ta ndard-Examiner
PO Box 951
Ogden, UT 84402-0951
Phil 800-234-5505
Ph# 801--6254222
Alan D. Allred
Karen S. Borg
John L. Harder
e-mail: Lelters@standard.net
Ja nice Pearce
Stephen C. Thompson
Mayor Douglas E. Thompson
Lette rs t o the Edit or
The H e rald Journ al
75 West 300 North
Logan, UT 84321
Ph# 435-752-2121
Fax: 435-753-6642
e-mai l: hjletter@hjnews.com
A WORLD
Logan Canyon Your Destination?
&
-BlCkpildc.in g oS ki ing - C lim b ing oHiking
oSno ws hotin g oSightstt in g
Accents
57 Sourn MAIN • locAII Uni'49 21
753·3497
7
�r--------------------,
J WANT TO JOIN THE
LOGAN CANYON COALITION
LOGAN RIVER
and receive a subscription to CANYON WIND
SCENIC RIVER
YES!
""""
UTAH'S Uri. WILD aad
o $20.00 Annual Membership
o I would like to contribute an additional
$10 $20 $JO $40 $50 Lots more
o I would like to volunteer.
o Here's $12.00 for a great T-shirt.
o I' m broke! Here's five bucks.
o Please add my name to your mailing list.
,llUllu.;,.,;",
LEAVE A
LEGACY
n
•• LOG"_ AI UrAl" 'Ian WItD "_D IC'_IC a",.
Name ________________________________
Streetl ________________________________
City, ______:State
Phone'
Zip, _______
E-mail _____________
Plun ..... ke check
Support the Logan River
and null to,
include shipping
Logan Canyon Coalition
USU Box'1614
L _____
Order these new Wild and Scenic bumper
stickers for the Logan River. A $2.00
donation for each sticker will
_____
Please consider a donation to Lee. All donations will be used for the protection of Logan
Canyon. Lee wants to thank the hundreds of individuals, businesses, and founda tions who have
contributed time, money, and expertise towards the legal defense of Logan Canyon.
Your generous support is appreciated.
.... ...................
Wi
!!
=-=--
. . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . _ • •;:.... _ .
-
- ---
!!'
--= =
-
BULK RATE
US POSTAGE
- -
Paid
CO.4.L:J:T:J:ON
Loga", UT
Pnm,' N° 39
WorkIng f o r Ih e Prolullo n of l oga n Canyon
USU Box #1674
Logan, Utah
84322-0199
.,t
Please Renew Your
Membership Today
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Image Height
3335
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
2607
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/716">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/716</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
300
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
Grayscale
Checksum
2464155604
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
LCC newletter, "Canyon Wind"
Description
An account of the resource
Newsletters updating the events of Logan Canyon Coalition including but not limited to the formation of LCC, denial of appeal, violations of FEIS, lifting of the stop work order, and the eligibility of Logan River for wild and scenic designation.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Kobe, Kevin
Lyon, Tom
Wagner, Tim
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Wilderness areas
Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Newsletters
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Logan Canyon Coalition
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 8
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd8
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/5648eb7ddce2ddbd23e27460a9516347.pdf
6fd070b4998cb8fd497208e5a190afdd
PDF Text
Text
•
ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
for
Logan Canyon Coalition
Article I
NAME
The name of this corporation is Logan Canyon Coalition.
Article II
DURATION
The period of duration of this corporation is perpetual.
Article III
PURPOSE
(a) Logan Canyon Coalition will act and operate exclusively as a nonprofit
corporation pursuant to the laws of the state of Uta h, an d will act and opera te
as an educational organization, seeking to increase public awareness of the
aesthetic and environmental r esources of Logan Canyon, and will act as an
advocate for the preservation-of Logan Canyon.
(b) This corporation ma y engage in any or all activities and pursuits, and may
support or assist other organiza tions, that are reasonably related to the
foregoing purposes.
(c) This corporation may engage in an y and all other lawful purposes,
activities and pursuits, which are substantially similar to the foregoing
purpose and which are or may hereafter be authorized by Section SOl(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code, and are consistent with those powers described in
the Utah Nonprofit Corporation and Cooperation Association Act, as
amended and supp lemented.
(d) This corporation may solicit and receive contributions, may make
contracts, may spend corporate funds for co rporate purposes, and may
engage in any activity in fu r therance of, incidental to, or connected with any
of the foregoing purposes.
1
�No part of the net earnings of this corporation shall inure to the benefit
of, or be distributable to, its members, trustees, officers, or other
persons, except that the corporation shall be authorized and
empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered to
the corporation and to make payments and distributions in furtherance
of the purposes set forth herein.
No substantial part of the activities of this corporation shall be the
carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence
legislation, and the corporation shall not participate in, or intervene in
(including the publishing or distribution of statements) any political
campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office except as
authorized under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended.
The corporation shall not carryon any other activities not permitted to
be carried on by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under
Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, or
the corresponding provision of any future United States Internal
Revenue law.
Article IV
MEMBERS/OBLIGA TIONS
Membership is open to all interested individuals or parties. No special
requirements or obligations are attached to membership. Trustees, officers
and/or members are not individually or personally liable for the debts or
obligations of the corporation.
Article V
BYLAWS
Name, Purpose and Location
The name of this nonprofit organization is Logan Canyon Coalition. The
purpose for which the program is organized is to seek to increase public
awareness of the aesthetic and environmental resources of Logan Canyon, and
to act as an advocate for the preservation of Logan Canyon. The central office
of the Logan Canyon Coalition is 505 South 200 West, Logan, Utah.
2
�Membership
Participation by interested parties or individuals is voluntary and shall be
open to all qualified persons willing to further the organization's purposes,
without regard to race, gender, handicap, national origin and/or religious
affiliation.
Board of Directors
The Logan Canyon Coalition Board of Directors, hereafter called the board,
will be the governing body of the Logan Canyon Coalition, providing a
system of checks and balances, to include, but not be limited to the following:
(a) the board will set policy and direction, and oversee all coalition activities
and projects, (b) the board will approve all budgets and expenditures, (c) the
board will be responsible for the hiring of staff, or the contracting of projects
out to independent parties or individuals, and (d) the board will oversee an
annual financial audit and project evaluation.
Board Members and Officers
The board shall consist of a minimum of five members, who will represent
coalition members at large and vote on official actions. The number of
members will be determined by the board, with no upward limit. To become
a member of the board, an individual's name must be approved by a twothirds majority of the board at a regularly scheduled, publicized meeting.
Procedure for Election of Board Officers
Any board member is eligible for any board office. Officers will be appointed
by a two-thirds majority vote of the active board membership at a regularly
scheduled, publicized board meeting. Board officers and members require
annual ratification by a two-thirds majority of the board, and otherwise may
serve on the board or as an officer for an indefinite period of time. New
officers will be appointed as needed, and will assume their office and duties
at the adjournment of the meeting at which they were appointed. The names
of all board members and their positions will be made available to all
coalition members upon request.
Positions and Duties of Board Officers
1) The President will:
(a) preSide over and conduct board meetings and coalition meetings for
members at large, in coordination with coalition officers and members at
large, (b) serve as the official spokesperson for the coalition, (c) set the agenda
for board meetings, in coordination with and respecting the input of coalition
3
�officers and members at large, and (d) serve as an ex-officio member of all
committees.
2) The Vice President will:
(a) assume the duties of the president upon the president's request or absence,
and (b) assist the preSident and coalition members with special projects and
sub-committees.
3) The Treasurer will:
(a) prepare an annua l (or special projects) budge t for board approval, (b)
manage all revenues and expenditures of the coalition, (c) keep an accurate
account of assets, revenues and expenditures, (d) prepare quarterly financial
reports for board review, and (e) assume responsibility for contracting out
and assisting with legally required external audits, in cooperation with the
president, and present the results of external audits to the board for review.
4) The Secretary wi ll:
(a) keep an accurate account of all board meetings and special meetings, and
(b) prepare and disseminate minutes of the prior meeting at or before each
board meeting.
Meetings and Official Actions
The board will meet as needed, generally at least once a month. All official
actions shall require the approval of a two-thirds majority of active members
of the board.
Amendments
Amendments to the bylaws shall require an affirmative vote by a two-thirds
majority of board members at a publicized meeting of the board.
Ethical Standards
Board membership shall be on a voluntary basis. No board member will be
remunerated for their services on the board, benefit financially from
membership, or serve with another board, committee, or organization that
may be construed as conflict of interest.
Procedures for Resignation or Removal
Board members or board officers who fail to carry out the responsibilities
associated with membership or with their appointed or elected position, ~
be removed by a two-thirds majority vote of the board membership at a
reg ularly scheduled, publicized board meeting.
4
�Article VI
TRUSTEES
Logan Canyon Coalition will have three trustees, who will serve in
perpe tuity . In the event of death, inca pacity, or resigna tion of a trustee, a
successor will be appointed by a two- thirds maj ority . Removal of a trustee
will require a unanimous decision of all trustees with the exception of the
trustee in ques tion . The names and addresses of the individuals who will
serve as trustees are:
Kevin Kobe, 45 North 400 West, Logan, UT 84321
Don Hickman, 505 South 200 West, Logan, UT 84321
Dan Miller, 1265 Island Drive, Logan, UT 84321
Article VII
INCORPORATORS
The names and addresses of the incorporators are:
Kevin Kobe, 45 North 400 West, Logan, UT 84321
Don Hickman, 505 South 200 West, Logan, UT 84321
Dan Miller, 1265 Island Drive, Logan, UT 84321
Article VIII
REGISTERED OFFICE AND AGENT
The address of the corporation's initial registered office shall be:
505 So uth 200 Wes t, Logan, Utah 84321
The co rporation's initial registered agent at such address shall be:
Don Hickman
I hereby acknowledge and accept appointment as co rp orate registered agent.
Sig nature
Date
Such office may be changed at any time by the board of directors without
amendment of the Articles of Incorpora tion.
5
�Article IX
PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS
The principal place of business of the Logan Canyon Coalition shall be 505
South 200 West, Logan, Utah.
Article X
DISTRIBUTIONS
No part of the net earnings of this corporation shall inure to the benefit of, or
be distributable to its trustees, officers, or other private persons, except that
the corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable
compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions
in furtherance of the purposes set forth in Article ill hereof. The corporation
shall not attempt to influence legislation, and shall not participate in or
intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements) any
political ca mpaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public
office. Notwithstanding any other provision of these Articles of Incorporation,
the corporation shall not carryon any other activities not permitted to be
carried on by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under Section
501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended or supplemented, or by a
corporation, contributions to which are deductible under Section 170(c)(2) of
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended or supplemented.
Article XI
DISSOLUTION
In case the need for the program ceases, or human or financial resources are
insufficient to carry out formulated objectives, the program may be dissolved
by a two-thirds majority vote of the board. Upon the dissolution of the
corporation, assets shall be distributed for one or m o re exempt purposes
within the guidelines of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as
amended or supplemented, preferably to local educational or environmental
organizations that pursue similar objectives. Any such assets not so disposed
of shall be disposed of by the District Court of Cache County, exclusively for
such purposes or to such organization or organizations, as said court shall
determine, which are organized and operated exclusively for similar
purposes.
6
�•
In witness whereof, we, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~
have executed these Articles of Incorporation in duplicate this,______
day of
, and say that we are all incorporators herein,
that we have read the above and foregoing Articles of Incorporation, know the
contents thereof, and that the information contained is true to the best of our
knowledge and belief.
7
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Image Height
3323
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
2602
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/671">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/671</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
300
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
Grayscale
Checksum
1742615322
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
LCC Articles of Incorporation
Description
An account of the resource
Eleven articles of incorporation for Logan Canyon Coalition
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Logan Canyon Coalition
Subject
The topic of the resource
Nonprofit organizations
Logan Canyon Coalition
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1995
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 6
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd6
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/628753ee7c5e3448132f2c83211c0d56.pdf
08afc57587291439f5836435921b35fd
PDF Text
Text
Volume I Issue 2
"For a safe yet pristine Logan Canyon"
LOGAN CANYON GROUP
PLANS ANOTHER MEETING
- ... .
.
~.
. ELWIN ALLRED,
VICE CHAIRMAN
The Logan Canyon Improvement
G roup is now heade d by a ni ne
member board of directors, Steven
Ri c h, Hy rum , c hai rm a n ; E lwin
Allred, Logan, vice c hairman; Tom
Grover, River Heights, C itizens Alert
ed itor ; Ri c hard C ha mbers, Fi s h
H av en ; E va n Ko ll e r, Co rni sh ;
George B utte r fie ld, Pro vide nce ;
All e n J ohn son, Smi thfi e ld; C la ir
Wyatt, Provide nce and Dale Allred,
Logan.
The first public meeting held May
I, in Logan proved th at The HeraJd
JoumaJ's recent phone·in survey for
or against improveme nt was right on
the mo ne y. Ninety-eight perce nt
want the Hi ghway improved and two
percent don' L
The second mee ting he ld in Logan
June 9 had as our main speaker Dyke
leFevre, P.E. (UDOT's director for
Regio n One). A fte r his speec h ,
comments were taken from the fl oor,
every person stressing the dire need
for a m uc h improve d hi gh way
through Logan Canyon.
Our next meeti ng is set for July 14
in the Logan City Council Chambers,
255 North M ain, Logan, from 7 to 9
p.m. After the guest speakers have
finished, we will again accept three·
mi nute comments from the floo r.
The new organization vigorously
continues their efforts to get a safe,
drivable improved highway through
Log an C an yo n . The s te ad il y
increasing traffi c fl ow speaks louder
than all of the screaming of those
tree-hu ggi ng. bu g- lov in g, wildweed-sme ll ing e nvironme ntalists
th a t we will be r uin ing the
environme nt. That highway needs
to be improved from the forks.
An y pe r so n w ho has trave le d
Logan Canyon periodical ly in the last
20, 30, 40 or more years knows full
well that there is more traffic in the
canyon in one day than there used to
be in a two-week span and it is bound
to get heavier and heavier. Lord have
pity on those e me rgency vehic le
dri vers fo r the worst is yet to come,
unless that road is made safe to drive.
Dyer 's wode is fa st establ ishing
itself in the canyon and needs to be
eradicated. That noxious wed will
do more damage to the e nvironment
than an improved highway can do in
a thousand years. If those people are
so worried about the canyon, why
don' t they do something constructive
fo r a c ha nge? L ike us ing the ir
muscles to help pull up those weeds
in stead of thei r mout hs tryi ng to
block its improvement.
O ur first newsle tte r (C iti ze n's
Alert) has been mailed to those who
gave us the ir addresses. It is free so .
se nd us yo ur ma ilin g address to
LCIG. P.O. Box 275. Logan. Ulah
84323-0275.
July 1997
PUBLIC SUPPORT
IMPORTANT
STEVERlCB
CHAIRMAN
As we embark on th is crusade to save a
few of our ri ghts and freedo ms. it is very
imponant to show public suppo" and unity
for this cause. We are al l very busy wi th
work. home. and family, but, we need to be
open in our suppon. We need to attend the
public meetings in numbers sufficient 10
allow us 10 ask expens in re lated fields to
address us. If we are only going 1 have a
0
ha ndful of people it is difficult to ask
someone 10 drive from Salt Lake CilY or
some whe re else at a sacrifice 10 their
families and of their time.
It is vitally imponant thai we educate
ourselves to the things that are being used
to dcny us our access and our rightS. Also
it is imponant to know the scope oh he v.oork
going on so that we can defe nd againsl the
misrepresentations that have become so
common.
5H Public Support 011 pg. 2
PUBLIC
MEETING
JULY 14, 1997
7:00
LOGAN CITY
COUNCIL CHAM BERS
255 N. MAIN, LOGAN
SPECIAL GUEST
SPEAKER:
VAL SIDDOWAY
EMERGENCY VEHICLE DR IVER
LAKETOWN
�+2
L.C.I.G. +
CONTRIBUTIONS
NEEDED
Tho Lee rocel_
mighty
grants from out of state
leftist
environmental
organization. (what are
they doing meddling In our
affairs?).
w. too need
funds to support our
newsletter. Any donation
of any amount 18 greatly
appreciated. Pi.... mall
donations to:
LelG
P.O. Box 275
Public Support from PII. 1
II seems an accepted fact that the more
extreme environmentalislS arc bent on
Slopping all work of any kind in Logan
Canyon. If we evaluate the arguments thaI
they pul rOM, for the most pan they sound
goOO., but. have little merit. In this agcor couch
potatoes, sound bytes and general laziness to
study the facts. we arc fighting an uphill battle.
I would like also to put OUI a call 10 those
people with technical expertise wbocould help
our understanding aCthe daims made by lhose
who call themselves environmentalists.
In closing I would like to SUlte thai all orus
arc concerned about the environment I am
sure that no one wants to destroy il. I believe
that we can have progress and protect the
environment al the same lime. So, don'l rall
ror the environmental eXlremisl' 8l'gUmenl thai
we are agaiosl Ihe environmenl. We are all
environmentalisLS.
Logan, Utah
84323-0275
Logan Canyon
Improvement Group
P.O. Box 275
Logan, UT. 84323-0275
LEI IERS TO THE
EDITOR IN THE
CmZEN ALERT ARE
WELCOME FROM
ANYONE AND
GREATLY
APPRECIATED.
If you've got an opinion,
story or statistic regarding
why Logan canyon should
be made safer wtth a wider
road, please mall them to:
Tom Grover
1065 E. Windsor Drive
River Heights, UT.
84321
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Image Height
3317
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
2619
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/663">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/663</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
300
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
Grayscale
Checksum
891752503
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
Newsletter from the Logan Canyon Improvement Group
Description
An account of the resource
Newsletter from the Logan Canyon Improvement Group, Volume 1 Issue 2, entitled Citizens Alert, with reports on Logan Canyon Group meetings, public support, contribution needs, and welcoming letters to the editor.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Logan Canyon Improvement Group
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Allred, Elwin
Rich, Steve
Grover, Tom
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Press releases
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Logan Canyon Improvement Group
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1997-07
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999
COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 16
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd16
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/e56c9285f2796f62e1bfe7dc49d529da.pdf
2b9bdf96a5276651e0c88a81c4485039
PDF Text
Text
•
EDUC 677
Ethnographic Study:
Stanley Holmes
Summer 1997
P rofiles in Activism:
T hree Citizens Involved in the Loean Ca nyon Controve rsy
Abstract:
Thi s qualitative research project involved a multi-case study of adult citizens involved in a
local political controversy.
Following background research,
structured interviews were
conducted with three core subjects to identify shared character and bie-historical traits.
Int roduction:
... brief his tory of the issue In the spring of 1997, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) began the latest stage
of a highway construction project that has been a source of political controversy in the Logan I
Bear Lake region for three decades. UDOT's plan to rebuild and expand Route 89 through
Logan Canyon spawned a spirited debate among citizens and officials;
a debate that may
continue for some time.
The controversy stretches back at least to the 19605, which saw UDOT's widening of the
road in lower Logan Canyon. and the dawn of a national environmental movement whose local
manifestation led to delays and adjustments in subsequent highway construction in the canyon.
For the first time, UnOT was required to develop an environmental impact statement on its
proposed construction.
Area citizens formed a group, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC). that
opposed the original UDOT plan then. after modifications, agreed in 1995 to participate on the
advisory team working with UDOT and other agencies toward an acceptable design plan.
CPLC's decision to provisionally accept the revised UDOT plan led to a schi sm in the
environmental community that saw the formation of the Logan Canyon Coaliti on (LCC), which
proceeded to take legal action aimed at minimizing Logan Canyon highway construction to little
more than bridge repairs.
In early 1997 a third citizens' group, the Logan Canyon Improvement Group (LCIG), was
�,.
\
-2-
\
created to counter the environmental groups and promote significant expansion of the Logan
Canyon highway.
At the time of this research report, in August 1997, UDOT construction crews were well into
the repair and upgrading of two bridges in the canyon.
i
I
... scientific relevance of the issue·
The ongoing Logan Canyon controversy provides a unique opportunity to study democracy in
action; to examine the dynamics of individuals participating as citizens in the process of making
decisions that affect their community. This study seeks to better understand why some citizens
choose to become actively involved in the political system . At a time in U.S. history when fewer
than half the eligible voters bother to cast a ballot in national eJections, I hope to identify key
factors that motivate the politically-active minority to dedicate their personal time to the political
fray .
... researcher's interest:
I am a doctoral candidate at the Utah State University College of Education, currently on
sabbatical leave from my social science teaching position at Alta High School, in Sandy, Utah. I
wi ll spend the next nine months in India, studying models of citizenship education in the schools
of that democratic nation.
"Citi zenship" is a key concept underlying my interest in education. In my opinion, the most
important function of American public schools is the generation of socially-responsible and
productive citizens. My favorite aspect of being a teacher has been the sense that I facilitate the
acquisition of infonnation and thinking skills by the next wave of decision-makers in our
democratic system .
... An overview of this report:
This report covers background infonnation about the political controversy, identifies
methodological questions, issues, and procedures that were involved, summarizes biographical
�•
-3-
Ii
data on the core subjects, compares similarities and differences in traits of the core subjects,
discusses findings and additional research issues, and provides extended comparative data in the
appendices.
Methodology :
Literature Review:
Literature concerning various political and technical components of the Logan Canyon
controversy were obtained from several sources that included archival files at the Logan Herald
Journal newspaper, publications of the Utah Department of Transportation. and newletters of the
involved environmental organizations.
Owing to time constraints, no literature search was conducted to located similar studies that
may have been conducted elsewhere. There was also no effort to build a literature base of
research that has addressed aspects of po litical activism.
The project rationale, conceptual
approach, and imple mentation plan are my responsibility.
Resea rch Q uestio ns:
While the controversy over the highway through Logan Canyon provided the topical setting
for conducting the study. my essential focus was on personal attributes (traits) of persons who
have chosen to get involved. From that standpoint, the Logan Canyon controversy is peripheral
to the main thrust of this study. Logan Canyon was selected as a vehicle for studying politicallyactive citizens because of its continued high-profile salience in the region served by Utah State
University, and the ease of access to key informants.
This study looked specifically for identifiable personal character and bio-historical traits that
lead indi viduals to commit volunteer time and efforts to a political cause. The research question,
then. was:
What character and/or bio-historical traits do politically-active adults have in common?
�•
-4-
Research Issues:
... researcher bias Several biases were brought by me to the threshold of this research project.
First, I consider activists a special breed. Whatever their political stripe, I consider them more
important to democracy than those nominal citizens who don't even bother to vote. This is in
part an ego-based bias, since I've participated in several campaigns myself, and since most of my
friends are activists of some degree. This type of bias might have led to questions and interview
style that were not sufficiently critical or aggressive.
In deciding who would he the core-profiled subjects, I arbitrarily narrowed the field to those
whose involvement in the Logan Canyon controversy is completely voluntary.
Despite the
availability of persons with potentially more knowledge of, and greater involvement with, the
issue, I ruled out anyone with a job connection to, or direct financial interest in, the controversy.
In my view. volunteers are the foundation of citizenship.
r arbitrarily decided to have a representative from each of the three local citizens groups serve
as a core-profile subject, and did not consider selecting anyone who may be active but is not a
member of one of the groups. This was done as a matter of expedience.
1 arbitrarily decided to have at least one member of each sex represented in the group of core
profile subjects, and was pleased at the wide age range of the core profile subj ects. The main
concern here was achieving more character diversity.
Lastly, I must confess to being anything but neutral on environmental issues. The environmentalist in my pantheon of heroes is Edward Abbey. Fortunately for this study, the particular
environmental issue --Logan Canyon-- is of marginal relevance to my core research goal. I asked
the core-profile subjects exactly the same questions, and tried to maintain the same interv iew
demeanor with them all .
... time constraint A proper ethnographic study would entail at least several months worth of investigation and
analysis. Since the initiation and final report of this study were required within the timeframe of
�.,
•
-5-
summer quarter, the entire process has been expedited to meet the time constraint. Hopefully.
the data gathering has been broad and deep enough for my narrative and analysis to place the
issue, and the actors, into a meaningful context for the reader.
Procedures:
This study employed a two-stage approach toward data collection that spanned the months of
June, July, and August 1997.
In the first stage, I gathered information on the Logan Canyon situation from newspaper files
at the Logan Herald-Journal, UDOT project documents, and literature from citizens groups
involved on different sides of the controversy.
This stage involved conducting purposive,
semi-structured interviews with persons I determined to be key informants. Their names were
gleaned from news articles, and from referrals by other informants. The purpose of stage one
was to deepen my background knowledge of the issue through a process that would afford some
triangulation validity, and to make sure I understood the different perspectives from which
involved parties view the controversy. Travelling between interviews, I also had an opportunity
to drive through Logan Canyon and witness both the natural splendor and the challenging
highway conditions that figure into the debate over what to do.
Background information was gained in interviews with state and local officials, and with
members of the three local citizens groups active in this issue. Key informants in an official
capacity included the mayor of the Bear Lake community of Garden City, Utah, and the Utah
Department of Transportation's head engineer for the Logan Canyon project.
Interviewees representing the citizens groups included: two members of the Citizens for the
Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC); three members of the Logan Canyon Coalition (LCC);
and one member of the Logan Canyon Improvement Group (LCIG). I also gained valuable
information and insights from LCIG members who spoke at the group's open meeting on July
21st, in Logan, Utah. All group representatives were interviewed in Logan, with the exception of
one LCC member, who was interviewed in Ogden.
The first stage interviews were semi-structured, in that a questionnaire was used that asked
�-6-
both specific and open-ended questions. I read the questions, and took notes as the subjects
responded. No one objected to my tape-recording the conversations, although several asked me
to tum off the recorder for moments of off-the-record infonnation.
The respondents were first asked to summarize the history of the Logan Canyon controversy.
Thi s data was used as an indicator of their depth of knowledge and perspective, and as a means to
broaden my own understanding of the issues. They were then asked to identify the main players
(key actors) on different sides of the debate.
Questions that followed sought a description of the interviewee's position on Logan Canyon
highway construction, details of their personal involvement, and the main motivation(s) for their
participation.
On several occasions. responses to these inqui ries led the interview into
unexpected areas, such as connections drawn to the Provo Canyon controversy. states' rights
issues, and organizational dynamics of both UDOT and the citizens' groups.
I imagine one could write a book about the many political aspects and implications of what
has transpired in the broader context of the logan Canyon controversy.
In the second stage of this study. I narrowed the focus to the personal hi story and attributes of
three individuals, each representing one of the three citizens' groups. All three met the criteri a of
being sufficiently informed about Logan Canyon, all three have dedicated significant volunteer
time to the controversy. and none have ajob or direct financial interest in its resolution. Each of
these individuals was interviewed twice, using the first-stage and core-profile questionnaire
fonns. The pseudonyms of the persons I selected for core profiles are: "Ezra", of the lCIG;
"Vickie",ofCPlC; and "David", oflCC.
The second stage, "core profile" interviews were more structured than the first stage
interviews. In the interests of validity. I wanted to be sure that each subj ect received the same
specific questions as the others. The four-page core profile questionnaire took between 60 - 90
minutes to complete.
As was the case with the first stage, I asked questions from the
questionnaire and noted responses on the same fonn. No one objected to my tape-recording the
interviews.
None of the questions mentioned logan Canyon. The three core respondents were asked
�-7-
biographical information that included: date and place of birth, residences and travels, education
and work hi story, and details of their families of origin and procreation. I asked about parents',
siblings" spouses', and childrens' occupations and education, as well as political affiliation,
philosophy. issues, and activities.
The last segment of the interview delved into the respondent's own hi story of civic and
political activity, events and individuals who shaped their political beliefs, personal definition of
"citi zenship" and conception of civic responsibi lity.
Each was asked to explain their own
motivation for political action, and whether they feel they've made a difference. Also raised
were questions about levels of civic and political involvement in the United States today. and
why many citizens do not get involved. They were asked whether the local (Cache Valley, Utah)
culture faci litates or inhibits political expression. and if they had personally experienced hostility,
stress, or other negative consequences of their civic and political activities.
Finally, the three citizen activists were asked to identify the most rewarding aspects of their
civic and political
activities~
and each was asked how slhe wants to be remembered by hislher
great grandchildren.
Bioer'phic,' Sketches
"Ezra" was born in Paris, Idaho on August 26, 19 12. Raised in Preston, Idaho, Ezra has
res ided in Logan, Utah since 1932. He was stationed in Europe during World War 1I.
Ezra worked almost 40 years as a linotype setter at the Herald Journal newspaper, in Logan,
until a serious inj ury in 1974 forced a career change. He took carpentry and remodeling jobs
until his retirement in 1996, at age 84. Ezra is now engaged in full-time political activism: a
self-described "rabble rouser."
His parents both worked for the postal service, and raised three chi ldren, of whom Ezra was
the middle chi ld. Ezra comes from a solidly conservative Republican fami ly. He 'has kept that
tradition alive since casting his first ballot (against FOR) in 1936. Ezra's fathe r spoke out on a
variety of political issues. and had hi s mother's support ... much as Ezra has the tireless support
�-8-
\
of his wife today. He credits his parents with having most influenced hi s political beliefs. That
generation of Ezra's family also featured two cousins [one paternal, one maternal] in Idaho who
were politically outspoken.
While Ezra's brother has been active in conservative politics as well, Ezra says hi s sole child
(a stepson) prefers noninvolvement, believing that "all politicians are liars".
Ezra's political interests range across a wide spectrum, and he is well-known as a regular
writer of oftimes provocative letters to the Herald lournal and other Utah newspapers. Over
many years of political activism, he has served as a Republican Party preci nct officer, taken part
in the citizens effort to prevent construction of a Logan golf course and, most recently,
co-founded the Logan Canyon Improvement Group. Once asked to run for local office, Ezra
declined , stating that he preferred to remain an "outsider". Still, his living room wall boasts
several certificates of appreciation from local and national organizations impressed with hi s
efforts in the political realm.
"Vickie" was born in Montreal, Canada, in October of 1942. She grew up and attended
uni versity in Canada, then moved to the United States in the 1960s. Vickie fi rst arrived in Cache
Valley, Utah in 1970, and has lived in Logan continuously since 1976. With degrees in biology
and psychology, she has worked at Duke University and, having taken a career break to rai se a
family, is now a school psychologist in the Logan area.
Vickie became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1995.
Explaining that she was raised in a "very 50s", apolitical family, Vickie is not aware of her
parents' political affiliations. They voted, she says, but "never talked politics." Talking politics
with her brother and sister is a challenge, since they both remain in Canada. Eldest of the three,
Vickie is not familiar with Canadian politics, and her siblings are only slightly more aware of
politics in the States. She characterizes her brother as conservative, and knows that her sister
follows political issues that affect her business.
Vickie describes herself as a liberal Democrat, adding that her Canadian-born husband shares
the same values. Asked her son's and daughter's political affilia tion and philosophy, she would
only di sclose that "they're not Young Republicans." Her daughter has worked for a college
�.'
-9-
environment center, and her son follows zoning issues at his home in Park City, Utah.
Vickie has a history of involvement with Canadian and U.S. environmental groups; most
recently. Citi zens for the Protection of Logan Canyon.
She was first sensitized to citizen
initiative in U.S. politics in 1968, when a friend at Duke University sent money to support the
campaign of Eugene McCarthy. Vietnam War protests also played an important role in her
political socialization. "You couldn't help but take a side," she says.
Lacking political direction from her parents, Vickie built a political philosophy from such
authors as Paul Hawkins, Robertson Davies, and environmentalist Wallace Stegner.
"David" was born in Salt Lake City, Utah, on June 9, 1970. He has lived in Logan, Utah
since 1992. with the exception of 18 months spent in Jackson, Wyoming.
David attended post-secondary schools in Utah. and is certified as an emergency medical
technician and nursing assistant. He has worked with troubled youth as an outdoor acti vities
instructor at Aspen Achievement Academy. in Bicknell. and is currently a mail carrier for the
postal service.
In his off hours, he volunteers time with handicapped children at a Logan
elementary school, and with the science department at Logan Hi gh Schoo!..
David is the middle of five children --four boys, one girl-- raised by a father who works for a
Salt Lake construction company and a mother who hand les mi ssionary assignments at the LDS
(Monnon) Church headquarters.
He comes from a solidly Republican family that ranges in
philosophy from conservative father to David and an elder brother at the liberal end.
Both
parents have actively campaigned for Governor Mike Leavitt, and David's mother is past
president of the local PTA. He admits, though, that his most po litically influentia1 mentor has
been his elder brother, who was president of the University of Utah Young Republicans and
supports liberal Republican candidates. A younger brother does volunteer work for Senator
Robert Bennett.
David is the family environmentalist. Most of the others "hate enviros", he says. While he is
also concerned about the country's fiscal health, David's political initiatives have been linked
primarily to the environment. He was involved in debates over bicycle lanes in Logan and
�"
-10-
Jackson, has contributed time to the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and now serves as a
spokesman for the Logan Canyon Coalition. His main concern is the "frontier mentality" of older
residents who are willing to accept environmental destruction in return for jobs.
David is supported by a like-minded wife, who divides her volunteer hours between Lee. a
rape crisis center, and learning Spanish to assist in a local literacy program. They plan to have
chi ldren someday.
Similarities - shared biographical features :
All three subjects ..•
..have lived at least 20 years in Utah .
.. travelled around the United States, and outside the country .
..graduated from high school and received subsequent education training .
.. have worked in jobs involving significant social interaction .
..were raised in a two-parent family .
.. have had at least three siblings, including at least one sister and one brother.
.. are married to a spouse who is at least a high school graduate. and who has held a
full-time job during the marriage .
. .have had parents that voted .
.. have at least one sibling who actively follows one or more political issues, and has
either personally --or is married to someone who has-- held a political position,
ranging from college Young Republicans president to party precinct chainnan
to local zoning board member.
..identify with a political party, and are clear about their own political philosophy.
.. share their spouse's political philosophY·
�..
-11-
.. have a spouse who actively follows one or more political issues, and who participates with
the respondent in at least one political activity, including volunteer involvement with the
respondent's Logan Canyon focus group .
.. are interested in environmental issues, plus at least one additional political issue .
.. have been involved with other political causes prior to involvement in the Logan Canyon
debate .
.. participated in the Scouts [for Vickie, the Canadian Girl Guides] as children .
.. had political beliefs shaped, in part, by economic issues ranging from labor laws to taxes .
.. believe that participation is a key aspect of citizenship.
For Ezra, citizenship is "a privilege ... a freedom" , "You should vote or you're a fool,
and should keep your mouth shut." According to Vickie, "If you're going to be part of a
community, you've got to participate." David feels that citizenship means "dedication to the
community, without the expectation of reimbursement," adding that "Ezra ... is a good
example" of citizenship .
.. feel a personal sense of civic responsibility that requires action.
To Ezra, it's an issue of "free agency"; and one must share information and ideas
outside of the immediate family. Civic responsibility means being "good neighbors."
Vickie holds that "voting is important, although it doesn't mean much; but, what is the
alternative?" She says that "if you see a problem, you need to deal with it." David's sense of
civic responsibility involves "donating time and money; interacting one-on-one with others
in the community."
.. are motivated to political action, in part, to right a perceived wrong.
Ezra admits that there are "things that rub me wrong", and it's up to him to "flush out
the termites." Vickie also notices when "things aren't right." "I feel like I can analyze the
situation," she says, and feels she can have an impact. Plus, "I enjoy doing it, and the people
I meet." David gets angry when he and his group are "mischaracterized" by opponents. In
�-12-
additional, he feels he is "very fortunate" and therefore obligated to work on behalf of those
less fortWlate .
.. can cite at least one political accomplishment ('victory').
For Ezra, it was rallying people against the golf course. Then there is the following he has
generated among fellow residents. through his letters to the newspapers. Vickie is satisfied
that Logan Canyon is being dealt with differently than if she had taken no action. And David
feel s his input to the bike lanes debates at least caused people "to view things in a different
light. "
.. sense that there is a general attitude toward politics shared by the majority of Cache Valley
residents, although the perceived nature of this attitude varied among respondents.
From Ezra's perspective, "too many people want George to do it. " "People are afraid of
what others will think of them ." Vickie senses a mono lithic political culture. "The vast
majority of people think alike," she says. According to David, "it's the provincial mentality
lhat I love and hate." "I Jike the slower pace," he says, and it's nice that you can talk to your
neighbors. But, he is concerned that for many, it is "okay to be nai ve about the impacts of
growth."
.. menti oned positive social interaction as a rewarding aspect of their civic and political
activities.
People call Ezra and ask, "when are you going to write another letter?" [Look for it in
the Herald Journal every 6th of the month.] Vickie says she enjoys her involvement because
"I learn new things, and meet interesting people." For David, it's "getting people to look at
something in a different light", and "putting a smile on someone's face."
Dissimilarities - biographical differences:
Ezra is the sole military veteran.
�..
"
-13 David and Vickie are college educated [she with an advanced degree] , as are
their spouses, w hile Ezra and his wife are not.
Ezra and Vickie have children. David does not.
Ezra's and David's parents engaged in politics beyond voting, whi le Vickie's did not.
Ezra's parents were both conservative, David's split conservative I moderate, and Vickie's
"apolitical. "
Ezra's stepson is not politically active. Vickie's two chi ldren are. David is child less.
Ezra claims a conservative political philosophy. while Vickie and David identify themselves
as liberal s.
Ezra and David belong to the LDS (Mormon) Church. Vickie does not.
Each cites different life events that influenced their political beliefs. For Ezra, it was an
adverse reaction to the liberal policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, along with anger at the
minimum age labor law that deprived his farm of the "best beet workers." In Vickie's case, it
was the Vietnam War and Watergate that sparked her interest. Dav id says "the first time I
debated an issue" was when Governor Leavitt kept the tax on food , but cut property taxes.
He adds that he was impressed by accounts of President Harry Truman's political principl es.
Ezra and David both follow the pronouncements of political commentator Rush Limbaugh,
although Ezra co unts himself a supporter and David simply appreciates Limbaugh's ability to
"frame issues in a different light." Vickie did not mention Mr. Limbaugh.
They have different ideas about the level of significance of their individual actions. Ezra
points proudly to the certificates on his wall , attesting to the impact he's had . Although
Vickie feels the impact of one person is rather small , when "the choice is to do something, or
to do nothing," she rejects the latter. The important question is o ne of conscienc~ . David
claims that, in the context of Logan Canyon, "we are saving the taxpayers money ... although
the aesthetic gai n is not that great."
�-14-
Ezra and Vickie agreed that it is unfortunate more Americans aren't involved in civic and
political activities. Ezra says that "people can make a difference, if they get active." On the
other hand, David accepts that "some people won't ever get involved. no matter how bad
things get." It has always been that way, he maintains.
The three have different notions of why many citizens do not get involved. Ezra says that
people think they "won't make a difference," and that their opinion doesn't count. Vickie
adds that "people feel disenfranchised; they don't know what to do, or how to do it." She
also notes that would-he participants know they're "up against powerful vested interests."
Vickie and David agree that people have less time to get involved, because of jobs. He says
it is important to remember that "some people make their contributions through work", and
that "we also need to be sure we include people's church involvement" in the equation.
Both Vickie and David spoke to the issue of campaign finance reform. Ezra did not raise
that particul ar issue.
Ezra and David said they have experienced hosti lity or other negat ive consequences from
their civic and political activities. In Ezra's case, it has been
l etters~to ~the ~editor
that have
critici zed him . He is energi zed by the criticism, though, and claimed "I'm real thickskinned. " David said that his car was egged a couple of times, and he sometimes tires of
being called an "outsider" and "eco-terrori st" because he has different views.
When asked how they want to be remembered by their great grandchildren, Vickie and
David prefer a political epitaph. She would like them to know that she "was part of a
movement to save natural areas." David hopes that a generation yet to appear wiU remember
him as a "fighter for the future" who helped set things aside for them to enjoy. Ezra just
wants his stepson's grandchildren to remember him "as their real [great] grandpa."
�"
'.
-15-
Additional Observations
Ezra and David, who are on opposite sides of environmental issues, both affiliate with the
Republican Party. as do their siblings.
Vickie and David. who are relatively close in environmental perspective, affiliate with
different po litical parti es; she is Democrat, he is Republican.
Discussion of Results:
The core-profile interview process yielded a broad set of character and bio-historical traits
shared by the three subj ects. It is unlikely that all o f these commonly-held traits are causally-
related to political activism Were I to extend this line of inquiry into the realm of quantitative
research, I would probably seek to operationalize the following traits as variables in a broad
survey of political activists.
•
number of siblings
•
clarity about political party identification
•
clarity about politi cal philosophy
•
supportive spouse
•
previous political involvement
•
concept of citi zenship
•
like/dislike o f social interaction
From the standpoint of qualitative research, I would likely seek the replication of this activity,
using a similar procedure with different political issues in other communities.
Other Research Issues:
The fin al stage of research for this report involved "member checking", in which each of the
core.profi le subjects was given a draft of the report that included the comparative responses
document that is attached, in pseudonymic format, as Appendix B.
Unfortunately, the copy
given the core·profil e subjects used their real names, which was admittedly a procedural ··if not
�-16-
ethical-- flaw on my part.
During the course of member checking, minor corrections were made to the text. At this
point, one of the core-profile subjects expressed strong discomfort at my mention of the
possibility that the report might he published as a human interest story in the local newspaper.
The continued political sensitivity of issues related to Logan Canyon was cited as the reason for
the individual's concern. I agreed that I would not use this report as the basis for a newspaper
article, and have marked the front page "Not For Local Publication."
�Appendix A: Core Profile Questionnaire
Profiles in Activism: Logan Canyon
Co re Profile
Name:
Birthdate:
Birthplace:
Residences:
Travels:
Education:
(spec. training, degrees)
Work hi story:
Current occupation:
Family [of origin] :
Parents' occupations:
Siblings (in binh order):
Siblings' occupations:
Family [procreation] :
Spouse's education:
Spouse' s occupation:
Children:
... education:
Date:
Location:
�-,
-2... occupations:
Political Background Family [of origin]:
Parents' political affiliations:
Parents' political philosophies:
Parents' key political issues:
Parents' political activity:
Siblings' po litical affi liations:
Siblings' political philosophies:
Siblings' key political issues:
Siblings' political activity:
Exceptional behavior, in the extended family:
Family [procreation] :
Spouse's political affi liations:
Spouse's political phil osophies:
�--3-
Spouse's key political issues:
Spouse's political activity:
Childrens' political affi liations:
Childrens' political philosophies:
Childrens' key political issues:
Childrens' political activity:
Personal political affi liations:
Personal political philosophies:
Personal key political issues:
Personal political activity:
... first involvement in politics:
Personal Politics [continued] :
Membership in service-oriented community groups:
(egs. scouts, school, church, adult groups, issues groups)
Key life events that influenced your political beliefs:
Key persons who influenced your political beliefs:
�.,
4·
How do you define "citizenship"?
How would you describe your personal sense of civic responsibility?
What motivates you to take political action?
How much of a difference do you think you make, from a political standpo int?
... Some things you have accomplished:
What is your feeling about the level of civic and political involvement in the U.S. today?
Why do you think many citizens do not gel involved?
What civic I political behaviors are most needed in the United States today?
To what extent does the culture of Cache Valley. Utah faci litate or inhibit political
expression?
Have you experienced hostility, stress, or other negative consequences of your civic and
political activities?
What do you feel have been the most rewarding aspects of your civic / political activities?
How would you like to be remembered by your great grandchildren?
�.
,
"
Appendix B: Core Profile Data, Annotated Responses
Profiles in Activism: Logan Canyon
Core Profiles
Name:
COMPOSITE
E ~ Ezra .. .interviewed 7-9-97 and 7-30-97
V ~ Vickie .. .interviewed 7-10-97 and 7-3 1-97
D ~ David .. .interviewed 7-9-97 and 7-30-97
Birthdate:
E ~ August 26, 1912
V ~ October, 1942
D ~ June 9, 1970
Birthplace:
E ~ Paris, Idaho
V = Montreal , Canada
D ~ Salt Lake City
Residences:
E ~ Preston, Idaho .. , Logan, Utah since 1932
V = raised in Montreat 1960s in N. Carolina;
Cache Valley I Logan, 1970-71 & 1976 to present
D = raised in Salt Lake City; lived in Alta, Utah ... then Logan for 3 years, Jackson, WY for
2 years, and returned to Logan
Travels:
E = All states of the USA ; Mexico, Canada; southern Europe in Army during WWIl
V = both U.S. coasts, Canada, Europe, Australia
D = extended road trips to the east coast U.S. and Pacific Northwest; Canada, Mexico
Education:
(spec. Iraining, degrees)
E = Preston H.S. graduate; radio operator and cook in Army
V = high school and college in Canada .. B.S. in ChemistryfBiology; Masters in Psych. USU
D ~ high school grad (SLC); attended Salt Lake Community College, the University of
Utah, and Utah State University; gained EMT I CNA (certified nursing assistant) at
Bridgerland Vocational
Work history:
E ~ linotype setter at Herald Journal from 1932 to 1974, with 3 year break during WWll
. .injured hand in 1974; shifted to carpentry and remodeling until retirement in 1996.
V = worked at Duke Univ. med. center, taught school; rai sed fami ly;
reswned full-time work in 1985
D = jobs in the food service industry and construction ; provided outdoor experiences for
troubled youth at Aspen Achievement Academy (Bicknell); U.S. Postal Service, 3 years
�,.
-2Current occupation:
E = political activist
V = school psychologi st in Cache County
D = mail carrier
Family [o f origin] :
Parents' occupations:
E = mother: post office worker, then homemaker
fath er: postal stage driver; assessor, then city judge in Preston, Idaho
V = father: engineer
mother: lavvyer. homemaker
D = father: office manager for Salt Lake construction company
mother : mi ssionary assignments administrator at LDS Church headquarters
Siblings (in birth order):
E = three children: brother and sister; Ezra is middle child.
V = three children: brother and sister; Vickie is eldest
D = fi ve children: 3 brothers, I sister; David is middle chi ld.
Siblings' occupations:
E = sister (deceased) was teacher, slore owner, real estate agent.
brother: (retired) defense worker, po lice chief in Preston, ID ; accountant, real estate
V = brother: engineer
sister: home economist
D = brothers: eldest is lawyer; another is in real estate; youngest is an econ. major ("U")
sister: just returned from LDS mi ss ion , and is psych. major at the "U"
Family [procreation] :
Spouse's education:
E = high schoo l
V = Ph.D. in animal behavior
D = USU grad, seeking Masters in Cardiac Rehabi litation; certified EMT
Spouse's occupation :
E = retail sales; 30 years as proofreader, advertising at Herald Journal (met Ezra there)
V = professor at USU
D = clinical assistant and community educator for Planned Parenthood
Children:
E = one (from w ife 's previous marriage)
V = two (son and daughter)
D = none yet
�..
-3-
... education:
E ~ USU grad
V = daughter: masters degree in journalism
son: bachelors in environmental studies
D ~N/A
... occupations:
E = (retired) Thiokel employee
V = daughter: journalist (writer)
son: school teacher and ski instructor
D ~ N/A
Political Background Family [of origin]:
Parents' political affiliations:
E ~ both Republican (s!might ticket)
V = not known
D ~ both Republican
Parents' political philosophies:
E = conservative
V ~ an apolitical famil y ("very 50s")
o = father: conservative Republi can
mother: moderate Republican
Parents' key political issues:
E = father advocated for "underdog"; comprehensive issues
V ~ N/A
D = father: pro-business issues; anti-abortion
mother: morality issues (for example, anti-pornography); anti-abortion (pro-Life)
Parents' political activity:
E = father spoke out on Republican issues, with mother's support
V = parents voted, but "never talked po litics"
0 = mother: PTA past president at elem. school
mother and father: campaign volunteers for Mike Leavitt
Siblings' political affiliations:
E ~ both Republican
V = doesn' t know (Canadian parties)
o = all are Republican
�-4-
Siblings' political philosophies:
E = both conservative
V = brother: conservative
sister: doesn' t know
D = eldest hrother is liberal Republican
other brothers and sister are moderate Republican
Siblings' key political issues:
E = brother: comprehensive Republican issues
V = sister: issues that affect her business [Vickie and sister are unfamiliar with the
other's political issues ... Canadian and U.S .]
o = anti~environment ("all hate enviros", except eldest brother); all are anti-abortion
Siblings' political activity:
E = brother: Republican precinct chairman; letter-writing to newspaper, Congress
sister: vice-chair of Republican precinct; husband was Franklin County assessor
V = sister's husband has served on local zoning board
0 = eldest brother: "U" Young Republicans president; campaigned for liberal
Republican Genevieve Atwood; did volunteer work in D.C.
youngest brother: volunteered three years for Sen. Bob Bennett
Exceptional behavior, in the extended family:
E = maternal and paternal cousins politically outspoken in Idaho
V = none
D = eldest brother
Family [procreat ion] :
Spouse' s political affiliations:
E = Republican
V = "we have the same values" .. .1 assume this means Democrat
D = Independent
Spouse's political philosophies:
E = conservative
V = "we have the same values" .. .1 assume this means liberal
D = liberal
Spouse's key political issues:
E = general interest
V = environment
D = reproductive rights
�••
..
-5Spouse's political activity:
E = attends all city and county council meetings; supports Ezra
V = just became a U.S. citizen (from Canada); belongs to lots of grassroots
organizations; seen as an expert; beli eves in building a strong knowledge base, cares
what's going on
D = volunteers for Lee and rape crisis group; learning Spanish to volunteer with
Bridgerland Literacy
Childrens' political affiliations:
E ~ Republican
V = doesn't know; daughter is a U.S . citizen, son is sti ll Canadian
D~N/A
Childrens' political philosophies:
E = "all politicians are liars"
V = "they're not Young Republicans" .. .1 assume this means liberal.
D ~ N/A
Childrens' key political issues:
E = not involved
V = personal economic issues; wage scales, for example
D ~ N/A
Childrens' po litical activity:
E = not involved
V = daughter: worked at environment ctr. at Univ. of Colorado
son: fo llows zoning issues at home in Park City
D ~ N/A
Personal political affiliations:
E = Republican
V = Democrat
D ~ Republican
Personal political philosophies:
E = conservative
V ~ liberal
D ~ liberal
Personal key political issues:
E = mostly domestic; local,state,national comprehensive
V = environment; fairness issues, such as a decent minimum wage, and more pay for
social service and education workers
D = Baby Boomer impacts on social services [will bankrupt the fi scal system];
environmental destruction fo r j obs ... opposes "frontier mentality" of older residents,
with "take, take, take" approach to environment
�..
.,
·6·
Personal political activity:
E = participated in citizen effort to prevent golf course; Republican precinct officer;
letter-writing, phone calls, networking, organizing; electioneering;
won't run for office (prefers to be an outsider); founding member of LelG
V = gained U.S. citizenship in 1995 (from Canada); has worked with the Canadian
National Parks Association, Audubon Society, Sierra Club, and CPLC
D = served with citizens advisory groups on bicycle lanes in Logan and Jackson, WY;
volunteered for Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, and attended wilderness
hearings; got involved with Lee last year
... first involvement in politics:
E ~ 1936.. first voted (against FDR)
V = while in North Carolina, K. became aware of the U.S. political system through a
friend who sent a campaign contribution to Eugene McCarthy's campaign
0 = 1992 bike lanes issue in Logan
Personal Politics [continued]:
Membership in service-oriented community groups:
(egs. scouts, school, church, adult groups, issues groups)
E = boy scouts; active in LOS Church as stake dance director, high priest, "Smokin Oeacons"
(bringing back inactive members); LCIG
V ~ girl guides (Canadian girl scouts)
0 = Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster; worked with handicapped youth in high school;
LOS teen service projects; volunteers at local elementary school (hyperacti ve kids) and
high schoo l (science dept.), and with Alzheimer's patients at a local nursing home
Key life events that influenced your political beliefs:
E = FOR's election bothered him ; passage of minimum age work law deprived him of best
beet workers (under 16)
V = Watergate; Vietnam War protests ("you couldn't help but take a side");
awareness of stagflation in 1970s, and greed in the 1980s
0 = Gov. Leavitt opposed cutting the food tax, yet cut property taxes ... "the first time I
debated on an issue."; getting ajob with retirement benefits, having to consider
investments, and realizing systemic problems
Key persons who influenced your political beliefs:
E = father and mother
V = authors, such as Paul Hawkins (Ecology of Commerce), Robertson Davies (Canadian),
and environmentalist Wallace Stegner
0 = eldest brother; Pres. Harry Truman ("he was above money" ; pushed for accountability,
and for the underdog, and saved the taxpayers money; Rush Limbaugh, who "frames
issues in a different light", although M doesn't necessarily agree with him
�..
.
.
-7How do you define "citizenship"?
E = "a priviiege ... a freedom"; much violated; "you should vote or you're a fool, and should
keep your mouth shut"; learn English; obey the laws; convicts should lose
citizenship rights
V = "participation". "If you're going to be part ofa community. you've got to participate."
D = dedication to the community, without the expectation of reimbursement .. "Ezra Allred
is a good example. "; "citizenship is being involved"; for example, donating time and
resources to a non-profit organization
How would you describe your personal sense of civic responsibi lity?
E = free agency; one must share info and ideas outside of the immediate fami ly; good
neighbors
V = voting is important, although it doesn't mean much ... "what is the alternative?";
if you see a problem, you need to deal with it
D = donating time and money; interacting one-on-one with others in the community;
"Courtesy is contagious." ; "put a smile on a stranger's face"
What motivates you to take political action?
E = "things that rub me wrong"; follows the news closely; supporter of Rush Limbaugh and
Newt Gingrich. gets ideas from both; "flush out the termites"
V = "Things aren't right," ... "1 feel like I can analyze the situation,""; feels she can have an
impact; "I enjoy doing it, and the people I meet."
D = anger, at the LCC and me personally being rnischaracterized;
the feeling that I am very fortunate ["I'm so lucky"] , and therefore obligated to share with
those less fortunate
How much of a difference do you think you make, from a political standpoint?
E = has received several awards (local and national) for participation
V = "very little" (as an individual); but the choice is to do something, or to do nothing;
K agrees it's a matter of conscience
o = we are savi ng the taxpayers money [Logan Canyon as a pork barrel], although the
aesthetic gain is not that great
...Some things you have accomplished:
E = "beat that golf course"; people read and follow his letters
V ~ Logan Canyon is being dealt with differently than if [I had taken] no action
D = Jackson bike lanes; he's caused people to view things in a different light
What is your feeling about the level of civic and political involvement in the U.S. today?
E = sad state of affairs when only 49% of eligible people vote;
people can make a difference, if they get active
V = "it's unfortunate"
D = differences in political tolerance (what people wi ll tolerate) hav always been with us;
some people won't ever get involved. no matter how bad things get
�..
.
-8Why do you think many citizens do not get involved?
E = "it won't make a difference"; "my opinion doesn' t count"
V = "people feel disenfranchised; they don't know what to do, or how to do it";
"people have jobs" [allusion to time?]; "you're up against powerful vested interests."
D = now, there are more issues to deal with, and people have less time; some people make
their contributions through work; we also need to be sure we include people's church
involvement
What civic / political behaviors are most needed in the United States today?
E = no response
V = campaign finance reform, especially at the national level
D = people must force more accountability on politicians, & on the money that influences
them
To what extent does the culture of Cache Valley, Utah facilitate or inhibit political
expression?
E = too many people want George to do it; people are afraid of what others will think of
them; " I'm real thick-skinned"
V = feels no inhibitions; but, the vast majority of the people think alike
D = "it's the provincial mentality that I love and hate" ; "I like the slower pace, and that you
don't feel people are out to get you"; you're not a number, and can talk to your neighbors;
but, "It's almost okay to be naive about the impacts of growth."; doesn't like being
characterized as an outsider (Back East) because he has diff. views and ideas
Have you experienced hostility, stress, or other negative consequences of your civic and
political activities?
E = yes; letters criticizing me (but never face to face); energized by criticism
V = no
D = yes; the car was egged a couple times; some work contacts call M the "eco-terrorist";
fee ls anxiety when he writes letters to the editor
What do you feel have been the most rewarding aspects of your civic I political activities?
E = personal sati sfaction; popular following ("when are you going to write another letter?");
letter in Herald 10urnal every 6th of the month
V = "I learn new things, and meet interesting people."
D = "getting people to look at something in a different light"; "putting a smile on someone's
face"
How would you like to be remembered by your great grandchildren?
E = "as their real grandpa"
V = "I'd like to see natural areas left [for them]"; I was part of a movement to save natural
areas
D = "A fighter for the future."; someone who looked at the future and asked "what's going to
happen then? " rather than "what's it worth [today]?"; someone who set things aside fo~
the future to decide its status
.
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Image Height
3323
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
2619
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/660">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/660</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
300
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
Grayscale
Checksum
2984228977
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
Profiles in Activism: Three Citizens Involved in the Logan Canvon Controversy, student paper by Stanley Holmes
Description
An account of the resource
Paper prepared for EDUC 677. This qualitative research project involved a multi-case study of adult citizens involved in a local political controversy. Following background research, structured interviews were conducted with three core subjects to identify shared character and bio-historical traits.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Holmes, Stanley
Subject
The topic of the resource
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Roads--Design and construction
United States Highway 89
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Student projects
Essays
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1997
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 12
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd12
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/6b29ddef4c01b5d8ada410443ab8ad8b.pdf
0cd42a645943d0bf9f845c53619cb026
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Image Height
3340
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
2619
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/631">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/631</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
300
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
Grayscale
Checksum
2478930555
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
Preliminary Record of Decision, July 14, 1994
Description
An account of the resource
The preliminary record of decision for US Highway 89, Right Fork in Logan Canyon to Garden City and Final Environmental Impact Statement. The six sections include decision, alternatives considered, section 4(f), measures to minimize harm, monitoring or enforcement program, and comments on the FEIS.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Environmental policy
Roads--Design and construction
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Utah. Department of Transportation
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
7/14/94
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Garden City (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 14
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd14
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/c820729cd20e24154407dab2a040c450.pdf
f0da73e259e64a0cc0dd405108bdc581
PDF Text
Text
•
RECORD OF DECISION
US Highway 89
Right Fork in Logan Canyon to Garden City
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
Cache and Rich Counties, Utah
A. DECISION
The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) concurs with the Utah Department of Transportation
(UDOT) in its selection of the Preferred Alternative as modified in this Record of Decision (ROD)
for improvements to US Highway 89 (US-89) between Right Fork, milepost (mp) 383.47, and State
Road 30, mp 411.75 , in Garden City . The modified Preferred Alrernative is described in Section
B below. The modified Preferred Alternative is as presented in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) with the following modifications made as a result of input received on the FEIS
and subsequent meetings and field reviews in order to further minimize harm to wetland/riparian
habitat, visual resources and Section 4(0 resources :
•
The Lower Middle Canyon section has been extended 500 reet to mp 387.57 to better fit
the surrounding terrain. The roadway begins to move further away from the river at
this location.
•
Conso lidation of parking for Section 4(f) Site 6 , Ricks Spring, has been e liminated. This
eliminates the left turn lane and retaining wall adjacent to the river. A shorter retaining wall
set back from the river may still be required just south of the site.
•
Section 4(f) Site 13 , Winter Access Parking, will be reestablished at a lower elevation so that
•
Relocation of the Limber Pine Trailhead has been eliminated .
•
The detour at Burnt Bridge has been eliminated and widening will occur on the upstream
side. This reduces the impact on riparian habitat.
•
For the first eight miles of the Upper Canyon (from mp 391.6 to Beaver Mountain road
intersection), the previously proposed roadway width of 40 feet has been reduced to 34 feet.
This reduces the impact on wetland and riparian areas , For areas with passing lanes through
this eight miles, the previously proposed roadway width of 47 feet has been reduced to 44
feet.
•
•
•
The left turn lane at Temple Fork has been eliminated. Minimum roadway improvements
at this site include a 34' section on US·89 and an improved vertical grade approach of
Temple Fork road. Other improvements , such as an uphill right turn lane and an improved
horiwntal angle of approach of Temple Fork Road , are secondary improvements which will
only be constructed if they do not impact the river or require a substantial retaining wall .
access can be maintained.
US·89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Page 1
Section A: Decision
�The above modifications are within the scope of the FE IS and their implementation will reduce the
impacts from that presented in the FEIS . Therefore , the modifications are not of a nature that would
require a Supplemental EIS .
•
I
The purpose of and need for this project is to improve safety and the traffic carrying capacity of US89 from Right Fork in Logan Canyon to State Road 30 in Garden City. Safety will be improved by
correcting existing substandard geometries , unsafe conditions. and deteriorated structures. The
capacity of the highway will be increased to meet existing and projected traffic demands for a 20year planning horizon . Due to funding restraints , this project will be implemented through the
development of several smaller projects.
The first includes the urgent bridge upgrading and
replacements. Other improvements in the canyon that will be implemented as runding becomes
available.
The selection of the modified Preferred Alternative was based on substantial input received by
various federal and state agencies, local governments and the public , evaluation of technical repons ,
the Environmental Impact Statement, and further analysis and coordination made during development
of this ROD . The sensitivity of the environment played an important role in the development of the
modified Preferred Alternative.
Numerous compromises to current highway standards (as
recommended by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,
AASHTO) were incorporated because impacts on the aquatic , wetland , riparian and visual
environment would have been too great, and in some cases constructability was cost-prohibitive.
Other actions taken into consideration in making this decision includes the recent nomination of US89 through Logan Canyon for inclusion on the National Highway System. This would change the
classification of the highway from a minor arterial to a principal arterial. Though Congressional
approval is pending , consideration has been given to how this would affect the decision being made
for this project. Since the roadway already serves as a US Hiehway and Was desienated as s uch
in accordance with previous luis.ation. the determination has been made that this action would
not chanee the use or the hiehway. In this regard, the decision is made that if US-89 through
Logan Canyon is included in the National Highway System, this designation will not affect the
selection, or subsequent design, of the modified Preferred Alternative identified in this ROD.
e
•
US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994)
Page 2
Section A: Decision
�•
B. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Eight project alternatives , ranging from preserving the existing roadway to a standard AASHTO
design , were considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). These include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Standard Arterial Alternative
Rich County North Alignment Alternative
Rich County South Alignment Alternative
Modified Standard Alternative
Composite Alternative
Spot Improvements Alternative
Conservationists' Alternative
No Action Alternative
Alternate corridors were evaluated and included redesignation of Idaho State Highway 36 from
Preston to Ovid , Idaho , and construction of a new highway through Blacksmith Fork Canyon.
Because the distance between Logan and Wasatch Front communities and the Bear Lake area is
shorter thrQugh Logan Canyon than through these other routes , most traffic would still tend to use
US-89. The need to correct existing safety hazards/deficiencies , replace deteriorated bridges and
pavement, and increase traffic carrying capacity would still be necessary . Environmental impacts
and construction costs to improve the existing highway would be considerably less than for a new
route . Furthermore, traffic volume on such a route would not justify a new road . Therefore,
alternate corridors were not advanced into the EIS .
The FEIS presented four project alternatives . These include:
•
•
•
•
Preferred Alternative
No Action Alternative
Standard Arterial Alternative
Conservationists' Alternative
The Preferred Alternative as modified in this ROD is the environmentally preferred alternative that
causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment while meeting the purpose and
need . The modified Preferred Alternative was se lected because it offered the best balance berween
the transportation needs of the corridor with the sensitive environmental restraints of the canyon.
The other alternatives do not achieve this balance: The Standard Arterial Alternative is not sensitive
to the environment; and , the Conservationists' and No Action Alternatives do not meet the purpose
and need for the project. The Preferred Alternative, as modified, is supponed by federal and state
agencies , and alllocaJ government entities. The Preferred Alternative, as presented in the FEIS , met
opposition from much of the public. Several meetings and fie ld reviews with key individuals during
development of this ROD has led to resolving many of the concerns and reaching a consensus on the
modifications made .
•
The following is a detailed description of the four alternatives carried into the FEIS. The
modifications to the Preferred Alternative identified in Section A, above, have been included in its
US-89 Througb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October (3, 1994)
Considered
Page 3
Section B: Alternatives
�•
description :
Prererred Alternative (As Modified)
The modified Preferred Alternative was developed to balance the transportation needs of the corridor
with the impacts to the canyo n environment. The critical environmental restraints dictated that
numerous compromises to AASHTO Design Standards were necessary . These compromises allowed
environmental impacts to be minimized while controlling construction costs.
Middle Canyon
Due to the potential for impact to the threatened species, the Maguire Primrose and other substantial
impacts on aquatic , wetland/riparian, and visual environment, the modified Preferred Alternative
throughout this section proposes a substantial relaxation bf AASHTO Design Standards (which
recommends a 4O-foot width throughout , plus several pasSing lanes) .
Beginning at Right Fork (mp 383.47), the first four miles (lower Middle Canyon section) will
maintain the existing roadway width of 26 feet. Present design speed and posted speed wi ll remain
unchanged . Burnt Bridge (mp 385 .5) will be rep laced with a new structure 34-foot wide to allow
for pedestrian use . Burnt Bridge will be constructed in stages, with widening occurring on the
upstream side. The detour presented in the FEIS has been eliminated. The roadway wi ll be e levated
at mp 386.2 (Logan Cave) and at mp 386.6 to eliminate a flooding potential, and a parking area will
be constructed for Logan Cave visitors at mp 386.3. Curb and/or gutter through this section will
be considered during design to help define the roadway and control debris rolling onto the highway .
Curve 5 at mp 384.and curve 29 at mp 387 will be flattened if a 3-year accident analysis , at the time
of construction, shows a concentration of accidents at either location in excess of the expected
accident rate . In the year 2010, a Level of Service (LOS) "DIE" would be expected for this four
mile section .
In the remainder of the Middle Canyon section (from mp 387.57 to mp 391.6) the canyon begins to
open up but is still somewhat restrictive. The roadway will be widened to a 34-foot width (two 12foot wide travel lanes and two 5-foot wide shoulders) through this section. Design and posted speeds
will be 35 miles per hour (mph) . The 34 foot roadway width will serve as a transition between the
26 and 40 root roadway sections. Lower and Upper Twin Bridges (mp 387 .7 and 388.76,
respectively) will be replaced with 38-foot wide structures on new alignment and the structure at
Ricks Spring (mp 389.8) will be replaced on the same alignment. The previously proposed
consolidation of parking for Section 4(f) Site 6, Ricks Spring, has been eliminated . Intersection
improvements at Temple Fork (mp 389.2) include the 34' section on US-89 and an improved vertical
grade approach of Temple Fork road . Other improvements , such as an uphill right turn lane and
an improved horizontal angle of approach at Temple Fork Road are secondary improvements which
will only be constructed if they do not impact the river or require a substantial retaining wall . The
left turning lane previously proposed at Temple Fork has been eliminated. Six curves will be
flattened through the Upper Middle Canyon. These include curve #33, 37, 39, 40, 43 , and 45. The
roadway wi ll be raised about 2 feet from mp 390.2 to mp 391.1 to eliminate a flooding potential.
In the year 2010, a LOS "0" would be expected for this section.
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of Oclober 13, 1994)
Considered
Page 4
Seclion B: AJlemalives
e
•
�•
Upper Canyon
The Upper Canyon begins at mp 391.6 and continues to the Bear Lake Summit. The first eight miles
of this section begins at the cattleguard at mp 391.6 and ends at SR-243 (Beaver Mountain Road
Intersection) . The previously proposed roadway width of 40 feet through this first eight miles has
been reduced to 34 feel as a result of input received on the FEIS . This 34-foot width provides for
two 12-foot wide travel lanes and two 5-fool wide shoulders}. Passing/climbing lanes will be
provided from mp 391.6 to mp 393.3 and from mp 394.9 to mp 396.5. Where passing lanes are
provided , the previously proposed roadway width of 47 feet has been reduced to 44 feet (two 12-fool
wide travel lanes, one 12-foot wide passing lane, one 5-foot shoulder and one 3-foot shoulder on the
•
passing lane side). Intersection improvements will be made at Tony Grove (mp 393.7), Red Banks
Campground (mp 394.5), and Franklin Basin Road (mp 397.01) . Bridges wi ll be replaced on
original alignment. Red Banks Bridge will be 38 feet wide unless tapers for the turn lanes into the
campground run onto the bridge. The first Beaver Creek: Structure at Franklin Basin Road (mp
396.9) will be at least 52 feet wide to accommodate the Franklin Basin Intersection, and the Beaver
Creek Structure at mp 397.5 will be 38 feet wide. Intersection improvements will be made at Beaver
Mountain Road (mp 399.75) . The culvert that serves the Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and
surrounding drainage areas will be widened to accommodate the widened transitions for the Beaver
Mountain intersection. A width of 22 feet from the shoulder line to headwall on each side is
required to avoid the need for guardrail protection. The total width would be at least 68 feet unless
guardrail protection is selected during the design phase. Retaining wall s will be constructed
between Beaver Creek and the roadway at mp 398.1 , mp 398.3, mp 398.6, and mp 398.9 to reduce
impacts on the creek and adjacent wetlands . "Lay_downK type fencing will be provided in open
range areas from about mp 391.6 to mp 397.2 along both sides of the roadway .
Beyond the first eight miles, from the intersection with SR-243 (mp 399.75) and continuing to the
Bear Lake Summit, the roadway will be widened to 40 feet (two 12-foot wide travel lanes and two
8-foot wide shoulders) . Passing/climbing lanes will be provided from mp 399.8 to mp 403 .0 , and
from mp 404.6 continuing throughout the next section and ending at mp 410.6 . Where these
passing/climbing lanes are provided, a 47-foot width (two 12-foot wide travel lanes, one 12-foot wide
passing lane , one 8-foot shoulder, and one 3 foot shoulder on the passing lane side) will be required .
Intersection improvements will be made at UDOT Maintenance Station (mp 402.38), and Forest
Service Access Road (mp 404.75). The Winter Access Parking at mp 402. 1 will be re-established
at a lower elevation so access can be provided.
The design speed will be 50 mph throughout the Upper Canyon. Curves 69 , 70, 71, 76, and 80 will
be flattened . In the year 2010, a LOS "C/O" would be expected throughout the Upper Canyon.
Rich County Section
•
From the Bear Lake Summit to Bridgerland Subdivision (mp 404.75 to mp 409.4) the highway will
be widened to 47 feet in order to accommodate a passing lane. (This would allow two 12-foot wide
travel lanes, a 12-foot wide passing lane , one 8-fool shoulder, and one 3-foot shoulder on the passing
lane side). The design speed will be 40 mph . On the Limberpine trailhead side, improvements will
be restricted to be within 23 feet of the edge of the existing roadway. A delineation between the
rOadway and parking area will be provided wilhin this 23 foot strip. The previously proposed
US-89 Through Loaan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Considered
Page 5
Section B: Alternatives
�relocation of the trailhead and parking area has been dropped. Curves 85 , 88, 89, 92 , 94, 95 , 98,
101, and 102 will be flattened and curves 103, 104. and 105 will be flattened into a single curve ,
dependent upon relocation of alignment from Curve 105 to Curve 109.
e
From Bridgerland Subdivision to Garden City the highway width will be 40 feet (47 feet in passing
lane areas), and the design speed will be 50 mph. Curves 109- 112, and 116 will be flattened, and
access at mp 410.6 will be relocated. The climbing lane from the previous section will end at mp
410.6. In the year 2010, a LOS "0 " would be expected for the entire Rich County section.
Intersection improvements will be made at the Sunrise Campground (mp 405 ,5) whi ch will also
provjde access for the Bear Lake View Area, The intersection with SR-30 will be redesjgned with
left and right-turn lanes. cyrb. gutter and sidewalk on US-89 and SR-3Q in the vicinity of this
intersection. Intersection improvements will also be made at the access to the Brjdgerlaod
Subdivjsion Cmp 409.4), A new intersection providing access to the BridgerJaod Subdivision will
be constructed . This access will provide safer ingress and egress to the subdjvision. Intersection
improvements to other existing and proposed subdivision accesses will be considered based on use
requirements, roadway widening possibilities. and other engineering factors,
No Action Alternative
This alternative does not include any action to alter the width or location of the existing highway ,
although considerable construction activity would be necessary to conduct normal road maintenance,
Such construction would include pavement replacement, replacement of structural elements on
bridges and eventual bridge replacement , and improved signage, The existing roadway width of 26
feet would be maintained . In the year 2010, a LOS "DIE" would be expected for the Middle
Canyon, LOS ~ D ~ for the Upper Canyon, and LOS "E" for the Rich County section,
•
This alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative and was not selected because it does not
meet the purpose and need of the project, Traffic carrying capacity would not be increased to meet
the projected traffic volume, Safety hazards and inadequate opportunities for passing slow moving
vehicles would not be corrected. This alternative is opposed by local governments and most of the
public,
Standard Arterial Alternative
This alternative would maximize traffic capacity and safety by widening and improving the existing
alignment of the highway to current AASHTO standards for a minor anerial road. The roadway
wou ld include two 12-foot wide lanes and two 8-foot wide shoulders for a paved width of 40 feet.
A third 12-foot wide climbing lane would be constructed along approximately 7,7 miles of the route .
The shoulder width would be reduced to 3 feet on the climbing lane side, resulting in a paved width
of 47 feet. Recovery areas , sloping gradually from the roadway to the natural grade, would result
in a typical improved area of 66-98 feet. Bridges and drainage structures would be replaced , several
on new alignments to straighten existing curves. Intersection improvements would also occur. This
alternative would provide the best Level of Service. In the year 2010, a LOS "0" wou ld be
expected for the Middle Canyon, LOS "C/O" for the Upper Canyon, and LOS "D" for the Rich
County section.
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13 , 1994)
Considered
Page 6
Section B: Alternatives
•
�•
This alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative and was not selected because of the potential
impact to the threatened Maguire primrose , substantial impacts to aquatic , riparian , and visual
environments, and cost. This alternative would also impact the most Section 4(f) resources. This
alternative is opposed by several government agencies and much of the public.
Conservationists' Alternative
The Conservationists' Alternative provides for improvements at various locations where there would
be minimal environmental impacts. This alternative includes improved signing, bridge replacement,
slow vehicle turnouts, some climbing lanes, and provides for paving and winter snow plowing of
several parking areas. The existing roadway width of 26 feet would be maintained and the pavement
would be replaced. Where climbing lanes are provided, the roadway width would be 43 feet. New
bridges would be constructed to a 28-foot width, with Lower and Upper Twin Bridges being rep laced
on new alignment. Tony Grove Intersection would be improved. Travelers would be advised of
safety deficiencies by increasing the number of signs at selected locations.
•
•
This alternative is not a feasible and prudent alternative and was not selected because it does not
meet the purpose and need or the project. This alternative rails to adequately address safety and
capacity needs . It would be an incremental improvement over the No Action Alternative by
providing limited roadway improvements at selected locations. However, this alternative would fail
to increase traffic-carrying capacity to meet projected traffic volumes , and would not eliminate many
safety hazards. Bridges proposed to be 28 feet wide would be below AASHTO standards , causing
continued hazardous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians as well as vehicles. Only one
intersection would be improved, resulting in unresolved safety concerns at several intersections such
as Temple Fork, Red Banks Campground, and others. Additional signs to advise of substandard
curves and other safety deficiencies is not adequate to provide long-term benefits as traffic volumes
increase and would represent a constant liability situation. Only three climbing lanes , each
approximately a half-mile long, would be provided. Climbing lanes would not be provided in the
Rich County Section of the road. In the year 2010, a LOS "DIE" would be expected for the Middle
Canyon, LOS "0" for the Upper Canyon , and LOS ME" for the Rich County section. This
alternative is opposed by local governments, but had strong support from much of the public.
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Considered
Page 7
Section B: AJtematives
�C. SECTION 4(F)
Section 4(f) applies to publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, wi ldl ife/waterfowl
refuge, or land of a historic site of National , State, or local significance as determined by the
officials having jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, refuge or site. The Forest Service has
determined that 15 recreation areas qualify as Section 4(f) resources within the project area. In
addition, the State Historic Preservation Office has identified two historic sites. These 17 Section
4(f) resources are described in the Section 4(f) Statement (included in the FEIS).
Constructive use of a Section 4(0 resource results when there is a substantial impairment caused by
secondary impacts. There w ill be no substantial impairment caused by secondary impacts , therefore,
constructive use of Section 4(0 resources will not occur.
Changes to the Section 4(t) Evaluation , as a result of comments received on the FEIS, are addressed
be low. The modified Preferred Alternative will impact three Section 4(t) resources. Alternatives
considered to avoid Section 4(f) resources include: the No Action Alternative , which does not impact
any Section 4(f) resource ; and the Conservationists' Alternative, which impacts one Section 4(f)
resource . The Standard Arterial Alternative has a greater impact to Section 4(f) resources, impacting
eight sites. These alternatives are described in the FEIS and in Section B, above. In addition to
these alternatives, a site specific minor alignment adjustment was considered for avoiding each site.
This minor alignment adjustment was presented in the Section 4(f) Statement and is summarized
below for each impacted site.
Revised Table 6-4
Swnmary of Section 4(f) Properties Used for Each Alternative
•
Alternative
S ite
Features
Prererred
No
Action
Soandard
Arterial
Conservationists'
(Modified)
No.
I
Fisherman's Access Parking at Righi
Fork
No
No
y"
No
2
Woodcamp Campground
No
No
y"
No
4
Parking for Logan Cave
No
No
y"
No
6
Ricks Spring and Parking
y"
No
y"
No
7
Dispersed Recreation Parking
No
No
y"
No
12
Winter Access Parking Area at
Beaver Mountain
y"
No
y"
y"
13
Winter Access Parking
y"
No
y",
No
'15
Limber Pine Trailhead
No
No
No
No
3
0
8
I
Total Section 4(0 Resources Used
@ Alternative
US-89 Througb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October lJ , 1994)
4(0
Page 8
Section C: Section
•
�•
*The boundaries of this site have been corrected, because of this it will not be used by any alternative.
The No Action , Conservationjsts', and Standard Arterial Alternatives are not feasible and prudent
alternatives for reasons stated in Section B above . The site specific minor alignment adjustments are
not feasible and prudent alternatives for reasons stated below under each impacted site. A
combination of alternatives is not feasible and prudent because it would result in an inconsistent
roadway, with unacceptable safety hazards and a reduced Level of Service.
Based upon the above considerations , there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of Section
4(f) properties by the modified Preferred Alternative. The modified Preferred Alternative includes
aJl possible planning to minimize harm . The basis for the above conclusions is explained below for
each site.
The three sites impacted by the modified Preferred Alternative include: Site 6 - Ricks Spring and
Parking; Site 12 - Winter Access Parking Area at Beaver Mountain Road ; and Site 13 - Winter
Access Parking. Each of these sites is used for parking. This use will continue after implementation
of the modified Preferred Alternative. Since these sites are on USFS lands and managed by that
agency , improvements will be completed consistent with USFS recommendations .
Ricks Spring and Parking - Site 6 (mp 389.9)
•
In the FEISt the Preferred Alternative proposed that parking at this site be consolidated on one side
to eliminate pedestrians crossing the roadway . This consolidation was dropped from the Preferred
Alternative after a field review with the USFS on August 18. 1993 . At that time, it was determined
that even if all parking was placed on one side, people would still park on both sides, and the
remaining parking would not allow easy use of the site by recreational vehicles. In addition, the left
turn lane to allow north-bound traffic access would require a retaining wall be placed adjacent to the
river .
A five foot strip on both sides of this site is required adjacent to the roadway to provide for the
shoulder. Though the size of the site will be reduced , the modified Preferred Alternative would not
reduce the amount of parking ability at this site. The use of this Section 4(0 property has been
coordinated with and is supported by the USFS because the modified Preferred Alternative improves
safety at this site as much as possible without requiring the retaining wall adjacent to the river. A
shorter retaining wall, set back from the river's edge , may still be required just downstream from
the site.
Alternatives considered to avoid this site include the No Action and Conservationists' Alternative
which do not address the safety concerns and are not feasible and prudent for reasons previously
stated. Since the site is adjacent to Ricks Springs on one side and the Logan River on the other,
there are no minor alignment adjustments that would avoid this site without direct impacts on Ricks
Spring or the Logan River.
•
Measures to minimize harm at this site include consideration of pedestrian safety during design . The
passing ability at this location will be eliminated and signing will be provided to warn motorists of
pedestrian use at the Spring. Visibility at this location will be improved because of the 5-foot
shoulders and replacement of the existing narrow bridge. Curbing of this site will also be considered
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
4(Q
Page 9
Section C: Section
�•
during design to better identify parking limits.
Winter Access Parking at Beaver Mountain Road· Site 12 (mp 399.8)
A 20 foot strip is required from this site to accommodate improvements to the intersection of US-89
and Beaver Mountain Road (SR-243). The parking area will be expanded to the northeast so that
there will be no loss of parking. The use of this Section 4(f) property has been coordinated with and
is supported by the USFS because this alternative will improve vehicle safety at the intersection of
US-89 and Beaver Mountain Road, which accesses Beaver Mountain Ski Area.
Alternatives considered to avoid this site include the No Action Alternative and a minor alignment
adjustment. The Conservationists' and Standard Arterial Alternatives would also impact this site.
The No Action Alternative would not provide intersection improvements and is not a feasible or
prudent alternative for other reasons stated in Section B. The minor alignment adjustment requires
that the road be widened only on the south side of the existing US-89. This adjustment was not
se lected because it would require a an approximate to-foot fill and impact the natural drainage for
the Amazon Hollow area ,
Measures to minimize harm include extending the remaining parking area to include at least as much
parking as presently ex ists and paving the entire parking area to enhance use.
Winter Access Parking - Site 13 (mp 402.1)
This site is adjacent to a curve proposed to have the vertical and horizontal alignment improved .
There is a difference in elevation of about 12 feet which would eliminate access to this site.
However , this site will be reestablished at a lower elevation so that access can be maintained and the
site will continue to provide at least as much parking as currently exists. The use of this Section 4(f)
property has been coordinated with and is supported by the USFS because the modified Preferred
Alternative corrects the deficiencies of the adjacent curve.
e
Alternatives considered to avoid this site include the No Action and Conservationists' Alternative
and a minor alignment adjustment. The Standard Arterial Alternative would also impact this site.
The No Action and Conservationists' Alternatives would not improve the vertical and horizontal
alignment of this curve and are not a feasible or prudent alternative for other reasons stated in
Section B. The minor alignment adjustment would require that the road be moved further away from
the site so that access at the current elevation could be maintained. This would require additional
cutting into the hillside and was not selected because it would further impact visual resources to a
greater extent.
Measures to minimize harm include reestablishing the parking site at a lower elevation so that access
will be maintained . The site sits on a mound and lowering the elevation will result in approximately
1000 cubic yds of excess material and a small amount of upland vegetation will be eliminated by
reestablishing this site.
Limber Pine Trailhead - Site IS (mp 404.81)
US-89 Througb Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13 , 1994)
4(1)
Page 10
Section C: Section
•
�•
The FEIS Slated that the Preferred Alternative would impact this site. Because of a correction lO the
boundaries of this site, the modified Preferred Alternative will not impact this site. The FEIS shows
the parking area at this site to be 60 X 300 feet and adjacent to the roadway . It also states that a 24foot strip would be required for the modified Preferred and Standard Arterial Alternatives. During
the August 18, 1993 field review held with the USFS , an approximate 23-foot strip prior to the
parking area was identified. This 23 feet consists of a 15 foot shoulder and an 8 foot
curbed/vegetated median. The parking area was measured to be approximately 75 X 200 feet (see
revised map in the Appendix). The USFS stated that the boundary for the Section 4(0 resource
includes only the 75 X 200 foot area beyond the median . However, delineation of the parking area
from the roadway would need to be maintained in order to avoid impacts to this site. All
improvements on the trailhead side will be accomplished within 23 feet of the edge of the roadway ,
and a delineation will be provided within this 23-foot area in accordance with USFS
recommendations. Relocation of the trailhead and parking has been dropped from the Preferred
Alternative. The same would apply for the Standard Arterial Alternative. Therefore, there would
be no impact to Site 15 by any of the alternatives .
•
•
US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
4(1)
Page 11
Section C: Section
�D. MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM
Throughout development of the Preferred Alternative, and subsequent modifications , consideration
has been given to avoiding and minimizing harm to sensitive resources . Protection of the river and
surrounding wetland /riparian edge, avoidance of a threatened species , avoidance and minimizing
harm to wetland/ riparian habitat, visual , and section 4(f) resources of the canyon played an important
role in its development and selection. As a result, minimal construction will occur in the
ecologically sensitive Middle Section of the canyon , bridges will c1ear·span the river . retaining walls
will be used to limit encroachment into sensitive areas. and treatment of clearzones will be mod ified
from AASHTO recommendations. Since the FEIS , the Preferred Alternative has been modified (see
Section A of this ROD) to further reduce these impacts.
All practicable measures to avoid impacts and minimize environmental harm have been incorporated
into the decis ion made in this ROD based on the conceptual level of design utilized in the [IS
process . Emphasis will continue to be made throughout detailed design and construction to further
avoid impacts and minimize harm to environmental resources. Horizontal and vertical alignments
will be manipulated to provide a M
best fit M design . Interested government agencies , local
governments , the environmental community and the community at large will continue to be involved
as part of a Cooperating Advisory Team (CAT) . This team will participate in the development
or all &Soecls of desien and in the resolution of unforeseen environmental problems that arise
durine construction and post construction. This team will be developed as outlined in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FHW A, UDOT and the USFS . Details
regarding the fonnation and operation of this team can be found in the MOU (see Appendix) and is
summarized in Section E of this ROD.
In addition to the measures taken to avoid impacts and minimize harm, opportunities ror
enhancement will be considered, as appropriate. Application ror runding or enhancement
projects would be made as provided for in the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (JSTEA).
•
•
Clearzone Considerations
Impacts will be minimized by the treatment of c1earzones. Clearzones will be handled by relaxing
AASHTO Standards (which recommends removal of hazards within the clearzone area, or protection
of those that cannot be removed). The design of clearzones will focus on preservation of aesthetic
and ecological features to the extent possible while considering safety. Safety hazards within the
c1earzone area will be considered for protection, removal , or no action. The prime directive will
be to minimize impacts to wetlands and riparian habitat adjacent to the roadway without jeopardizing
safety. Considerable emphasis will be given to protection or no action, and removal of hazards
caused by natural conditions will be kept to a minimum . The clearzone area begins at the outside
edge of the traffic lane and is 18 feet wide at 25, 35, or 40 mph and 22 feet wide at 50 mph .
However, the intent is not to clear a swath 18-22 feet wide adjacent to the travel lane . No clearzone
area will be provided in the first four miles or the middle canyon, however, substantial hazards
within this area will be considered for protection.
US-89 Througb Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994) Page 12
HanD
Section D: Measures to Minimize
•
�e
Design Considerations
Through the various meetings and fi eld rev iews held during development of mis ROD , a limited
number of site specific areas were identified where design considerations were of panicular interest.
The following list is not intended to be all inclus ive, but representative of considerations which will
be made during design . Aesthetic impacts at many of these locations was also of concern. These
impacts will be minimized in accordance with the revegetation plan. This plan will include the
use of native plant species; slope rounding and warping of land form impacts; aging rock faces
which contrast with older cuts; removing abandoned roadways and restoring them to blend with
surrounding contours.
•
•
•
Curves 5 & 29 - Accident studies will be handled by reviewing the current three year
accident period at time of construction. The number, type, cause and severity of accidents
will be reviewed to determine if correction of geometric deficiencies could alleviate
accidents. The UDOT Dynamic Quicklisting and officer's individual accident reports will
be the source of this information. Aesthetic impacts will be reduced by manipulating the
horizontal andlor vertical alignment, and by moving away fro m the river .
LoWer Twin Bridge - The total width of cut will be based on the roadway width requirement
combined with the angle of repose of the existing material.
•
Dugway - Widening at this location will be on the cut side to avoid disturbance of the
downhill slope. Only the minimum cut required for necessary widening will be constructed .
The width of additional cut will be a maximum of 8 feet.
•
Upper Twin Bridge - The alignment shift will be based on the minimum amount necessary
to allow a new bridge to be constructed while allowing traffic to utilize the existing structure .
One or two way traffic control configurations for construction will be considered .
•
Temple Fork - Minimum roadway improvements at this site include a 34' section on US-89
and an improved vertical grade approach of Temple Fork road . Other improvements such
as an uphill right tum lane and an improved horizontal angle of approach of Temple Fork
road are secondary improvements which will not be constructed if they impact the river or
require a substantial retaining wall. Environmental impacts and construction costs will be
weighed against the benefits gained.
•
Passing Lanes in Lower Upper Canyon of Section 2 - The location of passing lanes in the
first eight mi les of the Upper Canyon will be evaluated further during detailed design to
assess additional measures to avoid or minimize harm to wetlands. The evaluation will
address leaving the lanes in the location described herein , or combining and relocating into
a single section. Passing lane(s) in this section are a necessary safety improvement and the
decision will be based upon minimizing the impact to the environment (L e .• wetlands, visual)
relative to the safety benefit of this improvement. Emphasis will be to shift the alignment
away from the river.
US-89 1brougb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Hann
Page 13
Section D: Measures to Minimize
�•
Beaver Creek, Franklin Basin Bridge - Horizontal and vertical alignments will be modified
to obtain a H
best fit alignment relative to the sensitive environmental features . The
reduction in the proposed roadway width to 34' also minimizes riparian impacts. Retaining
walls andlor guardrail sections are anticipated and will be utilized to reduce or avoid impact
to sensitive areas. Specific locations for these treatments will be identified in the detailed
H
•
roadway design process.
•
Culvert at Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and Surrounding Drainage Area - The impact
to wetlands at the Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and surrounding drainage area as a
result of roadway widening for the Beaver Mountain turning Janes will be further evaluated
during detailed design. This may include shortening the turn lane storage bay lengths and/or
utilization of guardrail to shorten the culvert.
•
Tony Grove, Beaver Mountain, Franklin Basin Intersections - Improvements at these
intersections in the form of left and right turning lanes are a necessary safety improvement.
Except for the Franklin Basin Intersection, sensitive environmental features will likely not
be heavily impacted. The uses of retaining wall and guardrail will be considered in reducing
or avoiding impacts. Again, a "best fit " design will be implemented. Remaining impacts
will be minimized with mitigative efforts.
•
Passing Lane Above Beaver Mountain Turnoff - The alignment shift at curves 69, 70, and
71 will be subjected to a best fit design analysis including exceptions to design standards.
Realignment around the mature forest will be the design objective. The degree of cut or fill
in obtaining the necessary roadway width is not yet known , but will be determined in the
detailed design process.
*
Curve 85, and the Mature Forest near Limber Pine - The footprint of the roadway is
affected by design speed (curve flattening) , nominal roadway width, and climbing lane. The
use of retaining walls and/or guardrails to limit the extent of fills will be considered . These
activities could reduce the extent of the fill by 40-100 feet, whereas eliminating the climbing
lane would only gain an additional 7 feet. The use of a structure has also been considered
but will not likely be advanced due to potential icing problems at this location. Realignment
options at this location may exist and will be evaluated during design . Ending the passing
lane on an uphill section would not meet design standards and is not desirable because of
the potential safety conflict. Slower moving vehicles would be required to merge into a
faster stream of traffic. The abandoned road and existing fill would be removed and the
ground restored to blend with the surrounding contours.
*
Old Road from the Limber Pine Summit to Garden City - Sections of the existing alignment
abandoned due to realignments or curve flatlenings will be handled in accordance with the
revegetation plan. Abandoned roadway sections will be removed and the ground restored to
blend with surrounding contours. In some cases the old road would be necessary for local
access and will remain in use.
•
Section Ib Crom Rick Springs to Section 2 - The alignment will be shifted away from the
adjacent riparian habitat and the river. It will be adjusted to obtain a "best fit" design.
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994) Page 14
Hann
Section D: Measures to Minimize
•
•
�•
Retaining walls will be considered where needed to avoid or reduce impacts.
•
Impacts from Mitigation - The first priority will be to reduce the amount of impact through
design . Secondly . mitigative areas will be closely evaluated and selected based on potential
for success, as well as consideration to impacts caused by construction of the mitigative
areas. The Forest Service and the Corps of Engineers will be working with UDOT to ensure
that a balance between visual concerns and the need for wetland mitigation in advance of
highway construction is achieved. As design is advanced , possible locations where mitigation
can be accomplished on site may be identified (i.e. possible strips of wetland adjacent to the
roadway in the lower Upper Canyon). In some cases, mitigation areas may be selected that
are not as visible from the road.
Land Use
The modified Preferred Alternative will improve accessibility to various land uses within the area .
Forest Service Plan
•
•
A revegetation plan will be developed by UDOT and approved by the USFS during design
of individual projects to ensure that areas of high visual quality and critical habitat are
avoided, where practicable, and that disturbed areas are appropriately revegetated .
•
A construction/post-construction monitoring plan will be developed and implemented by
UOOT and approved by the USFS during design of individual projects in order to identify
sensitive areas where monitoring is needed . These areas and types of monitoring required
will be identified in the project plans and specifications for each project.
•
•
Amendment of the Forest Plan for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest is required under the
administrative procedures of the US FS for impacts to visual quality and reduction of the
habitat condition index.
Best Management Practices will be implemented to control erosion, thereby meeting the
water and soils management directive of the Forest Plan. Detailed Best Management
Practices will be developed during design for each project.
Cache County Plan
•
UOOT's Best Management Practices will be used to minimize water quality degradation,
minimize vegetative removal , and minimize cut and fill . This complies with requirements
of the Cache County Plan which specifies that destruction of natural vegetation be minimized.
cut and fill operations be minimized to reduce runoff and erosion , while providing for
appropriate public roads.
Rich County Plan
•
No measures to minimize harm are required .
US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13. 1994)
Hann
Page IS
Section D: Measures to Minimize
�Social Impacts
Measures to . minimize harm are required to address access concerns of the various users .
•
Access to Existing and Proposed Subdivisions
..
A new intersection providing access to the Bridgerland Subdivision will be constructed . This
access will provide safer ingress and egress to the subdivision.
•
Access at mp 410.6 in Garden City would be relocated by closing the present access and
providing a new access from another public street, if possible. If the access cannot be
closed, then it would be relocated to an improved location , providing the best design
possible. A combination with access at mp 410.7 may be practicable. The access at mp
410.7 would be considered accord ing to the same criteria as the access at my 410.6.
•
Intersection improvements to other existing and proposed subdivision accesses will be
considered based on use requirements, roadway widening possibilities, and other engineering
factors. Garden City will be involved in identiCying these requirements.
Access to Recreation Within the Canyon
•
Accessibility will be improved by providing intersection improvements , eliminating or
mitigating hazards , and improving the Level of Service.
•
Present parking turnouts will be improved and new turnouts will be placed in recognition of
any eliminated rumouts. Additional turnouts which attain at least two parking stalls with
adequate sight distance will also be considered. Exact locations will be determined during
design and in conjunction with USFS recommendations.
•
Relocation
•
The acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended .
•
Acquisition of publicly-owned lands will be undertaken in accordance with the regulations
of each land management agency .
•
Grazing activities regulated by the USFS and the State of Utah will not be affected .
However. fencing along the highway from just below Tony Grove to Franklin Basin will be
considered to reduce the number of cattle· vehicle accidents.
EmploymentlEconomics
•
The canyon will remain open during construction to minimize employment/economic impacts
related to road closure. A traffic control plan will be developed during design phase.
Temporary short·term closures to through traffic are expected. Local access to
US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (DJ'ft of October 13. 1994) Page 16
Hann
Section D: Measures to Minimize
•
�•
recreation traffic is expected to be maintained.
Joint Development
•
Coordination has been made and will continue to be made with the USFS to develop a
highway which meets , to the extent possible, the goals of both UOOT and the USFS .
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
•
•
A wider roadway with shoulders is being provided through much of the project. Paving of
parking areas will discourage the use of non·designated parking locations which are
hazardous to vehicle-passengers who SlOP and leave their vehicle and to bicyclists who may
encounter vehicles quickly turning onto or off of the roadway .
Burnt Bridge will be constructed to a 34-foot width to allow safer pedestrian and bicyclist
use.
Water Quality Impacts
•
•
Sedimentation and siltation control during the construction phase will include application of
Best Management Practices. UDOT's Standard Temporary Erosion Control plans will be
implemented during construction.
•
During construction, the surface area of erodible soils that are exposed at anyone time will
be limited .
•
Temporary pollution/erosion control provisions will be coordinated with permanent soil
erosion control measures to assure maximum attainable erosion control. The use of detailed
erosion control plan sheets will be considered that include locations of erosion control
facilities. These locations would then be subject to field evaluation.
Permits
UDOT will coordinate development of permit applications with the various agencies so that their
recommendations can be integrated into roadway design. Construction of the project will require
the following permits:
Stream Alteration Permit
•
•
A Stream Alteration Permit is required by the State Engineer's Office, Utah Division of
Water Rights for bridge and culvert replacement. This does not involve channelization or
relocation of the stream, but would involve riprap .
Section 404 Permit
US-89 Through Logan Canyon. ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Hann
Page 17
Section 0: Measures to Minimize
�•
A Section 404 Permit to discharge dredge or fill materials into a water of the United States
is required by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) where construction activities impact
jurisdictional wetlands .
•
Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit
•
Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit will be required for any project which
disturbs more than 5 acres of surface area during construction. The UPDES General Storm
Water Discharge Permit issued to UDOT by the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
will apply. As part of the requirements of this permit, Storm Water Pollution Prevention
(SWPP) plan will be developed and incorporated in the final design plans. Also a Notice of
Intent (NOI) form shall also be submitted to Utah Division of Water Quality prior to
construction of the project. For any project disturbing less than 5 acres, the UPDES General
Storm Water Discharge Permit will not apply . However, UOOT's standard plans for
temporary erosion and sediment control will be implemented during construction to alleviate
any potential erosion or sediment.
Right-of-Way/Special Use Permit
•
The FEIS states that a Right-of-Way/Special Use Permit is required from the USFS ,
Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The USFS has recently advised UOOT that Forest Service
policy requires issuance of a transportation easement, rather than a special use permit. This
decision will be made in the USFS Record of Decision.
Wetlands and Botanical Resources
•
A wetland mitigation plan will be developed during the design phase under the guidelines of
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990 as administered by the COE.
Additional opportunities to avoid or minimize wetland impacts will be identified throughout
design . Replacement of eliminated wetlands will be in-kind , based on functional value . The
first priority will be to reduce the amount of impact through design. Secondly, mitigative
areas will be closely evaluated and selected based on potential for success, as well as
consideration of impacts caused by construction of the mitigative areas .
•
Advance mitigation will be developed with the first project and considered on future projects
so that impacts can be mitigated prior to being impacted, where practicable. The acreage ,
sites , and design of the wetland mitigation sites, and advance mitigation, will continue to be
coordinated with and agreed to by the COE and the USFS during design , so that visual and
wetland concerns can be balanced.
•
Construction document specifications will limit encroachment into wetlands and riparian areas
to that required for construction. On site inspections in accordance with the construction
monitoring plan will ensure compliance with these provisions.
•
Construction work zones will be delineated through the use of fencing in sensitive areas to
ensure contractor compliance with environmental limits of operations.
•
US-89 Through Logan
Hann
Canyo~,
ROD (Draft of October 13 , 1994) Page 18
Section D: Measures to Minimize
•
�•
The construction/post construction monitoring plan will require that qualified UDOT
representative(s), acceptable [0 the COE, will be in charge of assisting designers and the
project engineer in designing and constructing the wetland mitigation areas . Upon
completion of the project, the representative(s) will also monitor the mitigation sites once a
year for three years. This includes taking photographs and sending them with a brief
progress report to the COE each year . At the end of the three years, if the wetland
mitigation areas have not developed to the satisfaction of the CDE, then through consultation
with the COE, appropriate steps will be taken by UDOT to fulfill Section 404 permit
requirements for the project.
•
A revegetation plan will be developed and implemented to revegetate disturbed areas. The
revegetation plan will be developed with the assistance of USFS and other CAT team
members.
•
Burnt Bridge will be constructed in stages, with widening occurring on the upstream side ,
eliminating the detour presented in the FEIS.
•
In addition to the reduced width presented in the FEIS for the Middle Canyon , the previously
proposed roadway width of 40' for the fir st eight miles of the Upper Canyon Section has
been reduced to 34' to further minimize impacts on wetlands.
•
Location of passing lanes in the first eight miles of the Upper Canyon will be evaluated
further during detailed design to assess additional measures to avoid or minimize harm to
wetland s caused by these passing lanes . The evaluation will address leaving the lanes in the
location described herein, or combining and relocating into a single section. Safety
considerations will also play a role in the final placement.
•
Impact to wetlands at Amazon Hollow , Stump Hollow and surrounding drainage area as
a result of roadway widening for the Beaver Mountain turning lanes will be further evaluated
during detailed des ign . This may include shonening the turn lane storage bay lengths and/or
utilizing guardrail to shorten the culvert.
•
•
•
Requirements identified in the Section 404 Permit will be complied with.
Water Body Modifications and Wildlir. Impacts
•
•
Clear span bridges will be used rather than in-river pier suppons to minimize water body
modifications.
•
•
Additional animal crossing signs will be provided in high conflict locations in consultation
with Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR).
The amount and necessity of riprap required for erosion control at bridges will be evaluated
on a case by case basis during final design . Riprap will be used only where required to
stabilize the streambank. Riprap will not exceed 100 feet along both banks up- and downstream from each new bridge. Since riprap will not be required at each of these locations,
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Page 19
H"m
Seclion D: Measures to Minimize
�the actual use of riprap will be minimal.
•
Construction activities in watercourses will be minimized to the extent possible.
Construction work zones will be delineated to ensure contractor compliance.
•
Existing river and creek hydraulics will be maintained by avoiding the encroachment of any
required riprap into channels. Impacts to wildlife will be minimized by limiting , to the extent
practical , vegetative and riparian habitat clearing.
•
Highway bridges will be elevated with no part of the bridge suppan systems being placed in
the river . Bridge spans will allow for animal runway in cases where this feature is currently
provided.
•
•
The following mitigation measures emphasize protection or replacement of vegetative cover
for fisheries . These mitigation measures apply 10 the Logan River and Beaver Creek, and
will also apply to their tributaries that are important to adult and juvenile fish , as determined
by UDWR and USFS.
Construction activities near the river will occur during the drier, low-flow month s of
the year to the extent practicable .
Clear-span bridges rather than in-river pier suppons will be constructed. Culvens
will be designed to allow fish passage. Heavy equipment wil l be kept out of the
channel during all construction phases to the extent practicable.
Unavoidable in-channel activities will be scheduled in coordination with the USFS
and UDWR to minimize impacts during critical fisheries periods. Such activities will
be brief and local .
•
Temporary dikes and sediment basins will be constructed during bridge and structure
replacement to prevent turbid runoff and any accidental spills of fuels , lubricants,
chemicals, or sewage (from portable sanitary facilities) from entering the river , creek,
or tributaries .
Construction activities will be limited to areas within construction work zones, as
delineated through the use of fencing , to minimize habitat losses.
All work will be conducted from the inland side of the highway where possible to
avoid in-channel activities and minimize riparian habitat and riverbank disturbance.
Existing river and creek hydraulics will be maintained by avoiding the encroachment
of required riprap into the channels. The free-nowing nature of the river will be
maintained.
Fill slopes will not be steeper than 2: I to promote bank stability and reclamation .
US-89 Through Logan Canyoo, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Hann
Page 20
Section 0 : Measures to Minimize
•
�•
Drainage ditches and sediment basins will be located in accordance with the detailed
Best Management Practices to minimize erosion and to prevent eroded material
from being washed toward the river.
Runoff along the river-side of the curb and gutter in the Middle Canyon section will
be directed toward the inland side of the highway. where practicable, to minimize the
discharge to the river of materials that accumulate on the highway.
A band of riparian habitat will be maintained along the river and creek wherever
possible to provide overhanging cover for fish and to filter surface runoff.
Larger mature trees and their root systems will be protected where it does not conflict
with vehicles and passenger safe£}'o
Prior to the start of the next wet season. disturbed areas , where possible, will be
stabilized, reseeded , and revegetated.
Riprap and debris generated during future highway and shoulder maintenance would
not be indiscriminately placed along the river banks.
•
•
Mitigation measures described above are intended to minimize impacts on water quality and
fisheries . The following will also be accomplished to ensure success of mitigation measures:
Fishery studies will be conducted for individual projects which have the potential tQ
impact fisheries. Prior tQ construction. available UDWR fisheries studies will be
assessed and if necessary updated to provide baseline data to determine project
impacts to fisheries . Post construction fishery studies will be conducted . If study
results show additional mitigation measures are warranted as a result of project
activities. mitigation directed at wild fish stocks will be carried out under the
direction of USES and UDWR biologists as exp lained in the FEIS on pg 5-6,
Floodplain Impacts
•
Bridges will c1earspan watercourses in order to minimize floodplain encroachment. Excess
fill material will not be placed in the floodway.
•
Bridge and culvert openings will be sized so that floodplain elevations will not be increased .
•
Construction activities will be in compliance with Executive Order 11988 to reduce the risk
of flood Josses; to minimize the impact of floods on human health, safety and welfare; and
to restore and preserve the national and beneficial values served by floodplains.
Threatened and Endangered Species
•
The Middle Canyon contains habitat for the Primyla maguirei (threatened species). The USF&WS
has stated that the Preferred Alternative will have no effect on this species. In order to minimize
US·89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Harm
Page 21
Section 0: Measures to Minimize
�potential impacts , the recommendations of Welsh (1987) and the USF&WS will be followed . These
recommendations include:
•
Construction activities from Wood Camp Intersection to mp 385.0 will be restricted to a
corridor width of less than 40 feet.
•
Changes in the geomorphology of Logan Canyon will be limited to the extent practical.
•
Removal of canyon bottom tree groves will be limited .
•
Dust suppression measures will be used during construction activities. Construction in the
area near populations will be undertaken no earlier than June to avoid potential dust impacts
during the flowering period (April-May) ,
•
e
Blasting in the Middle Canyon will be avoided whenever possible. Barriers preventing
scattering of blast debris on these populations will be provided if blasting is necessary .
Visual Impacts
•
A revegetation plan will be developed during design and coordinated with the USFS to
minimize harm to visual resources . This plan will be implemented in the project plans and
specifications for each project. This plan will include use of native plant species. Mitigation
of landform impacts will be accomplished by slope rounding and warping to make cuts, fills ,
and ditch edges appear more natural . Rock faces, contrasting with older cuts, will be aged
with treatments. In places where the current alignment is abandoned, the roadway will be
removed and the ground restored to blend with surrounding contours. The plan will identify
seed mixes compatible with local plant communities.
•
Levels of visual quality adjacent to the roadway of 0, 1 and 2 will be raised to level 3,
except when a more appropriate direction is determined by the USFS.
•
The acreage , sites and design of advance mitigation will be agreed to by the USFS during
design so that visual and wetland concerns can be balanced .
•
•
Steel beam guardrail will be the hazard protection device encouraged for use. The use of
A588 rusting steel, natural finish material for the guardrail for aesthetic purposes will be
considered .
Construction Impacts
Blasting
•
A Special Provisiol'} will be included in the project plans to ensure blasting will be controlled
to inhibit rock materials from being projected away from the blast area, and removing only
designated material .
US-89 Through Logan Canyon . ROD (Draft of October 13,1994) Page 22
Hann
Section 0 : Measures to Minimize
•
�•
•
•
If any critical wildlife periods are identified by UDWR during des ign , these will be given
consideration , and if appropriate , timing of blasting will be limited.
Blasting in the Middle Canyon will be avo ided whenever possible. Barriers preventing blast
debris onto Maguire primrose populations will be provided if blasting is necessary .
Spoil
•
Environme ntal clearance will be obtained on the d isposal site, prior to disposal of excess
material .
•
Excess materials that are not used in roadway construction or restoratio n of the borrow area
near Bear Lake Summit, will be disposed of in locations determined on a case-by-case
basis by the CAT team and approved by USFS . Excess materials may be utilized in the
canyon, stock piled for future use, or transported out of the canyon.
Air Quality
•
•
Dust suppression measures will be implemented during construction . These measures will
include water sprinkling, speed limits on haul road , and use of environmentally safe
stabilization chemicals.
Noise
•
The construction contractor will be required to comply with UDOT Specification No . 104. 16
(formerly 107.24) "Noise and Vibration Contro l".
Traffic Congestion , Detours and Safety
•
A detailed traffic control plan will be developed during the design phase to minimize traffic
congestion; provide for construction detours and short·term road closures; and address
vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle safety.
Toxic Material Control
•
A spill control plan for motor fuels, oil, grease and chemicals will be developed during the
design phase. This plan will address measures to minimize accidental releases of toxic
materials to the environment and measures to respond to and clean up spilled material.
Historic and Archeological Preservation
•
UOOT Standard Specification No . 104. 15 (formerly 107 .23) , "Discovery Propenies" will
be included in all contracts to protect unknown historic and archeological resources .
•
Hazardous Waste
US·89 Through Logan CanYOD, ROD (DOlft of October 13, 1994) Page 23
H.m>
SectioD 0 : Measures 10 Minimize
�•
If evidence of Hazardous Waste is found during construction the Department of
Enviro nmental Quality will be consulted and appropriate mitigation measures will be
implemented.
•
Staging Areas
•
Construction staging sites will be identified and coordinated through the CAT team during
design . They will be kept out of aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitat and other sensitive
visual areas.
•
Environmental clearance on construction staging sites will be obtained during design and the
contractor will be limited to the use of staging areas identified in the project construction
plans.
•
Staging sites will be approved by the USFS.
Batch Plant Locations
•
The traffic, safety, reneation. and air quality impacts associated with hauling material
rrom the city versus setting up a batch plant in the canyon will be identified on a
project by project basis in design. The affect of these impacts on both the canyon
environment and the city environment will be considered. The assessment will include
impacts on the Lower Canyon and compatibility with future projects. The most suitable
location will be identified in the prgject specifications. The contractor will be required
to conduct his batch plant operations in accordance with these specifications and will
comply wilh Utah Air Conservation Regulations identified in UDOr SDeciflcatio,. 10Z21.
EnvirQnmenl4l Protection.
•
Limits of Operation
•
Construction work zones will be delineated through the use of fencing in sensitive areas
to ensure contractor compliance with environmental limits of operations.
Section 4(0
•
All improvements to Section 4(f) resources will be done in accordance with USFS
recommendations.
•
Site 6 (Ricks Spring and Parking , mp 389.9) - Pedestrian safety will be considered to the
extent possible during design . This consideration includes the elimination of passing ability
at this location and improved signing. Curbing of this site will also be considered.
•
Site 12 (Winter Access Parking Area at Beaver Mountain Road, mp 399.8) - Remaining
parking area will be extended to include at least as much parking as presently exists, and the
entire parking area will be paved to enhance use.
US-89 Througb Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994) Page 24
Hann
Section 0 : Measures to Minimize
•
�•
•
Site 13 (Winter Access Parking , mp 402. 1) - This site will be reestabli shed at a lower
elevation to maintain access.
..
Site 15 (Limber Pine Trailhead, mp 404.81) - All improvements on the trailhead side will
be accomp lished with in 23 feet of the edge of the roadway , and a delineation will be
provided within this 23 foot area.
•
•
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft of October 13, 1994)
Hann
Page 25
Section D: Measures to Minimize
�E. MONITORING OR ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Monitoring
and enforcement of the above proposed measures to minimize harm will be accomplished
•
in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between UDOT. FHWA. and USFS .
This MOU is included in the Appendix of this ROD . It identifies how the individual projects will
be se lected , identified and managed , and how coordination will be accomplished. The MOU takes
each project through design , construction, and post-construction periods. It commits to the
development of a revegetation plan, wetland mitigation plan, and a construction/post-construction
monitoring plan, and commits to the development of a Cooperating Advisory Team (CAD which
consists of various agencies and individuals. This team will provide recommendations of regulatory
and permit requirements , input on enhancement opportunities , mitigative treatments and overall
content of the design of the project, with final decisions being UDOT's responsibility. The CAT
team will be involved throughout the development of all aspects of design. including review of
aljgnment oPtions and other design features. During construction and post construction. the CAT
team will be coordinated with to reso lve ynforeseen environmental problems to ensure that mitigative
efforts are successfu l.
Mitigation measures listed in Section 0 above will be incorporated in the contract , plans , and
specifications and will be monitored in accordance with the construction/post-construction monitoring
plan. The monitoring plan will be developed during design of the individual projects and will
include all monitoring commitments made within this ROD, as well as any monitoring required to
comply with specific permits.
Enforcement of the contract provisions and monitoring of the project is the responsibility of the
se lected UDOT Project Manager and UDOT Environmental Engineer , as outlined in the MOU . An
independent environmental consultant will be ytilized . The envirOnmental consultant will assisl the
•
froieer Manager co ensure CQ17Wliance with envirOnmental commitments and mitigation measures.
Periodic meetings will be held with the contractor's workforce to advise of sensitive areas .
The UDOT Design, Structures, Right-of-Way and Environmental Divisions are responsible to ensure
that the measures to minimize harm , listed in Section D above , are incorporated into the plans and
right-of-way acquisition activities.
The Utah Division of FHW A is respons ible for administering the Federal-Aid Highway Program in
Utah and makes period ic inspections of all phases of highway design and construction to assure
compliance with federal requirements including NEPA .
US-89 Through Logan Canyon, ROD (Draft October 13. 1994)
Enforcement
Page 26
SectioD E; Monitoring or
•
�•
Logan Canyon Documents
UDOT Documents
US-89 Logan canyon Preferred Alternative (circa 1992-93).
Brochure outlining Preferred Alternative as outlined in FEIS.
March 4, 1994 Letter from Dave Berg to Jeff Appel.
Conlinnation of compromise elements.
July 13, 1994 Letter from Lorraine Richards to CPLC and other agencies.
Brief summary of ROD, request for agency input
Preliminary Record of Decision July 15, 1994.
Cover letter
Reoord of Decision
Appendix A
Traffic Data. agency oorrespondence, MOU.
Appendix B
Agency Comments, Government Comments, Public Comments.
Curve 85 Maps, Cross Sections aod CutIFili Summary
•
CPLC Documents
Logan Canyon: Summarizing Two "Alternatives"
Map and brief summary of Consen'ationi st and UDOT Preferred
Alternatives.
Logan Canyon, Make it Safe, Keep is Beautiful
Brochure from 1993 Cache County Fair.
Response to Dave Berg letter (March 4, 1994), Jeff Appel.
June 28, 1994 Memo from Pendery to Berg outlining hotspots and requesting additional
information from UDOT.
Response to Preliminary Record of Decision. Bruce Pendery. Steve Rint, Shawn Swaner,
August 12, 1994.
Memorandum: Time for Filing Lawsuit under NEPA, Appel & Mansson,
•
August 16, 1994.
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Image Height
3363
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
2636
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/393">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/393</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
300
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
Grayscale
Checksum
187114229
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
Record of decision, October 13, 1994
Description
An account of the resource
Record of decision for US Highway 89 stating that the Federal Highway Administration agrees with the Utah Department of Transportaion in its selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Roads--Design and construction
Traffic engineering
United States Highway 89
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Environmental policy
Logan Canyon Study
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
10/13/94
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 15
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd15
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/05b4509697d71b211192d00e5e8d3f2d.pdf
ad56f6a6ea7d4aa7e33551593c0d90c4
PDF Text
Text
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
(P.L. 90-542, as amended)
(16 U.S.C. 1271-1287)
1An Act
To provide for a National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, and for other purposes.
Be It enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America In
Congress assembled, that,
(a) this Act may be cited as the 'Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.'
Congressional declaration of polley.
(b) It Is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the Nation
which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational ,
geologic, fish and wlldllle, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in freeflowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit
and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Congress declares that the established
national policy of dam and other construction at appropriate sections of the rivers 01 the United
States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections
thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to full ill other vital
national conservation purposes.
Congressional declaration of purpose,
(c) The purpose of this Act is to implement this policy by instituting a national wild and scenic rivers
system, by designating the initial components of that system, and by prescribing the methods by
which and standards according to which additional components may be added to the system from
time to time.
Composition of system; requirements for State-administered components_
SECTION 2. (a) The national wild and scenic rivers system shall comprise rivers (i) that are
authorized for inclusion therein by Act of Congress, or (ii) that are designated as wild, scenic or
recreational rivers by or pursuant to an act of the legislature of the State or States through which
they flow, that are to be permanently administered as wild, scenic or recreational rivers by an
agency or political subdivision of the State or States concerned, that are found by the Secretary of
the Interior, upon application of the Governor of the State or the Governors of the States concerned,
or a person or persons thereunto duly appOinted by him or them, to meet the criteria established in
this Act and such criteria supplementary thereto as he may prescribe, and that are approved by him
for inclusion in the system, including, upon application of the Governor of the State concerned, the
Allagash Wilderness Waterway, Maine; that segment of the Wolf River, Wisconsin, which flows
through Langlade County; and that segment of the New River in North Carolina extending from its
confluence with Dog Creek downstream approximately 26.5 miles to the Virginia State line. Upon
receipt of an application under clause (ii) of this subsection, the Secretary shall notify the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission and publish such application In the Federal Register. Each river
deSignated under clause (ii) shall be administered by the State or political subdivision thereof
without expense to the United States other than for administration and management of federally
owned lands. For purposes of the preceding sentence, amounts made available to any State or
�political subdivision under the Land and Water Conservation [Fund] Act of 1965 or any other
provision of law shall not be treated as an expense to the United States. Nothing in this subsection
shall be construed to provide for the transfer to, or administration by, a State or local authority of any
federally owned lands which are within the boundaries of any river included within the system under
clause (ii).
Cfassification.
(b) A wild, scenic or recreational river area eligible to be included in the system is a free-flowing
stream and the related adjacent land area that possesses one or more of the values referred to in
Section 1, subsection (b) of this Act. Every wild, scenic or recreational river in its free-flowing
condition, or upon restoration to this condition, shall be considered eligible for inclusion in the
national wild and scenic rivers system and, if included, shall be classified. deSignated, and
administered as one of the following:
(1) Wild river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally
inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters
unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.
(2) Scenic river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments. with
shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible
in places by roads.
(3) Recreational river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by road
or railroad. that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone
some impoundment or diversion In the past.
Congressionally deSignated components.
SECTION 3. (a) The following rivers and the land adjacent thereto are
hereby deSignated as components of the national wild and scenic rivers
system:
(1) CLEARWATER, MIDDLE FORK, IDAHO. -- The Middle Fork from the town of
Kooskia upstream to the town of Lowell; the Lochsa River from its
junction with the Selway at Lowell forming the Middle Fork, upstream to
the Powell Ranger Station; and the Selway River from Lowell upstream to
Its origin; to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(2) ELEVEN POINT, MISSOURI. -- The segment of the river extending
downstream from Thomasville. to State Highway 142; to be administered by
the Secretary of Agriculture.l a
(3) FEATHER, CALIFORNIA. -- The entire Middle Fork downstream from the
confluence of its tributary streams one kilometer south of Beckwourth,
California; to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture.
(4) RIO GRANDE, NEW MEXICO. -- The segment extending from the Colorado
State line downstream to the State Highway 96 crossing, and the lower
four miles of the Red River; to be administered by the Secretary of the
Interior.
(5) ROGUE, OREGON. -- The segment of the river extending from the mouth
of the Applegate River downstream to the Lobster Creek Bridge; to be
administered by agencies of the Departments of the Interior or
Agriculture as agreed upon by the Secretaries of said Departments or as
directed by the President.
(6) SAINT CROIX, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN. -- The segment between the dam
near Taylors Falls. Minnesota, and the dam near Gordon, Wisconsin, and
its tributary, the Namekagon, from Lake Namekagon downstream to its
�Wild and Scenic River Issues
STATEMENT OF REASONS
Introduction
The Original Forest Service Inventory of Potential Wild and Scenic Rjyers Was a Gross Depreciation of the
Logan Riyer and Its Significant Tributaries
As identified by the Utah Division of Wildlife, The Utah Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, the
Bureau of Reclamation's Western Water Plan, and the American Whitewater Association, portions of the Logan
River are 'NCll known and highly valued. Throughout the Inventory, the Logan River and its significant tributaries 'NCre undervalued. An indication of the extent of undervaluing is Ihe Forest Services' revised evaluation
that identified five outstandingly remarkable values that might be recognized for the Logan river and its significan tributaries. Wasatch-Cache Revision Planning Record Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Evaluation,
Supplement I, June 1994 (hereinafter "Supplement").
The current UDOT ROD (page 38) is based entirely on the superficial treatment of the original inventory. It is inconceivable that the Forest Plan could approve the uoor ROD until a full and complete reevaluation of wild and scenic eligibility for the Logan river and its significant tributaries is completed.
The Forest Service ROD ignores inconsistency in there own repons. Even though the original
Inventory found no segments of the Logan river and its significant tributaries to be outstandingly remarkable,
the identificaiton of five likely to be outstandignly remarkable va1ues in th Supplement resulted in the conclusion that, "No changes were made based upon this reconsideration." (Supplement p. 1-9). How can such a
substantial difference in potential eligibility be ignored? In order to protect management standards in the
Forest Plan, a detailed stud y of the Logan river and its significant tributaries must be conducted and the criteria
used in evaluation must be capable to withstand the scrutiny of all concerned publics.
A further example of the lack of appreciation of the regional importance of the Logan river is the fact
that the Oneida Narrows of the Bear river has been nominated for eligibility by the Bureau of Land
Management. By any reasonable comparison, the Logan river and its significant tributaries far exceeds the
Oneida Narrows section of the Bear river in wild and scenic values.
Consideration of Potential WUd and Scenic Riyers in the Forest Planning Process
Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Pub. L. No. 90-542, 16 U.S.C. §1271 III WI., requires all federal agenCies to consider potential national wild, scenic, ad recreational river areas in all planning for the use
and development of water and related land resources. 16 U.S.c. §1276 (d). The planning respnnsibility
imposed by §5(d) plainly requires the Forest Service to assess the values of potential Wild and Scenic Rivers
on national forest lands during the preparation of land and resource management plans pursuant to the
National Forest Management Ae~ 16 U.S.C. §1600 III WI· Section 1924 of the Forest Management Act recognizes the Forest Service's responsibility in tbis regard: "Consideration of potential wild and scenic rivers is an
inherent part of the ongoing land and resource management planning process."
Chapter 8 of the agency's Land and Resource Management Planning Handbook, set forth agency policy
and planning requirements for integrating the evaluation of potential wild and scenic rivers into the National
Forest Management Act (NFMA) planning process. Pursuant to these directions, consideration of potential
�wild and scenic rivers in national forest plans follow a relatively straightforward procedure. Each forest plan
should:
(I) Determine whether eam river within the forest boundaries is eli&ible
for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section
I(b) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Le.• whether the river is free flowing and possesses one or more "outstandingly remarkable" values);
(2) Determine the appropriate classification ("wild", "scenic", or "recreational") for rivers found to be
eligible; and
(3) Either study eam eligible river in the plan itself to determine its suitability for inclusion in the
Wild and Scenic River System or conduct such an evaluaion as a subsequent, separate river study. Forest
Service Land and Resource Management Planning Handbook, Chapter 8, § 8.14 (hereinafter "Handbook
Chapter 8").
While eligibility is a threshold determination which properly focuses only upon the statutory criteria,
i&., whether a river is free-flowing and possesses ODe or more outstandingly remarkable values, evaluation of a
river's suitability for inclusion in the national rivers system involves a balancing of the relative values of the
river and its adjoining lands as a part of the national rivers system against other uses for the river area, and
practical considerations of the feasibility of administration of the river corridor as a component of the system.
Handbook Chapter 8, § 8.23. As a substantive decision regarding the appropriate management of a sensitive
area, the planners' decision regarding suitability must be accompanied by environmental analysis pursuant to
the National Environmental Policy Act. Ill.. § 8.31.
During the study process, the values and potential classifications of eligible rivers must be protected by
detailed management standards in the forest plan. Rivers determined to be suitable for designation are to be
protected until Congress acts upon the Forest Service's recommendations. ld...
The Forest Service ROD violates the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and Forest Service administrative
direction for compliance with that Act. The Wasatch-Cache Planners erred in certain findings of NonEli&ibility of the Logan River from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek and from Beaver Creek to its source
for potential Wild and Scenic Status
Section 5 (d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act establishes a broad mandate to federal agencies to consider potential wild and scenic rivers in their land and resource management planning. Forest Service administrative direction implementing that proviSion makes clear that forest planners should consider all streams on a
forest. Chapter 8 of the R)[est Service Land and Resource Handbook directs that forest planners consider
rivers identified through Congressional or Secretarial action, through listing on the National Park Service's
Nationwide Rivers Inventory ('''NRr'). or through the land management planning process itself. Handbook
Chapter 8, §§ 8.11. 8.14. The Handbook stresses that consideration of rivers other than those listed on the
NRI is "particularly important" where the NRI is incomplete, and that consideration should be given to rivers
identified in other studies, such as the Pacific Northwest Rivers Study, in State river assessments, or by other
federal or State agencies or private interests. !d.., § 8.11.
The Wasatch-Cache planners complied with the broad mandate of section 5 (d) and Forest Service
administrative policy and took an independent look at streams nowing on the Forest, including the Logan
River and Beaver Creek. The resulting document, "Inventory of Rivers on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System" was published in November 1993 (bere-
�inafter "Inventory 1993").
Appellants are concerned that initially, only .one. stream on the entire Wasatch-Cache National Forest,
(the Stillwater Fork of the Bear River), was found to be eligible for interim protection until a suitability study
was performed. Appellants were involved with studying the Logan River and Beaver Creek, using the eligibility requirements from the Land and Resouoce Management Planning Handbook. Even though over 50 pages
of information was provided to the Inventory Team, no reference was made to this material in the Inventory
except a footnote. (Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon. 1993).
The appellants found that certain segments of the Logan River might possess the free-flowing characteristics and outstandingly remarkable qualities for eligibility if the evaluation was corrected to use current
evaluation techniques. These techniques were detailed in two letters to the Forest Supervisor. (J. Logan, in a
3 page, single-spaced letter to Ms. Susan Giannettino, Forest Supervisor; 18 January 1994: Also D Parkin, in a
23 page. single-spaced letter to Ms. Susan Giannettino; 18 February 1994).
The letters concurred thm the inventory used an honest and systematic approach in preparing the report,
However. the main thrusts of these letters was that there were "significant flaws in both the methodology and
interpretation of policy guidelines" (Parkin, 1994).
At a later dae (June, 1994) the Logan River was re-segmented in two segments, Lower Twin Bridge to
Beaver Creek and Beaver Creek to its source. The segment from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver creek was
given five out of nine "might possess outstandingly remarkable values". Neither of the above-mentioned
commentors were aware of this document, however, both are mentioned in the document. The responsiveness
of the planners to the commentors is reflected in this updated inventory. Eighty-two rivers andlor river segments were identified in the re-evaluation and the only river segment that scores anywhere near what this segment of the Logan river is the East Fork of the Smith's Fork, which scored only three "might possess outstandingly remarkable values". (Supplement to Inventory, 1994).
The supplement represents an improvement over the Inventory of 1993 . Appellants are concerned,
however, that the planning team did not assess all resource values that would qualify the Logan River for
inclusion as an eligible wild and scenic river. Most notably. there is ample evidence to indicate that the Logan
River possesses outstandingly remarkable water oriented recreation, botanical, and wildlife values. (CPLC,
1993).
The appellants are also concerned that the supplement does not evaluate significant tributaries of the
Logan River, most notably Beaver Creek. Study and protection of tributary streams is an important component
of the wild and scenic planning process because such streams and creeks are integral components of river systems. The goals of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act can be best achieved through preservation and recognition
of river systems as integral wholes, with full recognition for the contribution of tributary steams. Also, management of suc h tributaries as wild and scenic rivers will enhance the r"Orest Service's ability to maintain and
enhance downstream riverine values.
Tbe Forest Service ROD Fails AdeQuately to Protect The Loean River's Potential Wjld and Scenic Status
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides tha each component of the system shall be "administered in
such a manner as to protect and enhance the values which caused it 10 be included in said system ... " Section
100a); 16 U.S.C. § 128I (a). This section of the Act bas been interpreted as stating a " nondegradation and
enhancement policy for all designated river areas." S-". Interagency Guidelines,47 Fed. Reg . 39454, 39458.
Appellants are concerned that the Logan River segmenl which "may possess outstandingly remarkable
values" as indicated in the Supplement to the Inventory will be exposed to inappropriate levels of disturbance
by UDal's Preferred Alternative Highway Project due to improper classification. The UDOT ROD states that
..... the road reconstruction project will not affect the potential eligibility or classification on the Logan River"
�(p. 38). As stated above, the Logan River segment from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek is most likely
eligible and therefore, until an adequate classification is complete, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act mandates
no degradation of values that could inhibit the river from eligibility.
The UDOT ROD states on Page 37. "The FEIS also evaluated the effects of the alternatives on the
resources and characteristics affecting the scenic. historic. recreation, wildlife and fish. cultural and other values associated with the river and river corridor... there will be either no or only minor effects from the Preferred
Alternative on these values."
The uoor ROD states on Page 38, "The FEIS recognizes that some screening vegetation along the
river may be disturbed, but again this is estimated in the EIS to be minor and mostly temporary in nature."
Appellants believe that there are numerous construction segments in the Preferred Alternative that will
result in significant depreciation of wild and scenic values and will in fact jeopardize the potential classification of the Logan River and Beaver Creek. These will cause enough degradation to the eligibility requirements
that the river will be dropped from consideration before it has been honestly evaluated for eligibility.
Appellants are concerned that these "minor effects" will be enough to degrade the eligibility requirements and
disqualify the river. These include:
Scenic yalues
1. The appellants are concerned that the Preferred Alternative will not comply with the Visual Quality
Objectives established in the Forest Plan. If this is the case, then the classification of the Logan River will also
not meet the outstandingly remarkable scenic values needed to qualify the Logan River.
2. Tbe "Dugway" will be excavated eight feet into the uphill side, creating the potential for a large
road cut or retaining wall. Up canyon from the dugway, the curve will be flattened and realignment will start
here for the replacement of the upper twin bridge, producing another large road cut.
3. The curve flattening and widening of the road at Temple Fork will produce a large road cut.
4. The eight miles of the Upper Canyon (from mp 391.6 to Beaver Mountain road intersection) will be
widened to 34 feet and areas with passing lanes (could be up to two miles in length) will be widened to 44
feet. These construction segments will produce large amounts of cut and fill and a large road base. further
degrading the scenic value.
Other Impacts
I. Bridge rip-rap. Extensive rip-rap (FS ROD p. 7 and p. 9) "could total as mucb as 1,000 feet of the
river's length ..... This will depreciate the free-flowing nature of the river and will adversely impact the potential for eligibility in tbe Wild and Scenic program.
2. Wet-lands mitigation. Wet-lands otitigation, in general, is a farce (Scieoce, 1993, 206: 1890-1892.)
It hasn' t 'WOrked in the past and there is no reason to expect it will work now . Any activities that call for wetlands mitigation activities will JesuIt in the depreciation of wild and scenic values of the Logan river, and
should, therefore. be found in violation of the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan does not specifically deal with this
issue and should be amended to do so.
3. General cut-and-fill that will be required to widen the road. In the original Inventory, restriction of
�the potential free-flowing nature of the Logan river was used as justification of finding the lower section of the
river to be ineligible (Inventory, p. 12-13). How is it possible that the Forest Plan could allow the same
activites on the upper section of the Logan river tha led to disqualification of the lower section? Such action
inconsistent with both the intent and the Jetter of Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and the Forest Service's own
Planning Handbook.
The Forest Service Failed to AdeQuately Involve Concerned Publics in the Inventory Process.
Although Logan Canyon is of high local and national interest, the original Inventory received a very
limited distribution. (Audubon, NovemberlDecember 1994). Even so, of those interested parties who
responded, the overwhelming majority were critical of the Inventory. Of those that responded, none were notified of the subsequent reevaluation or the changes incorporated in the Table of Appendix D, June 1994
Supplement.
The Forest Service has not porvided sufficient documentation required for concerned publics to evaluate the criteria used to draw conclusions in the Inventory. The Inventory refers to "detailed field surveys"
(Inventory, pp. A-19 1993), and the Supplement references, "documenlation used to facilitate judging the merits of further study have been incorporated in this supplement.. ... (Supplement. pp 1-10). Yet when appellants
requested access to this "documentation", all that was forthcoming were copies of maps with largely unintelligible notations. Apparently. there exists no documentation that can be reviewed by concerned publics. It is
irresponisble for the Forst Service to agree to AllY depreciation of wild and scenic values without full involvement of concerned publics.
�Literature Cited
Bass, R. 1994. Keeping Logan Canyon. Audubon . NovlDec.
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon. 1993. An October 7, 1993, letter
containing information about Logan River. Logan Canyon and Beaver Creek.
with numerous .. tachments
USDA Forest Service. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 1985. Final
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
Salt Lalce City, UT.
USDA Forest Service. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 1993 . Inventory of
Rivers on the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Salt Lake City, UT.
USDA Forest Service, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 1994. Supplement to
Inventory of Rivers on the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest Eligihle for Indusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Salt
Lake City,
UT.
Logan, J. 1994. A January 18 letter to Susan Giannettino. Forest Supervisor,
Forest.
Wasatch-Cache National
Parkin, D. 1994. A February 18 letter to Susan Giannellino, Forest Supervisor, Wasatch-Cache National
Forest.
�c o
A. L
Working
for
the
T
I
protection
of
I
Logan
o
Canyon
This is reprinted
from our AURUSt 1996
issue of Can.';an Wind
b.y Drew Parkin.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires federal land management agencies to include
wild and scenic river evaluations as part of their normal decision-making processes. In the case
of the Forest Service this means that forest plans must specifically consider wild and scenic
river eligibility. It also means that any Environmental Impact Statement that involves river
resources must address this issue. Further - and this is the important part - once the Forest
Service identifies a river as being eligible, it must, in adherence with its own administrative
directives, manage the river "in a marmer consistent with the purposes of the Act, and such
that the outstandingly remarkable values which make it eligible for inclusion are not diminished to the point where eligibility is negated. In no event should the free-flowing characteristics of the river be modified."In response to a threatened law suit, the Forest Service some ten
years ago set out in earnest to identify potentially eligible wild and scenic rivers. Individual
forests were entrusted with this and many responded admirably. Unfortunately, wild and
scenic evaluations have never been high on the list for forest managers in Utah. Pressured by
concerened citizens, the Wasatch-Cache National Forest undertook a year-long river study and,
in November of 1993, released its inventory.
The Inventory started by identifying 37 streams that forest planners deemed worthy of
being studied. Next, the larger streams on that list, including the Logan River, were subdivided into "segments." In all, the Forest Service study considered 59 stream segments. Of these,
18 segments were rejected out-of-hand as being insignificant. Beaver Creek was one of these.
An additional 11 segments were rejected for not being free-flowing. These included streams
that had been subjected to water withdrawals, channelization, or other degradation. All of the
Logan downstream of Temple Fork was rejected for this reason. This left 30 stream segments
that were actually included in the study.
The inventory considered nine separate resource features: cultural, wildlife, botanical,
geological / hydrological, scenery, water recreation, general recreation, fisheries, and ecological.
The idea was to determine the significance of each of the 30 segments with regard to each
resource feature. A stream could be rated as either (1) typical, (2) significant at a statewide
USU
Box
.1674
•
L
0
8 a n
•
U t • h
•
843 2 2 - 0 1 9 9
�level, or (3) significant at what the Forest Service termed a "provincial" level (an area compris-ing all of the Rocky Mountains). A rating of 3 for any given resource feature would qualify a
stream segment for wild and scenic river designation. The result? Of the original 59 stream segments, only one - the Stillwater Fork of the Bear- was found eligible based on a "3" rating for
its scenic features. No other stream received a 3 and all were therefore rejected, including the
Logan River.
I was stunned when I heard of the findings. Based on several years of professional experience with wild and scenic rivers, and having a detailed knowledge of the Logan River, it was
my judgement that the Logan River not only met but exceeded eligibility requirements. After
pouring over the report, I concluded that the study team's basic asswnptions were wrong and
applying these asswnptions greatly skewed the findings. The decision to use "provincial" significance as the cut-off for eligibility was the most pervasive error. The Forest Service Manuel
itself directs that "statewide" significance is an appropriate measure for judging wild and scenic
status. Several national forests have used it as the basis for their decisions, and it is accepted
practice for National Park Service and BLM planners as well.
Had the Wasatch-Cache report used statewide significance as the threshold, the Logan
River would have been included easily.
If anything, I believe that the above Forest Service ratings for the Logan River are low. I
question the ratings for wildlife, water recreation, and, especially, scenery. Even if the Forest
Service ratings are correct, it is obvious the Logan River is an extremely important resource with
statewide significance. In five of the nine resource categories, the river received a statewide significance rating. No other stream had more than two. The Logan River was rated as the most
significant stream in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest for five of the nine resource categories.
Again, no other stream could claim more than two. The conclusion is inescapable. The Forest
Service report absolutely confirms that, when compared to other streams on the forest, the
Logan River is the crown jewel and is most certainly eligible for wild and scenic designation.
(Drew Parkin is a river policy consultant in cambridge, Mass., and serves
on the board of directors of the Pacific Rivers Council. He previously managed Wild
and Scenic River programs for the National Park Service. He is a native of utah
and spent several seasons working for the Forest Service in Logan canyon.)
USFS data on the Logan River
between Temple Fork and White Pine Creek
Rating compared to other
Wasatch-Cache streams
Logan River rating
Cultural resources
Statewide significance
Wildlife
Typical
Typical
Botanical resourses
Geology/Hydrology
Scenery
Water recreation
General recreation
Fisheries
Ecology
Highest rating in the forest
Rated in top 5
Rated in top 5
Highest rating in the forest
Rated in top 10
Highest rating in the forest
Rated in top 10
Tied for highest rating
Tied for highest rating
Statewide Significance
Typical
Typical
Statewide s ignificance
Statewide significance
Statewide significance
This infomtlltion
W4S fQkm
directly from
t~
report
For more information visit our web page at: http://www.logancanyon.org
�CACHE ANGLERS
Support Wild and Scenic designation
for the Logan River
Cache Anglers would like to express its support of the effort to have the Logan
Ri~r
designated as Utah's first Wild and Scenic River. While the designation will not affect
the regulations nor the current use of the river by sportsmen of all types. we believe
that it would be an important step in protecting the river against further private and
commercial development which would harm the river and its riparian habitat.
We firmly believe that this river. one of the finest cold water fisheries in the state of
Utah, needs to be protected and preserved for future generations to enjoy.
Regardless of the different purposes for which this beautiful river is used, the Wild
and Scenic designation would be a great step in preserving what is left of Logan
River's natural water ways and make them available for all sportsmen now and in the
future .
Jason Swan, President
Cache Anglers
�A RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION OF THE LOGAN CITY COUNCIL OFFERING ITS OFFICIAL
SUPPORT FOR THE DESIGNATION OF THE LOGAN RIVER INTO THE NATIONAL
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS SYSTEM.
WHEREAS, the Logan City Council recognizes the natural beauty and splendor of
the Logan River, the phYSical, economic, and spiritual benefits provided to local
citizens by the river, that it is a unique river in its own right, and that it is a
river worthy of protecting for our families and our future;
WHEREAS, the Council has been requested by local citizens and organizations to
offer its official support of the designation of the Logan River into the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System;
WHEREAS, the Council received this official request on December 9, 1998 and
again reviewed the request in a public workshop on March 10, 1999, to consider the
proposed resolution;
WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that the Logan River has been found eligible by
the u.s. Forest Service for designation into the System and must now go through a
suitability study, that such a designation must then be introduced by legislation for
consideration into the U.S. Congress; or, be recommended fo r designation by the
Governor to the U.S. Secretary of Interior;
WHEREAS, the Council recognizes that said resolution does not in any way carry
forth official legislation or regulation regarding the Wild and Scenic deSignation, but
that it provides for local support needed as the proposed designation proceeds through
the appropriate process;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council has voted in a public meeting on _ _ _ _ _~
in favor of the proposed resolution, offering the official support of this governing body
for the designation of the Logan River as a Wild and Scenic River.
Passed and Adopted this __ day of _ _ _ _ _~, 1999.
Chair
�·.
•
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 19986:54:46 PM
Date: Wed, 30 Sap 1998 09:50:46 -0600
From: River Network <rivernet-info@lgc.apc.org>
To: rivernet@igc.apc.org. rlvernet-info@igc.apc.org
Subject: Dam decommissioning Strategy Workshop Proceedings
The proceedings from the July 1998 International Rivers Network (IRN)-sponsored International Dam
Decommissioning Strategy Workshop are now available. They contain discussion outcomes. participant
information, and a list of articles. press releases and publications of interest, and can be ordered for $10
through IAN's library Coordinator, Yvonne Cuellar (von@irn.org). You can also find much of this information
on IAN's decommissioning web page at: www.irn .org
At the July workshop, activists formed "Living Rivers: the International Coalition for the Restoration of Rivers
and Communities Affected by Dams,· as the seed for growing a global movement on dam decommissioning
and river restoration issues. To help service and build this coalition, IRN is not only circulating information,
but also encouraging organizations around the world to join Living Rivers, by endorsing the Walker Creek
Declaration, which appears below. To sign your organization on to the declaration and join the coalition
please contact IAN's Decommissioning Coordinator (rani@irn.org). Please feel free to circulate the
declaration to other organizations who may be interested in supporting it as well.
WALKER CREEK DECLARATION
Founding Statement of
LIVING RIVERS
The International Coalition for the Restoration of
Aivers and Communities Affected by Dams
25 July, 1998
WHEREAS:
Free-flowing, living rivers are an essential, life-giving feature of our natural and human environment. They
fulfil a multitude of ecological, economic, spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic needs and wants.
Worldwide, these invaluable rivers are now degraded by hundreds of thousands of dams, which have
flooded huge areas of the world's most beautiful and ecologically rich habitats and the homes and lands of
tens of millions of people. Dams have impoverished countless communities which were dependent on the
bounty of free-flowing rivers and riverside lands, and endangered public health.
Dams have blocked flows of nutrients and sediments and the passage of fish and other aquatic lifeforms.
Dams have contaminated river water. Dams have eliminated essential natural flooding regimes thereby
degrading the ecosystems, farmlands and fisheries which depend on floods . And dams have caused the
decline and extinction of riverine species and the ecological degradation of estuaries and coastlines.
Many dams provide services for society, including the generation of electricity, the storage and diversion of
water, flood protection, navigation and flat-water recreation. But we now know that these services come at a
high economic, ecological and social cost and often can be met in other less damaging ways. We also have
learned that costs and benefits of dams are unequally shared - those who reap the rewards are rarely those
who must bear the costs.
After decades of experience, we now know that the promised benefits of many dam projects have never been
realized, and their adverse effects are more serious than predicted. Trying to recreate artificially the complex
natural cycles and functions of undammed rivers has proven to be far more difficult than was once thought.
Efforts to mitigate the adverse effects of dams have often proven expensive and ineffective.
�The knowledge learned over the past decades has led to the continuing improvement of standards for
planning. designing. and operating dams. This has included social and environmental impact assessments,
access to Information. public participation in decision-making. and periodic re-evaluation of a dam's impacts
and operations. Many existing dams would never have been built if they had had to comply with current bestpractice planning principles. procedures and standards. Some are illega l because they were constructed in
violation of existing laws. or because required environmental mitigation and social compensation measures
were never implemented.
Many dams are now obsolete. Many have reached the end of their functional life span and no longer serve a
purpose that justifies their negative impacts. Many are unsafe. threatening the lives of millions of peopl e. as
well as property, fish and wildlife.
For many dams the cost of maintenance and of environmental and social mitigation exceeds the benefits to
be gained from dam operation. The cost of removing dams Is In many cases proving less than the cost of
continuing to operate them. even without taking full account of the social and ecological benefits of dam
removal.
A movement Is now growing around the world which recognizes the vital importance of living rivers. People
are calling for major changes in the operating patterns of dams to lessen their negative impacts, the
decommissioning and removal of obsolete and dangerous dams. the restoration of rivers and the provision of
reparations for past damages suffered by riverine communities affected by dams.
THEREFORE:
We now establish Living Rivers. an international coalition for the restoration of rivers and communities
affected by dams, by means of dam reoperation, decommiss ioning or removal.
Independent and transparent evaluations must be carried out periodically to identify which dams should
continue in operation. which should have their operations altered to mitigate adverse impacts. and which
should be decommissioned or removed. The continued existence and operation of individual dams must be
justified on the grounds of ecological and social impacts. economics and safety.
Decommissioning plans must be prepared for all dams. whether existing. planned or under construction.
These plans should Include dam removal and river, reservoir zone and floodplain restoration. The plans
should also include mechanisms for raising the funds needed to pay for decommissioning.
Dam owners and the beneficiaries of dams must be held responsible for the costs of mitigating the impacts of
their continuing operation. of reparations for past damages, and where relevant of decommissioning or
removing the dams. Funding mechanisms must be established to pay for decommissioning abandoned
dams or for dams where the owner has insufficient financial resources. International agencies which have
financed dams should share the responsibility for thei r decommissioning or removal.
Rigorous dam safety standards must be developed and enforced. including the preparation and pub lication
of flood inundation maps and emergency evacuation plans. and the purchase of liability insurance. The
safety records of dams must be made public. The costs of implementing improved dam safety standards
should be borne by dam owners and beneficiaries and, where relevant, international funding agencies.
Scientific. engineering and sociological research and education on dam decommissioning must be promoted
by governments and dam agencies.
Watershed management and energy plans must be developed In a participatory and transparent manner.
Watershed management plans should integrate sustainable agriculture and fisheries, urban planning, flood
management, water supply and environmental restoration. Regional energy services plans should
incorporate demand-side management and the most environmentally benign and cost-effective forms of
generation.
�Dams have had huge negative Impacts on rivers and river communities ~ removing dams Is an economically,
technically, socially and environmentally viable and sensible option for reversing these impacts and restoring
living rivers. Investment In living river systems will produce substantial benefits for our human and natural
communities, today and tomorrow.
Let our rivers live!
ENDORSED BY:
American Rivers, USA; Assembly of the Poor, Thailand; European Rivers Network, France/ Europe; Florida
Defenders of the Environment, USA; Friends of the Earth, USA; Friends of the Eel River, USA; Glen Canyon
Institute, USA; International Rivers Network, USA; John Muir Project, Earth Island Institute. USA; Let's Help
the River Movement, Russia; Narmada Bachao Andolan, India; Pedder 2000, Australia; River Alliance of
Wisconsin, USA; Save Our Wild Salmon Coalition, USA; SOS Loire Vivante, France; WaterWatch of Oregon,
USA; Wildlife Fund ThaI/and; Zeleny Svit - Green World, Ukraine Since July 25, this declaration has also
been endorsed by the following
organizations:
Foundation to Protect the Hungarian Environment. Hungary; Friends of the River, USA; Global Response,
USA; Idaho Rivers United, USA
Rani Derasary
International Rivers Network (IRN)
1847 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94703 USA
Phone: (510) 848-1155
(510)848-1008
Fax:
Email: rani@irn.org
WWW: www.lrn.org
For more information, please contact River Network at
<rivernet@igc.apc.org> or visit our website: http://www.rivernetwork.org.
�In the 1960s, the country awoke to the fact that our rivers were being
dammed, dredged, diked, diverted and degraded at an alarming rate. To
lend balance to our history of use and abuse of our waterways, Congress
created the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. In October of 1968,
the freshly penned Wild and Scenic Rivers Act pronounced,
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain
selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate environments,
possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish
and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar values, shall be
preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate
environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present
and future generations. The Congress declares that the established
national policy of dams and other construction at appropriate sections
of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy
that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their
free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and
to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes.
- ----
While ! sometimes criticized as not reaching its full potential, there is
little d ~bt that when applied, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has
usually peen a JOlI,sing su<;~, helping to prot
some of this nation's
ath, Manistee and
premiere riveri. Aliagash and Alieghen~Kern an
McKenf ie. The Wild\ and Scenic Rivers Stem n
prote s many of the
ur
Muir's
rivers lo~ our historYt literature, our n tion' t;YOuth. Jo
Tuolum e River and is famous, losing battle t stop the flooding of
HetchUJ tchy Valley; t e Delaware ~iver of our American Revolu~n; Zane
Grey's famous flyfishing river, the l')Iorth Umpqua; the Missouri of Lewis
and Clark''sJpurneys. Great rivers IT
om our past, guaranteed to be great
rivers in our future.
But designation as a wild and scenic river is not designation as a
national park. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not generally lock up
a river like a wilderness designation. The idea is not to halt
development and use of a river; instead, the goal is to preserve the
character of a river. Uses compatible with the management goals of a
particular river are allowed, change is expected to happen. Development
not damaging to the outstanding resources of a designated river, or
curtailing its free flow, are usually allowed. The term "living
landscape" has been frequently applied to wild and scenic rivers. Of
course, each river designation is different, and each management plan is
unique. But the bottom line is that the Wild and Scenic Rivers System is
not something to be feared by landowners or sportsmen _
.;..
As you <!'!!l1.h t guess, a large per~enta~ nd-sceni rivers flow
through the PacifiC-Northwest. Oregon's spectacular Klamath I ~ nd
- 1-
�its incredible abundance of wildlife -- was recently added to the Wild
and Scenic Rivers System following a 15-year battle over the proposed
Salt Caves Hydroelectric Project. The last section of the Columbia River
in Washington not lying behind federal and private dams is being
considered for designation. (Curiously enough, this reach is eligible
because it has lain protected within the Hanford Nuclear Reservation,
the site of Cold War atomic bomb production.) The Wallowa River in
northeastern Oregon was recently designated as a wild and scenic river
by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, becoming part of one of the most c
ompletely protected river systems in the country. And the closing of the
104 th Congress saw the addition of Elkhorn Creek in Oregon to the list
of protected Northwest rivers. (The Lamprey River in New Hampshire and
the Clarion River in Pennsylvania were also designated in the closing
days of the 104th Congress.) And, hopefully, others will follow.
Whether the Wild and Scenic Rivers System grows or not, there are many
rivers already protected for you to enjoy. Grab a flyrod, load the kayak
on the car, slip on your most comfortable walking shoes. Get out there
and savor your natural heritage. But go slow, and enjoy every minute of
your trip to the river. Because of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System, you've got the time.
- 2-
�This disc was prepared for the National Park Service by the U.S. Geological Survey with additional
contributions from:
U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Biological Service, Bureau of
Reclamation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, National Resources Conservation Service,
Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Department of Interior
National Park Service
Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program
(202)343-3780
THE NATIONWIDE RIVERS INVENTORY
I.
Background and Authorizations
Section 5.(d) of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) requires that "In all
planning for the use and development of water and related land resources, consideration shall be
given by all Federal agencies Involved to potential national wild, scenic, and recreational river
areas.· It further requires that -, .. the Secretary of the Interior shall make specific studies and
Investigations to determine which additional wild, scenic, and recreational river areas .. . shall be
evaluated in planning reports by all Federal agencies as potential alternative uses of water and
related land resources Involved."
The Nationwide Rivers Inventory - In partial fulfillment of the Section 5(d) requirements, the National
Park Service has compiled and maintains a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI), a register of river
segments that potentially qualify as national wild, scenic, or recreational river areas. The NAI
qualifies as a comprehensive plan under Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Power Act.
Presidential Directive - A presidential directive requires each Federal agency, as part of its normal
planning and environmental review processes, take care to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on
rivers Identified in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory compiled by NPS. Further, all agencies are
required to consult with the National Park Service prior to taking actions which could effectively
foreclose wild, scenic, or recreational status for rivers on the inventory.
Stalewide River Assessments and Inventories - Pursuant to Section 11 of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, NPS has been providing technical assistance to states in the conduct of statewide river
assessments and inventories. These efforts provide a source for potential future additions to Ihe
Nationwide Rivers Inventory and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System especially as State
administered components.
Public Law 88-29 - Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 authorizes the Secretary of Interior to prepare
and maintain a continuing Inventory and evaluation of outdoor recreation needs and resources
including rivers ; provide technical assistance; encourage interstate and regional cooperation in the
planning, acquisition, and development of outdoor recreation resources; sponsor and engage In
research and education; cooperate with and provide technical assistance to Federal departments
and agencies; and promote coordination of Federal plans and activities generally relating to
outdoor recreation resources including rivers and associated trail corridors. These responsibilities
are also assigned to the National Center for Recreation and Conservation of the National Park
Service.
�II. Initial Listing and Updates of the NRI
The original inventory was conducted to by the Department of Interior with the cooperation of State
and local agencies, and completed in 1982. To be listed, river segments had to meet three basic
criteria:
be free flowing (and generally be 25 miles or longer)
be relatively undeveloped (both river and corridor)
possess outstanding natural and/or cultural values
A major update of the NRI was initiated in 1993. The first phase completed in December, consisted
of adding the river segments found to have outstanding wild, scenic. or recreation potential by the
U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the National Park Service in accordance
with 5(d) of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. There is no minimum length specified by this
section of the Act. River segments are classified according to extent of development as follows:
Wild: Those rivers or sections of rivers that Bre free of
impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with
watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters
unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.
Scenic: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of
impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely
primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in
places by roads .
Recreational: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily
accessible by road or railroad. that may have some development
along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some
impoundment or diversion in the past.
The second phase of the NRI update, initiated in 1994, added river segments found eligible through
statewide river assessments and inventories. GIS and watershed referencing for all NRI segments
will complete the update.
�III. How To Contact National Park Service Offices
For Information or questions on policy and update status:
National Park Service
National Center for Recreation and Conservation
Post Office Box 37127
Washington, D.C. 20013
202-343-3780
For information or questions on specific river segments:
ROCKY MOUNTAIN STATES
Conservation Assistance Branch
National Park Service
12795 West Alameda Parkway
Post OHlce Box 25287
Denver, Colorado 80225-0287
303-969-2850
COLORADO, MONTANA, UTAH, and WYOMING
�~ -4l'''' """ . -
-..-r-
3 ,." ~ (~ '" ," 0 1'rr-r-o!J j)
(all,k," ,(A- quO')
.
r
~
f\
... ,....
,
•
c
...
",
1)e.b (f( a /.\ F sL,,/1>1 a '"
,
;Y3 t- W loa 5
Lo9lMA , llT
1' "1,, I" I" II ,II J,I", /I ,',,' ,I, ,',',' I, ,I ,11,1"',, ,',,' ,II
�1JM fr5hl'/&
___
I/",. l
(a c he /11tf)Z.,j p");t.'l'1;
19.(' ~
,
,
�31 74 Camino Arroyo
Carlsbad, CA 92009
December 3, 1998
Logan City Council
Logan, UT 84321
Dear City Council ,
My wife and I lived in Logan from 1955, when we came as college
students, until just last year. We raised three sons in Logan, and Logan will
always be our hearts' country. We absorbed Cache Valley. The silhouette of the
mountains, east up the canyon and west across the valley, is still the horizon
line of our life.
I wouldn't mention this background if I didn't think a great many
people share such feelings. Few things go as deep as the sense of home.
Unfortunately, sometimes the deepest values get taken for granted.
We're all very busy. We can even forget to think about the absolute beauty and
purity of Logan River, coming down the canyon and through the town. Surely
there can't be many towns anywhere in the world that can say: a wild, clean
river comes down out of the mountains to us; there is no one, no town, upstream.
I think about Logan River a lot these days. Our iririgation and
drinking water here in coastal California is sparse, it comes a long way, and it
has been used several times. There is no way, with all the engineering
capability in the world, we could create the kind of situation Logan has.
So, speaking from deep care for Logan and from the knowledge of how
easy it is to lose natural resources, and how hard if not impossible it is to get
them back, I respectfully urge the Council to endorse Logan River as a Wild and
Scenic River. Logan River is lifeblood. Please protect it.
Sincerely,
fl.t ifWt "-'
1-' "
Thomas J. Lyon
IJ'V,
�p.o. 60x 3501
~tm,
Utcdi 84323-3501
25 October, 1998
Mr. Dan Miller, President
logan Canyon Coalltion
USU Box 1674
Logan, UT 84322-0199
Dear Mr. Miller,
Bridgerland Audubon Society wishes to unequivocally endorse your efforts to urge the
U.S. Forest Service to designate the Logan River through Logan Canyon as " Scenic" within the
Wild and Scenic River System lnventory.
The Logan River is a Iynchpin in the history, culture and ecosystem of Cache Valley and
the Bear River Range. It is an historical artery of commerce, source of culinary water for Logan
City, recreational refuge for land and water users, habitat for many species of migrant and yearround animals, and a source of beauty and wonder in every season. Designating it as " Scenic"
should not compromise any of these attributes, but rather help to preserve its value to this and
future gene'rations.
It would be an honor to have the Logan River designated as the first " Wild and Scenic
River" in Utah . There is nothing to lose, and everything to gain in such a designation .
Please keep us apprised of the status of the project, and include our support in your efforts
to achieve this designation.
\1" '::'IY,
~jf=f?'~
t:O).
1:1 _
PrinhKI 01'1
......
�What is the
Wild & Scenic Rivers Act?
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 is unique among environmental laws in the world
because of its potential to protect free-flowing rivers and river-sections in their condition at
the time of designation. Unfortunately, the potential of this Act still has not been tapped. Less
than I percent of the nation's total river miles have been included in the Nation's Wild and
Scenic Rivers System. NOT ONE of Utah's beautiful rivers has this outstanding distinction.
What Does Designation 001
• offers three levels of protection- Wild. Scenic, and Recreational, which correspond to existing development and the extraordinary values of the river.
• provides blanket protection against federally licensed dams, diversion, and other on-river
development which cannot be overridden by a FERC hydropower license.
• provides flexibility in working with local landowners to protect the designated river's riparian corridor through the creation of a management plan.
• will actually increase the market value of surrounding private property.
• maintains the conditions existing at the time of designation, including local lifestyles and land
uses within the river corridor.
• will not stop highway improvements. Although, the Utah Department of Transportation will
have to respect Logan River's outstandingly remarkable values and can't change the rivers
character.
• Designation as a Wild and Scenic River is not deSignation like a national park. The Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act does not lock up a river like a wilderness designation. The idea is not to
halt development and use of a river; instead, the goal is to preserve the character of a river.
Uses compatible with the management goals of a particular river are allowed, change is
expected to happen. Development not damaging to the outstanding resources of a designated river, or curtailing its free flow, are allowed. The term "living landscape' has been frequently applied to wild and scenic rivers. Of course, each river designation is different, and each
management plan is unique. But the bottom line is that the Wild and Scenic Rivers System is
not something to be feared by landowners, water users or sportsmen.
For more information visit our web page at: http://www.logancanyon.org
�Leave A True Legacy
The Logan as Utah's First Wild and Scenic River
We the undersigned hereby declare our support for segments of the Logan River to be designated as Utah's first Wild
and Scenic River under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, as long as that designation doesn't
interfere with traditional uses now enjoyed by the public.
Signature
Print name
Street
ctty
RETURN COMP LETEO PETITIONS TO THE LOGAN CANYON COALITION, USU BOX '1874 , LOGAN , UTAH 84322·0"111
Stale
Zip
�c o
4. L
Working
for
the
T
I
protection
of
I
Logan
o
C;lnyon
Leave A True Legacy
The Logan as Utah's First Wild and Scenic River
Thirty years after the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was passed by
Congress, there have been over 154 Wild and Scenic designations in the
United States. Not one of Utah's beautiful rivers has this outstanding
distinction.
The Logan River and its watershed is a critical resource of recreation,
economic stability, and most importantly, a source of culinary water for
Logan and Cache Valley residents. A Wild and Scenic designation would
not encroach upon existing uses of the river, but would provide longterm protection for this precious resource.
Utah citizens deserve a Wild and Scenic River. Let's all join together and
leave this true legacy for our families and our future.
Support the Logan River as Utah's first Wild and Scenic River.
For more information visit our web page at:
USU
Box
#1674
•
Log a n
•
http://www.logancanyon.org
Uta h
•
84322·0199
�c
04. L
WorklDS
for
the
I
T
protection
of
I
LOBan
o
Canyon
Logan Canyon Coalition's
Executive Summary
Logan Canyon Coalition is a grassroots citizens organization in northern Utah dedicated to
promoting reasonable improvements in the narrow, winding canyon while protecting the
canyon's scenic and environmental resources. Lee is devoted to protecting logan Canyon.
logan River and its eco·systems.
Currently.
lee's
efforts are directed towards protecting the logan RiYer from excessive
development from its proximity to a nearby highway and a proposed land swap that will
create state and private lands above the river. Lee Is running a campaign to have a portion
of the Logan River deSignated as Utah's first Wild and Scenic River. In May, 1998 the Forest
Service and other environmental experts gathered to expound on the overwhelming data
that argues in favor of deSignation. LCC will direct Its resources through community outreach and initializing several campaigns toward Wild and Scenic designation.
For more information visit our web page at http://www.logancanyon .org
usu
Box
'1674
•
Log a n
•
U I • h
•
843 2 2 - 0 1 9 9
�c o
A. L
Working
for
the
T
I
protection
of
I
Logan
o
l\T
Canyon
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
30th Anniversary of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
The 30th anniversary of the most important piece of federal legislation ever written to
protect rivers-The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act-will be celebrated across the country
during the month of October.
Thanks to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, many of our nation's most outstanding free-flow-
ing rivers are protected from dams and inappropriate development. The Act. signed in 1968,
protects rivers with remarkable scenic. recreational. geological. fish and wildlife. historic,
cultural. or other similar values. To date, segments of 154 rivers have been designated . cov-
ering nearly 10,764 miles. Not one of Utah's beautiful rivers has this outstanding distinction.
The logan River was passed by during the first two rounds of Wild and Scenic
recommendation by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. But as a result of public pressure,
the Forest Service is currently conducting a third inventory of Wasatch-Cache National
Forest rivers Including the Logan.
The Logan River and its watershed is a critical resource of recreation, economic stability,
and most importantly, a source of culinary water for Logan and Cache Valley residents. A
Wild and Scenic designation would not encroach upon existing uses of the river. but would
provide long-term protection for this precious resource.
"We (LCC) want to leave a true legacy," said Dan Miller. LCC President. "We are seeking
to have the Logan River designated as Utah's first Wild and Scenic River. Utah citizens
deserve a Wild and Scenic River within their borders, and I ask that we all join together to
leave this true legacy for our families and our future ."
USU
Box
'1674
•
L
0
8
it
n
•
U I • h
•
843 22- 0 1 9 9
�Wild and Scenic rivers are an important part of the country's heritage, offering the public
recreation opportunities, enhanced tourism economies, the preservation of plant and animal species, and dependable supplies of clean water. Many communities along Wild and
Scenic rivers benefit from an Increase in land values that accompany a Wild and Scenic
river designation.
While the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has had great success, much work still remains.
According to the National Park Service's Nationwide Rivers Inventory, more than 60.000
miles of rivers qualify for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. American Rivers,
the nation's leading river conservation organization, is working to stem the extinction of
our most outstanding rivers and bring more rivers into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
"We hope the Logan River will someday be apart of that system:' Miller said.
For more information please visit our web site at http://www.logancanyon.org
Dan Miller. President
Logan Canyon Coalition
e-mail: Dmil123S@aolocom
ph#: 435/258-'1432
�Please Write To
LEAVE A TRUE LEGACY
and Support the Logan as Utah's first
Wild and Scenic River
NOT ONE of Utah's beautiful rivers is recognized for its outstanding qualities through
induction into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
To be eligible for this status. a river just has to be free-flowing and posses at least one
outstandingly remarkable value which may include: fish, wildlife, scenery, geology,
archaeology, cultural, historical, and recreational.
After studying the river, citizens groups have identified the following outstandingly
remarkable values on the Logan River: Fish and Wildlife. Scenic. Geologic, and
Recreation.
Surprisingly. the Logan was passed by during the first two rounds of Wild and Scenic
recommendation by the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. But as a result of public pressure, the Forest Service is conducting a third inventory of Utah's rivers.
The opportunity still exists for the logan to be recognized for its outstanding qualities.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT in this process is extremely important. PLEASE WRITE the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest and urge them to recommend that the logan River be
inducted into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Attn. Bernie Weingardt
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
8230 Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City. Utah 84138
�ACTION ALERT!
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was signed into law in 1968. Thirty years later, Utah and Nevada
are the only two states in the West without a designated river. The U.s. Forest Service recently
determined the Logan to be eligible for designation. Next it must be determined to be suitable,
largely dependent upon local sentiment, and then designated by Congress. You can help make
the Logan River Utah's first Wild and Scenic river. The Logan City Council has been asked to
issue a proclamation supporting such a designation, which will then be forwarded with our
petition onto our Congressional delegation. Please call or write OUf City Council members and
the Mayor asking them to support such a proclamation. They will be voting on such a measure
March 4th.
Mayor Doug Thompson
255 North Main
Logan, UT 84321
750-9800
Alan Allred, Logan City Council
1535 E. 1500 N.
Logan, UT 84341
752-6441
John Harder, Logan City Council
289 E. 200 N.
Logan, UT 84321
753-6300
Janice Pearce, Logan City Council
Steve Thompson, Logan City Council
37 South 200 West
Logan, UT 84321
753-8254
Karen Borg, Logan City Council
1670 N. 1600 E.
Logan, UT 84341
753-6963
727 N. 150 W.
Logan, UT 84321
753-3599
Sponsored by the Logan Canyon Coalition
�LOGAN RIVER DRA INAGE
SEGMENT
39.0 Logan River: Ida bo statelin e to confluence with Beaver Creek - 6.6 miles
POTENT IAL OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE VA LUES
Fish
DESC RI PTION
Gener al - This segment of Logan River, from the Idaho stateline to its confluence with Beaver
Creek, is located on the Logan District in Cache Counry, Utah. A recent land exchange with the
State of Utah in the upper reaches of the river have made most of the lands through with it flows
pan of the National Forest system, although about 1 mile still flows through private lands.
Bio/physica l setting - The segment of the Logan River is a relatively small up river portion of
the stream where the river is natural in character and has few highway and road encroadunents
and crossings., The stream flow is perennial; however during low flow periods a portion of the
stream can go underground for about 100 to 200 yards.
Elevations ranges along the stream from about 7,500 feet at the state line to about 6400 feet at
Beaver Creek. In the upper reaches of the segment the somewhat confined channel is character·
ized by poo!·riffie·run and it runs through a broad open valley. Adjacent uplands are primarily
dominated by aspen and sagebrush communities and some conifer communities. Subalpine fir is
succeeding aspen communities in some areas. Riparian communities are characterized by thinleaf
alder and various willows. Dispersed recreation impacts are common along the upper poslion of
the ri\·er segment, resulting in soil compaction, loss of some woody vegetation, and the presence
of some introduced herbaceous species. No threatened. endangered, or sensitive plants occur
along this segment of the Logan River.
Fish species present include rainbow trout, pure strain Bonnevill e cutthroat trout (a sensitive species), brook trout, and brown trout. The Bonneville cutthroat population here is pan of a larger
metapopulation of the species that occupies the Logan River basin and tributaries, and is considered to be critical to the overall preservation of the species. The State of Utah rates the fishery
here as a Class II, unique. No endangered or threatened mammals exist on this segment.
H um an dimension · Acc ess to the base of segment is provided
Scenic Byway, and by Forest Road 006 (a din road) whi ch runs
veloped Forest Service campgrounds are present in the upper part
sian of Parks and Recreation operates a winter sports trailhead
Highway 89 and the Franklin Basin Road.
V-54
by US Highway 89, a National
parallel to the segment. No de·
of the segment. The Utah Divi·
parking area at the junction of
�DETAILED EVALUATION OF ELI GIBILITY
Evaluation of Free-flowing Condition - This segment of the Logan River has n Ol been substantially modified by the dirt road that runs along it or by other construction or diversion. The segment is free-flow ing.
Evaluation of Outstandingly Remarkable Values - The Bonneville cutthroat population of this
stream is pan of a larger self-sustaining continuous meta-population of this species. The fi sh is a
sensitive species which is currently incl uded in a conservation agreem ent. Spawning of the species occurs in this stream and other Logan River tributaries. In comparison to other known and
documented populations of Bonnevill e cunhroat trout this is a very special population that is and
wi ll be important to the overall survival of the species.
Eligibility and Classification - Since this segment of the Logan Ri ver is free-flowing and has an
outstandingly remarkable fishery popUlation, the segment is eligible for the National Wild and
Sceni c Rvers System. The stream can be classifi ed as a scenic river.
V-55
�SEGMENT
t
39.1 Logan River : Con fluence wit h Beaver C r eek to Third Dam - 20 miles
POTENTIAL O UTSTANDING LY REMARKABLE VALUES
Scenic, Recreation, Geo logical, Fish, Ecological
DESC RIPT ION
General - This segment of Logan Ri ver, from the confluence with Beaver Creek to Third Dam is
about 19 mil es long. It is located on the Logan Ranger Distri ct in Cache County, Utah. This segment is managed entirely by the Forest Service.
Bio/pbysical setting - Elevations range from 5,200 feet near Third Dam to 6400 feet at Beaver
Creek. Along this segment the terrain changes from a relatively narrow gorge j ust below Third
Dam. and runs through a classic canyon landscape to a much more open and rolling setting in the
uppennost 8 miles above the Temple Fork confluence.
The geological features mosl apparent along the course of the ri ver are some of the karst fea tures,
notably Ricks Springs cave, Logan Cave. and Wi nd Cave. Other caves al so ex ist. and undoubtedly many more remain to be di scovered. Ordovician quartzite strata near Right Fork contain unusually well fonned and preserved fuco idal structures (foss ili zed casts of ancient wonn borrows
which appear like seaweed mats frozen in the stone). At the west end of the corridor. lake terrace
gravel deposits of prehi stori c Lake Bonneville perch above the ri ver bed and mark the upper level
of a lake with enormous significance in the Great Basin. Well-defined faults and shear zones cut
and displace the sedi mentary strata in se\'eral road cuts along the corri dor. some of which also
show geologically interesting small-scale folding of the strata.
Uplands are dominated by Douglas fir on cooler north- facing slopes with mapl e, sagebrush. mountain mahogany, and juniper communities on south-facting and other drier sites. Riparian vegetation is characteri zed bi rch/dogwood, box elder, and yellow willow communi ties. Crack willow, an
introduced species. is a common component of some of the camping and ipicnicking areas in the
lower sections of the segment. One federall y listed Threatened plant, Primula maguirei (Maguire
primrose), occurs along this segmentin more mesic limestone cliffs. In addi tion, several Intermountain Region sensitive species. including Viola frank smithii ffranksmi th violet), Eri geron
cronquistii , and Draba maguirei, occur on the dolomitic limestone outcrops.
No endangered or threatened wildlife species exist on this segment. However, the western bigeared bat, an Intennountain Region (Forest Service) sensitive species, has been verified here.
Fish spec ies present include rainbow. brook. and brown trout, and the sensitive species - Bonneville cutthroat trout with has relati onships to both pure and potentially pure sub populations in
adjacent tributaries. This popUlation of Bonneville cutthroat in Logan River can be considered
pan of a meta-population that occupies the upper portion of thi s river drainage, (in biological
tenn s - a population that has imponance beyond the local scale).
I
•
,
[
J
t
J
I
r
t
\
.
�Human dimension· Parallel access is provided by State Highway 89, a designated National Scenic Byv..'ay. This highway is used by through travellers driving between the Wasatch Front and
Idaho or Wyoming. or by recreati on users who are interested in destinations al ong the river and
highway.
I
I
I
t
1
•
f
t
I
]
1
I
I
f
t
Recreation pressure in the corridor, both dispersed and developed. can be considered moderate to
heavy depending on season and day of the week. The Forest Service provides many developed
campgrounds and picnic sites in the lower ponicn of the segment, and upstream the most notable
is the Tony Grove recreation complex, snowmobile parking and other facilities. Other interesting
viewing sites include Rick Springs. Access to the river for fishing and tubing is very easy. Two
geological markers are present: one explaining about ancient Lake Bonneville and the other about
deposits of fucoidal quartzite. Logan Wind Cave is also a destination for hikers. Rock climbing is
very popular aiong the segment. Below Ricks Springs some kayaking occurs depending on the water level.
Between Third Dam and Right Hand Fork slopes are quite steep, and vegetation diversity shows a
high degree of patterning owing to considerable variability in altitude, slope, aspect, soils, etc.
Views are not especially long or vastin the lower section, but are some of the more attractive available in northern Utah. The narrow canyon from Right Hand Fork up [0 Chicken Creek provides
pleasant scenery to passing motori sts who are nearly enclosed by the canyon and its heavy riparian
forest. For those \\·ho stop, a more leisurely viewing experience may be appreciated at a local
campsite or picnic area. Scenery above this point changes considerably and ranges from the
deeply encised gorge near the twin bridges to wide-open expansive uplands draped with sagebrush and aspen around Tony Grove and Red Banks.
Tony Grove Memorial Ranger Station, a National Regi ster site, is within the seb'lllent. TIlls complex has a unique log cabi n and later CCC period buildings that relate to earlier periods in the hislOry of Nationa l Forest land management.
Fishing along the Logan River is common, and the experience is considered to be high quality.
The State of Utah ranks the upper portion of the segment at Class II , a unique fishing segment.
Hunting is also a common endeavor in areas adjacent to the river.
The Utah State University Field Station is located in the upper portion of the segment. Portions of
the area are in the Logan Canyon Cattle allotment. There are no commercial fishing, hwlting, or
recreation activities on the segment.
Although some of the several stream-crossing structures may impede peak stream fl ows, there are
no fu ll-scale impoundments in this reach above the inundated area above the Third Dam. No sig-nificant diversions have been made that could have any noticeable effects on stream flows or instream water uses ; however, there are probably several minor diversions for adjacent domestic and
irrigation uses .
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Evaluation of Free-flowing Condition· Although Highway 89 runs the length of thi s segment
and has some effects on its free-flow, these are not so substanti al that most observers would notice changes from a purely natural character. In general the ecological functions of the river are
V-57
�natural along the segment. Over the last several decades construrction efforts and active management have intended that natural appearance and functions might be preserved. The segment is
free-flowing.
Evalu ation of Outstandingly Remarkable Values - The Bonneville cutthroat population of this
stream is part of a larger self-sustaining continuous meta-population of this species. The fish is a
sensitive species which is currently included in a conservation agreement. Spawning of the species occurs in this stream and other Logan River tributaries. In comparison to other known and
documented populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout this is a very special population that is and
wi ll be important to the overall survival of the species.
Scenery along the segment has been recognized as outstanding by the creation of the National Scenic Byway fo r Highway 89. This scenery is diverse and variable, a scenic smorgasbord of this
part of the Wasatch Range.
The recreation opportunities in this segment are about as broad spectrum as are provided in any
simil ar setting northern Utah. If one were to look for a typical northern Utah outdoor recreation,
the Logan River area might be a good model for the type. For its variety, length of season, quality, and appropriate scale of facilities, the recreation experience along the Logan Ri ver is outstandIng.
nti s segment meetS the criteria for outstandingly remarkable geo logical \'alue due to the diversity
and abundance of fear. .lfes \vhich together form an area with high educational and scientific interest. In broad scale, the entire river corridor presents an unparalleled cross section of the geo logic
structure and middle and lower Paleozoic carbonate stratigraphy of the west flank of the Bear
River Range. A myriad of smaller geologic features fall within the confines of the corridor which
contains the geologically-interesting meanders of the Logan River.
Ecologically, thIS segment contains a wide variety of plant, animal , and aquatic communities that
are functioning in a relatively heal thy manner, especially when compared to the proximity to local
urban populations. The use of the corridor as a setting for education for local schools and the uini versity community has been appreciated for many decades. Due to the location of the river in close
proximity to Utah State, more is known and written about the local natural setting than for most
areas of the western U.S. The ecological setting and its value to local and broader communities
can be considered outstanding.
Eligibility and Classification - Since this segment of the Logan River is free-flowing and has
outstandingly remarkable values. the segment is eligible for the National Wlld and Scenic Rvers
System. The stream can be classified as a recreational river.
V-58
•
I
r
I
I
�SEGM ENT
39.2 Logan RiYe r : 1 bird Da m to Fo rest Bound a ry - 3 mil es
POT E:\TlAL O UTSTA!\" DI:"IGL Y
RE~ I A RKA BL E
VALUES
Ecological. Scenic
1
DESCRl PTl O!\"
I
Gener a l - This segment of Logan River, from TIlird Dam to the western boundary afthe WasatchCache Nati onal Forest is about 3 miles long. It is located on the Logan Ranger District in Cache
County, Utah.
I
J
,
I
J
Bio/ phys ic a l settin g - The narrowest part of Logan Canyon is the sening for this segment. Here
the river cuts a gorge through the \Vasatch Range to emerge in Cache \"alley at Logan. Elevations
on the segment range from about 5200 feet to 4800 feet. Upland vegetation along this ponion of
the stream is characterized by sagebrush and mountain mahogany on dryer sites and bigtooth
maple in the foothills: Douglas fir occurs on more mesic nonh-facing slo pes. Riparian communities are dominated by cO llonwood. box elder. and crack willow trees with ycllow willow and coyote willow , river bi rch. and red-osier dOf,'wood along the narrow riparian conidor. One federally
listed TItreatened plant. Primula maguieri Maguire primrose), occurs along this segment. In addition , several Intermountain Region (Forest Service) sensitive species. including Afusineon lineare (Rydbcrgs musineon), Erigeron cronquistii. and Draba maguirei. occur on the dolomitic
limestone outcrops along this segment. Plant communities along this segment appear somewhat
altered in many areas because of road placement which channelizes the river, planting of nonnative trees and shrubs. and building locations.
There are no threatened, endangered or sensitive fish species in this segment, nor any endangered
or threatened wildlife species. Sensitive wildlife species have not been verified.
I
•
•
•
I
iI
Human dimension - US Highway 89, a National Scenic Byway, runs along the segment for its
complete length. There are three developed Forest Service recration sites in this segment and a
geological marker explaining about ancient Lake Bonneville. No significant archeological or historic sites are present. Because of the relatively narrow stream conidor and traffic density recreation opportunities are limited compared to further upstream on the river. Fishing is common, but
not generally so satisfying an experience as that upstream . Tubing and some kayaking are popular
activities. While the scenery is that of a narrow rocky canyon and quite pleasant, vistas are not so
expansive as further upstream where the canyon opens up.
There are no commercial recreation ventures in this segment, and linle opportunity to develop any .
There is a restaurant which takes advantage of the riverine sening for dining. No commercial
hunting or fishing is permined.
Due to highway and dam construction over the past century, thi s segment of the Logan ri ver has
been heavily modi fi ed. Adjacent floodplains and meadows have been significantl y modifi ed anddeveloped. Oxbows exist, but usually have been cut off by the highway, or they have been fi lled .
V-59
�Highway 89 pinches the stream for much of its length channelizing it and decreaing its naturalness. The Highway corsses the river once in this segment, while five small er bridges span the
river for access to summer homes and the National Forest. The stream flow is perenniaL Logan
City is required to maintain 20 cfs between Second and Third dam. Below Second Darn no minimwn is required and during dry periods the flow is minimal. .
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY
Evaluation of Free.flowing Condition - This segment of the Logan River has been substantially
modified by construction of Highway 89 which runs along it or by other construction or diversion.
The segment is not free-flowing.
•
•
•
Evaluation of Outstandingly Remarkable Values· Because the stream has been found to be
not free-flowing there is no further consideration of the values for which it might potentially have
been eligible.
Eligibility and C lassifi cation - This segment of the Logan River is not free-flowing and therefore not eligible as a Wild and Sceni c River.
,
J
F
t
!
f
V-60
�SEGMENTS
The discussion and eval uation of th e following rivers have been combined. as all are being considered potentially outstandingly remarkable fo r the same related va lue. the Bonneville cutthroat trout
fish population.
j
39.3
39.4
39.S
39.6
39.8
39.9
Beaver Creek: Idaho State Line to Mouth - 6.5 miles
\Vhite Pine C reek: Source to Mouth - 5.9 miles
Temple Fork: Source to Mouth - 5.6 miles
Spawn Creek: Source to :'\Iouth - 3.8 miles
Bunchgrass C reek: Source to Mouth - 5.0 miles
Little Bear Creek: Source to Mouth - 4.0 miles
POTENTIAL OUTSTANDINGLY REMARKABLE \' ALUE
Fish
j
i
1
I
•
I
DESCRIPTIONS
General - These segments are located on the Logan Ranger District, and are all tributary streams
to the upper Logan River. Most of the streams flow exclusively through Nati onal Forest, although
recent land exchanges in the area of the upper Logan River, White Pine Creek, and Beaver Creek
have change ownership status there.
Bio/physical setting - All six of the streams in this section are tributaries of the upper Logan
River. As such they have some anributes in common and some that are unique. Each has vegetation in uplands which includes sagebrush. lodgepole pine, SUbalpine fi r. aspen, Douglas fir and
some limber pine. Riparian communities are typicall y narrow and include willows. dogwood, aspen and conifers. ~o threatened. endangered or sensiti\'e plants are known to occur within these
corridors. The flammulated owl, a sensitive species, has been located within the area. The corridors include habitat suitable for boreal owl, goshawk, wolverine and three-toed woodpeckers;
none of these sensiti ve species are known to occur within the corridor. Several beaver ponds lie
within these corridors, and the lower reaches of some provide big game winter range (moose, elk
and deer).
Fish species include rainbow, brown and brook trout, sculpin and Bonnevi lle cutthroat trout (a
sensiti ve species). While all the fish species in these tributaries can add to visitor enjoyment or the
overall wildlife diversity in the upper Logan River drainage, the Bonnevill e cunhroat trout population is of special interest and value. The range of Bonneville cutthroat includes most of the eastern
Great Basin (See Appendix F, Regions of Comparison, Fish Values). These several streams in addition to the upper portions of the main Logan River are occupied with a meta-population (that is a
genetically interactive larger population of the species) that, if protected, can insure the preservation of the species, which is currently under some considerable pressure to survive due to pressures of exotic species introduction, fi shing pressure, and habitat fragmentation, destruction,
andlor degradation. The upper Logan River population of these fish is probably the largest and
most di verse subpopulation with habitat connectivity that remains. Fish abundance for the Bonneville cutthroat is high, and the population is self-sustaining through natural spawning in both the
main Logan River and these tributaries. This river system is of critical importance to Bonneville
\'-6 1
�r
cutthroat because of its lack of migratory obstructions, the large number of connected populations,
and the overall strength and diversity afthe population.
Human dimension - Access up the main Logan River to the lower portions of most of these
streams is by u.s. Highway 89, the Logan Canyon National Scenic Byway. From this main highway smaller Forest Roads are present up Temple Fork and Beaver Creek, while even more ephemeral roads and trails are present along the other streams (e.g. White Pine Creek). At times the
presence of these roads has impacted these streams and plans for some roads (e.g. Temple Fork)
include reducing these impacts by reconstruction. Developed recreation sites are few within the
upper Logan drainages compared to further downstream along the main Logan River. Dispersed
camping and hiking use can be light to heavy depending on which stream is in question and season
or day of the week. Fishing use is along these streams variable dependent on access and seasons.
A catch and release policy has been in place.
Several sites providing access and other recreation opportunities are found within these corridors
or close by. Included are: a snowmobile parking area and groomed snowmobile and crosscountry ski trails are located near the junction of Highways 89 and 243 ; a snowmobile route connecting Utah to the Yellowstone area passes through the corridor; Beaver Mountain Ski Area; a
commercial outfitter/guide offers horseback rides near the ski area; and portions of the Great
\Vestem Trail in Beaver Creek and upper Temple Fork.
There are few known prehistoric sites within these corridors, although occasional scatters of
chipped stone materials attest to Nati ve American use of the streamsides for seasonal hunting and
fishing camps, as well as access ways to upland areas. The Temple Fork Sawmill historic site and
historic Tony Grove Ranger Station are within the corridors of consideration.
Sheep and catt le graze most of the areas within which these rivers flow.
There are no dams or di versions on these segments. In some places U.S. Highway 89, and Forest
Roads, and other old roads affect the stream channe ls, flood plains, and water quality by crossing
the segments or running along side them.
DETAILED EVALUATION OF ELiGmILITY
Eva lu ation of Free-flowing Condition - These six tributaries of the Logan River have not been
modified to any significant extent by human uses. All six may be considered free-flowi ng .
Evaluation of Outstandingly Remarkable Values - The Bonneville cunhroat trout fis hery
withi n these tributary streams to the upper Logan River is a significant population. because of its
size. diversity, di stribution within several suitable habitats. self-sustaining natural reproduction
and the size and vigor of the fish. The importance of thi s meta-population of Bonneville cunhroat
trout is an outstandingly remarkable value.
Eligibility and Classification - All six of the streams listed below are eligible for the !\ational
Wild and Scernc Ri vers System as they are free-flowing and fo r their remarkab le Bonnneville cutthroat fishery.
V -62
t
I
�1
,
They may be classified as indicated below:
Beaver Creek: Idaho State Line to Mouth - Scenic
White Pine Creek: Source to Mouth - Wild
Temple Fork: Source to Mouth - Scernc
Spawn Creek: Source to Mouth - Wild
BWlCbgrass Creek: Source to Mouth - \Vild
Linle Bear Creek: Source to Mouth - Wild
1
t
I
J
J
I
I
I1
-
V-63
�BIO / WEST, Inc.
I 063 'West 1400 North
Log~n , Utah 84321
Phone: (435) 752·4202
Fax: (435) 752-0507
January 21, 1999
Logan City Mayor and Council
. 255 North Main
Logan, UT i4321
Re: Log an River Wild and Scenic-River Designation and Logan Canyo n Highway
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I have been asked to provide you with a brief, independent assessment as to the
potential effects of a Wild and Scenic River (WSR) Designation for the Logan river on
the ongoing Logan Canyon Highway Improve ment Project. As you are probably aware,
a number of the aspects and implications of a WSR designation on the highway project
are not totally clear, thus the information below is somewh.at speculative and my own
opinion, rather than definitive facts .
First, you should be aware that designation on USDA Forest Service land is a threestep process: 1) a determination of eligibility, which includes an inventory (evaluation) of
resources and an assessment of the required presen, e of both "free f1owing~
c
. characteristic~ and one or more "outstandingly remarkable features"; 2) classification'of
eligible portions of a river as either recreational, scenic, or wild, based upon the results
of item 1; and 3) an evaluation of the suitability for designation in terms of worthiness
for inclusion in to the national system, status of land ownership in the area, potential
land uses, local governmental interest, cost, and other issues.
Suitability is typically add ressed in a detailed study report which includes environmental
consideration (analysis, public involvement, preparation of an enyironmental document,
etc.) and integration into th e pertinent local (Wasatch-Cache National Forest in this
case) Forest Management Plan. If the river meets all of the above criteria, it can be
recommended by the Forest Service (Washington level) for Congressional designation.
Obviously, the above process, particularly approval by Congress, can take a very long
time. Howeve r, the Forest SerVice is mandated to manage and protect the area in
accordance with the selected classification during this interim period once the first two
steps are completed, which is apparently the current statu s of the Logan River study.
As I understand it, the Forest Service has rece ntly determined that portions of the 'upper
Logan river are eligible' for designation, and has tentatively classified the portion from
Third Dam to its co~fluence with Beaver Cre'ek (near Franklin Basin) as "recreational "
--
.. ..
"
,I
�,
Logan City Mayor and Council
January 21 , 1999
Page 2
and the portion from the confluence to the Idaho border as "scenic", They are now
working through the details of how to integrate these classifications in their Forest
Manqgement Plan and determining at what level approval for any forthcoming proposed
activities in the area will be made,
My personal opinion is that nothing UD,OT is proposing as a part of the current highway
project (some improvements and structural replacements between Tony Grove and
Franklin Basin) will impact or be impacted by the anticipated river protection, UDOT
has 'continued to be very proactive in developing plans that avoid or minimize any
impacts to the river or its associated wetland I riparian communities. Their designers
and construction engineers have worked very closely with us to develop and adhere to .
mitigative measures, and to insure that their contractors do li~llwise, Given their solid
commitment in this regard and the preliminary plans which have been developed thus'
far, it would seem unlikely that anyone could reasonably argue for changes or a delay
as a result of any level of WSR designation on the river.
The only aspect for which I have concern is the potential for someone to delay the
project by filing some type of protest (frivolous or otherwise) against it on the basis of a
violation of tlie interim protection afforded the river under the Wild and Scenic Rivers '
Act. Unfortunately, it appears that the Forest Service does not have any proscribed
process for addressing and responding to such a complaint, and thus some delay could
occur. There is some 'effort underway at this time to get a handle on this issue, with the
goal of having the Forest clarify exactly how and with what time frame they would deal
with it should it arise.
.
Thank you for your confidence, and I hope this helps you somewhat. At your request: I
am more than willing to discuss the matter further with regard to this or other aspects of
the project.
Sincerely yours,
~~\~
Thomas M.. Twedt, PhD
Principal
�Ten ways dams damage rivers
( I)
Dams reduce ri ver levels
Dams remove water needed for heaJthy in-stream ecosystems.
(2)
Dams block rivers
Dams prevent the flow of plants and nutrients, impede the migration of fish and other wildlife, and block
recreationaJ use.
(3)
Dams slow rivers
Many fish species depend on steady flows to flush them down river early in their life and guide them upstream
years later to spawn. Stagnant reservoir pools disorient migrating fish and significantly increase the duration of
their migration.
(4)
Dams alter water temperatures
By slowing water flow, most dams increase water temperatures. Other dams decrease temperatures by releasing
cooled water from the reservoir bottom. Fish and other species are sensitive to these temperature irregularities,
which often destroy native populations.
(5)
Dams aJler timing of flows
By withholding and then releasing water to generate power for peak demand periods, dams cause downstream
stretches to aJtemale between low water and powerful surges that erode soil and vegetation. These irregular releases
destroy natural seasonal flow variations that trigger naturaJ growth and reproduction cycles in many species.
(6)
Dams fluctuate reservoir levels
Dramatic changes in reservoir water levels degrade shorelines and disturb fisheries, waterfowl, and bottom-dwelling
organisms.
(7)
Dams decrease oxygen levels in reservoir waters
Then the oxygen-deprived water is released from behind the dam, it can kill fish downstream.
(8)
Dams hold back silt, debris, and nutrients
By slowing flows. dams aJlow silt to collect on river bottoms and bury fish spawning habitat. Silt trapped above
dams accumulates heavy metals and other pollutants. Gravel, logs and other debris are also trapped by dams,
eliminating their use downstream as food and habitat.
(9)
Dam turbines cut up fish
Following currents downstream, fish are drawn into and cut up by power turbines.
(10) Dams increase predator risk
Warm, murky reservoirs often favor predators of naturaJly occurring species.
****************************
s, a cheaper and less hannful SOIUli
atts of power, that
************************* **
�Over the past 100 years, the United States has led the world in dam building.
The US Army Corps of Engineers has catalogued approximately 75 ,000 dams greater than 6 feet along the
waterways of the United States. So "on average, we have constructed one dam every day since the signing of the
Declaration of Independence."
Dams have depleted fisheries, degraded river ecosystems, and diminished recreational opportunities on nearly all of
the nation's rivers.
Hydropower s hould not be considered as clean power because of the destruction of river ecosystems and its
many social impacts.
Dam designers often fail to account for the impacts of droughts, meaning that dams often produce less
power than promised. When these risks of low river flows are factored into calculations of the costs of electricity it
can be seen that hydropower is now an expensive fonn of power generation. Private investors in power projects
are largely avoiding dams and prefer to invest in cheaper and less risky gas-fired power plants.
There has been a grow ing movement to remove dams where the costs - including environmental, safety, and sociocultural impacts - outweigh the benefits - including hydropower, flood control, irrigation, or recreation.
FLOOD CONTROL can often be accomplished more effectively and for less money by restoring wetlands,
maintaining riparian buffers , or moving people out of the floodplain. Updating antiquated irrigation systems and
replacing inappropriate crops can dramatically reduce the need for dams and reservoirs in the arid West.
*** *** *** *** *********
10 KEY POINTS
**** *** ** **** ** **
The Players:
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (PERC)
Symbiotics, Rigby Idaho
Ecosystems Research Instate, Logan
Because of the political climate change in our nations capitol, Symbiotics is attempting to take advan tage of
the situation to make a quick buck with no thought, or consideration to the devastation they might leave behind.
THE MOTION STATES THAT:
the application is invalid
Symbiotics' admits that the company has no intention of either building or operating the 100 plus projects it has
proposed. Further, the company admits that it has no idea at this point who will build and operate the projects.
This is directly contrary to the Federal Power Act and the FERC regulation requirement that an applicant be the
person who will operate the project. The law is very clear that when an application is fi led by someone who has no
intention of actually operating the proposed project, that the application is invalid.
the application is incomplete
Symbiotics does not comply with FERC's regulations because it does not include any information on the financial
aspects of the project. This is further evidence that the applicant is engaged in an uniformed, unplanned, shot gun
approach to grab up any potential hydropower sites in the off chance that it might be able to tum a profit by selling
the sites off to another business venture capable of actually carrying a project to fruition.
Symbiotics fails to disclose the source or amount of financing available as required by PERC regulations and then
makes a vague statement that it "expects" financing to come from "private investors and members of the applicant. "
�UINTA NATIONAL FOREST DIRECTORY
Forest Supervisor's Office
88 West 100 North
PO Box 1428
Provo, Utah 8460 I
FTS and COMM 80 1-342-5100
FAX 801-342-5144
Heber Ranger District
2460 South Hi ghway 40
PO Box 190
Heber City, Utah 84032
FTS and COMM 80 1-342-5200
FAX 801-654-5772
Pleasant Grove Ranger District
390 North 100 East
Pleasant Grove, Utah 84062
FTS and COMM 801-342-5240
FAX 801 -342-5244
Spanish Fork Ranger District
44 West 400 North
Spanish Fork, Utah 84660
FTS and COMM 801-342-5260
FAX 80 1-342-5272
�Protest Bear River Dams!
Write, Call or Email Your Elected Official!
Legislative District #1
Eli H. Anderson
8790 West Hwy 102
Tremonton, UT 84337
435-854-3760
ehanderson@ut.gov
Legislative District #5
Brent D. Parker
2953 W. 6900 s.
Mt. Sterling, UT 84401
435-245-6275
brentparker@ut.gQv
Legislative District #3
Craig Buttars
540 s. 1600 W.
Lewiston, UT 84320
435-258-5015
Senate District #24
Peter C. Knudson
1209 Michelle Dr.
Brigham City, UT 84302
435-723-6366
cbuttars@ut.gov
pknudson@utahsenate.org
Legislative District #4
Loraine Pace
435 E. 900 N.
Logan, UT 84321
435-753-6154
lorainepace@ut.gQV
Senate District #25
Lyle Hillyard
175 E.IOON.
Logan, UT 84321
435-753-0043
Ihillyard@utahsenate.org
Find Your Representative or Senator:
Legislative District #1. Eli H, Anderson
Amalga, Benson, Clarkston, Mendon, Newton
Legislative District #3. Craig Buttars
Northwest Logan, Cornish, Cove, Hyde Park, Lewiston, N . Logan, Richmond, Smithfield, Trenton
Legislative District #4. Loraine Pace
Logan, part orN. Logan
Legislative District #5. Brent D. Parker
Southwest Logan, Collcg/Young Ward, Hyrum, Millville, Nibley, Paradise, Providence, River Heights,
Wellsville
Senate District #24. Peter C. Knudson
Cliffside area and south and west zones in Logan, CollegeNoung Ward, Hyrum, Millville, Nibley,
Paradise, Providence, River Heights, Wellsville
Senate District #25. Lyle Hillyard
Logan, Amalga, Benson, Clarkston, Cornish, Cove, Hyde Park, Lewiston, Mendon, Newton, N. Logan,
Richmond, Smithfield, Trenton
�NOTEWORTHY AVIAN RESOURCES OF THE GREAT SALT LAKE
Prepared by Don Paul o~ th~ Utah Di~si6n of Wildlife Resources
The following table outlines ·selected avian population and status values attributed to Great Salt
Lake habitats. The Great Salt Lake ecosystem is one of the most important wildlife habitats on
ihis hemisphere. .
.
SPECIES
WI1~on's Phalarope -
POPULATION AND STATUS VALUES
• 800,000, Largest staging concentration in the world. 1998 count
Red-Necked Phalarope-
280,000 in a single day estimate, Paul 1986
American Avocet-
250,000, many times higher than any other wetland in the
Pacific Flyway, Shuford 1994
Black-Stilt-
65,000 many times higher than any other wetland in the
Pacific Flyway, Shuford 1994
Marbled Godwit-
30,000, the onlistaging area in the interior USA, Shuford 1994
S~owy
10,000, the world's largest assembJage, representing 55% of the
entire breeding population west of .the Rocky Mnts., Paton 1
.992
Plover-
Western Sandpiper-
17,000, on.-flock, Paul 1994
Long-Billed Dowitcher-
32,000, single day count, Shuford 1994
White Pelican-
18,000 breeding adults, one of the three largest colonies in western
North America, Paul 1994
White-Faced Ibis-
7,500 breeding adillts, worlds largest breeding population,
US Fish & Wddlife Service status reporis 1982
California GoU-
160,000 breeding adults, worlds largest breeding population,
White 1992
Eared Grebe-
• 1.4I)1jJjj!,n--!O£Ond largest staging population in North America,
1998 count
Per~grineFalcon-
11 active pairs of this listed endangered species, Paul 1994
Bald Eagle-
Over 500 wintering bald eagles associated with GSL, one of top
ten winter populations in the lower 48 stat~s, National Wildlife
Federation mid-winter bald eagle survey reports
Bank Swallow-
Over 10,000 in one flock, GSL represents one of the largest
. migratory corridors in Western North America, Paton 1994
�-
NOTEWORTIIY WATERFOWL RESOURCES ·
OF THE GREAT SALT LAKE
Prepared by Tom A1dricb oftbe Utah Division ofW~dlifeResources
<
BREEDING
MIGRATION
SPECIES
Tundra Swan ~
0
60,000
· Ipoqooo
Pintail . Gadwall-
. 2000
100,000
40,000
Cinnamon Teal -
80,000
40,000
~.
500,000
<65,000
60,000
15,000
600,000
Rare
50,000
2,000
150,000 ·
20,000
50,000
Minor
100,000
10,000.
Mallard
Ruddy-
. Green-winged TealCanada Geese Redhead -
Canvasback ~
Shoveller -
"Approximately 30 percenl (3,000,000 of 10,000,000) of the ducb of the Pacific
and Central Flyways use the Great Salt Lake marshes". Rawley, Wildlife of the Great
Salt Lake
·
.
.
�Logan City Mayor
Members of the Logan City Council
Regarding the "Wild & Scenic" designation of the Logan River,
find attached one viewpoint regarding the economic implications
that can surround a quality fishery.
Thanks for your consideration,
Tim King
Conservation chair
Cache Anglers, a Trout Unlimited chapter
�& U€,>
&Maybe 1've mellowed some in recent years, or maybe I
just got tired of the lopsidedness of having infinite patience
with fish and almost none with my fellow humans, but I'm
beginning to get a somewhat different perspective on
crowded trout streams. It turns out there is more than one
way to look at this.
For one thing, fish eries conservation-as a subheading
under conservation in general-is a serious political issue
that will only get more important with time . W ith that in
mind I can now som etimes look up and down a river and see
not so much a crowd as a constituency: a mob of people that
any politician would be happy to see at a rally if they supported him , o r terrified to see if they dido't. There are days
when I even wish there we re two or three more people on the
water, like maybe the go'·emor and a couple of congressm en .
Not even the President of the Un ited States is immune to
what he ca ll s, with typica l style. "the environmental thing."
Exchange the politician fo r an investment banker and anothe r pe rspective kicks in . Call it environmental economics
or , if you prefer, econom ic environmentalism.
No fly fi sherman has [ 0 be shown studies to know that
large amounts of money are spent on the s port-not just on
tackle and licenses, but also on food, travel, lodging, guides,
beer and so on . Nor dQC!s he have to be told that trout a re an
indicator species that need cold , clean , unspoiled water.
When m ost of us look at a hog hole on a normal day, we
see a fine piece of trout water that's twenty times m ore
crowded than it should be , but a sharp investment type sees
something else: H e sees a si tuation where a healthy natura l
environment is not an im pediment to the development of
industry; he sees that in this case a healthy envi ronment is
the industry .
Yes, I have been hang ing out with with some of these guys
lately . A lot of them like to fish.
When access is finall y limited on som e of these waters,
most fishermen will see it as a shame, but already some
businessmen I know are say ing things like, " Wait a minute.
You mean you have a product so good you have to tum away
customers ?"
I cringe at the thought, but if we assume for the moment
that wild trout are a product and fishermen are the custome rs, there are some interesting implications.
For instance, m aybe the raving radical environmentalist
who was running around a decade ago demanding that the
envi ronment be saved and citing truth, beauty and poetry as
reason s can now come back and say. "My associates and I
would like to show you how minimum flows and special
regula tions on your stream could bring somewhere between
one and three million dollars a year into the local economy."
As an earth-hippie you were treated with strained politeness at best, but now, suddenly. they're calling you "Mister"
and paying for your lunch, even though your agenda hasn 't
changed a bit .
r
JOIf<.!
6, £/'LIfB'
�To put it another way. you can make conservation work by
convincing people that preserving this forest or that trout
stream is the right thing to do, or you can show them that it's
not only right, but lucrative .
What we're talking ahout here is a modest local industry,
but it 's one that involves no factories , no pollution , no new
housing, schools, sewers, water taps, fire trucks, police, etc.
Or you can see it as a tourist anraction that doesn't have to
turn the town into a carnival and half its citizens into cheap
hucksters in coonskin caps. A good trout stream won't bring
in the wealth of an oil field, but it will be clean, Quiet, dignified, permanent and profitable enough to make looking into
ih~ wa ter rights WO,1:hwhile~
-;;:;;;;;;;:;;;;;;;;;;======~-:.:..: ::::~====~
-
" Will this actually work?" asks o ne 01 the skeptics In the
chamber of commerce.
"Well," you can say, "look at that quality stretch of the
Such-and-such Riv. r. So many people fish it they're trying
to figure out how to cut down on the crowds ." At that moment you remember being elbowed out of your fa vo rite run
fondl y, because you can say with conviction, "Trust me, if
the trout are here, the people will come ."
Hell, they won't even have to advertise. You know how
hard it is to keep good fi shing a secret .
To man y activists, ,hi s kind of thing amounts to swimming with the sharks. 1 suppose it does when you think about
it, but it 's still possible that the most environmentally meaningfll l thing you can do right now is teach a h2n:"cr new to
fish and' then take him to the jewel in the crown of the state's
fisheries on a Saturda~' :afternoon.
From an economic standpoint , this kind of thing requires
what can seem like some radical thinking. After all, what
we're talking about is existing in some kind of long-term
harmony with the natur II environment and making a decent
living at it. but we're " at talking about getting fabulou sly
rich overnight. We're I. ' king at the possibility-or maybe I
should say the necessity --of being reasonabl e for a change .
Still (believe it or not) there are some bu sinessmen out
there who understand th.. : nur old boom-and-bust, exploitthe- resource-a nd-move-.m program is just not going to work
anymore. The problem i:., even if you can bring yourself to
sanction rape for profit , the re's getting to be a crucial shortage of victims.
And I th ink being reasonable should include us fisherm en ,
too . Unfortunately, some of us have gotten into a kind of
junk bond mentality from fishing the hog holes. I 've actuall y
talked to guys who won't admit the fishing was "good" unless they were tuna-boati n~ 20-inch trout all day long. But
the fact is. many of our be ho.~ holes are tailwater fi sheri es
that have been arti fi cially Haled by the effects of bottom draw dam s. Some of them veren't as good when they were
wild rive rs. and I know of . t least one that held carp ins tead
of trout before the dam we rll in .
�On the other hand, a normal, run-of-the-mill, healthy
trout s tream that's managed properly with minimum flows
and appropriate regulations will likely produce something
less spectacular; say, 12- to 14-inch wild, pretty trout with
the occasional 16· to IS-inch bomber. Some of us could
easily lin with that, and maybe 3 few more of us ought to.
If we spread out a little more, we'll not only have more
_ ._.__ ..=_ ====:.=I.~OO:
--..... , - ___ =
-, _ _
_
~
~
..fi.&h..mou-\Q.l\.t.w4~~~!
S5t>2 :oM~:C-'~3tlnU
hi iiiOf€
0') to
~ &ee.-w~:!I~also--opreaa..ttr~·wari:n=dOIM,$"""'\illOuild
~_ _ _
-==
y
businesses in more little towns.• and the local chambers of
commerce will begin to make the obvious connection: The
better the fishing is, the more money they'll make.
It's just conceivable that if we developed all our fisheries
to their full potential, the economic benefits would be
enough to make it worthwhile. In the end it's a matter of
attitude. (Remember that much of life, not to mention
some great ideas, depends on nothing more than your point
of view.) Crowded hog holes can be seen as proof that the
sport is headed for ruin, or they can be used as evidence of
just how much a good trout stream is worth in dollars and
cents .
And if you measure value in mor.e spiritud and aesthetic
terms, fine. Just between you and me, that 's what it really
comes down to in the end. All the rest of this is just a
convenient illusion , but it is convenient.
I know this sounds like an oversimplified romantic idea,
but then so did catch-and-release fishing a generation ago. I
know there is at least a handful of businessmen out there who
are beginning to like the economic approach to conservation
(or vice versa), and it 's easy to see how this could be used to
lever those politicians who are telling us we can have a
healthy environment and a healthy economy. Many of those
guys made that promise off the tops of their heads because it
sounded good. Imagine how relieved they'd be to learn that
it could actually happen.
.
�March 9, 1999
Mayor Douglas Thompson, Members of the Logan City Council
255 North Main Street
Logan, Utah 84321
RE: Logan River Wild and Scenic River Designation Proposal
Dear Mayor Thompson and Members of the Logan City Counci1:
I am writing to provide information relevant to the proposal that the Logan City Council support
designation of the Logan River as a wild and scenic River.
By way of introduction, I am a natural resource consultant with 25 years of river policy experience. I am a
recognized expert in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, having managed wild and scenic river programs for the
National Park Service and consulted with both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management on wild
and scenic river issues. I have drafted Federal Wild and Scenic River legislation and was the originator of
many of the guidelines currently used by Federal agencies to evaluate wild and scenic river eligibility. t am also
a native Utahn (though exiled to Massachusetts for the past 20 years) and was a resident of Cache Valley for
several years. I am very familiar with the Logan River: I served as supervisor of recreational guards for the
Logan Ranger District and have visited the canyon frequently since then. I provided substantive comments on
the Wasatch-Cache National Forest's 1994 and 1999 draft rivers inventories.
The Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is a complex piece of legislation, and there is no end to the
misinformation regarding its effects on land use, private property rights, water rights, etc. To aid in your
deliberations, I have taken the liberty to address some of the questions that might arise on this subject (please
note that, while I favor protection of the Logan River, I have consciously tried to set my opinion aside and to
present objective, verifiable information based on my professional knowledge of the Federal Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act and of rivers that have been designated as wild and scenic rivers):
What are the general effects of a river being deSignated as a wild and scenic river?
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has two primary consequences for designated rivers. First, no new dams
may be constructed within a designated river segment. Second, no Federal action may be taken that wouJd
have a negative effect on the river's natural functioning or on the natural resource values for which it was
designated. The term "Federal action" refers to: (a) Federal permits, (b) Federal funding, and (c) Federal lands
management. This does not mean that Federal permits and funding are prohibited, only that these must be
compatible with the continued conservation of the river. The effect on Forest Service land management is
discussed below.
What effect would designation of the Logan River as a wild and scenic river have on forest land use?
The Forest Service would continue to manage Logan Canyon and the river corridor. Campgrounds and
picniC areas along the river would continue to serve public needs and other land uses couJd continue.
However, in making management decisions, the Forest Service would have to explicitly consider the effect of
its actions on the river and would be prohibited from taking actions that would harm the river or the natural
and recreational resource values for which it was designated. (For Logan River, these values include fisheries,
scenery, geological and hydrological values, recreation, and, pOSSibly, wildlife.) This means that campground
improvements, trails, etc., would need to respect the river's natural processes (this would be required
regardless), and grazing permits would need to be monitored to ensure that the natural condition of riparian
areas is maintained and water quality is not impaired. Forestry and hunting would not be affected.
How would designation affect private property?
Most of the lands along the affected portion of Logan River are in Federal ownership. There are a few
private parcels and a block of State land. Private property will continue to be subject to the same State and
local land use regulations as is now the case (designation only affects Federal actions). The lands that are part
of the State/Federal land swap will likewise be subject to State and local land use regulations. While the
�Federal government could not dictate how these lands are used, it is reasonable to think that the State might
wish to cooperate with the Forest Service in conserving these important riverine areas. Several creative land
management strategies could be employed that both meet State needs and protect the river corridor.
Note also that research suggests that wild and scenic designation would have a positive effect on private
land values. This is because buyers are willing to pay a premium to live near natural areas when there is a
guarantee of continued conservation.
What effect would this have on tourism?
Only a select few rivers are designated as wild and scenic. No Utah river has been designated as such yet.
It stands to reason that designation of the Logan River would be perceived as an attraction for visitors
considering coming to the area. Research on the subject bears this out, but also suggests that the extent to
which tourism is enhanced depends on how actively local interests publicize this. (I am personally aware of
rivers where designation has been publicized and others where it purposely has not been publicized. Both
strategies have been used to good effect.) I would suspect that, in the case of the Logan River, Cache Valley
civic and business interests would be wise to tastefully publicize designation. For example, the State tourist
map could be modified to note this, as could Cache Valley tourism brochures. Tourism-related businesses,
Utah State University, and others could use the designation to demonstrate their proximity to important
scenic resources. From a national perspective, Federal maps showing important natural areas would include
the river.
Would designation prohibit highway expansion?
Wild and scenic designation does not preclude bridge repair, resurfacing, or even roadway relocation.
However, as referenced above, Federal permits (Clean Water Act, 404 permits, Forest Service special use
permits, etc.) and Federal funds could only be made available if these actions were compatible with continued
conservation of the river and its corridor. With regard to the Logan Canyon, decisions regarding whether or
not the proposed action would meet the standards of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act would be made by the
Forest Service. Based on the information I have on the highway proposal, it is my professional opinion that
.designation as a wild and scenic river would not ereclude improvement to the highway. It would, however,
r uire that UDOT take special precautions, bot in desi~ and construction to ensure that the road does not
and scenic resources are preserved, an
at short-term ISru tions
a ter ow re 'mes, that 1m or an na
"to t e river are mimnuz . ven if this costs a Itt e more, It wou a resuIfin a supenor project at meets ong:
term multiple needs.
Would designation affect existing downstream uses?
Designation would not affect the existing diversion of water to the North Logan Canal (which is govemed
by State law), nor would the downstream dams or power plant be affected. Repairs to and management of
these dams could continue as in the past. Designation would not affect downstream diversions, land use, etc.,
as the river flows through Logan and into the lower valley.
How would downstream water quality be affected?
This is an area often overlooked. Currently, the City of Logan has very little control over upstream Federal
actions that could have an adverse impact on wa ter quality. Designation of a river as wild and scenic places
significant constraints on upstream actions that would increase sedimentation, water temperature, or
pollutants. It also increases opportunity for local input into the Forest Service decision process. I can think of
few other actions that would ensure long-term protection of downstream water quality more than designation
of an upstream area as a wild and scenic river. In the long run, this may be the most compelling reason for the
City to support wild and scenic designation.
Can we trust that future management of the river will be in keeping with the concepts outlined above?
If the river is designated as a wild and scenic river, a management plan would be prepared that would
guide future management. Active involvement in the development of this plan by the City would help to
ensure that local interests are represented. Also, it is entirely appropriate for the Federal designating
�legislation to contain specific provisions that will guarantee certain agreements. For example, provisions could
be included that guarantee that the existing downstream hydro facility would not be affected by designation.
Or, it could be directed that the City of Logan have an active role in implementation of certain aspects of the
management plan.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this information. If you have further questions about the effects
of wild and scenic river designation, please feel free to contact me. [f I don't have the answer, I will research it
for you or put you in contact w ith others who can help you. You can reach me by phone, fax, or email.
In dosing, I wish to emphasize that the Logan River is a very special place. It is the last intact large river
system along Utah's population belt. It is also, as was made evident in the recent Forest Service rivers
inventory, the most Significant river in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. You are very fortunate to have this
special natural resource in your backyard, and it is in Logan's interest to ensure that it continues to be
available for the use and enjoyment of future generations.
Sincerely,
Drew O. Parkin
15 Thingvalla Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 876-6173
(617) 491-3450
Drew _Parkin@msn.com
�February 16, 1999
Bernie Weinga rdt, Forest Supervisor
Wasatch-Cache Na tional Forest
8236 Federal Building
125 S. State
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Dear Supervisor Weingardt,
Thank you for sending us a copy of the draft Wild and Scenic eligibility study for ri vers in
the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. We are pleased to see that seve ral rivers in the Logan River
drainage have been identified as eligible for desig nation. We appreciate the opportunity to
pro vide some co mments on this study. We are especially concerned about the eligible segment
of the Logan Ri ve r from Beaver Creek to Third Dam. We would like to discuss two issues: the
tentative classifica tion of this river segment, and the w ildlife a long this segment.
1. Classifica ti on of the Logan River from Beaver Creek to Third Da m
This segment has been given a preliminary classification of Recreational. We are curi ous
why it has received th is rating, as the stud y provides no reason whatsoever. We believe this
classification is not correc t for the upper stretch of th is segment. We recommend that this
segment be divided fo r the purpose of classification. The segment from Beaver Creek to just
below Lower Twin Bridge should be classified as Scenic, while the segment from just below
Lower Twin Bridge to Third Dam can be classified as Recreati onal.
The segmen t of the Logan from Beave r Creek to just below Lower Twin Bridge sa tisfies the
criteria for a Scenic river as outlined in the draft eligibility study, page E-14. The criteria for a
Scenic river are:
"'Free of impoundmen t. According to the draft eligibility study, there are no "full-scale"
impoundments in this segment (page V-57).
"'Largely primitive and und eveloped, with no substantial evidence of human activity.
Although highway 89 runs along the length of this segment, the ri ver and its banks are largely
primiti ve and undeveloped. The study notes that few obse rvers of the river would notice any
changes from a purely natural character (VS7). There is excellent riparian vegetation along much
of this segment screening the highway from the river and giving the river and its banks a
na tural appea rance. From the perspective of the river and its banks there is no substantial
evidence o f human activity.
*The presence of grazing, hay production or row crops is acceptable. The study does not identi fy
any concerns with grazing, hay production or row crops.
"'Evidence of past or ongoing timber harvest is acceptable, provided the forest appears natural
from the riverbank The study does not identify any concerns here.
�"Accessible in places by road . The river is accessible in places by road.
"Roads may occasiona lly reach or bridge the river; the existence of short stretches of
conspicuous or longer stre tches of inconspicuous road s or rail roa ds is acceptable. Highway 89
runs along the length of this segment, but for most of this distance the road is screened off from
the river by the ripa ria n vegetation. Logan Ri ver ripa rian vegeta tion is considered am ong the
"best preserved in the state" (U tah Department of Transportati on, FEIS, U.S. High way 89, 1993,
page 9-59). Along most of this segment the road is inconspicuous from the river and its banks.
People who fish, kaya k, picnic, and walk along the banks enjoy a na tural ri ver environment w ith
little or no intrusion o f highwa y sights and so und s.
This segment of the Logan satisfies the criteria for a Scenic river. It far exceeds the
stand ard s for a Recreationa l river, which allows low dams, river diversions, development, and
"substanti al evidence of human activity" (E-lS). This segment should therefore be classified as
Scenic. The segment from just below Lower Twin Bridge to Third Dam contains an
impoundm ent, the inunda ted area above Third Dam . Also, the highway is quite close to the
river, with little screening. This segment can be class ified as Recreationa L
We are pleased to note that, according to the d raft eligibility study, the Logan Ri ver from
Beaver Creek to Third Dam has five outstandingly rema rkable va lues, scene ry, the fishery,
ecology, geology and recrea tion. The study shows tha t this segment has more outstandingly
re ma rkable va lues than any other river in the forest. This provides an argument for a Scenic
classifica tion. The Logan fro m Beaver Creek to just below Lower Twin Bridge should be
classified as Scenic in ord er to better p rotect its fi ve outsta nd ingly remarkable values. A Scenic
classificati on woul d be an effective management too L It is not consistent with the construction
of dams and dive rsions, and with the development of the ri ver area for residential or
agricultural use. The re may be "no substanti al evidence of hum an activity." This man agement
prescripti on would help protect especially the scenery, fishery, and ecology of this river segment.
A classificati on of Recreational, on the other hand, might be interpreted as allowing
d evelop ment ha rmful to these values.
. Wildlife conce rns
As we sta ted in our letter of October 20, 1998, we believe tha t the comparison region used
in this study for eva lua ting wildlife is too la rge. It stretches north to include Yellowstone and the
Bighorn Moun tains, east to include the Colorado Rocky Mounta ins, and south to almost
Albuquerq ue. Rivers in the Wasa tch-Cache a re compa red to ri vers in Yellows tone National
Park, Grand Teton Na tiona l Pa rk, and Rocky Mountain Na tiona l Pa rk for di versi ty and
un iq ueness of species a nd hab itats. It's an unfa ir compa rison. The Wasatch-Ca ch e is not
managed for "big and showy" species such as bison, wolves, and grizzly bea rs. The Wild and
Scenic Rive r Review in the State of Utah, Process and Criteria for Interagency Use, 1996, states
"Compa rative regions should not be so large as to unreasonabl y limit outstandingly remarkable
rive rs to only those few that stand out as the very best in the nation." We believe the
comparison region fo r wild life in this stud y is inconsistent with this policy.
Furthermore, we are concerned that the discussions of w ildlife in the draft eligibility stud y
a re incomple te and possibly incorrect. The segment of the Logan from Beaver Creek to Third
Darn is about 20 miles long, yet the only wildlife species mentioned in the discussion of this
�segment is the western big-eared bat. This d iscussion seems incomplete. There is no men tion of
other important wi ldlife species known to occur in Logan Canyon, for example, the boreal owl,
flammulated owl, goshawk, and the three- toed woodpecker (Biological Assessment / Evaluation,
1995, Record of Decision, U.s, Highway 89, Logan Canyon, Wasa tch-Cache National Forest), The
wolverine has a medium probability of occurrence in Logan Canyon. These are all Forest Service
sensitive species. For these species, population and/or habitat viabili ty is of concern. By the
wildlife standard reported on page E9 of the study, these species should be included in the
discussion o f w ildlife in this segment. The stud y also does not mention moose and mule deer,
yet these species a re frequently seen along the Logan Ri ver. Elk are also sighted along the river.
For the upper tributaries of the Logan, including Beaver Creek, the study reports the
presence of moose, elk and deer. It also reports the presence of the flammulated owl. It reports
the presence of suitable habitat for the borea l owl, goshawk, wolverine and three-toed
wood pecker, but states that "none of these sensitive species are known to occur" along these
tributaries. However, the Wasatch-Cache in its ]995 Biological Assessment / Evaluation reports
the presence of these species in Logan Canyon.
We recommend tha t the discussions of wildlife in the Logan River drainage be rewritten
to be more complete. They should reflect information in the 1995 Biological
Assessment/ Evaluation. Also, the study should also adopt a more reasonable region of
com parison for w ildlife. We believe the segmen t of the Logan from Beaver Creek to Third Dam
is outstandingly remarkab le for wildlife based upon the presence of moose, mule deer, elk, and at
least fou r sensitive wildlife species including the western big-eared bat. The upper tributaries are
outstandingly remarkable for wild life based upon the presence of moose, mule deer, elk, and at
least four sensiti ve species including the flammulated owl.
Thank you for considering these comments.
Since rely,
Dan Miller, President
Logan Ca nyon Coalition
cc:
Gordon Steinhoff, Board Chair
Tom Scott, U.s. Forest Service
Drew Parkin, Consultant in Ri ver Resource Management, Planning and Policy
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Image Height
3329
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
2602
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/365">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/365</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
300
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
Grayscale
Checksum
2445154653
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/reports related to the Wild and Scenic River designation for the Logan River
Description
An account of the resource
Wild and scenic rivers act, reprints of articles printed in "Canyon Wind"
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Government agencies
Environmental policy
United States Highway 89
Logan River (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1996
1997
1998
1999
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 9
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd9
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/c2426fa2e227f35a667fc7101ded784e.pdf
c9f2681871dc67d47bca3d7ce872f5be
PDF Text
Text
· /:
,
Pete Morton, Ph.D.
Environmental Consultant
9390 W. 14th Avenue
Lakewood, CO
80215
(303) 202-0442
pmorton@du.edu
February 27, 1996
Peggy Wood
67 1/ 2 S. 500 West
Logan, UT 84321
Dear Peggy:
Thanks for your phone call, I was hoping you would find me, as I
had lost your number and address. Jill and I hope to close on our
new home soon -- at which time our address and phone number will
change -- so e - mail may be the best form of communication until
then.
As I mentioned on the phone I thought the Appeal to the Chief was
excellent and raised some important and valid points.
had
some
time
to
pull
together
environmental audit of t h e FEIS.
the following pages.
my
initial
I
thoughts
finally
for
an
I will briefly outline them on
If the Coalition would like me to expand the analYSis , I will have
some time later this spring, but my summer and fall schedule is
filling up quickly. Let me know.
t1:
re
,
Pete Morton
P.S.
Have you been able to obtain the Environmental Grant book
from Island Press?
�PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT OF THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY
Prepared by
Pete Morton, Ph.D.
1.
page 9-1 1.
(9.3.2.12) .
The cost-benefi t analysis was deleted
in the FEIS because of the difficulty of assigning costs and
benefits of aesthetic values. Although t he se non-market costs
and benefits are difficult to estimate, there are many
economic studies published in peer-reviewed journal s that
estimate recreation, environmental and aesthetic va lues.
People may also be willing to pay to insure that Logan Canyon
will exist in its present form for future generations to enjoy.
Such non-use, intangible benefits have also been recogn i zed in
the economic literature and are included in es timates of total
economic value . Some discussi on on n on-use benefits and total
economic value of recreation in Logan Canyon seems warranted .
2.
page 9-12
(9.3 .2.13)
The traffic growth rates should be
carefully examine.
Do these rates take into cons ideration
transportation imp'rovements planned elsewhere in the regi on?
Are individual projects double counting? The r-squared may be
too low and there may be other problems with the regression.
How many years o f data were u sed to calibrate the regression
used for the projections?
3.
page 9- 1 2
(9 . 3.2.14) Forest Plan compli ance . Is this based
on compliance with t h e old forest plan?
The forest plans
developed during the fir st round of forest planning t h at I
have reviewed need serious revisions .
A better question to
ask is whet her the planned construction is conSistent with
ecosystem management and the new concepts (e . g. landscape
analysis, etc.) that should be used to develop new forest
pl ans.
4.
The FEIS makes assurances that a revegetation plan will be
prepared and implemented to mitigate the direct and indire ct
impacts to wildlife .
How much will the revegetation plan
cost?
Where will the money come from ?
What budget
constrai nt s exist that will prevent full implementation of the
plan?
In the past , federal agencies have ignored budget
constraints in planning. This failure should be a concern in
these times of s h rin king federal a nd state budgets.
Logan Ca nyon FEIS
Morton
Page 1
�5.
page 9-39. The DEIS stated that mining and logging were major
use s along the project area. Although this was revised in the
FEIS, did this statement impact the Forest Service decision to
approve the project?
6.
page 9 -4 2 . The issue of noise was raised a nd its impact on
recreation experiences. How did they evaluate noise impacts
to determine they were less than 3 dBA? Construction projects
involving heavy equipment will decrease the quality of the
recreational experience .
Even if temporary, the decline in
recreation experiences during construction should be included
as an economic cost in the benefit-cost analysis.
7.
page 9-42.
One of the important facto rs contribut ing to a
quality recreationa l experience (whet her fishing, hiking or
driving for pleasure) is scenic beauty, or visual quality .
Scenic beauty should be an important management consideration
because of the steep slopes in Logan Canyon. Steep slopes are
c l assified by landscape architects as "visually vulnerable",
meaning they have an inherent resistance or susceptibili ty to
degrading visual impacts. The steeper the slope, the greater
its visible surface and the greater the potential for
increased visual disruption.
8.
page 9-43.
Conunent pl23.
The FEIS states that UDOT ' s
deCision not to undertake visual quality improvements for the
Conservationist's alternative was because the improvements did
not justify the costs. This decision cannot be made without
a benefit-cost analysis -- which was dropped from the FEIS.
If a B-C analysis was completed, what benefits were attributed
to improvements in visual quality?
The improved visual
quality in the Conservationist's alternative should be counted
as a benefit in a B-C ana l ysis, while the costs of decreased
visual quality in the preferred a lte r native shou ld be counted
as a cost.
9.
page 9-45.
The short term loss of Class II fisheries is a
cost that should be counted as such in a B- C analysis . Will
budget constraints prevent full
rehabilitation of the
fisheries:
There is also some risk that the mitigation and
rehabilitation efforts will fail .
If rehabilitation efforts
incl ud e the replacement of native fish with stocked fish there
may be some loss of genetic diversity and some long-te rm costs
in terms of a potential decline in the health of native fish
populations.
Page 2
Morton
Logan Canyon FEIS
�10.
page 9-65. As pointed out by the Mayor
will be significant economic impacts
construction. How long is the proposed
Will the Conservation Alternative be a
of Garden City , there
during the proposed
construction project?
shorter project?
I did not see much discussion of the economic impacts on local
communities. These impacts may be very significant for small
businesses
unable
to
survive
the
con s tru c ti o n-indu ced
recession . The discussion of employment impacts should focus
on net j ob change -- job creation l ess potential job losses .
Also, not all jobs are equal.
Small business owners and
employees that live and spend money in a community are more
important to a local economy ( may have a higher multiplier)
than temporary, non-local construction workers that live and
spend their paychecks elsewhere -- and who may move on after
the project is completed .
11.
page 9-75.
Dr . Wilson points out the potential long-term
impacts on fish populations from channelization, etc.
Once
again, these impacts represent economic costs that should be
included in the benefit-cost analysis .
12.
page 9-79 . Although the B-C was not included in the FEIS, Ken
Theis points out that it undervalued the recreation time spent
in the canyon and overesti mates the benefits of speed. This
is probably correct. Researchers have estimated the benefits
of recreation and an economic analysis of those recreation
benefits in Logan Canyon could be completed .
One method u sed is the travel cost method where recreation
benefits are partially based on travel time . Typically travel
time is multipli ed by a percentage of hourly wage to estimate
the recreation benefits from travel .
A decrease in travel
time as a result of the construction may actually represent an
economic cost from a recreation standpoint.
In addition, if the construction increases speed, and if
"speed kills", than there may be a safety cost associated with
the construction.
Accidents at higher speeds can be more
severe and frequent. Are there any studies that contrast the
safety records of wider, faster highways with slower highways
with pullouts through canyons?
Logan Canyon FEIS
Morton
Page 3
�13 .
page 9-87. Comments from Brad Lengas , a doctoral student at
Utah State, indicate that the FEIS ignored the impacts of the
large -scale highway con s truction di s turbances o n populations
of 9 different bat species. This could be significant as bats
provide an ins ect control service to humans -- a service with
potentially significant economic benefits. HBats consume all
type s of insects, including those which are obnoxi ous to
humans (one Little Brown bat can con sume 600 mosquito s per
hour) and tho s e which can cause crop damag e (various beetles
and bugs)."
Sc ientists note that predation plays an important role i n
ending pest e pidemics and in lengt hening the periods between
pes t outbreaks.
If the bat populations decline, insect
infestations may be longe r, more frequent and mor e intense.
In a ddition to increased crop damage, increased insect
populations will decrease the quality o f all forms of n onwinter recreation, with a r esulting l oss of benefits.
The
FEIS should address the impact of constru ction on b at
populations, the potential benefits of sustaining ba t s and
t h e ir habita t , and the costs of not doing so.
14.
page 9-89 . Scott George provides an e x ce lle n t critique of the
DE IS .
He raises an interesting alternative of build i ng a n
add iti onal medical facility rather than extensive highway
improveme nt s . How g reat is the emergency med ica l n eed of Rich
County res idents? Can a small satellite c lini c or h ospital
handle this n eed?
What are the costs of bu ildi ng such a
fac ili ty and how do they compare to the additional hi g hway
constr uction costs of the chosen alterna ti ve?
Potential benefits of the hospital construction al t ernative
include: 1) short term con stru ction jobs ; 2) long-term, hi g h
paying me dic a l jobs and residentiary se r vice jobs; and 3)
improved i nfrastruc ture a nd health serv i ces that will enhance
future economic development potential in Rich County.
15.
page 9 -1 30 . Comme nt s by Ken Theis poi nt o u t t h e appa ren t bias
in the benef it- cost calcu lus.
His observations seems to be
correct . Miti gat ion costs should be incl u ded in the B/C, and
the recreation benefits shou l d be f ully accounted for.
Page 4
Morton
Logan Canyon FEIS
�,I
May 10, 1995
Mr. Jack Ward Thomas, Chief
USDA Forest Service
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, D.C. 20090-6090
Re: Notice of Appeal and Statement of Reasons
USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Record of Decision
U.S. Higbway 89, Logan Canyon
Wasatcb-Cacbe National Forest
Dear Mr. Thomas,
Pursuant to 36 CFR part 215, the Logan Canyon Coalition and the Utah Rivers
Conservation Council hereby appeals the USDA Forest Service, Intermountain
Region, Record of Decision concerning U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon in the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest. This decision was signed on March 31 , 1995 by Dale
N. Bosworth, Regional Forester. This decision amends the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan so that it is consistent with the Utah
Department of Transponation's (UDOn modified Preferred Alternative, as described in
UDOT' s Record of Decision. The Forest Service is also granting a transportation
easement across the Wasatch-Cache National Forest to UDOT for the sake of this
project.
Appellants base their appeal of this decision on the reasons included herein.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
enclosure
Kevin Kobe, President
Logan Canyon Coalition
(801) 753-5031
�NOTICE OF APPEAL AND STATEMENT OF REASONS
Pursuant to 36 C.F.R., Part 215
Appellants:
Logan Canyon Coalition
U.S.U. Box 1674
Logan, UT 84322-0199
(801) 753-5031
(80 I) 753-0497
Kevin Kobe, President
Jaynan Chancellor, Treasurer
Dr. Gordon Steinhoff
Tim Wagner, Vice-President
Dan Miller, Secretary
Dr. Thomas J. Lyon
Steve Flint
Don R. Hickman
Utah Rivers Conservation Council
1471 South llOO East
Salt Lake City, UT 84105
(80 I) 486-3161
Zachary Frankel, Director
Counsel for Appellants:
Ms. Kate Zimmerman
1320 Claremont Drive, Boulder, CO 80303
(303) 494-1706
Decision Document:
USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Record of Decision,
March 31, 1995
U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Deciding Officer:
Dale N. Bosworth, Regional Forester, Intermountain Region
2
�Decision Appealed:
We appeal the decision to:
(i.) amend the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
so that it is consistent with the Utah Department of Transportation's (UDOT) modified
Preferred Alternative, as described in UDOT's Record of Decision, and,
(ii.) grant a transportation easement across the Wasatch-Cache National Forest to
UDOT for the purpose of implementing the modified Preferred Alternative.
We seek the reversal of this decision until UDOT provides a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement in which they better document the need for, and the
environmental and economic impacts of, the modified Preferred Alternative. Also, we
seek the reversal of this decision until UOOT scales down its construction proposal so
as to present a genuine compromise between desired Level of Service and
environmental constraints. UDOT should reconsider the Conservationists'
Alternative, as described in Appendix A of this appeal. Finally, we seek the reversal of
this decision until the Forest Service has reevaluated the segment of the Logan River
from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek for Wild and Scenic River status.
Reasons for Objecting:
Appellants believe that UDOT has not adequately justified the need for its
modified Preferred Alternative through considerations of safety, AASHTO design
standards, traffic flow, or Level of Service. UDOT has not adequately assessed impacts
to wildlife, the fishery, wetlands, or water quality in Logan River. Negative economic
impacts have not been evaluated. UOOT's Record of Decision introduces aspects of
road construction, such as batch plants and haul roads, which were not evaluated in
the FEIS. Visual quality will be impaired in a manner inconsistent with guidelines
contained in the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan.
Furthermore, the Forest Service has agreed that the segment of the Logan River
from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek might be eligible for Wild and Scenic River
status, and that it should be reevaluated. A segment of the Logan River has been
identified as having, potentially, more outstandingly remarkable values than any other
river in the Wasatch-Cache Forest. Appellants are concerned that construction of
UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative, with its associated impacts to the river and to
the scenery, will degrade this river segment enough that it will no longer qualify for
Wild and Scenic status.
The Conservationists' Alternative improves the highway to an adequate extent,
while minimizing environmental and economic impacts. UDOT's modified Preferred
3
�Alternative is, therefore, neither reasonable nor necessary.
Appellants believe that the Forest Service's Record of Decision violates
guidelines within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resources
Management Plan concerning wildlife, fisheries habitat, road construction, water
quality, and economic impacts. The Forest Service is therefore in violation of the
National Forest Management Act. The Forest Service is also in violation of the
Federal Clean Water Act Antidegredation Policy that protects water quality and
designated uses of Logan River. With its dec ision to allow extensive construction
before Logan River is reevaluated for Wild and Scenic River status, the Forest Service
is in violation of the 5(d) planning requirements of the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act. The Forest Service is also violating guidelines and objectives within its
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan. Finally, with its inadequate
designation of 4(f) sites within Logan Canyon, the Forest Service is in violation of the
National Transportation Act.
Appellant's objections and reasons are described in more detail below.
On January 11 , 1995, representatives of the Logan Canyon Coalition,
appellants, met with Mr. Reese Pope, Forest Planner for the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest. We handed Mr. Pope a copy of our agenda for the meeting that outlined our
concerns with UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative. We told Mr. Pope that UDOT's
safety discussions in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of
Decision (ROD) appear to be based upon flawed traffic and accident data. Mr. Pope
told us that traffic and accident data is "not our province," referring to the Forest
Service. Appellants believe, however, that ensuring the accuracy of traffic and
accident data;s within the province of the Forest Service when a citizen's group that
can document serious study of this data indicates that this data is problematic. Our
concern is that the Fores t Service is permitting an extensive construction project in the
National Forest that is unnecessary.
We also told Mr. Pope of our concern that UDOT' s assessment of fishery
impacts is inadequate. We told him that we are worried, for example, that UDOT has
underestimated fish mortality by providing a simplistic account of the effects of
increased sedimentation. Mr. Pope replied that the predicted decrease in HCI value
appears to be within acceptable limits. Appellants still believe, however, that UDOT's
fishery discussion, induding its analysis of HCI, is inadequate.
Finally, we told Mr. Pope of our concern that proposed road construction will
hann the scenic and free-flowing characteristics of the Logan River enough that it will
not qualify for Wild and Scenic status when it is reevaluated. Mr. Pope expressed his
opinion th at proposed construction will not hann the eligibility of this river.
4
�Appellants respectfully disagree, and will argue in this appeal that the Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act requires that the Logan River receive interim protection until it is
reevaluated.
Several individual appellants, Dr. Thomas J. Lyon, Steve Flint, and Dr. Gordon
Steinhoff, can document long-standing interest in UDOT's construction plans in
Logan Canyon. We have been involved in early scoping hearings and on a UDOT
interdisciplinary team. We have written many letters to UDOT and other agencies
concerning UDOT' s DEIS, FEIS, and its Record of Decision.
The Utah Rivers Conservation Council, an appellant, is a non-profit
organization dedicated to achieving Wild and Scenic status for those rivers in Utah
that qualify. The long-standing interest of this organization in Logan River is
documented within the book A Citizen's Proposal to Protect the Wild Rivers of Utah,
written and researched by Zachary Frankel, Director of the Utah Rivers Conservation
Council.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
This Statement consists of the following sections:
I. History and Background, 2. Safety Issues, 3. AASHTO Standards and Highway
Design, 4. Wild and Scenic Rivers Issues, 5. Fishery Impacts, 6. Wildlife Impacts and
Sensitive Species, 7. Visual Retention, 8. Economic Impacts, 9. Wetlands, 10. Water
Quality, 11. Construction Impacts Not Evaluated in the FEIS, 12. 4(f) Sites.
There is also an Appendix that contains:
A. a map of Logan Canyon Highway 89, B. a description of the Conservationists'
Alternative, C. photos of the sensitive areas discussed in this appeal.
1. WSTQRY
AND BACKGROUND
The Logan Canyon project was originally envisioned as a bridge replacement
project, and has gradually evolved into a more extensive, 15 to 20 year construction
project. The scale of the project has generated massive opposition by area residents, as
evidenced by 309 letters in support of a lesser alternative, as opposed to 21 in support
of the Modified Standard, an alternative similar to the Preferred Alternative (FEIS,
Table 9-1). Hundreds of additional opposing letters were sent to the Utah Department
of Transportation (UDOT) in response to UDOT's adoption of the Preferred Alternative
as described in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (on file with Nadene
Steinhoff, Bridgerland Audubon Society). Numerous letters to the editor and local
5
�newspaper editorials opposing the Preferred Alternative have been published (Herald
JourfUJl, Cache Citizen, The Statesman, 1988-95). Four hundred protesters rallied in
the canyon in 1992 (Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News , Herald Journal, Cache Citizen,
KTVX Channel 4 News (ABC), KUTV Channel 2 News (NBC), April 25 and 26, 1992;
High Country News, June 1, 1992). UDOT received 682 signatures supporting a lesser
alternative prior to 1993, and hundreds of petition signatures after the release of the
FEIS, including petitions from Business People for the Canyon, Citizens for the
Protection of Logan Canyon, Logan Environmental Action Force, the Cache Sierra
Club, and Bridgerland Audubon Society (FEIS, Table 9-1).
Early in the process, citizens groups submitted their own highway improvement
alternative. The Conservationists' Alternative is described in Appendix B.
Appellants believe that the Utah Department of Transportation has never
justified the need for a project as extensive as the Preferred Alternative. even as it has
been modified in UDOT's Record of Decision. In the "Purpose and Need" section of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), UDOT relied heavily on the need
for a reduction in travel time, pointing to the economic benefits of travelers being able
to cut 4 to 8 minutes off their trip. Their costlbenefit analysis was based on
inappropriate assumptions that undervalued the time spent in the canyon and
overvalued the speed with which travelers moved through the canyon (DElS, Table 47). Logan Canyon has been recognized in numerous national magazines, for example,
the recent Audubon magazine (Bass, 1994). It was one of the first designated Forest
Service Scenic Byways. It is not merely a traffic conduit.
After an extensive barrage of public criticism at the idea of trading serious
environmental impacts for a 4 to 8 minute reduction in travel time, UDOT abandoned
its rhetoric about the time savings (FEIS, pages 9-3 to 9-151). Travel time is not
mentioned in the FEIS as a justification for this project. Rather, UDOT relies on
considerations of safety and Level of Service (FEIS, 1-3 to 1-18). The DEIS clearly
stated, however, that "safety is not a primary reason for this project" (DEIS, page 1-22).
Less than two pages were devoted to safety in the DEIS. Appellants believe that this
shift in attempts to justify the project between the DEIS and FEIS is evidence that this
project is not clearly justified. The modified Preferred Alternative is, literally, a
construction project in search of a justification.
UDOT's traffic and accident data is seriously flawed, and yet the Forest Service
has accepted this construction project even after being informed of these flaws
(Bridgerland Audubon Society letter to the Forest Service dated May 2, 1993; Logan
Canyon Coalition meeting with Reese Pope, Jan. 11 , 1995). UDOT's accident severity
data show a correlation between high speeds and high numbers of fatalities and serious
accidents on the already widened and straightened section of highway in the Lower
6
�Canyon. Appellants are concerned that the Forest Service is permitting UDOT to build
a more dangerous highway.
The gain in Level of Service with the modified Preferred Alternative over the
Conservationists' Alternative is marginal. and comes at the cost of greater
environmental destruction (FEIS, Table 2-1). UDOT and the Forest Service are not
taking advantage of flexibility allowed by the American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and by the Federal Highway Administration,
in order to protect scenic and environmental resources. UDOT and the Forest Service
also ignore recommendations from the Intermodel Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 (ISTEA), caUing for greater emphasis on public involvement in highway
design, preservation of scenic beauty, recognition and preservation of Scenic Byways,
and prevention of adverse effects on water quality and wetlands.
UDOT has attempted to portray the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway, classified as
a minor arterial, as a critical link in the nation 's highway system. This attempt to
justify the project is dishonest. The FEIS displays maps portraying U.S. 89 through
Logan Canyon as a critical undeveloped link in a highway system connecting Mexico
with Canada (FEIS, Figure I-I). Logan Canyon is actually a small mountain highway
that will never provide a critical link due to its mountainous, steep terrain and the fact
that it has already been bypassed by alternative routes. 1- 15 is the highway that is of
primary importance in the area, connecting all points south, including Provo, Salt
Lake City and Ogden, with all points north, including Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Butte
and Helena. 1-80 is the major east to west route for commerce, not Logan Canyon (see
Appendix A). As a route from Salt Lake City and Ogden to Yellowstone and the Grand
Tetons, Idaho State Highway 34 will always be faster than the Logan Canyon highway
due to the more rugged terrain of Logan Canyon.
Garden City, at the other end of the Logan Canyon highway, is a small town of
193 people (1990 census), down from a 1980 population of 259. UDOT is proposing
extensive widening and straightening of a highway that has already been bypassed
by faster, alternative routes, and that serves a town of 193 residents, with a population
that has declined by 25% over the past ten years. The entire population of Rich
County (in which Garden City is located) has been declining over the past ten years.
The 1990 population was 1,725, down from the 1980 population of 2,100, a reduction
of almost 18 %, with several key industries moving away from Rich County in recent
years (Bureau of the Census 1994; Utah Governor's Office of Planning and Budget
1993). Appellants believe that this steady population decline is a good indication
that High way 89 does not require the extensive modifications UDOT is proposing.
By accepting UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative, without adequate
justification, the Forest Service is in violation of guidelines in the Wasatch-Cache
7
�National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan concerning unnecessary road
construction (1985, page IV-44).
Much attention has focused on the modifications UDOT has introduced into the
Preferred Alternative as it is described in UDOT's Record of Decision. We believe that
these modifications don't go far enough when viewed in tenns of the countervailing
requirements of the Management Plan and federal laws.
Literature Cited
Bass, R. 1994. Keeping Logan Canyon. Audubon Magazine, Nov.lDec.
Bitton, M. 1992. Partisans of Logan Canyon protest a widened road. High Country
News, June I, 1992.
Lyon, Dr. Thomas J. 1992. The road gang wants to wreck Logan Canyon. High
Country News, June I, 1992.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. Record of Decision (ROD), U.S. Highway 89.
United States Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics. Bureau of the
Census. 1994.
Utah Department of Transportation (UDO"D. 1990. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M
Hill.
Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS), U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill.
Utah Department of Transportation (UOO"D. 1995. Record of Decision (ROD), U.S. 89
Through Logan Canyon.
Utah Governor' s Office of Planning and Budget. 1993. Utah Demographic Report.
2. SAFETY 1SSUF.5
1. The Forest Service has adopted the FEIS, as is mentioned on page 1 of its Record of
Decision. The FEIS, in its purpose and need section, uses a clearly flawed safety
analysis (in violation of the requirement for agencies to insure scientific integrity of
analyses as stated in 40 CFR, Ch. 5, 1502.24). Thus the Forest Service's decision to
8
�•
adopt the FEIS is arbitrary and capricious, as the FEIS does not meet the "standards for
an adequate statement" (40 CFR, Ch. 5, 1506.3a).
2. We have evidence that the proposed construction will result in a more dangerous
road, thus violating the requirements of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan that "public safety needs" be considered regarding the
Logan Canyon highway (1985, page IV-311) .
The Management Plan says about the Logan Canyon highway, "The road will
not be raised to a higher standard than existing" (1985a, page 236; FEIS, page 9-88).
Thus the only true justifications for highway modifications are improvements
necessary for safety and replacement of deteriorated structural elements. However, the
Forest Service has blindly accepted the UDOT safety analysis, despite the fact that the
public had openly disputed UDOT's analysis of safety literally for two decades. The
current UDOT analysis utilizes artificially inflated and manipulated traffic volumes,
inconsistent with UDOT's own traffic counts, in an attempt to make the previously
widened portion of the road (Lower Canyon) appear safer than the unwidened sections.
In addition, UDOT has refused to make any reasonable comparisons of accident
severity, although these data are available in the technical memorandums. Citizens
have long contended that the type of highway modifications proposed here will make
the roadway less safe. Our analysis supports this position.
Accident rates are simply accidents per million vehicle miles. Only elementary
arithmetic is needed for their calculation. What is being questioned here is not the
method of calculation but the numbers used in these calculations.
In 1986, the Interdisciplinary Team was presented with accident rate data in the
fann of computer printouts. These printouts contained accident rates for specific
sections, and also the section length, traffic flow, and accident numbers--all the
infonnation necessary to calculate accident rates. The representatives of the
environmental community on the tearn at that time (Rudy Lukez, Jack Spence, Bill
Helm, and Steve Flint) discovered that the printed accident rates could not be derived
from the accompanying data. The consultants, CH2M Hill, were informed of this, but
presented the flawed data at the September 1986 public meeting in Logan. Rudy
Lukez had to interrupt the presentation to remind the consultants of the problems with
the data. At that time, UDOT and their consultants withdrew the accident rate data
since they found the errors intractable. Subsequently, accident rates were never
mentioned for over six and one half years. During this time the December 1990 DEIS
stated, " .. . safety is not a primary reason for the project ... " (DEIS, page 1-22). Accident
rates were not mentioned in the DEIS, but they suddenly appeared in Table 1-2 of the
March 1993 FEIS.
9
�,
It appears that the accident rates were introduced into the FEIS for two reasons.
One was an attempt to make the Lower Canyon look like the safest part of the road.
This was done by manipulating the traffic volumes in the Lower Canyon upward, thus
reducing the calculated accident rates (the higbway here was widened in the 1960's).
The second use of accident rates was to make it look like the road was quickly
becoming much more dangerous. This was done by drastically reducing traffic flows
in recent years along the rest of the highway. This caused the accident rates to rise,
giving the appearance of a much more dangerous road in recent years. UDOT claimed
a 44% increase in the accident rate as one went from the 1980-'85 period to the
1986-'90 period (page 1- 10 of the FEIS).
It is a straightforward procedure to backcalculate the traffic flows (average
annual daily traffic, abbreviated as ADT or AADlj used in calculating the accident
rates in Table 1-2 of the FEIS. These data are shown in our Table I for each section of
the highway, and the percent change in traffic flow is calculated. Clearly, if one could
believe these data, there are massive reductions in traffic in Logan Canyon in recent
years. In one section of the Middle Canyon, for example, the reduction in recent years
is supposedly almost 80%! Since such massive reductions is clearly not the case
(measured traffic flow is discussed below), the UDOT safety argument based on these
accident rates is meaningless. The response of UDOT to the presentation of tbese ADT
derived from their table was to issue the statement,
"The ADT presented in Revised Table 1-2 are estimates made by UDOT and
are used to calculate the accident rates in segments. However, estimates are
changed periodically as additional information concerning census and other
data is made available. The two periods shown on the table may be
misinterpreted to indicate that there has been a decrease in traffic in the
canyon between the two periods studied. To determine actual usage of the
canyon you should examine the actual traffic count information measured in
the canyon. Year to year counts should also be examined to determine the
trends since variations in traffic usage occurs each year." (October 15, 1993
UDOT press release, distributed at the meeting of the State Transportation
Commission).
Why UDOT believes it should be able to take measured traffic counts for past
years and adjust them according to census and other information is beyond belief.
Clearly, they do not know wbat they are doing.
At the time they issued the above statement, they issued a revision of Table 1-2,
correcting some of the grossest errors for the 1980-'85 period. In examining our Table
I, you will note that there appear to be periodic massive infusions and deletions of
traffic from the highway. These are clearly spurious since only unpaved roads
10
�intersect this highway between Logan and Garden City. Their revised Table 1-2
corrects this, but still shows decreases in more recent years. We show this in our Table
2. Since UDOT provided ADT in the revised table, we did not need to backcalculate it
from the accident rates.
Actual traffic flow can be found in Figure 1-4 of the FEIS . While the FEIS does
not provide a location in the canyon where these traffic volumes are reported to occur,
referring to the 1987 Technical Memorandums makes it absolutely clear that these
numbers represent traffic at Card Canyon (within the mp 378-383.3 section). For all
other Iccations in the canyon, this number is scaled either up or down by a factor.
UDOT has never provided these factors to the public, however they can be
backcalculated from the traffic flow data used in the accident rate calculations. We
have found that these factors vary in a curious manner from table to table. For
example, in the traffic flow projections figure (FEIS, Table 1-5), the decrease in traffic
flow as one goes "up" the canyon (to higher milepost numbers) is much less than is
evident from the accident rate data. Thus UDOT is using vastly different factors at
different times. When they want low traffic in the unwidened portion of the canyon (to
make accident rates high), they use large factors. When they want high traffic in the
unwidened portions of the canyon (to justify highway widening) they use small
factors .
Taking averages for Card Canyon, from Figure 1-4, gives 1812 cars per day for
1980-'85 and 1844 for 1986-'90. This shows a small increase of 1.8 % in the measured
average annual traffic flow between these two periods, rather than the decrease shown
by UDOT's accident rate data (our Tables I and 2) . It also shows that UDOT is using a
traffic flow value in its accident rate calculation for the mp 378-383.3 section that is
1.6 times the measured value in Figure 1-4. There is no logical reason for this
discrepancy. This high traffic flow very effectively decreases the accident rate in this
section. It is blatant fabrication of data that cannot be ignored.
The distortion for the section immediately below, the lower Lower Canyon, mp
374.64-378, is even greater. (UDOT has never produced a method we consider
reasonable for detennining traffic flow in the lower Lower Canyon .) UDOT claims to
have calculated this traffic flow using a method described on page 5 of the Appendix
to their Record of Decision. A traffic flow of 14,000 cars per day is reported for the
section of Highway 89 that lies below Logan Canyon, south of Utah State University
(page 5 of the Appendix to the ROD, mp 373 approximately). Although this section is
well outside Logan Canyon, the traffic flow for this section, representing heavy
University traffic, is artificially "extended" up the canyon to increase the traffic flow
in the lower Lower Canyon, mp 374.64-378 . The rate of 14,000 cars per day is
averaged using a weighting method with a traffic flow of 3,000 cars per day claimed
for the Lower Canyon. This calculation is reported by UDOT to yield a weighted
11
�traffic flow for the lower Lower Canyon, mp 374.64-378, of 7500 cars per day.
However, adhering strictly to the formula for this calculation presented on page 5 of
the Appendix actually produces a value of 4,015 cars per day. UDOT is not only
"extending" University traffic up the canyon to artificially inflate the traffic flow in
the lower Lower Canyon, it has also miscalculated this traffic flow to obtain a value
nearly twice what the formula actually provides.
We would expect to see this number, 4,015 cars per day, in subsequent tables,
yet it never appears. Values of over 6 and 7 thousand cars per day are given in revised
Table 1-2,4510 is used in the accident severity table (page 7 of the Appendix), and
3367 is used in the new accident rate table (page 3 of the Appendix). Part of the
problem is that the milepost section shown on page 5 of the Appendix coincides with
the milepost section in Table 1-2, but does not coincide with section designations in
the other tables.
Rather than attempting to guess how these errors occurred, we will argue that all
of the traffic flows provided by UDOT for the lower Lower Canyon are excessive. The
calculation method presented on page 5 of the Appendix (ROD) has no basis in reality.
What it has done is take a "commuter roadway" outside of Logan Canyon (U.S. 89
south of Utah State University) and use that traffic flow for the first 0.31 miles of
Logan Canyon--an area with DO intersecting roads. The only realistic traffic flow for
the lower Lower Canyon would be something slightly greater than the traffic flow
reported in Figure 1-4 of the FEIS. Despite ten years of time to do this, UDOT has
instead fabricated elaborate methods designed to intimidate the reader (for example,
the material on page 5 of the Appendix to the ROD). Their data showing literally
thousands of cars daily driving into the canyon and turning around in the first few
miles (there are no intersecting roads here) is blatantly absurd to anyone familiar with
the location.
In UDOT's Record of Decision, another attempt is made to analyze accident
rates. This was done because of our repeated questioning of both the original and
revised accident rate data in Table 1-2. (During negotiations with UDOT in 1994,
Dave Berg ofUDOT admitted that UDOT's traffic flow data was literally "garbage,"
hence this additional effort to salvage the safety argument in order to show purpose
and need). This new analysis is conducted for a more recent period, 1989-'93 (ROD,
Appendix, page 3). This new analysis appears to be based on one day's traffic count in
1994, and gives a value of 3367 cars per day for the Lower Canyon where the counter
is located. This is greatly in excess of the 1869 cars per day (1990 data) shown in
Figure 1-4 of the FEIS. Clearly, one day cannot be selected to represent a 5 year
period of traffic flow, because both absolute numbers of cars and the proportional
change in traffic through the canyon differs during different seasons. To further
complicate any reasonable comparison of data, this new analysis subdivides the road
12
�<
into different segments than we find in Table 1-2 (which was retained in the ROD).
How can any comparisons be made with the 1980's data? Clearly, given UDOT's
inability to count cars accurately over this ten year period, we question whether any
UDOT traffic flow data can legitimately be used in this EIS.
Accident severity is a much more important parameter than simple accident rate.
(Refer to the minutes of the interdisciplinary team meeting of August II, 1986, item
#6, review of accident data. From page 3: "Duncan Silver (FHW A) said that a goal
should be statistical reliance and that the number of accidents was not as important as
the severity of the accidents.") In their Record of Decision, UDOT presents accident
severity data for the first time since the 1987 Technical Memorandums (UDOT's ROD,
Appendix, page 7). Their analysis is flawed in two ways. One flaw is that only
fatalities are analyzed. Fatalities are fortunately so infrequent in Logan Canyon (8
fatal accidents for the period UDOT analyzed) that their distribution is statistically
random. The second flaw is that UDOT attempted again to tie them to traffic flow,
calculating a fatal accident rate. Again, the traffic volumes are inflated for the Lower
Canyon (4,510 cars per day for a section with a measured traffic flow of scarcely over
1,800 cars per day).
It is clear that UDOT is unable to provide any consistency in traffic flow data
collection, and thus safety cannot be evaluated by any technique requiring traffic flow
data. This continual manipulation of data has made a mockery of the directive for
agencies to use "scientific integrity" in the process outlined in the National
Environmental Protection Act, 40 CFR, Ch. 5, 1502.24. Thus, this FEIS does not meet
the "standards for an adequate document" which 40 CFR, Ch. 5, 1506.3a requires for
an agency to adopt an EIS. Hence, the Forest Service's adoption of this FEIS is
arbitrary and capricious.
We propose average accident severity as a measure of highway safety. This
comparison is numerically independent of traffic flow. UDOT made these calculations
in the 1987 Safety Technical Memorandum, in Table 3-7. The greatest accident
severity was found in the widened section of the highway. (However, it is not clear
how these calculations were done; attempting to repeat them by averaging the data in
Table 3-8 of the Technical Memorandum does not produce the same average accident
severity values as given by UDOT in Table 3-7.) One could argue that the more
severe the accident, the greater the "weighting" it should be given. Of course these
weightings are arbitrary, but it appears that the method UDOT used was strictly
incremental. We have used a method of increasing the "weight" given a more severe
accident in our Table 3. Again, the widened section of the highway has the most
severe accidents.
Clearly, driving at a speed inappropriate for a section of highway is the
13
�overriding cause of accidents (1987, Table 3-4). Widening and straightening a
highway, without a large concomitant commitment to speed limit enforcement, simply
increases the speed at which it is traveled. It is no surprise the severity of accidents
increases. The issue of speed limit enforcement as a means of improving safety was
raised during the EIS process, but UDOT ignored it. The construction alternative
endorsed by the Forest Service will produce a more dangerous highway, and as a
consequence, the Forest Services' s Record of Decision violates the stipulation of the
Management Plan requiring that safety needs be considered for the Logan Canyon
highway (page IV-3111).
Literature Cited
USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89.
USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan.
USDA Forest Service. 1985a. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan; Final Environmental Impact Statement, Ch.6.
Utah Department of Transportation (UOOn. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. 89
Through Logan Canyon.
Utah Department of Transportation. 1993 . (FEIS) Final Environmental Impact
Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill.
Utah Department of Transportation. 1987. Technical Memoranda. Prepared by
CH2M Hill.
14
�•
Table 1 . Average daily traffic (ADT) bacKcalculated
from Table 1-2 in th e FEIS , and the percent change as
one goes from the early ' 80 ' 5 to the late '80's .
sections
and
mileposts
Lower
3 7 4. 6 4
378 . 00
Middle
383.00
384.40
387.00
388.40
Upper
39 1. 60
392.70
395 . 60
399.40
Rich
404. 75
408.20
410.10
ADT
' 80 - '8 5
from
Tab 1 - 2
ADT
'8 6 -' 90
from
Tab 1 - 2
5710
2820
4693
2969
-17.8
5.3
2004
1815
8323
2990
2372
1815
1742
1781
18 . 4
- 0.0
- 79.1
- 40.4
5239
1840
1979
122 5
1811
1631
1614
1259
- 65.4
-11.4
- 1 8.4
2.8
1383
2247
1277
1164
1292
1228
- 15.8
- 42.5
-3. 8
Percent
Change
canyon
- 378.00
- 383.30
-
Canyon
384 . 40
387.00
388.40
391.60
Canyon
392 ;70
- 395.60
399.40
- 404.75
-
County
408.20
410 . 10
- 411.87
-
-
�•
Table 2. Percent change from the early to late
1980's using UDOT's revised average daily tra ffic
(ADT) as contained in their revised Ta ble 1-2
of t he October '93 press release and (except
for values with *) in their Janu a ry ' 95 ROD. The
percent change for the values changed in the
ROD are given in parentheses.
section
and
'80-'85
mileposts
ADT
' 86 -' 90
Percent
Change
ADT
Lower
374.64
378.00
Canyon
378.00
383.30
6865
2824
7417*
3019
Middle
383.00
384.40
387.00
388.40
Canyon
384.40
387.00
388.40
391. 60
2824
1888
1847
1847
3019
1864
1809
1809
6.9
- 1. 3
- 2.1
-2.1
Upper
391. 60
392.70
395 . 60
399.40
Canyon
392.70
1809
16 80
1613
1257
-2.1
399.40
404.75
1847
1826
1815
1351
- 11.1
- 7.0
Rich
404.75
408.20
410.10
County
408.20
410 . 10
411.87
1299
1298
13 96*
1246
1292
1295
-4.1
- 0.4
-7. 2
395.60
8.0
6.9
(5.3)
- 8.0
(-1. 8)
�Table 3. An index of average accident severity
using data from Table 3-8 of the 1986 Safety
Technical Memorandum (the Technical Memorandums,
all from about 1986, are considered the
"backbone" of the EIS). We have used an increasing
scale for accident severity, weighting "property
damage only" as 1 , "possible injury" as 3,
"nonincapacitating injury " as 7, "incapacitating
injury" as 15, and "fatality" as 31.
Average
Accident
Severity
Widened roadway:
Lower Canyon
(section 0)
6.03
Middle Canyon (section 1)
5.00
Upper canyon (section 2)
4.07
Rich county (section 3)
3.89
Unmodified roadway:
�3,
AASHfO STANDARDS AND IDGHWAY DESIGN
UDOT argues that they must widen and straighten the Logan Canyon Highway,
and add passing lanes, in order to accomplish four major goals. They argue that they
must enhance safety, satisfy AASHIO standards, improve traffic flow, and improve the
capacity of the road to accommodate projected future traffic volumes (FEIS, page 1-3).
We have dealt with safety issues in the previous section of this appeal. In this section
we will discuss the other three goals.
By accepting UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative, the Forest Service is
accepting a road design that allows for unnecessary and unjustified construction in
environmentally sensitive areas of the canyon. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Management Plan specifies, as a guideline, that design speeds allowed on roads in this
Forest shall be a "compromise" between desired travel speed and constraints imposed
by the environment (page IV-44). Road design in the Forest must, therefore, also be a
compromise between desired travel speed and environmental constraints. We shall
argue that the road design the Forest Service is accepting in Logan Canyon, with its
decision in favor of the modified Preferred Alternative, does not represent such a
compromise. The Forest Service is therefore in violation of its Management Plan.
Guidelines within this plan are to be "applied in all situations unless some overriding
reason to abandon" them is supported by a Forest Service interdisciplinary analysis
(page IV -24).
AASHTO Standards
UDOT attempts to justify the modified Preferred Alternative by appeal to safety
standards that have been devised by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHIO).
AASHTO standards are environmentally friendlier than UDOT admits.
AASHTO recommends flexibility in the design of arterial roads in mountainous areas
where the terrain limits road design. Our first criticism of UDOT's use of AASHIO
standards is that UDOT is not taking advantage of the flexibility in road design that is
allowed by AASHIO.
In the FEIS, UDOT claims that the recommended minimum design speed for a
minor arterial road is 50 miles per hour. Based on this claim, UDOT condemns the
entire Logan Canyon highway, asserting that " the existing highway is therefore substandard" (FEIS, page 1-8). In the special circumstances of mountainous terrain,
however, AASHTO relaxes the minimum design speed for a minor arterial to 40 miles
per hour, down from 50 miles per hour, when, as in Logan Canyon, the daily hourly
volume is over 400 (UDOT 1987, page 7-12; Claire Hendrickson, FHWA, personal
15
�communication),
The current design speed for the section of highway through the Upper Canyon,
40 to 55 miles per hour, actually complies with standards allowed by AASHTO for
mountainous terrain. UDOT has set the design speed from the Beaver Mountain
intersection to over the canyon's summit at 50 miles per hour. By AASHTO standards,
this design speed makes necessary a wider. straighter road. UDOT is insisting on a
design speed, however, which is higher than the minimum allowed by AASHTO for
mountainous terrain.
In this section of highway the conditions are not appropriate for a uniform
design speed of 50 miles per hour. This is particularly true at the summit, where UDOT
plans to widen the road to 40 flo, and put in a passing lane and 22 ft. "clear zones" on
either side of the highway. There is a beautiful grove of mature Douglas Fir at the
summit. The road now winds through this grove, which has appropriately been called
a "cathedral" (Bass 1994). As UDOT plans it now, in its legally-binding FEIS and
ROD, a side canyon will be filled, and roughly one half of these mature trees will be
torn out to make room for the widening and a big curve-cut at the summit. (please see
the photo of the summit we have included in the appendix of this appeaL) The
resulting destruction to the side canyon, the trees and the views at the summit strongly
suggests, we believe, that conditions in the Upper Canyon do not warrant using the 50
miles per hour design speed, plus a passing lane, through this area. UDOT is using
AASHTO standards inflexibly, when AASHTO allows flexibility in design in special
circumstances such as these.
Our second criticism of UDOT's use of AASHTO standards is that they use these
standards in a manner that is arbitrary and capricious. For example, UDOT plans to
widen the highway in the Upper Canyon, from the Beaver Mountain intersection to
over the summit, to 40 flo The design speed is set at 50 miles per hour. Below this
intersection, for about eight miles, UDOT is planning a design speed of 50 miles per
hour, but they intend to widen the road to only 34 flo For this design speed, a road
width of 34 ft. is below AASHTO standards (Roy Nelson, FHW A, personal
communication). Exemptions from AASHTO standards are occasionally granted by
the Federal Highway Administration. Why does UDOT apply AASHTO standards in
this flexible fashion in the lower Upper Canyon, but insist on strictly applying full
AASHTO standards above Beaver Mountain?
UDOT's ROD includes an internal memo from a UDOT safety engineer, who
asserts that a 34 flo road width at this design speed is adequately safe. He cites studies
that report "little change on accident rate when going from 5 to 8 foot shoulder," in
other words, when going from a 34 flo road width to a 40 ft. width. This safety engineer
concludes that while keeping to a 34 ft. width may be substandard, "for this project"
16
�,
this width "would be acceptable" (UDOT 1995, Appendix A, pages 9 and 10). We
have included a copy of this memo at the end of this section of our appeal. In its 1987
Technical Memoranda, UDOT further defends the use of the 34 ft. width. They write,
"A reduction from the standard 8-foot shoulder to the 5-foot shoulder can be
justified in that while the 8-foot width is desirable for parking, a distressed
vehicle can get out of the traffic stream yet remain on the paved surface with a
5-foot shoulder. The narrower shoulder also provides enough room for cyclists
and pedestrians, with minimal interference with motorized vehicles." (1987,
page 7-7)
UDOT is arguing here that a 34 ft. road width is adequately safe and acceptable. In the
FEIS, UDOT praises the safety record of the already "improved" highway in the Lower
Canyon. As UDOT points out, this section of highway has a safety record that exceeds
expectations (FEIS, page 1-9). This section of highway is 34 ft. wide.
As we have described above, the summit of Logan Canyon is particularly
beautiful; the road winds through magnificent old Douglas Fir. Roughly one-half of
these trees will be lost if UDOT widens the road here to 40 ft. and puts in the planned
passing lane and 22 ft. "clear wnes," following the alignment specified in the FEIS
and the ROD. UDOT is relaxing AASHTO standards in order to use the 34 ft. width in
the lower Upper Canyon, below Beaver Mountain. A UDOT safety engineer has
argued that a 34 ft . width is "acceptable" from a safety standpoint, citing studies that
show this. The "improved" highway in the Lower Canyon, which is 34 ft. wide,
exceeds safety expectations. Exemptions from strict AASHTO standards are granted.
It seems the most arbitrary and capricious of decisions to end the 34 ft. width at Beaver
Mountain, and insist upon a 40 ft. width above Beaver Mountain, with the resulting
unacceptable destruction to a side canyon, trees and scenery at the summit.
Another example of UDOT's arbitrary and capricious use of AASHTO standards
is in their plans for the highway in the Middle Canyon. In the lower Middle Canyon,
up to Lower Twin Bridge, UDOT intends to maintain the current design speed of 25
miles per hour, and the current width of 26 ft. They intend to widen the road above
Lower Twin Bridge to 34 ft. , increasing the design speed to a uniform 35 miles per
hour. A design speed of 35 miles per hour is below AASHTO standards for a minor
arterial highway, but, UDOT argues, this design speed is closer to design speeds
recommended by AASHTO.
UDOT attempts to justify ending the 26 ft. road width at Lower Twin Bridge by
saying that "the roadway begins to move further away from the river at this point"
(UDOT 1995a). This statement is patently false. The highway closely follows the
river throughout much of the Middle Canyon above Lower Twin Bridge, particularly
17
�along the Dugway and at Temple Fork intersection, where the highway closely
parallels the river, rising ahove the river on a very steep slope. (Please see the photos
we have provided in the Appendix to this appeal.) Widening the highway in this
section of Logan Canyon will negatively affect the scenery, water quality, and the
fishery. These impacts could be quite serious. UDOT plans to cut 4 to 8 feet into the
mountain at the Dugway for 3/4 of a mile, with extensive widening and curve cuts at
and below the Temple Fork intersection. They plan to place a retaining wall in one
section of the Dugway. There is the risk of extensive retaining walls being placed
throughout the Middle Canyon. UDOT has told us that whenever they cannot
revegetate a slope, they must install retaining walls (Lynn Zollinger, UDOT engineer,
personal communication) .
Located just below Lower Twin Bridge is a documented brown trout spawning
area. Good conditions for trout spawning are relatively rare in Logan River. Fisheries
biologists have informed us that road widening in the Middle Canyon, with associated
curve cuts, will possibly increase the level of sedimentation below Lower Twin Bridge
to the point that there will be significant loss of trout eggs, a sharp decline in food
production for trout, and loss of juvenile brown and cutthroat trout due to clogged
gills. UDOT has refused to do a quantitative analysis of sediment-related impacts,
even when publicly asked to do so by the Forest Service. The possibility of serious
impacts to the scenery and the fishery can be minimized by extending the 26 ft. width
another four miles up to ahove the Temple Fork intersection. This would mean
leaving the upper Middle Canyon at its current design speed of 25 to 35 miles per
hour.
Considering that the highway closely parallels the river in the Middle Canyon
above Lower Twin Bridge, and considering the possibility of serious negative impacts
in this narrow section of the canyon if the road is widened and straightened, it is
arbitrary and capricious to end the 26 ft. section at Lower Twin Bridge.
Let us summarize our concerns so far with UDOT's use of AASIITO standards.
UDOT insists upon using full AASIITO standards in an area where unacceptable
environmental destruction will result, even though AASIITO allows flexibility when
designing a road in mountainous areas where the terrain limits what can be done. It is
not the intent of AASHTO to sanction unnecessary environmental destruction (Amy
Steiner, AASIITO, personal communication). Also, UDOT applies AASHTO standards
in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, without good justification for decisions to
apply these standards in a stricter rather than in a more flexible fashion.
UDOT portrays the curves in the upper Middle Canyon section of highway,
ahove the Lower Twin Bridge, as being unsafe according to AASHTO standards. On
page 2-23 in the FEIS, UDOT criticizes the Conservationists' Alternative for failing to
18
�bring these curves up to AASHTO standards for the posted speed. In Utah, however, a
highway' s posted speed is often a compromise between design speed and the speed
that drivers actually attain. When not federally mandated, posted speed is determined
by calculating the speed that 85 percent of drivers are going. UDOT's proposed
design speed for the upper Middle Canyon is a uniform 35 miles per hour, with
extensive widening and straightening of the road. Drivers would very likely feel
comfortable driving at speeds higher than 35 miles per hour on this widened and
straightened stretch of highway. After all, the current posted speed is 35 miles per
hour. Following standard practice in Utah, the posted speed may again inch up above
design speed, as posted speed is brought more in line with the speed that drivers
actually attain. After UDOT's "improvement" of this highway, these curves would still
fail to satisfy AASHTO standards for the posted speed. Even if UDOT were to keep to
a 35 mile per hour posted speed, as they say they will do in their ROD, the curves in
the upper Middle Canyon would fail to meet AASHTO standards for the speeds that
drivers will very likely be doing through this section of highway. The problem UDOT
points to in its criticism of the Conservationists' Alternative, that the curves are unsafe
according to AASHTO standards, will not really be solved by the modified Preferred
Alternative. The real problem, of course, is that drivers tend to exceed the speed a
road is designed for. This problem will likely only be made worse as UDOT widens
and straightens this section of highway.
Improve Capacity of tbe Higbway to Accommodate Projected Traffic Volumes
UDOT uses a range of projected traffic volumes to argue, for example, that the
present highway, without improvements, will provide a dangerously low level of
service by the year 2010, and that continuous passing lanes are justified throughout
the canyon above Right Hand Fork (1987, page 7-11).
UDOT obtains its projections of traffic volumes by fitting a linear equation to
past measurements of traffic volumes on the Logan Canyon highway, and by fitting a
linear equation to past measurements of the population in northern Utah, in Cache,
Box Elder, and Rich Counties. UDOT obtains a range of projected traffic volumes
through the year 2010 by using these linear equations to project into the future.
UDOT argues that linear equations should be used, rather than exponential,
logarithmic and power equations, because linear equations have been found to best fit
the data (1987, pages 4- 6 through 4-11).
UDOT's projections are of future swnmer traffic volumes. Since 1973, annual
traffic volumes have remained constant (FEIS, Figure 1-4). UDOT is designing the
canyon highway purely for anticipated summer traffic, and more exactly, for
anticipated summer weekend traffic. UDOT reports that summer weekend traffic is
currently double that of weekday traffic (FEIS, page 1-16).
19
�We have fit a quadratic equation to the summer traffic data UDOT provides in
the FEIS, Figure 1-4, and have found that a quadratic equation fits this data slightly
better than does a linear equation. According to the quadratic equation, summer traffic
volumes level off over time to values that are significantly lower in 20 10 than the
values predicted by a linear equation. UDOT chooses a linear equation based upon its
better fit to the data over exponential, logarithmic and power equations. Consistent
with this method, UDOT should choose to use a quadratic equation, with its
significantly lower predictions, based upon the better fit this equation provides to the
data. We have made this point in a letter to UDOT from the Bridgerland Audubon
Society, dated May 2, 1993 (UDOT's ROD 1995, Appendix, Response to Comments
on FEIS, page 18). In response, UDOT says, "A linear model is an accepted and
reasonable model used to project traffic." We are not arguing this claim. Our
statistical results show, however, that in the case of Logan Canyon. a quadratic
equation is the most reasonable equation to use, based on the better fit it provides to
the data.
There are other indications that summer traffic volumes in Logan Canyon are
leveling off over time. We have run regression analyses on the summer traffic data
UDOT provides in the FEIS, Figure 1-4, dividing the data into two categories, 1980 to
1985, and 1986 to 1990. From 1980 to 1985, there is a significant increase in traffic
volume with time (r2=.82, P=.02). From 1986 to 1990, on the other hand, there is not a
significant correlation between traffic volume and time (r2=.46, P=.21). This means
that while in the early 1980's summer traffic increased with time, since 1986 there has
been no significant increase in summer traffic volume with time. This is a good
indication that summer traffic volumes are leveling off.
We have also made this point in a letter to UDOT. They have replied that in
predicting traffic volumes it is invalid to divide the data into small sets of "selected
years" (Response to-Comments on FEIS, page 17). We are not suggesting, however,
that UDOT use five years of data to predict traffic volumes. Our point is, rather, that
we have here another indication that summer traffic volumes are leveling off with time,
and that UOOT's use of a linear equation to predict summer traffic volumes is therefore
invalid, yielding predictions that are too high. The trend shown by the later traffic
data suggests that UDOT is planning to build a highway that is too big for actual
future needs. The fact that a quadratic equation better fits the entire data set also
supports this suggestion.
Finally, from Bureau of the Census reports we have found that the population in
Rich County, on the other side of the canyon, has been declining over the past ten
years. In 1990, the population was 1725 in the entire county, down from the 1980
population of 2100. This is a decline of 17.9%. The population of Garden City, at the
20
�other end of the canyon highway, was 193 in 1990, down from 259 in 1980, a decline
of 25.5% (Bureau of the Census 1994). The population of Rich County is probably a
good indicator of demand on the Logan Canyon highway, as fewer people in Rich
County mean fewer reasons for people to travel back and forth along the highway
between Logan and Rich County. It is unfortunate that UDOT has not provided data
that shows the percentage of vehicles moving through Logan Canyon that end their
journey in Rich County, and the percentage that continue past Rich County into
Idaho or Wyoming. Utah motorists moving to and from more northerly destinations
such as Montpelier and Yellowstone have several alternate routes, including Idaho
highways 34 and 36. Salt Lake and Ogden area motorists moving to and from
destinations in Wyoming such as Evanston and Rock Springs have an alternate and
more direct route on Interstate 80. Most traffic through Logan Canyon is likely local
traffic between Cache and perhaps Box Elder Counties, and Rich County. With the
population of Rich County declining over the past ten years, the demand on the
Logan Canyon highway should at least level off over time, as the 1986 to 1990 data
suggests is happening. This means, again, that UDOT is planning to build a highway
based on predictions of traffic volumes that are too high.
UDOT uses its projections of summer traffic volumes to determine future Level
of Service values for the alternative construction proposals it considers in the FEIS.
UDOT argues that the Preferred Alternative would improve the future Level of Service
"to a much greater extent" than would the Conservationists' Alternative (FEIS, page 99). This argument is flawed, however, given the above indications that UDOT's
predictions of summer traffic volumes are too high. Likely, the highway will not have
to bear the burden of traffic UDOT is predicting.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we accept UDOT's predictions, it isn' t the case
that the Preferred Alternative would provide a "much greater" Level of Service (LOS)
than would the Conservationists' Alternative. In the Upper Canyon, the Preferred
Alternative is expected to provide a LOS of C/O in the year 2010. C/O means
something between C and D. The Conservationists' Alternative is expected to provide
a LOS of D. Please see Table I. The Preferred Alternative provides only an
incremental increase in LOS over the Conservationists' Alternative. For the upper
Middle Canyon, by the year 2010 the Preferred Alternative is expected to provide a
LOS of D, while the Conservationists' Alternative is expected to provide a LOS of DIE.
The gain in Level of Service with the Preferred Alternative is again quite marginal.
According to UDOT's descriptions of Levels of Service, in the Upper Canyon
the Preferred Alternative is expected to bring about "noticeable increases in platoon
formation" and "platoon size," with passing being something between "significantly
reduced" and "extremely difficult" (FEIS, page 1-18). With the Conservationists'
Alternative, passing is expected to be "extremely difficult." How much better off will
. 21
�we be to have passing that is slightly better than "extremely difficult," as opposed to
being simply "extremely difficult"? In the upper Middle Canyon, the Preferred
Alternative is expected to result in "unstable traffic flow," with passing being
"extremely difficult." The Conservationists' Alternative is expected to provide
passing that is something between "extremely difficult" and "virtually impossible."
How much better off will we be with passing that is still "extremely difficult"? It is
expected that by the year 2010, both alternatives will provide Levels of Service that
fall below the va lue that is professionally acceptable. "LOS C is the minimum
desirable LOS for a rural highway" (page 1-19). The marginal gains with the modified
Preferred Alternative, with Levels of Service that are still below the "minimum
desirable,'" are not worth the much greater cost and environmental destruction.
Table 1
Projected LOS by year 2010 (from FElS, Table 2-1)
Preferred Alternative
Conservationists' Alternative
Middle Canyon
(lower) Rt. Hand Fork to Lower
Twin Bridge
(upper) Lower Twin Bridge to
Cattle Guard (MP 391.6)
DIE
DIE
D
DIE
Upper Canyon
C/O
D
We have made this point to UDOT in several letters. Their response is that the
difference between the LOS values C/O and D, for example, represents a significant
improvement (UDOT's ROD, Response to Comments on FEIS, page 80). This claim is
unbelievable, especially given the fact that both alternatives fall below the "minimum
desirable" LOS. UDOT adds that we must evaluate construction alternatives on a
"corridor-wide" basis (page 22). Considering the environmental impacts of the
modified Preferred Alternative in the Middle and Upper sections of the canyon,
however, and considering that the gains in LOS with the modified Preferred
Alternative are quite marginal in these sections of the canyon, there is good reason for
UDOT to scale back its plans in these sections. The corridor-wide LOS would still be
enhanced. We are not protesting UDOT's proposals for the Rich County section of
highway, past the Bear Lake overlook, for example. UDOT should minimize
environmental destruction in the most sensitive areas of the canyon, given the fact that
less destructive, yet practicable, alternatives are available in these areas.
It is likely, however, that neither alternative will bring about the reduced LOS
that UDOT is predicting. since, according to severa l indications, summer traffic
22
�volumes are leveling off over time. For these reasons, flawed traffic projections, and
only marginal gains in predicted Levels of Service, UDOT has not justified its choice
of the modified Preferred Alternative on the basis of its traffic projections.
Improve Traffic Flow
According to UDOT, factors that influence traffic flow include speed and travel
time, passing ability, and "traffic interruptions" (UDOT 1987, page 6-2). These factors
are used to derme the qualitative measure, Level of Service. Level of Service is a
slightly broader concept than traffic flow , also taking into account safety, and driver
"comfort and convenience." We will briefly compare the modified Preferred
Alternative and the Conservationists' Ahemative with respect to the individual factors
that enter into traffic flow. While the modified Preferred Alternative raises design
speeds and increases opportunities for passing, overall traffic flow is enhanced only
marginally when compared to the Conservationists' Alternative, and at the cost of
unnecessary environmental destruction. The Conservationists' Alternative represents
a good compromise between improving traffic flow and protecting environmentally
sensitive areas of the canyon.
In the FEIS, UDOT does not compare the Preferred Alternative and the
Conservationists ' Alternative with respect to travel time through th e canyon (Table 21). This is unfortunate, since the difference in travel time between the two alternatives
is strikingly minimal. In response to letters, UDOT has admitted that the difference is
!O minutes or less (FEIS, page 9-9).
Proposed design speeds for the highway are generally higher in the modified
Preferred Alternative than the Conservationists' Alternative. AASHTO standards
detertOine the width and curvature of a road once a design speed is chosen (Amy
Steiner, AASHTO, personal communication). With a lower design speed,
environmental impacts are lessened. UDOT insists upon a unifortO 50 mile per hour
design speed in the Upper Canyon, even though designing for this speed will result in
destruction at the summit to a side canyon, the mature trees and the scenic views.
UDOT has the alternative, allowed by AASHTO standards, of leaving the design speed
at its present 40 to 55 miles per hour. In the upper Middle Canyon, UDOT insists upon
a unifortO 35 mile per hour design speed, even though designing for this speed will
mean extensive widening and curve cuts , with a retaining wall. The fishery is placed
at risk through the possibility of significantly increased sedimentation and turbidity, a
risk which has not been adequately analyzed. These impacts and possible impacts are
simply not necessary. As they are doing in the lower Middle Canyon, UDOT has the
option of maintaining the current design speed, and so designing a less destructive
road. With an increase in travel time through the canyon of less than 10 minutes, the
environmental impacts to the Middle and Upper Canyons are not necessary.
23
�In their Technical Memoranda, UDOT claims that "the imposition of the lower
speed limits onto the sections which can easily accommodate higher speeds would
increase travel time and driver irritation" (1987, page 7-13). This is, in fact, UDOT's
only defense of the higher design speeds they have chosen, other than their misleading
claim that the AASHTO standard for a minor arterial road is 50 miles per hour (FEIS,
page 1-8). Since the improvement in travel time is minimal, UDOT' s defense comes
down to "driver irritation." UDOT is designing this highway purely for the sake of
drivers being able to "go fast," regardless of the minimal savings in travel time, and
regardless of the environmental destruction.
The modified Preferred Alternative proposes a little over 6.5 miles of new
passing lanes in the Upper Canyon, along half of the highway in the Upper Canyon.
Below the Beaver Mountain intersection, UDOT is proposing over 3 miles of new
passing lanes. UDOT claims that below the Beaver Mountain intersection, in the
Upper Canyon, the highway will be widened to 34 ft. , rather than to the originally
proposed 40 ft. They label the 34 ft. width a "compromise" for the sake of protecting
wetlands (UDOT 1995a). Their claim that the highway in this section will be widened
to 34 ft. is misleading, however, since for over 3 miles of this 8 mile section UDOT is
proposing passing lanes that will extend the width of the road to 44 ft. UDOT plans to
place the 3 miles of passing lanes proposed for below Beaver Mountain in wetlands
along Red Banks and below the Tony Grove intersection. Through these wetlands,
UDOT's "compromise" widens the highway to 44 ft. , rather than 47 ft.
The Conservationists' Alternative proposes 1.6 miles of new passing lanes in
the entire Upper Canyon, avoiding impacts to wetlands. With the minimal
improvement in travel time achieved with the modified Preferred Alternative, the
extensive passing lanes UOOT is proposing are not worth the extra cost and
environmental impact. UDOT argues that construction alternatives cannot be judged
by travel time alone, but must be evaluated in terms of the wider concept, Level of
Service (LOS). As we have argued, however, by UDOT's own estimate the future LOS
we achieve with the modified Preferred Alternative is only an incremental
improvement over the LOS provided by the Conservationists' Alternative.
Considering both travel time and Level of Service, the marginal improvement we
achieve with the modified Preferred Alternative does not warrant either the high
design speeds or the extensive passing lanes proposed in this alternative.
We have asked UDOT to consider using slow vehicle turnouts, along with a
single, more modest passing lane, in the section of highway along Red Banks and
below the Tony Grove intersection, for the sake of protecting wetlands. UDOT refuses
to propose slow vehicle turnouts. In their Technical Memorandum, UDOT admits that
turnouts are "safe when properly used," and that, "A series of turnouts at regular
24
�intervals can provide considerable delay reduction" (1987, page 7-30). UDOT
acknowledges that slow vehicle turnouts are used in other western states along
highways in mountainous terrain. UDOT writes that, "Turnouts are not a substitute for
a passing or climbing lane of adequate length." This may be true, in the proper
circumstances. Along Red Banks and below the Tony Grove intersection , however,
one or two adequately placed slow vehicle turnouts, with a more modest passing lane,
would be a good compromise for the sake of protecting wetlands. Considering the
minimal gain in travel time and Level of Service that would be achieved by placing
passing lanes along half of the highway in the Upper Canyon, there is room here for a
genuine compromise for the sake of environmental protection.
By "traffic interruptions," we assume that UDOT is referring to such control
measures as stop and yield signs, and traffic lights. Neither the modified Preferred
Alternative nor the Conservationists' Alternative propose that such measures be used
along this highway.
UDOT has chosen the modified Preferred Alternative, in part, because, they say,
it better improves driver "comfort and convenience.'" It appears that the modified
Preferred Alternative is motivated simply by the desire to build a big highway on
which drivers can "go fast," without the "irritation" of having to drive at lower speeds
in some areas of the canyon, and without the "inconvenience" of having to adjust
speeds slightly when negotiating some curves, perhaps having to shift gears. We are
arguing that, given the minimal improvements in traffic flow provided by the modified
Preferred Alternative, genuine compromise can and should be made for the sake of
protecting the scenery, wetlands, the fishery, and wildlife. The Forest Service has
designated Logan Canyon a National Scenic Byway. Logan Canyon was once
proposed as a National Park. It has received national attention, for example, in the
recent Audubon magazine article by Rick Bass (1994). Given the tremendous beauty
and recreational value of this canyon, compromise can and should be reached, even if
drivers are constrained from rocketing through the canyon to save fewer than 10
minutes, and even though drivers may be constrained to adjust speeds slightly through
some curves. Logan Canyon is uniquely splendid, and irreplaceable.
The Wasatch-Cache National Forest Management Plan includes several
guidelines that call for a compromise in road design in this Forest. One guideline
states, "Design speed must be a compromise between the travel speed desired and that
which the terrain will permit within the environmental constraints" (page IV-44). This
means that road design must also be a compromise between desired travel speed and
environmental constraints. Design speeds proposed by UDOT, and highway design in
general, throughout the Middle and Upper Canyons, is not a good compromise with
environmental constraints. UDOT has designed the highway in accordance with
projections of future traffic volumes that appear to be arbitrarily high. There are
25
�several indications that summer traffic volumes are leveling off in Logan Canyon. In
defense of its design, UDOT often appeals to AASHTO safety standards. In a sensitive
area of the canyon, however, UDOT is using AASHTO standards in an inappropriately
strict fashion, counter to allowa."ces made by AASHTO for mountainous regions.
UDOT has designed this highway in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, without good
justification for decisions to apply AASHTO standards in a stricter rather than in a
more flexible manner, for example, at the summit and through the upper Middle
Canyon. Design speeds have been chosen by UDOT, it seems, purely for the sake of
drivers being able to attain high speeds through the canyon, without a significant
improvement in travel time or Level of Service. By accepting UDOT's modified
Preferred Alternative, without good justification for the proposed construction, the
Forest Service is violating the above guideline in its Management Plan.
Another guideline states, "The alignment shall lay light on the land ... Except
for necessary stream crossings, riparian areas shall not be disturbed" (page IV-44). The
modified Preferred Alternative cannot be said to lay "light" on the land. A 47 ft. wide
swath through the mature trees and a side canyon at the summit, with 22 ft. wide "clear
zones" on either side, for a total "affected" width of 80 ft. , does not count as laying
"light" on the land. Extensive widening and curve cuts through the upper Middle
Canyon, with hillside excavations and a 4-8 ft. cut into the mountain along the
Dugway for 3/4 of a mile, complete with a retaining wall, will not produce a road that
lays "light" on the land. UDOT plans 1,740 ft. of retaining walls that will be anchored
in riparian areas along Beaver Creek. Such destruction of riparian areas is not
necessary. The Conservationists' Alternative improves traffic flow to an adequate
extent, without such unacceptable impacts upon the canyon and river. By accepting
UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative when an adequate alternative design is
available, the Forest Service is violating the above guideline in its Management Plan
concerning unnecessary impacts of a road on the landscape and riparian areas.
The modified Preferred Alternative is neither reasonable nor necessary. It is not
reasonable, because this highway design has not been adequately justified. It is not
necessary, because there is an adequate and less damaging alternative, the
Conservationists' Alternative. By violating the two guidelines quoted above, the
Forest Service is in violation of the National Forest Management Act. These
guidelines are not to be violated "unless some overriding reason to abandon" them is
supported by a Forest Service interdisciplinary analysis (page IV-24). Such an
interdisciplinary analysis for the purpose of abandoning these guidelines has not been
done.
Finally, in a response to a comment on its Management Plan, the Forest Service
stated, "Improvements to Logan Canyon Highway will be only minor. There is a need
to provide safe bridges and some passing lanes. The road will not be raised to a higher
26
�standard than existing" (Forest Service 1985a, p.236). In violating this commitment to
the public, the Forest Service is acting in bad faith .
We urge the Forest Service to insist that UDOT scale down its proposal to
achieve a genuine compromise between the requirements of traffic flow and Level of
Service, and environmental constraints. A scaled-down proposal should be submitted
before the Forest Service amends the Management Plan and grants the required
easement allowing highway construction in Logan Canyon. We also urge the Forest
Service to insist that UDOT reconsider the Conservationists' Alternative for the Logan
Canyon highway.
Literature Cited
Bass, R. 1994. Keeping Logan Canyon. Audubon Magazine, Nov.lDec.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89.
USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan.
USDA Forest Service. 1985a. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan; Final Environmental Impact Statement, Ch.6.
United States Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics. Bureau of the
Census. 1994.
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOD. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. 89
Through Logan Canyon.
Utah Department of Transportation. 1995a. U.S. 89 in Logan Canyon (pamphlet
describing the Preferred Alternative).
Utah Department of Transportation . 1993. (FEIS) Final Environmental Impact
Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CHZM Hill.
Utah Department of Transportation. 1987. Technical Memoranda. Prepared by
CHZM Hill.
27
�Service, and environmental constraints. A scaled-down proposal should be submitted
before the Forest Service amends the Management Plan and grants the required
easement aUowing highway construction in Logan Canyon. We also urge the Forest
Service to insist that UDOT reconsider the Conservationists' Alternative for the Logan
Canyon highway.
Literature Cited
Bass, R. 1994. Keeping Logan Canyon. Audubon Magazine, Nov.lDec.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89.
USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan .
USDA Forest Service. 1985a. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan; Final Environmental Impact Statement, Ch.6.
United States Dept. of Commerce, Economics and Statistics. Bureau of the
Census. 1994.
Utah Department of Transportation (UD01). 1995.
Through Logan Canyon.
(RO~)
Record of Decision, U.S. 89
Utah Department of Transportation. 1995a. U.S. 89 in Logan Canyon (pamphlet
describing the Preferred Alternative).
Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. (FEIS) Final Environmental Impact
Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M HiU.
Utah Department of Transportation. 1987. Technical Memoranda.
CH2M Hill.
4. WILD AND SCENIC RIVER PLANNING
Section 5(d) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. No. 90-542, 16 U.S.C.,
127 1 !:UJ;g.) requires all federal agencies to consider potential national wild, scenic,
and recreational river areas in all planning for the use and development of water and
related land resources. The planning responsibility imposed by 5(d) plainly requires
the Forest Service to assess the values of potential Wild and Scenic Rivers on National
Forest lands during the preparation of land and resource management plans pursuant
28
�to the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C., 1600 ~.). Section 1924 of the
Forest Management Act recognizes the Forest Service's responsibility in this regard:
"Consideration of potential wild and scenic rivers is an inherent part of the ongoing
land and resource management planning process."
According to Chapter 8 of the Forest Service Land and Resource Management
Planning Handbook, rivers are identified for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System by several means, including the land management planning process.
The Forest Service has elected to conduct wild and scenic river inventories as a part of
its Forest Management Plan revision process.
The Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan is
currently being revised. Forest Service precedent is to complete the eligibility stage of
the wild and scenic river inventory in a separate document prior to completion of the
Management Plan revision. The suitability stage of the inventory is completed and
included in the Environmental Impact Statement for the Management Plan revision.
In November of 1993, the Wasatch-Cache Forest issued an inventory document
identifying eligible wild and scenic rivers on the Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
This Inventory identified the Stillwater Fork of the Bear River as being eligible for
stream
wild and scenic river status. Appellants are concerned that, initially, only
on the entire Wasatch-Cache National Forest, the Stillwater Fork of the Bear River, was
.found to eligible for interim protection until a suitability study was performed.
Appellants were involved with studying the Logan River and Beaver Creek, using the
eligibility requirements from the Land and Resource Management Planning
Handbook. Even though over 50 pages of information was provided to the Inventory
Team (Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, 1993), no reference was made to
this material in the Inventory except a footnote.
=
Appellants found that certain segments of the Logan River might possess the
free-flowing characteristics and outstandingly remarkable qualities for eligibility if the
evaluation was corrected to use current evaluation techniques. These techniques were
detailed in two letters to the Forest Supervisor (J. Logan, in a 3 page, single-spaced
letter to Ms. Susan Giannettino, Forest Supervisor, 18 January 1994; also D. Parkin, in
a 23 page, single-spaced letter to Ms. Susan Giannettino, 18 February 1994). These
letters concurred in the opinion that the forest planners used an honest and systematic
approach in preparing the Inventory. However, the main thrust of these letters was that
there were "significant flaws in both the methodology and interpretation of policy
guidelines" (Parkin, 1994).
In response, the Wasatch-Cache Forest issued a supplemental report entitled
LMP Revision Planning Record Wild and Scenic Rivers Eligibility Evaluation. This
29
�•
Supplement amended portions of the November 1993 inventory. Departing from
planning criteria set forth in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (p.L. 90-542, 81
Stat. 906, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 1271 (Note), 1271-1287), the USDA-USDI Guidelines
for implementing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (USDA-USDI 1982), Forest Service
Manual 1924, and Forest Service Land and Resource Management Planning
Handbook (Ch. 8), the Wasatch-Cache Forest included an amendment to Appendix D
which identified river segments that were "Likely to be Outstandingly Remarkable."
The Forest identification team denoted with an "M" rivers that might possess
outstandingly remarkable values and that require subsequent study.
In this Supplement, the Logan River was resegmented into two segments, Lower
Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek and Beaver Creek to its source. The segment from Lower
Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek was given five out of nine "might possess outstandingly
remarkable values." This segment lies within the Utah Department of Transportation' s
(UDOT) Highway 89 expansion project. This segment was identified for further study
due to outstanding geologic and hydrologic, scenic, general recreational, fishery and
ecological values. Eighty-two rivers andlor river segments were identified in the
Supplement's reevaluation, and the only river segment that comes close in score to the
Logan River segment from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek is the East Fork of the
Smith's Fork, which scored only three "might possess outstandingly remarkable
values" (Supplement 1994).
Although no precedent has been set for rivers that "might possess outstandingly
remarkable values," the Forest Service Land and Resource Management Planning
Handbook provides interim protection guidelines for river segments examined in this
Supplement. According to section 8.12 of this Handbook:
"Interim Managment of Study Rivers. Management prescriptions for river
corridors identified in the National River Inventory, or otherwise identified for
study [emphasis added] should provide protection in the following ways:
1. To the extent the Forest Service is authorized under Jaw to control stream
impoundments and diversions, the free-flowing characteristics of the identified
river cannot be modified.
2. Outstandingly remarkable values of the identified river area must be
protected and, to the extent practicable, enhanced.
3. Management and development of the identified river and its corridor cannot
be modified to the degree that eligibility or classification would be affected (i.e.
classification cannot be changed from wild to scenic, or scenic to recreational).
30
�•
Specific management guidelines for each of the river classifications can be
found in the revised USDA-USDI Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification, and
Management of River Areas, and in the additional standards for study river
assessment and management in section 8.2 of this chapter. These management
guidelines should be followed, to the extent of Forest Service authority, for all
identified study rivers.
The protection requirements specified above must be documented in the forest
plan prescriptions and continued until a decision is made as to the future use of
the river and adjacent lands."
The segment of the Logan River from Lower Twin Bridge to Beaver Creek has been
"otherwise identified for study" by the Forest Service in its Supplement. It therefore
qualifies for interim protection under the Management Planning Handbook.
L Tbe Forest Service's Record of Decision violates Interim Protection
Requirements to Maintain tbe Free-Flowing Nature of tbe Eligible Logan River.
According to section 8.21(b) of the Forest Service Management Planning
Handbook, free-flowing is defined as: "existing or flowing in a natural condition
without impoundment, diversion, straightening. rip-rapping. or other minor structures
at the time any river is proposed for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System
does not automatically disqualify it for designation, but future construction of such
structures is not allowed" (emphasis added).
The FEIS indicates that cement retaining walls will be used in riparian areas at
Beaver Creek, and that riprap may be required wherever the river is adjacent to
highway expansion. These modifications are in direct conflict with the interim
protection mandated by the Management Planning Handbook.
U. Tbe Record of Decision Violates tbe Forest Service's Interim Protection
Requirements to Maintain tbe Outstandingly Remarkable Values of tbe Logan
River.
A. One of the values identified for the Logan River is its outstandingly
remarkable fishery . According to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, the Logan
River fishery is a Class I and II fishery that is ranked as being in the top 5% of all
stream fisheries in the state. This fishery is also considered by the Utah Division of
Water Rights to be one of four major fisheries in the state (Greg Mladenka, Utah
Division of Water Rights, personal communication). According to the FEIS, between
4.4 and 7.6% of brown and cutthroat trout will be lost in the Middle and Upper
Canyons through streambank vegetation removal. Where stream bank vegetation is
31
�•
removed, the FEIS estimates a 40 to 70% loss of brown and cutthroat trout. As
discussed in the fishery impacts section of this appeal, however, fish mortality will
likely be greater than this. UDOT has not adequately addressed sediment-related
impacts on this fishery.
It is obvious that UDOT's construction project will decrease the quality of this
outstanding fishery. The Forest Service Management Planning Handbook clearly
mandates maintenance, if not improvement of, all outstandingly remarkable values.
Unless, subsequent to this appeal, the Wasatch-Cache Forest finds the Logan River
ineligible, unsuitable, or Congress formally elects not to designate the Logan River a
wild and scenic river, the Forest Service has a statutory requirement to ensure that the
outstandingly remarkable fishery value of the Logan River is maintained in its
existing state.
B. Another value identified for the Logan River is its outstandingly remarkable
ecological value. The FEIS states, "The single most important wildlife habitat type
within the project area is woody riparian habitat consisting of forested and scrub/shrub
wetlands and riparian communities that occur along the river and streams." According
to the Environmental Protection Agency, as much as 80% of all wildife species are
dependant upon riparian zones for at least a portion of their life cycles. Riparian zones
thus fulfill an important function in both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
The FEIS estimates that highway construction will require the removal of 3.5
acres, which equals 1.8 miles, of riparian habitat. An additional 11.2 acres of
associated wetlands will be impacted. Riparian zones will be destroyed through
canopy removal, the addition of fill, and rip rap or retaining walls placed throughout
the eligible wild and scenic Logan River segment. This expected 1.8 miles of riparian
habitat removal represents roughly 20% of the eligible wild and scenic section of the
Logan River. The FEIS summarizes these impacts as follows:
"The permanent loss of riparian and wetland habitat has one of the greatest
impacts on wildlife. Most of the habitat loss that occurs as a result of ongoing
highway maintenance activities or that would result from construction of one of
the aIternatives will be permanent. Roadway surfaces along with retaining
walls, parking areas, flattened curves, new alignments, etc., all permanently
eliminate wildlife habitat."
The FEIS further estimates that 149.3 acres of upland habitat will be impacted. This
could lead to "habitat fagmentation [that] can be a significant problem for songbirds,
amphibians, or small mammals."
In summary, with its decision to permit proposed highway construction, the
32
�Forest Service is not managing identified outstandingly remarkable ecological values
of the Logan River in the interim period as required by the Management Planning
Handbook and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, pending suitability studies or
Congressional decision.
C. The Logan River was also identified as requiring further study for its
outstandingly remarkable scenic values. The FEIS estimates that construction will
destroy 38 % and 9 % of the most visually sensitive areas within the eligible wild and
scenic river segment, and 58% and 71 % of the moderately visually sensitive areas.
UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative will not comply with the Visual Quality
Objectives established in the Wasatch-Cache Forest Management Plan. If construction
proceeds as planned, the Logan River will no longer possess the outstandingly
remarkable scenic values needed to qualify for Wild and Scenic status.
The "Dugway" will be excavated up to 8 ft. into the mountain, creating a huge
road cut and the need for at least one planned retaining wall. Up canyon from the
Dugway, the curve will be flattened and realignment will start for the replacement of
the Upper Twin Bridge, producing another large road cut. Other road cuts will be
made just below the Temple Fork intersection. The 8 miles of the Upper Canyon (from
mp 391.6 to the Beaver Mountain intersection) will be widened to 34 ft., and areas
with passing lanes, up to 3 miles in length, will be widened to 44 ft. These
construction segments will produce large amounts of cut and fill and a large road base,
further degrading the scenic value.
Although the supplemental study indicated that the eligible Logan River
segment was considered outstandingly scenic because it "Contain[s) a National Scenic
Byway where the river conidor contributes significantly to the road's designation,"
the Forest Service is not managing the segment of the Logan River in the interim
period to maintain its existing outstandingly remarkable scenic value.
DL Tbe Record of Decision Violates tbe Forest Service's Interim Protection
Requirements to Protect the Current Classification Status of the Eligible Logan
River.
In the Supplement to the Inventory released by the Wasatch-Cache Forest, no
classification scheme was recommended for either stretch of the Logan River. It is the
contention of the Utah Rivers Conservation Council, appellants, that the Logan River
should be classified as a SCENIC river under the Wild and Scenic River System.
According to the WiJd and Scenic Rivers Act, classification defmitions are as
follows:
33
�•
"Scenic river areas--Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of .
impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and
shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.
Recreational river areas--Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily
accessible by road or railroad, that may have some development along their
shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundment or diversion in
the past."
The USDA-USDI NWSRS Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, CFR 39458,
discusses interpretation of development by stating: "Existing low dams , diversion
works, rip-rap. and other minor structures will not bar recreational classification,
provided the watetway remains generally natural and riverine in appearance."
Appellants are concerned that the Logan River segment from Lower Twin
Bridge to Beaver Creek, which "might possess outstandingly remarkable values" as
indicated in the Supplement, will be exposed to inappropriate levels of disturbance by
UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative highway proposal. This Logan River segment
is eligible for Wild and Scenic status, and, therefore, until an adequate evaluation is
complete, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act mandates no degradation of values.
UDOT's Record of Decision states, "The FEIS recognizes that some screening
vegetation along the river may be disturbed, but again this is estimated in the EIS to
be minor and mostly temporary in nature ... the road reconstruction project will not
affect the potential eligibility or classification of the Logan River" (page 38). "The
FEIS also evaluated the effects of the alternatives on the resources and characteristics
affecting the scenic, historic, recreation, wildlife and fish, cultural and other values
associated with the river and river corridor ... there will be either no or only minor
effects from the Preferred Alternative on these values" (page 37).
Appellants beHeve, however, that there are numerous construction components
in the Preferred Alternative that will result in significant depreciation of wild and
scenic values and will in fact jeopardize the potential classification of the Logan River
and Beaver Creek. Some of these construction components are described above.
Appellants are concerned that UDOT's "minor effects" will be enough to change the
existing classification from scenic to recreational, or from recreational to ineligibility.
This is explicitly contrary to requirements specified in the Forest Service Management
Planning Handbook and in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
IV_ The Forest Service's Record of Decision Violates The National Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act and Forest Service Administrative Direction for Compliance with that
Act.
34
�With its Record of Decision, the Forest Service is in general failing to grant
interim protection to the Logan River segment that has been found eligible for Wild
and Scenic River status. The Forest Service is therefore in violation of the National
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and its Forest Service Land and Resource Management
Planning Handbook, Chapter 8.
Appellants are also concerned that the planning team did not assess all resource
values that would qualify the Logan River for inclusion as an eligible Wild and Scenic
River. Most notably, there is ample evidence to indicate that the Logan River
possesses outstandingly remarkable water oriented recreation, botanical, and wildlife
values (CPLC, 1993).
Appellants are concerned that the Supplement does not evaluate significant
tributaries of the Logan River, most notably Beaver Creek. Study and protection of
tributary streams is an important component of the wild and scenic planning process
because such streams and creeks are integral components of river systems. The goals
of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act can best be achieved through preservation and
recognition of river systems as integral wholes, with full recognition of the
contribution of tributary steams. Also, management of such tributaries as Wild and
Scenic Rivers will enhance the Forest Service's ability to maintain and enhance
downstream riverine values.
V. Tbe Forest Service Failed to Adequately Involve tbe Concerned Public in tbe
Inventory Process.
Although Logan Canyon is of high local and national interest, the original
Inventory received a very limited distribution (Bass 1994). Even so, of those
interested parties who responded, the overwhelming majority were critical of the
Inventory. Of those who responded, none were notified of the subsequent reevaluation
or the changes incorporated in the Table of Appendix D in the 1994 Supplement.
The Forest Service has not provided sufficient documentation required for the
concerned public to evaluate the criteria used to draw conclusions in the original
Inventory. The Inventory refers to "detailed field surveys' (1993, pages A-19). In the
Supplement we find the statement, "documentalion used to facilitate judging the
merits of further study have been incorporated in this supplement...· (pages 1-10). Yet
when appellants requested access to this "documentation," all that was forthcoming
were copies of maps with largely unintelligible notations. Apparently, there exists no
clear documentation that can be reviewed by the concerned pUblic. It is irresponsible
for the Forest Service to agree to any depreciation of wild and scenic values without
full involvement of the concerned public.
35
�The Utah Rivers Conservation Council has recommended that the entire Utah
portion of the Logan River conidor be designated as a Scenic river under the NWSRS.
This recommendation was made through A Citizen's Proposal to Protect the Wild
Rivers of Utah, published by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance. The WasatchCache Forest has not responded to this recommendation, other than by violating its
(5d) Wild and Scenic River Act planning requirements through issuing its Record of
Decision.
Literature Cited
Bass, R. 1994. Keeping Logan Canyon. Audubon Magazine, Nov.lDec.
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon. 1993. Letter of October 7, 1993, with
numerous attachments containing information about Logan River, Logan
Canyon and Beaver Creek.
Logan, J. 1994. Letter of January 18 to Susan Giannettino, Forest Supervisor,
Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
Parkin, D. 1994. Letter of February 18 to Susan Giannettino, Forest Supervisor,
Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89.
USDA Forest Service. 1994. Supplement to Inventory of Rivers on the WasatchCache National Forest Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT.
USDA Forest Service. 1993. Inventory of Rivers on the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest Eligible for Inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT.
USDA Forest Service. 1985. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the WasatchCache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Wasatch-Cache
National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT.
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOn. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. 89
Through Logan Canyon.
Utah Rivers Conservation Council. A Citizen's Proposal to Protect the Wild Rivers of
Utah, published by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
36
�S. FlSHERY IMPACTS
The Utah Department of Transportation and the Forest Service are accepting an
analysis of fishery impacts that is inadequate. There is no scientific justification
whatsoever for claims in UDOT's FEIS that trout populations will be reduced 4 to 8%,
and that the effects of increased sedimentation will be "relatively minor and short
term." From the FEIS and supporting documentation, we have no idea what impact
UDOT's Preferred Alternative will have upon fish populations in Logan River.
The Forest Service is also in violation of its Management Plan in not obtaining
adequate analyses of required habitat indices. According to a guideline in the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest Management Plan, the Forest Service must monitor
BCI and HCI indices for Logan River to ensure the continuing quality of fish habitat.
As amended in the Forest Service' s Record of Decision (1995), this guideline states,"ln
all streams maintain the existing HCI and BCI where they exceed the minimum of 42
and 75 respectively. Allow decreases not exceeding 5% of existing condition ... "
(page IV-3(0). (These indices are described in Appendix 0 of the Plan.) No BCI
analysis has been done by the Forest Service or by UDOT, predicting the effect of
UDOT's construction upon this index for Logan River. No macroinvertibrate baseline
data is reported for Logan River. An HCI analysis is briefly reported in the FEIS, but it
is, as we shall show, inadequate. By failing to obtain adequate analyses of BCI and
HCI habitat indices, and by failing to commit to proper monitoring of these indices,
the Forest Service is in violation of its Management Plan. The Forest Service is
therefore in violation of the National Forest Management Act.
The Logan River has been designated a Class I and Class II waterway on the
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources' Unique Streams List. As such, the fishery in
Logan River is among the top 5% of stream fisheries in the state of Utah. This fishery
is considered by the Utah Division of Water Rights to be one of four major fisheries in
the state (Greg Mladenka, Division of Water Rights, personal communication). The
Logan River supports naturally-reproducing populations of brown and cutthroat trout,
and mountain whitefish. Logan River riparian habitat is considered among the "best
preserved in the state" (FEIS, page 9-59). Due to the quality of its fishery, the quality
of the fishing experience in relatively pristine conditions, and accessibility, the Logan
River is a favorite with anglers throughout northern Utah. Anglers who fish the Logan
bring $4 million annually into the local economy (estimate for 1990, UDOT 1987,
Table 7, page 18).
UDOT's analysis of fish loss due to construction begins with an estimate of the
length of stream bank that will be impacted by the removal of vegetation. From
studies by the Division of Wildlife Resources, we have available the number of fish
that are located along each foot of stream bank. This value is multiplied by the
35
.,
~ e- r ~ ~".;it
(
Ci rL. c f ('
..
-r\"r.N~1;., ~ <.r<.-j
�number of feet of stream bank that will be impacted. We now have the number of fish
that are located along the length of impacted stream bank. This number is multiplied
by 40% and by 70% to obtain a range of numbers of fish that will be lost in the
impacted areas. The 40% and 70 % are fish mortality rates that have been borrowed
from a Utah Division of Wildlife Resources study done in 1973 on the effects of the
removal of stream bank vegetation. The numbers of fish lost in the impacted areas are
divided by the total number of fish in the river, to give us a range of percentages of
fish lost through construction. The FEIS concludes that in the Middle Canyon, 4.4 to
7.6% of brown trout will be lost, and the same percentages of cutthroat trout will be
lost. In the Upper Canyon, again 4.4 to 7.6 % of each population will be lost (FEIS,
Table 4.8, pages 4-43 through 4-45).
The Forest Service has asked UDOT for a more extensive analysis. In a letter to
UDOT, Regional Forester J .S. Tilder noted that the analysis UDOT provides in the
DEIS considers only the impact of vegetation removal, ignoring the effects on the
fishery of increased sedimentation due to construction (FEIS, page 9-49). He
recommended that UDOT contact Forest Service fisheries biologists for help with
quantitatively estimating effects of sedimentation. He supplied names and phone
numbers. (Tixier's letter is attached at the end of this section of our appeal.) The
quantitative analysis of fish loss in the FEIS is identical in method to that in the DEIS,
without a quantitative analysis of sedimentation. In its response to Tixier, UDOT
writes that the effects of increased sedimentation are "difficult to predict" (FEIS, pages
9-15,9- 16). In an internal memo, (included at the end of this section), Forest Service
fisheries biologist Jill Dufour (1989) expressed her concern that UDOT is
underestimating the effects of construction upon fish by neglecting turbidity in its
quantitative analysis.
The discussion of fishery iropacts in the FEIS is simplistic because UDOT
refuses to quantitatively predict the increase in sedimentation and turbidity due to
construction. Beyond saying that such an analysis is "difficult," UDOT claims that
such an analysis "would greatly oversimplify and probably overestimate sediment
related effects." They add that a quantitative analysis would not properly account for
UDOT's use of "best management practices" during construction (FEIS, page 4-49).
Several fisheries biologists have informed us that, in fact, the models that are
used to predict sediment-related effects allow biologists to factor into their analysis
the use of practices that limit the sediments entering a river. "Best management
practices" are accounted for in the models used by the Forest Service and others.
Rather than "overestimating" iropacts, as UDOT claims, such models allow biologists
to realistically evaluate the impacts of the disturbance of riparian habitat. By refusing
to do a quantitative analysis of sedimentation and turbidity, UDOT is building a "best
case" scenario geared, it seems, to make the effects of their construction proposal
36
�•
appear palatable--only a 4 to 8% loss of fish . In reality, considering sediment-related
effects, the loss will likely be greater than this.
In its recent Record of Decision, the Forest Service states categorically that "the
environmental effects were adequately disclosed" in UOOT's FEIS (1995, page 2). In
saying this, the Forest Service is ignoring the fact that UDOT has refused to provide a
quantitative analysis of sedimentation, even after being publicly asked to do so by
Regional Forester Tixier. In his request, Tixier cited the "significan ce" of the Logan
River fishery. The Forest Service is also ignoring Jill Dufour' s memo, available in th e
files in the Regional office, expressing her professional opinion that UDOT is
underestimating the effects of increased turbidity by ignoring turbidity in its
quantitative analysis. The Forest Service does not indicate why they have ignored the
reservations expressed by these Forest Service personnel. For this reason, the Forest
Service' s decision to accept UDOT's FEIS appears arbitrary and capricious. It appears
to rest upon political expediency rather than good science.
UDOT provides a qualitative, and very brief, discussion of sedimentation and
turbidity. They write that, "The potential increase in turbidity and possibly siltation
will be expected to have a relatively minor and short-term impact on water quality,
benthic invertebrates, and fish populations" (FEIS, page 4-48). They support this
claim by saying that "only" 10% of Logan River's banks will be impacted through
construction, that not all of the affected stream banks will be impacted at the same
time, and that measures will be used to control sediments entering the river during and
after construction. For example, ground cover will be reestablished along stream
banks, they claim, and construction will be limited to the drier months of the year "to
the extent practicable."
On the other hand, UDOT admits that mature riparian vegetation, with
overhanging cover for fish, "will take considerably longer" to reestablish, up to 10 to
40 years (FEIS, pages 4-31 and 4-48). Growth of new cottonwoods and other
deciduous trees, "could require 30 to 50 years or might never occur again" (page 43 1) . Since mature riparian plant communities take "considerably longer" to
reestablish, the loss of these communities, especially on steep slopes, will likely have
some long term impact on the fishery with respect to erosion control.
In an undated report, "Effects of Road Building on the Logan River," the late
professor of fisheries biology, William Helm, explains that in the drier months runoff
into a river during construction can be especially damaging to a fishery. In riparian
areas that have had vegetation removed, runoff from summer slonns canies a large load
of sediment that, in the lowered flow of the river, is not canied downstream . In the
drier mon ths , sediment tends to be deposited in the areas under construction or just
downstream. If those areas are critical to fish, providing spawning or feeding grounds,
37
�the effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity can be severe. Helm writes that
increased sedimentation can be expected to kill 95-100% of fish eggs. Sediments fill
the spaces between gravel and stones, "greatly decreasing the supply of food for
trout." Juvenile cutthroat trout are found in Logan River throughout the summer
season, and are highly susceptible to sediments clogging their gills. UDOT claims that
it will limit construction to the drier months of the year, but, according to Helm, this is
actually "the worst possible time" to add sediment to rivers. Helm's assessment has
been confirmed by a fisheries biologist with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
(personal communication).
UDOT has not established its claim that increased sedimentation and turbidity
due to construction will have a "relatively minor and short-term impact." As Helm
argues, sediment entering a river during the drier months is especially damaging to a
fishery, and UDOT has admitted that mature riparian plant communities take from 10
to 40 years to reestablish. Furthermore, UDOT is planning extensive construction just
beyond the riparian zone. Six curve cuts are planned along the highway through the
Middle Canyon. UDOT is planning to widen the road in the Middle and Upper
Canyons, just beyond, and in some places within, the riparian zone. At the Dugway,
UDOT is planning to carve 4 to 8 feet into the rock and dirt wall on the mountain side
of the highway, for a distance of about 3/4 of a mile. Upstream, Temple Fork
intersection is to be widened, with a turning lane installed. Within the narrow riparian
area between the road and the river, a retaining wall has been proposed to help
stabilize the steep slope. Considering the extent of planned construction along Logan
River, UDOT's claim that increased sedimentation and turbidity will have a "relatively
minor and short-term impact" is unbelievable. With the loss of 10% of the riparian
vegetation, and with extensive road construction in and just beyond the riparian zone,
sediment-related effects will likely be major and long term. In fact, at one point in the
FEIS, UDOT contradicts its conclusion by admitting that effects of increased
sedimentation will be "short- and long-term" (page 4-2). A quantitative discussion of
sediment-related effects would help us detennine how serious these effects will be on
the fishery.
Let us return to UDOT's quantitative analysis of fish mortality. It is simplistic
in that it ignores effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity due to construction.
It is simplistic, as well, in that it assumes that every length of stream bank is
equivalent, with respect to fish spawning and feeding, to every other length of stream
bank. If extensive construction takes place adjacent to sections of the river that are of
critical importance to trout spawning and feeding, the impacts could exceed the
estimated 4 to 8 % mortality.
In a letter to CH2M Hill, preparers of the FEIS, Professor Helm (1987) reported
that the river just downstream of Lower Twin Bridge in the Middle Canyon is an
38
�important spawning area for brown trout. This area features good pools and substrate,
moderate water velocities and good overhanging cover. Helm discovered a relatively
high number of brown trout "redds" or nests in this area, 9 redds in a . 15 mile stretch,
as compared to 2 redds per mile in the river below this point. Two biologists have
looked at this section of the river with us and have confinned that this area may be
important for trout spawning. The extensive construction planned along the Dugway
will be just above and upstream of Lower Twin Bridge. Sediments in runoff from this
construction site will likely enter the river just upstream of the spawning area
discovered by Helm, the sediments possibly killing eggs, damaging food production,
and clogging the gills of juveniles. This would lead to a greater loss to the fishery
than UDOT predicts.
Jill Dufour of the Forest Service worries about the impacts construction at the
Temple Fork intersection will have on juvenile cutthroat trout, and upon any
spawning cutthroat trout, below the intersection. Juvenile cutthroat are found in
Logan River throughout the summer, and Dufour has emphasized to us that these
juveniles are highly susceptible to clogged gills from sediments (personal
communication). Another fisheries biologist, Thomas Pettengill of the Utah Division
of Wildlife Resources, has told us that, in his opinion, the gradient of the river at the
Temple Fork intersection is steep enough that sediments from construction here will
likely be carried further downstream, settling out where the gradient is less steep and
the river slows, at and below Lower Twin Bridge (personal communication).
Sediments from construction at the Temple Fork intersec tion would co mbine with
sediments from construction at the Dugway, all dumping into critical brown trout
spawning and feeding areas in the lower Middle Canyon.
Helm ' s data on brown trout spawning is from 1987. We do not have recent data
on trout spawning in the Logan River. We also do not have recent data on fish habitat.
We need a better indication of the number and distribution of good quality pools in
the river, and the amount and distribution of good substrates for spawning. If good
quality pools and good substrates are rare in the Logan River, as has been reported,
then extensive construction adjacent to these resources could have an impact on the
fishery that is disproportionate to the length of stream bank affected. The single study
that UDOT relies upon for habitat information was done by Adams in 1966 (FEIS,
Table 3-8, page 3-30). This study is almost 30 years old! In her memo within the
Forest Service, Jill Dufour (1989) wrote concerning this study, "I question whether
data from 1966 is applicable to conditions in the Logan River today." In spite of
Dufour's memo, neither UDOT nor the Forest Service have provided us with any
documentation showing that the habitat data Adams gathered in 1966 is relevant
today.
Let us return to UOOT's quantitative analysis of fish mortality. UOOT relies
39
�heavily upon a study done in 1973 by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. It is
from this study that UDOT gets the trout mortality rates of 40 to 70%. This study has
not been published. A brief description of methods and results are included within an
internal UDOT memo of 1974. This study is twenty-two years old!
A copy of the table reporting the data from this study has been included at the
end of this section . The blanks or dashes in the table mean, it seems, that no effort was
made to catch fish at that station during that "electrofishing effort." Apparently, the
stations were sampled unevenly. The Right Hand Fork Station was sampled only
once, while the Brachiopod Station was sampled four times. This renders suspect any
range of trout reduction values generated in this study, since sampling effort varies
considerably from station to station.
From the data presented, we cannot conclude, with the authors of this study,
that riparian habitat loss will result in a 40 to 70% reduction in numbers of brown and
cutthroat trout. At the stations sampled, cutthroat and brown trout numbers were
actually reduced by 47 to 80%. At the Brachiopod station, the reported numbers of
cutthroat are lOin the unaltered site and 2 in the altered site, a difference of 8 fish,
which is an 80% reduction in the number of fish in the altered site. No station had a
reduction lower than 47 %. The average percent reduction in brown and cutthroat
trout, considered together, is 65 %. Using a paired-data statistical technique for
estimating the reduction of trout in the population, with a=.05, we have obtained a
range of 58 to 73%. We know of no statistical technique that will provide an estimate
for the population of 40 to 70%, given this data with an average reduction of 65%.
Unfortunately, the authors of this study do not tell us how they obtained their
estimate. Our inquiries to the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and to CH2M Hill,
have produced no information on who did this study or how they obtained their
estimate.
Another difficulty with this 1973 study is that it does not accurately indicate
effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity due to construction. UDOT argues
that by providing an estimate of trout reduction in areas that have been altered by the
removal of riparian vegetation during construction, this study automatically accounts
for sediment-related effects on fish . UDOT bases its refusal to do a separate
quantitative analysis of sediment-related effects, in part, on their claim that this study
already indicates such effects. This study cannot, however, indicate effects of
increased sedimentation and turbidity during and just after construction. It was
conducted in the Lower Canyon, where the highway was widened and straightened in
1968. This study was conducted five years later, in 1973. It cannot, then, indicate
effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity during and just after the removal of
riparian vegetation. when these effects are greatest.
40
�•
The most serious problem with this 1973 study, however, is that it is the wrong
kind of srudy for the use UDOT makes of it. This srudy is simply a comparison of fish
numbers at each sampling station. The number of fish is determined along a length of
stream bank with narural vegetation and along an adjacent length of stream bank that
has had the vegetation removed. The results are, not surprisingly, that fish prefer to
spend time in those areas with natural vegetation. This is actually a preference study.
investigating where fish prefer to spend time when there is a choice between adjacent
lengths of stream bank. This srudy does not address the question of how many fish
will actually be lost to the fishery with the loss of riparian vegetation to road
construction. The range of values obtained in this study is not an indication of trout
mortality, but rather an indication of where fish prefer to spend time between adjacent
lengths of stream bank. The kind of srudy we need to estimate actual loss of fish is a
study that measures fish densities along a river prior to and after extensive loss of
riparian vegetation to construction. We require an actual alteration study. There is no
good reason to base an assessment of fish mortality in' Logan River exclusively on a
study that is not designed to answer questions about acrual fish loss.
Basing a quantitative analysis of fish mortality upon this 1973 srudy is not "the
best we can do." Fisheries biologists have informed us that in the fisheries literature it
is common to fmd studies that measure actual fish losses in rivers that have been
altered through road construction. Such alteration studies have been done in Montana
and in Colorado. We have learned that these srudies can easily be located by the
Forest Service through an Internet service. No such srudies are cited by UDOT in its
FEIS or in supporting documentation, yet such srudies are relevant. Also, it would be
helpful to have a quantitative analysis of the sediment-related effects of construction
in the Logan River. It would be helpful to have in hand a recent srudy of fish habitat,
with an indication of the use of the habitat by fish, so that we know where cutthroat
and brown trout are spawning and feeding in relation to planned construction. By
relying exclusively upon this 1973 UDWR srudy in its quantitative analysis, UDOT
has provided a simplistic and inaccurate prediction of fish loss.
Let us sum up our concerns with UDOT's discussion of fish mortality. UDOT's
quantitative analysis incorporates mortality values that are taken from a study that is
22 years old, and is not designed for the use UDOT makes of it. This srudy does not
accurately indicate effects of increased sedimentation and turbidity. Reported values
of trout reduction are apparently incorrect, and so UDOT's analysis based upon these
values appears to be inaccurate. UDOT fails to consider relevant studies of the actual
impacts of road construction upon fisheries. UDOT has refused to predict the effects of
increased sedimentation and turbidity using models that are widely used for this
purpose, even after being publicly asked to do so by the Forest Service, and even after
the Forest Service offered to provide help in generating the predictions. UDOT' s claim
that sediment-related effects will be "minor and short-term" is contradicted by the fact
41
�that UDOT is planning extensive construction in and just beyond the riparian zone,
and by the fact that mature riparian plant communities may take up to 40 years to
reestablish, with a longer time for trees. Professor Helm has found that the drier season,
when UOOT plans to do most of the construction, is actually the "worst possible time"
to add sediment to a river. Those areas of the river that are adjacent to planned major
construction may be of vital importance to the fish . Professor Helm has documented
an important brown trout spawning area just below Lower Twin Bridge. UDOT is
relying upon a study of fish habitat that is almost 30 years old, and, according to one
fisheries biologist, is of doubtful relevance today. We do not have current information
on fish habitat or fish spawning in Logan River.
UDOT will respond that our concerns are no longer as valid as they might have
been, since, in its Record of Decision, UDOT has modified the Preferred Alternative so
that it is less environmentally destructive. Unfortunately, UDOT is still planning
extensive road widening and curve cuts adjacent to, and just upstream of those
sections of the river that are believed to be of vital importance to the fishery,
especially through the Middle Canyon. The general problem with UDOT's assessment
of fishery impacts is that, even with the proposed modifications to the Preferred
Alternative, there are too many unknowns, such as sediment-related effects, that are
not adequately addressed in this FEIS and supporting documentation. There is still
too much potential for unacceptable destruction of this fishery .
As it now stands, there is no scientific justification whatsoever for the
prediction UDOT has provided of a 4 to 8 % loss of trout. In its Record of Decision
(1995), the Forest Service claims that "the environmental effects were adequately
disclosed" in the FEIS. Considering fish mortality, this claim is false. The Forest
Service is accepting an analysis of losses to this fishery that is scientifically
unjustified.
A guideline in the Management Plan calls for monitoring the BCI and HCI
habitat indices for Logan River. As amended by the Forest Service in its Record of
Decision (ROD), this guideline states, "In all streams maintain the existing HCI and
BCI where they exceed the minimum of 42 and 75 respectively. Allow decreases not
exceeding 5% of existing condition where this decrease is temporary and will not
reduce the HCI or BCI below the established minimums" (page IV-3(0). There has
been no analysis of the effect of the Preferred Alternative upon the BCI index. No
macroinvertibrate baseline data is reported for Logan River. We have no idea what the
present BCI value is, so we can have no idea what would constitute a "temporary" 5%
decrease in BCI value. The Forest Service's ROD includes no mention of monitoring
the components of BCI either before or during construction. By ignoring analysis and
monitoring of BCI, the Forest Service is in violation of this guideline in its
Management Plan. Guidelines are to be "applied in all situations unless some
42
�•
overriding reason to abandon" them is supported by a Forest Service interdisciplinary
analysis (page IV -24). Such an analysis for the sake of abandoning guidelines has not
been done.
On the other hand, the FEIS briefly reports an analysis of the effect of the
modified Preferred Alternative upon the HCI index for Logan River (pages 4-2 and 43). This analysis is inadequate. UDOT claims that the predicted decrease in the value
of HCI is due to "removal of vegetation and short- and long-term sedimentation" (page
4-2). In fact, the calculated decrease in HCI reflects only an estimation of the amount
of riparian vegetation that will be removed (Lynn Foster, CH2M Hill, personal
communication). Stream environment is the only component of this index which has
been recently estimated to take into account the impact of road construction. Values
for the other components were borrowed from the Adams 1966 habitat study. Again
there is absolutely no indication of the relevance of this 1966 study to conditions in
the river today. There has been no estimation of the effect of construction upon the
quality of substrate in the river, and no estimation of the effect upon the number and
quality of pools. These components of HCl may be affected by increased
sedimentation during and after construction (Forest Service, personal communication).
There is no estimation of the effect upon stream bank stability. This is not a genuine
analysis of the effect of construction upon the full HCI index. It would have been
much less misleading if UDOT had simply reported their fmdings as the percentage of
stream bank vegetation that will be lost.
In its ROD, the Forest Service states that an analysis of changes in the HCI
index "'is included in the FEIS." This statement is false. The Forest Service is
accepting an HCI analysis that is based on data of questionable relevance, and which
involves an estimation of the effects of construction on only a single component,
ignoring effects upon those components that may indicate increased sedimentation
and serious loss of fish habitat. The Forest Service is allowing a decrease of 5% in the
present HCI value for Logan River. Yet, in its Record of Decision, the Forest Service
does not mention any monitoring it will do of HCI. We do not know what the present
He] value is, and the Forest Service has made no commitment to monitor Her to
ensure compliance. By accepting this inadequate HCI analysis, and by not
committing to effective monitoring, the Forest Service is violating a guideline in its
Management Plan (page lV-3(0).
In the section of the Management Plan, "Desired Future Condition of the
Forest," the Forest Service states, "All MIS habitat will be maintained at levels that
exceed requirements for minimum viable populations" (page IV-57). Cutthroat trout
are listed as an MIS species (page 1I-33). The cutthroat in Logan River may actually
be Bonneville Cutthroat, a species listed as "sensitive" by the Regional Forester (paul
Cowley, Forest Service, personal communication). In their Record of Decision, the
43
�•
•
Forest Service states that UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative "will not adversely
affect the viability of any Forest Service listed sensitive species" (page 8). In the case
of cutthroat in Logan River, the Forest Service has no grounds for saying this.
The 1973 UDWR study that UDOT is relyin.g upon for its fish mortality values
presents a special difficulty in the case of cutthroat trout. This study was done in the
Lower Canyon, well below the upper reaches of Logan River in which most of the
cutthroat populations are found and in which they spawn. The cutthroat in Logan
River are possibly genetically disposed to prefer the colder temperatures of the upper
reaches (Forest Service, personal communication), Cutthroat are found in the Lower
Canyon in relatively small numbers. We must question conclusions reached about
cutthroat in a "habitat" study that has been conducted well below the primary range
and primary habitat of cutthroat, and well below their spawning grounds. We cannot
simply assume that the removal of vegetation in the upper reaches will affect cutthroat
numbers in the same way that it might in the Lower Canyon. Given this problem, and
the other problems with UDOT's analysis of fish mortality, such as the lack of
infonnation concerning sedimentation and turbidity, we cannot conclude that only 4
to 8 % of cutthroat will be lost to construction. By accepting UDOT's flawed
prediction of fish loss and its inadequate HCI analysis, by ignoring the required BCI
analysis, and by failing to commit to proper monitoring of these habitat indices, the
Forest Service is abrogating its responsibility for this MIS, and possibly sensitive,
species. From UDOT's assessment, we have no idea what impact the modified
Preferred Alternative will actually have upon cutthroat habitat or the number of
cutthroat.
With its decision to permit UDOT's modified Preferred Alternative, the Forest
Service is in violation of a guideline in its Management Plan, and in violation of a
directive in its Management Plan concerning an MIS species. The Forest Service is
also in violation of its policies for sensitive species in the National Forests as outlined
in the Forest Service Manual, Title 2600 (1991), section 2672.42, since they have
reached a determination of "no adverse affects" based on inadequate analyses. With
these violations, the Forest Service is in violation of the National Forest Management
Act.
We request that before it agrees to amend its Management Plan and grant the
required easement allowing UDOT to construct the modified Preferred Alternative, the
Forest Service insist that UDOT provide an adequate discussion of impacts to fish
numbers and fish habitat in an SEIS. We further request the Forest Service to insist
that UDOT maintain the current 26 ft. road width from Lower Twin Bridge to above
Ricks Spring. In other words, the 26 ft. width should be maintained throughout the
entire Middle Canyon. Also, there should be no curve cuts around the Temple Fork
intersection. These changes would protect from construction those stretches of the
44
�.,
river that are most essential to the fishery in Logan River. We request that the Forest
Service insist that UDOT consider again the Conservationists' Alternative for Highway
89 in Logan Canyon. This alternative satisfies traffic needs in the canyon, as we
discuss in an earlier section of this appeal, and it better protects the fishery in Logan
River.
Again, the fishery in Logan River is ranked among the top 5% of stream
fisheries in the state. It is considered by the Utah Division of Water Rights to be one
of four major fisheries in the state. We urge the Forest Service to abide by its policies
in giving this fishery careful attention and adequate protection.
Literature Cited
Adams, J.K. 1966. Memorandum to B. Reese concerning aquatic habitat quality in
Logan Canyon. U.S Forest Service, Cache National Forest.
Dufour, J. 1989. Memorandum to D. Baumgartner of January 18. U.S. Forest Service,
Wasatch-Cache National Forest.
Helm, W. 1987. Letter to Stan Nuffer of May 28. Helm reprints collection, Quinney
Library, Utah State University.
Helm, W. undated. "Effects of Road Building on the Logan River." Helm reprints
collection, Quinney Library, Utah State University.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89.
USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual, Title 2600, Wildlife, Fish
and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. Washington.
USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan.
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOl). 1993. (FEIS) Final Environmental
Impact Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill.
Utah Department of Transportation. 1987. Aquatic Resources Technical
Memorandum. Prepared by CH2M Hill.
Utah Department of Transportation. 1974. Memorandum from L.A. Abbey to L.R.
Jester of June 17.
45
�6. wn,DLIFE IMPACTS AND SENSITIVE SPECIES
1.) UDOT's FEIS and ROD violate the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resources Management Plan.
a) UDOT's FEIS and ROD violate Goal #16 of the Management Plan (page IV8) and directives within the Plan concerning wildlife (Plan Responses
to Issues, Issue 9, page 1lI-2; Desired Future Condition of the Forest, page
IV-56).
The current productivity level of wildlife habitat will not be maintained or
improved. The current capacity of big game winter range will not be maintained or
increased, but will be diminished or adversely impacted. These results violate
Management Plan provisions cited above.
With the modified Preferred Alternative, 149.3 acres of upland plant
communities will be impacted by construction, compared to 6.9 acres for the
Conservationists' Alternative, over 2100% more impacted areas for the chosen
alternative. According to the FEIS, upland habitat loss and the consequent impacts
during construction activity will affect summer big game range and ruffed and blue
grouse brood rearing areas. The FEIS states that "habitat loss is especially significant
in the case of forested, scrub/shrub, and emergent wetlands and riparian communities
(i.e., upland communities) that are of high value to many species of wildlife" and that
"habitat fragmentation can be a significant problem for songbirds, amphibians, and
small mammals." There is no mention as to which species of songbirds, amphibians, or
small mammals may be affected by upland habitat loss or to what extent they may be
affected, which prevents informed public participation, and leads to arbitrary and
capricious decision making. No mitigation for negative impacts is proposed. ,
According to the Management Plan, the Wasatch-Cache ranks as the most
important wildlife and fisheries Forest in the state (page 1I-3 I). Hunter days use of all
key game species except elk ranks first, while the percentage of statewide habitat ranks
first or second for all species except mule deer. In addition, the highest proportion of
the statewide population of mule deer, moose, and mountain goat inhabits this Forest.
The Wasatch-Cache mule deer population is the largest in the National Forest system.
The FEIS states, "Loss of (winter range) habitat for (mule deer and moose) is
especiaUy critical during severe winters when suitable mule deer winter range covers
only a small area compared to the area occupied during normal winters" (page 4-40).
In a letter to CH2M Hill, preparers of the FEIS, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
(UDWR) expressed real concern with impacts to winter range, saying, "Loss of these
46
�ranges are particularly critical, and the limiting factor in maintaining viable
populations" (George Wilson, UDWR, 13 February 1987). The National Forest
Management Act specifically mandates that "habitat be managed to maintain viable
populations of existing ... vertebrate species in the planning area" (36 C.F.R., 219.19).
Yet, the loss of mule deer and moose wintering range for the chosen Preferred
Alternative is 134 acres compared to the loss of 2.3 acres with the Conservationists'
Alternative, over 5800% more impacted acres with the chosen alternative.
Additionally, illustration of big game winter range in the FEIS includes only Rich
County, less than 30% of the entire study area.
Another negative impact given only cursory attention in the FEIS involves
increased highway mortality to wildlife, especially big game. Risk associated with
proximity to the highway increases with vehicle speed, effectively diminishing usable
habitat. The FEIS neglects to reveal that increases in highway speeds correlate
positively with increased animal-vehicle collision frequency (Puglisi et al. 1974;
Arnold 1981; Reed et al. 1982; National Safety Council 1984). The FEIS claims that
the mitigation cattle fencing proposed in the modified Preferred Alternative,
extending from the Tony Grove intersection to Franklin Basin, 'will likely reduce ...
vehicle-deer accidents" (page 4- 13). Research demonstrates, however, that deer
readily jump fencing less than 2 meters in height (Feldhammer et al. 1986; Ludwig
and Bremicker 1983; Reed et al. 1982), rendering UDOT's claim about the
effectiveness of cattle fencing unfounded and unrealistic. The estimated impact on
big game species due to increased vehicle collision frequency is not mentioned or
compared for the alternatives, nor is any mitigation proposed.
b) The FEIS violates Goal #17 of the Management Plan (page IV-8) and a
directive in the Desired Future Condition of the Forest section of the
Plan (page IV-56). The FEIS also violates National Forest Management
Act regulations 16 U.S.C., 1604(g) and 36 C.F.R., 219. 19, and National
Environmental Protection Act regulation 40 C.F.R., 1500.I(b).
The status of classified species will not be enhanced. Maintenance of several
sensitive plant species is not insured . The FEIS neglects to mention or evaluate the
potential impact on numerous species of special concern and includes no provision for
the description or maintenance of biological diversity. The information in the FEIS
does not allow informed public participation or decision making.
The FEIS mentions six species that are listed as threatened or endangered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or are listed as 'sensitive" by the Forest Service:
Bald Eagle (e)
47
�...
Peregrine Falcon (e)
Maquire' s Primrose (t)
Cronquist Daisy (s)
Rydberg Musineon (s)
Cache Beardtongue (s)
Numerous Forest Service sensitive species receive no mention in the FEIS:
Boreal Owl
Flammulated Owl
Great Gray Owl
Northern Goshawk
Three-toed Woodpecker
Spotted Bat
Western Big-eared Bat
Wolverine
North American Lynx
Spotted Frog
Maguire Draba
Logan Buckwheat
Aster kineii var. kingii
Many of these sensitive species were mentioned in UDOT's ROD, but at that
point, when virtually the whole process was complete, very few people saw the
infonnation, so in essence the public has never been presented with meaningful
information on th ese species. Waiting until the ROD is published to provide
information excludes the public from participation in the process.
Western or Townsend's big-eared bat is abundant in Logan Cave and has been
captured elsewhere in Logan Canyon; however, throughout its range in the western
United States populations are declining (Brad Lengas, unpublished report to WasatchCache Ranger District 1993); Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993). The
declining status of this bat warrants consideration, particularl y given its high
vulnerability to human disturbance (Schmidly 1991 ; Arizona Game and Fish
Department 1993), including disturbance to riparian habitat. Loss of riparian habitat,
and the noise and pollution from construction, could lead to the disappearance of this
bat from Logan Canyon. If recommended management guidelines do not halt the
decline of this bat, it may qualify for federally threatened status (Brad Lengas,
personal communication).
Evidence supporting the possibility of wolverines in Logan Canyon prompted
the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to grant funding to the Fisheries and Wildlife
48
�Cooperative Unit at Utah State University to investigate this possibility. Researchers
have installed automatic photographic equipment to identify which mustelid species
is making observed tracks where it is thought wolverine may occur (John Bissonnette,
personal communication). Published Forest Service information indicates there are
wolverines in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest and cites an observation in Logan
Canyon (Forest Service 1994).
~
kingii var. kin2ii. a Forest Service sensitive species, was found in Cache
County during a general botanical survey carried out in conjunction with surveys for
other sensitive plant species (Franklin 1990a). The discovery of this sensitive species
in Cache County never appeared in any UOOT document. Only the Record of
Decision even mentioned the aster, but listed its distribution in four counties, not
including Cache, making any conclusion by the Forest Service that minimum viable
populations will be preserved without a basis in fact, and arbitrary and capricious.
A previously undescribed species of Viola. upon discovery named Viola
franksmithii, was also found in Logan Canyon during the same general botanical
survey (Franklin I990a). This Logan Canyon endemic species was later described in
detail (Holmgren 1992). However, it is not mentioned in any UDOT document. It is
the fifth known plant species endemic to Logan Canyon, including Maquire's
primrose, Cronquist Daisy, Rydberg musineon, and Cache beard tongue. It is
considered possible there are other undiscovered endemics occurring in Logan
Canyon (Frank Smith, personal communication).
The following Fish and Wildlife Service C2 candidate species are not
mentioned in the FEIS. Are these listed as sensitive by the Forest Service?
Western Small-footed Myotis
Long-legged Myotis
Long-eared Myotis
Fringed Myotis
Boreal Toad
Discus shemeki cockerelli
Oreohelix haydeni haydeni
Oreohelix haydeni cQrrugata
Oreohelix peripherica wasatchensis
All four Myotis species have been captured in Logan Canyon (Brad Lengas,
unpublished report submitted to the Logan Ranger District). All depend on the
riparian areas adjacent to the river and thus adjacent to the road. These bats are not
mentioned in the FEIS, making any claim by the Forest Service that minimum viable
populations will be maintained arbitrary and capricious.
49
�...
An undescribed snail species, genus PyrgulQPsis. was discovered along the
highway at Spring Hollow by Dr. Robert Hershler of the Smithsonian Institution
(Hershler 1990). Information on this discovery was provided to UDOT, along with a
recommendation for further investigation prior to road construction activities. The
habitat in which this and several other C2 snail species are found indicates that any of
these species could occur along the highway project site (peter Hovingh, personal
communication),
The FEIS states, "The undescribed snail species has not been nominated as a
candidate species. The species is located down canyon of the project area and will not
be affected by construction activities" (page 9-14). There are 20 species of
PyrgulQPsis in the western United States listed C2 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (see Federal Register, Part IV; 50 C.F.R., Part 17, November 15,1994). The
species identity of this PyrgulQPsis is not known. Therefore, it is not known whether
this one is a candidate species. Nevertheless, minimum viable populations must be
preserved, and with no analysis there is no factual basis to claim that viable
populations will be preserved. No surveys along the project site were conducted.
Therefore, it is not known whether this snail species occurs within the project area, or
whether it will be affected by construction activities.
Pyrgulopsis is the sixth species endemic to Logan Canyon. This suggests an
unusually high rate of endemism in this area. The diversity provision of the National
Forest Management Act requires that national forest planning "provide for diversity of
plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific
land area" (16 U.S.C.,1604(g)(3)(B». The National Forest Management Act requires
inventory data on wildlife populations and distribution (id, 1604(g)(2)(B»; on
identification of hazards to various resources (id, 1604(g)(2)(C»; and research on the
effects of each management system (id, 1604(g)(3)(C». Likewise, in providing for
diversity, "inventories shall include quantitative data making possible the eva luation
of diversity in terms of its prior and present condition" (36 C.F.R., 219.26 (1984».
None of these Management Indicator Species (MIS) from the Management Plan,
which probably occur in Logan Canyon, received mention in the FEIS or ROD:
Gray Jay
Hairy Woodpecker
Pine Siskin
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Warbling Vireo
Mountain Bluebird
Water Pipit
50
�MacGilvary's Warbler
Green-tailed Towhee
Vesper Sparrow
Identification of Management Indicator Species is required by th e National
Forest Management Act (36 C.F.R., 219. 19(a)). This regulation also specifies that
"fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing
native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area." A viable
population for planning purposes is defined as "one which has the estimated numbers
and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued exis tence is well
distributed in the planning area. " Regulations further provide that "population trends
of the management indictor species will be monitored and relationships to habitat
changes determined" (id, 219.19(a)(6)). But with no analysis of these MIS indicator
species in the FEIS or ROD, there is no basis for claiming these provisions will be met.
The FEIS makes assertions of no impact when no ground surveys were
conducted to collect baseline data for the majority of all aforementioned species.
Without further information to describe Logan Canyon's biological diversity, the
significance of this diversity, and the potential impacts to the stability of this
di versity, compliance with the National Forest Management Act's diversity mandates
or the National Environmental Protection Act's assessment mandates is not achieved.
2.) The FEIS violates the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
a) The FEIS violates Section 7(a)(2) and 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act,
and directives in the Management Plan concerning wildlife (plan
Responses to Issues, Issue 9, page III-2; Desired Future Condition of the
Fores t, page IV-56).
The potential impact to the only federally threatened species in the project area
(Primula maguireO was not thoroughly identified using the best scientific and
commercial data available. A Biological Opinion was not written by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in response to a Biological Assessment provided by the project
proponent, as required by Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act.
Information transferred between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
UDOTIFHW A does not reveal compliance with the Endangered Species Act
requirement for a biological assessment and subsequent issuance of a biological
opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is not clear why th e Fish and Wildlife
Service eventually concurred with the "no effect" detennination in the absence of an
adequate biological assess ment. The following discussion chronologically
51
�summarizes correspondence between the Service and UDOTIFHW A.
In March 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service communicated to FHW A that
Section 7 consultation would be required if the highway project would affect the
primrose (Robert Ruesink, State Supervisor USFWS, to Duncan Silver, FHW A, March
4, 1987). Subsequently, Daniel Dake (UDOT, July 7, 1987) supplied the Fish and
Wildlife Service with a report (Welsh 1987) in order to comply with 50 C.F.R.,
402. 12(j). Ruesink replied to Mr. Dake (July 21 , 1987) that the Service was unable to
prepare a biological opinion at that time, that mOTe information was necessary, and
that any significant reduction of the buffering and road encroachment on the cliff at
Wood Camp may have a deleterious effect on that population of primrose due to
micro-climate changes, to which Maguire's primrose is sensitive.
In August 1989, Ruesink again wrote, this time to Margaret Johnson of CH2M
Hill, preparers of the FEIS, that a project proponent must submit a biological
assessment so that the Fish and Wildlife Service could prepare a biological opinion in
response to the potential impacts to the primrose. UDOT replied with a proposal to
eliminate the slow vehicle turnout near Wood Camp Campground to remove the
Service's concerns about the project's potential impacts on the primrose (Donald
Steinke, UDOT, to Clark Johnson, USFWS, March I, 1990).
In April of 1990, Clark Johnson (Assistant Field Supervisor, USFWS) wrote the
FHW A and recognized UDOT's proposal to eliminate the slow vehicle turnout.
However, the Service again recommended "that the FHW A submit a biological
assessment on the preferred alternative of the U.S. 89 Logan Canyon DEIS when the
alternative is selected and request formal Section 7 consultation at that time."
In February of 1991 , Jonathan Deason (Director, Office of Environmental
Affairs, Department of the Interior) wrote the FHW A to clarify that the Fish and
Wildlife Service had advised the Office of Environmental Affairs of the possibility of
the highway project adversely affecting a federally threatened plant, and that, if so,
Section 7 consultation would be necessary in accordance with the Endangered Species
Act. Deason's letter goes on to say, "Biological opinions are prepared by the FWS in
response to formal consultation requests by the Federal Agency. The botanical reports
relating to Primula Maeuire and other rare plant species prepared for this project do
not constitute a biological opinion as defmed by the act."
Eventually, in April of 1992, without further information indicated, Clark
Johnson (USFWS) wrote to R. James Naegle (UDOn and concurred with UDOT's
determination of no effect to the primrose. This, Johnson wrote, was based on the
information which occurs in the FEIS. The only reference cited in the FEIS is Welsh
1987, which had been the basis for prior unfavorable responses by the Fish and
52
�Wildlife Service.
Clark lohnson ' s 1992 letter is the fIrst and only correspondence from the Fish
and Wildlife Service which concurs with UDOT's no effect determination. In 1987,
Welsh' s report did not suffIce for the Fi. h and Wildlife Service to respond with a
s
biological opinion, and in 1990, the Service recommended the FHW A submit a
biological assessment when an alternative was selected and requested formal Section 7
consultation at that time. Deason's 1991 lener from the Office of Environmental
Affairs to FHW A reiterated that no report submitted up until that time constituted a
biological opinion.
A more current and comprehensive survey report (Franklin 1990b) was not
utilized by UDOT, in spite of references to this report in a letter from the Bridgerland
Audubon Society to UDOT, Feb. 12, 1991. This report systematically surveyed
potential habitat in the Bear River Range and made determinations as to whether the
primrose's distribution extended beyond the known locations in Logan and Right
Fork Canyons. Known locations were derived from Beedlow et al. 1980, Moseley and
Mancuso 1990, Padgett 1986, USFWS 1990, and Welsh 1987. One new occurrence
was located north of the highway approximately . 1 mile beyond the fIrst river crossing
above Wood Camp on a limestone cliff face in the narrow gorge. Franklin' s report
states, "This restricted range, its rarity within that range, and the lack of detailed
demographic and disturbance information on each occurrence of Maguire primrose
indicate that all Logan Canyon occurrences should, at this time, be considered
essential habitat. When more detailed demographic and disturbance information is
available it will be possible to more defInitely ... ' identify essential habitat and those
populations (occurrences) which may best ensure the long term survival of the
species .. .' (FWS 1990)."
Welsh (1987) states, "If the recommendations cited above are followed there
should be minimal or no impact to the Maguire primrose population 4 (and no effect
on the other populations)." Welsh's survey covered 2,000 feet on either side of MP
385, in the vicini ty of Wood Camp. In his report, Welsh referen ced data provided in
an earlier report (Padgett 1986). Padgett surveyed Logan Canyon from the mouth to
0.7 miles south of the USU Forestry Field Station, and concluded, "Because of their
proximity to Highway 89 in Logan Canyon, population numbers 3, 4, 5, 6 and the
lower portion of population I could possibly be impacted by highway expansion."
The FElS provides no basis to conclude that an adequate biological assessment
was ever conducted. Recommendations repeated by the Fish and Wildlife Service and
most surveys suggested further study. Franklin (I990b) and FWS (1990) both
recommend an inventory and census of the Logan Canyon populations of primrose to
"yield precise locations and extent of all P. maguirei populations ... ", yet UDOT
53
�•
ignored this information in selecting its modified Preferred Alternative.
It is recognized that the primrose is vulnerable to micro-climate alterations,
changes in temperature and relative humidity of the atmosphere in the plant's habitat,
and that construction-related production of dust particulates could impede stomate
functioning on the primrose (Franklin 1990b; FWS 1990; Padgett 1986; Welsh 1986;
Beedlow et.al. 1980). In addition, however, recent information suggests that removal
of vegetation within the construction corridor could negatively affect primrose
pollination by eliminating essential host plants visited by the primrose-pollinating
bees (Wolf and Sinclair, unpublished data) . The primrose supplies small quantities of
nectar, making it necessary for pollinating bees to derive supplemental nectar from
other plants. Removal of vegetation in the vicinity of primrose populations may cause
primrose-pollinating bees to move elsewhere, resulting in previously unforeseen
negative impacts on the long-term viability of those primrose populations.
Clearly, information is lacking in the FEIS, in violation of the National
Environmental Protection Act, 1502. 16 and 1502.22. No recognized biological
assessment was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by the project
proponent in accordance with 50 C.F.R., 402.12(j). The Endangered Species Act
states, "Each Federal agency shall ... insure that any action authorized, funded, or
carried out by such agency ... is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of habitat of such threatened species which is determined to be critical ...
In fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph each agency shall use the best scientific
and commercial data available" (16 U.S.C., 1536 (a)(2)), with "species" including
plants (id, 1532(16».
CEQ regulations provide that impacts in an EIS shall be discussed in proportion
to their significance (40 C.F.R., 1502.2 (b» and that "data and analysis ... shall be
commensurate with their importance" (40 C.F.R. , 1502.15). The National Forest
Management Act states that the plan must "provide for diversity of plant and animal
communities ... " (16 U.S.C., 1604 (g)(3)(B)) and requires planners to "preserve and
enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities" so that it is at least as great as
that which would be expected in a natural forest (36 C.F.R., 219.27 (g».
The National Forest Management Act further specifies: "Habitat determined to
be critical for threatened and endangered species shall be identified, and measures
shall be prescribed to prevent the destruction or adverse modification of such habitat.
Objectives shall be determined for threatened and endangered species that shall
provide for, where possible, their removal from listing as threatened and endangered
through appropriate conservation measures, including the designation of special areas
to meet the protection and management needs of such species"
54
�(36 C.F.R.,219.19(a)(7)).
Literature Cited
Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1993. Bats of Arizona. Arizona Wildlife Views
36(8) :23 .
Arnold, D.A. 1979. Deer on the highway . Traffic Safety 79(5):8- 10.
Beedlow, P.A., J.G. Carter, and FJ. Smith . 1980. Primula ma~\Iirei L. Wms.
(primulaceae), a preliminary report on th e population biology of an endemic
plant. Unpublished report on file at the Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt
Lake City, Utah .
Feldhammer, G.A., J.E. Gates, D.M. Harman, AJ. Loranger, and K.R. Dixon. 1986.
Effects of interstate fencing on white-tailed deer activity. 1. Wildt. Manage.
50:497-503.
Forest Service. 1994. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western
United States. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General
Technical Report RM-254. 184 pp.
Franklin, M.A. I 99Oa. Report for 1989 chaUenge cost-share project Wasatch-Cache
National Forest, Target species: Eri~eron cronQu istii (Cronquist daisy),
Musineon lineare (Rydberg musineon) , and Penstemon cyananthus var.
compactus (Cache beardtongue). Utah Natural Heritage Program. Unpublished
report on file at the Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City, Utah. 16 pp.
Franklin, M.A. I 990b. Report for 1990 challenge cos t-share project Wasatch-Cache
National Forest, Target species: Primula maguire i L.O. Williams (Maguire
primrose). Utah Natural Heritage Program. Unpublished report on file at the
Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake C ity, Utah. 10 pp.
Hershler, R. 1990. Field survey and preliminary taxonomy of Great Basin
Springsnails. Final Report for Cooperative Agreement P 852-A I-0035 between
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management and the
Smithsonian Institution.
Holmgren, N. 1992. Two new species of Viola (Violaceae) from the Intermountain
West, U.S.A. Brittonia 44(3):300-305.
Ludwig, J., and T. Bremicker. 1983. Evaluation of 2.4 m fences and one-way gates
55
�for reducing deer-vehicle collisions in Minnesota. Transportation Research
Record 913:19-22.
Mosely, R.K., and M. Mancuso. 1990. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant
inventory of the Bear River Range, Caribou National Forest. Unpublished
report by the Idaho Natural Heritage Program, on file at the Utah Natural
Heritage Program, Salt Lake City, Utah.
National Safety Council. 1984. Warning: AnimaUvehicle crossing. National Safety
News 130(4) :60.
Padgett, W.G. 1986. Maguire primrose summary report. Utah Native Plant Society,
Cache Valley Chapter. Unpublished report on file at the Utah Natural Heritage
Program, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Puglisi, M.J., J.S. Londzey, and E.D. Bellis. 1974. Factors associated with highway
mortality of white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 38:799-807.
Reed, D.F., T.D. Beck, and T.N. Woodard. 1982. Methods of reducing deer/vehicle
accidents: Benefit-cost analysis. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 10:349-354.
Schmidly, David J. 1991. The Bats of Texas. Texas A & M University Press, College
Station, TX. pp. 137-141.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1990. Maguire primrose (Primula maeuirei)
recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. pp. 1-13.
Welsh, S. 1987. Logan Canyon, U.S. 89 study, Biological Assessment. Unpublished
report on file at the Utah Natural Heritage Program, Salt Lake City, Utah.
7. VISUAL RETENTION
The primary problems associated with the Forest Service's decision to penn it
widening and reconstruction of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, in relation to
visual quality, stem from the idea that it is alright to destroy that which we are
attempting to preserve. In essence, the Forest Service's decision allows for the
destruction of the scenic quality that it is attempting to manage as a highly protected
resource within Logan Canyon. This decision is not only arbitrary and capricious, but
represents a significant change in the amount of Forest Service land managed for
scenic quality.
56
�Scenic Byway Designation
In 1987 the U.S. Congress created a National Scenic Byways Program to
preserve and to enhance scenic byways for the benefit and enjoyment of present and
future generations. According to the Federal Highway Administration, a scenic road is
"a road having roadsides or corridors of high natural beauty and cultural or historical
value. It gives the traveler glimpses of nature, history, geology, landscaping, and
cultural activities along the road. Campgrounds, picnic areas, or other recreational
sites may be built within the scenic corridor, or the road may provide a pleasant access
to such facilities" (FHW A 1988). A scenic route "gives the driver the opportunity to
leave a high-speed Interstate highway or arterial route for a scenic byway that permits
safe, leisurely dri ving" (FHWA 1988). The Utah Travel Council, in cooperation with
federal, state, and local agencies, has developed the Utah Scenic Byways and
Backways publication which provides a description of Utah's scenic road system
offering outstanding scenic beauty to the traveler. This publication offers the
following:
"The beaten path. It gets you there. But for those to whom the reward is in the
journey, there are paths less trodden. Panoramas reserved for the adventurous,
worlds away from the mainstream. Utah's Scenic Byways and Backways ...
These Scenic Byways are all major roads which are regularly traveled. Some
routes feature sharp curves and steep grades. Actual travel speeds are
generally less than the 55 mile-an-hour speed limit. As with all motor vehicle
travel, personal discretion is the key to a safe driving experience."
The Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan (CMP) (Forest
Service 1994), sets forth the management of the scenic corridor through Logan
Canyon. Item #1 under the management plan's mission statement provides for
"protect(ion of the) scenic values of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway through
planning and cooperation between all agencies and government entities that have
jurisdiction within the byway view shed" (CMP, page 3). One of the "overall
objectives" o f the management plan is "to continue developing a consensus between
federal agencies. state agencies, county and city governments and private land owners
charged with the protection of Logan Canyon to identify equitable means for
protecting and improving the scenic and environmental values of Logan Canyon"
(CMP, page 3). One of the "overall actions" provided in the management plan for the
"protection of scenic qualities" is "to include provisions in the Wasatch-Cache Forest
Plan [that] emphasize the protection of scenic value and enhancement of recreation
opportunities" (CMP, page 4).
It has been estimated that the modified Preferred Alternative will destroy 38 %
and 9 % of the most visually sensitive areas , sensitivity levels 6 and 7 , wi thin the
57
�• •
canyon, respectively (FEIS, page 4-63, Table 4-12). In addition, the modified
Preferred Alternative will destroy 58% and 71 % of the moderately visually sensitive
areas, sensitivity levels 4 and 5, within the canyon, respectively (FEIS, page 4-63,
Table 4-12). The modified Preferred Alternative does not, therefore, protect the scenic
values of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway. It also does not identify equitable means
for protecting and improving the scenic and environmental values of the canyon, nor
does it reflect provisions in the Wasatch-Cache Forest Management Plan that
emphasize protection of scenic values and enhancement of recreational opportunities.
The selection of the modified Preferred Alternative is therefore in direct conflict with
the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan (Forest Service 1994).
Lack of Forest Plan Consistency
The Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan
(Forest Service 1985) sets forth management of Forest Service lands through
Management Area designations. The Logan Canyon Scenic Byway is contained in the
Logan Canyon Management Area (MA 13) of the Management Plan. The emphasis for
this area is to manage the highway as a Scenic Byway and to protect scenic landscape
qualities (Forest Service 1985, pages IV-29 I and IV-297). According to the
Management Plan, this area is to be managed for the visual quality objective (VQO) of
"retention" (page IV-293) . This objective provides for management activities which
are not visually evident. Under "retention," activities may only repeat fann, line,
color, and texture which are frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes
in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc. should not be
evident (Forest Service 1974). The Forest Service's Record of Decision proposes to
amend the Management Plan VQO ' s in MA 13 from "retention" to "modification" for
nearly the entire route. A "modification" VQO would allow for management activities
that visually dominate the characteristic landscape (Forest Service 1974).
The Logan Canyon Management Area encompasses approx imately 12,877
acres of Forest Service land. This corresponds to approximately one percent of Forest
Service land within the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. However, the Logan Canyon
Management Area makes up approximately eight percent of the area managed as
"retention" within the Forest. Compromising eight percent of the area within the
Forest managed for retention is particularly significant when one considers that only
eleven percent of the Forest is managed for retention (Forest Service 1985, page IV60).
Although the Logan Canyon Management Area is a relatively small portion of
the Forest, the second largest concentration of developed recreational sites within the
entire Forest can be found within this area. The only other area within the Forest with
a higher concentration is the Mirror Lake Highway Management Area, which includes
58
�•
the only other Scenic Byway within the Forest. Within the Logan Canyon
Management Area, the Forest Service administers 12 developed campgrounds, 4
picnic areas, and 3 organizational camps (CMP, page 13). The Logan Canyon Scenic
Byway provides access to Beaver Mountain Ski Area, which offers downhill skiing
with a lodge, restaurant and shops. It offers access to commercial outfitters offering
horseback rides, snowmobile tours, and lodging. This Scenic Byway also provides
access to over 300 miles of hiking trails, the Mount Naomi Wilderness area, the Great
Western Trail, and miles of scenic back country auto tours (CMP, page 13). The
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway is truly unique, offering some of the most outstanding
recreational opportunities in the state.
Implementation of the modified Preferred Alternative through Logan Canyon
will be in direct conflict with the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Management Plan.
Since the most visually sensitive areas of the canyon, and the most accessible views,
will be impacted an average of 15% (FEIS, Table 4- 16, page 4-77) and cannot be
mitigated, a visual quality objective of retention will not be maintained. The highway
will not conform to management standards for a Scenic Byway. Altering primary
management emphasis of an area, especially an emphasis as critical as scenic retention
on a Scenic Byway, is not a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan, but a
highly significant change.
Cumulative bnpacts
The cumulative impacts discussion in the FEIS (Chapter 4) does not disclose
the impacts associated with implementation of the ten projects proposed as part of the
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan (Forest Service 1994). In
some cases, these projects will have a substantial impact upon the existing
environment of their respective project areas. Seven of the ten projects proposed
involve clearing and grubbing existing vegetation andlor site grading activities. Five
of the ten projects proposed involve the construction of paved parking areas. Four
"Romtec" restrooms will be installed at four of the ten proposed project sites. Several
of the projects include each of the above impacts combined.
Although NEPA documents will be prepared for each of the proposed projects,
the FEIS does not disclose the cwnulative impacts associated with highway
construction i1l conjunction with the ten projects described in the Logan Canyon
Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan. This is a serious oversight on the part of
UDOT and the Forest Service, especially considering that the projects proposed under
the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan have been planned since
early 1993, and that a planning committee was formed in late 1991 which included a
representative from UDOT.
59
�•
Literature Cited
Federal Highway Administration. 1988. Scenic Byways '88: A National Conference
to Map the Future of America's Scenic Roads and Highways.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. Record of Decision (ROD), U.S. Highway 89.
USDA Forest Service. 1994. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management
Plan: Portraits in Time. Logan Ranger District, Uinta and Wasatch-Cache
National Forests. Logan, UT.
USDA Forest Service. 1974. (VQO Management Discussion ?????)
Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. Final Environmental Impac t Statement
(FEIS), U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill.
8. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Fores t Service has violated Goal #53 of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan which states that the Forest Service must
"[i]nform the public about National Forest resource management as related to the ...
local economy" (page IV-2!J .
The local economy is closely tied to recreation and tourism, with Logan
Canyon being recognized as one of the area's most valuable economic assets (Cooper
1989) . The unspoiled landscape of the canyon and its outstanding scenic and
recreational opportunities have been featured in numerous national magazines and
travel guides, including National Parks, National Geographic, Audubon, Glamour
Magazine, Scenic America, and America from the Road. It is not only a draw for
visitors, but a draw for industry and people who are relocating. The Logan Canyon
Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan (hereafter referred to as the CMP) states,
"Logan Canyon is the focal point for many people who live in the Cache and Bear
Lake Valleys. The scenic and spiritual amenities it provides ... are a big reason people
choose to live here" (page 21).
Efforts are currently underway to enhance the area economy by capitalizing on
the scenic assets of Logan Canyon. Chip Sibbemsen, acting District Ranger with the
Logan office of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, is spearheading a major recreation
enhancement project with the Bridgerland Travel Region, the Cache Chamber of
Commerce, Cache County, Box Elder County, Utah State University, Bear River
Association of Governments, and individual city governments, businesses and
60
.
�•
;
organizations. This project, described in the CMP, emphasizes increased marketing of
the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway's recreational and scenic opportunities, devoting
five full pages to "Marketing and Promotion" (CMP, Appendix A)
Howeve~, UDOT's extensive construction plans may interfere with the
promotion of Logan Canyon, and negate the economic benefits of the Scenic Byway
project. The CMP records concerns about proposed construction activities: UDOT's
construction project "has been extremely controversial and there is concern the
improvements may degrade the quality of the environment and the traveling
experience" (page 20). A 1989 study of tourism in the area concluded with a strong
recommendation that Logan Canyon's scenic assets be preserved intact because of the
economic benefits that accrue to the area from its scenic attributes (Cooper, 1989).
Appellants believe that the Forest Service's acceptance of the modified Preferred
Alternative will degrade one of the primary economic resources of Cache and Rich
Counties.
UDOT's FEIS and Record of Decision, and the Forest Service' s Record of
Decision, neglect to acknowledge any long or short tenn negative economic impacts
of proposed construction, including des truction of irreplaceable scenic values,
monetary losses caused by disruption of road service, impacts on big game habitat,
and harm to a fishery that brings in over $4 million annually (estimate for 1990, UDOT
1987, Table 7, page 18). The Forest Service also neglects to address the postconstruction viability of the area as a tourist destination.
National surveys bear out the fact that tourists and recreationists value scenery,
especially scenery that is relatively unspoiled. Tourists and recreationists across the
country rate "driving for pleasure" and "sightseeing" among the top three recreation
activities, out of 37 ranked activities (Report of the President's Commission on
Americans Outdoors, 1987; Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
1986; and Outdoor Recreation in a Nation of Communities, 1988). These surveys
indicate that protection of natural environments is a critical issue for tourists and
recreationists. Driving for pleasure and sightseeing are hardly as pleasurable when the
view consists of concrete retaining walls, exposed slopes and c1ear zones, rather than
lush forests and wild rivers .
Surveys conducted in northern Utah find that the most popular recreation
activity in Logan Canyon is "viewing the scenery." The third most popular activity,
out of 2 1 ranked activities, is "photography" (Hunt and Cadez 1977; Hunsaker 1969).
Clearly, the scenic assets of the canyon are of primary importance to its users, who
inc1ude local residents and tourists.
There is a c10se connection between scenic values in the canyon and the local
61
�•
economy, yet UDOT's FEIS and Record of Decision, and the Forest Service's Record
of Decision, fail to make any assessment of how permanent degradation of the
canyon's scenic values will negatively impact the local economy. The Forest Service
has therefore violated Goal /153 of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan, which states that the Forest Service must "[ilnform the
public about National Forest resource management as related to the ... local economy"
(page IV-21). The Forest Service has selected an alternative which may have
extremely detrimental impacts to recreation, on a Scenic Byway where data shows that
recreation is the primary use. The Forest Service has also neglected to address over
300 letters from forest users and business people who voiced concerns about impacts
to scenery and the economy (FEIS, pages 9-3 to 9- 151).
Literature Cited
Cooper, EJ. 1989. Characteristics of Recreational Visitors in the Bridgerland Area.
Hunsaker, L.M . 1969. Tourist recreation interests in Logan, Utah and the surrounding
area. Unpublished manuscript, Utah State University, College of Education.
Hunt, J.D. and Cadez, G. 1977. Bridgerland profile: From non-resident motor vehicle
data 1974-75 (Report /128). Logan, Utah: Institute of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism, Utah State University.
Logan Ranger District, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. 1994. Logan Canyon Scenic
Byway Corridor Management Plan. Prepared by Chip Sibbernsen.
Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. 1986. Report.
President's Commission. 1987. The report of the President's Commission on
Americans Outdoors. Washington, D.C.
Task Force on Outdoor Recreation Resources and Opportunities. 1988. Outdoor
Recreation in a Nation of Communities. Washington, D.C.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. Record of Decision (ROD), U.S. Highway 89.
Utah Department of Transportation (UOOn. 1991111. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M
Hill .
Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS), U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill.
62
.,
•
�•
. ..
Utah Department of Transportation. 1987. Aquatic Resources Technical
Memorandum. Prepared by CH2M Hill.
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). 1995. Record of Decision (ROD), U.S. 89
Through Logan Canyon.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89.
USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan.
9, WETLANDS ISSUFS
\.) In regards to existing wetlands within Logan Canyon, the Forest Service has
violated the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan by
issuing a Record of Decision approving UDOT's FEIS and Record of Decision.
a) The FEIS states that there will be 11 .2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands
impacted by the Preferred Alternative (Table S- I). UDOT's Record of Decision states
that this impact may be reduced by as much as 30% (page 34). Proposed wetlands
impacts is in direct conflict with the goal as outlined in the Management Plan, Logan
Canyon Management Area, Watershed MIH code F04(G), which clearly states, "Avoid
soil disturbing activities on steep, erosive, or unstable slopes, and in wetlands,
floodplains , and meadows."
This goal is supported by the Federal Register which states, "A record of
decision for a National Forest System proposed action must display consistency with
the relevant forest plan" (Federal Register, V.57, No. 182, page 43207).
This appears to be binding language in terms of preserving existing wetlands
within the scope of UDOT's construction project. The Forest Service has amended
their own management guidelines concerning visual qualities and fisheries habitat for
Logan Canyon, according to the Forest Services' Record of Decision. But there is no
mention of amending the Management Plan pertaining to the management of
wetlands. For the Forest Service to approve the FEIS and UDOT's Record of Decision,
an amendment to the management goal concerning wetlands is required, with
allowable period for public comment per requirements of the National Environmental
Protection Act.
b) Management goals are further violated by the Forest Service's decision to
63
�..
grant a transportation easement for UDOT's highway project.
The Forest Service states that the modified Preferred Alternative considers
"avoiding and minimizing hann to sensitive resources and maintaining the character
of the Logan Canyon" (ROD, page 3). They go on to say, "As a result, minimal
construction will occur in the ecologically sensitive middle canyon .. ." (page 3).
Maps contained within the FEIS indicate 17 separate areas of jurisdictional
wetlands (approximately 1.3 acres) within the Middle Canyon (mp 384 to 391) that
will be permanently lost to road construction under the Preferred Alternative. There
are 47 areas (approximately 7 acres) within the Upper Canyon (mp 391 to 400) that
will be lost. This wou ld suggest that in terms of wetlands impacts, the Upper Canyon
is more ecologically sensitive on an acre per mile basis than the Middle Canyon. If
environmental concerns are indeed the limiting factors for the upper Middle Canyon,
as UDOT claims, then it would seem consistent to keep to that intent throughout the
Upper Canyon. In terms of type and the number of wetland areas in the Upper Canyon,
and the fact that permanent wetland loss results in "one of the greatest impacts on
wildlife," it seems appropriate that the Upper Canyon should receive equal
consideration (FEIS, page 4-33).
Appellants believe it is commendable that UDOT has agreed to reduce the
highway width from 40 ft. to 34 ft. in the Upper Canyon, below the Beaver Mountain
intersection. UDOT's Record of Decision states, "This reduces the impact on wetland
and riparian areas" (page l). It goes on to say, "It is anticipated that the wetland
impacts in this section will be reduced by approximately 30%" (page 34). But as the
same document points out, 3.3 miles (41 %) of those first eight miles in the Upper
Canyon will be 44 ft. wide to accommodate proposed passing lanes. This is only three
feet narrower than the originally planned 47 ft. Without detailed surveys, it is not
possible to accurately determine a 30% reduction in wetland impacts in the Upper
Canyon. Appellants wonder how UDOT arrived at this 30% value. The method of
calculating this has not been disclosed. Does this 30% value take into account the
proposed passing lanes that will be constructed in wetlands?
2.) By approving UDOT's Record of Decision, the Forest Service has violated the
National Forest Management Act.
a) The National Forest Management Act specifically mandates, "Forest
Planning shall provide for adoption of measures, as directed in applicable Executive
orders, to minimize risk of flood loss, to restore and preserve floodplain values, and to
protect wetlands" (36 CFR 2l9.23(1)). Appellants believe that "protect" is strong
language requiring the agency to do just that. Appellants believe that this protection
64
•
�•
clause takes precedence over mitigation. The goal should be avoidance or loss of
exi s tin~ wetlands. The Conservationists' Alternative, with its recommendation of
slow vehicle turnouts and a smaller number of shorter passing lanes, comes closer to
compliance with 36 CFR 219.23(f) .
3.) The Forest Service and UDOT are potentially in violation of section 404
requiremen Is of the Clean Water Act.
a) As the Act states, " ... no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be
permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which would
have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem ... " (40 CFR 230. lOa). UDOT and
the Forest Service both state that the Conservationists' Alternative does not satisfy the
purpose and need of the project (FEIS, page 4-25, the Forest Service' s ROD, page 12).
They are claiming that there is no practicable alternative to construction in wetlands
as is proposed in the Preferred Alternative (see FEIS, page 4-28). Appellants believe
that slow vehicle turnouts in the Upper Canyon is a practicable alternative.
Appellants believe the Forest Service should reverse its decision to allow
construction of the modified Preferred Alternative, un til UDOT seriously considers the
option of slow vehicle turnouts below th e Beaver Mountain in tersection , combined
with one passing lane in lieu of two. This option has been proposed by many within
the environmental community, citing that slow vehicle turnouts have been used
successfu lly in other states (pendery 1994). The Forest Service should require UDOT
to consider slow vehicle turnouts, along with a smaller number of passing lanes, as a
practical alternative in order to minimize impacts to wetlands.
The Clean Water Act further states, ..... for activities which are not water
dependent, practicable alternatives that do not involve special aquatic sites are
presumed to be available, unless clearly demonstrated otherwise ... " (40 CFR
230. lOa. 1). Neither the FEIS nor UDOT's Record of Decision present evidence that
"clearly demonstrates otherwise."
Literature Cited
Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Code of Federal RegUlations.
Pendery, Bruce. 1994. Letter of August 12 to Dave Berg, Utah Department of
Transportation.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. Highway 89, Logan
Canyon.
65
�..
USDA Forest Service. 1992. National Environmental Policy Act. Federal Register,
V. 57, No. 182.
USDA Forest Service. 1985. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City, UT
Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT). 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. 89
Through Logan Canyon.
Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. (FEIS) Final Environmental Impact
Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill.
11, CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS NOT EVALUATED IN TIlE FEIS
UDOT's Record of Decision introduces new construction impacts that were
never mentioned in the FEIS. Thus the Forest Service has adopted an FEIS which does
not meet the "standards for an adequate statement" required by 40 CFR 1506.3a for
the adoption of an FEIS.
Rubble and Spoil: UDOT's Record of Decision states, "Excess materials that
are not used in roadway construction or restoration of the borrow area near Bear Lake
Summi~
will be disposed of in locations determined on a case-by-case basis by the
CAT team and approved by the USFS. Excess materials may be ... stock piled (sic) for
future use ... " (page 23).
Neither the DEIS nor the FEIS ever mentioned the stockpiling of rubble for
future use. It was assumed that, for any given section under construction, there would
be more than enough material excavated (see FEIS, Table 4-15) and hence no need to
store material in the canyon. Storage piles will act as sediment sources that will
impact streams, they will directly destroy habitat, and their presence will violate visual
quality requirements.
Permanent disposal of rubble became a major issue upon release of the DEIS,
and was addressed specifically in the FEIS (pages 4-70 and 4-71). The FEIS referred to
only one disposal site in the Canyon, the abandoned borrow area near the summit.
Other than this one site, it specifically stated, "The balance of surplus material will be
deposited outside of the canyon area." Rubble and spoil disposal was a major issue
because highway construction in the Lower Canyon in the 1960 's left a large spoil
pile that has not yet revegetated to a natural appearance. As with the storage piles,
rubble disposal in the canyon will be a sediment source (how can one revegetate this
66
•
�•
subsoil material effectivel y?), will permanently destroy habitat, and will violate visual
quality requirements. None of these impacts were disclosed in the FEIS .
Borrow Pits: UDOT's Record of Decis ion mentions "material sources," in other
words, borrow pits (page 33). These features were never mentioned in the FEIS, yet
they will have undeniable impacts. The wording in the FEIS, such as, "Spoil material
will be generated during excavation. Some of this spoil material will be used for
embankments and other construction related uses" (page 4-70), implies that
excavation for curve cuts, etc. , will be the source of thi s type of construction material.
Borrow pits and their attendant haul roads will destroy hab itat, violate visual quality
requirements, and be sources of sediment-laden runoff that will impact streams. None
of this was disclosed in the EIS process. Further, it appears that UDOT is still trying to
suppress this information in th e Record of Decision, since th e "Construction Impacts"
section makes no mention of either borrow pits or material sources (pages 23-24).
Haul Roads: Haul roads are mentioned for the first time in the EIS process in
UDOT's Record of Decision. They are mentioned on page 23 and also on page 33, in
relation to borrow pits. There was no reason for the public to suspect their presence in
past discussions, since there were no plans for borrow pits or material stockpiles. They
represent a new impact with concerns as stated above.
Staging Areas: UDOT' s Record of Decision reveals that there will be staging
areas needed for construction (page 24). These large areas will destroy habitat, be
sources of sediment and pollutant-laden runoff, and violate visual quality
requirements. Never in the EIS process were staging areas mentioned.
Batch Plants: The potential need for batch plants located in the canyon was
never discussed during the EIS process, but is revealed on page 24 of UDOT's Record
of Decis ion. In addition to the concerns listed for staging areas, batch plants raise air
quality concerns. This should have been dis cussed during the EIS process.
General: These issues should have been discussed by UDOT in the EIS
process, since technical topics such as batch plants, material sources, etc., are not items
which the general public is necessarily informed about. It appears that these technical
details were purposely withheld from the public. The Forest Service has therefore
adopted an FEIS which does not meet the "standards for an adequate statement"
required by 40 CFR 1506.3a for the adoption of an FEIS.
Literature Cited
Utah Department of Transportation (UOOn. 1995. (ROD) Record of Decision, U.S. 89
Through Logan Canyon.
67
�•
Utah Department of Transportation. 1993. (FEIS) Final Environmental Impact
Statement, U.S. Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill.
Utah Department of Transportation. 1990. (DEIS). Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, U.S . Highway 89, Logan Canyon. Prepared by CH2M Hill.
APPENDIX A
Maps of area
APPENDIX B
Conservationists' Alternative
APPENDIX C
Photos of Affected Areas
68
�United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Washington
Office
File Code:
Date:
Kevin Kobe, President
Logan Canyon Coalition
U.S.U. Box 1674
Logan, Utah 84322-0199
14 th & Independence SW
P . O. Box 96090
Washington. DC 20090-6090
1570-1 (L)
NF S# 9S-13-00-0018-A21S
JUN 2 9 1995
CERTIFIED MAIL -R.R.R.
Dear Mr. Kobe:
W have completed our revie w of your May 15, 1995, appeal of Regional Forester
e
Dale Bosworth 's decision to amend the Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan and to consent
to issuing an easement to the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), in
coordination with t he Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), to enable them to
perform needed reconstruction and safety work on Nati onal Forest System land
associated wi th rehabilitation o f u.s. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon.
The Regional Forester's decision is documented in his March 31, 1995, Record
of Deci s i o n (ROD) o n the FHWA's Final Environmental Impac t Statement (EI S) for
the project. My review of your appeal has been conducted pursuant to 36 CFR
215 o f the Secretary's Appeal Regulations. Whereas your appeal challenges the
adequacy of the FHWA 's environmental impact reports, I have limited my review
to the Regional Forester's decision.
In accordance with 36 CFR 215. 19, the
' Appeal Reviewing Officer has reviewed the appeal record and his wri tten
recommendation on the disposition of the appeal is enclosed.
As the Reg i onal Forester stat es i n h is Record of Decision, the Forest Service
is not (emphasis added) making a decision to improve or how to improve U.S.
89. The FHWA and UOOT have already made the decision to improve the r oadway.
See FHWA 's ROD for U.S . Highway 89, project # F -021(7). The bases for the
project, as well as known and anticipated environmental effects, are
ide nt ified and discussed in the associated Nat ional Environmental Policy Act
(NEPAl documents. Mitigation measures have been prescribed for potential and
known adve rse environmental impact, including those concerns identified by the
Forest Service.
In my review of the record, I find that Appellant has actively participated in
the NEPA process and that Appellant's concerns have been considered in the
formulation of the FHWA 's Fi ••al EIS and ROD.
In fact, it appears Appellant's
members were involved in a special citizen group formed to advise the FHWA and
others on how best t o achieve this project in an environmentally sensitive
manner.
See faxed letter dated May 31, 1995, from Lauren M. Keller,
Chairperson, Citizens for the Protection o f Logan Canyon. The FHWA 's ROD
contains many of the reco mmendations proposed by that group (Citi zens f o r the
Protection of Logan Canyon). My finding is re i nforced further by Douglas E.
Thompson, President of the Cache Chamber of Commerce.
In his l ette r as an
inte r ested party dated May 31, 1995, Mr . Thompson gives a detailed description
of the how the project was developed and the Chamber's opposition to
Appellant's current assertions.
Cari n g for the Land and Serving People
Pnn:eo on Aecyc!ecI Paper
FS-6200·28Q (12/93)
."'i
....
�Kevin Kobe, President
2
Reasonable people can be expected to disagree, even when given the similar
facts . We have carefully examined the decisions and mitigation measures taken
by the Regional Forester and find them reasonable and supportable.
It is
fully appropriate that use and occupancy of National Forest System land be
authorized by an easement.
It is also required that changes in Forest Plan
direction be documented through amendment to the Forest Plan.
In this case,
the adjustments are minor, thus, the Regional Forester is correct to provide
for a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan.
Accordingly, Regional Forester Bosworth's March 31, 1995, decision for the
U.S. Highway 89 rehabilitation project is affirmed.
My decision on your appeal constitutes the final administrative determination
of the Department of Agriculture (36 eFR 215.18).
Sincerely,
c;2~:1I~XW~~
Appeal Deciding Officer
Associate Deputy Chief
National Forest System
Enc l osures
cc:
Regional Forester, R- 4
Zachary Frankel, Director, URce
Caring for th e Land and Serving P eo p le
?tlnted on Recycled Paper
"5-6200·280 {12193)
.#f!:a
."
�united States
Department o f
Agriculture
Pile Code :
Route To:
Subject:
To:
Fores t
Serv ice
1570
14th & Independence SW
P. O. Box 96090
Washington. DC 20090·6090
Washington
Office
Date:
June 15, 1995
Appea l Reviewing Officer Recommendation
Appeal No. 95-13-QQ - Q018-A215
Appeal Deciding Officer
This is my review of the substantive quality of the March 31, 1995, decision
made by Regional Forester Dale Bosworth to amend the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP ) to be cons i stent with the
Fe deral Highway Administration's (FHWA) and the Utah Department of
Transportation's (UOOT ) deci si o n to construct improvements to U . S. Highway 89
from Logan to Garden City . This decision adopts the UDOT and FHA U,S, Highway
89 Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . The Forest Service was a
cooperating agency for the development of this EIS.
The Regional Forester 's decision changes the visual quality objectives from
retention to parcial re tenti o n for the highway easement near Logan Cave and to
modification for the remainder o f the r o ute.
It also changes t he guidel ine s
for fisheries habitat indices to permit decreases not e xceeding 5 percent of
the existing popUlation when the decreases are temporary and the resulti n g
index exceeds established minimum standards. This decision will grant a
transportation easement over approximately 72 additional ac r es of the
Wasatch· Cache National Fo rest whi ch is required for expansion of the highway
corridor .
As part of my revi e w, I have 'considered the arguments presented in the appeal
by the Logan Canyon Coalition (LCC ) and the Utah Rivers Conservation Council.
Addi t ional ly, I have revie wed the comments submitted by UDOT, Cit izens for the
Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC l. the Cache Chamber of Commerce.
Appeal Summary
(al Appellant objections
The appellants have raised the following issues : lack of demonstrated purpose
ane need, safety, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Of f icials (ASSHTO) standards and highway design, wild and scenic river
planning. fishery impacts and Bonneville Cutthroat Trout, wildlife impacts and
sensitive species, sensitive plants. visual retention, economic impacts,
wetlands, water quality, lack of disclosure of construction impacts, and the
application of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act.
�Appeal Deciding Officer
page 2
(b) Informal meeting results
There was no resolution to the issues discussed at the ~~y 30, 1995, informal
disposition meeting with LCC. Appeal points discussed were safety, highway
design, wild and scenic rivers planning, and impacts to fish including the
80nneville Cutthroat Trout.
(c)
Intere sted Party comments
In their comments, UDOT states the issues raised by the appellants were
addressed in the EIS and its Record Of Decision (ROD).
They also state the
resource requirement s (mitigation ) imposed by the coope rating Federal agencies
have been met.
In the comments received from CPLC, this group explained that the
modifications to the Preferred Alternative for the FHWA ROD was a result of
hours of negotiations with UOOT. They also state the LCC was formed from
members of CPLC "who felt the compromise did n ot go far enough to protect the
canyon. "
The Cache Chamber of Commerce provided specific comments on the issues. They
stated no new issues are raised by the appellants and the Chamber's
fundamental reason for supporting the project is traffic safety. They
emphasi zed every writte n opinion by elected officials representing Cache and
Rich Counties supports the project.
Findinas
(a) Clarity of the decision and rationale
I find the clarity of the decision and its rationale meets agency standards.
The nature of the action under the Regional Forester's decision (FS ROD) is
clearly stated.
He states the limits of his decision and informs the reader
that he is "not making a decision to improve or how to improve u.s. B9" as
t~at decision was already made by FHWA and UDOT with Forest Service
parti cipation (FS ROD page 1)
The FS ROD clearly discloses the logic and rationale for this decision.
Comments from both the public and cooperat ing agencies were considered in
making the decis i on.
Required mitigation measures are disclosed.
(b) Comprehension of benefits and purpose of proposal
The purpose and need for the project is found in Section 1.2 of the £IS. The
need and scope of the Regional Forester's decision is found in the
introduction to the fS ROD. This decision reflects the determination found in
t~e FHWA ROD {p o 15l
that an amendment to the LRMP is necessary to implement
the modified Preferred Alternative.
The No Action Alternati ve was given full
consideration.
�Appeal Deciding Officer
page 3
This proposal was generated by FHWA and UDQT, and the decision to amend the
L~1P will make the proposal consist ent with agency policy and direction.
Gr~~ting the transportation easement is an appropriate use of National Forest
System Lands.
(c ) Consistency of the decision with policy, direction and supporting
information
Contrary to the appellants concerns that environmental and procedural laws
have not been met, I find that the Regional Forester's decision is consistent
with agency policy, direction, the EIS, and its supporting documentation.
Therefore, I do not believe his decision is arbitrary or capricious.
I have
not found any violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl, the
National Forest Management Act, the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield ACt, the
Endangered Species Act, the National Hist oric Preservation Act, the Clean
Water Act, the Department of Transportation Act, or any other law.
Of particular interest was the appellants' statement tha t the "Forest Service
management policy for Logan Canyon is inconsistent from document to document"
(Appeal p . 4 ) . In reviewing and comparing the Regional Forester's decision ,
the FHWA ROD, EIS and LRMP, I find no inconsistency.
Plans like the
appellants mentioned Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Corridor Management Plan are
analysis and evaluation tools and are not part of the Forest Service's two
levels of decisionmaking process.
The determinat ion that this is a non-significant amendment to the
W
asatch-Cache National Forest LRMP is appropriate. The decision reflects
site-specific amendment needs related to the implementation of the project and
not s weeping changes to the Forest-wide standards and guidelines.
(d) Effectiveness of public participation activities and use of comments
There has been an extensive public participation process for this project.
Not o nly were the minimum NEPA scoping and notification requirements met,
additional public information meetings were held, a "Citizens Review
Committee" was used to determine whether the Draft EI S addressed the issues in
an understandable and appropriate manner, and any person who commented on the
Draft EIS received a brochure explaining the Preferred Alternative. Comments
were taken on concerns raised by the Preferred Alternative prior to the
release of the Final EIS.
Before making their decision, FHWA and UDOT modified their preferred
alternative through nego tiati ons with CPLC to address and mitigate concerns.
A£ter the FWHA decision and prior to issuing his own decision, the Regional
Forester met with members of the LCC to discuss their concerns over the
project . In his decision, the Regional Forester states "these concerns were
considered in formulation" of his decision (FS ROD p. 10 ) .
The EIS demonstrates other agencies with jurisdiction, the Fish and Wildlife
Se~ice and the Army Corps o f Engineers, were contacted and they provided
�Appeal Deciding Officer
page 4
information for the development of the EIS and its alternatives. State
agencies, elected officials, various organizations, and the media were all
contacted about the project .
(e) Requested changes and objections of the appellants
The appellants are very knowledgeable about the project and its environmental
consequences . However, mOGt of the appeal points raised by the appellants are
outside of the scope of the Regional Forester's decision to amend che LRMP and
to grant an easement.
In their appeal, the appellants have provided specific information which they
believe contradicts the conclusions of the EIS. They have put forth an
extensive, site-specific argument for the implementation of ~a less damaging
alternative" (Appeal p. 4). Specifically, they believe a reduction of the
designated speed for the road would more adequately meet the safety issue
without the environmental loss due to construction .
Their issues were raised early in the NEPA process and alternatives with
appropriate mitigation measures were developed to address their concerns.
However, they claim the FHWA ROD ~introduces new construction impacts that
were never mentioned" in the EIS (Appeal p. 86). These construction impacts
include rubble and spoil disposal, material sources, haul roads, staging
areas, and batch plants. Construction impacts are discussed in section 4.25
of the EIS, and were raised as comments to the Draft £IS.
Reco1lU!lendation
I recommend that the Regional Forester's decision be affirmed.
As a result my review, I find the Forest Service was an active cooperating
agency in the developmen~ of the EIS, the Regional Forester correctly limited
the scope of the decision' to within the jurisdiction of the Forest Service,
there was extensive public participation in trying to resolve the
environmental issues, and the required mitigation measures are appropriate for
the minimizing of environmental impacts while meeting the purpose and need for
the project.
Furthermore, I find that the issues raised by the appellants
were adequately addressed in either the decision or its supporting documents.
Atd!/c/
DAVID L. HESSEL
Director
Timber Management
�.'
"
CPLC
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
P. O . Box 3608, Logan, Utah 84323 - 3608
USDA-FS
Appeals Reviewing Officer
P.O . Box 96090
Washington, D .C . 20090-6090
Re: Statement of Appeal for Logan Canyon U .S . 89, Logan, Utah.
Dear Sir:
In the Forest Service Appeal, submitted by the Logan Canyon Coalition and othen, there
is no reference to how the Modified Preferred Alternative was created. Members of Qur
orgtlnization. Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, spent countless hours in negotiations
with the Utah Department of Transportation. The Modified Preferred Altcmatlve is the result of
those negotiations. Logan Canyon Coalition was fonned from members of our group who felt the
compromise did not go far enough to protect the canyon.
rfyou have any questions please feel free to contact me at 801 - 752-0706.
__
tcrdY~~
Lauren M . Keller
Chairperson
�655 Canyon Road
Logan, UT 84321
July 14, 1995
Lauren M. Keller, Chairperson
QlLC
P.O. Box 3608
Logan, UT 84323-3608
Dear Lauren,
I think you'd better take me off the CPLC Steering Committee.
I haven't ever done much for the organization, to justify a leadership
position, even nominal, and now I am experiencing a certain
undeniable discomfort. Given recent events. maybe it's better if I
give up the idea of trying to be a bridge between CPLC and LCC.
I wasn't consulted about the idea of writing an interestedparty letter to the Forest Service, but if I had been , I would have
argued strongly against it. First, the official position of CPLC, the one
voted on in October, stated that if the Forest Plan were violated,
there could be an appeal. The Forest Plan, quite clearly, is violated
several different ways by the ROD. So, even though it's a different
group who made the appeal to the Forest Service, CPLC (I would have
argued) should at least remain silent.
Second is the moral dimension . CPLC's letter to the Appeals
Reviewing Officer aligns CPLC with the Modified Preferred
Alternative and says, in effect, that LCC is illegitimate. I am afraid
this indicates that CPLC may be more interested in political turf than
in protecting the Canyon. Why should CPLC have feared a successful
LCC appeal? In the appeal, LCC produced the most comprehensive,
accurate, detailed, and devastating analysis yet done on the proposed
construction . Anyone dedicated to protecting the Canyon should
respect its thoroughness, and be gratefu l for the work of the
compilers. Nothing better -- nothing even close -- has been done on
Logan Canyon . CPLC should not have given the Forest Service any
help in this matter, and certainly should not have undercut a fellow
environmental organization. That is not simply bad manners -- it
denies the whole morality of environmentalism, which is that the
environment comes first.
Sincerely,
Thomas J. Lyon
�r r om : (eche Chfimberl Brid e riend
FaH phone: B01 153
~
,
ue lity : me
CACHE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE /""-160?'\ORTH YiAC-: • LOG.'\.'\ . L"TA H S-B11 • (80 11751-11 6 1· FAX (801 ) 75:--?>. U6
May 3 1. 1995
USDA-Forest Service
Appeals Reviewi ng Officer
P.O. Box 96090
Washington. D.C. 20090-6090
FAX 202-205-1758
[Eight tQ[al pages including this one]
Response to Notice of Appeal and Statement of Reasons From Logan Canyon Coalition
Regarding the Re cord of Decision . U.S . Highway 89 . Logan Canyon
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
I am Douglas E . Thompson. president of the Cache Chamber of Commerce . a 600-member
chamber for all Cache County. and supervisor of the Bridgerland Travel Region Board . which
promotes tourism for Cache and Rich Counties . As a party interested in the Logan Canyon
Highway Project. I am compelled to make comment on the appeal.. Because time constraints and
board meeting schedules precluded getting formal approval of thi s statement from the respective
board s. this statement is my own . It. however.. is based on past discussions and statements
formally approved by both boards .
Appellants' appeal is very well written and documented . On the surface . it appears to be forceful
and mo tivatin g . However. careful analysis by those familiar with the project and the process that
led to the compromise Record of Decision shows many critical flaws in fact and logic in
appellants' document.. No matter how good appellants' rhetoric is . simply saying it does not
make it so .
Errors and misleading sta tements in appellants· document will be deli neated roughly fo11m\/ing
the outline they used in the app~al.
Introduction
Appellants' basic assertions lack foundation in fact.. The record o f public hearings . discu ssio ns.
and public input clearly shows that there has been full and earnest compliance with NEPA
requirements. The construction project has already been sca led down from the Preferred
Alternative recognizing the needs of the Logan Canyon environment. The Conservationists'
Alternative has been honestly and straightforwardly considt!red time and again . The compromise
represen ted by the ROD leans heavily in favo r of the Conserva tionists' Alternative bu t still
provides an acceptable level of service and safety.
This project is the best and most complete attempt at compliance with NEPA requirements of
any project in UDOT's hi story. It is the apparent opi ni on of o.ppeJl:mts that until eve ry square
inch of affected soil.. water and air affected has been analysed and considered . applying only
methodologies accepted by appellant s . the project is not in absolute compliance with NEPA
reqUirements . That level of proof is infeasible and impractical.. Reaso n should rule. The ROD
represents a finely craned compromise that reasonably but not absolu tely protects the
environment. On the other hand . it reasonably protects lives anu safery o f the people whtl use the
highway .
�Cache Chamber ofComme:rce Response To Logan Canyon Coaltion Appeal
Page 2
Extreme views have no place in the process now. Extreme views for protection should have no
more right to be heard at this time than the extreme views for development. The ROD does not
satisfy those who favor greater development but the process does not :lUOW the pro·development
extreme to reiterate their positions. The process gives ear only to those who want les~ than the
ROD.
The group presenting the appeal is a minority within a minority. The large r environmental
community that participated in the discussions and the negotia tions that led to the compromise
could never document that they represented more than a few thousand people. The appellants are
a very small splinter group of a vocal but well orga nized minority. The clear majority of the
citizens of Cache and Rich Counties suppo rted the Preferred Alterna ti ve. EVERY. REPEAT
EVERY. ELECTED OFFICIAL REPRESENTING CACHE AND RICH COUNTIES W HO
HAS WRITTEN AN OPINION SUPPORTS THE PROJECT. The largest local repre se ntative
elected bodies. the Cache Counry Council. the Rich County Commission. and the Cache Mayo rs
Association. have repeatedly stated their support of UDOT project plans. The vote o f approval
of the ROD by the Cache County Council was not unanimous because some council members
felt the ROD did not improve the highway eno ugh .
I. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
From the very beginning. those most closely associated with tourism in Logan Canyon have had
significant input to the project. The proposals for National Scenic Byway status and the recent
successfullSTEA grant for Byway Enhancement were carefully coordinated among the Forest
Service. UDOT. and the Bridgerland Tra vel Board. Nothing in the ROD will significantly
reduce scenic tourism. in fact. the project will improve the safety of and access for tourists.
That the scale of the project received "massive opposition" is an exaggeration. The opposition
was vocal, media savvy, and very well organized. but it was never very large. Its largest
demonstration claimed only 400 participants: I was there and counted about 250. And its
petitions were critically flawed. One was so misrepresented that one mayor. to hi s profound
embarrassment. signed it t hin~ng it was for the project. On seve ral occasions. the Chamber
polled its members regarding th'e project and the plurality for the projec t never dipped below 70
percent.
Lack of Demonstr ated Purpose and Need
1 am not a safety engineer and do not feel adequate to respond to the technical questions of
safety. However. I drive the canyon often and can speak as a user. When no one else is o n the
road. it is safe enough and the travel time from Logan to Garden Cil)' is acceptable. That is why
the travel speeds have no t been a major issue with proponents. But no o ne driving the Canyon
on a summer weekend would say the canyon highway was safe o r that travel times were
acceptable. To completely alleviate delays during peak traffic would reqUire a project acceptable
to only a very few. But to leave it essentially as it is. with a few rurnouts. as the
Conservationists' Alternative suggests. is neither safe nor reasonable.
Bear Lake and Logan Canyon are the region's two most popular tOUlist attractions. dra\\'ing large
numbers from the populous Wasatch Front (Sal t Lake City. Ogden and ProvO). The traffic
studies do not show the increase in numbers and size o f recreational vehicles and boats traveling
to Bear Lake. Without passing lanes to relieve their length. vehicle convoys on summer
weekends and holidays become accidents waiting to happen. In the opinion of the Chamb;;!f. the
�C ache Chamber of Commerce Response To Logan Canyon Coaltion Appeal
Page3
ROD is inadequate [0 alleviate heavy ho liday traffic pressure but it will hdp. On oth e: r days.
passin g lanes. wider pavement and safer turn s that the ROD sug gests 3re accept3ble.
[h~
When it comes to commerce and demographics. the appeal is wro ng and misleading. 1-80 is n ot
the east access road for commerce out of C ache County: Logan Canyon is. The map in the
Appeal 's Appendix A is extremely mi sleading becau se it eliminates the criti cal connec ting road
between Kemmerer and Little America. where commercial traffic joins 1-80. The following
companies (representing ove r 5.000 employees in Cac he Valley ) have weekly and often daily
shlpments in and o ut of Cac he Valley using Logan Canyon:
Presto Products (plastic bag products. headqu3rters in Wi sconsin )
Cache Valley Cheese (heavy distribution to the east. strong supplie s in the east)
Gossner Foods (dairy foods. strong distribution to the east)
E.A .Mille r (meat packer. strong distribution to th e east. supplies from eaSL).
WeatherShield (window manufactu rer and di stributio n center with \Visconsi n
headquarters) L.W . Miller (custom freight)
Miller Transportation (custom freight)
Pe pperidge Farms (cookies. strong distribution to the east )
LeG rand Johnson (road construction and cement)
Jack Parson (construction and cement)
Logan Coach (horse trailers. strong midwest distribution)
Logan Manufacturing (strong midwest and eas tern distribution)
Simplor Dairy Products (custom cheese wrapping. strong eastern distribution )
Schreiber Foods (processed cheese. supplies grocery stories and fast foods from the
Mississippi west)
These are only the largest. There are many other Cache Valley businesses that depend on a
passable and safe Logan Canyon fo r their livelihood. To ask the se businesses to use 1-80 for
their eastern based commerce would cost millions of dollars every year in increased miles and
delivery time.
Logan Canyon is promoted locally. statewide and nationally as the best and most sce ni c route
from Salt Lake City to Yello,,:,stone. It is promoted locally by Blidge rland Travel Region.
statewide by the Utah Travel Council. and na tio nally by Heart of the Rockie s and the American
Automobile Association (AAA). Even tho ugh it is slightly longer in time than 1- 15 and mile s
than Idaho 34. and higher elevation than either. Logan Canyon is the ro ute recommended by
AAA for Yellowstone to Salt Lake City. not 1- 15 or Idaho 34.
The appeal takes pains to poi nt to the 1980-90 decline in Rich County permanent population. It
does not reveal the reason for the dec line was the boornlbust o f the sou thweste rn Wyoming oil
fields. The 1980 census figures were artificially high because of the boom. The: 1990 figures
show a slow but steady grow th from 1970. The se are permanent po pulation numbers. T he
primary industry of Rich County has shifted to tourism and Garden City is becoming a resort
community with a very high part-time resident population. Now. there are about as many parrtime residents as full-time. Tourism is in creasin g rapidly . Unemployment is running near two
percent and assessed property valuati ons have increased dramatically . While not in a boom. Rich
County's economy is improving steadily. In summary. :.t si mple analysi s o f Rich County ce nsus
figures is misleading when used to predict lower traffi c volumes.
Cit ing the decreasing rale of gro\.vth fo r ca nyon tr:.tffic vol umes is al so misle:::tdi ng because thaI
analysi s does not consider the underlying rea so ns. Su mmer traffic in LC'gan Canyon will always
�',om, :"
Cache Chamber of Commerce Response To Logan Canyon Coaltioo Appeal
Page4
have a hil.!h correlation to (he water level of Bear Lake. The mid-1980's repre se nt near· record
high water levels and consequential higher traffic volumes. The latter years of the study period
represent near-record low lake levels. During those years reliable access to the lake was
available only on the east side of the lake. persuading Wasatc h Front traffic to go through
Wyoming to Laketown. The summer of 1994 was the first year in the last five that large sail
boats CQuid be safelY launched. As the lake level increases. as it has alway s done in its historical
cycles. Logan Canyon traffic volumes will undoubtedly also increase .
Other non-demographic factors will increase Canyon traffic . The improvements and promotion s
financed by the ISTEA Byway Enhancement Grant will draw more tourists. The Forest
Service 's own Great Western Trail promotions will attract more. And the first new commercial
tourism property on Bear Lake in two decades. Harbor Village. will bring even more.
With growth in commerce in Cache Valley. in parr-time Rich County residents, and in touri sm at
Bear Lake and in Logan Canyon. UDOT traffic volume projections will be low.
2. SAFET Y ISSUES
The fundamental reason that the Chamber supports the ROD is safety. As traffic volume
increases. and the Chamber firmly believes it will. safety becomes the only reason to improve the
highway. C urrent travel time for commerce is acceptable. especially when compared to the 1-80
and Idaho 34 alternatives. But already safety is an issue . It is difficult for semi-trailers to
negotiate the tighter turns in the Middle Canyon without having back wheels run off thl! road. It
is possible for two commercial vehicles to pass on Burnt Bridge and the T win Bridges but both
vehicles will likely lose side mirrors.
It is not safe for bicyclists to travel in Logan Canyon past Right Hand Fork because the hard
surface shoulder literally disappears for seve ral miles through the middle canyon. With bicycle
touring growing in popularity. it is unfair to not allow safe bicycle use of the canyon highway.
It is important to note that the majority of the people in Cache Valley re mained publicly silent in
this whole processes. The best way to gauge their feeli ngs is by the people whom th ey elected to
repre sen t th em. Witho ut exception. at every public hearing and in every written respons.e fro m
e lected officials . they unequivocally supP0rled the need for a safe r hi gh way.
Regarding the safery o f the lower. improved section of highway and the greater number of
accidents: it is qUite Si mple . There is su bstantially more traffic in the lower canyon. that 's where
the largest campgrounds are and where the larger fishing facilities are . With more traffic and
more frequent entries and exi ts on the highway. there will be more accidents.
We accept UDOT safety and accident analysi s and numbers. Appellants do not. If one were to
disregard UDOT traffic figures and look only at Forest Service records of usage for lower
campgrounds compared to higher ones in relation to accide nts. accidents per camper wou ld be
higher in the upper canyon.
3. AASHTO STANDARDS AND HIGHWAY DESIGN
Fundame ntal to appellants' arguments is the "arhitrary anll capricious" applicati on of AASHTO
standards. 1 can nN speak to ASSHTO stanllards but I can say thOot nothing in thi s ROn is
"a rbitrary or capricious." Th e environmental community has see n to that. Although tht>
�Cache Chamber of Commerce Response To Logan Canyon Coaltion Appeal
Page5
Chamber and extreme environmentalists often disagreed. particularly in the early stages of the
process. anyone associated with the process will agree that the environmental community has
been te naci ous. Th ey forced UDOT and their consultants to exami ne and reexamine their
analysis and conclusions. Working close ly with UDOT. and other State and Federal age ncie s
associated with the process. I vouch for the earnestness and sincerity of the. bureaucra ts trying to
respond to the questions of the environmentalists.
To say that any of the ROD is "arbitrary and capricious" denies the very material and effective
role that the environmental community has played in the process.
Improve Level of Service of the Highway to Accommodate Projected Traffic Volumes
Once again. in their rush to analyse the appellants did not consider why traffic level gro\vth has
slowed. Undoubtedly . commerce. real esta te. and tourism will cause traffi c levels to increase.
Already. tourism is the greatest contributor to annual cyclica l increases. As promotion increase.
so will tourism volumes.
Impr ove Traffic Flow
On page 27. appellants claim that UDOT has not adequately considered the Conservationists'
Altema(ive and have not compromised "for the sake of environmental protection." From the
view of the Chamber and Travel Region Board. most of the compromises have come from
UDOT. Only in the latest stage s of negoti:ltion did CPLC compromise mu ch. Before that time.
all of the changes in the project had been in the direction of the Conservationists' Alternative. So
much so. that the Chamber was beginning to wonder when and where it would stop. Until the
ROD. Chamber members readily supported UDOT 's proposals. Many Chamber members.
particularly commercial truckers had to be persuaded to approve the ROD . In essence. they said.
"Not one more inch of reductions." They had compromised their positions enough.
To say that UDOT has not genuinely compromised is absurd to anyone who has observed the
process.
4. WILD AND SCENIC R{VERS
Lacking expe rtise in thi s field: we have little to say excep t that it appears to us thaI bringing up
this issue at this late date is only a stalling tactic. If appellants had been sincere in their concern
for the status of the river. they should have brought the issue to the table long ago. They had
ample opportunity .
Furthe r. it is my observation that every precaution is being taken to protect the river. The bridges
will be constructed with no piers in the river and the bridges with pi ers in the river will be
removed . The ROD should actually improve the free flow of the river.
5. FISHERY IMPACTS AND BONNEVILLE CUTTHROAT TROUT
Again. every pre caution is being taken to protect the river. Sedime.nt:ltion will be ke pt to a
minimum in volume and duration.
Concern about sedimentation from work along the dugway borders on the ludicrous. Th e work
along the dugway will be at least dozens of feet away from the liver anu as far away a~ ~ quarter
of a mile .
�CacheCbamber of Commerce Response To Logan Canyon Coa ltion Appeal
Page6
T he disturbing aspect of the appeal is that it clearly places a greater yalue on fish and flowers
m
than it does on hum:: life and safety. Because of compromise to protect fish habitat. Ihe Temple
Fork intersection has been downgraded 10 the point that it will still be da ngerous by design to
make a lef! tum going down canyon. The fish and thl! river are being protecteu at the expense of
huma n safety .
6. WILDLIFE IMPACTS AND SENSITIVE SPECIES and
7. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS WITH SENSITIVE PLANTS
The requests for studies a re for species increasingly obscure and further down the evolutionary
chain. In the May 30. 1995. Forest Service hearing. appe ll an ts req uested studies of
macroinve rtabrates. Will subseq uent studies be asked for bacteria and vi ru s? T he studies have
been reasonably complete. certainly acce ptable fo r NEPA.
8. VISUAL RETENTION
Of all the affected groups. the Bridgerland T ravel Region shou ld be the most concerned with the
scenic visual aspects of the canyon. The Region has repeatedly voiced its support of the canyon
project and has not changed its positio n in the Slightest.
9. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
It is the o pinion of the Cache Chamber of Commerce. the BridgerJa nd Travel Region. the Rich
Coun£)' Commission. the Bear Lake C hamber of Comme rce (Garden City). the Cache Coun£)'
Council and every local governme ntal body that has writte n an opi nion. that the Logan Canyon
highway project will have only positive economic impacts. T he on ly possible negati ve impacts
may be during actual construction because travelers may :lvoid th e canyon. But that can be
minimized by keeping the highway o pe n throughout construction . AAA has indicated they will
continue to recommend travel through the canyon during construction.
10. WETLAND ISSUES
One of the major compromise~ from the Prefe rred Altemalive 10 the ROD is narrowing (he
pavement from (he "cattle guard" to Beaver Mountain to red uce the amo unt of wetlands affecteu
by the project. Along with the concern for wetlands demonstrated in the FEIS. the ROD takes
great care to avoid damage to wetlands. The concerns of appe llants have been heard at every
public hearing on [he proj ect. W etlands conce rns have been more [han adequately addressed.
11. WATER QUALITY AND DESIGNATED USES
Concern for Logan River and the quality of wate r have been one o f the d tiving forces for the
design of the highway project. The re may be mino r. localized. very short tenn damage done
durin g construction but the entire project has been modified to protect the river and irs W:lter
quality. Appellants' description of damage a re from the FEIS for the Preferred Allernative. The
ROD will subs[antially reduce eve n the short tenn impacts.
12. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS NOT EVALUATED IN THE FEIS
Beca use the very nature of highway cons truction precluues prellicting every possible impact.
several prec':lUtions have been taken to adjust Ihe.: projt::ct to elimi nate or minimize unfor..:seen
impacts. The project e nvironme ntal engineer anll rhe Coope rative Advi sory T:;!am will \\'::atch for
�Cache Chamber of Commerce Response To Logan Canyon Coaltion Appeal
Page 7
immediate problems. Design review of each phase will also reduce pOtential impacts. Even
though LCC was not given a position on the CAT. legitimate concerns brought to the CAT will
surely be acted on.
13 . 4(f) SITES
To include the highway and rights-of-way as
protected recreation is a stretch in any
reasonable person 's imagination. The Forest Service respected the letter and the intent o f secti on
4(f) when it designated the 154(0 sites.
-len
SUMMARY
Appellants have had access to the Environmental Impact Study process from the very beginnin g
of the Logan Canyon Highway project. Their concerns have been heard and have had a profound
affect on the ROD . Appellants had complete and unfettered access to the process. To alter the
project now to suit the appellants is unfair to the cooperators from all sides who worked so hard
within the syste m developing the ROD. Appellants had the opporruni ty (0 speak. they were
heard . and their concerns we re acted upon. What more can citizens ask of the system unle ss it is
their intention to bring process to its knees thro ugh stalling practices.
The EIS process panders to an intellecrual elite while it appears to disre gard the wishes of elec ted
official and long es tablished community organizations. A very small group. armed with a
thorough knowledge of statistics and the willingness to spend the time to analyse each set of
data. could effectively stall a project by challenging the methodologie s used to arrive at the data
in the E IS. That is happening now . Appellants are abusing the system because their personal
agendas for the project have not been mel.
Once a group or an individual agrees with an E IS for a project. they no longe r have a place in the
process. There is no way to defend a position. After accepting an EIS. aU one can do is watch
his position erode away as disagreeing parties are given continued access to the system.
As you review the appeaL please bear in mind th at literally thousands of reasonable people of
good will have acted in good faith to produce the project represented in the ROD. The !a\VS h:lve
been satisfied. The public has been heard. A super-majority represen ted by elected officials. and
establi shed civic organizations support the ROD . Now is the time 10 move forward with :l
project that will save human lives while it more (han adequate ly protects a canyon that we all
love.
Sincerely.
Douglas E. Thompson_ President
Cache Chamber of Commerce
cc:
Senator Orrin Hatch
Congressman James Han sen
Marsha BaiT. US Forest Service Regional Appeals CoonJinator
�United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Intermountain
Region
324 25th Street
Ogden, UT 84401-2310
File Code : 1950
Date : March 31, 1995
Dear Reviewer:
In January, most of you received notification of the Utah Department of
Transpor tation (UDOT) and Federal Highway Administration's decision to
r econstruct portions of U.S. Highway 89 t hrough Logan Canyon . For the next
step of t he process, it was necessary that decisions be made pertaining to
National Forest System lands. My decis ion and amendment for the Wasatch· Cache
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan are enclosed.
This has been a long and arduous task for all parties involved and many of you
have participated for several years. I first became familiar with this project
as Forest Supervisor of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest . Now several years
and many improvements later, I believe the decision made by UDOT and the
Federal Highway Administration will protec t the valuable re sources in Logan
Canyon yet allow for r oad improvements to be made. Throughout the
environmental analys is, the Forest Service wo rked close ly with these agencies.
If you have any que st ions about this decision, please contact Chip Sibbernsen,
Acting Logan District Ranger, at (801) 755·3620 .
Sincerely,
-
V1 . 6-......
..----DALE N. BOSWORTH
Regional Forester
Enclosure
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on R«:vcIecI Paper
F5-62O).28b (f2/93)
G
�•
RECORD OF DECISION
us
HIGHWAY 89
LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY - CACHE AND RICH COUNTIES, UTAH
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS)
AMENDMENT OF THE WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST
LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN
AND CONSENT TO GRANT A TRANSPORTATION EASEMENT
ACROSS THE WASATCH-CACHE NATIONAL FOREST
USDA FOREST SERVICE, INTERMOUNTAIN REGION
I.
Introduction
Th i s document contains my decision to amend the Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Land and Resource Management plan (Forest Plan) to be consistent with the
Fe deral Highway Administration's (FHWA) and the Utah Department of
Tra nsportation's (UDOT) decision to construct reasonable and necessary
improvements to U . S. 89 from Logan to Garden City. This document also contains
my decision to consent to grant a transportation easement over approximately
seve nty-two additional acres of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest required for
the project. It is important to clarify that I am not making a decision to
imp rove o r how to improve u.s . 89; FHWA and UDOT, with our participation, haVE'
al ready made the decision to improve the roadway.
II.
My Decis ion and Rationale
Base d on the environmental analysis contained in the FE IS and FHWA's Record of
Dec i si on, I have decided t o amend the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Re sourc e Management Plan to be consistent with the decision of FHWA and UDOT t.o
cons truct reasonable and necessary improvements on u.s. 89 across National
Fore s t lands in Logan Canyon . This non-significant amendment to the Forest
Plan is attached as appendix to this Record of Decision. This amendment
cha nge s the Visual Quality Objective from retention to partial retention for
t he highway easement near Logan Cave and to modification for the remainder of
t he r oute . It also changes the guidelines for fisheries habitat indiciee to
pe rm i t decreases not exceeding 5 percent of the existing when the decreases al·e
tempo rary and the resulting index exceeds est~lished minimum standards set in
the 19 85 Forest Plan.
Because the project will result in expansion of the highway corridor in some
a re as I have also decided to consent to the FHWA's issuance of a Highway
Eas ement Deed, or series of deeds, to the Utah Department of Transportation fCor
t he phased construction of reasonable and necessary improvements on U.S. 89 .
The de cision for which I am amending the Plan is described in the FElS as the
Pre f e rred Alternative as refined in FHWA's Record of Decision for this FEIS .
To se rve as a basis for this decision, I am adopting the FElS as it relates to
the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. This is pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.3. FHWA
a nd UDOT issued a Record of Decision on January 18, 1995, to implement the
Pr e ferred Alternative as refined in their Record of Decision. The FEIS was
pr e pared by FHWA and UDOT with the full participation of the Forest Service a s
a cooperating agency ,. The effects on and associated with National Forest
�System lands, including consistency with the Forest Plan and meeting
transportation needs, are disclosed in the FEIS and further addressed in FHWA's
Record of Decision. I concur with their decision that the Preferred
Alternative, as refined and described in their Record of Decision, represents
t he best approach.
As a cooperating agency throughout the analysis process, the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest was closely involved in ensuring National Forest needs were
met. Of particular importance to the Forest is to protect sensitive and
endangered species, water quality and fish and wildlife habitat capability; to
maintain the scenic values of Logan Canyon; to maintain the overall character
and values of Logan River and Beaver Creek; and to maintain the potential for
undeveloped recreation along these water courses.
Because of the mitigation measures incorporated into the decision, many of the
impacts to the Logan River and Beaver Creek fisheries will be minimized. Most
potential impacts to water quality will be effective ly mitigated. Furthermore,
impacts to visual quality will be minimized to the extent practical while still
allowing for alterations to the existing roadway. Mitigation measures relating
to Forest Service decisions are highlighted in the next section.
Throughout the drafting of the planning documents for this project both FHWA
and UDOT have been sensitive to the concerns of both the Forest Service and the
public that Logan Canyon's natural resources and character be preserved.
Numerous suggestions for environmental improvement s to the project design and
monitoring to ensure environmental protection were incorporated into the FEIS
and FHWA's Record of Decision. The Preferred Alternative, as refined in FHWA's
Record of Decision, is the only alternative which represents a significant
improvement in highway function and service without seriously impacting visua1
resources and water quality in Logan Canyon.
The Forest Service staff of resource specialists reviewed the FEIS and
determined that the environmental affects were adequately disclosed. In
reviewing the Environmental Consequences in Chapter IV of the FEIS and the
refinements to the preferred alternative and responses to comments in FHWA's
Record of Decision, I have determined that all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts within my authority, have been adopted. It is
clear that some impacts will occur, but taking into account the extensive
mitigation and the improvement in design and safety of the road, I concur with
the decision of FHWA and UOOT that the Preferred Alternative, as refined in
their Record of Decision, will best serve the needs of all concerned.
III. Mitigation Measure s
The Forest Service participated as a cooperating agency in development of the
FEIS. In cooperating with FHWA and UDOT, the Forest Service participated in
developing the extensive mitigation described in the FEIS. In addition the
mitigation measures described in the FEIS for the Preferred Alternative, FHWA
incorporated additional mitigation measures in their Record of Decision. I
have reviewed these and concur with these.
The measures highlighted be low relate to issues pertinent to the decisions I am
making as described in Section I of this Record of Decision. These measures
are described in detail in the FEI S as further refined in FHWA 's Record of
2
•
�Decision. Numerous other mitigation measures were a lso incorporated into the
decision of ODOT and FHWA. These are descri bed in their Record of Decision.
In addition to these measures, I am also including some additional measures to
protect the environment. These are identified with an asterik (*).
consenting to arant a transportation easement: Throughout development of
the Preferred Alternative, and subsequent refinements as described in
FHWA's Record of Decision, consideration was given to avoiding and
minimizing harm to sensitive resources and maintaining the character of
Logan Canyon. Protection of the river and surrounding wetland/riparian
edge, avoidance of threatened and sensitive species, avoidance and
minimizing harm to wetland/riparian habitat, visual and recreational
resources of the canyon played an important role in its development and
selection. As a result, minimal construction will occur in the
ecologically sensitive middle canyon, bridges will clear-span the river.
retaining walls will be minimized but employed where needed t o limit
encroachment into sensitive areas, and treatment of clearzones will be
modified from AASHTO recommendations .
All practicable measures to avoid impacts and minimize environmental harm
have been incorporated into the conceptual design described in the FEIS as
refined in FHWA's Record of Decision. The specific measures are described
for the Preferred Alternative in the FEIS and further expanded in FHWA's
Record of Decision. The Forest Service will participate in the detailed
final design phase emphasizing avoidance of impacts and minimization of
environmental harm. Horizontal and vertical alignments will be manipulatE:d
to provide a "best fit".
The Forest Service will participate and coordinate with ODOT in accordanCE:
with the terms of the two Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) between the
Forest Service, UDOT and FHWA that are applicable to this project (see
appendix to this Record of Decision for the general state-wide MOO and the
appendix to FHWA's Record of Decision for the supplemental MOU specific to
us 89 in Logan Canyon). In addition, the Forest Service will work and
coordinate with ODOT and FHWA in the final design, construction and
monitoring of specific projects:
1.
As a member of the Cooperating Advisory Team in the final design phase
for individual projects, the Forest Service will emphasize avoidance
of impacts and minimization of environmental harm.
2.
In development and subsequent approval of revegetation plan s.
construction/post-construction monitoring plans for individual
projects.
3.
In development of other plans (e . g., Wetlands Mitigation Plan) as
described in the FEIS and the "Measures to Minimize Harm" section of
FHWA's Record of Decision.
4.
By approving on-Forest staging, batch plant, and wetland mitigation
areas.
3
�5.
··The mitigation measures prescribed in the F£I5 and this Record of
Decision will be monitored and e nforced as described in the
"Moni toring or Enforcemen t Program " section of FHWA's Record of
Decision. Through its representation on the CAT, the Forest Service
will identify contractual measures prior to construction to ensure the
measures prescribed in the FEIS and FHWA's and this Records of
Decision are implemented. If and where necessary and in accordance
with Forest Service Policy. the Forest Service will specify easement
stipulations prior to construction to ensure the measures prescribed
in the FErs and in this Record of Decision are implemented.**
Amending the Fisheries Habita t Requirements in the Forest Plan ; The
portions of the Logan River within this project area have been rated by the
State as a Class 2 fishery (of great importance to the State) . The river
and its tributaries provide habitat for cutthroat trout (possibly
Bonneville cutthroat, a USFS sens itive species) and numerous other aquatic
species. Issues pertinent to this decision include wetland, water quality
and fisheries impacts. Mitigation measures include all those listed in and
incorporated by reference f r om the "Water Quality ImpactS", ~ Permits ",
"Wet lands and Botanical Resources", and "Water Body Modifications and
wil dlife Impacts" parts of the "Measures to Minimize Harm" section of
FHWA's Record of Decision. The following mitigation measures, which
correspond to other mitigation requirements in FHWA's Record of Decision,
provide additional fisheries mitigation:
6.
Best Management Practices and UDOT's Standard Erosion Control plans
will be employed to control sedimentation and siltation, minimize
water quality and habitat degradation, minimize vegetative removal ,
and minimize cut and fill. Detailed Best Management Practices will be
developed during design for each project.
7.
A construction/post· construction monitoring plan will be developed and
implemented by UDOT and approved by the Forest Service during design
of individual projects in order to identify sensitive areas where
monitoring is needed. Monitoring required will be identified in the
project plans and specifications for each project.
B.
The design of clearzones will focus on preservation of aesthetic and
ecological features to the extent possible while considering safety.
The prime directive will be to minimize impacts to wetlands and
riparian habitat without jeopardizing safety.
9.
All work will be conducted on the inland side of the highway where
possible to avoid in· channel activities and minimize riparian habitat
and riverbank disturbance. Road widths described in the FEIS as
further reduced in FHWA's Record of Decision were incorporated to
avoid or minimize impacts. Use of retaining walls or guardrails will
be considered where needed to reduce harm to wetlands and related
resources. This includes work on the Dugway, Temple Fork, in the
lower Upper Canyon, near Rick Springs and other segments described in
the FEIS and FHWA ' o Recor d of Deci sio n.
,
�10.
The design o f passing and turn lanes ' will be evaluated further during
detailed design to assess additional measures to avoid or minimiz e
harm to wetlands.
Use of retaining walls or guardrails will be
c o nsidered where needed to reduce impacts. This includes work in
lower Upper Canyon, culverts near Amazon and Stump Hollows.
intersections at Tony Grove, Beaver Mountain and Franklin Basin; and
othe r segments described in the FEIS and FHWA's Record of Decision .
11 .
A revegetat ion plan will be d e ve l oped by UDOT and approved by the
Fore s t Servi ce during design of individual projects to ensure that
critical habitat and disturbed areas are appropriately revegetated .
12.
Bridge and culvert openings will be sized so that floodplain
e levati ons will not be increased .
13.
Construction staging sites identified during design and approved by
the Forest Service will be kept out of aquatic, wetland and riparian
habitat. The contractor will be limited to the use of the identified
staging sites.
14.
Construct i on work zones will be delineated through the use of fen c ing
in sensitive areas to ensu r e contractor compliance with environmental
limits of operations.
15.
Curbing will be considered at Rick Springs to minimize vehicular
off-pavement impacts to vegetation near and along the riverbanks .
16.
Prior to the wet season all disturbed areas ··which could contribute
sediment into the river·· will be revegetated or reseeded and
··erosion matting installed . ··
17.
Rock and debris generated during the construction will not be
indiscriminately placed along the river banks . ··1£ locations with
excessive erosion are identified where some of the rock may be
beneficial, Forest Service approval will be obtained and the
appropriate permits acquired prior to placing the material .••
18.
··In - river piers will be removed or partially removed where possible
with minimal streambed disturbance.··
19 .
··During design phase and prior to any in-river activities, the Fo rest
and UDWR staff will identify when it is necessary for one or both
agencies to be contacted and on-site to assist UDOT in minimizing
aquatic impacts.··
20 .
··All concrete work on the bridges being replaced will be designed and
completed to minimize any leaks of liquid cement into the river. No
washing of cement trucks will take place in locations where the
material could wash into the river.··
5
�Amending the Visual Quality Objectives in the Forest Plan: US 89 through
Logan Canyon i s both a Natio nal Fo rest Scen i c Byway and a State of Utah
Scenic Byway. I n addition, thi s area li es within the Logan Canyon
Management Area . The Forest Plan presc ription for this management area
e mphasizes pro te c tion of scenic qua l i tie s . Issue s pertinent t o the
de c i sion to amend the VQO ' s include vegetative recovery, road and clearing
de sign featur e s and direct visual impacts. Mitigation meaaures include all
t hose liste d i n and incorporated by reference from the "Visual Impacts,
Batch Plant Locations, and Section 4(£ )" parts of the "Measures to Minimize
Harm" section of FHWA ' s Record of Decision. The f ol lowing mitigation
measures, whi c h correspond to other mit i gation requirements in FHWA's
Re c ord of Deci s ion, provide additional v i~ual mitigation:
21 .
Design o f t he Pre ferred Al ternative as refined in FHWA's Record of
Decisi on pl aced a strong emphasis on minimizing visual impacts. Road
alignments were designed to minimize the amount of visual impact to
the e xtent prac t ical wh i le s t ill p roviding f o r reasonable and
necessary impro ve ments. Aestheti c impacts will be reduced by
manipUlat i ng the horizontal and/or vertical alignment, and by moving
the alignme nt away from the river. This includes the work described
in the nDesign Considerations " part of the nMeasures to Minimize Harm "
section of FHWA's Record of Decision.
22.
The design of clearzones will focus on preservation of aesthetic and
ecol ogical features to the extent possible while considering safety .
No clearzo ne will be provided in the first four miles of the middle
canyon; however, substantial hazards within this area will be
considered for protection.
23.
A revegetation plan will be devel oped by UDOT and approved by the
Forest Service during design of individual projects to ensure that
areas of high visual quality are a voided, where practicable, and that
disturbed areas are appropriately revegetated.
24 .
A constructi on / post-construction monitoring plan will be developed and
implemented by UDOT and approved by the Forest Service during de sign
of individual projects in order to identify sensitive areas where
monitoring is needed. These areas and types of monitoring required
will be ide ntified in the project plans and specifications for each
project.
25 .
Best Management Practices will be used to minimize water quality
degradation, minimize vegetative removal, and minimize cut and fill.
26.
Dust suppression measures will be implemented during construction.
These measures will include water sprinkling, speed limits on haul
road, and use of environmentally safe stabilization chemicals .
27 .
Construction staging sites identified during design and approved by
the Fo rest Service will be ke pt o u t o f sens i tive visual areas . The
contrac tor will be limited to the u se of the identified staging sites .
28.
Construc tio n wor k zone s will be d e lineate d and sensitive areas fenced
to ensure contractor compliance with environmental limits of
operations .
6
�29.
Burnt Bridge will be construc~ed in stages, with widening occurring on
the upstream side, eliminating the detour presented in the FEIS.
30.
In additi on to the reduced width presented in the FEIS f or the Middle
Canyon, the previously proposed nominal roadway width of 40 feet for
the first 8 miles of the Upper Canyon section has been reduced to
34 feet to further minimize impacts to wetlands , visual and other
resources. (NOTE: this is nominal roadway width .. . passing lanes on
3.3 miles increase roadway width to 44 feet where they are present).
31.
The amount and necessity of riprap required f or erosion control at
bridges will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis during final
design. Riprap will be used only where required to stabilize the
streambank and will not exceed 100 feet along both banks up and
downstream from each bridge. Although it is possible this could total
as much as 1,000 feet of the river's length, it is anticipated that
riprap will not be required at each of these locations and the actual
use of riprap will be minimal. Existing rive r and c reek hydraulics
will be maintained by avoiding the encroachment of required riprap
into the channels .
32.
Fill slopes will not be steeper than 2:1 to promote bank stability and
reclamation.
33.
Riparian habitat will be maintained along the river and creek wherever
possible.
34.
Larger mature trees and their root systems will be protected where it.
does not conflict with vehicles and passenger safety.
35 .
Prior to the start of the next wet season, disturbed areas, where
possible will be stabilized, reseeded and revegetated.
36 .
Rock and debris generated during the construction will not be
indiscriminately placed along the river banks. ··1£ locations with
excessive erosion are identified where some of the rock may be
beneficial, Forest Service approval will be obtained and the
appropriate permits acquired prior to placing the material .• •
Th reatened. Endangered and Sensitive Species; In addition to the
mitigation described above, the Forest Service has special concern over
impacts to threatened, endangered and sensitive species of fauna and
flora. During preparation of the FEIS, UDOT and FHWA consulted with the
US Fish and Wildlife Service and Utah Division of Natural Resources
concerni ng potential impacts to these species. Consultation is documented
in the Appendix "Letter From US Fish and Wildlife Service" section of
FHWA's Record of Decision . This correspondence documents the US Fish and
Wildlife Service's determination that the Preferred Alternative as refined
in FHWA's Record of Decisi on and mitigated through measures described in
the "Threatened and Endangered speci es" part of the "Measures to Minimize
Harm" section of FHWA's Record of Decision would not affect Federally
listed threatened and endangered species. This includes the Maguire
primrose (Primula maquirei) . These mitigation measures are incorporated by
reference into this Record of Decision.
7
�In addition to federally threatened and endangered species, the Forest
Service recognizes other sensitive species. The effects of the
alternatives on these species were evaluated. Forest Service policy
requi r es preparation of a biological assessment and biological evaluation
prior to the Forest Service offic ial signing of a decision document.
These
scientific documents describing impacts to threatened, endangered and
sensitive species have been prepared. The original assessment completed in
September of 1993 was recently supplemented to include the most current
information. The original assessment (included in the appendix to FHWA's
Record of Decision) and supplement are included in the project record.
These document that the Preferred Alternative, as refined in FHWA's Record
of Decision, will not adversely affect the viability of any Forest Service
l isted sensitive species.
Wild and Scenic Rivers:
Consideration of potential wild and Scenic RiverE
is an inherent part of the ongoing land and resource management planning
process (Forest Service Manual 1924).
Forests must eva l uate each river to
identify rivers meeting the eligibility crite ria specified in section lib)
and 2(b) of the wild and Scenic Rivers Act and determine the river's
potential classification (wild, scenic, recreational, or a combination
thereof) for those found eligible.
wild and Scenic Rivers were evaluated during preparation of the
Wasatch-Cache Forest Plan approved in 1985 and it did not propose any
rivers for further study as National wild and Scenic Rivers (FE I S for the
1985 Forest Plan, page IV-55). Since t he time period when the Forest Plarl
was approved the philosophy for river eligibi li ty assessment has evolved.
The Forest determined a re-assessment was appropriate and in
December of 1993, the rivers on the Forest were inventoried to identify
those eligible for inclusion in the National wild and Scenic Rivers
System. Both Beaver Creek and the Logan River were inventoried.
Neither
were found to be eligible f or inclusion in the National wild and Scenic
Rive rs System, though the Logan River upstream of Temple Fork was f o und to
possess values significant within the State.
Regardless of the 1985 and 1993 Inventory · findings; the effects of the
project, should Beaver Creek and/or the Logan River ever be determined
eligible, were considered.
Forest Service policy (Forest Service Handbook
1909.12, Section 8.14) requires the Forest Plan to provide for protection
of a river area considered eligible but where the suitabil ity determination
has not been made, until a decis ion is made as to the future use of the
river and adjacent lands.
For eligible rivers, the Forest has to make a
determination whether projected will affect the eligibility or
classification of the reaches of the stream influenced by the project.
This requires determining if:
- the "free-flowing" characteristics of the river are mOdified;
- the potential outstandingly remarkable values for the r iver area al·e
modified; and
- the potential classification of the stream has changed.
The effects of the project on river characteristics which affect its
free-flowing nature, potential outstandingly remarkable values and
potential classification are thoroughly described in the FEIS:
8
�The effects of the alternatives described in Section 4.15 . 1, Water
Body Modification, of the FBIS show some minor rip-rapping near
bridges may occur where necessary to stabilize the streambank. This
would not extend over 100 feet along ' both banks up- and down-stream
from each new bridge, It is anticipated that riprap will not be
required at each of these locations and the actual use of riprap will
be minimal . Existing river and creek hydraulics will be maintained by
avoiding the encroachment of required riprap and/or retaining walls
into the channels. Therefore, the existing river and stream
characteristics pertaining to free-flowing character would not be
altered from the present status .
The FEIS thoroughly evaluated the effects of the alternatives on the
resources and characteristics affecting the scenic, historic,
recreational, wildlife and fish, cultural and other values associated
with the river and river corridor. As clearly summarized in Table S - 2
and as described in more detail in Chapter 4 of the FEIS, there will
either be no or only minor effects from the Preferred Alternative, as
refined in FHWA's Record of Decision, on these values . In addition,
the FEIS notes that many of the minor effects created will be either
temporary in nature or may possibly be mitigated during final design.
Consequently, no potential outstandingly remarkable values will be
eliminat ed.
Highway 89 currently parallels the river for much of its length. As
described in the FEIS, no additional · river crossings will be built nor
will additional stretches of the river be followed. The FEIS
recognizes that some screening vegetation along the river may be
disturbed, but again this is estimated in the BIS to be minor and
mostly temporary in nature. Therefore, the potential wild and Scenic
River classification would not change.
Based on the environmental effects summarized above, the road
recons t ruction project will not affect the eligibility or classification
potentials of the Logan River and therefore, the opportunity for
designating these reaches of Logan River and/or Beaver Creek as a
recreational river(s) in the future is not foreclosed by allowing the
highway improvements described in the Preferred Alternative, as refined in
FHWA's Record of Decision.
IV.
Public Involvement
A no tice of intent initiated by FHWA was published in the Federal Register on
January 23, 1987. To initiate the scoping process and solicit input, a mailing
list containing nearly 100 entries was compiled to include governmental
agencies, associations, the media, and interested individuals . Entries on the
mailing list received a public involvement pl~ which coordinated public and
agency activities.
Public information meetings were held in Logan, Utah on September 23, 1986, and
in Garden City, Utah on November 3, 1986 .
9
�An Interdisciplinary (10) Team composed of transportation planners. civil and
environmental engineers. envi ronmental advocates and recreation and wildlife
s pecialists met frequently in 1986 and 1987 to review technical aspects of the
project and provide insight and perspectives on issues germane to the project .
UDOT used a Citizens Review Committee to review the final Draft Bnvironmental
Impact Statement (OEIS) to determine whether the document addressed the issues
in an understandable and appropriate fashion. The Committee was composed of
representatives of various city and county governments in the project area.
Three formal Beoping meetings were held in March, 1987, to identify major
concerns and re ceive public comments. The meetings were attended by
333 individuals, 64 of whom offered comments. Nearly 200 letters, commenting
o n the proj ect, were received from the public, advocacy groups and government
agencies.
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the project was issued in
November, 1990 . UDOT received 457 comments letters expressing various ideas
and sentiments about the Logan Canyon project. Some issues addressed in the
comment letters included: safety, travel time through the canyon, scenic
values, bicycle traffic, fisheries, alternative routes, wetlands, water and
quality and threatened and endangered species. These issues and comments were
addressed i n the DEIS and/or the FSIS.
The Preferred Alternative was presented to the public in a brochure which was
sen t to those who commented on the DEIS . In response to this brochure,
a pproximately 400 letters were received prior to release of the FEIS. These
comments were reviewed and a determination made that they were addressed in tt.e
FEIS or FHWA's Record of Decision.
The FEIS for the project was completed in February of 1993 and made available
to the public for comment. In response, approximately 200 letters were
received . Individual responses to these letters were provided where addresses
were available. Detailed comments were not directly answered, but the
commenter was informed that they would be considered and where appropriate
responded to in FHWA's Record of Decision . In FHWA's Record of Decision, a
summary of comments and responses was provided. The comment letters and
responses are maintained in the UDOT's project record.
All comments received on the FEIS were reviewed and given consideration during
development of FHWA's and this Record(s) of Decision. Between issuance of the
FEIS and issuance of FHWA's Record of Decision, numerous coordination meetings,
field reviews, discussions and correspondence were held. This effort led to
the refinements in the Preferred Alternative described in FHWA's Record of
Decision and referenced in this Record of Decision. A summary of the comments
received on the FEIS and responses is contained on pages 28 through 43 of
FHWA's Record of Decision.
Since FHWA's Record of Decision was iSBued, members of Logan Canyon Coalition
have met and or conversed with Fore st Service representatives regarding
concerns over the project. These concern s were c onsidered in formulation of
this Record of Decision.
10
�•
V.
Alternatives Considered
The following four alternatives were analyzed in detail in the Final
~nvironmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) for U.S. Highway Route 89, Logan Canyon
Highway.
Preferred Alternative:
The Preferred Alternative as described in the FEIS
has been refined in response to comments received. A detailed description
of this alternative is contained in FHWA's Record of Decision and is
incorporated by reference here . In general, this alternative will replace
bridges. make minor alignment adjustments, maintain no clearzone and
maintain the existing 26 foot roadway in the first 4 . 1 miles of the project
area (lower Middle Canyon sectionl. In the 4 miles of upper Middle Canyon
the roadway width will be 34 feet, a clearzone provided, bridges and
culverts replaced, Temple Fork intersection improved, and minor alignment
adjustments made. In lower upper Canyon a 34 feet wide roadway will be
maintained (except as modified by passing and turn lanes), a clear zone
provided, bridges and culverts replaced, intersections improved, and the
range fenced where appropriate. In the remainder of Upper Canyon the
roadway will widen to 40 feet (except as modified by passing and turn
lanes), intersections improved, a clearzone provided, and alignment
adjustments made. From the Bear Lake Summit to Bridgerland subdivision
intersection a 47 feet wide roadway (including a continuous passing lane)
will be established, clear zone provided, numerous alignment adjustments
made, intersections improved, and one landslide area stabilized. From
Bridgerland subdivision to Garden City a 40 feet wide roadway width (47
feet where there are passing lanes) will be established, clearzone
provided, intersection and access points improved, and several alignment
adjustments made. The Preferred Alternative, as refined in FHWA's Record
of Decision, would cause a decline in the Habitat Condition Index for the
Logan River and Beaver Creek. The refined Preferred Alternative would also
result in a Visual Quality Objective of partial retention for the highway
easement near Logan Cave and modification for the remainder of the route.
The refined Preferred Alternative thus does not comply with the Forest
Plan . The Forest Service would consent to grant a transportation easement
for approximately 72 additional acres.
No Action Alternative: The existing roadway width would be maintained
although considerable road maintenance, including improved signing and
replacement of bridges and pavement would be necessary. The No Action
Alternative complies with the Forest Plan. Transportation easements
covering additional lands would not be required.
Standard Arterial Alternative: Improve the highway to current national
highway standards for a minor arterial road with the construction of
passing lanes throughout much of the route and recovery areas resulting in
a roadway width of forty to forty· seven feet and a typical improved area of
sixty·six to ninety·eight feet. The Standard Arterial Alternative would
cause a decline in the Habitat Condition Index for the Logan River and
Beaver Creek and would achieve a Visual ~ality Objective of Modification
rather than Retention. The Standard Arterial Alternative would therefore
not comply with the Forest Plan . The Forest Service would consent to grant
transportation easements for approximately 83 additional acres.
11
�Conservationi sts' Alternative: Spot improvements such as improved signing.
replacement of bridges, slow vehicle turnouts, climbing lanes and paving
and plowing of parking areas . Existing roadway widths would be maintained
in most instance s. with a roadway width of forty · three feet for climbing
lanes. The Conservationists' Alternative would fail to comply with the
Forest Plan Visual Quality Objective in the vicinity of Burnt Bridge. The
Conservationists' Alternative would result in a change of the Visual
Quality Objective of the Burnt Bridge area from Retention to Partial
retention . The Forest Servi ce would consent t o grant transportation
easements covering about 11 additional acres .
The following alternatives were considered in the OEIS but not advanced in the
FEIS.
Corridor Alternatives: The Corridor Alternatives considered other
potential rout es connecting Cache and Rich Counties. The Corridor
Alternatives were dropped because there is no projected need for the
additional r outes for the next twenty years, the environmental consequences
of additiona l highway construction, and the duplicate spending of
operational and maintenance funds for the new route and the existing
highway in Logan Canyon .
Modified Standard Alternative: The Modified Alterna tive proposed a
modified standard along the existing alignment for the road width in the
Middle Canyon section only. It was intended to reduce the impacts of the
Standard Alternative in the Middle Canyon section. The Modified
Alternative was dropped because of unacceptable environmental impacts in
the M
iddl e Canyon, especially the alternative's impacts on wild trout
populations in the Logan River.
Spot Improvements: The Spot Improvements Alternative provided a small ,
incremental modification of the No Action Alternative. The notable
difference between the two alternatives was the inclusion of 7.5 miles of
climbing lanes in the Spot Improvements Alternative. The Spot Improvements
Alternative was not included i n the FEIS because it resulted in no
improvement in traffic-carrying capacity or safety and thus did not meet
the purposes of the project.
Rich County Alte rnative Alignments: Several alternative corridors in the
Rich County section of the project were proposed. These alternative
alignments would have resulted impacts on ·winter habitat for deer and elk,
and disruptions to existing real estate development. Rich County strongly
opposed the alternative alignments . Thus, t he Rich County Alternative
Alignments were not considered in the FEIS.
VI .
Findings Required by other Laws
The Wasatch-Cache has begun preliminary efforts directed towards the Forest
Plan revision scheduled to be completed in 1996 . However, Forest Service
policy and regulations provide for implementation of existing Forest Plan
decisions until amended or revised and do not mandate retention of future
management options. This means the Management Area direction for Management
Area 13, as amended, will continue to be imp lemented until the Forest Plan
revis ion is finalized.
12
�The Wa satch-Cache Forest Plan has been reviewed and a determination made that
while the overall direction and intent of the plan will not be affected, this
decision contains inconsistencies with the Forest Plan which will require
amendment. The actions in this project comply fully with the goa ls of the
Forest Plan, the Management Area Direction, and the Forest-wide standards and
guidelines (See Chapter IV of the Wasatch-Cache Land and Resource Management
Plan) except for the Visual Quality Objective and the fisheries habitat
i ndicies for the Logan River and Beaver Creek. The Visual Quality Objectives
will be changed to Partial Retention in one spot in Middle Canyon and
modi ficati on throughout the remainder of the highway easement. The Habitat
Quality Index for the Logan River and Beaver Creek will be changed to allow
temporary minor decreases provided minimum index l eve ls are still exceeded.
~ FEIS 4 - 2.
Specific changes are documented in the attached plan amendment .
Analysis of these changes is included in the FEIS . I conclude that this is a
non - significant amendment to the Forest Plan as defined in 36 CFR 219.10(e) in
that it does not significantly alter the multiple use goals and objectives for
long term land and resource management for the Forest.
VII. Environmenta l ly Preferable Alternative
The No Act i on Alternative has been identified as the environmental ly preferable
alternative.
VIII.
Implementation Date and Appeal Opportunities
This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215 . 7. A written NotiCEof Appeal must be postmarked within 45 days after the date this notice is
published in the Ogden Standard Examiner, Ogden, Utah. The Notice of Appeal
should be sent to: Chief, USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 96090, washington, D. C.
20090-6090
Appeals must meet content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 . For further
inf orma tion on this decision, contact Reese Pope at Wasatch-Cache National
Forest, 8236 Federal Building, 125 South State Street, Salt Lake City, UT
84138 or by phone at (801) 524-5188.
If no appeal is received, implementation of this decision may occur on, but not
before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If an
appeal is received, implementation may not occur for 15 days following the date
of appea l disposition.
-
trlAH , I 1995
,
Date
DALE N. BOSWORTH
Regional Forester
Intermountain Region
324 25th Street
Ogde n, UT 84403
13
�(2
I. ~ot:>
Is Y
01::' 1>
,fGlt tiff . C 17tf1 jill
'2-.
(001::>
6-at--:;
( c-- . "3
'If
•
To ttt-/WA-
M otVTH$ ,
~'tl.Ji) y)
-; • R0 p lr-f'i:1If . 6-dt:-s 7/0
U.rPS _ g o ~
D
cAtV
AMpvf)
17{--c
t=fjyLPV!t-tlI·
{IV
H
4V't'
[YO n-{-AT I
iD
OW r-./ ~o-o
1 \ I 5'1
( :> r r/E I/-f-f:( r(
-
AtlfDTM::~
? MONtH'? ')
$0:
WE M{u-Hi tf41£
{O /fA. (I,1/Ttis -
�r;.r{), ~ &+-e.t,,~
I "I'i? So ~oo I.N
1..--0 a""', U\
------ --To"" L.y un
G ::,-s- CAr-.~o 1\ p. Q.
UT
'iN 3;J.., I
�Dec. 7, 1994
Dear Tenacious member of the Logan Canyon Coalition,
I have enclosed a rough draft of some proposed changes to UDOT's ROD. I've
spoken with some of you about this proposal, and I've incorporated many of your
ideas, including some ideas from the Conservationists' Alternative. I've tentatively
called this new proposal the "Citizens' Alternative." Catchy title, right?
It seems to me that the sooner we decide on the changes we wish to see
through our Forest Service appeal, the more focused and efficient our work will be.
Anyway, we will have to declare, in our appeal, exactly the changes we wish to see.
Please look over this draft, and let me know what you think. I'd like to discuss
this further at our next meeting. In this proposal we should indicate the changes we
want, and also briefly discuss our reasons for requesting each change. Further, indepth, discussions will come in the body of the appeal. This is not a final draft! It is for
the sake of discussion at our next meeting. Please feel free to make suggestions that
will reflect your own point-of-view.
I strongly believe, however, that we should present a proposal to the Forest
Service that is not too "radical," rejecting all improvements to the road except for
bridge replacement. We should allow for further changes that really might improve
safety. We should try, in other words, to appear reasonable, while still defending what
needs to be defended. We should, rt we can, reflect concerns that the Forest Service
and other agencies might themselves have with UDOT's ROD, for example, UDOT's
proposed extensive changes at Temple Fork. With this approach, we might have a
good chance of success with our appeal. In our proposal, we should not try to shut
down everything UDOT wants to do. If we do, we will likely be dismissed too easily by
Forest Service administrators. On the other hand, I do not want us to agree with
UDOT's plans rt we really believe they will unnecessarily harm the canyon.
Please let me know what you think. I would like to reach a good consensus.
Yours in Tenacious Defense of our
Canyon,
Go rQM
S'{-e..I!\\...oqf
753-0497
�Citizens' Alternative
Proposal for Improvement of the Logan Canyon Highway 89
Our alternative is identical to the revised Preferred Alternative proposed by
UDOT in their recent ROD, with the following changes.
1. Keep the 26' road width up to just beyond Ricks Spring. Extend section 1b, described in the FEIS as remaining at 26', up to just beyond Ricks Spring.
This would prevent unnecessary damage to the river, which runs very close to
the road along this stretch. This change helps protect the river and its fishery at the
lower Twin Bridge and the Temple Fork intersection.
2. At the Temple Fork intersection, keep the road to only two travel lanes, without a
right hand or left hand turning lane.
The river along this intersection probably provides very good spawning grounds
for cutthroat trout. Along the entire river, there are very few good spawning grounds for
cutthroat or for brown trout, making this section of the river at Temple Fork extremely
valuable to the fishery in the Logan river. The road at Temple Fork passes very close
to the river. Widening this section of road to accomodate turning lanes would seriously
damage these spawning grounds and so the fishery in the entire river. UDOT presents
no data on the number of vehicles that turn into the Temple Fori< road, and emerge
from the road. This is an unimproved, dirt road that meanders into an unimproved
recreation area. UDOT has not justified the severe damage to this fishery that would
occur here with widening and with turning lanes.
3. Do not flatten curves at and around the Temple Fork area. Curves 39 and 40, at
milepost 388.8, and curves 43 and 45, at mileposts 389.4 and 390.1, should be left on
their present alignments.
The road gradually curves along this section as it follows the river. These
curves are gradual. They are not sharp, so they are not particularly dangerous at a
reasonable speed. UDOT has presented no data showing that these curves are
particularly dangerous. The scenery through here is spectacular. There is no loss in
"driver comfort" as one negotiates these gentle curves and enjoys the views of the river
and canyon walls. The only reason for flattening these curves is to achieve a straighter road so that drivers can "go fast." The resulting slopes may not be revegetated
successfully. The run-off from construction would have to enter the river at some point,
and the increased sedimentation may seriously damage this sensitive cutthroat spawn·
ing area. There would be loss of recreational and scenic values here, with no good
justification of the loss.
,
�4. At Logan Cave, as the road is elevated, use a retaining wall to keep fill out of the
river. There should be no more encroachment into the river. This is consistent with the
ROD, in which UDOT agrees to maintain the '1ree flowing" nature of the Logan River.
(The Conservationists' Alternative called for the road to be "moved away from
the rive~' as it is elevated. This would mean that the mountain on one side of the road
would have to be carved out to create room for the road as it is shifted away from the
river. Is this preferable to use of a retaining wall?)
5. Maintain the 34' road width past the Beaver Mountain intersection and over the
summit to just past the Bear Lake overlook. Do not increase the width in the upper
canyon to 40'.
6. Do not construct a climbing lane over the summit. End the proposed climbing lane
below the summit.
Changes 4 and 5 will possibly allow the road to be kept in its present alignment,
without too much damage to the old-growth forest. If the road is increased to 40', and
a climbing lane over the summit is constructed, the road will need to be moved to a
different alignment in order to avoid severe damage to the forest. But this will involve a
huge amount of fill in a side canyon, with destruction of deer forage and mountain
mahogany. The older road would probably never be completely removed. It would be
much less damaging to keep to the original alignment, with a narrower road.
Furthermore, a wide, straight highway at the summit, complete with a climbing
lane, would encourage drivers to increase speeds to dangerous levels. This is a north·
facing slope at about 8000 feet. The grade of the road may approach 10%. In the
winter, with ice and snow on the road , higher speeds could be especially deadly. At
the summit there is the popular Umber Pine trailhead turnOff, and just past the summit
is the Sunrise Campground turnoff. The road would be safer ~ drivers were not
rocketing over the summit, past these intersections, at excessive speeds, especially in
the ice and snow.
7. Do not construct a passing lane just past the cattle guard. Instead, construct a slowvehicle pullout, and put up a sign informing drivers that a passing lane will begin in a
mile.
This would eliminate unnecessary destruction of wetlands along the road. The
sign would help encourage drivers to be patient until they reach the passing lane.
�8. Maintain a 26' road width along Beaver Creek. Do not increase the width here to
34'.
The road from Ricks Spring to Beaver Creek will be widened to 34', but through
the corridor along Beaver Creek the road will be kept at its current 26', wrth possibly a
slightly lower posted speed. Widening this road to 34' would involve unacceptable
impacts to the creek and aSSOCiated wetlands. The road is simply too close to the
creek and wetlands, on both sides of the road. UDOT claims that it would work in only
a narrow construction zone, but any construction here would seriously damage
riparian habitat and probably wetlands. Beaver Creek contains important spawning
grounds for cutthroat trout, and it contains a population of beaver that have only
recently returned after being driven out by road construction 60 years ago. Any slight
gain in "driver comfort" by widening here is not worth destruction of the cutthroat trout
fishery and important wildlde habitat. UDOT will object to the "bottleneck" in traffic flow
that would be created here d our proposal is implemented. In our proposal, there are
two "bottlenecks," one in the middle canyon and one at Beaver Creek, with a narrower
road and slightly lower posted speeds in each. Possibly, two bottlenecks will better
protect the future health of both of these areas.
9. Insist that no new riprap be used in the canyon. UDOT should be required to
stabilize all damaged riverbanks using natural vegetation, and UDOT should be
required to expend the time and money necessary after construction to ensure that all
revegetation efforts are successful.
The Logan Canyon has great recreational and scenic values. These values
would be harmed with the "easy solution" of riprap. If UDOT goes into the canyon to
widen and straighten some sections of the road, and replace bridges, UDOT should be
required to mitigate in a manner fully consistent with the recreational and scenic
values of this canyon. This means use of natural vegetation that is carefully maintained at UDOTs expense well after construction.
10. UDOT should specdy more explicitly the measures it will take to minimize harm to
the river, to fisheries, and to the scenic value of the canyon. It should also specdy
more explicitly measures rt will take to mrtigate damage from construction.
Too often UDOT simply says that it will use "best management practioes" This
is too vague. UDOT wishes to leave detailed discussion of the exact measures it will
use to minimize harm to "deSign phase." This does not give the public and appropriate
agencies sufficient information to properly evaluate UDOTs proposal before approval
of the project is given by the state transportation commission and the federal highway
administration. Evaluation of the impacts of proposed construction must include
consideration of the exact measures UDOT intends to use to minimize harm and
mitigate damage. Especially when construction will seriously impact particular sites,
such as Temple Fork, Logan Cave and the lower Twin Bridge and Burnt Bridge, UDOT
�should be required to give a site-specdic discussion of exact measures that will be
used. When culverts are replaced, does UDOT intend to use culverts that are graded
and baffled, allowing fish to move through culverts during high water flows? UDOT
mentions that ~ will use' sediment basins to collect sediment from run-off, but does
UDOT intend to change the filters in these basins at appropriate times after construction is completed? In the FEIS, UDOT provides no discussion of how revegetation will
be accomplished after construction, and no estimates of how successful revegetation
efforts will be on the slopes that will be left after curve-cuts. Will UDOT carefully maintain new vegetation after construction is completed? UDOT should be required to
speedy and discuss exact measures ~ will use. These discussions should be in an
EIS, appearing before approval and funding of the project.
�United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Uinta and
Wasatch-Cache
Nationa l Forests
8236 Federal Building
125 South State Street
Sa l t Lake City, UT 841 38
(801) 524-5030
Reply to :
Date:
1950
December 7 , 1994
Dear Interested Forest User ,
The Uinta and Wasatch-Cache National Forests, Ashley National Forest and Bureau
of Land Management have begun t he process of preparing a Suppl ement to the
North Slope Oil and Gas Leas ing Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The
original analysis examined non-Wilderness Federal lands wi t h Federal mineral
righ ts that should or should not be made available for oil and gas expl oration,
development, and production on the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains. A
decision on the EIS was appealed which l ed to the roadle ss a r ea being removed
from l easing until further analysis could be completed. This Supplement will
focus only on t he issue of roadless areas.
Comments and suggestions concerning this ana l ysis will be accepted through
January 12. 199~ . Comments should be concise and specific to the fo cus of this
Supplement. Please mail comments to Evanston Ranger District. P.O. Box 1880,
Evanston, WY 82930.
The Draft Supplement is expected to be available fo r publ ic r eview in early
February 1995. A 45 day comment period will follow release of the Draft. Upon
analysis and consideration of these comments. the Fi nal Supplement and a new
Decision will be prepared and released.
If you have any questions or concerns. please contact Liz Schuppert at (307)
789-3194 .
Sincerely.
0?~","~ P. k.J;.."
~d' PETER W. KARP
Forest Supervisor
�>
•
Supplement to
North Slope Leasing Environmental Impact Statement
Wasatch-Cache and Ashley National Forests
Summit and Daggett Counties
THE APRIL 94 LEASING DECISIONBeginning in the fall of 1991, the Wasatch· Cache and Ashley National Forests began the
analysis to determine whi ch lands across the North Slope of the Uinta Mountains should be
administratively available for leasing and if they were to be made available for leasing, what
stipulations should be appli ed. A final decision was made in April of 1994 to allow leasing
on 219,000 acres and to not allow leasing on about 23,000 acres.
Four valid appeals were received on thi s decision. As part of the appeals process the Forest
Supervisors met with appellants to discuss resolution of their appeal issues. One of the
primary appeal points was whether or not leasing should be allowed in the "road less area"
portion of the study area. As the Forest Supervisors took a hard look at the decision made
in April and some of the issues raised in the appeals, they determined better information
was needed about the "roadless" portion to make a well informed decision since oil and
gas leasing cou ld influence the area for a long time. This led to a August 18 decision to
withdraw the decision for the "roadless area" portion of the study area (about 80,000 acres).
The remaining 160,000 acres within the study area will be leased as determined in the April
decision.
A BETTER LOOK IN A SUPPLEMENTThe North Slope Leasing EIS analyzed effects for roadless acres across the North Slope and
cumulative effects for all roadless acres contiguous with the High Vintas Wilderness. As
the Forest Supervisors studied their decision and analysis what they found lacking was a
description of the unique roadless characteristics of the major drainages within the study
area. For example, what is the solitude of the Middle Fork Blacks Fork drainage? What is
the natural integrity of the Beaver Creek drainage? Are there other acti vities ongoing or
planned for the future that need to be considered? In other words, they felt there were enough
differences in the road less characteristics in each major drainage to warrant a more detailed
look in a supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement. Once these characteristics
are described , new alternatives will be considered if the 7 alternatives in the EIS do not
provide an adequate mix of leasing scenarios.
Peter W. Karp, Forest Supervisor of the Uinta and Wasatch· Cache National Forest and
Brent McBeth, Acting Forest Supervisor of the Ashley National Forests are the responsible
officials for this action.
THE SIX ROADLESS CHARACTERISTICSThe following roadless characteristics will be considered in each major drainage across the
North Slope:
�1
>
Natura l int eg r ity is the extent to which long-term ecological processes are intact and operating. Impacts to natural integrity are measured by the presence and magnitude of human
induced change to an area. Such impacts include physical developments (e.g roads, utilityrights-of way, fences, lookouts, cabins), recreation developments, domestic livestock grazing,
mineral developments, wildlife/fisheries management activities, vegetative manipulation, and
fire suppression activities.
Appare nt n at u raln ess means that the environment looks natural to most people using the
area. It is a measure of importance of visitors' perceptions of human impacts to the area.
Even though some of the long-term ecological processes of an area may have been interrupted,
the landscape of the area generally appears to be affected by the forces of nature. If the
landscape has been modified by human activity, the evidence is not obvious to the casua l
observer, or it is disappearing due to natural processes.
R em o t e n ess is a perceived condition of being secluded, inaccessible, and out of the way. The
physical factors that can create "remote" settings include topography, vegetative screening,
distance from human impacts such as roads and logging operations (s ight and sound), and
difficulty of travel. A user's sense of remoteness in an area is also influenced by the presence
or absence of roads, thei r condition, and whether they are open to motorized vehicles.
Solit u d e is a personal, subjective value defined as isolation from the sights, sound and
presence of others, and the developments of man. Common indicators of solitude are numbers
of individuals or parties one may expect to encounter in an area during a day, or the number
of parties camped within sight and sound of other visitors. Impacts related to primitive
recreation experiences are normally expressed in changes to t he physical setting, activities
occurring in the area, of to the social experiences of users.
Spec ia l features are those uni que geological, biological, ecological, cultural, or scenic features that may be located in roadless areas. Unique fis h and wildlife species, un ique plants
or plant communities, outstandi ng landscape feat ures such as unique rock formations, and
sign ificant cultu ral resource sites are some examples of the items
Th e M a n ageability/ B ound ari es elem ent relates to the abili ty of the Forest Service to
manage an area to meet size criteria and the five elements discussed above. Changes in
the shape of an area influence how it can be managed. If broken into narrow corridors or
small islands interspersed with areas of non-conforming management practices, many of the
6 elements may be compromised.
WHAT WE NEED FROM YOUTo be most helpful in this analysis, please submit specific comments related to the 6 roadless characteristics within the major drainages (see attached map). Please submit written
comments to Liz Schuppert, Evanston Ranger District, Box 1880, Evanston WY 82930 by
January 12, 1995 .
T he draft supplement is expected in February 1995. If you have any questions or concerns
call Liz Schuppert at (307) 789-3194.
�Wasatch-Cache &Ashley NatWl1flt forests
•
.
-
u~s
USFS Regian Faur
NORTH SLOPE OIL AND GAS Svpple?l!ntal Analysis
•
-
-
-
••
••
••
~
~
, ·SliIIwater/Heydan
2·Eul Fork Bear
3-Wesl Fork Blackl
4-Middle Fork Blecks
5-E. Fork Blacks Fork
S.W. Fork Smith Fork
7-Gilbart Creek
8-e. FOlk Smith Fork
9-Hen'Y' FOlk
10-Belver Creek
Mil e s
o
6
12
18
11·Burnt Fork{Thomp.onIKabeli
12·No. Fork Sheep Creek
13-Mehogany/Oeath VaJley
Ceneral area.
Legend
~!ll1l'Tlf
~
Area
\4
-----Yf
?
,...,.... Ir
IoU ..,.
,"""" J,. r ....,
...... ,..
�To: Keller, lauren
18-5-94 4:45p.
FrOll:
OCT~-l994
15:34
FRD1
TO
ENiItEERIi'I:i SERVICES
918e17536139
p. 1 of l
P .01
October 5, 1994
PACSIMD..B TRANSMlTl'AL
COVER SHlllIT
TIllS TRANSMl'ITAL CONTAINS 3 PAGES (INCLUDING COVER PAGE)
SENT BY:
LORRAlNB RICHARDS
UDOT HNVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
4$01 S 2700 W, SLC, UT 84119
PHONE t: (SOl) 965-4159
FAX I: (SOl) 965-4796
SENT TO:
LAUREN KEIJJ<I!
FAX #:
753-6139
,
COMMBNTSfINSTRUcnONS:
Attacbed is • clean copy of the revisions you ...:elved yesterday and the changes we
c:U.scuSKd in yCSlCIday's mec:d.n, fur yuur
~view.
Pk::a:io::il!lC that Shawn and Paul .mccive a
copy. Thanbl
............ PlBASB NQ'IUlY RECIPIENT AS SOON AS POSSmLB ••••••••
�18-5-94 4:45p.
To: Keller , Lauren
OCT-ffi-l994
15:34
FR01
EN3It-EERIt-t3 SERVICES
910017536139
TO
p. Z of 3
P.02
PROPOSIW LilNGUAGB CHANGRS TO 9 - 27 REVISION
U9-89 LOGAN CANYON
Page 2, Last Paragraph. 4th
Sentence~
Since the roadway already serves ae a US Higbway and was
designated as such in accordance with previous legislation,
the determination has been made that this action would not
change the use of the highway.
Page 6, Insert new
p~ragraph
"l"h.:I.. :a.eeds JIIOre work,
after second paragraph.
pu1l some lULgua.ge
~rOJD.
previou.s
:z
paragraphs and add the ~ollowing* A new intersection
providing ace... to the sridgerland Subdivision will be
constructed~
Intersection improvements to other existing
and proposed subdivision accesses will be considered.
Page 21. Second Paragr5ph .
A band at riparian habitat will be maintained along the
river and creek wherever possible to provide
overhanging cover tor fish and to filter surface
runoff.
Page 21, Seventh Paragraph.
Fishery studies will be conducted for individual
projects which have the potential to ~ct tisheries.
Prior to construction, available UDWR fish@ries studies
will be assessed and it necessary updated to provide
baseline data to dete~ine project impacts to
fisheries. Post construction fishery studies wil1 be
conducted. It study results show additional mitigation
measures are warranted as a result of project
activities, mitigation directed at wild fish stocks
will be carried out under the direction ot USFS & UDWR
biologists as explained in the PBIS on pg 5-6.
�To : Ke ller, lauren
18-S-94 4:46p.
OCT-05- 1994
15:35
FRD'1
ENitt-EERlt-I:i SERVICES
TO
910017536139
p. 3 of 1
P. 03
US-89 LOGAN CANYON RDD REVISION. CHANGES AS PBR 10-3 - 94 MTG
Page 12, 2nd Paragraph
Replace 5th sentence.
This team will participate in the development ot all aspects of
design and 1n the resolution of unforeseen problems that ariss
during construction and post construction.
MOr. inoluded ' on page 26 ( ••• below) .
page 24, Batch plant Locations
*
The traffic, safety. recreatioD, and air quality tmpactB
associated with hauling material from the city versus
setting up a batch plant in the canyon will be identified on
a project by project basis in design. The affect o~ these
t.pacta on both the canyon environment and the city
environment will be considered. Th. a •••• ~t will inclu~.
u.p.ats OD the LoWer Canyon lUlc:l compat1bility with future
proj.ct.. The .c.t suitabl. location will be i~entifled in
the project -.peoifioatioaB and the contractor wd11 be
required to conduct hi. batch plant operations in accordance
with the•• ~.QlflQatiOD ••
Page 26, 1st paragraph
MOnitoring and enforcement of the above proposed measur~s to
minimize har.m will be accomplishe~ in accordance with the
Memorandum of understandi.ng (MaU) between ut>OT, PHWA, an(l VSFS.
The MOU is included in the Appendix of this ROD.
It identifies
how the individual projects wll1 be selected, identified and
managed, and how coordination wi1l be accomplished. The MOU
takes each project through design, construction, and postconetruction periods.
It commits to the deve10pment of a
revegetation plan, wetland mitigation plan, and a
construction/post-construction monitoring plan, and commits to
the development of a Cooperating Advisory Team (CAT) which
consists o~ var~ous agencies and indiv1duals. This team w111
provide recommendations of regulatory and permit requirements,
input on enhancement opportunities, mitigative treatments and
overal l content of the design of the project, ~th tinal
decisions being UDOT's responsibility. Th. CAT t.am. will be
invo1ved. throughout the development of: all aspeets o~ de.iSPl,
inc1uding' review o~ .lignment options and other d_lgn featur.s.
During construction aDd po.t construction, the CAT team will be
Coordinated with ~o r.so1v. unEoreseeD eDviroamantal problem. to
ensure that ~t1gative e~~ort8 are succe.s~u1.
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Image Height
3323
Image Width
Image Width in pixels
2602
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/294">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/294</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Scanning resolution
Resolution in DPI
300
Colorspace
RGB or Grayscale, for example
Grayscale
Checksum
2543550165
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
LCC correspondence
Description
An account of the resource
Multiple correspondences from members of the Logan Canyon Coalition including a notice of appeal and statement of reasons, and discussion of the modifications proposed for Logan Canyon.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Morton, Pete
Kobe, Kevin
Wilcox, Sterling
Hessel, David L.
Lyon, Tom
Thompson, Douglas E.
Bosworth, Dale
Steinhoff, Gordon
Karp, Peter W.
Richards, Lorraine
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Environmental policy
Department of Transportation--Utah
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1994
1995
1996
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 7
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
image/jpeg
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS314Bx1Fd7
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/6f05335e76d97b4c65650df77b6ecd1a.pdf
b7f5ed30584e80515047302111f5f8be
PDF Text
Text
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
�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
poor likelihood of success.
"felt" there was a
Rather, I cited recent scientific
- iterature--produced by scientists working for the very agency
l
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: "[A]nd given the fact that we would be able
to proceed with the construction of the project . . ." if the
14
�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 nonhridge 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,
Bruce Pendery
755 Canyon Rd.
Logan, Utah 84321
17
�
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/159">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/159</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
3787997956
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
10610610 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 Bruce Pendery to Dave Berg, August 12, 1994
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Bruce Pendery to Dave Berg stating the reasons why a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) should be prepared, explaining that flawed data and lack of public involvement have made the current EIS unusable. Suggests a compromise in which the three "scary" bridges be modified as UDOT has stated while the SEIS is prepared.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Pendery, Bruce
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Natural resources conservation areas
Traffic engineering
Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon Study
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1994-08-12
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (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, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 10
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS148VIIIB28_Fd10_Page_1.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/622543e71c79983caabcc32fa67014a5.pdf
67cf27adc04ee385ea78b31b0fc949f1
PDF Text
Text
��I4l -.004
,
~
.
~-J.
���03 / 30 / 95
141007
LOGAN RANGER DST
THU 10:06 FAX 801 755 3639
MESSAGE SCAN FOR STAN MILLER
To
K.ANDERSON
Be
STAN MILLER
From:
STAN MILLER
Postmark:
Mar 27.95
Status:
Certified
1!46 PM
Delivered: Mar 27t95
1;46 PM
Subject: SPECIALIST REQUEST FOR REISSUANCE OF GRAZING PERMITS.
Comments:
KATHY: THIS IS OUR INTENT FOR REISSUANCE OF GRAZING PERMITS ON THE
LOGAN DISTRICT. IN AN EARLIER DOCUMENT WE FIGURED A MINIMUM OF 2
DAYS/ALLOTMENT FOR EACH SPECIALISTS TIME. WE FIGURED ON MOST WE
WOULD NEED AT LEAST 5 DAYS/ALLOTMENT FOR EACH SPECIALIST. THERE WERE
A COUPLE OF ALLOTMENTS WITH POOR ACCESS ETC. WHICH WE FIGURED MORE
TIME WOULD BE NEEDED. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS aIVE ME A CALL. STAN
-------=;=;;=~~x====---~-------
t\c--~ ~
"'- ~ ~>(""'C>"'- - \< ~ ~L.o...- ~
L,U' \.\. \
\.~_">
""""-
~~\\~~
c..D~"~
S~~
~~fQ...1\J\.
. \0 O"'"~""- ~~c:..~
S~o....V\.. ~~~~
~e.-o.~~, ~u."'\~~~
~~'P"-~- ~~(e~
~ov...\~~ ~w..~*lL~"l
LovU\.~:1 C6..\A.\O~
t:.lK ~~\\o~
~\.·c..~S ~~~'oC!.\
E \ \<.. \.)0-" ~~'\
Sou..'",- <:O~o~U,.)oe ~
~\~~~ \\o\\o~
Lo~
~ CD'oM,"\."",,~~v..\~ C~Ll.~
--
T\""'"e.~ \V\"'\-<.N\O-~\~ ~e.~c-~
V'C
0.
~-'- ~ "CZ.. ""'--0.. '€..
N\\.\\~~\\~
~~\.\~ \Zoe-",-
w \, \~<i!!C\M:L~~ ~CM..~
t\~~"'- ~~~~~
~~~~~~~\~
c....o~c'-'~c~ !..
�
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/151">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/151</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
2886902054
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7502688 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
Reissuance of grazing permits, March 30, 1995
Description
An account of the resource
Fax from Stan Miller to Kathy Anderson about the reissuance of grazing permits in the Cache Valley and Rich County areas. Also, inlcudes maps of the specific areas.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Miller, Stan
Subject
The topic of the resource
Wilderness areas
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Administrative records
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1995-03-30
1995-03-27
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Box Elder 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, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Series III Box 6
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_6.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/de63dd2d806f8fcd18e16990b8b4c5aa.pdf
74f54949964869108795d0a76fcd547c
PDF Text
Text
I
CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON
JANUARY 1991
The Question of Logan Canyon
.. .is not as big as acid rain, or ozone depletion, to be sure-but it
might be an indicator. It can tell us how sincere we are, and how
thorough, in our '90s leaning toward the land. Here is a deep,
beautiful and winding canyon, gradually shallowing as it ascends
into an open country of high meadows and ridge-top forests. For
decades now this canyon has held a fairly modest two-lane road
that winds eastward from Logan with the lay of the land,
eventually crests a 7800-foot summit of the Wasatch Range, and
then drops swiftly in switchbacks to Bear Lake. The whole forty
miles, in any season, is a treat to the eye, because this is one of the
few Wasatch Front river canyons where the road has not become
the dominant feature of the landscape.
It still looks like respected country.
-- Tom Lyon
Logan Canyon: Here and Now
For the last thirty years there has been a drive to punch a wider,
straighter, faster highway through Logan Canyon. In 1961, five miles of
the lower canyon were "improved"; in 1968, six more-up to the Right
Hand Fork. But then came the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) in 1970, and the road straighteners no longer have a perfectly
free hand. Now they have to justify their plans, and discuss alternatives,
and now we too have a say in what happens.
Under the requirements of NEPA, the l.Jtah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has been researching the environmental impacts of different
construction plans. After several years and the expenditure of over three
quarters of a million dollars, they've come up with a draft study that
doesn't specify a "preferred alternative." Unfortunately, their study, in the
view of many, has been marked by slipshod· procedures, insufficient data,
and lack of consideration for the environment.
Now it is up to those of us who care about the beauty and intactness of
Logan Canyon to come forward and make a stand. Citizens for the
Protection of Logan Canyon have made their own study of the canyon
and have prepared the Conservationists' Alternative, which is included in
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).
We urge you to give the Conservationists' Alternative your careful
examination, to write a letter, and to make a statement at the public
meeting on the DEIS. You can make a difference!
�The Conservationists' Alternative
The goal of this alternative is a highway that fits into Logan Canyon with
minimal ecological disturbance and maximum safety, rather than a highway
that moves the greatest number of people through the canyon at the highest
rate of speed. The Conservationists' Alternative meets this goal, but it is not a
do-nothing alternative. Current roadway width and alignment would be
maintained throughout the canyon, with the following exceptions:
• Bridges and culverts replaced and widened to 28 feet, with all but
Lower Twin Bridges kept on the existing alignment.
• Turning lanes constructed at Tony Grove Recreation Area and Beaver
Mountain Ski Area.
• Climbing lanes constructed above Red Banks Campground, below the
state sheds, and in the Sinks area, but not at the Dugway.
• Increased traffic law enforcement.
• Slow vehicle turnouts and multipurpose parking constructed at several
locations.
• Roadbed raised near Logan Cave and in several other locations to avoid
spring flooding.
WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS ALTERNATIVE
What Can You Do to Help Protect Logan Canyon?
Support the Conservationists' Alternative.
Write a letter expressing your concerns.
Speak out at the public meeting in Logan.
Writing a Letter is as Easy as One, Two, Three
First: Introduce yourself. Mention why you are concerned about Logan Canyon and
experiences you have had there.
Second: Support the Conservationists' Alternative. Also point out problems in the
DEIS. You can refer to the above lists for details; or write to us for more
information.
Third: Put your return address on the letter, sign it, and date it.
Send your letter to:
James Naegle
Utah Dept. of Transportation
4501 South 2700 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84119
To get a copy of the DEIS, call:
James Naegle
(801) 965-4160
Letters must be mailed by Fe~ruary 1, 1991.
Letter-writing workshops will be held at A Book Store, 130 North 100 East, Logan
7:00 p.m., on Thursday, January 3; Monday, January 7; and Thursday, January 10.
Despite what some say, the road builders do "count votes." So speak out!
�Other Alternatives Considered in the DEIS
After careful study, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon concluded that
these alternatives would compromise safety, destroy the canyon's unique
environment, or both. These alternatives include:
• "Standard Arterial" - The widest, straightest, highest-speed alternative.
With wide shoulders and "recovery areas" adjacent to the road, well over twice as
much land would be disturbed as at present. Large cuts would scar hillsides, and
the road would intrude into the river.
• "Modified Standard" - Identical to the Standard Arterial, except the roadway width would be somewhat less in the narrow and scenic middle section of
Logan Canyon. There would be fewer cuts than under the Standard Arterial.
• "Composite Alternative" - A combination of the Standard and Modified
Alternatives. It is a late addition to the list of alternatives and retains many severe
environmental impacts, such as a climbing lane at the Dugway. It would also have
more adverse effects on streams in the upper part of the canyon.
• "Spot Improvement" - Road width would not change; however, hillsides
would be cut to straighten curves, and climbing and turning lanes would be built
in environmentally sensitive areas.
• "No Action" - NEPA requires agencies to consider this alternative in a
DEIS. There are legitimate construction needs in Logan Canyon, however, so ....- - - - - - - - - - -..
conservationists have not supported this alternative.
Shaded area shows one of the
highway cuts proposed under
several of the alternatives.
Unfortunately, these alternatives and the DEIS itself have some serious flaws, including:
• Disturbance of the river and loss of riparian habitats are not adequately addressed.
• Impacts on wildlife, especially fish, nongame species, and the threatened Maguire's Primrose, are weakly treated.
• Disposal of rubble, many thousands of cubic yards under some alternatives, is ignored.
• Greater accident frequency or severity is possible with increased speeds under some alternatives; this
possibility is not addressed.
• Site-specific impacts are addressed vaguely; mitigation is put off until the "design phase" which is some
unspecified time in the future.
• Worst-case traffic projections are used to justify major modifications to the highway, yet Logan Canyon is
often only lightly travelled.
• The safety record for Logan Canyon is not compared with similar mountain roads; yet safety is a major
concern and is the rationale for some construction.
• Logan Canyon is nationally renowned for its scenery, and has been designated a Scenic Byway, yet this
prominence is not discussed.
Logan Canyon Cannot Speak for Itself
But you can speak for Logan Canyon.
A public hearing on Logan Canyon is scheduled for Tuesday, January 15, 1991, at the
Mt. Logan Middle School Auditorium, 875 N. 200 East, Logan.
If you plan to speak, you will need to arrive early to sign up if required.
The points that apply to letter writing also apply to your spoken comment. It is likely that
thetime allotted to each speaker will be about five minutes, so please prepare your
comments accordingly. IT you can both speak at the hearing and write a letter, do both.
Even if you do not plan to speak, please attend the hearing to show your support for
Logan Canyon.
Printed on recycled paper
Photos by Scott T. Smith
�"Improvement makes straight roads; but the crooked roads, without improvement, are roads of genius."
-- William Blake
LOGAN CANYON is at risk. LOGAN CANYON needs you.
Bulk Rate
U.S. Po tage
PAID
Logan, Utah
Permit No. 104
A..
P.O. Box 3501
Logan, Utah 84321
�
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/137">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/137</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
2378621560
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
4437341 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
Logan Canyon Bulletin, January 1991
Description
An account of the resource
Encouraging citizens to write to James Naegle requesting copies of the draft Environmental Impact Statement and support the protection of Logan Canyon.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Lyon, Thomas J.
Contributor
An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource
Naegle, James
Smith, Scott T. (photographer)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Environmental policy
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Press releases
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1991-01
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (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, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Series III Box 6
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_2.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/cee3f8d274ffdcbdb0ab055786c20581.pdf
c49801def68598979a19782e7748505b
PDF Text
Text
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 greatiy 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 v/ith 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. I f 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 IIpreferred alternative. This is, to say the least, disingeneous. Any alternative that is endorsed by a Forest Service repll
�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.
Stm.:ere 1y,
,i
J
,
cc: Dave Baumgartner
Tom Lyon
Dick Carter UWA
Steve Flint
Bruce Pendery Bridgerland Audubon
Rudy Lukez Utah Chapter, Sierra Club
/ "
c· ~- /-/7
t
"""'-7Z ,""
C
.
~
/.
rb--'
,-6~'./?. L~ - f. ~
/ /'.J.:~
I
~/
.
'7
-"
Jack T. Spence
Dept. of Chemistry
Utah State University
Logan, ut 84322
-c:-"'<: _
r:
_.
�
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/132">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/132</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
528995643
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
7675796 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 Jack Spence to R. James Naegle, February 1, 1991
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Jack Spence to R. James Naegle identifying the problems with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Spence, Jack T.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Environmental policy
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Natural resources conservation areas
Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Logan Canyon Study
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1991-02-01
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (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, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Item Series III Box 6
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_11.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/424d0a3caf74f075aa29f1258fdfaee7.pdf
fdd7ccb5b1897669795551f7529073b2
PDF Text
Text
Utah Wilderness
-. . . . . . . ~ Association
.
455 East 400 South · ,306/Salt Lake City,UT 84111/(801)359-1337
Uran Department ot Transporrotlon
4501 S. 2700 V.I.
Sal t Lake Ci tv. Utah 84119
Dear Mr. ZhllCk: '
\..fe have long been conGerned about the future development UDOT plans for the widening of Hwy.
89 In Logan Canyon. And wnlle It seems that tew it anv at our comments have e ver been taken Into
consideratlon In the oasr. we cannor be remISS In contInuing to tell yOU that the degradatIon of the
natural beauty H) Logan Canyon IS unacceptable. We offer the follm..ying pOInts that \:"Ie feel can be
accommodated by the conStructIon work y.;hlle preservIng the Integrity of the canyon that means so
much to so many folks fIndlng beauty ands solace in ItS verdant summer magic. its wonderful trails.
Its winter austerity and its scenlC UnIqUeneSS recommended nearly 15 years ago by a district ranger
and Logan users.
Under the current plan or development. wlldlife habitat and fisheries will suffer. Cut and fill will
adversel v affect ll'later QualltY. fisherIes and ungulate canyon migratlon patterns. Nearly 100 acres of
deer and moose v-llnter range (!"Iould be destroyed. ThIS seems so contradictory given the \--Iork on
habItat pro.lects bv others In the valley who are trYlng to rehabilitate deer and elk WInter range. Just
as DOT destroys it .
.~ SIte where material cut from the roadSIdes Will be depOSIted has as vet not be identified. ""'his is
Just one area I,..yhere NEP~. YVas skirted in order to obtaln approval of the EIS. Statlng mItIgatIon will
occur does not guarantee It. There.' lS too long a hlstorv of the agency buIlding then abandonIng a
prO Ject e xcept ror snow removal and line painnn9. NeIther of those actIVltleS provide for damage
guaranteed to Impact wildlife and fish for the comIng ·,Iears. The (l'Iildlife portion of the EIS is
woeiully Hladeouate. And the bottom llne IS that Increased tunding and proviSIon of more routes for
Utah Hignwav Patrolmen In rhe canyon could really solve the speeding problems and e i lminate driver
error that has been blamed for a need In canyon road Irlldening. Build It "faster ,1 and t hus they will
drive !
SoeGliicallv. oea ver and trout wIll surfer tcllO(,·'llng constructlon at the retaInIng t'Jalls. It is
:
estImateo that ~lstl populatIons v-lould be reduce;:; UP to 705~ i---,lnen n parIan vege tanon IS re moved In
the ::'N O ;'rHle S or that dama.ge or'·o .lecred by the E IS. RlP-rap :;annot crovide the ecologIcal subst Itute
tnar llv e plants and soi l s and F over can ror healtnv fISh populanons. ThIS IS part of the nearlv 20
acres or: 'r"-ietlanas ana ripanan . habltat tha. t y..lO uld be coll ecn v e~ v destroyed. ,.qnd in a tIme when
i1um ans are supposedlv 2Hare or these losses and "CrY InC ·1:0 act upon past errors. such damage IS
CallOl.iS a na Lnccnr::eIvabl e.
.
.
~[ <:O[J5~2 . :ri e~:e IS S Ue S 'ost J:cu(;n the :::urt:3.Ge. The!::e . .::tr·e r.tle r eC09nlz ed unpacts. Be l/ond the
orOiJle ms Hlt!l t h e process ln .Q ene raL th e .:as ua l 013;:=9 2ro ot pub lic Inout bv so manv who ha ve
,
(~onr.; : J · _I ;:ec Sl n J~?;p ; '/ Tn ~ :~ ; s p [ i !) r r I p orn&::r r,.-, n[~ :::.r ~ r· easonab l ~ ("onServatlonists ' aitern,:ttive 'r~hICn
tne utan \rhld er ~e~~ .;;s~~~~· t~o~ :; "\ih;len e"';rr~;; l ~ ;=~;orts. UDOT'"' ~~st go back to the dr aY·l lng bocrd
ana !.;'/ :::J f"1 21·:e rtHs c oro )ec r trli.H T.rle t;once nsus Clr users wlll find legitimate. It is too lmpor~ant to
100% Recycled Unbleached Paper
�sluff ott as angrv resldents. dlsgruntled (r'llldlite supporters and obstructIonlst polltlCS. There lS only
one Logan Canvon. And we want to preserve the beautv. the wlldness and the essence ot 11:5 grandeur
tor all who en.Joy It. No one comes to See-a road till or a great retalning wall. It is the water. the
trees. the wildlife. the autumn leaves at slo~-J speed that make Logan Canyon a-gem of Utah.
·The EIS misses the mark. Yet agaIn v-Ie ur ge YOU .to -take t:"lese comments- and the Incredible number
YOU recelved that express slmllar OPPosItIon to sUGh ma.Jor alterIng ot the canYon- lnto serIOUS
conslderatlon.
Please keep us on the maIling list to -receIve all related documents on the Logan Canyon pro.)ect.
-
-
Slncerely.
Margaret Pett1s
Board Member.
AprIL 27. 1993
-
�
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/124">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/124</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
2968122756
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
1230712 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 Margaret Pettis to Craig Zwick, April 27, 1993
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Margaret Pettis to Craig Zwick requesting to be kept informed on the proposed changes of Logan Canyon and expressing concerns about widening the road and increasing the speed limit.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Pettis, Margaret
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Environmental policy
Traffic engineering
Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1993-04-27
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Rich County (Utah)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Series III Box 6
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_3.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/415f48abe08315e4ffa42d169e5ade23.pdf
b0be94581294d8140a002916c1081152
PDF Text
Text
LOGAN CANYON SCENIC BYWAY
A Portrait in Time
A Guide to Interpretive Services
Chip Sibbernsen
Recreation Manager
Logan Ranger District
860 North 1200 East
Logan, Utah 84321
{801} 753-2772
Clemson Class of 1991
May 6, 1992--Review Copy
This paper was prepared as a student project in partial
fulfillment of the requirements of the Professional
Development for Outdoor Recreation Management Program
at Clemson University. It in no way reflects USDA
Forest Service policy nor are the opinions expressed
those of anyone other than the author.
�ABSTRACT
Author:
Chip Sibbernsen
Recreation Manager
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Logan Ranger District
Logan, Utah 84321
(801) 753-2772
Title:
"Logan Canyon Scenic Byway: A Guide to Interpretive Services"
Abstract: The overall objective of this paper is to describe the methods that
were used to develop an interpretive guide for the Logan Canyon
Scenic Byway. Included are statements of purpose and need, a
literature review, a statement of methodology, the interpretive
guide, a summary statement, and a list of recommendations. The
interpretive guide includes an introduction and sections on
interpretive vision, project goals and objectives, an interpretive
resources inventory, the major theme development, visitor analysis,
major site and program development, and implementation and
operations. It concludes with a section on monitoring and
evaluation. Included are detailed descriptions of 19 interpretive
sites and an array of interpretive goods and services.
Keywords: Scenic Byway, Interpretive Plan, Interpretive Services
i
�TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abs tract ..•..........•.•................•.................•...... i
Execu ti ve Summary .......•...•...............•...•.•........•..•.• ii
Acknowledgements .•....•.•...•••..........•.......•.......•...•.. iii
I. Introduction ................................................... 1
A. Purpose and Need ....••...•••....•........•.•.....•.•..•.•. 1
B. Relationship to Forest Plan .•....••••.•••.•.....•••.•••••• 2
C. Relationship to Other Scenic Byways .........•.•••••••••.•• 2
II. Literature Review ••......••••.••••••..•......••.........•.....• 2
III. Methods ...•....•...•.••................•..............••..•...• 4
A. The Process ...............•.••..•••......................• 5
B • The Team .•..•••.........•••••.............•.••••....•.•.•• 5
IV. The Interpretive Guide ...••.•...••.......••.....•..•.....•.•••• 6
A. In troduc tion .............................................. 6
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
1. Historical Background ........•...........••.••••••••• 6
2. Scenic Byway Designation •...•...•..•........•..•••••• 6
3. Regional Setting ...••••.•••.••.•.•••.••.••••.•••••••• 6
4. Physical Setting .................................... l0
a. Lower section ..••••••••••••.•.••...•..•••••••.• 10
b. Middle section •••••••••••.•..•.••.•••.••.•••••• 10
c. Upper section .......•..•.•....••...•..•...••••• 11
d. Bear Lake slope ••.••••••••.•..•••..•••••.•••••• 11
5. Recreation Opportunities •••••••••..••.•••••••..••••• 11
6. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum •....••••.•.••...•••• 12
Interpretive Vision and Project Goals and Objectives ••••• 13
1. Overall Interpretive Vision .•......•...•.••....••.•• 13
2. Goals and Objectives .•••...••••.••.•..••..•••.• 14
a. Goals .•......•....•.........•....•.••..... 14
b • Ob j ec ti ves •••..•.•..•....•••••••.•.•.••••• 15
Interpretive Resources Inventory •..........•........•.•.• 15
1. Major Site Identification ••......•••••••..•••...••.• 17
2. Selection Criteria ..••...•..•.......•.••...•.....•.. 17
3. Major Programs and Services ............•.........•.. 19
Theme Development ...........................•.........•.. 20
Visitor Analysis .....•......•.•..................•..•••.. 20
1. UDOT Data ....•......•...•.••••..........•...••.•.••• 20
2. Other Studies .......•..•••.........•••••.....•....•. 21
3. Logan Ranger District Data •........•........•...•..• 21
4. People With Disabili ties .•.........•..•......•...•.. 23
5. Motorcoach Tours .•.••.....•...........••.........•.• 23
Major Site and Program Development ................•••...• 23
1. Typical Site Plans ......................•......•.... 24
2. Displays and Orientation Sites .....••....•..••.••••. 24
3. Adventure Side Trip Trailheads ...................•.. 24
Major Site and Program Development ..........•...........• 28
1. Lady Bird Overlook and District Office ............•• 28
2. Hydro II Park/Second Dam ...........................• 30
3. Lake Bonneville. Si te ......................•......•.. 32
4. Dewitt Springs .............•....•.........•......•.. 33
5 . Riverside Nature Trail ..........................•... 35
6. Logan Wind Caves Trailhead .........•.....•..••.••.•• 37
7. Guinavah Amphitheater ....•................•......•.. 39
8. Guinavah-Malibu Campground Orientation Site ......•.. 41
�9. Fucoidal Quartzite ...••..........•......•........... 43
10. Jardine . Juniper Trailhead ..........•.....•.......... 44
11. Ricks Springs •••.............•..........•.•....•.... 46
12. Tony Grove Orientation Site .......•......•.........• 48
13. Tony Grove Ranger Station ..................••......• 50
14. Tony Grove Lake Nature Trail ........................ 52
15. Franklin Basin ...........•......................•... 54
16. Beaver Junction .............•.•.....•......•.......• 56
17. Limber Pine Children's Nature Trail ...•....••••••.•. 58
18. Bear Lake Overlook •••••••••••...•.......••..•••••... 60
19. Garden City Visitors Center •••.••••••.•.....••••••.. 63
20. Proposed Brochures, Programs, and Other Services ••.• 65
H. Implementation and Operations .•••....•••••••••..•••••...• 67
I. Monitoring and Evaluation ••.•.•.••..••.•.•••...•••..••... 67
J. Partnership Opportunities •.•.•.•••••••••••••••••....•••.• 72
V. Summary ••.••••••.•.•..•.••••..•••..•.••....•..••••••......•.•• 72
VI. Recommendations ............................................... 73
VII. Literature Cited .•......•.•.....•..••••..••••...••...••••.••.• 75
VIII. Appendix ....••.•.•..•••.........•..••••.••..•......•.......... 77
LIST OF MAPS
Number
Page
1
2
Regional Map ...................................... 7
Vicini ty Map ...................................... 8
3
4
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Map ••••••••••••••••••••• 9
Potential Interpretive Site Inventory Map •••••••. 16
Proposed Interpretive Sites Map •.•.••..••.••..•.• 26
5
LIST OF CHARTS
Figure
1
2
3
4
5
6
Annual Traffic Flow by Month .........•..••.•••.... 22
Traffic Flow by Day of Week •......••.••.....•.•..• 22
Traffic Flow by Hour of Day ........•...•.......... 22
Average Daily Traffic ........•.••••••.•....•....•. 22
Selection Factors for Visiting Northern Utah ...... 22
Percent of Resident and Out-of-State Visitors ..... 22
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
2
3
4
5
Major Site Evaluation Data Table .................. 18
Existing and Proposed Programs .................... 20
Summary of Interpretive Services and Facilities ... 27
Evaluation and Monitoring Matrix .................. 67
Cost Estimates and Implementation Schedule ........ 69
�EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title:
"Logan Canyon Scenic Byway: A Guide to Interpretive Services"
Author:
Chip Sibbernsen
Recreation Manager
Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Logan Ranger District
Logan, Utah 84321
(801) 753-2772
Summary:
Logan Canyon has been described as one of the most beautiful
canyons in northern Utah. It has been renowned for its scenic
beauty. since;· the · days of the early Mormon pioneers. .The area
was ·home to the Shoshoni Indians, was described by the mountain
men who trapped beaver in the area in the 1820's, and was
settled by the Mormon pioneers in the 1850's. It is the route
of choice for literally hundreds of thousands of summer and
winter recreationists traveling between Salt Lake City and the
Jackson Hole and Yellowstone country of northwest Wyoming.
·0
The Logan Canyon highway (US 89) was designated a Scenic Byway
by the Chief of the Forest Service in the spring of 1989 and by
the State of Utah in April, 1990. The 41-mile route runs
between the city of Logan on the west and the Utah-Idaho border
at Bear Lake on the east. It was one of the first routes
designated a Scenic Byway in the National Forest System. The
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway has received strong and continuous
support from local communities and interest groups in both Cache
and Rich Counties since its inception.
Traffic volumes vary seasonally, with approximately 50 percent
of the total annual traffic volume of 670,000 vehicles occurring
during the months of June, July, and August. Organized
motorcoach tours represent the largest untapped tourism market
in the area. The Cache-Rich Tourist Council estimates that more
than 3,000 motorcoach tours pass through the Byway each year on
their way to either Salt Lake City or the Yellowstone-Jackson
Hole area. Numerous tourism studies conducted in this area have
concluded that the most popular .recreational pursuits are
visiting historical sites and viewing scenery (driving for
pleasure). These same studies have also concluded that the most
popular attractions in the area are the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest, Logan Canyon, and Bear Lake.
The Scenic Byway enhancements and interpretive services proposed
in this paper are important to the economic health of Cache and
Rich Counties because of the positive effect they will have on
tourism and quality of life. Tourism is a vital part of the
economy in both counties, and the array of interpretive services
and enhancements proposed for the Byway will have a profound
effect on tourism in both. Over the next decade Rich County
will be looking to tourism as its primary source of growth.
ii
�Agriculture and government activity have plateaued, and the
potential for tourism growth in the Bear Lake area is very
promlslng. Although Cache County's economy is more diverse,
tourism is regarded as an important growth area. The new
enhancements proposed in this paper will encourage
recreationists from the Wasatch Front, who make up the largest
component of tourists to the area, to stay longer and use the
canyon's amenities more often.
Cache Valley is currently receiving strong interest from
businesses located across the country that are interested in
expanding or relocating in the area. One of their prime
considerations in looking to Cache Valley is the high marks the
area gets for the quality of life its residents enjoy. The
Scenic Byway will improve the utility of the canyon's recreation
resources, encourage further economic development, and improve
the retention of existing businesses and their employees.
Over the years the Forest Service, local environmental groups,
and the Cache-Rich Tourist Council have developed a number of
interpretive sites, brochures, and video tapes that feature
different aspects of the Scenic Byway experience. Prior to this
paper, however, a master interpretive guide for the Byway was
not available, and no attention paid to an interpretive theme,
standardization of signing, or site selection. Currently, none
of the existing interpretive sites are considered to be finished
products. In some cases the interpretive message is incomplete
or inaccurate; in other instances the sites are in need of a
restroom, improved parking, or designed trail systems. None of
the existing sites are accessible to people with disabilities.
Community involvement in forest projects is a tradition on the
Logan Ranger District, and a number of partners are on record in
support of the development of interpretive sites along the
Byway. The Utah Department of Transportation, Cache County,
Rich County, the Bear River Association of Governments, the city
of Logan, and Garden City have pledged their help in assisting
the ranger district in obtaining additional partners for
donations of volunteer time, resources, equipment, and money.
Additionally, the Cache County Council has expressed a
willingness to consider funding some of the proposed projects
using receipts it generates from its restaurant tax.
�ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I want to acknowledge those folks that without whose help and support
completion of this paper would not have been possible. Clark Ostergaard,
Erich Roeber, and Jane O'keefe for their help and suggestions on graphics
and design. John Balph for his expert guidance on editing and formatting
the text. Bill Thompson for having the patience he has to see this
through. Doug Thompson and the rest of the team for their input and
review. And most of all Colin, Erik and Evelyn for being there.
·i i i
�I. Introduction. Logan Canyon has been described as one of the most
beautiful canyons in northern Utah. The 41 mile long Logan Canyon Highway
(US 89) was designated a Scenic Byway by the Chief of the Forest Service
in the spring of 1989. The Governor of Utah officially designated it a
Scenic Byway in April, 1990. It was one of the first routes designated so
in the national forest system. The Logan Canyon Scenic Byway is located
primarily on lands administered by the Logan Ranger District,
Wasatch-Cache National Forest. It connects the city of Logan, Utah, on
the west to the winter and summer recreation mecca of Bear Lake on the
east.
The mountains along the Wasatch Front have become Utah's playground,
making the Wasatch-Cache one of America's most traveled national forests.
A 1992 survey (A & A Research) conducted on the forest showed that 72
percent of the Wasatch Front residents visited the forest at least once in
the past year. Of that group 98 percent enjoyed the scenic drives. This
study confirms other national studies that show that the single most
popular recreational use of people traveling across the national forests
is driving for pleasure. The Byway offers the visitors outstanding summer
and fall scenery as they- traverse a canyon with nearly vertical limestone
walls that tower almost a mile above the canyon floor. The area is rich
in cultural history, ranging from the Shoshoni Indians who once lived
here, to stories about the mountain men who roamed these hills and valleys
in the 1830's looking for adventure and trapping beaver along the banks of
the Bear River, to the Mormon pioneers who settled Cache Valley in the
1850's. The historic Tony Grove Ranger Station (circa 1907) provides a
snapshot into what life was like in the early days of the Forest Service.
The main access point to the Mount Naomi Wilderness (and numerous other
side adventures) is just off the roadw~y.
The objective of this paper is to describe the method that was used to
.d evelop the in terpreti ve guide for the Byway.
A. Purpose and Need.
1. The purpose of this project is twofold:
a. To gather information on the art of interpretation and the
elements that go into interpretive planning.
b. To prepare an interpretive guide for the Logan Canyon
Scenic Byway that will describe interpretive project
development along the Byway.
2. The project is needed for several reasons.
a. The 1986 report of the President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors focused attention on the growing use of America's
public lands for recreation. In response to this report
the Forest Service initiated the National Recreation
Strategy, which includes the National Forest Scenic Byway
Program.
This interpretive guide sets in motion the Chief's
direction for showcasing the outstanding scenery, diverse
natural resources, and rich cultural history associated
with the Byway.
-1 -
�b. Another aspect of the National Recreation Strategy is the
establishment of partnerships to provide better customer
service and expand recreation opportunities on the national
forests. This guide is needed to serve as a source
document to market partnership opportunities to local and
regional businesses and service organizations.
c. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1990 (ISTEA) is a potent source of funding for the
development of interpretive services and other enhancements
along Scenic Byways. This guide is needed to assist land
managers in generating proposals to compete for the
estimated $10-14 million dollars annually available under
ISTEA.
B. Relationship to the Forest Plan. The Byway is contained in the Logan
Canyon Management Area (Area 13) of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan (1986). The Forest Plan does not
identify any goals ·or objectives specific to interpretation.- The
emphasis for this ··area, however, is to manage the Logan Canyon
highway as a scenic byway.
C. Relationship to Other Scenic Byways. The Caribou-Bear Lake Scenic
Byway meets the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway at the Utah-Idaho border.
It was designated a Scenic Byway in 1991 as a part of the Idaho
Scenic Byway package and is approximately 110 miles long. The
Caribou-Bear Lake Byway follows US 89 from its terminus at the
Utah-Idaho border to Montpelier, Idaho. From there it joins US 30 to
Soda Springs where it joins SR 34 and continues north to the Grays
Lake National Wildlife Refuge. From Grays Lake the Byway continues
on SR 34 and heads east where it crosses the Caribou National Forest
and follows Tincup Creek to the point where it intersects US 89 near
Freedom, Idaho.
II. Literature Review. To begin at the beginning, Webster's Third New
International Dictionary defines interpretation as " ••• the act of or
result of interpreting as an explanation of what is not immediately plain
or explicit or unmistakable." At its most basic level that is exactly
what it is--explaining something that is not immediately obvious.
A. Ham (1992) defines environmental interpretation as the art of
translating the technical language of natural science or related
fields into terms and ideas that people who are not scientists can
readily understand. Freeman Tilden (1957), who is generally
considered to be the father of contemporary environmental
interpretation, defined interpretation as " ••• an educational activity
which aims to reveal meanings and relationships through the use of
original objects, by firsthand experience, and by illustrative media
rather than simply to communicate factual information." To be
interpretive Tilden felt the communication process should be
predicated on the following six basic principles, which are as valid
today as they were 35 years ago.
1. Any interpretation that does not somehow relate what is being
displayed or described to something within the personality or
experience of the visitor will be sterile.
-2-
�2. Information as such is not interpretation. Interpretation is
revelation based upon information. All interpretation includes
information, but they are two entirely different things.
3. Interpretation is an art which combines many arts, whether the
materials are scientific, historical, or archeological.
is in some degree teachable.
Any art
4. The chief aim of interpretation is not instruction but
provocation.
5. Interpretation should aim to present a whole rather than a part,
and must address itself to the whole man rather than to any
aspect.
6. Interpretation addressed to children {for instance, up to the
age of 12} should not be a dilution of the presentation to
adults but should follow a fundamentally different approach.
be at its best, it will require a separate program.
To
B. Regnier, Gross, and Zimmerman {1992} describe three broad goals of
interpretation as they apply to the agency, the visitor, and the
site. The goals of interpretation from an agency's point of view
should be to enhance the public's image of the agency and to
encourage and nurture public participation in management activities.
The goal of interpretation as it relates to visitors should be to
provide recreation, heighten awareness and understanding of their
natural and cultural environment, and inspire and add perspective to
their lives. Finally, the goal of interpretation as it relates to a
site should lead to responsible use of the site.
They go on to identify two characteristics of interpretation: it is
based on the site and it offers firsthand experiences with the site.
Interpretation should serve the visitor.
C. Central to effective interpretation is the development of the theme.
Tilden stated, "The story's the thing." He felt interpretation
should have the elements or qualities of a story. The theme is the
plot of the story. Presentations that do not have themes often leave
the visitor wondering, "So what?"
Ham states that when interpretation has a theme it has a message,
which he refers to as thematic interpretation. When communication is
not thematic is will seem unorganized, difficult to follow, and will
be less meaningful to the audience. The theme is the string that
holds the necklace of pearls together {Veverka, personal
communication}. Lewis {1983} summarizes the characteristics of a
good theme as
1. Stated as short, simple, complete sentences.
2. Containing only one idea.
3. Revealing the overall purpose of the presentation.
4. Being specific.
5. Interestingly worded (if possible using active verbs).
-3-
�D. Assess the audience. Understanding who the visitors are is a key
element in interpretive planning. The more that is known about where
they are coming from, their ages, how they are traveling, where they
are going, and what their expectations are, the more focused the
interpretive plan. Cordell (1992) believes that people today have a
need for greater place attachment and interest in learning. In a
study conducted at the Northeast Trek Wildlife Park, Ham found that
visitors preferred (in order of importance) sensory involvement,
humor, and new information presented in an understandable format.
Wildesen (1991) reported similar findings. She found that visitors
basically want to see something (new), learn something (new), and do
something (new). Regnier, Gross, and Zimmerman caution that there is
no "general" audience to which all interpretation techniques apply.
Each audience has unique characteristics and special needs.
Audiences that may have special needs include children, older adults,
foreign visitors, minorities, the visually impaired, the hearing
impaired, those in wheelchairs, and families with young children.
E. An often overlooked facet of interpretive planning is answering the
question "So what?" Interpretive evaluation is a way to determine
qualities, identify strengths and weaknesses, and answer questions
about effectiveness, all with an eye for improvement (USDA-FS,
1992).
There are many different approaches to evaluation. Quantitative
techniques involve numbers and in some cases statistical analysis of
those numbers. Qualitative methods involve verbal descriptions and
impressions. In the interpretive master plan developed for the
Forestry Discovery Center at the Cradle of Forestry Center two
approaches to evaluation are recommended--formative evaluation and
postevaluation. The formative evaluation consists primarily of
focus-group interviews and observation to provide direction for the
planning process. The postevaluation is used to determine whether or
not the exhibits and programs have achieved their design and content
objectives.
While there are many techniques to choose from, the "Handbook for
Evaluating Interpretive Services" (USDA-FS, 1992) recommends
considering the following principles:
1. Evaluations should not be bothersome to visitors. People come
to the national forests to enjoy themselves. The evaluation of
their experiences should not have a negative impact on those
experiences.
2. No evaluation should be conducted unless it is going to be
used. Evaluations cost time and money. If conducted they
should be used to improve the interpretive services being
offered.
3. Generally, an interpreter should not administer or supervise an
evaluation of his or her own program.
III. Methods. The following is the step-by-step process that was used in the
development of the interpretive guide for the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway.
The process is based in part on information gathered from Jerry Coutant
-4-
�(1991). Dick Ostergaard (1990). John Veverka (1993). and the 2390 section
of the Forest Service Manual.
A. The Process
1. The process begins with an overview of the Byway that includes a
description of the regional setting. physical setting. and
recreation opportunities.
2. With the introduction in place. the next step is to determine
the interpretive objectives for the Byway. They should reflect
a mix of resource characteristics. management desires. and
visitor needs and wishes.
3. Once the objectives are determined an initial inventory of all
cultural and physical resources is conducted. The initial
inventory will then be evaluated against a set of criteria to
determine which are significant and most ripe for
interpretation.
4. With - the objectives determined and the inventory of significant
interpretive resources completed. the next step is to bring the
visitor into the mix. This provides insight into how best to
communicate with different markets and user groups.
5. The next step is to develop a central theme that will become the
focal point of the interpretive services provided along the
Byway. With the theme in hand, interpretive subjects, site
objectives, interpretive program objectives, and recommended
media are identified for each significant site.
6. Sections on implementation and operations, monitoring and
evaluation, and partnership opportunities comprise the remainder
of the interpretive plan.
7. It should be noted that planning is a dynamic process and that
objectives and media needs can change over time. For this
reason a working copy of the interpretive plan should be kept in
a three-ring binder so that the site plans can be updated or
changed as needed.
B. The Team. A steering committee was assembled to provide input and
oversight in all phases of the development of the guide. The
committee members were selected on the basis of area of expertise and
to ensure that local communities and agencies were represented. The
steering committee members are listed as follows:
Phil Johnson, USDA-FS, R-4 interpretive specialist.
Tom Hagen. USDA-FS. R-4 landscape architect {retired}.
Clark Ostergaard. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. landscape architect.
Lee Skabelund. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. information specialist.
Carl Johnson. Utah State University, professor emeritus.
A.J. Simmonds. Utah State University. curator of special collections.
John Wood. Utah State University. professor emeritus.
Doug Thompson. director. Cache-Rich Tourist Council.
Lynn Zollinger, Utah Department of Transportation. project engineer.
Chip Sibbernsen. Logan Ranger District. recreation manager.
-5-
�IV. The Interpretive Guide.
A. Introduction.
1. Historical Background. Logan Canyon has been described as one
of the most beautiful canyons in Utah. It has been renowned for
its scenic beauty since the days of the early Mormon pioneers.
The area was home to the Shoshoni Indians, was first described
by the mountain men who trapped beaver in the area in the
1820's, and was settled by the Mormon pioneers in the 1850's.
It is the route of choice for literally hundreds of thousands of
summer and winter recreationists traveling between Salt Lake
City and the Jackson Hole and Yellowstone country of northwest
Wyoming (see Map 1).
2. Scenic Byway Designation. The Logan Canyon highway (US 89) was
designated a Scenic Byway by the Chief of the Forest Service in
the spring of 1989 and by the State of Utah in April of 1990.
It was one of -the first routes designated a National Forest
Scenic Byway in the System. The partners in this effort to
obtain designation represent all sectors. From the Federal came
the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the
Federal Highway Administration. Utah contributed its Department
of Transportation, Department of Natural Resources, Association
of Governments, Association of Counties, League of Cities and
Towns, Farm Bureau, and Travel Council. The Scenic Byway has
received strong and continuous support from local communities
and interest groups in both Cache and Rich County since its
inception.
3. Regional setting. The 41-mile Logan Canyon Scenic Byway (US 89)
is situated in the northeast corner of the Utah panhandle (see
Map 2) and runs from the city of Logan to Bear Lake. The Byway
is located in Cache and Rich Counties, which have populations of
approximately 76,000 and 2,400 respectively.
a. About 75 percent (29 miles) of the Byway is located in the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest (see Map 3). The remainder
is spread over a combination of State and private
ownerships. The economy of Cache County is diverse, with
major employment provided by the manufacturing, trade,
government, and university sectors. The Rich County
economy is rural and is heavily dependent on agriculture
and -government.
b. Employment and population are expected to remain stable in
Rich County through the year 2000. Cache County, on the
other hand, is expected to experience significant growth,
with the population projected to nearly double by the year
2010 and employment to increase by 60 percent.
c. Logan is the largest city in the three-county region of
northeastern Utah and southeastern Idaho and is the center
of economic, cultural, health care, educational, and
government activity. On the eastern end of the Scenic
Byway, Bear Lake is an increasingly important recreation
area for residents within and outside the region.
-6~
�MObtana
-----wy;- 1fti"--..
John
REGIONAL MAP
Map 1
7
�I
Byvvay Location
I
City
I
I
I
I
I
,
I
I
Cedar
City
~
VICINITY MAP
Map 2
8
�Frankl in
- - -IDAHO
UTAH
ony Grove Lake
Smithfield
Cache
Hyde Par
. National
Forest
LOGAN CANYON SCENIC BYWAY
Map 3
-9-
�4. Physical setting.
From its mouth on the east edge of the city
of Logan, the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway winds over almost
40 miles of largely undeveloped landscape as it traverses the
Bear River Range. The Bear River Mountains, which are sometimes
considered to be an extension of the Wasatch Range, are
characterized by steep, sometimes nearly vertical limestone
walls on the west, rolling plateau country across the top, and
moderate open slopes as they descend to Bear Lake on the east.
For the purpose of description the Byway can be divided into
four sections: lower, middle, upper, and Bear Lake slope.
a. Lower section. The lower section is about 9 miles long and
runs from the mouth of Logan Canyon to the Right Hand Fork
road. This section contains a majority of the developed
recreation sites in the canyon along with a number of
hiking opportunities.
The adventurous at heart can hike the Wind Caves or the
Crimson and Spring Hollow trails to perches high above the
canyon floor, which offer them spectacular views of the
Mount Naomi Wilderness and surrounding area. The
self-guided Riverside Nature Trail, which links the Spring
Hollow and Guinavah-Malibu Campgrounds, is perfect for
families. Side trips to the back country for hiking,
mountain bike riding, horseback riding, cross-country
skiing, and snowmobiling are easily accessible from the
Right Hand Fork road.
Natural features encountered along this section of the
Byway include the Logan River and the nearly vertical
limestone walls that line the drive. The canyon bottoms
are wooded with deciduous hardwoods and brush. The trees
and brush include big-tooth maple, aspen, willow, box
elder, mountain mahogany, rock mountain maple, cottonwood,
birch, alder, and chokecherry. At the higher elevations
juniper, Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, and
subalpine fir are common. This unique blend of conifer and
hardwood vegetation provides a brilliant mix of fall color
that annually attracts many visitors to the area. Spring
and summer offer a display of wildflowers that is quite
spectacular.
b. Middle section. This section, which runs from the Right
Hand· Fork road to Ricks Springs, is about 7 miles long. It
is steep and narrow, with the roadway closely paralleling
the Logan River. The roadway narrows to a width of 26 feet
and has a number of narrow, winding turns.
The dominant features of this section include the river,
the nearly vertical limestone walls that rise almost 3,000
feet above the roadway, lush vegetation along the river,
and the mix of conifer and hardwood on the drier
south-facing slopes.
Developed recreation opportunities are available at the
Wood Camp and Lodge Campgrounds. This section also
contains the Wood Camp trailhead, which gives nonmotorized
access to the popular Jardine Juniper Tree and the Mount
-10 -
�Naomi Wilderness. Side trips to the back country are
available on the Temple Fork and Bubble Springs roads.
Recreation opportunities include hiking, mountain bike
riding, horseback riding, snowmobiling, and cross-country
skiing. This section also provides access to Logan Cave
and Old Ephraims Grave.
c. Upper section. This section runs from Ricks Springs to the
Bear Lake summit and is about 15 miles in length. The
roadway opens up to a width of about 40 feet in this
section and has relatively long, open stretches with
beautiful views of the surrounding mountains.
The scenery found along the upper section is completely
different but no less spectacular than what the visitor has
experienced to this point. The landscape typically focuses
on the middleground and background. It is characterized by
mountainous terrain and large, expansive groves of aspen,
which make a sharp contrast to adjoining stands of Douglas
fir, subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine.
Recreation opportunities in this section include three
developed campgrounds, the Tony Grove Lake area, the
historic Tony Grove Ranger Station, the USU summer field
station, the Franklin Basin area, the Beaver Mountain Ski
Area, and the Sink Hollow cross-country ski area. Side
trips to the back country are available on the Franklin
Basin and Beaver Creek roads. Outstanding fishing
opportunities are found on the Logan River and Beaver
Creek.
d. The Bear Lake slope. This section runs from the Bear Lake
summit to Garden City and is about 6 miles long. The
roadway narrows in this section as it makes its way down
nearly 1,700 vertical feet to the shores of Bear Lake.
Here the visitor is offered expansive views of the valley
and the breathtaking turquoise waters of the lake. The
dominant recreation features of this section of the Byway
are the Sunrise Campground, the Bear Lake Overlook, and
Bear Lake.
5. Recreation opportunities.
The Logan Canyon Scenic Byway offers
the visitor a diverse blend of developed and dispersed
recreation opportunities. The Forest Service administers
12 developed campgrounds, 2 picnic areas, 84 summer homes, and
3 organizational camps. In addition to these facilities the
Forest Service, city of Logan, and the Division of Wildlife
Resources are in the process of constructing a barrier-free
picnic area with boardwalks and fishing piers at the site of the
Hydro II Park/Second Dam in the lower section of the canyon.
The Scenic Byway also provides access to the Beaver Mountain Ski
Area, the Utah State University Forestry Camp, the Utah State
University Management Institute, and the Tony Grove Ranger
Station, which was placed on the National Register of Historic
Places in 1992.
Summer and winter dispersed recreation opportunities accessible
from the Byway are almost limitless. The State of Utah and the
-11-
�Forest Service jointly administer three large winter sports
trailheads that serve cross-country skiers and snowmobilers.
These trailheads provide access to over 150 miles of outstanding
snowmobile trail. The Forest Service also grooms 9 miles of
cross-country ski trail at Beaver Basin near the Beaver Mountain
Ski Area. Summer recreation opportunities include trout fishing
on the Logan River and hiking and mountain biking over more than
100 miles of trail accessible from the Byway.
Points of outstanding cultural and historical significance
include the Lady Bird Park Overlook, Dewitt Springs, Wood Camp
Hollow, Logan Cave, Ricks Springs, Franklin Basin, the Temple
Fork Mill site, the Tony Grove Ranger Station, Old Ephraims
Grave, and the Amazon Hollow Mining District.
The Scenic Byway also offers many outstanding interpretive
opportunities. These include three self-guided nature trails, a
number of geological sites, Wood Camp Hollow, the Logan Wind
Caves, the Jardine -Juniper Tree, Ricks Springs, the Sinks area,
the Limber Pine Tree, and Bear Lake.
6. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum.
The Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum (ROS) is a land classification system used by Forest
Service managers as a management tool to
a) classify land areas and settings for their potential
to provide outdoor recreation opportunities,
b) give outdoor recreation managers a more solid footing
and objective perspective towards multiple-use land
management decisions involving areas of land with
other resource values: i.e., timber, range, and
wildlife habitat, and
c) mitigate impacts upon outdoor recreation settings by
incompatible recreation uses or other reource uses.
The Forest Plan classified the Logan Canyon Highway corridor as
"roaded natural." Areas classified as roaded natural are
usually, as a minimum, corridors along roads traveled by
recreation visitors and are managed to retain their natural
character. Often these roaded natural settings act as screens
for more intensive resource management practices such as timber
harvesting outside the roaded natural corridor. The ROS
classification for an area acts as a guide for recreation use
and development of trails and facilities (Bacon).
In the interpretive plan developed for the Tony Grove Ranger
Station Butkus and Reiter point out that the presence of the
parking area, the ranger station compound, and the Lewis M.
Turner Campground suggests a change from roaded natural to
rural.
The observations they have made can be applied to the Canyon in
general. The evidence of man-made development is significant
particularly in the lower segment of the canyon. High daily
traffic volumes coupled with the presence of hardened
campgrounds, recreation residences, two power plants, private
homes, and a restaurant also suggests ammending the current
classifaction of roaded natural to rural (Ostergaard, 1993).
-12-
�Additionally, the rural classification will provide a greater
range of options for interpretive services and recreation
opportunities along the Byway.
B. Interpretive Vision and Project Goals and Objectives
1. Overall interpretive vision.
a. Interpretive projects, sites, and programs used along the
Logan Scenic Byway will enhance the quality and broaden the
scope of the visitor's experience. Visitors will receive a
scenic, provocative, and educational experience they will
not forget. Interpretation will serve a variety of
customers including the resident population, tourists
traveling between the Wasatch Front and the greater
Yellowstone area, organized motorcoach tours, participants
in Logan city's summer resident program, visitors using
forest recreational facilities, and area youth.
b. Improved interpretation along the Byway is not intended to
attract -larger numbers of visitors but to increase the
quality and length of their stay. Visitors will return to
revisit these experiences, which will stimulate the
surrounding economies in Cache and Rich Counties.
c. Visitors will know what kind of information is available
and where to find it. The Lady Bird and Bear Lake
Overlooks will serve as portals to the Scenic Byway.
d. Visitors will be able to view exhibits and displays that
provide information on things to see and do as they travel
between Logan and Bear Lake. They will be able to stop by
the Garden City Visitor Center, the Logan Chamber of
Commerce, or the Forest Service office to obtain a tour
guide {brochure or audio tape} that will provide a
milepost-by-milepost reference to the sights and sounds
found along the Byway. A souvenir video will also be
available at these offices. The guide will also provide
information on things to see and do on side roads off the
Byway.
e. Visitors will be able to safely stop and visit exhibits and
displays along the way that provide insight into the area's
rich cultural history, outstanding scenery, uniqu~ geology,
abundant wildlife and fish populations, precious water
resources, and diverse mix of vegetation types. They will
acquire an appreciation of the diversity of its resources
and the complexities of land management decision-making.
f. Visitors will be able to participate in a number of
interpretive programs either individually or in a group.
Those wishing to do so can take one of three self-guided
nature hikes. Evening programs that deal with a wide
variety of natural resource topics will be presented at the
Tony Grove Campground and the Guinavah Amphitheater.
Visitors will be able to stop at the Tony Grove Guard
Station to see what life in the Forest Service was like in
Logan Canyon between 1907 and 1940.
-13-
�g. Environmental education will be highly visible. Two
publications--one for children and one for adults--that are
keyed to Byway interpretive sites will be available in
local bookstores and through interpretive association
outlets. Logan city and the Cache, Box Elder, and Rich
County school districts will regularly make use of the
facilities available to them along the Byway to provide
hands-on environmental education experiences for primaryand secondary-level students. The Limber Pine Children's
Nature Trail and its companion teacher's guide will be a
benchmark example of a trail designed specifically for
elementary students.
h. Signing along the Scenic Byway will be consistent in
materials, style, mounting, and colors. Major recreation
sites will be signed with the appropriate "family of
shapes" signs and appropriate recreation symbols.
i. All interpretive sites will meet the full intent and
direction of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
Consultants from the USU Center for People with
Disabilities, Options for Independence, and the Sunshine
Terrace Adult Day Center will be involved in every phase of
design and layout to ensure that these sites are both
convenient and fully accessible to everyone.
2. Goals and objectives. The purpose of this interpretive guide is
divided into two general categories: goals of management and
objectives for visitors.
a. Goals of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Interpretive Guide.
1) Promote a deepening visitor understanding and
appreciation of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway corridor
while enhancing enjoyment and encouraging appropriate
use of the sites.
2) Encourage exploration of the area beyond the Scenic
Byway.
3) Encourage creative thinking, contemplation, and
introspection.
4) Provide visitors with an understanding and
appreciation of the role of the Forest Service and the
State Department of Lands in northern Utah.
5) Welcome visitors and orient them to facilities and
services that are dynamic enough to keep customers
coming throughout the year.
6) Provide a variety of interpretive facilities and
services and attractions of the area.
7) Provide accurate information about resources, issues,
and land management policies in the area.
-14-
�8) Provide safe interpretation that interests all age
levels, ability levels, and learning methods.
9) Make as much of the interpretation as possible
available to people with physical disabilities or
limitations with barrier-free design and special
features.
10) Involve partners extensively in all aspects of the
development of the Scenic Byway.
b. Objectives of the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Guide.
majority of our visitors will
A
1) develop an understanding and appreciation of the Logan
Canyon Scenic Byway,
2) experience an enhanced enjoyment of the sites and
sounds found along the Byway,
3) gain an appreciation of the rich history of the
peoples and cultures that inhabited and eventually
developed Cache Valley and the Bear Lake area,
4) learn about the powerful forces that shaped the Bear
River Mountains and surrounding valleys,
5) gain an appreciation of the unique plants and animals
found along the Byway,
6) increase their understanding of the appropriate use of
public facilities and resources,
7) acquire a greater understanding and appreciation of
the role and mission of the Forest Service and State
Departmen t of Lands, and
8) feel welcome and know how to find facilities and
interpretive services that are interesting enough to
keep them coming back.
9) All of our visitors will experience a safe and
barrier-free array of interpretive services that
. interests people of all age, ability, and education
levels.
10) A majority will recognize the contribution of
partnerships and volunteers in the design and
implementation of facilities found along the Byway.
c.
Interpretive Resources Inventory. This section deals with the
identification of all potential sites and programs for which
interpretation or interpretive services are being considered. It
also includes a map (see Map 4) identifying the location of each
site. Once the sites were inventoried the important ones were
-15-
�Franklin
- - -IDAHO
UTAH
Smithfield
Hyde
" National
Forest
Logan
POTENTIAL INTERPRETIVE SITE INVENTORY
Map 4
-16-
�identified through a screening process described by Ostergaard (1990).
1. Major site identification. Thirty-one sites are identified in
the Major Site Evaluation Table (see Table 1). Each has been
assigned a site number, a site name, and a letter indicating the
type of site it is. The codes for the interpretive site
categories (Veverka, 1986) include the following:
B: Biological sites (waterfowl nesting areas, sensitive species,
unique ecological zones, etc.).
F: Facility sites (interpretive trails and trailside exhibits;
would be used to identify existing and proposed sites and
facilities).
G: Geological sites (evidence of glaciation, caves, faults,
springs, etc.).
H: Historical, cultural, and archeological sites (log cabins,
historic buildings, sites of historical events, etc.).
0: Orientation sites (existing or recommended information
centers, bulletin boards, kiosks, directional signs for
interpretive services and facilities, etc.).
2. Selection criteria for major sites and programs. Once the
initial inventory of all potential sites was compiled, each site
was tested against the following list of selection criteria:
a. Interpretive relevance.
1} Does it offer a significant interpretive message?
2} Does the interpretive story fit with a significant
resource?
3} Does it complement or conflict with other sites?
4} Can the message(s} be projected successfully by a sign
or other interpretive means?
5} Is the message unique?
Is there a story or just
information?
6} Does it complement the total Byway experience and
image?
b. Physical development feasibility.
1) Is there adequate room for a facility in this
location?
2} Will the site be safe in regard to access and egress?
3} Can other facilities be added to the existing site?
4} Does the scenery merit a stop?
-17-
�TABLE
SITE #
I
r-'
(X)
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 '
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1.
SITE
Logan Canyon Highway (US89)
Lady Bird Park / Logan RD Office
River Trail
Hydro Park II/Second Dam
Bridger Campground
Lake Bonneville Site
Dewitt Spri ngs Day-use Area
Spri ng Hollow Campgrou nd
Riverside Nature Trail
Recreation Residence Tracts
Logan Wind Caves Trail
Gu i navah-Mal ibu Campgrou nd
Guinavah Amphitheater
Fucoidal Quartzite
Preston Valley Campground
Wood Camp Campground
Jardine Juniper Trailhead
Logan Cave
Ricks Spri ngs
Tony Grove Turnoff
Tony Grove Recreational Site
Tony Grove Lake Nature Trail
Tony Grove Lake Campground
Red Banks Campground
Franklin Basin
Beaver Junction
Beaver Mountain Ski Area
Sinks Parking Area
Limber Pine Nature Trail
Bear Lake Overlook
Garden City Visitors Center
MAJOR SIrE EVALUATION DATA
SITE
TYPE
HF
G H OF
OF
H BF
F
GF
GH F
F
BF
F
GF
OF
HF
GF
F
F
BHF
GB
HGF
0
HF
GF
F
F
HF
H 0 F
F
GO
BGF
H 0 F
BHO
STArns
RELEVANCE
FEASIBILITY
ApPEAL
DECISION
N/A
New
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
New
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
New
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
Existing
High
High
Low
High
Low
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Low
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
High
High
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Low
Moderate
High
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
Moderate
High
High
High
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
High
Low
Low
High
High
Moderate
Low
High
High
High
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
High
Moderate
Low
High
High
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Develop
Develop
No Action
Develop
No Action
Removal
Develop
No Action
Develop
No Action
Develop
Develop
Develop
Removal
No Action
No Action
Develop
Defer
Develop
Develop
Develop
Develop
No Action
No Action
Develop
Develop
No Action
No Action
Develop
Develop
Develop
�5} Are there any obvious construction problems?
6) If it will require snow removal, is there a place to
store snow?
7} Will the site require construction of acceleration and
deceleration lanes?
8) What is its proximity to the last interpretive
pullout?
c. Scenic appeal and setting.
a} What is the variety of the landform?
b} What is the view? Can it be improved by
landscaping?
c} Will the change of season feature a different
view?
d} Does the site provide access to other recreation
activities?
e} Are there any variable factors evident such as
motion, light, season, or distance?
As might be expected, individual sites readily fell out once
they were tested against the selection criteria (see Table 1).
The recreation residences and a majority of the campgrounds fell
out because the steering committee felt they lacked relevance.
Interestingly, two existing interpretive sites, the Lake
Bonneville Shoreline and Fucoidal Quartzite, also fell out
because the steering committee felt they lacked relevance. In
other instances, as Ostergaard notes, the situation is not as
obvious. Ricks Springs, for example, rated very high for
relevance but was rated poor because it lacks acceleration and
deceleration lanes. Working with the Department of
Transportation engineers on design features, the committee
determined that the final site design can provide the public
with a safe and enjoyable experience, and so the site was
retained. Another site that rates high for relevance and appeal
but low for feasibility is Logan Cave. This extremely popular
spot is visited about 30,000 times per year, but there is no
safe parking within a quarter-mile of the cave entrance.
3. Major programs and services.
In addition to physical sites, a
number of existing and proposed brochures, maps, and programs
that pertain to the interpretation of the Byway are identified
in Table 2.
-19-
�TABLE 2. EXISTING AND PROPOSED
BROCHURES, MAps, GUIDES AND PROGRAMS
PROJECT
Existing
Bridgerland Visitors' Guide
Bridgerland Snowmobile Trails Guide
Bridgerland Hiking Trails Guide
Bridgerland Biking Trails Guide
Bridgerland-20 Exciting Rides on Road and Trail
Logan Ranger District Climbing Guide
Logan Canyon-A Guide Book
Bridgerland Snowmobiling Video
Bridgerland Mountain Biking Video
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Audio Tape
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Video Tape
Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Sidetrip Adventures
Scenic Byway Restaurant Placemats
Proposed
x
x
x
.x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
D. Theme Development.
Once the major sites and programs are identified the next step in the
interpretive planning process is to develop a main theme or themes.
The use of a focused theme helps to direct the energies of
interpretive services to better explain to visitors the specific
stories that the Byway may present.
The uniqueness of Logan Canyon is the diversity of its natural
resources and their relation to the needs of the people who have
lived here. The area is rich in lore about the mountain men and
Mormon pioneers and the hardships they faced living here and settling
the area. Interpretation of the canyon provides us with the
opportunity to enlighten visitors with insights to life here in the
past, compared to what it is like today, and pose the open-ended
question "What would you like it to be like for your children?"
The central theme that has been developed for the interpretation of
the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway is
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
E. Visitor Analysis. A visitor analysis is an important aspect of the
interpretive planning process as it gives the planners a better idea
of how best to communicate with different user groups. While there
is no comprehensive visitor analysis available for the area, there
are several studies that when pieced together provide useful
information.
1. Data collected in 1990 by the Utah Department of Transportation
clearly shows that traffic volumes on the Byway vary
seasonally. Approximately 50 percent of the total annual
traffic volume occurs during the months of June, July, and
August. Approximately 70 percent of the annual traffic volume
-20-
�occurs from May through September (Figure 1). Weekend traffic
is nearly double the weekday traffic (Figure 2), and the highest
hourly traffic occurs between 11 a.m. and 7 p.m. (Figure 3).
During peak summer traffic approximately 80 percent of the
traffic using the Byway passes entirely through the canyon, and
the other 20 percent remains within the canyon pursuing various
recreational activities. In the winter 35 to 40 percent of the
traffic passes through, while the remainder remains in the
canyon.
Traffic counter stations show an average of 3,878 vehicles per
day during the the peak period of June, July, and August.
During the remainder of the year the Scenic Byway averages 1,869
vehicles per day (Figure 4). Over the next 20 years summertime
traffic is projected to increase between 33 and 46 percent.
2. A number of other studies that have been conducted over the
years have ·concluded :.the most popular recreational pursuits of
people visiting Cache and Box Elder Counties are visiting
historical sites and viewing scenery. Cooper (1989) found the
main reasons for traveling to northern Utah were to take
advantage of outdoor recreation opportunities. The same study
found the most highly rated selection factor for a visit to
northern Utah was its scenic beauty. Visiting historical sites
was ranked ninth, but its position of 3.1 out of 5 indicates its
relative importance (Figure 5). Cooper also found that visitors
to the area, regardless of their place of residence, ranked Bear
Lake, Logan Canyon, and the Cache National Forest as the most
popular destination spots. The same study also found that when
visitors were asked to rank their likelihood to participate in
organized or guided activities the highest-rated programs were
visiting historical attractions. The second most popular guided
program dealt with viewing scenery. Guided hikes ranked 6th of
21 activities. The same study also found that 72 percent of the
individuals sampled ranked enjoying a campfire as their number
one evening activity.
Demographic information was not as readily available as the
information on user preferences. Cooper (1989) found that 34
percent of the visitors were traveling with one other adult.
The largest percentage of out-of-state visitors were from
California (15 percent) followed by Idaho (7.5 percent).
Fifty-two· percent of the visitors sampled were traveling by car,
motorcoach, or motorcycle while 44 percent were traveling with
camping equipment or self-contained recreational vehicles.
Seventy-six percent were married and had attended some college
and almost half were between the ages of 31 and 50. The average
yearly income was reported to be between $20,000 and $40,000 per
year. A study prepared by the the Utah Travel Council indicated
that approximately 33 percent of the out-of-state visitors make
over $40,000.
3. Data collected at developed sites in Logan Canyon during the
1992 field season shows 87 percent of our visitors are from
Utah, and 98 percent of those are within a 100-mile drive of
Logan. Forty-nine percent were traveling by car, with the
-21-
�20
20
~
-1 8.1
~
n3
.-
lS
n3
.-
t2
-0
.c
Q)
15.8
~
lS
12 .8
t2
10.5
'0
...
10
1 10 .9
11.3
~
10
-
12 .0
c
Q)
U
U
L..
L..
Q)
S
0...
0
Q)
0...
3.6
0
A M J J A S
Month of Year
J
S
Figure 1. Annual traffic flow by month
S
M
T
W
T
Day of Week
F
S
Figure 2. Traffic flow by day of week
RECORDED TRAFFIC VOLUME
10
YEAR
-_1"'"1"'",,""
~I"'"
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1000
,..
~:--
-
1-1Iooo~
1-1
0
12
SUMMER ADT
(vehicles
per day)
(vehicles
per day)
1,774
1,558
1,680
1,767
1,922
1,902
1,806
1,813
1,887
1,848
1,740
1,773
1,769
1,875
1,846
1,861
1,869
2,793
2,798
3,022
3,140
3,461
3,400
· 3,180
3,276
3,424
3,406
3,503
3,536
3,795
3,735
3,605
3,822
3,878
Iloo
.-
~8
2
4
6
ANNUAlADT
2
4
A.M.
6
8
10
I
12
P.M.
Hour of Day
Figure 3. Traffic flow by hour of day
Figure 4. Average dally traffic: .
June, July l!.t. August
4.4
Scenic beauty
Friend ly people ~---------------------------~
Value for money ~-------------------d
Rest & relaxation ~-------------------Accommodations
Camping
Water sports ~---------------.
Good cuisine
~---------------~--~
87%
Historical sites
Resident
visitors
Wildli fe/bi rding
Entertainment
~--------------,.I
Religious si tes/events
t----~
Availability of alcoho l
2
3
4
S
Figure 5. Selection factors for
visiting northern Utah
Figure 6. Percent resident and
out-of-state visitors
- 22 -
�difference travelling with camping equipment or self-contained
recreational vehicles. Out-of-state campers were most
represented by residents of California (37 percent) followed by
Washington (16 percent), Idaho (13 percent), Arizona
(7 percent), and Wyoming (7 percent).
a. Recreation Inventory Management data compiled by the Forest
Service for the 1992 fiscal year estimates recreational
activities in the Scenic Byway corridor to be 538,285
visitor-days. Forest Service data also shows that
automobile travel and viewing scenery are the two most
popular pursuits on the Scenic Byway.
b. Estimated annual visits to the more popular sites along the
Byway provide a picture of the amount of use that is
presently occurring.
Estimated
Visits per Year
Table 2
Logan Canyon campgrounds
Logan Canyon day use sites
Organizational camps
Summer homes
Winter sports
Bear Lake Overlook
Nature trails
Fucoidal Quartzite
Logan Cave
Jardine Juniper
Ricks Springs
Automobile trips
126,600
75,100
11,800
14,780
58,440
88,300
56,525
15,500
23,750
6,600
79,000
666,750
4. Another segment of our local population that has been in the
past overlooked is people with disabilities. Although the
canyon is used and enjoyed by locals and people from across the
state of Utah and the nation not one site is presently
accessible to people with disabilities. There are approximately
8,000 people in Cache County and unknown numbers of people from
outside the county who have disabilities, or whose advancing
years have left them with physical frailties, Alzheimer disease,
or other age-related disabilities (Roth, 1993). This segment of
the population represents nearly 10 percent of our local
population that is presently denied access to the outdoor
recreation opportunities in Logan Canyon.
5. Although there are no firm numbers the Cache-Rich Tourist
Council estimates that up to 3,000 organized motorcoach tours
pass through Logan Canyon each summer either on their way to
Salt Lake City or the Jackson Hole and Yellowstone areas.
Because a majority of these tours pass through the canyon
without stopping it is thought they represent the single largest
untapped source of tourism dollars for the area.
F. Major Site and Program Development.
1. This section contains a complete, detailed package of
information for each interpretive site and program proposed for
-23-
�development. Information includes site name, type, location,
number, interpretive resources, site description, and
interpretive significance. Also included is information on
interpretive themes, site objectives, interpretive program
objectives, interpretive modes, cost estimates, justification
statement, and miscellaneous comments.
Also included is a map (see Map 5) and a summary table of
interpretive services and facilities (see Table 3) for each of
the 20 sites proposed for development along the Byway.
Wherever possible, standard designs for Scenic Byway displays,
orientation sites, and adventure side trips will be the norm.
Design features and estimated costs include the following:
2. Scenic Byway displays and orientation sites will be barrier-free
and similar in construction materials, style, and design.
Display structures will be constructed of native limestone rock
and will normally contain three anodized aluminum panels.. Sign
. faces will normally include graphic artwork or photographs and
text. The Logan Ranger District will facilitate gathering
detailed background information for development of each story
line. Artwork, narratives, design, layout, and fabrication will
be contracted out to a professional interpretive design shop.
The estimated turnkey cost for each three-panel
interpretive display and orientation site includes the
following:
Sign fabrication
$750
Mounting hardware
150
Text development
200
200
Graphic artwork
Packing and shipping
150
Support structure
1,250
Total $2,700
TYPICAL INTERPRETIVE DISPLAY
3. Adventure side trip trailhead bulletin boards will use either
the district standard one-panel or the two-panel design. Each
panel is a 4x4-foot sheet of 5/8-inch high-density plywood
-24-
�supported by two 6x6-inch pressure-treated timbers. The entire
structure is painted dark brown. The sign faces are reverse
silk-screened onto 3x2-foot sheets of 8-mil Lexan with a matte
finish. Each sign will normally include graphics and text. The
background color is tan, and the text and graphics are dark
brown. The Logan District will facilitate text and camera-ready
artwork. Fabrication will be contracted out to a professional
sign shop.
The estimated turnkey cost for the standard single-panel
bulletin board includes the following:
Sign fabrication
Design services
Graphic artwork
Support structure and installation
Total
$250
150
150
250
$800
The estimated turnkey cost for the standard two-panel
bulletin board includes the following:
Sign fabrication
$500
Design services
300
Graphic artwork
300
Support structure and installation
370
Total $1,470
-25-
�Franklin
---IDAHO
UTAH
@
ony Grove Lakt!
Smithfield
Cache
Hyde Par
. National
Forest
PROPOSED INTERPRETIVE SITES
Map 5
-26-
�Table 3. Summary of Interpretive Services and Facilities
Site
#
Site
1
2
Riverside Nature Trail
6
I
Dewitt Springs
5
N
Lake Bon nevi lie Site
4
-....J
Hydro" / Second Dam
3
I
Lady Bird / LRD Headquarters
Logan Wind Caves Trailhead
7
Guinavah Amphitheater
8
Guinavah-Malibu Orientation
9
Fucoidal Quartzite
10 Jardine Juniper Trailhead
11
Ricks Spring
12 Tony Grove Turn-off Orientation
13 Tony Grove Ranger Station
14 Tony Grove Lake Nature Trail
15 Franklin Basin
16 Beaver Ju nction
17 Limber Pine Children's Nature Trail
18 Bear Lake Overlook
19 Garden City Visitor Center
• •
•
••
•
••
• • • • •
•
• •••
•
•
•
• •
• • •
•
•
• • •
•
•
• •
•
• •
•
• •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• • • • •
•
•
• •
•
•
•
•
• • •
•
• •••••
•
• •
• •
• • •
•
•
•
•
• • •
•
•
• • •
• •••
•
•
• •••
• • •
•
•
•
•
• •
•
Partially
�SITE: LADY BIRD PARK, LOGAN RANGER DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS
Type: Scenic Byway Display and Orientation Site
Site number
Location
1
New or Existing - - - - New
Milepost 374.5
Major Interpretive Resources
Seasonal Accessibility
Year-round
Historical, Geological, Orientation, and Facility
Site Description: Site is proposed location of the new Logan Ranger District
office and includes an outstanding overlook of Cache Valley. Will serve as
west portal to the Byway and will include a small Wasatch Interpretive
Association retail outlet. Site also includes parking for 35 vehicles, room
for RV's and motorcoaches, and public restroom. All facilities will be
barrier-free.
Interpretive Significance: Site will be focal point for forest visitors.
Exhibits here can make visitors aware of the recreational and interpretive
opportunities available to them in the area.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. There have been three broad eras of land use associated with the
settlement of the North American continent: exploitation,
conservation, and stewardship.
B. The story of humans in Cache Valley is the story of three distinct
cultures--the Shoshoni, the mountain men, and the Mormon pioneers.
C. There were powerful forces that shaped the foothills and mountains of
the Bear River Range.
D. ttWelcome to the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway!tt There are lots of
interesting and exciting things to see and explore on your journey
through Logan Canyon.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, barrier-free place to stop, use the
restroom, get a drink of water, and enjoy the view.
B. Develop interpretive media for
1. the stewardship and conservation story,
2. information on the recreational and interpretive opportunities
on and off the Scenic Byway,
3. describing the forces that shaped lake terraces visible from the
viewing deck, and
4. telling the story of the people who have lived here before.
C. Create outdoor display for visitor orientation to the district and
its many recreational and educational opportunities.
D. Maintain and enhance the visual quality of the site.
E. Ample parking to accommodate RV's and motorcoaches.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will gain an understanding and a historical
perspective of the peoples and cultures that inhabited Cache Valley.
-28-
�B. The visitors will gain insight into the powerful forces that shaped
the foothills of the Great Basin.
C. They will leave with an understanding of what the Scenic Byway
program is about. They will also know there is a diverse array of
recreational and educational opportunities that lie ahead to the east
and know there are many things to see and do in Logan and the
surrounding area.
D. The visitors will recognize that America has entered a new area of
land stewardship and will have a sense of what it may mean to them.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach signing.
B. One three-panel orientation site display.
C. Three three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive displays.
1. Cultural, historical.
2. Lakeshore terraces.
3. Land stewardship and conservation (bookend display with Bear
Lake Overlook).
D. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
E. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates.
A. Approach signing
B. Orientation site display
C. Three 3-panel anodized aluminum interpretive displays
$200
2,700
8,100
$11,000
VI. Justification. The site is a key stop because it serves as the west
portal to the Scenic Byway, the Logan Ranger District headquarters, and
.the east gateway to Logan and the surrounding area. For these three
reasons it is a critical spot for the dissemination of information on
district resources and interpretive services.
VII. Conunents.
A. For the reasons above it is crucial that site development be
state-of-the-art and reflective of the very best we can do,
integrating interpretive services and site design.
B. This site is the west portal to the Byway and will serve as a bookend
site to the Bear Lake Overlook.
C. Given this site will in all likelihood be the location of the new
Logan Ranger District headquarters, it is an excellent location to
give visitors an overview of the mission and objectives of the Forest
Service. This can be accomplished using interpretive panels inside
the new building in the mini visitor center.
D. Cultural and historical story development will be provided by
A.J. Simmonds, curator of the USU historical archives. Additional
source material is available in "The History of the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest." Geological information is available in "Geologic
Tours of Northern Utah" and in an unpublished manuscript on the
geology of Logan Canyon by Robert Oaks available at the Logan
District office. The story of land stewardship and conservation is
contained in "The Next Era of Land Stewardship and Conservation-Breaking New Ground" series. Background on the National Scenic Byway
program will be provided by the Forest Service.
-29 --
�SITE: HYDRO II PARK/SECOND DAM
Type: Byway Exhibit
Site number - - 2
Location
New or Existing - - - - - - New
Milepost 376.3
Seasonal Accessibility
April-November
Major Interpretive Resources Historical, Biological, Hydroelectric, and Facility
Site Description: Site contains a major hydroelectric station owned by Logan
city and administered by the Forest Service under special use permit. Is also
site of a major partnership effort between FS, Logan city, and state agencies to
develop a day use site and flat-water fishing opportunity. Facilities include
barrier-free parking, restroom, picnic sites, trail system, and fishing piers.
Site plans also include construction of a footbridge spanning the Logan River
that ties into the Lower River Trail.
Interpretive Significance: This is a unique opportunity to interpret the use and
development of hydroelectric power in Logan Canyon and its importance to the
city of Logan. Site also offers the opportunity to deliver message regarding
individual responsibility to care for public resources. Site is also excellent
opportunity to discuss the native fisheries of the Logan River and how the
fishery is managed today. Also excellent spot to discuss threatened and
endangered plants.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. For nearly 100 years man has been dependent on the harnessed energy of
the Logan River and the hydroelectric power it has provided the city
of Logan.
B. This facility is the result of a number of agencies and citizens
getting together to make it happen, and it belongs to all of us.
Please help to keep it cared for and clean.
C. Many plants and animals, some of which are very rare, are also
dependent on the river and the cool, moist habitat it provides.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, barrier-free interpretive
experience.
B. Develop interpretive media for
1. the hydroelectric story,
2. the good steward story, and
3. the story of the rare plants and animals that depend on the
river.
III.
Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with an
understanding of the tie between the power of the river's energy and
how it is used to create the electricity that lights their homes.
-30-
�B. They will appreciate the fact that this state-of-the-art facility is
the result of a number of agencies and citizens working in partnership
to make it happen.
C. They will come away with a better understanding of the plants and
animals that inhabit the lower stretches of the Logan River. They
will recognize the importance of the Threatened and Endangered Species
Act.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach signing.
B. Highway pullout with one three-panel anodized aluminum Byway display.
The display will be located at the highway-level viewing deck.
C. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
E. Include site on restaurant place mats.
D. Develop cooperative arrangement with Logan city to offer occasional
conducted tours (by appointment) of the hydro plant operation.
V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signs
One three-panel anodized aluminum byway display
Viewing deck
Footbridge across the Logan River
$200
2,700
3,500
85.000
$87.700
VI. Justification. The Hydro II Park/Second Dam is site of a major partnership
between Logan city, the Forest Service, Division of Wildlife Resources, USU
LAEP. USU CPD. and the Department of Transportation to develop a
state-of-the-art day use recreation facility. Site is also location of a
1240-kilovolt hydroelectric power generation facility. This is a very
picturesque location and is the showcase developed recreation site in lower
Logan Canyon.
VII. Comments.
A. Explore partnership with Logan city for joint submittal to
nonmotorized trail program for construction of bridge.
B. All NEPA work has been completed.
C. Coordinate with UDOT on obtaining ISTEA enhancement dollars for
motorcoach parking area.
D. Source material for development of the story of hydroelectric power at
the site will be provided by the Logan City Light Department. Source
material for story development on threatened and endangered species
will be provided by the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
-31-
�SITE: LAKE BONNEVILLE SITE
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site number
Location
New or Existing
~
Milepost 378.1
Major Interpretive Resources
Seasonal Accessibility
__
Existing
April-November
______________________________
~G~e~o_l~o~gyL-~an~d F~a~c_i_l_i~t~y
Site Description: This is an existing site that contains a routed redwood sign
and gravel pullout. Is located immediately adjacent to highway and poses a
significant safety hazard.
Interpretive Significance: Site marks highest level of ancient Lake Bonneville.
Terraces marking location are visible from the site.
I. Interpretive Theme. Existing interpretation is not related to Byway
theme. It more or less serves to point out some Lake Bonneville trivia.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Because this site only rated moderate to low in site evaluation test,
recommendation is to remove it and reclaim the site.
B. Geological significance can be covered in self-guided auto tour and
can be depicted on restaurant place mats.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives. A majority of visitors using the
self-guided auto tour will have an appreciation for the size of Lake
Bonneville.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
B. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimate.
Removal of existing sign and site reclamation: $1,500.
VI. Justification. The site presents significant safety hazards to visitors
and should be removed and reclaimed.
VII. Comments.
A. Include cost estimate for removal and site reclamation.
B. Source material for development of auto tours can be found in the
"History of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest," the "Geologic Tours of
Northern Utah," and Robert Oaks's unpublished manuscript on the
geology of Logan Canyon.
-32-
�SITE: DEWITT SPRINGS
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site number - - 4
Location
New or Existing - - - - New
Seasonal Accessibility
Milepost 378.7
Major Interpretive Resources
April-November
Geological, Historical, and Facility
Site Description: This is a new interpretive site that is located adjacent to an
existing day use site. It is located just off the Byway and offers outstanding
views of the China Wall formation and the Logan Wind Cave formation.
Interpretive Significance: Site is located on a fault zone that created cracks
in the substrate, allowing water to collect. The springs are the major culinary
source of water for the city of Logan.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. The residents of the city of Logan are dependent on the quality water
the canyon provides at Dewitt Springs.
B. Geologic faulting near this spot is the reason the Dewitt Springs came
to be.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, barrier-free interpretive
experience.
B. Geological and historical significance can be developed at new display
built on small knoll above the highway.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will have an understanding that the faulting
that occurred here is the reason the springs exist, which provide
water for the city of Logan.
B. The visitors will appreciate the dependence the residents of Logan
have for the water that is provided in canyon.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signing.
One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates.
A. Approach signing
B. One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display
C. Trail system and viewing deck
-33-
$200
2,700
2,600
$5,500
�VI. Justification. This site provides an outstanding view of the China Wall
and the Logan Wind Caves. It is also located virtually on top of the fault
line that created Dewitt Springs, which supplies water to the city of
Logan.
VII. Couunents.
A. Coordinate with UDOT on obtaining ISTEA enhancement dollars for
motorcoach parking area.
B. Source material for story deveiopment available through A.J. Simmonds,
curator of the USU historical archives. Additional material available
in "Geologic Tours of Northern Utah."
-34-
�SITE: RIVERSIDE NATURE TRAIL
Type: Adventure Side Trip
Site Number
Location
5
New or Existing
-=----
Milepost 378.5
Major Interpretive Resources
Seasonal Accessibility
New
April-November
Biological and Facility
Site Description: Site is a self-guided nature trail that runs along the Logan
River between the Spring Hollow and Guinavah-Malibu Campgrounds. It is
approximately 1.5 miles long and takes about an hour to hike.
Interpretive Significance: This is a unique opportunity to interpret the
riparian ecosystem associated with the Logan River.
I. Interpretive Theme. The Logan River is a "ribbon of life" that provides
man and wildlife with the precious gift of water.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe and esthetic interpretive experience
along the Logan River.
B. Develop trailhead displays at both Spring Hollow and Guinavah-Malibu
Campgrounds.
C. Develop interpretive signing for 12-15 sites along trail.
D. Develop approach signing.
E. Develop internal campground signing directing visitor to appropriate
trailhead.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with an
understanding that riparian areas in arid environments such as we have
in Utah are rare and need to be protected.
B. The visitors will see examples (graphic and pictorial) of
relationships that exist within riparian areas.
C. They will take the challenge and answer the question of what they can
do to protect these fragile environments.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach and directional signing.
One two-panel side trip bulletin board.
Trail signs will be llx17-inch, 8-mil Lexan with a matte finish.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
E. Include site on restaurant place mats.
F. Guided evening hikes.
-35-
�V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
F.
G.
Approach signing
One two-panel side trip bulletin board
Graphic artwork and fabrication of 15 interpretive signs
Design and fabrication of 15 1/4-inch steel posts
Installation of steel posts and signs
$200
1,470
1,500
1,500
1,500
$6,170
VI. Justification.
The Riverside Nature Trail is an extremely popular feature
linking the Spring Hollow and Guinavah-Malibu Campgrounds. Existing
interpretive services include a free pamphlet that interprets sites
identified by a numbered wooden post. Redoing the trail using the "ribbon
of life" theme is an opportunity to greatly enhance the interpretive
experience for the visitor.
VII. Comments.
A. Interpretive services for · this -trail have been designed and are
scheduled for installation during the 1993 summer field season.
B. Because of terrain -it is not physically possible to make this trail
barrier-free.
-36 -
�SITE: LOGAN WIND CAVES TRAIumAD
Type: Adventure Side Trip
Site Number
Location
6
New or Existing:
Seasonal Accessibility
Milepost 379.5
Major Interpretive Resources
Geological and
New
April-November
Facility
------~----------------~--------------------------
Site Description: Site is located directly across the highway from the entrance
to the Guinavah-Malibu Campground. The trailhead provides off-highway parking
for 15 vehicles. Trail is popular with visitors camping at the 40-unit
campground and is also a popular destination day hike for individuals from
Logan.
Interpretive Significance: This trail leads to an interesting geological
formation called the Logan Wind Caves.
I. Interpretive Theme.
A. The "caves" are actually a triple arch formed by the solution of
limestone through a chemical weathering process.
B. The trail can be hot and dry, and hikers need to carry extra water for
their comfort.
C. The hike takes about 2 hours round trip, and hikers should plan
accordingly.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe and esthetic setting before they begin
their hike.
B. Provide visitors with the information they will need to maximize the
experience of their outing.
III.
Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with an
understanding of how the "caves" were actually formed.
B. The visitors will receive information on proper trail etiquette.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach signing.
B. Standard district two-panel bulletin board with Lexan signing.
C. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
D. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates.
A. Approach signing
B. Standard two-panel plywood bulletin board
C. Pave parking area (2,000 sq.ft.)
-37-
$200
1,470
2,000
$3,670
�VI. Justification. The Logan Wind Caves trail is a favorite spring and fall
hike. Many people start the hike with inadequate water and no real idea
how steep the trail is or how long it will take them to complete.
Trailhead information will improve the hike for many people.
VII. Comments. Because of terrain it is not physically possible to make this
trail barrier-free.
-38 -
�SITE: GUINAVAH AMPHITHEATER
Type: Orientation Site
Site Number
Location
New or Existing
~
Milepost 379.5
Seasonal Accessibility
Existing
------=-
April-November
Major Interpretive Resources _H_i_s_t_o_r_i_c_a_l______
and F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y___________________________
Site Description: Site is located at the east end of the Guinavah-Malibu
Campground. The CCC-era, limestone-and-timber amphitheater has a capacity of
350 people and is used extensively by the district for evening programs that
treat a wide variety of natural resource topics. Site is also used by the
public on a reservation basis for weddings, family reunions, and church
services. Because of its age it is need of significant renovation.
Interpretive Significance: :The CCC construction era provides a colorful look at
the early development of the forest resources- and recreation sites.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
The CCC provided a wide range of construction and conservation work
for the Forest and was a important work program during the depression
era.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, and barrier-free facility.
B. Remodel and repair the amphitheater to provide barrier-free access,
modern lighting system, and state-of-the-art audiovisual equipment.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives. Visitors will learn what the role of the
CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) was during the 1930's and '40's.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach and directional signing.
B. Develop and install an imbedded fiberglass interpretive panel between
parking area and amphitheater on the walkway.
C. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
D. Include site on restaurant place mats.
E. Continue evening programs.
V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Approach signing
One three-panel Scenic Byway interpretive display
Improve accessibility
Replace electrical system
Add audiovisual system
Remodel dressing rooms
-39-
$200
2,700
1,000
7,500
5,000
4,000
$19,700
�V. Justification. The Guinavah Amphitheater is a hidden gem on the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest. It is an outstanding example of the quality
work accomplished by the CCC. The evening programs presented during the
summer camping season are a tradition.
VI. Comments. Source material for development of CCC story can be obtained in
the ttHistory of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. tt
-40-
�SITE: GUINAVAH-MALIBU CAMPGROUND
Type: Orientation Site
Site Number- 8 Location
New/Existing:
MP 379.5
Major Interpretive Resources:
Seasonal Accessibility
New
April - November
Orientation, Facility
Site Description: Guinavah-Malibu Campground is an extremely popular lower
canyon destination facility that is ideally suited of an orientation site.
Interpretive Significance: -To provide visitors with an overview of the
District, it's interpretive theme, and recreational/educational opportunities
availble here.
I. Interpretive Theme. "Welcome to the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway!" There
are lots of interesting and exciting things to see and explore on your
journey through Logan Canyon.
II. Site Objectives. To develop an orientation display near the entrance to
the Guinavah-Malibu Campground.
III~
Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will learn of the Scenic Byway interpretive
theme, and recreation/educational opportunities on the district.
B. A majority of new (first time) visitors will take advantage of the
self-guiding auto brochure.
C. First time visitors will be suprised at all of the educational
opportunities the district has to offer, and be encouraged to return
and experience some of them.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach and directional signing
B. One three-panel orientation site display.
1. Forest and Scenic Byway maps with a "you are here" notation.
2. Photos of some of the main recreational or educational sites
with a brief text.
3. Interpretation of the Scenic Byway interpretive theme.
4. Interpretation of any "seasonal" attractions or events and any
associated management concerns (OHV use, fire danger, hunter
safety, etc.).
V. Cost Estimates.
A. Approach signing
B. Orientation site display
$
-41-
200
2,700
2,900
�VI. Justification. The orientation area provides a opportunity for forest
visitors to learn of all the opportunites available along the Byway and on
the District. Many visitors will probably be unaware of these
opportunities, and this will provide their first contact with the
Forest/District.
VII. Comments. Location of orientation site should be coordinated with
campground concessionaire.
-42-
�SITE: FUCOIDAL QUARTZITE
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site Number ______
9
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 378.1
Major Interpretive Resources
Seasonal Accessibility
Existing
April-November
~G=e=o=l=o~gy~~an==d~~F~a=c=i=l=i~t~y
____________________________
Site Description: This is an existing site that contains a routed redwood sign
and gravel pullout. Is located immediately adjacent to highway and poses a
significant safety hazard. It is a popular trailhead for local rock climbers
and rapellers.
Interpretive Significance: Interpretive sign tells the story of fossilized worm
burrows evident in large chunk of "out of place" rock. Site also includes a
standard one-panel plywood bulletin board with map and information on district
climbing policy.
I. Interpretive Theme. Existing interpretation is not related to Byway
theme. It more or less serves to point out a surface phenomenon found on
a nearby chunk of rock.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Because this site only rated moderate to low in site evaluation test
recommendation is to remove it and reclaim the site.
B. Geological significance can be covered in self-guided auto tour and
can be depicted on restaurant place mats.
C. Informational bulletin board will be retained.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives. A majority of visitors using the
self-guided auto tour will learn that rock from the Swan Peak formation
was used as building stone for many structures in Logan, including the
Logan Temple and Tabernacle.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
B. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimate.
Removal of existing sign and site reclamation:
$1,500
VI. Justification. The site presents significant safety hazards to visitors
and should be removed and reclaimed.
VII. Comments. Source material for development of the auto tours can be found
in the "History of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest," the "Geologic Tours
of Northern Utah," and Robert Oaks's unpublished manuscript on the geology
of Logan Canyon.
-43-
�SITE: JARDINE JUNIPER TRAILHEAD
Type: Adventure Side Trip
Site Number - - 10
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 384.6
Major Interpretive Resources
Existing
Seasonal Accessibility
May-November
Biological, Historical, and Facility
Site Description: Site is located approximately 1/4 mile north of Wood Camp
Campground on FR 012. Facility includes a gravel parking area and horse
unloading ramp.
Interpretive Significance: This trail provides access to the Mount Naomi
Wilderness and the Jardine Juniper tree. Wood Camp Hollow was a major source
of raw materials for railroad ties between 1869 to 1885.
I. Interpretive Theme.
A. The Jardine Juniper tree is a 1,500-year-old Rocky Mountain juniper.
B. The trail can be hot and dry, and hikers need to carry extra water
for their comfort.
C. The hike is 10 miles long round trip, and hikers should plan on 4.5
to 5 hours to complete the trip.
D. Chinese railroad workers and pioneers removed many trees from this
area between 1869 and 1885 that were used to bring the railroad to
Cache Valley.
II. Site Objectives
A. Provide visitors with a safe and esthetic setting before they begin
their hike.
B. Provide visitors with the information they will need to maximize the
experience of their outing.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with an
understanding that the Jardine Juniper is very old and needs to be
treated with care and respect.
B. The visitors will receive information on proper trail etiquette.
C. They will find accurate information on trail length, elevation gain,
and average hiking time.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A. Approach signing.
B. Standard one-panel bulletin board with Lexan signing for
interpretation of hike and Jardine Juniper.
C. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
-44-
�D. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates
A. Approach signing
B. Standard one-panel plywood bulletin board
$200
800
$1,000
VI. Justification. The Wood Camp Hollow trail to the Jardine Juniper is an
extremely popular day hike. It can be very hot and dry during the heat of
the summer and catches many people unprepared. Additionally, many people
are not aware of the role the Chinese laborers played in the history of
the settlement of the valley.
VII. Comments. Because of terrain it is not physically possible to make this
trail barrier-free.
-45-
�SITE: RICKS SPRINGS
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site Number - 11 Location
New or Existing
Seasonal Accessibility
Milepost 389.9
Major Interpretive Resources
Existing
April-November
Historical, Geological, and Facility
Site Description: This site is a popular midcanyon stop that features a cavern,
spring, trail, bridge, and parking areas on both sides of the highway.
Interpretive Significance:' The site is _named after Thomas A. Ricks, who, under
the direct supervision of Brigham Young, mapped the route to Bear Lake in
1865. The water from the spring has been collected by locals for years, but in
the early 1980's it was determined at least a portion of the water was from the
Logan River and very likely contains giardia.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. Thomas Ricks first described this site in 1865 while he was mapping
the route to Bear Lake.
B. These springs are similar to the Dewitt Springs and are the result of
geological faulting.
C. The water coming out of the cavern contains river water and is not
safe to drink. In all likelihood it contains giardia, which can
cause severe intestinal problems.
II. Site Objectives. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, barrier-free
interpretive experience.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with some
insight into 'what it must have been like here in upper Logan Canyon
in 1865.
B. The visitors will see examples (graphic and pictorial) of locals
coming to Ricks Springs to gather the water.
C. They recognize that giardia is a very unpleasant microorganism, and
the water is no longer safe to drink.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach signing.
B. One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display with
information on
1. the life and times of Thomas Ricks,
2. the popularity of the "spring" water, and
3. giardia.
-46-
�C. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
D. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signs
One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display
Trail and bridge improvements
Landscaping
$200
2,000
3,500
1,000
$6,700
VI. Justification.
Ricks Springs is a very popular site. Current use is
estimated to be approximately 40,000 visits per year. There are no
interpretive services available at the site at this time. Need exists to
inform visitors that the water is not safe to drink. Ricks' story is
notable in that his survey party was acting under the direct orders of
Brigham Young.
VII. Comments .
A. Source documents for development of story lines include "Geologic
Tours of Northern Utah," the unpublished manuscript of Robert Oaks on
the geology of Logan Canyon, and the "History of the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest."
B. Safety is an issue at this site. Final decision will be based on
recommendations contained in Logan Canyon environmental impact
statement.
-47-
�SITE: TONY GROVE ORIENTATION SITE
Type: Orientation Site
Site Number - - 12
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 393.8
Major Interpretive Resources
New
------
Seasonal Accessibility
May-November
Orientation
Site Description: This site is located at the junction of the Byway and the
Tony Grove road. It is the access point to the Tony Grove recreation area, the
Lewis Turner Campground, and the Tony Grove Ranger Station and is ideally
sui ted for an orientation. display •.
Interpretive Significance: To provide visitors with an overview of the
district, the interpretive theme for the Byway, and recreational and
educational opportunities available on the district and forest.
I. In terpretive Theme. "Welcome to the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway!"
To
provide an overview of recreational and educational opportunities on the
Logan Ranger District.
II. Site Objectives. To develop an orientation display at the junction of the
Byway and the Tony Grove road.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will learn of the Scenic Byway interpretive
theme and recreational and educational opportunities on the district.
B. First-time visitors will be surprised at all of the educational
opportunities the district has to offer and be encouraged to return
and experience some of them.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A. Approach and directional signing.
B. One three panel orientation site display. The information provided
would include:
1. Forest and Scenic Byway maps with a "You are here" notation.
2. Photos of some of the main recreational or educational sites
with a brief text.
3. Interpretation of the Scenic Byway interpretive theme.
4. Interpretation of any "seasonal" attractions or events and any
associated management concerns (OHV use, fire danger, hunter
safety, etc.).
V. Cost Estimates.
A. Approach signing
B. One three-panel orientation site display
-48-
$200
2,700
$2,900
�V. Justification. The orientation area provides an opportunity for forest
visitors to learn of all the opportunites available along the Byway and on
the district. Many visitors will probably be unaware of these
opportunities, and this will provide their first contact with the forest
and district.
VI. Comments.
-49-
�SITE: TONY GROVE RANGER STATION
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site Number
Location
13
New or Existing
---=-
Milepost 393.8
Existing
Seasonal Accessibility
June-October
Major Interpretive Resources __
H_i_s_t_o_r_i_c_a_l_and__
__ F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y
__________________________
Site Description: This site is located just west of the junction of the Byway
and the Tony Grove road. The compound consists of a number of existing
facilities including the ranger station, a barn, a wheel house (used to
generate electricity for the compound) and a storage shed. The ranger station
is a log cabin structure built in 1907 and the other structures in the compound
a wood-framed buildings erected in the 1930's. The compound was recently
included on the National Register of Historic Places.
Interpretive Significance: Since its first construction in 1907, the compound
has been in continuous use by the Forest Service first as back-country ranger
station and living quarters for patrolling rangers, a tree nursery during the
1930's, a Civilian Conservation Corps Camp in the 1930's, a site for collection
of winter snow data from the 1950's to the 1970's and is currently being used
as an administrative site and housing Forest Service recreation guards. The
compound is inclosed by a rail fence.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. Life on a backcountry ranger station in 1907 could be a lonely
existence but it was also one full of high adventure.
B. The mission of the Forest Service, "Caring for the Land and Serving
People", is much more than cutting trees.
C. Ecosystems and the natural environment. There is a need for balance
and sustainability in our natural environment and man is the
principle role player.
II. Site Objectives
A. To provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, and barrier-free facility.
B. To provide visitors with an entertaining and thought provoking
opportunity to stroll through a turn-of the century ranger station
compound.
C. To restore the site and facilities to what they were in 1907.
D. Prepare a self-guided tour and brochure for the compound.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives
A. A majority of visitors will learn what the mission on the Forest
Service is today versus what it was in 1907.
-50-
�B. A majority of visitors will get a taste of the isolation and
adventure opportunities the district has to offer and be encouraged
to return and experience some of them.
C. Visitors will gain an appreciation of the complexities involved in
managing ecosystems so they are harmonious within themselves yet
provide a sustainable flow of goods and services.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
D.
E.
F.
V.
Approach and directional signing.
Three three-panel interpretive displays.
Six station self-guided trail.
Barrier-free hardened trail.
Barrier-free access to cabin.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
Include site on restaurant place mats.
Brochure explaining history of the coumpound.
Cost Estimates
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Approach signing
Three three-panel orientation display
Six station self-guided trail
Pave trail system (6'x950')
Barrier-free access to cabin
$200
8,100
6,000
9,000
2,500
$25,800
VI. Justification. The Tony Grove Ranger Station offers a truely unique
opportunity to interpret the historical operations of the Forest Service
while at the same location providing visitors insight. into the modern day
Forest Service.d women who gave so much of their lives constructing the
highway.
VII. Comments
A. Two similar interpretive facilities exist in relative proximity to
- the Tony Grove Ranger Station. The visitor seeking a turn of the
century historical perspective at either the Jensen Historical Farm
or the Temple Mill Site may wish to take the opportunity to
experience how a Forest Service ranger station functioned during the
same period.
B. This particular site is an excellent candidate for ISTEA funding
under the Cultural and Historic Resources Protection section.
C. Source material for story line development is available in the
"History of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest," in "The Forest
Service: A Study in Public Land Management," by Glen Robinson, and in
"The Next Era of Land Stewardship and Conservation--Breaking New
Ground" series.
-51-
�SITE: TONY GROVE LAKE NATURE TRAIL
Type: Adventure Side Trip
Site number - 14 Location
New or Existing
Milepost 393.8
Seasonal Accessibility
Existing
July-October
Major Interpretive Resources _G_e_o_l_o=g_i_c_a_l_an_d__
F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y______________
Site Description: This site is located 7 miles east of the junction of the
Byway and the Tony Grove road. -- The . Tony .Grove Lake complex is the heart of the
summer developed and dispersed recreation programs. The site comprises a
39-unit campground, a day use flat-water . fishing opportunity, and a major
trailhead leading to the Mount Naoimi Wilderness and the White Pine Lake area.
The existing self-guided nature trail is about 1 mile long and circles the
lake. It consists of 15 stations which are marked on the ground with wooden
posts. A free interpretive brochure is available at the trailhead. The trail
tread is in poor condition, and much of it needs to be reconstructed.
Interpretive Significance: This beautiful cirque basin is an excellent
opportunity to interpret the geomorphology of the area. Visitors can see
evidence of glacial activity as well as the effects of weathering on the
lim~stone rock that dominates the landscape.
I. Interpretive Themes
A. Change! This mountain landscape looks stable, but it has seen many
changes.
1. Some of these changes took place in geologic time, long before
humans first appeared; others are still in progress.
2. Some occurred over millions of years: others occurred in just a
few hours.
3. Man has long been a visitor here and has also brought about some
of the change we see today.
II. Site Objectives
A. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, and at least partially
barrier-free interpretive experience.
B. Erect a trailhead display at the day use area.
C. Provide interpretive signing for 12-15 sites along trail.
D. Construct viewing deck and interpretive signing for Tony Grove Lake.
E. Replace existing restroom with 2-unit, barrier-free, flush unit.
F. Reconstruct existing trail to provide barrier-free facility.
-52-
�III.
Interpretive Program Objectives
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this experience with an
understanding that change in nature is a continuous process.
B. The visitors will see examples (graphic and pictoral) of the forces
(geological and human) that shaped the Tony Basin.
C. They will take the challenge and answer the question of what they can
do to protect these fragile environments.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A. Approach and directional signing.
B. Standard two-panel bulletin board.
C. Trail signs will be 11x17-inch Lexan mounted on plywood and bolted to
steel signposts.
D. One three-panel'-anodized aluminum display.
E. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
F. Include site on resturant placemats.
G. Guided evening hikes.
V. Cost Estimates
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Approach signing
Standard two-panel bulletin board
Graphic artwork and fabrication of 15 interpretive signs
Design and fabrication of 15 1/4-inch steel posts
Delivery and installation of steel posts and signs
One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display
Viewing deck
Two-unit restroom
Reconstruct trail
$200
1,470
1,500
1,500
1,500
2,700
3,000
29,000
20,000
$60,870
VI. Justification. The Tony Grove Lake area is the flagship of the district's
developed recreation area. The Tony Grove Nature Trail is also an
extremely popular trail. Existing interpretive services include a free
pamphlet that interprets sites identified by numbered wooden posts.
Reconstructing the trail and interpreting the theme of "change" is an
outstanding-opportunity to enhance the interpretive experience for the
visitor.
VII. Conunents.
A. Interpretive services for this trail will be designed and are
scheduled for installation during the 1993-94 summer field season.
B. The trail around the lake is the best opportunity on the district to
create a barrier-free outdoor interpretive experience. The trail
will need to be surveyed to determine the practicality of and extent
of barrier-free access.
C. Source documents for development of story lines include "Geologic
Tours of Northern Utah," the unpublished manuscript of Robert Oaks on
the geology of Logan Canyon, and the "History of the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest.
-53-
�SITE: FRANKLIN BASIN
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site Number
Location
15
New or Existing
----=:::..-
Milepost 397.0
Existing
Seasonal Accessibility
Year-round
Major Interpretive Resources _H_i_s_t_o_r_i_c_an_d__
F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y
______________
Site Description: This site looks into a township that consists of both private
land and land adminsistered by the Utah Department of Lands. Franklin Basin is
a popular dispersed recreation area in the summer and a popular snowmobiling
and cross-country skiing area in the winter. ' A groomed snowmobile trail
running from Monte Cristo to Soda Springs, Idaho, also runs through the area.
Facilities include a parking area and restroom.
Interpretive Significance: The Franklin Basin area is approximately 28,000
acres in size and is the headwaters of the Logan River. Revenues generated
from mineral extraction, grazing, and timber management go to the Utah School
Trust. An interpretive site here is a good opportunity to present the idea of
multiple-use lands managed by the State going to fund the State's school
system.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. The lands of the upper Logan River watershed have in the past
provided many products.
B. The School Trust lands were set up to provide an uninterrupted source
of revenue for the schools of Utah.
C. At one time a steam-driven sawmill operated along the banks of the
Logan River.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, barrier-free interpretive
experience.
B. Replace existing restroom with a two-unit, sweet-smelling vault
toilet.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with some
insight (graphic and pictorial) into the timber and mineral
extraction activities that have taken place here in the past.
B. They will come away with a good feeling on the role of School Trust
lands.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
-54-
�A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signs.
One three-panel anodized aluninum interpretive display.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signs
One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display
Landscaping
Replace existing restroom
$200
2,700
1,000
25,000
$28,900
VI. Justification. The Franklin Basin area is an extremely popular summer,
fall, and winter dispersed recreation ' area. Many people are unaware of
the mission of the Department of Lands and the mandate for the management
of these lands.
VII. COIIIIIents.
A. Source documents for development of story lines include "Geologic
Tours of Northern Utah," the unpublished manuscript of Robert Oaks on
the geology of Logan Canyon, and the "History of the Wasatch-Cache
National Forest." Additional information on the history of the
School Trust lands can be obtained from the Utah Department of
Lands.
B. Development of this site will depend on outcome of the proposed land
exchange between the Forest Service and the Department of Lands.
C. Site plan should provide for separation between snow storage areas
and location of interpretive display.
-55-
�SITE: BEAVER JUNCTION
Type: Scenic Byway Display and Orientation Site
Site number - - - 16
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 399.7
Major Interpretive Resources
New
------
Seasonal Accessibility
May-October
Historic, Orientation, and Facility
Site Description: The location of this proposed site is at the turnoff to the
Beaver Mountain Ski Area. The point has more than 85,000 visitors pass by on
their way to participate in various winter sports activities. It is also
located approximately. 1/4 mile west of the Beaver Creek Lodge, which is an
outfitter and guide 'operation offering lodging, horseback trips, and snowmobile
trips.
Interpretive Significance: Beaver Junction has great potential for an
interpretive site, picnic area, and trailhead for the Great Western Trail. It
is the best site available to tell the story of the history of the Logan Canyon
highway.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon: A Portrait in Time."
A. Scenic Byway
1. The development of the Logan Canyon highway can be summed up as
"The shortest distance between two points is not necessarily a
straight line."
2. The road, which was originally a toll road, was begun in 1862
and is still being worked on today.
B. Orientation: To provide an overview of recreational and educational
opportunities on the Logan Ranger District.
II. Site Objectives
A. To provide visitors with a safe, esthetic, and barrier-free facility.
B. To provide visitors with a pleasant roadside picnic area that
includes picnic tables, restroom, interpretive opportunity, and
orientation information.
C. Provide directional signing for the Great Western Trail.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives
A. A majority of visitors will learn of the Scenic Byway interpretive
theme and recreation and educational opportunities on the district.
B. First-time visitors will be suprised at all of the educational
opportunities the district has to offer and be encouraged to return
and experience some of them.
-56-
�C. Visitors will gain an appreciation for the enormous human effort that
was involved in constructing the road between Logan and Bear Lake
that so many today take for granted.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Approach and directional signing.
One three-panel orientation site display.
One three-panel interpretive display.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cost Estimates
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Approach signing
One three-panel orientation display .
One three-panel interpretive display
Pave parking area (18,000 sq. ft.)
Steps and trail system (5x800 feet)
Two-unit vault restroom
Five picnic tables
Landscaping
Great Western Trail signing
$200
2,700
2,700
18,000
10,500
25,000
3,500
1,000
1,000
$64,600
VI. Justification. The Beaver Junction site is an excellent opportunity to
combine an upper canyon picnic site with an interpretive opportunity.
This site is the best chance to interpret the contribution of the men and
women who gave so much of their lives constructing the highway.
VII. Comments
A. This site can double as a snowmobile trailhead in the winter months.
Final design should include input from UDOT to ensure snow removal is
possible.
B. Source documents for story development include the "History of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest," an unpublished manuscript by John K.
Wood entitled "Roads and Trails of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest," and another unpublished manuscript by B.J. Yonce entitled
"Transportation and Road Development in Logan Canyon."
-57-
�SITE: LIMBER PINE CHILDREN'S NATURE TRAIL
Type: Adventure Side Trip
Site number ---=-17
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 404.9
Seasonal Accessibility
Existing
June-October
Major Interpretive Resources __
B_i_o_l_o~g~i_c_a_l_an_d_F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y
______________
Site Description: The site, located at an elevation of 7800 feet, is a
self-guided nature trail located on the divide between the Logan River drainage
and Bear Lake. The trail is laid out in a loop configuration, is approximately
1 mile long, and takes about an hour to hike.
Interpretive Significance: The trail leads to a limber pine tree that is
actually five or six trees that have grown together and is about 560 years
old. The trail winds through mixed conifer forest and aspen and sagebrush
groves. It is an excellent location to develop story lines dealing with
various ecosystem relationships.
I. Interpretive Themes. The theme of this trail is "connections." When you
try to change any single thing, you find it hitched to everything else in
the universe.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe and esthetic interpretive experience
along the Bear Lake Summit.
B. Create a trailhead display.
C. Erect interpretive signing for 12-15 sites along trail.
D. Add approach signing.
E. Provide a two-unit vault restroom.
III.
Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. Develop a children's nature trail for the fourth-grade level.
Esthetics, layout, and attractive signing will, however, make it a
very pleasurable experience for children of all ages.
B. A majority of visitors will come away from this site with an
understanding that everything they see in nature is connected to
something else.
C. A majority of visitors will see examples (graphic and pictorial) of
relationships that exist between the plants, animals, and earth
within and between several different plant communities.
D. A majority of visitors will see examples of how careless acts can
leave their mark on the land.
IV. Interpretive Modes.
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach and directional signing.
Standard one panel bulletin board
Trail signs will be 11x17-inch, 8-mil Lexan with a matte finish.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
-58-
�E. Include site on restaurant place mats.
F. Guided evening hikes.
V. Cost Estimates.
A.
B.
C.
F.
G.
H.
Approach signing
Standard one-panel bulletin board
Graphic artwork and fabrication of 15 interpretive signs
Design and fabrication of 15 1/4-inch steel posts
Installation of steel posts and signs
Two-unit vault restroom
$200
800
1,500
1,500
1,500
25,000
$30,500
VI. Justification. The Limber Pine Nature Trail has been a very popular hike
for visitors since its inception in the late 1960's. Existing
interpretive " services "; "
include: a free pamphlet that interprets sites
;
identified by "numbered wooden posts. Redesigning the trail and making it
more thematic is an opportuni" to greatly enhance the interpretive
ty
experience for the young visitor. Both the Cache and Logan school
districts will be using the trail for fall field trips.
VII. Cooments.
A. Interpretive services for this trail have been designed and are
scheduled for installation during the 1993 summer field season.
B. Because of terrain it is not physically possible to make this trail
barrier-free.
-59-
�SITE: BEAR LAKE OVERLOOK
Type: Scenic Byway Display and Orientation Site
Site Number - 18 Location
New or Existing
Milepost 405.7
Major Interpretive Resources
Seasonal Accessibility
New
-----
April-November
Historical, Geological, Orientation, Biological,
and Facility
Site Description: The site is a popular stop for visitors traveling the Byway.
It offers a panoramic ·view of the stunning aquamarine waters of Bear Lake and
of the surrounding area.
This site is in many ways similar to the Lady Bird Overlook (Site 1). It is
the east portal to Logan Canyon for travelers heading toward Logan and is the
west portal to the Bear Lake area for travelers heading to Jackson Hole and
Yellowstone and other points east.
The existing facility consists of an asphalt parking area and a wildlife
interpretive display provided by the Bear Lake Regional Commission. The site
has no sanitary facilities and is only partially accessible.
Interpretive Significance: 1992 Recreation Information Management data
estimates 82,000 people annually visit the Bear Lake Overlook. Site and its
spectacular view make it ideally suited for an orientation display and
interpretive displays telling the stories of the area's rich history, the
unique geology and fish of Bear Lake, and the three eras of exploitation,
conservation, and stewardship.
I. Interpretive Theme.
"Logan Canyon is a portrait in time."
A. There have been three broad eras of land use associated with the
settlement of the North American continent: exploitation,
conservation, and stewardship.
2. The history of Bear Lake is full of colorful stories about the
mountain men who rendezvoused here in 1826 and '27 and the settlers
who passed through the area on their way west along the Oregon Trail.
3. Earthquake activity 8,000 years ago created the conditions that give
the lake its color and provide habitat for four species of fish found
nowhere else in the world.
4. "Welcome to the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway!" There are lots of
interesting and exciting things to see and explore on your journey
through Logan Canyon.
II. Site Objectives.
A. Provide visitors with a safe, barrier-free place to stop, use the
restroom, get a drink of water, have a picnic, and enjoy the view.
B. Create interpretive media for
-60-
�1. the stewardship and conservation story,
2. information on the recreational and interpretive opportunities
on and off the Scenic Byway,
3. describing the events that give the lake its color and unique
populations of fish, and
4. telling the story of the mountain men and settlers heading west
on the Oregon Trail.
.
C. Make an outdoor display for visitor orientation to the district and
its many recreational and educational opportunities.
D. Maintain and enhance the visual quality of the site.
E. Ample parking to accommodate RV's and motorcoaches.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors .will recognize America has entered a new era
of land stewardship and· will have·. a sense of what it may mean to
them. They will also be introduced to concepts created in programs
like Take Pride in Utah, Leave No Trace, and Tread Lightly. Visitors
will understand why it is important now more than ever that we be
wise stewards of out public lands.
B. Visitors will gain an understanding and historical perspective of the
mountain men and settlers.
C. They will learn about the powerful earthquake that occurred 8,000
years ago and isolated Bear Lake from the Bear River.
D. They will leave with an understanding of what the Scenic Byway
program is about. They will also know there is a diverse array of
recreation and educational opportunities that lie ahead to the east,
know there are many things to see and do in Logan and the surrounding
area.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A. Approach signing.
B. One three-panel orientation site display.
C. Three three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive displays:
1. Historical.
2. Geological and wildlife.
3. Land stewardship and conservation (bookend display with Lady
Bird Overlook).
D. Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
E. Include site on restaurant place mats.
V.
Cost Estimates
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
Approach signing
Orientation site display
Three 3-panel anodized aluminum interp displays
Paved path (6'x520')
Paved Parking (34,000 sq. ft.)
4-unit restroom
Picnic tables (4@ $700 each)
Picnic Shelters (4@ $2,000 each)
Water System
Landscaping
-61-
$200
2,700
8,100
7,800
34,000
35,000
2,800
8,000
20,000
3,000
$121,600
�VI. Justification. The site is a key stop because of the use it is currently
receiving and because it is the east portal to the Scenic Byway.
VII. Comments.
A. For the reasons above it is crucial that site development be state-of
the-art and reflective of the very best we can do, integrating
interpretive services and site design.
B. This site is the east portal to the Byway and will serve as a bookend
site to the Lady Bird Overlook.
C. Cultural and historical story development will be provided by A.J.
Simmonds, curator of the USU historical archives. Additional source
material is available in the "History of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest." Geological information is available in "Geologic Tours of
Northern Utah" and in an unpublished manuscript on the geology of
Logan Canyon by Robert Oaks available at the Logan District office.
The story of land stewardship and conservation is contained in "The
Next Era of Land Stewardship and Conservation--Breaking New Ground"
series. Background on the National Scenic Byway program will be
provided by the Forest Service.
-62-
�SITE: GARDEN CITY VISITOR CENTER
Type: Scenic Byway Display
Site Number ---=:...-19
Location
New or Existing
Milepost 411.7
Seasonal Accessibility
Existing
April-November
Major Interpretive Resources _H_i_s_t_o_r_i_c_a_l_an_d__
F_a_c_i_l_i_t~y
_________________________
Site Description: The Visitor Center consists of two small log buildings
located at the intersection of US 89 and SR 30. The center is staffed by
volunteers who assist visitors and hand out printed material on the area. The
center has no restroom facilities or water. The land .is . privately owned and
leased to the Bear Lake ·Regional ·Commission. The term of the lease is not
fixed.
Interpretive Significance: The center receives approximately 20,000 visitors
per year between May 15 and September 15. It is the logical choice of location
to provide information on the history of Garden City and information on things
to see and do while visiting Bear Lake.
I. Interpretive Themes. Discover Bear Lake! The communities surrounding
Bear Lake provide services to meet your every recreational need.
II. Site Objectives. Provide visitors with a central location to receive
information. and ask questions on things to see and do in the area.
III. Interpretive Program Objectives.
A. A majority of visitors will be able to easily identify the Visitor
Center and know it is the place to go to get their questions
answered.
B. They will appreciate the ease and convenience of using the
facilities.
IV. Interpretive Modes
A.
B.
C.
D.
Approach signing.
One three-panel anodized aluminum interpretive display.
Include as a stop on self-guided auto tours.
Include site on restaurant place mats.
V. Cos t Es tima tes
A. Approach signing
B. One three-panel anodized aluminum interp display
$200
2,700
$2,900
V. Justification. This site is a logical location for a visitor center.
lack of a termable lease is a valid consideration.
VI. Comments.
-63-
The
�A. Coordinate with UDOT on obtaining ISTEA enhancement dollars for site
improvements and possible outright purchase.
B. Source material for story development available through A.J.
Simmonds, curator of the USU historical archives. Additional
material available in the "History of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest" and through the Bear Lake Regional Commission.
-64-
�20. Proposed Brochures, Programs, and Other Services.
a. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway brochure. This full-color
brochure would provide a mile-by-mile interpretation of the
sights and sounds encountered between the Lady Bird
Overlook and Garden City at the terminus of the Byway at
Bear Lake. I t would include a map of the Byway and
capsulated information on the cultural history, geology,
plants and animals, camping opportunities, trails,
interpretive opportunities, and lodging. Half-toned photos
or line drawings of common wildlife, vegetation. and area
attractions would be included. The brochure would be
available at no charge through campground hosts, and at
select locations in Logan, Garden City, and throughout the
region. Cost detail:
Contract production (10,000 copies)
$7,500
b. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway audiotape. This project would be
an audio version of the brochure described above. It would
be paced by average vehicle speed for different sections in
the canyon and would feature a nationally known narrator.
The tape would be distributed at local chambers of
commerce, Forest Service offices, area bookstores, and
through tour bus companies operating routes through the
canyon. Cost detail:
Contract production
Reproduction (500 copies)
$10,000
500
$10.500
c. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway videotape. This project is a
30-minute souvenir videotape of the sites and sounds
encountered along the Byway. Like the audiotape it would
feature a nationally known narrator. The video would
portray the unique beauty of the canyon and the seasonal
variations in color and texture. The tape could be used as
a marketing tool for the area and by people wishing to have
a visual image of their experience. Cost detail:
Contract production
Reproduction (500 copies)
$20,000
750
$20,750
d. Logan Canyon Scenic Byway Adventure Side Trips. This
project would consist of a free brochure that would provide
written descriptions and directions to popular drives and
hikes into the Logan Ranger District back country.
Marketing and distribution would be the same as described
for the auto tours. Cost detail:
Contract production (lO,OOO)
-65-
$7,500
�E. Service industry personnel training. Contract development
of training package for service industry personnel in Cache
County and the north end of Rich County. Objective would
be to emphasize the tourism aspects of customer service.
Objective would be to provide training and materials so
government and private sector employees would be able to
anticipate and meet the expectations of customers visiting
the area. Cost detail:
Contract development
(to be determined)
F. Restaurant place mats. Develop a restaurant place mat that
would feature a stylized map of the Byway and surrounding
communities. Popular stops, trails, and roads along the
Byway would be identified, and visitors would be encouraged
to go out and explore. Cost detail:
Contract production (20,000 copies)
$4,000
G. Scenic Byway interpretive sign prints and note cards.
Produce artist's prints of the most popular interpretive
signs. Prints and note cards would be sold at local retail
outlets and interpretive association outlets. Cost detail:
Contract production
(to be determined)
-66-
�H. Implementation and operations. Table 5 contains a summary of
recommended interpretive services and media, including budget
estimates. The blocks for the fiscal year in which each should
be implemented have not been completed. Pending final review
and approval the steering committee, district personnel, and
forest recreation staff will meet to prioritize and schedule
implementation of the approved projects.
For the various budget estimates for interpretive services or
media, the costs reflect the estimated cost for that product if
it were contracted out. These costs do not reflect other budget
items that might be associated with each product or service,
such as travel expenses, shipping costs, etc.
I. Monitoring : and :.Evaluation. The following matrix of recommended
methods for monitoring and evaluating interpretive services are
taken from ttA Handbook For Evaluating Interpretive Services"
(USDA Forest Service, 1992).
TABLE
4.
EVALUATION AND MONITORING TECHNIQUE MATRIX
Objectives
Type of
Interpretive
Service .
Enjoyment
Learning
Behavior
PERSONAL
Group interview
Group interview
Observation
Guided walks, talks, etc.
Response card
NON-PERSONAL
Group interview
Seli-guided activities,
exhibits, etc.
Group interview
Observation
Response card
Readability
analysis
WRITTEN TEXTS
Publications, exhibit
and sign texts
Group interview
Group interview
The following is a brief description of the evaluation
techniques included in the above table.
1. Response card technique: A method in which individuals
report what they learned from an interpretive service
they have experienced. This approach is
quantitative. Visitors can be randomly selected to
receive the cards, which allows their responses to be
generalized to other visitors who receive the same
interpretive service.
2. Group interview: A qualitative technique that uses
group discussion and interaction to gather opinions
and feelings. The value of group interaction is that
visitors are prompted to voice ideas they may not be
able to articulate on their own. In addition, they
-67-
�can elaborate on those ideas, providing greater depth
of information.
3. Observation:
An unobtrusive way to collect information
about visitor behavior in response to interpretive
messages. As with the response card technique, this
is a quantitative method. Visitors to be observed are
randomly selected, allowing generalization.
4. Readability analysis: A numerical system for
determining the readability of texts, like brochures
and sign texts. Here the assumption is made that if
an interpretive text is to be enjoyed, it must be easy
and interesting to read. This is quantitative
approach that does not rely on visitor input, -and it
is recommended it be used in conjunction with a
technique like the group interview.
-68-
�TABLE
5.
LOGAN CANYON SCENIC BYWAY· INTERPRETIVE SERVICES
COST ESTIMATES AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Site # Project
1
Lady Bird / LRD Headquarters
Approach signs
Ori entation display
Hi storical display
Geological display
Stewardship display
Cost
Estimate
$ 200
2,700
2,700
2,700
-..UQQ
$11 ,000
2
Hydro II/Second Dam
Approach signs
Hydroelectric di"splay
Viewing deck
Logan River bridge
$ 200
2,700
3,500
JiS....QQQ.
$91,400
I
'"
3
Lake Bonneville
Remove and recl aim
4
Dewitt Springs
Approach si~ns
Geologica I ispl ay
Tr<li l syst l~ m/v iew <l n ~<I
\.0
I
5
Riverside N ature Trail
Approach signs
Two-panel bulletin board
15 station interpretive signs
6
Loga n Wind Caves
Approach signs
Two-panel bulletin board
Pave parking area [2000 sq.ft. J
7
Guinavah Amphitheater
Approach signs
Historical display
Barrier-free access
Replace electrical system
Add audiovisual system
Remodel dressings rooms
$ 200
2,700
5, 500
~
$ 200
1,450
4 SOD
r6,i7o
$ 200
1,470
2,000
$ 3,670
$ 200
2,700
5,000
7,500
5,000
4 000
$24',000
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
Comments
�TABLE
Site #
Project
8
Guinavah-Malibu Orientation Site
Approach signing
Orientation display
9
Fucoidal Quartzite
Remove and reclaim
10
Jardine Juniper Trailhead
Approach signs
One-panel bulletin board
11
Ricks'Spring
Approach Signs
Historical/biological display
Trail/bridge improvements
Landscaping
I
~
o
I
Cost
Estimate
$
200
2,700
$ 2,900
$ 1,500
200
800
$ 1,000
$
$
200
2,700
3,500
--LQQQ
$ 7,400
12
Tony Grove Orientation Site
Approach signs
Orientation display
13
Tony Grove Ranger Station
Approach signs
FS Mission display
Historical display
Ecosystem display
6-station self-guided trail
Barrier-free trail (6' x 950')
Barrier-free access to cabin
14
Tony Grove Lake Nature Trail
Approach signs
Two-panel bulletin board
15-station self-guided trail
Lake display
Viewing deck
Two-unit restroom
Reconstruct trail
$ 200
2700
$ 2;900
$
200
2,700
2,700
2,700
6,000
9,000
2,500
$25 ,800
$ 200
1,470
4,500
2,700
3,000
29,000
..2rulQQ.
$60,870
5
1995
(continued)
1996
1997
1998
1999
Comments
�TABLE
Site # Project
Cost
Estimate
15
Franklin Basin
Approach signs
Historica l display
Landscaping
Replace restroom
16
Beaver Junction
Approach signs
Orientation display
Highway development display
Pave parking 118,000 sq.ft.]
Steps/trail system (5' x 800')
Two-unit vault restroom
Five picnic tables
Landscaping
Great Western Trail signs
17
Limber Pine Children's Trail
Approach signs
One-panel bulletin board
15-station trai I
Two-unit vault restroom
18
Bea r Lake Overlook
Approach signs
Orientation display
Historica l display
Geological/wildlife display
Stewardship display
Trail system (6' x 520')
Paved parking 118,000 sq.ft.]
Four-unit restroom
Four picnic tables ($700 each)
Four picnic shelters ($2000 each)
Water system upgrade
Landscaping
19
Gard en City Visitor Center
Approach signs
Historical display
$ 200
2,700
2,700
18,000
10,500
25,000
3,500
1,000
-.LQQQ.
$64600
I
-...j
r'
I
$ 200
2,700
2,700
2,700
2,700
7,800
34,000
35,000
2,800
8,000
20,000
3,000
$121,600
$ 200
2700
$ l,900
20
Brochures, Programs, Other Services
Scenic Byway Brochure
Scenic Byway Audiotape
Scenic Byway Videotape
Adventure Side Trip Brochure
Restau rant Pl acemats
Prints and Note Cards
1995
$ 200
2,700
1,000
25,000
$28 900
$ 200
800
4,500
25,000
$30,500
$ 7,500
$10,500
$20,750
$ 7,500
$ 4,000
$ TBD
5
-
(continued)
1996
1997
1998
1999
Comments
�J. Partnership Opportunities.
Community involvement in forest
projects is a tradition on the Logan Ranger District. The
district has received state and national recognition through the
"Take Pride in Utah" and the "Take Pride in America" programs
for the partnerships it has organized each of the last 3 years.
These partnerships have involved local business, government,
youth groups, families, and individuals, whose combined efforts
have been valued at over $350,000 per year. A number of
partners are on record in support of the development of
interpretive sites along the Logan Canyon highway. They include
the Cache-Rich Tourist Council, the Bridgerland Travel Region,
the Utah Department of Transportation, Cache County, Rich
County, the Bear River Association of Governments, the city of
Logan, and Garden City. We are certain that similar
accomplishmen ts"" will continue when the energy "these volunteers
possess is marshaled into interpretive site development along
the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway.
v.
Summary
Tourism is a vital part of the economy in both Cache and Rich
Counties. Over the next decade Rich County looks to tourism as its
primary growth area. Agriculture and government activity have
plateaued, and the potential for tourism growth is promising. While
Cache's diverse economy is not dependent on tourism, it is regarded
as an important segment for growth in the economy (Thompson, 1993).
The proposed projects will have a profound impact on tourism in the
two counties. The new interpretive services proposed for the Byway
will encourage recreationists from the Wasatch Front, the largest
component of tourists to the area, to stay longer and use the Byway's
resources more often.
The 3,000-plus bus tours passing through the Byway represent the
largest untapped potential tourism market for the area. " Almost all
are destined for Salt Lake City or the Yellowstone and "
Jackson
areas. The improved pullouts, interpretive displays, and day use
recreation facilities will undoubtedly induce more of the bus tours
to stop and enjoy the facilities in Logan Canyon. If the tours take
more time on " the Byway they are more likely to stay overnight in area
motels, eat in area restaurants, and shop in area stores. Bus tours
on the average spend $7,000 per day (Thompson). Even a marginal
increase in the time buses stay in the area will likely have a
substantial effect.
Quality of life is one of the prime considerations, if not the
highest, as businesses look for areas for expansion or relocation.
Cache County particularly is experiencing strong interest from
businesses across the nation. One of the strongest components of the
area's quality-of-life mix is the easy and quick access to excellent
outdoor recreation opportunities, Logan Canyon being the most highly
regarded. Anything done to improve the utility of the canyon's
resources will encourage further economic development and improve
retention of existing businesses and employees.
-72-
�VI. Recommendations
A number of tasks, most of which deal with implementation, remain:
A. NEPA. The National Environmental Policy Act mandates federal
agencies analyze and disclose the effects of any actions they
undertake. The only project identified in this interpretive guide
that is NEPA sufficient is the Hydro II Park/Second Dam. The
interpretive displays planned for the Lady Bird Park/Logan Ranger
District Headquarters and the Garden City Visitors Center are not
located on national forest system land and do not require NEPA
compliance. The remainder of the projects described in this guide
will require : NEPA compliance.
B. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum -Classification. The forest plan
classified the entire Logan Canyon Highway corridor as roaded
natural. The evidence of man-made development is significant
particularly in the lower segment of the canyon. High daily traffic
volumes coupled with the presence of hardened campgrounds, recreation
residences, two power plants, private homes, and a restaurant suggest
ammending the current classification to rural. The rural
classification more realistically reflects the existing level of
development and land modification in the lower canyon and offers the
opportunity to develop a more diverse array of managment
opportunities. This situation was also identified by Butkus and
Rieder for the upper canyon in the vicinity of the Tony Grove Ranger
Station.
C. Intermodal Surface Transportation Effeciency Act of 1991. ISTEA
represents a new model for transportation in America. It is more
comprehensive than past highway bills, and focuses considerable
emphasis on state-wide and metropolitan planning, rural development,
scenic beauty and landscaping, scenic byways, tourism, bicycles and
pedestrian facilities, preservation of historic and cultural areas,
and prevention of adverse effects on water quality, air quality and
wetlands. ISTEA requires an intergrated approach by the states,
involving local governments, publics, and the Forest Service to
realize its full potential. The time to act on ISTEA is NOW! Using
this guide as a platform, the district, Utah Department of
Transportation, the Cache-Rich Tourist Council, local government and
local citizens groups should begin organizing to formulate plans and
projects that meet the intent of ISTEA.
D. Prioritize and Schedule. The district, planning team, and SO
specialists will need to meet to craft a strategy to fund the various
projects described in the interpretive guide. Among the criteria to
be used in this process are timing and site availability, partnership
development, ISTEA funding opportunities for scenic byways and
enhancements, State of Utah Motorized and Non-motorized Trail
programs, and scenic byway devlopment projects sponsored by the
Wasatch-Cache. Once projects are prioritized it will become possible
to encorporate those that are most appropriately funded by the Forest
Service into the outyear budgeting process.
-73-
�E. Volunteers and Partnerships. Continue to nurture and develop a
strong and diverse cadre of volunteers to assist in development and
implementation on individual site developments. Working with the
local chamber of commerce develop a marketing strategy for the Byway
that can be used to enlist the financial support of local and
regional businesses. Developing partnerships with the motor coach
tour companies operating on the Byway should be aggressively
explored.
-74-
�VII. Literature Cited
A&A Research. 1992. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Communications Planning
Workbook. Kalispell, Montana.
Bacon, Richard. 1991. Clemson University Outdoor Recreation Short
Course. Clemson, South Carolina. Personal communication.
Butkus, Michael. 1993. Director, Institute for the Study of Outdoor
Recreation and Tourism, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Personal
communication.
Cooper, Elizabeth J. 1989. Characteristics of Recreation Visitors in the
Bridgerland Area. Master of Science thesis. Utah State University,
Logan, Utah.
Cordell, Ken H. 1991. Keeping Recreation Management on Top in
anlnformation Age. Clemson University Outdoor Recreation Shortcourse.
Clemson, North Carolina.
Coutant, Gerald J. 1991. Interpretive Planning. Clemson University
Outdoor Recreation Shortcourse. Clemson, South Carolina.
Ham, Sam H. 1992. Environmental Interpretation--A Practical Guide for
People With Big Ideas and Small Budgets. Golden, Colorado. North
American Press.
Lewis, William J.
1983.
Identifying a Theme.
The Interpreter, 14 {1}:
i.
Morgan, Susan K. 1992. Geologic Tours of Northern Utah.
Utah. Utah Geological Survey.
Salt Lake City,
Moses, Dennis J. 1971. Transportation and Road Development in Logan
Canyon. Unpublished manuscript. Logan Ranger District office, Logan,
Utah.
Ostergaard, Clark. 1993. Supervisory Landscape Architect, Wasatch-Cache
National Forest. _Salt Lake City, Utah. Personal communication.
Ostergaard, Richard. 1990. A Development and Interpretive Guide for the
San Juan Skyway--A National Forest Scenic Byway. Durango, Colorado.
Peterson, Charles S., and Linda E. Speth. 1980. The History of the
Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Utah State University Press. Logan, Utah.
President's Commission. 1987. The report of the President's Commission
on Americans Outdoors. Washington, D.C.
Regnier, Kathleen, Michael Gross, and Ron Zimmerman. 1992. The
Interpreter's Guidebook: Techniques for Programs and Presentations.
Stevens Point, Wisconsin. UW-SP Foundation Press, Inc.
Reiter, Douglas, and Michael Butkus. 1993. Tony Grove Ranger Station
Interpretive Plan. Institute for the Study of Outdoor Recreation and
Tourism. Utah State University. Logan, Utah.
-75-
�Roth, Helen. 1993. Director, Northern Utah Options for Independence.
Personal communication. Logan, Utah.
Sample, Alaric V. 1991. Land Stewardship in the Next Era of Conservation
--Breaking New Ground series. Pinchot Instute of Conservation, Gray
Towers Press. Medford, Pennsylvania.
Thompson, Douglas. 1993. Director Cache-Rich Chamber of Commerce and
Tourist Council. Logan, Utah.
Tilden, Freeman. 1957. Interpreting Our Heritage.
Carolina. University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, North
USDA Forest· Service. 1986. Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan. Wasatch-Cache National Forest. Salt Lake City,
Utah.
Utah Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration.
1993. U.S. Highway 89--Logan Canyon Highway, Cache and Rich Counties,
Utah. Final environmental impact statement.
Utah Travel Council. 1987. Utah Tourism Study: Executive Summary.
Lake City Convention and Visitors Bureau. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Salt
Veverka, John A., Sandra A. Poneleit, and David E. Traweek. 1986.
Standardized Planning Forms for the Development of Interpretive Planning
Documents. John Veverka and Associates.
Veverka, John A. 1993.
Veverka and Associates.
Interpretive Master Planning Training.
Ogden, Utah. Personal communication.
John
Wildesen, Leslie E. 1991. Heritagemania: What's Out There to Interpret,
Anyway? Presented at Third Global Congress, Heritage Interpretation
International. Honolulu, Hawaii.
Wood, John K. 1991. Roads and Trails of the Wasatch-Cache National
Forest. Unpublished manuscript. Logan Ranger District office. Logan,
Utah.
-76-
�Appendix 1
-77-
�Partners and Supporters
Local Government
Contact
Phone
Bear River Association of Governments
Cache County
Garden City
Logan City
Rich County
Jay Aguillar
Seth Allen
Bryce Nelson
Russell Fjeldsted
Dee Johnson
752-7242
752-5935
946-2901
750-9803
946-3210
Utah State University
Contact
Phone
Administrative Affairs
Center for People with Disabilities
College of Education
Conference and Institute Division
Developmental Center for Handicapped
Persons
Geology Department
Historical Archives
C.Wayne Smith
Marvin Fifield
Izar Martinez
Dallas Holmes
750-1146
750-1981
750-1437
750-1690
Sebastian Striefel
Robert Oaks
A.J. Simmonds
750-1985
750-3283
750-2661
Utah State Government
Contact
Phone
Utah Department of Lands
Utah Department of Transportation
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Craig Pettigrew
Lynn Zollinger
Bruce Anderson
752-8701
752-5733
479-5143
Organizations
Contact
Phone
Boy Scouts of America
Cache-Rich Tourist Council
Capitol Arts Alliance
Mountain Land Travel Region
Options for Independence
Neil Butterfield
Doug Thompson
Ralph Hoskins
Darrell Cook
Helen Roth
752-4278
752-2161
753-6518
377-2262
753-5353
Businesses
Contact
Phone
Beaver Creek, Inc.
Beaver Mountain, Inc.
Central Valley Machine
Coca-Cola Company of Logan
Comfort Inn
Creekside Home Health Care
First Security
Harold Dance Brokerage
LarWest International Engineering
Moore Business Communication Services
Murdock Travel Management
Pepperidge Farm
RVA Realtors
Scientific Advertising and Design, Inc.
Sonic Cable Television of Utah
WESCOR
ZCMI
Brian Lundahl
Ted Seeholtzer
Audre Wursten
Dave Harrison
H.Randall Weston
Bonnie James
Robert Saunders
Harold Dance
Gale Larson
Craig Peterson
Frank Stewart
David Van Laar
Russell Anderson
Steve Murdock
Randall Lee
Reed Crockett
Rodney Pack
753-1707
753-0921
752-0934
752-3033
752-9141
753-8833
752-0912
752-8484
753-0169
752-2093
753-2544
258-2491
753-4670
752-4730
752-9731
753-2725
750-7500
�
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Local URL
The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website
<a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/122">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/122</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
294219305
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
52917777 Bytes
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
A portrait in time: A guide to interpretive services of Logan Canyon Scenic Byway
Description
An account of the resource
The overall objective of this paper is to describe the methods that were used to develop an interpretive guide for the Logan Canyon Scenic Byway. Included are statements of purpose and need, a literature review, a statement of methodology, the interpretive guide, a summary statement, and a list of recommendations. The interpretive guide includes an introduction and sections on interpretive vision, project goals and objectives, an interpretive resources inventory, the major theme development, visitor analysis, major site and program development, and implementation and operations. It concludes with a section on monitoring and evaluation. Included are detailed descriptions of 19 interpretive sites and an array of interpretive goods and services.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Sibbernsen, Chip
Subject
The topic of the resource
Logan Canyon (Utah)--History
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Wilderness areas
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Student projects
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1992-05-06
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Logan Canyon (Utah)
Cache County (Utah)
Logan (Cache County, Utah, United States)
Bear Lake (Rich County, Utah, United States)
Rich County (Utah)
Garden City (Rich County, Utah, United States)
Utah
United States
Temporal Coverage
Temporal characteristics of the resource.
1990-1999
20th century
Language
A language of the resource
eng
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Series III Box 6 Item 10
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS200_Forest Ser_Item 10.pdf
Highway 89;
-
http://highway89.org/files/original/6c1e6b001a5dfb5da58109763338e512.pdf
5d7ebb467976d609b8d0faeae735e0c7
PDF Text
Text
,~:".... ·...Ull i tt::d ~~ ates
forest
Dixie
32 t\'orth 100 East
Service
NCltional Forest
P.O. Box 0580
\:~s>'.!::.. gr l.c:..::u:..::l.::-...:t:::.:u:::.r::....:::.e_ _ ______________ _ _________ _d_a_r C_i_t....l.y_,:.....-U_T 8_4_7_2_1_-0_S_8_0
C_e __
__
:(il~.? c p~ r t~ent of
Reply To:
Date:
1620
January 14, 1991
Je ar Fri ends:
~e
are planning a working meeting to develop alternative s for predator
ma na geme nt and control on the Dixi e Na tional Forest. The meeting is scheduled
~o r Th ursday, February 7, 1990 at 1:00 p.m. at the Holiday Inn, 1575 W. 200 N.
iT! Ce dar City, Utah.
The purpose of this meeting is to review the current
'-; l L:u<1c i on, rin<.11izc; our lise of issues an d manage mellL O}Jti oIlS, alld Jeve10p
I
.
t. ('
1-
n ZILL \' c S
[ 0
r .- 111 ; 1 I y.:. i. s .
Pa rticipa nts will have an opportun ity to suggest additional issues, management
op t ions a nd alternatives for consid era tion.
The alternatives developed at the
~e eting will them be analyzed in detail to determine the results and
e nv ironmental consequences of impl ementation of each one.
The meeting will last about 3 to 3 1/2 hours and everyone is invited to attend.
I f yo u are unable to attend, please let us know your thoughts on issues,
ma nagement options, o r alterna tive s in writing, by phone, or in person prior to
the meeting .
Sin cerely,
I
f
i !l.'G II C. THOMPSON
F,) re s t Sup e rv i s 0 r
Caring for the Land and Serving People
FS-6200-28b(4/88)
~1
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/121">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/121</a>
Purchasing Information
Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item.
To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a>
Digital Publisher
List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online.
Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library
Date Digital
Record the date the item was digitized.
2013
Conversion Specs
Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner.
Checksum
1711065844
File Size
Size of the file in bytes.
479936 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 Hugh Thompson, January 14, 1991
Description
An account of the resource
Correspondence from Hugh Thompson to "Friends" to develop alternatives for predator management and control on the Dixie National Forest.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Thompson, Hugh C.
Subject
The topic of the resource
Dixie National Forest (Utah)
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Correspondence
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
United States. Department of Agriculture
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1991-01-14
Spatial Coverage
Spatial characteristics of the resource.
Cedar City (Utah)
Iron 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, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Forest Service Series III Box 6
Is Referenced By
A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource.
View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv75259</a>
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663.
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Highway 89 Digital Collections
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
MSS200_Forest Ser_Item_1.pdf
Highway 89;