1 50 66 https://highway89.org/files/original/6ce507029c5d7f8245640e032d555159.pdf fe19697ab8da4b567523cfc4a859cad3 PDF Text Text I I UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRIC U LTURE FOREST SERVICE I NTERMOUNTAIN REGION ADDRESS REPLY TO REGIONAL FORESTER FOREST SERVICE BUILDI N G AND REFER TO OGDEN , UTAH December 4, 1961 J . Whitney Floyd, Dean College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management Utah state University Logan, Utah _Dear Dean Floyd: I appreciated receiving your open letter of November 25 addressed to the principals responsible for the collection of data, the establishment of position, and the related decisions for the .Logan Canyon Highway construction project. That letter should be helpful in clarifying the understanding of the concerned agencies about the position of the College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management of Utah state University . We in the Forest Service have at no time interpreted the statement of the College committee as being relat ed to or influencing our decision in the administration of national forest lands in Logan Canyon. You properly point out that this would be outside the prerogative of the University. However, the basic principles set forth in the University statement establish sound land management objectives; objectives which the Forest Service has sought-in Logan Canyon and elsewhere for many years . We understand the sincerity of your efforts to encourage agreement among the agencies concerned so that the project can move forward . This is our interest. However, the question at issue involves determination and definition of what you have referred to as "a satisfactory design, adequate financing, with minimum damage to the natural resources affected." Use of cost as a measure of needed work is convenient . The basic road construction cost for this highway, without consideration of resource values, is $ 360,000 . The total additional cost for essentially full resource protection without consideration of economic factors is 552 , 000. The State Highway Department has agreed to resource protection work amounting to about $100,000 over and above the basic cost . Our studies indicate that additional work, estimated to cost a further $127,000, is needed to meet "minimum damage" requirements . �This is the situation that has been described as an "impasse . " We hope this is not the case . However , I must fully discharge my responsibility for administration of the national forests in the Intermountain Region . I cannot , in the absence of facts to the contrar.y , agree to a proposal set at a level below that which meets the "minimum II resource protection need . We look forward to further discussions with State Highway Department officials , especially with regard to the total project and the costs involved from the end of the present constraction t o Garden City . Sincerely yours , ~VERS~ Regional Forester cc: Gov. Geo D. Clyde W Jay Garrett , Cache Chamber of Commerce . Pres . Dar.yl Chase , Utah State University Mr. C. Taylor Burton , Director , Utah State Dept . of Highways Mr. Harold S. Crane, Director , Utah State Dept . of Fish and Game Mr. Grant E. Meyer , Division Engineer, Bureau of Public Roads � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1743">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1743</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Checksum 199481223 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1132328 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Floyd Iverson to J. Whitney Floyd, December 4, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Floyd Iverson to J. Whitney Floyd, December 4, 1961 in response to the related decisions for Logan Canyon Highway construction project. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Iverson, Floyd Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 41.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/48c2d3ff0b4bc974e359d0c041d99fe6.pdf f2be8d23559be5f5901d72a334c16183 PDF Text Text UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE INTERMOUNTAIN REGION ADDR E SS REPLY TO REGIONAL FORESTER FOREST SERVICE BUILDIN G AND REFER TO OGDEN, UTAH November 28, 1961 Whitney Floyd, Dean College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management Utah State University Logan, Utah J 0 Dear Whit: Because of your interest in the protection of the multiple resources of the national forests, we are enclosing a position statement and clipsheet of news items and editorial comment that we believe will be of interest to you. The Logan Canyon Highway construction project in Utah raises an important and basic issue that involves these resources on the Cache National Forest. Logan Canyon is known throughout America as a major scenic attraction. The beauty of Logan River and the fine trout fishing and recreation it provides have similar renown. The Forest Service recognizes the significant contribution to resource protection that the highway engineers have made through modification of the original design for this project . However, after very careful study by qualified individuals representing a number of different profeSSions, we have determined that additional changes are needed to meet minimum requirements for protection of scenic and fisheries valueso The decision has therefore been made to insist that these modifications be incorporated in the highway design as a condition for the issuance of a permit for highway construction through these national forest lands. Our purpose in furnishing this information to you is to insure full recognition of the basic issues at stake in this case. Among public land managers and conservationists throughout the country there is growing awareness of the adverse resource and scenic impacts of highway construction. Especially is this the case when the approach has typically reflected a philosophy of single rather than multiple use. The basic conflict is brought to focus in Logan Canyon. �Whether the threat be from road construction, as in this case, excessive livestock use, big game numbers beyond the capacity of the range to support, or fire, the end result is the same. Deterioration of the vegetation, loss of soil and destruction of mountain streams is too great a price to pay. Under a sound multiple-use approach the resources of Logan Canyon can be protected. The Logan Canyon Highway should be improved to meet present day traffic requirements on this section of the Federal aid primary system in Utah. (Fbr this project the proportionate cost share is 18% Federal and 22% State funds.) Improvement, however, cannot be allowed to result in resource impacts that can reasonably be avoided. An informed public, alert to the need for protection of the basic resources of public lands, will not allow this to happen - - - in Logan Canyon, or elsewhere in America. Sincerely yours, E. M. BACON Assistant Regional Fbrester Division of Information and Education -2- � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1738">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1738</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Checksum 213426992 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1198108 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from Bill Bacon to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Bill Bacon to J. Whitney Floyd, November 28, 1961 about the Logan Canyon Highway. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bacon, E. M. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 42.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/b5b861e3dc1f189c8a8a1cd8b2fb7ddc.pdf c31671bdc641b28e08834119d5ba70d5 PDF Text Text June 21 , 1961 . Dr. O. Preston Robertson, General o Beret News , l3 Richards ~ tre8t , Salt Lake City , Utah. anagar, Dear Dr . Robertson: e certainly want to thank the 'Oasaret ' ews' for the attention that has been focused on the road bu1lding activities in logan Canyon through Hack Miller's column . Those of us here at the College recognize the need for road improvement but we are alst) keenly aware of the value of our sceniC , recreational and fishery resources and the need to proteot these resources now for the future . Obviously we must have adequate and safe highways, but these must be designed to prevent damage to outdoor resources . This , of course, costs additional money, requires public SUp' } ort, and close cooperation between the various agencies involved . Considerable progress is evident . W~ think the fD eseret News ' has performed a public service by rocusing public attention on this aspect land use . W certainly e appreCiate your interest. 0' Sln. erel y . c J . Whitney rloyd , Dean College of Forest , Range and Wildlife Management . jwt � 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/1725">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1725</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 667538851 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 658782 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to D. Robertson, June 21, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dean J. Whitney Floyd, College of Forest, Range and Wildlife Management, to General Manager D. Robertson, Deseret News, on June 21, 1961 about the road improvement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Robertson, D. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Salt Lake City (Utah) Salt Lake County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 28.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/f60a585dc3427d2fc3c3789394a221a6.pdf 74b4971cea023d20773fdcbd75a26d36 PDF Text Text COOPERATIVE EXTENSION WORK IN AGRICULTURE AND HOME ECONOMICS STATE OF UTAH UTAH STATE U N IVERSITY u. EXTENSION SERVICE AND S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING 1 LOGAN. UTAH • �-his 1 R suIt our in t 1 • v ry J ek • Hft..... ildlife ajs ces • i.ni 11 -ill R vl y Ernest J. itt n.-e hit . loyd 'ltll"l"l'!D � 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/1717">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1717</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 3958087757 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1259136 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 Berryman to Louis Clapper, December 1, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Jack Berryman to Louis Clapper, December 1, 1961 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Berryman, Jack H. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Clapper, Louis S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Washington D.C. Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 13.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/898de099972f9ee73d955e4d6de527a2.pdf dbe6db992c4fe7c0606facd3d7a3e61d PDF Text Text This letter also sent to: Mr. Harold Crane Mr. Taylor Burton Nov mber 1, 1961 Mr . Ployd Iverson, Regional For t r U. S. Poreat S rvic For st Servic Oejd n, ut h D Building r Mr. Iv reon, As you know we have had Colleg eommitt r paring t nt on r d con truetion and r soure u i prompt in part by th diff rene 8 of opinion cone rninq the Log n Canyon construction work. Th t tat mant ia now c pl t and a oopy i ttached. t w t pUblie tion ith illustration. It ill ditorial eh n , but in 88 nc th t t the same. It i8 bing ubmitted in this ill b in your h nd a8 800n a po b a. Sine rely your , / I J. Whitn y loyd, D Coll 9 of Foreat, Rang , and Wildlif Man8g nt JWF: p Attachm nt / � 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/1711">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1711</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 2964981624 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 574080 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Floyd Iverson, November 1, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd , College of Forest, Range, and Wildlife Management, to Floyd Iverson, Regional Forester, on November 1, 1961. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Iverson, Floyd Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Traffic engineering Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 20.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/8c0ebe37df4732e368e3a25440c11724.pdf 6244c0fe68325ef0f9e05fc4b8b6fe4c PDF Text Text , , J • I j � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1706">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/1706</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 3212261745 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 674195 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Floyd Iverson, November 14, 1961 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from J. Whitney Floyd to Floyd Iverson, Regional Forester, on November 14, 1961 about Logan Canyon Road and road improvements. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Floyd, J. Whitney Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Iverson, Floyd Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 14.7.17 Box 8, College of Natural Resources, Dean's Files Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context 14717Bx8Fd20_Item 14.pdf https://highway89.org/files/original/acd4efc67b4d20e8f12a1af12ebfea80.jpg 3a6c7832739e6831dabd46f8d2b77f7e 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/234">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/LoganCanyon/id/234</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 The Cascade, Logan Canyon, Utah, ca. 1935 Description An account of the resource The Cascade, Logan Canyon. Color postcard, ca. 1935. (3.5 x 5.5 in) Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Waterfalls--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Black and white photographs Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1930-1939 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Postcard collection, 1895-1990, P0031 UT:046 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. Inventory for the Postcard collection, 1895-1990 can be found at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv12420">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv12420</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890 Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Postcard collection, 1895-1990, P0031 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 P0031UT046 Date Created Date of creation of the resource. ca. 1935 Date Modified Date on which the resource was changed. 1905-04-18 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 https://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; https://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; https://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; https://highway89.org/files/original/3d6ff3d966f70a9c28eb6a7ce384ba69.pdf 000bb71612f5c5ec22029533e7d37362 PDF Text Text ~- .. - EDUCATION CAMPAIGN Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon, Cache Anglers, Logan Canyon Coalition, Bridgerland Audubon Society, Willow Creek Ecology Land Management in Logan Canyon W e, in Cache Valley, are extremely for tunate to have Logan Canyon and surrounding public lands in our backyard. While there are some private and state lands in the Canyon, most is federal land . It is owned by yo u, the citizen. As an owner, yo u have the responsibility to be aware of past, present and proposed activities that can affect the long-term health of this land for future generations. The purpose of this publication is to bring these issues to you and help you become involved. . -- - p J CII .. - Cache Anglers U fCCKOG' ~ ,-, S everal public interest organizations are involved in protecting Logan Canyon. For 30 years Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC), and la ter Logan Canyon Coalition (LCC), have worked to protect the canyon from excessive and costly highway construction. The mission of Bridgerland Audubon Society, a Cache Valley institution, is to conserve, enhance, an d enjoy the na tural environment with special emphasis on birds and their habitats for the benefit and education of humanity and for the biological d iversity of the earth. Willow Creek Ecology is an organization devoted to better management of p ublic lands th rough scientific research, ed ucation and d irect action. Cache Ang lers is an organization dedica ted to the protection and promotion of local fisher ies and their habitats. ~<> BOII/u'vi lle ell IIIrroof • The Logan River is a quality source of life. "Your present localion is designed to you for a refuge, a place of rest; therefore see to it that ye pollute 110t your inheritance, for if you do, you might expect that the judgement of heaven will be poured out upon you." - Brigham Young �.M LOGAN CANYON -D EDUCATION CAMPAIGN Highway Construction Proposed improvements of Highway 89 have been the most visible issue in Logan Canyon for a long time. Although conservation gro ups wanted to protect the canyon from excessive highway construction, they also recognized the need for improvements, such as bridge replacements. Two bridges (Burnt and Lower Twin) have been replaced . The next construction project is the section between Franklin Basin and Tony Grove, including the replacem ent of Upper Twin Bridge. This is a sensitive area since the Logan River is very d ose to the highway. Protection of the river w ill be a crudal concern. Accident statistics for the last three years in this area indicate that 70% of the collisions are animal impacts and the remainder are cars off the road or car swipes with no fatalities, showing that speed is a major factor in canyon accidents. A wider and straighter highway will enc01.lrage drivers to increase speeds, resulting in a more dangerous highway. While highway construction remains a very important issue, it is time to broaden our concern to other issues that impact the canyon and its watershed . What are these issues impacting the natural beauty of Logan Canyon? Wild and Scenic Logan River The Logan River has recently been found eligible by the Forest Service for Wild and Scenic classification. Parts that are eligible are a six mile section from the Idaho stateline to the Beaver Creek confluence and a 20 mile section from the Beaver Creek confluence to Third Dam. A suitability study is next; and following that, an act of Congress to make the designation official. This process will be long and likely contentious; particularly in a state with an unsympathetic congressional delegation and many opponents who have and will make fa lse claims and accusations. The Wild and Scenic Act is an excellent way to protect a river in its natural state and its current form of management. It still allow s for private property rights, hunting and fishing, and other activities that will not harm its remarkable qualities. Certain restrictions do apply that must be spelled out ~n a negotiated management plan. Hundreds of communities across the nation have benefited from such designations. The Logan City Council has been asked to support the Wild and Scenic designation, and we hope they will recognize what an ...... OW' river is to our community. - - LOGAN RIVER ---- WIW&SCENIC .... ,-- ~- , t The Federal-State Land Swap In January, 1999 the long-debated land swap between the State of Utah and the federal government became official. The State of Utah became the owner of apprOximatel y 3(XX) acres near Beaver Mountain and became the landlord for the Beaver Mountain Ski Resort. Since the mission for the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) is to provide income to the public school system, they could sell the land to the highest bidder. Their mandate is to manage lands for thei r "highest and best use." This swap has raised concerns among a number of groups. Bddgerland Audubon, Logan Canyon Coalition (LCC) and Citizens for the Protection of Logan Ca nyon (CPLC), the Great Western Trail Association, Backcountry Horsemen, Cache Valley High Markers and the owners of Beaver Creek Lodge cooperated to form the Beaver Creek Land Alliance. Their primary interest is preserving the scenic vistas and maintaining public access. Although there are county zoning regulations for private lands, SITLA can override local zoning regulations and develop land according to its agenda. ........ 5<_.-. Could tile land around Beaver MO llrlta;n be developed Wit/I cOlldomi"iums a1ld mufti-millio1l dollar IIomes ? YE S! Motorized Recreation In recent years the dramatic rise and ind iscriminate use of motori zed recreation, ind uding ATV's and snowmobiles, has resulted in tremendous impacts. Wildlife and Forest Serv ice enforcement personnel are overwhelmed with countless incidents of new "ghost" roads being forged, vand alized gates, hillsides being denuded, stream banks destroyed, and illegal travel in wilderness areas. Often it is a small per.:entage of users who are the violators. But as the total number of off-road vehicles increases, more impacts are guaranteed and the threa t to w ildlife increases. While such vehicles are valid and legal forms of recreation, there will come a time when the Forest Service w ill need to restrict their access. �LOGAN CANYON'" EDUCATION CAMPAIGN -0Erosion due to lack of vegetative cover from grazing i1l tile North Rich Callie Allotment. Impacts i1lclllde ground cover reduced to 23%, 1055 of soilllll tri~ ell ts vital to plan t Viability, and tile tra mpli1lg of springs arid small stream chari nels to the pairlt where they no longer exist. These problems are serial/sly compoll rlded by tile irrespollsible lise of ORV's over these lands. - - Livestock Grazin g Seventy-two thousand acres of Logan Canyon are divided into 25 allobnents for grazing sheep and cattle. Some areas are being overgrazed and stream banks in riparian areas are being trampled, resulting in increased sediment, loss of aquatic life, and the loss of stream side tree/shrub canopies. This results in warmer water temperatures and loss of fish habitat. Watershed d egradation by livestock has been documented on forest lands in Spawn Creek in the Temple Fork drainage. During the summer of 1997, Spawn Creek had four times the allow~ able count of fecal coliform, at precisely the same time as These bacteria are indi~ ~_ _ cators of disease.causing organisms for-such diseases Allotments near tospirosis. Another example is the Little Bear Sheep and summit. Impacts include ground cover reduced to 23%, loss of soil nutrients vital to plant v i a ~ biIi ty, and the tramp ling of springs and small stream channels to the point where they no longer exist. A loss of diverse ground covers results in the decline of wild life such as snowshoe hare and grouse. This fu rther results in a decline of animals that prey on small mammals, such as the goshawk. In fac t, goshawk numbers have decreased so significantly that it has been listed as a sensitive species, wi th several attempts since the ea rl y 90's to list it as endangered. The Forest Service has recen tly undertaken a project to provide a managemen t d irection that maintains or restores fu nctioning forested habitats for this bi rd . National Forests are OUT watersheds, the source of three- fourths of our d rinking water in the West. A growing sector of the public is demand ing a return to pristine mountain streams ra ther than streams and meadows tra mpled into mud and littered with cow manure. Improved care and proper management are imperative for the l ong~ t e rm health of our forests. Not onl y is g raz~ ing degrad ing o ur public lands when improperly managed, but it also heav il y subsidized by the you, the taxpayer. For every $3 in profit made by the permitee, taxpayers contribu te $4 in subsidies; hence, ano ther reason for needed reforms. - Grolllld cover after grazi/lg. Ground COl'tr witllout grazing. Logging The Bear Hodges Ana lysis project includes plans by the Forest Service to log nearly 3.5 million board feet of timber near the summit of Logan Canyon. This tree harvesting project in both the T. W. Daniels Forest (USU) and Wasatch·Cache National Forest, is an attempt to "restore" the spruce-fir forest to an iII-defined "historic" condition through si lviculture tech niques. Si lvicultu re is the practice of growing and cutting timber. Managi ng pine ba rk beetle infestation by logging this stand of old trees is also a component of this project. It is a doubtful practice, one that has fail ed to control beetle infestations on most other forests; and it is often used as a rationalization for timber harvests. It also ignores the larger his~ to ric role that pine ba rk beetles play in the ecosystem. Dead and d ecay~ ing trees provide necessa ry wildlife habitat and nutrients for new forest growth . There is a larger concern that trees in the Bear Hodges area are a remnant old g row th fo rest, one that sho uld be preserved for the sake of biological d iversity. ClearC/lt ill Bear Hodges area tllat liaS /l ot regt!1lerated ill 30 years. �LOGAN CANYON, EDUCATION CAMPAIGN "Destroying the last wild places ... is like tearing the last pages from the Bible." - Robert F. Kennedy - Updating the Forest Management Plan The Forest Service is currently in the process of revising its forest management plan. This will provide direction for forest management for the next 10-20 years. The new plan will focus on ecosystem management, a form of management that considers all the impacts on the long-term sustainability of the forest, and one that could possibly conflict with the current "multiple-use" concept of permitting logging, grazing, mining, and all types of recreational activities. Resolving these issues in a way that reflects more than special interests will require public input throughout the development of a new forest plan. Citizens must be part of this process if they want healthy forest lands for future generations. Input from grassroots organizations must move forward. If you care and want to know more about these issues, send us your name and address on the form below. We will inform you when there are crucial issues where citizen input is essential. Your name will remain confidential. If the Forest Service knows there is broad support in the community, they will be more likely to act in the broad public interests, rather than special interests. Only through citizen action, with the help of experts in OUf community, can we lobby for meaningful change in forest management. YES! I'd like to help support the Logan Canyon Education Campaign "The last word ir/ ignorance is the person who says of an on;mal "what good;s it ?" if the land mechanism as a whole ;s good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not ... who but a fool would discard seemingly lIseless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of inte/- Tour contributions 10 directly to contlnulaa education proJects lor savlne: Lopn Canyon. H~IT 's a In ded,,'tJb~ (Ullnbution Name' __________________ a Add ress ________________ o S<rnl _ _ _ rop i ~ of t hi~ newsle tter to rcdistnbutc City, Stilte, Zip ____________ a ru t ~ on you r ~mo, 1 Itst a r UI me on tt.;, mo iling ItSt for: ligent tinkering." a - Aida Leopold E-mail _______________ Contribution S ____________ Logan Canyon Education Campaign P.O. Bt))o; 6001 North Log.In, Utah 84341-6001 BndgerlMldAudubon a Cad'" Anglers a C'lIlt'llS for the 1 '1'01(,(,lIen of a a Los-m Canyon I",,*,n Canyon C"ahtiOIl AU t.... lIbm·c �r .-----------------------------------------------, ~ CANYON VIEWS Volu.me 2 Citizen fo r the Protection of Logan Canyon December, 1996 VIEWFROM THE CHAIR By LAUREN KEL LER C PLC continues to broaden its scope in our quest to protect the beauty and d iversity o f Logan Canyon. The Winter Recreati on Group. invo lving skiers, snowmobilers and other agencies, will be meeting again after a summer break. The first phase of the road design and construction, specifically the bridges, will be und er way th is spring. Cattle and sheep grazing in the Canyon is being studied. The Scenic Byways are in the final design phase and, of course, we arc always in need of fund s. One of our many concerns regarding to Logan Canyon is the shared ski and snowmobile use of trai ls and back country. For the past year we have been working with the Chamber of Comm erce, the Cache Vall ey Hi gh Markers (a Snowmobi le Club), and the Forest Servi ce. One of the objectives of thi s gro up is to submit a proposal to the Forest Service which would restrict the use of snowmobiles in some areas. The group is also looking for ways to Improve trai l etiquette, safety, parking, public awareness of motori zed restrictions and wilderness boundari es, and interaction between skiers and I n this issu,.e... S HARED USE FOR S KJER S AND SNOWMOBILERS . . . . . . . . . . . . .. BRIDGE CONSTR UCTION BEGINS IN THE S PRING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. VOL UNTEERS ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MEMBER S HIP . ........ . ... • ... . .... 2 2 3 3 snowmobiles. C PLC would al so like· to improve communication between ski ers and the Forest Service, so we are hosting a "meet the Forest Service Ski Day" . On Dec. 26, from 9 am through 12 noon, we wi ll be at the Tony Grove parking lot with hot chocolate. The Forest Service will be there, ready to li sten to any of your ideas and concerns. It is important that we let them know there are a Jot o f sk iers in Cache Valley and that there are a lot of ski ers who use Logan Canyon. Also, along thi s theme, we would like to encourage skiers of all levels to keep a ski log for the winter. We need to know the date, the location, the length of the ski, number o f people, and any comments. For example: Jan . 3 - Temple Fo rk - 4 persons - 3hrs. - enj oyed the qui et. Only one person in the group should record the data. This informati on will greatly help us in determining where people ski and when and how to best make recommendation to the Forest Service abo ut the travel plan . Thi s is very important infomlat ion so at the end of your ski season pl ease send us your log. As we come to the end o f the fi rst year being members of the CAT (Cooperati ve Advisory Team Team advising UDOT on road construction and bridge design) we feel we have chosen the best way to effect changes in the future construction of the Canyon. There were certainly fru strating times, and you may recall reading the article in the paper this last fall about our unhappiness with specifi c changes in the bridges design. However, UDOT continues to make concessions, many as a result of that article. We feel good about the designs for Burnt and Lower Twin bridges. We would have liked to have changed the railing design, but compromises from both sides were needed . As a result of o ur experiences on the CAT Team, we are even more aware of how important it is to have experts on our side. We would like to thank Palri ca Ho uston for her expertise in structural engineering and bridge design. Her "? �2 CANYON VIEWS continued contributions wi ll help us in the many phases ahead. CPLC plans to take an active role in the comi ng year in Rangeland Health and the Forest Management Plan issue. We have felt very good about our relationship with the Forest Service and our input into the Scenic BY'vays Proj ect. I went on many field trips with the Fo rest Service to visit specifi c sites and di scuss proposed action. I felt the Forest Service was open to alternatives and ideas which would upgrade services and decrease any visual impacts the project might have on the beauty of the Canyon. The proj ect will begin this next summer. As yo u can see, C PLC is involved in many different and important efforts to protect Logan Canyon. To stay infonned and involved requires long hours on the part of many individuals. We have been fortunate to have people who are willing to give their time and their expertise to help advance the purpose of OUI organization. Aside from time and know ledge, we need money. We need funds to send out newsletters, pay for legal advice, hold meetings, and so on. We are a tax exempt organi zation and have a 50 1 © (3) status. If you have not renewed your membership, please show your support for the protection of Logan Canyon and do so. Any additional contributi ons would be very much appreciated. Our focu s on Logan Canyon is specific; however, the issues related to the Canyon are very broad. If you have concerns about any aspect of the Canyon please feel free to let us know. SHARED USE FOR SKIERS AND SNOWMOBILERS BY LAUREN KELLER With the shortage of snow in the lower elevations last winter, there was a vyi ng between skiers and snowmobilers for trail head parking and trail use. Because of this situation, along with the potential of opening up trail head parking in the Temple Fork area through the development of the Sceni c Byways project, a Winter Recreat ion group was started. The purpose of the group was to see if skiers and snowmobilers cou ld put together a proposal for the Forest SeTVice to amend the current Travel Plan. Last October we called for a meeting of interested ski ers to vo ice their opinion and concerns about the shared use of Logan Canyon with snowmobil ers. The feeling from the meeting was that skiers would like more areas in which to ski without the no ise and pol lution associated with snowmobiles. Skiers would also li ke the areas that are off limits to snowmobil es to be better patrolled. During the winter, CPLC met with Cache Vall ey High Markers, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Forest SeTVice. Some areas of concern were identified: Solitude for skiers seeking a nonmotorized experience, adequate parking, plowing of parking areas for skiers, e.g. Wood Camp, vo lunteers to patrol and disperse informat ion, signs to indi cate motori zed use restrictions, impacts on wi ld life, and enforcement of the ex isting travel pl an. There are two specifi c things you can do to help us. First, as mentioned eariler, keep a sk i log for thi s winter. We need to know where you were skiing, the date, how many hours and any comments you wou ld li ke to make. Also indi cate what level of skier you are, beginning, intermediate, advanced . Please make sure only one person in your group records the data. Then at the end of your ski season, please send it to us. The other thing that would be very he lpful is if you could attend our ski outing with the Forest Service. We are trying to get skiers of all levels to come and meet the Rangers in our district and tell them about your concerns and ideas regarding winter recreat ion use in Cache Valley. Also j ust come fo r fun and to bum off any excess holiday treats. The more ski ers the Forest Service sees are interested in Logan Canyon the better. Dec 26th, 9 am at Tony Grove parking area. We will be there through 12 noon, so come anytime. �3 CANYON VIEWS BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS IN THE SPRING BY SHA WN SWANER It is our relationship with UDOT personnel that has been the largest factor in our success. UDOT engineers have responded positively to public input and recommendation from the CAT Team. There is still much to be wary concerning to how well the contractor wi ll follow the guidelines set forth in the Record of Decision, by the Forest Service and by the CAT Team, during bridge construction. Cooperati on and compromise is new for both sides of the tabl e. If we can work through thi s process with the end result being sa fe bridges and relatively little di sturbance to a beautiful canyon, then we wi ll be successful. If we are not successful, then we will have other options open to us for the future phases of the road construction project. It is certainly worth giving the process a chance. As March draws closer and the im age of bu lldozers in Logan Canyon grows increasingly vivid , I am left wondering ifCPLC has chosen the right path. Maybe it is not too late to dusl off the monkey-wrench or chain myse lf to a road grader. However, on careful consideration, I think CPLC has chosen the onl y reali stic course of action. By working with UDOT, we have assisted in the development of plans that will result in the least amo unt of environm ental impact and will decrease the severity of the unavoidable impacts associated with road construction . To understand how this has com e about, I must first explain the philosophy behi nd our approach to UDOT, the result of our As always we are looking for people who would work over the last year, and our concerns and like to help either with the newsletter, sk i and predictions for the fut ure. snowmob il e group, our annual meeting and other In Apri l of 1994, I was privileged to meet wi th miscellaneous stuff. If you are interested and have Governor Leavitt and discuss concerns about the even a couple of hours, let us know, 752-0706. Canyon project. The intent of the meeting was to Lauren Keller. present the Governor with a petition opposing the Canyon constnlcti on project. The result of that contact was a meeting with UDOT Admini stration whi ch took place the followin g month. I met with We do not send o ut membership renewal notices a dozen o f UDOT' s senior management and those as we do not have the fund s or the time. So we are directly involved with the Logan Canyon Project. At thi s meeting was laid the groundwork for the co unting on you to renew you membership at thi s expansion of a working agreement between the US time. We have continued to keep the cost as low as Forest Service and UDOT which allowed for citi zen possible so that many people are able to receive the invo lvement in the design process of the Canyon newsletter. In order to cover expenses other than the project. The result of all of this was the creation of newsletter, we count on additional contributions. We the CAT (Cooperating Advisory Team) which would do have a tax exempt status with the IRS. We have input in the design phases of the project. Also appreciate your support. from this meeting I learned three things of value. Membership form First, large scale public involvement can be futil e if $25 _$50 $10 Member leuel Other not properly directed; second, the groundwork was laid for d irect involvement with UDOT through the Name _________________ CAT Team; and third, it was possible to established Address_ _ _ _ _-,--_ _ _=-___ a non-confrontational relationship with key UDOT City, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,State_ _Zip, _ _ __ personnel. Phone_---,..,-,-,,--_ _-,---Yes, 1 would like to uolunteer_ _ _ _ _ __ VOLUNTEERS MEMBERSHIP �Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon P.O. Box 3608 Logan, Ulah 84323 · 3608 Vlrqlnl8 Parter 41S0lJth4lJOEast Logan Ur 8432 1 BULK RATE U.S. POSTAGE PAID Pennit Ng 39 Logan. Utah �• • CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYO~ NEWSLETTER Dear "citizens", Your presence and enthusiasm at Utesday's meeting i s a welcome and encouraging indication that we can have a major impact on the outcome of the zoning change meetings. We have put together some suggestions for i mmedi ate action: PETITIONS Please take them to your neighborhoods and/ or places of work as soon as possible. As you will note, we have decided to encompass opposition to both Stump Hollow zoning chan ge as well as the Right Hand Fork zoning change. Return them by mail ' or hand to either Ann Schimpf Lee Rentz 715 N 3 E Logan 753-0512 or 459 N 1 E Logan 753-5076 or bring them to the October 14 meeting of the Cache Planning and Zoning Commission and deli ver them to Ann. I f you need additi ana1 pet it ion forms or the "Stump Hollow Development?1I summary sheet, please contact Ann or Lee. Eighty-one of you signed up to receive a petition. If each obtains 25 signatures, we will hear 2,026 voices in Cache County. Fifty signatures would add up to 4.052 recommendations! Please do not hesitate to cal l one of us to clear up any confusion about the issues which may arise. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR A letter to the Herald Journal is a powerful message which potentially reaches about 10,000 readers--and the paper will print everyone. Write to them at 75 West 3 North, Logan. If you have been shy to write on previous issues. now is an excellent and critical time to break your s ilence. ATTEND THE CACHE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON OCTOBER 14 The decision on zone change requests for Right Hand Fork will be made at that time. The Stump Hollow decision has been postponed until the November meeting. Watch the legal notices in the newspaper on Sunday, October 10 to find out the place and time of the Right Hand Fork discussion. It will begin sometime between 2pm and 5pm. The Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon will run ads in the newspaper and spots on the radio encouraging everyone to attend. We feel that although the structures under consideration at Right Hand Fork do not present the negative economic and environmental threat that the Stump Hollow plans do, the precedent of a zoning change is the basic key which will allow roadside development. Because of this, attendance at the October meeting is just as important as your presence at the November meeting. Please speak up at ' the meeting. We need the strongest impact possible. WRITE OR CALL YOUR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSIONERS Let your feelings be known directly to them before the meeting. If you know any of them, great, but contact them even if you have never met. Russ Kearl, chairman Oon G. Williams Aaron P. Leishman Ray Hugie 258 South Main Logan, UT 84321 Granville E. Barlow 140 West Center Lewiston, UT 84320 258-2652 10th North 376 East Smithfield, UT 84335 563-5604 E. Jay Christopherson 585 South Main ! .. Providence, UT 84332 752-5453 319 East 1st North Box 242 Wellsville, UT 84339 Logan, UT 84321 245-3323 752-2008 Cyrus M. McKell 1336 East 1700 North North Logan, UT 84321 753-1556 �• • 2 WRITE OR CALL YOUR COUNTY PLANNER R ck Johnson i 179 North Main Logan, UT 84321 752-8327 WRITE OR CALL YOUR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Ma ri on 01 sen Ted Ka rren 8640 South 200 West 1656 East 1140 North Logan, UT 84321 752-7834 Paradise. UT 245-3309 Robert Chambers 331 East 50 North Smithfield, UT 563-6151 POSI TION STATEMENT The position statement committee met on Thursday night to formalize the statement to be presented to the Cache County Pl anning and Zon ing Commission on beha lf of the Citizens to Protect L n Canyon. If you would l ike to read the statement. please oga call An n at 753-0512. ENLIST YOUR FRIENDS More petitions and nStump H ollow Development?!! summary sheets may be obta ined from Ann or Lee. We wi ll be glad to add many more names to the mailing li st. ADVERTISEMENT We particularly need to get the word to the smaller towns in Cache Valley. If you are willing to post IIStump Hollow Deve l opment" sheets in fa r corners and/or travel for petit i on s i gni ng , please ca ll (aga in ) An n or Lee to get more materia l s . NEWSLETTER Another will be sent as soon as there i s news to share. YES, WE NEED CONTRI8UTIONS ! We wou l d apprec i ate any dona ti ons you could gi ve to help our public ity effort (ma iling cos t s . printing cos ts, radio ti me, and Xerox; ng cos t s al l add up! ) ill accept cac h or check L Re ntz, t he chairperson of the Media Committee, w ee donations at: 459 North 1st East Logan, UT 84321 Make checks payabl e to: Lee Rentz (C iti zens for the Protecti on of Logan Ca nyon) STEER ING COMMITTEE Ann Sc himpf 715 North 3rd East Logan, Utah 753-0512 Lee Rentz 459 North 1st East Logan, Utah 753-5076 ,, - Alice Lindahl 48 Mar i ndale Logan, Utah 753-1248 �• A PETITION OPPOSING ZONING CHANGES IN LOGAN CANYON We, as citizens of Cache County. recommend that t he request for a change from zone designation FR-40 (forest recreation) to pun (planned unit devel opment) at Stump Hollow be denied. We further recommend that the land at Right Hand Fork in Logan Canyon remain an FR-40 lone. We feel that these de velopments would i mpose costs on the vast majority of Cache residents which would greatly outweigh the benefits to a few people . A f ev/ of t he issues are: 1. The cos t of county services provided for Stump Ho ll ow \'1Qu l d not be met by its own residents (through ta xes) for 15-20 years, so ta xpayers l'Iou ld have t o bear the burden. 2. Water and sewage problems at Stump Hollow have not been adequately eva luated and they pose a threat to the watershed. 3. A zoning change would set a precedent and open the rest of the canyon to development. 4. Cache County residents would lose a very valuable and much loved recreational land if the canyon is developed for commercial purposes. Fi shermen, snowmobilers, hikers, hunters, cross - country sk iers, picnickers, touri st s, rock hounds, and photographers enjoy l ogan Canyon in its present state . We want to secure these mounta in lands for the futu re . NAME STREET ADDRESS TOWN PHONE �• NAME • STREET ADDRESS TOWN CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTTOIl O LOGAN CANYON F PHONE �• • STUMP HOLLOW DEVELOPMENT ? A private owner plans to erect condominiums. cabins, a restaurant. gas station, and motel on 477 acres in Stump Hol l ow. To do this, he has to get a recommendation for rezoning from FR-40 (forest recreation) to PUD (planned unit development) from the Cache County Pl anning and Zoning Commission. Negative Consequences of the Devel opment • A possible contamination of downstream waters because of soi l inadequate for septic tanks . • Acc'ording to Pau l Woodbury (Utah Di vis i on of Wildlife Resources). this land i s now summer range fo r el k. deer, moose, grouse, and snowshoe hare. There woul d obvious ly be a negat i ve effect upon these and other anima l s on both the private and surround i ng Forest Service lands. • Stump Holl ow now prov i des a year-round m x of hikers, snowmobilers, hunte r s, and i cross - country skiers with recreational opportunities. The development wou l d make Stump Hol l ow undes i rab l e fo r these forms of recreation. • Logan Canyon has remained an excepti ona lly beautiful wild place . The pressures for urbanization threaten the very natural qualities that the developer uses as his strongest sel l ing point. • According to Cache County Planner, Rick Johnson, the county's taxpayers woul d have to subsidize the developme nt for at l east 15-20 years before taxes from the project met the ser vi ces rendered. Right Hand Fork Homes? Anot her pri vate l andowner wants his land rezoned from FR-40 to allow bui l ding several cabins and homes near the highway at Right Hand Fork. Where Will It Stop? A zon i ng change here . another one there ... Pretty soon, the worl d begi ns . l ooking the same whet her you ' re i n Los Angel es, Detroit . or Logan Canyon . Development everywhere . . . merely to make a few bucks . Let ' s not all ow these proposed devel opments t o set a precedent for others. Keep Logan Canyon green! What You Can Do! Sign the pet i tion ! Write a l etter to the ed i tor: The Hera l d Journal 75 West 3rd Nor t h Logan , Utah 84321 Write a letter of protest to the county planner : Rick Johnson Cache County Pl anner 179 North Main Logan, Utah 84321 Attend the critica l publ i c hearings when they come up. for the Protection . of �• • .1 , , >, ". , ~ ,1 f ) �I C'J7Cf.:< 76J..~~r THE 1 LOGAN CANYON BULLETIN CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON JANUARY 1991 The Question of Logan Canyon ... is not as big as acid rain, or ozone depletion, to be sure-but it might be an indicator. It can tell us how sincere we are, and how thorough, in our '90s leaning toward the land. Here is a deep . beautiful and winding canyon. gradually shallowing as it ascends into an open country of high meadows and ridge-top forests. For decades now this canyon has held a fairly mooest two-lane road that winds eastward from Logan with the lay of the land. eventually crests a 78oo-fool summit of the Wasatch Range, and then drops swiftly in switchbacks to Bear Lake. The whole forty miles, in any season, is a treat to the eye, because this is one of the few Wasatch Front river canyons where the road has not become the dominant feature of the landscape. It still looks like respected country . -- Tom Lyon Logan Canyon: Here and Now For the last thirty years there has been a drive to punch a wider, straighter, faster highway through Logan Canyon. In 1961 , five miles of the lower canyon were "improved"; in 1968, six more-up to the Right Hand Fork. But then came the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970, and the road straighteners no longer ha ve a perfectly free hand. Now they have to justify their plans, and di scuss alternatives, and now we too have a say in what happens. Under the requirements of NEPA, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has been researching the environmental impacts of different construction plans. After several years and the expenditure of over three quarters of a million dollars, they've come up with a draft study that doesn't specify a "preferred alternative." Unfortunately, their study, in the view of many, has been marked by slipshod procedures, insufficient data, and lack of consideration for the environment. Now it is up to those of us who care about the beauty and intactness of Logan Canyon to come forward and make a stand. Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon have made their own study of the canyon and have prepared the Conservationists' Alternative, which is incl uded in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). We urge you to give the Conservationists' Alternative your careful examination, to write a letter, and to make a statement at the public meeting on the DEIS. You can make a difference! �The Conservationists' Alternative The goal of this alternative is a highway that fits into Logan Canyon with minimal ecological disturbance and maximum safety, rather than a hi ghway that moves the greatest number of people through the canyon at the highest rale of speed. The Conservationists' Alternative meets this goal , but it is not a do-nothing al ternative. Current roadway width and alignment wou ld be maintained throughout the canyon. with the following exceptions: Bridges and culverts re placed and widened to 28 feet, with all but Lower Twin Bridges kept on the existing alignment. • Turning lanes constructed at Tony Grove Recreation Area and Beaver Mountain Ski Area. • Climbing lanes constructed above Red Banks Campground, below the state sheds, and in the Sinks area, but not at the Dugway. • Increased traffic law enforcement. • Slow vehicle turnouts and multipurpose parking constructed at several locations. • Roadbed raised near Logan Cave and in several other locations to avoid spring fl ooding. WE URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THIS ALTERNATIVE What Can You Do to Help Protect Logan Canyon? Support the Conservationists' Alternative. Write a letter expressing your concerns. Speak out at the public meetiog in Logan. Writing a Letter is as Easy as One, Two, Three First: Introduce yourself. Mention why you are concerned about Logan Canyon and experiences you have had there. Second: Support the Conservationists' Alternative. Also point out problems in the DEIS. You can refer to the above lists for details, or write to us for more infonnation. Third: Put your return address on the lener, sign it, and date it. Send your letter to : James Naegle Utah Dept. of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84 11 9 To get a copy of the DEIS, call: James Naegle (80 I) 965-4 160 Letters must be mailed by February 1, 1991. Letter-writing workshops will be held at A Book Store, 130 North 100 East, Logan 7:00 p.m., on Thursday, Jamlary 3; Monday, January 7; and Thursday, January 10. Despite what some say, the road builders do "count votes." So speak out! �Other Alternatives Considered in the DEIS After careful study, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon concluded that these alternatives would compromise safery, destroy the canyon's un ique e nvironment, or both. These alternatives include: • "Standard Arterial" - The widest. straightest. highest- speed alternative. With wide shoulders and "recovery areas" adjacent to the road. well over twice as much land wou ld be disturbed as at present. Large cuts would scar hillsides. and the road would intrude into the river. • "Mod ified Standa rd " - Identical to the Standard Arterial, except the roadway width would be somewhat less in the narrow and scenic middle section of Logan Canyon. There would be fewer cuts than under the Standard Arterial . • " Composite Alte rn ati ve l1 - A combination of the Standard and Mexlified Alternatives. It is a late addition to the list of alternatives and retain s many severe environ mental impacts, such as a climbing lane at the Dugway. It would also have more adverse effec ts on streams in the upper pan of the canyon. • "S pot Improvement" - Road width would not c hange; however, hillsides would be cut to straighten curves, and climbing and turning lanes would be built in environmentally sensitive areas. • " No Action " - NEPA requires agencies to consider this alternative in a DE IS. There are legitimate construction needs in Logan Canyon. however, so conservationi sts have not supponed this alternative. Shaded area shows one of the highway cuts proposed under several of the alternatives. Unfortunately, these alterna ti ves and the DEIS itselr have some serious flaws, incl udin g: • Disturbance of the river and loss of riparian habitats are not adequately addressed. • Impacts on wildlife, especially fish. nongame species, and the threatened Maguire's Primrose, are weakly treated. • Disposal of rubble. many thousands of cubic yards under some alternatives, is ignored . • Greater accident frequency or severity is possible with increased speeds under some al tern atives; this possibility is not addressed. • Site-specific impacts are addressed vaguely; mitigation is put off until the "design ph ase" which is some unspecified time in the future. • Worst-case traffic projections are used to justify major modifications to the highway . yet Logan Canyon is often only lightly travelled. • The safety record for Logan Canyon is not compared with similar mountain road s; yet safety is a major concern and is the rationale for some construction. • Logan Canyon is nationally renowned fo r its scenery, and has been designated a Scenic Byway, yet th is prominence is not di scussed. Logan Canyon Cannot Speak for Itself But you can speak for Logan Canyon. A public hea ring on Logan Canyon is scheduled for T uesday, J anua ry IS, 1991. at the Mt. Loga n Middle School Auditorium, 875 N. 200 East, Logan . If you pla n to speak, you will need to a rri ve ea rly to sign up ir required. The points that apply to letter writing also apply to your spoken comment. It is likely that thetime allotted to each speaker will be about fiv e minutes. so plea se prepare your comments accordingly. If you can both speak at the hearin g and write a lener. do both. Even ir you do not pla n to spea k, please attend the hea ring to show your sup po rt fo r Logan Canyon. Printed on recycled paper Photos by Scott T. Smith �11 Improvement makes strai ght roads; but the crooked roads, without improvement, are roads or genius." •. William Blake LOGAN CANYON is at risk. LOGAN CANYON needs you . ..... '- ., P.O. 80. 3501 Logan, Ulah 84321 \ �I • LOGAN CANYON NEWSLETTER November 8 , 1976 UPDATE : NO l'IElI \'Ie etil l Citizens for the Protection of Logan. Canyon NE~'IS dol'] 1 t know ...:hen the Plenn inA; Z. CPLC lIoiJ:;ETIilG CPLC held a meeting on I;ov. 4 to discus:; plans tor the future o f our group. ~. - ' C WE PAsS {\ CPIJC V ol. I. No.3 ...,-............-:- ON STUMP HCLLQ\" and Zonin g Com ~lssi o n will be asked to make a dec ie1o~ on th i s im~ortont · 1ssue. Unfortunately , we may not have t hat information un til one week b~rore the P ~ Z meeting it self . night Hand Fork zonin R -- requea t - ~e in the 8a~e cnte~ory. NOV. . The followin g ~ene r al plan s of action ra .;ulte d : _ 1. ' Fini.sh off the petition drive with • Durst- of activity next- week:~nd (Hov, 13), ~' have 2,100 a1gnaturea, ~d-..)uI~bl_. th a t nu~ b cr , In e n effort to re a c h t h j ~ ~o~l , CPLC members will man Ret1tion booths 8 t ma ny 3i t ea around tb,, ' valley . on S l;\t llrd ~y . No·r . 1 3 . U.S . U. will host <l booth from Nev. 10 until 12th. You can help by collecting all thane petiti ons yo u ha ve posted and by pre senting' the i s ~u~ to-you-r---rt~~h-bo-p.hee Ii 1 r youo-l.~.~,,~.it-----I no t already cfo ne s o. t;ven if your sheeta h a'l,,' e only a f#!w n tl !'!l .l!'"SOn t ?!.efft--let t hem be counted I ~ E!..ECTl orr RESULTS The Nov, 2 election t" esu l t~ l",ere h o t.h positive en d ne ltrt tive in t heir pot'ential Petition s will be due in b y Mo nday, Nov. 1 5 . effects on CPLC ~oals . Bo'b Char.fb'J r s .....6%1- , 2. Hold onto petition s ignature s until the actual ? & Z m eetin g and Commission meeting ar e h eld. ,. Have ~ doo r-to-do or s~~atur~ campllip:n wh en we kn ow for nu re the actual date of the relev 3nt P & Z me r. tin~ . Th is, hope tully, wil l ale r t re~~den ts e~ain , 4. Turn jn cu r :; i r;n e d r.o :;it ion ntlltp. ment t o t he t;;Jche COlllmis r. ionl'!t"n on l'lbout November 15. 5. Nin l'! CPLC ~embe r a volunte l'!.p. rl t o serve aD a pe rmanent Itovernin" bo;,,;r d. l'hc y wil~ ensur~ th."t tht'! structure and proll;::-e85 of CPLC wi l l no t be lo s t if we hBve 9 lon~ wait for the " s t ump Holl ow" r:teetinl';. t~ } 4- ye ~r Cnche C o mm i s~ion pos t, vo tes. 7h is is stronp;e a t ~o~d-~he ~ tllte~ le nt against de velopmen 't by 429 h as ma de the of any candida t " in Logan Canyon, .1' . HOy f" heurer won the 2- year poet ae eOMmiasionot-r---+b,v'}. al3 voter.) .-- Ria po~\ ition hn ~.; b~l'!n o n(> of non - c:>mmitt. l on ; Sturn,!) lIol 1ow. It i G d i ff icult to say how ~r. l' i'I~~.Hd--l. e-l\-n. --!m- t·h~1-" ... ue . Our I :rl~ ..' tr.'it cl('ct i ~' n lor'1~ ' \.11\ [ : ; ;" rl' , ~' O:::! , I dcfe"t • . lIe \" ''''0 '-I1 11in,.; to i ntl'o;iU <: f) l e p;islation which would allow p',H'c h ass ot the l.;:r.d. It would ha7.e 'bsen ad.:i6 d . tl'•.a-n, to Cache Natio nal Fore~t. STUJ.IPER- STICXERS FINAL PETITICN DRIVE Plea5e turn in your peti.ttons t o Lee or Ann by Uovembcr 15, Hondar_ H!.~ht now we , ,. \'/e ' ve ordered 400 :TIors . They will be avniVtble a t Mount ai n ~!an on North Main ~ n d at the Harmoniou s Living Cen t e r at . U.S.U. for 501l . �~' G li .;t:~~ ·,.,:.t:.. _t:." _h.:-. - ,,_ t:;.ack c;.~ ~ r:.:: l~~'j'i..,: .. '.', ""' . . ,- .. .. l:--:""",}t. ~ _.:..!~'" ,r.:~'::, ," .)"'·~ !JO )~~ :,,~~ ........... _ _ ,,'r. i:!. ~ . ::. ~ e"(."gv ft,," :..;:. l .. '-' . ::\'. "f" :I\:.2 ',,of t~H: 't::"!:..E- ',ro c:-_ ~t ~~~. ';'-:ll.l~.~ ~ :1~:::t -: ri8'~lt ~c!{""·.< t~@ rl l'l.~ ·· ---~ ·j :"'::: ~-:.:.OH'; : !l! -!ix::.J "2; a n d /~n i nr. met: ti't$' .al-~ B r.Lc1.i,e~ Ian J. n~~ A udubon Sj >;! :- n --------- 5..ut VOl! , w ,,,,,,-~,, C -- ' o" ~~_ l:e!"G · .,c.l. .- .... ~,'~'­ ,.f: :1'~ .. 6"'.F T :-:-illIr.g ". f' '" ' .. 1._1 ~. rl ci& rg~ v':: ~t._ ~["J; , :.t.lrf' t o t~e E~r 9.1tj ~~t (ill::' :.r \': :,:,i t~ you r commissiun: r.5. 50 . 0') ?3.2~ E"c.til ;,(> '!" S'a".k€;r s < _nnct.ve. ·,,-.;n- fr l./::• .::!£): a.n d n~i "·:.'~·'··t._ '~"'c~'r>:; .. . :.":J:i. -' f ;.=-';u~ ..... con.:;:-._.. J. { r r;'i.~.1... -,- 50 . 0:; ': h :. ,~ '+ 1.48 '~'H /J li< Prin ting 35. 54 7:",=-C ., £!J. p ~ }_ it:.s 19. 4D 77. 78 f or your he lp, a ll of :--ou . 'Ne 1.1.0 .. :lU:nbe r abc\;;t 140 menw erlh }ee.~:J! :i.. ('!(;I') t. S. :';!'Vl6J.~ r E: r b.ds . h):'t;L tU2 Nove~b ~ r 77 .50 mnpe.r s t i'!lte rs 3251. 70 EY.PE!;:s~:; CFJ/i 11 :-,5 priIl t e d : 2 2 00 Stump Holle ..... fl y e:~ 6 90 I,e w5L; t te r t.tl N e'lfslettp.~· )00 Dumper #2 St ic ke r ~ :rany fl O.f.terB .:ll"d 2 newspa p er a ds in t he Herula L ou::. W.:: ~an a ntici p ate ('li E"::' $100 . 00 i1io rc if al l t he o lj I!r.d !1~\01 St\.~ m ;-e: 'It:'cb,rs sd l. Tr. i a Ilw ne y wil l ~e UQed .{)t:' r a r o !:l.n C ne ~~ s 'pape:r spo ts ':.0 t,'.l;lrt E e7f: :,y one to t.'1 e df'. t.e of t n e F eo( ~ Dleetin~ ~- ~fJ1£ • ...... - ~ J 15 petiti ~o I')"' iea~]ine. D';::)R TO WOR Lal: r y liye has take !, tn~ pt~c. CJ.(';11 tilt'r .. :.!.' . ;t. i n ~~l! s'l!lle a ~l"! ... \_\ 0-'.:.l':: gcn er. !:.i!lg .:l l.:lrg e: n'.;ttI!n~: or !>i&ni.:.u' !> i:i ", active app r oach ;:'0 peti~!(hlit"Z t·crt.;.......I.': ::l';!sE:::t''Iez a c~o;pliIl:e:l.:: Co Ol;! is .1n e:(<--;;~] ~t.i:: others to £0 110\01 , 575 FE- titj ons 500 YOU , •• , - .- . GOVtRllHi G 30.l\!ID He bb1 (1 ta.nn e r 753-001 3 .Oo \' id "A. . Ad a:n3 A '£ELEPHON E TREE h')'6 Lt"<':r. for:ne€.! !;,) ;:,Hl;: l.il1 b e [Iot::.r LI.::<i U) "i;":>:1...... , ..1·1jtr.ing Urj;t-~.,:: CQ::l<;!s up, C~i.r; m er.lb~ r s Lie Rer.tz !i ~.a N 1 !. l>ct: ~ n, UT [)4 32l MI n Schimpf ·7'.5 N 3 ,. " Alice !,1ndahl :"-!S Ms.rinriale 753-1248 l,vgan, UT 753-1476 La:-ry E. Ny~ 245- 3010 \ol~ndy H. Pal o..... 563-3488 J~r. y ou~s 753-;278 i:tlte Packard ~~i! ~ 753-}806 M Shult z . 752 -5447 J·.' hn .L ;;cn.'..Ilt t• . 752-5447 ·t1.<3.ney l~!.u=d' rS2 - j917 A~r.. Schl.n.pf ·\ li("~ !..lr:.dahl ]':3-03 12: 753- J 2!. S 'Lee Rentz 753-5076 SI U KPER 'JTUMP Il JU.O\l VROG.RESS REPORT ! A no tice a ppeared i n cAe Herald Jerurl"l ul No vember] saying t h e re "Will !H! .a pr(\e;n:~H r cpor t (HI Stump ll ollo',J and Rtght Na.n;d l'-t'ri<:. at tj,e N';'QWIlbe r 11 m ~eti ns o ( t he P & z. -:.omrr..t s ~I'J:l (at 41:00 [I -m .) . hccordin.s t(l RId, Jchn'~o!l . Cou n ty Phl.nne r _ he ;.:Hl h'il p.r-t!£oet,tircg t il l! ~ ol'r E: :Jponden ce he ha s [" ec cis~d f:-co;ll die de.,Felopcrs concern ing tli'ese- lWO propos. ·ts pl~s a l l relevant. ncwspaper S I.'!; app e ar~d., Lee Rent.z w~U meet:ing ,' fee l < �, \ -If Turn In ;:>et ltl ons by Monday. tlover.lber 15 * \;C!Y ;..h : he news med i a fo:", new cleve lcrments .-----, BULK RAT-E J ~' DGERlAtID AUDU60N SOC ! ElY ~ Ov Box 3501 { ~c·~n . IJT 84321 postage I '.:J LOCI·.11 c~ PERK IT # ~lerrl.ll L1 brar7 Learning Resow:<:ea P:rograa utah Stat. Univ. UMC :JO LoG"J! . l1I' 84322 l 1 ! Par d ¥ ; " . �Logan Canyon at Risk The time has come to speak out for the preservation of Logan Canyon and Logan River. Two public seoping hearings concerning the future of U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon will be held locally in early March. The first hearing is set for Mar ch 3 at 7 p.m. in the Mountain Fuel Supply Building in Logan. The second hearing will be held March 4 at 7 p.m. at the City Hall in Garden City, Utah. The hearings are required by federal Jaw as part of the process being undertaken by the Utah Department of Transporation (UDOT) and the Denver-based engineering consuhanls, CR2M Hill. to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS ) th at could recommend a larger and faster highway through Log an Canyon. Developing a list of alternatives for the Logan Canyon highway is integral to the EIS process . The final list of alternatives will not be com· piled until after receiving public comment, which includes the comments given at the scoping hearings. "It's Important that people who love Logan Canyon for its scenic beauty and recreational opportunities attend these meet· ings and speak out, " said Jack Spence, a longtime northern Utah conservationist. "Without lots of comments from concerned citizens, the highway engineers will build without regard to the area's natural environment," Spence said. Study cost over $500,000 The current highway scoping hearings are a pa rt of CH2M Hill's $500,000 study contract with UDOT. The contract reo quires t he engineering firm to develop a transportation plan for Logan Canyon 's highw ay through the year 2010. Previous studies have been undertaken to explore major highway construction in Logan Canyon. The most recent study ended in 1980 after local citizens expressed their concern for the canyon. Another highway study in 1971 met a similar fate . "Local residents should at· tend the hearings to explain Scoping Hearin g Schedule Logan March 3 7 p.m. Mountain Fuel Supply Co. Auditorium, 45 E. 200 North. Garden City March 4 Garden City Hall. 7 p.m. Persons planning to speak at the hearing will be asked to register as they enter the building. Before public comments are taken, UDOT and CH2M Hill will make a brief presentation. Comm ents will be heard before discussion is opened . For persons unable to attend the hearing, written comments will be accepted by April 6, 1987 at : Mr. Clifford Forsgren , Project Manager CH2M Hill/ Salt Lake City OUice P .O. Box 2218 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 phone : (801) 363-{l2QO how they enjoy Logan Canyon as it is today," said Rudy Lukez, chair of the Sierra Club's Cache Group. "We do not want to sacrifice Logan Canyon so that a few people can travel from Logan to Bear Lake a few minutes faster," Lukez said. One of Logan Canyon's most scenic and fragile sections is from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Spring (see map page 3). This See Risk on page 2. Memories travel the can yon By C. L. Rawlin s This much is certain : They were married the 28th of June, 1911, and left Logan for a honeymoon at Bear Lake. He drove the team and ~he probably indulged in raptures over the canyon greenery and imposing limestone walls. She may have slapped, daintly, at a mosquito as they passed into the brief, cool shadow of cottonwoods. My grandfather would have pointed out the smokemarked overhang where teamsters hauling stone for the Temple camped a generation before. The road left the main canyon where it narrowed and climbed the Right Fork to Willow Canyon. Alter descending the Temple Fork , they stopped - as we always did on later trips at Ricks Springs for a brillia ntly cold cupful, which Grandfather would have fetched with self·concious courtliness. Where they camped, I don' t know ; a meadow would be chosen, with grazing for the team and a level sleeping spot within the sound of water. Journeys then , when the desirability of automobiles was still hotly debated, were often reckoned not in miles , but in nights CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON P.O. Box 3580 l oga n. Utah 8432 1 (801l1152-9 102 ,S6H9OfI (e l SCOff T. Sm ittl Winter solitude in Logan Canyon spent out, under the sky. The hill-and-meadowscapes below Beaver Mountain were green then as now , with balsamroot and mule·ear daisies yellowing the slopes. Past the mountain, the road followed - and still follows for those with patience - Beaver Creek In a gradual climb north to the summit. Roads showed the sensitivity to slope and contour that comes when bodies - horse or human - do the work of traveling. Huge cuts and fills were too costly in those sa me terms . Alter frequent halts to rest the horses, they reached the summit : occasion for a picnic and savoring the hard·won view . The descent to St. Charles is steep and my grandfather cam e from a family having much to do with wagons; he checked the brake before laking the grade. The return took them a good. two days. Retelling, my grandmother never complained of the heat, dust, jolts, or slow pace. That there was a road at all seemed sufficient miracle. The canyon , she often said, had never been more beautiful. C.L. Rawlins wr ites, T eaches wr l T iJ and wor ks on field stUdies of acid ln' deposlt1on In The Win d River Ran ge i n Wvom i ng. Bulk Rate- U.S. Postage PAI D Logan, Utah Perm it No. 104 �2 CITIZENS FOR TIlE PROTECT1ON OF LOGAN CANYON _ rEDURARY 1987 CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON On March 3 and 4, you will have the opportunity to present your views on Logan Canyon and its highway . Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon have prepared the following list of recommendations for the study . We urge you to attend the March scoping meeting and support CPLC's position. _ Protection of Logan Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildlife habitat, rare plants, recreation sites and naturalness must be a prime concern. _ An Environmentlllmpad Statement (EIS ) must be prepared for any significant road modification proposals to protect Logan Canyon's natural surroun· dings from haphazard modifications . - Travel speeds between Right Hand Fork and Rick's Spring should remain as currently posted . This area is very scenic and too sensitive to permit any significant roadway modifications. - Bridges which cannot meet structural safety requirements should be replaced when possible. These bridges should be two lanes wide only. Minor alterations to bridge approaches would be acceptable. - Turning lines at Tony Grove Recreation Area and Beaver Mountain Ski Area may be constructed to The Logan Canyon Bulletin is published by Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon - a citizens group of volunteers and non-profit organizations working toward long-term protection of Loga n Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and naturalness . The Jardine Juniper is CPLC's symbol. Located high above Wood Camp recreation area, this ancient and beautiful tree represents Logan Canyon's recreational diversity and unsurpassed scenery. Every few years, the utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) begins a study of Logan Canyon's highway, U.S. 89. The last study in 1979 and 1980 was left uncompleted after highway expansion proponents found strong local opposition to proposed roadway modifications. Since June, 1986, UDOT and Denver-based engineering consultants, CH2M Hill, have been spending over $500,000 to prepare yet another analysis of the roadway. Perhaps one of the Rocky Mountain's most scenic roadways, Logan Canyon's highway provides many people with access to numerous U.S. Forest Service campgrounds and picnic areas, fishing sites , and snowmobiling and skiing trailheads. Throughout the four seasons, a visitor to Logan Canyon can find beauty through these many recreational opportunities or simply by taking the drive from Logan to Bear Lake . The new UDOT study is moving toward the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and this could be the first step toward major alterations in the Canyon . Before an EIS is prepared, public scoping meetings must be held and citizens must be given a chance to present either written or oral testimony on the study areas . facilitate turning traffic . _ Parklng areas should be built near Temple Fork Road and Cottonwood Canyon (near Logan Cave) to improve traffic flow and safety. _ Additional warning signs should be placed along the highway telling motorists about bicycle traffic, pulloffs and pedestrian travel. _ The road should be resurfaced and restriped where required. This will improve through traffic travel and nighttime safety throughout Logan Canyon. _ No cUmbing (passing) lane should be built at the Dugway (between Lower and Upper Twin ~ridges) . A dim bing lane would affeel a very scemc area hy requiring major cut and fill operations with unsighUy retaining walls. _ No rold modifications should alter the Logan River's watercourse since the river is a major recreational resource. Alterations could destroy im· portant streambanks. _ No new roads or major changes to the existing road should be constructed from the Bear Lake Summit to the Bear Lake Overlook. This highway section is in a very popular and scenic recreation area . ation sites, the U.S. Forest Service decided in the 1984 Wasatch·Cache National Forest Continued. from page 1 Plan to "mana~e Logan Canyon section contains important fish as a scenic highway." Forest and wildlife habitat along with plans are approved and implemented only after a lengthy spectacular cliff formations. " Modifications to the highway public review process. - even with simple widening could have disastrous effects on the river's fish population," said Bill Helm, a fisheries and wildlife professor at Utah State University. Logan Canyon provides ac" The Logan River is very unique since it is a Class II cess to many Forest Service waterway," Helm said. "This recreational sites. More than 30 means that trout can easily campgrounds and picnic sites grow to large sizes and exist in are located along the roadway. Most of the road is located large populations. along Forest Service property " But, the river is fragile and could easily be damaged, " in the Wasatch-Cache National Helm said. " You just cannot Forest. "If sections of the canyon are mitigate everything ." widened to permit increased traffic speeds and wider turns, then some of the forest's cam· ping and picniC sites could become less enjoyable," said Bruce Pendery, chair of the In addition to taking traffic Bridgerland Audubon Society's counts and predicting future Conservation Committee. traffic volumes, the current To help promote long-term study includes a scenery in- protection for Logan Canyon's ventory of Logan Canyon. The scenery, fish and wildlife study was completed by the habitat, and recreational opWasatch-Cache National Forest portunities, Citizens for the Service's landscape architect, Protection of Logan Canyon (CPLC) has been reorganized. Clark Ostergard. Ostergard's study shows that CPLC was instrumental in sections of Logan Canyon, stopping major highway particularly from the Right modifications in 1919-1980. "CPLC's purpose is to proBand Fork to Ricks Springs, cannot have si~nificant road vide a common base for aU modifications Without damag- Individuals and organizations ing irreplaceable scenic views . who care about Logan Canyon's Because of Logan Canyon's future ," said Pendery. "CPLC supports a variety of beauty and its popular recre- Risk Recrea ti on Sites Canyon very scen ic small projects for the highway, " Pendery said. "These include several road modifications, such as turning lanes, replacement of unsafe bridges and several new parking areas." Perhaps CPLC's most interesting proposal involves designation of Logan Canyon as a National Scenic Highway . "While National Scenic Highway designation does not guarantee absolute long-term protection of Logan Canyon, it would increase the public's awareness that we have a national treasure in our backyard," Lukez said. DeSignation of U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon as a National Scenic Highway would require action by the U.S. Congress. Cit izens urged to partiCipate The March 3 and 4 hearings will be the best chance for local citizens to inOuence the highway'S design . "And without the voices of those who love the canyon for what it is today," Lukez said, " those who want a larger highway Soon may have their way." If people cannot attend or speak at a hearing, written comments will be accepted unW April 6. Comments should be sent to Mr. Clifford Forsgren, Project Engineer" CH2M Hill/ SaIt Lake City Office, P.O. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101. - Congress should designate Logan Canyon Highway as Utah's first National Scenic Highway. This designation would recognize Logan Canyon as a scenic and recreational jewel similar to other attractions in our National Park System. - Logan River above Third Dam should be considered for National Recreation al River designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This federal designation will protect the river's quality for all future generations. For more information, please write to Citizens fo r the Protection of Logan Canyon, P .O. Box 3580, Logan, utah 84321. Phone 801/152-9102 or 563-6908 (evenings) . Funding for the Logan Canyon Bulletin is provided by numerous individuals in northern Utah. We welcome your support. Contributor's to TM L.ogan Canyon BulleTin InclUde northern Utllh residents Steve Flint, Rudy L.ukez, Bill Hel m, Jllck Spence, Bruce Pendery-, C.L.. Rlwllns, Tom L.yon, Dllne Browning, Dennis Will Ind Seon T. Smlltt (photogrlphy ), Jlne O' Keefe (Irtwork, copyr ig hted ) Ind John ReeVH (clrtography). Traffic data weak By Steve Flint Highway modifications often are justified by using estimates of future traffic patterns based on past traffic trends. However. when Duduating gas prices and changing travel patterns are considered, traffic flow predictions can be an uncertain adventure at best. The Utah Department of Transportation (uDOT) and engineering consultants, CH2M Hill, are using past traffic trends for Logan Canyon predictions. This information does not establish reliable traffic trends for the canyon. Even the consultants are not completely confident about the available traffic data . In a draft technical report, CB2M Hill reports: "Data point scatter and (the) short period of record make(s) it difficult to forecast future (traffic) volumes with any degree of confidence." If traffic data is reviewed on an annual basis, there is no suggestion of an increase in traffic through the canyon. Over the past 13 years, the annual traffic Dow has fluctuated a bit from year to year without any pattern of increase. However, summer traffic during June, July and August shows a different pattern. There is more traffic in the canyon during these months and, for the past few years, traffic has been increasing slightly during these three summer months. Based on past trends of traffic and population change, the most substantial prediction of summer traHic growth is 1.95 percent per year. The presumed need for major highway modifications is driven by this projected increase . During past studies, UDOT has greaUy oVerestimated future traffic predictions. A review of the 1971 and 1979 Logan Canyon highway studies shows that UDOT's official predictions for 1985 traffic rates were 30 to 55 percent above what eventua lly occurred. The current UDOT /CH2M Hill Logan Canyon Study is using an exponential model to predict future traffic patterns. This model soUers from the same mistakes made in previous studies when summer traffic was analyzed . A more realistic model uses linear growth that predicts a smaller increase in summer traffic. This means that acceptable traffic now levels without major highway modifications are possible in the year 2010. Sleye Fllnl Is II member of 1M Brldgerland Audubon SocieTy's Cons.enlllT lon Commllll!@. Hetin beenreviewlngUDOT 's Tralf1cdlllslnceJuIY1 9116. �FEBRUARY 191r7 - Accident data incomplete By Jack Spence Safety is important for everyone who travels on a roadway . For any highway. safety involves two major Issues - accident rates and accident severity. Yet, accurate accident rates in Logan Canyon cannot be determined because both the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) and consultants. CH2M Hill. have refused to complete any comparative studies. This is hard to understand because with its mountainous terrain Utah has many highways comparable to U.S. 89, which runs through Logan Canyon. A comparison of accident rates and severity levels in Logan Canyon with data from Ogden, Little Cottonwood, Provo and Spanish Fork canyons would make sense. ~ITIZENS FOR TIlE PR0TECl10N OF LOCiAN CANYON 3 Logan Canyon Accident Survey T,,"of Accident Speeding a Problem . The collected Utah Highway Patrol information (see box) shows that most accidents are caused by going too fast. And, because of increased speeds, major road improve- ments could increase some ac- cident rates. Safety Studied Twice During the study of accidents in Logan Canyon, two different reviews were completed. First. using data collected by UDOT from 1980 to 1985, engineering consultants CH2M Hill concluded that four of 13 highway sections had accident rates higher than the standard safety guidelines. However, these conclusions were challenged when errors were found in UDOT's rates. When corrected data could not be produced, CH2M Hill decided to use another safety com pari- son method. The second method divided Car runs off ttIe ro.td 56% Driver speeding 46% Car hits an animal Logan Canyon into one-tenth1N Other Improper driving 25" Head·on comslon 12% Driver not looking 23"mile sections. CH2M Hill then Hit car In Intersection .,. Road snow· or la· covered 23'J(, found that 16 of the 374. onRear'end another car ~ Driving under the Influence 10% e-tenth-mile sections had acci2% Driving left of center line ' " 0 ....' dent counts higher than the Driver asleep or III '" highway's average. Vehicle defective 4% Even though 16 sections had Note : The total "cause of accld~ts" is greater than 100 percent higher than average counts, bKause a single acci~nt could have multiple causes. none of these sections were greatly In excess of many of the • Source : Utah Highway Patrol accident reports, 1980· 1985. _ _ _ _,.,jl value. in addition, the average ___________________ remaining 358 sections have a 3) Lower speeds on tight in a serious accident in Logan low number of accidents. corners, especially near ice and Canyon are small at any time. Since there is an absence of animal hazards Safety Alternatives 4) Improved highway sur- valid supporting data , safety Even though road construc- faces and brighter roadway cannot be used to justify major tion is usually considered the striping highway modifications. best way to improve highway 5) Improved road crowns to safety , other alternatives do increase water runoffs from the exist. highway J ac k SpenCt , a wt ll·known constrv.· These include : lion IS! in norlnern Utah, nel ptd organ ll t 1) Better speed enforcement an d ltad CP LC In 1919. Ht has rtll ltwtd Chances Are Small UOOT 's Logan C,!"! von safe lv dal, si nct by the UHP 2) Better advisory signing The chances of being involved Julv, 1986. Fishing threatened By Bill Helm AS it flows through Logan Canyon , the Logan River provides many opportunities for recreation in a natural and scenic setting. A popular four-season activity along Logan River is fishing . The river is one of only a few Class II trout stream s in Utah . Class II trout streams provide good fish habitat. This lets trout grow quickly to a large size. Road construction activities in Logan Canyon already have damaged the river's fish habitats . Channel straightening and elimination of streambank vegetation have decreased the number of trout from 50 to 90 percent in some locations. Class U Defined To be ranked a Class II trout strum in Utah, a waterway must have many slow and quiet resting and hiding areas with adequate plant cover . This lets fish rest while being shielded from potential enemies. Feeding areas must be nearby with moderate flowing water. Class II waterways also require spawning habitats with medium-sized gravel bottoms in an area of moderate river currenL The bottom must be stable with little or no silt. . ",. Changes Could Hurt Trout Major changes to Logan Canyon's highway could damage the Class II fisheries . If the river is straightened , water speeds could increase beyond tolerable levels for trout. Placing fill on a streambank ' or removing streamside vegetation would eliminate resting and hiding cover. Streamside trees, shrubs, and grass provide food for insects. which trout eat, as well as providing hiding cover fo r trout. Streamside vegetation is valuable for many other reasons as well. It slows overland water runoff while trapping silt. This keeps the river clean for increased and healthier trout populations. Streamside vegetation also screens anglers [rom the highway while providing a wilder and more natural outdoor experience . This vegetation allows passing sights and sounds to be muted or even eliminated . While important for fish and fishermen alike, streamside vegetation provides habitat for birds and mammals who live along rivers. It also anchors streambanks. This minimizes bank erosion and stream bed shifting. LOGA N CANYON HIGHWAY m,,,, STUDY Changes Add Up " T. "LitUe" changes throughout the river soon add up to one "big" change. Minor modifications between Logan Canyon's highway and the river could invariably damage the entire Class n trout fishery . l oeAN .'" .' Bill Helm Is a proltsSOt' 01 IiSh t r its a ll(! wil dllft at Ut,h Sla tt Un illersitv. Ht hn <Kl illtly supporttd pr oted ion 01 Loga n Ca nvon a ll(! its r illtr lor ma!"!y vtars . �4 CITIZENS fOR 11-IE PROTEcnON OF l.OO AN CANYON _ FEBURARY 1987 Logan Canyon By Tom Lyon The significance of the Logan Canyon struggle, as I see it, is that it means we are waking up to some implications of the 20th century. Now that is a pretty tall order for a controversy over a highway . But it was nol so long ago (1968, to be precise ) that a six-mile section of the canyon was reamed and dynamited for what is called highway improvements - that was the section from Dewitt Springs to Right Hand Fork with almost no oPPOsition. In 1961, the lower section was similarly manhandled for the same reason, with even less comment. Now we are waking up, and we are taking a stand that has some powerful implications. We are, I think, starting to see Logan Canyon for what it actually is. We are seeing it, in its beauty and naturalness, as a place to be in, not go through. This is a significant change, amounting possibly to the beginning of a whole different orientation. As Americans, we have always been going somewhere else, always looking over the shoulder of what is around us, never quite being where we are. Now we seem to be settling in, some percentage of us , getting ready to live in place. The world is filling up fast, and perhaps finally we are seeing the well-known handwriting on the wall. We ought to - it is all in capital letters. The beauty is that in staying put for a while, we can begin to fee l the inward sense of place, so that for example the way the sun hits the Wellsvilles on winter mornings, of the way the Logan River looks and sounds, charging down the canyon in spring, becomes an unspoken part of consciousness and nol just views. The allegia nce is natural, literally natural. Suddenly it seems perfectly absurd, something out of a different world, to cut and fill Logan Canyon so that tra vellers between Los Angeles and Yellowstone (or between somewhere else and somewhere else, hut always travellers ) can save possibly two minutes of driving time. That different world is where the money and speed are. It is where " what's happening" is happening . It is that world that sends the three-piece suit brigade to Logan, Utah, all the way fro m Seattle or Denver or even New York to testify against wilderness for Mount Naomi, and that has cut and scraped. the hills by Bear Lake and put second homes sticking up everywhere, and that makes each one of us, possibly, wonder at some time if it wouldn't be nice to have a passing lane on the Dugway between Twin Bridges. That is the world of no place, of placeiessness, of AWatershed Tree ca nopies create roadway tunnels along parts of Logan Canyon. always going somewhere and never anywhere, at taking the landscape around you and converting it into something else, perferahly money , with as little delay as possible. (Then you can take the money and go somewhere else.) That world has had its way for a long time. But it runs on unconsciousness, and now not everyone is asleep. Too late for the San Fernando Valley, and too late for the hills of Bear Lake; but maybe we are still in time for Logan Canyon. There is already a road in it, a paved one even, and it is definitely not the Logan Canyon that the mountain man Warren Ferris saw in 1826 - there were grizzly and big horns then. But as they say, you start from where you are, and this is where we are. -:::----:;-_-:-_ _ ....,._ _-:(Tom Lyon is a professor of English at Utah State University. He has been involved (or several years in the movement to protect Logan Canyon.) Logan Canyon Needs Defenders No t striving. unresistilJg. )'ieltlilJg II o .'er t'om es Flowing lo wer tluJII ils tribu taries It ret'eives a ll illlo itself Fulfilling its purpose silnlll)' II makes n o da i", . F r o m L Ull 1'".. VO ICE YOUR SUPPORT FOR LOGAN CANYON'S FUTURE AT THE MARCH PUBLIC HEARINGS : CITIZENS FO R THE MARCH 3, 7 p.m ., MOUNTAIN FUEL AUDITORI UM , LOGAN PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON MAR CH 4, 7 p.m ., CITY HALL, GARDEN CITY P.O. Bo)( 3SBO Logan , UTah 84321 (801 )1752-9102 ,56H908 (e l � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Image Height 4540 Image Width Image Width in pixels 3438 Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/422">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/422</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 300 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 1350707157 Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource CPLC Newletters, 1976-1996 Description An account of the resource CPLC Newletters from 1976-1996 (incomplete) discussing the need for the protection of Logan Canyon and examination of the Conservatives' Alternative. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Wilderness areas Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Newsletters Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 4 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv63458</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource image/jpeg Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS314Bx1Fd4 Highway 89; https://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; https://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; https://highway89.org/files/original/6a59b172664ab1f278f02da13669b77b.pdf 13b506706d24a2e094877e8d35015b73 PDF Text Text US-89 LOGAN CANYON Preferred Alternative �such a design is not compatible with the environmental concerns of the canyon, the committee had to identify where compromises could be made. Briefly! ~ resulted in no change in the present ~way width in the first four miles above Right Rand Pork and numerous other compro mises throughout the remainder of the canYOD. The committee fell tbat if the roadway was improved through the remainder of the canyon, by providing passing lanes, intersection channelization and improved alignment, the existin~ alignme nt in the farst four miles above Ri~t Hand Fo rk (the most environmentally SCILSItive area of the canyon) would be acceptable. US-89 LOGAN CANYON Prererred Alternatiye BACKGROUND: US-89 through Logan Canyon (between Logan and Garden City) has been destgnated as a Scenic Byway and was originally constructed in the 1930's. The ~l nine miles of the canyon (from Logan to Right Hand Fo rk) were widened in the 1960's, and" the remairuns: 28 miles from Right Hand Fork to Garden City have not been improved to meet current standards. The roadway is very narrow, traversing a steep canyon environment. Numerous sbarp curves limit sight distance and oPl?Ortunities 10 pass. The pavement needs major rehabilitation and the bridges and other PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: In general, the Preferred Alternative incorporates ele ments of the Composite Alternative, but adds additional detail andlor refinement. Most of the elements of the Preferred Alternative would require amendme nts to the Forest Plan with respect to visual, wetland and/o r riparian resources o n National Forest Lands. New structures would be protected with parapet walls. Other hazardous locations would be protected with guardrail or other acceptable devices. Present parking turnouts would be improved and new turno uts would be placed in recognition of any eliminated turnouts. Additional turno uts which attain at least two parking stalls with adequate sight distance would also be considered. Exact locations would be determined d uring final design and in conjunction with U SPS recomme ndations. The specific ele ments of the Preferred Alternative are presented below as they pertain to each section of the project. A map (Figure 1) is also rrovided to help identify the location 0 improvements. drainage structures are narrow and have restriClcd capacity. The most recent highway improvement studies in Logan Canyon have been in progress for the past six years. During this time, input has been sought from federal, stale and local agencies, concerned o rganizations and private individuals. Considerable time and funding resources have been spent holding numerous meetings with interested groups and evaluating the needs, desires, and potential impacts. In November 1990, the draft E IS fo r this project was circulated and a public hearing was held in January, 1991. Though some differing opinions still exist, there is general recognitioD that the highway facility Deeds to be improved and that those Improvements should consider tbc sensitive beauty of the canyon and its environment. SELECfION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: A committee representing the FHWA, UDOT, and USPS was formed to develop tbe Preferred Alternative by carefully balanCing the diffe rent and conflicting ~oals. The committee gave careful consideralion 10 the following: • • • • entire length of this section would be a subject of fmal design; and. the location would be evaluated and carefully considered with respect to impacts on the following highway factors: • • • • • Features of this Section lA include: • a. Curve #5 at mp 384 andlor Curve #29 near mp 387 would be flattened if a 3 year accident analysis at the time of construction shows a concentration of curve related accidents (at either location) in excess of the Statewide accident average for arterial roadways. h. Burnt Brid~e ( mp 385.5) would be replaced With a new structure o n the sayte alignment. Structure width would be .ao. ft (approximately 4 fi wider than the '5lf approaching roadway). A detour is req,wred as the present bridge must be entirely removed before a new structure can be constructed. Ve$etation removal and river bank modificallon are required. c. Comments received on tbe draft EIS Service to the traveli~ public En,uonmenlal sensitiVIty of the canyon Practicability of construction Since US·89 is classified as a minor arterial, it would normally warrant a consistent SO mph design thro ughout the canyon. However, since Page 1 Roadway elevation would be raised about 3 fl at Logan Cave (mp 386.2), for a total length of 1000 ft. The grade e levation would allow the roadway to be placed several feet closer to the mountain and somewhat flattcn Curve #22. The river bank would be protected and revegetated as appropriate. d. A parking area would be constructed for Logan Cave visitors at mp 386.3 to accommodate as many vehicles as practical. A foot path to the cave would be constructed by the USPS in consultation with UDOT. e. Cottonwood Creek culvert (mp 386.4) would be replaced on the same alignment. SEcrION lA! This section begins at Right Hand Fork!i!m 383.47) and extends to mp 387.47, a len of 4.0 miles. Present design speed, J?OSt speed and ~ ting roadway width of 26 ft would remaJn unchanged. No features outside the existing roadway would be disturbed, except as noted below. Portions of the section havmg design speeds lower than the present speed limit would be appropriately signed. Placement of concrete curb and gutter, or gutter only, along one or both sides of the roadway in portions of or along the Roadside drainage channels Maintenance operations Protection of roadside hazards Access require me nts R olled curb applications for bicycle safety roadway during freezing conditions of the river or other higb· water events. SEcnON 1B: This section begins at my' 387.47 and extends to the end of the Middle Canyon Section (at mp 391.6), a len2th of 4.13 miles. A 34-fi roadway section woufd be constructed with a design speed of 35 mph. The maximum degree of curve would be 1S'3O', and the clear zone requirement would be 18 ft. Milepost 387.47 marks the be~ of a transition from the 2.6-ft roadway WIdth of Section lA to a 4()..ft roadway width of Section 2. For down·caoyon traffic, Section 1B would prepare drivers leaving the 50 mph design speed of Section 2 for the lower design saeed in Section 1A. Section 1B has been defined as an area which could absorb more roadway widening with less negative effect than Section lA. Features of Section 1B include: a. Curve #33 (mp 387.7) would be flattened by removing rock materiru. and creating a new cut. b. Lower Twin Bridge (mp 387.76) would be replaced on new alignment immediately upstream of the present bridge, c1eaNpanning the river. The new structure would be 38--ft wide; and the present structure would be removed when the new structure is placed in service. c. Curve #37 (mp 388.5) would be flattened by creating a new excavation into the mountain. Design and construction would be similar to Curve #33. d. Upper Twin Bridge (mp 388.76) would be replaced with a JS.ft wide structure on new alignment, immediately downstream of and about 10 ft higher than the existing bridge The present bridge and road way would serve as a detour during construction. e. Ctuves #39 and #40 (mp 388.8) would be flattened. f. At mp 386.6, the roadway elevation would be raised about 3 ft for 500 ft. This sbo uld eliminate occasional fl ooding of the Page 2 f. Tem.l?le Fork Road intersection (mp 389.2) would be improved to provide a �US-89 LOGAN CANYON Preferred Alternative Figure 1 Note.: Due to the small scale of this map. curve and milepost numbers have not been provided. Instead, the map correlates to lext by using the leUer that relates to the specific urea of improvement Cor each section of the eunyon. (The maps In the fin al EIS will show the curve and milepost numbers.) Scale In Miles ,- - o- ,- - 2 \ '--- , @ ( 6\ /!!:. '0, f ~S1~~ ~~3 8EI~O I.J PI( BEGIN PROJECT (RighI Hand Fork) �safer access. Improvements include left and right turn lanes and new river crossing. A parking area would be constructed and accessed from Temple Fork Road in a location current~ used as parkiug. The parkin.s area woul be made as large as possible 10 accordance with USFS recommendations, without e.ncroaching upon the roadway or the nver. g. In the Ricks Springs Area (mp 389.8), the roadway width would be 46 ft , which provides a 12-ft Jeft tum lane for northbound traffic. The Ricks Springs structure would be replaced. Hydraulic and clear zone requirements would be considered, with an ~nment shift toward the river recommend . All parking areas would be tt0vided On the west side of the roadway. aterial would be removed andlor retainin& walls constructed in accordance wi good desifi:i practice to provide the maximum feasl Ie parking area: All ~throvements would be coDS1Stent WI USFS recommendations. a. h. •• J. d. I. At Tony Grove intersection, left and right turn deceleration and storage lane for turns would be provided into Tony Grove Area (mp 393.7). To~ Grove Cr~ek culvert (mp 393.8) wo d be replaced on original alignment. The new crossing would be 4 ft wider than the approach roadway. Bunch Grass Creek Culvert (mp 394.2) would be replaced. •• g. Beaver Creek Structure at Franklin Basin Road ~m£in~.9) would be replaced on origin . ent. Pavement width transitions would affect total structure width, requiring a mWmum width of 58 h. Franklin Basin intersection )mp 397.0) would be improved as in (c above. L Beaver Creek Structure (mp 397.5) would be replaced on same alignment. New structure width is 44 ft. Vertical rock material (at mp 399.11 which lies within 31 ft of the centerline 0 the proposed roadway would be removed. Upbill passing lane from Garden City would end at mp 404.6, about 500 ft on the Cache County side of the Summit. Access to Limber Pine T railhead would be relocated to the StunD1.it (mp 404.75) in oonnection with the existing forest access road. US-89 would be modified to xrovide left and ri~t tum lanes. Wi th transitions are 1Ocluded. u. The drainage box culvert at Amazon Hollow, Stump Hollow and s urroun~ area (mp 399.6) would be rdclaced an widened to accommodate wi er roadway and pavement transitions (or the Beaver Mountain Road intersection. A width of 20 ft from the shoulder line to headwall on each side is required to avoid the need for fcfardrail protection. Total width wou d be at least 64 ft. Allowance would be made for snowmobile crossings to continue to occur at or near present use locations. SECfION 3A, This section is from Bear Lake Summit to Brid~erland Subdivision intersection (mp 404. 5 to 409.4), a length of 4.6 mile!:. Design speed would be 40 mph and roadway width with raassing lane would be 47 ft (three 12-ft traffic anes, One 8-ft shoulder and one 3-ft sbouldil?' This section would have a continuous uph' passing lane. Features of Section 3A include: 243, at mp 399.75) would be realigned and channelized to r0vide lert and rirt deceleration an storage lanes wit appropriate tapers on SR-243 and US-89. replaced on origmal . ent. Structure width would be 44 ft unless tapers for cam~ound widening run Onto bridge, creaUng a need for additional width. A detour for traffic and a temcorary brid3e are necessary. Red Banks ampgroun intersection (mp 394.6) would be improved as in (c) above. A climbing lane would begin at mp 394.9 and end at mp 396.5, a length of 1.6 miles. 1. m. Beaver Mountain Road intcrsection (SR- Red Baub Bri~e (",:~:.5) would be ft. Page 3 k. down" type fencing would be provided in open range area from the cattle guard near mp 391.6 to the Franklin Basin area near mp 397.2 along both sides of the roadway. Fence design would conform to USFS recommendations. c. f. SECTION 2: This section begins at mp 391.6 and extends to the Bear Lake Summit (mp 404.75), a length of 13.15 miles. There would be a 50 mph design speed and a 4O-ft paved roadway Width. except as modified by passing lanes. The 4O-ft roadw:k section would provide for two 12-ft lr IC lanes and two 8-Ct shoulders. The passing lane section would allow for three 12-ft traffic Janes and one 8-ft shou!der.Jdown!till side) and one 3-ft shoulder h~phill Sl e), With a total roadway width of 47 Retaining wall would be constructed between Beaver Creek and roadwd; at mp 398.1, 398.3, 398.6 and 398.9 to re uce impact on the creek. Roadway widening can be obtained by constructing to the retaininJ wall and placing some fLll materi on the east side of the roadway. ~Lay Cwve #45 (rop 390.1) would be flattened and existina &cassing lane from mp 390.1 to 390.7 woul removed. Roadway elevation, in the area of mp 390.2 to 391.1, would be raised about 2 ft to eliminate floodin~ of the roadway , crcated during freezmg conditions of the river or other high-water events. J. A passing lane from mp 391.6 to 3933 would be constructed, 10cludina pavement width tapers, a length of 1.7 mdes. Curve # 43 (mp 389.4) would be flattened (moving the highway down bill). h. Features of Section 2 include: n. Climbi11ane would begin at mp 399.8 and en at mp 403. 0. a. The roadway would be realigned through Curve #69, #70 and #71 (mp 400 to 400.6) to auain 50 mph design speed curves. h. ~ p. Highway widening from mp 400.6 to 402 would be obtained by removing rock material OD the up-canyon (northerly) side of the present roadway. q. ,. s. c. Curve #85 (mp 405.1) would be flattened which would require a new fill section. The existing roadway alignment would be removed and origi.nal contour elevations and vegetation restored. Present alignment would be retained at 405.2) and roadway be constructed on the do . slope. Tree removal is required and impact to aesthetics would be reviewed with the USFS throughout the design and construction process. (m s Curve Il~ wi~ tH woul Access would be provided into Sunrise ~ound }mp 4055) w;!h ,oadwa{. m cations or right and left tum anes. Access into Bear Lake View Area (mp 405.5) would be relocated to Sunrise Campground Road. AP,opriate turn lane and signinJ would Scrovided. View area wo d be re-gra ed (raise elevation), enlarged and re-Iandscaped according to USPS recommendations. Curve #76 (mp 402.2), would be flattened horizontally and vertically, to auain design speecJ. Access [Q UDOT Maintenance Station (rop 402.38) would be improved by providing left and right tum lanes. Curve #80 (mp 404) would be fl attened to attain design speed. d. Page 4 Curve #88 (mp ~ would be flattened to attain design s . A centerline shift of about 200 ft With accompanying �SECfION 3D: This section is fro m Bridjcrland Subdivision to Garden City (mp 409. to 411.75), a length of 2.75 miles. Design speed wouJd be increased to 50 mph, with a maximum roadwa width of 40 ft (47 ft in passing lane areas). oadway widening in this section would consist of approximately equal amount of cut and fill areas. earthwo rk (excavation) would be required. e. f. g. h. (7 Curves #89, #92, #94, and #95 405.9, 406.2, 406.9, and 407.2) woul be flatt ened 10 attain desiFcD speed. The prese nt alignment WOll d be removed and original contours and vegetation restored upon completion. k Features of Section 3B include: Landslide area (mp 407.5) would be stabi lize~ br a ~li~atio n of appropriate geotechmca te ruques. a. b. Begin uphill climbing lane at mp 410.6. d. Curve # 116 (mp 411.2) would be flattened to attain design speed . Accesses at mp 411.2 would be redesigned. e. Curves #101 and #102 ~mp 408.3 and would be flau ene to attain design spec . The present alignment would be removed and original contours and vegetation restored upon completion. Access at mp 410.6 would be rolocated by closing prescot access and providing a new access from anotber public strect, if possible. If tbe access cannot be closed, tben it would be relocated to an improved location, providing the best design possible. A combination with the access at mp 410.7 ma~ be practicable. The access at mp 410. would be considerC":d according to the same criteria as the access at mp 410.6. c. Curve 898 ( mp 407.~ would be flattened to altain design s~e . A centerline shift of about 670 ft WIth accompanyi1. earthwork (excavation) is require . Roadway gradient stee~ns to about 7% in this area as a result 0 the curve realignment. The present alignment would be removed and original contours and vegetation restored upon completion. Curves #109, #110, #111, and :# 112 (mp 400.7, 400.8, 410.0, and 410.1) would be flattened to attain design speed. The intersection with SR-30 at mp 4 11.75 ~d of project) would be redesigned. ft and right-turn lanes, curb, gutter and sidewalk would be provided on US-89 and SR-30 in the VIcinity of this intersection. 408.~ .. Current access to B ri~erl and Subdivision (mp 408.6) would be osed. All subdivision access would be provided as described in (k) below. J. eu""" k. Alignment from Curve # 105 to Curve # 109 (rop 409.4) would be relocated. Also, an intersection for the Btidgerland Subdivision would be constructed wilh additional pavement widening for protected left and right-turn movements. The present alignment would be removed and restored to original contour and vegetation. Intersection improvements to other subdivision access would be considered, based on use rcguirements. roadway widening possibilities, and other factors. # 103, # 104, and #105 (mp 408.8) would be fl auened into a single curve, d e~n din on the alignment shirt of (k) t be ow. rthwork q uantities appear to be minimal. NOTE: The fmal E IS will further address and evaluate the impacts and potential mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative, as well as the No Action Alternative, Standard ArLerial Alternative, Conservationist's Alternative. Pag e 5 �The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Utah Department of Transportation (DDOT) and the US Forest Service (USPS). through their public involvement efforts realize that the public bas a great interest in regard 10 this unique project along US-89 which travels through the beautiful Logan Canyon in close proximity to Logan River. Therefore, this brochure has been developed 10 provide the public a brief, but detailed descnption of the Preferred Alternative that will be presented in final Environmental Impact Statemenl (EIS). Copies of the final EIS will be available for reVIew at the following locations: UDOT District One Headquarters 169 Wall Ave Ogden, Utah (801) 399-5921 UDOT Location & Environmental Studies 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah (801) 9115-4159 FHWA Division Headquarters 2520 South 4700 South, Suite 9-A Salt Lake C;ty, Utah USFS Logan Ranger Station 860 North 1200 East Logan, Utah ~ City Library 90 North 100 East Logan, Utah Garden City Hall 145 West Logan Road Garden City, Utah � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Image Height 2585 Image Width Image Width in pixels 1125 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/172">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/172</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner. Scanning resolution Resolution in DPI 300 Colorspace RGB or Grayscale, for example RGB Checksum 1763927536 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 UDOT pamphlet, "US-89 Logan Canyon Preferred Alternative" Description An account of the resource Pamphlet explaining the preferred alternative in detail for Logan Canyon. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Pamphlets 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 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1960-1969 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon/Logan Canyon Coalition Papers, 1963-1999, COLL MSS 314 Box 1 Folder 13 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 MSS314Bx1Fd13 Highway 89; https://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; https://highway89.org/files/original/dcdf2ec0c0be7aaf4c543c23d4062d42.pdf fedd069da0646cbe5e5093ede8f28b18 PDF Text Text If / �� 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/157">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/157</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 4032967712 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 269162 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 Discussion with Dale Bosworth about Forest Plan and EIS, May 1, 1987 Description An account of the resource Discussion with Dale Bosworth about the consistency of the Forest Plan with the draft environmental impact statement. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Environmental policy Government agencies Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-05-01 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. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 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_18.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/fa769dd6dde8d2c0de96f2adba06989b.pdf 51408f3328f7cdbaa9a51c4227254d9c PDF Text Text I _ _ Engineers Planners l-::f,~IIII" Economists _ Scientists July 25, 1986 B21163.DO Rudy Lukez P.O. Box 3580 Logan, Utah 84321 The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has contracted with CH2M HILL to conduct a study of Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. An important part of this work is a public involvement program to inform interested groups and individuals about the study and to obtain citizen input. Your name has been included on our mailing list to receive information. Enclosed is a copy of our first publication, a study introduction. This is intended to explain what the study will entail, why it is being done, and the schedule. The public involvement plan is also described. Please review this and pass it on to others who may be interested. In the future you will receive similar publications and meeting notices regarding the study. Questions concerning the study are encouraged and should be directed to me or Sheldon Barker at CH2M HILL in Salt Lake City (801) 363-0200 or to Gale Larson at Valley Engineering, Inc. in Logan (801) 753-0153. Thank you for your interest and participation. Sincerely, ~~b Stanton S. Nuffer Project Manager SLC79/d.401 Enclosures CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lane, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 Salt Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East P.o. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 208.345.5310 801 .363.0200 � 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/153">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/153</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 3228110164 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 536285 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 Stan Nuffer to Rudy Lukez, July 25, 1986 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Stan Nuffer to Rudy Lukez, explaining that Lukez's name has been included in the mailing list to receive information on Logan Canyon study with an enclosed introduction to the study (not included with this item). Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-07-25 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 20.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/a12b0012f144e5a72d9e206851045ab4.pdf 672f6fad409f71743ace78bbbc89bbc9 PDF Text Text January 11, 1988 Mr. James Naegle Utah Department of Transportation 4501 So. 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Dear Jim: Thank you for your recent letter concerning my efforts in the Logan Canyon DEIS study. While I appreciate your comments, I find them inconsistent with your actions. After spending the better part of two years attending meetings, reading documents, checking calculations, etc., I consider it an insult not to be provided with a copy of the preliminary DEIS. It cost us (Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Utah Wilderness Association) $20.00 to duplicate the Forest Service copy, which I understand was made available to us only reluctantly and at the insistence of the Forest Service. So much for the good faith of UDOT. I also wish to make some comments on the role of the 10 team in this study. It was agreed early on that all technical memos would be approved by the team. This has not been done. It was my understanding the DEIS would be approved by the team. This is clearly not to be done. Finally, it was also my understanding the 10 team would make recommendations concerning a preferred alternative. Again, this is clearly not to be done. I regard this as a breach of faith by both UDOT and CH2M Hill. The preliminary DEIS has several major problems: I.The Spot Improvement Alternative must be considered as encompassing all 35 spot improvements. It is a violation of NEPA requirements to present a shopping list, with UDOT selecting some number of improvements from the list at a later date. 2.In view of this, there is no environmentally acceptable alternative in the preliminary DElS except No Action. 3.NEPA requirements have not been met with respect to a range of alternatives. The Spot Improvement alternative with all 35 projects at the level described is essentially the same as Alternative C. Unless our alternative (now in the Appendix), or a reasonably similar alternative, is included as a legitimate alternative, we will oppose all alternatives except No Action, or request that the DEIS be rejected as not meeting NEPA requirements. Legal action with respect to this request may also be pursued. I regret the culmination of two years of effort has resulted in this situation. The environmental representatives on the 10. team have repeatedly tried to convince UDOT and CH2M Hill that �their concerns need serious attention. It is clear we have failed, and the present situation must be regarded as adversary. Sincerely, jad;~~1 cL cc:Dale Bosworth Dave Baumgartner Lynn Zollinger Stan Nuffer UWA Rudy Lukez, Sierra Club Steve Flirit, Audubon Society I Jack T. Spence \/ 361 Blvd. Logan, 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. 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/149">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/149</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 4051767304 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 694873 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 Dick Carter to Dale Bosworth, April 24, 1987 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dick Carter to Dale Bosworth about use of the forest plan in the proposed improvements on Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Carter, Dick Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Environmental policy Government agencies Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-04-24 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, 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_19.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/77dd7248dd4fa4f87ab9f7f396ce142e.pdf ef59b7645c14485578e793688379013c PDF Text Text October 14, 1986 - LOGAN CANYON STUDY COMPONENT IDENTIFICATION As a result of the development of the technical memorandums, public input, and the preliminary environmental data gathering phase, a range of possible improvements within Logan Canyon have been identified. These possible improvements (components) are listed below in order of increasing levels of improvement starting with maintaining the State's goal (do nothing) up to widening and improving the existing alignment. In the next phase of the study, these components will be developed and studied and will ultimately form the basis for the development of alternatives. 1. Maintain Status Quo No change to surface width Resurfacing as required Signing and pavement marking improvements 2. Spot Improvements No basic change to surface width Resurfacing as required Bridge and structure replacement (existing locations) Slow vehicle turnouts Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements 3. Widening Along Existing Alignment Widen lanes Widen shoulders and ditches Bridge and structure replacement (existing locations) Slow vehicle turnouts Recreational_ turnouts and parking Raise grade in potential flooding areas Signing and pavement marking improvements 4. Widening and Improving the Existing Alignment Widen lanes Widen shoulders and ditches Improve alignment Bridge and structure replacement (improved alignment for both, Lower Twin and Upper Twin bridges) Passing lanes particularly in areas of sustained steep grades Recreational turnouts and parking Raise grade in potential flooding areas Signing and pavement marking improvements 5. Bear Lake Summit to Garden City New routing north of the existing alignment New routing south of the existing alignment ;, - ~-x.s's.-h·l\~ o\'~1\ rl\eJ\1- ~j,J)1' .....J <-l b SLC-STN/08 1 \ 'V~e\N � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/145">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/145</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 2663750795 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 665382 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 Study component (improvement) identification, October 14, 1986 Description An account of the resource A list of possible improvements to Logan Canyon. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-10-14 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 15.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/078e07287337d2621252a91cb831907f.pdf 9f0780c9f4582a1c49a9cf7d95ee33f0 PDF Text Text MEETING NOTICE ( ~ public meeting regarding the improvement study for U.S. 89 through Logan Canyon will be held Monday Novem- ~ighway ber 3, at 7:30 p.m. in Garden City Hall in Garden City, Utah. The Utah Department of Transportation and its engi- neering consultant for the project, CH2M HILL, will present the data and findings from the first task of this study and the determination of transportation needs for the segment of the highway between Right Fork and Garden City. Preliminary findings of public concerns and environmental issues regarding road improvements in the Canyon and alternative alignments from the Bear Lake Summit to Garden City will also be reported. Questions and comments will be entertained. A fact sheet is being prepared for the public on the project mailing list. This meeting will cover essentially the same areas that were covered in the public meeting held on · September 23 at the Logan City Hall. Contact: Cliff Forsgren CH2M HILL 363-0200 SLC88/06 � 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/144">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/144</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 4101962281 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 497416 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 Meeting notice for November 3 Description An account of the resource Meeting notice for November 3 at City Hall in Garden City Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Forsgren, Clifford Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roads--Design and construction 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 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Garden City (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 19.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/fb41ad30abe11643f41965e8c7d6e86c.pdf 60a80ad5e63041eb896ef0419a73e715 PDF Text Text AGENDA US 89 - LOGAN CANYON PUBLIC MEETING #1 ( Tuesday, September 23, 7:30 P.M. Logan City Hall utah Department of ~ransportation CH2M HILL - Consulting Engineer 1. Welcome - Project Background _ Purpose of Meeting 0 N+eS+(J 2. --Introduction of Participants 3. Presentation of Transportation Needs Data and Findings A. Existing Roadway Conditions B. Safety C. Maintenance D. Traffic Characteristics E. Roadway Capacity F. Conclusions 4. Environmental Concerns - Preliminary Findings 5. Public Questions and Answers 6. Future Tasks and Public Involvement Opportunities � 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/135">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/135</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 3414916046 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 384107 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 Agenda for September 23 public meeting Description An account of the resource Agenda for September 23 public meeting at Logan City Hall Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 18.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/9d0de3d794fd228a2ab6cc2354de0d41.pdf ca8ca012fa908af6ed1da874d1958888 PDF Text Text _ _ l'::¥.~ _ 11/'" Engineers Planners Economists Scientists March 11, 1987 B21163.DO Mayor Newel C. Daines P.O. Box 527 Logan, Utah 84321 Dear Mayor Daines: Subject: Logan Canyon Study We are looking forward to meeting with the Logan Municipal Council on March 19·, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the council chambers to discuss the Logan Canyon Study. The study interdisciplinary team is also invited to attend and participate in the discussion and I am sure many of them will plan to be there. Enclosed are 30 copies of the fact sheet and maps describing the study alternatives that have been developed to date. These are available for your distribution to the council members and also for distribution to the Cache Valley Mayors Association meeting that you will be attending on March 14. As we discussed, the agenda for the meeting will be .as follows: 1. Presentation by CH2M HILL - basically the same as used at the previous scoping meetings. ') Discussion of issues, concerns, and alternatives developed to date. L.. • ~ ..J. Identification of additional study alternatives if any. We thank you for providing this opportunity for the interdisciplinary team to obtain additional input into the study. ~ S~~~A~lY~L// , st:::~f:~ Project Manager cc: Interdisciplinary Team Members SLC-STN/19 CH2M HILL Intermountain Region Boise 700 Clearwater Lane, P.o. Box 8748, Boise, Idaho 83707 Salt Lake City Associated Plaza, Suite 500 349 South 200 East P.o. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 208.345.5310 801 .363.0200 � 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/133">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/133</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 2369883211 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 602898 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 Stan Nuffer to Mayor Newel C. Daines, March 11, 1987 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Stan Nuffer to Mayor Newel C. Daines mentioning the agenda for the upcoming meeting on March 14. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (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 1987-03-11 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 9.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/18a671942273c903cff34bf4901f3f6d.pdf b08d06f3d0f26743c0364751834e77a3 PDF Text Text CHMHlll MEMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROM: Stan Nuffer DATE: May 15, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.FO The twenty-first Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on April 20, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District Office in Ogden, Utah. Enclosed are the minutes for your review, as well as the corrected minutes for the April 21 field trip. The next meeting will be held on Monday, May 18, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of May 4 meeting. Ten minutes. 2. Dis~ussion 3. Review of the noise technical memorandum by John Neil, which was distributed with the previous meeting announcement. Twenty minutes. 4. Review of the existing condition portion of the Terrestrial Resources Technical memorandum that was distributed at the previous meeting. Twenty-five minutes. 5. Wrap-up discussion of traffic projections. minutes. of the existing conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum. Sixty minutes. Five Future meeting schedule: June 8 June 22 - 3:00 p.m., Bugham City - 3:00 p.m., District Office NOTE: Since we have been having difficulty getting through our meeting agendas, it is hoped that we can adhere to the time limits shown. SLC-STAN/d.601 � 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/127">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/127</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 3661776395 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 538217 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer, May 15, 1987 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer to the Interdisciplinary team with the agenda for the next meeting on May 18, 1987. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M Hill Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-05-15 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 13.pdf Highway 89; https://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; https://highway89.org/files/original/8148dc9272f7c5996af098e5011de3fd.pdf 7497dde5fb4fce4dea18e9f0a3bc4ab5 PDF Text Text ~ 77;;lC) November 26, 1979 D. M. LeFevre,P.E. PreconstTIlction Engineer Utah Department of Transportation 128 17th Street, Box 309 Ogden, Utah . 84402 ~~. Dear Mr. LeFevre, tie have reviewed and evaluated your more recent alternative proposals for Section 3 of the Logan Canyon Highway as requested by GarY Lindley. Our evaluation is contained in the attached report. TIle report was prepared by a team and is for your use in preparation of your Environmental Analysis Report. This report describes those c9nstraints whicl1 are necessary to protect the Scenic, Recreation, and Fisheries values which are so important to Logan Canyon and are con':" sidered the minimum necessary to meet the direction provided byotlr 1971 Environmental Analysis .Report. TIle negative effects of the 120 30' degree of curvature alignment are too severe and are considered unacceptable. is described in the attached evaluation. Our recommended alignment If you have any questions or would like to discuss this, we would be happy to meet with you. Sincerely, CHANDLER P. .ST. · JCHf~ CHANDLER P. ST. JOHN Forest Supervisor Enclosure cc: · Logan District With Report Files With Report v NHunsaker:lm �Logan Canyon Highwa y 1/ Evaluation of Section 3 October 15-18~ 1979 Logan Canyon is one of the major scenic routes in the state and this requires an extra effort to maintain and/or enhance the scenic values that now exist in the canyon. Integration with the order of the macro-enviro"nment is very important in the overall location of the high\Va y~ but its effect on the public is by no means immediate or obvious. The public, however, is directly aware of embankments, bridges, planting and a multitude of other design details that the road-user can see from t" e \o:indmv h of the car. The following list will aid in achievement of the goal to provide for a safe travel way and yet protect the macro-environment. 1. "2. The landscape design should be an integral part of the highway design and not an after thought to hide construction scars with cosmetic treatment. The AASHO Policy on Geometric Design states that "a uniform slope through a cut or fill section often results in a formalar stilted appearance. This can be softened by flattening the slopes on the ends where cut or fill is light ' ""and gradually steepening it toward the controlling maximum slope on the heavier portion of the cut or fill." Complex variation " of cross-sections suggested it is difficult to "achieve, if one works merely with cross-sections. For any refined sculpturing of the land masses~ plans with horizontal contours have to be used. 3. The relationship between speed and focusing distance, angle of vision and amount of foreground detail is important in the driver's ability to enjoy the scenic values of the canyon. As a general rule tithe slower one travels the more can be seen:" " 4. The existing rock features in the canyon are of utmost importance. Every effort should be taken to avoid such features however, when rock out crops are encountered, they should be blasted in such a way as to appear natural. S. Special structures may be required to satisfy environmental engineering and aesthetic constraints. As the project progresses special designs for bridges, retaining walls and sidehill structures to meet these needs must be developed. The Evaluation Team consisted of: John Nielsen - Forest Engineer Neil Hunsaker - Forest Planner Jim Elsea - Hydrologist Jim Cole - Wildlife Biologist Mark Shruv - Fisheries Biologist Clark Ostergaard - Landscape Architect �2 Th~s evaluation was limited to Section 3 as described above because of insufficient resource data from Station 865 to Ricks Springs to conduct a meaningful evaluatinn. It is not our intent that the project should end at this point station 865, but to indicate that any evaluation and agreement on that segment of the project will be delayed until the follo\ving information is furnished. A. Soils data \"hich indicated erosion hazard, fertility or ability to be revegetated, and mass stability. B. Geologic data from core drilling along the proposed route to determine structure, distance to bedrock, angle of repose, etc. c. A proposed Toad profile. D. A plan view of the estimated location of top of cut slope~ and toe of fill slopes in relation to the proposed centerline. from Right Hand Fork (Sta. 605) to Curve at the Through , Cut above the Dugway at Twin Bridges (Sta. 860). This evaluation was conducted \vithout adquate information about the structural details for the retainer walls, jersey barriers, curb and gutter, culvert energy dissipators, etc. These should be furnished . as soon as possible. To save time we have based our evaluation on an estimation of what they will look like. When the details are received we \vill review them to insure our evaluation is still valid. To conduct an evaluation of this nature it was necessary to establish certain criteria. These are listed below and any deviation from them will require a reevaluation. �3 1. A two lane road with the following cross sectional configuration would be used from Station 610 to Station 835. 51' MA'XAMIUM ,~' MITX. 24' 15' MAX~ 2. A three lane road may be necessary on the up hill grade between the Twin Bridges. This would be accomplished by adding an 11' climbing lane to the above cross sectional configuration~ 3. Removal of vegetation would be limited to the construction area. The construction area limits would be 5 feet above the top of a cut slope and the toe of fill slopes. 4. The principle purpose for retainer walls is to keep road fill out of the riparian vegetation and the stream, and only in rare cases is it necessary to keep the river away from the road fill. The construction techniques which have the minimum impact on riparian vegetation ,nIl be used. If no other comments are made concerning curb and gutter and retainer walls, they should be considered acceptable. . I �4 5. The Special and Functional Considera tion and Recomr.lenda tion contained in the 1971 Environmental An a lysis report are still required. 6. Top ·soil will be stockpiled for respreading over cut and fill slopes and other disturbed areas. This evaluation compared three road alignments which will be referred to as 18°, 14° and 12°30' alignments. These degrees refer to the maximum degree of curvature used in each of the three alignments. 1. The 18° alignment reflects a design speed of 30 m.p~h. and is shown on sheet 5 through 11 of plans F-021-1(4.) at a scale of 1" = 100'. 2. 14° alignment reflects a design speed of 35 m.p.h. · and is sho"tffi as the office revision on the same plans as the 18° alignment. 3. The 12 0 30' alignment reflects a 35 m.p.h. design speed and is sho"tffi on plans F-021-1 (4) at a scale of 111 = 200'. This alignment was also shown on the 1" = lOOt scale plans in red pencil and located on the ground with yellow flagging. Station 605 to 625 - All 3 alignments are the same and are satisfactory. Curve #30 is 12° and #31 is 10°. Special revegetation, slope shaping and landscape measure '''ill be required on the cut bank associated with curve #30 to mitigate visual impacts. Station 625-630 - T\"o curves are preferred. They are Off. Rev. 1132 (14°) and Off. Rev. 1133 (14.°) with coordinate points as shown on the plans. The 12°30' alignment near Station #630 severely encroaches on the stream bank. The two 14° curves keep the road further away from the creek. Station 630-637 - The 18 0 alignment would result in somewhat less visual impact than the 14° rir 12°30'. The difference in effects on the visual resource is not deemed significant and, therefore, the curve data for Off. Rev. #34(14°) is acceptable. The cut bank o~ the inside of this curve will require special revegetation, slope shaping and landscaping measures. �5 Station 637-641 - All 3 alignments are the same and are acceptable. Fisherm parking should be designed and constructed in the wide an spot between the road and the river. Station 641-648 - Curve #35 should be the 12° curve to avoid impacts on the stream ~vhich would be associated wi th the 9° curve. Station 648-656 - This tangent should go to the Off. Rev. #36 coordinate point (N512,321.925;El,016,652.124) at Sta. P.i.654 and use the 14° curve. Fisherman parking should be developed bet,.,een the road and the river a t Station 649. The spring near the hill at Sta. 651 should be protected in its natural condition. The 18° curve is preferred here but the 14° curve is acceptable. The 12°30' curve creates unacceptable impacts on . the visual resource. The ex isting China Row Picnic area east of the ro ad may have to be abandoned because it will be too small for use. Station 656-662 - The impacts of the 12°30' alignment on the . river are too severe. Use a 14° curve with coordinate point N512,803.924, E1,017,206.904. This will help reduce the impact on \~ood Camp. A turn around loop will have to be designed and constructed in . the north end of Wood Camp because of the elimination of part of the Campground road. Station 662-672 - Use .12° curve with coordinate point N513,771.978, E1,017,277,993. reasons are same as Station 656-662. Station 672-680 - Centerline to be as dictated by next curve coordinate point • . Station 680-685 - Use 12° curve at coordinate point N514,000.429,E1, 018,713.259. Station 685-689 - Use 14° curve at coordinate point N514,329.967,E1, 019,035.966. This is necessary to avoid impacts on the visual resource and protect the Rock Feature. Station 689-706 - The reverse curve aiignment should be used to reduce impacts on the river and on the mountain, which would be caused by the other alignments. Using this will necessitate the reevaluation of the amount of retainer wall needed. Curve data for this section is shown in the chart below. Stations 689-692 693-696 696-700 700-706 De~~ 14° 14 o · 9° 3° Curve fl 41 42 43 44 Tan~ent Coordinat e Point N514,389,996,E1,019,422.989 N514,651.927,El,019,714.915 N514,772.032,El,020,083.101 N515,149.968,El,020,500.394 �6 Station 706-716 - Use tangent coordinate points N5l5,532.192,E1,021, 086.164 and a 9° or 10° curve. This will result in the least impact on the river and may require less re tainer 'vall. The impact on the hill at Station 716 with the 12°30' alignment is too severe and will cause visual degradation • . Station 716-724 - The 10° curve with either set of tangent coordinate points is satisfactory. Station 724-730 - The alignment as established by the coordinate points is good . . The hill on the cut side is rock ledge with stable soils Use rock rip rap instead of retainer wall on the river side of the road. tv~ere soil pockets exist in the cut, they should be sloped back and revegetated or retainer wall of log cribbing or rock dry wall construction used. Station 730-737 - Use 5°30' curve with either coordinate point shown on the plans. Station 737-743 Curve data for #48 or Off. Rev. #46 is . acceptable. Station 743-748 The inside slopes of this curve are stable ledgerock and gravel soils. Relocate P.1. points #49 and Off. Rev. #47 or use a flatter curve which will relocate the center 'line approximately 20' west of the 14° or 18° alignment. The reason for this is to protect the riparian habitat. Station 748-757 - The 12°30' curve would cause excessive impact on the river. The P.I. should be relocated 15' to 30' north along the tangent line leading to coordinate point #50 and then use a 14° curve. This change should allow the curve to fallon about the same location- as the 18° curve and reduce the impact on the river. It should also reduce the amount of retaining structure. The retaining structure should be of Rock Rip Rap and not a concrete wall. Retaining wall should be used on the north edge of the road below Logan cave·. The waterfall feature should be designed to enhance the fall rather than hide it. Station 757-775 - Develop parking at Station 761 and provide safe highway crossing to Logan Cave. At Station 768 use the 14° curve at coordinate point If519,422.325,El,024,005.507. Use a through cut. The access to the summer home at Station 773 is to be maintained. Some fisherman parking should be developed on the old road bed. Station 775-780 - Use 50 curve and P.I. point described for Off. Rev. curve 1151. Station 780-785 - Use 14° curve and P.I. coordinate data for Off. Rev. curve #52. �7 Station 785-792 - Use 14° curve and coordinate point for Off. Rev. curve tl53. St.ation 792-800 - Use 14° curve and coordinate point N521,589.423, El,025,811.651. The abandoned road should be developed as fisherman parking and as a waste disposal area with the appropriate Landscape Design and treatment. The 12°30' alignment is a much greater impact on the visual resource. Station 800-807 - Use 14° curve and P.I. coordinate point N522,483, 530, El,025,765.054. Remove the old concrete which is presently being used for Rip Rap. A retainer wall will be needed on this curve. It should be placed at the existing water's edge. Station 807-815 Use curve and coordinate point from Off. Rev. #56. Station 815-825 - Use Off. Rev. li57 ,.,hich is a 9° curve and coordinate point N523,184.736,E1,027,495.885. The old road between the creek and the road is to be passable to vehicles ,.,hen construction is complete. Use retainer walls as appropriate to ~ccomplish. Station 825-835 - Use 14° curve and P.I. at coordinate point N522,946, 908,El,028,185.936. The 12°30' alignment causes a severe impact on the cut side. Station 838-847 - Avoid cutting into the hillside along this section. The hillsides are unstable and seepages can be expected in the cut area. The existing cut slopes are to be stabilized using . rock, drywall-type construction, log cribbing or half bridge may be acceptable on the fill sides. Fill slopes shall not be allowed to reach the stream. Station 847-855 - The proposed center line should be held near the outside edge of the existing paving to avoid cutting into the hillside ·which has the potential to unravel long distance up the slope. The same type of stabilization on the fill slope as above. Station 855-865 - This curve should be a 14° curve using the P.I. at N525,362.518, El,027,858.246. The outside of the curve betl"een Station 860 and 865 can be used as waste disposal. The limits of the area used will be established on site. Station 865 to Rick's Spring will be evaluated ·,.,hen the additional data is furnished. �- I . 8 Plans Required The following plans will be required before construction begins. A Water Quality Management Plan will be developed by U DOT for approval by the Forest Service. This plan will include; a) ~!oni toring standards, frequency, intensi ty and qual ifications of monitoring personnel. b) ~Ieasures to be used during construction to maintain the existing water quality standard. c) Turbidity and other standards which will be met during con- . struction. ~lacroinvertebeate analysis should be utilized before, during and after construction . . . 2. An Erosion Control, Revegetation, Landscaping plan will be prepared by the state and approved by the Forest Service prior to contruction. This ' plan will include plant species, location, quantity and quality. It will specify erosion control techniques such as cribbing, jute netting, etc. by location. It will discuss the handling of slope blending, rock features, etc. The following is offered as an aid and guide in developing a landscape plan. Before construction begins the shaping and revegetation of disposal or waste sites must be designed and planned to assure a natural appearance occurs in these areas. Several waste disposal sit e s were evaluated. They are: 1. 2. Flat on outside curve above Ricks Spring. 4. . Wood Camp HollO\v (See November 18, 1976 Analysis by Clark Ostergaard, attached). 3. . Gus Lind Flat. On hill below lower Twin Bridges (north of road). impacts are severe at this site . s. Across from Preston Valley Picnic Area upstream from the waste area used in construction of the io\ver portions of the road. It is in full view of Highway . 6. Twin Creek Corrals, which is 3 miles up canyon from Ricks Spring. The disposal could be completely screened from the Highway and a road exists. Visual The T\vin Creek Corrals site appears to be the most favorable site at this time and U DOT should consider the economics of using this site. An Environmental Analysis will be the basis for selectirig the site to be used .. ~ ___ t- ._" ~ > +_ .~~"~ �·' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURAL .. Environmental Analysis Report for 0-7 Old juniper Trailhead , Da te _-LlA~lo~\,,--r~[BIo·., .L...:.-:~/-=-q~..:........:6=-_ _ · .r' 1. _ _ _ __ �The proposed ne\"1 trailhead for Old Juniper should have a capacity large enough to serve the high country around Mt. Elmer. An estimated 20 vehicles should be able to park at the trailhead. Because of the size needed for such a :facility, only four possible sites exist within the Wood Camp ~ollow area. These possible sites are shown on the attached map . The new trailhead should also provide for resource protection by controlling ORV use that presently exists in the drainage. I • The following is an evaluation of ·each of the four possible sites: 1• This site is located at the mouth of Wood Camp Hollov/ and is presently being used as a trailhead. If this site is the final location, additional parking space will be needed. Additional space could be gained by one of two possible ways. a. Fill the are~ south of the existing lot next to the stream. This could be accompl ished by using the site as a waste . area for the highway department when they are working on the Logan Canyon High\vay. The main advantage to this \'JQuld be little cost to the Forest Service and no cutting of the hillside at the site would be required. The main disadvantage would be the covering of a small grassy area next to the stream. b. Th~ area west of the existing lot could be leveled by cutting the hillside, making the lot .10nger. The main advantage to ihis would be total control of the activity. It could be done force account or by contract . . The main disadvantage would be exposure ~f raw cut banks that would . be a problem to revegetate. Other advantages of site #1 is the closeness to Logan Canyon Highway requiring only a short distance of road. It would also be a good location to control (barrier) ORVis. 2. This site is located on a flat where ~ right-hand fork intersects Wood Camp Hollow. The greatest advantage to development of this site is its size and level topography, thus requiring only a small amount of grading. The main disadvantages of the site are: a. b. 3. The site is open making control of ORV's more costly and difficult. One-half mile would have to be rebuilt to get to the site. This site is located at the point where the old eiisting road fords the stream. The main advantage to the site is that it is closer to Old Juniper and the high country. The disadvantages are the mile of new road needed to get to the site ~nd the lack of natural I. t' I �topography large enough for the needed parking lot) thus requiring large cuts and fills. Control of ORVIs would be a ~roblem along the access road to this site"because of the distance and ~rcas of open country. 4. This site is located at the beginning of the Old Juniper Trail and at the end of the old existing road. This location is the closest possible site to Old Juniper. The problem with the site is the 10%+ slope ·and lack of space to put in a suitable parking lot without having · to do a great deal of site disturbance. Distance again from Logan Canyon (about 2 miles) is a disadvantage as well as ORV control along the access. It is recommended that site #1 be developed filljn~ the area south of the existing parking lot for the needed .expansion. I· . ��, rEconstr~ctLon The tix~ to ppbl~C" period should be li~ ~ted to a ~ini~u D of contract construction safety hazar~s and inconvenLence to the and to fac:j. lita°l:e proJIpt stabiliza tJ.on 02 c.ut and fill Elopes. ~iniDize T~1e!:'e ,... ill be a ne2G to 0.cvelo·p a wori:" road to the pr:::>;;>oseeJ ~..:aste area Ei te. ThE lo~ation and llaintEnancE 'Would l'Eql! .,..re that adc:quat2 can·stcJeratlO:l bE given to sa::;.l stability and aesthetIc valuEs. l"irE Logan Cflnyon is a potent tally dangerous fi.re hazard area because of the dense fol!.age on the valley floor ane the 80rl1pt slope on each side of thE canyon. Road conE!-crr'. ction process ~ol J.ll generate additional risl:: iran EquJ.p~!l~nt operations} slash burning, cJogarettE sJlol{ers, 'tolarlling fires} blasting) etc. This will require the contractor ta develop and prectice an intensive f1re prevent10n and presuppression progran Yith h.i.S people. Fire resis-cailt plant species to Eta~)ilize CL~t and fill slOPeS '\-nll rEduce the lire danger in thE canyon subsequent to constru~tion _ The use of a chipper to d5.spose o.f leaves ano. branches and stockpiling o tTEE trunks fo:r callpgrounc1 use ,",auld rec~uce fire risk cons idErably > and at the sa~e ti~e avoid air pollutian fro~ burn~ng green slash. If there should be. any burning operations> they should b~ coordinated with fire danger' and poll!. tion indexes to Jlini~ize pollL!t Lon hazards. ; BurnIng operations must also confor~ to th2 a~praved project f~re prevent :.on and presup-press:!..oll plan . Special and Functional Considerations 1. The stcpp5.ng slope !I1ethoc1 or soJ}e sl:nila:i.~ :nethod of constrl~. ction TJay be best suited to sta;)ilizing SO:lle of the longer cuts sllch as will be :nade In Stations 6r-(8) 689> 681, Dne 703 .. 2. StreaTlqank vEgetation aiay be preserved b::- leaving It intact rather · than clearIng and then carefully placing riprap to avoid destruction of trees and brush or by using gabions between a strip of vegetation on the river edge and un0er the outs ide edge of the high-Hay. 0 3. Keep silt da=nage to a 31inLnu:n pursuant to the worl~ of construct:Lon 01: br iQge footings anc1 support1ng Etruci.:ures. · The river diverslon oall should be !I1ade by plac.tng coarse clEan rock :i.nto the strea:n initially and bac~::ing "\-lith .finer l1C!tc:!" ::.als to develop the degree or tightness needed. When the divers10~ da=n is r€~ovedl the finer llate:;~ials . hould be re'l1ovec1 first follo:..Jec. by re.lloval of' coarse s rock and restoration of nor~al rl..ver channel and strea31 1'101;01. llat~r heavily ladened with ~ud, silt, or CEll-2ilt sho~~lc1 not be pn.nped £"1'011 the "Worl.· arEa dil· ectl~r into the r:.i. ver bl~t shoL!ld be settled or filtered out first. ~. A Forest Offl.cer should be assigneD to the hlghway c~llstr~ction project to insure resource protect~o a21 ane that p:-coper lntErp:-o e"tatl.on and coor{"iination j. E obtained thrC>l!gho~.~t th2 ent5re construction pEriod. �5. . " The FOl'cst Offlcer in charge ,\-1111 be notj.f ieQ at least a day in advance of CQnstrL~ct.LOn equip:nent that ts te> be pL1t te> river preparing for bridge f03tin3s) etc. "/or1~ t!1 thE 6. Rf'spons5.btlit:,· !IE~st oe ~~ixeG betuE2n the For-est S::-rVl.CE and the · Utah Sta'~e H'.gh'<lay Th.: 9artxent for the c0nt .i.nL~ed ~naintenanC:E anC! cleanL!p of road sEctions left tntact far access or rEcreatLon fishEl~:nen and phatogra~)hEi' parki.ng. 7 Blast~~ng procedures that slip rocl~ uo\Vn :I1L1st De used to avoi.d offsite destr~~ction. This Hould prevent rocl~ and dEbris fron falling into the riVEr, c1ana.ge to trees and vegetatj.o~, and avoi.d long periods of traff':o.c tie··up. 8. Hauling o.r waste J1.ater}.als over the Hood Ca:np Bridge :nust conf'oI':l1 to load lillits -prescri.bec by the Fcn-est Officer in charge. > Pione~r:i.ng ai' the road r::'ght-of-way clearing should begin at the lower slope stal:e elEvations ",here :)()ss:i.ble or partl.cularly in the vlc:lnity of road S'tations bT8> 63-·; ; 6~·:1, anel 703. This 'E.ll g~ve the pre>ject engineer and Forest OffiC:Er in charge an oP?artL!nity to deter~ine whether subsl.!Tface leager~c~ will be encountered 'Wh~ch 'Hill :oake it possible to avoid longEr and higher ~l()pe ct~ts and vegetati()n re~oval. . . ~ 10. Special Use PErllits will be isstled foJ.~ (;onstl'uction ivities outslde the road right-of··'-lay . TelC!t~·c~ act-- . 11. 12. B. Steep and high slope (:uts can b~ rEc1L:C:ECl by constructing "lith curu and gutter sections instead of us~tig reZl.!lar d1tch widths. The State Hightolay Depart:nent will rei]l~.)t,:rse the Forest Service for cost of relocation and develop~ent of tW3 recreation units lost by high~.,ay construct :'.on tn. the China RO'·l picnj.c site ~ Unavoidable Adverse Environ~ental Effects It is reasonable to antici:2ate a cUJ1ulatively · s:;_gnLfican't i:npact on the envj.ron~ent of llent project. L~gan Canyon as a re~ult of thE proposed highT" ay illproV'e- The ~ost significant 10ng~t€rll effect of the pro~ie(:t ',1 ill be an i:npair·· :CEnt of natl~ral beauty resulting rroll the l 'oad (;U-CS on thE l10unta inside. The encroach~ent onto the river will be less significant, and w~ll consist of l;.!nited strea.:nside vegetatIon re:11oval and the 5.nstallation 0:::- br5.dge colu:nns. t:.~:: ":"I·'':!·'!':: \~i4'.L, t:!~.J;~!;·-::: . P:)tential illpacts have Deen significantly rEc1uced by a decade o:~' l.i1terc1isciplinar~! envil'on~(}ental stud:t.es anc~ planning. There have also been .11any reVie\lS that haVe resulted :In changes and re·fine~ents of the road design. �Reco~tr,endations . r o" 1. Approve tte project subject to the functional considerations and the folloyl ine rc:co~n:nendations . . 2. . Control adverse disturbance to ",lateY quality) soil, vegetat ion and aesthetic values. 3. Control runoff on cut and fill slopes and erosion and silting of Logan River. 4. Take Pl'OTpt action to stabilize soil and restore ground cover on disturbed areas. 5. Control noxious 'Heeds on cut and fill slopes and disturbed areas until desirable ground cover is adequate to do the job . . 6. Rerr.ove the topsoil) stockpile and replace topsoil on disturbed areas suitable f'or revegetation. 7. Take pro~pt ro~d surface to ~ini~ize action to stabilize material in fissures and narrol'I' dra'-ls between ver~ical ledgerock outcrors and above slope cuts .. 8. Provide satisfactory ~neasures to curb erosion at the inlets and outlets of culverts and around bridge footings. 9. Design and install drainage structures to handle peak flows. 10. 11. Disturb no ground surface outside of c· earing stake lillit \-lithout l pripr approval of the forest officer in charge. Provide adequate drainage to ~nn~JllZe c1a~ge frb~n sloughing or :nud encountered in the construction at spring and bog areas. f1o~vs flo~'l ' 12. Protect natural strea.ll veloei ties anCi processes. during constr1,lction 13.. Provide protection of existing and potential recreation sites f'ro:a undue construct ion i!llpact s .. 14. Regulate construction activities and i~pacts to facilitate public recreation use. 15 . . }'~intain 16. Avoid Logan River channel changes. 17. Landscape disturbed areas to restore aesthetics. 18. l.ark trees to be preserved bordering the highYlay clearing li:ni ts where they are not safety hazards und it is possible to work the Equip~ent around the~. suitable access during and follo~" ing construction to special. use areas, fisher:nan and photographer turnouts, and recrea-tion sites. �,. .. .' " -.)0 ~ 19. Properly dispose of stu:'}ps, slash, and debris created by construction activities. 20. Cut trees taken out to 8-foot lengths or shorter the n s tockpile at designated sites for use in ca~pgrounds. 21. Develop roadside turnouts and parking areas in the vicinity of highway survey stations 609, 618, 666)675,69 8 , 706} 713) 725) 755, 761~ 763} 769, 770, 793, 796} 802, 809, 810, 821, 835· 22. Preserve the Cilina ROH Spring and provide roadside turnout space for two auto~obiles. 23. Design suitable access into the neH high~"ay at the follovling locations: b. \{ood ·c. Ca~p CottonHood Canyon Recreation Site Brachiopod SUJ11::er Recreation Residence Area f. Right Fork Road Junction d. e. a. ~\lin Recreation Site Logan Cave Parking Bridges Re'creation Site 24. Have contractor provide adequate llaste and garbage disposal . for pro-. ject personnel and construction activities. 25.. Treat abandonEG road sections by scul,~:rc uring and revegetating to restore to a near natural condition. 26. Cut stu~ps to the ground surface llhere visible i'rom the highHay and areas of public use. 27. Frovide for access Canyon Cave. 28.. Treat road~" ay to keep dust settled both day and night during the construction period. 29.. Keep construction noises to a and special use sites. 30. Keep air pollution fro~ construction activities within prescribed environ~ental quality controls. 31. futigate 32. lflitigate the i:npact to '-lildlife and Ylildlife habitat. 33.. Keep oil) grease, and chemicals originat ing fro!1l construct ion and ~aintenance activities and operations out of LDgan River. 34.. P-.cotect tree overhang without creat ing a road hazard .. :fro~the encroach~ent CottonHood Parking Area to the Logan ~iniT.u~ in the vicinity of recreation li~its or daTage to fisheries habitat. �.. - • I ., , 5. " 3 .. Keep construction equipJ2ent llork in the river to an absolute !JinLnu:n. I ,. f t ': ,36. Protect and replac e signs and other construction activities. il1prove~ents disturbed by the ~ i i i ; 3'T. Construct all cut and fill slopes s ubj ect to erosion 2:1 or flatter yhere topographic conditions permit. 38. Protect or reference legal land Tarkers. 39 . Locate and utilize 'Hort caT.p areas, equip:nent, and supply yards to protect aesthetics and to avoid conflict 1-1ith pub~ic activity and reSO'.lrcc -,,"8.1ue s . 40. Re move surplus ~aterial froll road cuts and deposit it at the 'Haste site designated. I 41. 7.~.covide h·2 . Properly sign to protect and inforJl the public. 1~3. Provide well . :nanaged detours for public convenience and Forest Service ad~inistration. 1~!~. Confine construction and restoration activities to a tiT.E. 45. Construction equip~entJ crusher and ~lxlng plant must be equipped with- effective mufflers, spark arrestors) screens and filters. 46. Locate and develop 'Hork roads and access "lhich fully provide for soil stability and aesthetic values. l~7. Protect resource values fro~ increased fire hazards during construction. h8. Revegetate disturbed areas with perennial plants to ~inimize fire hazards. 49. Protect residual vegetation vlhere burning right-of-way slash and debris cannot be avoided. 50. Coordinate burning operations with the burning and pollution indexes. 51. Keep high",ay guardrailing to a 52. Keep storage and stockpiling of construction road ri ght-of -",'lay • 53. for public ss.fety in location) design and construction operation. ~inLnu~ !nini~uJ1 contract consistent vTith public safety. ~aterials within the Along riprapped sections replant r,illo"\'ls or other suitable species are not particularly attractive to grazing by big ga~e. ~lhich , r~ i ! I � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/119">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/119</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 3857338435 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 11332816 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 Evaluation of preconstruction and environmental analysis Description An account of the resource Evaluation of preconstruction of Logan Canyon including diagrams of the suggested widening of lanes and a detailed list of stations and their modifications. Also included is an environmental analysis report for Old Juniper Trailhead by Clark Ostergard. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource St. John, Chandler P. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Ostergard, Clark Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979-09-26 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Utah Weber County (Utah) United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_21.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/e92ce953793d55d106d841e5c58d9456.pdf 555732295b5f4e2eccd68c1919b4515a PDF Text Text • 655 Canyon Road Logan, UT 84321 June 13, 1979 Gary Lindley, Engineer District No.1 Engineer's Office Utah Department of Transportation 128 17th street Ogden, UT 84404 Dear Mr. ' Lindley: I write on behalf of Citi~ens for the Protection of Logan Canyon. ~ As you might guess from our title, we are concerned about the proposed realignment of US 89 in ~ogan Canyon, from the Right Fork to Ricks Springs. We would like ' very much to meet with you on June 22, wh'e n you come to Logan to meet wi th your advisory commi ttee. We can arrange a meeting for the afternoon of that day, ina ' room on the USU campus. We would like to see your slides on the proposed alignment changes, and view your maps. We understand that the UDOT is not tnterested in public involvement at this stage; however, we believe that the question o-f whether an EAR or a EIS is performed, is a very crucial matter Dn which the public should be involved. We don't want to jump ' into 'this matter without complete information; therefore, could you possibly supply us with (1) copies of the slides referred to above; (2) copies of maps indicating the proposed alignment .1, changes; (3) statistics on traffic volume and accident rates in Logan Canyon; (4) any other pertinent information, such as cost• . per-mile estimates, contacts or agreements made between UDOT and ~ the Utah Division of Wildlife · Resources and the U.S. Forest ...--,--",;1 Service. Ideally, we would like to be brought completely up to date on the whole project. One of our major concerns is that the citi~en representative on your Logan advisory group is on record as favoring a realignment; thus we feel that for balance, UDOT ought to be aware that this person does not necessarily represent the populace of Cache Valley. . My phone numbers are (home) 752-6571; (office) 752-4100, ext. 7514. Please fe.el free to call. We are very much interested -in . making contact with the UDOT and in taking part in whatever happens in Logan Canyon. . ....., t Sincerely, t11",~1V7 J. ~~ Thomas J. ~on' -, cc: Citi~ens for the Protection of Logan Canydn , Governor Scott Matheson �-2There is an advisory committee to the UDOT, but it has apparently concurred in the Department's wishes. However, the only "citizen" member of the committee is Tod Weston, a Cache County developer who would be in favor of any sort of development, anywhere. Somehow, the Federal Highway Administration ought to be made aware that "citizens" --some of them--do oppose this highway project and are not being represented. If you think it · might do any good, I'll send along a copy of the safety study. Ifm a bit nervous about this project,- because three weeks ago, the UDOT announced that nothing would be done on Logan Canyon for at least a year. Then suddenly they called a meeting (Tuesday last; school was over Saturday) and according to the reporter who covered the meeting, the highway project is now full steam ahead. -I'm worried they wiJl try to get final approval, without an Environmental Impact Statement,while "nobody" is around to fight them. .best wishes, l-tr//f/\ Tom Lyon t . � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/117">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/117</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 608274056 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1327814 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 Thomas Lyon to Gary Lindley, June 13, 1979 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Thomas Lyon to Gary Lindley requesting information from the Utah Department of Transportation concerning the progress of the suggestions made about changing Logan Canyon and the concerns about a proper representation of the citizens' opinions about such changes. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lyon, Thomas J. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon Utah. Department of Transportation Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Correspondence 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 1979-06-13 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_8.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/8716e4428d542d5fbcd7dfb62a95f51f.pdf 5ccbd6f23b7e1a1e7cb75c6d1e5647b0 PDF Text Text Engineers Planners _ l-::¥I~III'" Economists _ Scientists May 11, 1987 B210.27 Dr. Craig Caupp Utah State University CEE Department Logan, Utah 84322 Dear Dr. Caupp: We are enclosing additional information you requested after having read a recent issue of our REPORTS magazine. The enclosed information expands upon our services and capabilities in the areas of interest to you. If you have questions or need additional information we hope you will call for assistance. We appreciate your interest in our firm and look forward to a continued association with you. Sin,:!~ L . Sheldon Barker Utah Area Manager SLC48/56 CH2M HILL Utah Area Office Associated Plaza, Suite 500, 349 South 200 East p.o. Box 2218, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 801.363.0200 � 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/114">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/114</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 558653473 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 588003 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 L. Sheldon Barker to Craig Caupp, May 11, 1987 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from L. Sheldon Barker to Craig Caupp with enclosed (not in this file) information on areas of interest and the services and capabilities of CH2M Hill. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Barker, L. Sheldon Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (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 1987-05-11 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 8.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/34a66ff1b1a4fe963598ba3f44312784.pdf 30e5a98bae56da67a540a5b190e3ebae PDF Text Text If / �� 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/113">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/113</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 1948647185 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1616980 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 CNF meeting, April 30, 1987 Description An account of the resource The handwritten minutes from a meeting on Logan Canyon road on April 30, 1987, where the Forest Service asserts their role and the role of the forest plan in the developments on Logan Canyon. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Bosworth, Dale Spence, Jack Lukez, Rudy Flint, Steve Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-04-30 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives. COLL MSS 200 Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, Series III Forest Service Box 6 Item 20 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_20.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/bb81cba5916bf4321798eba80bada4f9.pdf dfd9bb9abbe9ab269085bbe0653cd4f7 PDF Text Text LC Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon 17 J1.me, 1987 Mr. Wes Wilson USEPA, Region 999 18th St Denver-,- et, Suite 1300 orado 80202-2413 Dear Mr. Wilson, I am writing to express my concerns with the draft EIS currently being prepared for the Logan Canyon highway project (US 89) through the Wasatch-Cache Wational Forest east of Logan, Utah. This draft is being prepared by CH2MHILL for release this summer. My hope is that the EPA will be able to intervene in the process so that an ' inadequate, biased document is not released to the public. I realize that this is an extraordinary reques.t, but I feel the si tuation warrents attention. Several environmental groups and a number of un~iliated citizens are working together as Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon. We are attempting to make aure the draft EIS is an acceptable document when it is released. As CPIC member Rudy Lukez has already contacted you with a number of our concerns, I will emphasize problems in the most recent drafts which we have reveived. It 15 only a few days ago that we got our first look at the impacts and mitigation sections of most of' thes€ chapters, yet CH2MHILL expects the Interdisciplinary Study Team to have completely reviewed them by Monday, 22 June. Despi te the fact. that no discussion has taken place on the great majority of the impact assessment part of the document, a summary chapter of' the different alternatives has already been written. This chapter is clearly biased in favor of the intensive development alternatives. It scareely acknowledges any environmental impacts, even though some are reviewed in other chapters. Clearly there will be major impacts. In several alternatives, over 7,000 feet of retaining wall is proposed f 'o r a 4.5 mile stretch of road. Most riparian vegetation will be destroyed where these retaining walls are place:d at the edge of the Logan River. While the Terrestrial Resources chapter admits some of the impacts would be obvious for decades, the summary chapter ignores this information. In addition to these retaining walls, a. continuous cut int.o the hillside would be necessary to accomodate the wider road. Despite the fact the 'NasatchCache Forest Plan calls for the visual "retention" of natural characteristics in the canyon, the summary chapter ignores' this con:flict. p.o. box 3580 logan, ut 84321 �2. During the- public input period it was c l ear that there was strong support for a "spot improvement" al te rnat ive. It wa s recommended that each proposed modification be examined on the basis of need, con~ribution to safety, and environmental impact. Increasing speed (which is a ll that the more extreme action alternatives would do) is not considered important by most people, although it seems to be about the only thing that the Federal Highway Administration represen~tiv is interested in. CH2MHILL has slighted this alternative. Their spot improvement altemative replaces virtually every bri@ge and culvert, straightens nearly every curve, and places a climbing lane in one of the most difficult sections of the canyon. Impacts are obvious but once again neglected. Thia process has been continued despite our repeated mention that the Forest Pl~~ permits only limited change. to the canyon highway. The plan is very specific on this, particularly where the Forest Service responds to the public input from the draft version. At the interdisciplinary study team meetings, we have quoted from the plan, yet CH2MHr'".bL has consistently igno:ted this,. There are a number of other unanswered questions: in the present draf't . Disposal of rubble from the many proposed cuts has scarcely been addressed; the few available locations (abandoned gravel pits and old roadbeds) will only handle a fract.ion of the material genetiated by the more extreme action alternatives. Erosion from the resulting cut slopes has not been addressed in the necessary sitespecific manner. While I could continue with examples, I think this illustrated the problems with the present draft. If they adhere to their present timetable of a summer release of the draft EIS, it is doubtful that ~e necessary revisions will be done. Some sections require complete rewriting. We would like to see the public receive a fair and accurate document. This is why we are requesting your assistance. We worry that after $620,000.00 is spent on this study, there will be a feeling that it is necessary to proceed regardless of the quality of the document. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, . ~~Lt~LtStephan D. Flint Home: 752-9102 Work: 750-2474 or 752-2242 Copies: Bridgerland Audubon Cache Group Sierra Club Utah Wilderness Aseociation y! Hill Helm � 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/112">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/112</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 2075496649 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1017891 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 Dick Carter to Desmond Anderson, February 8, 1989 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dick Carter to Desmond Anderson defending Utah Wilderness Association's role in maintaining the exisiting quality of Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Carter, Dick Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Utah Wilderness Authority Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1989-02-08 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Utah Wilderness Association Records, 1980-2000, COLL MSS 200 Series III Box 6_014 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_14.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/2bd5ef2cc7005227ede230aefa5b3f1b.pdf 921fa5f151582bac03aa624877d1cc1b PDF Text Text .. ' UNITED STATES DEPARTME N T O F AGRICU LTURE FOREST SERVICE Logan Ranger District P.O. Box 448 Logan, Utah 84321 7730 November 26, 1979 Brian Beard 93 East 100 South Logan, Utah 84321 L Dear Brian: I received your inquiry today regarding the proposed 3rd phase reconstruction of the Logan Canyon Highway. In reply to your questions: 1. Ricks Springs Campground Development proposed. No, we do not plan to construct a campground at Ricks Springs in conjunction with the Logan Canyon Highway proposal. Yes, there is an inventoried recreation site on the opposite side of the Logan River at Ricks Springs. The site was selected back in the NFRS Inventory done in 1962. There has been no site plan developed for recreation development there; however, by our management we are protecting the inventoried recreation site to prevent loss of resource values per chance there may one day be a need to develop the site. There has been some rough draft planning to protect and enhance public safety at the Ricks Springs Natural Feature. There is no approved plan for undertaking any development as yet. 2. Wood Camp Hollow Campground proposed. No, we do not plan to construct a campground in Wood Camp Hollow in conjunction with the proposed highway improvement program. Yes, there is an inventoried recreation site in Wood Camp Hollow. It was also selected in the NFRS Inventory completed back in 1962. There is no detailed plan for development as yet, and there are not, now at least, any plans for development. Yes, there was a preliminary ground survey made in Wood Camp Hollow for an improved access road up to the Old Juniper Trailhead. As I recall, the survey was done in 1969. There are still one or two engineering survey pegs in the ground there. The bridge that crosses Logan River at Wood Camp and the construction of the Old Juniper Trail were part of the recreation development originally programmed for public outdoor recreation 6Z0 0-11 (1 /69) �development within the Logan Canyon Recreation Complex. It was also originally planned that overburden from the proposed 3rd phase Logan Canyon Highway improvement project would partially be utilized in developing the Old Juniper Trailhead access road. This road was a part of the resource evaluations considered with the Environmental Analysis Report done by the F.S. on the 3rd phase of the Logan Canyon Highway back in 1973. 3. Disposal of fill material? During the evaluation processes of the upgrading of the Logan Canyon Highway we have always been concerned about disposal of overburden and excess cut material. You may already be familiar with uses that were made of excess material from the previous phase. Some clean rock was used to stabilize the river channel bank, some rock was used to reestablish the stream hydrology as in the lower box culvert below the Big Hole. Some rock was used to enhance fisheries. Top soil was saved and put back on cut slopes for better establishment of vegetative ground cover. Some excess material was used to surface portions of the Cowley Canyon forest road, and of course a great deal of cut material went back into Logan Canyon Highway road itself. Any material in excess was wasted in the "Grubic Mountain" where it was molded and landscaped to a near natural land form. Possible uses of overburden and excess cut material from the proposed 3rd phase Highway Improvement program may be similar or hauled out of the canyon. We have looked at and are still looking at possible beneficial uses should the road work be undertaken. The Cowley Canyon road could benefit from additional material to improve the driving surface as well as to lift the road above the drainage channel and improve water quality. There may also be a similar opportunity for improvement to the Temple Fork road. There may also be an opportunity to utilize clean rock to stabilize stream channels in Logan Canyon and side drainages. Perhaps the fisheries of Logan River, Right Fork, and Temple Fork could be improved with appropriately designed structures utilizing clean rock. The re may be other uses as well, but environmental assessments of each would be necessary before any undertaking. The same with any actual waste sites selected. Some waste disposal sites looked at to date include the Twin Bridges, both the upper and lower end; the Wood Camp area, mentioned earlier; the draw immediately below the lower of the Twin Bridges; and the bench at the present site of the Logan Cattle Allotment corral are a few of the possible waste sites looked at. There has been no definite selection as yet and there would be an environmental assessment made to determine if there is an appropr~ate waste site. 4. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental assessments will be prepared to meet the National Environmental Policy Act for any project we propose to undertake that will have significant resource impact. As I have previously stated, there are no plans to develop either Wood Camp or Ricks Springs in conjunction with the proposed Logan Canyon Highway �project. As a matter of fact, I do not see any development for these areas in the forseeable future. We have asked our Fisheries Biologist and Hydrologist to study the Logan River, Temple Fork, and Right Fork Streams to determine whether there could be something done to improve the fish pool-riffle ratios and to stabilize the stream banks to improve water quality. Should these studies suggest the opportunity for improvement we will do an environmental assessment to determine feasibility before any undertaking. These will be made available to you for your input. We are now in the process of responding to the Utah Department of Transportations most recent plan and design for the proposed 3rd phase of Logan Canyon Highway Improvement. A copy of this will be made available to you. I appreciate your personal interest and the interests of the Sierra Club in protecting the resource values of Logan Canyon. I solicit your input in al~ proposed activities involving National Forest lands of the Logan Ranger District. I am equally concerned for your support of proper and wise use of all lands within and adjacent to the National Forest lands regardless of ownership. Periodically there are proposals and activities in the private and state sector within the National Forest Boundary that could adversely change the values and uses of the forest. I am sure the county and state planners and administrators would welcome your input and support as well. Should you have any questions regarding this reply, please get in touch. Sincerely, District Forest Ranger � 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/109">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/109</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 2607205343 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3781364 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 M.J. Roberts to Brian Beard, November 26, 1979 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from M.J. Roberts to Brian Beard regarding the proposed 3rd phase reconstruction of the Logan Canyon Highway mentioning that no campgrouds will be built at Ricks Springs or Wood Camp Hollow, how fill material will be disposed of, and stating compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Roberts, M.J. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Public lands--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 1979-11-26 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/9710fabda5665b3df4d423b98a3e1e87.pdf 70e1979b8a2689acef3615c61f6639ab PDF Text Text October 20, 1986 DISUCSSION OUTLINE LOGAN CANYON STUDY COMPONENT IDENTI-FICATION ' ( As a result of the development of the technical memorandums, public input,- and the preliminary environmental data gathering phase, a range of possible improvements within Logan Canyon have been identified. These possible improvements (components) are listed below in order of increasing levels of improvement starting with maintaining the status quo up to widening and improving the existing alignment. In the next phase of the study (Task 2), these components will be developed and studied and will ultimately form the basis for the development of alternatives. 1. Maintain Status Quo - (No Build) No change to surface width Resurfacing as required Signing and pavement marking improvements 2. Spot Improvements No basic change to surface width Resurfacing as required Bridge and structure replacement (existing locations) Slow vehicle turnouts Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements 3. Widening Along Existing Alignment Widen lanes Widen shoulders and ditches Bridge and structure replacement (existing locations) Slow vehicle turnouts Recreational turnouts and parking Raise grade in potential flooding areas Signing and pavement marking improvements ( Widening and Improving the E~isting Alignment Widen lanes Widen shoulders and ditches Improve alignment Bridge and structure replacement (improved alignment for Burnt, Lower Twin and Upper Twin bridges) Passing lanes particularly in areas of sustained steep grades Recreational turnouts and parking Raise grade in potential flooding areas Signing and pavement marking improvements ( 1 �October 20, 1986 5. ( Bear Lake Summit . to Garden City New routing north of the existing alignment New routing south of the existing alignment SLC-STN/08 ( ( 2 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/108">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/108</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 1496964602 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 932683 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 Study component (improvement) identification, October 20, 1986 Description An account of the resource A list of possbile improvements to Logan Canyon including Bear Lake Summit to Garden City. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-10-20 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 17.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/5a1ca9887219168c1abf23cfb35353c4.pdf b23f205700019fc5d4421366bc1e918b PDF Text Text SIERRA CLUB Utah Chapter 93 East 1st South Logan, Utah g4321 Novemoer 21, 1979 (801) 753-iJ987 ARCHES NATL. PARK by Karen Vendell Gary Lindley, Engineer District No.1 Engineer's Office Utah Department of Transportation 128 17th st_eet Ogden, Utah 84404 HE: Proposed construction activities in Logan Canyon. Dear Mr. Lindley: I have recently talked with Craig Rayle, and others concerning the proposed highway construction activitae.s in Logan Canyon. The Sierra Cluo is concerned about actions ta _en _ to date by the utah Department of Transportation in efforts to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. The purpose of this letter is to obtain answers to quest i ons we have about NEPA com pliance decisions. A rep~ to the following it~ms is requested. 1. re are an Environmental act Statement Section 1501.4 c of the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementting the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (hereafter called C~ NEPA Regulations) reads, Federal agencies shall: " Based on the environmental assessment make its determination whether to prepare an environmental impact statement." As I understand the current situation your office has determined that an Environmental statement is not necessary for construction of the Logan Canyon HighW ay. However, this decision was made prior to preperation of the environmental assessment; the assessment is to be released in the Spring of 1980. This reversal of decisions appears to be contrary to the ~ NEPA regulations. Has your office decided that an environmental impact statement is not needed for construction of the Lo5 an Canyon Highway from Right Hand Fork to Ricks Spring? Is the environmental assessment 10 be finalized in t he spring of 1980? �Mr. Lindley ovember 21 , 1979 Page two nificant act of the C~ NEPA Regulations reads Federal agencies shall: 2. " Prepare a finding of no significant impact if the , agency determines on the basis of the environmental assessme~t pot to prepare a statement. It (1) The agency shall make the finding of no significant impact available to the affect public as specified in Section 15.6.6" The Utah Chapter Sierra impact" as noted above. 3. Public Section C~ub requests a copy of the "finding of no significant act federal agencies shall: n .. In certain limited circumstances, whi~h the agency may cover in its procedures ••• make the finding of no significant impact ~vailable for public review for 30 days before the agency makes its final determination whether to prepare an environmental impact statement and before the action may begin. The circumstances are: " (i) the proposed action is, or is closely similar to, one which normally requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement under the procedures adopted by the agency ••• " Did your office allow for public review of the finding of no significant impact? When Yias the finding of no significant i:rlpe.ct made? How was the finding of no significant impact made availab~e to the public? 4. ~egmentation of the NEPA Process Section 1508.27 of the CEQ NEPA Regulat ions reads in part: ff Significance cannot be avoided by ter~ing an action temporary or by breaking it down into small cOllponent Darts ." (Emphasis added.) The distance frot. Logan C:ity-. - to Bear Lake is approximately 40 mile s • This 40 mile stretch of road includes several miles which have allready been widened. The maj ority of the canyon roaj 15 not wiiened . Your office now plans to widen a stretch of highway approximately 6.5 miles long, from ight Hand Fork t~ ~icks Spring. Did your finding of no significant impact include an evaluation of constrction planned from from aight Hand Fork to Bear Lake, or just an evaluation of the mileage from ight Hand Fork to Ricks Spring? Additionally, we are concerned about Forest Service Campgrounds which are associated with the highway proposal ; specifically food Camp Hollow and Rick Springs campgrounds. Did the determination that an Environmental Statement was not necessary include the environ~ental impacts associated with these two campgrounds? �~r. Lindley l ovember 21, 19 7 9 Page three A~~ additional information you can provide which will he l p in understanding compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act will be appreciated. 3ecause of the timely nature of this matter, a response is requested within ten worki.n6 days. I look forward to hearing from your office. cc: Craig Rayle Jo Jo JO ~ le3 Brant Calkin Anthony uckel Esq . � 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/107">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/107</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 3256351554 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1611146 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 Brian Beard to Gary Lindley, November 21, 1979 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Brian Beard to Gary Lindley regarding the proposed construction activities in Logan Canyon. The Sierra Club is concerned about UDOT's compliance with NEPA and wants to have an Enviromental Assessment drawn up. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Beard, Brian Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Government agencies Environmental policy Sierra Club. Utah Chapter Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1979-11-21 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_14.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/95c76aee566a1526be638b3a5d6d9ddc.pdf b8ec6eb75529d43b3121fa89004e367e PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY: DISTRICT 1 OFFICIALS: GAR'( LINDLEY DYKE LEFEVRE LES ABBEY THE, UDOT IMPORTANT NAMES , '. UDOT DIS'TRICT , # '1 128 17TH STREET OGDEN, UT ,84404 PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM: STAT~ OF,FICE BUILDING SALT LAKE CITy,UT , ' GENE STURZNEGGER, LOCATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ALSO ADVISER TO DISTRICT 1 . SHERMAN JENSEN, ENVIRONMENTAL AND SPECIAL STUDIES ALSO CO-ORDINATOR FOR THE UTAH HIGHWAY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL (SEE B~LOW) J. Q. ADAIR, ROADWAY DESIGN JIM BRADEN, COMMUNITY RELATIONS DIR~CTOR LESTER JESTER, TRANSPORTATION PLANNING HOWARD LATHAM, PLANNING A~DPROGRAMMING SHELDON 'MCCONKIEiPRE-CONSTRUCTION ' RICHARD ' RoBERTS, FISCAL PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING , THE UTAH HIGHWAY ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL: HARRY TULLIS, OGDEN, STEVE LAWSON, OGDEN DAVID LLOYD, SLC JANET MINDEN, SLC LARRELL MUIR, MURRAY BERTRAM HARRISON, PROVO JOHN BONNETT, AMI FORK HAL CLYDE, SPRINGVLLLE BATES~~ILSON, 'MOAB FEDERAL HIGH\1AYADMINISTRATION: ' 127 S STATE, SLC GEORGE BOHN '; DIVI S'lON ADMI 'NI S 'TRATOR � 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/106">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/106</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 3530602949 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 493264 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 highway: Important names Description An account of the resource List of district officals, UDOT managment team, Utah highway environmental council, and Federal Highway Administration. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) United States Highway 89 Government agencies Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 28 Folder 8 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Special Collections and Archives, phone (435) 797-2663. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB28_Fd8_Page_3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/4aab167326a2e50dddcd0f4d3d124809.pdf 021b884f7183484b21362be3640c017f PDF Text Text LANDSCAPE MANAGEMEHT FOR ROADSIDES IN LOGAR CANYON The management direction for the visual resource in Logan Canyon is provided in the Wasatch-Cache National Forest "Land and Resource Management Plan." The plan calls for the canyon to be managed for a Visual Quality Objective (VQO) of Retention. Retention allows man-made activities to occur which are not visually evident. This objective guides the extent of activities which can occur in the canyon. With this in mind, the roadway from Right Fork to Ricks Springs was evaluated to determine the most sensit~ve visual areas. The evaluation was based on possible changes of the existing visual 'condition on both sides of the existing highway. The capacity for the roadside to absorb alternation without losing its visual character is critical. Therefore, developed criterior to identify capacity for rating VQO' if road construction occurs. The criteria were then applied to determine an agg~egate value for sensitivity and capability to meet objectives. The following premises were used to develop the evaluation criteria: PREMISES Retention of roadside visual character Any widening of the existing highway will require cut and/or filIon the edge of the roadway. Cuts will have a greater visual impact than fills. Existing cuts and fills with dense vegetati on (trees and brush) will be more difficult to restore than cuts and fi lls with little or no vegetation. The larger the cuts, the greater the visual impact. Alteration of non-vegetated slopes and raw rock outcrops will not have a major change on the visual character of a 2iven area. Existing vegetation between the edge of the :~ ighway and river is classified as riparian (see Forest Plan, page 4-32) and should not be disturbed. The vegetation provides an impor t:.ant aesthetic unity viith the river as well as providing important Wi ld life habitat. Non-vegetated areas between the road and riv er (rip-rap) are in the riparian zone. These areas are not as visually important as vegetated riparian areas EVALUATI01L ~BITERIA The evaluation is based on the assumption that alterations may occur on either side of the existing road surface. The capacity for the roadside to absorb �these alterations depends on steepness of cuts, type of vegetation, and proximity to the Logan River. A numerical and color system is used to represent the most sensitive visual areas. The higher the number and darker the color, the more sensitive the area. Roadsides with a 0-2 rating can absorb alterations related to road improvement and still meet Retention VQO. f Roadsides with a 3~ rating can absorb alterations but will require major mitigation (retaining walls, bridges, etc.) to meet Retention VQO. Roadsides with a ~ rating cannot absorb alterations and still meet Retention, due to the high sensitive landscape character. � 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/105">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/105</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 825709449 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1068527 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 Landscape management for roadsides in Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Evaluation of criteria for making changes to Logan Canyon according to a Visual Quality Objective and the ability for the landscape to absorb man-made alterations without losing the visual character of the Canyon. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 10.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/65ac27a8a5339ba137895c240c9c3fd3.pdf df490d7de5d40f4064464253caf91b8a PDF Text Text July 1, 1987 To W hom It May Concern: A friend of mine called recentlY ~ from Dallas, Texas and said she was signed up for a tour covering 3 western states. She asked then if I lived anywhere near Logan Canyon, which was mentioned as a scenic feature of the trip_ I assured her that as a resident of Logani UT, I did indeed live near the Canyon. I told her that we went through the Canyon about once a week and never failed to be stirred by features as well as the scenic beauty. the unique geographic I further stated that I had joined a group who was trying to preserve the Canyon from over deveolpment. Such ffiveolpment, I felt would destroy the rare and unusual distinction of the Canyon. Sincerely yours, h ·~h~ Marj : : : t G. Lewis 1277 E. 100 S. 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/104">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/104</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 3627990628 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 485539 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 Marjorie Lewis, July 1, 1987 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Marjorie Lewis stating that she had joined a group for the protection of Logan Canyon feeling that development would destroy the rare and unusual distinction of the Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lewis, Marjorie G. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (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 1987-07-01 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 11.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/393a72645c8068acdba226c02b9eebc1.pdf 26b6b4b758d1fa9059efb00e8202fc3a PDF Text Text , - ..~. .' ...:. .~,,", , _: _ :_ 1 _ i ..~- =:~~!!~ 5 ci «J'~' erness .n 455 East 400 South BAO/Salt Lake City , UT 841 I 1 /(80 I ) 35 9-1 ? 37 Ap r' i 1 24, 1 987 Mr. Dale Bosworth Forest Superv'i sor' Wasatch-Cache NC'.t i ~,~ (~1 FDres t Salt LaKe City, Ut a h : 84 138 Dear Dale: Co f!~. j d CE' r a b 1 e C 0 f :: :: ~ f' r'! f- ;. :-_ f' E' r.: €I n t 1 y b e ~ f'! e x pre ~. s ed a,b 0 u t t, !~ eo . sLogan Canyon highway .i ssues. Oi cK Pi ne has ex"ressed strong' and posi t i ve concern and support to both George Ni c~:a.';, ar:d me at preven t i ng a w i.den l,ng gap a~, th i s ) ssue progre~; '$ ~ s, W ~ have, indeed, experi~nced this concern & ~ wel l and 1 i~~ly · harbor simil iar fears as -to the level - of - acrimony wh i ch ma y de-v.1op over Logan Cany-on -~-:- Up_ n a sug ~ ~ _st i on fr'om GeorgEo N i c Kas, 0 i c K Pin e has set :J p ,1, me e tin . . 'oJ i t h the p r inc i pal environmental organizatioi'iS ,~-n d indi v:d a] s , you and your' staff to discuss this iss ~ e. I n anticipation of such a meeting l - ~ t me outl ine our Rather - than discussing t ~e impacts to ~ h e can y on -~ nv i r'onmen t from !'7,aj or road deve ~ Oi) F':en t, hih i ch a r- e strongl y documen ted, I wan t to re 1 ay to Y~) ~J (·ur concern ':' w-j th Forest Service involvemen t in the issue. c~ncerns. We see the forest plan as guidance o n Log an Canyon. Thus we see the Forest Service not as a neutral partici p ant but as an advocate of the publics' inter~s ts as expres ~ ed ~ n the Logan Canyon Managemen \ Ar~a standa rds and guide l i e s within the forest plan. As a result of the intent of the management area, its d ~ scriptio n ~n d management standa~ds, the r E' i s no _do u b t t hat u ii l " IT! i n ~X' ~ dis t u r b a n C e '5 a ss 0 c i do t e:; d i with the Logan Cany o n h i ghw~y . c a~ b e implemented. This firm understandfng 6f th e fo r est \ plan wa ~ fully supported by conservationists ~ h d un d er s tood i n the above con t e xt. And it has been consis t e~tly relayed ! n that manner by the Forest Servic •• Only recentl y have we heard different notions a nd that is rather dis t urbing. It is within the context of the i ~ tent 0f th ~ forest ~ la n that a franK discuss i on ~.AJoU 1 d be :~f enef i f" j a 1. I suspe c '.~ i -:: w0 u 1 d be h eo 1 p f u 1 -wit h r ~ s p e c t t 0 a n u mb ,t' r' 0 f i ~- s U t? S a s V . ',,:. 1 'I ThanKs very much. • � 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/101">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/101</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 3003218927 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 702003 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 Dick Carter to Dale Bosworth, April 24, 1987 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dick Carter to Dale Bosworth mentioning concerns about the widening of Logan Canyon and wishes to set up a meeting to discuss these issues. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Carter, Dick Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available Utah Wilderness Association Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-04-24 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 12.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/4f1d1dd3dcf1ddc577e65aa0c5baf76a.pdf 9d4d4ce7047561ed59ca1009393b1a95 PDF Text Text VISUAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL MEMO 1. An important consideration with respect to the extent of various impacts is the relative amount of area affected. This is particu- larly critical for riparian areas (visual sensitivity rating 6 or 7). For example, in alternative Cl, the total riparian area affected is estimated at 9.5 acres. This calculates to be a strip approxi- mately 9 feet wide for the entire middle section of the canyon, and agrees closely with the amount of riparian area affected by addition of a strip 8.5 feet wide to the ' highway (modified standard). Since the middle section is very . narrow, all land between the road and the river is riparian (U.S.F.S. standard is anything less than 100 feet). How much of the total riparian zone would be affected in this alternative? 50%? 75%? For alternative 0, 40 mph, it must approach 100%, since this calculates to be a strip 13.5 feet wide for the entire section. In order to evaluate the impact, an esti- mate of the amount (%) of total riparian zone destroyed in each alternative needs to be given. 2. The maps showing the area to be affected are somewhat misleading, since they indicate, e.g., riparian zone only exists where the R/7(6) symbol occurs. In fact, in the middle canyon, the entire area between the road and the river is riparian zone, and any widening of the road will affect it for the entire length of the section. This should be clarified for Cl, 01 alternatives. 3. No accounts is taken of the impact on visual resources for those using the canyon but not driving. Campers, fisherman, hikers, etc, not on the road may have their visual resources adversely affected �by the various alternatives, but in a different manner than drivers. How is this to be ev a l uated? 4. Page 6. Evaluation Criteria. It is stated: "Roadsides with a 3-5 rating can absorb alternations, but will require major mitigation (retaining walls, bridges, etc)." It is hard to understand how a retaining wall or a bridge can mitigate the loss of naturalness. 5. The memo indicates all alterations in areas with a 6 or 7 sen- sitivity index (which includes all riparian zones) cannot meet the ~ VQO or Retention, which is required by the Forest Plan. /\ These amount to a considerable amount of the total area affected, particularly in the middle canyon (35% for Cl; 34%. for 01, 35 mph; 35% for 01, 40 mph), as well as parts of the upper canyon (Franklin Basin road to Beaver Mountain Road, Summit). however, as to how this C impas~ No indication is given, is to be solved. Clearly, this will require a revision of the Forest Plan for these alternatives, since such a large part of the total area will be affected. The implica- tions of this must be spelled out in the OEIS. This is a critical omission. 6. The spot Improvp-ment Alternative (B) appears to include all alternatives in the form originally proposed. spot ~ There is no such alter- natives, since the number and extent of each improvement must be agreed upon. It must be made clear this alternative includes all spot improve- ments at the maximum level for each, and the final alternative will be for fewer and smaller improvements. As it now stands, there is little to differentiate Bl from Cl in the sections affected: the only difference is in the width of the road between improvements. ~. � 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/97">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/97</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 4045140413 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1216380 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 Visual resources technical memo Description An account of the resource Evaluation of visual resources in Logan Canyon and the different impacts for drivers and fishermen, campers, hikers, etc. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Spence, Jack T. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (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 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 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/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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd6_Item 3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/537ac853ec196cbc45337a014cf981a1.pdf b344433e0b56291b693ad532c5454f00 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY SCE IC BYWAY NOMINATION WASATCH - CACHE NATIONAL FOREST �WASATCH - CACHE NATIONAL FOREST SCENIC BYWAY LOGAN CANYON HIGHWAY site VICINITY MAP �BEAR LAKE �Logan Canyon Highway Scenic Byways Nomination Criteria The Wasatch-Cache National Forest nominates the Logan Canyon Highway for consideration as a National Forest Scenic Byway. Listed below are the Forest's responses to the nomination criteria. 1. Logan Canyon Highway (US 89) is primarily within the boundaries of the Wasatch-Cache National Forest. The segment to be nominated as a Scenic Byway is approximately 39 miles in length and runs from the mouth of Logan Canyon in the city of Logan, Utah to Bear Lake in Rich County, Utah. The highway is under the jurisdiction of the Utah Department of Transportation. With the exception of the following segments, the entire corridor is contained within the boundaries of the Logan Ranger District, Wasatch-Cache National Forest. a. Section 36, T12N, R1E, SLM. This segment is approximately .5 mile long and is owned by the City of Logan, Utah. b. Section 28, T12N, R2E, SLM. This segment is approximately .3 mile long and is part of a 17 acre parcel of privately owned land located on the south side of the highway. c. Section 18, T12N, R3E, SLM. This segment is approximately .2 mile long and is part of a 16 acre parcel of privately owned land located on the south side of the highway. d. Sections 24, 25, 36, T14N, R3E, SLM. This segment is approximately 2.8 miles long and is owned by the State · of Utah. e. Section 17, T14N, R4E, SLM. This segment is approximately .8 mile long and is contained within a 477 acre block of privately owned land known as Stump Hollow. f. Sections 20, 29, 30, T14N, R5E, SLM. This segment is approximately 5 miles long and is privately owned by a number of individuals. 2. The following list describes those segments not under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The sub-items listed below correspond to the sub-items in Criteria #1. a. and d. The Wasatch-Cache National Forest has been in close contact with the Federal Highway Administration, Utah Travel Council, BLM, Utah Department of Natural Resources, Utah Association of Governments (7 regions), Utah Association of Counties, Utah League of Cities and Towns, and the Utah Farm Bureau. Each of these agencies has pledged their support for a Scenic Byways designation for the Logan Canyon Highway and have �Logan Canyon Highway Page 2 expressed their willingness to help in any way possible. A formal meeting is scheduled for August 4, 1988 between each of the above agencies in which a formal agreement pledging support for official designation will be drafted. b. This parcel presently contains a summer home and a log structure that houses a restaurant. c. A summer home presently occupies this parcel. e. Congressman Jim Hansen, R-Utah, made a formal request before the House Interior Appropriations Committee for $1.2 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the outright purchase of the Stump Hollow parcel. The request was not approved by the committee. Our hope is the request will be resubmitted for consideration next year. The private lands comprising the Stump Hollow area have been the source of a number of development proposals brought before the Cache County Planning and Zoning Commission since the 1960's. Current Cache County zoning restrictions limit new development to one building per 40 acres. f. This segment runs from the Forest Boundary to Garden City, Utah. is privately owned by number of individuals. It 3. The Logan Canyon Highway has been renowned for its scenic beauty since the days of the early Mormon Pioneers. It is the route of choice for literally thousands of summer and winter recreationalists traveling between Salt Lake City and the Jackson Hole and Yellowstone country of northwestern Wyoming. The Logan Canyon highway is situated in Cache and Rich counties of north central Utah. It is approximately 39 miles long and runs from the city of Logan, Utah to Bear Lake. Logan, the hub of the historic Cache Valley (pop 70,000), is the home of Utah State University, the Festival of the American West, the Logan Mormon Temple, historic tabernacle square, and the Summerfest Art Faire. Located just 5 miles east of the forest boundary, along US 89, in Rich county is Bear Lake. Known for its crystal-clear, turquoise water and beautiful setting Bear Lake is a popular winter and summer recreation paradise. Natural features encountered in the canyon include the Logan River and spectacular limestone canyon walls. Elevations range from 4700 feet at the mouth of the canyon to nearly 7800 feet at Logan Summit. The Logan River is a major source of water for the Cache Valley. The lower part of the canyon is deeply incised with nearly vertical limestone walls. The canyon bottoms are wooded mainly with deciduous hardwoods and brush. A mix of deciduous brush and conifer types are found on the steeper �Logan Canyon Highway Page 3 slopes. This unique blend of conifer and deciduous vegetation offers a brilliant mix of fall color that annually attracts many visitors to the area. Logan Canyon offers the forest visitor a diverse blend of developed and dispersed recreational opportunities. The Logan Ranger district administers 12 developed campgrounds, 2 picnic areas, 84 summer homes, and three organizational camps in the canyon. In addition to the existing facilities, the district is presently completing plans to develop a new campground that will support 75 family units and 4 large group areas. The highway also provides access to the Beaver Mountain Ski Area, the Utah State University Forestry Camp, and the Utah State University Management Institute, and two Forest Service Administrative Sites. Dispersed recreation opportunities accessible from the highway are almost limitless. The district has recently established the Beaver Basin X-C trail area which offers over nine miles of groomed X-C ski track. The State of Utah and Logan Ranger District jointly administer two large parking areas that provide access for X-C skiers and snowmobilers. The State of Utah grooms over 150 miles of outstanding snowmobile trail that is accessed via Logan Canyon. The pristine Logan River is a popular recreational trout fishing stream and can be accessed via -the many dispersed _recreation camping spots found along its entire length. The popular Tony Grove Lake area and the 45,000 acre Mt. Naiomi Wilderness Area are also accessed from the Logan Canyon highway. It is not uncommor. to view mule deer, elk, moose, and a mix of raptors and song birds from the highway. Other points of interest found along the highway include: the Tony Grove Memorial Guard Station (listed on the National Historic Register), the Limber Pine Nature Trail, the Jardine Juniper, Old Ephriam's Grave, the Logan Wind Caves, Logan Cave, Rick's Springs and two interpretive sites of geological interest. 4. The Logan Canyon Highway is the principal link between the Cache Valley and the Bear Lake Region and provides safe passage for the average recreational driver in a passenger car. It is officially classified as a rural minor arterial highway. The Utah Department of Transportation is in the process of conducting an Environmental Impact Statement that analyses the need to improve certain sections of the existing roadway. The draft of this EIS is scheduled for release and public review this coming fall. 5. The Forest Plan for the Wasatch-Cache National Forest states the Logan Canyon Highway will be managed as a Scenic Highway. In the latest State of Utah Highway Map, the Utah Department of Transportation has officially classified the Logan Canyon Highway as a Scenic Route. �Logan Canyon Sign Plan 1. Interpretive Signs Logan Wind Caves Lake Bonneville (redo) Brachiopod (redo) Logan Cave Ricks Spring Tony Grove Historical Site Amazon Hollow Jardine Juniper Sinks Area Limber Pine ' Trail Temple Fork Browns Roll-off 2. Informational Signs (campgrounds, picnic areas, summer home areas, organizational camps, Forest Service Administrative Sites) Bridger Campground Spring Hollow Campground Dewitt Campground Mailbu-Guinivah Campground Preston Valley Campground Lodge Campground China Row Campground Wood Camp Campground Lewis M. Turner Campground Tony Grove Lake Campground Red Banks Campground Sunrise Campground Card Picnic Area Chokecherry Picnic Area Card Summer Home Area Birch Glen Summer Home Area Chokecherry Summer Home Area Gus Lind Flat Summer Home Area Berdineau Summer Home Area Junipers Summer Home Area Brown's Roll-off Summer Home Area Cache Archery Range Organizational Camp St. Anne's Retreat Cache Council--Boy Scouts of America Card Guard Station Right Hand Fork Guard Station "Campground Ahead" and "Picnic Area Ahead" signs where appropriate. �Logan Canyon Highway Sign Plan cont. 3. Drainage Signs Spring Hollow Card Canyon Righ Hand Fork Wood Camp Temple Fork Blind Hollow Twin Creek White Pine Creek Bunchgrass Creek Franklin Basin Beaver Creek Stump Hollow North Amazon Creek Swan Flat Left Hand Fork 4. Road Junction/Directional Signs High t Hand Fork Wood Camp Temple Fork Tony Grove Franklin Basin Sinks 5. Appropriate Regulatory Signs ��BEAR co --co- �2I ( LAKE �� 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/96">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/96</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 1175960392 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 11678479 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 Nomination for scenic byway booklet Description An account of the resource Booklet for the nomination of Logan Canyon as a Scenic Byway including maps, images, and text. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Logan River (Utah) Signs and signboards United States Highway 89 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 1988-08-04 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Bear Lake (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 29 Folder 2 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 MSS148VIIIB29_Fd2_Item_2.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/bbda7abb9beb439a9bca613a17110918.pdf 183d90065d65b401b008aca5e1719868 PDF Text Text TRAFFIC IN GOGAn C NYON - Is i t increasing? The answer depends on the time of year. If you talk about the entire year, there is no suggestion of an increase in traffic %xk through the canyon. Over the past 13 years, the annual traffic flow has fluctuated a bit from year to year, but without any pattern of increase. Slli~er traffic (June, July, and August) is a different situation . There is more traffic in the canyon during these months, and it is increasing slightly from year to year. Based on past trends o£ traffic and estimates of~pulation growth, the most optimistic predictions of summer traffic growth do not exceed 2 percent per year. .~ � 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/88">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/88</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 4712046 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 401396 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 Traffic in Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Paper attempts to answer the question of traffic increase in Logan Canyon. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah Logan Canyon (Utah) United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_12.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/b9c761c3513f5a8a7c8441eab5a274e1.pdf 67d545ceb7aa9fc87489391c34b65af7 PDF Text Text INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING December 22, 1986 ADDITIONAL DATA FOR AGENDA ITEMS Agenda Item No.: 2. Distribution of visual impact maps for the Middle Canyon, and preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Rich County Section. o o o o o 4. UDOT District 1 UDOT Main office Forest Service FHWA Environmental Community Distribution of background data on the following subjects: o o 5. Resource value of Logan River Status of Maguires Primrose in Logan Canyon and attached letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Distribution of schedule for completing the environmental technical memoranda and report. New Item: Distribution of component and alternative development matrix outline. SLC-STN/16a �' Draft 10/22/86 \ fV'\'-\\~W"o TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM STATUS (\A\~\ ct~~,~j -E\ S~ 1st Technical Memorandum 2nd Final Draft Draft Draft Study Background p 12/23 Existing Roadway Conditions 9/25 Safety Analysis 9/8 10/20 P 12/23 Traffic Forcast 8/11 8/25 P 12/23 Traffic Characteristics 9/22 P 12/23 Traffic Capacity 9/22 P 12/23 Component (Alternative) 10/20 P 12/23 Goals and Obj Design Criteria 10/29 Climbing Lanes 10/29 Turnouts 10/29 Recreational Parking 10/29 Geotechnical (Northern Eng) 12/22 Landscape Management (Visual) 10/1 Resource Value of Logan River P 12/22 SLC-STN/16 11/17 12/8 �ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SCHEDULE Task Due Date Alternatives Technical Merna lc.. o_",,~ "\(J _ '"'\ Ku Q..vJ ) Scoping Meeting Technical Merna Drafts (to UDOT & ID Team) Complete Review of Tech Memos Preliminary Draft ~ (To UDOT & ID Team) E\S Review of Preliminary Draft ~ Draft ~W\ Submittal to UDOT for ution to FHl..yA & USFS . . (\'I1'tf""Ot\ ~CI\~ca.,\ 1987 '~E.I\ or- ~\ f1I.IJ - a ~"l-tf, E'~ ls ",-t • Q: ~go~ -: a <j'(j "'~ - ~ve,,~ J: ~,,~h \.. M (1 ''',j • ~ SLC-STN/16a -fe, ct< r ... �ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL MEMORANDA 1. SOCIOECONOMIC TECH MEMO o o o 2. ATMOSPHERE TECH MEMO o o o 3. Wetlands \"lildlife T & E Species LAND USE TECH MEMO o o 6. Wild & Scenic Rivers Flood Plains . Water Quality Fisheries TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES TECH MEMO o o o 5. Air Quality Noise Energy AQUATIC RESOURCES TECH MEMO o o o o 4. Economics Social/Institutional Relocation Agricultural Other CULTURAL RESOURCES TECH MEMO o o Historical Archeological 7. VISUAL RESOURCES TECH MEMO 8. RECREATION TECH MEMO o o 9. Roadside Development Pedestrian & Bicycle ALTERNATIVE TECH MEMO o o o Description Components Maps SLC-STN/16a �Draft 12/22/86 STATUS OF PRIMULA MAGUIREI IN LOGAN CANYON The Maguire primrose (Primula maguirei) was listed as a threatened species by the u.s. Fish and Wildlife Service on September 20, 1985 (Fed. Reg. 50:33731-33734). is found only in Logan Canyon. The species There were nine known pop- ulations in August 1985; four of which are within the project area. An updated report on the status of Primula maguirei is being prepared by the Utah Native Plant Society and should be available early in 1987. Primula maguirei grows on damp ledges, crevices~ and over- hanging rocks of generally north facing canyon walls. It appears to be restricted to areas of Logan Canyon where the Laketown and Fish Haven dolomites are exposed (W. Padgett, pers. comm.) It has been found on canyon walls with slopes of 50 to 100 percent and at elevations of 4,800 to 5,000 feet. Dominant species of the plant community in the area are montane shrubs, aspen, spruce, and fir. _ Prior to listing this species, a public meeting was held to discuss the listing proposal. Biologists of the u.S. Forest Service and the Utah State University stated that "Primula maguirei is essentially restricted to north facing, moss covered limestone cliffs at or near the bottom of Logan Canyon. Alteration of the microclimate of Logan Canyon may adversely affect the species." These biologists identified two factors that were of special concern." 1) . " Cold air drainage down Logan Canyon may be a factor in the location of specific populations of the Maguire primrose. Any change in the geo- morphology of the canyon may alter the cold air drainage patterns which may in turn adverselY .affect one or more of the populati.ons. 2). Canyon bottom vegetation 'may have a 1 �moderating effect on adjacent cliffs that provide habitat for Primula maguirei, buffering the possibly adverse thermal effect of the existing paved highway through the canyon. Removal of canyon bottom tree groves for highway or campground construction may alter the microenvironment of the lower canyon cliffs, which in turn may adversely affect populations of the species. Identified possible threats to Primula maguirei include rock climbing, highway or utility construction through the canyon, new campground development in Logan Canyon, and illegal collection for ornamental purposes. BOT538/010 2 �United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECEIVED ENDANGERED SPECIES OFFICE 2078 ADMINISTRATION BLDG. 1745 WEST 1700 SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104 IN REPLY REFER TO OCT 6 1986 October 2, 1986 Charles L. Blair CH2M Hill 700 Clearwater Lane P.O. Box 8748 Boise, Idaho 83707 Dear Mr. Blair: We have reviewed your letter of August 29, 1986, concerning highway improvements to u.s. Highway 89 from Logan Canyon to Bear Lake in northern Utah. It appears that listed endangered and threatened species, or species proposed for listing, may occur in the area of influence of this action. Therefore, we are furnishing you the following list of species which may be present in the concerned area: Primula maguirei Maguire primrose Threatened We would like to bring to your attention species which are candidates for official listing as threatened or endangered. While these species have no legal protection under the Endangered Species Act we ask that you try and avoid them if they are found in the area. Can~idate species which may occur in the area of your project are as follows: Musineon lineare Erigeron cronquistii Penstemon compactus The Federal agency permitting or otherwise authorizing your project should review your proposed action and determine if the action would affect any listed species or " their critical habitat. If the determination is "may affect" for listed species they must request in writing formal consultation from the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) at the address given above. At that time you should provide this office a copy of the biological assessment and any other relevant information that assisted you in reaching your conclusion. Specific concerns the Service has about this project and its potential impacts on threatened and endangered species are as follows: Modification of mico environmental conditions for Primula maguirei in Logan Canyon below Logan Cave. ~ . mlc·rocr;Mc,~~ ----_~_ ( " C ~I"" I'Y\ Oo\l~l(C,-!"~ ""~~ +1 I ",r-~h +K ~ �The Service can enter into formal S'ection 7 consultation only with another Federal agency. :State, county, or any other governmental or private organizations can participate in the consultation process, help prepare information such :as the biological assessment, participate in meetings, etc. Your attention is also directed to Section 7(d) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended, which underscores the requirement that the Federal agency or the applicant shall not make any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources during the consultation period which, in effect, would deny the formulation or implementation of reasonable and prudent alternatives regarding their actions on any endangered or threatened species. If we can be of further assistance, please advise us. The Service representative who will provide you technical assistance is Larry England «801) 524-4430) of this office. Sincerely, Robert G. Ruesink Field Supervisor cc: UDOT/SLC FHWA/SLC M\JS ~ c. o \(/'cvV "r- (~CA\ ~ -\-~~-\ T -+ E ~\..,A \,\o.~ '\ 9 c,s.~ ~ C ""~?) ~ ho.~ -\0 -\\ ~~ tr\~\.N\~~ . �I t\ & f:- S , , ~ , r:2..' J'1 , , l, ~ :J ) ~ ~ I I ) ) I ) ) ) 1I '-.L- ~ f \ ) I t U f- ~ 1 p f\ 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/86">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/86</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 3653128995 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 4074387 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 Additional data for December 22, 1986 Interdisciplinary team meeting Description An account of the resource Additional data for December 22, 1986 Interdisciplinary team meeting with an environmental report schedule, technical memorandum status, and the status of the Maguire Primrose (Primula Maguirei) in Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Ruesink, Robert G. Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Plant ecology--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-10-02 1986-10-06 1986-12-22 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_011.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/1131568efd2eee477fdc9ee8336fe30c.pdf 491c039de9f6136f4a7c4f2127b5c295 PDF Text Text RECEIVED R-234 Memorandum · MAY 29 UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATICfN1987 -CH~M HILL' DATE: May TO FROM 19,~~7 Those listed Below R. James Location SUBJECT: Attached is a copy of the Biological Assessment done by Stanley L. Welsh, Endangered Plant Studies, Inc., of Orem Utah. The Maguire Primrose found in the project vicinity is the object of the Biological Assessment. If you have questions or comments, please contact John Neil of our office at 965-4227. Thank you for your cooperation. RJN/JNeil/ps Attachment cc: ~ Robert Ruesink, u.S. Fish & Wildlife Daniel Dake, FHWA S·ta~~-Nuffer, CH2M Hill Eduardo Norat, UDOT John Neil, UDOT �ENDANGERED PLANT STUDIES, INC. 129 North 1000 East Orem, Utah 84057 (801) 225-7085 18 May 1987 Hr. James R. Naegle, P.E. UTAH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84119 Dear Mr. Naegle: IIE©EUW~~ MAY 1 9 1987 l!lJ Utah Departii;t( lrlniporta1ion location & Environ. Studie, This report is in response to your letter of 5 May 1987 delivered to EPS from the Utah Department of Transportation on 7 May 1987 regarding a biological assessment of a segment of the highway in Logan Canyon (Project No. 1371163, FO; Authority No. 5988). An on-site survey was conducted during the period May 11-12 on a segment of the Logan Canyon highway adjacent to and east of the Wood Camp Trailer Park to the vicinity of milepost 385, a distance of approximately 1000 feet, and for another 1000 feet east of there to assure coverage of a second population of of Maguire primrose (no. 5 of the attached map). Prior to the on-site survey a literature review was undertaken. Specific references were sought concerning present knowledge of the distribution of Primula maguirei, a species listed as threatened under stipulations of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Literature reviewed included status reports by Welsh in 1979 and the Utah Native Plant Society (Padgett 1987). The latter report is summarized in an April 1987 report to the Utah Department of Transportation by CH2M Hill, which was made available by your office. The Maguire primrose is apparently a calciphile, restricted to Laketown and Fish Haven dolomite formations. It js likewise a mesophyte, growing where moisture is available at least through the flowering period, which apparently is from early April to after mid-May. Plants in more arid and exposed sites flower first, followed later by those of the more protected and shaded areas. Proposed highway modifications, alternatives 81, C1, and D1, were considered. All are essentially within the area of concern for a principal population (designated in reports as population 4) of the Maguire primrose. The plant occurs on outcrops of limestone south of the highway, beginning at a point approximately 700 feet west of milepost 385 and extending east to a point approximately 350 feet west of that milepost. The population, estimated to contain 176 clumps of Maguire primrose (Padgett 1987),' occurs in small aggregations on exposed boulderlike outcrops at the west edge of the population. The initial (westernmost) occurrences are about 40 to 50 feet above the highway, and about that same distance south of the present road shoul der. Eastward �the limestone is exposed as a cliff-forming unit and the population is largest in the area where it is most exposed to the highway, about 550 feet west of milepost 385. At that most developed and deeply shaded exposure the plants occur in profusion, beginning at a point estimated at about 30 feet above the existing road. Eastward the exposure trends upward in elevation and the population follows that exposure to perhaps a hundred feet above the roadway. The second population in close proximity to the proposed modification (population 5) begins some 400 or 500 feet to the east of the east end of the area of concern. The plants are more remote from the highway and the plants are more scattered. There does not seem to be any potential impact of the present proposal on that population. Three other plants were noted in the CH2M Hill report indicated above. They are Erigeron cronquistii, Musineon lineare, and Penstemon compactus. All are currently cited as Category 2 plants in the Federal Register, indicating that they are possible candidates for future listing processes. Of these species only Musinpon was noted within the proposed construction site. The species is a common component of the limestone cliffs plant communities in Logan Canyon. It is growing with the Maguire primrose at the population 4 site. The proposed action is not thought to constitute a significant threat to the Musineon or to the other category 2 species. Two concerns were stated in the CH2M Hill report for the Maguire primrose, especially at population 4. Other populations (2, 3, and 6) known for the species are considered by me to be too remote from the construction site as to be threatened by the proposed action. The concerns involve cold air drainage down Logan Canyon, and the moderating effect of canyon bottom vegetation on adjacent cliffs serving to buffer the existing populations of Maguire primrose. To these can be added a third concern -- dust from construction activities. Dust might overlay stigmas thus providing competition for pollination and reduced seed set. Concern number one, cold air drainage, does not seem to be significant. The drainage of cold air is expected to continue about as in the past, regardless of highway modifications. The second concern is probably more importart, but, it should be noted, that the best developed part of the population of Maguire primrose at population 4 is on the most exposed portion of the cliff system (i.e.', there is little or no screening vegetetation between the population and the road). However, in point of action all possible care should be given to prevention of wholesale removal of the remaining screening vegetation. Only that part of the canyon bottom vegetation absolutely in the way of construction should be removed. The third concern, dust, can be mitigated by waiting until the flowering period is over prior to commencement of construction activities, i.e., construction should commence no earlier than June. The nearest approach of the construction is at the bend of the road at the westernmost edge of the population 4 site. It is understood that as much as 10 feet of the toe of the ridge might have to be removed to allow proper alignment of the roadway. ' . This should cause no problem to the population if the rockwork is undertaken i-Ii th care. Blasting shoul d . be kept at a minimum and proper barriers constructed as to prevent �uphill scattering of debris. If the recommendations cited above are followed there should be minimal or no impact to the Maguire primrose population 4. The other populations will not be adversely affected. With best regards, Sincerely yours, / '0 - " / i / , "'. . ;, {. ' ,' ( __ " I , Stanle L. Welsh / Presiden.t' �~-7~71) ___ _ -= ::::::::=-==.- CO - -tTERVt.L .10 NTOUR " I ~. _ • DATUM ;_ '',l _ _ I,,~ ::t:.:.. _ FE~T LEVEL It,;r / /'" . , II /) 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/85">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/85</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1604753475 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 3150148 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 Biological assessment of Maguire Primrose in Logan Canyon Description An account of the resource Biological assessment of Maguire Primrose in Logan Canyon by Stanley L. Welsh including field work and a literature review. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Welsh, Stanley L. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Naegle, Jim Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Plant ecology--Utah--Logan Canyon Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-05-19 1987-05-18 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. United States Utah Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 4 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd4_005.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/6f955bf7e2d5232ceaff24de6b058560.pdf ff4c94fa95182f831fde328ba39e3f5f PDF Text Text CHMHlll l~EMORANDUM TO: Interdisciplinary Team FROt>1 : Stan Nuffer DATE: April 29, 1987 SUBJECT: Logan Canyon Environmental Study PROJECT: B21163.FO The twentieth Interdisciplinary Team Meeting was held on April 20, 1987, at 7:00 p.m. at the Forest Service District office in Logan, Utah. This meeting was followed by a daylong field trip in the canyon on April 21. Enclosed are the minutes for your review. Also attached 'for review is the Technical Memorandum on noise prepared by John Neil of UDOT. The next meeting will be held on Monday, May 4, 1987, at 3:00 p.m. at the UDOT District office in Ogden, Utah. The agenda will be as follows: 1. Review minutes of April 20 and 21 meetings. 2. Discussion of the existing conditions portion of the socio-economic technical memorandum. 3. Discussion on spot improvement alternative. 4. Review of the noise technical memorandum by John Neil. 5. Wrap-up discussion of traffic projections. Future meeting schedule: May 27 June 27 SLC99/d.1901 - 3:00 p.m., District Office - 3:00 p.m., Brigham City �LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY MINUTES OF ID TEAM MEETING April 20, 1987 Attendance: Arlo Waddops- Valley Engineering Howard Richardson - UDOT Lynn Zollinger - UDOT Duncan Silver - FHWA Clark Ostergarrd - USFS Fred LaBar - USFS Mark Shaw - USFS John Wise, Herald Journal Steve Flint - Audobon Society Jack Spence - Utah Wilderness Society Bill Helm Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Stan Nuffer, CH2M .HILL ITEM 2 - REVIEW OF TRAFFIC FORECASTS Cliff Forsgren reviewed a memo he had prepared that dis- . cussed . forecast traffic volumes using annual data from 1940 through 1985 and population data for the same period. Two forecasting methods were discussed, the "past trends" and "population correlation" methods. Jack Spence indicated, that based upon the data he had seen, a linear function describing past trends was. probably as good as we were going to get using that method. He suggested that population and traffic be compared to see what kind of correlation, if any, could be established. If there is a reasonable correlation between population and traffic volume, the forecast will be used with past trends forecast to establish a range that future traffic is expected to fall within. Cliff will prepare some correlation comparisons for the team to consider. ITEM 3 - REVIEW OF SCOPING COMMENTS Stan Nuffer distributed summaries of the comments made at the scoping meetings and a partial summary of the written comments received. Duncan Silver pointed out that the number of people who commented on a specific issue was not as important as the fact that the issue was raised. For that reason, the most important part of the summary was the table column headings that named the issues raised. Jack Spence pointed out that big game was an issue that had been raised 1 �MINUTES INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM FIELD TRIP APRIL 21, 1987 Attendance: Jim Naegle, UDOT John Neil, UDOT Howard Richardson, UDOT Lynn Zollinger, UDOT Fred LaBar, USFS Mark Shaw, USFS Richard Harris, USFS Duncan Silver FHWA Stan Nuffer, CH2M HILL Cliff Forsgren, CH2M HILL Arlo Waddups, Valley Engineers Jack Spence, Sierra Club Steve Flint, Audubon Bill Helm Tom Lyon John Ellsworth The team met at 8:00 a.m. at the F.S. District Ranger's office. Transportation for the field trip was in two vans provided by UDOT. Weather conditions for the trip were ideal. Stop No.1 was at Lower Canyon M.P. 382.8 to consider the possibility of a slow vehicle turnout prior to the beginning of the study area. A slow vehicle turnout in this location would be marginal due to the curvature in the roadway and the limited s~ght distance back along the roadway. Stop No.2 was at M.P. 384.0, or curve No.5 which is the first sharp curve encountered in the study section. Valley Engineering had previously marked the location of the centerline and the limit of the cut for both a 35 and 40 mph design. Red and white flagging marked the 35 mph centerline, yellow marked the 40 mph centerline, blue marked the 35 mph cut slope, and orange marked the 40 mph cut slope. The cut slopes had been staked for a 1/4:1 (horizontal to vertical) which assumed a rock cut. Both the 35 and 40 mph design results in the removal of the ' existing vegetation which would be difficult to re-establish on a 1/4:1 slope. A flatter slope could be considered to allow more revegetation. Stop No.3 was at China Row, M.P. 385.35 and curve No.7. China Row is the location of a picnic area and also the tree canopy over the roadway formed primarily be black willows. The trees immediately adjacent to the road would be removed by any roadway widening or alignment improvement and would also be more greatly impacted by the 40 mph than the 35 mph design. The black willows are advanced in age and no secondary or replacement growth is apparent. If the canopy effect is to be maintained, replacement growth should be started that would conform to whatever alignment is selected. Because of the existing limited size of the picnic area, the Forest 1 �Service would like to discourage its use. Curve No. 7 immediately upstream from China Row was marked for both 35 and 40 mph designs and a 1-1/2:1 cut slope. There was a difference of opinion regarding the relative significance of the visual impact between the 35 and 40 mph designs. Stop No.4 was at Logan Cave, M.P. 386.3 or curve No. 22. Any flattening of the curve to achieve 35 or 40 mph design speed would result in encroachment into the river. The existing channel is already confined with haphazard unattractive riprap protecting the roadway. Several options for flattening the curve was discussed including the following: 1. Place the roadway on a bridge-type structure that would cantilever out over the river. The structure would extend out to about the center of the channel and would apply only to the 35 mph design. The roadway profile would have to be considerably higher than the existing roadway to provide hydraulic clearance beneath the cantilevers that would support the structure girders.· Clark Ostergaard showed an artists rendering of what the cantilever structure would look like. 2. Move the channel of the river by cutting into the bank opposite the roadway. This would require a channel change up to 500 feet in length for the 35 mph design speed and up to 600 feet for the 40 mph ·design speed. A retaining wall along the roadway would be included£or both design speeds. 3. Retain the existing river channel and construct a bridge over the river for the roadway. This would require a structure up to 400 feet long for the 35 mph design speed and 550 feet long for the 40 mph design speed. The bridge would extend out to the center of the existing channel for the 35 mph design. For the 40 mph design the bridge would essentially cover the channel ~or about 300 feet. In both cases the roadway profile would be at least 4 feet higher than the existing roadway profile to provide for hydraulic clearance under the structure. 4. Switch the locations of the river and the roadway by constructing bridges at each end of the roadway curve. Due to the skew angle at which the roadway would cross the river, each of the bridges would be up to 200 feet in length. The bridges could be shortened by reducing the crossing skew angle by making some fairly sharp bends in the river at the structures. 2 �The advantages and disadvantages of each of the four options was discussed, but no clear consensus was reached. It was agreed that additional studies should be done in this area to better define the options described above. The Forest Service would like to discourage parking immediately adjacent to the cave and provide parking near Cottonwood Creek. Stop No.5 was - at Cottonwood Creek and curve No. 24 at M.P. 386.45. The narrow structure should be replaced. At curve No. 24, the relative impacts of both the 35 and 40 mph designs were discussed. Both would result in considerable excavation into the hillside with the difference being in the amount of cut. An additional option identified in the field was to cut through the ridge that separates the Logan River and Cottonwood Creek drainages which would probably involve no more earthwork than the other options. It was agreed that it should be evaluated. Stop No.6 was at M.P. 387.1 at curve No. 29. Both the 35 and 40 mph alignments were staked. The Hillside at this location is less vegetated and has no unusual or distinguishing features. Little difference is evident between the 30 and 40 mph designs. The field inspection showed that it would be des~rable to have the 40 mph design align with the tangent to the west to eliminate the reverse curve. Stop No. 7 wa~ at M.P. 387.6 just below the lower twin bridge. It was concluded that the existing alignment should be followed to eliminate the need for additional fill, and if possible to flatten the existing man-made rock fill slope so that it could be revegetated. Stop No.8 was at M.P. 387.9 just above the lower twin bridge in the dugway. Replacement of -the lower twin bridge was discussed and consensus was reached that the best option is to replace the bridge with a structure on new alignment upstream of the existing bridge. This would require a new cut through the hill next to the existing cut, which could be filled and shaped to a naturally appearing contour with material from the new cut. At the other abutment it would be desirable to flatten the fill slop- s, which would result in e encroachment into the flats at the base of the fill. In the dugway itself, the development of a climbing land was discussed which would require either a retaining wall on the downhill side or cutting further into the hillside. Clark Ostergaard showed an artists rendering of how a retaining wall would appear. Cutting into the hillside in the lower portion of the dugway does not appear feasible because the slope is less stable than the upper portion of the dugway where the existing rock cuts appear stable. The most feasible solution may be a combination of widening the rock cut 3 -I �in the upper portion of the dugway and constructing a retaining wall in the lower portion of the dugway. Stop No. 9 was at M.P. 388.4 at the upper twin bridge. The most feasible location for replacement of the upper twin bridge would be down stream and as close to the existing bridge as possible to avoid the riparian areas of the river. The new bridge location would result in less shading of the structure which should alleviate some of the icing problems experienced by the existing structure. Stop No. 10 was at M.P. 389.9 at Ricks Spring. There appeared to be consensus in shifting the alignment of the road as close to the river as possible to permit parking to be consolidated on the same side of the road as the spring. Stop No. 11 was at M.P. 393.8 at Tony Grove Creek. The existing narrow structure would need to be replaced. The roadway in this section could be widened to provide for a continuous climbing lane with essentially all of the widening being done on the roadside away from .the river. Stop No. 12 was at the M.P. 396.9 at the lower Beaver Creek bridge near the Franklin Basin Road intersection. The existing narrow structure would need · to be replaced on the existing alignment. The Franklin Road intersection would also be improved. Stop No. 13 was at M.P. 397.7 along Beaver Creek. DUe to the relatively narrow area between Beaver Creek and the hillside, it appeared to be difficult to develop a continuous climbing lane along Beaver Creek from just above the Franklin Road intersection to just below the Beaver Mountain Road intersection. Also the modified typical section should be considered for this 2.5 mile section. Stop No. 14 was at M.P. 405.1 or Curve No. 85. Both the 35 · and 40 mph designs would result in considerable new fill. The existing fill would need to be removed and used to restore the cuts on either side of the fill to a more natural contour. Stop No. 15 was at the Bear Lake Overlook at M.P. 405.8. The location of Alternative G-3 was pointed out, particularly the area where the deep cut through the ridge below the lookout would be located. Stop No. 16 was back down the canyon at the Burnt Bridge at M.P. 385.7. The options for replacement of this bridge were discussed with the consensus being that the bridge should be replaced at the present location with a temporary bridge located downstream to carry traffic during construction. 4 �Stop No. 17 was at M.P. 384.8 in the area just abbve Wood Camp campground where the McGuire Primrose is located. The plant was not yet readily apparent but the known locations were pointed out which extend westerly down the rock outcrop to within about 40 feet of the existing road. Any proposed road improvements should avoid this area. The potential location for a slow vehicle turnout at 389.9 should be far enough upstream to not adversely affect this area. SLC99/d.1902 5 �LOGAN CANYON U.S. HIGHWAY 89 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM * * * N0 I S E * * * Prepared By John D.A. Neil, P.E. UDOT April 1987 �LOGAN CANYON TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM * * * NOISE * * * Introduction Acoustical Environment. Logan Canyon's acoustical environment has three parts - natural, human and mechanical. sounds come from birds and other (usually small) denizens of the rushing water, wind, and rustling leaves o~ trees. Human sounds canyon include .conversation, laughter and play, to name a few. (sound) Natural forest, in the These first two parts of the acoustical environment together can be called background' noise, background sounds, or just simply the background. Whether or not the background is "noise" (unwanted sound) is according to one's own likes and dislikes. Intruding into this background is a third part of the acoustical environment, namely noise from machinery. Included in this category for Logan Canyon are such things as highway vehicles , off-road recreational vehicles, , overhead aircraft (usually high altitude and not a very signi ficant part' of the soundscape), temporary construction acti vi ties and small power generators. Sources of intruding noise studied in this report are restricted to those sources under some ' jurisdiction of the Utah . Department of Transportation - namely, highway traffic and highway construction. Animals. It is common to assume for environmental reports that animals are not harmed, stressed, or annoyed any more than are humans by highway traffic noise and construction noise related to highway improvements. This same assumption is made here. Related to the above assumption is another - that animals are · as adaptable to intruding ' noise as are humans. To date, no experience of this author suggests the contrary. Scope of Study. No generally accepted research findings seem to be available that contradict the two assumptions just made. Consequently, the major task of this report is simplified to accomplish the following: to understand and mInImIze noise impacts of highway improvement alternatives affecting people using Logan Canyon. Methodology This noise study is consistent with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) procedures and standards contained in its Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual, Vol. 7, Chapter 7, Section 3 (FHPM 7-7-3), 1982 revision. �, I Traffic noise calculations and predictions are based - upon FHWA's Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Nomographs. Noise levels used in this report are in terms of "Leq," representing "equivalent" (average) noise levels. Leq is a commonly used indicator of general human sensitivity to traffic noise. Spr. p (~h interference is particular ly vulnerable to noise, and speech relates well to the Leq parameter. Land Use and Sensitivity to Noise Classification. The FHWA has classified human sensitivity to traffic noise into the following broad outdoor land use or activity categories, and has set a corresponding upper noise limit (or standard) for each category. These upper limits are used as criteria to determine when measures need to be considered to reduce noise. Table 1: Activity Category FHWA Noise Abatement Criteria Leq Criteria Sensitivty Examples of Activities A High 57 Outdoor theater B tvloderate 67 Residences, libraries, parks, picnic and recreation areas C Low 72 Shopping mall, Service Station o None Undeveloped land .In the following table is a general catalog of land uses adjacent to US-89 through Logan Canyon. Land uses, quantities and percentages shown are estimates only; they are not intended to show an exact description of current usage, since change is expected as development continues in the canyon. Also shown in the table are corresponding FHWA activity categories and noise level criteria. 2 �Table 2: Section 1: Logan Canyon Land Use & Sensitivity to Noise Right Hand Fork to Twin Creek (Est.) (MP~ 383 . 5 to 391.6) % (est.) of FHWA Activity Leq Criteria AdJacent Land 97.1 Categor~ 2 1.3 B 67 Designated picnic areas 2 1.2 B 67 Scenic turnouts, parking 2 0.4 C 72 Land Use Undeveloped U.S. forest land Quantit~ Designated campgrounds D 100% Section 2: Twin Creek to Summit (MP~ 391.6 to 404.8) 96.6 Undeveloped u.s. forest land D Designated campgrounds 2 1.4 B 67 Cabins (seasonal homes) 13 1.2 B 67 4 0.8 B 67 Homes 100% Section 3: Summit to Garden City (MP+ 404.8 to 411.8) Undeveloped -private/ local land 59.0 D Undeveloped u.S. forest land 33.9 D Designated campgrounds I 2.0 B 67 Designated picnic areas 1 1.4 B 67 3 �,/ • I Section 3 Continued Cabins (seasonal homes) 10 1.4 8 67 Commercial 3 1.1 C 72 Cemetery 1 0.5 8 67 Scenic turnouts, rest area, parking 2 0.4 C 72 Homes, contiguous ranch land 4 0.3 8 67 100% Sensti ve Oevelopments. Acti vi ty category "8" developments are the land uses most likely to be sensitive to noise in Logan Canyon. Therefore, the remainder of this report only discusses " these "8'~ activities. Table 3 identi fies many speci fic developments near enough to the highway to be noise sensitive. It is possible that more sites have been developed than are included on the list, and it is very likely that more si tes will yet be developed. The noise criteria already discussed and the noise p~edyctions found later in this report may be generally applied. Consequently, it is hoped that architects and users of new developments utilize the results of this report to aid them in the design of new homes and recreation facilities in Logan Canyon. Sites likely to be impacted. From Table 3, only two sites are likely to have some detrimental noise impact, resulting from changes in highway alignment. "These are both in Section 1: * * China Row Campground Lower Twin Bridge Picnic Area Before studying these special sites, traffic noise in general will be analyzed. Traffic Noise in Logan Canyon Generally Affect of Level of Service and Volume. The combination of traffic volume and speed that give the most noise for Logan Canyon is not likely to occur during "the peak traffic hour, when the road is utilized to near capacity (or "Level 0 f Service E"). Instead, the worst noise situation usually occurs during periods of "Level of Service C" (LOS-C), which implies a situation of substantial traffic volume without severe restriction of speed and maneuverability. 4 " �~\ Table 3: Section M.P. Developments Likely to be Sensitive to Traffic Noise, and/or Construction Noise L/R Vicinit:i Oescri~tion Dist.+ to Exist.-Hw:i CL Dist.+ to Altern-:- CL's Impact by Change in Alignment Disbenefit No change Benefit Uncertain 1 384.4 384.6 386.7 387.8 R L R L China Row Wood Camp Cottonwood Canyon Lower Twin, Bridge Pic"nic Area (1 site) Campground (10 sites) 2 cabins , Picnic Area (6 sites) 70 90 110 160 60 90 115-200 135 2 393.2 393. 8 394.8 396.1 396.6 396.9 401.0 402.4 R L L R R L R L USU Forestry Station Tony Grove Red Banks Rigby Hollow Brash Canyon Franklin Basin Amazon Hollow ';Jillow Spring Cabins (seasonal) Home (guard station) Campground (16 units) Cabin 3 cabins Cabin 2 cabins UOOT tvlaint. c,amp 750 470 160 210 120 1,450 170 600 750 475 160 210 120 1,450 170 600 3 405.1 405.8 408.0 408.2 408.3 408.4 409.1 409.1 410.5 411.1 411.1 411.7 411.7 R R R L 700 430 500 130-800 250 170 350 520 420 230 200 100 170 900 630 600 125-800 250-310 170 350-900 520-1,000 420 230 200 100 170 Ul R L L L R L R R R Summit ' Summit Bridgerland Village Bridger land Village Bridger land Village Bridgerland Village Bridgerland Village Bridgerland Village S. of Garden City Garden City Canyon S. of Garden City Garden City Gard'en City Sunrise Campground Sunrise Picnic area Cabin 5 cabins Cabin Cabin Cabin Cabin Ranch home Ranch home Cemetery Home Home No No No No No No No No change change change change change change change change Benefit Benefit Benefit No change Benefit No change Benefit Benefit No change No change No change No change No change i 1 ! I 1 ! ! I �Intui ti vely, this assertion seems reasonable when one recalls these two facts (assuming a road of fixed capacity): (1) that traffic volumes exceeding LOS-C cause congestion with a corresponding decrease in average vehicle speed; and (2) that noise is related to both volume and speed. It follows that a gain in noise from more vehicles is compensated by a noise loss from speed reduction. Thus, the maximum volume at LOS-C (also called the maximum service flow C· or MSF -C) typically gives the worst noise scenario. If improvements are made to increase the capacity of the road, then the MSF-C and corresponding maximum noise level also increase. However, it would take a doubling of volume to increase noise only 3 decibels (a barely noticeable increase). MSF-C values for the three sections in Logan Canyon have been documented in CH2M Hill's _U_S_-8~9~,__L_o~g~a_n~_C_a_n~y~o_n__~S_t_u_d~y_:~__ T_e_ch_n_l_·c_a l __ Memorandum (Draft, December 1986), pp. 6-12 and 6-17. They are as follows: Table 4: Maximum Service Flow C (vph) Section 1 Existing conditions Maximum improvements* Section 2 Section 3 386 · 532 Roadway Geometrics 306 412 267 412 *(Include: 4' shoulders, 12' lane width, increased passing.) Affect of Vehicle Type. The summer average weekday traffic composi tion includes approximately 84% passenger cats and light trucks (IT), according to the CH2M Hill study previously cited, p. 5-15. This is the least noisy class of vehicles (on a per vehicle basis). Recreational vehicles (RV) and medium trucks (MT) are similar enough acoustically to be combined; these represent 13% of the traffic mix. The noise emission level of an average MT is about 11 decibels higher than the average car. The remaining 3% of the vehicles are heavy trucks (HT); they are the noisiest class because they are typically diesel powered. In the proportions indicated, the MT class as a whole contributes slightly more noise than ei ther the HT · or automobile class. This fact may have significance in the discussion of noise abatement. Table 5 uses the traffic composition just described to portion the MSF-C traffic volumes from Table 4 into flow rates per vehicle type. 6 �,--_..- _ .. . Table 5: Traffic Mi~ for Maximum Service Flow C (vph) Section 1 Existing Conditions Maximum Improvements Cars & LT MT & RV HT 324 50 12 447 69 16 257 40 9 346 54 12 224 35 8 346 54 12 Section 2 Cars & LT MT & RV HT Section 3 Cars & LT MT & RV HT (LT = Light Trucks, MT Recreational Vehicles.) = Medium Trucks, HT = Heavy trucks, RV = Affect of Speed. Noise is related to vehicle speed; and average vehicle speed is related to highway design (affecting level of service), vehicle type, and gradient. Table 6 (on the following page) gives the estimated average speeds for these three parameters. Although the effects of speed on traffic noise are somewhat different for various vehicle types, approximate general effects may be condensed into the following rule of thumb for Logan Canyon: for each 5 mph increment of average speed increase, the overall average noise level will increase about 2 decibels. Affect of Gradient. Climbing a' grade takes extra power, and a byproduct of power is noise. Published research findings have shown that at normal highway speeds, only heavy trucks have a signi ficantly higher noise level on grades. F:HWA' s Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-l08) suggests the following HT adjustments for uphill grades: Add dB 0 +2 +3 +5 Grade 0-2% 3-4% 5-6% 7+% The FHWA makes no adjustment for downgrade direction. However, heavy trucks frequently use engine brakes, particularly on the steep grades in 7 �Logan Canyon. Engine brake noise can vary considerably because of variations in engine and muffler design, load, speed, and driver. Consequently, the noise emission level for downhill trucks is not as predictable as is noise for uphill trucks. For simplicity in this report, it is assumed that heavy trucks in both directions emit noise that increase with gradient, according to the FHWA values given above. Table 6: Estimated Bidirectional Average Upgrade Speed for MSF-C Section 1 Cars/LT Generally 2% average grade 35 mph (or less) existing design, no passing 35 mph design improvements 40 mph design option 45 mph design option 50 mph design option Twin Bridges locality, 5.5% average grade 35 mph (or less) existing design, no passing 35 mph design improvements 40 mph design, option, climbing lane 45 mph design option, climbing lane 50 mph design option, climbing lane MT/RV HT 39 39 39 39 39 39 41 43 45 41 43 45 41 43 45 30 30 35 35 37 30 30 30 31 32 39 41 43 45 39 Section 2 Generally 2% average grade 55 mph existing design 60 mph design option Beaver MP-404 50 55 60 49 Mtn. Road to UDOT Maint. Camp and to Summit, 4-7% grade mph existing design mph design option mph design option 49 49 51 51 51 32 47 32 40 42 32 34 35 30 35 35 37 30 30 30 31 32 49 Section 3 Generally steep (to 7% grade) 35 mph (or less) existing design, no passing 35 mph design improvements, ample passing 40 mph design option 45 mph design option 50 mph design option 30 39 41 43 45 39 Affect of Road Widening. Adding shoulders or widening traffic lanes symmetrically in both directions from the centerline of the Logan Canyon highway will not significantly change the noise level heard by a receiver who is farther than 25 feet from the centerline. 8 �However, adding a passing lane to one side of the roadway will shift the noise in the direction of the passing lane. For receivers at a distance of 50 feet or less from the highway centerline, a passing lane (nearest the receiver) can add nearly 1 decibel to the overall Leq. This noise effect · rapidly diminishes at increasing distances from the highway. At 100 feet there is essentially no noise increase. According to Table 3, only one site is close enough to be affected by noise from a passing lane - China Row Campground. However, no passing lane is proposed for the vicinity of China Row; therefore road widening has no significant effect on noise for this project. Noise Level Predictions. Traffic noise is related to the distance that a receiver is from the highway, as shown by the following chart. Affects of Level of Service, vehicle type, speed and gradient (previously discussed) are included in the approximate generalizations on the chart. Sound decays at a predictably uniform rate with increasing distance. For Logan Canyon vicinity the rate is estimated to be about 4.5 dB loss for each doubling of distance. Unimproved road sections one and three are described best by Line C on the chart. Line C intersects the 67 dbA standard at a distance of 40 feet from the centerline. Any human activities farther than 40 feet will likely not exceed the standard if the ·adjacent road section does not exceed a 35 mph design. Although Section Two (unimproved) is a high speed design, other factors in general reduce the noise to that of Line B. Any improvements to Section Two will likely increase noise to Line A. Line A receivers need to be at least 75 feet away from the centerline in order to minimize speech interference. General Noise Impacts There are three criteria that determine the severity of noise impact: absolute level, relative increase, and fluctuation. All three are interrelated. Absolute Level. Interference with speech is the basis for the standard or criterion level of 67 dBA. This criterion affects many human · activities in the canyon. China Row campground is near enough to the highway to be impacted· by highway noise, especially if some highway improvement alternatives bring traffic somewhat closer to the campground. All other developments seem to be at sufficient distance (greater than 75 feet) to not be seriously impacted by the average traffic noise level. 9 �_10.!....:! • ...!.~~~..j, . ..! ....) ....... "J ..... _o....L." .. _ '"""-_ ... .. ·_ ............. ~_ v_ . . . ... ~ -..J .......... ' - ' ..... ~ . . .. . . ....... ~ ••••# . __ • • - - . - •• - - - - . _ _ - - , . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _•_ _ _- . -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .~---- - - .._-_ ~ ~ II",,,.,,,. I,'·· ...... '.~ 'IF ··11·' II ( " 'h / ...) .",.il iI ·I. Line A Line B Lin e C 50 40 35 to I :t.~. ~. to 60 mp h d e sign a lternatives. mph des i gn alter na t i ves. mph d e sign a lternatives or posted speed restricted 40 mph or le ss. ~ ,.Q ro tJ1 60 Q) H rl Q) :> Q) H Q) 50 til -.-; 0 z 40 100 Distance to Highway 10 1,000 CenterliI ~ e (ft) �Relative Increase in Noise. Long term residents would be more likely to notice a traffic noise increase resulting from a highway improvement than would seasonal residents, campers and other recreation oriented users of Logan Canyon. However, any change in traffic noise level in the vicinity of permanently occupied homes is not likely to be noticed by the residents. Many cabin .dwellers at Bridger land Village (Section 3) may notice a drop in traffic noise, if the alignment is shifted from its present location. Generally, cabin dwellers will benefit acoustically from either of the two most feasible alternative alignments (F-3 to the north of the village, or G-3 to the south). Fluctuation. Although the level of noise is higher in daytime than nighttime because of higher daytime use and daytime traffic in the canyon, heavy truck noise is more noticeable at night. This phenomenon is in part because there are less cars to partially mask the peak noise levels of the trucks. Consequently, the difference between highest noise peaks and background level are much more in contrast and therefore, noticeable at night. This type of noise impact will generally affect residents and campers more than day-use recreationalists. So the people to benefit most are the ones who ' can be farthest from the traffic. Again, Bridgerland Village is a beneficiary of a change in highway alignment. Special Problem Sites China Row Campground. A shift in alignment of about 10. feet closer to the campground is one option being considered for highway improvement. From the noise prediction chart on the preceding page, it can be seen that shortening the distanc~ to the highway centerline fro~ 70 feet to 60 feet will increase the noise level about 1 decibel to 64.5 dbA on Line C~ ·If highway improvements also ' cause the noise to raise from Line C to Line B (40 mph design), then the Leq will increase 2 additional decibels to approximately 66.5 dBA. Any highway improvements to a higher design speed than 40 mph (Line A) would have to consider noise abatement at this camp site. Lower Twin Bridge Picnic Area. A shift in alignment of approximately 25 or 30 feet closer to the picnic area is being considered as part of a new bridge and roadway alignment. From the noise prediction chart on the preceding page, it can be seen that shortening the distance to the highway center line from 160 feet to 130 feet will normally (at grade) increase the noise level nearly 1.5 decibels from 58 to about 59.5 decibels on Line C. However, the picnic area is at least 30 feet below the grade line of the highway. Thus, the picnic area is in an · acoustical shadow zone, causing an approximate 7.5 db reduction of the Leq on the existing alignment to about 50.5 dBA. 11 �Neglecting any vertical change in alignment, the horizontal shi ft will cause more of an acoustic shadow. The result would be a Leq of 59.5 . - 9 (shadow) dB = 50.5 dBA approximately, which is the same Leq as for the existing alignment. Thus, the Lower Twin Bridge Picnic Area will not be seriously impacted by tra ffic noise from any of the proposed improvements. Even with a change to Line A (worst noise situation), the predicted Leq will not exceed 63 dBA, which is below the 67 dBA standard. In summary of noise impacts, . only China Row Campground may need to consider noise abatement, and this will be only in the case of greater than 40 mph design. Noise Abatement Noise abatement will not need to be planned into the project design for any location, regardless of the highway improvement options under consideration, with one possible exception. China Row picnic area (one table) will need noise abatement consideration for a design speed of over 40 mph. The feasibility of physical noise . protection (wall or berm) at China Row is poor. A noise wall or berm would crowd the already very small picnic site, and would be likely out of character with the surrounding trees. The most effective noise control is speed control at this location. Therefore, it is recommended that the d~sign speed not exceed 40 mph at this location. Construction Noise Construction is likely to occur on a piecemeal si te-speci fic basis, beginning with bridge replacements and detour roads. Perhaps as early as summer of 1988 if funds are available, a specific site improvement could get underway. Acoustically, there is an advantage of this pattern of construction. People can still use the canyon in general for its diversified recreation and avoid noise from specific sites under construction. Construction · noise will probably be quite localized for two reasons. Sloped terrain and canyon walls will reflect the sound vertically and away from sensitive activities. · A few sites do have vertical cuts through rock which tend to channel sound horizontally; however, these sites are only found occasionally in the canyon, and fairly restricted to Section One. The second reason why construction noise will probably be very localized is that there is an adequate amount of shielding from vegetation and natural topographic features to impede sound transmission. 12 �Equipment used for construction will be very diversified to meet the needs of the various types of construction acti vi ties and in various types of terrain~ Explosives and rock drills are expected to be used in various places. Standard precautions will be implemented to protect people from shock _waves and noise. All construction activities are subject to UDOT amended standard speci fication Iil07. 25' "Noise and Vibration Control." Summary Noise Abatement will not need to be planned into the project design for any location, regardless of the highway improvement options under consideration, with one possible exception. China Row picnic area will need noise abatement consideration for a design speed of over 40 mph. Because of the impracticality of physical noise barriers at China Row, it is recommended that the design speed not exceed 40 mph at this location. No serious noise problem is expected from construction activities. 13 �TYPICAL SOURCES Gunfire (to mark8man) NOISE LEVEL (dBA) HU~IAN RESPONSE CONVERSATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS at 3 feet 140 Painfully loud Noise loudness or intensity is measured in units called decibels, abbreviated dB or db. It is logarithmically based, so 10 decibels increase in sound intensity level means 10 times the acoustic energy from the source(s). I-bwever, human ears perceive the increase 0 f 10 db as a doubling of loudness. The db scale covers the range of human hearing from 0 (the bottom limit of hearing ability for an average person with good hearing) to 130 (when sound energy causes pain to the ears). The following table relates noise levels associated with typical noise sources. Typical human response and conversational problems are also given. Just as the human eye sees the color yellow best because it is in the center of the visible spectrum, so the human ear hears sounds better that are in the center of the human audio range of musical notes or pitches. Consequently" a weighting scale has been devised, and is internationally used in many sound measurements that tries to take this unequal human pitch perception into account. It is called the "A-weighted decibel scale" abbreviated "dbA," "dBA" or sometimes "dB(A)." 130 120 , Di8cotbeque Auto Horn (3') Hearin/Z Damage (leu than IS min/day exposure) 110 100 Hearing Damage (l-hr/day exposure) 90 Rearing Damage (S-brs/day exposure) SO Food Blender Annoying Sbouting Heavy Truck (50') Very Loud Car 40 mph (20') 70 Telepbone Use Difficult Railt'd Voice Normal Voice Office 60 Low Voice Ligbt Auto Traffic (100') 50 Quiet Whisper 40 All sound measurements and predictions in this report use the standardized dBA. Very Soft Wbisper Library 30 Broadc8Stin/! Studio Very Quiet 20 10 0 Just Audible Thre~hold of Hearing �APPENDIX TO LOGAN CANYON NOISE TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM * * * * * * SPEED ANALYSIS This Appendix is to determine approximate vehicle speeds throughout thp canyon for various scenarios. The results are for use in Table 6 (on page 8) of the ·oise Technical Memorandum. Advisory speed signs for specific curves are ignored for thee noise analysis. Average speed for sections of roarlway under LeveJ of Service C maximum flow is the target of thjs Appendix. highl-lay can he Each of the three main sections of a nontypical subclassified into a typical gradient type and gradient type as follows: a. h . Section 1: Mountainous terrain Generally 2% average grade. T\,J i 11 B rid g e s ] 0 C 8.1 i t .Y 5. 5 % (a. p pro x . ) a v e rag e g r ad P. 1 • Sectio~: Nostly roll ing terra in some mounta inous Generally 2% average grade. Beaver Mtn. Road to UDOT Maintenance Camp, and MP-404 to summit· 1 4 -7% grade (4.5% average) 1 a. h. a. b. Section 3-: Mountainous terrain Generally steep, to 7% (5.5% avg.). Base of mountain to Garden City, 2% average grade, restricted speed. This is a relatively short section and can be jgnored. Existing Conditions Since passing lanes are not provided anywhere in Logan Canyon above Right Hand Fork, it follows that cars must fall into gueues behind heavy trucks and slow recreational vehiclesa (RV's) on uphill gradients. Since heavy trucks (HT) are the slowest class of vehicles on uphill grades, HT speed also is the limiting factor for all other vehicles on uphill grades. The AASHTO Green Book" (A Po 1 icv.~~1.~Geo~.~ r ic___~ s ig_ of. n Highways and St.reets, 1984, p. 255) sho\.;rs that. H1' on long grades steeper than 2% will travel about 20 mph. 1/ For downhill and on grades less than 2%, it is assumed that all vehicles can go the speed consistent with level of service C, as det.ermpned by TAble 8-] and footnot.e b of the Hi d"hwav~aci ty f"] a !!.y a 1 ~ T R B S .~ cia l_y e J2 0 r t , #: 2 0 9, p . 8 - 5 : �Cars/LT Section 1 3f> mph de9, j gn MT/RV 50 mph design opt>ion 8 . 39 41 43 45 41 43 45 3f> mph design 39 35 41 35 ~~ 7 39 improvements 40 mph design option 45 mph desjgn opt, j on b. improvement,s 40 mph design opt. ion 45 mph design opt. i on 50 mph design option Se c tion 43 45 39 HT 39 41 4 :i .:If> 30 30 31 32 OJ L., a. 60 mph design option . b. 55 mph design option 60 mph design opt. ion 51 51 49 40 42 34 35 39 41 43 45 35 35 37 39 47 Sect/ - -- -- - - - - ion :3 35 40 45 50 mph design opt. ion mph def i gn option s mph design option mph design option 30 30 31 32 Conclusion and Summary For acousticaJ evaluation, speed nf vehicle classes have been calculated at JJoS-C condi~jons for various riesign options . These speeds are compiled int.o Table 6 (p. 8) of the Technical Memorandum for Noise. �Design Speed Level nO 55 52 50 50 4:1 48 46 40 35 44 40* 30 35* Rolling Mountainous 51 -1-9 49 ,~ 'I 47 45 43 43 40 35* :39 45 -ll :35* * Hi"I C 's Average speed has been c hanged from directions given 1n t.han footnote b i n order to not exceed the design speed by more 5 mph. Average speed of both directions of traffic for each section or subsectjon of roadway is sufficiently accurate to estimate noise levels. Co nsequently, the didirectional average speeds for pxisting conditions are calculated to be as follows: Sect jon 1 a b 39 30 Section 2 a 49 b 32 Sect jon 3 all 30 It is assumed for the noise study that all design jmprovemen t options will include at least som e li mited passing opportunities in all sections of the c anyon . Co nsequently, heavy trucks no long e r "'Tould Ijmit the speerJ of fast.er vehicles totally . The AASHTO Green Book, p. 258 shows that for long steep RV's (and medium trucks as s umed) cannot maintain a speed greater than 40 mph. grades~ In t he following table, as done for existing co nditions, a hidirec tjo na] average speed is estimatpd for the given de s ign speeds . Medium trucks and recreational vehicles are assumeed to have speeds betwee n those o f cars an d heavy trucks . � 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/84">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/84</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2337523283 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 14625351 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer, April 29, 1987 Description An account of the resource Memorandum from Stan Nuffer with the review of traffic forecasts, scoping comments, dates for meetings, technical memorandum on noise and speed analysis. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Neil, John D.A. Nuffer, Stanton S. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Silver, Duncan Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Roads--Design and construction Traffic engineering Logan Canyon Environmental Study Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Correspondence Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-04-20 1987-04-29 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Rich County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_010.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/7d874e636e2620dbeeb0becb21303f1f.pdf f5100b4bcee730b714f7172a8a04e062 PDF Text Text CITIZENS FOR THE PROTECTION OF LOGAN CANYON Citizens for the Protection of Logan Canyon is a citizens' group of volunteers and non-profit organizations working toward longterm protection of Logan Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities and naturalness. The Jardine Juniper is CPLC's symbol. Located high above Wood Camp recreation area, this ancient but beautiful tree represents Logan Canyon's recr~ational diversity and unsurpassed scenery. CPLC's proposal for Logan Canyon o The protection of Logan Canyon's scenic beauty, fish and wildlife habitat, rare plants, recreational sites and naturalness must be a prime concern. o An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for CI I\y significant road modification proposals to protect Canyon's Logan natural surroundings from haphazard road modifications. o Travel speeds between Right Hand Fork and Rick's Spring should r e mn in as currently posted. This area is very scenic and too s e nsitiv e t. 0 IH I 1"111 I tan y B 1 g n l f 1 C II n t r 0 ,I d w LI Y III 0 d 1 f 1 c II t j () II!:> • o Bridges which cannot meet structural safety requirements should b e r e placed when possible. These bridges should be two lanes wid e olll y . Hi \lOl' al teratlons to bridge llpprollche~ wOlll d ho acc cq . t:llhl u . l o Turning lanes at Tony Grov e Recreation Area Lind lleavet' Area may be constructed to facilitate turning traffic. ~10UI\t Ll II\ Sk i o Parking areas should be built near Temple Fork Road and Cottonwood Cnnyon (near Logan Cave) to improve traffic flow and saf e ty. o Additional warning signs should be placed along the highway motorists about bicycle traffic, pulloffs and pedestrian travel . o The road wi ll improve J.Of, 1I11 Canyon. t e llillg should be resurfaced and restriped where required. This through traffic travel and nighttime saf et y throughout: o No climbing (passing) lane I:lhould b e buill lIL tllu I>lIl.:,Wlly (lll : L Wl-"11 Lowel' and Upper twin bridges) _ A c 1 i III h j n g III Ill! W 0 u 1 d a t I: l : C t it V l- r y sCl!nic area by requiring major cut and fill op e ratiolls with unsigh t ly r et aining walls. o No road modifications should alter th e Logan Riv e r's wat e l' COlll' se A l ter at ions could since the river is a major recreational r e sour c e. destroy important streambanks. o No new roads or major changes to the existing road shoultl be con s t r u c ted fro In the Bear La k e S 1I111 mit t o t h c B e ar L iI k ( ! 0 V (! ... 1 0 0 k _ Til i ~; hl" , ItW ily section is in LI very popular lind sel"lIll: r l! C r l : ;tt lOll :11 · l' : I . o Congress should designate Logan Canyon Highw a y O!:> Uta h's f ir s t: National Scenic Highway_ This designation would recognize Logan Can y o n as a scenic and recreational jewel similar to units in our Nation a l P n r k System. o Logan River above Third Dam should be considered r u r National Recreational River designation under the Wild and Sc e nic River s Ac t . This federal designation will protect the river's quality for a ll f utur e g e nerations. � 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/82">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/82</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2648911877 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1321422 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 Dale Bosworth to Daniel Dake, May 28,1987 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dale Bosworth to Daniel Dake, May 28,1987 discussing how the EIS must comply with the Wasatch-Cache National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Bosworth states that the Forest Service supports an objective analysis of Logan Canyon but is unwilling to make a final decision without completed analysis and adequate public involvement. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Bosworth, Dale Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Utah United States Highway 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-05-28 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_014.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/9a63f9ddcadd9a924228c4b92154118e.pdf e711cc54ec0dd456383f57dab4b7ede2 PDF Text Text REVISED ROLE OF INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM LOGAN CANYON STUDY The interdisciplinary team (1.0. Team) is made up of representatives from Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), the consultant (CH2M HILL) the United States Forest Service (USFS), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and a , representative(s) of the environmental community. A roster of the proposed team members is attached. The functions of the I.D. Team are: 1. Provide Management Input The I.D. Team will meet regularly to review areas of study, responsibility for execution, schedules of work, and public involvement. 2. Provide Technical Input Specialists from CH2M HILL with input from the USFS will prepare technical memorandums covering the required areas of work distributed at the June 10 1.0. Team meeting. t ~ ~~~ i'~ Review Technical Memoranda and Draft Environmental Report . All members of the 1.0. Team will review draft copies of technical memoranda and provide timely written comments. ~~)\... r <:J Level of Environmental Action Determination The I .D. Team will provide a recommendation on the appropriate class of envi 0 tal actio to be made t q UDOT and the cooperating agencies. t:-.""'lS ,"ti The 10 Team will meet one to two times per month on the average to accomplish the functions outlined above. Proposed schedule for the next 3 months. ~ 14 July 28 August 4 August 18 Sept. 8 Sept. 22 SLC74/08 3:00 3:00 7:00 3:00 3:00 7:00 p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. p.m. District District District District District District Office Office Office Office Office Office �6-26-86 REVISED LOGAN CANYON IMPROVEMENT STUDY PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN PURPOSE OF PLAN To inform the public and interested agencies about the study, to obtain public input that can be incorporated into the decision-making process, and to comply with the National Environmental Protection Act and other regulations and policies calling for public involvement in Utah Department of Transportation projects. The following public involvement plan is based on four study milestones. Public involvement will take place shortly after the designated milestone in the study has occurred. In addition to the program proposed upon reaching each study milestone, the following activities will occur continuously throughout the study. o Maintenance of a Mailing List - all individuals and interest groups requesting mailings will be included on this list (attached to this plan) o Local Study Liaison - Valley Engineers in Logan will maintain copies of all informational material on the study in its Logan office, and will answer or refer questions to the appropriate person. CH2M HILL will also perform this service in its Salt Lake City office o Local repositories for study materials will be arranged at the Logan Public Library, Utah State University Library, Garden City municipal offices, and Salt Lake City Public Library. All informational materials will also be available at Wasatch/ Cache National Forest offices in Ogden and at the Utah Department of Transportation offices in Salt Lake City MILESTONE 1 - BEGINNING OF STUDY Task 1, the analysis of transportation needs, is scheduled to begin in early June 1986. Objectives o To explain to the public what the study will entail o To explain why the study is necessary 1 �o To explain that UDOT has an obligation to the public to keep Highway 89 open, and therefore some level of improvement is needed even to implement a no-action alternative Techniques o Press Release to be submitted to all media included on mailing list - week of July 6 o Project Introduction - a detailed written explanation of the history of this study, the reasons for conducting this study, and the tasks to be conducted, will be mailed to all groups/individuals included on the mailing list - week of July 13 o Written Summary of public involvement activities, responses, and issues will be prepared upon completing this phase of the public involvement program - week of July 28 MILESTONE 2 - COMPLETION OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS ANALYSIS The analysis and conclusions of this study should be close to completion by July 31. Objectives o To report the findings of the study regarding safety problems, maintenance problems and design factors that cause traffic flow problems now and in the future, at specific sites in the canyon o To identify the need for actions, and the general magnitude of the actions needed to provide certain levels of service Techniques o Press Release to be submitted to all media included on mailing list - week of August 4 o Summary Report of Findings/Fact Sheet will be mailed to all groups/individuals on mailing list - week of August 11 o Town Meeting to discuss findings, answer questions to be held in Logan - week of August 25 o Meetings With Interest Groups as requested - following town meeting through September 12 2 �o Written Summary of activities, response, and issues will . be prepared upon completion of the second phase of the public involvement program week of September 15 MILESTONE 3 - COMPLETION OF ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT (Prior to environmental impact analysis) - This should occur near the end of November. Objectives o To explain the proposed project alternatives to the public and relate them to an approximate level of service. Each project alternative will consist of action plans for a number of sites on the road where problems have been identified, which together will maintain or improve the road to a certain level of service. o To identify specific concerns of individuals and interest groups regarding the proposed alternatives o To obtain consensus among interested parties on the issues to be analyzed in the environmental analysis of the proposed project Techniques o Press Release giving brief review of study findings to date, explaining proposed alternatives, and reviewing the proposed scoping activities will be submitted to all media on the mailing list week of November 24 o Fact Sheet giving detailed explanation of each alternative with graphic . illustration, explanation of level of service provided by each, and general advantages and disadvantages, will be sent to each entry on mailing list - week of November 24 o Meetings With Interest/Service Groups expressing strong interest in the study will be held during the first 3 weeks of December to discuss the alternatives and identify their concerns. A maximum of four such meeting are planned, and as a result some groups might be requested to meet together. Groups that request such a meeting might include: Sierra Club Utah Wilderness Association Bridgerland Audubon Society 3 �Rich-Cache Tourist Council Cache County Chamber of Commerce Bear River Association of Governments Bear Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau Cache Economic Development Council ( December 1-19 o Town Meeting will be held in Logan to summarize alternatives, report on concerns voiced by groups/ individuals, receive testimony on other concerns. Issues to be addressed in environmental analysis will be summarized - week of January 5 o Press Release reviewing scoping process activities and is~ues to be studied in environmental analysis will be submitted to all media included on mailing list - week of January 19 o Written Summary of all public involvement activities, response, and issues will be prepared after the activities of this phase have been conducted week of January 26 MILESTONE 4 - COMPLETION OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Approximately May 29. Objectives o To report findings of environmental analysis o To answer questions regarding conclusions drawn in the document o To receive comments regarding the findings of the document Technigues o Videotape explaining the alternatives and discussing the environmental tradeoffs will be developed prior to Milestone 4 to be presented during this stage Months of February and March. o Summary Report reviewing findings of the draft analysis will be mailed to all groups/individuals included on mailing list - week of June 1, 1987 o Press Release reporting findings of environmental analysis and schedule for public input/hearings to be submitted to all media listed in mailing list week of June 1, 1987 4 �o Workshop Meeting to present videotape, discuss environmental analysis findings, allow questions and answers ' - Logan, week of June 15 o Public Hearing to present videotape and Feceive testimony on draft environmental analysis - Logan, week of July 13, 1987; possible hearing in Ogden or Salt Lake City, week of July 13, 1987. Written testimony will be accepted for 30 days after last hearing o Written Summary of all public involvement activities, response, and issues will be prepared after the activities of Phase 4 have been conducted week of August 10 All aspects of the public involvement program will remain flexible since it must be responsive to the conduct of the project and the needs of the community. Public involvement activities will be announced in all press releases. SLC78/d.401 ( 5 �LOGAN CANYON PROJECT MAILING LIST Group Sierra Club Phone Contact Jack Spence Rudy Lukez (801)750-1626 (801)863-3702 (W) (801)753-5568 (H) Utah Wilderness Association Tom Lyon (801)750-1603 Bridgerland Audubon Society Steve Flint Address (801)752-9102 (H) (801)750-2474 (W) P.O. Box 3580 Logan, Utah 84321 Sun City Travellers Rich-Cache Tourist Council Dean Smith Cache County Chamber of Commerce Paula Bell (801)752-2161 Bear River Association of Governments Bruce King (801) 752-7242 Bear Lake Regional Commission Al Harrison (208)945-2333 Bear Lake Convention and Visitors' Bureau Jenny Archer Cache Economic Development Council Bobbie Coray (801)753-3631 Cache County Farm Bureau Lynn Meikle (801)563-3633 c/o Cache County Chamber of Commerce Greater Bear Lake Chamber of Commerce Bear River Resource, Conservation, and Development Coordinator 170 North Main Logan, Utah 84321 Garden City, Utah Kent Hortin 1305 Canyon Road Smithfield, Utah 84335 USDA Service Center 1075~ North Main Street Logan, Utah 84321 Raymond N. Malouf Malouf Law Offices 150 East 200 North Suite D Logan, Utah 84321 Cache County Commissioners J. Owen Yeates Dean H. Parker Jay A. Monson Rich County Commissioners Kenneth R. Brown Blair Francis Dee Johnson Utah Travel Council Barbara Fjelsted Local Legislative Delegation Stephen Bodily c/o The Sportsman Logan, Utah 84321 (208)258-2844 L. Keith Gates (801)752-7335 (H) (801)752-7445 (W) 1 810 S. Main Lewiston, Idaho 84320 665 N. 200 E. Logan, Utah 84321 �LOGAN CANYON PROJECT MAILING LIST (Continued) Group Phone Contact (801)752-4304 Evan L. Olsen Address 2009 S. 3200 W. Route 1 Young Ward, Utah 84339 Lyle Hilliard (801)753-0043 (H) (801)752-2610 (W) 175 E. First N. Logan, Utah 84321 John Holmgren (801)279-8679 (H) (801)753-5229 (W) 4570 W. 5400 N. Bear River City, Utah 84301 Utah State University City of Logan City of Smithfield City of Hyrum City of Providence City of North Logan City of Wellsville City of Richmond City of Hyde Park ( City of Lewiston City of River Heights City of Nibley City of Millville City of Mindon City of Newton City of Clarkston City of Paradise City of Trenton City of Amalga City of Cornish City of Randolph City of Laketown City of Garden City City of Woodruff 2 �LOGAN CANYON PROJECT MAILING LIST (Continued) Group Contact Phone Address MEDIA Logan Herald Journal Tim Vitale (801)752-2121 75 West 300 North Logan, Utah 84321 Mel Baldwin (307) 789-6560 P.O. Box B Evanston, Wyoming 82930 (801)237-2045 P.O. Box 867 Salt Lake City, Utah (801)237-2150 P.O. Box 1257 Salt Lake City, Utah 84110 KSL Television Channel 5 (801)237-2500 145 Social Hall Ave. Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 KTVX Television Channel 4 (801)972-1776 1760 S. Fremont Dr. Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 KUTV Television Channel 2 (801)973-3000 2185 S. 3600 W. West Valley City, Utah 84120 Cache Citizen Uinta (Evanston) County Herald (bi-weekly: Wednesday and Friday) Salt Lake Tribune Utah State University Statesman Salt Lake Deseret News Joe Bauman Ogden Standard-Examiner KVNU Radio KUEZ Radio KUSU Radio Lee Austin SLC78/d.402 3 �LOGAN CANYON TRAFFIC COUNTING AND FORECASTING OBJECTIVE 1. To determine the volume and type of traffic currently using Highway 89 between Logan and Garden City. 2. To develop an estimate of traffic volume in the year 2010. DATA SOURCES The primary source of traffic volume data is the permanent counting station located west of Garden City. The information available from data gathered at this station includes: ~ Daily and hourly traffic totals for 1974 through 1985 (see attachment 1 for month of June 1985). ~ A ranking of the 100 highest traffic flow hours for 1974 through 1985 (see attachment 2 for 1985). ~ Authomatic recorder data by months (see attachment 3 for 1985). METHODOLOGY FOR COLLECTING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC DATA Three coverage stations have been established in the Canyon. Traffic counts will be taken at these stations up to 4 days during the course of this study. These stations are at Right Hand Fork, Terry Grove Intersection and Beaver Mountain Intersection. The Federal Highway Administration, Volume Counting Manual, recommends counts at coverage stations be taken 2 to 4 days per year. The primary function of the coverage station counts will be vehicle classification. The data gathered at these coverage stations will be used to establish the volume and classification of traffic at points along the road and to supplement the data provided by the permanent counting station. See attachments 3 and 4 for the results of the February 22 counts at the Beaver Mountain Junction. METHODOLOGY FOR FORECASTING FUTURE TRAFFIC LOADS There is apparently no universally accepted methodology for forecasting future traffic volumes. When forecasts have been required by other state or federal agencies (the Federal Highway Administration for example) UDOT has provided the forecast and a description of the methodology used. The 1 �current methodology used within the State of Utah to forecast traffic volume is not totally applicable to a situation like Logan Canyon. This methodology assumes traffic into and out of, a major employment center. The traffic between Logan and Garden City is heavily influenced by the summer recreational development on the south and west shores of Bear Lake. The average daily traffic (ADT) recorded in 1985 by the permanent station was 1240. However the ADT for the months June through September was 2374 and for the remainder of the year 673 vehicles per day. In preparing previous forecasts for S-89, two methodologies have been used. One methodology assumes full development of the proposed Bear Lake recreational facilities by the end of the planning period. The second methodology uses past trends to forecast future changes in traffic volume. Both methodologies will be briefly discussed below. FULL DEVELOPMENT The full development approach to forecasting the future traffic volume assumes that all planned or proposed cabin lots or condominium units in the Bear Lake area will be completed within the planning period. Traffic is then expected to increase in some proportion to the increase in cabins or condominiums. In 1981 surve'_ showed 1011 develq2ed _ca in lots or condominlums units along the south and west shores At that time there were 17,420 planned units. Using a full development senario the estimated ADT for 1990 was 4489, with 8360 vehicles per day forecast for the summer months. PAST TRENDS Using past trends as a means of forecasting future ADT provides a significantly lower estimate of traffic volume. Using this ~ method, the trends ears are used to estimate future AmT. A recent UDOT study forecasting ADT \_ throu gh the C . amy ou-rn the year 2005 shqwed ~ tO , a 3 percent ~ ~er vear increase. U$ing this metfiod, the estimated .2 ~T ~ would be 2400. This is approximately double the volume today. For this study, a past-trends approach appears to be most realistic for preparing a forecast of the future traffic volume. The ADT will also be determined for the summer months in addition to the annual. The ratio between the summer ADT and the annual ADT would then be used to forecast the summer ADT at the end of the planning period. SLC77/61 2 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/79">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/79</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 2238679222 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 6790578 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 Information about interdisciplinary team and Logan Canyon study Description An account of the resource Information about interdisciplinary team including contact information and mailing lists and Logan Canyon study with traffic counting and forecasting, purpose of Logan Canyon improvement study and public involvement plan, and the revised role of intersiciplinary team. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Government agencies 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 1986-06-26 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 3 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd3_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/5757de09169711c4476077122b1db8f5.pdf e4b6c1773a14d30046916ba8acdeb1aa PDF Text Text Cache Group Utah Chapter • Sierra Club Post Office Box 3580 • Losan, Utah 84321 16 June 1986 Lynn Zolinger Utah Department of Transportation P.O. Box 2747 Ogden, UT 84404 Dear Mr. Zolinger: The SierTI1 Club is concerned a.bout the numerous new reflectors and posts that 'Here pla.ced along the lower portion of Laga.n canyon Highwa.y (U.8. 89) during thp Utah Dep:trtment of Tra.nsporta.tion's recent maintenance operation. \<J e fee L tha.t these closely spaced markers a.re very unsightly. They detract from the 03.nyon's scenic surroundings bern.use of their eye leve 1 height for long distan ceE on both sides of the roa.d. The Sierra Club believes that Logan Canyon's roadway must be trea.ted as a unique highwa.y whenever any road project is undertaken, including maintenance work. Concerns a.bout the canyon's visual a.sthetics and physical environment mus t ta ke }re ce~e over Federa.l and State highway standards. ~ ' f _ ~/ ,re 1 /.. ,; ,~ (. . 0 ' / ' Rudy Lukez, Cha.ir CC I Da.ve Ba.umga,rtner, US JiB- Loga,n S ta.n Nuffer, Cli2M Hill .:I!'l, " ,"' , I I I . . . To explore, enJoy and protect th~ I I I wild places of the earth ... � 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/78">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/78</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1445853590 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 612427 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 Sierra Club, June 16, 1986 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Rudy Lukez, of the Cache Group Sierra Club, to Lynn Zollinger, of Utah Deparment of Transportation, about the reflectors and posts placed in the lower portion of Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Lukez, Rudy Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering 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 1986-06-16 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Ogden (Utah) Weber County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_3.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/29c1ce1bb4d8bc100dc55ebaf64a3c79.pdf ce52b0bb393e198c280965c16979b615 PDF Text Text William Helm 977 Hillcrest Logan UT 84321 ��~~(}~~/~ ~/~~~lrI • - . ~. ~-/~~~~~J~ '~r-~a-<t-~~~ ~ Urv-<- r~' iJf ~~ ~ ~ d-. ~) t~ -z:;L. ~ c..:~ ~r- ~ ~ -z;L~ ~" ~ ~ L-T Iv'- ~~;t;Lc: , ~~~.~ ~r-"Z~f~~' ~ ~ ~~J~)~A_ Y? -:;;t~t'~~ . .M-~ ~~ .-t& ~r~~J~ ~ " "<- ~/~ .~~ ~~~~'~7- ~~~~""-~ p~ Wx.J ~~---f~ r ~J~~~ . ~ ~~ Y~ ~~(~.~~~ ~ r ~ /t~C/~ ___ vI-. ~~ ~~ -t;; .~/(~.J~,,_ () I ~ ::;:;::;- ~- ~~~ ~- - -- -~~ / -7 ~~i~ '~ ~_ ~~~<n.aLo~~~d-J ~ a. . ~ -c;;k~· if~~~ ~~~-/~~?0'n ��� Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Local URL The URL of the local directory containing all assets of the website <a href="http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/77">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/77</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1695586601 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1647714 Bytes Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Correspondence from William Helm discouraging certain changes to the Logan River Description An account of the resource Correspondence from William Helm to Rudy Lukez discouraging certain changes to the Logan River for the benefit of the local fish, plant, and animal life. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Helm, William Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Aquatic resources--Utah--Logan River Fishery resources Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Correspondence Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1987-01-19 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_5.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/81f4e852e7621c3d6cd8626113b682ab.pdf 3a8bb70c3be61ebe0bae8080f28042d9 PDF Text Text LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PUBLIC MEETING LOGAN, UTAH ../ " September 23, 1986 COMMENTS FOLLOWING CH2M HILL PRESENTATION: Question: I just wanted to ask why is this study limited to that segment you showed. Margaret Johnson: That was defined by the UDOT. like to elaborate on that? Stan, would you s. Nuffer: That is correct, we are referring to the section from Right Fork on over the hill to Garden City, and for a basis of comparison, the lower level of the canyon as well for certain types of analysis as to what were the effects of some of the improvements. Does that answer your question? Question: Is it because this portion seems to have the greatest concentration of problems? " ' S. Nuffer: As Commissioner Weston explained, there are certain things that need to be done in that canyon, such as the bridge replacement, and there are some identified areas that could be improved so it was necessary to conduct an environmental study. So the opinion was tp look at the canyon as a whole so we can address the problem once and for all so the~e things can be done as the arise. s. Barker: The portion of the canyon below Right Hand Fork has already had improvement projects. So we wanted to focus our atten. tion on the other area that has not been improved. Question: I was interested in your overlays. Do you also have overlays of the traffic patterns for the last 20 years? s. Nuffer: We don't have an overlay for that. Question: How does that compare with your projected trend? What is the trend for the last 20 years? Is there an upward trend in the same fashion? s. Nuffer: The trend that we have projected there reflects about a 2% annual growth rate. This is a very conservative growth rate. Much less than has been used in the past. Rudy Lukez: I just wanted to point out a couple of things I mentioned in a discussion concerning this meeting, and also why the public may wish to disregard this information. One thing in particular is the safety data. Last week we had a chance to look at �( / the data and the conservationists reviewed it and we came up with some serious flaws in it. At that time we asked that the safety data not be discussed at this meeting. That was essentially going to be our agreement for tonight, that the safety data that had been collected and analyzed to this point was not correct. And so it would not be proper at this point for anybody to make any conclusions or to draw any conclusions from that safety data until it is better analyzed and better reviewed. c. Forsgren: What Rudy is saying is basically correct. We have not completed the analysis. We are looking at the accidents. We are looking at the locations on the road that accidents may occur in clusters, but we have not gotten to the point where we can draw conclusions. The study done by UDOT several years ago identified places in the canyon where we might look to do some improvements. Their objective was different than ours. We are looking at a different type of situation from a different perspective. So the message we wanted to convey tonight relative to safety is that these are the things that we are looking at. Question: Based on what? You just said you don't have data to look at and that is the third time you've said it. C. Forsgren: All we are prepared to say is that at some places in the road there have been more accidents in the past six years than in other places. Whether that is significant or not, we haven't determined. That is all we can say at this point. We have some data that we had reason to believe was reliable, but in looking at it closer, we now question it. The only thing we are saying now is that we are looking at these things and when we are satisfied that our conclusions are correct, then we will come out and say these are our conclusions. And until we can say that, we are not prepared to do so. That is, in essence, what we hope to convey tonight. The only thing I can say for certain, and it is · just simply there are places where there have been more accidents. Whether that means anything, we don't know. We can't say that and we are no~ going to. And I appreciate Rudy bringing this up, because we do not want to convey the wrong impressions. R. Lukez: It might be worthwhile to mention that when accidents are counted it includes everything from someone getting killed on the one extreme to somebody running off the ditch because of carelessness or going to fast around a corner on an icy road in the middle of a blizzard. So you do get quite a range of accidents so there is a corresponding severity index for that. C. Forsgren: I apologize if we have created some confusion on that and if you want to jump on somebody, you can jump on me. At this point all we want to tell you is what we are doing and not what we have concluded, because we have really not concluded anything. Page 2 of 16 �R Lukez: The only thing we wanted to make sure was pointed out tonight was that the data which has been used to this point to make projections out to the year 2010 is not good data, that the data is very scattered and there are a lot of conclusions you could draw from it. Using straight linear techniques such as they used tonight you are able to come up with the corresponding numbers that they have and from there they are able to draw upon that data and come up with various conclusions for the current levels of service that are defined by the government from A to F. ( c. Forsgren: We might point out that the numbers we are talking about are summer numbers. .' R. Lukez: Yes, that is correct. It is important to realize that we are talking about summer numbers used in traffic flows and projections for the future - that is through the three summer months and that is heavily weighted by the data from the 4th of July Weekend, the 24th of July Weekend and by Labor Day and from Memorial Day and several other scattered weekends. So you are looking at trends that are very representative of major recreational highways where people are going to recreate for the weekend. They are going to another recreational destination and because of the way the numbers are sort of skewed, especially along those holiday weekends, those peak periods when everybody in the world is travelling, it helps to determine the various design hourly volume rates and then you can get those levels of services that some are very scary, no doubt, in the 'E' range. In this case, I believe we are shooting for an ideal level of "C" service when doing the mathematical analysis. So I think those are things to really keep in mind - the safety data is not complete and no conclusions should be drawn from it at all, and the 1.9% figure is all based on statistical data which is not very good data. When you start building statistical correlations you don't come out very well. Also, the 1.9% figure is a very low number. I keep hearing from UDOT time and time again, "Gee, we like to see 4% or 6% as a growth rate in order to design new highways." So that's another thing to keep in mind, it is very low, and depending upon how you interpret those numbers you can come to many different conclusions, and when you are talking about levels of service and you are hearing "D" or "E" level of service keep in mind that it is based on busy summer weekends, and only during those summer weekends. C. Forsgren: One thing that hasn't been decided yet is the level of service that we want to achieve. That is one of the purposes of these meetings, is to try and establish what is it we want. Do we want "A" or are we willing to live with "B" or "D" or something in between. This may be a little confusing to you, but one of the objectives is to find out what are we going to live with up there, or what do we want to have in the way of services. - Is it alright the way it is, can we live with the delays which we are experiencing, or can we live with something substantially more in terms of delays, or do we want those eliminated. We are focusing our atten- Page 3 of 16 �( ./ tion on June, July and August. These are the months volume, and we are selecting a design hour volume in ing a number and saying this is what we are going to handle. It is a number that represents a fairly high traffic and is also fairly representative. of the most terms of picktry and degree of Comment: This is more of an answer for the data that was used for the traffic flow. It started in 1973 and went through 85. 1983 was deleted because there were problems with the counter. That gives you the number of years that were used. As far as the someplace between 60 and 70% for the variation. R Lukez: The R square value is very important in any way you represent this data. I guess also, as a matter of interest, I uncovered some data yesterday which goes back to 1937 for the canyon. So there is now complete data available going back to 1937. Question: (Ronald Laneer) Yes, I realize that your analysis is not complete but I've looked at Graph No.3, the safety graph, and I have compared some of the results with an accident analysis that I did a long time ago in 1971 using the first four years of data that was put on UDOT's computer and, therefore, was uniform. And there are some things that I became aware of as a result of that analysis that agrees with this safety analysis, but there are also things that seriously conflict with you. The one place we agree is that the most common kind of accident is running off the road. Something very illogical is that you are not looking at the relationship of running off the road with seeing the road. The Logan Canyon Highway is more visible than it has ever been. It has quite a few yellow center lines, white curb lines and warning signs and reflectors that have just gone up in the last couple of years. There has been a great change. We also have very good surface on now. During most of the 1970s and until two or three years ago the road was a shambles and I've heard several people say that maintenance was purposely left "undone so the road would get so bad that the highway department would have to go totally through it. " 'I.~ But the point is that the road , that you are analyzing now that is so bright and so visible has not been that way during the period for most of these accidents that you are analyzing. And I also agree with your data that show most of the running off the road accidents are cars going down hill. I think that if you will look at visibility conditions, what time of day, you'll find that a disproportionate number of those happen at night, many during the winter time. The road has not been visible. The highway department used to begin the Logan Canyon Road at the intersection of 4th North and Main and during the 40 year period looking at 399 accidents between that intersection and Garden City, 47% of them took place between Main Street and USU campus. So just to give you an idea of the rather low magnitude of the accident problem in terms of accident numbers in Logan Canyon. Rather or not that is exactly true, I don't know, but it might indicate that if you had $10,000 Page 4 of 16 �( / to spend some turn stoplights at that intersection would do a lot more good than in Logan Canyon. One thing you don't seem to have done is to compare accident rates by month or accident numbers by month. In 1971 I found that at looking at a couple of hundred accidents that the numbers by month were relatively the same. There is almost no difference from month to month, even though the traffic volume for July is more than 12 times the volume for February. Which means at that time you were 12 time safer to be on the highway in July. You are making assumptions I think that there is some relationship between safety and the highway and some mathematical flow principle that you are seeing traffic on the highway being similar to liquids flowing through a pipe and the idea is that if you can keep the flow smooth and at an equal rate that will be safer. The low number of accidents during the peak periods of summer, I think belies that. And another thing that is not being done is to select out not the sections only, but the most serious accidents, the ones that result in fatalities or just injuries or just those which an ambulance had to be called out for which are separately accounted for on the UDOT computer, and find what common factor you can find for those most serious accidents, rather than just looking at the accidents pretty much quantatively regardless of where they happen. Certainly, that is important but the seriousness of the accidents is as important as the number of accidents, especially since the majority are running off the road and colliding with the bank or rocks. It was not mentioned that the accidents usually result in a little bit of property damage but no physical injuries . .f Don Hueffner: I'm from Rich County and I've got two questions and I want to ask them both. One is first that about 1/3 of this road you are talking about is located in Rich County and hearing you talk about the people who are on this committee I did not hear of anyone who is representing us. Maybe someone was · asked I don't know about. My next question is that so far most of what has been said is that Logan Canyon should be used as a destination instead of transportation. If that is the case, and that'd be fine with me except that 80% of the people that use it who wouldn't be taken care of. In other words, would it be possible to funnel that 80% through Cottonwood Canyon and to Ogden rather than through 'Logan Canyon? Is that being considered? Sheldon Barker: The I.D. Team was not really created to try and get geographic representation. As I went through the list what we were trying to do was to get technical specialties, fisheries biologist, landscape architect. We were not trying to get geographic representation. That was not the goal. Really, outside of the Forest Service, the consultants and UDOT the only groups on there are the environmental groups with their technical input. Page 5 of 16 �( / D. Hueffner: Can I make a comment? Out situation over there is a little different than Cache County because so much of our business relies on what is done over the canyon. And so some of this technical data and some of the things which we may do will have quite an impact on these projections. Also, what you decide will have a great impact upon us. s. Barker: We certainly want to solicit your input. And in addition to the meeting we are having here tonight we are in the process of arranging a meeting in Rich County so you don't have to travel all the way to Logan so you can as a group be represented. r M. Johnson: I would like to say one other thing and that is that in completing the environmental analysis at what ever analysis it is done, the plans that you may have for a convention center or what ever other development you may have for the Bear Lake area will be entered into the impacts of the road as well as the needs for the road. So those concepts are not being brushed aside simply by some lower percentages for growth in the future. These percentages for growth, someone said are very low, and that is true, they are very conservative, but in the current economic conditions, I think that is very realistic. If conditions change, then yes, things have to be evaluated again, and if Bear Lake area starts developing, if Rich County starts developing, then the projections we have need to be reevaluated. But, growth will not be discounted in the environmental impact analysis. He had another question: The question about finding another throughway of routing the traffic that now occurs in Logan Canyon through some other route. Would someone with UDOT like to answer that? Jim Naegle: Any viable alternative would be looked at. The first observation we have is that it is not one that comes forward as a benefit at this time. Two decades from now that may not be true, but at this time we do not see immediately that an alternate route .separate from the canyon is going to be the answer. However, it will not be discounted, it will be looked at, but at this point our concentration is on the canyon. We are pretty well going to stay with the canyon with the money we have. Question: I get the impression that the major concern between and safety is the environmental impact on the canyon. My question is there seems to be a lot of concern about the reliability of the data. My question is have their been environmental studies done on impact of the road as it exists now and how reliable is that data? What specific species have been impacted by the road since I don't know when, and over what time frame, so forth? M. Johnson: I think you would call that a post audit assessment. I certainly can't answer that question, whether there has been one done I think UDOT would have to answer that one. Page 6 of 16 �/ UDOT: There are a lot of things that can be considered. What has been done in the past is not the main issue. The thing we are most concerned about is if there are changes made how will they impact it? And we want to impact it the least possible to get what is required or recommended, so we don't spend our time in evaluating what has happened we are really looking forward and want to make sure that things are not impacted that shouldn't be impacted. So we are looking forward and not back at what has been done, only as it comes into play and what we might be able to learn from it. If w~ find something that has been impacted, it will certainly be a lesson to us as to how to handle the impacts of the future or in changes in what we might recommend. M. Johnson: One slight comment on that, and that is that NEPA is to identify what impacts are going to occur from a project so that everyone is aware, to provide information and then incorporate public input to make decisions about what projects should be constructed and which ones shouldn't. And as stated at the beginning our job is to balance the various interests, and certainly there are a lot of them, especially in this case. ( , Richard Bean: I am a Logan Business man and my. name is Richard Bean. There are four canyons between here and Yellowstone and it seems to me that a study of this canyon in relation to the other three that come to mind would be useful because the end destination of a lot of vehicles that use this canyon is Jackson or Yellowstone. Maybe not in the depth that you are going to study this one but in the relative traffic flows, you might want to look into that. CH2M HILL: So there is no mistake will you identify those canyons? R. Bean: I drive them every year but I don't remember the names. Snake River Canyon down from Hobach to Alpine, Canyon out of Montpelier, and then there is another little canyon by Star Valley. S .' Barker: I appreciate the clarification because I thought you were talking about alternates to this canyon instead you are talking about ones that complement this canyon. R. Bean: A lot of people who use this canyon use those others and my feeling is that all of those other canyons have better traffic lows than this one. So I think that should be looked at. Wendell Anderson: I would like to make a comment along the same line. From Main and Center in Logan to Sage Junction if you went over Blacksmith Fork it would be ten miles shorter than it is here, It would 500 feet lower in elevation than going through Logan Canyon and there certainly would not be all of the bridges you have to build. I think that should be considered. Page 7 of 16 �Question: I have a question here and as for improving roads for safety, that is not a decision you are ready to make at this time. Other things that you might want to improve the road for, maybe to save time, how much time is saved? Another thing mentioned was the where road kills (animal kills) occur, and they occur more at the top of the mountain and if that area of the road is improved won't the road kills increase at a much faster rate? You have projections for many other things M. Johnson: Let me state from the beginning that never in the presentation that I made did I mean to infer that improvements should be justified on the basis of the accidents, because as I said our analysis is not completed yet. What I said was UDOT's 1982 study indicates certain things and in locating the accidents that have occurred on the highway, which have nothing to do with the number crunching, it appears that some sections have more accidents than others. That is a very obvious conclusion that you can draw. But we are not trying to justify improvements now or at any time on the basis of the information on accidents that we have now. In any environmental analysis that is done something such as road/animal kills would certainly be evaluated. That is a factor that would certainly need to be considered. So I certainly don't mean to brush that off, but that is not the point where we are at now so that will be done before any improvement is constructed or made. C. Forsgren: We haven't recommended any conclusions based on safety. In fact, I don't know that we've really said that the road needs to be improved. I think what we are saying is that if we want to do some things then we need to make some changes. But I don't know that the decision has been made that we want to do those things. It may be perfectly acceptable as it is. If that is the case, we will go ahead and fix the bridges. Question: What is the time savings by making improvements? C. Forsgren: It depends on what improvements we make, and there is quite a range. We are not here to tell you what we think we ought to do. We are here to learn. Do you want something done? Is it acceptable? We can make certain things to make minor improvements. We can do more things to make bigger changes. Question: I was just asking why I might benefit from have it improved. Will I be able to drive from here to Garden City quicker, and if so how much quicker will that be? M. Johnson: That is another thing that will be considered in an environmental analysis - the time factor, the benefit is an impact that will be examined. Page 8 of 16 �( C. Forsgren: We haven't got that far but I can tell you some things in general. It is not a proposal, it is just sitting around wondering what if we did this, what would it mean in terms of level of service. If we were to go into the canyon right now we are looking at about 11 foot traffic lanes and foot shoulder areas. If we were to make those 12 foot lanes and 4 foot shoulder areas then you reduce the percent of time people would be delayed from 75 to less than 60. That may give you a feel for it. Question: How long would it take to go Logan to Garden City in an average day? C. Forsgren: We haven't figured that yet. Comment: I've done some calculations and if you could drive to Logan from Garden City it would take about 55 minutes to get there. If you changed that road to 50 miles an hour for the whole way, which I think is quite optimistic, it would take approximately 38 minutes for a 17 minute saving. Wendell Anderson: I just want to make one suggestion in terms of terminology here. There has been talk about any change as improvement. You might talk about change rather than improvement, or if you want another word that is loaded use bulldoze rather than improvement. M. Johnson: Improvement is common terminology. offended you. I am sorry if that Comment: My name is Ted Seeholzer from Beaver Mountain Ski area and I'm the last person that wants to see Logan Canyon become a four lane highway, but we do need some work done on it very soon. There are some damn serious places in that canyon and I've had family members who have been injured because of severe turns, and I'm sure a lot of you have. I have some other concerns other than that and I'm associated with the visitor business and have been for quite a few years. Right now the Utah Travel Council, and Bridgerland Travel Association along with people from Garden City are trying to really promote the visitor business in Cache County, Logan Canyon, Garden City, Montpelier, Jackson Hole because Jackson Hole is a drawing card. Every kid wants to go to Jackson and be a cowboy and dad wants to go and get drunk. So we are really promoting the visitor route through this valley. If you think the business industry isn't viable, it comes to somewhere between $34 million and $36 million a year in taxes. That is money that you and I don't pay. And it is damn important to have a good travelable road that these people can go on. Not at 65 miles per hour but a road that those that need to get around can get around. 3% truck load in my estimation is a very heavy truck load. Those people slow up traffic. All of us are not Sunday drivers. I make 200 trips a year through that canyon and I'll promise you one thing: You have to go at 3:00 in the morning, if you don't want to be slowed down you can't get around traffic. I realize in our projections we have picked peak holidays, but in my case in the winter, you can pick Page 9 of 16 �/ President's day and I'll promise you there is bumper to bumper cars from the mouth of Logan Canyon. And that is a dangerous time of year, the highways are slick, some people don't use good judgment, but we have to allow for those types of drivers. You and I can not drive every car. We can not make John, Jane, and Jim drive with intelligence. I think that it is up to this organization to use good judgment in helping those type of drivers navigate I just want a good road for those who are good drivers, for those who need to hurry a little bit and its very important that we help the business industry in this valley. Question: Who started this whole process? The last I heard UDOT was basically out of money. Would you explain the procedure? M. Johnson: I'll certainly let UDOT respond to that. Let me say that economic assessment of the environmental assessment determines how much a tradeoff of improvements versus the possible economic benefits that may occur. UDOT: The question on economics is certainly an important one. What this team is going to do is to develop a transportation plan for the canyon. When that is completed and the environmental assessments are done and accepted no matter what that plan may be, then UDOT will look at that and designated it as to what should go first and what can wait. Certainly parts of it ought to be done as soon as possible and other parts may be able to wait. But any action we do take will be part of an overall and published plan so the public knows where we are going from this point. It may take one year to complete this plan or some other unspecified time frame. Comment: My name is Russ Goodwin and if I could just follow that thought up somewhat I would propose to UDOT that a much more pressing need exists for a good four-lane road into Cache Valley from the Interstate. Looking at improvements through the Logan Canyon are a bit premature, in my opinion. We need to be looking at this type of road into Cache Valley. UDOT: The purpose of the UDOT is to consider the conditions of all state routes, and there are plans being made to widen the roadway from Brigham City to Logan to possibly 4-lanes. There is a study being completed and some decisions will be made soon. Question: My name is of Laketown over in Bear Lake and I don't know if I talk for them but that is who I am here with. And I'm going to chastise the group because they said they met with town officials this morning and we didn't know about it and we may not be very big but we think we are important. The other thing, in comment, as we look at the environmental study, and I'm sure you do this, and I'd like the environmentalists to remember that humans are a part of our environment. I work on an ambulance out of Rich County and have done for six years, and if you want to have a real experience, do CPR on somebody on the 4th of July coming through Page 10 of 16 �Logan Canyon. The people we work on are usually from Cache Valley or down on the Wasatch Front. And it is a tremendous challenge coming through those bends being very surprised when some tourist stops when they see the red light down in that lower section and there is no where to go. So we have to come to a quick stop, begin doing whatever we were doing again, working on the patients. Our own families livelihoods rely totally on Cache Valley. If you look at the economic money, most of us in those communities up and down Bear Lake make at least one trip a week into Cache Valley, to grocery shop, to see doctors, to buy tires, buy farm machinery, implements. Our livelihood relies on Logan Canyon and so most of us we don't get to drive maybe as much as Mr. Seeholzer, but darn near as much. And we are interested, we were excited as we read that there were studies going forward to improve, whether it takes a little bulldozing or not, to improve that canyon to get us into the valley easier. We don't want to slow down those that like to see the canyon, but after you have seen it as much as most of us do, we don't pay that much attention to it, we want to get here get our business done and get back home to our families. And that is important and I hope that the UDOT will come in and solicit our governments help, and also our people's comments because I think you'll find the people of Bear Lake love their environment, they live over there in no man's land because they like to be away from people and because they enjoy that country surrounding. It is not a great economic place to be, or looking for a future for your children, but we are working on that. We do enjoy the environment, but we need to have some of these facilities for our use as well. ( And I would like to see bicycling taken into consideration. I've about ran over I don't know how many bicyclers coming down the canyon. They go slow around a bend. They need a lane. I'd like to put them somewhere over on the hill and give them a nice little two way path to ride on. That is really becoming a concern of mine. That's our feeling and I hope you'll use it. John Wise from the Herald Journal: I'd like to know why a separate meeting was held for the local officials prior to this meeting and no announcement was made available to the local press here. M. Johnson: I think the comments that were discussed in the meeting were about the various users of the highway. The people that use the highway for recreational purposes, the people who use it for regional transportation coming from Bear Lake Valley to Logan and one other group. The purpose of it was to try to establish what their feelings were as to the priorities for the canyon. CH2M Hill: That is a loaded question, but let me try and answer it. Maybe we were somewhat naive, but what we are trying to do is to get all the people we can. There was no intent to limit the people. The point is that we are in no way trying to limit the input. We are trying to get as much input as we can. In some ways Page 11 of 16 �it was easier to attend a meeting at 4:00, there was a little different type of people there. We are going to have a whole series of public meetings. Our intent was never to exclude anybody and if the media would like to be invited, that is fine too. Call it oversight, whatever, we were trying to get all the input we can. M. Johnson: One thing I might also add is that at the meeting this afternoon there were a great variety of opinions expressed just as there have been tonight. It was not one sided towards any interest group. Question: I would just like to know how much money UDOT is paying CH2M Hill to do this study. How much is it costing and how many manhours or people hours does that involve? UDOT: It is correct that UDOT did hire a consultant to take an objective look at the study and we are paying them money to do it. They don't work for free. The contract amount is in the range of $500,000.00. It is by no means inexpensive. Question: Would that be for this year? UDOT: That covers the term of the study and we mentioned that the study should be completed in June approximately of next year. Question: How long has the study been going on? UDOT: We initiated this about June of 1986. So it will be approximately one year. As far as manpower estimates, they have been completed but I can't quote what they are. They were submitted by the consultant. R. Laneer: I would just like to suggest that one of the groups that you consult that doesn't often get consulted be the highway patrol. I've talked to some of them and they have their own points off view on increasing speeds on Logan Canyon and other highways. And what they have told me is that even though they are a part of state government, they don't normally get consulted. So I think the local highway patrolmen who have had experience in Logan Canyon would be valuable. ( Comments: My name is Lewis Polk from Montpelier which, of course, is on the other side of the state boundary. But we in Idaho also have a great investment in the 89 project. It is my opinion and it has been for a number of years that Highway 89 needs a tremendous amount of work. It is a safety problem. I'm in the type of business where I get a report card on that highway almost every day. Some of the travelling people coming through from back east or wherever as they stop in Montpelier (and I am in the hotel business, I have two properties in Montpelier), the kind of report stating, "My Hell! Where are the guard rails?" or "My Hell!, Where is the asphalt?" or any number of combinations and some worse than what I just used. It is my opinion that something really does need to be done with Highway 89. It is in a serious condition. And I'm Page 12 of 16 �./ not saying that Idaho is in great shape either. I'm here just to see what happens here because I would like to go to Idaho and say "Hey, we have a problem too." Wyoming has taken the challenge and Wyoming has improved their highway and it is already proved to be a significant savings factor in human life in the work that Wyoming has complete. I also served for the last three years in the Idaho Travel Council so I have a little bit of travel background in me, about 15 years in the lodging business. I just completed a year as the Chairman of the Idaho Travel Council. Travel figures and travel peaks are not declining, they are increasing. So the caps that CH2M Hill has come up with I think are conservative. 2% to me seems to be a little conservative. I hope it is conservative. In these states we seem to be economically impacted and travel seems to be one of our saving factors. I would like to see us begin to invest in our futures, both Utah and Idaho and develop these highways and improve these highways, make them safer, maintain the traffic patterns that we have and do a better job. Logan Canyon is certainly nothing to be ashamed of. It is. a beautiful canyon. I don't want anything to happen to Logan Canyon simply because the comments about the canyon are how wonderful and how marvelous and how unique! It does have environmental impact on anybody who comes through it. Everyone enjoys it. But nobody enjoys it when their family and friends are being marred or are injured or even killed in those canyons. So that's my interest in coming to this meeting and I wanted to let you know I am out of state, but we do share an economic bond here with Highway 89 and we need to do something desperately with it. / One other comment, in the hotel business in Montpelier, questions have come up to how this study was done and what is being asked. And I remember just getting into the hotel business with my father years and years ago and CH2M Hill was around then and doing studies at that point in time, and about two years ago I had a chance to sit in on a review of a study program with power utility company and heard some of the praises for CH2M Hill. They are a reputable 'company and the state did hire someone with the proper background to come in and make an objective analysis of this kind of a project. The other part of this is that the level of service and capacity have been talked about a little bit. The level of service is not up to par and the capacity is not either. If it is now it certainly can't be for future growth of what I think Bear Lake is going to need, what Jackson Hole and Yellowstone, and what Utah is going to need. Utah has more national parks than any other state, I believe. You are going to have more travel, you are going to have more traffic. Prepare yourselves so it is not a problem for you. Get ready for it now, if it is not already a start of being too late. ( Question: (Comments regarding Logan Canyon becoming too much like Ogden Canyon, Provo Canyon and Weber Canyon) Page 13 of 16 -::1 �( Question: I've heard a lot of talk about the actual traffic flow, I guess my question is to the people of UDOT, and that is why isn't there more encouragement of the use of pullovers for slow moving vehicles. I'm thinking particularly of some canyons that are a lot like Logan Canyon in Idaho in Payette Canyon and the Salmon River Canyon where there are a lot of pullovers like there are here but a quarter of a mile before the pullover it says "Please use slow moving vehicle pullover coming up." Every time I'm in a traffic jam up there I always wonder why Utah doesn't do that. I know they probably don't have a law to make it illegal to stack up cars like a lot of western states do, but I think a lot more could be done in the use of pullovers. I think they unjam traffic a lot better even than a third lane does. So I would like to ask them why there isn't more encouragement for the use of that kind of thing. S. Nuffer: I think what you have identified is one of the alternatives that we will be looking at. Question: It seems less expensive than other alternatives. S. Nuffer: We've had experience with some of these kinds of things with mixed results. This would need to be coupled with enforcement. Question: There are a lot of timid drivers who won't just pull off into one when they see one. They need the warning that it is coming up. M Johnson: I heard an interesting comment in regard to the proposal this afternoon. This was also raised at the earlier meeting that was referred to by the press. One problem is that if people pullout, they have a problem getting back into the line of traffic. Now I'm not saying that is insurmountable, but all of us if we are driving in a canyon, for Pete's Sake let someone back in if they have pulled out to let traffic move on. Comment: Usually they are quite clumped up. back into the traffic is a problem. I don't think getting M. Johnson: Any other ideas as far as alternatives that might be considered? As we have said we have no preconceived ideas of what should be done in Logan Canyon. We have identified what we think are problems, but as far solving those problems, that remains open to the next task of study. R. Laneer: Just a point of view, accidents and safety on the highway shouldn't be looked at as strictly an engineering problem. It is a behavioral problem. Accidents take place because people respond in certain ways to the hazards or conditions of the road, especially regarding such things as pullouts and passing lanes and so on. And I don't think engineers are competent to predict the Page 14 of 16 �( behavior of people. I don't see you strengthening your team by having anybody on it who is competent on how people behave on the road. And I think engineering solutions and problems of that kind are never going to get down to be bottom of it. M. Johnson: Thank you. looking for a job? That is an interesting point. Are you Question: I would like to know how many highway projects CH2M Hill has worked on. CH2M Hill: They are so numerous I could stay here all night and flick them off. M. Johnson: I know we are presently working on one in the Boise office and just completing the Broadway-Chinden connector which connects the freeway into downtown Boise - 40 to 50 million dollar project. Interestingly, the project engineer on that project previously completed a major viaduct system in the San Francisco Bay area and this was a project that involved not the same types of environment we are dealing with here, but a very sensitive urban environment. Consideration for impact and mitigation measures had to be incorporated into the project, so the company has had a great deal of experience dealing with sensitive highway projects. R. Lukez: It might be better to explain how many projects you have worked on similar to Logan Canyon. (At this point a brochure was presented to Rudy Lukez.) R. Lukez: I'd just like to add a couple of things. A couple of times during the discussion the term environmental analysis has been used. For those of you who aren't familiar with the NEPA process from 1970, that decision hasn't been made yet to do an environmental assessment or an environmental analysis. There may • even be an environmental impact statement done later on down the road. As an ID team that still has to be decided upon - exactly what the final is going to be. I personally prefer the term environmental study because it doesn't have any technical connection to it yet. The other thing is a couple of people mentioned during this time they are concerned about people getting killed on the highway and I'm sure everybody will agree that we don't want to see anybody get killed, but we have had very few people get killed over the highway the past number of years and it turns out that one of the most recent deaths on the highway now is being arraigned in one of the local courts as a murder charge. Question: How many deaths have occurred in Logan Canyon? Page 15 of 16 �R. Lukez: I think the number of deaths is very low, perhaps 5 or 6. An interesting comparison was done during the 1979 activities of safety. It showed that the most dangerous part of the highway was the section that was improved up to Right Hand Fork, by a considerable amount, and that afterwards, the highway was much safer and a lot of the highway patrolmen that were interviewed during those studies said that it was primarily because people are a little more careful when they know there is an unimproved highway ahead and that they won't speed up and pass people at those times. ( M. Johnson: Since we haven't completed the analysis I don't think we should draw any conclusions, second, I think it is very important that we provide you with the findings that we ultimately come up with. We do have a mailing list for the project and we will be sending out the information to the people on our mailing list. I would like to mention our other public involvement attempts that you can use to get information or make comments on the project. Valley Engineering is our subcontractor and we try to make information available to Gale Larson of Valley Engineering. We have produced fact sheets, summaries of the project and given them to Valley Engineering, libraries, UDOT and CH2M Hill. We are also trying to find a location to spread the material in Rich County area. Any of you who have stated that you are from that area tonight you might just let me know what would be a good location to place information about the project in the future. / I want to say we are going to have additional meetings; we have tentatively talked about a meeting in the Rich County area. I think there have been some comments made tonight that will make us further evaluate that possibility. The next step that we have is development of alternatives. And I assure that those alternatives will be very wide in scope. I mean we are not going to come up with just ideas for bulldozing Highway 89 through Logan Canyon. Most of all, I want to say that all of your input is appreciated. I don't care if you are arguing with our figures or not. As has been stated in a local newspaper it is the questions that keeps us honest and I can assure that we at CH2M Hill are very concerned about our integrity and our credibility as our information goes. If you have a question, please let us know. Jim Naegle: Let me make one comment. UDOT went through an extensive process in selecting a consultant and we are very satisfied with the competency of CH2M HIll. Meeting was adjourned. Page 16 of 16 ~( . � 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/75">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/75</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1075484573 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 13737972 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 Environmental Study Description An account of the resource The transcript of a public meeting held to answer questions concerning the devleopment of the Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Utah. Department of Transportation Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource Johnson, Margaret Barker, Sheldon. Lukez, Rudy Laneer, Ronald Huffner, Don Naegle, Jim Bean, R. Anderson, Wendell Seeholzer, Ted Goodwin, Russ Wise, John Polk, Lewis Forsgren, Clifford Nuffer, Stanton S. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Roads Improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon United States Highway 89 Medium The material or physical carrier of the resource. Administrative records Publisher An entity responsible for making the resource available CH2M HILL Utah Department of Transportation Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 1986-09-23 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan (Utah) Utah United States Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 10.pdf Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd10_Page_1.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/2ddb0e445500b81142487649d5f3f629.pdf 83d7f6aa1a42fcc9ed7800e9ff7cd6f6 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 greatly concerned. I do not wish to anal ize 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 ~/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 "Scen ic 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. Stw.:erely, . / /' .' ,--. /" ., '~ __;.~;,c,/7 / . · 6'---7,vz(? 1.;7 ~CJ;" <- !' ~~. Jack T. Spence Dept. of Chemistry Utah State University Logan, Ut 84322 cc: Dave Baumgartner Tom Lyon Dick Carter UWA Steve Flint Bruce Pendery Bridgerland Audubon Rudy Lukez Utah Chapter, Sierra Club - - � 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/72">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/72</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 3508507634 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1833246 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 Dave Baumgartner to Tom Lyon about public concerns for Logan Canyon, June 1, 1988 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Dave Baumgartner to Tom Lyon about public concerns for Logan Canyon. Designing the right highway is mentioned, also that the aesthetic issue remains unsolved. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Baumgartner, David Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (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 1988-06-01 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Utah United States Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_017.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/0c0b2d2c8bc833c97a5eebf18654ab54.pdf 83d7f6aa1a42fcc9ed7800e9ff7cd6f6 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 greatly concerned. I do not wish to anal ize 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 ~/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 "Scen ic 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. Stw.:erely, . / /' .' ,--. /" ., '~ __;.~;,c,/7 / . · 6'---7,vz(? 1.;7 ~CJ;" <- !' ~~. Jack T. Spence Dept. of Chemistry Utah State University Logan, Ut 84322 cc: Dave Baumgartner Tom Lyon Dick Carter UWA Steve Flint Bruce Pendery Bridgerland Audubon Rudy Lukez Utah Chapter, Sierra Club - - � 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/70">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/70</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 1842063740 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 1095044 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 Dale Bosworth, February 10, 1989 Description An account of the resource Correspondence from Jack Spence to Dale Bosworth stating that the Forest Plan needs to be taken seriously in consideration of the modifications proposed about Logan Canyon. Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Spence, Jack T. Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Public lands--Utah--Logan Canyon Roads--Design and construction Traffic engineering 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 1989-02-10 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Box 27 Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_017.pdf Highway 89; https://highway89.org/files/original/70a9a4b6cf23afc5955b9386167e1234.pdf 28d88e031483fc49eb9991e60095e9cf PDF Text Text INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEETING January 26, 1987 Additional Data for Agenda Items Agenda Item No: 2. Distribution of Revised Environmental Report Schedule Distribution of Outline for Scoping Meeting Distribution of Final Draft of Notice of Intent Sent to FHWA. 3. Distribution of Draft of Legal Notice of Seoping Meeting 4. Distribution of Selected Crossections Showing Effect of 35 to 40 mph Design Speed . in the Lower Canyon. Distribution of Figure Showing Retaining Wall Conceptual Plan. Distribution of Revised Matrix of Component and Alternative Development Dated January 26, 1987. SLC-STAN/14 1 �z u.s. 89 LOGAN CANYON ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT SCHEDULE (Revised January 26, 1987) Task Due Date Notice of Intent for EIS to FHWA January 8, 1987 Scoping Meeting Legal Notices to Media January 28, 1987 Preliminary Alternatives Technical Memo February 2, 1987 Official Notices to Government Agencies Inviting Participation in Scoping Meetings February 2; 1987 News Release to Media February 9, 1987 Fact Sheet to Media and Complete Mailing List February la, 1987 Scoping Meeting - Logan March. 3, 1987 Scoping Meeting - Logan and Garden City March 4, 1987 Technical Memo Drafts (to UDOT & ID Team) March 23, 1987 Complete Review of Tech Memos April 20, 1987 Preliminary Draft EIS (To UDOT & ID Team) April 27, 1987 Complete Review of Preliminary Draft EIS May 26, 1987 Draft EIS Submittal to UDOT for distribution to FHWA & USFS SLC-STN/16a June 8, 1987 1 �OUTLINE FOR SCOPING MEETING U.S. 89 - LOGAN CANYON EIS I. Introduction A. Welcome to UDOT-FHWA-USFS Scoping Meeting on U.S. 89 Logan Canyon EIS B. Introduction of speaker (others?) C. Purpose of meeting - formal scoping meeting in accordance with NEPA - NEPA requires scoping meeting to be held after publishing notice o f intent, before preparing EIS 1. 2. Obtain input on issues that should be considered in the EIS and suggestions for project alternatives 3. ' D. - Share results of study to present, project alternatives developed Answer questions on the alternatives and the EIS process UDOT contracted with CH2M HILL to carry out three major study efforts 1. 2. Development of transportation plan (alternatives) 3. E. Analysis of traffic constraints and needs Preparation of environmental document (EIS) Previous public information meetings have been held from which input will be used for scoping EIS, along with this input; this meeting will 1. 2. Explain project alternatives developed to the present 3. II. Quickly recap results of study to present Receive comments and suggestions, perhaps more specific to alternatives Project Setting and Objectives A. Relation of U.S. 89 to Region 1 �1. Most of project area lies within Cache National Forest, therefore, USFS and FHWA are cooperating agencies on EIS 2. Logan Canyon is scenic and recreational resource 3. U.S. 89 serves traffic a. Utilizing canyon for recreation b. From regional communities accessing the regional trade center of Logan or recreational opportunities around Bear Lake c. Through traffic "from the accessing recreational areas of Yellowstone and Teton National Parks 4. U.s. 89 classified as a "rural minor arterial" 5. · Classifications carry standards to be ·met; U.S. 89 does not presently conform to standards of a rural minor arterial 6. Primary objective of study is to achieve compromise between "rural minor arterial" standards and scenic and recreational resources of canyon a. Resources of canyon and population increase will increase the traffic volume on U.S. 89 in future b. Cross-section elements of road are significantly substandard throughout most of project area; gradient and curves add to problems c. Frequency of accidents is significantly greater in 16 areas than the average for the Canyon d. Explain level of service - quality measure of operating conditions e. At present volumes, road falls into Level of Service D f. By 2000, the level of service will drop to E in some places, by 2005 will generally be E throughout project area 2 �7. Results of traffic needs study presented at previous meetings; fact sheet is available III. Alternatives Development A. Study area can be . divided into three sections based on terrain and road design characteristics 1. Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring 2. 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit 3. Bear Lake Summit to Garden City B. Different alternatives are appropriate to each section C. Alternatives not yet final; may be increased/ decreased as a result of input from scoping meetings D. Alternatives generally cover wide range of options to provide good comparison of pros and cons of each E. Section 1 - ·Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Springs 1. 2. Spot improvements - replace bridges; slow vehicle turnouts; recreational turnouts and parking; signing and marking improvements 3. Widen along existing alignment - widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches, raise grade in potential flood areas, plus other spot improvements 4. F. No action - maintain existing road Widen and improve existing alignment to design speed of 35 mph to 40 mph - improve (straighten) alignment; passing lanes; particularly in areas of sustained grades; improvements listed in 2 and 3 Section 2 - 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit 1. No action - maintain existing road 3 �2. G. Widen and improve existing alignment to design speed of 55 to 60 mph, widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches, improve (straighten) alignment, provide passing lanes, particularly in areas of steep grades; raise grade in potential flood areas; bridge replacement; signing and marking improvements Section 3 - Bear Lake Summit to Garden City 1. 2. IV. Widen and improve along existing alignment to design speed of 35 to 40 mph - widen lanes, shoulders, and ditches; improve (straighten) alignment; provide passing lanes, particularly in areas of steep grades, raise grade in potential flood areas; bridge replacement; signing and marking improvements 3. H. No action - maintain existing road Construct road along new alignment to north Use of alternate canyon for new road for through traffic has been suggested as alternative by many in the past. Has been determined economically infeasible. Therefore, must do best we can to balance local recreation/through traffic needs on existing U.S. 89 Procedures to Submit Comments 1. Sign up 2. Step to microphone 3. Give name, representing what group 4. Want to give everyone chance · to speak before allowing anyone second opportunity 5. Not looking for whether you favor project or not, but what issues should be examined in ErS, or other alternatives or mitigation that should be considered 6. vlri tten comments will be accepted through Monday, April 6. Address is on hand-out at back of room. - - - - ----- SLC94/d.ll0l 4 �LIST OF FIGURES FOR SLIDE PRESENTATION FOR SCOPING MEETING Slide No 1. US-89 - Logan Canyon Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Meeting Utah Department of Transportation In cooperation with United States Forest Service and Federal Highway Administration Consultant: CH2M HILL 2• Purpose of Scoping Meeting o o o o o o Comply with National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Review study approach Review public involvement program Review results of study Review alternatives developed to date Obtain input on additional alternatives 3. Vicinity Map ( Figure 1 - T.M.) 4• Site Map (Figure 2 - T.M.) 5. Function of US-89 through Logan Canyon o o o o o 6. Roadway Characteristics o o o o 7. 1 2 3 SLC-STN/18 Substandard cross-section Low design/travel speed Low level of service - delays Traffic volumes will increase Study Area - Three Sections Section 8• Recreational access within canyon Regional recreational traffic Regional business and service Serves interstate through traffic Classification "Rural Minor Arterial" Description Right Fork to 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Summit Bear Lake Summit to Garden City Site Map (Showing three sections) 1 �Alternatives 9. No Action Maintain Existing Road Alternatives 10. Spot Improvements Replace bridges Slow vehicle turnouts Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements Alternatives 11. Widen Along Existing Alignment Widen lanes and shoulders Widen ditches - improve drainage Replace bridges Climbing lanes Recreational turnouts and ' parking Signing and pavement marking improvements Alternatives l2~ Widen and Improve existing alignment Improve alignment - 35-40 mph Improve alignment - 55-60 mph Widen lanes and shoulders Widen ditches - improve drainage Replace bridges Climbing lanes Recreational turnouts and parking Signing and pavement marking improvements . Alternatives Summary 13. Section 1 (Middle Canyon) No Action Spot Improvements Widen Exist. Road Widen and Improve: 35-40 mph 55-60 mph New Alignment SLC-STN/18 X X X Section 2 (Upper Canyon) X Section 3 (Rich County) X X X X X X 2 �s-e~1 6:; L./dClT F#~~ OA/ ~ec /3~ hna/ ro (49] ()-22) //,Ia// DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION -Federal Highway Administration ENVIRor~ENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT; CACHE AND RICH COUNTIES, U1AH AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) , DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that at this time it is the St3ternent (LIS) for to prepare an Environmental Impact intenf~ ~ proposed a highway project in _ r".:lrhD / ':I ~r~ ....... - , , ...... , . -- - , . ... .,..<!~ Counties, Utah. the If study and analysis conclude that all appropriate FHWA/UDOT criteria for a Finding of No Significant Impact are met then the document may be converted from an EIS to a FONSI. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Duncan Silver, u.S. Department. of . , Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, P.O. Box 1J563, Salt Lake City, . Utah Baumgartner, U.S. Telephone 84147, Department of Agriculture, North 1200 East, Logan, Utah James Naegle, West, (801) 84321, 524-5143, Utah 84119, uave Forest Service, 860 Telephone (801) 753-2772, or Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City, or Telephone 4501 (801) So~th L700 965-416C. or Howard Richardson, Utah Department of Transportation, District One Office, P.q. Box 2747, Ogden, Utah SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 84404, Telephone (801) 399-5921. The proposed action would improve U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon, Utah, from Right Fork, about 9 miles east of Logan, to Garden City, a distance of approximately 28 mjles. This road passes through the Wasatch-:-Cache National Forest, provides scenic and recreational resources. which Portions of the highway are a narrow two-lane road with numerous gradient. The highway is umber of �-' -' r ecreation(Jl and other large vehicles, which, along with the road constrain~:ten r~n delays of traffic .. Improvements to be considered include widening of the roadway and shoulders; flattening of curves, gradient, replacing and widening of improvement bridges, signing, adjustment of provision of road additional recreational turn-outs, and/or constructing a new road along a new alignment in selected areas, . ~tc. ~ ~ The project"" can be divided intG three sectioi,S 1 characteristics. These sections are: above Ricks Spring; (2) Bear Summit; (1) ba~eu Widen ~nd alignment. I 1.8 miles above Ricks Spring to Bear Lake Lake spot improvements; ~01J . H.-5 ueslgr Right Fork to 1.8 miles Summit to Garden (3) Alternatives City. currently being consi.dered for the project include: (2) on (1) no action; widen along existing alignment; . .improve existing alignment; (5) (4) Construct road along new Different alternatives might be selected for each of the road sections. Several . public meetings discussing the project have already been held. Formal scoping meetings for the public will be held on March 3, at 7:00 p.m. at the Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium ! 45 East 200 North in Logan, and on March 4, at 7:00 p.m.- in Garden City Hall. A meeting for governmental agencies and public officials will be held March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in the Logan City Hall. other scoping meetings will be held as determined necessary, . . and information on S II:: 1 . . time and place will be provided through the local news media. _ . .to-........---. j..c ......~~-.J"a ~. A,...".:" . ....... J..... ._ ~.. ..... KI~~-. :.~~~~ ........~,... . ......... _fo: ..... ... =.. ....:!:J" "...~ . --"..... ~J'r.~-~•. --..I.-..:. -...., ..'"Io- ~ ~ _ • _ To ensure that the full range of issues related to this" proposed action are addressed and all significant issues identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. questions concerning the proposed action and Comments or the EIS should be �directed to the FHWA at the address provided above. r / J. /' . ~ i , { "_ J ! ~ J! ; (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance High\'!ClY Research Planning and Construction. Cir(~ ular Program Number 20.205, The provisions of OM8 No. A-95 regarding state and local clearinghouse review of Federal ana federally assistea programs and projects apply to this program.) Issued on: · "!"~aniel Dake Division Administrator Salt Lake City, Utah 1. �NOTICE OF PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS US-89 Logan Canyon The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U. S. Forest Service (USFS), and Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) will jointly hold public scoping meetings for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) being prepared for U.S. Highway 89 through Logan Canyon in Cache and Rich Counties, Utah, on March 3, at 7:00 p.m. at the Mountain Fuel Supply Auditorium, 45 East 200 North in Logan, and on March 4, at 7:00 p.m. in Garden City Hall. A meeting for governmental agencies and public officials will be held March 4, at 10:00 a.m. in the Logan City Hall. The general public, interest groups, and governmental agency personnel are invited to attend to provide input regarding their concerns about impacts of road improvements on the environment of the Canyon and issues which should be addressed. Comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. UDOT has contracted with CH2M HILL, an environmental engineering consulting firm in Salt Lake City, to analyze · transportation needs in Logan Canyon, develop alternative plans for improvements, and evaluate the impact · of those plans on the environment in an EIS. The FHWA and the USFS will be cooperating agencies on the EIS, which will · be developed in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . NEPA requires that a scoping process take place prior to the conduct of an EIS. It is the purpose of the scoping meetings to de·t ermine from the interested communi ty what are perceived to be the sensitive resources of the pr6ject area and what environmental factors should be studied most closely in the EIS. Several public meetings discussing the project have been held . previously. Other scoping meetings will be held a~ determined necessary, and information on time and place will be provided through the local news media. Public meetings will also be held when the draft EIS is completed to obtain comments on its contents. The proposed action would improve US-89 through Logan Canyon from Right Fork about 9 miles east of Logan, to Garden City, a distance of approximately 28 miles. This road passes through the Wasatch-Cache National Forest, which provides scenic and recreational resources. Portions· of the highway are a narrow two-lane road with numerous curves and considerable gradient. The highway is traveled by .a significant number of recreational and other large vehicles, which, along the the road constraints, often results in delays of traffic. Improvements to be considered include widening of the roadway and shoulders, flattening of curves, replacing and widening of bridges, adjustment of road gradient, improvement of signing, provision of additional recreational turn- �.---...... ".--... ESD ".- ..-/ EXJJT .tt40 3s ,/' /' ---- ~ ~ , ,/ / /' / -- ---... - - ---,. ':./ "l/ . .~ ( i ; /' ( -;0/'(;" ) .\~ -J / \ C; ,"c I' I 5320 I ,/ 1111 ~ /' 1 I I 1 II en C CD t... m n -i 1 I'" I 1\\ S50 ~ ~ 0 1 ~ ). ~ ~ f. . .·o ~ I I 5':2& 0 1 1 I "'0 JJ o t... ~ -i 2 P (" I '" en J: m m -< 1 I Z P I 1 I -i N . ~\ I I 'f) \ ~ CD 0 I I 1 ~ ~ '" ~ I i .~ N '\J ~ I II I I '01 ~ d 0 I 1 I 1 1 �·1111 kW5 I I I I I 'II I I I ,I -- -- 1 I 1 . ---- 1 1/6)" .Jf LYI I " I I jV III .I I I I I I I <; 3] / 1 l' ,1111/ , I~ .I / 1 h' I III III ." r--------- / (/) co :0 I I I o m m t.. ~ -I -I Z Z -< P I P ~I Cu '\;: (4 f, y I, U ~\(;2.0 ,. y. ~ ) ~/ I ~I I I I ~ i &oO ;F I ~ I I I I I I 0 I I •~ I I I :I ,I I I �~. en C ;£ OJ '- m () -1 I 1 1\\ I" I~ I~ 1 (LID) ~ I~ I 'Yb '+ ! A-------=----=~--_+ C /1d"1/1 d /to,/, I ~ I~ c3s7 I I 1 1 I ..... - - -- - -"" - --- - -,-- I " en ;0 I o m '- m m -1 () 5'tYO -1 Z -=- . l AI/ It\ ~ Wa/I ('3 ~) ~ \ ~ ~ CO W ~ ~ p OJ -< I Z I P I I I I~I I I I ~ , I I 1 I I 0 1 I .. m ~ I I I ., I 1 1 1 1 �1I11 en C CD t... m (") ~ 1 ~ 1<.\ ~ ... ~I - -- 1 ~ ~ ~ I 1 I I 1 I I I " ;0 en I CD m ~ I -< 2 ~ I " \ ~ ~I ~ ~I I I I I 0 "Tl I I I I I I • I I I I I I I 0 ~ m �1111 U) c 1 " eX'lsr , ·1 I 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 t.... m (") -1 1 1 , OJ 1 I I 1 1 1 I~ I~ 1 (,\ ~ 1 1 1 1 [\ I 1 , I ! 1 . I 1 , I ~ ~ ~ ~ , I I I 1 1 I 1 I -0 )'. U) OJ t.... m n -1 z 9 :c ~ -< I I JJ 0 1 ~i ~ ---- / L ,-"- 1-1 - 1 I , , , I i . 0 l> -1 m �~ 1111 I I I 351,yo -- --'--... - - --- ...... 1 en co c... I (") c 1 -1 $XI.Jr : I £ tt : 57 2 D I 1 I 1 I --- m I I 1 I I~ I~ IG\ ~ 1 1 , I , 1 5 700 I 1 1 1\ \ 1 --- -=-- 1 I , II \. ~ 1 I . ; ,' ' ~ , /\ I ' '< ~ 1 , I ,~ 1 I I I , I I I , I ,~ I , I '\ , , \ s ~(, o ' 1 I / I \ "'0 JJ " 1 2 m (") -; ---\J\~ ~ ~ ~ OJ ~ ~ ~ ~ z 9 en OJ ~ -; I o I -< I I ~: II I I I I 1 I I 0 • :> -1 m <: I 'I ~ 1 It r C/ I 1 I �"~ ,.-.,.. r-----. 1111 I I I I 35~~6 I £y/Jr £. ~ I S' 7~O I I I ~. I ! I I ?q(; I I I I I I I I /' / / J / I I / I -- ./ &~/U/7 tCb'c;// ~ <':'-79-0 I ! I I S 70 t:" ./ / IJ lJ I 1 1 I I 1 I t.... m -l I I~ I· I~ IG\ :~ I 1 1 1 I I 1 ! ! I I I I I~ i~ ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I ! I I 1 CJ) I I I OJ -< () -l I o ." ! I I I I m y -;- I("L ~~t? f ~L.C(::5 @ -1 z ~ ~ "'"6 ~' ~ /' "'- -. " ,/ L1 / S~~ O / -/ \t7 ~ r G\ V1 "! / ./ I OJ () m m 0 ..,r / I I OJ c I- / ./ /" I .~ ~ () //{=26' r/~V ~ 8 "-1 " ~ t ~ ~ ~ .. 0 I I ~! I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I ! . I 0 }> -l m I ! I I I I d I ,! ~ J �1111 , < I I , , 2: ~ ~ ~ : ~ l~ _ I' .------ -------- - : I I I ~ I I" , ~ : : ~ I , , , , i' /-- / , , / , I , I I I I I I , I I I I / I I I , I , I ""0 JJ 0 I- m (') ~ C/) I m m OJ ,-< I~ iI I I I o z 9 ! I I I I I I II _----~-----i---___!/'. I ~) r 'J", ...J \S) W ~ :ti I .~ ~ .. 0 l> ~ m �GUARD RAIL CONCRETE RETAINING WALL EXISTING PLANT GROWTH TO BE RETAINED AND PROTECTED C PLANTINGS REQUIRED ---....- TOPSOIL REQUIRED l' - 6" "'"""----, A / EXCAVATION LINE (APPROXJ ( RIVER FIGURE RETAINING WALL AND LANDSCAPING CONCEPTUAL PLAN LOGAN CANYON STUDY ,.::tlum., �(1) 5:1 SLOPE 29' MIN 55 MPH 23' TO 2S' S'+ 24' MIN 50 MPH 18' MIN 40 MPH 16' MIN 35 MPH (2) SLOPE VARIES 1 0: 1 TO 5: 1 (A) EXISTING 24-29' 55 MPH 20 -24' 50 MPH 15 -18' 40 MPH 13 -16' 35 MPH 40' ( 2') 12' 12' ~~--~~--------~~--------~~----~ ~~ RECOVERY AREA ____________________________________________________ '0~:, ~ ~-y -<-~ <' -y~ (B) STANDARD ~ ~~ 0..-0 (HOURLY VOLUME OVER 250> - - ..... - - RECOVERY AREA _6' MIN_ CUT DITCH --_S'_ 34' 12' -~ ~ ~ RECOVERY AREA - ..... 12' - -- _S'_ ~ 5' "\ ~ 10:1 (C) MODIFIED STANDARD FIGURE 1 TYPICAL SECTIONS LOGAN CANYON STUDY �11' MIN 17' 17' 2' MIN RETAINING STRUCTURE/GUARD RAIL POSSIBLY REQUIRED. MODIFIED STANDARD (CENTERED ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT) 17' 5' MIN OFFSET 17' 10' MIN-(40 MPH, 10:1) 8' MIN-( 35 MPH, 10: 1) EXISTING RETAIN RIVERBANK MODIFIED STANDARD (NEW CENTERLINE OFFSET AWAY FROM RIVER) ,;r FIGURE 2 TYPICAL SECTIONS WIDENING ON EXISTING ALIGNMENT :::f,~cn'. LOGAN CANYON STUDY � 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/68">http://digital.lib.usu.edu/cdm/ref/collection/highway89/id/68</a> Purchasing Information Describe or link to information about purchasing copies of this item. To order photocopies, scans, or prints of this item for fair use purposes, please see Utah State University's Reproduction Order Form at: <a href="https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php">https://library.usu.edu/specol/using/copies.php</a> Digital Publisher List the name of the entity that digitized and published this item online. Digitized by: Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library Date Digital Record the date the item was digitized. 2013 Conversion Specs Scanned by Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library using Epson Expression 10000 scanner, at 800 dpi. Archival file is PDF (800 dpi), display file is JPEG2000. Checksum 221797090 File Size Size of the file in bytes. 10632364 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 Additional data for agenda items from January 26, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting Description An account of the resource Additional data for agenda items from January 26, 1987 Interdisciplinary Team meeting includes an environmental report schedule, outline for scoping meeting, list of figures for slide presentation for scoping meeting, environmental impact statement for Cache and Rich counties, notice of public scoping meetings, mulitple diagrams (for speed limits), figure of retaining wall and landscaping conceptual plan, figure of typical sections, and widening on existing alignment. Contributor An entity responsible for making contributions to the resource CH2M Hill (Firm : Salt Lake City, Utah) Utah. Department of Transportation Dake, Daniel Subject The topic of the resource Logan Canyon (Utah) Traffic engineering Roadside improvement--Utah--Logan Canyon Roads--Design and construction United States Highway 89 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 1987-01-26 Spatial Coverage Spatial characteristics of the resource. Utah United States Logan Canyon (Utah) Cache County (Utah) Temporal Coverage Temporal characteristics of the resource. 1980-1989 20th century Language A language of the resource eng Source A related resource from which the described resource is derived Utah State University, Merrill-Cazier Library, Special Collections and Archives, Sierra Club, Utah Chapter Archives, 1972-1986, COLL MSS 148 Series VIII Folder 9 Is Referenced By A related resource that references, cites, or otherwise points to the described resource. View the inventory for this collection at: <a href="http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390">http://uda-db.orbiscascade.org/findaid/ark:/80444/xv03390</a> Rights Information about rights held in and over the resource Reproduction for publication, exhibition, web display or commercial use is only permissible with the consent of the USU Libraries Photograph Curator, phone (435) 797-0890. Is Part Of A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included. Highway 89 Digital Collections Type The nature or genre of the resource Text Format The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource application/pdf Identifier An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context MSS148VIIIB27_Fd9_Page_11.pdf Highway 89;